ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA-430/9-73-006
SURVEY OF FACILITIES
USING LAND APPLICATION
OF WASTEWATER
JULY 1973
m
1
o
Prepared for
OITICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTONX>.C. 20460
-------
-------
EPA-430/9-73-006
July 1973
SURVEY OF FACILITIES USING
LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER
by
Richard H. Sullivan
Dr. Morris M. Cohn, P.E.
Dr. Samuel S. Baxter, P.E.
Contract 68-01-073 2
Project Officer
Belford L. Seabrook, P.E.
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS OPERATIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
u. s.
EDISC
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the
Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABSTRACT
The American Public Works Association,
in 1972, conducted a field survey of 100
facilities where land application of domestic
or industrial wastewater effluents were
applied to the land, as contrasted to the
conventional method of discharging such
effluents to receiving waters. In addition, an
extensive bibliography was compiled (to be
published separately); data were gathered
from many other existing land application
facilities across the country; determinations
were made as to State regulations governing
the use of land application facilities; and a
survey was made of experience gained in
many foreign countries.
The facilities surveyed were relatively
large, with long-established operations in
order that as many viable operating
experiences as possible could be obtained.
The surveyed land application facilities
utilizing domestic wastewaters were
predominantly located in the western and
southwestern portions of the nation, while
industrial facilities were generally sited in the
northeastern section, because this is where the
majority of such installations are in service.
Agricultural wastes facilities and
evaporation-percolation or spray runoff type
facilities were outside the scope of the
investigation.
Ninty-nine tables and the collected data
are presented. Photographs of representative
facilities are used to illustrate land application
practices.
The report is presented as fulfillment of
Contract 68-01-0732 by the American Public
Works Association, Chicago, Illinois.
m
-------
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION
Board of Directors
Erwin F. Hensch, President
Gilbert M. Schuster, Vice President
William W. Pagan, Immediate Past President
Jean V. Arpin Herbert A. Goetsch Kenneth A. Meng
Walter A. Schaefer Leo L. Johnson Frederick J. Clarke
Donald S. Frady John J. Roark Wesley E. Gilbertson
Ray W. Burgess Lyall A. Pardee John A. Bailey
Robert D. Bugher, Executive Director
APWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Samuel S. Baxter, Chairman
William D. Hurst, Vice Chairman
Fred J. Benson D. Grant Mickle
Ross L. Clark Milton Offner
John F. Collins Lyall A. Pardee
F. Pierce Linaweaver Milton Pikarsky
Robert D. Bugher, Secretary-Treasurer
Richard H. Sullivan, General Manager & Director, Research
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page No.
Section I, Conclusions, Recommendations and Report Summary 1
Conclusions 1
Recommendations 4
Summary 5
Overview of the Report 10
Climate 18
Demographic Evaluation of Land Application Techniques • 19
Fate of Materials • 24
Section II, The Study 27
Purpose of the Contract Investigation 27
Conducting the Fact-Finding Survey 28
Section III, Survey Investigations 31
Basic Survey Information 31
Community and Industrial Wastewater Source Information 35
Wastewater Transport and Treatment Methods 49
Land Application System Areas and Distribution Methods 60
Disposal Field Characteristics 70
Land Application System Operations 76
Systems and Environmental Monitoring and Performance 85
Performance of Existing Systems 88
Systems Zoning, Land Values, Capital Investment, Operating and Maintenance Costs ... 91
Miscellaneous System Benefits 95
Bibliographic Review 97
Section IV, Survey of Opinions and Regulations of State Health and Water
Pollution Control Agencies on the Application of Wastewater on Land Areas 99
State Health Policies 99
State Water Pollution Control Agency Policies 100
Section V, Summary of Foreign Experiences 125
Climatic Influence 126
Source of Wastewater 126
Wastewater Quality and Treatment 127
Site Conditions and Wastewater Application 129
Land Application Performance 133
Public Health 137
Case Studies 138
Section VI, Suggestions for Implementation of Land Application Systems 153
Climate 153
Types of Waste 154
Land Availability and its Location 155
Soil Types and Groundwater Conditions 156
Rate of Application 158
Methods of Application 159
Holding Facilities and Seasonal Application 160
-------
Section VI (Continued)
Pre-treatment of Wastewaters 161
Capital and Operation Costs 162
Protective Measures 163
Monitoring and Health Hazards 163
Ground Cover 165
Need for Further Information on Land Application Practices 166
Section VII, Land Application of Effluents in Perspective: An Interpretation 169
Changes in Effluent Disposal Practices: Trends and Prospects 169
An "Alternative" Represents a Choice of Disposal Processes 170
Discharge of Effluents into Surface Water Sources 170
Utilization of Effluents by Direct Recycling or Secondary Recycling and Reuse 172
Application of Effluents to Land Areas 174
Section VIII, Acknowledgements 179
Section IX, Glossary of Pertinent Terms 181
Section X, References 185
Section XI, Appendices
Appendix A, Questionnaire 193
Appendix B, Commentaries of Field Investigators 195
Communities
Lake Havasu City, Arizona 195
Mesa, Arizona 195
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Calabasas, California 195
Dinuba, California 196
Fontana, California 196
Fresno, California 197
Hanford, California 197
Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc., Laguna Hills, California 197
Livermore, California 197
Lodi, California 200
Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California 200
Oceanside, California 200
Pleasanton, California 201
Santa Maria, California 201
Santee County Water District, California 201
Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 202
Woodland, California 202
Colorado Springs, Colorado 203
Disney World, Florida 208
Okaloosa County Water and Sewer District, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 208
St. Petersburg, Florida 208
Tallahassee, Florida 211
St. Charles Utilities, Inc., St. Charles, Maryland 212
Forsgate Sanitation, Inc., Cranberry, New Jersey 214
Landis Sewage Authority and City of Vineland, New Jersey 215
Alamogordo, New Mexico 217
Clovis, New Mexico 217
Raton, New Mexico 217
Roswell, New Mexico 218
VI
-------
Section XI (Continued)
Santa Fe, New Mexico 218
Clark County Sanitary District, Las Vegas, Nevada 219
Ely, Nevada 219
Incline Village, Nevada 219
Las Vegas, Nevada 220
Duncan, Oklahoma 220
Hillsboro, Oregon 220
Milton-Freewater, Oregon 222
Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania 222
Dumas, Texas 227
Kingsville, Texas 227
La Mesa, Texas 227
Midland, Texas 228
Monohans, Texas 228
San Angelo, Texas 228
Uvalde, Texas 229
Ephrata, Washington 229
Quincy, Washington 229
Walla Walla, Washington 230
Cheyenne, Wyoming 230
Rawlins, Wyoming 232
Flushing Meadow, Phoenix, Arizona 232
23rd Avenue Project, Phoenix, Arizona 233
Rio Salada Project, Phoenix, Arizona 233
Industrial
Green Giant Company, Buhl, Idaho 236
Potato Processing Plant, Idaho Potato Division, Western Farmers
Association, Aberdeen, Idaho 236
Celotex Corporation, Lagro, Indiana 236
Commercial Solvents Corporation, Terre Haute, Indiana 237
Chesapeake Foods Poultry Processing Plant, Cordova, Maryland 239
Celotex Corporation, L'Anse, Michigan 240
Stokely-Van Camp, Fairmont, Minnesota 241
Michigan Milk Producers Associates, Ovid, Michigan 244
Simpson Lee Paper Company, Vicksburg, Michigan 244
Green Giant Company, LeSueur, Minnesota (and other sites) 245
Gerber Products Company, Fremont, Michigan 246
H. J. Heinz Company 248
Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., Bridgeton, New Jersey 249
U. S. Gypsum Company, Pilot Rock, Oregon 249
Weyerhaeuser Company, Springfield, Oregon 250
Musselman Fruit Products, Pet Milk Co, Biglerville, Pennsylvania 250
Howes Leather Company, Frank, West Virginia 251
Seabrook, New Jersey 252
Appendix C, On-Site Surveys of Land Application Facilities 257
Community 258
Local Agencies Interviewed — Data Not Tabulated 294
Industrial 295
vn
-------
Appendix D, Mail Survey of Land Application Facilities 305
Community 306
Industrial 330
Appendix E, Land Application Facilities Verified but Not Surveyed 349
Appendix F, Department of Defense Installations — Land Application of
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent 353
Army 353
Navy 353
Air Force 354
Appendix G, Medical Department Criteria for Land Disposal of Domestic
Effluents, Department of the Army 355
Appendix H, Climate Classification 361
Appendix I, Background Papers on Land Application of Municipal Effluents 365
Experiences with Land Spreading of Municipal Effluents 365
Fate of Materials Applied 371
vm
-------
TABLES
Page No.
1 Distribution of Communities and Industries Surveyed
On-Site by State and Climatic Zone 32
2 Distribution of Communities and Industries Surveyed
On-Site by Climatic Zone 34
3 Distribution of Mail Survey Systems Studied by Climatic Zone 34
4 Type of Industry and Climatic Zone Surveyed by On-Site Investigation 39
5 Year Land Application Systems were Placed in Service by
Climate Zone — On-Site Survey 40
6 Distribution of Communities Surveyed On-Site by Number,
Population and Climatic Zone 41
7 Distribution of Mail Surveyed Community Systems by Population Ranges 42
8 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Communities by Number, Population
Equivalent and Climatic Zone 43
9 Distribution of Industries Surveyed On-Site by Number, Population
Equivalent and Climatic Zone 44
10 Distribution of Mail Survey Industrial Systems by Ranges
of Population Equivalent 46
11 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Communities by Flow, Population
Equivalent and Climatic Zone 46
12 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Industries by Flow, Population
Equivalent and Climatic Zone 48
13 Distribution of Mail Survey Total Flows by Climatic Zone 49
14 Wastewater Treatment Process by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 50
15 On-Site Survey, Sludge Treatment Methods by Climatic Zone 51
16 On-Site Survey, Sludge Disposal by Climatic Zone 51
17 Relationship Determined by On-Site Survey of Treatment Plant Capacity
to Sewer Flow by Climatic Zone 52
18 Treatment Plant Capacity to Sewer Flow as Percent of Sewer
Capacity — On-Site Survey 52
19 Flow to Land Application System as Percent of Total Community
Wastewater Flow by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 54
20 Flow to Land Application System as Percent of Total Community
Wastewater Flow and Total Flow — On-Site Survey 54
21 Comparison of Average Application Flows to Total Community
Flows — Mail Survey 55
22 Wastewater Transport to Land Applicaton Sites and Climatic Zone
for Communities — On-Site Survey 55
23 Wastewater Transport to Application Sites and Wastewater Flow
for Communities — On-Site Survey 55
24 Holding Pond Volume and Climatic Zone for Communities — On-Site Survey 56
25 Comparison of Holding Pond Storage to Climatic Zone — On-Site Surveys 56
26 Distribution of Community and Industrial Holding Pond Size in Terms of
Average Flows to the Application Site — On-Site Survey 56
27 Distribution of Holding Pond Size in Terms of Average Flows to the
Application Site — Mail Survey 57
28 Comparison of Minimum Computed Holding Pond Storage Times and
Pond Sized for On-Site and Mail Surveys 57
IX
-------
TABLES (Continued)
29 Wastewater Treatment at Application Site by Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey 57
30 Treatment Process at Treatment Plant Facility and at Application
Site - On-Site Survey 60
31 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Communities by Land Application Area,
Population Equivalent and Climatic Zone 61
32 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Industries by Land Application Area,
Population Equivalent and Climatic Zone 62
33 Average Population Equivalent — On-Site Survey 62
34 Distribution of Total Areas Reserved for Industrial and Community Land
Application Systems by Climatic Zone — Mail Survey 63
35 Flow and Area Used for Land Application — On-Site Survey 63
36 Distribution of Total Areas Reserved for Land Application Purposes by
Average Daily Flows to the Application Site — Mail Survey 63
37 Relation of Area Irrigated to Total Land Application Area
by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 64
38 Area Irrigated and Total Land Applicaton Area — On-Site Survey 65
39 Distribution of Irrigated Acreage to Population and to Average
Daily Flows — Mail Survey 65
40 Method of Wastewater Application and Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 66
41 Method of Wastewater Application and Climatic Zone — Mail Survey 67
42 Summary of Regional Differences in Application Methods for On-Site
and Mail Survey 67
43 Method of Wastewater Application and Land Application Area— On-Site Survey ... 67
44 Wastewater Application Methods Compared to Soil Types and Ground
Cover — Mail Survey 68
45 Summary of Application Methods in Terms of Soil Types and Ground
Covers — Mail Survey 70
46 Soil Types in Land Application Areas by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 71
47 Soil Types Reported at Existing Land Application Areas — Mail Survey 71
48 Classification by Soil Type and Flow — On-Site Survey 72
49 Classification by Soil Type and Wastewater Application
Rate - On-Site Survey 72
50 Groundwater Table Depth Encountered in Existing Land Application
Sites Reported by Mail Survey 73
51 Use of Underdrains — Mail Survey 73
52 Use of Underdrains by Soil Type — Mail Survey 73
53 Classification by Ground Cover and Climatic Zone - On-Site Survey 74
54 Land Cover Practice by Type of System - Mail Survey 74
55 Ground Cover and Wastewater Flow — On-Site Survey 75
56 Comparison of Grass and Crop Usage in Terms of Flow - On-Site Survey 75
57 Months per Year Land Application Systems Operated by Climatic Zone
- On-Site Survey 76
58 Monts of Year Land Application Systems Operated by Climatic Zone
— Mail Survey 77
59 Comparison of Full Year Operations for Both On-Site and Mail Surveys 78
60 Distribution of Land Application Systems, by Flow Range and Number of
Months per Year Systems in Operation — On-Site Survey 78
61 Days per Week Land Application Systems Operated by Climatic Zone
- On-Site Survey 79
-------
TABLES (Continued)
62 Weekly Operations for Community and Industrial Systems
by Climatic Zone — Mail Survey 80
63 Comparison of Days of Operation per Week to Soil Type — Mail Survey 80
64 Comparison of Days Operated per Week to Ground Cover - Mail Survey 81
65 Summary of Application Rates Found — On-Site Survey 81
66 Groundwater Problems and Rate of Wastewater Application — On-Site Survey .... 82
67 Disposal of Excess Wastewater from Land Application System — On-Site Survey ... 83
68 Use of Land Application Areas — On-Site Survey 83
69 Security Arrangements at Land Application Sites — On-Site Survey 84
70 Communities — Analysis of Wastewater to Application Site and Effluent or
Groundwater Discharge from Site by Climatic Zone and Parameter —
On-Site Survey 85
71 Industry — Analysis of Wastewater to Application Site and Effluent or
Groundwater Discharge from Site by Climatic Zone and Parameter —
On-Site Survey 86
72 Environmental Monitoring at Land Application Areas — On-Site Survey 87
73 Use of Test Wells among Land Application Sites — Mail Survey 88
74 Land Application Area Monitoring by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 88
75 Summary of Public Health Agency Involvement — On-Site Survey 89
76 Plans for Land Application Systems by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 89
77 Future Plans for Existing Land Application Systems — Mail Survey 90
78 Distance from Land Application Site to Nearest Residence by Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey 90
79 Zoning of Community Land Application Facilities and Adjacent Area by
Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 92
80 Zoning of Industrial Land Application Facilities and Adjacent Areas
by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 92
81 Comparison of Application Site Land Value to Populat'on — Mail Survey 93
82 Value of Land Application Site and Adjacent Property — On-Site Survey 93
83 Summary of Adjacent Land Values Compared to Application Site Land
Values - On-Site Survey 94
84 Operating and Maintenance Expense by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey 94
85 Wastewater Irrigated Crop Types — On-Site Survey 96
86 Comparison of Annual Dollar Return to Irrigated Site Acreage —
On-Site Survey 97
87 Recreational Uses Associated with Land Application - On-Site Survey 97
88 Survey of Wastewater Irrigation — State Public Health Regulations 101
89 State Water Pollution Control Agency Responses 103
90 Partial List of Demonstration Projects Involving Land Application of
Effluent or Sludge Ill
91 Units of Boron in Irrigation Waters for Agricultural Products with
Different Grades of Tolerance (Mexico) 130
92 Irrigation Potential of Soil Types (Australia) 132
93 Annual Nutrient Values Added by Wastewater Application 134
94 Produce Results of Plants Irrigated with Urban Sewage and the
Average Sewage Quantities Used (Debrecen, Hungary) 135
95 Comparison of Production Results with and without Urban Sewage
Irrigation (Debrecen, Hungary) 136
96 Enhancement of Soil by Wastewater Application (Werribee Farm) 136
97 Enhancement of Wastewater Quality from Land Application (Werribee Farm) 136
98 Summary of Agriculture Production - Production Year 1971-1972, 03
Irrigation District, Tula Hidalgo, Mexico 141
XI
-------
FIGURES
Page No.
1 Land Application Sites 8,9
2 Application Techniques 12,13
3 Crops Irrigated with Wastewater 14,15
4 Climatic Zones and Locations of On-Site Community and Industrial
Land Application Survey Reports 33
5 Non-Crop Land Application Facilities 36,37
6 Industrial Land Application Facilities 37,38
7 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Community Population
and Community and Industry Population Equivalent 45
8 Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Community and Industry
Population Equivalent by Flow Ranges 47
9 Holding Ponds 58,59
10 Spray Systems 69
11 Use of Treated Effluent, Mexico City, D. F 142,143
12 Irrigation of Farmland, Tula Hidalgo, Mexico 143,144
13 Fontana, California 198,199
14 Santee, California 204,205
15 Colorado Springs, Colorado 206,207
16 Okaloosa County Wastes and Sewer District, Florida 209,210
17 Tallahassee, Florida 210
18 Las Vegas, Nevada 221
19 Pennsylvania State University 226
20 Walla Walla, Washington 231
21 Cheyenne, Wyoming 234,235
22 Celotex Corporation, Lagro, Indiana 238
23 Stokely-Van Camp, Fairmont, Minnesota 242,243
EXHIBITS
I State of Arizona, Department of Health Rules and Regulations
for Reclaimed Wastes 112
II Colorado Department of Health, Rules, Regulations and Standards for
Certain Domestic Sewage Treatment Systems and Other Non-Municipal Systems
Other than Septic Tanks 114
III State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilatative Services,
Division of Health Requirements for Effluent Irrigation 116
IV State of Texas, Recommendations from the Staff of the Division of
Wastewater Technology and Surveillance When the Domestic Wastewater Effluent
is to be Used for Irrigation of Areas Accessible to the Public 118
V Great Lakes — Upper Missippii Board Addendum No. 2. To Recommended
Standards for Sewage Works (1968 Edition) April 1971. Ground Disposal
of Wastewaters 120
VI Health Study, Central Public Health Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, India . . 147
VII Health Regulations, Israel 148
VIII Land Application Regulations in Australia 150
IX Text Book Excerpt - "Sewerage and Sewage Purification" by M.N. Baker (1905) . . .176
xn
-------
FOREWORD
The report which follows gives the result of an
extensive study conducted by the APWA Research
Foundation concerning the operation of facilities for
the land application of domestic and industrial
wastewaters. The Bibliography which was compiled for
the report is being reproduced as a separate document
which will be collated with the bibliographies prepared
by other USEPA Contractors who are reporting on
related phases of land application practices.
Through this report, the American Public Works
Association has sought to bring the operating experience
of major users of land application systems together in
one usable document. This report is intended to provide
basic information for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency as it prepares guidelines for
evaluation of this alternative means of wastewater
treatment. The information in the report should be of
value to State regulation agencies, local agencies and
industries, consulting engineers, and citizens who are
striving to evaluate the means that can be used to
achieve the best practical technology for the manage-
ment of wastewaters and effluents.
The Association is aware that in the minds of many
persons land application of wastewaters has been
discredited and is poorly considered. However, on the
basis of the exhaustive study which was undertaken, it
must be concluded that the land application of
wastewaters offers a viable alternative to advanced
treatment processes and deserves serious consideration
by many communities and industries throughout the
United States. Land needs, when taken in perspective
with total land uses, are not unreasonable and may, in
fact, play a desirable social role by providing green belts
and open areas, and preserving rich farm lands and
cloistered areas. The conclusions of the report point to
the almost unqualified success of this method of
application, bdth in this country and throughout the
world, when the facility has been properly operated and
efforts have been made to apply sound engineering,
geological and farming expertise to design, construction
and control procedures.
We hope that this report will be helpful to those
who must evaluate, design, and operate land application
facilities.
Samuel S. Baxter, Chairman
APWA Research Foundation
Xlll
-------
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORT SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based upon the field investigations of 67 municipal and 20
industrial facilities which yielded usable data as well as information from more than 300
questionnaires, a bibliographic review, and numerous foreign contacts.
NOTE: At the time the report was prepared USEPA had not adopted a definition of
secondary treatment. Thus, the term is used throughout the report to connote treatment
beyond that normally given by primary treatment and not that defined by present
regulations.
1. Land application of wastewaters from
community and industrial processing sources
is practiced successfully and extensively in the
United States and in many countries
throughout the world. Facilities investigated
handled from less than 0.5 mgd, providing
service for sixty days per year, to more than
570 mgd applied on a year-around basis.
2. Various degrees of municipal sewage
pretreatment are practiced prior to land
application. The degree of pretreatment is
dependent upon the types of vegetation to be
irrigated, method and rate of application, the
probability of odors or ponding at the
application site, and other ecological impacts
and public health concerns.
3. Under proper conditions, land
application of waste water is a workable
alternative to advanced or tertiary treatment
of municipal wastes. Successful operations
now in use generally rely upon conventional
treatment processes to pretreat sanitary
wastes equivalent to secondary treatment.
Prior to application to land areas, industrial
wastewaters, on the other hand, often receive
no- conventional treatment, other than
screening.
4. Land application of wastewaters is
practiced for several specific reasons. Among
the major reasons are: to provide for
supplemental irrigation water; the desirability
of augmenting groundwater sources; excessive
distances to suitable bodies of receiving
waters or extraordinary cost to construct
facilities to reach suitable disposal sites;
economic feasibility, as contrasted with the
cost of construction and operation of
advanced or tertiary treatment facilities; and
inability of conventional treatment facilities.
to handle difficult-to-treat wastes.
5. Land application of wastewaters can
be considered as a part of a water reuse cycle.
Emphasis should be placed on wastewater
utilization, reuse and renovation — the
so-called "4-R cycle." Land application in
water-short areas may be considered as part of
this reuse cycle. Land application is not land
disposal inasmuch as wastes are not placed
inertly and left on land areas; rather, they
become a part of a dynamic system of
utilization and conversion of the liquid and
the nutrient components contained therein.
(This requires caution in application of
non-amenable wastewaters which cannot
become a part of this recycle-reuse process.)
6. Present land application facilities
generally are not "stressing" the system.
Many facilities were found to be using
effluent on a crop-need basis. Even where
efforts were being made to use land as the
only point of disposal, application rates were
generally conservative and the soil-plant
components of the system were not stressed
to limits of assimilation or used to their
optimum capacities, thus providing a large
factor of safety.
7. Small communities and food
processing industries will probably continue
to be the principal users of land treatment of
effluents for the near future. The ability to
assemble the necessary land at proper prices
and without adverse effect on local land-use
practices, tend to favor the use of land
application systems for such smaller
installations. However, stringent requirements
on discharge of effluents to receiving waters,
energy shortages, or a number of other
conceivable economic-environmental factors
could make land application feasible and
workable for larger communities or other
wastewater sources.
-------
8. A variety of beneficial uses are being
made of wastewater effluents. Uses include
irrigation of parks, golf courses, cemeteries,
college grounds, street trees, highway median
strips, sports grounds, ornamental fountains
and artificial lakes. Wastewater effluents are
also used to irrigate many types of crops,
including grasses, alfalfa, corn, sorghum,
citrus trees, grapes, and cotton. Forest lands
also are being irrigated in many areas.
Groundwater augmentation to prevent salt
water intrusion is being practiced. In Mexico,
a wide variety of truck garden crops has long
been irrigated with effluent. Crops appeared
to benefit from both the nutrients and the
increased amount of water which is applied.
9. A large variety of potential
opportunities for land application of
wastewater exist in many communities.
Wastewaters that are given a high degree of
treatment could well be considered for
irrigating large public and private facilities to
relieve the demand for irrigation with potable
water supplies. Golf courses, cemeteries,
parkways, school grounds, parks, airports,
planned unit developments, green belts, forest
preserves, and marginal land and land within
flood plains all offer opportunities for the
useful applications of effluent to the land.
10. Sale of effluent for beneficial use has
been generally unsuccessful. Few examples
were found where a public agency had been
able to obtain more than a token payment for
supplying treated effluent. In several cases it
was reported that land for the treatment plant
had been given in consideration of a right to
all or a portion of the effluent. Where an
agency received a tangible dollar return, it was
generally based upon use of both land and the
effluent.
11. Successful operation of a land
application system requires the inputs from a
variety of disciplines. For many systems, the
services of a geologist and environmental
engineer are required. For systems designed to
augment the indigenous crop water
requirements by supplemental irrigation, the
advice and guidance of an agronomist and
soils specialist will be needed. For larger
systems, social and behavioral scientists, as
well as medical-health personnel may be
required to assist in evaluating and securing
acceptance of this alternative means of
disposal.
12. Operation of land application facilities
can be accomplished without creating a
nuisance or downgrading the adjacent
environment. The survey indicated that a
majority of the facilities were conducted by
well-trained personnel, aware of the need for
careful operation of the systems. Training,
supervision, and adequate monitoring of
pertinent factors are necessary to ensure that
systems will not be overstressed. If ponding
on the land is not allowed, odors will not be a
problem. The hazard of creating other adverse
effects on the environment by discharging
treated effluent on land is minimal.
13. Environmental analysis of the effects
of land application facilities reflects a general
improvement of the environment rather than
impairment of the indigenous ecology. Many
facilities were observed where the effluent
provided the only irrigation water available.
Land values for sites with a right to such
wastewaters were greater than that of
adjacent land because crop and forest growth
was enhanced, and use of potable water
supplies reduced. Farming and recreation
potentials exist, as well as improved habitat
for wild life.
Treatment of wastewater prior to land
application has generally been dictated by the
desire to use the best practical means
consistent with available technology and to
minimize any adverse effects upon the
environment. Land application of wastewater
by eliminating direct discharges of effluent
into receiving waters could be regarded as
satisfying the ultimate national policy goal of
"zero discharge" of pollutants.
No instances of health hazards were
reported from any existing facilities, although
the State of Delaware indicated concern over
possible virus transmission.
14. Local public opinion — objection to
becoming the recipients of "somebody else's
waste" — could be a major limiting factor in
the development of large land application
systems at distances from wastewater sources.
Psychological concern over distasteful
characteristics of effluents can result in
distrust of the ability of public agencies to
operate, control and manage such systems.
-------
However, several successful examples of
effective operations, such as West
Herdfordshire, England, and many of the
facilities surveyed and described in detail in
this report, demonstrate that public
acceptance can be achieved.
15. Monitoring of land application
facilities and effects has been minimal and
mostly inadequate. Few states have taken an
active role in requiring use of monitoring
facilities, apparently because there was no
direct discharge of effluents to receiving
waters. Many of the municipal systems
surveyed provided little or no monitoring,
inasmuch as the effluent was being used only
for supplemental irrigation. Industrial systems
were generally better monitored, but control,
in most cases, cannot be characterized as
being adequate.
16. Energy requirements for land
application systems may be an important
consideration. Reported energy requirements
for most advanced and tertiary treatment
proposals are very high as compared to
conventional treatment. Depending upon the
location and availability of land, energy
requirements associated with land application
techniques may be substantially less than
other means of treatment and effluent
management. This factor deserves further
evaluation.
17. The nature and quantity of receiving
waters must be carefully evaluated prior to
diverting effluent to land application. Few
existing systems were found that used
underdrains to collect the renovated effluent.
Rather, the groundwater aquifers received the
flow. If a land application area is adjacent to
the receiving water, much of the groundwater
may serve to augment the flow into the
receiving waters by a gradual seepage into the
drainage basin. Elimination of direct
wastewater discharges to a stream could
unbalance the flow regimen associated with
downstream beneficial uses, inhibit desirable
dilution of waste discharges, interfere with
the tempering of thermal water discharges,
and permit the intrusion of saline waters into
normally fresh water zones. The impact of
effluent diversion into land areas with respect
to the basic principle of riparian water rights
must be considered where irrigation is
planned as an alternate to discharge into
surface waters in some areas.
18. When wastewater is discharged to
land and this method is used as a means of
advanced treatment by natural means, the
land must receive priority for this use over
other optional land uses. The needs of crop
production, recreation and other benefits can
be in conflict with the utilization of a land
application system for the treatment of
wastewater. For instance, the planting,
cultivation and harvesting of crops and the
use of recreation facilities may interfere with
continuous applicaiton of wastewater onto
land areas. The need for the system to either
utilize all of the flow or provide sufficient
retention storage for needed periods of
non-operation must be considered. The
objective of providing adequate treatment of
the effluent cannot be sacrificed for other
needs and uses of the land; proper handling of
the wastewater must be the first priority.
19. Choice of ground cover can play an
important role in the success of a land
application system. On other than sandy soils,
it appears that forested or minimally wooded
or cultivated areas will accept greater rates of
applicaiton of effluent without ponding than
will cultivated agricultural areas. Many
existing facilities utilize forest areas and
grassed areas for application. Forested areas
appear particularly useful .for winter
applications when fixed spray systems are
used. In most areas Reed Canary grass is well
suited for producing mulched ground cover
which can enhance soil assimilation and
absorption characteristics.
20. Land application facilities that have
been used for many years are available for the
study of long-term effects of such use. They
offer the opportunity to study effects on soils
and groundwaters. Demonstration projects
should be undertaken to evaluate the effects
and characteristics of climate and soil
conditions on the practice of discharging
effluent on land. A project should also be
initiated on the methods of application of
wastewater to land. However, it appears
unnecessary to support separate
demonstration facilities in each of several
states and regions. During the course of the
study several small-scale research and
-------
demonstration projects involving land
application were reviewed. Some of these
projects appeared to have been instituted
simply for the purpose of convincing local
and state officials of the safety of this
alternative method of treatment and disposal.
Specific evaluation of established systems
in the various climatic zones would appear to
be more fruitful than new research
installations for determining long-term effects
upon soil, vegetation, groundwater, and the
indigenous ecology, or on the health of site
workers and adjacent residents.
21. Observations in the field and surveys
of land application systems did not reveal the
existence of specific health hazards and
disclosed very little concern over threats to
the health of on-site workers, residents of
neighboring areas, domestic animals or
wildlife, or of those who consume or come in
contact with land-applied wastewaters. Mail
surveys of other representative municipal and
industrial land application systems similarly
provided no evidence of any health problems
associated with this method of disposal.
Some concern over potential health
hazards was, however, expressed or inferred
by officials of some state agencies who
supplied information about their policies on
land application of effluents as an alternative
means of wastewater management. Whether
this concern was based on specific
information or mere suspicions, founded or
unfounded, could not be determined from the
responses.
Inquiries have been made with
inconclusive results about the health
implications of land application systems by
several Federal, state and local agencies, and
by other quasi-governmental and public
service organizations. Concern over "the
unknown" was expressed for such factors as
potential viral and pathogenic hazards
resulting from dissemination of aerosol sprays
or mists and contacts with sanitary and
industrial sludge residues.
While the current studies did not disclose
cause for such concerns, the bibliographic
abstracts prepared as an integral part of this
investigative project do include references
describing possible health hazards which
warrant further study and these potential
problem areas should certainly not be
ignored.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Suggested criteria for land applications
of wastewaters should be prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to provide
the basis for full consideration of the wide
choices of available methods and procedures.
Criteria should be prepared in a manner
which will not restrict unduly the ability of
local officials to make full use of this
alternative method of treating and managing
wastewater.
2. Land application must not be
considered as a panacea or universal method
of treatment. Suitability of each land
application system can only be determined as
a result of an interdisciplinary study for the
particular site. Soils, climate, degree of
pretreatment, groundwater conditions and
availability of suitable acreages of land are
important considerations.
3. Preparation of a suitable publication
to inform the public about the practice of
discharging effluent on land should be
sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Public relations problems
are usually encountered by agencies
attempting to implement any large public
wastewater disposal project. Recent efforts to
consider land application of effluent as an
alternative in planning for regional approaches
to wastewater management have highlighted
the need for such a publication.
4. Training opportunities should be
provided to bring to the attention of all
disciplines involved in the consideration and
evaluation of a land application facility the
technical information which is available.
Widespread consideration and utilization of
land application cannot be made until such
time as adequate information concerning the
technique involved is made available. The
experience gained by those who have
successfully utilized this wastewater
management method should be used.
5. Criteria for the increased use of
land application methods, which could result
from the implementation of Section 201 of
the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and its emphasis on
-------
alternative wastes management techniques
and systems, should clarify the question of
whether health hazards are a factor in the use
of this system of treatment and disposal.
Definitive findings are essential to the
acceptance of land application systems, or to
their adoption for municipal or industrial
effluent management. Such findings should be
provided with promptness and clarity, either
through evaluation of existing data or any
additional necessary research. Without such
positive information, published criteria
might either be inadequate or tend to be too
restrictive. If they are too stringent, this could
endanger the proper utilization of land
application systems as effective and
economical solutions to water pollution
control problems and the rational use of
wastewater for crop and groundwater
enhancement and other
environmental-ecological benefits.
SUMMARY
Highlights
The American Public Works Association,
in 1972, conducted an on-site field survey of
approximately 100 facilities in all climatic
zones where community or industrial waste-
waters are being applied to the land, as
contrasted to the conventional method of
treating such wastes and discharging them
into receiving waters.
Additional data were gathered from many
existing land application facilities across the
country by means of a mail survey addressed
to responsible officials. Another survey was
carried out to ascertain the nature and extent
of State health and water pollution control
regulations governing the use and control of
land application systems. To augment
information on U.S. practices, a survey was
made of experiences gained in many foreign
countries. In addition, an extensive
bibliography was compiled of literature on all
pertinent phases of land application practices.
The facilities surveyed were relatively
large, long-established operations. These were
selected to obtain as much information as
possible on the operating experiences of those
using this system. The surveyed facilities
where community wastewaters were applied
on land were predominantly located in the
western and southwestern portions of the
U.S., while industrial facilities were generally
sited in the mid-continent and northeastern
sections, because this is where the majority of
such installations are in service. This method
of handling wastewater has been used to meet
definable needs, and is technically feasible in
most areas.
Land application of effluent has been
employed for a variety of reasons. These most
frequently mentioned were:
1. to provide supplemental irrigation
water;
2. to give economical alternative
solutions for treating wastes and
discharging them into receiving
waters, without causing degradation
of rivers, lakes and coastal waters;
and
3. to overcome the lack or unavailability
of suitable receiving waters and elimi-
nate excessive costs of long outfall
lines to reach suitable points of
disposal into large bodies of water.
Among the major means of accomplishing
land application of wastewaters are:
1. irrigation of land areas by spraying,
with high-pressure or low-pressure
devices, using either stationary or
movable types of distribution
systems;
2. ridge and furrow irrigation systems;
3. use of overland flow or flooding
methods; and
4. use of infiltration lagoon or
evaporation ponds.
Although facilities of all types were
surveyed, this report is primarily concerned
with irrigation-type facilities for supplying
supplemental water to crop areas, forest areas
and unharvested soil cover acreages. The other
types are not as widely used because the
climate or soil conditions in some locations
have an adverse impact on these alternate
methods of applying wastewater to land.
Irrigation-type facilities were found to be
used in many instances under a wide variety
of climate and soil conditions, with various
degrees of prior treatment of the applied
wastewater and various types of ground cover
utilized.
Each method of application has inherent
-------
advantages and disadvantages which must be
evaluated for their feasibility and efficacy.
Land application of wastewaters has been
practiced extensively in various parts of the
world for many years, since long before the
turn of the century. The majority of earlier
facilities applied untreated domestic waste-
waters with varying degrees of control and
success. Figure 1, Land Application Sites, is a
photograph of four sites indicating the variety
of conditions observed at installations where
land application is being practiced.
As knowledge of wastewater treatment
processes improved, and techniques were
developed to confine, in a relatively small
area, the entire process needed to produce a
"treated" effluent for disposal into receiving
waters, land application was relegated, in
most states, to being an undesirable and
unacceptable process.
New concerns about preserving the
quality and reuse of the nation's water
resources have resulted in a reawakening of
interest in land application as a viable
alternative to conventional wastewater
treatment and disposal into receiving waters.
Increasing volumes of sewage and industrial
wastes, growing complexity of such raw
wastes, and mounting needs for water to serve
growing urban and industrial processing
needs, have created doubts about the ability
of receiving waters to assimilate effluents
which do not meet high-quality standards. In
addition, increasing evidence of
eutrophication of non-flowing receiving
waters has focused attention on the need to
eliminate the presence of nutrients in
wastewater effluents. Further, the presence of
toxic trace elements in effluents is sometimes
considered a threat to the safety of receiving
waters. Thus, advanced treatment methods
have been developed and utilized to avoid
discharge of such objectionable components.
Inasmuch as land application appears to offer
comparable or superior degrees of treatment
by augmenting waste treatment with the
"natural" purification offered by soil contact,
land application is again being considered as
one of the acceptable means of achieving full
treatment of wastewaters.
However, a most important factor of the
current land application concept is that it
must be limited to the use of treated,
disinfected wastes. Generally, effluents are
being conventionally treated to meet
secondary treatment quality criteria. In at
least three observed facilities, applied
effluents have received tertiary treatment, to
the point where the effluent would fully meet
the generally prescribed, as well as proposed,
criteria for discharge to receiving waters.
Thus, land application is being used to give a
degree of advanced waste treatment, including
high degrees of nutrient and bacterial
removal. In this context, land application can
be viewed .as an alternative to
physical-chemical processes and other
methods of ultra-treatment which are
designed to achieve a "pure" effluent.
Economics of construction cost,
operating costs, energy requirements, and
efficiencies of performance of land
application systems must be balanced with
the ability to acquire the right to apply
wastewater upon the required land areas. The
cost of advanced waste treatment by
conventional means must be weighed in the
light of the cost and complexities of land
application systems.
Two informative reports were published
on the subject of land application in 1972.
Green Lands—Clean Streams, a report by
Temple University Center for the Study of
Federalism, is a frankly written advocacy of
the land application of wastewaters and
sludges. Wastewater Management by Disposal
on the Land by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is a thorough review of the
physical, chemical and biological interactions
involved in land application. The consulting
engineering firm of Metcalf and Eddy has also
prepared a report for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, concerned with
engineering considerations of land application
systems entitled, Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse by Land Application. It is to be
released in 1973. These three reports,
together with this report on the study
conducted by the APWA Research
Foundation, should be considered in
evaluating land application systems, because
they deal with somewhat different aspects of
the common problem.
This report on the APWA studies has
-------
made no special effort to examine the specific
aspects covered in detail in the other reports.
Rather, it is concerned with reporting upon
the policies, practices and performances of a
representative group of the relatively larger
systems within the U.S.; policies, or lack of
policies, of State regulatory agencies; and the
experience with land application in some
foreign installations.
Systems which were under construction,
such as Muskegon County, Michigan, and
several major domestic and industrial systems
which were intimately known to Metcalf and
Eddy project personnel were not investigated
for this report. However, the firm of Metcalf
and Eddy has supplied copies of its field
interviews at such sites to APWA evaluators
and data on many of these installations have
been incorporated in this report. Conversely,
all field information obtained during the
APWA investigations was supplied directly to
the firm of Metcalf and Eddy for its use in
analyzing its own study results.
The following highlights from the field
surveys are presented to give a composite
picture of the observations made during the
land application site visits:
1. Communities generally use their land
application system on a continuous basis.
Food processing plants, the predominant
industrial users of the system, generally
use discharge-to-land systems for three to
eight months per year.
2. Ground cover utilized for municipal
systems is divided between grass and
crops. Industries generally use grass cover.
3. Land application systems are generally
used on a daily basis, seven days per
week.
4. Application rates for crop irrigation are
very low in terms of inches of water per
week. Two inches or less was commonly
used. (Two inches per week equals
54,300 gallons per acre per week.)
5. Many types of soils were used, although
sand, loam and silt were the most
common classification given. Two
systems using applications over many feet
of sand were applying up to eight inches
per day once a week, and one system on
clay was applying a daily rate of 0.1 inch.
6. Most operating agencies, municipal and
industrial, are planning to either expand
or continue their land application
installations. The few examples of
systems which had been abandoned were
due to either the desire to make a higher
use of the land, or because of reported-
overloading and poor operation of the
land application facilities.
7. Industries surveyed generally treat their
total waste flow by land application.
Practices of municipalities varied from
less than 25 percent (8), to all (34) of the
wastewaters discharged.
8. Secondary treatment is generally
provided by municipalities prior to land
application, often times accompanied by
lagooning. Industries using this system
frequently treat their process wastes by
screening only.
9. Spray irrigation is the most frequently
used (57 facilities) method of application,
although most municipalities use more
than one method. Ridge and furrow
irrigation is used at 23 facilities and
flooding irrigation by 34 systems.
Industry generally used spray irrigation.
10. Land use zoning for land application sites
is predominantly classified as farming,
with some residential zoning in
contiguous areas.
11. Wastewater generally is transported to the
application site by pressure lines,
although a number of municipalities are
able to utilize ditches or gravity flow pipe
lines.
12. Many community land application
facilities have been in use for several years
— more than half for more than 15 years.
Industrial systems have generally been in
use for a lesser period of time.
13. Renovated wastewater is seldom collected
by underdrains; rather, evaporation, plant
transpiration, and groundwater recharge
take up the flow.
14. Land application facilities generally do
not make appreciable efforts to preclude
public access to sites. Residences are
frequently located adjacent to land appli-
cation sites. No special effort is made to
seclude land application areas from recre-
-------
a. Spray irrigation of cemetery, Colorado Springs, Colo.
b. Spray irrigation of forest, Tallahassee, Fla.
FIGURE 1
LAND APPLICATION SITES
-------
c. Spray irrigation of rolling grazing land, Rossmoor, Cal.
d. Spray irrigation of Freeway right-of-way, San Bernardino, Cal.
FIGURE 1
LAND APPLICATION SITES
-------
ational facilities and from those who use
these leisure sites.
15. Monitoring of groundwater quality, soil
uptake of contaminants, crop uptake of
waste water components, and surface
water impacts is not carried out with any
consistency.
Figure 2, Application Techniques,
portrays various types of spray irrigation
equipment used at surveyed sites. Figure 3,
Crops Irrigated with Wastewater, shows the
variety of crops irrigated.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT
The purpose of the report is to present
the details and data relating to the conduct
of the study and information on possible
factors influencing the handling of waste-
waters from many sources, at many sites,
using many diverse methods of application.
This has resulted in the development of
a rather large document. It answers many
questions raised by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and other branches of
government, and by municipal and industrial
officials and their consultants.
This overview of the report has been
prepared to provide a brief summary of the
study and investigation and a concise
evaluation of the principles, practices and
performances of the land application systems
as used in the United States and in foreign
countries. Summaries of the information
contained in each section of the report are
presented, as well as a demographic review
and a discussion of the fate of the materials
applied to the land.
Section I,
Conclusions, Recommendations and Summary
The sixteen conclusions drawn from the
study verify the relative success of present
land application systems for supplementing
groundwater sources; providing economical
means of effluent disposal where discharge to
surface water sources would be extremely
difficult and costly; improving effluent
quality by soil uptake of constituents which
would adversely affect receiving waters;
enhancing crop growths and silviculture; and
augmenting indigenous water supplies for
recreational and aesthetic purposes.
Successful application of wastewaters to
land areas is not without its problems. This
effluent management method is not a
universal panacea.
The need for programs to develop
enlightened public acceptance of land
application methods is strongly advocated.
Over and above the problem of neutralizing
the aesthetic and psychological objections to
any direct or indirect contacts with
wastewaters or wastes residues, fears of
virological or pathological infections must
also be overcome.
This public relations problem emphasizes
the importance of the recommendation that
studies be conducted to develop irrefutable
findings on the presence or absence of health
hazards in land application practices. Such
findings and whatever safeguards that may be
warranted must be determined before
guidelines for this method of wastewater
effluent management are promulgated.
Guidelines are usually interpreted as "the
law" rather than suggested criteria. This gives
credence to the suggestion that formalization
of "guidelines" be deferred until after
experience is gained with the use of "interim
procedures." The publication and use of such
procedures and results of the studies
suggested above will provide scientific
information upon which to base "guidelines"
for increased utilization of this
treatment-disposal procedure in the future.
PRECIS OF SECTIONS OF THE REPORT
Section II, The Study
The study conducted by the APWA
Research Foundation on behalf of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was
planned to produce fundamental information
needed to facilitate compliance with the
intent of Section 201 of the 1972
Amendments to the Water Pollution Contract
Act. The study was specifically designed to:
• Obtain design and operational data for
a large number of U.S. installations in various
climatic regions, which are handling
wastewaters of various types and volumes; by
various methods of application; for different
purposes; on various types of soil, ground
cover and cropping; under different local
environmental conditions.
10
-------
• Collect and interpret similar data on
foreign installations where land application
has been in effect for longer periods and
under different conditions.
• Collate bibliographic records and
references on all facets of land application,
including design, operation, physical,
chemical, pathological, virological, parasitic,
aesthetic, hydrologic, agricultural,
herbicultural, silvicultural benefits and
detriments, and other related matters.
• Evaluate all data in terms of practical
interpretation of their meaning, and as a
means of producing and catalyzing the
development of meaningful answers and
guidelines to land application practices.
The studies, in great measure, achieved
these goals.
Section HI, Survey Investigations
On-site, in-depth investigations of more
than 67 community and 20 industrial land
application systems were carried out by
trained engineering specialists. The 87
installations designated provided data of
significance. These sites were chosen to be
representative of national experiences with
different types of wastewaters, applied to
varying types of soils, ground cover and other
indigenous conditions under diverse climatic
conditions.
To augment the findings of the on-site
surveys, a mail investigation of similar land
application sites was carried out, covering the
same study subjects explored by the field
study team. Significant data were obtained
for approximately the same number of
municipal and industrial installations covered
by the field studies. Five climatic zones, each
with its own temperature, precipitation,
humidity and seasonal characteristics, were
designated and evaluation of survey findings
were interpreted on the basis of the impact of
climatic conditions on wastewater application
to land areas and other factors influenced by
meteorological phenomena.
The demographic, geographic, geologic,
hydrologic and other factors and impacts of
land application practices, procedures and
performance are discussed later in this
section.
The findings of the surveys offer evidence
of acceptable operating experiences, which
should be useful in guiding future land
application decisions. An important finding,
in all of the diverse conclusions that can be
drawn from field and mail survey data, is the
fact that 90 percent of communities and 95
percent of industries making use of land
application methods plan to continue their
use; nearly 50 percent of the communities
and one-fifth of the industries contemplate
increasing or expanding their systems. If the
"proof of the pudding" is in the performance,
the approval of users is a good test of the
acceptability of land application methods.
The study indicated that existing land
application systems are being used
predominantly, in relatively small
communities and at industrial sites. Future
applications may involve larger loadings and
greater irrigation areas. It is significant that
the costs involved in existing land application
systems apparently lie within the capabilities
of smaller communities and industry
installations. Choice of this means of
wastewater disposal has been based on various
factors: Need for supplemental irrigation
water; augmentation of groundwater
resources; simplicity and economy of
providing required degrees of treatment;
problems of excessive cost of providing
treatment and outfall lines to distant points
of effluent discharge into suitable surface
water sources; and merely "to get rid of the
wastewater" in a convenient, trouble-free
manner.
The following points are borne out by the
report: Existing practice stresses land
application of treated effluents, not raw
wastewaters; the percentage of land
application acreage frequently represents only
a portion of the land reserved by the owners
for their systems; application periods may
vary from one month to twelve months a
year, and from one to seven days a week,
depending on climatic conditions, need for
land application for excess flows, seasonal
industrial processing, such as in the food
industry, and other local factors; land values
are relatively low, zoned for either agriculture
or residential uses, often in undeveloped
11
-------
a. Remotely controlled sprinkler line on hayfield, Walla Walla, Wash.
b. Ridge and furrow irrigation, Dinuba, Cal.
FIGURE 2
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
12
-------
c. High pressure spray gun, Walt Disney World, Fla., for use on sand
d. Spray atomizer for use on clay soil, Fairmont, Minn.
FIGURE 2
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
13
-------
a. Corn grown at Buhl, Ida., by Green Giant Corp.
b. Citrus trees irrigated at Irvine, Calif.
FIGURE 3
CROPS IRRIGATED WITH WASTEWATER
14
-------
c. Grapes grown at Fontana, Calif.
d. Cotton grown at Casa Grande, Ariz.
FIGURE 3
CROPS IRRIGATED WITH WASTEWATER
15
-------
areas, and subject to minimal or no
degradation of value due to use for irrigation
purposes; all types of soil are utilized, with
sand, clay and silt most favored; groundwater
interference problems influence choice of
sites, and when appropriate sites are selected,
cause minimal difficulties with land
application methods; predominant wastewater
distribution methods are spray irrigation,
overland irrigation and ridge-and-furrow
irrigation.
Use of the irrigated land varies with the
owners' needs and dictates, from no ground
cover, to grass cover, cultivated crops,
forested areas; grass is the most common
ground cover in community systems. It is
evident that the cropping value of
supplemental irrigation with wastewaters and
their nutrient components is not universally
utilized.
Rates of application of wastewater
effluents to the land, and duration of
uninterrupted application vary from 0.1 inch
per day to more than one inch per day, with
varying periods of irrigation and resting. The
most commonly used application rate is two
inches per week. Few systems are
over-stressed by such loadings; it is apparent
that increased rates of application could be
practiced without jeopardy to the system or
the environment, and with more effective and
economical utilization of assigned acreages.
The follow-the-leader trend in application
rates is apparent; proposed guidelines — either
tentative or final — should allow
establishment of rational application rates,
based QJI the ability of the system.
Relatively little need was found for
providing special environmental protection
measures in land application areas. Rather,
such facilities were often considered to
enhance the environment. Security provisions
are not universally used to protect against
intrusion of outsiders. Fencing and patrolling
are not universally practiced. Buffer zones to
isolate land application areas and impede
dispersal of aerosol sprays are used but no
common practice is in effect. Monitoring of
groundwater, surface water sources, soils,
crops, animals and insects is practiced in some
locations and minimally used in others, often:
dependent solely on the requirements of
health authorities.
Section IV, Opinions and Regulations of State
Health and Water Pollution Control Agencies
The surveys conducted by APWA with
State health and water pollution control
agencies indicated that most State agencies
have no set policies on this phase of
wastewater handling or attendant
environmental impacts; do not impose
specific conditions on installations; seldom
inspect existing systems; or require
monitoring procedures and the filing of
official reports on such operations. State
regulations as a minimum should require more
complete supervision of land application sites,
supported by definitive proof of the
capabilities of such systems to serve as wastes
handling facilities worthy of the term
"alternative" techniques for the life of the
project.
Only four States reported rules governing
the types of crops that can be grown on
sewage-irrigated lands. The few agencies
which invoke restrictions of this nature
specify the quality of effluents which may be
applied to land areas. Of 27 State control
agencies which participated in the
data-gathering program, only 25 percent
involved themselves with one or more of the
11 guideline criteria covered by the opinion
survey.
In defense of this meager record of
surveillance of the land application of
wastewater practices, it must be said that
some States have few such installations and
even fewer of any major significance. In
addition, States contend that they have been
deeply involved with the control and
regulation of conventional sewage treatment
facilities and stream quality protection.
Shortage of qualified personnel has been
defined as the primary reason for the lack of
attention to the installation, operation and
monitoring of of land application systems.
In the absence of formal State
16
-------
regulations , some agencies have used
unofficial staff opinions as the basis of land
application decisions. Similarly,
each-case-for-itself decisions on health hazards
have been invoked or expressed by State
health agencies but a minimum of translation
of such policies into specific regulatory
actions was disclosed by the survey.
Section V, Summary of Foreign Experiences
Data from many countries, including
Argentina, Israel, India, Hungary, Belgium,
Australia and Mexico confirm the use and
value of land application methods for various
purposes, for a variety of growing crops,
under diversified conditions, and with
different results. Enhancement of soil
productivity, through the mechanics of
supplemental irrigation with wastewater and
the enrichment of soil with the organic
constituents of sewage and industrial
processing waters are widely acknowledged.
Health hazards have been studied in
various countries and protective measures
have been invoked. Some countries, such as
water-short Israel, utilize wastewaters for
irrigation purposes. More than 100 systems
are in service, but they tend to avoid the use
of raw, untreated sewage on land growing
crops that are eaten raw by humans or
domesticated animals.
On this continent, the most dramatic land
application system on record is located in
Tula Hidalgo, Mexico, where land owned by
the Federal Department of Agriculture is
assigned to Ejidos — heads of families — in
units of limited hectares. On 47,000 hectares
(116,000 acres), 1,476,749 metric tons
(1,628,115 tons) of food products are grown
annually. The wastewaters from Mexico City
reach the irrigation lands by canal, with 95
percent of all canal flow assigned to land
application.
Section VI, Suggestions for Implementation
of Land Application Systems
The surveys carried out in connection
with the current study were intended to
provide, and did result in, many suggestions
that could be translated into "does" and
"don'ts" in land application procedures. In
addition, the literature searches brought
added criteria to light — and served to
confirm those basic facts evolved from the
surveys. From these information sources, and
others, the report presents "suggested
procedures for the implementation of land
application systems."
For the guidance of decision-makers,
designers, owners and regulators of future
land application installations, the report
presents procedures which take into account
climatic conditions and applicability of the
process to specific meteorological
phenomena; availability and location of land
areas suitable for wastewater application;
rates of application; types of soils, crops and
ground cover; methods of application and
their relationship with geological,
topographical and hydrological conditions;
types of wastewater pretreatment to assure
proper and safe land application; capital and
operating costs; monitoring and health
protective measures; and other related aspects
of system planning and implementation.
References have been drawn from many
sources to support the tentative parametric
procedures outlined in the report. The listed
criteria are not posed as "standards," but,
rather, are offered as a necessary input to the
overall fund of information upon which
official guidelines must be based.
Section VII, Placing Land Application of
Effluents in Perspective: An Interpretation
This section of the report on the APWA
studies stresses the importance of placing land
application techniques in their proper
perspective, and interpreting the alternative
"pluses" and "minuses" on the basis of local
needs and factors. It is evident that an
"alternative" must be compared with
something which it is to replace. Thus,
determination of choice of a wastewater
disposal process must be based on a
full-dimensional decision; and that decision
must stem from placing the land application
process in proper perspective with itself and
with other means of managing wastewaters.
17
-------
When viewed in this light, land
application technology is not a panacea for all
wastes, in all areas, under all circumstances. It
is not a "quick and easy" means of getting rid
of unwanted wastewaters. It requires
adequate pretreatment, effective operational
procedures, rigid monitoring controls and
rational cost evaluations. As a substitute for
the return of water into the drainage basins
from whence it originally came, it can affect
the "cycle of water" and create an imbalance
in the water resources of a region. Land
application can no longer be compared with
disposal of wastes by dilution. Just as
conventional wastewater treatment now
involves high degrees of treatment, so land
application must assure that the soil will
receive highly treated effluent water or that
the soil will provide the equivalent of tertiary
treatment and removal of deleterious
components by biological-chemical-physical
phenomena. The effectiveness of land
application must be judged by what it
accomplishes — not merely as a means of
eliminating the direct discharge of
comparably well-treated effluents into
receiving waters.
To fulfill its full possibilities and benefits,
land application must be examined from the
standpoint of what has become known as the
"4-R cycle" — return of wastewater to the
local land rather than being lost by stream
flowage to downstream areas; renovation of
the wastewater by soil and vegetative actions;
recharge of the groundwater resources which
then become the reservoir aquifer which feeds
surface water sources; and the reuse of
wastewater either directly off the land or via
the tapping of the groundwater reservoir.
Practical examples of these land application
benefits are available; they must be placed in
proper perspective with the needs and
potentialities of the area in which a proposed
land application project will be constructed as
an alternative to conventional wastewater
treatment works.
Included in the appendices is a copy of
the questionnaire, representative interview
reports from surveyed land application sites,
and the data obtained from both the on-site
and mail surveys. In addition, copies of
several documents pertinent to consideration
of land application have been included for the
benefit of the reader.
Climate
Climate is a major factor in the suitability
of land application procedures, on the
purpose and continuity of operation, and on
the performance of this alternative technique.
In recognition of the importance of climatic
conditions, the study was based on choice of
site investigations in five climatic regions of
the United States and evaluations were aimed
at determining the impact of the specific
zonal meteorological characteristics on every
phase of the study.
Broadly characterized, Zone A (mid and
south Pacific coast) is an area of dry summers
and mild wet winters; Zone B (the southwest)
is an arid region, with hot, dry climate; Zone
C (southeast-Gulf coast-Atlantic coast, and
Pacific northwest) experiences hot wet
summers and mild winters; Zone D
(east-continent and northeast Atlantic coast)
is subject to humid weather, with short
winters and hot summers; Zone E
(mid-continent and far northeast) is a humid
area, 'with long winters and warm summers.
A map indicating the location of the climate
zones is included as Figure 4, Climatic Zones
and Location of On-Site Surveyed Facilities,
page 33.
While climatic conditions have the most
significant impact on the land application
principle, other factors have potential
bearing: Size of the community and the
industry; the amount of wastes flow; the
population contributing sanitary wastes and
the population equivalent of the industrial
wastes contributed to the municipal sewer
system; the availability of open land for
irrigation use; the land-use zoning of the
region; the cost of land; the type of crops to
be grown with supplemental irrigation and the
market needs and demands for such crops; the
groundwater depth and quantities, and their
use for water supply purposes, protection
against salt water intrusion into aquifers and
other functions; the nature of the soil; the
18
-------
proximity of surface waters which can
become recipients of conventionally treated
effluents; and other correlated circumstances
of local or indigenous nature.
It is not difficult to rationalize the effects
of these climatic-demographic conditions on
land application practices, and, conversely,
the impacts of land application on these
environmental conditions. It is difficult,
however, to translate the findings of the study
into these relationships. Efforts have been
made to draw every possible relationship
between these various factors but the findings
are often too indeterminate to warrant such
translations.
DEMOGRAPHIC EVALUATION OF
LAND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
The nature of wastes produced by
community life and industrial processing, and
the amounts of such wastewaters are affected
by regional conditions and their impact on
life and living processes. Automatically, then,
the manner in which wastewaters are handled
and disposed of is influenced by demography,
or regional, environmental needs.
For example, the degree of sewage and
industrial treatment in the past was
influenced by the water resource needs of
regional areas and how regulatory bodies
interpreted these needs to protect the natural
environment and preserve public health and
safety. Over and above the natural setting for
any region, policies were, and will continue to
be, affected by population densities, water
needs, public desires and antipathies, and
other factors. This represents demography in
action.
If it were possible to relate the
applicability of wastewater management on
land areas to such factors as climatic
conditions, population and population
densities, economic-social patterns, and
similar demographic parameters, these would
serve as important guidelines for the choice of
this alternative method of wastewater
treatment and disposal vis-a-vis today's
conventional treatment standards and the
advanced degrees of effluent quality that will
be required in the future. If such relationships
could be established, based on the findings of
the current studies reported in this document,
or by parallel investigations now sponsored by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the viability of the land application technique
could be verified or clinically questioned.
The factors involved in a fu]
demographic evaluation of land applicatia
practices appear to be too numerou^tj
complex and too interwoven to be capameof
full clarification in any single study. Many of
the factors are too intangible to be explained
by basic survey data; the type of parameters
used in the current research study could not
include such incomprehensible implications.
But the study did involve the relationships
between land application and climatic
conditions, and concurrent relationships
involving urban populations and densities,
industrial operations, local ecological
conditions and other indigenous factors.
The following highlights can provide
valuable guidance for decision-makers and
designers of land application systems, even
though they are not always affirmed and
confirmed by study findings.
Climatic Conditions: The 67 community
systems and 20 industrial land application
sites covered by the on-site surveys, and the
comparable numbers of such installations
covered by the mail inquiry, were
representative of the actual total projects in
each of the five climatic zones. The major
number of community systems surveyed was
located in Zones A and B, with California
sites predominating. These two zones
represent dry and arid conditions which make
supplemental water resources — reused water
in the form of effluents — a precious
commodity. No industrial sites in these zones
were surveyed by on-site investigators because
minimal use of land application techniques is
made by local industrial installations. In lieu
of such industrial irrigation projects,
communities in Zones A and B accept
industrial wastes into public sewers and onto
publicly owned application sites in the form
of population equivalent loadings.
In Zones C, D, and E, industrial sites were
surveyed because the use of land application
is practiced more generally in these parts of
19
-------
the nation. The industries involved are
primarily food canning-processing factories,
dairy processing plants, pulp and paper mills,
and organic chemical manufacturing firms.
The differentiation between the zonal
s of community systems and
T£ sites is explained, at least in part, by
for supplemental water and the uses
for such water. Thus, climatic water-short and
water-rich areas dictate the retention of
sanitary waste waters in the areas which
produce them, or whether to permit them to
flow away downstream into other receiving
watersheds and water basins.
In regions A and B, water is in relatively
short supply, due to dry summers and
year-round aridity, and wastewaters are
oftentimes considered by communities as a
commodity for land irrigation, for
groundwater augmentation, and for use for
such ancillary purposes as golf course and
highway median watering and the creation of
recreational water facilities. Industries in
these areas, however, as in other areas, are less
concerned with such beneficial uses of
wastewater and may not practice land
application; they may use this management
procedure primarily for the purpose of
"getting rid" of such effluents in the cheapest
and simplest manner.
This brings the matter of wastewater — or
used water — economic and ecologic value
and utilization into focus as a determining
factor in the practice of land application. In
arid regions, land application offers strong
incentives. In wet, humid regions
water-husbanding is not a vital motivating
reason for land application installations; but
such motivation can be found in the ecnomies
of producing high-degree effluent by means of
the "free" purification capabilities of soil.
Whether planned as a water resource
conservation procedure or not, the ultimate
fate of wastewaters applied to land areas by
spray irrigation and surface applications (such
as ridge-and-furrow methods) is a means of
enhancement of the local groundwater
reservoir. The fact that 85 percent of the
water stored in the United States is contained
in subsurface aquifers adds significance to this
wastewater fate.
Climatic, geographic and geologic
conditions have other influences on the
choice of wastewater disposal works. Inland
areas that have no convenient receiving water
resources may find it cheaper to apply
wastewaters to the land rather than
constructing long, expensive outfall lines from
their treatment plants to suitable discharge
points. On the other hand, the water-cycle
imbalance which may occur in local waters by
taking water supplies from them and not
returning wastewater back to the same rivers
and lakes may place a negative aspect on land
application procedures. This type of water
resource imbalance does not apply to coastal
regions.
The relationship between hard winters
and land application systems is obvious. In
areas where full-year irrigation can be
practiced, land application would have greater
applicability than where adverse winter
conditions would make irrigation
inappropriate or inefficient. While land
application is practiced in some ice, snow and
sub-freezing conditions, optimum conditions
are represented by year-round mild weather
such as is experienced in Zones A, parts of B,
and in C.
Similarly, the relationship between
climatic conditions and holding pond
capacities is equally understandable. Where
seasonal cessation of land application is
necessary, the principle of "not one drop of
wastes into water resources" impells the
construction and use of adequate holding
volumes. "Adequacy" is a relative term; 31
percent of community and industrial systems
use ponds with capacities of five days or less.
In Zones A, B and C, 75 percent of the sites
have holding capacities of less than 30 days,
or less than needed for a full winter season.
One installation in a cold zone provides a
50-mg pond for a daily flow loading of 0.5
mgd.
Of some significance, if not as pertinent
as other seasonal conditions, is the amount of
rainfall in humid areas which may impede soil
absorption of applied wastewaters and require
the use of flow-equalization or flow holding
of excess waters until required rates of
application can be reinstated. As stated,
20
-------
where rainfall is generally adequate, if not
always predictable, land applicaton for
enhancement of crop growths, forest growths
and groundwater augmentation is not the
dominant reason for the choice of this
wastewater management technique.
While the survey studies brought these
climatic relationships into focus, they did not
always provide positive proof of these effects
and impacts. This does not detract from the
validity of the above observations. No
attempt has been made to draw all possible
climatic-environmental relationships with land
application principles and practices, however,
the rationale is adequate to demonstrate that
there is a direct correlation which must be
considered before choice of wastewater
management is made for each individual
project. No set standards can be established;
each case will require its own relationship
evaluation.
Size of Wastewater Facility: In the case of
publicly owned systems, the population
served is translatable into volumetric and
qualitative loadings. For industries, the flow
loading is a factor of volume and population
equivalency of the organic constituents, as
measured by BOD, COD, suspended solids
and other significant parameters.
The surveys indicated that some
outstanding large community land application
installations have been in service in the United
States and foreign countries. However, the
major percentage of current installations are
in the smaller-size range.
The on-site surveys disclosed that 73
percent of communities studied have land
application capacities of under 5 mgd; the
mail survey covered no community systems
with over 10-mgd capacity. Industry
installations covered by the on-site surveys
were all under 5-mgd capacities; the
mail-surveyed installations were all under
10-mgd size. It is conjectured that the small
cities and industries have found land
application within their economic range and
that adequate conventional treatment would
have been more costly.
Size factors are numerous but few
showed definitive relationships with other
land application site acreage parameters. The
area used for irrigation application varied
without basic reason from the total acreage
owned by the community or industry. In
some cases the major extent of the area is
used for distribution; in other instances only a
portion is so used, the rest of the acreage
being devoted to holding ponds, buffer zone
and general isolation of sites.
The size of the area varies, naturally, with
the volume of flow applied, the nature of the
soil and its absorptive character. The effect of
climatic conditions, such as rainfall, humidity
and temperature, on irrigation area purchased
by communities and industries is minimal,
despite any impression that such a direct
relationship should exist. No specific trend
was found in buffer zone regulations and
usage. The open land available for such
buffering or isolation facilities is undoubtedly
influenced by State regulatory agency
requirements, the type of distribution systems
used (spray irrigation tends to be associated
with buffering acres and plantings to impede
the off-site dissemination of aerosol mists and
particulates.)
Continuity of Operation: The relationship
between continuity of wastewater
application, on a days-per-week or a
months-per-year basis, and land acreages used
for land application was found to be
indeterminate. Continuity of operation
appeared to be dictated by other factors than
availability of site acreage. It is obvious that
rates of application should have a bearing on
the land areas required, particularly on sites
that are limited in size and- not over-generous
in dimensions. While the analysis of study
data does not disclose this relationship, it is
undebatable since the failure of irrigated land
to handle distributed wastewaters for planned
periods will necessitate the resting of such
areas and the immediate utilization of other
equivalent acreages to replace the overloaded
or ponded soil plots.
If wastewater production is in effect for
longer weekly or monthly periods and pond
storage capacity is not available to retain
21
-------
excess flows, irrigation areas may be affected
by the requirement that direct application of
produced flows must be provided. Similarly,
the land-need requirements for any site will
be influenced by whether the system will
function on a twelve-month basis of shorter
yearly periods.
Communities tend to maintain yearly
continuity of land application more
completely than industries; broadly
interpreted, communities operate full-year at
60 percent of installations, and industries at
40 percent of sites. The relationship between
climate and continuity of irrigation was
partially clarified by the subject study,
despite the fact that positive patterns were
not confirmed. The on-site survey-interview
procedures used in the study disclosed that
twelve-month continuity of community
operation for Zones A, B, C, D and E was
practiced in 76, 63, 56, 71 and 67 percent of
sites, respectively, while industrial systems
showed similar, year-round irrigation service
in Zones C, D and E of 50, 56 and 30 percent
of sites, respectively.
The mail survey showed that industries in
Zones A and B (not surveyed in the on-site
program) operated on a 12-month basis at
100 percent of the sites involved, with 100
percent of the Zone C community
installations functioning on a full-year basis.
Thus, the zonal factors showed little effect of
widely divergent climatic conditions on
whether systems functioned without
cessation.
Full-week service seemed to be dictated
more by the actual purpose of land
application than by other factors. Full-week
irrigation was found to be more common
when crop irrigation was practiced than when
wastewater disposal onto grass-cover lands
was utilized for groundwater augmentation or
for the simple purpose of effluent disposal.
Application rates and continuity of irrigation
were, surprisingly, unaffected by soil types.
Methods of Distribution: The relationship
between the method of application and
climatic conditions was brought into focus by
the study. In general, spray irrigation is more
commonly used in humid areas than in arid
sectors; and surface application techniques,
such as ridge-and-furrow irrigation and
overland irrigation, are more frequently
utilized in arid regions. Zones A and B were
characterized by surface application sites.
The relationship between size of site and
type of distribution used showed a trend of
more or less specificity. Smaller sites were
served by twice as many spray systems as
surface application facilities. Larger sites,
more than 1,000 acres in size, were usually
equipped with surface application systems;
intermediate-sized sites, from about 100 acres
to 1,000 acres, utilized spray and surface
application systems about equally. In surface
application installations, so-called overland
flooding which depends on sheet-flow action
has been used more frequently than
ridge-and-furrow distribution.
No specific correlation was found
between distribution methods and soil types,
but some generalized patterns were evaluated:
Spray irrigation is more commonly used on
loam, silt and clay lands; spray and surface
application methods are generally used equally
on more granular or sandy soils. Surface
application methods were lound more
frequently on crop lands or on unplanted,
non-cover areas. Spray irrigation was found
more frequently on crop lands and forested
acreages. Community sites handling under
1-mgd flows were most commonly
grass-covered, while larger areas of over 1-mgd
capacity generally stressed crop growth.
Forest irrigation was practiced more
frequently in humid areas than arid regions,
probably because tree growth is more
common in the former climatic regions.
Cropping on arid region lands is relatively
common, indicating the value of wastewater
for supplemental irrigation.
Groundwater depths are a dominant
factor in choice of sites but, once acquired,
these application lands experience minimal
impacts on choice of application methods and
on operation performance. Obviously,
groundwater depths are greater in arid regions
and are less of a factor in choice of land
application sites. Application rates, while not
22
-------
consistently influenced by climatic conditions
or soil character, and while varying minimally
from the almost traditional level of one-half
inch per day and two inches per week, are
influenced by aridity and high
humidity-precipitation conditions.
Land Availability, Land-Use and Land
Value: A direct relationship between
demographic criteria and land availability,
zoning use and acreage price is unavoidable.
The first requirement of a land application
system is land. It must be available in
reasonably close proximity to the source of
community or industrial wastes; the land
must be useable for wastewater application by
zoning and other use regulations; the price
must not be prohibitive.
These conditions are most commonly met
in areas of low population density where open
lands are available, and where undeveloped
and properly zoned properties can be
purchased at relatively low cost. This is why
the surveys showed the predominance of land
systems in use by small communities and
relatively small industries, and land prices
ranging basically in the under-$500 per acre
price level. Areas of the nation will become
progressively more densely populated because
over a million acres of rural lands are
absorbed annually in urbanization and related
facets of community growth. The availability
of nearby lands, zoned for agriculture or
residential purposes, and priced at low enough
levels, will become a greater problem for users
of land application systems. The solution may
parallel the experiences involved in the
proposed Chicago metropolitan area project:
Deliver wastewater to distant points where
sites of adequate size, proper zoning and
moderately low price exist. The cost of
long-distance wastewater transmission will
become an important factor in determining
the economic feasibility of land disposal.
The impact of land application
installations on neighboring areas and their
residents can be in direct ratio to population
density. While existing systems have
demonstrated their ability to be "good
neighbors" to residents living as close as 500
feet of application sites, this close proximity
may not be good practice in all cases.
Reported complaints have been minimal
against present installations despite the fact
that, for example, 20 percent of community
systems in Zone A are located less than 500
feet from the nearest neighbors and 22
percent are similarly located in Zone B.
Industrial sites are located in Zones C, D and
E within 500 feet of residences in 10, 10 and
21 percent of the cases investigated,
respectively.
The relationship between local
demographic conditions and land application
system monitoring is obvious. The degree of
monitoring was found to be less related to
zone climatological conditions than to State
health and water pollution control regulations
in the limited cases where such governmental
stipulations are imposed. It is understandable
that increasing population intrusions in an
area, and the density of the residential
population, will dictate that closer attention
should be given to the impacts of land
application on land and water resources and
on persons exposed to actual wastewater,
sludge residues, spray mists and animal and
insects which come in contact with irrigation
liquids and vegetative growths. The frequency
and location of monitoring points, such as
test wells and other sampling facilities, and
the extent of monitoring parameters will be
intensified in the future to satisfy actual
hazards or the psychological impressions of
local residents.
Site security measures, such as fencing,
may be required and buffer zones may be
specified. Operation and maintenance costs
will react to all such monitoring and security
requirements but the reasonable cost levels
for present systems could be increased
without seriously affecting the feasibility and
economy of land application techniques.
Future wastewater treatment works,
particularly those requiring full secondary
treatment and processing to remove such
components as phosphorous, nitrogen, trace
metals and organic pesticides, will require
23
-------
similar augmentation of present scientific
laboratory control and site safety and security
measures.
FATE OF MATERIALS
APPLIED TO THE LAND
To complete this extended summary of
the land application of wastewater, a review
of the fate of applied materials is presented. It
rounds out the information which has been
presented. Appendix I contains copies of
papers entitled "Experience with Land
Spreading of Municipal Effluents," and "Fate
of Materials Applied." Both papers were
prepared by Richard E. Thomas, Soil
Scientist, and Robert S. Kerr, Water Research
Center, Ada, Oklahoma.
These papers, as well as several exhibits
appearing in the body of the report, have
been included to provide the reader with
information on this subject which is not
otherwise readily available.
For determining the applicability of
land-use of wastewaters, it is important to
know with some measure of certainty what
the fate of wastewater components will be.
The materials contained in wastewaters
are reminiscent of the origin of these flows —
either sanitary, sanitary and combined storm
water, industrial process waters, or
combinations of sanitary and industrial
wastes. Since the application of raw
wastewaters onto land areas is not
contemplated under the definition of this
alternative wastes management technique, all
such wastes have been subjected to some
degree of pretreatment before they are
distributed onto land areas. The purpose of
monitoring of effluent flows onto land areas
is to ascertain the composition of the
wastewater after the stages of pretreatment
provided.
A classification of wastewater materals
could be: suspended materials; major plant
nutrients; and other constituents. Another
deliniation of the wastewater components,
based on the actual physical nature of the
substances is: suspended solids; colloidal
solids; dissolved organic materials; and
dissolved inorganic substances.
The fate of these substances during the
process of land application will vary with the
type of distribution system, the nature of the
soil, the rate of application, the climate, the
resting periods, and the location and
proximity of the groundwater aquifer and the
surface water source which receives runoff
from the site. The phenomena involved
include: The physical condition of
entrapment or mechanical filtration; the
biological, biochemical, electrochemical and
other manifestations in, and in contact with
the soil; evaporative factors; atmospheric
oxidation; bacteriological, germicidal and
bacteriophage or anti-contamination
reactions, and others which are not totally
understood even by highly trained and
experienced scientists.
Suspended solids entrapped in the
interstices of the soil or adhering to soil
particle by electrochemical entrainment can
experience biological oxidation and
decomposition into stabilized substances. The
fate of this suspended material can vary; it
can remain in the soil to form humus soil
conditioning or nutritive material or, in very
coarse media, it might be sloughed off and
percolated into lower soil depths or into the
groundwater.
Colloidal materials — solids of minute size
which may be able to filter through soil
media — can be coalesced or coagulated by
electrochemical agglomeration and then
adsorbed onto soil particles. The fate of this
material, normally considered to possess
electrical charge, may parallel that of true
suspended solids, by oxidation-digestion
phenomena. Accumulations in the soil may
affect the rate of application of subsequent
wastewater loadings.
Organic dissolved solids may be utilized
by plant crops, retained in the body of the
soil by chemical fixation or other bonding
phenomena, or may be oxidized by
atmospheric reactions, in the course of air
contact with sprays or sheets of wastewater
flowing over the land.
A major concern is centered on the
nitrogen and phosphorous in wastewaters.
The presence of these dissolved constituents
24
-------
can influence the use of land application
systems in lieu of advanced treatment and
discharge into surface receiving waters,
primarily because they can act as "triggers" in
the eutrophication of surface waters. If these
materials can adversely "fertilize" lakes, why
can they not be used to fertilize land.?
The fate of nitrogen and phosphorous
will be influenced by many factors, including
the type of wastewater distribution system
utilized, and the type of ground cover and
crops grown. The factors involved in the
different land application methods are
covered in excellent detail in the
before-referenced papers and it is not the
intent here to explore these manifestations,
beyond brief reference to the fact that the
fate of these two basic elements can be
regulated by proper practices to avoid serious
effects on groundwater or surface water
sources. The ability of soil to retain and hold
phosphorous is more important than its
capacity to handle nitrogen because
phosphorous delivery to the soil may be
greater than the crop uptake ability to utilize
it. Fortunately, soil retention is able to
prevent phosphorous intrusion into
groundwaters that are sufficiently deep below
the surface of land application sites.
Nitrogen could enter the groundwater in
concentrations that might exceed the safe
levels of this material in water for human
consumption. However, the ability of land
application techniques to complete a
nitrification-denitrification cycle can be
utilized to prevent this fate, as is used in the
spray-runoff principle. A substantial
proportion of the phosphorous contained in
applied wastewaters in the same spray-runoff
process could reach surface water sources
unless steps are taken to improve
phosphorous removal by land contact.
Other constituents of land-applied
wastewaters have fates that may influence the
use of land methods, either in favor of, or in
opposition to this alternative process. These
include heavy metals, even in trace amounts,
pesticides and other organo-compounds, and
various salts. Evapotranspiration of liquids
from soil, vegetative surfaces or water surfaces
will not change the fate of these dissolved ma-
terials; the evaporative process parallels the
distillation phenomenon, in that the water is
converted to vapor or gaseous form and the
solids are thus concentrated in the soil or
vegetation. Salts may thus reach the
groundwater by percolation and leaching
action. Heavy metals and pesticides can
undergo physical, chemical and biochemical
interactions with the soil, making land
application an auxiliary • means of providing
so-called "tertiary" treatment for
wastewaters, in lieu of more complex and
more costly artificial wastes treatment
processes.
To repeat a previous statement, the intent
of this dissertation on the fate of materials
applied to land areas is to point out that the
soil and vegetative forms do offer a "bonus"
factor that must be given consideration in
determining the future of the land application
process. Current concern about the impacts of
nitrates, phosphorous, trace metals, pesticides
and other organic compounds on receiving
waters is sufficient reason for knowing more
about the fate of these objectionable
materials in the land application process.
More remains to be known about them, and
about the way various methods of wastewater
distribution, various types of soil and
topographic and climatic conditions, and
other factors and combinations of factors,
influence their fate.
The fate of wastewater contaminants
during the land application process, in short,
offers opportunities for beneficial use for soil
and crop enhancement which must be
considered as a "plus" for this alternative
technique. In addition, the capability of the
land application system to remove, modify
and stabilize pollutants which would require
augmented processing in conventional sewage
treatment systems offers another advantage
for this alternative management procedure.
But, these benefits must be evaluated in the
light of whether the applied materials will in
any way adversely affect the water and soil
environment of the region where land
application systems will be utilized. Only
through a weighing of the benefits and
hazards can the feasibility and applicability of
land application processes be properly judged
for each specific installation and each specific
wastes problem.
25
-------
-------
SECTION II
THE STUDY
The American Public Works Research
Foundation has completed a national study of
the purposes, practices and performances of
representative installations which apply
effluents of sewage treatment,
industrial-commercial, or joint sewage-wastes
treatment facilities to land areas. This project,
sponsored by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
revealed technical and practical information
which should be of value in assessing policies
of Federal, state, local and private agencies
and entities in relation to so-called
"alternative" methods of discharging
wastewater to land areas instead of to the
Nation's water resources.
The contract studies, and their
conclusions and recommendations, have been
planned and executed to provide the
Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency with
information upon which the guidelines for
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 and the duties of
Administrator can be based.
Section 201 (g) (2) of the Act stipulates
that:
"The Administrator shall not make grants
from funds authorized for any fiscal year
beginning after June 30, 1974, to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate
agency for the erection, building, acquisition,
alteration, remodeling, improvement, or
extension of treatment works unless the grant
applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated to
the Administrator that (A) alternative waste
management techniques have been studied
and evaluated and the works proposed for
grant assistance will provide for the
application of the best practicable waste
treatment technology over the life of the
works consistent with the purposes of this
title."
Section 212 of the Act further
emphasizes land application of effluents as a
possible alternative to the so-called
conventional method of discharging
adequately treated wastewaters into
watercourses. Section 212 defines . . .
(2) (A)--the term treatment works
"... as any devices and systems used in the
storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation
of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a
liquid nature to implement section 201 of this
Act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at
the most economical cost over the estimated
life of the works . . . ."
In addition, it defines treatment works as
"... any other method or system for
preventing, abating, reducing, storing,
treating, separating, or disposing of municipal
waste."
Section 212 if the Act further stipulates
that
"... any application for construction
grants which includes wholly or in part such
methods or systems shall, in accordance with
guidelines published by the
Administrator . . . contain adequate data and
analysis demonstrating such proposal to be,
over the life of such works, the cost efficient
alternative
Thus, the study must also provide
information on the practicality and economy
of the process of land application of effluents
to aid the Administrator in evaluating this
process in accordance with the provisions of
the Act.
Purpose of the Contract Investigation
Under the terms of the contract covering
this study, the purpose was defined in the
following terms:
"The Contractor shall undertake a survey
of existing municipal and industrial systems
for wastewater treatment and/or reuse by
land application ... to ascertain from local
design and operational procedures,
effectiveness of treatment, costs, benefits,
problem areas, and a general evaluation."
The disposal of adequately treated
wastewater effluents onto land areas is one of
the presumed "alternative waste treatment
management techniques" available. The
surveying, inventory, verification and
evaluation of this methodology in the United
27
-------
States appeared desirable.
The specific task, among other goa Is
the fact-finding investigation, covered the
following four phases:
• Affirmation of existing data on land
application sites and installations
reported in various Federal and state
surveys and records, and other data
covering application of effluents of vary-
ing types, volumes and qualities onto land
areas of various types and into ground-
waters of differing characteristics.
• Gathering of background data on the use
of land application methodologies in
foreign countries, by means of the
collation of technical reports and
documentations and by the actual
inspection of installations by APWA
research personnel.
• Collation of bibliographic records and
other references on the subject of land
application of effluents, including the
factors of design, decision, construction,
operation and maintenance,
environmental benefits, detrimental
effects on land and water resources,
impact on vegetation and silviculture
growths, methods of application, cost,
public health and nuisance dangers,
regulatory standards and monitoring
requirements and other pertinent matters.
• Evaluation of available data on the
conceptual design, construction,
operation and maintenance factors of
land application in order to: Clarify
specific factors and criteria; establish
guidelines on the applicability of the
process to actual soil, climate, regional,
socio-economic-demographic conditions
and achievable results; and assess these
factors in terms of effective disposal costs,
benefits and detriments to the environ-
ment, public health and other criteria.
• Suggesting of guidelines that will dictate
the feasibility and desirability of using
land application as an effective and
economical alternative to the discharge of
effluents into receiving waters.
Conducting the Fact-Finding Survey
The first phase of the study undertaken
by APWA involved the validation of statistical
records of existing effluent land application
installations in the United States. It was
obviously impossible to carry out a total
verification of all of the more than 1,000
listed installations utilizing land area irrigation
methods in the United States. Utilizing
available records which included USEPA
inventories and a report by the State
Conference of Sanitary Engineers (1965), the
survey chose more than 500 municipal land
application systems and approximately 200
industrial-commercial facilities with handling
capacities of over 200,000-gpd capacities. The
municipal installations included all systems of
more than 0.5-mgd capacity. Other units were
selected to obtain a broad geographical
representation. Data on these municipal and
industrial systems were requested to verify
the accuracy of reported information on their
existing or abandoned facilities. The
information requested covered:
• Designation of the municipal agency or
company operating the system
• The beginning date of the operation
• Flow rates
• Degrees of pretreatment
• Methods of wastewater effluent
application to the land disposal site
• Use of land for crops, grazing and other
purposes
• Official responsible for systems operation
In addition, the American Public Works
Association utilized its monthly APWA
REPORTER to publish a request for
information on land application practices,
covering the same items contained in the
verification survey questionnaire. This inquiry
resulted in some additional sites being
identified.
The main function of the investigations
was to determine the actual on-site practices
and performances of representative land
application installations and to distill from
these facts the type of decision, design and
operation guidelines which will be needed by
the Administrator of the USEPA to meet the
28
-------
requirements of the 1972 Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The on-site, in-depth investigations of
representative installations were carried out at
approximately 75 municipal systems and 25
industrial-commercial systems. This work was
performed by means of in-the-field
investigations-interviews. Municipal systems
selected for field interviews were chosen to
meet the following criteria:
1. All applications with a flow rate of
one mgd in states with less than five
facilities. For states with more than
five facilities, 25 percent of the
remaining facilities may be visited.
2. Within states, broad geographical
coverage will be attempted where
optional choices are available.
3. The sampling obtained from (1) and
(2), above, will be reviewed and if
necessary to achieve a minimum of
five sampling facilities in each of the
following climatic classifications.
facilities with flow rates between 0.5
and 1.0 mgd will be selected:
a. hot - arid
b. cold - arid
c. warm - humid
d. cold - humid
Commercial installations were chosen to
represent at least one system of representative
varieties of industrial users.
Section III contains analyses of the
survey questionnaires prepared by the on-site
investigators. Appendix A presents the
questionnaire used in the on-site surveys.
Appendix B contains field evaluations of the
systems, and Appendix C contains a
tabulation of the data gathered in the surveys.
The choice of approximately 100 in-the-field
investigation installations assured the
authenticity of the national analytical data, in
terms of representative information on the
"how," "where" and "why" of effluent land
application.
The field survey was augmented by a
mailing of a full-scale questionnaire inquiry to
300 municipal agencies and 200
industrial-commercial firms. The
questionnaire was the same as that used in the
field interview work as contained in Appendix
A. The questions covered:
• Community and manufacturing data
• Land applicaton facilities
• Types of wastes treated and effluent
quality
• Methods of effluent application to the
land and the volume applied
• Disposal site acreages, soil conditions and
land-use zoning
• Groundwater quality monitoring
• Climatic conditions
• Crop production and income yield
• Costs of land and facilities construction
• Costs of operation and maintenance
• Evaluation of hazards to the land and
water resources of the region
Data from the limited return from the
mailed questionnaires are included in
Appendix D. These survey questionnaires and
the evaluation of the national findings
provided the information certification
required under the terms of the contract.
Statistics, however, are no more
dependable than the raw information used to
develop findings and interpretations.
Therefore, the contract study was carried out
with the ultimate goal of providing the most
dependable information on land application
practices. A further goal concerned evaluating
the data in terms of guidelines on how, where
and by what means this alternative method of
effluent disposal could be utilized most
effectively and economically.
The analytical evaluation of survey data
covered such factors as:
• State and regional implications
• Wastewater flows
• Volumes and types of raw sewage and
industrial wastes
• Volumes and types of treated wastewater
effluents applied to land areas
• Land application rates
• Methods of application
• Seasonal practices and problems
• Pretreatment methods employed to make
land application workable and
dependable
• Ground cover conditions
• Groundwater quality impacts
• Soil uptake capabilities for wastewater
constituents and contaminants
29
-------
• Agriculture and silviculture utilization of
nutrient and irrigation values of applied
wastewaters
• Incomes from crops and other soil yields
balanced against hazards of crop
contamination
• Demographic-sociologic impacts of land
application
• Health and nuisance hazards and
protective measures
• State and regional water pollution control
policies and controls relating to land
application
• Other applicable criteria
The ultimate purpose of these data
evaluation goals was to evolve suggested
guidelines for choosing effluent application
methods, establishing design standards, and
determining operating and maintenance
regulations to assure the safe and dependable
use of this alternative method of effluent land
utilization. Section VI presents guidelines on
the implementation of land application
systems, covering these considerations.
Two surveys were also made of state
agencies to determine applicable state
regulations and guidelines governing the
design and operation of land irrigation
systems, and rules and regulations governing
the use of crops grown with wastewaters. The
results are presented in Section IV.
The World Health Organization (WHO)
has designated one or more organization in
many countries as WHO Contributing
Members. The American Public Works
Association is a representative of the United
States. As such, APWA requested other
members to supply information concerning
land application practices and regulations in
their countries. Many replies were received;
however, much of the material was in
languages other than English.
Many documents were translated by the
USEPA, and a summary of foreign practice is
presented in Section V.
30
-------
SECTION III
SURVEY INVESTIGATIONS
The application, of wastewater effluents
on the land is being practiced at several
hundred sites throughout the United States.
These land utilization systems employ a
variety of land types and methods to dispose
of various types of effluents with varying
results. A careful summary and evaluation of
existing practices and performance at these
installations can provide information to guide
future decision-making on this alternative
method of treating and disposing of sewage
and industrial wastes. Representative
information on the design, operation and
performance of major land application
systems can serve as the basis for defining
good practice and guiding the planning,
designing, constructing and operating of
future systems.
On-site engineering investigations of
community and industrial land application
systems were used to gain this reliable
information. Supplementary information on
existing systems was also obtained by use of a
mail questionnnaire survey. The following
data represent the results of these surveys.
The presentation and evaluation of these data
will differentiate between the two data
sources on the basis that the most obviously
reliable data were derived from on-site
surveys.
Basic Survey Information
On-site investigations of 67 community
and 20 industrial land disposal systems
produced the basic data presented within the
following sections. The additional systems
surveyed did not contain enough data to
warrant evaluation, or they employed
percolation or evaporation ponds as part of
their operation. By the same token, mail
surveys of 86 community and 35 industrial
land application systems form the basis of the
supplementary component of the study. The
mail survey, as in the case of the on-site
survey, was affected by the limitations
inherent in the responses received. The
missing data and the inability of a
questionnaire form to adequately describe the
operation of each system must be considered
in evaluating the results of the mail survey.
Both methods of survey produced data in the
following categories:
• Community and industrial
wastewater source information
• Wastewater treatment and transport
methods
• Land application system areas and
distribution methods
• Disposal field characteristics
• Land application system operations
• Systems and environmental
monitoring and performance
• Systems zoning, land values, capital
investment and operating and
maintenance costs
• Miscellaneous system returns
As may be expected, some omissions and
gaps exist within the collected data. Some of
the data categories specified may be found
incomplete; these will be indicated. Any
findings drawn from the accumulated data
will, of course, be subject to these limitations.
The primary classification of all the
systems surveyed relates to their geographical
location within five climatic zones in the
continental United States. Metcalf and Eddy,
Engineers, developed these climatic regions in
connection with their work for USEPA on a
related project. The general conditions of
climate which characterize each region are:
Zone A — Mediterranean Climate: dry
summers and mild, wet winters.
Zone B - Arid Climate: hot and dry
Zone C — Humid Subtropical
Climate: mild winters and hot, wet summers.
Zone D - Humid Continental
Climate: short winters and hot summers
Zone E - Humid Continental
Climate: long winters and warm summers.
Appendix G,Climate Classification,
explains the rationale used to select the
specific boundaries of the zones.
The boundaries of these climatic zones
appear in Figure 4: Climatic Regions and
31
-------
Locations of On-Site Community and
Industrial Land Application Survey Reports.
The number and location of the community
and industrial systems surveyed on-site also
appears within the insert blocks — the upper
value representing the former installations and
the lower values, the latter. At least one
on-site community system survey was made in
each state in Zones A and B; no on-site
industrial system surveys, however, were
conducted in these areas.
Table 1, Distribution of Communities and
Industries Surveyed On-Site by State and
Climatic Zone, summarizes the number of
systems and population and/or population
equivalent for each state. Community systems
were surveyed in 17 states and industrial
systems in 11 states. A summary of these data
by climatic zone appears in Table 2,
Distribution of Communities and Industries
Surveyed On-Site by Climatic Zone. Some 72
percent (48) of the communities were located
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITIES AND INDUSTRIES
SURVEYED ON-SITE BY STATE AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Communities
States in
Qimatic Zone
A
California
B
Arizona
California
Nevada
New Mexico
Texas
C
Texas
Florida
Maryland
Oklahoma
Oregon
D
Colorado
Indiana
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Oregon
Washington
E
Idaho
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Wyoming
TOTAL
Survey Reports
Num- Per-
ber cent
25
5
1
4
6
7
1
4
1
1
•-)
L
1
2
1
1
3
2
67
37.3
7.4
1.5
6.0
9.0
10.4
1.5
5.9
1.5
1.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
1.5
4.5
3.0
100.0
Population
Population
1,152,300
359,500
22,000
200,000
140,300
194,400
271,000
131,000
6,000
20,000
14,000
198,000
12,000
37,000
4,100
33,500
52,000
2,676,100
Per-
cent
43.1
13.4
0.8
7.5
5.2
7.3
3.7
4.9
0.2
0.8
0.5
7.4
0.5
1.4
0.1
1.3
1.9
100.0
Serves
Population
Equivalent
1,907,600
558,100
35,000
202,400
187,300
207,000
293,000
131,000
6,000
20,000
36,000
240,000
14,000
37,000
28,500
351,500
52,000
4,113,400
Industries
Survey Reports
Per-
cent
46.4
13.5
0.9
4.9
4.6
5.0
2.5
3.2
0.1
0.5
0.8
5.9
0.3
0.9
0.7
8.5
1.3
100.0
Num-
ber
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
3
4
2
2
20
Per-
cent
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
100.0
Population
Served
Population Per-
Equivalent cent
5,500
30,000
1 14,400
296,000
64,200
3,100
152,100
230,000
39,000
934,300
0.6
3.2
12.2
31.8
6.9
0.3
16.3
24.6
4.2
100.0
-------
o
U
= £
•d -
Gerber Pro
Freemont
W3
CD
0
3
T3
£ §
-3
v^ '£
Michigan N
Assoc., O
o
U
OJ
a
S
Simpson LI
Vicksburf
c
£
O
1
U
2
c
a>
o
c
S
c
|2
II
u ^6
Stokely Va
H.J. Heinz
5°
o 13 •
o in JP
o
e«
*O
O
o
c
Q
§
U
s>
c
3
-
Jj
S
"! CJ
Bndgeton
U.S. Gypsv
so"1"
.5 oT _
>
c
CO
a? £
en > .
: "> o
O b»U
^ c5
Weyerhaeu
Pet Milk C(
QJ
^
^0
5
O
o
U
>.
CO
Q
to
o
American J
>,
J3
^D
J
^a
S 15 S
Falrwater
Libby, Mel
Janesville
c
CJ
Potato
o>
E
QJ
Is
en >
o£
j= i-
2S
W
„ C * i . = - -a
; | = g | S g | = •
cU
"«
^
"i3
. 3
>> W)
c/T c U
c c r
^ 3 ,S£
ed S
X
H
c
D
<
2
3
CQ
C
U
c
2
c
U
l-
O
o
<:
O)
cd
j-
C
~W5
^
"O
C
U
tu
T3
£l
Q
(^
J
d
0
U
x
OJ
^
d>
U
cyf
C
U
_>
"c
C/]
mercial
£
o
O
c
O
T3
Q
0)
C
<
lj
d
c
U
X
u
2
~
U
Z
O
I
c/a
W
t3 .u
5 « r
. O *-
^ ,.°"-"S-| . .-
<"j'o ^ fl, c-— «r^0 i
: ^^ H gc Sicj 5 U , a C
M "^ ffl raQ cdC-— O
CQ S -J U U Q tn
*ci
i CJ
co a
I > <
l-Sn-2-
iaocBsei,
. (J
J
' o"
~ Z
c J _;
0" U, « . >-,
Q 2 -r"
) u S
!S-§.
=; co r
•o
as
!Q 3
i en
• 2 - "=3 K °- — !
^ hj '
en > ;
>£0
. CO ^J
) H en
o .>
co 5 o « c
-------
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITIES AND INDUSTRIES
SURVEYED ON-SITE BY CLIMATIC ZONE
Communities
Industries
Oimatic
A
B
C
D
E
TOTAL
Survey
Num-
2
Reports
Per-
3.0
Population
Population
f
,152,300
916,200
271,000
284,600
52,000
Per-
cent
43.1
34.3
10.1
10.6
1.9
Served
Population
Equivalent
1,907,600
1,189,800
293,000
671,000
52,000
Per
cent
46.3
28.9
7.2
16.3
1.3
Survey
Num-
ber
2
7
11
Reports
Per-
cent
10.0
35.0
55.0
Population
Equivalent
35
474
424
,500
,600
,200
Per-
cent
3.8
50.8
45.4
67
100.0 2,676,100 100.0 4,119,400 100.0
20 100.0 934,300 100.0
in Zones A and B. They include over 77
percent of the population in the 67
communities surveyed. The difference
between population equivalent and
population provides a measure of the
industrial wastes discharged to the
community systems. On this basis, the
community systems in Zones A and B include
an industrial population equivalent of
1,028,900 while the community and
industrial systems in Zones C, D and E
include a total population equivalent of
1,950,300. Although there were no individual
industrial systems surveyed in Zones A and B,
these regions include approximately 60
percent of the total population equivalent
attributable to industrial wastewaters.
The distribution of wastewater land
application systems studied by mail survey
appears in Table 3, Distribution of Mail
Survey Systems Studied by Climatic Zone. As
in the case of the on-site survey, the majority
of community systems are located in Zones A
and B - approximately 72 percent, or 48
systems. These involve approximately 78
percent of the population of the 67
communities studied. Although the mail
survey produced no population equivalent
figures for communities, and only broad
ranges of population equivalents for industry,
TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIL SURVEY
SYSTEMS STUDIED BY CLIMATIC ZONE
Communities
Industries
Climatic
Regions
A
B
C
D
E
TOTALS
No.
25
23
9
8
2
67
1%)
37.4
34.4
13.5
12.0
3.0
100.0
Population
1,152
916
271
284
52
2,676
,300
,200
,000
,600
,000
,100
_(%! No. (%)
43.2.
34.5
10.0
10.1
2.0
100.0
2
7
11
20
„ _
- -
10
35
55
100.
.0
34
-------
industrial systems were reported in all zones
except B. In a manner similar to the on-site
survey, industrial systems occur totally in
Climatic Zones C, D and E — 100 percent of
the 20 systems surveyed.
Discussion. Much of the Southwestern United
States relies on irrigation as the basis for its
agriculture and other plant growth. Thus, the
community installations in Zones A and B
probably reflect this need, as well as local
attitudes towards water resource conservation
in general. The need for supplemental
irrigation is confirmed by the reports
indicating that land application systems
provide the means to water golf courses,
highway median strips and other public areas
in addition to their use for crop irrigation.
Figure 5, Non-Crop Land Application
Facilities, contains photographs of typical
uses of wastewater in California installations.
In more humid parts of the country,
community systems may appear less
frequently because these needs and attitudes
are less well developed. More available water
through greater rainfall would tend to reduce
water resource conservation as a public
concern. Severe winters also tend to
complicate land application system operations
and reduce some of the more obvious
advantages that might exist for land
application in more temperate climates.
The distribution of industrial wastewater
land application systems follows a less
definitive pattern. The greater number of
these systems are located within Zones C, D
and E, as contrasted with the water-conscious
Southwest. In Zones A and B significant
industrial waste loads are discharged to
community systems. This probably occurs
because local communities in the Southwest
may take a more conciliatory attitude about
accepting the wastewaters of their hard-won
local industries into their own collection and
treatment systems. Further, local community
control of these industrial wastewaters is
consistent with local preferences for water
resource management. Figure 6, Industrial
Land Application Facilities, contains
photographs of industrial facilities in Zones C
andD.
Community and Industrial Wastewater
Source Information
The distinctions between community and
industrial systems generally spring from the
basics of function and purpose. Community
systems serve the public purposes of a given
community and function to dispose of mixed
domestic and industrial wastewater effluents.
Industrial systems, on the other hand, serve
the purposes of one or more industries and
function to dispose of primarily industrial
effluents.
Table 4, Type of Industry and Climatic
Zone Surveyed by On-Site Investigation,
depicts the available data on the type and
number of the industries in Zones C, D and E.
Land application of the wastewaters from
fruit and vegetable canning plants — 9 of the
20 systems surveyed — accounts for 71
percent of the population equivalent, 55
percent of the average flow and 55 percent of
the area used for application purposes.
Wastewaters from milk processing plants, pulp
and paper mills and from organic chemical
production are also specifically identified. No
additional information from the mail survey
exists covering this area, due to gaps in the
data received.
Of the 67 community land application
systems studied in the on-site survey, ten
operated prior to 1920. Additional systems
have been placed in service during subsequent
years at an apparently increasing rate. The
earliest industrial system surveyed began
operations between 1940 and 1945. One
quarter of the industrial systems, however,
were installed after 1970. The times at which
the community and industrial systems began
operations appear in Table 5, Year On-Site
Land Application Systems Were Placed in
Service by Climatic Zone. Although the
number of survey reports developed on the
basis of on-site surveys is limited, the
information shows a continuing interest in the
land application of wastewaters.
Table 6, Distribution of Communities
Surveyed On-Site by Number, Population and
Climatic Zone, indicates that while 80 percent
of the communities appear in the population
ranges for 50,000 or less, such systems serve
35
-------
a. San Bernardino, Cal. spray irrigation of freeway landscapi
ing
b. Ontario, Cal. golf course
FIGURE 5
NON-CROP LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
36
-------
c. Rossmoor, Cal. Irrigation of greenbelt area
FIGURE 5
NON-CROP LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
a. Commerical solvents spray irrigation facility, Terre Haute, Ind.
Fermentation waste applied with average BOD of 30,000 mg/1-
year-around basis
FIGURE 6
INDUSTRIAL LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
37
-------
b. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., spray irrigation facility, Bridgeton,
N.J. Ice builds up on dead weeds during freezing weather.
Winter grass remains green throughout most of the winter.
c. Gerber Products Company spray irrigation facility, Freemont,
Mich. Frequent mowing has produced a dense turf.
FIGURE 6
INDUSTRIAL LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
38
-------
TABLE 4
TYPE OF INDUSTRY AND CLIMATIC ZONE SURVEYED
BY ON-SITE INVESTIGATION
Type of Industry
Climatic Zone
C
Number
Population Equivalent
Flow - MGD
Disposal Area — Acres
D
Number
Population Equivalent
Flow - MGD
Disposal Area — Acres
E
Number
Population Equivalent
Flow - MGD
Disposal Area - Acres
TOTAL
Number
Population Equivalent
Flow - MGD
Disposal Area — Acres
Canning
3.0
360,200.0
4.5
125.0
6.0
308,200.0
5.7
1,059.0
9.0
668,400.0
10.2
1,184.0
Milk
1.00
30,000.00
0.25
26.00
1.00
30,000.00
0.25
26.00
Pulp & Paper
1.0
5,500.0
0.5
75.0
2.0
82,900.0
3.8
164.0
3.0
88,400.0
4.3
239.0
Organic Chemical
1.00
30,000.00
0.55
38.00
1.00
106,000.00
0.70
110.00
2.00
136,000.00
1.25
148.00
Other
3.0
8,400.0
1.4
400.0
2.0
3,100.0
1.1
170.0
5.0
11,500.0
0.7
570.0
Total
2.00
35,500.00
1.05
113.00
7.00
474,600.00
6.60
635.00
11.00
424,200.00
10.85
1,419.00
20.00
934,300.00
16.70
2,167.00
only 41 percent of the total population
studied. On the other hand, the seven
communities investigated with populations in
excess of 100,000 provide disposal facilities
for 45 percent of the total population. The
results of the mail survey appear in Table 7,
Distribution of Mail Surveyed Community
Systems by Population Ranges. All of the
community systems studied by mail survey
serve communities with populations of
50,000 or less. Of these, 90 percent serve
communities of 25,000 or less and represent
74 percent of the total mail survey population
studied. A total of 76 percent of these
systems are located in Zones A and B and
these areas account for 89 percent of the total
population.
A more complete measure of waste
loadings appears in Table 8, Distribution of
On-Site Surveyed Communities by Number,
Population Equivalent and Climatic Zone.
Seventy-five percent of the systems have
50,000 population equivalents or less but
they provide disposal for only 25 percent of
the waste loading based on population
equivalents. The ten communities in the
over-100,000 class provide treatment for
approximately 62 percent of the total
population equivalent waste load. Table 9,
Distribution of Industries Surveyed On-Site
by Number, Population Equivalent and
Climatic Zone, demonstrates a similar
distribution for industrial population
equivalent. The four systems in the
over-100,000 class represent land application
for almost 64 percent of the total population
equivalent waste loading.
39
-------
TABLE 5
YEAR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS WERE PLACED IN SERVICE
BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Communities (67)
Climatic Zone
Land Application
Started
1970-72
1965-69
1960-64
1955-59
1950-54
1945-49
1940-44
1930-39
1920-29
Before 1920
No Data
1970-72
1965-69
1960-64
1955-59
1950-54
1945-49
1940-44
1930-39
1920-29
Before 1920
No Data
A
Zone
Per-
No. cent
1 4.5
4 6.0
1 1.5
5 7.5
2 3.0
2 3.0
1 1.5
3 4.5
4 6.0
2 3.0
B C
Zone
Per-
No. cent No.
1 1.5 3
1 1.5 2
6 6.0 1
3 4.5
3 4.5 1
1 1.5
4 6.0 1
2 3.0
2 3.0 1
Industries
1
1
Zone
Per-
cent
4.5
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
(20)
5.0
5.0
D E
Zone Zone
Per- Per-
No. cent No. cent
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5 2 3.0
1 1.5
2 10.0 2 10.0
1 5.0 2 10.0
1 5.0 2 1Q.O
1 5.0
1 5.0 3 15.0
1 5.0
1 5.0
1 5.0
TOTAL
No.
6
8
9
9
7
4
1
8
2
10
3
5
o
J
3
2
4
1
1
1 .
Percent
of
Total
9.0
12.0
13.5
13.5
10.5
6.0
1.5
12.0
3.0
15.0
4.5
25.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
20.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
40
-------
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITIES SURVEYED ON-SITE BY NUMBER,
POPULATION AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Population Range
Climatic
Zone
A
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv,
Percent
B
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
0-
5,000
1
1.5
5,000
0.2
3
4.4
10,300
0.4
3
4.5
11,300
0.4
7
10.4
26,600
1
5,100-
10,000
2
3
18,100
0.7
4
6
33,000
1.2
3
4.4
20,000
0.7
2
3
13,300
0.5
1
1.5
10,000
0.4
12
17.9
94,400
3.5
10,100-
25,000
8
11.9
159,000
5.9
7
4
128,900
5
2
o
j
30,000
1.1
1
1.5
25,000
0.9
18
26.8
342,900
12.9
25,100-
50,000
9
13.4
335,500
12.5
4
6
145,000
5.4
2
3
70,000
2.6
1
1.5
37,000
1.5
1
1.5
42,000
1.5
17
25.4
629,500
23.5
50,100-
100,000
1
1.5
100,000
3.7
2
3
126,000
4.6
2
3
151,000
5.7
5
7.5
377,000
14.0
Over No
100,000 Data
4
6.0
534,700
20.1
2 1
3 1.5
473,000
17.6
1
1.5
198,000
7.4
7 1
10.5 1.5
1,205,700
45.1
Total
25
37.3
1,152,300
43.1
23
34.3
916,200
34.2
9
13.4
271,000
10.1
8
12
284,600
10.7
2
3
52,000
1.9
67
100.0
2,676,100
100.0
Percent values are based on survey total population equivalent
41
-------
TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIL SURVEYED
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS BY POPULATION RANGES
Climate,
No. and
Population
A
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
B
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
0-5
14
25
36,800
9
8
14
24,100
6
3
5
9,300
2
2
4
5,700
1
5
9
7,600
2
32
57
83,500
21
>5-10
6
10
42,600
11
4
7
32,100
8
1
2
8,000
2
11
19
82,700
20
Pot
>10-25
6
10
103,000
26
1
2
1 1 ,600
3
1
2
14,000
4
8
14
128,600
33
julation Ranges — 1 ,000 's
>25-50 No Data Total
33 32
55 55
105,000 287,400
26 72
13
23
67,800
17
3
5
9,300
2
2
4
5,700
1
7
13
29,600
8
33 57
5 5 100
105,000 399,800
26 100
42
-------
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED COMMUNITIES BY NUMBER,
POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Population Range
Climatic 0- 5,100- 10,100- 25,100- 50,100- Over NQ
100,000
Zone
5,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000
A
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
B
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
1
1.5
5,000
0.1
2
3
6,300
0.2
2
3
7,200
0.2
5
7.5
18,500
0.5
1
1.5
10,000
0.2
4
6
29,400
0.7
1
1.5
6,000
0.2
2
3
15,300
0.4
1
1.5
10,000
0.2
9
13.5
70,700
1.7
7
10.4
133,000
3.2
7
10.4
119,900
2.9
5
7.4
86,000
2.1
19
28.2
338,900
8.2
10
15
367,000
8.9
3
4.4
105,000
2.5
1
1.5
50,000
1.2
2
3
65,500
1.6
1
1.5
42,000
1.1
17
25.4
629,500
15.3
1
1.5
100,000
2.5
4
6
263,600
6.4
2
3
151,000
3.6
7
10.5
514,600
12.5
5
7.4
1,292,600
31.5
2
3
665.600
16.2
9
13.4
2,541,200
61.8
Data
]
1.5
3
583,000
14.1
1
1.5
Total
25
37.3
1,927,600
46.4
23
34.3
1,189,800
28.9
9
13.4
293,000
7.1
12
671,000
16.3
2
3
52,000
1.3
67
100.0
4,113,400
100.0
43
-------
TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIES SURVEYED ON-SITE BY NUMBER,
POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Population Equivalent
Climatic
Zone
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
0-
5,000
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
5,100-
10,000
1
5
5,500
0.6
1
5
8,400
0.9
10,100-
25,000
25,100-
50,000
1
5
30,000
3.2
50,100-
100,000
Over
100,000
No
Data
1
5
39,000
4.2
1
5
64,200
6.9
2
10
363,000
38.9
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
1
5
3,100
0.3
1
5
3,100
0.3
1
5
9,400
1
3
15
23,300
2.5
3
15
108,200
11.5
5
25
177,200
18.9
1
5
73,500
7.9
2
10
137,700
14.8
10
230,000
24.6
4
20
593,000
63.5
2
10
3
15
5
25
Total
2
10
35,500
3.8
7
35
474,600
50.9
11
55
424,200
45.3
20
100.0
934,300
100.0
Little difference exists between the
distribution of community and industrial
population equivalents depicted in Figure 7,
Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Community
Population and Community and Industry
Population Equivalents, except for the
10-25,000 class where there are no industry
systems.
The distribution of industrial wastewater
land application systems determined through
the mail questionnaire survey appear in Table
10, Distribution of Mail Survey Industrial
Systems by Ranges of Population Equivalent.
As may be noted, insufficiently definitive
figures exist for the total population
equivalents within each category. This
information was not developed from the
original mail survey results. As in the case of
the on-site surveys, the mail survey industrial
systems generally cover all ranges of
population equivalents.
Table 11, Distribution of On-Site
Surveyed Communities by Flow Population
Equivalent and Climatic Zone, and Table 12,
Distribution of On-Site Surveyed Industries
by Flow, Population Equivalent and Climatic
Zone, both indicate the distribution of the
systems surveyed by their flow range and
climate zone. Of the 60 communities for
which on-site survey data are available in this
category, approximately 90 percent, serving
73 percent of the total population equivalent,
generate flows of 5.0 mgd or less. All of the
industrial systems also serve 5.0 mgd, or less.
Figure 8, Distribution of On-Site Surveyed
Community and Industry Population
Equivalent by Flow Ranges, indicates the
distribution of the industrial population
equivalent for various flow ranges and the
concentration of community population
equivalent in the 2.6-5.0 mgd class or less.
The results of the mail survey are
indicated in Table 13, Distribution of Mail
Survey Total Flows by Climatic Zones. It
shows the total flows generated by both
community and industrial systems. Among
the community systems, no total flows
exceed 10 mgd and approximately 77 percent
of these systems handle flows below 1.5 mgd.
Among the industrial systems, flows of up to
10 mgd were identified, but 50 percent of these
systems had flows of 1.0 mgd or less.
44
-------
60
50
40
W
c
o
3
O,
O
PH
O
H
C
o
o
I
30
20
10
Community
Population
Community
Population
Equivalent
Industrial
Population
Equivalent
1,000-
5,000
5,000-
10,000
10,000-
25,000
Population Range
25,000-
50,000
50,000-
100,000
Over 100,000
FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED COMMUNITY POPULATION
AND COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY POPULATION EQUIVALENT
45
-------
TABLE 10
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIL SURVEY INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
BY RANGES OF POPULATION EQUIVALENT
Population Equivalent Range (x 1,000)
Qimatic
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Total
0-5
>5-10
No. %
1
1
1
5
2
10
No.
%
>10-25
No.
%
>25-50
No. %
No
No.
Data
%
2.8
2.
2.
8
8
13.9
5.6
27.
9
1
1
2
4
2.8
2.8
5.6
11.2
3
6
9
8.3
16.6
24.9
2 5.6
2 5.6
4
7
11
11.1
19.3
30.4
Total
No. %
1 2.8
1 2.8
2 5.6
13 36.1
19 52.7
36 100.0
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED COMMUNITIES BY FLOW,
POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Climatic
Zone
A
Number
Percent
Pop Equiv.
Percent
B
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
C
Number
» Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
00-0.5
2
3
25,000
06
2
3
19,400
0.5
4
5.9
100,000
2.4
3
4.5
46,300
1.1
11
16.4
190,700
4.6
0.6-1.0
4
6
280,000
6.8
6
9
70,400
1.7
2
3
65,000
1.6
1
1.5
3,200
.01
13
19.5
418,600
10.2
1. 1-1 5
4
6
140,000
3.4
1
1.5
6,000
0.2
1
1.5
10,000
0.2
6
9
156,000
3.8
1
1.6-2.5
4
6
85,500
5
7.4
132,500
3.2
2
3
28,000
0.7
11
16.4
246,000
6
low R.iuge - MOD
2 6-5.0
5
7.4
907,900
22 1
5
7.4
293,600
7.2
1
1.5
100,000
2.4
2
3
268,500
6.5
13
19.3
1,570,000
38.2
5.1-100
1
1 5
132,500
3.2
2
3
190,000
4.6
1
1.5
42,000
1
4
6
364,500
8.8
Over 10.0
1
1.5
101.700
2.5
1
1.5
475,600
11.5
2
3
577,300
14
No Data
4
5.9
235,000
5.7
1
1.5
2,300
1
1.5
343,000
8.4
1
1.5
10,000
0.3
7
10.4
590,300
14.4
Total
25
37.3
1,907,600
46.4
23
34.3
1,189,800
28.9
9
13.4
293,000
7.1
8
12.0
671,000
16.3
2
3
52,000
1.3
67
100.0
4,113,400
UOO.O
46
-------
40
a30
-------
TABLE 12
DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED INDUSTRIES
BY FLOW, POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Climatic
Zone
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
0.0-0.5
1
5
30,000
3.2
3
15
72,600
7.8
3
15
33,100
3.5
7
35
135,700
14.5
0.6-1.0
1
5
5,500
0.6
1
5
106,000
11.3
5
25
151,700
16.3
7
35
263,200
28.2
Flow Range
1.1-1.5
2
10
39,000
4.2
2
10
230,000
24.6
4
20
269,000
28.8
-MGD
1.6-2.5 2.6-5.0
1
5
257,000
27.5
1
5
9,400
1
o
z,
10
266,400
28.5
Total
2
10
35,500
3.8
7
35
474,600
50.8
11
55
424,200
45.4
20
100.0
934,300
100.0
Discussion Existing wastewater land
application facilities are used primarily by
'small communities. In general, the on-site
studies investigated systems of larger
population and the mail survey covered
relatively smaller community systems. The
majority of community systems covered by
both surveys, however, have populations of
50,000 or less. The size of the industrial
systems studied in both surveys appears
compatible in all categories.
Wastewater flows are somewhat variable
between the two surveys. The mail survey
investigated relatively smaller communities,
with the result that these flows are generally
lower than those of the communities
investigated by on-site surveys. Flows for the
industrial systems studied are essentially
comparable. The majority of flows for both
the community and industrial systems are 5.0
mgd or less in all cases.
A conjectural approach to the relative
size of the systems encountered suggests that
the decision to employ wastewater land
application systems among smaller
communities and industries may be based
upon:
• The need to augment existing
treatment facilities to comply with
wastewater quality enforcement
criteria. This need may exist
throughout the year, or as a result of
seasonal peak wastewater loadings.
• The relative costs of wastewater
effluent land application methods
may be more within the reach of
small communities and industries
than the cost of more traditional
methods of treatment plant
construction or expansion.
• The use of wastewater land
application may be in response to
local water resource management
needs. The effective use of these
effluents in irrigation and for other
purposes may afford a means of
conserving existing potable,
irrigation, and industrial water
supplies.
48
-------
Flow Range
MGD
0-0.5
>0.5-1.0
M.0-1.5
>1. 5-2.5
>2. 5-5.0
>5. 0-7.5
>7.5-10
>10
No Data
Total
Zone
No.
23
9
4
3
4
1
1
3
48
A
%
26.7
10.4
4.6
3.5
4.7
1.2
1.2
3.5
55.8
Zone
No.
11
3
1
4
19
B
%
12.8
3.5
1.2
4.6
22.1
TABLE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF MAIL SURVEY
TOTAL FLOWS BY CLIMATIC ZONE
Communities (86)
Zone C Zone D
No. % No. %
5.8
3.5
Zone E
No. 9,
7
1
3.5
2
11
8.1
1.2
1.2
2.3
12.8
Total
No.
49
13
4
3
6
1
56.9
15.1
4.6
3.5
7.1
1.2
1 1.2
9 10.4
86 100
0-0.5
>0.5-1.0
>1.0-1.5
M.5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
>5.0-7.5
>7.5-10
No Data
Total
2.9
2.9
2.9
Industries (35)
2.9
2.9
14.2
2.9
13
11.3
2.9
37.1
7 20.0
5 14.2
1 2.9
2 5.7
3
18
8.5
51.3
12
6
2
2
3
34.2
17.1
5.8
5.8
8.6
1 2.9
5 14.2
4 11.4
35 100.0
Wastewater Transport
and Treatment Methods
Wastewater Treatment Generally, wastewater
treatment occurs prior to the transport of
effluents to the land application area. In some
cases, additional treatment or storage is also
provided at the application site. Table 14,
On-Site Surveyed Wastewater Treatment
Processes by Climatic Zone, indicates the
types of treatment processes used at the
central treatment plant prior to transport to
the land application site. Approximately
one-third of the communities surveyed on-site
provide secondary treatment and five percent
utilize tertiary treatment processes. Over half
of the communities surveyed employ
chlorination for disinfection purposes. Sixty
percent of the industries surveyed on-site use
some form of wastewater screening and
approximately 23 percent employ oxidation
ponds. No significant regional differences
appear for either the community or industrial
systems.
Limited data on sludge treatment
methods are presented in Table 15, On-Site
Survey Sludge Treatment Methods by
Climatic Zone. These data cover the 67
percent of the 67 communities surveyed and
the 16 percent of the industries surveyed that
provided information on this category of
information. Sludge digestion and sludge
drying represent the methods of treatment
that communities use most often. Table 16,
On-Site Survey Sludge Disposal by Climatic
Zone, indicates that spreading sludge on the
ground seems the most commonly identified
means of sludge disposal.
49
-------
No apparent relationship exists between
sewer flow and treatment plant capacity for
communities or industries, when compared on
the basis of climatic zone or treatment plant
capacity. Table 17, Relationship Determined
by On-Site Survey of Treatment Plant
Capacity to Sewer Flow by Climatic Zone,
and Table 18, Relationship Determined by
On-Site Survey of Treatment Plant Capacity
to Sewer Flow as Percent of Sewer Capacity,
both show that only 15 percent of the
community and industrial systems operate at
or above the design capacity of the treatment
plant.
TABLE 14
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES1
BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone
A B C D E
Communities (67)
Chlorination
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Oxidation
Other
14
2
23
1
13
3
16
5
1
4
1
2
4
3
2
2
3
2
Total
31
14
48
4
27
5
Screening
Primary
Secondary
Oxidation Ponds
Other
Industries (20)
1 4
1
1
2
2
4
5
9
6
1
5
2
Many facilities reported the use of more than one process
50
-------
TABLE 15
ON-SITE SURVEY SLUDGE TREATMENT METHODS1 BY CLIMATIC ZONE
No.
No. of Facilities 25
Thickening
Digestion 9
Filtration
Drying 5
Other 2
No Data 12
No. of Facilities
Filtration
Other
No Data
36
20
8
48
B
C
D
Climatic Zone
No. %
23
3 13
11 48
9 39
No. %
9
Communities
1 11
6
3 33
2 22
2
Industries
2 100
No.
8
2
6
4
1
2
7
1
6
%
25
75
50
13
25
14
86
No.
50
50
11
Total
No.
67
3
25
23
5
24
4.5
37.3
34.3
7.5
35.8
20
1915
1 9 2 10
9 82 17 85
Many facilities used more than one method
Percentages are of total in climatic ?one
TABLE 16
ON-SITE SURVEY SLUDGE DISPOSAL1 BY CLIMATIC ZONE
Sludge Climatic Zone
Disposal A B C D E Total
Method No. %2 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. <
No. of Facilities
Tank Truck
Spreading
Other
2
7
4
No Data 13
25
8
28
16
52
7
9
8
23
30
39
35
3
2
4
2
9
Communities
33 2
22 6
44 2
22 1
8
25
75
25
13
67
No. of Facilities
Tank Truck
Spreading
Other
No Data
Industries
50
100
14
29
57
2
11
1
1
3
7
100
10
10
30
70
7
22
19
26
20
1
3
7
11
10.4
32.8
28.4
38.8
5.0
15.0
35.0
55.0
Some facilities used more than one method
Percentages are those of the climatic zone
51
-------
TABLE 17
RELATIONSHIP DETERMINED BY ON-SITE SURVEY OF TREATMENT
PLANT CAPACITY TO SEWER FLOW BY CLIMATIC ZONE
Sewer Flow as Percent of Treatment Plant Capacity
Climatic
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Total
C
D
E
Total
Less than 25
No. %
1 1.5
4 6.0
3 4.5
8 12.0
1 5.0
1 5.0
25-49
No. %
5 7.4
3 4.5
3 4.5
2 3.0
13 19.4
1 5.0
2 10.0
1 5.0
4 20.0
50-74 75-99
100 Over 100
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Communities
9 13.4 7 10.4 2
6 8.9 6 8.9 2
2 3.0
1 1.5
17 25.3 14 20.8 4
• Industries
1 5.0
1 5.0 1 5.0
1 5.0 2 10.0 3
2 10.0 4 20.0 3
TABLE 18
TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY TO SEWER FLOW
3.0 2 3.0
3.0 3 4.5
1 1.5
6.0 6 9.0
15.0
15.0
AS PERCENT OF
No Data Total
No. % No. %
25 37.2
2 3.0 23 34.3
9 13.5
2 3.0 8 12.0
1 1.5 2 3.0
5 7.5 67 100.0
2 10.0
2 10.0 7 35.0
4 20.0 11 55.0
6 30.0 20 100.0
SEWER CAPACITY
ON-SITE SURVEY
Percent of Treatment Plant Capacity
Capacity
Less than 25
Sewer-MGD No. %
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
Total
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
No Data
Total
1 1.5
3 4.5
3 4.5
1 1.5
8 12.0
1 5.0
1 5.0
25-49
No. %
1 1.5
5 7.5
4 6.0
3 4.5
13 19.5
3 15.0
1 5.0
1 5.0
5 25.0
50-74 75-99
100 Over 100
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Communities
3 4.5 1 1.5 2
1 1.5 4 5.9
5 7.5 6 8.9 2
4 5.9 1 1.5
4 5.9 2 3.0
17 25.3 14 20.8 4
Industries
1 5.0 1
1 5.0 1
1 5.0
1 5.0 1 5.0
1 5.0 1
2 10.0 4 20.0 3
1 1.5
3.0 1 1.5
1 1.5
3.0 1 1.5
2 3.0
6.0 6 9.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
No Data Total
No. % No. %
1 1-5
7 10.5
1 1.5
7 10.4
22 32.9
12 17.9
12 17.9
5 7.4 5 7.4
5 7.4 67 100.0
6 30.0
2 10.0
2 10.0
3 15.0
2 10.0
5 25.0 5 25.0
5 25.0 20 100.0
52
-------
Wastewater Transport Of all the community
systems studied by on-site surveys, 55
percent, or 37 systems, employed land
application for the final disposal of all their
wastewater effluents, as indicated in Table 19,
Flow to the Land Application System as a
Percent of the Total Community Wastewater
Flow by Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey. Ten
of the 48 community systems in Zones A and
B use the land application system for less than
half of their wastewater flow. No apparent
relationship exists between total wastewater
flow and the percentage of the flow
discharged to the land application system as
shown in Table 20, Flow to Land Application
System as a Percent of the Total Community
Wastewater Flow and Total Flow - On-Site
Survey. Similar evidence exists through the
data accumulated by the mail survey. For the
mail survey, 56 percent, or 33 community
systems of a total of 59, reported that the
land application method is used to dispose of
all wastewater effluents. Ten systems, or 17
percent of the total, reported use of land
application for the disposal of less than 100
percent of their effluents. Nine are located in
Zones A and B. and one is reported in Zone
E. A recapitulation of the findings of the mail
survey appear as Table 21, Comparison of
Average Application Flows to Total
Community Flows — Mail Survey.
Communities use various methods to
transfer wastewater effluents from the
treatment site to the land application site.
Table 22, Wastewater Transport to Land
Application Site and Climatic Zone for
Communities — On-Site Survey, depicts data
accumulated by the on-site survey concerning
transportation of effluents to land application
sites. It shows that over 45 percent of the
communities use pressure pipe lines, 28
percent employ gravity pipe lines and
approximately 24 percent operate open
ditches to transport effluents. Only two
communities reported using other methods.
Over 60 percent of the communities in Zones
C, D and E use pressure pipe lines as
compared to 42 percent in Zones A and B. As
Table 23, Wastewater Transport to
Application Sites and Wastewater Flow for
Communities — On-Site Survey indicates, the
volume of wastewater does not appear to be a
significant factor as to the methods employed
for wastewater transport. All of the industrial
land application systems covered by the
on-site survey use pressure pipe lines to
transport their effluents to land application
sites.
Wastewater Holding Ponds Holding ponds
perform the basic function of flow
equalization. They provide some effluent
quality stabilization and also effluent storage
during periods when flow can not be applied
to the land. During the on-site survey, 37
community systems reported the use of
wastewater holding ponds. This amounts to
55 percent of the total number of community
systems, or 77 percent of the systems for
which data on use of holding pond facilities
are actually available. Table 24, Holding Pond
Volume and Climatic Zone for
Communities - On-Site Survey, shows that
19 of the 36 community systems reported the
use of holding ponds in Zone A; ten systems
provided holding ponds in Zone B. Nine of
these Zones A and B holding ponds provide
storage in excess of 50 million gallons.
A further attempt to relate storage to
climate is depicted in Table 25, Comparison
of Holding Pond Storage to Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey. Of the 48 community
and industrial systems for which data are
available, 37 percent provide storage of 5 days
or less. Another 38 percent maintain storage
of between 5 and 30 days, and 25 percent in
excess of 30 days of storage. Zones A, B and
C contain systems in which storage of less
than 30 days occurs among 76 percent of the
systems reporting. Likewise in Zones D and E,
27 percent of reporting facilities provide
storage for 30 days or more. Longer term
storage appears more prevalent in the colder
climates as opposed to the warmer regions.
Figure 9, Holding Ponds, contains
photographs of typical holding facilities.
The relationship of holding pond size and
average flow is depicted in Table 26,
Distribution of Community and Industrial
Holding Pond Sizes in Terms of Average
Flows to the Application Site — On-Site
Survey. Pond sizes in excess of 50 million
gallons are used for average flows of 10 mgd
and less. Thus, no pattern of maximum pond
sizes is apparent from the data. Some criteria
53
-------
for minimum pond sizes do appear, as-will be
shown below. Table 27, Distribution of
Holding Pond Size in Terms of Average Flows
to the Application Site — Mail Survey, shows
a similar distribution pattern. From this
information, basic similarities between the
on-site and mail surveys may be deduced.
Again, no maximum pond sizing pattern is
found. Pond sizes in excess of 50 million
gallons are used for flows below 0.5 mgd.
Data on minimum pond sizes on the basis of
maximum average flows, however, are
available. These data for both the on-site and
mail surveys appears in Table 28, Comparison
of Minimum Computed Holding Pond Storage
Times and Pond Size for On-Site and Mail
Surveys. In general, the minimum computed
storage was found to be higher in the mail
survey data than in the on-site survey
information. As may be recalled from the
analysis of population data, the mail survey
information was collected from communities
of 50,000 or less while the on-site survey
included many communities greater than
50,000. The impact of these larger
communities, as well as the effects of sample
size may explain this difference. One
additional fact should be related concerning
the data accumulated through the mail
survey — of the 39 community and industrial
systems that reported on the use of holding
ponds, 36, or 92 percent, indicated that such
pond facilities were used. This contrasts with
the on-site survey finding that only 75
percent reported the use of ponds.
TABLE 19
FLOW TO LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM AS PERCENT OF TOTAL COMMUNITY
WASTEWATER FLOW BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Facility Flow as
Percent of Total A
Climatic Zone
'astewater Flow No. %
Less than 25
25-50
51-75
76-99
100
Over 100
No Data
Total
4
3
12
6
25
6.0
4.4
17.9
9.0
37.3
No.
1
2
1
1
15
3
23
%
1.5
3.0
1.5
1.5
22.4
4.5
34.4
No.
2
2
1
3
1
9
%
3.0
3.0
1.5
4.4
1.5
13.4
D
No.
1
1.5
1.5
4.4
3.0
1.5
11.9
No.
1.5
1.5
3.0
Total
No.
7
2
2
34
3
11
67
12.0
10.4
3.0
3.0
50.6
4.5
16.5
100.0
TABLE 20
FLOW TO LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM AS PERCENT OF TOTAL COMMUNITY
WASTEWATER FLOW AND TOTAL FLOW - ON-SITE SURVEY
Total
Wastewater
Flow-MGD
Less than
25
No. %
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
Total
2
2
4
8
3.0
3.0
5.9
11.9
25-50
No. c,
1
4
1
1
1.5
5.9
1.5
1.5
10.4
Facility Flow as Percent of Total Wastewater Flow
More than
51-75
No. <
1.5
1.5
3.0
76-99
No. °,
1.5
1.5
100
No.
5
8
6
6
8
1
7.4
11.9
9.0
9.0
11.9
1.5
100
No.
3.0 34 50.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
4.4
No Data
No. %
1 1.5
1
1
4
3
1
11
1.5
1.5
6.0
4.5
1.5
16.5
Total
No.
7
9
8
12
19
2
9
1
67
10.4
13.4
12.0
18.0
28.3
3.0
13.3
1.5
54
-------
TABLE 21
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE APPLICATION FLOWS TO TOTAL
COMMUNITY FLOW - MAIL SURVEY
Land Application as Percent of Total Flow
Total Flow 0-25 26-50
MGD No. % No. %
0-0.5 2 2.3
>0.5-1.0
>1.0-1.5 1 1.2
>1. 5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
>5.0-7.5
>7.5-10.0
>10.0
No Data
Total 1 1.2 2 2.3
51-75 76-99
No. % No. %
2 2.3 2 2.3
1 1.2
1 1.2
2 2.3 4 4.6
100
No.
26
7
2
2
2
1
40
%
30.2
8.1
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.2
46.4
>100 No Data
No. % No.
1 1.2 16
5
1
1
4
9
1 1.2 36
%
18.6
5.8
1.2
1.2
4.6
10.4
42.0
Total
No.
49
13
4
3
6
1
1
9
86
%
57.0
15.1
4.6
3.5
7.0
1.2
1.2
10.4
100.0
TABLE 22
WASTEWATER TRANSPORT TO LAND APPLICATION SITES
AND CLIMATIC ZONE FOR COMMUNITIES - ON-SITE SURVEY
Wastewater
Transport Method
Ditch
Pipeline -Gravity
Pipeline-Pressure
Truck
Other
Total
No.
10
8
16
34
A
%
11 8
9.4
18.8
40.0
No.
7
11
11
1
30
B
%
8.2
12.9
12.9
1.2
35.2
Climatic Zone
C
No.
1
2
7
10
%
1.2
2.4
8.2
11.8
No.
3
5
1
9
D
%
3.5
5.9
1.2
10.6
Total
No.
2.4
2.4
No.
20
24
39
1
1
85
23.6
28.2
45.8
1.2
1.2
(All industrial wastewater transport by pressure pipeline )
Some Communities utilized more than one method of transport
TABLE 23
WASTEWATER TRANSPORT TO APPLICATION SITES
AND WASTEWATER FLOW FOR COMMUNITIES - ON SITE SURVEY
Wastewater Transport Method
Truck
No. %
Wastewater
Flow-MGD
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
Total
Ditch
No. %
3
3
2
5
3
2
2
20
3.5
3.5
2.4
5.9
3.5
2.4
2.4
23.6
Gravity
Pipeline
No. %
4
5
2
6
4
1
2
24
4.7
5.9
2.4
7.1
4.7
1.2
2.4
28.2
Pressure
Pipeline
No. %
13
10
2
4
5
2
3
39
15.3
11.8
2.4
4.7
5.9
2.4
3.5
45.8
1
1.2
1.2
Other
No. %
1 1.2
1 1.2
Total
No.
21
18
6
15
13
5
7
85
%
24.7
21.2
7.1
17.6
15.3
5.9
8.2
(All industrial wastewater transport by pressure pipeline.)
55
-------
TABLE 24
HOLDING POND VOLUME AND CLIMATIC ZONE
FOR COMMUNITIES - ON-SITE SURVEY
Holding Pond Volume - MG
Climatic None
Zone No. !
0.0-1.0
No. %
1.1-5.0
No.
5.1-10.0
No. %
10.1-50.0 Over 50.0
No.
No.
No Data
No. %
Total
No.
A 3
B 5
C 1
D 2
E
Total 1 1
4.5
7.5
1.5
3.0
16.5
1
1
2
1.5
1.5
3.0
4
3
1
8
5.9
4.5
1.5
11.9
2
1
1
1
5
3.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
7.5
6
2
1
3
12
8.9
3.0
1.5
4.5
17.9
6
3
1
10
8.9
4.5
1.5
14.9
3
8
4
2
2
19
4.5
11.9
5.9
3.0
3.0
28.3
25
23
9
8
2
67
37.2
34.4
13.4
12.0
3.0
TABLE 25
COMPARISON OF HOLDING POND STORAGE TO
CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Days of
Storage
0-5
>5-10
>10-15
>15-30
>30
Subtotal
No Data
Total
A, B,&C
No.
11
8
2
4
8
33
26
59
%l
33.3
24.2
6.1
12.1
24.2
100.0
D
No.
7
2
1
1
4
15
12
27
&E
%
46.7
13.3
6.7
6.7
26.7
100.0
Total
No.
18
10
3
5
12
48
38
86
%
37.5
20.8
6.2
10.4
25.0
100.0
Percentages are of total reporting in groupings of climate zones
TABLE 26
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRIAL HOLDING POND
SIZE IN TERMS OF AVERAGE FLOWS TO THE APPLICATION SITE
Pond
Size
MG
None
0-1
>5-10
> 10-50
>50
No Data
Total
XM>.5
2
1
3
1
5
12
3.0
1.5
4.4
1.5
7.5
17.9
Xl.S-1.0 >l.0-1.5
j
1
3
1
2
5
13
1.5 1 1.5
1.5
4.4 1
1.5 1
3.0 1
1
7.5 1
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
19.4 6 9.0
or
M-sn
>1. 5-2.5
3
2
1
3
1
1
11
4.4
3.0
1.5
4.4
1.5
1.5
16.3
ESURV
>2.5-5.0
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
3 4,4
4 6.0
2 3.0
12 17.9
EY
>5.10.0
1
1
2
4
1.5
1 5
3.0
6.0
No Data
1
1
1
1
1
5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
7.5
Total
11
2
8
5
12
10
19
67
164
3.0
11.9
7.5
17.7
15.0
28.5
56
-------
TABLE 27
DISTRIBUTION OF HOLDING POND SIZE1 IN TERMS OF AVERAGE FLOWS
TO THE APPLICATION SITE - MAIL SURVEY
Pond Average Flows to Application Site
Size
MG
0-1
>1-S
>5-10
>10-50
>50
0-0. S
No.
4
4
4
10
2
%
3.3
33
3.3
8.2
1 6
XI.5-1.0
No.
2
1
4
1
%
1.6
0.8
3.3
0.8
M.0-1.5
No. %
2 1.6
1 0.8
>1. 5-2.5
No. %
1 0.8
2 1.6
>2.5-50 >5.0-7.5 >7.5-10.0 >10.0 No Data
No.
1
1
% No. ',
0.8
0.8
i No. % No. % No.
1
4
1
4
1
%
08
3.3
0.8
3.3
08
Totals
No.
8
10
7
20
6
%
6.5
82
5.7
164
48
No Data 27 22.1
Total
51 41 I
6 5.0
14 11.5
0.8
3.2
1.6
4.0
2.5
4.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6 28 23.2 71 584
1.6 39 32.2 122
TABLE 28
COMPARISON OF MINIMUM COMPUTED HOLDING
POND STORAGE TIMES AND POND SIZES FOR
ON-SITE AND MAIL SURVEYS
Pond
On-Site Survey
Mail Survey
Size Flow Range Minimum Flow Range Minimum
Range
MGD
0-1
>l-5
>5-10
>]0-50
>50
MGD
(Table 26)
0.5-1.0
>2.5-5.0
>2.5-5.0
>2.5-5.0
>5.0-10.0
Computed
Storage-Days
0
1/5
1
2
5
MGD
(Table 27)
0.5-1.0
>1.0-1.5
>1. 5-2.5
>2. 5-5.0
>5.0-10.0
Computed
Storage-Days
0
2/3
2
2
10
TABLE 29
WASTEWATER TREATMENT1 AT APPLICATION SITE BY CLIMATIC ZONE
ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone
Wastewater
Treatment
A
No. %
at Disposal
Site
Chlorination 13
Aeration
Other
None
No Data
8
1
21
1
11.9
7.3
0.9
19.3
0.9
No.
3
2
20
10
B
2.8
1.8
18.4
9.2
No.
4
1
1
3
2
C
D
No. %
Communities
3.7 6 5.5
0.9
0.9
2.8
1.8
2
5
4
1.8
4.6
3.7
Total
44
40.3
35 32.2 11 10.1 17 15.6
No.
%
0.9
0.9
Total
No.
26
13
7
45
18
1.8 109
23.9
11.8
6.4
41.4
16.5
Chlorination
Aeration
Other
None
No Data
Total
Industries
1
1
2
5
5
10
5
1
1
7
25
5
5
35
8
3
11
40
15
55
13
2
5
20
65
10
25
Some facilities reported use of more than one method.
57
-------
a. Okaloosa County Water and Sewer District. Lined 8-acre holding pond
holding pond at Eglin Air Force Base.
b. Irvine, Cal. Large holding reservoir
FIGURE 9
HOLDING PONDS
58
-------
c. Las Vegas, Nev. Holding pond at treatment plant
FIGURE 9
HOLDING PONDS
Land Application Some form of wastewater
treatment is provided by 42 percent of the
communities and 65 percent of the industries
at the land application sites. This information
is presented in Table 29, Wastewater
Treatment at Application Site by Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey. Industry systems did
not specify their treatment processes. Among
communities, however, 24 percent provide
chlorination and over 11 percent utilize some
form of aeration of their wastewater
effluents. Nearly all of the communities in
Zones C and D reported chlorination at the
land application site. Unfortunately, the
on-site survey reports do not indicate whether
chlorination is practiced for disinfection or
for odor control purposes.
Table 30, Treatment Processes at
Treatment Plant Facility and at Application
Site - On-Site Survey, indicates that 48
percent of the communities provided
wastewater treatment at both the main
treatment plant and at the land application
site. Of the industries surveyed, 40 percent
provided screening at the industrial plant and
some additional treatment at the land
application site.
Discussion Virtually all of the systems
studied by the on-site survey provide some
level of treatment of their wastewaters prior
to application on the land. Raw wastewaters
are not discharged onto land areas. More than
half of the communities investigated provide
secondary treatment or better. In addition to
returning wastewater effluents to the land, a
preference for the final disposition of
treatment plant sludge onto the land also was
disclosed. Most systems are used for the
application of all wastewaters onto land sites.
Some systems, however, are employed for less
than the full wastewater flows generated
year-round. In these cases, the use of land
application appears to fulfill a seasonal need
for the management of wastewaters or to
respond to special demands for treated
wastewater effluents.
Wastewaters are transported to the
application site by means of pressure pipe
lines, gravity pipe lines and open channels.
The most prevalent method appears to be by
59
-------
TABLE 30
TREATMENT PROCESSES AT TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY
AND AT APPLICATION SITE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Wastewater Treat-
ment Prior to
Transfer to Aeration
Application Site No. %
Chlorination 3 4.5
None
Primary
Secondary 6 9.0
Tertiary
Oxidation Ponds 4 6.0
Other
Wastewater Treatment Facilities at Application Site1
Communities (67)2
Chlorination Other None No Data
No.
13
1
14
2
6
%
19.4
1.5
20.9
3.0
9.0
No.
2
1
2
1
4
%
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.5
6.0
No.
4
1
5
1
5
%
6.0
1.5
7.5
1.5
7.5
No.
16
1
11
27
1
13
2
%
23.9
1.5
16.4
40.3
1.5
19.4
3.0
Total
No.
38
2
13
54
5
32
2
%
56.7
3.0
19.4
80.6
7.5
47.8
3.0
Screening
Primary
Secondary
Oxidation Ponds
Other
No Pata
Some facilities reported use of multiple facilities.
Percentages are based upon number of facilities surveyed.
Industries (20)2
8 40 1
10
10
5
10
20
11
2
2
2
4
1
55
10
10
10
20
5
pre^ ire pipe line in both community and
ind. .try systems.
Most of the land application facilities
investigated report the use of holding ponds.
The size of holding ponds varies on the basis
of climate. Although ponds of all sizes appear
in most climatic zones, larger ponds are more
common in the colder areas of the country.
Average flows do not appear to govern the
maximum size of holding ponds, but holding
pond storage generally tends to increase with
increasing flow.
In many cases additional treatment of
wastewaters is provided at the application
site, usually in the form of Chlorination
and/or aeration.
Land Application System Areas
And Distribution Methods
Land Application System Areas The size of a
land application site is dictated by a variety of
important factors — soil characteristics,
meteorological conditions, wastewater volume
and quality, and the objectives to be fulfilled
by the system. Total site area may be taken to
mean the area required for the application site
itself and for other associated acreage
needs — buffer zones, effluent storage areas,
treatment sites, roadways, etc.
Table 31, Distribution of On-Site
Surveyed Communities by Land Application
Area, Population Equivalent and Climatic
Zone, indicates, as might be expected, that
community land application systems generally
increase in area as the population equivalent
served increases. Further, differences between
dry and humid regions do not prove
significant. A less defined trend toward
increasing area with increasing population
equivalent is shown for industrial systems, as
indicated by Table 32, Distribution of On-Site
Surveyed Industries by Land Application
Area, Population Equivalent and Climatic
Zone. The average population equivalent per
system appears in Table 33, Average
Population Equivalent — On-Site Survey.
The population equivalent for industry
systems appears significantly higher than for
the corresponding community systems in each
area class. The mail survey data shown in
60
-------
TABLE 31
DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED COMMUNITIES BY
LAND APPLICATION AREA, POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
LAND APPLICATION AREA - ACRES
Climatic Zone
A
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
B
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
C
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
D
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equiv.
Percent
ll-5i
1
1.5
50,000
1.2
2
3.0
20,500
0.5
4
6.0
59,000
1.4
2
3.0
13,200
0.3
9
13.5
142,700
3.5
51-200
10
14.9
183,500
4.5
9
13.4
119,100
2.9
3
4.5
83,000
2.0
2
3.0
42,300
1.0
24
35.8
427,900
10.4
201-1,000 Over 1,000 No Data
9
13.5
535,000
13.0
7
10.4
440,600
10.7
3
4.5
272,500
6.6
1
1.5
10,000
0.3
20
29.7
1,258,100
30.5
2
3.0
913,100
22.2
3
4.5
556,600
13.5
1
1.5
100,000
2.4
1
1.5
42,000
1.1
7
10.5
1,611,700
39.2
Total
3 25
4.5 37.3
226,000 1,907,600
5.5 46.4
2 23
3.0 34.3
53,000 1,189,800
1.3 28.9
1
1.5
51,000
1.3
7
10.5
673,000
16.4
13.5
293,000
7.1
8
12.0
671,000
16.3
2
2.9
52,000
1.3
67
4,113,400
Table 34, Distribution, of Total Areas.
Reserved for Industrial and Community Land
Application Systems by Climatic Zone — Mail
Survey, corroborate the findings of the on-site
survey that there is a negligible impact of
climate on total site area. In this case, the
data on climatic distribution of system areas
are a composite of both community and
industrial sites.
A comparison of flow and land
application site area is shown in Table 35,
Flow and Area Used for Land
Application — On-Site Survey. Of the
industrial and community systems
investigated in the on-site survey, 84 percent
employ application areas of from 10 to 1,000
acres. An understandable trend toward
increasing land application area with
increasing wastewater flow is evident from the
data. Similar data developed from the mail
survey are presented in Table 36, Distribution
of Total Areas Reserved for Land Application
61
-------
TABLE 32
DISTRIBUTION OF ON-SITE SURVEYED INDUSTRIES
BY LAND APPLICATION AREA,
POPULATION EQUIVALENT AND CLIMATIC ZONE
Qimatic Zone
0-10
Land Application Area—Acres
11-50 51-200 201-1,000 Total
Number
Percent
Pop. Equivalent
Percent
D
Number 1
Percent 5.0
Pop. Equivalent
Percent
E
Number
Percent
Pop. Equivalent
Percent
Total
Number 1
Percent 5.0
Pop. Equivalent
Percent
1
5
5,500
0.6
4
20
368,600
39.5
3
15
59,000
6.3
8
40
433,100
46.4
1
5
30,000
3.2
1
5
106,000
11.3
6
30
135,200
14.5
8
40
271,200
29.0
1
5
2
10
230,000
24.6
3
15
230,000
24.6
2
10
35,500
3.8
7
35
474,600
50.8
11
55
424,200
45.4
20
934,300
TABLE 33
AVERAGE POPULATION EQUIVALENT
FOR ON-SITE SURVEYED SYSTEMS
Average Population Equivalent
Area-Acres
0-10
11-50
51-200
201-1,000
Over 1,000
Community
All
Regions
15,800
17,800
62,900
23,000
Zones
A&B
23,500
10,600
61,000
284,000
Industry
Zones
C,D&E
54,000
34,000
76,000
62
-------
TABLE 34
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL AREAS RESERVED FOR INDUSTRIAL
AND COMMUNITY LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS BY CLIMATIC ZONE - MAIL SURVEY
Total Area
Used-Acres
0-10
>10-50
>50-200
>200-1,000
>1,000
No Data
Total
No.
7
21
10
5
6
49
A
%
5.8
17.2
8.3
4.1
4.9
40.2
No.
5
3
7
5
20
B
%
4.1
2.5
5.8
4.1
16.5
No.
1
3
2
1
7
C
%
0.8
2.5
1.6
0.8
5.7
No.
2
8
3
2
1
16
D
%
1.6
6.6
2.5
1.6
0.8
13.1
No.
4
6
12
4
4
30
E
%
3.3
4.9
9.7
3.3
3.3
24.5
Total
No.
19
41
34
12
16
122
%
15.6
33.6
27.9
9.8
13.1
TABLE 35
FLOW AND AREA USED FOR LAND APPLICATION-ON-SITE SURVEY
(Community and Industrial Systems—87)
Average 0-10
Flows-MGD No. %
0-0.5 i i.:
>0.5-1.0
>1.5-2.5
>2.5-5
>5-10
>10
No Data
Total 1 1.1
>10-SO
No. %
9.3
4.6
2.3
1.1
2.3
>SO-200
No. %
17 19.6
7
13
3
5
1
3
32
8.0
15.0
3.4
5.7
1.1
4.5
36.9
>],000
No.
1
4
1
1
7
%
1.1
4.6
1.1
1.1
8.8
No Data
No. %
1 1.1
1 1.1
1 1.1
1 1.1
1 2.3
1 1.1
1 1.1
7 8.0
Total
No.
18
19
9
13
15
4
2
7
87
%
20.0
21.9
10.3
14.9
17.2
4.6
2.3
8.0
TABLE 36
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL AREAS RESERVED FOR LAND APPLICATION PURPOSES
BY AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS TO THE APPLICATION SITE - MAIL SURVEY
Average
Daily
Flow-MGD
0.0-0.5
>0. 5-1.0
> 1.0-1. 5
M.5-2.5
>2. 5-5.0
>5.0-7.5
>7. 5-10.0
>10.0
No Data
Totals
0-
No.
7
1
1
1
5
15
10
%
5.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
4.1
12.2
>10-50
No. %
20 16-5
1
13
42
2.5
2.5
1.6
0.8
10.7
34.6
Total Areas Used-Acres
>50-200
No. %
19 15.6
5 4.1
1
0.8
9 7.4
34 27.9
>200-1,000 >1,000 No Data
No. % No. % No. %
1
13
1.6
2.5
1.6
2.5
0.8
1.6
10.6
1
10
2.5
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
8.2
Total
No.
18 14.7
51
14
4
5
5
1
1
2
39
122
41.9
11.5
3.3
4.0
4.1
0.8
0.8
1.6
32.0
63
-------
Purposes by Average Daily Flows to the
Application Site — Mail Survey. The
community and industrial sites surveyed
utilized sites of less than 200 acres in size in
75 percent of the systems and over one-third
of all the systems fall into the 10 to 50-acre
size range. As pointed out in connection with
the on-site survey data, the mail survey
information indicates that total area of sites
increases with increasing daily flow
The data from the on-site survey indicate
that only 27 percent of the communities and
10 percent of the industries use all of the area
at the application site for disposal purposes.
The balance is for holding ponds, buffer areas
and future use, or is not suitable for land
application. The range of site utilization is
shown in Table 37, Relation of Area Irrigated
to Total Land Application ^frea by Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey. Based on the total
area of the disposal site, Table 38, Area
Irrigated and Total Land Application
Area — On-Site Survey, indicates 13 of the 23
community systems in the 51-200 acre class
and 14 of the 17 community systems in the
201-1,000 acre range use at least 75 percent
of their available land application area. Eight
of the 10 industrial systems in the 51-200
acre class use at least 50 percent of the
available area.
A somewhat different evaluation of
irrigated area is found in the case of the mail
survey data. This approach is represented by
the data shown in Table 39, Distribution of
Irrigated Acreage to Population and to
Average Daily Flows — Mail Survey. The
comparison of acreage and population
discloses the semblance of a relationship
similar to that previously noted for average
flows and acreage. It should be noted that the
system with the 100,000 or greater
population range with an acreage of 10 or less
acres has been disregarded in terms of the
suggested relationship. The system in question
is an industrial installation with a very
high-strength waste loading.
TABLE 37
RELATION OF AREA IRRIGATED TO TOTAL LAND APPLICATION AREA
BY CLIMATIC ZONE-ON-SITE SURVEY
Area Irrigated as Percent of Total Area
Communities (67)
Less than
25-49
No. %
Climatic
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Total
A
B
C
D
E
Total
No.
1
1
2
2
2
25
%
1.5
1.5
3.0
10
10
3.0
1.5
4.5
10
10
50-74
No.
6
1
\
9
%
8.9
3.0
1.5
13.4
75-99
No.
7
10
1
2
1
21
%
10.4
14.9
1.5
3.0
1.5
31.3
100
No.
3
7
4
3
1
18
%
4.5
10.4
6.0
4.5
1.5
26.9
No Data Total
No. % No.
8 11.9 25
4 6.0 23
1 1.5 9
1 1.5 8
2
14 20.9 67
%
37.2
34.3
13.5
12.0
3.0
Industries (20)
4
3
7
20
15
35
2
3
2
7
10
15
10
35
2
2
10
10
2
7
11
20
10
35
55
64
-------
TABLE 38
AREA IRRIGATED AND TOTAL LAND APPLICATION AREA-ON-SITE SURVEY
Area Irrigated as Percent of TotalArea
Total Land Less than
Application 25 25-49
Area-Acres No. % No. %
11-50
51-200 1
201-1,000
Over 1 ,000 1
No Data
Total 2
11-50
51-200 1
201-1,000 1
Over 1 ,000
Total 2
1.5 3 4.5
1.5
3.0 3 4.5
5 1 5
5
10 1 5
DISTRIBUTION
50-74 75-99 100
No. % No. % No. %
Communities
3 4.5 2
3 4.5 7 10.4 6
3 4.5 6 8.9 8
3 4.5 5 7.4 2
9 13.5 21 31.2 18
Industries
15 3 15 1
6 30 2 10
15 2 10 1
8 40 7 35 2
TABLE 39
OF IRRIGATED ACREAGE TO
AND TO AVERAGE DAILY FLOWS-MAIL
Population
(1,000's)
0-5
>5-10
>10-25
>25-50
>50-100
>100
No Data
Total
Average
Flows-MGD
0-0.5
>0.5-1.0
>1.0-1.5
>1. 5-2.5
>2.5-5.0
>5.0-7.5
>7.5-10.0
>10.0
No Data
Totals
Irrigated Acreage - Acres
0-10 >10-50 >50-200 >200-1,000
No. % No.
8 6.6 20
1 0.8 3
2 1.6 2
3
4 .3.3 2
15 12.3 30
8 6.6 15
2 1.6 2
2
1
5 4.1 10
15 12.3 30
% No. % No. %
16.5 10 8.2 2 1.6
2.5 5 4.1 2 1.6
1.6 8 6.6 2 1.6
2.5 1 0.8
1.6 4 3.3
24.7 28 23.0 6 4.8
12.3 14 11.5
1.6 7 5.7 2 1.6
1.6
2 1.6 1 0.8
2 1.6 2 1.6
1 0.8
0.8
8.2 3 2.5
24.5 28 22.9 6 4.8
3.0
9.0
11.9
3.0
26.9
5
5
10
No Data
No. %
3 4.
1 1.
10 14.
14 20.
5
5
.9
9
Total
No. %
5 7.5
23 34.4
17 25.3
12 17.9
16 14.9
67
5 25
10 50
5 25
20
POPULATION
SURVEY
No
No.
24
8
4
1
2
4
43
14
1
2
2
1
2
21
43
Data
%
19.6
6.6
3.3
0.8
1.6
3.3
No.
64
19
18
5
2
14
Total
%>
52.5
15.6
14.7
4.1
1.6
11.5
35.2 122
11.5
0.8
1.6
1.6
0.8
1.6
17.2
35.0 1
51
14
4
5
5
1
1
2
39
22
41.9
11.3
3.2
4.0
4.0
0.8
0.8
1.6
31.9
65
-------
Wastewater Distribution Methods Spray
irrigation, overland flow irrigation, and ridge
and furrow irrigation appear to be the most
widely accepted wastewater land application
methods. Spray irrigation involves the
controlled spraying of wastewater on the land
at a definitive rate. Overland flow provides
application of effluents to develop a
sheet-flow effect upon the application site.
Ridge and furrow irrigation is a commonly
used method in the more arid parts of the
country for normal crop watering. It involves
the flow of effluents through a field tilled to
provide furrows with low soil windrows in
between.
Community land application systems use
spray irrigation at 73 percent of the surveyed
on-site installations. Ridge and furrow or
other flooding methods are used at 57 percent
of the sites. On the other hand, 95 percent of
the industrial systems employ spray irrigation.
Community and industrial wastewater
distribution methods appear in Table 40,
Method of Wastewater Application and
Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey. A review of
the mail survey data presented in Table 41,
Method of Wastewater Application and
Climatic Zone — Mail Survey, disclose that 4
percent of the community and industrial
systems studied use overland flow or ridge
and furrow irrigation and over 53 percent
employ spray irrigation. Table 42, Summary
of Regional Differences in Application
Methods for On-Site and Mail Surveys, defines
the regional differences in application
methods found in the two types of surveys. In
both surveys it appears that the prevalent
method of application in the more arid parts
of the country involves some form of surface
distribution. Surface application is consistent
with the more traditional methods of
irrigation found in Zones A and B due to their
long history of crop irrigation. On the other
hand, spray irrigation appears to be more
prevalent in the more humid parts of the
country.
Table 43, Method of Wastewater
Application and Land Application
Area - On-Site Survey, relates the method of
wastewater application to the size of the
TABLE 40
METHOD OF WASTEWATER APPLICATION1
AND CLIMATIC ZONE-ON-SITE SURVEY
Method of
Wastewater A B
Application
Spray 14 8
Flooding 9 11
Ridge and Furrow 7 7
Other 1 2
No Data 3
Total 31 31
Climatic Zone
C D E
Communities (67)
9 5 1
2 2
1
1
10 8 3
Total
No.
37
24
14
4
4
83
55.2
35.8
20.9
6.0
6.0
Spray
Ridge and Furrow
Total
Industries (20)
2 7 10
1
2711
Some communities utilize more than one method
Percentages are of total communities surveyed
19
1
20
95
5
66
-------
TABLE 41
METHOD OF WASTEWATER APPLICATION1 AND CLIMATE REGION - MAIL SURVEY
Overland
Flow
No. %
0.8
0.8
Some jurisdictions u^e more ttun one method
Climatic
Zone
A
B
C
D
E
Total
Spray
Irrigation
No.
26
9
3
12
19
69
%
20.2
7.0
2.3
9.3
14.6
53.4
Ridge &
Furrow
No. %
1 0.8
3 2.3
Other
No.
10
5
1
1
%
7.8
3.9
0.8
0.8
None
No.
17
8
2
3
8
%
13.2
6.2
1.5
2.3
6.2
Total
No.
53
22
5
18
31
%
41.2
.17.1
3.8
14.0
29.9
3.1
17
13.3
38
29.4
129
TABLE 42
SUMMARY OF REGIONAL DIFFERENCES
IN APPLICATION METHODS
FOR ON-SITE AND MAIL SURVEY
On-Site
Mail
Climatic
Zone
A,B
C,D,E
Spray
%'
39.4
60.6
Surface
%
87.2
12.8
Spray
%
51.0
49.0
Surfac
%
68.2
31.8
Percentages are of total facilities using method.
100.0
TABLE 43
METHOD OF WASTEWATER APPLICATION'AND LAND
APPLICATION AREA - ON-SITE SURVEY
Method of
Wastewater
Application
Spray
Flooding
Ridge and Furrow
Other
No Data
Total
Spray
Ridge and Furrow
Total
Land Application Area-Acres
Communities (67)
0-10
11-50
5
1
1
7
51-
200
14
4
6
1
25
201-
Over
1,000 1,000
15
10
3
1
1
30
5
2
1
1
9
No
Data
3
5
2
2
12
No.
37
24
14
4
4
83
Total
%2
55.2
35.8
20.9
6.0
6.0
Industries (20)
1
1
8
8
7
1
8
3
3
19
1
20
95.0
5.0
Some communities reported more than one method of application
Percentages are of total surveyed communities
67
-------
TABLE 44
WASTEWATER APPLICATION METHODS
COMPARED TO SOIL TYPES AND GROUND COVER-MAIL SURVEY1
Soil
Type
Loam
Silt
Clay
Sand
Gravel
Other
No Data
Spray
Irrig.
31
13
21
25
11
1
8
Overland Ridge
Flow Furrow
Total
110
Other
6
2
6
6
23
No
Data
13
1
7
13
12
54
Total
No.
50
16
36
45
20
1
25
193
41.0
13.1
29.5
36.9
16.4
0.8
20.5
Cover
Grass
Forest
Crops
No. Cult.
No Veg.
No Data
44
5
12
11
6
15
Totals
93
2
2
3
19
10
2
1
4
4
23
44
63
7
21
17
12
41
161
51.6
5.7
17.2
13.9
9.8
33.6
Many communities and industries utilised more than one method of ground cover
Percentages are of number of facilities surveyed
Additional topographic information would be
required to determine why specific
application methods are used in preference to
others.
Table 44, Wastewater Application
Methods Compared to Soil Types and Ground
Cover — Mail Survey, relates soils and ground
cover to wastewater application methods. It
appears that all methods of wastewater
application have been used with all types of
soils and with all types of ground cover. The
preferences in application methods for
specific soil types and ground covers appears
in Table 45, Summary of Application
Methods in Terms of Soil Types and Ground
Cover - Mail Survey. For soils of loam, silt
and clay, spray distribution is used more
extensively than surface application. With
more granular soils, spray irrigation is utilized
more equally in comparison with surface
application. Surface irrigation is used most
often in grass and forest covers, and for crop
lands.
application area. The type of distribution
system shows the following trend towards
surface application on larger application area:
Application Area Spray Surface
Less than 50 acres 50% 22%
50-200 46% 42%
200-1,000 48% 45%
Over 1,000 0 100%
Figure 10, Spray System, is a photograph
of a large turret spray at Rossmoor, California,
and a portable row of sprinklers at Santa
Maria, California.
For the smallest application areas, spray
systems appear to be used about twice as
often as surface methods. In the intermediate
size ranges both systems experience almost
equal usage, and all' of the larger application
systems employ surface distribution. In the
on-site survey, flooding is utilized for twice as
many systems as the ridge and furrow
method — in 21 systems compared to 12.
68
-------
a. Turret spray, Pomona, Cal.
b. Row of sprinklers, Santa Monica, Cal.
FIGURE 10
SPRAY SYSTEMS
69
-------
TABLE 45
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION METHODS
IN TERMS OF SOIL TYPES AND
GROUND COVER - MAIL SURVEY
Spray
Soil Type
Loam, silt, clay
Sand, gravel
Other
Total
No
65
36
1
102
%
62.7
35.2
0.1
Surface
No.
37
29
0
66
%
56.1
43.9
Ground Cover
No planted cover
Grass
Crops
Forest
Total
17
44
12
5
78
21.8
56.4
15.4
6.4
12
19
9
2
42
28.6
45.2
21.4
4.8
Discussion The foregoing evaluation of
survey findings has attempted to deal with
two important features of the wastewater
land application process - system areas and
wastewater distribution methods. Generally,
the size of land application sites vary
approximately with population equivalents,
and even more directly with wastewater flow
and flow related factors such as community
population. Population equivalent provides an
important measure of industrial contribution,
but~ it performs a more important role as a
measure of industrial wastewater strength and
flow — the primary factor influencing site
acreage.
Industrial wastewaters disposed of
through the land application process appear
to be of higher original strength than do
community wastewaters. In these terms,
industries impose a much higher original
quality loading per acre than do communities
employing similarly sized sites. Climate
proved to influence disposal site size in a
negligible manner, or not at all, primarily
because few facilities in cold weather areas
operate on a year-round basis.
Disposal Field Characteristics
One of the most important considerations
involved in wastewater land application
concerns the disposal field itself. The
effectiveness of the system depends upon the
capacity of the field to receive wastewaters,
and enhance their quality without producing
deleterious effects upon local ecology and
environment. Local soil conditions,
groundwater, land slope and the types of
vegetative covers employed are some of the
determinants of site capacity. The following
will attempt to describe some of these
important site characteristics within the limits
of the available data.
Soil Conditions The on-site survey of
industrial and community land application
systems indicates that the predominant soil
types utilized in all climatic zones are sand,
loam and clay. Climatic zone does not appear
to influence the soil types involved. Table 46,
Soil Types in Land Application Areas by
Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey, presents the
distribution of soil types among community
and industry systems. Many of the
community disposal sites utilize multiple
types of soil for effluent application.
Approximately 91 percent of the listed
systems apply wastewaters to loams, silts or
clays, and approximately 72 percent operate
application fields in the granular
materials — sand and gravel. Eighteen of the
listed industrial systems utilize application
fields composed of loams, silts or clays. Nine
industrial application fields are composed of
sands and gravels. A composite table of
industrial and community disposal systems
70
-------
TABLE 46
SOIL TYPES1 IN LAND APPLICATION AREAS BY CLIMATIC ZONE
ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone
Soil
Types
Loam
Silt
Clay
Sand
Gravel
Other
No Data
10
5
10
15
3
Total 43
B
13
4
4
12
6
1
2
42
13
Loam 2
Silt
Clay
Sand
Gravel 1
Other
No Data
Total 3
Some facilities reported more than one type of soil.
2
Percentages are of total surveyed facilities.
developed from the mail survey appears as
Table 47, Soil Types Reported at Existing
Land Application Areas — Mail Survey. These
data agree in general with the findings of the
on-site survey that the prevalent types of
application field solids encountered are sand,
loam and clay. The mail survey data covering
community and industrial application from
"fields, with 180 soil types mentioned, indicate
that 74 percent of the fields contain loams,
salts and clays and 55 percent contain sands
and gravels.
No apparent relationship exists between
soil type and wastewater flow, as shown in
Table 48, Classification by Soil Type and
Flow - On-Site Survey. The low wastewater
application rates do not appear to be
influenced by soil type, as indicated in Table
49, Classification by Soil Type and
Wastewater Application Rate - On-Site
Survey. This influence may be masked by the
limited number of systems surveyed.
D
Communities
2
1
3
5
1
13
Industries
5
3
1
3
1
Total
13
6
5
1
4
1
1
18
No.
30
11
20
37
11
1
3
113
13
1
1
1
34
%2
44.8
16.4
29.8
55.2
16.4
1.5
4.5
65
40
10
40
5
5
5
TABLE 47
SOIL TYPES REPORTED1
AT EXISTING
LAND APPLICATION
AREAS-MAIL SURVEY
Soil
Type
Loam
Silt
Clay
Sand
Gravel
Other
No Data
Number
of Systems
45
14
31
46
21
1
22
%of
Total2
36.9
11.5
25.4
37.7
17.2
0.8
18.0
Total
180
Many facilities reported more than one
soil type.
Percentages are of total facilities.
71
-------
TABLE 48
CLASSIFICATION BY SOIL TYPE AND FLOW-ON-SITE SURVEY1
Soil Type
Sand Gravel
Flow-MGD Loam Silt
Clay
Other
Communities (67)
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
Total
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
3
6
2
8
6
1
2
2
30
6
5
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
11
3
3
2
4
4
1
3
2
1
3
2
20
1
1
3
11
5
9
5
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
2
37 11
Industries
1
4
1
2
(20)
1
1
No Data Total
2
1
3
No.
14
27
9
23
17
6
7
10
113
11
13
%
20.9
40.3
13.4
34.3
25.4
8.9
10.4
14.9
55
65
40
10
Total
13 8
34
Some facilities reported more than one soil type
Percentages are of facilities surveyed.
Clay
Total
0.0-0.10
0.11-0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51-1.00
Over 1.00
No Data
7
5
8
2
8
30
1
2
1
1
1
5
11
2
5
4
1
2
6
20
5
6
6
3
7
10
37
1
4
1
1
2
2
11
1
6
4
2
3
4
1
Industries (20)
3 1
2
1
2
2
4
Total
TABLE 49
CLASSIFICATION BY SOIL TYPE1 AND WASTEWATER
APPLICATION RATE-ON-SITE SURVEY
Wastewater
Application Loam Silt
Rate-in./day
0.0-0.10
0.11-0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51-1.00
Over 1.00
No Data
Soil Type
Sand Gravel
Communities (67)
Other
1
1
No.
16
22
21
9
12
33
113
2
17
10
4
2
23.9
32.8
31.3
13.4
17.9
49.3
5
85
50
20
10
Total 13 8 2 8 1 3 35
'Some facilities reported more than one soil type 2 Percentages are of facilities surveyed
72
-------
Groundwater Table Depth and
Underdrains A total of 122 separate
community and industrial mail survey
responses were reviewed to determine the
effects of groundwater on disposal field
selection and operation. The results of this
study are presented in Table 50, Groundwater
Table Depth Encountered in Existing Land
Application Sites — Mail Survey. Only 19
percent of the existing systems surveyed had
groundwater depths of 10 feet or less. This
suggests that groundwater depth may have
been one of the important factors considered
in the selection of land application sites.
Underdrains perform the function of
controlling groundwater levels and of
collecting the mixture of land-applied
wastewaters and groundwaters for use for
other purposes or for discharge into receiving
waters. The mail survey indicated the
existence of underdrains in some disposal
fields but did not indicate their true purpose
or use.
In the mail survey study of 122
wastewater disposal fields, only 6 of these
systems, or 49 percent of the total, employed
underdrains. Table 51, Use of
Underdrains — Mail Survey, presents this basic
information. Of the 23 systems reporting
groundwater levels located 10 feet or less
from the surface, only 6 systems specifically
reported use of underdrains. Thus underdrains
apparently are being used to control
groundwater levels, where necessary, and to
minimize groundwater interference with the
land application process. Table 52, Use of
Underdrains by Soil Type — Mail Survey,
shows the soil types in which underdrains
have been used. The uniform distribution
indicates that installation of such underdrains
to overcome actual or potential groundwater
interference has occurred in all soil types.
TABLE 50
GROUNDWATER TABLE DEPTH
ENCOUNTERED
IN EXISTING LAND APPLICATION
SITES - MAIL SURVEY
Groundwater Number
Depth of Systems
0-10
10-25
25-50
50-100
100
No Data
Total
23
16
13
8
16
46
%of
Total
19
13
10
7
13
38
122
TABLE 51
USE OF UNDERDRAINS
MAIL SURVEY
Underdrains
No underdrains
No Data
Total
Systems
6
75
41
122
Percent
of Total
4.9
61.5
33.6
TABLE 52
USE OF UNDERDRAINS BY SOIL TYPE1
MAIL SURVEY
Soil Type
Loam
Silt
Clay
Sand
Gravel
No Data
Systems
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
Total
10
Some facilities reported presence of more than
one type of soil
73
-------
TABLE 53
CLASSIFICATION BY GROUND COVER1 AND CLIMATIC
ZONE - ON SITE-SURVEY
Climatic Zone Total
E
Ground Cover
Grass
Forest
Crop
No Vegetation
No Data
16
3
13
B
7
16
C D
Communities (67)
4 3
4
3
No.
30
38
36
2
5
44.8
11.9
53.7
3.0
7.5
Grass
Forest
Crop
No Vegetation
Not Cultivated
No Data
Industries (20)
2 7
1
1
17
1
3
1
1
1
'Some facilities utilized more than one type of ground cover
Percentages are of total communities and industries surveyed
TABLE 54
LAND COVER PRACTICE BY TYPE OF SYSTEM
MAIL SURVEY1
85
5
15
5
5
5
Community
No Vegetation
No Cultivation
Grass
Crops
Forest
Total
No Data
No.
8
14
27
18
5
72
14
%
11.1
19.4
37.5
25.0
7.0
Industrial
No. %
3 8.3
2 5.6
29 80.5
Total
2
36
1 Percentages are based upon number of facilities by type
5.6
No.
11
16
56
18
7
108
14
7o
10.2
14.8
51.8
16.7
6.5
Application Field Ground Cover Grass and
crops appear to be the predominant types of
ground cover in community land application
systems evaluated in the on-site survey. Grass
represents the major ground cover employed
for industrial application fields. These data
appear in Table 53, Classification by Ground
Cover and Climatic Zone — On Site Survey. A
summary of similar data on application field
ground cover also appears in Table 44,
Wastewater Application Methods Compared
to Soil Types and Ground Cover — Mail
Survey. Data from the mail survey covered
both community and industrial systems and
indicated that among the 160 systems
reported (41 gave no data), the most
commonly used ground cover was grass. Grass
ground cover was used in 52 percent of the
systems; 24 percent of the systems reported
no vegetation, or at least no cultivation; 17
percent reported the use of wastewater
effluents for crop irrigation; and only 6
74
-------
TABLE 55
GROUND COVER AND WASTEWATER FLOW-ON-SITE SURVEY
Ground Cover *
Wastewater
Flow-MGD
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
5.1-10.0
Over 10.0
No Data
Grass
8
9
2
2
5
1
3
0.0-0.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.5
1.6-2.5
2.6-5.0
6
6
4
No Vege- Not Cul-
Forest Crop tation vated
Communities (67)
3 2
3 3
3 1
2 10
9 1
2
2
5
Industries (20)
1111
1
1
No
Data
1
1
Some facilities utilized more than one type of ground cover
Percentages are of total communities and industries surveyed
Total
No.
14
16
6
14
17
2
4
7
10
5
TABLE 56
COMPARISON OF GRASS AND CROP USAGE
IN TERMS OF FLOW - ON-SITE SURVEY
Wastewater Percent of Systems
Flow-MGD Grass Crop
Less than 1.0 28 6
Over 1.0 17 31
20.9
23.9
9.0
20.9
25.4
3.0
6.0
11.9
35
50
25
10
percent applied wastewaters to irrigate
forested areas.
A recapitulation of disposal field cover
usage by system type is presented in Table 54,
Land Cover Practice by Type of
System — Mail Survey. In general, a similar
distribution of land cover types was found in
both community and industrial systems,
except for the heavier predominence of grass
cover in industrial sites. Thus, with this one
variant, there are no apparent preferences for
one type of cover over another on the basis of
system type — community or industrial.
Table 55, Ground Cover and Wastewater
Flow - On-Site Survey, indicates that
community systems use grass as the
predominant ground cover for flows less than
one mgd and crops as ground cover for higher
rates of flow. The comparison of the use of
grass and crops in terms of flow is tabulated
in Table 56, Comparison of Grass and Crop
Usage in Terms of Flow — On-Site Survey.
75
-------
Discussion The predominant soil types
utilized in all climatic zones appear to be
sand, loam and clay. The analysis of soil types
in terms of climate and wastewater flow
indicate that past practice in application field
site selection was influenced more strongly by
other local factors than soil conditions.
Site selection apparently considers
groundwater table depth very carefully. Only
a few systems reported groundwater
interference with land application operations.
These systems also indicated the use of
underdrains to control groundwater.
Land Application System Operations
Continuity of Operations The continuity of
wastewater land application concerns the
number of months during the year and the
number of days per week that the system
operates. Continuity provides one basis for
operational evaluation of the current practices
in land application. As shown in Table 57,
Months per Year Land Application Systems
TABLE 57
MONTHS PER YEAR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
OPERATED BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Months/Year A
System Operated No.
1
2
3
4
5
Climatic Zone
BCD
No. % No. % No.
Communities
3.0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
No Data
Total
1
3
1
1
19
25
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
28.3
37.3
3
2
1
14
3
23
4.5
3.0
1.5
20.9
4.4
34.3
1
1
1
4
9
1.5
1.5
1.5
6.0
13.5
1
1
5
1
8
1.5
1.5
7.4
1.5
11.9
Industries
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
No Data
Total
2 10
1 5
1 5
4 20
7 35
E Total
No. % No. %
3.0
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3.0
3.0
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
15
3
8
1
3
1
1
44
4
67
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
8
4.5
17.0
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
65.6
5.9
5
10
5
10
5
10
10
5
40
11 55 20
76
-------
TABLE 58
MONTHS OF YEAR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS OPERATED
BY CLIMATIC ZONE - MAIL SURVEY
Months
Operated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
No Data
Total
A
No. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
No Data
Total
2
1
1
2
1
30
11
48
2.3
1.2
1.2
2.3
1.2
34.8
12.8
55.8
2.8
2.8
No.
2 2.3
1 1.2
12 14.0
4 4.6
19 22.1
2.8
Climatic Regions
C D
No. % No. %
Communities
1 1.2
4
5
1
4.6
5.8
Industries
2.8
3
3
1
1
1
3.5
3.5
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
5.6
2.8
5.6
13.7
5.6
E
No. %
5 5.8
2 2.3
11 12.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
13.7
2.8
Total
No.
1
2
1
1.2
2.3
1.2
2
1
2
3
3
1
2.3
1.2
2.3
3.5
3.6
1.2
2
1
54
17
86
13 36.1 19 52.7
13
3
36
2.3
1.2
62.8
19.7
1 2.8
1 2.8
1 2.8
2
2
6
5.6
5.6
16.6
2
3
8
1
5.6
8.4
22.2
2.8
2.8
5.6
8.4
35.8
8.4
Operated by Climatic Zone - On-Site Survey,
approximately 66 percent of the community
systems and 40 percent of the industrial
systems operate throughout the year. Similar
results occur on the basis of the mail survey.
Table 58, Months of Year Land Application
Systems Operated by Climatic Zone — Mail
Survey, shows that 63 percent of the
community systems and 36 percent of the
industrial systems surveyed operate on a
full-year basis. A comparison of regional
differences for both the on-site and mail
surveys appears in Table 59, Comparison of
Full-Year Operations for Both On-Site and
Mail Surveys.
Grass was found to be the predominant
type of ground cover among the systems
surveyed, for flows of 1 mgd or less, with
crops utilized for higher flows. A comparison
of ground cover types in terms of climate
suggests that forest irrigation occurs more
often in humid regions and that crop
irrigation seems more prevalent in the more
arid climates.
77
-------
TABLE 59
COMPARISON OF FULL YEAR OPERATIONS FOR
BOTH ON-SITE AND MAIL SURVEYS
On-Site Survey Mail Survey
Percent Percent
Climatic Operating 12 Months Operating 12 Months
Zone Communities Industries Communities Industries
A 76 63 100
B 61 63 100
C 44 50 80 50
D 63 57 100 38
E 100 27 46 26
TABLE 60
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS, BY FLOW RANGE AND NUMBER
OF MONTHS PER YEAR SYSTEMS IN OPERATION - ON-SITE SURVEY
Months/Year
Systems
Operated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
No Data
Total
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
g
9
to
11
12
No Data
Total
0-0.5
No. %
1 1.5
3 45
1 1.5
6 8.9
1 1 16.4
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 S
3 15
7 35
Flow Range-MGD
0.6-1.0 1.1-1.5 1.6-2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1-10.0 Over 100 No Data
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Communities
1 1.5
1 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.5
1 1.5 2 3.0 2 3.0
1 1.5
1 1.5 1 1.5
1 1.5
1 1.5
11 16.4 6 8.9 7 10.4 9 13.4 1 1.5 2 3.0 2 3.0
1 1.5 1 1.5 2 3.0
13 19.4 6 8.9 11 16.4 13 19.4 4 6.0 2 3.0 7 10.5
Industries
1 5
1 5
) 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
3 15 2 10
7 35 4 20 2 10
Total
No.
2
3
8
1
3
1
1
44
4
67
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
8
20
%
30
4.5
12.0
1.5
4.5
1.5
1.5
65.5
6.0
5
10
5
10
5
10
10
5
40
78
-------
TABLE 61
DAYS PER WEEK LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS OPERATED BY CLIMATIC ZONE
ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone
No. Days/Wk.
System
Operated
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Variable
No Data
Total
A
No.
%
B
No.
%
C
No.
%
D
No.
%
E
No. %
Total
No.
%
Communities
2
2
17
2
2
25
3.0
3.0
25.3
3.0
3.0
37.3
8
3
12
23
11.9
4.5
17.9
34.3
1
6
2
9
1.5
8.9
3.0
13.4
1
1
2
2
2
8
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
12.0
1 1.5
1 1.5
2 3.0
3
—
—
1
2
1
34
7
19
67
4.5
1.5
3.0
1.5
50.6
10.5
28.4
1
2
3
4
5'
6
7
Variable
No Data
Total
Industries
1 5
1 5
2 10
2 10
4 20
1 5
7 35
5
10
35
5
11 55
4
2
12
2
20
20
10
60
10
The other community and industrial
systems covered in both surveys operate from
two to eleven months of the year. No
apparent relationship was found between
wastewater flow and the number of months
the systems are operated, as indicated in
Table 60, Distribution of Land Application
Systems by Flow Range and Number of
Months per Year Systems in
Operation - On-Site Survey.
Approximately 51 percent of the
community and 60 percent of the industrial
systems operate seven days a week, as
depicted in Table 61, Days per Week Land
Application Systems Operated by Climatic
Zone - On-Site Survey. Three community
systems reported operation on only one day a
week. The predominance of five, six or
seven-day operations tends to reflect normal
personnel policies and hours of operation
among the respective communities and
industries. A supplemental comparison of
weekly operations is presented in Table 62,
Weekly Operations for Community and
Industrial Systems by Climatic Zone - Mail
Survey. For all of the 122 community and
industrial systems reporting specific
days-of-week operations, 27 percent function
less than a full week and 29 percent operate
for the full seven days. The tabulation in
Table 62 indicates that many installations of
community and industry nature provided no
data on number of days per week irrigation is
practiced. These Table 62 findings vary
79
-------
somewhat from the on-site survey data,
insofar as they indicate a greater percentage
of partial-week operations. No clear-cut
pattern exists concerning the relationship of
climate and days of operation. The data can
be interpreted to show that no major
differences in full-week and partial-week
operations exist from one climatic region to
another.
A compilation of mail survey data to
establish the relationship of weekly
operations and disposal field soil
characteristics is presented in Table 63,
Comparison of Days of Operation per Week
to Soil Types — Mail Survey. These data
indicate that partial-week operations occur
more often with gravel soils. Overall, the
relationship between weekly operations and
soil types appears relatively inconclusive.
Table 64, Distribution of Land
Application Systems by Flow Range and
Number of Days per Week Systems in
Operation — On-Site Survey, shows that most
of the community and industrial systems that
reported less than full-week operation serve
average flows of one mgd or less.
TABLE 62
WEEKLY OPERATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS
BY CLIMATIC ZONE - MAIL SURVEY
No. of Days Qimatic Zones; Cumulative Number and Percent
Irrigated A B C D E Total
PerWk. No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0-2
0-4
0-6
7
No Data
Total
13
9
12
49
14
16
26
18
3
3
7
4
3
20
15
15
35
20
1
3
3
7
14
43
43
1
3
4
8
6
6
19
25
50
1
3
8
10
8
30
3
10
27
33
12
17
33
34
26
122
10
14
27
28
21
TABLE 63
COMPARISON OF DAYS OF OPERATION PER WEEK TO SOIL TYPE1
MAIL SURVEY
Days
Irrigated
PerWk.
0-2
0-4
0-6
7
No Data
Total
Soil Type
Loam
3
4
13
16
16
52
Silt
1
1-
3
9
2
16
Clay
4
6
8
13
10
41
Sand
6
9
13
15
18
61
Gravel Other
3
4
7
5 1
9
28 1
Total
No.
17
24
44
59
55
199
%
10.7
15.2
27.8
37.3
34.8
Many facilities indicated more than one soil type
80
-------
TABLE 64
COMPARISON OF DAYS OPERATED PER WEEK
TO GROUND COVER - MAIL SURVEY
Days
Irrigated
PerWk.
0-2
0-4
0-6
7
No Data
Total
No Veg.
1
4
6
11
No Cult.
3
4
6
1
9
16
Grass
4
7
18
21
17
56
Forest
1
3
2
2
7
Crops
4
6
11
5
2
18
No Data
14
14
Total
11
18
39
33
50
122
Application The methods
employed in applying wastewaters to the
land — spray irrigation, overland flow, and
ridge and furrow irrigation — have already
been evaluated in other parts of this section,
but the question of application will be
covered in the following discussion, within
the limits of available data.
The relationship of wastewater
application rates and soils types appeared in
Table 49, Classification by Soil Type and
Wastewater Application Rates — On-Site
Survey. These data indicate that no significant
relationship beteween soils types and
application rates appears to exist. This
observation differs from what might be
surmised in terms of the variable percolation
rates and soil permeabilities associated with
the soil types investigated. On this basis it
appears that application rates are affected by
other factors than soils and perhaps ground
cover types.
A summary of application rates is
presented in Table 65, Summary of
Application Rates — On-Site Survey. The
typical application rates for communities and
industries are in the range of from 0.1 to 0.5
inches per day.
Table 66, Groundwater Problems and
Rate of Wastewater Application — On-Site
Survey, depicts the relationship of
groundwater interference with wastewater
application rates. Over 13 percent of the
communities, and 15 percent of the industries
reported groundwater problems. No apparent
significance can be derived from the
relationship of groundwater interference and
application rates. The question of
groundwater interference was previously
discussed in connection with application field
characteristics. The mail survey data show
that only 6 of 122 community and industrial
systems reported use of underdrains. Each of
these systems evidently employed underdrains
to relieve groundwater problems.
TABLE 65
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION RATES
FOUND — ON-SITE SURVEY
Industrial
Systems
No. %
5.0
45.0
35.0
5.0
Wastewater
Application
Rates-in./day
0-0.10
>0. 10-0.25
>0.25-0.50
>0.50-1.00
>1.00
No Data
Community
Systems
No.
9
12
15
5
7
19
%
13.4
17.9
22.4
7.5
10.5
28.4
1
9
7
1
2
Total
67
20
10.0
100.0
81
-------
TABLE 66
GROUNDWATER PROBLEMS
Wastewater
Application
Rates-in./day
<0.10
0.11-0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51-1.0
>1.0
No Data
Total
Communities (67)
No.
3
3
2
1
9
Yes
%
4.5
4.5
3.0
1.5
13.4
No.
9
9
10
5
3
16
52
No
%
13.4
13.4
14.9
7.5
4.5
23.9
77.6
Industries (20)
<0.10
0.10-0.25
0.26-0.50
0.51-1.0
>1.0
No Data
Total
1
2
1
1
1
6
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
30.0
6
6
1
13
30.0
30.0
5.0
65.0
No data re groundwater problems
2
No data re application rate
No Data1
No.
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
5.0
5.0
Handling of Excess Wastewater Over
two-thirds of the communities did not report
on the handling of surface runoff of excess
wastewater, generally because at the low
application rates, such flow does not occur.
Table 67, Disposal of Excess Wastewater from
Land Application Systems - On-Site Survey,
shows that 11 community systems and 2
industrial systems discharged their surplus
wastewaters to surface waters. The remaining
systems reapplied their excess wastewaters to
the application site. The methods employed
to collect and transport excess wastewaters
are not disclosed in the data from the on-site
survey. The only supplementary data available
from the mail survey relate to the use of
underdrain systems which have been
previously discussed.
Other Auxiliary Uses of the Land Application
Site Another aspect of system operations
involves uses of the land application site,
other than for the application of wastewaters.
These may be primary uses supplemented by
wastewater irrigation, or subsidiary uses that
exist because of wastewater irrigation. Table
68, Use of Land Application Areas - On-Site
Survey, shows that 55 percent of the
communities reported use of wastewater
disposal sites for farming and 45 percent
indicated use for grazing. One industrial site
reported auxiliary land use for grazing and
another for farming. Although 22 percent of
the communities reported uses other than
farming and grazing, only a few communities
indicated the nature of this "other" use.
Watering of golf courses is one of the
predominant "other" uses.
Land Application Site Security The function
of site security is to protect the wastewater
land application site from the public and also
to protect the public from the site, where
warranted. Approximately 55 percent of the
community and 50 percent of the industrial
land application sites are fenced. Table 69,
Security Arrangements at Land Application
Sites — On-Site Survey, shows that 55 and
50 percent of the community and industrial
systems, respectively, are accessible to the
public. The 46 percent of the community
systems with residences on the application
site corresponds to the 45 to 55 percent of
the community installations used for grazing
or farming.
82
-------
TABLE 67
DISPOSAL OF EXCESS WASTEWATER FROM LAND APPLICATION
SYSTEM - ON-SITE SURVEY
Number of Survey Reports
Disposal of No.
Excess Wastewater
Effluent used for
other purposes
Reapplied to disposal
area 3
Discharged to surface
waters 11
Effluent used for
other purposes
Reapplied to disposal
area 2
Discharged to surface
waters 2
Yes No
% No. %
Communities (67)
12 17.9
4.5 13 19.4
14.9 11 14.9
Industries (20)
No Information
No. %
55
51
45
82.1
76.1
67.2
10
10
17
15
12
85
75
60
3
3
6
15
15
30
TABLE 68
USE OF LAND APPLICATION AREAS - ON-SITE SURVEY
Land Use
Farming
Grazing
Other
Yes No
No. % No. %
Communities (67)
35 55.2 14 20.9
30 44.8 16 23.9
15 22.4 2 3.0
No Information
No. %
16
21
50
23.9
31.3
74.6
Industries (20)
Farming
Grazing
Other
1 5
1 5
15
16
1
75
80
5
4
3
19
20
15
95
83
-------
TABLE 69
SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS AT LAND APPLICATION
SITES-ON-SITE SURVEY
Number of Survey Reports
Security
Arrangements
Yes
No. %
No
No.
No
Information
% No. %
Communities (67)
Fenced
Patrolled
Posted
Residences on
Premises
Accessible to
Public
Other
Fenced
Patrolled
Posted
Residences on
Premises
Accessible to
Public
Other
37
11
23
31
26
10
2
3
2
12
55.2
16.4
34.3
46.3
38.8
50
10
15
10
60
26
52
40
30
37
62
Industries
9
17
16
17
7
19
38.8
77.6
59.7
44.8
55.2
92.5
(20)
45
85
80
85
35
95
4
4
4
6
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.9
6.0
7.5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Discussion The data from both the on-site
and mail surveys are in general agreement on
annual operating continuity. The majority of
community systems maintain year-round
operations, while industrial systems do not.
As pointed out in previous discussion of this
facet of application site management, many
of the industries investigated were canning
plants with seasonal operations. Partial-year
system operations range from two to eleven
months.
In terms of weekly operations,
approximately half of the systems operate on
a full-week basis and half do not. The
question of weekly operations was
investigated in terms of soil types, ground
covers, and wastewater flow The results of
these investigations must be termed
inconclusive, because the choice between 5 or
6 and 7 days of operation may be greatly
influenced by local personnel policies and
84
-------
practice. Investigation of weekly application
operations and average flows, however,
showed that those systems indicating less than
full-week irrigation generally had flows of
one mgd or less.
Nearly two-thirds of industrial
application sites are accessible to the public;
among communities, 39 percent allow public
access. On the other hand, 55 percent of the
community sites are fenced and half of the
industrial sites provide fencing.
Systems and Environmental Monitoring
and Performance
Monitoring Environmental and systems
monitoring involves wastewater analysis for
specific quality parameters and the analysis of
the various flora and fauna that can be
affected by land application processes.
Biochemical oxygen demand, suspended
solids and pH are the parameters most
commonly determined for both the
wastewater being transported to the land
application site and the groundwater
discharge from the site. Table 70,
Communities — Analysis of Wastewater to
Application Site and Effluent or
Groundwater-Discharge from Site by Climatic
Zone and Parameter — On-Site Survey,
indicates the sampling and testing parameters
employed under current practice at those
application sites which maintain testing
programs. The number of yes responses is
based on the number of systems located in
each climatic zone rather than the total
number of systems investigated. Analyses are
generally performed on the wastewater
effluents of treatment plants which are
transported to the application site. Few tests,
however, are performed on application system
effluents or groundwater discharges.
Wastewater and groundwater monitoring
occurs more extensively in Zones A and B
than in the other zones.
TABLE 70
COMMUNITIES-ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER TO APPLICATION SITE
AND EFFLUENT OR GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE FROM SITE BY
CLIMATIC ZONE AND PARAMETER - ON-SITE SURVEY
Waste
Parameter
No. in Region
No.
No.
Climatic Zone
D
%' No.
No.
25
23
9 8
Wastewater to Land Application
BOD
Suspended Solids
COD
PH
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorous
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Chloride
21
19
5
17
5
8
10
8
6
11
84.0
76.0
20.0
68.0
20.0
320
40.0
32.0
24.0
44.0
18
13
8
14
6
5
6
7
7
6
78.3
56.6
34.7
60.8
26 1
21.7
26.1
30.4
30.4
26.1
6
4
1
4
2
3
2
3
66.7
4.4
11.1
444
22.2
33.3
22.2
33.3
3
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
37.5
12.5
25.0
50.0
12.5
25.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
2
1
2
1
100.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
Effluent or Groundwater Discharge
BOD
Suspended Solids
COD
PH
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorous
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Chloride
16
15
6
12
2
6
4
11
3
9
64.0
60.0
24.0
48.0
8.0
24.0
160
44.0
12.0
36.0
5
4
2
6
3
1
2
2
1
21.7
17.4
8.7
26.1
13.0
4.3
8.7
8.7
4.3
I 11.1
1 11.1
2 22.2
1 11.1
1 11.1
1 11.1
1 11.1
I 25.0 1 50.0
12.5 1 50.0
12.5
I 25.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Total
No.
67
50
38
16
41
15
18
19
16
14
21
25
22
9
22
7
9
6
14
6
12
74.5
57.8
23.9
61.2
22.4
26.9
28.4
23.9
20.9
34.4
37.3
35.9
13.5
35.9
10.5
13.5
9.0
20.9
9.0
17.9
'Percent is based on "yes" responses for the region
85
-------
The wastewater and groundwater
monitoring practices for the industrial
systems are portrayed in Table 71,
Industry — Analysis of Wastewater to
Application Site and Parameter - On-Site
Survey. The comparison of community and
industrial monitoring programs shows minor
differences for the same regions. The number
of parameters investigated for the industrial
wastewaters of Zone D and for the
community wastewaters of Zone E were
limited. Industrial systems reported somewhat
more effluent or groundwater discharge
monitoring. This increased industrial site
monitoring places greater emphasis on
suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand
and chlorides than do the corresponding
community systems. It was found, however,
that one or two community and industrial
systems in each of Zones C, D and E account
for the analysis of the additional parameters
other than biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand
and pH.
Table 72, Environmental Monitoring at
Land Application Areas - On-Site Survey,
indicates that little difference exists between
community and industrial systems in
percentages of installations which use test
wells and monitor the soil, groundwater,
vegetation and other environmental factors.
A review of 122 community and
industrial land application systems covered by
the mail survey discloses that test wells occur
in only 11 of these systems, or 9 percent. A
recapitulation of the mail survey data on test
wells appears in Table 73, Use of Test Wells at
Land Application Sites — Mail Survey.
TABLE 71
INDUSTRY-ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER TO APPLICATION SITE
PARAMETER - ON-SITE SURVEY
Waste
Parameter
No. in Region
BOD
Suspended Solids
COD
PH
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorous
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Chloride
No.
Climatic Zone
D
No. %
No.
1 10
Wastewater to Land Application
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
5
4
5
71.4
57.3
71.4
50.0
4
4
2
3
1
3
3
1
1
36.0
36.0
18.0
27.0
9.0
27.0
27.0
9.0
9.0
Total
No.
20
10
9
3
9
2
4
4
1
2
50.0
45.0
15.0
45.0
10.0
20.0
20.0
5.0
10.0
Effluent or Groundwater Discharge
BOD
Suspended Solids
COD
PH
Fecal Coliform
Phosphorous
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Chloride
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
1 50.0
3
5
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
43.0
71.4
28.6
57.3
28.6
28.6
28.6
28.6
28.6
43.0
5
5
4
5
1
1
2
2
1
45.0
45.0
36.0
45.0
9.0
9.0
18.0
18.0
9.0
9
11
7
10
4
4
5
5
3
5
45.0
55.0
35.0
50.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
25.0
15.0
25.0
Percent based on "yes" responses for region
86
-------
TABLE 72
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AT LAND APPLICATION
AREAS - ON-SITE SURVEY
Type of
Monitoring
Test Well
Influent
Effluent
Soil
Groundwater
Vegetation
Animal and Insect
Other
Number of Survey Reports
Yes
No.
No
No.
Communities (67)
No
Information
No. %
18
27
31
6
14
7
9
4
23.9
40.3
46.4
9.0
20.9
10.5
13.5
6.0
31
20
22
28
24
27
27
22
46.4
29.8
32.8
41.8
35.8
40.3
40.3
31.8
18
20
14
33
29
33
31
41
26.9
29.8
21.9
49.4
43.4
49.4
46.4
61.3
Industries (20)
Test Well
Influent
Effluent
Soil
Groundwater
Vegetation
Animal and Insect
Other
5
9
8
4
4
2
1
1
25
45
40
20
20
10
5
5
11
9
7
11
12
13
15
12
55
45
35
55
60
65
75
60
4
2
5
5
4
5
4
7
20
10
25
25
20
25
20
35
Other than influent and effluent
monitoring, 22 percent of the community
systems and 20 percent of the industry
systems monitor groundwater. Soils analyses
are carried out at 20 percent of the industrial
systems. Table 74, Land Application Area
Monitoring by Climatic Zone — On-Site
Survey, shows some regional differences, as
well as community and industry differences.
The limited number of positive responses,
however, indicates that environmental
monitoring is generally not practiced at land
application sites. Where monitoring is being
performed, adverse impacts have not been
noted.
All phases of site are influenced by the
policies and practices of state and local local
health agencies and water pollution control
agencies in the regulation of wastewater land
application stems. The interest of these
agencies on one hand, can reflect their
concern for some of the potential problems
that can develop among improperly operated
systems — public health hazards, pollutional
problems, nuisance effects, etc. The
involvement of these agencies would indicate
an effort to monitor and periodically inspect
wastewater land application facilities. Table
75, Summary of Public Health Agency
Involvement - On-Site Survey, indicates the
number of community and industrial systems
which reported that they were subject to state
and local health restrictions. Of 67
community systems, approximately half
indicated that they operate under public
health restrictions and half did not. The
industry systems reported that 80 percent
operated without public health restrictions
and only 15 percent reported such
restrictions.
87
-------
Discussion The existing programs of systems
and environmental monitoring show wide
variances in the types of quality and other
parameters monitored and evaluated in
influent wastewaters, effluent wastewaters,
soils, and groundwaters. Biochemical oxygen
deman, suspended solids and pH are the
parameters most frequently investigated for
influent and effluent wastewaters and
groundwaters among the communities
studied. Industrial systems monitoring
practices stress suspended solids, chemical
oxygen demand and chloride levels. In all
cases, less than half oof the community and
industrial systems make any consistent effort
to maintain environmental and systems
monitoring programs which reflect influent
quality, soils, vegetation, animal and insect
life, effluent quality, groundwater quality and
any other impacts of the land application
process.
Performance of Existing Systems
The performance of land application
systems can be determined in a variety of
TABLE 73
USE OF TEST WELLS AMONG LAND
APPLICATION SITES - MAIL SURVEY
Test Wells Exist
Test Wells Don't Exist
No Data
Total
Number of
Systems
11
16
95
122
Percentage
9.0
13.1
77.9
ways. Satisfaction on the part of the
operating agencies provides one such measure.
Perhaps the most telling demonstration of
current experience with land application
systems is the intention of owners of existing
installations to continue or enlarge them.
Seventy five percent of industries plan to
continue use of their present land application
facilities. A summary of plans for existing
application systems appears in Table 76, Plans
for Land Application Systems by Climatic
TABLE 74
LAND APPLICATION AREA MONITORING BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Type of A
iMcnitoring No. %' No.
No. of Communities 25 - 23
Test Wells 8 32.0 1
Influent 20 80.0 3
Etfluent 19 76.0 4
Soil 2
Groundwater 8 32.0
Vegetation 3 12.0 1
Animal and Insects 7 28.0 1
Other 1 4.0 1
Number and Percent of "Yes" Replies by Climatic Zone
B
%'
No.
C
%'
No.
D E
%' No.
Communities
-
4.4
13.0
17.4
8.7
4.4
4.4
4.4
9
5
2
5
3
4
2
-
55.6
22.2
55.6
33.3
444
22.2
8
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
_ 2
37.5 1
25.0
37.5
12.5
25.0
12.5
12.5
25.0
50.0
Tola]
No.
67
18
27
31
6
14
7
9
4
23.9
40.3
46.4
9.0
21.9
10.5
13.5
6.0
No. of Industries
Test Wells
Influent
Effluent
Soil
Groundwater
Vegetation
Animal and Insect
Other
Industries
2
2
2
1
1
1
-
100.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
7
2
4
3
1
1
1
-
28.6
57.3
43.0
14.3
14.3
14.3
11
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
-
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
18.0
9.0
9.0
20
5
9
8
4
4
2
1
1
25.0
45.0
40.0
200
20.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
1 Percent is based on number of survey reports in the region
-------
TABLE 75
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY
INVOLVEMENT - ON-SITE SURVEY
Communities
No. %
56.7
31.3
12.0
Yes
No
No Data
Total
38
21
8
67
Industries
No. %
15.0
80.0
5.0
3
16
1
20
Zone - On-Site Survey. It shows that
approximately 46 percent of the communities
and 20 percent of the industries plan to
expand their systems. The fact that the
owners of over 90 percent of the community
and 95 percent of industry land application
systems plan to continue or expand their
installations, indicates that the process and its
performance are considered to be a
satisfactory solution for wastewater
management problems. Twenty-seven percent
of the communities covered by the mail
survey plan to continue the use of land
application and approximately 47 percent
plan to increase their operations. Among the
industries, 61 percent plan to continue, but
only 19 percent plan expansion. Only 3.3
percent of all the systems studied report that
their land application operations will be
reduced or abandoned. The mail survey
confirms that a strong measure of satisfaction
with the performance of land application has
developed among the owners of the systems
investigated. These data are presented in
Table 77, Future Plans for Existing Land
Application Systems — Mail Survey.
The proximity of residential and other
land uses to the effluent application sites also
provides another measure of system
performance. The relatively close proximity
of other land uses to continuing site
operations indirectly suggests that these
systems have no or minimal environmental
and nuisance effects on the local areas. Table
78, Distance from Land Application Site to
Nearest Residence by Climatic
Zone — On-Site Survey, shows the proximity
of application site to residential uses.
Forty-nine percent of the community and 35
percent of the industrial systems reported
that the nearest residence is located within
500 feet of their sites. An additional 27
percent of the communities and 35 percent of
the industries reported that the nearest
residence is between 500 and 1500 feet from
sites. The fact that residences are located
within 0.3 miles of community and industry
land application systems concurs with the
residential or farm zoning of contiguous areas.
Despite this close proximity, 32 percent of
industries which reported on this phase of
land application reported no odor complaints.
TABLE 76
PLANS FOR LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone
Plans For
Existing Systems
No.
No. of Communities
Expand
Continue
Abandon
No Plans
No Data
Total
25
12
11
1
1
25
48.0
44.0
40
No.
23
13
9
1
23
56.6
39.1
4.3
No. of Industries
Expand
Continue
No Data
Total
1 Percentages are of number Of facilities In climatic zone
No.
1
9
%' No.
Communities
33.3
55.6
11.1
Industries
2 - 7
100
37.5
50.0
12.5
6 85.7
1 14.3
7
No.
11
4
7
50.0
50.0
36.4
63.6
55.0
Total
No.
67
31
30
1
1
4
67
20
4
15
1
20
46.3
44.7
1.5
1.5
5.0
20.0
75.0
5.0
89
-------
TABLE 77
FUTURE PLANS FOR EXISTING LAND APPLICATION
SYSTEMS - MAIL SURVEY
Future Hans
Expand
Continue
Decrease
Abandon
No plans
No data
Total
Communities
No. %
40 46.5
23
1
3
1
18
86
26.7
1.2
3.5
1.2
20.9
Industries
No. %
7 19.4
22 61.1
1
6
36
2.8
16.7
Totals
No.
47
%
38.5
45
1
3
2
24
36.9
0.8
2.5
1.6
19.7
122
TABLE 78
DISTANCE FROM LAND APPLICATION SITE TO NEAREST RESIDENCE
BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Distance to
Residence
(ft)
Less than 500
500-1,500
1,500-5,000
Over 5,000
No Data
No.
A
%'
No.
B
%
No.
Climatic Zone
C D
% No. %
Communities (67)
13
6
3
1
2
52.0
240
12.0
4.0
8.0
14
4
3
2
60.9
17.4
13.0
8.7
3
2
2
1
1
33.4
22.2
22.2
11.1
11.1
2
3
1
1
1
25.0
37.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Total
Less than 500
500-1,500
1,500-5,000
Over 5,000
No Data
Total
25
23
Industries (20)
2 10.0
10.0
14.3
71.4
14.3
No. %
1 50.0
1 50.0
4
2
3
2
11
36.4
18.2
27.2
18.2
Total
No. %
33
15
9
3
7
67
7
7
1
3
2
20
49.2
27.3
13.5
4.5
10.5
35.0
35.0
5.0
15.0
10.0
Percentages are of facilities surveyed by climatic 7one
90
-------
Systems Zoning, Land Values, Capital
Investment, Operating and
Maintenance Costs
Zoning Farming represents the most common
zoning land-use for community and industrial
land applicaton sites and adjacent areas.
Regional summaries of the zoning of
community land application sites and
adjacent areas appear in Table 79, Zoning of
Community Land Application Facilities and
Adjacent Areas by Climatic Zone - On-Site
Survey. Zone D shows the only regional
zoning difference, with 5 of 9 land
application sites and adjacent areas zoned for
residential use. The corresponding summary
of industrial system zoning, Table 80, Zoning
of Industrial Land Application Facilities and
Adjacent Areas by Climatic Zone — On-Site
Survey, shows that farm zoning applies to
most industrial application sites and adjacent
areas.
Land Values Land value involves the dollar
values placed upon the properties used for
land application. Table 81, Comparison of
Application Site Land Value to
Population — Mail Survey, presents the
available data for 86 community and 36
industrial systems, listed in terms of
population and application site land value.
Generally, 57 percent of the community
systems and 25 percent of the industrial
systems studied did not report land values.
Among the communities, 16 percent reported
land values of $500 per acre or less; this
amounts to 38 percent of the reports which
quoted land value; 24 percent reported values
at $1,000 per acre or less; this represents 57
percent of the reports which quoted land
value. In similar manner, the industrial
systems in 22 percent of the systems
studied — 30 percent of the reports which
quoted land values — are located on property
valued at $500 per acre or less, and 59
percent of the total systems studies — 78
percent of the reports providing land value
data — are located on property valued at
$ 1,000 per acre or less. While some systems
use land valued in excess of $2,000 per acre,
these occur infrequently. From the foregoing,
it appears that land application systems have
usually been located on low-value land.
The on-site survey shows that the value of
application site land does not vary from the
value of adjacent property in most cases. A
tabulation of this information appears as
Table 82, Value of Land Application Site and
Adjacent Property — On-Site Survey. A
further summary of these data is presented in
Table 83, Summary of Adjacent Land Values
Compared to Application Site Land
Values - On-Site Survey.
Three community and industrial systems
reported a higher value per acre for the land
application site than for contiguous lands, and
three community and industrial systems
reported a higher value for adjacent property.
Operation and Maintenance
Expense Operating and Maintenance expense
data for 30 of 67 community and 10 of 19
industrial systems appear in Table 84,
Operating and Maintenance Expense by
Climatic Zone — On-Site Survey. Twenty-one
of the communities and 9 of the industries
reported operation and maintenance expenses
of less than $50,000 per year. Unfortunately,
the data are too limited to warrant their
interpretation to operating periods in days or
months or to waste water flows. It was
apparent that land application costs are often
included within the expense structure for the
entire wastewater treatment operation. No
additional supplementary data were deducible
from the mail survey on land application
operations and maintenance expense.
Discussion Land application facilities are
located most frequently in relatively
undeveloped areas, although some commercial
and residential areas have been used.
Generally, the land values associated with
these facilities reflect this fact; a large percent
of the systems reported land values of $500
per acre or less. The assumption that land
application systems are located on marginal
lands that have low value for other uses is
confirmed by the fact that, in most cases, the
value of adjacent properties does not differ
significantly from that of the land used for
application sites. Relative isolation and
availability of necessary acreage appear to be
the motivating factors in land application site
selection. The initial selection of the waste
treatment plant sites may have been induced
by the same reason. Most land application
facilities are located near the treatment plant.
Capital investment costs for land
application could not be distinguished from
91
-------
TABLE 79
ZONING OF COMMUNITY LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES1 AND
ADJACENT AREA BY CLIMATIC ZONE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Zoning
Classification
Residential
Industrial
Farm
Green Belt
Other
No Data
Total
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Farm
Green Belt
Other
No Data
Total
A
2
6
14
1
3
1
27
2
2
1
17
1
4
27
B
Land
3
1
15
7
7
33
6
2
4
14
1
3
3
33
Climatic
C
Zone
D E
Application Facilities
3
5
1
9
Adjacent Area
1
1
3
3
1
9
5
1
2 1
1
8 2
5
1
2
1
1
8 2
Total
No.
13
8
37
1
11
9
79
14
4
7
36
1
8
9
79
%
16.4
10.1
46.9
1.3
13.9
11.4
17.7
5.1
8.9
45.5
1.3
10.1
11.4
Some facilities reported more than one zoning classification
TABLE 80
ZONING OF INDUSTRIAL
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES1
AND ADJACENT AREAS BY CLIMATIC ZONE
ON-SITE SURVEY
Climatic Zone Total
Zoning
Classification
Industrial
Farm
Other
No Data
Total
Residential
Commercial
Farm
Green Belt
Other
No Data
Total
C
Land
1
1
2
1
1
2
D
Application
1
4
1
2
8
E
Facilities
1
10
2
1
14
No.
3
14
3
4
24
Adjacent Areas
1
1
5
1
1
8
11
2
1
14
1
11
5
3
3
24
%
12.5
58.3
12.5
16.7
4.2
4.2
45.8
20.8
12.5
12.5
Some industries reported more than one zoning classification
92
-------
TABLE 81
COMPARISON OF APPLICATION SITE LAND VALUE TO POPULATION - MAIL SURVEY
0-5
Community Population (x 1,000)
>5-10 MO-25 >25-50
Land Value
$/Acre
0-500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
>2,000
No Data
Total
No.
11
2
3
5
33
54
%
12.8
2.3
3.5
5.8
38.3
62.8
No.
2
2
5
6
15
%
2.3
2,3
5.8
7.0
17.5
No.
1
3
1
5
10
%
1.2
3.5
1.2
5.8
11.6
No. %
2 2.3
2 2.3
Industrial Population Equivalents (x 1,000)
0-500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
>2,000
No Data
Total
2
4
1
2
1
10
5.6
11.1
2.8
5.6
2.8
27.8
1
1
1
1
4
2.8
2.8
28
2.8
11.1
2
5
1
1
9
5.6
13.9
2.8
2.8
25.0
1
1
2
2.8
2.8
5.6
MOO
No.
1.2
1.2
2.4
No Data
No. °,
2
2
1
6
11
3.5
5.6
5.6
2.8
11.7
30.5
Total
No.
14
7
4
12
49
86
13
3
3
9
36
16.3
8.1
4.6
14.0
57.0
22.2
36.2
8.3
8.3
25.0
TABLE 82
VALUE OF LAND APPLICATION SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTY - ON-SITE SURVEY
Adjacent Property S/Acre
500-1,000 1,000-2,000 Over 2,000
Less than
Land
Disposal
Site S/Acre
Less than 500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
Over 2,000
No Data
Total
No.
9
2
11
500
%
13.4
3.0
16.4
Less than 500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
No Data
Total
No.
11
16.4
16.4
35
5
40
No. %
Communities
No.
3.0
7.5
1.5
12.0
Industries
1 5
8 40 15
9 45 15
No Data
No. %
Total
10
10
No.
11
4
15
16.4
6.0
22.4
1
2
19
22
1.5
3.0
28.3
32.8
9
16
5
13
24
67
13.4
23.9
7.5
19.4
35.8
9
1
2
20
40
45
5
10
93
-------
TABLE 83
SUMMARY OF ADJACENT LAND VALUES
COMPARED TO APPLICATION SITE LAND
VALUES - ON-SITE SURVEY
Value of Application
Site/Adjacent Area
$/Acre
Less than 500/
less than 500
Percent Reporting
Equal Land Values
Communities Industries
82
88
500 - 1,000/
500- 1,000
100
89
1,000-2,000/
1,000 - 2,000
63
100
Over 2,000/
Over 2,000
73
(Percentage is based only on number of communities
reporting land value in each category.)
TABLE 84
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE BY CLIMATIC ZONE
ON-SITE SURVEY
Operating
and Maintenance
Budget - S
Less than 25,000
25,000-50,000
51,000-75,000
76,000-100,000
101,000-250,000
Over 250,000
No Data
Total
No.
A
%
No.
B
%
No.
C
%
D E
No. % No. %
Communities
1
3
1
2
2
1
15
25
1.5
4.5
1.5
30
30
1.5
22.4
7
1
1
1
13
23
104
1.5
1.5
1.5
19.4
2
2
S
9
3.0
3.0
7.4
3 4.5 2 3.0
1 1.5
4 5.9
8 2
Less than 25,000
25,000-50,000
51,000-75,000
76,000-100,000
101,000-250,000
Over 250,000
No Data
Total
Industries
10.5
10.5
5.3
6 31.6
1 5.3
4 i8.4
II
Total
No.
15
6
2
3
3
1
37
67
10
20
14.4
8.7
2.8
4.3
4.3
1.4
63.7
42.1
5.3
5.3
50.0
94
-------
total costs for treatment and other related
facilities. In terms of operations and
maintenance expenses, the majority of
systems which reported indicated
expenditures of less than $50,000 per year.
Thus, in most cases, the costs of constructing
and operating land applicaton facilities are
relatively low in comparison with the costs of
construction, equipment and operations for
advanced treatemtn processes.
Miscellaneous System Benefits
The principal thrust of the foregoing
evaluation of land application practices has
dealt with the many factors that enter into
the design, operation, monitoring and costs of
such systems. Another area of interest
concerning some of the previously unspecified
benefits from wastewater application remains
to be investigated.
The discussion of costs touched upon the
question of land values. Importantly, the
relative value of land application sites was
found to be consistent with the value of
adjacent properties. Thus, the land
application site may represent an asset subject
to appreciation or depreciation at an equal
rate to surrounding property should it be
feasible in the future to adopt another means
of treatment.
The use of wastewater in irrigation
provides another benefit or asset, in terms of
the crops grown and their actual value. On
one hand, wastewater irrigation provides some
degree of crop or forest enhancement due to
its nutrient value. An obvious degree of crop
enhancement must derive from a consistently
available source of irrigation water. Table 85,
Wastewater Irrigated Crop Types - On-Site
Survey, defines the types of crops irrigated
with wastewater. Cereals were reported to be
the major crop type, representing 47 percent
of the total irrigated acreage available. Within
the cereals group, corn is grown on 30 percent
of the available acreage. Feeds are irrigated on
24 percent of the available acreage, and alfalfa
alone represents 23 percent. Alfalfa occurs
most frequently — planted on 19 of 93
separate application sites. Wastewater is also
used to irrigate fruit, vegetables, fiber crops,
grasses, pasturage and flowers. In addition,
the use of irrigation in forested areas enhances
lumber yields and also produces intangible
benefits in terms of silvan aesthetics.
No dollar value figures can be deduced
for specific crops or for any crop yields
associated specifically with wastewater
irrigation crop enhancement. Non-specific
dollar values do exist for irrigation site usage.
These appear in Table 86, Comparison of
Annual Dollar Return to Irrigated Site
Acreage - On-Site Survey. The 14 reporting
systems indicated an annual return of up to
$100 per acre or more. Almost 86 percent of
the systems reporting realize a yield of $50
per acre or less, and less than 30 percent
realize a yield of $5 per acre or less. Effective
land management should be able to provide
an annual site yield of $50 per acre or higher.
Recreational opportunities represents
another important benefit of the use of
wastewater irrigation. Table 87, Recreational
Uses Associated with Land
Application -On-Site Survey, indicate some
of the current recreational uses of wastewater
irrigation. Of a total of 67 communities, 66
percent obtain no recreational returns, while
only one industry (5%) derived any such
advantage. The major recreational use is for
golf courses, wildlife refuges, and hunting and
fishing. Golf course irrigation is practiced by
18 percent of the systems; and hunting and
fishing occur only in 5 percent of the
community systems reporting.
Discussion Miscellaneous returns or benefits
are derived from land application. The
benefits or assets include accrued or enhanced
land values, crop production, silviculture and
horticulture growths, and, finally, recreational
uses. In terms of site land values, the
representations of the discussion on system
costs were reiterated to confirm the fact that
site land values do not suffer as a result of
land application. If anything, these land
values will increase in the long term.
A wide variety of crops are irrigated with
wastewater. The majority of these crops are
cereals that are usually subject to some form
of processing prior to consumption. Animal
feeds represent the next most common type
of wastewater-irrigated crop.
95
-------
TABLE 85
WASTEWATER IRRIGATED CROP TYPES - ON-SITE SURVEY
(140,000 Acres)
Number of % of Total
Crop Type Sites Planted Acres Grown Irrigated Acreage
Total Each Total Each Total Each
Animal Feeds 22 33,882 24.2
Alfalfa 19 32,765 23.4
Hay 2 1,117 0.8
Fodder 1
Cereals 38 66,170 47.3
Corn 11 41,520 29.7
Barley 4 730 0.5
Maize 5 100 0.1
Millet 2
Oats 5
Sorghum 3 40 0
Wheat 7 23,780 17.0
Rye 1
Fruits 4 92 0.0
Apples 1
Citrus 2 72
Grapes 1 20
Row Crops 4 5,500 3.9
Tomatoes 1 3,700 2.6
Chili Peppers 1 1,850 1.3
Miscellaneous 2
Fiber Crops 9 825 0.6
Cotton 8 825 0.6
Kenaff 1
Grasses 12 1,420 1.0
Bahia 1
Bermuda 4 425 0.3
Fescue 1 70
Sudan 1
Milo 5 925 0.7
Pasturage 2 1,000 0.7
Flowers 1 240 0.2
Miscellaneous 1 12,710 9.1
Unspecified 18,167 13.0
Totals 93 140,006 100
96
-------
TABLE 86
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL DOLLAR RETURN TO
IRRIGATED SITE ACREAGE - ON-SITE SURVEY
Annual
Acres Irrigated
50-200 200-1,000
Yield in
S/Acre
0-5
5-10
10-25
25-50
50-100
>100
10-50
1
1
1
> 1,000
2
1
Total
4
1
3
3
3
2
Total
16
TABLE 87
RECREATIONAL USE ASSOCIATED
WITH LAND APPLICATION
ON-SITE SURVEY
Recreational
Use
Golf
Hunting and/or
Fishing
Park and
Picnic Area
Other
No Data
None
Communities
No.
12
3
1
7
44
%
17.9
4.5
1.5
10.4
65.7
Industries
No.
1
1
18
%
5.0
5.0
90.0
Totals
67
20
Annual dollar yields on irrigation sites
from land rentals and crop returns in most of
the systems approach a level of $50 per acre
or less. The most common recreational uses
associated with land application are golf and
hunting and fishing. These represent
intangible returns that defy definition in
terms of associated money values.
Bibliographic Review
A large body of technical literature on
various aspects of the land application of
wastewater and sludge has been collected as a
part of the study. A bibliography of the
literature was prepared. An intensive search of
all available sources covering this subject was
made. Extensive use was made of
bibliographies prepared by the Texas Water
Quality Control Board, The California
Department of Water Quality, and
publications of USEPA.
The bibliographers found a great wealth
of information in various forms and on
various aspects of land application.
This broad and often bewildering array of
technical-scientific data may be a liability,
rather than an asset, for researchers who are
seeking specific guidance on any definitive
facet of the multi-disciplinary and
multi-purpose subjects involved. The task, in
such circumstance, is to screen and classify all
available bibliographic material and to select
from the mass those matters of moment
which will add to the fund of knowledge
pertinent to the subject of this research
project.
The bibliographic search revealed the fact
that wastewater application to land areas
involves many disciplines, many physical
factors, and numberous specialized scientific
authorities. The subjects involved relate,
specifically, to the process of applying
moisture to soils and, non-specifically, to
related and semi-related principles and
practices. Over 430 items of literature were
examined.
The interdisciplinary involvements in land
application of wastewaters are impressive. The
subjects represented a compendium of
knowledge that covers the total spectrum of
sciences which involve: Branches of
97
-------
engineering, chemistry, biochemistry, biology,
bacteriology, virology, physics, climatology,
agronomy, animal husbandry, limnology,
minerology, public health, economics,
geology, medicine, pathology, and other
specilized fields.
Involved in the literature on this subject
are such matters as those relating to the
management of agricultural yields, methods
of irrigation, meteorology, dairy herds, food
processing, water supply sources and their
protection, water pollution control, treatment
of sewage and industrial wastes, and others.
Each has a bearing on the feasibility,
workability and applicability of the land
application process.
Many other studies of land application of
wastewaters have been carried out prior to the
current research project reported in this
document, and other investigations are now
underway under the auspices of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or other
entities. All researchers have found it
necessary to prepare similar literature search
data.
Therefore, it has been deemed advisable
to prepare one single master bibliographic
reference, entitled Land Application of
Sewage Effluents and Sludges, Selected
Abstracts, into which all of the investigating
agencies can coordinate their individual
reference searches. This report will be
available from the USEPA in late 1973.
The American Public Works Association is
pleased to have had the opportunity to
contribute its bibliographic efforts, as
described above, to this composite effort.
This consolidation of all current bibliographic
work into one record will add to the value of
this reference document and avoid the
confusion and duplications which separate
reference lists would cause.
-------
SECTION IV
SURVEY OF OPINIONS AND REGULATIONS
OF STATE HEALTH AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
ON THE APPLICATION OF WASTEWATERS ON LAND AREAS
State regulatory agencies, traditionally,
have maintained control over water resources
which are utilized for public water supply
purposes, body-contact recreation, the
spawning and propagation of fish and
shellfish, refuge for wildlife, industrial
processing, and other multi-purpose uses. This
has involved these state agencies in regulatory
procedures affecting the use of water
resources as the recipients of wastewaters
from points of pollution and non-point
pollution sources. While earlier regulatory
practices were limited to surface water
sources, broader and more comprehensive
definitions of "public waters" are now in
effect. Under this broader concept of what
constitutes water resources, the quality of
groundwaters has become a concern of the
states.
More recent concern over the total
environment has added further dimension to
the sphere of control undertaken by both
State Health Departments and Water
Pollution Control Agencies. In this
connection, the duality of land resources and
water resources has been recognized and more
rigid control over the use of land areas for the
disposal of the wastes of man's life and living
processes has been invoked. To add to this
dual land-water concept, the inevitable
relationship between land, water and air
resources has come under state regulatory
concern and surveillance. This concept of the
linkage of water, land and air is based on the
incontrovertible physical principle that what
is done to affect or protect one resource will
affect the usefulness and safety of the others
to serve as safe environments for man and his
functions.
If the alternative method of managing
wastewater effluents by application on land
areas is to become more universally utilized
by municipalities and industries it must
receive more specific consideration by state
health and natural resources authorities than
it is now given. The fact that the one
thousand and more land application sites now
in service in the United States have received
minimal regulatory control in the past
emphasizes the need for a greater recognition
of the problem and a consequent increase in
regulatory control in the future.
In order to determine the extent of
current regulatory practices and to ascertain
those facets of the problem which are being
stressed or disregarded, two inquiries were
instituted: one addressed to State Health
Departments, and the other to State Water
Pollution Control Agencies. The findings are
presented in the two tabulations which
follow.
The survey by mail of the policies of
health agencies definitively addressed itself to
the question of the safety of wastewater
effluents discharged onto land areas, in terms
of disinfection and freedom from toxic
contaminants and organisms of the coliform
group, and to the disposition of forage, crops
and silviculture growths produced on and/or
harvested from these land areas.
The survey of opinions and policies of
water pollution control agencies involved
broader-based environmental matters; they
related to actual guidelines for design,
construction, operation and control of land
application systems and the official
requirements covering influent wastewater
quality, and safety provisions.
State Health Policies
The survey of health agency policies must
be characterized as merely symbolic of
national practices since only 30 states
responded to the fact-finding inquiry. Only
five states indicated that official regulations
governing irrigation with wastewaters are in
effect: Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, New
Mexico and Texas. With land application now
viewed as a possible alternative method of
wastewater management, based on a rational
99
-------
interpretation of the 1972 Amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
other states may find it necessary to invoke
statutory standards or rules and regulations to
govern this method of effluent management.
Only four states, Arizona, Arkansas, New
Mexico and Texas, indicated that they have
rules governing the types of crops approved
for wastewater irrigated lands. Such crops
range from "forage only" to "all types."
Texas regulations demonstrate concern over
consumption of raw crops from
wastes-contact areas. The state limits crops to
those not consumed in the raw state.
The few states which invoke crop
restrictions of any nature also specify the
quality of effluent applied to the land.
In addition to the states which have
established effluent quality criteria and
crop-control procedures, other states
expressed concern over wastewater
applications which are not disinfected by
adequate chlorination. They stated their
concomitant disfavor for the consumption of
crops grown on such lands. In specific cases,
the attitude of health officials can be summed
up as discouraging the harvesting of crops for
human consumption.
Table 88, Survey of Wastewater
Irrigation, State Public Health Regulations,
lists replies by individual states. Also
contained in this section are examples of
regulatory documents issued by Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Texas and the "Ten
States" of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi
Basin, as Exhibits I through V.
State Water Pollution
Control Agency Policies
The survey of policies of water pollution
control agencies was slightly more productive,
but the limited number of agencies which
offered any specific evidences of official
concern for land application systems revealed
that they had not yet found the relevancy of
this process because of the infrequency of use
in some areas and their inability to consider
the related problems with the limited staffs
available in their agencies.
The following listing of commentaries on
various matters covered by the survey
questionnaire, received from approximately
27 state agencies, clearly indicates the lack of
information upon which to base any cogent
conclusions on state policies.
Phase of Land
Application Practices
Statutes and Codes/Design
Criteria/Staff Standards
Effluent Pretreatment
Requirements
Extinction between Sewage
and Industrial Wastes
Control of Effluent Quality
Applied to Land
Storage of Applied
Effluent Required
Standby Acreage Required
Buffer Zones Required
Area Protection Required
Safety and Safeguard
Requirements
Seasonal Variations
Recognized
Design Guidelines
Number of Positive
State Replies
7
7
4
4
3
2
2
3
Table 89, State Water Pollution Control
Agency Responses, lists replies by individual
states. The survey requested comments on
land application practices and potentials, in
the hope that such views would indicate what
policies and regulations might be expected in
the future. The comments, though few in
numbers, were somewhat revealing.
Paraphrased, they can be expressed in the
following words:
'No problem; the only requirements
would be to protect water supplies'
'Consider land application as an
experimental procedure'
'No objection if properly controlled'
'Can be used under specific conditions'
'Concerned with health and nuisance
hazards'
'Not viewed as a suitable method of
disposal for raw or treated wastes'
'Each proposal must be considered as a
separate case, on its own merits'
'Several systems being considered'
100
-------
TABLE 88
SURVEY OF WASTEWATER IRRIGATION-STATE PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS
Comments
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Regulations
Governing
Wastewater
Irrigation
None
None
Yes
Wastewater
Products
Considered
Treated domestic
Type of
Crop
Specified
All
Wastewater
Quality
Limits
Specified
None
None
Yes
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Yes
Yes
None
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
Not
permitted
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
New Hampshire None
New Mexico Yes
New York
Pennslyvania
None
None
South Carolina None
South Dakota None
Tennessee None
effluent
a. Treated domestic Forage
effluents
b. Treated
industrial sludges
None
Yes
None
None
Secondary effluent
+Related domestic
and industrial
effluent
All
Yes
None
Wastewater is generally
discouraged and is
approved only with
close supervision
Chlorination required
Would look with dis-
favor on use on crop.
May be some possibil-
ities for use on forest
areas
Guidelines issued in 1972
Should not be used on
food crops, especially
those eaten "raw"
Chlorination required
unless lagoon storage
for 100 days
Chlorination required
Require Chlorination.
Each installation must
have a specific permit
None
101
-------
TABLE 88 - Continued
State
Texas
Vermont
Regulations
Governing
Wastewater
Irrigation
Yes
Wastewater
Products
Considered
Treated domestic
effluents
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
None
None
None
None
Type of
Crop
Specified
All crops
except
foods
consumed
raw
Wastewater
Quality
Limits
Specified
BOD-20 ppm-SS5-30 ppm
MPNSO/LOOm
Cl residual of 2-5 ppm
for 20 min. Contact
period immediately
prior to application
Comments
Staff recommendations
formulated by the
Division of Wastewater
Technology and Surveillance,
Texas State Department of
Health
Do not encourage use.
Can be placed on fields
and corn crops if plowed
under within 48 hours
Individual permit
required
None
Evaluated on an
individual basis
'Mountainous terrain discourages use of
this method of disposal'
'Encourage use of well-treated effluents
for pastures, wheat and cotton, but not
raw crops'
'Short-staffed and cannot regulate land
application installations.1
This survey of the opinions and policies
of state regulatory agencies on important
facets of the land application process has
shown that most states have, as yet, not come
to grips with this alternative method of
managing wastewaters effluents. This lack of
definitive policies needs no defense; state
agencies have been so deeply involved in the
control of pollution resulting from the
treatment of sewage and industrial wastes and
the discharge of effluents of various qualities
into surface water sources, that little time and
staff personnel have been available to regulate
land applicaton systems which have been
limited in numbers and environmental impact.
The inferences of the 1972 amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
will make more rigid evaluation of the
methods and performance of land application
systems essential, if the measure of reliability
and capabilities of land application is to be
properly assessed.
It was noted that many state agencies
tended to conduct a demonstration project
within their jurisdiction in order that an
individual assessment of the effects of land
application might be judged. Table 90, Partial
List of Demonstration Projects Involving
Land Application of Effluent or Sludge, lists
the various studies which were disclosed by
the survey investigations.
102
-------
o
a.
tf
u
w
o
OS
H
P
_J
O
a.
oi
w
w
<
w:
00 ,
W P
ta O
< W
oo fc
O3
Z
o
35 W
^
So
a O
Q<
00 <
35 3
oa
i/> a5
H t
il
Q 03
< W
J"T] [V|
g|
05 M
a. 35
s w
B5
o
Z
o S
*.£*•£
O 3 £
o c S &
*- ^ o 3
o
z
0
Z
o o
•OT3
^ —
° ° 0 3 C
ZU o a-0
G o.^ ^J
OM — . o
3 C i>
CO C/} U tin
oo
<
>-J Qj
.
-^ T3 ^ c
s3§!
O
Z
nil
0.3 "3
342
o iso
zi
O
0 -0
oaa
Q Z
« —. —
^O o
cioa cj
0.-. t- ^ *"
_ C r u 3
2 O C. a a
< a-
,
acai
103
-------
I OFFICIAL COMMENTS
or
01*
tL
E
H
O
1
Z
0
55
w
Q
35
w
z
, ]
k-^
u,
Q
5
O
.c,
fa
X
H
o
O
z
OS
o
H
z
o
en
c/:
<;
as
^
0
OS
0
z
^2
0 H
w <
a. u
>• 3
H a.
OH
<
Z
o
J H
o2
COZ
0
Q
as
fa
H
<
S
Q
Z
a
0
OS
O
fa1
OS
fa
CO
O
Q
<
fa
OS
.
"c
o
tu
•o
0
o
0)
OJ
o
z
cU
S .3
•e-o's
O H- O ^
- .0 a
2 «"".,«"
•J.2-0 a
uts a) O
&S.2SS
^,
..Sf" g
•c .S § 1
t- '£ « 5 -"
S OJ ° JJ
*• "- tu ,M_
|2| £|
s 3 t; •- S
u_ O 3 O -3
— o S c S
o
_J
o
o
Land disposal could be con-
sidered as "experimental use,"
with surety bond.
(Dick Shelton)
<;
_i
fa
(Wilbur S. Lummis, Jr.)
M
<
S
<
X
104
-------
en
f-
Z
W
s
OFFICIAL COM
00
Pi
W
ffi
H
O
s
o
z
o
GO
Q
c/?
W
Z
J
W
Q
D
O
02
W
I
H
O
O
Z
5
o
H
z
o
s
en
en
-
£"" 2-
<
2
O
-J H
o 5
M z
p
02
H
<
>
^*
Z
Q
02
^
ij.
H
<
02
^
en
C
r^
<
oJ
02
<
_
E-
<
en
<2
S -o
° e -g^
"•o 5 ^ fli
3 S T= =
Considers each appli
spray irrigation or gi
percolation as indivi
problem. (Perry Mil
C
Z
w
Z
<
^
_<
S-d
C w
&S
.2^ —
Several other land d
projects being consi
(W. McLean Bingley
•o
c
ff)
6fl
C
*5
a
^o
c
c
o
2
D
'C
o
>,
£
4>
>
5
OJ C
15 .2
11
11
> a
f 0
C-o
«o
OJ •***
25 «
3 g
C
2
(William G. Turney)
X
D
S
c
e
E
o
CJ
O
Z
•o
!U
_>
U
u
u
u,
Oi
0)
0
z
"O C >
a) tu a> o
oo T-J ' g c ;
Sc » S ^,5 5«
&-|g *-&«£«>
««S>-2£o>»"
en .c o.^ ^- *- -*- £*
• j: ~ ca &
££ SE1 .
g M 0. a*- T3
^ .g ™ S i1^
Ilisl!
•g-g
M M g
S'biS
a-s1!
cn-c5
^
u c
1 '"
S "
11
0 rt
tjj "^
3|
C 3
21
j^
S£ . =i
o ^ >• 3
co ,-! "^r .£ c • «
r- - >. £
£^cs 3.SP
tM -^ IT, ^ .C
V
c"H
0 ^
1>
T3 bJ3
0) «d
en V3
« O
CQ-S
z
S
S
(D. G. Williams)
H
Z
0
S
'5.
E
<
H_
ra
'C o
u o
.«. t/1
u i-
CJ of
c: .-
C aj
O ^
§-e
c c
o o
c*3 D
^. Ci.
r= o
^ ir,
^3 ^
« j
||
-io
~CQ
M Ji
= £
•— IT,
a r* u
M « £
'!•§»
Hi
cd
a
Z
105
-------
j£
Is
^ £
81
s<
cn
r°^~ -v
£s
W S
i* o
. W
co y
*-v *•**
o <^
Z M
<:=*
H ^
CO <
w R
^
!*D
OQ-
H in
c/3 ce;
It
W E
D J
J <;
ta 3
^O1
W ^
Z •
OS
E&
ss
H3
CO ?
— td
Q co
H Q
< td
a as
II
*£ W
a. OS
• C
J M
INSTAL
REPORT!
to
RULES/
STATUTE
STATE
il
>.•§-
•-'7 rt
^* C
s§
D. u 13
-— u
o SS
B O"3
W a'S
S
Q Is
z £ °
S ens.
o
c
ibl
2st
"« 0 S
>255
Z •*-
£ — S u
<: &S> «
SDi=a£
E
a>
s&.
« 4> «>
> bflS rs
£ISB
U 03
rt v; ^ o
«3.S
S^-^S
o S «.ts
ZDco S
£ C
Q' i >"5 —
C «"O
StrtK
««
oil
•/I u +n
S S 3 M
" 3-a^
OE.S-S
•o
_ y
s • S 5
Ua= g
rj (u fl «
^ Q2 cd
4> i ^ x
C« tJ & 50 J^
C C 3 QJ IS
60 -2 ^ " a.
*" 2 S3 s
g"0 « S S
u • > c
C C S ^ C
,« g o — °
i S S D.JS
= S
S CJ-O
£-= f=
"^ ° n
^ 3(H
>- ao
» c ^
« O S3 K
M C J= «
2, ° a, - S
a1"" b a) —
D 03 3 ^ c
•o j> S o .5
< S3 C3 E fN
c«
X
l-s
|s
So
CO S M -0
-£2-l
Q= =S?
O "o 'C KJ «
CQUQ ^tS
>» • rf,
u c e
03 •-! CO C
•a .52 co "-
c-o^io
o «Q^
aj^O3
coHcD U
c B
.Is "S
111
.1 >>
zl a
zbg
si*
c
u, « 5?
gj bfl C efl
-4- S-O"0
C fe — C
;r o o o
£ ~.c a
x w
u C O *H
ll°g
C C u. o
°a °*H
U 03 — ^
aj 2 ^ o
co ho M
>, 0)
•' ^ &JO
— CO T M
10 2 M J T3 §•
* 5 'S S 5 8
l« .
3 c-a
SJ=E>
0 a a~°
£,*( x c
^ A aj ^
^1 •£
OalS
kj tu
shx
c
o
0
W)
S
_J
w
c
o
0
bo
S3
j
o c
SiH
.t! O^ 60
en (sog'C
mJ2^.i:
c
o
0 • -
S2
*u *3
II?
«fes'I
id U> c o
zlowo
106
-------
i§
o'
co •
w £
p J
J<
' p
fc •
Sb-i
o?
S a
^ Q
•< w
w a:,
* 5
w O
B! «
0. 02
ss
IS
«
CO
11
W i
— '
STA
STATE
u
>•
.
S£ *o
•aSS
£'B--
llil
ills
t-
.]« ^ s
Ha '> c
zbS5
Ifl
!„•!§
pit
3
bo
£
o
Z
ail
.
o cd
*S u'&C
'o "^ w •—
a> C -.- tj
CX a> O- (ii
« !- aT-K
o^ u o
^:^J x w
Z c u &
y
S OJ
0 0
u C
a, a>
0
•*-»
2 »
&l-
0 MO.
H « in
D
I a
S 2 5.
.T'^ 1/1 -
w C^T)
> 5? -2
•a
c
*• cd -
K •- , -
bQ ^ yi T3
CO L "^ QJ
Ifit
II
Sg -Q
&&T3 i^O
0^002
5 o^ x±r
^, a J3 D i«C
V
^*
C
u
1—
u
u
0
Z
>-.-*-•
«- C
-»-> w aj
sgB
— C re
^_^ O 0>
< ^i:
£
g_
c
Z
t&
^-
>> b oo
2 c •
£11
°§
iiB.? »
< OJ C V
tbaa; 1
OJ
C
C
Z.
4)
C
0
.4=
•ia"5
*~l D D
&dbx
-o
M U
I to C
CO >,
^ (. ,ti T3
L^ T3
Is-saS
*•£
13 !/) 3j
55 0^2-5
5 o a;
Wi ^ T3 Q Q. -^
£ 0 § M^ 3?
Kb £
H§|S
Ptocol
107
-------
OFFICIAL COMMENTS
A
&
W
X
o
=8
O
z
o
55
w
Q
c/5
P-i
Z
1
U-I
Q
D
O
-
I
H
O
o
z
5
o
H
Z
o
S
C/l
OS
-L
H
<
Q
Z
D
O
as
O
w
H
OS
w
O
Q
<;
W
aS
«?
w
H
H
Location of facility, type of
treatment and nature of land
considered on merits.
(Robert L. Vincent)
S
Short staffed. Cannot supply
data. Invitation to visit office
(John R. Wright)
S
Z
(Willard H. Bruce)
Z
- c
Have encouraged land disposal
but no success. Average lagoo
dispose of 20-40 percent by
seepage and evaporation.
^
^
Q
Z
[£££&)
UQ &§
bo _ .. .
•§|§-s§
o S ,c u" ^
els IcI
^ a
• g O
C 0) ^
ra S ai
o 2J x
IzS
ra
c
1
c
o
bi
'C w
^ lr
1i . ^J
^_l -*_! «
2 a 4)
c
3
O
&fl
J
_o ^>
"^ 5>
X) -
^
05 "i/l
•o >,
^•^ «
c ^ "°
-------
z2
Q5
Sbi
-'
a !
o -
Sw
< [
OS D
OCX
H w
5 o-
Q CO
H O
< w
w B;
S3
Sa
iv W
a. a!
^S
^
^2
S«
as
CO
^s
2E
^
CO
STATE
*« ..E
n o o E
•
« c o
J 0 U -
Covered by
Water Pollu-
tion Contro
Law
C
O
•- - 8
5. J = 1
o £ o
- u U S
E u S?
. .-
55J-C £
ZQ 0 a,
T\
S2 >>
, g* *
.
« "3 a> U
O be & 0-
^ qj 0 >,
2 i: u ^
c
"..2 c
No specific
gulations
land
posal
on
dis
dp .2
109
-------
OT
OFFICIAL COMMENT
t/5
t£
W
K
S
S
o
£
o
So
w
Q
5$
W
g
h— 1
P4
Q
5
o
OS
w
I
H
o
0
2
o
H
0
in
t/3
,
Land disposal favored f(
Eastern Wash. Used onl
s under special conditions
in Western Washington.
(Werner A. Hahne)
"fli £ S
£ r~-
ra"'~ '
Q, ^ *"
coS -2
T3
M-S'3
.5 > ^
i- "^ i-
0 B |
W)
u. C
O T3 5 ^ ° ^
0 Oi W5 £ u Zl
g-g §.'g ca —
1 S Z II 1
h
CJ
*s 'c
.2 » »
'i |s
O ^ ^5
C
a -2 g
O "« u
0 S »
^- P-*-
& i
*g TJ ^_,
aj *2 **"
g lH C
"•£ ° S
— rt "£!
O — >
t. ^. C
s.z a
IT"?
60 CO
o-a
o c
O 3 _
o°|
I
j
Mountainous terrain dis
courages land disposal.
(Edgar N. Henry)
^
^
|I
No problems concerned
health and nuisance pro
(John F.Wagner)
0
£
110
-------
TABLE 90
PARTIAL LIST OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
INVOLVING LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENT OR SLUDGE
Project
Beltsville Sludge
Beltsville Sludge
Location Type/Identification
Md. Sludge trenching
Md. Sludge composting
Cape Cod/Woodshull Mass. Hi-rate percolation/infiltration
Chicago Prairie Plan 111.
City of Beldmg Mich.
El Paso Meat Packing Tex.
Flushing Meadows Ariz.
Lake County Fla.
Mich. State Univ. Mich.
Muskegon County Mich.
Oahu Hi.
Ocean Cnty, NJ Sludge N.J.
Penn State Univ. Penn.
St. Petersburg Fla.
Santee Calif.
Tallahassee Pollutant Fla.
Removal
Land application
Lagoon effluents—aquatic plants
Spray irrigation WW on crops
Funding Status
EPA
USDA/MES
EPA
Sludge-spray irrigation & dumping Chicago
Spray irrigation on forest land EPA
Spray irrigation, hi-organic (BOD) EPA
Hi-rate percolation USDA/EPA
Soap&
Detergent
Assoc.
EPA*
EPA
Land application
Wastewater solids utilization on land EPA/NJ*
Spray irrigation renovation of WW PSU/EPA
Land application in urban areas
Recharge
Hi-rainfall, hi-water table EPA
Remarks
99% complete
testing compost
materials
Not started
on-going
on-going
on-going
on-going
different from
Flushing Meadows
climate
in operation in
Fulton County
different climate
from Cape Cod
on-going Institute of Water
Research
not started in operation in
Fulton County
not started
on-going
completed
on-going
Source: U.S.E.P.A.
Ill
-------
EXHIBIT I
STATE OF ARIZONA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
RECLAIMED WASTES
Article 6
Part 4
SEC. 6-4-1. GENERAL
REG. 6-4-1.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The regulations in this Part are adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Sec. 36-1854.3
and Sec. 36-1857, Arizona Revised Statutes.
(Added Reg. 1-72)
REG. 6-4-1.2 POLICY
The following regulations shall govern the direct reuse of reclaimed wastes, and all waste
discharges into the waters of the State shall be in compliance with the "Water Quality Standards
for Surface Waters in Arizona."
(Added Reg. 1-72)
REG. 6-4-1.3 APPLICABILITY
A. The direct reuse of wastes originally containing human or animal wastes is prohibited
unless such wastes comply with the standards in this Part.
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an exemption from other applicable Rules
and Regulations of the Arizona State Department of Health including but not limited to Reg.
2-2-4.9.
(Added Reg. 1-72)
SEC. 6-4-2. REQUIRED TREATMENT
REG. 6-4-2.1 SECONDARY
All wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent before they are
used for any of the following purposes:
A. Irrigation of fibrous or forage crops not intended for human consumption.
B. Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which do not result in direct application of water
to fruit or foliage.
C. Watering of farm animals other than producing dairy animals.
REG. 6-4-2.2 SECONDARY AND DISINFECTION
A. All wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent and
112
-------
Exhibit I (continued)
disinfection before they are used for any of the following purposes:
1. Irrigation of any food crop where the product is subjected to physical or chemical
processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic organisms.
2. Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which involve direct application of water to fruit
or foliage.
3. Irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries and similar areas.
4. Watering of producing dairy animals
5. To provide a substantial portion of the water supply in any impoundment used for
aesthetic enjoyment or for purposes involving only secondary contact recreation.
B. Following treatment specified in A. above, the monthly arithmetic average density of the
coliform group of bacteria in the effluent shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 milliliters and the
monthly arithmetic average density of fecal coliforms shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters.
Both of these limits shall be an average of at least two consecutive samples examined per month
during the irrigation season, and any one sample examined in any one month shall not exceed a
coliform group density of more than 20,000 per 100 milliliters, or a fecal coliform density of
more than 4,000 per 100 milliliters.
(Added Reg. 1-72)
113
-------
EXHIBIT II
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
RULES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN DOMESTIC
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND OTHER NON-MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
OTHER THAN SEPTIC TANKS
I. Authority: Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, Section 66-1-7 (2), (5) and (6); 66-1-8 (5) (a)
and 3-16-2, as amended (1967 and 1969 Perm. Cum Supps.)
Adopted: November 15, 1972
Effective Date: January 1, 1973
II. Purpose: The State Board of Health hereby finds and determines that it is necessary in the
interest of public health, welfare and safety that uniform rules, regulations and standards
be established to govern the discharge of liquid wastes from individually owned and
operated domestic sewage treatment systems and other non-municipal systems, other
than septic tanks, that discharge upon the surface of the ground, or where the discharge
is underground but it erupts or seeps to the surface of the ground.
III. Scope: This regulation shall apply to all individually owned and operated domestic aerobic
sewage treatment works and other non-municipal systems, other than septic tank
systems as generally defined in the United States Department of Health, Education and
Welfare Manual of Septic Tank Practice, public health publication 910.526, dated revised
1967.
IV.. Standards and Criteria: Individually owned and operated domestic and non-municipal
sewage treatment plants to which these regulations are applicable shall meet and
conform to the following standards and criteria:
1. General Conditions
(a) The effluent shall be contained within the boundaries of the premises upon
which the treatment plant is located and the discharge shall be sufficiently distant
from inhabited premises to prevent the development of a nuisance condition.
(b) Effluents applied to the land shall be distributed over an area sufficient to
absorb the total effluent flow and shall not be applied to edible crops.
(c) The treatment system shall provide an opening from which samples of the
effluent may be conveniently obtained by authorized personnel, located at a point
following aerobic treatment, settling chlorine contact or other method of
disinfection approved by a health officer.
(d) A signal device shall be installed which will provide an obvious warning to
indicate a failure or malfunction of any or all units of the total treatment system.
114
-------
Exhibit II (continued)
2. Disinfection of the Effluent
(a) The system shall provide chlorine contact time of not less than sixty (60)
minutes following aerobic treatment and settling.
(b) The effluent shall contain a chlorine residual at the sampling point of not less
than one (1) milligram per liter.
(c) A method of disinfection other than by chlorine contact which is of equal
efficacy and simplicity may be used if approved by a health officer.
3. Effluent Standards
(a) The effluent at the point of sampling consistently shall meet a standard 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of less than twenty (20) milligrams per liter,
based upon a grab sample collected at any time.
(b) The effluent at the point of sampling the chemical oxygen demand (COD)
consistently shall be less than eighty-five (85) milligrams per liter, based upon a grab
sample collected at any time.
(c) The effluent at the point of sampling consistently shall not have a fecal coliform
density in excess of two (2) per one hundred (100) milliliters as recorded in terms of
M.P.N., or as based upon a membrane filter count.
(d) The effluent at the point of sampling consistently shall contain total suspended
matter (nonfilterable residue) of less than thirty (30) milligrams per liter, based
upon a grab sample collected at any time.
4. Methods of Analysis
(a) All effluent samples shall be analyzed according to the methods described in the
current edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water
as prepared and published by: American Public Health Association; American
Waterworks Association; Water Pollution Control Federation.
V. Enforcement:
1. Any individually owned and operated domestic aerobic sewage treatment works or
other non-municipal systems within the purview of these regulations that is determined
not to be in compliance therewith is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be
summarily abated by a cease and desist order or injunctive proceedings.
115
-------
EXHIBIT III
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
DIVISION OF HEALTH
Requirements for Effluent Irrigation
The following safeguards shall be taken when treated effluent is to be utilized for golf course
irrigation and/or areas where the public has access.
1. A certified operator shall be provided to supervise operation of system prior to its use.
2. The area irrigated with the effluent shall be irrigated only during periods when the mist will
not come in contact with the public or players.
3. The wastewater entering the irrigation system shall be considered adequately disinfected if
the median Most Probable Number (mpn) of coliform organisms does not exceed 23 per
hundred milligrams of sample. On a weekly basis the mpn shall be determined and results
submitted to the local county health department. These shall also be tabulated on the
monthly operation reports submitted to this agency.
4. The plant effluent entering the irrigation system shall have a chlorine residual of not less than
l.Omg/1.
5. There shall be an adequate buffer zone of at least 50 feet between any residential property
and area to be irrigated.
6. It is preferred that the sprinkler heads be of the removable type whereby such heads will be
manually inserted before commencing irrigation.
7. In the design of the sprinkler system, the piping shall be a separate system entirely, with no
cross-connections to a potable water supply.
EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
A review of treatment facilities approved by the Division of Health during 1970 shows the
following:
There were 378 treatment plants processed, all of which were designed to meet the State
minimum 90% B.O.D. removal plus chlorination. In regards to effluent disposal, 242 of these
systems were designed for no direct discharge of effluent to water courses. Effluent was disposed
of by evaporation-percolation ponds, irrigation systems or subsurface drainfields.
The Division of Health's current concern in the review of these type systems stems from the
need to protect the public health and requirements would vary depending on the type of system
proposed.
I. Evaporation-Percolation Systems
The public health concern of these systems is that adequate distance and soil types must be
available to protect all potable water supplies in the area. Therefore, the pond should be
116
-------
Exhibit III (continued)
located so as not to affect the underground water used as water supply source and not create
a nuisance to other property owners. The pond should be fenced to keep out the general
public. The size of pond will depend on soil type and ability to dispose of water by
percolation and should be designed large enough to prevent overflow. If failure of
evaporation-percolation pond occurs, the emergency discharge of well-treated-chlorinated
effluent from the pond should be to a point which will not create a health hazard as it relates
to recreational waters, shellfish waters, or public water supplies, and also not create a
nuisance, until additional pond area and/or irrigation area is made available.
II. Irrigation Systems
(These systems have all been designed for effluent disposal and not plant growth.)
a) Irrigation of areas where the general public does not come in contact and the aerosol drift
will not leave the irrigation area. The public health concerns are the same as for the
Evaporation-Percolation systems.
b) Irrigation of public areas (Golf courses, Parks, etc.)
The following safeguards shall be taken when treated effluent is to be utilized for golf course
irrigation and/or areas where the public has access:
1. A pond at the plant site with a detention time of P/2 to 3 days shall be provided prior
to discharge to irrigation system.
2. A certified operator shall be provided to supervise operation of system prior to its
use.
3. The area irrigated with the effluent shall be irrigated only during periods when the
mist will not come in contact with the public or players.
4. The waste water entering the irrigation system shall be considered adequately
disinfected if the Median Most Probable Number (mpn) of coliform organisms does not
exceed 23 per hundred milligrams of sample. On a weekly basis, the mpn shall be
determined and results submitted to the local county health department. These shall also
be tabulated on the monthly operation reports submitted to this agency.
5. The plant effluent entering the irrigation system shall have a chlorine residual of not
less than 1.0 mg/1.
6. There shall be an adequate buffer zone of at least 50 ft. between any residential
property and area to be irrigated. The spray should not reach walkways, parking areas,
play areas, drinking fountains or other similar areas.
7. It is preferred that the sprinkler heads be of the removable type whereby such heads
will be manually inserted before commencing irrigation.
8. In the design of the sprinkler system the piping shall be a separate system entirely,
with no cross-connections to a potable water supply.
c) Irrigation of Athletic Fields/Playgrounds - NOT RECOMMENDED, but considered where
field is closed to use and not used for 30 days after irrigation ceases.
117
-------
EXHIBIT IV
STATE OF TEXAS
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STAFF OF THE
DIVISION OF WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY AND SURVEILLANCE
WHEN THE DOMESTIC WASTEWATER EFFLUENT IS TO BE USED
FOR IRRIGATION OF AREAS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
1. Effective wastewater treatment facilities should be provided, operated, and maintained
continuously in order that the wastewaters used will not exceed 20 ppm total Suspended
Solids content, and a MPN (Most Probable Number of Coliform organisms per 100 ml) value
of not more than 50.
2. To achieve the recommended bacterial quality of the effluent will probably require a
chlorine residual of 2.0 to 5.0 ppm for a contact period of 20 minutes at peak flow
conditions immediately prior to the application of the wastewater to vegetation.
Rechlorination will be required when effluent is stored in holding ponds or oxidation ponds
subsequent to chlorination at the plant and prior to its application as irrigation water.
3. Irrigation should never be practiced at times that the areas are open to the public.
4. Sub-surface irrigation systems would present a lesser public health hazard than the use of
spray systems.
5. Laboratory examination on effluent samples should be made at such a frequency as to be
assured that the recommended quality parameters are attained and maintained.
6. Records should also be maintained showing periods of applications, as well as laboratory
examination results.
7. All wastewater outlets and pipes should be marked plainly to show the presence of
contaminated water, and also all outlets or valves should be protected to prevent their
operation only by authorized individuals.
8. These recommendations are offered, assuming such re-use of the wastewater treatment plant
effluent meets with the approval of the local health officer.
9. Areas which are irrigated by sewage effluent should be separated by a minimum distance of
500 feet from wells supplying water for drinking purposes or water supply treatment plants.
10. The system of piping used to distribute sewage effluent to points of application for irrigation
purposes shall have no physical connection with a drinking water supply system
11. Irrigation systems shall not be installed in locations where dairy farms will be adversely
affected.
12. The owner should contact the local health authorities and inform them of his sewage disposal
program and its relationship with other elements of the establishment.
January 21, 1972
118
-------
Exhibit IV (continued)
TO WHOM THIS MAY CONCERN
By authority vested in the Commissioner of Health by Articles 4465A and 4466 to make,
publish and enforce rules consistent with this law, and adopt standards for foods, food products,
beverages, drugs, etc., and the modern methods of analysis authorized as official by the Federal
Department of Agriculture, I hereby make and adopt the following rules and standards for food
crops which might be consumed in the raw state.
"The use of raw or partially treated sewage or the effluent from a sewage treatment
plant is prohibited for use as irrigation water on any food crop which might be
consumed in the raw state. Such practice is the deliberate exposure of food to filth as
defined by paragraph (a) 4-Section 10, Art. 4476-5 of our civil statutes."
J. E. Peavy, M.D.
Commissioner of Health
Approved by the State Board of Health at its regular meeting held at Austin, Texas, December
11, 1961.
IJ9
-------
EXHIBIT V
GREAT LAKES-UPPER MISSISSIPPI BOARD
ADDENDUM NO. 2
TO RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR SEWAGE WORKS
(1968 EDITION)
APRIL 1971
GROUND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATERS
Interest has been expressed in the development of guidelines for engineering review of
proposed projects for ground disposal of wastewaters.
There are apparently relatively few known large-scale installations of spray irrigation systems
and very limited data available within the 10 GLUMRB states.
The protection of groundwater and surface resources is the major concern in the
development of guidelines. However, quality of groundwater discharged to surface waters also
must be considered the water quality criteria.
Practices must be established which will prevent wastes of any nature from being introduced
into the fresh groundwaters which will so change their characteristics as to make them unsuitable
for potable water supply or other present and future usage.
The priority of the water usage is subject to the jurisdiction of the appropriate state and local
regulatory agencies.
Preliminary Considerations
Ground disposal installations are normally used where the waste contains pollutants which
can successfully be removed through distribution to the soil mantle. These pollutants can be
removed through organic decomposition in the vegetation-soil complex and by adsorptive,
physical, and chemical reactions with earth materials. Preliminary considerations of a site for
ground disposal should be the compatibility of the waste with the organic and earth materials and
the percolation rates and exchange capacity of the soils. The ground disposal of wastewater will
eventually recharge the local groundwater; therefore, the quality, direction and rate of movement
and local use of the groundwater, present and potential, are prime considerations in evaluating a
proposed site.
It is essential to maintain an aerated zone of at least five feet and preferably more, to provide
good vegetation growth conditions and removal of nutrients. It must be realized a groundwater
mount will develop below after it is in use. The major factors in design of ground disposal fields
are topography, soils, geology, hydrology, weather, agricultural practice, adjacent land use and
equipment selection and installation.
Design Report
The design report shall include maps and diagrams as noted below. It shall also include any
additional material that is pertinent about the location, geology, topography, hydrology, soils,
areas for future expansion and adjacent land use.
Location
(1) A copy of the U.S.G.S. topographic map of the area (7 '/^-minute series where published)
showing the exact boundaries of the spray field.
(2) A topographic map of the total area owned by the applicant at a scale of approximately
one inch to 50 feet. It should show all buildings, the waste disposal system, the spray field
120
-------
Exhibit V (continued)
boundaries and buffer zone. An additional map should show the spray field topography in
detail with a contour interval of two feet, and include buildings and land use on adjacent
lands within % mile of the project boundary.
(3) All water supply wells which might be affected shall be located and identified as to uses;
e.g., potable, industrial, agricultural, and class of ownership; e.g., public, private, etc.
(4) All abandoned wells, shafts, etc., shall be located and identified. Pertinent information
thereon shall be furnished.
Geology
(1) The geologic formations (name) and the rock types at the site.
(2) The degree of weathering of the bedrock.
(3) The local bedrock structure including the presence of faults, fractures and joints.
(4) The character and thickness of the surficial deposits (residual soils and glacial deposit).
(5) In limestone terrain, additional information about solution openings and sinkholes is
required.
(6) The source of the above information must be indicated.
Hydrology
(1) The depth to seasonal high water table (perched and/or regional) must be given, including
an indication of seasonal variations. Static water levels must be determined at each depth for
each aquifer in the depth under concern. Critical slope evaluation must be given to any
differences in such levels.
(2) The direction of groundwater movement and the point(s) of discharge must be shown on
one of the attached maps.
(3) Chemical analyses indicating the quality of groundwater at the site must be included.
(4) Indicate the source of the above data.
(5) The following information shall be provided from existing wells and from such test wells
as may be necessary:
(a) Construction details—where available: Depth, well log, pump capacity, static levels,
pumping water levels, casing, grout material and such other information as may be
pertinent.
(b) Groundwater quality: e.g., nitrates, total nitrogen, chlorides, sulphates, pH,
alkalinities, total hardness, coliform bacteria, etc.
(6) A minimum of one (1) groundwater monitoring well must be drilled in each dominant
direction of groundwater movement and between the project site and public well(s) and/or
high capacity private wells with provision for sampling at the surface of the water table and
at five (5) feet below the water table at each monitoring site. The location and construction
of the monitoring well(s) must be approved. These may include one or more of the test wells
where appropriate.
121
-------
Exhibit V (continued)
Soils
(1) A soils map should be furnished of the spray field, indicating the various soil types. This
may be included on the large-scale topographic map. Soils information can normally be
secured through the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
(2) The soils should be named and their texture described.
(3) Slopes and agricultural practice on the spray field are closely related. Slopes on
cultivated fields should be limited to 4% or less.
Slopes on sodded fields should be limited to 8% or less. Forested slopes should be limited to
8% for year-round operation, but some seasonal operation slopes up to 14% may be
acceptable.
(4) The thickness of soils should be indicated. Indicate how determined.
(5) Data should be furnished on the exchange capacity of the soils. In case of industrial
wastes particularly, this information must be related to special characteristics of the wastes.
(6) Information must be furnished on the internal and surface drainage characteristics of the
soil materials.
(7) Proposed application rates should take into consideration the drainage and permeability
of the soils, the discharge capacity, and the distance to the water table.
Agricultural Practice
(1) The present and intended soil-crop management practices, including forestation, shall be
stated.
(2) Pertinent information shall be furnished on existing drainage systems.
(3) When cultivated crops are anticipated, the kinds used and the harvesting frequency
should be given; the ultimate use of the crop should also be given.
Adjacent Land Use
(1) Present and anticipated use of the adjoining lands must be indicated. This information
can be provided on one of the maps and may be supplemented with notes.
(2) The plan shall show existing and proposed screens, barriers, or buffer zones to prevent
blowing spray from entering adjacent land areas.
(3) If expansion of the facility is anticipated, the lands which are likely to be used for
expanded spray fields must be shown on the map.
Treatment Before Land Disposal
In general, the equivalent of secondary treatment will be required. All wastes must be
amenable to treatment by the soil prior to application. All wastes to be spray irrigated shall be
disinfected. Disinfection may be required for other types of irrigation. Screening shall be
provided in all cases where solids are expected of a size equal to or greater than the nozzle hole
diameter.
122
-------
Exhibit V (continued)
Storage shall be provided to the maximum capacity required to accomodate flows in excess
of quantities to be irrigated.
Piping to Sprinklers
The piping should be so arranged to allow the irrigation pattern to be varied easily.
Stationary systems are preferred; but if a moveable system is proposed, one main header must be
provided with individual connections for each field and sufficient spare equipment must be
available to assure noninterrupted irrigation. Facilities must be provided to allow the pipes to be
completely drained at suitable points to prevent pollution and freezing.
Sprinkling System
Sprinklers must be so located as to gve a nonirrigated buffer zone around the irrigated area
and design of the buffer zone must consider wind transport of the wastewaters. The system shall
be designed to provide an even distribution over the entire field.
The application rate must be selected low enough to allow the waters to percolate into the
soil and to assure proper residency within the soil mantle. Proposed application rates will not be
accepted without substantiating data.
In general, sufficient monitoring controls should be provided to indicate the degree of
efficiency with which the sprinklers are working. A pressure gauge and flow meter should be
provided.
Runoff
The system shall be designed to prevent surface runoff from entering or leaving the project
site.
Fencing
The project area shall be enclosed with a suitable fence to preclude livestock and discourage
trespassing. A vehicle access gate of sufficient width to accommodate mowing equipment should
be provided. All access gates should be provided with locks.
Warning Signs
Appropriate signs should be provided along the fence around the project boundaries to
designate the nature of the facility and advise against trespassing.
Bibliography: Agricultural Utilization of Sewage Effluent and Sludge, an Annotated Bibliography, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior, January, 1968.
123
-------
-------
SECTION V
SUMMARY OF FOREIGN EXPERIENCE
The use of wastewater land application
methods is prevalent in many parts of the
world. The methods employed, however, may
vary in detail as to the quantity or quality of
wastewaters, the degree of pretreatment, the
manner of storage and application to the land,
or to the types of vegetation grown. The
essential purposes of land application remain:
the effective disposal of wastewaters; and the
exploitation of these wastewaters to secure
the highest level of related benefits.
Land application in this country shares
these basic purposes. This makes the
investigation of foreign experience of value to
this study. The American Public Works
Association, as a resource organization to the
United Nations on behalf of the United
States, has access to the sources of this
information. The salient features of this
investigation follow.
The exploration of land application
practices in other countries uncovered some
relevant facts concerning these systems. The
approach to land application taken in
different countries often assumes a varied
character based on the relative priorities of
the related benefits being sought.
One basic aspect of land application
relates to its capacity to enhance wastewater
quality. This capacity derives primarily from
the physical, chemical, biological and
mechanical processes inherent within soils
that come into play during the land
application process and result in some level of
additional treatment. In England, land
application assumes a character of
sophistication as a means of wastewater
quality enhancement. It finds limited use as a
method to achieve wastewater quality
equivalent to tertiary treatment. This involves
the surface application of secondary
treatment effluents on sloping grasslands.1 In
Argentina, the treatment aspects of land
application take on a somewhat different
significance. Unchlorinated domestic
wastewater lagoon effluents are employed for
land irrigation in some parts of the country.2
Finally, in India, land application of raw
domestic sewage accounts for the majority of
treatment for 40 percent of the 550 mgd of
wastewater produced by sewered
communities. This occurs on 132 farms,
amounting to 30,902 acres in all parts of the
country.3
Another related benefit concerns
wastewater irrigation as a means to produce a
more favorable balance between reliable water
sources and the anticipated water demands of
agricultural, industrial, power generation and
domestic uses. As may be anticipated,
wastewater application in this water resource
management role occurs readily within the
arid parts of the world. In the case of Israel, it
is estimated that the total water resources of
that country from all natural sources will
supply about 437,000 million gal/year.
.... The figure used for planning purposes is
based on a future population estimate of 3
million with a total urban water use of some
80,000 million gal/year. It is estimated that
only 85 percent of the urban water supply is
recoverable as wastewater, and that only 60
percent of the national sewage flow will be
utilizable in economically feasible projects.
.... This amount will supplement the
national water resources by 10 percent,
bringing the total national water reserves to
477,000 million gal/year.4
A similar situation, although less cogently
stated, occurs in Argentina where raw sewage
land application has been recommended for
use in reforestation projects in the arid parts
of the country.5
Still another related benefit involves the
economic impact of heightened agricultural
and meat animal production related to the use
of crop irrigation. This derives from the
exploitation of wastewater as a consistent
source of irrigation water and also as a source
of crop nutrients. Investigations of crop
production employing both domestic
wastewaters and the wastewaters of specific
industries have been taking place in Hungary
with positive results among some crop types.6
125
-------
In Israel, a number of large-scale sewage
irrigation schemes have also been developed in
the Jerusalem area. All these projects have
been carried out within the restrictions of the
Ministry of Health sewage irrigation
regulations and have in general produced
excellent results from the agricultural
viewpoint; research carried out in Israel has
indicated that the yield from sewage-irrigated
plots is significantly higher than comparable
plots irrigated with normal water and
provided with equivalent amounts of chemical
fertilizer alone.7
It is evident from the foregoing that the
emphasis associated with wastewater land
application in different countries often takes
somewhat different forms, consistent with
national or regional goals. The essential
characteristics and requirements of land
application, however, remain similar in all
parts of the world.
Climatic Influence
Perhaps the most succinct statement on
climatic influence or the applicability of land
application in terms of climate and
agricultural productivity comes from
Hungary. In areas, where the natural
precipitation is small, wastewaters are used
for irrigation to utilize more efficiently the
energy sources of the soil in the interest of
better produce and by making the amount of
water necessary for a good yield available at
any time in order to provide for good
production and to decrease to a minimum the
damages resulting from the lack of water.
Where the precipitation is sufficient, the main
purpose of irrigation is wastewater disposal.
The production increase under these
conditions is generally smaller than in the
previous case, since this can be mainly
attributed to the fertilizing effect of the
wastewater. . . . 8
The foregoing comments, as noted,
represent an orientation towards agricultural
enhancement as a related benefit of
wastewater irrigation. Other climatic
orientations concerning land application as an
effective water resource management tool
appear within the preceding discussion of
goals and their related benefits.
In view of these considerations, it
generally appears that these two
considerations are closely related. The
necessity for careful water resource
management within arid climates appears to
be followed closely by the use of land
application among industrializing nations and
then the exploitation of its agricultural
enhancement potentials.
The Source of Wastewater
The wastewater sources in the land
applications studied from other countries
derived from both domestic uses and
industrial processes. As previously noted, in
India, 220 mgd of raw domestic wastewater is
disposed of by land application with no
dilution or treatment. Attempts are being
made to employ dairy wastes and paper and
pulp mill wastes for this purpose after
preliminary treatment.9 The Werribee Farm,
operated by the Melbourne and Metropolitan
Board of Works in Australia, treats from 96 to
250 mgd of domestic wastes on 17,243
irrigable acres. Eighty percent of this flow
receives preliminary settling and 20 percent is
applied untreated.10 Mixed domestic and
industrial wastes - including petroleum
refinery wastes - from the Mexico City area
irrigate 111,746 acres in the State of
Hidalgo.11
Investigations of the land application of
fruit and vegetable canning wastewaters have
taken place in both Hungary and
Belgium12'13 and other parts of Europe.
Work is also being performed on the use of
industrial wastewaters from sugar refining,
linen and hemp processing and other
industries, as well as from domestic sources.
The use of industrial wastewaters depends
upon the processes involved, and careful
investigation of wastewater quality must be
performed to determine its suitability for
irrigation purposes.
Land application also occurs on a number
of individually operated sites as part of
normal irrigation operations. Under these
circumstances, wastewaters are introduced
into existing irrigation water supplies or
126
-------
provided as an alternative irrigation source to
individual growers. The capacity to control
the use of wastewater and the application site
diminishes with the degree to which the land
application process is generalized.
Wastewater Quality and Treatment
Philosophical differences concerning
acceptable characteristics for wastewaters
arise as a result of different attitudes
towards the related benefits of land
application - wastewater quality
enhancement, wastewater irrigation as a water
resource management mechanism or as a
source of improved agricultural production.
From the point of view of water quality
management, the wastewaters employed for
land application must be of relatively high
quality prior to their use. This philosophy
imposes the need for preliminary treatment to
a high level, often represented by quality
parameters consistent with those applicable
for the discharge of wastewater to surface
receiving waters.
The point of view expressed on behalf of
improved agricultural production is
represented by the following: Wastewater
treatment for agricultural use is quite
different from that of sewage treatment for
disposal into receiving bodies 'of water. For
agricultural irrigation, the reduction in BOD is
of little significance. When effluents are being
used for industrial crops, or for other crops
which are to be processed before
consumption, minimal primary treatment and
an adequate reduction in suspended solids will
be sufficient to allow for spray irrigation; it is
assumed that there is little significant
pathogen removal, and the low level of BOD
reduction plays no significant role.14
With these apparent differences in
existing attitudes on the quality of
wastewaters for land application in mind, the
information received concerning quality and
treatment on a national basis appears below.
a. Australia
At the Board of Works Farm at Werribee,
wastewater flows amount to an average of 96
mgd from both domestic and industrial
sources in Melbourne. Eighty percent of these
wastewaters are subject to sedimentation.
These wastewaters have a BOD of 600 ppm,
suspended solids of 500 ppm, and a chloride
ion concentration of 400 ppm.
Other land application sites exist in
Victoria, Australia, at Braeside, Dutson
Downs, and among many small communities
in the northern part of the state. Information
on these facilities has not been reported.
Investigations have been conducted
concerning the use of wastewater effluents
from the South-Eastern Wastewater
Purification Plant in Victoria. Up to 64 mgd
of secondary treatment effluent could be
made available for this purpose. The
anticipated quality of this wastewater
follows:
Total dissolved solids 700 mg/1
Sodium as Na 130 mg/1
Sodium adsorption ratio 3.2
Chloride as Cl 2/5 mg/1
Phosphorus as PO4 20 mg/1
Nitrogen as N 30 mg/1
Boron as B 0.5 mg/1
These figures represent the peak levels
anticipated for planning purposes.
b. India
In general, there are no quality conditions
or data available concerning the domestic
wastewaters employed for land application.
Standards exist for industrial wastewaters, as
compiled by the Indian Standards Institution.
These are presented below:
Tolerance Limits for Industrial Effluents
Discharged on Land for Irrigation Purposes
(Indian Standards Institution I.S. 3304-196S)
Characteristics
pH 5.5-9.0
Total dissolved solids 2100 mg/1
Sulfates 1000 mg/1
Chloride (as Cl) 600 mg/1
Percent sodium 60%
BODS 500 mg/1
Oils and grease 30 mg/1
Boron (as B) 2.0 mg/1
c. Israel
Anaerobic and aerobic oxidation ponds
127
-------
provide treatment in Israel for both domestic
and industrial wastewaters prior to land
application. Stabilization ponds of short
detention periods from five to seven days and
high loading have been used in more than 100
land application installations. Further data on
quality parameters are not available.
d. Mexico
Industrial and domestic wastewaters have
long been discharged to the canal system
draining Mexico City. This system provides a
source of irrigation water in El Mezquetal,
Hidalgo. The wastewaters involed are a
mixture of raw and treated effluents; the
resulting average quality of the irrigation
water at the point of use is as follows:
In general, irrigation wastewater quality
requirements depend on soil composition and
nutrient needs. Industrial wastewaters from
the canning industry contain up to 3,500 mg/1
of organic substances, up to 155 mg/1 of
potassium, relatively low nitrogen levels of 16
to 39 mg/1, relatively low phosphorus (P2 Os =
1.2 - 11.9 mg/1) content and dissolved
inorganic substances that can approach high
but not dangerous levels during canning
operations. Among sugar refinery
wastewaters, dissolved minerals of 1,000 to
3,000 mg/1 were found as well as relatively
high levels of calcium and potassium (K20 =
110-140 mg/1). Sodium- also appears but not
in sufficient quantities to rule out its use.
Useful nitrogen exists from 30 to 60 mg/1,
BOD 244 ppm
DO O.4 ppm
COD 228 ppm
Total Solids 1 ,623 ppm
Total dissolved solids 1 ,209 ppm
Suspended solids 414 ppm
Nitrogen
organic 1.8
asNH3 15.7
NO2 0.015
NO3 0.2
pH 8.0
Alkalinity as CaCo3 472
/~i l_ j. O
Carbonate 9
Bicarbonate HCO3 555
Chlorides 236
Sulfate 95
Sodium 321
Calcium 43
Magnesium 22
Boron 0
ABS 12.4
e. Hungary
The characteristics of raw domestic
wastewaters used experimentally and in
limited land application systems are indicated
in the attached table. Under Hungarian
regulations, these raw domestic wastewaters
must be subject to minimum treatment by
sedimentation. The process requires a
minimum detention time of 1-1/2 hours in a
settling basin of 2 millimeters per second flow
velocity. On this basis, a BOD reduction of up
to 40 percent, a suspended solids reduction of
up to 70 percent, and a bacterial reduction of
up to 75 percent are predicted.
and up to 5,000 mg/1 of organic material can
be expected. Wastewaters from the alcohol
and beer industries, fiber processing, and from
starch production have also been found to be
suitable for irrigation purposes. The major
determinants as to the applicability of
industrial wastewaters appear to be the
dissolved mineral content and sodium levels.
Control of sodium levels appear to be by
significant dilution.
CHARACTERISTIC QUALITY DATA AVERAGES
OF THE WASTEWATERS OF TWO HUNGARIAN
TOWNS
No. Examined Components 1 2
1 pH 7.7 7.4
2 Total dissolved material mg/1 1,602 1,112
3 Total suspended material mg/1 702 218
4 Total dry matter mg/1 2,304 1,330
5 Total organics mg/1 1,040 543
6 Dissolved organics mg/1 358 401
7 Suspended organics mg/1 682 142
8 Total minerals mg/1 1,264 787
9 Dissolved minerals mg/1 1,144 711
10 Suspended minerals mg/1 120 ,76
11 Oxygen consumption mg/1 796 401
12 BOD5 mg/1 194 60
13 Total nitrogen(N) mg/1 20.0 21.0
14 Total phosphorus (P20S) mg/1 4.0 5.9
15 Total potassium (K20) mg/1 40.0 32.6
16 Chloride (CO mg/1 268 98
17 Sulfate (S04) mg/1 149 345
18 Conductivity mg/1 2,730 1,252
Source: Utilization of Urban Sewages for Irrigation
128
-------
f. Belgium
Information on raw fruit and vegetable
canning wastewaters appears as a result of
experimentation in Belguim. The raw
waste water data follow:
BOD 720-848 mg/1
COD 1,650-1,220 mg/1
Suspended Material 45-70.5 mg/1
Organic Suspended Materials 42-61 mg/1
02 0.45-1.2 mg/1
Total Material 1,310-1,905 mg/1
Organic Materials 631 -1,015 mg/1
pH 4.75-4.5
NH4 4.2 mg/1
NO2 0.11 mg/1
NO3 3.6 mg/1
Organic Nitrogen 56.2 mg/1
Total Nitrogen 64.1 mg/1
PO4 11.1 mg/1
In the experiments in question, these
wastewaters were subject only to screening
prior to their use as irrigation water.
The significance of some of the
qualitative parameters relate to the nutrient
values inherent in the wastewaters used for
irrigation. The levels of organic content,
nitrogen and phosphorus are important in this
regard.
Other parameters are significant for the
negative effects they represent when they
exist in significant quantities. Total dissolved
solids of very high levels can cause vegetation
and crop damage. Total dissolved solids
represent calcium, magnesium, sodium, and
potassium cations, among others, as well as
carbonate, sulfate, chloride and nitrate
anions. Total dissolved solids are important
because of the degree of salinity and sodium
they represent. Other ions such as potassium,
calcium and phosphorus are essentially
beneficial. Low levels of salinity generally
pose few problems. Medium to high salinity
wastewaters may be used with plants tolerant
to the existing levels. In addition, the
application site must be well drained and
other water sources—precipitation and other
low salinity irrigation water—must be used to
wash the soils and leach the salinity down
below the root levels of the plants. High
chlorides also present the potential of crop
damage. High sodium levels can also damage
sensitive plants - avocados and fruits with pits
- and can affect the structure of clay soils.
Sodium problems may be diminished by
washing of the soils and by dilution, the
addition of organic matter and calcium sulfate
in some circumstances. Wastewaters with high
sodium levels generally cannot be used for
irrigation except when associated with low
levels of salinity.
Boron is necessary for crop growth below
given safe levels and becomes dangerous to
crops above these levels. The limits of boron
in irrigation waters appear in Table 91. Boron
must be controlled at low levels as a tendency
for some buildup in the soil exists.
Care must be taken to assure that
wastewater for irrigation purposes contains no
harmful or toxic substances - detergents,
phenols, and others. The degree of toxicity of
wastewaters should be verified by careful tests
on plants. Other tests should be performed to
determine the effects of wastewaters on soils,
and to determine the degree of dilution or
chemical rehabilitation of the wastewaters
and, finally, the amount of supplementary
nutrients necessary to build up the soils used.
Site Conditions and Wastewater Application
The character of the site, coupled with
the mode of operations, represents the
difference between an effective, well-managed
system and one that is not. A summarization
of the practices in other countries follows:
a. Hungary.
Site Conditions. The requirements for
land application sites in Hungary derive from
the need to locate a suitably sized area with
appropriate soil conditions and soil quality.
Soil quality relates to its chemical makeup
and its relative evaluation with respect to the
chemical analysis of the wastewaters to be
employed, on the basis of enhanced
agricultural production. The soils analysis
minimizes hazards that might otherwise
develop from the wastewater application
process. Another important consideration
involved concerns year-round and continuous
wastewater disposal. Year-round disposal is
accommodated through well-designed
rotation plans employing acreage of perennial
grasses, wooded areas and porous catchment
acreage. In addition, the land application site
must include protective, wooded buffers to
provide site separation from other
129
-------
TABLE 91
UNITS OF BORON IN IRRIGATION WATERS
FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WITH
DIFFERENT GRADES OF TOLERANCE
Tolerant
4 ppm
Asparagus
Palm Trees (Phoenix
Canariensis)
Date (Phoenix Tytiferia)
Sugar Beets
Beet
Betabel
Alfalfa
Gladiola
Bean
Onion
White Radish
Cabbage
Lettuce
Carrot
Semi-tolerant
2 ppm
Sunflower
Potato
Cotton
Tomato
Sweetpea
Radish
Olive
Barley
Wheat
Corn
Oats
Calabash
Sweet Potato
Lima or Kidney Beans
2 ppm
1 ppm
Sensitive
1 ppm
Mexican Oak
Black Oak, Persian
or English
Tuberous Sunflower
White Beans
American Elm
Plum
Pear
Apple
Grape
Fig
Nispero
Cherry
Peach
Apricot
Blackberry
Orange
Avocado
Grapefruit
Lemon
0.3 ppm
Source: Analysis of the Black Waters of the Cuenca of the Valley of Mexico and the
Region of El Mezquital, Hidalgo—Bulletin 2 Hydraulic Commission of the
Cuenca of the Valley of Mexico, Mexico, D.F., March 196S
development. The site must be located at least
300 meters from the closest residential
districts. Groundwater levels must be at least
1.5 meters below the surface of the
application site.
Methods and Rates of Application. Land
application operations must be continuous
and year-round. Application during the winter
has not provided any difficulties in extreme
cold and despite thick layers of snow. The
most effective winter application, however,
requires fall plowing of the site. Winter
irrigation resulted in more favorable yields of
potatoes and sugar beets. On the other hand,
spring irrigation resulted in earlier and
stronger grasses. Winter application amounted
to an average of 220 to 225 mm. Filter
meadows and forests with border levees may
be irrigated to a 3,000—mm per year
application rate, or less, to produce a
desirable filtering effect.
The methods of wastewater application
can be either by surface methods—ridge-and-
furrow—or by spraying. Normal application
rates were found to be between 300 mm to
600 mm per year for the medium heavy clays
and sandy loams irrigated. Irrigation of
alfalfa, corn and cereal is performed for four
days on an 18- to 24-day cycle. Tree
plantations can be irrigated at a rate of 80
mm every 15 to 20 days year-round to a total
annual irrigation of 1,500 mm.
Ground Covers. Domestic wastewaters
provide the best source of agricultural
130
-------
production for ground covers of fodder,
pasturage, sugar beets, industrial crops,
medicinal and decorative plants and popular
trees. These types of ground cover are limited,
due to the various regulations imposed for the
use of domestic wastewater irrigation. Under
these regulations, timber trees, forests,
meadows and pastures may be irrigated in
other than the growing season; plowed lands
may be irrigated prior to sowing. Hungarian
regulations do not limit the use of ground
covers that may be employed with industrial
wastewater irrigation.
b. Israel
Site Conditions. Information on land
application sites in Israel is limited. Certain
site requirements exist concerning public
protection. Warning signs are required for
areas being irrigated with wastewaters.
Irrigation pipe lines should not be
cross-connected to potable water supplies.
Mosquito and fly control measures and odor
control measures must be instituted on the
irrigation site and at adjacent areas. Lawn
irrigation can only occur when the lawns are
closed to the public.
Separation of irrigation sites and other
land uses depend on the method of
application used. Ridge-and-furrow irrigation
requires 100-meter separation trom residential
uses and 25-meter separation from roads, as a
minimum. Spray irriation — defined as
irrigation by spraying where no direct contact
between the irrigation water and the plants
and trees irrigated exists - requires 200-meter
separation from residential areas and 50-meter
separation from roads.
Ground Covers. The crop types allowed
for ground cover formerly included
watermelons, nuts, ground-nuts, sweet
potatoes, okra, bananas, citrus fruit, olives,
eggplant, melons, trees for landscaping,
flowers, marrows, date trees and potatoes. In
addition, crops for industrial and not human
consumption, nursery trees, fodder crops and
pasturage are employed as ground cover in
Israel. Fruit tree or chards and grassed lawns
may also be used under strictly controlled
conditions.
As a result, with Israel's experience with
the 1970 cholera epidemic, the government
has prohibited the use of wastewater
irrigation on food crops and is presently
restudying its wastewater irrigation
regulations.
c. India
Limited data exist concerning site
conditions and the methods and rates of
application of wastewater. Raw sewage
irrigation is recommended only for those sites
with light soils and excellent drainage. An
indication exists that surface flooding
represents one of the principal wastewater
application methods.
Ground Covers. In India, fodder grasses,
cereals, pulses, oilseed plants, cotton,
sugarcane and various vegetable crops provide
the majority of ground covers used on the
site. An effort is being made to restrict
ground covers to nonedible crops and the
production of oil-bearing plants such as
citronella, mentha, palmarosa, and lemon
grass on farms irrigating with untreated
domestic wastewaters.
d. Australia
Site Conditions. The most favorable site
conditions indicated in Australia concern
adequate area with suitable soils and
contours, low rainfall and high evaporation,
isolation from centers of population and
isolation from points of groundwater
withdrawal. In general, the investigation of
irrigation sites considers a variety of factors.
Among these are the quality and quantities of
existing water, comparative analysis between
existing water and wastewaters, quality and
quantity evaluation of prospective application
sites as to rainfall and evaporation
topography, soil percolation and
permeability, soil chemistry, site drainage,
possible effects of wastewater irrigation, and
potential crops.
An example of soil category classification
in terms of application method, local drainage
and crop type appears in Table 92, Irrigation
Potential of Soil Types, from an interim
report investigating the use of secondary
effluents for irrigation purposes in Victoria,
Australia.
131
-------
TABLE 92
IRRIGATION POTENTIAL OF SOIL TYPES
Oass
1
21
Expected
Permeability
High
Surface medium
to high. Subsoil
low to very low.
Surface low to
medium. Subsoil
low to very low.
Surface low. Sub-
soil low to very low.
Surface low to
very low. Subsoil
probably low.
Surface low to
medium. Subsoil
low to medium.
Surface low to
medium. Sub-
surface low to
medium
Method of
Irrigation
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
or flood
Flood
Flood
Flood or
furrow
Furrow or
Sprinkler
Drainage Needs
Liable to water-
logging. Respond
to tile drainage
Very liable to
waterlogging
Respond to close
tile drainage
Possible Crops
Vegetables
Flowers
Lemons
Lucerne
(Probably nutrient
deficiencies)
Vegetables
Flowers
Pasture
(Possible nutrient
deficiencies)
Liable to water- Orchards
logging. Fair response Vegetables
to intense tile drainage Flowers
Pasture
Liable to surface Pastures
waterlogging
Liable to surface Pastures
waterlogging
Liable to surface
waterlogging and
possibly also to
subsurface water-
logging
As for Class (6)
soil type
Pasture
Rootcrops
Larger vegetables
As for Class (6)
soil type
Note: Perhaps up to l/3rd of this class, particularly around Tyabb and Somerville, may be
superior to the rest of this class because of higher subsoil permeability.
In the Dalmore region, fertile areas of friable clay are underlain by peaty material
which provides good drainage to a depth of several feet.
Source: Interim Report on the Potential for the Utilization of Reconditioned Water From the
South-eastern Purification Plant
132
-------
Once the basic factors are evaluated with
positive results, irrigation requirements for
profitable crop production are determined on
the basis of rainfall records, runoff,
percolation and evaporation. Finally, the
profitable irrigation requirements are
compared with the availability of
reconditioned wastewaters and the costs of
the proposed system are determined.
In the case of the Melbourne and
Metropolitan Board of Works Farm at
Werribee, Australia, site preparation requires
the mechanical plowing of the irrigation site
to a depth of two feet and the construction of
evenly graded leveed cells. Land drains are
constructed in even patterns to collect
effluents.
A buffer of about two miles is maintained
between the farm and other land uses.
Methods and Rates of Application. At the
Board Farm, two methods of land application
prevail. Land filtration takes the form of
permanent pasture irrigation at 18-day
intervals during the high evaporation rate
periods of the year from October to April.
The average application rates are 4 inches per
irrigation by surface methods. Grass filtration
operates during periods of low evaporation
between May and September. It involves
heavy irrigation of densely grassed areas of up
to 20,000 gallons per acre per day. As
wastewaters have an average BOD of 400 ppm
and an SS of 200 ppm, both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions develop with the
irrigation cell at different times in the process.
Land filtration requires from 180 to 250
acres per mgd and grass irrigation requires 48
acres per mgd.
Ground Covers. Ground covers are
limited to grasses and pasturage by
government regulation.
Land Application Performance
Agricultural production for many crops is
greatly improved through the use of land
application. In many cases, twofold increases
in production are reported. The potential for
crop product quality impairment may exist in
the production of certain crops.
The experiences reported for a few
countries are as follows:
a. Hungary
Resulting Soil Conditions. In Poland,
tests on loose soil indicated that wastewater
irrigation transmitted 92 percent of all its
nitrogen, 86 percent of its phosphorus and 71
percent of its potassium to the soil. German
studies indicated that wastewater irrigation
had no harmful effects on soil composition or
porosity. It was found, however, that pH
generally increased as did the proportion of
calcium and sodium. Soil composition
generally improved. No deterioration in the
physical structure of the soil or its tested
chemical properties occurred.
At the Debrecen Experimental Sewage
Irrigation Station at Debrecen, Hungary,
domestic wastewaters were found to have
between 490 to 980 mg/1 of total organic
material; total nitrogen was between 42 and
81 mg/1; potassium occurred between 42 and
63 mg/1; and phosphorus existed between 0.7
and 7 mg/1. Soil analysis indicated that
humus, nitrogen and potassium increased.
Only the phosphorus content of the soil
decreased appreciably. Although total
dissolved solids were high - between 1,011
and 1,285 mg/1 - sodium ranged between 36
and 61 percent and magnesium ran between
21 and 46 percent, year-round irrigation did
not cause significant alkaline ratios.
Table 93, Annual Nutrient Values Added
by Wastewater Applications, indicates the
nutrient values to the ground covers and soils
on an annual basis.
Production. The agricultural production
resulting from the use of domestic wastewater
irrigation appears in Table 94, Produce
Results of Plants Irrigated With Urban
Sewage (Debrecen, Hungary). A comparison
of this agricultural production with that of a
site not irrigated with domestic wastewaters is
shown in Table 95, Comparison of Production
Results, with and without Urban Sewage
Irrigation (Debrecen, Hungary). Significant
increases in productivity resulted in all areas
except for sugar beets which are intensively
fertilized with manure in normal Hungarian
farm operations.
133
-------
TABLE 93
ANNUAL NUTRIENT VALUES ADDED BY WASTEWATER APPLICATIONS
Wastewater Useful Nitrogen P205 K20
Domestic
Fruit and vegetable 16-30 mg/1
canning
Sugar refining 30-60 mg/1 34 mg/1 110-140 mg/1
Starch 43-99 mg/1 0.1-1.9 mg/1 16-20 mg/1
Hemp 37-90 mg/1 6-37.5 mg/1 366-876 mg/1
Source: Scientific Research Institute for Water Supply Economy
Organic Material
50-400 kq/kh l-10kq/kh 30-300 kq/kh 1,000-4,000 kq/kh
1.2-11.9 mg/1 12-129 mg/1 1,000-1,200 mg/1
5,000 mg/1
2,000-3,000 mg/1
1,600-4,370 mg/1
Only two negative quality impacts were
realized, in addition to enhanced agricultural
production. Hemp stalk crops were increased
but the resulting fiber was coarsened and
could only be used for low-grade purposes.
Transplanted crops were found to have
underdeveloped root structure due to the
availability of irrigation water and could not
be transplanted successfully.
b. Israel
Production. More than 100 systems exist
in Israel and have, in general, produced
excellent results in agricultural production.
The yields from irrigated plots are
significantly higher than those from plots
irrigated with normal water, with an
equivalent amount of chemical fertilizers
alone.
c. Australia
Resulting Soil Conditions. Improvement
to the native soils resulted from land
application on the Werribee Farm. The degree
of improvement is illustrated in Table 96.
Performance:. A summary of the Farm's
wastewater quality enhancement performance
appears in Table 96, Enhancement of Soil by
Wastewater Application (Werribee Farm).
Production. In addition, the pasturage
provided grazes 15,000 head of cattle through
the year. Forty to fifty thousand sheep are
fattened during spring and summer. This
results in the sale of 5,000 cattle, 36,000
sheep and 250 bales of wool during the
average year.
d. England
The West Hertfordshire Main Drainage
Authority, located at Rickmansworth, about
20 miles north of London, England, serves an
area of 210 square miles with a population of
550,000. A volume of 141,000 cubic meters
(37 mgd) of wastewater each day, 80 percent
of which is from domestic sources, is treated
in a two-stage treatment facility. The
Authority was organized in 1939, but the
irrigation of digested sludge was not
commenced until 1952. To avoid public
reference to sewage, sewage-connected terms,
and the connotation associated with the use
of such terms, the digested sludge has been
given the name of HYDIG. The effluent from
the secondary treatment plant, having a
quality better than 10/10 (Royal Commission
standards: 15 ppm SS and 20 ppm BOD), is
discharged into a river. The effluent at
discharge into the river contains on the
average 18 ppm of oxidized nitrogen (0.03
ppm ammonial) and 5 ppm of phosphorus.
The daily flow of 37 million gallons of
wastewater produces about 90 million gallons
per year of liquid digested sludge. The sludge
has a solids content of about 3 percent, more
or less, which is applied to the land, either by
spreading from tank trucks as they roll across
the fields, or by irrigation from pits or large
stationary storage tanks located adjacent to
the fields. Approximately 1,000 acres are
owned by the Authority and used as
experimental farmland, and the balance of the
6,000 acres is operated or owned by some 62
private farm units. The cost of transporting
and applying the HYDIG is about $4 per
1,000 gallons which contrasts with the cost of
134
-------
TABLE 94
PRODUCE RESULTS OF PLANTS IRRIGATED WITH URBAN SEWAGE AND
THE AVERAGE SEWAGE QUANTITIES USED
(Debrecen, Hungary)
Sugar beet
Maize
Maize for silage
Lucerne,
1-year-old
Lucerne,
2-year-old
Lucerne,
3-year-old
Red clover
Alexandrian
clover
Papilionaceae
mixture
Sudan grass
(main sowing)
Sudan grass
(after seed)
Vetch
Mixture of oats
and vetches
Fodder pea
Broomcorn,
white
Broomcorn,
brown
Spring vetch
(intercultural)
White mustard
(intercultural)
Sunflower
Squash
(for seed)
Castor bean
Solanum
Digitalis
Hemp
Potato
(industrial)
Wheat (autumn)
Wheat (spring)
Examined
Year or Period
1961-67
1961-66
1961-67
1961-64
1963-65
1964-66
1966
1966
1961
1962-66
1963-65
1963-65
1962
1963
1964
1964-66
1967
1967
1965
1966-67
1963-64
1963-64
1967
1961
1965
1967
1967
Type of
Produce
root
dry grain
green
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
hay
grain
grain
grain
grain
grain
grain
seed
seed
green
green
tuber
grain
grain
Average
Produce (q/ha)
363.24
58.50
346.19
90.72
120.29
85.07
99.25
123.37
111.50
73.17
37.96
38.09
49.52
29.91
8.62
24.93
6.62
2.45
14.87
3.16
19.20
164.69
16.37
83.77
119.80
29.35
29.89
Average Sewage
Depth (mm)
392
368
290
577
309
115
399
598
201
308
254
83
248
91
268
598
267
38
490
281
930
111
281
340
275
87
135
NOTE: q/ha = quintal/hectare - 220.46 lb/2.47 acre = 89.25 Ib/ac
135
-------
TABLE 95
COMPARISON OF PRODUCTION RESULTS WITH
AND WITHOUT URBAN SEWAGE IRRIGATION
(Debrecen, Hungary)
The Examined
Year or
Plant Period
Sugar beet
Corn
Maize for silage
Lucerne 1-3
years old
Sunflower
Potato
(industrial)
1961-67
1961-66
1961-67
1961-66
1965
1965
Average
Sewage
Depth
mm
392
368
290
399
490
275
Type of
Produce
root
grain
green
hay
grain
tuber
Irrigated
Non-irrigated
Average Produce
(q/ha)
363.24
58.50
346.19
99.25
14.87
119.80
363.00
22.49
217.25
36.58
4.17
59.73
Source: Utilization of Urban Sewage—Vermes, Hungary
TABLE 96
ENHANCEMENT OF SOIL BY WASTEWATER APPLICATION
(Werribee Farm)
After Irrigation
Native Soil Before Irrigation 12yrs.
Nitrogen
Phosphoric Acid
Potash
Lime
Chlorine
1 ,400 ppm
920 ppm
3,230 ppm
2,700 ppm
190 ppm
1,200
450
1,540
600
420
2,620
1,700
8,010
3,200
260
26yrs.
500
2,500
10,920
3,900
210
TABLE 97
ENHANCEMENT OF WASTEWATER QUALITY FROM LAND APPLICATION
(Werribee Farm, Australia)
Method of
Treatment
Land Filtration
Grass Filtration
Lagoons
Total
Quantity
Treated MG
9,020
12,886
21,049
42,955
Nitrogen Phosphorous
BOD
98.0
96.0
94.0
95.5
SS
97
95
87
92
Detergent
80
50
30
50
Total
90
60
40
60
Total
80
35
30
45
E. Coli
98.0
99.5
99.8
99.0
Source: Tables from Waste into Wealth and Post Graduate Course in pH Engineering
136
-------
ocean dumping of about $9 per 1,000 gallons.
The disadvantages of tank truck operation are
more than offset by the savings that result
from having neither investment in 5,000 acres
of privately owned farmland nor farm
operating expenses on this land.
The irrigation is done on gravel soils that
are fairly firm and easily drained. The crops
grown include grass, forage crops, English
black beans, grains, potatoes and otljer root
crops. There has been no buildup of toxic
salts, no cattle disease, no objectionable
odors, no fly problem, and no community
objections. The public health officers are
satisfied that the irrigation procedure is not a
threat to public health. There have been some
individual complaints, but the majority of
these have involved the use of the highways
by the large tank trucks. The principal
problem appears to be the potential long-term
harmful effects of certain undesirable trace
metals in the sludge. The toxic metals most
frequently found are zinc, copper and nickel.
Research work by the British Ministry of
Agriculture has established that nickel is four
times more toxic to plant life than copper
which is, itself, twice as toxic as zinc. This
discovery made it possible to simplify the
composite effect of these metals in any
particular sample of sewage by expressing the
effect as "zinc-equivalent." The Authority has
set for itself these tentative guidelines pending
further research work. If, in a sample of virgin
soil which is free from metal traces, no more
than 250 ppm of zinc-equivalent is allowed to
build up in the top soil, then there is no risk
of damage to plant life due to the metals.
Unfortunately, the buildup appears to be
cumulative. The Authority has selected a
30-year period for the application of sludge to
a particular piece of land, and is currently
limiting the annual dressing to no more than
1/30 of the 250 ppm arbitrary maximum.
Research is also being done to determine
whether or not over a prolonged period the
minute traces of lead, cadmium, arsenic and
mercury will have any deleterious effect upon
plant life. Chromium as a chromium salt in
sewage has been found not to be toxic unless
it is present in very high concentrations.
Similarly, boron (from detergents) was found
to be nontoxic, except in high concentrations.
Boron, unlike the other metal traces, quickly
leaches down into the subsoil.
The other principal and tentative
injunction which the British Ministry of
Agriculture rendered related to the avoidance
of an acidic soil condition. It has been found
that when the soil becomes more acid than
pH 6.5, it seems to accelerate the toxic effects
of certain trace metals on the plant life. As a
general precaution, livestock should not be
allowed to graze fields to which sewage has
recently been applied until after rain has
washed the edible plant sections clean. Rain
will reduce the potential hazard to livestock
from ingestion of lead and mercury which
may have been deposited on the plant
surfaces.
Public Health
Another situation exists in the area of
public health. An appropriate degree of
sensitivity exists within this area because of
ever-present hazards that may be unleashed. A
strong example exists in the case of Israel.15
Investigation during the 1970 cholera
epidemic in that country resulted in evidence
that cholera was being transmitted by the
consumption of vegetables irrigated with
wastewater. The result was an immediate
administrative response forbidding the use of
land application for the irrigation of any food
crops - whether cooked or raw.
Investigations on the part of the Central
Public Health Engineering Research Institute
of Nagpur, India, disclosed a higher incidence
of selected diseases, skin condition and
parasites among sewage farm workers than
other occupational workers. Many of the
diseases are endemic to vast parts of India. A
summary of this investigation is contained in
Exhibit VI.
137
-------
The hazards to public health in areas
where diseases that are waterborne or
transmitted by water-related vectors occur
endemically produce significant problems of
site selection, design, land application
management, regulation and control. Too
often, health regulations do not reflect these
needs due to the limitation of what is really
known locally about the land application
process. While bacteriological examination
may show no relative difference between the
bacterial levels on plants normally grown and
those irrigated by the application process, the
surface of the application site bears a
significantly higher bacterial level than would
a normal site. This fact dictates special
control in the irrigation of crop types or
special precautions in crop harvesting.
A few examples of some of the existing
health regulations follow.
a. Hungary
An extract of a few of the applicable
regulations from Hungary follows. It should
be noted that these regulations are incomplete
in the form presented. (Extracted from the
five Hungarian reports.)
1. Wastewater Treatment — Before
irrigation, domestic sewage shall be treated in
a settling tank for 1-1/2 to 2 hours at a 2
mm/sec flow velocity.
2. Application Site Regulations -
Irrigation fields shall be located 300 meters
distant from the closest residential districts
and surrounded by a forested buffer.
Ground water shall be at least 1.5 meters
below the ground surface.
3. Industrial Wastewaters — May be used
for crop irrigation with no restriction as to
crop type.
4. Domestic Wastewater — Cannot be
used for the irrigation of garden products for
human consumption. Domestic Wastewater
may be used for irrigating timber trees,
forests, meadows and pastures (except during
the growing season) and plowed lands before
sowing without restriction. Domestic
wastewater irrigation must be terminated:
a. Prior to the onset of blooming
in the case of grain crops and
eatable potatoes
b. Four weeks in the case of
industrial potato, fodder crops,
sugar beets, oil and fiber plants
c. Two weeks before harvesting
and grazing in the case of hay,
perennial papilionaceous
meadows and pasture during the
months of July and August and
three weeks during the
remainder of the year
5. Employee Health Protection —
Employees should be provided with:
a. Good quality water
b. Vaccination
c. Periodic medical control
d. Protective clothing
6. Timber Crops — May be irrigated
without restriction.
7. Separate regulations exist for orchard
irrigation.
b. Israel
Exhibit VII contains the health
regulations which have been administratively
amended to preclude the land application of
crops for human consumption.
c. Australia
Exhibit VIII, Land Application
Regulations in Australia, contains the health
regulations and analysis relating to the
problems of land application regulation in
Australia as supplied by the Interim Report
On the Potential for the Utilization of
Reconditioned Water from the South-Eastern
Purification Plant, prepared by Melbourne
and Metropolitan Board of Works and State
Rivers and Water Supply Commission of
Victoria, Australia.
Case Studies
Finally, to supplement the study project's
investigation of wastewater land application
in other countries, the following case studies
are presented. These case studies provide a
clear sense of the form and character of some
of the systems used in other parts of the
world and some of the experimental efforts
currently under way.
Mexico City, D. F., Mexico
1. Basic Data, Mexico City has an
elevation of approximately 7,500 feet in a
valley completely surrounded by high
mountains. Population of the City of Mexico
138
-------
City is approximately 8 million and an
additional 2 million people live immediately
adjacent to the Federal District boundaries.
In 1902, a canal and tunnel system was
dug to convey wastes approximately 70
kilometers (44 miles) north to the Tula area.
The City of Mexico City is sinking 8 to
10 centimeters per year and it is now
necessary to pump into the canal system.
The city is served by a combined sewer
system which has a dry-weather flow of
approximately 25 cubic meters per second
(570 mgd). Wet-weather flows reach 2,000
cubic meters per second (4,560 mgd). The
potable water system for the area is from a
well field some distance away. Approximately
35 cubic meters per second (800 mgd) are
supplied to the city.
Due to the increases in storm runoff and
possibility of flooding the central part of the
city at any time due to pump failures or
excessive storm flow, a deep tunnel system is
being constructed at a cost of 4 billion pesos.
($320,000,000) The annual cost of disposal
will be reduced by the pumping costs now
required, an amount equal to amortization of
about one-half of the construction cost. The
tunnel is from 150 to 750 feet deep with 37
shafts. The tunnel is to be completed in
March 1974, at which time approximately 70
percent of the dry-weather flow of the canal
will be diverted to the tunnel. The tunnel is
being designed for a storm flow of 200 cubic
meters per second.
The tunnel is 6-1/2 meters (26 ft.) in
diameter and has a design velocity of 1 meter
per second for dry-weather flow and 6 meters
per second for storm flows. The Mexico City
area has 700 millimeters (27 inches) of
rainfall per year.
2. Urban Use. In addition to the
untreated flow, 5 cubic meters per second are
treated in five secondary treatment plants
within the City, which have a capacity of 7.5
cubic meters per second. This flow is used for
irrigation of parks, playgrounds and other
large public areas, as well as for the filling of
lakes in parks and for fountains. Solids from
the treatment plants are discharged to the
untreated flow. The flow used within the City
is chlorinated prior to application and is used
in Chapultepec Park, the University of Mexico
and Olympic sports arena and parks.
The treatment plants are operated only
during the dry season — November through
May. The Federal District has determined its
costs for treating the effluent for watering
within the city at 25 centavos per cubic meter
(16 cents per 1,000 gal.).
3. Crop Irrigation. The balance of the
sewage, approximately 20 cubic meters per
second, is discharged to the irrigation canal. It
is estimated that approximately 95 percent of
this flow reaches the land; the balance is lost
to evaporation and infiltration.
The irrigation area was formed as a
cooperative; the government owns the land
but has given it to farmers as long as the land
is used for farming. In the Tula Hidalgo
approximately 47,000 hectares (111,746
acres) are being irrigated at this time and
plans exist for a Phase 2 of 27,000 hectares to
be irrigated, and for Phase 3, an additional
13,000 hectares to be irrigated. In the Tula
Hidalgo, 24,837 hectares are farmed by
20,295 Ejidos (heads of families). The balance
of the 20,369 hectares are owned by 8,278
persons.
The area is served by the Tepeji River and
flow not used for irrigation eventually flows
to Tampico. There are three storage reservoirs
for irrigation water, totaling 301 million cubic
meters. During the dry season, sewage and
irrigation water are jointly used, and during
the wet weather, natural river water is stored
for use during the dry season. On an annual
basis, approximately 700 million cubic meters
(185,000 mg) of sewage are used and 200
million cubic meters (54,000 mg) of irrigation
water are used. In 1971, 672,654,000 cubic
meters were used on the 47,000 hectares.
Upon the 47,000 hectares, 1,476,749
tons of food products were raised, with a
value of 333,783,710 pesos ($26,701,000).
Crops are grown by farmers in response to
market demand. They have not found sewage
to be toxic to any natural crops. Only one
crop per year is produced, with the exception
of alfalfa where 10 cuttings are made. Crops
include alfalfa, corn, wheat, tomatoes, chiles,
flowers and other truck garden crops. Table
98, Summary of Agriculture Production
1971-72, 03 Irrigation District-Tula Hidalgo,
presents the tons of crops raised.
The Tula Hidalgo is operated by the
Federal Department of Agriculture and the
139
-------
costs of the operations are paid by the Ejidos
on the following basis: 30 pesos ($2.40) per
hectare for 40 percent of the land farthest
from the head of the district and 20 pesos
($1.60) per hectare for the remaining 60
percent by individual holdings per time of
irrigation. Each irrigation is 20 centimeters
(7.8 inches) of water on the land.
The farmers have found that the alfalfa
commands a premium and also is heavier than
normal due to the use of sewage.
Drinking water for the 100,000 residents
of the area is from springs above the Hidalgo.
Land adjacent to the project is worth 500
pesos per hectare ($17/acre). The irrigated
land is worth 30,000 to 50,000 ($100-$ 160
per acre) pesos per hectare. The irrigation area
receives 400 cm (16 inches) per year of
rainfall. The Hidalgo has excellent records
indicating the amount of return flow to the
river by using gauges on the river above and
below the District.
Observations were not available as to the
changes in the quality of the flow at the point
of distribution, as compared to inland. It is
apparent that the canal acts as one long
oxidation ditch and that slime growths and
such along the canal must be oxidizing part of
the material. ABS is a problem inasmuch as
Mexico has not switched to soft detergents.
Foaming was noticed at the canal and gate
structures. Odors along the canal are not
noticeable. The area which is farmed has few
homes adjacent to the farm land. Most people
live in the villages where conveniences are
available. All work is done by hand. No farm
equipment was seen.
Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works
Sewage Farm, Werribee, Australia1 6
1. Basic Data. The Board of Works Farm
occupies 42 square miles of formerly barren,
arid, windswept plain south of the Werribee
River and adjacent to Port Phillip Bay.
Originating in 1892, the Board of Works Farm
has grown to serve a population of 1,806,000
people and an average flow of 96 mgd to 250
mgd during rainy periods. A total of 10,378
acres of the farm is employed for irrigated
pasture, 3,393 acres are used for lagooning of
wastewaters, and 3,472 acres find use in grass
filtration. The general criteria for site selection
suggested by the experience gained at the
Board of Works Farm involve:
a. An adequate area of land with
suitable soils and contours
b. Low rainfall
c. High evaporation
d. Isolation from centers of
population appropriate to the
type of treatment.
e. Isolation from points of
groundwater withdrawal
2. Soils and Site Preparation. Soils
generally include delta alluviums in some
places and shallow loams covering a dense
layer of clay in others. Soils are generally
mechanically plowed to a depth of two feet
and the area is broken into cells, even graded
to assure the even distribution of wastewater.
Land drains are constructed in regular
patterns to collect effluents of the land
application process.
3. Operations. Three modes of treatment
are employed on the basis of season and flow
These are presedimented or raw wastewaters,
depending upon their location in the older or
newer parts of the farm:
a. Land filtration: takes the form
of permanent pasture irrigation
at 18-day intervals during the
high evaporation periods of the
year from October to April. The
average application rate is 4
inches per irrigation. Effluents
are clear, colorless and odorless
and are collected in the land
drains and discharged to Port
Phillip Bay. One'acre is found to
serve 100 persons or 5,000 gpd.
b. Grass filtration operations occur
during the periods of low
evaporation between May and
September. This involves the
heavy irrigation of densely
grassed areas of up to 20,000
gallons per acre per day with
BOD of 400 ppm and SS of 200
ppm. Both anaerobic and
aerobic conditions develop
within the irrigated cell at
different times in the process.
Effluents are light brown in
color due to the staining from
the vegetation and are also
140
-------
TABLE 98
SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION
1971-1972
03 IRRIGATION DISTRICT - TULA HIDALGO
Crop
Alfalfa Verde
Ajo
Arvejon
Avena Verde
Calabacita
Cebada Grano
Cebada Pago
Cebolla
Cilantro (semilla)
Col
Chicharo
Chiles Verde
Flores
Frijol Grano
Frijol Ejote
Espinaca
Frutales
Girasol
Haba
Jitomate
Lechuga
Maiz Grano
Maiz Rastrojo
Maiz Verde
Nabo Forraje
Melon
Pepino
Pradera
Tomate
Trigo Grano
Sandia
Note:
Crop
Alfalfa
Garlic
Peas (large)
Green Oats
Squash (small)
Barley Grain
Barley (forage)
Onion
Parsley Seed
Cabbage
Peas
Green Hot Peppers
Flowers
Navy Beans
Am. String Beans
Spinach
Fruit Trees
Sunflower
Lima Beans
Am. Tomato
Lettuce
Corn (kernels)
Corn (forage)
Corn (sweet)
Forage Turnips
Melon
Cucumber
Meadow Grass
Tomato
Wheat Grain
Watermellon
.1 (U.S.) tons
.907 metric tons
Hectares
12,396.40
94.50
12.89
2,998.75
674.33
1,865.43
23.79
3.53
27.95
1.00
768.80
10.41
1,259.02
58.30
0.82
25.08
37.19
95.84
1,554.65
74.47
17,053.60
101.20
112.37
1.00
34.74
12.80
216.90
7,293.79
0.40
46,809.95
Acres
115,620.65
Metric Tons
1,181,376.920
258.456
20.820
54,426.714
7,282.764
3,645.410
4,059.874
168.909
4.589
501.843
7.900
8,231.350
1,563.870
151.580
9.020
213.180
230.578
1,990.070
49,437.870
1,457.764
70,260.525
65,179.023
7,084.000
1,011.330
7.100
166.752
2,080.000
2,051.706
13,865.494
3.960
1,476,749.371
U.S. Tons
1,624,424.30
Note:
The crop hectares listed are more than the hectares of land available since a second
crop in some instances has been produced on the same land.
141
-------
a. Chapultepec Park, watering of lawns
b. Chapultepec Park, decorative lakes and fountains
FIGURE 11
USE OF TREATED EFFLUENT, MEXICO CITY, D.F.
142
-------
c. Chapultepec Park, secondary effluent
used for lakes used for boating
FIGURE 11
USE OF TREATED EFFLUENT,
MEXICO CITY , D. F.
a. Alfalfa, irrigated with raw sewage, 10 cuttings per year
FIGURE 12
IRRIGATION OF FARMLAND, TULA HIDALGO, MEXICO
143
-------
b. Tomatoes irrigated with raw sewage
c. Distribution canal for raw sewage
FIGURE 12
IRRIGATION OF FARMLAND, TULA HIDALGO, MEXICO
144
-------
collected and discharged to the
Bay.
c. Lagoons store and treat daily
peaks and wet-weather flows
and are constructed in series
with even controls between.
Thus, the first lagoons in series
operate anaerobically with
subsequent lagoons inevitably
functioning aerobically. First
pond loadings amount to from
550 to 675 Ibs. of BOD per acre
per day. The overall loading to
the lagooning system ranges
from 60 to 100 Ibs. of BOD per
acre per day. The lagoon
systems exist at a lower
elevation than the land and grass
filtration systems and thus do
not provide storage to serve
these areas.
Prior treatment generally amounts to
preliminary settling. Only 20 percent of the
flows reach the land without some treatment.
Sludges from these processes and those
collected from lagoons are digested in open
lagoons, land-dried, and subsequently used as
a soil conditioner.
Application methods used involve surface
flooding, although other methods could be
used as well, depending on the degree of
treatment provided the wastewater. Land
filtration at the Board of Works Farm requires
from 180 to 250 acres per mgd, and grass
irrigation requires 48 acres per mgd.
Ground water has high chloride content
(2,000 - 3,000 ppm) and appears to provide
no interference problems. A two-mile-wide
buffer zone is maintained to isolate the Farm
from adjacent developing areas.
4. System Performance. A sunmary of
the farm's wastewater quality enhancement
performance appears in Table 97,
Enhancement of Wastewater Quality from
Land Application (Werribee Farm). The cost
of this method of treatment is $0.045 per
1,000 gallons (Australia).
In addition, the pasturage provided grazes
15,000 head of cattle through the year. Forty
to fifty thousand sheep are fattened during
spring and surrmer. This results in the sale of
up to 5,000 cattle and 36,000 sheep and 250
bales of wool per year.
5. Health Restrictions. The only health
restrictions are those imposed on the sale of
cattle and sheep for slaughter purposes —
primarily for control of tapeworm in cattle.
The condemnation rate of cattle carcasses —
0.02 percent — is the same as for the
remainder of the state. No higher incidence of
disease among farm employees has been
found as a result of their employment.
Debrecen Experimental Sewage Irrigation
Station, Debrecen, Hungary17
1. Basic Data. The Debrecen
Experimental Sewage Irrigation Station
occupies approximately 35 acres adjacent to
the city wastewater sedimentaiton plant. The
station began operations in 1959 in a climate
with an average annual precipitation of 599
mm (23.6 inches), 2,000 hours of sunlight per
year and an average annual temperature of
10.2°C(50.4°F).
2. Soils and Site Preparation. The soils
encountered were variable but generally sandy
loams of good permeability. Generally they
were found to have low salt contents and
were moderately well supplied with nutrients.
The groundwater table occurred at from 140
to 150 cm (approximately 5 ft). Groundwater
had a high salt content and was of a
carbonate-chloride-sulfate makeup. The site
was broken into roughly 0.57 test plots (1.4
acres). Some of these plots functioned as field
crop sites and others as porous catch plots for
surplus wastewater disposal.
3. Operations. The wastewaters employed
apparently were subject to sedimentation for
pretreatment. Wastewaters were applied by
spray irrigation and surface application during
subsequent years. Irrigation took place
primarily during cultivation originally and
subsequently occurred during crop growth as
well. Irrigation wastewaters were found to
have a total organic content of from 490 to
980 mg/1, total nitrogen at 42 to 81 mg/1,
potassium at 42 to 63 mg/1 and phosphorus at
0.7 to 7 mg/1. The use of these wastewaters
resulted in the application of the following to
the crops on an annual basis.
N 50-400 kg/kh 470-3,800 Ib/acre
K20 30-300 kg/kh 280-2,800 Ib/acre
P205 1-10 kg/kh 10-100 Ib/acre
Organic Matter 1,000-4,000 kg/kh 9,500-38,000
Ib/acre
145
-------
4. Performance. As the experimental
station project was primarily concerned with
the agricultural impact of wastewater
irrigation, the performance was measured in
terms of agricultural impact. The crop yields
of the station, in comparison to the yield at
the Gyozelem Farm near the station, resulted
in the following:
Sugar beets
Dry grain maize
Fodder maize
Alfalfa
Sunflower seed
Industrial potatoes
Debrecen
Station
363.24 q/ha
58.5 q/ha
346.19 q/ha
99.25 q/ha
14.87 q/ha
119.8 q/ha
Gyozelen
Farm
365.0 q/ha
22.49 q/ha
217/2 5 q/ha
46/58 q/ha
4.17 q/ha
59.3 q/ha
The foregoing suggests the yield-increase
effect of wastewater irrigation, as compared
to normal practices. Only two crops
experimentally irrigated were accompanied by
deteriorated quality — hemp stalk and
summer cuttings. The former developed fiber
too coarse for industrial use and the latter
could not be transplanted as required because
of underdeveloped root structures.
146
-------
EXHIBIT VI
HEALTH STUDY
CENTRAL PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NAGPUR, INDIA
The Central Public Health Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, India, has published the
following study: CPHERI's present study has included in its survey a thorough clinical
examination (including hemoglobin estimation) of each worker and the stool sample, examination
using different concentration techniques for detailed information about multiplicity of infection.
Diseases Observed at Time of Study
Gastrointestinal (dysentery, enteritis, etc.)
Respiratory (dyspnoea, bronchitis, etc.)
Anaemia
Skin conditions (pigmentation, rashes, etc.)
Test Group Control Group
45.6
19.6
50.3
22.3
13.0
4.3
23.6
4.0
Stool samples were examined for Ancylostoma duodenale (hookworm), Ascaris lumbricoides
(roundworm), Trichuris trichura (whipworm), Enterobius vermicularis (pinworm), Hymenolepis
nana (dwarf tapeworm), Entomeoba hystolytica, Ent. coli and Giardia intestinalis and the results
were as below:
Test Group
CPERI Study on Three Sewage Farms No. %
Total examined 360
Total positive 303 84.0
Positive for hookworm 231 64.1
Positive for roundworm 245 68.0
Infection with two or more parasites 156 43.3
Dr. Kabir's Study on Madurai Sewage Farm
Total examined 663
Total positive 520 78.4
Dr. Patel's Study on Two Village Farms near Baroda
Total examined 152
Total positive 114 75.0
Control Group
No, %
306
179 59.0
123 40.1
159 52.0
44 14.4
2,644
512
479
287
19.3
60.0
As can be seen from the table, the incidence and multiplicity of infection are far more in the
sewage farm population than in the control. Regarding the multiplicity of infection in the control
population, it was confined to the combination of two parasites, whereas in the sewage farm
group it ranges from two to five parasites. The significantly high rate of multiplicity and incidence
of infection in the sewage farm group illustrates the hazards in the handling of raw sewage for a
prolonged time.
147
-------
Exhibit VII
Health Regulations, Israel
1. Definitions
In these conditions, the following terms shall have the meaning which appears below;
Road — A road liable to be used by motor vehicles;
Spray irrigation — Irrigation by spraying in which there is no direct contact between the
liquid sprayed and the plants or trees irrigated;
Director - The Director-General of the Ministry of Health or any official authorized by him
in writing to carry out these conditions under the Trades and Industries Ordinance;
Irrigation — Includes spray irrigation
Secondary sewage treatment plant — A sewage treatment plant based on biological treatment
processes;
Effluent - Sewage purified by an aerobic secondary sewage treatment plant approved by the
Director and operated in such a manner as to be satisfactory to him;
Sewage — All liquid wastes containing suspended and dissolved material, human, animal or
vegetable matter as well as chemicals in solution.
2. Irrigation with sewage
Sewage is not to be used for irrigation.
3. Conditions under which irrigation with effluent is allowed
Irrigation with effluent is allowed on the following crops only:
(1) Water-melons, nuts, ground-nuts, sweet potatoes, okra, bananas, citrus fruit, olives,
eggplant, melons, trees for landscaping, flowers, marrows, date trees and potatoes.
(2) Crops for industrial use and not used for human consumption.
(3) Nursery trees.
(4) Fodder crops for harvesting and not for grazing.
(5) Fodder crops for grazing of cows or sheep on condition that the animals do not graze on
the irrigated area until it is completely dry.
4. Deciduous fruit trees
In spite of the conditions in paragraph 3 above, the Director may allow low-level spray
irrigation of deciduous fruit trees with effluent if the following three conditions are fulfilled
to his complete satisfaction:
(1) The spray irrigation be so carried out as to prevent effluent from coming in contact with
fruit.
(2) That spray irrigation ceases two' weeks before fruit is harvested.
(3) That the wind-fall not be marketed.
5. Irrigation of lawns with effluent
Effluent shall not be used to irrigate lawns unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The sewage to be used for irrigation be treated in oxidation ponds, in series, having a
minimum detention period of 20 days or treated in a biological treatment plant and
disinfected with chlorine.
(2) After being treated as above, the sewage shall meet the bacteriological standard
determined by the Director.*
(3) The irrigation be carried out only when the lawns are closed to the public.
6. Precautions to be taken before irrigation
Before irrigation with effluent is carried out, the following precautins shall be taken:
(1) The areas to be irrigated shall be clearly designatee with signs warning in clear and visible
letters that sewage irrigation is being carried out.
(2) The pipe network for sewage irrigation be completely disconnected from the regular
water supply network
148
-------
(3) All necessary steps be taken to prevent mosquito or fly breeding in the area to be
irrigated.
(4) All necessary steps to be taken to prevent the dissemination of odours which may reach
residential areas, or other areas in which the public is likely to be present.
(5) No spray irrigation with effluent to be carried out within a distance of 200 m from a
residential area or 50 m from a road.
Ridge and furrow irrigation
Ridge and furrow irrigation with effluent may be carried out if the distance to residential
areas is greater than 100 m and the distance to roads is greater than 25 m.
The use of effluents in fish ponds
Effluents should not be used for breeding fish except under the following conditions:
(1) Effluent shall not be used in ponds for storing fish before marketing or in tanks used for
their transport.
(2) Should snails be found, the owner or operator of the fish pond shall notify the nearest
Health Office.
(3) In the case of snails which serve as vectors of schistosomiasis being found in the pond,
the owner or operator shall carry out all instructions given by the Director including the
drying out of the pond.
Director General Dr. R. Gjebin
State of Israel
Ministry of Health
Proposed standard'. Coliform MPN's of 100/100 ml or less in four out of five samples
149
-------
EXHIBIT VIII
LAND APPLICATION REGULATIONS IN AUSTRALIA
8.4 Criteria in Victoria
The re-use of wastewater for agriculture in Victoria is limited by the provisions of the Health
Act 1958 (No. 6270) and certain Regulations made thereunder.
8.41 Use of Disposal Areas
Under the "Night Soil and Sewage (Contamination of Land) Regulations 1967," the sale of
vegetables and fruit grown on land used for depositing and spreading night soil or sewage is
forbidden. Fodder crops grown on such land cannot be used for feeding cattle and pigs - except
by the Sewerage Authority concerned. A period of six months must elapse after the last deposit
of night soil or sewage before land may be used for crops or grazing. There are no restrictions
imposed on the grazing and sale of sheep, but the higher rainfall in certain parts of Victoria limit
grazing of sheep for other reasons. However, there are severe restrictions imposed on the grazing
and sale of cattle and pigs. No owner or occupier (other than a Sewerage Authority) of any land
used for depositing or spreading night soil or sewage may allow cattle or pigs to be upon that land
(s83 of Act). Sewerage Authorities are permitted to graze cattle and pigs on land used for this
purpose, but they must not allow them to be removed from that land (even to the sewerage farm
of another Authority), except when used for immediate killing for some purpose other than
human consumption, or for killing at a Melbourne export abbatoir. They must be segregated
from other cattle at all times, and when killed at an abbatoir are subject to a control and
inspection system prescribed in the Regulations which are specifically framed for the detection
and reporting of cysticercus bovis (beef measles). The carcasses which pass inspection may be
used for the home market but may not be exported.
These provisions do not apply where night soil or sewage has been treated to a "prescribed
standard" which, as defined by the Regulations, requires that the treated night soil and sewage
should not contain eggs of taenia saginata or taenia solium which are capable of development.
Night soil only is deemed (by Regulation) to meet the prescribed standard if subjected
throughout its mass to a temperature of 212°F for not less than 10 minutes.
In connection with this prescribed standard, the writers understand that there is no simple
and reliable method of detecting and monitoring the presence or absence of viable eggs of taenia
saginata or taenia solium.
In the above Act there is no definition of sewage or wastewater; also there is no
differentiation between untreated wastewater and highly purified wastewater.
8.42 Stream Pollution
In comparison with the above provisions, the "Stream Pollution Regulations 1943" (Health
Act) prescribe the standards for the quality of an effluent water from a purification plant at the
point of discharge into a stream.
These regulations require that, irrespective of stream flow (or lack of it), no sample of
effluent water discharged shall contain more than 20 mg/1 BOD nor contain more than 30 mg/1
suspended solids. A further prescription is that, where a stream is used as a source of water
supply, no 50 cc sample of effluent water shall contain any pathogenic organisms or bacillus coli
communis (in practice usually taken as Escherichia Coli, Type 1). These are well established and
readily performed tests.
150
-------
8.43 General Remarks
A study of the requirements of the Health Act and Regulations thereunder, together with
experience in their application to the disposal of effluent water, reveals some confusion and
inconsistency with regard to the various provisions.
For example, it would appear that the object of the above legislation regarding
contamination of land by night soil and wastewater is to prevent the transmission of pathogenic
organisms (both bacteria and viruses). However, the only requirement preventing the free use of
reconditioned water for irrigation of pastures is to prove that it does not contain the eggs of
taenia saginata or taenia solium capable of development. On the other hand, the Stream Pollution
Regulations, although requiring the discharged effluent water- to contain no pathogenic
organisms, make no specific reference to the eggs of taenia saginata or taenia solium, even though
the stream may be used almost immediately for watering cattle or the irrigation of pastures, fruit
or vegetables, etc.
While there are no reasonably simple tests for the detection of viruses, none of the legislative
requirements could be regarded as ensuring the absence of virus contamination.
The concern exhibited by our Commission of Public Health for the well-being of the
population is fully appreciated and commended. However, the time is fast approaching when
Victoria will not be able to afford the wastage of reconditioned water, and it is suggested that the
time has come to review existing standards and procedures for detecting and monitoring the
presence or absence of harmful organisms in water supply and in effluent waters.
Source: pp 44-46, A.W. Bird, J.D. Lang — Interim Report on the Potential for the Utilization of Reconditioned Water from the
South-Eastern Purification Plant, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and State Rivers and Water Supply Commission,
Victoria, Australia.
151
-------
-------
SECTION VI
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
Land application of wastewater effluents
poses many problems, in the same way that
any other engineering or scientific project
does. The factors involved in this alternative
method of wastewater management may be as
complex as those involved in so-called
conventional methods of treatment of sewage
and industrial wastes and discharge of
effluents into surface water sources.
Before decision is reached on the choice
of land application as an alternative to a
conventional wastewater management system,
full study and careful evaluation must be
made of these special problems, covering
factors of engineering, economics, agronomy,
social and demographic impacts and public
health effects.
While clear-cut guidelines for
implementation of land application systems
are not always defined in terms of design,
construction, operation, control and costs
parameters, certain facts and criteria were
deduced from the field of investigations,
other surveys and studies of existing
principles and practices in the U.S. and
foreign countries, and the investigations
carried out by other researchers.
While some numerical design and decision
data are quoted, it must be made clear that
each proposed installation is specifically
unique due to local factors. This makes it
necessary to evaluate all aspects of each
project before decision can be made to adopt
this wastewater management technique.
In preparation of these suggestions, an
effort has been made to draw upon the
bibliographic search and other sources, in
addition to the data disclosed by the various
phases of the current study.
Climate
Climate may have a great bearing on any
decision to adopt land application practices
and on the performance of this system.
In arid zones, wastewaters may be needed
to augment insufficient natural precipitation
for watering crops.
In areas with long growing seasons and
absence of intense freezing climate, land
application can be practiced year-round
without need for holding wastewaters for long
periods, or choosing means of irrigation which
are not seriously affected by icing conditions.
In humid zones, evapotranspiration of
moisture into the atmosphere will be
inhibited. In wet areas, groundwater levels
may not require augmentation.
In areas with prolonged drought, direct
discharge of wastewater effluents to surface
water sources may be needed to balance the
water resources cycle and stabilize
stream flows.
In hot summer zones, creation of septic
conditions and consequent dissemination of
irrigation-induced odors and insect breeding
in ponded land areas may become a problem.
In sections where year-round recreation,
such as golfing, is possible, the need for
wastewater for irrigation and for creation of
inland lake waters may become a factor in
choosing land application in lieu of discharge
of effluents into surface streams.
In all cases, weather conditions will affect
the rate of application of wastewaters to land
areas and the assimilation capabilities of soil.
Thus, decision-making, design and
operation of land application systems will be
guided and influenced by climatic conditions.
Results of the current study indicate that
most community systems are found in the hot
and dry zones, whereas the industrial
installations are generally located in the
humid regions. The records reveal examples of
well operated facilities which function
effectively through cold and freezing seasons,
demonstrating the fact that no hard and fast
guidelines on weather impacts can be
established under all conditions. This
indicates that all climatic factors need not be
controlling in the utilization of land
application systems.
The bibliographic abstract reference data
153
-------
on land application bears out the basic
principle that utilization of this process is
most common in the Southwest and the mild,
drier sections of the Pacific coast, and in such
water-short countries as Israel. An article on
Direct Utilization of Waste Waters, Robert C.
Merz,18 reported that "Land and climate are
the primary factors affecting agricultural
utilization of wastewaters." An anonymous
article, in 1959,19 reported that "Especially
in water-short areas, it is seen that sewage
effluent can be put to good use for crops,
landscape, decorative lakes and groundwater
recharge." Another reference to climatic
impacts can be found in an article on Effect
of Geographical Factors on the Widespread
Agricultural Use of Sewage in Poland.2 °
Indications that ingenuities may
overcome adverse climatic effects on land
application is found in an article on
Experiences of Cannery and Poultry Waste
Treatment Operations, Louis C. Gilde,
1967,21 "Freezing during the winter has not
materially affected operations and the melting
of the layers of ice is accompanied by large
growths of soil microorganisms which treat
the wastes."
An article on Sewage Effluent Disposal
through Crop Irrigation, C. D. Henry,
1954,22 refers to plus-and-minus weather
impacts: "The use of sewage effluent for
irrigation is well known in the arid parts of
the U.S. It is practical in the other parts of
the country, including the northern parts,
where the wastewater can be stored in lagoons
during the winter." Further reference to
weather effects is found in the abstract of an
article on Some Aspects of Irrigating
Grassland in Humid Regions and the Use of
Sewage, G. Julien, 1955:23 "Higher grass
production can be obtained by irrigating
during periods of drought when insolation is
greater than during rainfalls associated with
poor light conditions."
The use of irrigation "through winters
with icing" is described in an article on land
application by the Heinz Company in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, H. G. Luley,
1963.24
These references to literature abstract
commentaries on the effect of climate on
specific land application installations,
demonstrate the need for the local evaluation
of each area's weather impacts when land
application projects are considered, and that
climate alone will not automatically exclude
consideration of the method.
Types of Wastes
In general, the preponderance of survey
and literature records shows that land
application may be used for most types of
organic wastes. This includes wastes effluents
from municipal treatment plants, with or
without industrial wastes, and industry wastes
such as those from fruit and vegetable
canning, milk processing, pulp and paper
wastes, and some chemical wastes.
Concentrated organic wastes from industry
will require larger unit areas, or lower
application rates than those areas and rates
utilized for conventionally treated effluents.
Toxic wastes and abnormal concentrations of
heavy metals should not be permitted in land
application systems.
Bibliographic abstract references confirm
this generalized statement. Agricultural Uses
of Reclaimed Waste Effluent, L. V. Wilcox,
1948,25 refers to "three chemical groupings
to be concerned with are trace elements,
cations and anions and total salts. Boron is
the most important trace element to be
concerned with as many plants are injured by
concentrations of around 1 ppm. For
cations and anions, a good rule to remember
is that hard water makes soft land, thus soft
water is not desired for irrigation. Generally,
sewage effluents are quite suitable for
irrigation purposes; toxic materials can
usually be diluted to safe limits."
The effect of detergent-based ABS on
crops, both adverse and non-adverse, is
referred to frequently. The records are replete
with references to the successful use of both
sewage wastewaters and industrial processing
wastewaters for land applicaton purposes.
The build up of chlorides in the soil is the
basis of warnings in various articles,2 6 and
others. In discussing naturally occurring
solutes in the Quality of Irrigation Water,
154
-------
Wadleigh, Wilcox and Gallatin, 1956,2 7 state
that "The quality of irrigation water is
determined by the kinds of dissolved salts, the
relative proportions of certain ions, and the
total concentration."
Another reference to the effect of soluble
salts in wastewaters is contained in Water for
Irrigation Use, anonymous, 1951:28 "Specific
ions may accumulate sufficiently to become
toxic to certain plants. Boron is highly toxic
at concentrations greater than three ppm. The
sodium ion tends to cause soil clogging,
whereas calcium and magnesium ions tend to
make a soil permeable. Thus, there is need for
obtaining complete information on the
quality of the water (type of wastewaters —
community and industrial) to be used for
irrigation."
Land Availability and Its Location
The feasibility of land application will
depend on the availability of adequate
acreage, composed of the proper type of soil,
underlain with groundwater at proper level,
located conveniently, assigned to proper
zoning-use regulations, and viewed with
acceptance by residents of the area.
Each site may vary substantially from the
acreage needs of other installations because of
such factors as soil characteristics, the nature
of the applied effluents and indigenous
climatic conditions. This makes it difficult to
establish hard-and-fast guidelines for designers
of land application systems.
The survey data on existing sites indicate
that the regions utilized for effluent
applicaton are predominantly zoned for
farming or industrial uses. This makes the
land available, rather than having such areas
locked up for urban development purposes,
and puts the cost of acreage within the
economic range suitable for a process of
effluent management that requires more land
area than needed for discharge of wastewaters
into surface sources. Even when lands used by
existing facilities are not formally zoned, they
are usually used for farming and related
purposes. If such projects were established in
close proximity to residential or
commercial-business districts, they would run
the hazard of failing to receive public
acceptance.
Location of sites in undeveloped areas
offers projects the opportunity to anticipate
growth in community population and increase
in industry activity and wastewater
production, and to acquire additional land to
serve such future needs.
The dependence upon the availability of
nearby land sites in close proximity to the
points of production of wastes and treatment
may have limited the size and capacity of the
majority of existing systems to communities
of less than 100,000 population, with 50,000
the more dominant maximum community
size. It may have had equal impact on the
limited size of industrial land application
systems.
In all probability, the size limitations of
the past may not restrict the use of land
application for larger urban regions and
industrial operations in the future. In fact, the
two major projects now attracting
attention — Muskegon. Michigan, and the
Corps of Engineers Wastewater Management
Study of the Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan
region — demonstrate that large-size systems
could become realities with the transportation
of large volumes of wastewaters to distant
open areas. Some existing systems also
demonstrate the workability of facilities that
are larger than the limitations quoted above.
The relationship between irrigated
acreage and community size and industrial
production ranges was not clearly defined in
the case of many of the existing projects
surveyed during the course of the current
studies and surveys. However, sufficient data
on this relationship were deduced to warrant
the following rule-of-thumb guidelines for
application areas: the utilization of 10 acres
of area per 1,000 population or population
equivalency.
NOTE: Individual installations
cannot be designed, nor land
acquisition limited, to this specific
acreage requirement. Site sizes must
be varied to meet climatic
conditions, soil composition, wastes
character and other local factors.
The actual acreage needed for
irrigation use may be increased by
155
-------
standby needs, buffer zones and
other site stipulations.
The relationship between land acreage
needs and rates of application of wastewaters
to the land is obvious. Later discussion of the
second factor - rate of application — will
bring this interrelationship into focus.
A search of the bibliographic abstract
references indicated that while most
commonly quoted data related to rates of
application, some information on acreage
used for specific volume applications is
available.
Cannery Wastes Disposal by Spray
Irrigation, Leonard E. Nelson, 1952,29
reported the use of 110 acres of land for 24
mgd of cannery wastes in Minnesota. Effluent
Treatment by Spray Irrigation, anonymous,
1964,30 described a New Zealand spray
irrigation system for industry wastes which
applied up to 65,000 gpd on land areas
ranging from three to sixty acres, indicating
the broad and unspecific land use parameters
in use. An article on Fundamentals of the
Control and Treatment of Dairy Wastes, H. G.
Harding and H. A. Trebler, 1955,31 referred
to a land requirement of one acre per 134,000
gallons per day.
Irrigation Disposal of Industrial Wastes,
T. Wisniewski, 1961,32 reported that spray
irrigation in Wisconsin required an acre for
10,000 gpd of application, with land
requirements reduced to one acre per 17,000
gpd in California. The author is quoted as
predicting rates as high as 800,000 gpd per
acre as possible.
Land requirements of 25 to 50 acres per
1,000 population loading for wastewater
application onto natural sloping terrain have
been reported. In sand dunes in Israel, an acre
of land was reported to handle 9,000 gallons
per day, in an article on Sewage Effluent into
Sand Dunes, Dr. Eng. Peter Yehuda.33
Soil Types and Groundwater Conditions
Application of wastewaters for irrigation
onto land areas would be ineffective if the soil
medium will not accept the effluent, allow it
to percolate into the groundwater, and
provide the natural purification effects which
contact with the soil produces. Thus, the
nature of the overlying soil blanket and the
location of the groundwater table under the
land are important factors in dictating the
applicability of this process of effluent
management.
Sand, loam and silt were found in the
surveys to be the predominant soil types used
for land application. In some areas, clayey
conditions were reported to have no adverse
effect on the process. Open-type soils, such as
sandy loam, sand and silt, provided the best
results at higher rates of application without
ponding, especially if excessive runoff is
undesirable and a threat to pollution of
surface water sources.
In the case of land application by spray
overland runoff procedures, tight soils of the
clay type are inherent in the success of this
system. The soil does not absorb the
wastewater, which flows overland along slight
grades and is purified by contact with ground
cover vegetation.
When soil absorption and percolation into
the groundwater table are the natural
purification phenomena goal, the
groundwater must be sufficiently low to
provide enough contact between the applied
liquids and dry soil to effect the soil
absorptive and adsorptive mechanisms which
create a type of tertiary treatment stage in the
land blanket. Thus, areas with high
groundwater tables, unless underdrains are
provided, should not be used for land
application systems which anticipate
inseepage into the soil. The so-called overland
flowage type of treatment described above,
and which envisions ground cover contact
rather than subsoil contact, would be less
affected by high groundwater levels.
One of the study surveys indicated the
wide use of clay lands for effluent application
(one-third of all installations), thus stressing
the fact that the most porous soils are not
necessarily the most effective, under certain
local circumstances.
The variations in practices relating to soil
156
-------
types offer evidence that no single guideline
can dictate decisions on the kind of land most
adaptable for land application practices. The
most dependable means of ascertaining soil
capabilities would be to have the indigenous
soils evaluated by agronomists and soil
mechanics authoritites. Most soils are
composites of many types of materials. The
nature of the effluent to be applied to land
areas will have a great bearing on the
absorptive and adsorptive capabilities of the
soil mantle.
Since the best evidence of successful soil
types can be found in the performance of
existing installations, further guideline
parameters are available in the literature.
References have been made above to the
effects of solutes, or dissolved solids,
contained in wastewaters on the mechanical
and chemical format of soil media.
An article on An Investigation of Sewage
Spreading on Five California Soils, G. T.
Orlob and R. G. Butler, 1955,34 stated that:
"The infiltration rate for each soil was found
to follow the same general pattern: (1) an
abrupt decrease in rate attributed to
suspension of soil particles; (2) an increase in
rate due to solution of entrapped gases into
the percolating liquid; and (3) a decrease due
to accumulation of biological slimes in the
soil voids. Infiltration rates in the third stage
ranged from 30 feet per day for the most
permeable soils to 0.6 feet per day for the
fine soils." It made the further point that
"field performance of a soil cannot be
predicted by comparing its particle size
characteristics with those of other soils for
which infiltration rates have been
established."
The authors of Septic Tank Effluent
Percolation through Sands under Laboratory
Conditions, Joe H. Jones and George S.
Taylor, 1965,35 reported that "Soil clogging
under effluent loading occurs three to ten
times faster under an anaerobic than under an
aerobic environment, and sands of initially
high hydraulic conductivity are clogged at a
much slower rate than those of initially low
conductivity."
Sewage Irrigation in Texas, Earl H.
Goodwin, 1935,36 stated that "Porous sandy
soils seem to be most suitable" for such crops
as grains, grasses, cotton, alfalfa, nuts and
citrus. An abstract of Spray Disposal of
Domestic Wastes, William J. Chase, I960,37
stated the conclusion that "Deep silty soil is
preferable. Clay subsoil may lead to bad
effects from adsorption of sodium through
ion exchange."
The importance of soil "freeboard"
between land surfaces and groundwater tables
has been repeatedly stressed. The mechanics
of soil uptake and stabilization of
contaminants such as phosphorous, boron,
ABS from detergents and nitrogen forms,
depends on adequate depth of groundwater.
Degradation of Wastewater Organics in Soil,
R. E. Thomas and T. W. Bendixon, 1969,38
stated that "The results of Lysimeter studies
show that soil microorganisms can digest
much of the organic carbon contained in
primary and secondary wastewater effluents.
About 80 percent of the organic carbon from
septic tank effluent was digested under a
variety of conditions."
The abstract of Effects of Treatment
Plant Effluent on Soil Properties, A. D. Day,
et al, 1972,39 reported that "the effluent
irrigated soil has higher concentrations of
soluble salts, nitrates, phosphates, calcium
and magnesium than the control, due to the
uptake capacity of soils above the
groundwater table."
The importance of unsaturated soil in the
land application system is the subject of many
bibliographic abstract references. The
Feasibility of Reuse of Treated Wastewater
for Irrigation, Fertilization and Groundwater
Recharge in Idaho, R. E. Williams, et al,
1969,40 referred to "absence of surficial,
jointed rocks through which the wastewater
can move without appreciable adsorption of
dissolved solids by the porous medium; and a
water table depth of at least five feet." An
abstract on Final Report on Field
Investigation and Research on Wastewater
Reclamation and Utilization in Relation to
Underground Water Pollution, Harold B.
Gotaas, 1953,41 concluded that "A
bacteriologically safe water can be produced
157
-------
from settled sewage or final effluent if it
passes through at least four feet of soil."
Groundwater Recharge Design for
Renovating Wastewater, Herman Bower,
197042 reported that "Purification by the
soil is accomplished within several feet
although it is considered desirable to allow
the water to flow for several hundred feet
before reuse."
According to an abstract on Los Angeles
Considers Reclaiming Sewage Water to
Recharge Underground Basins, Harold E.
Hedger, 1950,43 "Experimental tests have
shown that the percolated effluent is
bacteriologically safe within a depth of seven
feet." On the other hand, Microbial Problems
in Groundwater, G. G. Robeck, 1968,44
refers to the "need of a more specific
indicator of fecal organisms, and the need for
removal of waste that might be food and
nutrient for the organisms before wastewater
percolates down more than one to two feet."
Arnold E. Greenberg and Jerome F.
Thomas, in an article on Sewage Effluent
Reclamation for Industrial and Agricultural
Use, 1954,4S reported that "A
bacteriologically safe water can be produced
from settled or more highly treated sewage if
the liquid passes through at least four feet of
soil."
Rate of Application
The significance of rates of application of
wastewater effluents to land areas has been
discussed previously. Application rates have a
direct bearing on the acreage required.
Conversely, the nature of the soil has an
equally great effect on the rate of application
which can be successfully handled by the land
site.
With a fixed design flow, the application
rate will determine the area required for the
facility. An empirical rate of two inches per
week has become "standard" practice in
many installations, but each site should use an
application rate which is geared to the type of
soil, kind of wastewater, type of application,
gradient of the site, seasonal rainfall and other
climatic conditions, and frequency of
application. The difficulty in fixing the area
required for a proposed site without basing
estimates on some fixed application rate is
evident.
The two-inch-per-week application rate
has been accepted widely with too much
alacrity, but without positive proof that this
rate is suitable for the specific site and the soil
capabilities of the site. Any guideline that
offers a firm application rate without further
substantiation of its validity is misleading.
One of the needs of land application practices
is to ascertain the maximum application rate
that will test the soil assimilation capabilities
to the "failure point" — or, in land
application practice, to the "point of refusal"
to accept wastewater discharges. With
optimum types of soil, it is probable that
loading rates can far exceed present
applications and that economies in land
acreage utilization can be sharply improved
without any impairment of land, crop yields
or groundwater quality. This dictates a
specific guideline of design: each site should
be evaluated to determine maximum
optimum loading rates before actual land
purchase is consummated and design of
facilities is undertaken.
The existing literature on current and
past experiences with land application
systems offers proof that rates of application
need not be based on any conjectural
standard of loading. Bernard Skulte, in an
article, Agricultural Values of Sewage,
1953,46 reported rates of 4,600 gpd per acre.
Gilbert Dunstan and Jesse Lunsford, in an
article on Cannery Waste Disposal by
Irrigation, 1971,47 reported that a Daytona,
Wash., cannery applied at least seven inches
per week to alfalfa crops. With ridge and
furrow application methods, rates as high as
2.25 inches per day were cited at the 1952
Purdue Conference on Industrial Wastes.
G. W. Lawton, et al, in an abstract of an
Engineering Experimental Station research
project in 1960, reported48 that "realistic
average application rates of 0.23 inches per
hour were realized with cover crops of blue
grass, quack and brome." An abstract of
Experimental Spray Irrigation of Paperboard
Mill Wastes, D. E. Bloodgood and Harold
158
-------
C.Koch,49 1959, reported that the "Average
rate of application was 0.28 inches per day, of
which 0.08 inch was rainfall."
An article abstract on Irrigation Disposal
of Wastes, Ray Westenhouse, 1963,50
reported that "Application rates of 0.5 inch
per day produced slight surface flooding."
C. D. Henry, et al, described Sewage Effluent
Disposal through Crop Irrigation, 1954,51
and reported that "This test, done in
Madison, Wisconsin, applied more than 50
inches of water per season, producing
substantial increases in crop yields. Nitrogen,
potassium and phosphorous were almost
totally removed from the effluent as were
coliforms." "A percolation rate of 0.5 acre
foot per acre per day when spreading final
effluent on Hanford fine sandy loam" was
reported in an abstract of Sewage Effluent
Reclamation for Industrial and Agricultural
Use, Arnold E. Greenberg and Jerome F.
Thomas, 1954.52 At another site, "Disposal
of effluent has occurred since 1911, where it
is applied to meadows at a rate of 6.6 feet
from March to December. In the remaining
interval, it is applied to a plot of arable land,
even when the land is frozen." Sewage
Farming at Ostrow Wielkopolski, 1950.53
The Howard Paper Mills of Urbana, Ohio,
reported the application of process wastes "at
a rate of four inches per day every six days,"
in an article abstract on Spray Irrigation—a
Positive Approach to a Perplexing Problem,
W. A. Flower, 1965.54 Food processing
wastes were applied by a "sprinkling system
at 0.44 inch per hour," as described in an
abstract on Spray Irrigation at Morgan
Packing Company, Austin, Ind., Perry E.
Miller, 1953.55 Sulfite pulp mill wastes were
applied at a "rate of 3.6 inches per week to
highly permeable Norfolk sand," as reported
in an article abstract on Spray Irrigation of
Certain Sulfite Pulp Mill Wastes, Stuart C.
Crawford, 1958.56
"The use of sewage effluent at
Pennsylvania State University on forested
areas showed that the trees benefited as
shown by increased growth, and about 90
percent of the water applied from
April-November at a two inch per week rate
was recharged to the groundwater," according
to William Sopper in an article on Wastewater
Renovation for Reuse: Key to Optimum Use
of Water Resources, 1968.5 7 The same author
reported the application of sewage effluent at
Centre County, Pa., "at a rate of 0.25 inch
per hour, at one to two inches per week
except in one plot which received four inches
per week."
Methods of Application
The choice between application of
wastewaters to land areas by spray irrigation
or methods utilizing surface spreading can be
likened to the engineering choice between
concrete or bituminous paving for streets and
roads. The decision should be made on the
basis of land and crop needs, on whether
deciduous forested areas will be irrigated, on
the soil character and natural gradient of the
site, and on other local conditions such as
aerosol dispersion and odor production. The
comparative cost factors must be considered,
including the question of gravity or pressure
distribution.
Spray irrigation will involve the
construction of distribution pipe lines, either
stationary or moveable, the installation of
pumping equipment and time-cycle devices.
The comparative labor costs of spray
irrigation, ridge-and-furrow distribution,
overland flooding or other means of land
application will become a factor in
decision-making and in design procedures.
These decisions will have a direct bearing on
operation and maintenance costs and control
of environmental impacts. The type of soil
cover, including the anticipated cropping
practices, will require evaluation. The views
and opinions of neighboring residents may
influence the application methods chosen for
the site.
No general rules can be deduced from the
surveys conducted in connection with the
current investigation. However, spray
irrigation predominated in the sites surveyed.
Ridge-and-furrow distribution and overland
flow or flooding methods followed in general
applicability. A general trend appeared to
emerge on the relationship between
159
-------
application methods and size of sites. More
spray facilities are in use in smaller acreages,
less than 50 acres, with surface and spray
methods approaching equal utilization as the
sites increase from approximately 200 acres
to the 1,000 acre size. For sites over 1,000
acres, surface distribution predominated.
The impact of climate conditions was
noticeable in the on-site investigations, with
surface application predominating in the drier
and hotter regions and spray irrigation more
widely used in the more humid areas. In
similar manner, the continuity of application
influenced the choice of application method.
For example, the irrigation of forest stands of
deciduous trees during winter months, even in
severe climates, was found feasible with spray
irrigation. Nondeciduous trees, because of ice
buildup may be damaged by spray irrigation
during freezing conditions, but some success
with evergreens has been reported. Coniferous
stands offer the advantage of year-round
nutrient uptake. In addition, the thick layer
of forest litter hinders freezing of the soil,
retaining the soil's percolation capacity during
very cold weather.
The large land application projects which
have recently been proposed all depend upon
the use of large-scale spray irrigation
techniques.
The literature indicates that all methods
of application have been in use in the U.S.
and other countries. The purpose of land
application, whether for crop enhancement,
groundwater augmentation, or specifically for
the purpose of disposing of effluents without
recourse to discharge into water sources,
tended to influence the choice of methods
utilized. For example, wastewater application
to golf courses and to highway median strips
could best be accomplished by spray
distribution. In the case of golf courses, early
morning applications were suggested in
researched literature but it is known that
distributors are often in use during playing
hours.
Holding Facilities and Seasonal Application
A potential gap may exist in some
installations between the rate and continuity
of wastewater production and the ability of
the land to accept the application of
effluents. In the case of community systems,
wastewaters are produced on the basis of
24-hour flow, every day of the year, but
normal variations in momentary and
hour-to-hour flows are experienced. In the
case of industries, wastewater may be
produced seasonally, in the food canning
industry for example, and flows may be
limited to the days and hours of plant
operation.
In addition, normal, or abnormal periods
of precipitation may affect the acceptance
rate of wastewater onto the land; periods of
drought may require more auxiliary irrigation
than available with the fixed continuity of
wastewater production from community and
industry sources. Winter weather may require
the cessation of application or a marked
reduction in rates.
These variable factors must guide
decisions on whether holding facilities should
be provided, at either the wastewater
treatment plant or on the application site.
The findings of the surveys offer some frames
of reference for determining the need for
storage or holding of effluents to iron out
variations in flow and land application rates,
or to retain volumes of irrigation waters for
use during variations in need and land
acceptance. It was found that over two-thirds
of the community systems and under one-half
of the industry installations function more or
less on a year-round basis. Regional
differences were found, as might be expected
because of climatic impacts on irrigation
practices. Operation periods range from two
to twelve months, reflecting the general
purpose of land application and whether only
part of the produced flows of wastewater is
diverted to land areas.
The daily continuity of land application
varies widely. Some systems apply
wastewaters only one day a week; others
utilize this method of discharge every day of
the week. In general, the community and
industry systems which function less than
seven days a week are in the smaller size
groupings, with flows less than one mgd. The
160
-------
predominance of five, six and seven-day
operations indicates that continuity of flows,
or use of stored waters, induced relatively
continuous service.
To meet these flow and application
conditions, most land application systems
utilize some type of holding ponds or
chambers. Approximately 90 percent of the
resspondents to the mail survey reported the
use of holding facilities. Minimum storage
periods showed no specific pattern relating to
size of installations. Minimum storage ranged
from one day to 10 days. Holding pond
capacities, in turn, varied in size, with some of
the lagoon type containing more than 50
million gallons.
It is understandable that seasonal holding
in systems which produce wastewaters
year-round but where climatic conditions
prevent 12-month land application, must
provide large holding capabilities, usually
located on the land site and taking the form
of natural basins or lagoons that are then
drawn upon during the growing season.
Otherwise, the discharge of wastewater
effluents to receiving waters during part of
the year or part of any day or week would
make ineffective the intent of the alternative
management system made possible by land
application.
References to holding pond facilities in
existing installations are meager in the
literature. According to a report on Disposal
of Liquid Wastes by the Irrigation Method at
Vegetable Canning Plants in Minnesota,
delivered at the 1952 Industrial Wastes
Conference at Purdue,5 8 six plants using
spray and ridge-and-furrow distribution
operated satisfactorily. "No odors were
encountered with the use of fresh wastes,
although lagooned wastes did produce odor
problems." This indicates that holding wastes
under anaerobic conditions may result in
septic conditions.
On the other hand, lagooning was
described as "a means of reducing pollution
before spraying" in an abstracted article on
Effluent Treatment by Spray Irrigation,
1964.59 Lagooned wastes were used in a
spray irrigation simulated study described by
the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970, on
the Engineering Feasibility Demonstration
Study for Muskegon County, Michigan,
Wastewater Treatment Irrigation System. 60
"Lagooning and irrigation are desirable," in
the opinion of Edward F. Eldridge, in an
abstract of Industrial Wastes - Canning
Industry, 1947.61
An abstract of an article on Irrigation
with Sewage, 1938,62 reported that "a
storage lake and land irrigation solved the
sewage disposal problem at Kingsville, Texas.
The storage lake makes the system quite
flexible." R. R. Parker, in an abstract of
Spray Irrigation for Industrial Waste Disposal,
1965,63 reported that a Canadian tannery
uses a spray irrigation system "that disposed
of 150 million gallons in a six-month period
from May to November for the past 12 years.
Winter wastes are lagooned."
Pre-Treatment of Wastewaters
In past installations of land application
systems, no standard procedure was applied
on degree of treatment of wastewaters prior
to distribution on community and industrial
irrigation areas. Although 45 percent of the
community systems handled secondary
effluents on their land areas, the remaining
installations applied either primary effluents
or wastewaters which had been treated in
some form of oxidation ponds or other
non-secondary facilities. Approximately
one-half of the community installations
chlorinated their wastewaters prior to land
application. Industrial systems reported the
use of only preliminary treatment, generally
consisting of screening to remove larger
suspended solids.
The survey indicates that the level of
pre-treatment of wastewaters has been
dictated by the requirements of state
agencies. Secondary treatment of municipal
wastewaters or long detention in lagoons
appears to be a reasonable standard for land
application. Where wastewaters are to be
spray-irrigated or applied on land used for
recreational purposes, chlorination prior to
application appears warranted. Industrial
wastes need only that degree of pre-treatment
161
-------
that will allow spreading to be accomplished
without imposing undue loadings and physical
problems on land application sites.
References to degrees of pre-treatment of
land-applied wastewater effluents in the
literature abstracts offer little guidance other
than to confirm that modern practice
precludes the delivery of inadequately treated
flows to land areas.
An article on Texas Approves Irrigation
of Animal Crops with Sewage Plant Effluents,
G. R. Herzik, Jr.,64 places the pre-treatment
problem into focus. The abstract outlines the
point of view of the State Department of
Health, as follows: "Do not favor use of raw
sewage for irrigation regardless of type of
crop. Sewage effluent receiving at least
primary treatment may be used for irrigation,
but not for crops for human consumption.
Encourages use of primary treated, and
preferably completely treated, sewage in feed
and pasture crops used for animal
consumption or as an adjunct to soil
conservation practices."
The literature contains repeated
references to primary pre-treatment of wastes,
less frequent indications of secondary
treatment, and even occasional references to
tertiary treatment levels for land-applied
effluents from sewage treatment plants.
Industrial wastes have received minimal
treatment, often limited to only screening.
Chlorination to disinfect wastewaters of
human origin, and to depress septicity of
industrial processing wastes, has been
common practice at sites covered by this
study's on-site and mail surveys.
Capital and Operation Costs
A minimal amount of data on costs can
be deduced from surveys conducted in
connection with this project, and some facts
can be gleaned from the literature.
In lieu of dependable cost data on initial
investments and on ultimate operation and
maintenance practices, rationalization of the
various factors of any cost structure for a land
application system can be offered. Land
application of effluents is relatively simple
and no expensive processes or products are
involved. Costs should be considered as
ancilary to wastes treatment facilities; they
should start with, and should include the cost
of, transporting treated effluents to land areas
either by gravity channel, gravity pipe line,
or pressure piping. On-site, the costs involved
should include the cost of land, distribution
systems with any piping, spray units and
pumping items involved. Where underground
water intercepting or overland flow collection
conduits are utilized, the cost of such
facilities must be included. Holding or storage
units must be priced. The cost of
supplemental chlorination or chemical
additions, such as sodium nitrate for oxidative
purposes, should be computed as part of land
application systems.
For operation and maintenance, the items
of cost must include labor, power,
replacement of piping and distributors, safety
patrols, monitoring and laboratory control
services and other obvious costs. Each project
will involve special costs peculiar to the
system.
Survey data indicated that land costs
varied from a minimum of a few hundred
dollars per acre to $1,000 or higher; the
normal costs were under $1,000, with the
majority of sites in land regions where costs
are approximately $500 per acre. The
relationship between zoning and land-use and
site costs is obvious.
Total capital cost data for land
application systems were meager but some
information could be deduced from the study
surveys. Many cost totals were small — under
$10,000 for handling flows up to one mgd. A
few installations in the same size range cost as
high as $500,000, indicating that there was no
direct correlation between system capacities
and capital costs. The question of whether
pre-treatment facilities were included in the
cost base was not clearly defined.
Some references to costs and returnable
incomes from crop harvesting or use of
wastewaters by purchasers, such as farmers,
were found in the bibliographic abstracts
covered by the project. Furthermore, some
efforts were made by authors of articles to
place a price ticket on the value of land
162
-------
application systems, in terms of removal of
contaminants which would have required
costly wastewater handling processes in
standard treatment works.
For example, a study of wastes handling
at the Campbell Soup Company at Paris,
Texas,65 placed a cost of five cents per 1,000
gallons for removal of 99 percent of the BOD,
and nitrogen and phosphorous removals of 90
percent. A Technical and Economic
Feasibility Study of the Use of Municipal
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Robert P.
Cantrell, et al,66 included design data for a
Louisiana farm of 114 acres and quoting a
total fixed cost and operating cost of $39 per
acre.
An abstract on Cannery Waste Disposal
by Irrigation, Gilbert Dunstan and Jesse
Lunsford,67 stated that "field irrigation was
successfully used at one-fifth the cost of a
high-rate trickling filter." Another article
citing the experiences of the Campbell Soup
Co., Paris, Texas, 1970,68 reported "an
operating cost of about five cents per 1,000
gallons." A 1951 abstract on Disposal of
Citrus By-Products Waste at Ontario,
California, Harvey Ludwig,69 reported that
the "Cost of operation is about 12 cents per
ton of fruit processed." A 1967 account of
Spray Irrigation from the Manufacture of
Hardboard, Ward Parsons,70 estimated the
land application facilities had been provided
at "total costs of about $50 per million
gallons, not counting land or depreciation."
Industry cost data were more often
available than those for community
wastewaters. The tendency for industry, as
might be expected, was to relate costs to units
of production. For example, in 1953 Spray
Irrigation of Food Processing Wastes, Joseph
M. Dennis, 71 stated that "Costs have been
reported as $0.006 per case of goods sold."
Protective Measures
Fencing and patrolling of application sites
have been matters of self-determination in
existing installations because few states have
invoked rules and regulations on operation
and control procedures. Few operators have
deemed such protection and isolation
essential to the safety of neighboring areas
and their residents.
Protective measures are more than devices
to keep people out; they must be designed to
keep land application ingredients in. The
provision of buffer zones to serve as more or
less impenetrable barriers of a two-way nature
are referred to in a few of the limited number
of state regulations relating to land
application systems. Various geographical
dimensions of buffer barriers are stipulated
or, if not designated, are used by developers
of land sites. Their size and locations are
dictated, in part, by the means of wastewater
application and windward and lee-side
conditions. If utilized, this acreage of land
must be purchased for projects and
adequately maintained during the life of the
project.
Reference to barriers is contained in an
abstract on Investigation on the Spread of
Bacteria Caused by Irrigation with
Wastewater, H. Reploh and M. Handloser,
1957.72 It stated that: "at high wind
velocity, very small droplets containing
bacteria are spread considerably beyond the
proper zone of action. When the use of
sprinkler equipment is projected, this must be
taken into consideration and strips of land of
sufficient size provided for protection from
the spread by wind. Probably, the zone spread
can be safely lessened by planting hedges for
protection from the wind."
Monitoring and Health Hazards
Practically all standard wastewater
treatment and industrial wastes treatment
works in the U.S. are required to sample and
analyze their incoming wastes and the
wastewater effluents which they discharge to
surface water sources. The requirements of
the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act are so firm on the
subject of monitoring that quality surveillance
and control and a rigid program of reporting
effluent quality will be enforced by Federal
and state regulatory agencies.
The present concept of water resources
and water quality control includes ground-
water sources as well as all surface waters. It is
163
-------
obvious, therefore, that all land application
systems must be planned, designed and
operated under adequate monitoring
conditions. The degree and extent of
monitoring should be predicated upon the use
of the land application facility. If all flows are
essentially being used as supplemental
irrigation and groundwaters will become the
recipient of infiltered waters, an adequate
monitoring program may be required. As the
degree of safety is reduced and the system
stressed, more stringent controls are needed.
Small installations, which are common in
current practice, will find it expensive to
provide monitoring facilities, such as test
wells or Lysimeters, and to undertake ongoing
laboratory test programs for wastewaters, soil,
crop yields, groundwater and nearby surface
water sources. Only a relatively small
percentage of existing installations are now
under monitoring control, judging from the
surveys.
Off-site effects of land application
operations have not been monitored to any
appreciable degree. Few, if any, installations
have traced the effect of land-applied
wastewaters on nearby surface water sources,
either in the form of contaminants which run
off the soil or groundwaters which out-seep
into drainage basins. Further, little has been
done to evaluate the beneficial effect of land
application on surface waters which would
have been the recipients of effluent discharges
if conventional treatment and disposal
methods had been used instead of land
application techniques.
The literature indicates the need for
monitoring of groundwaters, crops, soil and
animal life. References are made to potential
health hazards if adequate care is not taken in
the handling of wastewaters and the control
of crop usage. Effluent disinfection is referred
to in many cases as the essential component
of any land application program. The "other
side of the coin" is illustrated in such
abstracted comments as "Hygienic risks
should not be overestimated," in an article by
W. Fries on Agricultural Utilization of Sewage
as Artificial Rain.7 3 This author also referred
to the need to evaluate "the toxicity of
wastewater to germinating plant seeds."
The presence of coliform organisms,
salmonella, cyst eggs and virus are
acknowledged by the authors of a number of
reference articles - (74); (75); (76); (77);
(78); (79); (80); (81); (82); (83); (84); (85);
and others.
The actual referenced statements need
not be included here; the point is made that
the presence of potentially hazardous
organisms in wastewaters precludes the use of
raw or under-treated sewage on land areas;
but this does not negate the fact that
adequate treatment, disinfection and control
procedures on-site can minimize or
completely overcome such hazards. The
purification capabilities of soils, with their
uptake of contaminants, must be considered
in the true definition of land application.
A search of the land application
experiences documented in the study's
bibliography has disclosed assurance of
freedom from environmental and personal
hazards that balance and contravene the
warnings of potential dangers if adequate
regulatory procedures are not invoked.
Without specific references to articles and
authors, the following quotes from abstracts
on practices, performances and personal
opinions are presented:
"Strains of Salmonella and Shigella do
not survive on vegetable surfaces for more
than a week." "Vegetables to be eaten raw
can be grown without health hazard in soils
subjected to sewage irrigation."8 6
"It is concluded that virus movement
through soils under saturated conditions
should present no great health hazard with
respect to underground water supplies."87
"Virulent bacteria were not present in
sufficient concentrations in the incoming
sewage, effluent or sludge to cause disease in
susceptible animals."88
"Coliform organism reductions are well
documented . . . but viruses still remain a
problem, although chlorination is quite
useful."89 "Disease transmission has been
non-existent.
«9 0 '"
The amount of virus
removed by two feet of sand varies with the
flow rate, but in almost every case the virus
164
-------
was removed amazingly well."9 *
"The recreational lake samples have been
consistently negative for virus."92 "The soil is
capable of removing viruses after a distance of
less than 1,500 feet."93
"Diseases among farm animals, workers
and residents have not been a problem."94
"Epidemics caused by contaminated food
have been due to mishandling in
processing."95
The Department of the Army, Medical
Department, through the Surgeon General,
developed extensive criteria for land
application facilities on the basis of reports
prepared by the Corps of Engineers and
Pennsylvania State University.
The criteria can be characterized as very
conservative and they appear to be at variance
with the experimental work which was used
as their basis. However, inasmuch as they
attempt to set forth a rationale for the criteria
established, a copy of the criteria and
rationale are included as Appendix F of
Section XI of this report.
Land application of wastewater effluents
is a means of disposing of such liquids into
the soil body and of utilizing the water
content and the nutrition components for
enhancement of soil fertility and crops.
Ground Cover
The study provides some degree of
guidance on the types and value of ground
cover growths in aiding the soil absorptive and
adsorptive character of the soil mantle and on
the types of vegetative crops and forestry
growths which are benefited by artificial
irrigation.
The on-site surveys disclosed that grass
land cover and crops were most predominant
in community systems and that grass, without
crop growth, was favored in the case of
industrial land application installations. The
use of community-produced wastewaters for
agricultural crops was strkingly pronounced in
the Southwest and the southern sector of the
Pacific coastal states. The consensus was that
some form of ground cover, without
disturbance of the indigenous mantle, served
as an aid to soil infiltration and increased the
acceptance of irrigation wastewaters into the
land.
The conclusion was drawn by most users
of effluent on crops that marked increases in
yield resulted and that the quality of product
was not sacrificed. Similarly, silviculture
authorities were of the opinion that tree
growth was increased, and even doubled, as a
result of irrigation, which could be carried out
during winter months without impairing the
life and growth of deciduous and even
nondeciduous tree life. Insufficient
information was obtained upon which to base
any definable estimate of the dollar value of
harvested forage growths, crop produce or
tree wood, but no doubt can exist that
monetary values can be assigned to land
application practices. Each installation must
be judged on the basis of types of soil,
amenability of climatic conditions, the nature
of the proposed plantings and other factors,
when the economics of land return are
considered.
The literature examined disclosed
considerable information on the types of
plantings, even if explicit data on increased
yields could not be deduced from the
experiences and opinions of the authors. The
following excerpts from literature abstracts
are presented without providing the titles and
authors.
"Irrigation with sewage water increased
the yields of hay by 300 to 400 percent,
cereals by 20 to 50 percent, and root crops by
100 percent; and it increased the protein
content in hay from 6 to 17 percent."96
"The author advocates broad irrigation with
emphasis on the utilization of sewage for the
growing of crops, rather than as a method of
sewage disposal."97 "After the cessation of
the spraying after six weeks of operation,
superior crop yields were realized."98
"Barley, oats and wheat showed superior
growth when irrigated with sewage
effluent."99
"The application of sewage effluent to
barley resulted in an increase grain yield,
percentage of nitrogen and malt diastatic
power, but kernel weight, kernel size and malt
extract percentage were decreased."100 "City
165
-------
sewage effluent can be utilized efficiently to
produce hay from small grains in the irrigated
areas of the Southwest and possibly elsewhere
in the United States."1 ° J "Grasses were used
for cover vegetation. Alta fescue was found to
have high moisture resistance and reasonably
high salt tolerance."1 °2
"The use of reclaimed sewage effluent for
agricultural and horticultural purposes
represents not only sound water economy but
also good fertilizer economy. It is estimated
that the fertilizer value in sewage effluent
from the Aisleby Works at Bulawayo is about
seven cents per 1,000 gallons."103 "Cases
were cited where very poor sandy land has
been converted to good, productive farmland
by sewage irrigation."104 "Yields of barley
were 212 percent times its control and oats
yields were 349 percent times its
control."105
"The study area (at Penn State) consisted
of mixed hardwood, red pine."1 °6
"Cotton is a most satisfactory crop. In
1934, 24 acres of irrigated land produced 23
bales of cotton. Dry land produced less than
one-third bale per acre of poorer quality
cotton."107 "Crops of oats, barley and
ensilage are rotated on the land. The crops
yield a net profit of $3,000 to $5,000 per
year to the city (Tucson)."108 In Texas,
"Spray, border and furrow methods are used
to irrigate grains, grasses, cotton, alfalfa, nuts
and citrus."109
"A herd of over 600 fine Hereford cattle
are maintained on the farm. For the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1949, the city (Fresno,
Calif.) realized an operating profit of
$9,346."110
"Eastern European countries have
obtained yields 5 to 6 times the normal by
using sewage for irrigation."111 "Application
of sewage water for three years to grassland
raised the hay yield by 132.9 percent and the
yield of crude protein by nearly 300
percent."112 Irrigation with sewage is
beneficial to plants despite the presence of
ABS in any amounts likely to occur in sewage
at the present time."11 3 "After sewage solids
are removed, 80 percent of the potassium, 75
percent of the nitrogen and 52 percent of the
phosphoric acid remains, making the effluent
a valuable fertilizer."114
Need for Further Information on
Land Application Practices
If there is to be a substantial increase in
the use of land application methods,
especially for community wastewater
effluents, there will be need for basic data
covering many of the problems which will
influence distribution methods, soil choice,
testing and control, and operation and
maintenance procedures.
The following facets of land application
could be studied to provide effective answers
to problems not yet adequately resolved:
1. Investigate the design of small sized,
simplified irrigation systems for rural
communities or small community
developments which currently use
septic tanks in unsewered areas,
including the feasibility of injecting
sludge into the wastewater effluent
prior to application onto land areas.
2. Investigate the optimum design of
small-scale settling facilities for such
small rural flows, followed by
adequate secondary treatment and
chlorination to make effluents
amenable to safe land application at
nearby sites.
3. Develop cost analyses for various
land application techniques so they
can be contrasted with each other
and cost-factored against investments
in conventional high-degree wastes
treatment and discharge of effluents
into watercourses, taking into
account any crop-yield profits which
may accrue from land application
facilities.
4. Investigate disinfection procedures,
with chlorine or other chemical
additives or nuclear wastes materials,
for small and large land application
installations, to determine the
probable life of pathogenic bacteria
and various strains of viruses under
conditions that occur under soil,
groundwater, and crop growth
166
-------
conditions.
5. Additional fields of investigation may
include: evaluations of the benefits
and need for buffer zones
surrounding land application areas;
examination of the ability of aerosol
droplets and mists to carry
contamination; establishment of
criteria for holding basin design; and
study of the fixation of nitrogen as a
soil oxidizing factor.
If land application of community and
industrial wastewaters is to become a viable
solution for effluent management and offer
workable, applicable, economical and useful
water pollution control alternatives to the
ultra-treatment of wastes and their discharge
into receiving waters, all facets of the impact
and effect of such installations must be
examined. The process offers sufficient
potential benefits to warrant the investment
of time, effort and funds in such investigative
goals. The research suggestions listed above
are intended merely for the purpose of
catalyzing interest in a deeper insight into
land application processes, practices, policies
and performances than has as yet been sought
or provided.
167
-------
-------
SECTION VII
LAND APPLICATION OF EFFLUENTS IN PERSPECTIVE:
AN INTERPRETATION
The practicability of the application of
sewage and wastes effluents onto land areas
rather than directly into water sources is
dependent, as are other means of treatment,
upon complex and interacting circumstances
and conditions.
Changes in Effluent Disposal
Practices: Trends and Prospects
This "alternative" method of disposing of
wastewaters which could affect the quality
and usefulness of surface waters, or require
advance degrees of treatment to prevent such
adverse effects on the water environment, has
been under intensive and extensive study and
evaluation, particularly in recent years.
The basis for acceptance of land disposal,
or "sewage farming" as described at the turn
of the century by M. N. Baker in his historic
pamphlet, Sewerage and Sewage Disposal, a
page of which is shown in Exhibit IX, is no
longer adequate to meet new approaches to,
and concepts of, land application systems.
The propriety of this process has been
investigated to demonstrate its applicability
to the clean-waters criteria of the 1970's and
the economic, ecologic and effectiveness
factors involved.
The study by the American Public Works
Association is one of the several investments
of scientific time and funds to put the land
application process into proper perspective
with so-called conventional methods of
discharging effluents of varying degrees of
purity into watercourses.
It is apparent that any decisions to utilize
effluent land application methods, in lieu of
treatment and discharge of high grade
effluents into surface waters, must be based
on facts which will establish the process as the
best alternative "practicable waste treatment
technology" and one which will provide
effective disposal "over the life of the works,"
in consonance with the intent of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. Decisions thus arrived at must involve
consideration of the factors covered by the
current study.
There is nothing new about the basic
concept of spreading sewage or other liquid
wastes, in treated or untreated form, on the
land as a means of disposal. What is new is the
objective of making this method of disposal a
scientifically evaluated, technically designed,
and properly operated and maintained
treatment procedure which can meet the
criterion of a "best practicable technology."
Also of relatively new significance is the more
specific definition of land application as
referring to the application of effluents onto
land areas after degrees of treatment
approaching those normally required for
effluents discharged to receiving waters. The
application of sludges or wastewater residues
to land areas is a supplemental ramification of
effluent land application.
Land application of sewage predates any
known artificial means of treating liquid
wastes prior to discharge into receiving
waters. Even though early practice involved
the disposal of untreated wastes onto farm
properties, it had the merit of providing the
"purification" which absorption, adsorption
and mechanical retention on soil particles and
in their interstices could accomplish. It was
better than discharge by dilution into
watercourses.
Actual application of sewage to the land
can be dated back to periods prior to the
development of sewer systems. Municipal
wastes were discharged onto nearby farms at
Berlin, Germany, as far back as the 16th
century. In Scotland, fields in the vicinity of
Edinburgh were used as the recipients of
sewage in the 1840's; Berlin purchased tracts
of land for sewage irrigation purposes in 1869
and various English communities utilized farm
lands for sewage farming during the last three
decades of the nineteenth century.
With the turn of the century, United
States cities in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and
California applied sewage to farmlands for
169
-------
crop improvement or groundwater
supplementation. In Texas, San Antonio
initiated irrigation with sewage or sewage
effluent on over 3,000 acres of land in 1900.
The use of some form of treated effluents for
land disposal purposes, rather than raw
sewage application, dates from the 1930's. A
land irrigation system using untreated sanitary
wastes of the City of Mexico City D.P. was
begun in 1902 and expanded to the use of
secondary effluent for watering farmlands,
sport areas, and creating artificial lakes in
recent years. Among the other cities surveyed
for this report, 10 were established before
1920 and 10 more by 1940, with 26
municipal systems begun since 1960.
An "Alternative" Represents a Choice
of Disposal Processes
If land application of effluents is a valid
alternative method of wastes treatment, it is
obvious that it is an alternative to other
means of disposal. Among the alternatives of
disposal management techniques are:
1. Treatment to adequate degree and
achievement of effluent qualities,
accompanied by the discharge of the
wastewater into surface water
sources—the so-called conventional
method of effluent disposal
management
2. Treatment of sewage or industrial
wastes, or combined
sewage-industrial wastes, by advanced
methods, to a high degree of
purification, followed by direct reuse
for limited purposes; as a processing
fluid; as a general-use fluid; as a
recreational commodity; or even
eventually as a source of potable
water for domestic purposes.
Another use would be for
groundwater replenishment which
can then be utilized by indirect or
secondary recycling for use as
groundwater potable or processing
supplies; or as augmentation of
groundwater for the purpose of
providing a hydraulic barrier to the
intrusion of saline waters into
underground aquifers or the invasion
of other unwanted waters, such as
brackish field waters into quality
groundwater sources.
3. Application of adequately treated
effluents of municipal sanitary
sewage or commercial-industrial
process wastewaters onto land areas.
This is the alternative method of
effluent disposal management which
is the subject of this report.
The purpose of this section is to place
land application, as an acceptable alternative
technique of effluent disposal, into
perspective with the other two categorical
methods of disposal. Stated in another way,
land application decision must not be made
without full evaluation of its economical and
ecological merits, and its effectiveness as
compared to other means of disposal. Such an
evaluation is presupposed by the requirements
of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. It involves a
weighing of the advantages and limitations of
each method of disposal in relation to the
other alternatives, and the examination of the
comparative merits of each.
This section focuses attention on the
general comparison factors which must be
balanced in determining the applicability of
land application management procedures.
This can best be done by briefly reviewing the
principles involved in the three alternative
means of effluent disposal, as outlined above.
The basic function of discussing these
management techniques is to give depth and
dimension to the single-target examination of
land application practices, policies and
performances which the contract studies
covered and which this report has described.
To meet this purpose, the following
commentaries on watercourse discharge,
groundwater percolation and land application
methods are presented.
Discharge of Effluents into
Surface Water Sources
Any wastewater disposal management
technique must have its validity as an
alternative method weighed against the
conventional procedure of treatment and
discharge into surface water sources. This is
170
-------
recognized practice; it is the means of disposal
which has been the focus of water pollution
control. The question has not been raised as
to whether treatment should be provided for
wastes flows; the query has been "how much
treatment" to provide effluents which can be
assimilated in receiving waters without
impairment of their quality or diminishing
their usefulness.
The return to water sources of the waters
taken from them has been viewed as a natural
procedure of water to water. Rivers, lakes and
coastal waters have been traditional recipients
of wastewaters — used water — since public
sewer systems and industrial drain facilities
were first installed. They have been
convenient, in fact too convenient, and the
natural hydraulics of stream locations made
them easy points of disposal by gravity at the
outset, and then readily used by pumping
where this expedient was required.
Disposal by dilution has been so cheap
that no other means of disposal could
compete with it in terms of costs. Today,
with new concern for advanced degrees of
treatment to provide higher levels of effluent
quality, the discharge of untreated wastes by
some local agencies into surface waters is still
practiced. This anomalous condition can no
longer be condoned and all available alternate
means of more advanced treatment and
disposal methodologies must now be
considered.
The theory of stream assimilation and
stream quality standards has been at least
partially negated by the new concept of
effluent quality control—and efforts to
achieve ever higher effluent quality regardless
of the ability of receiving waters to accept
effluents of different quality levels without
tangible impairment of their safety and
usefulness. Involved in this trend is the
idealistic "zero pollution" goal which is
explicitly implied in the 1972 amendment to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. With
increasing amounts of wastewater to be
handled, and with mounting needs for water
of usable quality to meet increasing demands,
the concept of basing pollution control on
assimilation limits alone can no longer be the
policy of the States.
The pollution control concepts of the
1970's dictate that secondary treatment will
be the required minimal treatment for both
sewage and, in comparative value, for
industrial wastes. Further quality
improvement requirements are indicated as
the Act's numerous deadlines are reached.
The burden of proof is on the discharger of
wastewaters, not on regulatory agencies;
effluent monitoring and periodic reporting
will be required standard control procedure.
The basic quality criteria for effluents
now cover more than the standard factors of
organic and bacterial standards. Serious
concern is now aimed at nutrients which can
become the contributors to eutrophication of
lakes and other algae-breeding waters. The
specific targets for elimination by treatment,
or prevention by bans on use of products
containing these chemical compounds, are
phosphorous and nitrates. Land application
techniques must now be evaluated on the
basis of their ability to provide soil uptake of
these eutrophication-producing substances as
well as BOD, solids, bacterial and viral
contents of applied effluents.
Still another category of contaminants is
under serious surveillance: heavy metals and
other toxic substances which could affect
aquatic life and impair the safety of receiving
streams for public water supplies and other
critical uses. While these materials may be
present only in trace amounts, their presence
in effluents is viewed with such concern that
the 1972 Act provides for pre-treatment
standards for introduction of pollutants (for
industries) into publicly owned treatment
works (Section 307 (b) (1) ); and for standards
for toxic pollutants in effluents (Section 307
(a) (2) ). The effects of toxic substances on
effluent-irrigated crops, the ability of soils to
retain such hazardous substances, and the
presence of residual toxicity in groundwaters
tributary to land disposal sites are matters of
importance in evaluating the applicability of
this method of disposal.
The discharge of treated effluents into
receiving surface waters is an important means
of balancing the flow of streams and
171
-------
augmenting lake water levels. Diversion of
treated wastewaters to other watersheds other
than the sources of the water supplies used by
municipalities, industries and other users may
be objectionable in cases where absence of
this equalizing effect would be detrimental to
the ecological balance of local waters. In some
instances, the effluent from treatment works
constitutes the total or major portion of
seasonal flows in some streams. The principle
of returning to the source waters the volume
of flow taken from them, undiminished in
quantity and unimpaired in quality, is the
basic requirement of riparian rights to the use
of natural waters. However, stream
augmentation may take place from land
irrigation through increased flows of springs
or from the increased gradient of the
groundwater table. It is important to note
that land applications will not result in "zero
discharge of wastewater" but may result in
near "zero discharge of pollutants" into
public waters, including both groundwaters
and surface waters.
In some cases now, and in increasing
numbers of cases when higher degrees of
treatment and effluent quality will be
required, the effluents returned to the streams
may be of higher quality than the stream
waters themselves. This adds significance to
the concept of returning effluent waters to
the watershed from which they were derived.
Such effluents could have natural dilution
value in maintaining stream flows and stream
quality for highest classes of social usages.
Thermal pollution has become an
important factor in stream management and
aquatic environmental control. Wastewater
effluents could be a factor in maintaining
receiving waters within optimum temperature
ranges for the spawning, propagation and life
of fish and aquatic biota forms. On the other
hand, the discharge of heated waters to
streams, with their thermal pollution hazards,
could be allayed by the spreading of such
waters in land areas via holding ponds, spray
systems and other means. Enhanced tree and
fruit growth has been reported with the use of
heated effluents from industrial processing or
power production.
The use of heated effluents for improving
aquaculture practices, such as the growth of
catfish and small shellfish forms, has been
recorded. This type of use, in the form of
flow-through of effluents in fish ponds, does
not necessarily deplete stream flows in the
same way that losses due to
evaporation-transpiration evolved from heated
waters to land areas would—or as effluent use
for land application purposes might. The
factor of evapotranspiration of applied
wastewaters on land and vegetation areas
must be taken into consideration.
The current concept of land application
as a viable alternative technique to wastewater
treatment and discharge to surface waters
involves the adequate treatment of wastes to
produce effluents of relatively high quality
for application to land areas. Thus, the degree
of treatment for land application purposes
might match the quality required for
discharge into surface water sources.
However, if advanced degrees of treatment for
nutrient removal would be required to protect
streams, lakes and coastal waters, application
to the land could eliminate the need for such
tertiary purifications.
Utilization of Effluents by Direct Recycling
or Secondary Recycling and Reuse
Another alternative procedure for
effluent utilization, in lieu of treatment and
discharge to watercourses, is the treatment of
waste flows to adequate degree—even
ultra-treatment —and utilization of the
effluent for industrial or commercial
purposes. This technique involves the use of
effluents for predetermined purposes because
of the value of the liquid in various operations
and because of its quality and the need for
water which cannot be met adequately or
economically from other sources. The
utilization could be by direct recycling of safe
and dependable effluents from the final stages
of treatment and disinfection to the point or
points of utilization. Or, it could involve
indirect utilization by interposing an
intermediate point of discharge and the
ultimate use of the effluent waters, either
172
-------
undiluted or admixed with other waters.
In a sense, the discharge of effluents into
bodies of water which are then utilized as
sources of water supply for various purposes
"downstream" from the point of discharge,
represents a form of indirect utilization of
these effluents for useful purposes. This
follows the precept that there is no such thing
as new water; that all existing natural waters
have been used and, if of proper quality, are
available for reuse.
The basic physical principle of
non-destructibility of matter holds true in the
case of effluent disposal. Thus, the discharge
of effluents onto land areas results in the
percolation of at least a portion of the liquid
into the groundwater which can be tapped for
useful purposes, or which eventually becomes
part of the surface water flows to which the
groundwaters are tributary, and which are
then used in the same manner as
"downstream" water containing directly
discharged effluents.
Direct recycling of effluents for
on-stream industrial use is standard practice,
both in the case of sanitary sewage effluents
piped to industrial installations, such as the
Bethlehem Steel Company plant which uses
activated sludge effluent from the Back Bay
treatment plant of the City of Baltimore, or
more recent examples of industrial use of
effluents in other locations.
The direct recycling of effluents as
potable water supplies has been advocated
and practiced without great success or general
public acceptance in one drought-ridden
community in the United States, and with
success in Wendhoken, South Africa.
Recycled sanitary sewage effluents for limited
uses, in multi-piping systems, has been
advocated.
Two notable examples can be cited:
Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Mexico City,
D.F., have used separate distribution systems
to convey treated effluent to widely dispersed
areas within their jurisdictions. In both areas,
the economics and availability of "unused" as
opposed to "used" water made the project
economically feasible.
The use of effluents as the source of fluid
for recreational and aesthetic bodies of water,
such as well-publicized recreational lakes in
the Western area of the Nation, is a rational
example of direct recycling of waters in an
unbroken chain of utilization from water-to
wastewater-to effluent-to useful water.
These are merely general examples of
direct recycling and reuse of effluents. No
attempt is warranted here to expand on this
information because it is not cogent to the
discussion of alternative methods of effluent
disposal.
Indirect or secondary recycling of
effluents is a form of disposal and reuse that
lies somewhere in the area between direct
effluent recycling and land applicaton
techniques. This form of disposal is
represented by several operations in the
United States where effluents are discharged
onto land areas in the form of percolation
beds, seepage channels or other in-seepage
devices, or actually injectioned into the
groundwater table by means of wells or
shafts. Operations of this nature are on record
in the Western and Southwestern areas.
On Long Island, New York, where the
only source of water supply is groundwater in
the glacial till formations in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, large industrial use of water
is regulated by state law which requires the
return of on-stream flows back into the
aquifers of Suffolk and Nassau Counties. In
addition, actual injection of treatment plant
effluent into the upper and lower aquifers of
the two counties is under study. The use of
injected water to allay encroachment of saline
water from the Atlantic Ocean and Long
Island Sound into the island aquifer is well
known.
The use of effluents by either direct
recycling or secondary, or indirect, recycling
methods presumes that these effluents will be
of a high degree of purity and dependability.
Production of effluents of this quality
requires secondary and, perhaps, tertiary
degrees of treatment, supplemented by
disinfection at unquestionable levels of
bacterial kill.
173
-------
The injection of effluents into
groundwater sources involves other factors
which go beyond so-called sanitary quality
control guidelines. Studies conducted on
Long Island disclosed, for example, that the
presence of dissolved mineral or metal
constitutents could clog injection well screens
or cause clogging at the interface between the
well shaft and the aquifer soils.
The high quality requirements for the
disposal of effluents by means of direct or
indirect recycling procedures preclude
consideration of this type of disposal as a
"quick and cheap" alternative to the types of
treatment which present day practices and
standards will dictate for water pollution
control. Degrees of treatment would, at least
in most cases, equal the requirements
established under the provisions of the 1972
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Application of Effluents to Land Areas
The application of effluents on land areas
must be evaluated in the light of the
mentioned factors on discharge into water
sources or on the direct or indirect recycling
of waste waters. The applicability, feasibility
and economics of land application must be
ascertained in proper perspective with other
means of managing effluent disposal.
If land application is an alternative
procedure, the reasons for utilizing this
technique offer various alternatives: (1) as a
means of disposal without the necessity of
constructing outfall lines to distant
watercourses—the get-rid-of procedure; (2) as
a means of improving the effluent by natural
soil treatment and thereby avoiding the
necessity of advanced treatment by
conventional "artificial" processes; (3) as a
means of augmenting the groundwater table;
or (4) as a means of irrigating crops and
improving yields in agriculture or silviculture.
The land application installations investigated
during the course of the current study cover
examples of all these reasons for this method
of effluent management, as well as other more
or less valid purposes.
The ability of soil to remove organic
pollutants by mechanical, physical and
biological forces has been utilized in
conventional sewage treatment methods, in
the form of sand filters. Obviously, there is a
direct relation between the artificial use of
soil-wastewater contacts for treatment
purposes and the application of effluents to
natural land areas to "get rid of" wastewaters
and to utilize the purifying capabilities of the
soil to provide a form of
physical-chemical-bacteriological
improvement of quality.
Those early land disposal installations
which applied untreated or only partially
treated wastes to land areas were depending
on the purifying capabilities of the land to
provide "free" treatment. Today's concept of
land application—and the basic definition of
land application as investigated under the
terms of the current contractual
studies—involves the application of treated
effluents of proper quality to assure the
protection of the surface environment,
groundwater, the use of crops grown on
irrigated land, and the health and safety of
on-site and off-site persons.
The movement of water on and through
soil formations is a complex reaction which
involves chemical-physical-biological
reactions. Under proper soil conditions and
control measures, improvement in water
quality can occur during this movement. It
can produce an effluent end product that is of
markedly higher quality than the applied
wastewater which has received the equivalent
of secondary treatment by pre-irrigation
means. This improvement is one factor that
must be weighed in evaluating the
applicability and workability of land
application versus advanced degrees of
treatment by other means.
The ability of soils to remove a major
percentage of the nutrients in sewage
effluents has led to the advocacy of land
application as an anti-eutrophication
procedure. If the transfer of effluent
discharge from waters subject to nutrification
and algal stimulation resulted in the mere
shift from nitrates and phosphates in surface
waters to their presence in groundwaters, less
value could be attributed to land application
methods. However, the mechanics of soil
174
-------
uptake and the utilization of such nutrients
by plant life offer advocates of land
application the valid argument that an
ecological liability can be converted into an
agricultural asset.
Similarly, the uptake of other potentially
deleterious substances in effluents by soil
mechanics represents another factor which
must be weighed in placing land application in
proper perspective with other methods of
effluent management. These could include
metals and chemical components which can
be absorbed or adsorbed in or on soil particles
or ingested by plant life. However, the effect
of such chemicals on the soil composition and
its friability and filterability, or on the safety
of crops grown on such soils, must be
considered.
References to the mechanics of soil
management of effluent liquids and their
quality improvement must be augmented by a
brief comment on what has been defined as a
"4-R cycle"—Return; Renovation; Recharge;
Reuse. Liquid wastes are returned to the land
by alternative means, including rapid
filtration, spray irrigation, and other means of
surface spreading. Irrigation can be
accomplished by spray application, ridge and
furrow flows and flood spreading.
Surface soil layers renovate the effluent
by removal or conversion of pollution
materials. The improved liquid is then used to
recharge the groundwater. The renovated
liquid is reused.
The land application process offers the
possibility of meeting the conservationist goal
of "returning to the soil that which came
from it." The nitrogen cycle and the carbon
cycle involve land in the completion of their
reduction-oxidation-reconstitution sequences.
If the organics in waste waters and the
chemicals of vegetative value, together with
other exotic substances such as hormones,
could be utilized to grow food from which
the organics and other elements originally
stemmed, the recycle of these materials by
means of land applicaton would be achieved.
For example, the reuse in the "4-R" concept
described above, involves the reuse of not
only the water component of wastes effluents
but the nutritive composition of the liquids
and trace element therein.
The land application technique, as an
alternative effluent management procedure,
must be placed into proper focus with other
frameworks than specific engineering,
technology and economics. The effect of
setting aside large acreages for effluent
treatment on the dislocation of farm dwellers
must be considered as a
socio logic-demographic problem of
significance. The impact of land application
on land use planning, zoning and long-range
metropolitan-regional development must be
considered. The effects on aesthetics are part
of any thorough ecological evaluation of this
alternative method of effluent disposal.
Health and safety impacts must be
considered.
Comparative costs of the various means
of handling effluents, after suitable stages of
treatment of municipal and industrial
wastewaters, are difficult to compute and
evaluate. They depend on such variable
factors that no rule-of-thumb can claim to
represent fiscal factors involved in any one
specific project. These comparative costs must
be placed into perspective with the goal of
all-out elimination of pollutional discharges
into the Nation's water sources, whether it be
by degrees of advanced treatment which will
provide "zero pollution" in direct effluent
discharges, or the elimination of direct
discharges by means of such alternative
practices as land application.
No single answer could possibly become
the panacea for all pollution control
challenges in all areas. What may be the best
and most economical solution for one region,
one specific location, one actual wastewater
flow, cannot be assumed to be the answer for
another, even if superficial similarity can be
found.
This is the reason why land application of
effluents must be placed in proper perspective
with itself, and with other methods of
effluent management, in determining policies,
practices and degrees of performance which
will meet new and more demanding national
standards of water resources protection and
preservation.
175
-------
EXHIBIT IX
Text Book Excerpt
"SEWERAGE AND SEWAGE PURIFICATION"
by
M. N. Baker, Ph. B. C. E.
Associate Editor, Engineering News
Broad Irrigation or Sewage Farming
Where sewage is applied to the surface of
the ground upon which crops are raised the
process is called broad irrigation, or sewage
farming. The practice is in most respects
similar to the ordinary irrigation of crops with
clean water, the sewage being applied by a
variety of methods, according to
topographical and other natural conditions
and the kind of crops under cultivation.
The land employed for this method of
purification should preferably be composed
of a fairly light, porous soil. The crops should
be such as require, or at least develop best
under, a large amount of moisture. Where the
soil is heavy and wet, and the crops cannot
stand much water, the sewage must be applied
sparingly, and so a large amount of land and
much labor must be provided. As broad
irrigation areas may be prepared at
comparatively small expense it is sometimes
feasible to make use of land not so well suited
to the purpose as might be desired, provided
it can be obtained cheaply enough and too
much stress is not laid upon the raising of
crops. The less the attention paid to cropping,
generally speaking, the greater the amount of
sewage which can be put on a given area of
land. Wet, clay soils can take but little
sewage under any circumstances, but
sometimes improve with cultivation and the
application of sewage.
The application of an average of from
5,000 to 10,000 gallons of sewage per day to
one acre of land is considered by many as a
liberal allowance. On the basis of 100 gallons
of sewage per head of population this means
that one acre of land is sufficient for a
population of from 50 to 100 persons. More
could be purified if the crops would stand it,
but for each kind there is a limit shich if
passed means the destruction of the crop.
Allowing even 10,000 gallons of sewage,
or 100 persons, to an acre in a city of 20,000
inhabitants would require 200 acres. To find
suitable land at a low price near cities is not
always easy. The larger the city the greater
the difficulty. Labor, too, is a big item in
sewage farming on this side of the Atlantic,
especially near cities. As a partial offset to
this, great cities afford excellent and
never-failing markets. Another great obstacle
to adequate financial returns from sewage
farming in America is the deplorable fact that
political ends and not business principles
govern in large numbers of our cities, though
there is good reaosn to predict a great change
in this respect ere long. Where such conditions
do prevail, however, the positions of both
superintendents and laborers on sewage farms
are almost sure to be considered rewards for
and encouragements to party service, with
results most unfavorable to the enterprise in
hand. Sewage farming means the selling as
well as the raising of crops, and perhaps of
live stock, and so requires business ability and
agricultural skill. The latter must be
accompanied with the faculty of handling
considerable bodies of men.
These apparently discouraging statements
are meant rather as warnings. They are
necessary because of the glowing
representations which have been made
regarding the profits of sewage farming by
those who have not looked at all sides of the
question. I am not unmindful of the results of
sewage farming abroad, but European
conditions are far different from ours. Many
of the European farms are most admirably
managed, both from an agricultural and
business standpoint, and not a few of them
have to contend with soil far less favorable
than could be found in many sections of the
United States. I do not say that an American
176
-------
city could not conduct so great an enterprise
in a creditable manner, for we have found
many well-conceived and well-operated
municipal works of great magnitude. I do
say that high prices for land near large cities,
costly labor, a constant warfare against
corruption with too frequent surrenders, and
our sudden and complete changes in
government all make sewage farming more
difficult here than abroad.
For the present, sewage disposal cannot
be accomplished in this country at a profit. It
is sometimes possible to regain, through the
raising of crops, a part of the expense entailed
in removing and purifying sewage, and this is
the only method by which any considerable
portion of the expense has yet been recovered
here or elsewhere. We should be thankful for
the day of small things, and wherever a
revenue can be obtained from irrigation area
or filtration beds our efforts should be to
secure it. But the logic of figures will often
show that some method of disposal that
carries with it no financial returns is the
cheapest, in which case instead of crying over
spilt and wasted sewage, we may laugh over a
saving in capital, interest and maintenance.
Wherever irrigation, pure and simple, that
is the application of water to crops for the
sake of moisture, can be practiced to
advantage, sewage farming should receive
serious consideration, for in such localities
every drop of water is valuable. As ordinary
irrigation may yet be used in the East as well
as in the West (it is already practiced to some
extent in the South),the use of sewage for
mere watering as well as fertilizing may some
day be seen here and there throughout the
length and breadth of the land. This is a
subject which demands careful investigation
and perhaps might be taken up with
advantage by some of our agricultural
experiment stations and by any live official in
a position to do so.*
*For an article on "The Use of Sewage for Irrigation in
the West" see Engineering News for Nov. 3, 1892; the
substance of the article is also given in Rafter and Baker's
"Sewage Disposal in the United States." A later treatment of
the subject may be found in "Sewage Irrigation, " Nos. 3 and
22 of Water Supply and Irrigation Papers of the U. S.
Geological Survey, by Geo. W. Rafter, M. Am. Soc. C.E. In
March, 1905, the author of this book visited the sewage farm
of Pasadena, Cal., and also land to which some of the sewage
of Los Angeles is applied. As a result, he is more than ever
convinced of the wisdom of using sewage for irrigation
wherever water is scarce.
177
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The American Public Works Association is deeply indebted to the following persons for their
services rendered to the APWA Research Foundation in carrying out this study.
Richard H. Sullivan, Project Director
ADVISORY CONSULTANTS
Vinton W. Bacon, P,E., Professor, University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
Dr. Samuel S. Baxter, P.E., Consulting Engineer
Dr. Edward J. Cleary, P.E., Consulting Engineer
Dr. Morris M. Cohn, P.E., Consulting Engineer
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Belford L. Seabrook, P.E., Project Officer
Richard E. Thomas, Soil Scientist
FIELD INTERVIEWERS
Larry E. Greer, City of Los Angeles, California
Norman B. Hume, P.E., Consulting Engineer, Sacramento, California
Donald M. Parmelee, Vice President, C. W. Thornthwaite Associates
Dean Sellers, P.E., Chief Construction Engineer, Wichita, Kansas
DATA ANALYSIS
Robert J. Boes, P.E., Chemical Engineer, ORSANCO, Cincinnati, Ohio
John Reindl, Graduate Student, University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE
Charles E. Pound, P.E., Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers
Ronald W. Crites, Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers
Lt. Col. Daniel D. Ludwig, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Special acknowledgment is given to the Texas Water Quality Board and the Department of
Natural Resources, State of California, for use of bibliographic information supplied.
179
-------
COOPERATING INSTITUTIONS - WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS
A. Andries, "Grassland Research" Department, Belgium
Roystin Jones, Head, Civil Engineering Department,
University of Nairobi, Kenya
H.A.C. Montgomery, Water Research Laboratory, Department of the
Environment, England
Gygorgy Mucsy, Research Institute for Water Resources
Development, Budapest, Hungary
Dr. W. Niemitz, Institute for Water, Berlin, Germany
L. A. Orihuela, Chief, Community Water Supply and Sanitation, Division
of Environmental Health, World Health Organization, Switzerland
G. B. Shende, Scientist, Central Public Health Engineering Research
Institute, Nagpur, India
Hillel I. Shuval, Associate Professor, Environmental Health Laboratory,
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Ing. Anton Sikora, Csc, Director, Water Research Institute, Czechoslovakia
Odyer A. Sperandia, Director, C.E. Pis, Peru
Ir. T. Teeuwen, Director of the Institute for Waste Disposal,
The Netherlands
Rogelis A. Trelles, Director, Institute De Inginiero Sanitaria,
Universidad De Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
J. Williams, Soil Science Department, England
APWA STAFF*
Lois V. Borton Martin J. Manning, P.E.
Phyllis Brodny Shirley M. Olinger
S. L. Binstock Olga Vydra
William F. Henson, P.E. Oleta M. Ward
*Personnel Utilized on a full-time or part time basis on this project.
180
-------
SECTION IX
GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT TERMS
(as used in this report on land application ofwastewaters)
Absorption — The process of
incorporating water in the body of soil
particles.
Adsorption — The process of attracting
substances to the surface of soil particles.
Advanced Waste Treatment — A further
degree of treatment of wastewater, over and
above so-called secondary treatment, in order
to further purify these effluent waters by the
removal of additional amounts or types of
pollutants, or their modification into
non-polluting forms.
Amenable Industrial Wastes — Industrial
wastewaters which contain no substances, or
concentrations of substances, which could
adversely affect sewer systems or inhibit the
operation of sewage treatment processes
which depend on biological reactions;
amenability of wastes is improved when
biological processes are replaced by
physical-chemical methods of wastewater
treatment.
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand; a
measure of the need for oxygen to satisfy the
requirements of wastewater to stabilize its
organic composition.
Climatic Zones — An arbitrary division of
conterminous U.S. into geographical zones
which have specific climatic characteristics in
terms of seasonal weather, precipitation,
humidity and other meteorological
phenomena.
Conventional Wastewater Treatment —
The removal of a large proportion of the
contaminating materials in wastewater flows,
or their chemical or biological conversion into
stable forms, by use of physical, chemical,
biological or other means or processes, in
order to produce treated effluents that can be
discharged into rivers, lakes or coastal waters
without impairing the quality of these water
resources.
Cropland Irrigation — See Supplemental
Irrigation.
Eutrophication — The progressive
enrichment of surface waters particularly
non-flowing bodies of water such as lakes and
ponds, with dissolved nutrients, such as
phosphorous and nitrogen compounds,
which accelerate the growth of algae and
higher forms of plant life and result in the
utilization of the useable oxygen content of
the waters at the expense of other aquatic life
forms.
Evapotranspiration — The process by
which water or moisture withdrawn from the
soil by plant life is evaporated or transpired
into the atmosphere from the stomata of
leaves and other surfaces of vegetation of all
types.
Flood Irrigation - The spreading of
wastewater over a broad area of land in the
form of a sheet of varying depth, and the
absorption or percolation of liquid into the
body of the soil as it flows along a gentle
slope of the land.
Flow Augmentation — The addition of
water or wastewater effluents to surface water
sources, for the purpose of increasing the
volume of such waters as rivers, lakes or other
inland bodies of surface water; in the case of
groundwater, the addition of wastewater
effluents which will increase the volume of
the underground water source and raise or
help maintain the groundwater table.
Friable - A condition of soil which
makes it easily crumbled and powdery, as
compared to becoming caked, hard and
unworkable; a condition which could be
induced by the accumulation of certain
minerals or other materials in and on sand
media.
Ground Cover - Any form of vegetative
growth on land areas which will be used for
the application of wastewaters; usually refers
to low-lying vegetative forms which are left
undisturbed on the land and not harvested,
plowed under or turned over.
Groundwater — The body of water that is
retained in the sub-soil of an area, as an
underground resource which tends to move
by hydraulic gradient to lower levels, often by
outseepage into surface water sources in the
natural drainage basin.
181
-------
Groundwater Table — The elevation of
the top of the groundwater contained in the
underground soil; the groundwater table may
rise and fall as the volume of water applied to
the soil increases or decreases.
Holding Basin — A retention chamber
designed to hold wastewater during periods
when application to the land cannot be used,
in whole or in part; the distinction between a
holding basin and an oxidation pond is that
the former may or may not be designed to
provide any degree of treatment for the
retained wastewater.
Hydraulic Barrier — A means of
augmenting the groundwater volume and
raising the level of the water table in order to
create hydraulic gradients higher than the
level of surrounding waters which would tend
to inflow or infilter into the groundwater
aquifer and introduce contaminants or other
unwanted substances which could adversely
affect its quality.
Land Application — The discharge of
wastewaters onto land areas, as an alternative
treatment procedure to conventional method
and disposal of effluents into surface water
sources.
Monitoring — A system of sampling of
wastewater at various stages of treatment or
application to land areas, and a regimen of
testing and examination of these liquids to
ascertain their quality and the presence of
foreign or unwanted contaminating
substances which might adversely affect the
environment — land, water, air resources and
its use by man, fish life and wildlife, or other
forms.
Overland Flow Irrigation — A process of
land application of wastewater which provides
spray distribution onto gently sloping soil of
relatively impervious nature, such as clays, for
the purpose of attaining aerobic bio-treatment
of the exposed flow in contact with ground
cover vegetation, followed by the collection
of runoff waters in intercepting ditches or
channels and the return of the wastewater
back to the spray system or its discharge into
receiving waters; sometimes called spray runoff.
Oxidation Pond — A basin for the
retention of wastewater, on a batch or
continuous flow basis, where these
wastewaters can undergo aerobic stabilization
in the presence of adequate oxygen made
available by various means of aeration,
mixing, agitation or surface absorption.
Pathogenic Bacteria — Bacteria which can
cause or transmit disease; in the context of
this report, pathogens are bacterial forms
which are water-borne and which can cause
disease in those who come in contact with
them via water, food, inhalation or other
bodily contacts.
Percolation — The downward movement
of water or moisture from the surface of the
land down through the open spaces, or
interstices, of the soil.
Physical-Chemical Treatment — A
method of semi-advanced or advanced
wastewater treatment which combines the use
of chemicals, such as activated carbon or lime,
to induce reactions such as coagulation,
absorption or adsorption of pollutional
substances, with processes which physically
"remove unwanted contaminants by such
means as straining, screening, settling or
filtering.
Population Equivalent of Industrial
Wastewater — The caluculated number of
people contributing sewage equal in strength
to a unit volume of the wastes discharged into
a sewer system, in terms of biochemical
oxygen demand; a common base for
computing the population equivalent is that
one person contributes 0.17 pounds of 5-day
BOD in the form of sanitary sewage per day.
R idge-and-Furrow Irrigation — The
application of wastewater onto land areas by
ditches made by tilling or plowing or
furrowing the soil into small valleys and
ridges; the wastewater flows in the furrows
and crop planting may be made on the ridges.
Riparian Rights — A principle of
Common Law which requires that any user of
waters adjoining or flowing through his lands
must so use and protect them that he will
enable his neighbor to utilize the same waters
undiminished in quantity and undefiled in
quality.
182
-------
Secondary Treatment — Treatment of
wastewaters by conventional means or
processes, involving biological, chemical or
physical means such as trickling filters,
activated sludge and chemical precipitation
and filtration.
Sewage Farming — A generic term
relating to the disposal of sewage, in raw or
partially treated form, onto farm lands for the
purpose of utilizing the irrigation water and
the organic nutrient materials therein for crop
enhancement.
Silviculture — The nurturing and growth
of trees and similar vegetative forms, as
compared with agriculture, which relates to
growth of grass, crops, food, feed and fiber.
Soil Uptake Capability — A measure of
the capacity or ability of natural soils to
absorb, adsorb, remove and/or modify such
pollutants as phosphorous and nitrogen in
wastewaters which percolate through such
media.
Spray Irrigation — The application of
wastewater to land areas by means of
stationary or moving sprays which distribute
the liquid in sheet, particle or aerosol mist
form.
Spray Runoff - See Overland Flows
Irrigation.
Supplemental Irrigation — The addition
of water to land areas, by any means of
application, to supplement natural
precipitation, for the purpose of enhancing
land productivity, sometimes called cropland
irrigation.
Suspended Solids - Visible suspended
matter in wastewater or other water which
will settle out of the body of wastewater or
float to its surface if allowed to remain
quiescent; solid matter which can be removed
from wastewaters by screening, settling or
other means such as swirl action, centrifuging
action or other hydraulic phenomena.
Toxic Metals — Any metal substances in
wastewater which could be toxic or poisonous
to grasses, to crops, or to groundwater, and
which could adversely affect those who ingest
or imbibe these substances; common
examples of toxic metals are copper,
cadmium or boron.
Transpiration — The process by which
plants of all types of agricultural,
horticultural and silvicultural growths
dissipate water or moisture into the
atmosphere from stomata of leaves or other
surfaces, in the form of a vapor; dissipation of
water by direct evaporation from the surface
of plants, bark or other membranes, stomata,
and lenticula into the atmosphere.
Underdrain System — A system of pipes
or ducts, placed underground, to intercept
and collect percolated wastewaters and to
return these waters to a predetermined
location for a predetermined purpose, often
to prevent the discharge of such underground
water into water sources which it is intended
to protect.
Virus — Any of a group of
ultramicroscopic, infectious agents that
reproduce only in living cells; therefore
considered evidence of human pollution.
Wastewater — Used water; municipal
sewage or industrial wastes, or combinations
of both wastes. (In the context of land
application, wastewaters are considered to be
liquid wastes which have been treated prior to
application to land areas in order to assure the
safety and efficiency of this process of
effluent handling.)
Zero Pollution — A degree of pollution
control or prevention which eliminates the
addition of any contaminants or unwanted
foreign material into surface water sources;
incorrectly interpreted as "zero discharge" of
any effluents into watercourses (land
application of wastewater effluents has been
suggested as one means of establishing "zero
pollution" conditions.)
183
-------
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
1. Letter from H.A.C. Montgomery, Water
Research Laboratory, Department of the
Environment, Stevenage Herts, England,
December 14, 1972.
2. Letter from Rogelio A. Trelles, Director,
Institute De Inginiero Sanitaria,
Universidad De Buenos Aires, Buenos
Aires, Argentina, December 27, 1972.
3. Letter from G.B. Shende, Scientist, Central
Public Health Engineering Research Insti-
tute, Nagpur, India, December 22, 1972.
4. Hillel I. Shuval, Water Pollution Control
in Semi-Arid and Arid Zones Water
Research, Vol. 1, pp. 297-308, Pergamon
Press, Great Britain, 1967.
5. Letter from Rogelio A. Trelles, Ibid.
6. Laszlo Vermes, Utilization of Urban
Sewage for Irrigation, Research Institute
for Water Resources Development,
Budapest, Hungary.
7. Hillel I. Shuval, Ibid.
8. Laszlo Vermes, Ibid.
9. Letter from G. B. Shende, Ibid.
10. C. F. Kirbey, Sewage Treatment Farms,
Session 12, Post Graduate Course in
Public Health Engineering, Department of
Civil Engineering, University of
Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 1971.
11. Analysis of the Black Waters of the
Cuenca of the Valley of Mexico and the
Region of El Mezquital, Bulletin No. 2,
Hidalgo Hydraulic Commission of the
Cuenca of the Valley of Mexico, Mexico,
D.F., March 1965.
12. F. Edeline, G. Lambert, H. Fatticaoni, W.
Binet, "Comparison of Two Purification
Processes" Tribune du Cebedeau, Centre
Beige d'Etude et de Documentation des
Eaux, pp 293-302, Liege, Belgium,
June-July, 1967.
13. Laszlo Vermes, Water Quality Research
for Use of Industrial Waste Water in Land
Treatment, Research Institute on Water
Management, Budapest, Hungary.
14. Hillel I. Shuval, Ibid.
15. Hillel I. Shuval, Ibid.
16. C. F. Kirbey, Ibid.
17. Laszlo Vermes, "Sewage Irrigation in
Crop Production," SZARVAS, Volume
VII, No. 2, Hungary, 1969.
18. Robert C. Merz, "Direct Utilization of
Waste Waters" Proceedings, llth
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, 1956, 91:541-551; Water and
Sewage Works, 103:417-423.
19. Anonymous, "Don't Waste Effluent"
Wastes Engineering 30:4:205, April 1959.
20. Jan Wierzbicki, "Effect of Geographical
Factors on the Widespread Agricultural
Use of Sewage" Gas, Woda i Tech. Sanit.
(Polish) 24:407, 1950. Abstract: Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 23:941.
21. Louis C. Gilde, Experiences of Cannery
and Poultry Waste Treatment Operations,
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue,
1967, pp 675-685.
22. C. D. Henry, et al, "Sewage Effluent
Disposal Through Crop Irrigation"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes
26:2:123-133, February 1954.
23. G. Julen, Some Aspects of Irrigating
Grassland in Humid Regions and the Use
of Sewage Proceedings, Sixth
International Grassland Conference,
1952, I, 394-396 Soils and Fertilizers
8:450(2303) 1955.
24. H. G. Luley, "Spray Irrigation of Vegetable
and Fruit Processing Wastes" Journal
WPCF 35:10:1252-1261, October 1963.
25. L. V. Wilcox, "Agricultural Uses of
Reclaimed Sewage Effluent" Sewage
Works Journal 20:1:24-33, January 1948.
26. Sam L. Warrington, "Effects of Using
Lagooned Sewage Effluent on Farmland
Sewage and Industrial Wastes
24:1243-1247, 1952.
27. C. H. Wadleigh, L. V. Wilcox, M. H.
Gallatin, "Quality of Irrigation Water"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
11:31-33, 1956.
28. Anonymous, "Water for Irrigation Use
Chemical and Engineering News 29:990,
185
-------
1951. Abstract: Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 23:1214.
29. Leonard E. Nelson, "Cannery Wastes
Disposal by Spray Irrigation" Wastes
Engineering 23:398-400, 1952. PHE
Abstracts 32:8:74-75.
30. Anonymous, "Effluent Treatment by
Spray Irrigation" Water and Waste
Treatment 10:105, 1964.
31. H. G. Harding, H. A. Trebler,
"Fundamentals of the Control and
Treatment of Dairy Waste" Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 27:12:1369-1382,
December 1955.
32. Theodore Wisniewski, "Irrigation
Disposal of Industrial Wastes" Public
Works 92:7:96, July 1961.
33. Peter Yehuda, "Sewage Effluent Into
Sand Dunes" Water and Sewage Works
November 1958, p 493.
34. G. T. Orlob, R. G. Butler, An
Investigation of Sewage Spreading on
Five California Soils SERL, University of
California, Technical Bulletin No. 12,
I.E.R. Series 37, Berkeley, June 1955.
35. Joe H. Jones, George S. Taylor, "Septic
Tank Effluent Percolation Through Sands
Under Laboratory Conditions" Soil
Science 99:301-309, 1965.
36. Earl H. Goodwin, "Sewage Irrigation in
Texas" Public Works 66:23, 1935.
Abstract: Sewage Works Journal 7:589.
37. William J. Chase, "Spray Disposal of
Domestic Wastes" Public Works
91:137-141 (May) 1960. PHE Abstract
40:8:107.
38. R. E. Thomas, T. W. Bendixon,
"Degradation of Wastewater Organics in
Soil" Journal: WPCF 41:5:808-813,
1969. Water Pollution Abstracts
42:10:461.
39. A. D. Day, et al, "Effects of Treatment
Plant Effluent on Soil Properties"
Journal: WPCF 44:3:372-375, March
1972.
40. R. E. Williams, D. D. Eier, A. T. Wallace,
Feasibility of Reuse of Treated
Wastewater for Irrigation, Fertilization
and Groundwater Recharge in Idaho
Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Moscow, Idaho 1969.
41. Harold B. Gotaas, Final Report on Field
Investigation and Research on Waste
Water Reclamation and Utilization in
Relation to Underground Water Pollution
California State Water Pollution Control
Board, Sacramento, Pub. No. 6, 124 pp,
Abstract: Sewage and Industrial Wastes
26:927-928, 1953.
42. Herman Bower, "Ground Water Recharge
Design for Renovating Waste Water"
Proceedings, ASCE, Journal of Sanitary
Engineering Division, 96:SA1:59-64,
February 1970.
43. Harold E. Hedger, "Los Angeles
Considers Reclaiming Sewage Water to
Recharge Underground Basins" Civil
Engineer 20:323-324, 1950.
44. G. G. Robeck, "Microbial Problems in
Groundwater" Ground Water 7:3:33-35,
1968.
45. Arnold E. Greenberg, Jerome F. Thomas,
"Sewage Effluent Reclamation for
Industrial and Agricultural Use" Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 26:761-770, 1954.
46. Bernard Skulte, "Agricultural Values of
Sewage" Sewage and Industrial Wastes
25:11:1297-1303, November 1953.
47. Robert Wyndham, "Cannery Waste
Disposal at its Best" Compost Science J-A
1971, p 30.
48. G. W. Lawton, et al, Effectiveness of
Spray Irrigation for the Disposal of Dairy
Plant Wastes Eng. Exp. Stat. Research
Project No. 15, University of Wisconsin,
1960, 59pp.
49. D. E. Bloodgood, HaroldC. Kock,
Abstract: Experimental Spray Irrigation
of Paperboard Mitt Wastes, 1959.
50. Ray Westenhouse, "Irrigation Disposal of
Wastes" TAIP1 46:160A-161A, 1963.
PHE Abstracts 44:72, 1964.
51. C. D. Henry, et al, Ibid.
52. Arnold E. Greenberg, Jerome F. Thomas,
Ibid.
53. "Sewage Farming at Ostrow Wielkoposki,
Abstract" Sewage and Industrial Wastes
22:7:971-972, July 1950.
54. W. A. Flower, Spray Irrigation — A
Positive Approach to A Perplexing
186
-------
Problem Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, 679-683, 1965.
55. Perry E. Miller, Spray Irrigation at
Morgan Packing Company, Austin,
Indiana Proceedings, 8th Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University,
83:284-287, 1953.
56. Stuart C. Crawford, "Spray Irrigation of
Certain Sulfite Pulp Mill Wastes" Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 30:10:1266-1272,
October 1958.
57. William Sopper, "Waste Water
Renovation for Refuse: Key to Optimum
Use of Water Resources" Water Research
pp 471-480, September 1968.
58. Abstract "Disposal of Liquid Wastes by
the Irrigation Method at Vegetable
Canning Plants in Minnesota,
1948-1950. "June 1952, from Proceedings
of the 6th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, pp 803-804.
59. Effluent Treatment by Spray Irrigation,
Ibid.
60. Engineering Feasibility Demonstration
Study for Muskegon County, Michigan,
Wastewater Treatment - Irrigation
System U.S. Dept. of Interior, p 174,
October 1970.
61. Edward F. Eldridge, "Industrial
Wastes — Canning Industry" Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry 39:619-624,
1947.
62. Anonymous, "Irrigation With Sewage"
Engineering News-Record 121:821, 1938.
63. R. R. Parker, "Spray Irrigation for
Industrial Waste Disposal" Canadian
Municipal Utilities 103:7:28-32, July
1965.
64. G. R. Herzik, Jr., "Texas Approves
Irrigation of Animal Crops With Sewage
Plant Effluents" Wastes Engineering
27:418-421, 1956.
65. L. C. Gilde, et al, "A Spray Irrigation
System for Treatment of Cannery
Wastes'' Journal: W PCF
43:10:2011-2025, October 1971.
66. Robert P. Cantrell, et al, "A Technical
and Economic Feasibility Study of the
Use of Municipal Sewage Effluent for
Irrigation" Municipal Sewage Effluent for
Irrigation Louisiana Tech Alumni
Foundation, 168 pp, pp 135-159.
67. Gilbert Dunstan, Jesse Lunsford,
"Cannery Waste Disposal by Irrigation"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes
27:7:827-834,July 1955.
68. James Low, Jr., Richard Thomas, Leon
Myers, "Cannery Wastewater Treatment
by High-Rate Spray on Grassland"
Journal: WPCF 42:9:1621-1623,
September 1970.
69. Harvey Ludwig, et al, "Disposal of Citrus
By-Products Wastes at Ontario,
California" Sewage and Industrial Wastes
23:10:1254-1266, October 1951.
70. Ward Parsons, Spray Irrigation from the
Manufacture of Hardboard Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University,
1967.602-607.
71. Joseph M. Dennis, "Spray Irrigation of
Food Processing Wastes" Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 25:5:591-595, May
1953.
72. H. Reploh, M. Handloser, "Investigations
on the Spread of Bacteria Caused by
Irrigation With Waste Water" Arch. Hyg.
(Berlin) 141:632-644, 1957. PEE
Abstracts 39:S:54.
73. W. Fries, "Agricultural Utilization of
Sewage as Artificial Rain" Der Volkswirt
9:19,1955. Water Pollution Abstracts,
(1350) Vol. 29, p 244
74. Wen-Lan Lou Wang, S.G. Dunlop,
"Animal Parasites in Sewage and
Irrigation Water" Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 26:1020-1032, 1954.
75. D. M. Babov, "Bacterial Contamination
of Soil and Vegetables on Fields After
Seasonal Sewage Irrigation in the
Southern Ukraine" Gigiena i Sanitariya
No. 11 37-41, 1962. PHE Abstracts, Vol.
43, p 112.
76. Lloyd L. Falk, "Bacterial Contamination
of Tomatoes Grown in Polluted Soil"
American Journal Public Health
39:1338-1342, 1949.
77. W. Rudolfs, L.L. Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: I. Bacterial
187
-------
Contamination" Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 23:253-268, 1951.
78. W. Rudolfs, L.L. Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: II. Field and Laboratory
Studies on Endamoeba Cysts" Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 23:478-485. 1951.
79 W. Rudolfs, L.L.Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: III. Field Studies on
Ascaris Eggs Sewage and Industrial Wastes
23:656-660, 1951.
80. W. Rudolfs, L.L. Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: IV. Bacterial
Decontamination" Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 23:739-751, 1951.
81. W. Rudolfs, L.L. Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: V. Helminthic
Decontamination" Sewage and Industrial
Wastes 23:853-860, 1951.
82. G. Muller, "Infection of Vegetables by
Application of Domestic Sewage As
Artificial Rain" Stadtehygiene 8:30-32,
1957. Water Pollution Abstracts (2184)
30:385
83. S.G. Dunlop, R.M. Twedt, W.L. Wang,
"Salmonella in Irrigation Water" Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 23:1118-1122,
1951.
84. A.M. Rawn, "Salvage of Sewage Studied"
Civil Engineering 4:471-472, 1934.
85. B.N. Jey, R.A. Agadzhanov, S.A.
Allakhverdyants, E.M. Dashkova, L.A.
Maiorova, E.S. Shtok, "The Results of
Sanitary and Hygienic Investigations of
Ashkhabad Sewage Farms" Gigiena i
Sanitariya No. 12 18-20, 1960. PHE
Abstract 41:S:41.
86. W. Rudolfs, L.L. Falk, R.A. Ragotzkie,
"Contamination of Vegetables Grown in
Polluted Soil: VI. Application of
Results" Sewage and Industrial Wastes
23:992-1000, 1951.
87. W.A. Drewry, R. Eliassen, "Virus
Movement in Groundwater" Journal
WPCF 40:257-271, 1968.
88. A.B. Crawford, A.H. Frank, "Effect on
Animal Health of Feeding Sewage" Civil
Engineering 10:495-496, 1940.
89. H.D. Shuval, Health Factors in the Reuse
of Waste Water for Agricultural,
Industrial, and Municipal Purposes
Problems in Community Wastes
Management, World Health Organization,
Geneva pp 76-89, (89 pp), 1969.
90. Ralph Stone, "Land Disposal of Sewage
and Industrial Wastes" Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 25:4:406-418, April
1953.
91. G.G. Robeck, Ibid.
92. J.B. Askew, R.F. Bott, R.E. Leach, B.L.
England, "Microbiology of Reclaimed
Water From Sewage for Recreational
Use" American Journal of Public Health
55:2:453-462, 1965.
93. Herman Bower, "Returning Wastes to the
Land, A New Role for Agriculture"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
23:5 pp 164-168, September-October
1968.
94. C. F. Kirby, Sewage Treatment Farms
University of Melbourne, 1971.
95. Stuart G. Dunlop, Survival of Pathogens
and Related Disease Hazard Municipal
Sewage for Irrigation, Louisiana Tech
Alumni Foundation, 1968. 168 pp, pp
107-121.
96. Jan Wierzbicki, "Agricultural Utilization
of Sewage Waters" Soils and Fertilizers
19:2096, 1956. Chemical Abstracts
52:15806, 1958.
97. G. Ippolito, "Agricultural Utilization of
Sewage" Ingegn. Sanit. 1:15-20, 1955.
PHE Abstracts Vol. 35, No. S, pp 77-78.
Water Pollution Abstracts, (1107) Vol.
29, p 202.
98. J.V. Lunsford, "Effect of Cannery Waste
Removal on Stream Conditions" Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 29:4:428-431,
April 1957.
99. Vinton Bacon, Harold Gotaas, Raymond
Stone, Jr., "Economic and Technical
Status of Water Reclamation from
Sewage and Industrial Wastes"
JournaL-AWWA 44:6:503-517, 1952.
188
-------
100. A.D. Day, A.D. Dickson, T.C. Tucker,
"Effects of City Sewage Effluent on
Grain Yield and Grain Malt Quality of
Fall-Sown, Irrigated Barley" Agronomy
Journal 5:317-318, 1963.
101. A.D. Day, T.C. Tucker, "Hay
Production of Small Grains Utilizing
City Sewage Effluent" Agronomy
Journal 52:238-239, 1960.
102. Russell O. Blosser, Eben L. Owens,
"Irrigation and Land Disposal of Pulp
Mill Effluents" Water and Sewage Works
111:424-432, 1964.
103. R.M.M. Cormack, "Irrigation Potential
of Sewage Effluents" Journal, Institute
Sewage Purification (British) Part
3:256-257, 1964.
104. George A. Mitchell, "Observations on
Sewage Farming in Europe" Engineering
News-Record 106:66-69, 1931.
105. A.D. Day, T.C. Tucker, "Production of
Small Grains Pasture Forage Using
Sewage Effluent as a Source of Irrigation
Water and Plant Nutrient" Agronomy
Journal pp 569-572, 1959.
106. Stanley Pennypacker, et al, "Renovation
of Wastewater Effluent by Irrigation of
Forest Land" Journal WPCF 39:2 pp
285-296, February 1967.
107. Riley B. Harrell, Sewage Irrigation as a
Method of Disposal Proceedings, 21st
Texas Water Works and Sewage Short
School, pp 121-123, 1939. Abstract
Sewage Works Journal, 12:1019.
108. Anonymous, "Sewage Farming at
Tucson" Sewage Works Journal
18:1211, 1946.
109. Earl H. Goodwin, "Sewage Irrigation in
Texas" Public Works 66:23, 1935.
Abstract: Sewage Works Journal 7:589.
110. A. Segal, "Sewage Reclamation at
Fresno, California" Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 22:1011-1012, 1950.
111. " Sewage Refuse, Literature Review"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes
31:5:534-536, May 1959.
112. M. Maloch, "The Effect of Sewage Water
on the Yield and Quality of Grassland"
Shorn. Csl. Akad. Zemed. 19:57-107,
1947. Soils and Fertilizers 13:364
(2021), 1950.
113. A. Stephen Klein, David Jenkins, P.H.
McGauhey, "The Fate of ABS in Soils
and Plants" Journal WPCF 35:636-654,
1963.
Control Federation 35:636-654, 1963.
114. Councillor Kreuz, "Utilization of
Domestic Sewage and Industrial Wastes
by Broad Irrigation" Sewage Works
Journal 8:2:348, March 1963.
189
-------
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDICES
Appendix A, Questionnaire 193
Appendix B, Commentaries of Field Investigation 195
Appendix C, On-Site Surveys of Land Application Facilities 257
Appendix D, Mail Surveys of Land Application Facilities 305
Appendix E, Land Application Facilities Verified But Not Surveyed . . . 349
Appendix F, Department of Defense Installations — Land Application of
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent 353
Appendix G, Medical Department Criteria for Land Disposal of Domestic
Effluents, Department of the Army 355
Appendix H, Climatic Classifications 361
Appendix I, Background Papers on Land Application of Domestic Effluents 365
Effluents 365
191
-------
-------
APPENDEX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
OMB 1S8-S 72023
Exp- 12/72
SITE INTERVIEW WASTE WATER LAND
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
LOCATION (City-County-State)
NAME (Agency-Company)
CODE i TIT rrr
Report No.
FACILITY NAME
Land Disposal Facility Operated by (check) D Owner D Lessor
Lessor's Name Address
A. COMMUNITY DATA
1. Population served by facility
2. Population equivalent of waste (@ 0.17 Ib BOD/d/cap)
3. Wastewater treatment (check all applicable)
none D tertiary D
primary D oxidation ponds D
secondary D effluent chlorination D
other (list)
4. Sludge disposal
Treatment Disposal Method
Thickening D Irrigation d
Digesting D Tank Truck D
Filtering D Spreading D
Drying D Other D
Other D
5. Average flow mgd
Maximum system capacity mgd
6. Combined sewer system yes no
Percent of system
Is stormwater treated''
7. For industry: Classification
canning D beverage D
milk D other (list) D
refinery D organic D
pulp and paper D
inorganic D
B. LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Year first started
1. Wastes to disposal area by:
dUch D truck D
pipe O rail D
(gravity)
pipe D
(pressure)
other (list)
2. Total area used acres
acres irrigated
— acres for buffer
acres for on-site storage
acres for on-site treatment
acres presently unused
3. Months of year used (circle)
JFMAMJJASOND
4. Average flow mgd
Ibs solids/day
5. Soil type.
loam D sand D
silt D gravel D
clay D other (list) D
USDA/SCS Soil Classification
6. Ground cover
Annual Return
Type Acres to Agen.
Grass
Forest
Not cultivated
No vegetation
Crops (list)
7. Irrigation days/week
Maximum application rate
in/hr in/day in/wk in/yr
Average application rate
in/hr in/day in/wk m/yr
8 Wastes applied by
spray (low pressure) spray (high pressure)
tilling other (list)
9. Is renovated water collected? yes no
If yes, specify_
193
-------
10. Cost of land$ _
Year purchased
per acre
Annual cost (if leased) $
Term of lease
_years
Value of land, est. 1972$.
Value of adjacent land $
mgd
11. Capital improvements:
Cost $
Cost $
12. Zoning
Facility
residential
commercial
industrial
farm
green belt
other
13. Distance to nearest residence
Made
_per acre
_ per acre
year
Adjacent Property
feet
C. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. Annual budget $
2. Capacity of holding ponds mg
3. Treatment prior to disposal at site
aeration chlormation
other
acres
4. Is land leased for'
farming
other
grazing
(yes or no)
5. Security (check if used)
fenced D
accessible to public D
other (list)
patrolled
posted
D
D
residences on premises_
6. Recreation use of site? If yes, specify
7. Any public health restrictions? If yes, specify
2. Is system effluent:
reused
_reapplied
discharged to receiving wateis_
lost to groundwater
3. Does groundwater interfere with system operation?
If yes, specify
Is data available concerning:
buildup of N
buildup of heavy metal
buildup of chlorides
effect on plants
effect on animals
deterioration of groundwater quality
deterioration of receiving water quality
effect on water table
odors
health hazards
other
Yes
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a
a
No
n
a
a
a
D
D
a
a
D
D
5. Definite plans for future (check)
expand continue
decrease (explain)
abandon (explain)
none
6. Is information available on:
Indicate yes or no'
Parameters
BOD
SS
COD
pH
Fecal coli
P
Total N
Nitrate
Nitrite
CL
Influent
Effluent or Ground-
water Discharge
D. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
1. Monitoring program
Test wells number depths
Item
Influent
Effluent
Soil analysis
Groundwater analysis
Vegetation analysis
Animal and insect analysis
Other
Frequency/Samples
194
-------
Appendix B
COMMENTARIES OF FIELD INVESTIGATORS
This Appendix contains the overall
commentaries of the field investigators who
inspected the land application sites selected
for the survey program. These statements are
selected and edited portions of the reports
filed by the investigators to augment the
fact-finding statistical reports. The
commentaries do not cover all of the land
application systems surveyed; the ones
presented have been chosen because they
provide an overview of the more significant
evaluation items observed by the
investigators.
These commentaries supplement the
statistical data obtained during the course of
the field visits. Their value lies in the
"personal touch" nature of the information
filed by the trained and experienced observers
who performed the on-site investigations.
The accuracy of the observations is not
here certified; they have not been checked in
all instances with the public agencies and
industries involved in the operation of the
systems. The intent in presenting this
information is to offer representative
observations on the use and effectiveness of
this me*thod of effluent management.
For ease of reference, the reported date
that each system was begun and the average
flow to the land application facility is in
parentheses following the name of the agency.
Interviews are numbered to correspond with
the questionnaire data listing of Appendix C
in order to allow ready reference for
additional data.
2. Lake Havasu City, Arizona
(1971 -0.55mgd)
Lake Havasu City is a development of the
McCulloch Company. The area about the city
is desert land. The wastewater irrigated lands,
including the golf course land and the
adjoining airport, are Federal lands made
available to the Sanitary District. These are
not straightforward, single-item leases, so no
lease cost could be computed.
McCulloch Properties and the Sanitary
District shared the costs of the pump
equipment and pipe for getting the water
from the holding pond to the golf course and
the costs of the holding pond. Shared cost for
each in 1971 was about $14,000.
The Sanitary District plans to expand
water uses as increased effluent becomes
available for the second nine holes which will
be built on the golf course, some city park
facilities, and highway median.
The golf course pays $20/acre-foot for
effluent for about 30+ acre feet per month.
Domestic water sells for $75 for the first
acre-foot and $40/acre-foot thereafter.
3. Mesa, Arizona (1957 - 4.3 mgd)
Mesa has one wastewater treatment plant
and delivers about 3 mgd to the Phoenix
plant. The Mesa plant serves a flow of 4.3
mgd.
The Phoenix plant receives most of
Mesa's industrial wastes, so that the influent
to the Mesa plant is nearly 100 percent
domestic sewage. Capacity of the pipeline to
the Phoenix plant is 10 mgd which will be
reached by 1980. Mesa must either expand its
existing plant, building another plant of its
own, or construct as a joint venture a new
plant with the City of Tempe. Tempe will
reach its present plant capacity before 1980.
All of the Mesa plant's reclaimed water is
used for irrigation. The only present
alternative is to discharge it to the dry
riverbed where it would percolate into the
groundwater.
Mesa presently has pending a HUD open
space application for a 1,000-foot greenbelt
around the plant site which would be watered
with reclaimed water.
8. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
( - 3 mgd) Calabasas, California
Calabasas presently uses, for agricultural
irrigation, almost all of its 3 mgd of secondary
treated effluent. Twentieth Century Studios
195
-------
uses reclaimed water for "greening" outdoor
movie and TV sets. These uncultivated
grounds are used as a disposal area when
excess water exists. The plant is not permitted
(by WPCB) to discharge to Malibu Creek,
under a restraining order, as the creek
discharges to the ocean at a recreational beach
area.
The plant operator indicated that the
effluent presently meets drinking water
standards.
Twentieth Century also uses effluent to
fill a "tank pond" as a setting for lake or
ocean films. A painted backdrop serves as
background with model ships used for
filming. "TORA, TORA, TORA" was filmed
on reclaimed water.
Reclaimed water is provided in a
pressurized hydrant system in part of Malibu
Canyon for fire-fighting purposes.
There is no groundwater of acceptable
quality in the canyon. There are only three
wells-TDS ranges between 1,500-3,000.
Fish from the holding reservoir are edible.
The Fish and Game Department has done
extensive testing.
Potential uses for reclaimed water that
are actively being pursued are:
1. Watering of one and maybe two golf
courses several miles away and high
in the canyon.
2. Irrigation of landscaping on
Pepperdine College campus at lower
end of the canyon near the beach.
3. Implementation of a dual water
system in the areas suited for
potential development - a domestic
water supply inside each home and a
reclaimed water supply for
landscaping, irrigation, car wash, etc.,
on the exterior of each home.
11. Dinuba, California (1954 - 2.4 mgd)
No crops are raised at present because the
former plantings of grapes and plums were
over-aged and had to be removed. No money
was available for plant stock so agriculture is
now abandoned. However, the land
application is conducted just as it was for the
former plantings - ridge and furrow. There are
tentative plans to create a game reserve on the
property.
The sandy soil at the site which is flat is
conducive to ready absorption of high
application of effluent. Inasmuch as lab
facilities have yet to be installed, technical
data are meager.
12. Fontana, California (1971-2.3 mgd)
The 2.3 mgd flow receives only primary
treatment by the City of Fontana. All flow is
used for irrigation of three types of crops:
(1) Citrus - 72 acres
Five-year contract for 360 acre
feet/year (1971-1975)
(2) Hayfields
Informal agreement - irrigation and
disposal 27-acre parcel - irrigating 17
acres
(3) Grapes - 20 acres
Two applications per year before
blooms on grapes - 10 mg/year
Flow to citrus farm - mg/month:
June 1971
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1972
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
18.5
25.8
22.0
19.5
15.3
11.4
6.7
6.6
6.3
12.7
13.7
15.9
15.7
18.2
11.8
The citrus farmer is very happy with use of
reclaimed water. This is the first complete
year that it was used prior to the trees'
blooming period. No other fertilizer is used.
The leaf growth is larger and there is more of
it and the fruit is larger and more plentiful.
He indicates that he likes the continuous
feeding by the effluent nutrients vs.
twice-a-year fertilizing that is normally done.
Also he is using about twice as much water as
when he was irrigating with domestic water.
Before using reclaimed water he bought about
$7,000 of domestic water per year for
irrigation at $20-21/acre foot. The reclaimed
196
-------
water is free, with the City paying pumping
costs. He used approximately the equivalent
of $14,000 worth had he bought domestic
water.
The City makes no charge for the water —
it is only concerned about disposal. All water
goes on the land. There is no discharge to re-
ceiving water. They used to percolate water,
but had reached maximum percolation capac-
ity and had started irrigating with the idea of
selling it for a profit. It did not work. They
now irrigate as a disposal method.
Figure 13, Fontana, California, contains
photographs of the holding pond and
irrigation facilities used.
13. Fresno, California (1891 - 50 mdg)
The wastewater plant is on a site
originally operated as a "sewer farm" without
treatment in 1891. It has evolved to include
primary treatment to the bulk of the sewage
with oxidation ponds and about 15 mgd of
secondary treatment. New headworks
facilities are under construction and 200
additional acres of land are under acquisition.
Gradually, land has been withdrawn from
grazing to construct additional oxidation
ponds.
At one time, the grazing area was sown to
forage crops but that has not been done for
some years and at present there is an
indiscriminate growth that supports some
cattle. There is some consideration being
given to discontinue grazing and merely till
the disposal area periodically.
There is a comprehensive system of
concrete-lined distribution canals complete
with weirs and diversion gates convenient to
the flooding of the diked pasture areas.
Odorous conditions are prevalent; however,
there probably is not much nuisance from this
source as the surroundings are completely
agricultural.
14. Hanford, California (1900 - 2.5 mgd)
This was a well conducted operation,
apparently very successful. Plans include
purchase of more land for expansion. As the
primary duty of the land is to receive
effluent, the farming enterprise must accept
what the City delivers; however, that practice
has only caused minor problems to the
farmer. The land is in a game reserve area and
although the farm area is not fenced, there are
no serious trespass problems.
The planting during the present year was
to oats, cotton, and a hybrid corn used in
milling a tortilla flour. Crops looked
excellent.
16. Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc.
(1964 - 1.4 mgd) Laguna Hills, California
There are four major disposal sites (in
order of priority for the reclaimed water):
1. Golf Course - 125
acres - Sprinkled 340,000 g/d
ann. ave.
2. Lion Country Safari, water for San
Diego Creek wild animal water holes,
and some irrigation - 100,000 g/d
3. Irvine Company up to 1,000 acres of
"field and forage" crops. First year
for this use. 1.1 mgd intermittent use
over seven-month period. Flood
irrigation.
4. Greenbelt - 295 acres. Under
flight path to the El Toro Marine Air
Station. Sprinklered. Part of
Rossmoor property.
All effluent water is used on these sites. It
was not determined precisely how the farmer
(Irvine Company) is applying the water or the
precise amount of acreage being irrigated. It is
done on the basis of the farmer's judgment as
to water need.
The water is sold to the golf course for
$47/acre-foot. Domestic water sells at
$78/acre-foot. The water is free to Irvine
Company since it serves as a disposal method.
There are no other alternatives available for
disposing of the water.
At the plant, four small ponds are
maintained to determine the effect of aerator
and chlorination levels, as well as to
determine effect of effluent on fish and small
wildlife.
17. Livermore, California (1965 - )
This facility is well organized. The
effluent is used on the airport landscaping and
197
-------
a. The 1.5 acre, 1 mg capacity holding pond
b. Irrigation land
FIGURE 13
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
198
-------
c. Ridge and furrow irrigation in former hayfield
d. Irrigated vineyard in foreground; in background are irrigated citrus trees
and a windbreak of eucalyptus trees
FIGURE 13
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA
199
-------
90 acres of alfalfa on the airport site, for the
city-owned golf course, and on an adjacent
farm for irrigation of about 200 acres of row
crops. Surplus water flows into Las Positas
Creek, thence to the Niles cone area where it
mingles with other imported water to
replenish an overdraft of the cone.
The farm irrigation diversion is allowed
without payment to the City as long as
surplus water is available. There are other
potential public uses being given
consideration which might well develop in the
future. These include expansion of park
facilities adjacent to the site and irrigation
possibilities on the freeway interchange which
is close by. There is a series of ponds on the
golf course served by the effluent disposal
system and the site is traversed by Las Positas
Creek which is the drain for excess flow.
In sum, all of the effluent from the
facility except that lost by evaporation is
conserved for beneficial reuse.
18. Lodi, California (1944-3.7-5 mgd)
The City of Lodi is surrounded by a
vigorous agricultural community which
produces a seasonal fruit processing and
canning industrial load to be handled by the
community. The flow from the canneries is
conducted to the plant site by a separate line.
Screening is required at each processing plant
so that there is no gross evidence of the
wastes.
Cannery flow may be treated with the
domestic flow or distributed by means of
irrigation ditches directly to the several
pasture plots. These plots are flooded
successively in an operation conducted by the
tenant cattle raiser.
The plant and pasture operations are
located on a single, city-owned site adjacent
to White Slough, one of the myriad branches
of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta System.
The land is level and only a few feet above
tidal elevation. It is underlain by brackish
water unsuitable for domestic water supply.
Unused effluent may be discharged into White
Slough, which is generally only a winter
occurrence.
The plant and pasture lands are very well
kept and present an overall excellent
appearance.
19. Irvine Ranch Water District
(1968 - 2.8 mgd) Irvine, California
All effluent water is reclaimed for
agricultural uses. The plant has no other
alternative disposal means. The plant is
prohibited from discharging effluent to the
adjoining flood control channel because it
ends up in Newport Bay (Pacific Ocean)
which has a major recreational use.
Attempts to retain water in ponds for
private duck clubs were resisted by the Public
Health Department because the plant could
not maintain the low coliform count
demanded - mpn less than 2/100 ml.
The Irvine Company is concerned with
the amount of salts in its irrigation water. It
wants less than 1,000 ppm of salts for
agricultural uses. It is blending or alternating
the effluent water with matching amounts of
Colorado River water.
The plant estimates an average flow of 40
mgd by the year 2000. It has negotiations
under way to expand its reclamation uses of
the water to include: (1) an 18-hole golf
course, (2) 50 acres of landscaping on the
University of California at Irvine campus, and
(3) ornamental irrigation on 25 acres of a
County Regional Park with ultimate
expansion to 200 acres.
20. Oceanside, California (1957 -1.5 mgd)
Originally, the plant disposed of the
effluent by percolation into ponds in the
riverbed. Recharging of the groundwater was
important to halt saltwater intrusion. Flow
was pumped seven miles inland from the plant
to a holding pond, then by gravity flow to
percolation ponds.
The City leases the 40-acre holding pond
area, a 40-acre spray disposal area, and the
percolation pond areas from an adjacent
property owner for 200 acre feet of reclaimed
water per year. The City has usually exceeded
that amount. The water table has since risen
(1969) so that little percolation occurs. Now
the City uses the farm ground for disposal as
well as irrigation. The percolation ponds
200
-------
washed out in a 1969 flood.
Since the water table filled, water is
discharged to the river, but the State Water
Quality Board is concerned about the high
nutrient value of the water. The City is under
a cease and desist order. It submitted plans 14
months ago for enlarging and upgrading the
land application system. Only the emergency
outfall system portion has been approved.
The farm area that is irrigated varies over
the year from 150 acres to 400 acres, with an
estimated annual average of 250 acres. The
City is also using 40 acres of floodplain area
that is covered with vegetation, but not
cultivated, for waste disposal of water. Water
is sprayed on the disposal site seven days per
week. Ten acres are sprayed at a time for a
period of 4 to 5 days, 24 hours per day,
followed by 12 to 15 days of drying time
while the other 30 acres are sprayed.
Expansion plans for using reclaimed
water include: a contract ready for signature
with State Division of Highways for 600
acre-feet/year to irrigate freeway. City put in
rapid sand filter and chlorinator and pipe to
the freeway. Capital costs amortized over 20
years and annual filtering and pumping costs
charged to State - estimated at approximately
$50/acre-foot. Also plans for 125-acre and
400-acre County Regional Park. Other
possible agricultural uses include a strawberry
farm.
22. Pleasanton, California (1957-1.3 mgd)
This is a well conducted operation both
as to treatment and disposal and would likely
be satisfactory if there were only moderate
growth likely. However, the community is
growing rapidly and plans are under way to
provide a multicommunity sewer system for
the valley and commitment has been made by
the City to join the system when complete,
which is expected to be in about five years.
The irrigated area is essentially level and
sprinklers apply water consecutively to all
parts. There is a slight rise adjacent to the
irrigated area where cattle can be quartered
when the fields become somewhat soggy
during inclement weather. This is done to
protect the forage cover from excessive
cattle-tromping damage.
The land is leased from the City of San
Francisco which owns it as underground
water reserves. The yearly lease cost is
$12,900; no profit is made on the City's
grazing operation.
Inasmuch as the operation is conducted
over an important underground aquifer,
regular groundwater sampling is conducted by
California State Department of Water
Resources.
23. Santa Maria, California (1935 - 4.8 mgd)
The City of Santa Maria operates a
secondary treatment plant followed by
oxidation ponds. The entire flow of 4.8 mgd
is conveyed by ditch to a 155-acre pasture
partly owned by the City and partly leased.
Under the terms of the lease, all water must
be used.
The City is looking for alternate disposal
methods as the plant expands. Water Quality
Control Board wanted a $200,000 pipeline
that would discharge chlorinated effluent into
the Santa Maria River that would carry it to
the ocean. The Water Resources Agency
denied the plan - the City must keep the
water on the land. The City is considering an
alternative to buy additional land for
percolation ponds.
25. Santee County Water District
(1959-1 mgd) California
Effluent water is presently percolated
into a spreading basin below oxidation ponds.
It surfaces downstream in the river channel
and is used for recreational lakes (boating,
fishing), then flows to the golf course where it
is picked up and used for irrigation. Some
water flows on through the golf course.
The value of the water was established at
$50/acre-foot three years ago. Domestic water
sells for $59/acre ft (was $19/acre ft 10 years
ago).
Potential uses of additional water are
freeway watering, and possible new
agricultural areas on a greenbelt in the usually
dry riverbed.
It appears that the basin in which Santee
is located has been filled with percolated
201
-------
effluent water (most all domestic water is
imported - Colorado River water). This water
is surfacing at the lower end of the basin and
flows to the ocean in the river channel.
The County Health Department has
stopped approving tentative tract maps and
has issued a cease and desist order to Santee,
claiming that the nutrients in the water have
promoted dense brush growth to the point
that it cannot provide an effective mosquito
abatement program.
Several land application uses are made of
the effluent after it has passed through the
recreational-use lagoons. These uses include
sprinkling of the golf course and tree farm.
Figure 14, Santee, California, contains
photographs of portions of the system.
27. Golden Gate Park (1932 - 1 mgd)
San Francisco, California
When the park was built in the 1870's,
there was no adequate water source. Two well
fields were developed and raw sewage was
diverted from the Lincoln Avenue sewer to a
septic tank. It used the combined well water
and septic tank effluent to irrigate the
western half of the park.
In 1931, a suit was brought that forced
the abandonment of the septic tank. A 1-mgd
activated sludge plant was built near Elk Glen
Lake. The effluent served as irrigation water
along with the well water for the western part
of the park until 1947. At that time, a
pumping plant was built at Elk Glen Lake to
serve the eastern part of the park.
Water Reclamation Plant
The Water Reclamation Plant, placed in
operation in 1932, is a conventional activated
sludge plant without sludge treatment.
Primary sludge, grit, and screenings are
returned to the sewer that connects to the
Richmond-Sunset Plant.
The effluent quality is good, with
suspended solids around 10 mg/1 and final
effluent mpn less than 2.2 per 100 ml. The
effluent form of nitrogen is mostly ammonia
although nitrification occurs periodically. In
early 1972, the effluent suspended solids
began to increase and the mixed liquor
suspended solids were reduced from 1,200
mg/1 to 200-300 mg/1. The chief operator
suspects that the composition of the sewage is
changing due to the activity of several
research hospitals in the area.
Irrigation System
About 800 acres of the park are irrigated
by fixed sprinklers, supplemented by hand
sprinkling. Irrigation is usually required from
April to October, but in some years irrigation
has been required until December. The water
reclamation plant generally operates from mid-
February until November and produces about
one-third of the water for irrigation of the
800 acres. Irrigation usually lasts for one and
one-half to three hours with an application of
about 1 inch of water. The resting period is
usually six days. The calculated loading rate
for this sandy soil is 3,750 gpd per acre, or
about 1 inch per week.
Groundwater does not interfere with the
irrigation practice and no test wells have been
drilled. The well field in the western part of
the park is declining with only three of the
original seven wells still producing.
30. Woodland, California (1889 - 8.7 mgd)
Sewage farming in Woodland began in
1889, with the irrigation of hay and pasture
land east of town. In 1905, the resultant
odors led to a lawsuit that forced the sewer
farm to be moved. From 1905 to 1930,
farming with sewage continued in a larger
tract east of the original plot. The City has
purchased additional land over the years so
that it now owns over 1,400 acres.
In 1948, a primary sewage treatment
plant was constructed on Beamer Street, with
the effluent being used for irrigation. The
City has built numerous ponds since that time
and now all treatment except coarse screening
is accomplished in oxidation ponds.
The present municipal waste flow is 4.2
mgd and the tomato canning waste averages
4.5 mgd from mid-July to October. Near the
abandoned primary plant a series of ponds
provides the equivalent of primary plus
secondary treatment for 0.3 mgd which is
then percolated into the ground. A flow of
202
-------
1.75 mgd is piped directly to a larger ponding
area while the remaining 1.45 mgd is treated
in primary ponds at site 1, treated in
secondary ponds at site 2, and discharged to
the irrigation ditch. At the second pond site,
the 1.75 mgd is provided primary and
secondary treatment in ponds and discharged
to the irrigation ditch. This is accomplished in
four ponds of 12 acres each. An additional
0.7 mgd of municipal wastewater is piped
from the southern area of Woodland directly
to this area and is treated in four ponds of
four acres each.
Adjacent to this second pond site are 320
acres for the treatment of the canning waste.
These ponds are very shallow and some odors
are produced. The total area of this second
pond site is 800 acres. The soil is an adobe
clay with a pH of 11 and is very high in
sodium. This material was deposited as a part
of old lake beds and is quite distinct from the
neighboring arable soil.
The irrigation ditch runs eastward to a
site near Tule Canal in the floodplain of the
Yolo Bypass. The City owns 430 acres which
are presently leased. The lessee also owns and
irrigates 240 acres of milo north of the City's
land. This year, he raised safflower (a
nonirrigated crop) on the City's 430 acres. He
pays the City $10,000 a year for the land and
has the right to the treated effluent when he
needs it. On the 240 acres of milo, he applied
30 inches of water at a rate of about 1,5
inches per week. The water is applied by
flooding and the runoff is collected in a
drainage ditch which discharges into Tule
Canal.
The Regional Water Quality Control
Board's requirements for discharge to Tule
Canal are a minimum of 60 days' detention
prior to discharge and a dissolved oxygen
content of 5.0 mg/1 in Tule Canal. When
water is not needed for irrigation, the 430
acres are flooded and leased as a duck hunting
area. Parts of the 320 acres of industrial waste
treatment ponds are also leased for duck
hunting.
31. Colorado Springs, Colorado
(1953-4-7 mgd)
The City of Colorado Springs, after severe
droughts in 1953, initiated a limited program
to water municipally owned grassed areas
with wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Severe watering restrictions placed on all
residents had previously resulted in the loss of
large grassed areas.
The present system is divided into two
lines. The western line is composed of a
pressure line to an abandoned water reservoir
from which the effluent is again pumped to
the facilities to be irrigated. These include a
median strip where an old gravity irrigation
system was previously used for flood
irrigation of the wide median strip, Colorado
College, and a new, exclusive country club
area, "Kissing Camels." The latter area has its
groundskeeper personnel water the golf
course and the lawns of numerous high-class
residences on the grounds.
On the pressure lines, a series of fire
hydrants has been located, painted a
distinctive blue and white color. These fire
hydrants may be used by contractors who can
utilize the low quality water for purposes such
as construction and tree watering. An annual
fee is paid. In addition, the Fire Department
may use the lines in an emergency.
The eastern line is pumped to an
abandoned water reservoir from which, by
gravity, several facilities, including a
cemetery, park, a private development
(Printers Union Home and Office), and a golf
course are watered.
The system has been designed to provide
water for irrigation along the Interstate
Highway System. Although the State
Highway Department participated in the cost
of one of the pressure lines, it has not used
the system
Figure 15, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
contains photographs of portions of the
system.
Private customers are charged a rate of 10
cents per thousand gallons plus pumping,
which averages approximately 14 cents per
1,000 gallons. The 1969 sales were $24,090;
1970 sales $36,815; 1971 sales $36,598. In
1971, tertiary treatment was added. Flows for
irrigation are subjected to either
physical-chemical treatment process or sand
filtration. The cost for new sales of water will
203
-------
a. Recreational lakes
b. Sprinkler system in park
FIGURE 14
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
204
-------
c. Golf course and holding pond
S^Mfc: >••
fv *xn;'
d. Tree farm with sprinkler system
FIGURE 14
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
205
-------
a. Covered storage water reservoirs on "East" System
b. Spray application in cemetery
FIGURE 15
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
206
-------
c. Portable distribution system
at ITU Home (side)
d. Spray irrigated park
(below)
FIGURE 15
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
207
-------
be 30 cents per 1,000 gallons, plus pumping.
The operating cost by the City for the
irrigation operation was: 1969, $42,965; 1970,
$34,197; and 1971 with tertiary treatment,
$137,689.
The reservoir on the west section is open
to the public and public fishing is allowed. On
public properties, in accordance with
Colorado State regulations, some signs exist
pointing out that a nonpotable water source is
used for watering. On public property, either
underground sprinkler systems or portable
aluminum pipe systems are used.
Some odor complaints have been received
by the City when the reservoirs have been
allowed to hold water for several days because
of rain. The entire system is operated on the
basis of demand for watering and the water is
taken only as desired by the users.
During 1971, 336 million gallons were
treated by the tertiary plant. Two hundred
three were used for irrigation and 133 for
industrial use.
The area of facilities watered on the east
line includes the Wastewater Reclamation
Plant, 27 acres; Evergreen Cemetery, 206
acres; Memorial Park, 115 acres; ITU, 50.5
acres; Lunar Park, 3.4 acres; Otis Park, 2.4
acres; and Patty Jewitt Golf Course, 235
acres. On the west line: Colorado College, 55
acres; Parkways, 2.3 acres; Acacia Park, 3.7
acres; and Kissing Camel Golf Course, 82
acres.
The cost of the improvements to the
western line was $62,000; to the eastern line
$196,890; and for tertiary treatment
$1,054,000.
32. Disneyworld, Florida (1972 - 1.5 mgd)
Tertiary treated domestic effluent is
applied to a sandy, 100-acre demonstration
plot. Approximately half of the area is
planted to grass and the other .half to trees. A
6-acre plot of ornamental trees and 46-acres
of eucalyptus trees are being grown. The
eucalyptus are being grown for pulpwood.
Preliminary tests indicate that heights of 25
feet can be achieved in two years' time,
starting with a 3-inch sapling. USGS, on a
cooperative project, has installed test wells to
determine groundwater elevation. A minimum
of other control tests is planned; however, the
dosage rate at 2 inches per acre per week is
considered low enough to assure that the
system will not be stressed.
A development cost of $100,000 was
incurred for clearing 160 acres of land.
Holding ponds and pumps were not included.
33. Okaloosa County Water and Sewer
District (1972- 1 mgd)
Fort Walton Beach, Florida
As a result of observing the application in
Tallahassee, Trustees of the district decided to
try land application. The contact stabilization
wastewater treatment plant was opened in
1972.
From the plant, effluent is pumped
16,000 feet to an 80-acre tract on Eglin AFB.
The area is covered with scrub pine and
natural forest growth. Application rate is
governed on a trial and error basis. Until
September, each of three 8-acre plots was
irrigated for 12 hours and then rested for 24
hours. Because of ponding, each plot is now
watered in series for six hours.
Local plans appear to be to clear the land.
Local water supplies are from 700-foot wells.
There is a perched water table at 40 feet.
State prohibits discharge of effluent to
receiving waters without 90 percent BOD
removal.
The spray system is designed to operate
at 62 psi, and to deliver 47.8 gpm over a
172-foot diameter. Maintenance involves one
visual inspection per day.
It was reported that all local governments
are planning to install land disposal systems -
press reports from Eglin estimate that 7 mgd
will be applied to AFB land.
Figure 16, Okaloosa County Water and
Sewer District, Florida, contains photographs
of the application area on Eglin AFB.
34. St. Petersburg, Florida
(1972-0.16 mgd)
The City of St. Petersburg has a 4-acre
plot on which it is attempting to determine
the feasibility of land application of
wastewater in urban areas. The test site was
208
-------
a. Holding pond — 8 acres
b. Fixed spray heads in scrub forest area
FIGURE 16
OKALOOSA COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT, FLORIDA
209
-------
_£*&*•: -
r, -ft-iV-1
c. Natural sandy soil conditions
FIGURE 16
OKALOOSA COUNTY WASTES AND SEWER DISTRICT, FLORIDA
Aerial view of treatment plant and crop experimental area.
Forested area at left is irrigated with two large water cannons.
FIGURE 17
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
210
-------
started in March 1972 and consists of a series
of wells and fixed sprinkler heads on a plot in
close proximity to the existing treatment
plant. Pump capacity is about 1 million
gallons per day to this site.
Preliminary estimates indicate that
perhaps 25 percent of the moisture will be
lost through evaporation and plant
transpiration, 50 percent will follow a clay
layer at a 5-foot depth and flow into a lake,
and 25 percent will penetrate the clay.
The City of St. Petersburg has made
proposals to OWRR and to USEPA for a
research program to determine public
acceptance of the concept, identification and
movement of viruses, and other factors
related to the large-scale demonstration
project. The hope is to minimize the use of
domestic water for irrigating golf courses,
parks, and other large-scale developments.
35. Tallahassee, Florida (1966 - 2 mgd)
The present 2.5 mgd plant was built in
1965 and disposal has been by land since
1966. In 1972, 20 acres of forest land were
put under irrigation. Prior to that, all effluent
went on a 16-acre plot of grasses and crops.
The disposal area is on low sand hills of
marginal forest land.
Wastewater discharge at Tallahassee is
presently 8.5 mgd. By 2000 A.D., it is
estimated that the City will be treating 20
mgd. At present, about three-fourths of the
secondary effluent flows to Lake Munson,
west of the City. About 2.5 mgd is treated at
the Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant,
where all the secondary effluent is contained
on the plant site. Plans are now being
formulated to increase the size of this facility
to 10 mgd to meet expanding needs. It is
planned to retain all discharge on the land,
possibly through sprinkler irrigation, in
response to increasing pressure against lake
pollution.
Four plots are presently served by
sprinkler irrigation. The system is constructed
to serve four subplots for each plot, each
subplot being served by four sprinklers on a
100-foot square arrangement and providing an
application rate of 1 inch per hour. This
system, which has functioned satisfactorily
for five years, provides four application rates
for each crop. Data may thus be obtained on
yield response, efficiency of nutrient removal,
and forage quality simultaneously for four
crops. Application rates used during the
1970-71 year include winter rates of 1/2, 1, 2,
and 4 inches. Soil samples are taken from
each subplot to measure changes in
potassium, calcium, magnesium, pH, and salts
for each crop and each treatment. Feeding
trials are conducted with forage receiving the
heaviest application rates using beef cattle.
Analyses here include intake levels, energy
content, and total digestible nutrients.
Figure 17, Tallahassee, Florida, is an
aerial view of the wastewater treatment plant.
Every effort is being made to stress the
system, that is to apply a maximum amount
of irrigation. During June 1972, test plots
were watered at the rate of 2, 4, 6, and 8
inches per week and at the same time
applications determining the effect of
watering at one application as opposed to
spreading out the watering over the week.
Definite improvement in yield and crop
growth is shown with the higher applications.
The difference between weekly and more
frequent watering is not readily apparent.
The total application is deemed successful
and a plant expansion which will take place
this year will provide up to 10 mgd. This will
be applied on land adjacent to the plant.
Carryover spray is considered to be a problem
and screen planting is strongly urged along
roadways.
The land is flat; depth to groundwater 35
feet; annual evaporation 55 inches.
One test well is 2,500 feet downstream;
tests from it have not indicated Cl, N, or
bacterial contamination.
Plans for the future include forest
clearing and using coastal bermuda and winter
rye as crops.
Phosphates appear to be well fixed by the
soil.
The application rate to the forest land is
200,000 gal./acre/day.
State now prohibits discharge to receiving
waters of effluent with less than 90 percent
BOD removal.
211
-------
36. St. Charles Utilities, Inc.
St. Charles, Maryland
St. Charles is a new community in Charles
County, Maryland, developed as a private
utility, constructed using a Federal
government guaranteed Title IV New
Community Loan as administered by HUD.
Building started in 1966. The sewer system
and disposal facilities, consisting of treatment
lagoons and spray irrigation areas in wooded
areas, now serve 1,500- residences, a
population of about 6,000, and a sewage flow
of approximately 0.5 mgd. This is an example
of a new, planned community utilizing spray
irrigation as a means of sewage disposal, in
lieu of conventional treatment facilities.
Choice of land application, following
lagoon treatment of raw sewage, was made
with the approval of the State Department of
Health, rather than discharge into surface
waters. No rivers or other streams were
available for this latter purpose; an
interceptor to the Potomac River would have
entailed a run of some 5 to 6 miles at a cost
of some $17 million, and requiring many
years of planning and construction. An initial
proposal to discharge effluent into Zekiah
Swamp was rejected after a public hearing and
serious complaints from property owners in
the new community. The State Health
Department demanded an alternate proposal
and the consulting engineers recommended
spray irrigation of lagoon effluent.
This decision was based on availability of
undeveloped land in the 8,000-acre St.
Charles Utilities plot; the presence of wooded
areas which could receive spray effluent; and
the sandy nature of the soil which would
provide adequate drainage, absorption, and
discharge to groundwater that is
approximately 5 to 6 feet below grade. The
surrounding area did not pose any problems
of groundwater contamination for nearby
properties. The State apparently imposed no
requirements for sewage treatment or effluent
quality, over and above what could be
achieved by lagooning of raw sewage delivered
to the site from in-town pumping station
facilities.
Choice of spray irrigation into wooded
areas, with no intended crop production or
tree-growth benefits, was based on the
utility's need for the cheapest disposal means.
Spray irrigation was intended as the disposal
method and no possible revenues or benefits
of spray irrigation were considered in making
the decision to use the system. Standard
sewage treatment and disposal of effluent into
the Potomac or a tributary stream thereto
would have involved secondary treatment
processes and effluent chlorination. The cost
factors led to the irrigation decision.
The land value is now $2,500/acre,
approximately, but the land was available in
1966 as "spare" acreage, with no immediate
community growth planning that would have
made the land used for sewage lagooning and
spray irrigation more valuable for
residential-commercial development. Present
plans for development of an industrial park
area in the St. Charles Utility complex still do
not affect the economic rationale for spray
application of effluent. Zoning restrictions
were not a factor in irrigation.
At this time, the Charles County Sanitary
Commission is planning to construct an
interceptor and treatment works for the
entire region, with possible completion in
1980, and St. Charles would at that time
discontinue its lagoon-irrigation system and
discharge its sewage into the regional system.
The State apparently made no firm
requirements on degree of treatment or
effluent quality as standard criteria were not
available. The State did, according to the
consulting engineers, approve the method of
treatment and of effluent disposal. Monthly
effluent analyses by a private laboratory
indicate the following: suspended solids 25 to
50 ppm; BOD 50 ppm; D.O. 6 ppm; pH 7.0.
No analyses of coliform content are reported.
No analytical monitoring of groundwater
quality is reported.
Whether soil permeability tests were
carried out is not clearly indicated. However,
the sandy nature of the soil was evident
during the inspection. The ground is flat.
Climate is moderate. It is reported that
freezing weather may be encountered for
212
-------
brief periods - say one to two weeks -
followed by milder temperatures. This
provided for year-round irrigation, with only
short periods of holding of effluent in the
lagoons, followed by resumption of spray
irrigation before the holding capacity of the
lagoons is exhausted. By lowering the depth
of the lagoons in the fall, room is provided for
holding when necessary. The dikes around the
lagoons provide holding volume.
The original acreage of the lagoons - 10
acres - has been doubled to 20 acres. The
irrigation area covers 35 acres, in nine fields
covered by separate spray systems which are
operated independently. Design provided for
control of spray fields by hand-operated
valves. Spray distribution headers are 6-inch
aluminum pipe, with 2-inch laterals upon
which are mounted 3/4-inch to 1-inch risers
serving a small number of stationary spray
heads and, mostly, rotating sprays of Rain
Bird or equal manufacture. Effluent is
pumped to the fields from two separate
stations at approximately 40 psi at the
nozzles. Piping is at ground level.
Design was based on one acre of irrigation
area for each 50 homes and one acre of
lagoon area for each 75 dwellings. The initial
criteria limited spray application to two
inches per acre per week. There appears to be
lack of consistency in application rates, with
some data indicating double this rate.
Application varies with the nature of the soil
and the percolation rates.
No buffer zone requirements were
specifically required by the States, but
adequate buffering is provided by the
secluded nature of the utility-owned plant site
and the total St. Charles' 8,000-acre
development.
The distance to the nearest structure (a
historic Episcopal Church and church
cemetery plot and an adjacent home) is
approximately one-half mile; the distance to
more densely populated areas is
approximately one mile. The church may
utilize a well for water supply but no record
of analyses was available. The area is posted
for "no trespassing" but no specific reference
is made to the use of the land for irrigation
purposes. Seclusion, rather than positive
protection, is depended upon.
Rates of spray application apparently
vary from 1 /4 inch to 1 /2 inch per hour, and
1 inch to 2 inches per day, based on four
hours of spraying, followed by shutdown of
the dosed area and transfer of the effluent to
another area by means of manually operated
valves. The four-hour spray period was
observed by the investigator during his visit,
with the shutdown occurring at noon. The
annual dosage evidently ranges from 50 inches
to 100 inches per year, indicating resting of
each area for four to some seven days
between applications, depending on soil
drainability and weather conditions.
It was reported that forest mulch has
been left undisturbed in the spray areas
because this organic mat induces better
drainage. An effort to clear one area resulted
in flooding and washout of the soil. Some
weak underbrush was noted in the spray area,
but no dense growths were reported and no
efforts to keep brush in cut condition were
needed or utilized. Operating personnel, as
noted during the inspection, include one
supervisor and three employees engaged in
handling the lagoons and spray fields, part
time.
No observations were reported to
determine whether tree growth is greater in
the irrigated area. The attitude is: Our job is
to get rid of the sewage, not to seek any
profit from irrigation practices.
The aluminum effluent distribution
piping and the spray nozzles have functioned
satisfactorily. Routine maintenance has
sufficed. The 6-inch lines are designed to
"weep" or drain when pressure is released,
thus providing protection against freezing
during cold weather.
Pretreatment is by stabilizing lagoons,
utilizing three consecutive ponds in series for
each of two separate lagoon systems. The first
pass is aerated, with two mid-lagoon aeration
units; a third will be installed in each of the
two systems. The lagoons have never been
cleaned but floating scum and aquatic
growths are skimmed or flushed down with
water hoses, using lagoon water and a
213
-------
portable wheeled pump unit. The effluent
from one of the systems contained evidence
of heavy eutrophication on the day of
inspection; the other was not so affected.
Odors from the aerator in the eutrophied
system were fairly heavy; the other system
was not odorous. No significant psychoda
alternata populations were observed. The
lagoons showed evidence of archorutes, or
springtail growths, floating on the surface of
the sleek that was blown to one end of the
water areas by prevailing winds.
Soil clogging in the irrigation fields was
minimal during the observations. Some
clogging was reported by the staff, but this
was not considered of importance because the
fields recover their porosity when rested. The
spray area is flat and there is no evidence of
surface runoff of the applied effluent. No
protection is required to prevent runoff.
Cost of operation and maintenance is
reported by the consulting engineers to be
about $1,000 per month - or $0.06 per 1,000
gallons. Annual costs were reported as
$12,000 to $15,000 per year for the lagoon
and spray irrigation area, including labor and
electric power for the effluent pumps.
The cost of construction of the system
was reported by the consulting engineers to
have been $ 1,100 per acre of irrigation area.
37. Forsgate Sanitation, Inc.
(1967 - 0.4 mgd) Cranberry, New Jersey
Forsgate Sanitation, Inc., is a subsidiary
of the Rossmoor Corporation, developer of
the town of Rossmoor, New Jersey.
Rossmoor is a comprehensive, new town
concept for persons age 52 and over, and
provides planned housing and recreational
facilities for middle- and upper-income retired
persons. Rossmoor was started in 1967 and
originally was planned to include 20,000
dwelling units. Construction has not
proceeded as rapidly as originally estimated,
and only about 1,100 units have been
constructed to date. Additional units are
presently under construction. The
recreational facilities include an 18-hole golf
course.
When the new town of Rossmoor was
started, Forsgate Sanitation, Inc. was created
to provide water and sewage treatment
facilities. The treatment and disposal system
was designed to serve 20,000 dwelling units
and is therefore being operated at a fraction
of its capacity at present.
Land application was chosen over stream
discharge on the basis of economics and
esthetics. Stream discharge would involve
construction of some two miles of discharge
line estimated to cost about $500,000. Land
application at the Rossmoor golf course
involved a discharge line of about the same
length but construction was cheaper since
Rossmoor controlled the right-of-way. An
added bonus for land application was the
provision of water for two artificial lakes on
the golf course and a source for irrigation
water for the golf course. The disposal system
is designed to provide infiltration from the
lakes since the spray irrigation schedule is
controlled by the golf course and depends on
local rainfall conditions. A similar disposal
system is planned in conjunction with a
36-hole golf course which is being built to
serve another large housing project in the
area.
Treatment
The treatment plant consists of primary,
secondary, and tertiary treatment facilities.
After secondary treatment, the filtered
effluent is pumped to a storage lagoon of
about 13.5 million gallon capacity located
adjacent to the treatment plant. Some natural
oxidation occurs in the storage lagoon which
also supports an abundance of fish and other
aquatic life.
Effluent from the storage lagoon is
pumped back through the treatment plant for
tertiary treatment consisting of rapid sand
filters (Hardinge type) and chlorination.
Effluent from the tertiary treatment is then
pumped to the two artificial lakes at the
Rossmoor golf course.
Disposal
The 18-hole golf course is an integral part
214
-------
of the Rossmoor residential development and
is surrounded by houses. Two artificial lakes
on the course are supplied by treatment plant
effluent. The combined area is estimated at
about 6.6 acres. The two lakes were
constructed by excavation to a depth of
about 7 feet and are lined with an
impermeable plastic liner except for a
perimeter infiltration zone. This arrangement
allows the water level to remain reasonably
constant even though irrigation demands are
not consistent.
Water overflowing the plastic lining
percolates down to groundwater through an
underlying stratum, locally known as "sugar"
sand.
At the time of this visit, the lakes were
clear and completely odor free, with no
evidence of algae or aquatic plants. Fish,
muskrats, and other aquatic life were reported
plentiful in the two lakes. A producing water
well, located some 300 feet away from the
two lakes, is tested every 60 days, with no
adverse results reported.
38. Landis Sewerage Authority and
City of Vineland, New Jersey (1901-1.2 mgd)
This evaluation covers both the City of
Vineland, New Jersey, sewage treatment and
effluent disposal system and the facilities of
the Landis Sewerage Authority. Both
installations are parts of a single community
and augment and supplement each other. The
sewage flow handled at the City's treatment
and land application project does not reflect
the size of the City and its industrial
installations. A system operated by the City
itself serves the old inner core of the
community, sometimes known as the
borough. The Sewer Authority owns and
operates the sewer system, treatment plant
and land application facilities which serve the
larger outer area of the City.
This unusual condition is the result of the
way the community was first developed and
subsequent growth of the City into what is
described as the largest municipality in
south-central New Jersey. The City of
Vineland operates a Municipal Utilities agency
which supplies water and municipally
generated electric power to the entire City.
The sewer system is, however, not integrated.
The City of Vineland sewer system was
installed prior to, and up to 1901, at which
time the original treatment plant and land
application system was built. The treatment
plant consisted of a septic tank which was
modified in 1927 into a somewhat more
modern covered septic tank provided with
sludge draw-off piping and valves which
utilize the hydrostatic head of the septic tank
contents. The original concept of land
application of the primary effluent to broad
irrigation basins, utilized in the 1901 system,
was continued when the plant was
reconstructed in 1927.
Land application of the effluent was
chosen as the cheapest method of handling
wastewaters. It eliminated expensive outfall
facilities into suitable water resources points
and followed the so-called standard practice
of discharging septic tank effluent into the
soil by means of subsurface leaching lines or
pits. It must be remembered that the year was
1901, according to city records, and that
modern sewage treatment processes were not
known or practiced. When the treatment
plant was modified in 1927, the "success" of
the broad irrigation method over the quarter
century of years probably led to continuation
of this method of effluent disposal.
When the Landis Sewerage Authority
built its sewage disposal plant in 1949, it was
not surprising that land application was
chosen as the process, in view of the
continued use of this system by the City of
Vineland. The two treatment plants and two
broad irrigation fields or basins are located on
adjoining sites. Whether the State Health
Department approved of the Landis
installation, and of the earlier city
installation, was not made clear to the
investigator. What is known, however, is the
fact that the State is now demanding more
advanced degrees of sewage treatment and
better assurance that land application is not
affecting groundwater quality, both from the
City and the Authority.
In the meantime, the City of Vineland
contends that it is not operating a sewage
treatment plant, which by State Law is
defined as a facility that discharges effluent
215
-------
into public waters (and makes no reference to
groundwater as public waters).
Land for the two treatment and disposal
facilities was readily available. Zoning was not
a problem because the area is basically
agriculture in nature, with residential
development of secondary importance at the
time the City and Authority took necessary
acreage for sewage works purposes.
No consideration was given to utilizing
the nutritive value of effluent for crop-growing
or silviculture purposes. Vineland officials
reported to the investigator, however, that for
several years a local farmer obtained
permission to plant corn in a portion of the
broad irrigation area. He stopped this practice
because of thievery of his crop, indicating
that public entry to the area was possible. No
crop-growing experiences were reported at the
authority site.
Design Factors
Pretreatment at the Landis Authority
plant involves an attempt at aeration of raw
sewage and plain settling of the flow in
mechanically cleaned rectangular tanks. In
brief, primary effluent is broad-irrigated with
no apparent ill effect on the soil media.
However, as indicated, the State is now
requiring upgrading of the Landis plant to
probably secondary treatment effluent, with
chlorination, and assurances that the
groundwater quality is not being affected.
The plan now is to reconstruct the authority
plant to meet state requirements and to
abandon the city plant when the City's flow is
delivered to the authority system.
In order to meet deadline schedules of
USEPA and the State, the Authority adopted
a Resolution on February 25, 1972, stating
that it would provide new treatment facilities
capable of reducing the organic loading at the
plant by 90 percent and removing nitrate
nitrogen so that the groundwater withdrawn
from the water table 500 feet in any direction
from the irrigation area will meet New Jersey
potable water standards. Pre-treatment of
industrial-commercial wastes will be required
by the Authority to eliminate all toxic
substances and reduce nitrate nitrogen to a
maximum of 10 ppm.
The soil available for irrigation is sand.
The land is flat and no effluent runoff is
possible. The irrigation beds are fully diked.
Broad irrigation was designed for
year-round operation. Some freezing of the
bed areas was anticipated but the degree of
freeze-up was considered unimportant;
operation has confirmed this anticipation.
No use of groundwater by nearby
property owners was contemplated in the
original designs of both the city and authority
irrigation facilities.
The following land use data are available:
ACREAGES
Total site area
On-site treatment
plant
Irrigation facilities
Unused site land
LANDIS
CITY OF SEWERAGE
VINELAND AUTHORITY
170 acres
2
30 plus
135 acres
100 acres
(Estimated)
40 plus
(Estimated)
50
(Estimated)
Vineland treats approximately 1.2 mgd,
of which 80 percent is sanitary sewage and 20
percent industrial-commercial wastes. The
Authority reported average flows of 4 to 5
mgd; during peak canning season, the sanitary
flow and industry flow is about 50-50. During
off-peak periods, the sanitary flow may be 60
or 65 percent and the industry wastes flow
may be 35 to 40 percent.
During the inspection, the effluent at
Vineland was red colored due to the
preparation of bottled beet soup (borscht) at
the Manischewitz processing plant. The
authority effluent was milky in appearance.
Odors were surprisingly low at both plants,
despite the septic tank used at the city
installation.
216
-------
Operation and Maintenance Procedures
Method of Effluent Application: At both
sites, effluent is discharged onto the irrigation
beds through short riser pipes at one end of
the flooded area. No operation problems were
reported.
Rate of Application: Irrigation basins are
flooded from depths of a few inches at
shallow ends, to some 18 inches at deepest
points. No efforts are made to level the beds.
It may take one to two days to fill a basin.
The basins are then shut off by closing gates
and allowed to drain, a process requiring a
week or more, depending on soil clogging,
precipitation, temperature, etc.
Land Cover: The sand beds are natural
native soil. The basins were not specially
prepared, nor are they underdrained. When
the basins are drained dry, they are disced or
harrowed (sometimes they are
shallow-plowed) to turn any sludge coating
under the soil. No sludge is removed. Clogging
of the basins has not been experienced,
surprisingly, after years of reapplications.
After the beds have been cleared and
prepared for reuse, they are again dosed, as
needed, to maintain a predetermined cycle of
irrigation for the plant effluents. Both the
city and authority irrigation practices are
alike.
Ground-water Monitoring: The city
irrigation system has no monitoring wells. The
Authority has installed some wells, equipped
with liquid level gauges to indicate
groundwater table variations. No water
quality sampling is provided, to the best of
the investigator's knowledge. No soil analyses
are undertaken.
39. Alamogordo, New Mexico
(1963-2.5 mgd)
Alamogordo is a city of about 25,000
located in a desert region near Holloman Air
Force Base and the White Sands Missile Range
in southern New Mexico. Annual rainfall in
this area is 8 to 10 inches.
The City of Alamogordo has, since 1963,
sold its sewage treatment plant effluent to a
farmer. All of the effluent, 2.5 mgd, is used to
farm 260 acres growing alfalfa, corn, oats, and
sorghum. The City is paid 20 cents per year
per water meter in Alamogordo. This amounts
to approximately $1,400 annually at this
time.
The City plans to abandon the existing
plant and construct a joint facility with
Holloman Air Force Base. The new plant will
have a capacity of 6 mgd. The effluent from
the new facility would be used to irrigate
parks and city-owned agricultural land.
40. Clovis, New Mexico (1927 - 3.5 mgd)
Clovis is a city of about 30,000. Many
cattle are raised in the vicinity of Clovis and
Swift has a meat packing plant there. The
average rainfall in this area is 17 inches per
year. Some crops can be grown without
irrigation but most farmers are irrigating to
improve their yield.
Clovis is located in a basin which has no
outlet. All the rainfall collects in the low areas
and ponds. The ponds are called playas. The
treatment facility is adjacent to a playa and
all of the effluent from the plant empties into
the playa. All of the storm water from the
City also is ditched to the same playa. From
the playa the farmer that owns the
surrounding land, 1,150 acres, pumps the
water through an underground system to the
fields where it is discharged into furrows to
run through the crops. The tailwater is
collected in a reservoir and pumped back to
the field crops. No water is lost. The playa
was about 40 acres in size in September, but
varies with the season and weather. The playa
has no odor problems. The farming operation
is very efficient and two crops are grown on
some of the land. In addition to raising crops,
the farmer grazes cattle and leases land to
other ranchers for grazing. The cattle drink
the water from the playa. There is no
apparent bad effect on the animals.
41. Raton, New Mexico (1950-
Raton is a city of 6,500, located in
northeastern New Mexico. Sewer service is
available to only 2,300 people at this time.
The effluent from the sewage treatment plant,
if not used for irrigation, goes to Doggett
Creek, a branch of the Canadian River. Raton
217
-------
receives approximately 15 inches of rainfall
yearly.
In 1950, the City of Raton entered into
an agreement with a cattle company, whereby
the cattle company gave the City a site to
construct a sewage disposal plant in exchange
for the right to use the effluent from the
plant for irrigation for a period of 10 years
and, thereafter, for $250 per year.
The City is satisfied with the present
system of land disposal of its effluent. It is
considering additional treatment and may at
that time install a system to irrigate
recreational areas.
42. Roswell, New Mexico
(1930's-2.3mgd)
Roswell is a city of about 40,000 located
in southeastern New Mexico. The average
rainfall here is seven inches. Any crops grown
at or near Roswell must be irrigated.
The City constructed a sewage outfall line
(24 inches) in the early 1930's to a point
approximately five miles outside the urban
area where they constructed an Imhoff tank.
The municipal treatment plant was
constructed later, three miles closer to the
City, and the old line to the Imhoff tank is
now used to carry the effluent from the plant.
At about eight locations along this line,
farmers are able to take the effluent through
meters to use for irrigation.
The water shortage is severe here and
there is usually a dispute over the rights of
each farmer to the effluent. Land with water
available for irrigation is worth about $ 1,000
per acre; without water for irrigation the land
is of little or no value ($20 maximum).
In 1964, the City constructed a pump
station and a 6-inch force main two miles in
length to the Roswell Country Club. The
country club uses an underground sprinkling
system to irrigate its greens and fairways.
Both the country club and the farmers have
storage ponds usually from 0.75 to 2 acres in
size, and, all together, can store 15 mgd, more
or less.
The Air Force abandoned a base here and
the City operates the sewage treatment plant
at the old base. The average flow to that
facility is 0.5 mgd and the effluent is used by
a farmer for irrigation. The City plans to
construct a pumping station and force main
to pump the sewage from the old air base to
the other treatment facility. At that time, the
air base facility will be abandoned.
43. Santa Fe, New Mexico (1937 - 2.5 mgd)
The rainfall in Santa Fe averages between
13 and 14 inches annually. Water is obtained
from reservoirs and wells at great distances
and expense. Santa Fe is using and plans to
expand the use of irrigation with sewage plant
effluent. A report has been prepared which
recommends further irrigation or recreational
sites. Sewage effluent has also been sold to
industrial users. An example is the sale to
highway contractors for use in subgrades, fills
and embankments. The City has two sewage
treatment plants. Some of the effluent from
one plant is used to irrigate farm land and
some of the effluent from the other is used to
irrigate the golf course.
The City of Santa Fe has used sewage
effluent for many years for irrigation of the
golf course and for some farming use.
Approximately 20 percent of the present
effluent is used for sprinkling and irrigation.
The remainder is discharged into the Santa Fe
River which infiltrates into local aquifier or
flows to the Rio Grande River.
The City now has 30 existing or proposed
parks with a total of 233 acres. With a flow of
2.2 mgd, 1,012 acre feet of treated sewage
water during a five-month period will be
available from the Siler Road Plant. On an
irrigation basis of two and one-half acre feet
of water per acre per year, 405 acres of
ground could be irrigated. A study has been
made covering the installation of a sewage
effluent distribution system to serve the
major parks. Fourteen parks with a total of
168 acres could be served. This study has
envisioned the use of 420 acre feet of water
per year. Once the system has been installed,
the major cost would be for electrical power.
During the last year, purchased water used for
the 81 acres of developed parks was $15,373,
or $190 per acre. Water rates for 1971 were
increased by 10 percent. Cost to irrigate 168
218
-------
acres at $210 per acre would be $35,280 per
year. Estimated pumping costs for using
sewage effluent for some parks are $2,120.
However, the City is considering acquisition
of the system from the private owners, which
might reduce the current costs.
The State Health and Social Service
Department is requiring sand filtration and
chlorination on sewage effluent whether used
for sprinkling or discharge into the Santa Fe
River and phosphate removal for the latter,
but not nitrate removal.
The irrigation system would consist of a
surge or equalizing pond at the Siler Road
plant, booster pumps operated either by
pressure control or time clocks, and a
distribution system to the various parks.
45. Clark County Sanitary District,
Las Vegas, Nevada (1961
The County operates an overloaded
plant about two miles south of the Las Vegas
treatment plant. There is a small holding pond
at the site. There is a tie-in line to the city
plant for overload flows.
Clark County sells water to two power
plants and two golf courses. In each case,
water is pumped to the power plant and then
on to the golf course - one private and one
acquired by the County.
The County owns the distribution facility
and is paying for it as a credit on the cost of
water sold - the entire construction cost was
paid by users. Users pay, in addition to 3
cents/1,000 gallons, the cost of maintenance
and pumping. A credit of 1.5 cents/1,000
gallons is given towards the cost of
construction.
The golf courses pump into and out of
holding lagoons in order to facilitate use.
Groundwater has 7,000 ppm solids; thus
effluent is considered to be of high quality.
June 1972 sales of flow were as follows:
46. Ely, Nevada (1908 - 1.5 mgd)
The treatment plant is located on a
portion of a 2,064-acre parcel of land owned
by the City's Municipal Water Department,
acquired for the water rights appurtenant to
the land. It is on a gentle slope draining
toward the Murray River.
The effluent weir of the plant clarifier
spills directly into the first pond and effluent
from the final ponds spills directly into the
irrigation distribution ditch which is unlined.
The adjacent area has no water available.
47. Incline Village, Nevada
(1971 -0.45 mgd)
Incline Village has a new plant with a
very low load in comparison to its capacity;
however, as this is a resort community there
may be a temporary population increase in
both winter and summer to something like
three to four times the normal 4,000 persons.
The plant produces an excellent effluent
which is discharged through a long force main
across the mountain to the Carson River,
about 18 or 20 miles distant. A little over half
the distance to the discharge point the
effluent line passes through the property of a
ranch at the upper end of Jack's Valley which
opens into Carson Valley.
The ranch has two diversion points from
the discharge line and at present only takes
effluent from the uppermost point. This
passes down an unlined ditch to a portion of
the 200-acre site. There is at present only
enough flow to irrigate a part of the land and
information is not available on application
rates. In anticipation of an increase in flow,
the ranch has installed a second distribution
system.
A small portion of the effluent is diverted
upstream but adjacent to the ranch to
property under ownership of the Bureau of
Land Management for cattle watering.
Clark County Sanitary District
Location
Paradise Valley C.C.
Winterwood C.C.
Total Jan. 1 -
Maximum Month of June 30
Per Day June 1972
(Million gallons)
1.607 48.212 129.978
Power Companies:
Clark
Sunrise
Used by District
Total Jan. 1-
Maximum Month of June 30
Per Day June 1972
(Million gallons)
1.6
0.139
0.7
49.9 387.7
4.180 12.7
21.0
127.4
0.950
28.5
72.59
Total Sold or Used 4.996
151.792 730.368
219
-------
The consideration for the effluent
entailed an exchange for discharge line
right-of-way across the respective properties.
This operation is an excellent example of
use of a high quality effluent in a rather arid
but apparently fertile area.
48. Las Vegas, Nevada (1959-6 mgd)
The City of Las Vegas entered into an
agreement with the LDS Church at the time
the present water reclamation plant was
constructed (1950) to give the church up to
3.5 mgd to irrigate a 620-acre farm. The farm
raises alfalfa and sorghum - sudan grass; 2,433
acre feet were used February 15-November
15.
In 1960, the City opened an 80-acre farm
run by prison labor. This farm uses up to 1.25
mgd for which it is charged $l/acre foot; 1.25
mgd is sold to an adjacent 80-acre farm, again
used to grow alfalfa. This farm has been
irrigated since 1962. One mgd is also sold to a
power plant for cooling water, at a cost of 2
cents/1,000 gallons, minimum of 1 mgd.
The operation is seasonal and the amount
of flow is determined by the user. The
disposal facilities are owned by the individual
water users.
The balance of the flow goes into a wash
which picks up the flow from a county
facility and eventually flows to Lake Mead.
USEPA has ordered improvement of the
quality of the wastewater flow to Lake Mead.
Several plans are being evaluated locally. A
large power plant is planned 25 miles north of
town and all flow may go for cooling with
discharge to a dry lake. Other considerations
include cleaning up flow in order to get credit
for diversion from Colorado River water, or
to expand local beneficial use. Present general
abundance of domestic water supply appears
to preclude local interest in much reuse.
The LDS farm irrigates about 30 acres for
12 hours - rotating to water each plot every 3
weeks. Cattle are pastured on the land and all
manure is returned to the land.
Groundwater has 7,000 ppm dissolved
solids. Ground is alkaline.
Local officials do not contemplate
additional farming applications but greenbelt
or golf courses are a possibility.
Figure 18, Las Vegas, Nevada, contains
photographs of the pumping facilities and
farmed areas.
49. Duncan, Oklahoma (1964-0.5 mgd)
Duncan is a city of 20,000 located in
south central Oklahoma. The annual rainfall is
33 inches. The predominant industry is
agricultural, cattle.
Duncan has two treatment facilities. One
is a series of lagoons with a capacity of 0.65
mgd and an average flow of 0.5 mgd. The
facility handles the flow from a meat packing
plant which is the major industrial wastes
contributor. The other plant has a capacity of
4.5 mgd and an average flow of 2.5 mgd.
A small portion of the flow from these
plants is used to irrigate pasture land
nearby. Most of the effluent flows into Cow
Creek and eventually into the Red River. In
both agreements with the farmers, the City
acquired the land for use as treatment sites in
consideration for money and the right to use
the effluent and the sludge from the facilities.
The farmers operate the irrigation system
totally, with no maintenance or capital
improvements provided by the City. One
farmer pumps the effluent from a lagoon on
the City's property, the other has dammed
the creek into which the effluent flows and
stores the water for irrigation on his own
land. Both use spray irrigation. The crops are
usually irrigated only two to three times
during the summer.
51. Hfflsboro, Oregon (1939 -2 mgd)
The City is served by two city-owned and
-operated plants. The plant visited serves the
portion of the City that is topographically a
tributary to the Tualatin River. This drainage
system is in part a combined and sanitary
system but no estimate has been made of the
proportion. Modern portions of the system
are separate.
Cannery wastes arrive at the plant from
an industrial outfall from a Birds Eye canning
and freezing plant. Flow passes over a shaker
screen before mixing with the treatment
plant's domestic influent. Treatment plant
effluent may be discharged to the Tualatin
River or flow to a holding or surge pond from
220
-------
a. Pump facility from chlorine contact chamber
,
'
b. Irrigated city prison farm. Baled hay in background
FIGURE 18
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
221
-------
which sprinkler pressure pumps take suction.'
The State of Oregon requires at least a
five-to-one dilution ratio for the river to be
used as a point of discharge. This ratio is not
reliable during the summer months, thus land
disposal is necessary.
A buried pipe sprinkler system irrigates a
healthy stand of grass on the gently sloping
bank of the river. The slope is not over 2
percent, although the site is slightly rolling
and has the appearance of a park. The grass is
regularly cut but is not harvested. It is merely
left in place on the ground.
52. Milton-Freewater, Oregon
(1946-2.7 mgd)
Milton-Freewater has a secondary plant
which treats a flow which is primarily
domestic. The effluent from this plant
discharges into a gravity outfall which serves
various canneries by its upstream branches.
This outfall discharges into a series of ponds,
totalling 18 acres, adjacent to the farm which
uses pond effluent for. irrigation. The pond
site is about four miles from- the treatment
plant.
The farm takes the effluent on a basis of
no payment either to or from the City. The
City is, however, obligated to do some annual
maintenance of the ponds which amounts to
about $2,300 per year.
Crops that have been irrigated are alfalfa
and wheat, but the proportions of each may
vary at the farmer's discretion. As the farming
is conducted on an area exceeding 1,000
acres, supplemental water is used from wells
and from a stream. No clear data are kept
regarding proportions of source water utilized
on particular portions of the farm.
53. Pennsylvania State University
State College, University Park,
Pennsylvania (1963 - 0.5 mgd)
During the course of the in-depth
examination of this project, the following
persons were interviewed:
Dr. Earl Myers
Agricultural Engineering
Dr. Jack Nesbitt
Sanitary Engineering
Dr. Louis Kardos
Soil Physics
Prof. Richard Parizek
Groundwater Hydrologist
Dr. William Sopper
Forest Hydrology
(Phone conference only)
Gilbert Aberg
Director of Science Information
John Kello
Facilities Engineering
(In absence of Mr. Kneen)
David Long
Civil Engineering
(Brief discussion)
In 1962, the University was faced with a
decision on correcting eutrophication
problems in the stream which received the
effluent from its sewage treatment plant. The
State Health Department raised questions
about phosphorous and nitrogen removals and
improvements in effluent quality in general.
The sewage treatment plant was increased in
capacity to 4 mgd, to treat all of the
University flow and the sanitary sewage from
a portion of the borough system. The other
parts of the borough are served by another
authority plant which is not involved in
effluent irrigation at this time.
The University set up a "committee" of
its various science departments to advise on
the best means of meeting state requirements
and solving the pollution problem This group
of engineers, limnologists, geologists,
agronomists, silviculture scientists,
hydrologists and others proposed a research
project to determine the effectiveness and
economy of utilizing treatment plant effluent
for irrigation disposal on university-owned
lands in the area. Out of these proposals and
studies has come the so-called "Pennsylvania
State Waste Water Renovation and
Conservation Research Project."
Alternatives available at the time were:
Plant modifications to provide higher degrees
of treatment and removal of P and N;
222
-------
injection of the effluent into deep wells; or
construction of a 10-mile outfall to Bald
Eagle Creek at an estimated cost of $10
million. The university group proposed
irrigation as a better means of effluent
disposal and the capturing of the nutrient
values of the wastewater for crop and forest
enrichment. Pretreatment would provide
secondary treatment by two-stage trickling
filters, followed by activated sludge or by a
modified two-stage activated sludge treatment
in Halmur-type oxidators.
This decision to initiate the
recommended demonstration project,
covering a set amount of the total effluent
flow of 3.7 mgd, approximately 0.5 mgd to
be irrigated, was based on availability of
university lands in a farming area; adequate
soils for irrigation consisting of sandy-loam
and clay-loam; depth of goundwater ranging
from 100 feet to some 350 feet; the
availability of university personnel to control
and evaluate data; opportunity to utilize
crops of hay and corn for animal feeding at
the University farm; and means for evaluating
forest tree growth, with and without
irrigation.
Thus, the decision-making phase of the
project was clarified. Proof of the
effectiveness of the project is found in the
present plans to enlarge the entire program to
handle approximately 4 mgd of effluent, the
total effluent of the treatment plant. It is
important to record that the decision to go
full-scale was reached after about six years of
research - four years ago - but that the project
was held up pending the obtaining of
adequate land from the Commonwealth, in
exchange for other lands owned by the
University. The project, now under
consumrfi a t io n-plan ning and early
construction, will cost over $2.25 million. No
better proof of the success of the 0.5
mgd-pilot work can be found than the
decision to proceed with a full-scale project
involving some 516 acres of irrigation area.
Spray irrigation has been successful in
disposing of the effluent, increasing reed
canary grass hay yields, increasing corn yields,
increasing wood growth in mixed hardwoods,
and other tree stands. The groundwater
quality has not been adversely affected;
effects on wildlife, bird and insect life are
now being quantitatively evaluated.
Design Factors for Irrigation
In all, approximately 80 acres of land,
both crop and forest areas, have been spray
irrigated. Plots have been varied as part of the
demonstration project, so it is reported that
about 70 acres are in use-rotation at any one
time. It was reported that the split between
the crop and. forest areas has been varied;
now, it is about 50 percent to each such area.
The details of pretreatment have been
given. Heavy metals are low because the
community sewage flow is basically
residential with no industry and only a
limited commercial area. University
laboratories do contribute chemicals to the
flow. Design was on the basis of sanitary
sewage effluent only.
Sewage effluent is delivered at a uniform
rate of 0.5 mgd from a distribution chamber
at the treatment plant outfall into the
receiving stream. Excess flows diverted from
the outfall, over and above the 0.5 mgd rate,
are bypassed to the stream. Effluent is
pumped at 226 psi and delivered to the
farthest distributor header at approximately
50 psi, with higher pressures prevailing at
areas closer to the effluent pumping station.
The force main is 6-inch asbestos-cement
pipe. At the irrigation areas, stationary
aluminum piping and vertical risers are used.
Spray head risers are of uniform height in
reed canary grass hay areas and corn areas; in
the forest areas, prior to 1968, some spray
heads were 42 feet high above the red pine
canopy. All are now set at lower levels, 3 to 5
feet.
Soil conditions are variable. In the
223
-------
Gameland Areas, the soil is deeper and sandy
loam, with 20 to 160 feet of residual overlay
above recurring beds of sandstone, quartzite
and dolomite. In the Agronomy-Forestry
Area, soil overlay ranges from 5 to 80 feet in
depth, with a dolomite bedrock. The soil is
somewhat less permeable, of more
clay-loam character. The forest mulch cover
was not disturbed and undercover weeds and
grass are not cut in the nonfarm areas. The
mulch improves the ability of the area to
absorb winter spraying.
The areas used for spray irrigation are
surrounded by some measure of buffer zone
but the areas for buffering vary. No attempt
has been made, apparently, to adhere to any
minimum buffer area. Opinions were
expressed that aerosol pollution hazards are
minimal or absent. In one area - the Gameland
Area - a store and some residences are less
than 300 feet from a spray area. A new
community, known as "Toftree," is situated
along the Gameland property line and in
general proximity to the spray areas that will
be used in the 100 percent irrigation project.
In the Agronomy-Forestry Area,
buffering areas are greater, but not by
deliberate design. The plot plan shows the
striking situation where the university water
supply wells are located within 1,000 to
5,000 feet from the spray areas - and in the
direction of the downstream flow of
groundwater. The researchers are certain that
no hazard is involved. As stated, groundwater
tables are deep - from 100 to 300 feet below
the spray areas which are in upland areas.
Much of the spray irrigation
demonstration has been based on an
application rate of 2 inches per week, with
actual application for a continuous period of
12 hours and a resting period of 6-1/2 days.
This rate was felt to be well below the
infiltration capacity of the soil. Experimental
application at the rate of 1 inch per week was
tried, as were rates up to 6 inches per week.
The new full-scale project will be based on 2
inches per week, apparently, but some
changes may be provided. The per hour rate
has been varied from 1/6 inch to 1/4 inch -
the latter rate being utilized for an eight-hour
dosage period. The 12-hour application period
has been favored because of simplicity of
operation. The same rates have been applied
to open crop fields and forest areas.
No holding facilities were provided at the
irrigation site or the sewage treatment plant
because application for 12 months per year
was anticipated. In the Gameland Area, for
crop lands and forest lands, irrigation is
carried out throughout the winter. In the
Agronomy-Forestry Area, irrigation is from
mid-April to mid-November on the corn
rotation and forestry areas and year-round on
the reed canary grass area.
New project plans call for a holding basin
for effluent at the treatment plant to provide
flow equalization at a uniform irrigation rate,
12 months per year.
Sprinkler spacing varies by design from
40 x 60 feet to 80 x 100 feet.
Monitoring provisions were made in the
design of the 0.5 mgd study project; they will
also be made for the 4 mgd 100 percent
project. For example, in the Gameland Area
six monitoring wells were installed to
groundwater level - 150 feet to 300 feet deep,
approximately. Lysimeter stations were
installed in clusters, to varying depths, to
determine the character of the capillary water
contained in the soil. Samples are taken by
suction device. Pan lysimeters were also
installed to capture free water in the soil and
determine its quality. Monitoring in the new
project will be expanded.
Beginning in 1969, a supplementary
study has been carried out on the irrigation of
coal strip mine spoil with effluent and sludge.
The ability to convert barren strip mine areas
to productive land for crops and trees has
been demonstrated.
Limited tests have been carried out with
sludge-injected effluent spray irrigation in the
forest and crop areas of the project. The
two-stage anaerobically digested sludge is
224
-------
injected into the system at a rate of 25 gpm.
The sludge injection is not started until the
wastewater flow has been on two hours and is
stopped two hours prior to shutdown. Use of
the practice in the expanded system will
depend on the outcome of the research.
Operation and Maintenance Procedures
• The number of operation personnel
was not determinable. Only one person was
noted on the site during the inspection. Valve
changes and spray area shifting are manually
accomplished according to a preset plan.
• The land cover was not changed when
the site was designed and developed. The
forest cover is not cleared. Three hay crops
are harvested yearly. One corn crop is
harvested. All yields are used in feeding
university animals in the Farm Department
operations. Income from the crops is accrued
to the Farm Department Operations.
• The University has no limitations on
the feeding of irrigated hay or silage crops to
animals. No reference was made to state
regulations in this respect.
• Comparative yields for irrigated and
nonirrigated areas have been carefully studied.
More than that, such comparative studies have
been augmented by yields in areas irrigated
with water and compared with effluent yields.
This applies to crop areas. Literature gives the
findings. Suffice to say here, yields have been
doubled and tree growth doubled, in general.
• Irrigation spray head orifices have
clogged, at times, but they are readily cleared.
Head orifices have been increased to avoid
clogging; in some cases, sprinklers with two
orifices were converted to a single, larger bore
opening. Winter operation sprays in the
12-month areas has experienced no serious
freezing because the lines and sprays function
continuously for the 12-hour periods and are
then shut down and drained when a new area
is placed in service.
• From 1962 to 1967, a precipitation
deficit of some 42.65 inches was experienced,
according to one interviewee, and irrigation
was especially dramatic in effect.
• Analyses of soil indicate the ability to
remove P. Removal of N is by crop uptake
and by denitrification; any N passing through
the upper four feet of soil will probably
appear in the groundwater. Groundwater
analyses have disclosed no detrimental effect
on quality. Virus infection is considered
remote.
• Soil clogging has not.been a serious
problem. Some ponding is noted in some of
the small depressions in the rolling contour of
the irrigated areas, but they drain during the
six and one-half day resting period.
• No efforts have been made to prohibit
trespassers. The area is somewhat remote. A
gate was originally used at the entry to the
Agronomy-Forestry area, but prowlers tore it
down and the University did not feel it
necessary to replace it. Posted signs were not
observed. The general feeling is that the area
is safe and that any hazard of infection would
be zero or minimal.
• No runoff of surface water from the
site was reported; none was noted despite the
fact that the site was inspected during a heavy
rain period.
• Monitoring of soil and groundwater has
been described. Deep well monitoring was
more frequently maintained in the earlier
years than at the present, apparently on the
basis that enough data have been accumulated
to show the absence of any effects. Dr.
Kardos reported that he preferred
continuation of groundwater monitoring by
suction lysimeters. Energetic monitoring
programs will be involved in the new full-scale
project.
• Inquiries on costs of construction and
operation brought the response that such data
would be indeterminate because the research
nature of the studies involved nonroutine
costs of varying nature and frequencies.
225
-------
,GAMELANO AREA
CM
8!
D"-^NITTANY
LION INN
WEATHER sN.>x \ _
STATION ->\> Q {gV
'. '. * r-, ^-'
% LJ
oo'-^V; eg* "7
^00 *%-' V
INFILTRATION ((T"
PONDS «
\\l
\\
© ® ©
UNIVERSITY WELLS
0© 0 . //
^5i- STATE GAME LANDS
TO UNIVERSITY
AIRPORT
^^- AGRONOMY
'••^T AREA
a|-
!;L_J— ~,FORESTRY
,'H|/ AREA
'
/OLD MAIN
o
/or- ©
X1—^ \\\ WELL
ARMY RESERVE\\»
CENTER
DUCK *-CT^*
POND X.
TO SPRING CREEK
VIA THOMPSON RUN
CHLORINE
CONTACT
TANK
B-60
Courtesy Penn. State University
Wastewater Renovation and Conservation Research Project
FIGURE 19
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
226
-------
Pressed for cost information on the 0.5 mgd
project, officials indicated that some
$500,000 has been invested in the project in
the past 10 years. The new project's cost will
be somewhat over $2,250,000, without land
costs, engineering, and other extraneous
items.
54. Dumas, Texas (1962 - 1 mgd)
Dumas is a city of approximately 10,000
population located in the center of the Texas
panhandle. The annual rainfall in Dumas is
19.5 inches.
The effluent from the city disposal plant
is emptied into a lake which varies in size. At
the time of inspection the surface area was
approximately 5 acres. There is no surface
runoff into the lake and it consists of effluent
only. Some of the effluent is lost by
percolation and some by evaporation, the rest
is used for irrigation by the farmer owning the
adjoining land.
The farmer always uses all of the water in
the lake; it has never overflowed since it was
constructed about 10 years ago. He irrigates
both wheat and maize crops. Some of the
wheat crop is harvested or may be used for
grazing cattle, depending on wheat prices,
government farm regulation, and other
farming factors. Generally, maize is planted in
June, irrigated four times, and harvested in
October. Wheat is planted in September,
irrigated twice, more or less, and harvested in
July. The farming operation is very well
carried out. The effluent lake and irrigation
process cause no odor or apparent problem.
The irrigated land is adjacent to the city limits
and across the street from urban property.
The value of the irrigated land is higher than
the adjacent farm land due to its proximity to
the City and possible redevelopment to a
higher use.
The City of Dumas incinerates its solid
wastes and a small amount, about 3,000
gpd of the effluent, is used in the process to
wash the ash out of the smoke to prevent air
pollution. The incinerator is adjacent to the
effluent lake.
55. Kingsville, Texas (1952-3 mgd)
Kingsville is a city in southern Texas near
the Gulf of Mexico. It has a population of
30,000 and is surrounded by the King Ranch.
The average annual rainfall is 30 inches.
Kingsville has no treatment facilities other
than three lagoons totaling 17 acres. One
lagoon is on one ranch and the other two are
located on a separate property. The owner of
the latter property allows the City to
maintain the lagoons on his property in
exchange for the use of the effluent for
irrigation. The raw sewage is conveyed to the
lagoons by force mains. Both raw sewage
from the force main and water from the
lagoons are used as needed depending on the
weather. In dry years, all of the effluent may
be used and in wet years the lagoons overflow
into an adjacent stream
Kingsville is planning to construct two
treatment plants in the near future with a
capacity of 4 mgd. The City is working to
acquire 15 acres of land for the facilities in
trade for the use of the effluent for a number
of years. The landowner plans to change from
farming to ranching at the time the new plant
is constructed. The ranch with one pond is
not making any use of the water from the
lagoon on its property.
56. La Mesa, Texas (1960-0.6 mgd)
La Mesa, Texas, is a city of 11,400
located in west central Texas in an area where
cotton is the principal crop. The average
rainfall there is 16.7 inches.
The effluent from the treatment plant is
stored at the plant site in 18 acres of lagoons.
From these lagoons it is pumped to one
public golf course and the two city parks. A
gravity line carries some effluent to the La
Mesa Country Club. The irrigation of the
parks is done by the Park Department.
The public golf course is leased to a
nonprofit corporation that handles irrigation
of that golf course. The country elub is
private and maintains its own system All of
the effluent is used for irrigation; that usually
is plenty for all needs. If more effluent is
available than required for irrigation, it is used
for irrigation rather than let it enter the dry
watercourse. There is a small reservoir at both
the country club and the public golf courses
but none at the parks.
227
-------
Movable above-ground pipe and spray
systems are used. The pump line that serves
the parks and public golf course is
approximately 2 miles long and varies in size
from 8 to 4 inches. It was constructed of
salvage water pipe, some of it in place, and
has booster pumps alongside of it. The gravity
line to the country club is about 4,000 feet in
length and was paid for by the country club.
Effluent is used to wet down the rodeo
grounds during rodeos and also to irrigate a
small field of hay for the horses in the
sheriff's posse.
57. Midland, Texas (1950-4.3 mgd)
The City of Midland is located in western
Texas midway between Fort Worth and El
Paso. The population of Midland is 62,000
and the annual rainfall is 15 inches.
The City of Midland has purchased 1,200
acres of land beginning in the 1920's,
southeast of the City. The land is used for
park, disposal plant, landfill, and leased for
farming. There are storage ponds on the site
capable of storing approximately 150 mg of
sewage effluent.
The City leases the farm land,
app'roximately 700 acres to a farmer. The
lease term has been five years with a
cancellation clause if the City needs the
effluent for another public purpose. The lease
does not have any public health restrictions
but the City may generally control the
farmer's use of the effluent. The City pays,
under the lease, 25 percent of the cost of
fertilizer, if used, receives one-third the
income from the milo crop and one-fourth
the income from the alfalfa and cotton crops.
All of the operation costs of irrigation and
fanning are paid by the farmer.
The City also plans to construct pumping
facilities to supply effluent to industrial users.
Generally, more effluent is available in
Midland than is needed by the City for
irrigation. All effluent is utilized - either lost
by percolation and evaporation or used for
irrigation.
58. Monohans, Texas (1945 - 0.8 mgd)
Monohans is a city of approximately
8,000, located in west central Texas. Oil
production is the primary activity in this area.
The soil here is sandy and will accept an
almost unlimited amount of water. The
annual rainfall is 12 inches.
The effluent from the sewage treatment
plant is sold to a rancher for a token amount.
The ranch irrigates 38 acres of pasture land
using two small reservoirs, ditches, and
flooding. The ranch irrigates 12 hours a day
and 7 days a week. The soil readily accepts
this amount of water. About 50 head of cattle
and horses are grazed. The effluent is their
source of drinking water. Unirrigated land
surrounding the property will support only
mesquite and desert plants.
59. San Angelo, Texas (1933 - 5 mgd)
San Angelo is a city of 65,000 located in
west central Texas. The principal industry is a
suture manufacturing facility owned by
Johnson and Johnson. The average annual
rainfall is 18.5 inches.
The City of San Angelo owns
approximately 750 acres of land several miles
from the city limits. At this location, it has its
sewage treatment facility and uses the balance
of the land for storage of the effluent and
farming. Treatment consists of primary
settling only. Some of the effluent is stored in
a system of lagoons for about a week before
being used for irrigation. Some of the effluent
is used directly .from the plant without
storage in the lagoons. Effluent not stored but
used directly from the plant is generally used
on pasture land. Attempts to use it on feed
crops result in burning the plants.
The City raises, bales, and sells hay on the
farm, and grazes an average of 500 cattle on
the pasture land. The pasture grasses are
coastal bermuda and fescue. The stock is not
owned by the City. Four city employees
operate the farm and it is financially
successful. The farm has been terraced into 1-
to 2-acre plots, called borders, which are level
with a dike on all four sides, approximately
18 inches in height. Water is brought to the
borders through an underground pipe system
utilizing gravity flow from the lagoons. One
foot of water is usually put in each border
every two weeks. Sludge is .stored in a
separate lagoon and is put on the pasture in
liquid form.
228
-------
60. Uvalde, Texas (1938 - 0.9 mgd)
Uvalde is a city of 9,000, located in
southern Texas. It is a center for deer and
bird hunting. The average rainfall in Uvalde is
24 inches.
In 1937, the City of Uvalde acquired
approximately 100 acres of farm land from
the county by donation. The site had
previously been the county pest farm. This
site is leased to a farmer who raises grazing
crops for cattle. The City irrigates his crops
by the border flood method. The City has
more effluent than is required for the crops
and some runs off to the stream. The
operation is not profitable to the City and is
only used because it has the land. The City
plans to continue this method of disposal;
however, it does not intend to expand its land
ownership and the surrounding landowners do
not want to use the effluent. So as the
quantity of effluent increases, more will be
discharged to the receiving stream.
The operation is unusual in that the city
personnel do the irrigating of the farmer's
crops. The area is composed of both steep
land which is irrigated by sprinkling, and flat
land which is irrigated by border flood. Rates
of application vary with the amount of
effluent available.
61. Ephrata, Washington (1972 - 0.44 mgd)
Ephrata provides primary treatment,
followed by oxidation ponds, for almost
exclusively domestic sewage. Prior to 1972,
disposal was completely by means of
evaporation and percolation from the ponds.
The soil is evidently very porous, of volcanic
origin, and the groundwater table is about 70
feet below the pond bottom. Nevertheless,
the Washington State Environmental
Protection Agency directed the City to
change its disposal method and the City chose
to"install a spray irrigation system.
A permanent system of buried irrigation
headers was installed in rows across the field.
Some difficulty was experienced in trench
excavation because of the large (up to 3 feet)
lava rock fragments encountered. The headers
feed vertical risers with sprinkler heads and
they are valved for manual operation. There
was no evidence of flooding problems as the
soil absorbs moisture readily. It is covered
with natural brush and weeds. At present,
there is no intention of seeding to foster a
forage crop; although the land is virtually
impossible to till because of the rock, it might
be possible to start a grass suitable for the
pasturing of sheep. As 1972 was the first
partial season of irrigation, there were no data
on the effect of spraying on either the growth
or soil.
As a matter of changing the method of
disposal to 100 percent spray irrigation, the
ponds were sealed with a clay that had to be
imported.'From now on, the sprinklers will be
used exclusively during nonfreezing weather.
The ponds are designed to have enough
storage capacity to contain winter freezing
temperature flows.
62. Quincy, Washington
(1955-0.75 mgd)
Quincy's treatment plant includes
primary treatment with oxidation ponds and
separate sludge digestion. It is located in an
exclusively farming area on a site including an
irrigated area of only 33 acres.
The farming activity is conducted by a
tenant farmer who has the obligation of
applying effluent from the oxidation ponds as
necessary to leave pond capacity available for
plant inflows. Because the farming area is too
small to utilize the quantity of water
available, the operation is precarious. A crop
of sprouting winter wheat was observed,
which of necessity must be flooded soon and
which would result almost certainly in the.
loss of the planting. Negotiations are under
way for the purchase of additional land to
cope with this problem
Quincy, in addition to domestic sewage
treatment and disposal, treats and disposes of
potato processing waste from a Lamb-Weston
packing and freezing plant. The treatment and
disposal by the City is completely separate
from the domestic waste system and is
conducted at a different location.
Wastes from the plant are piped by the
company about 1,000 feet to a small city
plant which includes a clarifier and
229
-------
sludge-type vacuum filter. The potato wastes
settleables are dewatered on the vacuum filter
and sold by the City for cattle feed. This
produced a $4,000 revenue to the City last
year. An outfall extends from the clarifier to
a series of oxidation ponds located some two
miles away. These ponds cover an area of 60
acres. The first pond is equipped with five
150-HP aerators. The overflow from the final
pond discharges into a ditch which, in turn,
empties into a Bureau of Reclamation drain.
Water in this latter drain mingles with other
discharges (irrigation return flows, etc.) and
flows into a reservoir from which it is reused.
The potato wastes influent contains
about 2,500 mg/1 BOD, 4,000 mg/1 suspended
solids, and the flow average is about 1.5 mgd.
The City experienced a serious odor problem
at the pond site until the aerators were
installed. Pond effluent now contains about
25 to 50 mg/1 BOD, 100 to 15 mg/1
suspended solids and 75-100 mg/1 COD.
63. Walla-Walla, Washington
The City has a modern treatment plant
which produces a high quality effluent (about
10 cfs) discharging into a stream adjacent to
the plant. This practice has been continued
over a long period of years and downstream
users apparently have some rights to the
water. The City wished to discontinue this
discharge and entered into a suit to settle
rights. A judgment was made that
downstream users rights would continue for
some years in the future. The water is used by
a considerable number of farmers on
Walla-Walla onion crops, pasture, etc., but no
information exists on any details of use.
The City was under a directive of the
State of Washington Environmental
Protection Agency to remove its treated
cannery wastes from the stream by this past
season so land was purchased, a land
application system was designed and installed
and is now in use. It is the City's intention to
eventually dispose of both cannery and
domestic effluent through its irrigation
system.
There are two outfalls to the treatment
plant site, one solely for cannery wastes and
one for domestic flow. The cannery wastes
line terminates at a wet well from which it is
pumped to an aerator and cominutor. It is
then pumped a distance of about two miles to
the 1,000-acre disposal area located on higher
rolling ground. Seven hundred acres of the
land have two banks of permanently installed
sprinkler systems which are remotely
controlled hydraulically from a control house
serving each bank. Control equipment can be
programmed to accomplish any desired
sprinkler sequence, time, and cycle.
It is proposed to plant the area to alfalfa
and watch soil nitrogen content for about
three years and, if necessary, to rotate with
some other crop such as timothy hay. The
system has been carefully thought out
including possible agronomy problems. The
City is aware of the necessity of maintaining
good control and recognizes the need of
data-gathering to be able to insure success.
This will be an operation of future interest to
the art.
Figure 20, Walla Walla, Washington,
contains photographs of the irrigation
controls, influent aerator, and the typical
valley terrains of the area.
64. Cheyenne, Wyoming (1881 - 7-7.5 mgd)
The City of Cheyenne has an overloaded
secondary treatment plant and effluent is
discharged to a stream. Approximately one
mile downstream, a large ranch has created a
reservoir. The reservoir originally had
approximately 100-acre-feet capacity but now
has only 58 acre-feet. There are 1,200 acres of
grass and hay, as well as 130 acres of alfalfa,
irrigated by flood irrigation. The ranch
attempts to water the entire spread three
times a year: April 1, June 1, and August 10.
Each watering takes approximately five
weeks. Cattle graze the area in the winter.
The ranch was started in 1881 and has
rights to 17 second feet of flow. Within five
miles downstream, the stream goes
underground. Ranches along the stream have
rights to flow from the stream and utilize it
on an as-available basis for irrigating hay.
Perhaps 80 acres are irrigated.
The normal ratio of calcium to
230
-------
a. Pump house and influent aerator
b. Hydraulic sprinkler controls
FIGURE 20
WALLA WALLA, WASHINGTON
231
-------
phosphorus in hay was reported to be 9 to 1;
however, in irrigated hay, because of the use
of sewage effluent, the ratio is 1 to 1. The
ranch obtains a premium for its hay. No
commercial fertilizer is used.
The ranch has the stream flow checked
for quality as stock water. It has not found
nitrogen high enough in the creek to be
concerned for the cattle. In the area of the
ranch, it is 200 feet to groundwater. The soils
are gravel and sandy loam, characteristic of an
of an old river bed.
The ranch runs 2,700 head of cattle and
is the third largest Hereford ranch in the
United States.
Figure 21, Cheyenne and Rawlins,
Wyoming, contains photographs of the
facilities.
65. Rawlins, Wyoming (1880
The City of Rawlins, Wyoming, has no
wastewater treatment facilities. Outflow trom
the City enters a series of lagoons east of
town where some stabilization occurs.
Evaporation is reported to be 11 inches per
month in the area and undoubtedly much of
the flow is evaporated. It is reported that the
lagoons currently need dredging to restore
capacity. The system was started before 1900.
From the lagoons the flow enters Sugar
Creek and flows approximately 7 miles to a
point just north of Sinclair, Wyoming, where
flow from an Imhoff tank, which treats the
residential units of Sinclair, also enters the
creek. The flow goes to a large reservoir on an
alfalfa ranch.
At the ranch, 137.5 acres are spray
irrigated at a rate of 3/4 inch every 60 hours.
Seventy acres are flood-irrigated at a rate of
4-5 inches once a month from May to early
September. Alfalfa yields are said to be
excellent. This is the only irrigated land in the
entire area. Cattle are run on the land when
not irrigating, and during the fall, winter, and
early spring the reservoir is allowed to fill.
However, because of evaporation it is a slow
process.
The stormwater from Rawlins is allowed
to flow into a separate lagoon from which it is
evaporated. The City is under orders from the
State Health Department to build a series of
oxidation and evaporation ponds.
Under the water laws of Wyoming, the
City is under no compulsion to release water
to Sugar Creek; however, once it does, the
Duncan Ranch has water rights to the flow.
Thus, the land use will be terminated if the
City proceeds with plans to construct the
facilities.
Other Facilities
During the course of the study, two
percolation-type facilities were visited. These
were Flushing Meadows, Phoenix, Arizona,
and Whittier Narrows, Los Angeles,
California. The narrative report concerning
Flushing Meadows is enclosed in order that
information concerning this method of land
application might be available.
Background
In the Phoenix area, one-third of the
agricultural water comes from groundwater.
The remaining two-thirds of the irrigation
water and the municipal supplies are obtained
from surface reservoirs on the Salt and Verde
Rivers. In recent years the groundwater table
in the Phoenix area has been dropping 10 feet
per year. In 1971, the water table dropped 20
feet. The depth to groundwater varies from
400 feet in the Mesa area to 50 feet near the
Salt River in the Phoenix area.
Flushing Meadow, Phoenix, Arizona
In 1967, the Flushing Meadows Project
was begun. The objectives were to study the
treatment of sewage effluent by rapid
infiltration and determine infiltration rates.
Specifically, the removal of BOD, suspended
solids, nitrogen, fluoride, and pathogenic
organisms was important. It was desired to
obtain renovated water of a quality
sufficiently high to permit unrestricted
irrigation.
A site was located west of Phoenix within
the floodplain of the Salt River. The 2-acre
site was divided into six basins that are 20
feet wide and 700 feet long. The soil is a
232
-------
sandy loam made up of 2-3 percent clay, 50
percent silt, and 47 percent sand. Infiltration
rates of 1 foot per day or 350 feet per year
are regularly achieved by flooding for 14 days
and resting 10-20 days. During the two weeks
of inundation (surcharge is about 1 foot), the
infiltration rate drops from 2.5 feet per day
to 1.5 feet per day with an average of 2 feet
per day. During the summer, 10 days are
sufficient for drying, re-aeration, and
biological oxidation which restore the
infiltration capacity, but winter operation
requires 20 days. The permeability of the soil
using well water is 4 feet per day. The
groundwater table is at a depth of 10 feet.
Several articles and reports were obtained
describing the technical aspects of the project.
Removals were: BOD, fecal coliform, and
suspended solids - essentially complete;
phosphorous and fluoride, 70 percent;
nitrogen, 30 percent; and boron, lead, and
cadmium - essentially zero.
23rd Avenue Project, Phoenix, Arizona
Dr. Bouwer is applying for a grant from
USEPA for a project near the 23rd Avenue
sewage treatment plant in Phoenix. This
project would involve rapid infiltration of 15
mgd on 40 acres, followed by pumping of the
renovated water into a nearby irrigation canal.
The wastewater would have secondary
treatment by activated sludge at the 23rd
Avenue plant. Because the effluent suspended
solids concentration is above 50 mg/1, a
holding reservoir for sedimentation will be
provided prior to infiltration. The existing
40-acre oxidation pond will be drained and
divided into four parallel basins with wells
along the central median to recover the
renovated water. The water table at this
location is at a depth of 50 feet.
If this project proves successful, a
third-stage project would be built, utilizing
secondary effluent from the 91st Avenue
wastewater treatment plant. This plant has a
capacity of 60 mgd and is presently treating
72 mgd, or 80,000 acre feet per year. The
City of Phoenix has an agreement with the
Buckeye Irrigation District that the City will
allow Buckeye to use 28,000 acre feet of
effluent per year. In exchange, Buckeye will
not press claims to an equivalent volume of
water it claims was lost to the district due to
upstream operations by the City.
The secondary effluent flows in a channel
westward past the Flushing Meadows Project
(where 0.6 mgd is used as influent) and then
20 miles to the Buckeye Irrigation District.
The average water use for irrigation in the
area is 4.5 acre feet per acre per year.
Rio Salada Project, Phoenix, Arizona
This is another reclamation project
proposed for the Mesa-Tempe area. The
effluent from Mesa's 5-mgd trickling filter
plant flows into the dry Salt River bed and
infiltrates within a half-mile of the plant. The
project would involve drilling a well to
recover the water, building a flood control
channel, and establishing a greenbelt area
along the Salt River.
Nitrogen Studies
In addition to the field studies conducted
by the Water Conservation Laboratory,
laboratory studies have been conducted
specifically aimed at determining nitrogen
removal mechanisms. These studies have been
conducted primarily by Dr. J. Clarence Lance.
It has been found that ammonia nitrogen
in the sewage effluent is absorbed in the soil
within the top three feet during inundation.
During rest periods, the bacteria in the soil
oxidize ammonia to nitrate which frees the
absorption sites. When inundation begins
again, anaerobic conditions quickly prevail
and some denitrification occurs; however, due
to the high rate of infiltration, a slug of
nitrate is flushed into the groundwater. Using
the laboratory soil columns, Dr. Lance has
determined that a 30 percent reduction in
total nitrogen occurs. If the slug of high
nitrate can be recycled, the overall nitrogen
removal would be 80 percent.
After a long period of 14 days on, 10
days off, the ability of the soil to absorb
ammonia decreases. At this point a change in
cycle to two days on, five days off, stimulates
the nitrifiers and rejuvenates the ability of the
soil to absorb ammonia. During this cycle,
denitrification essentially ceases.
233
-------
a. Rawlins, showing typical sagebrush condition of nonirrigated areas.
In background spray irrigation of alfalfa
b. Holding reservoir at Cheyenne.
Lake has lost almost one-half of its original capacity.
FIGURE 21
CHEYENNE AND RAWLINS, WYOMING
234
-------
c. Cheyenne, distribution ditch to hayfield
d. Cut hay, Cheyenne
FIGURE 21
CHEYENNE, WYOMING
235
-------
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
li. Green Giant Company ( - 1 mgd)
Buhl, Idaho
The Buhl corn processing plant discharges
wastes which include cleanup water, floor
drops of corn, and can spillage and wash
water. This is all conducted to a battery of
shaker screens of fine mesh. The screenings
are collected and loaded upon trucks for
transport directly to cattle feeding. The
screen effluent is pumped directly to head
boxes on the irrigation system which
distributes through a system of unlined
ditches. Deeper furrows are cut in the
downstream ends of the fields to prevent
runoff of any excess irrigation water. (The
lower portions of the field, as a consequence,
produced the highest yield since they receive
more water.)
Irrigation water from a separate source is
available for the early part of the growing
season and only later sequence crops receive
plant wastewater. Some wastewater is applied
to the land after early fields have been
harvested. One field of mature corn was
observed that had been irrigated by the wastes
and it looked healthy and productive.
2i. Potato Processing Plant
Idaho Potato Division (1970 - 0.5 mgd)
Western Farmers Association
Aberdeen, Idaho
The plant processes potatoes to a frozen
packaged state. The process includes washing
and peeling and further preparation for french
frying, mashing, etc. The waste includes the
peeling in the peeling process water, culls,
floor drops, and washdown water. Recently,
it has put more control on the use of water
and has reduced the use of water by one-half
to about 500,000 gpd.
The waste is put through a clarifier, the
effluent from which is directly conducted to
the spray irrigation area which is about one
and one-half miles from the processing area.
The sludge or starchy solids from the bottom
of the clarifier are filtered on a conventional
vacuum drum filter, the cake from which is
used directly as a cattle feed. The filtrate is
returned to the clarifier influent.
Spray irrigation is carefully regulated to
operate successively on each of twelve
7.5-acre plots for four hours per irrigation
period. Therefore, the full plant effluent rate
(0.5 mgd) is applied to each plot every other
day for four hours. The area has not yet been
planted but plans include seeding the site with
corn and pasture grass next season.
As potatoes can be stored, the plant
operates from the beginning of harvest,
September, until the stored potatoes have
been processed, generally through May.
3i. Celotex Corporation (1971-0.18 mgd)
Lagro, Indiana
The Lagro plant of Celotex was
purchased many years ago from a rock wool
manufacturer. Originally, the plant effluent
was considered innocuous and consisted
primarily of inert inorganic materials. Later as
new products were added a more complicated
waste evolved, but in view of the condition of
the Wabash River during the early 1960's,
only primary settling to remove paint
pigments (chiefly kaoline) was required.
Gradually the level of BOD built to 200 ppm
as a starch bonding agent was added to the
process but there was no pressure from state
authorities until 1968. By this time, Celotex
had experience with two other spray
irrigation treatment systems (Pittston,
Pennsylvania, 1960 and L'Anse, Michigan,
1967), both of which had been successful in
dealing with effluent of similar quality.
The soil at Lagro differs markedly from
the highly permeable soils at the other two
sites, being a dense mixture of silt and clay
which, except for a high content of organic
matter, would be virtually impervious. In
addition, a weathered limestone formation
maintains a perched water table very close to
the surface. This in turn severely limits the
lateral movement of underground water.
Therefore, the first requirement of a
treatment system was an under-drainage
236
-------
system to move the water away from the area
of application. This was accomplished by
installing lines of perforated polyethylene
pipes on 29.6-foot centers across the entire
tract. Samples collected from these
underdrains provide monitoring data for the
system. Only COD, suspended solids and
volume data must be reported to state
authorities, but Celotex also maintains a
record of chlorides and conductivity.
Roughly, 80 percent of the 4,000 Ibs/day
suspended solids are settleable and since the
addition of this quantity of clay to the land
would only compound the already limited
infiltration capacity, a settling basin with
three days' retention time was installed for
suspended solids removal. Winter storage for
36 days has also been provided. Experience
during two winters has indicated that this area
is large enough.
The Lagro system is also fully automatic.
Eight sprinklers operate from each of eight
automatic valves. A clock timer activates the
pumps which, in turn, activate the program
timer which automatically turns the various
lines off and on according to a predetermined
schedule. Although the system is only two
years old, there is strong assurance that the
degree of water purification will continue to
be within the requirement of established state
and local authorities for many years to come.
Figure 22, Celotex Corporation, contains
photographs of the settling tank and the
treatment area.
4i. Commercial Solvents Corporation
(1965- 0.07 mgd)
Terre Haute, Indiana
The Terre Haute plant has a variety of
disposal procedures depending upon
characteristics of the waste to be treated.
High volume-low BOD flows are treated
anaerobically-aerobically, whereas high
BOD-low volume flows are handled through a
land application system.
The land application system treats
fermentation wastes from the production of
monosodium glutamate, zinc bacitracin and
riboflavin.
The plant is operated on a continuous
basis throughout the year. The daily average
of 70,000 gallons is produced, which may
have small amounts of nitrogen and other
chemicals. Its composition is primarily
bacteria cells from the fermentation process.
The BOD of the liquid is from 25,000 to
40,000 mg/1, with a 30,000 mg/1 average.
Suspended solids average 40,000 mg/1. The
bio-mass can be as much as 100,000.
The treatment facility is operated five
days a week, one shift a day. The wastes are
pumped under the Wabash River to a 360-acre
site immediately across the river from the
plant. At the site are two 85,000-gallon
storage pits. At the plant, a 120,000-gallon
tank is available for emergency storage. The
land is protected by a levee. Spraying takes
place on a 160-acre portion of the site on
generally sandy or loamy soil, although there
are some clay knolls. Only about 100 acres
are actually used for land application. The
balance of the plot (200 acres) is farmed and
it is somewhat lower and has clay soils.
Adjacent to the levee, a 100-foot buffer
has been maintained. On the other edges of
the sprayed plot, a 200-foot buffer is
maintained to minimize the possibility of
runoff to adjacent land.
The facility is set up with permanent
headers which are generally spiraled steel
pipe. Aluminum headers were used, but severe
corrosion problems developed; 6-inch steel
pipe is used for headers and 4-inch lines are
used to the spray head. Perhaps because of
the handling and draining, headers have not
shown any corrosion failure.
Rainbird sprinklers are used. Each
sprinkler covers a one-acre plot. The rate of
application has been varied through the years.
Initially, 5,400 gallons per acre in 10 hours
were applied. The plot was then rested for
two weeks. Three cycles of application were
made and then the plot was allowed to rest 90
days. Through the years, operating procedures
have changed. At the present time, the
application is continued until runoff appears.
This may involve spraying for three days,
approximately five hours per day. The plot is
then rested from one to two weeks. After
about three such cycles, the area is rested
237
-------
a. Accunulated solids in settling tank. Three days
retention provided
b. Reed Canary Grass on treatment area. At center
of photograph, shredding is in progress.
FIGURE 22
CELOTEX CORPORATION, LAGRO, INDIANA
238
-------
from 30 to 90 days. Some plots again can be
irrigated for only two hours and at most for
five hours. Spray nozzles have been adjusted
so that at the present time the rate is 60
gallons per minute, or approximately 3,500
gallons per hour. Between 3 and 10 acres are
irrigated each day, averaging approximately 5.
In the wintertime, fewer acres are watered,
and the operation is moved close to the
holding basin upon an abandoned municipal
landfill. This tends to minimize the manpower
requirements for maintaining and draining the
system. Headers are mounted above the
ground on wood trestles or concrete blocks.
Drains are provided very frequently to
minimize wintertime operating problems.
Initially, the area was posted with signs.
However, experience showed that signs were
destroyed by hunters. Inasmuch as aluminum
pipe is very vulnerable to damage, it was
decided to not post the property and
therefore, their problems have decreased.
Natural drainage sloughs through the area
have been contoured to allow drainage to the
holding basin. From the concurrence of the
sloughs, return flows are pumped back to the
holding pits and then reapplied. The sloughs
are shallow enough that only overland flow
reaches them. Two men are employed to run
the facility and the amount of equipment that
is on hand.
The heavy solids load results in the virtual
elimination of vegetation during the spray
cycle. If the flow is applied to fall on bare
ground, the bacteria cells appear to become
classified and seal the surface. The experience
of Commercial has been that when this land is
plowed, this classified layer is buried and will
act to seal the ground at a level beneath the
surface. Therefore, the company is
experimenting with two different means of
protecting the ground surface. On one acre, it
has placed bark at a cost of approximately
$200 per acre. On the second plot, it has
placed straw. Both means have permitted an
extension of spraying time.
At the time the site was visited, 7 inches
of rain had fallen in the preceding week and
all the ground in the area was saturated. Some
ponding was observed, although there were no
objectionable odors at the site. Part of the site
was originally covered with forest, and
because of the heavy application of water, the
trees are now dead. Some effort has been
made to knock over the trees and where this
has been done, they have been left on the
land to provide some shelter and breakup of
the sprinkler flow. If viewed from an aesthetic
standpoint, the area would appear to a
bystander to have been killed. However,
portions of the spray irrigation area have been
taken out of such use and farmed with no
apparent deleterious effects on the crop.
It appears that Commercial Solvents,
because of the critical features of the
fermentation wastes, has been willing to
provide engineering on a continuing basis to
ensure that the facility was properly operated.
This is the only Commercial Solvents plant
that has a land application system. The
method might be appropriate at others;
however, Commercial Solvents indicates that
suitable land is not available.
Si. Chesapeake Foods Poultry Processing
Plant (1972 - 0.55 mgd) Cordova, Maryland
Chesapeake foods operates the poultry
processing plant at Cordova, Maryland, under
a lease from Allen's Hatchery, Seaford,
Delaware. The lease includes the plant and
equipment, including the land application
system.
The poultry plant has been in operation
for almost 15 years; however, it was closed
during most of 1971 and has been operated
by Chesapeake Foods for less than a year. The
plant processes broilers and fryers for sale to
retailers.
Reportedly, land application has been
used at this plant for about 15 years;
however, the current site has been in use only
since Chesapeake Foods took over the plant
operation in January 1972. A new automatic
sprinkler irrigation system was installed by
the owner, prior to leasing the plant to
Chesapeake Foods.
Treatment
Wastewater from poultry processing lines
flows by gravity to a screening plant where
239
-------
solid materials (poultry, viscera, heads, feet,
etc.) are separated on a vibrating screen and
elevated into a large hopper semitrailer. Fats,
skimmed off at a clarifier tank, and feathers
are also separated and, along with other
solids, sold for processing into a poultry food
additive.
After passing through the screening plant
and clarifier (skimmer), the wastewater is
pumped into an elevated storage tank or into
a storage lagoon. The storage lagoon has an
estimated capacity of about two days'
production of wastewater. At the time of this
visit, the lagoon was nearly dry and was
overgrown with vegetation. After screening
and skimming, the wastewater is relatively
clear and has no objectionable odor.
Application
The elevated tank provides gravity feed to
pumps which supply the application site,
located about one-half mile away. The force
main is an 8-inch pipe with a 6-inch
distributor main and 3-inch laterals with
1-inch risers. There are six automatically
controlled laterals and the system is
programmed to operate one lateral each day.
This provides six sections in the spray field,
with each being used every six days. Within
each section, the spray pattern changes every
15 minutes according to a preselected
program. The spray equipment and controls
are products of the Automatic Sprinkler
Corporation.
The spray field consists of approximately
40 acres of farmland which has been sowed
with Kentucky 31 Fescue. At the time of the
visit, the ground cover was about 12 inches
high with no evidence of burning or
discoloration. Maintenance of the ground
cover is limited to mowing periodically to
maintain the height between 12 to 24 inches.
At present, no hay is produced, but it was
reported this was being considered. A 15- to
20-foot buffer zone around the perimeter of
the spray field separates it from the adjacent
fields of corn and soybeans. No security
precautions were observed.
A small creek borders the lower edge of
the spray field, and runoff, if any, goes into
this creek. No problem was reported in
maintaining acceptable BOD levels in this
creek.
The University of Maryland operates an
experimental plot adjacent to the processing
plant and utilizes wastewater for irrigating
various crops on an experimental basis.
6i. Celotex Corporation^ 1966 -< 0.6 mgd)
L'Anse, Michigan
In November 1957, experimental work in
L'Anse, Michigan, was undertaken to
demonstrate that a snow cover can protect
the soil from freezing and that if water could
be discharged under the snow, it too would
remain unfrozen and percolate into the soil.
Following a successful demonstration, a
full-scale treatment system was installed
during 1958-1959 to be ready for factory
start-up in 1960.
It became evident at the outset that the
technique would not work as planned, first,
because suspended solids migrated to the end
of the lines and caused plugging of the
orifices, but even more importantly, the water
temperature was nearly 140° F so that the soil
was literally pasteurized and the vegetation
was killed. After unsuccessful attempts to
remedy the situation, the "under- the-snow"
technique was abandoned and conventional
irrigation sprinklers in the woods near the
original site and a storage lagoon were
installed for winter use. The second
installation was only slightly more successful
than the first, chiefly because the area
covered by the sprinklers was much too small,
but also because a high water table seriously
limited the lateral movement of water
underground.
Finally, in 1966, a third installation was
made on a 100-acre tract of sandy soil which
ranged in depth from 6 to 14 feet. In order to
augment the natural drainage from the field,
lines of perforated pipe were installed at
600-foot intervals. However, in practice, these
pipes remove only a small faction of the total
water applied. The latest system, which is
now in its seventh year of operation, is fully
automatic and is operated by one man, part
time. The primary duty of the operator is the
240
-------
repair of sprinklers which after five years of
operation are now becoming worn.
The sprinklers at Celotex have been
installed in an overlapping grid pattern with
each sprinkler covering an area of 10,000
square feet. Twenty-six sprinkler lines with 14
sprinklers each are controlled by automatic
valves. Each line discharges 308 gpm. There
are 364 operating sprinklers covering a wetted
area of 83 acres. The system was originally
planned for an application of 0.53 inches per
acre per day, but in practice the operating
time has been extended to apply 0.8 inches
per day - 1.9 mgd.
The effluent from the Celotex plant
originates from the manufacture of cellulose
insulation board and from fireproof mineral
board. The biodegradable constituents of the
former are hexose and pentose sugars while
the latter contains a starch bonding agent.
The flow from the two sources is nearly
equal. After leaving the factory, the effluent
is pumped to a storage lagoon with 120 mg
capacity which provides winter storage as well
as pretreatment. As the effluent flows
through the lagoon, biological action reduces
the BOD by about 50 percent to
approximately l,200ppm.
From the storage lagoon the water is
pumped at high pressure to the treatment area
2.5 miles south. Ground cover on the
treatment field is Reed Canary Grass which
has never been cut. There is now a thick
blanket of decaying vegetation on the soil
surface which provides an excellent habitat
for microorganisms. Since both of the two
sources of effluent are low in plant nutrients,
a regular soil-sampling program is maintained
to assure an adequate supply of nitrogen and
potassium, but no other monitoring of the
soil or groundwater is being maintained.
The Michigan Water Resources
Commission has imposed a requirement upon
Celotex: that there shall be no deterioration
of the water quality of Ogemar Creek - a trout
stream which flows along the southern
boundary of the treatment area. Monitoring
of this creek above and below the treatment
area has shown no change during the past
seven years.
7i. Stokely-Van Camp (1953-0.8 mgd)
Fairmont, Minnesota
The Stokely system at Fairmont is
unique. All of the water applied is lost to the
atmosphere by evaporation or
evapotranspiration. Little, if any, penetrates
the soil below the root zone and any runoff is
collected and resprayed. Accordingly, the
application rate is very low (0.1 inches per
day), and the acreage demand very high: 400
acres for 2.0 mgd in summer. The system
evolved from the early 1950's and has
undergone a threefold changeover in
equipment.
Initially, conventional portable pipe was
used with Rainbird No. 70 nozzles. However,
the labor required to move the lines under
conditions of very low-rate application was
prohibitive. Gradually, the portable system
was replaced by boom-type irrigators which
were then modified to provide greater
atomization of the spray and the axles were
extended to resist overturn. These, too, were
demanding of labor. Finally, a fixed tower
was designed which was equipped with ten
30-gpm fog nozzles and operated under very
high pressure. On windy days, the spray drifts
a quarter-mile or more with very little
reaching the ground. Accordingly, in order to
avoid wind drift to neighbors' property, the
southern sprinklers are not used when high
winds blow from the north. As a general rule,
the towers are located on 500-foot centers.
Figure 23, Stokely-Van Camp, Fairmont,
Minnesota, contains photographs of the
irrigation system
The Stokely system operates from mid-
April to mid-November, with storage to
receive the small quanity of water discharged
during winter. Some odor problems are
evident during the spring turnover, but the
situation lasts for only a week or 10 days,
and since the installation is remotely located
from dwellings, there has been no complaint.
The lagoons are emptied by mid-June when
pea harvest begins.
The operation of the Stokely system is
well regulated. It can be considered as a
unique example of adopting a hostile, natural
situation to a specific problem.
241
-------
a. Two 1,200 gpm pumps pump to the sprays. Part of the water is bled off to
balance the capacity of the sprays and minimize on and off cycling. Runoff
water is also returned for reapplication
b. Black gumbo cjay is underlain with yellowish grey clay.
Little water penetrates the root zone
FIGURE 23
STOKELY VAN CAMP, FAIRMONT, MICHIGAN
242
-------
c. Towers are designed to discharge fog from
ten 30 gpm nozzles at fixed locations
(right side)
d. On a windy day the spray drifts for a
quarter mile or more. The corn
crop is shown, (left side)
FIGURE 23
STOKELY-VAN CAMP, FAIRMONT, MINNESOTA
243
-------
The entire disposal area is planted to cash
crops - corn, peas, and brome grass. The first
two yield profitable returns, but the market
for hay has dwindled in that area of
Minnesota just as it has farther north in
Michigan, so that hay farming is no longer
profitable.
The records maintained by the Company
are sparse and consist largely of a BOD
evaluation of any water which escapes in the
storm drainage system. Soil analysis for a
fertilizer program is maintained but otherwise
there is no record of the buildup of salts nor
the fate of nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.
However, because of the exceptionally low
rate of application and the cropping program,
it is not likely that much escapes.
8i. Michigan Milk Producers Associates
(1964 - 0.25 mgd) Ovid, Michigan
Michigan Milk Producers is a marketing
group whose primary function is the supply
of fluid milk to the Detroit market. During
the latter part of the business week the
demand for fluid milk increases while a
surplus exists from Monday through
Wednesday. During the surplus period, the
factory at Ovid dehydrates the market excess.
Therefore, the supply to the factory is highly
variable. The wastewater, however, is entirely
free from wash water so that the quantity
remains fairy constant at 0.25 mgd.
The soils are deep sand with very high
permeability. The area available for treatment
- 95 acres - is located in the bottom of a
shallow valley, with a small stream bisecting
it, and a depth to water table of not more
than six or eight feet. Ordinarily, one would
expect the floodplain soils to contain a large
percentage of silt and to be of relatively low
permeability. However, this is not the case
and the Company is able to apply water at the
rate of 0.30 inch per day on a continuous
basis.
The effluent from the factory flows by
gravity to a wet well at the treatment site,
approximately two miles away. From here it
is pumped to a 40,000- gallon storage tank -
actually an old clarifier which was part of an
abandoned conventional treatment works. At
the clarifier, milk fat which has been partially
emulsified floats to the surface and gradually
decomposes. The clarified water is pumped
periodically from beneath the fat blanket and
discharged at high pressure from 300 gpm
sprinklers, scattered throughout the 95-acre
tract. About half of the 95 available acres is
being used. The sprinklers operate
intermittently to pump out about 40,000
gallons of accumulated water and then.shut
down while the surge tank refills.
There is no predetermined operating
schedule. The operating sprinklers are rotated
whenever they appear to be overloaded and
local flooding may occur. However, it was
reported that there has been no complaint
from the state authorities.
The site is visited each shift by operating
personnel. The dominant species of vegetation
is Reed Canary Grass which is seldom, if ever,
harvested, and large areas are completely wild.
9i. Simpson Lee Paper Company
(1971 - 3.2 mgd) Vicksburg, Michigan
The Vicksburg plant of the Simpson Lee
Paper Company specializes in the production
of small orders of very heavy quality paper
from preprocessed paper stock. This is a
finishing mill, as contrasted to a pulp mill.
The process is "batch," as opposed to
"continuous," and involves the use of lead
and cadmium in various formulations. When
these heavy metals are in use, the wastewater
is routed to a "leeching area" - 20 acres of
confined swamp containing several feet of
peat soil. As the water filters through the
organic soil, an ion exchange takes place
which results in the containment of pollutants
upon the humus micelle, thus removing the
heavy metals from the water, which
eventually finds its way into the groundwater
or evaporates to the atmosphere. It is
recognized that this containment technique is
not a permanent solution to the problem, but
it is estimated that the adsorption capacity
will last for another 20 years.
During periods when heavy metals are not
in use or when their quantity is minimal, the
244
-------
effluent is first clarified to remove 12,500
Ibs/day of settleable solids which are then
hauled to a landfill. The clarified effluent is
routed to an 80-acre spray irrigation site,
consisting of four 20-acre plots. Each plot
receives water for 24 hours at the rate of 5.9
inches per acre per application and then is
rested for four or five days according to the
factory production schedule. The soils of the
area are exceptionally well suited to this type
of operation and could probably handle two
times the present rate. Alfalfa was chosen as a
crop because it would tolerate high irrigation
levels and still produce maximum yields.
However, the high moisture condition has
resulted in much of the alfalfa being naturally
replaced by hydrophytic species.
The influence of modern waste treatment
regulations is very much evident in the
monitoring program which is designed to
reflect long- and short-term change in soil and
groundwater quality, as well as a quantitative
and qualitative evaluation of clarifier
efficiency and the input to the final treatment
works. In fact, this system is so well
monitored that portions of it could be used to
determine the fate of mineral constituents of
the waste - nitrogen in particular - under
variable rates and frequency of application, as
an exercise in basic research.
Physically, the system design is simple
and appears expensive to operate. On the
other hand, the capital cost is low, which may
in itself justify the short-term, higher
operating cost.
One point which has not been made clear
is the fate of the total nitrogen which is
applied at the rate of 125 Ibs/day and is
eventually converted to NO3 nitrogen. This
results in an annual application of 4,300
Ibs/acre per year which is considerably more
than plants can utilize. However, monthly
tests on nitrate level in the test wells have
shown an actual decrease as compared to the
three months of tests prior to spray irrigation.
101. Green Giant Company
(and other sites)
(1949 - 1.2 mgd) Le Sueur, Minnesota
The Green Giant Company operates
several canneries where land application is
used. The effluent varies with the vegetable
being packed; however, other than salt,
almost no chemical additives are added other
than some detergents. Basically, the polluting
products are soil products and portions of the
vegetable being canned. All flows are screened
and then applied raw. The effluent may be as
high as 2,000 mg/1 BOD. The canning season
at each of the Company's plants depends
upon products being canned; peas and corn
are processed approximately 100 days - from
mid June to October. Corn is only processed
approximately 60 days - August to October.
The plant at Le Sueur uses percolation
beds and was not investigated.
At Glencoe, a spray irrigation facility was
recently abandoned and a stabilization pond
capable of holding a year's flow was installed.
Glencoe is within an area of heavy clays. Even
though the fields were tiled, the discharge
from the tiled field required treatment and
therefore, it was more economical to treat the
return flow than to treat the return drainage.
The flow is 2.5 mgd. Peas and corn are
packed.
A plant at Montgomery uses overhead
spray. Peas and com are canned. The flow is
120 mg in 100 days, or 1.2 mgd; 360 acres are
used. To obtain this much usable land, 660
acres were purchased or leased. The balance
of the land is swampy. Application is
approximately 10 inches a year. The area is
entirely grassed. No security fences are
provided.
The plant at Blue Earth packs peas and
corn. The flow is 0.5 mgd; 105 acres are used
with 160 gross acres.
The application rate is 12-15 inches per
year. The effluent contains 2,000 mg/1 BOD
and is not rich in nitrogen. The phosphorous
level is 3.75 mg/1.
A plant at Winsted packs only corn. The
flow is 0.4 mgd. It operates 60 days; 80 gross
acres are used with a net area of 70 acres.
A plant at Cokato packs corn. The flow is
0.5 mgd; during a 60-day season the
application rate is 10 inches per year.
In Wisconsin there are four plants, three
of which use spray irrigation.
245
-------
The plant effluent at Beaver Dam goes to
the municipality, inasmuch as green beans are
packed which have extremely weak polluting
load flows: 1 mgd for a 90-day season. Plants
at Rosendale, Ripon, and Fox Lake are spray
irrigated. Because of soil characteristics, only
20 inches per year are applied during the
100-day season. All plants pack peas and corn
and have a flow of about 1 mgd. The plant at
Ripon is distinctive inasmuch as 80 acres are
used in four plots. Two plots are idle; one is
being sprayed and one is being used for
pasture. An electric fence separates the four
plots and cattle are rotated regularly. The
land is well drained.
A plant at Belvidere, Illinois, uses spray
irrigation and high-rate percolation. During
the summer, peas and corn are packed and
then repackaging of bulk frozen foods takes
place in the winter as well as rice processing.
During the period of May to November, spray
irrigation is used. During the balance of the
year, percolation ditches with an 8-foot
center, 2 feet wide and 9 inches deep are
used. Ditches are filled serially. Maximum
flow is 2 mgd and 0.2 mgd in the winter. A
total of 60 inches per year is applied to the
gravel soil. Packing BOD loadings are 300 to
400 mg/1. BOD in the winter is 1,000 mg/1
when rice is being processed.
In the State of Washington, the Dayton
plant uses spray irrigation. The flow of 1.5
mgd irrigates peas and asparagus. The
Waitsburg plant uses spray irrigation at a rate
of 2 mgd; peas and green beans are packed.
In Idaho, the Buhl plant uses ridge and
furrow irrigation to irrigate corn. In
Fruitland, Maryland, spray irrigation is used
on grass planted upon sand at a rate of 60 to
100 inches per year during the period June 1
to October 1. The flow is 0.75 mgd and green
beans and peas are packed.
Peas require a salt flotation process to
classify sinkers from floaters. Salt in the flow
injures alfalfa and thus only salt-tolerant
grasses are irrigated.
At Montgomery, 0.18 inches per hour is
applied for a period of five to eight hours per
day every 7 to 10 days. The direct cost of the
operation is $28,000. Indirect cost is $40,000
to $48,000, including cost of the land. Total
cost of disposal is approximately $0.75 per
thousand gallons.
At Montgomery, the acreage is cut for
hay by farmers early in June at no cost to the
Green Giant Company. After that, grass is
mowed weekly and allowed to stay on the
land.
The land is valued at $400 per gross acre,
or $750 per usable acre. The capital
improvements run about $200 per acre used.
Topography allows utilization of just over
one-half of the gross acreage. In some cases,
land is leased and the owner retains a
minimum acreage at his residence site. The
land is rolling and gives the appearance of a
golf course. No storage is provided.
The wastes are screened on an 18 x 18
mesh, with 0.0356-inch openings.
Hi. Gerber Products Company
(1950 - 1.5 mgd) Fremont, Michigan
The treatment system of the Gerber plant
in Fremont is one of the very old systems in
the Nation. The disposal area is upon a deep
layer of sand. The design reflects early
standards with very little change since its
original construction in 1952. There has also
been little change in the modus operandi,
with the scheduling based upon experienced
observation rather than scientific evaluation.
As with all of these very old installations,
little was known originally about the limits
and capabilities of the technique and the
operating routine was developed through trial
and error. Once a successful technique had
been developed, there was no need for further
exploration and the operation has continued
unchanged for many year. However, unlike
many of the older systems, the Gerber
installation has not suffered from physical
degeneration. The equipment is in good
condition, the grass is mowed regularly, and a
good appearance is maintained.
During the early days of operation when
groundwater contamination was of great
concern, numerous samples were evaluated.
However, when nothing turned up, which was
then regarded as deleterious, the sampling was
discontinued and the records are not now
246
-------
available. An exception to this are samples
which are withdrawn from a water well within
the treatment area. This water is tested for
coliform bacteria only a few times a year and
the results have been negative. Gerber has
recently started regular tests of the
groundwater to establish any long-term trend
in the levels of nitrite, nitrate, and
phosphorous.
Although Fremont is located in a fairly
cold climate, year-round operations continue,
and the storage lagoons are used only
occasionally. During severe weather, spraying
is continuous and an insulating ice cake is
formed, preventing soil freeze-up. Continuing
spraying of relatively warm (60° F) water
channels through the ice and percolates into
the unfrozen soil. During these periods, the
degree of purification is questionable, but
theoretically, biological degradation continues
in the unfrozen sandy soil. It is surprising that
the grass survives long periods of submergence
under ice. Experience elsewhere has shown
that many species are killed. The dominant
species at Fremont is quack grass.
A 4,000-gallon collection tank at the
farm receives the wastewater from the 10-inch
pipeline. The water level in this tank controls
the starting and stopping of 40-hp and 60-hp
pumps feeding water into the distribution
system. The distribution system consists of an
8-inch cast iron main with valved risers at
130-foot intervals which supply 4-inch
aluminum pipe laterals perpendicular to the
main. The main is buried below the frost line
but the laterals are surface-mounted and may
be disconnected and moved around to spray
in different areas of the farm. Each lateral has
five or more tees for sprinkler heads at
120-foot intervals.
Buckner No. 692 Super Irrigator Nozzles
with a 5/8-inch orifice are used and will cover
a 210-foot diameter circle while delivering 81
gpm at 60 psi pressure.
Extremely light loadings probably
account for the success of the system since
the operating routine is visually controlled
and problem areas may occasionally develop.
Usually, the problem areas develop after a
line has been heavily used for several weeks
and manifest themselves by the formation of
a black slime which develops in shallow
potholes. When this occurs, the infiltration is
reduced and there is no runoff. At this point,
the flow is moved to a new location and the
damaged area is subsurface-plowed to aerate
the soil. The black slime is a combination of
algae and mold growths which can be
prevented if there is extensive reserve capacity
and careful field suspension.
The land application area is a 140-acre
typical Michigan sand farm, normally good
only for tree farming but excellent for spray
irrigation as the overlay is approximately 50
feet of sand and sandy loam The terrain is
fairly flat, with natural drainage toward a
couple of potholes which have been
developed into lagoons for winter storage
when the weather is too severe for spraying.
Ninety acres of the farm are equipped to
receive water but normally only about 60
acres are used.
In the beginning, Gerber experimented
with various cover crops and trees with the
hope of raising them for profit. Although
growth rates were outstanding, the effort has
been abandoned, except for hay cropping, as
it interfered with the disposal of water. Ice
damage to the trees during wintertime
spraying spoiled the idea of forest or wood lot
development. Through the process of natural
survival, a cover crop of various weeds but
predominately quack grass has developed. The
fields are mowed fairly short to limit growth
and consequent buildup of thatch on the
surface. As an experiment, a neighboring
cattle feeder collected the grasses for hay
silage. The grasses test high, at 25 percent in
protein level.
The flow rate varies seasonally from
about 600,000 to 1,240,000 gallons per
operating day. The suspended solids vary
from 200 to 3,000 mg/1, and the BOD from
800 to 3,000 mg/1. The pH is close to neutral
most of the time, but may vary from 4.3 to
11 - depending on activities at the plant.
Variation of the pH has produced no
noticeable damage to cover crop vegetation.
247
-------
Costs
The original investment in 1952 for
installing the system was about $90,000.
Since that time Gerber has added $50,000
worth of capital improvements. Operating
costs are currently about $4,000 per month,
which include charges for haul-away of the
solids removed by screening.
12i. H. J. Heinz Company
(1955 - 1.3 mgd), Salem, New Jersey
The H. J. Heinz Company in Salem, New
Jersey, is a major producer of tomato
products, mainly ketchup. Fresh tomatoes are
processed during the months of July, August,
and September. The resulting tomato
concentrate is then stored for further
processing as ketchup during the remainder of
the year.
The land application system is used only
during the fresh tomato processing season,
July-September. At all other times, the
industrial waste is processed by the Salem
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant. The
municipal plant does not have sufficient
capacity to treat the liquid wastes produced
during the fresh tomato season.
Land application was started in 1955 and
the initial cost was about $100,000. Major
capital costs since 1955 include $50,000 for a
new 10-inch force main in 1970, and $40,000
for new irrigation lines in 1971-1972.
The choice of land application over more
conventional treatment methods was based on
economics and was influenced by the
possibility that the Salem Municipal
Treatment Plant might be expanded to handle
plant wastes on a year-round basis at some
time in the future.
Treatment
Treatment of the wastewater includes
screening to remove cull tomatoes, seeds,
stems, skins, etc., and processing through a
cyclone desander to remove sand, grit and
seeds. Screenings are removed by truck for
disposal at a sanitary landfill. The liquid
effluent is pumped through a 10-inch force
main to the land application site
approximately one mile away.
A large percentage of the liquid waste is
the flume water used to transport the
tomatoes within the processing plant. Future
plans include a system for reusing the flume
water and this would greatly reduce the
volume of liquid wastes.
Another source of liquid wastes is the
runoff from the concrete-paved unloading
area at the processing plant. A considerable
amount of wastewater results from flushing
these paved surfaces and from stormwater
during rains. Flow from catch basins in the
unloading area is processed as industrial waste
during the fresh tomato season.
The pH of the wastewater was reported
to be 4.3 due to recent installation of cook
tank vent scrubbers. No treatment is being
conducted to raise the pH, although some
maintenance difficulties were reputed to be
caused by the highly corrosive effluent.
Feasibility studies are presently being
conducted to determine suitable methods for
controlling pH at proper levels.
Application
The application area consisted of
low-lying marginal land adjacent to the tidal
marsh. Soil conditions were reported as sandy
silt with areas of clay and heavy silt loam.
Groundwater was reported to be 4.5-11 feet
below the ground surface.
At present, it was reported some 22 acres
were used as a spray area. This area is divided
into six sections which are alternated, based
on visual observation of ponding. The
application rate is approximately 0.8 inch/day
or 6 inches/week. A holding pond provides
emergency storage for approximately one-half
day's wastewater production. A 15,000-gallon
wooden tank serves as a wet well for a
float-actuated diesel pump. The spray system
consists of a 6-inch distributor main with
4-inch laterals and 1-inch risers equipped with
17.6 gpm Rainbird sprinkler heads.
Vegetation in the spray area is a mixture
of sea myrtle (a low, woody shrub),
honeysuckle and Reed Canary Grass along
with wild marshgrass and native weeds. At the
time of the inspection, the vegetation was
four to five feet high, with no cultivation or
248
-------
mowing other than clearing vegetation that
interfered with sprinkler operations.
Considerable discoloration and burning of
vegetation was noted in the spray area.
Reportedly, this was due to the low pH of the
wastewater and may have been aggravated by
a recent increase in the temperature of the
wastewater. During the nine months
(October-June) when the spray area is not in
use, the vegetation reportedly recovers its
foliage and normal color rapidly with no
lasting adverse effects. Rabbits, muskrats, and
other wildlife reportedly abound in the spray
area.
Twelve test wells about 5-feet deep were
being used to sample groundwater in the
spray area.
13i. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
(1961 - 3.0 mgd) Bridgeton, New Jersey
The treatment system of Hunt-Wesson
Foods in Bridgeton, New Jersey, is designed
primarily for tomato wastewater which flows
to 44.1-acres of a 70-acre application tract at
the rate of 3.0 mgd. This results in the
exceptionally high rate of application of 2.5
inches per wetted acre per day. Actually,
there are three systems within 20 miles of
each other in southern New Jersey (Seabrook
and Heinz) where the soil formation permits
exceptionally high rates of application. At
Hunt and Seabrook this unusual situation is
brought about by an open sandy soil,
combined with a large difference in elevation
so that the water moves quickly from the area
of application. At Heinz, the soil is sandy, but
the elevation differential is only 12 feet. The
Heinz system is successful because it is
located on a rounded peninsula so that water
can escape from 80 percent of its
circumference.
The Hunt system is well managed, with a
full-time operator who changes the lines on a
regular schedule. The piping is on the surface,
with large sprinklers located on 160-foot
centers forming a solid set pattern.
Unfortunately, the laterals do not follow the
ground contour so that they drain through
the lowest sprinkler when the pump is off.
The records maintained by the Company
are incomplete and do not reflect changes in
the quality of the groundwater or the buildup
of salts in the soil. During the tomato season,
a trickle of water flows overland from the
field and drains into the soil of an adjacent
field also owned by the Company. Periodic
checks of this runoff include a rather
complete analysis. The quantity is slight and
the water rapidly disappears into the soil.
The vegetation is totally wild as it is at
Seabrook and Heinz. However, the owner has
cut the brush and shrubs in order to make all
sprinklers visible to the operator. This has
substantially reduced the incidence of
undiscovered sprinkler malfunctions and
greatly improved the efficiency of the system.
There is no attempt to harvest the grass
although in the New Jersey area there is a
ready market for hay of any quality.
Aside from the exceptionally high rate of
application, the only other unique feature of
this system is joint ownership. That is,
Hunt-Wesson and P. J. Ritter Company joined
to construct a system to serve them both.
Hunt-Wesson assumes the management of the
system and back-charges Ritter on a gallonage
basis. Both companies operate 12 months per
year and both pack tomato in about equal
volume.
14i. U.S. Gypsum Company
(1954-1.2 mgd) Pilot Rock, Oregon
This plant produces fiberboard,
hardboard, insulation board, and acoustic
ceiling and wall covering, etc. The waste
applied to the land by the irrigation system is
effluent from an Oliver Saveall or fiber
recovery unit.
The waste is pumped approximately a
mile to a 40-acre holding pond within a
fenced area which includes the irrigated
pasture area and a portion informally
designated a game reserve. Two movable
sprinkler headers are fed by a pump taking
suction out of the pond. These headers are
moved twice a day and water is applied
directly by pump suction from the pond.
Header moving requires two hours, so that
there are two sprinkling periods of 10 hours
each day. It takes 14 days to irrigate the
249
-------
entire pasture area and then the cycle is
repeated. The irrigation season extends for
about 270 days per year depending upon the
duration of freezing conditions. This requires
that the pond be drawn down by late fall to
permit flow storage for the entire winter.
The pasture land looked in good
condition and the grazing cattle seemed to do
well. Cattle sometimes drink the water in
some low spots rather than go to the watering
troughs fed by well water.
15i. Weyerhaeuser Company
Springfield Plant (1959 - 0.5 mgd)
Springfield, Oregon
The plant treats paperboard black liquor
and normally discharges a secondary effluent
to the McKenzie River but supplements with
ground application of the effluent during the
low river flow 'riod. At the time of the visit
the application equipment had already been
removed from the field for water storage as
the irrigation season was over. The field is on
a gentle slope bordering the river. High river
stage inundates or nearly inundates lands,
thus the practical application season is
limited.
Although the site is under company
control, arrangements have been made for the
grazing lessee to alternate the banks of
sprinklers as best suits his grazing needs.
16i. Musselman Fruit Products
(1941 - 0.205 mgd) Pet Milk Company
Biglerville, Pennsylvania
Musselman Fruit Products, a division of
the Pet Milk Company, is the principal
industry in the town of Biglerville,
Pennsylvania. Located a few miles north of
Gettysburg, Biglerville is a small town in an
agricultural area of many orchards. Although
primarily known for its apple products,
Musselman also processes other fruits,
tomatoes, and canned drinks. The plant
operates all year; however, the labor force is
reduced during the off-season (January-June).
The spray irrigation method of
wastewater disposal has been used at
Musselman since about 1941. Prior to that
time, trickling filters (Ryan type) were used;
however, the filters could not supply the
required capacity and spray irrigation was
chosen primarily on the basis of economics.
Treatment
Treatment consists of screening and
chemical additives for control of pH and
odor. The screening plant is located adjacent
to the spray irrigation site. The wastewater is
screened by a rotating screen and a vibrating
screen. During the visit, tomatoes were being
processed and the screening consisted of cull
tomatoes and tomato skins and seeds. The
screenings were hauled away by truck and
were disposed of at a sanitary landfill or by
spreading as a top dressing on orchard land.
The effluent from the screening plant
flowed into a settling lagoon which also
served as a wet well for the pumps supplying
the irrigation system. The screening plant
effluent was monitored by an automatic pH
measuring device and sodium hydroxide was
being added to adjust the pH from its normal
range of 4.3-5.8 to a range of 6-9 prior to
spraying. It was reported that vegetation in
the spray irrigation areas was sensitive to pH
and showed dramatic evidence of burning
when pH was low.
Sodium nitrate was being added at the
settling lagoon for the primary purpose of
odor control. Although there was a pungent
odor at the screening plant, no odor was
detected at the settling lagoon or in the spray
area.
Disposal Considerations
The choice of land application was made
about 1941, when the trickling filters would
no longer handle the wastewater produced.
Apparently, land application was chosen on
the basis of economics. The receiving stream,
Conewago Creek, is not large and direct
discharge of untreated waste was not possible,
even in 1941, due to lack of any great diluting
effect in the receiving stream.
The area selected for land application is
marginal pasture land which was already
owned by the Company and required no
relocation or zoning changes. It is located
approximately one-quarter mile from the
250
-------
plant and is served by an underground
pipeline. The USDA soil classification is ABA,
Abbottstown Silt-Loam, with a slope of 0-3
percent, bedrock at 2-5 feet, and a water table
ranging from 1-1/2-3 feet in the lowest area.
Soil applicability for drainage, absorption and
adsorption ranges from excellent to poor.
The spray area is served by a 4-inch
aluminum pipe with conventional
agricultural-type spray heads. The application
area is divided into three separate areas of 19,
17-1/2 and 13-1/2 acres, respectively. Ground
cover in the spray areas was originally Reed
Canary and Kentucky Fescue; however, native
weeds appear to be plentiful now.
Each of the spray areas has an interceptor
ditch where runoff is collected and returned
to the lagoon system for recirculation or
discharge, depending on the availability of
storage space. The lagoon system consists of
eight lagoons plus an emergency storage
lagoon. The total area devoted to the lagoon
system was reported as about nine acres. Wild
ducks, muskrats and turtles use the lagoons
but no fish have been stocked. The lagoon
system is designed for gravity flow through an
outfall at the receiving stream.
Operations Maintenance
One man per shift operates the screening
plant and the spray irrigation system. Some
difficulty was reported with spray heads
clogging and several were observed operating
improperly.
The spray application plan is based on
two days of application and four days of rest
for each of the three spray areas, in turn.
Since the three spray areas are of different
size, application is not uniform. Although no
application rates were specified, it is
estimated the maximum application rate was
about 2 inches/acre/week, assuming two days'
production of wastewater was applied to the
smallest spray area each week.
The spray application is operated
year-round as long as the spray heads remain
unfrozen. This results in spraying frozen
ground during the winter and a resulting ice
buildup on the ground and vegetation in the
spray area.
The ground cover was originally planted
in the spray areas is Reed Canary and
Kentucky Fescue. No mowing or cultivation
has been done and much of the original
planting has been taken over by weeds. At the
time of inspection, the vegetation was quite
thick and averaged about three feet in height.
No attempt has been made to utilize the spray
area for any type of crop production.
17i. Howes Leather Company
(1972 - 0.015 mgd) Frank, West Virginia
Pocahontas Tannery, a subsidiary of
Howes Leather Company, is located in the
community of Frank, West Virginia. The
tannery has been in operation since about
1900 and its principal product is sole leather.
The tanning process originally used oak
bark as the source of tannic acid and this is
the reason the tannery was originaly located
in this heavily forested region. In recent
years, the oak bark method has been replaced
by a tanning solution made from a vegetable
extract imported from Africa and South
America.
The tanning process requires large
quantities of water; however, only a small
portion of the wastewater is processed
through the land application system. This
wastewater, called "spent tanning solution,"
has a pH of 4 to 5 and a very dark brown
"coffee" color. It also has the pungent odor
typical of the tanning process. Daily
production of the spent tanning solution is
about 15,000 gallons.
The bulk of the wastewater is treated by
settlement, aeration, and storage in oxidation
ponds prior to discharge into a receiving
stream.
Prior to 1972, the spent tanning solution
had been stored in two 15,000-gallon tanks
and sprayed from a tank truck on fields
adjacent to the tannery. The current spray
field system has been operating since August
1972 and operating procedures are still being
worked out.
The alternative to land application would
involve chemical and mechanical treatment to
adjust the effluent pH and remove the
characteristic color and odor prior to
251
-------
discharge into the receiving stream. Water
quality standards in the receiving stream
include recreational use. Apparently, land
application was chosen as the most
economical disposal method.
Treatment
The spent tanning solution is pumped
into two storage lagoons located adjacent to
the spray field. These lagoons are unlined;
however, it was reported there was very little
liquid lost through infiltration since the solids
which settle out of the solution form a
coating which acts like a waterproof
membrane on the sides and bottoms of the
storage lagoons. This coating, as observed on
the sides of the lagoons, had an appearance
similar to a light prime coat of bituminous
material.
The two lagoons have a combined
capacity of about 3.5 million gallons. Since
daily production is only about 15,000 gallons,
there is sufficient storage capacity for the
winter months when the spray field is not in
use and for a considerable detention time
when the spray field is in operation. Other
than oxidation and settling in the storage
lagoons, no treatment is provided.
Application
A 16-acre tract of pasture land had been
purchased in 1971 as an application site.
Although no infiltration tests had been
performed in connection with this project, it
was reported that the Soil Conservation
Service had determined that soils in the areas
were suitable for septic tank installations.
The spray field portion of the site covers
about 10 acres at present and consists of five
4-inch PVC laterals with 1-inch PVC risers and
Rainbird sprinkler heads. Spray patterns in
the parallel laterals are designed to overlap
but overlapping was not taking place since a
smaller than design pump motor (5 hp) was
being used temporarily.
Severe burning of vegetation was evident
in the spray field and the spray pattern was
easily distinguished as a series of black circles
in the otherwise green field. Although the
mature vegetation appeared to be completely
dead, new green shoots were observed in the
spray areas which were currently being rested.
No special planting had been made, although
Reed Canary and Kentucky Fescue were
being considered as ground cover. At present
no treatment was planned to raise the pH and
reduce the burning of vegetation.
It was noted that a thin coating of
dark-colored material was building up on the
vegetation and ground surface in the spray
area. This appeared to be the same
bituminous-like material that was observed on
the sides of the storage lagoons. At present,
this coating did not appear to interfere with
infiltration; however, it was reported the
spray field would be disced or scarified
periodically to insure that a waterproof
membrane not be formed.
During the inspection only one lateral
was in use, while the other four were being
rested. No application plan has been
developed, other than switching laterals when
ponding is observed. When the design pump
motor (7-1/2 hp) is installed, an improved
spray pattern is expected.
No interceptor ditches or. other means of
collecting runoff have been developed.
Approximately two acres of wooded area
serve as a buffer between the spray field and
the river. Natural drainage is such that any
runoff would drain through this wooded area
prior to reaching the river.
The fields which, prior to 1972, had been
treated by tank truck as a means of disposing
of the spent tanning solution, showed no
adverse effects and could not be distinguished
from untreated field. It was reported the
treated fields had been scarified .at least once
and that this had greatly improved the ground
cover.
The Land Treatment System
at Seabrook, New Jersey
(1950- 14mgd)
Introduction and History
Although data were not gathered for the
Seabrook Farms facility in New Jersey, a
narrative description is included here.
Seabrook farms was a very early industrial
252
-------
user of the treatment process and the
description is used because of its many unique
features.
The spray irrigation system of Seabrook
Farms Company in New Jersey has been in
continuous operation since June 1950,
receiving an annual application of 1.25 billion
gallons of wastewater distributed over 310
gross acres. The wastewater which originates
from processing of vegetables ranges in BOD
from about 200 mg/1 to around 2,000,
depending upon the product being processed.
(All sanitary wastes are treated separately and
the treated water is not mixed with the
industrial waste stream.) The quantity of
water is also highly variable ranging from a
few hundred thousand gallons per day in
winter to 16.0 mgd at the height of the
packing season.
The problem of stream pollution was
recognized during the late 1930's but, due to
the wartime shortage of construction
materials, little pollution control was
attempted - save the construction of some
lagoons which by 1946 were totally
inadequate. During the next two years,
engineering studies led to no feasible means of
pollution control which was within the
Company's financial capability. Finally, the
Company asked Dr. C. Warren Thornthwaite
and Associates to join the Company's efforts
to investigate the possibility of disposal by
irrigation.
Effluent of the quality produced by
Seabrook Farms is entirely suitable for crop
irrigation and, indeed, had been used for this
purpose for many years. However, crop
demands for water do not coincide seasonally
with the harvest schedule. In fact, during the
asparagus season in spring and again in the fall
during spinach harvest, excess moisture from
rainfall is always a threat and often a
problem. Therefore, Thornthwaite's first task
was to locate fields within piping distance of
the factory which would be in cover crop
during high rainfall periods and to discover by
trial just how much water these fields could
be expected to absorb. It is, perhaps,
fortunate that the irrigation experiments at
Pennsylvania State University were to come
15 years later. That is, if Seabrook Farms had
been constrained by the concept of two
inches per week, Thornthwaite would have
abandoned the project before it got started,
since the 1,800 acres that would be needed to
handle 14.0 mgd was simply unavailable.
During periods of drought in the humid
east, farmers normally apply 1.0 inch of
irrigation water about once a week.
Therefore, it was necessary to learn how
much more water the land would accept. To
achieve this, the company set up a single giant
sprinkler in a sandy field with a vigorously
growing cover crop of crimson clover. The
results were disappointing. After the
application of two inches, the soil was
waterlogged and became waterlogged again
with the application of only a fraction of an
inch on successive days. Clearly, something
was impeding the movement of water through
the soil - probably plow sole which had been
formed during 100 years of tillage.
The sprinkler was then moved 200 yards
northward into a wooded area which had not
been farmed for many years. Investigators were
surprised when the area did not flood after
eight inches of application. The application
was repeated daily for several days with the
same result. Finally, after 48 hours of
continuous irrigation at the rate of one inch
per hour, ponding occurred but the ponds
disappeared after a few hours' rest.
During the winter and spring of 1950, the
Seabrook system was constructed to occupy
wooded areas adjacent to the experimental
tract. Initially, there were 72 sprinkler
locations, each designed to receive 8 inches
per day. Each sprinkler covered a little over
an acre and water was applied at
approximately 300 gpm. Later, 12 more
sprinkler locations were added when some
areas did not perform as well as expected.
At the outset, 76 test wells were installed
and monitored for groundwater pollution. It
soon became evident that the water quality
was well within the United States Public
Health Standards; NO3, for example, was
never higher than 10 mg/1 (2.2 as N). The
253
-------
monitoring program was discontinued after
about three years. The test wells also enabled
investigators to plot the movement of
groundwater and led to the publication of
several papers on groundwater hydrology.
For at least eight years and probably
longer, the original design concepts were
followed, i.e., eight inches per day during
periods of stress and lesser quantities where
factory production diminished. Meanwhile, a
rigorous water economy program reduced the
peak flow from 14.0 mgd to about 1 2.0 mgd.
The Physical Setup
The soils of the Seabrook treatment site
lie within the sassafras soil formation and are
generally sandy in character. However, within
the spray area the silt and clay content is
extremely low, resulting in a very low water
retention capacity. Therefore, the land has
low agricultural value and for this reason was
abandoned to forest many years ago.
In 1950, the trees were largely oaks, with
a few cedars, ironwood, gum and dogwood
scattered among them. The growth was sparse
and scrawny, with large trees only in the low
areas where water was available. Clearly, this
vegetation was thoroughly acclimated to the
poor soil and was able to survive long periods
of severe drought. It just barely missed
becoming a grassland area similar to the
Quinipiac Valley in Connecticut where glacial
outwash deposited several feet of sterile land.
It was obvious from the outset that these
deep-rooted upland oaks could not survive the
application of large quantities of water which
drowned the zone of aeration. Surprisingly,
however, the trees have survived in areas
immediately adjacent to the sprinkler circle,
indicating very little lateral movement of
water near the soil surface.
Nothing has ever been done at Seabrook
to alter the natural ecological succession, and
observations over the years indicate that the
flora and fauna have now stabilized in their
new environment. During the first few years
while the trees were dying, a weed known as
Lambs Quarters grew to gigantic proportions.
Gradually, this growth was replaced by Smart
Weed, Chick Weed, Blackberries, Wild Currant
and Wild Roses. The dominant species now is
marsh grass of a variety which grows to a
height of 10 feet or more in the lowlands of
New Jersey - very decidedly a foreigner to
these upland soils of the spray area. It is also
noted that the vegetative litter on the soil
surface has ceased to accumulate, indicating
that the rate of production is now matched
by the rate of degradation.
The water for the Seabrook factory is
pumped from 14 deep (150-foot) wells, all
located within an area of less than one-half
section. After being discharged from the
factory, the waslewater flows by gravity to a
screening station where small pieces of
vegetable are removed on vibrating screens.
From there, the water flows to a lift station
and thence into a canal which conveys it 1.7
miles to the disposal site. The capacity of the
canal is 3.0 mg and provides the treatment
system with adequate surge capacity. Located
along the canal are two major pumping
stations which remove water during the
summer for the irrigation of vegetable crops.
(Since there is zero input of pathogens or
residue of an animal nature, there is no
constraint upon the use of this water for this
purpose.) Downstream from the field,
irrigation pumping stations are seven 100 hp
pumps which supply the treatment area.
These discharge into 8-inch steel force mains
which, in turn, break down to 4-inch laterals
to supply each no/zle.
Hydrological studies during the early
1950's showed that the water applied to the
treatment area flowed underground in a
general southwesterly direction and probably
emerged as springs and seeps in the watershed
of the Cohansey River. Because of this
southwesterly flow, it is highly unlikely that
any of the treated water finds its way
northeasterly to the well field which supplies
the factory. Therefore, the only reuse which
can be claimed is the relatively small quantity
withdrawn from the canal for crop irrigation.
Winter Operation
During the early 1950's, there was a
complete shutdown of the factory during
winter, and the treatment area received no
254
-------
water. Around 1953, the winter processing of
potatoes made it necessary to operate the
system during weather which occasionally
dropped to below zero. At first, there was
apprehension that the surface piping could
not survive under these extreme conditions
and that wastewater would flow into the
streams over the frozen soil if there was a
sudden thaw.
The problem was solved by disconnecting
all but three sprinklers on each operating line
and operating these continuously as long as
the weather remained cold. This technique
caused the formation of huge blocks of ice
within the sprinkler pattern. When warm
weather returned, the ice melted slowly from
the bottom up and gradually percolated into
the soil. No overland runoff has been
experienced. It should be pointed out that
Gerber Products Company in Fremont,
Michigan, has had similar experience, but the
technique will not be successful where moving
equipment is used, such as that being installed
at Muskegon, Michigan. In that instance,
winter storage is essential.
The Situation in 1973
Aside from the continuing high
performance which many predicted would be
exhausted by now, the most significant
change in the system lias been an alteration of
the soil structure. One can only speculate as
to what has happened, but it is very evident
the soil has become even more permeable
than it was in 1950.
As mentioned above, standard operation
initially called for the application of eight
inches per day at the rate of 1.0 inch per hour
during peak How periods. Careful scheduling
was maintained during periods of less than
peak flow so that each area was given
opportunity to rest and recover in order to be
ready to accept the next increment of heavy
flow. In 1973, the operating time has been
extended to 1 2 hours per day, and of even
greater importance, no attempt is made to
evenly distribute the flow throughout the
tract. That is, when production falls off, the
areas most distant from the control house are
not used and the nearby sprinklers continue
to receive the 12-inch application. Thus, in
theory, a single sprinkler might receive as
much as 350 acre-feet per year, which closely
approaches the loading rate of the percolation
beds at Flushing Meadows, Arizona. Quite
obviously, this change in operation has
brought about a substantial saving in labor.
The piping and sprinkler arrangement has
not been significantly altered in 20 years and
there has been no attempt to automate the
controls. In fact, the labor cost of operation is
so low that auto controls would only be a
convenience and could not be justified by a
saving in labor.
The annual operating cost is to the order
of S60,000 which amounts to 4.8 cents per
1,000 gallons. It should be pointed out,
however, that because of the seasonal nature
of the Seabrook operation, the flow from the
factory on a year-round basis is only 30
percent of the designed capacity of the
treatment system. That is, if the flow were a
uniform 10 or 12 mgd, the cost of treatment
would be significantly less.
Three or four years ago, some local
residents were informed that Seabrook was
responsible for the eutrophication of a down-
stream lake. There was suspicion that the
phosphorous absorption capacity of the Sea-
brook treatment system had been finally
exhausted. Accordingly, 10 new test wells
were installed and samples collected. Although
the specific results of sample analysis are not
available, the Company has reported that the
phosphorous removal is nearly complete and
there lias been no change in the groundwater
quality since the sampling program of 20
years ago. The record of a similar experience
has been published by the United States
Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix,
Arizona, and confirmed in a personal
interview with Dr. Hermann Bouwer.
Conclusion
The wastes treatment system of Seabrook
Farms Company, after 23 years of operation
continues to achieve a very high degree of
water purification. Quite contrary to early
predictions, the system has lost none of its
treatment efficiency and has, in fact,
improved. The original vegetation within the
sprinkler pattern has been replaced by species
which are ideally adapted to the environment.
255
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
ON-SITE SURVEYS OF LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Data from completed on-site field
investigations collected by use of the
questionnaire, Appendix A, has been
tabulated for reference purposes.
Facilities which were found to use
wastewater for only their treatment plant
grounds, which had abandoned the use of
land application, or which use
evaporation-percolation systems are not
included.
Although data from Mexico City (items
66, 67) was collected and reported herein,
the data were not included in the tabulations
contained within the report.
257
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
A Municipal
Ref.
No. Agency & State
1 City of Casa Grande, Arizona
2 Lake Havasu San. District
Lake Havasu, Arizona
3 City of Mesa, Arizona
4 City of Prescott, Arizona
5 City of Tucson, Arizona
6 City of Bakersfield
(Plants 1 and 2) California
7 Mt. Vernon County San. Dist.
Bakersfield, California
8 Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist.
Calabasas, Los Angeles, California
9 Camarillo San. Dist.
Camarillo, California
10 City of Colton, California
11 City of Dinuba, California
12 City of Fontana, California
13 City of Fresno, California
14 City of Hanford, California
15 Valley Sanitation Dist., California
16 Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc.
Laguna Hills, California
17 City of Livermore, California
18 City of Lodi, California
19 Irvine Ranch Water Dist.
Irvine, Orange, California
20 City of Oceanside, California
21 City of Ontario, Ontario,
San Bernardino, California
22 City of Pleasanton Sewage
Treatment Plant
Pleasanton, Alameda, California
23 City of Santa Maria Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Santa Maria,
Santa Barbara, California
12,500
4,000
47,000
13,000
283,000
101,700
28,500
20,000
100,000
17,000
34,000
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
Pop.
Served
Pop.
Equiv.
of
Waste
a) None
b) Primary
c) Secondary
d) Tertiary
13,700
4,000
53,000
13,000
475,587
20,000
22,000
20,000
8,100
21,000
170,000
16,000
22,000
28,000
48,000
29,950
22,800
47,000
24,000
30,500
18,000
21,000
795,431
18,000*
35,000
28,000
49,000
30,000
22,800
47,000
17,000
c,f
c
c,e
c,f
c,f
c
c,f
c,e
b
c,e
c,e
b,e,g
c,f
c,f
c,e,f
c,f,g
c,e,f
c,e
c,e
c,e
e) Oxidation Ponds
f) Effluent
Chlorination
g) Other
258
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Community Data
Sludge Disposal
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Treatment
a) Thickening
b) Digesting
c) Filtering
d) Drying Beds
e) Other
d
d
b
b
d
b,d
b,d
b,d
b
b
b
Disposal
a) Irrigation
b) Tank Truck
c) Spreading
d) Other
c
c
b
d
c
c
c
c
c
b
Average
Sewage
Flow
(mgd)
2.0
.6
4.3
1.5
28.1
11.3
3.6
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.4
2.3
50.0
2.5
3.3
1.4
4.0
3.7
2.8
5.0
11.0
1.3
4.8
Max.
System
Cap.
(mgd)
3.0
.6
5.0
1.8
36.9
31.0
6.5
7.5
4.8
2.4
1.0
2'.5
106.0
6.5
5.0
2.2
5.0
3.5
5.0
5.0
16.0
1.7
6.5
Combined
Sewer
System
%of
(Yes) (No) System
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Is
Storm
Water
Treated
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
259
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Year
Start
1958
1971
(golf course)
1967
(plant grounds)
1957
1960-62
1917
1930's
1948
1958
1954
1954
1971-72
1891
1900's
1928
1964
1965
1944
1968
1957
1915
1957
1935
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
e)Rail
f) Other
d
c
a
c
a,b,c
a
c
b,c
a,c
a,b
b
b,c
a
a
b,c
b,c
b,c
b,c
b
a,c
c
c
a,c
Used
34.8
800
274.0
65-70
2800*
2400
1000
420
400
113
99
112
1800
265
198
1420
434
330
160
175
155
Irri-
gation Buffer
34.8
80.0
95.0
65-70
2450+-
2400
650
420
394
111 1-2
60
112
1200+
155
198
1420
440
339
500
290
140
155 c
155
Onsit
Storag
4
50±
2
300
85
60
40
20
1
Total Area (acres)
Onsite
Storage Treatment Unused
10
175+
300+-
350
27
20
35
20
260
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Months
Used
12
12
12
9-10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
Ibs.
Average Solid
Flow per
(mgd ) Day
2.0
0.6
4.3
0.1
14.0
11.3
3.6 1,090
3.0
2.3
1.9
2.4 800
2.3
50.0 62,950
2.5 400
2-4
1.4
3.7-5
2.8
1.5
0.9
1.3 217
4.8
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
c)Clay
d) Sand
e) Gravel
f) Other
c,d,e
d,e
d,e
a,d
a,c
c
a
a
a,d
b,d
d,e
c,d,f
a,d
a,d
b,c,d
a,c,e
a,d
d
d
b,d
a
d
Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return
Grass
Acre Return
80
55
65-70
785
390
20 $15/ac-ft
62
3
25
420
100
339
Yes
140
155
115
Not No
Forest c ... y
\~U1U V CgC-
Acre Return vated tation
350
varies
34
46
40
261
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Crop
Cotton &
Alfalfa
Sorghum
Cotton
Milo
Mai/.e
Alfalfa
Barley
Corn
Cotton
Alfalfa
Barley
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Oats & Com
Citrus
Hay
Grapes
Pasture
Com
Oats
Cotton
Cotton
Alfalfa
Row Crops
Citrus
Vegetables
Alfalfa
Fodder
Corn
Pasture
Alfalfa
Acre
34.8
40
2,450
600
690
500
175
130
130
400
15
72
17
20
1,000
155
150
1,000
290
250
40
No. of
Days/ Application Rates
Week
irr; in./hr. in./day in./wk. in./yr.
im- —
Return gated Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
7 0.6 0.6
7
7
$31,000 7
most at
Sl/ac-ft
variable 0.2 1.2 62
7 02 1.4 75
7
7 1.5
7
83,500 7 84
3-5
7
7
58,475 7
3-4,7
56,000 7
512,900 7 0.02 0.01 0.4 0.3 2.8 2.2 147.4 112.9
7
262
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
T ->
23
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press )
c) Tilling
d) Overland Flow
e) Ridge & Furrow
f) Flooding
d,e
a
d
a
d
d
f
a
d
e
e
r
f
a.e.f.
a,c.f
b,f
f
a.e
a
a
b
a
Value/land
1972 Est.
Renovated
Water
Collect Cost
(Yes) (No) Acre
N
N
N 1 ,425
N
N
Y
N
N 4,500
N
N 1 .500
N
N 0-I,000±
N 875
N 200-
3,000
N
N 5,500
N to 1.000
N 0
N
N
N
N 58
Year Annual Term
Pur- Cost Lease
chased Lease ($) (Year)
1959 21 13
1957
20
8
8
1965
1954-
1957
1891 to
piescnt
1900 to
picsent
1 940- 20 1
1967
1965
1944
1965
1 968
1800
40
1915- 20,000 25
1958
12,900 2
1913 600 5
($/acre)
Facil-
ity
600
3.000
1,000
1,000
7,000
5,000
2,000
4,000
1 ,000
2.000
875-
900
5 ,000
7,500
1,000
4.200
12,000
2.000+
5 .000
Adj.
Land
600
4,000
1,500
1 ,500
7,000
5,000
2.000
4,000
1,000
2.000
900
10-17,000
7,500
1,000
20.000
4.200
12.000
2.000+
5,000
263
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Land Application Facilities
Operation and Maintenance
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Capital
Cost
S
1000/acre
361,400
700,000
1 1 ,000
16,000
50,000±
300-7-00/
acre
245,000
60,000
5,000
10,000
Improvements
Cost
Year (mgd)
Made $
1958
1967
1957
1966 99,000
1972
1972 4,600
1971 16,000
1954 20,000
1955
1965 49,000
Many
Years
Early
1960's
1971 3,600
1971 2,000
Distance to
Nearest
Residence
(Miles)
0.5
Adj.
0.25
Adj.
0.01
1.0
Adj.
Adj.
0.06
Adj.
0.1
0.25
0.02
0.25
0.5
2
Adj.
0.04
0.02
0.2
0.25
Holding
Annual
Budget cap.
$ (mgd)
12.0
1.5
4.0
20.0
30,000 45.0
150.0
2.0
1.0
684.0
113.0
18.0
13.0
130.0
309.0
63,700 75.0
35,000 5.0
48.0
-------
Ref.
No.
Land Used For
Farm
Graze Other
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessable to Public
c) Patrolled
d) Posted
e) Other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
a
a
a
b
b
a,b,c,d
d
a
a,d
b,d
a,c,d
a,b,d
a
a,c,d
b
a,c,d
b,c,d
a,c,d
b,c
a,c,d
a,d
Residence
On
Premises
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Recreation
Use-Site
N
Y-Golf
N
Y-Golf
N
N
N
Y-Fishing
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y-Golf
Y-Golf
N
N
N
Y-Golf
N
N
Public
Health
Restrict
(Yes) (No)
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
265
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Monitoring Program
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Test Wells
No. Depth
N
0
2 15-30
1 30
1 90
20 100-300
1 250
0
0
0
0
5 100
4 50
0
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) Veg. Analysis
f) Animal/Insect
g) Other
b
b,e
b,e
b
b
a,b,f
b,c,d
e
b,d,f
a,b,d
b,f
a,d,f
a,c,e
b
a
a
b,c,d,e,f,g
b
Frequency
d) Daily
w) Weekly
y) Yearly
o) Occasional
d
d
d
d,w
o,w
d
d,o
d,y
d
d
d
d,d,y,o,y,y
d
Effluent
Dis-
charge
to Lost
Effluent Receiv- to
Re- Re- ing Ground
used apply Water Water
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
x x
X
X
X
X
X
Ground
Water
Inteferes
with
Operation
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
266
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Data Available On
Future Plans
Information on Parameters Available
a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
b) Buildup/Heavy Metal Receiving Water Quality
c) Buildup/Chlorides h) Effect/Water Table
d) Effect/Plants i) Odors Con-
Ref. e) Effect/Animals j) Health Hazards Ex- tinue De-
No. f) Deterioration k) Other pand As Is crease
Groundwater Quality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a,b,c,d,ij
h
f,h
d,e,f,ij,g
b,d,f,g,h
c,f,h,i
c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
BOD mg/1 SS mg/1 COD mg/I
Aban- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
don Land water Land water Land Water
X
X
\
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10
50
65
0
30
19
1.3
7.6
f,g,hj
5
8-15
20
95-115
251
Y
12
2-10
Y
10-15
45
40
Y
35
7
L
2-16
6
25-30
151
Y
47
5-20
Y
10-20
16
50
Y
40
24
0
547
Y
0-40
Y
267
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
pH Fecal Coli/100ml P mg/1 Total N mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 d mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
7.2
7.6
7.1
7.3
7.5-
7.8
7.2
7.1
7
7-8
7.0-7.5
7.5-
7.6
8.2
7.4
7.7-
8.0
9
L,
2-10
23/100
2.2
33 3 10 0.14 106
188
65
50
67
18-24 1-10 3-15 180-195
10-16 5-15 1-8 0 150-170
20 7.5 0.56 300
4
21 280
268
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Operated
by
Agency?
(Yes) (No)
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y,N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Supple-
mental
Irrigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Descriptive Evaluation
True Land Disposal
As
Irrigation
)sal
\s
tment
icility
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Depth
to
Ground water
Table (ft)
60
30
30-50
250
100-120
10
36
50-80
100-125
13
15
3-4
20-25
0-40
150
100-150
Average
Slope
Application
Area (%)
2
<2
0.2
2
<2
0-5
9
/,
<2
<2
2
<2
<1
0-30
<1
<2
5
2
<2
1
Climate
Qass
(APWA)
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
269
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
A Municipal
Ref.
No. Agency & State
24 City of San Bernardino, California
25 Santee County Water Dist.
San Diego, California
26 City of San Clemente, California
27 Golden Gate Park Water Reclamation
Plant, San Francisco, California
28 City of San Luis Obispo, California
29 City of Ventura, California
30 City of Woodland, California
31 City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
32 Walt Disney World, Florida
33 Okaloosa County Water & Sewer
Dist., Eghn Air Force Base, Florida
34 City of St. Petersburg, Florida
35 City of Tallahassee, Florida
36 St. Charles Utilities, Inc.
St. Charles, Maryland
37 Forsgate Sanitation, Inc.
Cranbury, New Jersey
38 City of Vineland, New Jersey
39 City of Alamogordo, New Mexico
40 City of Clovis, New Mexico
41 City of Raton, New Mexico
42 City of Roswell, New Mexico
43 City of Santa Fe, Slier Road
Plant, New Mexico
44 City of Santa Fe, Airport Road
Plant, New Mexico
45 Clark County, Nevada
46 City of Ely, Nevada
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
Pop. a) None e) Oxidation Ponds
Equiv. b) Primary f) Effluent
Pop. of c) Secondary Chlorination
Served Waste d) Tertiary g) Other
140,000 140,000 c,f
30,000 30,000 c,e,f
20,000 20,000 c,f,g
10,000 10,000 c,f
42,000 42,000 c,e,f
40,000 42,000 c,e,f
23,000 132,500 e
198,000 240,000 d,f
50,000 50,000 d
15,000 c,f,
51,000 51,000 c,f
15,000 c,f
6,000 6,000 e
4,000 4,000 d,e,f
8,000 b,g
25,000 c
28,000 75,000 b,e
2,300 b,f
40,000 c
20,000 c
25,000 c
c,f
6,000 c,e
270
-------
LAND
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Community Data
Sludge Disposal
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Treatment
a) Thickening
b) Digesting
c) Filtering
d) Drying Beds
e) Other
d
a,b,d
b,e
b
None
a,b,c
d
d
d
d
d
b
Disposal
a) Irrigation
b) Tank Truck
c) Spreading
d) Other
d
d
d
c
d
d
d
c
d
d
d
d
c
c
c
Average
Sewage
Flow
(mgd)
15.0
3.2
2.2
1.0
3.2
3.4
8.7
25.0
1.5
1.0
5.0
2.1
.5
.4
1.2
2.5
3.5
0.5
2-3
2.5
2.8
13.0
1.5
Max.
System
Cap.
(mgd)
28.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
5.0
4.0
15.0
18.0
10.0
3.0
9.0
2.5
.7
3.0
4.0
2.2
.9
6-7
3.0
3.0
12.0
3.0
Combined
Sewer
System
%of
(Yes) (No) System
N
N
N
Y 100
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Is
Storm
Water
Treated
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
271
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck Total Area (acres)
Ref. Year e) Rail Irri- Onsite Onsite
No. Start f) Other Used gation Buffer Storage Treatment Unused
24 1962-1963 c 70 70
25 1959 a 170 115 55
26 1957-1968 b,c,d 200 200
27 1932 c 1000 800 1.2 200
28 Prior 1948 a,c 52 52
29 ' 1965 c 275 175-200 100-75
30 1889 a 1400 240 120 400 640
31 1953 c 915 755 160
32 1972 c 100 100
33 1972 c 80 24 2 4 50
34 1972 c 44
35 1966 c 36 36
36 1966 c 100 50 30 20
37 1967 c 612 300 66 5.7 3QO
38 1901 b 167 30 2 135
39 1963 a 260 260
40 1927 b 1193 1152 40
41 1950 a,b 200 200
42 1930's b,c 770 760 10
43 1937 b 640 640
44 1962 c 100 98 2
45 1961 c
46 1908 a 2064 1400 600 8 11 45
272
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Months
Used
12
12
12
7
6
12
6
6
12
12
12
12
6
12
12
12
7
12
7
9
7
Average
Flow
(mgd)
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
1-2
8.7
4-7
1.5
1.0
0.2
2.0
0.5
0.4
1.2
2.5
3.5
2.3
2.5
0.8
1.5
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
Ibs. c) Clay
Solid d) Sand
per e) Gravel
Day f) Other
d
a,c,d
b,c,e
100 d
c
25 d
a,b,c
c
d
d
d
d
210 d
d
d
a,b,c
a,d
a,b
a,e
a,d
a,d
e
a,d
Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return
Not No
Grass Forest c |ti v
V-U.1H V CJiC
Acre Return Acre Return vated tation
70 S5/ac-ft (golf)
110 5
200
600 200
52 $3,432
175-200
750
755 $36,600
46
24
4
20
50
300
30
260
98
273
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref
IxCl,
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Crop Acre
Corn, Millet,
Kenaff, Bahia
Grass, Sudan
Grass, Sorghum
Alfalfa
Corn, Oats
Sorghum 260
Milo 750
Alfalfa 400
Corn, Millet
.Wheat
Alfalfa 200
Alfalfa 350
Barley 160
Com
Cotton
Alfalfa
Apples
Alfalfa 300
Hay 1,100
No. of
Days/
Week
Trri-
1111
Return gated
7
7
5,7
1
5
7
1
7
7
7
$0 7
6
1-2
$1,400 7
$750
$250
$3,200
$200
$250
$4,200 7
Application Rates
in./hr. in./day in./wk. in./yr.
Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
1.5 1.0
1.5 1.5 30.0 30.0
1.00 2.5 2.0
0.20 0.20 1.6 1.6 11.2 11.2 582.0 582.0
0.37 8.9 62.0
1.00 1.00 8.0 2.0 8.0 4.0
0.25 0.13 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.0 100.0 52.0
1.00 0.5-1 12-18 12.0 12-18 12.0 25.0 20.0
4-96 4-48
274
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press. )
c) Tilling
d) Overland Flow
e) Ridge & Furrow
f) Flooding
a
a
a
b
e
a
f
a
b
a
a
a,b
a
a
f
f
e
f
a,f
f
a
f
Renovated
Water
Collect
(Yes) (No)
Year Annual Term
Cost Pur- Cost Lease
Acre chased Lease ($) (Year)
Value/Land
1972Est.
($/acre)
Facil-
ity
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
230
0
800
5,000
0
100-
400
1,000
1500
1963
1956
1929
1868
1933-
1960
1964
1965
1966
1964
1928-
1970
Adj.
Land
30,000
20,000
,,000
800
10
N
75
1946
1,500
2,500
10,000
500-
1,000
650
450
800
1,000
3,000
3,000
300
2,000
2,500
6,000
500-
1,000
650
450
800
20
3,000
3,000
100
275
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Land Application Facilities
Operation and Maintenance
Capital Improvements
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Cost
$
90,000
1,312,980
100,000
460,000
35,000
95,000
200
Unknown
5,000
Year
Made
1963
1967
1970
1953-
1971
1972
1972
1966-
1972
1966-
1971
1963
1950
1964
1937-
1952
1962
1967
Distance to
Cost Nearest
(mgd) Residence
$ (Miles)
0.02
Adj.
Adj.
0.02
0.01
Adj.
Adj.
2
153,000 1
0.04
8,750 0.5
190,000 0.5
0.6
0.33
Adj.
Adj.
0.2
On-site
Adj.
0.04
3,333 0.25
Holding Ponds
Annual
Budget cap.
$ (mgd)
24,000 22.0
35,800 2.9
2.0
8.0
540.0
137,689 5.5
6.0
12,000- 12.0
15,000
28.0
15.0
0
3.0
22,000 9.5
area
(acre)
2.4
0.5
1.2
6.0
520.0
4.0
20.0
12.3
40.0
10.0
2.0
7.25
Treatment at Site
a) Aeration
b) Chlorination
c) Other
b,c
N
b
a,b
N
b
None
None
b
b
a,c
b,c
a,b
276
-------
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
Land Used For
Farm
Graze
Other
x
X
X
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessable to Public
c) Patrolled
d) Posted
e) Other
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
X
N
N
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a,b
a,d
b,c
b
a
b,d
a,c,d
b
a
a
a
a
b
a
b
b
a
b
b
b
a,d
Residence
On
Premises
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Recreation
Use-Site
Y-Golf
Y-Golf
Y-Golf
Y-picnics,
riding,
hiking
N
Y-Golf
Y-Hunting
Y-Golf
N
N
N
N
N
Y-Golf
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y-Golf
Y
N
Public
Health
Restrict
(Yes) (No)
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
277
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Monitoring Program
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Test Wells
No. Depth
0 a
1
0
0
1
4 32
1 1 varied
8 40-300
0
1
0
0
0
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) Veg. Analysis
f) Animal/Insect
g) Other
w
a,b,d,f
b,c
b,c
b,c
d,e,f
c,e
d,e
d,e,f
c
b,c,e
b,c
Frequency
d^Dnilv Effluent
UJ Uatly
w) Weekly
y) Yearly Re- Re-
o) Occasional used apply
d,d,o
w
d
w
d,o
w,o
monthly
d,d,bi-monthly
monthly
Effluent
Dis-
Dis-
charge
to
Receiv- to
ing Ground
Water Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Ground
Ground
Water
Inteferes
with
Operation
(Yes) (No)
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
278
-------
System Performance
Data Available On Future Plans Information on Parameters Available
a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
b) Buildup/Heavy Metal Receiving Water Quality
c) Buildup/Chlorides h) Effect/Water Table
d) Effect/Plants i) Odors Con- BODmg/1 SS mg/1 COD mg/1
Ref. e) Effect/Animals j) Health Hazards Ex- tinue De- Aban- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No, f) Deterioration k) Other pand As Is crease don Land water Land water Land Water
Groundwater Quality
24 xx 5-10 30-35
25 x 18 25
26 a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,ij,k x 95
27 j x 5-10 5-15
28 g x 17 10
29 x 25
30 x 42 88
31 d x
32 x
33 x 15
34 x 4.8
35 a,c,f x
36 x
37 x 5
38
39 x
40 i x
41 i x
42 x
43 x
44
45 x
46 x
279
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
pH Fecal Coli/100 ml Pmg/1 Total Nmg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Cl mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
0-15 64-67
22 240
25
0-15 0-1
76 170
700
0.1
24 7.3-
7.9
25
26
27 22
28 7.2
29 7.1 2.2
30 9.8 14.6x
104
31
32
33
34 7.3 600
35 6.5-7 10
36
37 6-7 6-7
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
19
50
1-10 40-60
33
7.9 10.6
5.8 12
1 10
50
280
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Descriptive Evaluation
Ref.
No.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Operated
by
Agency?
(Yes) (No)
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
I'l
N
N
Supple-
mental
Irrigation
x
X
X
X
x
X
Depth
As to
As Treatment Groundwatef
Irrigation Facility Table (ft)
20-30
4-5
10-160
12
6-8
30+
x 10-20
x 40
x 5
x 40
x 4-6
x
x 0-4
x 20
x 240
5
x IS
x 200
x 200
y "> t
Average
Slope
Application
Area (%)
<2
<2
2
2
0-10
<2
<2
<1
<1
<2
<2
<2
<6
<2
2-6
<2
2-6
Qimate
Class
(APWA)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
<2
281
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
A Municipal
Ref.
No. Agency & State
47 Incline Village, Nevada
48 City of Las Vegas, Nevada
49 City of Duncan, Oklahoma
50 Unified Sewerage Agency
Forest Grove, Oregon
51 City of Hillsboro, Oregon
52 City of Milton-Freewater, Oregon
53 Pennsylvania State University, State
College-University Park, Pennsylvania
54 City of Dumas, Texas
55 City of Kingsville, Texas
56 City of LaMesa, Texas
57 City of Midland, Texas
58 City of Monohans, Texas
59 City of San Angelo, Texas
60 City of Uvalde, Texas
61 City of Ephrata, Washington
62 Town of Quincy, Washington
63 City of Wala-Wala, Washington
64 City of Cheyenne, Wyoming
65 City of Rawlins, Wyoming
66 Mexico City D.F. - treated
67 Mexico City D.F. — raw
68 Moulton-Niguel Water Dist.,
California
69 City of Abilene, Texas
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
Pop.
Served
4,000
190,000
20,000
8,000
6,000
4,150
. 37,000
9,770
30,000
1 1 ,400
62,000
8,000
64,000
9,000
5,255
3,200
25,000
42,000
10,000
1 ,600,000
6,400,000
5,000
100,000
Pop.
Equiv.
of
Waste
2,400
23,250
12,910
28,500
37,000
13,000
26,300
1 1 ,000
62,000
8.000
73,600
12,250
343,000
a) None
b) Primary
c) Secondary
d) Tertiary
c,f
c,f
c,e
b,e,f
c,f
c,f,g
c
c
b
b,e,f
b,e
b
b
b,e
b,e,f
b,e
c
a
c
a
c,d,f
c,e,f
e) Oxidation Ponds
f) Effluent
Chlorination
g) Other
282
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Community Data
Sludge Disposal
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Treatment
a) Thickening
b) Digesting
c) Filtering
d) Drying Beds
e) Other
b
b
d
b
a,b
b
b
d
d
d
d
d
b,d
b,d
b
None
None
b
b,d
Disposal
a) Irrigation
b) Tank Truck
c) Spreading
d) Other
c
d
d
b,c
b,c
c,d
b,c
d
d
c,d
c
d
e
c
b,c
o
c
Average
Sewage
Flow
(mgd)
.5
26.9
2.5
1.6
1.0
2.0
3.7
1.0
3.0
.6
4.3
.8
5.0
.9
.5
.8
7-7.5
3.0
64.0
256.0
.5
9.0
Max.
System
Cap.
(mgd)
3.5
30.0
5.2
10.0
15.0
9.0
3.0
.5
6.0
3.0
5.0
1.0
1.5
.5
8.0
96.0
2560.0
.8
20.0
Combined
Sewer
System
%of
(Yes) (No) System
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y 100%
Y100%
N
N
Is
Storm
Water
Treated
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
283
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Year
Start
1971
1959
1964-1965
1951
1939
1946
1963
1962
1952
1960
1950
1945
1933
1938
1972
1955
1881
1880
1960
1902
1966
1920
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
e)Rail
f) Other
Total Area (acres)
Irri- Onsite
b,c
c
a
c
b,c
b,c
c
b
c
b,c
a
b
b
a,c,f
c
b
a
a
c
a
c
b
Used
200
780
180
40
413
1018
80
585
606
192
1000
40
740
150
120
33
1430
207
112,800
163
2019
Onsite
gation Buffer Storage Treatment Unused
200
780
180
40
165 120
1000
60 Several
Hundred
180
600
190
600
38
640
130
55
27
1330
207
112,800
160
1550
3
18
5
5-6
2
300
2
60
20
12
5
58
3
375
.25
Several
Hundred
400
100
40
4.5 48.5
1
42
96,000
14
284
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Months
Used
12
10
7
4
6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
8
12
7
4
Average
Flow
(mgd
0.5
6.0
0.5
0.4
2.0
2-7
0.5
1.0
3.0
0.6
4.3
0.8
5.0
0.9
0.4
0.8
7-7-5
64.0
256
0.5
4.5
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
Ibs. c) Clay
Solid d) Sand
per e) Gravel
Day f) Other
a
e
a,b,c
920 a,c
9,585 a,d
a,c,d
100 a,c,d
a,b,c
a,d
d
1,300
a,d
a,b,c
e
b,d
c,e
a,d,e
a,d,e
c
a
Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return
Not No
Grass Forest r ... v
cum- vege-
Acre Return Acre Return vated tation
40 $300
160 5
30 30
103.5
all
160 350
285
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Crop
Wheat
Milo
Alfalfa
Wheat
Bermuda
Alfalfa
Wheat
Corn
Wheat
Maize
Maize
Bermuda
Alfalfa
Milo
Cotton
Barley
No. of
Da>'s/' Application Rates
Week
i_: in./hr. in. /day in./wk. in./yr.
irri~
Acre Return gated Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
7
780
2.5 7.5
7 0.22 0.22
7 0.20 0.20
30 0.17- 2.0 104.0
0.25
80
100
40 $10,000
200
175
175
7
185 $76,700
Milo
Rye
Oats
Fescue 70
Alfalfa 100
Coastal Bermuda 385
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Maize
Oats
Corn
Wheat
X
X
Alfalfa
Corn
Wheat
Tomatoes
Chili
Flowers
Misc.
Cotton
Mai/e
Cojstal
Bcimuda
80
27 $840
29,800
40,800
23,700
3,700
1,850
240
12,710
1,550 $17,000
5-6
4
7
7
7
7
7
0.40 0.33
2.00
1.2
1.2
49.0
2.0 1.5 25.0 20.0
2.00 1.0
24.0
24.0 16-18
286
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press.
c) Tilling
d) Overland Flow
e) Ridge & Furrow
f) Flooding
f
a
a
a
b
a
a
a,e
e
a
a
f
f
a,f
a
f
other
other
b
f
b
border strip
Renovated
Water
Collect
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Year Annual Term
Cost Pur- Cost Lease
Acre chased Lease ($) (Year)
200 1948
100- 1941
350 195]
1962
100 1920's 5
1930's
1950's
1955
0 1937
5 1947
1940
1,500 1966
200 1960 annual
Value/land
1972 Est.
($/acre)
Facil- Adj.
ity Land
1,000 1,000
800 800
250 80-90
500-1000 500-1000
1,000 500
1,000 1,000
500 500
200 200
500 500
500 600
5 5
600 600
1,000- 17
1,340
2,000
300
287
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Land Application Facilities
Capital Improvements
Operation and Maintenance
Holding Ponds
Ref. Cost
No. S
47
48
49
50 25,000
51
52
53 500,000
54 0
55
56
57 0
58
59 204,700
60
61 205,873
62 0
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Year
Made
1951
1972
1962
1946
1955
1972
1902
Distance to
Cost Nearest
(mgd) Residence
$ (Miles)
0.5
Adj.
0.02
62,000 0.16
0.1
0.2
0.25
Adj.
0.25
0.02
0.02
0.25
0.01
5
0.3
On -site
Adj.
Adj.
0.1
Adj.
Annual
Budget
$
0
5,000
6,000
2,300
0
1,000
54,000
5,000
0
cap.
(mgd)
0
0
3.7
30.0
0
150.0
0.4
80.0
20.8
0
8.0
600.0
area
(acre)
2.3
18.0
5.0
2.0
300.0
1.3
60.0
12.0
5.0
58.0
3.0
375.0
Treatment at Site
a) Aeration
b) Chlorination
c) Other
b
b
b
c
288
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Farm
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land Used For
Graze Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessable to Public
c) Patrolled
d) Posted
e) Other
a
a
a
a,c,d
a,c,d
a,d
b
b
b
a
a
a,d
a,d
a,d
d
a
a
b
b
b
Residence
On
Premises
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Recreation
Use-Site
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y-Golf
N
N
N
Y-Fish,
Hunt
N
N
N
N
Y-Park
N
Y-Golf
Public
Health
Restrict
(Yes) (No)
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
289
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Test
No.
0
0
0
0
many
0
1
0
0
0
36
System Performance
Monitoring Program
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis Frequency
d) Groundwater d) Daily
Analysis w) Weekly Effluent
wens ^,, ... \ w , , w« -^
e) Veg. Analysis y) Yearly Re- Re-
Depth f) Animal/Insect o) Occasional used apply
g) Other
b,c d
b,c d,d x
b d
b d
100-350 b,c,d,e,f w,w,o,w o
178
40-80 a,b d,d
Effluent
Dis-
charge
to Lost
Receiv- to
ing Ground
Water Water
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Ground
Water
Interferes
with
Operation
(Yes) (No)
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
290
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Future Plans
Information on Parameters Available
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Data Available On
a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
b) Buildup/Heavy Metal Receiving Water Quality
c) Buildup/Chlorides h) Effect /Water Table
d) Effect/Plants i) Odors Con- BOD mg/1 SS mg/1 COD mg/1
e) Effect/Animals j) Health Hazards Ex- tinue De- Aban- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
f) Deterioration k) Other pand As Is crease don Land water Land water Land Water
Groundwater Quality
x
x
23
600
20-30
23
275
Trace
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
i
x
x
a,f,hj
d
none
a,c,f,h,i
15
75
5-8
300
30
7-7.5
x
x
291
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
pH Fecal Coli/100ml Pmg/1 Total N mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Cl mgA
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
47
48 7.6
49
50 6.5
51
52 6.7-6.5
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61 7.5
62 0.1 7.5
63
64
65
66 5 0.5 20-30
67
68
69
292
-------
Ref.
No.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Operated
by
Agency?
(Yes) (No)
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
B
A
Y
N
Supple-
mental
Irrigation
X
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Descriptive Evaluation
True Land Disposal
As T
Irrigation
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
69
sal
s
nent
ility
X
X
X
X
X
Depth
to
Groundwatet
Table (ft)
100+
110
100-350
200
8-14
15
30
20
30
30
Average
Slope
Application
Area (%)
3.54
0-2
2-6
2
<2
2
<2
6
2
2
2
<6
<2
1-10
0-2
Qimate
Qass
(APWA)
B
B
B
C
C
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
E
E
A
A
A
B
293
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES INTERVIEWED
DATA NOT TABULATED1
Qimate
Gassification Name Reason
A Barstow, California Irrigate STP grounds only
A Madera, California Evaporation-Percolation
A Porterville, California Evaporation-Percolation
A Visalia, California Flow discharged to ditch — all
A Whittier Narrows, California Percolation
A Yuba City, California Evaporation-Percolation
D Nantucket, Massachusetts Evaporation-Percolation
D Scituate, Massachusetts Evaporation-Percolation
B Gallup, New Mexico Facility abandoned
B Hobbs, New Mexico Facility abandoned
'In addition, three facilities originally selected could not be interviewed.
294
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
8. Industrial
Facility Data
Sludge Disposal
Name
Ref. City &
No. State
li Green Giant Company
Buhl, Idaho
2i Western Farmers Association
Aberdeen, Idaho
3i Celotex Corporation
Lagro, Indiana
4i Commercial Solvents
Terre Haute, Indiana
5i Chesapeake Foods
Cordova, Maryland'
6i Celotex Corporation
L'Anse, Michigan
7i Gerber Products Company
Fremont, Michigan
8i Michigan Milk Producers Assoc.
Ovid, Michigan
9i Simpson Lee Paper Company
Vicksburg, Michigan
lOi Green Giant Company
Montgomery, Minnesota
Hi Stokely Van Camp
Fairmont, Minnesota
12i H. J. Heinz Company
Salem, New Jersey
13i Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.
Bridgeton, New Jersey
14i U. S. Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock Oregon
15i Weyerhaeuser Company
Springfield, Oregon
16i Pet Milk Company
Biglerville, Pennsylvania
17i Howes Leather Company
Frank, West Virginia
18i American Stores Dairy Company
Fairwater, Wisconsin
19i Libby, McNeill & Libby
Janesville, Wisconsin
20i Idaho Supreme Potatoe Company
Firth, Idaho
Pop.
Equiv.
of
Waste
Wastewater Treatment
a) None f) Effluent
b) Primary Chlorination
c) Secondary g) Screening
d) Tertiary h) Other
e) Oxidation
Ponds
a)
b)
<0
d)
e)
Treatment
Thickening
Digesting
Filtering
Drying Beds
Other
a)
b)
c)
d)
Disposal
Irrigation
Tank Truck
Spreading
Other
3,100
8,400
106,000
5,500
73,500
39,200
30,000
9,400
120,000
110,000
39,000
245,000
30,000
64,200
39,000
d
d
d
b
b
g,h
c,d
c,d
295
-------
Type of Industry
a) Canning f) Beverage
b)Milk
Average Max. c) Refinery
Sewage System d) Pulp &
Ref. Flow Cap. Paper
No. (mgd) (mgd) e) Inorganic
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Facility Data
Wastes to Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
Year e) Rail
Start f) Other
g) Organic
h) Food
Processing
i) Other
Total Area (acres)
Onsite Onsite
Irri- Buf- Stor- Treat- Un-
Used gation fer age ment used
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
101
Hi
12i
13i
14i
15i
16i
17i
18i
19i
20i
1.0
0.5
0.18
0.07
0.55
0.6
0.8
0.25
3.2
1.2
1.5
1.3
3.0
1.2
0.5
Jan-Jun
0.103
Jul-Dec.
0.308
0.015
0.4
0.75
0.63
1.0
0.5
0.37
1.15
1.8
1.5
0.3
3.2
2.0
2.16
3.5
0.648
0.466
0.144
a
a
i
g
g
d
a
b
d
a
a
a
a
a,g
1970
1971
1965
1972
1966
1953
1964
1971
1949
1950
1955
1961
1954
1959-1960
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
135
110
20
160
40
135
153
95
480
360
415
32
75
420
100
135
90
12.6
110
38
84
90
26
80
360
400
30
44.1
380
75
2.4 5.0
1
1.5 0.5
16 35
3
380
15
2
40
25
20
49
60
69
30.9
1941
i.Spent Tanning
Solution 1972
b 1962
z 1952
h 1969
59 50
c
c
c
c
16
200
50
190
10
25
50
80
2
75
25
2
75
110
296
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
li
21
3i
4i
5i
61
71
8i
91
lOi
Hi
121
13i
141
151
161
171
181
191
201
Months
Used
2
9
12
12
12
6
12
12
12
4
7
3
12
9
3
12
7
5
5
11
Average
Flow
(mgd)
1.0
0.5
0.18
0.07
0.55
0.6
0.8
0.25
3.2
1.2
1.5
1.3
3.0
1.2
0.5
0.205
0.015
0.4
0.75
0.63
a)Loam
b) Silt
Ibs. c) day
Solid d) Sand
per e) Gravel
Day f) Other
a,b
a,c,f
4,000 a,b
a,c,d
a,d
d
d
d
700 d
a,b,c
19,000 c
b,d
87,500 d
a,e
a
a,b
a
a,b
a,b
a,b
C
Acre
1.5
50
3840
100
90
26
360
100
30
44.1
320
75
50
10
25
50
80
Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return
Grass Forest Not No
Return Return Culti- Vege
Return
Acre $ vated tation Crop Acre $
Corn 90
50
90
60
Alfalfa
Corn
150
150
60
3,000
110
297
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
101
Hi
12i
13i
14i
ISi
16i
17i
18i
19i
20i
No. of
Days/
Week
Irri-
gated
7
6
7
5
5
7
5-6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6-7
5
5
6
7
Application Rates
in./hr.
Max. Avg.
0.18 0.18
0.01 0.01
0.21 0.21
1.0 0.5
0.58 0.58
0.77
0.18 0.18
0.38 0.34
0.14 0.017
0.44 0.019
in./day
Max.
1.1
0.5
0.83
24
0.42
5.9
1.5
0.1
3.0
2.0
2.25
0.8
Avg.
0.53
0.5
0.55
12
0.35
1.0
2.7
2.0
0.41
0.46
0.3
in./wk.
Max.
7.7
1.5
5.81
144
3.0
8.2
1.5
0.7
21
6.3
3.24
Avg.
3.68
1
3.85
72
2.5
1.0
10
19
2.0
2.9
3.24
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press.)
c) Tilling Reno-
d) Overland flow vated
e) Ridge & Furrow Water $
in./yr. f) Flooding
Max.
48
384
15
149
2400
150
4.3
20.0
18.2
250
42.0
47.0
Avg. g) Other
48
184
10
100
1200
124
14.0
220
42.0
47.0
e
b
b
a
a
b
b
b
b
a
b
a
b
a
a
a
a
b
b
b
Collect
(Yes) (No)
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Cost
Acre
450
55
400
400
200
250
1000
110
250
600-800
298
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ref.
No.
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
101
Hi
12i
13i
14i
15i
16i
17i
18i
19i
20i
Value/Land
Annual 1972Est.
Cost Term ($/acre)
Year Least Lease Facil- Adj.
Purchased ($) Year ity
55/acre
1971
Prior to
1940
1960-65
Prior to
1955
Prior to
1953
1937
1960-72
Pre 1950
1961
1953
1965
1971
1942
1952
1969-71
1,000
450
1,000
750
800
100
300
350
400
400
650
800
600
500
100
1,000
400
1,500
Land
1,000
450
1,000
750
800
100
300
350
400
400
650
600
500
100
300
500
1,500
Zoning
a) Residential
Capital b) Commercial
Improvements c) Industrial
Cost d) Farm
Cost Year (mgd) e) Green Belt Facil- Adj.
$
1,200
95,000
120,000
450,000
75,000
140,000
72,000
100,000
100,000
240,000
NA
10,000
40,000
6,000
60,000
Made
1963
1964
1971
1970
1965
1953
1964
1971
1949
1965-72
1955
1961
1966-72
1971-72
1955
1952
($) f) Other
1,200
190,000
670,000
250,000
93,000
43,750
DNA
90,000
68,000
20,000
NA
15,000
80,000
c
d
d
c
f
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
a
c
d
d
ity Prop.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
Distance
to Nearest
Residence
(Miles)
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
4.00
Adj.
1.00
1.00
Adj.
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.02
0.10
0.30
0.20
0.20
299
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Treatment
Holding At Site
Ref.
No.
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
lOi
Hi
12i
13i
14i
15i
16i
I7i
18i
19i
20i
Annual
Budget
$
25,000
6,000
25,000
65,000
0
35,000
28,000
23,000
40,000
28,526
4,500
2,750
Ponds a) Aeration
Cap.
(mgd)
6.2
0.17
0.25
125.0
24.0
20.0
0
120.0
35.0
0
0
0
Area b) Chlorination
(acre) c) Other
5.0 c
1.0
0.5
35.0 c
3.0 c
15.0
40.0
9.0
2.0
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessable
to Public Resi-
c) Patrolled
Land Used For d) Posted
Farm Graze Othere) Other
a
a
a,e
a
b
b
a
a
b
b
a,b
x a,d
x a,d
a,d
b
b
dence
On
Premises
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Recre-
ation
Use
Public
Health
Re-
strict
Site (Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y-game
hunting
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y2
Test Well
No.
0
4
7
N
N
16
0
N
2
0
N
N
N
0
N
10
Depth
(ft.)
30
10-25
6-45
5
300
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Monitoring Program
Test For
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis Frequency
d) Groundwater d) Daily
Analysis w) Weekly
e) Veg. Analysis y) Yearly
Ref. f) Animal/Insect o) Occa-
No. g) Other sional
System Performance
Dis-
charge
to Lost
Receiv- to
ing Ground-
Data Available On
Ground a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
Water b) Buildup/Heavy Metal Receiving Water
c) Buildup/Chlorides Quality
d) Effect/Plants
e) Effect/Animals
f) Deterioration
Re- Re- ing Ground- tion Groundwater
used apply water Water (Yes) (No) Quality
Inter-
feres
with
Opera-
tion
h) Effect/Water
i) Odors
j) Health Hazards
k) Other
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
101
Hi
a,b,c,d
d
a,b,d
a,b,c,d,e
a,b,c,f
a,b
a,b
a
a,b,c,e
a,b,g
d,d,o,w
d
0,0,0
d,d,y, monthly,
ea. cutting
-,w,w
5/w,5/w
w,w
o
d,d,d
w,w,d
20i
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
a,f,h,j
f,g
a,b,c,d,f,h,ij
c,h
a,g,i,k
j
d,e
a
301
-------
Future Plans
Con-
Ref. Ex- tinue De- Aban-
No. pand As Is crease don
li x
2i x
3i x
4i x
5i x
6i x
7i x
8i x
9i x
lOi x
Hi x
12i
13i x
14i x
15i x
16i x
17i x
181 x
19i x
20i x
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Information on Parameters Available
BODmg/1 SSmg/1 COD mg/1 Ph Fecal Coli/100 ml
To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
3,719
30,000 40,000
200 2
2,100
200 2
460
1,200
1,060
2.92
56
520
3,000
1,400
1,800
4.3 4.3
6.3
8.5
6-9
7.0
302
-------
DATA
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
Pmg/1 Total Nmg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrite mg/1
Clmg/1
Descriptive Evaluation
Average
Depth to Slope
Ground- Appli- Climate
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- Water cation Gass
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Table Area (%) (APWA)
li
2i
3i
4i
5i
6i
7i
8i
9i
lOi
Hi
15i Trace
16i 0.9
20i
5-10
37
<20
2.0
124
0.01
0.9
133.7
10
4.5-11
4-40
1.5-3
80
<2
<2
2-6
<2
<2
<2
2-6
2-6
2-6
5-10
<2
0-3
2-6
V
V
IV
IV
III
V
V
V
V
V
V
IV
IV
IV
HI
IV
IV
V
V
38
32
303
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
MAIL SURVEYS OF LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Information was requested from Municipal
and Industrial Operators of land application
facilities. The standard questionnaire,
Appendix A, was used. This appendix
contains a tabulation of the replies.
305
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Ref.
No.
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
Agency and State
City of Winslow,
Ariz., WW Plant
City of Banning, Ca.
City of Brentwood, Ca.
Buellton Comm. Dist., Ca.
City of Coalinga, Ca.
City of Corning, Ca.
City of Corcoran, Ca.
Co. Dept. of
Honor Camps, Ca.
Cutler Public Utility
Dist., Ca.
City of Dixon, Ca.
City of Elsinore, Ca.
Dept. of Parks & Rec.,
San Diego, Ca.
Eastern Mun. Water Dist.,
San Jacinto, Ca.
City of Escalon, Ca.
Fallbrook San. Dist., Ca.
City of Greenfield, Ca.
City of Gridley, Ca.
City of Hanford, Ca.
City of Healdsburg, Ca.
City of Kerman, Ca.
City of Kingsburg, Ca.
City of Leucadia, Ca.
City of Loyal ton, Ca.
Milpitas San. Dist., Ca.
Napa San. Dist., Ca.
Pop.
Served
8,500
12,000
3,000
1,500
6,000
3,500
6,000
Varied
4,740
4,000
30,000
2,500
6,500
2,950
3,620
16,000
5,700
2,800
4,110
6,000
945
34,000
55,000
Pop.
Equiv.
of
Waste
10,700
3,500
6,000
30,000
6,500
7
16,000
2,800
30,600
7,500
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
a) None
b) Primary
c) Secondary
d) Tertiary
e) Oxidation Ponds
f) Effluent Chlorination
g) Other
b,e
b,c,e,f
c,f,g
c
b,e
b,e,f
b,c.,f
c,e
e
c
b
c
b,e
b,e
b,e
e
b
c,d
b,c,e,f
e
b,c,f
c,e
Average
Sewage
Flow
(mgd)
0.83
0.6
0.25
0.015-
0.02
0.75
0.3
0.76
0.015
0.4
0.5
0.25
0.002
2
0.25
0.65
0.22
1.7
2
0.55
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.24
3.0
5
Max.
System
Cap.
(mgd)
1.75
2.2
0.27
0.3
2
1.0
1.5
0.02
0.8
5.31
AF/D
0.50
0.006
2.5
1.5
.625
0.25
2
3
2
0.3
1.75
0.75
1.2
3.6
11
Year
Started
1941
1941
1960
1963
1950
1962
1965
1960
1968
1920
1968
1965
1940
1955
1951
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
e)Rail
f) Other
a,c
b
b
b
b
c
c
b
b
c,d
a
c
b
c
c,d
b
1962-68 b
1950
1962
a,b
b,c
c
c
306
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Ref.
No.
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
Used
3.75
15
8
40
120
Varied
75
50
300+
2.5
380
11
43
12
215
28
40+
110
240
5
Total
Irri-
gation Buffer
1.50
10
40 10
85+ 0
75
65
1.5
25
20-30
2
155 20
10
40
240
10
Acres
Onsite
Storage
5
4
35
3
1
6
55
8
3
Onsite
Treat-
ment
0
20
2
4
11
1.5
155
20
3
Un-
used
10
0
22
80
110
200
1
10-20
28
20
2
Months
Used
12
12
2
12
10
12
12
12
12
Occ.
12
12
12
12
12
2
12
11
12
Av.
Flow
(mgd)
0.6
0.2
0.015-
0.2
0.3+
0.76
0.015
0.35
0.25
0.002
0.25
1.70
2.0
0.5
0.6
Soil Type
a) Loam
b)Silt
Lbs. c) Clay
Solid d)Sand
per e) Gravel
Day f) Other
197 d,e
c,d
d,e
49 b,c
c,d
d
c
a,d
<30
d
a
10-90 a
d,e
350 c
a
d
a,e
a
Depth
to
Ground-
water
Table
(ft)
15
30-50
20+
10
38
15
20
180
0-20
100
40
80
6
2
7
Average
Slope
Appli-
cation
Area
(%)
1
Flat
0.5
1
5
0.2
2-3
5
0
5
0.3
0.5
0.10
Flat
1-2
Level
Climate
Class
(APWA)
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
307
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
Ground Cover (acres)
and Annual Return
Grass Forest
Acre Acre Not No
Ref. Re- Re- Culti- Vege-
No. turn turn vated tation
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MUNICIPAL
Crop
Acre
Return
$
in./hr. p
Max. Avg.
x
1
10
10
1.5
1.0
Olives
Pasture
Alfalfa
Cotton
Grapes
Pasture
Alfalfa, Beets
Avocado
Lemon
20
20
85
70
No. of
Days/
Week
Irri-
gated
2
20M
7+
2
Daily
7 39,000
Occ.
7
Application Rates
in./day
Max. Avg.
in./wk.
Max. Avg.
in./yr.
Max. Avg.
20M gpd
0.2 0.1
25/yr
2,000 4
6,000
28
12
80
Alfalfa
Cotton
155 3,500
40
308
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press.)
c) Tilling
d) Overland flow
Ref. e) Ridge and furrow
No. f) Flooding
1 a,b
2 a
3 b
4 b
5
6 b,c
7 c
8 a,c
9 c
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a
a
a
a
b
c
b
c
b
a
Reno-
vated
Water
Collect
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
(Reirrigalion)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Value/Land
Annual 1972 Est. Capital
Cost
Acre
$
300
1,345
100
750
4,500
1,000
900
3,500
1,000
350
Year
Pur-
chased
1941
1940
1959-
1969
1958
1950
1960-
1965
1966
1930
1970
1950
1972
1969
1965
Cost Term ($/acre)
Lease Lease Facil-
$ (Year) ity
3,000
1,345
400 4 1 ,000
5 9,000
45,200
1,200
4,000
3,000
900
3,500
700
1,000
Adj.
Land
3,000
1,345
1,000
1,000
1,200
4,500
3,000
900
3,500
2,000
Improvements
Cost Year C
$ Made (i
15,5001962-71
13,0001972
170,0001972
15,000
50,000 100,000
309
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Operation and Maintenance
Zoning
a) Residential
b) Commercial
Ref.
No.
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
c) Industrial
d) Farm
e) Green Belt
f) Other
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
a
d
e
d
d
a
b
c
d
c
d
d
c
d
d
f
Facil-
ity
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Adj.
Prop.
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dis-
tance to
Nearest
Residence
(ft.)
2,500
2,500
1,000
3,000
1,000
5,280
5,000
1,800
300
5,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
500
3,500
2
Annual
Budget
$
19,500
64,000
30,000
9,000
4,000
8,000
3,800
13,500
45,000
43,000
8,000
5,000
23,050
Cap.
(mgd)
23.6
4.5
30
7
6
19
11
1.68
55
12
10
Treatment
At Site
a) Aeration
Area b) Chlorination
(acre) c) Other
18 No
3.5 b
5
a
4
35 a
<1 a
4 a,b
30 No
4 a
<1 a
19.5 a
a,b
8
a
20 a,b
a
a,c
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessible
to Public
c) Patrolled
Land Used For d) Posted
Farm Graze Other e) Other
x a
a,d
x a,d
a
x a,c
x a,d
d
e
a,d
a,d
x a,c,d
No No No a,d
x a
x a
x a
No a
No a,d
x a,b
x a
x b
a
Golf b,c
Course
x a,e
310
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Operation and Maintenance
Monitoring Program
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
Public
Resi- Recre- Health
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dence
on
Premises
Yes/Golf
No
No
No
No
No
No
1
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
ation
Use
Site
Golf
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Re-
strict Test Well
(Yes) (No) No. Depth
None
None
Yes (odor)
Yes
(runoff not permitted)
Yes
(Mosquito
coated)
Yes
(Health
hazard)
Limited
Yes
(Backflow
prevention)
Yes
1 700
No
Yes
Co. &St.
No
Yes 9 15
(No admit.)
No None
No
No
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) Ve. Analysis
f) Animal/Insect
g) Other
c
d
c
d
c
c,d
c,d
e
f
c
d
f
c
d
c
d,f
c,d
f (on request)
None
a
b, 50 & 60
f, 4 yrs.
e, spot
c,d
c, Mon.; d, Mon.
e,f,g, 3 yrs.
c,d
c,d,e
None
c,d,e
Frequency
d) Daily
w) Weekly
y) Yearly
o) Occasional
d
w
2/d
2/d
y
l/d
o
2/y
i/y
0
2/y
2/y
d
d
o
2 yrs.
d
y
monthly
d
y
Are
Under-
d rains
Used
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Effluent
Dis-
charge
to
Receiv-
Re- Re- ing
used apply Water
X
31
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
Effluent System Performance
Ground- Data Available On
water a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
" Heavy Metal Receiving Water Qual.
' Chlorides h) Effect/Water Table
d) Effect/Plants i) Odors
e) Effect/Animals j) Health Hazards
f) Deterioration k) Other
Ref.
No.
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
Inter- b
feres c
Lost With d
to Opera- e
Ground- tion f]
water (Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Groundwater Qual.
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
}
c,f,g,ij
No
No
ij
No
No
d,f,g
a,b,c,g
No
b,d
h
Future Plans
Con-
Ex- tinue De- Aban-
pand As Is crease don
Information on Parameters
Available
BOD mg/1 SS mg/1
To Ground- To Ground-
Land water Land water
270 ppm 30-80 ppm
120 ppm
138
X
None
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ponds with treatment
X
<250
200
NA
270
210
250
1,050
205
to be relocated
x 200
<30
15-20
30
65
270
170
40
113
15
197
NA
NA
<30 <250 <30
NA
5-7 <05
280 50
285
192
180
n:
18
312
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
MUNICIPAL
System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
COD mg/I pH Fecal Coli/100 ml P mg/1 Total N mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 I Cl mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
1 8.5± 8.5
2 8.8 9 ppm
3 7.7
4
5
6 7.3 7.3
7
8 30/100
9
10
11
12 75
13 385 88 7.2 7.3 42 30 0.2 180 135
14 ' None None
15
16 7.2 6.0 448 18.2 375 185
17 7 0.2 0.69
18 7.5 7.5
19 7.8 7.6 <2.2
20 7.1 6.9 38 37 42 34 00
21
22 7.2 7 2.2 6.3 11 367
23
24
25
313
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Ref.
No.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Agency and State
City of Patterson, Ca.
City ofPinedale,Ca.
City ofPixley,Ca.
Pomerado Co., Ca.
Water Dist.
City of Paso Robles, Ca.
City of Reedley,Ca.
City of Ripon, Ca.
City of Riverbank, Ca.
City of Riverside, Ca.
San Bernardino Co.
Special Dist. Div., Ca.
San Juan Bautista, Ca.
City of Santa Paula, Ca.
City of Santa Rosa, Ca.
City of Soledad, Ca.
Strathmore Public
Utility Dist., Ca.
Terra Bella Sewer
Main Dist., Ca.
City of Tipton, Ca.
City ofTulare,Ca.
City of Tuolumne, Ca.
Pop. d)
Equiv. e)
Pop. of f)
Served Waste g)
3,743
5,000
1,200
13,500
8,000
8,400 4,000
2,700
4,000 4,000
140,000 180,000
6,500
1,200
18,301
2,000
5,000 5,000
±2,200
1,000
969
16,900 18,368
1,200-
3,500
Valley Center Munic. Water
Dist., Ca.
Waterford Comm. Serv.
Dist., Ca.
Westwood Comm. Serv.
Dist., Ca.
Wheatland Dept. of
Public Works, Ca.
City of Woodland, Ca.
' City of Scott City, Ks.
100 17 Ibs./d
3,000 3,000
2,060 350 lbs./d
1,500 255 Ibs./d
23,000 92,000
4,325
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
a) None
b) Primary
c) Secondary
d) Tertiary
e) Oxidation Ponds
f) Effluent Chlorination
g) Other
b,d,e
b,c,e
c,e,f
c,e,f
c
b,e
e
b,c,f
b,e,f
e
c,f
d
b
b,e
b
e
b,c,e
b,c,e,f
c,f
b,e
e
b,c
Average Max.
Sewage System
i Flow Cap.
(mgd) (mgd)
0.75 0.5
0.75 1
1.1 1.5
1.2 2.2
1.1 1.45
0.3 0.35
0.4 0.6
17.5 25
.5 .75
2.8 7.2
1.5 2.7
0.14 0.68
0.4 0.5
0.2 0.22
2.6 3.0
0.135 0.35
0.00145 0.09
0.3 0.6
0.86 1.3
0.15 5
7 15
0.432 0.4
300 gpm
Year
Started
1960
1963
1951
1972
1925
1949
1947
1947
1923
1973
1934
1950
1960
1962
1922
1966
1968
1957
1970
1968
1890
1971
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
e)Rail
f) Other
a,b
c
b
c
b
b,c
b
b
b
c
b
b
c
a
b
b
b
b
c
c
b
b
c
a,b,c
c
314
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Ref.
No.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Used
17
57.11
20
15
41
12
30
73
98.5
5
0.1
120
100
7
20
40
780
26
15
20
27
15
960
25
Irri-
gation
20
None
30
20
38
60
0.1
120
15
36
10
30
665
26
15
None
900
Onsite
Buffer Storage
25 25
10
8
40
10
24
None 38.5
1
20 10
4
2
0 83.5
32 2±
5
15 3
4 7
124
Onsite
Treat-
ment
25
7
5
6
2
2
4
1
25.4
6
2
5
27
4
124
Un-
used
None
10
20
20
0
12
73
None
2
140
53
10
6.9
32
12
20
None
330
Months
Used
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3+
12
7
12
12
12
12
10
12
12
12
8
12
Av.
Flow
(mgd)
0.75
0.75
1.2
1.1
0.3
0.4
17.5
0.5
2.8
0.02
0.4
0.125
2.6
0.135
0.00145
0.3
0.86
0.15
6
Lbs.
Solid
per
Day
0.3
Trace
13.4
320
176
150
50
200
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
c) Clay
d) Sand
e) Gravel
f) Other
c,d
d
a
d,e
c,e
d
a,d
a,d
e
a,e
b
a
d
a
a
a
d
c
a
a
b,d
d,e
c
a
Depth
to
Ground-
water
Table
(ft)
110
200
10-15
10
20
12
18
60
7
5(min.)
75
150
90
175
10
1
6in-l ft
30
2-10
Average
Slope
Appli-
cation
Area
(%)
15
6
20
5
Level
1
5
15
0.2
0-5
1
1
0.2
18-23
20
1
0.2
.0005
Climate
Class
(APWA)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
315
-------
LAND APPLICATION-Municipal
Ground Cover (acres)
and Annual Return
Grass Forest
Acre Acre Not No
Ref. Re- Re- Culti- Vege-
No. turn turn vated tation
Crop
Acre
Return
$
No. of
Days/
Week
Irri-
gated
Application Rates
in./hr. in./day in./wk. in./yr.
Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
30
27
20
30
38
30
32
20
Alfalfa
Citrus
Cotton, Corn,
Alfalfa, Milo
0.1
10
27
10
5
2
None
5 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.3 2.8 2.2 147.4 112.7
None
7
NA
None
1
7
6
0.5
NA
7 0.008 0.19
7 0.8 2
1 hour per month
NA
3.1
0.25
2
1.33 69.16
7 5.6 292
50 10
Safflower 620 10,000
Milo, Sudan grass,
Rice
316'
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press.) Reno-
c) Tilling vated
d) Overland flow Water
Ref. e) Ridge and furrow Collect
No. f) Flooding (Yes) (No)
Value/Land
Annual 1972 Est.
Cost Year Cost Term (S/acre)
Acre Pur- Lease Lease Facil- Adj.
$ chased $ (Year) ity Land
Capital
Improvements
Cost Year Cost
$ Made (mgd)
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
b
b
a
NA
b
a
b,c
b,c
a
b
c
a
a
NA
b
b,c
50
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
1,000
2,500
800
NA
3,500
2,000
1960
1963
1948
1948
1968
1948
1947
2,000 2,000
3,000 2,5001963
30 1948 30
800 900 1 mil. 1970
3,500 3,500
1,000 1,000 20,0001970
45,0001972
15,000 20,000 22,0001972
99 15,000 15,0001971-72
150 200 100,000 1955
3,000 72,0001949
300 500 2,0001913
100 1966
1949
0 1913
1960 30
800 800250,0001949
1964& 1969
1965- 5,000 5,000150,000 1965-
1971 1971
1957 6,0001972
200 1971
1,500 1968 3,500 3,500268,0001968
100 1930 600 800
to 500 1960-64
412.50 1968
1
317
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal - Operation and Maintenance
Zoning Security Used
a) Residential a) Fenced
b) Commercial Dis- Treatment b) Accessible
c) Industrial tance to At Site to Public
d) Farm Nearest Annual a) Aeration c) Patrolled
Ref. e) Green Belt Facil- Adj. Residence Budget Cap. Area b) Chlorination Land Used For d) Posted
No. f) Other iry Prop. (ft.) $ (rogd) (acre) c) Other Farm Graze Other e) Other
a
a,e
x
x a
a,b
a
a,b
a
a,d
x a,c,d
b
d
x x a,d
x a
x a,b
x a,b
a,d
a
x a,d
a,c,d
x a,c,d
x
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
d
a,b,c
d
d
c,d
d
b
c
a,e
d
a
d
d
d
d
a,b,e
a
a
d
d
d
d
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2,640
2,000
800
12,000
1,000
1,200
800
2,500
400
200
50
1,000
800
400
1,280
50
200
3,000
1,000
6,000
1,300
25,000
50,000
27,445
22,000
9,500
7,800
10,000
7,240
2,500
60,495
29,337
5,000
4,000
12,000
50,000
15,835
0.5
5.9
None
N.A.
82.3
8
5
3
2
19.5
4
76
3
44
15
308
10
24
38.5
20
2
18
27
7±
364
27
a,b
a
a,b
b
a
a
a,b
a,c
b
a
a,b
a
a
318
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Operation and Maintenance
Public
Resi- Recre- Health
dence ation Re-
Ref. on
Use
strict
Monitoring Program
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater Frequency
Analysis d) Daily
e) VegAnalysis w) Weekly
Test Well f) Animal/Insect y) Yearly
Are
Under-
drains
Effluent
Dis
charge
to
Receiv-
Used Re- Re- ing
No. Premises Site (Yes) (No) No. Depth g) Other
o) Occasional (Yes) (No) used apply Water
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
c,d
N
Yes
(Cal. use of
water-STD)
No
No
No
No
N.A.
No
None
Yes None
No discharge
Yes
(State & Co.)
No
Yes
(No spill)
Yes 1
(Sprinklers, etc.
not for drinking)
No
Yes None
(Posted against
usage)
d
f
c,d
f
a,c,d
c,d
c,d
c,d
d
w
d
2 yrs.
w
4 yrs.
monthly
N
N
N
N
N
c,d
c,d
c,d,f
monthly
monthly
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
319
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Effluent
Ground- Data Available On
water a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
System Performance
Ref.
No.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Inter- b)
feres C)
Lost With d)
to Opera- e)
Ground- tion f)
water (Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
" Heavy Metal Receiv
" Chlorides h) Effeci
Effect/Plants i) Odors
Effect/Animals j) Health
Deterioration k) Other
Groundwater Qual.
a,b,c
a,c,f,g,h,i,j
None
None
None
M
a,b,c,g,i,j
M
g
M
(Reduce infiltration rate)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
f
d,e,f,g,h,i,j
y
h
d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k
d,e,f,g,ij
i
Future Plans
Con-
Ex- tinue De- Aban-
pand As Is crease don
Information on Parameters
Available
BOD mg/1 SS mg/1
To Ground- To Ground-
Land water Land water
x
x
X
X
X
X
271
116
250
212
300
150
93
74
300
38
10.6
33
25
2-10
22
82
150
162
165
320
250
500
13
300
37
Trace
31
25
5-20
34
76
150
(Facility to
be built)
x
X
X
X
144 138
3.5 2.3
250
280 None
100-80 <20
320
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal - System Performance
Information on Parameters Available
COD mg/1 pH Fecal Coli/100 ml P mg/1 Total N mg/l Nitrate mg/l Nitrite mg/1 Cl mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 425
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 300
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
6.6-7.6
7 -3
7.5 7.5 <4.5
7.6 7.8
7.8 2-5
7.3 9.0 NA 35.0 1 NA
179 7.7
7.0 2.8
7.2 7.2
6.8
Yes
395
20
0 5.6 0.0 0.006
0.06
NA
8.0
ll.Q 7.38 5.30 x
3.02 2.2 0.82
30
190
7.5 7.5
7.5 8.5-9.5
0 0
321
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Ref.
No.
51
52
53
54
Agency and State
City ofSublette,Ks.
Village of Cassopolis, Mi.
City of East Jordan, Mi.
Harbor Springs Area
Pop.
Served
1,333
2,100
2,041
Pop. d
Equiv. e
of f
Waste g
Sewage Disposal Auth., Mi.3,500
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
City of Harrison, Mi.
Village of Middleville, Mi.
1,500
1,865
Ottawa Co . Rd. Comm ., Mi. 80
80
Village of Roscommon, Mi. 808
City of Helena, Mt.
City of West
Yellowstone, Mt.
City of Grant, Ne.
City of Winnemucca, Nv.
City of Lovington, N.M.
City of Dickinson, N.D.
Boise City, Ok.
City of Bend, Or.
City of Cofulla, Tx.
City of Coleman,Tx.
City of Comanche, Tx.
City ofDalhart, Tx.
City of Denver City, Tx.
City of Elsa, Tx.
City of Goldthwaite, Tx.
City of Idalou, Tx.
City ofKingsville,Tx.
City of LaMesa, Tx.
City of Morton, Tx.
City of Munday, Tx.
City of Rails, Tx.
City of Raymondville, Tx
City ofSanSaba, Tx.
City of Seagraves, Tx.
City of Van Horn, Tx.
City of Winters, Tx.
City of Soap Lake, Wa.
City of Spring Green, Wi.
24,000
Winter
1,000
Summer
15,000
1,100
3,900
10,000
14,000
1,980
1,500
3,900
5,608
5,000
5,700
4,200
5,000
1,700
1,800
6,590
11,559
3,760
1,700
2,100
. 7,986
2,555
2,500
3,000
2,907
1,100
1,200
663
3,600
1,640
4,481
8,823
1,000
0.49
Community Data
Wastewater Treatment
a) None
b) Primary
c) Secondary
d) Tertiary
e) Oxidation Ponds
f) Effluent Chlorination
g) Other
b,e,f
e,f
e
e
e
b,c
e
e
b,c
e
a
b,c,f
b,e
b,c
b,f
b,c
e
b,c,e
b,e
b,c,e
b,c,e,f
b,c,e
b,c
b,d
c,f
b,c,e
b,c,e
b
c,f
b
Average
Sewage
Flow
(mgd)
0.13
0.015
0.25
0.5
0.07
0.025
0.008
3
0.5
0.171
0.35
0.5
1
0.001
0.5
0.165
0.3
0.4
0.64
0.15
0.18
0.2
3
0.1
0.87
0.126
0.2
0.15
0.154
0.11
Max.
System
Cap.
(mgd)
0.4
0.31
0.14
0.01
10
2.5
0.80
3
0.002
2.0
1
0.72
1
3
0.21
0.1
3.1
0.35
1.0
0.166
0.35
0.2
0.5
Year
Started
1968
1966
1972
1972
1971
1970
1969
1960
1966
1960
1964
1950
1962
1970
1970
1972
1971
Wastes to
Disposal by
a) Ditch
b) Pipe (gravity)
c) Pipe (pressure)
d) Truck
e)Rail
f) Other
c
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
b
c
b
a
a
c
b
a,b
b,c
a
d
a,b
1949-1958 c
1948
1936
1952
1958
1954
1950
1930
1946
1939
b
b
b
c
b,c
a,c
c
b
b
322
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Ref.
No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Used
40
160
176
20
62
3
120
17
8
24
20
160
400
40
40
12
106
12
200
4.5
100
10
60
20
160
80
160
10
10
10
Total
Irri-
gation Buffer
8 12.7
60 30
50 105
20
3 10
40
80 6
Yes
3 35
75
240
40
97
40
50 140
60
80
120 10
40 20
Acres
Onsite
Storage
4.5
22
21
0.5
16.75
0
27
0
12
10
5
4.5
0.5
5
10
8
5
2
Onsite
Treat-
ment
1.8
22
4.2
1
80
8
14
2
12
10
1
5
18
3
10
5
2
2
10
2
2
Un-
used
20
40
249
13
63
0
40
16.75
0
27
35
15
4.5
100
10
60
50
58
1
Months
Used
12
5
12
12
7
12
3
12
12
12
12
5
12
5
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
4
12
12
12
4
12
7
12
12
Av.
Flow
(mgd)
0.250
0.025
0.0075
2
0.3
0.35
0.5
0.001
0.5
0.165
0.640
0.150
0.18
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.154
0.11
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
Lbs. c) Clay
Solid d)Sand
per e) Gravel
Day f) Other
c
c,d,e
b,c,d
d,e
d,e
d,e
c
30
a
d
a,d
125 b
10
a
a
c,e
NA d
d
a
NA a
a
a,d
a,d
a,d
8.2 c
a,b,c
a,d
a
c,e
d
Depth
to
Ground-
water
Table
(ft)
37
5.31-
23.29
200
32
20
12
30
0-48 in.
75
120
240
700
3
13
5
256
150-175
125
80
237
20
320
50
170
8
10
Average
Slope
Appli-
cation
Area
(%)
30
5
4
1
3
0.01
Flat
3
30
3
NA
2
10
20
15
2
10
10
71
Climate
Class
(APWA)
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
B
B
E
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
E
323
-------
LAND APPLICATION-Municipal
Ground Cover (acres)
and Annual Return
Grass Forest
Acre Acre Not No
Ref. Re- Re- Culti- Vege-
No. turn turn vated tation
Crop
Return
Acre $
No. of
Days/
Week
Irri-
gated
Application Rates
in./hr. in./day in./wk. in./yr.
Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
/;o
Oo
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
22
140 20
20
65 30
40
400
20
400
10 30
30
150
X
40
5
160
10
X
X
10
Corn
Alfalfa
20
5
40
Hay
Cotton
Feed, Cotton
Cotton
240
30
40
50
Cotton
Farm
Grain
72
125 900
85
1-1/2
7
7
4
5
1
varies
varies
0.25
1-1/5
2-0.25
40
1.25
5
5
35
324
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Waste Applied By
a) Spray (low press.)
b) Spray (high press.) Reno-
c) Tilling vated
d) Overland flow Water
Ref. e) Ridge and furrow Collect
No. f) Flooding (Yes) (No)
Value/Land
Annual 1972Est. Capital
Cost Year Cost Term ($/acre) Improvements
Acre Pur- Lease Lease Facil- Adj. Cost Year Cost
$ chased $ (Year) ity Land $ Made (mgd)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
a
a
a
a
b,c
c
b
b,c
a(2/3),
a,b
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
b
a
b
a
a,c
c
b,c
a
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
500
458
225
325
200
0
20
1964
1935
1970-72
1968
1890
1972
1967
1963 0
1928
250 250
200
250
400 400 34,0001969
1,800 1,800
43,000 1967
400 400
700 400 1962
200 200 75,0001970
Chlorination supply
Washdown water
Sprinkler system
Y 250
Y
250
250
250
200
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
500
1958
1949-58
1948
Y
Pumped back to
row irrigation
N 300
N 200
N
N 30
1953
1919
None
NA
1965
1949 1
500 600 4,0001969-70
500 700
175 160 10,0001961
325
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal - Operation and Maintenance
Zoning Security Used
a) Residential a) Fenced
b) Commercial Dis- Treatment b) Accessible
c) Industrial tance to At Site to Public
d) Farm Nearest Annual a) Aeration c) Patrolled
Ref. e) Green Belt Facil- Adj. Residence Budget Cap. Area b) Chlorination Land Used For d) Posted
No. f) Other ity Prop. (ft.) $ (mgd) (acre) c) Other Farm Graze Other e) Other
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
d
d
d
d
d
c
d
b
d
d
None
a
a,d
d
c,d
a
None
None
a,d
a,b,c
a,b,c
d
d
a
a
x x 2,640
x 1,000
x 1,320
800
x 2,640
x x 4,000
x 2,000
x
x 5,280
6,000
x x 3,381
x
1,000
x 1,000
x 1 ,000
x 500
700
x x 2,000
x 300
2,000
1,500
x
x
x 1,000
x 1,300
x 3,000
x x 1,350
x 300
50
28,000 82
51,900
1.5
47,000
14,500 20
3,000
45,062 33
6.2
12,000
27,000
23
12
2,000
20,000
20,000
14,000
10
20,000 2
22
21
4.2
22
0.5
6
24
14
3
48
27
8
10
5
3
0.9
4
17
5
5
a
b
a,b
b
x
b x
a
a x
x
a x
None x
a,b
a x
x x
x
x
b x
a x
x
a x
No x x
a xx
b
a
a,d
a,d
a
a,d
a,d
a
a
a,b,c,d
a,d
a,d
a
a,d
a
a,b,c
a
a
a,b
a,b,c,d
c
a
b,c
a
a,d
a
a
NA
a
a
326
-------
J-.AI-NIJ ArrucA i iurs rA^iLiiita— M
Operation and Maintenance
Ref.
No.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Resi-
dence
on
Premises
No
No
No
Recre-
ation
Use
Site
No
No
No
No
No
Public
Health
Re-
strict
(Yes) (No)
No
No
Yes
(Spraying &
no swimming)
Yes
(Chlorination
of effluent)
Yes
(Isolation from
human use)
umcipai Monitoring Program
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) VegAnalysis
Test Well f) Animal/Insect
No. Depth g) Other
d,f
8 15-53
3 200 f
1 32 c,d,f
Frequency
d) Daily
w) Weekly
y) Yearly
o) Occasional
monthly
y
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
None
Yes
(Secondary treatment)
Yes 1
(Weed spraying &
insect control)
No
No
Yes
(State)
c,d
28
None
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
(Chlorination
standards)
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
(State)
No NA
No NA
No
c,d
d
c,d
c,d
c,d,e
c,d
18
3 x daily
2 months
2-7 wks
2/wk.
y
monthly
327
None
None
c,d
None
Are
Under-
drains
Used Re- Re-
Yes) (No) used appl;
N
N
N
N
N
Effluent
Dis-
charge
to
Receiv-
ing
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
x
X
2xwk.
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal
Effluent Systems Performance
Ground- Data Available On
water a) Buildup/N g) Deterioration
Inter- b) " Heavy Metal Receiving Water Qual.
feres c) " Chlorides h) Effect/Water Table Information on Parameters
Lost With d) Effect/Plants i) Odors Future Plans Available
to Opera- e) Effect/Animals j) Health Hazards Con- BOD mg/1 SS mg/1
Ref. Ground- tion f) Deterioration k) Other Ex- tinue De- Aban- To Ground- To Ground-
No, water (Yes) (No) Groundwater Qual. pand As Is crease don Land water Land water
x
d,f x 300 175 275 150
x
x
X
X
d x
X
150 15
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
(Excessive
infiltration)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
a,d,c,f,g,h,i,j
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
150
55
26
x
170
x
(Treatment
plant to be
buHt)
10 175 10
14 86 50
48
169
35
76
77
78 N
79 N a,c,i x
80
81 N x
82 N x
83 x d,e x
84 x x
(Infiltration)
85 x
86 x
(Compliance
with state)
328
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Municipal - System Performance
CODmg/1 pH FecalColi/lOOml Pmg/1 Total mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrite mgfl CI mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
5]
52
53 7.2 750
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 x
61 None No
62 8.5 8.5
63
64
65
66 7.7 7.6 3.0 1.5
67 7.7 8.6
68
69 NA
70 NA
71
72
73 7.5
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81 None None
82
83
84 NA
85
86
329
-------
Ref.
No.
Name, City and State
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Wastewater Treatment
a) None
b) Screening
c) Primary
d) Secondary Maximum
e) Tertiary Average PPM System %
f) Oxidation Ponds Flow Average Suspended Capacity Domestic
g) Effluent Chlorination (mgd) BODs Solids (mgd) Waste
1 Beardmore, Div. of Can. Packers
Acton, Ontario, Canada
2 Simpson Lee Paper Co.
Redding, Ca.
3 Joan of Arc Co.
(Princeville-Peoria) II.
4 Joan of Arc Co.
(Hoopeston-Vermilion) II.
5 Green Giant Co.
Belvidere, II.
6 Campbell Soup Co.
Saratoga, In.
7 Popejoy Poultry
Logansport, In.
8 Weston Paper & Mfg. Co.
Terre Haute, In.
9 Albany Cheese, Inc.
Gray son, Ky.
10 Duffy-Mott Co., Inc.
Hartford, Mi.
11 Simpson Lee Paper Co.
Kalamazoo, Mi.
12 Green Giant Co.
Blue Earth, Mn.
13 Green Giant Co.
Cokato, Mn.
14 Green Giant Co.
Winsted, Mn.
15 Borden Co., Comstock Foods
Waterloo, N.Y.
16 H.P. Cannon & Son, Inc.
Dunn.N.C.
17 The Beckman & Cast Co.
Mercer, Oh.
18 Crown Zellerbach,
Baltimore, Oh.
b,c,d,e,f
c,d,f
b,f
b
b
1.
000
9.600
0.500
0.200
2.000
0.050
b
a
Other
c
b
c
b
b
b
b
b
b
,d,f
400
15
1,200
2,000
2,000
5
250
70
327
2.000
12.
500
Nil
0.5
0.500
Varies
42
0.01/wk
0.200
25.000
276.000
3.
.500
0.600
0
3
.500
.000
0.170
180.000
0.065
750.000
1,600
2,500
2,500
2,500
4,600
1,000
3,200
50-Sum.
23
500
500
500
5,000
1,800
100
2.
0.
0.
0.
000
160
016
200
50.000
0.
4.
750
000
1.000
0.700
0.600
0.290
250.000
None
None
None
None
None
None
100
75,000.000
1,400
.000
250-Win.
330
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Wastes to
a) Canning (fruit) Disposal by
b) Canning (veg.) a) Ditch
c) Milk b) Pipe (gravity)
d) Beverage (other) c) Pipe (pressure)
e) Pulp and Paper d) Truck
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
f) Inorganic
g) Organic
e
b
b
b
b
e
c
a
e
b
b
c
b
b
b
e
Year e) Rail
Start f) Other
1955
1964
1966
1972
1949
1972
1964
1961
1961
1967
1971
1969
1960
1965
1968
1972
1957
1960
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
b,c
c
c
b
c
c
c
b
c
Used
400
100
58.8
30
270
17
5
200
22
240
130
130
140
55
24
55
Irri-
gation
100
28
25
160
17
5
100
40
80
105
90
120
84
35
24
20
Buffer
35
60
5
30
400
80
16
20
10
Onsite
Storage
25
1
24
4
30
0
5
Onsite
Treat- Un-
ment used
3 200
11
110
33
100
14
240
25
40
40
10
0 20
10 10
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
c) Qay
d)Sand
Months e) Gravel
Used
9
12
9
12
5
9
12
12
12
12
4
2
2
4
4
12
f) Other
a,c,d,e
d
a
d,e
c,d
a
c,d,f
a,d
a,b,c
a,b,c,d,e
a,b,c
c
a
c
a,b
331
-------
Depth
to
Ground-
Ref. water
No. Table
(ft) ,
Varies
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
36
6
0.2
30
15
3-10
24
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
(ty No. of
Avg. Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return Days/
Slope Not No Week Application Rates
of Grass Forest Culti- Vege- Irri- in./hr. in./day
Land Acres Return Acres Return vated tation Crop Acres Return gated Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
5
Level
3
0
2-3
2-3
4
17
1.3
2
20
5
120
38
30
x
17
5
21
40
105
90
80
140
55
24
45
10 Nil
12
200
Alfalfa 60
Corn 20
10
7
6.5
3
7
7
5-7
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
0.14
0.6
0.
0.
1
6
2
1.5
0.65
0.45
0.44
0
0
0
0
0
.14
.02
.22
.5
.5
0.
0,
0.
0.
11
.22
,5
.5
0,
0,
9
1
,42
,75
.8
0.3
0.
.32
0.37
1
.5
0.1
0.
0.
,5
.1
1
0
2
.5
.1
.8
1
0.65
0.25
0.38
0.03
0.276
7
0.15
0.2
0.16
0.19
0.5
0.1
2.0
332
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Application Rates
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
in.
Max.
4.5
0.44
0.4
5.25
3
2
2.5
1.5
3.9
/wk.
Avg.
4.5
0.44
0.2
1.93
1
' 1.5
1.25
1.4
1.5
2.7
in.
Max
85
60
10
86
20
15
20
100
/yr.
- Avg.
60
10
86
15
12
10
70
Waste Applied by
d) Spray Irrigation
e) Overland Flow
f) Ridge & Furrow
g) Other
d
d
d (summer)
f (winter)
d,e
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Reno-
vated
Water
Collect
(Yes) (No)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Cost
Acre
1,000
600
533
5,700
600
400
600
550
750
Annual
Year Cost Term
Pur- Lease Lease
chased $ (Year)
1962
1963
54 25
1960
1970
1961
1967-68
1960-72
1969
35 10
55 15
1966-69 4,500 5
1972
1957-71
Value/Land
1972 Est.
(S/acre)
Facil-
ity
2,500
1,500
5,000
533
800
1,000
350
650
600
600
550
1,800
500
600
1,200
Adj.
Land
2,500
2,000
2,000
533
800
1,000
350
650
600
600
550
500
600-
1,200
333
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Capital
Improvements
Cost
Ref. (Thous. Year
No. of S) Made
Zoning
a) Residential
b) Commercial Distance
c) Industrial to
d) Farm Nearest Annual
Holding
Ponds
Treatment
at Site
a) Aeration
e) Green belt Residence Budget Cap. Area b) Chlorination Land Used For
Fac. Adj. Pro. (Feet) $ (mgd) (acre) c) Other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
500
15
39
100
34.8
25
25
100
40
150
17
500
500
1971-72
1964-71
1972
Varies
1971
1961
1967-70
1971
1970
1965
1968-70
1972
1971
c)x
a)
d)
a)
d)x
d)x
d)x
a)
c)
d)x
c)x
d)
d)x
c)x
a)
b)
c)
d)x
c)x
d)
d)x
d)x
d)x
d)x
d)x
a)
b)
c)x
d)x
c)x
b)
d)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
250
1,000
2,500
2,500
150
500
1,500
800
1,000
1,000
5,000
500
30
120,000
7,000
5,000
40,000
7,500
10,000
20,000
35,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
25,000
2,000
100 25
200
7 9
50 24
0
10 4
None
20
18
None
1 1.5
a
a
a
c (ozine)
c (screening)
None
None
None
None
Farm Graze Other
No
No
No
Grass
334
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Ref. d) Posted
No. e) Other
a,c,d
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
a,d
d
a
a,c,d
a
a
a,e
b
a
a,d
Resi-
dence
on
Premises
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Recre-
ation
Public
Health Test
Restrict Wells
Use-Site (Yes) (No) No. Depth
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No None
No
None
Yes
(Effluent
standards
SS & BOD)
No
No
4
No 16 6-45
None
None
None
No None
No
No
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) Veg. Analysis
f) Animal/Insect
g) Other
c
d
e
f
c
c,f
d
f
ft c,d
e
f
g ea. cutting
c,d
c
d
e
Frequency
d) Daily
w) Weekly
m) Monthly
y) Yearly
o) Occasion.
3/w
3/w
i/y
1/w
m
w
w
m
d
y
m
1/w
1/m
2/y
3-10/y
Under-
drains
Used
(Yes) (No)
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Re- Re-
used applied
No No
No No
(Sent to
aeration ponds)
335
-------
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Data Available On
Effluent a) Buildup/N
Dis- Ground- b) " /Heavy Metal
charged water c) " /Chlorides
to Interferes d) Effect/Plants
Receiv- with e) Effect/Animals
ing Operation f) Deterioration
g) Deterioration
Receiving
Water Quality
h) Effect/Water Table
i) Odors
j) Health Hazards
Water (Yes) (No) Groundwater Qualityk) Other
Information on
Future Plans Parameters Available
Con- BOD mg/1
Ex- tinue De- Aban- To Ground-
pand As is crease don Land water
No
Yes
Reduces
capacity
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Rainy
periods
c,d,f,h,i
a,b,d,e,f,g,h
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
a,b,c,d,f,g,h,i,j,k
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
No
d,h
No
200
30
1,500
>5
0-35
X
X
X
X
Dry
11.3R
Solids
1 ,600 Ibs
X
X
X
X
X X
Reusing
water
X
per day
2,500
2,500
X
1,000
3,200
600
300
336
-------
SS mg/1
Ref. To Ground-
No. Land water
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Information on Parameters Available
COD mg/1 Ph Fecal Coli/100 ml
To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
Land water Land water Land water
Pmg/1
To Ground-
Land water
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3,000
1.7
1,500
600
8.8-8.5
6.5-810
10-50
7.5
Trace
25
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
767 Ibs
per day
500
500
x
120
2.3-7.9
587 Ibs
per day
55
7.2
6.5
Yes
8-9
10-12
8.1
None
3.82 Ibs
per day
7.8
337
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
Ref.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Information on Parameters Available
Total N mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrite mg/1
Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
water Land water Land water
Trace Nil Trace Nil Trace
To
Land
High
350
CLmg/1
To Ground-
Land water
3,000 1,500
1251bs
per day
281bs
per day
l,7251bs
per day
Gimate
Class
(APWA)
E
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
C
D
D
338
-------
Average
f) Oxidation Ponds Flow
g) Effluent Chlorination (mgd)
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Industrial
Wastewater Treatment
a) None
b) Screening
c) Primary
d) Secondary
e) Tertiary
Ref.
No. Name, City and State
19 Deeds Bros. Dairy, Inc.
Lancaster, Oh. a
20 Libby, McNeill & Libby
Liepsic, Oh. b,d
21 Sharp Canning, Inc.
Rockford, Oh. b,g
22 Campbell Soup Co.
Paris, Tx. b
23 Tooele City Corp.
Tooele, Ut. b,c,d
24 Lamb-Weston Div. of Amfac.
Connell,Wa. b,c
25 Alto Coop Creamery
Astico, Wi. a
26 Cobb Canning Co.
Cobb, Wi. b
27 Frigo Cheese Corp.
Wyocena, Wi. a
28 Green Giant Co.
Fox Lake, Wi. b
29 Green Giant Co.
Ripon, Wi. b
30 Green Giant Co.
Rosendale, Wi. b
31 Hoffman Corners Coop Creamery
Kendall, Wi. a
32 Kansas City Star Co.
Park Falls, Wi. c,d
33 Kimberley Clark
Niagara, Wi. a
34 Loyal Canning Co.
Loyal, Wi. b
35 Mammoth Spring Canning
Oakfield, Wi. b
36 Oconomowoc Canning Co.
Sun Prairie, Wi. b
Maximum
PPM System %
Average Suspended Capacity Domestic
BODs Solids (mgd) Waste
0.666
0.080
3.100
1.300
1.630
0.200
1.000
0.700
1.000
0.300
1.320
0.060
0.459
0.260
452
45
550
36
1,500
6,600
2,500
2,500
2,500
14,000-
24 hrs.
0.59
5,000
1
50 36,000.000 None
350 None
5,000 2.100 None
125,000.000 None
1,800 0.300 None
500 1 .200 None
500 0.900 None
500 1 .200 None
9
1,400 0.500 None
339
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Wastes to
a) Canning (fruit) Disposal by
b) Canning (veg.) a) Ditch
c) Milk b) Pipe (gravity)
d) Beverage (other) c) Pipe (pressure)
e) Pulp and Paper d) Truck
Ref.
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
f) Inorganic
g) Organic
c
a
c
c
b
c
b
b
b
c
e
b
b
b
Year e) Rail
Start f) Other
1971
1954
1964
1956
1969
1961
1960
1956
1955
1955
1955
1952
1958
1950
1946
1953
b
c
c
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c,d
d
c
b
c
Used
10
215
35
500
4
30.5
40
4
180
80
100
3
202
40
46
95
127
Irri-
gation
10
130
35
400
265
22
100
80
100
3
122
40
95
89
Onsite
Onsite Treat- Un-
Buffer Storage ment used
20 10.3 10.3 55
7
100
1
3 95
12.5 18
18
2.3
80
60 40
17
20 3.5 18
6 32
Soil Type
a) Loam
b) Silt
c)Clay
d) Sand
Months e)
Used f)
8
3(40)
12
12
12
12
4
12
4
4
4
12
7
3
3
8
4
Gravel
Other
d
c
c
e
d
c
a,b
a,b,c,d
a,d,e
a,b,c,d
c
b
d,e
a
a,c
a,d
340
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Depth
to
Ground-
Ref. water
Table
(ft)
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
30
Sin.
10
400
600
35
1.5
70-90
24
Avg.
Slope
of
Land
0
0.5
9
2.5
3.0
1.5
2
0
3
3
15
0.3
0.2
18
0.3
Ground Cover (acres) and Annual Return
Not No
Culti- Vege-
Acres Return Acres Return vated tation Crop
Acre
No. of
Days/
Week Application Rates
Irri- in./hr. in./day
Return gated Max. Avg. Max. Avg.
45
42
500
265
30.5
40
4
100
80
100
3
46
95
89
Alfalfa 190
200
7
7
7
43
wks/yr
20/ac
7
6
7
7
7
6-7
None
5-7
6
0.244
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.7
0.1740.5
0.5
0.035 2.7
0.8 0.4
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
1
0.023 3.0
0.27
0.25
0.4
0.36
0.32
0.36
0.32
341
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Wast
d)S]
Application Rates e) O
Ref. in./wk. in./yr. f)Ri
No. Max. Avg. Max. Avg. g) Other
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3.5 1.9 100
133
78
3.5 2.4 33
3 2.6 40
3 2.3 40
3 2.5 36
27
133
63
30
36
32
25
>plied by
Irrigation
nd Flow
& Furrow
r
d
d
d
d
d
f
d
f
d
d
d
f
d
d
d
Reno-
vated
Water
Collect
(Yes) (No)
N 2
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Value Land
Cost
Acre
,000
Year
Pur-
chased
1945
Annual
Cost Term
Lease Lease
S (Year)
1971 17,000
500
225
240
300
35
225
1960
1970
1959
1955
1960
1955
1926
1946
500 1
50 10
35 10
40 10
1972 Est
($/acre)
Facil-
ity
2,000
1,000
500
3,000
650
420
500
600
600
35
Adj.
Land
1,000
500
1,000
300
500
500
600
1,000
35
200 200-500
300
325
36 2.7 1.9 32 26
6,300 5
1,000
1,000
342
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Industry
Zoning
a) Residential
Capital
Improvements
Ref.
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Cost
(Thous.
of $)
8
45
700
210
50
17.01
8.5
60
50
50
22
110
8.5
13
b) Commercial
c) Industrial
d) Farm
Year
Made
1961
1972
1970-72
1971
1972
1961
1960
Varies
1955
Varies
1956
1972
1953
e) Green belt
Fac.
b)
d)
d)x
a)
d)
d)x
d)
c)x
d)
d)x
d)x
d)x
d)x
d)
a)
c)x
d)
d)x
c)x
d)
Adj. Pro.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Distance
to
Holding
Nearest Annual Ponds
Residence
(Feet)
3,960
1,000
400
1,200
Budget Cap. Area
$ (mgd) (acre)
50,000 20 10.3
150
Treatment
at Site
a) Aeration
b) Chlorination
c) Other
a
b
5,300 179,300 40 18
800
1,000
1,000
3,000
1,500
2,000
40
1,600
2,000
3,000
15,000 20
12,000 5
15,000 15
0.06
14,000
5,200
Land Used For
Farm Graze Other
343
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES-Industry
Security Used
a) Fenced
b) Accessible
to Public Resi-
c) Patrolled dence
Ref. d) Posted on
No. e) Other
19
20
21
22
23
24
a
a,c,d
b
a
a,d
a,d
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
a
a
a
d
a
Public
Recre- Health
ation Restrict
Test for
a) Influent
b) Effluent
c) Soil Analysis
d) Groundwater
Analysis
e) Veg. Analysis
Frequency
d) Daily
w) Weekly
m) Monthly
Are
Under-
drains
Test
Wells f) Animal/Insect y) Yearly
Used Re- Re-
Premises Use-Site (Yes) (No) No. Depth g) Other
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes None
Yes None
(odor and
runoff)
No
No None
o) Occasion. (Yes) (No) used applied
Yes
f
c,d
e
f
g
d
i/y
w
y
w
3/y
d
Nc
No
No
c,d
e
1/d
10/y
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
344
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Data Available On
Effluent a) Buildup/N
Dis- Ground- b) " /Heavy Metal
charged water c) " /Chlorides
Interferes
e) Effect/Animals
Ref.
No.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
to Interferes
Receiv- with
ing Operation
Water (Yes) (No)
No
No
No No
No
No
No
No
Yes
g) Deterioration
Receiving
Water Quality
h) Effect/Water Table
i) Odors
j) Health Hazards
Groundwater Qualityk) Other
No
d,g,h,ij
No
a,e,i
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
d
d,e
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
No
b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,k
Information on
Future Plans Parameters Available
Con- BOD mgA
Ex- tinue De- Aban- To Ground-
pand As is crease don Land water
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
None
542 9.7
435 2.5
900 700
2,500
2,500
2,500
12,500
345
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Information on Parameters Available
SSmg/1 CODmg/1 Ph Fecal Coli/100 ml Pmg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water Land water Land water
19 None None
20 445 67.3 6.15 7.0
VSS=0
21
22 192 6 751 62 5.5 7.2 8.5 3.7
23
24 0.43 7-11 0 10-50
25
26
27
28 500
29 500
30 500
31
32 15,100 2.4
33
34
35
36
346
-------
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES - Industry
Information on Parameters Available
Total N mg/1 Nitrate mg/1 Nitrite mg/1
Ref. To Ground- To Ground- To Ground-
No. Land water Land water Land water
CL mg/1 Climate
To Ground- Class
Land water (APWA)
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
5.02
15.8
0
2.0
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.05
45
31
D
D
D
C
B
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
347
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
LAND APPLICATION FACILITIES VERIFIED BUT NOT SURVEYED
(Summary of Responses to Preliminary Screening)
Ref.
No. City/Agency
1 Simpson Lee Paper Co., Anderson
2 Armona Sanitary District
3 City of Arroyo Grande
4 Big Bear Lake San. Dist.
5 Capistrano Beach San. Dist.
6 City of Ceres
7 City of Chino
8 City of Coachella
9 City of Corona
10 Encinitas San. Dist.
11 City of Fowler
12 Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc., Fullerton
13 CityofGilroy
14 City of Gustine
15 Eastern Mun. Wat. Dist., Hemet
16 City of Hollister
17 Hughson San. Dist.
18 Ivanhoe Pub. Util. Dist.
19 Lamont Pub. Util. Dist.
20 Laton Co. Water Dist., Laton
21 City of Lemoore
22 City of Lindsay
23 City of Live Oak
24 Olivehurst Pub. Util. Dist.
25 City of Orange Cove
26 City of Orland
27 City of Oroville
28 City of Palm Springs
29 City of Perris
30 Enterprise Pub. Util. Dist. Redding
31 City of Redlands
32 City of Rialto
33 Ridgecrest San. Dist.
34 Rio Linda Co. Water Dist.
35 Riverdale Pub. Util. Dist.
36 Co. of San Diego, Pub. Wks.
Dept. of San. of Fl. Con.
37 Lakeside San. Dist., San Diego
State
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Date
Began
10/64
1952
1924
1959
1935
1938
1948
1953
1950
7/71
1927
1930
1965
7/72
1948
1953
1965
1/61
1910
9/71
1953
6/56
1956
8/64
1947
7/73
1963
9/57
1954
1955
1958
6/61
Flow
Rate
MGD
0.3
0.4
0.06
0.6
0.65
2.2
1.1
3.0
0.43
0.25
4.0
2
3.5
1.715
5.0
1.5
0.30
0.9
1
0.8
0.95
0.75
2.88
1.75
1.5
0.6
1.0
2.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.1
Method of
Application
a) Flood
b) Spray
Flow % c) R & F
Dom. Ind. d) Other
0.5 99.5
X X
X
100
95 5
90 10
X
93 7
100
X
33 67
100
100
30 70
100
95 5
100
50 50
100
99.5 0.5
90 10
100
100
98
100
90 10
100
100
100
100
100
a,b
d
a,d
d
d
d
a
c,d
b,c
a
b
a,d
a
d
d
a
a,c
d
a
a,c
a
a,d
a
a,c
d
d
a,d
b
a,d
b
a,c
a
a,c,d
d
Ca.
1962
1.2
100
349
-------
Ref.
No. City/Agency
38 City of Sanger
39 San Marcos Co. Water Dist.
40 City of Selma
41 N. Tahoe Pub. Util. Dist., Tahoe Vista
42 City ofTehachapi
43 Tranquility Pub. Util. Dist.
44 Tuolumne Co. Water Dist. No. 1
Twain Harte
45 Montalvo Mun. Imp. Dist., Ventura
46 Moorpark Co. San. Dist., Ventura
47 Victorville San. Dist.
48 Wasco Pub. Util. Dist.
49 Yreka
50 Cherokee Products Co., Haddock
51 Lion Counry Safari, Stockbridge
52 Glenn-More Home, Inc., Thomasville
53 Lowndes Co. Bd. of Comm , Valdosta
54 J.R. Simplot Co., Boise
55 J. R. Simplot Co., Caldwell
56 Stokely-Van Camp, Emmett
57 Rogers Bros., Idaho Falls
58 Idaho Fresh Pak, Lewisville
59 American Fine Foods, Inc., Payette
60 County Line Cheese Co., Auburn
61 Graham Cheese Corp., Elnora
62 Pure Sealed Dairy, Inc., Ft.Wayne
63 Holland Dairies, Inc., Holland
64 Morgan Packing Co., Inc., Warren
65 Armour Food Co., DPO Div., Springfield Ky
66 Vahlsing, Inc., Easton
67 J. Richard Phillips, Jr. &Sons,Inc.,Berlin Md.
68 Walter T. Andrews & Son.Inc.,Cambridge Md.
69 A.W. Feeser Div., Westminster
70 City of Belding
71 Village of Vermontville
72 Watervliet Paper Co.
Div. of Hammermill Paper
73 Olivia Canning Co., Olivia
74 City of Lockwood
75 Lander Co. Sewer & Water Dist.
Battle Mountain
State
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ca.
Ga.
Ga.
Ga.
Ga.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ind.
Ky.
Me.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Mich.
Mich.
Mich.
Minn.
Mo.
Nev.
Date
Began
1967
1963
1952
1938
1952
7/65
1970
1924
1937
9/53
6/70
7/72
9/71
7/72
7/72
1958
1960
1960
1967
8/25
Before
1940
1967
1953
7/69
8/72
6/72
10/72
9/72
8/66
1971
1969
Flow
Rate
MGD
3.0
0.5
1
0.75
0.6
0.1
0.18
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.83
0.7
0.5
0.055
0.0075
0.035
3.0
7.5
0.5
1.07
1.06
0.5
0.05
0.09
60
0.1
0.25
1
0.9
0.12
2
0.2
0.36
1
0.23
Flow
Dom
100
90
X
X
100
95
100
92
100
99
95
100
100
100
100
%
Ind.
100
10
X
5
8
5
100
100
60-70 30-40
1
60
(storm
98
100
100
100
X
100
100
X
X
X
100
100
100
99
100
100
X
10
30)
2
100
100
Method of
Application
a) Flood
b) Spray
c)R&F
d) Other
c
b
a
a,b,c
b
a
b,c
a
d
d
a,c
c
b
b
b
b
a,c
a
b
b,c
a
a
b,c
c
b
b
b,c
b
b
b
b
d
b
a
b
b
b,d
d
350
-------
Ref.
No. City/Agency
76 City of Concord, N.H.
77 N.H. Water Supply & Pollution
Control Comm., Concord
78 Hunt Ritter San. System, Bridgeton
79 M&M/Mars, Hackettstown
80 Seabrook Farms Co., Inc., Seabrook
81 Los Alamos Co. Utilities
82 City of Raton
83 Town of Silver City
84 Campbell Soup Co., Napoleon
85 City of Napoleon
86 Howard Paper Mills, Inc., Urbana
87 City of Hollis
88 Lamb-Weston, Inc., Weston
89 General Foods Corp., Woodburn
90 H.J. Heinz Co., Chambersburg
91 Knouse Foods Co-op, Inc. Peach Glen
92 Masonite Corp., Towanda
93 Kraft Foods Div., Kraftco Corp.
Alexandria
94 City of Anson
95 City of Azle, Water & Sewer
96 City of Coleman
97 City of Crane
98 City of Crosbyton
99 City of Devine
100 City of Eldorado
101 Freer Water Control & Imp. Dist.
102 City of Fnona
103 Armour Food Co., Fresh Meats Div.
Hereford
104 City of Hondo
105 City of McLean
106 City of Odessa, Plant No. 1
Plant No. 2
107 Crockett Co. WC&ID No. 1, Ozona
108 City of Petersburg
109 City of Quitague
110 CityofRotan
111 City of Sabinal
112 City of Santa Ana
113 City of Seminole
State
N.H.
N.H.
N.J.
N.J.
N.J.
N.M.
N.M.
N.M.
Oh.
Oh.
Oh.
Okla.
Ore.
Ore.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Tenn.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex
Tex.
Tex.
Date
Began
1973
6/71
1961
1959
1946
1950
1950
1965
1954
10/65
1965
1964
1964
1963
Mid 50's
1965
1966
1949
1952
1962
1966
2/69
1945
1/62
3/62
1970
1/69
1927
1948
1950
1928
1936
1967
1940
Flow
Rate
MGD
4.2
2.2
0.21
4.4
0.361
0.4
0.5
5
4.5
0.66
0.322
0.685
2.4
0.2-0.9
0.172
0.450
0.0079
0.4
0.25
0.35
0.2
0.125
0.25
1
0.25
Less
than 1
1.15
0.4
0.1
1.075
0.28
0.3
0.2
0.06
0.11
0.9
Method of
Application
a) Flood
b) Spray
FIow% c)R&F
Dom. Ind. d) Other
100
9
100
90
100
45
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
X
1
100
100
100
80
X
X
X
100
100
90
10
100
55
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
99
100
X
20
d
b
b
b
b
b
a,c
b
b
d
b
a,c
b
b
b,d
b
b
b
a,b,c
d
a,c
a,c
c
a,b,c
a
a,b
a
c
a
a,d
a
a,c
a,c
b
a
b
a,c
351
-------
Ref.
No.
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
City/Agency
City of Slaton
City of Sonora
City of Stan ton
City of Stratford
City of Sundown
City of Sweetwater
Lakehaven Sewer Dist., Federal Way
Plant No. 1
Plant No. 2
City of Othello, Redmond
Lake Hills Sewer Dist., Redmond
Dept. of Pub. Wks., Yakima
Baker Canning Co., Antigo
Dairy Maid Co-op, Augusta
Country Gardens, Inc., Gillett
Hillside Dairy, Cadott
State
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Tex.
Wash.
Wash.
Wash.
Wash.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
John Wuetrich Creamery Co., Greenwood Wis.
Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., Horicon
City of Milton
Mindoro Co-op Creamery, Mindoro
Flambeau Paper Co., Park Falls
Shiocton Kraut Co., Inc., Shiocton
Garden Valley Co-op Creamery,
Waumandee
Waunakee Canning Co., Waunakee
Westby Elec.,Water,Util., Westby
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Wis.
Date
Began
1966
5/63
1926
6/68
5/50
1958
1960
1955
1958
6/56
1956
1904
6/72
1939
1954
1952
1962
1955
1925
1958
Flow
Rate
MGD
0.37
0.3
12
0.01
0.16
0.75
1.3
0.9
2
2
2.0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.06
0.12
0.4
0.03
0.1
0.009
0.012
0.43
0.174
Flow %
Dom Ind.
98 2
90
X
100
75
70 30
100
95
100
X
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
X
X
Method of
Application
a) Flood
b) Spray
c)R&F
d) Other
c
a,c
a
a
a,c,d
a,c
d
d
b
b
b
c
b
c
d
b
a
a,c
b
b
c
b
a,c
352
-------
APPENDIX F
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS - LAND APPLICATION
OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
AT ARMY AND NAVY INSTALLATIONS
Army Installations
Post
1. Fort Devens,
Massachusetts
2. Hunter-Liggett
Military Reservation
Jolon, California
3. Fort Huachuca,
Arizona
4. Fort Carson,
Colorado
5. Fitzsimmons Army
Hospital
Denver, Colorado
6. Fort Irwin
Barstow, California
Type Application
Rapid infiltration. 100 percent
of effluent from Imhoff tanks.
Aerated lagoons, spray irrigation
<100,000 gpd.
Two plants - secondary spray
irrigation. Approximately 1.5
mgd.
Spray irrigation with part of
flow - secondary treatment.
Spray irrigation with part of
flow - secondary treatment.
Evaporation and spray irrigation
of secondary effluent.
7. Safeguard
Grand Forks,
North Dakota
Base
1. Camp Pendleton,
California
Spray irrigation.
Navy Installations
Type Application
Spray irrigation and ground
recharge.
Remarks
In operation for approximately
30 years - 22 sand beds, very
satisfactory operation.
New facility replaces
evaporation ponds. Flow
presently insufficient to require
use of spray irrigation.
During growing season, all
effluent is sprayed on golf
course and Chaffee Drill Field.
During growing season,
approximately 1.2 mgd of 1.8
mgd flow is sprayed on golf
course.
Irrigate golf course
approximately 0.5 mgd.
All of the effluent from 5
oxidation lagoons is evaporated
or used to irrigate the golf
course. One mgd capacity. Post
capacity down currently.
Project in AE&D. Design
includes 310 acre/feet of
stabilization ponds, grass or
grain crops, 0.3 mgd. Flow will
include cooler blowdown water.
Remarks
Effluent from 6 secondary
treatment plants flows to
oxidation ponds. Approximately
2/3 mgd sprayed nightly on golf
course. Approximately 0.9 mgd
discharged to percolation basin.
This is a mixture of discharge
from a raw waste water
stabilization pond and treated
effluent from the oxidation
ponds.
353
-------
Air Force Installations
Base
1. EglinAFB,
Florida
2. George AFB,
California
3. Scott AFB,
Illinois
4. TyndallAFB,
Florida
5. Air Force Academy,
Colorado
Type Application
Spray irrigation of secondary
effluent on Auxiliary Area 9.
Spray irrigation of secondary
effluent on golf course for water
conservation.
Spray irrigation.
Spray irrigation.
Spray irrigation. Applied to golf
course, athletic fields, medians.
Remarks
Present system is being
remodeled to permit disposal of
all flow by spray irrigation.
Construction scheduled for
completion July 1973. Total
flow approximately 4 mgd.
1-1/2 mgd. No discharge to
surface water course from
holding lagoons - all to land.
0.5 to 1 mgd. Includes irrigation
of golf course.
1 mgd capacity. In design.
Construction scheduled to begin
end of fiscal year 1973.
Effluent from secondary
treatment plant is discharged to
a series of four lakes to which
well water is added. No. 2 lake is
aerated. Postwide irrigation from
these lakes. Estimated 2 mgd.
Source: U. S. Army Crops of Engineers
354
-------
APPENDIX G
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT CRITERIA
FOR
LAND DISPOSAL OF DOMESTIC EFFLUENTS
Department of the Army, Surgeon General
Issued September 27, 1972
1. Included herein are recommended criteria
for four techniques of land disposal: spray
irrigation, rapid infiltration, overland runoff,
and evaporation ponds. These criteria
represent the judgment of sanitary engineers,
micro biologists and geologists, based on
information contained in the following
technical publications.
a. US Army Medical Environmental
Engineering Research Unit Report No.
73-02, subject: Problem Definition
Study: Evaluation of Health and Hygiene
Aspects of Land Disposal of Wastewater
at Military Installations, August 1972.
b. Pennsylvania State University Publication
23, subject: Wastewater Renovation and
Conservation, 1967.
c. DA, Corps of Engineers Wastewater
Management Report 72-1, subject:
Assessment of the Effectiveness and
Effects of Land Disposal Methodologies
of Wastewater Management, January
1972.
d. Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory Special Report 171, subject:
Wastewater Management by Disposal on
the Land, May 1972.
2. Criteria common to all:
a. Pretreatment
(1) Criterion: Provide secondary
(biological) treatment to all wastes
prior to application or ponding.
Rationale: The literature indicates
that hydraulic loading rate is the
principal limiting factor in
determining the assimilative capacity
of a soil; the literature consistently
indicates that neither BOD nor
suspended solids concentrations in
the applied waste have a limiting
effect - provided that application is
intermittent allowing for the
re-aeration of the upper layers of the
soil mass. However, the provision of
secondary treatment is important not
for BOD or suspended solids
reduction, but for the following:
first, biological degradation of
putrescible materials, with a
consequent reduction in the potential
for the development of nuisance
conditions; and second, removal of a
high percentage of pathogens from
the waste stream with a concomitant
reduction in the medical risk to
operating personnel.
(2) Criterion: Provide post-chlorination
with rapid mixing such that 0.5 mg/1
residual chlorine (total) remains after
a 15-minute contact period.
Rationale: The maximum destruction
of pathogenic organisms prior to
application or ponding is warranted;
post-chlorination further reduces the
potential for groundwater
contamination; post-chlorination
adds a further element of protection
for on-site operation and
maintenance personnel.
b. Access Limitation
Criterion: Assure limited access to
holding facilities, application sites,
and ponds.
Rationale: The risk of contact
contamination should be minimized
by providing fencing or other suitable
barriers to prevent general access by
civilian and military personnel. The
use of wastewaters for the irrigation
of recreation areas, however, is an
exception, but is subject to the
constraints outlined in paragraph
3a(2), below.
c. Nonpotable Identification
Criterion: Provide readily identifiable
355
-------
nonpotable notices, markings or
codings for all conveyance facilities
and appurtenances.
Rationale: The risk of accidental
ingestion by the general public of
wastewater from disposal
appurtenances in recreation areas
must be recognized. In addition, the
inadvertent cross-connection of
pressurized waste conveyance
facilities to the potable water system
by facilities personnel must be
anticipated and prevented by coding
or marking schemes.
d. Vector Control
Criterion: Control vector populations
incident to spraying and ponding
operations.
Rationale: Increased vector breeding
can be anticipated as a result of land
disposal operations. In the cases of
spray irrigation and overland runoff
operations, incidental ponding should
be minimized at the disposal site. In
all holding and ponding operations,
seasonal fluctuations in vector
populations should be controlled
through the judicious application of
organophosphate pesticides as
required.
e. Surveillance
(1) Criterion: Provide surveillance to
protect all local water sources. As a
minimum this should include
quarterly analyses for fecal coliform,
and annual analyses for the indicator
constituents: total dissolved solids,
surfactants (MBAS), nitrates, and
sodium. Sample stations should
encompass existing wells used for
potable water sources including, as
appropriate, private wells of local
residents.
Rationale: The principal risk
associated with land disposal
operations is the biological and
chemical contamination of local
water supplies. The surveillance
program should be structured to
provide prompt warning in the event
of such contamination.
(2) Criterion: Provide surveillance
sufficient to prevent chemical
contamination of the receiving
aquifer. As a minimum this should
include quarterly analyses for total
dissolved solids, sodium, nitrate, and
surfactants (MBAS). Sample stations
in the form of small observation wells
should be positioned both on-site and
down-gradient on the aquifer.
Rationale: One major problem
associated with land disposal
operations is the elevation of total
dissolved solids, nitrate and sodium
concentrations in the receiving
aquifer. If such constituents rise to
unacceptable concentrations
undetected, no corrective action is
possible; the water supplies
down-gradient could, consequently,
be compromised for years, even if
further waste applications were
halted. The objective, therefore, is to
detect increases in concentration
with sufficient frequency to allow
reevaluation of project feasibility in
time to guarantee the continuous
availability of the aquifer as a water
resource. Another potential problem
with land disposal is the
short-circuiting of water flow within
the reactive soil mass; analyses for
surfactants has been recommended to
provide early detection.
3. Criteria applicable to spray irrigation:
a. Control of Aerosols
(1) General Application. Criteria
provided in this paragraph pertain to
tracts of land used solely for disposal
purposes.
(a) Criterion: Design spray
equipment to minimize aerosol
formation at the disposal site.
Rationale: A number of factors
affect the potential for pathogen
transport through increased
aerosol formation at the
appurtenances themselves.
Higher discharge pressures yield a
reduction in droplet size and a
356
-------
consequent increase in the
potential for aerosol formation;
discharge pressures in the range
5-50 psi are consequently
recommended. The height of of
the spray appurtenances has a
bearing on aerosol formation; the
minimum height, compatible
with local vegetation, should be
employed. Similarly,
consideration should be given to
the shape of the spray cone itself
in the selection of equipment.
(b) Criterion: Provide a downwind
buffer zone between the disposal
site and high density populations
such as residential areas and
schools.
Rationale: The indeterminate
nature of travel distances
associated with windborne
aerosols warrants care in site
selection. Minimum transport
distances are associated with
spray operations in forest land
where downwind buffer zones on
the order of 200 feet are
considered adequate; greater
transport distances are associated
with open sites. The buffer zone
could take one of several forms:
space could be maintained
between the disposal site and the
population of concern;
windbreaks could be positioned
between the site and the
population; or the spray disposal
site itself could be positioned
within natural terrain features
that minimize wind effects.
(c) Criterion: Restrict spraying as
much as possible to periods of
daylight at sites where the use of
a buffer zone to protect high
density populations is impractical
Rationale: During daylight
hours, thelower humidity and
the higher incidence of
ultraviolet radiation combine to
minimize the potential for long
distance conveyance of viable
airborne pathogens.
(d) Criterion: Cease spraying
operations during periods of high
wind velocity at sites where the
use of a buffer zone to protect
high density populations is
impractical.
Rationale: Small increases in
wind velocity significantly
increase the transport distances
of aerosols. For each 3 mph
increase in wind velocity,
transport distances increase on
the order of 100 feet.
(2) Recreation Land Application.
Criteria provided in this paragraph
pertain to tracts of land used both
for disposal purposes and for
recreational use, e.g., golf courses,
parade fields, athletic fields.
(a) Criterion: Provide
post-chlorination with rapid
mixing, such that 2.0 mg/1
residual chlorine (total) remains
at the point of spray application.
Rationale: The application of
sewage effluent to recreation
lands requires greater protection
for the general public; the
increase in protection is
manifested in the maintenance of
a chlorine residual. The presence
of such a residual further reduces
the potential for the contact
contamination of the using
public and the potential for the
contamination of residential
areas normally located in close
proximity to such areas.
(b) Criterion: Restrict spraying as
much as possible to the hours of
darkness.
Rationale: The high use of
recreation facilities during the
daytime hours precludes the
spraying of sewage at that time.
The maintenance of the elevated
357
-------
chlorine residual discussed above
should offset higher humidity
and lower ultraviolet radiation,
typical of the night, factors
which encourage the viability of
pathogens.
b. Protection of Water Resources
(1) Criterion: Locate the sites on
relatively flat (<15°) upland terrain,
the optimum slope being 2-6 degrees.
Rationale: Relatively flat terrain
minimizes the potential for erosion,
surface runoff contamination to
streams, and excessive pumping
heads. Upland area is stipulated to
avoid valley bottoms subject to
flooding and removal of dormant
pathogenic organisms in the topsoil.
A gentle slope will permit efficient
removal of water from lateral piping
immediately upon cessation of
spray-irrigation activity in a specific
area.
(2) Criterion: Assure the presence of a
soil having a large reactive surface
area plus an adequate sustained
percolation rate of at least 0.25
inches/hour and sufficient aeration
capacity. Such conditions can
generally be achieved in silt-textured
soils with a small percentage (3-6%)
of clay but sufficiently high in
organic matter to have a
well-aggregated structure.
Rationale: The recommended
percolation rate reflects sufficient
soil porosity to accommodate the
optimum spray application rate and
avoid surface ponding; a greater
percolation capacity would allow the
concurrent accommodation of
precipitation with spray irrigation.
Aggregated soil structure is necessary
to preclude development of an
anaerobic environment within the
soil horizon. With the above two
considerations in mind, a maximum
amount of soil-reactive surface
should be provided to effect efficient
renovation of the effluent.
(3) Criterion: Provide a soil depth of at
least seven feet, together with an
additional minimum depth of eight
feet to the water table through soil,
parent material, and/or bedrock.
Rationale: The stated minimum soil
column will allow complete, or
almost complete, biological and
chemical renovation of the sewage
effluent. The additional required
depth to the ground water table
should accommodate seasonal
fluctuations in water table elevation
and permit further assimilation of the
more mobile effluent constituents,
thus preventing groundwater
contamination.
(4) Criterion: Assure that bedrock (or
unconsolidated sediments, as the case
may be) is sufficiently porous or
permeable to convey the increased
volume of applied water to the water
table, and thence, away from the site.
Avoid, however, siting over zones of
excessive permeability (transport
>100 ft/day), e.g., fault zones,
fracture trace intersections, open
bedding planes, sinkholes, and other
solution openings.
Rationale: The bedrock must have
sufficient vertical and lateral water
transport capacities to avoid
continual elevation of the water table
and possible eventual soil saturation
conditions, as could develop over
perched water tables or thick shale
units. On the other hand, retention
time must be adequate to preclude
the possibility for short-circuiting by
the principal contaminants, so
common especially in areas of
limestone bedrock.
(5) Criterion: Provide a vegetative mat of
forest, crops, or grasses.
Rationale: Vegetation and ground
litter prevent soil clogging, ponding,
runoff, and erosion, and provide
some insulation for soil and piping
from icing conditions. The
maintenance of a vegetative mat may
358
-------
be impractical in semi-arid climates
typical of of the southwestern United
States, in that rapid evaporation can
cause "up-leached" toxic salt
concentrations near the surface
which could kill the plant life.
(6) Criterion: Utilize, at each individual
site, a spray application rate of 0.25
inch/hour for eight continuous hours.
Allow one week between applications
at each site. Choose the number of
sites used and the area of each site
based on the operational time
schedule and the design quantity of
effluent.
Rationale: For spray irrigation of
secondary effluent, hydraulic load,
not effluent composition, is critical;
the stated application rate is
optimum. This rate is in consonance
with the soil percolation capacity and
allows for a one-week period of
drying for maintenance of an aerobic
environment within the soil. The
number of sites required is
determined by multiplying the
number of 8-hour periods of daily
operation by the number of days of
operation per week. Continuous
(24-hour) operation requires 21 plots
and is desirable because it
accommodates continuous effluent
production and distribution and also
keeps water flowing in the main pipes
continuously which tends to prevent
freezing.
(7) Criterion: Assure that no streams or
municipal/industrial wells are located
within the sites selected.
Rationale: Drawdown from an
immediate well would tend to
minimize retention time and to
increase the potential for well
contamination. Direct spraying onto
a stream or runoff and erosion during
intense rainstorms would cause
immediate contamination of surface
water.
4. Criteria applicable to rapid infiltration
ponds:
a. Criterion: provide dike or mound
structure protection along site perimeter;
avoid siting on valley floodplain.
Rationale: The site must be protected
from flushing by extraneous overland
flow or flood waters to prevent overflow
and resulting surface water
contamination.
b. Criterion: Provide a thick pond bed
composed of a course-grained soil capable
of sustaining a percolation rate of 1-1/2
to 2 inches/hour.
Rationale: The optimum efficient
application rate dictates a percolation
rate as stated to prevent surface overflow
which, in turn, necessitates a
coarse-grained soil of limited reactive
surface. Accordingly, several hundred feet
of vertical or lateral intergranular flow are
required to effect chemical and biological
renovation of the effluent.
c. Criterion: Utilize an effluent criteria
stated in paragraph 3b(4) above are met.
d. Criterion: Utilize an effluent application
rate of approximately 1 foot/day for 10
to 14 days, with an intervening drying
period on the order of two weeks
between applications.
Rationale: This rate is in consonance with
the soil percolation capacity and permits
a period of drying in order to effect
oxidation of organic matter and
maintenance of rapid infiltration.
e. Criterion: Insure that no active wells are
located in the proximity of the site.
Rationale: Drawdown from an immediate
well would tend to accelerate percolation
of effluent into the groundwater, causing
a greater potential for well
contamination.
5. Criteria applicable to overland runoff:
a. Criterion: Assure that the criteria stated
in paragraph 3b(l) and 3b(4) are met.
b. Criterion: Utilize a fine-grained soil (high
clay content) which has a sustained
percolation capacity of less than 0.2
359
-------
inch/day. a-
Rationale: Since the objective is effluent
renovation at the soil surface, infiltration, b.
leading to potential groundwater
contamination, must be minimized.
c. Criterion: Provide a site consisting of
trenches spaced approximately 100 feet
apart per percent slope (from 2-6%) and
having a continuous vegetative mat.
Rationale: The stated design, gradient, c.
and vegetation requirements will allow
adequate effluent-soil contact time and
vegetative filtration of BOD and
suspended solids to achieve chemical and
biological renovation prior to discharge
into a surface water channel.
6. Criteria applicable to evaporation ponds:
Criterion: Assure that the criterion stated
in paragraph 3b(l) is met.
Criterion: Provide the evaporation ponds
with impervious beds and banks.
Rationale: Leakage must be nonexistent
or minimal to prevent groundwater
contamination. If significant leakage
cannot be prevented, all criteria listed in
paragraphs 3b(3)and (3b(4) must be met.
Criterion: Assure that the
evaporation-precipitation ratio is
sufficiently high to permit efficient
operation.
Rationale: Evaporation must exceed both
precipitation and effluent application to
preclude overflow and resulting surface
water contamination.
360
-------
APPENDIX H
CLIMATIC CLASSIFICATION
One of the main functions of the
application of wastewater effluents to land
areas is to enhance agricultural and
silvicultural growths where these liquids are
used for this purpose. Thus, effective
management of water resources by this
alternative method is subject to the common
constraints imposed by climatic conditions on
farm operations.
Irrigation by any of the means used to
apply wastewater to the land is a means of
"modifying weather" by varying and
augmenting the amount of precipitation
which falls on farm areas. Decision on the
applicability and feasibility of land
application must be reached after
consideration of the climate conditions which
will be imposed on farm operations and,
conversely, of the effects of exposure of large
bodies of water to the atmosphere, in the
form of airborne particles and aerosol mists,
and land-based bodies of water.
Climatic classifications for agricultural
purposes are different from any such
categorizations of regions and weather for
other purposes, such as human comfort, the
nurturing of fish and wildlife and the
balancing of the water ecology of the
environment. The climatic classifications in
the coterminous United States used in this
report have been designated with these factors
in mind. They are related to seasonal length,
temperatures, humidity, rainfall, solar heat,
length of day, sun's ray angles, cloud cover,
groundwater tables and other related
phenomena of climate.
The feasibility of adopting land
application methods as alternatives for
so-called conventional treatment and disposal
of wastewater effluents into surface water
sources must be judged on the basis of these
climatic conditions. Included in this broad
decision-making problem is understanding of
soil microbial activity and its ability to
metabolize wastes substances retained by the
soil by absorption or physical retention in soil
interstices, and the energy impacts of
evapotranspiration phenomena.
An appreciable percentage of wastewaters
applied to land areas never penetrates the
depth of the soil cover and percolates into
water-bearing aquifers. During
high-temperature periods, when ambient
temperatures average above 75°F, more than
0.2 inch of water per day can be
evapotranspired from the surface of the soil
or vegetative growths. The annual loss of
water can range from 40 inches in warm
Southern regions, to less than 25 inches in
cooler, wetter areas such as the Northwestern
region. Other climatic factors affecting land
application systems include freezing periods,
storm intensities and durations, relative
humidity and dew points. The five zones
designated in this study take all of these
conditions into consideration.
Climate is a two-way phenomenon. The
relationship between agricultural pursuits and
climate is obvious. Less understood are the
effects of wastewater application to land areas
and the management of holding basins and
lagoon acreages on the climate. The inference
might be made that these effects could be
adverse. The transfer of moisture from land
and vegetative surfaces to the atmosphere
might have a definitive influence on climate.
Studies reported by Dr. J. R. Mather, C. W.
Thornthwaite and others have explored the
meteorological effects of such water transfers
and the amounts of this transition from
surface water resources into transient
moisture in the unending water cycle of
precipitation-evaporation-condensation--
reprecipitation. The reference contained
below, taken from material prepared by Dr.
Mather, indicates the scope of such
geologic-hydrologic investigations of the
"reverse" impact of land application concepts
on an otherwise stable water and climate
cycle.
These studies and bibliographic references
make clear the fact that land application is
not a simple-faceted task of placing "spent
waters" onto land which can utilize them for
enhancement of the agricultural climate.
Researchers who are specialists in the
361
-------
multidisciplinary phases of this subject have
investigated such novel aspects as the effects
of reservoirs on climate due to warming and
cooling effects, and the stabilizing of diurnal
temperature ranges and relative humidities;
the effect of large-scale irrigation with "new"
water or wastewaters; the effect of
evaporation from irrigating sprays; the
climatic influences of cooling towers; and the
effects of large lake areas on regional and
local precipitation.
Dr. Mather drew the conclusion from
such studies that "... climatic changes that
accompany irrigation enterprises are relatively
local in magnitude. Air moving over an
irrigated tract will rapidly pick up moisture.
Within the first few hundred feet in all but
the most arid regions, the air will have
essentially reached equilibrium. Once the air
has left the moistened area, turbulent mixing
will rapidly reduce the moisture content to its
original low value. The relatively small, local
influence of wetted areas (land application
areas) suggests that large land treatment
systems or other schemes to modify nature
through the creation of many large watered
tracts, shelter belts, or reservoirs will be
relatively ineffective except in the immediate
vicinity of the wetted surface."
This reassuring evaluation of this
little-understood and equally inadequately
considered facet of land application systems
removes any implied threat that the
maximization of land application
management systems for handling vast
millions of gallons of wastewaters on a
national scale, as an alternative to
conventional wastes treatment and disposal
practices, will have any lasting or widespread
effect on the climate of the United States,
other than local modifications of weather
patterns.
REFERENCES
AYNSLEY, E., 1970: Cooling-tower
effects: studies abound. Electrical World,
May, pp. 42-43.
BORUSHKO, I.S., 1956: The influence
of a water body on the temperature and air
humidity of the surrounding territory. Tr.
Glavn. Geofizich. Observatorii, No. 59 (121),
Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat.
DUB ROBIN, L.V., 1963: Computation
of the influence of a reservoir on absolute
humidity in the littoral zone. Materialy
pervogo nauchno-t e khnicheskogo
soveshchaniya p o izercheniyu
Kuybyshevskogo vodokhranilishcha, no. 2,
Kuybyshev.
HUFF, F.A., R.C. BEEBE, D.M.A.
JONES, G.M. MORGAN, JR., and R.G.
SEMONIN, 1971: Effect of cooling tower
effluents on atmospheric conditions in
northeastern Illinois. Illinois State Water
Survey, Circular 100, Dept. of Registration
and Education, 37 p.
KOLOBOV, N.V. and M.A.
VERESHCHAGIN, 1963: The influence of
Kuybyshev and Volgograd reservoirs on
meteorological conditions in the littoral zone.
Materialy pervogo riauchno-tekhnicheskogo
soveshchaniya p o izucheniyu
Kuybyshevskogo vodokhranilishcha, no. 2,
Kuybyshev.
MATHER, J.R., 1960: An investigation
of evaporation from irrigation sprays. Agri.
Engineering, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 345-348.
MATHER, J.R. and G.A. YOSHIOKA,
1968: The role of climate in the distribution
of vegetation. Annals Association American
Geogr., vol. 58, no. l.pp. 19-41,
MCDONALD, J.E., 1962: The
evaporation-precipitation fallacy. Weather,
vol. XVII, no. 5, pp. 168-177.
McVEHIL, G.E., 1970: Evaluation of
Cooling Tower Effects at Zion Nuclear
Generating Station. Final Rept, Sierra
Research Corp., prepared for Commonwealth
Edison Company, Chicago, 50 p.
SOKOLIK, N.I., 1958: The effect of
irrigation on the heat regime of surrounding
areas. Glavn. Geofizich. Observatorii im. A.I.
Voeikova: Trudy; vypusk 77, pp. 34-42.
(Translated by G.S. Mitchell, Off. of
Climatology, U.S. Army Elect. Prov. Gd, Ft.
Huachuca, 1961.)
THORNTHWAITE, C.W., 1948: An
approach toward a rational classification of
climates. Geogr. Rev., vol. 38, no. 1, pp.
55-94.
362
-------
THORNTHWAITE, C.W. and J.R. of large reservoirs on local climates. Soviet
MATHER, 1955: The water balance. Geography: Rev. and Trans., vol. VI, no. 10,
Publications in Climatology, Laboratory of pp. 25-40 (from Izvestiya Akademii Nauk
Climatology, vol. 8, No. 1, 104 p. SSSR, seriya geograficheskaya, 1964, no. 4,
VENDROV, S.L. and L.K. MALIK, pp. 35-46).
1965: An attempt to determine the influence
363
-------
-------
Appendix I
BACKGROUND PAPERS ON LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL EFFLUENTS
A. EXPERIENCES WITH LAND SPREADING OF MUNICIPAL EFFLUENTS1
by
Richard E. Thomas and Curtis C. Harlin, Jr.2
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is a very young agency which
was created in December 1970. Although the
agency is less than two years old, its
experiences with land spreading of municipal
effluents extend over more than 15 years. This
longer period of experiences stems from the
efforts of our predecessor agencies which
include the Federal Water Quality
Administration, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, and the U.S. Public
Health Service. These past efforts were
conducted as a result of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 and
subsequent amendments of this Act.
Within the current organization of EPA,
the National Water Quality Control Research
Program located at the Robert S. Kerr Water
Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma, is actively
participating in research to improve our
understanding of the processes which
influence and limit the performance of
land-based wastewater management systems.
The primary goal of this research is to
advance the state of the art so that sound
technology will serve as a base for reliable
design of systems to achieve desirable and
specific levels of performance.
Our evaluation of the current state of the
art leads us to conclude that there are several
distinctly different approaches to the
spreading of municipal effluents on the land
which show promise for further development
and widespread use. It is convenient to group
these land spreading approaches into three
categories which we refer to as (1)
infiltration-percolation, (2) cropland
irrigation, and (3) spray-runoff. We use this
grouping because each of these approaches
1. Presented at the First Annual Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Workshop on Land Renovation
of Waste Water in Florida, May 31-June 1, 1972, Tampa,
Florida.
2. Research Soil Scientist and Chief, respectively, National
Water Quality Control Research Program, Robert S. Kerr
Water Research Center, EPA, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
has well-defined differences regarding land
area requirements and the resulting
interactions with the plant, soil, and water
components of localized ecosystems.
The infiltration-percolation group
includes systems frequently referred to as
recharge basins, ridge-and-furrow basins, or
flooding basins. Systems of this type are
operated on the basis that the applied
wastewater moves downward through the soil
for treatment. Coarse textured soils are
preferred in order to achieve the desired areal
loadings which range up to 400 feet per year
under ideal conditions.
The chief functions of plants are the
relatively minor roles of shading the surface
of the soil and helping to stabilize good
physical conditions in the soil. Physical,
chemical, and biochemical interactions in the
soil are the major processes contributing to
treatment of the applied wastewater. Surface
runoff is prohibited; evaporative losses are
relatively minor; and substantially all of the
renovated water becomes groundwater.
Crop irrigation is an immediate and direct
reuse of a municipal effluent for beneficial
production of crops not for direct human
consumption. Common broad irrigation or
spray irrigation techniques are used to apply
the effluent to crops at normal irrigation rates
or somewhat in excess of these rates. Land
area requirements are large because areal
loadings are one to two inches per week with
total growing season applications of less than
8 feet per year. Plants play a prominent role
in the removal of plant nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus. Physical, chemical,
and biochemical interactions in the soil are
less dominant in achieving desired
performance because of the relatively low rate
of areal loading. Surface-runoff may or may
not be controlled; evapotranspiration losses
may be equal to or greater than the amount
of water moving through the soil to become
groundwater. This large percentage of
evaporative losses can result in a substantial
365
-------
increase in the total salt content of the water
percolating down through the soils.
The spray-runoff is especially suited to
use with impermeable soils and falls
intermediate between the infiltration-
percolation approach and the crop irriga-
tion approach in land area requirements.
Vegetative cover is necessary to stabilize the
carefully prepared runoff slopes and terraces,
but the harvesting of a crop is secondary to
the objective of treating the applied effluent.
The physical, chemical, and biochemical
processes take place as the liquid moves
slowly over the surface of the soil by sheet
flow. More than half of the applied effluent is
returned directly to surface waters as planned
and controlled runoff of the renovated water.
The remainder of the water is either lost
through evaporative processes or percolates
down through the soil to become
groundwater. A comparison of selected
characteristics of the three land-spreading
systems is presented in Table 1.
Now, let us consider some research
studies which have been conducted or
financially supported by EPA or its
predecessor agencies. Discussions of the
results of these studies will provide additional
detail about system designs and management
techniques which can be utilized to achieve
specified treatment or reuse objectives. The
three categories of land spreading will be
discussed in the same sequence in which they
have been described in preceding paragraphs.
Infiltration-Percolation Systems
Infiltration-percolation approaches such
as septic tank-soil absorption systems, ridge
and furrow basins, and flooding basins have
been utilized for many decades as a
convenient disposal practice. Design and
operation of these systems have emphasized
the disposal concept, and it is only within the
last decade that an effort has been made to
emphasize the treatment capability of the
infiltration-percolation approach. EPA and its
predecessors have been involved in six
research projects having the objective of
utilizing the infiltration-percolation approach
to treat municipal effluents for subsequent
reuse. Four of these studies were conducted
in the water-short southwestern states and
two were conducted in water-rich north
central states.
First, let us consider the objectives and
results of the four studies conducted in the
water-short southwestern states. A study at
Whittier Narrows, California was conducted
to study the effectiveness of the
infiltration-approach for direct recharge of a
potable groundwater supply with secondary
effluent.1 The results of this study showed
that spreading periods of about 9 hours
followed by drying periods of about 15 hours
produced a clear and highly oxidized water
acceptable for recharge at this site. This
method of operation resulted in conversion of
almost all applied nitrogen to nitrate and
produced nitrate concentrations in the
renovated water two to three times more than
acceptable limits for drinking water. Due to
the high nitrate concentration, it was
recommended that dilution with low nitrate
water would be necessary before repumping
for use as a water supply.
A concurrent study at Santee, California
evaluated the use of infiltration-percolation to
make municipal effluent suitable to fill and
maintain the water level in recreational
lakes2. Locating the infiltration-percolation
basins in the alluvium of a shallow stream
channel provided substantial lateral
movement underground after about 10 feet of
vertical percolation. In addition to excellent
removal of solids, oxygen-demanding
substances, pathogens, and phosphorus, total
nitrogen in the renovated water was reduced
to 1.5 mg/1 (from 25 mg/1 applied to
spreading basins) after about 1,500 feet of
lateral underground travel. Emphasis was
placed on evaluating this nitrogen removal at
a Phoenix, Arizona study using a similar mode
of operation.3 Results of the Phoenix study
showed that the frequency of application has
a major influence on nitrogen removal.
Spreading and drying periods of a few days or
less promoted nitrification and resulted in less
than 10 percent total nitrogen removal
whereas spreading and drying periods of 10 to
20 days resulted in apparent denitrification
and up to 80 percent nitrogen removal. This
study also highlighted the importance of
366
-------
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE CHARACTISTICS OF SYSTEMS
Type of System
Factor
Application Rate
Land required for
1 mgd flow
(3.1 ac. ft.)
Application techniques
Soils
Probability of
influencing ground-
water quality
Needed depth
to groundwater
Fate of wastewater
Crop Irrigation
2-8 ft. per year
140-560 acres
plus buffer zones
Spray or flood
Moderately per-
meable soils with
good productivity
when irrigated
Moderate
About 5 ft.
Predominately
evaporation or
deep percolation
Spray-Runoff
8-15 ft. per year
75-140 acres
plus buffer zones
Spray
Slowly permeable
soils such as clay
loams and clay
Slight
Not known
Surface discharge
dominates over
evaporation and
percolation
Infil tra tion-Per cola tion
15-400 ft. per year
3-75 acres plus
buffer zones
Usually flood
Rapidly permeable
soils such as sands,
loamy sands, and
sandy loams
Certain
About 15 ft.
Percolation to
groundwater
367
-------
underground residence time and/or distance
of travel for achieving phosphorus removal at
the high loadings used for the
infiltration-percolation approach.
Another important factor related to local
hydrological conditions was graphically
demonstrated by a study at Hemet,
California.4 An unusually wet winter season
at this location caused the local water table to
rise up to the bottom of the spreading basins.
The resultant reduction in hydraulic
acceptance rate and deterioration of
treatment efficiency made it necessary to
quickly develop an alternate method for
handling their effluent.
Now let us look at the results of the two
infiltration-percolation studies in the cool and
semi-humid climate of the north central
states. One of these entailed a four-year
experiment using 20-hour spraying periods
followed by 4-hour drying periods to apply
about 98 feet per year of effluent on a sandy
soil.5 Our definitions place this system in the
infiltration-percolation category even though
it uses spray application and is referred to as a
spray irrigation system. It is significant that
the use of short spreading and drying cycles in
this climate produced nitrogen and
phosphorus interactions comparable to those
for studies in the Southwest. Nitrogen was
converted to nitrate which appeared in the
groundwater (at a concentration comparable
to that in a municipal effluent) while 70
percent of the phosphorus was removed after
no more than 20 feet of travel distance
through the soil. The other study in this
climate was a one-year evaluation of the
performance of an existing ridge and furrow
basin.6 The system was located on a silt loam
soil and a loading of about 45 feet per year
was obtained with wetting periods of two
weeks followed by drying periods of two
weeks. As was the case for the study in
Arizona, the long spreading period resulted in
about 70 percent removal of total nitrogen
without affecting the removal capacity for
other measured parameters.
Our experiences with the use of the
infiltration-percolation approach to land
spreading of municipal effluents are
encouraging for future use on a much larger
scale. Technological data are already available
to design and operate systems for a limited
number of situations, but of more importance
is the apparent utility of the approach under
widely differing climatic conditions. We are
optimistic that further research efforts can
establish well-defined design criteria and
management techniques for use throughout
the United States.
Cropland Irrigation Systems
Cropland irrigation with municipal
effluents is a well-established practice in the
southwestern United States and has been
practiced continuously for over 50 years at
many municipalities. This practice has
developed to satisfy a need for more water as
well as a need to manage municipal effluents
in an acceptable manner. Utilization of the
practice has grown steadily since the first
operations were initiated around 1900, and
there are over 300 active operations at
present. In spite of this impressive number of
operating installations, there has been little
research conducted to establish a
technological base for predicting the
long-term influence of various management
techniques on the crops, the soils, the
groundwater, or the overall ecology of the
area of influence. EPA is initiating several
projects to assess the current state of our
knowledge and to improve management of
cropland irrigation systems.
One group of projects is directed to
locating and evaluating currently available
quantitative information on application rates,
crop responses, soil changes, and groundwater
quality changes from systems which have
been operating for varying periods of time.
This effort should be very useful in defining
management techniques for general use in the
Southwest as well as furnishing a base on
which to build for other geographic locations.
Another group of projects is oriented
toward field development of management
techniques for the cooler and more humid
regions east of the Mississippi River. One of
these projects has been in operation at
Pennsylvania State University since 1963.7
368
-------
The results of this project over the first seven
years of operation have shown that cropland
irrigation can be practiced in a cool and
semi-humid climate in a manner that will
promote crop production while contributing
substantial recharge to the ground water.
Results reported to date from the
Pennsylvania State University project indicate
that an application rate of 2 inches per week
over a 30-week growing season (a total
application of 60 inches per year) is the most
beneficial for general use under conditions
existing at this site. The other field
development projects are the Muskegon
County Wastewater Management System
currently under construction at Muskegon,
Michigan, and a smaller but similar project.
just initiated at Belding, Michigan. It will be
several years before field data from these
projects will be available for reliable
interpretation and subsequent use in
establishing improved management practices.
Our experience with the cropland
irrigation approach to land spreading stems
largely from qualitative information on the
performance of existing systems concentrated
in the semi-arid Southwest. In general, the
performance of these systems has been judged
to be satisfactory; yet there is a general lack
of quantitative data to substantiate this
judgment. A carefully managed experimental
system located at Pennsylvania State
University has produced quantitative
information over a 7-year period which
indicates that cropland irrigation with
municipal effluent can be a practicable
wastewater management technique in cool
and semi-humid climates.
Spray-Runoff Systems
The spray-runoff approach has not been
utilized for treatment of municipal
wastewaters, but it has been employed at
many industrial plants. Experiences at some
of these industrial plants indicated that
spray-runoff had considerable potential for
treatment of any wastewater containing
biodegradable organics.
In 1967, our research group at the Robert
S. Kerr Water Research Center initiated a
cooperative study with the Campbell Soup
Company to conduct a one-year research
study at their Paris, Texas plant. The
^objective of the study was to evaluate the
performance of the spray-runoff system at
this location which had been in operation for
5 years. The results of the study on this 3
mgd capacity system showed that the
spray-runoff approach was indeed a very
efficient system for removal of suspended
solids, oxygen-demanding substances, and
nitrogen from the cannery wastewater
produced at this plant.8 The results of this
investigation encouraged us to explore the
capability of the spray-runoff approach for
other wastewaters in which biodegradable
organics were the major source of pollutants
to be removed by a treatment process. We are
currently conducting in-house research to
develop the spray-runoff approach for
treatment of raw domestic sewage and for
runoff from beef cattle feedlots. Preliminary
results for both of these wastewaters are very
encouraging for development of practicable
systems. For example, the experimental
spray-runoff system we have designed for the
treatment of raw comminuted domestic
sewage is producing an effluent that is of
tertiary treatment quality without producing
any sludge to handle. The spray-runoff system
designed for treatment of the runoff collected
from beef cattle feedlots has produced
equally encouraging performance data. A
technical report covering five months of field
evaluation data for the feedlot runoff system
will be available soon.
Technology to utilize the spray-runoff
approach for management of domestic
wastewaters is in the rudimentary stage of
development. The exploratory research which
we have in progress indicates that
spray-runoff treatment of raw domestic
wastewater is feasible but many more
questions must be answered before the
process can be developed for general use.
Summary
The foregoing is a brief summary of the
EPA's involvement in land spreading of
municipal effluents for treatment and/or
reuse. Coverage of the many research projects
introduced has, by choice, been limited and
369
-------
selective in order to highlight the objectives of
this presentation. Further information about
many of the projects has been reported in
readily available technical publications in
addition to those cited in this paper. For
those projects currently in progress at the
Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center of the
EPA, the authors can be contacted to obtain
further information.
REFERENCES
1. State of California, The Resources
Agency, State Water Quality Control
Board, "Wastewater Reclamation at
Whittier Narrows," Sacramento, Ca.,
Publication No. 33, 1966, 99pp.
2. MERRELL, JOHN C., JR., KATKO,
ALBERT, and PINTLER, HERBERT E.,
"The Santee Recreation Project, Santee,
Ca.," (Summary Report), Public Health
Service Publication No. 99-WP-27,
December 1965, 69 pp.
3. BOUWER, H., "Water Quality Aspects of
Intermittent Systems Using Secondary
Sewage Effluent," U.S. Water
Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Az.
Paper No. 8, September 1970, 19 pp.
4. Eastern Municipal Water District, "Study
of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled
Through Ground Water," EPA, Water
Pollution Control Research Report Series
No. 16060DDZ07/71, Vol. I, July 1971.
5. LARSON, WINSTON C., "Spray
Irrigation for .the Removal of Nutrients in
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent as
Practiced at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,"
Algae and Metropolitan Wastes,
Transactions of the 1960 Seminar, U.S.
Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, pp 125-129.
6. BENDIXEN, THOMAS W., et al., "Ridge
and Furrow Liquid Waste Disposal in a
Northern Latitude." Journal of the
Sanitary Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, No. SA1,
February 1968, pp 147-157.
7. PARIZEK, R.R., et al, "Waste Water
Renovation and Conservation," The
Pennsylvania State University Studies No.
23, University Park, Pa., 1967, 71 pp.
8. LAW, JAMES P., JR., THOMAS,
RICHARD E., and MYERS, LEON H.,
"Cannery Wastewater Treatment by
High-Rate Spray on Grassland," WPCF
Jour., Vol. 42, No. 9, September 1970,
pp 1621-1631.
370
-------
B. FATE OF MATERIALS APPLIED1
by
Richard E. Thomas2
When wastewaters are applied to the land,
a substantial quantity of suspended and
dissolved solids is deposited on the land. Tne
fate of these materials is an important factor
to consider in the selection of a land-based
alternative for management of wastewaters.
There are four repositories which may receive
and store appreciable fractions of the
materials applied to the land at a wastewater
management site: (1) Some of the material
may be volatilized and released to the
atmosphere; (2) another fraction of the
material may be released directly to surface
waters with runoff; (3) particulates and some
dissolved material will be temporarily or
permanently retained in the soil; and (4) the
remainder of the material will be leached
down through the soil to be stored in the
groundwater. The distribution of materials
among these four repositories is dependent on
physical, chemical and biochemical
interactions which take place in the soil.
These interactions in the soil are influenced
by many factors related to the characteristics
of the wastewater and to characteristics of
specific land treatment sites. Some of these
factors are beyond the control of man while
others can be managed to control the fate of
applied materials.
The purpose of this presentation is to
describe several management approaches
which can be used to influence the fate of
materials applied to land treatment sites. The
materials to be included will be grouped into
three units for convenience. The units will be
designated as suspended materials, major
plant nutrients, and other constituents.
Within each unit, the fate of materials will be
1. Presented at the Conference on Land Disposal of
Wastewaters, Michigan State University, Kellogg Center, East
Lansing, Michigan, Dec. 6-7, 1972.
2. Research Soil Scientist and Chief, respectively, National
Water Quality Control Research Program, Robert S. Kerr
Water Research Center, tPA, Ada, Oklahoma 74820.
discussed in relation to three approaches to
land treatment of wastewaters. These
approaches to land treatment are based on
hydrological behavior and can be described
briefly as follows: (1) Infiltration systems
which are operated at relatively high
hydraulic rates and emphasize groundwater
recharge as the fate of the applied wastewater;
(2) irrigation systems which are operated at
relatively low hydraulic rates and emphasize
both groundwater recharge and evaporative
losses as the fate of the applied wastewater;
and (3) spray-runoff systems which are
operated at intermediate hydraulic rates and
emphasize runoff to surface waters as the fate
of the applied wastewater.
Suspended Materials
Suspended materials in a wastewater
settle out quickly or are filtered out as the
applied wastewater percolates through the
soil. The results of numerous studies can be
cited to show essentially complete retention
of suspended materials in the soil after
relatively short travel distances of a few
inches to a few feet depending on the texture
of the soil. Obviously continued retention and
storage of suspended solids in the soil pores
would lead to clogging of the soil pores and a
sharp reduction in the permeability of the
soil. This phenomenon has been studied
extensively and researchers have identified
many factors influencing the clogging of soil
pores. Articles by McGauhey and Krone,1
Thomas, Schwartz, and Bendixen2 or
Thomas and Law3 are good reference sources
to obtain a more complete understanding of
the clogging process. Fortunately, a major
fraction of the suspended solids are volatile
and are biochemically oxidized to products
which prevent clogging of the soil pores. In
fact, the biochemical oxygen demand exerted
by this biodegradable fraction of the
suspended material is a key factor in
determining the successful operation of many
371
-------
land treatment systems and hence the fate of
all materials applied to the system.
Information from practical experiences
with land disposal of wastewaters shows a
wide divergence in the amount of
biodegradable solids which can be applied to
the soil without inducing conditions that
cause soil clogging and the undesirable effects
which accompany soil clogging. Blosser and
Caron4 recommend biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) loadings of up to 200
Ibs./acre/day for disposal of pulp and paper
mill effluents. Thomas and Bendixen5 report
that sewage sludge loadings equivalent to 170
Ibs./acre/day of organic carbon can be applied
to sandy soils for extended periods of
operation. Bouwer6 reports a BOD loading of
45 Ibs./acre/day for secondary sewage
effluent. Parizek et al,7 report BOD loadings
of less than 2 Ibs./acre/day for irrigation with
secondary effluent. An important point to
consider is covered by Thomas and Bendixen5
in their discussion of the degradation of
sewage organics in soil. They cite several
references which indicate that organic carbon
additions of as much as 25 Ibs./acre/day are
needed to maintain a static organic matter
content in the soil. Such additions help to
maintain the tilth of a soil and would not be
expected to pose problems of soil clogging.
With this concept in mind, one can make
useful projections about the fate of suspended
materials applied to the soil through the three
approaches to land treatment.
Typical suspended solids concentrations
found in secondary effluents should have
little effect on the operation of well designed
and well managed wastewater-irrigation
systems. We can illustrate this by assuming an
effluent with 50 mg/1 of suspended solids (of
which 70 percent are biodegradable) and an
irrigation rate of 2 inches per week. Such a
system would result in a total suspended
solids loading of 3 Ibs./acre/day and
biodegradable suspended solids loading of 2
Ibs./acre/day. The BOD exerted by the
biodegradable fraction of these solids is
substantially less than the 25 Ibs./acre/day of
organic additions required to maintain a static
organic matter content in soils. The residual
of the nonbiodegradable fraction of the
suspended materials also represents a small
contribution to the total volume of affected
soil. An acre-inch of a mineral soil weighs
about 300,000 Ibs. while the 1 Ib./acre/day of
nonbiodegradable suspended solids amounts
to an addition of only 365 Ibs./acre/year. It
would be more than a decade before the
added residue amounted to one percent of the
weight of the surface inch of soil and many
decades before the residue amounted to one
percent of the soil normally mixed by
plowing. From this illustration, it is clear that
the suspended solids added to the soil through
wastewater irrigation at irrigation rates of less
than eight feet per year do not pose a
problem of soil clogging. The fate of much of
the suspended solids is biooxidation to gases,
water, and minerals. The fate of the
nonbiodegradable fraction is accumulation in
the soil, but the quantity which may
accumulate represents a very minor addition
to the total soil volume. Qualitative
information from numerous wastewater
irrigation operations bears out the fact that
suspended solids do not pose specific
operational problems, and the results of
research investigations such as the 14-year
study by Day, Stroehlein, and Tucker8 show
that irrigation with activated sludge effluent
did not alter soil organic matter content
relative to irrigation with well water.
Suspended solids added to the soil by the
infiltration approach have a major influence
on system operation and performance because
hydraulic loading rates can range up to 300
feet per year. The high loading rates
characteristically used for infiltration systems
greatly increase the potential for soil clogging
to interfere with the successful operation of a
system. The same theoretical composition of
effluent we used to illustrate the irrigation
approach will clearly demonstrate this
increased potential for soil clogging. With our
suspended solids content of 50 mg/1 (70
percent biodegradable) and a hydraulic
loading of 120 feet per year (an intermediate
value), the total suspended solids load is 45
Ibs./acre/day. This load exceeds the organic
addition needed to maintain a static organic
matter content in many soils. The BOD
exerted by this amount of biodegradable
material can exceed that available in the soil
environment and lead to severe clogging of
372
-------
soil pores. This phenomenon of soil clogging
is well documented, and many research
studies on this subject were reviewed by
McGauhey and Krone.1 The importance of
available oxygen for prevention of clogging is
discussed by Thomas, Schwartz, and
Bendixen.2 Intermittent dosing and drying
periods are effective for avoiding the problem
of soil clogging and assuring that the fate of
suspended materials is biooxidation to gases,
water and minerals. Successful operation of
infiltration systems for decades at many
locations throughout the United States
provides qualitative support on the fate of
suspended solids, but quantitative data are
unavailable or meager for most of these
installations. Quantitative information
available from the results of research studies
does verify that the fate of suspended solids is
biooxidation with accumulation of some
residue in the surface soil. Research
conducted by Bouwer at Phoenix, Arizona,
resulted in excellent suspended solids
removals with a BOD loading of 45
Ibs./acre/day at a hydraulic loading of 300
feet per year with an activated sludge
effluent. Studies by Larson at Detroit Lakes,
Minnesota1 ° indicated successful operation
with a BOD loading of 23 Ibs./acre/day at a
hydraulic loading of 95 feet per year with
secondary effluent.
Suspended solids added to the soil
through the spray-runoff approach pose a
different situation for removal. The liquid
does not percolate downward through the
soil, and the filtering capability of the soil is
not involved in the removal of the suspended
materials. The principal mechanism of
removal is still biooxidation, but the
biooxidation must be accomplished as the
liquid moves slowly across the surface of the
soil. There is no problem of potential soil
clogging, but the suspended solids still have a
major influence on system operation through
the BOD which they exert. The successful
operation of spray-runoff systems is
dependent on maintaining an oxygen level in
the soil which sustains biooxidation of
organic materials applied to the soil. Since
maintenance of biooxidative conditions is a
prerequisite for successful operation of a
system, the fate of biodegradable suspended
solids is oxidation to gases, water, and
minerals. The use of the spray-runoff
approach for land treatment of wastewaters
has been limited, and there are only a few
examples to substantiate the fate of
suspended solids added to the soil by the
spray-runoff approach. Law Thomas, and
Myers11 reported 94 percent reduction in
suspended solids concentrations at a loading
of 20 Ibs./acre/day of suspended solids (48
Ibs./acre/day of BOD for a spray-runoff
system treating cannery wastewater applied at
the rate of 0.36 inches per day. Kirby12
reports that the grass filtration system at
Melbourne, Australia, achieves 96 percent
removal of suspended solids at a loading of 34
Ibs./acre/day of suspended solids (68
Ibs./acre/day of BOD) with raw domestic
sewage applied at the rate of 0.75 inches per
day. The spray-runoff approach to land
treatment does not achieve the virtually
complete removal of suspended materials
achieved by the irrigation approach and the
infiltration approach because some material
usually remains in suspension and is carried in
the runoff from the treatment plots.
Major Plant Nutrients
The major plant nutrients which are of
particular concern at this time are nitrogen
and phosphorus. Each of these nutrients enter
into many interactions within the plant-soil
complex. Dr. Erickson has covered the
mechanisms of these interactions in a
companion paper, and I shall limit my
discussion to the fate of these nutrients for
practical utilization of the three approaches
to land treatment of wastewaters.
Typical nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in secondary effluents are such
that crop uptake plays an important role in
the fate of these nutrients for the wastewater
irrigation approach. Turning once again to our
theoretical effluent, we can add characteristic
concentrations of 20 mg/1 for nitrogen and 10
mg/1 phosphorus to illustrate the fate of these
nutrients. With our irrigation rate of 2 inches
per week and applications during a projected
growing period of 30 weeks, the nitrogen
373
-------
loading would be 270 Ibs./acre and the
phosphorus loading would be 135 Ibs./acre. A
25 ton/acre yield of ensilage corn is one
example of many crops which could utilize
essentially all of the 270 Ibs./acre of nitrogen
applied to the soil. This removal of nitrogen
by crop uptake is essential to the irrigation
approach because excess nitrogen is converted
to the mobile nitrate ion which is carried into
the groundwater by soil percolate. Our 25
ton/acre yield of ensilage corn would remove
approximately 30 Ibs. of the 135 Ibs./acre of
phosphorus added to the soil in the applied
wastewater. As discussed by Dr. Erickson, the
phosphorus in excess of that removed by the
crop is not readily leached from the soil. In
fact, many soils have the capacity to retain
thousands of pounds of phosphorus within
the soil profile while the leachate from the
soil contains only a trace of phosphorus. This
capability of the soil to retain and fix
phosphorus is as important to the removal of
phosphorus as crop uptake is to the removal
of nitrogen since phosphorus applications
exceed potential crop uptake by a substantial
margin. The experimental study at
Pennsylvania State University7 is a good
example of nitrogen removal by crop uptake
and phosphorus removal by retention in the
soil. Of particular local interest is the work of
Ellis and Erickson13 on the phosphorus
retention of many Michigan soils.
The high application rates used for the
infiltration approach negate the influence of
crops as a factor in the fate of major
nutrients. Applying the 20 mg/1 of nitrogen
and 10 mg/1 of phosphorus of our theoretical
effluent to the 120 feet per year hydraulic
loading for the infiltration approach produces
a nitrogen loading of about 6,500
Ibs./acre/year and a phosphorus loading of
about 3,300 Ibs./acre/year. Crop uptake can
account for little of these totals, and crop
removal is not a significant factor in the fate
of major plant nutrients for the infiltration
approach to land treatment. The fate of
nitrogen applied by the infiltration approach
is largely dependent on nitrogen removal by
microbial denitifrication of the nitrogen to
gaseous nitrogen with release to the
atmosphere. Management techniques to
promote this process are in the early stages of
development, and much of the applied
nitrogen can be expected to appear in the
underdrainage or groundwater in the nitrate
form. Management techniques to promote
denitrification were studied by Bouwer,6 and
he achieved up to 80 percent removal of the
21,000 Ibs./acre/year of nitrogen applied to
the soil. The operational procedures followed
by Larson1 ° promoted microbial nitrification
rather than denitrification, and nitrate
nitrogen concentration in the groundwater
rose to 31 mg/1. Phosphorus removal for the
infiltration approach is achieved by retention
in the soil through the mechanisms described
by Dr. Erickson in his companion paper.
Finer textured soils have the best capability
to retain phosphorus, but coarse textured
soils suitable for the infiltration approach can
also achieve excellent phosphorus removal.
The process of phosphorus removal is also less
dependent on specific management
techniques. Continuing with the same
research studies we find that Bouwer6
reported about 95 percent removal of the
21,000 Ibs./acre/year of phosphorus applied
with his management techniques after about
200 feet of lateral movement through the soil
while Larson10 reported 75 percent removal
of the 2,400 Ibs./acre/year applied with his
management techniques after about 10 feet of
vertical movement through the soil. These
examples serve to indicate that infiltration
systems can be managed so that retention in
the soil is the fate of the applied phosphorus.
The application rates used for the
spray-runoff approach also reduce the
importance of crop uptake as a factor in
determining the fate of nitrogen and
phosphorus. With the projected
concentrations of 20 mg/1 for nitrogen and 10
mg/1 for phosphorus in our theoretical
effluent and a hydraulic load of 0.4 inches per
day (comparable to rates reported by
Kirby,12 and Law, Thomas, and Myers1: the
nitrogen loading would be 650 Ibs./acre/year
and the phosphorus loading would be 325
Ibs./acre/year. Crop uptake of 250 Ibs. per
acre of nitrogen and 30 Ibs. per acre of
374
-------
phosphorus are appreciable, but they leave
the major fraction of the nutrients for a fate
other than crop removal. The major
mechanism for nitrogen removal in the
spray-runoff mode of operaton is by
denitrification. An environment which
promotes denitrification must be achieved by
adjusting the hydraulic load and hence the
BOD load to maintain a low dissolved oxygen
level which is favorable for denitrification.
Kirby12 reports 60 percent removal of total
nitrogen from raw sewage applied at a rate of
0.8 inches per day but does not indicate the
nitrogen balance. Law, Thomas, and Myers1!
reported 90 percent mass removal of nitrogen
from cannery wastewater with a nitrogen
loading of 515 Ibs./acre/year. Phosphorus
removal by the spray-runoff mode of
operation is relatively inefficient with present
operating procedures. The processes which
retain phosphorus in the soil cannot be
brought into play as the liquid moves over the
surface of the soil. A substantial fraction of
the phosphorus applied in the spray-runoff
mode of operation will be carried in the
runoff unless special steps are taken to
improve the removal of phosphorus. Kirby1 2
reports 35 percent removal of phosphorus for
spray-runoff treatment of raw sewage applied
at 0.8 inches per day. Law, Thomas, and
Myers report two levels of phosphorus
removal for cannery wastewater with a
phosphorus loading of 224 Ibs./acre/year.
Daily applications of wastewater applied over
a 6 to 8-hour period of spraying resulted in
phosphorus removals of about 55 percent or
120 lbs./acre/year, while the same amount of
total application put on with 12-hour spray
periods three times per week resulted in
phosphorus removals of 88 percent which
would amount to 180 lbs./acre/year of the
224 lbs./acre/year applied to the soil.
Other Constituents
Treated wastewaters contain a host of
other constituents in widely varying amounts
including substantial quantities of soluble
salts such as sodium chloride and minor
amounts of trace constituents such as heavy
metals and pesticides. This grouping of other
constituents is a highly variable component
depending on the source of the original water
supply and the sources contributing to the
final composition of the wastewater during
collection. In addition to the variability due
to source, individual constituents may
undergo many different interactions in the
plant-soil environment. Fragmentary
information is available about the fate of
many specific constituents of interest, but
much remains to be learned about the
behavior and hence the fate of trace
constituents added to the soil through the
various approaches of land treatment for
wastewater management. Although it is
impractical to make many generalizations
based on the fragmentary information
currently available, there are some readily
predictable results associated with the three
approaches to land treatment for management
of wastewaters.
The fate of soluble salts or total dissolved
solids applied to the land is usually surface
waters through runoff or groundwater
through percolating soil water. The soil has
little capacity to retain most soluble salts
commonly found in treated wastewaters, and
the only mechanism for appreciable
accumulation of total dissolved salts in the
soil is a lack of sufficient percolating water to
leach the salts from the soil. Since the
primary fate of total dissolved solids is the
effluent from the land treatment system or
the "renovated wastewater," it is important
to remember the fate of the water applied to
the land through the irrigation, infiltration,
and spray-runoff approaches to land
treatment. The loadings of 2- to 8-feet per
year for the crop irrigation approach are such
that the balance between evapotranspiration
and rainfall can substantially influence the
fate of the applied water and the
concentration of total dissolved salts in the
water percolating downward through the soil.
An excess of evapotranspiration over rainfall
reduces the amount of water percolating
downward but increases the concentration of
dissolved solids in the percolate. If the excess
of evapotranspiration over rainfall is great
enough, the fate of some of the dissolved
375
-------
solids will be an accumulation in the soil. An
excess of rainfall over evapotranspiration
increases the amount of water percolating
downward through the soil and decreases the
concentration of dissolved solids in the
percolate. The high loadings employed for the
infiltration approach nullify the effects of
evapotranspiration or rainfall on the
concentration of dissolved solids in the
underdrainage. For example, the projected
loading of 120 feet per year which has been
used to illustrate the fate of suspended solids
and major plant nutrients would not be
appreciably affected by net differences
between evapotranspiration and rainfall found
anywhere in the United States. The
spray-runoff approach is intended to
minimize the amount of water percolating
through the soil to the groundwater and
return a substantial fraction of the applied
wastewater to surface waters after treatment.
The primary fate of the dissolved solids
becomes surface waters in much the same
manner as the fate of dissolved solids is
surface waters for conventional treatment
approaches. The concentration of dissolved
solids in the water discharged to the surface
waters is influenced by the day-to-day balance
between evapotranspiration and rainfall, and a
minor fraction of the dissolved solids are
carried downward with the soil percolate. To
summarize the fate of dissolved solids briefly
one can say that dissolved solids applied by
the irrigation and infiltration approaches end
up in groundwater unless the under-drainage
is intercepted and diverted to another sink
such as a surface stream while the dissolved
solids applied by the spray-runoff approach
are released directly to surface waters.
Heavy metals and pesticides are two
groups of other constituents which are in the
limelight at the present time. The presence of
both of these groups of other constituents in
waste waters is highly dependent on the
industrial contribution to the wastewater, and
most of the members of these two groups
undergo physical, chemical, or biochemical
interactions in the soil. Fragmentary
information about the fate of many specific
constituents of interest is available, but much
remains to be learned about the behavior and
hence the fate of trace constituents such as
heavy metals and pesticides. Many of the
heavy metals are stongly held in the soil by
the mechanisms Dr. Erickson has described in
the paper he prepared for this Conference.
Retention of heavy metals in the soil may be
a desirable fate or it may be an undesirable
fate. Allaway14 presents an interesting review
on the cycling of trace elements in relation to
crop production and human health. He
suggests that future agricultural management
practices may include control of trace
element concentrations in plants through the
control of trace element concentrations in
soils. The report of the National Technical
Advisory Committee on Water Quality
Criteria1 s includes a discussion of both heavy
metals and pesticides in waters to be used for
crop irrigation. This discussion includes a
tabular presentation of concentration limits as
they pertain to irrigation on various types of
soils and for short-term use (up to two
decades) versus continuous long-term use. An
important factor to remember when dealing
with trace constituents such as heavy metals
and pesticides is that the total mass of
material involved is small, and what would
appear to be rather insignificant factors can
account for appreciable fractions of the total
applied mass.
Summary
The foregoing is a brief summary of the
fate of suspended solids, major plant nutrients
of environmental concern, and other selected
constituents of wastewaters when these
wastewaters are applied to the soil by the
crop irrigation, infiltration, or spray-runoff
approaches to wastewater management. The
content of this presentation is intended to
give one an insight into the mechanisms
involved and the practical aspects involved in
the treatment or renovation of wastewater by
applying the wastewater to the land. The
coverage of the many topics involved is of
necessity brief, and one wishing to have a
deeper understanding of the subject matter
should refer directly to the cited literature
and other pertinent reference documents on
interactions in the plant-soil environment.
376
-------
REFERENCES
1. McGAUGHEY, P. H., and R. B. KRONE,
"Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment
System — Final Report," School of 9.
Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley, SERL Kept. No. 67-11, 1967.
2. THOMAS, R.E., W. A. SCHWARTZ, and
T. W. BENDIXEN, "Soil Chemical 10.
Changes and Infiltration Rate Reduction
Under Sewage Spreading," Soil Sci. Soc.
of America Proc., Vol. 30, No. 5, pp
641-646, September-October 1966.
3. THOMAS, R.E., and JAMES P. LAW,
JR., "Soil Response to Sewage Effluent
Irrigation," Municipal Sewage Effluent
for Irrigation, The Louisiana Tech Dept. 11.
of Agricultural Engineering, Box 4337,
Ruston, La.,pp 5-19, 1968.
4. BLOSSER, RUSSELL O., and ANDRE L.
CARON, "Recent Progress in Land
Disposal of Mill Effluents," Tappi, Vol.
48, No. 5, pp 43A-46A, May 1965. 12.
5. THOMAS, R. E., and T. W. BENDIXEN,
"Degradation of Wastewater Organics in
Soil," Jour Water Pollution Control Fed.
41, pp 808-813, 1969.
6. BOUWER, H., "Water Quality Aspects of 13.
Intermittent Systems Using Secondary
Sewage Effluent," Artificial Groundwater
Recharge Conference, University of
Reading, England, Paper 8, September
1970. 14.
7. PARIZEK, R. R., et al., "Waste Water
Renovation and Conservation," The
Pennsylvania State University Studies No.
23, University Park, Pa. 7 1 p", 1967. 15.
8. DAY, A. D., J. L. STROEHLEIN, and T.
C. TUCKER, "Effects of Treatment Plant
Effluent on Soil Properties," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
44, No. 3, pp 372-375, March 1972.
THOMAS, R. E., and T. W. BENDIXEN,
"Pore Gas Composition Under Sewage
Spreading," Soil Sci. Soc. of America
Proc. 32, pp 419-423, 1968.
LARSON, WINSTON C., "Spray
Irrigation for the Removal of Nutrients in
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent as
Practiced at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,"
Algae and Metropolitan Wastes,
Transactions of the 1960 Seminar, United
States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, pp 125-129.
LAW, JAMES P., JR., R. E. THOMAS,
and LEON H. MYERS, "Cannery
Wastewater Treatment by High-Rate
Spray on Grassland," WPCF Jour , Vol.
42, No. 9, pp 1621-1631, September
1970.
KIRBY, C. F., "Sewage Treatment
Farms, Post Graduate Course in Public
Health Engineering, Session No. 12,"
Dept. of Civil Eng., University of
Melbourne, Mimeograph 14p, 1971.
ELLIS, B. G., and A. E. ERICKSON,
"Movement and Transformation of
Various Phosphorus Compounds in Soil,"
Michigan State University, Mimeograph
35p, 1969.
ALLAWAY, W. H., "Agronomic Controls
Over the Environmental Cycling of Trace
Elements," Advances in Agronomy 20,
pp 235-274, 1968.
National Technical Advisory Committe
on "Water Quality Criteria," FWPCA,
Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 234p, April 1968.
377
-------
------- |