EPA-R2-73-144
June 1973 Environmental Protection Technology Series
Lagoon Performance
and the
State of Lagoon Technology
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
The phenomenal growth of oxidation lagoons as a form of
municipal waste treatment is a reflection of their rela-
tively low cost and ease of maintenance.
The widespread acceptance of lagooning was originally
predicated on their ability to produce effluent quality
at least equivalent to accepted secondary treatment.
In the semi-arid Great Plains states where lagoons
were originally successful, such efficiencies were
easily achieved for most of the year. Unfortunately,
differences in climate (especially sunlight and rain-
fall), soil type, population density and a multitude
of diverse problems have worked against such success
for other portions of the country.
Inventory and operative data from municipal lagoon
facilities have been collected and evaluated. The ade-
quacy of such facilities to produce effluent to meet
state water quality criteria for receiving waters has
been evaluated.
Factors limiting lagoon performance are discussed,
including organic and hydraulic overload, odor and
aesthetic failures, wind, light, mixing, data gathering
and reporting and other problems. A series of recommen-
dations for upgrading lagoon performance is included with
critiques of the accuracy of current lagoon effluent
reporting systems and the 1970 International Symposium
on Lacfoon Performance.
This report was submitted by Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson
and Associates, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, in fulfillment
of Contract Numbers 14-12-892 and 68-01-0014 under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 19
III Introduction 23
IV State Programs 33
V Critique of the Second International
Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons 45
VI The Adequacy of Lagoons as Equivalent
Secondary Treatment 53
VII Impact of Lagoon Effluents on
Receiving Water Quality 87
VIII Acknowledgements 99
IX References 101
X Appendixes 109
-------
FIGURES
No_. Page
1 EXTENT OF MUNICIPAL LAGOON USE FOR WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 24
2 EXTENT, USE AND ACCEPTANCE OF MUNICIPAL
LAGOONS 25
3 AVERAGE MEDIAN EFFLUENT VALUES 63
4 FACULTATIVE LAGOONS, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND 65
5 FACULTATIVE LAGOONS, SUSPENDED SOLIDS 66
6 FACULTATIVE LAGOONS, NITROGEN 67
7 FACULTATIVE LAGOONS, PHOSPHATE 68
8 FACULTATIVE LAGOONS, CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 69
9 AERATED LAGOONS, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 71
10 AERATED LAGOONS, SUSPENDED SOLIDS 72
11 AERATED LAGOONS, NITROGEN 73
12 AERATED LAGOONS, PHOSPHATE 74
13 AERATED LAGOONS, CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 75
14 OXIDATION DITCHES, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 76
15 OXIDATION DITCHES, SUSPENDED SOLIDS 77
16 OXIDATION DITCHES, NITROGEN 78
17 OXIDATION DITCHES, PHOSPHATE 79
18 TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS, BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND 81
19 TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS, SUSPENDED SOLIDS 82
IV
-------
No
20 TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS, NITROGEN 83
21 TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS, PHOSPHATE 84
22 TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS, CHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND 85
23 COMPARISON OF ALGAL POPULATIONS THROUGH STUDY
AREA USING CELL COUNTS AND CHLOROPHYLL
FLUORESCENCE 97
v
-------
TABLE
No. Pag
1 Lagoon Short-Circuiting, South African Dye
Studies 5
2 State Engineers' Evaluation of the Adequacy
of Lagoons to Provide Secondary Treatment 36
3 State Engineers' Report of Design and Actual
BOD Loadings 38
4 Municipal Wastewater Lagoon Problems Reported
By State Engineers 40
5 Lagoon Performance Parameters Monitored by
States and Reporting Frequency 42
6 Effluent Reductions 47
7 Subject of Papers Presented at Second
International Symposium 50
8 Summary of Oxygen Demand of Lagoon Effluent
Based on the 26-Day BOD Determinations 92
9 Average Daily Loading of Bear Creek from the
Two Municipal Lagoons 93
10 Summary of Flow of Waste Constituents Through
the Stockton Wastewater Treatment Plant 96
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
PROBLEMS AND LIMITING FACTORS OF LAGOONS
This chapter discusses observed and reported operating
problems of lagoons. These problems were uncovered in
contacts with state engineers, reports from the literature,
the Second International Symposium, and other professional
meetings. Lagoon problems are broadly based in three areas;
1. effluent quality;
2. odors and other aesthetic failures; and
3. water loss.
Each of these areas will be discussed here along with
a number of_general problems. The conclusion reached
is^that design criteria tend to cause some of these problems
and elimination of the problems may be brought about by
changes in design; this will be discussed later in this
section.
EFFLUENT QUALITY
Short-circuiting is one of the important problems in
most lagoons in the U.S. and is probably much more common
than realized. Wind factors can drastically affect
short-circuiting and cause a relatively untreated effluent
to be discharged. A number of cells in series would help
reduce this problem. When short-circuiting occurs the
detention time in the lagoon becomes less than the calcu-
lated design time and treatment efficiencies may suffer.
Short-circuiting in a lagoon is often encouraged and
enhanced by the design itself. Ten State Standards requires
the inlet pipe to the first cell of a lagoon system to be
in the bottom, between 1/3 and 1/2 way along the length of
the lagoon. Thus before anything else is said the design
encourages a portion of the lagoon to be less heavily used
and encourages the flow to tend toward the effluent pipe
without circulating through the lagoon.
-------
This phenomenon is, in fact, true. Studies at lagoon systems
in California measured detention times as low as one percent
of the calculated time. For example, at Shastina, in a
four cell lagoon system, dye was observed in the effluent
2/3 of a day after it was introduced to the plant influent.
The design detention time for this system was 80 days.
Other measurements on this same lagoon gave a mean deten-
tion time of 11 days. It is not possible to achieve a
consistently high quality effluent with such variation in
detention time. Bacteria counts for fecal coliform
(MPN/100 ml) ranged from 24 million to less than 45 during
these flow tests and cannot meet California's standards
for a chlorinated effluent. Permits are granted for
these lagoon systems based on the theoretical detention
time that coliform die-off could be adequate.
Illinois allows a 75 percent reduction of BOD per cell
of a lagoon based on 7 days detention time. The
California studies show that this time is not likely to be
realized if conventional designs are used. Analysis of
design criteria, which is frequently the Ten State Standards
or a minor modification shows one glaring feature which
tries to insure easy operation by preventing scum or
floating solids accumulating. That feature is contained
in Section 92.5 "Pond Shape". "No islands, peninsulas, or
coves should be permitted". Islands, peninsulas and
coves when spaced through the lagoon can serve as very
effective baffles to break up the flow of liquid and prevent
short-circuiting. Adding baffles to a lagoon should be a
fairly simple way to insure that actual detention time
will approximate the design detention.
Unfortunately, almost no data, other than the previously
cited.California studies, has been found which shows the
actual detention time, or even the degree of treatment a
waste stream is receiving.
To quote the California study again: "Lagoons with a
discharge cannot be depended on to provide disinfection
unless or until short-circuiting can be reduced so actual
holding time approaches calculated detention; this will
provide greater sewage organism reduction and reduce the
probability of particulate matter or relatively untreated
sewage flowing through the lagoon system in a few hours".
-------
Lagoon systems should be designed with a minimum of three
and preferably more series operated lagoons to reduce
short-circuiting. Baffled inlets or other flow despersion
methods should be included in lagoon design.
These methods should be developed to provide more accurate
lagoon flow or detention measurement. Further tests with
better tracer dyes and/or other methods are needed to
develop accurate lagoon flow test methods.
With development of accurate lagoon flow test methods more
sewage organism testing is necessary to correlate bacterio-
logical organism reduction with lagoon detention or holding
time, and other factors.
Thus, short-circuiting is a frequently overlooked problem
area in lagoon performance. The upgrading of lagoon efflu-
ent quality can be expected to benefit greatly by the
effective baffling of the lagoons.
Thermal Stratification - Observing stratified lagoons,
Drews (55) determined the extent to which short-circuiting
occurred at six South African lagoons. Table 1 summarizes
the time required for fluorescein dye, injected in the
influent, to reach the effluent structure in concentrations
great enough to be detected visually. It may be noted
times required for short circuiting ranged from 17 minutes
to about 6 hours. Comparing this range with the normal
detention time of 30 days, it becomes clear why a stratified
lagoon and favorable wind conditions can cause short-
circuiting and result in reduced lagoon effluent quality.
Hydraulic Overload - When a lagoon is hydraulically over-
loaded the high rate of discharge may create turbulent
flow conditions around the discharge pipe structure.
This high flow rate carries the suspended algae out the
overflow pipe and leads to further degradation of the '
receiving stream.
In a conventional treatment plant, great efforts are ex-
pended to provide weir structures which will control the
rate of flow as the effluent approaches the collection and
discharge point. This idea seems to have been lost in
designing lagoons.
-------
Hydraulic overload may go hand in hand with organic
overloading. More frequently, the addition of storm water
drainage or the intrusion of water from subsurface soil
may be at fault. If percolation and evaporation rates
have been miscalculated these factors could also contribute
to the problem.
The most frequent cause of overloading results from faci-
lities which have the design capacity exceeded. This
frequently happens in more remote areas where the faci-
lity is apparently functioning well and new service is
extended arid added to the existing plant without upgrading.
Undoubtedly, some of this can be tolerated but soon reaches
a point where the design capacity is so overloaded that
poor quality effluent is swept from the facility.
While this may be a problem for small municipalities it
reaches its greatest magnitude in near urban areas for
facilities not classified as municipal, i.e., trailer
courts and the like. Some of the worst examples found
anywhere in the country occur in Jefferson County, Missouri
where population expansion has occurred at a rapid and
rather uncontrolled rate. A temporary permit issued ten
years ago for 20 unit facility may now have as many as
200 units on line. The temporary permit was never
finalized, a new permit was never sought and a water
control board, understaffed and relatively inexperienced,
having no legal authority to implement their recommendations,
is found to be relatively powerless to do anything about the
situation. Of course, the plant fails to achieve the
desired degree of treatment. Does this mean that lagoons
are not an adequate form of treatment? No treatment
facility could produce a satisfactory product under these
circumstances. It should be pointed out that while each
of these situations is admittedly small the aggregate of
them produces a monstrous quantity of poorly treated
wastewater entering small, once clear, receiving streams.
No valid estimates of the total of such facilities could
be. obtained for this study.
-------
TABLE 1
Lagoon Short-circuiting
South African Dye Studies [117]
Lagoon
Time for Dye to
Reach Effluent
Parys
Standerton
Louis Trichards
Dundee
Stellenbosch
Uitenhage
Prim. Pond: 17 min. W/wind, <60 min
against wind
Prim. Ponds: <25 min.
Sec. Pond: 1.5 hours
Prim. Pond: 6 hours
Sec. Pond: 5 hours
Prim. Pond: <1 hour
Sec. Pond: 4 'hours
Prim. Pond: 1.5 hours
Sec. Pond: 2 hours
n.a.*
*n.a. not'available
-------
Where land for expansion exists, additional cells could
be constructed to accommodate the added volume. In too
many instances low cost housing has been permitted up to
the limits of the existing facility and insufficient
land was set aside originally to accommodate added
facilities. Added cells, while useful to contain added
volume serve another valuable function. As previously
stated, they increase the retention time, reduce short-
circuiting, reduce coliform counts and generally produce
a successively better effluent. They do not, however,
meet some of the major objections to lagoon treatment
performance. What we see is a trade between one kind
of waste (raw sewage) as a primary influent and an admit-
tedly esthetically more satisfying form of organic matter
(algal cells) as an ultimate effluent. While this ef-
fluent is biologically "cleaner" it does, nevertheless,
contribute to stream water quality degradation.
Light - The significant role of sunlight in oxidation pond
failures is evident from the following discussion which
tabulates the types of failures attributable to diurnal
and seasonal fluctuations in available sunlight. During
times of high light intensity, algae grow well and
photosynthetic oxygen evolution meets or exceeds the BOD.
However , due in part to daily and seasonal fluctuations of
light intensity, effluent and aesthetic oxidation pond
failures occur.
Photosynthetic oxygcnation is a function of light intensity.
Because of reduced or fluctuating light intensities, evolu-
tion of photosynthetic oxygen may be insufficient to satisfy
the BOD, resulting in anaerobic conditions. Extended
anaerobic conditions have been shown to result in:
1. Evolution of hydrogen sulfide
2 increased effluent BOD due to anaerobic end products
3- "Pig-pen" odors due to decay of algae
4. Reduced algae synthe^iq w-i -f-h
in inorganic removals concomitant reduction
-------
Optimum light intensities, conducive to algae growth,
result in the following oxidation pond failures:
1. The growth of algae reduced light penetration and
results in the failures listed above.
2. Optimum algae growth in lagoons results in a surface
mat which inhibits light penetration. Eventually the
algae mat decays, resulting in "pig-pen" odors and a
deteriorated effluent quality.
3. Optimum algae growth has been shown to result in a
dispersed microbial population which remains suspended in
the lagoon effluent.
The magnitude and quantity of sunlight striking a given
location depends upon season, geographic location with
respect to latitude, time of day, the angular height of
the sun, the elevation of the point of observation and
the transmission quality of the atmosphere. Discussion of
these various factors can be found in excellent review
articles and will not be reported here. It is sufficient
for our purposes to point out here that differences in
light quality and quantity are partially responsible for
some of the failures observed in coastal regions of the
country.
Winds and Mixing - In the preceding discussion, winds have
been implicated with short-circuiting. However, as shown
by Barsom (36), they are also the prime driving force of
vertical mixing and improved contact between substrate,
organisms and photosynthetically-evolved oxygen. That the
variable winds cannot be depended upon to thoroughly mix
a lagoon's contents; resulting in thermal stratification,
short-circuiting and reduced contact between substrate,
organism and available molecular oxygen; can be ascertained
by evaluating* the detailed lagoon temperature profiles
presented by Clare et al. (56), and discussed by Barsom (36)
The thermal history for domestic lagoons may be summarized
as follows. In the spring, there will normally be a period
of circulation, the water is of the same temperature and
density, and vertical circulation requires only minimal
-------
forces sufficient to overcome viscosity. Continued^
heating of the lagoon surface waters, as a result of
absorbed solar radiation, interacts with wind-driven
turbulence yielding a thermally stratified_lagcon. In
autumn, cooling at"the surface causes a thickening of-
the epilimnion by convective mixing as the lagoon water
temperature falls. In the fall, as in the spring, this
process is normally followed by a period of circulation,
and the water is of the same temperature and density
throughout.
Winter Lagoon Failures Under Ice-Cover: During the win-
ter the water immediately below the ice is substantially
at 0°C, and lagoon bottom waters are not far from the
maximum density (3.9°C). This is a comparatively stable
equilibrium because the ice-cover prevents wind-induced
turbulence and serves as thermal insulation.
At these low water temperatures under ice-cover, the
prime treatment mechanism is sedimentation. Bacterial
degradation is greatly reduced at these water tempera-
tures. Algae activity is greatly reduced because of
low water temperatures and reduced sunlight, due to
seasonal variations and the presence of an ice-cover.
Anaerobic conditions obtain because atmospheric re-
aeration and photosynthetic oxygenation are essentially
nil, due to the ice-cover. Once anaerobic conditions
obtain, the lagoon experiences the following failures:
1. Increased effluent BOD due to anaerobic end products
as organic acids, aldehydes, alcohols and methane.
2. Increased effluent BOD. In these cold waters, sedi-
mentation is the prime treatment method, bacterial acti-
vity is greatly reduced. Dissolved organic compounds
are not removed effectively by sedimentation. These dis-
solved and colloidal organic compounds increase effluent
BOD values.
3. Due to the greatly reduced microbial activity odor
failures do not occur under ice-cover.
Spring Turnover Failures: When the lagoon ice-cover
breaks up during the spring, the water near the surface
begins to warm, establishing convection currents. When
-------
the water temperature is practically uniform-at all
depths, circulation becomes especially pronounced. Dur-
ing this period, the solids which settled under the ideal
settling conditions of ice-cover are resuspended.' This
increased organic load, due to the resuspension Of
settled organic solids, greatly exceeds the dissolved
oxygen resources of the lagoon waters. This results be-
cause atmospheric reaeration is not adequate to satisfy
the oxygen demand; and the active algae population needed
for photosynthetic oxygenation has not yet established
itself so soon after the ice-cover breakup. Once anaer-
obic conditions are obtained, the lagoon is susceptible
to the following failures:
1. Increased effluent BOD due to anaerobic end products as
.organic acids, aldehydes, alcohols and methane.
2. Increased effluent suspended solids due to the
fesuspensicn of organic solids which settled under the
ice-cover.
3. Evolution of septic sewage odors.
Summer Stagnation Failures: Spring turnover is followed
by summer stagnation. Summer stagnation is characterized
by three layers: the epilimnion, metalimnion, and hypolim-
nion. The epilimnion consists of relatively freely-
circulating water with a small and variable temperature
gradient. Underlying the epilimnion is a metalimnic water
layer, the entire volume of which is characterized by a
rapid decrease in temperature with depth. Underlying the
metalimnion is a relatively undisturbed cold water layer,
or hypolimnion, in which the thermal gradient is roughly
exponential. Such a. stratified environment is often known
as summer stagnation. Oxidation pond failures resulting
from summer stagnation are:
1. Thermal stratification induces short-circuiting of
influent raw wastewater, resulting in an inadequately
stabilized lagoon effluent as evidenced by increased
effluent BOD and suspended solids.
2. Abundant sunlight and warm water temperatures,
associated with summer stagnation, are conducive to
algae blooms. These algae greatly increase effluent BOD,
suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus.
-------
3. Algae-laden lagoon effluents adversely affect receiving
water quality. Some of the failures associated with these
polluted water algae are taste and odor, color, increased
turbidity and clogging of the filters in a water treatment
plant and the release of toxins.
4. Blooms and mats result in "pig-pen" odors emanating
from the lagoon and cause severe taste and odor problems
in receiving v/aters.
5. Summer stagnation isolates hypolimnic waters much as
an ice-cover does in the winter. Anaerobic conditions
obtain in the hypolimnion resulting in increased effluent
BOD due to anaerobic end products as organic acids,
aldehydes, alcohols and methane. Septic sewage and sulfide
odors may obtain.
6. Thermal stratification greatly inhibits mixing between
epilimnic and hypolimnic waters. Reduced contact between
substrate and microorganisms increases the time required
to accomplish stabilization. Insufficient stabilization
results in deterioration of lagoon effluent qualify.
Marais (57) has reported on the degree of mixing in
stratified lagoons located in Lusaka, situated inland on
the African plateau about 4,500 feet above sea level at
about latitude 15° south. The maximum summer lagoon water
temperature is about 32°C to 38°C, and the average minimum
in winter is 10°C. These temperatures are not unlike
those expected in temperate climates.
It is possible that during the summer, when the wind speeds
are low, cooling by radiation and subsequent convection
currents will not be sufficient to equalize the temperature
throughout the pond, and a thermocline will persist. At
Lusaka, the thermocline persisted for almost two months
during 1963.
Fall Turnover Failures: When autumn comes, surface layers
cool and sink, establishing convective currents which mix
the water mass to greater and greater depths. When the
temperature gradient becomes substantially vertical, the
fall overturn takes place and the waters are put into cir-
culation by autumn winds.
10
-------
During the fall overturn, as during the spring overturn,
organic bottom deposits are resuspended. During this
period, the following failures may be experienced.
1. Increased effluent suspended solids results from the
increased mixing associated with the fall overturn.
Increased turbulence maintains solids suspension prior
to effluent discharge.
2. Resuspension of organic bottom deposits reduces light
penetration. Reduced light penetration will adversely
effect photosynthetic oxygenation. Anaerobic conditions
will obtain when the resuspended organic bottom deposits
exceed the oxygen resources of the lagoon. The anaerobic
environment will result in septic and sulfide odor
generation and increased effluent BOD due to high-energy
anaerobic end products as organic acids, aldehydes,
alcohols and methane.
Solids Separation - Although lagoons serve partially as
settling basins, an appreciable amount of solid material
may leave the lagoon in the effluent. Figure 3 shows
that for oxidation ditches, facultative aerated and
tertiary lagoons, the average median effluent suspended
solids ranged from 38 mg/1 to 68 mg/1. Suspended solids
of this magnitude do not meet standards for secondary
treatment.
To improve this condition, a collection system of xveirs
such as would be used in a conventional treatment plant
could be employed. This type of system could reduce the
solids in the effluent, but would result in solids being
deposited in the lagoon.
Organic Overload - The purpose of a lagoon is to provide
adequate low-cost treatment of sewage without degrading
the quality of the receiving streams. Lagoons do not seem
to be able to consistently meet this goal for several
reasons. At times, organic removal is low due to over-
loading, short-circuiting, low temperature, shock loads,
or a combination of these. Lagoons are able to withstand
shock fairly well, due to the large area and volume in
which the waste is contained. However, prolonged organic
loading at a rate greater than the capacity of the instal-
lation to provide purification will lead to a deteriorated
quality effluent. Lagoons in the United States are
11
-------
frequently loaded at 200 peopie/acre/day or 34 Ib.BOD/acre/
day, assuming a population equivalent of 0.17 Ib.BOD/person/
day. Gloyna (39) points out that lagoons are capable of
handling a higher loading than this, and that this loading
has been found by trial and error to keep most lagoons
odor free even at spring turnover conditions. In other
parts of the world, loadings as high as 145 Ib.BOD/acre/day
are commonly used without sacrificing treatment efficiency.
ODORS AND OTHER AESTHETIC FAILURES
The chemical compound most often associated with odors from
lagoons is hydrogen sulfide. The microorganisms able to
produce sulfide are Desulfovibrio_ desulfuricans and
Clostridium ni_gr_ific_ans_.
The presence or absence of sulfide production in lagoons
is dependent on certain operational and environmental para-
meters, such as:
1. Organic loading rate, Ib BOD/acre/day.
2. Sulfate concentration in the carriage water.
3. Sulfate loading rate, Ib SO =/acre/day.
4. Presence or absence of dissolved oxygen.
5. Available light to drive photosynthetic oxygenation.
6. Water temperature. '
7. Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP).
8. pH.
As might be anticipated in naturally complex biological
systems similar to a lagoon, all of the parameters are
complexly interrelated in a manner not fully defined.
Various phases of this complex interaction, however, have
been documented by several investigators. These reports
will be evaluated to provide a clearer understanding of
sulfide generation as a limiting factor in lagoon failures.
In laboratory investigations of facultative lagoons,
Espino de la 0 and Gloyna (58) reported a correlation
between the concentration of sulfate ion in the influent
and the sulfide concentration in laboratory oxidation ponds.
Three tests were conducted with the same BOD surface load
(136 Ib BOD/acre/day) and the same detention time (15 days);
the only difference was the concentration of sulfate ions
in the influent. For the experimental laboratory faculta-
tive lagoon under controlled light and temperature condi-
12
-------
tions, a linear relationship was reported to exist between
the average sulfide concentration in the pond and the
influent sulfate concentration. The relationship obtained
bears no value; however, this reduction depended on the sum
total of all oxidation-reduction reactions occurring in the
lagoon, as well as the amount of sulfide produced. Although
this relationship is not definitive, the general correlation
between sulfide production and ORP is observed.
Espino de la 0 and Gloyna (58) reported increases in sulfide
concentrations in the pond from 0 to about 1 and 2 mg/1
respectively, which were accompanied with drops in the ORP
of about 80 to 120 mv; further increases in sulfide con-
centration affected ORP in a lesser way.
The effect of photosynthesis on the evolution of sulfide
may be clearly observed. The change of sulfide concen-
tration with time illustrated the importance of photosyn-
thetic oxygenation; the sulfide concentration decreased
sharply when the lights were turned on, and increased slowly
after the lights were turned off. From these results, Espino
de la 0 and Gloyna (58) concluded that, in the presence of
dissolved oxygen concentrations in excess of about 1 mg/1,
the sulfide concentration was negligible.
The actual severity of hydrogen sulfide odors evolved from
a facultative lagoon is based upon the complex interactions
between pH, ORP, and the presence or absence of dissolved
oxygen under extended ice,cover is the greatest. Break-up
rapidly produces added oxygen, discharges carbon dixoide
and elevates the pH. Problems associated with spring
break-up, although they usually do not last long, are,
however, ofter very severe.
Concerning the evolution of hydrogen sulfide as a limiting
factor in oxidation pond failures, it is important to note
that bacterial sulfide production is related to:
1. The sulfate concentration in the carriage water,
2. The organic loading rate, Ib BOD/acre/day,
3. The sulfate loading rate, Ib S0,=/acre/day, and
4. The lagoon detention time.
13
-------
It is evident from the preceding discussion that periodic
obnoxious hydrogen sulfide odor failures are predictable
based upon an understanding of the complex interactions
of organic loading rate, sulfate loading rate, presence
or absence of dissolved oxygen, water temperature, oxida-
tion-reduction potential, and pH.
WATER LOSS
Lagoons need a certain depth of water to operate well.
Exactly how much water is needed is debatable, but about
3-4 feet depth seems satisfactory in most places for
facultative lagoons. Yet some lagoons have been built on^
ground so porous that they will not hold water. In addition
to the lack of treatment wastes receive under these condi-
tions, the potential for groundwater contamination is very
real, and should be realized.
Colorado and Missouri require actual field measurements
of percolation rates before construction or use of the
lagoon is permitted. Florida will not permit the use of
lagoons to treat raw sewage wastes due to groundwater
contamination problems which have occurred in the past.
The possibility of using a sealing technique on the
bottom and sides of a new lagoon to reduce leakage is
being considered more frequently now as states are
beginning to realize the problem.
Evaporation from the surface of the lagoon will also
cause a significant loss in some areas of the country. This
evaporation loss must be incorporated in the lagoon design,
or supplemental water may have to be provided to maintain
proper operation.
It is interesting that many guideline documents (including
the ten states' standards) indicate that percolation tests
shall (must) be performed. The results of these tests
may, however, be used to identify the adequacy of a
particular site. This kind of language produces a meaning-
less exercise.
Problems associated with normal housekeeping are bank
deterioration bank weeds, floatable solids, emergent weeds
and floating algal mats.
14
-------
As presently designed, any of these problems can develop
with unfortunate consequences. Minimal precautions and
maintenance can alleviate most.
Grass cutting and weed removal not only make the area
esthetically more pleasing - they reduce the living space
for some noxious insects, (mainly Diptera).
Riprap has been employed to stabilize banks especially
where strong prevailing winds tend to wash the offside
bank. While this practice does stabilize the bank some-
what, it also provides hiding places for midges and mos-1
quitoes. Insecticides might be employed here, but the
choice should be for non-persistent or degradable ones in-
stead of the less expensive DDT or other chlorinated
hydrocarbons. The propensity of algae to absorb these
materials rapidly is well known, and could add to the
stream load of such compounds.
Some state have tried concrete or asphalt aprons around
the edge, above and below water level, to control weeds.
These appear to work satisfactorily for a while, but will
need maintenance as cracks develop.
Herbicides can be, and have been employed - but care must
be exercised so that useful algae are not eliminated from
the pond system. Use of these compounds by careless
operators could have devastating effects on performance
and on the receiving stream.
\
Smaller facilities without means of grinding or separating
foreign matter, have been plagued by various rubber and
plastic items. Inadequate fencing has resulted in many
items of junk being thrown into these facilities as well.
Floating algal mats can be mechanically dispersed, but
it would appear to be more satisfactory to create condi-
tions initially which would not foster their growth and
accumulation.
Record Keeping and Reporting - Accurate and faithful re-
porting of performance is to be desired. Many of the cur-
rently employed measurements are of doubtful utility. The
mere fact that any given water quality parameter may be
easy to obtain does not, in itself, justify its use.
15
-------
Influent and effluent flows are absolutely necessary to
determine performance. These, coupled to a^rapid, simple
COD measurement technique of universal applicability,
would appear to yield the most simple and useful measure-
ments to determine operating performance.
The flagrant violations of sampling and reporting enumer-
ated in this report are mute testimony to the lack of
reliable data.
The poor quality record keeping observed can have far
reaching consequences. For example, the contractor has
recently viewed data in support of a multi-million dollar
public works project where a 90% efficienty was attributed
to every lagoon within a watershed. Many of these lagoons
are presently badly overloaded. Fewer than half have
filed reliable operating data; some have never filed any
data. The figures, however, were used to calculate muni-
cipal waste loads for the project. Clearly, this kind
of unintentioned error can only lead to poor quality water
supplies and esthetically distasteful recreational faci-
lities .
Sampling - The contractor's survey uncovered a marvelous
array of printed forms and elaborated mechanisms for the
reporting of lagoons (and other treatment) facilities.
While it is true that most mechanical facilities (regard-
less of type) may have adequately trained personnel to
conduct these measurements, it is equally true that most
lagoon facilities , d_£ not. We found it almost impossible
to accurately assess lagoon performance due to the
universally bad record keeping practiced. What appears
to be needed is not ten or twelve parameters which can
be performed by an inexperienced or temporary operator",
but rather 1 or 2 measurements which might be truly
meaningful in assessing lagoon performance. What does
it serve to have pH, D.O., M.O., or phenopthalein alka-
linity, color, turbidity, relative stability, conductivity,
and the like, if we lack information on influent and
effluent volume and organic load? The contractor feels that
all levels of government have been remiss in not providing
workable, meaningful methods which could be implemented
by semi-skilled personnel
16
-------
Selective Effluent Discharge - Studies by King, et al,
demonstrated that diurnal vertical migration of algae
could alter the amount of organic matter discharged from
a lag'oon by at least four times. While the dissolved COD
remained essentially constant at a relatively low level,
the lowest levels between midnight and 6:00 a.m. King ,
rightly suggests that this feature should be'incorporated
into any study where lagoon effluents are being monitpred.
We might add that selective draw-off or discharge at
carefully chosen times and depths (midnight or 6:00 a.m.,
at about 12" depth) would insure an effluent low, or
substantially lower in algal cells. This relatively
simple act of utilizing existing data to increase effluent
quality would appear to be much more suitable than more
elaborate mechanical systems designed to remove algal cells
In effect, one would be working with a natural process
rather than against it.
17
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The previous section discussed problems of lagoons;
this section will provide recommendations for improving
at least some of the problems of lagoon performance.
1. Hydraulic overloading can be corrected by expansion
of facilities so that the waste can be detained long
enough to receive treatment.
2. Organic overloading has been overcome at times by
installation of aeration devices to supply additional
oxygen to treat the wastes. Either mechanical contact
aerators or diffused air systems can be used.
3. The biggest problem most characteristic of lagoons is
short-circuiting. Short-circuiting as discussed in sec-
tion I is almost guaranteed by the design called for in
the Ten State Standards and other basin design standards.
Placing of baffles in the cells, constructing long,
narrow cells, multiple cell installations, or providing
for recirculation of a portion of the effluent can all
reduce short-circuiting.
4. The inclusion of pond bottom diffusers acting
as an air screen would accomplish two objectives:
(1) add additional oxygen? and (2)' act as an effec-
tive bar-rier to unimpeded short-circuiting. This
would appear to meet the objection of structures which
would collect solids, fat and grease.
5. A deep primary lagoon cell could be provided to ,
insure anaerobic conditions for decomposing the raw
sewage more rapidly and for settling of solids.
6. A baffled aerobic zone would provide stabili-
zation of the effluent and promote algae growth if
desired. Such a section could also be aerated for
more controlled oxygen uses.
19
-------
7. An area without baffles is desirable near the
effluent collector to allow settling of solids.
8. The effluent collection system should be a set
of weirs to collect over a large area at a slow rate.
9- Algae removal systems should be studied in detail
in a research project, but some possible systems are:
(1) chlorination followed by rapid sand filtration
with backwash returned to the anaerobic zone of the
first lagoon; (2) microorganisms such as Daphnia
in a separate cell to eat the algae,' ''This is currently
being done experimentally in Texas.) (3) fish to eat
algae or organisms which consume algae; and (4) screening
techniques with chemical pretreatment if needed
to coagulate the algae into aggregates large enough
to be captured by the screens.
10. Suggestions that chlorination of effluent and
the subsequent killings of algal cells does not
degrade stream quality is unsupported. Clearly,
the impact of chlorination of lagoon effluents requires
further study.
11. The concept of selective level effluent drawoff
should be investigated for minimizing algal cell
concentrations in the lagoon effluent.
12. The monitoring of lagoon influent and effluent
flow plus some measure of organic loading are essential
to adequate lagoon monitoring.
13. The basis for improved lagoon operation should
include the use of a reliable "yardstick" such as
influent and effluent flow-measurement together with
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), suspended solids or organic
carbon measurements in place of a wide variety of
parameters such as DO, pH and BOD.
14. The installation of a management system at the
state level to insure reliable reporting of lagoon
performance would prevent careless and thoughtless
record keeping.
20
-------
15. Annual or bi-annual certification and re-licensing of
lagoon facilities and operators is recommended. This could
alleviate lagoon failures due to overloaded conditions and
poor operating practices.
16. Effective stream monitoring is recommended to deter-
mine the full extent of potential degradation due to the
discharge of lagoon effluents.
17. Small lagoon installations are potentially as damaging
as larger ones. All must be brought under effective engi-
neering design, operation and maintenance.
18. An improved lagoon design and operation manual is
recommended in order to consider present water quality and
recommended treatment criteria and advances in lagoon
technology in place of "passive" design standards.
21
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PROBLEM
Projected population increases, industrial expansion, and
increased per capita water use are responsible for the
growing concern about water quality and the effectiveness
of present treatment systems to satisfactorily remove
pollutants. The quality of receiving streams cannot be
maintained or upgraded unless pollutants in waste streams
are removed prior to their discharge to the aquatic eco-
system.
Recent investigations have indicated that lagoon effluent
quality is not equivalent to secondary treatment standards
and, as a result, lagoon effluents do not contribute to
the restoration or maintenance of receiving water quality
(11) (7) (36) This report is designed to assess the mag-
nitude and extent of this problem by reporting on lagoon
performance and the state of lagoon technology. The con-
tractor made more than 500 contracts and reviewed available
literature to generate the required data base for this study,
EXTENT AND USE OF LAGOONS
Lagoons have gained widespread use in the last twenty-five
years as a waste treatment process. Figure 1 illustrates
the rapid growth in the number of lagoons treating munici-
pal wastewater in the United States. The inventory is
based upon data collected by RETA in 1970-1971; by the
Federal Water Quality Administration in 1968; and by the
Public Health Service in 1962, 1957, 1945 and 1940 (1).
In 1945, it was estimated that 45 lagoons were treating
municipal wastewater. In the subsequent 15 years the
number of lagoons increased by two orders of magnitude to
4 ,476.
In certain states STORET (2) data reported less than one-
third of the total number of lagoons inventoried by RETA.
This difference is indicated in Figure 2, which shows the
geographic distribution and number of lagoons treating
municipal waste by state, and the general attitude of that
state toward lagoons. Two numbers are shown inside each
23
-------
5000
w
EH
EH
CO
H
u
g
H
EH
ffl
4000
3000
CO
o
Q 2000
O
1000
ORETA SURVEY OF
| 43 STATES
STORET DATA
1900 1920 1940 I960
TIME,YEARS
I960
2000
LEGEND
STORET DATA
RETA SURVEY
OF 43 STATES (1971)
FIGURE 1
EXTENT OF MUNICIPAL
LAGOON USE FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES
24
-------
U1
RETA
851
I—i states indica--
"—' ting preference for
lagoons
^ states indicating preference
away from lagoons
V STATES NOT RESPONDING TO
CONTRACTORS INQUIRY.
NUMBER KEY
* MUNICIPAL LAGOONS FOUND BY CONTRACTOR SURVEY.
^LAGOONS IN 1988 STORET SURVEY
EXTENT. USE AND
ACCEPTANCE OF MUNICIPAL
LAGOONS
-------
state: the top figure indicates the number of lagoons in-
ventoried by the contractor in 1971, the bottom figure
represents the number of lagoons reported in the 1968 FWQA
inventory (3).
According to the 1971 inventory, there was a total of
4,476 municipal lagoons in use in the United States. New
lagoon construction and incomplete reporting are respon-
sible for the variance between 1968 and 1971 figures. In
reality, both figures are far too low, since the number
of private lagoons has not been taken into account. These
private installations, which serve individual homes,
trailer parks, schools, shopping centers, gas stations,
and other facilities are difficult to inventory. Examin-
ation of these installations by state officials is extreme-
ly rare and few records of any kind are maintained. In
states such as Missouri and Kansas where private lagoons
are quite popular, there may be several thousand install-
ations not subject to examination or survey.
The contractor's survey indicates that lagoons initially
serve small or newly emerging communities. When populat-
ion increases, lagoon performance in these communities
gradually deteriorates until operations reach intolerable
proportions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN AREAS SUCH
AS CALIFORNIA, MISSOURI, ILLINOIS, VIRGINIA, MISSISSIPPI,
GEORGIA, AND FLORIDA, WHERE LAGOONS ARE IN HEAVY USE, THEY
ARE NOT WELL LIKED. These attitudes resulted from recent
operational problems that were either unknown or non-
existent when the service area was less populated.
To small or emerging population centers, lagoons are eco-
nomically attractive. While initial capital construction
costs are not high, Federal construction funds are avail-
able. In addition, operating and maintenance costs are
lower for lagoons than for mechanical treatment plants.
Thus, lagoon treatment is satisfactory to small or emerg-
ing communities because of its lower costs, although lagoon
performance, associated with the production of green eff-
luent and odors, is not of the highest quality.
A discrepancy exists between the intended goal of waste
treatment to improve receiving water quality and the actual
effect on receiving streams where lagoons are used. Small
or emerging communities located along small receiving
26
-------
streams of relatively high water quality have low flow
and little or no dilution capacity. Thus, these streams
require the highest possible effluent quality. However,
because these communities can only afford a minimal form
of waste treatment, quality effluent cannot be insured.
As communities increase in population, and lagoons continue
to be used for waste treatment, the receiving water
quality may be further jeopardized.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An extensive literature review has not disclosed any
evaluation of lagoon performance based upon water quality
criteria or effluent standards; such an evaluation is
critical in determining where lagoons can provide adequate
treatment or, in small or emerging communities, how their
performance and effluent quality can be improved.
The effectiveness of lagoons in providing secondary treat-
ment to contribute to the restoration and maintenance of
receiving water quality can be accomplished by:
1. Evaluating and criticizing the Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons.
2. Reporting on the adequacy of lagoons to provide equiva-
lent secondary treatment.
3. Collecting the most recent reliable inventory data de-
fining the extent and use of lagoons treating municipal
wastewater and the present investment in them.
4. Collecting and evaluating all recent reliable lagoon
operating data.
5. Evaluating the effect of lagoon effluents on receiving
water quality.
6. Reporting on the adequacy of lagoon effluent quality in
relation to effluent and water quality standards.
7. Reporting discussions with key state engineers and
their evaluation of the adequacy of lagoon performance.
8. Reporting the problems and .limiting factors of lagoons.
27
-------
9. Reporting on the procedures and research required to
upgrade lagoon performance.
10. Assessing the accuracy of current lagoon effluent
quality reporting systems.
PROJECT SCOPE
The following scope of work defines the framework, pro-
cedures, data sources, and criteria for obtaining inform-
ation.
1. The investigation will be confined to domestic sewage
lagoons of the following types:
Facultative
Aerated - Facultative
Complete-mix Aerobic
Anaerobic
Tertiary
Oxidation Ditches
2. The project will rely entirely upon the existing data
base.
3. Data sources will be confined to only the most recent
reliable lagoon field operations.
4. The study will be directed at obtaining representative
lagoon performance data in the contiguous United States.
5. Where available, the following performance criteria
will be considered:
Effluent Quality
BOD Floatable Solids
COD Phosphorus
SS Nitrogen
Settleable Solids Algae
Coliform
Aesthetic Quality
H S Odors
2
28
-------
Algae Mats
Pig-Pen Odors
Short Growth (Weeds)
Insect and Rodent Breeding
Green Effluent
Appearance
6. Lagoon performance will be evaluated against:
Receiving water quality criteria
Effluent quality standards
Definitions of secondary treatment
CLASSIFICATION OF LAGOONS
More than 10 years ago at the First Lagoon Symposium,
D. F. Smallhorst (4) indicated the need for standardization.
of lagoon terminology; this need still exists.
The terms describing man-made ponds for the treatment of
wastes include lagoon, sewage lagoon, waste treatment
lagoon, stabilization lagoon, waste-stabilization lagoon,
waste pond, oxidation pond, stabilization pond, and waste
stabilization pond. Such prefixes as "anaerobic",
"aerobic", "facultative", "aerated", "sludge" and
"manure" are also applied.
Although a general classification scheme has been developed,
the American Society of Civil Engineers Sewage Treatment
Design Manual (59) has recognized that none of the follow-
ing classifications describes the stabilization ponds in
use. The exact nature of lagoons and their classification
may vary due to seasonal environmental fluctuations. Based
upon use, operation, design and physical, chemical and
biological observations, lagoons have been classified
according to depth, main source of oxygen, rate of organic
loading per day, inlet, flow-through and inlet-outlet
arrangements, recirculation schemes, and method of effluent
disposal by percolation, evaporation, or transpiration
from cover crops.
Facultative oxidation lagoons have been described by
Caldwell (5), Van Heuvelen and Svore (6), King (7), and
by Herman and Gloyna (8). They are usually 3 to 5 feet
liquid deep and receive organic loadings of 10 to 100
pounds of BOD5 per acre per day (lb BOD/acre/day) ; average
29
-------
detention time is approximately 40 days. Facultative
lagoons are characterized by oxygen stratification, with
an anaerobic layer below an aerobic layer; settleable
solids are deposited on the bottom and undergo anaerobic
decomposition. Photosynthetic oxygenation, operative in
the surface layer during daylight hours, is the prime
source of oxygen in facultative lagoons. Mechanical
aeration equipment is not a part of conventional single
or multi-celled facultative lagoons. Influent is raw or
primary settled sewage.
The aerated facultative lagoon has been described by
O'Connor and Eckenfelder (9) , Eckenfelder (10) , McKinney
and Eddy (11), and McWhirter (12). Supplemental aeration
is employed in facultative lagoons to relieve organic
overload, to reduce time of treatment, or to reduce odor
complaints. Organic loadings of 10 to 300 Ib BOD/acre/
day are common. Lagoon detention time ranges from 1 or 2
to 30 days. Aerated facultative lagoons are usually not
stratified because of increased vertical mixing attribut-
able to the supplemental aeration system. The heavy'solids
settle to the bottom and undergo anaerobic decomposition;
the balance of influent organics are stabilized aerobic-
ally. Oxygen is provided by the supplemental aeration
system and by photo-synthetic oxygenation, although the
latter is reduced due to increased lagoon turbidity.
Complete-mj_x aerobic lagoons have been described by
McKinney (13), Sawyer (14), and Burkhead and McKinney (15).
In complete-mix aerobic lagoons, solids remain suspended
and are stabilized aerobically. These lagoons are usually
8 to 10 feet deep and receive organic loadings in excess
of 100 Ib BOD/acre/day. The average lagoon detention time
is approximately 2 to 7 days. Photosynthetic oxygenation
is reduced due to complete lagoon solids suspension.
Aerobic stabilization is dependent on the supplemental
aeration system for dissolved oxygen.
The objective of high-rate aerobic lagoons is microbial
conversion of organic wastes into algae. These lagoons
have been described by Oswald and Gotaas (16) and
Oswald (17). High-rate lagoons usually have a liquid
depth of 1 to 2 feet and receive organic loadings of 100
to 200 Ib BOD/acre/day; their average detention time ranges
from 2 to 6 days. High-rate lagoons are well mixed,
30
-------
usually mechanically. Oxygen is provided photosytheti-
cally and atmospheric reaeration is usually not significant.
Anaerobic lagoons have been described by Parker, et al.,
(19), Parker et al., (20),Loehr (21), and von Eck and
Simpson (22) . Anaerobic lagoons are built with a small
surface .area and a usual liquid depth of 8 to 10 feet.
Anaerobic lagoons are comparable to single-stage, unmixed,
unheated digesters. Organic .loadings are from 0.36 to
10.4 pounds of volatile solids per day per 1,000 ft
(Ib VS/day/ 1,000 ft 3) ; however, loadings as high as
132 to 3,20 ; have been used successfully (18). The average
anaerobic lagoon'detention time is 1 to 7 days.
In ahaerpbic lagoons, there is a relatively solids-free
liquid layer above a layer of settled solids. A floating
scum layer will occur depending upon the nature of the
waste. Anaerobic lagoons are most effective with highly
concentrated .organic wastes.
Increased emphasis is being placed on tertiary methods
of treatment to remove greater amounts of polluting ele-
ments "still present in the effluents of secondary treat-
ment processes. Tertiary lagoons have been proposed to
reduce^BOD, suspended solids, coliform count, nitrogen
and phosphorus. Facultative, aerated facultative and
aerobic tertiary lagoons have been described in the
literature by Loehr and Stephenson (2.3) and Weiss (24).
Organic loadings of secondary biologically treated effluents
range, from', 10 to 700 (Ib BOD/acre/day) . The average
tertiary lagoon retention time ranges from one day to
several weeks. The depth of tertiary lagoons varies from
1 to, 5 ,feet;r Oxygen is supplied photosynthetically and
from supplemental aeration. Stratification may or may not
occur depending..on the degree of vertical mixing.
These lagoon classifications described above are used
throughout this report. The contractor recommends that
these definitions, or modifications be adopted by EPA and
used in all research and construction grant activities.
31
-------
SECTION IV
STATE PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
In conjunction with this study, the contractor has
contacted State Health Departments, State Water Pollution
Control Authorities, State Water Quality Control Commis-
sions, State Environmental Improvement Divisions, State
Environmental Protection Agencies, State Departments of
Environmental Resources, and major universities. The
contractor made more than 500 contacts and reviewed pub-
lished articles and reports in generating the data base
required to define lagoon performance and the state of
lagoon technology. A complete list of information sources,
contacts and correspondence is included in Appendix A.
Detailed state evaluations are included in Appendix D.
The data and results collected in the state-wide invest-
igations are detailed in this chapter, including the
following objectives:
1. What is the evaluation of state engineers on the
adequacy of lagoons to provide secondary treatment?
2. Is there a difference between BOD design loadings
and actual BOD loading being applied to lagoons?
3. What are the performance problems with lagoons as
reported by state engineers?
4. What lagoon performance parameters are being monitored
and reported and at what frequency?
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTOR'S EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS
When asked to evaluate lagoons as a treatment system, State
Health Departments and Water Pollution Control Agencies
contributed a diversity of opinions. In states such as
South Dakota lagoons are considered the best treatment
process. By contrast, Florida does not permit raw sewage
lagoons and uses lagoons only as polishing ponds after
secondary treatment. Texas formerly referred to lagoons as
"temporary" treatment systems, and requires primary treat-
ment before lagoons. About 85 percent of lagoon treatment
in Texas is preceded by a mechanical primary system,
33
-------
according to the data Texas made available to the con-
tractor.
In general, it is apparent that lagoons east of the
Mississippi River do not provide adequate treatment.
Climatic conditions including temperature, rainfall and
evaporation contribute to a less than satisfactory per-
formance picture. While algae and odor problems seem to
be the most frequent complaints about lagoons, fluctuat-
ing effluent quality is also a problem. No state engineers
cited short-circuiting as a problem, although some con-
ceded during personal contacts that short-circuiting did
occur; validated published investigations verify that
short-circuiting is a major problem of lagoons.
Contact with state engineers illustrated the degree to
which states are ignorant of lagoon performance. Only
minor and infrequent sampling is required and data are pro-
vided even less frequently than requested. In Missouri,
about 40 percent of the lagoons file no data with the
state; Those who do file frequently do not include infor-
mation on one or more of the required parameters. Those
measurements most frequently omitted were BOD of effluent,
flow, DO and BOD, and DO of the receiving stream above and
below the plant out-fall. These were not just occasional
missing records: records document that a plant either tends
to report regularly or not at all.
Most lagoon data are based primarily on physical observation.
Analytical results are scattered and of limited reliability
although state engineers were unconcerned and still felt
able to evaluate lagoon performance. These evaluations are
discussed on a state-by-state basis in Appendix D.
Both Illinois and Texas have computerized treatment plant
data, although at this time neither can produce an in depth
print-out record on any plant or on one type of plant, such
as lagoons. Efforts are being made to create such programs,
and reportedly should be completed soon. Both these states
have survey crews who periodically sample effluent on a
grab basis. In addition, Texas computerizes monthly results
from treatment plants with the "Texas Self-Reporting
System." In this program, the operator fills in a form each
month, listing peak and average results of all measurements
required for his installation. This program could serve as
a model for other states: if a plant is experiencing
34
-------
difficulty, this reporting system uncovers any trouble and
allows corrective action.
The contractor felt the following attitude was most pre-
valent among the state engineers surveyed: "As long as
no one complains about a lagoon, we won't do anything
about it." Most states surveyed indicated that lagoons
provide secondary treatment, and it is clear that in many
states lagoons are defined as secondary treatment regard-
less of the performance they give. Thus, as defined under
these conditions, lagoons must meet requirements for
secondary treatment.
This information demonstrates the regrettable state of
lagoon wastewater treatment; of those experts surveyed in
this field most lacked knowledge about actual lagoon
treatment and performance conditions.
STATE ENGINEERS EVALUATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF LAGOONS
TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT
All states were asked to evaluate lagoons as an equivalent
secondary treatment process. These results, shown in Table
2, are summarized below:
STATE ENGINEERS EVALUATION
Number of States Are Lagoons Considered Equivalent
Reporting Secondary Treatment
Yes No Depends
50 24 18
In twenty-four states lagoons were equivalent to secondary
treatment while in eighteen they were not. Eight states
reported lagoons were considered equivalent secondary
treatment, albeit depending on specific conditions.
It should be noted that about 60 percent of all lagoons are
located in states not considering lagoons as secondary
35
-------
Table 2
;;tate
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal i forni a
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgi a
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
~ Ka n s a s
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Arrj La-joons
I.'jui valcnt to
Secondary Trca tnc-nt".'
Yc-s
Yes
Yes
Yes
Quali f ied Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Qualified Yes
Yes
Quali f ied Yes
No
jfes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Qualified Yes
Qualified Yes
Yes
No
Qualified Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Qualified Yes
Qualified Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Comm'jr.ts
Well suited to climate; effluent used for irrigation.
Low cost , ease of maintenance important .
Lagoons limited in treatment ability. Acceptable
for small installations.
Lagoons work well in Colorado. _ _
Limited use .
Limi ted use .
Used only for polishing secondary effluent.
Ifse depends on receiving stream .
Heed 3 cells to meet effluent standards . OK if
meet the standards .
Receiving stream can't handle effluent.
Recommend for less than 10,000 P.E.
L i mi ted use.
Discharge permitted only in spring and f all .
Samples required before discharge.
Discharge permitted spring and fall.
BOD not removed due to algae growth .
May restrict winter discharges.
Best method for small communities.
Limited use .
Limited use .
Not necessarily choose over conventional plants .
Best cold weather treatment system devised.
Control discharge .
Not widely used.
For small communities .
For small communities .
For small communities .
Limited use.
Stream standards not met in winter.
Effluent must not be a detriment to receiving
water quality.
36
-------
treatment or where their use is dependent on specific con-
ditions. In approximately half of these states severe
lagoon failures have been responsible for changed attit-
udes among leading state engineers with regard to the
adequacy of lagoon treatment.
Lagoons are located in all states which receive raw or
primary settled municipal wastewater. Even though lagoons
are not considered equivalent secondary treatment by 18
state engineers, they are still being constructed in these
states for this purpose and are receiving state endorse-
ment.
STATE ENGINEERS REPORT OF LAGOON
DESIGN AND ACTUAL BOD LOADINGS
The literature is replete with papers presenting advanced
techniques for design of lagoons. Most state design man-
uals, however/ remain based on Ib BOD /acre/day or Ib/BODj./
1000 ft3. Canter and Englande (25), and Dildine and
Franzmathes (26) have reported BOD design loadings of the
50 states. These values are shown in Table 3 along with
design loadings determined in the contractor's survey of
state engineers. The design loadings.from these three
sources are fairly uniform and there is little to be
learned from this evaluation. However, in 49 states, state
engineers reported no periodic required measurement of
actual BOD loadings. Arkansas measures actual BOD loadings
once each year.
Design criteria, while useful, are of little value to the
growing community confronted with lagoon failures of eff-
luent and aesthetic quality. It should be mandatory for
communities to periodically monitor and report influent
characteristics and organic loadings of lagoons. States
should demand and enforce this action. When design load-
ings are reached sewer "hook-ups" should not be allowed until
the treatment facilities are expanded.
STATE ENGINEERS REPORT OF LAGOON
PERFORMANCE AESTHETIC PROBLEMS
Americans are becoming increasingly concerned with the
aesthetic quality of the physical environment. Aesthetic
expectations will probably rise with increases in education
and leisure time. The primary goal of waste treatment
must be to provide an environment that is pleasing as well
37
-------
Table 3
,ct a t c-
Al aLjirna
Al asr.a
An zona
A'rVansas
Call fornia
Colorado
Connect icut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
• I :.!.
1-L-port to
Contractor
50
50
30 " '
0.1 11
1000 Ft
10-12 ' (1)
50 (2)
35-50
22-34
10 st.
Stds.
10 St. Stds.
. ..-35-
20
35
6 Mo.
Detention
20 -I- 180
Day Det.
34 (1)
45
18-20
25
-
0.5»
1000 Ft3
50
'" 30 '"
10 St.
Stds.
30
22
50
17
34
35
overall
40
34
34
17
'.' I f~,". A'.". A'"."L'A1. ;:
Ijl ] dl nu i
Fran7-Mat!ics
Pyjort
50
50
. ^ ..
21.8
12.'' - 50
35
22-34
"22-30
35
20-35
35
-
45
18-20
25
35
50
30
34
30
35
22
50
17
34
75 1st cell
35 overall
40
20
80
40-50
34
20
.-. !• '•'.
.'•I. -JiKA'.-.G!
Cantor Sp
I.ntilando
Peport
50
20
50
" ' ~3o~
17.4
50
50
22
26
22
20
•'•" 34 ""
22.8
50
35
20
20
50
45
20
25
50
35
35"
22
50
26"""
33.4
30
35
22.8
50
21.8
33
50
40
20
80
40
34
16.7
35
'Jo^ti .'"tate
Measuring
& i-uportina
'Act JJ 1
Wyj Loadinq Comments
No
No
No
Yes Measured on rotating
basis by the state. ,-
No ' • ••
No
No
No
No (1) Evaporative
(2) Polishing__
" ' No
No
No
No
No
No
No " "
No
No
No
No
No ' •
No
No
NO .....
No (1) All receiving waters
except Missouri-, lower
Miss.
No
No
No
No
No ' '
No . :
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
'No . • , •
No
No
No
No
38
-------
as healthy (27). Periodic aesthetic failures of lagoons
resulting in hydrogen sulfide odors, malodorous algae
blooms, mosquito breeding, highly colored effluents, or
septic sewage odors degrade aesthetic qualities and appre-
ciation.
To evaluate the prevalence of aesthetic and performance
failures, the contractor conducted a 50-state survey.
the results, shown in Table 4, are summarized below.
SUMMARY OF LAGOON AESTHETIC AND PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS
Type of Problem
Algae in Short- Organic Poor
Odor Effluent Circulating Overload Effluent
Number of
States
Reporting 50 21 23 6 20
Problem
Odor failures were reported in all states at some time
during the year. Odors were usually present during spring
and fall turnover due to the presence of hydrogen sulfide,
or during summer from malodorus algae blooms.
Twenty-one states reported algae in the effluent as a
problem; the remaining 29 states either failed to respond
or indicated algae in effluent was not a problem.
Lagoon short-circuiting was reported in 23 states. The
remaining 27 states did not know if lagoons experienced
short-circuiting. As discussed in Section I every publish-
ed report on lagoon short-circuiting indicates this as a
serious problem. Where states did not report short-
circuiting, there usually were no measurements made and,
therefore, no basis for judgment.
Organically overloaded lagoons were reported in only seven
states. If these data are correct it would appear that
39
-------
Table 4
MUNICIPAL HASTEWATCR LAGOON PROBLEMS
REPORTED BY STATE ENGINEERS
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Odors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Algae in Short Organic Poor
Effluent Circuiting Overload Effluent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
...
- -
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Wyoming
40
-------
organic overload is not a serious problem. In the con-
tractor's judgment, however, organic overload is one of the
most serious problems confronting lagoon use. Why then
was this not reported? For one basic reason -- the actual
BOD loading of lagoons is not monitored. Validation of
organically overloaded lagoons should be part of a field
investigation of actual lagoon performance.
Twenty states reported poor effluent quality; the remain-
ing 30 states either were satisfied with lagoon effluent
quality or did not respond. This information is also mis-
leading: although most states require periodic submiss-
ion of lagoon effluent data, this request is seldom filled.
Thus, state engineers have no bases or standards to judge
the adequacy of effluent quality -
LAGOON PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS MONITORED
BY STATES AND REPORTING FREQUENCY
In an effort to collect and evaluate all existing valid-
ated data, the contractor requested information on the
presence and availability of lagoon influent and effluent
data from all the states. The results of this inquiry,
shown in Table 5, are summarized below.
NUMBER OF STATES REQUIRING LAGOON PERFORMANCE DATA
Number of States Number of States Number of
Requiring Per- Not requiring States Not
Waste Stream formance data Data Responding
Influent 3 30 17
Effluent 28 5 17
Only three states, reported any collection of influent
data and only 28 states reported monitoring of effluent
parameters. To compound the situation, the frequency of
41
-------
Table 5
LAGOON PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
MONITORED DY STATES AND REPORTING FREQUENCY
Parajneters Sampled
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Call forma
Colorado
Connecticut
De laware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hamp shire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Influent Effluent
BOD
BOD , SS , Coli form
Regionally Set
BOD, Coliform, TSS BOD, Coliform, TSS
BOD , SS, Coliform
BOD, SS
BOD, SS
BOD
D.O. , Depth Flow
D.O. , Rel . Stab.
BOD
BOD, Coliform
BOD, SS, pH, P04 ,
Coli form
BOD BOD , Coliform
BOD BOD, pH, D.O. , Alk.
BOD , S S
BOD
PO,, NO.,
BOD, ES
BOD, SS, Coliforra
BOD, SS, pH, Alk. ,D.O.
BOD
BOD, SS, Clj Res.
Flow, BOD, SS, Set.
Sol. , Stability
BOD
BOD, D .0 . , PO* ,
Coliform
BOD
Frequency
Infrequent
At least 2X/Yr.
Mo n t h 1 y
Monthly for polishing
ponds
Monthly
2-3X/Yr.
Weekly
Daily
Monthly
Not Required
. 2X/Yr.
Not Required
4X/i. . or Less
Before , during discharge
Monthly
Not Required
Monthly to bimonthly
River basin annual
reports
None
IX every 2-3 yrs .
Monthly
Before discharge
Weekly to daily
l-2X/Mo.
l-2X/Yr. ~
Less than 3X/Yr .
During discharge
2x/Mo.
Monthly
None
Monthly check of streams
l-2X/Yr.
42
-------
data collection required by the states, as shown in
Table 5 and summarized below, is totally inadequate for
quality control, statistical accuracy or treatment
process control.
FREQUENCY OF EFFLUENT DATA REPORTING REQUIRED BY STATES
Frequency of Reports Required by States
Not
None Daily Weekly Monthly Yearly Other Responding
17
Of the 33 states responding, five states require no data;
data are required daily in two states, weekly in two,
monthly in nine, and yearly in nine. In addition to
these appalling facts, the contractor determined the
following: (1) influent measurements are virtually un-
heard of,' (2) even these meager report requests are not
met,' and (3) data submitted is often "dry-labed. "
It is apparent through field investigations that a con-
siderable difference exists between report require-
ments on lagoon performance and reports submitted to a
regulatory agency. In Missouri, for example, all municipal
waste treatment facilities are required to submit monthly
operating reports, but there are no reports for about one-
third of these facilities.
Similar situations were found in all the states studied.
Where data were available, they were often of minimal value.
Computer print-outs in Illinois failed to classify data
by treatment facility or location so laboratory studies
of stream effluent revealed little information. At present,
this process is being changed 'to enable retrieval by
treatment facility.
Texas has two reporting systems on treatment facility per-
formance. The state-operated Texas Water Quality Board
Audit contains results of state-conducted analyses and
select design information on treatment facilities. In the
43
-------
Texas "self-reporting system," a computerized collection
and retrieval system of monthly operating data from each
facility, operators are responsible for providing average
and peak values for various required paramenters, depend-
ing on plant size. This system presents data for each
facility for the past 12 months. However, since there is
no influent BOD recorded, it is impossible to measure
loading or treatment efficiency.
The Arkansas testing procedures produce excellent results
for a specific study period but do not provide a represent-
ative sample. All treatment facilities in a drainage
basin are extensively tested for four to seven days,- in-
fluent and effluent concentrations and flow are measured
on a rotating basis, with 80 percent of the treatment
facilities tested each year.
It is clear from the contractor's investigation that a
recommended sampling program and sampling frequency are
imperative. These should be developed by the Federal EPA
and required of the states through appropriate procedure.
44
-------
SECTION V
CRITIQUE OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
FOR WASTE TREATMENT LAGOONS
SUMMARY CRITIQUE
This chapter contains a critique of the Second Interna-
tional Symposium proceedings and a report on the attitudes
and mood of Symposium participants.
During the course of this contract, design criteria or
statements have been received from forty-five states.
The Ten State Standards (28), other basin standards, or
some minor modification of these standards are most
commonly used as design criteria. None of these stan-
dards reflects an understanding of the technological ad-
vances presented at the Second International Symposium
or even those presented at the First International Sym-
posium; nor has there been an attempt by any state to
implement these technological advances.
Despite the rhetoric, lagoons have continued to be of-
fered and used as a panacea for wastewater treatment in
many states.
The symposia have not been a catalyst to change opera-
tions in minimizing short-circuiting or removing algae.
In this sense, their great potential has been unrealized.
As demonstrated at the Second Symposium, the time is
past for discussion about lagoons; solid engineering is
needed to put principles into practice and lagoons in
their proper perspective.
The First and Second Symposia presented solutions to a
few problems confronting lagoons and identified other
areas for study- However, no study has appeared and no
solutions have been implemented. There are primarily
three reasons for this situation:
1. Judgment by practicing engineers that present design
and operation of lagoons are adequate to meet water
quality criteria
45
-------
2. Inability of researchers to effectively communicate
their findings in a readily utilizable format
3. Lack of leadership at the state and federal levels
The prevailing attitude of the Second International
Symposium is represented in the summary paper delivered
by Vennes (30). Summarizing the state-of-the-art of
facultative lagoons, Vennes reported that it is axiomatic
that goals of waste treatment are concerned with two
processes:
1. Removal (or great reduction) of infectious agents,
and
2. Transforming utilizable inorganic and organic sub-
strate into stable end products
The efficiency with which this is accomplished, Vennes
reported, relates primarily to the aerobic status of the
upper layers of the pond; therefore, primary consider-
ation must be given to optimizing algal growth.
It may be inferred from these comments that facultative
design has been directed toward optimization of algae
production for two reasons:
1. To provide a source of oxygen to maintain aerobic
conditions in lagoons, and
2. To transform utilizable inorganic and organic sub-
strate into algae cellular matter.
The error in this logic is evident. First, algae,
although a more stable organic than feces, still exerts
its ultimate BOD when discharged into receiving waters.
Second, and probably more important, the premise that the
goal of waste treatment is to transform utilizable inor-
ganic and organic substrate into algae is wrong. The
only goal of waste treatment that will lead to the restor-
ation and maintenance of receiving water quality is this:
Pollutants must be removed from waste streams prior to
discharge into the receiving stream.
46
-------
Vennes (29) further documented the Symposium's mood by
reporting the work of Neel, et al. (30), who presented
results which would seem to indicate the relationship of
stabilization lagoon effluents to water criteria.
The resulting reduction of effluents reported in the study
byTSTeel, et al. are shown in Table 6. With an algae con-
centration in the lagoon effluent of 1.4 x 107 counts/100
ml. It is inconceivable that lagoons could improve re-
ceiving water quality or that these lagoons could be .con-
sidered equivalent secondary treatment.
MOOD OF EPA FEDERAL PARTICIPANTS AT THE SYMPOSIUM
The mood of the Second International Symposium was best
typified by the comments of Thieme (31), Middleton and
Bunch (32), Williamson (33), and Alum and Carl (35). The
key note address by Thieme (31) indicated that since the
1940"s, increased per capita consumption of water and
other resources has greatly increased water pollution.
The only answer to this growing problem is to increasingly
provide more efficient treatment systems which will event-
ually lead to recycling and reuse of treated wastes.
TABLE 6
BOD5
Organic P
P04
Organic N
Ammonia N
Coliform
Algae
EFFLUENT
Raw Sewage
mg/1 or
267
12.2
25.2
131.7
30.1
7
3.7x10
nil
REDUCTIONS
Effluent
MPN/100
29.4 (10.7)*
2.7( 1.0)
5.5( 2.3)
6.6( 2.6)
5.4( 2.1)
2
1.4x10 (3.
1.4xl07
Reductions
(percent)
89(96)
78(92)
78(91)
95(98)
82(93)
7) 99.9996(99.9999)
*Numbers in ( ) represent filtered valves.
47
-------
Lagoons were neither praised nor criticized by Middleton
and Bunch (32), who issued a challenge to lagoon tech-
nology. In view of more stringent water quality and aes-
thetic standards and enforcement, what is the future of
lagoons in waste treatment? Can lagoon effluent quality
be predetermined in the planning and design stage? Do
lagoons consistently produce high effluent quality the
year-round? Can lagoons be modified and operated to meet
future water quality standards on a sustained basis?
MOOD OF KEY STATE ENGINEERS
Williamson (33), in welcoming the symposium participants,
and Alum and Carl (34) , in reporting the role of lagoons
in waste treatment, indicated that in the years since
1940, lagoons have been applied to a wide variety of
domestic wastewater treatment problems and are today
considered a permanent form of waste treatment. About
28 percent of all waste treatment facilities are classi-
fied as lagoons and, generally, there has been universal
acceptance of this method of treatment.
Alum and Carl (34) further reported on a 282-acre lagoon
complex serving about 14,000 people which provides 100
percent treatment for 362 days per year. The last two
ponds in two parallel series of facultative ponds are
drawn down for two or three days in early fall to permit
complete retention through the late fall, winter, spring,
and summer. Although performance studies were not con-
ducted in the largest South Dakota installation, fecal
coliform counts of consistently less than 20 per 100 ml
and occasionally even zero in the last ponds of each
series led Alum and Carl to believe a satisfactory level
of treatment was being obtained, especially since .there
was no effluent from the system except for two or three
days a year.
There appears to be no maximum limit to the size of a com-
munity that can be served by lagoons, except as economic-
ally constrained by land costs. While there are finite
limits to the size of any one lagoon, the largest of
cities could use lagoons with split flows and parallel
operation. Lagoons are still the most economical treat-
ment facilities and might even be considered a good
investment.
48
-------
Simplicity of operation has been and continues to be one
of the outstanding attractions of the lagoon method of
treatment. Maintenance of dikes to preserve the water-
holding capacity of lagoons is probably the only absolute-
ly necessary operational item in addition to seasonal
draw-downs in colder regions to permit complete holding
during winter months. Certain routine care of lagoons
in South Dakota was insured, but they continued to
function well with or without much attention. Alum and
Carl concluded that a deliberate effort is almost needed
to prevent properly loaded ponds from functioning satis-
factorily (34) .
This attitude was further substantiated by a survey of
municipal officials (34) which reported that, although
lagoons receive little or no operation attention, the
arrangement is "satisfactory". Alum and Carl reported
that this substantiates the necessity for simplicity of
lagoon operations.
Following this broad endorsement of lagoons, Van Heuvelen
(35) reported the results of a survey Of ten Missouri
River Basin states to which he directed an extensive
questionnaire. The results are best summarized by the
following:
"The last two decades have seen the development of waste
stabilization lagoons as a sole and permanent method of
wastewater treatment.... Stabilization ponds provided the
lowest cost for waste treatment, •. . . good operation
(sometimes 100 percent) and low expenses for operation
of maintenance. We have been very satisfied with this
method of waste treatment and will continue to promote
this type of facility in the future....Objections have
been minimal and effluent quality has been satisfactory.
During this period 60 percent of the new or enlarged
wastewater treatment facilities have been waste stabi-
lization ponds" (35).
MOOD OF THE RESEARCHERS PRESENTING PAPERS
The research papers presented at the Second International
Symposium can be broadly categorized as shown in Table
7 . Nineteen papers on lagoon operation and performance
data for facultative, aerated, anaerobic and tertiary
49
-------
TABLE 7
SUBJECT OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
Main Topic of Research Contributor
LAGOON PERFORMANCE
Facultative
Aerated
Anaerobic
Tertiary
Die-off and Chlorination
LAGOON TECHNOLOGY
Facultative
Aerated
Anaerobic
LAGOON IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATER
Number of Papers Per Topic
19
6
3
6
1
3
17
6
5
6
5
General Thrust or Mood of the Work Reporter
Only about fi papers reported lagoon performance data at the
Symposium. Very little data of questionable validity was
was collected in any of the states. Lagoons in Utah ap-
peared to be producing high quality effluent whereas in Mis-
souri and California, specific lagoon studies documented
extremely poor effluent quality. Algae in effluents was
generally considered an asset however most filtered algae
before reporting effluent BOD's. Applicable data is pre-
sented and discussed in Chapter IV of this report. Quali-
tative discussion with little or no supportive data ex-
pressed confidence in lagoons to provide adequate secondary
treatment.
Papers were all in support of continued use of lagoons.
Generally, efforts made were to develop a rational design
process and to present support!** data. There was signi-
ficant recognition of the discrepancy between design and
operation and performance. Some information presented
could improve lagoon performance if implemented. But
there was absolutely no criteria that indicated techno-
logical advances made in the last 10 years were understood,
entering state design criteria, or that states were even
aware of this information.
Without exception, all investigators reported that lagoon
effluents studied significantly deteriorated receiving
water quality. Two authors discussed effluent spreading
and agricultural irrigation use" as alternates to direct
discharge to receiving streams.
-------
lagoons were discussed or presented. Only six papers re-
ported performance data at the Symposium. Qualitative
discussion with little or no supportive data was used by
paper authors as a basis for expressing confidence in the
ability of lagoons to provide adequate secondary treat-
ment. Algae-laden lagoon effluents were generally con-
sidered an asset or even essential to optimum lagoon per-
formance; however, most investigators filtered algae
before reporting effluent quality. Applicable data is
presented and discussed in Section VI of this report.
Seventeen papers discussed the state of lagoon techno-
logy. In this category were papers whose main thrust
was reporting current or refined design concepts for
facultative, aerated or anaerobic lagoons; these papers
supported continued use of lagoons.
The general approach developed was a rational design pro-
cess based on supportive data. There was no significant
recognition of the discrepancy between lagoon design,
operation, and performance. It is evident that some in-
formation presented could improve lagoon performance if
implemented by the practicing profession. However, there
was no evidence that technological advances of the past
10 years were entering state design criteria or even being
understood by the practicing profession that current
lagoon design and operation is satisfactory to meet water
quality criteria.
The question of the impact of lagoon effluents on receiv-
ing water quality was addressed in five papers. Without
exception, all investigators reported that lagoon effluents
studied significantly deteriorated receiving water quality.
Two authors discussed spreading lagoon effluents to re-
charge groundwater and irrigate agricultural crops as al-
ternatives to direct discharge to receiving streams.
Generally these investigators expressed the judgment that
lagoons as presently designed and operated could not con-
tribute positively to the restoration and maintenance of
receiving water quality.
51
-------
SECTION VI
THE ADEQUACY OF LAGOONS AS EQUIVALENT
SECONDARY TREATMENT
The Contractor's review of state pollution control pro-
grams, as reported in Section IV, indicated that almost
without exception, permits are granted for construction
of lagoons as secondary treatment. However, other than
the work of Barsom (36), lagoon performance has never
been studied to determine the adequacy of lagoons to
provide secondary treatment.
The purpose of this chapter is to report on the adequacy
of lagoon performance by evaluating actual lagoon
operating data. The Contractor collected all available
data including that on lagoon influent and effluent from:
1. The 50 states and 10 Regional EPA offices,
2. University research centers, and
3. Pertinent literature
As indicated in Section IV - State Programs, most states
do not know how well lagoons perform. Only three states
require reporting of periodic influent data and only
28 states require monitoring and reporting of effluent
data. To compound this situation, the frequency of data
collection required by the states is totally inadequate
to evaluate lagoon performance. In addition, considerable
difference exists between the scant report requirements
on lagoon performance and the actual reports submitted
to a regulatory agency. Influent measurement is virtually
unheard of and effluent data submitted is often "dry-
labed." Data that were available to the Contractor have
been incorporated into this report. The Federal EPA
should examine the data requirements and develop a plan
to standardize analysis and reporting techniques.
Several university research centers around the United
States are conducting studies on lagoons. Most of this
work is directed at developing a rational design process
based on laboratory or pilot scale data. These efforts
53
-------
are often elaborate, usually with the common shortcoming
of not relating to the actual lagoon performance problems
of poor effluent quality, organic overload and short-
circuiting. There is no significant recognition of the
discrepancy between lagoon design, operation and per-
formance „
Literature has been noticeably lacking in municipal
lagoon operating data since the early 1960 's. Available
validated data reported in the literature through 1969
was reported by Barsom (36) , and the Contractor has
updated this work through January, 1972. It is evident
that insufficient data have been published on lagoon
performance .
DEFINITION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
In natural purification, energy-yielding life processes
such as bacterial oxidation, combined oxygen with
organic wastes (CH20)X produces carbon dioxide, water
and energy :
bacteria
CH20 + 02 - > CO2 + H20 + energy
In photosynthesis carried out by algae, energy is fixed
as organic matter and oxygen is liberated:
C02 + 2H2O + energy gae > CH20 + 02 + H O
The elements contained in organic matter are repeatedly
oxidized and synthesized, gaining energy through the
combination of light and energy. This cyclic process
is known as the Law of Recycle.
A lagoon is a naturally complex biological ecosystem,
comprised of reducers, producers and grazers. Influent
putrescible organics are degraded by bacteria which yield
inorganic end products. These end products of the re-
ducers are synthesized by the primary producers to or-
ganic matter, which is then passed up the food chain until
death and recycled by reducers and primary producers.
Thus, lagoons with their great surface area exposed
to sunlight, and their waters rich in nutrients, serve
as basins for the natural recycle of pollutants.
54
-------
Oswald (37), McKinney (38), Gloyna (39), Parker (19)
and others have verified this cyclic bacteria-algae
symbiosis as the dominant process operative in lagoons.
For this reason, many investigators (4) have considered
lagoons ideal forms of waste treatment.
While lagoons more closely approach natural purification
than any other treatment process, the objectives of
natural purification and waste treatment are different.
The goal of natural purification is to recycle pollutants,
The goal of waste treatment is to remove pollutants.
Oxidation ponds, emulating natural purification, recycle
rather'than remove pollutants. This is the fundamental
reason why lagoons as presently designed and operated,
are unable to achieve acceptable effluent quality and
should not be considered equivalent to secondary treat-
ment processes which do provide a positive mechanism
for the removal of water pollutants.
DEFINITIONS OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
The keystone of America's clean water program is the
1965 Water Quality Act (40), which called for all
states to establish water quality standards for their
interstate and coastal waters; and required states
to make crucial decisions concerning the uses of their
water resources, the quality of water to support these
uses, and specific plans for achieving such levels
of quality. As reported in Section IV - State Programs,
few states 'have moved to achieve these goals in a
rational manner. Although most states have agreed to
provide secondary treatment of all municipal wastewater
by 1975, two things are painfully clear:
1. .NEITHER THE STATES NOR THE FEDERAL EPA HAVE SET FORTH
A QUANTITATIVE DEFINITION OF SECONDARY TREATMENT;
2. NO AGENCY KNOWS IF SECONDARY TREATMENT WILL PROTECT
THE DESIGNATED LEGITIMATE USES OF RECEIVING STREAMS.
Although wastewater treatment systems are frequently
designated as primary or secondary, there is little
agreement on what actually comprises secondary treatment.
The Contractor found this a genuine stumbling block
in performing this contract since one condition to be
55
-------
studied was the adequacy of lagoons to provide secondary
treatment, and to compare lagoon performance with
secondary treatment process performance.
Primary treatment is the process of physically removing
pollutants from wastewater, usually by sedimentation, but
removing little or no colloidal and dissolved matter
from the water. BOD reduction of about 30 percent is
achieved, and about 60 percent suspended solids are
removed. In many places and in the past, primary treat-
ment was the only treatment wastewater received.
Secondary treatment has traditionally been thought of as
biological treatment of wastewater: bacteria and
microorganisms break down complex organic pollutants to
more stable substances (41). These processes can remove
99.9 percent of the 5-day BOD if the biological process
is followed by separation of the stable organic material
(sludge formed).
Advanced waste treatment has developed as a group name
for various chemical, physical, or biological processes
used to remove the residues after secondary treatment.
Processes such as microstraining, chemical precipitation
of phosphate and anaerobic denitrification of a waste-
water stream are examples of advanced waste treatment.
At times, the lagoon has been called on to provide these
types of treatment either alone or in combination with
other unit operations which may themselves be lagoons.
Being a basically uncontrolled process, the lagoon has
had trouble doing all of this.
Historically, wastewater treatment has been divided
into primary and secondary treatment, and lagoons have
been considered secondary treatment. But the question
arises, "What is secondary treatment?". Environmental
engineers use secondary treatment to mean removal of
dissolved organic materials, as well as most suspended
solid material, but there is no standard definition
of the process or precise statement of its goals. Because
of this lack of clear definition, what one state calls
secondary treatment may not be adequate in another.
56
-------
The Contractor investigated several sources of possible
definitions to provide a working base in evaluating the
performance of lagoons.
The most specific and comprehensive definition was given
at 1970 symposium by Middleton and Bunch (32):
"For our discussion we will adopt the following
liberal definition of secondary treatment. Sec-
ondary treatment is any treatment given wastewater
that will produce an effluent containing less than
30, 75, 25 mg/1 of BOD5, COD, and suspended solids,
respectively. These values shall not be exceeded
more than 10 percent of the time on daily composite
samples taken proportional to flow. The effluent
produced shall be nontoxic and free of offensive
color and odor. In addition, the effluent must
meet the bacteriological quality standards pro-
mulgated by the various states."
This definition is not official FWQA/EPA policy. It does,
however, provide a goal for producing effluent of
sufficiently high quality so as not to damage most streams.
Currently, the closest semblance of a Federal definition
of secondary treatment appeared in the Federal Register,
setting forth conditions to be met if Federal construction
grant money is used to finanace a treatment system:
1. Substantially complete removal of all floatable and
settleable materials;
2. Removal of not less than 85 percent of 5-day biochemi-
cal oxygen demand;
3. Substantially complete reduction of pathogenic micro-
organisms; and
4. Such additional treatment as may be necessary to meet
applicable water quality standards.
These criteria demand very little since the solids removal
is based on floatable and settleable rather than suspended
solids. The BOD removal of 85 percent is not difficult
57
-------
to achieve, but the data available on lagoon operation
presented in this section, will seldom be sufficient to
judge whether that requirement is being met. The data are
usually grab samples taken at sporadic and very infrequent
intervals.
Other definitions of secondary treatment were collected
from several states and are given below:
NEBRASKA: (42)
Secondary Treatment - A method of waste treatment
beyond primary treatment where pollutants in
solution or the colloidal state are biologically
or chemically removed. The minimum treatment
required under this method is removal of at least
85 percent of the BOD and suspended solids.
MISSOURI: (43)
In providing for the enhancement of water quality,
consistent with reasonable, feasible, and achievable
waste treatment, the Board will require secondary
treatment of all municipal wastes and the equivalent
of secondary treatment of all industrial waste. The
equivalent of secondary treatment for industrial
waste may be accomplished by control and/or process
change.
KANSAS: (44)
All municipal wastes discharged within the Upper
Republican River basin shall receive a minimum of
Secondary treatment to achieve a minimum of 85 per-
cent reduction of the five-day biochemical oxygen
demand by December 31, 1975. All industrial wastes
discharged within the Upper Republican River basin
will receive an equivalent treatment by December 31,
1975. The objective of treatment or control will be
to reduce the organic load, oil, grease, solids,
alkali, acids, toxic materials, color and turbidity,
taste and odor products and other deleterious
materials to the lowest practicable level.
58
-------
Continuous disinfection of treated wastes shall be
provided for those municipalities and industries
which contribute bacterial loadings to a river or
stream used as a downstream public water supply and
which supplies are within the zone of bacterial
influence.
IOWA: (45)
Treatment: All municipal wastes discharged into the
interstate waters of the Mississippi River and the
Missouri River shall receive a minimum of ninety
percent (90) reduction of BOD prior to discharge, no
later than dates fixed by order of the Iowa Water
Pollution Control Commission. All industrial wastes
discharged into such interstate waters shall receive
equivalent treatment prior to discharge, no later
than dates fixed by order of the Iowa Water Pollution
Control Commission.
ALABAMA: (40)
The term "secondary treatment" as applied to sewage
is interpreted to mean a process or group of
processes capable of removing virtually all floating
and settleable solids, from 75 to 95 percent of the
5-day biochemical oxygen demand and in excess of
75 percent of suspended solids contained in untreated
sewage.
IDAHO: (47)
For the purposes of these regulations, minimum
adequate treatment for domestic sewage or industrial
wastes containing significant organic material shall
be equal to that which is commonly known as secondary
treatment or the equivalent of 85 percent removal of
the biochemical oxygen demand including adequate
disinfection of any wastes which may contain organ-
isms that may produce disease in man or animals. In
industrial processes, in-plant process controls or
alterations, carried out for the primary purpose of
waste reduction, shall be considered as a part of the
treatment process. Exceptions to secondary treatment
requirements may be made by the Department of Health
-------
when it can be demonstrated that such exceptions will
not adversely affect classified water quality and
will offer adequate protection for all beneficial
uses. Failure to provide adequate treatment shall
be considered a violation of these regulations.
From all these definitions, one constant factor filters
through: approximately 85 percent BOD reduction as the
waste is processed. This figure may be fine, but it
implies measurements; measurements of influent and
effluent are needed to calqulate a reduction in waste
strength. Unfortunately, few places regularly measure
influent and effluent concentrations so it is impossible
to know what reduction is occurring. And, if the treat-
ment requirement is based on a percent reduction, it is
unknown if the treatment facility is meeting its require-
ments. To alleviate this problem, a number of states
define lagoons as providing secondary treatment, thereby
minimizing the need to measure lagoon performance.
LAGOON PERFORMANCE
As indicated in Section III, lagoon classification is
rather vague and general, and considerable overlap exists
when lagoon types are discussed. Care should be exercised
when evaluating the performance of lagoons on an indivi-
dual basis.
For the purpose of this report, lagoons have been
classified as:
1. Facultative (Oxidation) Lagoon
- Photosynthetic oxygenation and surface reaeration are
the main source of oxygen.
- Mechanical equipment is not a part of a conventional
facultative lagoon.
- Oxygen stratification with an aerobic and anaerobic
lagoon.
- Average detention time of 40 days.
- Organic loadings of 10 to 100 Ib. BOD5/acre/day.
60
-------
- Usually 3 to 5 feet deep.
2. Aerated Facultative Lagoon
- Main source of oxygen is from mechanical aeration and
some photosynthesis.
- Aerobic, anaerobic stratification may or may not occur
depending upon the level of mechanical mixing.
- Average detention time ranges from 1 to 2 days to 30
days.
- Organic loadings of 10 to 300 Ib. BOD/acre/day-
3. Oxidation Ditch
- Main source of oxygen - mechanical brush aerators.
- Shaped like a race track.
- Organic loadings of 25 to 200 Ib. BOD/acre/day-
- Average detention time 24 hours a day.
- Oxidation ditch effluent passes through a clarifier for
solids separation.
- Depth usually 5 to 10 feet.
4. Tertiary Lagoon
- Usually does not receive mechanical aeration.
- May or may not be stratified.
- Detention time of a few hours to a few days.
- Receives a secondary effluent.
- Organic loading of 12 to 50 Ib. BOD/acre/day.
- Depth range from 1 to 5 feet.
61
-------
The Contractor team evaluated lagoon performance for all
50 states and approximately 3000 lagoon installations.
Data of even marginal validity was available from less
than 200 lagoon installations. These data are presented
as the basis of the Contractor's evaluation of lagoon
performance as equivalent secondary treatment.
As discussed in Section IV, State Programs, little or no
lagoon effluent data are collected in the 50 states of
such frequency to present a definitive picture of lagoon
performance. The great volume of poor quality data has
necessitated a statistical approach by the Contractor
to this section. This approach was as follows:
1. Calculation of the range and median value for lagoon
effluent quality by state.
2. Grouping lagoon effluent data by geographic region
as presented in Chapter II.
3. Plotting the range in effluent quality of a particular
parameter by geographic region.
4. Plotting the average of the states median effluent
values by geographic region.
The overall performance of the four major types of lagoon
systems is shown in Figure 3. The average median effluent
five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and effluent
Suspended Solids (SS) for facultative aerated and tertiary
lagoons is shown with the average median effluent values
from oxidation ditches. The average median effluent BOD
ranged from 23 mg/1 to 42 mg/1 and the average median
effluent SS ranged from 37 mg/1 to 67 mg/1. These values
exceed accepted standards for secondary treatment.
The figure clearly shows that neither BOD nor suspended
solids is at an acceptably low level. Data from many
sources are measured in different ways making it difficult
to be conclusive but the high suspended solids in the
facultative and tertiary lagoons are probably due to
algae cells. Based upon available data, aerated lagoons
which do not depend on algae have a much lower solids
level although they are still not acceptable as secondary
treatment.
62
-------
70
60
50
£ 30
UJ
20
10
FIGURE 3
AVERAGE MEDIAN EFFLUENT VALUES.
Facultative Aerated Oxidation Tertiary
Lagoon Lagoon Ditch Lagoon
BOD
SS
63
-------
Facultative Lagoon Performance - Figures 4 through 8
present validated effluent quality data from facultative
lagoons. To aid in data presentation, effluent data from
states have been grouped by geographic region and only
ranges and average median values are plotted.
Facultative lagoon effluent BOD range and median values
are plotted in Figure 4. Effluent BOD ranged from 10 mg/1
to about 200 mg/1 and the average median values ranged
from 25 mg/1 to 75 mg/1. Since facultative lagoon
effluents are often algae laden, the five-day BOD is only
about 25 percent of the ultimate BOD. Performance appears
to be better in the Great Lakes and Missouri Basin, and
poorest in the Southeast and Ohio Basins. No data were
available from the Middle Atlantic, Northeast and North-
west regions.
Facultative lagoon effluent suspended solids (SS) data
are plotted in Figure 5 by geographic region. The average
median values ranged from about 40 mg/1 in the Great Lakes
Region to 540 mg/1 in the Ohio Basin. For the remaining
regions for which data were available, the average median
effluent SS ranged from 80 to 110 mg/1. It is evident
that these excessive effluent suspended solids greatly
exceed conventional standards for secondary treatment.
These solids are predominantly algae cells and when dis-
charged to receiving waters, are capable of exerting
their ultimate biochemical oxygen demand.
Facultative lagoon effluent nitrogen and phosphorus values
are plotted in Figures 6 and 7. Effluent nitrogen and
phosphorus values ranged between 10 and 30 mg/1 and 5 and
60 mg/1 respectively except in the South Central Region
where the effluent nitrogen range exceeded 350 mg/1 and
the effluent phosphate (phosphorus reported as phosphate)
range exceeded 600 mg/1. There was no apparent explana-
tion for these atypical results. Little significance can
be attached to these data which represent less than ten
lagoon installations.
Figure 8 is a plot of facultative lagoon effluent chemical
oxygen demand (COD). With less than ten lagoons reporting,
the data are not statistically valid. These data do
indicate effluent COD values ranging from 85 mg/1 to 300
mg/1 indicating a high amount of chemically oxidizable
64
-------
FIGURE
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
O)
E
"c °
0) "
LU
6
5
4
3
2
1-
0
•
.
.
j • S •
J • it
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Rcaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Hog ion
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Rpoion
•
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
123456789
Test Location
65
-------
6
0)
E
c o
o> r"
3 X
1
FIGURE D
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
•
•
i
123456789
Test Location
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Pen ion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic ivcii-
8. Northeast I'cqion
9. Northwest iionion
9 Range
Average Effluent
Median
66
-------
FIGURE 6
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
NITROGEN
6
O)
E
c o 4
4) -
3 X
1-
123456
Test Location
789
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Roaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Rroion
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
67
-------
FIGURE /
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
PHOSPHATE
6
o) 5^
E
c o 4-1
o> ^
3 X
UJ
3
2
1-
*-^
123456789
Test Location
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Region
^
Range
Average Effluent
Mediao
68
-------
FIGURE °
FACULTATIVE LAGOONS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
6
" 5
O)
E
c o 4
3 X
*4-
S3 3
2
1-
1. So.uthwest '.Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Reaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reaion
A Range
Average Effluent
Median
12345 67 8 9
Test Location
69
-------
material in the lagoon effluents. This material was most
likely algae cells.
Facultative lagoon effluent coliform counts were
available only from the South Central Region and
the Southeast Region. Average median coliform
counts ranged from 350 counts/100 ml to about 1000
counts/100 ml, and the range in the Southeast Region
exceeded 1,000,000 counts/100 ml. These widely
fluctuating results point to the lack of reliability
of coliform die-off in facultative lagoons.
Aerated Lagoons - BOD, SS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and COD
effluent data from aerated lagoons are reported in Figures
9 through 13. The BOD data (Figure 9 ) indicates the
average median by geographic region ranged from 30 mg/1 "'
to 80 mg/1. These values are in excess of normal BOD
values expected from secondary treatment processes. The
average median effluent suspended solids from aerated
lagoons (Figure 10 ranged from 60 mg/1 in the Great Lakes
Region to about 210 mg/1 in the Northwest Region. These
effluent SS were predominantly algae cells and other
biological solids.
Nitrogen and phosphorus (reported as phosphate) data
reported in Figure 11 and 12 was sparse and the widely
fluctuating effluent values do not lend themselves to
definitive conclusions.
The COD data from aerated lagoons are plotted in Figure
13. The average effluent median values ranged from 170
mg/1 to 340 mg/1. These high effluent COD values are an
excellent indicator of the presence of oxidizable organic
matter in the effluent of aerated lagoons.
Oxidation Ditches - In recent years the extent and use of
oxidation ditches has accelerated in the United States.
Like lagoons, the prolification of oxidation ditches has
preceeded their investigation and validation as a secondary
treatment process. Although data on oxidation ditches is
scarce, some data were available in 5 regions of the
country. These data are plotted in Figures 14 through 17.
Reported effluent BOD values generally were below 25 mg/1
although in the State of Texas, the effluent BOD ranged
almost 500 mg/1 and the SS ranged in excess of 300 mg/1.
70
-------
FIGURE 3
AERATED LAGOONS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
6
^ 5
E
1- °
c o 4.
0> *~
3 X
«*_
uj 3 •
2
1-
0.
•
:
:
8 9 s
. » • . , , , , r-
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reoion
•
0 Range
Average Effluent
Med i an
123456789
Test Location
71
-------
FIGURE 10
AERATED LAGOONS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
O)
E
•M °
c °
0) "~
3 x
ifc*
M-
LLI
6
5
4
3
2
1-
0
•
• *
• • *
i.r.r.r.r.n
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
j. Southeast Pooion
4 . nhio Bas i n
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic !'"ai'
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Kenion
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
123456
Test Location
789
72
-------
FIGURE 11
AERATED LAGOONS
NITROGEN
6
a, 5
E
c o 4
0) *"
_3 X
i*.
UJ 3
1234567
Test Location
89
LEr.END
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Peaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic .'Veil'
'8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Rooion
•
• Kanqc
Average !•; 1 f 1 u o n t
Median
73
-------
FIGURE
12
AERATED LAGOONS
PHOSPHATE
6
o, 5^
E
c o 4
Q) ^
3 X
UJ
1-
840
123456789
Test Location
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Region
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
74
-------
FIGURE
13
AERATED LAGOONS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
6
c o 4
0) "
2 x
<4-
*" ^
UJ O
1-
«
•
•
0
• •
• •
•
123456
Test Location
789
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Royior.
j. Southeast I'ooion
4. Ohio Da sir.
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic :Vcu •
8. Northeast Rrainn
9. Northwest Idviion
•
A Rcinqe
Average Effluent
Median
75
-------
FIGURE
14
OXIDATION DITCHES
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
6
O)
E
c
0) ^
3 X
LJJ
3
2
123456789
Test Location
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reqion
•
• Range
Average Effluent
Median
76
-------
FIGURE
15
OXIDATION DITCHES
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
6
0)
E
c o
fl) ^
3 X
123456
Test Location
789
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Reyion
3. Southeast Pooion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes RoqiDn
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic iVai';
8. Northeast Pouion
9. Northwest Ronion
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
77
-------
6
FIGURE 16
OXIDATION DITCHES
NITROGEN
o>
E
c °
0) "~
2 x
n-
LU
5
4
3
2
1
0
i.
1 1
< i
( i
< i
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Reaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Rcqion
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic 'Veil.
8. Northeast Reaion
9. Northwest Ron ion
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
123456789
Test Location
78
-------
FIGURE 17
OXIDATION DITCHES
PHOSPHATE
6
o>
E
c o 4
o *~
2 x
*-
*• ^
QJ O
1-
123456
Test Location
789
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Peaion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Rcqion
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Tlogi'
8. Northeast Reqion
9. Northwest Rpriion
•
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
79
-------
These somewhat anomalous results point to the need for
detailed study on the performance and design criteria for
oxidation ditches. Effluent nitrogen and phosphorus
(reported as phosphate) data from oxidation ditches was
not conclusive, further supporting the need for studies
of oxidation ditch performance.
Tertiary Lagoons - BOD, SS, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and COD
effluent data from tertiary lagoons are presented in
Figures 18 through 22. Average effluent median BOD values
ranged from 10 mg/1 to about 100 mg/1. Average effluent
median SS values ranged from 20 mg/1 to 250 mg/1. Nitro-
gen and phosphorus (reported as phosphate) data ranged
around 20 mg/1. COD data although extremely scarce,
ranged from 130 mg/1 to 575 mg/1, indicating that the
tertiary pond effluents contained large amounts of
oxidizable organic matter.
80
-------
6
» 5J
E
o> *~
3 X
«*-
M-
UJ
FIGURE 18
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Region
•
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
123456789
Test Location
81
-------
FIGURE
19
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
6
c o 4
« *~
3 X
i*>
•*- o
UJ O
1-
S
I !
123456789
Test Location
LEGEND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reqion
Q Range
Average Effluent
Median
82
-------
FIGURE
20
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
NITROGEN
6
O)
E
-
c o 4
o> "
2 x
*£
j 3
123456789
Test Location
LEf.FND
•1. Southwest Rcqion
2. South Central Rcyion
3. Southeast Rcqion
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Rcyion
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic IVqicn
8. Northeast Roqion
9. Northwest. Ron ion
•
9 Range
Averaqe Effluent
Median
83
-------
FIGURE 21
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
PHOSPHATE
O)
E
c o 4
0) "
3 X
UJ
3
2
1-
OJ 3_
123456
Test Location
789
LEGFND
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3, Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic; region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reoion
•
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
84
-------
FIGURE 22
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
6
a 5^
c °
« *~
2 x
•^
•4-
UJ
4
3
1
123456
Test Location
789
1. Southwest Region
2. South Central Region
3. Southeast Region
4. Ohio Basin
5. Great Lakes Region
6. Missouri Basin
7. Middle Atlantic Region
8. Northeast Region
9. Northwest Reqion
0 Range
Average Effluent
Median
85
-------
SECTION VII
IMPACT OF LAGOON EFFLUENTS ON
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
The 1965 Water Quality Act (46), authorized the states and
the Federal government to establish water quality standards
for interstate and coastal waters by June 30, 1967. These
standards of receiving water quality were to be estab-
lished to protect the public health or welfare and to en-
hance the quality of water. In establishing such standards
the appropriate state authority was to take into con-
sideration their use and value for public water supplies;
propagation of fish and wildlife; recreational purposes;
and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate use.
The standards adopted by the States Were to include water
1. use classifications-,
2. criteria necessary to support these uses,
3. enforcement, and
4. a plan for implementation which would include accept-
able methods of treatment.
Selection of treatment methods was to be dependent upon.
the process1 ability to produce an effluent that would meet
criteria necessary to maintain established water uses and
enhance receiving water quality (46) .
Since the adoption of this act in 1965, state progress has
been slow, lethargic and noticably lacking in imagination.
States have generally classified receiving water uses;
however,
1. they have not established criteria necessary to support
these uses,
2. they have not adopted functional enforcement programs,
3. they have not developed systematic implementation
plans, and
4. they have not defined acceptable treatment methods
87
-------
based upon the process1 ability to meet specified effluent
criteria necessary to maintain established water uses and
enhance receiving water quality.
The impact of lagoon effluent on receiving waters is dis-
cussed in this chapter.
OVERVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF LAGOON EFFLUENTS
ON RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
The question of the impact of lagoon effluents on receiving
water quality really appears to be: "Does lagoon effluent
degrade the quality of receiving streams?" In this section
this question will be discussed in terms of environmental
science principals which can be used as predictors of the
impact of lagoon effluents on water quality. This dis-
cussion will lead to the presentation of specific case
studies where the impact of lagoon effluents was monitored.
Many lagoons built for small or emerging community use are,
by the nature of the population served, placed closer to
headwaters than larger installations. In terms of imme-
diate impact then, lagoon effluent has, or is capable of
having, a more profound impact on a fundamentally higher
quality stream of lesser volume - clearly a double threat
to receiving water quality.
One such receiving stream reported by King (7) has been
characterized as ". . .an unfortunate little stream, . ."
Rather clearly, many of the streams which receive lagoon
effluent are similar unfortunate little streams. By their
nature, these biologically interesting and aesthetically
pleasing receiving waters have periodic flow and low water
levels during much of the year. They are, therefore, ill-
equipped to receive any effluent.
Most states accept lagoons as providing adequate treatment
to protect water quality, however, their lagoon design
criteria indicate the realization by some states that
lagoon effluent actually degrades receiving water quality.
For example, in some states lagoon design criteria specify
such volume as to allow only annual or semi-annual dis-
charge coinciding with maximum receiving water flow. This
tacit admission of the inherent failure of lagoon operation
should be of sufficient magnitude to cause engineers to
seek an alternative means of effluent disposal.
88
-------
Further recognition of this failure is seen in many north-
ern states in this country where combined evaporation and
percolation rates are low enough to cause a heavy volume
of effluent flow or where ice cover hampers lagoon per-
formance during the winter months (48) . In these states,
lagoons are of sufficiently large size to allow periodic
discharge.
The use of treated effluent for irrigation purposes, al-
though an apparently satisfactory use of the wastewater,
is based in part on water shortage and on the fact that
the effluent produced by oxidation ponds is not always
adequate to meet state water quality criteria. Land dis-
posal of lagoon effluents should receive close evaluation
as it may be a more desirable method of effluent disposal.
As is evident throughout the literature review, there is a
common belief among recent and past proponents of lagoons
that algae are not a liability to a lagoon or receiving
stream, because oxygen produced in photosynthesis is much
greater than the oxygen ultimately consumed by algae. In
fact, this is not the case.
Stumm and Morgan (49) have reported that the synthesis of
algae cells may be represented by the following:
106 CO2 + 90 H20 + 16 N03- + P04= + light energy
C106 H180 °45N16 Pl + 154'5 °2 • • ' '
It may be seen from the above equation that an abundance
of oxygen would be available as a result of algae synthe-
sis. This abundance is evidenced by high dissolved oxygen
and super saturated lagoon effluent waters often reported
in the literature. Because of these reports, algae-laden
lagoon effluents have not been considered a liability to
receiving water quality. However, the complete oxidation
of the algae mass synthesized in the preceding equation
also requires the complete amount of oxygen produced in
the following equation:
C106 H180 °45 N16 Pl + 154'5 °2
106 C02 + 90 H20 + 16 N03- + PC>4~ ....
It has been reported by Loehr and Stephenson (50) that
89
-------
Nelson (51) indicated that only about 75 to 80 percent of
the algal mass can be oxidized. Loehr and Stephenson (50)
also reported that the net oxygen available after syn-
thesis and degradation of algae cells was approximately 23
molecules of oxygen per algal cell synthesized, or only
about 15 percent of that generated in photosynthesis.
This amount could be increased if great quantities of al-
gae were ingested by higher life forms in the receiving
water, but the point is clear: sooner or later organic
matter in the aquatic environment will exert an oxygen
demand.
From this discussion and that presented in
Section VI, it is evident that lagoons do not remove nutri-
ents; rather, they recycle or convert them into other
organic forms. These other forms are later capable of
exerting their influence on receiving streams.
As state and Federal requirements become more restrictive
and as greater portions of some nutrients must be removed
before effluent is discharged into receiving waters, it
would appear that lagoons, as a process, will be less and
less able to comply with requirements without some form of
supplemental treatment.
SIGNIFICANT CASE HISTORIES
Investigations on the fate and effect of lagoon effluent
discharges are rare. Only in the last four years have in-
vestigators made specific studies on the impact of lagoon
effluents on receiving water quality. Three significant
case histories have appeared in the recent literature.
King, Tolmsoff, Atherton (52): These investigators re-
ported that in lagoon design, careful attention is given
to construction features such as depth, slope, stability,
and inlet and outlet structures while little consideration
has been given to the effect of lagoon effluent on re-
ceiving streams. The authors reported that regardless of
the type of lagoon - facultative lagoon, an anaerobic cell
followed by an aerobic pond or a tertiary lagoon - the
effluent characteristically contains a significant con-
centration of algae. These algae, so abundant in most
lagoons, give lagoon effluent its unique character (52).
A significant load of energy-rich organic matter in the
90
-------
receiving stream is due to algae discharged from lagoons.
However, a fundamental question exists: Do algae in
lagoon effluents benefit the streams as oxygen generators,
or are the algae an organic pollutant detrimental to the
receiving water?
The investigators reported the lagoon effluent character-
istics shown in Table 8. From this data it is evident
that the dissolved fraction of the lagoon effluent is
relatively non-biodegradable, exerting a BODs of 8 mg/1
and a BOD26 of only 44 mg/1. The BODs and BOD26 due to
the suspended solids in the lagoon effluent were reported
to be 47 mg/1 and 246 mg/1, respectively. Most of the
oxygen demand associated with the lagoon effluent is then
due to the suspended solids portion comprised of living
organisms.
It is clear that BODs is not an accurate measure of the
oxygen demand of lagoon effluents. COD is a much better
indicator of lagoon effluent oxygen demand although King's
data indicates this is too low also.
The results of the King study clearly demonstrated that
settleable solids and suspended algae in lagoon effluents
can and do settle into pools within a very short distance
of the lagoon outfall. During periods of low flow, this
material accumulates to depths of several inches and
undergoes successive periods of anaerobic decomposition.
During periods of increased flow this material is scoured
from the pool bottoms and carried downstream. Examination
of macrobenthos below the outfall is typical of low oxygen
conditions and poor water quality. Reoxygenation of the
stream by diatom photosynthesis and surface aeration at
the riffles is barely sufficient to satisfy the oxygen
demand created by the facultative lagoon effluent. In-
sufficient oxygen is available to support a typical
"clean water" biota in the stream. Examination of Table
13 (52) indicates again the close correlation between the
COD and 26-day BOD, particularly for the suspended mate-
rial (predominantly algal cells), and points out how mis-
leading the standard 5-day BOD of an algae laden lagoon^
effluent may be in assessing lagoon impact on receiving~
streams.
If Bear Creek had a more sustained voluminous flow, the
91
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF OXYGEN DEMAND OF LAGOON EFFLUENT
BASED ON THE 26-DAY BOD DETERMINATIONS (52)
Total
Parameter Effluent
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Initial COD,
(mg 02/1) 288
Initial Volatile
Solids, (mg/1) 282
BOD-Values
(mg 02/1)
5-day 55
10-day 94
14-day 120
26-day 290
26-day BOD
Expressed as 100%
% of Initial
COD
COD Remaining
on 26th Day
(mg 02/1) 142
% COD Remaining
on the 26th Day 50%
Dissolved
Value
91
126
8
14
16
44
48%
77
85%
% of
Total
32
45
14
15
13
15
54
Suspended
Value
197
156
47
80
104
246
125%
65
38%
% of
Total
68
55
86
85
87
85
46
results would not be so obvious. One fact, however, does
remain: that the added material, nutrients and algae, do
have a demonstrable effect on lowering receiving water
quality. How many Bear Creeks along a reach of river does
it take to produce conditions unfit for the maintenance of
"normal" or "natural" stream biota?
92
-------
TABLE
AVERAGE DAILY LOADING OF BEAR CREEK FROM THE TWO MUNICIPAL LAGOONS
GIVEN WITH THE ESTIMATED TOTAL LOAD FROM JULY 1, 1967 TO OCTOBER 1, 1967 (52)
U)
COD
Small Lag.
Large Lag.
Combined
7/1 - 10/1
26-Day Oxygen Demand
Small Lag.
Large Lag.
Combined
7/1 - 10/1
Energy
Small Lag.
Large Lag.
Combined
7/1 - 10/1
Dissolved
39.3 Ibs (17.8 kg) 02/day
66.9 (30.3 kg)
106.2 Ibs (48.1 kg) O2/day
9,770 Ibs (4,425 kg)
> 18,8 Ibs ( 8.5 kg) 02/day
> 32.1 (14.5 kg)
^> 50.9 Ibs (23.0 kg) O2/day
> 4,680 Ibs (2,115 kg) 02
39,400 kcal/day
65,240
104,640 kcal/day
9,630,000 kcal
Suspended
84.2 Ibs (38.1 kg) O2/day
170.5 (77.3 kg)
254.7 Ibs (115. 4 kg) 02/day
23,400 Ibs (10,610 kg)
> 103.0 Ibs (46.7 kg) O2/day
> 208.0 (94.2 kg)
^> 311.0 Ibs (140. 9 kg) O2/day
> 28,600 Ibs (12,910 kg) 02
156,000 kcal/day
298,670
454,670 kcal/day
41,750,000 kcal
-------
Missouri Water Pollution Board (53): Data provided by the
Missouri Water Pollution Board (53) indicates that some
deterioration of stream quality occurs downstream from
lagoon outfalls. In many of the receiving streams there
is such low flow that the effluent makes up 25-50 percent
of the total flow past that point.
Lowered dissolved oxygen and increased BOD is seen below
the outfall as compared to upstream flow. Only one study
has been conducted (52) and these results suggest that
similar results can be expected for all slow flow streams
of the state which receive lagoon effluents.
State of Arkansas: The State of Arkansas provides what is
probably the best operating and physical data on its
lagoons of any state in the nation. Periodic visits are
conducted by biologists and engineers, who remain at the
lagoon station for several days.
The effects on receiving water have been identified and
quantified to some extent by examination of stream in-
vertebrate populations. Such examinations reveal that
even though many of the lagoons investigated meet or ex-
ceed 85 percent BOD reduction in their operations, the
invertebrate fauna below the outfall contain more pollution
tolerant species than that of the water above.
In strict fairness to lagoons, the data also shows that the
same result is obtained from standard treatment facilities,
many of which have a poorer quality effluent than the
lagoons.
Another point to be noted is the difference between stream
water use patterns in the different states. Some states,
such as Idaho, require that no effluent depress dissolved
oxygen below 100 percent of saturation if the receiving
water is used for the spawning or fry development of
salmonoid fishes. In other states, such as Louisiana, up
to a 50 percent of saturation reduction in D.O. is allowed.
Bain, McCarty, Robertson and Pierce (54): The San Joaquin
River, during the summer months, is laden with phyto-
plankton as a result of nutrient enrichment by agricultural
and municipal waste discharges. Oxidation pond effluent
from the City of Stockton is discharged into the San
94
-------
Joaquin River downstream from Stockton.
Data collected by the authors indicated that with in-
creased depth of the river channel there was depressed
atmospheric oxygenation due to diminished tidal velocity
and larger channel cross section. The deepened channel
acts as a stilling basin for algae grown in nutrient rich,
warmer upstream river water and the lagoons at Stockton.
These .conditions were sufficient to create sustained
oxygen depressions in the lower depths in summer and fall.
These problems were directly traceable to lagoon efflu-
ents. The pond algae species are not the same as the
river floral populations and can be expected to exist in
the river as viable organisms for one or two days only.
These species were identified to be exerting a major BOD
and the cause of dissolved oxygen depressions in the San
Joaquin River downstream from Stockton.
Examination of Table 10 shows that the Stockton lagoon
effluent differed little from that of the standard treat-
ment process. Nitrogen and phosphorus actually increased
as did the coliform count. Even though the plant effluent
MPN was previously reduced to acceptable numbers through
chlorination, the period of retention in the lagoon allow-
ed a significant regrowth. The generation of large quan-
tities of green algae is seen to exert its influence not
in the BODs but rather in 6003g which more closely approx-
imates the COD.
That the algae from the lagoon were responsible for this
growth is seen in Figure 23 which identifies the coccoid
algae through its fluorescence (chlorophyll a), when com-
pared to the total river microflora. The fate of these
cells has been previously indicated and has been further
documented by analysis of bottom samples.
THE STATES UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPACT OF LAGOON
•EFFLUENT IN RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
An assessment of the impact of any lagoon effluent is de-
pendent on characterizing the effluent, and the nature and
flow of the stream. From the State survey, state engi-
neers reported that many lagoons do not always achieve the
stated objectives of secondary treatment in their state
(see SECTION, IV). They further indicated that many of the
95
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF FLOW OF WASTE CONSTITUENTS THROUGH THE
STOCKTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT* (54)
Untreated Secondary Pond
Constituent Wastewater Effluent Effluent
Total Nitrogen, Mg/1 (N) 27.2 18.1 25.9
Total Phosphorus, mg/1 (P) 7.5 5.0 5.2
Total Carbon, mg/1 (C) 328 232 209
BOD, rag/1 (5 day) 578 340 96
BOD, mg/1 (30 day) 822 460 458
COD, mg/1 870 660 575
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Organophosphate
Fecal Coliform,
MPN/lOOml 60,000. 10 900
Phytoplankton, no./ml — — 211,000
Chlorophyll A, ug/1 — — 270
*Average of four six-hour composite samples collected
September 30 - October 1, 1969
96
-------
FIGURE 23
Comparisons of Algal Populations
Through Study Area Using Cell Counts and Chlorophyll
Fluorescence (54)
Z 30
5 10 '15 20
MILES UPSTREAM FRO«ll STATION I
25
97
-------
lagoons which appear to meet or exceed the published stan-
dards for any given state do not have a sufficient body of
reported measurements to identify the true quality of the
effluent.
Those states which require periodic drawdown and sub-
sequent retention of all lagoon water during critical times
are satisfied that the releases, when made, are at such
times that the receiving stream will not suffer demon-
strable adverse effects. Very few, if any, studies have
been conducted to verify this.
As indicated, a number of states "require" that samples be
taken upstream and downstream from any sewage treatment
facility outfall. Data of this type, if honestly collected
and accurately analyzed, should provide information on
effluent quality. In actual practice the contractor dis-
covered such measurements are rarely made and many are of
questionable analytical value with clear evidence of data
being "dry-labed."
As indicated elsewhere in this report, the entire system
of data collection, processing and retrieval is so bad
that little valid data exists. However, this data is not
necessary. The fact that many lagoons do produce an ef-
fluent of sufficient quality to qualify as adequate
secondary treatment does not mitigate the fact that this
effluent can have a potentially damaging effect to re-
ceiving stream quality-
98
-------
AWBERC LIBRARY U.S. EPA
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The scope of this study required information from an
extensive number of people and organizations. Gratitude
is extended to all those who assisted the Contractor in
obtaining needed information by providing time for inter-
views, and making available data and records. While the
names of these contributors are too numerous to list
individually, the participation of the following was
essential to successful completion of this project.
Mr. Frank M. Middleton, Project Officer
Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Offices
Key state engineers of 50 states
Outstanding educators and researchers of major
universities across the country.
The following list includes key professional personnel
whose efforts have contributed directly to the study of
lagoon use and lagoon technology:
Project Principal: D. W. Ryckman, President
Project Manager: G. M. Barsom, Vice President
Project Coordinator: D. P. Clement, Environmental
Engineer
Project Staff: R. M. Matter, Biologist; P. K. Feeney,
Environmental Engineer; F. A. Brunner, Environmental
Engineer; L. R. Novack, Technical Writer; M. R. Aron,
Technical Writer; and P. A. Braden, Senior Typist
Project Review Committee: E. Edgerley; H. D. Tomlinson;
F. K. Erickson; and S. J. Ryckman
99
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. "1957 Inventory of Municipal and Industrial Waste
Facilities", United States Public Health Service,
Publication No. 622, 1958.
2. U. S. Government Information Retrieval System: STORET,
3. Anonymous, "Needed: Clean Water", Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Publication No.
99G-5-69, 1969.
4. Anonymous, "Proceedings of the Symposium on Waste
Stabilization Lagoons", United States Public Health
Service, Kansas City, Missouri, August, 1960.
5. Caldwell, D.H., "Sewage Oxidation Ponds - Performance,
Operation and Design", Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 18,
No. 3, May, 1946.
6. Van Heuvelen, W., and Svore, J.H., "Sewage Lagoons
in North Dakota", Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol.
36, ,No. 6, June, 1954.
7. King, D.L., "Basic Studies of Controlled Facultative
Lagoons", in Advances Towards Understanding Lagoon
Behavior, Proc.of the Third Annual Sanitary Engi-
neering Conference, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri, November, 1966.
8. Hermann, E.R., and Gloyna, E.F., "Waste Stabilization
Ponds, III. Formulation of Design Equations", Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 30, No. 8, August, 1958.
9- O'Connor, D.J., and Eckenfelder, W.W., "Treatment of
Organic Wastes in Aerated Lagoons", JWPCF, Vol. 32,
No. 4, April, 1960.
10. Eckenfelder, W.W., "Theory and Practice of Activated
Sludge Modifications", Water and Sewage Works, Vol.
108, No. 4, April, 1961.
101
-------
11. McKinney, R.E., and Edde, H., "Aerated Lagoon for
Suburban Sewage Disposal", JWPCF, Vol. 33, No. 12,
December, 1961.
12. McWirter, J.R., "Application of Aeration Concepts to
Lagoons", Proc. of the Third Annual Sanitary Engi-
neering Conference, University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri, November, 1966.
13. McKinney, R.E., "Mathematics of Complete Mixing Acti-
vated Sludge", Journal Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 88, SA3, May, 1962.
14. Sawyer, C.N., "New Concepts in Aerated Lagoon Design
and Operation", Advances in Water Quality Improvement.
Vol. 1, University of Texas Press, Austin and London,
1968.
15. Burkhead, C.E., and McKinney, R.E., "Application of
Complete Mixing Activated Sludge Design Equations to
Industrial Wastes", JWPCF, Vol. 40, No. 4, April, 1968.
16. Oswald, W.J., and Gotaas, H.B., "Photosynthesis in
Sewage Treatment", Trans. ASCE, Vol. 122, No. 73, 1957.
17. Oswald, W.J., "The High-Rate Pond in Waste Disposal",
Developments in Industrial Microbiology, Vol. 4,
1962-63.
18. Canter, L.W., Englande, A.J., Jr., and Mauldin, A.F.,
Jr., "Loading Rates on Waste Stabilization Ponds",
Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division., Proc.
ASCE, SA 6, December, 1969.
19. Parker, C.D., Jones, H.L., and Taylor, W.S., "Puri-
fication of Sewage in Lagoons:, Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vo1. 22, No. 6, June, 1950.
20. Parker, C.D., Jones, H.L., and Green, N.C., "Perfor-
mance of Large Sewage Lagoons at Melbourne, Australia",
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31, No. 2, February,
1959.
102
-------
21. Loehr, R.C., "Fundamental Mechanisms of Anaerobic
Lagoons", in Advances Towards Understanding Lagoon
Behavior, Proc. Third Annual Sanitary Engineering
Conf., University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri,
November, 1966.
22. van Eck, H., and Simpson, D.E., "The Anaerobic Pond
System", Proc. Institute of Sewage Purification,
London, 1966.
23. Loehr, R.C., and Stephenson, R.L., "An Oxidation
Pond as a Tertiary Treatment Device", Journal of
Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, Sa 3,
1965.
24. Weiss, C.M., "Studies on the Use of Oxidation Ponds
for the Tertiary Treatment of Municipal Wastes",
Journal of North Carolina AWWA and North Carolina
Pollution Control Association, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1965.
25. Canter, L.W., and Englande, A.J., Jr., "States"
Design Criteria for Waste Stabilization Ponds" JWPCF,
Vol. 42, No. 10, October, 1970.
26. Dildine, E.D., and Franzmathes, J.R., "Current Design
Criteria for Oxidation Ponds", 2nd International Sym-
posium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
27. "Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria",
FWPCA, April 1, 1968.
28. "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works", A Report
of the Committee of the Great Lakes - Upper Mississ-
ippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 1968.
29. Vennes, J.W., "State of the Art - Oxidation Ponds",
2nd International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, 1970.
30. Neel, J.K., McDermott, J.H., and Monday, C.A., Jr.,
"Experimental Lagooning of Raw Sewage at Fayette,
Missouri", JWPCF, Vol. 33, No. 6, June, 1961.
31. Thieme, R.W., "Wastewater Treatment and Water Pollu-
tion in the United States", 2nd International Sym-
posium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
103
-------
32. Middleton, Francis M., and Bunch, Robert L., "Chal-
lenge for Wastewater Lagoons", 2nd International
Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
33. Williamson, A.E., "Welcome to the Symposium", 2nd
International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons,
1970.
34. Allum, M.O., and Carl, C.E., "The Role of Ponds in
Wastewater Treatment", 2nd International Symposium
for Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
35. Van Heuvelen, W., "A Decade of Change in Waste
Stabilization Lagoons in the Missouri River Basin",
2nd International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, 1970.
36. Barsom, G.M., "Limiting Factors in Oxidation Pond
Failures", Sc.D. Dissertation, Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri, 1970.
37. Oswald, W.J., Gotaas, H.B., Ludwig, H.F., and Lynch,
V., "Algae Symbiosis in Oxidation Ponds, Photosynthe-
tic Oxygenation", Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol.
25, No. 6, June, 1953.
38. McKinney, R.E., "Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers",
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1962.
39. Gloyna, E.F., and Hermann, E.R., "Algae in Waste Treat-
ment", JWPCF, Vol. 29, No. 4, April, 1957.
40. United States Statutes a_t Large, Vol. 2, Supplement IV
(January 4, 1965 to January 2, 1969), "Water Pollution
Control Act of 1965", Title 33, Article 466 (2146).
41. Glossary, Water and Wastewater Control Engineering,
APHA, ASCE, AWWA WPCF, 1969.
42. Water Quality Standards Applicable to Nebraska Waters,
October 9, 1970; approved by Administrator, EPA,
June 28, 1971.
43. Water Quality Standards, Missouri River.
104
-------
44. River Basin Water Quality Criteria, Kansas, January 8,
1971; Approved by EPA March 5, 1971.
45. Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission, Rules and
* Regulations, Water Quality Standards, May 27, 1971,
approved by EPA June 30, 1971.
46. Alabama Water Quality Criteria.
47. Idaho Water Quality Criteria.
48. Myers, E.A., and Williams, T.C., "A Decade of Stabili-
zation Lagoons in Michigan with Irrigation as Ultimate
Disposal of Effluent", 2nd International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
49. Stumm, W., and Morgan, J.J., "Stream Pollution by
Algal Nutrients", Trans. Twelfth Annual Conference on
Sanitary Engineering, Univ- of Kansas, Lawrence,
Kansas, 1962.
50. Loehr, R.C. and Stephenson, R.L., closure of "An
Oxidation Pond as a Tertiary Treatment Device", by
R.C. Loehr and R.L. Stephenson, Journal of Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 91, SA3, 1965.
51. Nelson, E.W., "Manometric Observations of Algal
Endogenous Metabolism", Master's Thesis, University
of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1964.
52. King, D.L., Tolmsoff, A.J., and Atherton, M.J.,
"Effect of Lagoon Effluent in a Receiving Stream",
2nd International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, 1970.
53. Missouri Water Pollution Board, raw data, regional
office. '
54. Bairi, R.C., Jr., McCarty, P.L., Robertson, J.A., and
Pierce, W.H., "Effects of An Oxidation Pond Effluent
on Receiving Water in the San Joaquin River Estuary,"
2nd International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, 1970.
105
-------
55. Drews, R.J.L.C., "Field Studies on the Purification
Efficiency of Maturation Ponds", National Institute
for Water Research, Council for Scientific and Indus-
trial Research (CSIR), Res. Report 246, UDC 628.357,
Pretoria, S.A., 1966.
56. Clare, H.C., Neel, J.K., and Monday, C.A., Jr.,
"Studies of Raw Sewage Lagoons at Fayette, Missouri,
1957-58 Operations", Proc. of the Symposium on
Waste Stabilization Lagoons, U.S.P.H.S., Region VI,
Kansas City, Missouri, August, 1960.
57. Marais, G.V.R., "New Factors in the Design, Operation
and Performance of Waste-Stabilization Ponds", WHO,
Bulletin, Vol. 34 (734-763), 1966.
58. Espino de la 0, E., and Gloyna, E.F., "Sulfide Pro-
duction in Waste Stabilization Ponds", Technical
Report to the FWPCA, EHE-04-6802, CRWR-26, Center
for Research in Water Resources, Environmental Health
Engineering Research Laboratory, Civil Engineering
Department, University of Texas Press, Austin, May,
1967.
59. American Society of Civil Engineers Sewage Treatment
Design Manual.
60. Lyman, Edwin D., Gray, Melville W. and Bailey, John H.,
A Field Study of the Performance of Waste Stabilization
Ponds Serving Small Towns, 2nd International Symposium
for Waste Treatment Lagoons, 1970.
106
-------
SECTION X
APPENDICES
List of Agencies Contacted, typical
RETA Letters, Representative
Correspondence ,
Table 1: List of Agencies Contacted
B. Operating Data
Table 1: BOD Reduction in Facultative
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 2: COD Reduction in Facultative
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 3: SS Reduction in Facultative
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 4: Total Nitrogen Reduction in
Facultative Oxidation Lagoons.
Table "5: Total Phosphate Reduction in
Facultative Oxidation Lagoons.
Table 6: Fecal Coliform Reduction,
Facultative Oxidation Lagoons.
Table 7: BOD Reduction in Artificially
Aerated Lagoons
Table 8: COD Reduction in Artificially
Aerated Lagoons
Table 9: SS Reduction in Artificially
Aerated Lagoons
Table 10: Total Nitrogen Reduction in
Artificially Aerated Lagoons .
Table 11: Total Phosphate Reduction in
Artificially Aerated Lagoons .
Table 12: BOD Reduction in Tertiary
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 13: COD Reduction in Tertiary
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 14: SS Reduction in Tertiary
Oxidation Lagoons
Table 15: Total Nitrogen Reduction in
Tertiary Oxidation Lagoons . .
Page No,
109
110
129
130
134
135
138
140
142
143
145
146
148
150
152
153
154
155
107
-------
Page No,
C.
D.
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Project
Figure 1
Evaluati
By-State
Table 1:
Table 2:
: Total Phosphate Reduction in
Tertiary Oxidation Lagoons. . .
: BOD Reduction in Oxidation
: SS Reduction in Oxidation
: Total Nitrogen Reduction in
Oxidation Ditches
: Total Phosphate Reduction in
: Fecal Coliform Reduction in
Oxidation Ditches
Study Design
: Initial Study Design
on of Lagoon Treatment on a State-
Basis
States Categorized by Region. .
Lagoon Performance Data in
Kansas
156
157
159
161
162
163
169
171
187
189
194
108
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED
TYPICAL RETA LETTERS TO STATES
REPRESENTATIVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM STATES
DATA SUMMARY SHEET
109
-------
Table 1
LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED
CONTACT/TITLE
Water Improvement Commission
State Dept. of Health
Charles R. Horn, Asst. San. Eng.
Robart H. Follett
A.C. Toncre, Public Health Eng.
Arkansas
C«l i forma
Idaho
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Dept. of Pollution Control i Ecology A.K. Sacrey, Proj. Consultant
Pacific Hater Quality Admin, Southw««t
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Water Resources Control Board
Dept. of Health, Water Pollution
Control Division
Dept. of Health t Rehabilitative
Service*, Div. of Health
University of Florida
Water Quality Control Board
Water Pollution Control Admin.
Southeast Region
Environmental Improvement Division ,
Department of Health
Bureau of Hater Pollution Control
Uinde Engineering Company
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Administration
State Board of Health, Sewage Section
Stream Pollution Control Board
Dept. of Health
Water Pollution Control Conuniasion
Ecodyne Corporation
Environmental Health Services
State Dept. of Health
Water Pollution Control Commission
State Dept. of Health
Bureau of Environmental Health
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
Environmental Improvement Comm.
Maryland Dept., Health ( Mental Hygiene
Massachusetts Water Resources Commission
Michigan Dept. of Public Health
Wastewater Section, Div. , Engr.
Minnesota Nat'l Hater Quality Laboratory ,
Fed. Water Pollution Control Admin.
Pollution Control Agency
Sewage Works Section
Mississippi Air t Water Pollution Control
Commission
Missouri Burns t McDonnell
Dept. of Public Health t Welfare,
Water Pollution Board
Water Pollution Control Board
Ralston Purina
Environmental Sanitation Division of
Water Pollution Control Section
Richard C. Bain, Jr., San. Eng.
William H. Crooks, Supervising Eng.
Paul Bonderson
George Gribkoff
Earl T. BalkUm, r. E.
Ralph H. Baker, Jr., Administrator,
Wastewater Section
Thomas deS. Furman
J. Leonard Ledbetter, Dir. Water
Quality Surveys Services
W. C. Mason
John A. Little, Chief, Impoundment
Studies
John R. Thoman, Regional Dir.
Vaughn Anderson, Director
Douglas Morton, Chief
James B. Neighbor, Vice President
Thomas R. Wallin Supervisor, Wabssh
Basin Unit, Permit Section
Max T. Oreai, Sanitary Engineer
Oral H. Hert, Director
Samuel L. Moore, Chief, Ind. Waste
Parry E. Miller, Tech. Secretary
Steve Kim
Joseph Kreeger
B. A. Poole, Tech. Secretary
Lavoy Haage, Sanitarian
R. J. Schliekleman
Brian L. Goodman, Dir. Tech. S«rv.
Ralph Collie/ Engineer
Dick Pose, Engineer
Ralph C. Pickard, Director
Walter C. Martin, Chief San. Eng.
James F. Coerver, Asst. Dir.
George C. Gormley, Chief
William Bingley
John B. Casawza, Asst. Dir.
Donald M. Pierce, Chief
Maurie Redmond, Engineer
M.D. Lubratovich, Asst. Dir.,
Lab Management
Lyle H. Smith, Asst. Exec. Dir.
Edwin A. Smith
Glen Wood, Jr., Acting Exec. Secy.
Charles H. Chisolm, San. Eng.
J. E. White
Charles A. Stiefemjr.n, Field
Activities Coordinator
Bob Hivies
Jack X. Smith, Exec. Secy.
T*d Forreater, Field Engineer
James H. Maurer, Field Engineer
C.B. Smith, Dir., Tech. Services,
Central Engineering
C.W. Brinck Director
D.G. Williams, Chief
110
-------
CONTACT/TITLE
Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council,
Environmental Health Services
Water Pollution Control Council
Department of Health, Environmental
Health Services
Nevada Dept. of Health, Welfare fc
Rehabilitation, Div. of Health
New Hampshire School of Health Studies, University
of New Hampshire
New Jersey Hater Resources Div., Environmental
Protection
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Water Quality Section
Water Pollution Control Unit,
Environmental Services Division
Health t Social Services, Dept.
Water t Liquid Waste Section
New York Commission of Environmental Con-
servation
North Carolina Dept. of Water t Air Resources
Institute for Environmental Health
Studies, Univ. of N. Carolina
North Dakota Department of Health
Ohio Department of Health
College of Engr. & Technology,
Ohio University
Oklahoma Dept. of Health, Hater Quality
Control Division
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Federal
Water Pollution Control Admin.,
Northwest Region
Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources,
Div. of Water Supply fc Sewerage
South Carolina Pollution Control Authority
South Dakota Dept. of Health, Div. of
Sanitary Engineering
Tennessee Water Quality Control Division,
Dept. of Public Health
Division of Sanitary Engineering
Texas Dept. of Health
Wastewater Treatment Division
Dept. of Water Works, Dallas
City of Austin
Division of Wastewater Technology
and Surveillance, Dept. of Health
Univ. of Texas, Collegeineering
Fad. Water Pollution Control Admin.,
South Central Region
Utah Bureau of Environmental Health
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation,
Dept. of Water Resources
Virginia Water control Bo*rd
Washington Water Pollution Control Commission
W. Virginia Division of Water Rasourcea,
Dept. of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Division of Environmental Protection
Dept. of Natural Resources
Municipal Hastevater Section
Dept. of Natural Resources
Wyoming Sanitary Engineering Services,
Dept. of Health t Social Services
T. A. Filipi, Chief
Terronce A. O'Brien
Wendell D. HcCurry, Public Health Eng.
L.W. Slanatz, Dean
Harry H. Hughes, Principal Public
Health Engineer
Cole C. Herry, Administrator
Phillip Barras
Max Feld, Supervisor
John R. Wright, Chief
Fred Vollner, Chief, Plant
Assistance
Earle C. Hubbard, Asst. Director
John W. Day, Jr.
W. Van Heuvelen, Exec. Officer
Mr. Rosendal, Engineer
Paul Flanigan, Engineer
Harry H. Kaneshige, Assoc. Prof.
Charles D. Newton, Director
Kenneth tf. Spies, Director
Kenneth A. Dostal, Chief, Food
Wastes Research Branch
Harry A. DeWire, Chief
Facilities Section
H.J. Webb, Exec. Director
M.O. Allua, Public Health
Scientist
S. Laary Jones, Director
Julian R. Fleming, Director
John W. Saucier, San. Eng.
Ray Dingsis, Biologist
Dick Hhittington, Dir, Field Oper.
Cecil H. Williams, Engineer
D.F. Smallhorst, Chief Engineer
R.B. Riddle, Chief Engineer
Earnest F. Gloyna, Dean
Hendon Crane, Dir., Office of
Operations
U.M. Hurst, Asst. Director
LaRoy Grunevald, San. Eng.
A. H. Paassler, Exec. Secretary
Russell K. Taylor, Associate
Eng., Municipal Program
John Ball, Chief
Edgar H. Henry, Chief
Carl Blahlum
Robert Derksen, District Eng.
Mr. Benson, District Eng.
Robert M. Krill, Chief
Arthur E. Williamson, Director
ill
-------
August 26, 1971
Mr. Walter A. Lyon, Director
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering
State Department of Health
Box 90
Karrisburg, Pa. 17120
Dear Mr. Lyon:
RETA is working with the EPA Water Quality Office on a report
entitled "Lagoon Performance and the State of Lagoon Technology."
We are presently canvassing state agencies in an effort to
obtain all available up-to-date information. Your assistance
in obtaining this material as outlined on the attached Data
Summary Sheet would be very much appreciated.
The lagoon information from your state constitutes a key
element in this Federal project and is vital to its successful
completion. Recognizing that the compilation of this data
is an imposition, we are providing your office with the attached
sheet and a telephone data retrieval set-up.
To eliminate the need of replying in writing, a member of the
RETA project team will contact you by telephone in approximately
two weeks and transfer your information onto a similar Data
Summary Sheet.
Thank you for your cooperation and valuable assistance.
Sincerely,
RYCKMAN, EDGERLEY, TOMLINSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Frederick A. Brunner, Ph.D.
Senior Associate
FAB:dbp
Enclosure
112
-------
D. W. RYCKMAN
E- EOGE.RLFY. JR
H. D. TOML1NSON
S J. RYCKMAN
"" " * CONSULTANTS IN WA1LR, SOLIDS AND AIR RESOURCES
5OO CORONET BUILDING • ? 2 5 SOUTH MERAMEC A V F. N U E • SAINT i_OLJIS. MISSOURI S3IO5
TELEPHONE: ''314) 862-3424
August 24, 1970
RETA 550
Mr. H. J. Ongerth
State of California Health Department
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, California 94704
Dear Mr. Ongerth:
As a result q-f correspondence between this office and William
H. Crooks, Supervising Engineer of the California Regional
Water .Quality Control Board, we have been directed to request
information on lagoons and lagoon performance from your office.
Confirming our telephone conversation of this morning, we will
appreciate your sending us the following publications:
1. Raw Sewage Lagoons in California
2^ Detention vs. Bacteriological Reduction in Sewage
Lagoons,
along with any other information that you may have available
on lagoon performance. We -are interested in these ^publications
because'we are conducting a -project for FWQA titled Lagoon Per-
formance and the State of Lagoon Technology, and our primary
concern is to collect the most recent reliable lagoon perfor-
mance .data available.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Frank Middleton,
FWQA Project Officer, if you have any questions.
. ]\ • ' , ' _ '
; Very truly yours,
RYCKMAN, EDGERLEY, TOMLINSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
George M0 Barsom, Sc.D.
Director of Research and Development
GMB/mes 113
-------
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor
MAURICE S. REIZEN, M.D., Director
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
3500 N. LOGAN, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48914
September 3, 1971
Mr. Frederick A. Brunner, Ph.D.
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates
500 Coronet Building
225 South Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Mr . Brunner :
Mr. John Vogt has referred your letter of August 26 to me for
reply on the subject, "Lagoon Performance and the State of Lagoon
Technology."
We appreciate the effort you are making in collecting information
of this kind and certainly agree that the type of study you are making
is needed and should be of great value to those who are involved with
design and operation of treatment facilities . In Michigan we have
collected a great deal of information from lagoons during periods of
discharge and plan to continue to collect this and additional kinds
of information. In reviewing your data summary sheet, however, partic-
ularly those relating to operational efficiencies , we find that this
is too large a task to undertake at this time. Indeed, if we were to
provide the kind of information covered by your total questionnaire,
we would have to devote a great number of man days involving weeks of
time to do it justice. If it is possible to provide adequate financial
remuneration for this type of work we would be glad to undertake it
within the limits of our capabilities.
I regret that I am not able to provide the desired information
and I am sure that you would not want us to do this in a perfunctory
manner based on generalities and oversimplification. Please let me
know how we can be of assistance within this framework.
Very truly yours ,
Donald M. Pierce, Chief
Wastewater Section
Division of Engineering
BMP /he
114
THE
GREAT
LAKE
"Equal Health Opportunity for All"
-------
STATE- «X INDIANA
sssssa^^jjl if t/*-*n>t^yoV\'lwi
INDIANAPOLIS 46206
STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 1M° *"*£S?* **"*
September 9, 1971
Frederick A. Brunner, Ph. D.
Senior Associate
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson & Associates
500 Coronet Building
225 South Meramec Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Dr. Brunner:
Re: Lagoon Performance
This acknowledges your letter and attachments of August 26, 1971> which
advised of your activity in preparing a report for the Environmental Protection
Agency on subject matter and requested this office to prepare data summary
sheet for transmittal of information to you via telephone.
The comprehensive data requested would require a detailed search of
project files and in some cases contact with the industry. Staff limitations
prohibit utilizing our time for this study. The data are in open files in this
office and may be viewed during normal working hours with prior arrangements.
If you desire to have a representative visit this office, please contact
Mr. Samuel L. Moore, Chie? Industrial Waste Disposal Section, telephone number
317 - 633-5278, for a convenient time.
truly yours,
Perry E Miller
, Technical Secretary
OHHert/lbw
cc: Samuel L. Moore
115
-------
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. WELFARE, AND REHABILITATI
DIVISION OF HEALTH
CARSON CITY. NEVADA 897O1
July 20, 1970
Phillip K. Feeney
Project Engineer
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson & Associates
500 Coronet Building
225 South Meramec Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Mr. Feeney:
In reply to your letter to Mr. Karl Harris, are the following
answers to your questions:
1. Approximately 15 excluding aerated lagoons.
2. Monthly. None.
3. Bureau of Environmental Health. Ten State Standards.
4. None.
5. Winter operation in northern part of State.
6. No. Some areas require a high degree of treatment and in
some areas the degree of treatment is not critical as long
as some treatment is provided and no effluent is allowed
to return to the stream.
Sincerely,
Wendell D. McCurry
Public Health Engineer
WDM/gm
116
-------
Office of the Dean
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712
July 13, 1970
Mr. Phillip Feeney, Project Engineer
Ryckman, Edgerley, ToirdinGon £ Associates
500 Coronet Bldg.
225 South Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Sir:
Reference is made, to your request regarding reports entitled "Lagoon
Performance and The State of Lagoon Technology". Last year I prepared
a very lengthy document for the WHO. You might be able to get a copy
of this by writing to Mr. Luis Orihuela, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. Also,
we are completing some very detailed pond studies here in Austin but this
report will not be released until October.^
Dean
EFG:ss
117
-------
COLORADO '.„> E f-', F ' '?:1 £-f*. T Or- HEALTH
42/0 EAST 11TH AVENUE • DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111
ft. L. CLEERE, M.D., M.P.H., DIRECTOR
July 16, 1970
Mr. Phillip K. Feeney, Project Engineer
Ryckman-Edgerly-Tomlinson and Associates
500 Coronet Building, 225 South Meramec Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri 63105
Re: Sewage Lagoons
This is a reply to your letter of July 7, 1970. To answer"
questions, we require monthly operator reports from all domestic" sewage
treatment works, activated sludge, trickling filter lagoons, etc. Also,
our District Engineers make two-four visits annually to all plants, in-
cluding lagoons. We run grab samples on all treatment works, approxi-
mately once a year. For lagoons, we are interested in: color, odor,
algae, raw influent BOD, effluent BOD and collform of the Influent and
effluent. Also, we are Interested In the presence or absence of bottom
weed growth., shore-line growth, duck weed, and a minimum of three feet
water level at all times.
As regards cost data, our experience shows that lagoon systems are cheap-
er to construct and operate than other types of treatment works. They
have their real value in the non-mountainous areas of the State. Many
small towns of 500-2000 P.E. would not have systems today were lagoons
disapproved. We have no failures where our engineering criteria has been
used. We call for the BOD loading to not exceed 0.1 Ib BOD/day/1000 C.F.
of water volume in a tight pond with a water depth of not less than 3
feet nor more than 5 feet (without mechanical aeration).
We hope this is of some value to your research.
assistance, please advise.
If we can be of further
FOR DIRECTOR, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
Ea r 1 "ft Ba ?k~um7P' • ^ •
Domestic Waste Consultant
ETB:mgc
118
-------
State of W
isconsin
North Central District
P. 0. Box 311
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
'February 18, 1972
\ DEPARTMENT OF NAT URAL RESOURGES
715-423-5670
54494
IN REPLY REFER TO:
L. P. Voigt
Secretary
R.E.T.A.
12161 Lackland Road
St. Louis, Missouri
63141
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Clement
Gentlemen:
Included are results of sampling which you requested via Bob Benson
of our Madison office.
The treatment facilities are two-cell stabilization ponds located
in Marathon, Wood, and Portage Counties of Wisconsin. None of
these receives industrial wastes. The samples are grab samples
of the effluent. In the case of No. 4 which doesn't get quite
full enough to have an effluent, samples were obtained from the
final pond adjacent to the outfall manhole.
Except in the case of No. 1, effluents from these treatment
units dissipate before reaching the surface water. Enclosed
Page No. A-40 from our 1970 river basin reports includes samp-
ling data of the receiving stream of Pond No. 1. The effluent
from this pond flows several hundred feet in a drainage course
before reaching the stream sampled (Mill Creek).
Very truly yours,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SECTION
Robert R. Derksen, P.E.
District Engineer
RRD:jmm
119
-------
IRA L. MYERS, M. D.
CHAIRMAN
STATE OF ALABAMA
WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
ROOMS 324-326
STATE OFFICE BUILDING
MONTGOMERY 4, ALABAMA
August 20, 1970
ECK
SECRETARY
Mr. Phillip K. Feeney, Project Engineer
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson, and Associates, Inc.
225 South Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Mr. Feeney:
Enclosed in the information requested in your letter of July 2, 1970.
1. In reply to your first question a county by county summary of the lagoons
within the state, including the acreage is enclosed. This list does not
include the various industrial treatment lagoons, schools, or trailer courts.
Industrial and private lagoons do, however, require the approval of this
office.
2. (a) Normally we request a day by day report of effluent data, submitted at
monthly intervals for activated sludge and trickling filter plants. This
report should include such information as flows, suspended solid and BOD
contents, pH, alkalinity, and DO in certain instances.
(b) No effluent data is required of lagoons, due to the degree of training
of the operating personnel, especially in the area of performing the analyses.
This is often true of the smaller treatment plants also.
3. The design of all treatment facilities must meet certain minimum requirements
set forth by this office. Enclosed are our requirements for lagoon construction
in this state. Federally financed projects must also be approved by FWQA.
4. Our data indicate that the construction cost of a lagoon in Alabama amounts to
approximately $7000/acre. Maintenance costs vary with the size of the pond,
the amount of grass-cutting required, etc. A general range is $500-2000/year
depending on the above and other factors.
5. Most problems encountered in this state with lagoon operation revert to poor
maintenance practices. Specifics include improper grassing of dikes which
allows erosion into the lagoon, grease build-up in the outlet area, vegetation
in the form of either duckweed or marginal growth along the banks, and bluegreen
algae build-up due to the lack of proper surface agitation. Another problem
qui^e common is the inadequate knowledge of the operators as to the number of
customers added to the original system. This has caused some difficulty and,
120
-------
Mr. Phillip K. Feeney -2- August 20, 1970
in one case, even septic conditions have resulted.
The lagoon method of treatment is acceptable by this office as long as construc-
tion conforms to the standards enclosed. This method of treatment has certain
distinct advantages in this state in that it is economical to construct and to
operate. Although the land area required is larger than for a conventional
plant, it is more easily obtained than the necessary capital for plant construc-
tion. This is especially true for the smaller municipalities for which the
method is very prominent. Also, soil conditions as well* y ear-around climatic
conditions in Alabama are conducive to lagoon treatment methods.
7. A trend in lagoon treatment in this state, and possibly a requirement in the very
near future, is the use of multi-cell lagoons to provide more efficient treat-
ment.
We hope the enclosed information will be of use to you and invite any further inquiries
that you may have.
Yours very truly,"
Charles R. Horn
Assistant Sanitary Engineer
Water Improvement Commission
CRH/dtc
Enclosures
121
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P- 0. Box 2351
Harrisburg 17120
September 17, 1971
Frederick A. Brunner, Ph.D.
Senior Associate
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc.
500 Coronet BuiIding
225 South Meramec Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Dr. Brunner:
Your letter of August the 26th., 1971 to Mr. Walter A. Lyon
has been referred to this office. I am sorry that we are unable
to furnish you the information requested since we do not have the
clerical staff to collect the information and prepare the answer.
We have a number of these installations in Pennsylvania, but do
not keep complete records of their performance. We do inspect
and do have some information which can be obtained in our Regional
Office or by direct contact with the owner. If we can be of any
other help to you, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Harry4(. DeWire, Chief
Faci1ities Section
Division of Water Supply and Sewerage
122
-------
£outf] Dakota
tafe department of jitealtlj
ROBERT H. HAYES, M.D,, STATE HEALTH OFFICER
July 13, 1970
In Reply
Refer To: 7.1
Phillip K. Feeney, Project Engineer
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson, & Associates
500 Coronet Building
225 South Meramec Avenue
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Dear Mr. Feeney:
Mr. Carl has asked me to provide the information you.have requested.
Conventional treatment plants are required to submit a monthly operating
report with performance tests; most stabilization pond installations
are required to submit a quarterly summary of monthly operation reports.
For most ponds, no performance tests are required, except at the discretion
of the Committee on Water Pollution when the ponds are overflowing or are
being drawn down for winter storage. A few of the larger stabilization
pond installations, such as Huron, and all polishing pond installations
are required to submit monthly operation reports with performance data.
Except in unusual circumstances, performance data include D.O., B.O.D.,
T.S.S., pH, and fecal coliforms. Copies of the report forms used are
enclosed.
The cost data that are available are included in the publication, "Waste-
water Stabilization Ponds in South Dakota" previously sent to you.
If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.
FOR THE DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
Sincerely,
M. 0. Allum
Public Health Scientist
MOA:jb
Enclosure
,123
-------
DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Person Interviewed
Lagoon Name/Location
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS:
Number of cells
Area
Volume
Depth_
Flow
Actual loading
By whom were lagoon(s) designed?
What is the basis for design?
(State Health Dept., Pollution Control Board, etc.)
What agencies were responsible for approval of the
design?
(population or
pop- equivalent)
Municipal Secondary
Industrial Tertiary
^Combination Complete
Type of pretreatment?
124
-------
CLASSIFICATION:
Facultative
Aerated
Anaerobic
Oxidation Ditch
Were Mechanical
Aerators Used?
OPERATION:
Design Efficiencies: BOD
COD
SS
Operating Efficiencies:
Effluent
Influent Filtered Unfiltered
BOD
COD
SS
N
P
BOD
COD
SS
N
P
Filtered
% Removal
Unfiltered
125
-------
Aesthetic Quality:
Heavy Moderate Light None
H2S
Algae Mats
Odors
Shore growth (weeds)
Insect & Rodent
Colored Effluents
What is the condition of receiving stream?
Flow
Dilution capacity
Color
Other
COSTS:
Total Capital Investment Amortized :$
% Federal
% State
% Local
Operating Costs $ /yr.
Total Cost $ /yr.
Are qualified personnel retained to operate the
system?
Number
Frequency__
Qualifications
126
-------
What is suggested to improve quality of operation?
IT
2)
3)
4)
Describe additional problems, if any, and solutions,
1)
3)
What are your reasons for choosing lagoons over other
conventional treatment processes?
Are you satisfied with performance? Yes No_
Will you build more (additional) lagoons?
Yes No_
Do you consider a lagoon as secondary treatment?
Yes No_
Why or why not?
What is the basis of your opinion?
127
-------
Do you consider lagoons adequate to meet the
treatment needs of your state?
(Affix Operational Data Sheets and Submit with
Summary)
128
-------
APPENDIX B
OPERATING DATA
129
-------
TABLE 1
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) REDUCTION IN
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
26
27
28
36
44
45
46
47
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
69
— AZ
--AZ
—AZ
— AZ
--AZ
— AZ
— AZ
— AZ
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— CA
--CA
— CA
— CA
— CA
— IL
— LA"
— LA"
—MS
—MS
—MO
—MO
—MO
—MO
— MO
—MO
—MO
—MO
— MO
— MO
—MO
— NE
A"
B"
#1
#2
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#1
#3
#4
#5
150
170
270
350
80
300
300
290
360
105
400
370
360
290
290
260
203
119
143
93
57
226
236
244
188
188
266
266
266
266
266
266
268
268
268
268
206
78
44
100,
N.O.
56.5
80
100
35
150
95
34
88
70
86
72
51
60 2
14 (or
9(c)
34
6
26
32.2
60
58
45
55
34
38
48
49
47
30
53
50
40
44
33
20
70
41
-
83
0
66
88
56
67
67
78
81
76
75
82
77
93
92
76
93
54
85
74
76
76
70
87
86
82
81
82
89
80
81
85
84
84
88
.7
.2
-
.8
.7
.5
.4
.6
.6
.0
.1
.1
.2
.4
.0
.0
.4
.2
.7
.4
.8
.6
.2
.1
.7
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
75
75
75
76
77
77
65
65
30
30
30
30
30
30
56
56
56
56
67
78
^References page 164.
130
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
75
76
7-7
78
79 ?
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
99
103
104
119
500
501
502
503
504
--ND
—OH #1
--OH #3
—OK
—OK
—OK
—OK
— OK
— OK
—OK
—OK
—OK
— OK
—OK
--OK
—OK
—OK
—OK #2
— TX #1
— WI
— WI
— UT
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX.
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
384
238
238
225
224
238
228
264
238
226
__
162
— —
__
165
—
__
—
162
153
243
90
140
— —
—
—
120
160
65
95
135
120
165
80
220
90
33
135
135
110 '
90
45
57
97
51
58
24
38
45
43
40
N.O.
37
N.O.
N.O.
28
N.O.
24
N.O.
42.5
9.3
45
9
11
21
45
30
75
170
0
45
50
155
50
30
17
35
30
105
105
• 75
20
89
76
59
77
74
90
83
83
82
82
--
77
—
—
83
— —
—
--
74
93
85
90
92
—
—
38
(6)
' —
53
63
(29)
70
63
92
61
9
22
22
32
78
6
66
66
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
U \J
ft r\
80
8f\
0
o n
81
O n
81
O *")
82
/- -i
61
61
61
61
61
C. 1
ol
61
61
f -i
61
61
61
61
61
/- T
61
/• -1
61
61
61
61
61
131
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
511
532
533
534
535
536
537
546
547
548
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— CO
— CO
— CO
— CO
—CO
— CO
— IA
--IA
— IA
— IA
— IA
— IA
— IA
— IA
--IA
— IA
— IA
— IA
#1
#2
#3
#4
#1
#2
#3
#4
#1
#2
#3
#4
250
130
530
—
—
—
—
—
--
215
570
315
—
320
320
85
90
13
—
230
450
230
180
160
218
194
192
122
355
322
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
EFFLUENT
9
190
75
170
45
50
155
60
--
17
65
0
45
120
100
60
40
14
15
75
65
40
40
17
12
5
30
12
36
29
70
25
25
25
95
25
95
25
110
25
55
35
% REMOVAL REFERENCE
96 61
(46) 61
86 61
61
61
61
61
61
61
92 61
89 61
100 61
61
63 61
69 61
29 61
56 61
(8) 61
61
67 61
88 61
83 61
78 61
89 61
94 62
97 62
84 62
90 62
89 62
91 62
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
132
-------
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
LOCATION
— IA #1
— IA #2
--IA #3
— IA #4
— IA #1
— IA #2
--IA #3
— IA #4
--MO
— MO
—MO
— MO
—MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— Mo
INFLUENT ,
—
—
_
192
320
140
220
136
210
370
250
70
272
EFFLUENT
150
25
30
45
30
30
25
30
72
35
15
20
25
35
79
27
18
22
% REMOVAL
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
63
89
89
91
82
17
79
89
74
92
REFERENCE
63 '
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
( ) = negative number
N.0.= no overflow
Units are in mg/1
133
-------
TABLE 2
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) REDUCTION IN
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
18 —CA 452 70(c) 84.5 74
45 —LA"B" 435 297 43.8 77
69 --NE 220 152 67.4 78
86 —OK — N.O. — 80
87 —OK 330 296 1Q 80
88 —OK -- N.O. — 80
89 --OK -- N.O. -- 80
90 --OK 531 257 52 80
91 —OK — N.O. — 80
92 —OK — 197 — 80
93 --OK #2 -- N.O. -- 80
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
N.O.= no overflow
Units are in mg/1
134
-------
TABLE 3
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (SS) REDUCTION IN
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
46
47
66
69
76
77
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
99
103
104
--AZ
— AZ
--AZ
--AZ
--AZ
— AZ
--AZ
— AZ
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
— NM
--CA
--CA
—MS #1
—MS #2
— MO
--NE
--OH #1
—OH #3
—OK
—OK
— OK
--OK
--OK
--OK
—OK
—OK #2
— TX
— WI
— WI
136
96
140
280
79
299
242
344
240
136
292
364
204
164
52
112
116
138
230
230
129
124
646
646
317
360
145
80
56
N.O.
66
84
90
92
124
202
360
236
124
276
84
64
68
90(c)
54 (c)
100
100
62
92
537
615
N.O.
171
N.O.
N.O.
96
N.O.
92
N.O.
125
36
47
41.2
41.7
—
76.4
(•6.3)
69.9
62.0
64.0
15.8
(178.0)
19.2
65.9
(35.3)
48.8
(23.1)
39.3
45.8
60.9
56.5
56.5
52.0
65.1
17.1
4.7
46
73
14
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
74
74
65
65
67
78
66
66
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
8
81
81
135
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
104
—
—
—
107
180
64
76
171
166
245
234
730
59
22
53
53
106
198
195
29
142
—
—
—
—
—
—
45
30
313
—
255
262
34
158
24
--
225
195
97
114
145
92
52
66
89
67
143
—
117
46
114
29
75
22
50
66
47
47
25
32
--
63
12
—
32
32
135
120
100
64
120
--
44
138
103
83
59
69
393
132
265
68
222
38
12
--
--
—
37
21
—
(54)
73
31
88
68
97
18
(200)
11
11
76
84
—
(117)
92
--
--
—
—
—
—
42
(300)
—
—
46
61
(144)
63
(188)
—
41
(36)
30
(7)
74
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
136
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
532 —CO 228 32 86 62
533 —Co 113 17 85 62
534 —CO 267 49 82 62
535 —CO 174 17 90 62
536 —CO 256 135 47 62
537 __co 240 95 60 62
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
( ) = negative number
N.0.= no overflow
Units are in mg/1
137
-------
TABLE 4
TOTAL NITROGEN REDUCTION IN
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
18
21
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
103
104
--CA
— CA
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— OH
— OH
— OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
—OK
--OK
— OK
--OK
— OK
-OK
—OK
— WI
— WI
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#1
#3
#4
#5
#1
#3
#2
35
29
160
160
160
160
160
160
152
152
152
152
20
20
52
44
50
55
60
48
59
__
35
—
—
58
—
—
—
--
__
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.7
.4
.4
.4
.4
.5
.6
.2
.2
.6
.7
.1
20(c)
19-7 (c)
11.6
13.8
18.5
17.4
17.1
11.7
12.9
10.8
9.6
9.9
15.8
19.8
25.3
26.5
17.4
26.3
26.4
23.8
30.8
N.O.
28.3
N.O.
N.O.
20.6
N.O.
. 10.1
N.O.
5.0
17.0
42.8
32.1
93
92
89
89
89
93
97
93
94
93
22
3
52
40
66
53
56
51
48
—
21
—
—
65
—
—
—
—
—
74
74
30
30
30
30
30
30
56
56
56
56
66
66
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
138
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507,
r
508
509
510
511
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
15
13
37
13
360
259
0
198
260
304
279
219
92
69
15
58
58
28
21
60
249
269
0
112
194
43
180
0
62
39
0
l *"}
13
339
144
214
146
75
56
122
171
64
15
127
61
x- -i
61
61
61
f\ 1
_ _ \J J-
61
\J -J_
61
\J -L-
61
~ 61
\J _L
61
61
61
61
II 61
fil
O -L
61
61
61
61
61
61
C. 1
bi-
f- -i
61
61
*- -i
61
61
f~ T
61
/- -i
61
^ -]
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
— — U J-
I_ 61
61
61
61
C. 1
Dl
/" T
61
LEGEND
(C) _ filtered before analysis
N.0.= no overflow *
Units are in mg/1 '
-------
TABLE 5
TOTAL PHOSPHATE (PO4) REDUCTION IN
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
21
36
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
— CA
— IL
— MO
—MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
— MO
--OH
— OH
—OK
--OK
— OK
--OK
— OK
--OK
--OK
— OK
— OK
— OK
—OK
--OK
--OK
— OK
— OK
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#1
#3
#4
#5
#1
#3
#2
34
17
42
42
42
42
42
42
44
44
44
44
6
6
65
81
73
83
82
81
88
—
19
—
—
22
—
—
--
.0
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.9
.8
.4
.0
.5
.3
.4
.5
.0
32
10.4
8.2
9.7
13.8
12.8
12.8
9.1
10.8
8.0
6.9
6.6
5.6
5.4
18.0
26.4
34.2
38.2
37.5
39.5
38.8
N.O.
51.9
N.O.
N.O.
3.7
N.O.
10.1
N.O.
5.6
38.8
80
76
67
70
70
78.6
93
82
84
85
7
10
24
68
53
54
55
51
56
—
(166)
—
—
83
—
—
--
74
76
30
30
30
30
30
30
56
56
56
56
66
66
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
140
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
500 —TX — 52 — 61
--TX — 75 ~- 61
—TX — 54 — 61
'" --TX — 2 -~ 61
501 --TX — 340 — 61
—TX — 620 — 61
—TX — 0 ~- 61
502 —TX — 140 — 61
—TX — 560 — 61
—TX — 480 — 61
—TX — 500 — 61
—TX — 260 — 61
503 --TX ~ 170 — 61
504 --TX ~ 105 ~- 61
—TX — 70 — 61
—TX — 330 ~" 61
—TX — 190 — 61
—TX -- 95 — 61
505 —TX ~ 350 " 61
--TX -- 360 — 61
--TX — 410 ~~ 61
506 —TX ~ 0 " 61
—TX — 490 ~ 61
—TX — 540 ~~ 61
--TX — 465 — 61
—TX — 430 — 61
507 --TX — 170 ~ 61
—TX — 240 — 61
—TX — 0 "• 61
508 —TX — 2 ~ 61
509 —TX -- 550 61
--TX — 365 ~ 61
510 —TX — 220 ~~ 61
—TX — 210 — 61
—TX — 85 61
511 —TX — 220 ~~ 61
--TX — 150 "~ 61
—TX ~ 150 ~ 61
--TX — 130 — 61
--TX — 31 ~ ' 61
--TX — 145 "• 61
LEGEND
N.0.= no overflow
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
-------
TABLE 6
FECAL COLIFORM REDUCTION
FACULTATIVE OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE
LOCATION INFLUENT
X10&/100 ml
1
30
31
32
33
34
35
48
49
50
51
52
532
533
534
535
536
537
— AL
— GA
— GA
--GA
— GA
--GA
— GA
— MS I
—MS II
— MS
—MS
— MS
— CO
--CO
— CO
— CO
— CO
— CO
1.4
22.0
6.8
3.3
44.0
26.5
32.2
24.5
15.0
38.3
26.0
24.0
300
22
2.2
22
30
EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
XlO^/100 ml
330
1000
35
2
9.3
200
71
109.8
128.0
47
270
1.1
24
5
22
2.2
50
30
83
84
84
84
U TT
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
62
62
62
62
62
62
142
-------
TABLE 7
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) REDUCTION IN
ARTIFICIALLY AERATED LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
40
41
94
95
100
107
108
109
110
53
67
68
98
106
522
523
524
525
526
527
— IA #1
--IA #2
--OK
—OR
--WA
— ONT
— ONT
— ID
— IL
— MO
—MO #1
—MO #2
— TN
— ONT
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
667
. 57
440
190
820
403
477
—
174
140
182
89
569 (ND)
510 (ND)
165
—
270
185
185
70
70
270
250
345
80
530
525
310
320
270
160
240
370
300
290
—
57
33
26
45
196
244
' 48
32
29
33
89
43
3
158
135
245
160
8
8
55
55
50
30
70
50
120
50
35
135
40
40
70
30
200
150
175
91.5
42.1
94
76
76
44
91.5
—
83
76
32
67
62
64
18
—
41
96
96
21
21
81
88
80
38
77
90
88
58
85
75
71
92
33
48
—
63
80
85
86
68
87
88
69
69
69
89
68
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
143 ;
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
528
529
530
531
538
539
540
541
542
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— CO
— CO
—CO
--co
—CO
380
335
—
. —
150
90
115
45
205
105
—
350
—
235
—
__
160
150
130
204
246
194
17
60
20
40
18
30
65
35
215
17
30
140
75
20
25
24
24
11
12
18
29
27
13
96
82
—
—
88
67
43
22
(5)
84
—
60
—
91
--
—
--
93
92
86
86
89
95
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
LEGEND
( ) = negative number
(ND)= not domestic - includes industrial wastes
Units are in mg/1
144
-------
TABLE 8
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) REDUCTION IN
ARTIFICIALLY AERATED LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
40 --IA #1 1330 228 82.8 63
41 —IA #2 228 151 33.8 63
94 —OK 1010 235 77 80
100 —WA 1420 580 59 86
109 —ID -- 120 , -~ 87
53 --MO 389 194c 50 69
67 —MO #1 474 326 35 69
68 —MO #2 326 218 33 69
145
-------
TABLE 9
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REDUCTION IN
ARTIFICIALLY AERATED LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
40
41
94
95
100
107
108
109
110
53
67
68
98
106
522
523
524
525
526
527
— IA #1
— IA #2
— OK
--OR
— WA
— ONT
— ONT
— ID
— IL
— MO
— MO #1
—MO #2
— TN
— ONT
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
511
76
364
138
340
196
400
—
134
175
200
130
600 (ND)
158
133
—
241
118
118
10
10
329
116
137
91
223
361
219
250
120
84
48
112
252
143
191
--
76
37
114
52
580
327
58
36
54
88 (c)
130
78
7
213
75
135
135
21
21
28
28
19
38
67
79
56
86
123
36
66
82
112
66
30
125
55
48
85.1
51.3
69
62
(71)
(68)
85
—
63
50
25
40
99
(44)
44
—
44
82
82
(180)
(180)
94
67
51
13
75
76
44
86
45
2
(133)
41
88
13
71
—
63
63
80
85
86
68
68
87
88
69
69
69
89
68
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
146
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
528
529
530
531
538
539
540
541
542
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
—CO
—CO
—CO
—CO
—CO
312
171
—
—
102
53
124
36
84
63
—
184
—
104
—
—
—
114
172
50
251
232
177
67
139
0
117
__
41
97
26
168
__
71
73
131
26
85
55
51
18
31
33
43
28
19
79
19
—
--
--
23
22
28
(100)
--
--
60
—
75
— —
_—
—
84
82
34
83
88
89
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
\J _l_
/- -1
61
61
\J J-
16
16
1^
6
/" '"I
62
/" O
62
f O
62
f O
62
f O
62
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
(ND)= not domestic - includes industrial wastes
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
147
-------
TABLE 10
TOTAL NITROGEN REDUCTION IN
ARTIFICIALLY AERATED LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
40
41
94
95
100
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
--IA #1 190
— IA #2 133
--OK 32.6
--OR 27.9
— WA 47.5
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
133
123
14.8
29.8
44.2
285
300
344
14
14
21
21
111
165
239
122
374
344
359
319
279
82
104
170
180
193
342
244
131
94
140
140
118
24
310
114
319
124
67
30 63
7.5 63
55 80
6.8 85
7.0 86
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
! 61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
148
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
91 A — 61
530 —TX -- 21* __ 61
"TX " ^ „ 61
—TX " f __ 61
531 "TX " J| __ 61
rpv J-i:7
-?x -- 169 ~ ^
164 — 61
—TX — lb41
149
-------
TABLE 11
TOTAL PHOSPHATE (P04) REDUCTION IN
ARTIFICIALLY AERATED LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
40
41
94
95
100
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
— IA #1
--IA #2
—OK
— OR
— WA
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
75 59 21.3
59 55 6.8
13.4 9.5 29
32.1 22.8 29
25.6 23.3 9
0
0
2
70
70
24
24
840
430
390
395
370
300
350
250
300
650
350
240
180
400
400
280
290
210
220
300
280
270
63
f~ *">
63
80
85
86
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
150
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
529
530
531
538
539
540
541
542
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
• — TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
—CO
— CO
— CO
—CO
—CO
140
155
550
320
205
265
110
130
170
400
455
47°3 3
23 *
3 30
3 30
3 2.1
240 30
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
151
-------
TABLE 12
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) REDUCTION IN
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
19
20
22
24
25
29
37
38
42
43
64
65
70
71
72
73
74
85
96
101
102
105
--CA
— CA
— CA
— CA
— CA
--CA
— IL
--IL
--KS
— KS
— MO
— MO
--NC
--NC
— NC
— NC
— NC
—OK
—OR
— WA
— WI
— ONT
#1
#4
#2
#3
#2
#6
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#1
14
7
9
25
3.5
340
32.2
23.3
18
21.9
50
--
41
26
25
20
21
—
45
196 (ND)
17.6
14.6
7
3
11
29
6
96
23
19
8
11
26
30
26
25
20
21
19
22
22
182
19
9
(C)
(C)
(C)
.3
-3
.6
(ND)
.1
.2
50.
57.
(22.
(16.
(71.
72.
27.
17.
60
47
48
—
37
4
20
(5)
10
—
51
7
(8)
34
0
1
2)
0)
0)
0
6
2
74
74
74
70
70
71
76
76
23
23
56
56
73
73
73
73
73
80
85
86
81
68
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
(ND) = not domestic - includes industrial wastes
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
152
-------
TABLE 13
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) REDUCTION IN
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
29 —CA 660 575 12.9 71
43 —KS 153.2 144 6 23
85 —OK — 142 — 80
101 —WA 580 550 5 86
153
-------
TABLE 14
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REDUCTION IN
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
19
20
22
24
25
42
43
70
71
72
73
74
85
96
101
102
105
--CA
— CA
--CA
— CA #1
— CA #4
— KS
— KS
--NC #1
— NC #2
--NC #3
--NC #4
— NC #5
—OK #1
--OR
— WA
— WI
— ONT
90
70
52
62
8.6
20
24.3
66
60
57
45
50
— —
52
580 (ND)
—
45.0
70 (C)
6(C)
34
69
13
9
28.2
60
57
45
50
46
28
45
520 (ND)
42
11.0
22.2
91.4
34.6
(11.0)
(51.0)
55
16
13
5
21
(11)
8
—
13.5
10
— —
76
74
74
74
70
70
77
65
72
72
72
72
72
80
85
86
81
68
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
(ND) = not domestic - includes industrial wastes
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
154
-------
TABLE 15
TOTAL NITROGEN REDUCTION IN
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
22 —CA 12.7 5.5(C) 56.7 74
25 --CA #1 30.5 29.1 4.0 70
29 ~CA 18.1 25.9 (43.1) 71
43 —KS 26.3 30.2 (15.0) 65
64 —MO #2 10.8 4.8 55.6 55
65 ~MO #6 — 6.1 -- 56
85 --OK -- 15.5 -- 80
96 —OR 29.8 25.2 15.5 35
101 ~-WA 44.2 ND) 39.4(ND) 11 86
102 —WI ~ 11.3 — 81
105 —ONT 21.0 23.9 (14) 68
LEGEND
(c) = filtered before analysis
(ND)= not domestic - includes industrial wastes
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
155
-------
TABLE 16
TOTAL PHOSPHATE (PO4) REDUCTION IN
TERTIARY OXIDATION LAGOONS
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
22
25
29
37
38
43
64
65
85
96
101
105
--CA
— CA
— CA
— IL
— IL
— KS
— MO
— MO
— OK
— OR
— WA
— ONT
#2
#3
#2
#6
#1
18
25
16
10
3
28
8
—
—
22
23
12
.1
.3
.4
.6
.7
.0
.8
.3
.6
8
30
17
3
3
25
3
4
10
21
21
14
.1
.1
.6
.1
.0
.2
.6
.0
.9
.7(ND)
.1
55.
(•20.
(4.
65.
13.
13.
60.
—
—
3.
7
(12)
2
0)
9)
4
9
0
0
9
74
70
71
76
76
65
56
56
80
85
86
68
LEGEND
(ND)= not domestic - includes industrial wastes
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
156
-------
TABLE 17
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) REDUCTION IN
OXIDATION DITCHES
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
— AL
— OR
--SAS
—ME
— MN
--BC
— KS
--OH
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
283
171
245
294
330
311
645
241
—
__
345
999
440
210
360
40
600
265
__
190
__
165
230
400
210
230
160
__
__
120
250
195
200
80
27
14
23
25
20
19
38
13
85
65
5
430
480
60
90
50
45
25
17
30
45
90
24
40
85
7
115
160
30
85
80
25
25
80
18
90
92
91
92
93
94
94
95
—
—
99
57
(9)
71
75
(25)
93
91
—
84
--
45
90
90
60
97
28
—
—
29
68
87
88
—
78
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
94
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
157
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
520 —TX 85 45 47 gl
—TX 20 9 55 g,
—TX 260 90 65 6J
—TX 85 90 (6) 61
—TX 260 50 81 61
—TX — 5 — 61
521 --TX 100 13 87 fil
__TX - 140 __ £
—TX — 23 —
—TX 140 10 93 g
—TX — 4 — gl
543 —CO 191 26 86 62
—CO 146 7 95 62
—CO ' 230 3 99 62
544 —CO 146 7 95 62
545 —CO 230 3 9g 62
LEGEND
( ) = negative number
Units are in mg/1
158
-------
TABLE 18
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REDUCTION IN
OXIDATION DITCHES
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT
115
116
118
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
—MN
—BC
—OH
—TX
--TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
—TX
--TX
—TX
—TX
337
186
307
147
999
375
118
999
43
450
101
134
92
239
381
117
287
113
67
260
92
80
53
60
35
184
69
251
37
12
34
119
65
14
180
217
341
151
116
81
55
26
28
37
53
31
34
95
10
76
124
28
34
55
12
12
60
18
44
49
32
85
14
17
% REMOVAL
89
94
89
91
82
42
(189)
85
(170)
82
46
__ _
79
_ —
42
87
91
19
94
33
__
49
79
87
85
— —
66
27
(40)
83
(23)
94
_ —
REFERENCE
93
93
94
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
159
-------
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
521 —TX 108 24 78 61
—TX — 190 -- 6i
—TX — 35 — 6i
—TX 146 10 93 61
—TX — ~ — 6i
543 —CO 161 68 58 62
544 -_co 151 15 90 62
545 —CO 329 19 94 62
LEGEND
( ) - negative number
Units are in mg/1
160
-------
TABLE 19
TOTAL NITROGEN REDUCTION IN OXIDATION DITCHES
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
115
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
— MN 23.9
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
15.8
302
332
14
442
485
32
562
247
485
78
36
154
114
222
169
146
146
129
350
294
304
273
175
60
174
239
128
234
75
22
304
391
80
282
247
304
34
14
34 93
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
161
-------
TABLE 20
TOTAL PHOSPHATE (PC>4) REDUCTION IN
OXIDATION DITCHES
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
512 —TX — R4D 61
61
61
513 —TX — n 61
61
514 —TX — 0 — 61
515 --TX -- n __ 61
61
516 -. ... - "
mvr * * -.
61
"TX -- 530
517
61
61
61
61
"TX -- 630
C 1 Q
—' -I- O ~ _L A -•-• ZIIM £ -i
61
—TA -- 3 fin
519
••' •*• -^ -L ^v — — y >^ i i /• H
D J.
61
61
61
-L'A 91 1
520
61
61
61
61
61
-— i'A — IA n
521
61
61
61
61
61
--TX
— TX;
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
--T,X
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
— TX
--TX
--TX
--TX
— TX
— TX
540
530
420
0
0
0
0
0
360
220
440
530
280
310
450
180
370
630
410
245
360
250
92
150
200
213
80
150
365
160
280
340
250
200
390
195
380
162
-------
TABLE 21
FECAL COLIFORM REDUCTION IN OXIDATION DITCHES
CASE LOCATION INFLUENT EFFLUENT % REMOVAL REFERENCE
mpn/100 ml mpn/lQQ ml
543 —CO 3 X 106 3 X 102 62
544 —CO 7 X 106 79 x 103 ., 62
545 —CO 27.8 X 10b 17.2 X 10 62
163
-------
ADDENDUM TO BIBLIOGRAPHY
61. Texas Water Quality Board, Austin, Texas, unpublished
monthly operating records, 1971.
62. Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado,
unpublished data, 1971.
63. Iowa State Health Department, unpublished monthly
operating records, 1971.
64. Missouri Water Pollution Control Board, Jefferson
City, Missouri, unpublished monthly data, 1971.
65. Williford, H.K., and Middlebrooks, E.J., "Performance
of Field-Scale Facultative Wastewater Treatment
Lagoons", JWPCF, ^9_:12, December, 1967.
66. Horning, W.B., II, Forges, R. , Clarke, H.F., and
Cook, II.F., "Waste Stabilization Pond Study, Lebanon,
Ohio", U.S. Public Health Service, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, May, 1964.
67. McKinney, R.E., and Benjes, H.H., Jr., "Evaluation
of Two Aerated Lagoons", Journal Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE, 9_1: SA6, December 1965.
68. Townshend, A.R., and Boyko, B.I., "Aerated Lagoon
Design Methods, An Evaluation Based on Ontario Field
Data", presented at the Twenty-Fourth Industrial
Waste Cpnference, Purdue University, May, 1969-
69. McKinney, R.E., "Overloaded Oxidation Ponds - Two
Case Histories", JWPCF, £0_:1, January, 1968.
70. Merrell, J.C., Katko, A., and Pintler, H.E., "The
Santee Recreation Project", California, Summary
Report, 1962-1964, U.S. DHEW, Division of Water
Supply and Pollution Control, December, 1965.
71. Silva, P.C., and Papenfuss, G.F., "Report on a System-
atic Study of Sewage Oxidation Ponds", State Water
Pollution Control Board, Publication No. 7,
Sacramento, 1953.
164
-------
72. Weiss, C.M., "Oxidation Ponds and Tertiary Treatment -
Performance as a Function of Retention Time", Proc.
Sixteenth Water Resources and Pollution Control
Conference, Duke University, April, 1967.
73. Anonymous, "Results of Physical-Chemical Analyses
of Influents and Effluents to Lagoons at B.I.A.
Schools in Arizona and New Mexico", Memo Attachment
to: Director, Robert A. Taft, Water Research Center
from: Assistant Commissions for Operations, FWQA,
Washington, D.C.
74. Oswald, W.J., Golueke, C.G. and Tyler, R.W.,
"Integrated Pond Systems for Subdivision", JWPCF,
3£:8, 1289X 1967 .
75. Fitzgerald, G.P. and Rohlich, G.A., "An Evaluation
of Stabilization Pond Literature", Sewage and Indus-
trial Waste, 30.: 10, 1213, 1958.
76. Busch, W.H., "Report on the Investigation of Three-
State Sewage Pond Performance, Rochester, Illinois
Facilities", April, 1965, unpublished.
77. Canter, L.W., "Field Pond Studies at Laplace,
Louisiana", July, 1970, personal communication.
78. Directo, L.S., "Sewage Treatment Plants", Water and
Sewage Works, 116_:289, August, 1969.
79. Reid, G.W., Wilcomb, M.J., andAssenzo, J.R., "The
Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus by Biooxidation
Ponds", University of Oklahoma Research Institute,
Civil Engineering and Environmental Science Research
Lab, November, 1965.
80. Technical Services Program, Municipal and Industrial
Waste Activity, Inland Navigation Project, Robert
S. Kerr Water Research Center (1966), unpublished.
81. Mackenthun, K.M. and McNabb, C.D., "Sewage Stabiliza-
tion Ponds in Wisconsin", Bulletin No. WP105, Madison,
Wisconsin/ 1959 .
165
-------
82. Hurst, H.M., and C. K. Sudweeks, "Development of
Lagoon Design Standards in Utah", presented at
2nd International Symposium on Wastewater Lagoons,
Kansas City, June, 1970.
83. Gallagher, T.P., Silva, F.J., Olinger, L.W., and
Whatley, R.A., "Pollution Affecting Shellfish
Harvesting in Mobile Bay, Alabama", U.S.D.I., FWPCA,
Athens, Georgia, 1969.
84. Little, J.A., Carroll, B.J., and Gentry, R.E.,
"Bacterial Removal in Oxidation Ponds", 2nd
International Symposium.
85. Clark, B.D., and Dostal, K.A., "Evaluation of
Waste Treatment System: Chemawa Indian School",
FWPCA, Northwest Region, Report No. FR-6, Corvallis,
Oregon.
86. Dostal, K.A., "Aerated Lagoon Treatment of Food
Processing Wastes", FWPCA, Report No. PR-5,
Corvallis, Oregon.
87. Formo, E.G., "Summary of Design and Operation
Data for Aerated Lagoons", Off. Bull. N. Dak. Wat. Sewage
Wks. Conf., 33:3, 21, 1965.
i
88. Hurwitz, E., "Conversion to an Aerated Lagoon
Extends Pond's Life", Water and Sewage Works,
1K>:359, October, 1963.
89. Saucier, J.H., "Anaerobic Lagoons Versus Aerated
Lagoons in the Treatment of Packing-House Wastes",
personal communication.
91. Grube, G.A., and R. S. Murphy, "Oxidation Ditch
Works Well in Sub-Arctic Climate", Water and
Sewage Works, I16_:26l, July, 1969.
92. Berk, W.L., "Rotor Aeration, A Fresh Approach to
an Old Problem", Lakeside Engineering Corporation,
Chicago, Illinois.
166
-------
93. Berk, W.L., "Theory, Operation and Cost of the
Oxidation Ditch Process", Lakeside Engineering
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois.
94. Kaneshige, Harry M., "Performance of the Somerset,
Ohio Oxidation Ditch", JWPCF, 4.2:7, 1370-1378,
July, 1970.
167
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECT STUDY DESIGN
169
-------
PROJECT STUDY DESIGN
The approach chosen by RETA to accomplish the study ob-
jectives is based upon refined objectives, specific scope,
and engineering logic. FWQA input will be formally so-
licited at the beginning of the project as well as for the
final project report. Continual informal dialogue between
FWQA and RETA is encouraged during the study.
An initial study design has been developed as illustrated
in Figure 1-1. This study design will become active with
the review and incorporation of FWQA recommendations follow-
ing the expected project orientation and review conference.
The project has been separated into 33 Tasks and the in-
formation available to the Project Manager divided into
detail sub-tasks. For the purpose of orientation, brief
comments are provided at the task level breakdown. Addi-
tional information will be available to FWQA as the pro-
ject is explained and reviewed in conference.
The required information will be obtained by utilizing
existing data and identifying additional data sources.
Following evaluation and condensation of this data, a
critique of lagoon technology will be made by RETA en-
gineers, and conclusions and recommendations formulated.
The following task narrative is keyed to Figure 1-1 illus-
trating the logic and the interrelationship between tasks.
Task #1 - Establish Objective
Establish objective of study internally, explicitly with
mutual agreement of FWQA.
Task #2 - Establish Scope
Establish scope with FWQA of study to specifically limit
this study to allow in depth amplification of investiga-
tions leading to the accomplishment of the stated objec-
tives .
Task #3 - Develop Time Budget
Consider and schedule time budgets for personnel to
adequately staff the study and satisfy RETA and FWQA
officers of project completion.
170
-------
Establish Objectives
Establish Scope
Develop Time Budget
Define Project Management
Define Required
Information on Lagoons
FWQA Project
Input Required
Delineate and Identify
Information Sources
Summarize Existing
Available Info inhouse
or Easily and Readily Accessible
Project Layout
and
Rev iew/FWOA
Evaluate and
Check Data
Prepare Final
Report
f
Prepare
Presentation
of Findings
to FWQA y^
Key States
Fed .Personnel
Specified Municipalities
Applicable Industry
Literature & Symposia
Determine The
Additional
Info Needed
Implement Data
Acquisition
Determine Gov.
Benefit of
Lagoon R&D
29
Establish
Project
Priorities
Critique.
Data
I
I Identify
Areas of R&D
Demo Work
26J Establish
*-S Performance
Summarize
Limiting
Factors
Assess Use
Trends
Condense and
Format Data
Evaluate And
Select Procedure
of Compiling Data
Design Data Acquisition
System
Interim
Report to FWQA
Evaluate and Select
Procedure
For Reporting Data
Evaluate and Select
Procedure
for Obtaining Data
Identify Data
Gaps
FIGURE 1-1 TASK NETWORK DIAGRAM
-------
Task #4 - Define Project Management
Define with RETA and verify with FWQA that the project
management will have responsibilities and names attached
internally and externally. Progress report format, fre-
quency and extent will be established with FWQA. Format
for the final report will be mutually developed.
Task #5 - Project Layout and Review with FWQA
The total project will be designed and discussed as laid
out in the Task Network Diagram with full compliance and/or
modification by FWQA. The material developed in the first
five tasks will be presented in conference to FWQA.
(1) Tasks will be written up
(2) Times will be estimated
(3) Project will be illustrated
Task #6 - FWQA Project Input Required
Input on the project will be formally sought during Tasks
#5 and #33. It is to be understood that input and corres-
pondence from the designated FWQA project officer will be
encouraged throughout the project. Formal changes and re-
commendations will be entertained during the project layout
and preparation of final report.
Task #7 - Define Required Information on Lagoons
Activities in this task will be directed to identifying
specific questions to satisfy the project objectives,
such as:
How many lagoons are in existence?
Where are the majority of the lagoons located?
By whom were the lagoons designed?
What agencies were responsible for the approval of
the lagoons?
What problems have arisen?
What designs have been used?
172
-------
What effect does geography have?
What parameters have been used for operating and
design?
What efficiencies have been found?
What is or can be done to improve the efficiencies?
What are common advantages and disadvantages of
lagoons?
What costs are common and where were these found?
Where are lagoons most common and why?
What are the seasonal effects on the efficiency of
lagoons?
How much capital has been invested in lagoon systems
at the local, state, Federal, as well as internation-
al level?
What are the aesthetic descriptive parameters?
Is a lagoon a secondary treatment system? If so,
why?
Task #8 - Delineate and Identify the Information Sources
Relative to Who, What, Where, When and Why
As illustrated in the Task Network Diagram, Task #9 through
Task #13 indicating key states, Federal personnel, speci-
fied municipalities, applicable industry, and literature
and symposia will be established as specifically as possible
to simplify procedures of developing the necessary informa-
tion. The result of this task will be the identification
of personnel which should be able to supply information,
as well as the location and identification of information
specifically aimed at satisfying the objectives of this
study. Typical information which should be developed
173
-------
during this task would be as follows:
(1) Who specifically are the key people using
lagoons?
a. Local
b. State
c. Federal
d. International
(2) What controlling factors have caused these uses?
a. Dollars
b. Time
c. Efficiency
d. Temporary treatment necessary
(3) Where are the majority of lagoons of several
different types of efficiencies?
a. Missouri
b. California
c. Texas
d. Florida
e. Indiana
f. Michigan
g. Mississippi
h. Other
(4) When were most lagoons built and what is the
present construction rate?
(5) Why are states and individuals using lagoons?
(6) What data is available and in what form and
assessibility is it, such as influent-effluent
criteria on
a. BOD
b. Settleable Solids
c. Suspended Solids
d. Flotables
e. COD
f. Phosphorus
g. Nitrogen
174
-------
h. Algae
i. Coliform
(7) What aesthetic parameters are important and to
what extent are they, such as
a. Odor
b. Insects
c. Lataral growth
d. Nutrient enrichment of rivers and lakes
e. Appearance
Task #9 - Key States to be Considered
The purpose of this task is to develop criteria for the
selection of states and to develop the skeletal framework
upon which Task #20 - Implementation of Data Acquisition
may be made. Information which should compose the basis
of the skeletal framework would include the following:
(1) Number of lagoons used
(2) Present opinion by state officials
a. Favorable
b. Unfavorable
(3) Personnel and regulatory body which will co-
operate with project management and the objectives
of this study
(4) Geographical uniqueness or representation illus-
trated by the State
(5) Accessibility of data required
(6) To whom are lagoon permits issued and why or
why not are they issued
(7) Receiving water characteristic data availability
175
-------
Task #10 - Federal Personnel
The purpose of this task is to identify those personnel
within the Federal structure whose activities would lend
meaningful information to the technology of lagoons.
Selection of these personnel which will be utilized during
Task #20 - Implementation of Data Acquisition will be
based upon
(1) Experience
(2) Data availability and reliability
(3) Evaluation of future trends and uses
a. Problems
b. Advantages
Task #11 - Selection of Specified Municipalities
The activities in developing the skeletal framework during
this task will be concerned with identifying municipali-
ties experienced in the use of lagoons for waste treatment.
Those cities identified will be utilized during the Task
#20 - Implementation of Data Acquisition to supply opera-
tional data for the assessment of lagoon technology -
Criteria used in the selection of the municipalities will
be as follows:
(1) Reason for municipality using lagoons
(2) Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the opera-
tion of the lagoons
(3) Performance data availability
(4) Problems experienced during the operation of
lagoons as specified by
a. Parameters
b. Aesthetic considerations
(5) Relation of municipality with regulatory body
indicating the degree of severity of any problems
of effluent discharge from lagoons
176
-------
(6) Has the operation of the lagoons been satis-
factory to the point that the municipality will
build more lagoons. Why or why not?
(7) Geographic and population uniqueness and re-
presentation will be considered.
Task #12 - Applicable Industrial Uses of Lagoons
Activities in this task will be directed to establishing
the skeletal framework of industrial data which applies
directly to the objectives of this study. Typical ques-
tions and information which will be required is as follows:
(1) Why would industry use lagoons?
(2) Availability of data for publication and
evaluation
(3) Geographic uniqueness or representation
(4) Receiving water characteristics
(5) Relationship of the industry with the concerned
regulatory agencies
(6) Will other lagoons be built? Why or why not?
(7) Note industries particularly fond of lagoons
and those who have found them unsatisfactory
and why.
Task #13 - Literature and Symposia Used to Seek Experience
of Others such as Consultants and Academicians
Efforts will be spent during this task phase to update the
literature in the comprehensive files of RETA as well as
take advantage of conferences where experts in the area
can be gathered to describe developments and technology
on lagoons. Efforts will be expended in this task on an
intermittent basis thereby providing the latest, information
available for the preparation of the final report. Specific
duties which will be covered in this task area are as
follows:
177
-------
(1) Utilizing existing files, RETA personnel assigned
to this project will become intimately familiar
with the literature
(2) Use of information gathering services will be
considered to broaden the spectrum of litera-
ture covered
(3) These data gathered from the literature will be
reviewed and critiqued with the study objectives
in mind to fulfill the requirements of Task #8 -
Delineating and Identifying Information Sources
(4) Advantage will be taken of conferences and
symposia which will be held during the span
of this project to economically discuss the
current status of lagoon technology with as
many experts as feasible
(5) Specific individuals will be selected and
visited to obtain data and opinions on the
use and effectiveness and expected trends in
lagoon technology.
Task #14 - Summarize Existing Available Information In-
House or Easily and Readily Accessible
This task has been designed to bring together that in-
formation which was easily obtained during the development
of Task #8, #13. Considerable information is expected to
be brought to the surface based on in-house files and from
initial contacts establishing the skeletal framework for
the implementation of data acquisition. This summary will
not represent the final format or content of the data
gathered but should specify existing readily available
reliable data. The summary should reflect tabulation of
information delineated in Task #8 plus data on influent
and effluent parameters.
Task #15 - Determine the Additional Information Needed
The required information was defined in Task #7 and that
information which is readily available was summarized in-
to the existing information in Task #14. The primary em-
phasis during this activity will be the comparison of these
178
-------
two sources of information, thereby identifying the addi-
tional _ information which is needed. The additional in-
formation will be specified exactly as to the type and
extent of data which is required. The additional informa-
tion needed will, to a degree, affect Task #19 which in-
volves the design of the data acquisition system.
Task #16 - Evaluate and Select Procedure for Obtaining
Data~~
Of the several methods available such as using question-
naires, personal interviews, telephone conversations,
group seminars, and others, procedures will be evaluated
and one selected for securing the additional information
needed. The advantages and disadvantages of each pro-
cedure considered will be noted and the procedures selected
will satisfy at least the following requirements:
(1) Minimum requirement of RETA personnel
(2) Little or no clearance required by Federal
government
(3) Minimal effort required by individual possess-
ing the information
(4) Require the minimum time of the interviewer
and interviewee or other situations for re-
sponding to the request for information
(5) Information must be obtained within the budget
allotted.
Task #17 - Evaluate and Select Procedure for Recording
Data
The activities to be undertaken during this task will in-
volve consideration of alternative methods of recording and
reporting the information accumulated. Considerations
which will play an important role in selecting a procedure
for recording the data will involve at least the following:
(1) The procedure must consider minimum time
requirement
179
-------
(2) The procedure should reduce the opportunity for
data transcribing errors
(3) Under field conditions, the data reporting
system should be uncumbersome to handle
(4) The data reporting system should not impose
on the participant
Alternatives available for consideration in reporting the
data may be systems such as the following:
(1) Use of designed forms or questionnaires
(2) Use of portable tape recorders under inter-
viewing situations
(3) Use of Polaroid close-up cameras for documents
(4) Use of IBM field punch cards system
Task #18 - Evaluate and Select Procedures of Compiling
Data
Primarily the activities undertaken under this task will
be concerned with noting various systems of compiling
data of the type which was defined under Task #7. Con-
siderations will be made of systems which do the follow-
ing :
(1) Minimize the actual data handling time
(2) Require the minimum amount of engineering in-
terpretations
(3) Create the smallest typing load
(4) Produce the data in the clearest and most
logical order
(5) Provide cross index information retrieval of
the several systems available or that may be
designed
180
-------
Systems such as the following may be considered:
(1) Use of standard interview or question forms
which may be Xeroxed and cross referenced
(2) Transfer of information from several sources
and forms onto computer data retrieval systems
(3) Use of key point card index filing systems
(4) Use of microfilm data retrieval systems
(5) Division of data retrieval among several RETA
employees, thereby making each completely re-
sponsible for a certain segment or segments of
the data base
Task #19 - Design Data Acquisition System
Using the input from the additional information defined in
Task #15 and the systems which have been evaluated during
Tasks #16 through #18 for obtaining, reporting and com-
piling data,the actual acquisition system will be designed.
The completion of this task will render a clear path of
who will be contacted with specific identification, what
will be required of this individual, in what form it will
be reported, and what will be done with the data once ob-
tained. The data acquisition systems will be developed
taking into account the differences and municipal, Federal,
and industrial information sources and any necessary time
delays which may be anticipated.
Task #20 - Implement Data Acquisition
This task will require personnel to secure the necessary
information. As illustrated in the Task Network Diagram,
the data will be required using the skeletal framework es-
tablished in Tasks #9, #10, #11, #12 and #13 to provide the
necessary data base to evaluate the technology of lagoons.
Efforts of personnel working in this task area will deal
with implementing the procedures, evaluating and selected
Tasks #16, #17, and #18 for the total acquisition system.
RETA personnel engaged in this activity will know exactly
what information should be obtained from whom and how it
it should be reported and compiled. Some flexibility in
181
-------
this is anticipated, due to differences in agencies and
the availability of data in different states.
Task #21 - Evaluate and Check Data
As indicated in the Task Network Diagram, the data will be
evaluated by the project manager or engineer and a check
will be made to determine if in actuality the required in-
formation on lagoons has been obtained. If the required
information has not been obtained, additional efforts will
be made to determine the additional information needed and
to take steps to obtain this information or identify the
information as a data gap as illustrated in Task #24.
Task #22 - Condense and Format Data
The data which has been compiled will be condensed using
any applicable statistical tools and formats established
which will be utilized in Task #23 and throughout the rest
of the study. The format defined for the data will be
designed to provide information in a tabular form indica-
ting its accuracy, source, special conditions under which
it was taken, and where possible, the reference to other
supportive or non-supportive related data acquired by
other agencies.
Task #23 - Interim Report to FWQA
Primarily this task will concern activities dealing with
the production of an interim report which will utilize
the condensed and formated data thereby enabling FWQA to
utilize the available data at the earliest possible time
This interim report will have little or no effect on the
conclusions or recommendations but will indicate the re-
liability and depth to which the spectrum of data should
be representative.
Task #24 - Identify Data Gaps
As indicated in the Task Network Diagram, input from
Task #22 indicating the data in the condensed form, as
well as the additional data which was determined necessary
in Task #15, when combined, generate the necessity for
again examining if there is a possible means of obtain-
ing the data as in Task #16. With this positive check,
182
-------
efforts may be made to obtain this data identified as
missing or if determined not feasible, these data
gaps identified will be utilized in Task #29 of the
study. The result of the efforts in this task will
deal specifically with identifying the areas in which
the data was found inadequate and illustrating the reasons
of inadequacy.
Task #25 - Critique Data
Considerable engineering evaluation will be spent during
this task to interpret the meaning of the data which has
been developed during the study. The data critique will
involve pointing out and discussing the relative strength
and weaknesses of the lagoon system as have been observed
during the study. Inadequacies of the data will be dis-
cussed noting limitations of personnel and funds, and
awareness of the importance of maintaining reliable and
accurate records. During this critiquing task, the basis
for Tasks #26, #27, and #28 will be established to ex-
plore in more detail the lagoon performance, limiting
factors, and expected trends. The information developed
under Task #25 will be utilized in the preparation of
a small chapter in the final report.
Task #26 - Establish Performance
Considerable effort will be devoted to identifying the
performance of lagoons as functions of various factors,
such as geography and hydraulic and organic overloading
in light of the water quality criteria and effluent quality
standards which have been developed by the several states
under study. This task will require efforts to satisfy
the objectives of the study indicating the adequacy of the
lagoons, the current thinking of the various states.
Task #27 -_ Summarize Limiting Factors
The effort here is to be primarily directed at specifying
the limiting factors which have been observed in the several
geographic areas under the various conditions and opera-
tions to make effective the operation of lagoons. The in-
formation developed and discussed here will be based upon
the critique developed in Task #25, and should satisfy the
objectives of the study indicating the problems and limit-
ing factors of lagoons.
183
-------
Task #28 - Assess Use Trends
Activities in this task will be directed to achieving the
objectives of this study by indicating the guidelines
and the future extent and use of the lagoons. Information
developed in the critique in Task #25 will be utilized and
amplified to indicate why states are encouraging or dis-
couraging the use of lagoons. Efforts will be made to
assess the number of units expected, the various regions,
and to identify any problems which are expected and pro-
cedures which have been created to handle them or justifi-
cation to tolerate them.
Task #29 - Identification of Areas of R & D and Demonstra-
tion Work
Information developed during Tasks #26, #27, #28, and #24
indicating the performance, limiting factors, trends and
information gaps will be utilized to identify the areas
where research or demonstration work using lagoons is re-
quired. The activities in this task will be directed to
specifically noted projects which, if carried out under
sufficiently large scale over a sufficiently long period
of time, would materially advance the state of technology
of lagoons. The areas of R & D and demonstration work
may cover such items as:
(1) Reevaluation of design criteria
(2) Development of operator guidelines
(3) Incorporation of certain mechanical devices
(4) Use of chemicals for upgrading performance
(5) Converting the lagoons economically to another
unit operation
(6) Identification of the economic alternatives and
advantages or disadvantages of lagoons illustra-
ting the cost per measure of organic pollutant
per increment of time
184
-------
Task #30 - Determine Governmental Benefit of Lagoon R & D
An effort will be made to clarify any substantial benefit
that additional money spent on reasearch and'development
for lagoon technology would accrue to the government.
Typical information developed here would be identification
of the total governmental expense involved in the capital
investment facilities in lagoon operations. Another as-
pect will be the identification of the time delay required
for the construction of elaborate treatment facilities
versus modification or upgrading of lagoon systems.
Task #31 - Establish Project Priorities
The input from Task #29, identification of the areas of R
& D work or demonstration projects, plus the input of
Task #30 which determines the benefit of a government for
supporting these works will be utilized to establish a
rank priority of projects which will substantially upgrade
the lagoon technology. The results of this effort will be
a tabular indication with sufficient justification of the
projects with a relative time base of urgency identified.
The information will be prepared in such a manner that the
FWQA would be in a position to make a policy decision on
sponsoring these types of projects.
Task #32 - Prepare Presentation of Findings to FWQA
As illustrated in Task Network Diagram, the findings will
be prepared for a conference with FWQA prior to the pre-
paration of the final report. The project manager will
be responsible for making a positive check to insure that
the defined information which was required in Task #7
has been obtained or identified as missing and so accounted
for. Sufficient tables, figures, and graphic materials for
conference presentation will be prepared to provide FWQA
with a full appreciation of what the contents of the final
report will be.
Task #33 - Prepare Final Report
As noted on the Task Network Diagram, FWQA input will be
required following the presentation of findings as the final
report is being prepared. The report format will be that
as agreed upon in Task #4 and will be delivered with the re-
quired number of copies as specified in the contract agree-
ment.
185
-------
APPENDIX D
EVALUATION OF LAGOON TREATMENT
ON A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS
187
-------
APPENDIX D
EVALUATION OF LAGOON TREATMENT
ON A STATE-BY-STATE BASIS
The following state-by-state descriptions of lagoon per-
formance are the result of conversations and visits with
state engineers, officials from agencies concerned with
water quality and wastewater treatment, and other experts
in the field. The attitudes of state officials towards
the use of lagoons for wastewater treatment were determin-
ed and an evaluation completed of various performance
problems, conditions affecting performance, monitoring
and recording of data, design criteria, and existing and
recommended state programs.
The states have been divided into nine geographic regions,
shown in Table 1.
SOUTHWEST REGION
Geographically, there are several distinct situations in
this region. Climatically, all of the states have common
features especially with regard to altitude. Arizona has
the most uniformly amenable climate: the hot, dry en-
vironment produces little effluent, and, in many cases,
effluents are reused for irrigation.
California, on the other hand, has a variety of climates
ranging from low, hot desert interior to cloud-covered,
wet, coastal areas. Areas to the west of the mountains
are covered by clouds for considerable parts of the year,
and lagoon performance suffers. In areas of heavy flow
volume and relatively poor evaporation, effluent enters
receiving streams and ultimately coastal estuarine areas,
where the accumulation of algae laden effluent creates
problems of oxygen depletion. As previously stated, a
greater variety of facilities have been tried in California
than in any other state. Although some facilities appear
to perform very well, the heavy production of algae, short-
circuiting and the inability to effectively remove nutrients
makes use of lagoons throughout this state questionable.
ARIZONA - In Arizona lagoon performance is considered an
acceptable process for secondary treatment; there are plans
to construct more lagoons as required.
188
-------
TABLE 1
STATES CATEGORIZED BY REGION
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
Delaware
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
NORTHWEST
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
SOUTH CENTRAL
Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
MISSOURI BASIN
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
NORTHEAST
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
SOUTHWEST
Arizona
California
Nevada
Utah
GREAT LAKES
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
OHIO BASIN
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
SOUTHEAST
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Tennessee
Economic considerations are the main reason for construc-
tion of lagoons. Climate is amenable to their operation and
the major portion of the effluent is utilized for irriga-
tion. For these reasons, operating records are not required
although a daily log is recommended.
No discharges of any secondary facility are permitted into
waters where nutrient enrichment would create problems.
Some operating figures do show a rather poor BOD and SS
removal; many of the facilities may be overloaded due to
rapid population expansion. In any event, high evaporation
189
-------
and percolation rates leave relatively little effluent to
be discharged.
CALIFORNIA - State engineers in California indicate only
marginal satisfaction with lagoon performance. Research-
ers are working to refine and define lagoon performance.
Lagoons are generally viewed as satisfactory for smaller
communities or as interim facilities. Treatment by lagoon
generally follows another type of treatment, with effluent
loadings from the primary facility unknown. As a result,
lagoon performance cannot be adequately verified.
Numerous studies have been conducted in California and
their results indicate that lagoon performance often falls
short of the degree of treatment required to protect the
waterways.
NEVADA AND UTAH - Both states have very few aerobic lagoon
installations.
Ten State Standards are generally followed in designing
installations and periodic use mitigates against serious
problems. Where continuous use might create problems,
total containment is practiced. Winter operation in the
northern part of both states or at high elevations does
create some problems related to ice cover but these are
not regarded as serious.
Sampling is of a periodic nature and the results, which
show high BOD reduction and satisfactory coliform bacteria
reduction. Chlorination is practiced where necessary to
accomplish adequate disinfection.
SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
The states of the South Central Region are generally
satisfied with lagoons. Favorable climatic conditions
are probably the key to their relative success here.
While some states in this region give lagoons unqualified
approval, others are more cautious. In a high evaporation
state such as New Mexico, there is no problem with effluent
discharge. Streams within the region must be viewed with
caution. Louisiana apparently considers the general per-
formance of lagoon effluent suitable.
190
-------
At the present time, Arkansas, of the seven states in the
region, probably has more information about the actual per-
formance of their facilities than any other state reporting
to the contractor. A system of periodic on-station checks
and measurements leaves little doubt as to performance. In
certain portions of this state lagooning is specifically
prohibited in order to maintain high receiving water
quality.
Algal discharge has become a serious problem in both
Oklahoma and Texas.
TEXAS - Texas is trying a self-reporting system to gather
operational data and assess the performance of lagoons.
The operators are not required to run specific tests if,
in their opinion, there is no need to do so. Consequently,
significant gaps appear in the data. Conversion to a
computerized audit of all state facilities should result
in more meaningful data in the future.
Oxidation ponds or lagoons are considered adequate for
treatment in rural areas, but the minimal maintenance
requirement produces questionable performance.
Testing frequency is based on a graduated scale, depending
upon size of the plant and flow delivered.
Serious problems have developed with regard to the presence
of algae in effluents. No real assessment of the potential
drainage to receiving streams has been accomplished at
this time but presumably it may be great. Experiments are
in progress to investigate the utilization of Daphnia as a
means of removing algae, however, limited success has been
achieved.
NEW MEXICO - Despite a sampling schedule of only once every
two to three years, lagoons are considered quite adequate
for the needs of the state.
Improvements suggested by state officials for solution of
New Mexico's problems include concrete aprons for weed
control and spme means of operating lagoons in series of
parallel; neither improvement is currently specified in
State design requirements.
191
-------
Low cost for small municipalities is cited as the dominant
criteria for choosing lagoons.
COLORADO - Facultative lagoons, the predominant type, are
monitored once a year for BOD5. They generally are con-
sidered to achieve at least 80 percent BOD5 reduction.
Chlorination is not normally required as total or fecal
coliform shows a 90 to 95 percent reduction. Effluent
coliform counts available reveal that this objective is
met under most conditions; however, coliform counts still
range from about 2,000 to 50,000 (MPN/100 ml).
Longer detention time is recommended by state engineers
but since few coliform counts are made on individual lagoon
operations, there are insufficient data to validate this
report.
LOUISIANA - The attitude of Louisiana officials is typical
of the philosophy that lagoons are designed to work by
consulting engineering firms, these designs are approved
by the State Department of Health and hence, lagoons do
work. "Work" is defined as 85 percent BOD5 removal and
any other standards required to meet the water quality
criteria for the receiving stream. State officials iterate
that, "Since lagoons work (as designed) they do not require
testing." Therefore, no regular testing is done. A
voluntary training program is in effect with no mandatory
certification law.
This state is satisfied with lagoons and presently plans
construction of additional installations. Lagoons are in-
expensive and reliable in outstate areas; they are not
used in larger municipalities because of high land costs.
Two cell systems in series are specified; all indications
would point to a degree of success with BOD, bacteria
and suspended solids reduction other than algae removal.
Stream standards have been published for the state and are
not generally as stringent as for more northern waters.
Monthly median coliform counts of 1600/100 ml or 5000/100 ml
for 10 percent of the time are allowable. Dissolved oxygen
is required to be not less than 50 percent of possible
saturation at existing stream temperatures at any time due
L92
-------
to effluent. Two cell lagoons in series can probably
accomplish this with relative ease in this southern loca-
tion.
KANSAS - Kansas officials estimate more than 150 municipal
lagoons with an additional 700 to 800 annual waste (feed-
lot) facilities, 50 to 100 industrial facilities, and in
excess of 600 individual (private dwelling) lagoons of
smaller size. The largest of the municipal plants is
over 60 acres. (STORET lists 232 municipal lagoons).
Lagoons are regarded as equivalent secondary treatment in
Kansas and additional design and construction is authorized
in areas where population density permits.
It is felt that these facilities produce a relatively
constant effluent, and no regular sampling program is re-
quired or implemented.
Since there are no clearwater streams in the state, the
presence of algae in the effluent is not regarded as a
significant problem.
The figures on percent BOD5 reduction, shown in Table .2
appear to present a picture of total lagoon performance.
However, they are, in themselves, somewhat misleading.
System #1 (Overbrook, Kansas) under peak loading 9 a.m. to
3 p.m. produced a high BOD5 reduction, 95 percent, and
good effluent, 10 mg/1. The flow diminished during the
period of 11 p.m. to 9 a.m., as did concentration of the
wastewater 50 mg/1 BOD5. Under the influence of no light
or photosynthesis, the effluent quality, while still quite
acceptable (18 mg/1), produced only 64 percent BOD5 re-
duction during this 10 hour period. Flow data was not
available, so total load to the receiving stream could
not be calculated. The cycle is repeated daily.
These data indicate one significant point: following a
period of cloud cover, the 10-hour periods at night might
produce a totally unacceptable effluent to the receiving
stream, and due to the nature of sampling, would never be
recorded. Also apparent is the possibility that much of
the nutrient source remaining from the primary cell is
converted to algal cells in the final cell, thereby creat-
ing the higher effluent BOD5 and COD. This is not seen in
193
-------
TABLE 2
LAGOON PERFORMANCE DATA IN KANSAS (60)
DATE & TIME PERIOD INFLUENT BOD
4-20, 9 am - 3 pm
4-20, 3 to 11 pm
4-21, 11 to 9 am
4-21, 9 to 3 pm
4-21, 3 to 11 pm
4-22, 11 to 9
4-22, 9 to 3
TC Total Coliform
5-5, 3 to 9
5-6, 9 to 7
5-6, 3
5-6, 3 to 10
5-7, 10 to 8
5-7, 8 to 3
5-7, 3 to 11
5-8, 10 to 4
5-11, 10 to 4
5-11, 4 to 10
TC Total Coliform
170
110
050
115
110
032
100
52 x 106
240
135
260
185
120
205
280
230
225
320
151 x 106
4>
I ° REMOVE
10 95
14 87
16 64
12 90
15 84
11 66
13 92
215 x 103
41
32
51
45
46
55
45
38
38
27
65 x 103
**
11°
17
17
22
21
13
17
32
6 x 103
23
26
33
31
31
45
44
39
29
35
143
* primary cell
** secondary cell
194
-------
System #2 where the 11° pool shows a lower BOD than the
1° cell.
The influence of increased detention time is dramatically
demonstrated in total coliform counts. In Plant #1, with
only 75^days detention time, there were still 6000 cells/
100 ml in effluent where considerable water fluctuation
was observed. Plant #2, on the other hand, with 130 days
detention time produced only 143 cells/100 ml at the point
where effluent could occur even though the initial con-
centration was almost three times as high. Losses from
both seepage and evaporation kept the final cell in Plant
#2 from producing an effluent.
The essentially poor quality of receiving streams and
the use of effluent of the qualities shown for irrigation
of land where available water is precious are both argu-
ments for continued use of lagoons in this state.
OKLAHOMA - Oklahoma officials, unlike those in Kansas, are
discouraging the construction of lagoon installations.
There appears to be no justification for this attitude
other than an apparent dislike for lagoons. Performance
for those lagoons where data have been-reported, appear to
be neither better nor worse than other states which
accept them as satisfactory treatment.
Over 400 lagoons presently in the state were constructed
instead of conventional plants for obvious economic
benefit. The state does not require sampling although
state law does require that the operator take samples
once or twice a month.
Many installations are two cell systems, apparently to
improve performance. The results, unfortunately, indicate
many of the plants have been severely overloaded in the
first cell so that failure in the second or subsequent
cell is virtually assured.
Algae in the effluent is regarded as a significant problem.
Although not stated, it would appear that high effluent
BOD5 is partly responsible for furthering the growth of
blue-green algae and subsequent complaints from downstream
residents.
195
-------
SOUTHEAST REGION
A large number of lagoons exist in this region and the
reactions to them vary from almost complete acceptance
through cautious use to total rejection of the concept
of lagooning as a waste treatment process. The most
adamant rejection is in those states where serious ex-
perimental observation has provided a data base to indi-
cate the failure of lagoons under existing conditions.
This evaluation, as in other situations, is not to be
taken as a blanket condemnation of lagoon treatment. It
does, however, focus on the numerous operational diffi-
culties which can accompany faulty design and maintenance,
and a basically erroneous philosophy of wastewater treat-
ment .
ALABAMA - While the covered responses averaged 90 percent
plus BODc; reduction, STORET data for this state are mean-
ingless; industrial and private lagoons, which require
prior approval, are not usually listed by acreage or type.
Standard measurements of flow, BOD and SS are required of
all municipal facilities, including lagoons. Because of
the level of operator training, no effluent data is re-
quired of either lagoons or small treatment plants.
State officials feel that most serious problems ultimately
reflect on the quality of maintenance; specific problems
are poor dike management and erosion, marginal and float-
ing vegetation, blue-green algae, and grease build-up in
outlet areas. In many cases, a local operator may not be
informed of added load (new customers), resulting in the
occurrence of serious overloading.
It was also indicated that soil and climatic conditions
are suitable for lagoons, the cost is amenable to lower
priced land, and that generally favorable conditions
exist for continued lagoon use.
A trend present in other states, which will probably be-
come a requirement soon, is the increase in the number of
cells ". . .to provide more efficient treatment."
TENNESSEE - A recent visual inspection of single-celled
facilities in Tennessee disclosed that the overall
196
-------
physical and aesthetic appearance of lagoons is good al-
though there is considerable variation in maintenance.
The reviewer concluded that in western Tennessee for
communities with populations of less than 3000, the
domestic wastewater lagoon is a satisfactory means of
providing economical treatment. Most facilities examined
averaged over 85 percent BOD removal for the year with
highs of 95 percent and lows of around 75 percent. Ef-
fluents were typically of good quality, odor free, and
except for algae cells, judged to be satisfactory.
There are currently no effluent standards for wastewater
treatment plants. Eighty to ninety percent BOD removal
is desired. Ponds are loaded to 30 to 40 Ibs. BOD/acre/
day (200 full-time people at .17PE)" and appear to meet this
requirement.
State officials believe that single-celled units have
performed satisfactorily for the past fifteen years. Two-
celled units are now required, which should further dec-
rease the coliform counts although the total BOD will
probably not be altered to any appreciable extent.
Regular sampling is required and satisfactory compliance
is achieved.
Chlorination is required when bacteria count is judged
too high over considerable periods of elapsed time. At
present, about 10 percent of the facilities are chlori-
nated.
In addition to low initial costs and relatively low
operating costs, existing plants have not had to be by-
passed nor have some of the operating problems of mecha-
nical plants been encountered.
As previously stated, lagoons have been approved for the
western third of the state where soil and topography are
amenable and where most discharge into deep, dry sand
ditches causes no immediate pollution by the time it
reaches permanent stream flow. These waters are not
generally used for public or stock water supplies and
receive limited recreational use.
MISSISSIPPI - Mississippi officials appear to take a
firm stand on lagoons. The state does not condone
197
-------
single-celled units and apparently realizes that multiple-
celled facilities do not reduce the total BOD load as a
result of algal cell generation.
State officials do not feel that aeration of existing
lagoons is effective in solving their problems due
to the heavy erosion.
Construction of conventional treatment plants is the
current goal in the state. After this is achieved there
are plans to initiate adequate records to insure correct
operation of existing plants.
A major part of Mississippi's problem is the lack of
certified operators, resulting in little control over
performance and an essentially sporadic reporting system.
Odors from rotting algal mats, questionable coliform
reductions, low or uncertain suspended solids reduction,
and low BOD and COD reduction have led state officials
to realize they do not know the effect lagoons have
on receiving water quality. Lagoon effluents appear to
cause further reduction in water quality. The Mississippi
Air, Water and Pollution Control Authority is now pro-
ceeding cautiously and granting only limited approval of
lagoons.
FLORIDA - Florida, by state statute and published
standards, requires a minimum of 90 percent BOD5 removal
prior to effluent disposal. None of the lagoons in this
state receive raw wastewater directly- They are referred
to as "polishing ponds" and appear to be equivalent to
tertiary ponds.
Loading of these facilities varies with use. Thus ponds
intended for use primarily as evaporation or percolation
ponds are loaded at 10 to 12 Ibs BOD/acre/day and the
polishing or tertiary ponds are loaded up to 50 Ibs/acre/
day. Some form of approved secondary treatment other
than lagoons precedes each of these facilities. Evapo-
rative ponds are designed four (4) times as large as
polishing ponds and have no discharge. Vegetation and
shore growth is a problem. No data are available on
effluent from Florida polishing ponds.
L98
-------
GEORGIA - Lagoons are considered adequate to meet the
treatment needs of this state. They are in use, in small
rural towns as interim facilities, or for polishing of
plant^effluents. Their low cost and maintenance factors
are cited as a primary advantage.
The^minimum system in Georgia is composed of two ponds in
series, with a baffle across the first. Ninety day stor-
age is required in the second cell. Year-round discharge
is permitted with disinfection practiced depending on the
existing quality of the receiving stream.
Although a concrete or other impervious apron is required
to reduce emergent weed growth, many of the facilities
were reported to suffer from periodic odors, algal and
grease balls and heavy growth of duck weed.
OHIO BASIN
Information from Ohio Basin states demonstrate that a
wide variety of factors can contribute to dissatisfaction
with lagoons. If one includes Missouri and Illinois, a
fairly uniform picture of non-acceptance of lagoons as a
secondary treatment process extends into the New England
states. Limited population and generally unsuitable ter-
rain of much of West Virginia is equally unsuited to
lagoon installations. Population pressures and high land
costs work against extensive lagooning in Pennsylvania,
Ohio and parts of Indiana.
The states in this region have abundant rain, a generally
amenable climate, but considerable ice cover in winters.
Performance studies are few but sufficient in scope to
suggest that effluent quality can be quite poor at times,
probably due primarily to climate. Rising land costs and
population density make the creation of extensive lagoon
areas impractical and costly.
Presently, supplemental aeration and oxidation ditching
are being considered to augment existing facilities. It
is doubtful whether many more facultative facilities will
be constructed with the exception of isolated, rural com-
munities.
OHIO - Ten State Standards are the accepted criteria for
lagoon design in Ohio. 'Rising land costs and complaints
199
-------
from algal growth and odors have fostered a generally un-
favorable attitude toward unaerated lagooning.
At present, no lagoons are permitted except for small
isolated rural communities.
KENTUCKY - The Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion is responsible for design approval. Low loading is
specified at 100 P.E./acre/day or a maximum of 20 Ibs/BOD/
acre/day/ whichever is larger.
There is rather poor reporting by operators of the few
lagoons within the state.
Terrain restricts lagoons in the western half of the
state where the predominant attitude is that lagoons
generally perform in a fashion suitable to protect the
receiving streams in a "reasonable" condition. The
meaning of this statement is not clear. The two biggest
problems appear to be inadequate soil, with consequent
leaking or seepage, and generally poor maintenance and
repair of facilities.
INDIANA - Rising land costs presently make the prospects
of additional lagoon construction questionable in Indiana.
With 90 percent BOD removal specified as adequate second-
ary treatment for municipal facilities, many existing
plants are capable of achieving a 20 to 25 mg/1 BOD in the
effluent. Thus, treatment is considered adequate to meet
the standards but many of the clear low flow, streams are
not adequate to receive lagoon effluents. Although BOD,
D.O. and water depth are specified for reporting, in prac-
tice only visual inspections are conducted on a monthly
basis. Operating efficiencies as high as 90 to 92 per-
cent are reported, but no regular sampling is conducted to
identify any lower figures.
No effort is made to measure stream quality below lagoon
outfalls but a 3:1 dilution is specified during discharge
periods. Algal growth and pond leakage are specific pro-
blems encountered.
According to the Stream Pollution Control Board, most of
the lagoons in the state are operating below the design
load and few complaints are received or operating problems
200
-------
encountered. The State Board of Health reports one three-
celled installation which receives a considerable portion
of its wastes from a cheese processing plant; it is se-
verely overloaded and generates objectional H2S odors
during much of its operation.
The^Ten State Standards are used in the review of proposed
designs which are mutually acted upon by the State Board
of Health and the Stream Pollution Control Board.
WEST VIRGINIA - Most of the problems encountered in this
state are due to faulty initial design and present operat-
ion, according to the Division of Water Resources.
No regular sampling is required and the responsibility to
inspect and take remedial measures rests with individual
municipalities.
Many older facilities, because of improper waste dis-
tribution design, have accumulated sludge deposits and
generally faulty distribution within the cells. Apparent-
ly, improper or inadequate design loading (BOD) is at
fault. Part of the problems resulting in septic condi-
tions are blamed on inadequate depth control, especially
during construction of the older lagoons. Poor community
maintenance and lack of daily testing result in very poor
operating data, although some facilities have reported
90 percent plus BOD removal during the summer.
GREAT LAKES REGION
With the exception of Illinois, these states have been
generally satisfied with lagoon performance. Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan, although satisfied with the
concept of extended detention and periodic release of
effluent to coincide with high river flow, are experi-
menting with other means of effluent disposal. Iowa
apparently feels effluent quality does not significantly
alter receiving water quality in local situations. There
are no:studies to verify this at present.
Illinois has taken the most positive stand; based on new
recommendations, no lagoon effluent will be satisfactory
as presently produced. Illinois does regard lagooning as
equivalent to secondary treatment; however, they credit
the first cell with only 75 percent removal. Thus,
201
-------
additional cell(s) are needed to provide a sufficiently
high degree of treatment.
Forty-one percent of single-celled units did not achieve
expected efficiency; sixty-four percent of two-celled
systems failed and eighty-seven percent of three-celled
facilities failed to achieve their design process effi-
ciency. Part of the reason for these failures is that
lagooning is being expected to perform operations it
appears unable to do. Although typical fecal and other
wastewater BOD are reduced to appropriate levels, the
release of nutrients and subsequent algal growth create
an effluent BOD unsuitable for discharge. This problem
is discussed at length elsewhere in this report.
Porous soils in some of the northern state locations have
created problems and many of the facilities are routinely
sealed before operation.
WISCONSIN - Lagoons in Wisconsin are considered adequate
to meet the treatment needs of the state. They are re-
garded as secondary treatment since the effluent BOD,- is
in the range of 20 to 30 mg/1. Many of the facilities
are temporal, serving only during seasonal vacation peaks;
effluent from many units dissipates before reaching sur-
face waters. There is considerable subsurface seepage
evident but possible effects on ground water supplies
are unknown. Soil types present some problems related
to ineffective sealing of bottoms.
Operating efficiencies in excess of 90 percent with very
low BODS are common during ice free periods. Ice cover
from five to seventeen inches is common over much of the
state during winter. After extended periods of such
cover dissolved oxygen is depleted, resulting in insuffi-
cient photosynthesis; offensive odors commonly develop in
January, February, and March.
Periodic grab samples are taken, often only once a year.
District personnel conduct the sampling and evaluate the
general condition of the facility. Problems found include
those associated with earthen structures, such as rodents
and ineffective seals. Algae growth is also regarded as
a problem in some lagoons.
202
-------
Some small municipalities have encountered problems when
creamery or food processing plants are added to a line,
causing overloading. Such facilities commonly do not
achieve satisfactory treatment. But overloading is not
always the reason for apparent failure to achieve satis-
factory BOD reduction, nor does it explain why an apparent'
ly overloaded lagoon achieves high BOD,- reduction and
high quality effluent.
Like most states, Wisconsin suffers a lack of manpower to
collect and analyze lagoon performance data. Only 26 of
the more than 96 predominantly municipal lagoons identifi-
ed in the state have reported data. Most of these date
are insufficient to use in analytical comparison.
IOWA - Iowa appears to have a rather relaxed attitude
about lagoons. They are recommended for use over small
package plants for places with populations or population
equivalents of less than 1,000.
Although winter discharge is not supposed to occur, it
does. However, little concern is expressed about the
situation.
The Ten State Standards with a lower loading of 20 Ibs.
BOD/acre/day are followed. It is stated that no short-
circuiting occurs; however, it is probable that all
lagoons suffer from some degree of short-circuiting.
Elaborate forms are provided to each treatment facility
and operators must be certified. Records disclosed that
more than 25 percent of the operators do not understand
the directions for filling out the form. Some forms
were obviously "dry-booked". Most of the operators,
however, reported conducting the relatively simple
Relative Stability Test. It is impossible to relate the
data from these reports to other data gathered.
MICHIGAN - The assimilative capacity of receiving waters
appears to be responsible for the attitude that lagoons
are generally adequate in Michigan and several northern
Great Lakes states. Thus, discharge is permitted in
spring and fall during heavy stream flow and lower rec-
reational use.
203
-------
Complete testing of waters "must" be accomplished before
discharging effluent. Sufficient retentive capacity is
covered in design to accomodate water detentions, es-
pecially over ice cover periods. Measurements of COD,
BOD, coliform, solids, D.o and pH are required.
Officials of this state are quite concerned over phos-
phate additions to the Great Lakes, although significant
phosphate removal is not accomplished by lagooning.
The concept of land disposal of lagoon, as well as other
treatment plant effluent is being examined in this state
as a possible means of disposing of this water and re-
charging ground water supplies. Public acceptance of the
idea still impedes progress in this area to some extent.
Specific directions offered by the State, if implemented
by operators, would insure much more satisfactory opera-
tion.
MINNESOTA - The Minnesota Water Pollution Board considers
lagoons the best form of secondary treatment for small
installations. Discharges, usually limited to spring
and fall highwater flow periods in the receiving streams
are regarded as adequately diluted. In addition, dis-
charges are scheduled when algae growth is not a major
factor.
Each lagoon installation is responsible for a quarterly
influent sampling and analysis report before and during
discharge; examination of the records showed little
information had been collected and there was not a great
deal of concern about the sparcity of information. If
data are not recorded, the offender is counseled and some
efforts are made to obtain the data. The records, how-
ever, have no consistent pattern; numerical values re-
ported are not low enough to consistently be called
secondary treatment. While records do not show much con-
crete evidence of performance, the state feels effluent
standards are being met.
ILLINOIS - The State of Illinois has established strin-
gent effluent criteria and is doubtful whether lagoons,
as presently designed, will be able to accomplish such a
high degree of treatment (data presented in Appendix B
204
-------
show that unaerated facilities cannot). Revised 1971
state design criteria, as detailed in EPC Technical
Policy 20-24, provide for different loading rates de-
pending upon climate, i.e., 22 pounds for the northern
part of the state, 26 pounds for central Illinois, and
30 pounds BOD/acre/day for the area south of East St.
Louis, Illinois.BOD or suspended solids, including algae
cells must also be removed to meet the intended treatment
requirements and effluent criteria. This may be accom-
plished with mechanical settling tanks, chemical addition,
precipitation or other means of removal.
These criteria are only technical policy; they are not
standards enforceable by law. The proposed requirements
keyed to stream flow availability, are detailed below:
Stream Dilution
Availability Effluent_BOD Effluent SS
2 to 1 20 mg/1 25 mg/1
1 to 1 10 mg/1 13 mg/1
Less than 1 to 1 4 mg/1 5 mg/1
In many streams lagoon effluent cannot meet the require-
ments .
Disinfection would be required during recreational months
between April 1 and November 1 to accomplish a maximum
of 2000 cells/100 ml for secondary waters and 400 cells/
100 ml for primary contact waters. If, as the contractor
believes, the Ten State Standards lagoon design criteria
virtually insure short-circuiting, no lagoon in the Mid-
west can achieve these effluent objectives without disin-
fection. The present computerized method of recording
data is being updated by the Federal EPA and will be made
available to state engineers in six to nine months.
Access is presently limited to drainage basin identifica-
tion; the system will be revised to allow retrieval of
data by town. The operating history of individual plants
will be shown through sample measurements by state labor-
atories. Separate listings will show design flow, popu-
lation equivalent and measured flow. Records presently
do not show influent BOD or SS data. Plant operators
are responsible for these data, but do not usually keep
records. This lack of response will appear on the new
205
-------
system. Most lagoons also do not have flow measuring
equipment, although all new treatment facilities in the
state are being required to provide a method of measure-
ment .
Illinois does not feel present technology can efficiently
remove algae or that proper design will insure meeting
BOD standards for lagoon effluent because of algae growth.
As a result neither algae removal" nor absolute compliance
with BOD standards is required. Filtering of algae pre-
sently is not permitted in BOD samples since it removes
suspended organic material, which should be included in
the BOD test.
When the present system is completed, legal action
designed to enforce these standards is planned. If
plants improve facilities on schedule and approved mod-
ifications are considered correctly designed to meet the
standards, no action will be taken by the state. However,
if there is no cooperation by plant officials, a ban on
new construction will be used to force compliance.
There is currently no analytical work done by the operat-
ors in Illinois. State teams sample three to ten times
a year, but there is no flow measurement or determination
of load on the stream. No measurements were found which
could indicate the condition of the stream.
In the future state effluent standards will be the con-
trolling factor and raw waste strength will not be as
important since there will no longer be a percent reduc-
tion to achieve. In Illinois lagoons will be approved
if they have at least three cells and are chlorinated or
have algae removal as needed.
MISSOURI BASIN REGION
North and central plains states generally agree on the
adequacy of lagoon facilities. Detention during ice
cover periods, high evaporation and clear sunny days over
much of the region produce relatively high quality effluent
during most of the year. The agricultural nature and
sparse population of the area make multiple cell lagooning
an economical treatment method.
206
-------
MISSOURI - Philosophically, Missouri should be
excluded from this region during any discussion of
performance. Contrary to the other Plains states,
Missouri, which reported having the greatest number
of lagoon facilities in the nation, finds lagoon
performance generally not satisfactory.
As in many other states, standards acceptable ten or
fifteen years ago are no longer adequate. While water
pollution control authorities recognize this inadequacy
and are not satisfied with lagoon performance, they are
relatively powerless to ameliorate it at present.
Some of the poorest examples of water quality preser-
vation can be seen around the metropolitan St. Louis
area, where smaller communities and installations such
as trailer parks, schools, and motels create problems
of fantastic proportions. In one county, there are
over 270 such facilities. They are poorly operated and
monitored, and the small receiving streams are totally
unable to cope with their effluents.
Effective enforcement of health and lagoon treatment
and performance recommendations is difficult in much
of Missouri. There are few sanitary codes to implement
these recommendations; the only effective enforcement
lies in civil suit under public nuisance doctrine.
SOUTH DAKOTA - The State of South Dakota accepts and
encourages the use of lagoons for smaller communities.
Larger communities must provide the equivalent of
tertiary treatment to remove algae and nutrients.
Every attempt is made to design new facilities so that
effluent will meet state standards. Package plants fol-
lowed by holding or stabilization ponds are common and
encouraged. Most are designed to retain effluent during
recreational season for later discharge. A high degree
of versatility is possible and a high degree of stability
achieved.
This state is unique in that it has the highest per-
centage of communities represented of all states in the
STORET data. Officials regard this kind of information
207
-------
retrieval as a valuable asset in any water quality
monitoring program. Information is updated with average
yearly performance figures. This data shows that most
community facilities average 90 percent BOD5 reduc-
tion during the year. There is some question as to the
validity of the STORET data which shows an almost identi-
cal match between influent and effluent BOD data, i.e.,
272/28, 238/20, 306/31, 306/31, 272/27, 279/28, 245/24,
204/20. It may be fortuitous that lagoon facilities
scattered throughout the state operating under diverse
circumstances can produce such consistent treatment
results.
NORTH DAKOTA - Multiple-celled systems and high rates
of evaporation result in few documented effluent prob-
lems. No winter discharge is practical and few bac-
teria are released after second cell treatment. Phos-
phate and nitrate levels are monitored prior to spring
discharge and volumes are adjusted to stream flow
where applicable.
A generally high degree of satisfaction is recorded.
Additional construction of lagoons is anticipated.
WYOMING - Overloading of existing facilities is
viewed as a major problem in Wyoming as the urban
population increases. Originally designed as single
units, recommended facilities are now two or more
cells in series; aerated facilities are suggested
followed by oxidation ponds.
Initial Jow costs and minimal maintenance make this
form of treatment very suitable. Performance is judged
very good if properly designed; the basis for this
judgment is periodic BOD examination. No regular testing
procedures are in effect, however. Organic loading of
17 Ib/BOD/acre/day is specified in design, and efficien-
cies are reported as high as 95 percent during the sum-
mer and 75 percent in the winter. Operators possess
minimal qualifications, if any, and no certification law
is in effect.
Continuous monitoring of state streams is conducted by
the fisheries staff and unsatisfactory conditions are
reported rapidly. As one official said, "All streams
208
-------
are supporting good trout populations so the effluent
can't be too bad."
MONTANA - Montana requires only annual reporting on their
more than 125 lagoons. The State Water Pollution Control
Council does not presently have the staff to implement
more stringent record keeping. Lagoons generally achieve
85 percent BOD removal, with more than 85 percent removal
during summer. Total detention is practiced during the '
winter, especially if algae are a problem. Insufficient
operating data are available to verify the above or to
determine when problem conditions exist.
A major problem is those lagoons with a high rate of flow
in proportion to the number of people served. This
occurs in many areas with a high groundwater table where
summer irrigation is practiced in adjacent areas. Four
cells in series are recommended with a total surface
area of 1,00 PE/acre/day.
The state is generally pleased with lagoons, and main-
tains that it has more problems with improperly opera-
ted mechanical plants.
NEBRASKA - Based on location, Nebraska should encounter
few problems with lagoon operation. More than two
hundred municipal facilities are identified in the state.
Lagoons are considered the most economical for small
communities. No samples are required and none have been
recorded for this state. On the basis of samples which
have been analyzed by the State Department of Health,
routine reduction of BOD^ by 85 percent on filtered
samples has been reported.
The failure to conduct normal housekeeping activities
such as weed cutting, insect spraying and bank deterio-
ration was cited as a problem. Other negative success
factors included faulty design and overloading.
MID-ATLANTIC REGION
The realization by state officials that lagoon effluents
"may not" be adequate to protect receiving waters is a
tacit admission of developing problems. Increased aware-
ness of the possible effects on estuarine waters has
helped augment this general realization. Increased popu-
209
-------
lation and rising land costs will mitigate against fur-
ther construction in most states.
Chlorination is widely recommended and most states realize
the need to upgrade existing lagoon facilities. Addition-
al work is required, however, to adapt chlorination tech-
nology to lagoon effluent treatment.
VIRGINIA - No regular sampling of lagoons is conducted in
Virginia and visual inspections are reported on an in-
frequent basis.
Lagoons are granted a limited tolerance but their future
use will probably be discouraged. The Water Control
Board does not feel lagoons meet receiving stream stand-
ards in winter. Total detention of up to 90 days is
practiced near heavily used recreational areas in summer.
Most facilities are small and loaded to 200 P.E./acre/day.
BOD removal of 85 percent is required by the state but
spot checking disclosed that most facilities average 80
percent removal or less. All facilities provide for
chlorination; although detention may be specified for
some facilities, all have the potential of discharging
all year long.
Rapid development has resulted in overloading of many
facilities. Septic odors are occasionally reported.
MARYLAND - Removal of 80 to 85 percent BOD5 is sufficient
to classify lagoons as adequate secondary treatment in
Maryland. The only problems encountered have been in
badly overloaded facilities. Sampling is recommended
four times per year but personnel shortages have prevent-
ed this. The State Department of Health is satisfied
with performance and will probably authorize additional
construction, although cost factors will undoubtedly
become more of a consideration as urban land costs rise.
Soil conditions have created problems with pond bottom
sealing. Concern has not been expressed over the possi-
bility of pond water contamination but rather over the
fact that sealing to prevent leakage has increased the
basic cost of the facility. Cost has been the main
consideration to date.
210
-------
Jt is felt that aeration improves existing facilities.
Smplementation of aeration will probably be offered to
correct problems as they develop. A mandatory certifi-
cation law has been passed but at present operators are
rather poorly qualified.
NORTH CAROLINA - North Carolina gives approval to lagoons
at the present time. Multiple systems have also been
recommended.
Approval of lagoon design does not reflect a choice over
conventional plants nor does it reflect a growing aware-
ness by state officials of design failures. Officials
felt that many problems could be met by proper mainten-
ance and operational control rather than by new standards
or criteria.
Examination of STORET data revealed that, although some
lagoons are reported to achieve 80 to 90 percent BOD
removal, most do not. A figure of less than 75 percent
is more realistic.
It would appear that state officials need valid data
before lagoon performance can be documented.
SOUTH CAROLINA - The Pollution Control Authority considers
lagoons adequate secondary treatment because "they provide
80 to 90 percent BOD removal".
State effluent requirements for coliform bacteria are
sufficiently high that chlorination is strongly recom-
mended for all new operations. There is no law, however,
to require disinfection in older facilities.
The Pollution Control Authority has suggested additional
(mechanical) aeration. Originally, this supplementary
oxygen source was intended only for troublesome periods,
but many installations run them continuously. The aera-
tion can keep organic solids suspended causing heavier
loading than originally designed. More facilities are
being built with aerated lagoons, as this modification
has gained in acceptance and as land prices have increased,
Visual inspections are conducted three times a year with
chemical and biological examinations made much less
frequently due to manpower restraints. Under the present
211
-------
surveillance system it is questionable whether the state
really knows anything meaningful about lagoon performance.
Although a mandatory certification law went into effect
last year, many older operators certified under a "grand-
father clause" will not be affected.
Odors and algae are regarded as primary problems, especi-
ally in public relations.
NORTHEAST REGION
Lagoons are generally unsatisfactory in this region.
Heavy ice and snow cover for extended winter periods
necessitate total retention. The total number of lagoons
in this entire region is less than one typical midwest-
ern urban/suburban county—undoubtedly the result of poor
success, high population density, unfavorable climate,
and high land values.
It is doubtful, in light of today's interest in water
quality preservation, that any additional lagoons will
be constructed in this region except, perhaps, in iso-
lated seasonal camps or other recreational areas.
NEW JERSEY - New Jersey has very limited experience with
non-aerated lagoons due to the high degree of urban-
ization, space limitations and soaring land costs. It is
unlikely that lagoons will be utilized to any extent in
this state.
NEW YORK - Generally poor success is encountered here.
The Ten State Standards are the general design guide.
Low loading at 100 PE/acre/day yields an average of 60
percent BOD reduction or less.
MASSACHUSETTS - Municipal lagoons have not been approved
for construction in recent years.
The Division of Water Pollution Control is relatively new,
formed in 1967, and as a result has not sampled the exist-
ing facilities. No operational data is available.
Excessive land costs and professional opinions that
lagoons do not provide adequate secondary treatment
212
-------
dictate against further construction in this state.
Concern for safety and ill-defined operational problems
are expressed as additional reasons for their disuse.
NORTHWEST REGION
In this area, lagoons are generally considered adequate
treatment. Extended periods of cloud cover in portions
of Washington and Oregon reduce the efficiency of lagoon-
ing but this is not regarded as a serious problem since
sufficient storage is provided in most designs.
IDAHO - Idaho is quite pragmatic about lagoons and is
attempting to solve existing problems through operational
adjustments. Considerable differences in elevation pro-
duce problems in operational temperatures. Many sport
camps and other season operations are designed for total
containment at all times or during periods of low stream
flow.
Lagoons are regarded as secondary treatment although some
do not achieve 85 percent BOD reduction due to secondary
algal growth. As a result, facilities are designed with
increased detention time.
Lagoons are considered a desirable compromise here because
of economic considerations. No mandatory operator re-
quirement is presently in force. Sampling of non-aerated
facilities is accomplished by grab samples two to three
times annually.
If state bacteriological standards are not met, effluent
is chlorinated. Average coliform counts may not exceed
1000/100 ml (MPN) with 20 percent of the samples not ex-
ceeding 2400/100 ml.
As with states seeking to preserve high water quality,
dissolved oxygen must not be less than 75 percent of
saturation at seasonal low or less than 100 percent
saturation in spawning areas during spawning, washing
and fry stages of salmonoid fishes.
In line with these standards total detainment is specified
for many facilities.
WASHINGTON - Potential effluent is contained either in the
213
-------
primary facility or in subsequent holding cells so that
few facilities discharge to receiving streams. Where
effluent is produced, it is often chlorinated, and in
many cases sand filters are employed to remove algal cells,
Some facilities have highly seasonal applications in
which total flow is contained.
Isolated routine measurements are utilized to determine
efficiency and help municipalities overcome operating
difficulties.
Where the effluent is not determined a detriment to re-
ceiving waters, treatment is considered adequate.
Some installations have augmented normal operations
during periods of peak loading (cannery and vegetable
processing) by the addition of supplemental air supplies.
These are removed from service after peak loading.
OREGON - Varied climatic zones in Oregon, as in other
coastal states, create varied patterns of efficiency.
Sunny locations produce acceptable effluent quality
while areas of extended cloud cover produce less satis-
factory products. Total containment is practiced at
higher elevations which are essentially season operations.
Mechanical aeration is also practiced, followed by a two
or more celled system or "polishing ponds". Although
subsequent retention and oxidation further reduced the
BOD and SS, the quality is not exceptional and timed
release of effluent is practiced.
Algae and floating plants become periodic problems.
Chlorination is practiced in many installations.
Research at Oregon State suggests that use of effluent
water for irrigation purposes might be a more satisfact-
ory means of disposal than the use of streams.
214
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1. Report No,
Title
3. Accession No.
w
5. Report Date
LAGOON PERFORMANCE AND THE STATE OF LAGOON TECHNOLOGY6-
___^___ 8. Performing Organization
Report No.
7. Author(s)
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc.
9. Organization
Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson and Associates, Inc.
St. Louis, Missouri
12. Sponsoring Organization
15. Supplementary Notes
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-R2-73-144, June 1973.
10. Project No.
17090 FDO
11. Contract/Grant No.
14-12-892
Period Covered
16. Abstract The phenomenal growth of oxidation lagoons as a form of munici
pal waste treatment is a reflection of their relatively low cost and
ease of maintenance.
The widespread acceptance of lagooning was originally predicated on their
ability to produce effluent quality at least equivalent to accepted
secondary treatment. In the semi-arid Great Plains states where lagoons
were originally successful, such efficiencies were easily achieved for
most of the year. Unfortunately, differences in climate (especially
sunlight and rainfall), soil type, population density and a multitude of
diverse problems have worked against such success for other portions of
the country.
Inventory and operative data from municipal lagoon facilities have been
collected and evaluated. The adequacy of such facilities to produce
effluent to meet state water quality criteria for receiving waters has
been evaluated.
17a. Descriptors
Algae in effluent, secondary treatment, wastewater treatment,
detention time
17b. Identifiers
lagooning, problems of lagoon treatment
17c. COWRR Field & Group
18. Availability
19. Security Class.
(Report)
20. Security Class.
(Page)
Abstractor R.M. Matter
21. No. of
Pages
22. Price
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
institution Ryckman, Edgerley, Tomlinson & Asso
WRS1C 102 (REV. JUNE 1971)
GP 0 91 3-Pfi |
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1973 546-308/7 1-3
------- |