stored in lagoons, and later applied to land at controlled rates to supply the
critical nutrient requirements of food crops during the growing season. Irriga—
tion water purified by percolation through the soil would be collected in a
drainage system and then piped back to the Calumet River drainage system
near Lake Michigan to recharge the water system from which it was originally drawn for domestic and industrial use. Sludge generated by biological
treatment of the wastes would be used, after microbial digestion, as nutrients
and soil builders.
Cost estimates of the three alternative systems were made, using various
construction bid data, experience with pilot waste disposal projects, and costs
at the Muskegon County land disposal wastewater management project [50].
As seen in the table below [51], costs for comprehensive land treatment by ir—
rigation were by far the lowest, although the price tag for each system was
staggering. The $7.5 billion capital cost for the advanced biological treatment
system, for example, was exactly one—third of the highest amount estimated
by the government to be needed during 1970—1974 for municipal and indus—
trial sewers and treatment facilities throughout the entire country [52]—an—
other indication of the seemingly limitless investment that can be made in
wastewater treatment systems.
Advanced Biological
Physical-Chemical
Land
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Capital Costs*
$7,480,000,000
$6,745,000,000
$5,357,000,000
Annual Costs* *
729,000,000
673,000,000
424,000,000
(debt service,
operation and
maintenance, major
replacements)
Annual Cost per Capita
81.00
74.80
47.10
(on the basis of
_
nine million population
in 1990)
The land treatment system also produces an effluent (actually, the drainage
water from irrigation) that, in comparison with the eluent from the
other two treatment methods, is lower in BDD, suspended solids, soluble
phosphorus, ammonia—nitrogen, oils, greases, phenols, disease organisms, and
heavy metals, according to performance experience in small—scale operating
systems and in pilot plants. Another advantage to the land system would be
the reduction in the amount of air pollution it produced in comparison With
the other methods, particularly the physical—chemical system that each day
would discharge from process
stacks up
to 340 tons of nitrous oxides, ten tons
°In 1972 dollars.
° °Estimated for the period 1975—2024, allowing for a rise in yearly expenses; each system designed to treat
municipal, industrial, stormwater, and rural agn‘cultural runolf at flow rate expected in 1990.
Alternative Waste Treatment Methods
‘ 1 5
critical nutrient requirements of food crops during the growing season. Irriga—
tion water purified by percolation through the soil would be collected in a
drainage system and then piped back to the Calumet River drainage system
near Lake Michigan to recharge the water system from which it was originally drawn for domestic and industrial use. Sludge generated by biological
treatment of the wastes would be used, after microbial digestion, as nutrients
and soil builders.
Cost estimates of the three alternative systems were made, using various
construction bid data, experience with pilot waste disposal projects, and costs
at the Muskegon County land disposal wastewater management project [50].
As seen in the table below [51], costs for comprehensive land treatment by ir—
rigation were by far the lowest, although the price tag for each system was
staggering. The $7.5 billion capital cost for the advanced biological treatment
system, for example, was exactly one—third of the highest amount estimated
by the government to be needed during 1970—1974 for municipal and indus—
trial sewers and treatment facilities throughout the entire country [52]—an—
other indication of the seemingly limitless investment that can be made in
wastewater treatment systems.
Advanced Biological
Physical-Chemical
Land
Treatment
Treatment
Treatment
Capital Costs*
$7,480,000,000
$6,745,000,000
$5,357,000,000
Annual Costs* *
729,000,000
673,000,000
424,000,000
(debt service,
operation and
maintenance, major
replacements)
Annual Cost per Capita
81.00
74.80
47.10
(on the basis of
_
nine million population
in 1990)
The land treatment system also produces an effluent (actually, the drainage
water from irrigation) that, in comparison with the eluent from the
other two treatment methods, is lower in BDD, suspended solids, soluble
phosphorus, ammonia—nitrogen, oils, greases, phenols, disease organisms, and
heavy metals, according to performance experience in small—scale operating
systems and in pilot plants. Another advantage to the land system would be
the reduction in the amount of air pollution it produced in comparison With
the other methods, particularly the physical—chemical system that each day
would discharge from process
stacks up
to 340 tons of nitrous oxides, ten tons
°In 1972 dollars.
° °Estimated for the period 1975—2024, allowing for a rise in yearly expenses; each system designed to treat
municipal, industrial, stormwater, and rural agn‘cultural runolf at flow rate expected in 1990.
Alternative Waste Treatment Methods
‘ 1 5