&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
           Robert S Kerr Environmental Research
           Labor,
           Ada OK 74820
            Research and Development
Municipal
Wastewater
Treatment by the
Overland Flow
Method of Land
Application

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING  SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.  Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental  Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This report  has  been assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research  performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                            EPA-600/2-79-178
                                            August 1979
           MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
   BY THE OVERLAND FLOW METHOD OF LAND APPLICATION
                       by

                 Dempsey H.  Hall
                 Joel  E. She!ton
       Oklahoma State Department  of Health
          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152

                       and

              Charles H. Lawrence
                Ernest D. King
                Raymond A. Mill
 University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
          Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73190
                Grant No.  R-803218
                 Project Officer

                William R.  Duffer
          Wastewater Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental  Research Laboratory
               Ada, Oklahoma  74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
       OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820

-------
                                DISCLAIMER
     This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication.  Approval  does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     n

-------
                                  FOREWORD


     The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate admini-
stration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our
environment.

     An important part of the agency's effort involves the search for infor-
mation about environmental problems, management techniques and new technologies
through which optimum use of the nation's land and water resources can be
assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people
can be minimized.

     EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through a
nationwide network of research facilities.

     As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: (a) investigate
the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants in groundwater;
(b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with soil and
other^natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate pollution control  tech-
nologies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate pollution
control technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate
technologies to prevent, control or abate pollution from the petroleum
refining and petrochemical industries; and (f) develop and demonstrate
technologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations of industrial
wastewaters or industrial /municipal wastewaters.

     This report contributes to the knowledge essential  if the EPA is to meet
the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and enforce  pollution
control standards which are reasonable, cost effective and provide adequate
protection for the American public.
                    William C. Galegar
                    Director
                    Robert S. Kerr Environmental  Research Laboratory
                                     m

-------
                                  ABSTRACT

     The primary objectives of this study were to assess on a seasonal basis
(winter and summer applications), the capabilities of treating raw (screened)
municipal wastewater and secondarily treated wastewater (wastewater stabili-
zation pond effluent), by apply'.i\g the wastewaters to experimental overland
flow treatment modules, on two slope":  2 per cent and 3 per cent.  Three
application techniques in the raw treatment phase were employed for compari-
son:  (a) rotating spray booms with fan nozzles, (b) fixed risers with fan
nozzles, and (c) troughs with trickling orifices.  Fixed riser and trough
methods were used for the secondary treatment phase.  Comparison was made
between the performance of the raw wastewater overland flow system and the
performance of the wastewater stabilization pond receiving the same waste-
water.

     In addition to wastewater treatment parameters, analyses were conducted
to determine the effects of overland flow applications on soil composition,
before and after wastewater applications.

     Microbial  studies were conducted to determine the quantitative and
qualitative structure of the microbial community, within the raw and secon-
dary treatment systems, primarily enteric bacterial and viral organisms.
Tests were conducted to determine removal efficiencies for the two treatment
systems.  Also ambient air samples were collected around the spray boom
method of application to determine the presence or absence of airborne enter-
ic bacteria and virus.

     The raw overland flow treatment system demonstrated the ability to
achieve under winter and summer operation, BOD and suspended solids levels
equal to or lower than those associated with conventional  secondary treat-
ment processes.  Fecal coliform analyses indicated low reductions across the
plots.  No meaningful reductions  were observed for phosphorus.  Most treat-
ment plots indicated varying levels of increase.  Reductions of approximately
50 per cent were observed for organic nitrogen during summer and winter.
Ammonia reductions were somewhat  higher in the summer than the winter.  The
indicated nitrogen removal  mechanism was loss of ammonia to the atmosphere
rather than nitrification-denitrification.  An analysis of BOD, COD and
ammonia treatment parameters above and below freezing temperatures, indicat-
ed that temperature had a direct  effect on removal  efficiency.  Of the three
methods of application employed,  no single method demonstrated consistent
superiority to the other.

     The secondary treatment system provided limited beneficial effects as an
advanced wastewater treatment procedure.  In comparison of wastewater
stabilization pond and the raw overland flow system, neither demonstrated
consistently superior performance.

                                    iv

-------
     Of the parameters analysed for the soil  studies,  a consistent pattern
of increase or decrease was observed for several  parameters,  namely,  phos-
phorus, potassium, manganese, calcium and copper.

     The microbial analyses revealed a consistent reduction in bacterial
colony counts for all methods of application  on the 2  and 3 per cent  slopes.
Of the viral concentrations observed in the influent to the raw system,  100
per cent reductions occurred on all methods of application except during
peak loading.  The analyses also revealed a seasonal trend of occurrence  of
enteric viruses in the wastewater.   In the aerosolization studies, airborne
bacteria were isolated in significantly greater quantities downwind from  the
spray boom applications, while no viruses were isolated from air samples
taken at the same locations.  No enteric viruses  were  isolated in the influ-
ent to the secondary system, at any location.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant No. R803218 by the
Oklahoma State Department of Health under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers the period June  26,  1974,
to March 31, 1979, and work was completed as  of July 10, 1979.

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Foreword	  i i i
Abstract	   iv
Figures	   ix
Tabl es	    x
List of Abbreviations	   xv
Acknowl edgments	  xvi

   1.  Introduction	  1

   2.  Summary and Concl usi ons	  4
         Wastewater analysis	  4
           Raw treatment system	  4
           Secondary treatment system	  5
           Wastewater stabilization pond	  6
         Soil analysis	  7
         Microbial analysis	  7

   3.  Recommendati ons	  9

   4.  Study Site Description	 12

   5.  Methods	 18
         Wastewater analysis	 18
         Soil analysis	 19
         Microbial analysis	 20
           Wastewater bacterial  colony counts	 21
           Ambient air bacterial  colony counts	 21
           Ambient air particle counts	 21
           Wastewater viral plaque counts	 22
           Ambient air viral plaque counts	 23

   6.  Results and Discussion	 25
         Wastewater analysis	 25
           Raw treatment system	 25
           Secondary treatment system	 34
           Comparison of overland flow and wastewater
             stabilization pond	 43
         Soil analysis	 47
         Microbial analysis	 48
                                    vn

-------
                           CONTENTS (Continued)
           Wastewater bacterial col ony counts	  48
           Ambient air bacterial colony counts	  53
           Ambient air particle counts	  53
           Wastewater vi ral pi aque counts	  53
           Ambient air viral plaque counts	  60

References	  63
Appendix A	  65
Appendi x B	  77
Append! x C	  89
Appendix D	 101
Appendix E	 113
Appendix F	 115
Appendix G	 123
                                    viii

-------
                                  FIGURES

Number                                                                  Page
  1   Rotating spray boom with fan nozzle (inset)	  13
  2   Fixed riser with fan nozzle	  14
  3   Trough with trickling orifices	  15
  4   Diagram of Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, experimental overland flow
        treatment faci 1 i ti es	  16
                                     IX

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                  Page

  1   Percentage Recovery of Pol i ovi rus	   24

  2   Analytical Results from the Raw System for the Winter Application
        System, November 28, 1977 - March 10, 1978	   26

  3   Analytical Results from the Raw System for the Summer Application
        System, March 20, 1978 -  October 27, 1978	   30

  4   Raw Treatment System Winter Operation High Temperature Vs.  BOD...   33

  5   Raw Treatment System Winter Operation High Temperature Vs.  COD...   35

  6   Raw Treatment System Winter Operation High Temperature Vs.  NHg...   36

  7   Analytical Results from the Secondary System for the Winter
        Application System, November 28, 1977 -  March 10,  1978	   37

  8   Analytical Results from the Secondary System for the Summer
        Application System, March 20, 1978 - October 27,  1978	   40

  9   Comparison of Overland Flow and Wastewater Stabilization Pond
        for Treatment of Raw Domestic Wastewater	   44

 10   Wastewater Bacteria Colonies of the Spray  Boom Applications on
        the 2 Per Cent Slope	   49

 11   Frequency of Occurrence of  Bacteria Groups Identified from  EMB
        Plates from Spray Boom Wastewater Samples, 2 Per  Cent Slope	   50

 12   Wastewater Bacteria Colonies of the Fixed  Riser, Trough and
        Spray Boom Applications,  2 and 3 Per Cent Slopes	   51

 13   Bacteria Identified from EMB Plates from Fixed Riser and Trough
        Wastewater Samples, 2 and 3 Per Cent Slopes	   52

 14   Airborne Bacteria Colonies  of the Spray Boom Applications on
        the 2 Per Cent Slope	   54

 15   Airborne Particles of the Spray Boom Applications on the 2
        Per Cent Slope	   55

-------
                            TABLES (Continued)

Number                                                                  Page
 16   Raw System Wastewater Viral Assay Spray Boom Application	  57
 17   Raw System Wastewater Viral Assay Fixed Riser Application	  58
 18   Raw System Wastewater Viral Assay Trough Application	  59
 19   Aerosolization of Virus from Spray Boom Applications on the
        2 Per Cent Slope	  61
A-l   BOD, Raw System, Winter Application	  65
A-2   Suspended Solids, Raw System, Winter Application	  66
A-3   Fecal Coliform Per 100 ml, Raw System, Winter Application	  67
A-4   Total Phosphorus, Raw System, Winter Application	  68
A-5   Nitrate Nitrogen, Raw System, Winter Application	  69
A-6   Ammonia Nitrogen, Raw System, Winter Application	  70
A-7   Organic Nitrogen, Raw System, Winter Application	  71
A-8   Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Raw System, Winter Application	  72
A-9   COD, Raw System, Winter Application	  73
A-10  Turbidity, Raw System, Winter Application	  74
A-ll  Dissolved Solids, Raw System, Winter Application	  75
A-12  pH, Raw System, Winter Application	  76
B-l   BOD, Raw System, Summer Application	  77
B-2   Suspended Solids, Raw System, Summer Application	  78
B-3   Fecal Coliform Per 100 ml, Raw System, Summer Application	  79
B-4   Total Phosphorus, Raw System, Summer Application	  80
                                     XI

-------
                            TABLES (Continued)

Number                                                                  Page
B-5   Nitrate Nitrogen, Raw System,  Summer Application	   81
B-6   Ammonia Nitrogen, Raw System,  Summer Application	   82
B-7   Organic Nitrogen, Raw System,  Summer Application	   83
B-8   Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Raw System, Summer Application	   84
B-9   COD, Raw System, Summer Application	   85
B-10  Turbidity, Raw System, Summer  Application	   86
B-ll  Dissolved Solids, Raw System,  Summer Application	   87
B-12  pH, Raw System, Summer Application	   88
C-l   BOD, Secondary System, Winter  Application	   89
C-2   Suspended Solids, Secondary System, Winter Application	   90
C-3   Fecal  Coliform Per 100 ml, Secondary System,  Winter Application..   91
C-4   Total  Phosphorus, Secondary System, Winter Application	   92
C-5   Nitrate Nitrogen, Secondary System, Winter Application	   93
C-6   Ammonia Nitrogen, Secondary System, Winter Application	   94
C-7   Organic Nitrogen, Secondary System, Winter Application	   95
C-8   Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Secondary System, Winter Application	   96
C-9   COD, Secondary System, Winter  Application	   97
C-10  Turbidity, Secondary System, Winter Application	   98
C-ll  Dissolved Solids, Secondary System, Winter Application	   99
C-12  pH, Secondary System, Winter Application	  100
                                    xii

-------
                            TABLES (Continued)

Number                                                                  Page
D-l   BOD, Secondary System, Summer Application	  101
D-2   Suspended Solids, Secondary System, Summer Application	  102
D-3   Fecal Coliform Per 100 ml, Secondary System, Summer Application..  103
D-4   Total Phosphorus, Secondary System, Summer Application	  104
D-5   Nitrate Nitrogen, Secondary System, Summer Application	  105
D-6   Ammonia Nitrogen, Secondary System, Summer Application	  106
D-7   Organic Nitrogen, Secondary System, Summer Application	  107
D-8   Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Secondary System, Summer Application	  108
D-9   COD, Secondary System, Summer Application	  109
D-10  Turbidity, Secondary System, Summer Application	  110
D-ll  Dissolved Solids, Secondary System, Summer Application	  Ill
D-12  pH, Secondary System, Summer Application	  112
E-l   Surface and Subsurface Soil Composition of the Raw and Secondary
        Overland Flow Treatment System Before and After Wastewater
        Application	  113
F-l   Rotating Boom, 2%, Colonies/ml (xlO5), Wastewater	  115
F-2   Rotating Boom, 2%, Bacteria Identified from EMB Plates,
        Wastewater	  116
F-3   Riser, Trough and Spray:  2% and 3%, Colonies/ml  (xlO ),
        Wastewater	  117
F-4   Risers and Troughs, 2% and 3%, Bacteria Identified from EMB
        PIates, Wastewater.	  118
F-5   Vacuum Pump Calibrations for Particle Counts	  119
                                    xiii

-------
                            TABLES  (Continued)
Number                                                                  Page
F-6   Vacuum Pump Calibrations for Andersen Drum Samplers	 119
F-7   Rotating Boom, 2%, Particles/m  (xlO ), Airborne Particles	 120
F-8   Rotating Boom, 2%, Particles/m , Airborne Bacteria	 121
F-9   Secondary System, Wastewater Viral Assay, Riser and Trough
        Appl ications	 122
G-1   Raw Data for Temperature Vs. Treatment Analyses	 123
                                   xiv

-------
                           LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BOD         --biochemical  oxygen demand
cm          --centimeter
COD         --chemical  oxygen demand
EMB         --eosin methylene blue
FC          --fecal coliform
ft          —feet
gal         —gallon
ha          --hectare
hr          --hour
in          --inch
kg          --kilogram
1           —liter
Ibs         --pounds
m           --meter
mg          --milligram
mgd         --million gallons per day
min         --minute
ml          --milliliter
n           --number (statistical)
NA          --nutrient agar
NC          --not calculated
NR          --not collected
PFU         --plaque forming units
s           --slope (statistical)
sec         --second
SS          --suspended solids
Std. Dev.   --standard deviation
TBC         --total bacteria counts
TCC         --total coliform counts
u           --units
V^           --coefficient of variation
X           --arithmetic mean
110-V       -110 volts
                                    xv

-------
                              ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
     The authors wish to thank the individuals and agencies involved in com-
piling the Jata of this study.  The support of Garvin County Health Depart-
ment personnel, Mr. Dewey Smith, Head Sanitarian, is gratefully acknowledged.

     Sample collection, wastewater analyses and project maintenance and
operation was conducted by Oklahoma State Health Department personnel, Larry
Gales, Sanitarian, William Thomas, Sanitarian, and Gary Burnett, Sanitarian,
stationed in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma.  The wastewater analyses were conducted
at the Garvin County Health Department, Laboratory facilities.

     Bacterial analyses were conducted by Aaron Mitchum and Gary McKee at
the Oklahoma State Health Department Laboratory.  Viral analyses were con-
ducted by Herbert Beauchamp in the Virology Laboratory of the State Health
Department.  Mr. Beauchamp provided additional help in preparing the written
text for the viral analyses.

     Dr. Ronald L. Coleman, Associate Professor of Research Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, provided
valuable consultation throughout the study and the authors wish to acknowl-
e"ge his efforts.

     Dr. Milford H. Hatch, Chief of Enteric Virology Branch, Center of Di-
sease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, provided cultures of Poliovirus Type 1
(Sabin strain), for use in laboratory studies conducted to determine a sam-
pling protocol for the viral analyses.

     A special thanks from the authors goes to the Pauls Valley, Weather
Station for the weather data provided during the study.

     The authors wish to express their gratitude and appreciation to the
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory for its support of this
project, and especially to Dr. William R. Duffer, Project Officer, for his
patience and guidance throughout the course of the study.  Also, thanks to
Bert Bledsoe for his technical assistance in the laboratory analyses.
                                    xvi

-------
                                 SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
     In the past decade, subsequent changes in federal  water quality stan-
dards and criteria (1) have brought forth a re-evaluation of current tech-
nology, aimed at more efficient methodology in wastewater disposal.   The
inadequacies of current treatment methods are found primarily in the area
of cost effectiveness of mechanical, chemical and biological applications,
as related to the size of the population served.   Such  a re-evaluation in-
volves a search for alternative methods of treatment that are within the
realm of practicality for all municipalities regardless of size, and would
minimize cost along with optimizing the results of the  treatment process, in
order to meet the discharge standards pursuant to the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972 (1).

     Since the inception of the wastewater stabilization pond concept in the
early 1950's, few acceptable methods of inexpensive wastewater treatment
have been researched.  The wastewater stabilization pond, though relatively
simple in design, inexpensive to operate and reasonably efficient in treat-
ment results, has fallen short of accomplishing effective treatment within
current Environmental Protection Agency guidelines (1).

     The current trends in the field of wastewater management are developing
toward the re-use of wastewater, a concept relatively ancient in application
yet virtually untouched in terms of subject matter gained through scientifi-
cally controlled testing.  One area of wastewater re-use under consideration,
is the simultaneous treatment and re-use of wastewater through land applica-
tion.

     Land application systems have been generally classified into three
categories based on particular requirements for hydraulic conductivity and
chemical properties of soils (2).
        slow rate (crop irrigation),
        rapid infiltration, and
        overland flow.
Each of these classifications involves a different approach in terms of
basic design and practical application.  The application of wastewater to
land encompasses a broad realm of implications and has stirred controversy
and question as to the effects of such treatment on various components of
the ecosystem, primarily groundwater supplies, soils, and air quality.  The
application of raw sewage to the land has also given rise to numerous

-------
questions regarding potential hazards to public health.  All such questions
form a basis for conducting controlled studies to determine the effective-
ness of land application as an alternative method of wastewater treatment.

     Numerous case histories of land application systems around the country
and in other areas of the world  have been documented (2).  Among such
studies, only three have dealt with land application by the overland flow
method.  A study conducted at the Campbell's Soup Company in Paris, Texas,
involved the monitoring of treatment of industrial food processing waste by
overland flow (3).  Also, a pilot study designed to evaluate treatment
capabilities of overland flow systems, was conducted by EPA, at Ada, Oklahoma
(4, 5).  A particularly successful, long range application of overland flow
treatment has been in operation at Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (6).  In
this particular land treatment system, crop irrigation and wastewater stabi-
lization pond methods have been used along with overland flow methods, to
treat wastewater from the Melbourne municipality.  The overland flow portion
of the system has been used to treat the majority of the normal winter flow,
when a reduction in the evaporation rates has inhibited the effectiveness of
the other methods.  It is apparent from such literature that there is a need
for more intensive studies of overland flow processes, particularly in the
field of municipal wastewater disposal.

     This study involved the treatment of municipal wastewater by the over-
land flow method of land application.  The scale of the project was designed
to accommodate approximately one-third the average flow of domestic sewage
from Pauls Valley, Oklahoma; a community with a population of approximately
6000, located in south-central Oklahoma.  The primary objectives were to
assess, on a seasonal  basis (winter and summer applications), the capabili-
ties of treating raw (screened) municipal wastewater by application to exper-
imental overland flow treatment modules, on two different slopes:  2 per
cent and 3 per cent.  Three application techniques were employed:  (a) ro-
tating spray booms with fan nozzles, (b) fixed risers with fan nozzles, and
(c) troughs with trickling orificies.  A comparison was made between treat-
ment results of each application technique on each slope.  The performance
of the overland flow process in the treatment of raw wastewater was compared
to the performance of the wastewater stabilization pond, receiving the same
wastewater.  Adjacent to the raw system an additional series of test modules
(employing the same slopes and all  but the rotating spray boom method of
application) were used to render a  similar evaluation of overland flow
treatment of wastewater that had undergone secondary treatment (wastewater
stabilization ponds) prior to application.

     In addition to mom'toning wastewater treatment parameters, studies were
conducted to determine the potential of overland flow treatment for assimi-
lation of bacterial  and viral  components found in domestic sewage.  Also,
the potential human health hazards  associated with domestic wastewater, made
it necessary to attempt to determine whether the element of exposure to
pathogenic microbes was enhanced or inhibited by the overland flow treatment
process.   To accomplish this evaluation it was necessary to isolate and
quantify known pathogenic microbes  (bacterial  and viral), and trace their
path through the treatment system.   One area of concern, which relates to

-------
the physical nature of the application techniques, is the quality of the air
surrounding the applicators.  The application technique which seemed to pre-
sent the greatest possibility for aerosol generation, and therefore the
greatest possibility of adversely affecting the surrounding air quality, was
the rotating spray boom.  By isolating and quantifying microbial entities
within the wastewater and the air surrounding the spray boom, and measuring
the removal efficiency of the overland flow treatment process, the human
health hazards were definable.

     Another phase of this study involved an assessment of the effects of
wastewater application on the soil of the treatment system.  The underlying
implications of the effects of land application on the soil composition are
limited by the nature of the overland flow treatment process, which relies
on treatment through surface interaction rather than soil infiltration.  The
overland flow process is designed for use in areas where the predominant
soil type (clay) limits the capacity for percolation.  For this reason, the
emphasis on monitoring soil composition was not as rigorous.  The scope of
this assessment was to identify any gross change in the topsoil and subsur-
face soil composition at the completion of the study.

     All comparisons of treatment effectiveness were made in an attempt to
produce a comprehensive analysis of the overland flow process, in terms of
operation, maintenance and comparative degree of treatment afforded.  This
analysis in turn forms a basis for. making objective decisions in the develop-
ment of engineering as well as practical application guidelines.

-------
                                 SECTION 2

                          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
WASTEWATER ANALYSIS

Raw Treatment System

1.  The raw system, under the application methods utilized in this investi-
    gation, demonstrated the ability to achieve, under winter and summer
    operation, suspended solids levels equal  to or lower than those commonly
    associated with effluent limits and conventional  secondary treatment
    processes.

2.  The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels observed during the summer
    operation also compare favorably; however, additional  treatment for the
    winter operation was indicated.

3.  Fecal coliform reductions observed during winter and summer operations
    were generally less than one order of magnitude compared to four orders
    of magnitude being required in order to approach acceptable effluent
    levels.  If fecal coliform is to be a control parameter, additional
    treatment is clearly indicated.

4.  Phosphorus levels observed for all application methods and slopes
    utilized in this study demonstrated no meaningful reductions.  In fact,
    most plots indicated varying levels of increase.   The fact that the
    phosphorus required by the cover crop during the growing season could be
    easily met through other sources, indicates that the cover crop played
    only a minor role with respect to this parameter.

5.  The nitrogen balance for all plots and for the winter and summer oper-
    ation indicates a reduction in organic nitrogen of approximately 50 per
    cent.  The ammonia reduction for the winter system was essentially the
    same; however, somewhat higher removals were noted during summer
    operation.  Effluent nitrates were consistently low.  The indicated
    nitrogen removal mechanism was loss of ammonia to the atmosphere rather
    than nitrification-denitrification or plant uptake.

6.  No single method of application or slope demonstrated a performance
    consistently superior to the other; therefore, any future selection of
    method should be based primarily on factors such as installation and

-------
    maintenance costs.

7.  Based on the results of this study, the treatment obtained by applying
    raw wastewater to sloped impervious soils could be described as  a com-
    bination of physicochemical  and microbiological factors,  both occurring
    at the soil-liquid interface.   The principal  role of the  crover  crop
    appears to be plot stability rather than nutrient uptake.

Treatment Above and Below Freezing--

1.  The data indicates that efficient removal of BOD, COD,  and ammonia is
    hampered by subfreezing operating conditions; however,  if it were going
    to be used in northern areas,  it might have to be used  under a con-
    trolled environment.

2.  Subfreezing operating conditions had no apparent effect on removal
    efficiences of the overland flow system for any of the  other wastewater
    parameters examined.

Secondary Treatment System

1.  The secondary system, as operated in this study, was effective in remov-
    ing only relatively small amounts of BOD from wastewater  stabilization
    pond effluents under winter or summer conditions.

2.  Suspended solids reductions were sufficient to produce  acceptable ef-
    fluents during the winter phase when the influent levels  were compara-
    tively low but were insufficient during the summer months when influent
    levels were higher.

3.  The concentration of fecal coliform organisms was essentially unchanged
    by the treatment applied during winter and summer treatment phases.
    This is consistent with the observations made for the raw system and
    indicates the inability of this system to meet coliform effluent limits.

4.  The overall phosphorus reductions achieved by the secondary system were
    equal to or better than those achieved by the raw system  especially dur-
    ing the warmer temperatures; however, neither system performed at a
    significant level of reduction with respect to this nutrient parameter.

5.  The nitrogen balance indicates a low level of nitrification with ef-
    fluent levels below 1 mg/1 being reported for both methods of applica-
    tion, slopes and seasons.  As  expected, the ammonia levels in the
    influent and the various effluents were lower for the summer than for
    the winter and even though the removal efficiencies were  higher for
    summer than for the winter, the amount of ammonia nitrogen lost (as
    measured in mg/1) was greater for the winter.  The organic nitrogen
    data are complimentary in that lower influent and effluent levels are
    indicated for the winter than  for the summer.  Since the  removal effi-
    ciencies were comparable for the two seasons, more organic nitrogen
    (in mg/1) was removed during the summer than the winter.   Thus,  a change

-------
    in total nitrogen of approximately 5 mg/1 is indicated for the winter
    and summer operations.

6.  Neither method of application or slope performed consistently better
    than the other thus indicating the same conclusion as drawn for the raw
    system.

7.  Based on the results of this investigation, the application of waste-
    water stabilization pond effluent to sloped impervious soils under the
    conditions employed during this study would have only very limited
    beneficial effects as an advanced wastewater treatment procedure.

Wastewater Stabilization Pond

1.  Under the climatic, soil, loading, and wastewater conditions studied,
    the wastewater stabilization pond achieved higher BOD reductions under
    winter conditions than did the overland flow plots; the reverse was true
    for the summer operation.  The pond, however, produced effluent levels
    below 30 mg/1 for summer and winter while the plots achieved such  levels
    only for the summer.

2.  Compared to the pond, the plots provided superior reductions in suspend-
    ed solids, especially during the summer.  The plot effluents were  below
    30 mg/1 for both the winter and summer seasons while the pond was  able
    to accomplish this low level only during the winter.  Additional treat-
    ment of the pond effluent is indicated for the summer operation.

3.  The pond produced much lower levels of fecal coliform during both  sum-
    mer and winter; however, neither system was capable of reductions  to
    levels below 104 per 100 ml.  Additional treatment is indicated for both
    processes if levels of 102 per 100 ml are to be achieved.

4.  Phosphorus removal by the pond changed from negative for the winter to
    positive for the summer while the plots operated more consistently
    throughout both seasons; however, neither process effected an apprecia-
    ble overall reduction.

5.  The pond produced lower effluent nitrate levels during both seasons than
    did the plots with very little seasonal influence evident for either
    process.  The plots produced lower ammonia levels during the winter than
    did the pond; however, the reverse was observed for the summer when all
    removal rates increased.  Organic nitrogen removal  was comparable  for
    the two processes for the winter with little change by the plots for the
    summer; however, the warmer temperatures induced pond effluent levels
    that were higher than the influent.

6.  In summary, neither system demonstrated a consistently superior perfor-
    mance.   The pond compared favorably for year around BOD reduction  but
    not for suspended solids removal.  The increased residence time of the
    wastewater stabilization pond compared to the overland flow plots, sev-
    eral  days versus a few hours, must also be considered in evaluating

-------
    differences in performance for the two systems.  Both systems would re-
    quire additional treatment if effluent limits on fecal coliform, phos-
    phorus, and nitrogen are imposed.

SOIL ANALYSIS

1.  Of the soil parameters analyzed, before and after wastewater applica-
    tions, a consistent pattern of decrease in phosphates, potassium and
    manganese occurred in surface soil samples from all sample locations,
    while a consistent pattern of increase was observed for calcium and
    copper.  Only two parameters, iron and manganese, collected at subsur-
    face levels reveal any pattern of consistent change (both decreased).
    The other parameters analyzed varied increasingly and decreasingly with
    no apparent consistency.  Based on the scope of the analysis, the sig-
    nificance of these findings are limited in terms of formulating any
    specific guidelines.

2.  Based on plant productivity observed on the treatment plots, no apparent
    toxic responses were induced by the increases or decreases in the soil
    components analyzed, in fact, productivity was apparently inhanced due
    to the improved quality and quantity of growth observed, particularly
    toward the end of the study.

3.  Insufficient data was available to draw any conclusion as to long range
    effects of overland flow application in terms of the potential for
    leaching of metal build-up (from surface soil) into receiving waters.

MICROBIAL ANALYSIS

1.  Average effluent bacterial colony counts were consistently reduced, when
    compared to influent bacterial colony counts, at a probability (p) level
    of 0.01 throughout the study on the 2 per cent spray boom plot.

2.  Average effluent bacterial colony counts were consistently reduced, when
    compared to influent bacterial colony counts, at a p level of 0.01
    throughout the study on 2 and 3 per cent fixed riser, trough and spray
    boom plots.

3.  No statistical difference existed between average upwind and downwind
    airborne particle counts throughout the study on the 2 per cent spray
    boom plot.

4.  Average downwind coliform airborne bacteria was significantly higher
    than upwind coliform data throughout the study on the 2 per cent spray
    boom plot.  The numerical difference, however, did not suggest a health
    hazard.

5.  The concentration of enteric viruses (101 to 102 PFU/1 range) isolated
    from the raw treatment system displayed an apparent seasonal distribu-
    tion, first occurring in the influent to the plots in May, 1978, peak-
    ing in August, 1978, and gradually declining in concentration toward

-------
    the end of the year.  Certain times of the year, particularly between
    January and May, no viruses were isolated in the influents to the sys-
    tem.  While this pattern of distribution was observed primarily for the
    spray boom method of application, the same general pattern of distribu-
    tion was observed for all methods of application, on 2 and 3 per cent
    slopes.

6.  The overland flow treatment plots displayed removal  efficiencies of 100
    per cent, up to the time of peak loading when the observed percentage
    reductions sharply decreased.  The removal efficiency recovered inverse-
    ly proportional to the concentration of viruses in the influent.  No
    apparent differences were observed in removal efficiencies with respect
    to method of application or slope of treatment plots.

7.  Within the capabilities of the isolation techniques  employed for the
    analysis of aerosolized virus, no viruses were obtained from air samples
    collected at upwind, downwind or random sample locations on the 2 per
    cent spray boom applications of the raw system.  Based on the scope of
    the analysis, the absence of viruses suggest no apparent health hazard,
    with respect to airborne viruses downwind from the spray boom applica-
    tor.

8.  Within the capabilities of the isolation techniques  employed, no enteric
    viruses were isolated from secondary treatment system influents (waste-
    water stabilization pond effluents) or effluents, from either method of
    application on either slope.
                                    8

-------
                                 SECTION 3

                              RECOMMENDATIONS
     Considering the overland flow method of land application for relative
degree of treatment afforded, as an advanced wastewater treatment procedure,
several recommendations can be made.

1.  The treatment of raw municipal wastewater by overland flow land applica-
    tion has demonstrated the ability to achieve, under winter and summer
    operations, BOD and suspended solids levels equal  to or lower than con-
    ventional secondary treatment processes.  Based on these results and the
    results of other studies, with proper design criteria, overland flow
    treatment could be recommended as a viable alternative for reclamation
    of municipal wastewater.

2.  Based on the results of this study, for winter and summer operation, the
    capabilities of overland flow in the reduction of  fecal coliform are
    insignificant, and if fecal coliform is to be a control parameter, addi-
    tional treatment is clearly indicated.

3.  The data from this study clearly indicates the efficient removal of BOD,
    COD and ammonia is hampered by subfreezing temperatures.  It would
    appear that this type of application might not be  recommended in northern
    climates.  If the system were enclosed and the environment more complete-
    ly controlled it would probably help not only the  effluent parameters but
    would reduce the operational problems.

4.  The extended treatment of secondary effluent by overland flow would have
    only limited beneficial effects as an advanced wastewater treatment
    procedure; however, some benefits are conceivable  in terms of re-use for
    irrigation or industrial  use.

5.  Based on the scope of this study, it is recommended that more long-range
    in depth analyses be conducted to identify potential problems In the
    area of heavy metal build up in the surface soils  of overland flow
    treatment systems.

6.  From microbiological standpoint, the spray boom method of application can
    be recommended, based on the reduction of viral and bacterial organisms
    monitored in this study.   In addition, based on numerical values ob-
    tained, there appeared to be no significant health hazards to personnel

-------
    working on or around the spray boom applications, in terms of exposure
    to airborne pathogens.

    Regardless of the design characteristics no system will be completely
 free of operational problems, therefore, in designing and implementing over-
 land flow methods, several recommendations should be considered.

 1.  The area of application system should be adequate to insure the availa-
    bility of a source for application at all times.  Each application plot
    should be at least 1 ha (2.47 acres) in area, with a sufficient number
    of plots, based on the volume of wastewater to be treated, to allow a
    rotating schedule of application.  If the overland flow system is to
    function independently, as the sole source of treatment, it is essential
    to have available a sufficient number of plots to virtually eliminate
    the possibility of bypassing untreated wastewater to receiving waters.
    Additionally, to achieve a goal of reclamation and re-use, it is rec-
    ommended that holding ponds should be employed to receive effluents from
    the treatment system.  This water would then be available for industrial
    or agricultural use.

 2.  To reduce maintenance, raw wastewater should be screened before entering
    distribution lines (preferably at pump site) to applicators, reducing
    the clogging of nozzles.  The size of the distribution lines within the
    system should be adequate to insure even flow, avoiding reductions in
    pipe size within the distribution lines, from the pumping site to the
    application nozzles.  The nozzles employed within this study (3/16 inch,
    approximately 5 mm) produced some problems with clogging.  Adequate
    pressure at the nozzle head would eliminate some of the problem of clog-
    ging.   In addition to selection of proper pipe size, the valve system
    should be as simple as possible, eliminating the use of electrical
    valves where possible.  The selection of wiring for the system is impor-
    tant,  and where underground installations are necessary, the wire should
    be encased in conduit, to reduce problems of electrical  failure from
    damages caused by corrosion and/or burrowing animals.

    Based on these studies, the fixed riser method of application,  pro-
    vided  the most trouble-free technique and the most uniform application
    of wastewater.   The spray boom method was the most undesirable, particu-
    larly during the winter months when clogging of nozzles  created problems
    with freezing,  in turn causing pipe breakage and subsequent shut down of
    the system.   If designed and constructed properly, the trough system
    would  provide several beneficial  aspects in terms of equipment mobility
    on the plots.   By constructing the troughs close to  the ground surface,
    harvesting equipment "could easily maneuver over and  around the applica-
    tors,  eliminating damage to the applicators as well  as to the equipment.

3.  The preparation and maintenance of plot surfaces is  a consideration  of
    high priority.   Based on the results  from this study, no significant
    differences  in  treatment on 2 or 3 per cent slopes was observed,  there-
    fore,  the 2  per cent slope would be recommended to reduce problems with
    channeling of wastewater,  produced by erosion.   This was observed as a
                                    10

-------
    problem, particularly during the rainy seasons.

    Overall, slope preparations should be as uniform as possible, avoiding
    low or high grades across any given plot.  Any irregularity that might
    induce channeling should be avoided.  Within this study several advan-
    tages were obtained by maintaining shallow furrows across the slope of
    the plots (oblique to the slope) creating a herringbone effect.  The
    furrows should not be prominent enough to inhibit the constant movement
    of the wastewater across the plots.  The herringbone effect can be
    accomplished with grain drilling equipment, during the planting opera-
    tion.

4.  Seeding the plots should include uniformity, insuring that adequate
    cover is provided on all areas of the plots.  This was successfully
    accomplished in this study by use of grain drills to insure that the
    seed was not washed off the plots before germination.  It also reduced
    the amount of seed lost to birds feeding on the plots.  Once a sub-
    stantial stand of grass is obtained the maintenance is relatively low.
    Also, the use of perennial grasses obviously reduces the maintenance
    involved with keeping the plots covered.

5.  The harvesting of cover crops is an important maintenance consideration,
    in sustaining smooth operations.  Due to the high nutrient loading,
    growth is rapid on the overland flow plots, therefore, it is essential
    to implement a well  coordinated harvesting schedule.  It is important
    to regularly cut and remove the crops produced on the plots, avoiding
    a  build-up of grass  cuttings that could result in a mass of decomposing
    materials.   Also, tall  stands of grass are subject to wind damage mak-
    ing cutting and removal  operations difficult,  therefore, the grasses
    should be harvested  when a 20-to 30-cm (8-to 12-inch) stand has been
    produced.

    The use of conventional  harvesting equipment is  an acceptable
    method if used properly.  The plots should be  allowed to dry suffi-
    ciently (approximately 5-10 days)  before  using heavy equipment that
    might damage the plot surface.   Also,  by  operating the equipment
    perpendicular to the slope of the plot,  any damage that is caused
    would not result in  channeling  of wastewater.   The type of equipment
    used  during  this  study that produced the  best  results was  a sickle
    type  cutter,  a rake  and  baling  machine.   The grass should  be cut,
    raked and  baled as quickly as  possible.
                                   11

-------
                                 SECTION 4

                          STUDY SITE DESCRIPTION
     Design characteristics of this study were established to form a basis
for comparison of:  (a) treatment of raw (screened) wastewater versus waste-
water stabilization pond effluent (secondary treatment), (b) slopes at 2 per
cent versus 3 per cent, and (c) three application techniques.  The three
techniques employed were:  (a) spray booms with fan nozzles, (b) fixed risers
with fan nozzles, and (c) troughs with trickling orifices (Figures 1, 2, and
3).

     Physical design of the study site consisted of eight, 0.4-ha (1-acre)
modules of land subdivided into two slopes:  one-half at 2 per cent and one-
half at 3 per cent (Figure 4).  Each module was further divided according
to the application technique employed.  The size of each division, number
and type of application were the same for both slopes.  The modules were
drained by a series of troughs at the lower end of the slope, which chan-
neled drainage to centrally located V-notched weirs within each module.
Barrier terraces were constructed between each subdivision to maintain inde-
pendent flow across plots for each technique of application.  One of four
wastewater stabilization ponds was utilized to receive the effluent from the
test modules.

     Early preparation of treatment surfaces included the grading of modules
to produce the necessary slopes and to insure a certain degree of homogene-
ity of topsoil.  All  plots were seeded with a combination of three grasses:
(a) Kentucky-31 fescue at 34 kg/ha (30 Ibs/acre), (b) annual rye grass at 17
kg/ha (15 Ibs/acre),  and (c) bermuda grass at 7 kg/ha (6 Ibs/acre), which
provided supplemental  cover during the summer months when annual rye die-off
occurred.  It was necessary at times to restore grass cover by additional
seeding to insure adequate cover on the modules.   Reseeding operations pri-
marily occurred during spring, when heavy rainfall  caused damages from wash-
ing, and during the fall to replace annual  rye grass crops.   Crops were har-
vested periodically based on height of stand:  approximately 40 cm (16
inches) for fescue and rye grass, and 30 cm (12 inches) for bermuda grass.
Infrequent cutting hindered efficient operation of mowing and baling equip-
ment.

     The project was  designed to accommodate a flow of approximately 8.81
I/sec (0.2 mgd).  Approximately 6.07 I/sec (0.138 mgd) of raw (screened)
wastewater was applied to 2.4 ha (6 acres)  of test modules,  and 3.08 I/sec
(0.07 mgd) of wastewater stabilization pond water was applied to the
                                    12

-------
Figure 1.   Rotating spray boom
    with fan nozzle (inset)
              13

-------
Figure 2.  Fixed riser with fan nozzle


-------


Figure 3.   Trough with  trickling  orifices
                   15

-------
-
*Raw wastewater effluent from Pauls Valley, Oklahoma.
_T__,- — r_ _,<__, _r
;-"-j
/
* ~ . '
.V-TR
• •*•

"" ,.
•'•„ j. ~
* -•
= ._ , •
r- — " •*
•*
'"-"3
J.UGH-
4- — -
•i.


' 7™~ *
•**
M9
• ^.
.*•% -*-
-T.D
RI5
» -s-
: . -t ~"
' " -a
. - -'
. -s_-


'.-"'*-
ED/
EfL~
••*. *
*"•* •*

^ r.* -
^r^ -*.



:













1
t
"^
•=—
	
.,. Lj
-
h
* —
*-



1
SECONDARY SYSTEM

1 — ."1 ~ T 	 f~ <^ I ^






~ . *•
LV>
.*
— ^TD/
»I T\V
.* •»-
!-^
-
A j
:?i*
HIGH *
/ -^
-B
_ ,*
^- ~
j _ _^
> f ,^
::^
;_^ ;
a£*id'£±.
V
- i.-*
(EO^
L
^"v;









SECONDARY
^LL_ _,_ ._,_ -j-.-f 	 fc 	 , 	 -r. --,— --T- --,<-, storage



f(






'".^
* — ;
-"3

t- - * .
t- ""
- /,
*. *
-n
i-
&9fl»


" ... p T '
^ RL

••* ^
-*
.^*k _

1&A f^A
O w O CA
- •" •-'
.^ .. "•
(Cn-*-

-1-
—
•*. —
•" -t- "

/
.. -i.
". *i*.-
1 * .'
..._ -
1
"— "~ 4. .
' - L

*~ - •'•
^
,1. .1.
Srf'
" r5PF
.^BC
A ""T . A •
... • J-
- ' H
.. "• '
"----,
^
. -*- "•

M;

*•• ~ .i
* . ~ *
U ' .. -
* • .. _J

y

^-
-^- *
.. - '
j, . -
4.
~
—
'-










^
--- -'"
~.,
" •*-
:
*
*"*• ../
** .t
: _
~^-
-"/:
•*• *•
ri
'1_'SP
"^. -3
^_ . -
_•*
.
-»- *••

/•
~ ., •
%• ' '
lAY/"
lOIT
L-.
- -

£- - "•".
•"• - *J|-
^
** ^J-
7 •"*'• A
, —
-is-


.jl
s X
"-- ,.- i


Equipment
Storage
Area





i
--

RAW SYSTEM ,
i — r -, -, 	 . -, — — , 	 r 	 , 	 , — .--r--.—^ 	 ^_

.
!



"•. f ]
'-*•',
"' •*-
-TR
• ^u • * "
J. '
^
S
' J

•£t:
' *.
A&*a
v
j^
-fix
IRIS
— r :
AAOA
^"-:-
-. ...
ED*.
#. J
:h :






. *
^V.
• I -;".
•**•*.
*"* *
* -si"
•n
-ii":
-^;2
,^SB
•'-' ^i
S . ''W


-X'-
fe*
IAY-
^,
j *

V
= ':>
- -* A""*
, "\ -
. --






». ~-.
;-:^/
- ~ —
• t
* '
•+ "

/V
_ ... 2
* _i.
V
'^-,r -
-/SflRAY-:
.k
^- •
m-
^ - -
.



"—" •'•
- -i-
. "•• '
•-*. *












j
L
1
s







/
/


\0





fD
l/i
O
CL

1











\
Pump S /I \v
^ WASTEWATER STABILIZATION PONDS Station^_i,^, _m=
**-Pump Station X /
\ / PRIMARY




         FIGURE 4.   Diagram of Pauls Valley,  Oklahoma,  experimental  overland  flow treatment  facility.

-------
remaining 0.8 ha (2 acres).  The two sources of wastewater were supplied to
the raw and secondary systems by use of three* 40-gal/min submersible type
pumps**.

     Because it was necessary to apply raw (screened) wastewater as it was
received from the municipality, constant application was maintained at all
times.  In order to maintain a constant application, certain limitations
were inherent with respect to the number of applications that could be made
during a given period of time.  This was accomplished by the use of a ro-
tating cycle of applications, whereby the raw system was operated on an 8-
hour-on-16-hour-off schedule***.  Flow was diverted through each module and
its corresponding plots by means of electrically actuated gate valves which
were controlled by time clocks.  The secondary system was operated on a 12-
hour-on-12-hour-off cycle to provide extended application time, therefore, a
greater volume per surface hectare per 24 hours of application.  This re-
quirement for increased volume was primarily due to the nature of the secon-
dary effluent, having already undergone appreciable BOD reductions during
the secondary treatment process.
     *Two of the three pumps were used within the raw system; one as a
standby unit in the event of failure of the other.

    **The pumps under normal operating conditions for this study, operated
at very low head pressure and, therefore, provided a much greater volume
than indicated by the pump ratings.

   ***Refer to Figure 2.  The flow cycle began on modules 1  a & b (a*2 per
cent slope, b=3 per cent slope) and rotated to the left through number 2
and 3.
                                    17

-------
                                 SECTION 5

                                  METHODS
     The sampling protocol for this study was designed to monitor treatment
from three primary sources:  (a) three application techniques on two slopes
from the raw system, (b) two application techniques on two slopes from the
secondary system, and (c) the existing conventional wastewater treatment
system (wastewater stabilization ponds).  The samples to be collected were
classified into three major categories for analysis:  (a) wastewater, (b)
soil, and (c) microbiology.

WASTEWATER ANALYSIS

     During each 3-week interval of operation, wastewater samples were col-
lected from each of the application methods on the raw and secondary treat-
ment systems, three times per week, sequentially and corresponding to the
application cycle.  The samples were collected approximately one-half way
through the 8-hour application cycles of the raw system and the 12-hour cy-
cles of the secondary system.  This allowed adequate time for the plots to
become saturated and provided adequate time for the samples to be collected
and processed.

     Utilizing the laboratory facilities of the Garvin County Health Depart-
ment in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, a total of 12 parameters were analyzed, em-
ploying methods and procedures in accordance with those specified by EPA
(7), and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (8).
The 12 parameters analyzed included:  BOD, COD, suspended solids, turbidity,
fecal coliform, total phosphorus, pH, dissolved solids, nitrate-(N), ammo-
nia-(N), organic nitrogen, and Kjeldhal-nitrogen.  Data resulting from these
analyses were tabulated by analytical parameter, method of application,
slope, and sampling date.  These were then grouped according to raw or sec-
ondary system and winter or summer applications (Appendices A through D).

     Preliminary analysis of the data indicated the regulatory parameters:
BOD, suspended solids, and fecal coliform, and the nutrient parameters (to-
tal phosphorus, nitrate-(N), ammonia-(N), and organic nitrogen*), to be the
     *Since Kjeldahl-nitrogen was obtained by addition of the ammonia and
organic nitrogen forms, it was not, therefore, an independent parameter and
was not subjected to statistical analysis.
                                    18

-------
most significant for describing and evaluating the performance of the two
systems as operated in this study.  Each of these analytical  categories tn
each of the four treatment groups were described by calculation of arithme-
tic mean, standard deviation, and number of observations.   Comparison of
various effluent averages with their respective influent averages allowed
calculation of treatment efficiencies achieved by the various application
methods, rates, and slopes employed in the two systems.  Two-way analysis of
variances (3X2 factorial with replication for the raw system and 2X2 fac-
torial with replication for the secondary system) permitted a comparison of
effluent levels of each analytical parameter for each method and rate of
application on each slope.  If needed, the project was designed to allow
limited t and multiple range comparison of the effluents from the various
methods and application rates on a given slope and/or a comparison of ef-
fluent parameters from the two slopes for a given method and rate of appli-
cation.  Since the project employed field rather than laboratory treatment
facilities and an actual rather than a synthetic wastewater, it was antici-
pated that inherent changes in the plots, the weather, and the characteris-
tics of the wastewater would result in considerable experimental variation:
consequently, an alpha level of 0.10 was selected for all  statistical decis-
ions concerning the wastewater phase of the study.

     The nature of this study, being a field study rather than a laboratory
study, afforded an opportunity to examine the degree of variation in treat-
ment effect, due to seasonal changes in temperature.  The geographic loca-
tion of this project presented ideal testing conditions for this evaluation
due to the wide range of temperature variation throughout the year.

     The analysis consisted of examining certain effluent parameters, namely
BOD, COD, and ammonia, when the system was operating above and below 0° C
(32° F).  Effluent parameters were grouped, according to temperatures above
and below 0  on all sample dates during winter application.  The winter
application schedule was selected as representing probably the worst opera-
ting conditions for the system, especially at temperatures below freezing.
When the high temperature for the day exceeded freezing, the data were
grouped in an above 0° C category.  When the high temperature for the day
did not exceed freezing, the data were grouped in a category of 0° C or be-
low.  The analysis included a comparison of results from all three applica-
tion techniques within the raw treatment system.

     In addition to the grouping of temperature ranges, a coefficient of
variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) was calculated, to detect
the possibility of variation in the data being reduced by such grouping.
Coefficient of variation, with the advantage of being unit!ess, allows
for the comparison of each application technique.

SOIL ANALYSIS

     By sampling topsoil and subsurface soil from each of the eight test
modules, a soil profile was established prior to beginning wastewater
                                     19

-------
 application.  Thirteen parameters were analyzed in order to develop a data
 base  upon which  to compare system changes and experimental results.  These
 analyses included:  calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron, zinc, nic-
 kle,  copper, manganese, ammonia-(N), Kjeldhal-nitrogen, organic nitrogen,
 and phosphorus.   In addition to the soil analysis, samples from the first
 stand of grass were collected and analyzed for the same set of parameters.
 At the  termination of the project a complete set of grass and soil samples
 were  collected and analyzed to complete the evaluation.

 MICROBIAL ANALYSIS

      The analysis of microbial conditions of the raw and secondary treat-
 ment  systems involved the monicoring of quality and quantity of bacterial
 and viral components of the wastewa^r.  In addition to wastewater monitor-
 ring, ambient air conditions around the spray boom applications were moni-
 tored,  to determine the presence or absence of aerosolized bacterial and
 viral organisms.  With the increased involvement of air-to-water interface,
 in relation to time of exposure and volume of water, the spray boom appli-
 cations provided a much greater potential for aerosol generation of
 microbes.  This technique of application was therefore chosen as the primary
 focal point of the microbial analysis.  The analysis of wastewater and
 ambient air conditions were expected to provide a comprehensive data-base
 for tracing the movement of microbes through the treatment systems.

      Wastewater samples from the raw treatment system were collected at
 three primary locations:   (a) the pump station (Figure 4) which provided
 wastewater to the entire raw treatment system, (b) the point of application
 for each application technique,  and (c) at the end of each plot, after the
 wastewater traversed the plots.   The samples from the pump station were
 collected to provide a comparison with those taken at the actual point of
 application to the plots.  This  comparison was necessary to determine, par-
 ticularly in the viral analysis, if there was an appreciable loss of organ-
 isms during passage through the  distribution lines.   Wastewater samples
 from  the secondary system were collected at the point of application and
 after the wastewater had passed  across the plots.

     Ambient air samples  were collected from the 2 per cent spray boom
 applications which were equipped with 110-V electrical  outlets 15 m (50 ft)
 upwind and at three 15-m increments downwind from the spray boom applica-
 tors.   The samples taken upwind  represented the normal  air loading for the
 parameter being monitored.  Those samples taken by the same method at the
 same  time interval downwind from the applicator,  indicated the effect of
 the spray boom application technique on the normal  air loading for the
 parameter.

     The parameters of major interest in the microbial  analyses were:   (a)
 total  and coliform bacteria colony counts of influent versus  effluent
wastewater,  (b)  total  and coliform bacteria,  upwind  versus downwind ambient
air bacterial  counts,  (c) upwind versus downwind  ambient air  particle
counts,  (d)  influent versus effluent wastewater viral  plaque  counts,  and
 (e) upwind versus downwind ambient air viral  plaque  counts.
                                   20

-------
Wastewater Bacterial  Colony Counts

     To determine the effects of overland flow treatment on enteric bacteria
in wastewater, influent and effluent, total  and coliform bacteria colony
counts were monitored for all application methods,  on both the raw and sec-
ondary treatment systems.  Samples were collected once each week from each
method of application.  The samples were collected  in pre-sterilized
polyethylene containers, packed in ice and transported to the Oklahoma
State Health Department Laboratories in Oklahoma City, for analysis.  In
the laboratory, serial dilutions (0.1, 0.01, 0.001, etc) of each sample
were made and surface plated on two different media, nutrient agar (NA) and
eosin methylene blue agar (EMB).  The plates were incubated for 18 to 20
hours at 35° C (95° F), and the dilutions producing between 30 and 300
colonies per plate for each media were counted.  The NA and EMB plate
counts were reported as total bacterial count (TBC) and total  coliform
counts (TCC), respectively.

Ambient Air Bacterial Colony Counts

     Total and coliform airborne bacterial samples  were collected using an
Andersen Drum sampler; a device that by means of a  vacuum pump, aspirated
bacteria into a sealed stainless steel canister through a limiting orifice,
and impacted the organisms on a rotating drum coated with growth media.
The rotating drum had a surface area of 387.5 cm2 (62 inch2), and during
sampling, rotated downward at the rate of 3.125 mm (0.125 inch) per revolu-
tion, creating a maximum of 27 line deposits per drum.  Each drum sampler
was matched with a specific Andersen vacuum pump, calibrated against a wet
flow meter in the laboratory.

     Air samples were collected from upwind, downwind and random locations,
on the 2 per cent spray boom plots, as indicated by wind direction at the
time of sampling.  Two drum samplers were placed at each sampling location,
one containing NA, to collect TBC, and the other containing EMB to collect
TCC.  The drums used to collect upwind samples were calibrated to aspirate
294 liter/hr and those used to collect downwind and random samples were
calibrated at 318 liter/hr (Appendix F).  Recalibration was randomly per-
formed during the study period.  The samplers were  operated for a 1-hour
period, and upon completion, were placed on ice and delivered to the
Oklahoma State Health Department Laboratory for analysis.  In the labora-
tory the canisters were incubated at 35° C for a period of 18 to 20 hours,
and counts were made of the colonies produced.  The colony types grown on
EMB agar were biochemically identified to genus.

Ambient Air Particle Counts

     Ambient air particle counts were of interest to this study, since it
was probably the droplet nuclei from aerosols generated by the spray boom,
that served as airborne carriers for some microorganisms.  These samples
were collected with the same frequency and at the same locations as those
collected for the ambient air bacterial analysis.  A known volume of air
(Appendix F) was pulled through a plastic cassette containing a 37-mm,


                                   21

-------
0.45-micron, cellulose acetate filter-pad (using the same vacuum equipment
employed to operate the Andersen Drum samplers).  Upon completion of a 1-
hour sample run, the cassettes were sealed, and along with pertinent site
data, delivered to the University of Oklahoma, Health Sciences Center, in
Oklahoma City, where particle counts and sizing were performed.

Wastewater Viral Plaque Counts

     Influent and effluent samples for viral analysis were collected from
the raw and secondary systems, 4-liter (1.04 gal)* samples of influent
(including  one 4-liter sample from the pump station) and 4 liters of
effluent from each of the application methods on the two treatment systems.
Upon collection, the samples were placed on ice and transported to the
Oklahoma State Health Department, Virology Laboratory, for analysis.  The
analysis consisted primarily of concentrating enteric viruses from the
wastewater samples by a Bentonite Adsorption technique (9), and conducting
an assay of the concentrate to determine the quantity of virus present in
the sample.

Bentonite Adsorption Technique--

     The Bentonite Adsorption technique is a procedure that has previously
been used in land application studies as a method of concentrating viral
organisms from wastewater (9).  Bentonite is basically a refined
Montmorillonite clay which serves as an adsorptive media for separation of
viral organisms from fluid suspension.  In this particular study, certain
procedural  modifications were necessary as indicated by personal communica-
tion with Schaub (10).   The procedures, along with the appropriate modifi-
cations, were as follows:  a 70 mg/1 concentration of bentonite (USP Grade)
was added to the wastewater sample, along with a 0.01 M concentration of
calcium chloride (Caclp).  The samples were magnetically mixed at slow
speed for 20 minutes at room temperature, to allow any virus present in the
sample to adsorb to the bentonite particles.  To maintain separation of
clay particles, thus decreasing clogging of filters, diatomaceous earth was
added to each sample (10, 11, 12).   Samples were then filtered (negative
pressure of -6.75 kg)  through a 142-mm diameter fiberglass prefilter, into
a 50-ml  suction flask,  to collect the bentonite.  Upon completion of fil-
tering procedures, 18 ml  of a 3 per cent beef extract solution (pH=9) was
added to the filtered bentonite to elute the adsorbed virus; the elution
time was 10 minutes (10, 13).   Eluates were transferred to polystyrene
tubes, treated with antibiotics (2500u of penicillin, 2500u of streptomy-
cin, 250u of bacitracin,  and 25u of mycostatin per ml was added to prevent
inhibitive growths of bacteria and fungus) at a pH of 7, and frozen at
     *During the initial  period of the viral  studies (first 3 months),  in-
fluent samples (1-liter volume) consistently produced negative results  for
isolation of virus.  This suggested a modification in sampling,  whereby
the volume of water collected was increased from 1 liter (0.26 gal)  to  4
liters; effluent sample volumes remained the same.
                                   22

-------
-70° C (-94° F) until assayed.  Stainless steel  filter holders and attach-
ments were sterilized at 121° C (250° F) for 30  minutes, rinsed in distill-
ed water, and allowed to air dry between filtration of samples.

Viral Assay--

     In preparation for culturing of wastewater  concentrates, Rhesus monkey
kidney cells, obtained commercially as a 106-cell per ml suspension, were
diluted to 3 X 105 cells per ml with nutrient media, consisting of Eagles
MEM (Earles) with 5 per cent fetal calf serum inactivated at 56° C (133° F)
for 30 minutes, supplimented with sodium bicarbonate (NaHC03) and antibiot-
ics (H).  Plastic cell culture flasks (25 cm2)  were seeded with 5 ml of
the cell suspension.  After 3 days of incubation at 36° C (97° F), the me-
dia was replaced .with fresh media to remove cytotoxic material (14).  The
flasks were incubated for an additional 6 to 8 days, at which time cell
monolayers were confluent.

     Upon completion of culture media preparations, sample eluates from the
concentration procedures were removed from freezer storage and thawed at 4°
to 8° C (39  to 46° F).  The culture flasks were then inoculated with 0.2
ml of each eluate; four flasks were also inoculated with 0.2 ml of Eagles
medium to serve as negative controls.  All flasks were incubated at 36° C
for 1.5 hours, agitating each flask every 20 minutes to allow for virus
adsorption to cell monolayers (10).  Eluates were decanted from the flasks
and an overlay, similar to that described by Cooper (15), was added  to each
flask.  The overlay consisted of 5 ml of Eagles BASAL medium without phenol
red, but containing 1 per cent purified agar, 5 per cent fetal calf serum,
sodium bicarbonate  (2 mg/ml) and antibiotics (250u of penicillin, 250u of
streptomycin, 250u of bacitracin, and 25u of mycostatin per ml).  All in-
gredients of the overlay were obtained commercially.  After incubation at
36° C for 5 days, the monolayers were stained with neutral red (1:2000 di-
lution).  Flasks were then incubated at room temperature for 2 to 3 hours
and were examined for viral plaques (16).  Plaques were counted in each
flask and the viral concentration for each eluate was expressed as plaque
forming units (PFU) per ml (15).

Ambient Air Viral Plaque Counts

     The examination of ambient air conditions of the spray boom applica-
tion method, for aerosolized virus, is a procedure that has not been pre-
viously described.   It was, therefore, necessary to conduct preliminary
studies to determine an appropriate sampling protocol.

     Three menstruums were arbitrarily selected for collection of virus
from air samples:   (a) normal saline,  (b) distilled water, and (c) raw
wastewater  (Pauls Valley, Oklahoma).  A volume of 250 ml of each menstruum
was seeded with an 8 X 104 PFU concentration of Poliovirus, Type 1  (Sabin
strain).  The actual PFU of Poliovirus added to each menstruum was deter-
mined by plaque assay.  The procedures employed for concentration and assay
of samples were the  same as those described earlier, with the  exception of
filter size  (47 mm) and the volume of beef extract  (2 ml) used to elute the
                                    23

-------
 viruses  (10).

     The  percentage  recovery of Poliovirus seeded in each menstruum is
 shown  in  Table  1.  Viruses were recovered equally well from saline, distill-
 ed water, and raw wastewater;  therefore, saline was selected as the menstru-
 um for collection of samples due to ease of preparation and resistance to
 freezing.
               TABLE 1.  PERCENTAGE RECOVERY OF POLIOVIRUS
Type of
menstruum
Virus
added
(PFU)*
  Virus
recovered
  (PFU)
Percentage
 recovery
Saline
Distilled water

Raw wastewater**
8X 104
8 X 104
A
8 X 104
6.6 X 104
6.8 X 104
A
6.2 X 1(T
83
85

78

*Plaque Forming Units.  Based on replicate assay (4 flasks per assay).
**The raw wastewater was collected from the study site at Pauls Valley,
  Okla., and autoclaved prior to seeding with poliovirus.
     The methods used for collection of air samples for viral analyses,
employed similar mechanical techniques as those employed to collect aero-
solized bacteria.  A volume of air was aspirated into a sealed glass impin-
ger bottle (500 ml) through an inlet tube into a 250-ml volume of the pre-
viously selected saline menstruum.  The inlet tube extended below the sur-
face of the saline solution, creating a bubbling action, thus setting up a
suspension of any virus that might be aspirated during a 1-hour sampling
interval.  The aspirations were made by means of vacuum pumps, the same as
those used for aerosol bacteria examinations.

     One set of aerosol samples for virus isolation were collected per
month of operation for the spray boom application method.  Samples were
collected at upwind, downwind and random locations from the spray boom
application; sampling was in conjunction with the aerosol bacteria sampling
schedule.  The two sampling schedules were coordinated to expedite sam-
pling, thus decreasing the amount of effort involved in collection and
handling of samples.  Upon collection, samples were placed on ice and
transported to the Oklahoma State Health Department, Virology Laboratory,
for concentration and assay.
                                   24

-------
                                SECTION 6

                         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
WASTEWATER ANALYSIS

Raw Treatment System

     As shown in Table 2, a comparison of the influent with the various ef-
fluent BOD levels during winter operation indicates removal efficiencies
which varied from 68 per cent for the fixed risers on the 2 per cent slope
to 82 per cent for the spray booms on the 3 per cent slope.  In terms of
overall BOD reduction (which is one of the major criteria of performance),
these removal efficiencies are somewhat lower than those anticipated for
secondary treatment facilities and may be attributed, at least in part, to
winter temperatures and the dilute nature of the raw wastewater.

     From the standpoint of effluent limitations, residual BOD is more im-
portant than percentage reduction.  During winter operation, the BOD in the
effluents from the various plots averaged 42.1 mg/1 for the fixed risers
on the 2 per cent slope to 24.0 mg/1 for the spray booms on the 3 per cent
slope.  The analysis of variance indicated that the slope of the plot ra-
ther than the method of application significantly influenced the level of
effluent BOD.  In this case the steeper slope produced the lower levels;
however, with the exception of the spray booms on the 3 per cent slope, the
effluent levels were within 5 mg/1 of each other and were above 30 mg/1.
Thus, the practical significance of this statistical conclusion is minimal
and further statistical analysis is contraindicated.  The oxygen demand re-
maining in the effluent indicates that under the conditions tested, all
methods of application during winter operation except those for the spray
booms on the 3 per cent slope, would require subsequent treatment in order
to achieve effluent limits.

     A review of the suspended solids data (Table 2) indicates a more fa-
vorable performance.  Compared to an influent average of 90.7 mg/1, the
various effluents ranged from 11.0 mg/1 for the troughs on the 3 per cent
slope to 15.6 mg/1 for the fixed risers on the 3 per cent slope.  All ef-
fluent levels were well below 20 mg/1 and all were within 5 mg/1 of each
other.  The analysis of variance indicated no statistically significant
differences among the different methods of application or between the
slopes.  From the standpoint of removal efficiencies, all plots achieved;
on the average, suspended solids reductions in the 83 to 88 per cent range.
                                   25

-------
                             TABLE  2 .   ANALYTICAL RESULTS  FROM THE RAW SYSTEM FOR THE

                              WINTER APPLICATION    -   NOVEMBER  28.  1977  - MARCH 10. 1978
Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
Sus.
Solids
mg/1
Fecal
Coli-
form
per
100 ml
7
to
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
37.7
14.6
9
42.1
10.2
9
15.6
8.13
9
11.2
5.33
9
1.5x10^
8.6x10^
8
1.3x10^
6.7x10
8
%
Red.
71
68
83
88
62
67
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
39.1
10.5
9
40.4
19.8
8
11.0
5.20
9
11.9
9.03
8
1.2x10^
1.0x10
8
1.0x10^
7.2x10
7
"/
/o
Red.
70
69
88
87
69
74
BOOM
Eff.
Cone.
24.0
12.7
10
39.8
14.4
11
12.1
6.86
11
12.0
4.24
11
2.3x10^
2 . 5x10
9
2.4x10^
2 . 5x10
9
%
Red.
82
69
87
87
41
38




Infl.
Cone.
130
26.6
20
90.7
40.4
20
3 . 9x10^
3.2x10
17
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact .
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p = 0.1
Sig.
-
Sig.
ro
01
                                                    (Continued)

-------
                                               TABLE  2  .   (continued)
Anal.
Par.
Total
P
mg/1
H03
N
mg/1
NH3
N
mg/1
Org.
N
mg/1
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISE
Eff.
Cone.
7.55
1.12
7
7.64
1.10
7
0.24
0.24
8
0.19
0.21
8
6.89
4.80
9
9.56
3.94
9
3.47
0.78
9
4.01
0.69
9
R
%
Red.
11
10


58
42
52
45
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
6.87
0.77
7
7.75
1.13
7
0.21
0.16
8
0.26
0.25
8
8.47
3.28
9
8.56
5.95
8
3.65
0.63
9
3.64
1.11
8
%
Red.
19
8


49
48
50
50
BOOM
Eff.
Cone.
9.55
1.29
11
9.64
1.30
11
0.74
0.56
10
0.44
0.57
10
11.4
4.02
11
13.4
4.36
11
2.66
1.85
11
3.12
2.36
11
%
Red.
-13
-14


31
19
63
57





Infl.
Cone.
8.46
1.96
13
0.04
0.02
18
16.5
3.09
20
7.28
1.93
20
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact .
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p = 0.1
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
-
ro
-j

-------
These reductions compare favorably with conventional secondary treatment
facilities considering the relatively low suspended solids levels in the
raw wastewater.

     Of the normal regulatory parameters, fecal coliform analyses indicated
the poorest performance.  With influent and effluent levels all in the
range of 10° per 100 ml, the reductions achieved do not compare favorably
with either the conventional secondary system or with effluent limitations.
Even though statistically the fixed riser and trough application methods on
both slopes achieved higher reductions than the spray boom method of appli-
cation, the results indicate that under the test conditions employed, none
of the methods could achieve effluent fecal coliform levels in the range of
10^ per 100 ml unless additional treatment was applied.

     The nutrient parameters reported in Table 2 reveals  that the fixed
riser and trough application methods resulted in reductions of only 8 to 19
per cent in total phosphorus.  The effluent from the spray boom plots was
significantly different and, in fact, demonstrated increases in. phosphorus
compared to the influent.  Given the levels of phosphorus in the influent
and various effluents, the relatively small changes produced by the plots
have no practical interpretation.  The basic observation is that under the
experimental conditions of this investigation, none of the treatments
achieved appreciable reductions in total phosphorus and if such is desired,
additional treatment would be indicated.

     Examination of the nitrate data indicates that the fixed riser and
trough application methods performed similarly in that the average nitrate-
nitrogen in the effluents ranged from 0.19 to 0.26 mg/1.   Even though the
level was significantly higher for the two spray boom plots, all levels
were below 1 mg/1, a comparatively low level of nitrate-nitrogen for a
biological treatment system even under winter conditions.  The ammonia data
illustrates a similar pattern.  The fixed riser and trough plots produced
average ammonia-nitrogen levels which varied from 9.56 mg/1 for the fixed
risers on the 2 per cent slope to 6.89 mg/1 for the fixed risers on the 3
per cent slopes.  The ammonia levels in the effluents from the two spray
boom plots were significantly higher and reductions of only 19 to 31 per
cent were achieved.  The organic nitrogen data presents the complimentary
view in that both spray boom plots produced somewhat lower effluent levels
(2.66 to 3.12 mg/1) and consequently, higher reductions (57 to 63 per cent)
than did the plots having the fixed riser or trough application methods.
In the latter case the effluent levels averaged 4.01 to 3.47 mg/1 with
corresponding reductions of 45 to 52 per cent.  Given the relatively small
range of effluent values, no practical or statistical significance could be
associated with any slope or method of application during winter operation.

     Overall, it would appear that of the approximately 7 mg/1 organic
nitrogen in the influent, about 50 per cent was removed by treatment presum-
ably by conversion to other nitrogen forms.  Of the 16.5 mg/1  ammonia-nitro-
gen in the influent, about one-half was removed presumably by loss to the
atmosphere and/or conversion to nitrate which would be subject  to plant
uptake and/or loss to the atmosphere as molecular nitrogen following
                                    28

-------
anaerobic biological  denitrification in the soil.   Since the concentration
of nitrate-nitrogen in the effluent was nominal  and since under winter con-
ditions, biological denitrification and plant uptake are also minimal, it
appears that the change in the nitrogen balance was limited to approximate-
ly a 50 per cent conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia which,  along
with about one-half of the ammonia present in the raw waste, was lost to
the atmosphere.

    The performance of the raw system during summer operation is illustrat-
ed in Table 3.  As may be seen in this table the BOD effluent averages for
the various plots ranged from 8.3 mg/1 for the spray booms on the 2 per
cent slope to 21.0 mg/1 for the troughs on the 3 per cent slope.  The anal-
ysis of variance indicated that the spray boom method of application pro-
duced a significantly lower effluent BOD with no differences attributable
to slope.  Since all  effluent levels were well below 30 mg/1, all  the plots
tested demonstrated the ability to meet common effluent limitations on BOD,
at least under warmer temperatures.  Even though the influent BOD dropped
to 117 mg/1, the BOD removal efficiences ranged from 82 per cent for the
troughs on the 3 per cent slope to 93 per cent for the spray booms on the
2 per cent slope, all of which compare more favorably with the anticipated
performance of the secondary system.

    The suspended solids data also indicated an improved performance com-
pared to winter operations.  Effluent levels ranged from 3.6 to 10.6 mg/1
and even though statistically significantly lower levels were indicated for
both the 2 per cent slope and the spray boom method, the absolute differ-
ence in effluent levels is of little if any practical significance.  All
effluent levels were well below 30 mg/1 and removal efficiencies were at or
above 90 per cent; therefore, the ability of the systems tested to remove
suspended solids compares favorably with conventional secondary treatment.

    The fecal coliform data did not conform to the above pattern.  Similar
to the observations made during winter operations, both influent and ef-
fluent levels were on the range of 106 per 100 ml and additional treatment
is indicated if levels in the 102 per 100 ml range are to be achieved.
Even though the percentage reductions achieved for the various plots show
an increase compared to winter operation and even though statistical
significance is indicated for the 2 per cent slope, these observations have
little practical meaning in view of the overall effluent levels.

    A review of the phosphorus data in Table 3 indicates very little vari-
ation amoung the effluents from the various plots during summer operation
and very few differences between the levels observed during the summer and
winter, including  the observation that the spray boom application method
resulted in significantly higher phosphate levels during both winter and
summer operations.  The principal difference is that during the summer, all
but one plot demonstrated an increase in phosphorus compared to the influ-
ent.  This indicates that under the conditions of this study, the plots
demonstrated essentially no phosphorus removal even during the growing sea-
son.
                                   29

-------
                           TABLE   3  .  ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE RAW SYSTEM FOR THE

                          SUMMER APPLICATION   -   MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978
Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
Sus.
Solids
mg/1
Fecal
Coli-
form
per
100 ml
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
14.2
8.64
20
18.2
13.0
20
9.4
7.05
18
6.4
5.47
18
1.4x10^
1.3x10
12
1.2x10^
1.2x10
12
%
Red.
88
84
91
94
72
76
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
21.0
11.0
20
18.3
12.0
19
10.6
5.21
18
6.6
4.75
17
l.Sxlo!?
1.4x10
12
1.2x10^
9.6x10
12
%
Red.
82
84
90
94
64
76
BOOM
Eff.
Cone .
8.6
6.18
18
8.3
5.85
18
3.6
2.33
21
3.6
2.27
21
1.2x10^
1.7x10
15
4.9x10^
5.9x10
16
%
Red.
93
93
97
97
76
90




Infl.
Cone.
117
30.9
38
105
65.6
39
5.0x10^
6.2xlOb
28
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p = 0.1
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
to
O
                                                    (Continued)

-------
                                               TABLE  3.  (continued)
Anal.
Par.
Total
P
mg/1
w3
mg/1
NH3
N
mg/1
Org.
N
mg/1
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
7.9
1.33
20
8.7
1.11
20
0.18
0.16
14
0.18
0.17
14
4.2
2.98
20
6.9
2.03
20
4.0
0.96
20
4.6
1.31
20
7
/o
Red.
5
-5


75
59
53
46
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
8.5
2.06
20
8.9
1.09
19
0.16
0.13
14
0.24
0.23
12
7.4
2.50
20
6.9
3.03
18
4.8
1.16
20
5.0
1.46
18
%
Red.
-2
-7


56
59
44
41
BOOM
Eff.
Cone.
9.2
1.38
21
9.2
1.30
21
1.04
0.57
14
0.67
0.46
14
3.1
2.71
21
3.4
2.52
21
2.9
0.89
21
3.1
0.85
21
%
Red.
-11
-11


81
80
66
64
Infl.
Cone.
8.3
1.63
41
<0.05
0
28

16.7
3.44
41

8.5
2.68
41
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p = 0.1
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
(A)

-------
     The nitrate-nitrogen data reveals a pattern very similar to that of
the winter operations in that the effluents from the fixed riser and trough
plots contained low levels with relatively little difference observed be-
tween plots.  Even though the spray boom method and especially the 3 per
cent slope showed statistically higher effluent levels, all  plots averaged
approximately 1 mg/1  or less of nitrate-nitrogen.  This indicates either a
low level of nitrification or a high level of plant uptake and/or biologi-
cal denitrification.   In view of the type of soil, slope, vegetative cover,
and applications utilized, and in view of the similarity with the results
from the winter operation, a low level of nitrification is indicated.

     Comparison of the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the effluent during sum-
mer operation indicates a range of 3.1 mg/1 for the spray booms on the 3
per cent slope to 7.4 mg/1 for the troughs on the 3 per cent slope with
statistically lower levels being associated with the spray boom method and
to a lesser extent with the 3 per cent slope and interaction of slope and
application method.  The corresponding percentage reductions ranged from
81 to 56.  The lower effluent levels and the resulting higher removal effi-
ciencies compared to the winter system indicate the benefit of higher am-
bient temperatures.  This, along with the results of the nitrate analyses,
suggest the principal ammonia removal mechanism to be loss to the atmos-
phere rather than conversion to nitrate.

     Analysis of the organic nitrogen data reveals a pattern of effluent le-
vels and removal efficiencies almost identical to that observed for the
winter data.  The major difference is in the area of statistical signifi-
cance associated with the higher removals obtained by all plots on the 3
per cent slope and by the spray boom method of application.   The higher
ambient temperature of the summer had no apparent benefit in the reduction
of organic nitrogen.

     Other than the somewhat higher reductions in ammonia-nitrogen the
total nitrogen balance during the summer appears to have been virtually
identical to that for the winter operation.  This suggests loss of ammonia
to the atmosphere to be the principal nitrogen removal process with nitri-
fication-denitrification and plant uptake playing much less significant
roles.

Treatment Above and Below Freezing—

     As shown in Table 4, the mean BOD for the below freezing category was,
for all application methods, higher than the mean BOD for those operating
above 0° C.  This would indicate that, in all cases, the system was less
effective in removal  of BOD when temperatures remained below the freezing
mark.  In every case but one (that being the spray booms on the 2 per cent
slope, above freezing), there was a reduction in the coefficient of varia-
tion, indicating less variability in the grouped data.

     Regrouping the data for days when the low temperature was above and
below freezing respectively produced very similar results.  The overall
means were identical  and the means above and below 0° C were very similar.
                                   32

-------
                 TABLE 4.  RAW TREATMENT SYSTEM,
           WINTER OPERATION, HIGH TEMPERATURE VS.  BOD

Slope
2%
3%

Temperature
>0° C
<0° C
>°n C
<0° C
Fixed Riser
Maari Grouped
Mean Means
42 38.2
50.0
38 33.5
46.0

Std. y Std.
Dev. Dev.
31 74 18
15
41 108 32
20

V
47
30
94
43
Trough
2%
3%
>0° C
<0° C
>0° C
<0° C
40 29.0
59.3
39 33.8
49.7
54 130 19
25
30 77 8
18
66
42
24
36
Spray Boom
2%
3%
>0° C
<0° C
>o°c
<0° C
39 37.1
47.0
24 18.0
38.0
14 35 16
9
11 46 4
16
41
19
25
41

V « coefficient of variation expressed as a percentage
                                33

-------
     Table  5  presents data  for COD effluent from the plots.  Again the
means  in  the  grouped data show that the system was less effective in remov-
ing  the COD when  the temperature was below freezing.  The coefficient of
variation improved  in every case except for the spray boom application
method.

     Table  6  presents the independent temperature variable "high tempera-
ture"  versus  ammonia.   It could be hypothesized that ammonia would come off
to the atmosphere at a  faster rate when temperatures for the day had
exceeded  0° C  than  it would when the high for the day never exceeded the
freezing  mark.  The hypothesis appears to be true since the group means
show consistently higher ammonia values when the temperature remains below
freezing.   It  appeared  to be even more striking when the ammonia values for
below  freezing are  compared with the means for the summer operations in
Table  3.

     Other  parameters were examined but did not appear to show any signifi-
cant trends.  This  is also true of the data from those plots receiving
secondary effluent.

Secondary Treatment System

     Inspection of  the  BOD data in Table 7 indicates that during winter
operation all effluent  levels from all plots were consistently well  below
30 mg/1, with those from the 2 per cent slopes being significantly lower
than those  from the 3 per cent slopes.  The BOD level in the influent
(wastewater stabilization pond effluent) was, however, also well below 30
mg/1.  This indicates that in the winter season when ambient temperatures
were below  freezing and land application would not be indicated, additional
BOD reduction of the pond effluent would not be necessary.   The flow could
bypass the  plots without imposing an additional oxygen demand on the envi-
ronment.  In this manner, additional  storage capacity for the winter season
would  not be required.

     Analysis of the suspended solids data leads to the same general  obser-
vations concerning  the winter operation of the secondary system.  In this
case,  however, the  plots on the 2 per cent slope did indicate significantly
lower  effluent levels than those from the same application  methods on the
3 per  cent slope.   The comparatively high removal  efficiencies obtained
suggest possible benefits of application of this type of effluent to rela-
tively low grade slopes should suspended solids levels less than 10  mg/1  be
des i red.

     Similar to the raw system the fecal  coliform analysis  indicated reduc-
tions of less than  one order of magnitude.  Considering that reduction of
influent levels of  ICr to effluent levels of 102 or less is desired,  the
statistically significant lower levels from the 2  per cent  slopes have no
practical  significance.   If fecal  coliform effluent limits  are applied to
wastewater stabilization pond effluents,  additional  treatment other  than
the methods  employed in this study are indicated.
                                   34

-------
                 TABLE 5.  RAW TREATMENT SYSTEM,
           WINTER OPERATION, HIGH TEMPERATURE VS. COD

Fixed Riser
Slope Temperature
2% >0° C
<0° C
3% >0° C
<0° C
Mpan Grouped Std.
Mean Means Dev.
136 135.0 73
138.0
110 108.0 31
113.0
u Std.
Dev.
54 73
11
28 23
21
V
54
8
21
19
Trough
2% >0° C
<0° C
3% >0° C
<0° C
114 99.8 62
137.0
112 107.0 35
120.0
54 30
19
31 32
29
30
14
30
24
Spray Boom
2% >0° C
<0° C
3% >0° C
<0° C
124 118.0 28
138.0
102 89.6 31
134.7
23 31
16
31 18
43
27
12
20
32
V = coefficient of variation expressed as a percentage
                                 35

-------
                  TABLE 6.   RAW TREATMENT SYSTEM,
             WINTER OPERATION,  HIGH TEMPERATURE VS.  NH.

Fixed Riser
Slope
2%
3%
Temperature
>o°c
o°c
o°c
o° c

-------
                          TABLE  7 .   ANALYTICAL  RESULTS  FROM THE SECONDARY SYSTEM FOR THE
                             WINTER APPLICATION    -   NOVEMBER 28,  1977  - MARCH 10, 1978
Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
Sus.
Solids
mg/1
Fecal
Coli-
form
per
100 ml
y
/o
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
13.8
5.24
9
9.30
2.26
10
15.7
7.68
9
6.67
3.97
9
4. 5x10 J
2.8x10
7
2. 5x10 J
2.4x10
9
%
Red.
15
43
40
74
25
58
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
17.2
5.77
10
9.40
2.01
10
19.9
12.1
10
6.33
3.46
9
6.4x10^
5.6x10
8
1.8x10^
1.6x10
9
%
Red.
-6
42
24
76
-7
70




Infl.
Cone.
16.2
5.70
20
26.1
18.7
19
6. 0x10 ?
4.7x10
17
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p - 0.1
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
CO
                                                    (Continued)

-------
                                                 TABLE   7 .	(continued)
Anal.
Par.
Total
P
mg/1
NO
N
mg/1
NH3
N
mg/1
Org.
N
mg/1
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
, s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
10.4
1.40
9
10.7
1.06
9
0.57
0.36
8
0.94
0.57
8
8.41
4.80
9
11.0
1.89
10
2.81
2.12
9
2.42
1.72
10
7
/o
Red.
14
12


38
19
28
38
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
10.9
1.32
10
10.1
1.07
9
0.15
0.10
9
0.60
0.43
8
10.8
4.33
10
9.28
2.52
10
4.04
1.23
10
2.24
1.64
10
%
Red.
10
17


20
20
-3
43





Infl.
Cone.
12.1
1.41
19
0.06
0.05
31
13.5
3.42
20
3.93
2.01
20
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd,
Interact.
p = 0.1
-
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
CO
co

-------
     The nutrient parameters outlined in Table 7 reveal  that like the raw
system, the secondary system indicated comparatively uniform effluent lev-
els for both application methods and slopes.   The low removal  percentages
indicate very little, if any, meaningful uptake under the test conditions.

     The nitrogen values suggest that the effluents from the fixed riser
plots were significantly higher in nitrate than were the effluents from the
plots having the trough method of application.  Likewise the 2 per cent
slopes were higher in nitrate-nitrogen than were the 3 per cent slopes;
however, considering that all levels were below 1 mg/1,  an overall low lev-
el of nitrification is indicated and the differences observed appear to
have no practical application.  This is consistent with  the finding from
the raw system even though the influents to the systems  were dissimilar.

     The ammonia and organic nitrogen levels  exhibited the same general
pattern for the secondary system as was seen  for the raw system in that the
effluent levels for the winter operations were fairly consistent between
plots and between the two systems.  The somwhat lower percentage reductions
reported for the secondary system are understandable in  view of the differ-
ent nature of the two influents.

     Overall, the nitrogen balance indicates  that during the winter, the
secondary system achieved low levels of nitrification, and reductions in
ammonia and organic nitrogen levels which were even lower than those ob-
served for the raw system under winter conditions.  This leads to the same
general observations expressed for the raw system, that is, nitrogen changes
resulting from the overland flow of wastewater stabilization pond effluent
during the winter season were primarily limited to less  than 50 per cent
conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia with the loss  of this plus a loss
of less than 40 per cent of the influent ammonia to the atmosphere.

     As may be seen in Table 8, the summer effluent BOD levels ranged from
18.6 mg/1 for the troughs on the 2 per cent slope to 25.0 mg/1 for the
troughs on the 3 per cent slope with no statistically significant differ-
ences observed between the two application methods or slopes.  Even though
these were somewhat higher effluent levels than were reported under winter
operations, all were still below 30 mg/1.  Considering the relatively low
level of BOD in the influent, the comparatively low removal efficiencies
were not unexpected since it is the inherent nature of biological treatment
systems that the rate at which residual oxygen demand is satisfied is a
function of the level of the demand remaining.

     The effluent suspended solids levels varied from 60.9 to 101.0 mg/1,
with the fixed riser method producing statistically significantly lower
levels than the trough method; however, the practical significance of this
finding is lost since all effluent levels were well above 30 mg/1.  A com-
parison with the suspended solids levels from the raw system for the sum-
mer data indicates that the type of suspended solids rather than applica-
tion method or slope was the principal factor affecting treatment.
                                   39

-------
 TABLE   8.  ANALYTICAL RESULTS FROM THE SECONDARY SYSTEM,  FOR
THE SUMMER APPLICATION   -   MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27,  1978
Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
Sus.
Solids
mg/1
Fecal
Coli-
form
per
100 ml
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
18.7
7.75
20
19.8
7.44
18
60.9
43.4
18
63.0
41.8
18
9.3x10*
2.2x10
11
1.6x10*
1.4x10
10
%
Red.
32
29
47
45
-182
52
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
25.0
8.52
20
18.6
6.90
18
101
53.5
20
66.3
50.9
18
1.0x10^
1.9x10
11
1.9x10*
1.1x10
10
%
Red.
10
33
11
42
-203
42




Infl.
Cone.
27.7
11.4
29
114
60.1
29
3. 3x10 *
2.8x10
13
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
p = 0.1
Sig.
Sig.
-
                            (Continued)

-------
TABLE   8.  (continued)
Anal.
Par.
Total
P
mg/1
N03
N
mg/1
NH3
mg/1
Org.
N
mg/1
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Stat.
Par.
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
X
s
n
APPLICATION METHOD
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
4.21
2.76
20
5.87
3.69
18
0.10
0.14
14
0.29
0.44
12
0.21
0.30
20
0.48
0.67
18
10.5
3.17
20
9.1
3.13
18
%
Red.
33
7


88
72
24
34
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
4.62
2.74
20
5.60
2.92
18
0.13
0.13
14
0.17
0.23
12
0.27
,0.36
20
0.44
0.59
18
14.0
4.91
20
9.4
4.61
18
%
Red.
27
11


84
74
-1
32
Infl.
Cone.
6.31
3.47
29
0.08
0.10
23
1.70
2.12
29
13.8
4.92
29
Analysis
of
Variance
Source
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
Slope
Appl. Mtd.
Interact.
P = 0.1
Sig.
-
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.

-------
     The results of the fecal coliform analyses from the summer operations
were consistent with those from the winter operations in that all effluent
levels were in the range of lO4 or 105 per 100 ml.  Compared to an influent
average in the range of 10^ per 100 ml, reductions, where such existed,
were insufficient to merit practical consideration.

     Effluent phosphorus levels, which ranged from 4.21  to 5.87 mg/1, were
lower for the summer operations than for the winter; however, the influent
phosphorus during the summer also averaged lower than during the winter.
Consequently the overall performances were comparable in that total  phos-
phorus reduction by the system studies was relatively small.  The plots on
the 3 per cent slope produced statistically significantly lower effluent
levels than did the ones on the 2 per cent slope; however, the differences
between plots being less than 2 mg/1 are of little practical significance.

     Examination of the nitrate levels in Table 8 reveals a picture similar
to that observed for winter operations in that the influent level averaged
less than 0.1 mg/1 and all effluent means were less than 1 mg/1.  The in-
dicated degree of nitrification is small and is consistent with that ob-
served for the raw system operated under winter and summer conditions.

     On the other hand, the ammonia-nitrogen levels in the effluent aver-
aged below 0.5 mg/1 compared to the winter system where the effluent levels
ranged from 8.41 to 11.0 mg/1.  The removal efficiencies varied from 72 per
cent for the fixed risers on the 2 per cent slope to 88 per cent for the
fixed risers on the 3 per cent slope.  The apparent improvement in perfor-
mance between the summer and winter operation can be attributed to the
warmer ambient temperatures and lower influent levels during the summer.
The ammonia levels in the effluents from the plots on the 3 per cent slope
were significantly lower than those from the 2 per cent slope; however, the
practicality of this finding is negated by the relatively small differences
in effluent concentrations.

     Analysis of the organic nitrogen data for the summer operation indi-
cates a comparatively high level (13.8 mg/1) in the influent with little if
any reduction in the effluents.  Statistical significance was indicated for
method of application, slope and interaction; however, the comparatively
small range of effluent levels and the low removal efficiencies minimize
practical  interpretation and application of these findings.

     Overall, the nitrogen balance for the secondary system during the sum-
mer indicates comparatively high influent levels of organic nitrogen pre-
sumably in the form of algal protein, with very little if any reduction by
the treatment methods employed.  The influent ammonia level which was re-
latively low, was reduced to less than 0.5 mg/1 probably, by loss to the
atmosphere.  A very low level of nitrification was indicated; therefore,
the principal change in the nitrogen balance appears to  have been the loss
of approximately 4 mg/1 organic nitrogen and about 1.5 mg/1 ammonia-nitro-
gen.
                                   42

-------
Comparison of Overland Flow and Wastewater Stabilization Pond

     Since the raw wastewater from the City of Pauls Valley was influent to
both the raw system of the land application project and to a two-celled
wastewater stabilization pond operated in parallel  to the project, and since
the influent to the secondary system was considered to be representative of
the effluent from the second cell, the performance  of the pond could be
evaluated and compared to the results from the raw system of the overland
flow project.

     As may be seen in Table 9, the effluent from the pond had an average
BOD of 16.2 mg/1 for the winter operation.  This was well below the usual
effluent limitations of 30 mg/1 and compared favorably with all six plots of
the land application system, with the exception of the spray booms on the 3
per cent slope where the effluent levels were above 30 mg/1.  The percentage
reduction of 88 per cent also compares favorably with the performance of all
six plots as well as with conventional secondary treatment, especially con-
sidering the dilute nature of the raw wastewater.

     In contrast, the pond as operated under winter conditions did not re-
duce suspended solids as well as did overland flow.  The reduction of 71 per
cent by the pond is appreciably lower than the 83 to 88 per cent range dem-
onstrated by the six plots; however, the pond effluent average was still be-
low 30 mg/1 and could be considered acceptable even at this lower level of
reduction.

     The fecal coliform data in Table 9 indicated that the pond achieved an
average reduction of 98 per cent compared to a range of 38 per cent for the
spray booms on the 2 per cent slope to 74 per cent for the troughs also on
the 2 per cent slope.  Even though the removal efficiency was relatively
high for the pond, the effluent level was in the range of 104 per 100 ml
compared to 10° per 100 ml for the various plot effluents; consequently,
neither treatment process achieved effluent levels considered acceptable
without further treatment.

     A review of the phosphorus data for the winter observation period re-
veals that the concentrations in the plot effluents were much lower than
the average level from the pond; however, neither the land nor the pond
processes exhibited meaningful uptake.  In fact, the spray boom application
method as well as the pond produced higher effluent levels of total phos-
phorus than was in the influent.  This suggests that even though phosphorus
is a biologically essential and actively transported nutrient, neither sys-
tem was phosphorus limited under the conditions of this study.

     The nitrogen data gathered under winter operations revealed that the
nitrate level in the pond effluent was lower than the level from any of the
six plots; however, all effluent concentrations were well below 1 mg/1 and
relative differences are of little practical significance unless future
effluent limits of less than 0.1 mg/1 are established for nitrate-nitrogen.
If this occurs, the plot effluents would require additional treatment.
                                   43

-------
TABLE 9 .  COMPARISON OF OVERLAND FLOW AND WASTEWATER STABILIZATION POND
             FOR TREATMENT OF RAW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER
Appl.
Rate
Winter
Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
S.S.
mg/1
FC/ 100ml
X 106
Total P
mg/1
NO--N
ffig/i
NH,-N
mg/l
Org. N
mg/1
Infl.
Cone.
130
90.7
3.9
8.46
0.04
16.5
7.28
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
37.7
42.1
15.6
11.2
1.5
1.3
7.55
7.64
0.24
0.19
6.89
9.56
3.47
4.01
%
Red.
71
68
83
88
62
67
11
10

58
42
52
45
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
39.1
40.4
11.0
11.9
1.2
1.0
6.87
7.75
0.21
0.26
8.47
8.56
3.65
3.64
%
Red.
70
69
88
87
69
74
19
8

49
48
50
50
BOOM
Eff.
Cone.
24.0
39.8
12.1
12.0
2.3
2.4
9.55
9.64
0.74
0.44
11.4
13.4
2.66
3.12
%
Red.
82
69
87
87
41
38
-13
-14

31
19
63
57
POND
Eff.
Cone.
16.2
26.1
0.060
12.1
0.06
13.5
3.93
%
Red.
88
71
98
-43

18
46
                           (Continued)

-------
                                              TABLE  9.   (Continued)
Appl.
Rate
Summer


Anal.
Par.
BOD
mg/1
S.S.
mg/1
FC/ 100ml
X 106
Total P
mg/1
NOo-N
fa/1
NH--N
mg/1
Org. N
mg/1
Infl.
Cone.
117
105
5.0
8.3
0.05
16.7
8.5
%
Slope
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
RISER
Eff.
Cone.
14.2
18.2
9.4
6.4
1.4
1.2
7.9
8.7
0.18
0.18
4.2
6.9
4.0
4.6
%
Red.
88
84
91
_94
72
76
5
- 5

75
59
53
46
TROUGH
Eff.
Cone.
21.0
18.3
10.6
6.6
1.8
1.2
8.5
8.9
0.16
0.24
7.4
6.9
4.8
5.0
%
Red.
82
84
90
94
64
76
- 2
- 7

56
59
44
41
BOOM
Eff.
Cone.
8.6
8.3
3.6
3.6
1.2
0.49
9.2
9.2
1.04
0.67
3.1
3.4
2.9
3.1
%
Red.
93
93
97
97
76
90
-11
-11

81
80
66
64
POND
Eff.
Cone.
27.7
114
0.033
6.31
0.08
1.70
13.8
%
Red.
76
- 9
99
24

90
-62
en

-------
     The ammonia-nitrogen data in Table 9 indicated that for the winter
operation the plot effluent levels, which ranged from 13.4 mg/1 for the
spray booms on the 2 per cent slope to 6.89 mg/1 for the fixed risers on
the 3 per cent slope, were generally lower than the pond effluent which
averaged 13.5 mg/1.  Considering the increased amount of air contact afford-
ed by the land application procedures, the relatively low ammonia removal
efficiency of the pond is understandably even considering the probability of
lower wastewater temperatures on the plots.

     The organic nitrogen data lead to basically the same analysis as for
the ammonia in that the plots generally had lower effluent levels and there-
fore, higher removal efficiencies than did the pond.  The nature of the two
processes suggests that at least a portion of the organic nitrogen in the
pond effluent was in the form of algal protein while that in the plot ef-
fluents was primarily unconverted metabolic waste products which, under-
standably, would have a much greater environmental impact.  Overall, the
difference between the effluent levels from the two processes had no appar-
ent practical significance.

     Referring to Table 9, for a comparison of the two processes under the
summer operation, it may be seen that with respect to BOD, the performance
of the pond decreased to 76 per cent removal while the plots improved to a
minimum of 82 per cent from the trough on the 3 per cent slope and a maxi-
mum of 93 per cent for both spray boom plots.  While the effluent BOD for
the pond increased during the summer, presumably due to higher levels of
phytoplankton, the effluent level averaged less than 30 mg/1 and could be
considered acceptable especially considering the relatively innocuous nature
of the solids contributing to the BOD.

     The suspended solids data present a contrasting view.  The effluent
from the pond averaged 114 mg/1  with the increase apparently due to the in-
creased concentration of algae in the pond during the warmer season.  This
indicates the need for additional treatment if effluent levels as low as 30
mg/1 are to be achieved.  The plots, on the other hand, exhibited removal
efficiencies which ranged from 90 to 97 per cent with all plot effluents
averaging well below 30 mg/1.

     Comparison of the feca\ coliform data indicates only a slight improve-
ment in performance of the plots and the pond for the summer operation.
Again, the pond achieved effluent levels in the range of 104 per 100 ml
while the plot effluent levels averaged in the 10& per 100 ml range.  Un-
fortunately, neither process achieved levels compatible with anticipated
effluent criteria and additional  treatment is indicated if fecal  coliform
levels of 10^ per 100 ml are to  be realized by either process for either
season.

     As discussed earlier, the phosphorus levels in the plot effluents in-
dicated that little if any change occurred between summer and winter opera-
tions; however, the performance  of the pond varied markedly between the two
seasons.  While the removal efficiency changed from -45 per cent for the
winter to +24 per cent for the summer, the pond system was similar to the
                                   46

-------
plots in that both were Ineffective in achieving meaningful reductions in
total phosphorus.

     The nitrate data in Table 9 also indicated a parallel between summer
and winter operations.  The effluent levels from the plots were higher than
for the pond but all were in the range of 1 mg/1 or less and in the absence
of effluent limits for nutrient parameters, no meaningful differences were
represented.

     An analysis of the ammonia data reveals the expected observation that
the pond and the overland flow plots exhibited higher removal  efficiencies
for the summer than for the winter.  It may not have been anticipated that
in contrast to the winter performance, the ammonia removal efficiency of 90
per cent for the pond during the summer exceeded that for all  six plots.
This suggests that biological ammonia removal processes are less effective
than physical processes at winter temperatures but more effective than
physical processes at the higher temperatures associated with the summer
operation.  In the absence of effluent limitations for ammonia, however,
this observation has little practical application.

     The organic nitrogen data reveals the unique operational  characteris-
tics of the pond in that the average effluent level was appreciably higher
than the influent concentration for the summer operation.  This is in con-
trast to the winter operation when a removal of 46 per cent was achieved
and may be explained by the high concentration of phytoplankton which de-
velop in such ponds during warmer temperatures.  The plots performed at an
average removal rate of 52 per cent which represents very little change
from the winter operation.  Reduction of effluent algae, which would great-
ly improve the nitrogen, suspended solids, and BOD removal efficiencies,
would be required if the pond is to compare favorably with the plots for
the conditions studied.

SOIL ANALYSIS

     Due to the nature of the sampling protocol of the soil analyses, the
data obtained does not readily lend itself to statistical testing.  For
this reason, the evaluation is limited to a brief discussion of observed
changes in concentrations of surface and subsurface soil components before
and after wastewater application.  Of the 13 parameters analyzed, a con-
sistent pattern of increase or decrease was observed at all sampling loca-
tions for several parameters, namely; phosphorus, calcium, potassium,
manganese and copper (Appendix E).  The concentration of phosphorus, po-
tassium and manganese decreased, while calcium and copper increased.  This
pattern, among these parameters, was observed primarily in the surface soil
samples (15 cm depth).  Only two parameters, iron and manganese, collected
at subsurface levels (30 cm depth), reveal a consistent pattern of change.
The concentration of manganese showed a consistent decrease in surface and
subsurface concentrations.  In some instances, this decrease amounted to
greater than 40 per cent.  Other significant variations in composition can
be seen throughout the data, but with very little consistency  with respect
to sample depth and location.  Under the scope of this study,  the
                                  47

-------
significance of these observations is limited by the number of existing
variables and care should be taken in making any conclusions.

     Aside from the analysis of soil  composition, other areas  of considera-
tion, particularly plant productivity, provide additional  means of evalua-
ting the detrimental  and/or beneficial effects of overland flow processes
on the soil community.  Based on visual observations throughout the study,
the overall quality and quantity of growth produced on the experimental
plots displayed a significant improvement, particularly during the last 8
weeks of the study.  Root penetration of cover crops improved  from 10 to 30
cm (4 to 12 inches) over the entire length of the study with heavy root
structures at depths of 15 cm (6 inches).  Most of these changes were per-
ceivable, considering the constant input of nutrients to the system.

     Overall, based on analytical procedures as well as visual observa-
tions, no detrimental aspects were identifiable that would indicate harmful
build-up of any of the parameters analyzed.  Whether overland  flow applica-
tions of wastewater would produce long term build-up of elements that
would create toxic responses to plant growth or would result in eventual
leaching into the effluent run-off, was not determinable under the scope
of this study.

MICROBIAL ANALYSIS

Wastewater Bacterial  Colony Counts

     Table 10 compares influent versus effluent counts for TBC and TCC
data.  A significant difference existed in all cases at a p =  0.01 level,
when the Wilcoxon paired-replicated rank test was applied to data collected
during the study period.  Because of the range of variability  associated
with extensive serial dilutions, both arithmetic and geometric means  were
computed.  In general, a reduction by a factor of 10 or greater from  in-
fluent to effluent was observed.  From these observations, it  appears that
a real reduction in TBC and in TCC did occur when wastewater was applied by
the spray boom method to the 2 per cent slope.  Of particular  interest was
the observation that the number of coliform organisms, collected on EMB
agar (TCC), were reduced by a minimum of 70 per cent by the spray boom
method of application.  .

     Bacterial identification of colony types isolated on EMB  does not
indicate the presence of pathogenic organisms, but does indicate that fecal
organisms were being monitored during the study.  Table 11 indicates  the
organism identification frequency.

     Tables 12 and 13 present the collective data on colonies/ml from other
application methods in the sytem.  These summaries span the complete  study
period, and were not divided into seasonal entities.  Of the data analyzed,
a minimal reduction of 76 per cent was observed in TCC: which  is an accept-
able correlation with the 2 per cent spray boom data.  In all  cases and on
both medias, a significant reduction existed between the influent and ef-
fluent colony counts at the p = 0.01  level.
                                   48

-------
                                 TABLE 10.  WASTEWATER BACTERIA COLONIES OF THE
                                 SPRAY BOOM APPLICATIONS ON THE 2 PER CENT SLOPE



TBC
(NA)


TCC
(EMB)

MEAN
GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.

MEAN
GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.
INFLUENT *
APPLICATION RATE
SUMMER
1977
129
106
10
WINTER
1977-78
45.7
41.4
6
FOR:
SUMMER
1978
195
145
15

39.3
19.4
10
7.57
5,89
6
17.4
15
15
EFFLUENT*
APPLICATION RATE
SUMMER WINTER
1977 1977-78
26.4 7.88
13.4 3.55
9 6
FOR:
SUMMER
1977
10.4
4.1
15

6.92 2.55
0.35 0.79
9 6
1.46
0.50
15
REDUCTION, %
APPLICATION RATE
SUMMER WINTER
1977 1977-78
80 83


FOR:
SUMMER
1978
95



82 70

92

VO
            Since a marked reduction occurs in all cases where effluent values are compared  to  influent
       (original numerical data), the Wilcoxon paired - replicated rank test  indicates a  significant
       difference at P - 0.01.
            *  Concentrations  expressed as  colonies/ml (xlO ).

-------
  TABLE 11.   FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF BACTERIA GROUPS IDENTIFIED
FROM EMB PLATES FROM SPRAY BOOM WASTEWATER SAMPLES,  2  PER CENT  SLOPE
APPLICATION RATES FOR:
SUMMER, 1977
NO. OF OBS.
WINTER, 1977-78
NO. OF OBS.
SUMMER, 1978
NO. OF OBS.
E.CQLI.
INF.
8
8
5
6
8
10
EFF.
5
8
5
6
7
10
RED.,%
38

0

12

KES GROUP
INF.
8
8
3
6
6
10
EFF.
5
8
A
6
5
10
RED. ,%
38

-33

17

PSEUDOMONAS
INF.
3
8
3
6
8
10
EFF.
0
8
4
6
7
10
RED . , %
100

-33

12

C. FRUNDII
INF.
2
8
1
6
0
10
EFF.
0
8
0
6
0
10
RED . , %
100

100

0


-------
                  TABLE  12.  WASTEWATER BACTERIA COLONIES OF THE FIXED RISER,
                  TROUGH AND SPRAY  BOOM APPLICATIONS, 2 AND 3 PER CENT SLOPES





TBC
(HA)

TCC
(EMB)


MEAN

CEO. M£AH
NO. OF OBS.
HEAH
CEO KEAN
SO. OF OBS.
INFLUENT *
RISER
22

70.7

27.6
8
12.9
5.1
8
31
*
99.5

42.4
7
11.9
3.5
7
TROUGH
22 31

205.4 99.3

38.6 43.9
8 7
10.3 8.7
4.2 2.5
8 7
SFRAV
22

201.1

140.7
8
15.8
13.4
7
32

209.3

88.4
8
21.3
12.7
9
EFFLUENT *
RISER
22 32

8.2 20.4

4.2 7.1
8 7
.98 2.4
.002 .66
8 7
TROUGH
22 32

11.5 21.4

2.1 7.3
8 7
0.6 2.1
.12 .38
8 7
SFRAY
22 31

37.9 4.9

2,5 1.8
8 9
1.2 .94
.32 .21
8 9
REDUCTION,
RISER TROUGH
21 32 2Z 32

88 79 94 78



92 80 94 76


Z
SPRAY
21 32

81 97



92 96


     Since a marked reduction  occur in  all  cases where effluent  values  are  compared
to influent (original  numerical  data)»  the  Wilcaxon  paired-replicated rank  test  in-
dicates a significant difference at P = 0.01.       5
     * Concentrations expressed as colonies/ml  (xlO  )

-------
                             TABLE 13.   BACTERIA IDENTIFIED FROM EMB  PLATES  FROM FIXED

                           RISER AND TROUGH NASTEMATER SAMPLES.  2 AND 3  PER  CENT SLOPES
RISERS
2%
No. of OBS.
3%
No. of OBS.
TROUGHS
2%
No. of OBS.
3%
No. of OBS.

INF.
3
7
6
6
4
7
5
5
E. COLI
EFF.
3
7
4
6
6
7
3
5
RED.%
0

33

-50

40

KES GROUP
INF.
6
7
5
6
7
7
2
5
EFF.
7
7
3
6
3
7
2
5
RED.%
-17

40

57

0

PSEUDOMONAS
INF.
2
7
4
6
4
7
5
5
EFF.
4
7
3
6
3
7
4
5
RED.%
-100

25

25

20

en
ro

-------
Ambient Air Bacterial Colony Counts

     The airborne bacterial population data are presented in Table 14.  The
TBC was either reduced, or revealed no significant difference between upwind
and downwind data (possibly due to particulate washout from aerosol drop-
lets).  In all cases, as expected, a significant increase in TCC was ob-
served throughout the study.  While it is recognized that coliform organisms
are commonly found in the soil and can become airborne, an increase was rou-
tinely observed downwind from the spray boom wastewater applicator.  Numeri-
cally, this increase borders on having any significant meaning; that is,
the average concentration measured was 731 colonies/m3, or approximately 20
coliform colonies/ft3.  Wind dispersion and turbulance modeling indicates
that this modest input would be insignificant 60 m (approximately 200 ft)
downwind from the spray boom applicator.

Ambient Air Particle Counts

     Table 15 presents data collected during two summer and one winter
application periods.  Both summer application rates, taken during warmer
months of the year, show a modest increase in downwind airborne particu-
lates, while the winter data would indicate a decrease in downwind particu-
late numbers.  This could be explained by the more rapid evaporation of
aerosols during the warmer months, and by a particulate washout effect dur-
ing the colder months.  This observation is of passing interest, however,
since no statistical difference was observed between upwind and downwind
particle counts, and therefore suggests that downwind particulate concentra-
tion was not a health hazard during this study.

Wastewater Viral Plaque Counts

     Although the potential is high for transmission of viral agents through
sewage effluents, it appears, from the results of this study, that the con-
centrations of viable viruses were extremely low at the point of applica-
tion to the overland flow modules.  One possible explanation, which is
relatively inconclusive, could be the lapse of time between excretion and
transport of fecal matter to a point where the sewage is to be treated.
This is a highly variable consideration based on the number of physico-
chemical factors present, that could potentially affect the viability of
virus.  Another consideration that could be made, in terms of the degree of
variability which exists in describing viral constituents in wastewater, is
the technique employed for isolation and description of the viruses.  Cer-
tain definable limitations exist with respect to the techniques available
for isolation and culturing of a potentially broad spectrum of viruses.
The methods for concentrating viruses in wastewater, and even more so, host
systems used in viral assays can be very selective (17, 18).  No one host
system will detect all of the viral types potentially present in wastewater
(18).  Likewise, no one method of concentration would necessarily be cap-
able of isolating all viral types.

     The methods employed in this study, the Bentonite adsorption technique
for concentration and the Rhesus monkey kidney cell  cultures for assay,
                                   53

-------
                                  TABLE 14.  AIRBORNE BACTERIA COLONIES OF THE
                                 SPRAY BOOM APPLICATIONS ON THE 2 PER CENT SLOPE






TBC
(NA)


TCC
(EMB)

MEAN

GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.
MEAN

GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.


.UPWIND*
APPLICATION RATE
BUMMER
1977
1334

459
2t
203

21
21
WINTER
1977-78
371

45
7
63

9.6
7


FOR:
SUMMER
1978
516

24
13
55

12
13


DOWNWIND*
APPLICATION RATE
SUMMER
1977
878

268
19
565

104
21
WINTER
1977-78
323

185
7
160

25
7
FOR:
SUMMER
1978
664

116
12
731

296
13

INCREASE, %
APPLICATION RATE
SUMMER WINTER
1977 1977-78
-34 -13



178 154



FOR:
SUMMER
1978
29



1229



en
          Concentrations expressed as colonies/nf
                                     WILCOXON PAIRED-REPLICATE RANK TEST,
                                    CONTROL VS.  DOWNWIND MEAN COLONIES/M"
MEDIA
TBC
(NA)
TCC
(EMB)
SUMMER, 1977
Significant Decrease
at P = 0.05
Significant Increase
at P - 0.05
WINTER, 1977-78
No
Significant Difference
Significant Increase
at P - 0.05
SUMMER, 1978
No
Significant Difference
Significant Increase
at P = 0.05

-------
                                      TABLE 15.  AIRBORNE PARTICLES OF THE
                                 SPRAY BOOM APPLICATIONS ON THE 2 PER CENT SLOPE

APPLICATION RATE FOR:

SUMMER, 1977


WINTER, 1977-78



SUMMER, 1978



MEAN
GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.
MEAN SIZE
MEAN
GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.
MEAN SIZE
MEAN
GEO. MEAN
NO. OF OBS.
MEAN SIZE
UPWIND*
335.6
259.7
18
1.86y
1009.8
564.1
7
1.8y
910.1
704.5
11
1.4
DOWNWIND*
449.5
308.6
19
1.8y
717.5
518.2
5
1.4y
1002.
734.0
11
1.4
INCREASE, %
34


-29



10



on
C7I
             Concentrations expressed as  particles/m

             The Wilcoxon paired-replicated rank  test indicated  no  significant difference between
        the control  and downwind particle  counts  gathered  for either of the  three  periods studied.

-------
were sensitive for detection of:   poliovirus (three serotypes),  echoviruses
(34 serotypes) and group B coxsackieviruses (six serotypes)  (10, 14).   The
Bentonite adsorption technique was chosen for its ability to isolate ap-
proximately 60 to 70 per cent of the indigenous enteroviruses present in
sewage (10).  Even though the methods herein would appear acceptable in
isolating and culturing of an adequate cross-section of enteroviruses,  it
is not necessarily an adequate cross-section of the potentially  harmful
viruses, based on the scope of implications set-forth in defining an ac-
ceptable level of exposure to pathogenic organisms.  Care must therefore
be taken in drawing conclusions as to the effectiveness of overland flow
treatment for the removal and destruction of potential  disease causing
viruses.

     As seen in Table 16, viruses first appeared in the influent to the
spray boom applications (raw system), beginning in May, 1978, at concentra-
tions in the range of 10^ PFU/1.   Viral concentrations  peaked at 4 X 102
PFU/1 in August, 1978, followed by a gradual decline in concentration to
10^ PFU/1 in October, 1978.  This finding generally agrees with  the report-
ed seasonal incidence of enteroviruses in wastewater (19).  The  concentra-
tions of viruses isolated (10' to 10^ PFU/1) were lower than reported by
Shuval (20).

     The absence of viruses in the influent samples early in the study,
from January 31, 1978 through May 8, 1978, suggested the possibility of
inadequate sample volumes in addition to possible variation  due  to seasonal
distribution of viruses.  Consequently, sample volumes  were  modified,  from
1  to 4 liters, as indicated earlier.  A comparison of resultant  concen-
trates, taken from the location of distribution pumps and from the point
of application to the plots, did not indicate, as earlier suspected, any
appreciable loss of viruses through the distribution lines to the indivi-
dual treatment applications.

     With respect to viral reductions observed after application to the
overland flow modules, Table 16 indicates a total reduction, from influent
to effluent, of samples collected from May 23, 1978 through  July 24, 1978
on the spray boom plots.  The apparent rise and fall of viral reductions
during this particular time of the year suggests a possible  threshold at
which the plots are capable of removal of viral organisms.  As the viral
concentrations at the point of influence to the plots decreased  throughout
the remainder of the year, the reductions across the plots increased to 100
per cent.  Although the data appears to reflect a seasonal distribution
pattern, the results remain relatively inconclusive based on the number of
samples that were collected.

     No significant differences were observed in virus  isolations from the
2 per cent slope when compared to the 3 per cent slope.  This was found to
be the case for all three methods of application on the raw  treatment sys-
tem.

     Tables 17 and 18, for the fixed riser and trough applications, re-
spectively, reflect the same general influent and effluent patterns and
                                   56

-------
en
-j
                                        TABLE 16.  RAW SYSTEM WASTEWATER
                                       VIRAL ASSAY, SPRAY BOOM APPLICATION

Date
2-14-78
3-14-78
3-21-78
5-2-78

6-1-78

8-1-78
9-19-78

10-17-78

%
Slope
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
Influent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
60
30
30
30
Effluent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
%
Reduction
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
60
100
100
100
100
Pump
Station
PFU/1
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR

158
NR

NR


                       Note:   Negative  controls  (see methods) were included with each plaque
                 assay and were  negative  for plaques.
                       NC  - Not Calculated
                       NR  - Not Collected

-------
                      TABLE 17.  RAW.SYSTEM WASTEWATER
                    VIRAL ASSAY, FIXED RISER APPLICATION

Date
1-10-78
1-31-78

3-28-78
5-8-78

5-23-78

7-18-78

7-25-78

8-8-78

8-29-78

9-12-78

9-26-78

10-3-78

10-24-78

%
Slope
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Influent
PFU/1
90
0
0
0
0
0
90
68
113
158
203
158
405
225
90
113
NR
90
-45
45
0
23
23
23
Ef f 1 uent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
225
135
23
23
0
0
23
23
0
0
0
0
%
Reducti on
100
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
100
100
100
100
100
100
44
40
74
80
NC
100
49
49
NC
100
100
100
Pump
Station
PFU/1
NR
NR

NR
NR

NR
NR
158

203

NR

NR

135

NR

23

45


     NOTE:  Negative controls (see methods)  were included with  each  plaque
assay and were negative for plaques.
     NC - Not Calculated
     NR - Not Collected
                                      58

-------
                                        TABLE 18.  RAW SYSTEM WASTEWATER
                                        VIRAL ASSAY. TROUGH APPLICATION
en
10

Date
2-14-78
3-14-78
3-21-78
5-2-78

6-1-78

8-1-78
9-19-78

10-17-78

%
Slope
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
Influent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
NR
NR
30
30
Effluent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
%
Reduction
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
67
NC
NC
100
100
Pump
Station
PFU/1
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR

158
NR

NR


                      Note:  Negative controls  (see Methods)  were included with  each  plaque
                 assay and were negative for plaques.
                      NC - Not Calculated
                      NR - Not Collected

-------
percentage reductions seen with the spray boom application.  The first
occurrence of viruses in the influent for both the fixed riser and trough
applications appeared later than on the spray boom application.  Viruses
were detected in May, 1978, in the influent to the spray boom plots (no
samples were collected from this plot in June, 1978), whereas none were
found in may or June, 1978, in the influent to the fixed riser and trough
applications.  Due to the few number of samples available for this analy-
sis, it would be difficult to adequately explain such deviations.  Also,
the data present a somewhat distorted picture in that the sampling dates
shown for the fixed riser and trough applications do not coincide with
those for the spray boom application.  Due to the rotating sample schedule
adopted for monitoring the system, all plots were sampled on the same
dates, however, the general trend of the presence or absence of viruses in
the influent to the plots was the same with respect to monthly patterns.

     With respect to percentage reductions in viruses across the plots for
the fixed riser and trough applications, the results were much the same as
seen in the data for the spray boom application.  Interestingly, where
viruses were detected in the influent to the fixed riser and trough appli-
cations, on August 1, September 19, and October 17, 1978, a 100 per cent
reduction was observed, with exception of the samples collected on August
1, 1978; the highest recorded concentrations isolated.  This compares
closely with the results shown in the data collected in early August, 1978,
from the spray boom application.  Again, this suggests a possible threshold
level at which the plots are no longer capable of retaining the full  load-
ing of viruses being applied.

     In analysis of the data collected for the secondary system (Appendix
F), no viruses were isolated from influent or effluent samples, from the
fixed riser and trough applications, on either the 2 per cent or 3 per cent
slopes.  In view of the few number of samples available (a total of six
from each plot over an 8-month period), it would be premature to draw any
conclusions as to the presence or absence of viruses in wastewater that has
received secondary treatment, through biologigal oxidation.  The results
seen in this study warrant some consideration when the physicochemical  na-
ture of the secondary wastewater is considered.  Such considerations  bring
forth the need for more definitive answers in regards to viability of vi-
ruses in wastewater, at various levels of treatment.

Ambient Air Viral Plaque Counts

     The analysis conducted for aerosolization of viruses from the spray
boom application on the raw treatment system produced no isolations of
viruses, at either upwind, downwind, or random sample locations (Table 19).
In spite of the presence of viruses, in concentrations of 10^  to 10^  PFU/1,
in the wastewater being applied through the spray nozzles, such viruses
were not detected through the aspiration techniques employed in this  study.
Within the scope of this study this suggests several possible explanations:
(a) the equipment used to aspirate any aerosolized virus was inadequate,
with respect to the physical  aspects, primarily the volume of air sampled,
                                  60

-------
                    TABLE 19.  AEROSOLIZATION OF VIRUS FROM
                SPRAY BOOM APPLICATIONS ON THE 2 PER CENT SLOPE

Date
1-10-78
1-31-78
5-2-78
7-18-78
7-25-78
8-8-78
9-12-78
10-3-78
Spray Boom
PFU/1
Influent
90
0
0
113
203
405
90
0

Upwi nd
PFU/250 ml
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Air Samples
Downwi nd
PFU/250 ml
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Random
PFU/250 ml
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

     Note:  Negative controls (see Methods)  were included with  each  plaque
assay and were negative for plaques.

-------
(b) the sample collection menstruum (saline) was inadequate to support the
viruses aspirated, (c) the retention time of the virus, from collection to
assay (approximately 24 to 48 hours), was too long to maintain viable vi-
ruses in the saline menstruum, and (d) aerosolization of enteroviruses from
the wastewater did not occur or if it did occur, the viruses did not sur-
vive in the atmosphere from the point of application to the point of sam-
pling.  In view of the results received from tests conducted in the labora-
tory prior to selection of a sample menstruum,  some confidence can be
placed on the technique of suspension of viruses employed in this  study.
This leaves several alternatives for consideration and further study.

     Overall, the data observed in this study warrants further investiga-
tion if any definitive answers are revealed.  This investigation provides
strong baseline data for future studies and under more closely controlled
conditions, the human health hazards associated with overland flow proc-
esses, can be defined.
                                    62

-------
                                 REFERENCES
 1.     92 USC, Public Law 92-500, An Act to Amend the Federal Water Pollu-
        tion Control Act, 86 Stat.  816 (October 18, 1972) 89 p. 40 CFR 133.

 2.     Environmental Protection Agency.  Process Design Manual for Land
        Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, EPA 625/1-77-008.  1977.

 3.     Neeley, C.H.  The Overland Flow Method of Disposing of Wastewater at
        Campbell Soup Company's Paris, Texas, Plant.  (Presented at the
        Mid-Atlantic Industrial Waste Conference.  University of Delaware.
        January 1976.)

 4.     Thomas, R.E., K. Jackson, and L. Penrod.  Feasibility of Overland
        Flow for Treatment of Raw Domestic Wastewater.  Environmental Protec-
        tion Agency, Office of Research and Development.  EPA 660/2-74-087.
        July 1974.

 5.     Thomas, R.E., B. Bledsoe, and K. Jackson. Overland Flow Treatment of
        Raw Wastewater With Enhanced Phosphorus Removal.  Environmental Pro-
        tection Agency, Office of Research and Development.  EPA 600/2-76-131.
        June 1976.

 6.     Seabrook, B.L.  Land Application of Wastewater in Australia.  Envir-
        onmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs.  EPA 430/9-75-
        017.  May 1975.

 7.     Environmental Protection Agency.  Manual of Methods for Chemical
        Analysis of Water and Wastes.   EPA 625/6-74-003a.  1976.

 8.     Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th
        Edition.  American Public Health Association, New York.   1976.

 9.     Schaub, S.A., and C.A.  Sorber.   Virus and Bacterial Removal from
        Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration Through Soil.   Applied and Environ-
        mental  Microbiology, 33:609-619, 1977.

10.     Schaub, S.A.  Personal  Communication.

11.     Hill, W.F.,  and E.W. Akin, et al.   Recovery of Poliovirus  from Turbid
        Estuarine Water on Microporous  Filters  by the Use of Celite.  Applied
        Microbiology, 27:506-512, 1974.
                                     63

-------
12.     Brown, T.S., J.F.  Malina, and B.P.  Sagik.   Virus Removal  by Diatoma-
        ceous Earth Filtration.   In:  Virus Survival  in Water and Wastewater
        System.   Water Resources Symposium No.  7,  Austin, Texas,  1974.

13.     Katzenelson, E., B.  Fattal,  and T.  Hostovesky.  Organic Flocculation:
        An Efficient Second-Step Concentration Method for the Detection of
        Viruses  in Tap Water.   Applied and Environmental Microbiology,  32:638-
        639, 1976.

14.     Schmidt, N.J.   Tissue Culture Technics for Diagnostic Virology.  In:
        Diagnostic Procedures  for Viral and Rickettsial Infections, E.H.
        Lennette and N.  J.  Schmidt,  Editors.  American Public Health Associa-
        tion, New York,  N.Y.,  1969.   pp. 79-178.

15.     Cooper,  P.O.  The Plaque Assay of animal Viruses.  In:  Methods in
        Virology, K. Maramorosch and H. Koprowski, Editors.   Academic Press,
        New York, N.Y.,  1969.   pp.  243-311.

16.     Hsiung,  G.D.,  and J.L.  Melnick.  Morphologic Characteristics of
        Plaques  Produced on  Monkey Kidney Monolayer Cultures by Enteric Vir-
        uses (Poliomyelitis, Coxsackie, and ECHO Groups).  Journal of Immun-
        ology, 78:128-136,  1957.

17.     Sobsey,  M.D.  Methods  for Detecting Enteric Viruses  in Water and
        Wastewater.  In:  Viruses in Water, G.  Berg,  H.L. Bodily, E.H.
        Lennette, J.L. Melnick,  and  T.C. Metcalf,  Editors.  American Public
        Health Association,  Inc., Washington, D C, 1976.  pp. 89-127.

18.     Schmidt, N.J., H.H.  Ho,  J.  L.  Riggs, and E.H. Lennette.  Comparative
        Sensitivity of Various  Cell  Culture Systems for Isolation of Viruses
        from Wastewater and  Fecal Samples.   Applied and Environmental Micro-
        biology, 36:480-486, 1978.

19.     Melnick, J.L.   Viruses  in Water.  In:  Viruses in Water,  G. Berg.  H.L,
        Bodily,  E.H. Lennette,  J.L.  Melnick, and T.C. Metcalf, Editors.
        American Public Health  Association, Inc.,  Washington, D C, 1976.
        pp. 3-11.

20.     Shuval,  H.I.,  and E. Katzenelson.  The Detection of Enteric Viruses
        in the Water Environment.  In:  Water Pollution Microbiology, R.
        Mitchell, Editor.   John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y., 1972.
        pp. 347-361.
                                     64

-------
                   APPENDIX A
       TABLE A-l.  BOD, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10.1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
14
36
58
62
31
38
38
33
29


31
36
28
44
39
44
62
47
48


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
29
32
39
48
35
38
63
35
33


19
35
36
77
-
60
41
37
18


Date
12/5
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
13
54
19
14
23
26
19
15
20
37

18
55
40
28
38
44
51
55
17
35
57
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
141
147
200
159
117
119
126
101
124
81
168
127
100
155
113
133
115
120
124
135


                       65

-------
   TABLE  A-2.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
tng/1
8
32
23
18
15
11
13
15
5


21
8
5
15
12 .
14
13
9
4


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9
17
6
16
15
7
17
8
4


6
4
12
32
-
13
15
7
6


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
5
13
25
4
21
14
10
12
7
5
17
9
16
16
9
17
13
15
11
6
5
15






















Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
139
44
113
168
64
152
62
75
51
95
115
98
82
134
32
80
27
133
62
88


                        66

-------
TABLE  A-3 .   FECAL COLIFORM PER 100 ML, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
     APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24

RISER
Eff .
xlO6
1.8
2.8
2.2
0.52
2.2
0.74
0.82
0.89


2.4
0.98
2.0
0.51
1.7
0.61
0.99
1.4

TROUGH
Eff.
xlO6
2.3
3.3
0.53
0.81
0.89
0.79
0.89
0.42


2.0
1.8
1.3
-
0.41
0.12
0.53
1.2

Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/27
3/1

12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/27
3/1
BOOM
Eff.
xlO6
0.89
5.2
2.8
2.0
2.0
0.21
0.2
7.3
0.25

1.3
8.4
4.3
2.6
1.3
0.56
1.2
1.1
0.82
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1


Infl.
x!06
8.2
3.1
6.0
7.2
11
1.9
2.3
9.8
0.76
2.7
2.1
1.8
1.4
0.71
2.5
2.7
2.5


                            67

-------
  TABLE A-4.  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10,1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/27
3 2/15
2/22
2/24




11/28
11/30
12/2
1/27
2 2/15
2/22
2/24




RISER
Eff.
mg/1
8.8
6.0
7.7
8.7
6.2
8.2
7.3




6.4
6.4
7.7
9.1
6.9
8.4
8.6




TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
5.6
6.2
7.2
7.7
6.6
7.3
7.6




6.8
6.0
8.6
8.7
6.9
8.6
8.6




Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
8.4
9.1
11.7
8.6
8.1
8.5
9.0
11.8
10.4
9.7
9.8
8.8
8.7
11.7
9.0
8.4
9.0
9.0
12.4
10.4
9.2
9.5
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3









Infl.
mg/1
8.8
7.6
13.0
8.7
8.5
8.1
9.0
5.5
6.8
6.5
11.3
7.8
8.3









                       68

-------
 TABLE A-5-  NITRATE NITROGEN,  RAW SYSTEM,  WINTER
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28.  1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24



11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
0.80
0.23
0.21
0.10
0.21
0.12
<0.05
0.18



0.68
0.15
0.23
0.10
0.12
0.12
<0.05
<0.05


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
0.56
0.26
0.24
0.17
0.19
0.14
<0.05
0.05



0.80
0.40
0.35
0.14
0.09
0.12
<0.05
0.13


Date
12/5
12/7
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/5
12/7
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
2.10
0.86
0.20
0.80
0.51
0.19
0.85
0.93
0.70
0.22

1.31
1.25
0.23
1.20
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.18
0.08
<0.05
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3



Infl.
mg/1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05



                       69

-------
 TABLE A-6.  AMMONIA NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10,1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
0
1.6
5.2
13.8
2.7
9.0
7.9
11.9
10.1


6.3
4.8
4.9
10.7
6.4
12.6
12.6
14.7
13.1


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
5.4
3.5
6.0
9.7
5.8
11.1
11.5
12.5
10.7


0
1.7
2.9
13.5
-
13.1
11.4
14.4
11.4


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
2.8
9.7
16.1
6.7
9.6
12.8
16.0
13.6
11.9
12.2
14.2
5.9
12.6
9.0
9.5
10.4
15.3
17.8
20.7
14.6
14.6
16.6
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
13.7
18.5
20.3
20.8
17.3
18.2
17.4
15.7
18.1
6.1
16.2
15.2
18.6
18.6
15.5
14.7
16.5
16.1
15.0
18.3


                       70

-------
 TABLE A-7.  ORGANIC NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
2.2
3.3
3.5
5.0
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.5
2.7


3.7
3.5
2.9
5.2
4.1
4.0
4.6
4.5
3.6


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.8
3.6
4.0
4.9
4.0
2.8


2.2
3.3
3.1
5.5
-
4.5
4.1
4.0
2.4


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
0
3.9
0
0
2.9
4.7
3.2
3.8
2.6
3.1
5.0
0
3.7
0
0
2.2
6.4
4.6
6.1
3.1
3.2
5.0
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
8.4
6.9
10.3
7.6
6.0
7.4
7.5
6.6
5.3
3.7
8.2
12.4
6.4
8.7
6.2
6.7
5.4
7.0
5.7
9.2


                       71

-------
 TABLE A-8.  KJELDAHL NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
2.2
4.9
8.6
18.8
6.4
12.8
11.5
15.4
12.8


10.0
8.3
7.8
15.9
10.4
16.6-
17.2
19.2
16.8


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
8.4
6.9
9.4
13.5
9.4
15.1
16.4
16.5
13.5


2.2
5.0
6.0
19.0
-
17.6
15.6
18.4
13.7


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
2.8
13.6
16.1
6.7
12.5
17.5
19.2
17.4
14.5
15.3
19.2
5.9
16.3
9.0
9.5
12.6
21.7
22.4
26.8
17.7
17.7
21.7























Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
22.1
25.4
30.6
28.4
23.3
25.6
24.9
22.3
23.4
9.7
24.4
27.6
25.0
27.4
21.7
21.4
21.9
23.1
20.7
27.5


                       72

-------
TABLE  A-a  COD, RAW SYSTEM,  WINTER APPLICATION
      RATE, NOVEMBER 28.  1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
109
111
103
130
126
107
103
104
95


158
171
76
133
138
134
148
128
138


TROUGH
Eff.
rag/1
126
114
87
111
118
106
144
100
99


105
111
76
148
-
142
122
112
95


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
76
115
183
99
86
100
115
76
79
71
121
80
130
125
103
128
134
150
168
83
102
156
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
615
229
416
205
269
358
392
265
178
228
378
253
285
397
243
336
209
228
235
301


                      73

-------
    TABLE A-10.  TURBIDITY, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10.1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 2/15
2/22
2/24



11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 2/15
2/22
2/24

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
10
27
28
25
22
17
13



17
18
17
20
27
21
19

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
14
21
21
22
25
15
14



8
19
19
30
22
17
8

Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/27
3/1
3/3


12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
7
21
35
14
18
9
12
22


9
27
23
20
22
10
16
28


















Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3







Infl.
mg/1
67
65
105
32
37
58
37
50
45
53







                       74

-------
 TABLE A-11.  DISSOLVED SOLIDS, RAW SYSTEM WINTER
APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
mg/1
454
412
362
426
462
497
476
440
440


433
391
355
469
497
483
490
397
447


TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
426
391
369
440
405
483
490
397
454


426
383
348
426
-
447
476
426
461


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
376
320
511
412
348
483
362
359
440
440
454
390
312
511
426
369
476
348
351
462
440
447






















Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
mg/1
462
518
469
440
376
419
462
405
398
270
440
462
362
370
476
405
426
440
426
411


                       75

-------
TABLE A-12.  pH, RAW SYSTEM, WINTER APPLICATION RATE,
          NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978	
% Date
Slope
11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
3
1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


11/28
11/30
12/2
1/9
2 1/16
1/27
2/15
2/22
2/24


RISER
Eff.
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.8
8.1
7.6
7.4
7.4


7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.8
8.7
7.5
7.4
7.5


TROUGH
Eff.
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.7
8.2
7.4
7.2
7.3


8.1
7.8
7.7
7.7
-
8.8
7.6
7.4
7.5


Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
BOOM
Eff.
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
Date
11/28
11/30
12/2
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/12
12/14
1/9
1/16
1/27
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/15
2/22
2/24
2/27
3/1
3/3


Infl.
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.1
8.0
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1


                        76

-------
                    APPENDIX  B
        TABLE B-l.  BOD, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
2 8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
32
34
15
29
17
15
20
16
12
6
11
14
10
10
13
6
6
8
5
6
45
49
26
31
22
11
31
27
11
6
10
24
12
11
5
10
8
8
9
8
TROUGH
Eff.
rng/1
43
44
21
23
18
18
35
25
28
20
26
30
15
17
13
10
9
11
5
9
43
-
22
37
25
13
34
37
18
9
10
20
16
22
6
6
5
10
7
8

Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2


3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2


BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
21
21
8
15
5
6
16
7
5
5
7
15
4
5
8
2
2
3


23
20
8
14
9
7
11
7
9
4
4
12
4
4
5
3
3
3



Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/-27
10/2
10/11
' 10/18
10/20



Infl.
mg/1
136
150
123
130
138
92
76
160
129
136
90
154
134
140
88
146
134
96
98
130
119
127
153
144
118
122
142
147
152
100
93
91
116
122
61
46
40
71


                        77

-------
 TABLE B-2.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
6/5
7/28
7/31
8/2
3 8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20



3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
6/5
7/28
7/31
8/2
2 8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20



RISER
Eff.
mg/1
19
17
15
8
10
6
6
7
7
28
6
8
1
3
1
17
6
5



2
16
5
20
3
3
5
5
5
12
2
3
1
4
1
12
11
5



TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
14
12
14
8
14
11
9
7
11
24
9
11
5
2
1
11
14
14



4
-
3
3
4
12
5
5
5
15
8
13
1
3
1
11
15
5




Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
2
2
6
5
4
2
9
7
4
2
2
6
8
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
8
7
10
3
2
1
5
8
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
2

Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27




Infl.
mg/1
94
96
195
70
110
210
66
360
155
38
28
123
70
37
74
78
100
150
100
66
86
105
88
105
78
85
83
30
118
40
148
140
195
82
68
60
62
249
62



                        78

-------
TABLE B-3.  FECAL COLIFORM PER 100 ml,  RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
  APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20.  1978 - OCTOBER 27,  1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
5/3
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/31
8/2
8/21
8/23
3 9/15
9/22
10/18



3/20
5/3
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/31
8/2
2 8/21
8/23
9/15
9/22
10/18




RISER
Eff.
xlfl6
2.0
1.8
3.9
3.5
2.2
0.14
0.40
1.5
0.40
0.30
0.31
0.79



2.5
0.11
1.6
0.73
1.3
4.0
0.23
2.2
0.11
0.77
0.51
0.01




TROUGH
Eff.
xlQ6
2.3
2.0
3.6
2.0
2.2
1.1
0.23
5.0
0.57
0.37
0.89
0.93



1.9
2.8
0.74
1.5
2.7
0.81
0.37
2.2
0.21
0.72
0.50
0.23





Date

3/29
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/25
10/27
3/29
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
xlfl6
1.3
0.55
6.0
0.93
0.11
0.65
0.50
0.30
1.0
0.95
4.2
0.20
0.84
0.003
0.01
1.9
0.65
1.3
0.18
0.10
0.02
0.20
1.3
1.0
0.08
0.17
0.20
0.60
0.06
0.001
0.02

Date

3/20
3/29
5/3
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/21
8/23
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/18
10/23
10/25
10/27




Infl.
x!06
6.9
0.03
0.80
3.4
7.4
7.0
1.5
1.5
8.0
3.0
0.45
0.31
1.2
1.2
25
10
1.5
2.0
1.2
8.2
4.9
2.9
4.3
9.6
2.6
0.77
23
0.89



                           79

-------
 TA3LE  B-4.  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, RAW SYSTEM,  SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER  27, 1978

% DATE
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
9.1
9.3
6.1
5.7
8.3
5.2
7.9
6.1
9.6
7.9
8.3
7.4
7.0
8.3
9.6
9.6
7.9
8.8
7.4
8.7

9.1
7.8
6.0
7.4
8.7
6.6
9.6
9.2
9.6
8.7
8.7
9.2
7.9
9.6
9.2
10.5
9.6
8.7
7.9
9.6

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9.6
10.9
4.6
5.2
8.5
6.1
10.0
7.0
10.5
9.6
10.5
7.9
7.0
8.4
13.5
8.7
7.9
7.8
8.3
8.7

8.9
-
6.8
7.4
9.2
6.6
10.0
9.6
9.6
8.7
8.3
9.6
8.7
10.5
9.2
10.0
10.0
8.8
8.3
9.6


DATE

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
8.4
8.6
8.3
7.4
7.9
11.3
9.2
6.1
11.3
10.2
9.6
10.5
10.0
9.2
10.0
10.1
9.8
11.0
7.4
9.2
8.3
8.0
8.8
8.7
7.0
7.9
11.3
9.2
6.6
11.3
10.0
9.6
10.4
10.5
8.7
10.5
10.0
9.4
10.5
8.7
8.3
8.8

Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
8.2
7.5
6.0
7.4
8.4
8.9
9.0
8.3
5.2
8.3
5.2
7.9
7.9
11.3
9.6
7.9
7-4
7.9
7.4
8.7
9.6
9.2
9.6
9.2
10.0
10.0
10.5
8.7
10.9
7.9
8.3
7.9
7.5
6.8
7.4
6.9
7.0
7.9
4.1
11.8
10.9

                         80

-------
 TABLE  B-5.  NITRATE NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
3 6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
2 6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.49
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.24
0.22
0.28
0.22
0.44
0.31
0.12
<0.05
<0.05
0.46
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.22
0.38
0.54
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
<0.05
<0.05
0.08
0.51
0.11
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.17
0.11
0.20
0.18
0.26
0.33
0.07
-
0.10
0.81
<0.05
-
<0.05
<0.05
0.33
0.26
0.49
0.22
0.22
0.18

Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
0.90
0.84
0.29
0.32
0.08
0.67
1.11
1.27
1.39
1.39
1.54
1.09
2.00
1.73
0.65
0.10
0.11
<0.05
<0.05
0.60
0.88
0.47
0.66
1.16
1.11
1.18
1.20
1.13

Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30

Infl.
mg/1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
                        81

-------
 TABLE  B-6.  AMMONIA NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
10.1
10.9
9.9
3.6
5.3
2.6
5.2
4.3
3.6
2.9
4.6
3.7
4.8
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.4
1.2
0.1
<0.1

9.2
11.7
9.3
5.3
7.2
3.9
7.8
7.5
5.3
6.2
6.9
9.3
6.9
3.7
5.0
6.2
5.8
6.4
9.2
5.6

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9.9
10.1
9.8
3.3
6.8
4.3
9.9
8.3
7.8
9.5
9.8
9.9
7.2
4.0
9.6
8.7
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.5

9.2
-
10.3
4.8
7.5
-
8.7
13.0
6.6
6.3
6.4
8.6
10.2
10.4
3.0
3.9
2.7
2.6
6.2
4.3


Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
5.4
5.1
2.0
1.0
1.6
7.0
8.9
2.1
3.7
5.4
4.5
8.4
0.2
0.5
2.8
<0.1
1.4
2.0
1.9
0.4
0.5
5.5
6.9
4.5
2.2
4.3
7.2
5.7
2.1
4.8
4.5
1.0
8.7
1.1
<0.1
<0. 1
<0.1
2.7
4.4
1.2
1.9
2.2

Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
15.9
16.5
10.7
14.4
18.6
6.0
6.7
19.0
10.9
19.0
10.6
17.2
18.5
20.6
19.9
17.2
17.6
19.6
18.9
20.3
20.1
19.4
19.6
19.0
16.0
16.4
19.3
17.5
18.4
18.4
16.1
16.7
20.0
18.4
17.1
15.3
14.7
16.1
13.8
17.8
17.1

                         82

-------
  TABLE B-7.  ORGANIC NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
4.0
5.1
3.7
4.3
5.4
3.5
3.5
4.4
3.8
4.5
2.7
4.8
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.5
2.9
6.5
3.1
2.9

2.4
4.3
3.4
5.2
5.6
3.2
4.1
5.6
3.9
3.9
3.5
6.3
4.4
3.9
4.1
5.1
3.7
5.8
7.6
6.6

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.9
4.8
3.7
4.3
5.1
6.6
5.2
5.0
6.9
3.7
5.0
7.3
3.1
4.6
6.1
4.6
4.6

3.6
-
3.7
5.6
6.2
-
5.4
6.1
4.8
5.0
3.4
5.8
3.7
4.8
3.9
4.5
2.8
6.5
5.8
8.9


Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
2.5
2.7
2.4
1.9
2.2
3.0
5.2
2.4
3.4
2.5
3.7
4.7
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.2
2.7
3.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.8
3.4
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.8
3,9
3.1
4.6
2.6
2.8
5.3
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.9
2.1
4.2
1.6
3.1
3.4














































Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
7.4
7.7
7.9
7.2
10.4
5.2
5.2
8.4
4.9
6.4
5.0
8.2
6.3
12.9
8.3
8.9
8.3
7.0
8.3
9.4
8.5
8.8
9.9
8.8
11.2
10.1
8.4
8.2
8.3
7.5
9.2
7.3
11.0
10.4
10.2
6.4
7.6
6.4
5.4
20.5
11.6

                          83

-------
 TABLE  B-8.  KJELDAHL NITROGEN, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
14.1
16.0
13.5
7.8
10.8
6.1
8.7
8.7
7.4
7.4
7.2
8.5
8.0
6.6
6.9
6.4
5.3
7.7
3.2
3.0

11.5
16.0
12.8
10.6
12.8
7.2
11.9
13.1
9.2
10.1
10.4
15.6
11.2
7.6
9.1
11.3
9.5
12.2
22.3
12.2

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
13.7
14.0
13.5
7.2
11.6
8.0
14.2
13.4
14.4
14.7
14.8
16.8
10.9
9.0
16.9
11.8
9.5
10.8
9.1
9.1

12.8
-
14.0
10.4
13.7
-
14.1
19.1
11.4
11.3
9.8
14.4
13.9
15.2
6.9
8.4
5.5
9.1
12.0
13.2


Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
1111
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
7.9
7.8
4.4
2.9
3.9
10.0
14.1
4.5
7.1
7.9
8.2
13.1
3.0
3.4
6.3
3.3
4.1
5.5
3.6
2.3
2.6
8.4
10.4
7.2
4.6
6.8
10.0
9.6
5.2
9.4
7.1
3.8
14.0
4.2
2.8
3.0
4.0
4.8
8.6
2.8
5.0
5.6














































Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
23.4
24.2
18.6
21.7
29.0
11.2
11.9
27.4
15.8
25.3
15.6
25.4
24.8
33.5
28.1
26.0
25.9
26.6
27.2
29.8
28.6
28.2
29.4
27.9
27.2
26.5
27.7
25.7
26.7
25.9
25.3
24.0
31.0 '
28.8
27.3
21.7
22.3
22.5
19.2
38.3
28.7

                          84

-------
        TABLE  B-9  COD, RAW SYSTEM,SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
3 8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
2 6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
112
131
84
130
112
102
94
97
82
86
88
83
67
59
75
81
159
107
138
127
102
113
144
89
82
86
103
78
59
86
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
154
131
80
111
124
110
129
105
113
109
106
111
86
74
97
120
-
88
138
131
94
121
156
74
78
81
95
86
86
78

Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1

Eff.
mg/1
77
61
60
41
89
80
91
63
85
50
60
47
65
47
54
116
80
68
48
74
80
103
63
89
50
53
48
73
47
54


































Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15

Infl.
mg/1
317
305
330
286
355
181
181
389
181
331
213
383
269
433
268
320
276
253
260
358
310
295
368
318
307
315
369
310
323
250
                         85

-------
      TABLE B-10.  TURBIDITY, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff .
rag/1
21
20
22
57
12
10
12
12
9
7
12
12
7
7
6
5
6
62
4
5

11
23
28
14
10
8
13
15
7
7
8
11
8
7
6
4
6
15
10
7

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
30
23
24
24
19
12
15
16
13
12
15
13
8
11
13
8
7
16
4
6

17
-
24
22
12
8
14
17
8
7
8
11
8
11
6
4
5
13
8
8


Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
1111
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
6
8
3
3
7
4
9
4
5
6
7
7
5
3
7
3
3
3
3
2
2
13
11
3
3
4
5
7
4
5
5
4
5
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
•3














































Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
72
63
115
49
74
98
58
67
44
56
45
67
52
74
45
85
57
50
54
85
74
62
74
67
62
67
70
69
77
50
43
62
67
63
59
48
40
49
35
165
50

                         86

-------
  TABLE B-ll. DISSOLVED SOLIDS, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
7/31
2 8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
mg/1
469
440
334
3/21
355
483
553
518
518
511
511
476
546
497
497
468
454
440
468
418

469
418
348
320
369
539
546
546
497
482
482
483
532
447
475
482
440
411
440
411

TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
497
411
327
277
355
476
560
511
490
482
470
476
497
454
461
482
447
418
440
440

462
-
327
312
390
539
560
539
490
482
468
476
547
468
497
468
433
411
454
404


Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
mg/1
419
355
447
3/21
462
490
476
355
447
419
411
482
404
426
447
447
454
454
298
397
390
405
364
454
355
454
490
462
355
454
419
411
461
426
440
482
447
454
454
319
404
404

Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
112k
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27


Infl.
mg/1
462
404
348
405
383
284
248
483
447
525
568
603
546
497
497
433
454
454
468
476
469
461
468
482
461
447
497
447
489
461
454
433
525
525
518
390
411
411
397
440
461

                         87

-------
        TABLE B-12.  pH, RAW SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978
% Date
Slope
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
3 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20
3/20
3/22
3/24
5/3
5/5
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/28
2 7/31
8/2
8/18
8/21
8/23
9/15
9/20
9/22
10/11
10/18
10/20

RISER
Eff.
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.6.
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5

TROUGH
Eff.
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
-
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.7
7.5

Date

3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
7/27
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
3/29
3/31
5/19
5/22
5/24
7/19
7/24
llll
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/23
10/25
10/27
BOOM
Eff.
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4











































Date

3/20
3/22
3/24
3/29
3/31
5/3
5/5
5/19
5/22
5/24
5/31
6/2
6/5
7/19
7/24
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/2
8/4
8/7
8/9
8/18
8/21
8/23
8/25
8/28
8/30
9/1
9/15
9/20
9/22
9/25
9/27
10/2
10/11
10/18
10/20
10/23
10/25
10/27
Infl.

7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.2

-------
                     APPENDIX C
      TABLE
APPLICATION
 C-l.  BOD, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
%
Slope




3










2





Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mn/1
11
-
19
25
12
10
8
12
12
15

6
13
7
11
11
9
11
10
8
7
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
13
25
21
25
12
10
10
17
18
21

8
12
6
11
12
8
9
11
9
8
Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
mg/1
26
24
21
14
13
12
10
11
14
11
12
16
14
17
21
25
25
18
7
12

                       89

-------
TABLE C-2.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
1/4
1/6
2/8
2 2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
9
-
26
28
10
9
13
15
9
22

4
3
6
14
12
4
6
8
3
TROUGH
Eff.
rag/1
14
34
44
32
10
11
14
15
15
10

4
3
8
11
8
3
11
7
2




















Date.
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
mg/1
24
42
72
69
18
3
18
14
12
15
29
24
30
16
14
30
20
40
5

                         90

-------
 TABLE C-3.  FECAL COLIFORM PER 100 ml, SECONDARY SYSTEM
WINTER APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10. 1977
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/27
3/1



12/21
12/23
1/4
2/8
2 2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
xlO4
3.4
-
8.3
2.9
1.1
5.6
7.9
2.0



2.2
2.7
2.8
2.6
1.5
8.3
0.10
1.5
0.40
TROUGH
Eff.
xlO*
2.0
6.2
7.9
1.4
2.5
7.2
5.3
19



1.6
2.1
1.0
5.6
2.6
1.2
0.30
1.0
0.77
Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
2/1
2/3
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/6
3/8
3/10



Infl
7.0
6.8
8.1
3.2
2.2
3.1
6.1
3.3
3.1
2.3
10
3.5
8.3
20
1.2
11
2.6



                          91

-------
TABLE C-4.  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, SECONDARY SYSTEM,  WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3
12/21
1/4
1/6
2/8
2 2/10
2/13.
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
8.8
-
11.2
10.8
10.9
13.0
10.7
9.5
8.3
10.0
9.0
10.3
12.7
11.3
11.1
11.0
10.6
9.6
10.6
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9.6
10.0
11.2
10.9
11.3
13.0
13.3
10.4
9.5
10.2
9.0
9.7
11.8
11.3
11.1
9.0
10.2
9.2
9.5



















Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10
Infl.
mg/1
10.5
10.8
11.7
11.0
10.3
12.6
13.6
14.1
13.9
14.7
13.5
13.5
12.2
11.3
10.9
10.6
12.3
10.9
11.3
                         92

-------
TABLE C-5.
APPLICATION
NITRATE NITROGEN,SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/14
2/1
3 2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3


12/21
12/23
2/8
2 2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
rag/1
0.25
_
0.30
0.33
0.16
0.60
0.91
1.14
0.86


0.40
0
0.88
0.91
0.86
1.81
1.34
1.34
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
0.32
0.13
0.29
0.09
0.09
<0.05
0.13
0.15
0.11


0.30
0
0.43
0.39
0.60
1.40
0.84
0.84



















Date
12/5
12/7
12/14
12/21
12/23
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10


Infl.
mg/1
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.10
0
0.21
0.06
<0.05
<0.05
0
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.10



                        93

-------
TABLE C-6.  AMMONIA NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2 2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
2.0
-
3.7
4.1
12.8
17.1
9.4
9.4
7.0
10.3

9.2
9.8
7.8
8.9
13.0
12.9
12.4
12.2
11.3
12.4
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
4.7
7.1
7.9
4.5
13.8
15.5
15.3
13.7
13.1
12.9

7.1
9.9
4.7
6.6
11.6
12.3
8.2
10.6
10.2
11.6





















Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
mg/1
8.4
8.3
9.0
5.6
10.9
12.5
13.5
13.6
17.0
16.8
16.8
15.6
17.6
13.1
15.1
15.4
16.1
15.2
15.9
14.2

                        94

-------
TABLE  C-7.  ORGANIC NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
%
Slope




3










2





Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
0
-
0
0.9
5.4
3.8
3.3
3.0
3.2
5.7

0
0
4.1
0
2.8
2.8
3.6
3.7
3.1
4.0
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
4.8
5.6
6.6
2.9
2.8
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.2

0
0
3.9
0
2.6
2.1
3.3
3.8
3.0
3.7
Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
me/1
5.7
5.7
6.5
3.6
0
0
3.8
0
5.6
4.0
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.8
4.8
4.7
5.6
3.3
4.4
7.0

                        95

-------
TABLE  C-8.  KJELDAHL NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE. NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2 2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
rag/1
2.0
-
3.7
5.0
18.2
20.9
12.7
12.3
10.2
15.9

9.2
9.8
11.9
8.9
15.8
15.8
15.9
15.9
14.4
16.4
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9.5
12.7
14.4
7.4
16.6
19.1
18.7
17.5
16.8
16.1

7.1
9.9
8.6
6.6
14.2
14.4
11.5
14.4
13.2
15.3





















Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
mg/1
14.0
14.0
15.5
9.2
10.9
12.5
17.3
13.6
22.6
20.8
20.2
19.2
20.9
16.9
19.9
20.1
21.7
18.5
20.3
21.2

                         96

-------
      TABLE C-9.  COD, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28» 1977 - MARCH 10.
1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2 2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
117
-
136
164
103
108
73
91
63
98

98
107
97
80
116
100
89
82
70
73
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
121
126
152
160
96
108
84
91
86
109

110
126
104
84
116
96
85
86
70
73
Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
mg/1
117
138
152
128
114
123
97
84
73
108
88
123
111
107
122
102
129
121
97
97

                        97

-------
   TABLE C-10. TURBIDITY, SECONDARY
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28. 1977
SYSTEM, WINTER
- MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
3 12/14
2/27
3/1
3/3




12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2 2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff .
mg/1
19
-
30
39
15
11
16




31
30
26
27
23
21
28
15
10
13
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
23
29
38
38
20
17
19




33
32
26
26
25
28
33
13
14
13





















Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10




Infl.
mg/1
28
33
47
35
42
33
26
32
24
20
35
35
28
33
33
32
23




                        98

-------
TABLE C-ll. DISSOLVED SOLIDS, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
 APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28, 1977 - MARCH 10, 1978
% Date
Slojje
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
2/8
2 2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
504
-
639
476
660
554
550
540
518
532

533
462
653
540
540
540
504
447
397
TROUGH
Eff.
511
383
618
476
646
462
458
568
553
497

553
497
646
553
554
554
511
440
397
Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
2/1
2/23
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl
mg/1
497
355
483
469
554
476
653
639
462
460
544
582
540
533
525
447
533
497
440

                        99

-------
      TABLE C-12. pH, SECONDARY SYSTEM, WINTER
APPLICATION RATE, NOVEMBER 28. 1977 - MARCH 10. 1978
% Date
Slope
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
3 2/1
2/3
2/6
2/27
3/1
3/3

12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2 2/8
2/10
2/13
3/6
3/8
3/10
RISER
Eff.
7.8
-
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5

7.7
7.7
7.9
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
TROUGH
Eff.
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.3

7.5
7.6
7.7
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.4





















Date
12/5
12/7
12/9
12/14
12/21
12/23
1/4
1/6
2/1
2/3
2/6
2/8
2/10
2/13
2/27
3/1
3/3
3/6
3/8
3/10

Infl.
7.6
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.5

                       100

-------
                     APPENDIX D
     TABLE D-1.  BOD, SECONDARY SYSTEM,SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
3 7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
6/23
2 8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
rng/1
24
26
20
31
29
8
7
6
27
24
14
20
21
25
19
21
20
13
7
12
21
23
17
37
27
24
9
6
6
21
22
21
22
22
24
20
19
15
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
28
30
22
35
32
8
9
7
33
37
24
26
26
31
31
24
28
25
24
20
19
21
16
35
25
20
11
6
6
24
23
24
18
17
18
17
21
14

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
35
36
37
33
25
23
35
36
46
39
33
12
8
10
8
9
10
35
48
27
32
30
40
28
23
32
23
22
29










                        101

-------
TABLE D-2. SUSPENDED SOLIDS, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
 APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
3 7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
2 6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
30
32
34
57
97
32
4
5
173
59
84
115
100
-
70
73
-
82
20
29
20
48
8
117
115
27
10
22
17
80
85
90
70
80
18
133
98
96
TROUGH
Eff.
rng/1
39
29
48
97
143
62
10
13
200
87
130
135
150
150
110
113
80
148
156
122
20
52
5
98
80
11
11
16
17
125
125
110
56
90
3
160
116
98

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
60
95
62
122
21
75
80
170
205
225
63
32
79
100
96
44
54
230
125
193
155
193
166
146
177
85
112
68
69









                          102

-------
TABLE D-3.  FECAL COLIFORM  PER 100 ml, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
      APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

%
Slope





3









2






Date

3/29
7/19
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
xlO4
5.8
6.2
4.9
1.2
3.0
2.2
75
1.0
0.60
1.3
0.70
1.2
2.2
1.3
1.3
1,9
5.0
2.0
0.50
0.70
0.10
TROUGH
Eff.
xlO4
2.0
1.6
7.0
7.4
5.5
1.7
68
8.9
2.1
1.4
3.9
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.3
2.9
1.2
4.0
1.1
3.4
0.40

Date

3/29
4/3
4/5
7/19
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9


'






Infl.
xlO4
1.0
8.9
1.1
0.71
7.4
1.0
1.1
4.8
6.1
5.0
2.7
1.1
2.4








                              103

-------
TABLE  D-4.  TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
 APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
3 7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
2 6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
8.9
9.5
7.9
9.6
7.9
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.1
2.2
3.1
2.2
1.8
3.1
2.2
2.6
4.0
2.3
1.9
2.7
13.4
12.5
12.0
7.4
7.9
7.9
6.1
6.2
5.7
1.8
2.2
3.1
2.3
2.6
4.0
4.2
3.7
2.8
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
8.9
9.5
9.2
9.2
7.4
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.6
3.5
2.6
2.2
3.5
2.2
3.1
4.0
7.4
1.9
3.0
10.3
11.1
10.2
7.0
7.0
7.6
6.2
6.3
5.7
2.2
2.2
3.1
1.8
2.6
4.0
5.5
4.6
3.2

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
rag/1
9.8
11.5
12.5
13.3
11.1
9.8
10.0
8.3
7.9
8.7
9.2
7.0
6.6
7.0
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.1
4.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
2.6
3.1
4.8
2.3
2.3
4.2









                         104

-------
TABLE  D-5.  NITRATE NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
 APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

%
Slope







3











2







Date

3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
0.19
0.57
0.05
0.10
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.82
1.31
0.89
0.13
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
0.31
0.24
0.36
0.40
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.47
0.63
0.54
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05






























Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16




Infl.
rag/1
<0.05
0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.49
<0.05
0.29
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05



                        105

-------
TABLE D-6.  AMMONIA NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
  APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978
RISER TROUGH
% Date Eff. Eff.
Slope mg/1 mg/1
3/29 0.8 0.8
3/31 0.0 0.7
5/10 <0.1 <0.1
5/12 <0.1 <0.1
5/17 <0.1 <0.1
6/26 <0.1 <0.1
6/28 <0.1 <0.1
6/29 <0.1 <0.1
7/19 <0.1 <0.1
3 7/21 <0.1 <0.1
7/24 <0.1 <0.1
8/11 <0.1 <0.1
8/14 <0.1 <0.1
8/16 <0.1 <0.1
9/6 <0.1 <0.1
9/8 <0.1 <0.1
9/11 <0.1 <0.1
10/4 1.2 1.5
10/6 0.5 0.3
10/9 <0.1 0.5
4/3 1.8 0.9
4/5 1.0 1.1
4/7 1.6 1.3
5/19 <0.1 <0.1
5/22 <0.1 <0.1
5/24 <0.1 <0.1
6/16 <0.1 <0.1
6/21 <0.1 <0.1
2 6/23 <0.1 <0.1
8/11 <0.1 <0.1
8/14 <0.1 <0.1
8/16 <0.1 <0.1
9/6 <0.1 <0.1
9/8 <0.1 <0.1
9/11 <0.1 <0.1
10/4 2.0 1.8
10/6 1.0 1.5
10/9 <0.1 <0.1

Date

3/29
3/31
A/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
4.2
5.0
6.0
6.3
4.9
0.9
1.4
0.3
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0. 1
<0.1
<0. 1
3.5
5.9
3.0









                         106

-------
TABLE D-7.ORGANIC NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
  APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27, 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
3 7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
2 6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
12.9
7.7
11.2
10.7
12.1
5.9
6.8
5.2
15.8
13.6
11.0
13.0
15.2
13.7
10.2
12.4
8.6
10.1
7.7
6.1
6.6
8.6
5.9
10.2
9.2
7.9
4.8
4.7
4.4
12.0
14.8
13.5
9.8
12.6
8.2
11.8
11.2
7.7
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
8.5
8.4
13.1
12.4
14.3
6.8
6.9
6.6
18.4
16.4
14.9
16.7
19.1
19.3
16.2
23.0
13.5
19.5
16.8
9.2
6.2
8.1
5.0
9.8
8.8
7.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
13.9
18.2
15.8
9.6
10.8
5.3
18.7
11.5
5.7

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
12.6
12.1
9.4
15.6
6.9
13.1
14.1
16.1
13.3
11.9
12.2
9.0
6.6
8.8
7.4
7.0
6.9
16.7
18.4
16.1
18.0
20.5
23.1
19.3
24.3
19.4
14.4
14.3
13.9









                        107

-------
TABLE D-8.  KJELDAHL NITROGEN, SECONDARY SYSTEM,  SUMMER
  APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27.  1978

%
Slope









3


















2










Date

3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
13.7
7.7
11.3
10.8
12.2
6.0
6.9
5.3
15.8
13.8
11.1
13.1
15.3
13.8
10.3
12.5
8.7
11.3
8.2
6.2
8.3
9.6
7.5
10.3
9.3
8.0
4.9
4.8
4.4
12.1
14.9
13.6
9.9
12.7
8.3
13.8
12.2
7.8
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
9.3
9.0
13.2
12.5
14.4
6.9
7.0
6.7
18.5
16.6
15.0
16.8
19.2
19.4
16.3
23.1
13.6
21.0
17.1
9.7
7.1
9.2
6.3
9.9
8.9
7.1
5.1
4.6
5.1
14.0
18.3
15.9
9.7
10.9
5.4
20.5
13.0
5.8










































Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
16.8
17.0
15.4
21.9
11.8
14.0
15.5
16.4
14.0
12.7
13.2
10.5
8.3
9.9
7.6
7.1
7.0
16.8
18.5
16.2
18.1
20.6
23.2
19.4
24.4
19.5
17.9
20.2
16.9









                         108

-------
     TABLE D-9.  COD, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20. 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
3 7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
2 6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
q/ll
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
127
134
200
183
203
125
132
127
331
274
213
222
241
241
182
208
150
116
128
81
185
126
143
96
92
99
214
233
233
166
208
143
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
162
149
219
217
237
136
140
139
371
337
301
274
274
288
254
242
128
108
124
81
181
122
132
112
91
101
259
274
261
163
189
113

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11







Infl.
mg/1
216
206
168
173
104
231
236
257
223
200
206
123
111
153
117
143
161
394
389
316
304
326
356
288
340
274






                       109

-------
  TABLE D-10.  TURBIDITY,  SECONDARY  SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE,  MARCH 20.  1978  -  OCTOBER 27, 1978

y
/t,
Slope









3


















2










Date

3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff .
mg/1
17
19
28
27
27
42
27
26
128
90
115
91
112
106
78
85
51
33
21
20
17
19
18
25
21
23
35
31
30
75
110
105
72
89
47
48
40
37
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
25
22
45
42
37
58
45
42
138
115
123
120
140
140
136
102
35
53
48
40
16
19
19
24
18
21
37
27
32
106
124
114
65
73
19
50
55
30

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
34
42
33
34
32
57
49
52
42
45
50
76
64
88
105
72
81
150
135
130
130
144
165
152
180
128
52
43
47









                         no

-------
TABLE D-U. DISSOLVED SOLIDS, SECONDARY SYSTEM,SUMMER
  APPLICATION RATE. MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

% Date
Slope
3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
3 7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
2 6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.
mg/1
469
454
475
518
490
554
575
582
632
682
731
646
646
681
681
653
646
702
724
660
497
511
483
540
483
497
461
497
497
639
682
646
660
631
631
653
617
610
TROUGH
Eff.
mg/1
467
454
489
490
504
540
540
553
618
639
682
639
696
681
674
660
660
695
653
681
489
518
476
518
483
511
490
511
511
639
675
674
667
658
660
681
653
589

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6 A7
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.
mg/1
440
469
511
532
518
461
511
454
518
490
483
504
497
497
483
483
497
596
625
639
617
632
624
610
617
610
646
617
624









                         111

-------
      TABLED-12..  pH, SECONDARY SYSTEM, SUMMER
APPLICATION RATE, MARCH 20, 1978 - OCTOBER 27. 1978

%
Slope









3


















2










Date

3/29
3/31
5/10
5/12
5/17
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/16
6/21
6/23
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9
RISER
Eff.

7.5
7.5
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.6
8.0
7.6
7.4
8.2
7.7
7.5
TROUGH
Eff.

7.3
7.4
7.9
8.1
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.8
8.2
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.7
8.1
7.6
7.5
8.0
7.7
7.7

Date

3/29
3/31
4/3
4/5
4/7
5/10
5/12
5/17
5/19
5/22
5/24
6/17
6/21
6/23
6/26
6/28
6/29
7/19
7/21
7/24
8/11
8/14
8/16
9/6
9/8
9/11
10/4
10/6
10/9










Infl.

8.7
8.1
7.6
7.6
7.3
8.7
8.3
8.5
8.6
8.4
8.3
7.7
8.1
7.7
8.7
8.6
8.5
9.2
8.8
8.6
9.0
9.0
8.8
9.2
8.7
8.2
8.5
8.6
8.1









                       112

-------
                               APPENDIX E
           TABLE E-l.  SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SOIL COMPOSITION
            OF THE RAW AND SECONDARY OVERLAND FLOW TREATMENT
            SYSTEM BEFORE AND AFTER WASTEWATER APPLICATIONS
                          Raw Treatment System
Surface Soils*
Sample**
Plot
2% SB
3% SB
2% SB
3% SB
Date***
12/75
12/75
11/78
11/78

Fe
7300
8500
4700
8900

H04
170
110
72
31

/n
29
47
34
26
Secondary
Parameter mq/kq
Ca
110
750
830
910
System
K
2100
2500
2000
1100

Mn
730
780
490
400

Cu
13
24
24
25


Mg
1200
1900
1500
1900


Na
230
100
<1000
<1000


M
13
18
25
10

Surface Soils
2% FR
3% FR
2% FR
3% FR
12/75
12/75
11/78
11/78
12800
16000
8300
6800
100
100
29
26
33
75
28
24
380
630
8900
1220
3000
3500
1600
1100
900
730
120
540
20
23
51
44
2500
2900
2700
2300
500
350
<1000
<1000
21
25
36
20
  *Surface samples collected at 15 cm depth.

 **SB = Spray boom plot; FR = Fixed riser plot.

***12/75 = Samples collected before wastewater applications.
   11/78 - Samples collected at the end of the study.

                                                        (continued)

                                  113

-------
                      TABLE  E-l.   (Continued)

Raw Treatment System
Subsurface
Sample
Plot
2% SB
3% SB
2% SB
3% SB
Date
12/75
12/75
11/78
11/78
Soils*
Parameter mg/kg
Fe
8000
8500
7000
6000
P04
50
70
57
305
Zn
27
37
34
21
Secondary
Subsurface
2% FR
3% FR
2% FR
3% FR
12/75
12/75
11/78
11/78
11000
13000
4500
1060
120
30
42
59
38
24
42
42
Ca
350
1200
1050
750
System
Soils
1800
250
960
1970
K
2000
2500
1500
850


2800
2300
1200
2900
Mn
630
950
230
300


850
900
230
270
Cu
10
25
17
20


20
21
23
60
Mg
1100
1900
1900
1500


2900
2000
2300
4200
Na
280
280
<1000
<1000


830
380
<1000
<1000
Ni
12
17
16
18


21
21
17
33

*Subsurface samples collected at 30 cm depth.
                                 114

-------
          APPENDIX F
 TABLE F-l.   ROTATING BOOM, 2%
COLONIES/ML.  (xlflS) WASTEWATER

SAMPLING
PERIOD




SUMMER
^ f\*l ~l
1977






WINTER
1977-78






SUMMER
1 Q7£
JLy/o









DATE
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/11/77
8/18/77
8/24/77
8/31/77
9/14/77
9/21/77
9/29/77
10/12/77
1/24/78
1/31/78
2/14/78
2/24/78
3/9/78
3/15/78
3/21/78
3/28/78
5/2/78
5/10/78
5/23/78
5/31/78
7/18/78
7/25/78
8/1/78
8/9/78
8/29/78
9/19/78
9/26/78
10/17/78
10/24/78
INFLUENT
NUTRIENT
AGAR
116
87
250
160
80
170
210
38
26
153
56
62
15
41
40
60
40
310
250
754
18
155
110
110
180
170
190
210
180
130
120
EMB
AGAR
105
24
6.1
9.8
45
140
19
34
1.5
8.3
5.8
6.5
1.1
6.0
14
12
11
8.6
8.0
33
3.3
14.4
20
8.3
26
16
27
17
19
28
21
EFFLUENT
NUTRIENT
AGAR
72
4.2
33
3.9
67
2.2
11
-
5.8
38
28
5.1
2.5
0.3
9.4
2.0
10
42
23
0.38
23
2.0
19
5.2
5.6
7.5
4.2
4.2
0.2
9.4
0.07
EMB
AGAR
55
0.011
0.28
0.0036
0.2
0.62
0.39
-
0.46
5.3
2.5
2.0
0.6
0.1
8.2
0.1
0.62
7.4
5.0
0.15
0.7
0.9
4.2
0.3
0.74
0.37
0.52
0.17
0.02
0.71
0.03
              115

-------
                                          TABLE  F-2.   ROTATING  BOOM,  2%
                                  BACTERIA IDENTIFIED  FROM  EMB PLATES  WASTEWATER
DATE
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/11/77
8/13/77
8/24/77
8/31/77
9/14/77
10/11/77
1/24/78
1/31/78
2/14/78
2/28/78
3/8/78
3/15/78
3/21/78
3/28/78
5/2/78
5/10/78
5/31/78
7/18/78
7/25/78
8/1/78
8/9/78
8/29/78
INFLUENT
E.
COLI
X
. X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
c.
FRUNDII
X





X




X












KES
GROUP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X
X

PSEUDOMONAS


X




X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X



X


























EFFLUENT
E.
COLI

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X


X
X
c.
FRUNDII
























KES
GROUP

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X





X
X
X


X


PSEUDOMONAS
X




X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
en

-------
   TABLE F-3.  RISER, TROUGH & BOOM:
2% & 3% COLONIES/ML.  (xlO5) WASTEWATER
SAMPLING
AREA
2Z
RISER
32
RISER
2%
TROUGH
3Z
TROUGH
22
SPRAY
yx,
SPRAY
DATE
3/9/78
3/15/78
3/21/78
5/2/78
5/23/78
5/31/78
9/19/78
10/17/78
2/28/78
5/2/78
3/28/78
5/31/78
8/9/78
9/19/78
10/17/78
3/9/78
3/15/78
5/2/78
5/23/78
5/31/78
8/1/78
9/19/78
10/17/78
2/28/78
3/28/78
5/2/78
5/31/78
8/1/78
9/19/78
10/17/78
3/28/78
5/10/78
5/23/78
7/18/78
7/25/78
8/1/78
9/26/78
10/24/78
3/28/78
5/10/78
5/23/78
7/18/78
7/25/78
8/1/78
8/9/78
9/26/78
10/17/78
INFLUENT
KUTRIENT EMB
AGAR AGAR
1.8
19
61
70
1
123
190
100
5.2
6
13
92
190
250
140
1.8
18
80
1
1,180
82
140
140
5.2
11
9
90
140
210
230
120
754
45
100
130
110
240
110
120
754
44
120
470
3
60
92
0.46
9.4
8.4
12
0.1
30
11
32
0.3
0.41
0.29
22.4
16
18
26
0.46
3.7
9
0.1
11.4
9.1
27
22
0.3
0.32
0.2
6.35
10
24
20
16
21
2.6
12
18
21
19
53
50
2.6
23
14
18
1.1
10
20
EFFLUENT
NUTRIENT EMB
AGAR AGAR
1.4
2.8
21
11
0.2
3.3
10
16
1.2
1.0
4.4
72
50
4.7
9.8
0.53
0.55
3
0.08
5.4
7.3
2.1
73
2
11
9.1
68.4
20
0.1
29
51
0.72
1.8
230
10
8.8
0.3
0.8
1.7
0.24
0.24
23
1.6
4
6
0.4
7.5
0.082
0.35
2.4
3
0.01
0.14
0.51
1.4
0.1
0.09
0.21
8.78
6.1
0.6
0.94
0.02
0.12
0.026
0.007
0.089
0.88
0.47
3.2
0.1
0.14
0.11
8.14
2.8
0.01
3.5
4.1
0.07
0.12
3.7
0.2
0.75
0.02
0.3
0.34
0.01
0.007
5.6
0.17
0.88
0.73
0.08
0.61
                  117

-------
                                     TABLE F-4.  RISERS AND TROUGHS, 2 & 3%
                                 BACTERIA IDENTIFIED FROM EMB PLATES WASTEWATER


DATE
RISER, 27.
3/8/78
3/15/78
3/21/78
5/2/78
5/31/78
8/1/73
RISER, 3%
5/2/78
5/31/78
8/1/78
8/9/78
TROUGH, 2%
3/8/78
3/15/78
3/21/78
5/2/78
5/23/78
8/1/78
TROUGH, 3%
5/2/78
5/31/78
8/1/78
INFLUENT EFFLUENT
E
COLI


X

X
X


X
X

X


X
X
X
X


X
X

c
FRUNDI1


X




















KES
GROUP

X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X


PSEUDOMONAS

X


X
X


X

X


X

X

X
X

X
X
X

























E
COLI


X

X
X


X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X

X
X

c
FRUNDII























KES
GROUP

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X


X

X
X


X
X


PSEUDOMONAS

X

X


X




X

X

X


X



X
00

-------
    TABLE F-5.  VACUUM PUMP CALIBRATIONS FOR PARTICLE COUNTS

Pump #
1
2
3
4
5
6
Calibrated
3-2-77
liters/min
5.2470
5.3161
5.2605
4.9843
5.2186
5.1666
Calibrated
10-19-77
liters/min
4.9049
5.3234
5.3517
10.2149
8.7680
5.7312

TABLE F-6.  VACUUM PUMP CALIBRATIONS FOR ANDERSEN DRUM SAMPLERS

Pump #
1
2
3
4
5
6
Calibrated
3-2-77
liters/min
3.9501
3.0077
3.8266
2.0206
2.9977
4.1700
Calibrated
10-19-77
liters/min
4.1545
3.4919
4.0362
5.8501
6.0732
4.3745
                               119

-------
     TABLE F-7
PARTICLES/I^
ROTATING BOOM, 2%
   AIRBORNE PARTICLES
SAMPLING
PERIOD









SUMMER
1977













WINTER
1977-78









SUMMER
1978







DATE
4/20/77
ft/27/17
5/9/77
5/19/77
5/26/77
6/1/77
6/9/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
7/2/77
7/6/77
7/12/77
7/21/77
8/1/77
8/11/77
8/18/77
8/24/77
8/31/77
9/15/77
9/21/77
9/28/78
10/11/77
11/29/77
1/23/78
1/31/78
2/14/78
2/28/78
3/8/78
3/14/78
3/21/78
3/28/78
4/11/78
5/2/78
5/8/78
5/16/78
5/30/78
7/18/78
7/28/78
8/1/78
8/7/78
8/15/78
8/29/78
9/12/78

UPWIND
217.18
41.59
69.31
-
-
-
134.16
817.91
573.00
73.94
-
531.14
392.78
166.35
337.33
346.57
438.69
194.08
332.71
301.90
494.44
577.62
617.91
168.07
2,461.74
355.91
74.15
1,270.41
2,120.65
1,557.74
919.44
225.41
-
-
—
342.73
579.50
370.74
1,527.46
1,606.55
1,767.70
233.98
879.90

DOWNWIND
59.29
82,10
145.91
372.35
-
-
273.65
259.97
-
328.38
641.08
779.91
141.39
310.14
155.07
433.28
187.00
378.55
401.36
2,377.74
396.80
816.40
191.30
209.51
1,315.38
527.71
—
1,343.62
--
760.62
-
378.94
160.32
-
_
127.53
1,357.98
1,862.84
2,127.01
1,557.68
983.80
.1,053.64
651.31
  120

-------
 TABLE F-8.   ROTATING BOOM, 2%
PARTICLES/M3 AIRBORNE BACTERIA
SAMPLING
PERIOD











SUMMER
1977












WINTER
1977-78








SUMMER
• /\*i f\
1978








DATE
3/30/77
4/6/77
4/20/77
4/27/77
5/9/77
5/19/77
5/26/77
6/1/V 7
6/8/77
6/22/77
6/28/77
7/6/77
7/12/77
7/21/77
7/27/77
8/2/77
8/11/77
8/18/77
8/24/77
8/31/77
9/29/77
10/12/77
11/29/77
1/18/78
1/23/78
1/31/78
2/14/78
2/28/78
3/9/78
3/14/78
3/21/78
3/28/78
4/11/78
4/12/78
5/2/78
5/8/78
5/16/78
5/23/78
5/30/78
7/18/78
7/25/78
8/1/78
8/7/78
8/15/78
UPWIND DOWNWIND
NUTRIENT EMB
247.3
49.5
2,474.5
2,433.9
2,474.5
2,474.5
2,474.5
140.2
2,474.5
90.7
1,649.7
8.2
2,474.5
2,474.5
2,474.5
8.2
329.9
2,474.5
16.5
164.9
602.1
-
2.8
—
854.7
854.7
2.8
854.7
2.8
25.6
854.7
91.2
-
2.8
2.3
854.7
2.8
854.7
2.8
788.9
854.7
854.7
854.7
683.7
4.2
4.2
-
33.8
105.5
4.2
1,265.8
4.2
4.2
84.4
33.8
21.1
4.2
1,265.8
4.2
1,264.8
126,6
4.2
16.9
4.2
4.2
4.2
405.2
-
4
12.0
4
4
4
6
4
3.2
-
4
3.2
4
4
40.1
4
14.8
4
200.6
64.2
370.3
NUTRIENT EMB
389.2
-
1,667.9
1,640.6
1,667.9
556.0
1,265.8
1,667.9
250.2
100
305.8
1,667.9
1,667.9
1,667.9
1,667.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
83.4
_
—
411.6
-
52.1
272.4
13.7
823.3
274.4
411.6
—
658.6
—
425.4
658.6
823.3
274.4
823.3
823,3
759.9
247
823.3
823.3
823,3
jj.
5.5
94.2
83.1
1,662.4
1,662.4
1,662.4
127; 4
138.5
5.5
55.4
55.4
1,662.4
1,662.4
5.5
5.5
55.4
5.5
5.5
1,662.4
1108.3
138.5
4.8
-
4.8
47.7
4.8
334.1
4.8
715.9
1,431.9
381,8
-
878.2
381.8
4.8
477.3
38.2
4.8
1,321.7
572.8
1,431.9
1,431.9
1,145.5
              121

-------
              TABLE  F-9.   SECONDARY  SYSTEM  WASTEWATER
             VIRAL ASSAY  RISER AND TROUGH APPLICATIONS

Riser
Date
2-28-78
3-9-78
3-28-78
5-16-78
5-23-78
10-11-78
%
Slope
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
Influent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ef f 1 uent
PFU/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
Reduction
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Trough
2-28-78
3-9-78
3-28-78
5-16-78
5-23-78
10-11-78
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC

NC - Not calculated
                                122

-------
            APPENDIX G
     TABLE 6-1.  RAW DATA FOR
TEMPERATURE VS. TREATMENT ANALYSES
Temperature
68
64 64
53
45
42
37
32
32
27
Temperature
68
64
53
45
42
37
32
32
27
Temperature
68 68
64
53 53
45
42
37
32
32
27
Abbreviations
BOD
COD
NH,
FR2
TR2
FR3
TR3
NOTE: Data are
BOD
FR2
48
28
47
36
31
39
44
62
44
COD
FR2
138
76
128
171
158
138
134
148
133
NH3
FR2
13.11
4.9
14.7
4.8
6.32
6.35
12.63
12.56
10.7
BOD
TR2
18
36
37
35
19
60
41
77
COD
TR2
95
76
112
111
105
142
122
148
NH3
TR2
11.38
2.92
14.4
1.7
0
13.11
11.45
13.5

BOD
FR3
29
58
33
36
14
31
38
62
38
COD
FR3
95
103
104
111
109
126
107
103
130
NH3
FR3
10.07
5.15
11.9
1.6
0
2.69
8.97
7.87
13.8
BOD
TR3
33
39
35
32
29
35
38
63
48
COO
TR3
99
87
100
114
126
118
106
144
111
NH,
TR3
10.69
6.05
12.5
3.5
5.37
5.8
11.11
11.52
9.7
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia
Fixed Riser - 21 Slope
Trough - 21 Slope
Fixed Riser - 3X Slope
Trough - 3X Slope
based on high temperature observations.
                123

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/2-79-178
                                                           3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE  MUNICIPAL  WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY THE
  OVERLAND FLOW METHOD OF  LAND  APPLICATION
                             5. REPORT DATE
                                August 1979 Issuing date
                                                           6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
  Dempsey H. Hall
  Joel  E. Shelton
Charles H. Lawrence*
Ernest D. King*
Raymond A. Mill*
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
  Oklahoma State Department  of Health
  1000 Northeast 10th Street
  Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73152
                             10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                  1BC822
                             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                  R-803218
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  Robert S. Kerr Environmental  Research Lab-Ada, OK
  Office of Research and  Development
  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
  Ada,  Oklahoma  74820
                                                           13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                               Final -  6/74  -  3/79
                             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

                                  EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
   *University of Oklahoma Health  Sciences Center, Oklahoma City,  Oklahoma 73190
16. ABSTRACT
 The primary objectives of this study were to  assess  on a seasonal basis  (winter  and
 summer applications),  the capabilities of treating  raw (screened) municipal wastewater
 and secondarily  treated wastewater (wastewater  stabilization pond effluent),  by
 applying the wastewaters to experimental overland  flow treatment modules, on  two
 slopes:  2 per cent and 3 per cent.  Three application techniques in the raw  treatment
 phase were employed for comparison:  (a) rotating  spray booms with fan nozzles,
 (b) fixed riser  and trough methods were used  for the secondary treatment phase.   Com-
 parison was made between the performance of the raw  wastewater overland flow  system
 and the performance of the wastewater stabilization  pond receiving the same wastewater

 In addition to wastewater treatment parameters, analyses were conducted to determine
 the effects of overland flow applications on  soil  composition, before and after  waste-
 water applications.
 Microbial studies were conducted to determine the  quantitative and qualitative
 structure of the microbial  community, within  the raw and secondary treatment  systems,
 primarily enteric bacterial and viral organisms.   Tests were conducted to determine
 removal efficiencies for the two treatment systems.   Also ambient air samples were
 collected around the spray boom method of application to determine the presence  or
 absence of airborne enteric bacteria and virus.
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
 Land use, nutrient removal
 Sewage treatment
 Water chemistry
 Sewage effluents
 Microorganism  control
                 Raw municipal wastewater
                 Pauls Valley, Oklahoma
                 Sewage oxidation  pond
                   effluent
                 Overland flow system
                 Environmental health
      68D
      91A
      43F
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

       RELEASE TO  PUBLIC
                19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                    UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES

   140
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (TMspage)
                                                 UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            124
                                                                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 -657-060/5402

-------