United States Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 EPA-905/9-91-002 GL-04-91 v>EPA Wastewater Treatment by Overland Flow at Paw Paw, Michigan Printed on Recycled Paper ------- FOREWORD The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was created because of increasing public and governmental 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 Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in Chicago, Illinois to provide specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great Lakes. The Section 108(a) Demonstration Grant Program of the Clean Water Act (PL 92- 500) is specific to the Great Lakes drainage basin and thus is administered by the Great Lakes National Program Office. Several demonstration projects within the Great Lakes drainage basin have been funded as a result of Section 108(a). This report describes one such project supported by this office to carry out our responsibility to improve water quality in the Great Lakes. We hope the information and data contained herein will help planners and managers of pollution control agencies to make better decisions in carrying forward then pollution control responsibilities. Director Great Lakes National Program Office ------- EPA-905/9-91-002 February 1991 WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY OVERLAND FLOW AT PAW PAW, MICHIGAN By Harry L. Bush Village of Paw Paw, Michigan Earl A. Myers Lawrence J. Fleis Williams & Works, Inc. Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 GRANT SOO 555 9010 Project Officer Stephen Poloncsik U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Facilities Branch 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Prepared for Great Lakes National Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois 60604 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Library (PL-12J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ------- DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, 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 or commercial products constitute endorsement or recom- mendation for use. ------- ABSTRACT The primary objective of this project was to evaluate the overland flow (OF) process in an application subject to stringent nutrient effluent limitations when applying a variety of hydraulic and organic wastewater loadings under northern climatic conditions. The main demonstration of site was constructed to a slope of 2.5% with slope length of 175 feet and was subdivided into three areas each of 1.66 acres (ac.). Wastewaters applied were of three types ranging in quality from raw wastewater to well-treated aerated pond effluent from a three-pond system. Hydraulic loadings were at 2, 3 and 4 or 3, 6 and 9 in./wk with the lower hydraulic range used for the higher BOD wastewaters. The production OF fields were constructed to a slope of either 1.2 or 1.6%, with slope length of approximately 200 feet and included four fields totaling 46.5 acres. OF performance treating storage pond effluent was compared for winter and summer months, raw wastewater renovation levels were compared for several regimens of application sequences, and renovation of mixtures of the two wastewaters was compared for below freezing and above freezing conditions. Each of these comparisons also involved three application rates. The primary tests involved comparison of influent and effluent concentrations for 11 parameters. To more fully evaluate the OF process, additional tests were run; these included five heavy metals, five additional chemical parameters, groundwater analyses, and hydrologic comparisons. General design guidelines, including cost aspects, are discussed. This work verified that the OF process can be used during harsh winters in northern climates and that terrace slopes of 1.2 and 1.6% when properly constructed work as well as the generally recommended 2 to 8% slopes. Sodded slopes have the advantages of permitting full applications to an OF area up to one year earlier than when seeding, providing a very erosion-resistant surface with high renovating ability at the beginning of operation, and maintaining the desired site surface contour as developed during construction. While highly, preapplication-treated wastewater can be satisfactorily distributed by gated pipe and can be appropriately polished by the OF process, much management and low loading rates are required for satisfactory application and renovation of high strength raw wastewaters. Under the testing site conditions, 350 mg/1 of TSS and 300 mg/1 of BOD were the maximum influent concentrations usable and still meet the 30-30 effluent requirement while maintaining relatively low odor levels. The summertime requirement of 5 mg/1 NH3-N was easily met for all three wastewater types; however, the 200/100 ml fecal coliform (F.Col.) count could not be met with raw wastewater or mixtures including over 25% raw wastewater. Neither of the stringent T-P concentrations of 1.0 mg/1 during winter or the essentially 0.5 mg/1 concentration during summer could be met by the OF process for any wastewater type without the addition of chemicals. This report was submitted in fulfillment of grant number SOO 555 9010 by the Village of Paw Paw, Michigan. The work upon which this report was based was supported in part by federal funds provided by the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office and in part by non-federal matching funds provided by the Village of Paw Paw, Michigan. This report covers a period form September 1, 1980 to February 28, 1986, and the demonstration project work was completed February 28, 1986. ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Disclaimer ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Figures viii Abbreviations and Symbols ix Acknowledgments x Section I INTRODUCTION 1 II CONCLUSIONS 3 m RECOMMENDATIONS 5 IV WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY 6 Lagoon System 6 Flood Irrigation Areas 6 Production Overland Flow Fields 6 Demonstration Site 8 Chemical Feed System 11 V OPERATING AND MONITORING PROCEDURES 12 Lagoon System 12 Flood Irrigation Areas 12 Production Overland Flow Fields 13 Demonstration Site 13 Chemical Feed System 15 Total Treatment Plant 16 VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 17 Overland Flow Demonstration Site 17 Holding Pond Effluent 17 Dissolved Oxygen 21 pH 21 Biological Oxygen Demand 21 Suspended Solids 22 Phosphorus 22 Nitrogen 22 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 23 Raw Wastewater 23 Dissolved Oxygen 23 pH 26 Biological Oxygen Demand 26 Suspended Solids 26 Phosphorus 27 Nitrogen 27 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 27 IV ------- Table of Contents (cont'd) Page Mixtures of Holding Pond 27 Dissolved Oxygen 28 pH 28 Biological Oxygen Demand 28 Suspended Solids 28 Phosphorus 33 Nitrogen 33 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 33 Renovation Considerations Among Three Methods 33 Dissolved Oxygen 33 pH 34 Biological Oxygen Demand 34 Suspended Solids 34 Phosphorus 34 Nitrogen 35 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 35 Special Testing: All Three Wastewater Types 35 Heavy Metals 36 Total Dissolved Solids, Chlorides and Sodium 36 Sodium Adsorption Ratio 38 Groundwater 38 Production Overland Flow Fields 41 Hydrology 41 Quality 44 Total Treatment Plant 46 Quantities 46 Quality 49 Phosphorus 49 Dissolved Oxygen 53 Biological Oxygen Demand 53 Ammonia Nitrogen 53 pH 55 Suspended Solids 55 Fecal Coliform Bacteria 55 Facility Groundwater 55 VII COST CONSIDERATIONS 59 Construction Cost 59 Operational Cost - Overland Flow Fields 59 Operational Cost - Paw Paw Treatment System 61 SUMMARY 62 Overland Flow Area 62 Influent and Application Aspects 63 Effluent Requirements and Loading Guidelines 64 Management Aspects 65 ------- LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site During the December through March Months Between December 1983 and March 1985 When Irrigating with Holding Pond Effluent 18 2 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site During the April through October Months Between April 1984 and April 1985 When Irrigating with Holding Pond Effluent 19 3 Land Application Site - Average Monthly Maximum and Minimum Air Temperatures and Precipitation Amount 20 4 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between June and July 31, 1985 When Irrigating the Three Areas at Varying Times with Raw Wastewater 24 5 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between August 5 and September 25, 1985 When Irrigating the Three Areas Simultaneously 25 6 Maximum and Minimum Daily Air Temperatures During October, November and December 1985 29 7 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between October 24 and November 18, 1985 When Irrigating with a Mixture of Raw Wastewater and Holding Pond Effluent Under Warm Conditions 30 8 Average Values and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between November 20 and December 16, 1985 When Irrigating with a Mixture of Raw Wastewater and Holding Pond Effluent Under Cold Conditions 31 9 Average Soil Temperatures 1 Inch Below Soil Surface at Demonstration Site Within Effluent Application Level Areas 32 10 Average Influent and Effluent Values of Various Constituents for the Overland Flow Demonstration Site 37 11 Sodium Adsorption Ratio Data at Various Locations Relative to Overland Flow Irrigation from July 17 through November 11, 1985 39 12 Concentrations at Various Constituents from Overland Flow Demonstration Site Well Samples When Applying Wastewater Between June 1984 and January 1986 40 VI ------- List of Tables (cont'd) Page 13 Hydrologic Data from the Special Tests Run on Two Specific Production Field Small Watersheds When Applying Holding Pond Effluent Between September 5 and November 18, 1985 42 14 Average Values of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for Overland Flow Production Field Areas When Applying Effluent from the Holding Pond During 1985 45 15 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Influent and Final Effluent Flows and Total Monthly Precipitation During 1984 and 1985 47 16 Total Actual Applications of Various Wastewaters (MG/month) to Specific Process Areas During 1984 and 1985 48 17 NPDES Limitations for Village of Paw Paw Outfall Line Discharge to the Paw Paw River 50 18 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Values for Total Phosphorus (mg/1) at Specific Locations During 1984 and 1985 51 19 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Values (mg/1) for Dissolved Oxygen, Biological Oxygen Demand, and Ammonia Nitrogen of Sewage Influent, Holding Pond Effluent, and Outfall Discharge During 1984 and 1985 54 20 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Values for pH, Suspended Solids, and Fecal Coliform of Sewage Effluent, Holding Pond Effluent, and Outfall Discharge During 1984 and 1985 54 21 Total Treatment Plant Groundwater Monitoring Data for 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 57 Vll ------- LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Village of Paw Paw Wastewater Treatment Plant and Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations 7 2 Treatment System Flow Schematic 9 3 Layout of Demonstration Site 10 Vlll ------- ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS ac acre BOD biological oxygen demand DO dissolved oxygen EPA Environmental Protection Agency F.Col. fecal coliform FI flood irrigation ft foot gpm gallons per minute hr hour in. inch kg kilogram 1 liter Ib pound mg milligram MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day SYMBOLS Cd cadmium Ca calcium Cl chloride Cu copper °F degree Fahrenheit Mg magnesium Na sodium NH3-N ammonia-nitrogen Ni nickel N nitrogen ml milliliter min minute NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System No. Number O-P ortho-phosphorus OF overland flow SAR sodium adsorption ratio TDS total dissolved solids TKN total kjeldahl nitrogen T-P total-phosphorus TSS total suspended solids VSS volatile suspended solids wk week yr year NO3-N nitrate-nitrogen NO2-N nitrite-nitrogen p Pb SO4 Zn % # < > phosphorus lead sulfate zinc percent number less than greater than IX ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Accomplishments of the Paw Paw demonstration project have resulted from the cooperation of many persons and agencies. The Paw Paw Superintendent of Public Works supported the idea of converting some of the existing marginally effective flood irrigation areas into overland flow fields with the possibility of year-round use. As this idea developed into reality, the Paw Paw Council supported the project with money and staff as the first overland flow system in the State. The work was begun under a federal funds grant provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Region V and continued with support from the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office. Administrative, financial, and technical assistance from the EPA through Messrs Stephen Poloncsik, Ralph Christensen, and Richard Thomas is particularly acknowledged. The constructive reviews of Michigan Department of Natural Resources personnel is gratefully acknowledged. Advice and assistance of staff members with the U.S. Department of Agricultural Agencies and of personnel with various Michigan State University Departments are greatly appreciated. Technical assistance and support throughout the project by Jeffrey Sutherland and Fred Timmer of the Williams & Works consulting firm is specifically acknowledged. Also, the conscientious efforts in data collection and tabulation throughout the project by Betty Perkis are gratefully acknowledged. ------- SECTION I INTRODUCTION OF wastewater treatment systems are capable of producing highly treated effluents. Overall facility costs, especially for energy, may be much lower than for physical-chemical processes to achieve the same degree of treatment. The OF process is used where soil permeabilities are too low to utilize the infiltration type of land treatment. Thus, this type system may provide an economical form of advanced wastewater treatment for small communities which have to meet stringent discharge standards. The effectiveness of the OF process, however, had not been demonstrated in the northern climate of the Great Lakes Basin. The processes abilities and limitations had not been evaluated under controlled field conditions and design guidelines had not been established. Also, the use of pretreatment and/or post-treatment processes, in conjunction with OF, to provide the overall most cost-effective facility had not been documented. A project was needed to evaluate these aspects before the system could be generally recommended for northern climates. The Village of Paw Paw, Michigan wastewater treatment facility had a significant increase in industrial flows and loading during late 1978 and early 1979. This increase in hydraulic and organic loading required immediate expansion of the existing lagoon and FI plant. The inclusion of OF areas as part of Paw Paw's treatment facility expansion seemed a judicious solution for handling the additional flows. After years of heavy use, about half of the existing FI areas, on the heavier type soils, were operating only marginally and were not capable of handling increased flows. However, these areas would be economical to modify to OF, could provide adequate capacity for the increased flow if used year-round, and would permit much flexibility in operation of the overall facility to meet NPDES limitations. It was decided to synchronize the expansion and modification of the existing Paw Paw facility with a demonstration project to evaluate the OF process at this location. The Village received a Section 108 Demonstration Grant from the U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office to evaluate the OF process. Approximately 5 acres of grass-sodded demonstration site was set apart for detailed observation and an additional nearby 46 acres of seeded-grass production OF fields were monitored with a less intense program. A listing of the original demonstration project objectives follows: 1. Document the treatment performance of the OF process under a variety of hydraulic and organic loadings and with chemical addition for P removal. 2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the OF treatment process during cold weather periods and determine the degree to which the process can be applied in a four-season climate. 3. Document the costs of wastewater treatment by OF including actual energy utilization. ------- 4. Determine recommended operating parameters and design guidelines for the OF treatment process to achieve given effluent standards in northern climates. 5. Prepare a technical report of publishable quality that will make the results of this demonstration generally available for use by others. ------- SECTION H CONCLUSIONS 1. Influent TSS concentrations from raw wastewaters of approximately 200 mg/1 were reduced by OF treatment to <20 mg/1 while concentrations of nearly 50 mg/1 were reduced to between 15 and 28 mg/1 2. Influent NHs-N levels from holding pond effluent of 4 to 5 mg/1 under the colder regimen were reduced by the OF process to between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1, while under the summer regimen, raw wastewater influent levels of 17 mg/1 were reduced to between 1 and 2 mg/1 and mixed wastewater influent levels of 3 mg/1 were reduced to <0.1 mg/1. 3. OF process influent BOD concentrations from mixtures of holding pond and raw wastewaters of 200 mg/1 were reduced to <20 mg/1, concentrations from raw wastewaters of about 400 mg/1 were reduced to between 20 and 40 mg/1, whereas a 507 mg/1 mean raw wastewater influent concentration gave average effluent concentrations of 83, 136 and 158 mg/1 for the 2, 3 and 4 in./wk areas, respectively. 4. For all wastewater hydraulic and organic loadings under all regimens, OF process influent T-P concentrations of 3 to 6 mg/1 were reduced to between 1 and 3 mg/1; chemical treatment was required to produce effluent concentrations of < 1.0 mg/1. 5. For OF treatment of holding pond effluent, F. Col. influent was low enough to present no problems in meeting the final effluent of 200 counts per 100 ml. When applying raw wastewater or mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewater, the effluent F.Col. counts were all >60,000. Coliform reduction treatment needed to follow the OF process in Paw Paw due to their summer effluent limitation. 6. When irrigating holding pond effluent for OF treatment at 3, 6 and 9 in./wk levels, NPDES requirements were easily met for summer and winter regimens, except for T-P. Actually, most parameters showed little difference in reduction due to temperature regimen, except for ammonia and nitrate N which were appreciably lower during summer months. 7. The wastewater of both the 2, 3 and 4 and the 3, 6 and 9 in./wk application levels wetted essentially all of the demonstration site; careful construction and exceptionally thick grass stands aided in the distribution process. 8. Increased hydraulic loadings caused increased percentages of the applied wastewater to run off and usually caused decreased renovation levels; however, the rate of renovation decrease was not nearly as great as the hydraulic loading increase. 9. The OF process proved to be a low cost operation. However, the treatment should be done on a production basis with applications on many acres as at Paw Paw. Operational ------- costs of the overland flow represent 10% of the entire operational budget since it is only one component of many in their treatment system. Electrical costs or energy costs are practically negligible in Paw Paw since pumping is not required. 10. Both the seeded and the sodded grasses of tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass mixtures showed essentially no stress or damage during winter applications at any of the hydraulic or organic loadings. 11. Carefully constructed slopes of 1.2 and 1.6% functioned just as well as the 2.5% slopes; also, the grass-sodded areas functioned just as well as the grass-seeded areas and provided less erosion and full application conditions up to 1 year quicker. 12. High strength BOD raw wastewater prevalent in Paw Paw's system throughout the year caused some odor problems. The wastewater entering the treatment system was nearly black or septic due to a long transmission line. Mixing holding pond effluent high in DO with raw wastewater solved most of the odor problem. 13. Irrigation was never continuous on the demonstration OF site throughout a winter season, though applications were made in every winter month at one time or another during the three-year period. This, plus extensive irrigation of the production fields during the 1984-85 winter season, verified OF as a viable process during harsh northern climatic conditions. 14. Total treatment plant NPDES limits were readily met for all parameters throughout the testing period involving both demonstration and production OF sites, except for T-P and F.Col. 15. Effluent F.Col. levels of 60,000 counts per 100 ml from the demonstration site were readily reduced to 200/100 ml after application to a FI area and the drainage mixing with other total treatment plant groundwater flows. 16. The stringent T-P discharge levels of <1.0 mg/1 in winter and essentially <0.5 mg/1 in summer were met by using lagoon treated effluent for OF applications and then mixing the effluent with low T-P groundwater flows prior to the final discharge. 17. Construction of the overland flow fields was accomplished on this site by sloping previously constructed basically flat flood irrigation fields. The construction cost of $17,000 per acre was this high due to specific site limitations and discharge permit requirements. However, the conversion to overland flow was cost-effective for Paw Paw. ------- SECTION ra RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The OF process at Paw Paw should be further studied with treatment of partially treated wastewater from aeration pond #1. The bad characteristics of raw waste water (such as odors, solids handling, and plugging problems) which were encountered during this demonstration when applying raw or mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewaters would be eliminated. The wastewater would be more consistent and the system could be optimized to operate with maximum efficiency, consistent removals, and standardized day-to-day procedures on a production basis. Saving of overall facility costs, especially electricity and labor, from the production irrigation of 200 to 300 mg/1 BOD wastewater relative to irrigation of <20 mg/1 effluent from the holding pond would be realized. 2. Final treatment of OF runoff by sand filtration should be evaluated for further polishing of P, F.Col., and solids which flow over the fields after heavy rains. The sand filtration would be much lower cost than chemical addition and again would allow the fields to be operated on a production basis with consistent removals. ------- SECTION IV WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY The wastewater treatment facility, Figures 1 and 2, is composed of a lagoon system, several types of land application systems and a chemical feed system. Figure 1 shows the general locations of these systems, the type and size of treatment ponds and land treatment areas, and the location of 12 groundwater monitoring wells. Figure 2 shows a treatment system flow schematic and includes the location of the demonstration site and the hydrologic test areas.The present system average annual flow is 0.6 MGD with a BOD load of 2600 Ib/day. The 1990 system design capacity is for an average annual flow of 1.05 MGD with BOD loading of 4200 Ib/day and capability to handle peak monthly flows of 1.7 MGD with BOD loadings of 16,000 Ib/day. In the following sections, each treatment system is described independently so that it can easily be coordinated with its associated data and discussion as recorded later in the report. LAGOON SYSTEM The lagoon system is essentially composed of three ponds, as shown in Figure 1. Aeration ponds #1 and #2 are each 5 ac in surface area and each contain 24 MG of wastewater at an operating depth of 15 ft. Presently the entire holding pond is 20.5 ac in size and has a holding capacity of 120 MG. The holding pond has 114 days of detention and the three-pond system has about 160 days of detention, for the 1990 design flow. The diffused "gun type" aeration system in ponds #1 and #2 collectively can treat 6,000 Ib/day of BOD. Three surface aerators in each pond would increase the capacity by another 10,600 Ib/day. This would provide the combined capacity to handle the 16,000 Ib/day peak loading for the 1990 design. The year 2000 peak loading of 17,250 Ib/day can be handled by placing an additional aerator of 1000 Ib/day capacity in the diked-off area of the holding pond. The curtain dike and aerator are on hand but to date have not been needed, therefore, have not been installed. FLOOD IRRIGATION AREAS FI areas No. 1, 4 and 7 (Figure 1) contain a total of 56 ac. They have been grubbed, deep plowed, and underdrained with the underdrain system connected to the outfall pipe for the total treatment plant. These areas were constructed essentially flat, are maintained in grass, and are bermed on all sides. All applied wastewater and rainfall on these areas, therefore, must infiltrate and percolate through the soil profile. PRODUCTION OVERLAND FLOW FIELDS Production OF fields No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 (Figure 1) contain a total of 46.5 ac. These fields are subdivided into areas of approximately 175 ft in length and on slopes of 1.2 or 1.6%. These OF fields were developed from existing FI areas which had been constructed level and which through deterioration due to heavy usage had relatively low infiltration rates and shallow water ------- Fl FLOOD IRRIGATION AREA OF OVERLAND FLOW AREA (2) 6ROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL FUTURE AERATION AREA WITH USE OF A CURTAIN WALL DIKE OPEN CHAHWEL FROM WTP OUTLET DISCHARGE TO FIGURE I. VILLAGE OF PAW PAW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT f GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ------- tables. Construction of low-sloped areas avoided importing fill soil and also excavating deeply in the lower portions of the fields. Before the areas were leveled for FI, the soils were loamy sands to loams, underlain at depths mainly by sand and gravel, or they were loams and loamy sands having sandy clay loam and clay loam subsoils. During the process of leveling the areas much of the undisturbed rate of infiltration was lost, especially on the areas having clay loam subsoils. The FI areas with the heavier subsoils have now been reshaped into OF fields and are merely disturbed soil masses, some having reasonable infiltration rates and some having practically none. During the modification of an FI area to an OF field the cut and fill were balanced. The soil was merely transferred to form furrows and uniformly sloped ridges approximately 175 ft in length. The newly shaped soil was compacted to approximate normal field density as the work progressed. After reshaping was accomplished, fine grading and fine seedbed working were completed. A cultipacker drill-seeder was used in high-rate seeding of the areas in a combination of tall fescue, Kentucky blue, and rye grass so as to achieve uniformly sloped, very thickly vegetated areas. A mulch was added to prevent erosion and to maintain soil moisture for establishment of the young grass before irrigation was begun. This intensive care procedure paid off in providing OF areas with essentially no undulations; therefore, no low spots or pooled water areas during wastewater applications. Grassed waterways conveyed all of runoff to inlets for underground drains that conveyed the water to the total treatment plant effluent monitoring station, see Figure 2. An irrigation system was constructed of aluminum pipe, having a gated distribution lateral at the top of each OF slope. The schematic layout of the OF distribution system is shown in Figure 2. One lateral valve typically controlled the flow each sub area. Figure 2 shows the sub area "Hydrologic Area 6C2". Thus, six lateral control valves were used in each of the fields No. 2, 5, and 6 and four valves in field No. 3. DEMONSTRATION SITE Three OF subareas of 1.66 ac each comprise the demonstration site, Figure 3. The areas are level in the north-south direction of 410 ft and are on a uniform 2.5% slope in the east-west direction of 175 ft. They were constructed on silty fine and very fine sandy soils, taking care to remove all vegetation and dissimilar soils. The soils were applied and compacted in uniform layers as the 2.5% slope was developed. After final grading and top soil preparation, the final surface was left without grooves or ridges to insure good contact between sodded-grass roots and surface soil. The demonstration site was sodded to save time in establishing a vegetation sturdy enough to handle the OF rates. The sod was composed of a mixture of 50% Kentucky 31 tall fescue and 50% common Kentucky bluegrass, each seeded at 60 Ib/ac. To assure quick and good root ------- FUTURE AERATION AREA WITH CURTAIN WALL DIKE DEMONSTRATION SITE' (SEE FIG 3) NO. 2 HYDROLOGIC AREA 6C2 NO. 5 HYDROLOGIC AREA 3B-I-3C NO, 3 FIGURE 2 TREATMENT SYSTEM FLOW SCHEMATIC DESCRIPTION AND LEGEND O Surface inlets to drains carrying water to outfall £ Outlets from gated pipe OF areas X Outlets for FI areas D Outfall flow measurement and sampling station for total treatment plant NOJ Nos. Ir 4, and 7 are Flood Irrigation (FI) areas N0.6 Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 are Overland Flow (OF) areas • Manholes with central valves at a, b, c, d, e, f, and g *- Surface runoff to drain from both sides *- Surface runoff to drain from one side OF areas No. 2 and No. 3 have 1.6% slopes OF areas No. 5 and No. 6 have 1.2% slopes ------- AUTOMATIC INFLUENT SAMPLER cP 0 0 o O Q ft ( {***• 3 •-•^ X" € --. ^~ > \ $ \\ IS I' o€ / ri ^ A 1.66 AC. » T T T G» r 3 r ]J--T---- B 1.66 AC. t T T T c 1.66 AC. ^ . r* \*\jtt i l\v/l_ f'^L.V C. /^^•N GATED PIPE LATEF "/"M fe^^9-s ^=s=*as HH. S^<^/"~~~----- /- --^- — -~~. A CONTROL VALVE ON EACH OF THREE UNDERGROUND WASTEYVATER SUPPLY LINE A/W T UNDERGROUND CONDUIT TO CARRY 0 F RUNOFF TO OUTFALL Legend Surface Inlets ^ Sod Waterways To Flumes Underground Conduit • Irrigation Gated Pipe • Wastewater Supply Groundwater Monitoring Wells Sampling Station and Flume Sampling Station Air and Weatherstation Soil Temperature Locations FIGURE 3= LAYOUT OF DEMONSTRATION SITE 10 ------- knitting of the sod and base soil, the surface layer of the base soil was not compacted extensively. The demonstration site irrigation system, shown in Figure 3, was composed of 6-in. diameter aluminum tubing. Wastewater rate to each area was controlled by a valve at the north end of the site. At the top of each area was a 400 ft long gated lateral pipe. Lateral pipe had adjustable gates at 2-ft spacing; however, the number of gates that were opened and the size of each opening were adjusted to give a uniform distribution along the entire lateral. Slightly sloped grassed waterways along the west edge of the areas conveyed the runoff from an independent monitoring station for each area. The effluent from the OF fields is then combined and outletted to an underground pipe network which convey it to the total treatment plant outfall line. CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM A chemical feed system provides a means of storing, metering, mixing, and transferring either ferric chloride or aluminum sulfate (alum) to the wastewater for the precipitation of soluble P forms. One 8,000-gallon tank provides adequate chemical storage and two manual or automatic metering pumps provide flexibility in operation and appropriate standby capacity. A polyvinyl- chloride interconnecting piping system with appropriate accessories provides safety and permits application of chemicals to various wastewater distribution points. Possible feed points include the raw wastewater force main, aeration ponds #1 and #2, the holding pond, and the irrigation supply lines. The schematic flow diagram, Figure 2, shows manhole "c" where chemicals could be added to wastewater for distribution on the demonstration site and manhole "d" where they could be added to wastewater for distribution on production OF fields. 11 ------- SECTION V OPERATING AND MONITORING PROCEDURES Operational processes are described with their associated monitoring methods and schedules. As in the facility description section, each major process is discussed independently to provide synchronization and ease of comparisons within the total report. Under the Demonstration Site heading is listed the chronology of operations and testing used throughout the project period to give perspective regarding what was done, when, and under what conditions. All test procedures associated with monitoring followed EPA approved methods; also, an EPA approved Quality Assurance Plan was implemented. LAGOON SYSTEM Throughout the project period the wastewater moved through aeration ponds #1 and #2 in series and then into the holding pond. Ponds #1 and #2 received aeration through a subsurface diffused aeration system; additional aeration, when required, was provided by floating aerators. The combination of diffused and mechanical aeration provided the flexibility of activating additional units as needed thus minimizing electrical costs. The holding pond provided flexibility for summer and winter operations. During summer, wastewater above that which could be handled by the OF and FI systems would be stored. During winter, with less stringent P requirements, direct discharge to the river plus the use of land application would be used to lower the water level in the holding pond. Routine monitoring of the lagoon system involved twice-a-week determination of pH, BOD, TSS, VSS, T-P, NHs-N and TKN levels for the raw wastewater influent to aeration pond #1 as well as for the effluent from each of the the three ponds. All concentration determinations for the raw wastewater influent were from 24-hour automatically composited samples except for pH; however, all sampling of the effluents from the ponds was by grab sample. FLOOD IRRIGATION AREAS These three areas totaling 56 ac were designed to be used as much as possible throughout the year. During May through October, each area could receive a 7-hour application equal to the 3 in./wk design amount which averages 0.65 MOD. During the remainder of the year, the amount they receive would be controlled by the following three factors. First, temperature and rainfall conditions would determine if they can be used at all; secondly, no more than 3 in./wk would be applied; and thirdly, the amount actually applied up to 3 in./wk would be the minimum volume needed to keep the final plant discharge below 1 mg/1 of T-P as explained under the Total Treatment Plant heading of Section VI. Continuous grass was the crop maintained on the FI areas. This crop removes a large amount of nutrients, maintains the soil's permeability at a high level, and permits wastewater applications essentially throughout the entire year. The grass was harvested as required to keep the vegetation in the best condition; this was usually two or three times a year. 12 ------- No specific sampling and analysis were done on FI effluent discharged through the underground drainage system. Indication of the effluent produced, however, was obtained by study of the quantity and quality of total plant effluent when only FI areas were receiving wastewater. These indications or estimates were used in discussing T-P adjustments under the Total Treatment Plant section. PRODUCTION OVERLAND FLOW FIELDS Between May 1 and October 31, approximately 46 ac of production OF fields could be irrigated for 7 hours each week. This would be an application level of 2 in./wk or 2.52 MG/wk, accounting for about 0.36 MOD. Thus in summer, an average of 1 MGD could be irrigated on the total OF and FI acreage. After November 1, the OF fields are irrigated only if the holding pond level needs to be lowered. The OF fields were maintained in high density stands of grass which helped screen out solids, used large amounts of nutrients, and provided a matrix for the biological slime layer necessary for high levels of renovation. The thick grass also slowed down the water movement, causing more uniform wetting of the field with wastewater aiding the P removal process. The grass was harvested three or four times a year using equipment mounted on tires having low pressures to prevent the making of ruts. Routine monitoring of the production OF system when applying wastewater was once-a-week determinations of TSS, VSS, BOD, O-P, T-P, TKN, NH3-N, NOs-N, DO, pH, F.Col., and temperature of influents and effluents. Concentrations for all parameters of the influents and the effluents were from grab samples. DEMONSTRATION SITE Wastewater applications were made to the demonstration site using holding pond effluent, raw wastewater, or mixtures of the two. A sketch indicating the layout of the site and the locations of the equipment and instrumentation involved is shown in Figure 3. Areas A, B and (j received 3, 6 and 9 in./wk, respectively, of holding pond effluent, and 2, 3, and 4 in./wk applications of raw wastewater and of the mixtures of the two wastewaters. Each area was irrigated by separate gated-pipe line and each line was controlled by a valve. Each line also contained a flow meter during the application of holding pond effluent. During the addition of the other two wastewater types, the volume was metered at the pump station and individual lines calibrated by beaker and stop watch for appropriate rates. Following is a chronology of operations and testing done at the demonstration site throughout the project period to give perspective regarding what was done, when, and under what conditions. All applications of wastewater on the demonstration side between December 12, 1983 and April 11, 1985 were with holding pond effluent. During this period the wastewater was applied five days per week for seven hours per day and control valves were adjusted so that approximately one-fifth of the weekly level was added each day to each of the three areas. 13 ------- During this period, however, there were many weeks when no wastewater was applied due to repair of pipes that were leaking or broken, frozen wastewater in laterals or riser pipes and fields being dried or mowed to keep vegetation in good condition. The wastewater supply and the irrigation application systems were modified and pretested between April 12, 1985 and June 19, 1985. Both raw wastewater and mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewaters were checked but no actual demonstration data secured. Raw wastewater test data were secured between June 20, 1985 and September 25, 1985. Due to odor problems from the raw wastewater remaining in the demonstration site supply line for extended periods between irrigations, the decision was made to drain the line when not irrigating. Thus, between June 20 and July 31 the demonstration site was irrigated in the following manner. Each of the three areas was irrigated twice a week with approximately one- half of its design amount applied each time. The pump was throttled so that the rate of application was essentially one-sixth inch per hour to any one area; therefore, the 2 in./wk area received two 6-hr applications, the 3 in./wk area received two 9-hr applications, and the 4 in./wk area two 12-hr applications. The supply line was drained over the weekend. While this procedure helped repress odors due to shorter times between transmission line use, it caused the greater problems of varying quality to the various areas and of excess labor in valve changing and in effluent sampling of a larger number of times. In early August, the system was modified so that all three areas between August 5 and September 25 were irrigated simultaneously and for the same length of time. Appropriate application levels were obtained by irrigating the areas for 20 hr/wk (approximately 7 hr each time for three days) and applying water to the appropriate areas at approximately 0.1, 0.15, and 0.2 in./hr average rates. This permitted reasonable work schedules, used an efficient pumping rate and provided similar quality wastewater to each area. Transmission lines were flushed with holding pond effluent prior to weekends of non-use. Though odors during summer were present, their extent seemed to be at a permissible level. This, however, was not the case during the fall season when the odors increased. It became judicious to stop applying raw wastewater for a period. When the demonstration site was started up again, the raw wastewater was mixed with effluent from the holding pond. Increased odors from the raw wastewater during fall probably were due to a combination of the following: higher levels of BOD being applied, a higher proportion of the TSS being volatile, wetter and colder soil conditions, vegetative material left on the field from mowing, build-up of slowly digesting material on the fields from previous months, less sunshine, and poorer climate conditions for aerobic digestion. All irrigation applications, therefore, of the demonstration site after September 25, 1985 were of mixtures of raw wastewater and holding pond effluent. Since the application of wastewater procedure used during September worked so well it was continued. Thus, this procedure of simultaneously applying approximately 80, 120, and 160 gpm to the 2,3, and 4 in./wk areas, respectively, was used for all applications of wastewater to the OF demonstration site during the 14 ------- October 24 through December 16, 1985 test period. Since it is very difficult to meter low flows of raw wastewater, the ratios of the two wastewater types were estimated as applied to provide reasonable odor levels and then were established more specifically by the determination of BOD levels in each. Demonstration site applications were terminated on December 16 due to wastewater freezing and the extra labor intensive costs associated during freezing conditions, and also since irrigation of both the demonstration and the production OF areas the previous winter had verified this process as a viable option under winter conditions of this region. For all test periods, runoff from each area was determined from individual Parshall flumes. A 4 ft 5 in. long monitoring well, placed with its top at ground level, was used in each area to secure groundwater samples. Precipitation, as well as daily maximum and minimum air temperatures, were secured from the on-site weather station. Soil temperatures at 1 in. of depth were secured at three locations twice a week in each plot by the use of a portable, dial-gage, probe thermometer. Routine monitoring of the demonstration site OF system, was three times a week determinations of TSS, VSS, BOD, O-P, T-P, TKN, NH3-N, NO3-N, DO, pH, F. Col., and temperature of influent and of effluents from each area. Concentrations for the first eight parameters were from 24-hr automatically composited samples, while the last four parameters were from grab samples. Additional influent and effluent determinations from these samples included approximately once-each-three-months levels of Co, Mg, Na, Cl, and TDS and once-each-six-months levels of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn. Also, the demonstration site groundwater monitoring wells were sampled approximately once-each-three-months and concentrations of BOD, TKN, NO3-N, T-P, and pH were determined. CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM The present wastewater treatment facility was designed with a chemical feed system to assure that P limitations for the final discharge receiving stream could be met. The chemical feed system was used between August 15 and November 8, 1984 to help reduce P levels in the final discharge. More specifically, alum was added to demonstration sites and production fields to reduce runoff concentrations from these OF systems to about 1 mg/1. The alum was injected into the wastewater irrigation feed lines which permitted alum applications to OF fields and also permitted applications to the FI areas without the addition of alum. The OF fields runoff volume at the 1 mg/1 concentration, when mixed with the groundwater and water leaching from the FT areas, produced an acceptable final discharge T-P level as discussed under the Total Treatment Plant heading of SECTION VI. Due to the wide variety of treatment processes used, the chemical addition system had to be adjusted frequently so that the most economical amount of alum could be added. In 1985, the T- P level in the raw wastewater was decreased from previous years, probably due to an industrial modification of wastewater discharged to the municipality's system. The lower P input and the system's existing flexibility in detention volume and treatment processes permitted facility management to meet P discharge limitations without the addition of alum. The chemical feed 15 ------- system, however, is readily available for P reductions required due to future growth, to industrial modifications, or to situations above the land treatment plant's renovating ability. TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT The total treatment plant operation involves the integration of all the individual processes. The concentration levels of the effluents discharged at the outfall and to the groundwater determine if the facility has operated satisfactorily and has met its NPDES requirements. Routine monitoring of the final plant effluent involved the five-times-a-week determination of TSS, VSS, T-P, BOD, NH3-N, and F.col.; plus the everyday determination of DO, pH, and temperature. Concentrations for the first five parameters were from 24-hr automatically composited samples, while for the last were from grab samples. In addition the total effluent discharge was measured daily. All groundwater monitoring wells were sampled monthly for Cl and specific conductance; also the status water elevation was taken monthly for each well. Yearly determinations were made of the parameters, Ca, Mg, SO4, NH3-N, NOs-N, NO2-N, T-P, and bicarbonate as required by the NPDES regulations. Chlorination of the facility discharge waters has not been required due to extensive holding time in the lagoon system; therefore, no total residual chlorine tests were required. 16 ------- SECTION VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results obtained throughout the project duration and the primary discussion of them are presented under three broad areas related to the demonstration site, the production OF fields, and the total treatment plant. OVERLAND FLOW DEMONSTRATION SITE Data for the demonstration site are presented under five major headings for easier discussion of the various project objectives. The first three major headings indicate the types of wastewater applied and are Holding Pond Effluent, Raw Wastewater and Mixtures of Holding Pond Effluent and Raw Wastewater. Treatment performance under a variety of hydraulic and organic loadings is discussed under each of these three headings. Effectiveness of treatment process during cold versus warm periods is compared by two tables, each under the Holding Pond Effluent and the Mixtures of Holding Pond Effluent and Raw Wastewater headings. Chemical additions for P reductions are briefly considered under the Holding Pond Effluent heading. Renovation level comparisons among the three wastewater types and application procedures, as discussed under heading four, provide the basis for guideline considerations presented in the SUMMARY section. Special testing aspects which relate to all three of the wastewater types are discussed under the fifth heading. Holding Pond Effluent All demonstration site results when applying holding pond effluent have been condensed into two tables. Table 1 summarizes 24 sets of results taken during the months of December through March between December 1, 1983 and March 31, 1985, while Table 2 summarizes 30 sets of results taken during the months of April through October between April 1, 1984 and April 30, 1985. Each major constituent is discussed under a separate heading to facilitate comparison when these constituents are considered under other sections. One "set" of results is a list of the values for each parameter on a specific day. Thus, each constituent means of Table 1 is the average of 24 days of data for that constituent. The number of times wastewater was distributed each month was determined by on-line aspects as crop harvesting, seasonal NPDES requirements, weather conditions, and work schedules. These uncontrollable variables due to on-line integration prevented data-taking commensurate with research conditions or statistical analysis. Average monthly maximum and minimum air temperatures and precipitation amount during 1984 and 1985 are listed in Table 3. Months considered cold-period and those considered warm- period were determined from this table. December through March temperature mean lows ranged from 8 to 27°F and mean highs ranged from 20 to 45°F, while April through October mean lows were 38 to 59°F, and highs 56 - 84OF. During one fall the major temperature drop 17 ------- Table 1 oo Constituent DO BOD VSS TSS O-P T-P NH3-N TKN NO3-N F. Col. Average* Values+ and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site During the December Through March Months Between December 1983 and March 1985 When Irrigating with Holding Pond Effluent Influent Mean Range 8.2 7.8 7 8 15 3.24 3.60 3.79 6.80 0.07 <100 3.3-11 7.0-8.2 4-14 2-16 3-31 2.85-3.65 2.88-4.60 3.4-8.1 4.8-12.0 0.33-1.30 <10-600 Effluent from Area Mean 11.5 7.9 5 4 5 2.14 2.31 0.54 2.4 0.67 <50 3 in./wk Range 8.8-13.2 7.4-8.2 2-8 1-6 112 1.60-3.15 1.88-4.70 0.10-2.05 1.3-3.9 0.3-1.4 <10-50 6 Mean 11.5 7.9 5 5 7 2.06 2.42 0.52 2.8 0.58 <10 in./wk Range 7.8-13.6 7.3-8.2 2-10 1-15 2-19 1.80-2.85 2.00-3.20 0.10-2.09 1.0-7.0 0.29-0.94 <10-40 9 Mean 11.5 7.9 5 6 10 1.98 2.45 0.78 3.0 0.68 <50 in./wk Range 8.6-13.2 7.3-8.1 2-9 1-17 2-40 1.58-3.00 1.08-3.40 0.10-4.10 1.45-10.0 0.40-1.15 <10-440 * Averages are for 24 sets of data: 6 in December, 10 in January, 1 in February, and 7 in March. The frequency of irrigation per month was determined by on-line conditions as explained in the text. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. ------- Table 2 Average* Values* and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site During the April Through October Months Between April 1984 and April 1985 When Irrigating with Holding Pond Effluent Effluent from Area Influent 3 in./wk Constituent Mean DO 8.6 pH 8.3 BOD 10 VSS 17 TSS 32 O-P= 3.16 O-P# 1.88 _ T-P= 3.40 T-P# 2.34 NH3-N 0.93 TKN 4.22 NO3-N 1.02 F. Col. * Averages are for 30 sets of data: 4 in April, 3 in May, 7 in June, 1 in July, 3 in August, 8 in September, and 4 in October. The frequency of irrigation per month was determined by on-line requirements of the facility. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. = No alum additions for 18 sets during April through September. * Alum additions for 12 sets during August through October. :nt Range 3.7-16 7.6-9.7 4-18 3-56 3-90 2.84-3.60 1.36-2.35 3.30-4.30 1.60-2.95 0.01-5.28 2.00-11.72 0.18-2.10 5->600 Mean 7.6 8.0 5 5 5 1.82 0.58 1.92 0.85 0.09 1.62 0.19 3 in./wk Range 4.8-10.1 7.4-8.3 3-9 2-25 2-40 0.50-2.58 0.34-0.96 0.75-2.80 0.40-2.32 0.01-0.34 0.99-3.17 <0.05-1.42 5->600 6 Mean 7.0 8.0 5 4 5 1.92 0.58 2.13 0.84 0.08 1 .42 0.18 in./wk Range 5.0-11.1 7.3-8.3 3-9 2-25 2-31 1.10-2.80 0.28-1.00 1.60-2.90 0.38-1.40 0.01-0.16 0.70-2.63 <0.05-1.34 5->600 9 Mean 6.7 7.9 5 5 7 1.92 0.47 2.23 0.78 0.08 1.64 0.18 in./wk Range 4.4-12.3 7.4-8.2 3-10 1-37 2-42 1.25-2.80 0.20-0.82 1.30-2.93 0.37-1.64 0.01-0.15 0.78-3.78 <0.05-104 10=>600 ------- Table 3 Land Application Site Average Monthly Maximum and Minimum Air Temperatures and Precipitation Amount During 1984 and 1985 Temperature Max. Min. Precipitation Month/Year (op) (op) (in) Jan. 1984 20 8 1.26 Feb. 39 24 1.28 Mar. 32 18 4.31 Apr. 56 38 0.69 May 65 44 4.69 June 81 58 0.09 July 83 59 3.33 Aug. 84 58 2.50 Sept. 70 48 5.98 Oct. 62 42 3.30 Nov. 46 28 2.09 Dec. 41 26 3.09 Jan. 1985 25 14 0.78 Feb. 30 15 2.22 Mar. 45 27 4.30 Apr. 62 40 2.60 May 72 47 3.48 June 75 50 1.71 July 82 58 3.15 Aug. 78 57 2.87 Sept. 74 54 1.65 Oct. 62 42 3.78 Nov. 43 33 4.89 Dec. 22 11 1.30 2-yrAvg 56 37 2.72 20 ------- occurred between October and November and during the other it occurred between November and December, therefore, the few November data taken were not considered in either warm or cold periods. Evaluation of the data means from month to month and of the ranges associated with each of these means, indicated no major difference among the data taken within either the cold period or the warm period. It was, therefore, considered appropriate to develop one table for the colder weather period and another table for the warmer weather period. DISSOLVED OXYGEN The influent DO mean for the colder months was 8.2 mg/1, while for the warmer months it was 0.4 mg/1 higher. Effluent DO concentrations for all three respective application levels, however, were from 3.9 to 5.2 mg/1 higher during the colder months than for the warmer ones. This trend is also true for the ranges; as in all situations, respective values are higher during the colder months. These higher effluent DO levels during the colder months are probably due to less biological activity which permitted the reoxygenation achieved in OF to remain high. During the colder months, DO effluent values were appreciably higher than influent values, but during the warmer months, they were lower. All three effluent DO mean concentrations were 11.5 mg/1, whereas in the warmer months DO values decreased with increased loading levels. Greater biological activity due to the increased loading probably caused the decreased DO levels. PH Throughout this entire period and at all influent and effluent test locations, the pH values were in the weakly to moderately alkaline range. The lowest individual pH concentration of 7.0 was an influent value recorded during the colder months, while the highest individual pH concentration of 9.7 was also an influent value but recorded during the warmer months. Under ideal summer conditions, the photosynthetic activity of blue-green algae in the holding pond can increase pH levels very rapidly and to concentrations of 10 or above. Effluent pH mean values were either 7.9 or 8.0 while they ranged only from 7.3 to 8.3. Thus, there were no major differences either between the colder and the warmer months or among the three levels of applications under either temperature regimen. BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Effluent BOD mean concentrations for all three application levels and for both temperature regimens were the same at 5 mg/1. The influent BOD means, however, also were very low being only 7 and 10 mg/1, respectively, for the cold and the warm regimens. Since all values are so low, no meaningful differences are indicated. 21 ------- SUSPENDED SOLIDS The influent TSS mean for the warmer months was 32 mg/1, while for the colder months it was only half that, or 15 mg/1. Respective effluent TSS concentrations for the three application levels, however, were up to 3 mg/1 higher for the colder months than for the warmer ones. Under each temperature regimen, the higher the application level the higher the concentration of TSS in the effluent. All of these situations could have been a result of suspended algae— in summer more algae are produced in the holding pond; under summer field conditions, a greater percentage of the algae are attached to the vegetation and remain on the field; and under high rates and amounts of application, algae are more readily permitted to float through to the outlet. Influent TSS were composed of 53% volatile material for both temperature regimens. Effluent VSS percentages of TSS ranged from 60 to 80% for the colder months and from 70 to essentially 100% for the wanner moths. For both temperature regimens, the higher the application rate and amount, the lower the percentage of VSS. PHOSPHORUS The mean values of P shown in Table 1 are for 24 sets of data, while the 30 sets of P values for Table 2 are divided into two subgroups. The one group as indicated by footnote "#" is for 12 sets of data secured while alum was added to the influent and the other for 18 sets of data is with no additions of alum. Reduction of T-P concentrations during the colder months ranged from 32 to 36% or from 3.6 mg/1 influent to between 2.31 and 2.45 mg/1 effluent. During the warmer months, the 3.4 mg/1 influent value was reduced 34 to 44% when no alum was added. When alum was added, however, the 2.34 mg/1 influent level was reduced from 64 to 67% to effluent levels between 0.78 and 0.85 mg/1. All influent and effluent T-P means for non-alum applications were between 81 and 95% ortho, while for alum additions, an O-P average of 81% was decreased to effluent T- P means containing between 64 and 66% ortho. With no alum additions, these data show no major difference in P reductions between applications of wastewater during winter and summer months. Under both temperature regimens, 0.1 to 0.3 mg/1 reductions in renovation occurred with increased application levels. Addition of alum increased renovation percentages from the 30 and 40% to the 60% level and also lowered the effluent T-P concentrations to <1 mg/1 for all application levels. However, these 1 to 1.5 mg/1 T-P concentration reductions were not considered worth the cost of alum, especially since this facility has other means of more easily and economically attaining total plant outfall P levels required. NITROGEN Influent TKN concentrations were reduced from 56% to 65% for the cold months and from 66 to 71% for the warmer months. For the cold months, the percentage reduction decreased as the 22 ------- loading rate increased, while for the warmer months there was no systematic pattern among the application levels. All TKN discharge concentration means for both temperature regimens were between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/1. The influent NH3-N mean of 3.79 mg/1 for the winter months was well above the 0.93 mg/1 summer months value. This is a typical warmer temperature condition for lagoons. The 3.79 mg/1 influent concentration was reduced to between 0.52 and 0.78 mg/1 effluent during the winter months, whereas the 0.93 mg/1 summer months influent mean was reduced to between 0.08 and 0.09 mg/1 effluent. Crop use of NH/3-N helped produce the low summertime effluent values. The N03-N winter months influent level of 0.67 mg/1 produced effluent means between 0.58 and 0.68 mg/1, or essentially no change. Summertime influent mean of 1.02 mg/1, however, gave effluents of 0.18 or 0.19 mg/1. These low summer months effluent values for N03-N were probably due to crop uptake of N in this form. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA During the winter months, influent F.Col. values averaged <100 counts per 100 ml and effluent values were reduced to the range of <10 to <50 counts/100 ml. During the summer months, however, influent F.Col. values of 5 to >600 counts per 100 ml were not reduced from these levels in the 3 and the 6 in./wk application areas and were actually increased somewhat in the 9 in./wk area. This increased F.Col. count as the water moved over the treatment area was probably due to deer, waterfowl, and/or other small mammal activity within the area. Raw Wastewater Raw wastewater applications were made to the demonstration site only during the warmer months. Results from irrigating with raw wastewater, however, were separated into two tables determined from differing application regimens, as explained in detail under the OPERATING AND MONITORING PROCEDURES section. While these regimens applied wastewater at different rates and lengths of time, each supplied the designated 2, 3 or 4 in./wk to the appropriate area. Between June 20 and July 31, 1985, the areas were irrigated at varying times throughout the day and/or night (see Table 4). Between August 5 and September 25, 1985, all areas were irrigated simultaneously and for the same length of time (see Table 5). DISSOLVED OXYGEN Influent DO concentrations of the raw wastewater were low for both regimens, averaging only 1.4 and 1.8 mg/1. The DO increased between influent and effluent in every situation, with the range of increase being from 0.7 to 3.2 mg/1. All effluent DO means ranged from 2.5 to 4.6 mg/1; and except for the varying-times regimen for the 3 in./wk area, all DO values decreased with increasing application amounts. 23 ------- Table 4 Average* Values+ and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between June 20 and July 31,1985 When Irrigating the Three Areas at Varying Times with Raw Wastewater Effluent from Area nt Range 0.2-3.6 6.3-7.8 184-825 100-720 140-1200 0.67-3.17 3.00-11.80 1.5-20 11.1-52 - - Mean 3.3 7.9 83 20 26 1.23 1.90 0.3 4.2 <0.05 2 in./wk Range 2.2-4.0 7.28.2 5-184 7-57 12-64 0.82-1.60 0.90-2.98 <0.10-1.6 2.1-7.2 all <0.05 >60,000 3 Mean 3.7 7.9 136 13 23 1.27 2.07 0.16 3.9 <0.05 in./wk Range 1.7-5.1 7.7-9.2 26-348 5-22 5-106 0.72-1.86 0.90-3.28 <0. 10-0.68 1.3-7.0 all <0.05 >60,000 4 Mean 2.5 7.8 158 12 15 2.07 2.67 0.47 3.9 <0.05 in./wk Range 0.8-4.8 7.5-8.0 40-300 6-22 7-32 1.14-2.70 1.90-4.06 <0.10-1.95 1.7-7.0 all <0.05 >60,000 Constituent Mean DO 1.8 pH 6.8 BOD 507 VSS 239 TSS 346 O-P 2.18 T-P 5.88 NH3-N 10.0 TKN 26.1 NO3-N F. Col. * Averages are for 14 sets of data while effluent averages are for from 8 to 10 sets of data. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. ------- Table 5 Constituent DO pH BOD VSS TSS 0-P T-P NH3-N TKN NO3-N F. Col. Average* Values* and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between August 5 and September 25,1985 When Irrigating the Three Areas Simultaneously with Raw Wastewater Influent Mean Range 1.4 7.2 437 298 354 1.55 3.63 17.1 26.5 0.5-2.8 6.5-8.5 192-879 185-1120 190-1230 0.67-2.95 3.15-5.60 3.56-25.2 18.6-39.8 Effluent from Area Mean 4.6 7.9 26 15 28 0.66 1.13 0.26 3.8 0.06 2 in./wk Range 3.4-6.0 7.6-8.1 7-87 6-29 7-77 0.48-0.95 0.54-1.96 <0. 10-0.66 2.6-4.5 <0.05-0.18 >60,000 3 Mean 3.9 7.9 35 16 20 1.14 1.75 1.10 5.4 <0.05 in./wk Range 2.3-6.8 7.7-8.0 14-87 5-33 8-42 0.82-1.62 1.14-3.04 <0. 10-2.90 2.4-7.3 all <0.05 >60,000 4 Mean 3.6 7.9 35 12 15 1.58 2.03 1.98 6.4 0.09 in./wk Range 2.1-8.0 7.9-8.2 16-860 5-18 6-24 0.84-2.35 1.11-2.82 0.10-4.64 3.4-11.0 <0.05-0.14 >60,000 * Averages are for 14 sets of data while effluent averages are for from 8 to 10 sets of data. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. ------- Even though the effluent DO means were above the 2 mg/1 value considered satisfactory under the NPDES permit, odors indicated DO problems within the demonstration areas. While low- pressure, gated-pipe applications save energy, they tend to concentrate BOD loadings near the area where the wastewater is applied and may not make the most efficient use of the entire field's renovating ability, especially for high BOD wastewaters. PH Under all situations, the influent pH mean values of 6.8 or 7.2 were increased to either 7.8 or 7.9 before discharged occurred. Thus, there were no major differences between application regimens or among application levels relative to pH. BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Under the simultaneous-irrigation-of-areas regimen, the 437 mg/1 BOD influent mean was reduced between 94% in the 2 in./wk area and 92% in the 4 in./wk area. The 507 mg/1 BOD influent mean of the varying-times-irrigation regimen was reduced only between 84% in the 2 in./wk area and 69% in the 4 in./wk area. Both regimens showed decreased reductions at each of the two higher application levels. The 26 to 35 mg/1 BOD effluent averages for the simultaneous irrigation regimen approached the 30 mg/1 requirement, while the 83 to 158 mg/1 BOD effluents of the varying-times-irrigation regimen were well above permitted levels. The appreciably lower reductions of the varying-times-irrigation regimen seemed to be due to higher rates of flow across the entire field or parts of the field. Higher flow rates over the entire field could have been due to rainfall events, not the 3.15 in. of precipitation in July. Also, discharging all of the pump flow to one area, even with the pump throttled, produced higher flow rates than under the simultaneous-irrigation regimen. High flow rates over parts of a field were sometimes caused by raw wastewater plugging a number of outlets, which increased flows out of the open gates. In addition, the influent BOD concentration for the varying-time regimen was 70 mg/1 higher than the simultaneous-irrigation regimen and perhaps could have been of a slightly different BOD type due to differing food industry processes. SUSPENDED SOLIDS All effluent TSS levels for each regimen were less than the 30 mg/1 NPDES limit, ranging from 15 to 28 mg/1. Also, for each regimen the effluent TSS levels decreased as the application levels increased. The average reductions for both regimens were nearly identical, reducing the influents of approximately 350 mg/1 by 92% in the 2 in./wk areas, by 95% in the 3 in./wk areas, and by 96% in the 4 in./wk areas. Influent TSS were composed of 70 to 80% volatile material while effluent VSS percentages of TSS ranged from 50 to 80 with no systematic variation among the application levels. 26 ------- PHOSPHORUS O-P comprised 37 to 42% of the influent T-P while effluents ranged from 58 to 78% ortho. This indicates a screening-out or settling of the non-ortho phase as the wastewater moved over the irrigation areas. Percent of T-P removed ranged from 69 to 44 with increasing levels of simultaneous-irrigation- regimen applications and from 68 to 55 with increasing levels of application under the varying- time-irrigation regimen, showing essentially no difference due to irrigation regimen. Effluent T- P concentrations for both regimens, however, ranged from 1.13 to 2.67 mg/1, all well above the preferred 0.5 mg/1 concentration. NITROGEN Influent TKN concentration of approximately 26 mg/1 was reduced to between 3.8 and 6.4 mg/1, with no notable differences between irrigation regimens nor among application levels. Influent NO3-N was not determined in the raw wastewater and effluent NO3-N was nearly always less than 0.05 mg/1 at all application levels for both irrigation regimens. The NH3-N influent concentration of 10.0 mg/1 was reduced by 95 to 99% to between 0.16 and 0.47 mg/1 during June and July. During August and September, the 17.1 mg/1 influent mean was reduced 88 to 98% to between 0.26 and 1.98 mg/1. With increased application rates, there was a reduction of renovation, indicating the inability of the grass to use all of the N at the higher loading levels. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA All recorded F.Col. count averages for effluents from both raw wastewater regimens and for all application levels were >60,000. Mixtures of Holding Pond EFFLUENT AND RAW WASTEWATER Both raw wastewater application regimens produced decreased reductions under increased loadings; however, neither met NPDES BOD requirements and both produced unacceptable levels of odor. Thus, it became necessary to mix holding pond effluent with the raw wastewater to increase DO and reduce BOD. In mixing these wastewaters, the basic criterion followed was to add the least amount of pond effluent to maintain an acceptable odor level. Quality data for these mixtures of wastewaters are presented in two tables, differing primarily in temperature levels existing when the wastewater applications were made as explained below. The proportion of holding pond effluent used in the mixture each time was determined by odor levels, and thus varied extensively. The mixtures ranged from approximately 13% of raw wastewater to as high as 68%. The percentage of raw wastewater was approximated by comparing BOD levels of the mixture and those of the raw wastewater while considering holding 27 ------- pond BOD negligible as explained under the OPERATING AND MONITORING PROCEDURES section. Between October 24 and November 18, 1985, daily minimum temperatures never dropped below 28°F and for only four nights were below 32°F (see Table 6). For this period of essentially above freezing temperatures, eight complete sets of data were taken (see Table 7). Between November 20 and December 16, 1985, no daily minimum temperature was above freezing, while during 11 days, temperature never rose above freezing and for only two days reached 4(K>F. For this period of essentially below freezing temperatures, eight sets of data were taken for all locations, except the 2 in./wk area where seven sets were taken (see Table 8). Soil temperatures for the first set of data were essentially all in the 40°F range, while for the second set were in the 300 p range (see Table 9). DISSOLVED OXYGEN The warmer regimen influent DO mean of 3.9 mg/1 was increased to between 6.8 and 9.0 mg/1, while the colder regimen influent was increased from 5.5 mg/1 to between 9.2 and 11.6 mg/1. For each regimen, effluent DO values decreased with increased amounts of applied wastewater. PH The pH concentration under the warmer regimen increased from 7.6 at influent to 7.9 or 8.0 for all effluents, while under the colder regimen the 8.0 pH influent remained essentially at that level for all three effluent areas. Average effluent pH values for the 2, 3 and 4 in./wk areas under the warmer regimen were identical to those of respective areas under the colder regimen. BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND During the warmer regimen, 187 mg/1 influent BOD concentrations were reduced 94 to 95% to effluent values of 10 or 11 mg/1, while during the colder regimen, 193 mg/1 concentrations were reduced between 95 and 97% to values from 6 to 10 mg/1. There was no systematic pattern of reduction among the three levels of application for either regimen. These reductions indicate no difference in renovation even though the soil temperatures under the cold regimen averaged 1QOF colder than under the warmer regimen. SUSPENDED SOLIDS Influent TSS concentration of 132 mg/1 was reduced to between 7 and 9 mg/1 effluents during the warmer regimen; while during the colder regimen, 140 mg/1 influent mean was reduced to between 6 and 8 mg/1 effluent. There was a slightly better reduction under the colder regimen for each corresponding application level; however, there was no systematic pattern of reduction under either regimen relative to application amounts. Influent TSS were composed of about 75% volatile material while effluent VSS percentages of TSS ranged from 56 to 88%. 28 ------- Table 6 Maximum and Minimum Daily Air Temperatures (op) During October, November and December 1985 October November December Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 49 61 64 65 66 66 64 56 77 66 62 54 54 64 62 59 56 61 63 70 65 68 63 53 55 56 56 38 31 26 57 55 56 52 40 51 55 43 28 28 58 50 45 40 35 48 39 30 34 45 32 36 34 38 63 55 47 44 48 56 48 52 47 36 33 51 46 50 40 42 46 56 63 40 31 33 33 32 30 40 37 36 34 34 55 43 37 40 40 42 33 28 37 28 28 33 42 37 32 35 32 36 40 24 23 32 26 24 24 31 30 29 28 32 46 18 30 31 36 29 33 32 -' 30 34 31 29 20 10 21 20 15 12 12 21 16 11 31 12 7 5 12 14 16 32 28 12 8 16 16 21 17 17 20 29 29 28 17 10 2 11 12 4 3 -1 0 6 7 28 -4 -8 2 2 8 0 28 12 29 ------- Table 7 Constituent DO pH BOD VSS TSS O-P T-P NH3-N TKN NO3-N F. Col. Average* Values* and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between October 24 and November 18,1985 When Irrigating with a Mixture= of Raw Wastewater and Holding Pond Effluent Under Warm* Conditions Effluent from Area Influent Mean 3.9 7.6 187 99 132 1.27 3.14 3.49 10.9 - - Range 2.4-4.8 6.8-8.2 114-310 52-153 76-255 0.91-2.10 2.72-4.29 2.77-4.95 8.1-20.2 . - 2 in./wk Mean 9.0 8.0 11 6 7 0.41 0.52 <0.10 1.4 <0.05 Range 6.6-11.1 7.8-8.2 4-24 3-16 5-18 0.30-0.69 0.36-0.74 all<0.10 1.0-2.1 <0.05-0.06 >60,000 3 in./wk Mean 8.2 8.0 10 5 9 0.51 0,64 <0.10 1.4 <0.05 Range 5.4-9.9 7.9-8.1 4-24 3-16 5-19 0.43-0.64 0.53-0.77 all<0.10 1.1-2.0 all <0.05 >60,000 4 in./wk Mean 6.8 7.9 11 7 8 0.68 0.88 0.13 1.5 <0.05 Range 4.5-8.0 7.8-8.1 5-23 4-16 5-16 0.54-0.84 0.56-1.21 <0. 10-0. 17 0.9-1.8 all <0.05 all >60,000 * Averages are for 8 sets of data. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml.l = The average portion of raw wastewater in the mixture during this period was 29%. # During this period, minimum temperatures never fell below 28°F and only 4 nights were below freezing. ------- Table 8 Constituent DO pH BOD VSS TSS 0-P T-P NH3-N TKN NOs-N F. Col. Average* Values* and Ranges of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for the Demonstration Site Between November 20 and December 16,1985 When Irrigating with a Mixture= of Raw Wastewater and Holding Pond Effluent Under Cold# Conditions Influent Mean 5.5 8.0 193 101 140 1.13 3.16 4.59 11.2 Effluent from Area nt Range 2.4-9.4 7.6-8.4 100-328 60-128 98-180 0.42-1.82 2.63-4.18 2.40-8.64 9.4-14.2 . Mean 11.6 8.0 8 4 6 0.47 0.58 0.11 1.1 <0.05 2 in./wk Range 10.0-12.2 7.8-8.2 3-19 2-8 4-9 0.39-0.52 0.51-0.64 <0. 10-0. 13 0.9-1.4 all <0.05 3 Mean 11.1 8.0 6 5 8 0.58 0.70 0.36 1.3 <0.05 in./wk Range 9.0-12.0 7.8-8.2 3-12 4-10 4-12 0.36-0.78 0.50-0.97 <0. 10- 1.10 0.8-2.6 all <0.05 4 Mean 9.2 7.9 10 7 8 0.67 0.83 0.71 1.6 0.6 in./wk Range 7.4-11.8 7.7-8.1 3-26 2-10 2-12 0.51-0.79 0.69-1.08 <0. 10- 1.68 1.0-2.6 <0.05-0.10 * Averages are for 8 sets of data, except for 2 in./wk which is for 7. + All units are in mg/1 except pH which is in standard units and F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. = The average portion of raw wastewater in the mixture during this period was 43%. # During this period, no daily minimum temperatures were above freezing and during 11 days, the maximum temperature never rose above freezing. ------- Table 9 Date Average* Soil Temperatures (°F) 1 Inch Below Soil Surface at Demonstration Site Within Effluent Application Level Areas 2 in./wk 3 in./wk 4 in./wk 10/04/85 10/10/85 10/14/85 10/21/85 10/25/85 10/28/85 11/05/85 11/08/85 11/11/85 11/15/85 11/19/85 11/22/85 11/25/85 11/29/85 12/02/85 12/06/85 12/10/85 12/13/85 12/23/85 50.0 51.8 51.8 50.0 47.3 46.4 44.1 42.8 38.8 39.5 48.2 36.3 34.2 35.6 33.2 35.1 35.3 31.6 33.6 50.0 52.7 52.7 50.0 47.3 46.4 44.3 41.9 41.0 40.1 48.2 36.5 34.7 34.3 33.6 34.3 35.1 31.1 32.5 50.0 50.9 52.7 50.4 46.4 45.9 44.1 41.4 40.5 38.8 48.2 36.3 34.3 36.5 33.2 32.4 32.9 31.1 32.4 * Values listed are average OF temperatures obtained at three different locations within each application area. 32 ------- PHOSPHORUS Both regimens had influent T-P mean concentrations of approximately 3.15 mg/1. T-P reduction under the warmer regimen ranged from 72 to 83% or to between 0.52 and 0.88 mg/1 concentra- tions, while reduction under the colder regimen ranged from 74 to 82% for 0.58 to 0.83 mg/1 concentrations. O-P comprised 36 to 40% of the influent T-P for each of the wastewaters and 77 to 83% of the effluents from each of the wastewaters. Thus, there was essentially no difference in P reduction due to soil temperatures being slightly below or slightly above freezing. NITROGEN The approximately 11 mg/1 TKN influent concentration under each regimen was reduced to between 1.0 and 1.6 mg/1 effluent for the three application areas. Effluent NOs-N concentra- tions were nearly always below 0.05 mg/1. The 3.49 mg/1 NH influent concentration under the warmer regimen was reduced to approximately 0.1 mg/1 for each application level, whereas during the colder regimen, the 4.59 mg/1 influent was reduced to 0.11, 0.36 and 0.71 mg/1 levels by the 2, 3 and 4 in./wk areas, respectively. The greater N reductions under the warmer regimen and the lighter loadings can readily be accounted for by crop uptake of the ammonia and nitrate forms. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA All F. Col. count averages for effluents from both mixed-wastewaters regimens and for all application levels were above 60,000. Renovation Considerations Among Three Methods This section discusses renovation level differences among the various wastewater application regimens used on the O F demonstration site. These differences provide the basis for the guideline considerations presented under the SUMMARY section. DISSOLVED OXYGEN DO comparisons among the three types of wastewater used were very definitive. Increasing loading rates produced lower DO levels for four of the six regimens; only the 3 in./wk varying- times irrigation procedure deviated far from this trend. Effluent DO concentrations for all colder situations were appreciably higher than their respective warmer ones. Low DO levels associated with high BOD concentrations of both raw wastewater regimens permitted very much odor, while the higher DO and lower BOD levels of holding pond and of the mixed wastewaters produced little odor. DO means of all effluent from the OF demonstration site were between 2.5 and 11.6 mg/1, all above the total treatment plant minimum requirement of 2.0 mg/1. 33 ------- PH Effluent pH variation among the three types of wastewaters used was essentially non-existent, varying only from 7.8 to 8.0 pH mean values of influent wastewater were the lowest at 6.8 from direct applications of raw wastewater and were the highest at 8.3 during the summer months from the holding pond due to photosynthesis. All demonstration site effluent means for pH were well within the total plant's outfall requirements of 6.0 to 9.0. BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Holding pond wastewater BOD concentrations of approximately 10 mg/1 were reduced to 5 mg/1, and mixtures of holding pond and raw wastewaters of approximately 190 mg/1 were reduced to nearly 10 mg/1. Each of these wastewater types and their reductions involved both warm and cold conditions which indicates relatively little BOD renovating difference between the two temperature regimens. There was no systematic pattern or reduction among the application level for either temperature regimens applied to the demonstration site, but all effluent BOD concentrations were well below the normal NPDES requirement for total treatment plant discharge of 30 mg/1. The raw influent BOD means of 437 to 507 mg/1, however, were reduced only to between 26 and 158 mg/1 effluents from the O F demonstration site. These above permissible values were also associated with much odor. SUSPENDED SOLIDS The OF demonstration site did an excellent job of reducing TSS. Holding pond effluent TSS were reduced from 15 or 32 mg/1 to between 15 and 28 mg/I; and the mixed wastewaters TSS of approximately 140 were reduced to less than 10 mg/1. For TSS reductions, there was no major difference between temperature regimens nor were there any specific trends among applications levels. All demonstration site effluent means for TSS were within the total treatment plant's NPDES maximum 30-day average of 30 mg/1. PHOSPHORUS In 1984, with the use of holding pond wastewater, there usually was a slightly less ortho percentage of T-P in the effluent than in the influent. In 1985, however, with the use of raw wastewater and of the mixed wastewaters, the ortho percentage of T-P in the effluent was essentially twice the level it was in the influent. This could relate to an industry modification early in 1985 which produced appreciably lower T-P concentrations in Paw Paw's wastewater during 1985 than during 1984. As shown later in the T-P table under the Total Treatment Plant section. Increased loading levels gave reduced T-P renovation for each of the wastewater types and for both regimens under each type. Essentially no difference in T-P reduction between the colder and the warmer regimens was indicated by both tables of temperature regimen comparison data. Average influent T-P concentrations to average effluent concentrations varied as follows: holding pond wastewater, 3.5 mg/1 influent gave 1.9 to 2.5 mg/1 effluent; raw wastewater 4.7 34 ------- mg/1 influent gave 1.1 to 2.7 mg/1 effluent; and the mixed wastewater 3.1 mg/1 influent gave 0.5 to 0.9 mg/1 effluent. NITROGEN When contrasting demonstration site colder regimens against warmer ones, for most application, of holding pond and mixed wastewaters, greater reduction of each of the three forms on N occurred under the warmer regimens, but no systematic reductions among application levels was evident. The greater N reductions under the warmer regimens can readily be accounted for by crop uptake of the ammonia and nitrate forms of N. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA Fecal Coliform bacteria count comparisons among the three types of wastewaters used indicate the following aspects. When applying holding pond wastewater, OF effluent ordinarily meets the NPDES 30-day average maximum count of 200 per 100 ml. When applying raw wastewater, or even mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewaters containing more than 25% raw wastewater, the F.Col. counts per 100 ml were all >60,000. These high counts masked any minor differences between treatment regimens, between temperature regimens, and among application levels. These data indicate that some type F.Col. reduction treatment needs to follow the OF process when appreciable amounts of raw wastewater are applied and when discharge limits in the range of 200 counts per 100 ml must be met. Special Testing; All Three Wastewater Types Additional chemical monitoring was conducted and quality parameters determined for all three wastewater types at various times throughout the several years of demonstration tests. This special testing included determining concentration levels for the heavy metals Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn; for TDS, Na and Cl; for Ca and Mg; and for the groundwater constituents of pH, BOD, O-P, TKN, NHs-N, and NO3-N. Heavy metals are rarely of concern when well treated wastewaters are applied to the land because most of these metals are concentrated in the sludge. However, since raw wastewater and mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewaters were used on the demonstration site, these tests were run on both influents and effluents. High amounts of Na relative to the combined amounts of Ca and Mg can have detrimental effects on certain soils and crops. This relationship as defined by the sodium adsorption ratio needs to be evaluated for all land application systems. Since little renovation of Cl occurs in land systems, this parameter gives a good indication of wastewater movement and of hydrologic aspects. Groundwater quality data for land application systems ordinarily are taken to assure that the treatment facility is functioning as designed and that no abnormal modification of the subsurface waters are occurring. 35 ------- HEAVY METALS Influent and effluent determinations of five heavy metal concentrations were made three times during holding pond effluent applications and once each during applications of raw wastewater and of the mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewaters. Concentrations of all influents and effluents for each of the three wastewater types for Cd were <0.125 mg/1 and for Cu and Pb were <0.25 mg/1. All effluent values of Ni were <0.25 mg/1, while influent values from the holding pond were <0.25 mg/1, for raw wastewater was <0.89 mg/1, and for the mixture of wastewaters was 0.31 mg/1. Zn concentrations from holding pond influents averaged 0.288 mg/1 while the effluents ranged from 0.258 to 0.442 mg/1, and for the other two wastewater types influent concentrations of 0.18 and 0.28 mg/1 both gave all effluents of <0.125 mg/1. Trace element and heavy metals are nutrients necessary for plant growth, but when added to soil in excessive quantities may cause injury to crops or perhaps damage to people through the food chain. Zn, Cu and Ni ordinarily cause major crop injury long before damage would be caused to people through the food chain. Cd and Pb can cause damage through the food chain but these elements added to the soil are not a hazard until they have actually entered edible parts of plants. Soil factors affecting the toxicity of these metals include pH, organic matter, P content, and cation exchange capacity. Relative to the previous comments and to generally accepted heavy metal application levels, the above heavy metal values do not indicate a cause for concern. Due to low levels of heavy metal concentrations in the wastewaters and to the small volumes of raw sewage applied, no soil sampling nor crop tissue testing were completed for determining these constituents. TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, CHLORIDES AND SODIUM Additional chemical tests were conducted on both influent and effluent of all three wastewater types (see Table 10). These special tests occurred about once each quarter and included determinations of TDS, Cl and Na. Since relatively little change of these parameters would be expected in OF, analysis of these data should give some indication of field hydrology. When applying holding pond effluent and averaging the August, January and March results, very little difference occurred between the concentrations applied and the concentrations in the runoff for all parameters and under each application level. These results should be expected from the averaging of data and since several seasons of the year were included. During the July application of raw wastewater, influent Cl of 107 mg/1 increased from 60 to 74%, influent Na of 144 mg/1 increased from 25 to 41%, and influent TDS of 1036 mg/1 increased from -12 to 18%. All effluent levels were higher in concentrations than influent levels for all parameters and all application levels, except for the 2 in./wk area for TDS. The differences in increased percentage levels among the three constituents indicate differences in the soil-crop eco-sphere to use or tie-up these constituents. The highest percentage increases in the Cl concentrations indicates essentially no crop use or soil tie-up of this element, therefore increasing the Cl content of the unused water which moved out as interflow. 36 ------- Table 10 Average* Influent and Effluent Values of Various Constituents for the Overland Flow Demonstration Site Influent to Effluent from Area# (mg/1) AH Areas Constituent (mg/I) xin./wk yin./wk zin./wk (when applying holding pond effluent during 1984 and 1985) TDS 831 802 789 835 Na 214 206 207 215 Cl 226 227 238 246 * Averages are for three sets of data taken 8/9/84,1/7/85, and 3/25/85. # x, y and z values for this subtable are 3, 6 and 9, respectively. * * * (when applying raw wastewater on July 17 and 18,1985)) TDS 1,036 916 1,227 1,046 Na 144 191 203 180 Cl 107 179 171 186 * Influent is average of two sets of data while effluents are all individual measurements. # x, y and z values for this subtable are 2, 3 and 4, respectively. * * * (when applying a mixture+ of raw and holding pond wastewater on November 11, 1985) TDS 1,013 519 632 699 Na 270 156 174 204 Cl 277 120 160 185 * All data are for individual measurements. # x, y and z values for this subtable are 2, 3 and 4,, respectively. + The portion of raw wastewater in the mixture was approximately 26%. 37 ------- For the November application of mixed wastewaters, influent TDS of 1,013 mg/1 were reduced from 31 to 49%; influent Na of 270 mg/1 was reduced from 24 to 42%; and influent Cl of 277 mg/1 was reduced from 33 to 57%. For all three constituents, the percentage of reduction decreased as the amount of wastewater applied increased. Actually, the primary method of reduction, especially for Cl, was dilution. Since there was no rain on this date, the dilution probably came from the applied wastewater mixing with interflow from the rains of 0.83 and 0.28 inches on November 9 and 10, respectively. SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO SAR data relative to OF irrigation were taken at certain locations between July 17 and November 11, 1985, Table 11. The data were from influents for all three wastewater types and for effluents from the three demonstration areas and one production field. This ratio of the single valent cation Na to the double valent cations Ca and Mg predicts the occurrence of detrimental effects to soils and crops due to excess Na and is given in Table 11. These data indicate appreciable variation of SAR levels of influent raw wastewater, from 2.9 to 8.8, as compared to relatively uniform values for holding pond effluent, from 5.2 to 5.8. They also indicate effluent SAR values vary directly with influent SAR levels; i.e., September 24 holding pond wastewater applications of SAR 5.7 gave production field effluent of 5.2; September 25 raw wastewater demonstration area influent of SAR 8.8 gave effluents of SAR 7.8 to 8.5; and July 17 and 18 raw wastewater influent of 3 to 5 gave demonstration area effluents of SAR 4.2 to 4.7. SAR values of 5 to 10 tend to decrease a soil's infiltration rate, especially if the soil is high in clay content. Decreased infiltration often is considered of little concern in OF systems, but can be devastating for flood irrigation regimens. Also, where OF facilities are not truly "over" land flow, but actually involve much interflow for removal of P, etc., high SAR levels can be very detrimental. GROUNDWATER A shallow groundwater monitoring well was located in the center of each demonstration area, Figure 3. These wells were labeled A, B and C and relate to increasing application levels, respectively. Groundwater sampling and analyses were done on the dates shown in Table 12, which includes one or more sets of data from each of the three types of wastewaters applied. The wells were approximately 4 feet deep with the bottom 2 feet being screened. The demonstration site groundwater concentration major changes of T-P, BOD and TKN from time to time indicate a malfunction of the sampling wells. Shallow groundwater monitoring, in modified soil situations, by the use of driven wells is not always a successful venture. Frost action and/or modified sandy soils, in combination with the large volumes of OF plus rainfall water, probably caused short circuiting of the water through the nearly 2 ft of soil above the top of the well screen. 38 ------- Source Prod. Effl Table 11 Sodium Adsorption Ratio Data* at Various Locations Relative to Overland Flow Irrigation from July 17 through November 11,1985 Date 09/24 Na 204 Ca 66 * All units are in mg/1 except SAR which is a standard ratio: Na+ Mg 30 Mg++)/2]0.5 Where Na, Ca, and Mg are expressed in milliequivalents per liter SAR Holding Pond Holding Pond Holding Pond Raw Raw Raw Mixed 2" Effl 2" Effl 2" Effl 3" Effl 3" Effl 3" Effl 4" Effl 4" Effl 4" Effl 08/19 09/16 09/24 07/17 07/18 09/25 11/11 07/18 09/25 11/11 07/17 09/25 11/11 07/18 09/25 11/11 192 212 234 170 117 388 270 180 400 156 203 400 174 171 374 204 66 63 76 63 77 88 86 75 104 52 76 124 58 76 96 72 22 23 30 20 28 36 40 21 38 23 30 44 25 30 40 44 5.2 5.8 5.7 4.8 2.9 8.8 6.0 4.7 8.5 4.5 4.6 7.8 4.8 4.2 8.1 4.7 5.2 39 ------- Table 12 Concentrations* at Various Constituents from Overland Flow Demonstration Site Well* Samples When Applying Wastewater Between June 1984 and January 1986 Well Date A 6/01/84 8/16/84 4/03/85 5/31/85 7/19/85 9/30/85 1/22/86 B 4/03/85 5/31/85 7/19/85 9/30/85 1/22/86 C 6/01/84 8/16/84 4/03/85 5/31/85 7/19/85 9/30/85 1/22/86 pH 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.0 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.8 8.3 8.3 7.6 8.0 7.4 7.2 7.7 7.5 7.6 BOD 2 2 4 3 14 6 2 4 9 4 - 4 8 1 4 11 4 10 1 O-P <0.08 0.05 <0.40 0.21 0.59 0.53 0.046 0.80 0.30 0.05 0.32 0.044 0.84 0.66 0.90 <0.04 0.04 0.54 0.04 TKN 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.9 4.5 1.5 0.9 3.5 1.0 - 1.5 2.3 1.6 1.2 3.2 1.3 4.5 1.7 NH3-N - 0.51 0.69 0.36 0.45 0.44 0.48 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.37 0.28 _ 0.59 0.50 1.08 0.46 1.08 - NO3-N <0.125 0.10 0.22 0.31 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.32 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.125 0.14 0.31 0.23 0.07 0.05 <0.05 Applied Wastewater Pond #3 Pond #3 Pond #3 Raw Raw Mixture None for 1 Month Pond #3 Raw Raw Mixture None for 1 Month Pond #3 Pond #3 Pond #3 Raw Raw Mixture None for 1 Month * All units are in mg/1, except pH which is in standard units. # Wells A, B and C are in application areas 2, 3 and 4 in./wk, respectively. 40 ------- The January 22, 1986 samples were taken a month after termination of applications to the demonstration site. O-P values of 0.04 in each well, plus low values of BOD and TKN are indicative of background groundwater quality. Data from demonstration site wells on other sampling dates indicate mixtures of treated and partially treated wastewaters; however, appropriate well data from the total facility wells are presented under the Total Treatment Plant section. PRODUCTION OVERLAND FLOW FIELDS In an attempt to delineate more precisely quantity and quality, influent and effluent relationships on production OF fields, a series of special tests were run on each of two areas that were relatively easy to isolate. In the summer of 1985, a 90°V-notch weir plus an automatic depth recorder were installed on each of two specific watersheds; one referred to as area 3B+3C and the other as 6C2. These references indicate their field locations and their watershed supply valve designations, Figure 2. Watershed 3B+3C is V-shaped and was irrigated by two gated laterals. The 3B lateral irrigated 1.26 ac and the 3C lateral 2.53 ac for a total of 3.79 ac. Watershed 6C2 slopes from only one side to the outlet channel, was irrigated by only one lateral, and contains 2.23 ac. Each lateral was controlled by one valve and following each valve was a water meter for determining the volume of wastewater applied. The following sections on hydrology and quality discuss the results obtained from these special tests. Also for comparison, routine production OF field results are included and demonstration site data considered. Hydrology Seven hydrographs were produced by the hydrologic equipment installed in the 3B+3C area, while eight were produced from the equipment in the 6C2 area. One week before the test runs were made, a pre-test application was made to produce hydrologic conditions similar to those when a 2 in./wk sequence is being followed. Data determined from the hydrographs and additional data relative to these special tests are shown in Table 13. Due to rainfall events and equipment malfunction, not all of the hydrographs were used, as noted at the bottom of the table. For a 2-in. application, watershed 3B+3C should receive approximately 0.205 MG and watershed 6C2 about 0.121 MG. As noted, however, the volume applied ranged from 0.161 to 0.309 MG on watershed 3B+3C and from 0.181 to 0.268 MG on watershed 6C2. These variations were primarily due to the use of on-line large irrigation valves. These valves normally operate in the completely open position and function quite well; however, these flows required operation in the nearly closed position. After the valves were adjusted to the proper flow rate, they would automatically "slip" a small amount over time. This slippage plus slight changes in the hydraulic head on the valves, caused major flow differences. 41 ------- Table 13 Hydrologic Data* from the Special Tests Run on Two Specific Production Field Small Watersheds When Applying Holding Pond Effluent Between September 5 and November 18,1985 - - Watershed - - Items and Units 3B + 3C 6C2 Area, ac 3.79 2.23 Volume applied, MG 0.161 to 0.309 0.181 to 0.268 Volume in runoff, MG 0.081 to 0.120 0.028 to 0.103 Percentage of runoff, % 39 to 50 14 to 57 Application depth, in. 1.57 to 3.01 2.99 to 4.43 Application rate, gpm 380 to 850 422 to 564 Peak runoff rate, gpm 230 to 320 75 to 290 Percentage peak runoff, % 36 to 61 18 to 52 Base flow time, days 1 to 1.5 2 to 2.5 The data for watershed 3B + 3C was secured from the best three of seven hydrographs of this area while the 6C2 data was secured from six hydrographs of the eight for this watershed. 42 ------- Runoff volume is determined from the area under a hydrograph, which accounts for the discharge rates over the weir and the lengths of time they occur. Runoff volumes ranged from 0.081 to 0.120 MG for watershed 3B+3C and from 0.28 to 0.103 MG for watershed 6C2. These runoff volumes relative to applied volumes ranged from 39 to 50% for watershed 3B+3C and from 14 to 57% for watershed 6C2. Application rates were determined by dividing the volume applied by the length of application time and ranged from 380 to 850 gpm. The peak runoff rates were determined from the maximum depths of flow over the weirs and ranged from 75 to 320 gpm. The peak runoff rates relative to the average rates of application ranged from 36 to 61% for watershed 3B+3C and from 18 to 52% for watershed 6C2. Base flow time in this report was considered the length of time between when the lateral valve applying water to the area was closed and when water stopped running over the weir. This included time for direct runoff over the surface and also time for interflow to dissipate. Base flow times ranged from 1 to 1.5 days for watershed 3B+3C and from 2 to 2.5 days for watershed 6C2. Additional hydrologic items gleaned from the hydrographs and information secured while obtaining them include the following. Item 1 — On September 13, 1985 during a pre-test run, 0.174 MG or 2.88 in. were applied to area 6C2 at the rate of 520 gpm; and in 5 hr, 35 min, no water reached the toe of the slope; on September 17, water was applied to area 6C2 at 564 gpm; 5 hr, 45 min were required before water began running over the V-notch and only 26% of the 0.268 MG (4.4 in.) applied ran off; however, eight days later on September 25, only 3 hr were needed before water began to run over the weir and 57% of the 0.181 MG (3 in.) applied ran off. Item 2 — On September 11, six days after a pre-wetting application, for watershed 3B+3C, water began to run over the weir only 2 hr after application was begun at 600 gpm; and 3 hr, 20 min after the beginning of application, 33% was running off. The only rainfall which occurred during this September 10 to 25 period was a total of 0.28 inches on September 22 and 23. These two additional items indicate infiltration, interflow, and base flow differences between the two watersheds, as well as the effect of hydrologic differences within a watershed from time to time. It is these types of differences plus crop and climatic effects which cause major differences in renovation levels, especially in P removals, among watersheds. Demonstration site hydrologic data between October 28 and November 6, 1985, during which time only 0.26 in. of precipitation fell, indicate infiltration and runoff values typical for the three application-level areas. During this period, percentage runoff of the 2, 3 and 4 in./wk areas were 33, 39 and 65%, respectively. These percentage runoff values are somewhat similar to those for the production OF areas of Table 13. The actual application rates and actual inches applied on the production and the demonstration watershed areas also were similar, even though much more variation occurred within a watershed on the production areas. Demonstration site runoff for the periods of September 4-6 and 17-19, 1984 indicate hydrologic conditions for the heavier 43 ------- application levels. During these periods, only 0.13 in. of rain fell and the runoff was 37, 96 and 87% for the 3, 6 and 9 in./wk areas, respectively. It is interesting to note that 2, 3 and 4 in./wk application levels of 3.1 mg/1 T-P on the demonstra- tion site between October 24 and December 16, 1985 gave effluents between 0.5 and 0.9 mg/1, while on the production areas approximately 2 to 4 in./wk application levels of only 2.2 mg/1 T-P gave effluents of 1.3 to 1.7 mg/1 between September 5 and November 18, 1985. These differences could have been due to differences in the holding pond and the mixed wastewater characteristics; they could have been due to different length of contact time of wastewater with the soil surface due to grass thickness; they could have been due to differences in infiltration and interflow; or they could have been due to sampling procedures, since demonstration site data came from automatically composited samples and production data from grab samples. Produc- tion projects usually are not designed specifically enough to consider this degree of detail. Quality Quality results of the production OF fields for 1985 include seven sets of data from watershed 3B+3C, eight sets from 6C2, and nine sets for samples composited from fields Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 (see Table 14). These data, in a general fashion, will be compared among each other, with 1984 production OF results and with demonstration site data. The production OF concentration levels of pH, DO, BOD, TSS and VSS for 1985 follow the same trends for each constituents as discussed under results obtained when using holding pond effluent on the demonstration site. Effluent pH values are either 7.9 or 8.0. Colder temperature conditions produce DO values slightly higher than warmer conditions. BOD concentration average levels in the effluent are <10 mg/1. Effluent TSS are slightly higher under colder temperatures than warmer ones and VSS range from about 50 to 80% of TSS. All 1984 production OF field data for these five constituents fall within the ranges listed in Table 14. For area 3B+3C, the T-P influent concentration of 2.24 mg/1 was reduced 25% to 1.69 mg/1 effluent, while for area 6C2, the 2.18 mg/1 influent mean was reduced 41% to T.28 mg/1 effluent. The 6C2 T-P reduction was essentially the same as the 43% average reduction for the nine composite samples. Also, the range of T-P reductions of the production OF fields (24 to 43%) was nearly the same as for the demonstration site when irrigating with holding pond effluent (32 to 44%). Unfortunately, all of the effluent T-P values for production and demonstration areas during 1984 and 1985 were between 1.28 and 2.45 mg/1, well above the desired 0.5 mg/1 level, unless alum was added. All TKN discharge concentration means for the production fields (see Table 14) were between 1 and 3 mg/1, as they also were for the demonstration site when using the same type of wastewater during 1984 and 1985. All production and demonstration areas gave effluent values for NH3-N and N03-N of <0.5 mg/1 during summer and between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1 during the colder- months, probably indicating differences in N uptake by the grass. 44 ------- Table 14 Average* Values* of Various Influent and Effluent Constituents for Overland Flow Production Field Areas+ When Applying Effluent from the Holding Pond During 1985 Area 3B + 3C Constituents Influent Effluent pH DO BOD TSS VSS T-P TKN NH3-N NO3-N F.Col. 8.5 6.0 8 23 16 2.24 3.95 1.67 0.38 20± 7.9 7.9 6 5 3 1.69 1.99 0.24 0.16 280± Area 6C2 Influent Effluent 8.5 6.1 8 23 15 2.18 3.68 1.35 0.54 20± 7.9 8.4 7 8 7 1.28 2.16 0.12 0.44 200± 7.8 9.4 20 26 13 3.58 8.06 4.74 0.95 100± Production Field Composite Influent Effluent 8.0 11.3 7 14 7 2.03 2.51 0.99 0.88 200+ * Data for area 3B + 3C are averages of 7 sets of information, for area 6C2 are of 8 sets, and for production field composites are of 9 sets. # All units are in mg/1, except for pH which is in standard units and for F.Col. which is in counts per 100 ml. + Data for the special tests on the small watershed areas 3B + 3C and 6C2 were taken between September 5 and November 18, while the composited data from all four of the production OF fields were taken between January 3 and May 14. 45 ------- F.Col. bacterial counts increased in nearly every situation as wastewater flowed across the fields. This increase usually was higher under warmer conditions than under colder ones. Some of the F. Col. increase was due to wildlife use of the areas. TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT This section discusses the Paw Paw NPDES limited parameters and the production processes involved in meeting these required limits. The NPDES parameters included are P, DO, BOD, NH3-N, pH, SS, and F.Col., while the treatment received involves lagoons as well as OF and FI land application processes. This was an on-line facility and was operated to meet required discharge limits at the most economical cost. Facility groundwater qualities are also considered. Quantities Average monthly influent and discharge rates for the total facility are listed in Table 15. This table also includes the quantity related data of total monthly precipitation. The two-year average daily influent flow was 0.56 MOD and ranged from 0.37 to 0.73 MOD with no clear variation due to seasons of the year. Neither precipitation variations from month to month nor from season to season indicate any noticeable effect on the average monthly inflow rates. The month to month influent rate differences are primarily a result of industrial process requirements. Average daily discharge for the two-year period was 1.62 MOD and ranged form 0.97 to 2.90 MOD. This average daily discharge compared to the average daily inflow indicates approximately 1 MOD of groundwater being discharged through the outfall line. While rainfall events obviously affected these discharge rates, their average monthly effects were masked by the larger volumes of wastewater applied to the OF and FI process areas and by monthly evapotranspiration losses. Volumes of wastewater actually applied to specific process areas are listed in Table 16. In 1984, OF areas received 66% of the holding pond discharge, while FI areas received 34%. During 1985, however, OF areas received 17%, FI areas 23%, and 60% was discharged directly to the outfall line. These discharge variations primarily are due to an on-line system being operated to meet NPDES requirements in an economical manner as explained more fully in the P discussion under the following section on total treatment plant quality. The winter of 1985 shift to appreciably more FI than OF of production areas basically related to economically meeting P requirements, but deserves additional comment. Under winter conditions at Paw Paw, irrigation by OF permitted only 2 in. depths of application per value change and produced only about 33% P removal, while under FI 3 in. depths were applied per value change, about 90% removal was produced, and appreciably larger areas were irrigated from a single control valve. FI, therefore, permitted more direct discharge to the outfall line with additional savings of time and money. The low-head gated-pipe OF distribution system also required more time for adjustment of flows for uniformity of distribution, which in winter is not a preferred manual task. 46 ------- Table 15 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Influent and Final Effluent Flows and Total Monthly Precipitations During 1984 and 1985 Month/Year Jan. 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2-yr. Avg Plant Influent (MGD) 0.37 0.52 0.46 0.47 0.60 0.63 0.73 0.51 0.45 0.63 0.51 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.69 0.63 0.58 0.62 0.69 0.50 0.62 0.62 0.52 0.42 Final Effluent (MGD) Meter out 1.46 1.90 1.37 1.50 2.90 1.17 1.10 1.40 1.58 1.64 1.73 1.74 1.93 2.72 2.20 1.34 1.15 1.18 0.98 0.97 1.21 2.15 2.04 Precipitation (in.) 1.26 1.28 4.31 0.69 4.69 0.09 3.33 2.50 5.98 3.30 2.09 3.09 0.78 2.22 4.30 2.60 3.48 1.71 3.15 2.87 1.65 3.78 4.89 1.30 0.56 1.62 2.72 47 ------- Month/Year Jan. 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1984 Jan. 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total 1985 Table 16 Total Actual Applications of Various Wastewaters (MG/month) to Specific Process Areas During 1984 and 1985 Source & Quality* H H H H H H H H + A1 H + A1 H H + A1 H+A1 H H H H H H H R M OF Demonst. 1.110 0.116 0.189 1.064 2.550 0.940 0.650 0.630 2.722 - 1.073 - . 0.908 11.952 2.788 . 2.477 0.882 - 0.801 0.496 OF Prod. _ - _ 1.283 26.310 9.000 6.370 4.210 4.733 - 14.216 2.230 6.710 6.153 81.215 3.497 - 3.927 5.825 1.025 - - Flood Irrig. 1.090 1.340 1.787 5.167 15.260 2.130 10.900 1.038 - - 6.372 3.452 48.536 5.107 - - - - - Direct to Outfall - - . - - - - - - - - - - - 8.610 21.140 25.436 17.413 - - - H R H R R H R H M H M H M 1.340 15.545 17.706 1.199 4.668 1.968 1.261 0.473 0.469 1.680 0.910 1.298 1.201 0.933 7.489 7.275 12.929 4.780 6.430 34.220 43.447 113.249 * Source and quality symbols are: H for holding pond; R for raw influent; M for mixture of holding pond and raw influent; and Al for alum addition. 48 ------- It needs to be emphasized at this point, however, that extensive OF irrigation of demonstration and productions areas during the winter of 1984 verified that OF can be adequately accomplished during the hard winters of this region. The preference of OF design and use has merely to do with pretreatment levels, pond holding capacity, soil types, and discharge quality limitations for both summer and winter operation. Quality The total treatment plant discharge waste from the outfall line must meet the NPDES limits listed in Table 17. Monthly average values obtained for the seven limited parameters at various process locations are listed later in this section. Only the monthly limitations, therefore, can be discussed specifically, however, additional general comments will be made from study of the original daily data sheets. More specific discussion of each of these and other parameters are included in the OF Demonstration Site section. Facility groundwater qualities are also considered. PHOSPHORUS Since P was of primary concern in the demonstration project, its control and management in the overall facility will be discussed in the most detail. Table 18 lists the monthly means of T-P at various locations throughout 1984 and 1985 and the following discussion presents some of the management involved in meeting the NPDES limitations on T-P discharge during this period. Sewage influent T-P to aeration pond #1 during the two-year period averaged 6.9 mg/1 and ranged from 4.5 to 10.4 mg/1. It is interesting to note that the highest three monthly means occurred during August through October 1984, averaging 10.1 mg/1 for this three-month period, while during this same period of 1985 three of the four lowest monthly means occurred, averaging only 4.7 mg/1. This change of influent T-P concentrations was probably due to an industry's modification of waste water supplied to the town. Aeration pond #1 reduced the T-P by 32% having an effluent average of 4.6 mg/1 and a range of only 3.3 to 6.9 mg/1. Thus, the pond not only appreciably reduced the T-P content, but also provided a wastewater of more uniform quality which could be valuable in producing uniform high quality OF effluent. Aeration Pond #2 reduced its T-P an average of only 9% to 4.2 mg/1, while the holding pond added a reduction of 31% for a two-year mean of 2.9 mg/1. The percentage of T-P, which was ortho, varied extensively in aeration ponds #2 and the holding pond. The variations relate to pond water temperatures and to pond algae content. Since OF systems sometimes have difficulty in removing floating algae, there could be an advantage to applying effluent from a single-pond system where algae levels usually are somewhat lower. 49 ------- Table 17 NPDES Limitations for Village of Paw Paw Outfall Line Discharge to the Paw Paw River Effluent Characteristics Carbonaceous 5-day 2(P C Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day 20o C Biochemical Oxygen Demand Ammonia Nitrogen (as N) Suspended Solids Dissolved Oxygen pH Total Phosphorus (asP) Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Residual Chlorine* Dates in Effect May 1 to Sept. 30 Oct. 1 to Oct. 31 No. 1 to Apr. 30 • May 1 to Sept. 30 May 1 to Oct. 31 Nov. 1 to Apr. 30 May 1 to Sept. 30 All Year May 1 to Oct. 31 Nov. 1 to Apr. 30 May 15 to Oct. 15 All Year Minimum Daily Daily 20mg/l 129 kg/day 284 Ib/day - - 5.0mg/l 32.0 kg/day 71.01b/day - - 2.0 mg/1 6.0 9.0 Monthly Max. 100 Ibs - 0.07 mg/1 Maximum 30-Day Avg 13 mg/1 84 kg/day 184 Ib/day 30 mg/1 193 kg/day 425 Ib/day 30 mg/1 273 kg/day 600 Ib/day - 30 mg/1 193 kg/day 425 Ib/day 30 mg/1 273 kg/day 600 Ib/day - - 1.0 mg/1 200/100 ml - 7-Day Avg - 45 mg/1 390 kg/day 638 Ib/day 45 mg/1 4 10 kg/day 901 Ib/day - 45mgA 290 kg/day 638 Ib/day 45 mg/1 410 kg/day 901 Ib/day ' - - 400/100 ml - * No total residual chlorine tests were required due to extensive holding time in the lagoon system prior to land application by surface distribution methods. 50 ------- Table 18 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Values for Total Phosphorus (mg/I) at Specific Locations During 1984 and 1985 Holding Final Month/Year Influent Pond#l Pond #2 Pond Effluent Jan. 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 6.0 6.6 6.9 7.3 8.3 7.0 6.8 10.4 9.7 10.2 8.3 7.5 6.1 8.2 6.2 4.9 7.0 6.2 5.6 4.5 4.5 5.2 6.2 5.7 - 4.8 4.0 4.9 5.2 6.9 5.2 6.4 6.6 5.6 5.5 4.5 3.4 4.4 4.2 3.6 4.0 4.7 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.8 - 2.9 3.7 3.9 4.3 5.2 4.2 5.5 5.6 4.7 4.6 4.2 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.3 5.1 4.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.4 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.4 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.9 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.2 1.9 0.09 0.33 0.56 0.11 0.12 0.97 0.40 0.51 0.35 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.71 0.71 0.48 0.61 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.67 2-yrAvg. 6.9 4.6 4.2 2.9 0.42 51 ------- Discharge limitations of T-P under the NPDES permit are a 30-day maximum average of 1 mg/1 from November 1 through April 30, and a monthly maximum average of 100 pounds from May 1 through October 31. These limitations were met quite well due to conscientious management of the multi-process facility. No violations of these P limits was noted since their inception in November 1983. Following are some management considerations involved in directing the holding pond wastewater flows to attain the appropriate final discharge concentrations of T-P. The facility has three major methods of routing the effluent from the holding pond to the final discharge location. The wastewater can be applied on up to 46.5 of OF area, applied on up to 56 ac of FI area, or outletted directly into the final discharge pipe. Between November 1 and April 30, primary consideration is given to meeting the 1 mg/1 monthly average T-P discharge limitation and land application used only as a means of lowering the T-P discharge levels. A 1 MGD wintertime groundwater flow of 0.1 mg/1 T-P and a 0.45 MOD direct discharge from the holding pond with 3 mg/1 T-P would give 1.45 MGD final discharge of 1.0 mg/1 T-P, which would meet effluent limitations. This 0.45 MGD discharge, however, would be less than the 0.56 MGD inflow to the ponds. If a 1 MGD discharge is preferred for lowering pond levels, the following combination could be used. Direct discharge of 0.6 MGD plus flood irrigation of 0.4 MGD, which would add approximately 0.4 MGD of groundwater with about 0.2 mg/1 of P, would give a total plant discharge of 2.0 MGD with a T-P concentration of about 1.0 mg/1. The 0.4 MGD would require 32 ac of FI area when 3 in./wk are applied. OF with its lower P removal capability and the addition of costly chemicals usually are not considered for winter use if more economical procedures are available. To meet the May 1 through October 31 limitation of 100 Ib. of P per month required considerations beyond those used in winter. OF of 46.5 ac at 2 in./wk and 56 ac of FI at 3 in./wk would give approximately 1.50 MG of runoff at 1.8 mg/1 and 5.56 MG of drainage at 0.2 mg/1. When this is added to approximately 6.3 MG of groundwater at 0.1 mg/1, a weekly discharge of about 13.4 MG containing 37.1 Ib. of P would result or an average of 5.3 Ib/day. The above values consider 60% of the OF water running off and a 40% reduction of P; 100% of the FI and OF infiltration draining to the outlet and having P reduced to 0.2 mg/1; and 0.9 MGD of 0.1 mg/1 base groundwater flow. While this 7.1 mg per week of irrigation would handle the ordinary weekly inflow to the plant, the 5.3 Ib./day of P would be about 60% over the NPDES permitted level. Several alternate solutions are available. First, sufficient alum could be added to the OF applications to reduce the composite discharge to approximately 3.3 lb./day of P or_^econdly, OF irrigation could be reduced until the composite P average of 3.3 lb./day is attained. In 1985, Paw Paw chose the second alternative, since sufficient storage was already available and also to add the required amount of alum would add chemical costs. Obviously, this simplified winter and summer operational decisions relative to P management had to be adjusted to account for regular demonstration site applications and special wastewater irrigations of production areas as well as for all variations of P concentrations within specific 52 ------- processes throughout the total system. Costs associated with the existing system and possible ranges of costs for a facility to provide overall treatment as well as P reductions by a modified OF system are discussed under Section VII. DISSOLVED OXYGEN The NPDES permit limits DO only between May 1 and September 30, during which time the daily minimum requirement is 2.0 mg/1. Average monthly DO values for 1984 and 1985 are listed in Table 19. For these two years between May 1 and September 30, the average monthly DO values ranged from 5.4 to 6.3 mg/1 well above the required minimum. The additional data presented between October 1 and April 30 list DO values between 5.5 and 7.6 mg/1, indicating fairly high and reasonably uniform year-round DO values for the facility discharge. Day to day values are also fairly uniform easily meeting the 2.0 mg/1 daily minimum value. BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND Three time periods throughout the year have specific NPDES monthly limits related to BOD, see Table 17. Between October 1 and October 31, maximum 30-day average is 30 mg/1 or 425 Ib/day (1.7 MG of 30 mg/1 discharge), between November 1 and April 30 maximum 30-day average is 30 mg/1 or 640 Ib/day (2.4 MG of 30 mg/1 discharge), and between May 1 and September 30, maximum 30 day average is 13 mg/1 or 184 Ib/day (1.7 MG of 13 mg/1). During May through September, the BOD to be determined as carbonaceous BOD, which excludes the oxygen demand attributable to nitrification. The BOD values of Table 19 were determined as regular or carbonaceous as required by permit, however, since the nitrification requirements were very small all BOD values are essentially regular. Discharge BOD qualities between 1 and 6 mg/1 plus volumes between 0.97 and 2.90 MGD easily meet the required limits throughout the year on the average. Relatively consistent and low average BOD levels (3 to 16 mg/1) of the irrigation water, plus the mixing with large amounts of ground water also permit easy meeting of the maximum daily discharge of 20 mg/1 or 284 Ib./day between May 1 and September 30. The two-year average BOD values of Table 19, indicate 98.3% renovation by the lagoon system and a total treatment plant reduction in BOD from all sources of 99.4%. AMMONIA NITROGEN NPDES maximum daily limit for NH3-N is 5 mg/1 between May 1 and September 30 as indicated in Table 17. Table 19 lists average monthly discharge values for this period between 0.2 and 0.7 mg/1, which even though they are monthly averages indicate no problem meeting the daily limit with a reasonably uniform wastewater. The two-year average values for this period indicate 78% reduction occurs in the lagoon system and an overall reduction for the total treatment plant of 97%. From May through September the grass is actively growing and uses much of the NH3-N contained in the irrigation water. 53 ------- TABLE 19 Total Treatment Plant Average Monthly Values (mg/1) for Dissolved Oxygen, Biological Oxygen Demand, and Ammonia Nitrogen of Sewage Influent, Holding Pond Effluent and Outfall Discharge During 1984 and 1985 DO BOD NH3-N Month/Year Disch. Infl. Holding Disch. Infl. Holding Disch. Jan. 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. - - - - 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.3 6.2 5.6 6.5 7.0 6.8 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.8 5.9 5.8 7.6 856 578 440 449 356 241 447 988 423 552 786 814 476 426 417 328 386 304 538 365 605 599 617 380 10 6 11 11 8 7 4 12 16 12 7 5 6 6 11 11 9 6 8 6 7 15 8 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 3 4 6 2 3 3 2 2 - 13.5 18.4 17.6 20.4 11.6 7.1 5.6 13.0 6.7 6.6 11.1 13.3 13.5 8.1 9.5 8.8 14.7 8.4 17.4 - 4.3 7.7 19.6 - - 4.4 5.0 3.7 2.6 3.9 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.4 2.3 3.4 4.1 5.2 5.4 6.2 2.9 2.2 1.4 0.8 0.5 2.4 3.7 - - - - 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 - - - _ 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 - - _ 2-yr.Avg. 6.0 515 9 3 11.7 2.8 0.3 54 ------- PH The two-year average pH values (Table 20) show that the influent mean of pH 7.0 increase throughout the lagoon system to 8.4, and then decreases to 7.5 in the final discharge. The daily outfall pH values deviate only several tenths above or below the monthly average, therefore, fall well within the 6 to 9 range permitted by the NPDES, Table 17. SUSPENDED SOLIDS The year-round 30-day maximum NPDES limitation on TSS in 30 mg/1 (Table 17). Between May 1 and October 31 this is for a maximum discharge of 1.7 MGD and between November 1 and April 30 it is for a maximum flow of 2.4 MGD. Table 20 shows that this limit was slightly exceeded in September 1984 and in August 1985. Both months had large, intense rainfall events and in addition during 1985 raw wastewater was being applied to the demonstration site. The two-year average values indicate that the pond system produced 94% renovation, while the total treatment plant reduction in TSS from all sources was 95%. It should also be noted that 12 of the monthly holding pond TSS average values are actually less than their corresponding final discharge values. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA The May 15 through October 15, 30-day average maximum limit of F.Col. is 200 counts per 100 ml and the 7-day average maximum is 400/100 ml, Table 17. During the limiting period in 1984 with the irrigation of holding pond effluent, this monthly criterion was easily met (Table 20) with all monthly average counts below 80/100 ml. Application of raw wastewater to the demonstration site during May through August 1985 caused the exceeding of the F.Col. limitation in each of these months. During the months of May, July, and August the monthly limit was exceeded and during the month of June the weekly limit was exceeded even though the monthly criterion was not. Raw wastewater was satisfactorily applied in September after an appropriately sized pump and pumping arrangement was installed to transfer the demonstration area OF runoff to a FT area for final polishing. This solved the F.Col. problem and also helped lower the high TSS, BOD, and P levels associated with the raw wastewater test period. FACILITY GROUNDWATER Groundwater monitoring for the total facility is accomplished by securing samples from 12 wells located as shown in Figure 11 The data obtained from these wells during October for the year 1983 through 1986 are listed in Table 21. Only once-a-year data are required for each of this parameters except for static water elevation, chloride, and specific conductance which are required on the monthly basis. Study of the monthly values of these three parameter, however, has no major trends different from the yearly values. A comparison of data from the ten wells nearest to the irrigation fields indicate a 2-foot average rise in the static water elevations between 1983 and 1986, but no uniform trends in any of the other parameters. 55 ------- Table 20 Total Treatment Plant *Average Monthly Values* for pH, Suspended Solids, and Fecal Coliform of Sewage Effluent, Holding Pond Effluent, and Outfall Discharge During 1984 and 1985 Month/Year Jan. 1984 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. 1985 Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Infl. 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.6 7.7 6.7 7.2 6.7 6.3 6.4 7.2 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.8 7.1 7.4 6.4 6.4 7.3 pH Holding 7.9 8.0 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.9 9.0 9.1 8.8 8.3 7.9 7.8 7.8 8.4 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.0 8.5 8.8 8.3 8.2 Disch. 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.0 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.7 Infl. 420 362 256 280 275 309 361 478 339 429 483 362 499 376 421 321 278 261 303 258 578 298 1590 242 SS Holding 17 5 18 17 17 27 20 116 59 35 15 17 12 13 20 26 11 • 10 14 16 14 32 32 28 Disch. 11 9 19 13 19 14 10 16 39 19 13 26 14 16 22 25 25 20 16 34 22 19 20 12 F.Col. Discharge 13 75 9 38 46 22 520 122 350 490 68 22 2-yr. Avg. 7.0 8.4 7.5 407 25 19 148 SS units are in mg/1; pH is in standard units; and F.Col. is in counts per 100 ml. 56 ------- Table 21 (page 1 of 2) Total Treatment Plant Groundwater Monitoring Data for 1983,1984,1985,1986 - - Well #1 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 Stat H20 Elev Chloride Spec. Cond. pH Total Hardness Total Alkalinity Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus MB AS Bicarbonate Sulfate Calcium Sodium Magnesium 728.58 109 900 7.4 354.2 337.7 0.16 0.1 0.05 0.04 0.053 10.5 93.2 60.8 32 728.83 102.8 910 8.2 341.4 317.1 0.17 0.33 0.05 0.03 0.025 193.3 33.7 80 57.2 34.4 729.92 117 1120 7.57 526.6 422.1 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.41 0.02 257.3 27.7 140 65 43 732.33 103.6 1050 7.9 443.5 420.2 . 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.028 256.1 7 110 74 41 Stat H20 Elev Chloride Spec. Cond. pH Total Hardness Total Alkalinity Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus MB AS Bicarbonate Sulfate Calcium Sodium Magnesium - - Well #3 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 733.52 47.7 550 8 751.9 275 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.006 8 109.6 17.6 65.2 - - Well #2 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 730.06 733.47 733.06 734.64 1.4 450 7.9 256 249 0.22 0.07 0.05 0.1 0.006 11.5 46 8.2 21.6 0.5 400 8.1 213.3 205.8 0.21 0.18 0.05 0.17 0.025 125.4 16.5 54.4 2.7 18.8 0.5 402 7.9 222.9 197.4 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 120.3 15.8 57.6 2.6 19.2 0.7 405 8 250.5 207.1 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 126.2 17 69 2.6 19 - - Well #4 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 733.27 36 550 7.8 533.5 369.6 0.33 0.06 0.05 0.63 0.02 242 24.9 151 13.6 38 735.68 31.4 580 8 510.2 369.5 0.28 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 225.2 26 140 14 39 739.61 150 900 7.4 308.4 246 0.46 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.006 13 82.8 65.8 26.8 735.52 114.1 750 7.9 215.6 190 0.32 0.17 0.05 0.03 0.025 115.8 17.1 56 58 18.4 738.86 101 740 7.7 214.4 205.8 0.35 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 125 14.1 60.8 67 15.2 57 ------- Table 21 (page 2 of 2) - - Well #5 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 Stat H20 Elev Chloride Spec. Cond. pH Total Hardness Total Alkalinity Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus MB AS Bicarbonate Sulfate Calcium Sodium Magnesium 730.05 1.7 400 8.1 206.2 194 0.12 5.1 0.05 0.05 0.006 11.5 40 6.6 20.8 730.71 12.4 418 8 184.6 178.5 0.1 3.6 0.05 0.03 0.025 108.8 12.8 43.6 9.8 18.4 730.63 6 362 8.1 177.8 130.2 0.18 9.15 0.05 0.04 0.02 79.4 12 44.8 2.5 16 31.88 8.8 458 8.1 241.3 198.9 0.1 7.48 0.05 0.04 0.02 121.3 12 62 11.2 21 - - Well #7 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 Stat H20 Elev Chloride Spec. Cond. pH Total Hardness Total Alkalinity Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Phosphorus MB AS Bicarbonate Sulfate Calcium Sodium Magnesium 728.54 47.7 900 7.3 548.7 356 0.8 0.23 0.05 0.1 0.026 100 108 30.4 43.6 728.96 10.4 720 7.6 343.5 262.5 0.4 0.15 0.05 0.04 0.025 160 123 96 12.3 25.2 728.79 8 720 7.6 475.6 255.6 0.37 0.05 0.05 0.39 0.04 156 148.5 141 8.8 30 729.87 7.4 1100 7.6 739.4 326.8 0.53 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 199.2 345 212 11.6 51 - - Well #6 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 735.66 30.4 500 7.7 266.4 299 0.3 0.25 0.05 0.06 0.006 19.5 91.2 9.6 23 735.74 8.9 485 8.2 225.9 233 0.1 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.025 142 25.3 58.8 5.6 19.2 735.32 16 570 8.2 278.4 244.6 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 149 30.2 75.2 8 22 - - Well #8 - - 1983 1984 1985 1986 730.12 731.54 725.87 732.04 16.9 600 7.7 353.9 308 0.34 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.006 56 82 9.2 30 10.8 615 8.2 305.7 229 0.1 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.025 139.6 97.5 75.6 3.3 28.4 9 690 8.2 313.8 276.2 0.1 11 0.2 0.04 0.02 168 26.2 80.8 5.6 27.2 7.8 750 8 428.9 243.6 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.02 148.5 165 119 3.1 32 NOTE: - Units are in mg/1 except pH, which is in standard units, specific conductance in micro mhos, and water elevation feet. - Data were taken each year in October. - Well #3 was dry in 1984 - Road construction prevented taking 1986 data for Wells #4 and #6. - Well #12 is dry and no data are given. 58 ------- SECTION VII COST CONSIDERATIONS The cost for the overland flow treatment process is discussed in two areas; construction cost and operational cost. CONSTRUCTION COST In 1980 and 1981, 56 acres of basically flat flood irrigation fields were modified to create 46 acres of sloping overland flow fields. The slope for the overland flow field was created by cutting and filling to produce uniform slopes. The existing high groundwaters (one to four feet) meant only shallow cust were possible. The net result was a design which has low slopes of 1.2% and 1.6% which balanced the cuts and fills and minimized the depth of cut. The major cost to construct the overland flow fields was the earthwash to modify the existing flat areas to sloped fields. Another component of cost was the construction of additional access drives between adjoining fields. Major access drives were build up and gravelled due to anticipated high traffic. Vehicles should not travel on the slope. To handle the effluent from the overland field, construction of swales or ditches was required. The effluent from all the fields was then combined to a single discharge. The existing piping to each of the flood irrigation fields was reused. The vertical heads which previously irrigated the flood irrigation fields were retrofitted with valves and adapter to direct the water to the gated irrigation pipe used on the overland flow fields. The cost for the earthwash items which includes the regrading, access drives, ditches and swales was $261,000 which equals $5,700 per acre. The overland flow piping which included the existing header piping modifications, overland flow irrigation piping and the special piping for the demonstration (project) was $348,200 or $7,600 per acre. The piping required to combine the effluent of the overland flow fields and flood irrigation fields was $378,000. The new discharge permit required the Village to combine three previous discharge locations into one. Since the piping system was necessary for both flood irrigation and overland flow, the cost per acre for the 102 acres equals to $3,700 per acre. OPERATIONAL COST - OVERLAND FLOW FIELDS An analysis of the operational cost is provided for the overland flow treatment process and is described by the routine and related labor cost and the resultant rate to the customers of Paw Paw. The demonstration project however is not representative for a full-scale plant operation, therefore, an estimate is based on the operation of the completed production overland flow areas and actual budgets of the Village. 59 ------- The overland treatment system operational components include: 1. Electrical Cost: The only electrical cost associated with the overland flow fields is pumping cost. Under most circumstances at Paw Paw, holding pond effluent can flow to the overland flow fields by gravity since the fields are 5 feet above the bottom. If the holding pond has only 5 feet of water, the irrigation systems are normally not used since the flows to the plant are well below the plant's capacity. Therefore, on an annual basis the electrical cost budgeted for overland flow is incidental. 2. Labor Cost -General Operations and Maintenance: The labor involved on the overland flow process is the major operational cost. Time is required for turning the valves to turn the water on and direct the water to the proper fields, check the fields for proper volumes, equalized rates of flow and erosion, and later in the day to shut off the system. All the fields can be handled by one person with three hours at start-up and one hour at shut-down. During raw wastewater applications, more labor was required due to the concern of plugging gated pipes and odor control. The estimate includes labor and equipment rental for the vehicle required to move around with at the plant. Erosion on the overland flow slopes has been almost non-existent, therefore, no time has been spent in repairing the fields. Mowing of the fields is budgeted for 6 times a year. Paw Paw has a 12-foot wide mower system which allows them to complete the mowing of all 46 acres of overland flow in about 1 to 1-1/2 days. The cost estimate includes labor and equipment rental of a tractor and mower. The grass at the gated pipes requires maintenance. The easiest method the Village has found was to use a vegetation killer around the gated pipes instead of trying to mow or cut the grass. This application is done once a year each spring. While operating the overland flow system on a production basis, some sampling and lab analysis is required, but not nearly the effort as was done on the demonstration project. The total plant effluent is monitored whether the Village is irrigating or not irrigating, and therefore not included in the overland flow process cost. The fields will require occasional grab samples for monitoring of phosphorus levels and, less frequently, other parameters. The estimated weekly cost of operations (including labor, equipment rental, pro-rating mowing and weed killer) is $416. Based on 3"/week flow to all the production fields, a total of 4.17 MG can be treated at a cost of about $1OO per million gallons. The cost would increase per million gallons if all the fields (except for the allowance for one to 60 ------- rest) are not being irrigated, since the labor cost would remain fairly constant. It should be noted that the amount of acreage involved has a minor bearing on the cost since there is not much change from the irrigation of one field to all the fields. 3. Chemical Cost: Based on the present operation and flexibility of the Paw Paw treatment system, chemical addition is not required for final treatment of holding pond effluent and is not budgeted. For a system which treats partially treated wastewater, chemical addition may be required for phosphorus reduction and control of fecal coliforms in the final effluent. 4. Replacement Cost: Equipment and piping replacement is required over time. Mechanical equipment usually has a life of 10 to 20 years. Piping is normally assumed a life of 40 to 50 years. The overland flow system has only a minor amount of equipment with the flow meters being the only major item. Piping above ground is aluminum. Piping below grade is corrugated metal pipe which has occasional leaks. The total replacement budget on an annual basis is estimated at $3,000 per year or the equivalent of $16 per million gallon based on 3 "/week application year-round. The overland flow operational cost is summarized in the following section. OPERATIONAL COST - PAW PAW TREATMENT SYSTEM The operational cost of the overland flow system is a fraction of the total cost of operating the Paw Paw Treatment Facility. The village's operational budget follows: Overland Flow Operational Component of Cost Component Total Cost Billing and Meter Reading Cost -0- $ 18,000 General Labor (including lab) 8,900 60,000 Electricity -0- 53,000 Equipment Rental 2,000 6,000 Operating Supplies (including lab) 500 12,500 Replacement/Improvements 3,000 25,000 Miscellaneous Cost 1,000 15,000 $15,000 $189,500 The $15,000 represents less than 10% of their total treatment plant budget. Based on treating 25% of their total flow of 210 million gallons, or 52 million gallons, the $15,000 annual cost equates at a cost of $290 per million gallons. 61 ------- SECTION vin SUMMARY Whereas specific conclusions and recommendations are listed earlier in this report, the material presented here will be more general and include commentary. Four broad areas, which collectively encompass the objectives presented under the introductory section are considered. These four involve the OF flow area, the influent, the effluent, and the management of the three. Comparisons between this project and general OF design process guidelines listed in the 1984 EPA Manual are also made. OVERLAND FLOW AREA The OF demonstration site and the production fields involved slopes from 1.2 to 2.5% with slope lengths from approximately 150 to 200 ft and included seeded grass fields and sodded areas. All areas were constructed from previously leveled FI lands having limited permeability. The OF areas were carefully constructed and all slopes, lengths, and grass establishment methods functioned very well under OF applications. The uniformly sloped areas which receive the wastewater for OF treatment often are called terraces. Terrace lengths of 150 to 200 ft used in this project are at least 50 ft longer than the manual generally recommends. These longer terraces, however, fitted well into the modification of the existing FI fields, required less original cost to construct and less labor to operate, and are easier to mow. Also, soil permeability due to original clay content and extensive working was sufficiently low so that 40 to 100% of the applied wastewater would run off. The 1.2 and 1.6% terrace slopes (lower than the manual recommended 2-8%) of the production OF fields worked quite satisfactorily, causing no water pooling problems. Low slopes provide better lateral distribution of the OF and a longer time of contact for better renovation as the wastewater moves from the top of the terrace to the outlet drainage channel. As noted in the Manual, a well established vegetative cover is essential for the efficient performance of OF density rates in a tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass mixture with ryegrass as a nurse crop and then mulched. Immediate availability of wastewater for irrigating and the return of the first several cuttings to the site aided in establishing a very dense vegetative cover. Grass cover of the demonstration site, however, was accomplished by sodding. This permitted the best management for establishing an exceptionally high quality grass; it permitted full scale wastewater applications with good renovation at least one year earlier than if the grass were seeded at the end of construction, and it assured an erosion-resistant surface to maintain the most ideal terrace surface as constructed. The thicker the grass stand the better the lateral distribution of wastewater from gated-pipe applications. Existing low infiltration rates plus the additional soil working should have caused very low infiltration rates. Under the conditions of no rain and application levels of 2 to 4 in., only from 40 to 65% of the water applied ran off. This was probably due to high quantities of plant use, to plant roots keeping infiltration high, and to much of the soil being fine sands. With 62 ------- more rain, more water amounts, and more rapid application rates, runoff percentages were higher, approaching 100%. With less of each of these three, a greater percentage of the water came into more intimate contact with surface soil and upper plant root zones, producing a higher level of renovation, especially of P. INFLUENT AND APPLICATION ASPECTS Three types or qualities of wastewater were applied to the demonstration site — holding pond effluent, raw wastewater, and a mixture of the two. Application levels for these wastewaters were 3, 6 and 9 in./wk for the holding pond effluent and 2, 3 and 4 in./wk for the other two. The rate of pumping to the three demonstration areas, each of 1.66 ac in size, usually was 360 gpm. This rate was proportioned to 60, 120 and 180 gpm for the holding pond effluent, giving equivalent average application rates of 0.08, 0.16, and 0.24 in./hr. For the other two wastewaters, it was proportioned to 80, 120 and 160 gpm, giving equivalent average application rates of 0.11, 0.16 and 0.22 in./hr. The various methods of operation used in irrigating the three types of wastewaters each essentially met the basic Manual criteria for lengths of application periods. For any one area, the minimum application period was 6 hr, the maximum application period was 16 hr, and the maximum non-irrigation period during the actual testing duration was between 2 and 3 days. Application of the three wastewater types to the demonstration areas, also, verified the Manual's ascertainment that OF systems are capable of performing satisfactorily with only minimal levels of preapplication treatment. Various levels of preapplication treatment, however, carry with them different degrees of distributional considerations. Physical distribution of the holding pond effluent by gated pipe was very good, caused few problems, and required little labor. While the distribution of the comminuted raw sewage was adequately accomplished, the wastewater was not as uniformly distributed over the field, caused odor problems, and required a reasonable amount of labor to keep the gates unplugged, to keep all organic build-up away from the gates, and to keep all equipment operating properly. Distribution aspects of the mixed raw wastewater and holding pond effluent improved over the wastewater alone and required about 60 to 70% holding pond effluent to keep down odor levels. When choosing the degree of wastewater pretreatment and/or application method, one should consider more than merely low installation and low energy costs. Plugging of gates and organic build-ups near gates causing the freezing of wastewater in distribution lines added to labor requirements and was part of the decision to stop irrigation during winter. Supporting distribution pipes 6 in. or more above ground level and/or using a higher pressure system to reduce plugging, to keep organic material away from outlets, and to reduce labor requirements would permit continuing applications during winter. While wintertime OF irrigation is possible and may be preferred by some communities, the use of a lagoon in conjunction with the OF system has a number of advantages. A month to six weeks of lagoon storage between minimum and maximum operating depths would permit a good 63 ------- factor of safety for distribution system down-time due to mechanical failure, crop harvesting, or extremely harsh climatic conditions. The lagoon also would function to level-out peak concentrations of pollutants, reduce the total land area required for treatment, and provide a more acceptable wastewater for labors to handle. EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS AND LOADING GUIDELINES This section will concentrate primarily on TSS, NH3-N, BOD, T-P, and F.Col. bacteria, which are parameters having NPDES limits for final discharge effluent. When irrigating holding pond effluent, 24 sets of winter and 30 sets of summer data showed that effluents under each regimen easily met NPDES requirements, except for T-P under both regimens. Actually, four of the five parameters showed little difference in reduction between levels attained during the seven warmest months and the four coldest months, no November data were used. The concentration levels of NH3-N obtained in summer were lower than those obtained in winter. These low values were probably due to crop uptake, since the total NH3-N applied was less than crop requirements. These data from application of holding pond effluent compare favorably with those implied in the Manual. That is, for wastewater having a high level of preapplication treatment, 7-20 in./wk application should still meet normal discharge requirements. Also, irrigating under harsh winter conditions and still meeting secondary effluent requirements is possible. In addition, the attainment of very low T-P levels from the OF process is not possible under winter or summer conditions. Since holding pond effluent was fairly high quality wastewater, guideline information was secured primarily from the application of the other two types of wastewater. TSS concentrations of approximately 200 mg/1 were reduced to <20 mg/1, while concentrations of nearly 350 mg/1 were reduced to between 15 and 28 mg/1, indicating guidelines for this parameter under these conditions. Influent NH3-N levels of 4 to 5 mg/1 under the colder regimens were reduced to between 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1, while under summer regimens influent levels of 17 mg/1 were reduced to between 1 and 2 mg/1 and influent levels of 3 mg/1 were reduced to <0.1 mg/1. These data indicate that OF could serve well as a final polishing process for meeting summertime low discharge levels of NH3-N. Influent BOD concentrations of 200 mg/1 were reduced to <20 mg/1, concentrations of about 400 mg/1 were reduced to between 20 and 40 mg/1, whereas a 507 mg/1 mean influent concentration gave average effluent concentrations of 83, 136 and 158 mg/1 for the 2, 3 and 4 in./wk areas, respectively. These data indicate 300 mg/1 and 3 in./wk as a maximum application guideline under these conditions for meeting the 30 mg/1 effluent requirement. However, if odor is a potential problem, this limit may need to be reduced to 200 or 250 mg/1. The 300 mg/1 and 3 in./wk application is an average loading of only 29 Ib/ac/day, which certainly should not stress the grass. For high loading rates of high strength wastewater, a method of more uniformly distributing the wastewater over the field should be considered. 64 ------- A substantial amount of long-term data from industrial OF systems show much better effluent BOD quality than listed above. For example, the OF system at Campbell Soup Company in Paris, Texas has been treating an applied BOD concentration of over 600 mg/1 for over 20 years with an effluent quality of about 5 mg/1 at similar application rates. These apparent differences between the Paris, Texas and the Paw Paw, Michigan results could be due to differences in BOD types, distribution procedures, OF site vegetation quality, harvesting procedures, average climatic conditions, soil conditions, or general neighborhood expectations, as odor levels, aesthetics, and crop use. Extensive literature differences in expected results, emphasize the need for communities and/or consulting engineering firms contemplating use of the OF process to evaluate carefully the unique and dynamic differences among OF systems. T-P concentrations of raw wastewater were reduced from 3 to 6 mg/1 influents to 1.1 to 2.7 mg/1 effluents and of the mixture of raw and holding pond wastewaters, they were reduced from 3.1 mg/1 influent to between 0.5 and 0.9 mg/1 effluents. Both types of wastewaters were applied at 2, 3, and 4 in./wk. Actually, for all three wastewater types, increased application depths per week gave reduced T-P renovation levels. To assure OF effluent T-P concentrations of <0.5 or <1.0 mg/1, additional treatment as chemical precipitation or filtration through sand or soil will be required. OF effluent F.Col. counts when applying holding pond wastewater ordinarily met NPDES requirements. When applying raw wastewater or mixtures of raw and holding pond wastewater containing more than 25% raw wastewater, the effluent F.Col. counts were all >60,000. These data indicate that some type of F.Col. reduction treatment needs to follow the OF process when appreciable amounts of raw wastewater are applied and when discharge limits in the range of 200/100 ml must be met. MANAGEMENT ASPECTS After proper design and careful construction, OF areas must still be diligently managed. Farm operations should be accomplished so that soil conditions are not deteriorated and that grass is maintained in the thickest possible stand and healthiest condition. This may involve harvesting and removal, or chopping and returning vegetation to the field; it implies the use of low pressure tires on all equipment; and it includes performing field work when soil moisture conditions are at their lowest practical levels. All field depressions must be eliminated, ruts must be prevented, and excessive compaction must be avoided. These aspects, emphasized by the on-line management at Paw Paw, are also implicit in the design manual. When choosing the application method, one should consider more than merely low installation and low energy costs. The method chosen must also provide flexibility to handle variations in wastewater quantity and quality; it must consider personnel working conditions; and it must evaluate uniformity of application relative to loading levels. The more uniform the distribution the higher the average loading rate/acre permitted and the lower the number of acres required. Also, the more uniform the loading at the lowest average loading level, the less odor problems. That is, for high strength and/or raw wastewater distribution for OF systems, higher pressure 65 ------- sprinkler systems may be overall more appropriate than low pressure gated pipe systems. The manual does consider the advantages of high pressure sprinkler systems and the disadvantages, but it states relatively little about personnel working conditions, especially handling raw wastewater. The typical inability of OF systems to produce acceptable F.Col. counts from essentially raw wastewater and to provide T-P effluents of <1.0 mg/1 requires consideration of other pre- treatments or post-treatment processes. Sand filtration following OF is a possible procedure but has not yet been adequately evaluated for general recommendation. Pre-treatment by a lagoon system designed to operate in conjunction with OF capabilities seems the most logical solution at this stage. This lagoon system can economically provide several months winter storage; equalize BOD loadings; reduce peak SAR; and give partial treatment for odor reduction, better working conditions, and a grass of higher value. A densely vegetated, sloping soil site under heavy irrigation, functions like a saturated sponge. A drop of water to the top immediately produces a drop of water from the bottom, which obviously did not flow over the surface. The degree of surface flow is determined by such factors as rate, volume, and method of wastewater application; the soil types, depths, slopes, and condition; and the roots, surface biomass, growth rate, and type of vegetative cover. All considerations, therefore, must be three dimensional and not merely two, even when outflow volumes approach inflow volumes, because the outflow is not purely surface runoff. On-line and on-site management for specific renovation levels will always be unique, especially when soils have been extensively modified to produce the "over" land flow terraces. 66 ------- TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Instructions on the reverse be/ore completing) 1. REPORT NO. EPA 905/9-91-002 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Wastewater Treatment by Overland Flow at Paw Paw, Michigan 5. REPORT DATE February 1988 (Approval) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) Harry L. Bush, Earl A. Myers* and Lawrence J. Fleiss* 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO NW/Paw Paw/Ovldflw/85712 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO. 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Village of Paw Paw Department of Public Works 110 Harry L. Bush Boulevard Paw Paw, Michigan 49079 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. A42B2A 11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO. S00555901 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Final 09/80-02/86 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE GLNPO 15.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTEsStephen p0lonesik,USEPA Project Officer-Ralph G. Christensen, Section *Coauthors - Williams & Works, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 108A 16. ABSTRACT ~~ —' ' The effectiveness of wastewater treatment by the overland flow process was evaluated under northern climatic conditions. The Village of Paw Paw, Michigan treatment plant includes over 50 acres of overland flow fields of which 46 acres were used on a full scale production basis and 5 acres were used for detailed observations (demonstration). Wastewaters used included raw wastewater, well treated aerated pond effluent from a 3 pond system and blends of raw and pretreated wastewater of intermediate quality selected to minimize field odor potential. Hydraulic loadings varying from 2, 3 and 4 inches per week for the raw wastwater to 3, 6 and 9 inches per week for pretreated pond effluent were evaluated. Overland flow treatment performance for below freezing and above freezing conditions is described by data collected between 1983 and 1986. Treatment performance is reported for 11 wastewatar parameters. Supplemental tests, groundwater analyses and hydro- logic comparisons are included. General design guidelines, construction and operating practices, and cost aspects are discussed. DESCRIPTORS KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS •b IDt"NTIFiEFS,OFEN EN'JED 7 = Phosphorus Overland flow Municipal treatment j Hydraulic loadings :. cos ATI Held/Group Document is available to the Public o, c. r None through the National Technical Information-- Service, NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161 , None 75 67 * U. S. GOVERNMENT PRIMING OFFICE: 1991/520-533 ------- |