&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
------- |