CASE HISTORIES AND COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER. BY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES IN MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JEFFERY R.‘WILLIAMS 1977 x__ I III IIIIIII III I III ”III II I 1/ H“ has of P I972 "SIT proje treat becau Comm SIS t9r Comm, SeDIIc ABSTRACT CASE HISTORIES AND COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEHATER BY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES IN MICHIGAN By Jeffery R. Williams Land treatment as an alternative form of wastewater treatment has become Increasingly important in recent years. With the inception of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amends of l972 establishes guidelines for greater improvement in the quality of wastewater treatment. These amendments state that land treatment must be considered in the initial planning stages fer wastewater treatment projects, before a community can qualify for federal grant money. Land treatment is being considered as a viable means of treating wastewater, because traditional treatment processes cannot handle the increasingly complex waste load and other fOrms of advanced wastewater treatment systems can be expensive to build and operate, particularly for a small community which historically treated its wastes with privately owned septic tanks. Small rural communities are somewhat of a special problem because the demands for local services such as police and fire protec- tion, transportation, water and health care systems are becoming in- creasingly difficult to finance with the local tax base, let alone the cost of constructing and operating a wastewater treatment system. Bet Ia! tre cha doc tree tier Data was cost I990! QEWEI Syste Jeffery R. Williams Because of this and other unique difficulties facing small communities, land treatment for advanced wastewater treatment is a viable alternative. This study addresses several problems concerning the land treatment method. Actual operation of the institutional and physical characteristics of various types of land treatment systems has been documented. Operation and construction costs are presented for six land treatment systems in Michigan. This information is compared with opera- tion and construction costs of several conventional treatment systems. Data on the economic and institutional characteristics of each facility was collected from state and local officials. Operation and construction cost information has been collected chiefly from local community audit reports. I A comparative cost analysis of the Operation expenses of the two general categories of treatment, land and conventional, has in general shown that the land treatment systems on the whole are less expensive to operate than conventional systems. Comparisons of individual cost categories are also presented along with a statistical analysis. Salary and wage expense for conventional type treatment systems is higher than the expense incurred in the same category for the land treatment systems. The conventional systems were also more expensive in terms of operation and maintenance and overall total costs. Land treatment systems were generally more expensive in terms of their general administrative expenses. The comparison of construction costs shows that for the systems included in this study, land treatment systems required a smaller capital expenditure than the conventional treatment SYS tems . CASE HISTORIES AND COMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT OF NASTENATER BY SMALL MUNICIPALITIES IN MICHIGAN BY K Jeffery R: Nilliams A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1977 In memory of Vincent C. Williams ii pr Th thu Ecc PI‘O Fatt exte Pdti ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Larry J. Connor, thesis advisor and Chairman of the Guidance Committee. His patience and constructive criticisms and suggestions throughout the period of re- search were extremely useful. I also wish to thank Dr. Lawrence Libby for his continued personal interest and helpful comments during the preparation of the manuscript. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Theodore L. Loudon for the valuable time he contributed to reviewing the thesis. I would also like to thank the Department of Agricultural Economics for providing me with an assistantship to finance my graduate program and a pleasant learning environment. Thanks is expressed to Dr. David Freshwater and Dr. Habib Fatoo for providing valuable computer assistance. Appreciation is also extended to Mrs. Julia McKay for secretarial assistance and her patience in typing the early draft of the thesis. Finally, deep appreciation is expressed to all my family for their continued encouragement in my educational pursuits. The constant enthusiasm, love and support from my mother and my wife Lucy has been invaluable. iii II II CHI TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... LIST OF FIGURES ......................... CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ....................... - The Problem ...................... Historical Perspective on Legislation ......... Historical Perspective on Water Quality ........ Overview of Treatment Technology ............ The Problem from the Perspective of the Small Community ...................... The Living Filter Concept ............... Statement of the Problem ........ ' ........ Objectives ....................... Procedure ....................... Organization ...................... 2. LEGAL BACKGROUND OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN MICHIGAN . . . Public Law 92-500 ................... Public Law 84-660 ................... Public Act 329, I966, Michigan ............. Public Act l59, l969, Michigan ............. Public Act 98, l9l3, Michigan ............. Public Act 245, l929, Michigan ............. Public Act 342, l939, Michigan ............. Public Act l85, l957, Michigan . . . ._ ......... Public Act 233, l955, Michigan ............. 3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODOLOGY AND THE STATE OF NASTENATER TREATMENT IN MICHIGAN ............ Treatment Methodology ................. Primary Treatment ................... Secondary Treatment .................. Tertiary or Advanced Waste Treatment .......... Application Techniques ................. Method of Application ................. Perspective on Land Application and Grants in Michigan . iv APPEI BIBLII 4. CASE STUDIES ....................... Harbor Springs ..................... Wayland ........................ ' Middleville ...................... Farwell ........................ Hart .......................... Dimondale ....................... 5. COST COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT AND CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS ............. Jonesville ....................... Luna Pier ....................... Constantine . . .................... Imlay City ....................... Comparative Cost Analysis Accounts ........... Comparative Cost Analysis of Operation Expenses . Linear Regression Analysis of Operation Expenses . . . . Capital Cost Analysis ................. Concluding Points for Comparative Cost Evaluation 6. SUMMARY ......................... Procedure ....................... Conclusions ...................... Limitations of the Study ................ Suggestions for Future Research ............ APPENDICES A. Operation Costs of the Land and Conventional Treatment Systems ........................ B. Explanation and Results of Statistical Tests Performed on the Intercepts and Slope Coefficients of the Linear Regression Equations to Determine if There are Significant Differences Between the Land and Conventional Treatment Operation Expenses . . ~.° . . BIBLIOGRAPHY ........ , ................ 99 99 100 101 102 103 105 115 126 135 138 138 140 142 143 145 155 158 II. II I‘ M. A~2. M. M. 1.5, 4-6. M. I-a. 4-9. A‘IO 8.] LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Approved Grant Expenditure in Michigan ..... I ..... 42 2. Land Treatment Project List ............. .. . . 43 3. Summary of Physical, Financial, Agricultural and Institutional Characteristics of the Land Treatment Systems ......................... 98 4. Construction Costs of Wastewater Treatment Systems . . . . l28 5. Construction Costs Comparison of Treatment Systems . . . . I32 6. Construction Cost Comparison of Treatment Types ..... I34 A-l. Operation Costs, Harbor, Springs ............. 145 A-2. Operation Costs, Wayland ................. I46 A-3. Operation Costs, Middleville ............... 147 A-4. Operation Costs, Farwell ................. T48 A-5. Operation Costs, Hart ................... T49 A-6. Operation Costs, Dimondale ................ ISO A-7. Operation Costs, Jonesville ................ l5l A-8. Operation Costs, Luna Pier ................ l52 A-9. Operation Costs, Constantine ............... 153 A-lO. Operation Costs, Imlay City ................ l54 8-1. Summary Table of Statistical Tests on Regression Equation Intercept and Slope Coefficients ........ l57 vi F1 16. 17, In FIGURE 1. 0301th 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF FIGURES Schematic Flow Diagrams of the Two Principal Secondary Level Treatment Techniques: High-Rate Trickling-Filter and Activated Sludge .................... 30 Diagram of a Waste Stabilization Lagoon .......... 32 Land Application Approaches ................ 35 Basic Methods of Application ............... 38 Location of Case Study Treatment Systems ......... 49 Salaries and Wages Expense ................ lO7 Utilities Expense ..................... 108 General Operation and Maintenance Expense ......... 109 Total of Categories 1, II, III .............. llO General Administrative Expense .............. lll Total of Categories 1, II, III and V ........... l12 Regression of Salaries and Wages Expense ......... ll7 Regression of Utilities Expense ............ . . ll8 Regression of General Operation and Maintenance Expense . . ll9 Regression of Total of Categories 1, II, III ....... 120 Regression of General Administrative Expense ....... l2l Regression of Total Operating Costs ............ l22 Construction Costs Comparison ............... T33 vii I“ ITIOI a??? With 0T w His: Hum] Years HiSte CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Problem Because of the growing demand for water, particularly in the more developed and industrial areas of the world, there has developed a need for better management of water resources. The demand for water for domestic use has increased from 2.0 billion gallons per day in l900 to 7.2 billion gallons per day in 1975. It is predicted for 1980 that U.S. industry will use 360 billion gallons per day. This will be a substantial increase over the amount used by industry in T960, approximately 162.5 billion gallons per day [Chanlett, l973]. Along with this rise in water use, there has been an increase in the volume of wastewater. In l972, approximately 7 l/2 billion gallons per day of wastewater requiring treatment were produced. The waste load from municipal systems is expected to nearly quadruple over the next 50 years [Council on Environmental Quality, l970]. The desire to control wastewater problems and attain better management of our water resources is apparent from the efforts of state and Federal government programs to insure adequate supplies and quality. In turn, these programs, legislated by the government, reflect the extremely complex decisions and actions of the nation's population through negotiations, compro- mises, hearings, interest group lobbying and other forms of public participation. tre 0th res has of I onII spec assi The hi s: the I deve' OF I" and 5 DdIar (D 78!] OI va flea] on a drafii and W en's]- IOr t the C Historically, there has been uncontrolled discharge of un- treated or partially treated wastes directly into rivers, streams and other bodies of water. This problem has developed because unlike many resources, the waste-assimilating capacity of water and water itself has been treated in many instances as a free good. The basic mechanism of allocating or managing resources is the market. However, the market only Operates well when property rights or ownership rights are specifically and clearly defined. In the case of water's waste- assimilating capacity, the property rights are not clearly specified. The problem is that the waste-assimilating capacity of water has historically been treated as a free good and has, therefore, encouraged the overuse of water for waste disposal. Thus the situation has developed where the private costs of using water as a waste dump differ from the social costs. These social costs may develop from a variety of problems including adverse effects on health, production of goods and services, esthetics and all systems dependent upon the delicate balance of the ecosystem. These problems can be hard to identify and, even still harder, is the problem of estimating their costs. Because of the problems with the market system, the management of water resources has become a problem for the political arena to deal with. Public policy dealing with such problems has relied heavily on a regulatory approach. Administrative bodies are charged with drawing up rules of detailed behavior that specify what is allowable and what is not. Secondly, legislative approaches to many problems arising in the private sector often tend to rely heavily on subsidies for the construction of capital facilities [Kneese, 1975]. Such is the case with the programs for wastewater treatment in the United States. pa pr SO Dre .Dro Add Enf. IRtI Historical Perspective on Legislation The first federal legislation dealing with the discharge of wastes into the nation's waterways was an obscure law, the Refuse Act, passed in l899 but rarely enforced until the early T9705. This law prohibited the discharge of any refuse matter, except from municipal sources, into the nation's navigable waters without a permit [Kneese, l975]. The first comprehensive federal legislation was the Water Pollution Control Act of l948. This law left the primary responsibility for pollution control with the states, but it gave the federal govern-- ment authority for investigations, research and surveys. This law's amendments of T956 established the policy for the 1956-70 period by providing grants for construction of municipal treatment plants and a procedure for federal enforcement against individual dischargers. Additionally, the Water Quality Act of T965 sought to strengthen the enforcement process and provide for federal approval of standards on interstate water [Kneese, T975]. Federal involvement increased with each amendment, so that by T97T municipal grants covered up to 55 percent of construction costs and annual appropriations were at one billion dollars [Council on Environ- mental Quality, T975]. It was not until T972, when the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was amended, that major changes started taking place at the national level. Federal grants increased to 75 percent of the eligible construction costs and Congress authorized 18 billion dollars over a three year period for the program [Council on Environmental Quality, 1975]. However, even with this legislation, in earlier years the Hater 0f 19; to re: stream worsen dischar Stream of Hea]. SErVed b We 56r- I‘W- Ti pIafltS [C Tht was “We Study GnaIl nation was not quick to act on controlling water pollution. Enforcement was slow and cumbersome and as a result, there were only three civil court actions brought against polluters before T972 [Council on 7 Environment Quality, l975]. In addition to this, Congress, in l9T2, decided to let the states play the major role in controlling water pollution. Basically, until the mid 60s, the authority remained with the states and many of their enforcement activities remained ineffec- tive. Historical Perspective on Water Quality It is somewhat difficult to present the status and trends of water pollution in the United States before the mid T9605. However, as of T920, localized pollution was occurring which was causing nuisances to recreation and wildlife. By T940, progressive deterioration of streams became a recognizable factor. The situation continued to worsen and, as of T960, 105 million people were served by sewers discharging into streams. Even with partial treatment in some areas, stream assimilating capabilities were being overloaded [U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, T960]. By T970, less than one third of the nation's population was served by a sewer system and adequate treatment plant. Five percent were served by sewers which discharged their wastes without any treat- ment. The remaining 32 percent had sewers, but inadequate treatment plants [Council on Environmental Quality, l970]. The first systematic nationwide inventory of water quality was completed by the Environmental Protection Agency in T974. The study analyzed trends in water quality for 22 major waterways from II 22 Bi Su: ShI ass The and OVBF BasII treat inveI Droce and 5 organ accel Charg SCTee and p YeSte techn Aha? from T963 to T972. The data examined showed a mixed picture for the 22 waterways, but suggests that the impact of improving treatment for Biological Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, bacteria ammonia and suspended solids is beginning to be apparent; these pollutants all showed general improvements. On the other hand, worsening trends are associated with nutrients in the forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. The parameters with the higher levels are phenols, suspended solids, and coliform bacteria [U.S. EPA, T974]. Overview of Treatment Technology Various methods have been developed to treat wastewater. Basically, they can be divided into two major groups; that of biological treatment and physical-chemical treatment. Biological treatment involves the natural processes of a stream's treatment processes. The processes are those of settling, anaerobic decomposition of settled and separated solids, and bio-oxidation of the nonsettling and dissolved organic material [Chanlett, l973]. These processes are combined and accelerated in a sewage treatment plant before the effluent is dis- charged. They may also be supplemented by some processes such as screening, solids drying and chlorination. Physical-chemical sewage treatment involves the use of chemical and physical processes for solids removal and stabilization of the waste. One such process is reverse osmosis. Basically, these techniques are independent of biological processes and are usually much more expensive than the biological processes. This study concentrates on the biological treatment processes. A basic distinction is made between two types of biological treatment: Th tr bic hav dis< near the I can t in ea recent '"Ceat amendnx Wit) treatme “at” ti grant mc treating handie II vanced We Operate, timed 1.! the conventional treatment process and the land treatment process. There are further divisions under land treatment and conventional treatment. These are clarified in Chapter 3. The conventional treat- ment process involves mechanical and chemical acceleration of the biological treatment process in a series of tanks or units, each having a specific purpose. In this process, the sewage effluent is discharged directly from the last stage of the treatment plant to a nearby watercourse. The land treatment process basically involves the discharge of the effluent to land instead of a watercourse. The initial wastewater I can be treated in a conventional treatment plant as defined above, or in earthen ponds and lagoons. The Problem from the Perspective of the Small Community The land treatment process has become increasingly important in recent years, particularly to'the small rural community. With the inception of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of T972 establish guidelines for greater improvement in the quality of wastewater treatment.‘ These amendments state that land treatment must be considered in the initial planning stages for waste- water treatment projects, before a community can qualify for federal grant money. Land treatment is being considered as a viable means of treating wastewater, because traditional treatment processes cannot handle the increasingly complex waste load, and other forms of ad- vanced wastewater treatment systems are too expensive to build and operate, particularly, for a small community, which historically treated its wastes with privately owned septic tanks. Via: Most of the small communities in Michigan are located around lakes or along streams that have a limited capacity to assimilate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and nutrient loads from wastewater. Many of these municipalities are faced with a choice between con- ventional tertiary treatment (basically phosphorus removal) and a form of land treatment for final discharge of their domestic waste- water [Malhotra, l975]- Small rural communities are somewhat of a special problem, because they very rarely have enough funds to finance a sewage treat- ment system to meet the new water quality requirements. Grant money ' is available from state and federal sources, but in some instances, the community cannot legally issue enough bonds to acquire the necessary funds for the remainder of the cost of construction. Special arrange- ments are usually made with a county authority to issue bonds in these cases. The legal authority for these arrangements is spelled out in Act 342 of the Public Acts of Michigan, T957. A description of these acts can be found in Chapter 2. Because of these and other unique difficulties facing small communities, land treatment for advanced wastewater treatment is a viable alternative. To summarize: 1. Operation and maintenance costs are generally believed to be less for land treatment_than for conventional methods of treatment [Malhotra, T975]. 2. Operation of the system may be less complex than conventional treatment. The complexity of operation will, however, increase if agricultural operations are a component of the land treatment system. 3. Costs of construction may be lower than construction costs for conventional treatment units. The cot; and [ Md 9 8 4. Some types Of land treatment have the opportunity to increase farm revenues, particularly, if most of the irrigation costs are paid by the wastewater authority. 5. Similarly, some types of land treatment Operations can increase revenues, for the wastewater authority by leasing the land treatment area for forestry or farming operations or by selling agriculture and forestry products from the treatment site. Land treatment should not be considered trouble free, however. There are also some disadvantages. l. Usually the amount of land required for a land treatment system is substantially larger than the amount of land required for conventional treatment processes which handle a comparable volume Of waste. The required land may not be available or only available at a prohibitive price in certain communities, particularly more urban ones. 2. There is also a stigma attached with the idea of returning wastes to land. Some communities may not accept land treatment as socially acceptable alternative to conventional methods of wastewater treatment. 3. Additionally, if a large amount of land is purchased from private owners in a municipality, the result is that the tax base of the community is reduced. The magnitude of this effect is dependent on the overall acreage and the value of the land. The important thing to remember is that land treatment is also as complex as conventional treatment in terms of hydrological, chemical and biological characteristics. The system must be Operated carefully and effectively or it will be just as susceptible to operating problems as other methods of treatment.v It should not be considered a panacea for every community's sewage problems. The LivingiFilter Concept In land treatment systems, the soil acts as a physiochemical "filter," hence the "living filter" concept. The soil and soil biota act to filter and stabilize the organic matter contained in the wastewater effluent. Nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates, are removed by agricultural crops and forest products or are pre- cipitated out or absorbed in soil particles. The "purified" water may then be collected by drainage systems or allowed to recharge ground water supplies. Research on the "living filter" concept has been collected at The Pennsylvania State University since T963. Those, and other studies, have indicated that essentially complete removal of suspended solids, BOD, and fecal coliforms may be obtained by land irrigation of secondary effluent. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal depends on the soil and cropping characteristics, the sequence of wetting and drying periods, and the hydraulic and phosphorus loading rates [Malhotra, l975]. While the biological, chemical and physical characteristics of land treatment systems may be well documented, there has been little work done on the social science aspects. Two previous studies have been conducted by the Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. These studies, by Christensen [T975] and Lewis [T975], identified some basic institutional issues and questions. Christensen's Objectives were to (l) basically describe the land treatment concept and its application, (2) identify and evaluate alternatives for acquiring land use rights and for managing the farming operation of land treatment systems, (3) identify and estimate some Of the parameters involved in the investigation of a land treatment system and the uncertainties surrounding them and lastly, (4) to specify implications Of land treatment at the farm,firm and regional level. tI‘ea Call ten} OPEPE Sygte [Olive DIESEI 10 Lewis' study surveyed sixteen small municipalities in Michigan which use land treatment of wastewater by spray irrigation. The municipal systems were summarized according to institutional arrage- ments, financial, agricultural and physical characteristics. Addi- tionally, three alternative methods of institutional arragements were illustrated by case studies Of communities utilizing different approaches including an area wide sewage authority, and two methods of county involvement. The Environmental Protection Agency also published several reports in T975 dealing with evaluation and costs of land applica- I tion treatment systems. The purpose of this research was to supply enough information to aid the planner and engineer in evaluating the monetary costs and benefits of land application systems for municipal wastewater treatment. This research also developed a model to estimate the costs of land application of wastewater. To date, however, this model has not been tested with actual data from Operating systems. Statement of the Problem This study addresses additional problems concerning the land treatment method which have not previously been studied. More specifi- cally, the actual Operation of the institutional and physical charac- teristics of various types of land treatment systems are documented. Operating and construction costs are presented for six land treatment systems in Michigan. This information is compared with the costs of conventional treatment methods. The various land treatment methods presented include spray irrigation, flood irrigation, ridge and 11 furrow irrigation and seepage lagoons. Previous studies have con- centrated mainly on spray irrigation characteristics. Objectives Specifically, the study objectives are: T. To describe the various types of land treatment systems used by municipalities in Michigan. 2. To identify the institutional characteristics of the systems included in the study. 3. To present data on the construction, Operating and maintenance costs for six land treatment systems and four conventional treatment systems which are currently Operating in Michigan. 4. To give a description of the treatment technology used in each system. 5. To compare and analyze categories of cost information of land treatment systems with the conventional treat- ment costs. The accomplishment of these objectives will provide useful information to communities, wastewater'authorities and planners evaluating the land treatment alternativerfor municipal wastewater. The data on the Operating costs may also be useful for evaluation of the models for estimating the costs of Operation. Procedure -This study uses six communities in Michigan to identify the representative financial, institutional and physical methodology characteristics of land treatment systems. A case study approach was used to determine the actual operating costs and institutional arrangements being used. This type of approach should indicate any particular problems communities are facing and which institutional arrangements are workable. en CC CC I" V: 12 Selection of the systems was conducted in conjunction with the Municipal Waste Water Division, Department of Natural Resources. Several considerations were involved in this selection. l. Only small municipal systems were considered. These are systems treating mainly domestic and a small percentage of light industrial wastewater. 2. The system had to have been Operating for a few years so enough financial information was available. 3. Operation and maintenance of the system had to be acceptable in the sense that the effluent quality was meeting approval of the regulatory agencies. In general, operation of the system was to be considered successful. The next step was to contact community officials and the Local Audit Section, Michigan Treasury Department to collect data on the financial characteristics and operating costs of the system. Field and telephone interviews were conducted with community individuals to collect information. Information was also collected from the Construction Grants Division of the Department of Natural Resources. Conventional treatment systems were selected as they would be comparable to the land treatment systems in terms of number of people served, type Of wastes and degree of treatment. However, in most cases the land application system treatment quality should be of a higher degree. This is because the conventional systems use only phosphorus removal as a form of tertiary treatment. Land treatment should also remove additional solids and chemicals from the secondary effluent that phosphorus removal does not accomplish. Organization This study is organized to identify the problem, provide back- ground information On legislation and physical features, and to 13 present data for analysis of the financial characteristics of land treatment methods. Chapter 2 discusses the legal background for wastewater treatment in Michigan. Chapter 3 describes land treatment and conventional treatment technology, and discusses the current state of wastewater treatment in Michigan. Chapter 4 presents the case study information on the six municipal land treatment systems. Data on the conventional systems is presented in Chapter 5 and analyzed with the data on land treatment systems. Chapter 6 closes with the summary and general comments. Pia. FEE pro EEC CHAPTER 2 LEGAL BACKGROUND OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN MICHIGAN This chapter is a summary of the current laws which give legal authority for wastewater treatment in Michigan. Public Law 92-500 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of T972, Public Law 92-50, has expanded the federal role in water pollution control. It has raised the level of federal funding for construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment works, increased the amount of planning, emphasized participation by the public and established a regulatory mechanism which includes effluent limitations to meet water quality standards. It also establishes a national waste dis- charge permit program. Through the permit system, effluent limits are established for all point source dischargers. The objective of the act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Congress also specified goals to be achieved within a specific period Of time. The main goal is to eliminate the discharge Of pollutants into navigable waters by T985. There is, however, an intermediate goal to reach, "wherever attainable," a water quality that "provides for the protection and propagation Of fish, shellfish and wildlife" and "for recreation in and on water" by July l, T983. 14 Sh CO 15 The achievement of the goals is based on the establishment of the effluent standards by the Environmental Protection Agency. In some cases, the EPA has decided that the standard will be a certain level of treatment. This is the case for municipal treatment plants. Municipalities must have at least secondary treatment by July T, T977 and have achieved “best practicable waste treatment technology . . . including reclaiming and recycling of water, and confined disposal of pollutants by July l, T983." The importance of coordinated research and technical COOpera- tion are recognized in Title I of the act., Through this, money has been appropriated for water quality surveillance, research on pollutant effects and demonstration programs to show and test improved methods Of pollution control. Research on rural sewage treatment and agricul- tural pollution problems are also included. Section lO6 includes a description of a state's responsibilities to qualify for grant monies and the conditions for grant offers. Title II is the section which provides for federal grants for the construction of treatment systems. One of the most important points in this section includes a statement which pertains to land treatment technology. Part of Section 20l states "The administration shall encourage waste treatment management which results in the construction of revenue producing facilities providing for (l) the recycling of pOtential sewage pollutants through the production of agriculture, siviculture, or aqua- culture products or any combination thereof, (2) the confined and contained disposal of pollutants not recycled, (3) the reclamation of wastewater, and 16 (4) the ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner that will not result in environmental hazards. In other words, land treatment is to be considered as a credible alternative to conventional treatment systems and must be investigated as an alternative wastewater management technique in the procedure for application of grant money. Overall, the purpose of Title II is "to assist in the develop- ment and implementation of waste treatment management plans and practices which will achieve the goals of the Act." Section 202 provides for up to 75 percent grants of the eligible costs for the construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities. This area spells out the conditions of receiving the federal grant, one of which is that alternative waste management techniques have been studied and evaluated for possible use. This includes land treatment alternatives. Basically, Title III and additional sections spell out admin- istrative procedures dealing with standards and enforcement and permits and licenses. The administrator of the EPA has the respon- sibility of initiating rules and action within the broad framework of the act. I Many of the administrative rules and regulations are spelled out in the Federal Register [Vol. 38, No. 39, February 28, l973]. Some of the more important ones concerning grants are mentioned below. The maximum grant for any project is 75 percent of the eligible construction costs except those systems which are incorporated in planning area wide waste treatment systems. These may qualify for further grant considerations. Only land purchased after October l7, T972 for use in the treatment process is eligible for federal grants. 17 Prior to this date, the local municipality had to assume total responsibility for the cost of land, if purchased and used in the treatment system. This change is quite significant, because certain areas where land costs were prohibitive earlier may now consider the land treatment alternative to be more viable. This is particularly true where land costs would be a high proportion of the total construction cost. Public Law 84-660 It is important to point out that some of the systems in this study began construction in the late sixties and, as a result, were governed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 and its amendments in T966, Public Law 84-660. This law included the first authorization for federal grants to assist in the construction of waste treatment works. During T966 major amendments occurred and appropria- tion authorization was increased and the previous maximum dollar limitation of $250,000 on grants was dropped. The federal share became 55 percent and provisions were made for future reimbursements of state and local funds used in lieu of federal funds in construction of projects when federal money was inadequate to provide grants for all eligible projects within a state. This was true of many projects in Michigan. Public Act 329, 1966, Michigan. Public Act 329 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1966, as amended, IS an act to Prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other liquid wastes into any waters of the state; to provide financial assistance to local agencies for construction of tI el th Iva gr. 18 treatment works to prevent such discharge, and to abate and prevent pollution of the waters in and adjoining the state. This act established the state water pollution control fund which was created to assist local units of government in financing wastewater treatment systems. This fund was initially started by the sale of $285 million of general obligation bonds authorized by Act 76 of the Public Acts of Michigan, T968, in T968. This was followed by an additional credit of $50 million of clean water bonds in T972 (see Act l59 of the Public Acts of Michigan). Payments from this fund are made to eligible recipients following the joint resolution by both houses of the legislature. A priority list of projects is compiled by the Water Resources Commission. All, or part of the list, may receive grants for a given year depending on legislative approval. Section III of the act contains the details on the operation of the grant system. Basically, grants can only be made to projects eligible for federal grants on which construction began after June 30, 1967. Initially, the grant offer did not exceed 25 percent of the total eligible treatment system costs. Additionally the sum of state and federal grants could not exceed 90 percent of the eligible costs for federal grant participation. As of July l, T967 until June 30, l97l, a treatment system qualifying for a 25 percent state grant and a federal grant under P.L. 84-660 as amended, which was under construction before July l, l97l, was eligible to receive an advance payment from the state water pollution control fund against the prospective federal share of the eligible costs. Therefore, the combined state grant, state advance of the federal share, and federal grant was not less than 55 percent of the eligible costs. (Some 19 systems in this study fit into this category.) As of the fiscal year l974, new rules and regulations under P.L. 92-500 took effect and grants are now awarded under a three step process. Step I grants are for completing facility plans, Step II is for plans and specifications, and Step III grants are for construc- tion. At the same time, the amount of grant money a municipality could receive from the state became 5 percent of eligible costs and the amount from the federal government became l4-75 percent of eligible costs. Currently, grants to municipalities shall be awarded in descend- ing order of priority and all projects, which have been approved for the current fiscal year, will be awarded funds. If there are not enough funds to meet the need of all projects on the current priority list, funds will be fulfilled from the next year's fund appropriation before funds are allocated to any project on the next year's priority list. Basically, the project priority list is established by assigning priority points based on various characteristics of the project and financial need of the community. Some of the characteristics are as follows: I. Present population to be served by the project. 2. The designated use of the surface receiving waters below the wastewater discharge point. Alternatively, land disposal systems are assigned points for ground water discharge. 3. An average sewage discharge during anticipated drought flow time periods. 4. The need of effluent quality greater than secondary treatment. 5. General location of the discharge. 20 Points may also be awarded in consideration of the case of court ordered installation or by order and agreement of the Water ReSources Commission and the Department of Public Health. However, before a grant can be made, a comprehensive Tong-range plan must be submitted by the local municipality to the Water Resources Commission for approval. Public Act l59, l969, Michigan Public Act l59 of the Public Acts of Michigan, T969 was an act to provide financial assistance to local agencies for the con- struction of collecting sewers to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other liquid wastes into the waters of the state, etc. This act established a fund known as the State Sewer Construction Fund which was used for state grants to local municipalities for construction of collecting sewers. Grants were awarded for construction that began after June 30, T968. The proceeds of the sale of $50 million in bonds authorized by Act 76 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1968, were deposited in this fund. Grants were made in an amount equal to approximately one-half that portion of the cost of construction of the collecting sewers. Various sections of the act spell out the application procedures, amounts, and limitations of the act. With the birth of Public Law 92-500, collecting sewers became grant eligible under federal law, so this act was phased out and the money from the sale of the bonds was deposited in the state Water Pollution Control Fund. 21 Public Act 98, T9l3, Michigan This act, as amended, outlines the responsibilities of the Michigan Department of Public Health concerning sewage treatment. It gave the State Health Commission the supervisory power over water and sewer systems in the state. In T973, there was some agency reorganization and as a result, the Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Division became responsible for execution of this Act. The Department of Public Health works with the Wastewater Division and influences its decisions. Basically, the department examines plans and specifications, issues construction permits, supervises the water and sewer systems, examines and certifies operators for the plants and levies penalties for violation of the act. The act requires each municipality file plans for sewage systems either owned or operated for the purpose of review to protect public health and issuance of construction permits. Periodic reports on the operation of the system are also required. Public Act 245, T929, Michigan Act 245, T929, as amended, created the Water Resources Commis- sion. The commission consists of the directors of the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Public Health, Department of State Highways, Department of Agriculture and three individual (one each) representatives of conservation groups, municipalities and industrial management appointed by the governor. The commission's responsibili- ties are as follows: 1. Coordinating work concerning water resources with state agencies and governmental units. de th. ac: 22 2. Acts in a court of law in the name of the people of Michigan to enforce laws relating to pollution and floodway control. 3. Set rules and standards regarding pollution and issue permits to ensure compliance with the standards. 4. Investigate the state's surface and subsurface water. 5. Conduct surveys of the state's waters and take an advisory capacity in the formation of flood control districts. Any persons or organization must file a report with the commission if they want to use the state's water for waste disposal purposes. The Commission can accept or reject such proposals. Public Act 342, 1939, Michigan This act, as amended, is referred to as the County Public Improvement Act of T939. It is "an act to authorize counties to establish and provide connecting water, sewer and sewage disposal improvements and services within or between cities, villages, . . . or any duly authorized established combination thereof . . ." This act is particularly important for many of the smaller communities, which have a small tax base, because it allows the county government to enter into contractual arrangements with other governmental units to help provide for acquiring funding and construction of improvements. Bonds can be secured to finance the projects by a vote of full faith and credit by the county commissioners and the cooperating unit of government. The board of commissioners also approves projects and designates a county agency to locate, acquire, construct and maintain the system. Basically, the authorized agency oversees the project and acts as the official applicant for grants. 23 The capital and maintenance costs must be paid back to the county during a period not to exceed forty years from sources such as connection charges, monthly rates, user assessments and property taxes. Certain procedures must be undertaken before the local govern- mental unit may enter into a contact with the county. These are: 1. Public notice of the resolution authorizing any such action must be given. 2. Explanation must be given as to how the funds for repayment to the county will be collected. 3. The right of referendum must be explained. After public notice and within 45 days, To percent or 15,000 whichever is less of the registered electorate, may petition a referendum. If an election is required, a simple majority is needed to ratify the contract. Once the contract is in force, bonds may be sold in the name of the county and are exempt from taxation within the state. General obligation or revenue bonds may be issued and the maximum interest rate allowable for these bonds under the act is To percent. The Municipal Finance Commission must approve the bond issue. If the local unit of government cannot meet its repayment obligations, the state treasurer may be authorized to withhold un- restricted state funds such ansaTes tax revenue from the local unit of government to reimburse the county. Public Act 185, l957, Michigan Act l85 is an act to authorize the establishment of a department and board of public works in counties; to prescribe the powers and duties of any county subject-to the provisions of the act; to authorize 24 the issuance and payment of bonds; and to prescribe a procedure for special assessment and condemnation. The county commissioners, by a two-thirds vote, can establish a department of public works. The county agency can be the authorized county agency in Act 342, Public Acts of Michigan T939 as amended. This department is designed to be supervised by the board of public works consisting of 3, 5 or 7 appointed members or, alternatively, the existing board of county road commissioners may be appointed as the board. The county drain commissioner automatically becomes a member of the board. The board of public works has several powers which are listed below: T. The board may hire a director of public works and other qualified professionals as needed. 2. The board can acquire water, sewage or refuse systems in the county. 3. The board has power over the construction, Opera- tion and maintenance of these types of systems. 4. Lake improvements may be directed by the board. Majority vote by the board and local government consent is needed to acquire any of the systems mentioned in item 2 above. Funds can be obtained by revenue bonds, bonds issued in anticipation of special assessments, and by advances from the county and public or private corporations. The board of public works and county commis- sioners must approve the bond issue. The local municipality and county's full faith and credit must be pledged. Again, as in the act preceding this discussion, should the local government be unable to meet its financial 25 obligations, certain state funds may be withheld from the local unit of government and directed to the county in lieu of payment. The county may order local officials to levy additional taxes in order to meet its obligations. Chapter II of the act concerns special assessment procedures for financing. Additionally, the final chapter concerns the con- demnation procedure that is to be followed, if needed, by the board of public works. Act T49 of l9ll deals with the power of eminent domain over private property for public use also. Public Act 233, 1955, Michigan Act 233 of the Public Acts of Michigan, T955, provides that municipal authorities may acquire, own and operate sewage disposal and water supply systems, contract with governmental units for the system's use and issue bonds to finance the authority's activities. An area authority can be formed if the legislative bodies of two or more municipalities agree to articles of incorporation for such an area authority. There is a period of sixty days after required public notice is given of the intent to form such an authority for any objection to be filed with the local court. The area authority has the legal authority to determine a design, construct, Operate and maintain facilities under the state health commissioner, acquire and condemn property, issue bonds and to generally supervise the project. The authority may enter into contractual agreements, not to exceed forty years, for the construction, operation and financing of sewage and water system with member municipalities. Public notice of any mun' the TO I exec autI and be r annu conn for' obli TECE' 26 any contract of this nature must be given in the participating municipalities. A general election will be required to determine if the contract will be executed if there is a challenge by petition of lO percent of the registered voters. A simple majority is needed to execute the contract. When the contract has been confirmed, the authority may issue only revenue bonds which are backed by full faith and credit by each participating member of the authority. Funds may be raised by each member municipality to meet its allocated share of annual services and costs by special assessments, user charges, connecting fees and state funds unless they are expressly prohibited for this purpose. Should any municipality default on its financial obligation, it may pledge up to 25 percent of its sales tax money received from the state. Tre whi whi the Prh bec: ’U /—, ——J- :1 Sett Irea ' 9509] be r! a gri DOttO Seher CHAPTER 3 NASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODOLOGY AND THE STATE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN MICHIGAN Treatment Methodology In municipal sewage treatment systems each home has a sewer pipe which is connected to a series of laterals, mains and interceptors which transport the wastewater to the sewage treatment plant. Once the waste has arrived at the plant it is processed by various techniques to achieve various levels of treatment quality. These levels are primary, secondary and tertiary or advanced treatment. The treatment becomes increasingly complex from one level to the next. Primary Treatment Primary treatment is basically the removal of settleable solids and suspended solids through the use of screens and gravitational settling tanks. Initially, as wastewater enters the centralized treatment plant there is generally some preliminary treatment to remove large objects and grit. Screens of various sizes are generally used in this process. Debris collected on the screen can be removed manually by raking, mechanically or they can be ground up by a device known as a comminutor. Next the wastewater may pass into a grit chamber where stones, cinders, sand, etc. settle out on the bottom of the chamber. This chamber is more important where the sewer system collects the runoff from streets and parking lots. The 27 28 grit is usually disposed of in a land fill site. The wastewater contains suspended solids and these are removed in the next step by a sedimentation tank. In a sedimentation tank the velocity of the wastewater flow is slowed enough to cause the suspended solids to sink to the bottom of the tank. The solids or sludge can be removed from the bottom of the tank by various mechanical means. This type of primary sewage treatment can remove up to 70 percent of the Suspended solids and cause a 40 percent reduction in BOD [McGauhey, T968]. Secondary Treatment Basically, secondary treatment is biological digestion of the sewage which yields a more stabilized effluent which has a Tower 800. The two principal techniques used in the secondary stage are the trickling filter and the activated sludge process [U.S. EPA, T976]. After primary treatment the wastewater flows to one of the processes mentioned. The trickling filter is a medium that has a large surface area, such as a bed of rocks in which aerobic and facultative organisms are allowed to grow. The wastewater can be distributed to this medium by various means. One common way is with the use of a rotating boom with sprinklers attached to it. The boom sprinkles wastewater as it rotates over a circular tank containing the slime covered rocks. As the wastewater passes over the rocks, the bacteria consume the organic matter in the sewage. The filtered water is collected at the base of the medium to be pumped on for further processing. The other process which is used for secondary treatment, activated sludge, also makes use of bacteria. In activated sludge pr pa bu th sa an se‘ Par whe whl frm PI‘OI ODEr 29 processes, flocs of many types of microorganisms growing on sludge particles, are kept in suspension in an aeration tank where air is bubbled through the mixture to provide enough oxygen required by these bacteria etc., to consume the sewage. The idea is basically the same as the trickling filter. That is, to provide bacteria colonies and oxygen to remove or consume the sewage. However, an additional step is needed to separate the solids from the water in this process. This is done in a clarifier where the solids (activated sludge) settle out and cleaner water flows out of the tOp of the clarifier. Part of the activated sludge is pumped back to the aeration chamber where it is kept in suspension to help provide flocs of microorganisms which keep the treatment cycle functioning. Secondary treatment with these methods can remove approximately 80-95 percent BOD and 70-95 percent suspended solids [McGauhey, T968]. Sludge which settles from primary settling and secondary settling (if needed) is removed and further treated and conditioned for removal from the treatment site. A schematic flow diagram of the preceding process can be found on page 30. Lagoons often called stabilization or oxidation ponds can also be used to treat sewage to the level of secondary treatment. Waste stabilization lagoons have some advantages particularly for use in small communities. The operating cost of lagoons is believed to be much less than a comparable conventional system. Additionally, the actual operation and maintainance of such a system is not as complex. There are various types of lagoons which can be used in various combinations uiachieve the level of secondary treatment. The design basically depends on the treatment objectives. Michigan requires that 3O Redrculaj‘ioa of cane. Screams Prisca "Agni-Tm Second-rs . . my I ing IWNWM v «mm. an: «mm; ‘_ law Grit Coarse I ”0“” sewage ' removal screen I (10 + Sludge 4 Secondary sludge return to primary settling Sludge Anaerobic conditioning ‘ digestion I To receiving I vases Skid . . . mi r——+ imam" We Schematic flow diagram of high-rate trickling-filter sewage treatment plant. Screening grinding Raw Gril Coarse Primary Activated sludge Secondary sewage ' removal screen settling 4 aeration settling H Raw sludge x Return of activated sludge Excess activated sludge Chlorination Sludge ' Anaerobic conditioning digestion To receiving water Sludge Final disposal of digested. drying ‘ ' dried sludge Schematic flow diagram of an activated-sludge type of sewage treatment plant. SOURCE: Chanlett, T973. FIG. l. 'Schematic Flow Diagrams of the Two Principal Secondary Level Treatment Techniques: . Activated Sludge. High-Rate Trickling-Filter and mu' de cla cps the the 32 a I ane SIZE Wdi ma' OT‘I be The Dr 31 multiple cells be used and designed to be operated in series and parallel. Each subsequent pond in a series operation acts as a clarifier for the effluent from the previous pond. In a parallel operation, the raw sewage is distributed equally to each cell. The lagoon is a pond usually three to five feet deep in which the interaction of sunlight, algae, bacteria and oxygen work to restore the quality of the water to the level of secondary treatment. See page 32 for a diagram of a waste stabilization lagoon. A pretreatment anaerobic waste stabilization pond is essentially a digestor that requires no dissolved oxygen. In that type of pond anaerobic bacteria break down the organic waste. An aerobic waste stabilization pond is one in which aerobic bacteria break down the wastes. The algae in these ponds also help to provide the oxygen to maintain a sufficient level of oxygen in the water for the aerobic organisms. The remainder of the oxygen can be provided from the air be the natural surface mixing process. An aerobic pond may be mechanically aerated to supplement or replace the algae as a means of providing for the necessary level of dissolved oxygen. A facultative waste stabilization pond is one which there are two zones. The upper zone is aerobic and the lower zone is anaerobic. An aerated lagoon may function as a facultative waste stabilization lagoon, as well, because sludge may settle to the bottom of the pond and undergo anaerobic decomposition. Most waste stabilization ponds at present, are faculta- tive treatment units [Gloyna, l97l]. In other words, they are similar to the biological treatment process of rivers and lakes. With the proper use of waste stabilization ponds, it is possible to have 75-96 percent reduction in BOD, 90-99 percent reduction in coommb :oPpm~w_wnmpm mpmez a do smcmmwo .N .on .onmp .coozum ”mumsom mlllll. unusammm . ommmoom , w \II. MOHMGH I 333 \4 :ofiuoavoum :wmmxoiiommad . cofluoaooum ecwxofln :onumoiimwuouomm I, II. Iii. . _ » Till . JQJI NI . ammxxo A.IIIlIiIIIIl“5.2.. s . . \ cowumuomm>m \ \ scaveuwmfiouum . uxmaaasm 33 suspended solids and 98-99 percent reduction in bacteria [McGauhey, I968]. Tertiary or Advanced Waste Treatment Tertiary treatment basically involves the removal of organic and inorganic particles not removed in previous treatment. Because of more stringent standards and the increasing complex waste loads from both municipal and industrial waste, secondary treat- ment techniques alone are no longer able to meet the water quality standards for discharge. Many of the pollutants are exceedingly difficult to remove from the water and many existing primary and secondary treatment plants have to be upgraded to meet the new water quality requirements. Basically, the techniques for advanced waste treatment include two major alternatives; physical-chemical treatment and land treatment. This study is basically concerned with the land treatment alternative as an advanced wastewater treatment method. The land treatment alterna- tive is an extension of biological treatment. In the land treatment method the soil acts as a ”living filter." The soil is the treatment medium where many complex physical, chemical and biological processes renovate the wastewater applied to the land. The major renovation mechanisms are uptake by plant roots, precipita- tion, absorption, oxidation, ion exchange and filtration. These mechanisms remove such items from the wastewater as suspended solids, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and other dissolved solids. 34 Application Techniques Land application techniques can be classified into three basic groups; irrigation, overland flow or spray-runoff, and infiltration- percolation. See page 35 for graphic details. Irrigation. Irrigation is the controlled discharge of effluent, by spraying or surface spreading, onto land to support plant growth. The wastewater is "lost" to plant uptake, to air by evapotranspiration, and to groundwater by percolation. Application depends upon the soil, the type of crop, the climate, and the topography. Sloping land is acceptable for irrigation provided that application rates are modified to prevent excessive erosion and runoff. Renovation of the wastewater occurs generally after passage through the first 2 to 4 feet of soil. Monitoring to determine the extent of renovation is generally not practiced; when it is practiced, however, removals are found to be on the order of 99 percent for BOD and suspended solids. Depending upon the soil type and the crop harvested, removals of nitrogen and phos- phorus from the wastewater may also be quite high. The use of irrigation as a treatment and disposal technique has been developed for municipal wastewater and a variety of industrial wastewaters, including those from the food processing industry, the pulp and paper industry, tanneries, animal feedlots, dairies, and some chemical plants. Crops grown have ranged from vegetables to grasses and cereals [Pounds, l973]. However, crops used for human consumption without undergoing processing are not recommended. Overland Flow.. Overland flow is the controlled discharge, by spraying or other means, of effluent onto the land with a large portion of the wastewater appearing as runoff. The rate of application is 35 EVAPOPATION . -cnoe SPRAY Oll—-—-\. I/ l V I I ' sunncs \ (fry {P i/QFIIJJCI-i; C1363 {git/i xi"? 2i} ArPLICATIOW—w- f3, 9‘; 3: will; Il ’ ‘I’\[ j 3.1V ,x. -. “wit 1...“..- 7LT» .. ——R~’r ’~’ ' '“ff'” SLOPE \. II I\ )l A. ITTH (I) I) {I I3 [I VARIABLE I: i J ROOT ZONE season -—-—--- " II I «were - _ PhRCOLAlION (a) IRRIGATION EVAPORATION srniv APPLICATION—\ .5 \ /—GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER r) . . ' 177%}- ; Kw.) sum nos _. ‘r‘u ‘31. w .. ' I I TIT I‘T*I‘i”‘hi-s-“srzzsm~ IOO-3OO FT F71 (a) OiERLAAD FLow SLOPE 2-6‘7: —' SPREADING BASIN /—— SURFACE APPLICATION “WV; aw— ‘ __ if w, -=.. tantrums-21W"; :~;;.;_-.;m,fqfii/..precaution rancher UHSATURATED IONS zone nr- I‘.“T~'.\TION :::::::::::::::: A223 TAEATlIi-ZHT :;:'::;:' :::::: realizes: it OHS-“K“ ,‘e /-—- pica slant: rims ------------------------- ~ I J 3:. ~‘ emu __,...~.r ...................................... I ....... ”fir-v. . v 0“”, I' o - es ’ 0. o "'Il| 9'73““- ... .-a-” . an o. - I ---------------------------- - OOOOOO 'w.~ ”I...” oooooooooooooooooooooooooo ,-- \ Io -_ v" curl n - '5 r s I ~.- i s . 1 ‘1'- v t t w-3 .53-3. +3 .I 2.: ”hi" fibril-Hul- oooao. '---. .- ..................................... e aaaaaa ‘ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa eeeeeeeeee -e--veo-sI-o- O.'O'OIIUDCICQOO-OF.O~.-“I ‘ -'e‘v‘-Io..o-‘Iea---00-OOI-- '- 'IOIOIIIICOIIOI'CCDCCC Ill-O eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 'r""" en. o.h.-ol.¢.a-¢.O~ one-v. fun - - ~ra3.10- Ass.-onerous...-IM..eIaI-a'eeelo:::: O::::. 0.. 3. oa-Abg- 30"uoe-o.e.ov-r-io.. pass-.oocu’a-o-s v-‘-..- r-- . na—§-aiaeoaaaelnoouesoul~at'w .u. 0” .fi..- l sssssss v oooooooooooo . ooooooooooooo '- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .\ :fié: oooeaa.-o 33...... cope-le-IIIOI‘OOOIlu-eo I... --- ‘ ~.---- .-..ao‘oooratal - o...eo-.I.o em 0 III-00°.Io~'el I‘la. a... and... .o---..e0oao-r-- - l a» ae..-.-oo -' 'O-OcoroaOII.-.'~|-ooo-c‘ 0:. I" O. O $0.0..0alI-socoa-o-no IIII'.-aDDOOOIO'-OIOOO can a. ...a ns-.o .nad ~-Qesule--ee¢o.-ol.e00.a.c.: DID. O. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ‘IIOOIUOI'ODI'I‘D1IO.IIIIQDIIIO'CIIOOOIOOOIOIICOOOOOOIII".::::.... 0. OLD rinse nut—J (c) INFILTRATIDfl-PERCOLATIOW SOURCE: Pounds, T973. FIG. 3. Land Application Approaches 36 measured in inches per week, and the wastewater travels in a sheet flow down the grade or slope. Soils-suited to overland flow are clays and clay loams with limited drainability. The land for an overland flow treatment site should have a moderate slope--between 2 and 6 percent. The surface should be evenly graded with essentially no mounds or depressions. The smooth grading and ground slope make possible sheet flow of water over the ground without ponding or stagnation. Grass is usually planted to provide a habitat for the biota and to prevent erosion. As the effluent flows down the slope, a portion infiltrates into the soil, a small amount evaporates, and the remainder flows to collection channels. As the effluent flows through the grass, the suspended solids are filtered out and the organic matter is oxidized by the bacteria living in the vegetative litter. The overland flow treatment treatment process has been develOped in this country for treatment of high strength wastewater, such as that from canneries, with resultant reductions in BOD from around 800 mg/L down to as low as 2 mg/L. Reductions of suspended solids and nitrogen are also high although phosphorus reduction is reported to be on the order of 40 to 60 percent [Pounds, l973]. Infiltration-Percolation. This method of treatment is similar to intermittent sand filtration in that application rates are measured in feet per week or gallons per day per square foot. The major portion of the wastewater enters the groundwater although there is some loss to evaporation. The spreading basins are generally dosed on an inter- mittent basis to maintain high infiltration rates. Soils are usually coarse textured sands, loamy sands, or sandy loams. 37 This process has been developed for groundwater recharge of municipal effluents, municipal wastewater disposal, and industrial wastewater treatment and disposal. The distinction between treatment and disposal for this process is quite fine. Unquestionably, industrial wastewater applied to the land for the purpose of disposal is also undergoing treatment by infiltration and percolation, whether or not monitoring for detection of renovation is being practiced [Pounds, 1973]. Other Treatment Approaches. There are several other approaches to the disposal of wastewater on land, including subsurface leach fields, injection wells, and evaporation ponds. Such techniques are generally limited in their range of application [Pounds, l973]. Method of Application The most commonly used methods of application of wastewater to the land in Michigan are spray, flooding,seepage lagoons, and ridge and furrow systems. Each site will have physical characteristics that influence the choice of the method. Each of these methods is illustrated on page 38 in Figure 4. Spraying. In the spraying method, effluent is applied above the ground surface in a way similar to rainfall. The spray is developed by the flow of effluent under pressure through nozzles or sprinkler heads. The pressure is supplied by a pump or a source high enough above the sprinkler heads. By adjusting the pressure and nozzle aperture size, the rate of discharge can be varied to any desired rate. The elements of a spray system are the pump or source of pressure, a supply main, laterals, risers, and nozzles or sprinkler heads. Since SOURCE: IAIN DROP ACIION -— ;-‘\-‘\_. A a. I, h—M- , Q’:\\--Q - 3"", (95-4-0 .f/u -,a,o,g.. 70"...,.\\. —¢..’.!.-...;:,.._ J,, D.ppy';a\ -m. T.“ a3 31" "f.;~:..«’.eve': 3.5333": ;--\‘uu / ‘23. «‘33-! a’f‘xfi '2‘“ \upJIa‘JIP(”- ’1A’d3",'\--‘ “.2 -:'; 64"” 3"" 13,4313- “'f-k’iw/ev" wwoviwm. w\“ /o1-‘I. .u' TITTTT‘T " WT (a) SPRINKLER COMPLE [ELY FLOO'IE (c) RIDGE AND FURRON lEVEES 4 '1 Fl IIIIIM —'\ (d) SEEPAGE LAGOON Pounds, l973. FIG. 4. Basic Methods of Application 39 the system operates under pressure, there is a wide variety of ground configurations suitable for this type of disposal. The spray system can be portable or permanent, moving or stationary. The cost of a spray system is relatively high because of pump and piping costs and pump operating costs. The effluent used in a spray disposal system cannot have solids that are large enough to plug the nozzles. Sprinkling is the most efficient method of irrigation with respect to uniform distribution [Pounds, l973]. Flooding. The second type of application is flooding. This type can be accomplished in different ways: border strip, contour check, or Spreading basin. Flooding, as the term implies, is the inundation of the land with a certain depth of effluent. The depth is determined by the choice of vegetation and the type of soil. The land has to be level or nearly level so that a uniform depth can be maintained. The land does need "drying out" so that soil clogging does not occur. The type of crop grown has to be able to withstand the periodic flooding. The type of flooding that is relevant to this study is the type that uses spreading basins. Spreading basins are shallow ponds which are periodically flooded with effluent. The basins hold the effluent until it percolates into the ground, is used by crops, or evaporates into the air. Spreading basins are generally used for rapid infiltration [Pounds, 1973]. Ridge and Furrow Method. The ridge and furrow method is accomplished by gravity flow only. The effluent flows in the furrows and seeps into the ground. Ground that is suitable for this type of operation must be relatively flat. The ground is groomed into alter- nating ridges and furrows, the width and depth varying with the 40 amount of effluent to be disposed and the type of soil. The rate of infiltration into the ground will control the amount of effluent used. If crops are to be irrigated with effluent, the width of the ridge where the crop is planted will vary with the type of crop. The furrows must be allowed to dry out after application of sewage effluent so that the soil pores do not become clogged [Pounds, l973]. Seepage Lagoon. The fourth type of application is with use of a seepage lagoon. This type of application is an infiltration-percola- tion technique. The major portion of the wastewater enters the groundwater although there may be some loss by evaporation. The lagoon is a holding pond with a permeable base. The lagoon is not closed on an intermittent basis but is constantly maintained at a certain level until it is allowed to drain completely for maintenance purposes. The four methods are illustrated on page 38. Perspective on Land Application and Grants in Michigan This section presents information on the use of land treatment systems in Michigan and a review of the use of the grant process for funding of wastewater treatment. During the period beginning June 30, l967 and through the time the l976 priority list for grants was compiled there have been 643 wastewater treatment projects which have been approved to receive federal and state funds in Michigan. During this period the EPA approved grants totaling $938,234,4921 and the State of Michigan 1This figure includes supplemental EDA grants administered through Federal Public Works. Since 1971 there have been no supple- mental grants of this type. 41 approved grants of $240,787,301.2 The State of Michigan also approved $30,537,428 in collecting sewer grants from l969 to 1972. Total grants came to $l,209,559,22l. The amount of state grants is approximately 22 percent of the grant total. As of December 31, l976, $204,098,704 of the State Clean Water Bond money and $29,665,322 of collecting sewer grant money has been paid to the municipalities. A schedule of approved grant expenditures is found in Table l. The amount approved in grants for projects involving land treat- ment during this period is $60,995,9l0. The EPA grants total $36,775,0l9 and the State of Michigan grants total $24,220,891. This state figure includes state advances which will be paid back to the state by the federal government in the amount of $4,854,028. The total amount of grants for land treatment projects is approximately 5.04 percent of the total amount of grants for wastewater treatment in Michigan. There are currently 66 wastewater treatment systems operating or under construction (6 under construction) which incorporate some form of land treatment into their design (systems which use the soil in the treatment process). This is l7.8 percent of the total of approximately 369 municipal wastewater treatment systems in Michigan. Four of the systems contain two methods of application. 0f the 66 municipalities Operating land treatment systems,approximately 50 have received the grant money previously mentioned. These 50 projects use various methods of application of wastewater to the land. A listing of projects and their method of application is included in Table 2. The number of 2This figure includes state advances of $20,647,078. 42 .mwnmp .mza ”mumaom cmm.mmo.—PN m—m.mmm.mm Nm¢.¢mm.mmm mew FMHOP ©¢O.PNN3F mmm.mm¢.mp mom amp; qugowgm mum" .>.u omm.mmm.mm vmm.oo¢.mo¢ mop pmwA XHwLowLa enm— .>.m omm.mmm.mp www.mmm.owp mm umwg Auwgowgm mnmp .>.m momem¢N.P¢ wmo.mwn.om mm pmw4 huwgowgm Nmmp .>.u FmN.moo.—N oom.wpw.mv m pqu xprowLm —mmp .>.u www.¢mw.m© wmo.m¢©.om mmm.oom.n~— PFP umw4 XHFLOwLa Dump .>.m mmm.umw.om mmm.mmo.w mom.mmo.mm me pme quLowLa womp .NN wczd mpm.mn¢.F— wom.m¢v F¢P.¢FP.NN Nm mum pu< .P.m :omuuwm mpcmgu mucm>u< mpmum mucosa ogga< .F mpnup 43 .. .. omH.H cocoa; mamammm EHmuucoz mgosum HHN.emH oo~.mH~ H cow.H ooo.- coo.H .LLH xacam xHo>mHemgu cmvgow ummm me.om~ osm.moH mum coomod womammm coumu mHmccoEmHa Hm~.o¢H ooo.o¢H mem .gLH vooHH :oEEoumom .qz» coucma www.me omm.omm mmm.H coommb womammm cocH mHme Hmpmxgu Nem.mm~ omm.mom mum .LLH Hagan Lemma; mHHH>mHn53Hou omm.¢oo omH.Hm~ H omm omm.¢ NHH.H .ELH >flaw summon .um coHou www.mem omm.ooH mm~.H acmHqu :mEmHou HH~.on mm¢.Hmm .. .LLH macaw zmcqumz .azh xgmHu mmm.¢H mmm.¢- com :oomo4 mmmamwm gmmH< Emnpmgu H mm¢.H mmm.H~ oHo.H coommb mmmammm ucmx mm:_gam Lmumu coommb mmmammm H mm¢.m mmm.om omm.H . .ELH xmcam mmmu mHHoaommau .. it mmm.w cocoa; mmmammm couzmzo: umszHau H HNm.H com.mH HHH mum.Hm mum.mmu com Huzv .ELH vooHu pcmx eHcoumHmu .. .. ooH zoggam a mmuHm :qume .azH caspzm .. .. Hmm .LLH uoon pcmx .qzh mczom on.H¢H oH~.mm mad .LLH xmgnm cmcam cm> mHmum=HEoon mom.oe oem.¢~ omm :oommg mmmammm mwncmm cmHzmm oHo.on omm.wm omm zogcam a mmuwm Ewguc< mLHmHHmm .. u- oom.¢ coomMA mamammm choH mcHuHmm mHm.omm Hmo.mmv oHH.H coommb ommgmmm mamgmm magnum .. in oom.~ cocoa; mmmqmmm :mgsm co> Loosen mme.mm ¢m¢.~m omm cocoa; mamammm :oLH azaH< «nuance mucmgu um>gmm max» eeeem Hence «em Heeep geese: eereeFHee< seeaeu erHee_eee== amps “deflate geeseeeee nee; .N «Heep 44 H-.Hm in omo.H cocoa; mmmammm ugomxmz conga: omm.omH HmH.mHe ooo.om H mm~.H www.mH oo~._3 .eLH seeem eemxoeeeu spHo zeeerez .. .. moH .gLH amcqm coummcv>wb .ou copmmcw>H4 i- n- oom.m .LLH macaw :omxuma .azh Hcomg .. .. ooH.H zooms; mmmamwm :meam cm> gauze; om¢.mH~ oH¢.¢nm H omm.¢ oo¢.mo omm.H .LLH amgam choH mmmmno «gm; H on.H omo.mm mm¢.om mHm.moH oom.H .ELH voon mxmmmex mxmmmex .. it com .na< mummczmazm ownwmou we voozcogH No~.wm Neo.Hm oom zooms; mamammm EHmuucoz pou ngmzo: omn.mm it com .LLH vooHd mHNcmmd Loco: omH.om~ omm.oHo H moo mmo.o me.H zoggam a omuHm mcameo use: www.mwo omH.ooH ome.H .LLH cooHu mgmHu comHLLm: oom.mm .ELH cooHu aquogu=< omm.o¢o ooH.HHH.¢ omm.m3 .LLH xmcam pmesm mmcHLam conga: emo.emH ooo.mm_ ooo.~ zoomed dmeeeem ecoezeeu meHHseo u- .. ooo.m cocoa; mamammm commao cLonmw .. .. ooH coommb mmmqmmm :oLH we asymmaw ooo.mmm oom.wHH.H omH.m .LLH vooHu ommzwz became; Hcm.o~ om~.oom H mwm mum.m coomMH mmmnmmm muumsccmz .azh cpzmgou Hmn.ome om¢.~oH com .EEH vooHd mLcHu HHmzcmu .. u- omm .ag< mumwgsmnzm comm: .mpm: zugoznm emucmsw mucmgc vm>smm «nah deeum Heuee mm mm¢.~¢~ oHH.mm~ oom.H .LLH ngnm cocmgm Hucwso .. .. oHH .aq< mumegsmnsm mupwzacmz .azh HHmzoa w¢¢.om omm.mn mmm zoegzm w mmuHm :onm:H>H4 amcxucHa muo.mmm omo.HHm.H ooH.m .LLH vooHu cmgsm cc> 3mm 3mm emm.moH mmo.wmm mmo cocoa; mamammm wmuchmz msmxmco coommb mamammm .. .. omm.H .LLH coon copmm um>HHo H mmm.m mHH.om ooo.m .LEH xeeem cemexmez damaged: -HHmcmuch .ou commxmaz oon.¢mm.NH oee.mmo.¢H ocpmz H mmm.om mnm.¢om mn¢.mo .LLH ameam commxmzz .ou commxmzz .. .. owH .aa< mumwcamnsm cmmmHH< :onH>Hun:m acmmmmHa .pz eem.mm oee.meH oom.H .ee< eeeeeamezm ngem eHHw>mHeeez mmo.H¢m oom.omH mum .LLH noon muoumo cowgmz *mucmcw mucmgo um>gmm maze eyepm HeeeH uo mcszHucHe Ham.omm.em mmm.eee.em Hem.HeH 4eeeeez Hem.Nmm oom.oe_ oom.H .LLH seeem eedeH< eee.»ez mmm.mo~ oem.~m omk .eeH eeeHe cope“ eHHP>peoeed> emucmco mucmcw um>gmm waxh deepm Heuee mea muafiucw go: on mumou .Emumxm cowuumF—ou m:_umwxo xpmaow>mca mus—ucw go: ow mumou H_ guanoea H Humhoea v—NMQ .ooo.ommw mo ucmcu qom .m:_u:ocwu saw: nm>Fo>c~ zcumavc_ ~ou04 ummu xmxcsp so» umm: ccou maomcm__mumwz owo.eom._m emmN.mm_.Nw emo.mmm.mm mwmm.mpnw www.cmm.mw om~.vvp.mm ~_¢.mmm.mm Am okmpv pmou cowuuagumcou page» cowuwmwpao _mcmcmu macm>mm a wacm>mm macm>mm mzcm>mm cowuamwpno Fmgmcwo mscm>ma macm>mm mucom we quh ooo.opmw coo.mmm » ooo.mmN m ooo.oMNm ooo.mmc.~w coo.Omo._w ooo.omm m umsmmm mucom mo unsoE< oq_.o— m oFN.NF m www.mp » mvm.Pm w m¢¢.mm » mucm>u< ouwum acmmmea _¢~.c_mm omp.owm m _Nm.mpc a www.mN w «mm.0mm w mmm.~mm » Num.m~N » mucmgu muoum ucmmmca o~o.mmpm omm.opo » omv.No~ » ovv.m¢_m oom.mup m ooo.opm.¢m oo~._o¢ a usage _cgmumu acmmmta www.mmmm em_¢.mme._w emm.mmm._m momv.~mmw mom.m_m.~m .me.omm.mm ov.~mm.¢-._w Aemmp-mom_v ANNO_V Aon_v Aon_v “mepv Aqea_v Aoempv “moo :o_uustcm=ou Peace oom-qm oomimm ome-vw ooo-vm owmiow oom-mm oom-vm uu< Fmgwcma omm .am_ .mw_ mmm mmm .mm_ .mmp omm mmm .mmp .me omm .mmm mmm .mmm uu< comw;u_z warm ucaog< 50L» cgou .cucmmmmm :Lou use zugmwmmm maomgaam< .ccou muw>emm ummgou mqocu Lm>ou wuw>gmm ummcou “cosmonaut chzupauwco< mm CNN ow mmp m._mp wm_ _o:owuwun< mmv AmOgucou +pm m.~ mm _m mF NN Ammgugmm cowumpzaoa momammm zogezm ¢ mmu_m noo_m xugam moeqm woo—u xmcgm maze :o_umu_—na< :83 2595 888 xtmm :32 E ”BEE 3:5 .353 m_au:oe_o new: —_O3Lcd mp_w>m_uumz u:o_xu3 mmcwcnm Loagm: mm:_eam Longer xuwpma_upc=z N F msmumxm ucmEummLp use; mgu mo muwumwcmuumcmcu _m:o_u=u_pmcH new Poesy—:O_Lm< .Puwucmc_u .quwmxza we Acmesam .m «Page CHAPTER 5 COST COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT AND CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS Fa This chapter presents data on the construction and operating costs of the six land treatment systems previously discussed plus four conventional treatment systems. A brief description of the technology used in each of the conventional systems is also described. A A comparative cost analysis of the land treatment systems and conven- tional treatment systems is presented to identify which systems in general have the lowest operation costs. Although construction costs of alternative systems can be estimated fairly accurately, it is more difficult to estimate the Operation costs. However, this analysis should show generally which operation costs are lower for the two general types of systems. Before presenting the cost comparison analysis, it is necessary to present some basic information on the conventional treatment systems so the reader has a basis on which to compare types of treat- ment systems and their costs. The information on the four conventional systems fol lows . Jonesville The Jonesville wastewater treatment system is basically a con- ventional primary and secondary treatment plant for residential and commercial strength wastewater. Secondary treatment is accomplished 99 was 100 with the use of a trickling filter. Phosphorus is removed from the wastewater with the use of chemicals. The system also uses anaerobic sludge digestion and sludge drying beds. After the sludge has been dried, it is mixed with refuse and disposed of at a landfill site. Sludge from the treatment plant is also used for surface application on agricultural land. When the system was constructed in the early 19705, it cost approximately $915,000. Currently, advanced wastewater treatment units are being planned and‘constructed. The rates for use Of the system for residences are listed below. 0 - 6,000 gals/quarter $9.00 minimum 7,000 - 13,000 gals/quarter $ .75/1000 gallons 14,000 - 28,000 gals/quarter $ .60/1000 gallons 29,000 - 48,000 gals/quarter $ .54/1000 gallons 48,000 and over gals/quarter $ .36/1000 gallons Luna Pier The Luna Pier plant serves approximately 1,418 persons. Waste- water is Of the residential and commercial type. The conventional plant uses the activated sludge process for secondary treatment. Phosphates are removed with addition of chemicals in the primary treatment process. Sludge from the system is dewatered in a sludge 'centrifuge and burried on available land at the plant site. Construction of the wastewater treatment system in 1969 and 1970 cost approximately $1,961,260. Four categories of the capital investment are listed below. 101 Land $ 6,500.00 Treatment Plant 436,159.73 Equipment 467,392.85 Sewer Lines 1,051,207.50 Total $1,961,260.08 FT Residences connected to the system are charged at a rate of $50 per year for the use of the wastewater treatment system. Constantine Constantine's wastewater treatment system serves both resi- E dential and industrial customers. Industries served by the system consist of a creamery and papermill. The treatment plant uses the conventional process which incorporates a conventional activated sludge unit in its secondary treatment process. Chemical coagulation is used for phosphorus removal only. Sludge digestion and conditioning are accomplished with anaerobic digestion and Open sludge drying beds. All sludge which is removed from the drying beds are applied to agri- cultural land around Constantine. The initial wastewater treatment system was constructed in 1965 for $211,814.62. In 1972 the system was expanded and updated at a total cost of $1,263,088.08. Currently the system serves approximately 1,720 persons. Each residence is charged $10 per month. Commercial and industrial users \ pay a monthly rate based on the following schedule: 102 O - 10,000 gals/month $10.00 minimum 10,000 - 100,000 gals/month $ .95/1,000 gallons 100,000 - 1,000,000 gals/month $ .90/l,OOO gallons Over 1,000,000 gals/month $ .85/1,000 gallons An additional charge may also be added if industrial or commercial users impose a heavy burden on the treatment system. Imlay City The Imlay City treatment plant, which serves approximately 1,965 persons, is a conventional treatment plant which uses a trickling filter in its secondary treatment process. Currently, there is not a process for phosphorus removal. Anaerobic sludge digestion is also incorporated into the system. Sludge is dried on Open sludge drying beds. After it is removed from the beds it is piled on the plant grounds until it is removed to a landfill site. This system, which serves residential, commercial and light industrial customers, is the oldest system included in this study. The original system in this community dates back to the late 19505. In the early 19705 the system was improved and enlarged. Because the system dates back several years, the actual construction costs of the system is unavailable. However, expansion in the early 19705 cost approximately $702,673.66. Imlay city uses a wastewater treatment usage charge based on the amount of water used by each residence from the public water supply system. Residences, commercial, schools and churches are charged 100 percent of the water charge. The usage rate at which 103 the charge is based is listed below. O - 5,000 gals/quarter $14.87 minimum 5,000 - 70,000 gals/quarter $ 1.04/1,000 gallons 70,000 - 450,000 gals/quarter $ .75/1,000 gallons Over 450,000 gals/quarter $ .60/l,OOO gallons #7 Comparative Cost Analysis Accounts The information on the capital investments and operation costs of the systems has been collected from local community Officials and the local governing unit's audit reports. The information on opera- Qi tion costs has been combined into several accounts. These accounts are summarized below. Salaries and Wages - All labor expense for general Operation, maintenance and administration Of the system. Utilities - Expenses attributed to power for pumping and treating the wastewater in the system. Supplies Expense - Cost Of supplies for operation of the treatment system. Maintenance - Cost of supplies and parts for maintenance of the system. Equipment Rental - Expense for rental of equipment from private parties and other public departments in the community for Operation and maintenance purposes. Professional Services - Fees for engineering services by a consulting engineering firm. Outside Services - Costs reflect expenses for operation and maintenance services provided by a private firm or other public 104 department within the community except where specifically described differently. General Office Expenses - Costs of maintaining an office for administrative purposes such as billing and collection, bookkeeping, auditing, legal expenses, and correspondence with regulatory agencies, private firms and the general public. 7 Insurance - Expense for insurance on property, plant and equipment. This does not include health insurance, workers compensation or unemployment insurance. Transportation Expense - This is allowance for travel by local “J officials which concerns general management of the system. The operation costs for each of the systems are presented in Appendix A using the preceding accounts. Each chart has several dates and numbers at the top of the columns which contain Operation cost information. The cost data are presented for the fiscal year ending at the indicated date at the top of the column. The number above each date is a code number assigned to that date for purposes of graphic and linear regression analysis. The expense in actual dollars is presented in each account along with the respective costs on the basis of dollars per 1,000 gallons treated. The later calculation was made based on.a 365 day year and the average daily flow rates for each respective system. For cost comparison analysis it has been necessary to group several accounts together in categories because of differences in the actual audit report accounts of each comnunity. When data were collected, an effort was made to match the audit report accounts as closely as possible with the accounts defined in this study. 105 However, due to some differences in the data, it was best to group some of the accounts into the following categories. The categories should be comparable across systems. ' Expense Categories: 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Utilities . 3. Operations and Maintenance r~ a. Supplies b Maintenance c Equipment rental d Professional services e Outside services f. Miscellaneous General Administrative 7‘ a. Office g1 b. Insurance c. Transportation The operation costs of the land treatment and the conventional treatment systems are plotted using the preceding categories and combinations thereof. In addition, linear regressions are plotted for Operation costs incurred for all conventional treatment systems and land treatment systems. For linear regression analysis, the Dimondale treatment system costs were included in the conventional treatment group regression. This was done because of the Dimondale system's characteristic conventional primary and secondary treatment processes. The figures on pages 107 through 112 present the operation costs on a basis of dollars per 1,000 gallons treated for each corres- ponding fiscal year. Comparative Cost Analysis of Operation Expenses To begin the comparative cost analysis, it is best to focus on the total costs of all categories displayed on Figure 11. The total cost curves position on this figure are influenced by each cost 106 category which are plotted on Figure 6, 7, 8 and 10. From Figure 11 it appears that the Hart land treatment system consistently has the lowest total operation costs of all the systems in the study. This is due to the fact that this system, in general, has the lowest cost per 1,000 gallons treated in all the other operating cost categories, except utilities. 4 Above the Hart system on the figure, there is a good deal of HE intersection of the curves. However, it appears that the land treat- ment systems operated by Middleville and Harbor Springs and the conventional treatment system at Imlay City are the next most con- by sistently inexpensive systems to operate relative to the others. There are several points which do need to be clarified in terms of these systems to explain their Operation costs. The Imlay City treatment plant does not use any process for phosphorus removal. If chemical coagulation or any other process were instituted, the operation costs would be higher. The peak in the Middleville system's cost curve is due to an expensive engineering study which was conducted during the 1974 fiscal year. This study, which amounted to several thousand dollars, would usually not be incurred very Often by any type of treatment system. The Middleville system has the second least expense of the systems in terms of salaries and wages. This may be so because much of the system is automated. In terms of the general operation and maintenance category, the curve would most likely be relatively flat and very close to the curve for the Harbor Springs system if the expense of the engineering study was not included. DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS .10 0.98 0.86 0.73 0.61 0.49 0.37 0.24 0.12 0.00 89m m. Flood Ridge & Furrow Conventional IIOII NI )( CONSTANTINE {D twm.rum 4’ JONESVILLE WK IHLAY ciiv )( bumMMme Mi rAnwctt S X mason svamss s o HIDDLEVILLE S A wuuwo RF .f nut 107 I 6/30/73 I . T 1 5/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 6. Salaries and wages expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 0.36 0.28 24 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.32 S A UAYLANO ’ c; '“ RF + m1 / I: .. ‘1 :g 108 Spray Beepage Flood Ridge I Purrow Conventional I I I I I 'U CONSTAHTINE LUNA PIER JONLSVILLE IHLAY CITY T Li" D NICHOAIfi ‘ . fARUELL C C C C SP F S )3 %$2<-<-9‘G>>( HARBOR SPRINGS // A . 1 s o HIOOLEVILLE / _.' ‘ T r l T" (L00 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 7. Utilities expense 1 DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 109 so “'2 or Spa: - 3 81:3sz - 3? Flood - P N Ridge I Fun-ow - RF "34 Conventional - C o c x cowsmmwe C 0 um PIER co C 4‘ JMLSVILLE «3% c Y new cm 0 51’ X DIMOI'IDALE F 3K Inweu. S X meson saunas a S o IIIDOLEVILLE o°~ s A ammo RF + out o \ “f o —4 :2. o“ .. \. 9'. c; .. \¥ co 9 o -i 3 '. . o'~ c’ / o O. o f I 1 T . 0.00 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 8. General Operation and maintenance expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 110 Spray - 8 Beepago - 3? Flood - '1" Ridge & Furrow - RF Conventional - C _. C x cousrmnue C o Luwi PIER C 4‘ JONESVILLE C Y mu! cnv d SP M DIHOthIi .. F X rmwcu S X «ch: saunas s o momsvute _ S A wwuwo RF + m1 / J \/ La .4 ' I T r 0.00 6/30/73 6/30/79 6/30/75 6/30 /76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 9. Total of categories I, II, III DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 111 SE :5. Spray - S Secpage - 3? Flood - F Ridge I Furrow — RP a, Conventional - C o :5 - C X town/mime C 0 tom rm: C 4" JONLSVILLE 00 c Y ma.” cnv o (:5 _. SP )( ommmmx F 3K Mkweu. S X «new: spams 5 o IIIDDLEVILLE B S A \MYLANO C5 “ RF + mat to 0 c5 .. Ln 0. o .. q- C? o ‘ \ m o. o - N C? o *4 '5 o’ '1 / i// o o d i l r i 0.00 6/30/73 6/30/79 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 10. General administrative expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 112 :3 °? Spray - s Beepas- - 5? Flood - 9 Ridge I Furrow - RF :3 Conventional - c so C x cowsmmiwe C €>Iywirun C ‘1‘ JONLSVILLE o C Y mux CITY d. ‘) F: 7 SP X ommmme F Mi "mum. S X Macon spams 5 o HIDDLEVILLE 8 S A vAnMO "2‘ V “F -} mm? c: c: '_° "1 c: 00 c)- c: ‘9 o '-i S3 :5 ~ [A f ,. ., 1'] . " a o I N u o’ ., c3 ‘3 c: vgr I 1 I 0.00 6/30/73 6/30/79 6/30/75 6/30/75 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 11. Total of categories I, II. III and V 113 Harbor Springs has the next to least expensive costs for the general Operation and maintenance category. In the general admin- istrative expense category it is generally the most expensive. This is understandable due to the fact that the system is an authority which serves several units of government. The administration costs are higher because there would generally be more work involved in coordinating several units of government than just dealing with one as is the case in all the other systems. Also "double billing" and bookkeeping expenses take place. The authority must bill each indivi- dual local unit of government for its use Of the system and in turn FA each unit of government bills its local user for the use of the system. Additionally, the authority keeps books on the operation and adminis- tration of the system and each local unit in the authority keeps books for its separate part of the system. Although the authority does treat more gallons Of water in its system than others, which could possibly have the effect of lowering the cost per 1,000 gallons of water treated or having economies of scale in the overall total treatment cost category, it appears that for the General Administrative cost category the system may possibly be experiencing diseconomies of scale. The Imlay City system has the lowest cost per 1,000 gallons treated in the utility expense category. In addition, this system has had the lowest expense for salaries and wages for all of the conven- tional treatment systems. For the Hart, Harbor Springs and Imlay City systems it may be possible that economies of scale are occurring for the total Opera- tion expense on a dollars per 1,000 gallons treated basis. These three systems had the highest average daily flows of the systems in 114 the study. Although this may be occurring in all three systems to some extent, it is more probable that its effect is greater for the Harbor Springs system because the system has some of the higher expenses in actual dollars expended than the others. The curve displaying the Farwell system's costs, shows that they are increasing fairly rapidly. This seems to be due to the fact that the amount spent on salaries and wages, general operation and maintenance and general administrative expenses increased rapidly. However, the utility expense category maintained a fairly constant level. There is no immediate explanation for the increases in the other categories. Total operation costs in dollars per 1,000 gallons for the Constantine system are increasing dramatically. These substantial increases in costs on this basis can be partly explained by the fact that the flows in this system were less in the last two fiscal years because Of a strike and consequent stoppage of production and output of wastewater by a large industrial user in the community. By examining the actual dollars spent for total Operation of the system, it is found that they increased even as flows decreased. However, if flows to the system had remained fairly stable, the increase in costs per 1,000 gallons may not have been as dramatic. However, actual dollars expended would probably be higher with higher or more normal average daily flows. The Wayland system appears to be consistently the most ex- pensive land treatment system, excluding Dimondale which uses con- ventional primary and secondary treatment processes. It's utility expense, general operation and maintenance expense and general 115 administrative expenses are consistently higher than the other land treatment systems. The amount spent for professional services is generally higher than any other land treatment system in the study. The next most expensive system appears to be the Jonesville system. This conventional system has the highest costs in the general operation and maintenance category of the conventional systems, r~ excluding Dimondale. However, this system is fairly inexpensive in terms of utility expense compared to other treatment systems in the study. It's general administrative expenses were also fairly low relative to other systems. *1 Luna Pier and Dimondale's treatment systems are the most ex- pensive treatment systems included in the study. Dimondale's system, which incorporates conventional primary and secondary treatment units in its process along with seepage lagoons for tertiary treatment, has either the highest or second highest expenses on the basis of dollars per 1,000 gallons treated of all the cost categories except general administrative expenses. The Luna Pier system has the highest costs per 1,000 gallons treated in the salary and wage category of all the systems. It also has the highest expenses on the same basis for the utility category excluding Dimondale. hithe general administrative expense category it ranks highest among the conventional treatment systems. Linear Regression Analysis of Operation Expense A two variable linear regression technique was used on three general groups of data. The cost of operating the system is the dependent variable and time is the independent variable. The 116 general groups were all land treatment systems excluding Dimondale; all conventional treatment systems excluding Dimondale; and all conventional treatment systems including Dimondale. Regressions were run for each group of data in each cost category. Figures 12 through 17 show the re- gression lines in each category and combination of categories. The letters A, B and C on the graphs denote the different general groups of data on which the regression was performed. A = Conventional Systems with Dimondale B = Conventional Systems without Dimondale C = Land Treatment Systems without Dimondale Statistical tests were also conducted to determine if the slopes and intercepts of the regression lines were significantly different from one another. The regression lines were pooled and the t statistic and significance level calculated for the beta coefficients in the pooled multiple regression equation. Details concerning the regression tech— nique and results are reported in Appendix B. FrOm Figure 12 it appears that the salary and wage expense for conventional type treatment systems is substantially higher than the same costs for land treatment systems. This figure shows that for the fiscal year ending at June 30, 1976 (48) the salary and wage expense for the conventional systems was approximately $.41 (difference between lines 8 & C) higher per 1,000 gallons treated than the land treatment systems. This is understandable because many of the con- ventional treatment systems require more manhours of labor to permit normal operation than land treatment systems. Whereas conventional systems may require at least one or more full time employees at the treatment plant at all times. Alternatively, a land DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 117 c: F F. _ 5.: 5% A v . .o:ox + .1355 <5 ‘i 3 y = .011): + .0650 E c y - .002X + .0895 E] CONVENTIONAL wITN DIMONDALE WK CONVENTIONAL WITHOUT DIMONDALE g A LAND TREATMENT o -4 m "l N .1. CS _. {3 C5 41 /'2: A ’ ,i' B as , q- /. O. .1 ’ I," // "/' I' '/‘I /.’ //' (I?) /'I’ .'/I .1" '/’ 4/ I// x" / . ./" 3' //, x q- 2“ m N // / ‘1' _e O. -+ ” I! " I} ///' z/ I L“ n. .v / ‘ .5. //’ g/, ,fl" M2 C l 0 1 C) i_ o I ' I _w-._1mm__nsm- W"”‘ O m) 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 Fig. 12. FISCAL YEAR Regression of salaries and wages expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 118 to 0". 0—1 N m A y - .ooosx + .0904 O“ a v - .0019x + .0153 . 3 c y . .0012x + .0319 [U CONVENTIONAL wITH DIHONDALE 00 Y CONVENTIONAL WITHOUT DINONOALE 5‘! of A LAND TREATMENT '_ . O") ,5 2 . E ". <2- N :5 1 i. o w - N 0 fl so I? F o q IL .. .. A N I: F .. o -1 OO o 0 <1- 0 o o o -——....-.... c3 1 T I r 0.00 6/30/73 6/30/79 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 13. Regression of utilities expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00 119 E __1 A Y 8 .0015)! + .1292 a v a .0010x + .1139 c Y - .ooxax + .0437 I? E] CONVENTIONAL wITN DIMONDALE \( CONVENTIONAL NITNOUT DIMONDALE _ A LAND TREATMENT I i i 1 l .1 a fi , J u) . //’ ,//“ .. /,/ /,/ r"/ ,z’”” . B ‘/, _/ . :_ ”// /' :1; //’ / / I, I, »// ///” ”””/ a r ,x" C C/ r/ 1 V” / a In, ’/ : /// r 111 ”L ///. .r/ .4 ,1’" /’//" ,,//” J. // lk’/ H I I I "'- 1 ,__,___ .— -—" “MT '- -... ' o.m) 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 Fig. 14. FISCAL YEAR Regression of general Operation and maintenance expense 'DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.00 120 1 -‘ A Y - .012)! o .3502 3 V II .OIQX + .1998 C Y I .0052X + .1652 E] CONVENTIONAL NITN DINONDALE \/ CONVENTIONAL NITNODT DINONDALE * ab IAmaTmuanT m [1'] E] El 1 m I . I I If 04m 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 15. Regression of total of categories I, II, III DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 121 Y I .0003X O .0152 Y - .0007X - .000“ O.) Y I .0007X + .0139 C] CONVENTIONAL NITN DIMONDALE Y’ CONVENTIONAL NITNOUT DIMONDALE A: LAND TREATMENT _( A ‘4 $ . C B A _1 55 T T T T (L00 6/30/73 6/30/7H 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 16. Regression of general administrative expense DOLLARS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 122 c: 00 1"" c: A v - .0120x + .3662 ‘9 a Y - .0147x o .2000 '- " c V - .0059): + .1793 DJ CONVENTIONAL NITN DIMONDALE I \( CONVENTIONAL NITNOUT DIMONDALE c A LAND TREATMENT d- ' 3 F21 53 I: c: «i ,_I 4 c: c: P :5 c: so :3 c: ¢ :3 c: «I c: c: c: - I r’ r °ILOO 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 FISCAL YEAR Fig. 17. Regression of total Operating costs 123 treatment system can be run in some instances by a person who works for several departments at the local unit of government. In other words, operation labor is much less than that required at similarly sized, secondary treatment plants using the activated sludge process or trickling filter. Lagoon and irrigation systems do not require two or three-shift operator attention. Operator attention in Michigan is primarily devoted to dike maintenance around the ponds in spring and summer and to effluent distribution and crop management during the irrigation season [Malhotra]. In addition, these costs may be higher because it is possible that employees on a conventional system are relatively more skilled or specialized laborers than land treatment laborers and receive a higher wage rate. From the figure it also appears that the expenses in this category are increasing at a faster rate for conventional systems than land treatment systems. A partial explanation of this increase can be explained by the elasticity of labor supply. Assuming that the supply for skilled labor is more inelastic relative to the un- skilled labor supply for these wastewater treatment systems, it is possible that the price for skilled labor for conventional treatment systems will increase faster than the price for unskilled labor for land treatment systems when demand for labor, as a whole, for waste- water treatment systems increases. The regression analysis for the utility expense is less clear cut. By including, or not including, the Dimondale system in the conventional treatment group, we see that the regression line changes position substantially. It is also quite possible that the difference in the conventional utility expenses and land treatment 124 utility expenses is due mainly to the variance of the cost of electri- city in each area. General Operation and maintenance expenses appear to be higher for conventional treatment than land treatment according to Figure 14. The expense of general operation and maintenance of the conventional systems for the fiscal year ending June 20, 1976 is approximately $.35 (line 8 less line C) or $.60 (line A less line C) per 1,000 gallons treated greater than the land treatment systems. If Dimondale is included as a conventional treatment system, the regression curves show that the expense of operation and mainte- nance have increased at approximately the same rate. Moving taFigure 15 the total of the first three expense categories shows that the conventional systems are substantially more expensive to Operate in terms of the total of these categories and that the operating expenses for the systems included in this study are increasing faster for conventional systems than land treatment systems. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976 the conventional systems are approximately $.46 (line 8 less line C) per 1,000 gallons treated more expensive than the land treatment systems. The regression curves for the general administrative expenses Show that the land treatment systems in the study were generally more expensive on the basis of dollars per 1,000 gallons treated than the conventional treatment systems. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976 the land treatment systems were approximately $.16 (line C less line 8) per 1,000 gallons treated more expensive than the conventional treatment systems in this expense category. 125 The final figure, showing regression lines for all costs incurred in the operation of the systems shows that the conventional system: included in the study were more expensive to operate than the land treatment system. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976 the conventional treatment systems were approximately $.45 (line 8 less line C) per 1,000 gallons treated more expensive than the land treat- ment systems in this total Operation costs category. It also shows that costs for these conventional systems is increasing approximately twice as fast as the costs of operation of the land treatment system as a whole. In conclusion of this analysis, a final note on the comparative cost analysis of Operation costs is needed. The revenue collected by the Middleville and Hart treatment systems for the use of land and sale of crops from the treatment site would offset the operation costs of the system. If the revenue obtained from the farming enter- prise were subtracted from operation expenses, the result would be a reduction in the cost of operation at the Middleville system by $1,200 in the 1975 fiscal year. The reduction on the basis per 1,000 gallons treated would be $.28 to $.265. Approximately $1,140 were received from the farm Operation at the Hart system for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975. This is a reduction of operation costs from $.193 to $.186 per 1,000 gallons treated. The community of Wayland also hOpeS to offset part of its operation costs with an expected $6,000 profit from its farm operation in 1977. This would be a reduction of $.089/ 1,000 gallons treated. It appears that the revenue collected from the farming opera- tion at land treatment systems included in this study do not have a 126 substantial effect in offsetting the operation expenses. However, it is likely that the communities appreciate any revenue which they may receive from such an operation. To conclude the discussion of the farm operations, a final comment iS needed about the bookkeeping for such an Operation. Separate accounts for expenses incurred and revenues received by the farm operation should be kept and not combined with the "regular" operating expense and revenue accounts of the treatment system. This is needed so the operators of the system can tell if the farming operation is profitable and if any adjustments can be made in the farm plan to make it more profitable. If separate accounts are not kept, the operator will not be able to determine if the farm Operation is actually increasing overall operation expenses or is working to Offset operation expenses. Capital Cost Analysis Capital or construction costs are also an important factor to be considered when evaluating alternative methods of wastewater treatment. In general the community will incur each year along with operation expenses, the expense of bond issues used to construct the treatment system. Construction costs will vary depending upon type of system, its components and the overall size. In addition, land treatment system's capital costs will also vary because of the availability of land, type of land and type of application system used. Various types of application systems will require different amounts of land. It is important to examine construction alternatives to determine the most cost effective alternatives not only in Operating 127 expenses but in capital expenses as well. Construction cost information for the systems included in the study is presented in Table 4rin both actual dollars and constant dollars. The left columnlnmsents construction costs in actual dollars for the year in which the system was constructed. The right column presents the construction cost data in constant dollars (actual dollars adjusted to 1976). Three indexes were used to adjust the construction cost data. The Economic Research Service's USDA Farm Real Estate Market Development index was used to adjust the land costs to constant dollars in 1976. The Environmental Protection Agency's Sewage Treat- ment Plant and Sewer Construction Cost indexes were used to adjust the construction costs of the conventional and land treatment system to constant comparable dollars. Table 5 presents construction cost information based on the average daily flows and design flows. Column 3 in the table expresses the percent of average daily flow of the design flow. This gives a perspective on how much excess capacity there is in the system. It appears that there is a good deal Of excess capacity in some of the systems. It is important to have excess capacity though for two reasons. First, the system must be able to handle the peak flows during different periods of the day and year. In fact, column 3 may be somewhat misleading because it expresses the difference between the average daily flow and design flow and not the difference between normal peak flows and design flows. In other words, at certain times of the year or day, there may exist little or no excess capacity in the system. Secondly, excess capacity is needed in the system to allow for growth in the volume of wastewater that must be treated. 128 Table 4. Construction Costs of Wastewater Treatment Systems Project I Construction Engineering-Tech. Legal Land Total Project II Construction Engineering-Tech. Legal Land Total Treatment A Collection Equipment Building Land Total Land Sewage Plant Force Mains Organization Costs Equipment Total Harbor Springs 1970 $ $ 941,877.88 147,692.77 4,716.75 180,000.00 $1,274,287.40 1974 $ $4,971,256.00 787,000.00 39,025.00 133,450.00 $5,930,731.00 Wayland 1971 3 $1,972,824 22,086 157,253 67,600 $2,219,763 Middleville 1970 $ $ 33,780 309,182 24.554 3.032 11,882 5 382.430 Comparable 1976 $ $1,751,007.87 274,569.78 8,768.72 344,070.79 $2,378,417.16 $5,987,121.35 947,821.73 46,999.67 162,854.23 $7,144,796.98 Comparable 1976 $ 33.272.288.91 36,633.66 260,832.82 124,800.00 $3,694,555.39 Comparable 1976 $ $ 64,570.61 574,788.01 45,647.36 5,636.67 22,089.35 $ 712,732.00 Table 4. Continued 129 Land Sewer System Equipment Office Equipment Total Land Equipment Construction Engineering A Legal Total Farwell 1970 $ $ 4,200.00 1,215,489.75 2,608.43 55.88 $1,222,354.06 Hart 1972 $ $ 67,659.31 6,733.00 1,176,533.75 187,989.32 $1,438,915.38 Original Wastewater Treatment System Land Sewer Lines Lift Stations Lagoon Treatment Plant Total TOTAL OF BOTH) Land (1969-1972) Collection (1971) Treatment (1971) Equipment (1971) Total 1963 $ $ 10,000.00 241,788.91 28,459.20 190,005.37 $ 470,253.48 Dimondale $ 31,573.50 474,856.83 424,963.88 7,074.54 $ 938,468.75 Comparable 1976 $ $ 8,028.31 2,259,668.86 4,849.22 103.88 $2,272,650.27 Comparable 1975 s $ 115,074.10 10,081.30 1,761,620.80 281,475.90 $2,168,252.10 Comparable 1976 $ $ 27,341.77 592,703.78 69,762.81 465,765.37 $1,155,573.73 $3,323,825.83 Comparable 1976 $ 3 59,828.76 787,636.77 704,880.20 11,734.41 $1,564,080.14 Table 4. Continued 130 Land Treatment Plant Equipment Sewer Lines Total Property Plant and Equipment (1965) Property Plant and Equipment (1972) Total Property Plant and Equipment Luna Pier 1969 $ $ 6,500.00 436,159.73 467,392.85 1,051,207.50 $1,961,260.08 Constantine $ 211,814.62 1,263,088.08 $1,474,902.70 Jonesville 1970 $ $ 915,000 Imlay City Comparable 1976 $ $ 12,648.64 865,710.97 927,703.99 2,086,487.61 $3,892,551.21 Comparable 1976 $ $ 499,958.83 1,935,257.76 $2,435,216.59 ~Comparable 1976 $ $1,676,433.56 Due to differences in bookkeeping procedures, the construction costs of wastewater treatment system are not available. 131 Figure 18 compares the construction costs of the system with the use of bar scales. Refer to the community numbers in Table 5 to identify each system's costs. The left side of each bar in the graph represents the construction Costs on a basis of dollars per gallon treated per day and the right side represents the costs on a basis of dollars per gallon per day design flow. These are presented to give a general idea of the capital costs involved for each system in the study. Caution is needed in making comparisons across systems, however, because Of the inherent Characteristics of each system. Some difficulties in comparison analysis include: 1. Technology or type of treatment used not only is different between general categories of conventional and land treatment but also varies within each category. There are various types of treatment systems which are classified as land treatment just as there are different types of conventional treat- ment. 2. Differences in size of systems exist in terms of volume Of wastewater treated. Additional population served may not be a good indicator Of the volume of waste— water treated because of commercial and industrial contributions. 3. Utilization of existing capacity also varies among systems. 4. Land costs can vary substantially from community to community. Table 6 presents the capital costs in an additional manner. The average construction costs of land treatment including and excluding the Dimondale system are presented along with the conven- tional system average capital Costs on the same basis. A weighted average of the capital costs for the land treatment and conventional systems is also presented. The weighted average is calculated by dividing the total flow of all the land treatment systems into the 132 mcvuanvgucou mew: Apvczeeoo .Lmumzmumm: mo ws=_o> geese: even» 0:» cp agumsucw C? we z—Fmsgo: vpaoz Nagy was: on vmuospumm mzopmu .Empmxm comuumppou mcwumwxm zpmaow>mea weapon? no: on mumoua .xpco H uuwnoga op ucoammegou mzopu .H pumnogmm mmN.m oom.o mm.mm¢.m~o._ FAN. omN omm mppw>mwcoa .m mmo.e mmo.o mm.opm.mm¢.m one. oooe coo mcpucmumcou .m cum.m~ FNN.NN _N.me.mmw.m mum. map omN Lew; mc=4 .N omw.u eem.NN vp.omo.¢om.F emm. on com m_mccoswo .m m¢N.F NNo.N mm.mmm.mmm.m New. One com new: .m «mm.op w~o.mm N~.omm.N~N.N owe. me mmp P_mzemd .e o¢N.m ch.m oo.NmN.NFN wwm. NFN omm am_P.>mpcuPz .m mmm.n mno.om mm.mmm.emo.m mom. «mp oom campzmz .N mmm.m a mpp.m a o_.NF¢.wNm.N» mmo.F mow ome mmmcwgam Conga: .F Aequ ywqu mea_~oa eum_ autumn Aoeev “cube zepd cmwmmo mmmgm>< mpnaemqeou we a a mo zo_d Zap; auwcaesou emu umou Cm; umoo cw umou zo—u Fmapu< mmmem>< :mwmmo AmLeFFoo mpnmgeqsouv msmumxm Semapmmeh eo campgmasou mumou copuusgumcou .m «Fae» DOLLARS PER GALLON 38 35. 30. 25. 20 15. 10. .0'i .0-4 .0 N 0-( 0—1 0-1 133 ["‘T HCOST PER AVERAGE FLOW COAL.) HCOST PER DESIGN FLOW (GALJ 1 1 Ln ' 71 I 1 l I | I ' 1 | 1 I 1 I . h ' TA 1' h I ' __ ' I I ' F17 ' 1 1 ' _ TA 1 1 I g ' I | I 1 ' 1 ' I I ' ' 1 I l ' ' ' I 1 ' I I I I A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 COMMUNITY REFER TO COMMUNITY NUMBERS IN TABLE 4. FIG. 18. CONSTRUCTION COSTS COMPARISON (OMFMRAmuzoouums) 134 total capital costs of all land treatment systems. The same is done for the conventional system's capital expenditures. Table 6. Construction Cost Comparison of Treatment Types-- Comparable Dollars Weighted Average Costs System Average Costs Average Flow Design Flow Land Treatment $2,476,436.13 $ 8.85 $5.615 2,324,376.791 9.4941 5.7991 Conventional $2,668,067.12 $10.093 $6.841 2,392,070.371 11.0871 6.9841 1Calculations include the Dimondale System. This comparison shows that for the systems included in this study that land treatment systems required a smaller capital expendi- ture than the conventional treatment systems. However, this result may be affected somewhat because the cost of Middleville's original collection system is not included in costs of land treatment systems. On an average daily flow basis the capital costs for land treatment were approximately $1.243/gallon less than the conventional systems (excluding Dimondale). On a design flow basis the result was a differ- ence of $1.226/gallon with the land treatment systems being less expensive than the conventional systems (excluding Dimondale). In addition to these results, it is important to point out that of the land treatment systems studies in detail, the main reason given for selection Of the land treatment method of wastewater treatment as an alternative to conventional methods was that capital investment 135 required for a land treatment system consisting of primary and secondary treatment lagoons and a land disposal area for the wastewater was less than the capital expenditure which would be required to construct a conventional treatment system that would attain approximately the same level of treatment. In only one case studied, that of the Dimondale system, were the Circumstances better for the construction of conven- tional primary and secondary treatment units. However, due to the relatively high operation costs of the Dimondale system, it may have been advisable to construct a land treatment system at a larger capital investment and saved on operation costs over the long run. In other words, each situation must be considered separately. Each type of alternative system for a single community must be evaluated in terms of its expected Operation costs and capital costs. Determination of these costs requires detailed planning and study taking into account all cost factors relative to the respective local unit of government situation. Alternatively, evaluation of the average occurrences of Operating characteristics and costs such as this study has done with case histories and time series data, regres- sion analysis indicates what can be expected from the use of alterna- tive methods of treatment. These types of studies can aid engineers, planners and local governmental Officials in conducting the evalua- tion of alternative types of treatment for a given situation. Concluding Points for Comparative Cost Evaluation Before closing this section of the study, some additional points should be considered when evaluating alternative treatment methods which have not been dealt with in this Chapter. Generally, 136 the expenditure required to purchase land for land treatment systems will be substantially higher than for land purchased for a conventional system. This is basically due to the quantity needed. However, this land Should be thought of as an asset that will more than likely increase in value rather than depreciate like the equipment incor- porated into the system. It is important to remember that there is a dual cost structure. In other words, we should not only be concerned with the price for the inputs but also the inputs salvage value when the system has exhausted its useful life. In the case of land treatment systems, the salvage value Of the system would be positive because of the value of the usable land. The land could be sold by the local unit of govern- ment to pay debt retirement requirements or to help finance a new type Of system. (Land could possibly be used for agricultural and forestry production or developed for recreation purposes, wildlife habitats or a variety of commercial uses. Even the ponds could be filled with soil and regraded to the natural topography.) For conven- tional systems, however, the salvage value of the system may be small or even negative becuase the majority of the assets involved in the conventional system would likely have no alternative use. There is also the advantage of producing forestry and agricul- tural products for sale on certain types of land treatment system which could help defray operation and maintain expenses. However, operation costs may also increase because Of the complexity of the farm Operation. The farm operation should be run as a separate enterprise to determine its profitability. The expected production and profitability should be closely studied in an evaluation Of 137 alternatives. These types of opportunities do not exist with conven- tional systems but alternatively they may be able to sell conditioned sludge from the treatment process as a fertilizer and soil conditioner? to farmers and home gardners. Sludge is not removed and conditioned from the lagoons in the land treatment systems. Comparisons made in this study are really not comparisons of land treatment with other forms of physical Chemical advanced wastewater treatment in tenns of the level of treatment. As pointed out before, the quality of treatment generally achieved by the land treatment process is of a higher degree than the conventional treatment processes which incorporate chemical coagulation for phosphorus removal. Keeping this in mind, it appears that the land treatment systems in this study were more cost effective and most likely achieved a higher level of treatment than the conventional systems. CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to document and evaluate the economic and institutional aspects of small municipal land treatment systems which are an alternative for wastewater treatment. More specifically, the purpose was to study several small land treatment systems in Michigan and document their development in terms Of institutional arrangements and to compare their operation and initial capital expenses with several Comparable (in terms of treatment quality and size) conventional treatment systems. The objectives of the study were: 1. Procedure To describe the various types of land treatment systems used by municipalities in Michigan. To identify the institutional characteristics of the systems included in the study. To present data on the construction, operating and maintenance costs for six land treatment systems and four conventional treatment systems which are currently operating in Michigan. To give a description of the treatment technology used in each system. ‘ To compare and analyze categories of cost infOrmation of land treatment systems with the conventional treatment costs. The Study presents case histories of six small municipal land treatment systems in Michigan. The legal background which establishes 138 139 authority for such systems has been documented along with the concepts of land treatment. Information was collected from state and local Officials on the economic and institutional Characteristics of each land treatment facility. Operation and construction cost information was collected chiefly from local community audit reports. For comparative cost analysis Operation and construction cost information was collected for four conventional treatment systems which are comparable in terms of size, type of wastewater treated and quality of treatment. The Operation cost information was assigned to various cost accounts, and in turn the accounts were grouped into four general operating expense categories for purposes of comparative cost analysis. These cost categories in terms of dollars per 1,000 gallons treated were plotted for each system according to the fiscal year in which they occurred. The plots were compared and discussed. Linear regression analysis was performed on the operation costs of the total group of land treatment systems and compared with the regression analysis of the operating expenses of the total group of conventional systems. A third regression equation was also made on each cost category for the conventional treatment system including one system which uses a land application technique although it is characterized by primary and secondary conventional treatment methods. For the capital cost analysis, it was necessary to adjust actual construction costs to constant or comparable dollars. Three indexes were used to adjust actual construction costs to 1976 dollars. Additionally, the construction costs were presented in a bar Chart in terms of dollars per average daily flows (gallons per day) and 140 dollars per design flow (gallons per day). Conclusions This study identified that municipalities use institutional arrangements which are given legal authority under Act 233, 1955 and Act 185, 1957 of the Public Acts of Michigan. The use of Act 185 which allows the local unit of government to enlist the aid of the county for constructing and operating of a wastewater treatment system appears to be quite common. This act is essential because without it or a similar law, many small communities would have difficulty in raising the required funds for construction of a wastewater system. Several land treatment systems were found to have some form of farm operation connected with them. In two cases, the planting and harvesting of crops from the irrigation site was being conducted. Another system was leasing the land around the irrigation site to a local farmer for a farming operation. Various lease arrangement for agriculture Operation on these sites exist. In all cases the local unit of government has been or will be offsetting its Operation costs from profit generated from the farming enterprise. However, the effect on offsetting the operation costs has not been substantial. The comparative cost analysis of the operation expenses of the two general categories of types of treatment, land and conventional, has in general shown that the land treatment systems on the whole seem to be less expensive to operate than conventional systems. This finding is even more significant in that the land treatment systems may be achieving a higher level of wastewater treatment than the conven- tional facilities. More Specifically, the land treatment systems were 141 less expensive to Operate than the conventional systems in two of the four individual expense categories documented: Salary and Wage Expense, and General Operation and Maintenance Expense. In the Utility Expense category, the operation costs were approximately the same. The conven- tional systems appeared to be less expensive to Operate than the land treatment systems in the General Administrative Expense categOry. The total of all expense categories showed that the land treatment systems were experiencing lower operation costs per 1,000 gallons treated. Additionally, the yearly operation costs of the conventional treatment systems were increasing approximately twice as fast as the land treatment facilities. The comparison of the capital investment required for construc- tion of the systems showed that land treatment was somewhat less costly than the conventional systems. Although, the documentation of the capital costs indicates that general expense of construction, it is difficult to make cost comparisons across types of systems because of the inherent physical Characteristics of each system. Each type of alternative system for a single community must be evaluated in terms of its expected operation costs and capital expenditure. Determination of these costs require detailed planning and study taking into account all cost factors relative to the respective community situation. Alternatively, evaluation of the average occurrences of operating Characteristics and costs such as this study has done with case histories and time series data regression analysis indicate what can be expected from the use of ultimate methods of treatment. With the results of this study in hand and the advantages of land treatment the question arrises as to why land treatment is not 142 more widely used. There are several reasons which are particularly apparent. Soils in many areas are not suitable for the land treatment process. There may be local opposition to the land treatment concept for various reasons including aesthetic reasons, health concerns, and lack of understanding of the land treatment Concept. The amount of land required may be unavailable or the cost of purchasing or leasing such land may be prohibitive. In addition to these it may be the case that local consulting firms have a lack Of knowledge Or experience with land treatment. It is Clear that although there are distinct advantages for certain communities who use the land treatment method for wastewater treatment there are also disadvantages in some situations. Therefore, land treatment should not be considered a panacea for every community's sewage problems. Limitations of the Study The major limitations of the study are involved with data on the Operation and maintenance expenses. Because audit accounts were somewhat different in each community it was somewhat difficult to determine if similar costs were being compared. An effort was made to identify the costs which were included in each account. Accounts were also combined into categories to make the comparisons more valid. Additionally, the sample size is small because few communities had bookkeeping procedures which were detailed enough to be useful for this study. Cost comparison of the land treatment systems with Con- ventional treatment syStems is also limited to some extent because of the different technologies within each category of wastewater treatment. One form of land treatment may in fact be more expensive 143 than another. However, this cannot be determined from this study because of data limitations. Due to the fact that some communities do not keep flow records for their fiscal year but for the calendar year there Was a need for some degree of calculation and judgment by the local Officials and author to arrive at the flow for the fiscal year. Therefore there may be a small discrepancy between actual flows and the- flows reported for use in the study. The results of this study cannot be generalized to larger systems because of size differences and different technologies which may be involved with large systems. These limitations point out the need for future research. Suggestions for Future Research Further questions surrounding the use of land treatment for wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities need to be investigated. Basically, this study has investigated the differences in operation expenses between small land treatment systems and small conventional treatment systems. Future studies could possibly investi- gate the most cost effective form of land treatment. Although each situation should be evaluated separately, a study of this type could identify the major differences in capital and operation costs Of the various application techniques. While conducting this study it became extremely apparent that local governmental unit bookkeeping methods vary considerably from community to community. Data collection and comparative cost analysis is hampered by this situation. Future work may investigate and suggest a more uniform bookkeeping system of accounts. This would greatly help 144 when evaluating the cost effectiveness of community services across local government units. Additional research needs to be conducted on marketing opportunities for agricultural products grown on land treatment areas, the measurement and distribution of costs and benefits of land treat— ment system on the region, and what options for land acquisition or lease arrangements are being used and which seem to be the most suitable for the Operation Of a land treatment facility. Research on larger systems may also be able to identify aspects of economies and diseconomies Of Size. More specifically, research is needed to investigate the relationship of operation and maintenance costs and capital expenditure of land treatment and conventional 'treatment to their size in terms of gallons of wastewater treated. This information Could be useful for local decision makers, engineering consulting firms and government officials for evaluating alternatives for wastewater treatment. APPENDIX A OPERATION COSTS OF THE LAND AND CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS Table A-1. 145 Operation Costs, Harbor Springs, Population Served: Winter--3,580; Summer--5,800 Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD I. Salaries & Wages $/1,000 ga1.. II. Utilities $/l,OOO gal. III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental 1 Professional Serv. Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/l,OOO gal. TOTAL — I. II, & III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. Total $/l,OOO gal. TOTAL $/l,000 gal. 12/31/75 42 .465 33,450. .197 14,268. .084 7,045 3.386. 876. 11.307. .067 .348 6,655. 2,037. 1,950. 10,643. .063 69.669. .410 16 80 41 30 71 36 91 00 27 94 12/31/74 30 .465 32,990. .194 11.121 .065 2,799 5,296. 934. 9.030. .053 .312 5.366. 1.641 .049 61.492. .362 12 .60 07 99 06 50 .19 1,342. 8.350. 74 43 21 12/31/73 18 .465 29,971.57 .176 9.307.20 .055 3,602.29 7.204.82 225.25 11,032.36 .065 .296 8,783.82 1,441.87 1,115.67 11,341.33 .067 61,652.46 .363 146 Table A-2. Operation Costs, Wayland (1,860) Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/76 6/30/75 6/30/74 Code Number 48 36 24 Flow in MGD .184 .175 .175 I. Salaries & Wages 14,834 9,632 10,164 $/l,OOO gal. .221 .151 .159 11. Utilities 6,687 5,687 5,780 $/l,OOO gal. .099 .089 .090 III. Oper. & Maint. Exp. Supplies 1,460 333 655 Maintenance 2,680 2,317 1,355 Equipment Rental 4,893 9,465 3,685 Professional Serv. 3,224 2,764 4,721 Outside Services — - - Miscellaneous 2,044 720 2,289 Total 14,301 15,599 12,705 $/l,OOO gal. .213 .244 .199 TOTAL - I, II, & III .533 .484 .448 IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense 639 515 613 Insurance 2,221 2,114. I 1,337 Payment in lieu of ' Property Taxes 500 500 500 Total 3,360 3,129 2,450 $/l,OOO gal. .050 .049 .038 TOTAL 39,182 34,047 31,099 $/l,OOO gal. .583 .533 .487 147 Table A-3. Operations Costs, Middleville (1,800) Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/75 12/31/74 12/31/73 Code Number 42 3O 18 Flow in MGD .217 .217 .217 I. Salaries & Wages 10,913 10,770 9,688 $/l,OOO gal. .138 .136 .122 II. Utilities 6,768 6,951 5,026 $/1,000 gal. .085 .088 .063 III. Supplies 1,654 4,001 4.336 Maintenance - - - Equipment Rental - - - Professional Serv. 399 9,815 295 Outside Services 1,295 249 - Miscellaneous 106 261 908 Total 3.454 14.326 5,539 $/l,OOO gal. .044 .181 .070 TOTAL - I, II, & III .267 .405 .255 IV. Office Expense 1,086 2,122 1,463 Insurance - 376 238 Transportation Exp. - - - Total 1,086 2,498 1,701 $/l,OOO gal. .014 .031 .021 TOTAL 22,221 34,545 21,954 $/1,000 gal. .280 .436 .277 Table A-4. 148 Operation Costs, Farwell (900) Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD I. Salaries & Wages $/l,OOO gal. 11. Utilities $/l,OOO gal. III. Oper. & Maint. Exp. ‘Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional Serv. Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL - I, II, & III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. Total $/l,OOO gal. TOTAL $/1,000 gal. 2/29/76 44 .063 4,387. .285 821 .053 1,055. 35. 774. 493. 2,358. .153 .491 1,175. 286. 1,462. .095 9.029. .587 (244 days) 18 .42 75 00 36 26 37 69 56 25 22 6/30/75 36 .063 5.748. .250 1,169. .051 756. 179. 698. 225. 2,228. 177. 4,264. .185 .486 907 984. .043 12,167. .529 73 52 26 33 02 00 08 54 25 .85 76. 95 80 28 6/30/74 24 .063 3.434. .150 1,214. .053 127. 585. . 853. 1,565. .068 .271 52 39 19 32 29 80 484.11 133.65 617.76 .027 6.832. .297 47 6/30/73 12 .063 2.046. .089 1,118. .049 158. 306. 75. 320. 860. .037 .175 90. 90. .004 17 84 66 52 00 00 18 25 25 4.115.44 .179 Table A-5. 149 Operation Costs, Hart (1,815) Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD I. Salaries & Wages $/l,OOO gal. II. Utilities $/l,OOO gal. III. Oper. & Maint. Exp. Supplies 'Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional Serv. H Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL - I, II, & III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Payment in lieu of Property Taxes Transportation Exp. Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL $/1,000 gal. 6/30/76 48 .470 13,563. .079 21.013. .122 3,582. 359. 1,481 911 .047 .248 1.954. 1,675. 181 .025 46.967. .274 41 06 30 26 .49 1,769. .04 8,103. 52 61 73 81 .65 474. 4,287. 93 18 26 6/30/75 36 .470 12,168. .071 14.765. .086 1.284. 429. 731 756. .71 3.201 .019 .176 1.485. 1,083. 57. .09 3,012. 387 .017 33,148. .193 41 33 86 .27 25 21 30 02 62 32 6/30/74 24 .470 10,711.35 .062 5,679.94 .033 1,100.60 650.00 623.59 2,374.19 .014 .109 1,554.56 999.59 209.43 2.763.59 .016 21,529.06 .125 Table A-6. 150 Operation Costs, Dimondale (972) Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD 1. Salaries & Wages $/l,OOO gal. 11. Utilities $/l,OOO gal. III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional Serv. Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL - I. II, 8 III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL $/1,000 gal. 2/29/76 44 .070 .709 8,105. .317 381. 5,188. 1.083. 691. 7.344. .287 1.313 502. 216. 316. 1,035. .040 34.604. 1.354 18,119.56 35 78 17 32 00 17 89 2/29/75 32 .070 17,595. .689 6,904. .270 3.045. 3.417. 629. 764. 7.857. .307 1.266 577. .00 30. 975. 367 .038 33.332. 1.304 70 61 27 46 50 85 08 23 13 52 2/29/74 20 .070 8,273. .324 5.450. .213 2,518. 1,412. 50. 73. 4.055. .159 .696 797. 65 862 .034 18.641 .730 34 98 75 29 23 75 02 06 .00 .06 .40 2/29/73 8 .070 9,242. .361 5,426. .212 1,712. 2,165. 25. 3,903. .153 .726 845. 234. 1,079. .042 19,652. .769 94 80 56 97 00 53 48 00 48 75 151 Table A-7. Operation Costs, Jonesville (1,700) Fiscal Year Ending 12/31/75 12/31/74 12/31/73 Code Number 42 30 18 Flow in MGD .250 .250 .250 I. Salaries 8 Wages 30,817.77 23,737.07 20,686.97 $/l,OOO gal. .338 .260 .227 11. Utilities 4,908.48 4,069.68 4,878.79 $/l,OOO gal. .054 .044 .053 III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional SErv. Outisde Services Miscellaneous Total 29,717.01 18,601.87 23,033.08 $/l,OOO gal. .326 .204 .252 TOTAL - I, II, 8 III .718 .508 .532 IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. . Total 1,967.09 1,515.13 1,320.44 $/l,OOO gal. .021 .017 .014 TOTAL 67,410.35 47,923.75 49,919.28 $/1,000 gal. .739 .525 .547 Table A-8. 152 Operation Costs, Luna Pier (1,418) Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD I. Salaries 8 Wages $/l,OOO gal. II. Utilities $/l,OOO gal. III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. .Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional Serv. Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/l,OOO gal. TOTAL - I. II. 8 III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL $/1,000 gal. 6/30/76 48 .130 50.866. 1.072 7.895. .166 4.060. 1,795. 785. 92. 6,734. .142 1.38 825. 1,370. 2.195. .046 67,691 1.426 96 56 73 10 95 26 04 00 00 00 .56 6/30/75 36 .143 50.900. .975 7,355. .141 4.549. 1,563. 2,180. 19. 8,312. .159 1.275 1,006. .82 29. 2,597. 1,561 .050 69,165. 1.325 40 14 16 14 50 71 51 50 33 65 70 6/30/74 24 .157 43,231.83 .754 7,324.48 .128 4,812.89 1,018.61 131.24 5.962.74 .104 .986 1,071.00 1.071.00 .019 57,590.05 1.005 153 Table A-9. Operation Costs, Constantine (1,720) Fiscal Year Ending 2/29/76 2/29/75 2/29/74 Code Number 44 32 20 Flow in MGD .317 .390 .483 I. Salaries 8 Wages 51,983.18 42,796.84 29,371.76 $/l,OOO gal. .449 .300 .167 II. Utilities 15,809.70 14,343.05 7,507.27 " $/1,ooo gal. .137 .101 .042 III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. Supplies 8,236.82 11,723.37 8,152.52 'Maintenance 7,052.51 3,697.42 6,226.72 Equipment Rental 511.30 96.98 387.74 Professional Serv. 1,830.00 2,520.05 789.11 Outside Services - - - Miscellaneous 114.25 227.14 393.32 Total 17,744.88 18,264.96 15,949.41 $/l,OOO gal. .153 .128 .090 TOTAL - I, II, 8 III .739 .529 .299 IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense 1,252.71 1,295.75 954.93 Insurance 1,646.45 1,651.82 766.64 Transportation Exp. 416.78 495.00 312.70 Total 3,315.94 3,442.57 2,034.27 $/l,OOO gal. .029 .024 .011 ' TOTAL 88,853.70 78,837.42 54,462.71 $/1,000 gal. .768 .554 .311 154 Table A-10. Operation Costs, Imlay City (1,965) Fiscal Year Ending Code Number Flow in MGD 1. Salaries 8 Wages $/1,000 gal. II. Uti1ities $/1,000 gal. III. Oper. 8 Maint. Exp. 'Supplies Maintenance Equipment Rental Professional Serv. Outside Services Miscellaneous Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL - I, II 8 III IV. Gen. Admin. Exp. Office Expense Insurance Transportation Exp. Total $/1,000 gal. TOTAL $/1,000 gal. 48 .353 .247 5,792. .045 5,525. 2,116. 2,020. 3,385. 37. 13,085. .101 .393 720. 1,272. 94. 2,086. .016 52,776. .409 6/30/76 31,812.16 01 90 25 13 94 00 22 50 39 01 90 29 6/30/75 36 .343 27,594. .220 4,841 .039 5,844. 5,513. 2,092. 178. 28. 13.657. .109 .368 714. .32 314. 3,070. 2,041 .024 49,163. .393 .77 39 16 75 12 94 18 18 62 12 30 6/30/74 24 .338 27,620. .224 3,549. .029 5,589. 3,863. 2,034. 4,053. 20 20 95 04 67 21 218.78 15,759. .128 .381 353. 1,240. 374. 1,968. .016 48,897. .396 65 06 53 55 14 19 6/30/73 12 .311 20,710. .182 3,580. .031 4.558. 4.137 1,019. 140. 25. 9,880. .087 .300 147. 205. 14. 367. .003 34,538. .304 00 62 65 .45 28 00 00 38 60 80 78 78 APPENDIX B EXPLANATION AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL TESTS PERFORMED ON THE INTERCEPTS AND SLOPE COEFFICIENTS OF THE LINEAR REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LAND AND CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT OPERATION EXPENSES 155 Theoretical background for the significance tests of the intercepts and slopes of the regression equations are presented below along with the results of the tests. Individual Regression Equations A. YA = GO + a? XA + EA Land Treatment 8. YB = 03 + a? XB + EB Conventional Treatment including Dimondale C. YC = 08 + a? XC + EC Conventional Treatment without Dimondale Pooled Equation _ A B C A A B B C C Y - do + a0 8 + a0 C + a] X + a] X B + a] X C + E B = 1 if Conventional Treatment including Dimondale B = 0 if otherwise C = 1 if Conventional Treatment without Dimondale C = 0 if otherwise This assumes that both the slopes and intercepts are affected by the type of system used. Tests Tests of significance were conducted to determine if the slopes and intercepts of the land treatment systems regression equations were significantly different from the slope and intercept terms of the con- ventional treatment regression equations. The t-statistic and 156 significance levels are presented in Table B-1. If B is significantly different intelcept between Land Treatment Dimondale system included in the If B is significantly different integcept between Land Treatment Dimondale system included in the If B is significantly different slopg between Land Treatment and Dimondale system included in the If B is significantly different slopg between Land Treatment and Dimondale system included in the from 0 then there is a difference in and Conventional Treatment with the conventional group. from 0 then there is a difference in and Conventional Treatment without the conventional group. from 0 then there is a difference in Conventional Treatment with the conventiona1.group. from 0 then there is a difference in Conventional Treatment without the conventional group. 157 Table B-1. Summary Table of Statistical Tests on Regression Equation Intercept and Slope Coefficients Expense Category Beta t Significance I. Salaries 8 Wages 1 .1982 .844 2 .0946 .925 4 .1479 .258 5 .1732 .248 II. Utilities 1 .9188 .364 2 .2274 .821 4 .1790 .859 5 .3172 .753 III. Operation and Maintenance Expense ' 1 .0412 .304 2 .8716 .389 4 .1611 .873 5 .3209 .750 IV. Total of Categories I, II, III 1 .6301 .532 2 .1054 .917 4 .8259 .414 5 .9114 .368 V. General Administrative Expense 1 .0732 .942 2 .7644 .449 4 .7761 .442 5 .0641 .949 VI. Total Expense 1 .6149 .542 2 .0612 .952 4 .7537 .455 5 .8758 .386 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Chanlett, E. 1973. Environmental Protection. McGraw-Hill, p. 150. Christensen, L. A., Lewis, 0. 0., Libby, L. W. and L. J. Connor. 1976. Land Treatment of Municipal Waste Water, A Water Quality Option for Michigan Communities. Department of Agricultural Economics, Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, Michigan State University, East Lansing and Natural Resource Economic Division, Economic Research Service. U.S.D.A. Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University. 1974. Educational Needs Associated With the Utilization of Wastewater Treatment Products on Land.. North Central RegionaTConference Workshop, September 24-26. , Council on Environmental Quality. 1970. Environmental Quality, The First Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. p. 35. 1971. Environmental Quality, The Second Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, 1975. Environmental Quality, The Sixth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. p. 59-61. Department of Natural Resources. 1976. "The Superlist" A Listing of Michigan's Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Compiled by the Wastewater Division, Lansing, Michigan. l976a. Clean Water Bond Funds Status Report. Dworsky, Leonard B. 1967. "Analysis of Federal Water Pollution Control Legislation, 1948-1966." Journal American Water Works Associa- tion. Vol. 59, No. 6, June, pp. 651-668. Enthoven, A. C. and A. M. Freeman III. 1973. Pollution Resources and the Environment. W. W. Norton and Co., New York. Gloyna, E. F. 1971. Waste Stabilization Ponds. World Health Organi- zation. p. 15. Goldstein, S. N. and W. J. Moberg. 1973. Wastewater Treatment Systems for Rural Communities. Commission on Rural’Water, Washington, D.C. pp. 3-8. 158 159 Kneese, A. V. , Ayres, R. U. and R. C. D' Arge E. 1970. Economichand The Environment, A Materials Balanée Approach. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C. ' Kneese, Allen V. and Schultze, Charles L. 1975. Pollution, Prices and Public Policy. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C. pp. 30-31. Lewis, 0. G. 1975. "Land Disposal of Wastewater With Spray Irrigation by Small Michigan Municipalities -- Agricultural, Institutional, and Financial Characteristics," Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University. Lewis, 0. G. , Libby, L. W, Connor, L. J. and E. Dersch. 1974. Land Disposal of Wastewater With Sprayglrrigation_by Small Michiggg_ Municipalities--Agricu1tural, Institutional, and Financial Characteristics. Agricultural Economics Report No. 278, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Malhotra, S. K. and E. A. Myers. 1975. "Design Operation, and Monitor- ing of Municipal Irrigation Systems," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 47, No. 11, November, pp. 2627-2628. McGauhey, P. H. 1968. __gineering Management of Water_9uality. McGraw-Hi11,p. 267. National Commission on Water Quality. 1976. Report to the Congress by the National Commission on Water Quality. March. Okun, D. A. and G. Ponhis. 1975. Community Wastewater Collection and Disposal. World Health Organization, Geneva. Pound, C. E. and W. Crites. 1973. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse 8y Land Application. Vol. I 8 II, August. pp. 11-20. Ruff, L. E. ‘1973. "The Economic Common Sense of Pollution," Pollution, Resources and the Environment. Ed. by Enthoven, A. C. and A. M. Freeman III. W. W. Norton 8 Co., New York, p. 43. Sanks, R. L. and T. Asano. 1976. Land Treatment and Disposal of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater. Ann Arbor Science. Schoon, J. R. 1970. "Waste Stabilization Lagoons, Michigan Applica- tion," Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University. Sopper, W. E. and L. T. Kordos. Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater through Forest and Cropland. The Pennsylvania—State University Press . 160 Sutherland, J. C., Cooley, J. N., Neary, D. G. and D. Urie. 1974. Irrigation of Trees and Crops With Sewage Stabilization Pond Effluent in Southern Michigan. U.S. Congress. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Act Amendments of 1972. Pub. L. 92-500, 92nd Cong., October 18, 5.2770. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1960. Proceedings, The National Conference on Water Pollution, p. 31-34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. A Primer on Wastewater Treatment. July. Construction Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works. 1976. Handbook of Procedures. Municipal Construction Division Water Program Operations, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. February. 1975. Evaluation of Land Application Systems. March. 1975. Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application. June. . 1974. National Water Quality Inventggy, 1974 Report to Congress. Office of Water Planning and Standards. p. 22. . 1975. National Water Quality Inventory, 1975 Report to Congress. Office of Water Planning and Standards. 1973. The Economics of Clean Water - 1973. December. Young, C. E. 1974. "Economic Analysis of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University. Young, C. E. and G. A. Carlson. 1975. "Land Treatment Versus Con- ventional Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,“ Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, V01. 47. No. 11. November. "11111141111111111I