Sie sind auf Seite 1von 433
. . . . Naturai .Systems for Waste ManagemeflJ and Treatment- ·· · ·· .

.

.

.

.

Naturai .Systems for Waste ManagemeflJ and Treatment-

·· ·

··

. Sherwood C. Reed · Ronald W. Crites ·

~:·~ Joe iVIiddt · ebrooks

• .

.

·

·

·~ ,;. ::i

•.

Second Edition

. ,.

. ,;:-~·:;~:· -

.

·.•;\~~~~7-

,

·1

.'} · . : ·

~

.'. '

:

'

.

.

McGraw-Hill, ln·c.

New York

San Francisco

Caracas

Usbon

Washington, D.C.

london

Madrid

Auckland··:·'Eicig~

·Mexico CiLY. ~Milan

Montreal

New Delhi

San Juari

satgapore

Sydney

Tokyo

Toronto

\

.

·

.

~

.

Library of Congress CataloJ,!ing--in-Puhlication Data

Heed. Sherwood C.

Z'\r;tural :-ystems for wc:tstt· man<.igerm•nt nnd tn.'atnwnt / Slwrwood C.

Reed Ronnld W. Critt:'5. E. -

p.

em.

,Jf>€' ~Iiddlebrook;;.

Inc.·lude~bibliographical -rc-fer.ences and index.

ISi3;-; 0-0 7-060~)82-9 i acid-free paper'

L Sewage-Purification-Biological treatmeJ ,.·

2. Sewage sludgc-

 

L Crites. Ronald W.

TIL Title.

TD755.R43

1995 ·

II. Midd lebrooks. E

Joe.

·

628.3'5-

dc20 ·

94-33399

CIP

Copyright © 1995'. 1988 by McGraw-HilL Inc. All rights reserved.

the United State~ vf America. Except a~ permitted under

.the United States Cop}-right Act of1976. no pan of this publication may be reproduced or' dis:tr.hilled in any form or by any means. ur stored in n data base or retri€"\:il.sysr~m. v.ithout the prior written per-

Printed in

mi::sion of the publisher.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

it

12

~5 14 Bt:ME!KM 9 · 9

8

7

6

.ISB:\ 0-iH -06098:?-l?

Th.:

;;p;n:~oringeditor

.t;:.r thi.-· '-look u:a:-; Larry S. Hager. the t~diting

supen·isor u·as 0/it·e B . Coill•n. and the production !:w.pen·i.o.:or was

Pamela A

)fcGra.:c-Hrl!'.-; Pro;f:.c;.<::ional Bnn.~ Group mmpm;ition unit.

Pdton. The nooh u:o::;; set iJ?. Cer:tury Schoolbook by

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 

'

 

.

;

Preface

xi

Contents

Chapter 1. Natural Waste Treatment Systems: An Overview

1

1-1

Natural treatment Processes

1

Background

1

Wastewater treatment concepts and expectations

2

1.2

Project Development

9

References

9

Chapter 2

Pfanning, Feasibility Assessment, and Site Selection

11

2.1

Concept Evaluation

11

Resources required

13

Preliminary estimates of land area

13

2.2

Site Identification

21

Screening procedure

21

Climate

24

Flood hazard

25

Water rights

27

2.3

Site Evaluation

28

Soils investigation

29

tnmtration and permeability

33

Bufferzones

40

2.4

Site and Process selection

40

References

41

Chapter 3. Basic Process Responses and ln.teracfions

3.1 Water Management Fund2mental relationships Movement af pollutants Groundwater mounding Underdrairuige

3.2 Biodegradable Organics Removal of BOD Removal of suspended solids

•'

43

43

44

47

51

59

60

61

62

vi

Contents

3.3 Organic Priority Pollutants Removal methods Removal performance Travel time In sons

3.4: Pathogens Aquatic systems Wetland systems .Land treatment systems Sludge systems Aerosols 3.5 Metals

Aquatic systems Wetland systems Land treatment systems

3.6 Nutrfents Nitrogen Phosphorus Pot:assrum and other micronutrients

References

Chapter 4. Wastewater Stabilization Ponds

4.1

Preliminary Treatment

4.2

Facultative Ponds

Co~plete-mix model

Areat loading rate method Gtoyna equation

.,.

4.3

4;4

4.5

4.6

4 .10

Plug11ow model Wehner-Wilhelm equation Comparison of facultative pond design models Partial-Mix Aerated Ponds

Partial-mix design model Pond configuration Mixing and aeration Controlled-Discharge Ponds ·

Complete-Retention Ponds

Combined Systems

4.7 Anaerobic Ponds 4.8 Pathogen Removal 4.9 Removal of Suspended Solids Intermittent sand fiJtrcrtion MicroStrainers. Rockfilters Other solids-removal techniQues ·Removal of Nitrogen Design models

4.11

Removal of Phosphorus Batch chemicaf treatment Continuous-overflow chemical treatment

4.1? Physical Design and·Construction Dilce construction

Contents

vii

 

Pond sealing

127

Pond hydraulics

128

4.13

Storage Ponds for Land Treatment Systems

129

References

130

Chapter 5. Aquatic Treatment Systems

133

5.1

Aoatlng Plants

134

Water hyacinth

134

Duckweed

158

5.2 Submerged Plants

165

Performance expectations

166

Design considerations

167

5.3 Aquatic Animals

167

Daphnia and brine shrimp

167

 

rash

168

Marine polyculture

170

References

170

>(' Chapter 6. Wetland Systems

173

6.1 Introduction

173

Naluraf wetlands

173

Mitigationand enhancement

174

Constructed wetlands

175

Design concepts

177

6.2 Wetland Components

178

Plants

178

Emergent species

179

Submerged specfes

180

Floating species

181

Evapotranspiration losses

181

Oxygentransfer

182

 

Plant diversity

183

Plantfunctions

184

Soils

185

Of!PD1isms

186

6.3 Perf~mrcnceExpectations

186

Removal ofBOD

187 .

Removal of suspended solids

189

~erf!ovalof nitrogen

191

Removal-of phosphorus

196

Remove!of metals

197

Organicprioritypollutants

198

Removalofpathogens

199

·6.4 General Design Procedures

200

6.5

HydrauUcDesign Procedures

202

Free-water-surfacewetlands

203

Subsurface-flow wetlands

205

6.6

Thermal Aspects

210

Subsurface-flow wetlands

211

Free-water-surface wetlands

216

viii

Contents

6.7 Design Models for BOO Removal

221

Free-water-surface :wettands

223

Subsurface-flow weUa.nds

226

Preliminary treatment

231

6.8 Design

Models for

TSS·Removal

232

6.9 Design Models for Nilragen Ramoval

234

Free-water-surface wetlands

235

Subsurface-flow wetlands

239

Nitrification filter bed

2tUi

Summary

250

6.10

Design Models for Phosphorus Removal

250

6.11 Design

of On-site Sys.tems

252

6.12 Vertical-Flow Wetland Beds

256

6.13 Wetland Applications

258

Domestic wastewaters

258

Municipal wastewaters

259

Commercial and industrial wastewaters

260

Stormwater runoff

261

Combined sewer o.verffaws

263

Agricultural runoff·

265•

Livestock wastewaters

268

Landfif! leachates

269

Mine drainage

272

6.14

Construction Requirements

275

Subgrade construction and liners

275

Vegetation

2n

Inlet and outlet structures ·

2n

Costs

2:79

5.15

Operation and Maintenance

280

Vegetation .

280

Mosquito control

281

·

References

~Chapter 7. Land Treatment Systems

7.1 System Types Slow-rate systems Overland-flow systems Rapid-infittration systems

281

285

285

285

286.

287

7.2

Slow-Rate Systems·

289

Design objectiv~s

289

Preapplication treatment

2

-Cl{J

Crop selection

291

Loading rates

2-03

Land requirements

.302

Storage requirements

303

Application scheduling

303

Distribution techniques

304

Control of surface runoff

304

Underdrainage

30S

System management

'307

System monitoring

30S

Contents

ix

7.3

Overland-Flow Systems

309

Design objectives

309

Site selection

31C

Preapplication treatment

310

Climate and storage

3i1

Design procedure

311

Land requirements

315

Vegetation selection

318

Distribution system

319

Slope design and construction

320

Runoff collection

320

Recycling

320

System management and monitoring

320

7.4

Rapid.Jnfiltration Systems

321

Design objectives

321

Design procedure

32'1

Treatment performance ·

322

Nitrification

322

Nitrogen removal

323

Phosphorus removal

325

Preappfication treatment

325

Hydraufic loading rates

326

Organic loading rates

32S

Land requirements

326

Basin construction

330

Winter operation in cold climates

3 31

System management

331

System monitoring

332

References

332

Chapter 8. Sludge Management and Treatment

335

a 1

Sludge Quantity and Characteristics .

 

Sludges from oatural treatment systems

337

Sludges from drfnking-wa1ertreatme'nt

338

.8.2

Stabilization and Dewatering

339

Methods for pathogen reduction

339

8.3 · SludgeFreezing

Effects of freezlng

Process requirements

Design procedures Sludgefreezing facilities and procedures

8.4

Reed Beds

Functi.on of vegetation Design requirements. · Performance Benefits

340

340'

~

342

345

347

348

349

350

352

 

Sludge q~afity

353

8.5

Vermistabilization

353

Worm species

353

Loading eriteria

'354

Procedures and performance

354

Sludge .quality

355

x

Contents

8.6 Comparison of Bed-Type Operations

8.7 Composting

8.8 Land Application and Surface Disposal of Sludge ·concept and site selection · Process d~sign, land application Desrgn of surface disposal systems

References.

Chapter 9_ Oa-site Wastewater Management Systems

9.1 Types E>f On-site Systems

9.2· Site Assessment Preliminary site·evaluation Detailed site assessment

9.3 On-site Treabnent Alternatives Septic tanks Imhofftanks Oil and grease removal lntennittent sand ft.lters ~ecirculalingfine gravel filters Alternative nitrogen-removal processes · Package aeration systems

9.4 On-site Disposal Alternatives Gravity leachfields Pressure-dosed distribution .

Fill systems

:

At::grade systems Moundsystems Artificially drained systems Evapotranspiration.systems

9.5 Management of On-site Systems

References

Appe.ndix

Table ·A.1

Metric Conversion Factors (Sf to U.S. Customary Units)

· Table A.2

Conversion Factorsfor Commonty Used Design Parameters

Table

A.3

Physical Properties of Wafer

Table A.4

Dissolved Oxygen Solubility in Fresh. Water

Index

423

.

·.

'

Preface

This book is intended for the practicing engineer involved in the.Plan.:. ning, design, construction, or operation of waste management facili- ties (both wastewater and sludges) for on-site service, municipalities, and industries. The focus in this book is on waste management processes which depend to a maximum degree on natural components and to a minima] degree on.mechanical elements. This utilization ofnatural systems can re4uce costs, process energy, and complexity of operation. These natur-

al processes should be given priority consideration for planning new

systems and for.upgrading or retrofitting existing systems. Some of the processes included in this book, such as pond systems, may be familiar to many engineers, but the text presents simplified, easy-to-use design procedures. The other, less familiar concepts can provide very effective treatment for significantly less cost than mechanical treatment alternatives. :Design criteria for some of the emerging tec-hnologies, particularly wetland systems, cannot be fmmd· in any othertext. Each design chapter provides a complete descriptian ofthe subject technology, data on performance expectations, and detailed ·design pro- cedures with supporting examples. Chapter 2 presents the basic responses and interactions common to these natural biological systems. The treatment responses for toxic and hazardous materials are cover.ed in this chapter and discussed as appropriate in ~e de:,-ign ch~s. Chapter 3 provides a rational procedure for planning and for process and site selection for the natural treatment systems. Combined metric and U.S. customary units are used tbrnughout the text.

Sherwood C. Reed

·.~.

~:.:

,.

··~ ¥;:

~-=-

~-

Ch apter

Natural Waste Treatment Systems: .An Overview

The waste treatment systems described jn this hook are designed specifically to utilize natural response$ to the maximum possible degree while obtaining the intended waste treatment or management goal. In most cases this will result in a system that costs less to build and to operate and requires less energy than mecba11ical treatment alternatives.

1.1 Natural Treatment Processes

All waste management processes depend on natural responses snch as gravity forces for sedimentation, or on natural components such as biological organisms. However, in the typical ca these natural com- ponents are supported by an often-complex array of energy-intenSive mechanical equipment. The term natural system as used·in this text is intended to describe those processes that depend primarily on their natural components to achieve the intended purpose. A natural s-ys- tem might typically include pumps and piping for waste conveyance but would not depend exclusively on e.nernal erlergy sources to main- tain the major treatment responses.

~

Background

Serious interest in natural methods for waste treatment .reemerged in the United ·states following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (PL 92-500). The major initial response was to assume that the "'zero discharge" mandate of the law could be obtaine4 via a combination of mechanical treatment units capable of aduanced u,.:astewatcr treat-

··'.

6

Chapfer One

Chap. 6. Another variation of the concept, used for sludge drying, is described in Chap. 8.

Terrestria~treatment methods. Table 1.3 pr;·sents the typical design f~a­ tures and' performance expectations for the three basic terrestrial con- cepts. AU three depend on the physical, chemical, and biological reac- tions on and within the soil matrix. In addition, the slow-rate (SR) and the overland-flow (OF) methods require the presence ofvegetation as a major treatment component. The slow-rate process can utilize a wide range of vegetation? from trees to pastures to row crop vegetables. As described in Chap. 7, the overland-flow process depends on perennial grasses m en~ure a continu~us vegetated cover. The hydraulic loading rates, with some exceptions,·on rapid-infiltration systems are typically too high to support ~neficial vegetation. All three concepts can pro- duce high-quality efilnent. In the ty-pical case the slow-rate.process can be designed to produce drinking water quality in the percolate. Reuse of the treated water is possible with all three concepts. Recovery is easiest with overland flow. since it is a surface system that discharges to ditches at the toe of the treatment slopes. Most slow-rate and rapid-infiltration systems require underdrains or wells

for water recovery.

Another type of terrestrial concept is on-site systems which serve single-fannly dwellings, schools, public facilities, and commercial operations. These typically include a preliminary treatment step fol- lowed by in-ground disposal Chapter 9 describes these on-site con- cepts;. small-scale constructed wetlands used for the preli.nllnary treatmen~s~p are described in Chap. 6.

Sludge management concepts. The freezing, composting:t and reed bed concepts listed in Table L4 are intended to prepare the sludge for

final disposal or reuse. The freeze/thaw approach described in Chap.

8 <:~ easily increase sludge solids content to 35 percent or higher ·

almost immediately upon thawing. Composting provides for further stabilization of the sludge and a significant reduction in pathogen

content as w~ .as reducing moisture content. The major benefit ofth~ reed-bed approach is ·~~e possibility for multiple-year sludge·applica- tions and drymg before removal is required. Solids concentrations acceptable for landfill disposal can be obtained readily. Land application of sludge is designed to utilize the nutrient con- tent in the sludge in agricultural, forest, and reclamation projects. Typically, the unit sludge loading is designed on the basis of the nutrient requirements for the vegetation of concern. The metal con-

unit loading and the design

tent ofthe sludge may then limit both the applicationperiodfor a particular site

TABLE 1.3

• • •

• •

-. ·-

·• ··~· •• ••

~

.

,

,

,.

·

•• •••• _,

-

-- •· ' -"'

.

, •

,

,

'

' ••r • •

, ,,., ,

,

''·'~

Terrestrial Treatment Units, Design Features, and Performance 11 13

""' •

·

·

-

-

·

-

-

-••

:"

,

~

;.">:;-

,

,

,.,,.-,

,:6-

-(-

-

o

-

--·'"' ·---

Concepts

Typicnl criteria

'l'rentmettt

go~l!3

Climate

needs

Vegotntlon

Area

<hn>*

Hydrnulic

loading

(m/yr)

Efllucnt

characteristics

(mg~)

Slow i'nte

Secondnt·y, at•

Wat•mer

Yos

23-280

0.5-6

BOD <2

AW'r

aonsons

-'fSS <2

 

TN <3t

TP <0.1

H~ pid infil trnt.ion

Overland flow

On·aite

Socnndnry, ·m· AW'l', Ill' ground·

water t•oohru·go

Secondary, nltl'ogon t•omoval

Secondary Lo ·

tfJr~lnry

/d,

*' Fot• de::tign flow of :178li m 11

.

FCtO

NHnc

No

3-23

6-125

BOD5

 

TSS 2

'l'N 10

TP <1§

FC 10

Wnt•mer

Yos

6-40

.

3-20

DOD 10

seasons

TSS 10'11

TN <10

None

No

Noi

nppllcnble for n now of3785 m 3 /d. Size of bed

and

mont lovcl. See Chaps. 6 nnd 9.

pot•formanco depend on prelimina ry treat-

tNitrogen t'omovul dopohdB Otl type or crop nnd mnnngmnoni.

tFC = fccnl coliform, #/100 mL. §Me(lsured In immodint.o vicinity ofbuHin; lncrunH<ld t•omovnl wiUtlnnget• tt'ltVc!l diHtnn<:u. 'll'rotnl Hunponclocl aolid11 dopondH in pnrt on typo of wn~towatm· nppliod.

.

~

.

.-

!

'

!

:~-

.

, ,

,

. ':

.

,

.s

 

8

Chapter One

TABLE 1.4

Sludge Management with Natural Method_s 1

Concept

·· Description

Limitations

Freezing.

A method for condi- t ior:.i!'lg and dewater- ing sludges in the win- ter months in cold cli- mates. More effccti\·e and reliable than any ofthe available mechanical devices. Can use eJdsting sand beds.

Must have freezing weather for long enough to freeze the sludge layer completely.

Compost

A procedure to further

Requires a bulking

stabilize and dewater sludges, mth signifi-

agent and mechanical equipment for mixing

cant pathogen kill,

· and sorting; ~nter

so fewer restrictions

operations can be diffi-

on end use of fin al product.

cult in cold climates.

Reed beds

:Narrow i ren che:; or be-ds. \\i th sand bottom and underd1·ained,

Best suited for warm to moderate climates. Annual harvest and

pla nte d v.ith ree ds.

disposal of \·egetation

Land applicatirm

Veg"etation assists

· water remo\'al.

Application of liquid or

partially dried sludge on agricultural, forest-

c.-d., or r e clamation land.

is required.

State and federal regu-

lations limit arinual and cumulative loading of metals. etc.

Costs and energy. Intere::;·t in natural concepts was originally based on the environmental ethic of recycle and reuse of resources -,.vherever

possible.

.Many of the concepts described in the pr~vious sections do

incorporate such potentiaL However~as more and i:nore systems were . built and operational experience accumulate<L it ·was noticed that these natural systems~ ·when si~e conditions were favorable, could usually .be constructed and operated for less cost.and \vith less energy than the more popular and more conventional mechanical .technolo- gies. Numerous comparisons have documented these cost ~d energy advantages_ 8 · 10 It is likely that these advantages will remain and become even stronger over the long term. There were, for example, about 400 .municipal land treatment systems using \vastewater in the United States in the early 1970s. That number had grown to at least 1400 by-the mid-1980s and is projected to pass 2000 by the year 2000.

It is further estimated that a comparable number ofprivate industri-

Natural Waste Treatm~nt Systems: An Overview

9

al and commercial systems also exist. These process selection deci- sions have been and will continue to be made·on the basis of costs and energy requirements.

1.2 Project Development

The development of a waste treatment project, either municipal or industrial, involves consideration or'institutional and social issues in addition to technical factors. These issues influence and can often control decisions during the planning and preHminary design stages. Current regulatory reqUirements at the federal, state, and local levels ar e p~rticularly i:r:qportant. The engineer m ust determine these requirements at the earliest possible stage of project development to ensure that the concepts under consideration are institutionally feasi- ble. References 3, 4, and 11 proVide useful gUidance on the institu- tional and social aspects ofproject development. Table 1.5 provides summary guidance on the technical require- ments for project development, and indicates the chapter(s) in this book which provide the needed criteria. Detailed infunnation on waste characterization and on the civil and mechanical engineering details of design are not unique to natural systems and are therefore not included in this text. References 5 and 6 are recommended for that purpose.

References

1.

Banks, L .• and~ Davis: Wastewater and Sludge Treatment by Rooted Aquatic

Plants in San.d a:ncl Gravel Ba

in Proceedings of a Workshop on LGu: Cost

Wast~waterTreatment. Clemson Uni"-ersity, Clemson, SC. Apr. 1983, pp. 205-218.

2

Bastian~ R. ~and S . c_ Reed <eds.): Aqua'culture Systems for Wastewater

TlWI.lment, EPA 430/9-80-006~ U.S. Environmt:ntal Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Sept. 1979.

.

3.

Deese, P . L: Institutional Constraints a nd Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wa:,-tewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and

Bioma5S Prodn.ction. in Utilization oj Municipal Wastert,ater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass Production, EP-~ 430/9-81-013, U.S. Em.ironmental

4.

ProtectionAgency, Washington. DC. July 1981.

Forster, D. L .• and D. 'D: Southgate: Iostitn:tions Constraioing the Utllization of Municipal W a_~waters and Sludges on Land, in Proceedings of Workshop on

Utilization of J,funicipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land, University of.California,

Riverside, Feb.1983, pp. 29-45. 5. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc_: Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of

Wa .McGraw-Hill, New York. 1981.

c:tewater;,

6. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc_; W~eu:ater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reus~ 3d ed.,

McGra,~-Hiii,New York, 1991.

7. Middlebrooks, E. J ., C. H. Middlebrooks, and · S, C. Reed : Energy Requirements for

Small Wast~waterTreatment System5. J. Water Pollution Control Fed

1981,TPP• 1172-1197_

53(7), July ·

8. Middle b rooks , E . J_, C_ H. Middlebrooks, J . H. Reynolds. G. z_ Watters, S.C. Reed,

and D . B. George: Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon Design, Performance and.

Upgrading. Mannillan, New York. 1982.

~-.

-: · .

10 Chapter One

TABLE 1.5

.

.Guide to Project Development

Task ·

.Description

See Chapter

Characterize waste

Define the volume and the composition of the waste to be treated

*

Concept feasibility'

Determine which if any ofthe natural sys- tems are compatible for the particular waste'and the site con- ditions and require-

2,3

ments

Determine the waste constituent that con- 3

Determine the waste constituent that con-

3

trols design

Process design

Pond systems

4

Aquatic systems

5

Wetland systems

6

Terrestrial systems

7

Sludge management

8

On-site systems

9

Civil and mechanical details

Collection network in the community, pump stations, transmission piping, etc.

*

'*Not covered in this text; see Refs. 5 and 6.

9. Heed. S.C., R. Bastian. S. Black,. a.'ld R- K

Khettr)r: Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment in Cold CliiD:ates, in Proceedings Water Reuse III Symposium, American

Water Works Association, Denver, CO, Angnst 1984

10~ Ree~ S. C. , R W. Crites , R. E_ Thomas, and A. B. Hais: Cost of Land Treatment

Systems. EPA 430/9-75-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

. IL U.S. Environmental Protection .-\gency: Process Design Manua~-Land Treatment ofMunicipal Wastewater, EPA 625/1-81-013, Center for Environmental Research Information. Cincinnati, OH. Oct. 1981.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual for Municipal

· Wastewater Stabilization Ponds, EPA 625/1-83.-015, Center for Environmental

DC,l979_

Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.

.

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process ,Design·Man]ml Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow, EPA 625/l-81-013a? Cente~ for

Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, 0~ Oct. 1984.

"""~-·

.

Chapter

"""~-· . Chapter Planning, Feasi~ility Assessment; and Site Selection · · It is important during the

Planning,

Feasi~ility

Assessment; and Site Selection

· · It is important during the early planning stages of a waste manage- .·ment project to include as many alternatives as possible to ensure that

the most cost-effective process is selected. The feasibility ofthe natur:il treatment processes described in this book depends significantly on. site conditions, climate, and related factors. It is not ~ctical or economi- cal, however, to condnct e~ve field investigations for every process, at ever.y potential .site, dming planning and preliminary design. This chapter provides a sequential approach which first determines·poten- tial feasibility and the land area required for treatment, and identifies possible sites. The second step evaluates these sites, based on technical and economic factors, and selects one or more for detailed investiga-

The final step involves detailed field investigations, identification

of the most ~st-effective alternative, and development of the criteria

neededfor final desiga

tion

·

2.1 Coneept Evaluation

A convenient starting point is to divide the many ·possible processes

into discharging and nondischarging systems. ~e former group, .which typically have an ontf~ or other direct discharge to surface · . waters, would usually include treatment ponds, a~tics,. wetlands, and the overland-flow (OF) land treatment concept. The second, nond.ischarging, group includes the other land treatment concepts,

12

Chapter Two

on-.site methods, a nd the sludge treatment methods. Site topography, soils, geology, and groundwater condi tions are important factors for the construction of di s charging systems, but are often critical campo nents in t he treatment process itself for the second group. Design fea- tures and performance expectations for both types of systems are gi~en in Tables L 1 , 1.2, and 1.3; other special characteristics and requirements are listed in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.

TABLE 2 .1

Discharge Systems: Special Site Requirements

Concept

Requirement

Treatment ponds

Aquaculture

Constructed wetlands

0·.-edund tlow 'OF i

Proximity to a surface water for discharge, impermeable soils or liner, no steep slopes, out of flood plain or diked, no bedrock or groundwater within excavation depth

Same physical features as ponds, also must have suitable climate to support aquatic plants or other biological compo- nents

Prorimity to surface waters for discharge, impermeable soils or a liner. siope~ 0-39<, not in .flood plain, bedrock and

groundwate~below exeavatioo de-pth

Relatively impermeable- soils, day and clay loam s, slop~s O- l5<iC, depth to groundwater and bedrock not critical but

0.5-l m desirab!e, need access to surface water for discharge

TAEflE 2.2

Nondischarge Systems: Special Site Requirements

Concept

.Requir ement

Slow rate <SRI

Rapid infiltration fRII

Land application

Composting, freezing, vermistabilization. or reed beds

Wastewater Systems

Clay loams and sandy loams, >0.15 to <15 crn/h perme- ability preferred. bedr~ck and groundwater >1.5 m~ slopes <20~. agricultura l sites-<12~ .

Sandy loams and sands, >5-50 cmlh permeability. bedrock and groundwater >4.'5 ~ slopes <10%, sites where significant ba·ckfill required for construction should be avoided. Look for. sites near surface waters or oveF notHlrinking-water aquifers.

Sludge Systems

Generally the same as for agricultural or forested SR sys- tems; see Chap. 8 for special requirements for toxic or

ha

~ous

sludges.

V sually on wastewater treatment plant s ite, so special site investi g;~.ti on not required; an three require impermeable barrier to protect groundwater: freezing and reed beds also need underdrainsfor percolate

Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

13

It is presumed that any percolate from the nondischarging systems mingles with any groundwater that may be present, and may eventu- . ally emerge as subflow in adjacent surface waters: These systems are typically designed to satisfy regulatory water-quality requirements in the percolate/groundwater as it reaches tl1:e project boimdary. Some of . these concepts can also be designed as a direct discharge if under- · drains, recovery wells, or cutoff ditches are included as system compo- nents. The underdrained slow-rate (SR) land treatment system at Muskegon, Michigan, 4 is an example of this type, while the forested SR system in Clayton County, Georgia,' depends on natural subsur- face flow. This subflow does emerge in surface streams which are part of the community's drinking water sUpplies, but the land.treatment system is not considered to be a discharging system as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) and by the State of Georgia.

Resources required

A preliminary determination of process feasibility and the identifi-

cation of potential sites is based on the analysis ofmaps and other

existing information. The requirements in Tables 2.1 and 2.2,

along V\rith an estimate of the land area needed for each of th~.con- cepts, are used in this procedure. The community maps sh~uld .show: topography, water bodies and streams, flood hazard zones, community layout and land use (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, forest), existing water supply and sewer:- age systems. anticipated areas of growth and expansion, soil types within the community and adjacent areas. Sources for these maps include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Soil Conservation Service {SCS), state agencies~as well as local planni.D.g and zoning agencies.

.Preliminary estimates ofland area

The land area estimates derived in this section are used with the information in Tables 2.1 and 2 to determine, with the map study~ if suitable sites exist for the process under consideration. These pre- .liminary area estimates-are very conservative and are intended only for this preliminary evaiu·ation: They should not be used. for final design.

2

Treatment ponds.

the effluent quality required [defined in terms of biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD) and suspended solidS (SS)], on the type of po~ system

The area estimate for pond systems will depend on

·. ,;

14

Chapter Two

proposed, a nd on ·the geographic location. A fa~ultative pond in the · southern United States \"~.tillrequire less area than the same process in Canada. TP.e .equations ~ven below are for total project area and include an allowance for dikes, roads, and unusable portions ofthe site.

F_'or a 1-m (3-ft)-deep oxidation pond assumed to be

in a wann climate, with 30 days' detention, and organic loading of 90 kg/ha/d (80 lb/add). the expected effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L,

Oxidation ponds.

88>30,mg/L. Then

A

-op

= (k)(Q)

.

(2.1)

. whereA 0 p

Q =

= total project area, ha (ac) design flow, m 3 /d (g/d)

.k = (3.2)(10- 3 ).,. metric (3.0 x 10- 5 , U.S. units).

Assuming more than 80 days" deten-

tion in a 1.5-m (5-ftJ.-deep pond and organic loading of 16.8 kg/bald (15 lb/add), the expected.effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L, 88>30

mg/L. Then

Facultative ponds in cold crrmates.

88>30 mg/L. Then Facultative ponds in cold crrmates. (2.2) where A fc = facultative pond site

(2.2)

where A fc = facultative pond site ~

ha (ac)

k

(1.68)(10 - 2 )~ metric (1.6o · x . I0 - 4, U.S.)

~

(other terms as defined previously)_

Fa.~ultative ponds · in warm climates. Assuming more than 60 days, deten-

tion, in a 1.5-m {5-ft}-deep pond and organic loading of 56 kglha/d (50

. 1b/add), the expected efiluent quality is BOD = 30 ing/L, 88>30 mg/L.

.

. Then

.4.

fw

= (k"J(Q··)

whe!e A fw· =

facultafu,.e pond, warm climate, site area , ha (ac)

k = (5.1){10- 3 ), metric (4

8 X 10- 5 ; U.S units)

{othe r terms a.S dEfined preciously).

.

.

.

(2.3)

Conlt'ol£ed-dtscharge ponds. Controlled-discharge ponds are used·in northern climates to avoid winter discharges and in warm areas to match effluent. quality to acceptable stream . fiow conditions. The typi- cal depth is 1.5 m (5 ft), maximum detention time is 180 days~ and expected effluent quality is BOD<30 mgiL, 88<30 mg/L. Here

4.cd

= (k )(Q)

.

(2.4)

whereAed = controlled-discharge pon(4 site area, ha·(ac)

I

Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

,

15

k =

(i.63)( 1o··~), metric n.32 ;.- io-· 1 , U.S. units)

(other terms as defined

The size of partial-mix aerat~d ponds will

vary with climate. For this purpose assume more than 50 days deten- tion, 2.5 m (8ft) depth, and organic loading of 100 kg/hald (89lb/add). Expected effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L, 88>30 mg/L. Then

Partial-mix aerated ponds.

Aap = (k)(Q)

(2.5)

where Aap =

aerated pond, site are~ ha (ac)

k = (2.9)(10- 3 ), metric (2.7 x 10- 3 , U.S. units)

(other terms as defined previously).

Hyacinthsystems. Hyacinth systems can be designed for treatment of raw sewage or for any other level up to tertiary polishing of secondary effiuent. As with other types of pond systems 7 the critical design para- meter is organic loading. The degree of nutrient removal ac~eved with hyacinth systems is related directly to the frequency of .Hyacinth systems are practical only in locations where the plant can

survive naturally; see Fig. 2.1 for this range and Chap. 5 for detailed

design criteria~

Secondary hyacinth ponds. Hyacinth ponds for secondary treat;ment are designed for a raw sewage input, detention tinle more than 50

fJI Year- round

• 6 mont~sper year

16

Chapter Two

days. depth of 1.5 m c5 ftJ or less, organic loading rate of 30 kg/ha/d (27 lb/ac/dJ, and water temperature above l0°C. Expected effiuent quality is BOD<30 mg/L, SS<30 mg/L. A major function of the hyacinth plants is to suppress algae. ·

(2.6)

whereA h.Q = hyacinth pond for secondary treatment, site area, ha (ac)

k = <9.5)< Io -=~), metric <8.9 x 10 - 5, U.S. units)

Advanced secondary hyacinth

ponds are designed to provide better than secondary treatment, including some nutrient removal, with primary or equivalent input. Assume detention time more than 6 days, depth less than 1 m (3 ft)~ organic loading 1000 kg/ha/d (900 lb/ac/d), supplemental aeration pro-

vided. Expected effluent quality is BOD<lO mg/L, 88<10 mg/L, with nitrogen r emoval dependent on frequency of harvest. The~

Advanced secondary hyacinth ponds.

(2.7)

where A.

=

hy.acint'h pond, advanced secondary treatment, site

-

llfL~

I

~~ =

area, ha (ac)

i

,

Q

-

v.O J(

.

1r

\.~

-

·I \

( 9

10- 6

·

. , metnc

Tettiary hyacinth ponds are designed to·pro-

,.

.U X

.

T!

, u.t;. unttsJ

,

• .

.

Tertiary hyacinHt ponds.

vide advanced treatment. with secondary effiuent input; other para- meters are detention time ·more than 6 days~ depth less than 1m (3 ft>. organic loading rate 50 kg/ha/d (44.5 lb/ac/d),. water tempera- ·

ture.>2o~c~ no. supplemental

BOD<lO mg/L~ SS<lO mg/L, 'vith total N<5 mg/4 total P;-5 mg/L_

Then

aeration. Expected effluent quality .is

(2.8}

w here ~4.ht = hyacinth pond, te~iary treatment, site area, ha (ac)

k

=

(7_1J(10- 4

),

metric <6.7 X 10- 6 , U

S_

units )

=

(6_7)(10- 6 )

U.S. units

(other terms as defined.previously}.

Constructed wetlands are typically designed

for prima.r::y-: or equivalent-quality inpo:t,. to produce better than· sec- onda.t-y effluent quality~and to operate year-round in moderately cold

climates. Detention time is about 7 days, depth is 0.3 m (1 ft), and organic loading is 100 kg/bald (89 lb/ac/d). Expect~d eillnent quality is BOD<lO mg/L, 88<10 mg!L; total N<lO mg/L (during warm. weath- er), total P>5 mg/L The area estimate given by Eq. 2.9 does not

Constructed wetlands

Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

17

include the area required for a preliminary treatment system before the wetland.

(2.9)

where AC'\\. = cofu-tructed wetland, site area, ha (ac)

k = (4~31Jf10- 3 ), metric (4.03 x Io -· 5, U.S. units>

(other terms as defined previously)_ ·

Overland flow. The size of an overland-flow (OF project site will depend on the 'length of the operating season for this process. Figure 2.2 can be used to estimate the number of nonoperating days during which wastewater storage will be required. The design flow to the overland-~ow system is then calculated using Eq. 2.10:

_

+

(ts)(qc)

Qm -

qt'

·

(f )

a

(2.10)

where Q l~ = average monthly design flow to land treatment site,

f'"::' L::.:J. "1

Ftgure ~

m 3 /mo \gal/n1o)

q :: = average

monthly flc;w incommunitym 3 /mo (gal/mo)

t . =

"

number of months storag-e is required

ta ·= nmnber

of months in operating season

2 t~ 5 days star-nne for operoti.ar.aJ fleJtibi Iit-y

,.

Recommended stor~ue days for overland-flow systems.

18

Chapter Two

The detention time on the OF slope is about 1-2 h , and depth of water on the slope is a few centimeters or less. The process design is · not typ.ically based on organic loading rates. Expected·effluent quality is BOD = 10' mg/L, SS = 10 mg/L, tot a l N<lO mg/L, total P<6 mg/L. The.area estimate given by Eq. 2.11·includes an allowance for a 1-day aeration cell, and for w!nter wastewater storage (if needed) as well as the actual treatment area, with an assumed 15-cm/wk (6-iDJwk) hydraulic loading.

A

0 r= (3.9 X 10- 4 )(Qm + 0.05qJ)

(metric)

(2.11)

 

(U.S.)

~hereAor ~.overlandfi?w project area,

ha (ac)

.

.

Q = average monthly design flow to land treatment site,

m m 3 /mo (gai/mo)

q

t

c

s

= average monthly flow in the community, m 3 /mo (gal/mo)

.

= number ofmonths storage is reqUired

.

Slow-rate systems. Slow-rate (SR) systems ~e typically nondischarg- ing systems. The size of the project site will depend on the operati.Dg season. Figure 2 .3. can be used to estimate the number of operating ~onth~ for. locations. in the United States. The design flow to the SR

.

-

6

Figure 2.3

ApproX:imat~ months per year that wastewater application is possible for

slow-rate systems.

Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

19

system is then calculated using Eq. 2.12. Organic loading is not usu- ally the critical design param~ter. Either nitrogen or the hydraulic capacity of the soil will control for most municipal effluents (see Chap. 7); responses to industrial pollutants are considered in Chap. 3. The area estimate given by Eq. 2.12 includes an allowance for preap- plication treatment in an aerated cell as well as a winter storage allowance and the actual land treatment area; a hydraulic loading of

5 c~wk (2 in/wk) is assumed. Expected effluent qua~ity is BOD<2 mg/L, 88<1 mg/L, total N<10 mg/L, total P<O.l mg/L_

Asr = (6.0)(10- 4 )(Qm + 0.03qcts)

P<O.l mg/L_ Asr = (6.0)(10- 4 )(Qm + 0.03qcts) (metric) (U.S_) where Asr = slow-rate system,

(metric)

(U.S_)

where Asr =

slow-rate system, total project are~,ha (ac)

(2.12)

Qm = average monthly design flow to land treatment site, m 3 /mo (gal/mo)

r· ·

qc = average

t 5 = number

monthly flow in the community, m 3 /mo (gallmo) ofmonths storage is required

Rapid-infiltration systems. Typically, a rapid-infiltration <RD system is a nondischarging system. Year-round operation is possible in all parts of the United States, so climate is not a factor in design; the design . treatment area is usually controlled by the hydraulic capacity of the soils. As a result of the high hydraulic loadings,·percolate nitrogen is likely to exceed 10 mg/L at times, therefore sites.Should be selected where ai:Ive'rse -$pacts .on drfnking water aquifers· Will not occur. Expected percolate quality is BOD<5 mg/L, SS<2 mg/L,·total N>10 mg/L, total P beneath basin<1 mg/L. The area estimate given by Eq. 2.13 includes an allowance for preapplication treatment to the equiv- alent ofprimary quality_

where Ari

A .= (k)(Q

n

m

)

= RI project are~ ha (ac)

(2.13)

Qm =average monthly design flow to land treatment site~

m 3 /mo (gal/mo)

k = (5.0)(10~ 5 ), metric (4.8 X 10 - 7 , U.S. units)

Land·area comparison. The land area r-equired for a community wastewater flow of 4008 m 3 /d (1.06 mgd) is eStimated using Eqs. 2.1 through 2.13, for locations in a cold climate (5-month yvastewater

storage for SR and OF), in the mid-Atlantic ·states (3-month storage), and in the southern United States (no storage). The results are pre-

sented in Table 2

Allowances are made in the tabulated results for

3.

.

.

20

Chapter Two

TABLE 2.3

Land Area Estimates for 4000-m 3 /d Systems

Area Cha )

Treatment

system

North

Mid-Atlantic

South

Pond systems

NA*

NA .

12.8

67.2

43.6

20.4

65.2

65.2

65.2

Oxidation Facultative Controlled discharge Partial mix, aerated Hyacinth, secondary Hyacinth. adva nced secondary Hyacinth, tertiary Constructed wetland Slow rate

Overland flow

Rapid infiltration

20.4

ll.6

NA

NA

38.0

NA

NA

4.0t

NA

NA

22.8t

24.0

20.2

17.2

134.0

102.0

72.0

92.0

. 69.0

47.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

'-'.NA = not applicable.

-i'Includes allowance for primary t reatment.

+Includes a 20-ha facultative pond.

:.·

any preliminary ~reatrnent that might be required and for unused

portions of the general site area.

·

Hyacinth systems ar_e not considered outside the range shown in Fig. 2 .1. Wetland systeni.s are.considered to 'be year-round operations for th?-s ptu·pose. Treatment responses in a wetland would proceed at a higher rate in warm climates, as descnoed in Chap. 6, so·a smaller area would be required as comp~d to a northern site. That differ- ence is not critical at this stage of planning and process selection and is not included in Table 2.3. ·

Sludge systems. The land area required for sludge systems for com- postin g~ sludge freezing~ v ermistabilization, or reed bed dewatering is dependent on sludge quantity, moisture content 7 and local climate. It is necessary to nse the procedures in Chap. 8 to determine the area required for each situation_ A special site investigation may not be necessary, since thes~ sludge treatment concepts are usually loC?ted in the vicinity of a wastewater treatment facility and require a minor portion of the total site area. The exception may be composting sites for large quantities ofsludge, where a remote site may be desirable to avoid residential co~p1aints and to take advantage of lower land costs. The area required for land application of sludges is also dependent on sludge quantity and characteristics as well as the type ofoperation intended. The loading rates in Table 2.4 can be ti.sed to calculate an estimate ofthe land area required·for each ofthe major land·applica- tion options.

Planning , Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

TABLE 2.4

Sludge Loadings for Preliminary Site Area Determination

21

Typical rate

Option*

Application schedule

(mtJhaJ

·Agricultural

Annual, for 10 years One time, or at 5-year intervals for 20 years Onetime Annual

10

Forest

45

Reclamation

100

TypeB

340

*See Chap. 8 for detailed description of options.

2 2

Site Identification

The information presented or develop~d in the previous sections is combined with maps of the community area to determine if feasible sites for wastewater treatment or sludge disposal exist within a rea- sonable distance. It is unlikely that a community or industry will have site conditions, within reasonable proximity, for all of the y;rastewater treatment or sludge concepts listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, and several will usually be dropped from consideration at an early stage All of the technically suitable sites should be located on the maps. In the next evaluation step, local knowledge regarding.land use commitments, costs, and the . technical ranking procedure (described in the next section) are consid- ered to determine which process(es) and site(s) are technically feasible. A complex screening procedure is not usually required for the pond, aquatic, and wetland concepts, since the number of potential·sites is usually.limited. The critical factors in these cases are close proximity to the.wastewater source and access to surface water for final discharge. The opposite is true for the concepts that involve land application of wastewater or sludge, since a significant number ofpotential sites may exist. It will not be economjcal to -conduct detailed site investigations on all potential sites: so a preliminary screeningis justified.

Screening procedure

The screening procedure J:.ecom.mended by the EPA 13 utilizes rating factors to evaluate each potential site_ Those sites with moderate to high scores are candidates for ~erionsconsideration .and site investiga- tion and testing. The conditions included in the general procedure include site grades, depth to groundwater, depth ofsoil, land use (pre- sent or f.irl;ure),. and the pumpjng distance and elevation for the waste- water treatment concepts. The economical haul distance for sludge disposal/utilization concepts will. depend· on solids concentration and. other local factors and must·be ·detei-:mi.ned on a case-by-case ·basis. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are applicable for land application ufwastewater.

22

Chapter Two

TABLE 2.5

Physical Rating Factors for Land Application o~ Wastewater 16

Concept

Slow

Overland

Rapid

 

Condition

rate

flow

infiltration

Site grade (~1

 

Q

- 5

8

8

8

5-10·

 

6

5

4

10-15

4

2

1

15-20

Forest only, 5

NS*

NS

20-39

Forest only,

4

NS

NS

30-35

Forest only,

2

NS

NS

>35

Forest only,

0

NS

NS

Soil depth·(m)t

 

0.3--0.6

 

NS

0

NS

0.6-L5

3

4

NS

1.5-3.0

8

7

4

>3.0

9

7

8

Depth to·groundwater (m >

 

<1

0

5

NS

1-3

 

4

6

2

>3

6

6

6

Soil permeability. most restrictive layer (em/h)

 

1

10

NS

3

8

NS

0.50-1.50

 

5

6

1

1.50-5.10

8

1

6

>5.10

8

NS

9

*NS =not suitable. tsoil depth to bedrock or impeoneab1e barrier.

Table 2.7 may be used for sludge concepts, and Tables 2.aand 2.9 are for the special case of forested sites for either ·sludge or wastewater.

~e soil eype is not included as ·a factor in Tables·2.5 to 2.7; it was included in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 .a::ild was part ofthe basis for preliminary site idEmtifica:tion, so it is not included again as a rating fu.:ctor. The relative importance of the various conditions in Tables 2.5 and

reflected in the magnitnde·of the ·valne assign~ so the: largest

value indicates the most important 'characteristic.·The final category

in Table 2.6 relates to the ~cipated management of the land appli- cation site. It is possible, under favorable conditions, to find farms or forestry operators in rural areas who may be willing to accept waste- water or sludges for their nutrient value and who would prefer to con-

. The ranking for a specific site is obtained by snmmTng the individ- ual values from Tables 2.5 and. 2.6_;The highest-ranking site will be the mosi suitable. The suitability ranlring can be determined accord- ing to the following ranges:

tinue to manage the

2.6· is

site.

TABLE 2.6

Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection

.

·

.

·

'

.

:~;

·,

.

23

Land Use and Economic Factors for land Application of Wast~~~er

Condition

16

Rating value

Distance from wastewater source (kmJ

0-3

8

3-8

6

S-16

3

>16

1

Ele\'ation difference (m)

<0

6

0-15

5

15-60

3

>200

1

Land use, existing or planned Industrial

0

High density, residential or urban

0

Low density, residential or urban

1

Agricultural, or open space, for agricultural SR or OF

4

Forested. for forested sites for agricultural SR or OF Land cost and management No land cost, farmer or forest company mana :,uement

5

Land pttrehase~farmer or forest company management

3

Land purchased, operated by industry or city

1

Low snitability

<18

18-34

. High suitability

34-50

· The restrictions on liquid (<7 percent solids) sludges in Table 2

are to contro1.runo:ffor erosion of surface-applied sludges. Injection Of

liquid sludges is acceptable on 6- to 12-percent slopes~ but is not rec- ommen~ed on bigher grades wit~outeffective rnnaff control.

be

eombined with the land use and

7

The values from Table 2.7 can

.land ·cost factors from Table·2.6 (if appropriate) to obtain an overall rating for a potential sludge application site These combi;nations.pro-

dnc~.the following ranges:

· .~:-:::.i\1;,~,

,,

·

Agricultural

.Reclamation

T~B

Low snitability

<10

<1.0

.<5

~oderatesuitability

10-20

10-20

5-15

~g,hsuitability

20-35

20-35

·. 15-25

24

Chapter Two

TABLE 2.7

Physical Rating Factors for Land Application of Sludge 17

Concept

Coudi t i>:!l

Agricultural

Reclamation

Type B*

S ite ~,.rrade1' i( 1

0-3

:)

3 --6

6

6-12rno liquid s ludge on ground :;urfacE-1

4

12-

15 i no liquid s ludge 1

3

>15 rno liqui d s ludge .l S oil d e pth tm l~

~s

<0.6

NS

0.6-1.2

3