119

6.0 SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE COMPOSTING

Septic tank sludge represents an ideal material for composting to produce a soil
amendment for use in reforestation programs, as a landfill cover material or for orchards.
A pilot-scale trial was conducted as an aid to determine the feasibility of this type of
composting for Montserrat.

6.1 SLUDGE ARISINGS IN MONTSERRAT – NATURE AND QUANTITY

At present, data from Montserrat Water Authority show that approximately 1,050,000
litres per year or 3000 litres per day of wastewater treatment plant sludge and septage
removed from residential homes, are deposited in the sludge lagoons at New
Windward300. At present the septic tank emptying service is free, and this tends to
encourage householders to make maximum use of the service. In fact, some new houses
are being built with undersized septic tanks, due to the ready availability of tank
emptying services. There are two small package wastewater treatments in Montserrat,
each of which supplies about 250 homes.

The septage and the wastewater treatment plant sludge are discharged into an unlined
lagoon at New Windward. The overflow from this lagoon flows to a second lagoon,
which represents a second stage of treatment before the overflow is discharged into the
subsoil.

Figure 6.1: Septage and sewage sludge are discharged into an unlined lagoon at New Windward. The first lagoon discharges into a
second lagoon (pictured) and the overflow from the second lagoon (pictured in top left of the photograph) discharges into the subsoil.
The lagoon supports a large algal population. The photograph was taken in July, towards the end of the dry season, when the liquid
level in the lagoon is low due to a high evaporation rate and low rainfall.
 120

Figure 6.2: Septage and sewage sludge being discharged from a vacuum tanker into the sludge lagoon at New
Windward. The sludge wagon is currently owned and operated by the Public Works Department, who are investigating
options for transferring this responsibility to the Montserrat Water Authority, and outsourcing the waste collection
service.

6.2 DESCRIPTION OF SMALL-SCALE SLUDGE COMPOSTING TRIAL

Prior to constructing a compost bin for the septic tank composting trial, an experiment
was carried out to determine the best ratio of sludge to bulking material. As no shredded
green waste was present at the time this experiment was carried out, a small sample of
brush and manure compost from the Montserrat National Trust composting
demonstration units was added to samples of sludge. This compost contained substantial
quantities of shredded green waste and was considered to be a reasonable substitute.

A sludge scoop was fabricated from scavenged materials found at the New Windward
landfill. Sludge was scooped from the bottom of the lagoon where it was thickest and had
the highest solids content. The solids content of the sludge was not known as the
Montserrat Water Authority has not, as yet, added this type of test to their sampling
program, although they have the facilities to do so. Sludge was mixed with increasing
quantities of green waste to give a homogeneous mixture which was damp but not wet.
 121

Figure 6.3: A sludge scoop was fabricated using materials scavenged from the New Windward landfill.
Septic tank sludge was scooped out of the bottom of the lagoon, where the sludge is thicker. (Photo credit
for second photograph: Pete Hobbis, 2001)

Figure 6.4: Sludge and green waste being mixed together, to determine which proportions would give a
mixture with a suitable moisture content and structure.
 122

Figure 6.5: After thoroughly mixing the sludge and green waste, a homogeneous mass was obtained. The
mixture was damp but not wet.

Figure 6.6 A compost bin was constructed from pallets scavenged from the landfill. A sign was made and
affixed to the bin explaining the trial and cautioning members of the public against touching the
composting sludge. The bin was positioned in an isolated location near the landfill site, in a small cleared
area but hidden from public view.
 123

It was determined that the best ratio of green waste to sludge to ensure a mixture with the
correct moisture content was 4:1.

A compost bin was fabricated of pallets scavenged from the landfill. Green waste was
collected at the New Windward site and shredded. This green waste primarily consisted
of Acacia trees. The shredded green waste was added to the compost bin and the sludge
was poured over it, maintaining the ratio of 4 parts green waste to one part sludge, using a
plastic bucket scavenged from the landfill to measure volume. The shredded green waste
was weighed using a spring balance. The buckets of sludge were unable to be weighed as
the mass of one bucket exceeded the capacity of the spring balance. (The mass of the
septic tank sludge added can be estimated as the mass of the equivalent volume of water).

Figure 6.7: Green waste being shredded for mixing with sludge. This is the only shredder available in the
whole country, and is a small ¾ HP model.
 124

Figure 6.8: Buckets of green waste were weighed prior to adding to the compost heap. Sludge could not be
weighed due to its high density, the mass of one bucket exceeds the maximum capacity of the spring
balance.

Figure 6.9: Green waste mixed with sludge in the ratio of 1 part sludge to 4 parts green waste. This
photograph illustrates the consistency of the initial mixture. The compost heap was covered with a final
layer of dry green waste to ensure that no sludge was exposed, to prevent a health risk to any curious people
wandering by.
 125

Figure 6.10: This photograph illustrates the condition of the sludge compost after one week of composting.
Some white patches indicate the presence of actinomycetes.

Figure 6.11: Septic tank sludge compost being turned after several weeks. The white patches indicate the
presence of Actinomycetes. It can be noted that the compost is extremely dry.
 126

The sludge compost was turned and watered once per week for several weeks. At least
two full 20-litre buckets of water were added each time. However, it was noted that this
was insufficient, at the end of the week the sludge compost was far too dry. The sludge
compost bin had been located in an area where the ground was cleared and flat, but the
bin was well hidden from public view. Unfortunately, this meant that the distance from
the water tanks near the landfill gate to the compost bin was quite large, and the slope
was very steep. To add two full buckets of water to the compost necessitated making six
trips carrying one third of a bucket each time. Due to the time-consuming nature of this
sludge-watering activity, it was not feasible for more than two 20-litre buckets of water to
be added to the sludge compost weekly.

Figure 6.12: There is no running water on site at New Windward. The only available water on site is that
which is delivered by the Water Authority to these two tanks, which have an estimated storage capacity of
10,000l each.

If the septic tank sludge composting trial is to be scaled up to a full size operation, the
shortage of water at New Windward would have to be addressed. The nearest piped water
supply is at Lookout, a distance of some 3 km away. The cost to extend the water supply
is approximately $200EC per metre301. Each time a water tanker transports water to refill
 127

the tanks at New Windward, it costs $145EC. Either way, supplying water to New
Windward is very expensive. There are some springs in the surrounding area which are
presently untapped.

6.3 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF COMPOSTING BASED ON

EXPERIMENTS

A temperature datalogger was used to record temperatures in the centre of the pile of
septic tank sludge compost, for a period of one fortnight. The compost trial commenced
one week prior to the installation of the datalogger in the centre of the compost heap.
The maximum temperature attained during this period was 52.7°C.

A graph of the logged temperatures is illustrated below. Refer to figures 6.13 (detailed)
and figure 6.14 (simplified):

Figure 6.13: Temperatures recorded in centre of pile of septic tank sludge compost, from 20/06/01 to
06/07/01.
 128

Variation in temperature with time for one-week-old Septic

Temperature (oC) Tank Sludge Compost for a period of a fortnight

60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
20/06/01
21/06/01
21/06/01
22/06/01
23/06/01
23/06/01
24/06/01
25/06/01
26/06/01
26/06/01
27/06/01
28/06/01
28/06/01
29/06/01
30/06/01
30/06/01
01/07/01
02/07/01
03/07/01
03/07/01
04/07/01
05/07/01
Date and Time

Figure 6.14: Temperatures recorded in centre of pile of septic tank sludge compost, from 20/06/01 to
06/07/01.

The average temperature over the two-week monitoring period was 37.94 °C. A
maximum temperature of 52.7 °C was reached on 23/06/01, approximately ten days after
the beginning of the composting process. A temperature of 55°C was not exceeded at any
stage during the monitoring period. This raises the question of whether adequate
pathogen destruction is likely to have occurred, especially given the high prevalence of
gastrointestinal diseases (hepatitis, typhoid and whipworm) in Montserrat. However, as
discussed in section 4.5, pathogen reduction is caused not only by heat, but also by
micro-organisms in the compost, and adequate pathogen destruction can occur at lower
temperatures, provided that these temperatures are exceeded consistently over a longer
period of time. Slightly lower temperatures have also been found to lead to faster rates of
decomposition of sewage sludge compost. 302

The USEPA standards for sanitisation of sewage sludge compost303 require a temperature
of 40°C to be attained for at least 5 days to significantly reduce pathogen levels in
compost, with the temperature exceeding 55°C for at least 4 hours during this 5-day
period. To further reduce pathogens, it is recommended that temperatures of 55°C should
be attained for at least 3 days. The septic tank sludge compost would not meet the
 129

USEPA standards. However, nevertheless testing carried out by the Montserrat Water
Authority showed that significant levels of pathogen destruction had in fact been
attained.

The pathogen content of both the sludge at the bottom of the lagoon and a sample of
sludge compost were tested at the Montserrat Water Authority Laboratory, using a
standard membrane filtration procedure, testing for faecal coliforms which are widely
used as indicator organisms. While the sludge had a pathogen content of 1.9 x 108 faecal
coliform colony forming units per gram, no pathogens were detected in the sample of
compost. Refer to Table 6.1 below:
SAMPLE TYPE DATE FAECAL COLIFORMS (cfu/g)
Sludge 4/7/01 1.9 x 108
Compost 4/7/01 ND
Table 6.1: Pathogen content of sludge and compost.

The septic tank sludge compost appeared to be composting well throughout the
demonstration period, with no problems with odour or vermin, however it reduced in pile
height only approximately 3 cm over a period of four weeks. This is believed to have
been primarily due to insufficient moisture, a problem which was difficult to rectify with
the resources available for the trial.

A Solvita test was carried out using the method described in section 4.5, on 10/07/01,
when the compost was approximately four weeks old. The NH3 rating was found to be 5
and the CO2 rating was 2, giving a compost maturity index of 2. This indicates that
possibly the C:N ratio is too high or the compost is too acidic. Acidic compost is of
concern, as Montserrat’s volcanic soils are already acidic. A Solvita result of 2 indicates
a “raw compost”, a “very active, putrescible fresh compost; high respiration-rate; needs
very intensive aeration and/or turning” This is usually associated with a stage of II in the
Dewar self-heating test. Material in this class is comparable to raw-waste and most
manures, and is suitable for raw feedstock for making mushroom compost, landspreading
on fallow soil or farm-row crops and field cultivation304.
 130

The Solvita test result is not a serious cause for concern as the compost was only 4 weeks
old at the time of testing. It is quite likely that the C:N ratio was indeed too high as it was
necessary to add four parts green waste to one part sludge to achieve the correct
consistency of the initial mix, given that there are no facilities for sludge dewatering. The
problems of high C:N ratio and low moisture content could both be resolved by adding
moisture to the compost in the form of sludge rather than clean water, an ideal solution
given the severe shortage of water at New Windward. This would obviously affect the
pathogen content of the sludge, by reinjecting a new batch of contaminants every time the
compost is watered, however provided that the compost is restricted to use for forestry
applications, orchards and landfill cover, it should not be dangerous to human health, and
in any case it will certainly not pose any greater risks than the original sludge from which
the compost was derived. If this recommendation for sludge watering is implemented,
then there should be no technical barriers to septic tank sludge composting in Montserrat.

6.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SLUDGE COMPOSTING PROCESS

The composting process for septic tank sludge is similar in principle to that which was
described in Chapter 3 for composting at a household level, for different feedstocks, in
that the essential ingredients of oxygen and moisture must be maintained at adequate
levels. For very small quantities of sludge compost, this is ensured by manually turning
and watering, whereas for larger scale composting, agricultural machinery, electric
blowers or purpose-built windrow turners are used to maintain oxygen, and water may be
automatically dispensed when moisture level detection equipment highlights a drop
below the acceptable minimum level. For small quantities of sludge compost such as
those involved in the present trial, a simple timber bin can be used, however for larger
quantities large windrows, or aerated static piles are used to ensure that the compost
assumes a shape which enables it to reach the appropriate temperature and compost
successfully. It is even possible to use in-vessel technologies, although this is less
common. For successful composting of septic tank sludge, large quantities of a bulking
agent such as woodchips or shredded green waste must be added to the sludge.
 131

As with all composting processes, septic tank sludge composting occurs in two stages305.
Firstly the waste decomposes rapidly, due to the action of micro-organisms who carry out
decomposition, consuming oxygen, reducing the volume of the waste and giving off heat.
Following this period of rapid decomposition is the maturation or curing phase where
only very limited decomposition occurs, at a very slow rate with little heat being
produced and so little oxygen consumption that it is no longer necessary to turn or aerate
the compost306.

Some of the characteristics of the feedstocks, septic tank sludge and wastewater treatment
plant sludge, are tabulated below. Refer to Tables 6.2 (septic tank sludge)307 and 6.3
(wastewater treatment plant sludge)308.

Characteristics of septage
MEASURED MEAN + STANDARD
PARAMETER DEVIATION
Total solids percent 1.47 ± 1.52
Total volatile solids percent 0.866 ± 0.984
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/l 375 ± 248
Ammonia-N mg/l 99.6 ± 45.5
Phosphorous ppm 7520 ± 1820
Sodium ppm 103000 ± 63,200
Potassium ppm 10300 ± 6470
Calcium ppm 45300 ± 10600
Magnesium ppm 8300 ± 3300
Fecal streptococcus organisms/100ml 3.5 x 106 ± 11.7x 106
Fecal coliforms organisms/100ml 5.84 x 106 ± 19.8 x 106
Table 6.2: Some typical characteristics of septage (Anderson and Machmeier, 1988).

Characteristics of wastewater treatment plant sludge

C:N RATIO, STRUCTURE, MOISTURE DEGRADABILITY TREATMENT CAUTIONS
NUTRIENTS POROSITY CONTENT REQUIRED
<20; high P, Poor High Very good Needs bulking Pathogens,
N; low K; material metals
metals

Table 6.3: Some typical characteristics of sewage sludge used for composting (Dougherty, 1999).
 132

There are three main types of technologies used for septic tank sludge composting: the
simple windrow composting system, the aerated static pile and in-vessel composting
systems. For in-vessel technologies, vertical or horizontal flow reactors may be used,
with the reactor being an agitated or stationary bed. Circular or rectangular bins may also
be used.

The simple windrow composting system consists of a number of long and narrow
compost heaps (‘windrows’) approximately 2-4.3 m wide and 1-2 m high309. The length
of the windrow depends on the available land and the quantity of incoming waste, as well
as the type of equipment used for windrow formation and turning. The windrows are
mixed and turned periodically, usually at least five times during the composting period
of 21 to 28 days. An example of a simple windrow composting system for wastewater
treatment plant sludge composting is illustrated below:

Figure 6.15: Windrow composting system for sewage sludge at Esholt, UK.

An aerated static pile composting system consists of a mixture of sludge and a bulking
agent (such as woodchips), arranged in piles, underlain by a series of pipes through
which air is passed. Air maybe blown through the piles using positive pressure or
alternatively negative pressure may be used to suck the air through. The pile height is
usually about 2-2.5m and the piles are often covered with a layer of finished compost for
 133

insulation. After a composting period of 21 to 28 days, and a maturation period of 30

days, the compost is usually screened to recover some of the bulking agent for re-use310.

In-vessel composting systems provide very careful process control. These systems use
forced aeration, stirring or tumbling to provide controlled aeration311, as well as providing
temperature and moisture content control. Some systems operate as plug-flow systems,
whereas others use an agitated bed.312 These in-vessel systems produce compost faster
than either the windrow or the aerated static pile, and they do not require a large area of
land, as well as minimising odour nuisance. They can consistently produce compost of a
very high quality. However, in-vessel composting systems have very high capital costs
and also high maintenance costs.

A comparison of the three main types of sludge composting technologies is given

below313:

Comparison of Composting Types

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES COMPOSTING PROCESS TYPE
ASP Windrow In-Vessel
High Capital Costs
Moderate Capital Costs
Low Capital Costs
High Pathogen Destruction
Good Odour Control
Good Product Stabilisation
High Land Requirement
Operation Weather-Affected
High Labour Requirements
Capacity to handle high Biosolids
Volume
High Equipment and Maintenance Cost
Best Process Control
Odour Generation Problems
Best Operation Reliability
Table 6.4: Comparison of Aerated Static Piles, Windrows and In-Vessel Composting Systems for Sludge
Composting (Spellman, 1997).
 134

In deciding which type of technology to use, the important factors to consider are the
cost, the speed and efficiency of the process, and whether any significant environmental
impacts are associated with the technology. From Table 6.4 it can be seen that the
windrow system is an excellent choice, apart from the potential for odours, and although
it does not give the best possible process control for the small volumes of sludge arisings
available on Montserrat it is considered to be highly acceptable. Odour is unlikely to be
an issue for Montserrat as the New Windward landfill is at least 3 km away from the
nearest residential area at Lookout.

6.5 BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE

COMPOSTING IN MONTSERRAT

The benefits of septic tank sludge composting are very similar to those described in
Chapter 3 for composting in general, i.e. soil conditioning, possibly some plant disease
suppression and pathogen destruction. However, septic tank sludge or municipal solid
waste compost may be even more beneficial than other types of compost such as green
waste compost, because of its higher nitrogen content314. Nitrogen is particularly useful
for leafy plants such as lettuce, spinach, celery and radishes315.

While the application of compost has generally been found to provide protection from
plant diseases (refer to Section 4.2), the higher nitrogen content of sludge compost is a
mixed blessing as some of the plant diseases are not suppressed by sludge compost as
they would be for composted bark or some other type of waste. In fact, some plant
diseases such as fireblight, Erwinia amylovora, Fusarium316 317 318 (prevalent in the West
319
Indies) and Phytophthora (also found in the Caribbean) may actually be promoted by
the high nitrogen content of sludge compost.

One of the obvious benefits of turning septic tank sludge into a useful product is that it
solves the as yet unanswered question of what to do with the sludge when the two
lagoons at New Windward become full and present a danger of overflowing. The sludge
has to go somewhere. Allowing it to overflow and run downhill into the sea is not the
 135

most environmentally acceptable option. Even if the volume of incoming waste is of such
a level that the lagoons do not overflow, over a period of years the lagoons will fill with
sludge which will build up on the base, and they will require desludging.

Composting is not without its share of problems, however. The most significant potential
drawback of septic tank sludge composting is its high cost, a cost which could perhaps be
avoided by applying the sludge directly to land in an area which is unlikely to be
accessed by members of the public. The production of leachate and contaminated runoff
must be allowed for in the design of any sludge composting operation. Most sludge
composting facilities also have potential problems with odour, machinery and vehicle
noise, visual pollution and dust. However, in Montserrat, the obvious choice of location
for a septic tank sludge composting facility is at New Windward landfill, in close
proximity to the sludge lagoons. This site is at least 3 km away from the nearest
residences at Lookout and is far enough away not to cause any public nuisance.

Sludge composting can be a lot more problematic than other types of composting, due to
the fact that most compost feedstocks are solid and have a low to medium moisture
content, whereas sludge is liquid and has an extremely high water content. The
concentration of solids in the sludge from the lagoons in Montserrat is not known at
present, however from its appearance it is considered unlikely that the sludge contains
more than about 1% dry solids. Sludge is lacking in porosity and sludge compost has a
tendency to compact320. If the moisture content of the sludge is not carefully controlled
by the appropriate addition of dry bulking agents, then there can be problems with
reduced composting temperatures and the thermodynamic balance will be affected321. If
the moisture content of the compost drops below about 30 to 35%, then the final product
will turn to dust, due to the sludge’s fine particulate consistency.

Is it better to compost septic tank sludge in Montserrat or to apply the sludge or septage
directly to the soil? While septic tank effluent or wastewater treatment plant sludge do
contain high levels of nutrients (as described in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 ) which are readily and
immediately available to plants, sludge compost has been found to release its nutrients
slowly over a longer period of time. During the wet season in Montserrat, the nutrients in
 136

septic tank sludge could easily leach out of the soil, not only failing to benefit plants but
also potentially contaminating the groundwater. Composting the sludge and septage
would avoid this problem. Compost has also been found to provide greater improvements
to the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil, compared with
uncomposted sludge322.

Composted sludge helps to improve soil structure and water retention capacity, correct
soil pH, and promote beneficial soil micro-organisms, benefits which would not be
realised if sludge or septage was directly applied323. The grease and fat content of
uncomposted sludge has also sometimes been found to cause problems, because it can not
be absorbed by soil and it causes the soil to become impervious324, possibly causing
moisture to run off the soil surface. Unstabilised raw sludge is likely to be broken down
by the soil microflora, who will produce intermediate metabolites which are not
conducive to plant growth. The soil microflora will compete with the plant roots for
nitrogen from the sludge and ammonia will be produced as part of the process325.
Unstabilised sludge will also exert an oxygen demand as it is broken down in the soil326.
These problems are avoided if the sludge is composted before use.

If septage or sludge was to be applied directly to land in Montserrat without any degree
of pre-treatment, it would have to be applied to an area which was unlikely to be accessed
by members of the public, to avoid causing a health risk. The only such suitable area
which springs to mind is Silver Hill, where septage or sludge would provide essential
nutrients for reforestation. However, the gradient of this area is very steep, and vehicle
access is very limited. It is impossible to envisage the Public Works Department’s sludge
wagon as being capable of applying septage or sludge to the steeply sloping land of the
silver hills. However, bagged compost could easily be transported on foot, or, preferably,
by horse, to this area, as well as being able to be constructively used on other parts of the
island without posing the same level of health risk and potential odour nuisance as the
raw sludge.
 137

How does composting compare with other methods of processing sludge, such as air
drying, anaerobic digestion or lime stabilisation? The main benefit of composting is that
it is much more effective in destroying or reducing pathogens than other sludge
stabilisation methods. Anaerobic digestion is primarily of value for recovering the energy
from digesting sludge, which is not feasible in Montserrat where MONLEC has a
monopoly on the energy supply. Air drying requires the construction of expensive sludge
drying beds, and does not solve the problem of final disposal of the sludge. Lime
stabilisation also does not in itself provide a use for the sludge, and is an expensive way
of treating sludge, without providing a product of the same value as compost. In short,
composting is the only sensible sludge treatment technology for Montserrat.

6.6 APPLICATION OF SLUDGE COMPOST

Given the great need for compost in Montserrat to reduce soil erosion, improve the soil’s
organic content and suppress plant diseases, it would be a great shame if septic tank
sludge compost was produced in Montserrat and then used as a landfill cover only, when
it could be diverted to other more worthwhile uses. Nevertheless, landfill cover material
is in short supply on Montserrat327, and if the landfill is to be covered then the cover
materials must come from somewhere.

Compost has been found to be particularly useful for reducing methane from landfills.
Some microbial methane oxidation occurs in all soils used as landfill cover materials,
however this effect is particularly pronounced for cover materials which contain a high
proportion of organic matter328. Compost can be used for restoration of a landfill site as
well as being used as a daily landfill cover material. For long-term restoration of a
landfill area, compost should be applied at the rate of 25-50 tonnes/ha, incorporated to a
level of 15cm in depth and then seeded with grass or clover329. It will be at least a decade,
however, before New Windward landfill’ s capacity is exceeded and restoration of the
entire site is needed.
 138

Ideally, septic tank sludge compost produced in Montserrat should be used for forestry.
For this type of end use, application rates of up to 200t/acre have been found to be
beneficial330. A typical compost produced from sewage sludge will have a nutrient
content of as much as 2% phosphorous, 2% nitrogen and 1% potassium, as well as trace
elements which are essential plant micronutrients331. Septic tank and sewage sludge in
Montserrat are unlikely to contain high levels of heavy metals, hence nitrogen is most
likely to be the limiting factor for sludge compost application. The MAFF Code of Good
Agricultural Practice (1994)332 specifies a maximum limit of 250 kg ha-1y-1 to protect
groundwater from nitrate pollution, in accordance with the EC Nitrate Directive (1991).
A sludge compost containing 2% nitrogen could thus be applied at the rate of 50 kg ha-1
y-1 without causing significant nitrate contamination of groundwater. In Montserrat,
groundwater is not being abstracted at present, and in theory higher application rates
could be used, however higher application rates are unlikely to be achieved as the
availability of shredded green waste to make sufficient sludge compost will be the
limiting factor.

6.7 BARRIERS AND INCENTIVES FOR SLUDGE COMPOSTING

The main barrier to composting in Montserrat is that the Montserratians do not want it! It
is in some respects a solution in search of a problem. The present sludge composting trial
is essentially something which has been foisted on the Montserratian public “for their
own good” and “because they ought to do it”. In spite of its obvious potential benefits,
there is no keenly felt need for sludge composting in Montserrat at present. Nevertheless,
it would be a shame if no thought was given to final disposal of the sludge, until one day
when the lagoons overflow into the sea!

Most Montserratians have a healthy aversion for septic tank sludge. Public reaction to the
use of septic tank sludge compost is likely to be unfavourable. Concerns raised by the
public would have to be addressed by appropriate restrictions on the use of the compost,
as well as extensive public education and public relations prior to its introduction. The
septic tank sludge composting facility itself, if located at New Windward landfill, is
 139

unlikely to be of concern, it is the use of the compost which will not be highly regarded.
To make the use of sludge compost acceptable, it may be necessary to apply it to
restricted areas only, even though laboratory testing for pathogens may indicate that it is
suitable for use anywhere in Montserrat. Demonstration projects where the public would
be able to see sludge compost in use may also be helpful 333.

In industrialised countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the heavy
metal content of wastewater treatment plant sludges (and hence of any compost produced
from them) is of major public concern. However, this is much less likely to be a problem
in Montserrat, where there are no major industries and the two small package treatment
plants cater for residential populations only. The sludge composting process has been
found to bind the metals present in the sludge, preventing them from being leached into
groundwater and reducing the amounts taken up by plants334.

As discussed previously, the absence of a suitable water supply at New Windward

landfill is a major disincentive to the implementation of any type of large or small scale
composting at this otherwise ideal location. There is also no electric power available on
site. The water requirements for composting can be quite high, up to 300 gallons per
cubic yard of finished compost, over the entire composting period335. The nearest piped
water supply is at Lookout, which is supplied from Brimms Ghaut and Hillsgate.336 The
cost to extend the water supply from Lookout is approximately $600,000 EC. Water can
be delivered to New Windward, for a fee of $145 EC per trip337.

There are two presently untapped springs which could potentially supply water to New
Windward, at Big River and Bottomless Ghaut, and one spring at Gingerground which
was used prior to the volcano crisis338, however these springs are still a distance of at
least 2.5 km away (refer to figure 1.2). There are also two wells at Blackburne airport,
very close to New Windward, however, they are in the exclusion zone, and probably
could not be safely accessed for monitoring or maintenance. The water supply problem
could be ameliorated by using sludge to water the compost.
 140

The availability of suitable materials to use amendments or bulking agents is likely to be

a limiting factor for sludge composting in Montserrat. While 3000 litres of sludge per day
are available, for a ratio of four parts green waste to one part sludge by volume,
approximately 12 tonnes/day of shredded green waste or equivalent would be needed, to
turn all of the sludge into compost (Not allowing for the use of some sludge instead of
clean water, for compost watering). Even 2 or 3 tonnes/day of shredded green waste will
be difficult to procure in Montserrat. The Public Works Depot, the only potential large
supplier of shredded green waste in Montserrat, have expressed greater interest in
delivering their green waste to three decentralised locations at St Peter’s, Lookout and
Davy Hill, to be used for community composting or backyard composting schemes by
residents of these communities. Apart from shredded green waste, there is no other
suitable amendment material available in Montserrat. Woodchips, straw or rice hulls do
not exist in Montserrat, and as most timber and furniture is imported there is not likely to
be a substantial quantity of sawdust available. Screening will definitely be necessary for
any sludge compost produced in Montserrat, to recover as much as possible of the very
scarce amendment material.

6.8 FEASIBILITY OF SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE COMPOSTING IN

MONTSERRAT

If septic tank sludge composting was to be carried out in Montserrat, then it would have
to be carried out at a low cost, otherwise it would be economically unjustified and the raw
sludge should be used directly instead, after some other type of pathogen –destruction
process such as lime stabilisation. It is impossible to envisage that the economic value of
septic tank sludge compost could ever exceed the cost of expensive equipment such as
blowers and windrow turners, especially given the small volume of sludge arisings. A
manual system of windrow formation and turning similar to that used in Coimbra,
Brazil339 is more likely to be affordable, and would create employment.

How much sludge compost could feasibly be produced in Montserrat? A green waste
availability of 40kg/day is likely to be a very generous estimate. This would allow
 141

approximately 10 kg/day of sludge to be composted. Assuming a compost yield factor of

0.2 (lower than for MSW composting due to the higher moisture content of the sludge
feedstock), 10 kg/day of sludge compost would be produced or 3.65 tonnes/year. This
volume is much to small to meet the likely demand for compost in Montserrat, however it
could profitably be used for reforestation of the Silver Hills.

In other countries with larger quantities of sludge and waste arisings, and a very different
set of environmental problems from those which face Montserrat, it is customary to
compost sludge and municipal solid waste together. For Montserrat, this would be far
more trouble than it’s worth and is not even worth considering.

6.8.1.Factors Affecting The Design

Factors affecting the design of any sludge composting plant include cost, availability and
appropriateness of different composting technologies, legislation, market or end use for
the compost, environmental issues, worker health and safety, impact on the community,
operation and maintenance requirements and product quality.

As discussed in section 6.4, the only suitable choice of technology for Montserrat is a
simple windrow composting system. There is no need for specialised compost turning
equipment, a bulldozer or even manual labour is more appropriate. There will be no need
for marketing the compost as the compost will be used for forestry applications only,
primarily for reforestation of the Silver Hills. The Forestry Department would need to
agree to sludge compost being used for this purpose.

Any new composting plant in Montserrat would require planning permission from the
Development Control Authority in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
Ordinance (No. 27, 1975) and the Land Development Authority Ordinance (No. 9, 1971).
The plan would have to be designed to comply with other legislation such as the Public
Health Ordinance (No. 16, 1981), Public Health (Nuisances) Regulation (No. 12, 1983)
and the Underground Water Ordinance (No. 7, 1967).
 142

There will be few adverse environmental impacts resulting from the sludge composting
facility, as it will be located at New Windward, at least 3 km away from the nearest
residence at Lookout. Product quality is likely to be quite acceptable for use in forestry
applications, even if the process is not carefully controlled. Certainly it will be no worse
than applying the original uncomposted sludge. An extensive public relations campaign
will have to be carried out prior to the use of compost from the facility, even though few
members of the public will come into contact with it, because of the local prevailing
feeling of distaste for septic tanks and sludge. Operation and maintenance, as well as
worker health and safety, are discussed in section 6.8.4 below.

6.8.2 Design Details

Site selection is an important part of the design of any new composting plant. As the
sludge lagoons are located at New Windward landfill, a site which is at least 3 km away
from the nearest residence at Lookout, the landfill site is the obvious choice for a sludge
composting facility. New Windward covers an area of 25 acres and its life span is
predicted to be 15-20 years340. Land in Montserrat is expensive at $1.50-$2.00 EC per
square foot341, however it is likely that there is land available. The area required for a
composting plant is not more than about 1500m2, which is only 1.5% of the total area of
land at New Windward. If land had to be purchased in the area adjacent to New
Windward landfill, the cost would be approximately $50,000EC. A map of the New
Windward landfill site is illustrated overleaf342.

A process flowchart for the basic windrow composting process is illustrated below343:

Figure 6.16: Flowchart for the windrow composting process (Benedict, 1988).
 143

The process used will be identical to that shown in Figure 6.16 with the exception that the
sludge will not be dewatered prior to mixing with the shredded green waste amendment.
This dewatering is not only considered an unnecessary expense, but also it would only
exacerbate the problems caused by a shortage of water at the landfill site.
 144

Figure 6.17: Map of New Windward landfill showing the approximate location of the proposed sludge
compost facility (Lands and Survey Department, 2001)
 145

The area chosen for the sludge composting facility would need to be levelled and a
cement slab would be needed to allow any leachate or runoff produced during the wet
season to be collected. It is recommended that one or more 10,000 litre tanks (similar to
the existing water tanks) be purchased for storage of any leachate collected during the
wet season to use for compost watering during the dry season. As there is no electric
power supply on site it is recommended that a solar powered water pump be purchased
for this leachate collection and recirculation. Note that due to the problem of wandering
livestock, the solar pump, and indeed the entire composting site, would need to be
appropriately fenced. A suitable fence would also help to discourage vermin.

Figure 6.18 A renewable power supply installation adjacent to New Windward landfill is enclosed in a
building and elevated where it is in no danger of being destroyed by the wandering cow pictured at right. A
similar degree of protection is needed for any power supply used for the sludge composting facility.
 146

Preliminary design calculations for sizing of a sludge composting facility have been
carried out using a spreadsheet developed by Professor E.I. Stentiford of the University of
Leeds. The design details are tabulated overleaf. A solids content of 35% has been
assumed, as well as a bulk density of 0.6 t/m3 for the shredded green waste. A pile height
of 1.6m and width of 3m has been chosen for the windrows as it is most likely that they
will be turned manually due to a shortage of suitable plant at affordable prices. A volume
reduction factor of 0.5 and a compost yield factor of 0.4 have been assumed. A
composting time of 8 weeks and a maturation period of 4 months have been chosen to
ensure adequate pathogen destruction, with extra time being allowed to make up for high
evaporation rates during Montserrat’s dry season, which are believed to be the cause of
lowered composting temperatures. The University of Leeds spreadsheet includes
provisions for sizing of a biofilter however this will not be necessary in Montserrat due to
the low potential for odour nuisance.

These preliminary design calculations show that an area of approximately 726 m2 is

needed for the composting windrows, with only an additional 0.4m2 required for storage
of the compost during the maturation period. An additional 775m2 will be allowed for
operator facilities and equipment storage, bringing the total land area required for the
facility to approximately 1500 m2.

It is not considered necessary for the composting area to be roofed, this would merely
represent an unnecessary expense. A shredder and a screen will need to be purchased or
procured. A front end loader or bulldozer can be hired from Wall Trading by the day, but
this is prohibitively expensive and it would be cheaper to purchase from elsewhere. To
reduce costs, manual labour can be used for windrow formation and turning. A
McCullough 1600 W shredder344 or equivalent is suitable for use at New Windward for
an approximate cost of $199USD. A Morbark 627 Trommel screen345 or equivalent could
be purchased, although it is slightly oversized and a custom built timber and mesh screen,
similar to that which is used at the National Trust for the preparation of potting mix,
would be far more appropriate. Plans for building a simple compost screen are available
on the internet346 at the following website URL: http://www.bra.org/screen.htm .
147
148
 149

A storage area of 5m x 10m = 50m2 will be allowed for stockpiling shredded green waste.
The waste will be screened before maturation to minimise the area needed for storing
compost while it is curing. A roofed building of 10m x 5m = 50m2 will be provided for
facilities for the operators, storage of the shredder and screen when not in use and storage
of batteries etc. for the site’s power supply.

Using a cement slab is necessary to allow year round access for vehicles such as
bulldozers347 which may be used for form windrows, or even to allow manual windrow
turning without the operators wading up to the knees in mud. The cement slab for the
compost facility will be graded with a slope of 1:100, with small grooves or channels
marked on it to enable collection of the leachate. The windrows will be constructed along
the length of these grooves to prevent the leachate from ponding. There is no need for a
walled building for the composting or maturation areas as there are no neighbours to
experience an odour nuisance.

A small pond will be needed to collect leachate which runs off the slab. As the cement
slab has an area of 1833m2 and the mean daily rainfall is approximately 5.03mm348, a
lagoon with a volume of at the very least 9.220 m3 or 9220 litres would be needed. Using
a design factor of 2.0 to allow for differences between the wet and dry season and
rounding up, a volume of 18,500 litres is needed. Using a depth of 3m and allowing 25%
extra for the lagoon’s sloping sides, the lagoon will be 5m x 1.85m x 3m deep.

This brief outline of the design process has been provided solely to determine the
feasibility of septic tank sludge composting, to decide whether the concept can be
discarded in the early stages or is worth pursuing. Prior to the implementation of a full-
scale sludge composting plant, a much more accurate detailed design would have to be
undertaken. Please note also that no provisions have been made for future expansion
when the population of Montserrat increases.

6.8.3 Plant Layout

A diagram of a suggested plant layout is illustrated overleaf.
 150

Direction of work flow Direction of work flow

Leachate lagoon

1 in 100
Shredding area
Windrows

Maturation area
Active Composting Area

Finished compost
storage area

Shredding area for Operator facilities, power

shredding Green waste Water
storage area storage supply, storage of shredder
green wastes Access Road
and screen when not in use

Direction of work flow

Scale in Metres

Prevailing wind direction Existing Sludge Lagoons 0 10 20

Figure 6.19 LAYOUT OF SEPTIC TANK SLUDGE COMPOSTING FACILITY
 151

6.8.4 Operation And Maintenance

Routine operation of the sludge composting plant will include forming and turning
windrows, and monitoring temperature, dissolved oxygen, moisture content and pathogen
levels. Records would have to be kept of compost production, monitoring results and
equipment maintenance. A detailed operational plan would have to be devised prior to the
introduction of the facility, including provisions for worker health and safety and
minimising the plant’s environmental impact. All workers at the plant would be expected
to comply with the requirement to use personal protective equipment such as dust masks,
overalls, boots and hearing protection (when operating noisy equipment).

It is not envisaged that there will be enough work for more than two employees. The site
will operate five days a week only and is likely to close down at lunchtime on a Friday in
accordance with local customs.

The initial C:N ratio of the green waste/sludge mix used for composting should be about
30:1. The Solvita test carried out on the pilot scale sludge compost trial indicated that for
a mix of 4 parts green waste to 1 part sludge, the C:N ratio may be too high. It may be
necessary to reduce the green waste content of the sludge to give an initial ratio of 3:1, if
the composting process appears to be too slow. Further experimentation is needed to
determine whether this will raise the moisture content of the mixture too much.

During the dry season in Montserrat, when the evaporation rate is high, the moisture
content of the sludge will have to be carefully controlled. Usually, the moisture content
should be maintained in the range 35-40% by mass. As the moisture content decreases
below about 45%, biological activity declines, and below about 12%, microbial activity
ceases altogether. If the sludge windrows have a low moisture content, they will be
physically stable but biologically unstable349. The oxygen level of the compost should be
maintained above approximately 20%, by turning as frequently as necessary to exceed
this level. This will ensure that the process does not become anaerobic. Operating
temperature should be maintained in the range from 55 to 60°C, if possible. Temperatures
 152

of less than 55°C may not be adequate to ensure pathogen destruction, and temperatures
above 60°C will result in reduced microbial activity.

A bulldozer or front end loader may be needed to form and possibly turn the windrows,
unless this process is done manually. First the green waste is stacked in piles, then the
sludge is extracted from the lagoon, measured and poured over the green waste. The
green waste and the sludge are turned and mixed together, and then windrows are formed.
Usually, the optimum height of the windrow is from 1.0 to 2.0m, with a base of 2 to 4.3
m. For the present design, a width of 3m and a height of 1.6m has been chosen. This
should hopefully still be manageable, even if it is necessary to use manual labour for
windrow turning. The windrows should be made trapezoidal in shape. While trapezoidal
windrows lead to slower composting and slightly less uniform temperatures than
triangular or ‘delta’ windrows350, trapezoidal windrows are better at allowing excess
rainwater to run off the compost, which will be very important in Montserrat’s wet
season. During the dry season, a trapezoidal shape can still be used, however the top
should be slightly concave to allow the little rain that falls to be retained as much as
possible to moisten the compost.

If compost is turned 2-3 times per week, compost can be formed from sludge in as little
as 3-4 weeks, however to ensure adequate pathogen reduction it is recommended that the
composting process continue for 8 weeks in total, followed by 4 months of maturation.
This should not cause any problems, as there is no keenly felt need for the compost
product as yet, and there is likely to be sufficient land available in the New Windward
area for storage.

The finished product will be screened before use to recover as much as possible of the
green waste, which is difficult to procure and requires the use of the island’s only
shredder. It is recommended that a shredder be purchased for the exclusive use of the
septic tank sludge compost, if this project does in fact proceed. The compost should be
left to dry before screening, as a moisture content of less than 50% has been found to
greatly improve the screening process, with certain types of screens351.
 153

It is recommended that periodic testing for pathogens in the compost be carried out, at
least once a week provided that the Montserrat Water Authority have the resources and
agree to take on this monitoring task. It would be desirable to carry out occasional
monitoring of the finished compost for heavy metal content or other potentially toxic
elements, especially if it will be used for applications other than forestry, however this
will necessitate the sample being shipped to a laboratory in St Lucia and the expense may
not be justified.

Usually variations in sludge loading and moisture content must be taken into account
when operating any sludge composting facility352. However, as the sludge will be
obtained from the nearby lagoon, which has a large storage capacity and acts as an
equalising tank, this is unlikely to be an issue for Montserrat.

All equipment used on site should be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specifications. If the composting facility employees are not trained to carry out
maintenance activities, then this job should be outsourced to the Public Works
Department (PWD).

6.8.5 INDICATIVE COSTS

The capital cost of this system is likely to be fairly low unless it is decided to extend the
water supply from Lookout. It will be necessary to install power on site for operation of
an electric shredder and for operator facilities. The primary component of operating costs
will be labour353. Other operational costs will include equipment maintenance (if
outsourced to PWD) and transport of the finished compost to Silver Hill for application.

To give an idea of the order of magnitude involved, larger windrow sludge composting
systems in the United States have incurred capital costs in the range $50,000-$8 million
USD. This works out to $2.15 to $245 /dry ton354. A few preliminary calculations have
been carried out using a spreadsheet developed by Professor Ed Stentiford of the
 154

University of Leeds for costing of green waste composting. This spreadsheet has been
modified to reflect local conditions (e.g. construction of a shredder rather than purchase)
and local costs, where these are known (e.g. labour on Montserrat costs approximately
$15 per hour with 10% added for social security,355 cost to hire a D8 bulldozer is $3120
ECD/day356). The spreadsheet calculations represent a worst case – purchase of
equipment such as a front end loader, and the use of 10,000 litres per week of water,
trucked in rather than piped to the site. Based on the assumptions made, capital costs for
the sludge composting facility should not exceed $425,000 ECD, and annual operating
costs should not exceed approximately $145,000 ECD. The cost of production is
approximately $145,000 ECD per tonne of finished compost (using a front end loader
instead of manual labour), however the use of manual labour reduces this cost to only
$130,000, still an exorbitant sum. Calculated values from the spreadsheet are tabulated
on page 156 (Table 6.6).

Only costs have been calculated, not revenue, as the product will not be sold but will be
used for reforestation of the Silver Hills. It will not be replacing any existing product, and
the benefits or reduced soil erosion cannot be easily quantified, as new topsoil cannot
simply be purchased to replace that which would erode away without the septic tank
sludge compost. Compost in the US retails for approximately $25USD per cubic yard357,
which is $67.50ECD per cubic yard, $88.30 per cubic metre or $176.60 ECD per tonne,
which appears to be very much cheaper than the cost calculated above. Thus even
allowing for import duties and shipping costs, it may actually be very much cheaper to
import compost from overseas.

It must be stressed that these costs are based on very preliminary investigations only, and
before a full scale plant is built these calculations should be revisited, looking at costs of
earthworks, concreting, equipment availability for hire, availability of skilled personal
and training costs etc. Time has not permitted such a detailed examination in the present
case, nor is it appropriate for a feasibility study, and of course a detailed costing exercise
would be a waste of resources until after extensive public education and promotion of
sludge composting, and market research, indicates that there is indeed both public
 155

acceptance of the product and a genuine need is perceived by the people themselves, not
imposed by “foreign experts”. While it has been shown the septic tank sludge composting
is indeed technically feasible in Montserrat, the calculated indicative costs of a small
plant are quite substantial, due to the unique circumstances of Montserrat and the small
volumes involved, and it appears highly unlikely that the government of Montserrat
would place a high priority on such a project and allocate resources to it.
156
157
 158

6.8.6 CONCLUSIONS

Considering the results obtained from the experiments on the sludge composting trial, and
the small area of land needed for a full scale plant, it is considered that the introduction of
a septic tank sludge composting facility is technically feasible. However, a preliminary
costing indicates that the construction of a sludge composting facility cannot really be
justified on economic grounds. In fact, it may actually be cheaper to import compost and
find an alternative means of final disposal of septic tank sludge. If political will exists to
divert funds from other areas, then the facility can be constructed. However, given
Montserrat’s current problems and priorities, it seems unlikely that such a plant will
eventuate for some years into the future (if at all), perhaps after the sludge lagoons have
started to visibly overflow into the sea.

Due to the likely public opposition to the introduction of septic tank sludge compost,
even for forestry applications, the plant should not be introduced without extensive
promotion and marketing, where this can be found to influence public opinion in favour
of sludge composting. Without public support and recognition of the need for septic tank
sludge composting, it should not be introduced.
 159

300
Tonge, Bill, Montserrat Water Authority, personal communication, 2001.
301
Montserrat Water Authority administration, personal communication, 2001.
302
URL: http://www.weblife.org/humanure/chapter3_10.html The Humanure Handbook Chapter 3
Compost Biodiversity
303
URL: http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/envqual/wq0424.htm WQ424 Biosolids Standards for
Pathogens and Vectors.
304
URL: http://www.woodsend.org/solvita.htm Solvita Compost Maturity Test
305
URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099
Composting Yard Trimmings and Municipal Solid Waste
306
Dougherty, Mark, Field Guide to On-Farm Composting, Ithaca, New York, Natural Resource
Agriculture and Engineering Service, 1999.
307
Anderson, J.L. and Machmeier, R.E., Establishment of State Rules for Land Application and Utilization
of Septage, chapter in American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Onsite Wastewater Treatment, vol. 5:
Proceedings Of The Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Systems, December
14-15, 1987, St Joseph, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1988.
308
Dougherty, Mark, Field Guide to On-Farm Composting, Ithaca, New York, Natural Resource
Agriculture and Engineering Service, 1999, page 29.
309
Metcalf &Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, New York, McGraw Hill,
1991.
310
Metcalf &Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, New York, McGraw Hill,
1991.
311
Rynk, Robert, On-Farm Composting Handbook, Ithaca, New York, Natural Resource Agriculture and
Engineering Service, 1992.
312
Metcalf &Eddy, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, New York, McGraw Hill,
1991.
313
Spellman, Frank R. Wastewater Biosolids to Compost, Lancaster, PA, Technomic Publishing Co. 1987.
314
URL: http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical99/tr23-99.pdf Waste-free:’ Vermicompost’ to
improve agricultural soils.
315
Spellman, Frank R. Wastewater Biosolids to Compost, Lancaster, PA, Technomic Publishing Co. 1987,
page 48.
316
Kato, K., Fukaya, M, and Tomita, I., Effect of successive applications of various soil amendments on
tomato Fusarium wilt. Re. Bull. Of the Aichi Agric. Res. Center , 1981, vol 13, pp 199-208, cited in
Hoitink, H.A.J., Boehm, M.J. and Hadar, Y., Mechanisms of Suppression of Soilborne Plant Pathogens in
Compost-Amended Substrates, in Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental,
Microbiological and Utilization Aspects, Worthington, Ohio, Renaissance Publications, 1993.
317
Lumsden, R.D., Lewis, J.A. and Millner, P.D., Effect of composted sewage sludge on several soilborne
pathogens and diseases, Phytopathology, 1983, Vol. 75, pp. 1543-1548, cited in Hoitink, H.A.J., Boehm,
M.J. and Hadar, Y., Mechanisms of Suppression of Soilborne Plant Pathogens in Compost-Amended
Substrates, in Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and
Utilization Aspects, Worthington, Ohio, Renaissance Publications, 1993.
318
Hoitink, Harry A.J. and Fahy, Peter C., Basis for the control of soilborne plant pathogens with compost,
Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1986, Vol. 24, pp.93-114, cited in Hoitink, H.A.J., Boehm, M.J. and
Hadar, Y., Mechanisms of Suppression of Soilborne Plant Pathogens in Compost-Amended Substrates, in
Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects,
Worthington, Ohio, Renaissance Publications, 1993.
319
Hoitink, H.A.J., Watson, M.E. and Faber, W.R., Effect of nitrogen concentration in juvenile foliage of
Rhododendron on Phytophthora dieback severity, Plant Disease, vol.70, no.4, pp 292-294, 1986 cited in
Hoitink, H.A.J., Boehm, M.J. and Hadar, Y., 1993, ibid.
320
Engers and Coppola, 1986, cited in Ng, Mee Weng, Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment,
MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University of Leeds, 2001.
 160

321
Haug, R.T. , Compost Engineering Principles and Practice, Arbor Science, Michigan, 1980, cited in Ng,
Mee Weng, Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment, MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University of
Leeds, 2001.
322
URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099 Biosolids
Generation, Use and Disposal, in the United States.
323
URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099 Biosolids
Generation, Use and Disposal, in the United States.
324
Spellman, Frank R. Wastewater Biosolids to Compost, Lancaster, PA, Technomic Publishing Co. 1987.
325
De Bertoldi, M, Vallini, G. and Pera, A. (1984), Technological Aspects of Composting Including
Modelling and Microbiology, in Gasser, J.K.R. (ed), Composting of Agricultural and Other Wastes,
Agricultural and Food Research Council, Elsevier Applied Science, London, cited in Ng, Mee Weng,
Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment, MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University of Leeds, 2001.
326
Kuai,L., Doulami, F. and Vestraete, W. (1999) Sludge Treatment and Reuse as a Soil Conditioner for
Small Rural Communities, Bioresource Technology, Vol. 73, No.3, 213-219, July 2000 cited in Ng, Mee
Weng, Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment, MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University of Leeds,
2001.
327
Rigby, Jenny, Report. Waste Management Sector Review, Montserrat, May 2000.
328
Jones and Nedwell, cited in Warren Spring Consultancy, Shanks and McEwan (Energy Services) Ltd,
and David Border Composting Consultancy, The Technical Aspects of Controlled Waste Management
Markets and Quality Requirements for Composts and Digestates for the Organic Fraction of Household
Wastes, Report No. CWM 147/96, Department of the Environment, December 1996.
329
Dunn, Roger, Nortcliff, Steve, Baker, R. Martin, Kendle, Tony, Pickering, Jon and Hadley, Paul, The
Technical Aspects of Controlled Waste Management – Horticultural and Landscape Use of Municipal and
Green Waste Compost, Report No. CWM/124/94, Wastes Technical Division, Environment Agency, 1994.
330
Warren Spring Consultancy, Shanks and McEwan (Energy Services) Ltd, and David Border Composting
Consultancy, The Technical Aspects of Controlled Waste Management Markets and Quality Requirements
for Composts and Digestates for the Organic Fraction of Household Wastes, Report No. CWM 147/96,
Department of the Environment, December 1996.
331
Spellman, Frank R. Wastewater Biosolids to Compost, Lancaster, PA, Technomic Publishing Co. 1987.
332
MAFF, Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Soil, London, Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, Welsh Office Agriculture Department, 1998, cited in Warren Spring Consultancy,
Shanks and McEwan (Energy Services) Ltd, and David Border Composting Consultancy, The Technical
Aspects of Controlled Waste Management Markets and Quality Requirements for Composts and Digestates
for the Organic Fraction of Household Wastes, Report No. CWM 147/96, Department of the Environment,
December 1996.
333
URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099 Biosolids
Generation, Use and Disposal, in the United States.
334
USEPA, Compost-New Applications for an Age-old Technology, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, EPA503-F-97-047, October, 1997, cited in URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099 Biosolids
Generation, Use and Disposal, in the United States.
335
URL: http://www.weblife.org/humanure/chapter3_6.html The Humanure Handbook Chapter 3 Four
Necessities for Good Compost
336
Mappie (Philemon Murrain) Botanical Gardens Manager, Montserrat National Trust, personal
communication, 2001.
337
Montserrat Water Authority, personal communication, 2001.
338
Montserrat Water Authority, Montserrat Water Authority Silver Anniversary 25 years 1972 – 1997,
Sweeney’s, Montserrat, Montserrat Water Authority, 1997, Page 14.
 161

339
Solid Waste in Brazil, videotape from BBC television program, undated.
340
Helen Meekings, DFID, personal communication, 2001.
341
West Indies Real Estate, personal communication, 2001.
342
Montserrat Lands and Survey Department, 2001.
343
Benedict, Arthur H., Epstein, Eliot and Alpert, Joel, Composting Municipal Sludge A Technology
Evaluation, Pollution Control Review No. 152, Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1988.
344
URL: http://www.composters.com/docs/acc.html Electric chipper/shredder
345
URL: http://www.morbark.com/equipment_specs/627trommel.htm Equipment Specs 627 Trommel
Screen
346
URL: http://www.bra.org/screen.htm The Compost Screen
347
URL: http://www.cityfarmer.org/paulcomp66.html#Vanccompost City of Vancouver Composting
Initiatives
348
Delaney, Rosemary Pauline, Fox’s Bay Wetland Montserrat: Ecology, Hydrology, and Water Quality.
Implications for Management, Master of Science Thesis, Department of Biology, University of the West
Indies, Barbados, 1995.
349
Ng, Mee Weng, Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment, MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University
of Leeds, 2001, p. 25.
350
Friends of the Earth, Compost! Friends of the Earth’s Guide for Local Authorities, London, Friends of
the Earth, March 1993.
351
Haug, R T., Compost Engineering Principles and Practice, Michigan, Arbor Science, 1980, cited in Ng,
Mee Weng, Potential use of Composting for Sludge Treatment, MSc Dissertation, Leeds, University of
Leeds, 2001.
352
Benedict, Arthur H., Epstein, Eliot and Alpert, Joel, Composting Municipal Sludge A Technology
Evaluation, Pollution Control Review No. 152, Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1988.
353
Benedict, Arthur H., Epstein, Eliot and Alpert, Joel, Composting Municipal Sludge A Technology
Evaluation, Pollution Control Review No. 152, Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1988.
354
URL:
http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/0/default.asp?realname=EPA+Office+of+Solid+Waste&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepa%2Egov%2Fosw&frameid=1&providerid=0&uid=10264099 Biosolids
Generation, Use and Disposal in the United States
355
Meekings, Helen, Department for International Development, personal communication, 2001.
356
Wall Trading, personal communication, 2001
357
URL: http://www.fertilegarden.com/bulk.asp Fertile Garden Supply Organic Garden Catalog: Bulk
Materials