Land Treatment and
Reuse of Sewage Efflue
by Irrigation:
A Perspective for Hawaii
MCD-09
-------
Disclaimer Statement
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
NOTES
To order this publication, "Land Treatment and Reuse of Sewage Effluent
by Irrigation: A Perspective for Hawaii" (MCD-09) from EPA, write to:
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
Multiple copies may be purchased from:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
EPA-430/9-78-005
TECHNICAL REPORT
LAND TREATMENT AND
REUSE OF SEWAGE EFFLUENT BY IRRIGATION:
A PERSPECTIVE FOR HAWAII
By
Dr. L. Stephen Lau, Director
Water Resources Research Center
Professor of Civil Engineering
University of Hawaii
Robert K. Bastian, Project Officer
February 1978
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-09
-------
EPA Comment
This bulletin was prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of Water Program
Operations as one of a series of reports to help supply detailed information
concerning studies and current practices involving the utilization and
reuse of municipal effluents and sludges. The series will provide in-depth
presentations of available information on topics of major interest and
concern related to municipal wastewater treatment and sludge management.
An effort will be made to provide the most current state-of-the-art
information available concerning sewage and sludge processing and disposal/
utilization alternatives, as well as costs, transport, and environmental
and health impacts.
These reports are not a statement of Agency policy or regulatory
requirements. They are being published to assist EPA in complying with
the emphasis placed by the Clean Water Act upon the use of land treatment
and other systems that reuse municipal wastewater, sludge, and their
nutrient resources. They also will provide planners, designers, municipal
engineers, environmentalists and others with detailed information on
municipal wastewater treatment and sludge management options.
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division
Office of Water Program Operations
-------
ABSTRACT
Surrounded by an ocean, the Hawaiian Islands are limited in
their natural freshwater resources. The major, readily
developable potable sources are the high quality groundwater
sources which serve both domestic uses and sugarcane irrigation,
although irrigation water does not require so high a quality
as does drinking water.
The increasing overall freshwater requirements for the
island of Oahu will outstrip the potential yield of natural
freshwater sources, as developed by present technology, by
the year 2000 according to projections by the Honolulu Board
of Water Supply. Water shortage regions on other islands are
the leeward, high temperature, low rainfall, cultivated
and/or urban-resort areas. Water reuse from sewage effluent
for irrigation will augment the natural water resources,
furnish supplemental or alternative fertilizer, reduce ocean
discharge of pollutants, and the costs of engineering systems.
In cooperative field testing from 1971 to 1975, it was
demonstrated that the effluent can be applied as supplemental
water for furrow irrigation of sugarcane without detriment
to groundwater quality and sugar yield. Studies are in
progress to test different dilutions of effluent and their
use with chemical ripeners to improve crop yield. Sugarcane
plantations on Oahu, Maui, and Kauai are in various stages
of water reuse. Reuse is presently practiced for irrigation
of golf courses and is being planned for forage crops in
Hawaii.
The studies and current practice utilizing land treatment
and reuse of sewage effluents as irrigation water in Hawaii are
summarized and the probable impact on irrigation practices and
-------
attendant waste water treatment and monitoring are discussed.
Such practices could easily serve as a model for other areas in
the nation that face future water shortages and increased water
demand.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vi
Sections
I Rationale for Water Reuse in Hawaii 1
II Current and Past Practice of Reuse in Hawaii 3
III Contribution from Scientific Research and Development 9
Reuse by Sugarcane Irrigation 10
Reuse by Grassland 21
IV Evaluation and Projection 23
V References 3.1
VI Appendices 37
111
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Sites of Water Reused from Sewage Effluent by Irrigation:
Kauai, Maui, Oahu and Hawaii 6
2 Kaanapali Effluent-Irrigated Cane Fields, West Maui, Hawaii. ... 8
3 Mililani Reclamation-Reuse System for Irrigation 11
4 General Hydro!ogic and Geologic Characteristics of Oahu 29
TABLES
No. Page
1 Effluent Reuse for Sugarcane Irrigation 4
2 Effluent Reuse for Golf Course, Lawns, Fields, and Trees 5
3 Weighted Composite Mililani STP Analysis 12
4 Median Constituent Values of Secondary Sewage Effluent 13
5 Pesticide Analyses of Raw Sewage and Unchlorinated Secondary
Effluent, Mililani STP, Oahu, Hawaii 14
6 Heavy Metal Analyses of Raw Sewage and Unchlorinated
Secondary Effluent, Mililani STP, Oahu, Hawaii 1§
7 Effect of Treated Effluent on Cane Yields, Cane Quality,
and Sugar Yields in Oahu Sugar Company Field 246, Hawaii 18
8 Effluent Quantity and Quality of Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants, Oahu, Hawaii 28
-------
I. RATIONALE FOR WATER REUSE IN HAWAII
Surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, the Hawaiian Islands are
limited in their natural freshwater resources. Each major
island has its characteristic leeward, high temperature, low
rainfall, cultivated and/or urban-resort areas that are suscep-
tible to seasonal water shortages as the water demand increases,
Oahu's water situation is more serious than that of the other
islands in the state because it accommodates over 600,000 or
80% of the state resident population, most of the 3 million
annual influx of tourists, and the military and associated
personnel. The water supply problems for Oahu assume an island-
wide scale.
The major readily developable water source is the high quality
groundwater that is potable without treatment. It supplies
presently, in mgd, agriculture (mostly sugarcane), 220;
municipal, 140; military, 35; and urban-residential, 30; for a
total of 435 mgd and leaving only 65 mgd of the groundwater
sources that can be recovered to meet additional demand (Hirata
1977). It is estimated that the developable groundwater supply
will be fully committed by the year 2000 (Board of Water Supply
1975). Thus, supplemental water sources must be found.
Now and in the foreseeable future, desalting even brackish
groundwater and especially ocean water is not considered
economically feasible in view of recent increased energy costs.
The catchment of streamflow faces multiple problems, including
the limited number of large perennial streams, shortage of
reservoir storage space on an island of limited land area,
necessity of water treatment if used for drinking, and
uncertainty over water rights.
-------
A most feasible supplemental water source is municipal waste
water effluent. It is available and dependable, has fertilizer
value, and can be successfully used for irrigation if properly
managed to avoid groundwater pollution problems and decrease
in yields of sensitive crops. If the effluent is not reclaimed
and reused for irrigation, the remaining disposal alternatives
are discharge into freshwater streams after advanced treatment,
which is not economically viable, or ocean disposal through
long outfall pipes which are not only costly but also result
in the loss of a valuable supplemental water resource.
In summary, the need is real and urgent to seriously consider
the reuse of municipal and domestic sewage effluents for
irrigation in Hawaii from the standpoint of water conservation
and waste water management.
-------
II. CURRENT AND PAST PRACTICE OF REUSE IN HAWAII
In Hawaii municipal waste water treatment systems began with the
minimal treatment and discharge of sewage into cesspools which
are still in use in sparsely populated rural communities. Even
today, there are over 22,000 cesspools on Oahu alone, and
57,000 on all major islands combined (WRRC 1977). The sanitary,
rather than combined, sewer system then came into practice;
however, most of the sewage was discharged without treatment.
The receiving water was, and still is, principally the ocean,
and occasionally, streams and lakes. Land application of waste
water effluents for reuse in Hawaii, if any, was not documented
before 1967 (Young, Lau, and Burbank 1967).
In the early 1970s when stringent receiving water quality regu-
lations were promulgated in Hawaii, effluent injection wells
became popular for small facilities in coastal areas where the
groundwater is brackish and not suitable as a water supply
source (Takasaki 1974). But today attention is focused on
reclamation and reuse as a result of present and projected
future water shortages, failure of some effluent injection wells,
and the stringent regulations expected soon to be promulgated
for underground injection systems in Hawaii.
Known systems that reuse sewage for irrigation in Hawaii are
mainly in an infant stage: few in number, small in size, and of
recent origin. The total quantity of effluent used from 17
systems, most of which are on Oahu, is less than 10 mgd (Tables
1, 2; Fig. 1). Users include sugarcane plantations and golf
courses. The existence of some of these systems is principally
due to the need for supplemental water. In some cases, the use
and application of treated effluent is indirect and only after
-------
TABLE 1
Effluent Reuse for Sugarcane Irrigation
Site Island
STP
Treatment
Flow
(mgd)
Receiving Water/Use
Refer-
ence*
1 Kauai Lihue
2 Kauai Waimea
3 Maui Kaanapali
4 Oahu Makakilo Hts,
5 Oahu Nanakai
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
6 Oahu Whitmore Village Extended Aeration
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.51
0.05
0.17
Oahu Wahiawa
Activated Sludge 1.3
Irrigation Ditches 1
Ponds, Irrigation Ditches 1
Irrigation Ditches, 2
Reservoir; Cane
Irrigation Ditches, 1, 3, 5
after High Dilution
Irrigation Ditches, 1, 3, 5
after High Dilution
Wahiawa Reservoir; 3
Storage Water Used
for Irrigation
Wahiawa Reservoir; 3
Storage Water Used
for Irrigation
8 Oahu Schofield Trickling Filter
1.64
4.97
Waikele Stream; Stream
Water Diverted Seasonally
for Irrigation
3, 4
*1. Dennis Lau (Hawaii State Dept. of Health) 1977: personal communication.
2. George Brown and George Schatenberg (Pioneer Mill Co.) 1977: personal communication.
3. City and County of Honolulu (1972).
4. L. Stephen Lau 1977: personal observation.
5. George Richardson (City and County of Honolulu) 1977: personal communication.
-------
TABLE 2
Effluent Reuse for Golf Course, Lawns, Fields, and
Trees
Site Island Location
3 Maui Kaanapali STP
9 Oahu Kaneohe Marine Corps
Air Station STP
10 Oahu Hawaii Kai STP
11 Oahu Kuilima Hotel
12 Oahu Church College, Laie
13 Oahu Wailee Farm,
University of Hawaii
14 Oahu Makaha STP
15 Hawaii Kailua-Kona
16 Hawaii Mauna Kea Beach Hotel
17 Hawaii Keauhou
Treatment
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter,
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
Activated Sludge
*1. L. Stephen Lau 1977: personal observation.
2. Chang and Young (1977).
3. Zone of Mixing Environmental Impact Statement (1974).
4. Dennis Lau (Hawaii State Dept. of Health) 1977: personal
5. City and County of Honolulu (1972).
6. George Richardson (City and County of Honolulu) 1977: pei
Flow Receiving Water
(med) /Use
0.5 Oxidation Pond;
Golf Course
0.56 Golf Course
1.0 Golf Course
Oxidation Pond;
Golf Course
Lawn Irrigation
Chlorinated Pond;
Field Irrigation
0.15 Irrigation
Koa Trees
Golf Course
Golf Course
2.21
communica tion .
rsonal communication.
Refer-
ence*
1
2
3
4
4, 6
4
5
4
4
4
-------
IHAU
HAWAIIAN
ISLANDS
100 mil..
100 kltemitati
OAHU
;0 .MOLOKAI
Paoifio Ocean
-22°N-\
FIGURE 1. Sites of Water Reuse from Sewage Effluent by Irrigation:
Kauai, Maul, Oahu, and Hawaii
-------
dilution by stream or reservoir water. The oldest system in
use since 196? is the Pioneer Mill Company's Kaanapali
system on Maui that uses about 0.5 rngd of chlorinated effluent
from the Kaanapali STP for furrow irrigation after high
dilution (3-12%) with groundwater. None of these reuse
systems had prior benefit of scientific research and development
in land treatment technology for water reuse.
The Kaanapali system on Maui is mentioned here because it is
the oldest in use since 1967, and illustrates the dire need
and keen competition for water. Kaanapali is a typical dry
leeward coastal area with a mean annual rainfall of 15
inches (Pig. 2). The Pioneer Mill Company traditionally
uses ditch water intercepted in the high rainfall West Maui
Mountains and groundwater pumped from the basal water to
irrigate its sugarcane fields on Maui. Since 196?, the
company has irrigated about 400 acres of sugarcane furrows
with 0.5 mgd of chlorinated effluent from the Kaanapali STP
after mixing with groundwater: 12% effluent after mixing
with Pump G water and 3% effluent after mixing with Pump D
water. The total nitrogen concentration was diluted by the
groundwater to 12.3 and 2.2 mg/1, but the total dissolved
solids concentration increased to 896 mg/1 after the final
mixing with Pump G water. The company has experienced a
gradual decline in yields from the fields, including those
irrigated with the highlydiluted effluent in that general
area over the last 10 to 15 years. This decline has been
attributed to the gradual increase in chloride of the pumped
groundwater from 600 mg/1 in 1957 to 1,000 mg/1 in 1976 due
to an increase in sea water encroachment. It is generally
agreed that the use of the highlydiluted effluent has imparted
no detrimental effects to the yields. The plantation is
committed to continue the use of effluent for irrigation and
will accept the effluent from Maui County's planned secondary
STP that will produce about 6 mgd in the early 1980s and
about 14 mgd in the year 2000.
-------
FIGURE 2. KAANAPALI EFFLUENT-IRRIGATED CANE FIELDS, WEST MAU1, HAWAI
8
-------
III. CONTRIBUTION FROM SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Prior to 1971 there was no known organized research on land
treatment and the reuse of water from sewage for irrigation
in Haw.aii. However, a series of process-type studies concerning
the interaction between individual chemical and microbiological
water quality parameters in sewage and tropical soils and
rocks were completed by the Water Resources Research Center
in the mid-sixties (Young, Lau, Burbank 1967; Koizumi,
Burbank, Lau 1966; Kumagai 1967a, b; Eto et al. 1967; Ishizaki,
Burbank, Lau 1967; Tanimoto et al. 1968; Hori et al. 1970).
While these studies contributed considerably to the basic
scientific understanding of land treatment systems for
municipal waste water treatment in Hawaii, including the
effectiveness of the removal of chemical quality constituents
and the inactivation of bacteria and limited types of viruses
in the tropical agricultural soils, none of the studies
directly addressed crop production by waste water irrigation
and reuse.
The single most important and comprehensive study in reuse
by irrigation for both sugarcane and grassland in pilot
field scale began at Mililani, Oahu, in 1971 and was completed
in 1975 as Phase I by the Water Resources Research Center
under the sponsorship of the Board of Water Supply, Department
of Public Works, City and County of Honolulu; Hawaiian Sugar
Planters' Association; and Oahu Sugar Company (Lau et al.
1972, 1974, 1975). Phase II began in 1976 with a study to
examine the crop yield as may be affected by different
dilutions of effluent and continued with still another study
on the post-treatment of secondary effluent necessary for
drip irrigation (Lau et al. 1977). Both Phase II studies
are supported by the same agencies but with the Department
of Health, State of Hawaii, as an added sponsor for the
post-treatment study.
-------
REUSE BY SUGARCANE IRRIGATION
The Mililani project included field and laboratory studies
of changes in water quality factors, viral content in the
applied and percolating water and in the soil, and sugar
yields and quality when sugarcane fields as well as grasslands
are irrigated with sewage effluent. An overall evaluation
was achieved, together with the proposal of principles and
guidelines for irrigation of sugarcane and grasslands with
sewage effluent in Hawaii was achieved.
The central Oahu project site area is located near the
Mililani Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), which in 1977 received
approximately 1.3 mgd of essentially domestic sewage from
the nearby expanding Mililani Town development (Pig. 3).
The- STP utilized until October 1977 the Rapid Bloc activated
sludge process (secondary treatment). The generally acceptable
performance of the plant is demonstrated by the data of a
typical analysis of the raw sewage and the chlorinated
effluent of the plant (Table 3). The project soils of the
Oxisol order are similar to that on which approximately 90%
of the sugarcane cultivated under irrigated conditions on
Oahu is grown. The general project site area receives an
average annual rainfall of approximately ^0 in., and is
situated at an elevation approaching 500 ft.
The research objectives were to investigate the groundwater
pollution potential and effects on sugarcane yields by
applying effluent as irrigation water. The research activities
were grouped into four major areas: soils and irrigation,
viral analysis, water quality analysis, and crop growth
monitoring and yield analysis. In general, the values of
guideline chemical parameters for the Mililani STP effluent
are below the maximum value for irrigation of sensitive
crops (Table 4). Pesticides and heavy metal concentrations
were either below the levels of concern or of detectability
(Tables 5 and 6).
10
-------
Approx. Limits of Area to be
Irrigated Under Option 1
Figure 3. Milllani Reclamation-Reuse System for Irrigation
11
-------
TABLE 3
Weighted Composite Mililani STP Analysis
Constituent*
pH Range
Conductivity Range (umhos/cm)
Dissolved Oxygen Range
Oxygen-Reduction Potential
Range (mV)
Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
BODS
Chloride
Sulfate
MBAS Range
Jotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen
N02 + NO 3 Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Orthophosphate Phosphorus
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Alkalinity (CaC03)
Silica (Si02)
Residual Chlorine Range
Total Coliform Range
(No./ 100 mi)
Fecal Coliform Range
(No./lOO m£)
Fecal Streptococcus Range
(No./lOO raZ)
Raw
Sewage
13 JANUARY 1975"^
6:7-8.1
460-700
0
(-230)- (+75)
159
All
252
135
241
48
76
1.5-19.0
36.4
0.02
36.42
15.9
50
10.0
10
6.6
52
84
1.3 x 107-
1.3 x 109-
2.4 x 106-
D
1.0 x 10
3.0 x 10s-
4.0 x 108
Chlorinated
Effluent
6.4-7.0
440-540
2.7-3.4
150-285
6
333
65
3
12
55
33
0.3-0.9
13.9
3.62
17.52
13.5
55
9.2
11
7.9
60
81
0.7-3.0
52-650
0-260
n~A?
w O«-
% Change in
Constituent
-96
-19
-74
-98
-95
+ 15
-57
-62
+18000
-52
-15
+ 10
-8
+ 10
+ 20
+ 15
-3.6
AA11 units in rag/Si unless noted otherwise.
i"16-hr composite samples.
12
-------
TABLE 4
is* of S«
Mililani STP, Oahu, Hawaii
Median Constituent Values* of Secondary Sewage Effluent,
Total Elec.
Dates 0 ° N POi»-P K Na Ca Mg SO.* Si02 Cl TDS Cond.
Samples /n ^ /
-mg/£. _ ymhos/cm
Apr. 1973
to 74 20.1 10.83 9.7 54 10 9 42 72 50 327 440
Dec. 1974
*Median of 21 monthly medians.
u>
-------
TABLE 5
Pesticide Analyses of Raw Sewage and Unchlorinated Secondary
Effluent, Mililani STP, Oahu, Hawaii
SAMPLING DATE
PESTICIDE
Lindane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Aldrin
Dieldrin
DDE
DDD
DDT
a Chlordane
Y Chlordane
PCP
PCS
Hi rex
22-23 Oct. 1971a
Raw Effl.
0.000295
_
--
0.000051
0.000042
0.000003
0.000013
0.000025
0.003245
~
0.000032
~
~
0.000017
0.000008
0.000002
0.000006
0.000004
0.000730
9 Aug.
Raw
0.000180
ND
ND
ND
6.000054
ND
ND
0.000010
ND
ND
0.002360
1972°
Effl.
0.000146
ND
ND
ND
0.000020
ND
ND
0.000014
ND
ND
0.000910
2 Oct.
Raw
0.000176
ND
ND
ND
0.000019
ND
ND
0.000008
NDC
NDC
0.000592
0.000220d
ND
1973°
Effl.
ft _ .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
000024
ND
ND
ND
000013
ND
ND
000025
000018
000010
000672
000040d
ND
26 Aug
Raw
0.000131
ND
ND
ND
0.000032
ND
ND
0.000025
0.000081
0.000035
0.001060
ND
1974b
Effl.
0.000075
ND
ND
ND
0.000022
ND
ND
0.000006
0.000014
0.000006
0.001590
ND
13 Jan
Raw
0.000160
ND
ND
ND
0.000015
ND
0.000011
0.000018
0.000038
0.000021
0.000600
. 1975b
Effl.
0.000120
ND
ND
ND
0.000010
ND
ND
0.000010
0.000100
0.000050
0.000300
NOTE: ND = nondetectable.
^24-hr composite sample.
b!6-hr composite sample.
'May have been present but undetected due to
"Arochlor (Monsanto compound polychlorinated
interfering peaks.
biphenyl) 1254 detected.
-------
TABLE 6
Heavy Metal Analyses of Raw Sewage and Unchlorinated
Secondary Effluent, Mililani STP, Oahu, Hawaii
SAMPLING DATE
HEAVY
METAL
22-23 Oct 19711 2 Oct 19732
Raw Effl. Raw Effl.
t ~ t 0 \
13 Jan 19752
Raw Effl.
V.U1&/ A,;
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Iron
Aluminum
Chromium
0.004 0.005 ND
0.028 0.047 0.003
ND3 ND3 ND3
0.021
0.025
0.015
0.432
0.592
ND
ND
ND3
0.010
0.027
0.015
0.164
0.532
ND ND
ND ND
ND 0.00024
ND 0.0037
ND 0.0065
ND ND
NOTE: ND = nondetectable.
124-hr composite sample.
216-hr composite sample.
3Nondetectable below 0.003 mg/£.
15
-------
Nitrogen was given special emphasis for several reasons:
its use as a major component of most fertilizers; its known
adverse effect of lowering sugar yields on maturing sugarcane;
its essential solubility in the nitrite and nitrate forms;
its relationship in concentrations above 10 mg/1 nitrate as
N to methomoglobinemia; and its potential role in the eutro-
phication of open bodies of water receiving excessive nitrogen
loads. The median concentration of N, P, and K in the
effluent applied throughout the cycle was approximatley 20,
11, and 10 mg/1, respectively. The Mililani STP secondary
treated and chlorinated domestic and municipal sewage effluents
containing insignificant amounts of toxic chemicals are
rated a generally usable irrigation water supply for sugarcane
and grasslands in central Oahu.
The 30 test plots with uniform areas of 0.1 acre in the
newly planted OSC Field No. 246 were divided into three
basic irrigation schemes: 10 plots were scheduled to receive
only ditch water for the 2-yr growth cycle, 10 plots to
receive secondary effluent for the first half of the growth
cycle and ditch water thereafter, and 10 plots to have only
effluent irrigation applications for the full growth cycle.
Commercial fertilizers were applied at planting to all plots
to achieve a rapid and uniform start for the crop and were
subsequently adjusted to the intended equal total (commercial
plus effluent) nitrogen for all plots.
Fifty ceramic point samplers were installed in representative
plots at depths of 9 to 12 in. and 18 to 21 in. that resulted
in the shallower points being positioned in the tillage zone
and the deeper points being positioned approximately 6 in.
below the tillage zone. Thus, leachate collected by the
shallower points represented liquid available to the sugarcane
root zone, whereas, leachate collected from the the deeper
points is assumed to be generally unavailable to the sugarcane
and potentially to percolate to the groundwater table.
16
-------
Sugarcane parameters were periodically monitored throughout
the culture cycle. The field was hand harvested in March
1975 after 24 months of growth.
Application of sewage effluent for the first year only of a
2-yr crop cycle increased the sugar yield by about 6% compared
with the control plots. However, when sewage effluent was
applied for the entire 2-yr crop cycle, sugar yield was
reduced by about 670 and the cane quality by about 16% even
though the total cane yield increased by about 11% (Table 7).
The quality of percolate from the effluent-irrigated sugarcane
cultured soil was of acceptable concentration from the
standpoint of groundwater quality protection; the only
possible concern was for nitrate nitrogen that sporadically
exceeded the 10 mg/1 limit for drinking water during the
first 6 to 7 months of cane growth. However, similar levels
of nitrate nitrogen occurred in the ditch water-irrigated
sugarcane plots receiving commercial fertilizers at normal
rates and the plots irrigated with effluent during the first
year and with ditch water during the second year. Furthermore,
there was no major difference in the total quantity of
nitrogen produced in the percolate among the three different
treatments.
Human enteric viruses have been shown to be present in the
majority of effluent samples examined and, hence, can be
assumed to be present in the effluent applied to the irrigated
field. However, the absence of these viruses in all sugarcane
and grass percolates sampled over a 2-yr period, plus other
project viral studies conducted, suggest strongly that the
possibility of contaminating deep underground water sources
is extremely remote.
17
-------
TABLE 7
Effect of Treated Effluent on Cane Yields, Cane Quality,
and Sugar Yields in Oahu Sugar Company Field 246, Hawaii
Code
A
B
C
Treatment
Ditch water for 2 years
Effluent first year then
ditch water second year
Effluent for 2 years
Tons of
Cane/Acre
138.1
144.6
152.9
Tons of
Sugar/
Ton Cane
(%)
12.2
12.3
10.3
Estimated
Tons of Sugar
/Acre
16.8
17.8
15.8
Statistical
A vs.
A vs .
B vs.
Summary
B *
C **
C **
NS NS
** NS
** *
* = Difference significant at 5% probability level.
** = Difference significant at 1% probability level.
NS = Difference is nonsignificant.
18
-------
Survival of poliovirus was minimal in an open field area
which was exposed to direct sunlight, high temperature, and
dessication. In contrast the viability of the virus was
maintained for up to 2 months in a field of mature sugarcane
where the virus was protected from the physical elements.
The results of Phase I were promising in terms of increased
sugar yield, an additional irrigation water source, and
alleviation of a sewage effluent disposal problem; however,
it is not presently considered economically feasible to
construct and maintain a separate ditch water and sewage
effluent field distribution system. Thus, the question
arises as to the possibility of an optimum dilution of
sewage effluent with ditch water for a single field distribution
system so that sugar yield will not be decreased and may
hopefully increase over present plantation practices.
The first study in Phase II was undertaken to determine the
dilution necessary for an optimal balance of water disposal
and sugar yield. Secondary objectives of the project were
to determine the quantities of nitrogen leaching past the
root zone and to continue monitoring of sewage effluent for
the presence of human enteric viruses.
The Hawaiian sugarcane variety 59-3775 was planted in October
1976 in the 30 test plots in Oahu Sugar Company Field 2^6
near Mililani. Five irrigation treatments for the 2-yr
cycle with six replicates in a randomized block design were:
(1) ditch water, (2) 12.5?, (3) 25%, CO 50% effluent diluted
with ditch water, and (5) effluent the first year and ditch
water the second year. Irrigation rounds of up to 4 in.
were applied biweekly. Tensiometers in selected test plots
monitored water stress conditions. Representative soil
samples were collected and analyzed shortly after sugarcane
planting. The fertilization program was designed to utilize
19
-------
the effluent nitrogen and to reduce the commercial nitrogen
to be applied. Commercial fertilizer applications of N, P,
and K to the test plots were completed in June 1977.
Four crop logs were made on sugarcane growth in the test
plots. The physical appearance of that growth was very
good; however, the relatively low K-J-UO index and the high
total sugars from the crop log indicate a possible growth
imbalance. Due to a very dry winter, rainfall during this
period was nearly one-half of normal, whereas evaporation
was more than 50% above normal.
Secondary effluent from the Mililani STP is typical of
domestic sewage, although it has a higher BOD(- than experienced
during Phase I. The effluent is monitored on a routine
basis at the STP and also at a storage reservoir at the test
site. Soil leachates are collected during each irrigation
from representative plots beneath the root zone. The concentration
of nitrogen in the leachates collected beneath the root zone
fluctuates with fertilizer applications; but, after fertilizer
applications were completed, increases in leachate nitrate
nitrogen with the higher percentage of effluent in the
irrigation water were observed. The nitrate nitrogen value
of the percolate collected from the plots were 0.6, 2, 5,
12, and 28 mg/1 and appeared to be consistent with the
applied irrigation dilutions.
Virus tests on the effluent at the STP have been positive,
but tests on effluent from the field reservoir have been
negative. These results indicate an apparent desirable
effect of reservoir storage time, sunlight, or other biological
factors in reservoir on virus inactivation. A soil sample
from one of the plots receiving 100% effluent was also
negative for viruses.
20
-------
Inasmuch as irrigation of sugarcane in Hawaii is being
converted to the more water efficient drip method, the Phase
II drip irrigation study is concerned with what additional
treatment of the secondary effluent is necessary to minimize
plugging of the minute holes in the plastic tubing. The
treatment will include pressurized sand filtration, screening,
and disinfection, and reservoir or pond detention that would
in combination reduce the suspended solids and microorganisms
causing the plugging.
REUSE BY GRASSLAND (GOLF COURSE)
An important part of the Mililani pilot field study completed
in 1975 was reuse by bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon [L.]
Pers.). This was conducted in hydraulic lysimeters at the
Mililani STP using a similar methodology applied to the
sugarcane study. With periodic cutting and harvesting,
bermudagrass proved to be an excellent utilizer of sewage
effluent applied nitrogen and thus excelled sugarcane from
the standpoint of groundwater protection. Essentially no
nitrogen was recovered from the percolate at the 5-ft depth
below the grassed surface. Viral monitoring in percolate
indicated that the sewage borne viruses are effectively
retained within the first 0.6 in. of the sodded soils.
A further investigation of bermudagrass was conducted at a
golf course at the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Oahu.
The STP employs a single stage trickling filter, chlorination,
and an aerated polishing pond. The effluent is either used
for golf course irrigation or discharged into Kaneohe Bay.
The effluent quality is essentially a mild to weak domestic
sewage as a result of considerable (20 to 28%) infiltration
of brackish groundwater. The N, P, K, concentrations of the
effluent applied by sprinklers is 13, 9, 22 mg/1, respectively
The soils are the very well-drained Ewa silty clay loam and
21
-------
Jaucas sand. The irrigation practice called for 0.4 in./wk
for the fairways and tees and much more (2.2 in./wk) for the
greens, supplementing less than 40 in. of annual rainfall.
Chemical fertilizers in addition to effluent fertilizers
were applied in the amounts of total N 208 Ib/wk and total P
1^5 Ib/wk. The crop growth shows no visual adverse effects
attributable to the effluents. It should be noted that both
sodium and chloride concentrations in the effluent are 230
and 329 mg/1, respectively, and are higher than the Mililani
STP effluent which is free of infiltration by brackish
groundwater.
The water table is located 7 to 10 ft below the sodded
surface. The groundwater quality monitored in sampling test
holes shows 86 to 98% removal of N and 100$ removal of P, K,
and fecal coliform. As all other studies reported here, the
monitoring of air quality was another Hawaii first in research
A transect of elevated agar plates, used for total coliform
count during a cycle of sprinkling, was located along the
direction of prevailing trade winds. A decrease of 90% of
the total coliform in the sprinkler effluent application was
consistently achieved within 300 ft from the sprinkler head
in an environment of moderate humidity (66 to 8j% relative
humidity), moderate temperature (75 to 76°P), and darkness,
all possessing not especially strong bactericidal effects.
22
-------
IV. EVALUATION AND PROJECTION
The potential value of water reclamation and reuse from
sewage effluent by irrigation in Hawaii has been demonstrated
by the Mililani STP case study. The study concluded that:
(1) Mililani STP's secondary effluent, containing insignificant
amounts of toxic chemicals (heavy metals and pesticides),
represents a generally usable water supply for irrigation;
(2) sewage effluent may be used for the first year of a 2-yr
sugarcane crop cycle without decreased sugar yield, however
when applied for an entire 2-yr cycle, sugar yield is reduced;
and (3) the possibility of contaminating deep underground
water sources is remote (Lau et al. 1975).
Although supportive of effluent irrigation, this WRRC study
was not intended to answer technological questions associated
with using secondary effluent in drip irrigation systems and
what effect diluted effluent would have on sugar yield.
Nevertheless, based on the results of the study, the Oahu
Sugar Company has agreed to: (1) provide 1,000 acres of
sugarcane fields for effluent irrigation, (2) accept 5 mgd
of effluent, and (3) provide land for an effluent reservoir
(City and County of Honolulu 1977).
In 1976 the WRRC undertook a research program to answer
these technological questions. The completion of the research
is expected to be sometime in 1979.
It should be noted that Oahu Sugar Company's commitment to
accept the 5 mgd of effluent is not predicated on the results
of the current WRRC research study. If necessary,furrow
irrigation will be utilized, with effluent being used during
the first year followed by Waiahole Ditch water during the
second year (City and County of Honolulu 1977).
23
-------
The City and County of Honolulu have adopted reclamation and
reuse for Mililanl waste water. The proposed engineering
system would consist of an effluent pump station at the
Mililani STP site, about 17,500 linear ft of effluent force
main located within agricultural lands west of Mililani
Town, and a 15-mil gal effluent reservoir at the junction of
Poliwai and Manuwaihau gulches (Pig. 3). However, if the
current studies on dilution of effluent with Waiahole Ditch
water and on post-treatment by WRRC are favorable, the
project would be terminated at Waiahole Ditch. This option
would eliminate approximately 6,000 linear ft of force main
and the effluent reservoir. Facilities for post-treatment
viral inactivation and flow regulation will be provided if
a need for these facilities is demonstrated by the current
studies (City and County of Honolulu 1977).
Among the alternatives considered for Mililani waste water
treatment and disposal were: (1) tertiary treatment and
continued discharge into Kipapa Stream, (2) effluent disposal
by deep well injection, (3) disposal of secondary effluent
through deep ocean outfall for Honouliuli Waste Water
Treatment Plant, and (4) disposal of untreated waste water
to the Honouliuli waste water treatment system. None of
these alternatives was judged acceptable and feasible. The
selection of a reclamation-reuse alternative produces a
significant savings in present worth values of up "to $3.52
million (City and County of Honolulu 1976a).
Another major commitment of water reuse from sewage effluent
for sugarcane irrigation was made by the Waialua Sugar Co.
on Oahu in 1977. The effluent is from the following three
sewage treatment plants (and their present discharge and
plant capacities): Whitmore Village (0.17 and 0.2 mgd),
Wahiawa (1.3 and 2.5 mgd), Schofield (1.6 and 4.1 mgd). The
effluents will be diverted from their present discharge
-------
points into Wahiawa Reservoir, thus producing an additional
benefit of alleviating several existing problems in the
reservoir including fish kill, artificial aeration require-
ment at low flow, and localized eutrophication.
For more general application in Hawaii, a set of provisional
principles and guidelines has been suggested for irrigation
with sewage effluent (Lau et al. 1975). While not a definitive
set of requirements for projects successfully utilizing
effluent in Hawaii, this set of principles and guidelines is
being used in planning future projects in Hawaii unless
special measures are taken to compensate for any deviations.
A summary checklist is as follows:
1. Effluent Quality Requirement
o Secondary treatment and chlorination where
necessary
o Domestic and municipal origin
o Minimal toxic chemicals
o Low concentration of total dissolved solids,
boron, suspended solids, and grease
o Reasonably consistent quality over time
2. Soils and Crops
o Soils suitable for crop growth
o Soils with high sorptive capacity and high
iron oxide preferred
o Crops with high tolerance to nitrogen (as
cane variety H59-3775) and/or salinity
o Grass, such as bermudagrass, with thickly
matted root system
o Vegetable crops that are generally eaten
after cooking
3. Irrigation and Fertilization
o Maintain a no-water stress condition: for furrow
irrigated sugarcane, 1-mgd supply for 150-200
acres @ 4.2 in. per round every 2 wk for an
annual rain of about ^0 in.; for sprinkler
irrigated grassland, 1 mgd supply for 100 acres
25
-------
o Apply no excess of irrigation water for pollution
control assuming the effluent is not too saline
to require leaching
o Provide a storage or bypass facility for non-
irrigation period
o Apply commercial fertilizers to give cane a fast
growth start
4. Geohydrologic Considerations of Application Site
o Conduct a geohydrologic survey to ascertain
the potable pathway of deep percolation and to
determine groundwater occurrence, circulation,
quality, recharge, and discharge
o Select areas of minimum soil thickness of 5 ft
with high adsorptive capacity
o Determine minimum allowable depth to water table
on a case-by-case basis of geology and potable
groundwater quality
5. Monitoring Factors
o Selective monitoring of chemical, microbiological,
and viral water quality, including STP effluent,
leachate at bottom of root zone, and groundwater
o Selective monitoring of soil in terms of chemical
properties and viruses
o Monitoring of crop growth and yield
A large quantity of municipal secondary treated effluent of
adequate water quality for irrigation is available but not
yet put to use at many different locations on Oahu according
to an initial survey recently completed by-the WRRC (Table 8).
Readily usable and available for diversion is a total of 12
mgd from 16 different treatment plants some of which are
located at high elevations, thus requiring little pumping.
Four additional sources may also be added with additional
treatments: three STP (Sand Island, Waianae, Pearl City) are
presently primary treated; three (Sand Island, Waianae,
Kailua) have moderately high TDS ranging from 3400 to 5400
mg/1. The cost of additional treatments may be justified in
time with increasing needs for supplemental water.
26
-------
Table 8. Effluent Quantity and Quality of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants, Oahu, Hawaii
to
Treatment
Plant
Ahuimanu
Halawa
Corr. Facil.
Kailua
Kaneohe
Kukanono
Makakilo
Heights
Maunawili 1
(Park)
Maunawili 2
(EST)
Mililani
Nanakai
Pacific
Palisades
Pearl City
Pohakupu
Sand Island
Wahiawa
Waianae
Waimanalo
Waipahu
Waipio
Whitmore
Village
Design
Capacity
/. ,_ j \
imgd)
1.4
0.094
7.0
4.3
0.07
0.60
0.14
0.095
1.8
0.125
0.675
7.4
0.426
82.0
2.5
1.72
1.1
3.6
0.35
0.20
Type of
Treatment
T.F., Pond
T.F.
T.F.
T.F.
E.A., Pond
A.S.
E.A., Pond
E.A.
Rapid Bloc
E.A.
T.F.
P.
T.F.
P.
A.S.
P.
Rapid Bloc
Stab. Ponds
E.A.
E.A.
06/77
Flow
(mgd)
0.31
0.02
4.26
3.47
0.05
0.51
0.10
0.10
1.33
0.05
0.49
6.69
0.31
64.8
1.30
1.01
0.29
2.79
0.16
0.17
cr
64a
--
2448
756
--
143a
61*
41a
51. 6b
--
533
J3u
76a
1388
68a
1749
69a
284 c
43a
54 a
TDS
336a
--
5387
1270
--
536a
320a
256a
355b
348a
6b7
312a
3403
368a
4286
308a
888C
296a
296a
TP
I mf
Vmi
10
10
6.5
6.5
10
10
10
10
13. 2b
10
16
3.6
10
6.8
8.0
7.1
10
12
10
10
TN
,/i \__
)/ 1 1
21
21
19
15.1
21
21
21
21
16. 7b
21
20.3
15.3
21
8,8
8.7
16
21
20
21
21
K. Na
7.6a 33a
.-
-.
.-
11. 2a 92a
8.8a 33. 6a
6.4a 27a
9.5b 59b
10. 4a 39. 8a
--
8.8a 33a
..
9.2a 36a
__
7.6a 34. 2a
8.0a 34. 2a
8.0a 33. 6a
B
.44a
--
--
--
--
.50a
.21a
.18a
.40b
--
.49a
...
.50a
--
.57a
--
.24a
--
.63a
.38a
NOTE: Data from City and County of Honolulu except as noted otherwise.
*T.F. = trickling filter, A.S. = activated sludge, P. = primary, Stab. = stabilization, E.A. = extended aeration.
aWRRC (8 Dec. 2977) samples.
t>Date from WRRC Tech. Rep. No. 94.
CWRRC (7 June 1978) sample.
-------
Likewise, the military installations on Oahu presently
produce about 10 mgd from 10 different sources (App. C).
Except for the already mentioned Kaneohe MCAS and Schofield
Barracks there is an additional 6 mgd effluent, most of
which is secondary treated and all of which should be
evaluated for possible reuse for irrigation.
Other candidate crops and application sites are worthy of
consideration for Hawaii. Pasture grass, such as paragrass
or californiagrass (B?achiavia mutica [Forsk.] Stapf) used
as green-chopped forage; tropical fruits, papaya, and banana;
macadamia nut trees (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden and
Betche); and commercial vanda orchid production should be
considered and tested. Geographic sites, such as the Ewa
Plain, North Shore district (Waimea Bay to Kualoa Point),
Waialua District (Kaena Point to Waimea Bay) and Waimanalo
on Oahu possess considerable potential for effluent irrigation.
It should be parenthetically noted that the estimated cost
for the planned North Shore and Waialua Outfall is respectively
$26 million and $30 million (City and County of Honolulu
1976&). It seems that reclamation and reuse should be
thoroughly considered before huge expenditures are committed
for such sparsely populated areas.
In summary, water reuse from sewage effluent by irrigation
of sugarcane and bermudagrass golf courses has been established
as an acceptable and feasible measure for water conservation
and waste water management in Hawaii. Other crops are
worthy of consideration. Although the economic impact and
legal aspects have yet to be addressed, the scientific
aspects are reasonably understood and the technological
aspects are being investigated. The forecast favors immediate
implementation of reclamation and reuse of effluent for
irrigation in Hawaii.
28
-------
KT
SOURCE Board of Water Supply 1971.
U '. Ht »
FIGURE4. GENERAL HYDROLOGIC AND GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OAHU
-------
V. REFERENCES
1. Board of Water Supply. Oahu Water Plan. City and County of Honolulu,
Hawaii. 1975.
2. Chang, S.Y.K., and Young, R.H.F. An Investigation into Environmental
Effects of Sewage Effluent Reuse at the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station
Klipper Golf Course. Tech. Memo. Rep. No. 53, Water Resources Research
Center, University of Hawaii. 1977.
3. City and County of Honolulu. Water Quality Program for Oahu with Special
Emphasis on Waste Disposal. Honolulu, Hawaii. 1972.
4. City and County of Honolulu. Public Hearing on the Mililani Sewage
Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Plan. December 16, 1976.
«
5. City and County of Honolulu. Sewer Program Major Projects. Division of
Sewers, Honolulu, Hawaii. November 16, 1976.
6. City and County of Honolulu. Environmental Impact Statement for Mililani
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal System. 1977.
7. Eto, M.A., et al. Behavior of Selected Pesticides with Percolating Water
in Oahu Soils, Tech. Rep. No. 9, Water Resources Research Center, Uni-
versity of Hawaii. 1967.
8. Hirata, E.Y. Speech given in Honolulu, 18 October 1977.
9. Hori, D.H., et al. Migration of Poliovirus Type 2 in Percolating Water
Through Selected Oahu Soils. Tech. Rep. No. 36, Water Resources Research
Center, University of Hawaii. 1970.
10. Ishizaki, K.; Burbank, N.C., Jr.; and Lau, L.S. Effects of Soluble
Organics as Flow Through Thin Cracks of Basaltic Lava. Tech. Rep. No.
16, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1967.
11. Koizumi, M.K.; Burbank, N.C., Jr.; and Lau, L.S. Infiltration and Perco-
lation of Sewage Through Oahu Soils in Simulated Cesspool Lysimeters.
Tech. Rep. No. 2, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii.
1966.
12. Kumagai, J.S. A Survey of Literature on Groundwater Recharge and Sulfide
Generation. Tech. Rep. No. 5, Water Resources Research Center, Univer-
sity of Hawaii. 1967.
13. Kumagai, J.S. Infiltration and Percolation Studies of Sulfides and
Sewage Carbonaceous Matter. Tech. Rep. No. 7, Water Resources Research
Center, University of Hawaii. 1967.
31
-------
14. Lau, et al. Water Recycling of Sewage Effluent by Irrigation: A Field
Study on Oahu-First Progress Report for August 1971 to July 1972. Tech.
Rep. No. 62, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1972.
15. Lau, et al. Water Recycling of Sewage Effluent by Irrigation: A Field
Study on Odhu Second Progress Report for July 1972 to July 1973. Tech.
Rep. No. 79, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1974.
16. Lau, et al. Water Recycling of Sewage Effluent by Irrigation: A Field
Study on Odhu-Final Progress Report for August 1971 to June 1975. Tech.
Rep. No. 94, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1975.
17. Lau, et al. Recycling of Sewage Effluent by Sugarcane Irrigation: A
Dilution Study-October 1976 to June 1977. Tech. Rep. No. Ill, Water Re-
sources Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1977.
18. Takasaki, K.J. Hydrologic Conditions Related to Subsurface and Surface
Disposal of Wastes in Hawaii. Open-File Rep. 1-74, Water Resources
Investigations, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior.
1974.
19. Tanimoto, R.M., et al. Migration of Bacteriophage 2\ in Percolating
Water Through Selected Odhu Soils. Tech. Rep. No. 20, Water Resources
Research Center, University of Hawaii. 1968.
20. Water Resources Research Center. Annual Report 1976-1977. University of
Hawaii. 1977.
21. Young, R.H.F.; Lau, L.S.; and Burbank, N.C., Jr. Travel of ABS and
Ammonia Nitrogen with Percolating Water Through Saturated Odhu Soils.
Tech. Rep. No. 1, Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii.
1967.
32
-------
0fc
0i\x
i
'
Photograph No. 1
NEWLY PLANTED PROJECT SUGARCANE IN
OAHU SUGAR COMPANY FIELD NO.
Photograph No. 2.
MATURE PROJECT SUGARCANE ON OAHU
SUGAR COMPANY FIELD NO. 2^6. CANE
GROWTH ABOUT 25 MONTHS JUST BEFORE
HARVEST.
Photographs by P.C. Ekern
33
-------
I**;: ; .^!!3!fe/7 fc>
i-k4
PLATE 3. PVC MAINS AND DISTRIBUTORS, 7~MO OLD DILUTION CROP
34
-------
VI. APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX TAELE A.I
Quality Constituents of Percolate in Effluent
Irrigated (E) Sugarcane in Lysimeters
DATE
(19753
JUN 14
JLY 2
JLY 10
JLY 12
JLY 2"*
JLY 25
JLY 26
JLY 31
ALJ& 3
AUG 6
AUG 7
AUG 8
AU6 13
AUG 14
AUG 22
AUG 23
SEP 5
SEP 12
OCT 4
OCT 11
OCT 15
OCT 17
OCT 18
OCT 19
OCT 25
NOW 7
NCW 9
N3V 12
NOV 14
NGV 16
NOV 19
DEC 3
DEC 6
DEC 21
DEC 2"*
DEC 28
DEC 31
(WO
JAN 2
JAN 3
JAN 4
pH
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.6
7-1
7.0
7-3
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.6
6.8
7.6
6.8
7.7
7.5
7.7
6.8
7-1
7-3
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.9
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.4
COM). @
TOS JIT,/
rog/£ cm
374
~
453
538
722
650
730
610
642
802
630
726
716
762
746
652
806
610
522
598
680
748
760
558
578
676
651*
590
666
--
666
580
614
550
520
560
534
530
350
440
470
420
580
~
460
510
500
490
530
412
550
540
580
620
545
740
580
600
560
560
555
640
640
720
580
600
660
620
640
610
660
660
650
680
TOTAL
HftRD-
NESS
158
187
254
259
269
326
302
300
275
315
245
345
275
330
320
315
385
380
430
384
380
378
328
380
350
320
348
344
356
364
364
328
312
312
312
332
352
336
332
NITROGEN as N
NH3-N
0.25
--
1.39
0.12
0.09
0.04
0.09
0.09
0.17
0.41
0.63
0.12
0.12
0.53
0.33
0.75
ND
0.30
0.55
NO
0.35
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.90
1.06
0.89
1.26
1.22
N0i+
NO,
21.00
6.59
12.04
4.22
7.31
9.S6
8.46
7.15
15.56
14.80
7.72
7.92
10.72
21.48
8.83
21.20
18.58
25.18
20.99
26.29
27.81
19.07
20.71
21.31
18.41
26.25
17.84
26.25
19.99
13.50
18.90
14.99
23.48
7.82
20.38
21.00
23-10
21.27
18.23
TOTAL
21.25
12.04
8.70
9.68
8.55
7.20
15.65
14.89
8.09
11.13
21.60
8.95
21.73
18.91
25.93
20.99
26.59
28.36
19.07
21.06
21.31
18.41
26.25
17-84
26.25
19-99
13.50
18.90
14.99
23.48
7.82
21.28
22. OS
23.99
22.53
19. 45
POH-P
__
0.033
0.048
0. 324
0.047
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.03
__
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.03
0.26
0.12
0.13
0.13
ND
ND
ND
ND
tt>
Ca
ng/i .
20
33
44
72
61
42
72
68
33
79
42
54
50
60
84
92
55
54
54
55
54
53
60
51
60
50
55
55
76
68
76
75
75
80
78
89
Mg
50
43
39
36
36
43
23
35
40
36
41
45
46
57
41
49*
60
60
59
47
60
53
42
54
47
55
55
55
34
35
30
30
35
37
34
27
Na
41
33
31
29
34
32
31
46
30
30
29
29
26
26
26
37
34
37
36
44
44
35
36
38
47
57
34
39
36
39
40
56
48
44
47
45
44
43
K
a.o
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.5
3.8
1.5
1.5
2.2
1.5
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.4
2.1
1.5
2.1
2.1
1.5
2.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
Cl
70
85
83
91
83
93
122
112
112
130
120
139
132
155
155
118
100
95
103
95
85
115
110
95
75
98
108
100
108
103
150
113
74
92
98
92
78
86
94
so*
_._
14
10
10
14
12
8
11
9
9
8
8
8
8
13
14
13
13
13
11
12
12
12
10
13
12
12
11
12
14
13
10
12
11
10
9
10
8
SIOz
_^_
1<»
17
11
1&
15
15
13
14-
14
14.
1*»
11
16
17
17
1?
6
9
9
6
a
2
8
12
14
13
13
9
13
77
18
16
11
9
7
16
1*.
14
37
-------
Appendix Table A.I.Continued
COND. Q TOTAL
NITROGEN as N
DATE
(1974)
JAN 7
JAN 11
JAN 14
JAN 16
JAN 21
JAN 22
JAN 31
FEB 4
FEB 11
FEB 27
MAR 8
MdR 14
MR 20
MAR 21
APR 5
APR 11
APR 22
APR 25
KAY 9
KAY 10
KAY 20
JUN 3
tXJN 15
JUN 20
JUN 26
JLY 2
JLY 15
JLY 18
AUS 4
ALG 14
AUG 15
AUS 16
AUG 30
SEP 9
SEP 10
SEP 20
SEP 23
OCT 4
OCT 29
N3V 11
NOV 27
pM
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.5
7-2
7.2
6.9
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.9
TDS ,
^- / 0
mg/ x.
500
450
330
392
436
450
402
410
428
380
394
426
400
360
400
416
380
--
388
354
446
384
ty <-
limhos/
cm
800
840
'820
800
780
750
710
720
680
630
700
680
690
670
680
670
710
650
580
680
700
670
690
600
660
~
580
580
680
650
690
680
600
650
680
660
660
620
rwor-
NESS
304
320
304
296
312
300
280
256
256
244
264
252
260
264
272
280
280
284
224
280
288
272
240
236
248
272
240
260
260
290
282
244
256
260
254
248
254
204
236
NH3-N
1.30
1.26
0.76
0.79
0.86
0.77
0.08
0.27
0.11
0.52
ND
ND
0.55
0.79
0.64
ND
to
ND
0.24
0.12
0.11
0.05
ND
0.10
0.17
to
0.31
ND
ND
0.33
0.07
ND
ND
to
0.07
0.16
N3
rU]f
NOj
16.56
21.11
13.68
10.88
7-98
10.26
8.26
7.85
3.91
1.14
0.99
0.50
0.51
0.57
0.13
0.46
0.25
0.37
0.77
0.29
0.35
1.92
1.56
1.45
2.64
1.52
0.72
0.93
0.98
0.44
0.24
0.45
0.24
0.90
1.00
0.14
0.63
0.56
4.40
1.00
TOTAL
17.86
22.37
14.44
11.67
8.84
11.03
8.34
8.12
4.02
1.66
0.99
0.50
1.06
1.36
0.77
0.46
0.25
0.37
0.53
0.47
2.03
1.50
ND
2.74
1.69
0.93
1.29
0.44
0.24
0.78
0.31
0.90
1.00
0.14
0.70
0.72
1.00
PO..-P
H>
ND
to
ND
ND
to
ND
10
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
0.01
ND
0.01
NO
0.004
0.016
0.010
ND
to
ND
0.023
0.026
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.006
0.036
0.007
0.006
0.019
ND
ND
0.040
Ca
*. /o
ig/S.
86
88
84
79
91
85
63
48
60
69
74
74
74
76
76
78
79
79
63
72
67
62
62
26
62
62
94
86
82
98
98
90
90
91
92
92
92
60
74
Mg
22
24
23
24
21
21
30
33
26
17
19
16
18
18
20
21
20
21
16
24
29
28
21
42
23
28
1.2
10.9
13.4
10.9
9.0
4.6
7.5
7.9
5.8
4.4
5.9
13.1
12.6
No
40
44
45
41
41
44
44
48
47
45
39
42
41
38
46
46
47
44
43
50
47
48
52
52
56
56
47
54
55
49
58
50
56
39
55
60
48
56
55
K
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.2
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.0
Cl
88
82
76
74
76
74
58
58
60
44
70
56
58
64
40
52
42
38
44
40
~
16
53
6
16
55
60
58
59
84
51
70
-------
Appendix Table A. 1Continued
COND. 8
DATE pH TD5 mfc>*/
rog/t cm
C1975)
JAN 14
JAN
JAN
FEB
FEB
FEB
!£»___
15
C .... ~ . _, _
7
11
TOTAL NITROGEN as_ N
NESS
182
180
170
128
180
164
I^2* TOTAL TO»-P
.. _ ,
_ _
_ _ -_
0.010
NO
HO
Ca
60
59
50
43
67
62
*
7.
7.
10.
5.
3.
2.
8
9
9
0
0
2
K.
63
63
54
38
50
51
1
K
.4
2.8
1
0
0
0
.0
.9
.9
.9
Cl
65
67
70
31
52
61
SO,. SiO?
_ _
_ _
39
-------
APPENDIX TABLE B.I
Quality Constituents of Percolate in Ditch Water
Irrigated (D) Sugarcane in Lysimeter
DATE
O973)
JUN 15
JLY 2
JLY 10
JLY 12
JLY 24
SEP 5
SEP 19
OCT 4
OCT 11
OCT 15
OCT 17
OCT 18
OCT 19
OCT 25
NOV 7
NOV 9
NOV 12
KOV 14
NOV 16
NDV 19
DEC 3
DEC 6
DEC 21
DEC 24
DEC 28
DEC 31
C1974)
JAN 2
JAN 3
JAN 4
JAN 7
JAN 11
JAN 14
JAN 16
JAN 21
JAN 22
JAN 31
FEB 4
FEB 11
FEB 27
PH
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.7
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.2
6.8
7.1
7.5
7.8
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.7
8.0
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.9
7.1
7.5
7.4
COM). @
TOS limhos/
mg/1 cm
406
387
394
808
966
1046
1060
958
316
862
754
714
696
550
606
552
576
428
410
348
414
70
342
330
394
250
360
280
314
318
224
282
250
340
450
480
420
500
510
655
700
940
800
740
580
640
580
565
640
645
620
490
480
410
420
385
440
410
495
480
630
630
630
580
590
560
550
535
520
550
TOTAL
HARD-
NESS
62
101
226
206
187
390
500
480
528
640
610
568
490
420
392
388
380
356
336
276
308
283
292
292
288
296
288
288
280
272
288
260
248
248
240
244
236
240
260
NITROGEN as N
NHj-N
0.10
~
0.53
0.26
0.32
1.20
ND
0.95
NO
ND
0.56
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
0.99
0.99
0.87
0.83
0.83
0.75
0.71
0.81
0.64
0.62
0.47
0.46
0.40
0.23
0.59
NOj-t-
NO,
17.92
6.56
9.30
5.22
7.63
37.09
56.35
48.96
44.49
59.71
57.06
36.58
31.91
9.19
19.89
17.84
11.03
8.64
7.46
5.00
1.37
0.68
1.56
0.56
0.11
0.12
0.24
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
TOTAL
18.02
8.16
37.35
56.67
50.16
4*4.49
60.66
57.06
36.58
32.47
9.19
19.89
17.84
11.03
8.64
7.46
5.00
1.37
0.68
1.56
0.56
1.10
1.11
1.11
0.92
0.87
0.78
0.73
0.83
0.65
0.63
0.49
0.50
0.42
0.25
0.61
POi,-P
0.041
0.026
0.051
0.13
0.10
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.20
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.5J
0.15
ND
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
Ca
mg/l
21
15
29
54
110
60
97
102
60
70
54
60
60
52
76
55
79
84
84
73
85
75
78
79
80
72
73
75
79
83
69
73
56
58
70
Mg
42
41
28
62
54
92
97
86
102
77
69
59
58
61
41
48
27
19
20
27
18
26
23
22
20
22
26
18
12
10
16
15
23
23
21
Na
34
33
24
24
31
34
38
43
47
50
44
41
35
35
21
27
27
27
36
33
28
30
32
27
24
24
23
24
24
24
22
23
22
23
19
23
21
K
2.3
1.7
2.0
2.3
1.8
3.0
2.7
3.4
3.6
4.4
2.4
2.3
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.8
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
l.X
0,5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
C»
84
98
86
98
98
110
130
115
123
143
135
138
123
113
100
113
113
108
105
108
95
98
82
76
66
68
62
68
68
60
50
56
46
50
38
40
38
SO,,
6
10
21
26
27
24
19
23
13
12
11
12
10
10
12
11
15
13
11
10
12
9
8
7
7
17
6
6
7
6
6
7
7
8
6
8
9
St02
13
18
15
13
15
21
5
55
9
25
ND
1
1
9
10
10
4
5
1
6
1
1
ND
NO
8
9
17
17
2
2
1
1
1
ND
ND
NO
NO
41
-------
Appendix Table B.I.Continued
DATE
O974)
MAR 8
MAR 14
MAR 20
MAR 21
APR 5
APR 11
APR 22
APR 25
MAY 9
MAY 10
MAY 20
MAY 25
JUN 3
JUN 20
JUN 26
JLY 2
JLY 10
JLY 18
Al£ 2
AUG 14
ALG 15
AUG 26
AUG JO
SEP 4
SEP 9
SEP 10
SEP 20
SEP 23
OCT 4
OCT 29
NOV 11
NOV 27
C1975)
JfN 14
J*N 14
JAN 15
FEB 7
FEB 1.1
pH
7.8
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.2
7.4
8.1
7.9
6.9
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.6
6.8
6.6
6.7
7.8
CCND. g
TOS J£]C
mg/Jt cm
,_
336
312
324
322
314
312
176
230
266
230
308
310
312
370
360
~
530
540
480
500
540
550
520
500
290
315
432
440
530
540
530
550
520
460
440
440
450
490
540
540
520
560
520
550
500
600
510
_
TOTAL
HARD-
NESS
244
240
240
240
256
256
252
244
120
176
200
208
256
248
264
272
268
258
234
244
240
268
272
270
268
270
24*4
264
266
268
256
210
220
230
120
188
NITROGEN as
,-N
ND
Ml
0.40
0.32
0.14
NO
ND
ND
0.15
0.06
0.16
0.02
0.18
NO
0.14
0.16
0.11.
ND
ND
ND
I.JO
0.08
0.05
KD
ND
ND
0.16
0.16
ND
ND
ND2,
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.60
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
ND
to
0.02
0.03
0.07
ND
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05
0.14
0.15
D.02
0.01
0.26
0.10
0.04
0.02
__
N
TOTAL
0.02
0.01
0.41
0.33
0.74
0^03
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.06
0.18
0.05
0.25
to
0.17
0.20
0.17
0.02
0.02
0.01
1.36
0.13
0.19
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.42
0.26
0.04
0.02
PO..-P
ND
ND
NO
NO
0.01
0.01
ND
to
0.023
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.023
0.020
0.019
0.012
0.007
0.010
0.027
0.106
0.058
0.008
0.014
0.007
0.001
NO
0.022
__
Ca
mg/2.
68
69
70
70
71
74
70
64
27
40
46
46
60
60
62
60
58
98
90
86
90
98
100
97
100
100
96
95
98
80
78
62
64
66
48
67
Kg
18
16
16
16
19
17
19
20
13
19
10
11
26
24
27
30
30
3-2
2.2
7.0
3.6
5.6
5-3
6.7
4.4
4.9
1.0
5.9
5.1
16.5
14.8
13.4
14.6
15.8
5.0
Na
20
20
21
18
15
15
18
18
12
13
18
18
19
19
19
19
17
18
17
17
16
20
20
20
21
19
20
16
17
17
22
17
18
17
12
15
K
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.7
1.5
1.3
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
1.8
0.7
0.9
0.6
1.3
2.5
0.8
1.0
1.8
1.8
1.3
4.7
2.0
CI
38
34
34
34
28
26
26
24
32
26
25
21
24
24
25
24
23
28
28
27
24
25
24
35
34
33
30
30
so.,
8
7
9
7
8
7
8
10
10
9
10
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
7
8
10
10
9
_
Si02
ND
52
6
ND
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
_
42
-------
APPENDIX TABLE C.I
Effluent Quantity and Quality of Military Installation
Sewage Treatment Plants, Oahu, Hawaii
Aliamanu
Ft.
Kara
Type
T.F.
A.S.
Flow
(mgd)
0.24
4.1
T-P
(mg/1)
10
* 5
T-N
(mg/1)
21
*12
Capehart Hsg.,
Iroquois Pt. P.
Capehart Hsg.,
Manana T.F.
Barbers Pt. NAS P.
0.53
0.1
1.5
*10.8
10
* 9.6
*28.8
21
*27
Lualualei NRS
Stab. Pond
0.2
10
21
Wahiawa NCS
Schofield
Helemano
Kaneohe MCAS
Total
T.F.
T.F.
T.F.
T.F.
0.29
3.2
0.5
1.0
11.66 mgd
10
*18.9
10
10
21
*21.1
21
27
*Tetra Tech, In. 1975 and WQPO 1969-1970 Work Area 2A 1971.
T.F. = trickling filter, A.S. = Activated sludge, P. = primary,
Stab. = stabilization.
43
-------
APPENDIX TABLE D.I
Conversion Factors
English Unit
acre
degree Fahrenheit
foot (feet)
inch
million gallon
million gallons
per day
pound
Abbr.
acre
OF
ft
in.
mil gal
mgd
Ib
BOD 5
Ca
CaC03
cm
a chlordane
Y chlordane
Cl~
DDD
DDE
DDT
effl.
ft
hr
in.
K
Mg
MB AS
Multiplier Abbr. SI Unit
4047 m2 square meter
+459.67 - 1.8 K kelvin
0.304 8 m meter
0.025 4 m
-------
AbbreviationsContinued
ymhos/cm micromhos per centimeter
yg/£ microgram per liter
ml, m£ milliliter
raV millivolt
mg/1, mg/£ milligram per liter
mgd million gallons per day
N nitrogen
Na+ sodium
NO]T + NOJ N nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PGP pentachlorophenol
pH hydrogen-ion concentration
POij-P orthophosphate phosphorus
Res. reservoir
Si02 silica
S01T sulphate
STP sewage treatment plant
TDS total dissolved solids
6U.S. GOVERNMENT HilNTING OFFICE: 1979 O 291-147/98
45
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 335
c/o GSA
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
Fourth Class
Book Rate
------- |