United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA—600/2-82-039
January 1982
Research and Development
c/EPA
Operation and Maintenance
Considerations for Land
Treatment Systems
-------
EPA-600/2-82- 039
January 1982
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS
FOR
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
by
Roy F. Weston, In-c.
Designers-Consultants
Weston Way
West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2775
Project Officer
Jon H. Bender
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
of commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of
pollution to the health and welfare of the American people.
Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony
to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity
of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in
problem solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring
its impact and searching for solutions. The Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory develops new and improved technology
and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management of
wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the
adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pol-
lution. This publication is one of the products of that
research; a most vital communication link between the researcher
and the user community.
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the operation
and maintenance considerations at operating land treatment
facilities throughout the United States. Since the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency has been encouraging the use of
alternative technologies the Plant Operation and Design Program
funded this project to determine if there were any chronic O&M
problems or design deficiencies limiting the performance at
operational facilities. This project also documented the O&M
costs of land treatment systems to determine if there were
significant differences between actual costs and those reported
in the literature.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Recently conducted research on land treatment has focused on
the areas of process development and the long-term environmental
effects of land application of wastewater. The previous
research, however, did not focus on the issue of operation and
maintenance of the land treatment facilities following design,
construction, and initial start-up. The objective of this study
was to focus on strategies and problems associated with the
operation and maintenance of item facilities.
The study focused on the three major types of land applica-
tion systems, i.e., slow rate, rapid infiltration, and overland
flow. In addition, the effect of various methods and levels of
pretreatment prior to land application were studied. Therefore,
the impact of both prior treatment and the type of land treat-
ment system in use was assessed in terms of operation and main-
tenance of the various facilities.
Toward this goal, 28 land application sites throughout the
United States were visited. During the site visits, the infor-
mation obtained was divided into two general categories: O&M
practices currently in use at the facilities, and O&M-related
factors which hinder operation of the facilities. The O&M prac-
tices currently in use at the facilities were further divided
into staffing, process control and operation, and O&M costs.
The second category of information collected during the site
visits was related to factors that hinder operation and mainte-
nance of the land treatment sites. This category included
design deficiencies, mechanical reliability, plant layout, cli-
mate, and operator limitations. Where applicable, groundwater
monitoring was reviewed, and in addition, the adequacy of buffer
zones was assessed through interviews with site neighbors.
Following the 28 site visits (which consisted of 18 slow
rate, seven rapid infiltration, and four overland flow land
treatment facilities) and the data analysis portion of the
study, the following conclusions have been drawn. For the sites
visited, the slow rate system staffing requirements and O&M
costs are lower than reported in the literature, whereas rapid
infiltration and overland flow system costs and staffing
requirements are in agreement with the literature data. Addi-
tionally, both slow rate and rapid infiltration systems are ade-
IV
-------
quately operated, and insufficient data exist to assess overland
flow operations.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No.
68-02-2775 by Roy F. Weston, Inc., under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the
period 2 January 1979 to 31 December 1980, and the work was com-
pleted as of 31 December 1980.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures xi
Tables xlx
Acknowledgement xxi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions . 4
3. Recommendations 6
4. Background Information 7
Land treatment of wastewater 7
Slow-rate land treatment .7
Rapid infiltration land treatment 8
Overland flow land treatment 8
Regulation summary 9
5. Project Implementation ... .14
Evaluation of land treatment systems 15
Site locations 16
Site data 16
Types of data collected 24
Other considerations 24
6. Evaluation of Current Operation and Maintenance
Practices 27
Conformance of sites visited with BPWTT
requirements . . . 36
Land treatment operation procedures . . 39
Land treatment maintenance practices 41
Buffer 3ones 42
Management and staffing strategies 43
Slow-rate systems 43
Rapid infiltration systems 44
Overland flow systems . 45
Land treatment systems staffing levels 45
Effects of preapplication treatment on operational
requirements . . 58
Slow-rate systems 58
Rapid infiltration systems 59
Overland flow systems 59
7. Land Treatment Operation and Maintenance Costs ... .61
-------
CONTENTS
Land treatment operation and maintenance costs --
a literature review 61
Land treatment operation and maintenance costs --
site survey 64
8. Recommended Operation and Maintenance Practices ... 77
Introduction 77
Slow-rate systems . 77
Rapid infiltration systems 77
Overland flow systems 78
9. Design Deficiencies Hindering Operations 79
Introduction 79
Preapplication treatment design deficiencies . . .79
Slow-rate land treatment design deficiencies . . .79
Rapid infiltration design deficiencies 83
Overland flow design deficiencies 83
References 87
Appendices
A. Trip Reports 88
Village of Lake George wastewater treatment plant
(# 001) , Lake George, New York — rapid infiltra-
tion system 90
North Branch Fire District No. 1, water pollution
control facility (# 002), West Dover, Vermont —
slow-rate system 99
City of Hart wastewater treatment facilities
(# 003), Hart, Michigan -- slow-rate system . . 110
City of Fremont wastewater treatment plant
(I 004), Fremont, Michigan -- slow-rate system .118
Village of Ravenna sewage treatment plant (# 005) ,
Ravenna, Michigan -- slow-rate system 126
City of Wayland wastewater treatment plant
(# 006), Wayland, Michigan — slow-rate system .133
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Fontana regional plant No. 3 (# 007), Fontana,
California -- rapid infiltration and slow-rate
system 141
Pomona water reclamation plant (# 008), Pomona,
California -- slow-rate system 150
Whittier Narrows water reclamation plant (# 009),
South El Monte, California -- rapid infiltration
system 159
Palmdale water reclamation plant (# 010),
Palmdale, California -- slow-rate system . . . .167
Irvine Ranch water district (tt Oil), Irvine,
California -- slow-rate system 174
City of Tulare water pollution control facilities
(tt 012), Tulare, California -- slow-rate
system 182
City of Kerman wastewater treatment plant (tt 013),
Kerman, California -- slow-rate system 191
City of Manteca wastewater quality control
facilities (# 014), Manteca, California -- slow-
rate system 198
El Dorado Hills wastewater treatment plant
(tt 015) , El Dorado Hills, California -- slow-
rate system 206
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi-
mental Station overland flow field site (# 016),
Utica, Mississippi -- overland flow system . . .213
Falkner wastewater treatment facility (tt 017),
Falkner, Mississippi -- overland flow system . .220
Easley combined utilities system overland flow
project (# 018), Easley, South Carolina -- over-
land flow system 228
-------
CONTENTS
Town of Wareham water pollution control facility
(f 019), Wareham, Massachusetts -- rapid infil-
tration system 238
Chatham water pollution control facility (# 020),
Chatham, Massachusetts -- rapid infiltration
system 245
Town of Barnstable water pollution control facil-
ity (# 021), Hyannis, Massachusetts — rapid
infiltration system . . . 252
Kendal/Crosslands lagoon system (t 022), Kennett
Square, Pennsylvania — slow-rate system . . . .259
Landis Sewage Authority wastewater treatment
plant (# 023), Vineland, New Jersey -- rapid
infiltration system 266
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc. (# 024), Paris, Texas
-- overland flow system 274
City of Coleman wastewater treatment plant
(# 025), Coleman, Texas -- slow-rate system . . 282
City of Santa Anna wastewater treatment plant
(# 026), Santa Anna, Texas -- slow-rate system .289
City of Winters wastewater treatment plant
(# 027), Winters, Texas — slow-rate system . . 296
City of Sweetwater wastewater treatment plant
(# 028), Sweetwater, Texas -- slow-rate system .304
B. Field Survey Questionnaire . 312
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Geographical and climatic locations of land treat-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A-l
A- 2
Rapid infiltration land treatment staffing ....
Overland flow land treatment staffing
Slow-rate land treatment operation and maintenance
Rapid infiltration land treatment operation and
Overland flow land treatment operation and mainte-
Location map of Village of Lake George wastewater
treatment plant {# 001), Lake George, New York . .
Process flow diagram of Village of Lake George
. 31
. 52
. .53
. 54
65
66
67
. 91
wastewater treatment plant (t 001), Lake George,
New York 93
A-3 Facility layout of Village of Lake George wastewater
treatment plant (# 001), Lake George, New York ... 94
A-4 Location map of North Branch Fire District No. 1
water pollution control facility (# 002),
West Dover, Vermont 100
A-5 Process flow diagram of North Branch Fire District
No. 1 water pollution control facility (# 002),
West Dover, Vermont 102
A-6 Facility layout of North Branch Fire District No. 1
water pollution control facility (# 002), West Dover,
Vermont 104
XI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-7 Location map of City of Hart wastewater treatment
facilities (# 003), Hart, Michigan Ill
A-8 Process flow diagram of City of Hart wastewater
treatment facilities (# 003), Hart, Michigan . . , .112
A-9 Facility layout of City of Hart wastewater treatment
facilities (# 003), Hart, Michigan 114
A-10 Location map of City of Fremont wastewater treatment
plant (# 004), Fremont, Michigan 119
A-ll Process flow diagram of City of Fremont wastewater
treatment plant {# 004), Fremont, Michigan 120
A~12 Facility layout of City of Fremont wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 004), Fremont, Michigan 122
A-13 Location map of Village of Ravenna sewage treatment
facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan 127
A-14 Process flow diagram of Village of Ravenna sewage
treatment facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan . . . 128
A-15 Facility layout of Village of Ravenna sewage treat-
ment facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan 130
A-16 Location map of City of Wayland wastewater treatment
plant (# 006), Wayland, Michigan 134
A-17 Process flow diagram of City of Wayland wastewater
treatment plant (# 006) , Wayland, Michigan 135
A-18 Facility layout of City of Wayland wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 006), Wayland, Michigan 137
A-19 Location map of Fontana regional plant No. 3 (# 007),
Fontana, California 142
A-20 Process flow diagram of Fontana regional plant
No. 3 (# 007), Fontana, California 143
XT!
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-21 Facility layout of Fontana regional plant No. 3
(t 007), Fontana, California 145
A-22 Location map of Pomona water reclamation plant
(# 008), Pomona, California . 151
A-23 Process flow diagram of Pomona water reclamation
plant (# 008), Pomona, California 152
A-24 Facility layout of Pomona water reclamation plant
(# 008), Pomona, California 155
A-25 Location map of Whittier Narrows water reclamation
plant (# 009) , El Monte, California 160
A-26 Process flow diagram of Whittier Narrows water
reclamation plant (# 009), El Monte, California . . 161
A-27 Facility layout of Whittier Narrows water recla-
mation plant (# 009), El Monte, California .... .163
A-28 Location map of Palmdale water reclamation plant
(t 010), Palmdale, California . 168
A-29 Process flow diagram of Palmdale water reclamation
plant (# 010), Palmdale, California 169
A-30 Facility layout of Palmdale water reclamation plant
(# 010), Palmdale, California 171
A-31 Location map of Irvine Ranch water district
Michelson reclamation plant (# Oil), Irvine,
California 175
A-32 Process flow diagram of Irvine Ranch water district
Michelson reclamation plant (# Oil), Irvine, Cali-
fornia 176
A-33 Facility layout of Irvine Ranch water district
Michelson reclamation plant (tt Oil), Irvine, Cali-
fornia .178
xm
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-34 Location map of City of Tulare water pollution
control facilities (# 012), Tulare, California . . .183
A-35 Process flow diagram of City of Tulare water
pollution control facilities (# 012), Tulare,
California 184
A-36 Facility layout of City of Tulare water pollution
control facilities (# 012), Tulare, California . . .186
A-37 Location map of City of Kerman wastewater treatment
plant (# 013) , Kerman, California . 192
A-38 Process flow diagram of City of Kerman wastewater
treatment plant (# 013), Kerman, California .... 193
A-39 Facility layout of City of Kerman wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 013), Kerman, California 195
A-40 Location map of City of Manteca wastewater quality
control facilities (# 014), Manteca, California . . 199
A-41 Process flow diagram of City of Manteca wastewater
quality control facilities (# 014), Manteca, Cali-
fornia . .200
A-42 Facility layout of City of Manteca wastewater
quality control facilities (# 014), Manteca, Cali-
fornia . .202
A-43 Location map of El Dorado Hills wastewater treatment
plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, California 207
A-44 Process flow diagram of El Dorado Hills wastewater
treatment plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, Cali-
fornia 208
A-45 Facility layout of El Dorado Hills wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, California . . 210
xiv
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-46 Location map of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experimental Station overland flow field
installation (# 016), Utica, Mississippi 214
A-47 Process flow diagram of U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers Waterways Experimental Station overland flow
field installation (# 016) , Utica, Mississippi. . . 215
A-48 Facility layout of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experimental Station overland flow field
installation (# 016), Utica, Mississippi 217
A-49 Location map of Falkner wastewater treatment facil-
ity (# 017) , Falkner, Mississippi 221
A-50 Process flow diagram of Falkner wastewater treatment
facility (# 017), Falkner, Mississippi 222
A-51 Facility layout of Falkner wastewater treatment
facility (# 017), Falkner, Mississippi 224
A-52 Location map of Easley combined utilities system
Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018), Easley,
South Carolina 229
A-53 Process flow diagram of Easley combined utilities
system Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018),
Easley, South Carolina 231
A-54 Facility layout of Easley combined utilities system
Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018),
Easley, South Carolina 232
A-55 Location map of Town of Wareham water pollution con-
trol facility (# 019), Wareham, Massachusetts . . . 239
A-56 Process flow diagram of Town of Wareham water pollu-
tion control facility (# 019), Wareham, Massachu-
setts 240
xv
-------
FIGURES
Number
A-57 Facility layout of Town of Wareham water pollution
control facility (# 019), Wareham, Massachusetts . .242
A-58 Location map of Chatham water pollution control
facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts 246
A-59 Process flow diagram of Chatham water pollution
control facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts . .247
A-60 Facility layout of Chatham water pollution control
facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts 249
A-61 Location map of Town of Barnstable water pollution
control facility (# 021), Hyannis, Massachusetts . .253
A-62 Process flow diagram of Town of Barnstable water
pollution control facility (# 021), Hyannis,
Massachusetts . 254
A-63 Facility layout of Town of Barnstable water pollu-
tion control facility (# 021), Hyannis, Massachu-
setts 256
A-64 Location map of Kendal/Crosslands lagoon system
(# 022), Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 260
A-65 Process flow diagram of Kendal/Crosslands lagoon
system (# 022), Kennett Square, Pennsylvania . . . .261
A-66 Facility layout of Kendal/Crosslands lagoon system
(# 022), Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 263
A-67 Location map of Landis Sewage Authority (# 023),
Vineland, New Jersey 267
A-68 Process flow diagram of Landis Sewage Authority
(# 023), Vineland, New Jersey 268
A-69 Facility layout of Landis Sewage Authority (# 023),
Vineland, New Jersey . 270
xvi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-70 Location map of Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
(# 024), Paris, Texas 275
A-71 Process flow diagram of Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
(# 024), Paris, Texas 276
A-72 Facility layout of Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
(# 024), Paris, Texas 278
A-73 Location map of City of Coleman wastewater treatment
plant (# 025) , Coleman, Texas 283
A-74 Process flow diagram of City of Coleman wastewater
treatment plant (# 025), Coleman, Texas 284
A-75 Facility layout of City of Coleman wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 025), Coleman, Texas 286
A-76 Location map of City of Santa Anna wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas 290
A-77 Process flow diagram of City of Santa Anna waste-
water treatment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas . .291
A-78 Facility layout of City of Santa Anna wastewater
treatment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas 293
A-79 Location map of City of Winters wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 027), Winters, Texas 297
A-80 Process flow diagram of City of Winters wastewater
treatment plant (tt 027), Winters, Texas 298
A-81 Facility layout of City of Winters wastewater
treatment plant (# 027), Winters, Texas 300
A-82 Location map of City of Sweetwater water pollution
control plant (# 028), Sweetwater, Texas 305
A-83 Process flow diagram of City of Sweetwater water
pollution control plant (# 028), Sweetwater, Texas ..306
xvn
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-84 Facility layout of City of Sweetwater water pollu-
tion control plant (# 028), Sweetwater, Texas . . . 308
xvm
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Comparison of Design Features for Land Treatment
Processes 10
2 Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treat-
ment Processes 11
3 Expected Quality of Treated Wastewater from Land
Treatment Processes 12
4 State Regulation Matrix Summary 13
5 Preapplication Treatment Matrix 18
6 Slow-Rate Preapplication Treatment Matrix 20
7 Rapid Infiltration Preapplication Treatment
Matrix 22
8 Overland Flow Preapplication Treatment Matrix . . . .23
9 Summary of Data Collected During Site Visits .... 25
10 Land Treatment Systems, Background Information ... 28
11 Land Treatment Systems, Physical Facilities 30
12 Land Treatment Systems Information 33
13 Land Treatment System Loading Rates 37
14 Groundwater Monitoring Data 38
15 Preapplication Treatment and Land Treatment
Staffing 46
16 Slow-Rate Land Treatment Systems Operation and
Maintenance Cost Components 49
17 Rapid Infiltration Land Treatment Systems Operation
and Maintenance Cost Components 50
xix
-------
TABLES
Number Page
18. Overland Flow Land Treatment Systems Operation
and Maintenance Cost Components , . 51
19 Staffing Requirements as a Function of Degree of
Preapplication Treatment and Land Treatment System
Type .56
20 Range of Conditions for Land Treatment Systems ... 63
21 Land Application O&M Cost Breakdown 69
22 Preapplication and Land Application Treatment
O&M Unit Costs 71
23 O&M Unit Costs as a Function of Degree of
Preapplication Treatment and Land Treatment
System Type 74
24 Preapplication Treatment Design Deficiencies .... 80
25 Slow-Rate Design Deficiencies 81
26 Rapid Infiltration Design Deficiencies 84
27 Overland Flow Design Deficiencies 85
XX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is expressed to all personnel at the various
land treatment sites which agreed to be included in this proj-
ect. Without their cooperation the valuable information derived
from this project would not have been possible.
This report was developed by Kimm Perlin, P.E. of
Roy F. Weston under the direction of Roy 0. Ball, Ph.D., P.E.,
and James H. Dougherty, P.E.
The original concept for the project and funding came from
the Plant Operation and Design Program under the direction of
Jon H. Bender. Major input was provided by the Urban Systems
Management Section, John M. Smith, Chief.
The following individuals provided significant input to this
project:
Richard Thomas OWPO-MCD
Lowell Leach RSKERL
Sherwood Reed U.S. Army COE, CRREL
xxi
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Land treatment of municipal wastewater has been practiced
since 1840. The use of land to treat domestic wastewater has
received major impetus recently with the passage of the 1972
Amendments (PL 92-500) and the 1977 Amendments (PL 95-217) to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The 1977 Amendments,
the Clean Water Act, provide certain incentives for funding land
treatment systems through the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Construction Grants Program. These incentives in-
volve the provisions of the Act which encourage the use of inno-
vative and alternative technology for the treatment of municipal
wastewater. The innovative and alternative technology program
places major emphasis on the planning, design, and construction
of cost-effective municipal treatment works that maximize recy-
cling and reclamation of water, nutrients, and energy, while
minimizing adverse environmental and public health impacts. Be-
cause of these developments, land treatment of wastewater has
become a viable alternative.
Previous EPA research has focused on two aspects of the land
treatment of wastewater: the long-term environmental effects of
land treatment, and the design considerations for land treatment
systems. On the question of the long-term effects of land
treatment on soils, crops, groundwater, and other environmental
components, EPA has recently produced a series of 10 documents
which present the effects of long-term wastewater application at
selected slow-rate and rapid infiltration sites. These studies
are intended to provide new insights into the long-term effects
of land treatment of municipal wastewater. In the area of land
treatment system design, EPA (in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) pro-
duced the Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater (EPA, 1977). This manual, which is currently under-
going revision, is the major data source for the design of land
treatment systems. Results reported in this publication related
to design will be incorporated into the revised manual when it
is reissued.
-------
None of these documents adequately addresses the issues of
operation and maintenance of land treatment systems. The purpose
of the study described in this report was to provide information
on operation and maintenance, staffing, and costs. Also, the
study was intended to describe problems currently being experi-
enced at land treatment sites due to operator and/or design lim-
itations. The study was broken into two phases.
In the first phase, a project team visited various sites us-
ing land treatment systems to collect information on practices
currently in use. The information was collected on several gen-
eral areas.
One area was facility staffing. The data collected included
numbers and functions of the people engaged in operating and
maintaining the land treatment system and other treatment sys-
tems at the site. This information was collected so that recom-
mendations on staff size and qualifications could be tabulated
and proposed.
Another type of data collected during the site visits was in
the area of process control and operational information. Infor-
mation collected included the operational strategy used by the
operator to decide where, when, and how much wastewater should
be applied. In addition, the preapplication treatment was re-
viewed in terms of its impact on the land treatment system.
A third area in which data were gathered during the site
visits was operation and maintenance costs. Data on operation
and maintenance costs of the land treatment system were collect-
ed, and if possible, divided into salaries, energy, chemicals,
materials, and other well-defined categories. Costs due to
amortization of capital equipment were not included.
During the site visits, data were also collected on factors
that hinder the operation and maintenance of a land treatment
facility. This included factors such as design deficiencies,
mechanical reliability problems, plant layout, weather, operator
limitations, and other factors causing less than optimum opera-
tion and maintenance at the facility.
The adequacy of the groundwater monitoring practices was al-
so assessed during the site visits. Neighbors whose property
was adjacent to or in the vicinity of the land treatment system
were interviewed to determine the impact of the land treatment
system on private individuals.
The second phase of the study was the development of defini-
tive recommendations for procedures to improve the operation and
maintenance of land treatment systems.
-------
The recommendations were developed from two different view-
points. The first viewpoint involved the type of land treatment
system. Therefore, all three major types of land treatment sys-
tems were visited: slow-rate (irrigation), rapid infiltration
(infiltration-percolation), and overland flow systems. The sec-
ond viewpoint involved the degree of preapplication treatment
associated with the facility. Therefore, facilities where pri-
mary-, secondary-, and tertiary-treated wastewater is applied
were visited. In addition, facilities with different types of
treatment, e.g., trickling filter versus activated sludge sec-
ondary treatment, were visited. The potential effects of cli-
matic conditions were also included, where possible, and one
site in a northern climate was visited in order to assess the
effect of winter conditions.
The overall goal of the research project was to make specif-
ic recommendations to improve and optimize the operation and
maintenance of land treatment systems.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions have been drawn from this study;
1. Operation and Maintenance Costs
a. Operation and maintenance costs for slow-rate
systems are typically lower than reported in
the literature.
b. Operation and maintenance costs for rapid
infiltration and overland flow systems are in
general agreement with the literature data.
2. Staffing
a. Staffing requirements for slow-rate systems
are typically less than reported in the lit-
erature.
b. Staffing requirements for rapid infiltration
and overland flow systems are in general
agreement with literature data.
3. Operations
a. Slow-rate and rapid infiltration systems
typically are adequately operated.
b. Insufficient data are available to assess
overland flow system operations.
4. Maintenance
a. Equipment at all three types of land treat-
ment systems is similar to wastewater treat-
ment plant equipment and appears adequately
maintained.
-------
5. Design Deficiencies
a. Although design deficiencies exist, only at
one facility did they substantially inter-
fere with normal operations.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were developed as a result of
this study:
1. Operation and Maintenance Costs
a. Operation and maintenance costs for slow-
rate systems can be substantially reduced
by operating the system in conjunction with
a farmer.
2. Staffing and Operations
a. Joint operation of the slow-rate system with
a farm is recommended, where possible, to
reduce staffing requirements and improve
operations.
»
b. Additional training is suggested for land
treatment system operators, particularly
for operators of overland flow systems.
3. System Design Related to Operation and Maintenance
a. During the design of a slow-rate land treat-
ment system, local farmers should be contact-
ed for input.
-------
SECTION 4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER
As discussed in the Process Design Manual for Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater (EPA, 1977), the land treatment of
wastewater encompasses a wide variety of processes. The three
principal processes are slow rate, rapid infiltration, and over-
land flow. There are, however, other processes which are less
widely used and generally less adaptable to large-scale use, in-
cluding wetland and subsurface land application. In this sec-
tion, brief descriptions of the three principal types of land
treatment are given. More general descriptions and design
guidelines can be found in the Process Design Manual.
Slow-Rate Land Treatment
The term slow-rate land treatment is used to focus atten-
tion on wastewater treatment, as opposed to the irrigation of
crops. The term irrigation land treatment was used previously.
In the slow-rate system, vegetation is a critical component for
managing both water and nutrients. Wastewater, which is applied
to the soil, is treated as it flows through the soil matrix and
eventually percolates to the groundwater. Surface runoff is
generally prevented by containment. The distribution of waste-
water can generally be divided into two types of application:
surface and sprinkler. Surface application includes ridge and
furrow and border strip flooding techniques. Spray irrigation
includes various types of sprinklers, such as fixed systems,
moving systems, permanent systems, or portable systems.
Slow-rate systems have several objectives, including:
1. Treatment of applied wastewater.
2. Economic return from use of water and nutrients
to produce marketable crops.
3. Water conservation by replacing potable water
with treated effluent for irrigating landscaped
areas, such as golf courses.
-------
4. Preservation and enlargement of green belts and
open spaces.
The slow-rate system is very effective in removing conven-
tional wastewater pollutants.
Rapid Infiltration Land Treatment
In rapid infiltration land treatment (previously referred to
as infiltration-percolation), the applied wastewater percolates
through the soil and is treated as the wastewater travels
through the soil. Except for evaporative losses, the applied
wastewater percolates to the groundwater. The wastewater is ap-
plied to readily-permeable soil, such as sand or loamy sand, in
spreading basins by either sprinkling or, more typically, sur-
face irrigation. Vegetation may be present, but typically is
not.
The principal objective of a rapid infiltration system is
wastewater treatment. The treated wastewater may be used for:
1. Groundwater recharge.
2. Recovery of renovated water by wells or under-
drains with subsequent reuse or discharge.
3. Recharge of surface streams by interception of
groundwater.
4. Temporary storage of renovated water in the
aquifer.
In a rapid infiltration system, removal of insoluble waste-
water constituents is by filtering and straining. Suspended
solids, BOD, and fecal coliforms are almost completely removed.
Nitrogen removal is generally poor unless specific operating
procedures are established to maximize nitrification/denitrifi-
cation. Phosphorus removal can range from 70 to 99 percent, de-
pending on the physical and chemical characteristics of the
soil.
Overland Flow Land Treatment
In the overland flow method of land treatment, wastewater is
applied over the upper reaches of a sloped soil and allowed to
flow across a vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches.
8
-------
The wastewater is treated by'physical, chemical, and biological
means as it flows down the relatively impermeable slope in a
thin film. An impermeable soil or a subsurface barrier is used
to minimize percolation.
The objectives of an overland flow system are wastewater
treatment, and, to a minor extent, crop production. Treatment
objectives are to achieve secondary or better effluent from
screened wastewater, or to achieve higher levels of wastewater
treatment following conventional treatment. Treated wastewater
can either be reused or discharged to surface water.
Table 1 shows the design features of the three types of land
treatment systems. Table 2 presents a comparison of the site
characteristics, and Table 3 presents the expected effluent
quality.
REGULATION SUMMARY
In order to gain greater insight into the land treatment of
wastewater, the regulations regarding land treatment of waste-
water were collected from the nine state regulatory agencies in
the states visited during the site survey. A brief summary of
the data collected is presented in Table 4.
The data are far from complete, however, as many states ap-
prove each project on a case-by-case basis, and deviations from
the data presented in the table are allowable.
-------
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR LAND
TREATMENT PROCESSES
Feature
Application techniques
Annual application
rate, m
Field area required,
ha2
Typical weekly appli-
cation rate, m
Minimum preapplication
treatment provided
in United States.
Disposition of
applied wastewater
Need for vegetation
Slow Rate
Sprinkler or
surface. 1
0.6-6.1
23-227
0.013-0.102
Primary
sedimentation.
Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
Usually surface. Sprinkler or
surface.
6.1-171
0.81-23
0.102-3.0
Primary
sedimentation.
Evapotranspiration Mainly
and percolation. percolation.
Required.
Optional.
3.0-21
6.5-45
0.0635-0.1523
0.152-0.4064
Screening and
grit removal.
Surface runoff and
evapotranspiration
with some
percolation.
Required.
Adapted from EPA (1977).
^-Includes ridge-and-furrow and border strip.
2Field area in hectares not including buffer area, roads, or ditches
for 0.0438 mVs (1 mgd) flow.
^Range for application of screened wastewater.
^Range for application of lagoon and secondary effluent.
^Depends on the use of the effluent and the type of crop.
10
-------
TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR
LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
Characteristics
Slow Rate
Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
Slope
Soil permeability
Depth to groundwater
Climatic restrictions
Less than 20% on
cultivated land;
less than 40% on
noncultivated land,
Moderately slow to
moderately rapid.
0.61 to 0.91 m
(minimum).
Storage often
needed for cold
weather and
precipitation.
Not critical;
excessive slopes
require much
earthwork.
Rapid (sands,
loamy sands).
3.0 m (lesser
depths are
acceptable where
underdrainage is
provided).
None (possibly
modify operation
in cold weather) ,
Slopes of 2 to 8%
Slow (clays,
silts, and soils
with impermeable
barriers).
Not critical.
Storage often
needed for cold
weather.
Adapted from EPA (1977).
-------
TABLE 3. EXPECTED QUALITY OF TREATED WASTEWATER FROM
LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
Constituent
(mg/L)
BOD
Suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen as N
Total nitrogen as N
Total phosphorus as P
Slow Rate"
Rapid
Infiltration
Overland Flow'
Average
<2
<1
<0.5
3
<0.1
Maximum
5
5
2
8
0.3
Average
2
2
0.5
10
1
Maximum
5
5
2
20
5
Average
10
10
0.8
3
4
Maximum
15
20
2
5
6
Adapted from EPA (1977).
Ipercolation of primary or secondary effluent through 1.5 m (5 ft) of soil.
2percqlation of primary or secondary effluent through 4.5 m (15 ft) of soil.
^Runoff of comminuted municipal wastewater over about 45 m (150 ft) of slope.
-------
TABLE 4. STATE REGULATION MATRIX SUMMARY
State
California
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Date of
Regulations
1978
Status of j
Regulations1
In effect
All decisions on a case-by
January 1980
Hay 1979
Not known
May 1977
1972
September 197S
Not known
Proposed
Final draft
Draft guidelines
Proposed
Guidelines
Guidelines
Design criteria
Is
of
Yes
case
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
There a Required Degree
Preapplicatlon Treatment?
, as function of end use
basisi minimum of primary
, intermediate
i secondary
, secondary
, specified organic
Is Groundwater Methot
Monitoring Required? Poteni
No
treatment pr*ior
Yea
May be required
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Degre<
end ui
to application.
None
15-30
zone !
case-1
61-m 1
zone :
No acl
Centre
30-m 1
Opera!
loading rates
July 1979 Regulations Yes, slow rate, secondary. Yes
Rapid infiltration tertiary.
Potential Health Impacts
Degree of preapplication treatment as function of
15-30 • buffer zone RI and OF. 30-61 • buffer
zone SR. Fencing required. Chlorinatlon on a
61-m buffer zone if open fields. 30-m buffer
zone if dense vegetation.
No actual or potential public health hazard.
Controls on adjacent land use. Disinfection.
30-m buffer zone, fencing with signs.
Operation must be approved by local health author-
ities and Texas Department of Health Resources.
Required minimum Isolation distance of 30 n,
depending on site conditions-and- system type.
^Regulations as of May 1980.
2Not including groundwater quality monitoring.
-------
SECTION 5
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Data presented by Jewell and Seabrook (1979) indicate there
are approximately 2,210 land treatment facilities (excluding
septic systems) in operation in the United States. Based on the
1976 Needs Survey, plans call for a significant number of addi-
tional land treatment systems in the future. Therefore, there
exists a wide variety of land treatment systems which could be
visited.
In the selection of facilities to be visited, the first step
consisted of reviewing the output from the EPA-1 computer pro-
gram, which gave the results of the 1978 Needs Survey. This in-
dicated that approximately 720 facilities were either using land
treatment, or considering the addition of a land treatment sys-
tem. The data from the Needs Survey were then summarized in
terms of:
1. Whether or not the facilities were existing or
planned.
2. What the future of the facilities would be, i.e.,
whether they were to be abandoned, upgraded, OF
enlarged.
Plants were then characterized by flow, degree of preappli-
cation treatment, and climatic location. It was then decided
that, where possible, plants which were to be abandoned would
not be visited as the operation and maintenance of these facili-
ties would probably not reflect normal practices. In addition,
it was decided that no plant smaller than 0.0022 m3/s (50,000
gpd) or larger than 0.876 m^/s (20 mgd) would be visited, as
the majority of treatment facilities in the United States fall
within this range. Because of the small number of plants using
overland flow, two sites using this method with less flow were
studied.
To reflect the geographic distribution of plants, it was de-
cided to visit plants in proportion to the total percentage of
14
-------
plants in operation in that particular area. Multiple facili-
ties were, therefore, visited in the states of California, Tex-
as, and Michigan as these three states account for a large per-
cent of the land treatment facilities in the United States. In
all, 28 sites were chosen. Two facilities, namely, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station overland
flow research facility in Utica, Mississippi (a facility recent-
ly closed) and the Campbell's Soup, Paris, Texas overland flow
treatment facility (an industrial facility) were visited as
there is a small number of operational overland flow facilities
in the United States.
Prior to any of the site visits, a site questionnaire and
checklist was prepared so that the data could be collected in
the field in a complete and orderly fashion. Following some of
the earlier visits, modifications to the questionnaire were re-
quired, and these were incorporated. The final version of the
trip questionnaire is presented in Appendix B.
During the site visits, data were collected in one of three
ways. The first method was filling out the field trip question-
naire/checklist. The second method was recording the site in-
vestigator's comments on a tape recorder, and the third method
consisted of taking photographs of each site.
After each site visit, a rough trip report was drafted. Af-
ter all 28 site visits, it was discovered that there were some
inaccuracies and contradictions in the data gathered. Also,
some data were not available at the time of the visit. The
treatment plants involved were called to resolve any data that
appeared contradictory or to obtain any data that were missing.
The final trip reports are presented in Appendix A.
EVALUATION OF LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
The evaluation of a land treatment system is different from
the evaluation of typical wastewater treatment process in that
there is little in the way of direct evidence as to the effec-
tiveness of the land treatment system. Therefore, determination
of the adequacy of a land treatment system must rely on circum-
stantial evidence.
The following data are needed to assess the adequacy of a
land treatment system:
1. Design loadings as compared to typical design
limitations.
2. Compliance/noncompliance with applicable state
and Federal regulations/guidelines.
15
-------
3. Visual observations (aesthetics, plant health,
soil condition, etc.).
4. Groundwater monitoring data and hydrogeological
considerations.
5. Maintenance practices.
6. Operational practices.
It is only through consideration of such parameters that the
performance of a land treatment system can be adequately assess-
ed. In other words, a direct standard, such as effluent quali-
ty, by which the system can be gauged is not available. There-
fore, adherence to reliable design, operation, and maintenance
practices is used to determine the presumptive adequacy of a
system.
SITE LOCATIONS
The sites visited were selected based on a variety of fac-
tors, including degree and type of preapplication treatment,
climatic conditions, and type of land application system. Using
these guidelines, the selected sites have been plotted geograph-
ically, as shown in Figure 1. The sites are clustered around
California, Michigan, and Texas since this is representative of
the geographical distribution of land treatment systems in the
United States. Figure 1 also presents the five different cli-
matic zones in the United States, as presented by Sullivan, et
al (1973) . At least one site was visited in each of the climat-
ic zones.
SITE DATA
For each of the sites visited, the facility name, facility
location, flow rate, and type of preapplication treatment have
been compiled. These data for the 28 sites visited are shown in
Table 5. The same data are compiled in Tables 6, 7 and 8 for
each type of land treatment system. It should be noted that fa-
cility 007, the Fontana Regional Plant No. 3, consists of both a
rapid infiltration and a slow-rate system, and therefore appears
on both tables. In summary, 18 slow-rate sites, seven rapid in-
filtration sites, and four overland flow sites were visited.
It should be noted that the term "oxidation pond" as used in
this report is a general term, and includes a range of different
types of treatment ponds, including high-rate aerobic, aerobic,
facultative, and maturation ponds.
16
-------
ihusetts
A - Mediterranean Climate -
Dry Summer, Mild, Wet Winter
B - Arid Climate -- Hot, Dry
C - Humid Subtropical - Mild Winter,
Hot, Wet Summer (Washington, Oregon
Area Mild, Moist Summer)
D - Humid Continental - Short
Winter, Hot Summer
E - Humid Continental - Long
Winter, Warm Summer
(Adapted from Sullivan, et al, 1973)
Figure 1. Geographical and climatic locations of land treat-
ment sites visited.
17
-------
TABLE 5. PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
Facility Name
Village of Lake George
WWTP
North Branch Fire Dis-
trict No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant
No. 3
Pomona Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Mantera WWQCF
Facility
Location
Lake George,
NY
West Dover,
VT
Hart,
MI
Fremont ,
MI
Ravenna,
MI
Wayland ,
MI
Fontana,
CA
Pomona,
CA
El Monte,
CA
Palmdale,
CA
Irvine ,
CA
Tulare ,
CA
Kerman,
CA
Manteca ,
CA
Site
.No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
Current
Flow
RateJ^
(m3/s)
0.0280
0.0049
0.0267
0.0133
0.0032
0.0110
0.1266
0.3505
0.7010
0.0811
0.3505
0.1490
0.0228
0.1008
Preliminary Treatment
c
0)
QJ
0
HI
CD
^
O
Mechani
x
x
X
0>
u
fll
m
x
X
^
0
4J
Comminu
x
x
X
o
Barminu
,H
O
£
X
X
Other
x
Primary Treatment
2
u
(0
O
Pr imary
x
X
_y
TO
Imhoff
Other
Secondary Treatment
-------
TABLE 5.
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
(continued)
Facility Name
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES Over-
land Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utili-
ties System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon
System
Land is Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas) ,
Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Facility
Location
El Dorado Hills,
CA
Utica,
MS
Falkner ,
MS
Easley ,
SC
Wareham,
_Mfi>
Chatham,
MA
Hyannis,
MA
Kennett Square,
PA
Vineland,
NJ
Paris,
TX
Coleman,
TX
Santa Anna,
TX'
Winters,
TX
Sweetwater,
TX
1
Site
No.
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Current
Flow,
Rate
(m3/s)
0.0197
0.0009
0.0012
0.0044
0.0140
0.0035
0.0252
0.0022
0.1753
0.2234'
0.0175
0.0033
0.0131
0.0438
Preliminary Treatment
Mechanical Bar Screen
X
Bar Screen
X
x!>
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comminutor
x5
X
X
X
X
Barminutor
X
Grit Removal
X
X
x
X
X
Other
x
x
X
X
Primary Treatmen^
u
OJ
.-4
VJ
ro
i— i
u
>t
jj
(C
£
•
S
.c
0
jj
o
c
0
i-(
4J
T.
••-£
X
O
X
•D
C
O
d.
•0
Follow ing overland flow treatment.
7Five-day production flow. Yearly average flow = 0.1796 m3/s
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPX.P - Water pollution control plant
-------
TABLE 6. SLOW-RATE PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
Facility Name
North Branch Fire Dis-
trict No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Way land WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant
No. 3
Pomona Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Palmdale Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict
Facility
Location
West Dover,
VT
Hart,
MI
Fremont,
MI
Ravenna,
MI
Wayland,
MI
Fontana,
CA
Pomona,
CA
Palmdale ,
CA
Irvine,
CA
Site
No.
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
010
Oil
Current
Flow
Rate1
(mj/s>
0.0049
0.0267
0.0133
0.0032
0.0110
0. 1266
0.3505
0.0811
0.3505
Preliminary Treatment
c
0)
V4
0
M
H
0>
E
X
X
0)
0>
Ul
w
HI
m
X
XJ
)-,
0
D
6
o
o
X
X-*
X
>-l
o
J->
D
E
m
CO
a*
jj
o
X
•P
O
Primary Treatment
u
>i
e
£
&
X
X
X
X
E-.
0
ij
fe
o
PQ
-D
"U
jJ
(0
-•-1
O
<
J3
u
JJ
a
c
0
4J
(0
•a
X
o
X
•n
c
o
Ou
T5
(I)
jj
13
11
<
X
X
T3
C
d
0
r-4
4J
(0
T3
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
a>
r>
o
w
X
X
X
9!
.u
O
X
Disinfection
o
u
X
^
X
X
x2
X
X
Oi
o
Tertiary Treatment
jj
*^
PM
X
X
o
a
i-i
o
<
c
o
JD
O
X
£
x4
01
o
\a?/s x 22.8245 • mgd
2Not in use.
^Following oxidation ponds.
4Used for surface discharge only.
Key.
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WNQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
TABLE 6. SLOW-RATE PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
(continued)
Facilitv Name
"city of Tulare WPCF"
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Facilitv
Tulare,
CA
Kerman,
Manteca,
CA
El Dorado Hills,
CA
Kennett Square,
PA
Coleman,
Santa Anna,
Winters,
TX
Sweetwater ,
TX
Site
No.
012
013
014
015
022
025
026
027
028
Current
Plow
Rate1
(m3/s)
0.1490
0.0228
0.1008
0.0197
0.0022
0.0175
0.0033
0.0131
0.0438
Preliminary Treatment
c
X
X
c
01
u
Q
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
g
0
o
X
X
X
0
£
u
10
m
X
t-H
r
4->
£
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
-C
4J
o
X
Primary Treatment
QJ
>-<
r^
M
t-H
U
M
X
X
c
o
E
X
X
*ti
4->
o
Secondary Treatment
fe
O
£
X
X
X
0)
^
o
•r-l
to
•o
4-1
m
••-t
S
X
u
Jj
Q
C
o
•o
s
X
c
a
•o
0)
01
X
X
TD
c
a
c
0
Jj
13
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
1-1
M-l
ffl
f >
1-1
r
o
u
01
tn
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
Jj
o
X
Disinfection
c
0
(0
c
• r*
O
rH
JS
u
X
x«
0)
o
Tertiary Treatment
o
H
4-1
a
0
jj
a
o
s
m
o
c
o
Jj
c
•H
41
Q
4>
O
Im3/s x 22.8245 - mgd
^Not in use.
^Following oxidation ponds.
for surface discharge only.
Key.
WPCF
WWTP
STP
WWQCF
WPCP
Water pollution control facility
Wastewater treatment plant
Sewage treatment plant
Wastewater quality control facility
Hater pollution control plant
-------
TABLE 7. RAPID INFILTRATION PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
Facility Name
Village of Lake George
KWTP
Fontana Regional Plant
N9, 3
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Town of Wareham HPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Landis Sewage Authority
Facility
Location
Lake George,
NV
Fontana,
CA
El Monte,
CA
Wareham,
MA
Chatham,
MA
Hyannis,
MA
Vineland,
NJ
Site
No.
001
007
009
019
020
021
023
Current
Flow
Rate1
(m3/s)
0.0280
0. 1266
0.7010
0.0140
0.0035
0.0252
0.1753
Preliminary Treatment
c
0)
0)
o
w
•H
JZ
s
X
X
c
J
0
c
e
e
u
X
X
X
kJ
o
c
£
t~
00
a
>
o
E
a:
4J
r-<
o
X
X
(U
o
X
X
X
Pr imary Treatment
,_
OJ
fl3
O
>"
u
e
H
&
X
X
X
X
m
H
4-1
O
-C
X
4J
rt)
^,
4J
<
X
X
X
k-l
0>
4J
t
c
rH
u
^
X
fl)
4-1
b
0
m
(1)
Q
4J
<
£
U
4J
(1
c
o
H
JJ
T3
O
•n
c
n
a.
HI
(0
i-i
<
•n
c:
n
a
c
n
^
jj
TI
O
>_,
a>
i~i
C)
>i
kd
13
O
O
tn
X
X
X
X
Q>
x:
O
Disinfection
•^
^H
U
^
X
X
(U
,c
o
Tertiary Treatment
o
r-<
«j
jj
•-1
fa
X
o
a
t_i
o
c
-Q
^
a
o
u
a
Oi
o
to
!m3/s x 22.8245 = mgd
2Not in use.
Key.
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
-------
TABLE 8. OVERLAND FLOW PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT MATRIX
Facility Name
U.S. Army COE, WES Over-
land Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utili-
ties System Overland
Flow Project
Campbell Soup (Texas) ,
Inc.
Facility
Location
Utica,
MS
Falkner ,
MS
Easley,
SC
Paris,
TX
Site
No.
016
017
016
024
Current
Flow
Rate1
(m3/s)
0.0009
0.0012
0.0044
0.22343
Preliminary Treatment
c
0>
01
o
in
^
£
C
V
u
M
<0
CQ
X*
O
4J
c
E
g
O
U
X2
o
*j
c
e
(X)
m
o
e
(U
ft
^
u
J!
4J
O
X4
Primary Treatment
^
4)
•*-!
ID
U
<0
I
•H
_^
C
03
0
JC
6
M
£
*J
O
Secondary Treatment
(U
TJ
3
-H
(A
'v
4->
at
H
u
EH
O
O
c
o
4-1
ra
"D
•rt
g
X
X
X
•o
c
o
•a
a>
2
5
•o
c
c
o
rH
ffi
•0
l-t
s
aj
-*
*W
"£
IQ
O
^
m
'O
c
o
o
CO
x:
0
Disinfection
c
0
Jj
*
c
o
rH
0
X
XJ
^
S
Tertiary Treatment
c
o
*J
• r-*
b*
C
o
_,J
o
CO
s
c
t-l
16
c
o
*J
Jin3/" x 22.6245 - agd
2Raw waatewater preapplication treatment.
^Following overland flow treatment.
^Screening and oil and grease separation.
5Five-day production flow. Yearly average flow
0.1796
WWTF - Hastewater treatment facility
-------
TYPES OF DATA COLLECTED
During the site visits, the trip questionnaire/checklist was
completed for each location. The types of data collected are
summarized in Table 9.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The majority of information learned during the site visits
is believed to be factual. Certain questions, however, required
estimation on the part of the treatment plant personnel in order
to supply the required information. In cases where the person-
nel were unable to provide the information requested, the data
were estimated, if possible, by the interviewers.
Of the questions posed, three questions proved to be the
most difficult to answer. The first question involved the budg-
et information for the operation and maintenance of the facili-
ty. For the majority of the facilities visited (26 out of 28),
the budget information obtained applied to the entire treatment
facility as the funds spent on land application were not sepa-
rated from those for preapplication treatment. This necessitat-
ed estimation to ascertain how much money was spent in each
area.
The budgetary problem is further complicated by the fact
that it is sometimes difficult to decide if equipment is part of
the preapplication treatment or the land application treatment
system. For example, a holding pond following secondary treat-
ment may actually function as an oxidation pond, thereby appear-
ing to be part of the preapplication treatment system. One
could also consider the holding pond as nothing more than an ef-
fluent holding pond, however, and therefore, part of the land
application system. A second example is the need for effluent
pumping. If effluent pumping was required for a surface dis-
charge, then the cost of effluent pumping was associated with
preapplication treatment; if the surface discharge could flow by
gravity, the pumping cost was assumed to be associated with the
land application system.
A further complication arose regarding budgetary informa-
tion. In small towns, the cost of collection, system operation
and maintenance is typically included in the same budget as the
treatment plant. These costs were separated out in the study.
24
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED DURING SITE VISITS
» Background Information
- Contributory population, flows, loadings
- Final disposition of wastewater
- Budget
- Instrumentation, electrical consumption
- Analytical data
» Staffing
- Certification
- Background data
- Preapplication and land application staffing
» Maintenance
- Preventative maintenance program
- Operation and maintenance manual
» Wastewater Preapplication Treatment System
- Physical facilities (type and number)
- Process flow diagram
» Land Treatment System
- Wastewater storage
- Wastewater distribution
- Buffer zones, site access
- Application rates
- Soils information
- Groundwater monitoring
» Facility Layout
- Preapplication treatment system
- Land application system
» Land Application - Agricultural Viewpoint
- Operational strategies (wastewater applications,
time and amount)
- Operational problems
- Crop management
» Land Application - A Neighbor's Viewpoint
- Problems
- Changes
25
-------
The second problem question, closely related to the budget-
ary dilemma, involved staffing requirements for the preapplica-
tion treatment and the land treatment systems. The problem in-
volves dividing the hours which are spent daily into preapplica-
tion and land application treatment. In addition, the collec-
tion system complications also exist.
A further complication to both the budgetary and staffing
information is afforded by the different operational practices
at the treatment plants. For example, at one location the pre-
application treatment and land application systems may be oper-
ated and maintained by the same staff, whereas at another facil-
ity, the duties at the land treatment facility may be shared by
the wastewater treatment facility personnel and/or farmer. At a
third facility, however, the operation and maintenance of the
land application system may be performed entirely by a farmer.
Therefore, only costs incurred by the municipality during the
land application portion were included, and no attempt was made
to calculate costs incurred by the farmer in the operation of
the land application facility, as the majority of these costs
would be incurred during irrigation of a normal farm.
The third problem question concerned determining the land
treatment operating strategy. The problem, however, was not how
the facility was operated, but rather why the facility was oper-
ated in the mode that it was. Typically, it appeared that oper-
ational practices were gained through experience, and once prac-
tices were successful, no attempt was made to change the opera-
tion of the facility. Therefore, when questioned about the
operation of the facility, the operators could typically respond
how something was done, but not necessarily why it was done.
26
-------
SECTION 6
EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
This section is intended to summarize information that was
collected during the site visits. Table 10 presents back-
ground information for each of the 28 land treatment sites vis-
ited.
Of the sites visited, facility 018 ('Easley, South Carolina
Utilities System Overland Flow Project) had been in operation
only two years at the time of the visit, whereas facility 027
(City of Winters, Texas) had been in use for approximately 56
years. A basic requirement for this project was that no plant
was to be visited that had not been in operation a reasonable
amount of time to minimize start-up related operation and main-
tenance problems.
In analyzing the types of land use adjacent to the land
treatment systems, it can be seen that the systems are located
in a wide variety of land use areas. As would be expected, the
slow-rate irrigation systems were located in agricultural areas.
Systems such as Pomona and Irvine Ranch, however, utilize water
for landscape irrigation, and therefore, the water reuse can be
in any of the land use areas. At all but four of the systems
visited, 100 percent of the preapplication treatment wastewater
was land applied. At facility 008 (Pomona, California), 33 per-
cent was land applied during the winter and 66 percent during
the summer; 34 percent was used in a nearby paper company year-
round. At facility 015 (El Dorado Hills, California), 60 per-
cent of the wastewater is either pumped to a lumber mill for re-
use or is surface discharged. At facility 016 (Utica, Missis-
sippi) , only one-third of the water which flows into the oxida-
tion pond is utilized in conjunction with the research project.
At facility 025 (Coleman, Texas), 30 percent of the preapplica-
tion effluent was discharged to surface-water with the aim of
not overirrigating the land application site. At eight of the
land treatment sites, drinking water in the vicinity was sup-
plied by groundwater, and at one location, it was supplied by
both groundwater and a public system. At the remaining sites,
potable water was supplied by a public water system.
27
-------
TABLE 10. LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS, BACKGROUND INFORMATION
NJ
CO
Facility Name
Village of Lake George VTOTP
North Branch Fire District No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Hanteca WWQCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater HPCP
Site
Number
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
DOS
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Type of Years in Adjacent,
System Operation Land Use
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI.SR
SR
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
OF
OF
OF
RI
RI
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
SR
SR
SR
41
5
6
5
11
9
27
50
18
23
11
35+
4
17
5
4
3
2
8
9
45
7
30
16
50
14
56
22
R
R,C,A
A
A
R,A
A
I,A,O
R,C,I,A,O
R,C
A
R,C,A,O
A
A, I
A
A,O
A
A,R
A,R
R
R
C,R
R
I
C,I,A
A
A
A
A
Percent of Drinking
Preapplication Water Average
Effluent to Source in Annual
Land Treatment Vicinity Temperature
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Winter. 33
Summer 66
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
33
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
100
100
100
Public
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Well
Well
Well
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Well k Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
Public
°C
8.2
7.8
8.3
8.9
8.5
8.8
17.6
16.7
16.7
16.4
16.6
17.4
16.8
15.9
13.1
18.8
15.9
15.4
11.1
9.7
11.1
11.9
12.2
17.3
18.6
18.6
18.2
17.4
Weather Data2
Estimated
Average Mean Annual
Annual Class A
Precipitation Pan Evaporation
m
0.95
1.09
0.84
0.84
0.80
0.82
0.32
0.42
0.42
0.20
0.31
0.24
0.26
0.30
1.01
1.31
1.38
1.32
1.01
1.10
1.01
1.10
1.02
1.15
0.68
0.68
0.55
0.56
m
0.84
0.89
0.94
1.02
0.99
1.02
1.75
1.65
1.65
1.78
1.52
2.29
2.29
2.03
1.65
1.52
1.40
1.30
0.86
0.81
0.86
1.19
1.14
1.91
2.41
2.41
2.49
2.54
1 R - Residential
C * Commercial
I * Industrial
A * Agricultural
O - Other
2 From nearest weather station.
Key.
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
Of the 28 sites visited, facility 002 (North Branch Fire
District No. 1, Dover, Vermont) was located in the coldest area,
with a mean annual temperature of 7.8°C (46.OOF). The Uti-
ca, Mississippi overland flow site was located in the warmest
area, with a yearly average temperature of 18.8°C (65.8°F).
Precipitation ranged from a high of 1.38 m/yr (4.53 ft/yr) at
the Falkner, Mississippi facility to.a low of 0.20 m/yr (0.66
ft/yr) at the Palmdale, California Water Reclamation Plant.
Yearly annual estimated Class A pan evaporation ranged from a
high of 2.54 m (8.3 ft) in Sweetwater, Texas, to a low of 0.81 TI
(2.7 ft) in Chatham, Massachusetts.
The physical facilities present at the land treatment sites
are presented in Table 11. From this table it can be seen that
seven of the 28 land treatment systems were controlled by some
sort of instrumentation system. Wastewater storage at the fa-
cilities ranged from 0 to a high of 472 days at facility 004
(City of Fremont, Michigan). Storage included any potential
storage due to a variable level in an oxidation pond, plus stor-
age in holding basins. Of interest, is the fact that none of
the seven rapid infiltration systems visited had on-site stor-
age. The overland flow site at facility 024 (Campbell Soup,
Paris, Texas) had no storage, whereas the other overland flow
sites had storage based on a variable level in the preapplica-
tion treatment oxidation ponds.
There were only two slow-rate systems which had no provi-
sions for wastewater storage; these were facilities 008 and 025
(Pomona, California Water Reclamation Plant, and the Coleman,
Texas Wastewater Treatment Plant). In both of these plants,
however, provisions existed for surface discharge.
The land area receiving wastewater varied from a low of 0.38
ha (0.94 acres) at the Chatham, Massachusetts facility, to a
high of 809 ha (2,000 acres) associated with the Irvine Ranch
Water District, California. The land area usage has been plot-
ted as a function of flow rate in Figure 2. As would be expect-
ed for the three different types of systems, three distinct
areas on the graph are prevalent. The lowest land requirement
is for the rapid infiltration systems. The highest land re-
quirement is for the slow-rate systems. In the middle area are
the four overland flow plants. Facility 024 (Campbell Soup,
Paris, Texas) appears slightly higher on the curve than some of
the other overland flow systems. This can be accounted for by a
recent expansion, and the fact that the facilities receive in-
dustrial wastewater with a high organic loading. Also plotted
on Figure 2 are the application land area requirements for mod-
erately-favorable conditions, as taken from "Water Reuse and Re-
cycling," Volume 2, OWRT/RU-79-2, U.S. Department of Interior,
29
-------
TABLE 11. LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS, PHYSICAL FACILITIES
u>
o
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
,126
027
028
Type
of
Sys-
tem
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI,SR
SR
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
OF
OF
OF
RI
RI
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
SR
SR
SR
Instru-
menta-
tion
System
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Waste-
Water Land
Stoi
age]
days
0
162
102
472
297
258
0
0<
0
42
98
28
3
4
7
N/A
118
44
0
0
0
51
0
0
0
369
9
15
;- Area-
Used
ha
2.2
13.8
34.8
24.1
8.1
31.6
20.3
29.1
405+
279
607-809
(Seasonal)
205
87.8
106
8.1
0.50
1.06
1.9
1.6
0.38
3.2
3.2
26.3
235
23.1
10.9
10.5
115
Sand
Silt,
Sand,
Sand,
Sand ,
Sand,
Sand,
Widely
Sand
Silt,
Silt,
Sand ,
Sand,
Sand,
Silt,
Silt,
Silt,
Loam,
Sand
Sand,
Sand,
Silt,
Sand
Clay
Clay,
Clay,
Silt,
Silt,
Soil '
sand ,
loam
loam
clay
loam,
loam
rype
loam
clay
varying
sand ,
sand ,
loam
loam
loam
loam
loam
loam,
clay,
loam
loam^
loam
loam.
loam.
sand,
loam.
loam
clay,
clay
sand
silt
silt
clay,
clay
Facility Name
Village of Lake George WWTP
North Branch Fire District
No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water
District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Manteca WWOCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES
Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities Sys-
tem Overland Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
llncludes potential storage, such as variable levels in oxidation ponds using 0.61 m (2.0 ft) minimum water depth regardless of whether or not system is
operated this way. Based on current flow rate, not including precipitation or evaporation effects.
2lncludes only land area in use, not land available for use.
3Flat 0-3»r moderate 3-8%; steep over 8%.
*An Il,356-m3 storage basin is currently under construction.
^Imported sand has been used for replacement.
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
Number
of
Ground-
Slope water
of ~ Moi
Land ing
Flat
Steep
Moderate
Flat
Flat
Moderate
Flat
Flat-steep
Flat
Flat
Flat-moderate
Flat
Flat
Flat
Moderate
Flat-moderate
Flat-moderate
Moderate
Flat
Flat
Flat
Moderate
Flat
Moderate
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
nitor-
Wells
24
6
6
32
0
5
0
0
16 +
4
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
11
3
0
0
0
0
0
Waste-
water
Distri-
bution
System
G,P
p
P
G,P
G
P
G,P
G,P
G
P
P
G
G,P
G,P
P
P
P
P
G
G
G
P
G,P
P
G
P
G,P
G,P
WastewaterApplication System
Infiltration beds
Fixed nozzles
Gated pipe, ridge and furrow
Border strip
Border strip
Center pivot, big gun spray
Infiltration beds, ridge & furrow
Spray, ridge and furrow
InfiItration beds
Side-wheel roll spray
Spray, ridge and furrow, drip
Border strip, ridge and furrow
Ridge and furrow
Border strip
Spray
Trough distribution
Spray
Fixed nozzle, trough, open pipe
Infiltration beds
Infiltration beds
Infiltration beds
Spray
Infiltration beds
Spray
Border strip
Side-wheel roll spray
Border strip
Border strip
-------
Rapid Infiltration
OWRT/RU-79/2 Data
Extrapolated
A-SR
• -RI
• -OF
0.1
0.0004
(0.01)
0.0044
(0.1)
0.044
(1.0)
Land Treatment Flow, m3/s (mgd)
Figure 2. Land area used as a function of flow rate.
31
-------
1979. Since the smallest flow contained in this report is
0.044 m3/s (i.O mgd), the plots are extrapolated for lower
values. The field data compare favorably with the OWRT data.
Table 11 also shows the various soil types at the land
treatment sites. These data were gathered from Soil Conserva-
tion Service Soil Survey Maps (where maps existed), and it can
be seen that land treatment systems are adaptable to a variety
of soil types. As would be expected, the rapid infiltration
systems are in sand or a sand and loam soil. In addition,
wastewater is applied on slopes of varying degree, from flat to
steep surfaces, with wastewater being applied to a slope of over
25 percent at facility 002 (North Branch Fire District No. 1,
Dover, Vermont), a woodland spray irrigation site.
At 11 of the 28 sites visited, groundwater monitoring wells
were installed and routinely monitored. A further description
of groundwater monitoring will be presented in a subsequent sec-
tion on BPWTT monitoring.
A wide variety of wastewater distribution equipment and ap-
plication system types were seen during the survey. In addi-
tion, at nine of the 28 sites, wastewater was distributed by
both gravity and pumping. At three of these sites, i.e., facil-
ities 001, 007, and 023, the older portions of the system re-
ceived gravity flow, while pumping was required for the newer
portions.
In Table 12, a substantial amount of the data collected dur-
ing the study is presented, and will be discussed briefly in
this report. A variety of contractual agreements exist, and
typically these agreements are for the slow-rate system, with
the exception of facility 009 (Whittier Narrows Water Reclama-
tion Plant, California) where wastewater is purchased for
groundwater recharge. In the remaining facilities, the agree-
ments typically are for the purchase of wastewater or for rental
of a portion of the city-owned land, with the stipulation that
the wastewater will be utilized. At facility 012 (Tulare, Cali-
fornia) , the stipulation is that the city will receive 25 per-
cent of the crop-generated revenues.
The electrical consumption (not including electrical usage
by the end user) in terms of kwh per month is also shown in
Table 12.
During the site visits, the operational staffs were ques-
tioned on the type of regulatory permit under which the facility
was operated. At seven of the sites, the facilities were oper-
ating under an operating permit only. At eight sites, the fa-
cility was operating under a pretreatment quality permit, and at
32
-------
TABLE 12. LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS INFORMATION
Facility Name
Village of Lake George WWTP
North Branch Fire District
No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Herman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
CO U.S. Army COE, WES
CO Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities System
Overland Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
^Does not include electrical usage by end users unless paid by authority.
2QP - Operating permit
PTQ - Preapplication treatment quality
SWDQ - Surface-water-discharge quality
GWQ - Groundwater quality
3City of Pomona Water Department purchases water for $9.26/1,000 m3.
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Type
of
Sys-
tem
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI,SR
SR
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
OF
OF
OF
RI
RI
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
SR
SR
SR
Revenues Generated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gravity-$12. 16/1, 000 m3 ,
Pressure-$48. 93/1, 000 m3
$16.21/1,000 m3
$4.05/1,000 m3
132. 43-$64. 86/1, 000 m3
City receives 25% of crop
revenues
$l,000/yr for water
$181/ha/yr for land
$10.71/ha/yr for land
$100/month+$31/l,000 m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$129.87/ha/yr for land
Farmer pays pumping cost
Average
Elec-
trical
Usage
kwh
1
4
16
3
14
11
16
Not
10
Not
Not
2
3
3
Not
$8.09/ha/yr for entire site 3
0
2
/mo
,365
,700
,228
,505
0
,000
,250
,933
0
0
known
0
194
,000
known
known
360
,326
0
0
0
,630
,460
known
0
727
,000
,700
OW Manual
Type Which System
of Addresses Oper-
Regu- Land ated
latory. Application as Buffer
Permit On Hand? Designed? Zone Size
PTQ
OP
GWQ
GWQ
SWDQ
GWQ
PTQ
PTQ
PTQ
PTQ, GWQ
PTQ
PTQ
PTQ
PTQ, GWQ
PTQ, SWDQ
None
SWDQ
None
SWDQ
OP
OP
PTQ
OP
SWDQ
SWDQ
OP
OP
OP
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Being written
No
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
m
76
61
15
15
15
0
91 RI basins
6 Citrus grove
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
0
15
30
305
30
46
0
30+
6
305
30
15
Public Access Controls
Woods
Fence
Fence
Fence
Fence
Fence
Fence
and
and
and
and
and
and
signs
signs
signs
signs
signs
signs--RI basins
Signs — citrus grove
None
Fence
Signs
None
Signs
None
None
None
Signs
Fence
Fence
Fence
None
Fence
and
and
and
signs
signs
signs
One field — fence and signs
Other
None
Fence
Fence
Fence
Fence
Fence
fie:
and
and
Id — none
signs
signs
-------
TABLE 12. LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS INFORMATION
(continued)
Facility Name
Village of Lake George WWTP
North Branch Fire District
No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
10 City of Manteca WWQCF
^ El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES
Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities Sys-
tem Overland Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
^January = 1, December = 12
2Farmer to manage in future.
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Surface
Type Land Runoff
of Treatment Col-
Sys- System lected/
tern Management Diverted
RI Wastewater agency Yes
SR Wastewater agency Yes
SR Wastewater agency Yes
SR Wastewater agency Yes
SR Wastewater agency2 Yes
RI Wastewater agency Yes
SR and farmer
SR City of Pomona and No
end users
RI LACFCD Yes
SR Farmer No
SR Wastewater agency, No
farmer and home
SR Farmer No
SR Farmer No
SR Farmer Yes
SR Golf course No
OF Wastewater agency Yes
(COE)
OF Wastewater agency Yes
OF Wastewater agency Yes
and Clemson Univ.
RI Wastewater agency Yes
RI Wastewater agency Yes
RI Wastewater agency Yes
SR Wastewater agency No
RI Wastewater agency Yes
OF Campbell Soup Yes
SR Wastewater agency Yes
and farmer
SR Wastewater agency Yes
and farmer
SR Farmer Yes
SR Farmer Yes
Months
System
in
Use1
1-12
1-12
4-11
4-11
4-11
5-9
RI 1-12
SR 4-10
1-12
1-12
2-10
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
1-12
Types of Crojjs
Not applicable
Maples, beeches, birches,
white pine, spruce, fir
Pine, hardwood, uncultivated
Alfalfa, oats, rye
Uncultivated
Alfalfa, timothy, grass, clover
SR-grapefruits, oranges
Landscape, alfalfa, tomatoes,
corn, oats, barley, citrus
Not applicable
Alfalfa, oats
Tomatoes, peppers, corn,
broccoli, cauliflower, land-
scape
Wheat, barley, oats, cotton,
corn
Alfalfa, sugar beets, barley,
oats, cotton, aImonds
Barley, oats, corn
Landscape
Reed canary, fescue, perennial
rye, Bermuda
Harding grass, coastal
Bermuda, reed canary, fescue
Fescue, rye
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Beeches, maples, poplar, oaks
Not applicable
Reed canary, fescue, red top,
rye
Coastal Bermuda
Alfalfa, Johnson grass
Coastal Bermuda, Sudan grass
Coastal Bermuda, Sudan,
Johnson, and Rescue grasses,
oats, and wheat
CtrgE Usg
-
Not applicable
Animal feed
Not applicable
Animal feed
Human consump-
tion
Human and ani-
mal consumption
_
Animal feed
Human consump-
tion
Animal feed
Human and ani-
mal consumption
Cattle feed
-
Tested and
discarded
Left in field
Erosion control
_
-
-
Not applicable
-
Cattle feed
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture
Pasture, animal
feed
Who
Harvests
Are
Farm-
ing
Prac-
tices
Dif-
Crop? fecent?
-
.
Custom farmer
-
Custom farmer
Farmer
Individual
farmers
-
Farmer
Farmer
Farmer
Farmer
Farmer
-
COE
Operator
Custom farmer
_
-
-
-
-
Custom farmer
-
-
_
Farmer
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Maxi-
mizing
Crop
Produc-
tion or
Waste-
water
Disposal
N/A
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Crops
Crops
N/A
Crops
Crops
Crops
Crops
Wastewater
N/A
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wastewater
N/A
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Crops
-------
three facilities, a groundwater quality permit was in effect.
At five facilities, a surface-water discharge quality (NPDES)
permit was in use. Three facilities operate under a dual permit
system, with two utilizing a combined pretreatment quality and
groundwater quality permit, and one having a combined pretreat-
ment and surface discharge quality permit.
At the 22 facilities where an operation and maintenance man-
ual would be of use in operating the land treatment system, 15
had a manual. In addition, only four of the 28 sites were cur-
rently operated differently from their design operation.
Of the sites visited, all of the rapid infiltration and ov-
erland flow systems were operated 12 months out of the year. It
should be remembered, however, that the overland flow systems
were all located in mild climates. Of the 18 slow-rate systems,
only six are operated less than 12 months of the year. Of
these, the citrus crop irrigation at facility 007 (Fontana, Cal-
ifornia Regional Plant) is included. In this case, however, as
there is a rapid infiltration system also available, the slow-
rate system is not operated during the colder months.
The types of crops grown and the ultimate use of the crops
are also presented in Table 12 for the slow-rate and overland
flow sites. Of the seven rapid infiltration sites visited, only
the Chatham, Massachusetts facility had any major plant growth
in the basins. This was just weed growth which had not been re-
moved.
At the remaining sites (with the exception of Ravenna, Mich-
igan) , a wide range of crops is grown. At three-sites, trees
are irrigated but not harvested. At the Utica, Mississippi
overland flow site, the vegetation was tested and discarded. In
Falkner, Mississippi the vegetation was cut and left in the
field. At the Easley, South Carolina overland flow site, the
grass was baled; it is currently used only for erosion control,
as permission has not yet been granted for it to be used as ani-
mal feed. At the remaining sites crops are grown and used for
either human or animal consumption.
At the 13 facilities where the major objective of the land
treatment system was crop production, the superintendent or
foreman involved was queried as to whether or not the farming
practices were different than at neighboring farms of equal soil
type growing the same crop. At only three facilities were the
farming practices the same as practices at neighboring farms.
At the remaining sites, the farming practices were believed to
be different. A description of the changes in farming practices
is discussed in the trip reports contained in Appendix A.
35
-------
Table 13 presents the land treatment system loading rates in
terms of hydraulic, organic, suspended solids, and nutrients.
The calculations are based primarily on information received
during the site visits. These data may be compared to the typi-
cal loading rates presented in Table 1 in order to determine
whether the actual hydraulic loading rates are in agreement with
typical design standards. Based on this review, all hydraulic
rates are in agreement with design loading rates.
CONFORMANCE OF SITES VISITED WITH BPWTT REQUIREMENTS
The criteria for Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology
(BPWTT) are set forth in 41 FR 6190 (February 11, 1976). The
criteria for BPWTT for facilities employing land application
techniques require that the groundwater resulting from the ap-
plication of wastewater meet the standards for chemical quality
(inorganic chemicals) and pesticides (organic chemicals) speci-
fied in the EPA National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regula-
tions (40 CFR 141) in cases where the groundwater can be used
for drinking water supply. In addition, the standards for chem-
ical quality, pesticides, and microbial contamination are re-
quired in cases where the water is presently being used as a
drinking water source. In cases where the water is not and will
not be used for drinking water purposes, the EPA Regional Admin-
istrator, in conjunction with state officials, should establish
the criteria on a case-by-case basis.
The criteria for BPWTT state that applicants for construc-
tion grant funds authorized by Section 201 of the 1977 Clean Wa-
ter Act must have evaluated alternative waste treatment manage-
ment techniques and selected the technique which will provide
for the application of BPWTT. Only municipalities applying for
construction grant funds after February 11, 1976 need consider
BPWTT requirements.
Referring to Table 10, it can be seen that only two facil-
ities have been operational less than four years, facility 017
(Falkner, Mississippi) and facility 018 (Easley, South Caroli-
na). To the best of the operator's knowledge, neither facility
had BPWTT requirements.
Regardless, to provide a prospective view of the current
status of groundwater monitoring, Table 14 is presented. Bas-
ically, 11 of the 28 facilities visited had groundwater monitor-
ing, and a variety of parameters at various frequencies were
measured.
36
-------
TABLE 13. LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM LOADING RATES
Facility Name
North Branch Fire District No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
EJ Dorado Hills WWTP
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Village of Lake George WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Landis Sewage Authority
U.S. Army COE, WES Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities System
Overland Flow Project
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
Site
Number
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
010
on
012
013
014
(\1 c
U13
022
025
026
027
028
001
007
: 009
019
020
021
023
016
017
018
024
Type
of
System
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI
RI
RI
HI
RI
RI
RI
OF
OF
OF
OF
Hydraulic
mm/wk
21.8
69.5
76.2
—
42.2
54.6
33.0
43.2
17.0
58.4
40.6
32.3
18.3
76.2
45.7
1,130
330
2,110
Winter 380
Summer 720
—
400
63.5-254
17. 83
Raw 119
Pond 103-193
40.6
m/yr
1.1
2.4
2.6
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.4
2.3
0.89
3.0
2.1
1.7
0.95
4.0
1.2
40.5
17.3
49. 72
27.1
28.8
12.0
21.0
3.3-13.2
--
-_
—
2.1
Organic
kg BOD5/ha/yr
40.7
1,208
316
—
287
1,623
637
Cannot
2,253
89
1,471
320
67.2
266
1,775
215
23,862
17,162
--
4,103
5,616
--
--
87.6-349
--
11,810
1,446-2,740
12,790
Suspended
Solids
kg SS/ha/yr
45.2
2,101
817
--
--
1,247
1,699
4,070
53
1,382
428
16.8
578
2,365
132
8,897
12,771
--
5,471
4,405
--
--
139-555
--
10,982
3,098-5,871
5,595
kg NH3-N/ha/yr
5.4
—
—
--
--
472
99.1
454
--
445
219
-_
__
--
--
—
4,995
--
--
--
--
--
55.0-222
--
944
42.8-80.7
3704
Nutrients
kg NO3-N/ha/yr
63.7
__
--
--
--
5.9
-
—
--
16.9
—
--
»-
--
--
—
43.1
--
--
-_
--
--
--
— ,
79.9
28.0-52.8
—
kg T-P/ha/yr
15.61
49.31
87
--
__
410
1571
—
--
--
1491
--
--
--
--
—
4,335
-_
--
--
—
--
39.3-158
__
172
64.0-121
160
^Phosphorus measured as PO4.
^Based on total water infiltration, not only reclaimed water.
^Design application rate. •
4Total - N.
Key.
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
TABLE 14
GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA
oo
Facility Name
Village of Lake George
WWTP
North Branch Fire
District No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
City of Wayland WWTP
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water
Reclamation Plant
City of Manteca WWQCF
Easley Combined Utilities
System Overland Flow Project
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon
System
Landis Sewage Authority
Type
Site of
Number System
001
002
003
004
RI
SR
SR
SR
Number
of
Wells
24
32
005
009
010
014
018
022
SR
RI
SR
SR
OF
SR
5
16+
2
9
5
7
023
RI
Groundwater
Monitoring
Parameters
Wells installed by Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute for
research purposes only
pH, alkalinity, hardness,
sulfate, chloride, ammonia-N,
nitrate-N, phosphate
Static water elevation,
chloride, specific conductance, pH
Hardness, alkalinity, ammonia-N,
nitrate-N, phosphorus, MBAS, COD
Static water elevation, chloride,
specific conductance
pH, hardness, alkalinity, ammonia-N,
nitrate-N, nitrite-N, phosphorus, sulfate
No samples are taken due to problems
with wells. New wells are to be installed.
Major minerals, nitrogen compounds, COD,
BOD, TDS, electrical conductance, pH, odor
Trace metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons
Various wastewater parameters measured in
farmer's two irrigation wells
Static water elevation, ammonia-N, nitrite-N,
nitrate-N
Groundwater monitoring for research
purposes only
Static water elevation, pH, ammonia-N,
nitrite-N, nitrate-N, phosphate, fecal
coliforms
Water table elvation
Sample
Frequency
I/month when not
frozen
I/month
I/year
4/year
I/year
4/year
I/year
2/year
4/year
4/year
Continuous
Four local domestic wells also monitored.
-------
LAND TREATMENT OPERATION PROCEDURES
The majority of the sites visited were adequately operated
and their performance is believed acceptable as their operation-
al practices are within the standard guidelines. Only one fa-
cility, Winters, Texas, appeared to have major operational dif-
ficulties. These difficulties appeared due to the constraints
placed on the system due to poor design. In general, a land
treatment system should be well operated since operation of the
system is uncomplicated, particularly for the slow-rate and rap-
id infiltration systems. In fact, with a slow-rate system there
are few parameters that can be controlled by the facility opera-
tor. For example, the yearly application rate is fixed by the
amount of available land. The application rate can be increased
by taking land out of service. However, it cannot be decreased
unless extra land is available or the possibility for surface
discharge exists. The operational aspect involves how much
wastewater should be applied in order to match the required
yearly amount of wastewater generated.
The operation of a rapid infiltration system is even sim-
pler as there is normally no storage, and the amount of wastewa-
ter generated daily must be applied to the rapid infiltration
beds the same day. The operation, therefore, consists of rotat-
ing the beds based, typically on visual observation, and insur-
ing that the beds are adequately maintained so that there is al-
ways sufficient capacity to handle the influent wastewater.
An overland flow system has the greatest potential for oper-
ator control. The operator can vary the time over which the
specified amount of wastewater is applied, and can, to some de-
gree, take plots in and out of service to meet the required de-
mand, thereby controlling the hydraulic loading rate, unless, of
course, the system is overloaded.
In terms of operational strategy and process control, very
little is done by the operators of land treatment systems. This
is not to say that the systems are not well operated, but it ap-
pears that once the operator gets in a "groove" he is content to
stay with this mode of operation. Given this type of steady-
state operation, the need for process control is minimized. For
example, it is commonly stated that the amount of nitrification
and denitrification in a rapid infiltration system can be con-
trolled by the dosing schedule maintained. Typical operations
in the field do not attempt to maximize nitrification/denitrifi-
cation. This is not attempted due to the practical difficulties
involved in operating the system in this mode, and the fact that
the operator has no apparent need to run the system in this
mode. In addition, this sort of exercise may be possible in a
39
-------
laboratory, but the process control necessary on a large-scale
system is extremely difficult, if not impossible.
An additional process control item often discussed is the
effect of loading cycles on the hydraulic capacity of an infil-
tration bed. Typically, in the field the rate and amount of
wastewater .applied to the beds are based on experience; experi-
ments are not conducted to find the effect of various dosing
patterns on the subsequent infiltration potential of the basin.
Similarly, for the overland flow system, mention is made of the
effect of a resting period to allow for nitrification. Typical-
ly, the process controls necessary to make these allowances are
not measured in actual field installations.
One area of interest involves the effects of seasonal varia-
tion on operation and performance of land treatment systems.
Based on the site visits, there appeared to be minimal problems
associated with winter operation of the rapid infiltration sys-
tems. Specifically, facilities 001, 019, 020, and 021 (Lake
George, Chatham, Barnstable, and Wareham) are located in areas
subject to subfreezing winter temperatures and no major problems
were associated with winter operation.
Two of the slow-rate land treatment systems in temperate
regions (North Branch Fire District No. 1 and Kendal/Crosslands)
operate 12 months of the year. The four slow-rate facilities
located in Michigan, however, only operate part-time during the
winter. The two facilities that operate during the winter
months stop spray irrigation when the temperature reaches a
specified low point: -17.8°C (0°F) for the North Branch Fire
District, and -6.7°C (20°F) for the Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon
System. As would be expected, the major operational problem
during the winter months is freezing of the spray nozzles and
lines. Particular care must be taken to minimize the potential
for problems. A further description of winter operational prob-
lems is contained in the trip reports in Appendix A. The effect
of winter conditions on an overland flow treatment system cannot
be assessed as no facilities operating under winter conditions
were visited.
Basically, operation of slow-rate and rapid infiltration
systems is similar in that wastewater is applied to an area as
necessary. In the case of a slow-rate system irrigating crops,
"necessary" infers that the crop requires irrigation. Converse-
ly, "necessary," in terms of a slow-rate system for a nonculti-
vated area or a wooded area, is similar to the operation of a
rapid infiltration system in that wastewater is applied to the
area most able to accept the additional hydraulic loading. Ro-
tation of the areas to be irrigated is based on visual observa-
tion and experience.
40
-------
For an overland flow land treatment system, the operational
strategy for two of the facilities cannot be assessed as the
Utica and Easley facilities were research operations, and there-
fore, on strict application schedules. These schedules allowed
varying amounts of wastewater to be applied to plots for varying
time periods so that a correlation between various parameters
could be attained. In addition, the Falkner, Mississippi site
is typically run more as a slow-rate system than as an overland
flow system, and little can be gained in terms of insight into
the operational strategies. This leaves facility 024 (Campbell
Soup, Paris, Texas) as the only acceptable operating plant. The
operation of this facility follows a strict schedule of rotation
by which wastewater is applied for six to eight hours per day,
followed by a rest period the remainder of the day. Beds are
taken out of service for crop harvesting purposes only. Camp-
bell Soup has spent a lot of time and effort in defining the op-
timum conditions for the overland flow system, specific to their
wastewater. This sort of effort could riot be expected for a mu-
nicipal facility, particularly a smaller municipal facility.
Sites visited ranged in capacity from 0.0009 m-^/s (20,000 gpd)
for facility 016 (Utica, Mississippi) to 0.701 m^/s (16 mgd)
at facility 009 (Whittier Narrows, California). For the slow-
rate and rapid infiltration systems, no discernible difference
in operation and maintenance was evident as a function of flow
rate. A discernible difference was noticed between the opera-
tion and maintenance of the smaller overland flow facilities as
compared to the Campbell Soup facility. At this facility, the
operational staff was knowledgeable, and kept matters on the
right track. At the smaller Falkner, Mississippi facility
(017), although there were no operational problems, there were
no rigid operational guidelines. No comparison can be drawn,
however, by comparing the sophisticated industrial wastewater
treatment facility to the extremely small rural overland flow
treatment facility.
LAND TREATMENT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Regardless of the type of land treatment system, the equip-
ment utilized should not be appreciably different than equipment
used at the wastewater preapplication treatment facility, with
the possible exception of irrigation equipment. Therefore, a
reasonably experienced treatment plant operator or maintenance
man should not encounter any major difficulties with the land
treatment equipment that is installed. Typically, the systems
consist of valves, piping, pumps, and possibly controllers,
equipment with which maintenance people are well aquainted.
In fact, an appealing virtue of a land treatment system is
its overall simplicity and lack of maintenance requirements.
This makes the land treatment system particularly effective for
41
-------
smaller flows where the system can consist of a simple preappli-
cation treatment step, such as an oxidation pond, followed by
the land treatment system. This type of system has extremely
low maintenance, operator and energy requirements, yet can pro-
duce a good quality effluent with minimal environmental impact.
The land treatment systems, in general, have the same main-
tenance problems as wastewater treatment plants, i.e., pumps and
electric control valves. None of these maintenance problems,
however, are extremely difficult to handle or cause major prob-
lems. One problem associated with the maintenance of a land
treatment system with which the operator may not be familiar is
the wastewater distribution system, particularly if the system
is a spray application type. With a small amount of training,
however, the maintenance of these items is not believed to be a
problem. In addition, in many cases the application equipment
will be operated and maintained by a private farmer. At none of
the facilities visited did the application equipment in use
cause major maintenance problems.
BUFFER ZONES
The interaction between the public sector and the land
treatment system was viewed in two areas, the first being the
presence of a buffer zone, and the second, whether or not the
public was allowed access to the site. At 11 of the 22 sites,
there were no buffer zones between the land treatment system and
the neighboring properties. These 11 sites include sites utili-
zing both spray irrigation and surface application techniques.
In terms of public access, there are basically three modes of
control. The first is a fence, with or without signs, for posi-
tive control; the second uses signs for control; and in the
third mode, no attempt is made at control. At 15 of the sites,
control is by means of a fence, both with or without signs. At
four sites, public access is controlled utilizing signs stating
the use of reclaimed water. At nine sites, the public has ac-
cess to the land treatment portion of the facility. This is not
to say, however, that the operators desire people to come in
contact with the wastewater. In addition, at two of the facili-
ties in Texas, fences are only used for control of livestock and
were not intended to keep the public from contacting the re-
claimed water.
A neighbor interview survey was conducted, where appropri-
ate, during the site visits to quantify the effect of the land
treatment systems on the neighbors. There were no reported
problems with drifting aerosol or mist, and the majority of com-
plaints involved odors or mosquitoes. The odors may, however,
be involved with either sewage or sludge treatment or land ap-
plication, and are hard to track down. The complaints of bugs
and mosquitoes are typically related to water impoundments, and,
42
-------
at various locations, attempts are made through local agencies
to minimize the problem.
MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING STRATEGIES
A variety of management techniques for the land treatment
system are possible. This is particularly true for the slow-
rate system as opposed to the rapid infiltration and overland
flow systems which are typically operated by the wastewater
treatment agencies except in the case of the Whittier Narrows
facility. Of the 18 different slow-rate systems visited, the
land treatment system was managed by the wastewater agency at
six facilities. At nine facilities, the land treatment system
was managed by the end user, typically a farmer. In three cases
management was carried out by the wastewater agency and the far-
mer jointly.
Slow-Rate Systems
The management of a slow-rate system can take one of three
general directions. The first alternative is a land treatment
facility which is owned and operated by the wastewater treatment
agency. The second potential management scheme is when the
wastewater treatment plant staff and the land treatment system
staff are two separate entities, each managing their own system.
The third situation, and possibly the most common, is a position
somewhere between the first and second schemes. In this case,
some of the operations of the land treatment system are carried
out by the preapplication treatment personnel, and some are car-
ried out by the farmer.
A further complication exists when discussing management
strategies. There is a difference between land treatment and
land application, based on the degree of preapplication treat-
ment. For the land application system, the wastewater is typi-
cally pretreated to a high degree, and management of a land ap-
plication system is very similar to the management of a normal
irrigation system. Two facilities of this type were visited,
i.e., facilities 008 and Oil (Pomona Water Reclamation Plant and
Irvine Ranch Water District). The remainder of this section is
more applicable to the land treatment systems than the land ap-
plication systems.
Given the three choices of system management, the next ques-
tion is 'which of these alternative methods is most effective.
Based on data presented in Section 7 it is shown that the most
expensive land treatment systems are those which were owned and
operated by the wastewater treatment agency. This is not sur-
prising as the facility must supply the labor necessary to oper-
ate the system. In terms of dollars per volume of wastewater
treated, however, either the second or third management
43
-------
strategy has merit in that some of the normal costs of opera-
tion of the land treatment system can be defrayed by the farmer
who is operating the system. This decreases the apparent total
cost of wastewater treatment and disposal. Therefore, the sec-
ond or third method of management is suggested where possible.
For large systems, however, the second and third management
strategies may be difficult or impractical, and therefore a pub-
licly operated system may be desirable.
The key point to remember is the need for a close working
relationship between the preapplication treatment and land
treatment management. In this way, any potential problems can
be worked out and both parties will gain the greatest advantage
from the relationship. An example of this can be seen in the
trip report for facility 028 (Sweetwater, Texas).
There can be a particular problem with staffing a slow-
rate land treatment system. This problem is most acute where
treatment plant personnel are totally or partially involved in
the operation of the land treatment facility. The operation of
a land treatment facility requires expertise that is partially
different from the operation of a preapplication treatment fa-
cility. Therefore, where possible, operators who have previous
farming experience should be hired to fill these positions. The
Staffing requirement is an impetus toward having a farmer oper-
ate the slow-rate land treatment system, as he would be the per-
son most able to run and operate a farm in the most efficient
manner.
Rapid Infiltration Systems
The management strategy for a rapid infiltration system is
simpler than the slow-rate system as the rapid infiltration sys-
tems will typically be operated by the treatment plant person-
nel. Based on observations during the site visits, it is noted
that the rapid infiltration beds require minimal operational at-
tention, and the major labor requirement is related to bed main-
tenance.
The amount of labor associated with rapid infiltration bed
maintenance is a function of the degree of preapplication treat-
ment. This concept is discussed in a subsequent subsection, and
the OWRT labor requirements presented in Figure 4 are believed
to be a fair starting point toward estimating the required
staffing. Additions or subtractions from these labor require-
ments, however, should be made based on the degree of preappli-
cation treatment. Treatment plant operations staff should have
the expertise required to operate the land treatment system.
Minimal training above and beyond conventional wastewater treat-
ment training should be required.
44
-------
Overland Flow Systems
Management of an overland flow system, like a rapid infil-
tration system, will be performed by the wastewater treatment
agency. Unlike a rapid infiltration system, however, an over-
land flow system requires a higher degree of operator training.
As the concepts necessary for operating an overland flow system
are different from those typically taught in a wastewater opera-
tors training course, additional operator training is recommend-
ed.
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS STAFFING LEVELS
During the site visits, the staffing requirements for the
operation and maintenance of the preapplication treatment and
land treatment portions of the facility were collected. These
data are presented in Table 15 which also presents data on the
number of shifts per day and days per week that the preapplica-
tion and land treatment systems are staffed. In addition, the
table presents the number of man-days per week which are spent
in conjunction with both preapplication and land treatment.
Based on the amount of wastewater which is land applied (not
necessarily the treatment plant flow rate), the staffing re-
quirement in terms of man-days per 1,000 cubic meters has been
calculated for both the preapplication and the land treatment
systems.
A review of Table 15 indicates that most of the treatment
plants were manned one shift per day. Some of the larger facil-
ities were manned either two or three shifts per day, however.
Typically, plants were manned seven days per week. In terms of
man-days per 1,000 cubic meters necessary for preapplication
treatment, facility Oil (Whittier Narrows Reclamation Plant) re-
quired the least amount of operation and maintenance time, re-
quiring only 0.04 man-days per 1,000 cubic meters. Conversely,
facility 020 (Chatham, Massachusetts) had the highest operation
and maintenance needs as it required 4.68 man-days per 1,000 cu-
bic meters.
The land treatment system associated with facility 027 (City
of Winters, Texas) was the least labor-intensive as the operator
reported that he spent no time in conjunction with the land
treatment system. The most labor-intensive systems are facility
016 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Overland Flow Site, Utica,
Mississippi), which required 9.18 man-days per 1,000 cubic me-
ters, and facility 018 (Easley, South Carolina), which required
2.07 man-days per 1,000 cubic meters. These are research facil-
ities, however, and not typical of an operating facility. The
next highest nonresearch system is facility 017 (Falkner, Mis-
sissippi), which required 1.72 man-days per 1,000 cubic meters.
45
-------
TABLE 15. PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT AND LAND TREATMENT
STAFFING
Facility Name
village of Lake George
WWTP
North Branch Fire Dis-
trict No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant
No. 3
Pomona Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Whittier Narrows Water
Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclama-
tion Plant
Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
Facility
Location
Lake George,
NY
West Dover,
VT
Hart,
MI
Fremont,
MI
Ravenna,
MI
Wayland,
MI
Fontana,
CA
Pomona ,
CA
El Monte,
CA
Palmdale ,
CA
Irvine,
CA
Tulare ,
CA
Kerman,
CA
Manteca,
CA
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
Current
Flow
Rate1
(m3/s) "
0.0280
0.0049
0.0267
0.0133
0.0032
0.0110
0.0438
0.3505'
0.7010
0.0811
0.3505
0.1490
0.0228
0.1008
Preapplication Treatment System
Shifts/
Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
3
Days/
Week
7
7
7
5
7
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Man- Days/
Week
13.13
4.4
6.5
6.3
1.3
2.0
5.0
54J,3
153,5
9.4
63
28.4
9.8
27
Man-Days/
1,000 mj
0.77
1.48
0.40
o1. 7'a-
0.67
0.30
0.19
0.25
0.64
0.19
0.30
0.32
0.71
0.44
Land Treatment System '
Shifts/
Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Days/
Week
7
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
Not a
5
7
7
5
7
Man-Days/
Week
11. 653
3.9
2.5
2
0.13
0.8
5.0
0.9J
pplicable
0.6
30
0.6
0.3
3
Man-Days/
1,000 mj
0.69
1.32
0.15
0.25
0.07
0.12
0.19
0.006
0.01
0.14
0.007
0.02
0.05
Total SvBte»
Man-Days/
1,000 a3
1.46
2.80
0.55
1.03
0.74
0.42
0.38
0.26
0.20
0.44
0.33
0.73
0.49
^Yearly averages.
21,000 m3 x 3.785 = million gallons
3Does not include superintendent's time.
*Flow based on yearly average, land treatment flow yearly average = 0.173 m3/s.
es not include sludge handling.
ve-day average production flow. Yearly average flow = 0.1796 m3/s. Man-days requirements are based on five-day average flow rate.
es not include superintendent or chief operator's time.
ow based on yearly average, accounting for surface discharge = 0.0123
'Fi
7Do
8Fl
Key;
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
TABLE 15. PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT AND LAND TREATMENT
STAFFING
(continued)
Facility Name
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES Over-
land Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utili-
ties System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon
System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas) ,
Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Facility
Location
El Dorado
Hills, CA
Utica,
MS
Falkner ,
MS
Easley,
SC
Wareham,
MA
Chatham,
MA
Hyannis,
MA
Kennett Square,
PA
Vineland,
NJ
Paris,
TX
Coleman,
TX
Santa Anna,
TX
Winters,
TX
Sweetwater ,
TX
Site
No.
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Current
Flow-
Rate1
0.0197
0.0009
0.0012
0.0044
0.0140
0.0035
0.0252
0.0022
0.1753
0.2234°
0.0175°
0.0033
0.0131
0.0438
Preapplication Treatment System
Shifts/
Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Days/
Week
7
Not ap
5
Not ap
7
7
7
5
7
Han-Days/
Week
9.4
plicable
k1.3
plicable
20
9.9
10.8
2.5
22
Not applicable
7
7
5
7
4.3
1.3
1.0
18.8
Man-Days/
1,000 mj
'O'.rS
1.72
2.36
4.68
0.71
1.88
0.21
0.41
0.65
0.13
0.71
1 2
Land Treatment System '
Shifts/
Day
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Days/
Week
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
5
7
7
7
5
0
7
Man-Days/
Week
0.6
5
1.3
5.5
0.8
0.5
2.7
1.3
16
40'
0.7
1.0
0
0.9
Man-Days/
1,000 nr
0.05
9.18
1.72
2.07
0.09
0.24
0.18
0.94
0.15
0.30
0.09
0.50
0
0.03
Total Systen
Man-Day*/
1,000 «T
0.84
9.18
3.44
2.07
2.45
4.92
0.89
2.82
0.36
0.30
0.50
1.15
0.13
0.74
Ivearly averages.
21,000 m3 x 3.785 - million gallons
3Does not include superintendent's time.
*Flow based on yearly average, land tre/atment flow yearly average = 0.173 m3/s.
5Does not include sludge handling.
*Five-day average production flow. Yearly average flow - 0.1796 mVs. Man-days requirements are based on five-day average flow rate.
7Doe» not include superintendent or chief operator's time.
'Flow baaed on yearly average, accounting for surface discharge = 0.0123 i»3/s.
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
It is felt that the most accurate data can be presented by the
total system (preapplication and land treatment) operation and
maintenance labor requirements. This is because treatment
plants do not typically keep track of the amount of time spent
in conjunction with operation and maintenance of preapplication
vs land application portions of the facility. The least labor-
intensive system was once again the Winters Wastewater Treatment
Facility which required only 0.13 man-day per 1,000 cubic me-
ters. Aside from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site, the
most labor-intensive treatment system was the Chatham, Massachu-
setts Water Pollution Control Facility which required 4.92 man-
days per 1,000 cubic meters.
From "Water Reuse and Recycling," volume 2, OWRT/RU-79/2
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979) , data were obtained for
the labor requirements for the three types of land treatment
systems. The labor requirements are presented in Tables 16, 17,
and 18. These three tables also include data on electrical con-
sumption and maintenance requirements, which will be used in a
later section. For the three different treatment plant sizes,
the labor requirements were then translated into man-days per
1,000 cubic meters of wastewater. These data were then plotted
for the three different types of systems and are shown on Fig-
ures 3, 4, and 5. For comparison purposes, the data from the
sites surveyed are also presented on the figures. It should be
noted that the smallest flow given in the OWRT report was 0.044
m-Vs (1.0 mgd) , and due to the nonlinear nature of the data,
the curve from 0.044 m3/s (1.0 mgd) to 0.0004 (0.01 mgd) was
extrapolated, based on the nature of the curve.
Figure 3 shows that only three treatment facilities appear above
the extrapolated line, i.e., facilities 002, 004, and 022. The
similarity between these facilities is that, in each case, all
operation and maintenance is carried out by treatment plant per-
sonnel. Two other facilities (facilities Oil and 026) appear
very close to the OWRT data. Facility Oil is the Irvine Ranch
Water District dual water supply system, and therefore requires
the high labor requirement. Facility 026 (City of Santa Anna,
Texas) is a system in which all irrigation is performed by city
personnel. The remaining 11 facilities appear substantially be-
low the curve, and once again appear to reflect the fact that
labor is supplied by someone other than the sewage disposal au-
thority, resulting in low labor requirements.
In Figure 4, it is seen that four facilities (facilities
007, Oil, 021, and 023) appear above the OWRT curve. Of these
48
-------
TABLE 16. SLOW-RATE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COST COMPONENTS1'2
Electrical Consumption
Cost3
Plant Size
0.044 rn3/s 0.438 m3/s
(1.0 mgd) (10 mgd)
$20,980
$209,760
2.19 m3/s
(50 mgd)
$1,048,800
Maintenance Materials^
$8,580
$64,990
$235,300
Labor Cost^
$26,080
$176,700
$594,800
Total Yearly Cost
$55,640
$451,450
$1,878,900
costs escalated to second quarter 1980 from September
1977 base utilizing EPA's Operation and Maintenance Cost
Indices.
^Costs are from "Water Reuse and Recycling," Volume 2,
Evaluation of Treatment Technology, for moderately favorable
conditions and include the following components: force mains,
monitoring wells, center pivot spray, storage, and distribu-
tion pumping.
3Electricity at $0.04/kwh escalated by 1.38 factor.
Maintenance materials escalated by 1.34 factor.
at $10/hr escalated by 1.21 factor.
49
-------
TABLE 17. RAPID INFILTRATION LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COST COMPONENTS1i2
Electrical Consumption
Cost3
Plant Size
0.044 m3/s 0.438 m3/s
(1.0 mqd) (10 mqd)
$8,890
$88,600
2.19 m3/s
(50 mqd)
$442,980
Maintenance Materials4
$1,210
$6,430
$27,870
Labor Cost5
$11,710
$52,800
$194,020
Total Yearlv Cost
$21,810
$147,830
$664,870
costs escalated to second quarter 1980 from September
1977 base utilizing EPA's Operation and Maintenance Cost
Indices.
^Costs are from "Water Reuse and Recycling," Volume 2,
Evaluation of Treatment Technology, for moderately favorable
conditions and include the following components: distribution
pumping, monitoring wells, force mains, and infiltration
basins.
3Electricity at $0.04/kwh escalated by 1.38 factor.
^Maintenance materials escalated by 1.34 factor.
5Labor at $10/hr escalated by 1.21 factor.
50
-------
TABLE 18. OVERLAND FLOW LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COST COMPONENTS1'2
Plant Size
0.044 m3/s 0.438 m3/s 2.19 m3/s
(1.0 mgd) (10 mgd) (50 mgd)
Electrical Consumption
Cost3 $8,890 $88,600 $442,980
Maintenance Materials4 $10,320 $61,240 $218,690
Labor CostS $22,190 $112,780 $387,120
Total Yearly Cost $41,400 $262,620 $1,048,790
costs escalated to second quarter 1980 from September
1977 base utilizing EPA's Operation and Maintenance Cost
Indices.
2Costs are from "Water Reuse and Recycling," Volume 2,
Evaluation of Treatment Technology, for moderately favorable
conditions and include the following components: force mains,
distribution pumping, monitoring wells, distribution, runoff
collection, chlorination/discharge, and storage.
3Electricity at $0.04/kwh escalated by 1.38 factor.
Maintenance materials escalated by 1.34 factor.
^Labor at $10/hr escalated by 1.21 factor.
51
-------
en
10
I 1.0
^
1
1
E
| 0.1
co
0.01
0
(
I
^^ 022
^^^ 026
*v
005
"~~~ °WRT/RL
„
102
'^^ 004
^^^^
006 *
. 003
025 °1
015
J-79/2 Data ^
o:
ed 013
^^^^^^^ 011
1 .
0
014
i
28
| 0 O L
0.007* • * 0.006
— •
0004 0.0044 0.044 0.438 4.38
0.01) (0-1) (1.0) (10) (10QJ
Flow, m3/s (mgd)
Figure 3. Slow-rate land treatment staffing,
-------
10
1.0
Ul
§
o
0.1
0.01
020
•
001
•
021
019
OWRT/RU-79/2 Data
Extrapolated
007
•
023
0.0004
(0.01)
0.0044
(0.1)
0.044
(1.0)
Flow, m3/s (mgd)
0.438
(10)
4.38
(100)
Figure 4. Rapid infiltration land treatment staffing
-------
10
0.01
0.0004
(0.01)
0.0044
(0.1)
0.044
(1.0)
Flow, m3/s (mgd)
0.438
(10)
4.38
(100)
Figure 5. Overland flow land treatment staffing
-------
four, three utilize primary pretreatment, and the fourth an in-
termediate level of pretreatment. The two facilities which ap-
pear below the OWRT staffing line are secondary pretreatment fa-
cilities, and therefore less operation and maintenance is re-
quired for the land treatment system. For comparison purposes,
it should be remembered that the OWRT curves are based on mod-
erately-favorable conditions which, for the rapid infiltration
system, consist of a preapplication treatment system utilizing a
two-stage aerated lagoon which would be capable of producing an
intermediate to secondary quality effluent.
The data in Figure 5 show that all four of the overland flow
facilities had labor requirements in excess of OWRT data. It
should be remembered that facilities 016 and 018 are research-
related facilities, and facility 024 (Campbell Soup (Texas),
Inc.) is an industrial wastewater treatment facility where the
staffing requirements are not comparable to municipal wastewater
application.
The data in Table 19 are presented to illustrate the effect
of preapplication treatment on the subsequent staffing require-
ments for the land treatment portion of the system. As insuf-
ficient data exist to make comparisons of overland flow systems,
only slow-rate and rapid infiltration systems will be discussed.
Utilizing the data presented in Table 19, average operation and
maintenance man-days per 1,000 cubic meters of wastewater ap-
plied can be calculated for preapplication and land application
treatment, as well as the total system operation and maintenance
labor requirement. The effect of preapplication treatment on
land treatment staffing and total staffing can be assessed by
rating the average labor requirements per level of preapplica-
tion treatment. In order of increasing staffing, the preappli-
cation treatment labor requirements for slow-rate land treatment
would be:
1. Tertiary treatment with disinfection.
2. Intermediate treatment with disinfection.
3. Intermediate treatment.
4. Secondary treatment.
5. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
Similarly, the labor requirements, in order of increasing
staffing, for slow-rate land treatment are:
1. Secondary treatment.
2. Tertiary treatment with disinfection.
55
-------
TABLE 19. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS AS A FUNCTION OF DEGREE
OF PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
AND LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM TYPE
Preapplication
Degree of Type of Land Treatment, Land Treatment
Preapplication Treatment Site Staffing2 Staffing , starting
Treatment System Number Flow Rate1 Man-davs/1.000 mj Man-davs/1,OOP m3 Man-davs/1.000 m3
Total Treatment
Staffing
Preliminary
Primary
Intermediate
Intermediate
with
disinfection
Secondary
Secondary
with
disinfection
Tertiary
with
disinfection
OF
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
OF
SR
RI
SR
RI
SR
RI
024
021
0074
023
005
026
027
003
010
014
012
001
016
006
017
018
015
013
028
020
022
002
004
025
019
008
Oil
009
(m3/s)
0.22343
0.0252
0.1270
0.1753
0.0032
0.0033
0.0131
0.0267
0.0811
0.1008
0.1490
0.0280
0.0009
0.0110
0.0012
0.0044
0.0197
0.0228
0.0438
0.0035
0.0022
0.0049
0.0133
0.0175
0.0140
0.3505
0.3505
0.7010
0.71
0.19
0.21
0.67
0.65
0.33
0.40
0.19
0.44
0.32
0.77
0.30
1.72
0.79
0.71
0.71
4.68
1.88
1.48
3.26
0.41
2.36
0.25
0.30
0.04
0.30
imVs x 22.8245 - mgd
^Man-days/1,000 m3 x 3.7854 = man-days/million gallons.
3Five-day average production flow. Yearly average flow = 0.1796 m3/s.
are based on five-day average flow rate.
^System is SR also, however, costs reflect RI system.
0.30
0.18
0.19
0.15
0.07
0.50
0.15
0.01
0.05
0.007
0.69
9.18
0.12
1.72
2.07
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.24
0.94
1.32
1.03
0.09
0.09
O.OOf
0.14
0.89
0.38
0.36
0.74
1.15
0.13
0.55
0.20
0.49
0.33
1.46
9.18
0.42
3.44
2.07
0.84
0.73
0.74
4.92
2.82
2.80
4.29
0.50
2.45
0.26
0.44
Man-days requirements
56
-------
3. Intermediate treatment with disinfection.
4. Intermediate treatment.
5. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
Based on the data, it appears that the degree of preapplica-
tion treatment does not appear to materially affect the opera-
tion and maintenance labor required for a slow-rate land appli-
cation system. When the total labor costs for the slow rate and
preapplication treatment systems are rated, the tertiary plant
with disinfection is the least expensive, followed by intermedi-
ate treatment with disinfection, intermediate, secondary, and
finally, secondary treatment with disinfection; there is no dis-
cernible pattern.
Utilizing the data in Table 19, a similar exercise can be
conducted for rapid infiltration systems. Discounting the data
for the tertiary plant with disinfection (facility 009, Whittier
Narrows), the order of increasing preapplication labor require-
ments for rapid infiltration is:
1. Primary treatment.
2. Intermediate treatment.
3. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
4. Secondary treatment.
The order of increasing land treatment labor requirements
for rapid infiltration is:
1. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
2. Primary treatment.
3. Secondary treatment.
4. Intermediate treatment.
The total labor requirements, in order of increasing staff-
ing, for rapid infiltration systems are:
1. Primary treatment.
2. Intermediate treatment.
57
-------
3. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
4. Secondary treatment.
Although this quick survey only includes six facilities, the
costs seem to indicate that the land application labor require-
ments are a function of the degree of preapplication treatment.
This is to be expected due to the increased solids loading re-
sulting from decreased pretreatment.
When a comparison is made of the labor requirements for the
slow-rate vs the rapid infiltration systems for the same degree
of preapplication treatment, a very general conclusion can be
reached that the slow-rate system typically utilizes less labor
than the rapid infiltration system. No definite conclusion can
be made, however, because of the minimal amount of data used to
draw this conclusion. In fact, these conclusions are very gen-
eral indeed and should not be taken as universal due to the
widely varying conditions which each data point reflects.
EFFECTS OF PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT ON OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Aside from constraints placed on land treatment system de-
sign by the regulatory agency, the effects and need for preap-
plication treatment on the various land treatment systems is im-
portant.
Slow-Rate Systems
In terms of preapplication treatment for the 18 slow-rate
systems visited, the following was determined:
1. One system is preceded by primary treatment.
2. Seven systems are preceded by intermediate-level
treatment.
3. One system is preceded by an intermediate level
of pretreatment followed by disinfection.
4. Three facilities are preceded by secondary treat-
ment.
5. Four facilities are preceded by secondary treat-
ment with disinfection.
6. Two facilities are preceded by tertiary treatment
with disinfection.
58
-------
Therefore, a wide range of possible preapplication treatment
levels prior to land application were visited. Putting aside
any secondary reasons, such as costs, labor requirements, or
regulation, there does not appear to be sufficient reason to
discount any degree of preapplication treatment equal to or
greater than primary prior to a slow-rate system, as the system
at Fontana operates acceptably. This is not to say, however,
that higher degrees of preapplication treatment are not war-
ranted. The degree of preapplication treatment should be decid-
ed upon based on factors such as the potential for disease
transmission through the crop grown, or through direct contact
of individuals with the wastewater. In addition, the aesthetics-
must be considered, including visual aesthetics and odor poten-
tial. For example, landscape irrigation with primary effluent
should not be utilized due to the aesthetic nuisances (visual
and odor) and the potential for public health problems.
Rapid Infiltration Systems
Of the wastewater applied at the seven rapid infiltration
sites, three were pretreated to a primary level; one was pre-
treated to an intermediate level; one was pretreated to a sec-
ondary level; one was pretreated to a secondary level with dis-
infection; and one was pretreated to a tertiary degree with dis-
infection. Excluding the costs associated with these various
options, there is no technical reason why a rapid infiltration
system, preceded by any level of preapplication treatment equal
to or greater than primary, should not be functional.
This is not to say, however, that the potential for problems
such as groundwater pollution does not exist. This problem was
noted in the case of facility 023 (Landis Sewage Authority,
Vineland, New Jersey), where the rapid infiltration system will
be replaced by a slow-rate system preceded by secondary treat-
ment in the near future. From merely an operation and mainte-
nance point of view, however, a minimum level of primary treat-
ment prior to the rapid infiltration system is acceptable, with
the understanding that the amount of bed maintenance will de-
crease as the degree of preapplication treatment increases.
Overland Flow Systems
At facility 018 (Easley, South Carolina) both overland flow
preceded by preliminary treatment and oxidation pond treatment
(intermediate level) were practiced. Considering the dual na-
ture of the Easley facility, two facilities were visited where
the degree of preapplication treatment was preliminary; one fa-
cility was visited where the degree of preapplication treatment
was intermediate prior to the overland flow system; one facility
59
-------
was visited where the degree of preapplication treatment was
intermediate with disinfection; and one facility was visited
where the degree of preapplication treatment was intermediate
followed by disinfection.
Based on these different combinations, it appears that an
overland flow treatment system can be functional if it is pre-
ceded by a minimum of preliminary preapplication treatment. In
fact, at the Easley facility, it was found that the wastewater
quality in terms of effluent suspended solids was indeed better
when preliminary preapplication treatment preceded the overland
flow system, as compared to when the intermediate (oxidation
pond) effluent was applied to the overland flow site. Further
discussion and presentation of the data is presented in Appendix
A.
Two sites were visited which applied an intermediate level
of pretreated wastewater; in one case the wastewater was disin-
fected prior to application, and, in the other case, disinfected
following overland flow treatment. In both cases, the facility
operation appeared to be successful. Based on the fact that the
chlorine demand is a function of the wastewater BOD and ammonia
levels, there would appear to be benefits to post chlorination.
However, if there is a chance for pathogen regrowth during over-
land flow treatment, preapplication chlorination could solve the
problem. Conversely, the disadvantage is that during storm
events a large volume of wastewater would have to be chlorinat-
ed. From an operational viewpoint, both methods are acceptable.
60
-------
SECTION 7
LAND TREATMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
LAND TREATMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS -- A LITERATURE
REVIEW
Two major sources which present the cost of wastewater
treatment by land application are available. The first report,
entitled "Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application,"
EPA-430/9-75-003, was published in June 1975 and revised in Sep-
tember 1979. This document presents cost information for both
the preliminary screening portion of a study and the detailed
cost estimate portion. Cost is divided into categories which
include land, preapplication treatment, transmission, storage,
land application and recovery of renovated water. Curves are
presented for capital costs, amortized capital costs, and opera-
tion and maintenance costs for flow rates ranging from 0.0044 to
4.38 m3/s (0.10 to 100 mgd). The base for the costs given in
the report is February 1973 dollars.
Data from "Costs of Wastewater Treatm'ent by Land Applica-
tion" were not used as the costs are specific to equipment and
process units. Therefore, system costs for a typical facility
are not readily available from the report.
In order to compare the field cost data collected to typi-
cal costs, it was decided that the cost should be compared to
"average" costs, owing to the wide range of equipment in use.
Therefore, data taken from the document "Water Reuse and Recy-
cling," Evaluation of Treatment Technology, volume 2, OWRT/RU-
79/2, were used. The document presents capital and amortized
capital cost data, along with operation and maintenance costs
for land treatment systems at three different levels, i.e.,
favorable, moderate, and unfavorable conditions.
The conditions used for determining whether or not a system
is favorable, moderate, or unfavorable include factors such as:
1. Degree of preapplication treatment.
2. Storage.
3. Transportation distance.
61
-------
4. Pumping head.
5. Underdrain spacing.
6. Type of wastewater application equipment.
These factors and their values are presented in Table 20.
In order to determine average costs, a moderately-favorable
condition for the slow-rate system, the rapid infiltration sys-
tem, and the overland flow system was chosen as it was decided
that the moderately-favorable condition most closely reflected
the average conditions found during the survey.
All costs were taken from Appendix C of "Water Reuse and
Recycling." In Appendix C, the data are presented on a system-
by-system basis for the various components making up the system
for treatment plant sizes of 0.044 m3/s (1.0 mgd) , 0.438 mVs
(10 mgd), and 2.19 m3/s (50 mgd).
All costs presented in the OWRT report were updated to the
second quarter of 1980, utilizing the EPA cost indices. The
escalation factors utilized were from the EPA Operation and
Maintenance Cost Index as presented in the "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual," EPA 430/9-78-009
(EPA, 1980). The indices were further extended to the second
quarter of 1980 utilizing data from Michel (1980).
Appendix C of "Water Reuse and Recycling" presents 12 proc-
esses which are cost components of the slow-rate irrigation sys-
tem. Some of these components, however, included preapplication
treatment processes, and were therefore not included in the an-
alysis. The processes which are included in the cost data in-
clude:
1. Force mains.
2. Monitoring wells.
3. Storage.
4. Distribution pumping.
5. Center pivot spray.
62
-------
TABLE 20. RANGE OF CONDITIONS FOR LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS1
Slow-Rate Rapid Infiltration Overland Flow
Moderate Unfavorable Favorable Moderate Unfavorable Favorable Moderate Unfavorable
Preapplication Treatment Aerated
chlorine
Storage 4 months.
Transport Distance^
0.044 m3/s
0.438 m3/s
2.19 m3/s
Pumping Head3 m
Application Method
Irrigated Area^
ha/1,000 m3/day3
Basin Area--
ha/1,000 m3/day
Total Area--
ha/1,000 m3/day
Crop Revenue^
net $/ha
Underdrain Spacing
Recovery Wells
Runoff Collection
unlined
305 m
305 m
305 m
15.2
Center pivot
10.7
—
13.9
40
None
--
—
pond, 3-day detention,
dosage - 5 mg/L
6 months, 7 months.
unlined
610 m
610 m
1,830 m
45.7
Center pivot
26.7
--
34.7
10
122 m
—
—
lined
1,220 m
3,050 m
9,140 m
91.4
Center pivot
53.5
—
69.5
4
30.5 m
--
—
Aerated pond, 3-day detention. Aerated pond, 3-day detention
chlorine dose = 5 mg/L
20 days, 20 days, 20 days, 4 months, 6 months, 7 months.
unlined unlined lined unlined unlined lined
305 m 610 m 1,220 m 305 in 610 m 1,220 m
305 m 610 m 3,050 m 305 m 610 m 3,050 m
305 m 1,830 m 9,140 m 305 m 1,830 m 9,140 m
7.6 22.9 45.7 7.6 22.0 45.7
—
/
4.3 7.5 21.4
0.21 1.2 10.7
0.28 1.4 13.9 5.6 9.7 27.8
— — — —
—
30.5 m depth, 90% recovery
Open ditches, 80% recovery, chlorination
iData adapted from OWRT/RU-79/2
2m3/s x 22.8245
3m x 3.281 - ft
4ha/l,000 m3/day x 9.355 - acre,.ngd
5$/ha x 2.471 = $/acre
-------
Capital costs and amortized capital costs were not included.
The three operational costs include electrical costs, mainten-
ance material costs, and labor costs. Table 16 presents the
cost data in second quarter 1980 dollars for the slow-rate sys-
tem.
The same approach was taken for the rapid infiltration sys-
tem and the operational costs are shown in Table 17. Components
which were included are:
1. Distribution pumping.
2. Monitoring wells.
3. Force mains.
4. Infiltration basins.
A similar process was used to calculate the overland flow
operational costs, and they are presented in Table 18. The
overland flow costs include:
1. Force mains.
2. Distribution piping.
3. Monitoring wells.
4. Distribution.
5. Runoff collection.
6. Chlorination of discharge.
7. Storage.
The cost data for the slow rate, rapid infiltration, and
overland flow treatment systems are plotted in Figures 6 through
8. The data are plotted on a log plot which gives a linear re-
lationship for values below and above the maximum and minimum
design flows. The curves have been extrapolated in order to al-
low comparison with the lower flow facilities visited during
this study.
LAND TREATMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS -- SITE SURVEY
During the site visits, data were collected on the cost of
preapplication treatment and land treatment systems. Difficul-
ties were encountered during the collection of these data be-
cause municipalities often keep total operating budgets which
64
-------
Updated
OWRT/RU-79/2
Data
Extrapolated
1,000,000
All Costs Second Quarter 1980
U)
o 100,000
10,000
1,000
0.0004
(0.01)
0.0044
(0.1)
0.044
(1.0)
Flow, m3/s (mgd)
0.438
(10)
4.38
(100)
Figure 6. Slow-rate land treatment operation and maintenance
costs.
65
-------
1,000,000
w/
O 100,000
08
O
10,000
1,000
Updated
OWRT/RU-79/2
Data
All Costs Second Quarter 1980
0.0004
(0.01)
0.0044
(0.1)
0.044
(1.0)
Flow, m3/s (mgd)
Figure 7. Rapid infiltration land treatment operation and main-
tenance costs.
66
-------
1,000,000
w
O
100,000
-------
cover both wastewater treatment and wastewater collection.
Therefore, for these facilities, the cost of collection had to
first be separated from the entire budget. Additionally, plants
typically do not keep separate budgets for the land treatment
portion as opposed to the preapplication treatment portion, and
these numbers had to be worked out during the site survey. Fol-
lowing conclusion of the on-site survey, numbers were checked
and compared with energy and manpower usage. Facilities person-
nel were called back to eliminate discrepancies.
As the various authorities and municipalities kept records
for different periods, the first task was to update the costs to
second quarter 1980 to make them compatible with the updated
costs from the literature. Once again this was done utilizing
the EPA Operations and Maintenance Costs Index, as discussed
previously. In addition, the budget information collected con-
sisted of approximately 10 different categories in which the op-
eration and maintenance costs were divided. In order to compare
the costs from the field survey to the costs reported in the
literature, these 10 categories had to be divided into the three
categories of electrical consumption costs, maintenance material
costs, and labor costs. As there were additional costs which
did not fit into any one of these three categories, a fourth
cost, i.e., a miscellaneous cost figure, was included.
Table 21 shows the data developed, based on this effort.
The table includes the cost of operation and maintenance at the
land treatment sites visited, and divides the cost into labor,
power, maintenance materials, miscellaneous, and total O&M,
where possible. In addition, the total land application O&M
costs were also plotted on Figures 6, 7, and 8 in an attempt to
show how the actual operation and maintenance costs compared to
reported (literature) operation and maintenance costs.
Before reaching any conclusions, it should be remembered
that the data in these figures are based on a specific set. of
conditions. In addition, the operation and maintenance costs of
the various facilities are presented without regard to the num-
erous possible operating strategies. With this in mind, conclu-
sions can be reached. For example, in Figure 6 it is noted that
of the 15 sites shown on the list, costs for only three sites,
facilities 002, 004, and 022 appear higher, and therefore, more
expensive than the reported literature costs. In terms of oper-
ations, these three facilities are all run by the wastewater
treatment plant staff, and therefore, incur substantial labor
requirements. In fact, the other three facilities which are run
by the wastewater treatment agency (003, 005, and 006) are in
general agreement with the reported O&M costs from the litera-
ture. By comparison, plants such as facilities 025 and 027,
68
-------
TABLE 21. LAND APPLICATION O&M COST BREAKDOWN
CT\
ID
Facility Name
Village of Lake George WWTP
North Branch Fire District No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Herman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
jType of Land
Flow Rate Treatment
(m3/s)
0.0280
0.0049
0.0267
0.0133
0.0032
0.0110
0.1266
0.3505
0.7010
0.0811
0.3505
0.1490
0.0228
0.1008
0.0197
0.0009
0.0012
0.0044
0.0140
0.0035
0.0252
0.0022
0.1753
0.22345
0.0175
0.0033
0.0131
0.0438
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI.SR
SR<
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
OF
OF
OF
RI
RI
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
SR
SR
SR
Labor
43,440
12,569
4,098
10,004
315
2,426
43,473
3,153
4,599
Not available
2,404
1,169
15,687
Not available
Not applicable
1,750
14,944
1,386
2,124
13,660
1,229
52,600
125,118
1,268
2,590
2,026
Power
2,908
3,041
9,387
3,031
2,266
9,480
12,116
Not available
119
9,413
Not available
Not applicable
121
2,200
2,810
12,500
Not available
70
1,129
1,624
Maintenance
Materials
1,864
1,100
9,816
805
4,187
24,812
1,342
Not available
Not available
Not applicable
526
6,075
11,512
1,002
20,000
79,931
400
960
Miscellaneous
3,859
4,476
523
1,084
576
8,234
Not available
1,153
4,997
Not available
Not applicable
5,440
15,000
9,139
Total
52,071
21,186
13,485
23,374
2,204
9,455
85,999
15,269
0
5,941
Not available
2,404
2,441
30,097
Not available
Not applicable
2,397
28,659
1,386
2,124
25,172
5,041
101,000
214,188
1,268
3,060
1,129
4,610
isecond quarter 1980 costs.
2mVs x 22.8245 - mgd
3SR - Slow rate
RI - Rapid infiltration
OF - Overland flow
^Potential for RI exists.
5Five-day average production flow. Yearly average flow - 0.1796 mj/s.
Key
WWTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCF - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
which are the two least expensive plants, irrigate either in
conjunction with a farmer (facility 025), or the irrigation is
carried out entirely by the farmer (facility 027). In fact,
with the possible exception of facility 026, the facilities op-
erated either jointly with or independent of the wastewater
agency represent a data set parallel and to the right of the
OWRT/RU-79/2 data. Therefore, for a slow-rate land treatment
system, it would appear that the operation and maintenance costs
are directly related to the method by which the system is oper-
ated. By contractually having an arrangement with a farmer who
irrigates and manages the farm, the labor required of the treat-
ment plant operators is minimized. In addition, the benefit of
receiving money for the sale of the reclaimed water exists.
In Figure 7 the rapid infiltration land treatment operation
and maintenance costs gathered are compared to the reported
costs, and it is noted that four of the plants report costs
higher and two of the plants report costs lower than the litera-
ture values. When utilizing the graphs, it should be remembered
that the scale is log-log, therefore, a deviation from the line
represents a substantial difference in cost. Even so, only two
facilities, 001 and 019, differ greatly from the reported costs.
In the case of facility 001, this high cost could be related to
the apparent excess of labor which was noted during the plant
visit. Conversely, at facility 019 a minimum of labor was re-
quired for infiltration of the effluent water, and there were
minimal costs associated with the system. One important addi-
tional factor is that the OWRT labor costs are based on a pre-
application treatment level of a two-stage aerated lagoon sys-
tem, and therefore, the labor required for bed maintenance var-
ies greatly from some of the sites visited.
Figure 8 presents the overland flow land treatment operation
and maintenance costs as a function of flow. Only four sites
were visited. One site had no cost information and one site,
facility 024, treated industrial wastewater. It would be unre-
alistic, therefore, to draw any conclusions from the graph. It
is noted, however, that facility 017 is fairly close to the ex-
trapolated reported value, and that facility 018 is a combined
treatment and research facility; therefore, its costs do not
necessarily reflect actual operation costs at a normal facility.
Based only on the limitations of the data gathering study
and the differences in the preapplication plants, Table 22 pre-
sents the preapplication and land application treatment opera-
tion and maintenance costs as a function of dollars per cubic
meter of wastewater flow. The least expensive preapplication
treatment costs $0.011 per cubic meter at facility 027 (Winters,
Texas), at which the preapplication treatment consisted of an
70
-------
TABLE 22. PREAPPLICATION AND LAND APPLICATION TREATMENT O&M UNIT COSTS
Facility Name
Village of Lake George WWTP
North Branch Fire District No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart WWTF
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland wwTP
Fontana Regional Plant No. 3
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant
Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant
Irvine Ranch Water District
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Herman WWTP
City of Manteca WWQCF
El Dorado Hills WWTP
U.S. Army COE, WES Overland Flow Site
Falkner WWTF
Easley Combined Utilities System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Wareham WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System
Landis Sewage Authority
Campbell Soup (Texas) , Inc.
City of Coleman WWTP
City of Santa Anna WWTP
City of Winters WWTP
City of Sweetwater WPCP
Im3/s x 22.8245 - mgd
2$/m3 x 3.7854 - $/l,000 gallons.
Site
No.
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
Flow Rate1
(m3/s)
0.0280
0.0049
0.0267
0.0133
0.0032
0.0110
0.1266
0.3505
0.7010
0.0811
0.3505
0.1490
0.0228
0.1008
0.0197
0.0009
0.0012
0.0044
0.0140
0.0035
0.0252
0.0022
0.1753
0.2234*
0.0175
0.0033
0.0131
0.0438
Type of Land
Treatment
System
Rl
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
RI,SR
SR4
RI
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
OF
OF
OF
RI
RI
RI
SR
RI
OF
SR
SR
SR
SR
Degree Preapplication
Treatment
Intermediate
Secondary with disinfection
Intermediate
Secondary with disinfection
Intermediate
Intermediate with disinfection
Pr imary
Tertiary with disinfection
Tertiary with disinfection
Intermediate
Tertiary with disinfection
Intermediate
Secondary
Intermediate
Secondary with disinfection
Intermediate
Intermediate with disinfection
Preliminary and intermediate
followed by disinfection
Secondary with disinfection
Secondary
Primary
Secondary with disinfection
Primary
Preliminary
Secondary with disinfection®
Intermediate
Intermediate
Secondary
^Does not include sludge treatment and disposal costs.
^Provisions for RI exist.
^Does not include oxidation pond preapplication treatment costs.
6Pive-day average production flow. Yearly average flow - 0.1796, and costs are based on yearly average flow.
'Does not include electrical consumption.
^Disinfection of surface discharge only.
Pre application
Treatment O&M
Costs, $/mJ
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
083
298
082
075
129
068
027
0613
030-*
045
181
170
173
0.101
Not available
Not available
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
059
266
725
114
199
042
077
025
Oil
052
Land Treatment Total Treatment
O&M Cost, OSM Cost,
$/m3 »/m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.059
.136
.016
.056
.022
.027
.022
.002
.002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.142
.434
.098
.131
.151
.095
.049
.063
n in
. U JU
.047
Not available
0
0
0
.0005
.003
.009
0
0
0
.170
.176
.110
Not available
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
.062
207
.003
.019
.032
.073
.018
.038^
.003
.029
.003
.003
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
g
0
0
0
0
.121
207^
.269
.744
.146
.272
.060
038
.080
.055
.014
.055
Kej-
WHTP - Wastewater treatment plant
WPCF - Water pollution control facility
WWTF - Wastewater treatment facility
STP - Sewage treatment plant
WWQCP - Wastewater quality control facility
WPCP - Water pollution control plant
-------
Imhoff tank followed by oxidation/holding ponds. The most ex-
pensive preapplicatslon treatment operation and maintenance cost
occurred at facility 020 (Chatham, Massachusetts), and was
$0.725 per cubic meter. Preapplication treatment at this facil-
ity consists of an activated sludge system. The least expensive
land treatment system was facility 012 (City of Tulare, Califor-
nia) where the operation and maintenance cost was $0.0005 per
cubic meter. This facility utilized a slow-rate system where
the fields were irrigated by both ridge and furrow and border
strip irrigation. All water flowed by gravity, and all irriga-
tion was carried out by a farmer, therefore, the costs incurred
by the City were low.
The most expensive land treatment system was facility 018
(Easley, South Carolina Combined Utilities System Overland Flow
Project) where the operation and maintenance cost was $0.207 per
cubic meter. It is not necessarily accurate to say that this is
the most expensive project, however, as this plant is a combined
operating plant and research project. Aside from this facility,
the second most expensive land treatment system in terms of op-
eration and maintenance is facility 002 (North Branch Fire
District No. 1, Dover, Vermont) where the operation and mainte-
nance cost was $0.136 per cubic meter. At this facility second-
ary effluent is chlorinated and sprayed on a woodland site.
Due to complications involved in differentiating between
preapplication treatment and land treatment operation and main-
tenance costs, the most valid column in Table 22 is the final
column where the total treatment operation and maintenance costs
are calculated. Based on these data, facility 012 (City of Win-
ters, Texas) currently offers the least costly wastewater treat-
ment facilities as the combined cost is only $0.014 per cubic
meter. The most expensive treatment operation is facility 020
(Chatham, Massachusetts) where the total treatment operation and
maintenance cost was $0.744 per cubic meter. A 50 times differ-
ence in the operation and maintenance costs is seen by comparing
the costs at these two facilities.
One final note about Table 22 regards facilities 008 and 009
which are operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis-
trict. Although both of these plants provide tertiary wastewa-
ter treatment, the preapplication treatment operation and main-
tenance costs are reasonably low. These costs are low because
there is no on-site sludge treatment or disposal at either fa-
cility, and sludge treatment costs are not back charged to the
generating facility. In addition, the facilities typically do
not treat their sidestreams further, causing the costs to be
lower than the actual cost of treatment.
72
-------
A commonly posed question is "What is the effect of the de-
gree of preapplication treatment on the cost of the operation
and maintenance of the subsequent land treatment facilities?"
For example, does the addition of a secondary treatment facility
as opposed to a primary treatment facility reduce the operation
and maintenance costs of a rapid infiltration system. To assess
the situation, Table 23 was prepared. The degree of preapplica-
tion treatment is divided into numerous categories. Preliminary
treatment consists of screening, grit removal, and comminution.
Primary treatment consists of primary sedimentation. Intermedi-
ate treatment is defined as that degree of treatment which is an
additional process past primary treatment but does not meet the
requirements for secondary treatment. Secondary treatment is
defined as a process able to meet 30 mg/L 6005 and suspended
solids on a yearly average. Tertiary treatment is defined as
any plant which has additional treatment after secondary treat-
ment. All levels of preapplication treatment may or may not in-
clude a disinfection process.
Due to the modicum of data, little can be said about over-
land flow operation and maintenance costs as a function of pre-
application treatment, and conclusions will only be discussed
for slow-rate and rapid infiltration systems. As can be seen
in Table 23, total operation and maintenance cost data were
available at 16 of the 18 slow-rate land treatment systems vis-
ited.
The preapplication treatment systems at these 16 sites con-
sisted of the following:
1. Seven plants with intermediate treatment.
2. One plant with intermediate treatment and dis-
infection.
3. Two plants with secondary treatment.
4. Four plants with secondary treatment followed by
disinfection.
5. Two plants with tertiary treatment followed by
disinfection.
The average operation and maintenance costs for preapplica-
tion treatment, land application treatment, and the total costs
were calculated as a function of degree of preapplication treat-
ment. Calculating these averages and then arranging them in
order of increasing costs, the preapplication treatment costs
73
-------
TABLE 23. O&M UNIT COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF DEGREE OF
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT>AND LAND TREATMENT
SYSTEM TYPE
Degree of
Preapplication
Treatment
Preliminary
Primary
Intermediate
Intermediate
with
disinfection
Secondary
Secondary
with
disinfection
Tertiary
with
disinfection
Type of Land
Treatment
System
OF
RI
SR
RI
SR
OF
SR
RI
SR
RI
SR
RI
Site
No.
024
021
0076
023
005
026
027
003
010
014
012
001
006
017
0187
013
028
020
022
002
004
0259
019
008
Oil
009
Flow Rate2
(m3/s)
0.22344
0.0252
0.1266
0.1753
0.0032
0.0033
0.0131
0.0267
0.0811
0.1008
0.1490
0.0280
0.0110
0.0012
0.0044
0.0228
0.0438
0.0035
0.0022
0.0049
0.0133
0.0175
0.0140
0.3505
0.3505
0.7010
Preapplication
Treatment O&M
Costs, $/m
0.114
0.027
0.042
0.129
0.025
0.011
0.082
0.045
0.101
0.170
0.083
0.068
0.059
0.173
0.052
0.725
0.199
0.298
0.075
0.077
0.266
0.061
0.181
0.030
Land Treatment
O&M Costs,
$/mJ
0.038s
0.032
0.022
0.018
0.022
0.029
0.003
0.016
0.002
0.009
0.0005
0.059
0.027
0.062
0.207
0.003
0.003
0.019
0.073
0.136
0.056
0.003
0.003
0.002
Not available
0
Total Treatment
O&M Costs,
$/m
0.038
0.146
0.049
0.060
0.151
0.055
0.014
0.098
0.047
0.110
0.170
0.142
0.095
0.121
0.2078
0.176
0.055
0.744
0.272
0.434
0.131
0.080
0.269
0.063
0.030
!SR = Slow rate
RI = Rapid infiltration
OF = Overland flow
2m3/s x 22.8245 = mgd
3$/m3 x 3.7854 = $/l,000 gallons.
4Five-day average production flow. Yearly average flow = 0.1796 m3/s.
5Does not include electrical usage.
^Costs representative of RI system, although SR is also possible.
725% of flow treated at site is screened raw wastewater.
875% of flow pretreated by oxidation pond. 25% of flow, comminution and screening only.
Oxidation pond preapplication costs not included.
"Disinfection for surface discharge only.
74
-------
for slow-rate systems would be as follows:
1. Intermediate treatment with disinfection.
2. Intermediate treatment.
3. Secondary treatment.
4. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
The slow-rate land application operation and maintenance
costs, in increasing order by preapplication system, are:
1. Secondary treatment.
2. Intermediate treatment.
3. Intermediate treatment with disinfection.
4. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
In total slow-rate system operation and maintenance cost,
the order in terms of increasing costs, by preapplication sys-
tem, would be:
1. Intermediate treatment.
2. Intermediate treatment with disinfection.
3. Secondary treatment.
4. Secondary treatment with disinfection.
The total costs have the greatest level of confidence, and
they show that the total cost increases as a function of degree
of preapplication treatment. For this analysis, the tertiary
plants were not included as the costs for facility 008 are arti-
ficially low due to sludge handling and disposal costs being ex-
cluded, and the fact that there are no costs for land treatment
for facility Oil.
A similar comparison can be made for the rapid infiltration
system. However, in this case, fewer data exist as only seven
sites were visited: three primary, one intermediate, one sec-
ondary, one secondary with disinfection, and one tertiary with
disinfection. The tertiary facility with disinfection must be
discounted, as facility 009 (Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation
Plant) has a rapid infiltration system which is used in conjunc-
tion with groundwater recharge with the Los Angeles County Flood
75
-------
Control District, and there are no costs associated with land
application of wastewater as the water accounts for only approx-
imately 13% of the total flow to the recharge area. Once again,
the average preapplication treatment and land treatment costs
for the rapid infiltration systems can be calculated. In terms
of increasing costs, the preapplication systems are arranged as
intermediate, secondary with disinfection, primary, and second-
ary. In terms of land application operation and maintenance
costs, however, the order in terms of increasing costs is sec-
ondary with disinfection, secondary, intermediate, and primary,
therefore reflecting the intuitive order with which the opera-
tion and maintenance costs should follow. In terms of total
costs, the order is primary, intermediate, secondary with disin-
fection, and secondary. These costs are extremely biased, how-
ever, by the secondary facility 020 which had a very high preap-
plication treatment cost.
The next step in the analysis is to'compare the cost of the
slow-rate system with the rapid infiltration system for the same
degree of preapplication treatment. Using the data collected,
it is seen that the slow-rate systems were substantially less
expensive on an operation and maintenance cost basis in terms of
dollars per cubic meter of wastewater treated, regardless of the
degree of preapplication treatment. This idea is contrary to
the previously reported information such as that presented in
Tables 16 and 17 where the slow-rate land treatment system oper-
ation and maintenance costs are more than 2.8 times as high as
the rapid infiltration costs. Reflecting back to Figure 6, how-
ever, and the fact that the treatment costs were substantially
lower than the reported treatment costs, this is not so surpris-
ing. Once again the major factor involved would appear to be
the labor involved or not involved in the slow-rate system if
the water is given or sold to a farmer.
A final note about the previous analysis is that the analy-
sis is based on a small sample, i.e., a total of only seven rap-
id infiltration and 16 slow-rate systems. In addition, some
systems are operating below design capacity and some are operat-
ing substantially above design capacity, further confusing the
analysis. Given all the limitations of the data, however, it
still appears that the rapid infiltration system is more expen-
sive to operate than the slow-rate system. This is more than
likely due to the labor requirements of the rapid infiltration
system which must be borne by the treatment authority running
the system, whereas slow-rate system operations can be carried
out by private individuals (farmers), and the authority will not
incur the cost.
76
-------
SECTION 8
RECOMMENDED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the recommended operation and mainte-
nance practices for the three types of land treatment systems
based on information collected during the site visits and subse-
quent data analysis.
SLOW-RATE SYSTEMS
A person with a farming background should either operate the
land treatment system or assist in its operation to allow farm-
ing decisions based on experience.
The operation of a slow-rate land treatment system is basi-
cally fixed by the design of the system. Therefore, the opera-
tion tends to be fairly straightforward and only three opera-
tional parameters can be varied. These parameters are:
1. Amount of wastewater to be applied per applica-
tion.
2. Frequency of application.
3. Which field should be irrigated.
The product of these three decisions must be the equivalent
of the total amount of wastewater which must be applied annually
(or in a growing season). This is the method by which most fa-
cilities are currently being operated. During winter opera-
tions, however, some facilities occasionally flood fields to
maximize the wastewater disposal option.
Maintenance requirements for a slow-rate land treatment sys-
tem are straightforward and should not cause the maintenance
staff/operators any particular problems. A routine maintenance
schedule is suggested.
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEMS
The operation of a rapid infiltration land treatment system
is fairly simple as it consists basically of bed rotation.
77
-------
Bed rotation is typically based on visual estimates as to which
bed is ready to receive the flow, and usually follows some sort
of schedule. It is believed that many of the operational strat-
egies discussed in the Process Design Manual (EPA, 1977) for in-
creasing denitrification losses are simply not possible on an
operating scale. The major reason behind this is that the deni-
trification losses are extremely difficult to measure in the
laboratory, and, more than likely, impossible to measure in the
field, particularly for smaller installations. In addition, the
operator may not have the luxury of dosing an infiltration bed
at the required schedule to maximize the denitrification as oth-
er considerations may make this schedule impossible.
The major consideration for operation of a rapid infiltra-
tion system is that the operators stay ahead of the beds in
terms of bed maintenance, and continually insure that sufficient
capacity exists to dispose of all of the influent wastewater.
This is extremely important as the systems are usually designed
without any facilities for wastewater storage. Once a facility
gets in trouble, it may be difficult to correct the problem as
wastewater must be applied to beds which may be flooded and
therefore cannot be reworked; and the situation tends to go from
bad to worse. Aside from infiltration bed maintenance, addi-
tional routine maintenance is required.
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEMS
Unlike the other two land treatment systems, the overland
flow system has the greatest potential for process control as
the loading rate and the hours of application can be varied. In
addition, various plots can be taken off-line to further in-
crease the operational modifications the operator has at his
disposal.
Operation of the overland flow system also requires knowl-
edge of soil chemistry and biological processes that wastewater
treatment personnel may not understand. Therefore, additional
training is required. In addition, it is believed that follow-
ing start-up, various combinations of hydraulic loading rates
and application schedules should be investigated in order to op-
timize performance.
Aside from routine maintenance, an additional maintenance
requirement, namely overland flow plot maintenance, exists. This
consists of ensuring that a healthy cover crop is maintained and
that any erosion problems are quickly corrected. These mainte-
nance requirements may necessitate additional operator training.
78
-------
SECTION 9
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES HINDERING OPERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to point out existing defi-
ciencies in the design of land treatment systems which were not-
ed during the site survey. Preapplication treatment design de-
ficiencies, if they could affect the subsequent land treatment
facility, are also included.
In order to classify design deficiencies, six categories
were designated:
1. Layout, arrangement, and placement of components.
2. Civil/structural considerations.
3. Hydraulic design considerations.
4. Mechanical design considerations.
5. Electrical/instrumentation design considerations.
6. Agronomic considerations.
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The preapplication treatment design deficiencies are pre-
sented in Table 24. Basically, there was only one design defi-
ciency which showed up at multiple plants, namely, that oxida-
tion ponds were unprotected from the effects of erosion caused
by wind-induced waves. At several plants, maintenance personnel
were in the process of installing protection around the embank-
ments at the water levels.
SLOW-RATE LAND TREATMENT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The design deficiencies noted at slow-rate systems are pre-
sented in Table 25.
79
-------
TABLE 24. PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT DESIGN DEFICIENCIES1
Layout, Electrical/
Arrangement, Instrumentation
Site and Placement Civil/Structural Hydraulic Design Design
Facility Name
City of Fremont WWTP
Village of Ravenna STP
City of Wayland WWTP
City of Tulare WPCF
City of Kerman WWTP
00
OFalkner WWTP
Easley Combined Utili-
ties System Overland
Flow Project
Town of Barnstable WPCF
Kendal/Crosslands
Lagoon System
City of Coleman WWTP
No. of Components Considerations Considerations Mechanical Design Considerations Considerations
004
005
006
012
013
on
018
021
022
025
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Lack of oxidation pond
embankment protection.
Lack of oxidation pond
embankment protection.
Lack of oxidation pond
embankment protection.
Lack of oxidation pond
embankment protection.
Lack of oxidation pond
embankment protection.
Slopes on oxidation pond
too steep for mowing.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Need for staff gauges in oxidation
ponds.
None
Inability to operate ponds in parallel
or series operation. Inability to
operate ponds at varying depths.
None
Creosote lumber in chlorine contact
tank causes "oil slick."
Raw sewage pump station subject to
solids deposition and odor problems.
Oil and grease from septage not suffi-
ciently removed, thereby causing prob-
lems with rapid infiltration system.
Maple tree "nibs" get into wet well
and cause problems with distribution
system.
Effluent lift pumps as installed unable
to pass solids and clog frequently.
Recessed impellor pumps have solved
problem.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Agronomic
Considerations
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
IPreapplication treatment deficiencies only as tjhey impact land treatment systems.
-------
TABLE 25. SLOW-RATE DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
oo
Facility Name
North Branch
Fire District
No. 1 WPCF
City of Hart
WWTP
City of Fremont
WWTP
Village of
Ravenna STP
City of Wayland
WWTP
Site
No.
002
003
Layout, Ar rangement,
and Placement of
Components
Allow greater clearance
on each side of spray
lines for access.
Provide walking paths
between lines to
allow checking two
lines at once.
None
None
005
Civil/Structural
Considerations
Divert noncontaminated
stormwater away from
holding pond.
None
Need for more uniform
irrigation field
grading.
Higher berms surround-
ing irrigation field
needed.
Monitoring wells unable
to supply adequate
sample.
Hydraulic Design
Considerations
Spray lines should run
up/downhill rather
than follow contours
to minimize low spots.
Effect of addition hy-
draulic loading on
water table should be
studied.
Pumping required to
both pretreatment
facility and land
treatment facility.
None
Water pumped to west
f ieIds, howeve r,
gravity flow is
possible.
Mechanical Design
Considerations
Improper spray nozzle
for winter operation.
Original pumps were un-
able to pass solids
including leaves,
grass, and vegetable
solids.
Valve arrangement does
not allow for irriga-
tion of individual
cells within a field.
None
Electrical/
Instrumentation
Design Agronomic
Considerations Considerations
Provide com-
munication
between
fields and
control.
room
None
Center-pivot unit was
steel, increasing
"sinking in" problems
None
G ive spec i f ic recom-
mendations on type
of vegetation to
be grown.
Topsoil removed
prior to construc-
tion was never
returned.
None
Effect of soil type
and texture not in-
vestigated prior to
selection of irri-
gation equipment.
Big gun irrigation
system ties up trac-
tor and is labor-in-
tensive when moving
is required.
-------
TABLE 25. SLOW-RATE DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
(continued)
00
Layout, Arrangement
Electrical/
Facility Name
Palmdale Water
Reclamation
Plant
City of Tulare
WPCF
City of Kerman
WWTP
City of Manteca
WWQCF
El Dorado Hills
WWTP
Kendal/Cross-
lands Lagoon
System
City of winters
WWTP
City of Sweet-
water WPCP
Site
No.
010
012
013
014
015
022
027
028
and Placement of
Components
None
None
None
Provide better access to
valves and structures
utilized for waste-
water distribution.
None
None
Extremely poor layout
causing a variety of
operational problems.
None
Civil/Structural
Considerations
None
None
None
None
None
In-ground PVC valve
boxes subject to
frost heaving, allow-
ing soil to fall in.
requiring excavation.
None
None
Hydraulic Design
Considerations
Insufficient water
holding capacity.
Insufficient water
holding capacity.
Pumps unable to supply
distant fields.
None
Original pumps could
not meet peak demand
of golf course.
Insufficient storage
for seasonal demands.
None
None
None
Mechanical Design
Considerations
None
None
None
None
Mosquito minnows and
algae from ponds
pumped to golf course
clogging sprinklers.
None
None
Line clogging (possibly
due to oil and grease)
Design
Considerations
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Agronomic
Considerations
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
would cause surge in
lines, breaking unre-
inforced concrete pipe.
-------
In terms of hydraulic design considerations, the major prob-
lem noted was that in some facilities pumping was required both
to the headworks of the treatment facility and to the slow-rate
land treatment system when the second pumping may not be neces-
sary. A second hydraulic design consideration was that numerous
plants had insufficient wastewater storage capacity to allow op-
timum facility operation.
The mechanical design considerations include improper noz-
zle selection, and pumps unable to pass solids to the land
treatment system.
An agronomic consideration noted is the effect of soil type
and texture on the selection of irrigation equipment. This
problem was particularly acute in Wayland, Michigan where the
center-pivot irrigation unit had made deep ruts in the field.
This necessitated excavating and filling the ruts with washed
gravel to allow subsequent operation of the unit.
RAPID INFILTRATION DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The design deficiencies noted during the site visits to the
rapid infiltration systems are presented in Table 26.
The major hydraulic design deficiency noted was that in sev-
eral systems it was necessary to pump wastewater both to the
pretreatment facility and subsequently to some or all of the
rapid infiltration beds. This dual pumping is frequently an
avoidable waste of energy.
OVERLAND FLOW DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Of the four overland flow sites visited, two sites were re-
search facilities, with the Army Corps of Engineers (Utica, Mis-
sissippi) facility being totally a research project, while the
Easley, South Carolina facility was an operational research
project in conjunction with Clemson University. With this in
mind, the data in Table 27 indicate overland flow design defi-
ciencies.
In terms of civil/structural considerations, the major prob-
lem concerned the tailwater collection ditches. These ditches,
typically unlined, are difficult to maintain and are subject to
erosion. Another civil/structural consideration is the effect
of improper land grading during construction which manifests it-
self in ponding on the overland flow fields. A range of mechan-
ical design deficiencies was noted during the plant visits. At
83
-------
TABLE 26. RAPID INFILTRATION DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
oo
Facility Name
Village of Lake
George WWTP
Fontana Region-
al Plant
No. 3
Town of Hareham
WPCF
Chatham WPCF
Landis Sewage
Authority
Layout, Arrangement,
Site and Placement of
No. Components
001 Insufficient width of
berms between rapid
infiltration beds to
allow truck access
and mowing.
007 Flow diversion boxes
interfere with vehi-
cle access to various
rapid infiltration
beds.
019 None
020 None
023 None
Civil/Structural
Considerations
Rapid infiltration bed
embankments subject
to 'erosion.
None
Rapid infiltration beds
should be fenced in.
Rapid infiltration beds
should be fenced in.
Hydraulic Design
Considerations
Requirement to pump
both to preapplica-
tion treatment and
newer rapid infiltra-
tion beds.
Certain rapid infil-
tration beds are less
permeable than oth-
ers; requires more
subsurface explora-
tion.
Rapid infiltration bed
underdrain system
effluent pipes locat-
ed below Agawam River
high tide, making
sampling impossible.
None
Requirement to pump to
both preapplication
treatment and newer
rapid infiltration
beds.
Mechanical Design
Considerations
Electrical/
Instrumentation
Design Agronomic.
Considerations Considerations
Float level controller
in wet well "hangs up"
on sludge accumula-
tion.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
TABLE 27. OVERLAND FLOW DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Layout,
Arrangement,
Site and Placement
Facility Name No. of Components
U.S. Army COE, WES 016 None
Overland Plow
Site
Falkner WWTP 017 None
00
cn
Easley Combined 018
Utilities System
Overland Flow
Project
Campbell Soup
(Texas), Inc.
Civil/Structural
Considerations
None
Hydraulic Design
Considerations
Off-site runoff should
be diverted away from
overland flow site.
Better access and place-
ment of tailwater col-
lection and disposal
channels required.
More effective land
grading to minimize
ponding.
Treated water collection
ditches unlined, sub-
ject to erosion and
difficult to mow since
they remain wet.
Ponding of water on
slopes.
Mechanical Design
Considerations
Solenoid valve orifice too snail None
and subject to plugging.
Water meters used to measure plot
runoff subject to plugging.
Gutter distribution piping sub-
ject to plugging.
Dual pumps from pond to plots are
redundant and unnecessary.
Effluent monitoring station too None
small to measure storm events.
Dual pumps to spray overland flow
plots are redundant and unneces-
sary.
Raw wastewater nozzles plugged. In-ground
Valve pits filled with water, rust- electric
ing and ruining solenoid valves. lines to
Chlorination equipment not flow solenoid
proportioned. valves
Grass from fields is sucked into not
chlorine eductor system and placed
clogs it. in con-
In-ground pipe is PVC, above- duits.
ground galvanized; when above-
ground pipe is hit it breaks off
at PVC/galvanized pipe joint.
Use PVC for all lines less than None
0.15 m (6 in) as concrete and
cast iron subject to breaking by
soil movement due to wetting and
drying cycles.
Electrical/
Instrumentation
Design Agronomic
Considerations Considerations
None
Initial wastewater
application prior to
plots being fully
seeded, causing ero-
sion and subsequent
poor wastewater dis-
tribution.
-------
the Army Corps of Engineers site, there were problems with plug-
ging of valves, meters, and piping. At the Easley, South Caro-
lina overland flow site, there were mechanical problems includ-
ing:
1. Raw wastewater nozzle plugging.
2. Valve pits filling up with water (which rusts
the solenoid valves).
3. Grass being sucked up by chlorine eductor sys-
tems, with resultant clogging.
4. In-ground PVC pipe connected to above-ground
galvanized pipe. When the above-ground pipe
was hit, the PVC pipe would break underground,
necessitating excavation.
One important agronomic deficiency was wastewater application
prior to the plots being fully seeded. This happened at the
Easley site, and caused substantial erosion and subsequent poor
wastewater distribution. In addition, it was difficult to es-
tablish grass on the active site.
86
-------
REFERENCES
Abernathy, R.. Personal communication, 1980.
Aulenbach, D. B. "Long-Term Recharge of Trickling Filter
Effluent into Sand." EPA-600/2-79-068, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, March 1979.
Bouzoun, J. R. "Land Treatment of Wastewater at West Dover,
Vermont." Special Report 77-33, U.S. Army Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire,
October 1977.
Bouzoun, J. R. "Freezing Problems Associated with Spray
Irrigation of Wastewater During the Winter." Special Report
79-12, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire, May 1979.
Dryden, F. D., and C. Chen. "Groundwater Recharge with
Reclaimed Waters from the Pomona, San Jose Creek, and Whittier
Narrows Plants." State of Knowledge in Land Treatment of
Wastewater Conference, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New
Hampshire, August 1978.
Jewell, W. J.f and B.L. Seabrook. "A History of Land
Application as a Treatment Alternative." EPA 430/9-79-012,
April 1979.
Koerner, E. L., and D. A. Haws. "Long-Term Effects of Land
Application of Domestic Wastewater: Vineland, New Jersey,
Rapid Infiltration Site." EPA-600/2-79-072, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, March 1979.
Michel, R. L. Personal communication. Priority Needs and
Assessment Branch, Office of Program Operations, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460,
August 1980.
87
-------
Sullivan, R.H., et al. "Survey of Facilities Using Land
Application of Wastewater." EPA 430/9-73-006, July 1973.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and
Technology. "Water Reuse and Recycling," Volume 2, Evaluation
of Treatment Technology. OWRT/RU-79/2, April 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA
625/1-77-008, October 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual." EPA 430/9-78-009,
February 1980.
88
-------
APPENDIX A
TRIP REPORTS
Appendix A is a compendium of observations and data collect-
ed during the site survey portion of the study. The appendix is
organized with a separate report for each of the sites.
In addition, location maps, process flow diagrams, and fa-
cility layouts are included for each report.
89
-------
VILLAGE OF LAKE GEORGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 001)
LAKE GEORGE, NEW YORK
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
Lake George, New York is located in the eastern portion of
New York state, approximately 80 km (50 mi) north of Albany, in
the Adirondack Mountains (Figure A-l). The area is a tourist
attraction in both summer and winter due to the recreational
value of Lake George. The treatment facility receives flow from
both the Village of Lake George and the Town of Lake George;
however, the facility is owned and operated by the Village. The
facility was visited on March 24 and 25, 1980.
Lake George has a seasonal climate, and the yearly average
temperature is 8.2°C (46.8°F). The yearly average precipi-
tation is 0.95 m (37.3 in), whereas the estimated annual average
Class A pan evaporation is 0.84 m (33 in).
The Village of Lake George wastewater treatment plant was
designed to treat 0.077 m3/s (1.75 mgd) to a secondary degree
of treatment. Based on plant operating records, 0.028 m3/s
(0.64 mgd) of wastewater is currently being treated to an inter-
mediate level, utilizing primary sedimentation followed by
trickling filtration. Unchlorinated trickling filter effluent
from the final settling tanks is then applied to the rapid in-
filtration beds. The treatment facilities primarily receive
wastewater from the communities, and tourist support services.
There are no major industrial discharges to the facility.
Both the preapplication treatment and the land application
system have been on-line for 41 years, although expanded and up-
graded various times. Regional wastewater treatment alterna-
tives are currently being studied. However, there are no defi-
nite plans for the future of the facility. The land use in the
vicinity of the Lake George facilities includes both residential
and undeveloped areas.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
All wastewater is pumped to the Village of Lake George
Wastewater Treatment Plant through either the Town or Village
90
-------
. •/> Scale: 1 mm
= 24m
= 2,000 ft)>
Figure A-l
Location map of Village of Lake George wastewater
treatment plant (# 001) , Lake George, New York.
91
-------
force mains. There is no preliminary treatment at the facility,
and following flow measurement, primary treatment is provided by
either a circular Imhoff tank, or one of two circular clariges-
ters, all operating in parallel (Figure A-2). Biological treat-
ment is accomplished in two high-rate rotating arm trickling
filters, and one covered (wood slat) standard-rate fixed nozzle
trickling filter. Secondary sedimentation facilities consist of
two rectangular and two circular settling tanks. Excess biolog-
ical sludge (humus) is pumped to one of the three clarigesters
for stabilization (anaerobic digestion). During the warmer
months, digested sludge is applied to sand drying beds prior to
disposal in a landfill.
Unchlorinated trickling filter effluent from the final set-
tling tanks is discharged to the rapid infiltration basins.
There are 21 rapid infiltration beds -- 14 north beds and seven
south beds (Figure A-3). The 14 north beds contain 1.4 ha (3.4
acres), and the seven south beds contain 0.81 ha (2.0 acres) for
a total bed area of 2.2 ha (5.4 acres). When the plant com-
menced operation in 1939, only six north beds existed. Plant
expansions in 1947, 1950, 1956, 1965, and 1970 brought the total
to 21. Due to hydraulics, wastewater must be pumped to the
south beds, utilizing one of two 3.7-kw (5 hp) centrifugal pumps
rated at approximately 0.0063 m3/s (100 gpm).
Although the south beds are larger and wastewater must be
pumped to them, the wastewater distribution systems for both
north and south beds are basically the same and consist of a
centralized manhole with various slide gates. Wastewater is di-
verted from one bed to another by removing the slide gate and
reinserting it in a different pipe. From the splitter manhole,
wastewater then flows into the individual beds. In the newer
south beds, concrete headwalls and splash plates are used to
prevent erosion and distribute the water. In the older north
beds, a clay pipe distributes the water onto rocks which are
utilized for wastewater distribution and erosion control. Over-
flow pipes interconnect most of the beds. An approximately 0.9
to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) high earthen dike encloses the beds. The
dikes are grassed, and constructed with one ramp per bed to al-
low equipment access.
The beds are constructed in an area consisting of natural
delta sands whose depth reaches 28 m (92 ft), but is shallower
in the south beds. The delta sands contain a small percent of
coarse sand and gravel.
Aside from any storage inherent in the percolation beds
themselves, there are no additional wastewater storage facili-
ties. A total of 22 groundwater monitoring wells are located
92
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Clarigesters
+
Irnhoff Tank
Land Treatment System
North Rapid Infiltration
Basins
South Rapid Infiltration
Basins
Figure A-2. Process flow diagram of Village of Lake George
wastewater treatment plant (# 001), Lake George,
New York.
93
-------
Sludge
Beds ;F~|^
/ "a
3 Primary
' *f Settling f
V Tanks £.
Final Settling Tanks
Laboratory Building
n s^—/
7
Influent
Chamber
South
Beds
Not to Scale
Figure A-3. Facility layout of Village of Lake George waste-
water treatment plant (# 001), Lake George,
New York.
94
-------
both on- and off-site. The wells are not monitored by the Vil-
lage of Lake George, but rather have been utilized by research-
ers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) . Based on addi-
tional RPI research, it has been shown that the percolated
groundwater follows a path due north (Aulenbach, 1979) .
Based on the area involved and the amount of wastewater gen-
erated, the following average loading rates have been calcu-
lated:
Hydraulic 1.13 m/wk
40.5 m/yr
Organic 23,862 kg BODs/ha/yr
Solids 8,897 kg SS/ha/yr
Owing to the different permeabilities of the infiltration
beds and operator preferences, the hydraulic loading rates for
1976 varied from approximately 14 to 90 m (46 to 295 ft)
(Aulenbach, 1979).
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Due to the highly seasonal wastewater variation caused by
the tourist industry, a modular approach to construction and op-
eration of the plant has been taken. Therefore, during the low-
er winter flows, the Imhoff tank and the two circular trickling
filters are taken off-line. For calendar year 1979, effluent
BOD5 and suspended solids averaged 59 and 22 mg/L, respective-
ly, based on weekly 24-hour composites. The BOD5 value
causes the effluent to be categorized as intermediate rather
than secondary quality effluent.
Although the rapid infiltration bed operation has been prac-
ticed for 41 years and is well defined, it does not follow a
prescribed schedule of bed rotation. Normal weekday operation
consists of dosing one northern and one southern bed from 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and dosing one southern and one northern bed
from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. the next day. Under normal opera-
tion, the level-control pump to the south beds only pumps efflu-
ent water which is in excess of the hydraulic capacity of the
gravity line to the northern beds. During weekend operation, a
total of four beds (two northern and two southern) are dosed for
a period of 24 hours. Occasionally during high flow periods,
additional beds are pressed into service as required.
95
-------
The major factor which affects which beds will be utilized
is visual inspection, i.e., which bed appears dry. Based on
this rotation, the north beds are typically dosed once every 7
to 10 days and the south beds once every 5 to 6 days (as there
are fewer beds, they are utilized more often). The ease with
which the bed can be dosed is an additional factor affecting bed
rotation. For example, a northern bed close to the control
building can be dosed by opening one slide gate in one manhole,
whereas a more distant bed may require opening three slide gates
in three separate manholes.
Under normal conditions a bed will dry in one to two days
following wastewater application, depending on size, age, and
condition of the bed. Standard operating practice allows a bed
to be dry prior to additional wastewater application. During
peak flow periods, however, it is often necessary to dose the
beds prior to their becoming dry. Research conducted by RPI has
qualified the effect of various application sequences with the
infiltration rate of the bed (Aulenbach, 1979). Occasionally,
sufficient capacity does not exist with the 21 beds, and provi-
sions have been made with a neighboring property owner (ex-sand
borrow pit) to dispose of the water on the adjoining property.
Typically, there are no operational problems associated with
the rapid infiltration beds. Wastewater distribution continues
12 months per year, and, during the winter months, the wastewa-
ter which has frozen merely floats on the newly applied water
prior to it percolating into the soil. The ice actually aids
the operation as it provides an insulating layer for the soil
surface.
During the approximately eight nonwinter months, four labor-
ers spend approximately 90 percent of their time with the beds.
Tasks include cleaning the bed (to be described in the next sec-
tion) , mowing the grass and occasional dike maintenance.
Substantial amounts of data exist to document the effective-
ness of the Lake George rapid infiltration system (Aulenbach,
1979). In summary, the beds are effective in removing BOD, COD,
coliforms, and streptococci in the top 3 m (10 ft), while oxi-
dizing ammonia to nitrate in the same distance. By 18 m (60 ft),
nitrate is almost totally removed, whereas ortho-phosphate is
almost totally removed at the 7 m (23 ft) depth.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the preapplication treatment area is poor, as
above-ground superstructures appeared in need of repair and
painting. In addition, many of the fixed nozzles were missing
96
-------
from the trickling filter causing poor distribution of wastewa-
ter. The control building and laboratory (which are newer) are
maintained better. Overall maintenance at the plant may be in-
dicative of the possibility of the plant being abandoned in the
near future, and the desire of the Village not to invest addi-
tional funds.
The rapid infiltration beds are adequately maintained in
terms of berm and hydraulic structure maintenance. North beds
10 through 14 are furthest away from the control building and
in the greatest need of additional maintenance. The only
mechanical equipment utilized for the infiltration beds (with
the exception of trucks and tractors) is the two feed pumps and
various valves. The equipment is in adequate condition.
A maintenance problem involves sludge accumulation on the
surface of the infiltration beds and subsequent plugging/odor
potential, a problem which becomes more acute during the warmer
months. During these months, the beds are cleaned approximately
once per month, with the cleaning cycle based on visual observa-
tions, availability of the bed for cleaning, and time spent by
plant personnel on other duties. A crew of four men can clean
two beds per day. Bed cleaning consists of first scraping away
the surface sludge layer by hand and placing it in a truck.
Next, the bed is scraped by a spring tooth implement to scarify
the surface 0.15 m (6 in). A tine rake is then used, followed
by a drag bar. The bed is then ready to be put back in service.
Sand loss is minimal and no attempt at sand replacement is made.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $108,645 was spent during fiscal year 1978-1979
for operation and maintenance of the Village of Lake George
wastewater treatment facilities. Of this total, $46,246 or 43%
was spent on land application, with the major expense being la-
bor. The land application operation and maintenance cost break-
down is as follows:
Personnel $39,395
Materials and supplies 680
Fuel and electricity 2,246
Insurance 3,347
Vehicle maintenance 578
Total $46,246
97
-------
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The operating staff at the Village of Lake George reported
no known design deficiencies. It is the opinion of the inter-
viewers that:
1. The berms between the infiltration beds should
be wider than the existing 1.5 to 1.8 ra (5 to
8 ft) to allow truck and tractor access.
2. The plant should have been located at the high
point of the site to avoid effluent pumping.
Given the fact that the plant was designed in 1936, however,
the need for pumping in 1965 was not anticipated.
98
-------
NORTH BRANCH FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (# 002)
WEST DOVER, VERMONT
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The North Branch Fire District No. 1 Water Pollution Control
Facility is located in West Dover, Vermont, approximately 22.5
km (14 mi) north of the Vermont-Massachusetts border (Figure
A-4). The plant is owned and operated by the North Branch Fire
District No. 1. The facility was visited on March 26 and 27,
1980.
West Dover, Vermont has a cold temperate climate, in part
due to the 518-m (1,700 ft) elevation. The mean annual temper-
ature of the Dover area is 6.1°C (43°F), and the average an-
nual precipitation is about 1.4 m (55 in). Average yearly snow-
fall is in excess of 2.5 m (100 in), whereas yearly average
Class A pan evaporation is 0.89 m (35 in).
The North Branch Fire District No. 1 plant is located in a
winter resort area (skiing), and therefore receives a seasonal
loading. Summer flows average 284 m3/day (75,000 gpd), and
winter flows average 568 m3/day (150,000 gpd). The plant's
design flow is 1,325 m3/day (350,000 gpd) winter, and 644
m3/day (170,000 gpd) summer. The plant receives no indus-
trial flow, and the entire flow is associated with either the
recreational areas, including lodging, food, and services, or
full-time residents. The preapplication treatment facilities
consist of two oxidation ditches followed by two secondary clar-
ifiers, chlorination, a polishing pond, and a holding pond. The
effluent is applied to 13.8 ha (34 acres) of woodland utilizing
spray irrigation in a slow-rate mode.
The preapplication and land treatment systems have both
been in operation for five years. Residential, lodging, and
commercial facilities are located adjacent to the treatment
facilities. There are no immediate plans for modification of
the facility.
99
-------
Preapplication and Land
ScaleTl mm = 62.5 m
Figure A-4. Location map of North Branch Fire District No. 1
water pollution control facility (# 002),
West Dover, Vermont.
100
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The headworks of the facility consist of a comminutor placed
in parallel with a bar screen by-pass channel, and followed by a
Parshall flume and a flow proportioning structure (Figure A-5).
There are two oxidation ditches, each 77 m (254 ft) long
with a 4.3 m (14 ft) bottom width, an 8.5 m (28 ft) top width,
and an average water depth of 1.8 m (6 ft). Each ditch has a
1,673 m3 (442,000 gal) capacity, and provides approximately
24-hours detention time at average winter design flow. There
are two 4.3-m (14 ft) brush aerators in each ditch. The rotors
are designed to maintain a minimum velocity of 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s)
through the ditches.
There are two secondary clarifiers, each 12.8 m (42 ft) in
diameter and 3.0 m (10 ft) deep; each can receive flow from ei-
ther oxidation ditch. Following clarification, the treated
wastewater is chlorinated utilizing gaseous chlorine provided by
one of two gas chlorinators utilizing 68-kg (150 Ib) chlorine
cylinders. The chlorination system is flow proportioned. Waste
sludge from the oxidation ditch is stabilized in an aerobic di-
gester, then conditioned with polymer and dewatered in a dual-
cell gravity (DCG) rotating screen device. Dewatered sludge is
trucked off site and applied to the land.
Following chlorination, the treated effluent flows to a pol-
ishing pond. The clay-lined polishing pond has a capacity of
8,330 nr3 (2.2 mil gal) which gives a detention time of four
days at the design winter average daily flow. The pond has a
maximum depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) and a surface area of 0.7 ha (1.7
acres). The pond stores the chlorinated secondary effluent from
the clarifiers until it is sprayed. Any overflow passes by
gravity through a pipe to the holding pond. A pump is used to
transfer water from the holding pond back into the polishing
pond for application to the spray field. When both ponds are
full, there are provisions for automatic start-up of the spray
system which prevents the polishing pond from overflowing.
The unlined holding pond was constructed over fragipan and
has a capacity of 60,570 m3 (16 mil gal) which gives a design
detention time of 29 days. This pond is for storage of the
overflow from the polishing pond during periods when spraying is
limited or not advisable.
The spray system includes the spray pumps, controls, and a
network of spray laterals and nozzles in the spray field. A
0.30-m (12 in) intake line runs from the polishing pond to the
three pumps located in the basement of the control building.
101
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Comminutor
and
Bar Screen
i
Oxidation
Ditches
Secondary
Clarifiers
1
Dual Cell
Gravity
Dewatering
y Sludge
Aerobic
Digestion
Land
Application
Land Treatment System
Chlori-
nation
Spray Irrigation
of Forest
(Maple, Beech,
Birch, White Pine,
Spruce, Fir)
Holding Pond
Runoff
Evaporation
Pond
Figure A-5. Process flow diagram of North Branch Fire District
No.l water pollution control facility (# 002),
West Dover, Vermont.
102
-------
Each spray pump unit consists of a 1.6-mm (0.0625 in) opening
strainer, 37.3-kw (50 hp) pump rated at 0.22 m3/s (350 gpm),
an air-activated automatic control valve, a by-pass line, and a
transmitting flowmeter. Each spray pump discharges into a sep-
arate header which feeds four of the spray laterals in the spray
field. Each spray header has an adjustable, automatically-con-
trolled Camflex spray valve with an accompanying automatically-
controlled header drain valve. The drain manifold is piped back
into the polishing pond. All header lines run underground from
the control building and through the center access trail of the
spray site (Figure A-6). Four spray laterals extend from each
header in a north-south direction. The 12 spray laterals run
parallel to each other, 22.9 m (75 ft) apart, and follow the un-
dulating contours of the spray site. The spray laterals are
suspended 1.5 to 4.6 m (5 to 15 ft) above ground, and consist of
51-and 76-mm (2 and 3 in) galvanized quick disconnect steel
pipe, insulated by a jacket of PVC pipe. Vegetation is cleared
1.3 to 3.0 m (5 to 10 ft) from either side of each lateral.
There are 66 low points in the system where modified Fulljet 3/4
HH6W spray nozzles have been installed. These nozzles spray
downward, and rapidly drain the laterals after each spray cycle.
In addition, approximately 600 Fulljet 1/4 HH14W nozzles, 7.6 m
(25 ft) apart, are also utilized (Bouzoun, 1977). A further
discussion of spray nozzles appears later in this report.
There are approximately 13.8 ha (34 acres) of actual spray
area covered by the laterals. A 61-m (200 ft) buffer zone sep-
arates the spray area from the perimeter of the spray site,
bringing the total area of the spray site to approximately 20.2
ha (50 acres).
The spray site is located on a knoll west of the plant.
This area is about 518 m (1,700 ft) in elevation, 610 m (2,000
ft) long, and rises 30 m (100 ft) above the plant site. The
eastern side of this knoll slopes at an average of 8 to 15% to-
ward the plant site. The western side slopes even more steeply
(25%), and extends into a valley cut by the North Branch of the
Deerfield River.
A spray field interceptor trench runs southerly along the
eastern perimeter of the spray field to the evaporation pond.
The purpose of the interceptor trench is to prevent spray field
runoff from entering the holding pond, which, under certain
weather conditions, can result in repeated pumping and spraying
of the same water. Groundwater and surface-water runoff from
the easterly-sloping portion of the spray field is collected in
the interceptor trench, and flows by gravity to the evaporation
pond. Two concrete headwalls are installed in the trench and
can be used to divert flow to the holding pond. The evapora-
tion pond is located on the southern edge of the site.
103
-------
Clarifiers
Control
A Building
Polishing Pond
Effluent Holding
Pond
-V^t^
Not to Scale
Figure A-6.
Facility layout of North Branch Fire District No. 1
water pollution control facility (# 0.02) ,
West Dover, Vermont.
104
-------
The evaporation pond is approximately 91 m (300 ft) square
and 1.15 m (3.3 to 5 ft) deep with a design volume of 12,870
m3 (3.4 mil gal). The flow from the interceptor trench is
collected in the evaporation pond where it can percolate into
the ground.
Six 102-mm (4 in) groundwater monitoring wells are located
in or adjacent to the spray field. The soils at the site are
stony, sandy loams containing a low silt and clay content. The
soils are underlain by a compacted glacial till (fragipan) which
restricts water movement.
About 90% of the spray field is forested. About 40%, pri-
marily the eastern slope, is covered with maples, beeches, and
birches, whereas white pine, spruces, and firs dominate the rest
of the spray area.
The site loadings are as follows (excluding stormwater
runoff which is reapplied):
Hydraulic
Organic
Solids
Nutrient
FACILITY OPERATIONS
1.13 m/yr
21.8 mm/wk
40.7 kg BOD5/ha/yr
45.2 kg SS/ha/yr
5.4 kg NH3-N/ha/yr
63.7 kg N03-N/ha/yr
47.8 kg P04/ha/yr
The preapplication system is well run and produces a quality
secondary effluent containing 3.6 mg/L 6005 and 4.0 mg/L SS.
This is done with only one oxidation ditch and one secondary
clarifier in service due to the low flows received at the facil-
ity. Both the in-service clarifier and the chlorine contact
tank are covered for protection from freezing.
Following biological treatment and chlorination, the waste-
water is stored in the polishing pond. When sufficient storage
is not available in the polishing pond, the water then overflows
to the holding pond. All spraying operations utilize water from
the polishing pond, therefore, water is pumped from the holding
pond to the polishing pond prior to usage, thereby requiring du-
al pumping.
105
-------
The spray pumps and the 12 spray valves are manually or au-
tomatically controlled from the operation panel in the control
building. A cam/timer system is used to program the desired
timing and selection of spray laterals. Under normal operation,
the spray system is divided into three sections, each consisting
of one spray pump and four headers. At any given time, each
pump is pumping to one header in its section. The desired flow
to each lateral is determined by the number of nozzles on the
lateral, the desired application rate, and the spray schedule.
The pump flow meter indicates flow rate, which in turn can be
selected by adjustment of the Camflex valve. The cam/timer is
then set to alternate between each line in the section. In the
summer season, automatic operation typically involves two spray
pumps and lines 5 through 12. Each spray pump sprays one of its
four lines for approximately 15 minutes each hour until the de-
sired volume has been sprayed. Because of nozzle freezing prob-
lems, winter spraying is performed manually with no alternation
between lines. Each time spraying terminates in a given line,
an automatic drain valve opens, and the manifold is drained back
into the polishing pond.
The majority of the operational problems have occurred, not
surprisingly, during winter operation of the spray system. The
problems can be divided into two areas--downward and upward
spraying nozzles. Originally, 66 Parasol 1/2 E40 nozzles were
installed at the low points in the system to drain them follow-
ing their use. While the nozzles effectively draineo the lines
within one hour, the small quantity of water in the lines would
slowly drip out and freeze whenever temperatures were below
-3°C (27°F). During the next spray cycle, the nozzles would
remain frozen, and the lines could not drain and were suscepti-
ble to freezing.
Following a testing program, Fulljet 3/4 HH6W nozzles were
installed. The nozzle contains two vanes, one of which is fed
through the body of the nozzle itself, whereas the other vane is
fed through a brass tube which extends upward out of the base of
the nozzle. When the liquid is shut off, the wastewater drains
through both vanes. When the level reaches the top of the brass
tube, drainage continues through the other vane; however, as the
brass tube drains quickly, it remains open. The other vane may
freeze, however, when the system is started up, the one vane is
open, and the wastewater tends to thaw the second vane open, re-
storing the nozzle to normal operation (Bouzoun, 1979).
Originally, about 300 Buckner Turf King rotary sprinklers were
installed. The nozzles were unsatisfactory as they were suscep-
tible to freezing damage, freezing plugging, and excessive main-
tenance due to their moving parts and requirement to be kept
level. Also, the nozzles sprayed 16.8 to 19.8 m (55 to 65 ft),
106
-------
whereas the trees were only removed from an area approximately
3.0 to 6.1 m (10 to 20 ft) wide. To alleviate the problem,
Fulljet 1/4 HH14W nozzles located at 7.6-m (25 ft) intervals
replaced the rotary sprinklers which were located at 15.2-m (50
ft) intervals.
After installation of the downward nozzles, spraying was ac-
complished successfully at temperatures as low as -17.8°C
(0°F). In addition, continuous use of one spray line per day
was instituted rather than automatic switching.
A third operational headache is the build-up of snow and ice
mounds under the spray nozzles. The snow and ice mounds become
so large that they actually engulf the spray lines, causing sags
and subsequent freezing and bursting. The ice mounding problem
was attacked in two ways. One way was to simply go out with ax-
es and chop away the ice, an effective but dangerous method. A
second solution was the installation of copper risers approxi-
mately 0.91 m (3 ft) long, which could be angled to help mini-
mize problems. Both solutions are currently being utilized.
During summer operation, various Buckner nozzles are rein-
stalled, and various downward nozzles removed to improve waste-
water distribution. In addition, during warm weather spraying
is carried out during evening hours to utilize the off peak,
less expensive electricity.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Overall facility maintenance and housekeeping was very good.
One maintenance problem involves spray nozzle plugging. The
plugging occurs infrequently, and is usually due to leaves,
twigs, or salamanders, and not wastewater particles. A second
maintenance problem involves settling of the spray line system.
The wood poles supporting the system were driven in, and they
occasionally sink. This causes a low spot in the pipe, and a
downward spray nozzle must be installed.
In terms of staffing, of the approximately eight man-days
per week spent at the facility, four days are associated with
land application operation and maintenance. During the winter,
the majority of the time is spent removing the ice mounds,
whereas in the summer the most time is spent with woodland man-
agement.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $58,450 is spent yearly for operation and mainte-
nance of the North Branch Fire District No. 1 Water Pollution
Control Facility. Of this total, one third is incurred due to
107
-------
the land application system. A cost breakdown for the $19,125
spent per year shows that over one half of the expense is for
labor, as follows:
Personnel $10,550
Materials and supplies 620
Fuel and electricity 2,510
Insurance 2,805
Communications 90
Administration 1,370
Vehicles 200
Legal 740
Miscellaneous 240
Total $19,125
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The improper nozzle selection is a design deficiency. A
second design deficiency involves the way the spray lines were
laid out. The lines followed the contour of the hill, thereby
creating a large number of low spots. By installing the lines
to run up/down the hill, the number of low spots could be re-
duced substantially.
As designed, the 1.5 to 3.0-m (5 to 10 ft) clearance on
each side of the spray lines is insufficient for access, partic-
ularly when ice mounds are present and need to be removed. The
plant operators believe a 4.6 to 6.1-m (15 to 20 ft) clearing on
each side would be sufficient. In addition, plant operators
feel that a walking train between two spray lines should be pro-
vided so that both lines could be checked simultaneously.
A communication system (probably two-way radios) should be
provided between operators in the spray fields and the control
room so that spraying can be stopped without walking back to the
control room whenever a nozzle needs to be cleaned/replaced.
One other problem involves off-site, uncontaminated storm-
water which is diverted into the holding and polishing ponds.
For example, in calendar year 1979, the plant only received
108
-------
128,700 m3 (34 mil gal), however, sprayed 276,300 m3 (73 mil
gal). This stormwater should be diverted away from the ponds.
A final design deficiency involves the need to pump wastewater
from the holding pond to the polishing pond, and then to the ir-
rigation system. A simpler approach would permit gravity flow
to the pumps from both ponds, minimizing the need and cost as-
sociated with dual pumping.
109
-------
CITY OF HART WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (# 003)
HART, MICHIGAN
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Hart is located in west-central Michigan, a
short distance east of Lake Michigan, approximately 129 km (80
mi) north of Grand Rapids (Figure A-7). Agriculture is the pre-
dominant industry in the area, particularly the cherry industry.
The facility was visited on 7 and 8 April 1980.
The City of Hart owns and operates the wastewater treatment
facility, which receives a large amount of industrial flow. The
industries involved share in both the capital cost and operation
and maintenance costs of the facility.
The climate in Hart, Michigan is seasonal, with a yearly av-
erage temperature of 8.4°C (47.1°F). Mean annual precipita-
tion is 0.83 m (32.74 in) and the estimated annual Class A pan
evaporation is 0.94 m (37 in).
The preapplication treatment scheme at Hart consists of aer-
ated lagoons followed by holding/oxidation ponds (Figure A-8).
The preapplication effluent is intermediate in terms of degree
of treatment. Treated wastewater is then applied to 34.8 ha (86
acres) of farmland, consisting of both woods and weeds/grasses.
The system is operated as a slow-rate system.
The Hart, Michigan facilities were designed to handle 0.031
m^/s (0.7 mgd) of domestic and industrial wastewater. The
plant currently receives 0.027 m3/s (0.61 mgd) of flow, in-
cluding 0.017 m3/s (0.39 mgd) of industrial flow. The indus-
trial flow is contributed primarily by fruit and vegetable can-
ning, thereby causing an average influent 8005 of 742 mg/L.
However, the suspended solids loading is not elevated over typi-
cal levels. The facility also receives an unknown amount of
stormwater as a portion of the collection system is a combined
system.
110
-------
__ r.
^:^^IP¥'
V'^^..r'fe"'.';di o'-!s/"\ .
"r:v A.;
..
,Preapplication and Land_
Treatment Area
5: Scale: i mm = 62.5 m
(1 in = 1 mi)
Figure A-7. Location map of City of Hart wastewater treatment
facilities (# 003) , Hart, Michigan.
Ill
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Aerated
Ponds
Oxidation
Ponds
Chlorine
(not used)
Land Treatment System
Ridge and Furrow
Irrigation
(Noncultivated)
i L.J Flood Irrigation of
11 Forest
(Pine, Hardwoods)
Gated Pipe
Figure A-8.
Process flow diagram of City of Hart wastewater
treatment facilities (# 003), Hart, Michigan.
112
-------
The wastewater treatment facilities have been in operation
for 15 years. However, expanded and upgraded treatment facili-
ties, along with the land application system, have been in oper-
ation for only six years. Future plans for the site call for
planting a crop with an economic value. The land use in the vi-
cinity of the site is agricultural.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Influent wastewater at the Hart wastewater treatment plant
flows directly into one of two aerated lagoons as there is no
preliminary or primary treatment. The two lagoons are operated
in parallel, and each contains 33,880 m3 (8.95 mil gal) and a
3.7-m (12 ft) operating depth. At design flow, the detention
time is 25.6 days. Each lagoon is aerated by two fixed plat-
form-mounted 37.3-kw (50 hp) surface aerators. As the waste may
be deficient in nitrogen because of the industrial contribution,
facilities for nitrogen addition are available.
Following the aerated lagoon, the wastewater flows to the
three holding/oxidation ponds. The combined volume of the ponds
is 313,780 m^ (82.9 mil gal), and the ponds cover an area of
12.8 ha (31.6 acres). As the ponds store partially oxidized
wastewater, they were designed as oxidation ponds. The ponds
were designed for series operation and have a 118-day detention
time based on the design flow. As the expected winter flow is
lower than the summer flow (due to cannery operations), the
ponds were designed to contain six months of winter design flow.
Following wastewater storage, the effluent is pumped approx-
imately 2.7 km (1.7 mi) through a 0.25-m (10 in) cast iron force
main (Figure A-9) as the soils adjacent to the treatment plant
site are unsuitable as they are primarily clay. The effluent is
pumped utilizing one of two 44.8-kw (60 hp) centrifugal nonclog
pumps. The discharge of the pumps is maintained at 0.057 m^/s
(900 gpm) utilizing a throttling valve to compensate for the
different head losses to the various fields, thereby maintaining
a constant application rate. A slipstream off the irrigation
pumps is used with a gaseous chlorine eductor system to chlori-
nate the wastewater prior to land application. Owing to the de-
tention time in the wet well and force main, a 40-minute contact
time is maintained.
The wastewater is distributed throughout the application
site utilizing 0.20-m (8 in) aluminum irrigation pipe headers
connected to 0.5-m (6 in) gated aluminum pipe. The sections of
gated pipe are 7.6 m (25 ft) long, spaced approximately 30.5 m
(100 ft) apart, and are operated at 55 kPa (8 psi). The system
is designed so that each gate discharges into a furrow of the
ridge and furrow distribution system.
113
-------
Oxidation Pond No 3
-i
Oxidation Pond No 2
Oxidation Pond No 1
Polk Road
-Approximately 2.7 km (1.7 mi)
Figure A-9,
Facility layout of City of Hart wastewater treat-
ment facilities (# 003), Hart, Michigan.
114
-------
With this irrigation distribution system, approximately
34.8 ha (86 acres) of the total 64.8-ha (160 acre) site can be
irrigated. The vegetation on the site includes 20.2 ha (50
acres) of pine trees, 8.1 ha (20 acres) of hardwoods, and 36.4
ha (90 acres) of noncultivated crops/weeds. The irrigation area
is divided into eight fields ranging in size from 3.0 ha (7.48
acres) to 6.1 ha (15.16 acres). As designed, an electrically-
operated butterfly valve is used to control the flow of wastewa-
ter to any one field, based on signals from a controller/timer
unit.
The soils throughout the application fields consist of sands
and loamy sands. The site was designed with a minimum 15.2-m
(50 ft) buffer zone on three sides, and a 61 to 91-m (200 to 300
ft) buffer zone toward the side with residences. A berm system
is installed around the^perimeter of the site to ensure that the
water stays on-site, and that off-site stormwater stays off-
site. Six groundwater monitoring wells were installed in con-
junction with the land application site. In addition, four do-
mestic wells in the area are monitored.
Based on plant operating data (and assuming precipitation
equals evaporation), the following loading rates have been cal-
culated :
Hydraulic 69.5 mm/wk
2.4 m/yr
Organic 1,208 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 2,101 kg SS/ha/yr
Phosphorus 151 kg PC>4/ha/yr
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system produces an effluent
with BOD5 and suspended solids concentrations of 50 and 87
mg/L, respectively. Although ammonia feed facilities were in-
stalled, they are currently not being used. As there are no ef-
fluent ammonia or nitrate data, it is not known whether more ef-
ficient treatment would be possible if the ammonia was added.
At the time of the visit, there were strong odors emanating from
the oxidation ponds, indicative of the spring turnover of the
pond. Although facilities exist for effluent chlorination, un-
chlorinated water is applied to the irrigation fields.
115
-------
As originally designed, the irrigation system was to be con-
trolled utilizing a Buckner Sprinkler Company controller which
would automatically actuate the header pipe valves and rotate
the fields based on a preset rotation schedule. The operators
have since disconnected the system, and all irrigation is done
manually, based on visual observations. The exact reason for
the system being disconnected could not be ascertained due to
the turnover in operations personnel, however, the current su-
perintendent believes that operational difficulties caused it to
be disconnected. Owing to varying soil permeability, some
fields receive more water than others. Wastewater irrigation
proceeds from the time the ground thaws until it freezes again,
basically from April through November.
A variety of operational problems exist at the Hart facili-
ty. The first problem is associated with weeds which fall into
the storage ponds during grass cutting, are subsequently drawn
into the effluent pumps, and then tend to clog the gated piping,
necessitating pipe cleaning.
Two additional operational problems are the result of apply-
ing the wastewater to the site, thereby elevating the groundwa-
ter table and causing trees to drown and fields to become muddy.
These two items can be classified as design related and will be
discussed later.
In terms of staffing, the Hart wastewater treatment plant
has had a large turnover in personnel, thereby destabilizing
plant operations. At the time of the visit, there was no plant
superintendent, and one laborer was handling the entire facil-
ity. Since then, the superintendent position has been filled,
and two full-time people are associated with the plant.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Maintenance at the preapplication treatment site was accept-
able, in general, with the exception of the access roads, which
were extremely muddy and required a four-wheel drive truck to
navigate. Although the roads were designed to be all-weather
gravel roads, the roads have deteriorated due to the clay soils
at the site.
Maintenance of the land treatment site consists of only the
above-ground piping, which is basically maintenance free. As
discussed earlier, the electrically-controlled valves and con-
trol system have been disconnected. There was one gated pipe
which had ruptured due to frozen conditions, however, it appears
that the system is adequately drained and winterized, as only
one section of pipe has been damaged in the six years of opera-
tion.
116
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $66,057 was spent during fiscal year 1978-1979 by
the City of Hart for operation and maintenance of the preappli-
cation treatment and land application systems. Of this total,
$10,967 was spent on land application, as follows:
Personnel $ 3,716
Fuel and electricity 7,251
Total $10,967
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Plugging of the original centrifugal pumps by leaves, weeds,
and vegetable and sewage solids caused replacement of these
pumps with nonclog centrifugal pumps. The new pumps have worked
fine and have not had any problems.
The second design deficiency involves the fact that plans
for usage of the irrigation fields were not formalized at the
time of construction. Had that been the case, the desired crop
could have been planted and potential revenues generated. As
things stand now, however, a crop has never been raised, al-
though the possibility exists that hybrid poplar trees for pulp
production may soon be planted. As the plans for crop produc-
tion were never formalized, the necessary earthwork was never
done, and low areas on-site have become flooded, and in effect,
drowned the pine trees. This has further reduced the potential
economic return.
The other design deficiency involves the effect of raising
the groundwater table on neighboring properties. Based on visu-
al observations and a conversation with a neighboring farmer,
the elevated groundwater table has apparently flooded out a por-
tion of his property, and has caused a portion of his pasture
land to be too muddy to use. Therefore, the potential effects
of the additional water loading on the existing groundwater ta-
ble must be adequately assessed if climatic conditions and
groundwater table elevation warrant it.
117
-------
CITY OF FREMONT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 004)
FREMONT, MICHIGAN
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Fremont, Michigan is located in west central
Michigan, approximately 64 km (40 mi) northwest of Grand Rapids
and 32 km (20 mi) northeast of Muskegon (Figure A-10). The
treatment plant is owned and operated by the City of Fremont.
The plant was visited on April 9, 1980.
The climate in the vicinity of Fremont is seasonal with a
yearly average temperature of 7.6°C (45.6°F). The average
annual precipitation is 0.81 m (31.85 in), and the mean annual
Class A pan evaporation is 0.97 m (38 in).
The Fremont Wastewater Treatment Plant consists of three ox-
idation ponds in series, followed by comminution, chlorination,
and a slow-rate land application system -(Figure A-ll). Based on
analytical data, the oxidation- pond effluent is categorized as
secondary effluent. The facility was designed to handle 0.036
m-Vs (0.82 mgd), and the current flow rate is approximately
0.013 m3/s (0.304 mgd). The entire flow received at the fa-
cility ,is of domestic origin.
Both the preapplication and land treatment systems have been
in operation for five years. Land use in the vicinity of the
Fremont facilities is basically agricultural, with some resi-
dences also present. There are no future plans for modification
of the facility.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater received at the City of Fremont Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant flows directly into a primary oxidation pond as there
are no preliminary or primary treatment facilities. Two addi-
tional oxidation ponds are operated in series. The three ponds
have a total capacity of 740,050 m3 (195.5 mil gal). The pri-
mary oxidation pond has an area of 16.2 ha (40 acres) and a
depth of 1.8 m (6 ft), whereas the secondary pond has an area of
118
-------
r • " °%*»***-j-
ro*° ' :" • 3 .
^r^« . , -. ^U£%&*
I 750
— -^ S
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
30 *° Scale: 1 mm = 62.5 m
(1 in = 1 mi)
Figure A-10. Location map of City of Fremont wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 004), Fremont, Michigan.
119
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Oxidation
Ponds
Comminutor
Chlori nation
Land Treatment System
Border Strip Irrigation
(Alfalfa, Oats, Rye)
Figure A-ll. Process flow diagram of City of Fremont waste-
water treatment plant (# 004), Fremont, Michigan.
120
-------
8.1 ha (20 acres) and a depth of 2.4 m (8 ft). The tertiary
pond also covers an 8.1-ha (20 acre) area, however, the maximum
water depth is 3.0 m (10 ft). All three ponds are clay lined.
Following the three oxidation ponds, the wastewater passes
through a bar screen and comminutor (located in the berm between
the second and third ponds) prior to entering the chlorine con-
tact tank. Gaseous chlorine is supplied from 909-kg (1 ton)
cylinders which are located in the control building. The chlor-
ine contact tank also serves as a wet well for the two effluent
irrigation pumps.
The effluent pumps are 29.8-kw (40 hp) vertical shaft cen-
trifugal water pumps rated at 0.076 m3/s (1,200 gpm). The
pumps feed the underground distribution system which is con-
structed of cast iron pipe. Fields close to the chlorine con-
tact tank can also be watered utilizing a gravity discharge.
The irrigation area consists of 18 separate fields ranging in
size from 5.0 ha (12.4 acres) to 1.0 ha (2.46 acres) (Figure
A-12). Typically, each field is divided into 16 to 18 irriga-
tion cells, each cell being approximately 15.2 m (50 ft) wide
by 229 m (750 ft) long. The cells are separated/contained by
approximately 0.3-m (1 ft) high earthen berms as border strip
irrigation is used. The distribution system is valved such that
each of the 18 fields can be isolated. In-ground water distri-
bution system-type valves are used. Within each irrigation
field, each cell cannot be valved off and all are irrigated si-
multaneously. Within each cell, a 0.20-m (8 in) cast iron riser
pipe with a bell-shaped end imbedded in a 0.91-m (3 ft) square
concrete splash plate distributes the water. The inlet struc-
ture is located at the head of the field, and wastewater flows
down the 2% graded slope. The underground effluent distribution
system has built-in drains at the low point in the system.
These drains consist of manholes where the pipe can be gravity
drained, and then pumped out with a portable pump.
The total irrigation area is 68.4 ha (169 acres) divided in-
to three sets of fields (west, east, and south fields) which are
separated by public roads. The entire site is fenced and signs
are posted. The soils at the site are basically sand and loamy
sand. For the current year, 18.8 ha (46.5 acres) of alfalfa and
5.3 ha (13.0 acres) of rye are being raised, whereas the remain-
der of the fields are noncultivated.
Based on plant operating records and assuming evaporation
equals precipitation, the following loading rates can be calcu-
lated:
Hydraulic 2.6 m/yr
76.2 mm/wk
121
-------
|U
72nd Street
No. 1
Monitoring
Well
No. 2
Control
Building
No. 41
No.Si
Chlorine Contact
Tank and Effluent
Pumps —
Oxidation
Pond No. 1
Oxidation
Pond No. 2
Oxidation
Pond No. 3
Comminutor
No.7
80th Street
No. 9
No. 13 \
No. 141
13
17
14
18
I No. 3
No.6
— —
ffl
\
flj
I
I
i
(Typical Plot)
4
7
I
2
5
8
3
6
9
—
No.8
10
12
11
No. 12
No. 16
No. 15
Not to Scale
Figure A-12. Facility layout of City of Fremont wastewater
treatment plant (# 004), Fremont, Michigan.
122
-------
Organic 316 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 817 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 87 kg T-P/ha/yr
Although there are no storage ponds on-site, the variable
level operation of the oxidation ponds (minimum water depth
equals 0.46 m (1.5 ft) affords a storage capacity of 592,100
m^ (156.4 mil gal) for a holding capacity of 190 days at the
design flow rate.
There are 32 groundwater monitoring wells on-site, located
at 16 different positions. At each location there is a shallow
well, 1.5 m (5 ft), and a deep well, 10.7 m (35 ft). Monthly
sampling consists of water elevation, pH, and conductivity,
whereas yearly sampling includes chlorine, hardness, alkalinity,
ammonia, nitrate, nitrate sulfate, and phosphorus.
Wastewater is applied within 15.2 m (50 ft) of the site
boundary, and the buffer zone consists of mowed grass/weeds. As
the site is flood irrigated, berms around the fields control any
storm runoff.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The three oxidation ponds are typically operated in series.
The preapplication effluent quality is as follows:
BOD5, mg/L 12
SS, mg/L 31
pH 8.2
T-P, mg/L 3.3
Total coliforms (tt/100 ml) 63
The land treatment system is typically operated eight months
per year, from April through November. Irrigation commences
with the spring thaw and continues until sufficient storage ex-
ists in the oxidation ponds, hopefully before freezing
weather. Whenever wastewater is applied, the effluent chlorina-
tion system is utilized. As discussed previously, only 24.1 ha
(59.5 acres) are currently utilized for crop production; the re-
maining 44.3 ha (109.5 acres) are noncultivated and typically
not irrigated. The reason that additional acreage is not uti-
lized is due to the method of irrigation, namely, flooding. In
this method, the wastewater is applied until the water reaches
123
-------
the most distant portion of the field. For areas with sandy
soils such as the Fremont site, large quantities of water must
be applied due to the soil permeability. Therefore, sufficient
water is typically not available to irrigate any additional
land. Conversely, only water-tolerant crops, such as alfalfa,
can be grown, and attempts to grow corn have proved unsuccess-
ful. The alfalfa is used for animal (cattle) feed.
All planting and crop care is done by the Fremont Wastewater
Treatment Plant operators. However, crops are harvested by a
custom farmer who pays the City $0.35/bale for the alfalfa.
Supplemental fertilizers are added when deemed necessary by the
facility staff. In terms of crop yield, the alfalfa produces
slightly below average yields, possibly due to overwatering.
The operating strategy in terms of wastewater irrigation is
to ensure that sufficient storage capacity is available prior to
the onset of freezing weather. Therefore, irrigation proceeds
four days per week, 24 hours per day, almost independently of
weather conditions, at the start of the irrigation season. To-
ward the middle of the summer, the volume of wastewater remain-
ing to be irrigated is assessed, and irrigation then tends to
follow more typical practices, if possible.
On the average, three hours per weekday is spent in conjunc-
tion with the land application facility. This time includes
both operation and maintenance.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The general maintenance plantwide was good. Some problems
have been encountered with wind-induced erosion of the oxida-
tion ponds. The problem has been reduced by placing rip-rap
along the downwind side of the pond. Some of the rip-rap used
is the stone media from the abandoned Fremont trickling filter
plant.
The border strip irrigation system is basically maintenance
free, and only preventive maintenance of the comminutor and the
effluent pumps, along with exercising infrequently-used valves
is required.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $52,540 was spent during fiscal year 1979-1980 on
operations and maintenance. Of this total, 42% ($22,288) was
spent on the land application portion, as follows:
124
-------
Personnel $ 9,963
Materials and supplies 1,100
Fuel and electricity 2,725
Insurance 500
Maintenance and repairs 8,000
Total $22,288
The high maintenance and repairs expense is due to the farm
equipment (tractors, mowers, etc.) necessary to operate and
maintain the facility.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
According to plant personnel, top soil which was removed
from the irrigation fields during construction was never re-
placed, thereby decreasing the agricultural value of the soil.
The second design deficiency involves the fact that all 16
to 18 cells within an irrigation field must be irrigated simul-
taneously as additional valving does not exist. Additionally,
if all fields are irrigated concurrently, the aforementioned
overwatering problem at the head end of the field becomes even
more severe due to the lower hydraulic application rate. To
help alleviate this problem, rubber sewer plugs are inserted in
the bell end of the irrigation risers, and only eight beds are
used simultaneously. In terms of design, the problem can be al-
leviated by:
1. Installing additional valving.
2. Changing the cell size and/or geometry.
3. Utilizing a different type of distribution
system (i.e., spray, or ridge and furrow irrigation.
4. Supplying larger size pumps.
A third design problem involves the need to pump the irriga-
tion water to the irrigation fields. In terms of elevation, the
oxidation ponds and chlorine contact tank appear higher than a
majority of the irrigation fields. In addition, all wastewater
is pumped to the treatment plant. Therefore, the potential for
utilizing gravity wastewater irrigation would appear promising.
125
-------
VILLAGE OF RAVENNA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (# 005)
RAVENNA, MICHIGAN
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Village of Ravenna is located in central Michigan ap-
proximately 32 km (20 mi) northwest of Grand Rapids and 32 km
(20 mi) due east of Muskegon (Figure A-13). The wastewater
treatment plant is both owned and operated by the Village of
Ravenna. The facility was visited on April 10, 1980.
The climate of Ravenna is seasonal, and the yearly average
temperature is 8.5°C (47.3°F). The yearly average precipi-
tation is 0.80 m (31.53 in), whereas the mean annual Class A pan
evaporation is 0.99 m (39 in).
Preapplication treatment at Ravenna consists of two oxida-
tion ponds (Figure A-14). The effluent is then periodically
discharged to an 8.1-ha (20 acre) slow-rate land application
site. Although there are no analytical data, the plant is as-
sumed to be capable of producing an intermediate level effluent.
The plant is designed to treat 341 m3/day (90,000 gpd). The
current flow has been estimated, as no flow measuring device ex-
ists, to be 273 m3/day (72,000 gpd), of which 100% is domestic
sewage.
The Ravenna sewage treatment plant and land application sys-
tem have been in operation 11 years. The facility is located in
a basically agricultural area, with residential areas nearby.
There are no plans to change the physical facilities of the Ra-
venna plant in the future.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater generated in the Village of Ravenna is pumped di-
rectly to the primary oxidation pond. There are no preliminary
or primary treatment operations. The wastewater merely flows
into an inlet structure, through a weir, and by gravity into the
pond. Each oxidation pond covers 2.7 ha (6.6 acres) and is 2.4
m (8 ft) deep. The ponds are clay lined, and the capacity of
126
-------
')
s* -^,
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
' \^r ..«
c
*
t= Scale: 1 mm = 62.5 m
(1 in = 1 mi)
Figure A-13. Location map of Village of Ravenna sewage treat-
ment facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan.
127
-------
Preapplicatjon Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Oxidation
Ponds
Emergency
Surface
Discharge
(Not Used)
Land Treatment System
Border Strip Irrigation
(Noncultivated)
Figure A-14. Process flow diagram of Village of Ravenna sewage
treatment facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan.
128
-------
each is 56,780 m^ (15 mil gal). Based on the design flow, the
detention time through both ponds is 333 days.
The land application system consists of one field, divided
into two approximately equal-sized fields, with a total area of
8.1 ha (20 acres) (Figure A-15). This area is located east of
and at a lower elevation than, the ponds. Therefore all flow
to the fields is by gravity. Provisions exist to allow flow
from either oxidation pond to be discharged to either field.
The wastewater discharge structure consists of a 0.25-m (10
in) standpipe surrounded by a concrete splash block. One stand-
pipe is located in each field. Provisions also exist for dis-
charge to an adjacent creek/drainage ditch if an emergency situ-
ation exists.
There are no groundwater monitoring wells located at the
site. A minimum area of 17.4 m (50 ft) separates the applica-
tion site from adjacent properties. The property is fenced and
posted to control public access. Earthen berms are used to con-
tain the wastewater in the field, and to divide the two fields.
Although no storage pond exists at the site, by maintaining
a minimum depth of 0.61 m (2 ft) in the oxidation ponds, a po-
tential storage volume of 82,520 m-* (21.8 mil gal) exists.
Based on boring logs completed prior to construction, the soil
in the irrigation site varies from sand, to clay underlain by
sand, to clay. There are no crops grown on the fields, and they
are covered by weeds and natural vegetation (uncultivated).
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Due to the inherent simplicity of the Ravenna Sewage Treat-
ment Facility, the operations of the facility are fairly
straightforward.
There is no analytical sampling requirement for the facili-
ty, aside from monthly fecal and total coliform testing. Based
on the data, fecal coliforms are typically 10/100 ml and total
coliforms are 100/100 ml.
Operation of the oxidation ponds coincides with the opera-
tion of the land application system. Each spring after the ice
has melted off the ponds and the dissolved oxygen content in-
creases, the slide gate in the secondary oxidation pond is
raised, and approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) of water is drained off
the pond to either one or both of the irrigation fields. The
draining process takes approximately three days.
129
-------
Not to Scale
Figure A-15.
Facility layout of Village of Ravenna sewage
treatment facility (# 005), Ravenna, Michigan.
130
-------
Following this application of water, it typically takes
approximately four weeks for the water to percolate into the
soil.
After the water is removed from the secondary oxidation
pond, 1.2 m (4 ft) of water is transferred from the primary oxi-
dation pond to the secondary oxidation pond. Influent flow then
continues to fill up the primary pond for the next six months
until fall, when the pond is nearly full. Once again the same
process is repeated, namely, 1.2 m (4 ft) of water is applied to
the fields, and the water transferred from the primary to the
secondary oxidation pond. It should be noted that a new super-
intendent has been appointed, and attempts at applying wastewa-
ter throughout the warmer months will be made during 1980.
Based on this twice a year application to the 8.1 ha (20
acres) and assuming precipitation equals evaporation, approxi-
mately 0.61 m (24 in) of water is applied each time for a total
of 1.2 m (4 ft). Due to the soils at the site, however, the
field which is mostly sand receives more water than the field
which is predominantly clay.
There are no crops currently grown on the fields; however,
the Future Farmers of America attempted to plant a corn crop for
harvest, but were not successful. At the time of construction,
some trees were left in the irrigation field, however, as the
fields were regraded, the trees were left with "islands" of soil
around them. The trees have since died and should be removed.
The total staffing for the entire facility requires approx-
imately 10% of the combined time of the superintendent, opera-
tor, and one summer employee. The remaining 90% of their time
is spent on other duties in the Village. Of the time spent at
the plant, approximately 10% is spent on operations and mainte-
nance of the land application system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
With the exception of a few valves, there is no mechanical
equipment associated with either the preapplication or land
treatment systems. The only maintenance problems appear to be
associated with the oxidation ponds, relating to some dike ero-
sion and sludge build-up problems. Crushed stone has been
placed on the berm to minimize the wind-induced erosion. In ad-
dition, flooding the irrigation fields appears to cause a sea-
sonal increase in the mosquito and muskrat populations.
131
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $12,200 was spent during calendar year 1979 on
operation and maintenance of the Village of Ravenna Sexvage
Treatment Facility. Of particular interest is the fact that no
electricity is used in the process, and in fact, no electrici-
ty is available on-site. A total of $1,900 or 16% of the total
budget is spent on land application per year, consisting of:
Personnel $ 300
Insurance 1,000
Vehicle and tractor rental 600
Total $1,900
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The erosion around the banks of the oxidation pond could
have been prevented by installing rip-rap on the downwind sides
of the berms. In addition, staff gauges in the ponds would
simplify operation of the facility.
More uniform grading of the irrigation field would be
desirable and would improve wastewater distribution, and mini-
mize the ponding which currently occurs. Additionally, the
trees should have been removed at the time of construction.
The operators also believe that higher berms should have been
constructed so that more water could be applied at one time,
however, this need is caused by historical operating practices
rather than a design problem.
132
-------
CITY OF WAYLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (I 006)
WAYLAND, MICHIGAN
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Wayland, Michigan is located in southwest Michi-
gan approximately 32 km (20 mi) due south of Grand Rapids (Fig-
ure A-16). The City of Wayland Wastewater Treatment Plant is
owned and operated by the City of Wayland. The facility was
visited on April 11, 1980.
Wayland, Michigan has a seasonal climate, with the yearly
annual temperature averaging 8.8°C (47.8°F). The average
annual precipitation is 0.32 m (32.39 in), and the mean annual
Class A pan evaporation is 1.02 m (40 in).
The Wayland Wastewater Treatment Plant current influent flow
rate is 0.011 m^/s (0.25 mgd), of which approximately 20% is
due to a food product plant. The treatment facilities consist
of an aerated lagoon and two oxidation ponds, all operated in
series (Figure A-17). The effluent is chlorinated and applied
to 31.6 ha (78 acres) of cropland utilizing spray irrigation.
The land treatment system is operated in a slow-rate mode. The
plant was designed to handle 0.022 m^/s (0.5 mgd) and the en-
tire system has been in operation nine years.
The facility is located in an agricultural area. Plans for
future modifications call for installation of additional tile
drain fields.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The influent to the Wayland Wastewater Treatment Plant flows
directly to the aerated lagoon and is not subject to any prelim-
inary treatment. The aerated lagoon covers an area of 0.4 ha
(1 acre), is 4.4 m (14.5 ft) deep, and is mixed by an 18.7-kw
(25 hp) floating surface aerator. The detention time in the la-
goon is approximately 19 days at the current flow rate.
133
-------
eapplication and Land
f Scale: 1 mm = 62.5 m
(1 in = 1 mi)
Figure A-16. Location map of City of Wayland wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 006), Wayland, Michigan.
134
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Aerated
Lagoon
Land Treatment System
Oxidation
Ponds
Chlorina-
tion
r^r
Center Pivot
Irrigation
(Alfalfa)
Big Gun
(Timothy, Grass,
Clover)
Figure A-17. Process flow diagram of City of Wayland wastewater
treatment plant (# 006), Wayland, Michigan.
135
-------
The wastewater overflows the aerated lagoon into the first
of two oxidation ponds operated in series. Each pond covers
6.1 ha (15 acres), and is 2.6 m (8.6 ft) deep, corresponding to
a volume of 159,000 m3 (42 mil gal). The interpond flow is
by gravity, and is controlled by a manually-operated gate valve.
Although there are no storage ponds, the difference between min-
imum and maximum operating levels results in the two oxidation
ponds providing a potential total storage of 226,000 m3 (59.6
mil gal).
Treated wastewater flows by gravity from the oxidation ponds
to a chlorine contact tank, where a gaseous chlorine solution is"
added. The contact tank consists of a vertical lined section of
corrugated metal pipe. The chlorinated effluent then flows to
a pump station containing two 29.8-kw (40 hp) centrifugal pumps
with a total capacity (both pumps) of 0.057 m-vs (900 gpm) .
The pumps supply two irrigation systems: a center pivot spray
irrigation rig, and an end-tow big gun unit (Figure A-18).
The center pivot rig (Gifford-Hills Model No. 360) is 207 m
(680 ft) long and consists of five sections, each section being
driven by an individual electric motor. The rig makes one revo-
lution every 24 hours and covers a 13.8-ha (34 acre) plot. The
end-tow big gun unit (Viemar) utilizes a 36.8 mm (1.5 in) noz-
zle, operates at 620.6 kPa (90 psi), and covers an area 73.2 m
(240 ft) wide on each pass. The big gun can be operated from
any one of various standpipes and can irrigate a total area of
22.3 ha (55 acres) located either east of the oxidation ponds
or adjacent to the center pivot field.
The soils in the spray application site vary from a clay
loam (upper fields) to a sandy loam (lower fields). As the site
was utilized as a farm prior to construction of the plant, vari-
ous areas of the spray fields are underdrained. In addition,
wet spots exist in various other areas of the fields, and these
areas will soon be underdrained. All water collected by the un-
derdrain system is gravity discharged to a nearby creek.
Assuming an even distribution of effluent among the 31.6 ha
(78 acres) that are typically irrigated, and that evaporation
from the oxidation ponds equals precipitation, then the site
loading is:
Hydraulic 1.1 m/yr
42.2 mm/wk
Organic 287 kg BOD5/ha/yr
A variety of crops are grown at the Wayland site. Usually
a mixture of timothy, alfalfa, and clover is grown on the upper
136
-------
137th Street
Approximately
305 m (1 ,000 ft)
(Big Gun)
Chlorine Contact
Chamber
I
Pump House [ |
Monitoring Wells
(A) - Active
(R) - Removed
Not to Scale
West Field
Oxidation
Pond No. 1
Oxidation
Pond No. 2
East Field
(Big Gun)
Aerated
Lagoon
Figure A-18. Facility layout of City of Wayland wastewater
treatment plant (# 006), Wayland, Michigan.
137
-------
and lower fields. Corn is occasionally grown on the upper
fields and will be grown during the 1980 season.
A total of five groundwater monitoring wells were installed
initially when the facility was constructed. Owing to various
problems (to be discussed later), the wells are currently unusa-
ble, and plans exist for installation of three new monitoring
wells.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system is well operated and
there were no aesthetic nuisances. In terms of operating strat-
egy, the aerated lagoon runs at a constant level and the pri-
mary oxidation pond, therefore, constantly receives flow. The
secondary pond receives flow intermittently. The chlorination
system is in operation only when the land application system is
operational.
The oxidation pond final effluent averaged 33 mg/L BODs
for 1979. 8005 is the only parameter monitored, being meas-
ured twice per year. As the suspended solids from an oxidation
pond are typically greater than 30 mg/L, the system is catego-
rized as having an intermediate effluent quality.
Prior to 1980, all of the wastewater distribution and crop
planting was done by the plant staff. All crop harvesting and
baling was done by a custom farmer who received the baled hay as
pay for the cutting. Typically, three to four cuttings of hay
per season are realized. Starting in 1980, however, a farmer
has leased the 31.6-ha (78 acre) site (three-year lease for
$1,000). The City will be responsible for wastewater applica-
tion only, and the farmer will plant, cultivate, and harvest the
crops. The farmer may not interfere with the wastewater appli-
cation, however. Corn is to be planted in the east field, with
the crop used for animal feed.
In terms of wastewater application strategy, water is typi-
cally applied seven days per week, 24 hours per day from April
through September. The criteria for initiating wastewater ap-
plication is waiting approximately 30 days after the ice melts
off the oxidation ponds to allow time for the dissolved oxygen
level in the pond to rise. Application continues until there is
0.76 m (2.5 ft) of liquid fei the second oxidation pond. Hope-
fully, the desired level in the pond will be reached prior to
subfreezing weather.
138
-------
Operation of the irrigation equipment requires approximately
one hour per day. The large majority of this time is associated
with moving and setting up the end-tow big gun sprinkler, as the
center pivot requires little or no operational attention. As
the big gun moves at approximately 0.3 m/min (1 ft/min) and the
length of the field is 0.8 km (0.5 mi), it takes approximately
two days for the traveling sprinkler to traverse the field.
A major operational problem is associated with having to
move the traveling gun. At the start of each run, a tractor is
moved to the far end of the field, and the cable from the mov-
ing sprinkler connected. A gas-powered winch on the tractor
then pulls the sprinkler cart across the field. Upon reaching
the tractor, the cart is disconnected, the tractor moved to the
other side of the field, the cable reconnected, and the process
repeated. Initially as designed, the winch was connected to an
eyelet embedded in concrete, however, on reaching the far side,
the cable could not be disconnected due'to the tension in the
line. The tension was due to the 102-mm (4 in) hose which was
stretched across the field, full of water, and unable to be eas-
ily drained. Therefore, the tractor is used as it can be taken
out of gear and moved forward. Regardless of the method used,
substantial periods of time are required to move the traveling
sprinkler.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Overall maintenance at the Wayland Wastewater Treatment
Plant was good. One of the major maintenance problems has been
wind-induced erosion along the banks of the oxidation ponds.
This problem has been ingeniously solved by grouting used pieces
of concrete sidewalk on the banks of the pond.
A second maintenance problem was caused by the center pivot
sprinkler wheels which made deep ruts in the clay loam soil of
the upper field, making operation of the unit impossible. The
problem was solved by excavating the wheel paths and filling
them with gravel.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $27,560 per year is spent for operation and main-
tenance of the facility. Approximately 29% of the total budget
is associated with land application. The land application cost
breakdown is as follows:
139
-------
Personnel $2,200
Fuel and electricity 1,750
Insurance 500
Maintenance and repairs 2,000
Equipment rental 1,500
Total $7,950
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The inability of the on-site monitoring wells to supply a
sufficient volume of water to sample is a design deficiency.
The problem is believed due to the wells being either too deep
or too shallow (i.e., not in upper groundwater table), or simply
too small -- the wells are only 32 mm (1.25 in) in diameter.
A second design problem involves the wind-induced erosion on
the downwind banks of the oxidation pond. The problem is cur-
rently being corrected by grouting in pieces of broken concrete
sidewalk.
An additional design deficiency is associated with the
choice of irrigation equipment. The center pivot sprinkler was
chosen for the east fields which are dominated by clay soils,
and the aforementioned traction and sinking problems have been
common. Compounding the problem is the fact that the unit is
constructed of steel, whereas aluminum would only weigh about
half as much. For the west fields, the traveling gun sprinkler
was chosen and the operational problems have already been dis-
cussed. Due to the downgradient location of the east field as
compared to the second oxidation pond, gravity irrigation utili-
zing border strip or ridge and furrow planting may have simpli-
fied operations and substantially reduced power costs.
One final design deficiency is the lack of a strainer or bar
screen prior to the effluent pumps. Various items, particularly
turtles, have been drawn up the intake line requiring cleaning
of the pump housing and/or piping.
140
-------
FONTANA REGIONAL PLANT NO. 3 (# 007)
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
RAPID INFILTRATION AND
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Fontana Regional Plant No. 3 is located in Fontana, Cal-
ifornia, a city located 97 km (60 mi) due east of Los Angeles
(Figure A-19). The Fontana Regional Plant No. 3 is both owned
and operated by the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, locat-
ed nearby in Cucamonga, California. The Fontana facility was
visited on April 21, 1980.
The Fontana area is basically a warm, semiarid area. The
mean annual temperature is 17.4°C (63.3°F), the mean yearly
precipitation is 0.32 m (12.71 in), and the mean annual Class A
pan evaporation is 1.8 m (69 in).
The preapplication treatment at the Fontana plant consists
of screening followed by primary clarification (Figure A-20).
Primary effluent flows directly to land application, and the
primary sludge is thickened, digested, and dried. The land
treatment portion of the facility consists of both rapid infil-
tration and slow-rate systems. The rapid infiltration system is
operated year-round by the plant staff, whereas the slow-rate
system is used during the summer months for irrigation of a cit-
rus grove by a nearby farmer.
The Fontana Regional Plant No. 3 was designed to treat 0.088
m3/s (2 mgd). Current flow to the facility averages 0.127
m^/s (2.89 mgd). The facility receives no industrial dis-
charges. The facility has been in operation for 27 years, how-
ever, the Chino Basin Municipal Water District has been operat-
ing the plant since January 1973. Land use in the vicinity of
the facility consists of industrial, agricultural, and unused
steep hills to the south. There are no plans for changes at the
facility.
141
-------
/Slow-Rate ^ J
/ Land Treatment Area
Jt !
"^Preapplication and Rapid Infiltration
Treatment Area
N ; •". - " ; •( ..-..
) '. %-V."-><:. i- ,JL-- --•
t ,^ . ^^. ^>-s-,--•, ~--* n
'- " -----' '
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 tt)
Figure A-19. Location map of Fontana regional plant no. 3
(I 007), Fontana, California.
142
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Mechanically
Cleaned
Bar Screen
Primary
Clarifier
Land Treatment System
8,
1
CO
Thickener
Anaerobic
Digestion
South Rapid
Infiltration Basins
fttttm
North Rapid
Infiltration Basins
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Fertilizer
Admixture
or Land
Application
;r~
Citrus Grove
(Grapefruit, Oranges)
Figure A-20,
Process flow diagram of Fontana regional plant
no. 3 (# 007) , Fontana, California.
143
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Influent wastewater from the collection system flows first
through a mechanically-cleaned bar screen, and then to a cir-
cular primary clarifier. Screenings are removed and disposed of
on-site. The primary effluent next enters the land application
distribution system. Sludge from the primary clarifier is grav-
ity thickened, and anaerobically digested in a heated single-
stage digester. Digested sludge is dried on sand beds, stored,
and occasionally removed by a fertilizer manufacturer for use as
an admixture.
Although there is no chlorine contact tank, provisions exist
for gaseous chlorine in-line addition prior to the land applica-
tion system. The land application system is comprised of two
different arrangements--a rapid infiltration system and a slow-
rate system. The rapid infiltration system consists of 18 older
south beds ranging in size from 0.05 ha (0.13 acre) to 0.71 ha
(1.76 acres) with a total area of 7.78 ha (19.23 acres), and
three newer north beds with approximately 6.5 ha (16 acres) to-
tal area (Figure A-21). The berms on the infiltration beds are
approximately 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) deep. The south beds
were constructed in 1953, whereas the north beds were construct-
ed in 1979. The wastewater flows to the south beds by gravity.
All wastewater must be pumped to the north beds. An additional
6.1 to 8.1-ha (15 to 20 acre) empty field, located west of the
beds, is used fairly regularly as an additional rapid infiltra-
tion bed.
The beds are interconnected by overflow pipes which are used
both for overflow conditions and for filling various basins. In
addition, the bed adjacent to the empty field overflows through
a standpipe to the field. Under normal circumstances, a series
of diversion structures with gates are used to feed the wastewa-
ter to one field or another. Two types of inlet structures are
in use; a concrete pad approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) square with an
approximately 0.46-m (1.5 ft) square opening in the center
through which the water flows. The second type of structure is
a pipe which is embedded in concrete through which the water
discharges, spreads across the concrete splash pan, and onto the
bed. Each bed has an access ramp for equipment entry and exit.
The slow-rate system consists of a 29.1-ha (72 acre) citrus
grove located approximately 305 m (1,000 ft) north of the plant.
The citrus crop includes 4.0 ha (10 acres) of oranges and 25.1
ha (62 acres) of grapefruit. All irrigation in the grove is
ridge and furrow, and the wastewater is discharged through 0.64
m (18 in) high concrete standpipes with three slide discharge
gates for flow control (typical citrus irrigation equipment).
144
-------
i i i i i i r
Citrus Grove
OQ Q Q Q
T T I I
Q O
Ooo
oooo
Jurupa Avenue
North
Beds
18
17
16
'
Anaerobic
Digester
and Building
Primary
Clarifier
Bar
Screen
Rapid
Infiltration
Field
N
Not to Scale
Figure A-21.
Facility layout of Fontana regional plant no. 3
(# 007), Fontana, California.
145
-------
All wastewater is pumped from the treatment plant to the citrus
grove. The Fontana Regional Plant No. 3 is responsible for the
distribution system to the edge of their plant property, whereas
the farmer is responsible for distribution from the treatment
plant perimeter to the grove.
One 22.4-kw (30 hp) centrifugal nonclog pump rated at 0.088
m-Vs (1,400 gpm) is used to pump the primary effluent to ei-
ther the north infiltration beds or the citrus grove. The pump
takes suction from a flooded infiltration basin which is used as
a wet well. A level controller (float type) is used to cycle
the pump.
The soils in both the rapid infiltration beds and the citrus
grove are sandy and sandy loam soils. There are no groundwater
monitoring wells in the area of the plant.
Aside from whatever storage is inherent in the rapid infil-
tration system, no additional storage exists. A minimum 91.4-m
(300 ft) buffer zone exists between any infiltration bed and the
closest neighboring property. At the citrus grove, wastewater
is applied within approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) of the road. Ac-
cess to the treatment plant and infiltration beds is restricted
by a fence and posted signs. A few signs are visible to keep
the general populace out of the citrus grove.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Although the Fontana Regional Plant No. 3 is currently oper-
ating at 44% above design flow, it is still maintaining an ac-
ceptable degree of treatment as primary effluent 6005 and SS
average 99 and 76 mg/L, respectively.
The primary effluent is applied to the infiltration beds
continuously. The operating strategy is to apply wastewater to
a bed until there is approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) of standing wa-
ter in the bed. At this point, the wastewater is diverted to
another bed, or just allowed to overflow into the adjacent bed.
Once filled, a bed takes approximately two to four weeks
(seasonally dependent) to dry out completely. As would be ex-
pected, following wastewater application, infiltration rates de-
crease as a function of time due to plugging and surface seal-
ing. Typically, after drying out, a bed is rested approximately
two weeks before refilling. Depending on the visual appearance
of the bed, it will either be ready for refilling or possibly
taken out of service and reworked (see next section).
146
-------
The slow-rate system utilized at the citrus grove is typical
of that found in most groves, and irrigation practices are also
typical. The farmer irrigates the trees when, by visual esti-
mate, the top 51 mm (2 in) of soil appears dry. Typically, for
a two to three-week period, 0.053 m3/s (1.2 mgd) of wastewater
is used, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Then for the
next two to three-week period, no water is used, and this cycle
continues from April through October.
Based on plant operating data, the following application
rates have been calculated:
Citrus Grove Rapid Infiltration
Hydraulic 1.6 m/yr 17.3 m/yr
54.6 mm/wk 0.33 m/wk
Organic 1,623 kg BOD5/ha/yr 17,162 kg BOD5/
ha/yr
Solids 1,247 kg SS/ha/yr 12,771 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 472 kg NH4-N/ha/yr 4,995 kg NH4-N/ha/yr
5.9 kg N03~N/ha/yr 43.1 kg N03-N/ha/yr
410 kg T-P/ha/yr 4,335 kg T-P/ha/yr
It should be noted that the weekly hydraulic loading rate is
based on a yearly average and is not the actual weekly loading
rate, which cannot be calculated.
In terms of operational problems associated with the rapid
infiltration beds, there is the problem of occasional odors. In
addition, the sludge build-up on the surface causes decreased
infiltration and necessitates cleaning. An operational problem
associated with the citrus grove is the accumulation of salts
(dissolved solids) in the soil. This adversely affects the
growth of the fruit, and is evidenced by foliage wilting. When
sufficient rainfall occurs, the salts are leached out, and this
allows more efficient operation. The farmer expressed the fact
that he really doesn't like using the wastewater, but he re-
ceives it free of charge as opposed to city water which he must
purchase. It should be noted that the farmer actually irrigates
an additional 3.2-ha (8 acre) citrus site contiguous to the
wastewater-irrigated site with fresh water, as the site is bor-
dered by a residence.
147
-------
The superintendent and a chief operator run the facility
with maintenance supplied by the Chino Basin maintenance depart-
ment. Approximately one half of their time is spent operating
and maintaining the infiltration basins.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the preapplication treatment system is ade-
quate. However, the sludge drying beds are somewhat in a state
of disrepair. The remaining equipment is adequately maintained.
In terms of the land application system, the pump is new and ap-
pears well maintained. The pipes and distribution system to the
south beds are adequately maintained; however, they could use
some general cosmetic work. A major problem at the plant has
been embankment maintenance as the dikes are not seeded. Aside
from a few weeds that happen to grow on them, the dikes are nat-
ural sand and the sidewalls are, therefore, subject to consider-
able erosion problems. A second problem involves squirrels bur-
rowing into the dike walls; one line had to be replaced due to
squirrel burrow holes.
The intervals of both infiltration bed and open field main-
tenance is based on visual observation. A bed typically gets
reworked once every three cycles. Reworking the bed consists of
discing followed by scarifying and spring tooth raking. It is
not unusual to simply disc a bed after one cycle, however. This
maintenance is basically performed as the operator sees fit, and
is highly dependent on what other tasks need to be done.
One maintenance problem associated with the slow-rate system
involves the slide gates on the irrigation standpipes. These
gates become corroded from the wastewater and must be replaced
yearly. On the city water-irrigated citrus grove, the gates
last many years.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
A total of $160,022 was spent during fiscal year 1978-1979
for operation and maintenance of the Fontana Regional Plant No.
3. Of this total, 45% ($72,739) was associated with land appli-
cation with the following breakdown:
148
-------
Personnel $34,418
Materials and supplies 2,457
Fuel and electricity 7,322
Insurance 753
Maintenance and repairs 17,739
Laboratory 3,686
Miscellaneous 1,287
Administration and general 5, 077
Total $72,739
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Various design deficiencies were noted during the site vis-
it. First, some of the flow diversion structures are located so
that vehicle access to various portions of the infiltration beds
is impossible. In addition, the berms surrounding the beds are
subject to erosion and no provisions for erosion control have
been made.
Various beds are seemingly located in less permeable soils
than other beds. Additional subsurface exploration prior to
construction might have eliminated this problem. Another prob-
lem is that sludge accumulates in the infiltration bed utilized
as a wet well, causing the float level control to stick and mal-
function.
The need to pump the water to the north infiltration beds is
potentially a design deficiency. In this case, however, all
wastewater from the collection system flows by gravity to the
plant, and it is not known whether a different arrangement would
have made gravity discharge possible.
149
-------
POMONA WATER RECLAMATION PLANT (# 008)
POMONA, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Pomona is located approximately 48 km (30 mi)
due east of the City of Los Angeles within Los Angeles County
(Figure A-22). The facility is owned and operated by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), and all water reuse
is conducted by the City of Pomona Water Department. The facil-
ity was visited on April 22, 1980.
The climate in the'Pomona area is typical of a semiarid re-
gion. The yearly average temperature is 16.7°C (62.0°F),
average yearly precipitation is 0.42 m (16.45 in), and average
estimated Class A pan evaporation is 1.65 m (65 in). Due to the
climatic conditions, water is in great demand for general irri-
gation purposes such as lawns, gardens, and crops.
The Pomona Water Reclamatidn Plant currently treats approxi-
mately 0.35 m-Vs (8.0 mgd) of waterwater utilizing primary,
secondary, and tertiary wastewater treatment (Figure A-23). The
facility was designed to handle 0.44 m^/s (10 mgd). A treat-
ment plant has existed at the Pomona site for approximately 50
years, and wastewater irrigation has been in effect for the same
number of years. During this period, there have been various
additions and modifications to the facility. Of the total flow
received at the Pomona plant, 0.035 m^/g (0.8 mgd) is contrib-
uted by industrial sources.
Owing to the need for irrigation water to maintain green and
healthy vegetation, irrigation is practiced heavily in the area.
For this reason, most of the water from the Pomona facility is
utilized in conjunction with watering lawns and gardens and some
crops. The land application system would be considered a slow-
rate system. As various different areas are irrigated through-
out the City of Pomona, land use adjacent to the application
site would be residential, commercial, industrial, institution-
al, and parks. There are no future plans for changes in the
physical facilities at the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, how-
ever, there are plans for expansion of the reclaimed wastewater
distribution system.
150
-------
Preapplication Treatment Area
Figure A-22
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Location map of Pomona water reclamation plant
(# 008), Pomona, California.
151
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Activated
Carbon
Filtration
Primary
Clarifiers
Aeration
Tanks
From LACSD
Trunk Sewer
Secondary
Clarifiers
Waste Sludge to LACSD
Trunk Sewer
Paper Mill
Reuse
Dechlorination
Land Treatment System
Portable Spray
System (Oats,
Ridge and Furrow
Irrigation
(Tomatoes, Corn,
Citrus and Fruit Trees)
Landscape Irrigation
Colorado River
Water, Stormwater, Reclaimed
Water
Rapid Infiltration Basins
(San Gabriel Spreading Grounds)
Figure A-23. Process flow diagram of Pomona water reclamation
plant (# 008), Pomona, California.
152
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District sewage system
serves over four million people in 70 different cities and unin-
corporated areas of Los Angeles County. Most of the flow is by
gravity in a large separate sewer system. A majority of the
treatment plants, including the Pomona facility, are built on
top of a trunk sewer. This allows the plant to pump as much
wastewater as required per day from the trunk sewer. Treated
wastewater is discharged to the reclaimed water system, whereas
all sludge and skimmings are returned to the trunk sewer. All
by-products which are returned to the sewer flow to the LACSD
facility at Harbortown for subsequent treatment and disposal.
All wastewater to the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant is
pumped out of the trunk sewer and into a primary settling tank.
There are three primary tanks and all are covered for odor con-
trol. The air over the cover is utilized as a feed to the air
compressors which supply air to the secondary aeration tanks.
At the Pomona facility, secondary treatment is accomplished
utilizing three aeration tanks. Following the aeration tanks,
the mixed liquor flows to one of six secondary clarifiers. The
settled sludge is either returned to the aeration tanks or wast-
ed to the trunk sewer. Effluent from the secondary clarifiers
flows into an activated carbon filtration/adsorption system.
There are four activated carbon filters which are operated in a
constant rate varying-head mode. When backwashing is required,
the filter backwash is collected in a surge tank from which
point it can either be returned to the head of the secondary
treatment facility or wasted to the trunk sewer. Following fil-
tration, the wastewater is pumped to a chlorination facility
consisting of two separate chlorine contact tanks. A multiple
hearth furnace carbon regeneration system exists on-site.
Wastewater which is to be reused flows into a wet well after
chlorination. In-line addition of sulfur dioxide is used to de-
chlorinate the wastewater which is not to be reused.
All reclaimed water distribution equipment is owned and op-
erated by the City of Pomona Water Department, which, since
1966, has had an agreement with the LACSD to handle the sale of
reclaimed water. The City of Pomona acts in the capacity of
sales agent by promoting the use of reclaimed water, and, in ad-
dition, constructs and maintains the facilities to enable re-
claimed water to be available.
The City of Pomona's reclaimed water system is divided into
two zones. Zone 1 is a gravity distribution system, and zone 2
153
-------
is a pressure system. There are three major users on the grav-
ity distribution system -- the Northside Water Company, the Pa-
cific State Hospital, and the Los Angeles County Landfill (Fig-
ure A-24). The Northside Water Company is the oldest user, and
historically, has been purchasing water from the Pomona plant.
The Northside Water Company sells water to various people who
have used it on citrus groves and alfalfa in the past, but cur-
rently use it on small farms and for landscape irrigation. The
average water usage by the Northside Water Company is 0.0066
m3/s (0.15 mgd). The Pacific State Hospital utilizes water
for landscape irrigation with an average daily water usage of
0.018 m3/s (0.40 mgd). The Los Angeles County Landfill uti-
lizes 227 m3/s (0.06 mgd), and this water is utilized for dust
control at the landfill.
Zone 2 which is the pressure distribution system has five
major users on-line. One user, Garden State Paper Company,
utilizes approximately 0.12 m3/s (2.7 mgd) of reclaimed water
for in-plant uses, and the water is not associated with land ap-
plication. The other four users are Cal Poly University,
Bonelli Park, the California Department of Transportation, and
the Pomona Parks Department. Water usage is as follows:
Cal Poly University 0.015 m3/s (0.35 mgd)
Bonelli Park 0.047 m3/s (1.07 mgd)
California Department
of Transportation 114 m3/day (0.03 mgd)
Pomona Parks Department 114 m3/day (0.03 mgd)
At all of these locations, wastewater is used for irriga-
tion purposes. At Cal Poly University, wastewater is utilized
not only for the grounds, but also for alfalfa, citrus, and var-
ious other crop irrigation. At Bonelli Park, the wastewater is
used for irrigation within the Park limits and at the neighbor-
ing Mountain Meadows Golf Course. The California Department of
Transportation utilizes the wastewater to irrigate the Valley
Boulevard interchange of the San Bernadino Freeway (1-10). The
Pomona Parks Department utilizes the water to irrigate median
strips and various little parks throughout the City.
The equipment used throughout the City of Pomona is typical
of irrigation equipment used elsewhere and consists of sprin-
klers, various types of underground spray nozzles, recessed spray
nozzles, and ridge and furrow irrigation. Certain areas, Bonelli
Park, for example, are controlled by timer systems. All waste-
water distribution is carried out by the City of Pomona Water
154
-------
Storage Reservoir
(Under Construction)
Bonelli Park
and Golf Course
California
Department
of Transportation
Not to Scale
City of Pomona
Park Department
Pomona
Water Reclamation
Plant
Cal Poly tx|::::
University fc;S
Northside
Water
Company
Figure A-24.
Facility layout of Pomona water reclamation plant
(#008), Pomona, California.
155
-------
Department. All water is metered through water meters, and the
City owns up to and including the water meter. After this
point, all equipment is owned and operated by the individual
user.
In order to supply wastewater to the various users, the City
of Pomona Water Department utilizes four pumps at 0.079 m-Vs
(1,250 gpm) capacity. Two new 0.15-m-Vs (2,450 gpm) pumps
have just been installed. In addition, one booster pump is lo-
cated adjacent to Cal Poly University, and is used to boost the
water up to Bonelli Park and the golf course. In terms of
wastewater storage, a small storage pond is available at Bonelli
Park. Currently, an 11,356-m-^ (3 mil gal) effluent storage
basin is being built. The reclaimed water will be pumped to the
storage pond and all flow back to the system will be by gravity.
The basin is being installed so that the demand, which is higher
in the evening, can be matched to the supply. Typically, all
reclaimed water users also have domestic water connections for
reliability in case of process upset at the Pomona Water Recla-
mation Plant.
There are no groundwater monitoring wells within the City,
and the soils in the area vary widely. As the wastewater is
used in various localities for irrigation purposes, site access
is not controlled. The City of Pomona merely recommends that
signs be placed at each site. Enforcement, however, is by the
Health Department. There are no buffer zones prior to neighbor-
ing properties where the water is used for irrigation, and no
provisions for runoff control.
It should be noted that all water that is not sold to the
City of Pomona is discharged to the San Jose Creek which dis-
charges to the San Gabriel River. As San Gabriel River water is
used for groundwater recharge at the San Gabriel spreading
grounds (given the proper meteorological conditions), the Pomona
reclaimed water may be used for groundwater recharge.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment plant is extremely well run and
produces a high quality effluent. Effluent quality is as fol-
lows:
BOD5, mg/L 3
Suspended solids, mg/L 2
Total coliforms, no/100 ml 2
COD, mg/L 16
NH3, mg/L 10
Chlorine residual, mg/L 3
156
-------
Due to the seasonal demands for wastewater, 66% of the
wastewater goes to land application during the summer months,
whereas only 33% goes to land application during the winter
months. During the summer, no water typically goes to San Jose
Creek; during the winter 33% of the flow goes to San Jose Creek.
The remaining 33% of the treated water is utilized by the Garden
State Paper Company year-round.
Depending on the end use of the wastewater, the amount of
water applied and the time in which the water is applied is var-
ied. For example, someone growing crops would irrigate as they
would with standard irrigation water; an individual watering a
lawn would water as required. There is currently an agreement
between the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and the City
of Pomona that the City has all rights to reclaimed water gene-
rated at the facility. The City of Pomona buys the wastewater
from the County for $9.26/1,000 m3 ($11.42/acre-ft). This wa-
ter is then sold back to the various end users for $12.16/1,000
m3 ($15.00/acre-ft) for the gravity discharge in zone 1, and
the zone 2 users pay $48.93/1,000 m3 ($60.36/acre-ft). By
comparison, the City of Pomona drinking water costs approximate-
ly $100.53/1,000 m3 ($124.00/acre-ft). All revenues generated
by the City go back into the reclamation work to cover the power
utilized for pumping, amortization of capital, and new construc-
tion; no profits are generated from the sale.
Attempts are made to minimize public contact with the waste-
water by irrigating public areas in the evening. In Bonelli
Park, however, the hills are irrigated during the day as there
is minimal chance of public contact due to the snakes and rep-
tiles that inhabit the hills and keep the public out. The City
of Pomona Water Department personnel indicated they had no par-
ticular problems with the operation of the distribution system.
Approximately one hour per day is taken to check the pumps in
the distribution system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The Pomona Water Reclamation Plant is extremely well main-
tained, and it is obvious that the people working there are
proud of the facility. The only above-ground equipment owned by
the City of Pomona in the distribution system are the pumps and
the booster pumps. These pumps appear to be well maintained,
and no problems have been reported. Aside from pipes, the re-
mainder of the distribution equipment is owned and maintained by
the end users. The end users have never complained of extra
maintenance due to the fact that they are using reclaimed water
versus drinking water or irrigation water.
157
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The LACSD spent a total of $579,000 per year on the opera-
tion and maintenance of the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant dur-
ing calendar year 1979. This operation and maintenance cost is
in part defrayed by the funds received from the sale of reclaimed
water. If 100% of the reclaimed water was sold to the City,
slightly over $102,000 would be collected annually. The City of
Pomona Water Department estimates they annually spend $13,000 on
operation and maintenance of the distribution system. This fig-
ure includes $3,000 for personnel and $10,000 for fuel and elec-
tricity.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
During the plant visit and subsequent conversations, it was
reported that no design deficiencies existed with respect to the
system.
158
-------
WHITTIER NARROWS WATER RECLAMATION PLANT (# 009)
SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant is located in
El Monte, California, which is approximately 40 km (25 mi) east
of the City of Los Angeles (Figure A-25). The Whittier Narrows
Water Reclamation Plant is owned and operated by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District (LACSD). The land treatment portion
of the system, the groundwater recharge or rapid infiltration
system, is owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District (LACFCD). The facilities were visited on
April 23, 1980.
The climate in the vicinity of the Whittier Narrows facil-
ities is mild and semiarid, with the yearly average temperature
being 16.7°C (62.0°F). The yearly average precipitation is
0.42 m (16.45 in). The yearly mean annual Class A pan evapora-
tion is estimated to be 1.65 m (65 in).
The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Facility was designed
to handle 0.5 m3/s (12.5 mgd). For calendar year 1979, an
average daily flow of 0.70 m3/s (16 mgd) was recorded. Ap-
proximately 50% of the flow is of commercial and industrial ori-
gin with a variety of industries contributing. The preapplica-
tion treatment at the facility consists of primary sedimentation,
activated sludge, and tertiary filtration followed by chlorina-
tion and dechlorination (Figure A-26). From this point the
wastewater flows to either the San Gabriel or Rio Hondo spread-
ing grounds where it is mixed with stormwater and Colorado River
water, and percolates into the soil for groundwater recharge.
The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant has been in op-
eration for 16 years; the water has been used for groundwater
recharge for the same period. The spreading grounds have been
in use considerably longer. The Whittier Narrows Water Recla-
mation Plant is located in a basically commercial area. There
are no plans for future changes at the plant.
159
-------
CALIFORNIA
Preapplication
Treatment Facility
..',,' ", • TT £ A -S O , II , K j- B A Jt T (I \/i 0
.'.!.'"•'„'< ,m if* *"**.»"•., » f»'tn, / f-'
•,:—-v ^/}?/'*kx ». , / / ~
s;r.<>,,. ,„„.,..., f ••»??.>-,. :x ' '-
. -i'^MONTKBEL
Scale: 1 mm = 48 m
(1 in = 4,000 ft)
Figure A-25. Location map of Whittier Narrows water reclamation
plant (# 009), El Monte, California.
160
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
mniieni
Wastewater
From LACSD
Trunk Sewer
|
Primary
Clarifiers
1
I
Waste Sludge
to LACSD
Trunk Sewer
I
'
'
Rapid Multi-
_^. Aeration ^ Mjx -^ Medja
Tanks (Alum) Filters
1 *
Secondary Phlnrinatinn
Clarifiers Cnlonnation
1
^- Dechlor-
i nation
Rapid Infiltration Basins
i (Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds)
' X. /
H11111*
Colorado River
Water, Stormwater,
Reclaimed Water
Rapid Infiltration Basins
(San Gabriel Spreading Grounds)
Figure A-26.
Process flow diagram of Whittier Narrows water
reclamation plant (# 009), El Monte, California,
161
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Preapplication treatment at the Whittier Narrows Water Rec-
lamation Plant consists of primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment followed by disinfection. Primary treatment is car-
ried out in two primary clarifiers which are covered for odor
control. From the primary clarifiers, the wastewater next flows
to one of three activated sludge aeration basins. The overflow
from the aeration basins goes to six secondary clarifiers. Clar-
ified wastewater then is conditioned by alum addition, and pass-
es through one of six multimedia filters. The filter effluent
then passes to two chlorine contact tanks. Following chlorina-
tion, the wastewater is dechlorinated using sulfur dioxide. At
this point, the wastewater flows by gravity to the land applica-
tion system. The wastewater treatment plant, like the Pomona
Water Reclamation Plant, is located over a LACSD trunk sewer,
and all sidestreams, including primary and secondary sludge and
tank skimmings, are returned to the trunk sewer for treatment at
a centralized facility.
The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel river system drains the entire
San Gabriel Valley through a break in the topography called the
Whittier Narrows. The Whittier Narrows is surrounded on both
sides by hills, and a broad flood plain has been formed where
the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Rivers emerge from the Whittier
Narrows. This flood plain is known as the Montebello Forebay.
The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel spreading grounds are located in
the Montebello Forebay (Figure A-27). The Rio Hondo spreading
grounds have a total available percolation area of 182 ha (455
acres), whereas the San Gabriel River spreading grounds have a
40.4-ha (101 acres) percolation area. An additional 53.2 ha
(133 acres) of spreading basins are available on the unlined
portion of the San Gabriel River. The rapid infiltration basins
are divided into numerous individual beds ranging in size from
1.6 to 8 ha (4 to 20 acres).
Wastewater from the Whittier Narrows Reclamation Plant flows
by gravity to either of the two spreading grounds which are op-
erated by the LACFCD. In addition, wastewater from the LACSD's
San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant also arrives at the
spreading grounds, and the potential exists for water from the
Pomona Water Reclamation Plant to also reach the spreading
grounds. The present practice of groundwater recharge includes
dilution of the reclaimed water with imported water prior to
percolation. This dilution is intended to produce groundwater
with less than 10 mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen. The reclaimed water
is mixed with Colorado River water, subsurface inflow, storm in-
flow, and local precipitation.
Water from the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant can
be discharged either directly to the Rio Hondo River just
162
-------
San Jose Creek
>, Water Renovation
Plant
Whittier Narrows -
Water Reclamation
Plant
Not to Scale
San
Gabriel
Spreading
Grounds
Legend
Intensively Monitored Wells
mmm Lined Channel
Unlined Channel
Figure A-27,
Facility layout of Whittiers Narrows water recla-
mation plant (# 009), El Monte, California.
163
-------
upstream of the Whittier Narrows Dam, or alternatively, dis-
charged to a channel which flows to the San Gabriel River. All
flow from the Whittier Narrows facility to the rapid infiltra-
tion system is by gravity.
Due to the complex nature of the situation, organic and sol-
ids loading rates cannot be calculated. Based on information
reported by Dryden and Chen (1978) for the 1975-1976 and 1976-
1977 application periods, an average of 139 mil m^ (112,500
acre-ft) of water was received at the Montebello Forebay. Con-
sidering the 289 ha (689 acres) of rapid infiltration basins, a
hydraulic loading rate of 49.7 m (163 ft/yr) was calculated.
The soils in the vicinity of the spreading grounds are nonhomo-
geneous soils consisting of both silty and fine sand.
Owing to the sensitive nature of the project, approximately
200 wells in the vicinity of the spreading grounds have been
monitored. Currently, 16 wells within the Montebello Forebay
are extensively monitored quarterly for major minerals, nitro-
genous compounds, COD, BOD, TDS, electrical conductivity, pH,
and odor; and annually for trace metals and chlorinated hydro-
carbons (Dryden and Chen, 1978). A minimum buffer zone of ap-
proximately 30.5 m (100 ft) is maintained between the percola-
tion beds and the nearest property line. Site access is con-
trolled by posted signs and fencing. There is no surface runoff
from the site, and any surface runoff which is contained is in-
filtrated in the soil.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment facility produces a quality
effluent with the following parameters:
BOD, mg/L 2
Suspended solids, mg/L 1
NH3, mg/L 17
COD, mg/L 27
Chlorine residual, mg/L <0.05
Fecal coliforms, no/100 ml <2
The spreading grounds are operated by the LACFCD. For the
period 1960 to 1977, reclaimed water has represented 13.5% of the
total inflow to the Montebello Forebay area, while imported and
local waters represented 41.1 and 45.4%, respectively. There-
fore, the reclaimed water is a minor part of the operation of the
164
-------
rapid infiltration spreading grounds. In terms of operation,
little if any additional manpower is required due to the re-_
claimed water, over and above the manpower required for the im-
ported and local waters. The LACFCD pays $16.21/1,000 m3
($20/acre-ft) for the rights to the reclaimed water.
The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel River spreading grounds are
filled cyclically to maintain aerobic conditions in the upper-
soil strata and to control vector insects. Groups of spreading
basins are rotated through a 21-day cycle, consisting of filling
to a depth of 1.2 m (4 ft) for seven days, draining the basin for
seven days, and then drying the basin for seven days. On this
rotating basis, the capacity of the basins for recharge is ap-
proximately 757,000 mVday (200 mgd) . On a short-term basis
with all basins in operation, the capacity is approximately
2,271,000 m3/day (600 mgd). The latter mode of operation is
used during storm periods to maximize conservation of stormwater.
In terms of operational problems associated with the re-
claimed water, the operators believe that greater care is re-
quired because the Whittier Narrows water keeps the forebay area
wet and increases problems with insects. When this is a problem,
the area is dried by switching the Whittier Narrows discharge
from the Rio Hondo to the San Gabriel spreading grounds, or vice
versa.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant is well main-
tained, and there are signs of a good preventive maintenance
program. All maintenance at the Rio Hondo or San Gabriel
spreading grounds is done by the LACFCD. Maintenance consists
of discing the basins when required, based on the decrease in
percolation rate. This is typically performed after a storm
when the basins have received a large volume of silt. In addi-
tion, the basins are occasionally mowed to control the weed
growth. The operational people from LACFCD feel that the waste-
water does not cause plugging problems in the beds, and that no
additional maintenance problems are associated with accepting
reclaimed water.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $561,000 was spent during calendar year 1979 at
the Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant. The two major ex-
penses associated with operation and maintenance are personnel
at $218,000, and utilities (including electric) at $216,000 per
year. There are no appreciable operation and maintenance costs
associated with the rapid infiltration system as the reclaimed
water (Whittier Narrows, San Jose Creek, and Pomona Water
165
-------
Reclamation Plants) only accounts for 13% of the water infil-
trated to the groundwater recharge system. Furthermore, the re-
claimed water causes no particular operation or maintenance
problems. In addition, the wastewater flows completely by grav-
ity, and pumping is not necessary.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
There were no design deficiencies noted during the plant
visit.
166
-------
PALMDALE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT (# 010)
PALMDALE, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
Palmdale, California, is located in southern California
approximately 64 km (40 mi) northeast of the City of Los Angeles,
in the County of Los Angeles, on the western edge of the Mojave
Desert (Figure A-28). The Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant is
owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District
(LACSD). The facility was visited on April 24, 1980.
The climate in Palmdale is characterized by cool, moist win-
ters and hot, dry summers. The yearly average temperature is
16.4°C (61.6°F), the average annual precipitation is 0.2 m
(7.87 in), and the mean annual Class A pan evaporation is 1.78 m
(70 in).
The Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant treats 0.08 m3/s
(1.85 mgd) of primarily domestic wastewater. No estimates of
the industrial contribution are available. The preapplication
treatment facilities were designed to handle 0.136 m-vs (3.1
mgd) and have been in service 23 years.
An intermediate level of treatment is obtained at Palmdale
utilizing primary clarification followed by oxidation ponds
(Figure A-29). The treated wastewater then flows to holding
ponds prior to being utilized by a farmer for irrigation pur-
poses. Irrigation is carried out on an 80.9-ha (200 acre) farm
utilizing a side-wheel roll spray irrigation system.
The treatment facilities are located adjacent to an agri-
cultural area. Future plans for the facility include increas-
ing the capacity of the effluent disposal system from 0.044
m3/s (1 mgd) to 0.136 m-Vs (3.1 mgd) by providing additional
storage capacity, and thereby increasing percolation and evapor-
ation of wastewater.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Raw wastewater flows by gravity to the Palmdale Water Recla-
mation Plant, and is lifted to the headworks, which consist of a
167
-------
CALIFORNIA
Preapplication Treatment Area
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
2 (tin = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-28. Location map of Palmdale water reclamation plant
(# 010), Palmdale, California.
168
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Comminutor
and
Bar Screens
Primary
Clarifiers
D)
•o
CO
Anaerobic
Digestion
I
Oxidation
Ponds
Land Treatment System
Storage Ponds
'ft
Side-Wheel Roll
Irrigation (Alfalfa, Oats)
Sludge
Drying
Beds
i
Fertilizer
Admixture
Figure A-29.
Process flow diagram of Palmdale water reclamation
plant (# 010), Palmdale, California.
169
-------
comminutor and by-pass bar screen. The sewage next flows to one
of two rectangular primary clarifiers with skimmings collected,
concentrated, and pumped, along with the primary sludge, to the
two-stage high-rate anaerobic digester. Digested sludge is de-
watered on sand beds and stockpiled prior to removal by a ferti-
lizer producer. Following sedimentation, the forward flow en-
ters one of three oxidation ponds. Two of the ponds have an
area of 5.7 ha (14 acres) each, and the third pond is 8.5 ha (21
acres) in size. The ponds are variable in depth, ranging from
1.2 to 2.0 m (3.8 to 6.6 ft), and are operated in parallel.
Pond effluent overflows adjustable outlet weirs, and is conveyed
by gravity pipe approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) to the storage
ponds (see Figure A-30). The storage ponds cover a total area
of 6.1 ha (15 acres), are 1.8 m (6 ft) deep, and contain a total
of 109,780 m^ (29 mil gal). Plans are currently under way for
both short-term and long-term holding capacity expansion.
The land application system consists of an 80.9-ha (200
acre) slow-rate irrigation system. Approximately 0.044 m-Vs
(1 mgd) of irrigation water is applied to the farmer's field.
The LACSD owns and operates all equipment up to and including
the storage ponds. From the storage ponds, a 0.305-m (12 in)
gravity line approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) long conveys the re-
claimed water to the farming area. Due to hydraulics, a maximum
of 0.044 m-Vs can be delivered. Treated wastewater is mixed
with well-water prior to irrigation. The well-water is obtained
from two on-site wells, and is mixed with the treated water just
prior to the booster pump. The 44.8-kw '(60 hp) in-line booster
pump is used to pump the water through the sprinkler irrigation
system. The spray irrigation system consists of four side-wheel
roll sprinklers, 416 m (1,320 ft) long with nozzles every 9.1 m
(30 ft), operating at approximately 345 kPa (50 psi).
The soil at the 80.9-ha (200 acre) spray irrigation site in-
cludes sand, loam, and silt soils. There are no monitoring wells
on-site, however, the water quality of the two irrigation wells
is checked every six months.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The wastewater preapplication treatment system consists of
primary sedimentation followed by three oxidation ponds operated
in parallel. Owing to the relative simplicity of this system,
the operation of the plant is relatively stable. The water lev-
el in the three oxidation ponds is left constant. Therefore, the
ponds are operated on a displacement basis, and no additional
storage is provided by the oxidation ponds.
170
-------
0)
£
C/5
W
S
CO
Avenue P-8 East
Farm
(Side-Wheel Roll
Irrigation)
I
I
I
Storage Ponds I
Oxidation Ponds
Primary
Clarif iers.
Control s
Building '
'7
*- Anaerobic
Digester
. -i
Palmdale Water
Reclamation Plant
Not to Scale
Figure A-30. Facility layout of Palmdale water reclamation
plant (# 010), Palmdale, California.
171
-------
As there is currently a need for additional storage, the op-
eration of the oxidation ponds in a fill and draw mode may be
desirable. The oxidation pond effluent contains 45 mg/L 8005,
120 mg/L SS, 7 mg/L NH3-N, and 34 mg/L phosphate, and is cate-
gorized as an intermediate effluent.
A complicated situation exists with regard to the need for
additional storage. The primary reason is that the farmer rents
the property on a year-by-year basis from the Palmdale Interna-
tional Airport, a new airport for Los Angeles which may be built
in Palmdale. As discussed previously, the transmission line
from the storage ponds to the farm is only capable of handling
0.044 m^/s (1 mgd). Since no one is sure when and if the air-
port will be built, the farmer will not invest capital to in-
stall additional capacity. Conversely, the farmer would gladly
utilize more treated water since the price is low ($4.05/1,000
m-3, $5/acre-ft) , and even with continuous pumping of one
groundwater well and pumping the other well 50 percent of the
time, only 80.9 ha (200 acres) of the available 129.5 ha (320
acres) are currently being irrigated. Therefore, the unstable
condition of the lease arrangement has forced LACSD to find an
alternate means of wastewater disposal.
Therefore, they have reverted to the method of disposal used
at the facility prior to 1970, namely, evaporation/percolation.
In order to accomplish this, an additional 38.4 ha (95 acres) of
holding ponds 1.5 m (5 ft) deep are to be constructed at the
current storage pond site. These ponds will be able to handle
an additional 0.09 m^/s (2.1 mgd). Arrangements have also
been made with Palmdale International Airport to utilize the
0.044 m-Vs (1 mgd) if the airport is built.
Since the farmer is contractually obligated to use 0.044
m3/s (1 mgd), the operation of his farm must be manipulated to
meet the requirement. Thus, during the summer, additional water
must be obtained from wells which are approximately 122 m (400
ft) deep. In the cool and relatively wet winter, the farmer
typically must select one field to flood in order to dispose of
excess water. During the nonwinter months, the fields are irri-
gated on a rigorous schedule whereby the side-wheel roll sprink-
ler is moved 15.2 m (50 ft) every 12 hours. The sprinklers run
24 hours per day, and each field is watered approximately once
per week. The two crops grown at the site are alfalfa and oats.
The crops are consumed by sheep.
The farmer operates the effluent-irrigated farm as he would
any other farm in terms of fertilization. No allowance is made
for wastewater-supplied nutrients. Irrespective of well-water
application, and assuming 10 months of irrigation at 0.044
mVs (l mgd), the land application system is loaded as follows:
172
-------
Hydraulic 1.4 m/yr
33.0 mm/wk
Organic 637 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 1,699 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 99.1 kg NH3-N/ha/yr
482 kg P04/ha/yr
Minimal staffing is required by the operators of the Palm-
dale Water Reclamation Plant with regard to the land application
system. On the average, only one man-hour per day is associated
with going out and checking the storage ponds. The distribution
system equipment is operated by the farmer.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The preapplication treatment facility was well maintained
and the grounds extremely well kept. The storage ponds, how-
ever, suffer from two maintenance problems. First, there is a
fair amount of erosion around the ponds, probably due to rain-
fall-induced runoff. The second problem is associated with tum-
bleweed which accumulates in the holding basin. Both problems
necessitate additional housekeeping measures.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant's annual expenditure in
calendar year 1979 was $107,000. Of the total budget, 5% or
$5,375 was spent on land application including $4,375 for per-
sonnel and $1,000 for mileage and rental.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The inability of the effluent disposal system to handle the
total design flow of the plant is the only design deficiency.
Currently, short-term plans call for the immediate installation
of 7,570 m3 (2 mil gal) of additional ponds covering 1.1 ha
(2.7 acres). The long-term solution calls for the addition of
38.4 ha (95 acres) of evaporation/percolation ponds holding
585,913 m3 (155 mil gal). Considering the fact that it has
taken the facility 23 years to exceed its effluent disposal ca-
pacity, this is not viewed as a major design deficiency and can
be considered as proper phased construction.
173
-------
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (# Oil)
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
Irvine, California is located in southern California approx-
imately 72.5 km (45 mi) southeast of the City of Los Angeles
(Figure A-31). The Irvine Ranch Water District owns and oper-
ates both the Michelson Reclamation Plant and the wastewater
distribution system. Irvine Ranch was, in fact, one of the first
dual distribution systems in the United States. The facility
was visited on April 25, 1980.
The climate in the Irvine area is characterized as mild,
semiarid. The average annual temperature is 16.6°C (61.9°F).
The yearly rainfall averages 0.31 m (12.05 in), whereas the mean
annual Class A pan evaporation is 1.52 m (60 in).
The Michelson Reclamation Plant currently produces a terti-
ary quality effluent by means of primary sedimentation, activat-
ed sludge, and tertiary filtration (Figure A-32). Following
this, the wastewater is distributed by a dual supply system. The
reclaimed wastewater is used for landscape irrigation as well as
crop irrigation by the Irvine Ranch Company. The Michelson Rec-
lamation Plant was designed to handle 0.66 m3/s (15 mgd). Cur-
rent flows at the facility average 0.35 m3/s (8.0 mgd). The
flow is basically domestic.
The preapplication treatment and the land application sys-
tems have been in operation for 11 years. Over this period,
numerous expansions and upgrading of both the treatment and land
application system have occurred. The land use adjacent to the
land application system is widely varied, and consists of
houses, parks, schools, playgrounds, and commercial areas. The
future calls for increasing the size of the distribution system
to allow more people to utilize reclaimed water.
174
-------
Treatment Facility
• ,ffrr$
\ L-r-T*. Scale: 1 mm = 24 m j
= 2,000 fl)i
Figure A-31. Location map of Irvine Ranch water district
Michelson reclamation plant (# Oil), Irvine,
California.
175
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Mechanically
Gleaned
Bar Screens
Aerated
Grit
Chambers
Primary
Clarifiers
Flow
Equali-
zation
fSludge
_
Land Treatment System
Dissolved
Air
Flotation
T
Aeration
Tanks
I
Landfill
Belt
Press
Aerobic
Digestion
Slu
jge 1
Second-
ary
Clarifiers
Storage
(Sand Canyon and
Rattlesnake Reservoirs)'
I
Chlorination
Dual Media
Filters
Ridge and
Furrow Irrigation
(Oranges, Lemons, Avocados)
Figure A-32.
Ridge and Furrow irrigation
(Tomatoes, Peppers, Corn,
Broccoli, Cauliflower)
Process flow diagram of Irvine Ranch water dis-
trict Michelson reclamation plant (# Oil), Irvine,
California.
176
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Preapplication treatment at the Michelson Reclamation Plant
begins with two mechanically-cleaned bar screens followed by two
aerated grit chambers. The wastewater next flows to five cov-
ered primary clarifiers. Primary effluent is then pumped to one
of two flow equalization basins used to supply the demand for
reclaimed water during periods of low flow. After equalization,
the wastewater flows to six activated sludge aeration basins
followed by nine secondary clarifiers. Secondary effluent grav-
ity flows to seven dual media filters for tertiary filtration.
The filtered effluent is chlorinated prior to distribution. The
solids handling consists of flotation thickening followed by
aerobic digestion and dewatering on belt filter presses. Dewa-
tered sludge is disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
Two on-site wastewater storage basins are used in case of
process upset. They consist of an emergency basin capable of
holding 36,340 m3 (9.6 mil gal), and a series of manmade bas-
ins which are used in the winter as duck ponds, capable of hold-
ing 185,485 m3 (49 mil gal). A total of 3.9 days storage is
available at the design flow in these two storage basins.
There are basically two uses for the reclaimed water. The
first is utilization as landscape irrigation; the second is ir-
rigation of crops grown by the Irvine Ranch Company. The re-
claimed water system itself is complicated, consisting of force
mains, reservoirs, and a multiplicity of distribution equipment.
Following treatment, the wastewater flows' to a standpipe equip-
ped with internal baffles to allow the effluent to go to one of
two places. If the distribution system has a demand on it, the
water will go directly to the irrigation network. If demand is
less than production, the water will go directly to a wet well
and pump station to be pumped to a reservoir. The system also
has provisions for adding supplemental Metropolitan Water Dis-
trict (Orange County) irrigation water to the system as required.
Additions of irrigation water are on a demand basis, and are not
monitored.
The first storage reservoir is called Sand Canyon Reservoir,
and is located approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) east of the treat-
ment plant (Figure A-33). The reservoir holds 1,170,000 m3
(950 acre-ft) of reclaimed water. The second major reservoir is
Rattlesnake Reservoir which is located 14.5 km (9 mi) northeast
of the treatment facilities, and holds 1,790,000 m3 (1,450
acre-ft). Additional back-up storage for reclaimed water is
provided by the Laguna Reservoir, and a reservoir located at the
El Toro Marine Air Station.
177
-------
— Water District Boundary
Irvine Lake
J= Peters Canyon
Reservoir
Syphon
//Reservoir
Lambert
0 Reservoir
Sg§& Freeway
SSTWoodbridge
&&&~'P\S1[a)
CL Sand Canyon
^ Reservoir
^r-Michelson Q
Reclamation
PlantM-
:*•' University of
California, Irvine
San Joaqum
Reservoir
Santa Ana Marine Corps •&•¥•£
Reclaimed Water
Use Areas
Pacific Coast Highway-
Figure A-33.
Facility layout of Irvine Ranch water district
Michelson reclamation plant (# Oil), Irvine, Cali-
fornia.
178
-------
Various pumping stations in the reclaimed water distribution
system are utilized to transmit the water to the right place at
the right time. Pumps at the treatment plant allow for water to
be pumped to either Sand Canyon or Rattlesnake Reservoir, and
pumps at the reservoirs allow water to be pumped back to the
system or from one reservoir to another. Due to the degradation
in water quality that occurs during storage in these reservoirs
due to algae growth and natural debris, the wastewater is fil-
tered and chlorinated prior to redistribution in the system.
A dual distribution system for using reclaimed water to ir-
rigate public land and a common green belt has been installed at
Irvine Ranch. Currently, there are an estimated 80 km (50 mi)
of distribution mains to carry the reclaimed water to the point
of use. Pipes in the system are specially marked to insure
identity. On-site control of the irrigation system is possible
by utilizing specially-designed valve wells with special quick
couplers. These couplers are custom items and are not available
in local stores. In addition, there are special colors, as well
as notices on the water system to show that it is reclaimed and
not for drinking. In areas not yet served by reclaimed water,
backflow preventers are installed on the dual supply system to
allow domestic water to be used until the reclaimed water irri-
gation system can be used, at which time the backflow preventer
is removed and the system connected. Currently, landscape is
irrigated at housing projects, school yards, playgrounds, green
belts, and the like. Where reclaimed water is sprayed on resi-
dential lawns, it is maintained by Community Association Land-
scape Maintenance Groups and not the individual homeowner.
School grounds and playgrounds are irrigated from 9 p.m. until
6 a.m. to allow a dry-up time prior to use by children.
The second use of the reclaimed water is by the Irvine Ranch
Company which utilizes the reclaimed water for irrigation pur-
poses. Reclaimed water is used on tomatoes, peppers, corn,
broccoli, cauliflower, oranges, lemons, and avocados, and all
crops are irrigated by means of drip or ridge and furrow irriga-
tion.
Due to the high degree of treatment, no attempt is made at
site control during spraying of the crops or landscape. In ad-
dition, there are no buffer zones, no attempts made to control
runoff, and no groundwater monitoring wells in the Irvine Ranch
Water District area.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Because of the need for a high quality effluent due to the
end use of the water, a rather large operational staff is avail-
able at the Michelson Reclamation Plant. The plant is well run,
179
-------
as evidenced by the following effluent quality:
8005, mg/L 5
Suspended solids, mg/1 2
COD, mg/L 20
P04, mg/L 7
Chlorine residual, mg/L >2
Fecal coliforms, no/100 ml 0
The irrigation carried out by the Irvine Ranch is conducted
in accordance with typical irrigation practices utilizing both
drip and ridge and furrow irrigation. All crops are irrigated
as required to insure maximum crop production. In addition,
crops are fertilized without regard to any nutrients contained
in the reclaimed water.
An operational problem the Irvine Company must work around is
that they cannot use reclaimed water on all of their crops.
Therefore, they need a dual distribution system and certain crops
must be raised in certain areas. This cuts down on the flexi-
bility of the farming operation and increases costs. If the
Irvine Ranch had a choice, they would prefer to use reclaimed
water only if it was economical.
The operation of landscape irrigation utilizing reclaimed
water is carried out by members of the Irvine Ranch Water Dis-
trict in conjunction with community association groups. Opera-
tion of the irrigation system is typical, in that it is con-
trolled by timers. The Irvine Ranch Water District maintains a
staff of approximately six people who are utilized to operate
and maintain the dual water supply system. Three individuals
are involved with agricultural reclaimed water irrigation dis-
tribution, and three individuals are associated with landscape
irrigation distribution.
The reclaimed water is sold for a variable amount depending
on end-use and demand. Prices for the water vary from $32.43
to $64.86 per 1,000 m3 ($40 to $80/acre-ft).
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of the Michelson Reclamation Plant is good, and
all maintenance operations are carried out by Water District
180
-------
personnel. In addition, these personnel carry out the mainte-
nance of the dual water supply distribution system, and it is
well maintained. Maintenance of the landscape irrigation equip-
ment is up to the community groups, and the Irvine Ranch main-
tains all of its irrigation equipment.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $1,738,100 was spent by the Irvine Ranch Water
District for operation and maintenance of the Michelson Reclama-
tion Plant during calendar year 1979. The two major costs were
personnel and utilities (fuel and electricity). The costs as-
sociated with reclaimed wastewater distribution are not known,
as they are included in the Irvine Ranch Water District general
irrigation budget, and cannot be easily separated out.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
^rior to any water being sent to either Sand Canyon or Rat-
tlesnake Reservoir, the water is first treated to a tertiary de-
gree. Aside from potential constraints due to regulatory agen-
cies, this is a design deficiency as the water is degraded to
such a quality after storage that it must once again be filtered
and chlorinated to avoid problems such as sprinkler plugging in
the distribution system. A more rational design approach would
be to filter and chlorinate only that water which will be used
directly, whereas water going to the reservoir should only be
chlorinated following secondary treatment, and then pumped to the
reservoir. This would save money and avoid duplicity in treat-
ment.
181
-------
CITY OF TULARE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES (f 012)
TULARE, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Tulare is located in central California approx-
imately 72.5 km (45 mi) southeast of Fresno in the San Joaquin
Valley (Figure A-34). The wastewater preapplication treatment
facilities and land treatment system are owned by the City of
Tulare. The operation of the land treatment system is leased
out to a Ideal farmer. The facility was visited on April 28,
1980.
The climate in the Tulare area would be considered mild,
semiarid as the yearly average temperature is 17.4°C
(63.4°F). The yearly average precipitation is only 0.24 m
(9.53 in), whereas the yearly average Class A pan evaporation is
estimated to be 2.3 m (90 in).
The Tulare wastewater treatment plant consists of an indus-
trial wastewater (dairy) -treatment facility and a domestic
wastewater treatment facility, both owned and operated by the
City. The wastewaters are treated separately prior to combining
them in oxidation ponds. The wastewater treatment facility cur-
rently receives 0.114 m^/s (2.6 mgd) of domestic sewage, and
0.035 m3/s (0.8 mgd) of dairy wastewater. The plant was de-
signed for 0.175 m3/s (4.0 mgd) and 0.031 m3/s (0.7 mgd) of
domestic and dairy wastewater, respectively. Preapplication
treatment for the domestic wastewater consists of preliminary
screening and comminution, followed by primary clarification and
biological treatment using either a trickling filter or an acti-
vated bio-filter (Figure A-35). The unchlorinated wastewater
then flows into a series of oxidation ponds. The dairy wastewa-
ter is pretreated by means of an oil/water separator, followed
by aerated lagoons. After the aerated lagoon, the dairy waste
flows to the oxidation ponds and is mixed with the treated do-
mestic wastewater. Although the effluent from the municipal bio-
logical system meets secondary treatment standards, the combined
plant effluent that goes to the land application system is con-
sidered an intermediate effluent.
182
-------
CALIFORNIA
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-34. Location map of City of Tulare water pollution
control facilities (# 012), Tulare, California.
183
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Mechanically
Cleaned Bar
Screen and
ComminutcT
i
Dairy
Wastewater
Oil and
Water
Separator
Grit
Chamber
Aerated
Lagoons
Primary
Clarifiers
Activated
Bio
Filter
i Sludge
_
Trickling
Filter
Secondary
Clarifiers
Anaerobic
Digestion
I
Oxidation
Ponds
Sludge
Land Treatment System
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Sludge
Land
Application
Holding Ponds
Border Strip Irrigation
(Wheat, Barley, Oats)
Ridge and Furrow
Irrigation (Corn, Cotton)
Figure A-35.
Process flow diagram of City of Tulare water pol-
lution control facilities (# 012), Tulare, Cali-
fornia.
184
-------
The land treatment system consists of 205 ha (505.5 acres)
of farm land which is flood or ridge and furrow irrigated. A
variety of nonfood chain crops are grown on this land.
The City of Tulare has operated the land application system
for over 35 years. The preapplication treatment system has been
operational for 35 years and has been upgraded several times.
The land use adjacent to the land application system is bas-
ically agricultural. Future plans for the facility call for en-
larging the wastewater storage capacity.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The preapplication treatment of domestic wastewater at the
Tulare Water Pollution Control Facilities begins with prelimi-
nary treatment consisting of a mechanically-cleaned bar screen
in conjunction with a rotary grinder which grinds screenings and
places them back in the system. Next, a square grit chamber is
used, with the grit being mechanically collected and removed.
Wastewater then flows to four rectangular clarifiers.
Following primary clarification, the wastewater splits and
goes to either an activated biofilter (ABF) or a trickling fil-
ter system. These two units are designed in parallel. Follow-
ing the biological treatment, wastewater flows to four secondary
clarifiers, two associated with each secondary train. Flow from
the secondary clarifier goes to the oxidation ponds. Both waste
biological sludge and primary sludge are then pumped to a two-
stage high-rate anaerobic digester.
The raw dairy waste which is received goes through initial
screening and oil/water separation, then is pumped to two paral-
lel aerated lagoons located adjacent to the oxidation ponds
(Figure A-36). Each lagoon is aerated by a 30-kw (40 hp) mech-
anical floating surface aerator. The dairy waste then overflows
the lagoons into the oxidation ponds and combines with treated
domestic flow. There are four oxidation ponds at the site.
Each pond covers an area of 13.0 ha (32 acres) and is 1.5 m (5
ft) deep. The four ponds cover a total area of 51.8 ha (128
acres). The volume of each pond is 157,850 m^ (41.7 mil gal)
for a total storage volume of 631,400 nP (166.8 mil gal). At
a design flow of 0.206 m3/s (4.7 mgd), a detention time of
35.5 days is afforded by the ponds.
In addition, there are two storage ponds each covering an
area of 4.9 ha (12 acres). The ponds are old oxidation ponds
which were previously used for wastewater treatment, and are
currently only approximately 0.46 m deep (1.5 ft). The total
185
-------
Treatment
Paige Avenue
Tulare Canal —
(Irrigation Water)
Irrigated <-
Crops |
55
e-
XS. H
ii w
Not to Scale
Clinton
Facilities
Irrigated
Crops
L
=^^=
Irrigated
Crops
• e
Do
C3 B
ll
Aerated De
••••••M
Ponds
Motor
Cross
Park
T™
Storage
Ponds
iry
"7
e
^••M
No. 1
No. 3
Oxidation
Ponds
No. 2
^^^^^^^^^^^^^•i
Irrigat
No. 4
1
Wastewater
Distribution
3d
Crops
Irrigated
Crops
Avenue
0)
55
0
Figure A-36. Facility layout of City of Tulare water pollution
control facilities (# 012), Tulare, California.
186
-------
volume contained in both ponds is 44,660 m^ (11.8 mil gal).
Therefore, at the design flow, only 2.5 days of storage is
available. As the newer oxidation ponds have a fixed standpipe
withdrawal mechanism, a variable level in the ponds is not pos-
sible and these storage ponds provide the only available stor-
age.
The slow-rate land treatment system consists of both flood
and ridge and furrow irrigation of approximately 205 ha (505.5
acres) . The crops grown on the site include cotton, corn,
wheat, barley, and oats, none of which are used for human con-
sumption.
The wastewater application system consists of ditch irriga-
tion, following overflow from the oxidation ponds. For the
grain crops, the border strip irrigation fields are approximate-
ly 24.4 m (80 ft) wide by 403 m (1/4 mi) long. Flow into the
border strips is controlled by hand-placed irrigation gates.
These gates are portable and are inserted into the ditch to con-
trol the direction of wastewater flow. Row crops are grown on
ridges, and the furrows are irrigated utilizing aluminum siphon
pipes which siphon the water from the irrigation ditch into the
furrows. Aside from the total gravity flow of the system, there
is one pump located on-site. The pump is utilized to pump water
from one set of irrigation fields to another, and is used infre-
quently. The pump is owned and maintained by the City of Tu-
lare, and operated by the farmer.
The areas that are irrigated consist of both sand and loam
soils.
There are no groundwater monitoring wells associated with
the land treatment system. The fields are operated like any
other irrigation system, and there are no buffer zones between
the fields and neighboring property. Site access is controlled
mainly by signs which say the site is irrigated with treated
wastewater. However, there are no attempts to keep people off
the site. Stormwater runoff from the site does not appear to be
a problem as it can be contained within the furrows of the ridge
and furrow system and within the border strips.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system is well operated, and
the effluent from the combined trickling filter and activated
biofilter plant averages 28 and 25 mg/L BOD5 and suspended
solids, respectively. It should be noted that since the time
the ABF was started up, the operators of the Tulare wastewater
treatment plant have not been happy with the system. The system
187
-------
is not a normal ABF in that there is no aeration tank for the
solids following the bio-tower. Due to operational dislikes and
difficulties, the tower is currently operated as a packed tower
trickling filter, and no attempt is made at recycling effluent
or sludge to the tower.
The operational problem at the facility appears to be with
the industrial plant (which treats the dairy wastewater) which
is severely overloaded both organically and hydraulically. The
plant was designed for an organic loading of 1,400 mg/L 8005,
yet current influent BOD5 has been averaging 2,344 mg/L. The
daily average flow to the industrial treatment facilities is
0.053 m3/s (1.2 mgd), 71% over the design flow. Because of
these problems, there is little or no biological activity in the
aerated ponds. Therefore, when the dairy effluent is discharged
into the oxidation ponds, it causes the ponds to also be over-
loaded, and substantially reduces the degree of treatment. The
final oxidation pond effluent contains the following character-
istics:
BOD5, mg/L 98
Suspended solids, mg/L 177
Conductivity, mmhos 853
NH3, mg/L 24
pH 7.6
The land treatment system is operated similar to any farm,
and during the summer months crops are irrigated on a typical
farm irrigation schedule. For example, corn is irrigated every
10 days and cotton every two weeks. The farm operation is car-
ried out by the farmer as he plants, cares for, and fertilizes
the fields. Fertilizer addition is typical of that on neighbor-
ing plots, and nitrogen and phosphorus are added.
The farmer's major operational problem is that he must irri-
gate more frequently than he cares to, particularly during the
winter months, as there is minimal storage at the site and he
has to dispose of the water as part of his contractual agree-
ment. The agreement with the City of Tulare states that 25% of
the farmer's receipts from the sale of any crops grown on-site
must be turned over to the City.
In terms of staffing, the City of Tulare spends very little
on labor associated with land treatment. The only staffing re-
quirements are for weeding and erosion control around the oxi-
dation ponds, and these ponds are primarily associated with
waste treatment.
188
-------
Based on plant operating records, excluding evaporation from
the ponds, the application rates at the land treatment site are
as follows:
Hydraulic 2.30 m/yr
43.2 mm/wk
Organic 2,253 kg BODs/ha/yr
Solids 4,070 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 454 kg NH3-N/ha/yr
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The overall maintenance at the pretreatment facilities was
good. There is one full-time maintenance man. There were some
erosion problems around the oxidation pond which are due to the
lack of embankment protection.
There is little or no maintenance associated with the land
treatment system. All maintenance, with the exception of the
one wastewater pump which is maintained by the City of Tulare,
is performed by the farmer who contracts for the land.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City of Tulare spends a total of $664,500 annually on
operation and maintenance of the preapplication treatment facil-
ity. Of this total, approximately $2,180 or 0.3% is spent on
the labor utilized on the land treatment system. There are no
power costs associated with land treatment as the one transfer
pump is used so infrequently.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The first design deficiency noted was the inability to em-
ploy parallel and/or series operation of the four oxidation
ponds. The ponds can only be operated as two trains in paral-
lel. Better treatment might be possible if the four ponds could
be operated in series. In addition, the aerated lagoons can
only be operated in parallel.
The second and third design deficiencies are somewhat relat-
ed. The second being that there is insufficient effluent stor-
age volume to allow the farmer to maximize crop production. As
discussed earlier, there is capacity for only 2.5 days of efflu-
ent storage in the storage ponds. These ponds are to be refur-
bished and dredged soon, thereby increasing their depth. The
189
-------
storage capacity could also be increased if the oxidation ponds
could be operated in a varying depth mode. Currently there is a
fixed standpipe, and the pond depth cannot be varied. The final
design deficiency occurs because there is no embankment protec-
tion to minimize wind-induced erosion at the waterline of the
oxidation ponds.
One additional potential deficiency involves the dairy
wastewater treatment facility, and its inability to adequately
treat the wastewater. This causes a subsequent quality degrada-
tion of the final effluent.
190
-------
CITY OF KERMAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 013)
KERMAN, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Herman, California is located in central Cali-
fornia in the San Joaquin Valley approximately 24 km (15 mi) due
east of Fresno (Figure A-37). The preapplication treatment fa-
cility is owned and operated by the City of Herman. The majori-
ty of the land treatment system is owned, and the total land
treatment system is operated by a private farmer, however. The
facility was visited on April 29, 1980.
Kerman, California has a mild, semiarid climate, and the
yearly average temperature is 16.8°C (62.3°F). The average
annual rainfall is 0.26 m (10.24 in), whereas the mean annual
Class A pan evaporation is estimated to be 2.2 m (90 in).
The Kerman preapplication treatment facility consists of
preliminary treatment followed by an activated sludge system
(Figure A-38). Following the activated sludge system, the
wastewater flows to a combination oxidation/holding pond. The
slow-rate land treatment system consists of an 87.8-ha (217
acre) site on which cotton, almonds, barley, alfalfa, and sugar
beets are grown. All irrigation is performed utilizing siphon
tubes and ridge and furrow irrigation.
The wastewater treatment facility was designed to handle
0.018 m^/s (0.42 mgd). Currently, the plant is receiving
0.023 m^/s (0.52 mgd), and therefore is hydraulically over-
loaded by 24 percent. Of the flow received at the facility, 100
percent is of domestic origin.
The Kerman preapplication treatment facility and the slow-
rate irrigation system have been in operation for approximately
four years. The plant is constructed in basically an agricul-
tural area. There are currently no plans for changes or modifi-
cations to either the land treatment system or the wastewater
treatment facilities.
191
-------
\
CALIFORNIA
11 .
KEARNEY
BOULEVARD
AVE
....J=ii Jj,-J = -4.
PACIFIC
Well
109
12
BM 212"
14
AVE
+
ir\
c» Wells
f Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
SB"
Wells
Well
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-37. Location map of City of Kerman wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 013), Kerman, California.
192
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Comminutor
Screen
Grit
Chamber
Activated
Sludge
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Aerobic
Digestion
Land Treatment System
Sludge Land
Application
f
CO
Secondary
Clarifiers
Oxidation Pond
Figure A-38.
Ridge and Furrow
Irrigation (Alfalfa, Barley,
Oats, Almonds, Sugar Beets)
Process flow diagram of City of Herman wastewater
treatment plant (# 013), Kerman, California.
193
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater received at the Kerman Wastewater Treatment Plant
is first subjected to preliminary treatment consisting of a
handcleaned bar screen followed by comminution and grit removal.
Then the wastewater is pumped to the above-ground activated
sludge aeration basins. There is no primary treatment. From
the aeration basin the mixed liquor flows to two clarifiers fol-
lowed by an oxidation pond. The oxidation pond covers an area
of 0.93 ha (2.3 acres), is 1.5 m (5 ft) deep, and has a total
capacity of 11,356 m3 (3 mii gal) and a detention time of 5.8
days at the current flow rate. All sludge generated at the site
is aerobically digested, then dewatered on sand drying beds.
The dried digested sludge is land applied on City-owned or other
lands.
The land treatment site consists of 87.8 ha (217 acres) of
farm land (Figure A-39). Of the 87.8 ha (217 acres), 6.9 ha (17
acres) are owned by the City of Kerman, whereas the remaining
land, 80.9 ha (200 acres) is owned by the private farmer (Figure
A-39). All irrigation is by a ridge and furrow system utilizing
siphon pipes from earthen ditches. Depending on the distance to
the field being irrigated, the wastewater either flows from the
oxidation pond by gravity or is pumped by a 2.2-kw (3 hp) cen-
trifugal nonclog pump rated at 0.032 m3/s (500 gpm). The
wastewater is distributed to an underground pipe system at the
land treatment site. Valve header pipes then distribute the
wastewater to earthen ditches from which siphon pipes distribute
the wastewater to the ridge and furrow system.
The following crops (including end use) are grown:
1. Cotton for cloth.
2. Sugar beets and almonds for human consumption.
3. Barley and alfalfa for cattle feed.
The soil at the land treatment site is a sand and loam mix-
ture. There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity
of the Kerman plant, and there is no buffer zone between the
wastewater-irrigated fields and the other neighboring fields.
Typically, stormwater generated runoff from the site is not a
problem due to the sandy soil. No attempt is made to keep the
public away from the land application site.
The only analytical data available are for the influent to
the oxidation ponds. Based on this, and excluding evaporation,
the following application rates have been calculated:
Hydraulic 0.89 m/yr
17.0 mm/wk
194
-------
c
A>
Ridge and Furrow
Irrigated Crops
hurc
-em
;h
<•
i
i Oxidation
i Pond
; D Clarifiers
; p^| HHH Rjdae and Furrow
: — — Irrigated Crops
i Cortrol Ac ivaled
! Building Slud9e •
"'" : -
Ridge and
Furrow
Irrigated Crops
Not to Scale
Figure A-39.
Facility layout of City of Herman wastewater
treatment plant (# 013), Kerman, California.
195
-------
Organic 89 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 53 kg SS/ha/yr
Based on the operation of the oxidation pond, the organic
loading is probably overestimated while the solid loading is
probably underestimated.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system is well run and produces
a quality effluent containing 10 and 6 mg/L of BODs and sus-
pended solids, respectively. The land treatment system is oper-
ated as any farm would be in terms of general irrigation practi-
ces, and irrigation is dependent on crop water requirements.
During the winter, however, the alfalfa is commonly overwatered
to dispose of excess water. Excess water is not typically a
problem during the dry summer.
In terms of operation, the farmer takes care of all irrigat-
ing, planting, fertilizing, etc., and even operates the effluent
pump as required. Contractually, the agreement is that the
farmer pays $1,000 per year for the rights to all the wastewater
generated. In addition, the farmer pays $1,250 per year for
rights to the 6.9 ha (17 acres) of City-owned land. A five-year
lease is used with competitive bidding every five years for the
rights. There was no mention made of any operational difficul-
ties associated with utilizing the wastewater. In addition,
during the growing season the wastewater is often supplemented
with irrigation water. In terms of staffing, City of Kerman
personnel spend approximately two hours per week on the land
treatment system, mainly checking the oxidation pond.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The overall plant maintenance appeared good and the plant
has an effective preventive maintenance program. There is very
little maintenance associated with the land treatment system,
aside from the few valves and maintaining the earthen ditches,
and there appeared to be no maintenance problems.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $104,850 was spent by the City of Kerman for op-
eration and maintenance of the preapplication and land treatment
196
-------
facilities during fiscal year 1978-1979. Of this total, approx-
imately 2 percent, or $2,152, was spent on the land treatment
system consisting of $1,060 in personnel expenses, $92 for elec-
tricity, and about $1,000 for insurance. The cost for the en-
tire system is offset by the $2,250 received yearly from the
farmer for sale of water and rights to the City-owned property.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Two design deficiencies were noted. The first deficiency
involves erosion problems around the oxidation pond, as rip-rap
was not installed in enough areas to prevent erosion. The sec-
ond problem is that the effluent pump does not generate suffi-
cient head to deliver water at an acceptable rate to the fur-
thest fields. This causes insufficient water for proper opera-
tion of the distant irrigation areas.
197
-------
CITY OF MANTECA WASTEWATER QUALITY CONTROL FACILITIES (# 014)
MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEMS
GENERAL
The City of Manteca, California is located in central Cali-
fornia in the San Joaquin Valley, approximately 113 km (70 mi)
due east of San Francisco (Figure A-40). The Manteca Wastewater
Quality Control Facilities and the majority of the land treat-
ment system are owned and operated by the City of Manteca. A
private individual farms an additional piece of property. The
facility was visited on May 1, 1980.
The climate in the Manteca area is characterized as mild,
semiarid. The yearly average temperature is 15.5°C (60.6°F).
The yearly average rainfall is 0.30 m (11.87 in), and the yearly
annual estimated Class A pan evaporation is 2.03 m (80 in).
Prior to land treatment, wastewater receives preliminary and
biological treatment (Figure A-41). Biological treatment con-
sists of an activated sludge system followed by an oxidation
pond which also serves as a holding pond. The land treatment
portion of the system consists of 69.6 ha (172 acres) of City-
owned farmland, and 36.4 ha (90 acres) of privately-owned farm-
land. It is operated as a slow-rate irrigation system.
The Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facilities were de-
signed to handle 0.12 mVs (2.8 mgd) during the winter months,
and 0.14 m^/s (3.2 mgd) during the summer months. The proj-
ected difference in flow is due to a cannery operation. Current
flows have been averaging 0.10 m3/s (2.3 mgd) of which 0.019
m-Vs (0.44 mgd) of industrial flow is received five days per
week.
The current preapplication treatment system has been opera-
tional for eight years, whereas the land treatment system has
been operational for 17 years.
198
-------
CALIFORNIA
West
ManlecaJ
Preapplication and Land
/'Treatment Area
• • • t £a?ai».LJ
"Pump Scale: 1 mm ^ 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-40. Location map of City of Manteca wastewater quality
control facilities (# 014), Manteca, California.
199
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Mechanically
Cleaned
Bar
Screen
— ^
Aerated
Grit
Chamber
Land Treatment System
Aeration
Basins
1
Secondary
Clarifier
i
Sludge
Border Strip Irrigation
(Barley, Oats, Com)
Figure A-41.
Process flow diagram of City of Manteca wastewater
quality control facilities (# 014), Manteca,
California.
200
-------
The land treatment system is in an area which is predomi-
nantly agricultural. There are no plans for changes or modifi-
cations at the Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facilities.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
All wastewater received at the Manteca Wastewater Quality
Control Facilities is first pumped up to a mechanically-cleaned
bar screen followed by aerated grit removal. There are no pri-
mary treatment facilities at the plant, and the degritted waste-
water flows by gravity to an activated sludge unit which is op-
erated in the contact stabilization mode. The mixed liquor then
flows to two secondary clarifiers. The clarifiers have no ef-
fluent weirs, and wastewater is drawn from the midnatant level
utilizing perforated pipe for wastewater collection. The clari-
fied wastewater then flows to an oxidation pond. Approximately
seven days of storage is provided in the oxidation pond at the
present flow rate. Chlorination is not practiced at the site.
Waste activated sludge from the clarifiers goes either to
the oxidation pond, or goes out directly with the clarified ef-
fluent to the land treatment system. The oxidation pond covers
an area of 3.6 ha (9 acres), is 1.98 m (6.5 ft) deep, and con-
tains a volume of 62,080 m^ (16.4 mil gal). The land treat-
ment system consists of 69.6 ha (172 acres) of City-owned land,
which is leased out, plus an additional 36.4 ha (90 acres) of
land that is owned by the farmer who leases the City-owned land
(Figure A-42).
According to the contractual arrangement between the leas-
ing farmer and the City of Manteca, a sum of $8,100 is paid for
leasing the 76.5 ha (189 acres) of City-owned land for four
years. Of this 76.5 ha (189 acres), however, only 69.6 ha (172
acres) is irrigated with wastewater. The farmer is obligated to
dispose of all of the wastewater generated by the City of Man-
teca.
The physical facilities utilized for land treatment of
wastewater at Manteca are complicated by a previously-used spray
irrigation system that has been replaced by border strip irriga-
tion. Regardless, the flow scheme consists of the following.
First, effluent flows either directly to the fields or into the
oxidation pond. Once in the oxidation pond the wastewater then
flows back by gravity to a wet well and is pumped to a storage
tank. From the storage tank all distribution to the fields is
by gravity. The pumps used to lift the water from the wet well
to the storage tank are two 18.7-kw (25 hp) vertical shaft cen-
trifugal pumps and one 22.4-kw (30 hp) vertical shaft centrifu-
gal pump. The discharge capacity of the pumps is not known.
201
-------
NJ
O
K)
"3
c
n
(D
>
i
O C
K (!)
y M
!-•• H-
tu rr
« •<:
o
o
0)
o
c
rr
O
i-ti
O
H-
rr
H-
ro
m
=«=
o
S
cu
rr
0>
^- 0)
3: D)
3
rr
CD
O
0
H-
i
-------
Two additional pumps are also located at the facility. These
were used previously for the spray irrigation system, and are
currently not being utilized. Wastewater from the storage tank
or the treatment plant flows directly by gravity to a distribu-
tion box. The distribution box has several electrically-con-
trolled valves whereby the flow to different areas of the site
can be controlled from the control room of the treatment plant.
From this distribution box, wastewater flows through under-
ground pipes to the border irrigation fields. Wastewater is di-
verted into the fields utilizing either diversion chambers with
slide gates, or alternatively, individual mechanical gates on
each of the border checks. A collection ditch runs along the
far end of the border checks to collect any runoff water. This
water is diverted to a series of tailwater return pumps which
pump the water to a designated field to minimize the potential
for mosquitoes and odors. The irrigation system is also con-
nected to the San Joaquin irrigation system, and approximately
5 percent of the total irrigation use consists of fresh water.
The crops grown at the site are fodder crops of barley,
oats, and corn. The crops are utilized for dry dairy cows (cows
which are not in the milking cycle). The soils at the site con-
sist of sandy loam.
The following application rates have been calculated for the
land application site, not including evaporative losses or the
effect of the waste sludge that is applied:
Hydraulic 3.0 m/yr
58.4 mm/wk
Organic 1,471 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 1,382 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 445 kg NH3~N/ha/yr
16.9 kg N03-N/ha/yr
A total of nine groundwater monitoring wells are contained
on-site. These wells are located in three groups of three and
are at different depths, including 2.4 m (8 ft), 3.7 m (12 ft),
and 7.3m (24 ft).
203
-------
There is no buffer zone surrounding the irrigation site, and
flood irrigation proceeds up to the boundary of the fields. In
addition, the area is not fenced, and therefore, there is the
possibility for public access. Site runoff is controlled, as
tailwaters are returned.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment facilities are adequately oper-
ated and are producing an intermediate effluent. For the calen-
dar year 1979, effluent quality was as follows:
BOD 5, mg/L 49
Suspended solids, mg/L 45
NH3, mg/L 18
N03, mg/L 2.5
mg/L 0.03
The land treatment system as originally designed and con-
structed in the early 1960's, consisted of a spray irrigation
system. This practice was discontinued due to the high cost of
labor as two people were required full-time to operate the sys-
tem. In contrast, the border strip irrigation system requires
approximately one-half of a man-day per day. An additional rea-
son is that the spray system was operated at 1,277 kPa (175
psi) . This high pressure system utilized the two pumps which
are currently not in use and had high operational costs due
electrical usage, as well as potentially high maintenance costs.
The current irrigation system is operated 12 months of the
year for eight hours per day during the day shift. During this
shift wastewater flows directly from the treatment plant to the
distribution box. At the distribution box the flow is mixed
with wastewater from the oxidation pond by way of the wet well
and storage tank. The oxidation pond is filled by gravity flow
during the second and third shifts of the day. In addition,
waste activated sludge is discharged with the effluent during
the eight-hour day shift directly to the field. During the re-
maining 16 hours, sludge is wasted directly to the oxidation
pond. Therefore, some of this sludge is mixed with the effluent
water that is pumped to the field during the day shift. In sum-
mary, the irrigation proceeds at a rate equivalent to three times
the average daily flow rate of the treatment plant for eight
hours per day.
204
-------
Since minimal storage capacity exists, the system is operat-
ed daily and utilizes all of the wastewater generated in the
previous 24-hour period. During summer operation, each field is
typically irrigated at 10-to 14-day intervals, whereas in cooler
and wetter weather, each field is irrigated at a three-day in-
terval.
There have been no major operational problems with the border
strip irrigation system. The only operational problem has in-
volved squirrels and gophers which have dug holes into the oxi-
dation ponds and caused occasional unplanned releases of wastewa-
ter to the fields. In terms of operations, all irrigation of
City-owned land is done by City of Manteca personnel, a task
which requires approximately four hours per day. The farming
operations, however, are conducted by the private farmer. On
the separate plot of land owned by the farmer, both irrigation
and farming are handled by the farmer.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The overall plant maintenance at the Manteca Wastewater
Quality Control Facilities is very good, and there is a good
preventive maintenance program in force. The simplicity of the
land treatment system minimizes the need for much maintenance.
All of the equipment associated with the land treatment system
is used frequently, is operational, and is therefore adequately
maintained. No major maintenance problems were reported for the
land treatment system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $331,986 was spent during fiscal year 1979-1980
on preapplication treatment and land application. Of this to-
tal, approximately 9 percent, or $28,860, was associated with
land treatment expenditures. The major expense was personnel at
$15,624. Electricity and utilities were $8,462, and insurance
was $4,775.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Due to their location in some of the fields, it was diffi-
cult to gain access to various valves and structures. There-
fore, attempts should be made to place distribution valves and
structures in more easily accessible areas, and have an arrange-
ment which permits easy operator access.
205
-------
EL DORADO HILLS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 015)
EL DORADO HILLS, CALIFORNIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
El Dorado Hills, California is located in central California
approximately 48.3 km (30 mi) west of Sacramento (Figure A-43).
The wastewater preapplication treatment facility is owned and
operated by the El Dorado Irrigation District in Placerville,
California. The land treatment system is operated by a nearby
golf course. The facility was visited on May 2, 1980.
El Dorado Hills, California has a seasonal climate with a
yearly average temperature of 13.1°C (55.5°F). The yearly
average precipitation is 1.01 m (39.79 in). The estimated annu-
al Class A pan evaporation is 1.65 m (65 in).
The El Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant produces a
secondary treated effluent utilizing primary sedimentation,
trickling filtration, chlorination, and a final oxidation pond
step (Figure A-44). Land application consists of spray irri-
gation on the nearby El Dorado Hills Golf Club. An additional
use of wastewater is spraying logs prior to their use to prevent
the logs from discoloring.
The El Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant is designed
to handle 0.033 n\3/s (0.75 mgd) of wastewater. Current flow
at the plant has been 0.020 m3/s (0.45 mgd) of which 100 per-
cent is of domestic origin. The treatment plant has been in op-
eration for approximately 19 years. The spray irrigation at the
golf course commenced approximately five years ago during the
drought of the mid-1970's.
At the time of the site visit the land treatment system was
not in use because it was being upgraded, as was the preapplica-
tion treatment facility. Plant upgrading consists of adding
grit removal, preaeration, effluent storage, and both low- and
high-head effluent pumping. The facility is located in a basi-
cally agricultural area.
206
-------
CALIFORNIA
Land Treatment
Area v
Preapplication Treatment
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-43. Location map of El Dorado Hills wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, California.
207
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
/Vastewatef
Rarminiitnr
Primary
Clarifier
Sludgel
hn
Trickling
Filter
Anaerobic
Digestion
I
Land
Application
of Sludge
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Land Treatment System
Secondary
Clarifier
Sludge
i
Chlorination
Golf Course Spray Irrigation
Wood Pile
Wetting
Figure A-44.
Process flow diagram of El Dorado Hills wastewater
treatment plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, Califor-
nia.
208
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Effluent to the El Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant
is first subjected to a barminutor with a by-pass bar screen.
Following preliminary treatment, the wastewater flows to one
rectangular primary clarifier. From the primary clarifier
wastewater flows to a rotary arm high-rate trickling filter fol-
lowed by one secondary clarifier. Primary and secondary sludge
(trickling filter humus) is pumped to one single-stage anaerobic
digester, following which the sludge goes to sand drying beds
for dewatering, and is eventually land applied. The secondary
clarifier effluent is chlorinated and flows to four oxidation
ponds in series.
Three of the oxidation ponds cover approximately 0.40 ha (1
acre) each, whereas the fourth pond covers an area of 0.13 ha
(0.33 acre). The ponds are 1.5 m (5 ft) deep and contain a to-
tal volume of 20,540 m-* (5.4 mil gal). Approximately 7.2 days
of storage is afforded by the oxidation ponds at the design flow
rate. In addition, facilities for surface discharge to Carson
Creek exist. The land treatment system consists of spray irri-
gation at the El Dorado Hills Country Club which is an approxi-
mately 9.1-ha (20 acre) golf course. It is located approximate-
ly 1.6 km (1 mi) northeast of the treatment plant (Figure A-45).
The soils in the vicinity of the golf course are a mixture of
loam and silt. There are no groundwater monitoring wells in or
around the golf course, and obviously there is no buffer zone
nor is site access controlled. Under typical operations no site
runoff would be generated.
Approximately 50 percent of the wastewater treated at the El
Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant is utilized by the Gold-
en State Building Products Wood Veneer Plant where the wastewa-
ter is sprayed on wood logs. By keeping the logs wet, the wood
does not blue (discolor) and therefore retains a higher economic
value. The wastewater at this site is sprayed on the logs, and
a certain amount percolates into the groundwater although runoff
is collected and reapplied.
Presently, the only storage is that afforded by the oxida-
tion ponds. However, the addition of a 60,566 m3 (16 mil gal)
holding tank will provide a detention time of 21.3 days at the
design flow.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
During the site visit the facility operations were altered
from normal conditions due to the construction and upgrading at
209
-------
El Dorado
Hills Golf
Course
El Dorado
Hills Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Not to Scale
Golden State
Building Products
Figure A-45. Facility layout of El Dorado Hills wastewater
treatment plant (# 015), El Dorado Hills, Califor-
nia.
210
-------
the facility. Based on analytical data from calendar year 1979,
the plant meets secondary treatment requirements by producing
an effluent with average BODg and suspended solids of 7.8 and
12.5 mg/L, respectively. The geometric mean of the total coli-
forms is less than 3.4 counts per 100 ml.
The land treatment portion of the system was not operation-
al during our visit due to the upgrading activities. The system
was initiated in 1975 at the height of the drought, and was de-
signed and constructed in a hurry. Various operational prob-
lems were subsequently encountered by operating personnel at the
golf course. One problem was that their sprinklers were getting
clogged with small minnows (small fish put in the lagoons to
control mosquitos). A second minor problem involved the slight
odors that were occasionally present. To alleviate problems
with the fish, screening provisions have been made in the new
pump station to minimize the problem of sprinkler head clogging.
In terms of contractual agreement, the El Dorado Hills Coun-
try Club currently pays $100 per month, plus $0.03 per m3
($0.87 per 100 ft3). The Golden State Building Products Com-
pany pays $100 per month, plus $0.018 per m3 ($0.50 per 1,000
ft3). Although the golf course is currently not purchasing
any water, plans call for all wastewater to be reclaimed start-
ing in 1981 after completion of the upgrading at the El Dorado
Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
At the time of the site visit the treatment plant was under-
going major construction, therefore it would be hard to assess
the maintenance practices at the facility. In addition, equip-
ment at the golf course was also not inspected as it was cur-
rently nonoperational. In terms of maintenance, the problem of
sprinkler clogging due to fish and other debris has already been
discussed.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The costs of the El Dorado Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant
operation and maintenance were not available from the El Dorado
Irrigation District as the budgets for the various treatment
plants are lumped together. Regardless, the land application
system was not operational, and therefore, no costs would have
been available.
211
-------
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The following design deficiencies were noted during the
plant visit. The first one is the problem of minnows and algae
which caused sprinkler clogging and should have been taken care
of with some sort of prescreening. The second design deficiency
was that the original pump did not have sufficient capacity to
meet the required peak loads of the golf course. These peak
loads were both hourly and seasonal.
All of these design deficiencies have been adequately ad-
dressed in the design of the new treatment facility pumping sta-
tion. Hopefully, enough was learned by the previous errors to
minimize future problems.
212
-------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WATERWAYS
EXPERIMENTAL STATION OVERLAND FLOW SITE (# 016)
UTICA, MISSISSIPPI
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Town of Utica, Mississippi is located approximately 39
km (24 mi) southeast of Vicksburg, Mississippi (Figure A-46).
Utica is a town of approximately 1,000 people. In 1975, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experimental Station
(WES) established an overland flow field installation at Utica.
The facility was established for research purposes, and the re-
search was supported jointly by the Corps of Engineers and the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. At the time of the visit
on May 12, 1980 the facility had been shut down for approximate-
ly three months as the research had concluded. As there are so
few overland flow sites in the United States, the facility was
visited although it was not operational.
The climate of Utica, Mississippi is mild, with yearly aver-
age temperatures of 18.8OC (65.8°F). The average annual
precipitation for the area is 1.31 m (51.47 in). The mean annu-
al Class A pan evaporation is estimated to be 1.52 m (60 in).
Wastewater at the Utica overland flow site is pretreated in
two oxidation ponds. Approximately 33 percent of the oxidation
pond effluent is then pumped to the overland flow site (Figure
A-47). The overland flow site consists of 24 individual fields
constructed on slopes of 2, 4, and 8 percent with eight plots on
each slope. Influent to the oxidation ponds averages 254 m^/
day (67,000 gpd). Of this total, it is estimated that approxi-
mately 76 mVday (20,000 gpd) was treated at the overland flow
site. The wastewater was 100 percent domestically generated.
The preapplication treatment has been in operation for ap-
proximately 15 years. The land treatment system had been in op-
eration for four years when it was shut down in early 1980. The
facility is located in a basically agricultural area. There are
no future plans for this facility, and the land, which was
213
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-46. Location map of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experimental Station overland flow field
installation (# 016), Utica, Mississippi.
214
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Oxidation
Pond
Land Treatment System
Nutrient
Overland Flow Plots
(Reed Canary, Tall Fescue,
Perennial Rye, and Common Bermuda Grass)
Chlorination
I
Surf ace-
Water
Discharge
Figure A-47. Process flow diagram of U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers Waterways Experimental Station overland flow
field installation (# 016), Utica, Mississippi.
215
-------
leased from a local farmer, is going to be regraded and returned
to its natural slope, with all of the equipment removed.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The preapplication treatment oxidation ponds cover a total
area of 2.4 ha (6 acres) and are approximately 1.5 m (5 ft)
deep. There is a total capacity of 37,000 m^ (9.8 mil gal).
Based on the current flow rate, a detention time of approximate-
ly 146 days is afforded by the oxidation ponds. The overland
flow facility consists of 24 plots each measuring 4.6 m (15 ft)
by 46 m (150 ft), constructed on slopes of 2, 4 and 8 percent
with eight plots on each slope (Figure A-48). Each plot was
seeded with a 5:2:2:1 mixture of four grass species: reed ca-
nary, Kentucky 31 tall fescue, perennial rye grass, and common
Bermuda grass. The plots were seeded at three times the recom-
mended agricultural rate to insure dense grass cover. The soil
beneath the site is a silty clay loam.
Wastewater was pumped from the oxidation ponds to the over-
land flow site utilizing one 3.7-kw (5 hp) pump. The wastewater
was delivered to a wet well, from which point individual plots
were irrigated utilizing 0.75-kw (1 hp) pumps. Wastewater ap-
plication was controlled by a time clock connected to a solenoid
valve in series with a flow regulator device. The wastewater
was then pumped to a trough constructed of rain gutter. Holes
in the bottom of the trough were used to distribute the wastewa-
ter across the plot.
Runoff was collected at the far end of the plot in a sump,
and pumped through a water meter to measure the volume of runoff
from the plot. Samples were taken periodically to determine wa-
ter quality.
No groundwater monitoring wells were installed in conjunc-
tion with the facility. In terms of a buffer zone, the nearest
house was approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mi). Off-site stormwater
runoff could not flow onto the site due to the slope of the
land. Stormwater generated inside the overland flow plots
would be discharged with the process water. Public access is
permitted to the land application site, but is controlled by a
sign.
Pond effluent was lower in nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy
metals than typical wastewater across the country. Therefore,
nutrient addition as ammonium chloride, and di-ammonium phos-
phate and heavy metals as chlorides were injected into the oxi-
dation pond effluent prior to irrigation. In this way, the to-
tal nitrogen was increased to 20 mg/L, total phosphorus to 10
mg/L, and various metals were also elevated.
216
-------
K)
(—'
-J
C
>-(
fD
>
I
i£>
00
H- S >TJ
3 0) OJ
cn rt o
rt fD H-
M C H-
H 0) rt
rt cn
H- H
O M OJ
D X •<
T3 O
-^ fD C
=«= n rt
H-
030
I-1 fD Hi
— rt C
G
rt C/)
H- rt >
O Q) 1-1
0) rt 3
- H-><
O
S 3 O
H- O
to O n
W < fQ
H- fD en
en 1-1
en M o
H- to HI
13 3
13 a td
I-1 H-
O D
C fD
0)
Hi 1-1
H- cn
fD
H
a
Laboratory-Office Storage
2% Slope
_£
1_
_L
C
V
_J.
0
CD
o7
I
i_
-=£-
T=-
-------
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment was effective in substantially
reducing the loading on the overland flow facility. The 8005
and suspended solids averaged only 22 and 35 mg/L during the
study. pH varied from 7 to 11, with an average pH of 9.
In terms of the overland flow application, effluent to each
plot was automatically controlled to apply a predetermined
amount of wastewater over a predetermined time period. A flow
regulator was adjusted to apply from 12.7 to 50.8 mm (0.5 to 2
in) of wastewater per day. The application period was set by
opening and closing an electrically-timed solenoid valve. Ap-
plication periods of 6, 18, or 24 hours per day, five or seven
days per week were evaluated. Therefore, all of the land appli-
cation was on a schedule due to the research nature of the proj-
ect.
The grasses were harvested three times per year in spring,
early summer, and early fall. Various parameters such as nutri-
ent and metals levels were tested, then the grasses were dis-
carded. The following operational problems were noted:
1. Orifices of the solenoid valves were only 19 mm
(0.75 in), and were subject to plugging.
2. Water meters which were used to measure plot
effluent typically plugged.
3. The gutter distribution system plugged at the
outlets.
One full-time operator was involved with facility operation
and maintenance.
Based on the preapplication effluent quality (after nutrient
addition), the following range of loading rates have been calcu-
lated:
Hydraulic 3.3 to 13.2 m/yr
63.5 to 254 mm/yr
Organic 87.6 to 349 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 139 to 555 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 55 to 222 kg NH3-N/ha/yr
39.3 to 158 kg T-P/ha/yr
218
-------
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
At the time of the visit, the facility was not operational;
therefore, it would be hard to assess maintenance practices.
However, the problems with the solenoid valves, and water meter
and gutter distribution plugging were the kinds of maintenance
problems with which the facility had to contend.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Due to the research nature of the project, it was deemed in-
appropriate to collect operation and maintenance costs as they
would reflect the research nature of the project.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Three design deficiencies were previously noted: plugging
of solenoids, distribution piping, and water meters.
219
-------
FALKNER WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY (# 017)
FALKNER, MISSISSIPPI
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Falkner, Mississippi is located in the north-
central portion of Mississippi, approximately 121 km (75 mi)
southeast of Memphis, Tennessee (Figure A-49). The Falkner
wastewater treatment and land treatment facilities are owned and
operated by the City of Falkner. The facility was visited on
May 13, 1980.
The climate in the Falkner area is characterized by rela-
tively mild winters and hot, humid summers. The yearly average
temperature in the area is 15.9°C (60.7°F). The yearly av-
erage precipitation is 1.38 m (54.31 in), and the mean annual
Class A pan evaporation is 1.40 m (55 in).
The preapplication treatment at the Falkner Wastewater
Treatment Facility consists of an oxidation pond. Wastewater
from the oxidation pond is then chlorinated and sprayed on one
of three overland flow fields (Figure A-50). The effluent from
the fields then flows to Muddy Creek. The Falkner Wastewater
Treatment Facility was designed to handle 132 m3/day (35,000
gpd). There is no influent flow meter at the facility, how-
ever, current flows are estimated to be 106 m3/day (28,000
gpd). The Falkner treatment facility receives no industrial
flow; all flow is either domestic or commercially generated.
The preapplication treatment and land application system have
been operational for three years.
The entire treatment facility is located in an agricultural
area with some residences in the area. There are no future
plans for changes or modifications to the facility.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater from the City of Falkner flows from a sanitary
sewer collection system into a lift station, and is pumped
directly to the oxidation pond. The pond influent enters
220
-------
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Figure A-49. Location map of Falkner wastewater treatment
facility (# 017), Falkner, Mississippi.
221
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Oxidation
Pond
Land Treatment System
Chlorination
Overland Flow Plots
(JAM Wintergreen, Coastal Bermuda,
Tall Fescue, Common Bermuda)
To Muddy
Creek
Figure A-50. Process flow diagram of Falkner wastewater treat-
ment facility (# 017), Falkner, Mississippi.
222
-------
through a standpipe. The pond covers an area of 0.82 ha (2.03
acres), and the maximum operating depth is 2.1 m (7 ft). At
this depth the pond will hold 17,390 m3 (4.6 mil gal). The
pond is unlined and has a design detention time of 131 days.
The wastewater overflows a variable level weir in the oxida-
tion pond and enters the chlorine contact tank. The contact
tank is excavated out of the existing soil and utilizes bulk-
heads made of creosote-soaked wood as baffles. A gaseous chlor-
ine eductor system is utilized to supply chlorine from two
68.2-kg (150 Ib) cylinders.
Following chlorination the wastewater is pumped to the over-
land flow fields by two vertical shaft centrifugal nonclog
pumps, 3.73-kw (5 hp), rated at 589 m3/day (108 gpm). The
pumps are mounted on a platform at the end of the chlorine con-
tact tank and are level controlled.
All of the preapplication treatment effluent is applied to
the overland flow fields. The fields consist of a 1.06-ha (2.62
acres) area separated between sections by earthen berms (Figure
A-51). Two of the three fields have six sprinklers, whereas the
third field has five. The 17 sprinklers are Rainbird Model 31
Rotary pop-up sprinklers with adjustable nozzles. The sprin-
klers are actuated whenever the system is pressurized. The
fields themselves are approximately 104 m (340 ft) long by 33.5
m (110 ft) wide. The plots are valved so that one field can be
sprayed at a time, if desired. The system is designed to spray
17.8 mm (0.7 in) of wastewater per day at the design flow.
The fields have a slope of 2 to 5 percent toward the tailwa-
ter collection ditch. The tailwater that is collected then
flows by gravity through a weir and out to Muddy Creek. Three
different vegetative combinations are used on each of the spray
fields. The first field has a mixture of TAM Wintergreen Hard-
ing grass and coastal Bermuda grass. The second plot has reed
canary grass mixed with common Bermuda, and the third plot has
Kentucky 31 tall fescue and coastal Bermuda grass. The soil at
the site is a silty clay loam.
Although there are no storage ponds at the facility, the
variable depth allowed by the oxidation ponds affords consider-
able storage volume. Assuming a minimum depth of 2 feet of wa-
ter in the pond, the maximum storage possible is 12,520 m3
(3.31 mil gal), or 91 days at design flow. There are no ground-
water monitoring wells on-site. There is no buffer zone on one
side of the spray fields as the wastewater is applied almost to
the boundary line of the facility.
223
-------
\ \ Railroad Tracks
^\
Farm
1 1 1 —
Field , 1
Sprinkler .
Heads
_.^M
Weir:
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
, i i i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
r
V
\
Farm
1
oc
§
<
K
;
> i ^^
Influent
Q Standpipe
Oxidation Pond
I Cla Room
1 Control
| Building
1,
^-^
-—a
N
r— 1 Pumps
\- — )
( '
( ,
•
Muddy Creek
—r
Not to Scale
Figure A-51. Facility layout of Falkner wastewater treatment
facility (# 017), Falkner, Mississippi.
224
-------
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Due to the simplicity of the oxidation pond, its operation
has little impact on the operation of the overland flow system.
There are no analytical data available on the effluent quality
from the oxidation ponds.
The overland flow system is operated year-round although
measurable runoff generally occurs only from January through
April. The typical operating sequence during the winter months
is to spray for one day and to wait five days before spraying
the particular field again. In the summer, due to evaporation
and percolation from the oxidation pond, it may not be neces-
sary to operate the spray fields for several days at a time.
Therefore, during the summer months the operational system more
closely resembles a slow-rate system than a overland flow sys-
tem. The superintendent usually works the spray system in a
manual mode, and therefore overrides the' level controller.
All of the operational work at the facility is performed by
the superintendent. This includes cutting the grass and main-
taining the facility. Less than 50 percent of his time is spent
at the wastewater treatment facility. Based on the results of
the four samples taken between January and April 1980 the fol-
lowing overland flow effluent characteristics were obtained:
BOD5, mg/L 12
Suspended solids, mg/L 20
TKN, mg/L 2.9
Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 8.7
Fecal coliforms, no/100 ml 1,750
The operator reported minimal operating headaches and only
occasional sprinkler clogging. The operator did say, however,
that he thought the system should be designed so that there
would not be any runoff during any part of the year, showing his
misunderstanding of the overland flow system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The facility maintenance at the treatment plant appeared
good; all maintenance is performed by the superintendent. Main-
tenance includes mowing the grass both in the spray fields and
around the oxidation pond. Grass collected from the spray
fields is used in erosion control projects.
225
-------
Two maintenance problems were reported. First, the tailwa-
ter collection ditch, which is located at the base of the oxida-
tion pond and is usually wet, is a tough area to mow. Second,
settlement of the spray fields has caused ponding areas.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
For calendar year 1979, a total of $4,331 was spent on oper-
ation and maintenance of the facility. Of this total, approxi-
mately 51 percent was spend on the land application system. The
breakdown for the funds expended for land application are as
follows:
Personnel $1,665
Materials and supplies 72
Fuels and electricity 100
Maintenance and repairs 378
Total $2,215
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The first design deficiency noted was that the slopes around
the oxidation pond were too steep to allow mowing and easy ac-
cess. The second deficiency was that off-site runoff from an
adjacent farmer's field enters the treatment plant site and runs
off with the overland flow effluent, and is a potential source
of the excessive coliforms in the wastewater.
An additional design deficiency involves the placement of
the tailwater collection and disposal channels which are run be-
side the oxidation pond berm. Also, the weir section of the
collection system is not large enough, and the soil has eroded
around the concrete. During storm events the weir is not large
enough to measure the total flow.
Another problem is that the earth grading and compaction at
the time of construction was not sufficient to stop future set-
tlement. This settling has caused ponding problems in the spray
fields.
The final design deficiency involves the need for two efflu-
ent spray pumps. Due to the inherent stability of the oxidation
pond and the storage in the pond itself, there appears to be a
need for only one effluent spray pump.
226
-------
The need for any effluent pumping can be questioned due to
the relative hydraulics of the plant, and the fact that all
wastewater is pumped to the oxidation pond. It would appear
that a gravity distribution system could be utilized in the
field, utilizing gated pipes or the like. This would substan-
tially reduce the operating expense and the maintenance head-
aches associated with level-controlled pumps.
227
-------
EASLEY COMBINED UTILITIES SYSTEM
OVERLAND FLOW PROJECT (# 018)
EASLEY, SOUTH CAROLINA
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
GENERAL
Easley, South Carolina is located in the northwest portion
of South Carolina, approximately 16 km (10 mi) west of Green-
ville, South Carolina (Figure A-52). The City of Easley is
served by several wastewater treatment facilities, which are
owned and operated by the Easley Combined Utilities System,
among them the Golden Creek lagoon system. Several years back,
as part of a cooperative study with Clemson University, the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a project was be-
gun at the Golden Creek site to study the treatment of both raw
and oxidation pond-treated wastewater. The overland flow site
was visited on May 15, 1980.
Easley, South Carolina has a temperate climate. The average
yearly temperature is 15.4°C (59.8°F), and the average year-
ly precipitation is 1.32 m (51.9 in). The mean annual Class A
pan evaporation is 1.30 m (51 in).
Although there is no flow-measuring device at the Golden
Creek oxidation pond, the average daily flow is estimated to be
0.0044 m3/s (0.1 mgd). The majority of the flow is domestic;
however, one cotton mill is served by the system. The oxidation
pond has been in operation for 15 to 20 years, but the overland
flow project has only been in operation for two years. Prior to
the addition of the overland flow facility, there was a surface
discharge to Golden Creek. The overland flow system was designed
to handle 284 m3/day (75,000) gpd of oxidation pond effluent,
and 95 m3/day (25,000 gpd) of raw comminuted sewage based on
seven-day per week operation.
Future plans for the facility are uncertain due to the re-
search nature of the project, and since the state may require
nutrient removal prior to discharge into Golden Creek. The land
use adjacent to the overland flow site consists of both agricul-
tural and rural residential areas.
228
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
*tv-\7*^,Fy^ x-
'Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Figure A-52. Location map of Easley combined utilities system
Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018),
Easley, South Carolina.
229
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The Golden Creek oxidation pond is approximately 1.1 m (3.5
ft) deep, and covers an area of 3.6 ha (9 acres). Following the
approximately 90-day detention time in the pond, the wastewater
is pumped to the overland flow site by one of two 3.7-kw (5 hp)
centrifugal nonclog pumps (Figure A-53). The pumps supply ap-
proximately 0.008 m^/s (127 gpm) to the spray nozzles of the
effluent plots.
As the existing sewer to the Golden Creek oxidation pond
passed through the site of the overland flow system, a split-
ting box was built into the line, and the raw sewage could ei-
ther be diverted to the overland flow system, or pass directly
to the pond (Figure A-54). Once diverted, the raw sewage passes
through a bar screen followed by a comminutor, and enters a wet
well. One level-controlled vertical shaft nonclog 5.6-kw (7.5
hp) centrifugal pump delivers 0.006 m-Vs (93.3 gpm) to the raw
overland flow plots.
A total of 17 plots are available at the Easley overland
flow site. Of these, three plots are utilized for raw, commi-
nuted wastewater, and 10 plots are for oxidation pond effluent.
The other four plots are spares to be utilized during times when
the oxidation pond plots are being dried prior to grass cutting.
The raw plots measure 33.5 m (110 ft) wide by 53.3 m (175 ft)
long. The oxidation pond plots, as well as the spare plots,
measure 30.5 m (100 ft) wide by 45.7 m (150 ft) long. All plots
are graded to a 4-percent slope. The total treatment area
available is 2.5 ha (6.1 acres). The pond effluent plots can be
automatically controlled by a timer connected to a series of
electrically-operated solenoid valves which automatically water
each plot.
All of the treated wastewater collected from the overland
flow plots is collected in earthen ditches, combined, and di-
verted to an effluent chlorination system. The system is level
actuated but is not flow proportional, and supplies gaseous
chlorine at a constant, specified rate. The wastewater then
flows through a flume with a continuous recorder, and out a
paved swale prior to discharge to a tributary of Golden Creek.
The 17 plots were planted with Kentucky 31 fescue and rye
grass. However, some native grasses have also developed. The
site is underlain by a sandy clay soil.
As the system was designed and is operated as a full-scale
research demonstration project, the loading rates are varied on
different plots. All of the raw plots were hydraulically load-
ed at 23.6 mm/day (0.93 in/day), five days per week correspond-
ing to 119 mm/wk (4.67 in/wk). Wastewater was applied for
230
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Bar Screen
and
Comminutor
Influent
Wastewater
Oxidation
Pond
Land Treatment System
Oxidation Pond
Overland Flow Plots
(Kentucky 31 Fescue)
Raw Sewage
Overland Flow Plots
(Kentucky 31 Fescue)
Chlorination
1
To
Golden
Creek
Figure A-53. Process flow diagram of Easley combined utilities
system Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018),
Easley, South Carolina.
231
-------
Raw Sewage /
Pump Station /
Raw
R1
Sewage
R2
Plots
R3
.
Oxidal
L1
i1
ion PC
L2
Spare
S2
nds E
L3
L 1
Plots
S3
Effluent
L4
S4
~~\
Plots
L5
L9
Oxidation
Effluent
L10
L6
•|i i, in
L7
Ponds
Plots
L8
Golden Creek
Oxidation Pond
Not to Scale
Figure A-54.
Facility layout of Easley combined utilities sys-
tem Golden Creek overland flow project (# 018) ,
Easley, South Carolina.
232
-------
six hours per day with an 18-hour rest period. The pond efflu-
ent plots were hydraulically loaded at 22.1 mm/day (0.87 in/day)
for five days per week corresponding to from 103 mm/wk (4.06
in/week) to 193 mm/wk (7.60 in/wk). The application time varied
from 5.5 hours per day to 8 hours per day. The four spare plots
typically were not used. The following table presents organic
and nutrient loadings:
Comminuted Raw Sewage Oxidation Pond Effluent
kg/ha/yrkg/ha/yr
BOD5 11,810 1,446-2,740
SS 10,982 3,098-5,871
T-P 172 64-121
TKN 1,718 220-420
NH3-N 944 43-81
N03-N 80 28-53
As the system was originally designed, both the raw and oxi-
dation pond wastewaters were to be sprayed onto the fields using
low pressure fan nozzles, elevated 1.2 m (4 ft), approximately
5.1 m (16.6 ft) apart. The nozzles sprayed onto a crushed stone
base (for erosion control and even distribution), and then onto
the grass plots. Although the system was successful for the ox-
idation pond effluent, plugging problems forced the system to be
abandoned in place of a different system. Two different methods
of raw wastewater application have proved successful. In the
first method, 0.15-m (6 in) PVC pipe with 51-mm (2 in) slots ap-
proximately 1.4 m (4.5 ft) apart is used to spread the water on
the crushed stone. In the second method, 25-mm (1 in) open-end-
ed PVC pipe is elevated 0.6 m (2 ft), and the water simply flows
out the end onto the crushed stone. The pipes are the same dis-
tance apart as the initial nozzles (5.1 m (16.6 ft)).
Aside from the storage available in the Golden Creek oxida-
tion pond (approximately 11,100 m3 (2.9 mil gal), there is no
additional storage. Five groundwater monitoring wells were in-
stalled in March 1980, however, no data were available at the
time of the visit.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The Golden Creek overland flow project is operated by the
Easley Combined Utilities System, with technical help and guid-
ance from Clemson University, Department of Environmental Sys-
tems Engineering.
233
-------
The operation of the facility is simplified by the rigorous
application program devised by the researchers at Clemson. In
addition, the timer-controlled solenoid valves simplify the ap-
plication schedule, especially since the oxidation pond effluent
pumps are tied into the timer system. When the raw wastewater
plots are to be irrigated, manual insertion and removal of a
slide gate in the diversion structure is required.
The superintendent of the Golden Creek project, therefore,
must only spend approximately four hours per day at the site.
An additional 12 hours per week of a maintenance man's time is
spent at the site, plus 12 hours per week for a summer employee
who is mainly concerned with groundskeeping.
An outside contractor is used to cut and bale the hay from
the plots. The hay is cut whenever it is about 0.46 m (18 in)
to 0.61 (24 in) high. The cost of each cutting and baling is
$200. The hay is currently used for construction site erosion
control as the state has yet to approve it for animal feed.
Typically, a three to four day dry-up time is allowed prior to
cutting the hay.
Following hay cutting and baling, an operational problem ex-
ists due to hay being washed down the slopes and into the col-
lection troughs. Once the hay reaches the chlorine contact
tank, it may be drawn up through the eductor system, causing
subsequent plugging. The frequency of plugging has been sub-
stantially reduced by installation of a screen prior to the con-
tact tank.
A second operational problem is due to line clogging in the
raw waste distribution system when the system is shut down. The
problem is due to cellulose and cotton mill waste fibers which
settle out and clog the line, necessitating line rodding. To
solve this problem, the raw lines are flushed out with pond wa-
ter whenever the system will be shut down for an extended period
of time. The various fibers in the water also form a mat on the
raw wastewater plots. This mat covers the first meter of the
plot but causes no operational problems.
At the time of the site visit, the system was not opera-
tional as it had been shut down for hay removal. Due to the an-
tecedent weather conditions, the grass was 0.9 m (36 in) high
when cut, and the equipment left a substantial amount of tall
grass on the field.
An additional operational problem is associated with the raw
sewage wet well. Due to the long detention time in the wet
234
-------
well, solids settle out, causing pump plugging and odor prob-
lems. The situation has been alleviated by using only the bot-
tom-sloped portion of the wet well, thereby decreasing the de-
tention time.
The quality of the influent to and effluent from the over-
land flow plots is as follows:
Effluent
from
Raw Oxidation Raw
Comminuted Pond Wastewater
Wastewater Effluent Plots
Effluent
from
Oxidation
Pond
Plots
6005, mg/L
SS, mg/L
T-P as P04, mg/L
Ortho-P as P04, mg/L
TKN, mg/L
NH3, mg/L
N03, mg/L
200
186
8.9
6.6
29.1
19.4
6.0
28
60
3.8
3.0
4.3
1.0
2.4
23
8
4.0
3.8
7.4
4.0
1.2
15
40
2.2
1.7
1.0
0.4
1.1
Based on Clemson University work (Abernathy, 1980) , the oxi-
dation pond overland flow plot quality was independent of appli-
cation rate for the rates studied, and the raw wastewater over-
land flow plot effluent was comparable to conventional secondary
treatment with respect to organic and solids removal, and better
than secondary with regard to nutrient removal. Interestingly,
the raw wastewater plots produced an effluent lower in suspended
solids than the oxidation pond plots (8 mg/L vs 40 mg/L), which
is believed due to the fact that the algae in the oxidation pond
effluent are difficult to remove because of their small size.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
General maintenance and housekeeping at the Golden Creek
overland flow project site was good. All normal maintenance is
done at the site by an Easley Combined Utilities System mainte-
nance man. Approximately%2 hours per week are spent at the
site. There are two major maintenance problems at the facility.
The first of these is the treated wastewater collection ditches.
The ditches are grass-lined to prevent erosion; however, the
ditches are difficult to mow as they are always wet, causing
rapid grass growth. Lining these channels with concrete was
recommended by the plant operator.
235
-------
A second maintenance problem has been the electrically-con-
trolled solenoid valves in the valve pits used to automatically
operate the oxidation pond plots. Owing to the damp environ-
ment, the solenoid valves have rusted, and therefore, failed.
This situation is being corrected by the installation of sealed
air-actuated valves.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total budget of $28,659 has been allocated for the period
12 November 1979 to 11 November 1980 (this operation and main-
tenance budget does not include costs incurred by Clemson Uni-
versity personnel). The cost breakdown includes:
Personnel $ 8,944
Fuel and electricity 2,200
Chemicals 1,440
Engineering services 3,000
Maintenance and repairs 3,995
Administration 6,000
Transportation 2,080
Land lease 1,000
Total $28,659
An additional $10,211 of previous year's carryover money is
being used for purchasing new air controlled valves, flow moni-
toring equipment, grass harvesting equipment, and a storage
shed.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Various design deficiencies exist at the Golden Creek over-
land flow site, many of which have been previously alluded to
including:
1. Comminuted raw wastewater plugging spray nozzles.
2. Solenoid valves rusting, causing need for replace-
ment.
3. Unlined treated water collection ditches.
236
-------
4. Constant rate chlorination application only.
5. Grass clogging of chlorine eductor system.
6. Raw wastewater wet well oversized.
Additional design deficiencies include:
1. In-ground electrical wire to solenoid valves
not placed in conduits.
2. In-ground PVC distribution piping connected to
galvanized steel risers which break off at the
PVC pipe when hit, necessitating digging up the
pipe.
3. Insufficient time to allow for proper grass
rooting prior to wastewater application.
The last design deficiency is important as wastewater which
is applied too soon will cause erosion and subsequent poor
wastewater distribution, causing poor treatment.
237
-------
TOWN OF WAREHAM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (# 019)
WAREHAM, MASSACHUSETTS
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Town of Wareham, Massachusetts is located in southeast
Massachusetts approximately 80 km (50 mi) southeast of Boston
(Figure A-55). The Town of Wareham owns and operates both the
wastewater treatment and rapid infiltration systems. The facil-
ity was visited on May 28, 1980.
The climate in the Wareham area is seasonal, with a yearly
average temperature of 11.1°C (51.9°F). The yearly average
precipitation is 1.0 m (39.77 in). The estimated yearly average
Class A pan evaporation is 0.86 m (34 in).
The Town of Wareham Water Pollution Control Facility achieves
secondary treatment by utilizing preliminary treatment followed
by an activated sludge system (Figure A-56). Biologically-
treated wastewater then flows to a rapid infiltration system
comprised of eight beds covering an area of 1.62 ha (4 acres).
The facility was designed to handle 0.079 m3/s (1.8 mgd).
Current flows to the facility are averaging 0.014 m^/s (0.32
mgd). The facility, therefore, is hydraulically loaded at 18
percent of its design hydraulic capacity. The plant receives
approximately 18.9 m3/day (5,000 gpd) of industrial waste from
a fastener manufacturer.
The entire collection system, preapplication treatment sys-
tem and rapid infiltration system, has been in operation for
eight years. The site is located in a residential area. Future
plans for the facility call for upgrading some of the preappli-
cation treatment equipment. This equipment, however, will not
materially affect the operation and maintenance of the land ap-
plication portion of the system.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
All wastewater arrives at the Wareham Water Pollution Con-
trol Facility by force main. As there are many pumping stations
in town, the wastewater typically is septic.
238
-------
'\: V.'E&'t Wareham '^Ss^
. -./,-<^x_^-.-- . .(sasa ~/-r;.~r*
.-/ • Portd>
reapplication and Land
Treatment Area
"
c
Scale: 1 mm = 25 rri<^op
Figure A-55. Location map of Town of Wareham water pollution
control facility (# 019), Wareham, Massachusetts,
239
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Bar -te» nrit
lnfluent ^ Screen ^ Chamber
Sludge
Beds
Land Treatment Syste
^M"ttt
Till
Aqawam
m
1111
Comminutor
and
Bar Screen
Aerobic
Digestion
N/
Hiver ^
Rapid Infiltration Basins
«•
^
^>
Aeration
Basins
I
Secondary
Clarifiers
I
Chlorination
I
Underdrained
Figure A-56. Process flow diagram of Town of Wareham water pol-
lution control facility (# 019), Wareham, Massa-
chusetts.
240
-------
Hydrogen peroxide has been used for odor control. However,
caustic is currently being added to the pump stations and the
preapplication treatment headworks. Preliminary treatment con-
sists of a hand-cleaned bar screen followed by an aerated grit
chamber with mechanical grit removal, a second hand-cleaned bar
screen, a comminutor, and a Parshall flume. There is no primary ,
treatment at the plant, and the wastewater next flows directly
into four aeration basins with fixed surface mechanical aera-
tors. The mixed liquor then flows to two secondary clarifiers.
From this point, the forward flow goes through a manhole where
chlorine is added. At this point the water proceeds to the land
treatment system. Sludge from the secondary clarifiers is ei-
ther recycled or wasted to an aerobic digester. After diges-
tion, sludge is pumped to sand drying beds, and then is land-
filled. Secondary clarifier skimmings are also pumped to sand
drying beds. Sand drying beds percolate is pumped back to the
plant. Septage wastes are accepted at the initial bar screen
facility in the preapplication treatment works.
The rapid infiltration system consists of eight percolation
beds (Figure A-57). The physical configuration is such that
each of two beds is piped together. The individual beds are
30.5 m by 67.1 m (100 ft by 220 ft) for a total area of 1.62 ha
(4.0 acres). Within each bed, wastewater is distributed by means
of a slotted flume made of plywood which lies on the base of the
basin. The flume is connected to an influent box which overflows
into the trough. The soil in the beds is sand.
Aside from any standing water in the beds, there are no ad-
ditional storage capabilities at these facilities, and flow that
comes into the plant displaces flow to the infiltration beds.
Based on the current flow rate at the plant, the following load-
ings are in effect:
Hydraulic 27.1 m/yr
2.1 m/wk
Organic 4,103 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 5,471 kg SS/ha/yr
There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of
the facility. There is no runoff from the rapid infiltration
beds. The entire site is fenced to control site access. A buf-
fer zone of 30.5 m (100 ft) as a minimum exists between the beds
and the neighboring properties.
241
-------
Effluent
X
s
V
Rapid Infiltration Beds
/
Pretreatment Works
Underdrains
Influent
Rapid Infiltration Beds
Underdralns
Rapid Infiltration Beds
Effluent
Not To Scale
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Aeration Tanks
Chlorination
Manhole
Final
Settling
Tanks
Control Building
Sludge
Digestion
Tank
Figure A-57. Facility layout of Town of Wareham water pollution
control facility (# 019) , Wareham, Massachusetts.
242
-------
All of the infiltration beds are underdrained with open
joint concrete pipe approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) below the surface
of the bed. The concrete pipe is surrounded by graded stone.
Four underdrain systems exist, one for each set of two beds.
The underdrains discharge to the Agawam River.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Due to the low hydraulic loading of the plant, the two
smaller aeration basins are not in service and only the two
larger basins are being used. In addition, only one of the two
final clarifiers is in service. Effluent quality from the fa-
cility is of secondary quality containing 15 mg/L 8005 and 20
mg/L SS.
The land treatment system is operated continuously 24 hours
per day, seven days per week. Typical operation consists of ap-
plying the chlorinated effluent to two basins continuously until
approximately 0.3 m (12 in) of standing water is in the bed.
Depending on the physical condition of the bed, this will usual-
ly take approximately one week as a minimum. After there is
standing water in the bed, the bed is taken off-line and another
bed is put in service.
Typically, it takes approximately three weeks for the water
to infiltrate and the bed to dry completely prior to additional
applications of water.
Only one operational problem was noted during the visit. The
underdrain system is located below the high tide level of the
Agawam River, and during various parts of the tide cycle, efflu-
ent samples from the rapid infiltration bed underdrains cannot
be collected.
Limited staffing is required to operate the infiltration
beds. Slightly over one hour per day is necessary for opera-
tion of the system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The overall plant maintenance appeared good, and there were
no apparent maintenance problems. As opposed to other rapid in-
filtration systems, the Wareham facility does little in the way
of working the beds. In fact, of the eight beds, four were just
recently cleaned. The cleaning consisted of using a bulldozer
to remove the first 0.15 m (6 in) of sand. Provisions are cur-
rently being made to do the same with the other four beds as
they have some sludge deposits at the surface. Following the
cleaning operation, the beds operate much better. The only other
243
-------
maintenance performed on the beds was done a few years ago when
the beds were raked, but none of the sand was ever removed.
In the eight years the facility has been in operation, the
plywood flumes used for distributing the wastewater have never
been repaired. During the site visit, the Town of Wareham was
in the process of refurbishing some of the plywood flumes which
were falling apart.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $138,000 was spent in fiscal year 1979-1980 for
operation and maintenance at the Wareham Water Pollution Control
Facility, with approximately 50 percent of this money being
spent on labor. The land treatment portion of the budget was
estimated to cost only $1,380 in salaries.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Only one design deficiency was noted during the visit. This
involved improper location of the outfalls in terms of the tidal
cycle of the Agawam River.
244
-------
CHATHAM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (f 020)
CHATHAM, MASSACHUSETTS
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
Chatham, Massachusetts is located in the southeastern por-
tion of Cape Cod on the Atlantic Ocean (Figure A-58). Both the
wastewater preapplication treatment facility and the land treat-
ment facility are owned and operated by the Town of Chatham. The
facility was visited on May 29, 1980.
The Chatham area has a seasonal climate, with a yearly aver-
age temperature of 9.7°C (49.4°F). The average annual pre-
cipitation is 1.1 m (43.35 in), whereas the mean annual Class A
pan evaporation is 0.81 m (32 in). Due to the sea breezes in
the area, it is somewhat cooler than the mainland during the
summer, and is a popular resort area as is the whole of Cape
Cod.
The preapplication treatment at Chatham consists of prelim-
inary treatment followed by activated sludge biological treat-
ment (Figure A-59). The effluent from the activated sludge
flows by gravity to one of four rapid infiltration beds. The
beds contain a total of 1.54 ha (3.8 acres).
The Chatham facilities were designed for a flow of 1,666
mVday (0.44 mgd). The current flows average 397 m^/day
(105,000 gpd) during the summer, and 208 m3/day (55,000 gpd)
during the winter months. Therefore, the plant is, at most,
loaded at only 24 percent of its design hydraulic loading. The
plant receives only domestic wastewater. However, tourists and
tourist-related industries also contribute to the system.
The Chatham wastewater treatment facilities have been in op-
eration for nine years. The land use adjacent to the plant is
basically rural residential. There are no future plans for mod-
ifications or changes at the Chatham facility.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
All wastewater is pumped to the treatment facilities. At
the plant the wastewater is subjected to preliminary treatment,
245
-------
M""^
vPf)' :.':=iip-^Wr '; rayior«\
i ',—' ati'J, r^nir'rJViv v . D—i S=>' TT^ISS^^
.*, !
^WJyk'j^; y° .''if; % Cd^'-t.v'
/'
L^ ;JPU ..x..,2 _
f,\\ Scale: 1 mm = 25m
^'fck /i in — o -f,nn
I IIII11 — c.^} III
(1 in = 2.100 tt)
Figure A-58. Location map of Chatham water pollution control
facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts.
246
-------
Preapplication Treatment
Septage
Influent ^
Wastewater
Screening
Coarse
Bar
Screen
— ^*
Cyclone
Degritting
Comminutor
Sludge
Drying Beds
(Storage)
Aerated
Septage
Holding
Tank
Fine
Bar
Screen
Aerobic
Digestion
^
^
O)
•a
to
1
Activated
Sludge
1
Secondary
Clarifiers
Land Treatment System
mtttti
Rapid Infiltration Basins
Figure A-59.
Process flow diagram of Chatham water pollution
control facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts.
247
-------
consisting of a coarse bar rack followed by a comminutor, fine
bar screen, and flow measurement utilizing a Parshall flume.
The wastewater then flows into an activated sludge unit. The
overflow from the two activated sludge basins flows to two sec-
ondary clarifiers. The effluent overflows the clarifiers into a
distribution manhole, ultimately flowing to one of four rapid
infiltration beds (Figure A-60) without chlorination.
Septage is also received at the facility. The septage is
first dumped through a bar screen into a holding tank, then pro-
ceeds through grit removal to aeration in a converted aeration
tank. After aeration, the septage is fed, at a controlled rate
of 5 percent of the forward flow, to the activated sludge basins.
Sludge from the secondary clarifiers flows to an aerobic di-
gester. Following digestion, sludge is pumped through a porta-
ble hose to one of the four rapid infiltration beds which is
currently being utilized as the sludge drying and storage area.
The beds are 54.9 m by 70.1 m (180 by 230 ft) each in size.
The total area covered by the beds is 1.54 ha (3.8 acres). The
wastewater distribution system consists of two diversion struc-
tures with control gates which can divert the wastewater to ei-
ther of two percolation beds. Within each one of the percola-
tion beds, there are two standpipes through which the wastewater
overflows and spreads out into the basin. A certain amount of
vegetation is currently growing in the beds. The rapid infil-
tration beds are constructed of natural sand. The berm walls are
approximately 1.8 m (6 ft) high. The side slopes of the beds
are covered with crushed stone for erosion protection. A ramp
is contained in each bed for equipment access.
The loading rate at the Chatham facility is as follows
(based on only one bed in operation):
Hydraulic 28.8 m/yr
(winter) 0.38 m/wk
(summer) 0.72 m/wk
Organic 5,616 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 4,405 kg SS/ha/yr
248
-------
Not to Scale
Figure A-60.
Facility layout of Chatham water pollution control
facility (# 020), Chatham, Massachusetts.
249
-------
There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of
the Chatham facility. Although access to the treatment plant is
controlled by means of a fence, access to the rapid infiltration
system is not controlled. There is no runoff from the facility.
A wooded buffer zone of 305 m (1,000 ft), as a minimum, is main-
tained from neighboring properties.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system has been modified in the
past few years by converting one of the activated sludge basins
to a septage preaeration facility. One of the activated sludge
basins is still empty owing to the low flows, and only one of
the secondary clarifiers is in operation. The facility in gen-
eral operates efficiently, as shown by the secondary effluent it
produces which has 19.5 and 15.3 mg/L BOD5 and suspended sol-
ids, respectively.
The operation of the land treatment system is simplified due
to the low flow received at the facility. For the past three
years, all effluent from the treatment facilities has been dis-
posed of in one rapid infiltration bed. Once a week the dis-
charge point in the bed is switched from one side to the other.
A second rapid infiltration bed is currently being utilized for
sludge dewatering and storage.
In terms of operation, there were no problems expressed, ex-
cept that the State of Massachusetts Water Quality Board is dis-
turbed by the weeds growing in1the beds and wants them removed.
Since there is a lack of plant personnel, however, the beds are
not being cleaned of weed growth. Of the total time spent at
the plant by the operating personnel, approximately three hours
per week are spent operating and maintaining the rapid infiltra-
tion beds.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The maintenance of the entire preapplication treatment sys-
tem appeared good. The rapid infiltration beds were adequately
maintained except for the weeds growing in them which should
have little or no detrimental effect on operations, especially
at the low flows the plant is currently receiving. Approximate-
ly two years ago, one of the infiltration beds was cleared of
weeds. As it cost the town approximately $1,200 in labor, and
the reason, or the need, for removing the weeds was not appar-
ent, it is currently not being done.
250
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $78,580 was spent during fiscal year 1979-1980
on facility operation and maintenance. Of this total, 3 per-
cent, or $2,115 was spent on land treatment, the expense being
associated with the labor required for the infiltration beds.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Only one design deficiency was noted during the plant visit
-- the infiltration beds are not fenced in to control public ac-
cess.
251
-------
TOWN OF BARNSTABLE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY (# 021)
HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Town of Barnstable is located in the southeast portion
of Massachusetts on Cape Cod (Figure A-61). The Town of Barn-
stable contains the Hyannis portion of Cape Cod. The wastewater
treatment and land application facilities are both owned and op-
erated by the Town of Barnstable. The site was visited on May
30, 1980.
The climate of the Barnstable area is seasonal with a yearly
average temperature of 11.1°C (51.9°F). Average annual pre-
cipitation is 1.0 m (39.77 in). The estimated mean annual Class
A pan evaporation is 0.86 m (34 in).
The Town of Barnstable Water Pollution Control Facility is
currently undergoing major upgrading and expansion. At the time
of the visit, the secondary treatment facility had just come on-
line. This report will only cover the system which has been in
operation for many years, however. The wastewater preapplica-
tion treatment facilities at the plant consist of preliminary
treatment followed by primary sedimentation. The primary treat-
ed wastewater then flows to one of six rapid infiltration beds
which cover a total area of 3.24 ha (8 acres) (Figure A-62).
With various modifications over the years, the plant is designed
to handle 0.044 m3/s (1 mgd). Due to the tourists and season-
al nature of the Cape Cod area, summer flows typically average
0.033 m3/s (0.75 mgd), whereas winter flows average 0.018
m3/s (0.40 mgd). The flow is basically domestic; however, it
includes wastewater generated by the many restaurants in the vi-
cinity of Barnstable. Septage is also received at the facility.
Wastewater has been treated at the site by the primary
treatment and rapid infiltration systems for approximately 45
years. The system has been enlarged and expanded several times
during this period. The current plans for the facility call for
upgrading the plant to secondary treatment, utilizing activated
252
-------
Figure A-61. Location map of Town of Barnstable water pollution
control facility (# 021), Hyannis, Massachusetts.
253
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Septage
Sand and
Rock Trap
Bar
Screen
Chlorination
Aerated
Storage
Influent
Wastewater
Prechlorination
Bar
Screen
Comminutor
I
Primary
Clarifiers
I
Sludge
Anaerobic
Digestion
I
Centrifuge
Land Treatment System
Rapid Infiltration
Beds
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Landfill
Figure A-62.
Process flow diagram of Town of Barnstable water
pollution control facility (# 021), Hyannis, Mas-
sachusetts.
254
-------
sludge followed by chlorination. The wastewater will then be
automatically controlled and applied to 49 rapid infiltration
beds which cover approximately 9.9 ha (24.5 acres).
The design flow for the upgraded wastewater treatment and land
application facility is 0.18 m-Vs (4.2 mgd). Land use adja-
cent to the land application facility is both residential and
commercial.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The preapplication treatment consists of preliminary treat-
ment followed by primary treatment. Wastewater from the Barn-
stable area is pumped to the treatment plant where it is pre-
chlorinated and goes through preliminary treatment consisting of
bar screens followed by comminution. The wastewater then flows
to two primary clarifiers, then to six rapid infiltration beds.
Sludge from the primary clarifier goes to a single-stage stand-
ard rate anaerobic digester (unheated). Sludge is then dewa-
tered in a centrifuge, further dewatered in a drying bed, and
ultimately disposed of in a landfill. Skimmings from the pri-
mary clarifier are taken to the sludge drying beds.
The land treatment system consists of 16 beds approximately
0.20 ha (1/2 acre) each for a total area of 3.24 ha (8 acres)
(Figure A-63). The beds receive water from the primary treat-
ment facilities by gravity flow. The beds are filled with sand,
some of it being natural. Over the years, some of the sand has
been removed and replaced by imported sand.
Wastewater is distributed within the beds by an inlet struc-
ture which is a concrete headwall encasing the pipe which dis-
charges to a pile of rocks used for erosion control. The aver-
age hydraulic application rate to the beds is 12.0 m/yr (39.3
ft/yr). Due to the variable application schedule for the bed
dosing, a weekly application rate cannot be calculated.
Aside from any storage inherent in the rapid infiltration
beds themselves, there is no storage. There are no groundwater
monitoring wells at the facility (nine groundwater monitoring
wells have been installed in conjunction with the new facili-
ties) . A minimum 30.5-m (100 ft) buffer zone surrounds the fa-
cility. Site access is controlled by a fence around the entire
site. There is no runoff from the infiltration beds as they are
bermed.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The operation of the preapplication treatment system is
fairly simple as it consists of preliminary and primary treat-
ment, and therefore, does not materially affect the operation of
255
-------
Not to Scale
New Construction
•m Ne'w SSg
*::j:j-:fl Rapid ::•:•:•:•
i:*xlnfiltration8:
Septage
Pretreatment
\*\ • \
\>>- Preliminary
Treatment
••\\
New Prirfiary and
Secondary
Old Rapid
Infiltration
3eds
Building and
Sludge Handling
Primary
Clarifiers and
AnaeroJjkJ Digester
Figure A-63.
Facility layout of Town of Barnstable water pollu-
tion control facility (# 021), Hyannis, Massachu-
setts.
256
-------
the land treatment system. The fact that septage is accepted at
the facility causes a major operational problem, however. This
is due to the fact that the large number of restaurants in the
Barnstable/Hyannis area pump not only septage waste, but also
grease trap wastes to the "honeywagons." When the waste reaches
the treatment plant it is screened, chlorinated, aerated, and
treated with polymers, prior to addition to the primary clari-
fiers. The majority of the grease passes through the primary
treatment facilities, however, and ends up in the rapid infil-
tration beds. In fact, the sand has been replaced several times
in the beds and grease has been shown to have penetrated 1.8 m
(6 ft) into the beds as shown by a test pit which was recently
excavated. Prior to 1975 and the addition of the septage treat-
ment facility, the primary effluent caused the expected opera-
tional problems in terms of surface plugging. This problem was
solved by means of scarifying the beds, as will be discussed
later. The problem of grease sealing the beds cannot be solved
by scarifying the beds, however.
Typical operation of the rapid infiltration beds consists of
dosing beds as required. This typically requires that two beds
be dosed continuously for one day prior to the wastewater being
applied to another bed. There is no strict schedule for decid-
ing which bed is utilized, and rotation is based on visual in-
spection. Of the total staff of five workers (not including the
plant superintendent), approximately 50 percent of their total
time is spent at the treatment plant. Of this time, approxi-
mately 20 percent is associated with operation and maintenance
of the rapid infiltration system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
At the time of the visit, the old primary facilities were
being taken out of service as the new secondary facilities were
being put on-line. Therefore, it is not possible to comment on
the overall maintenance of the treatment facilities.
Prior to 1975 and the acceptance of septage at the treat-
ment plant, maintenance of the infiltration beds consisted of
scarifying the beds following each wastewater application. The
scarifier was an 8-tooth device which was effective in breaking
up the top 0.2 m (8 in) of the bed. In addition, approximately
every 12 years the top 1.2 to 1.5 m (4 to 5 ft) of the bed would
be removed by a bulldozer and replaced with new sand. After
1975, even scarification of the beds was not enough to keep the
beds operational due to grease clogging. In conjunction with
the plant upgrading, an additional 33 beds were installed, and
257
-------
the 16 older beds were refurbished. These new beds which have
been used were also plugged by oil and grease, and provisions
are currently being made to clean the beds.
Operationally, it is hoped that addition of the secondary
treatment facilities will minimize the plugging problem. It
should be stressed that plant personnel have attempted to stop
the cartage of oil and grease with the septage. Due to local
board of health rules, however, they have been unsuccessful.
The treatment plant staff was of the opinion that, operational-
ly, primary effluent can be applied to rapid infiltration beds,
however, the oil and grease actually make the system unworkable.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
For fiscal year 1976, a total of $79,275 was spent on the
wastewater and land application systems. Of this expenditure,
approximately 21 percent or $17,025 was associated with land ap-
plication. The breakdown for the land application operation
and-maintenance is as follows:
Personnel $ 9,900
Maintenance and repairs 4,875
Equipment purchase 375
Vehicles and tractors 1,875
Total $17,025
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Plant operational personnel felt that there were basically
no design deficiencies aside from the oil and grease problem.
If the amount of oil and grease that would be received at the
facility had been anticipated in 1975, then provisions for their
removal from the septage could have been made. It is not known
whether the engineers anticipated such an oil and grease loading
at the time.
258
-------
KENDAL/CROSSLANDS LAGOON SYSTEM (# 022)
KENNETT SQUARE, PENNSYLVANIA
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System serves two retirement
communities in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania., Kennett Square is
located approximately 48.3 km (30 mi) southwest of Philadelphia
in the southeastern portion of Pennsylvania (Figure A-64). The
system is owned and operated by the Kendal/Crosslands Associa-
tion. The facility was visited on June 3, 1980.
The climate in the Kennett Square area is characterized by
seasonal temperatures and the annual average temperature is
11.9°C (53.4°F). The yearly average precipitation is 1.10 m
(43.13 in), whereas the mean annual Class A pan evaporation is
1.19 m (47 in).
The preapplication treatment system at the Kendal/Cross-
lands Lagoon System consists of an aerated pond, an oxidation
pond, and a polishing pond, all in series (Figure A-65). Pol-
ishing pond effluent is chlorinated and pumped to the spray ir-
rigation site. The slow-rate spray irrigation system consists
of 3.2 ha (8 acres) of wooded land. The system is composed of
14 separate spray lines in two different fields.
The Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon System serves two retirement
villages, namely, Kendal at Longwood, and Crosslands. The sys-
tem was designed to treat 284 m^/day (70,000 gpd). Current
flow is averaging 189 m3/day (50,000 gpd). As would be ex-
pected, 100 percent of the flow is domestic.
The facility has been in operation for seven years. Adja-
cent to the spray application site is the Kendal at Longwood re-
tirement community on one side, and wooded land on the other
sides. There are no plans for changes to the system in the fu-
ture.
259
-------
Figure A-64. Location map of Kendal/Crosslands lagoon system
(# 022), Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.
260
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Bar
Screen and
Comminutor
Aerated
Pond
Oxidation
Pond
Land Treatment System
Polishing
Pond
I
Chlorination
Spray Irrigation
of Forest
(Beech, Poplar,
Maple, Oaks)
Figure A-65. Process flow diagram of Kendal/Crosslands lagoon
system (# 022), Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.
261
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The preapplication treatment system consists of preliminary
treatment followed by biological treatment. Preliminary treat-
ment consists of a hand-cleaned bar screen followed by a commi-
nutor. The wastewater then flows directly into an aerated pond.
The aerated pond covers a surface area of 0.128 ha (0.30 acre),
is 4.0 m deep (13 ft), and contains 1,491 m3 (0.394 mil gal).
Aeration is provided by a 7.5-kw (10 hp) loading surface aera-
tor. In addition, a ring diffuser is placed at the bottom of
the pond to help maintain aerobic conditions. Wastewater next
flows by gravity to an oxidation pond. The oxidation pond cov-
ers 0.68 ha (1.69 acres), is 2.1 m (7 ft) deep, and has a volume
of 11,356 m3 (3.0 mil gal). From the oxidation pond, the
wastewater flows to a polishing pond. This pond covers 0.30 ha
(0.75 acre), is 2.4 m (8 ft) deep, and contains 2,336 m3
(0.617 mil gal). Both the oxidation and polishing ponds are
Bentonite clay lined. Wastewater overflows the polishing pond
into a wet-well structure. During spray irrigation, sodium hy-
pochlorite solution is injected into the discharge side of the
pump for disinfection purposes.
The wastewater is pumped utilizing one of two 7.5-kw (10 hp)
centrifugal pumps rated at 0.013 m3/s (200 gpm). The land
treatment system consists of two fields, each covering approxi-
mately 1.62 ha (4 acres) for a total area of 3.24 ha (8 acres).
The wastewater is distributed utilizing 67 sprinklers located in
14 separate spray lines (Figure A-66). Each sprinkler can cover
a 25.3-m (83 ft) diameter circle. The older spray field is de-
signed so that there are multiple drains per each spray line.
On the newer spray field, a single drain (located close to other
spray field drains) is used to drain the entire line.
The spray irrigation system was constructed in a stand of
native trees which consists of beech, maple, poplar, and oak. A
total of seven groundwater monitoring wells have been installed
in and around the two spray fields. The soils in the area of
the spray fields are basically silt and loam. There are no
storage facilities, however, storage is possible due to the var-
iable levels in the three ponds.
Based on the current flow rate (excluding evaporation loss-
es) , the following application rates exist for the spray
application field:
Hydraulic 2.1 m/yr
40.6 mm/wk
Organic 320 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 428 kg SS/ha/yr
262
-------
to
CTl
U)
C
n
^ bj
=*= 0)
O
O H-
to H
NJ H-
* ft"
(D QJ
D K:
D O
(D C
n- rt
rt
O
en MI
*Q
c «
cu CD
i-s D
0> Qi
O
D i-(
Z O
w en
"< en
M M
< 0)
0)
en
M
0)
iQ
O
O
3
cn
><
cn
rr
fD
3
Residential 5. j'\
Housing :'::::..
Area •:.:•"':
No. 1
No 2
No 7
No 4
No 3
No 9
No 10
No 11
Not to Scale
-------
Nutrient 219 kg NH3-N/ha/yr
149 kg P04-P/ha/yr
A minimum buffer zone of approximately 46 to 61 m (150 to
200 ft) is maintained between the spray application site and the
nearest residence. This area is grass and tree covered. All
stormwater runoff from the retirement community is diverted
around the spray irrigation site. Any stormwater generated at
the spray site would run off onto adjacent properties. Site ac-
cess to the older spray fields is controlled by a fence and
signs. Access is permitted in the vicinity of the new spray
fields, and, in fact, there are some nature trails in the area.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Under normal operating conditions, sufficient storage capac-
ity is available in the polishing and oxidation ponds in case of
inclement weather conditions. The biological treatment system
is effective in producing a secondary effluent of the following
quality:
BOD5, mg/L 15
Suspended solids, mg/L 20
pH 8.0
NH3-N, mg/L 10.5
P04-P, mg/L 7
Fecal coliforms, <3
no/100 ml
The current operating strategy for the spray irrigation plots
consists of utilizing four to six of the 14 spray plots daily,
evenly divided among the two fields. Water typically is sprayed
24 hours per day, five days per week. The plots in use are ro-
tated daily. Spray irrigation continues 12 months of the year.
However, water typically is not sprayed on any day on which the
temperature is lower than -6.?oc (2QOF). During winter op-
erations, the lines are quickly drained after usage to prevent
freezing.
In terms of operational problems, the old spray field with
its multiple drain points (scattered at various locations) caus-
es the operator a real headache under winter conditions. The new
field has only one drain per line and the drains for various
lines are located next to each other, making winter operation
much easier.
264
-------
During the plant visit it was noted that there appeared to
be a spring which was generated at the spray irrigation site.
This discharge appears to be excess spray water which had out-
cropped from the soil.
One operator spends approximately six hours per day, five
days per week in operating and maintaining the wastewater treat-
ment and spray irrigation facility. Of this total, two hours
per day is associated with the spray irrigation system.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
There is a minimum amount of mechanical equipment associ-
ated with the preapplication treatment system. Overall main-
tenance at the plant appeared adequate, however. There is one
maintenance problem associated with the valves used to turn var-
ious spray plots on and off. The box for these underground
valves is constructed of PVC pipe, and due to frost heaving, the
pipe is sometimes pushed up. Dirt then falls in from the bot-
tom, and a backhoe has to excavate, and remedy the situation.
An additional maintenance problem is due to the nibs from maple
trees which occasionally fall into the polishing pond and are
sucked up through the spray irrigation system, and jam in the
spray nozzles. The problem is easily fixed by turning the noz-
zle's rotating aperture around to the large size, and simply
blowing the piece out.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $15,000 was spent during calendar year 1978 for
operation and maintenance of the Kendal/Crosslands Lagoon Sys-
tem. Of this total, 37 percent or $4,070 was associated with
land application as follows:
Personnel $1,070
Fuel and electricity 2,200
Maintenance and repair 800
Total $4,070
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
There are two design deficiencies, both of which have been
previously alluded to. The first involves the fact that the ma-
ple tree nibs get into the system and plug the spray nozzles.
The second problem involves the valve boxes which are subject to
frost heaving requiring subsequent excavation to allow operation
of the valve.
265
-------
LANDIS SEWAGE AUTHORITY (# 023)
VINELAND, NEW JERSEY
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Vineland is located in southern New Jersey, ap-
proximately 56 km (35 mi) due south of Philadelphia, Pennsylvan-
ia (Figure A-67). The City of Vineland is served by two waste-
water treatment facilities. The older and smaller facility is
owned by the City of Vineland Water and Sewer Utility Authority,
whereas the newer and larger facility is owned by the Landis
Sewage Authority. The two plants are located almost adjacent to
each other. The larger Landis Sewage Authority plant was visit-
ed on June 5, 1980.
Vineland, New Jersey has a temperate climate. The yearly
average temperature is 12.2°C (54°F), whereas the yearly av-
erage precipitation is 1.0 m (40.1 in). The estimated yearly
Class A pan evaporation is 1.1 m (45 in).
The Landis Sewage Authority wastewater treatment facility
provides primary treatment to 0.18 m3/s (4.0 mgd). The flow
consists of 0.11 m^/s (2.4 mgd) of domestic waste, and 0.07
m^/s (1.6 mgd) of industrial wastewater. The industrial flow
is generated by food processing, canning, slaughterhouse, poul-
try, and glass industries, resulting in influent wastewater
which is higher in 8005 than typical domestic wastewater. The
system was originally designed to handle 0.31 m3/s (7 mgd).
Following primary treatment, wastewater next flows to a rapid
infiltration land treatment system (Figure A-68).
Both the treatment plant and the rapid infiltration system
have been in operation for approximately 30 years. The zoning
in and around the treatment facilities is industrial recycling,
as the plant abuts both a county sanitary landfill and the City
of Vineland Wastewater Treatment facilities.
Future plans call for expansion and upgrading of the facili-
ty. During expansion, pi?"*- capacity will be increased to
266
-------
NEW JERSEY
Preapplication and Lan
Treatment Area
N Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
in = 2.000 tt)
Figure A-67.
Location map of Landis Sewage Authority (# 023),
Vineland, New Jersey.
267
-------
Preapplication Treatment Systems
Influent
Wastewater
Mechanically
Cleaned
Bar Screen
Preaeration
Primary
Clarifiers
Stockpiling
t
Sludge
Drying
Beds
Purifax
Land Treatment System
East Rapid Infiltration
Basins
West Rapid Infiltration
Basins
Figure A-68,
Process flow diagram of Landis Sewage Authority
(# 023) , Vineland, New Jersey.
268
-------
0.35 m3/s (8 mgd). Upgrading of the facility will include in-
stallation of secondary treatment facilities, and abandonment of
the rapid infiltration system and replacement by a slow-rate
system. These changes have been mandated by the New Jersey De-
partment of Environmental Protection due to groundwater contami-
nation, primarily by nitrogen. Consideration is being given to
growing various crops using the slow-rate system, including typ-
ical row crops, but also hybrid poplars for pulp production, and
biomass production for conversion to ethanol.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater at the Landis Sewage Authority is screened, pumped
into a preaeration tank, settled in six primary clarifiers, and
then flows by gravity to a diversion structure. The diversion
structure is used to either divert wastewater directly to the
west infiltration beds, or pump it to the east infiltration beds.
The primary sludge is treated by chlorination (Purifax), and put
on sand drying beds. Sludge is currently stock-piled on-site.
The rapid infiltration beds are located both to the south-
west (west beds) and the northeast (east beds) of the treatment
facility (Figure A-69). The west beds were constructed in 1948,
and consist of 12 beds comprising a total area of approximately
14.2 ha (35 acres). The east beds were constructed in 1974, and
consist of six beds with a total area of 12.1 ha (30 acres).
Therefore, the total acreage of the infiltration beds is approx-
imately 26.3 ha (65 acres). The soils in the vicinity of the
plant are rapidly permeable, deep, well-drained, sandy soils.
The infiltration beds range in size from approximately 0.81
(2 acres) (west beds) to 2.4 ha (6 acres) (east beds) in size,
and are essentially flat. Two types of wastewater inlet struc-
tures are used. In the older beds, wastewater is distributed by
in-ground standpipes. In some of the beds, these standpipes are
located at the base of the basin berm and the water "bubbles"
up, and spreads throughout the bed, whereas in other beds, the
water bubbles out the standpipes at the top of the basin embank-
ment, and runs down the sidewall which is covered with crushed
rock to facilitate distribution and minimize erosion. In the
new beds, the wastewater distribution consists of a wheel-oper-
ated sluice gate built into a concrete headwall and splash plate
structure. All permanent piping at the facility is in-ground.
There is no allowance for wastewater storage (aside from the beds
themselves). There are three on-site monitoring wells. How-
ever, only the groundwater elevation is monitored.
269
-------
n
City of
Vineland
Rapid Infiltration
System
3 Sludge Storage
Monitoring
Well
Figure A-69. Facility layout of Landis Sewage Authority
(i 023), Vineland, New Jersey.
270
-------
Due to their later installation and the physical constraints
of the plant site, all wastewater must be pumped up to the east
beds. Two centrifugal trash pumps are utilized for this pur-
pose, each capable of pumping approximately 0.066 m3/s (1,070
gpm). One pump is typically run and rotated daily with the other
pump.
Due to a lack of analytical data, only the average hydraulic
loading rate can be calculated. Based on 0.18 m3/s (4.0 mgd)
and 26.3 ha (65 acres) of infiltration beds, 21.0 m (68.9 ft) of
water, is applied per year, corresponding to a yearly weekly av-
erage of 0.40 m/wk (1.3 ft/wk).
FACILITY OPERATIONS
Based on data presented by Koerner and Haws (1979), the
Landis Sewage Authority plant preapplication effluent on the av-
erage contains 149 and 41 mg/L 8005 and•suspended solids, re-
spectively.
The preapplication effluent is applied to the infiltration
beds 24 hours per day,' 365 days per year. Typically, one west
infiltration bed and one east infiltration bed are concurrently
in use. Therefore, the level-controlled effluent pumps cycle
continuously. The typical operation cycle for an infiltration
bed is to leave the bed in service until either 24 hours has
elapsed, or there is 0.15 m (6 in) of standing water.
Prior to 1974 and the installation of the east beds, waste-
water was applied to the beds continuously as opposed to the
current intermittent operation. As will be discussed in the
next section, the current method of intermittent bed operation
and maintenance has minimized operational problems. In terms of
operating strategy, beds are merely rotated on a more or less
rigorous schedule. Following the filling of a bed, it drains in
one to two days and is ready to be worked.
Currently, there are no operational problems associated with
the infiltration beds. However, previous problems were associ-
ated with bed plugging. This caused a variety of problems, in-
cluding a lack of sufficient capacity and odors. Although cur-
rent maintenance practices have minimized this problem, at the
time of the site visit a few of the older west beds were clogged.
These beds have had problems for years, and the Authority is in
the process of revitalizing these beds even though they are still
receiving flow. Several beds have recently been revitalized and
are currently operating again.
271
-------
A seven-man staff operates and maintains the treatment fa-
cility, the land application system, and the 15 pumping stations
in the collection system. Three men (laborers) are basically
involved full-time with operating, but primarily maintaining the
infiltration beds.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The preapplication treatment facility maintenance appeared
somewhat poor, but adequate. Considering the plant is 30 years
old and facility expansion and upgrading is planned, mainten-
ance was adequate. Maintenance for the land treatment portion
of the facility, especially the infiltration beds, was excel-
lent. The remainder of the equipment (i.e., pumps, valves, pip-
ing) was maintained adequately. The reason for the beds being
so well maintained is that, historically, poor maintenance of
the beds has severely affected plant operation due to bed clog-
ging.
Currently, following every cycle of wastewater application
to the beds the beds are reworked after they have dried com-
pletely. A tractor with a chisel plow first enters the bed and
breaks up the top 0.30 m (12 in). When approximately 50 percent
of the bed is chisel plowed, a second tractor with a spring-
tooth harrow enters, and causes additional mixing, but more im-
portantly levels the bed. Finally, a third tractor towing a
fence drag (a weighted-down piece of chain link fence) goes
through the bed and smooths and levels the surface so that the
water cannot pond. After sitting a day, the bed is ready to be
refilled. The entire bed revitalization process takes approxi-
mately two to three hours. Approximately once per year a front-
end loader on tracks is used to turn over approximately the top
0.9 m (3 ft) of the bed. This breaks up any deep accumulation
of "impermeables." For the older west beds that were experienc-
ing problems, this deep cleaning, followed by the normal clean-
ing process, has been effective in revitalizing the beds.
Although the current bed maintenance practice may be exces-
sive, the previous problems have caused the authority personnel
to be leery, and to try to stay ahead of the problem. Another
reason for such frequent working of the beds is due to a sticky
substance believed associated with a clam canning industrial
wastewater which is received by the plant.
272
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $332,000 was spent by the Landis Sewage Authority
on operation and maintenance of the facility. Of this, 30% or
$100,100 was spent on land application as follows:
Personnel $ 52,600
Materials and supplies 2,000
Fuel and electricity 12,500
Insurance 7,500
Engineering services 2,000
Communication 5,500
Maintenance and repairs 15,000
Equipment purchase 3, OOP
Total $100,100
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
According to the Landis Sewage Authority personnel, there
were no design deficiencies associated with the rapid infiltra-
tion system. Based on the simplicity of the system and the site
visit, this was confirmed by the site survey. The only poten-
tial design deficiency involved the need to pump to the newer
east beds. Possibly more judicious plant location in 1948 could
have eliminated the need for pumping as the influent wastewater
is pumped to the preaeration tanks.
273
-------
CAMPBELL SOUP (TEXAS), INC. (# 024)
PARIS, TEXAS
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Paris, Texas is located in northeast Texas,
close to the Oklahoma border and approximately 161 km (100 mi)
northeast of Dallas (Figure A-70). The overland flow treatment
system is owned and operated by Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc. The
facility was visited on June 9, 1980.
The climate in the Paris, Texas area is categorized by mild,
seasonal weather with an average annual temperature of 17.3°C
(63.1°F). The average annual rainfall is 1.15 m (45.17 in),
whereas the mean annual Class A pan evaporation is 1.91 m (75
in) .
The preapplication treatment system at Campbell Soup was de-
signed to be compatible with the overland flow system. " Preap-
plication treatment consists of oil and grease separation, and
screening prior to application to the overland flow site (Fig-
ure A-71). The entire overland flow site currently consists of
approximately 364 ha (900 acres). The plant has been upgraded
various times, and is currently designed to handle 0.228 m3/s
(5.2 mgd). Flow at the facility has been averaging 0.180 m3/s
(4.1 mgd) on a yearly average but 0.223 mVs (5.1 mgd) for the
five-day work week.
The facility has been in operation for 16 years treating the
industrial wastewater from Campbell Soup. It treats no sanitary
flow as sanitary wastewater enters the City of Paris municipal
facilities. The land use adjacent to the land treatment site
is commercial, industrial, and agricultural.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Of the various wastewater streams generated at the Campbell
Soup Plant in Paris, only the grease and vegetable wastewater
reaches the treatment facility. Inside the factory, two col-
lection systems separately collect the grease wastewater and the
274
-------
Production Facility and Overland Flow 7
Land Treatment Area
6^ '.•"^•"-••Wii-
>>V"K El Bethel j [ »"
. ««r* Ch-e *•••••
- --«=_i
Scale: 1 mm = 62.5 m
Figure A-70. Location map of Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
(# 024), Paris, Texas.
275
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Process
Wastewater
Land
Oil and'
Grease
Separation
Treatment System
Overland Flow Plots
(Reed Canary, Tall Fescue, Red Top,
and Perennial Rye Grasses)
Smith
Creek
Figure A-71. Process flow diagram of Campbell Soup (Texas),
Inc. (# 024), Paris, Texas.
276
-------
vegetable wastewater, which then flow by gravity to the preap-
plication treatment building. The grease wastewater travels
through an oil/water separator where it joins the vegetable
wastewater stream. The combined wastewater flows through rotat-
ing drum screens (No. 10 mesh) where the vegetable solids are
removed. The grease is rendered in kettles and sold to a local
rendering company, while the vegetable solids are hauled away
and processed for animal feed.
After screening, the wastewater flows by gravity to a 379
m3 (100,000 gal) wet well/surge tank. The wastewater is
pumped from the wet well utilizing six pumps: two newer 74.6-kw
(100 hp) pumps rated at 0.095 m3/s (1,500 gpm) and four older
56.0 kw (75 hp) pumps rated at 0.066 m3/s (1,050 gpm). All
six pumps are centrifugal nonclog and are level controlled.
The level controls of the pump system are tied in to an au-
tomatic controller which controls automatic valves at the later-
al sprinkler lines. The timer enables switching the fields af-
ter a fixed period of watering time. The wastewater is pumped
at 483 kPa (70 psi) to the 235 ha (581 acres) of overland flow
plots (Figure A-72). Each of the overland flow plots or ter-
races is approximately 76.2 m (250 ft) wide with the length var-
iable, depending on the parcel of land's physical constraints.
Sprinklers are located approximately one-quarter of the way down
the terrace. This allows the spray to cover approximately the
top half of the overland flow plot, and flow over the bottom
half of the plot. The terraces are sloped at 2 to 8%, with 6%
being the most favorable slope. Wastewater is distributed
through a series of underground force mains constructed out of
concrete pipe. Lateral lines consist of 0.10-m (4 in) aluminum
irrigation pipe which is laid on top of the ground in the oldest
fields. In the sections which were installed later, laterals
have been placed underground. Automatic valves are placed be-
tween the force main and the laterals, and the valves are air
operated. A network of air tubes lead back to the controller
which actuates the valves.
There is a total of 1,000 spray nozzles on the overland flow
site. The nozzles are approximately 24.4 m (80 ft) apart, and
each is capable of spraying 120 m3/day (22 gpm) with a nozzle
size of 7.9 mm (5/16 in).
The soil which underlies the spray irrigation overland flow
site is mostly gray clay loam underlain by a red clay subsoil.
A mixture of cool season grasses is planted on the plots. This
includes reed canary, tall fescue, red top, and perennial rye
grasses. There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the vi-
cinity of the Campbell Soup overland flow site.
277
-------
Limits of 364.2 ha
(900 acres)
Overland Flow Site
Preapplication
Treatment and
Pumping Building
Production
Facility
Area
Not to Scale
Figure A-72. Facility layout of Campbell Soup (Texas), Inc.
(# 024), Paris, Texas.
278
-------
Based on the influent quality, the following loading rates
have been calculated for the facility:
Hydraulic 2.1 m/yr
40.6 mm/wk
Organic 12,790 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 5,595 kg SS/ha/yr
Nutrient 370 kg total N/ha/yr
160 kg T-P/ha/yr
It should be noted that the hydraulic loading rate was 15.2
mm/day (0.6 in/day) for over 10 years prior to the expansion of
the overland flow site, and that the removal efficiencies were
comparable to those of today. Expansion of the site was made
due to an expected increase in the plant size and processing ca-
pacity which has not yet occurred. The overland flow site was
not expanded due to overloading or poor treatment efficiency.
It is felt by Campbell Soup personnel that the current site is
capable of treating loads up to 15.2 mm/day while maintaining
the same effluent quality and removal efficiency it does today.
There are no storage facilities at the Paris, Texas site. A
minimum buffer zone of 30.5 m (100 ft) exists between the near-
est spray field and adjacent property. The entire site is
fenced to control public access. In terms of runoff, all sur-
face runoff which is generated within the treatment plant fields
is discharged to Smith Creek with the process water.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment of oil and grease removal and
screening appears to be effective as spray nozzle plugging and
oil and grease accumulation do not appear to be problems with
the overland flow system. The operating strategy of the over-
land flow system is fairly simple and consists of a rotation
schedule. During the winter, a field is normally sprayed for
six hours per day with an 18-hour rest period. In the summer,
the field is sprayed for eight hours with a 16-hour rest period.
The entire operation facility is controlled by the pneumatic
valve timer controller.
Since the grasses in the spray fields are perennials, there
is no requirement for yearly turf replanting. Currently, about
14.2 ha (35 acres) of corn have been planted as a strictly ex-
perimental crop, and there are no data available yet. All of
279
-------
the grass harvesting is handled by a private contractor, and,
depending on weather conditions, approximately 10 days are need-
ed between the time a field is taken out of service and is ready
for harvesting. The grass that is harvested is currently used
as cattle feed. The grass is no longer dried in a hay drier and
made into pelletized animal feed, due to the high costs of dry-
ing. It should be noted that within the sprinkler pattern near-
ly all of the grass is reed canary as this grass fares very well
in the wet system. In addition, flags have been placed to mark
the location of the spray system so that people harvesting the
crop do not run over the sprinkler header pipes. Campbell Soup
attempts to harvest the grass twice a year. However, conditions
are not always favorable.
During storm events, wastewater spraying is continued, how-
ever, a large volume of stormwater is generated on-site and the
entire runoff for the site is discharged to Smith Creek. The
discharge permit states that a maximum of 20 mg/L 8005 must be
maintained in the effluent even during storm events, whereas the
suspended solids limitation is waived.
Based on operating data from August 1978 to July 1979, the
following effluent quality was produced by the overland flow
treatment system:
BOD5, mg/L 5.9
Suspended solids, mg/L 31
Oil and grease, mg/L 5.1
Sulfates, mg/L 49.3
Color, Pt/Co units 41.7
pH 7.2
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The overall preapplication treatment facility maintenance
appeared good. There is minimal maintenance associated with the
overland flow system. One maintenance problem that was noted
involved some ponding of water in the fields due to settlement
of the soil. These ponds were causing some odor problems.
A total staff of seven people is utilized for operation and
maintenance, including four shift operators, three laborers, and
one maintenance man. In addition, the chief operator spends ap-
proximately 60% of his time at the facility.
280
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
A total of $181,140 was spent by Campbell Soup in operating
the overland flow treatment system for fiscal year 1978-1979.
The breakdown is as follows:
Personnel $116,000
Materials and supplies . 35,900
Maintenance and repairs 15,340
Laboratory testing 6,400
Vehicles 7,500
Total $181,140
This budget expense does not include the time spent by the
chief operator, the plant manager, or the manager of plant serv-
ices (superintendent). In addition, electricity costs could not
be separated from plant electricity costs, and are not included.
The operation and maintenance expense was somewhat offset by
$14,200 received for the grease and hay which were sold.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Based on what has been learned through the years, the slope
should be built at 6%. Currently, some of the fields are great-
er than and some less than 6%, and it is felt that 6% is the op-
timum slope.
A second design deficiency noted was that PVC pipe should
have been used on any pipe less than 0.15-m (6 in) diameter as
the concrete or cast iron pipe which was used has been breaking
due to soil movement caused by wetting and drying. The third
design deficiency noted was that a comprehensive plan for earth
moving and grading was not prepared prior to facility construc-
tion. For example, the first plot of land at Paris, Texas which
was graded, contained approximately 121.4 ha (300 acres). Had
the site been properly graded, an additional 30.4 ha (75 acres)
of overland flow plot would have been available.
281
-------
CITY OF COLEMAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 025)
COLEMAN, TEXAS
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Coleman, Texas is located in central Texas ap-
proximately 73 km (45 mi) south of Abilene (Figure A-73). The
City of Coleman Wastewater Treatment Plant is both owned and op-
erated by the City. The land application system is owned by the
City, however, it is operated jointly by the City and a private
farmer. The facility was visited on June 10, 1980.
The climate in the vicinity of the City of Coleman would be
categorized as mild. The yearly average temperature is 18.6°C
(65.4°F). Yearly precipitation averages 0.68 m (26.82 in),
and mean annual Class A pan evaporation averages 2.4 m (95 in).
The preapplication treatment for the City of Coleman con-
sists of preliminary treatment followed by secondary biological
treatment in an oxidation ditch (Figure A-74). The secondary
effluent is pumped to a land treatment system consisting of bor-
der strip irrigation of coastal Bermuda grass. In addition, a
surface discharge of wastewater is used occasionally. Effluent
wastewater is chlorinated when the surface discharge is in use.
The City of Coleman Wastewater Treatment Plant was designed
to handle 0.035 m-Vs (0.8 mgd). The facility currently re-
ceives approximately 0.018 m-^/s (0.4 mgd), and is therefore
operating at 50% of design capacity. Of the flow received at
the facility, 100% is of domestic origin. The current biolog-
ical treatment system has been in operation for six years. Pre-
vious to this, oxidation ponds were utilized, and these, along
with the land treatment system, have been in use for approxi-
mately 50 years. The Coleman Wastewater Treatment Plant and
land treatment facilities are located in a basically agricultur-
al area on the east part of town. There are no plans for future
modifications or changes to the existing facilities.
282
-------
Preapplication and Land
.:- .,
Figure A-73. Location map of City of Coleman wastewater treat-
ment plant {# 025), Coleman, Texas.
283
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Bar
Screen
Hords
Creek
Grit
Removal
Oxidation
Ditch
Land Treatment System
.—i -7 ... ,—V.J
1 •',* •' : i \*'O
Border Strip Pasture Irrigation
(Coastal Bermuda Grass)
Figure A-74.
Process flow diagram of City of Coleman wastewater
treatment plant (# 025), Coleman, Texas.
284
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
Wastewater generated in the City of Coleman flows by gravity
to an on-site pump station at the treatment plant. The wastewa-
ter is then pumped to the headworks of the facility. The head-
works consist of two manually-cleaned bar screens and two manu-
ally-cleaned grit chambers, followed by a Parshall flume. The
grit chamber and bar screens are in parallel operation. Screened
and degritted wastewater next flows to an oxidation ditch. The
hydraulic detention time in the oxidation ditch is approximately
two days. Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditch overflows into
a circular secondary clarifier.
Sludge from the secondary clarifier is either returned to
the oxidation ditch or wasted to an adjacent lagoon. There are
three adjacent lagoons which were built in conjunction with the
former treatment facilities. The sludge is stockpiled in the
lagoon. The effluent from the clarifier overflows directly into
a chlorine contact tank which has common wall construction with
the clarifier. Chlorine is injected just prior to the wastewa-
ter dropping into the contact tank. Gaseous chlorine from the
eductor system is added from 68-kg (150 Ib) chlorine cylinders.
The wastewater is next pumped to a flow diversion chamber locat-
ed in the corner of the land treatment facility utilizing one of
two centrifugal vertical shaft pumps. The pumps are level con-
trolled and are 7.6-kw (10 hp) pumps rated at 0.035 m3/s (550
gpm) .
At this point flow can either be sent to the receiving
stream (Hords Creek) or to the fields for irrigation purposes.
The slow-rate land treatment system utilizes 23.1 ha (57 acres)
of border strip irrigation fields (Figure A-75). All wastewater
is distributed in earthen-lined and partially grassed channels
to the various fields. The fields are approximately 0.40 to 0.61
ha (1 to 1.5 acre) plots that are located adjacent to a distri-
bution channel. Wastewater is diverted to any of the channels
utilizing gates and terracotta pipes through the berm walls.
Berms are approximately 0.30 m (1 ft) high. The major crop grown
in the fields is coastal Bermuda grass, however, some weeds are
also present. The area is used as pasture for cattle.
The slow rate irrigation system is loaded at the following
application rates:
Hydraulic 1.68 m/yr
32.3 mm/wk
Organic 67.2 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 16.8 kg SS/ha/yr
285
-------
D head s
^Clarifier, Chlorine Contact Tank
and Effluent Pumps
••'
Old Oxidation Ponds / /
•/ / / Border
No. 3 i ./ -=±==-1— Strip
Figure A-75
286
-------
Although there are three old oxidation ponds on-site, they
are not used for treated wastewater storage. In addition, there
are no groundwater monitoring wells on-site. Site access is
controlled by a fence and signs posted on the fence. A minimum
buffer zone of 6.1 m (20 ft) is maintained from the nearest ad-
jacent property. There is no runoff generated on-site as all
fields are bermed.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment portion of the system is well
operated, and effluent quality in terms of BODs and suspended
solids averages 4 and 1 mg/L, respectively. As provisions exist
for surface discharge, on a yearly average, approximately 70% of
the wastewater is land applied, while approximately 30% of the
water is discharged to Hords Creek. Whenever the surface dis-
charge is used, wastewater chlorination facilities are utilized.
When irrigation is practiced, the wastewater is discharged un-
chlorinated to the fields.
Depending on antecedent weather conditions, wastewater is
generally applied 12 months of the year, 24 hours per day. The
field to be irrigated is chosen by visual estimates, and fields
are rotated with two or three fields irrigated at the same time.
In terms of operation of the irrigation system, all wastewater
application is performed by the City of Coleman staff. Fertili-
zation and cattle management are the responsibility of the pri-
vate farmer who leases the area. The lease stipulates that the
farmer must pay $3,000 per year for use of the irrigation area.
Currently, approximately 100 head of cattle are grazed on the
fields nine months of the year. For the three winter months,
the Bermuda grass is somewhat dormant, and the cattle are moved
elsewhere and fed. The operator reported no operational head-
aches associated with running the irrigation system. Approxi-
mately one hour per day of the superintendent's time is spent
with the irrigation fields.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The maintenance of the preapplication treatment system ap-
peared good, and there were no problems in terms of maintenance
reported by the operator except for bearings on the brush aera-
tors. Owing to the inherent simplicity of the wastewater dis-
tribution system, maintenance problems are at a minimum. Occa-
sionally (approximately every three to four years) the earthen-
and grass-lined ditches must be rehabilitated, but that is bas-
ically the only maintenance performed in the area.
287
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City of Coleman Wastewater Treatment Plant spent $34,900
on wastewater treatment during fiscal year 1978-1979. Of this
total, only $1,050 or 3% was spent on land treatment with this
reflecting time spent by the operator. The cost is totally de-
frayed by the $3,000 per year received for leasing the land. As
effluent must be pumped to the surface discharge, no cost is as-
sociated with pumping the wastewater to the land treatment sys-
tem.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
During the site visit, the operator indicated that there
were no design deficiencies with the land treatment system.
However, since the wastewater is pumped to the preapplication
treatment facilities and then pumped to either the surface dis-
charge or the land treatment system, this is a design deficiency.
The hydraulics of the preapplication treatment system should
have been designed so that wastewater could have flowed by grav-
ity to the discharge.
288
-------
CITY OF SANTA ANNA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 026)
SANTA ANNA, TEXAS
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Santa Anna, Texas is located in central Texas,
approximately 90 km (55 mi) southeast of Abilene (Figure A-76).
The City of Santa Anna owns and operates the wastewater treat-
ment plant. The land treatment system is owned by a private
farmer, but is partially operated by the City. The facility
was visited on June 11, 1980.
The Santa Anna area is categorized by a mild climate. The
average annual temperature is 18.6°C (65.4°F). The average
yearly rainfall is 0.7 m (26.82 in), whereas the mean annual es-
timated Class A pan evaporation is 2.4 m (95 in).
The Santa Anna wastewater preapplication treatment system
consists of preliminary treatment, followed by primary treatment,
and biological treatment in oxidation ponds (Figure A-77). Ef-
fluent from the oxidation ponds is stored in holding basins pri-
or to application to a field on which alfalfa and Johnson grass
is grown. The field is utilized as a pasture for cattle. The
land treatment system is operated in the slow-rate mode.
The City of Santa Anna Wastewater Treatment Plant was de-
signed to handle 568 m3/day (150,000 gpd). The current flow
to the treatment facility is 50% of the design flow. The plant
receives 100% domestic sewage.
The City of Santa Anna Wastewater Treatment Plant and the
adjacent land treatment system have been in operation for 14
years. The facility is located in an agricultural area. Plans
for the future call for additional acreage to be irrigated uti-
lizing the recycled water.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The influent wastewater to the Santa Anna Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant flows through one of two hand-cleaned bar screens,
289
-------
.'•"" " '-BOWir*. \mm i1.'"^.'""! *
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2.0QO ft)
Figure A-76. Location map of City of Santa Anna wastewater
treatment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas.
290
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Bar
Screen
Grit
Removal
Landfill
Imhoff
Tanks
1
Sludge
Drying
Beds
—^
Oxidation
Ponds
Land Treatment System
-^ T
fc
±-r-
•m,
M
Holding Ponds
Side Wheel Roll Pasture Irrigation
(Alfalfa, Johnson Grass)
Figure A-77.
Process flow diagram of City of Santa Anna waste-
water treatment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas.
291
-------
through a grit chamber, and then through a Parshall flume with a
recording device. The wastewater then flows by gravity to an
Imhoff tank. From the Imhoff tank, the water flows to one of
two oxidation ponds operated in series. The digested sludge
from the Imhoff tank flows to sludge drying beds. The dried
sludge is disposed of in a local landfill.
The oxidation ponds have an area of 2.0 ha (5.0 acres) each.
The oxidation ponds are 2.1 m (7 ft) deep, and each has a capa-
city of 43,154 m3 (11.4 mil gal). Based on the design flow, a
detention time of 152 days is provided by the two ponds. The
oxidation ponds are unlined. Wastewater flows from the first
pond to the second pond by gravity.
The oxidation pond effluent overflows the second pond, passes
through a diversion structure, and flows to the first of two
holding ponds. The exact size of the two holding ponds is not
known, however, the total surface area is believed to be approx-
imately 2.0 ha (5 acres), and the total capacity is believed to
be on the order of 43,000 m3 (11.4 mil gal). The holding
ponds are unlined. The primary holding pond resembles a sur-
face depression, and the water has been inundating some neigh-
boring trees. The ponds have a 76-day detention time at the
design flow.
The slow-rate land treatment system consists of irrigation
of 10.9 ha (27 acres) of land owned by a local farmer (Figure
A-78) . The farmer also owns an additional 5.3 ha (13 acres) of
pasture which is not irrigated. Currently, a mixture of alfalfa
and Johnson grass is grown on the site, which is used as pasture
for cattle. Wastewater is distributed on the fields utilizing
one portable effluent pump located at the primary holding pond.
The pump has a 5.6-kw (7.5 hp) motor, however, its rated capaci-
ty is unknown.
The pump discharges into an underground distribution system
which goes to the nearby spray fields. In the spray fields it
connects to one of six riser pipes. The riser pipes are con-
nected to a side-wheel roll sprinkler. The sprinkler is 183 m
(600 ft) long, with the sprinklers located 3.0 m (10 ft) apart.
Typical impact sprinkler heads are utilized. The entire spray
field is bermed to contain any runoff from leaving the site.
The loading rates at the site (excluding pond evaporative
losses) are as follows:
Hydraulic 0.95 m/yr
18.3 mm/wk
292
-------
Hydrants for
Side-Roll
Spray Irrigation
Not to Scale
Pasture
Fence and Berms
Figure A-78.
Facility layout of City of Santa Anna wastewater
treatment plant (# 026), Santa Anna, Texas.
293
-------
Organic 266 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 578 kg SS/ha/yr
The soil in the vicinity of the Santa Anna spray irrigation
field is mostly silt, clay and loam. There are no groundwater
monitoring wells associated with the facilities. A buffer zone
(minimum size) of approximately 305 m (1,000 ft) is maintained
with neighboring property, as there is some nonirrigated pasture
land which surrounds the irrigated portions of the facility.
Site access is controlled by means of fences.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment facility is operated in a con-
tinuous mode, that is, the level in the oxidation ponds does not
change, and only storage afforded by the two holding ponds is
utilized. Based on one grab sample, the effluent quality from
the oxidation ponds would be typical of an intermediate effluent
with the BOD5 and suspended solids being 28 and 61 mg/L, re-
spectively.
The equipment associated with the land treatment system, al-
though owned by the farmer, is operated by City of Santa Anna
personnel. Based on factors such as antecedent rainfall and
other climatic conditions, irrigation is carried out. The
strategy for irrigation is to irrigate for eight hours per day,
five days per week. This is accomplished by manually moving the
sprinkler system from one riser to the next every two days.
Therefore, every area is irrigated for eight hours per day for
two days prior to the sprinklers being moved. As there are six
separate irrigation risers the entire field is irrigated approx-
imately every two weeks. The wastewater pump is on a timer for
shut-off purposes, and must only be turned on every morning.
Approximately one hour daily is involved in checking out the
system, moving the sprinkler every other day, and turning the
system on. There have been no reported problems with sprinkler
plugging or anything else out of the ordinary for the irrigation
system. As the pasture is irrigated, twice as many cows can be
raised in the area than would typically be raised on neighboring
nonirrigated land. The cattle are removed from the pasture for
the three winter months.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The preapplication facility has been adequately maintained
as has the land treatment system. There were no reported major
maintenance problems associated with the facility, and things
appear to be running smoothly.
294
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City of Santa Anna plans to spend approximately $5,650
on wastewater treatment during fiscal year 1980-1981. Of this
amount, approximately 46% or $2,590 is associated with land
treatment. This is entirely for personnel, since electricity,
maintenance, and repairs, etc. are paid for by the farmer.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
No design deficiencies were noted during the plant tour.
However, city personnel felt that insufficient land existed for
irrigation purposes. Based on the calculated application rate,
this does not necessarily appear to be a problem. The problem
may be, however, associated with the fact that sufficient stor-
age does not exist. This problem could be corrected operation-
ally by varying the depth of wastewater in the oxidation ponds.
295
-------
CITY OF WINTERS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 027)
WINTERS, TEXAS
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Winters, Texas is located in central Texas, mid-
way between Abilene and San Angelo (Figure A-79). The wastewa-
ter treatment plant is owned and operated by the City of Win-
ters, which also owns the property utilized for land treatment
of wastewater. The land is rented out to a local farmer who
operates the farm. The facility was visited on June 12, 1980.
The climate of Winters, Texas can be categorized as mild,
semiarid. The yearly average temperature is 18.2°C (67.4°F).
The average annual precipitation is 0.63 m (21.85 in). The mean
annual Class A pan evaporation is 2.5 m (98 in).
The preapplication treatment in Winters, Texas consists of
an Imhoff tank. Effluent from the Imhoff tank is pumped to
three holding ponds for storage and subsequent use (Figure
A-80). The water flows by gravity from the holding ponds into
a border strip irrigation system. A total of 10.5 ha (26 acres)
are irrigated in the slow-rate system.
The Winters wastewater treatment facilities were designed to
handle 0.022 m3/s (0.5 mgd). Currently, the plant is receiving
60% of this flow, or 0.013 m3/s (0.3 mgd). Of the flow re-
ceived at the facility, 100% is of domestic origin. The preap-
plication treatment and land treatment systems have been in use
at Winters for 55 years.
Based on conversations with City of Winters personnel, it
was learned that they have plans to replace the existing Imhoff
tank with a larger, more modern facility; the type is undecided
as yet. Land use adjacent to the land application site is main-
ly agricultural.
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
The wastewater generated in the City of Winters, Texas flows
to the head end of the Imhoff tank where it receives the equiva-
lent of primary treatment. Sludge generated is anaerobically
296
-------
1 CWinter?
'I (BM 1836)"
Preapplication and Land
Treatment Area
Figure A-79. Location map of City of Winters wastewater treat-
ment plant (# 027), Winters, Texas.
297
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Land Treatment System
Bprder Strip Pasture Irrigation
(Oats, S^bah Grass, Coastal Bermuda Grass)
Figure A-80. Process flow diagram of City of Winters wastewater
treatment plant (# 027), Winters, Texas.
298
-------
digested in the lower compartment of the Imhoff tank, and is
withdrawn and pumped to an adjacent unlined sludge lagoon. The
sludge is occasionally withdrawn from this lagoon and sprayed on
agricultural property.
The effluent from the Imhoff tank flows into a level-con-
trolled wet well, then it is pumped out utilizing one of two
centrifugal nonclog pumps. The pumps are rated at 11.2 kw (15
hp). Each pump is capable of pumping 0.044 m3/s (700 gpm).
The force main from the pump is approximately 91 m (300 ft)
long, and passes under a creek and to a series of three holding
ponds.
Although not designed as oxidation ponds, owing to the qual-
ity of the primary treated effluent, the ponds act as oxidation
ponds. The three ponds were estimated to be 0.81, 0.81, and
1.62 ha (2, 2, 4 acres) each. The ponds are approximately 0.91
m (3 ft) deep. The estimated capacity of the three ponds is
7,571 m-3 for the first two ponds, and 15,142 m3 for the
third pond, for a total capacity of 30,284 m^ (8 mil gal).
Based on the design flow rate, a storage capacity of 16 days is
provided by the three ponds. The ponds are unlined.
All of the property at the land application site is owned by
the City of Winters. However, every five years, sealed bids are
taken for use of the 49.4-ha (122 acre) site. Currently, the
farmer is paying $8.09/ha/yr ($20/acre/yr) for use of the facil-
ities. Of the entire area, however, only 10.5 ha (26 acres) can
be flooded utilizing border strip irrigation (Figure A-81). An
additional 6.1-ha (15 acre) field can be spray irrigated. The
farmer must supply the pump and piping, however. The remainder
of the site is partially wooded pasture land.
The area that is operated as a border strip irrigation sys-
tem is flooded by means of opening a disc gate in the bank of
one of the holding ponds. This either lets the wastewater di-
rectly out into one of the border strips, or into a drainage
swale. If the water is discharged into a drainage swale, it
eventually irrigates one of the fields by a clay pipe through a
berm in a border strip irrigation field. The crop grown in the
border strip area is coastal Bermuda grass. This grass is ei-
ther harvested and baled for future animal feed use, or is used
directly as pasture.
Aside from the coastal Bermuda grass, oats have also been
planted in the field. At the time of the visit, the oats had
been harvested, and the fields were being grazed by sheep. Cat-
tle also graze the area. At the time of the visit the cattle
299
-------
Sludge
Lagoon
Effluent
Pumps
Potential
Spray
Irrigation
Area
Limits of City Farm
Oammed-up
River Bed
Not to Scale
Figure A-81. Facility layout of City of Winters wastewater
treatment plant (# 027), Winters, Texas.
300
-------
were in the nonirrigated pasture area. The 6.1-ha (15 acre)
site that is also occasionally spray irrigated is irrigated uti-
lizing portable aluminum pipe and a portable pump. The City
supplies none of the required equipment.
The land application system also includes additional water
storage capacity in a dammed-up creek bed. This containment
area is used to store excess effluent when there is no available
capacity in the three other ponds, and also collects any excess
water which may be applied to the fields. There is no estimate
as to the size or capacity of this creek bed. The soils which
underlie the land application area contain sand, silt, loam, and
clay.
There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the area of the
treatment plant or the land application fields. A buffer zone
exists between the land application site and the neighboring
properties. At a minimum it is 30.5 m (100 ft) wide. As dis-
cussed previously, runoff from the flood irrigation system is
collected in the dammed-up creek bed. The area is fenced to
control public access, and contain the animals that graze on-
site.
Based on the 1973 analytical data (not including evapora-
tion losses), the following loading rates have been calculated:
Hydraulic 4.0 m/yr
76.2 mm/wk
Organic 1,775 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 2,365 kg SS/ha/yr
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment facility at the time of the
visit was deplorable. The effluent pumps were down recently,
and the site had flooded, and had yet to be cleaned up. There
were few data available to assess the quality of effluent from
the facility. The only data available were from the 1973 Needs
Survey, and these data indicated that the plant produces 8005
and suspended solids of 45 and 60 mg/L, respectively. It is not
known, however, where the samples were collected.
The farmer who leases the land application site actually has
his hands tied when it comes to facility operations. First, he
is obligated to take all the wastewater, and second, the majori-
ty of the leased areas cannot be irrigated due to the inflexi-
bility and design of the system and the equipment available.
301
-------
The farmer attempts to do his best, given the circumstances.
Therefore, he floods the fields during the winter and/or growing
season in order to get rid of the water, yet maximize crop pro-
duction and grazing in adjacent fields. A second operational
strategy that the farmer employs is to irrigate just prior to a
rainfall event. This has a two-fold advantage; first, the ani-
mals do not like to eat grass which has been irrigated because
of the solids which are left behind. By irrigating just prior
to a rainfall, the plants will be washed off and the animals
will regraze the area sooner. Secondly, the farmer has had some
problems with the build-up of dissolved solids in the soil. By
applying the wastewater just prior to a rainfall event, the sub-
sequent leaching of solids can be improved. Conversely, the
worse time to apply the wastewater is prior to rainfall as it
will do the least good, and potentially the most damage due to
overwatering.
An additional problem associated with irrigating the field
and keeping it wet is a health problem associated with sheep.
Sheep typically excrete a parasite, and when this parasite is in
wet soil it lives longer, and therefore, the potential for
transmission of disease is greater. An additional problem the
farmer must deal with is the site layout -- he cannot get from
one irrigation area to another without traveling a considerable
distance. He must drive through creeks and woods to get from
one treated area to another, and this increases the difficulty
of operation.
Crops grown on the site include coastal Bermuda grass and
oats in the border strip irrigation area. In addition, a hybrid
grazer grass (Sudan grass) is grown on the 6.1-ha (15 acre)
site. This site is infrequently watered due to the cost of
pumping the water, in terms of both electricity and manpower in-
volved. Two types of grazing animals are raised on-site. The
first of these is sheep. The sheep are grown for meat; their
wool is of secondary importance. In addition, cows are also
grazed on-site. The cows and sheep are typically kept in dif-
ferent pastures since the sheep eat the grass very low, the cows
cannot graze the area. There is no attempt made to keep the an-
imals off the area being irrigated, as they are not very fond
of the wastewater, and when irrigation commences, the animals
move away.
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The preapplication treatment system which consists of an
Imhoff tank and pumping station appears poorly maintained. This
may be indicative of the fact that the City is looking toward
replacement of the system, and does not care to invest in keep-
ing up the facility. In terms of maintenance, there is minimal
302
-------
maintenance to be done at the land treatment site since the
wastewater distribution system consists of earthen-lined chan-
nels and a few disc gate valves. There do not appear to be any
maintenance problems which materially affect the operation of
the land treatment system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City of Winters, Texas annually spends $4,905 on waste-
water treatment. It is estimated that approximately $900 of
this total, or 22%, is utilized for land treatment. This cost
is associated with pumping the effluent water to the holding
pond. The cost of operation and maintenance is, in part, de-
frayed by the approximately $2,440 received annually for rental
of the land treatment site.
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
The major design deficiency at the plant involves the plant
layout. When the plant was constructed, a very poor job was
done in plant layout, and facilities are located rather haphaz-
ardly around the site. For example, only 21% of the total area
of the site can be irrigated by gravity, however, all wastewater
is pumped to the holding basin. Pumping to a higher elevation
water holding basin would have enabled larger areas to be irri-
gated. In addition, by locating the holding basins and fields
in different positions, access from one area to another area
could have been simplified, thereby saving the farmer a lot of
time.
A second design deficiency is the fact that only 16 days of
storage capacity was designed into the system. This causes ef-
fluent water to be applied when it is not required. This fur-
ther complicates the stable operation of the facility. In sum-
mary, the design deficiencies have effectively made the plant
less than 100% operable.
303
-------
CITY OF SWEETWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (# 028)
SWEETWATER, TEXAS
SLOW-RATE SYSTEM
GENERAL
The City of Sweetwater, Texas is located in central Texas,
approximately 48 km (30 mi) due west of Abilene, Texas (Figure
A-82). The wastewater treatment facility is owned and operated
by the City of Sweetwater, Texas. The land application system
is owned and operated by a private farmer. The City of Sweetwa-
ter Wastewater Treatment Plant and adjacent farms were visited
on June 13, 1980.
The climate in the Sweetwater area is mild. The average an-
nual temperature is 17.4°C (63.3°F). The annual precipita-
tion averages 0.56 m (22.19 in), whereas the mean annual Class A
pan evaporation is estimated to be 2.5 m (100 in).
The City of Sweetwater Wastewater Treatment Plant consists
of preliminary treatment and primary sedimentation followed by
trickling filter biological treatment (Figure A-83). Based on
analytical data, the plant is producing a secondary effluent.
The land treatment system is an irrigation system operated in a
slow-rate mode. A total of 115 ha (285 acres) of land is uti-
lized for the irrigation system. All irrigation is accomplished
by border strip flooding.
The Sweetwater facility was designed to handle 0.088 m3/s
(2 mgd). Current flows at the facility, however, average 0.044
m3/s (1.0 mgd). Of this flow, approximately 10% is contributed
by industrial sources, including a gypsum plant and a meat pack-
ing plant. Both the preapplication treatment and the land
treatment facilities have been operating for 22 years. The land
application facility is located in an agricultural area. There
are no plans for future changes at either the preapplication
treatment or land treatment sites.
304
-------
Preapplication Treatment Facility
Scale: 1 mm = 24 m
(1 in = 2,000 ft)
Figure A-82. Location map of City of Sweetwater water pollution
control plant (# 028), Sweetwater, Texas.
305
-------
Preapplication Treatment System
Influent
Wastewater
Bar
Screen
Grit
Removal
Primary
Clarifier
f
Trickling
Filter
neni system
Sludge
Drying
Beds
\
Anaerobic
Digester
i
Secondary
Clarifier
A—,
BoUbc Strip Pasture Irrigation
(Coastal. Bermuda Grass, Swuan Grast, Oats)
Figure A-83. Process flow diagram of City of Sweetwater water
pollution control plant (# 028), Sweetwater,
Texas.
30G
-------
PHYSICAL FACILITIES
All wastewater received at the Sweetwater, Texas facility is
first pumped to the preliminary treatment facility by way of an
on-site pumping station. The headworks to the facility consists
of a Parshall flume followed by a hand-cleaned bar screen, fol-
lowed by a circular grit chamber. All grit is removed utilizing
a screw conveyor and disposed of in a landfill. Primary treat-
ment is accomplished utilizing one circular primary clarifier.
Following primary clarification, the wastewater flows by
gravity to a circular, rotating boom trickling filter. A rock
media is used in the trickling filter. Effluent from the trick-
ling filter flows to a circular secondary clarifier. Sludge
from both the primary and secondary clarifiers is pumped to the
two-stage high-rate anaerobic digester for subsequent stabiliza-
tion. Sludge from the digester is then pumped to sand drying
beds for dewatering. Provision also exists for pumping the an-
aerobically-digested sludge to the adjacent farmland for direct
land application.
The trickling filter effluent is not chlorinated, but rather
flows by gravity to the first of three holding ponds operated in
series. The first and second ponds have capacities of 20,440
m3 (5.4 mil gal). The third pond has a capacity of 34,070
m3 (9 mil gal). The first two ponds have a depth of 1.2 m (4
ft) whereas the third pond has a depth of 1.8 m (6 ft). The
first two ponds cover an area of 1.6 ha (4 acres), whereas the
third pond covers an area of 1.9 ha (4.6 acres). Based on the
design forward flow, a 10-day detention time is afforded by the
three ponds. All three ponds are unlined. From the third stor-
age pond, wastewater is pumped approximately 1.8 km (1.1 mi) to
a holding pond located at the farm. The pump is a 5.6-kw (7.5
hp) centrifugal pump rated at 0.044 m3/s (695 gpm).
All equipment downstream of the effluent pump is owned and
operated by the farmer. A total of 115 ha (285 acres) is irri-
gated utilizing border strip irrigation (Figure A-84). Individ-
ual plots vary in size from approximately 0.3 ha (0.75 acres) to
0.61 ha (1.5 acres). Each plot is approximately 30.5 m (100 ft)
wide, and graded to a 1% slope. All wastewater distribution is
accomplished by gravity, and wastewater which is pumped from the
preapplication treatment facilities is discharged either to an
elevated earthen storage basin or directly to the distribution
system. The storage basin covers approximately 0.4 ha (1 acre)
and has a capacity of 4,160 m3 (1.1 mil gal). Wastewater is
distributed through a series of concrete pipe and gate valves to
the approximately 200 plots located on-site. The flood irriga-
tion is accomplished utilizing irrigation hydrants approximately
307
-------
Farm
Buildings
/Secondary
Clarifier
Control Building
Trickling
Filter Primary Clarifier
and Anaerobic
Digesters
Mot to Scale
Figure A-84.
Facility layout of City of Sweetwater water pollu-
tion control plant (# 028), Sweetwater, Texas.
308
-------
0.5 m (18 in) high which are typically located at the corner of
four basins. When the plots are to be irrigated, a cover valve
fits over the hydrant. The cover is equipped with a valve open-
ing device and a pipe to irrigate one of the four adjacent
fields.
The wastewater farm was designed after a facility in Lub-
bock, Texas, and was designed to maximize crop production.
Therefore, there are three on-site holding basins. These basins
are used to divert and store wastewater when the fields do not
require irrigation. This allows the farmer the operational
flexibility of not having to flood any fields. There is no es-
timate as to the capacity of the three basins. The basins are
operated as evaporation/percolation basins, and there has never
been a need to pump water from these basins back to the fields.
The soil which underlies the land treatment system is bas-
ically silt, loam, and sand. Four different crops are grown at
the land application site, including Bermuda grass, Sudan grass,
wild oats (Rescue grass), and winter wheat. Crops are typically
rotated. The loading rates (excluding any water sent to the
evaporation/percolation basins and any evaporation) at the land
application site are as follows:
Hydraulic 1.2 m/yr
45.7 mm/wk
Organic 215 kg BOD5/ha/yr
Solids 132 kg SS/ha/yr
No monitoring wells are located at the land treatment or
treatment plant sites. A buffer zone of approximately 15 m (50
ft) is maintained on one side of the site. On the other three
sides, the farmer owns additional pasture land, and a large buf-
fer zone exists. There is no stormwater runoff from the site as
all water would be contained within the bermed flood irrigation
field. Site access is controlled by fences, which are also
posted, since animals graze on the land.
Contractually, the farmer has rights to the water for a 99-
year period which began in 1958. The farmer required long-
term rights prior to investing the large sum of money for site
work and equipment. Although he is required to utilize all of
the water, the water must meet a minimum quality specification.
FACILITY OPERATIONS
The preapplication treatment system appeared relatively well
run and produces a secondary effluent. The effluent quality for
8005 and suspended solids is 18 and 11 mg/L, respectively.
309
-------
The land treatment system is run like any other well-managed
farm, and the wastewater serves only as a source of water.
Therefore, all irrigation is carried out as it would be on any
other neighboring farm utilizing irrigation. During the summer
months only 60.7 ha (150 acres) are irrigated. The crop grown
on the irrigated fields is coastal Bermuda grass with a small
amount of Johnson grass present. During the winter, the other
54.6 ha (135 acres) are irrigated, and the crop grown is Rescue
grass (wild oats).
In terms of wastewater irrigation practices, the operating
strategy is to apply 0.1-m (4 in) of water to approximately five
plots at a time. Once the 0.1-m (4 in) is applied, the fields
are rotated. Based on the number of fields irrigated, each
field is irrigated approximately every three weeks. During ir-
rigation, a tank truck holding anhydrous ammonia is parked at
the irrigation riser pipe and the ammonia is applied in conjunc-
tion with the wastewater.
The coastal Bermuda grass normally grows approximately 0.91
m (12 in) every three weeks, and then is cut and baled. The
coastal Bermuda grass is irrigated for six months during the
summer. During this time the grazing animals are kept on non-
irrigated pasture (including part of the flood irrigation site),
pasture land adjacent to the irrigation site, and land adjacent
to the holding ponds on the Sweetwater treatment plant site.
During the winter months, however, the animals (basically cat-
tle) are allowed to graze on the coastal Bermuda grass. During
the winter, oats (Rescue grass) are grown on the irrigated
plots. These same plots are not irrigated during the summer,
and Sudan grass is grown for grazing purposes.
When the fields are irrigated, the cattle are not allowed on
(and do not like) the irrigated fields. All planting, cutting,
harvesting, maintenance, operations, irrigation, and fertiliza-
tion is done by the farm staff which consists of one man full-
time. The earthen berms that are between the flood strips grow
not only Bermuda grass but a fair amount of weeds. The cuttings
which contain weeds are cut separately and fed to goats which
don't mind the weeds. The farmer believes that the farm will
support one cow per 0.4 ha (acre).
FACILITY MAINTENANCE
The City of Sweetwater Wastewater Treatment Plant is ade-
quately maintained, however, various process units do require
some additional maintenance work, mainly in the form of painting,
310
-------
The land treatment portion of the system appeared particu-
larly well run. One maintenance problem which did manifest it-
self when the system originally began operation involved oil and
grease contained in the wastewater. The oil and grease was as-
sociated with a slaughterhouse. The oil and grease would accu-
mulate in the riser pipes which are used for ventilation pur-
poses, clogging them, and causing problems with the wastewater
distribution system. Since then the slaughterhouse has been
forced to stop discharging the oil and grease, and the problem
has been solved. Another problem noted was that the wastewater
initially contained a higher than desired TDS content. Through
cooperative efforts of the wastewater treatment plant personnel,
the dissolved solids contained in the wastewater have decreased.
This emphasizes the need for cooperative arrangements between
wastewater treatment plant and farming personnel.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
The City of Sweetwater spent approximately $74,750 during
fiscal year 1979-1980 on maintaining their wastewater treatment
facilities. Of this total, $4,490 (6%) was spent in conjunc-
tion with operating and maintaining their portions of the land
treatment system. The breakdown is as follows:
Personnel $2,010
Fuel and electricity 1,545
Maintenance and repairs 935
Total $4,490
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
Only one design deficiency was noted during the plant visit.
This was the use of nonreinforced concrete pipe in the land ap-
plication system. Originally, when there were problems with oil
and grease accumulation in the vent pipes, surges would come
through the pipes and cause the pipes to break, requiring their
replacement. The farmer has since utilized reinforced concrete
pipes for replacement and has apparently solved the problem of
pipe breakage.
311
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Appendix B presents a copy of the questionnaire used during
the site visit survey. The questionnaire included represents
the final version, as the questionnaire was modified several
times during the study to more adequately reflect the informa-
tion desired.
312
-------
Page 1 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
General
Date:
1 .2 Name of faci1ity:
1 .3 Address:
Telephone number:
1.5 Key personnel & titles:
1.6 Type land application system:
1.7 Degree of preapplication treatment:
1.8 Design flow rate (mgd);
1.9 Population served: Current Design
1.10 Major industries served:
1.11 Years in operation: Preapplication treatment Land application
1.12 Weather station information:
a. Station name and location:
b. Average annual temperature (°F):
c. Average annual precipitation (inches):
d. Mean annual Class A pan evaporation, estimated (inches):
313
-------
Page 2 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
1.13 Land use adjacent to the land application site
Res ident ial
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Other
Any definite plans for the future? Yes
If yes, explain
Expand
Upgrade
Abandon
No
1.15 Budget information
Period
to
Personnel
Materials and supplies
Fuel and electric
Chemicals
Insurance (fire, etc.)
Enqineerinq service
Communication
Maintenance and repairs
Equipment purchase
Total
Total,
Expenditure
Estimated
Preappl ication
Expenditure
Estimated
Land Appl ication
Expenditure
1.16 Percent of total budget spent on land application
314
-------
Page 3 of
Fac i1i ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
No
1.17 Is there a special "Water Rights" agreement? Yes
1.18 If yes, explain:
1.19 Do the users (farmers, etc.) pay for water received from this facility?
$/acre-foot.
1.20 Is there emergency power available? Yes No
1.21 Are the emergency procedures in writing? Yes No
1.22 Instrumentation system: Preapplication treatment: Yes No
Land application: Yes No
1.23 Electrical consumption: Preapplication treatment: KWH per month,
Land application: KWH per month,
1.24 Effluent from preapplication treatment to: Land application %
Receiving stream %
1.25 Drinking water source in the vicinity of the plant
Private well Public water system
315
-------
Page k of Ik
Fac i1i ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
1 .26 Lab data
Record period from
to
Total Flow (mgd)
I n'd . Flow (mqd)
Domestic (mgdj
BODi; (mq/L)
SS "(mq/L)
Fecal Coli. (#/100 ml)
Total Coli . (#/100 ml)
Other
1 nf luent
Preappl ica-
tion
Treatment
Effluent
Type Sample
G=Grab
8c=8hr Comp
2kc<=2k hr Comp
Sample
Freq.
1.27 Type of State or Federal permit:
Operating permit only
Preapplication treatment quality
Surface water discharge quality
Ground water quality
2. Staffing
2.1 State certification: Order of classification:
Highest
Lowest
316
-------
Page 5 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
2.2 Employee information
Superintendent
Chief operator
Shift operators
Laborers
Maint. personnel
Lab technicians
Summer help
Number
Annual
Salary
Ranqe
Certif
Req'd
icat ion
Actual
Years Experience
2.3 How many days are lost each year due to injury?
Preapplication treatment Land application
2.k Do operators attend continuing education courses? Yes No
2.5 Do you formally evaluate operator performance? Yes No
2.6 Do operators belong to a union? Yes No
2.7 Which union? AFSCME Other
2.8 Do the operators visit other plants utilizing land application as part of
their training program?
Yes No
Where
317
-------
Page 6 of 1
Facility #
2.9
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
How many of the operators have previous land application or farming ex-
perience? _^____
2.10 Shift schedule
Han days including superintendent
Day
Eveni nq
Midniqht
Monday through Friday
Preappl .
Land appl .
Total
,
Weekend
Preappl .
Land appl .
Total
2.11
2.12
2J3
3-
3.1
3-2
3-5
3.6
3-7
3.8
3.9
Overtime: Average hours of overtime worked per week per man?
Payment for overtime: 1-1/2 x 2 x 3 x Other
Are the duties of the shift operators in writing? Yes
Preventative Maintenance
Is there any program for preventative maintenance? Yes
No
No
Does each piece of equipment have its own preventative maintenance card?
Yes No
No
3.3 Is there a spare parts inventory? Yes
Is there a formal lubrication schedule? Yes
Is there a vendor manual file? Yes
No
No
Is there a valve exercise program? Yes
No
Is there a full time maintenance man or crew? Yes
I s there a tool room? Yes No
No
Is there an 0 £• M Manual on hand? Yes
No
If yes, does the manual specifically address land application?
Yes No
318
-------
Page 7 of
Fac i1i ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
3.10 Aside from instrumentation, is any maintenance done by a private contractor
on a routine basis? Yes No
4. Methods of Preapplication Treatment
4.1
Preliminary treatment:
a. Mechanically cleaned
Bar screen
Bar screen
Comminutor
Barminutor
Grit removal
Other
4.2 Method of sludge treatment:
Thermal
Gravity thickening
Flotation thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion
Ceritrifugation
Primary treatment:
g. Primary clarification_
h. Imhoff tank
i . Other
a,
b.
c.
d,
e.
f.
9-
h.
i.
j.
k. Other
Vacuum filtration
Pressure filtration
Sludge drying beds
Sludge lagoons
k.
1 .
Secondary treatment:
j. Activated sludge
Trickling filter
Activated bio-filter_
Oxidation ditch
Aerated pond ,
Oxidation pond
Second, clarification
Other
4.3 Methods of sludge disposal:
a. Landfill ing
b. Land application
c. Incineration
d. Other
Dis infection:
r. Chlorination
s . Other
Tertiary treatment:
t. Filtration
u. Carbon adsorption
v. Dechlorination
w. Other
319
-------
Page 8 of
Faci1i ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
k.k Process Flow Diagram
320
-------
Page 9 of 14
Fac11i ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
5. Location Sketch
321
-------
Page 10 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
6 . Land Application
6.1 Type of land application system: Slow Rate Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
6.2 Wastewater distribution system:
a. Type: Gravity Pressure
b. Description (size, spacing, coverage, pressure, etc.):
6.3 Monitoring wells
a. Number
b. Location (see sketch)
c. Depth ft.
d. Sampling frequency
e. Parameters:
BOD5 mg/L NH3 mg/L mg/L
COD mg/L N02 mg/L mg/L
TDS mg/L NO3 mg/L mg/L
TKN mg/L PO^ mg/L mg/L
f. Ground water depth ft.
322
-------
Page 11 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
6.k Water Containment Basins
a. Number g. Problems
b. Type
c. Capacity m.q .
d. Depth ft.
e. Surface Area acres
f. Liner Material
6.5 Buffer zone
a. Is there one? Yes No If yes, give:
b. Size:
c. How is it maintained?
6.6 Is land application effluent recovered? Yes No
6.7 What method is used for recovery?
Underdratns
Tail water returns
Recovery wells
6.8 Who manages the land application system?
Wastewater agency
Private farmer
Other
6.9 Is surface runoff collected and/or diverted? Yes No
Define:
323
-------
Page 12 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
6.10 Application Rates:
Hyd rau 1 i c i n/y r
in/wk (during application period)
Organic Ib BOD^/acre/yr
Solids Ib SS/acre/yr
Nutrient
Other
6.11 What months of the year is land application system used? (Circle) JFMAMJJASOND
6.12 What are the criteria to determine when to shut down for or during the winter?
6.13 What are the criteria to determine when to start up in the spring?
6.14 Who harvests the crop?
6.15 What is the crop used for?
6.16 For overland flow systems, what is the dry up time prior to crop harvest?
6.17 Is public access permitted to the land application site? Yes No
6.18 How is public access controlled?
324
-------
Page 13 of
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP OJJESTIONNAI RE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
6.19 Land area used:
6.20 Value of land per acre:
6.21 Type of soil: Sand
Clay
Loam __
Silt
Other
6.22 Slope of terrain: Flat (0-;
Moderate (3-8%)
Steep (Over 8%)
6.23 For the land application system is any process control testing conducted?
Yes No
Explain
6.24 Is the land application system operated as originally designed?
Yes No
If no, explain
325
-------
Page 14 of 14
Fac M I ty #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH SUPERINTENDENT
6.25 List design deficiencies:
326
-------
Page 1 of 2
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH FARMER/AGRONOMIST/SUPERINTENDENT
1 . General
1.1 Are you maximizing crop production or wastewater disposal?
Crops
Wastewater
Both
1.2 Are flotation tires or tracks used on equipment? Yes No
1.3 Operating Strategy:
How is it decided when to apply and when not to apply wastewater?
Antecedent rainfall Other
Temperature
Partially flooded fiel'ds
Has there been an increase or change in any of the following stnce initia-
tion of land application?
Flies and insects
Rodents
Odors
Plant diseases
Other
1.5 Type of vegetation:
Grasses
Vegetables
Grains
Forest
Other
327
-------
Page 2 of 2
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/ CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH FARMER/AGRONOMIST/SUPERINTENDENT
1 .6 Are crops rotated? Yes No
1.7 What is the lag time for grazing animals on pastures?
1.8 Are farming practices at land application site (i.e. amount of irrigation,
traction problems, fertilization, crop yield, etc.) different than at com-
parable neighboring sites growing same crops? Yes No
If yes, explain
328
-------
Page 1 of 1
Facility #
LAND APPLICATION
•FIELD TRIP QUESTIONNAIRE/CHECKLIST
INTERVIEW WITH NEIGHBOR
1 . General
1.1 Name
1 .2 Address
ODOR MIST NOISE DUST OTHER
1-3 Any problems: No ,_
Sometimes
Unbearable
1.^ How many years have you lived near the site?
1 .5 Have there been any changes? Yes No Better Worse
1 -6 Have you ever been invited to tour the site? Yes No
1.7 Have you ever made a formal complaint? Yes No If yes,
To whom
What were the results
1.8 What is your source of drinking water?
Private Well Public Water Supply
329
U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1982-559-092/0428
------- |