AN EVALUATION OP
SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION

-------
              AN EVALUATION OP
         SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION
                     by

          Patricia L. Deese, P.S.
Urban System Research and Engineering, Inc.
    Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138
          Contract No. 68-03-3057
              Project Officers

              James F. Kreissl
            Robert P. G. Bowker
        Wastewater Research Division
   Water Engineering Research Laboratory
          Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
   WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
     OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          CINCINNATI, OHIO  45268

-------
                                  FOREWORD
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water systems.  Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.  The Clean
Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxics Substances Control
Act are three of the major congressional laws that provide the framework
for restoring and maintaining the integrity of. our Nation's water,' for
preserving and enhancing the water we drink and for protecting the envi-
ronment from toxic substances.  These laws direct the EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and
search for solutions•

     The Water Engineering Research Laboratory is that component of EPA's
Research and Development program concerned with preventing, treating, and
managing municipal and industrial wastewater discharges; establishing
practices to control and remove contaminants from drinking water and to
prevent its deterioration during storage and distribution; and assessing
the nature and controllability of releases of-toxic substances to the
air, water, and land from manufacturing processes and subsequent product
uses.  This publication is one of the products of that research and pro-
vides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.

     Recognizing that nearly eighty (80) percent of the municipal waste-
water facilities needed by the year 2000 are located in small communities
and that the per capita cost of those facilities are far higher in these
rural communities than in urban areas, there is a need to improve facility
planning in rural regions to avoid unnecessary capital expenditures.  This
document analyses and discusses one of the newly developed techniques
purported to improve facility planning for rural lake communities.

                                      Francis T. Mayo, Director
                                      Water Engineering Research Laboratory
                                    iii

-------
                                  DISCLAIMER

     The information in this document has been funded wholly by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-03-3057 to
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc.  It has been subject to the
Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document.  Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                     ii

-------
                                  ABSTRACT

     This study subjects Septic Tank Leachate Detection (SLD) technology
to a critical analysis, focusing on these primary issues:  the proposed
hypothesis of its functioning; its status of development and performance
to date; and its cost-effectiveness.  Functionally, these devices measure
fluorescence and, in some cases, conductivity.  The sources of the compounds
which register on these types of measurement are widespread and non-specific
to septic tank leachates.  There is negligible evidence to' support the
assumption that distinct and identifiable plumes could exist in zones of
groundwater entry into lakes, except in a very few specialized instances
.such as perched water flow over confining bedrock.

     Facts which indicate that SLD devices are only in an early develop-
mental stage include the lack of false negative ratio quantification,
i.e., missing a plume when one exists.  A statistical analysis of existing
SLD survey data shows that the false positive ratio to be in the neighbor-
hood of 30 percent, i.e., of thirteen identified plumes three will be false
readings.  No useful screening tool can be reliably employed until the
false negative ratio is established to be very low and the false positive
ratio is cost-effective.  A method of quantifying these factors is proposed.

     Fi'nally, available cost information does not appear to be particularly
favorable to SLD surveys due to the limited effective distance from the
shoreline to the septic tank-soil absorption system (25 meters) and the
need for limited, follow-up sanitary surveys.
                                     iv

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Foreword	iii
Abstract	iv
Figures and Tables	vi
Acknowledgement	vii

     1.  Introduction	  .   1
     2.  Conclusions and Recommendations 	   9
     3.  Septic Leachate Detection Theory  	  13
     4.  Evaluation of Septic Leachate Detection 	  20

References	38
Appendices 	

     A.  Field Experience Data and Analysis	A-1
     B.  Statistical Methods 	  B-1
     C.  Detailed Concept Questionnaire and Responses	C-1
     D.  -Reviewer Comments 	  D-1
     E.  List of Persons Contacted During Study	E-1

-------
                                  FIGURES

Number                                                               Page

  1  Illustration of septic system leachate plume entering lake ...  3

  2  Optimal operation procedure for an SLD device  	 15

  3  Sample frequency distributions and probabilities of significant
       differences using the student T-test   	 28

  4  Results of student T-test using 30% decision rule and omitting
       surveys with only one background sample	29

  5  Results of student T-test using 30% decision rule using all
       survey data	31

  6  Results of student T-test using 30% decision rule for
       groundwater samples 	  32


                                   TABLES

Number                                                               Page

  1  Description of septic leachate detection 	  5

  2  Double blind controlled conditions  experiment for
     SLD accuracy	12

  3  Characteristics of typical residential wastewater  	 17

  4  SLD surveys reviewed   	 25

  5  Information provided by alternative wastewater planning   . . .  .33

  6  Hypothetical community developed by Peters and Krause (1980) .  . 35

  7  Comparative cost analysis of SLD suveys and sanitary surveys .  . 36
                                     VI

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     A number of people have contributed to the preparation of this report
during its many stages of development.  Any errors of omission or
commission, however/ remain the responsibility of the author.

     Special thanks go to the Project Officers and staff of the Water
Engineering Research Laboratory of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Robert Bowker, James Kreissl and James Cox.  Their guidance and direction
have been essential in ensuring the quality of the research and of this
report.  The research would not have been possible without the cooperation
of the developer, manufacturers, and clients of SLD surveys.  The assistance
of Larry Feldman of Goldberg Zoino Associates was also invaluable.

     The development of this report required key contributions from a
number of past and present USR&E staff members and consultants.  Dave
Burmaster, Cynthia Ernst, Margaret Jensen, Valerie Bradley, John Best, and
Susan Parrell all participated in all various aspects of the report.
Finally, the efforts of Cynthis Daley in the final production have been
exceptional.
                                    vii

-------
                                 SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
1.1  PURPOSE

     Under the small community pollution abatement program, the-
Environmental Protection Agency's Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory is reviewing several techniques which may improve the wastewater
planning process for non-'sewered areas.  The purpose of this report is to
evaluate Septic Leachate Detection (SLD) as a method for identifying areas
where on-site wastewater systems adversely impact lake water quality.

     The evaluation focuses on the following questions:

     1.  Is the SLD hypothesis supported by wastewater treatment,
         groundwater movement, water quality monitoring, and limnologic
         theory?

     2.  Do SLD surveys improve mass balance analysis methods?

     3.  Is SLD currently in the research development or demonstration
         phase?

     4.  Are SLD surveys more cost-effective or do they provide more
         information than shoreline, mass balance, or other traditional or
         non-traditional evaluation methods?

1.2  THE PROBLEM

     Paced with the deterioration of water quality, authorities often
assume that effluent from on-site domestic wastewater systems is a primary
source of contamination.  This assumption should be carefully verified
before a community commits itself to an expensive sewage collection system
designed to completely eliminate effluent discharges to the lake.

     Documenting a cause and effect relationship between deteriorating
surface and groundwater quality and the use of on-site systems has long
been a challenge.  Wastewater facility planning techniques available for
the task include review of local health department  records, mail or
door-to-door  sanitary surveys, shoreline and windshield surveys,
identification of other potential contaminant sources, hydrologic and
geohydrologic studies, and ambient water quality monitoring.  While
                                     -1-

-------
conventional shoreline surveys often reveal direct discharge drains, storm
drains, wetlands, unusual concentrations of algae or rooted aquatic plants,
and tributaries there is no convenient or generally accepted way to verify
the existence, location, or impact of subsurface effluent plumes using
conventional planning techniques.

     Traditionally, wastewater facility planners gather information using
some combination of the above techniques, and then use mass balance
analysis to estimate the potential impact of domestic wastewater on the
lake.  The question addressed by this report is whether SLD surveys could
make a significant contribution to such evaluations by either improving or
expediting the current approach.

1.3  DEFINITION OP SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION (SLD)

     Septic Leachate Detection (SLD) is based on the theory that effluent
from on-site wastewater systems forms detectable subsurface effluent plumes
which travel through the groundwater system and emerge intact into a lake.
The diagram in Figure 1 has been used in numerous SLD reports to illustrate
this theory of subsurface ef.fluent plume movement.

     Developing a methodology for proving the existence of a subsurface
effluent plume entails three preliminary steps.  First, the water quality
variables to be used as indicators of the effluent plumes must be
selected..  Second, the criteria to be used for determining the existence of
plumes must be set.  These criteria should take the form of recognizable
and reproducible deviations from background concentrations of the indicator
water quality variables.  Third, standard procedures for data collection
and analysis must be established.

     In theory, data for such surveys could be collected using any number
of ambient water quality monitoring techniques.  However, verifying the
location of plumes emerging along the shoreline with traditional grab
sampling procedures presents unique problems.  However, a monitoring device
which continuously measured levels of the desired water quality indicators
and instantly recorded changes in their concentrations could be used to
pinpoint emerging subsurface effluent plumes.  Traditional grab samples
could then be analyzed to verify the presence or absence of such plumes.

     At the time of this writing', there are two commercially available
water quality monitoring devices designed specifically for use in SLD
surveys.  Environmental Devices Corporation, (ENDECO) manufactures the
ENDECO Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector (Septic Snooper™), which uses
both fluorescence and conductivity as indicator parameters.  K-V Associates
has recently introduced the Model 15 septic Leachate Detector (Peeper
Beeper™), which monitors contaminants solely by fluorometric analysis.
When data collection on this analysis began, only the Septic Snooper™ or
a modified Septic Snooper™ owned by K-V Associates were used for SLD
surveys.  The results of this report, then, are based on surveys completed
with those devices, and not the Peeper Beeper™.
                                    -2-

-------
                         SEPTIC  LSACHATE-^
Figure  1.  ILLUSTRATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM LEACHATE PLUME ENTERING LAKE (EMI,  1976),

-------
     USEPA Region V has sponsored a number of SLD surveys as part  of its ''
Seven Rural Lakes project.  Based on this experience/  the SLD is described
at length in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Wastewater Management in Rural Lakes Areas.  The description has been
reproduced in its entirety in Table 1.

1.4  RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

     The findings of this report are based on analysis of information from
numerous sources:

     o   General literature in the disciplines of groundwater movement,
         on-site wastewater systems/ ambient water quality/ and limnology

     •o   Published and unpublished SLD survey reports

     o   Observation of a shoreline survey conducted using the Septic
         Snooper™

     o   Participation in a Septic Snooper™ training course.

     o   Interviews with the Septic Snooper™ developer, manufacturer,
         users/ and client communities

     o   Consultations with experts in groundwater hydrology/ limnology,
         ambient water quality monitoring, on-site wastewater systems, and
         statistical analysis.

     Information about the SLD concept was gathered during the initial
phase of the research.  A detailed literature review and consultations with
experts in the various scientific disciplines were used to determine
whether the SLD hypothesis is supported by wastewater treatment,
groundwater movement, water quality monitoring, and limnologic theory.  The
water quality data generated by SLD surveys were also analyzed to determine
whether the survey results met the basic criteria for scientific proof:
repeatability and statistical significance.  The draft report was then
submitted to experts for reveiew and comments.  The conclusions of this
report are based on the findings of these analyses.

     Section 2, that follows, presents the conclusions and
recommendations.  Section 3 analyzes the theoretical assumptions underlying
the SLD concept/ while Section 4 reviews field experience with the Septic
Snooper™.  Appendix A presents data from early SLD Surveys/ and Appendix
B describes the statistical methodology used to analyze that data.  The
comments submitted by the developer and manufacturer of the Septic
Snooper™ can be found in Appendix C, while Appendix D presents the
comments made by reviewers of the draft report. Finally, Appendix E lists
the individuals contacted in the preparation of this report.
                                    -4-

-------
  TABLE 1.   DESCRIPTION OF  SEPTIC LEACHATE  DETECTION  (WAPORA, 1983)


Currently available septic leachate detectors  can be used to locate ground-
water  inflows  or surface runoff conveying domestic  wastewater into lakes.
The  operational theory  of  the  detector depends  on the  assumptions  that
fluorescent  organic materials  are  present in wastewater and that inorganic
chemicals will be present  in  wastewater at  higher  concentrations  than, in
ambient  groundwater  or  surface  water.   Detection  of  both  increasing
fluorescence  and increasing  conductivity in water drawn by pump  from a
shoreline provides  tentative evidence  of the presence  of domestic waste-
water.   Because  of  the  high  sensity  of their fluorometers,  currently
available  detectors  can  rapidly  locate groundwater  effluent  plumes  and
wastewater  in surface runoff  where wastewater  is otherwise undetectable.
This- tool proved to be invaluable in studies that addressed the impacts of
on-site systems on lakes studied for the Seven Rural Lake EIS's.

The  septic leachate detector is subject to certain limitations that must be
recognized  in  its  use and in interpretation  of  the data it generates.  The
most  significant limitation is that  it  cannot quantify  the  strength of
wastewater  in  a sample or body of  water.  The organic and inorganic para-
meters  that it  monitors  can be transported  through soil and water quite
independently  of other wastewater  constituents.   Even the fluorescence and
conductivity are recorded in relative,  not quantitative,  units.  In order
to quantify  the  concentrations of nutrients,  bacterial, or other wastewater
constituents,  flow  through  the  meter can be subsampled  or samples can be
collected by conventional  means for Later analysis.  The advantage of the
detector  is that it  permits collection  of   samples in  suspected effluent
plumes  so that random sampling is avoided.

Aside  from   the  limit on quantification,  septic leachate detector surveys
are   subject  to  false  positives  and  false  negatives.   Most of  these
potential  errors are due  to  the  dynamic nature of  the natural systems
involved and to  variability  in wastewater characteristics.  False positives
can  be  caused  by:

•  Naturally  fluorescent  decay products from  dead  vegetation.   Swamps,
   marshes  and peat deposits can leach  tannins, lignins  and other organic
   compounds that fluoresce  in  the  detection  range of the  fluorometer.   The
   conductivity  measurements provided  by  the  detector  are  intended  to
   differentiate  such signals,  but  in  practice dilution may eliminate
   detectable conductivity changes  expected from  vastevaters,  thus making a
   wastewater plume  appear to be the same as natural  decay products.

•  Sediment or air drawn through the detector  can cause dramatic  changes  in
   the  monitor  readings.   This  is  usually   noted  by  the  operator  and
   recorded on the recorder tape.

•  Eddy currents carrying large wastewater or bog plumes  can appear  to be
   individual plumes from on-site systems.

-------
                          TABLE  1 (continued)


The  more serious  errors are  false  negatives since  they may  indicate no
problem  where  actual problems might exist.  Notable  false  negatives are:

•  As mentioned  above,  high dilution of wastewater in lake  or groundwater
   may  reduce  conductivity differences  to the  level  of normal background
   variations.

   The  absence  of  conductivity differences  will cause  the  detector to
   electronicly mask fluorescence signals that are detected.

•  Mixing  of  lake  water  by  wind   and  waves can disperse  leachate very
   rapidly  so  that  normally strong  effluent  plumes  can  be  missed al-
   together.   .The   time  it   takes  for  leachate  to  accumulate   along   a
   shoreline  to detectable concentrations  is  dependent on several, so far
   unstudied,  factors.

•  Fluctuations  in lake level can slow  or even  reverse normal  groundwater
   flow, temporarily eliminating leachate  emergence at a shoreline.

•  Groundwater  recharge  by.  rainfall,  snowmelt  or   irrigation  will  also
   affect the  dynamics  of  leachate movement.

•  Seasonal  use  of dwellings  may  result in only periodic  emergence of
   leachate  at a shoreline.

Due  to  these factors,  the  data generated by septic leachate   detectors has
to be carefully interpreted  before  it  can  be   considered   to be  useful
information.   Interpretation  is  aided  by supplementary  data  collected or
recorded before, during, and  after  the shoreline scan as noted:
  Before

     watershed boundaries
     groundwater aquifer characteristics
     groundwater flow as determined by meters or other methods
     soil types
     wetlands and other sources of organic decay products in the watershed
     locations of surface malfunctions identified by aerial photography
     interpretation
  •  information on design, usage, and performance of onsite systems if
     available
  •  changes in lake elevation.
                                     6

-------
                          TABLE 1  (continued)
•  weather conditions - especially wind, speed and  direction,  and -recent
   rainfall
•  lake stratification and surface currents
•  observed nog-wastewater sources of fluorescence or conductivity such  as
   culverts, drainage ditches,  salt  storage  areas,  landfills,  abundant
   organic material in near-shore sediments

*  observed direct discharges
•  likely proximity of on-site systems near shoreline
•  operational mishaps such as stirred up sediments, air drawn through
   meter and engine backwash
•  sensitivity and zero adjustments for fluorescence and conductivity
   channels
•  frequent notation of visual meter readings
•  location, time, and conditions of water sample collection.
After

•  water sample analysis  results.

Because of  the possibilities  for error and  the many factors  influencing  the
result  of  septic  leachate detection, the validity of  surveys  rests heavily
on  the experience,  knowledge,  and judgment  of  the  surveyor.  Until addi-
tional  evaluation  is made of  the factors influencing survey  results,  septic
leachate  surveys  will be  eligible  for  Construction  Grants funding only
when:
 1) the  person in charge is experienced in operation and maintenance of the
   detector  model being used.   At least two weeks  of field experience is
   necessary  assisting  someone who is already expert with the model,

 2) the  person  in charge  is  present during  any shoreline  scans  that are
   reported,

 3) data is interpreted by a person  who has  a professional background in
   limnology, and

 4) approximate wind  speed and direction  are  noted during  the survey  and
   reported.

-------
                         TABLE  1  (continued)
Septic leachate detectors  should  prove  to be valuable monitoring tools for
communities managing shoreline on-site systems.   Purchase of detectors will
be eligible for Construction  Grants  funding.  Grantees will be required to
show that  comparable  instruments  are not available on  a  timely basis from
other nearby grantees.   Funded  instruments  will be made available to other
grantees.

-------
                                 SECTION 2

                      CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1  CONCLUSIONS

     Summary

     The septic leachate detection (SLD) concept rests on two assumptions
about the behavior and characteristics of septic effluent in lake shore
regions.  The first assumption is that septic leachate plumes usually exist
in the groundwater and often migrate toward lakes.  This assumption is
supported by both groundwater theory and empirical evidence.  The second
assumption is that septic leachate plumes emerge into lakes in a discrete,
intact, and identifiable form.  While groundwater theory supports the
condition that the plume may be identifiable, in many instances it will not
be.

     For a plume to be identifiable it must be of sufficient strength,
quantity, and velocity to resist dilution; it must be of sufficent cross
sectional area to insure, with a reasonable probability, that the SLD
device will pass through the plume; and the SLD device must measure a water
quality parameter which is consistently representative of septic system
leachate.  There are problems with each of these conditions.

     Plume velocity and concentration are both inversely related to plume
cross sectional area.  Because of this, groundwater theory predicts that a
given plume may range from relatively concentrated with a small cross
sectional area and high velocity, to relatively dilute with a large cross
sectional area and low velocity.  As a result, the strong plumes could be
easily missed because of their small cross sectional area.  The large
plumes, on the other hand, could be too dilute to detect, and are quickly
dispersed into the lake water.  Groundwater theory also predicts that the
maximum plume velocity is .002 cm/sec.  The ability of plumes to resist
dilution in the littoral zone at this rate is questionable.

     There is also a problem with the parameter used to indicate the
presence of the plume.  SLD devices currently on the market measure a
combination of conductivity and fluorescence, or simply fluorescence.
There are many natural sources of flourescence other than septic leachate
plumes in the lake environment that could theoretically actuate the
device.

     Practical experience does not support the concept of the SLD surveys
either.  In the fifteen SLD surveys reviewed for this study, there is

                                    -9-

-------
little empirical evidence supporting the assumption that septic leachate
plumes are distinct and identifiable.  There has been no controlled
research to document the false positive and false' negative rate of SLD
surveys.  What limited field evidence there is, suggest that the false
positive rate is above 30%.  Such a high rate is a strong indication that
the device is often actuated by natural phenomena other than the presence
of a septic leachate plume.

     False positives result in an overestimation of the contribution of
septic leachate to water quality problems.  In a screening tool such as
this, they could lead the facilities planner to take so many grab samples
to prove the existence of a plume, that the cost advantages of using the
device to screen for potential problems are lost.

     There is no field documentation of false negative rates.  Since each
false negative represents a pollution source which has been missed by the
survey, it is imperative that the frequency of false negatives be
relatively small.  Otherwise, the screening tool can grossly underestimate
the septic leachate problem and cause planners to make poor decisions about
wastewater treatment needs.  The rate of false negatives is independent of
the rate of false positives and must be documented through both laboratory
and field experiments before the data from SLD surveys can be considered
valid.

     SLD surveys are designed to screen for septic leachate plumes.  Grab
samples of the lake water must be used to confirm or deny the presence of a
plume.  SLD surveys are relatively expensive when compared to sanitary
surveys but may be less expensive than detailed groundwater monitoring at
individual lots.

     As presently espoused, SLD surveys can only locate septic leachate
plumes which are from systems within 25 meters of the lake and which remain
discrete and identifiable after reaching the lake.  An underlying
assumption is that identifying these plumes is important.  However, for
many lakes the major source of nutrient loading may be from systems which
are not included in the SLD survey because they are set back more than 25
meters from the shoreline or because they have dispersed plumes.

     Key Conclusions;

     1.  There has been no laboratory or field documentation of the false
         negative rate.

     2.  There has been no laboratory documentation of the false positive
         rate.

     3.  Limited information from field surveys implies a false positive
         rate of greater than 30%.

     4.  There are serious questions as to whether SLD plumes are large
         enough or remain distinct and intact in lakes long enough to be
         detected.

                                    -10-

-------
     5.  There appear to be many non-plume sources of fluorescence which
         actuate the SLD device, causing false positives.

2.2  RECOMMENDATIONS

     SLD surveys should not be used in facilities planning until the false
negative rate has been established and deemed acceptable.

     Because the SLD concept is intriguing, there will probably be
additional private sector research aimed at developing an accurate,
reliable, and cost effective SLD device.  The following list of recommended
research efforts has been developed to this end.

   .. 1.  Carefully planned dye or tracer tests should be conducted in
         conjunction with SLD surveys in several lake shore areas with
         different geologic and soil conditions, to provide the data
         necessary to establish the false negative rate.

     2.  Double blind laboratory experiments should be conducted under
         controlled conditions to demonstrate the SLD device's, reliability
         and repeatability.  Table 2 presents an example experimental
         design.

     3.  A set of SLD survey procedures should be developed and tested.
         This would provide a much higher degree of standardization for one-
         time studies of a single lake, multiple studies of the same lake
         over time, and one-time and multiple studies of several lakes.

     4.  Experiments .should be conducted in the field to determine the true
         impact of environmental conditions on the accuracy of SLD survey
         results.  This could be done at the same location and time as the
         tracer dye tests suggested in No. 1 above.  A field survey of a
         shoreline along which all septic systems are marked by a tracer
         would provide information on false negative as well as false
         positive rates.  This type of test would also provide interesting
         insights into the role of the visual shoreline inspection in the
         SLD device's ability to identify septic tank leachate plumes.
                                   -11-

-------
                               TABLE  2  ..DOUBLE BilND

                            CONTROLLED CONDITIONS EXPERIMENT
                                          FOR
                        SEPTIC  LEACHATE DETECTION (SLD) ACCURACY
      Select  a  number of  standard water samples, ranging in contamination level from
      distilled water to  (possibly diluted) septic tank effluent.  Example standards
      might include:

               distilled  water
               tap water
               background lake water
               background lake water spiked with phosphate*
               background lake water spiked with nitrate
               background lake water spiked with coliform
               background lake water spiked with chlorides
               septic tank effluent diluted with lake water 1/100
               septic tank effluent diluted with lake water 1/10


      *all spikes should  be to concentrations equal to 1/10 the septic tank effluent
      sample

     Make up (a minimum  of three) duplicate 15 gallon samples of each standard,
      randomly  numbered from 1-10.

Experimental Procedure

     An operator not familiar with the experimental set up should measure each'sample
     using a full scale  SLD device, recording both the inorganic and organic meter
      readings  as well as the combined signal for each sample.  Calibration can be
     handled in two ways.  Either the calibration can be set as part of the
     experimental set up, in which case the results across operators can be compared,
     or, the individual  operators can be asked to calibrate the SLD device based on
     initial trial measurements.  In the latter case, the results across operators
     will not  be comparable, however the impact of different calibrations on the
     results can be studied.  The experiment should be conducted in both ways for the
     most complete results.

Analysis                           -.

The results should be analyzed in several ways to determine:

     o   The repeatability of SLD device readings on duplicate samples for the same
         operator and across operators.

     o   The ability of  the SLD device to consistently distinguish between distilled
         water, background lake water,  and diluted septic tank effluent, for the same
         operator,  across operators,  and with different calibrations.

     o   Which of the water quality components normally associated with domestic
         wastewater (e.g.,  phosphates,  nitrates, chlorides,  or coliform) has the
         greatest impact on SLD readings.
                                           12

-------
                                 SECTION 3

                  SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION (SLD) CONCEPT
3.1  THE SLD CONCEPT

     The first step in evaluating any new theory is to express it in clear
terms.  Numerous published and unpublished documents describe the SLD
concept in varying levels of detail (e.g., IEP, Inc. 1980, ENDECO 1977
and 1979:  K-V Associates 1978, 1979 and 1980:  WAPORA 1983.

     In their description of SLD surveys (Table 1) U.S. EPA Region V
provides an excellent outline of the SLD concept:

     "The operational theory of the detector depends on the
     assumptions that fluorescent organic materials are present
     in wastewaater and that inorganic chemicals will be present
     in wastewater at higher concentrations than in ambient
     groundwater or surface water.  Detection of both increasing
     fluorescence and increasing conductivity in water drawn by
     pump from a shoreline provides tentative evidence of the
     presence of domestic wastewater."

     This SLD concept assumes that the following conditions exist.

     1.  Septic system effluent plumes form in the groundwater under soil
         absorption systems and travel more or less intact toward lake
         shores.

     2.  Once a septic system leachate plume emerges into a lake, it
         remains intact for a sufficient period of time to be detected.
         To be detected, the leachate plume must contain materials which
         are measurable with a fluorometer, and present at detectably
         higher concentrations that found in the lake water.

3.2  ASSESSMENT OF THE SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION (SLD) CONCEPT

     In order to assess the theoretical validity of the SLD concept, the
likelihood of meeting the two conditions is analyzed below.
                                    -13-

-------
Condition #1:

         Plumes of septic tank  effluent  form in the groundwater under soil
         absorption systems  and travel  more  or less  intact  toward lake
         shores•

     The existence of  groundwater plumes from septic  system is consistent
with groundwater  theory  (Domenico,  1972)  and  has  been  documented  by
researchers measuring  nitrate  levels  (Ellis,   1983),  nitrates, phosphates
and fecal coliform,  (Luce  and Welling,  1983),  total  carbon (Hirsh,  19831,
nitrate and  carbon (Rea and Upchurch,  1980)  and  viruses  (ENDECO,  1977).
Rea and  Upchurch  (1980)  found  that  nitrates,  phosphates, and  chlorides
move in  response  to  different  factors.    This phenomenon   implies that
several parameters must be monitored in order to trace septic system plumes
in the ground water.

     In a recently published article, Gilliom and Patmont (1983) determined
that phosphorus  loadings  to  some  lakes in the  Puget   Sound region  are
attributed to old septic tanks.   Based on statistical analysis, the  loadings
are probably associated with only a few old systems  located over  confined
aquifers in  areas where  shallow  perched  water  keeps  soils  persistently
saturated during  the   winter.   This  research  was  based  on  ground  water
monitoring of septic leachate plumes.

     On the other hand Cook,  et.al.,  (1978)  found that most septic systems
around two eutrophic  lakes had  clogged.   The  clogging  caused effluent to
rise to  the  surface and  move  to  the lakes  as overland flow rather than
groundwater plumes.

     It is also possible for groundwater to  flow away from lakes and ponds
rather than toward them.

     While groundwater  plumes   of  septic leachate  may exist  and  may flow
toward lakes, the condition is  not universal.
Condition #2:

         Once a  septic  system  leachate plume  emerges  into  a  lake,  it
         remains intact  for  a  sufficient  period  of  time to  be detected.
         To be  detectable,  the plume  must  contain  materials which  are
         measurable with  a  fluorometer  and  present  at  detectably higher
         concentrations than found in the lake.

     Figure 2 illustrates  the  optimal operating conditions  for the Septic
Snooper™.  The  intake  is  held approximately  one to  two  feet  off  the
lake bottom, close to the shore.. As the intake moves forward,  it
intercepts the septic leachate plume.

     For any plume  (groundwater, storm water, or  stream)  to be detectable
in a larger water body, it must  remain discrete and identifiable.

                                    -14-

-------
                Septic Leachate
Figure 2.  Optimal operation procedure for an SLD device.
                            15

-------
Resisting dilution is particularly difficult in lake shore environment
because velocities in the littoral area of lakes are quite rapid which
causes rapid mixing. Only plumes with sufficient density, volume,
strength, and flow rate can resist dilution by mixing.  Each of these
characteristics will be discussed in turn.

     Density

     Prentki, et al. (1979) point out that density differentials between a
plume and the lake can be very important in the degree of plume dilution.
If the plume is much denser than the lake water it will tend to sink and
be less prone to mixing.  If the plume is much less dense it will rise,
forming a dispersed surface layer over the lake.

     Solids content and temperature affect the density of any water
sample.  Of the two factors, temperature appears to exert more of an
effect on plume density than dissolved or suspended solids content.  In a
study of storm water plumes, Prentki, et al. (1979) found that a
temperature differential of only 1.1 °C caused 92% of the total density
differential between the plume and the receiving water.  This was true
despite the fact that the storm water plumes contained nearly six times as
many suspended solids as the lake water.  Since septic leachate plumes
should have a lower contaminant content than storm water, the importance
of temperature on the relative density of the leachate plume will be even
greater.  Further, because groundwater temperatures vary less with season
than those of lake water, the relative densities of effluent plumes and
lake water may vary seasonally.  Temperature variations associated with •*>
plumes were not reported in any of the SLO surveys reviewed.

     Strength, Volume, and Plow

     Plume strength, volume, and flow rate are all interrelated and are
dependent on the strength, volume, and flow rate of the effluent
discharged from the septic tank to the soil absorption system; the
attenuation of contaminants in the soil; and dilution of the effluent in
the groundwater as a result of both lateral and vertical dispersion.

     In order to determine the likelihood of a leachate plume's having
sufficient strength, volume, and flow rate to be detectable when it
emerges into the lake, the following hypothetical analysis was developed.
The septic tank effluent characteristics used are those characteristics
recommended by EPA (1980) and found in Table 3.  The analysis has been
developed using the traditional engineering worst case approach.  The
conditions selected for this hypothetical example very much favor
maintenance of a distinct and identifiable plume:

     o   Septic tank and leach pit discharge directly into the groundwater
     o   No pollutant attenuation in the soil
     o   Leaching area of 1 meter2
     o   Leaching area profile to the lake of 1 meter
     o   Septic tank effluent flow rate of 700 liter/day

                                   -16-

-------
TABLE 3.   CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER*
         Parameter                  Mass Loading           Concentration
                                     gm/cap/day                mg~71
Total Solids                         115 - 170               680 - 1000
Volatile Sol Ids                       65 -85                380 - 500
Suspended Solids                      35-50                200 - 290
Volatile Suspended Solids             25-40                150 - 240
BOD5                                  35-50                200 - 290
Chemical Oxygen Demand               115 - 125               680 - 730

Total Nitrogen                         6-17                 35 - 100
Ammonia                                1-3                   6-18
Nitrites and Nitrates                   <1                      <1

Total Phosphorus                       3-5                  18-29
Phosphate                              1-4                   6-24
Total Conforms^                         -                 10*0 - 10*2
Fecal Col1formsb                         -                  10^ - 10*0
a For typical residential dwellings equipped with standard water-using
  fixtures and appliances (exclud1 ng garbage dlsposals) generat1 ng
  approximately 45 gpcd  (170 lpcd).-J0^4_198p_)_".'
b Concentrations presented 1n organisms per liter.
                                17

-------
     o   Leach pit 15 meters from shore of lake
     o   Groundwater flow rate ranging from 1 to 0.2 meter/day
     o   Soil Porosity of 20%
     o   No dilution from groundwater or recharge
     o   No lateral or vertical dispersion of the leachate plume.

     The analysis which assumes no dilution, no pollution attenuation, and
virtual direct discharge to the lake would be comparable to the situation
studied by Gilliom and Parmont (1983) where they found high phosphorus
loadings in lakes corrolated with the presence of old septic systems
located in areas with seasonally perched groundwater.  While that study
documented an impact on the lake and the existence of plumes in the
groundwater, no data was collected to document whether plumes remained
intact and identifiable in the lake.

     If, as in the hypothetical example, the septic tank effluent reaches
the lake at full strength, its detectability will depend on the velocity,
quantity, and cross sectional area of the plume as it enters the lake.
For a fixed quantity of wastewater, the rate of plume dilution in lake
water will be inversly propotional to the plume velocity.  If the plume
enters at a high rate, it will be concentrated in a smaller area and be
more likely to remain intact and identifiable, than if it enters at a low
rate.

     Another important consideration is the cross sectional area of the
plume.  The larger the cross section, the greater the likelihood that the
SLD device will intersect it on a given pass of the shoreline.  However,
since cross sectional area and concentration are inversely proportional,
plumes with large cross sectional area tend to be harder to detect because
they are dilute and easily mixed.

     Cross sectional area is also inversely proportional to velocity.
For the fixed volume of septic tank effluent of 700 liters/day in the
hypothetical example, the higher the discharge rate into the lake the
smaller the cross sectional area and vice versa.  At a relatively high
groundwater flow rate of 1 meter/day, the cross sectional area of the
plume would be 0.68 meter2.  At a lower groundwater flow rate of 0.2
meter/day the cross section area would be 3.4 meter2.  At these
groundwater flow rates, the discharge into the lake is very slow: .005 to
.0001 cm/sec.  Even though the concentration of the plume in this worst
case example could be a 1000 times the concentration in the lake water,
the velocity and volume are very low, making the plumes very susceptable
to dilution and rapid assimilation into the lake.

     Plume Fluorescence and Conductivity

     The SLD concept is based on the assumption that plumes have a higher
concentration of dissolved organics and inorganics than the surrounding
lake water.  The existing SLD equipment displays a relative increase or
decrease for fluorescence and conductivity, or in one machine, simply
                                    -18-

-------
fluorescence.  Since both machines rely on fluorescence, only the
specificity of that indicator is evaluated here.
     The results of an analysis conducted on 35 samples "collected from
septic tanks" (Peters 1982), suggest that while septic leachate plumes may
fluoresce in the spectrum of interest, so do a number of organic materials
in lakes not necessarily of wastewater origin.

3c3  CONCLUSION

     While under many geohydrological conditions, septic leachate plumes
migrate through the groundwater to lakes, the above analysis raises
questions as to whether such plumes are likely to be of sufficient
density, strength, volume, and cross sectional area to resist dilution and
be consistently identifiable with a SLD device^  Furthermore, there are
numerous "naturally" occurring phenomena that could cause localized
increases in lake water fluorescence unrelated to the presence of
effluent.  These natural phenomena could trigger the SLD device response.
                                    -19-

-------
                                 SECTION 4

                EVALUATION OF  SEPTIC LEACHATE DETECTION  (SLD)
4.1  INTRODUCTION

     Although the total number of SLD surveys conducted between 1976 and the
present is not known, it.is estimated to be fewer than fifty.   Septic
Leachate Detection (SLD) Surveys have been conducted throughout the country
in a variety of locations from Massachusetts to Washington state.  Fifteen
SLD surveys listed in Table 4 were reviewed for this study.

     To date, SLD surveys have consisted of two components: a visual
inspection of the shoreline and a real time measurement of conductivity
and/or fluorescence using a SLD device.  Since visual inspection and
monitoring are used interactively, it is impossible to completely separate
them.  For example, SLD device readings indicating potential plumes may
cause a surveyor to make a more careful inspection of the shoreline for
possible pollution sources.  Similarly, upon observing a potential
contamination source, the surveyor may make several passes with the SLD
device in an effort to locate plumes.

     The visual shoreline survey is an accepted wastewater planning tool in
lake areas, comparable to a windshield survey used on the land.  It is the
use of the SLD device which differentiates a SLD survey from traditional
methods.  This evaluation will focus on whether the use of an SLD device as
a screening tool improves the information gained from a shoreline survey
(Section 4.2), the value of information gained in a SLD survey relative to
that gained using other traditional or non-traditional methods (Section
4.3), and the relative costs of SLD surveys (Section 4.4) as compared to
traditional survey techniques.

4.2  ACCURACY

     There are two components to the accuracy of SLD surveys:  the number of
normal systems mistaken for failures, and the number of failing systems
missed.  The false positive rate is the ratio of apparent plumes detected by
the SLD device which turn out to be indistinguishable from ambient water
quality when sampled, to the total number of plumes identified.  The false
negative rate is the ratio of true plumes which are missed to the total
number of plumes identified.

     In general, false positives are caused by the presence of phenomena
mimicking the characteristics of the phenomena being measured.  False

                                    -20-

-------
negatives occur when the device being used is measuring the wrong
characteristics or when conditions exist which hide or mask the
characteristics of the phenomena being measured.  Based on extensive field
experience with SLD surveys, U.S. EPA Region V has developed a list of
situations which cause both false positives and negatives.  These were
presented in Table 1.

     Since the possible causes of false positives and negatives in a SLD
survey differ, the two rates are not necessarily related.  A high false
positive rate does not necessarily imply a low false negative rate or vice
versa.  A device which does not measure its goal can easily have both a high
false positive and a high false negative rate.  In evaluating the accuracy
of any measuring device, it is important to document both the false positive
and negative rates independently.

     When a SLD device is used to screen a lake for possible contamination
sources, the impact of false positives is financial not environmental.
False positives must be confirmed or'rejected based on laboratory analysis
of water collected from the possible plume.  The higher the false positive
rate, the more laboratory work is required, and the greater the SLD survey
will cost.  If the false positive rate is too high, the economic viability
of the technique may be in question.  However, the SLD survey approach could
still be quite valuable even with a fairly high false positive rate.

     The impact of false negatives in a SLD survey are environmental rather
than financial.  No extra costs are incurred, because the device does not
identify any possible plumes to be sampled.  However, adverse environmental
impacts are possible .if the SLD device fails to detect existing plumes
entering the lake and water quality planners base treatment decisions on
this erroneous information.  This environmental impact makes a high false
negative rate incompatible with the objectives of SLD surveys.

     The SLD literature and survey reports were reviewed for information
which could be used to document false positive and false negative rates
under both controlled and field conditions.

     SLD Accuracy under Controlled Conditions

     While no method of measurement  is perfect, certain accepted methods of
measurement have been tested to determine how closely results reflect actual
values.  The three criteria most often used to evaluate measurement methods
in water and wastewater are:

     o   Limits of Detection, which define the ranges of concentrations for
         which the method works

     o   Standard Deviation which defines the anticipated level of precision
         (that is, the difference between the measured value and the true
         value)

     o   Standard Error, which describes the method's accuracy  (that is,
         does it measure the right phenomena).

                                    -21-

-------
These characteristics are defined in the laboratory under controlled
conditions by repeated measurements of samples of known concentration.   The
user can then apply this understanding of a measurement method's limitations
when interpreting field data.

     There are no laboratory data defining the limits of detection,  standard
deviation or standard error of SLD devices in the published or unpublished
literature identified and reviewed as part of this present study.  A series
of experiments documenting these key measurement method evaluation criteria
should be conducted prior to field use of any measurement device.  The  lack
of such experiments seriously limits the trustworthiness of data collected
in the field.

     SLD Accuracy Under Field Conditions

     Sources of Data on SLD Device Performance;  Reports of the IS SLD
surveys listed in Table 4 were reviewed for evidence that would substantiate
the accuracy of SLD device readings in the field.  The results of water
quality analyses performed in conjunction with SLD surveys were presented in
seven of the reports.  In all cases, water quality analyses of
non-contaminated or background samples were also reported.  The data,  as
originally reported, are included in Appendix A as Tables A-l to A-12.

     In general, the water quality analyses presented in the seven SLD
survey reports were performed on two categories of water samples:
background and effluent plume.  The background samples were collected in
areas which were considered by the SLD survey team to be representative of
the non-contaminated areas of the lake.  Background surface water samples
were collected either in the center of the lake or in areas along the shore
line where SLD device readings indicated background water quality.
Background groundwater samples were collected from areas considered by the
SLD survey team to be free from the influence of septic effluent plumes.

     The seven reports contain information on data collected at a total of
nine lakes, two of which were monitored on two separate occasions, for a
total of 11 data sets.  Because the SLD surveys reviewed for this analysis
were performed by a number of independent SLD teams over a period of time,
there is considerable variation -in the water quality parameters reported.
The results frequently indicated concentration levels below the detection
level of the laboratory tests.  This analysis will focus on the parameters
for which there were significant results.

     In eight of the 11 data sets, values for either conductivity or total
dissolved solids (TDS) were reported.  In a different subset of eight data
sets, levels of either total phosphorus (P) or phosphate-phosphorus
(PC>4-P) were reported.  While all of the studies reported some measure of
nitrogen (N) content of the water samples, there was not a concensus as to
which nitrogen form provided the best measure of contamination.  Five
different forms of nitrogen were measured, Total N, Kjeldahl-N, NH3-N,
N03-N, and N03+N02-N.  Sodium, chlorides, total and fecal coliform
were also reported.
                                    -22-

-------
     Limitations of the Data on SLD Device Performance;  The data collected
by these independent SLD survey teams were not intended for use in a
statistical analysis of the accuracy of SLD device readings.  They therefore
have several limitations when viewed in this new context:

     1.  In most data sets only a token number of background samples were
         analyzed.  Only one study included a reasonable distribution with
         analysis of eight background and 19 plume samples reported.  One
         other study reported findings on three background samples and 19
         plumes.  Of the remaining nine studies, four, included analyses of
         only two background samples, and five only included analyses on
         one.  Because of these data limitations, the statistical analyses
         below were performed using special techniques designed for use with
         small sample sizes.  However, even these special techniques do not
         compensate for the lack of data.  Because of this data limitation,
         the results of the statistical analysis presented later in this
         section tend to favor SLD test validity.  Appendix B contains a
         detailed explanation of the statisticcal procedures used.

     2.  There are several types of errors which must be avoided when
         monitoring environmental parameters.  False positive errors occur
         when the monitoring device indicates that contamination exists when
         in fact there is none.  False negative errors occur when the device
         fails to identify contamination which is in fact there.  Because of
         the way the data have been presented in the SLD survey reports, it
         is possible to make rough estimates of the rate of false positive
         errors (the probability that the water quality in a "detected"
         plume is in fact indistinguishable from background).  However,
         since none of the SLD survey teams systematically gathered samples
         at shore line areas, which from visual inspection might have been
         expected to have plumes but where the SLD device readings did not
         indicate the existence of such plumes, it is not possible to
         estimate the level of false negative errors.

     Questions About SLD Performance which Can be Addressed Given Data
Limitations;  A thorough examination of the performance of a SLD device
should address all of the key issues of data validation and system
performance:  sensitivity, specificity, stability and reliability, zero
drift, reproducibility, precision, response time, calibration, and
accuracy.  However the current analysis is restricted by the limitations
of available data to addressing two basic questions:

     1.  Does the SLD device distinguish between contaminated and
         uncontaminated' lake water?

     2.  Does a SLD device reading indicating a plume in the surface water
         correlate with the existence of a subsurface effluent plume in the
         shallow groundwater adjacent to the lake shore?
                                    -23-

-------
     Does the SLD distinguish between contaminated and uncontaminated lake
water?  To answer this question the reported data was analyzed to determine
if the concentrations of typical water quality parameters are consistently
higher in plume samples when compared to background samples for:

     a.  All constituents
     b.  Certain constituents, or
     c.  Particular SLD surveys.

     The Student's T-test was used as a measure of whether the observed
differences between the background and plume samples were statistically
significant.  As with any evaluation, a decision criterion must be set
establishing acceptable and unacceptable performance.  In the case of
laboratory analysis of water quality parameters, acceptable levels of
performance have been establish-through years of standard setting and are
most often referenced in Standard Methods.  (APHA, et al, 1980)

     Typically, water quality monitoring equipment is expected to perform
with a signifance level of less than 1%.  Because the SLD devices as
currently conceived are not meant to be quantitatively accurate, but
rather screening devices, this evaluation will use a 30% significance
level as the decision rule for what constitutes an acceptable performance
in distinguishing between a contaminated and uncontaminated water sample.
In other words, if the equipment performs satisfactorily using this test,
the user can be fairly confident that the false positive rate will be
about 30%.

     Figure 3 illustrates graphically the frequency distribution for
probabilities, Pr = 1%, Pr = 39%, and Pr = 92%.  The first example (Pr = 1%)
is illustrative of a data set were the concentrations in the plume sample
are consistently sufficiently higher than those in the background samples
to be considered statistically significant when the 30% decision rule is
used.  The second example (Pr = 39%) illustrates a set of data where although
the mean concentration in the plume samples is still higher than those for
the background samples, the difference is not sufficiently great to be
statistically significant.  The third example (Pr = 92%) illustrates a
case where the plume and background samples are so similar as to be almost
identical.

     The results of this analysis are summarized in Figure 4 which presents
the results for the six data sets which had at least two or more background
samples.

     A total of 31 constituent analyses were performed for these six data
sets.  Of these, six (19%) had a mean value in the plumes which was less
than the mean value of the background.  Nine (29%) did not meet the 30%
decision rule, while 16 (52%) met the 30% decision rule.
                                    -24-

-------
                                      TABLE  4.   SLD   SURVEYS REVIEWED
— Ho.
1
2
Study Title Short Title STATE PATE Contractor
Shoreline Water Quality Survey, Lake Attltash MA pet 1980 IEP. Inc.
Lake Attltasli
Investigation of Septic Squam Lake NH Sept 1977 ENDECO
Leachate Discharges Into
Squam Lake
Client DATA for Statistical
1
!
Board of Health YES
Ames bury, MA
1
Squam Lake Assn. YES
I
                  Subsurface Leachate Discharges
                  Into Johns Pond,  Mashpee
                                  Johns Pond        MA     Aug. 1976  Environmental    Town of Mashpee
                                                                      Management
                                                                      Institute
                                                                                                                                   YES
to
Ui
EIS - Alternative Waste  Treatment
Systems for Rural Lakes  Project
Case Study Number 5 Otter  Tall
County Board of Commissioners,
Otter Tall County, Minnesota
   FINAL
Appendix B
Septic Leachate and Groundwatcr
Flow Survey, Otter Tali  Lake,
Minnesota
Ottertall
                                                    MN
Sept 1979  K-V Associates   Region V EPA
                                                                                                                 YES
                  EIS - Alternative Waste  Treatment
                  Systems for Rural Lakes  Project
                  Case Study Number 1
                  Crystal Lake Area
                  Sewage Disposal Authority,
                  benzle County,  Michigan

                  Appendix C
                  Investigation of Septic  Leachate
                  into Crystal Lake. Michigan
                                   Crystal Lake
                  MI      Dec  1978   K-V Associates   Region  V EPA
                                                                                                                                   YES

-------
                                                               TABLE 4   (continued)
No. Study Tide
Short Title STATE DATE Contractor Client DATA for Statistical

                   Investigation of Septic Leachate   ERA Study
                   Discharges into take Wlnona, Lake
                   Wlnnepesauliee (and) Ossipee lake
                                                                        NU
                         Oct  1977   ENUECO
                                                    Estimation Research
                                                    Associates, Inc.
                                                       YES
10
                   EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment  Steuben Lake
                   Systems for Rural Lakes Projects
                   Case Study Number 4
                   Steuben Lakes Regional Waste District
                      FINAL
                   Appendix D
                   Septic Leachate and Croundwater
                   Flow Survey, Steuben Lakes,
                   Indiana
                  IN     Aug.  1979  K-V Associates   Region V EPA
                   Investigation of Septic Leachate   Carver County
                   entering Six Lakes In Carver
                   County, Minnesota
                  HN     June 1980  Swanson          Ellison - Phllstroo
                                    Environmental     Ayers, Inc.
                                    Inc.
                                                       YES     I
8
Septic Leachate
Lake Boon
Detection Study Lake Boon HA Aug. 1979 ENDECO
Estimation Research NO
Associates, Inc.
1
                                                                                NO
            10     Septic Leachate Survey
                   Detroit Lakes, Minnesota
Detroit Lakes     MN     Sept  1980  K-V Associates   Rleke, Carroll
                                                    Muller, Inc.
                                                                                                                                      NO
            11     EIS - Case Study Number 3
                   Springvale - Bear Creek Sewage
                   Disposal Authority,
                   Emmet County, Michigan
                   FINAL
Springvale
                  MI
Nov. 1978  K-V Associates    Region V - EPA
                                                                                                                                      NO
            12     EIS - Case Study Number 2
                   Green Lake Sanitary Sewer &
                   Water District, Kandiyolil
                   County, Minnesota
Green Lake
                                                                        MN
Mar. 1979  K-V Associates   Region V - EPA
                                                                                                                                      NO

-------
                                               TABLE 4   (continued)
10
No.
13
14
IS
Study Title
Thtirston County Lakes:
Uater Quality Analysis and
Restoration Plan, 1982
Lemon Lake Diagnostic Feasibility
Study, Draft Report »,
Cedar Lake Restoration
Feasibility Study
Short Title
Long Lake
Patterson Lake
Lemon Lake
Cedar Lake:
STATE DATE Contractor
UA Sept 1981 K-V Associates
IN Hay 1983 University of
Indiana
IN Dec 1982 University of
Indiana
Client DATA for Statistical
1
ENTRANCO Engineers No
No
Indiana Clean Lakes No
Coordinator

-------
     CO
     CO
a)
            Background
                         • ••
                     I		..»

                    CONCENTRATION,
b)
              Plum*
            Background
                    O       20       40


                    CONCENTRATION
60
                                                          Pr=39%
         30
                                                            100
O
     CO
     CO
     i
              Plu
            Background
                        I   .
                           20      40
                                                         Pr=92%
                                          60
                                                    30
                                                           100
                    CONCENTRATION

Figure  3.   Sample frequency  distributions and probabilities of
significant differences using the student T-test.
                                 28

-------
   Survey
Uke Attitaah
                                       P.

                                       2"
o   o
L«ke Act It ash
John* Pond
Otter Tail lake
Crvital lake
BRA (May)
BRA (August)
3t euhen/Crookad
Sceulien/JioaMson
Steuben/JaaMa
Squaa (June)
Squaa (Sepc.)
                             X Unacceptable Lavel of Falae Poaltivee  9

                           f   JBackground Concentration Higher than Pluaea   6

                            •I Acceptable Level of Palae Positive.  16
Figure  4.   Results of student T-test using 30% decision rule and omitting
surveys with only one background sample.
                                            29

-------
     When the data from the surveys with only one background sample is
included, the overall results are only slightly better.  As shown in Figure
5, there were a total of 60 constituent samples/ of which nine (15%) were
negative, 14 (23%) did not meet the decision rule, and 37 (61%) met the
30% decision rule.

     Does a SLD Device Reading Indicating a Plume in the Surface Water
Corrolate with the Existence of a Subsurface Effluent Plume in the Shallow
Groundwater Adjacent to the Lake Shore?  Shallow groundwater samples were
collected during only two of the SLD surveys, and for one of these there was
only a single background sample.  The data were analyzed using the same
Student's T-test approach used above.  The results are summarized in Figure
6.  As with the surface water analyses, there is very little consistency in
the results and in only 50% of cases was the difference between the back-
ground and plume water quality statistically significant.

     In conclusion, there is no laboratory data reported in the literature
on false positive or false negative rates.  The eleven data sets analyzed
indicate that field experience with the SLD surveys does not support the
hypothesis that the false positive rate is consistently 30% or less.  There
are no data available to document false negative rates.

4.3  COMPARISON TO OTHER METHODS

     A new data collection method should become widely used only if it can:

     (a) Gather useful data not generated by other methods
     (b) Gather similar data in a much improved level of detail, or
     (c) Gather similar data at a much lower cost than other methods.

This section will consider experience with SLD surveys, based on the first
two of these criteria.  The cost criteria is addressed in the following
section.

     In 1979, Peters and Krause (1980) arrayed different data collection
methods used in the Rural Lakes Project, presented in Table 5, which compares
seven methods for performance under seven criteria.

     A review of this matrix reveals that SLD is a very specialized data
collection method.  It is meant to screen for a single factor in lake areas:
the location of septic leachate plumes.  Since most direct discharges to a
lake can be identified through a visual inspection of the shoreline, the
real asset of an SLD survey should be identification of septic tank leachate
plumes entering a lake via groundwater seepage.  As the matrix in Table 5
points out, this information cannot be confirmed through well sampling or
non-traditional, aerial photographic methods.  Such data could be collected
using dye or tracer studies, although at a considerable expense.

     The SLD survey is conceived as a method of screening a lake to
determine where to conduct more detailed sanitary surveys and lake water
                                    -30-

-------
                               X Unacceptable Level of False Positives  14

                             f   jBackground Concancraclon Higher Chan Pluaes 9

                              ••. Acceptable Level of False Positives 37
Figure  5.  Results of student  T-test using 30% decision rule using
all survey data.
                                           31

-------
     Survey
  Ottar Tail Lake
S-
^
>
««
4*
3
1
3
I
C)
                                                             1
                                                                             f
                                                            8
                                                            i-4
                                                            3
                                                            S
                                                            S
                                                            ^

                                                            I
  Crystal L*k«
        X Un«cc«pt«M« Uvel of F«l«e Positive*   2

           BKkground Cooc«ntr«tlon Higher ttwn PluM»  3

                                  BKkground Cooc«ntr«tlon Higher ttwn

                                  Acceptable Uwl of FalM Positive.
Figure  6.   Results of student  T-test using  30%  decision  rule  for
groundwater samples.
                                            32:

-------
                                    TABLE  5.   INFORMATION PROVIDED BY ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PLANNING*
                                                             Problems Covered
u>
U)




Relative
Cost
based on
hypothetical

i.v • ,. Surface Ponding of
Septic Tank Aquifer
Method Effluent Contamination
Sanitary Survey Locate




Well Sampling Quantify
Discharge of Septic Tank
Effluent to Surface Water

Direct Via Groundwater
Locate





Nearshore
Plant
Growth
Locate
and
Identify




Other
Information
Household
backups
Occupancy
Water use
System design
lake
situation
discussed
in text)*
10,800




Public attitudes 3,000
 (total and fecal
 coliform and 1103)

Aerial Photography      Locate
         Septic Leachate
         Shallow Groundwater
           Flow Monitoring
        Shallow Groundwater
          Sampling
                                                                Locate
                                                                Locate
                                                                    Locate

                                                                    Identify
                                                                    source
                                                                                             Locate     Land use
                                                                                                        Topography
                                                                                                        Housing counts
                           Groundwater
                           flow data
                           for lake
                           nutrient
                           budgets
                                      Quantify
                                             3,000
                                                                                                                         11,800
5,000
                                              3,100
        Surface Water
          Sampling
                                                       Quantify
Quantify
 3,100
           •Peters and Krause (1980)

-------
sampling programs.  The field experience reviewed in the previous section
indicates that SLD survey screening results in a relatively high rate of
false positives which lead to extra follow-up work.  More importantly,
without any documentation on false negative rates there is little confidence
that the screening process locates all possible sites where leachate plumes
enter the lake.

     Mass balance analysis is an alternative approach to evaluating the
potential impact of septic tank leachate plumes on lake water quality.  Mass
balance analysis of nutrient loads is often used as the basis for wastewater
facilities planning around lakes.  This procedure involves first
characterizing the watershed around the lake.  Next, assumptions regarding
the nutrient loading to the watershed from septic systems and other
sources.  Then, nutrient attenuation in the soil is estimated with the worst
case being no attenuation.  Using these assumptions, the total- maximum
annual nutrient load to the lake can be estimated, as can the proportion of
the total load contributed by septic systems.

     Unlike SLD surveys, .the mass balance approach takes into account the
total nutrient load to the lake from all septic systems in the watershed not
those right on the lake.  More importantly, mass balance takes into account
the fact that nutrient loadings to lakes may have impacts, even if the
individual plumes are not distinct and identifiable.

     In summary, it does not appear that SLD surveys provide more accuracte
information than traditional mass balance analysis.

4.4  COST

     The cost reports by Peters and Krause (1980) shown in Tables  are based
on a hypothetical community with characteristics summarized in Table  6.
These figures imply a cost of $45-$75 per household surveyed for a sanitary
survey by which a community may be able to gather the following information:

     o   Surface ponding of septic tank effluent
     o   Quantity and frequency of household back-ups
     o   Direct discharges to the lake
     o   Near shore aquatic plant growth
     o   Occupancy
     o   Water use
     o   System design
     o   Public attitudes.

For purposes of this analysis, an average cost for sanitary surveys of $60
per household was used.

     The cost figures developed by Peters and Krause (1980) have been used
in the example presented in Table  7.   This hypothetical example compares
the costs for a SLD survey either independently, or in conjunction with a
partial sanitary survey to the costs of a full-scale sanitary survey.  The
conditions for this hypothetical example are very favorable to SLD survey,
                                    -34-

-------
       TABLE 6.  HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPED BY
                          PETERS AND KRAUSE (1980)
                               Characteristics

Development located primarily near lakeshores

600 homes

Total shoreline of 9 miles

Sanitary surveys conducted for 25-40% of residences

Surface and shallow groundwater samples taken for nutrient and
bacteriological analysis at 30 sites in the vicinity of effluent plumes
entering the lake

Shallow groundwater and surface water sampling in conjunction with the
shoreline septic leachate survey

Well water sampling in conjunction with a sanitary survey.

                       Estimated Costs (From Table 5)
                            Cost
              Units
              Covered
             Cost/Unit
Method
SLD Survey

Lake Water Sampling

Sanitary Survey
$11,800

 $3,100

$10,800
 600          $19

  30         $300

600(25%-40%)  $54-$72,  average $60
                                    -35-

-------
             TABLE 7.    COMPARATIVE COST  ANALYSIS  OP
                      SLD SURVEYS AND SANITARY SURVEYS

This hypothetical example is based on the cost figures and hypothetical
community presented by Peters and Krause (1980).  In the community of 600
households, all have septic systems within 50-75 feet of the shore.

     Estimated Unit Cost:    SLD Survey = $19/home
                              Lake Water Sampling = $103
                              Sanitary Survey = $60/home

Case 1;  Independent SLD Survey

     Assumptions;

     Survey entire lake shore with surface water sampling at 5% of the homes,
     at an overall cost of $25/home.

     Cost;

     (600 SLD surveys x $19/home) + (30 homes x $103/home) = $4,500

Case 2;  SLD Survey with Partial Sanitary Survey

     Assumptions;

     No water samples are collected, but all detected plumes would be followed
     up by a sanitary survey.

     90 potential plumes are assumed.

     Cost;

     (600 SLD Surveys x $19/home) + (90 sanitary surveys x $60/home) = $16,800

Case 3;  Full Scale Sanitary Survey

     Assumptions;

     If SLD is not used, engineers will use professional judgement to select
     appropriate 40%:  of households to be surveyed.

     Cost;

     600 homes x 40% x $60/home = $14,400
                                    -36-

-------
because all 600 households have septic systems within 50-75 feet of the
shore.  Yet even in this favorable example, SLD survey costs are not
significantly less than costs for a full scale sanitary survey.

4.5  CONCLUSIONS

     There has been neither field nor laboratory documentation of SLD survey
false positive or negative rates.  Analysis of field data indicated that the
SLO has not consistently performed at a false positive rate of 30% or less
in identifying samples which are distinguishable from background due to
elevated levels of various water quality parameters.

     Because of the possible adverse environmental impact of missing an
existing pollution source, documentation of the SLD false negative rate is
essential.  The false negative rate is independent of the false positive
rate and must be documented separately.  Until the false negative rate is
documented and can be judged acceptable, the accuracy of SLD survey data
must be considered suspect.

     The data developed by a SLD survey is limited to homes within a short
distance of the lake.  Further, the SLD survey concept is based on the
assumption that identifying only those septic leachate plumes that remain
intact and identifiable in lake water is important.  This assumption implies
that the nutrient load from intact plumes is in some way more harmful to the
lake than nutrient loads from septic leachate plume which, for whatever
reason, have become too dilute to identify.  In terms of long term ambient
water quality protection, the location of identifiable plumes is less
important than the overall nutrient load.

     There is little or no cost incentive for using an SLD survey rather
than a sanitary survey.  Especially when one considers the many different
types of information gathered in a sanitary survey compared to the single
piece of information collected in an SLD survey.
                                    -37-

-------
                             REFERENCES

IEP, Inc., Shoreline Water Quality Survey, Lake Attitash, MA Report to
the Board of Health, Amesbury, MA, Oct, 1980.

ENDECO, Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Sguam Lake,
Report to Squam Lake Association, NH, Sept. 1977.

Environmental Management Institute, Subsurface Leachate Discharges into
Johns Pond, Mashpee, Report to the Town of Mashpee, MA, Aug. 1976.

K-V Associates, EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment Systems for Rural
Lakes Projects, Case Study Number 5, Otter Tail County Board of
Commissioners, Otter Tail County, Minnesota, Report to EPA Region V,
Sept. 1979.

K-V Associates, EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment Systems for Rural
Lakes Projects, Case Study Number 1, Crystal Lake Area Sewage Disposal
Authority, Benzie County, MI. Report .to EPA Region V, Dec. 1978.

ENDECO, Investigation of Septic Leachate Discharges into Lake Winona,
Lake Winnepesaukee (and) Ossipee Lake, NH, Report to Estimation
Research Associates, Inc., Oct. 1977.

K-V Associates, EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment Systems for Rural
Lakes Projects, Case Study Number 4, Steuben Lakes Regional Waste
District, IN, Report to EPA Region V, Aug. 1979.

ENDECO, Septic Leachate Detection Study, Lake Boon, MA, Report to
Estimation Research Associates, Inc., Aug. 1979.

Swanson Environmental Inc., Investigation of Septic Leachate Entering
Six Lakes in Carver County, Minnesota, Report to Ellison 'Philstrom
Ayers, Inc., June 1980.

K-V Associates, Septic Leachate Survey, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota,
Report to EPA Region V, Sept. 1980.

K-V Associates, EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment Systems For Rural
Lakes Projects, Case Study Number 3, Springvale - Bear Creek Sewage
Disposal Authority, Emmet County Michigan, Springfield, MI, Report to
EPA Region V, Nov. 1978.

K-V Associates, EIS - Alternative Waste Treatment Systems for Rural
Lakes Projects Case Study Number 2, Green Lake Sanitary Sewer & Water
District, Kandiyohi County, Minnesota, Report to EPA Region V, March,
1979.

United States Patent No. 4,112,741, 'Scanning Apparatus for Septic
Effluents', Inventors:  William B. Kerfoot and Edward C. Brainard, II,
September 12, 1978.
                                38

-------
ENDECO, Operator's Manual for Type 2100 Septic Leachate Detector
(Septic Snooper™)

WAPORA, Inc., Final-Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Wastewater
Management in Rural Lake Areas, Report to EPA Region V, January 1983.

Peters, G.O. and A.E. Krause, "Decentralized Approaches to Rural Lake
Wastewater Planning - Seven Case Studies", in McClelland, N.I. (Ed.)
Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, 1980.

Ganz, Charles R., C. Liebert, J. Schulze, and P.S. Stensby.  "Removal
of Detergent Fluorescent Whitening Agents from Wastewater*, JWPCP,
September 16, 1981, pp. 2834-2849.

Peters, G.O., Septic Leachate Detector Research, Report to EPA Region
V, May 1, 1982.

Kerfoot, William B., "Septic System Leachate Surveys for Rural Lake
Communities:  A Winter Survey of Otter Tail Lake, Minnesota", NSP
National Conference, p. 36., 1980.

Hendry, G.S. and A. Toth.  "Some Effects of Land Use on Bacteriological
Water Quality in a Recreational Lake", Water Research, Vol. 16, pp.
105-112, 1982.

American Public Health Assn. et. al., "Fluorescence and Phosphorescence
Methods", Instrumental Methods of Analysis in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, pp. 370-391, Washington, DC, 1980.

Ganz, Charles R., F.L. Lyman, and K. Maek, "Accumulation and
Elimination Studies of Four Detergent Fluorescent Whitening Agents in
Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)",  Environmental Science and Technology,
September 16, 1982, pp. 738-744.

Weeks, L.E., J.L. Staubly, W.A. Millsaps, and F.G. Villaume,
Bibliographical Abstracts on Evaluation of Fluorescent Whitening
Agents, 1929-1968, The American Society for Testing and Materials
Committee, D-12.15.05, Publication 507, September 16, 1981.

Davidson, A. and B.M» Milwidsky, Synthetic Detergents Sixth Edition,
John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1978.

Underbill, Dwight, "Nephelometry, Fluorometry, Mercury Vapor Detector,
Atomic Absorption", Course material for  Environmental Health Sciences,
264c, d. Harvard School of Public Health, 1976.
                              39

-------
 Dobbs,  Richard  A.,  R.H. Wise,  and  R.B.  Dean,  'The  Use  of  Ultra-Violet
 Absorbance for  Monitoring  the  Total  Organic  Carbon Content  of Water  and
 Wastewater",  Water  Research, Vol.  6, Pergamon Press,  1972.

 American Public Health Asociation, American  Water  Works Association  and
 Water  Pollution Control Federation,  Standard Methods of the Examination
 of Water and  Wastewater, 15th  edition,  Washington,  DC, 1980.

 Anon,  'Seven  Lakes  Examined  in EIS "Septic Snooper" Plan  Will Save
 Billions of Dollars",  EPA  Environment Midwest,  June,  1979.

 Anon,  "Lower-Cost Lake Protection",   Environmental Science  and
 Technology, Vol. 13, No. 8,  August 1979 p. 909.

 Freeze,  R.A.  and J.A.  Cherry,  "Advection Dispersion Equation for  Solute
 Transport in  Saturated Porous  Media", Groundwater,  Prentice Hall, 1979.

 Gilliom,  R.J. and C.R. Patmont,  "Lake Phosphorus Loading  From Septic
 Systems by Seasonally  Perched  Groundwater",  JWPCF  Vol.55, N. 10,  p.
 1297.

 Domenico, P.A., Concepts and Models  In  Groundwater Hydrology, McGraw
 Hill,  NY, NY  1972.

 Rea, R.A., and  S.B. Upchurch,  "Influence of  Regolith  Properties on
 Migration of  Septic Tank Effluent",  Groundwater, 18, p. 118 (1980).

 Cook,  et. al, Effects  of Diversion and  Alum  Applications  on Two
 Eutrophic Lakes, EPA-600/3-78-033, 1978.

 K-V Associates, Model  15 Septic Leachate Detector  Specifications, Data
 Sheet  9, Palmouth,  MA, 1983.

 Brandes,  M.,  "Characteristics  of Effluents From Gray  and  Black  Water
 Septic Tanks",  JWPCP,  Nov.,  1978,  p. 2547.

 Prentki,  R.T.,  et al., "The  Role of  Submerged Weedbeds in Internal
 Loading and Interception of  Allochthonous materials in Lake Wingra,
 Wisconsin, USA", Schweizerbart'sche  Verlagsbuch Handlung, D-7000
 Stuttgrart, 1979.

 Otis,  R.J. and  W.C. Boyle, "Performance of Single  Household Treatment
 Units",  J. Environ. Engineering Division ASCE.  102, No. EE1, p. 175,
 1976.

J3PA, Qnsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems  Design Manual,
 EPA 625/1-80-012, 1980.

 K-V Associates, Thurston County Lakes;   Water Quality  Analysis  and
 Restoration Plan, 1982, Sept.  1981.
                                 40

-------
University of Indiana, Lemon Lake Diagnostic Feasibility Study, Draft
Report, Lemon Lake, IN, Report to Indiana Clean Lakes Coordinator, May
1983.

University of Indiana, Cedar Lake Restoration Feasibility Study, Cedar
Lake, IN, Report to Indiana Clean Lakes Coordinator, Dec. 1982.

Ellis, B.C., 'Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater on the Old Mission
Peninsula:  Contribution of Land Reshaping and Septic Drainfields,"
NTIS PB83-108340 (1983).

Luce, H.D., and Welling, T.G., "Movement of Nitrates, Phospates, and
Fecal Coliform Bacteria from Disposal Systems Installed in Selected
Connecticut Soils."  NTIS PBS3-219808 (1983).

Hirsh, M.S., "Variability in Total Organic Carbon Within a Septic Tank
System".  In "1982 Southeastern On-site Sewage Treatment Conference."
N.C. Div. of Health Serv., Raleigh, N.C. (1983);
                                41

-------
            Appendix A




FIELD EXPERIENCE DATA AND ANALYSIS

-------
                                       Table  A-l .

                        WATER QUALITY GRAB  SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                      (as presented  in Attitash Lake Report)
              DWPC
                   e      *        *         * •
                        Total   *  Fecal     Fecal
              (Station)  Collfonn  Col 1 form  Strep
                           20       10
                          120      -10
                         3800     1500
                          180      110
                          360      180
                          300      140
                          300      140
                           80       40
                         2400      800
                         3000     1400
                          240       40
                          <20       10
                           80       30

                           50      
-------
                              Table  A-2

                 WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE  ANALYSIS
                 (as  presented in  Johns Pond Report)
            Analyses of Water Receiving Groundwater Discharges from Domestic
            Septic Units,  Natural  Bogs, or Inflows to Johns Pond, Mashpee
  Station          Volume
                   Ranking


    5                13
   10                17
   12                19
   14                22
   16                23
   18                19
   19c                9
  28                24
  32                 7
  42                21
  42a                3
  51                10
  52                 4
  53                 5
  58                12
  72                 2
  88                 8
  89                16
  92                15
 109 (Moody Pd.)
 112a
 112b
 112c
 112d
 112e
 118                11
 119                 6
 120                20
 125                14
Muddy Pond
Coliform
 Count*
1/100 ml
   20
  900

  200

 1800
   10
 neg.
  90
    Nutrient Content  (mg/1)
  P04-P    N03+M02-N     NH4-N
 10
 20
neg.
  .003
  .002
  .001
  .010
  .003
  .002
  .001
  .004
  .000
 .010
 .002
 .001
 .001
 .002
 .002
 .002
 .004
 .002
 .002
 .000
 .001
 .001
 .002
 .006
 .001
 .007
 .002
 .000
.003
.009
  .012
  .002
  .163
  .000
  .006
  .074
  .001
 .003
 .003
 .355
 .008
 .001
 .002
 .001
 .002
 .007
 .049
 .003
 .002
 .194
 .020
 .050
 .249
 .305
 .079
 .017
 .015
 .006
 .054
.007
  .0042
  .0095
  .0195
  .0032
  .0074
  .0192
  .001
  .0099
  .0112
 .0342
 .0181
 .002
 .004
 .002
 .009
 .0277
 .0394
 .0049
 .0134
 .0251
 .002
 .001
 .002
 .043
 .003
 .0760
 .0141
 .0141
 .0132
.088
Background Levels (Mean)
North Pond (Deep Station)
South Pond (Deep Station)
            .001
            .001
           .002
           .002
            .006
            .003
+8acteria1  analyses  performed by Tim Hennigan Engineering, Inc. for the
 Town of Mashpee Public Health Department.

*Chenrical analysis following EPA "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
 and Wastes,"  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 0.  C.
                                   A-2

-------
                                             Table A-3
                              WATER QUALITY GRAB  SAMPLE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
                                 (as presented in Otter Tail Lake  Report)
to
           • ERUPTING  CROUNDWATEH PLUME

           O DORMANT CROUNDWATER PIDME

           • ERUPTING  STREAM SOURCE PIJUME

           ODORMANT STREAM SOURCE PLUME

-------
               Table A-5
   WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
(as presented in Otter Tail Lake Report)

Sample*
Number
1S-B
1G-B
2S
2G
3S
3G
4S
4G
5S
6S
7S
7G
88
8G
9S
10S
10G
11S
11G
12S
12G
13S
14S-B
14G-B
15S
15G
14S-B
16G-B
17S
17G
18S
18G
19S
19G


Conductivity
320
430
340
510
340
620
325
640
590
-
340
525
340
475
320
330
855
320
400
325
490
400
325
920
340
585
325
560
340
600
150
480
325
570

TDS
ppm
194
285
218
299
204
413
171
419
365
223
190
323
193
300
193
230
550
195
242
197
339
256
181
500
185
322
171
322
198
381
199
309
191
351

NO2-N N03-N
ppm ppni
<.01 .02
<.01 3.38
.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .03
<.01 .01
<.01 .04
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .07
<.01 .01
<.01 .12
<.01 7.18
<.01 .05
<.01 .03
<.01 .04
<.01 .04
<.01 <.01
<.01 .04
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
<.01 .06
<.01 .02
.01 .08
<.01 .03
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .04
<.01 .02
<.01 .02
<.01 .02
<.01 .01

NI3-N
Ppm
<.03
<.03
.03
.15
<.03
<.03
<.03
1.19
.68
.03
<.03
.12
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
7.50
<.03
.28
<.03
.46
<.03
<.03
11.5
<.03
.40
<.03
.52
<.03
1.68
.06
.28
<.03
.25
Organic
N
ppm
.75
.10
.80
.35
.72
.80
.98
1.21
1.22
.74
.47
.38
' .64
.10
.98
1.30
2.00
.75
.30
.90
1.19
1.25
.88
.10
.65
.55
.62
.09
.67
1.80
.80
.68
.53
.02

C1-
ppm
3
4
4
2
4
2
4
7
7
4
3
8
4
20
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
6
4
6
3
2
4
3
4
7
4
4

Na
ppm
6.3
4.6
6.2
3.1
6.7
7.0
7.0
13
10
7.6
6.5
4.6
6.9
5.0
6.7
7.6
6.8
7.4
9.3
7.4
4.0
6.7
7.2
8.0
7.1
5.3
7.2
5.5
7.0
6.3
7.2
6.3
7.1
3.9
                  A-4

-------
                             Table A-6
                  WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
              (as presented in Otter Tail Lake Report)
Sample*
Number
20S
20G
21S
21G
228
22G
23S
23G
24S
24G
Conductivity
340
480
370
525
285
470
310
570
330
1620
TDS
190
281
203
299
187
292
192
337
168
667
NO2-N N03-N
ppm ppm
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .03
<.01 .02

-------
                                Table A-5
                   WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS
                      (as presented  in Crystal Lake Report)
        PLUME

        PLUME

•STREAM SOUflCE PLUME
                                  A-6

-------
                          Table A^6
                 WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                  (as presented in Crystal Lake Report)
                         *
Nutriant analyaea of  aurfaca (U) and groundwatar (Q) aaoiplaa takan  in  the
vicinity of uaatti.watar leacliata plunaa obaarvud on the Cryatal Laka  ahorallna,
                                                                   breakthrough

tiample
Number
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
21
25
26
27
6
G
6
G
8
G
B
U
S
G
&
.G
S
S
bkgs
S
G
a
G
B
S
G
a
c
a
Q
s
Cond.
300
525
250
490
2?0
460
41O
260
315
383
410
403
365
390
385
380
600
382
438
412
384
555
416
368
450
636
390
Concentration
POji-P TP
.0008 .
.004
.0005
.01?
.021
—
.002
.003
.000
.002
.020
.022
.020
.003
.0005 .001
.008
.0005
.002
.006
.0000
.004
.008
.003
.022
.002
.001 .003
.001 :.004
.002 !.oo3
.000 .020
.004 :.O04
.006 .006
.001 '.003
.003 -.004
.011 '.024
.002 :.004
.003 .012
.002 L004
.010 '.020
.001 '.005
(ppm - wg/1)
WlirN
.004
.263
.003
.034
.004
.105
.005
.0003
.001
.000
.004
.026
.006
.004
.003
.004
.004
.004
.002
.0003
.008
3.773
.024
.056
.013
.025
.005
NO)-N
.043
.003
.011
.2??
.062
.800
.29?
.84?
.060
.224
.048
.260
.128
.084
.060
.045
i.aoa
.048
.220
.020
.024
.016
.026
.083
.230
3.144
.134
Ratio
AO AP AN P N

125 .005 .23 «.5* 4*

00 .016 .28 .8* 6*

60 .025 1.06. 2* 35*





i.
*



20O .016 l.?8 .4* 18*

38 .002 .10 .3* 10*


155 .020 3.76 .?* 40*



236 .02 3.11 .4* 21*


-------
                                   Table A-6  (continued)
                           WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                           (as presented in Crystal Lake Report)
Sample
Number
2a
29
30
31
32
35
3'»
35
36
3?
3a
39
40
4i
42
'i 3
'Hi
'•5

S
Q
S
G
a
G
S
G
S
S
&
S
£
Go mi .
430
610
420
610
420
490
400
430
360
3?a
403
420
40O
lost in
&
&
S
S
410
3615
420
2'/0
Concentration
tOn-P TP
.002
..043
.002
,007
.002
.009
.002
.004
.004
.003
.002
.002
.003
transit
-
_
_
-
.005
.057
.003
.010
.003
.012
.004
.Oil
.011
.004
.004
.004
.004

.607
.012
.024
.025
(ppm - me/1)
MIIjt-N NOj-N
.008
.020
.010
.012
.013
.125
.0?8
.069
.032
.01 4
.009
.005
.006

.287
.404
.167
.246
.194
.950
.171
1.523
.111
.029
.046
.011
1.385
.056
.391
.436
.564

-
-
-
-
Ratio
AC AP AN P

210 .05> .97 1.4*

210 .006 1.52 .29
«
90 .008 .122 .1%

30 .006 .05 1*










                                                                             Breakthrough
                                                                                      N

                                                                                     9.?*
                                                                                    14.5*
                                                                                     3#
                                                                                     3%
Background concentration
             400
Local effluent
.004
.003
.030
                          +400   +6
                               +20

-------
:VO
                                                     Table A-7

                                       WATER QUALITY GRAB  SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                                               (as presented  in ERA  Study)


                     Analysis of Water Sample  Taken at Moultonborough  Bay. Hay 26. 1977.

                                    Septic  Leachate Detector Peaks.

                                                        Nitrate and
                                                      Nitrite-Nitrogen
                                                      (NOi f N02) - N
            Inorganic           Total
        Phosphate-Phosphorus  Phosphorus
Station   (P04-P) in ppm      (P)  in ppm
                                                          in opm
Ammonia-Nitrogen
(NH4-M)  in  ppm
Specific Conductance
   in micro mhos
(Background 1)
(Background 2)
48
53
56
61
63
65
65A
75
76
768
84
.00
.0006 *
.00
.0019
.0006
.0019
.0022
.0016
.0006
.0009
.0078
.0019
• .0009
.0016
.0028
.0034
.0053
.0056
.0056
.0059
.0037
.0034
.0031
.0233
.0062
.0078
.0036
.0213
.0133
.0102
.0126
.0069
.0144
.0087
.0109
.0119
.0127
.0120
.0223 '
.0045
.0080
.0049
.0099
.007
.0060
.0048
.0027
.0042
.0060
.0084
.0057
.0043 .
.32.2
42.2
41.0
39.4
40.2
40.9
41.8
41.9
37.6
36.0
38.2
42.8
37.9

-------
                     Table A-8
      WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
MOULTONBOROUGH BAY WATER SAMPLES. AUGUST 24. 1977.
Concentrations are* given in milligrams per -liter (mg/l-ppm),
except with Conductance. Septic Leachate Detector Peaks. -
Total
Orthophosphate Phosphorus
(POa-P) (TP)
Background
(landing)
Station 64
Station 65B
Station 63
Station 70
Station 73-70
Station 75
Station 76 (1)
Station 76 (2)
Station 81
Station 34
..0037
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0040
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0037
.0081
.0133
.0205
.0096
.0112
.0109
.0090
.0192
.0171
.0068
.0081
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(NOi-N)
.0035
.0032
.0032
.0029
.0029
.0034
.0043
.0028
.0036
.0158
.0041
Ammonia
Nitrogen
(NHa-N)
.0133
.0113
.0168
.0123
.0157
.0196
.0174
.0168
.0165
.0213
.0154
Conductance
umhos
40.1
46.4
44.2 '
42.4
43.5
46.4
42.7
44.6
43.6
45.0
46.5
                     A-10.'.

-------
t!
                                                      Table A-9



                                        WATER QUALITY SAMPLE  GRAB ANALYSIS  LOCATIONS

                                          (as shown in Stueben Lakes Report)
                                                                             j
           o-
            f
            ?
plume sample




bacteria sample



erupting plume



stream




dormant plume
            PLUME LOCATIONS ON STUEBEN LAKES - AUGUST

-------
                                          Exhibit  A-10

                               WATER QUALITY GRAB  SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                               (as shown In Stueben Lakes Report)

Sample*
Numbers
Crooked Lake
IS
2S
2G
3S
3G
4S
5S
5G
> 6S
L 6G
10 7S
7G
Jimmerson Lake
3S
9S
9G
10S
10G
US
11G
12S
12G
13S
13G
14S
14G

TDS
PPm

343
324
717
327
744
486
444
1089
421
570
334
459

244
263
573
260
378
267
325
251
694
269
359
263
368

N02-N N03-N
PPM PPm

<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .02
<.01 .05
.01 .14
.02 .67
<.01 .01
<.01 .39
<.01 .04
<.01 .02
<.01 .02

<.01 .02
<.01 .01
<.01 .07
<.01 .01
<.01 <.01
<.01 .01
<.01 <.01
<.01 .01
<.01 .01
<.01 <.01
<.01 .30
<.01 .01
<.01 .02

NH3-N
PPm

<.03
<.03
2.08
<.03
1.70
.04
.08
.18
<.03
1.78
<.03
2.75 '

<.03
<.03
22.2
<.03
1.75
<.03
<.03
<.03
10.8
< .03
.76
< .03
1.90
Organic
N
ppm

.57
.68
10.4
.72
1.90
.96
.18
1.07
.87
1.82
.68
24.4
.
.50
.74
10.3
.68
2.95
.62
.36
.60
1.20
.68
.49
.74
3.60

Cl-
PPm

76
76
133
76
183
- 95
72
336
88
66
77
75

. 30
30
6
30
12
31
2
32
22
° 30
8
28
9

Na
ppm

63
43
175
41
59
60
43
165
60
31
44
37

13
16
5
17
7
17
5
17
12
17
4
13
5
* = surface water sample; G = groundwater sample

-------
                                    Exhibit A-10 (continued)

                               WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                               (as shown In Stueben Lakes Report)

Sample*
Numbers
James Lake
15S
16S
17S
17G
16S
18G
19S
19G
20S
20G
21S
21G
22S
22G
23S
24S
24G
25S
25G
26S
26G
27S
27G
28S
29S
30S
30G

TDS
PPm

262
270
278
555
257
273
254
408
243
353
266
289
261
468
257
304
648
259
453
328
700
259
286
286
257
264
412

N02-N
Ppm

<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01
.04
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.03

N03-N
PPM

.01
.01
.02
.08
.02
.01
.01
<.01
.02
<.01
.01
.01
.02
<.01
.02
<.01
.50
.01
.01
.01
<.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.41

NH3-N
Ppm

<.03
<.03
<.03
26.0
<.03
.03
<.03
.37
<.03
<.03
<.03
.14
<.03
14.0
<.03
.05
30.0
<.03
2.30
<.03
62.0
.03
.65
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
Organic
N
PPM

.56
1.43
.50
2.00
.70
3.30 '
1.60
18.3
1.38
3.60
.60
15.4
.87
10.5
.37
1.35
17.5
.80
5.00
.38
68.5
1.15
3.45
1.32
1.34
1.37
1.25

Cl-
ppm
ft r «i •
32
61
31
17
. 31
27
52
23
56
3
30
3
28
26
30
30
15
31
45
49
26
57
49
56
63
67
73

Na
Ppm

18
18
17
10
17
17
17
7
18
4
17
15
15
15
18
17
14
17
26
29
18
19
17
22
18
19
6
*S = surface water sample; G = groundwater sample

-------
                                                             Table  A-12

                                               WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                                               (as presented in  Squam Lake Report)


                    Analysis of Water Samples taken at Squam Lake, June 22, 1977


                           Inorganic             Total       Nitrate-Nitrogen                          Specific Conductance
                      Phosphate-Phosphorus     Phosphorus        (N(>3  - N)         Ammonia-Nitrogen        In micro mhos
           Station         (PQd-P) In ppm        (P) In pom         in ppm	    (NH/i-N) In ppm       	per cm	

                                                           Cotton Cove

           Background          .0003              .0053             .0008                 .0024     '          -41.2
\>             20             .0008              .0071             .0013                 .0020                41.1
               24             .0003              .0180             .0013                 .0020                38.9
               36             .0005              .0065             .0013                 .0024                41.0


                                                            Piper Cove

           Background          .0008              .0068             .0013                 .0056                 41.2
                3             .0006              .0111             .0017                 .0085             .    43.2
                5             .0008              .0115             .0024                 .0283                 50.2
                8             .0010              .0174             .0013                 ,0157                 46.9
                8A            .0090              .3519             .0389                 .1898                230.0
               13             .0003               10074             .0014                 .0028                 40.2

-------
                                                      Table A-12  (continued)
                                                  WATER QUALITY GRAB SAMPLE ANALYSIS
                                                   (as presented  in Squam Lake)
                             Analysis of Water Samples Taken at Squam Lake. September, 14. 1977
IT1
                   Station
Background
     7
    32
    39
    42
                      Inorganic
                 Phosphate-Phosphorus
                    (PO/t-P} In ppm
                    Background
                         5
                         6
                         7
                         SB
                              r
.0025
.0009
.0028
.0028
.0025
                        .0022
                        .0028
                        .0022
                        .0028
                        .0025
  Total
Phosphorus
(Pi In ppm

  Cotton Cove

   .0056
   .0121
   .0081
   .0071
   .0090

   Piper  Cove

   .0065
   .0112
   .0084
   .0105
   .0105
                                                                              Nitrate-Nitrogen
                                                                                 (N03-N)
                                                                                  in ppm
.0095
.0592
.2023
.0162
.0132
                                        .0090
                                        .0517
                                        .0441
                                        .0273
                                        .0090
                                                      Ammonia-Nitrogen
                                                           N  in ppm)
.0057
.0069
.0070
.0066
.0060
                    .0073
                    .0255
                    .0295
                    .2092
                    .0200

-------
                                  Table A-13

                     Lake Attitash Complete Sample^
BACKGROUND
                        FECAL     TOTAL
                     COLIFORM  (Kj«l.) N     MH3-H     K03-N   TOTAL  P
                            •  xlOO ppa  xlOO ppa  X100 ppa  xlOO ppm
20
120
20
SO

SO
400
3O
10
10
10
30

10
3
3
71
304
64
77
59
83
30
26
2
190
1
2
0
3
8
6
0
430
0
1
0
70
0
0
4
540
1
6
3
4
3
3
                        13.0
                        10.0
129.0
116.8
48.8
94.2
107.8
214.8
137.8
268.2
1
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12A
12B
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
3800
180
36O
300
300
80
2400
3000
240
200
400
300
400
20
60
340
20
20
20
80
20
600
1100
60
1300
110
180
140
140
40
800
1400
40
100
20
80
20
10
20
200
10
10
10
20
10
120
20
3
81
73
82
67
70
63
72
36
63
103
67
48

41
34
38
78
63
34
79
32
84
93
26
3
0
1
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
0

8
4
0
10
3
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
100
10

20
10
20
0
10
60
0
0
0
0
0
20
17
13
8
7-
3
4
3
3
9
4
4

1
3
3
4
4
1
6
2
3
3
9
                       133.1
                       333.4

                         1.8
                       23.2
 63.0
 17.9

 -0.9
  7.1
 2.3
 2.8

-0.9
 7.0
 12.0
 23.0

 -0.8
  7.0
  4.3
  2.4

 -0.9
  7.0
                                   A-16

-------
          Table A-14

Lake Attitash Corrected Sample.
   FECAL    TOTAL
COLIFORN (Kjel.) N     NH3-M
       • xlOO pp«  xlOO pp»
                   N03-N
                X100
                                       TOTAL P
                                      xlOO pp»
20
20
80

30
400
30
10
10
30

10
5
s
71
64
77
39
83
30
26
2
1
2
0
3
a
6
0
0
1
0
70
0
0
4
1
6
3
4
3
3
    16.7
    11.3
70.7
 6.3
                       1.7
                       0.6
 0.3
 0.6
3.7
2.3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
300
300
80
2400
3000
240
200
400
60
340
20
20
20
80
20
600
1100
60
140
140
40
800
1400
40
100
20
20
200
10
10
10
20
10
120
20
3
67
70
65
72
36
65
105
67
54
38
78
65
34
79
32
84
93
26
0
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
4
0
10
3
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
100
10
20
0
10
60
0
0
0
0
0
8
7
3
4
3
3
9
4
3
3
4
4
1
6
2
3
3
9
   172.3
   357.3

    1.8
   17.2
67.2
17.4

-0.6
19.2
                       2.1
                       2.6

                       0.6
                      22.9
11.7
26.4

 1.8
17.1
4.5
2.4

0.5
7.8

-------
                         Table A-15
             Johns Pond  Surface Water  Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE »
NORTH POND
SOUTH POND

      REAM
     STDEV
PLUMES
        3
       10
       12
       14
       16
       18
       19c
       28
       32
       42
       42a
       31
       52
       53
       38
       72
       88
       89
       92
      109
      112e
      112d
      112*
      118
      119
      120
      125
MEAN
ST86V

t
v
Pr
    P04-P
xlOOO pp»

       1
       1

     1.0
     0.0
   3
   2
   1
  10
   3
   2
   1
   4
   0
  10
   2
   1
   1
   2
   2
   2
   4
   2
   2
   0
   1
   1
   2
   6
   1
   7
   2
   0
 2.7
 2.6

 3.3
28.0
   IS
                              N03*N02-N
                              xlOOO pp»

                                     2
                                     2

                                   2.0
                                   0.0
                                    12
                                     2
                                   163
                                     0
                                     6
                                    74
                                     1
                                     3
                                     3
                                   333
                                     a
                                     1
                                     2
                                     1
                                     2
                                     7
                                    49
                                     3
                                     2
                                   194
                                    20
                                    SO
                                   249
                                   303
                                    79
                                    17
                                    16
                                     6
                                    54

                                  36.1
                                  97.9

                                   3.1
                                  26.0
                                     IX
                             NH3-N
                        xlOOOO pp«

                               60
                               30

                             43.0
                             21.2
                                   42
                                   93
                                  193
                                   32
                                   74
                                  192
                                   10
                                   99
                                  112
                                  342
                                  181
                                   20
                                   40
                                   20
                                   90
                                  277
                                  394
                                   49
                                  134
                                  231
                                   20
                                   10
                                   20
                                  430
                                   30
                                  760
                                  141
                                  141
                                  132

                                149.4
                                163.2

                                  3.1
                                 16.3
                                    1*
                        A-18

-------
                                , Table A-16

             OTTER TAIL LAKE Subsurface Water  Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE *
        1
       14
       16
 COND.
  320
  329
  329
   TOS
   pp»

  194
  181
  171
   R03-N ORCAMIC-N
xlOO ppB  xlOO pp«
      2
      6
      2
  79
  88
  62
 Cl-
 PP»

  3
  4
  3
     Ma
xlO ppa

    63
    72
    72
PLUMES
        2
        3
        4
        6
        7
        8
        9-
       10
       11
       12
       13
       13
       17
       18
       19
       20
       21
       22
       23
HEAM
STBEV

t
v
fv
              323.3
                2.9
  340
  340
  329

  340
  340
  320
  330
  320
  329
  400
  340
  340
  390
  329
  340
  370
  289
  330

336.7
 23.1

  2.3
 18.9
    4*
          182.0
           11.9
  218
  204
  171
  223
  190
  193
  193
  230
  199
  197
  296
  189
  198
  199
  191
  190
  203
  187
  192

200.8
 19.2

  2.4
  4.0
    8*
            3.3
            2.3
      1
      2
      1
      2
      7
     12
      9
      3
      4
      4
      2
      8
      2
      2
      2
      2
      2
      2
      2

    3.4
    2.8

    Ool
    3.0
     93*
             79.0
             13.0
  80
  72
  98
  74
  47
  64
  98
 130
  79
  90
 129
  69
  67
  80
  93
  91
  69
  89
  66

78.6
22.4

 0.4
 4.2
  71*
           3.3
           0.6
  4
  4
  4
  4
  3
  4
  3
  3
  4
  3
  3
  4'
3.7
0.9

1.2
2.4
 36*
         69.0
          9.2
    62
    67
    70
    76
    69
    69
    67
    76
    74
    74
    67
    71
    70
    72
    71
    69
    66
    70
    70

  69.6
   3.8

   0.2
   2.4
    18*
                              A-19

-------
                                Table  A-17

                  CRYSTAL  LAKE   Surface Water  Sample
BACKGROUND

  SAHPLE *   COMD.        P04-P    TOTAL P       NH3-N       M03-M
                      xlOOO ppa   xlOOO ppm   xtOOO pp«   xlOOO pp»

       15      388           1          4           3         60
      HEAN    389.0     ,    1.0        4.0         3.0       60.0
     STDEV      0.0         0.0        0.0         0.0        0.0
PLUMES
        1       300
        3       250
        S       270
        7       410
        9       31S
       11       410
       13       369
       14       390
       16       380
       18       382
       20       412
       21       384
       23       416
       29       430
       27       390
       28       340
       30       420
       32       420
       34       400
       36       360
       37       378
       38       403
       39       420
       40       400
       42       410
       43       368
       44       420
       49       270
1
1
21
2
8
2
1
1
2
4
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
2
3
* -



3
2
22
3
4
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
9
9
3
3
4
11
4
4
4
4
607
12
24
29
4'
3
94
9
1
4
6
4
4
4
0
8
24
13
9
8
10
13
78
32
14
9
9
6
287
484
167
246
43
11
62
297
60
48
128
84
49
48
29
24
26
239
134
194
171
111
48
1389
56
391
436
964




REAM
STDEV
t
V
Pr
379.9
90.9
-1.0
27.0
•
3.1
4.1
2.9
23
2X
27.8
113.7
1.1
27.0
28*
94.9
111.9
2.9
27.0
2*
193.1
293.0
2.2
23
4*
                               A-20

-------
                               Table A-18
                        ERA  STUDY  - MAY 1977

                      Surface  Water Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE *     P04-4   TOTAL P N03»M02-M     NH3-H     COND.
            10*4 ppa   10*4 ppa  10*4 ppa  10*4 ppa      xlO

        1         0        16        36        49      322
        2         6        28       213        80      422
      REAM      3.0      22.0     124.5      62.5     372.0
     STDEV      4.2       8.5     125.2      24.7     70.7
PLUMES
       48         0        34       133        49      410
       S3        19        S3       102        99      394
       56         6        56       126        70      402
       61        19        36        69        60      409
       63        22        59       144        48      418
       63        16        37        87        27      419
       63A        6        34       109        42      376
       73         9        31       119        60      360
       76        78       233       127        84      382
       76B       19        62       121        37      428
       84         9        78       223        43      379
MEAN           18.3      66.6     123.6      38.1     397.9
STDEV          21.0      S7.1      39.3      20.3      21.4

t,               2.2       3.1       0.0      -0.3       0.6
v              10.0      10.9       1.0       1.2       1.0
Pr               6*        2*      100*        «        66*
                                A-21

-------
                               Table A-19
                       ERA STUDY AUGUST  1977
                      Surface Water Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE •     P04-4   TOTAL P H03»M02-N     NH3-N     COND.
            10*4 ppa  10*4 pp«  10*4 ppa  10*4 pp»       10

        1        37       81        35       133      401
      BEAM     37.0     81.0      33.0     133.0    401.0
     STDEV      0.0      0.0       0.0       0.0      0.0
PLUMES
       64        37      133        32       113      464
       6SB       37      209        32       168      442
       68        37       96        29       123      424
       70        37      112        29       137      433
     73-70       40      109        34       196      464
       73        37       90        43       174      427
    76 (1)       37      192        28       168      446
    76 (2)       37      171        36       163      436
       81        37       68       138       213      430
       84        37       81        41       134      463
HEM           37.3     123.7      46.2     163.1     443.3
STDEV           0.9      48.0      39.6      29.8      13.3

t               1.0       4.0       1.2       4.3      12.3
v               9.0       9.0       9.0       9.0       9.0
Pr              33*        1*       27*        ix        0*
                             A-22

-------
                           Table  A-20

                STUEBEN  LAKES/CROOKED LAKE
                   Surface Water Samples
 BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE «       TDS     H03-M   TOTAL M        Cl       Ma
                 ppa  10*2 ppa  10*2 pp«       ppa      ppa

        1       343         1       57        76       43
      MEAN    343.0       1.0     57.0      76.0     43.0
     STDEV     0.0       0.0      0.0       0.0      0.0
PLUMES
        2      324         2      '68        76       43
        3      327         2       72        76       41
        4      486        14       96        95       60
        5      444        67       18        72       43
        6      421        89       87        88       60
        7      334         2       68        77       44
BEAM         389.3      29.3      68.2      80.7      48.S
STDEV         70.1      38.6      27.1      8.8       9.0
                  ^ ..
t              1,6       3.1       1.8      2.2       2.6
»              3.0       5.0       5.0      5.0       S.O
Pr              17*       3x       14»       ax        3*
                       A-23

-------
                              Table A-21

                    STUEBEN LAKES/JIMMERSON LAKE
                       Surface Water Samples
 BACKGROUND
   SAMPLE *       TDS    M03-M         N        01       Na
                 ppa  10*2 pp«  10*2 pp«       ppa      pp»

        8       244        2        SO       30       13
      HEAM    244.0       2.0      SO.O      30.0     13.0
     STDEV      0.0       0.0      0.0       0.0      0.0
PLUMES
        9       263         1       74        30       16
       10       260         1       68        30       17
       11       267         1       62        31       17
       12       231         1       60        32       17
       13       269         1       68        30       17
       14       263         I       74        28       IS
REAM         262.2       1.0      67.7      30.2      16.3
STDEV          6.3       0.0       3.9       1.3       0.8

t              7.0  *DIV/Ot       12.8       0.6      17.8
»•              3.0       3.0       3.0       3.0       3.0
P*               1*       »         0*      33«        0»
                            A-24

-------
                          Table A-22
                  STUEBEN LAKES/JAMES  LAKE

                   Surface  Water  Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE »       TDS     N03-M        N       Cl       Na
                ppa  10*2 pp»  10*2 pp»      pp»       ppa
       IS       262       'I       36       32        18
       16       270        1      148       61        18
      BEAM    266.0       1.0    102.0     46.5      18.0
     STDEV      3.7       0.0     65.1     20.3      0.0
PLUHE3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
26
27
28
29
278
237
234
243
266
261
237
304
239
328
239
286
237
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
SO
70
160
138
60
87
37
183
80
86
113
132
134
31
31
32
56
30
28
30
30
31
49
37
36
63
17
17
17
18
17
13
18
17
17
29
19
22
18
      30       264         3       137       67       19
HEAR
STDEV
t
V
Pr
269.3
22.7
0.5
7.7
64X
1.3
0.7
3.3
13.0
IX
103.2
44.2
o.i
1.2
94X
43.6
14.6
-0.2
1.2
a
18.6
3.4
0.7
13.0
SOX
                         A-25

-------
                                   Table  A-23
                           SQUAM LAKE -  June  1977
                             Surface Water  Samples
BACKGROUND
  SAHPLE •       P04-P     TOTAL P   H03*K02-N       MH3-M      COMD.
  SAHPLE •     ^.yjp.    i0»4 pp.    10-4 pp.    1CT4 pp.      10  pp.
                   a          S3          8          24         412
                   I          68          13          *
                  3.5       60.3        10.5       40.0       412.0
                  3.5       10.6         3.5       22.6         0.0
FLUKES
       20           8         71          13          20         411
       24           3         180          13          20         389
       36           5         65          13          24         410
        3           6         111          17          85         432
        5           3         115          24       .283         502
        8          10         174          13         157         469
        8A         90        3519         389        1898        23OO
       l"          3         74          14          28         402
 HEAI             16.6       538.6        62.0      314.4       664.4
                  29.8      1205.1       132.2      646.5       662.0

                   1.0         1.7         1.6         1.8         1.6
                   7.6         7.0         7.1         7.1         7.0
                    36X        14*         16*         12*         16*
                                      A-26

-------
                              Table A-24
                        SQUAM LAKE - Sept 1977
                        Surface Water Samples
BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE «       P04-P     TOTAL P   M03»M02-H       HH3-H
             10*4 pp«    10A4 PP«    10*4 PP«    10"4 PP«

        !         25          56         95          57
        2         22          65         90          73
                 23.5        60.5        92.5        65.0
                  2.1         6.4         3.5        11.3
 PLUMES
        7           9        121         592         69
       32          28         81        2023         70
       39          28         71         162         66
       42          25         90         132         60
      5 (3)         28        112         517        255
      g (6)         22         84         441        293
      7 (S)         28        105         273        2092
     SB <4>         2S        108          90        200
                  24.1        96.1
 STOEV             6.5        17.2       631.8      694.8

 t                 0.2         6.5         2.9        2.0
 I                 6.3         4.1         7.0        7.0
 ft                 85*         1*          3*         9*
                                   A-27

-------
                                  Table A-25

                               OTTER TAIL LAKE
                            Groundwater  Samples
 BACKGROUND

  SAMPLE »     COW.       TDS    N03-N ORCANIC-N       Cl-        Na
                           ppm  xlOO ppm  xlOO ppm       ppm   xlO ppm

        1       430       289      338        10         4        46
       14       920       500        2        10         6        80
       16       36O       322        1         9         2        33
      MEAN    636.7     369.0     113.7       9.7       4.0      60.3
     STDEV    253.8     114.9     194.3       0.6       2.0      17.6
PLUHES
        2       510       299         1        35         2        31
        3       620       413         3        80         2        70
        4       640       419         4       121         7       130
        7       329       323         1        38         8-46
        8       479       300       718        10        20        SO
       10       899       550         4       200         4        68
       11       400       242         1        30         4        93
       12       490       339         3       119         4        40
       IS       589       322         3        59         6        53
       17       600       383         4       180         3        63
       18       480       309         2        68         2        63
       19       970       351         1         2         4        39
       20       480       281         1        19         2        30
       21       529       299         3        13         4      ' 42
       22       470       292         3        62         4        82
       23       570       337         2        67         4        93
HEA1          949.7    341.2      47.1      68.7       5.0     62.1
STDEV         103.7     72.8     178.9      59.0       4.4     27.0
                   
-------
                        Table  A-26

                      CRYSTAL LAKE

               Groundwater Samples
BACKGROUND
               400                     4           3         SO




      HEAM    400.0   «DIV/Ot           4.0         3.0       60.0

     STDEV      0.0        0.0         0.0         0.0        0.0
PLUHES
               .-.           4           9        263          3

                            »
                                                 »
        t                    i          '          2
                             i         »         -
                             .»  .       »          j
       s       S      •   s         s          s
       I       i          :         s
       S
  REAM          485.2         9.4       17.4       307.5

  STDEV         104.4        10.6       13.4       ^l'8


  t              3.2          M/A       3.9         1.2         2.7

  «             14 0                   14.0        I*'0          l4

  Pr              1*                    1*         ***          "
                            A-29

-------
    Appendix B




STATISTICAL METHODS

-------
                                APPENDIX B

                            STATISTICAL METHODS

     The goal of the statistical analysis performed on the data presented
in Appendix A was to determine whether, based on field observations, it is
reasonable to assume that the SEPD surveys  accurately and consistently
distinguished between contaminated and ambient water quality.  To do this,
the difference between the mean of background observations and the mean of
plume observations were compared.

     The significance of differences observed between the means was then
tested using a students t-test.  This test  determines the probability of
observing a difference in means as great or greater than those observed
during the SEPD surveys if there is in fact no difference.   In other words,
the test determines if there is enough difference between the means, given
the precision of the measurements, to assume that the samples were actually
collected from two populations (i.e, water  contaminated with septic tank
effluent vs. background lake water).  The precision of the measurement of
the means is indicated by their standard errors.  If the difference in the
means is not large relative to the standard errors, the probability is" high
that the data observations reported do not  represent two distinct
populations, but rather are illustrative of the degree of variance ecpected
when collecting the samples from a single population.  Since the SEPD
concept is based on the assumption that the concentration in the plume is
not only different from but greater than the background concentration, a
one tailed t-test has been used to estimate levels of significance.

     The hypothesis and its test can be stated mathematically as follows.
Let:

     X_    = the population mean of SEPD-plumes,

     XG    = the population mean for background water,

     x^    = the corresponding tfample means, i = p, c,

     n^    = the corresponding sample sizes, i m p, c,

     D     = X- XG, the difference in the population means,

     d     » K_ - 
-------
Then/ we are testing the null hypothesis

     H,,: D = 0

against the alternative

     HI: D> 0                      r
                       •

If we let d represent any possible estimate of D, then the significance  of
our test of the null hypothesis can be written:

     Pr[d^t:D = 0] = the significance level, where t is the critical
     value of a normal variant for a given level of significance.

The test statistic is

     d/[(sp 2/np) + (sc 2/nc)]1/2

and this is approximately distributed student t with v degrees of  freedom/

     v = A/B

                   2'          22
  where    A = [(s  /n ) + (s  /n )]        and
                  p   p      c   c


           B. - [(s 2/n )2 (l/(n -D)  + (s 2/n )2 (l/(n -1))]
                  p   p        p         c   c        c

     In general,  the maximum acceptable level of significance for  data of
this type is 5%.   In other words, the procedure being evaluated is only
considered acceptable if the probability of false finding a difference in
pollution measurements is 5% or less, when in fact, there is no difference
(false positives).

     Before presenting the results of this analysis, it is important  to
point out some of its limitations.  In several instances, the SEPD surveys
reported only a single background sample1.  For simplicity, in these cases,
it was assumed that the reported background levels are perfect (i.e.,
standard deviation equal to zero).  This over simplification assumes  not
only that the sample was collected in the correct location, but that  it  is
a definitive representation of the water quality.  Thus, any analysis which
indicates a significance level of 5%  or less where this assumption has been
made, is over-optimistic.
                                   B-2

-------
                 Appendix C




DETAILED CONCEPT QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES

-------
          K-V  ASSOCIATES,  INC
          ANALYTICAL SYSTB-iS
          211 MAIN snisr  •  f.o. sox 57*  •  FAIMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS SM^I
                                               July 10,  1981
Ms. Patricia Oeese
Urban Systems Research & Engineering, Inc.
36 3oylston Street
Cambridge, .1A 02138

Re:  Letters of June 10 and 15, 1981; septic snooper theory and  function
Dear Pat:
     1)  That we were fully aware of the sales indorsation  distributed by
         2JTOECO;

     2)  That we were using a "Septic Snooper" from ENDECO  daring services
         offered from 1979 through 1981,

     Although no of the principals in the development  of the "Septic Snooper"
are at X-V Associates (V. Xerfooe and 5. Skinner ,  both had left ENDECO in
1973 after the directors' decision to channel  business  activities towards the
aarine environment^)  Contact with WAPCRA,  Inc  allowed us to ecsloy  the prototype
unit of the septic snooper at Crystal Lake, Michigan.   Crystal Lake presented an
almost ideal situation for a leachate detector since residential housing and
septic system installation had been proceeding on porous sandy lake bed deposits •
with often substantial groundvater inflow rates.   Subsequently, K7A paid for •
the firs: unfinished commercial "septic snooper"  for use in winter surveys.
The unit was not completed and required substantial  aodificatians by our
personnel ta function properly as a septic leachate  detector.
unit has been the principal unit used for septic  leachate detection services
during 1979 through spring 1981.  In answering  questions concerning the theory
aad operation of a leachata detector,  we  will concentrate attention to the
equipment used in the past and not with regard  to any future detector units.
Please note also that SSDECO decided to sell a  commercial septic leachate unit
after our initial success in survey work.  The  unit was tradeaarkad by SJIDtCO
a* a "Septic Snooper" and sold without consideration to any notifications
aade or used by K-7 Associates.

     The sales material currently used by EMDECO  makes far clearer your questions
of June 10.  I had previously seen the Data Sheet No. 62 of June 21, 1977, but
                                        C-l

-------
 Ms. Patricia Deese
 July 10,  1931
 Page 2

 the undated handout entitled "A Descriptive S canary of the ENDECO Type 2100
 Septic-Snooper System" which I had not seen previously has clearly been con-
 tinuously updated.  The reference to optiaal lake levels probably refers to
 papers I  presented in Wisconsin and Minnesota (AURA Conference and university
 of Minnesota, respectively) ia 1980 during which a representative of Svanson
 Engineering was present.  The reference to future property development could
 refer to  a Minnesota conference conducted during winter 1$80-19S1«

      From my knowledge of septic leachate detector function,  the claiss that
 a septic  snooper system application includes:

      " -Assistance in determining optiaum lake levels  and other facets of
        in- lake management programs

        -Help in planning future property development

        -Identification of the direction and relative amplitude of 'grouscvater
        inflows :

 are not valid claias.   The first tvo of these can be performed by coabir.ed
 leachate  detection and grouncwatar flow measurement.   3y relating the  frequency
 of discharges into the lake to prevailing groundwater  flow patterns, and then
 adjusting the lake level relative to groundwater elevation,  the lake waters
 can be aade to  predominately discharge towards  the shore (i.e.,  esefiltrate)  or
 maintain  low flow rates .conducive to proper soil adsorption field functioning.

      The  third  claia,  however,  has no relevance to septic leachate detection.
 Although  field  documentation supports the relationship between a high  probability
 of plume  discharges  in rapid groundvater infiltration  regions  along  lake
 shorelines,  a leachate detector cannot identify the direction  and relative
 amplitude of grounevater inflows — only a grouncwater flowaeter can do  this.
 la fact,  using  a leachate detector without independent groundvater flew
 information caa result in serious  misinterpretations of probable source  and
 impac ts .

      I have  attempted  to  answer your fairly extensive  list  of  questions.
 Documentation is  provided to  specific references,  conference proceedings, or
 other  sources of  information.   Please note that vhile  I aust avoid questions
 of  a proprietary  nature,  such of the information has been presented publicly.
 The notation of  questions refers ta  your letter of June 10, 1981.
                                               Sincerely,
                                               William 3, Kerfoot
W3K:?hk
Enclosure
?.So  A copy of  a  consultant's  report will  b«  forwarded  to you upon receiving
      approval from  the  consulting  fira.

                                               Bill
                                      C-2

-------
 Answers  to  Questions  Regarding  Septic  Leachate  Detection
 K-7 Associates,  Inc.
 Page 1
 1.   Theory
 1.01  Yes,  but with  some  important  limitations.   A septic  leachate  detector
       detects the presence  of wastewater-related  organics  penetrating  into
       lalcevaters.  This may be  caused  by  a  (1) hydraulic overflow (traditional
       failure) of the  system and  surface  runoff or by  (2)  the  oovement of a
       subsurface plume of poorly-treated  leachate from a soil  absorption field
       through porous soils  into  the lake  through  bottom sediments.   If the
       products of the  leachfield  do not flov  towards the Lake  body,  regardless
       of  the condition of functioning  of  the  septic system,  the  system cannot
       be  evaluated by  a shoreline survey.
 1.02  The fluorescing  compounds are generally considered to  be indicators of
      .contamination.   Previous analysis of  the whiteners have  sot as yet
       shown a cause for concern (Ganz, et.  al., 1975;  Keplinger,  et. al., 1975).
       Some caution is  needed because the  class of aromatic compounds common
       to  fluorescence  comprise some compound,.- of  potential biogenic  effect.
       The principle contaminants  of concern have  been  (a)  pathogenic bacteria
       and (b) nutrients,  particularly  phosphorus.
 1.03   Domestic wastewaters  contain  a variety of compounds  which  fluoresce
      withia the range of a  septic  leachate detector (excitation:  340-370  na):
       a)  Fluorescent whitening agents (-WA's)-sulfonated  stilbene class'*
               DASC - 3      3SB         SNQ - 1     SK
               DASC -4      NTS - 1     SOP
                                               (Ganz,  et.  al., 1975 a  and b;
                                                and Gold,  1975)
      b)  Natural products which include:
               Quinclines       Tryptophan derivatives
               Phenols          Kynurenine
               Catechols   '    Aromatic aaiao acids (other)
1.04  Fluorescent whitening agents are used as common additives to most commercial
      detergents  and many water softeners.  The commercial  varieties observed
      ia wastewatera often reflect the availability of brands as local
      distributors.   A sample of secondarily- treated effluent or equivalent
        Official rVA designations which have been adopted by the AS73
                                        "6-3"

-------
Answers  to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
:<-V Associates, Inc.
Page  2

      quality obtained at a local  treatment-plant often reveals  the dominant
      FWA's  to be anticipated ia on-site wastswater systems.  The natural
      produces are coomon to all septic tank - soil absorption systems receiving
      huaan  urine and faces.
           With seasonal residences, pluses have been observed from dry veils
      connected to sinks even though chemical toilets were in use.
           Docuoented concentrations of FWA found in domestic eastevacer range
      from .494 - .043 (Zinkemagel, 1975), .495 - .107 (Cans, et. al., 1975 a)
      Natural product concentrations are aore stable than the fluorescent
      agents of commercial agents.
1.05  5e« following references:
           Cans, et. al., 1975 a
           Ganz, et. al., 1975 b
           Anders, 1975
           Cold, 1975
1.06.  Two principal mechanisms assist in removal of noraal fluorescing
       compounds from septic systems:
           1.  Adsorption to solids
           2.  Biodegradacion             (Guglielmetti, 1975; Cans, et. al., 1975 a)
1.07  Yes.  In a properly functioning SAS, maintaining a suitable aerobic
      environment and soil adsorption,  pathogen bacteria are physically filtered
      and attenuate rapidly.  In addition, phosphorus is readily adsorbed by
      ~e or Ca based precipitation reactions.
1.08  Tvo types of commonly-encountered subsurface failures  involve (1) septic
      absorption systems  installed in coarse sand or gravel,  frangipan underlain
      with fractured bedrock,  solution channeled  limestone or dolomite, with
      high rates of groundvater flow or (2)  septic absorption systems  in high
      groundwater conditions,  organic deposits  and moderate  to rapid groundvater
      flow conditions'.
           In the ease  of coarsely textured  materials,  wastewater aay  have a
      short residence time before  entering groundwater  and emerging  at the
      shoreline.   3oth  filtering capacity  and adsorptive area are severely limited
      under such conditions.

-------
 Answers  to Questions Regarding Septic Leachata Detection
 K-7 Associates,  lac.
 Page 3

 1.09 the movement of bacteria in coarsely-textured substrates is well-documented,
      particularly for dolomites and limestones.  Under low redox conditions,
      which retard the biodegradation of TWA's and natural fluorescent products,
      phosphorus becaaes sobile as ferric (re*3) changes  to the soluble
      ferrous species (?e+2) (KVA, 1981).
 1.10 The fluoresciog compounds undergo
           1. dispersion
           2. photo-oxidation
           3. biodegradation
           4. adsorption
      Yes and so.  It depends upon the texture .of the substrate, and  the season.
      a)  With fractured bedrock, both bacteria and phosphorus behave conserva-
      tively within the tiae frane of dispersion.  Reduction to 1/50 of original
      concentration is common.  Where fine-textured sandy beaches may exist,
      bacteria say be effectively removed and phosohorus absorbed through thick
                                                                         (EPA, 1979)
      aats of vegetation despite the continued presence of fluorescent indicators-
      b)  As shown with Ottertail Lake (Xerfoot, 19SO) under winter conditions,
      however, phosphorus discharges occur without vegetative reaoval.
1.11  Since your statement of current scope of work is to evaluate the
      Septic Snooper manufactured by Environmental Devices Corporation (iNBECO)
      azd the leacbate detection services available from :<-V Associates,
      the discussion of future devices is not appropriate here.
1.12  Specific conductance is used solely as a diagnostic characteristic of
      vastewater effluent and sot as a contaminant.   Phosphorus,  sodiua,
      nitrate-nitrogen and other constituents of interest in shoreline
      vegetative growth assessment or drinking water quality impacts are, of
      course,  components of the total dissolved solids.
1.13  Refer to 1.11
1.14  Far aore to the point is the alteration of background grouadvater by
      wastewater additions.  la as individual residence,  groundwater is with-
      drawn and receives a certain amount of dissolved solids  before recharge
      through a properly operating SAS.   The extent  of dissolved  solids loading
      with residential usage is clearly  influenced regionally  depending upon
      whether the area is a hardvater or sofrvater source.
                                   - ' C-5

-------
 Answers  so  Question*  Regarding  Septic  Leachate  Detection
 K-7 Associates,  lac.
 Page 4

 1.15  Your  questions  numbers 1.15  through 1.17  vhile understandably attempting
       to  define  the conductivity role  lead  to a rather superficial treatment
       of  the  types of groundwater  reactions which occur as a result of 5AS
       functioning.  The assumption is aade that  the design of the septic system
       whether proper  or not controls the characteristics of the groundwater
       discharge.  In  reality, the  condition of  the leachate froa a system
     .  results from the  chemical interaction of  wastewater froo the adsorption
       field with  the  chemical composition of  the native ground-water.
            Case 1:  Crystal Lake,  Michigan - see Kerfoot and 3'
-------
Answers  to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-V Associates, Inc.
Page  5
            >
1.20  I  do not  think I would ever aake a statement like this.  Whatever is a
      septic leaehate outfall - an artesian well pipe discharge?
           At the saae tiae, however, the occurence of a stable ratio between
      fluorescence (of correctly-identified waste products) and conductance
      has been documented for:
           1.  Downstream profiling of outfall discharges into lakes and
               rivers (Winaepesauke and Green/Nest Lakes)
           2.  Septic leaehate discharges in sandy shoreline soils (Crystal
               Lake), particularly in low pH regions (Cape Cac).
           3.  Shoreline locations with substantial groundwarar inflow rates
               (greater than 10 feet/day flow).
1.21  As previously aentioned (see letter introduction), I belisve the reference
      can only refer to the application of a leaehate detector and a groundwater
      flovaeter to determine the appropriate lake level to minimize septic
      system discharges around a lake periphery.  A result qui:e possibly
      achievable with a dammed or iapounded lake with water level control.
1.22  This phrase is stretching the design of. ths instrument which was originally
      intended for lake shoreline scanning.  However, the device has been used
      in closed -loop canals, low flow rivers,  lake harbors, for well water
      scanning,  and for investigation of wastewater treataent plant discharges
      into sand filter beds and directly into streacs.
1.23  A central lake water saaple constitutes the dilution water.   Secondary
      effluent is a convenient sample free of particulates, representing a
      composite saaple of the commonly utilized local fluorescent additives
      and the anticipated dissolved solids loading.   The choice of secondary
      effluent also emphasises the aore refractory fluorescent coapouncs
      anticipated to  be  released  from the aerobic leaching  field component of
      a  septic tank - leaching field on-lot septic system.
           The choice of 10Z is  siaply based upon chart paper gridding  and
      field observation.   The limit of detectability  with a 10". solution f
      scale runs  to  .57..   Usual lake dispersion reduces  a 1007. ;roundwater
      source  to  less  than a 5% signal  in  the overlying  water.
                                       07

-------
Answers to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-V Associates, lac.
Page 6

1.24  Again you are asking a, leading question.  A wide variety of sewage
      treatment plant processes exist as well -as on-site septic systems.  If
      you wane to compare functioning, then consider a sevage treatment plant
      with a primary anaerobic treataent system and a secondary aerobic
      treatment cell to that of an anaerobic septic tank - aerobic leaching
      field/unsaturated zone percolation/groundwater oc-lot system.
           If a sewage treataent plant were to become completely anaerobic,
      there would be a significant change in its ability to- degrade organic
      compounds,  but virtually no iapact on conductance.  If the aerobic portion
      af the on-lot system becomes anaerobic, biodegradation (oxidation) of
      aromatic organic compounds is interfered with,  allowing fluorescent
      refractory  constituents to migrate through the  soil,  the extent of
      migration is dependent upon the prevailing groundwater condition
      (pH, redox  potential composition),  the rate of  groundwater (residence
      tiae before discharge to lake).
1.25  I do not think the connection was intended, but I really am not the one
      to answer the question.  Calibration is noraally performed agaizst the
      best local  representative effluent sample.   In  order of priority,  these
      ars:
           1.   A  solely domestic wastewater treataenc plant;
           2.   A  composite of local domestic package  plants  or clustered systems;
           3.   A  composite of local septic system effluents  (obtainable  at
               distribution boxes,  if possible).
      ?ail scale  adjustment to  1"  effluent would  be very difficult  considering
      the  normal  range  of  signal  to noise.
                                      C-8

-------
Answers  Co Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-V Associates, Inc.
Page 7

2.  las crumentation
2.01  Temperature correction  is provided during  calibration by use of  the
      background lake water at its aabiant  temperature.
2.02  Convenience since both  the fluorometric and conductance subunits
      employed analog circuitry.  Inappropriate  to comment on K-7 Associates'
      device at this time.
2.03  Generally speaking, groundwater infiltration into nearshore lot  regions
      will discharge within the top 3 feet of the water column.  This  assumption
      can be verified by in situ grouncwater flow measurements.
         (modified Septic TJToOTe?)
2.0u  On the K-V uai'c_ circuitry for the pump source is independent of  the
      analytical system.  Battery voltage is read froo a aeter'located  on the
      front of the unit.  Flow rate is aore likely to be diminished by  plugging of
      intake screen with debris than battery fluctuation.
2.02  A long time constant is used as a buffer to separate short-tern peaks
      froo slowly-changing background water masses.  The vide range simply
      reflects uncertainty of design vith limited field experience at that tiae.
2.06  The limit of detection of the Septic Snooper depends upon background
      fluorescence, interferences, and conductance.  A practical working liait
      of detection is .5* of standard effluent.
2.07  A powered boat is not used in normal surveying.  The boat is often
      hand-pulled or pushed and serves to hold the leachate detector and operator.
      The motor is solely used to go from one transect region to the next.
      Turbulence from an outboard motor and vibration can provide serious
      sources of error.
2.08  Originally it was thought that a rotating screen could maintain the intake
      as a fixed distance from the lake bottom.   Subsequent experience showed
      that it only resulted in enhancing turbidity and fouling of the intake.
      The idea waa abandoned.
2.09  Question unclear.

-------
Answers  to Questions Regarding Sepeic Leachate Detection
K-7 Associates, Inc.
Page 3

3.  Operational Procedures
3.01  Initial scans have been perforaed at the northern end of John's Pond,
      Mashpee, HA to determine the best type of intake structure.  The initial
      positive displacement pusp with a vacuum hose intake was discarded for a
      centripetal sump pump because the foraer caused air bubbles to fora in the
      line during blockage of the intake, creating interferences on the
      fluorescent and conductance chattels.
           Duplicate runs with different users provided siailar profiles during
      surveying of John's Pond and the north shore of Ottertail take (X7A, I960,
      1931).  The probe is moved back and forth over the bottom in a sweeping
      notion like a metal detector at an ideal distance of 2 inches above
      bottom.
           Since a small vial of sample from each identified plume is required
      for later analysis, professional subjective judgement is substantially
      reduced.
3.02  A  lot or topographical aap of suitable scale ( 1 inch = fCO feet) is
      provided prior to the survey.  The location of each residence is given
      a  number and the number transcribed on the moving tape.  AS a back-check
      notes are taken of the color and structure of each residence,  the plume
                                   i
      location marked by a stake, and the specific fire number sr address
      aarked to verify position.  The specific procedure depends upon the nature
      of the shoreline detail of the available aaps and type of residential
      structures,  but usually encorporates at least the aentioned iteas.
3.03  (1)  Detailed Chemical Sampling:  The Septic Snooper or the :<-V sodifiad
      leachate detector are considered to be solely a locational tool.   Field
      chemical tests for phosphorus content,  MSAS and conductance of groundwater
      (plume care)  samples are perforaed in.- situ.  Small quantity (5 al)  and
      large quantity samples of the overlying water and groundwater  are taken
      ae each location of a plume.   The small sample is analyzed by  laboratory
      flaorometric  scanning to identify similarity to source effluent samples.
      The larger voluae samples  are analyzed  by E?A standard procedures
      (SPA,  1973) for nutrient concentration,  bacterial content,  and often
      specific cations.
                                   •-• --C-IO

-------
Answers to Questions Regarding Septic Leaehate Detection
K-V Associates,  Inc.
Page 9
     (2)  Use of Groundwater Flowmeter:   The  leachate detector alone  cannot
      identify the direction of groundvater flov.   Shoreline  groundwater-laka
      interactions can be complex and  seasonal  (Winter,  1973;  Jaquet,  1976).
      with 'Knowledge of groundvater flow rate
           (a)  The probable location  of source can be identified.   For  instance,
                a flow at 45° to the shoreline  will cause a plume to  emerge
                on the neighbor's lot, aot where the source is.
           (b)  Locations of exfiltration where system-well short-circuiting
                is sore likely can be  identified for well vater testing.
           (c)  Evaluations  of the vertical location of porous strata likely
                to transmit  effluent to  the lake can be perforaed.
      (3)   Modifications to  the Leachate Detector  to Allow 2-Channel  Readout
      According:  Fluorescence and conductance  are simultaneously recorded on
      a dual  channel recorder system.  At the sane time,  a separata recorder
      provides a continual analog plotting of the  cojoint signal.
      (4)   Coordination with Sanitary Survey:  Determinations  of  seasonal use
      of septic systems are  desirable when studying highly seasonal resort
      areas.   Type of septic system and  location on lot provide useful accessory
      information.
                                    C-ll

-------
 Answers so Questions Regarding Sepcie Leacsate Detection
 K-V Associates,  lac.
 Page 10

 4.  Usefulness as  a Planning Tool
 4.01  Again,  the information provided by the chart recording of the leachata
       detector provides inforaation on the location of pluae discharge along
       the shoreline.  A coordinate rise of fluorescence and conductance in
       the same proportion expected with local effluent identifies  a probable
       plume.   Verification is performed by a combination of laboratory and
       field analysis.
 4,02   ?eaks  ia conductance are usually considered nonsignificant.
       Depends  upon the level of confidence desired - 3"  for 99",  1f  for 95".
       Signal  to  noise  ratio-indicates a liait of detection of about .27. effluent.
 4.03  A peak  of  fluorescence was found to  occur without conductance with sludge
       deposits or  the  so-called "doraant"  pluses (Kerfoot and Skinner,  1981).
       If spectral  scanning verifies an effluent source,  the location is  considered
       as beiag an  iateraittant plume.   A very similar liait of detection of
      •conductance  (from .1 to .2% effluent)  occurs.
 4.04  If both  occur in the same ratio as effluent,  and exhibit a spectral scan
       equivalent to  effluent,  the plume is  considered verified.  However,  whether
       a threat of  localised eutrophication  or bacterial  infection  is  likely,
       can only be  determined after analysis.
 4.05   See Section  3.02  and 3.03*
 4.06   The reporting  involves (1)  a lot napping  of  discharges  and (2)  a  technical
       report.  The two  types of presentation  involve coding of type of discharge
       involved or  a  projection  of plume sources  and  strength  along  the shore in
       addition to  a  technical report.
 4.07   The approxiaate 5-year breakdown  of funding source would yield:
           SIS funds                60%
           201 Construction  Cranes  20%
           Local/Regional  Planning 10%
           Private Tunds           10%.
4.03  Yes, for example see:
           Crystal. Lake study
           Nettle Lake study
           Salem Lakes study
           Lake Hopatcong study
                                      "012

-------
Ansvers to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-7 Associates, lac.
Page 11

4.09  Additional information included by KVA:  The usefulness of groundwater
      flow napping and leachate surveys as a planning tool can become
      an important factor in residential development surrounding grouccwater-
      based lakes, planning for on-lot well water systems and 3AS systems, and
      for aunicipal. well water protection.  Examples of these applications can
      be provided, if requested.
                                     '013

-------
Answers to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-V Associates, lac.
Page 12

5.  Cost
5.01  Usually two persona are involved in a surrey teaa.  During a survey, the
      ecuisnent operator rides in a boat while the field assistant directs the.
      boat and is responsible for water quality analysis of identified probable
      pluses.  The length of tiae depends upon the shoreline length involved,
      the nature of the shoreline, the detail of investigation of identified
      pluses, and well sampling, if included.  Generally, a field team can
      average 3 to 5 shoreline ailes per day, not counting set-up or demobilization
      tiae.  Field studies cosmonly involve one to rwo weeks' effort for 20
      shoreline aile lake areas.  Analysis is usually completed within a aor.th
      and report preparation within 6 weeks of thestart of field work.
5.02  Fixed cost.  See enclosed price sheet for 1980.  Higher costs would
      result from large number of docks, convoluted shorelines, rocky shorelines
      of variable water depth and difficult footing.
5.03  Yes, we currently provide operator training with the groundwater flovmeters
      and intend to do so with the leachate detectors.  Two days' field and
      laboratory prograa ($250/cay).  Consulting  services are considered to
      be available with any instrument purchase,  if necessary.
5.04  Lease-purchase arrangements are currently available with existing equipment
      anc  would be planned for future equipment.   Fees are negotiable,  bus often
      ran  5600/weeIc.

-------
K-V ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                     ^   2fi   I98l
ralmouth, MA

                                    SCOPS OF WORK


   1.  Conduct 'a shoreline leachats  survey and  groundwater  sapping of  sections of
       lake.

   2.  Scan the shoreline to  Identify  and map leachate  plumes- entering the lake
       from failing  septic systeas,  catagorizing  by  3  types (surface,  groundwater-
       doraant, groundwater-erupting).  The s'eptic  leachate detector will be  cal-
       ibrated against local  effluent  from a nearby  sewage  treatment plant.

   3.  Measure the direction  of  groundvater flov  in  areas where  plunes are detected
       and indicate  which residences the plumes appear  to be originating  from
       (using  fire number,  owners  name or other method)  by  projecting  zone of con-
       tributions back from position of  erupting  plume.

   4.  Using a groundwater well  point  sampler, vertically profile subsurface
       pluses  and sample  core regions  of suspected groundwatar pluses.

   5.  Do field screening of  water samples for detectable levels of orthophosphate
       and detergents.

   6.  Perform chemical analyses on  field samples indicating  positive  results on
       field screening.   This will include analysis  of orthophosphate,  aimonia-
       nitrogea conductance,  and detergent (MBAS).

   7.  ?erfora bacterial  analyses  of water samples,  including fecal cotifora and
       fecal streptococcus, if possible.

   3.  Is areas where  the groundwater  flov pattern is avay  from the lake, monitor
       the  direction of groundwater  flov and  sample  groundvater beyond  the septic
       system  to Identify possible leachate plumes flowing away from the lake.

   9.  The  locations of septic leachate  plumes and direction of groundvater flov
       will be mapped.

 10.   Results  should be summarized  in table  form indicating residents  with salfunc-
       tioning septic systems.'
                                       •"C-15

-------
K-V ASSOCIATES,  INC.                                                        Hay 26,  19


   QUOTATION

       Septic leachate survey and groundwater  flow mapping
       Total lake shoreline (20  tailes)
       Residential sections only
                                                                              PER
   700 a£SI3ENTS                                 FIELD    RSPORT   TOTAL    RESIDENT
   A.  Field Analysis •!• Bacteria testing  (1)     $10,411.   52,500.  $12,911.     $18.44

   3.  Lab.  Analysis + Bacteria  testing (2)      $12,351.   $2,693.  $15,044.     $21.49
   C.  Field Analysis  -  No  Bacteria  testing  (3)  $  9,600.   $2,400.  $L2,000.     $17.14


   350 RESIDENTS
   A.  Field Analysis + Bacteria testing         $  8,889.   $1,970.  $10,359.     $31.03
   3.  Lab.  Analysis + Bacteria  testing          $  9,889.   $2,000.  $11,339.     $33.97

   C.  Field Analysis  -  No  Bacteria  testing      $  9,390.   $1,950.  $11,340.     $32.40


   200 RESIDENTS

   A.  Field Analysis*  Bacteria  testing         $  6,700.   $1,580.  $ 8,280.     $41.40
   3.  Lab.  Analysis + Bacteria  testing          $  6,911.   $1,650.  $ 8,561.     $42.81

   C.  Field Analysis -  No  Bacteria  testing      $  6,300.   $1,500.  $ 8,300.     $41.50


   (1)  Includes vork outlined in  scope of work without additional  laboratory analyses
       indicated in (2).

   (2)  Includes full range of field testing as presented  in scope of vork plus lab-
       oratory analysis of orthophosphorous (PO^-P) Total Phosphorus (FO^-P),
       aesonia-nitrogen (NH^-N), nitrate-nitrogen (NOj-N), organic nitrogen (ORC-N),
       F04-P detergent and conductance.

   (3)  Includes only field water quality analysis - Orthophosphate-phosphorus,
       annonia-oitrogen (NH^-M)  detergent, conductance; no. colifora bacteria
       analysis.
                                   C-16

-------
K-V ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hay 26, 1981
   QUOTATION
       Random sampling survey,  Lake view Tovnship
       Individual welt' supplies
       Septic leachate "Short-circuiting"

   BACKGROUND

       Leachate  from on-lot septic systems  fora discrete plumes which flow dovn-
   streaa with the prevailing groundwater flow.   If  such a plume encounters a
   well intake of sufficient strength;  the  well is impacted and may have to be
   abandoned.  With a requirement of  100 foot  separation between well intake and
   on-lot leaching systea,  the  possibility  of  bacterial contamination in medium
   sandy soils is remote.   Most reported impacts  originate from cheaical sources,
   notably detergent, nitrate-nitrogen, or  salt contamination.  The expected
   frequency of  subsurface  failure can  be approximated by  a probability distri-
   bution.   Random sampling of  residents can establish the observed frequency to
   allow comparison with  theoretical  probabilities.

       1.   Brief description of groundvater flow  in  region.

       2.   Selected sampling of individual  well supplies.

       3..  Preliminary plottiag of frequency of observed occurrences of "short-
           circuiting" versus hypothetical  frequency.

       k.   Verification of  wastewater presence by fluorescent scanning-organic
           analysis.

       5.   Cheaical analysis of water samples indicating "short-circuiting" TP,
           ortho-P,  NH4-N,  NOyH, ?e.
SAMPLE SIZE
50 residents
20-100
100-200
300-400
ANALYTICAL
$5~06
$756
$1260
$3360
.00
.00
.00
.00
LABOR
$2000.
$3000.
$4000.
$5000.
TOTAL
$2504.
$3756.
$5260.
$8360.
COST
00
00
00
00
COST PER RESIDENT
$50
$37
$26
$20
.00
.56
.30
.90





-------
Answers to Questions Regarding Septic Leachate Detection
K-V Associates, Inc.
Page 13

6«  Comparison with Other Techniques
6.1  Yes.  the original Crystal Lake study involved detailed sanitary studies
      of individual lots, special studies of aquatic productivity and detailed.
     . investigation of individual plume sources to substantiate the accuracy
      and limitations of the leachate detector (for summary, see Peters and
      Kzause, 1980; for details see draft Environmental Impact Statement, Case
      Study Muober 1, Crystal Lake Area, Sewage Disposal Authority, Senrie
      County, Michigan).  Another study of Lake Geneva and Como Lake, Wisconsin
      shoved a close correlation between fecal colifora/fecal streptococcus
      ratios for tributaries and the presence of wastewater discharges indicated
      by the leachate detector (X'/A, 1979).
5.2  A complete survey provides the comaunity with a direct report of the extent
      of existing discharges of septic-related wastewater into the lake from
      along the shoreline. .  It provides a means of identifying entry location,
      and if suitable soil conditions exist, a means of identifying the source
      of contamination for remedial action.  N'o other techniques now in practice
                                                         seotic system
      can readily identify and locate chemical discharges oi^origin vhich flow
      through groundvater.  The use of monitoring veils is impractical considering
      the length of shoreline usually involved and the discrete localized nature
      of pluses.   The addition of commercial dyes to the septic system La
      impractical due to their soil adsorption and scheduling time for sampling
      for detection unless highly coarse substratum is involved.
                                     C-18

-------
 Anders,  G.   1975.   Limits  of accuracy obtainable in che direct determination
       by fluorimetry of fluorescent whitening  agents ia solution.   In:
       Fluorescent  Whitening  Agents, ?. Cauls ton and ?.  Xorte,  eds.,  Georg
       Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart.

 EPA.   1979.   Draft environmental  impact statement alternative  wastewater
       treatment systems for  rural lake projects.  Case  study no.  1:   Crystal
       Lake  area sewage  disposal authority,  Benzie County,  Michigan.   Prepared
       by the CS2?A,  Region V,  Chicago and WAPORA, Inc., Washington,  O.C.

 filbey,  3..  D.  1978.   Mettle  Lake  environmental inventory and assessment, June,
       1973.   21SL-LV Project RSD  7351, Office  of Research  and  Development,
       C.5.  Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,  Nevada  39114.

 Gar.z,  C.  X.,  J.  Schulze, and P. S.  Stensby.  1975a. Accuaulation  and elimination
       studies  of four detergent fluorescent whitening agents in bluegill
       (Lepomis aacrochirus).  Envir.  Sci. and  Technol.  9(3):738-7uA.

 Cans,  C.  S..,  C.  Liebert, J.  Schulse,  and P. S.  Stensby. 1975b.   Removal of
       detergent fluorescent  whitening agents from wastewater.   J.  WPC? 47(12):
       2334-2349.

 Gold,  H.  1975.  The chemistry of fluorescent  whitening agents, sajor structural
       types.   In:   Fluorescent Whitening Agents,  ?. Coulston and  ?.  Korte,  eds.,
       Georg  Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart.

 Guglielaetti,  L.   1975.  Photochemical and biological degradation  of water-
       soluble  rWA's.  In:  fluorescent Whitening Agents, ?.  Coulston and F.
       Korte,  eds.,  Georg Thieae Publishers, Stuttgart,

 Jaquec, X. C.  1976.  Ground-water  and surface-water relationships ia the glacial
       province of  northern Viscaosia  - Snake Lake.   Grouaevater, Vol.  14(4):194-199.

 Keplinger, M.  L.,  ?.  L. Lymaa, and  J.  C.  Calandra.   1975.  Chronic toxic!ty and
       carcinogenic!ty studies with  TVA's.  In:   Fluorescent  Whitening  Agents,
       ?.  Coulston  and ?. Xorte, eds.,  G«org Thieae  Publishers,  Stuttgart.

 Kerfoot,  W. 3.  1980.   Septic  system  leachate  surveys for  rural lake consnunities:
       a winter survey cc Ottertail Lake, Minnesota.   Ia: Individual  Onsite
      Wastevater Systems,  N. I. McClelland, ed.,  Ann Arbor Science Publishers, lac.
      Ana Arbor, MI

Kerfoot, V. 3. and S. M. Skinner, Jr.  1981.  Septic leachate  surveys  for
      lakeside sewer  needs evaluation.  J. W.P.C.?.,  Presented at Houston
      Conference (1979).   (In press)

K7A.  1979.  Septic leachate survey, Geneva Lake  and Como  Lake, Wisconsin,
      Soveaber, 1979.  Technical report prepared  for VAPORA, Inc., Chicago,  IL
                                       'C-1.9

-------
 :
-------
sieanson environmental, inc.

     2415S Haggertv Road
     Famington Hills, Michigan 48C24
     (313)478-2700
    -July 7, 1981
     Ms. Cynthia Ernst
     Junior Analyst
     Urban Systems Research &
     Engineering, Inc.
     36 Soylston Street
     Cambridge,. MA 02138
     •Dear Ms.  Ernst:

     Enclosed- please find our response to the Septic Snooper
     questionnaire.  I have answered the questions as completely
     as 'possible.                   -

     If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to con-
     tact me.

     Thank you for the opportunity to serve Urban Systems Re-
     search & Engineering, Inc.
     Very truly yours,

     SWA.NSON ENVIRONMENTAL,  INC.
     Jill Wright
     Environmental Comnliance Soecialist
     /th


     encl.
                               _C-21

-------
1.00

1.01

1.02      The fluorescing compounds are considered to be
both contaminants and indicators of contamination. The con-
taminants of concern are phosphorus, nitrogen,, and fecal
coliform.

1.03      Whiteners and surfactants.

1.04      We cannot provide documentation, although it is
available through a literature search. Our work is based
on information contained in the literature.

1.05      Same.as above.

1.06      There are Cwo main ways in which Che fluorescing
compounds are removed from the wastewacer:

          Primary:       phosphorus and nitrogen adhere
                         to Che soil parcicles.

          Secondary:     dilution and dispersion may occur
                         and,  Cherefore,  will not show up
                         in Che CesCed waCer.

                         Fecal coliform will not adhere
                         to the soil particles, but if the
                         distance between che SAS and Che
                         groundwacer and/or surface water
                         is great enough, the fecal coli-
                         form will die and, therefore, not
                         be evident in the waCer cesced.

1.07      Yes.  Licerature search can provide documentation.

1.08      The compounds can be transmitted to the ground-
water in a number of ways.

          1.   In an improperly operating  system,  the soil
          may become saturated with water so that it is
          pare  of che groundwacer syscem. This may occur
          when  che water cable is- unusually high.

          2.   In an overloaded system, the bottom gravel
          in Che filcracion bed can become clogged 2nd che
          wascewacer scream cannoc be cleansed as it goes
          through. The water will then seep inco the ground-
          waeer  unfileered.
                           •"5-22

-------
          3.  Surface ponding may occur. The water will
          flew across che  surface and seep  inco che grcur.d-
          wacer.

The concaminancs are transmitted in the sane manner.

1.09      The compounds travel with the groundwater into
Che laka. The contaminants of concern behave in a similar
method.

1.10      Once in the surface water body, 'the fluorascing
compounds behave in Che following manner:

          Organics:

               surfacCanCs - disperse and become diluCed,
               Chen disappear;

               phosphorus and nitrogen - Caken up by the
               plants and get into the system, where they
               acc to increase plant life and may cause
               encrophicacion of che laka.

          Inorganics:

               sodium and chloride - disperse inco che
               syscem.

1.11      No, noc necessarily. Chlorides do noc adhere co
soil particles.  They flow freely chrough che soil.

1.12      Same quescion as above.

1.13      In a properly operacing SAS,  che groundwacer will
be lower in conductivicy.  Literature research can provide
documentation.

1.1&      Yes.

1.15      SSI has noc yec used the Sepcic Snooper in a
saline system. Statements concerning use in saline systems
are based on factory represencacion.
                              !-J3

-------
 2.00      Instrumentation

 2.01      Sol has not performed experiments Co document
 consistency of temperature;  temperature measurements ara
 noc taken consistently;  corrections are not made for vary-
 ing temperature.                r

 2.02      SSI attempts to. travel  as close to shore as pos-
 sible,  depending  on water depth.  Approximately 90% of the
 time,  travel is within five  feet  of the shore.

 2.03      The power for the  pump  is supplied by a 12 volt
 battery.  Variations in the power  source have very little
 effect  on the consistency of the  water supply. The lowest
 limit  the battery runs on is 11-1/2 volts,"which is within
 the recommended level.

 2.04      I am not sure  exactly how to answer this- quest-
 ion. The  sensitivity varies  a lot.  The Septic Snooper nor-
 mally operates at very near  maximum sensitivity levels.
 It is possible to measure a  change  in sensitivity of
 5 auohs for inorganics.  This change can be  consistently
 detected.

 2.05      In shallow water,  one person either pulls or
.pushes  the boat.  In deeper water,  either an electric trol-
 ling motor is used or the boat  is  rowed.  Because the beat
 moves at  less than 1/2 mph during  actual  scanning,  beat
 velcc.ity  has very little  effect on the flow rate.

 The device is not affected by the  noise of  an outboard
 motor,  but it is  affected by short  wave radio.  The  boat
 does not  have a propellor, and  the  pump is  held ahead of
 the motor,  so it  is not  affected'.

 2.06      The screen on  the  intake  device does  not  stabi-
 lise sensitivity.

 2.07      There is  a 3 -  - second  lag  in  detecting  con-
 ductivity,  and a  10 - 12  second lag in detecting organics.
 Or.ce the  indicators appear on the meter,  the  boat must go
 back approximately  10"feet to detect  the  plume.
                         —C-24

-------
 3.00      Operational  Procedures

 3.01      The  sampling probe  is held 6  inches  to  one  fooc
 above  the bottom of  Che  Lake. This  is necessary to avoid
 drawing up  soil particulates  and plane  debris. To che  bes:
 of  our knowledge,  tfoere  have  not been double blind Cescs
 conducted.

 3.02      The  continuous graphic output  is directly cor-
 related Co.maps. Large scala  shoreline  maps are carried
 on  che boats,  and  5El  personnel make their notes directly
 on  che maps.

 3.03     'SEI  assigns  che same people Co do che field  sur-
 vey and wrice  che  report. Also, SEI personnel ara trained
 to  follow procedures'exactly.
4.00      Usefullness as a Planning Tool.

4.01      The information on "he Cape is iacerpreced im-
mediately on site, and takes into account soil' type, topo-
graphy, and background water quality.

4.02      Peaks in fluorescence with no response in con-
ductivity are observed. In T.CSC cases this is r.oc consider-
ed to be an indicator of sepcic discharge. Claarvater dis-
charges have increased conductivity while organic levels
decline.

The least detectable signal is approximately 5 units for
conductivity and 40 - 507. above background levels for
organics.

4.03      Same as above.

4.04      Peaks in both conductivity and fluorescence usual-
ly indicate chaC septic discharge is occurring. Levels of
30 - 40% over background can be detected, but levels over
100% of backgrond ara preferred.  Detectable levels can vary
depending on sensitivity.
                         	ti-25

-------
 4.05      Ocher  data  sources  used  in our  studies  are:

               background water  quality information

               hydrology

              . regional groundwater  flow  patterns
                               «

               local  groundwater flow patterns

               soil types

               topography

               residential  frequency  (i.e. permanent vs.
               temporary residents vs. commercial develop-
               ment)

 This data is used only as background  information. Our
 actual analysis  is only of  data  generated  from the septic
 laachate survey.

 4.06      SEI uses reports  to transmit our analyses to our
 clients. A sample Table of  Contents  is attached.

 4.'07      Approximately 90% of our studies have been funded
 by 201 Construction Grants. The  other 10" have been funded
 by lake associations, planning agencies, etc.

 4.08      I believe that the results  of cur surveys have
 been used in conjunction with other  studies, but SEI has
 r.ot done so nor have we been informed as to the results
 of such studies.
5.00      Cost

5.01      A minimum of two (2) people and a maximum of COUT
(4) are assigned to a survey team. In a eve-person team,
one person is responsible for controlling the boat and
guiding the probe. The other person keeps track of the lo-
cation, observes the equipment, directs" the person holding
the probe, and collects surface water and groundwater
samples.

"»her. necessary, two boats (4 people)  go out on a survey.
The second boat collects the groundwater samples.

-------
Frequently a particular pare of the shoreline will be tra-
versed more Chan once, either immediately to locate a
plune, or at a later date to substantiate the initial re-
sults.

One (1) shoreline mile, including analysis and report, wi.ll
take approximately three days.                            :

5.02      Services are priced on a cost plus fixed fee
basis. Sample unit costs are attached. Conditions which
would result in higher than usual costs include heavy weed
growth and/or intense docks and cottage development.

5.03      SSI does provide operator training for clients
interested in purchasing equipment. The training" takes one
day, and the cost is incorporated into the equipment pur-
chase price. Consultation services are provided.

5.04      SEI does not rent out equipment.
6.00      Comparison With Other Techniques

6.01      Double blind tests have not been conducted.

6.02      Information gained from a complete survey
includes:

          1.   A very detailed,  complete evaluation of the
          entire shoreline area of concern.

          2.   An evaluation of  human health  related prob-
          lems resulting from septic seepage.

          3.  -It is  possible to calculate the  nutrient lead-
          ing and subsequent impacts of eutrophication of
          the lake due to phosphorous loading,  and to in-
          corporate  these results into a nutrient budget.
                             C-27

-------
      SAMPLE TA3LE  OF CONTENTS





  I. INTRODUCTION


 II. PROCEDURES


III. RESULTS


 IV. CONCLUSIONS
          ATTACHMENTS (detailed naps of scudy
                                  'araa)
                 1-26

-------
xtra/uon environmental, inc.
                           CLIENT LIST
     Location of Project

     Lake Winnebago,
     Neenah,  Wisconsin

     Indian Lake,
     Logan County,  Ohio
     Lauderdale  Lakes,
     Walwcrth County,  Wisconsin
     Lake  Waconia,
     Carver Councy,  Minnesota
     Pierson's  Lake,
     Carver  Councy, Minnesota
     Lake  Savaria,
     Carver County, Minnesota
    Re its  Lake,
    Carver County, Minnesota
    Lake Auburn,
    Carver County, Minnesota
    Lake Minnewashca,
    Carver County, Minnesota
    Cedar Lake,
    Carver County, Minnesota
    Dixcn Lake,
    Otsego County, Michigan

    Opal Lake,
    Otsego County, Michigan
 Client  .

 Davy Engineering Company
 Floyd. 3row,ne
 Associates,  Ltd.
 Marian,  Ohio

 LauderdaLe  Lakes
 Protection  Association
 WaLworth County,  Wis.

 Ellison-PhiIstrom-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 El1ison-Phi1strom-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 El1ison-PhiIs t rom-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St..  Paul, Minnesota

 Ellison-PhiIstrcm-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 Ellison-PhiIstrsm-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 Ellison-PhiIstrom-
 Ayers,  Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 Ellison-PhiIstrom-
 Ayers, Inc.
 St.  Paul, Minnesota

 Williams & Works
Grand P^apids, Michigan

Williams d Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

-------
ncaruon er.cironmentai, inc.
     CLIENT LIST
                page  2
     Location o£ Project
Clianc
     Long Lake,
     Ocsego Councy,  Michigan

     Horseshoe Lakes
     Ocsego County,  Michigan

     Perch Lakes,
     Ocsego Councy,  Michigan

     Hearc Lake,
     Ocsego Councy,  Michigan

     Fawn Lake,
     Ocsego Councy,  Michigan

     Ocsego Lake,
     Ocsego Councy,  Michigan

     Park Lake,
     Columbia  Councy,  Wisconsin
     White  and  Duck  Lakes,
     Oakland  Ccuncy,  Michigan
Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Williams & Works
Grand Rapids, Michigan

General Engineering
Company, Inc.
?or~age, Wisconsin

Johnson 4 Andarson, Inc.
Ponciac, Michigan
                                    C-30

-------
                          Appendix D

                      REVIEWERS COMMENTS
(All comments in this appendix have been considered and,  where
 appropriate, have been adopted in the final text)

-------
KENT STATE
UNIVERSITY
                                                  DEPARTMENT OF
                                             BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
KENT, OHIO 44242                                           (216)672-3613
                                          November 9, 1983
Ms. Patricia L. Deese,  P. E.
Urban Systems Research  and Engineering, Inc.
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

Dear Ms.  Deese:

     I enclose my report on your manuscript entitled  "Shoreline Surveys
of Subsurface Effluent  Plumes".  You have done a thorough and accurate
analysis  of the current state of instrumentation for  SEPD surveys.

     If I can be of further service, please write or  call.

                                          Si
                                          G. Dennis Cooke
                                          Professor
GDC:jf
Enclosures
                          D-l,

-------
Evaluation of "Shoreline Surveys to Subsurface Effluent Plumes"
     (Prepared by P. L. Deese, P.E.)


     I find this report to be a thorough, fair, complete, and accurate evalu-

ation of the Septic Snooper.  The author has raised excellent questions, tested

them with the data at hand, and formed firm conclusions and recommendations.

The following comments may be of value in preparing the final draft.

  1) EPA reports have an unusual format in that Conclusions are given first.

     I urge the author to develop a Discussion section at the end to review

     the data and conclusions.

  2) The Literature Cited section is woefully incomplete and references are

     not directly cited in the test.  I never did find references 1-12.

     Since this is a scientific report, it should be written, as one.

  3) On p. 10,, a statement is made (beginning 7 lines from the bottom) that

     needs investigation.  For example, I and others (Cooke et al., 1978,

     EPA-600/3-78-033.  Effects of diversion and alum application on two

     eutrophic lakes) have reported that septic tank effluent actually moves

     to the ground surface and is easily carried by overflow runoff.  Leach

     fields plug with organic matter, making downward percolation impossible.

  4) Exhibit 4-2 is difficult to understand since the axes are not clearly

     labelled and the "pr." (=probability?) values are very strange.

  5) Some references:

       a. Kerfoot, W. B.. and S. M. Skinner.  1981.  Septic leachate surveys

          for lakeside sewer needs evaluation.  J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed.

          53:1717.

        b. Lee, D. R.  1972.  Septic tank nutrients in groundwater entering

           Lake Sallie, Minnesota.  M. S. Thesis, Univ. of North Dakota  (note:

           Lee's thesis and subsequent papers are among the real basic works

           in this area).


                                     D-2

-------
      c. Polkowski, L. B. and W. C. Boyle.  1970.  Ground water quality




         adjacent to septic tank-soil absorption systems.  Wisconsin Dept.




         of Natural Resources, Madison.  75 pp.




6) An item which was missed or not emphasized in the criticism is the impact




   of macrophytes on littoral water chemistry and thus on the values reported




   by the Septic Snooper.  These plants are very abundant in many lakes




   especially eutrophic ones, and continually senesce or slough tissue to




   the water.  Much of this loss of organic matter is as dissolved organic




   matter (DOM), some of which may interfere.  This idea is potentially an




   important criticism since most groundwater discharge to the lake occurs




   in this littoral zone.  It may contain DOM from septic leachate which is




   camouflaged by DOM from intense macrophyte senescence (early August




   onwards).




7) I have noted a few typographical errors.  The word "data" is always




   plural.
                                 D-3

-------
 Tt
TETPA TECH, INC.
37.16 MT. DIABLO BOULEVARD
LAFAVETT6. CALIFORNIA 945*19
SUITE 3OO- 1^151/283-3771
         November 2,  1983
         Patricia L.  Deese
         Urban Systems  Research & Engineering,  Inc.
         2067 Massachusetts Avenue
         Cambridge,  Massachusetts 02140

         Dear Patricia:

         Although your  report arrived in  my office on October 17,  I did not return
         until October  31 and consequently was  unable to review  the report until
         now.  My comments are handwritten on the document.   Although considerable
         editing of  typos is needed, that task  was not my intent.  I have attached
         a bill.

         Sincerely yours,
         Donald B.  Porcella, Ph.D.
         Principal  Scientist
         Environmental  Systems Engineering

         DBP/jw
         Enclosure
                                                                                        -;.-=?
                                      D-4

-------
1.  For an average family of 4 and lOOgpcd and 24 hours of waste flow from
    a leach field, the typical flow into a lake would be 0.28 gpm or 1.07
    liters per minute at steady state.. In my.judgment, it would be nearly
    impossible to detect consistently such a flow or chemical differences
    generated by such a flow in a lake.  Given a cross-sectional area of
    10am 2/1 (drain = 3.6cm), this would result in a velocity of about
    1.7cm/sec. changes in any of these assumptions would tend to make this
    less detectable, as a rule.  A good paper relating to ground water
    quality and in-flow along entraphic lakes.1

2.  We did some work on chemical measurements as an aid to identifying
    septic inputs to a stream.  The attempt was a fairline (Meyers etal).
    I am convinced that although septic effluent impacts on lakes can be
    substantial (Cooke et.al.), they are not measurable by such
    techniques.  Mass balance techniques are more useful.

3.  Velocities in littoral areas of lakes are quite rapid and mixing would
    occur very rapidly.  Although I do not have references on this
    subject, I think it would strengthen the theoretical basis for
    rejecting assumption #2.  Another consideration is that the data in
    Appendix A on Otter Tail Lake would represent one of the most
    favorable situations possible for demonstrating its effectiveness.
    Most lakes are not as well situated (my assumption - ?).  However,
    these data do not satisfactorily support the contentionsof the vendor.
    •'•Lee, D.R. 1978..  A device for increasing seepage flow in lakes
and estrainers.  Linnol. Oceanogr. 22:140-147.

    Note, the highly variable characteristics of the seepage inflow
    in Lee's paper (p.146, Table 2).
                    x
    2Mey4rs, D.W., E.J. Middlebrooks, & D.B. Porcella. 1972.
Effect of Land Use on Water Quality:  Summit Creek, Smithfield, Utah.
PRWR 17-1. URL Utah State University, Logan, UT   84322.

    Cooke, G.D., et. al., 1973.  Some Aspects of Phosphorous Dynamics
of the Twin Lakes Watershed.  In Modelling the Entrophication
Process.  (E.J. Middlebrooks, et al Editors) Ann Arbor Press, Ann
Arbor, MI pp 57-72.
                                     D-5

-------
University Of Notre Dame     Notre Dam, Indiana 46556-0369
Department of  Biology             General Office (219)239-6552
                                               25 October 1983
   Dr. Patricia L. Deese
   Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc.
   2067 Massachusetts Avenue
   Cambridge, MA OElUO
   Dear Dr. Deese:
       Enclosed please find:
   1.  My review of the report "Shoreline Surveys of Subsurface Effluent Plumes".
   2.  A reprint of a publication cited in my review.
   3.  The draft report,  with penciled marginalia.
   k.  A copy of my C.V.
   5.  My bill for one day's consulting.
       I shall look forward to hearing from you.
                                             Sincerely,
                                              o-t^pL^— K- C_srp^-^i^£—
                                             Dr. Stephen R. Carpenter
                                             Assistant Professor
                                  D-6

-------
        Review ef "Shoreline Surreys of Subsurface Effluent Flumes"

                          Dr. Stephen R. Carpenter
                           Department of Biology
                          University of Notre Dame
                            Notre Dame, IS U6556

                              25 October 1983
1.  I am aware of no evidence that groundwater plumes cohere and remain

detectable for any distance in lakes.  Storm sewer and stream inputs to

lakes may remain discrete and identifiable if their temperature is very

different from that of the lake water (Bryson and Suomi 1951, Prentki et

al. 1979).  However, the volume and flow rate of these inputs are much

greater than those of groundwater, hence they are diluted mere slowly.

Ground water plumes should be less cohesive than storm sewer or stream

inputs to lakes.  The integrity ef ground water plumes should depend on

the temperature differential between the ground water and lake water.

2.  Many fluorescent compounds occur naturally in lake water, e.g. humic

substances and algal pigments.  It is conceivable that detergents and

whitening agents could be discriminated from natural fluorescent compounds

by careful selection of excitation and monitoring wavelengths.  However,

on the basis of the documents at hand I see no evidence that the background

data needed to select appropriate wavelengths have been gathered.  Studies
              4
comparing the fluorescent properties of sewage leachate and natural organic

matter are needed to validate the proposed methodology.

3.  The proposed "unique and stable ratio" between fluorescence (F) and

conductivity (C) suggests that F/C = k, a constant, or F a kC.  That is,

a plot of fluorescence versus conductivity for a population of septic

tank samples should lie on a straight lino of slope k, distinct from data

points based on lake water.  It seems that the data on hand would allow
                                    D-7

-------
                                     -2-





one to construct such a graph and test the hypothesized relationship.



U.  Based on the preceding points, I conclude that the proposed technology



is not yet validated.  Further research is needed, as discussed in the



report.  In particular, I suggest



     (1) dye tracer studies to determine the physical integrity of



         plumes of contaminated groundwater.



    (ii) comparative studies of septic tank and natural organic compounds



         with respect to fluorescence intensity as a function of



         excitation and measurement wavelength.



5.  In view of the probable importance of temperature to the integrity of



groundwater plumes, addition of a temperature sensor to the probe of



the "Snooper" is recommended.







References



Bryson, H.A. and V.E. Suemi.  1951*  Midsummer renewal of oxygen within



     the hypolimnion.  J. Mar. He a. 10:  263-269.



Preatki, H.T., M.S. Adams, S.B. Carpenter, A. Gasith, C.S. Smith, and



     P.H. Weiler.  1979*  The role of submersed weedbeds in internal



     loading and Interception of allochthonous materials in Lake Wiagra,



     Wisconsin, U.S.A.  Arch. Hydrobiol./Suppl. 57:  221-250.
                                   D-8

-------
                Appendix  E




LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED DURING THIS STUDY

-------
               ALPHABETICAL LIST OF  PERSONS CONTACTED
                          DURING THIS STUDY
 Name                           General      Question-     Inter-
Address                       Background	' naire*       view**

Roger Akeley                      Yes
NH Lakes Region
Planning Commission

Dan Armstrong                                                T
George Washington University

Ron Arsenault                                    V          P
ENDECO, Marketing Manager

Bob Borpahle                      Yes
Elli son-Phi 1st rom-Aye r  Inc.

Edward Brainard, II                              V          P
ENDECO, President

John Dickey                       Yes
Rist-Prost Associates

Fred Elkind                       Yes
NH Water Supply/Pollution
Control

Ginny Garrison                    Yes
Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation

William Kerfoot                                  W          P
K-V Associates,  Inc.

Al Krause                                                    p
SPA Region V

Don LaVoie                        Yes
Reike, Carroll/  and Muller
Ron Manfredonia                   Yes
SPA Region I

James McCarthy                    Yes
Harvard University

-------
                   ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED/
                              DURING THIS  STUDY
   Nante                          General      Question-    Inter-
 Address	Background     ' naire*      view**
   *  W » written;  V =» verbal
  **  P •» in person;  T » by telephone
                               E-2;
 Bill Mellen                       Yes
 Lake County Health Dept.

I Francois M.M.  Morel               Yes
 M.I.T.

 Gerry Peters                                     V          T
 WAPORA

 Mike Rapacz                       Yes
 Interdisciplinary Engineers                                     :
|and Planners                                                    |
I                          '                                       i
JTed Rockwell                                        '   •     P   !
!EPA Region V                                                    j
                                                                 i
 John Stewart                      Yes                           j
,Maier,  Stewart and Associates                                   j
I                   .
 Natalie Taub                      Yes
 EPA Region I
!
(Jill Wright                       .               w
 Swanson Environmental,  Inc.

-------
                                    TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                             (Please read Instructions on the reverse before competing)
 1. REPORT NO.
                                                             3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NQ.
 4. TITUS AND SUBTITLE

    An Evaluation of Septic  Leachate Detection
              5. REPORT OATS
                February    1985
                                                             S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOH(S)
    Patricia L.  Deese
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
    Urban Systems Research and Engineering,  Inc.
    Cambridge,  MA  02138
              10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                 CAZB1B .
              117CONTRACT7G
                                                                68-03-3057
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
    Water Engineering Research Laboratory
    Office of Research and Development
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Cincinnati, OH   45268
              13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
                 Final  (10/80 - 9/83)
              14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                       USEPA
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

    Project Officers:   J. F. Kreissl and R.P.G.  Bowker
 16. ABSTRACT

   An evaluation  of septic leachate detection (SLD) technology was performed.
   The results indicated that  the conceptual  basis of SLD  devices is unproven
   and the devices  have not been evaluated properly to determine their  utility
   as a screening device in facility planning for rural lakeshore communities.
   Even if this issue is neglected, the cost-effectiveness of SLD surveys  is
   marginal.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  -DESCRIPTORS
b.lOeNTIFIEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COSATI Field/Gtoup
 3. OISTrtlaUTION STATEMENT
   Release  to  Public
                                               .19. SECURITY CLASS.(7WReport)
                                                  Unclassified	
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
   Unclassified
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------