,r

Alberta Environment · &

The City of Red Deer

RAPID INFILTRATION

prepared by

Reid Crowther & Partners Ltd. Hydrogeological Consultants L '

Hardy & Associates (1978) Ltd. Metcalf & Eddy Inc.
 I

I
RAP I 0 I NFl l T RAT ION

I A 0 E S I G N MAN U A l

I 1 981

Pf:GI ~ IQ,J 1{<£€

~~~~~~~flJ~ ~P~~N~

prepared by

Reid, Crowther & Partners Limited

Hardy &Associates (1978) Ltd.

I; Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd.

Metcalf & Eddy Inc.

for

Alberta Environment

and

The City of Red Deer

May 1981

L
 FOREWORD

This Manual provides the necessary information to establish both the

feasibility and design of rapid infiltration (RI) systems.

The Manual was initiated in 1979 when the City of Red Deer and Alberta

Environment requested proposals for the design of an RI system for that

City. At the time, detailed information applicable to Alberta was not
avai 1ab1e and consequently, a thorough 1iterature search and i nterpreta­
I

\
tion were necessary. The Manual is a result of the information obtained
through the literature review and site visits to operating RI systems.

-
The emphasis of this document is on practical methods of system design in
order to minimize problems of installation and operation of an RI system

-
in Alberta.

The Manual was prepared for A"lberta Environment by the following

consultants:
• G. Singleton of Hardy and Associates (1978) Ltd. provided the
detailed soils information and discussion
o R. Clissold and G. McLymont of Hydrogeological Consultants Ltd.

I
provided the majority of the hydrogeological input
• R. Crites of Metcalf and Eddy Inc. was the senior process design

I
contributor
• N. H09arth of Reid, Crowther and Partners Limited was responsible
for the engineering input while D. Bernard of the same firm
I
organized and edited the technical information. M. Pugh of Reid,
CrQwther and Partners Limited provided final editorial services.

A detailed review of the Manual draft was carried out by D. Spink, D.

Graveland, A. Kennedy, and L. Chandler, all of Alberta Environment. Their
input was greatly appreciated.

I
- i ­
I
- TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Foreword . . . . . i
Table of Contents ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables. vi
Guide to Manual use vii
Abbreviations Used ix
Glossary x

CHAPTER

1 SUMMARY 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Definition ....• 1
1.3 Typical Components of Rapid Infiltration .,. 1
1.4 Objectives 5
1.5 Physical Site Requirements 7
It 1.6 Operation 8
1.7 Treatment • . . . . . ! • 9

1\ 1.8
1.9
Economics . . • . .
Public Involvement
11
11

2 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . ....... ···· 13

2.1 Rapid Infiltration Process .···· 13
2.2 RI Manual . . . . . . . . . .........···· 16

3 PROJECT PLAN 19
3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Planning Process 19

- ii ­
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(contd)

Page No.

CHAPTER

4 PRELIMINARY PHASE METHODOLOGY . 23

I 4.1
4.2
Initial Planning Steps • . . .
Data Acquisition . • . • • • •
23

32

I 4.3
4.4
Interpretation of Information.
Outlining Potential Sites
32 .

37

-I
"
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Site Parameter Summary .• • .
Economics • . • . . • • • • • .
Preparation and Submission of Report
Public Participation • • • • • . • • •
38

40

42

42

5 DETAILED PHASE METHODOLOGY . . . • . • • • . 45

5.1 Introduction . . . . . • • 45

5.2 Finalize Alternative Selection 45

5.3 Detailed Field Studies ••••. 46

5.4 Laboratory Studies 47

5.5 System Desi gn . . • . . 47

5.6 Engi neeri ng . . • . . 59

5.7 Detailed Economics ••••. 69

5.8 Preparation of Draft Plan •• 71

5.9 Public Participation 71

5.10 Summary •• 74

List of References

Annotated Bibliography

I, APPENDICES

I AVAILABLE INFORMATION
II MAXIMUM INFILTRATION CAPACITY AND NATURAL
DISCHARGE CAPACITY
I - iii ­
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont. )

APPENDICES (cont.)

III RATI NG FACTORS FOR RI SITE SELECTION

I I
IV COST ESTIMATION
V INITIAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
VI SUGGESTED INITIAL FIELD PROGRAM
VII DETAILED FIELD PROGRAM

II VIII SUGGESTED SITE RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

FOR INTERPRETATION
IX PROCESS DESIGN INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS
I~ X SOILS PARAMETERS, TESTS AND PROCESSES WHICH AFFECT RI
XI TREATMENT PROCESS CALCULATIONS
XII MONITORING SYSTEMS
XI II DETAILED PHASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
XIV SITE VISIT SUMMARIES

- ;v ­
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Fi gure 1: Rapid Infiltration - Basic Principle 2

I, Fi gure 2: Rapid Infiltration - Natural Drainage 3

- Fi gure 3: Rapid Infiltration - Drainage Methods 4

-
Fi gure 4: Typical Site Layout 6

- Fi gure 5:

Fi gure 6:
Preliminary Phase

Detail ed Phase
21

22

Fi gure 7: Determination of Land Area Required 30

. I

1\I

- v ­
I
I
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Typical Parameters for Domestic Raw Sewage 25

I.
Table 2: Typical Wastewater Constituent Reductions

~
after RI 27

I,
I
Table 3: Sample Evaluation Guideline Chart 34

Table 4: Sample Project Evaluation Chart

I (Non-Modified Sites) 39

Table 5: Sample Economic Assessment 41

Table 6: Suggested Hydraulic Loading Cycles

I 53

1\
Ii I

- vi ­
 GUIDE TO MANUAL USE

The Manual is intended as a design document which provides the necessary

guidelines and information to enable the reader to design an RI system.
It presents methods of evaluation for site selection and design as well as
information on site engineering, cost calculations and public involve­
ment.
I
The manual is organized as follows:

~ • Chapter One and Two - Chapter One provides a summary of the Manual
whereas Chapter Two provides a more detailed introduction to rapid

-I infiltration and to the manual itself.

• Chapter Three - Two flow charts outl i ne the steps necessary

evaluate and design an RI system. These charts identify what is
to

required at each stage.

• Chapters Four and Five - Information discussing how to achieve the

steps outlined on the Flow Charts in Chapter Three is presented in
these sections. Two phases, preliminary and detailed, are delin­
eated and outline the steps to adequately determine the feasibil­
ity, cost and acceptability of an RI project. Examples are
provided and discussed where applicable.

• Appendices - Detailed background data necessary to correctly

evaluate and design an RI system are presented in fourteen appen­
dices. An annotated bibliography containing information pertaining
to Rapid Infiltration is also included.

The two-phased approach used in the Manual allows feasibility studies to

be undertaken initially on several potential rapid infiltration sites.
These sites are chosen based on interpretations of existing information.
The preliminary phase serves as a feasibility study to determine if RI is
suitable for the project at hand. At this stage no on-site data is
generated. Should a decision to implement an RI system be made, then

- vi i ­
I
I
detailed studies (as outlined in Chapter 5) will be necessary. The design

becomes more detailed as information becomes available. Public involve­

ment procedures are described for both phases, with a detailed public
participation program outlined in Chapter 5.

I~

- viii ­
- /
 ABBREVIATIONS USED

AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

CEC Cation exchange capacity

ClI Canada land Inventory

I~
d Day

Eh Redox potential

K Permeabi 1i ty

l/day Litres per day

MIC Maximum Infiltration Capacity

mS Electrical Conductivity (millisiemens)

NOC Natural Discharge Capacity

NTS National Topographic Series

RI Rapid Infiltration

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio

SS Suspended Solids

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

wt Watertable

- ix ­
I
GLOSSARY

Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT): the additional treatment of waste­

water beyond secondary treatment.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWTP): a facility for advanced waste­

water treatment by means of a physical/chemical process.

Hydraulic Loading: a measure of the depth of wastewater that can be

applied to infiltration basins; generally given in terms of m/yr or
em/day.
I I
Mounding: a rise in the water table beneath an infiltration site caused by

• infiltration of wastewater.

Primary treatment: treatment of wastewater by gravity settling.

Rapid infiltration: a method of advanced wastewater treatment which con­

sists of the application of partially treated wastewater to land.

Renovated water : treated wastewater moving underground away from the

infiltration site.
I Secondary treatment: biological treatment of wastewater (after primary) by
the use of air and activated sludge.

Tertiary level effluent: effluent produced by various methods of advanced

wastewater treatment whose quality exceeds that of secondary treat­
ment.

- x ­
 CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Rapid infiltration is an excellent method of wastewater treatment.

I Given favourable circumstances it can provide a tertiary level
effluent at less cost than conventional wastewater treatment
I plants. While natural site conditions can be modified to locate an
efficient rapid infiltration system, it is most cost-effective when

I a si te contai ni ng sandy soil s underl ai n by unsaturated granul ar

materials is located near the waste source. RI is an effective and

I economical method of advanced treatment of conventially pretreated

wastewater.

I 1.2 DEFINITION

I Rapid Infiltration (RI) is the application of partially treated

wastewater to land. The wastewater is usually applied to soils
I with high permeability (i.e. sands or loamy sands) by basin
flooding and is treated by natural processes as it travels through
this medium. Most of the wastewater applied enters the groundwater
system and moves laterally away from the appl ication site. This
treated wastewater is referred to as IIrenovated waterll. The RI
I concept is shown schematically in Figures 1 and 2.

I The recovery of renovated water, a requirement in many RI systems,

is accomplished by means of underdrains or recovery wells as shown

I on Fi gure 3. Such drai nage procedures may be necessary ei ther to

maintain the system in an operating state or to protect nearby high

I quality groundwater from degradation.

1.3 TYPICAL COMPONENTS OF RAPID INFILTRATION

I
RI systems are highly site dependent and configurations vary
I from site to site. However, some components of RI are common to
most systems. These include:
I - 1 ­

I
 applied
~~~~:t!.wastewater

FIGURE 1

RAPID INFILTRATION - BASIC PRINCIPLE

- 2 ­
------------~~-~~--

FIGURE 2

RAPID INFILTRATION - NATURAL DRAINAGE

 I
I
flooding
basins, l
I
unsaturated
zone
J
height 0 recharge
mound if no I
drainage used
J
to 0 ite recharge mound _
discharge with underdrains wi

)
recovered J
water
I

well
J
I
J
,
J
"

FIGURE 3

RAPID INFILTRATION - DRAINAGE METHODS I

I
- 4 ­
I
I
I • a method of conveying the wastewater from its source to the
application site,

I • a distribution network on-site, and

• infiltration basins (or trenches).

I In addition, many systems incorporate other components as part of

their overall system plan. Such optional requirements include:
I • some form of preapplication treatment,
• drainage methods to remove the renovated wastewater from the
I site and/or
• flow equalization or storage.
I The guidelines governing the number and shape of basins are broad

I and therefore the layout of RI sites vary. A schematic site

configuration of a Rapid Infiltration project is illustrated on
Figure 4. It should be noted that RI may involve infiltration of
I either primary or secondary effluent.

'I
1.4 OBJECTIVES

I The primary objective of RI systems is to treat wastewater by

'I natural processes as it travels through the soil profile.

Additional benefits accruing to some RI systems include:
• availability of treated water for irrigation, recreation or
I industrial use,
• groundwater recharge.
I • temporary storage of treated water,
• improve local surface water quality. and
I • decreasing wastewater treatment costs.

I In general, the implementation of RI in Alberta will be applicable

\'1here the most economical method of advanced treatment is desired.

I The objectives of individual RI projects must be defined in the

initial stages of a study.
I
- 5 ­
I
 I,
,.
I

'I
I'

"
,,

J
I

\ ~
I \
I

I \
I
I \

\ '.
\
\

\\ \
,

\
I

\I

J
I

\\ ]

I I I­
::>

o
1
I I I

i,l
1
..r
L\J
>­
0:(
...J
L\J

1
0:: I­

I \
I
:
I
\
I
I
I
::>
(.!;I
.....
u..
.....

V')
...J

0:(

I I \ u

.....
I I
~\
I
\\ I
Q...

>­
I­ )

I '. \ I I 'I

\ II i
],

\j: :
'\ \\ :. ]

: ( ,

II :
I I

U : /' i

n; ,; 1
n ! 1 iI
...---=-' \~JI
:,
]

O~ I"t JI

~O ~ \
.........
~ ,
\1

;g.!: Q: "
~ i

- 6 ­
I

I
I 1.5 PHYSICAL SITE REQUIREMENTS

I Optimum site conditions for a rapid infiltration site will be

dependent on the quantity of wastewater to be treated and qual ity
objectives for the rapid infiltration basin effluent.
I
The particular conditions required for maximum removal of
I wastewater contaminants are generally not compatible with maximum
wastewater application rates.

I 1.5.1 SUGGESTED SOIL CONDITIONS

I An ideal soil texture for rapid infiltration is a loamy sand to a

sandy loam. In general, finer soil textures (sandy loam) will be
I more effective for contaminant removal. A recommended soil
material would have:
I • greater than 40% by volume passing a 2 rom sieve,
• at least 50% sand in the less than 2 rom fraction, and

I • a clay content between 1 and 10% of the 2 mm fraction.

I Stratification of coarser soil textures (with finer textured soils)

in the soil profile should be at a minimum. This will avoid prob­
lems of perched watertables which can occur between soil materials
I with differing permeabilities.

I Soil chemistry is important for proper wastewater treatment.

Desirable soil characteristics include:

I • soil pH between 6.0 and 8.5,

• organic matter, in surface mineral horizons between 0.5 and

I •
3% ,

electrical conductivities less than 2 mS/cm 2 ,

• SAR less than 10,

I • cation exchange capacity over 10 meq/lOOg, and

• the presence of free calcium and magnesium carbonates.

I - 7 ­
 I
1.5.2 SUGGESTED HYDROGEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
I
Desirable hydrogeological properties of an RI site are the presence
of a permeable granular (sand and/or gravel) deposit that is at l
least partially unsaturated. The areal extent, thickness and
permeability of the deposit are important hydrogeologic criteria in
site selection. The watertable beneath the site should be as far

I
as possible below the bottom of the infiltration basin. A minimum

of 4 m above the watertable (before flooding) is suggested for

J
basins without underdrains.

I
DUY-ing the infiltration of effluent, the water level in the gran­

ular deposit should not rise above a level which corresponds to a

depth of one metre below the bottom of the basin. It is preferred

J
to have the granular deposit essentially dry prior to infiltration. ]
Naturally drai ned inf11 tration sites shoul d al so be of suffi ci ent
size (areal extent) and permeability to allow the deposit to
transmit the proposed volume of effluent away from the infiltration

1
site.

)
Sites can be modified by use of underdrains or recovery wells if

the natural conditions present do not allow rapid movement of the

renovated water away from the basins.

1

1.6 OPERATION ]
The design loading rates necessary to meet the project's objectives
can be calculated using information from the site design chapter. I
These loading rates will be a function of:
• design objectives, ]
• initial wastewater quality.
• site parameters, and
• operating schemes.
J
With respect to hydraul i c 1oadi ng rates, the fo11 owi ng parameter

!
guidelines are recommended:

I
- 8 -
I
I
I • To maximize hydraulic loading rates, suspended solids should
be minimized. Either primary or secondary preapplication
I t rea tment ca n be used. Loa di ng rates of up to 40 mly r or
more can be used if secondary treatment precedes land appli­

I cation and should average 15 to 30 mlyr for cases utilizing

primary preapplication treatment.

I • Hydraulic loading rates should be based on measured rates of

infiltration and percolation. Design annual loading rates
are normally 10 to 15% of the lowest basin infiltration
I rate, 4 to 10% of the measured clear water hydraulic
conductivity of the most restrictive soil layer, or 2 to 4%
I of the lowest cylinder infiltrometer infiltration rate.
• To maximize treatment by the rapid infiltration process
I primary treatment is recommended as minimum preapplication
treatment. Unless soil permeab'j 1ity is very low or the
amount of available land is quite restricted, no additional
I preapplication treatment is recommended.

I
1.7 TREATMENT
I Removal of wastewater constituents by the filtering and straining
I act i on of the so; 1 are exce11 ent. Suspended soli ds, BOD, and fecal
coliforms are almost completely removed in most cases.

I Nitrogen removal can range from 30% to greater than 80% where
specific nitrogen removal procedures are established. In labora­
I tory and pil ot studi es it has been shown that increased ni trogen
removal can be obtained by:
I • adjusting pretreatment levels,
• adjusting application cycles, .
I • supplying an additional carbon source,
• recycling the portions of the renovated water containing

I high nitrate concentrations, and

• reducing application rates.

I
- 9 ­
I
 I
Applying some of these methods in actual practice increased
nitrogen removal to about 80%. Although complete nitrogen removals
I
may not be possible, rapid infiltration is an acceptable method for
reducing nitrogen concentrations in the effluent. J
RI is also effective in removal of ammonia nitrogen to 1 mg/L or I
less. Nitrification requires the maintenance of aerobic soil
conditions. I
Phosphorus removals can range from 70 to 99%, dependi ng on the
physical and chemical characteristics of the soil. The primary
I
removal mechanism is adsorption followed by chemical precipitation.
Therefore, the long-term capacity is limited by these physica1­
]
chemical processes. Removals are also related to the residence
time of the wastewater in the soil and the travel distance.
]
A properly designed and operated RI system can obtain significant J
wastewater treatment levels. The following reductions are anticip­
ated after passage through 3 to 5 m of unsaturated granular media:
• BOD - 85 to 99%
!
• Nitrogen - 60 to 80% (if operated with nitrogen removal as a
high priority) J
• Phosphorus - 70 to 99%
• Heavy metals - 75 to 95% 1
• Micro organisms - 99 to 99.9%
1
Rapid infiltration can be expected to operate throughout cold win­
ters provi ded:
• the applied wastewater is not too cold, and
1
• an insulating cover, such as snow, is maintained over the
soil surface duri n9 the dry; n9 port; on of the operation
1
cycle.
'J
\~here the design objectives require significant improvements in
effluent quality, the system design will usually be IOOdified to J
i ncl ude:

- 10 ­
I
I
 I
I •
•
longer resting periods between floodings,
lower hydraulic loading rates,
• larger infiltration areas, and

I • greater level of pretreatment.

I 1.8 ECONOMICS

I The total cost of an RI system will be composed of the following:

• preapplication treatment,

I • conveyance,
• storage (i f any),
• land,

I • distribution system,

• drainage (if necessary), and

I • engineering, planning and monitoring.

I Initial capital costs of RI systems are nearly 80% of the total

annual (amortized capital and annual operation and l'Iaintenance)

,I cost (Pound and Crites, 1980). When compared with advanced waste­
water treatment plants (AWTP) capable of producing tertiary level
effluent, RI systems unit costs can be approximately one-third
J those of AWT (Pound and Crites, 1980). Because of local diff­
erences in wastewater quantity and quality, generalized cost
I compari sons with secondary treatment cannot be made. Other econ­
omic advantages of RI include lower:
I • operating costs,
• energy requirements,

'I • use of chemicals, and

• sludge production.

I 1.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

I Rapid infiltration facilities are introduced to a community as an

alternative to, or an improvement upon, existing sewage treatment
I systems. However, RI facilities
introduced on the assumption that
cannot be planned, designed and
there will be universal approval

I of:
- 11 ­

I
 I
~

~
the technique,
the infiltration site, and
I
(t the envi ronmental and soci a1 adjustments that may have to be

made. Social concerns may be expressed about the merits of

a project simply on the basis that the affected public knows

J
1 i ttl e about the purposes, the requi rements and the impacts
of such a fac; 1i ty •
I
An integral part of any plan to introduce RI facilities is to
I
nform and to consult with the publ i c that may be di rectly or
-j

indirectly affected by its introduction. The precise scope of a

]
pubnc participation program will depend, in part, upon the
I~elative complexity of local environmental and social conditions, ]
and upon the interest and commitment of the populace to the
program. J
v!hatever its scope the participation program must strive to be more
than an informational exercise or a token response to very genuine
1
social concerns. The program should be pp.rceived as a two-way
J
exchange of facts,

the
ideas,

desirability,
opinions~

the
knowledge and values which
collectively will lead to constructive public input to decisions
respecting technical
avoidance or mitigation of environmental and social concerns.
parameters and the
,
Public involvement in RI projects takes place at two levels. The
1
first level is during the preliminary phase where pub1ic input is
incorporated in the initial design stage. Later, in the detailed
1
phase, the proposed plans are presented to the public utilizing
thei r earl i er input. Oetai 1s of these processes are outli ned in
]
the Manual.
l
I
I
- 12 ­
I
I
 I
CHAPTER 2
I INTRODUCTI ON

I 2.1 THE RAPID INFILTRATION PROCESS

2.1.1 DESCRIPTION
I
Rapid Infiltration (RI) is an effective and economical method of
I advanced treatment of wastewater. Wastewater is appl ; ed to mode­
rately permeable soils within spreading basins or trenches which
I overl; e hi ghly permeabl e sand and/or gravel. As the wastewater
percolates down to the natural water table, the physical, chemical

I and biological processes of the soil improve its quality.

the improvement occurs within the top one metre of soil (Bouwer,
Most of

I 1976). Once the renovated water (improved wastewater) reaches the

natura 1 water table it moves 1atera lly away from the app 1 i cation
site. This movement may occur by natural groundwater movement
I or artificially by means of underdrains or recovery wells.

I Typical configurations of
illustrated on Figures 2 and 3.
renovated water removal schemes are
Compared with other types of land

I treatment systems, rapid infiltration involves substantially

greater amounts of wastewater entering the native groundwater if

I the renovated water is not removed from the aquifer by underdrains

or recovery wells.

I The rapid infiltration method involves physical, chemical and bio­

logical reactions and requires adequate detention time of the
I wastewater in the soil profile to obtain wastewater treatment.
Wastewater application must be intermittent to allow aerobic con­

I ditions to be restored within the soil. This intermittent loading

is conducive to nitrogen removal and allows restoration of infil­

I tration rates. Aerobic conditions are also needed for consistent

removal of virus, bacteria, and organiCS, and for oxidation of
ammonia to nitrate.
I
I
- 13 ­

I
 I
Under typical conditions, a tertiary-level of wastewater treatment
can be expected. In other words, renovaterl water lea"i ng the PI
I
site would generally be of acceptable drinking 'dater quality.
l,;Iastewater that has percolated to the water table and travelled I
several tens of metres laterally as groundwater, has lost its
J
II • • •

suspended solids, biodegradable materials, micro organis!11s, almost

all of its phosphorus, and, vlith proper management of the spreading
facility, most of its nitrogen (Bouwer, 1970).
II
I
2.1.2 OBJECTIVES
1
The primary objective of a rapid infiltration system is to treat
wastewater beyond the primary treatment level. r)nce the wastewater J
has been treated, it may be used for one or more of the following:
" irrigation or recreation (following recovery of water by 1
underdrains or wells),
• groundwater recharge (where the renovated water qual ity is
higher than native groundwater),
!
• surface water recharge ('",here groundwater interceots surface
water),
J
• temporary storage in the aquifer, and
• other municipal or industrial uses.
I
RI may also be considered as a treatment alternative in circuM­ 1
stances where effluent disposal to surface water ;s not feasible or
where alternative treatment methods are to be considered. ]
2.1.3 ADVANTAGES
1
Advantages of RI over conventional wastewater
tertiary level include:
treat~ent at the
]
• lower operating costs,
• lower energy requi rements, J
• limited use of chemicals,
J
- 14 ­
I
I
I
• reduced sludge production,
I • a substantial reduction in land requirements compared to
other forms of land treatment, and
I • alternative to storage for irrigation systems during periods
of nonspraying (wastewater infiltration as opposed to

I
storage) •

I
Some or all of the above can be realized while maintaining process

treatment stability and reliability comparable to conventional in­

plant methods of tertiary treatment.

Important factors contributing to public acceptance of RI include:

I • improved surface water qual i ty, where wastewater is normally
discharged directly into surface waters,
I • rel ati vely low cost compared to Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plants,

I • simplicity of operation, and

• potentially more aesthetically acceptable because renovated
water " ••• co11 ected as groundwater has lost its identity as
I sewage" (Bouwer, 1970).

I 2.1.4 HISTORY

I Rapid infiltration, although relatively unknown in Alberta, has

been used extensively in other parts of the world, particularly in

I the USA. In the mid 19th century various forms of wastewater

application to land, similar to RI, were used in Europe as a means
of overcoming that continent's surface water pollution problem.
I
RI applications can be found throughout the USA including the
I northern states of New York, Michigan, Wisconsin and Montana. The
number of systems has steadi 1y grown duri ng the past 40 years to
I the point that there are over 300 municipal rapid infiltration
systems through the Uni ted States. Canadi an app1; cat; ons of the

I technology are relatively few and are generally restricted to sites

- 15 ­
I
 I
where the volume of wastewater applied is less than one million
L/day. Most RI sites in Canada are located in Southern B.C.
I
Alberta does not have any true rapid infiltration projects in
operati on al though the Del burne sewage treatment operation coul d be
J
considered a varient of the RI process. There are, however, many
sites in Alberta which could be modified from their present "leaky J
1agoon° status to that of Rapid Infiltration.
J
2.2 RI MANUAL J
2,2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
J
The following manual was compiled to:
1\ pravi de the i nformat; on necessary to determi ne the feas i­
]
bility of RI systems,
• outline the criteria for design of RI systems, and J
• provide Alberta Environment with the information necessary
to evaluate a proposed RI system. ]
The Manual is organized in a IIhow to" manner toward the planning,
evaluat.ion, and design of RI systems. Information is provided
J
wherever necessary to enable the reader to carry out the design and
implementation of an RI project in a stepwise approach. The Manual 1
covers all the components of an RI system including preliminary
planning, site selection, and detailed project design and engineer­ J
i ng.

Although the ~1anual is written in relatively non-technical terms,

1
the majority of the work outlined will require the specific exper­
tise of soils scientists, hydrogeologists, planners and engineers.
J
Rapid infiltration can be used for municipal or industrial waste­
1
waters; however, this Manual is devoted entirely to non-hazardous,
municipal wastewaters. Industrial waste streams are complex and so J
J
- 16 ­

I
I
I unique that consideration of such projects must be on a "case by
case basisll, as would municipal wastewaters containing a hazardous

I industrial waste component.

I 2.2.2 MANUAL ORGANIZATION

I The t~anua 1
has been organ; zed into the fol1 owi n9 components:
• Chapter Three outlines in chronological order what is
I requi red to des i gn RI systems. The requi rement steps are
presented in flow chart format for both preliminary and

I detailed phases.
I Chapters Four and Five describe the methodology of how to

achieve and carry out the work outlined in Chapter Three.

I Chapter Four presents the preliminary phase and Chapter Five
describes the methodology. entailed during the detailed
I phase.

I The Preliminary Phase (Chapter Four) involves the collection and

interpretation of available data to determine the initial

I feasibility of RI. At this stage data is generated from existing

available information without on-site study.

I I terns to be considered duri ng i ni ti a1 feasi bil i ty stud; es

i ncl ude:
I • initial planning decisions,
• selection of potential sites by collection and interpreta­
I tion of available data.
I economics,

I • report preparation and public participation.

The Detailed Phase (Chapter Five) involves th~ generation of data

I from field and laboratory studies and interpretation of this
information in the overall plan. This phase will confirm or
I reject the initial conclusions reached during the Preliminary
Phase. Steps undertaken in this phase include:
I - 17 ­

I
 ]
• detailed site selection from field and laboratory
studi es,
!
• system engineering and operation,
• deta; 1ed economi cs,
J
• preparation of draft plan and submission for public input,
resulting in J
• final acceptance or rejection of the proposed scheme.
I
J
!

1
1
)

1
]
1
J
J
J

- 18 ­
J

I
I
CHAPTER 3
I PROaECT PLAN

I INTRODUCTI ON

I To design an RI system that will operate successfully and be

acceptable to the public, a program patterned on the steps outlined
herein is advised. The basic procedures for RI design are shown on
I Fi gures 5 and 6. Chapters Four and Five provi de the technical
information necessary to carry out each step. These figures should
I serve as a guideline to the planner to aid in overall project
planning. At several levels in the process significant decision
I points will be encountered. The project must meet certain
qualifications at these points in order to proceed. As a result

I several steps may need to be repeated until further progress can be

made. As more information becomes available the project plan
becomes more and more detailed. The final steps of construction
I and operation are not incl uded as these wi 11 be specifi c to each
RI plan.
I 3.2 PLANNING PROCESSES
I The overall planning and design of an RI project involves three

I planning processes. These occur simultaneously throughout the pro­

ject and are grouped as follows:

I 1) Interactive - this process involves the use of various

professional experts all providing input from their
I respective fields (Soil Science, Hydrogeology, Engineering
and Land Use Planning). Input from eacn discipline will
I affect the outcome of the others. OialoglJe between all
groups is necessary.

I 2) Iterative - this process involves the circular approach of

project design. Various alternatives and sites must be
I evaluated and rejected in order to determine the most
f

suitable operation. The iterative process allows the f

J
I
I
- 19 ­
II
 I
preferred alternative to be pursued as far as possible.
Should the alternative be rejected at any time the process I
simply starts again at the last stage where the design was
acceptable. !,

The flO\·! charts outline the various stages and highlight ]

the critical points where a decision to continue or
abandon the project must be made.
J
3) Chronological - the flow diagrams are presented in a
chronological order. Each step must be carried out in !
sequence to avoid unnecessary work on potent i ally
unacceptable sites. J
l
J
1
J
l

-]

- 20 ­
J
I
I
I
I'fIOJECT

I
PARAMETERS

I COLLECT AVAILABLE DATA

j
I I
AVAILABLE DATA

I I

!INITIAL INFORMATION fnH_EASe!

I I( INTERPRET DATA /),

,'-----.._---'
I IF HONI

I
I jooIIIIIi-----------oi ecoNOMIC DATA

I
I ALTA. ENV.

PUBLiC INPUT

I ALTA. ENII.

I GO TO oeTAILEO PHASe IF

A SUITABLE SITE P1'lESeNT

IF NONE

I
o ABANOON PROJECT OR
REVise INITIAL STUDY
BOUNOARIES'

I
I FIGURE 5
PRELIMINARY PHASE

I
I -21­

I
 FlECIBVE PERMISSION

I FOR SITE Access

I
]

r
CONDUCT INITIAL
"IELD TESTS
I r INITIAL TEST

DATA

(
CONFIRM IF SITE
CHOSEN IS SUITABLE
)
IFNC
2

I
CONDUCT OETA.ILEO
M.ALYSI!
I
FIELO
J

ANALYTICAL
PflOCEDURU
... _L r LAB.
OFfiCE
f COMI'VTI!"

\ PflOCESS DESIGN
/

aETERMINE IF SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
ACCEPTABLE
~ IFNO
3
]

L r I.OCATIOIt

1
DATA

\ DESIGN

L
/ eCONOMIC
DATA

\ CONFIRM

PROJECT COST

/
J
I

( .:QNFIRM "EASIIIII.ITY
OF DESIGN
1 ,"NO
)
2 1
PU8I.1C ALTA ENV.
INPUT INf'IJT
r
I DETAILEO INFORMATION

RELEASE
I 1
I

I REVISE PflOJECT PLAN

AS NECESSARY

I
]

PflOCeEO WITH PROJECT

IF SITE IS SUITA8LE
I
)
IF NO
2 ]

I GO TO CONSTRUCTION
I
]

o RE EVALUATe OTHeR SITES OR

ENLARGE STUQY BOUNDARY

o EVAf..UATE OTHER SITES OR

MOOIFY OPERATING SCHEME

FIGURE 6

DETAILED PHASE
J
!
-22-
I
I
I CHAPTER 4
PRELIMINARY PHASE METHODOLOGY

I 4.1 INITIAL PLANNING STEPS

I Extensive planning and research, together with the utilization of

public input in the planning process is required for a rapid infil­
I tration system to succeed.

I Preliminary assumptions must be made prior to site selection to

match an RI system as closely as possible to a project's require­
r1ents and to serve as basic guidelines during the preliminary
I phase. These assumptions are discussed in the following sections.

I In all rapid infiltration projects, the quality of wastewater ap­

pl i ed will affect the qual ity of the renovated water. Some waste­
I water constituents including chloride, sodium, TDS, some trace ele­
ments and organics remain relatively unchanged when passed through

I the soil. Others, such as BOD, suspended solids (SS), nitrogen,

phosphorous and fecal coliforms are dramatically reduced and their
final concentrations are more a function of loading rates, resting
I (drying) cycles and physical site properties than initial concen­
tration. Thus, four major considerations affect the final effluent
I quality:
o level of preapplication treatment,
I • amount of wastewater applied,
• method of operation at the application site, and the

I • characteristics of the soil profile.

I 4.1.1 INITIAL WASTEWATER QUALITY/QUANTITY

The first planning step involves the determination of the quality

I and quantity of the wastewater to be appli ed. For pl anni ng pur­
poses, it is imperative that both present and projected flows be
I determined as well as anticipated quality changes, e.g. the
addition of industrial waste. For larger centres this information

- 23 ­
 1
should be readily available while at smaller projects it may be
necessary to calculate flows and analyze the physical and chemical

!
characteristics of the wastewater.

J
Where the wastewater quality is unknown, Table 1 can be used to
estimate the approximate concentration of wastewater contaminants. 1
The concentration of the major wastewater constituents can vary
widely, and as such it is imperative that an accurate wastewater ]
analysis be known. Note that the concentrations given in Table 1
are for untreated wastewater. If primary sedimentation is ]
utilized, concentrations of BOD and SS will be 30% lower than those
indicated while the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus concentra­
tions will be similar to those in untreated wastewater. 1
Municipalities with little or no industrial waste load would
typically fall in the IIWeak category.
ll
"Strong" and Medium" J
wastewater would be associated with respective levels of industrial
waste loading. ]
Concentrations of trace elements are generally low in Alberta; how­
ever, shoul d a municipal i ty have or antici pate s1 gnificant indus­

l
trial waste quantities, provision for industrial waste pretreatment

should be made. Some of the trace elements present in industrial 1

waste streams are relatively mobile and will probably not be
effectively removed in a rapid infiltration system (refer to ]
Appendix IX). Wastewater contaminates in an industrial waste
should be treated (where necessary) to bring them within the realm
of typical domestic wastewater.
l
4.1.2 DETERMINE PROJECT PURPOSE
J
While the prinCipal purpose of RI is wastewater treatment, other J
objectives which can sometimes be met include:
• groundwater recharge I
• reuse of renovated water for other purposes (i.e. recrea­
tional, industrial, irrigation), or
• temporary subsurface storage of water.
I
J
- 24 ­
I
 I
TABLE 1
I TYPICAL PARAMETERS FOR DOMESTIC RAW SEWAGE
I
I Constituent Wastewater Strength (mg/L)

I Strong Medium Weak

I
BOD 300 200 100
I Suspended Solids ( SS)
Nitrogen (total N)
350
85
200
40
100
20

I Organic
Ammonia
35
50
15
25
8
12
lIli trate a a a
I Phosphorous (total P) 20 10 6
Organic 5 3 2
I Inorganic 15 7 4

I
Source: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979. Wastewater Engineering, published by
McGraw- Hill
I
I
I
I
I
I - 25 ­

I
 I
The quality of wastewater treated by rapid infiltration is general­
ly of sui tabl equal ity for unrestricted irrigation or recreational J
purposes. However, recovery of renovated water by underdrains or
well s with subsequent reuse or discharge to surface waters may be I
necessary to prevent degradation of high quality groundwater.
Surface water discharge may occur naturally W'ien aquifers contain­
J
,.
ing renovated water intercept a body of surface water. Aqui fers
underlying rapid infiltration sites also may be used to store
••••

renovated water temporarily, particularly if the renovated water is

to be used periodically for irrigation. In most cases, the
pr-inciple objective of an RI system will be wastewater treatment;
]
with other indirect objectives as listed above, surfacing as
tangible benefits. 1
With the primary goal of an RI system being wastewater treatment,
the minimum acceptable renovated water quality must be known. In
l
most cases thi s will be in the form of a directive from Al berta
Environment. The difference in the actual wastewater qual ity and
!
preferred qual ity can then be determined and expressed as a per­
centage reduction. Typical wastewater constituent reductions

]
antiCipated from an RI system are shown in Tabl e 2. The feasibil i­

ty of RI can be quickly estimated by comparing the reductions ]

required with those shown on the table. As long as the reductions

shown on Table 2 are in the range of those requi red, it can be ]

assumed that RI is technically feasible and should be pursued fur­

ther. In the event that RI cannot obtain the reductions required,

then some other treatment method must be incorporated or additional

l
levels of pretreatment employed. Detailed renovated water quality
calculations are discussed under the detailed phase (Chapter 5). J
The primary treatment mechanisms of the RI process are the physical ]

fil tering and straining of the soil s and the bacterial activity

which takes
Accordingly.
place
SS,
in the
BOD and fecal
upper few centimetres of the
coliforms are almost completely
soil.

I
removed.
I

J
- 26 ­
I
 I
I TABLE 2

I TYPICAL WASTEWATER CONSTITUENT REDUCTIONS AFTER RI

I
Constituent % Reduction Range
I
Low High
I
I BOO
Nitrogen
85
30
99
80

'I
Phosphorous
Micro organisms
70
99
99
99.9

I * reductions from concentrations in untreated wastewater

I
Source: der~ved from various information bases.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I - 27 ­
 I
Reductions in total nitrogen are generally not good unless specific
operational procedures are followed. The higher nitrogen removal

I
procedures are discussed in detail in Chapter 5, and Appendix XI.

J
Phosphorous removal s range from 70 to 99% depend; n9 on the nature

of the infiltrated wastewater and the soils. The primary removal J

mechanism ;s adsorption with subsequent chemical precipitation.

The capacity of a site to remove phosphorous is, therefore, a func­

tion of the physical and chemical properties of the soil and infil­

J
trated wastewater as well as the residence time and travel distance

of the renovated water.

]
4.1.3 DETERMINE APPROXIMATE SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS
]
The site area must also be determined initially. Prior to any site ]

sel ecti on, the researcher must determi ne approximately how much

land will be required for their particular project. A simple ]

method to determi ne the range of 1and area requi red for a part;­

cular site is outlined below. In practice, the actual site areas

required for RI systems varies widely. These differences in area

]
are related to such factors as:

• wastewater quantity and quality, l

• hydraulic loading rates,
• physical site characteristics, and ]
• renovated water quality requirements.
]
As the latter two factors are complex and difficult to predict dur­

ing an initial project evaluation, only the former two factors are

considered at this stage.

~
Hydraulic loading rates for RI systems in Alberta should typically
]
range between 15 and 40 metres/year. At the preliminary stage it
should be assumed that hydraulic loadings will be within this range I
for most RI sites in Alberta. The actual loading rate for a site
can only be determined during the detailed planning phase. I
J
- 28 ­
I
I
Extrapolating the anticipated wastewater flow on Figure 7 will give
I a range of infiltration area required. This range corresponds to
the range in loading rates described above. This method is intend­

I ed to provide an order of magnitude estimate of site area required

to assist in site selection.

I 4.1.4 ESTIMATE INITIAL STUDY BOUNDARY

I Potential sites must be located within a reasonable proximity of

the wastewater source. Therefore the study boundary should extend
I outward for a radius of several kilometres from the source, gene­
rally not exceeding 10 km, or until a suitable number of site areas

I are found (Powers, 1978). The study boundary will be partially

determined by:

I • wastewater quantity,

• availability of land with suitable characteristics, and

• existing land uses in the area.

The study boundary should extend far enough to locate several

I potential sites and stay within the budget constraints of the
project.

I 4.1.5 INITIAL INFORMATION RELEASE

I The social acceptability of a rapid infiltration system is dif­

ficult to predict. However, it is likely that some person or

I groups of persons will perceive the system negatively. Accordingly,

there exists a need for public exposure to land treatment speci­

I fically, and the need for wastewater treatment as a whole.

Although the technology ;s well developed and utilized in other

I areas, particularly the USA, it is relatively unknown in Alberta.

To minimize adverse public reaction to this relatively little known

I technology, it is recommended that public awareness programs be

part and parcel of the planning process and initiated as early as
possible. At the initial planning stage detailed information
I
I

- 29 ­

I
 J

140

~ 1

130

120
VJ 1

110
J ~ 1

., ) I)
100

j V I) 1
90
, I
'"
..c:
80

1
I / J V ]
Cl
w
a:
I 15m/YEA~ If JIf If ~
:::J
aw
70

y / 'I 1
a:
! 20m/YEAR
Vi J
«
w
a:
«
60

" V
30m/YEZR~
IIV If 1
50

40

I
40m/YEA XIX JII")
j

I
30

I //I') "/ ]

20
V ~'l/
~'
~~
~

10
-'"
~
~ 1..00" ~ ~ ]

~~ 1,..00 ".:: ~ ~""""

::::;;I
o
1 2 3
45678910 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
1

FLOW 106 L/DAY

1
FIGURE 7

DETERMINATION OF LAND AREA REQUIRED

I

I
- 30 ­
I
I
regarding a specific RI project win not be available. As such, it
I is suggested that a brief advertisement in the 10cal paper be
rel eased, AI though the content I;Jill vary the rel ease shoul d con-·
J

I ta i n the fon ow; rig information:

" al ternative wastewater treatment disposal (depending on

I defined objective) is presently being investigated,

~ Dri description of the process,

I
• approximate scope of the project {flows) and study area,

t reasons why the study is required (out"line problems or

inadequacies of current system(s), if any),
I 5 public input will be requested, and
i addresses where more information can be obtained, as it
I becomes available.

I The following outlines several methods that are available for dis­
eminating lnforma';'jon to the publ ic depending on the specific

I project and the publ ics affected:

• public officials workshop.

s forming al1 advisory committee,

I
@ compiling mailing lists, or
e designating contact persons~

I To provide the general publ ic with information regarding the RI

I proj ect, use of the med ia is strongly urged.

i on can be released to the pub'l i c by:
The ini ti a1 informat­

I
• newspaper ads and/or articles.

o television, or
• radio ads or information tal ks.

The purpose of thi s information rel ease is simply to inform tilE.

I publ ic that a study is being undertaken, It does not di SCLISS thE
content or resul ts of the study, It shalf! d seiAve to avoi d al iena·'

I tion and pol a.'lzation of the publtc at the outset and indkate that

- 31 ­
I
 l
their input will be required to aid in the determination of project
feasi bil i ty.
I
'I
I
4.2 DATA ACQUISITION
]
Collecting the pertinent information available for the defined
study area serves as the basis of the study during the preliminary
phase.
1
]
The information required can be broadly classified into the follow­

ing five groups;

• ba s e ma ppin g ,
J
• land Ijse,
• hydrogeology,
]
• soils, and
• climate. l
The fl'lOst important inforJl1ati on duri ng the prel iminary phase wi 11
pertain to land use and hydrogeology. The amount and level of

1
detail will vary considerably from site to site within the study

area and the Province, as a whole. A detailed discussion of the l

sources ann types of information generally available in the
Province is presented in Appendix I. ]
]
4.3 INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION

Once the available information has been compiled, a technical

I
interpretation is carried out. This involves delineating preferred

sites in the study area for the following components:

]
• land use,
• hy drogeology, and I
• soils.
I

- 32 ­
I

I
 I
Using the Evaluation Guideline Chart (Table 3), preferred and

I
restri cted areas for each of the above three components can be out­
1 ined. A commonl y used and acceptable method of presenti ng thi s
J
,
information is through the use of map overlays. Each overlay

describes one of the above components and delineates areas of high,

low and moderate suitability for RI (constraint mapping). A

detailed discussion of important design parameters follows.

I 4.3.1 LAND USE

I Any proposed RI scheme should be compatible with the local existing

land use designation. Some land use designations will restrict or
I el iminate any possibil ity of approval of an RI system.

I In the initial interpretation phase, areas v.tlich can be el iminated

immediately include: urban ('industrial) developments, parks and

I recreation areas, oil and gas fields and active economic resource
areas (i.e. coal). A potenti al confl ict may ari se v.tlere prospect­
ive sites are in commercial sand and gravel properties. In such
I cases, the feasibil ity of the project will likely be decided on an
economic assessment at an earl y stage. Simil arl y, urban develop··
I ment is considered an obstacle to implementation of an RI site and
is generally avoided.

I The most favourable land use for rapid infiltration are regions of

I low capability agriculture. Areas with high capabilities for'

agriculture, forestry wildlife or other uses should be avoided if
alternative sites are available.
I
Parcel si ze is another 1and use factor. In general, the fewer num­
I ber of parcel s needed, the less compl icated the lease or land pur­
chase agreements. Using contiguous parcel s of land for rapid
I
I i nfi 1trati on al so simpl i fies system operati on. I
if
I!
I !
!
J
I

I t,
,.
i
- 33 ­
il f
J
I I
 l
TABLE 3
SAMPLE EVALUATION GUIDELINE CHART*
J
._ ••..... __ ._-----,--------------------------, J
SUITABILITY FOR RI
i PARAMETER
~ ]

I
.~

, Low Moderate High

i!
"--,.-------".'" ..... I 1
Land Use industrial/urban rural resi denti a1 low resource use
pa rksand rec rea­ moderate to hi gh capabil ity,
tion areas; re­
source areas (oil,
eapabil ity agri­ agri cul tura1 ,
cul ture (eLI 1-3 ) (> eLI 4)
]
gas. coal)

1.
]
I Hydrogeology low permeab i 1 i ty granul ar deposi ts coarse- grai ned
]
geologic materials hi gher water granul ar depo­
(moraine, lacus­ tables «3 m) sits - alluvial
trine, bedrock) outwash
low water table
{> 3 m deep}
]
]

Soil s cl ay and cl ay
loams, solenetzic
so i1 s wi th good
drainage moderat­
sand s, loamy
sands well
1
ely high infil­ drained high in­

I
tration rates
( 1. 5 to 3 em/ h)
fil tration rates
(> 3 em/h)
]

Topography
(% slope)
> 5% 1 - 5% o- 1%
J
*Note: the above chart contains examples of typical statements pertinent to ]
each parameter.

I
I
I
- 34 ­
I

I
Should the preferred sites be located on private property, an
I estimate of the present owner's willingness to sell the property
should be taken into consideration. Such information may be avail­
I able from initial public input. This factor is important in terms
of overall public acceptance.

I 4.3.2 HYDROGEOLOGY

I The presence of high permeability granular (sand and/or gravel)

deposit is necessary for an RI site to function. The actual size
I of the deposit necessary is primarily a function of the volume of
effluent and the nature of the sand and/or gravel depOSit. During
I the preliminary phase it is unlikely that sufficient information
will be available to determine the hydrogeological characteristics

I of a granular deposit. Potential infiltration sites will, of

necessity, be outlined primarily on the basis of known areas of
granular deposits.
I
Desirable characteristics of a granular deposi:, should the
I information be available, include:
• large areal extent,
I • high permeability (> 10-3 cm/sec),
• relatively deep water tables (>3m desirable).

I Although thick intervals of unsaturated granular deposits are

des i rab 1e, si tes wi th a hi gh water table may be acceptable and
I should be indicated as having moderate suitability. Another
important and often limiting parameter, is the presence of a
I hydraulic gradient (ratio between the elevation of the applied
wastewater site and discharge point) which is steep enough to allow
I the renovated water to naturally flow away from the app 1; cat ion
site. An unsuitable hydraulic gradient «0.005) may be overcome by

I artificial drainage.

- 35 ­
I
 ]
4.3.3 SOILS
I
Soils should be conducive to the rapid infiltration process. Sands

or loamy sands with infiltration rates greater than 0.5 cm/h and
J
ideally in the order of 3 to 5 cm/h are desirable.

Available soils information will likely be restricted to the des­

!
cri pti on of the types of soil
material.
present, its texture and parent

In such cases, desirable areas will be based on soil

1
texture which is coarse and moderately coarse and on a soil class

which is sand or loamy sand. Coarse gravel s at the surface should

l
be avoided where wastewater treatment is of primary concern.

]
Other soils information which may be helpful include soil drainage
and soil type. Heavy clays and clay loams are not desirable. ]
Soils with good drainage are desirable while soils indicative of
saturated condi ti ons (organ; c) or upward movement of groundwater
(solenetzic) should be avoided.
l
Although soil depth, permeability, and chemical characteristics J
significantly affect site suitability, data on these parameters are
often not avail ab 1e before the detail ed phase. If these data are ]
available, they should be plotted on a study map along with the
other pertinent information. ]
4.3.4 TOPOGRAPHY ]
Excessive slopes will restrict the usefulness of a site for RI.
Steep slopes limit the amount of water that will infiltrate. The J
maximum slope allowable is that which maintains downward infiltra­
tion without causing premature lateral discharge. Generally, the ]
maximum slope allowable without basin terracing is 5%. Flat
topography will
simplify basin design.
reduce overall site development costs and will
Topographical data should also be plotted

I
on a map overlay of the study area.

- 36 ­
I
I
4.4 OUTLINING POTENTIAL SITES
I
By this stage three or four map overl ays describing the foregoing
I parameters shoul d be compl ete. By superimposi n9 these overl ays a
composite site selection map is produced. This composite map will

I displ ay a range of suitabil ity areas for RI from low in all para­
meters to hi gh for all parameters. Potential RI sites shoul d be
outlined on this composite map.
I
The composite map should contain three types of areas:
I • areas with a high suitability for RI (few restrictions),
• areas wi th a moderate sui tab i1 i ty (some restricti ons
I prevalent, but restrictions may be overcome), and
• areas of low suitability (includes any area of major

I restriction from one or more individual overlays)

At this stage, all areas of low suitabil fty can be el iminated from
I further consideration. The high suitabil ity areas should be out­
lined as accurately as possible and numbered. The remaining areas
I shoul d be indicated as presentl y undesi rab 1e but potenti all y sui t­
able with site modification. The important areas in this category

I are lands near the waste source. The suitability of those sites
with necessary modification will be assessed in the initial econo­

I mical evaluation (Section 4.6).

The number of potential sites available will be determined by the

I above process. Five candidate areas are considered ideal. Should
no sites be available, the researcher will be faced with the deci­
I sion to expand the study area and start again at Section 4.1.4 or
abandon the project. If only one or two sites emerge, it may be

I advisable to expand
additional sites.
the study area enough to include several

I Information missing at this stage can be listed, in order to sim­

I plify the detailed work which will follow. A brief site inspection

- 37 ­

I
 l
of each site identified is a requirement at this time, to discern
recent changes in development or land use, which were not obvious I
from existing information. Additional information from this exer­
cise may eliminate some sites. Site visits will also confirm or
reject the assumptions and information of major site features pre­
i
viously noted and provides a quick, efficient method to check that
obvious aspects have not been overlooked.
J
4.5 SITE PARAMETER SUMMARY 1
At this stage, several areas may exist which appear to meet the ]

desirable requirements for RI. A summary evaluation of the major

parameters from all sites can now be prepared. The recommended ]

form for the summary is shown on Table 4. Detailed calculations of

the necessary information as well as a design example are given in ]

Appendix II.

The purpose of this table is to summarize all site data, point out
]
data deficiencies, and enable the designer to determine which
alternative is the most promising. Only sites with acceptable land l
use are included.
]
If there are more than five possible alternatives, as outlined in
the previous Section, two methods of evaluation can be employed. ]
The first method involves reducing the number of sites by eliminat­
ing those furthest from the waste source. However, if the proposed
wastewater volume of a project is relatively large, (i.e. greater l
than 20 million L/day), a second method may be employed which ranks
all sites numerically. The ranking procedure may be necessary and ]
economically justifiable on larger projects where many potential
sites have been identified. This is a more time consuming exercise
than the former but may prove to be most economical in the long
l
run. A suggested ranking format is presented in Appendix III.
I
Sites which require significant engineering modifications but have
acceptable land use designations will be evaluated purely on an I
economical basis and are included in the following discussion
(Section 4.6). J
- 38 ­
I
-,- - - - - - - - - -. - ­ - - - - - -
TABLE 4 - SAlIIl'lE PROJECT [VAlUATICI~ C!tART O:Ot~-r·1CO[FIEO SITESl

SITE
NUMBER Area
j ,,,''"CO1- "t::::~':::::~::-=~=-'I-~-
From wast] ' I
fH"'m~.-iH:::~~C
I
-,ur lela: mat AG:,df€r hy- 1
S:~~ OfW"fo-f SluPl" Llf71t- I Discharge water requirin~
SUM"" Roo"lI I
(ha) Source
(km)
Oepth t
wt (m)
erial hydrau- draulie con-I
lie eonducti-
1
duetivity I Soils 't ration
Capacity
Capacity artificial dl'ain
(lQ6L/day) (10 6 l/day)*
J l
t-- _J_-.J___
-- - --- ---- - - - - ~!ty (cm/s.eel (~_m/~~et ---- - J!_9_6_L/.<!~L___ - - - --

--,.. - - - - -.,. - .- -, . . I -- - - - - - , ------ - ­

W
<.0
r--­ - ---- --/-.- .._-_., .._-­ -----f- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;

-1-" -f----.--.­

L..-. ____ ---'--.~_ .....1-_ _ _ _ _ _ .

* assumes a daily wastewater loading of 70 x 106 LIddY.

 J
4.6 ECONOMICS
I
An economic evaluation of all sites and their various engineering
modifications is the final analytical step in the preliminary
phase. The planner should have sufficient information to determine
I
a comparative cost for each alternative. ]
Using the graphs presented in Appendix IV in conjunction with the
information contained in the Project Evaluation Chart (Table 4),
1
cost comparisons for all sites, including those natural sites with

some drainage requirements, can be carried out. A sample economic ]

assessment chart is shown in Table 5. A detailed economic compari­

son is provided at the end of Appendix IV. ]

Sites requiring extensive engineering modifications can also be

evaluated using this format. However, costs indicated for these

J
sites from the site development and underdrain graphs will be low.

It is suggested that separate cost estimates (based on normal con­

]
struction estimating procedures) be worked out for these com­

ponents. The evaluation methods shown are generalized and should l

be used for comparison rather than design purposes. As a project

progresses, the variable costs such as the public involvement pro­ ]

gram and engineering will become more predictable.

]
Note that Table 5 does not include costs for land, engineering or

public awareness programs. At this stage, an estimate of 25% total

estimated capital cost for the latter two factors should be used.
]
The cost of land required at infiltration sites can be estimated by 1
multiplying land requirements by the average cost per ha. This
should be available from either the local tax assessor or real
estate companies. Land required will normally be rounded up to the

l
nearest quarter section; (i.e. larger than required land holdings

will likely be necessary). The estimate of land requirements at

I
this stage does not include additional land for buildings, roads,

etc. To account for these, land requirements should be increased I

1.5 times. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.
I
- 40 ­
I
---------------- -- ~

TABLE 5 - SAMPLE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (expre~sed in ~ thousands)

prellmlna- -a-sTn
E con-J"----Unaer:--~I Recovery~Return Return Servlce Ifa Adlinn.
Re­ ry Treat- Pipeli Pumping tructlon drains \Jell s Water Pip- Water and Fenc­ and TOTAL
Volume quire( ment ing Pumping ing La_~ _~_

I
~~_---a... ____

Io_~~.
SITEI conuii wastewate r Area
NO. tion recovered (ha) C o & ~ C o & ~ C o&~ C o 8. M C o 8. II C o 8. ~ C 0&" C o 8. I" C o &M
10 6 Llday C CO, M
-_. ,­ -~~,-- '._­ - ---

!
-_.­ .
--
C Capital costs
o Operation costs
M Maintenance costs
 l
4.7 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF REPORT
I
A prel iminary report shoul d be prepared which surmnari zes all per­
tinent information collected and associated interpretations.
J
Specifically. the report should contain:

• map of study area, l

• detailed map of potential sites,
• summary table for all sites with the following information: ]
* present and future land use
* hydrogeol09Y ]
* on- si te soil s
* di stance and el evati on from waste source
* total si te area
]
• and, summary table outlining approximate costs for each site
and various alternatives thereof (i.e. with or without ]
recovery well s).
]
This information should be compiled and assembled in report form

with recommended procedures for future work. These may i ncl ude

detailed field work at one or more sites, expansion of the study

l
boundary or cancelling the project.

]
The report when complete and in draft form should be submitted to

Alberta Environment for comments and review. Copies should also be ]

circul ated to the local municipal 1ty( s) affected.

]
4.8 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
]
Once the report has been received and revised a prel iminary publ ic
~

disclosure is strongly recommended. The format should be rel ative­

ly informal with notices in local newspapers with possible workshop

J
sessions. The information presented should outline:
• the existing waste treatment situation, J
• program objectives,

• outline what RI involves,

I

- 42 ­
I
I
o scope of work involved,
I , possible site areas identified,
, list of possible environmental and social impacts, and

I • request for additional publ ic input to the study.

I Typical examples and methods for setting up the information and

disclosure method are included in Appendix V. The initial list of
possible environmental and social impacts should be carried out in
I a sim"ilar fashion to impact assessments for other projects.

I This initial input program leads to a review of project needs in

rel ation to the information developed on local, physical, biolog­

I ical and social conditions; and subsequently to a review of candid­

ate areas for site selection. The public may at this time identify

I a preferred area for the site. The report may require significant
revision should the publ ic reaction be overly-negative. If none of
the si tes suggested in the report are acceptabl e to the publ ic, the
I pl anner is faced w·lth several al ternati ves:
• start the S1 te sel ecti on process over wi th an expanded study
I area,
o reappraise sites excluded during the economics phase,

I • eval uate any si tes suggested by the publ ic ,

I eval uate an al ternati ve process, or,

I • abandon the project completely.

Should the public's perception of the RI plan be generally positive

I then two or three si tes shoul d be recommended for future study and
detailed field work. The second phase of RI system design is then
I ready to beg in.

I
I
I
I
- 43 ­

I
 ]

]
]
]
]
l

1
]
J
I
- 44 ­
I
I
 I
CHAPTER 5
I DETAILED PHASE METHODOLOGY

I 5.1 INTRODUCTION

The detailed phase of an RI System design involves field investiga­

I tions to confirm a site's suitability, analyzing the information

and using this information to complete a detailed site design.

I Examples of detailed work undertaken in this phase include calcula­

tions of loading rates, treatment performance and groundwater move­

I ment. At the end of this phase an RI System fully planned, approv­

ed and ready for construction should emerge. As in the preliminary

I phase, however. restrictions may become apparent during the process

wh i ch may cau se the pri me site des i gn to be modif; ed or changed.
The following sections outline the steps required to undertake the
I work necessary at the detailed phase of study.

I 5.2 FINALIZE ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

I This phase is initiated with two or three potential sites as out­

lined in the preliminary phase; often with one site labelled as the

I preferred alternative. It is recommended that a brief field test­

; ng program be ca rri ed out in the vi ci ni ty of these sites to con­
firm the preliminary phase assumptions. This program would usually
I consist of several test holes in the vicinity of each site. A
suggested testing program is outlined in Appendix VI.
I
The information supplied from this procedure should be evaluated in
I a similar format to that shown on the project evaluation chart
(Table 4). Significant discrepancies may result between the esti­

I mated parameters and the actual parameters. Should this arise, the
site a1 ternati ve in question shoul d seri ously be reeval uated. It
may then be necessary to revise the preliminary phase ranking and
I eval uate other al ternati yes previ ously out1 i ned. I f no sites are
suitable then the complete preliminary process must be repeated
I with an expanded study boundary.

I - 45 ­

I
 ]
DETAILED FIELD STUDIES
J
A detailed field program will be necessary once initial public ac­
ceptance has been achi eved. The program shaul d concentrate on the
]
recommended site (from preliminary phase and initial field tests).
]
This program will involve on-site testing and therefore site access
atrangements will be necessary. The availability of land access
for testing should surface during the publ ic participation work­
1
shops or person-to-person contacts (See Appendix V).
]
The detailed program will revolve around two principal parameters:
, soil s, and
]
I) hydrogeology.

]
The suitability of the sites with respect to soils for use as an RI

site will be addressed. The soil s investigation will incl ude the ]

upper soils as well as the geological deposits above the water­

tabl e. The hydrogeological studies will focus on the saturated

portion of the site.

]
The detailed field investigation will be directed towards the ]
determination of:
• hydraul ic properties of the soil material s, ]
• soil mapping,
• soil chemical and physical properties, and ]
• the hydrogeological characteri stics of the si te.

A detailed methodology for carrying out these calculations is dis­

]
cussed in Appendix VII. In addition, Appendix VII discusses the
significance of various RI site selection and design parameters. l
J
I
I
- 46 ­
I
I
5.4 LABORATORY STUDIES
I
During the course of the fi el d program numerous sampl es will be

I collected. The purpose of sample collection is to provide

specimens for routine and specialized laboratory testing. The

I majority of the laboratory work will relate to soils investigations

rather than hydrogeological eval uations. The information provided

I will be required in the system design (Section 5.5).

The information required will generally consist of the following:

I .. so 11 s chemi stry ,
• soil s texture, and
I • groundwater chemistry.

I Parameters recommended for study are presented in Appendix VII

along wi th methods of eval uati ng thi s information. Laboratory
information used to determine treatment performance is discussed in
I Appendix VIII.

I 5.5 SYSTEM DESIGN

I Thi s step is concerned wi th the deta i1 ed desi gn of the rapi d infi 1­

tration site. At this stage there will be sufficient information

I to determine the hydraul ic loading and predict treatment perfonn­

ance of an individual al ternative. Factors of prime importance

I are:
• hydraulic loading rate,
• basin area required,
I , degree of preapplication treatment,
• mounding potential and drainage reqUirements,
I • operating cycles, and
• treatment performance.

I Each of these factors is discussed in detail in the foll owing sec­

tions. Cal cul ation procedures and appl icabl e background informa­
I tion can be found in Appendix IX.

I
- 47 ­
I
 ]
5.5.1 HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE
]
Rap; d infil trati on invol ves wastewater appli cati ons at hydraul ic

loading rates much greater than other methods of land treatment.

J
Consequentl y, the hydraul ic loading of an RI sitE: is the most

important factor that must be determined before a system can be ]

designed.

]
Hydraulic loading rates are limited by various parameters, includ­
ing:
• soil infiltration capacity,
]
• aqui fer hydraul ic conductivity,
t wastewater characteristics, and
]
• length of wastewater application and resting periods.
]
The fi rst two parameters are di scussed in detail in Appendix VI I.
]
The infi ltration rate at a si te will be greater wi th cl ean water

than wastewater if tests are carried out for a long time. When the

soil has been rested and not subject to recent flooding, infiltrat­

]
ion rates will al so be higher. Reduced rates al so occur following

the appl ication of wastewater and the concurrent accumulation of

]
organics and suspended sol ids on the soil surface. Infil tration
rates will increase with the depth of appl ied wastewater; however, ]
i nfil tration rates do not appear to decrease over long periods of
system use if proper maintenance is employed (Pound et al 1978). ]
For the above reasons, it is recommended that annual hydraul ic
loading rates equal 10 to 15% of the lowest measured infil tration
J
rate, using the pilot basin infiltration test described in Appendix

VII. If a pilot basin test cannot be conducted, the hydraul ic J

loading rate can be based on soil hydraul ic conductivity measure­

ments or cyl inder infil trometer infil tration tests. These two
1
methods are not as accurate as the basin infiltration test, but may

be employed if there ;s insufficient cleared space for a basin test

- 48 ­
I
I
or if there is no feasible way to transport water to the test site.
I Both methods are described in Appendix VII. Because hydraulic con­
ductivity is normally greater than actual infiltration rates at

I
"
operating RI basins, hydrualic loading rates should be between 4
and 10% of the measured cl ear water hydrauli c conducti vity of the
most restrictive soil layer. Measured cylinder infiltrometer
I infiltration rates are much greater than basin infiltration rates
because this method completely eliminate more lateral water
I movement. Thus, hydraulic loading rates should be no greater than
2 to 4% of the lowest cylinder inf-iltrometer infiltration rate.
I 5.5.2 LAND AREA REQUIRED
I Land required for infiltration basins was estimated in the prelimi­
nary phase when the design loading rate was determined (Section
I 4.3.1). Land required is obtained by substituting the hydraulic
1oadi n9 rate on Fi gure 7. The intercept of 1oadi n9 rate and
I anticipated flow will give the minimal area requirements for infil­
tration basins. The only difference in this exercise from the
I preliminary phase is that the hydrauliC loading rate is calculated
from field testing rather than estimated.

I Total land requirements for an RI System must include allowances

for:
I • infiltration basins and dikes,
• maintenance and laboratory building(s),
I • on-site treatment facilities,
• associated on-site roads,
I • expansion and emergency use areas, and
It buffer strips.

I From information studied, it is suggested that a factor of 1.5 be

I applied to the infiltration area required to estimate total site

requirements.

I
- 49 ­

I
 l
5.5.3 EFFECTS OF PRE-APPLICATION TREATMENT
J
If nitrogen removal is necessary, a primary level preapplication
treatment shaul d be provided. To produce renovated water of a ~
specific desired qual ity, various combinations of preappl ication
treatment and hydraulic loading rates can be used. As the level of
preappl kation treatment increases, greater loadil1g rates can be
l
used. However, the cost of providing preappl ication treatment ]
increases with the level of treatment. For this reason, unless
land is very limited. RI site access is not restricted, or soil
permeability is quite low, a primary level of preapplication treat­

]
ment is recommended. Information from recent studies waul d indi­

cate that renovated water equivalent to tertiary treatment with ]

phosphorous removal woul d be expected from the foll owing combina­
tions of preappl ication treatment and loading rate (Process Design ]
Manual, 1981):

Preapplication treatment
Average Annual
Loading Rate (m/yr) l
secondary 30-40
primary 15-30
]
If the design loading rate calculated in Section 5.5.1 exceeds the ]
above 1imits then the loading rate shoul d be decreased (such that
it falls within these limits) if renovated water must be tertiary ]
quality. In all situations. at least the equivalent of primary
treatment soul d be provided prior to 1and application.
information can be found in Appendix IX.
Further
l
Facul tative 1agoons are a popul ar form of sewage treatment in 1
Al berta. The use of such 1agoons for preappl icati on treatment may
adversely affect RI treatment. Detention periods in ponds or
1 agoons are long enough that the wastewater temperature drops sub­

l
stantially during prolonged cold weather. In RI systems, treatment ]

performance is proportional to the temperature of the applied

wastewater. If the temperature of the appl ied wastewater is too

low, the water may freeze before it percolates through the soil.
I
I
- 50 ­
I
I
I Therefore, ponds or 1agoons are not recommended as RI preappl ica­
tion treatment methods in Al berta unl ess col d weather storage is
provided.
I
Where facul tati ve 1agoons are used for pretreatment, col d weather
I operation could consist of the following procedures:
• direct appl ication of raw wastewater (in remote small-scale

I operati ons) ,
• use of small pretreatment lagoon(s) with minimum retention

I (and therefore minimum temperature decline). or

• the use of a 1agoon 1arge enough to store the enti re f1 ow
during cold weather.
I
The latter approach will result in larger infiltration area
I requirements since one year's wastewater must be treated during the
warm weather period. In areas where existing facultative lagoons

I are used for treatment, the lagoons will generally be large enough
to provide sufficient cold weather storage.

I 5.5.4 Loading Cycles

I If the intent is to maximize the infil tration rate or to maximize

nitrification, the loading cycle should incl ude resting periods
I that are long enough to adequately dry the soil and allow oxidation
of clogging solids, thereby restoring the initial infiltration

I rate. The length of time necessary to accompl ish this purpose win
depend on the local cl imate and wastewater characteristics, par­
ticul arly the suspended sol ids concentration. If the intent of t:se
I loading cycl e is to promote nitrogen removal, the loading portion
of the cycle must be long enough for the soil to become anaerobic
I and the resting period must be sufficiently long for the soil to
reaerate. Anaerobic conditions are necessary to promote denitrifi­
I cation, whereas aerobic conditions are necessary for nitrification.
The reactions are discussed in greater detail in a Section 5.5.7.

I For e; ther type of loading cycl e the requi rements for anaerobic
conditions must be considered along with land availability and

I
- 51 ­
I
 I
and other site specific factors before a design loading cycle can
be established.
I
Alberta RI systems will likely alter their loading cycles during
cold weather operations. Al terations may be necessary for either
of two reasons:
• longer resting periods may be required for soil drying and
•
reaeration. and
• longer appl ication or resting periods may be required to

J
promote nitrogen removal.

J
In Alberta1s cold winter climate, it will take longer for the soil
to thoroughly drain and dry. Decreasing the appl ication rate and
]
increasing the length of the application period, and the use of
resting periods of up to two weeks are possible means of overcoming )
this problem.

Suggested loading cycles are shown in Table 6. The values given in

1
this table are considered guidelines. Therefore, actual loading ]
cycles should take into account site-specific conditions.

Once the loading rate and loading cycl e have been establ ished, the I
application rate can be calculated. For example, if the hydraulic
, oading rate is 20 m/yr and the loading cycl e is 1 day of appl ica­ J
tion alternated with 7 days of drying, the application rate is as
follows:
hydraulic x (time on + "time off) x conversion = dail y
I
loading
rate
time on factor annual
to da; 1 y
appl ication
rate
I
20 m/yr x (7+1)d x 1 = 0.44 mid = 44 cm/day J
:;J

1 d 365 d
The appl icati on rate shoul d be used to determine the maximum depth
of the appl ied wastewater. For example, if the measured basin in­
filtration rate ;s 15 cm/d, the maximum wastewater depth is
1 d of application x (44-15) cm/d = 29 em
I
I
- 52 ­
I
J
I
TABLE 6

SUGGESTED HYDRAULIC LOADING CYCLES

-I Objective of Preappl ication

Preapplication Treatment Treatment Level
Season Application Drying
Period
days
Period
days

I Maximize infiltration
rates or nitrification
Primary Summer
Winter
1-2
1-2
5-7
1-14
Secondary Summer 1-3 4-5
I Winter 1-3 5-12

I Maximize nitrogen
removal
Primary Summer
Winter
1-2
1-2
10-14
12-18

I Secondary Summer
Winter
7-9
9-12
10-15
12-18

I
I Source: Process Design Manual, 1981

I
I
I
J
I
I
- 53 ­
I
 I,
In general maximum wastewater depth shoul d not exceed 46 em wi th a

I
maximum depth of 30 em viewed as preferable. If the wastewater ]

depth cal cul ation indicates the recommended maximums will be ex­

ceeded, e; ther the load; ng rate shoul d be decreased or the loading

cycle adjusted until the maximum basin depth is acceptable. I

5.5.5 DRAINAGE J
Site drainage is another important design consideration.
site must drain at a rate high enough to maintain reasonable
An RI
I
hydrau1 ic loading rates. The site must a1 so drain at a rate that
allows the soil to dry and reaerate within a reasonable period,
J
especially during times of freezing weather. If reaeration is in­

adequate, nitrification of ammonia w'ill not be complete and the I

maximum infiltration rate will be reduced.

I
In addition to vertical percol ation, natural drainage may incl ude
1ateral subsurface f1 ow to surface waters. When subsurface f1 ow to
surface water is desi red, subsurface f1 ow characteri stic s shoul d be
I
analyzed to verify whether the renovated water will drain to the
surface water. Most of the necessary des; gn parameters to deter­

I
mine subsurface flow characteristics will be provided from the

detail ed site sel ection work outl ined in the detail ed hydrogeo- J
10gica1 studies (Appendix VII).

If the existing soil drainage is insufficient, engineered drainage

J
may be necessary. Detailed methods of calculating
requirements are given in Appendix IX.
drainage
J
Site drainage may a1 so be necessary in order to iso1 ate renovated
J
wastewater from high qual ity groundwater. Two examples of such
systems are provided in Appendix IX.
]
As appl ied wastewater pereol ates through the soil to the ground­
water) the el evation of the watertabl e beneath the spreading area
I
I
- 54 ­
I
I
~

(RI basin) rises. Because the applied water tends to move horizon­
I tally as well as vertically, the groundwater el evati on increases
most dramatically beneath the centre of the spreadi ng area and at
I increasingly smaller levels as the distance from the centre of the
basin increases. This trend causes the groundwater to mound under
I the spreading basin. Mound profiles rise during the application

,
,
periods and recede following the end of flooding. Mounds can be
predicted by interpreting field data. A method of predicting mound
buildup is given in Appendix IX.

I Two methods available to increase natural drainage are:

• underdrains, or
I • recovery wells.

I From an economic viewpoint, underdrains are more desirable than

recovery wells and are used where the aquifer thickness is insuf­

I ficient to allow the establishment of wells. If the natural dis­

charge capacity is restricted but the aquifer thickness is suffi­
cient (usually 10 m or more) then wells are preferred for drainage.
I In the example shown at the end of Appendix II, recovery wells are
used.
I
,
Regardless of the drainage type used, applied wastewater must re­
ceive adequate treatment before it intercepts surface water or
reaches drains or wells. The actual time and distance required for
adequate treatment depends on the required quality of the renovated
water and on the soil and applied wastewater characteristics.
Bouwer (1976) indicates that approximately 100 m of lateral dis­
I tance and 1 month retention are sufficient for most RI systems.

I
, Engineered drainage methods provide consistent groundwater protect­
i on through the use of drai ns (either open or closed) or pumped
wells. Drains and wells are discussed in greater detail in
Appendix IX.

- 55 ­
I
 J
\f'

5.5.6 TREATMENT LEVELS I

Because RI systems have high hydraulic loading rates, adequate
wastewater treatment must occur during RI to avoid contamination of

I
neighbouring ground and surface waters. Most RI systems must be

concerned with the treatment and/or removal of: I

• BOD,

•
suspended solids,

nitrogen,
J
•
•
phosphorus,
trace el ements,
I
•
•
micro- organ isms, and
trace organics. I
The 1evel of treatment of each of the above is affected by several I
parameters, including:
• preapplication treatment, I
• 1oadi"9 rate,
• loading cycle, and
• physical site characteristics {primarily soil s}.
J
Each of these parameters are discussed in the following Sections.
I
Detail s of transfonnation reactions and process mechanisms of con­

taminant removal can be found in Appendices X and XI. I

5.5.6.1 Preapplication Effects on Treatment i

Because the organisms responsible for denitrification require a
source of dissolved organic carbon (see Appendix X), the amount of
J
ni trogen that can be removed during RI may be 1imited by the
amount of avail abl e organic material. Organic carbon removed J
during preappncation treatment is not available for denitrifying
organisms. Therefore, if pre-application treatment is too exten­ I~,

sive, the amount of organic material available for denitrification

during RI may limit nitrogen removal. I

- 56 ­
I
~
I S1 ight modifications in system operation can be used to improve
nitrogen removal efficiency. These methods do not require any
additional chemicals and have been used in pilot studies to achieve
I nitrogen removal s in excess of 80% from secondary effl uent. These
methods and are discussed in detail in Appendix XI.
I 5.5.6.2 Loadi and Cold Weather Effects on Treatment

I In order to maximize nitrification or denitrification during RI in

I cold weather, longer loading cycles will be necessary. If the

goal s of RI incl ude nitrification but not denitrification, the
loading cycle should consist of short application periods followed
I by rel atively long drying periods. Typical loading cycl es used in
the RI systems during col d weather are di scussed in Append ix XI,
I and are presented on Table 6.

I The length of the loading and drying periods needed will depend on
temperature, nitrogen loadings, and nutrient removal requirements.

I Soil col umn or pil ot studies may be necessary prior to system

design if ~igh nitrogen removal s must be achieved during winter

I months. Such studies could be used to determine the appropriate

cold weather loading.

I 5.5.6.3 Effects of Soils on Treatment

I The complex, site-specific nature of soils provide wide ranges of

treatment capabilities. Desireab1e soil properties have been dis­

I cussed previously in Chapter 4. and the effects of soil s on treat-,

ment performances are di scussed further in Appendix X. Genera" y.
coarser soil textures achi eve lower treatment performance.
I
I
,

- 57 ­
I

 ]
5.5.7 TREATMENT PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS I
5.5.7.1 BOD and Suspended Solids Removal I.·
;J

BOD and suspended sol i ds are removed primarily by soil bacteri a.

These removals vary with the distance travelled from the applica­ I
tion site and the types of soils present. The amount of BOD or
suspended solids being applied per loading period can affect re­
moval efficiency, as can temperature and soil type. Removal ef­
I
ficiency varies from 85 to 99% at RI sites (See Appendix XI). In
Alberta, BOD loadings up to 200 kg/ha.d should cause no problems.
J
In fact, municipal BOD concentrations seldom limit wastewater
1oadi ng rates.
I
5.5.7.2 Nitrogen Removal J
Nitrogen is removed in the RI process by means of complex reactions I
known as nitri fi cati on and den; trifi cati on. These processes are
discussed extensively in Appendix XI. J
Nitrogen removals of 60 to 80% may be obtained using relatively
high ratios of applied organic matter to nitrogen and adequate
I
flooding and drying periods. Suggested loading cycles for nitrogen
removal are included in Table 6.
J
Pilot work may be necessary to determine the optimum combination of J
loading cycle and nitrogen loading rate.

5.5.7.3 Phosphorus Removal

I
Most phosphorus is removed by two sequential mechanisms:
J
• adsorption, and
• precipitation
J'
InRI systems adsorpti on of phosphorus is a rapi d mechani sm that I
proceeds within 2 to 5 days of infiltration (Tofflemire et al,
I
- 58 ­
I
-

I 1977}. Precipitation of phosphorus, which follows adsorption, is a

much slower reaction that involves the mineralization of phosphor~s
into relatively insoluble iron, calcium, and aluminum phosphates.
I During precipitation, phosphorus is removed from adsorption sites,
leaving them available for additional adsorption. The details of
I these reactions have been studied and reported by Enfield and
Bledsoe (1975) and are discussed in Appendix XI.

I Given adequate soil travel distance (e.g. 8 m), most phosphorus (95

-I to 99%) should be removed. The coarser the soil texture is, the
greater the soil travel distance required to remove a specific
amount of phosphorus.

5.5.7.4 Treatment Performance Summary

I Based on the information and methods presented, a reasonable esti­

I mate of the level of treatment achievable from a specific site can

be obtained (detailed methods are described in Appendix XI). If

I the renovated water quality predictions do not meet treatment

objectives then the site design will have to be modified by:
• upgrading pretreatment,
J • modifying loading rates and cycles, or
• abandoning the project site and repeating the site selection
I process.

I 5.6 ENGINEERING

Once the site selection process has been finalized, the hydraulic
I loading eycl es determined and the treatment 1evel s deemed sati <;­
factory, engineering of the RI site can commence. Engineering
I input will be directed in one of two ways:
• those sites requiring only basin construction and wastewater

-I distribution (natural), or
• sites where drains, recovery well s and/or importation of
granular material will be required (in addition to the
above) .

I
- 59 ­
I
 J
If a site is level and consists of the properly graded granular

material with a deep watertable, little engineering work is entail­

ed except for the formation of the basins themselves and the pipe

I
vlOrk required to distribute the flow to the various basins.
other hand, shoul d a si te be chosen cons; sti ng of a hi gh water­

On the

I
table, low permeability soils, or some combination thereof, then an

artificial site with a suitable underdrain system must be con­

J
structed from imported materials. An artificially constructed site

will require a substantially higher capital expenditure. Such an

J
alternative may prove to be cost-effective if the site is substan­

ti ally closer to the wastewater source than the nearest natural

site and wastewater flows are relatively small.

The foll owi ng sections di scuss important consi derati ons necessary

to properly engineer both natural and artificial RI sites.

5.6.1 SITE LAYOUT

I
i,
i1

The geography of the site should be examined in detail. This

generally invol ves drafti ng a detail ed contour map of the

(contour interval 1 m). Man made or other obstructions should be
si te
1
noted, such as roads, fence lines, forests, power lines and railway
lines. Steep hillsides should be avoided for infiltration basins

I
as they restrict loadings and require a considerable amount of

contouring to obtain the appropriate level land area.

J
The number of infiltration basins required depends on the hydraulic J
loading cycl e. Unl ess storage is allowed for, enough basi ns must
be prov ided to allow at 1east one basi n to be dosed at all times.
To provide flexibility it is desirable to have as many infiltration
I
basins as is economically and physically possible.
infiltration basins are built on undulating ground, then in order
If the
I
to balance the cut and fill earthwork,
constructed would be based on construction economics.
the number of basins
Ii
,;;

J
- 60 ­
I

I"
Constructi on of rapi d infil trati on basi ns requi res ei ther excava­
I tion of soil material s and forming berms between individual cell s
or bringing in materials from a borrow site to dike off cells from

I one another. Berms between basins are normally compacted soil with
slopes of 1:3 (vertical :horizontal).

I Because the existing soil profiles at rapid infiltration sites will

have desirable qualities, such as free oxides, organic matter and
I biological activity for chelation and adsorption of wastewater con­
taminants, it may be desirable to preserve as much of the original
I soil profile as possible, especially if these soils have relatively
fi ne tex tures .

I Whether soil material is brought in or the on- site soil material ;s

I used for di ke construction, there will be bare soil surfaces on the

dikes. If the potential for erosion is high, the dikes should be
vegetated or covered with rip rap. Soil sampling and fertility
I analysis should precede vegetation plantings. The vegetation will
improve aesthetic qual ities of the site and prevent erosion of dike
I surfaces.

I Basin size and layout can be determined once the area required and
the number of basins needed have been calculated. Basin size may

I *" be 1imited by si te topography but genera" y they shoul d range from

0.2 ha to 4.0 ha. As mentioned previously, maximum wastewater
depth shaul d not exceed 46 cm and a max imum depth of 30 em :)
I preferable. At least 30 cm of operating freeboard should he
provided. Thus, total basin depth is normally between 60 and 8Q

I cm.

I If the RI site is flat, basins should be adjo"ining and rectangular

or square to maximize land use. Access to the basins can be pro­
vided by a single road around the perimeter of the basins with
J ramps from the access road into the basi ns. Al ternati vel y, access
roads may be provided between basins. All space required fot'
I access roads and ramps and for berms between ba.sins, incl uding

- 61 ­
 J
si;()t sand <."E:stS. should be in addition to the area needed for
; nfil tra ti on. I
If topography limits basin size, equal sized basins may not be
feasible. Alternatively, areas having suitable slope and soils for
l
basin siting must be selected, keeping in mind that greater operat­
ing flexibility is provided by constructing multiple basins. I
Buffer strips between infiltration basins and adjOining property J
are desirable. In addition, areas should be reserved for future
expansion of basins, on-site access roads, pipelines and a main­
tenance/laboratory building.
J
5.6.2 CONVEYANCE
I
5.6.2.1 Pipeline Routing i
Once a suitable application site has been established, the next I
feature to be reviewed ;s the terrain lying between the rapid in­
fil trat;on site and the source of wastewater.
required, the wastewater source will
If a pipeline is
usually be either a sewage
I
treatment facil ity or a point on a coll ection sewer. All matters
relating to a transport of the fluid from the source to the site
J
should be reviewed.
J
Forcemains or sewers connecting the treatment works with the infil­
tration basi ns must be routed considering the topography, 1and J
boundaries and distance factors. Any deviation from the straight­
est line and uniform grade will escalate the engineering, operating
and construction costs. For example, the most inexpensive method
J
of transport is by an open canal conducting fluids by gravity over
unifonn terrain to a rapid infiltration site located below and
J
adj acent to the wastewater source (open canal s shoul d ony be used
where access is restricted). The most expensi ve method of trans­ I
port is by pumping station and forcemain over undulating terrain to
I

- 62 ­
I
J a rapid infiltration site located high above and far from the

I treatment works.

I If the specific route of the pipeline cannot be determined at this

time the straight line distance between the source of the waste­

I wat€'r and the rapid infiltration site should be multiplied by a

factor of 1.5. This is necessary to account for extra pipeline

•I
length required to stay within existing road allowances rather than
obta ining ri ghts- of-way across privatel y owned property. If a
deta il ed pi pel ine route has been determined, thi s more accurate
distance can be used in the calculations.

I 5.6.2.2 Flow Regulation and Storage Effects

I Most RI systems can operate duri ng adverse cl imatic conditions,

particularly if operations can be modified to accommodate cold
weather (i.e. winter storage is usuall y not necessary). However,
I storage may be required for fl ow equal ization if daily or seasonal
flow peak; ng occurs.

J The economics of the method of transport can be adjusted by various

I means. For example, if a suitably sized storage basin is located

to receive the waste flow over a 24-hour period, then the pumping
station and forcemain (if necessary) can be sized to pump the 24
I hour average flow rather than the peak rate of flow which could be
as much as four times the average rate of fl ow. Thus, by use of a
I flow equalization basin, pump and forcemain sizes can be reduced
substantially resulting in lower overall capital and operating

I costs. An economic bal ance must al so be sought between the si ze of

the pump and the forcemain. The larger the forcemain installed the

I less friction head will occur which allows for the use of a smaller

, pump than woul d otherwi se be necessary. On the other hand. forcl.l..

mains of large diameter cost considerably more than a forcemain of
a smaller diameter. Conversely, the larger the pump, the smaller
and less expensive the forcemain will be. Other matters Yilich must
I be considered when sizing a forcemain are:

I
- 63 ­

I
 I
i hydraul ic hammer conditions,
• scouring velocities,
(" ail' rel ief locations at high points, and
I
~ exposure to frost, etc.
J
As a general rule, the greater distance the wastewater source is
from the infil ttation basins, the greater the total cost of the

I
conveyance system.

J
5.6.2.3 Materials
J
The sel ection of material s for forcemains will necessarily effect

the cost of the forcemains. However, the conditions under which

the forcemain must operate may dictate the choice of material s.

I
The pipe materials available for use in forcemains are:

• steel,
J
• cast iron,
• polyethylene, J
• rei nforced concrete, or
• asbestos cement. J
Steel pipe, although capable of withstanding high head and shock ]

loads, is susceptible to corrosion and may require special linings,

wrappi ngs and cathodic protection. Polyethyl ene pi pe on the other

hand, especially in large diameters, cannot withstand the high head

!
conditions or shock loading which steel pipe is capable of; how­
ever, it is extremely corrosion resistant. Each of the other three 1
pipes, cast iron, asbestos cement and concrete, fall somewhere in
between the two extremes described. Each has its own advantages
and disadvantages and associated cost variations.
J
5.6.2.4 Pumping Stations
J
There are many confi gurati ons for pump; ng sta ti ons and the 1ayout
J
for any pumping station depends on the circumstances under which it
I
J
- 64 ­
I
J is to operate and its location. Pumping stations are of the wet
I we11 or dry well confi gurati ons. In a wet well confi gurati on a
vertical turbine or a submersible pump is normally used. These

I types of pumps, though self-priming, are not suitable for pumping

, large diamter solids but could be utilized to pump primary or

secondary effluent. On the other hand, in the wet well/dry well

, confi gurati on for a pump; n9 stat; on, where the sewage pump is
located in a dry well adjacent to the wet well, a non-clog type of
pump can be installed. This type of pump will handle large solids
and could be used for the pumping of raw sewage. However, the wet
I well/dry well configuration of a pumping station is more expensive
to construct than the si n91 e wet well type and mai ntenance on the

I pumps themselves is more easily carried out in the wet wel1/ dry
well configuration.

I Pumping stations, if required, must be sized considering not only

the volume to be handled but also the distance over wtlich the fluid
I is to be pumped and the height to which it must be elevated. Rapid
infil tration sites which are located lower than the treatment works

I could be dosed by means of gravity sewers.

I Instrumentation of the pumping station and forcemain configuration

can be as sophi sticated or as simpl e as budget permits. The ul ti­

I mate in sophistication would include electrically and automatically

operated valves at the loading basins along wi th a programmable
controller to operate the pumping station based on level and n·)W
I to keep track of volumes of flooding for each basin and the dura­
tion of rest periods, etc.
I At the other end of the scale, pumping stations can be operated in

I a manual fashion based on 1evel s in a fl ow bal ancing tank and

manual val yes in the infi 1tration area can be opened and closed a<;
necessary in order to achieve the desired resul ts for fl ooding and
I dry; ng cycl es .

I
11.
L
- 65 ­

I
5.6.3 COLD h~ArHER DESlGN AND OPERATING CONSIDERATIONS
J
£t.?erience has shown that I"apid infiltration basin installations
I
::an be operated throughout the year even in col d c1 imates, provided
the auxiliary equipment is properly engineered. Although the
]
degree of treatment and rates of infil tration are reduced during
winter months, infiltration will still take place at reasonable J
rates. The major problems involved in winter operation are

associated wi th the freezi ng of the various engineering install a­ ]

tions such as pumping stations, forcemains and basin inlets. It is

therefore recommended that:

• pumping stations be fully insulated and heated,

J
• forcemains be buried below the
and
frost penetration level s,
J
• if the forcemain is to be used on an intermittent basi s,
arrangements should be made for draining and/or el ectrical !
thawing during cold weather.

In the latter case, the sewage forcemain should be designed as if

J
it were a watermain. The basin inlet works should be designed so
that they are sel f-draining and not likely to freeze. Manholes
I
shaul d have frost barriers withi n thei r structure whil e valves
shaul d be of the sel f- drai ning type. In extremely col d weather, 1
allowances for excess flooding of the infiltration beds are neces­
sary in order that sufficient liquid be available to float and thaw
]
any ice cover whi cn may form on the beds. In order that the ice
can fl oat, weeds must be cropped and removed prior to freezi ng
weather, if indeed they are allowed to grow on the bed at all (see
J
Section 5.6.5, Maintenance). During freezing weather it is pos­
sible even under properly designed conditions to freeze up of some
I
equipment. Therefore, standby heating equipment such as a "steam
jenni', propane torches and other simil ar equi pment shoul d be I
available in order to thaw valves, pipelines, etc. in cases of
emergency. I

- 66 ­
I

I
J Extreme cold weather (i.e. less than -20°C) also may require basin
I modifications to prevent spreading areas from freezing solid.
Possible modifications include temporarily covering the basins.

I Snow or artifi ci al coveri ngs may be used to i nsul ate the basi ns
(artificial covers may either be fixed or inflatable). If snow is

I used to insulate, there must be some means of applying the snow and
keeping the snow in place, including the use of snow fencing.
However, RI systems currently in operation have not required these
I basin modifications. Modifications increase both the capital costs
and the maintenance requirements of a system and should only be
I used when normal cold weather precautions (e.g., avoiding prolonged
detention periods during preapplication treatment) are inadequate.

I During cold weather, proper basin management may require changes in

I basin loading and/or operation. As discussed in the section on the

effects of col d weather on treatment performance, infi ltration,
nitrification and denitrification rates all tend to decrease during
I cold weather. For this reason, decreasing the application rates by
increasing the length of the application periods, or decreasing the
I hydraulic loading rates by increasing the length of the drying
periods may be necessary.
I 5.6.4 MONITORING

I The purpose on an RI site monitoring program is to:

• determine whether the design provides adequate treatment,
I • document th<:tt the system ;s meeting all appropriate
regulatory requirements and that environmental protection is
I maintained,
• provide information needed to make management decisions,

I and

• provide data for future system designs.

I In meeting the first two goals, monitoring programs protect the

groundwater and the affected environment. Properly desi gned and
I impl emented monitor; ng programs shoul d reveal whether changes in

I
- 67 ­
I
 J
system design or operation are necessary. In particular, monitoring
::let" :r.ay also be useful in designing RI systems that will be I
instal"led in similar environments and will treat wastewater having
simn2i.;' characteristics. A sample monitoring program is described
ill Appendix XII.
1
Incr2ct~·ing the level of pr'€:application treatment tends to decrease
J
potent al for groundwater contamination from BOD, micro organ­
i SillS, and trace organ; cs. For thi s reason, groundwater moni tori ng
]
requirements may be less stringent as the level of preapplication
treatment increases. In addition, improving overall treatment may J
allow implementation of more reuse options.

jV1AI NTENANCE
J
RI systems requi re peri od; c basi n mai ntenance. The basin surface
1
ml{st be c1 eaned when it becomes clogged to the extent that infil­
tration rates are greatly reduced. The frequency of cleaning
J
required is directly related to the level of preapplication
treatment and the hydraulic loading rate. Basins subject to high I
loadings require substantially more maintenance than beds subjected
to lower hydraulic loadings. Similarly) basins utilizing secondary l
effluent require substantially less frequent maintenance than
systems wh-j ch infi ltrate pri mary effl uent. 1
Bas; ns may be operated with either vegetated or non-vegetated su r­
faces. Experience indicates that non-vegetated basins require
1
greater frequency of maintenance than vegetated surfaces. Ridge and
furrow bed formation may also be employed with either type but J
maintenance savings generated by this method are usually offset by
the increased costs incurred duri ng the formation of the ri dges. J
The most suitable operation mode will become apparent during actual
operation. J
Maintenance of non-vegetated beds normally consists of either
scarifying the soil surface (disking or harrowing) or skimming of
I
I
'" 68 ­
I
,

I the sludge blanket. This skimming would preferably be carried out

from the berm areas using IIGradall" type equipment. Alternatively.
light, high-flotation tractors can provide both skimming and scari­
I fication. Therefore, basins and berms must be accessible to wheel­
ed vehicles at all times.

I
, Where vegetation grows in the basins, slightly different mainten­
ance schemes are required. Normally, basin vegetation is allowed
to grow and die naturally, and heavy equipment that would compact

I the soil surface should not be operated on it (applies to all

basins). Periodic mowing or harrowing may improve the site s l

visual character. During the fall season the vegetation must be

I harvested in a similar manner to any other farm crop in order that
ice will not adhere to the weeds during winter. It would be advis­
I able at the same time to rake the bottom of the infi ltration basin
in order to remove the enti re sl udge accumul ation. The c1 eani ngs

I from the infiltration beds should then be disposed of in a sanitary

landfill.

I 5.7 DETAILED ECO~OMICS

I In order for a RI project to be approved it must be cost-effective,

The US EPA (1978) defines cost effectiveness as:

I ... liThe waste treatment management system which the analysis

determi nes to have the 'lowest present worth or equi va"; en+:

I
annual value unless nonmonetary costs are overriding. The

most cost-E~ffecti ve alternative must a1 so meet the mi ni mum

requirements of applicable effluent limitations, groundwatet
I protection: or other applicable standards" .••

I Costs for RI systems can be estimated by using the cost curves from
Appendi x IV and the informati on generated from the detailed des i 91'1

I phase.

-. 69 ­
I
 J
"
Annual costs must be determined by adding the depreciated capital
costs wi th the operati ng and mai ntenance costs. General servi ce
I
lives are as follows (EPA, 1978):
Q Land - permanent J
~ Stt'uctures - 30 to 50 years
•
~
Process Equipment - 15 to 30 years
Auxiliary Equipment - 10 to 15 years
J
Capital costs for land will vary from site to site. RI systems
J
must have adequate 1and for preappl i cation treatment facil ities,
infiltration basins, buffer zones, administrative and laboratory I
buil di ngs, pi pe 1 i ne easements and other facil i ti es. Land for pre­
appl ication treatment and other permanent structures is normally J
owned by the community and should be included as a capital cost if
it is not already controlled or owned by the wastewater management J
agency. Costs of relocating residences and other buildings depend
on the location but also should be included in capital cost esti­
mates.
1
Operation and ~a;ntenance (O&M) costs include labor, materials and I
supplies (including chemicals), and power costs. Energy require­
ments for RI are substantially less than those for Advanced
]
Wastewater Treatment Plants (Wesner, E.M., et a1, 1978).

For comparison purposes, O&M costs are assumed to be constant dur­

l
ing the planning period.
expected to
However, if average wastewater flows are
increase significantly during the planning period,
1
operation and maintenance costs should be developed for each year
of the planning period. I
The economic evaluation during this detailed phase involves the 3
application of the determined site factors (infiltration capacity,
etc.) on the cost curves given in Appendix IV.
prov; de a reasonably accurate cost estimate whereas the costs pro­
This exercise will J
vided in the preliminary phase were essentially only comparative.
An estimated capital and operating cost can be compiled in such a
J
J
- 70 ­
I
J
I manner; however, accurate costs for engineering and public partici­
pation I'Jill not be possible. These factors will still require

I estimation at 25% of the total project cost. The detailed cost

summary is essentially a confirmation of the prel iminary assump­
tions used in the preliminary phase.
I
5.8 PREPARATION OF DRAFT PLAN
I A draft plan should be prepared outlining all pertinent features of

I the site chosen. It shoul d contain all the information researched

and generated froPl field, lab and office studies, as well as other

I considerations pertinent to public acceptance (i.e. environmental

factors). In general, the plan should contain the following
information:
I • purpose and scope of project,
• site location,
I • physical site conditions,
• des i 911 pa rameters,

I • engineering considerations,
• costs, and

I • a detail ed soci al and envi ronmental

(according to established procedures).
impact statement

I Public concerns are discussed in detail in the following section,

The purpose of the draft report at thi s stage is to outli m? th"
I project to the system owner and Alberta Environment and incorporat?
thei r comments, accord; ng1 y. Comments rece; ved through the pub n.::

I participation pY'ogram (Section 5.9) would be reviewed and incor-­

porated where applicable.

I 5.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

J r~aintainingopen communication and involving the public from the

project's initiation are essential if a project is to receive pub­
I lic acceptance. An accepted method of generating this communica­
tion is through a meaningful public participation program (PPP)

I
- 71 ­

 J,
\'fIr! ch is
part and parcel of the pl ann; ng process. The object; ves
should be defined and articulated at the outset of the program and J
ccns'ideration given to the nature of the project and the publics
I,i?~ted when designing the public participation program.
l
objectives of a (PPP) are:
• to educate the public not only about the project itself, but

J
on wastewater treatment generally~

• to inform the public of anticipated effects of the project

]
on the local social and physical environment, and

• to allow the public to provide meaningful input to the ]

overall project.

Lnder certai n ci rcumstances rev; ew of program objectives wi th re­

J
presentati ves of potenti ally affected publ ics may be advantageous.
Program coordinators must be aware that the principles and tech­
l
niques of rapid infiltration must be brought before a range of
people with a varying appreciation of technical principles and 1
operating matters. The advantages and disadvantages pertaining to
rapid infiltration must be clearly and concisely explained, as must 1
alternative approaches to solving the sewage treatment/disposal
problem at hand. ]
A well organized PPP has the following advantages:
~ it increases the likelihood of public approval,
,J
• it provides a mechanism for decision making, and
• it allows the public to express their opinions on the

]
subject.

I
While a PPP is necessary to gain public support, some disadvantages
in terms of the overall project are:
• the project may take longer to initiate,
1
• public interest may not develop until it is too late to make
changes, and
J
• the public may resist the proposed project outright (Canter,
1977) •
I
J
- 72 ­
I
,
I During the initial planning stage, public participation is often
restricted to that of unilateral dissemination of information per­
I taining to RI. Constructive participation by the public under
these circumstances ;s consequently curtailed. Depending on the
I objectives of the PPP, constructive participation can occur at the
preliminary phase if the issue is extremely sensitive and time is

I not a critical factor in the overall planning process.

detailed phase, a specific plan can be presented and comments from
During the

I the publ i c encouraged. At thi s stage, publ i c attitudes concerni ng

design and operation of the site should be solicited. The criteria
used to select the site should be adequately explained.
I
The following list includes examples of mechanisms for achieving

I bilateral communication.

• public meetings,

I • public workshops,

• radio talk shows, and

I • open houses.

Specific efforts will be required to involve the locally affected

I public. Despite the best efforts of a PPP, nearby residents are
likely to oppose the project. Allowing detailed input by this
I group will help to alleviate potential hostility
These efforts may be time consuming and costly but may allOH a
(SCS, 1978).

I project to go ahead where it would otherwise fail. Education of

the public about the project and its niche on the overall planning

I for the communi ty is imperati ve for meani ngful

effected publics. Mechanisms for generating
comment from the
localized input,

I interest and education are:

• tours/field trips,
• audio visual presentations,
I • task forces,
• formal public hearings (in areas with wide public interest
I or as an agency requi rement for project approval).

!
- 73 ­

I
 ex amp1es of these and other communi cati on procedures are
Oet(.t1"j ed
J
presented in Appendix XIII.
J
Even a \vell designed PPP involving the public in RI decision making
may not eliminate citizen dissatisfaction. However, an active pub­
l
lic imfolvement program will minimize the likelihood of this pos­

sibility and will contribute to the long term political and public l

acceptability) increase public confidence and give citizens a voice

in local planning. ]

5" 10 SUMMft.RY ]
Once public approval has been achieved and citizen input incorpo­
rated into the draft report, the RI project should be ready to pro­
I
ceed to the construction stage.
1
The project then progresses in a simil ar fashion to that of any
major construction job using conventional project management pro­ ]
cedures. Start-up of the site shaul d be monitored carefully to
evaluate the actual site capability and cOr.1pare its performance to ]
that estimated. At that time, modifications in loading rates
and/or cycles can be tested to determine operating conditions. 1
l

J
-J
I

- 74 ­ I

I
I LIST OF REFERENCES

I Alexander, Martin. 1961. Introduction to Soil Microbiology. John Wiley

and Sons, Inc. New York.
I Armstrong, D.E., and J.G. Konrad. 1974.
Pesticides. In:
Nonbiological Degradation of
Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C.

I Dinauer, ed. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin.

Aulenbach, D.B., N.L. Clesceri, S. Beyer, and L. Hajas. 1975. Tertiary
Treatment by Soil at Lake George Village Sewage Treatment Plant.
I Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute FWI Report 75-5.
Aulenbach, D.B. 1979. March 1979. Long Term Recharge of Trickling
I Filter Effluent into Sand. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-79-068.

Ayers, R.J. and D.W. Westcot. 1976. vlater Quality for Agriculture.
I Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29, FAD, Rome.
Bailey, G.W. 1968. Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution
I Control, Part 1, Reactions of Nitrogenous and Phosphatic Compounds
with Soils and Geologic Strata. U.S. Department of the Interior.

I Baillod, C.R. et a1. 1977. Preliminary Evaluation of 88 Years of Rapid

Infiltration of Raw Municipal Sewage at Calumet, Michigan.
Land as a Waste Management Alternative.
In:
Ann Arbour Science.

I Barrow, N.J., and T.C. Shaw. 1975. The Slow Reactions Between Soil and
Anion. Soil Science. 199:167-177.

I
Bendixen, T.W., R.D. Hill, W.A. Schwartz,
and G.G. Robeck. 1968. Ridge

and Furrow Liquid Waste Disposal in a Northern Latitude. Journal

of Sanitary Eng. 5819 pp 147-158.

I Benham-Blair & Affiliates, Inc., and Engineering Enterprises, Inc.

August 1979. Long-Term Effects of Land Application of Domestic

Wastewater: Milton, Wisconsin, Rapid Infiltration Site. U.S,

I Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-79-145.
Beyer, S.M. May 1975. Flow Dynami cs in the I nfi 1tration-Percol ation

I Method of Land Treatment of Wastewater. M.S. Thesis, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York.

Bianchi, W.C., and C. Muckel. December 1970. Groundwater Recharge

I Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service. ARS 41-161.

I Bianchi, W.C. and E.E. Haskell, Jr. 1968. Field Observations Compared
to Dupui t-Forchheimer Theory for Mound He; ghts Under a Recharge
Basin. Water Resources Research. 4(5):1049-1057.

 J
"'
Bingham, F.G. 1973. Boron in Cultivated Soils and Irrigation Waters.
Advances in Chemistry Series 123:130-138.
Black, C.A. (ed). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis Park 2: Chemical and
J
Microbi 01 ogi cal Properti es. Agronomy 9, Ameri can Soc; ety Agron.
Inc., Madison, Wisconsin. l
Blakeslee, P.A. July 9-13, 1973. Monitoring Considerations for Munici­
pal Wastewater Effluent and Sludge Application to Land. Presented
at the Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on
l
Land. Champaign, Illinois.

Bouwer, H. February, 1970. Groundwater Recharge Design for Renovating ]

Wastewater. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceed­
ings of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Bouwer, H. September 1970. Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent
1
Systems Usi ng Secondary Sewage Effl uent. U.S. Water Conservation
Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona. Paper No.8.
J
Bouwer, H. May-June 1974. Design and Operation of Land Treatment
Systems for Minimum Contamination of Groundwater.
12(3):140.
Groundwater.
J
Bouwer, H. July 9-13, 1973. Land Treatment of Liquid Waste: The
Hydrologic System. Presented at the Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign, Illinois.
]
Bouwer, H., and R. L. Chaney. 1974.
Advances in Agronomy. 25:133-176.
Land Treatment of Wastewater. ]
Bouwer, H. November, 1974. Infiltration - Percolation Systems. In:
Land Appl ication of Wastewater. Proceedi ngs of a Research Sympo­
sium Sponsored by the US EPA, Region III, Newark, Delaware. pp.
1
85-92.
Bouwer, H., J.C. Lance, and M.S. Riggs. 1974. High Rate Land Treatment l
II: Water Quality and Economic Aspects of the Flushing Meadows

Project. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 46(5):844-859.

Bouwer, H. 1974. Renovating Secondary Effluent by Groundwater Recharge

J
with Inf"iltration Basins. In: Conference on Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater Through Forest and Cropland. U.S. Environ­
mental Protection Agency. EPA-660/2-74-003.
I
Bouwer, H. November-December 1976. Zoning Aquifers
Treatment of Wastewater. Groundwater. 14(6):386.
for Tertiary
J
Bouwer, H. 1978. Groundwater Hydrology.
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. August 20-25, 1978.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
The Flushing Meadows
J
Project. Presented at the Symposium Land Treatment of Wastewater,
Hanover, New Hampshire.
I

J
-I Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice, J.C. Lance and R.G. Gilbert. September 6-7,
1979. Renovation of Sewage Effluent with Rapid-Infiltration
Land-Treatment Systems. Presented at the Sympos i urn on Was tewater
Reuse for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona, California.

I Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, ,J.C. Lance and R.C. G'ilbert. 1979. Ten Years of
Rapid-Infiltration Research-The Flushing Meadows Project, Phoenix,
Arizona. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
I Bremner, J.M. and K. Shaw. 1958.
Affecting Denitrification.
Denitrifi cati on in Soil 11. Factors
Journal of Agricultural Science.

I 51:40-52.
Brennan, E.G., LA. Leone, and R.H. Daines. 1950. Fluorine Toxicity in
Tomato, as Modified by Alternations in the Nitrogen Calcium, and
I Phosphorus Nutrition of the Plant. Plant Physiol. 25:736-747.
Brewer, R.F. Fluorine. 1965. In: Diagnosis Criteria for Plants and
I Soils.
Broadbent, F.E., K.B. Tyler, and G.N. Hill. 1957. Nitrification of

I Ammoniacal Fertilizers in Some California Soils.

27:247-267.
Hilgardia.

Buckman, H.O. and N.C. Brady. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soils,
I Collier-MacMillan, London.

Burge, W.O. and F.E. Broadbent. 1961. Fixation of Ammonia by Organic

I Soils. SSSAP 25:199-204.
Canadi an Soil Survey Commi ttee, 1978. The Canadi an System of Soil
Classification. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture.
I Publication 1646, 164 p.
Canter, L. 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw-Hill Book
I Co., New York, New York.
Christman, R.F., et al. 1972. Assessment of the Effectiveness and

I Effects of Landl)l sposa 1 Methodo1ogi es of Was tewater Management.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DAC W73-73-C-0041, 42 and 43.
Chang, A.C. et al. February 1978. Fate of Stable Organic Substances of
I Treated Wastewater ~ffluent During Groundwater Recharge. Research
Proposal to Cal iforni a State Water Resources Control Board.

I Chang, A.C., and A.L. Fage. September 6-7, 1979.

Micro-Contaminants ~uring Groundwater Recharge.
Fate of Inorganic
Presented at the
Symposium on Waste10Jater Reuse for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona,
California.
I Chao, T. T., Harward and S.C. Fang. 1965. Exchange Reactions Between
Hydroxyl and Sulphate Ions in Soils. S.S. 99:104-108.
'I

 J
Couoh. e..L. and R.E. Grim. 1969. Boron Fixation by Illites, Clays and
- Clay Minerals 16:249-256.
~~icas, R.W., M.J. Dean and H.L. Selznick. March. 1979. Cost Comparison
1
erf Land Treatment and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water
113 Wastes Engineering . J
.,~'l,;.) R.W. and 1. Asano. (In Press). Land Treatment. In: WPCF,
~~nual of Practice on Nutrient Control.

K.L. September 6-7, 1979. Selecting Treatment Processes to Meet

l
I ~er Reuse Requirements. Presented at the Symposium on Wastewater
~euse for Groundwater Recharge. Pomona. California. 1
rtment of Agri cul ture. 1979. Wastewater Renovation by Spreadi ng
'freated Sewage for Groundwater Recharge. Abstracted from the 1979
An~ual Report, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department
J
of Agriculture. Pheonix, Arizona.
~?rbush, J.N. April, 1978.
Stabilization Pond Effluent.
Infiltration
Technical
Land Treatment
Progress Report
of
3.
J
Brookings, South Dakota.
!;~Hibi'lr, J.O. July 9-13, 1973. Public Acceptance - Educational and
]
I nformati ona 1 Needs. Presented at the Conference on Recycl i ng
Municipal Sludge and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. ]
Ellis, B.G. 1973. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In: Recycling
Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and
Cropland. W.E. Sopper and L.T. Kardos ed. Pennsylvania State ]
University Press.
Enfield. C.G. and D.C. Shew. 1975. Comparison of Two Predictive
Non-Equilibrium Models for Phosphorus Sorption and Movement Through
]
Homogeneous Soils. Journal of Environmental Quality. 4:198-292,
Enfield, C.G. and B.E. Bledsoe. June 1975.
Orthosphosphate Reactions in Mineral Soils.
Kinetic Model for
EPA-660/2-75-022.

l
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.

Enfield. C.G. 1976. Phosphate Transport Through Soil. In: Proceedings

]
of the National Conference on Disposal of Residues on Land, St.
Louis, Mo.
Enfield, C.G. 1977. Wastewater Phosphorus Removal Using Land
I
Application. Civil Engineering ­ ASCE.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Process DeSign Manual for Land

l
Treatment of MuniCipal Wastewater, EPA 625/1-77-008.

Freeze, R.A. and J .A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prent i ss-Ha11 •

J
I

,
Gerba, C.P. and J.C. Lance. 1978. Poliovirus Removal from Primary and

I Secondary Sewage Effluent by Soil Filtration.

Environmental Microbiology. 36:247-251.
Applied and

Gerba, C.P. and J.C. Lance. September 6-7, 1979. Pathogen Removal from
I Wastewater During Groundwater Recharge. Presented at the Symposium
on Wastewater Reuse for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona, California.

J Gilbert, R.G. et a1. 1976.

by Land Treatment.
32(3):333.
Virus and Bacteria Removal from Wastewater
Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

I Graveland, D.N. and R.A. Milne. June, 1972. A Laboratory Study of Some
Effects of Irrigation with Municipal Sewage Effluent. Canadian
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 14, No.1.
I Graveland, D.N. March, 1973. A Laboratory Study on Some Effects of
Supernatant Liquor on Soils and Plant Growth. Environmental

I Protection Services Earth Sciences and Licensing Division,

Technical Development Branch.

Green, R.E. 1974. Pesticide-Clay-Water Interactions. In: Pesticides

I in Soil and Water. Ri chard C. Di nauer, ed. Soil Sci ence Soci ety
in America. Madison, Wisconsin.

I Greenberg, A.E. and J.F. Thomas. 1954.

Industrial and Agricultural Use.
26:761-770.
Sewage Effluent Reclamation for
Sewage and Industrial Wastes.

I
,
Griffin, R.A. and R.G. Burau. 1974. Soi 1 Sci ence Soci ety of Ameri ca
Proceedings 38: 892-897.

Guenzi, W.O., and W.E. Beard. 1974. Volatilization of Pesticides. In:

Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C. Dinauer, ed. Soil
Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin.

I Haise, H.R. et a1. 1956. The Use of Cylinder Infiltrometers to Deter­

mine the Intake Ch,3racteristics of Irrigated Soils. USDA, Ag.
Res. Service. Fub. No. 41-7.
I Hajas, L. December 1975. Purification of Land Applied Sewage Within the
Groundwater. Masters Thesis. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
I Hartman, R.B., K.D. Linstedt and LR. Bennett. Treatment of Primary
Effluent by Rapid Infiltration. US EPA Draft Publication,

I University of Boulder, Colorado.

Hatcher, J.T., C.A. Bowel', and M. Clark. 1967. Adsorption of Boron by

Soi 15 as I nfl uenced by Hydroxyl A1umi num and Surface Area. Soi 1
I Science 104:422-426.

Hayek, B.F. 1969. Chemical Interactions of Wastewater in a Soil

I Environment.
41(11):1775.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.

 J
!th and Welfare Canada. 1978.
Quality.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water !
,J.0,1970. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteris­
·~. ":-:s of Natural Waste, 2nd ed. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply

l
Paper 1473. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, C.D.

:, J.[;. 1972" Chemistry and Occurrence of Cadmium and Zinc in Surface

Water and Groundwater. Water Res. 8:677-679.
1
Iliel, 0" 1971. Soil and vJater - Physical Principles and Processes;
Academic Press, Inc., New York.
l
H-;1h, R.C. 1971. lateral Flow Under Cylinder Infiltrometers:
g;naphic correction procedure.
A
Journal of Hydrology 13: 153-162~ J
H,;u, PoH. 1965. Fixation of Phosphate by Aluminum and Iron in Acid
Soils. S.S.99:398-402. 1
Hunter, J.V. and T.A. Kotalik. 1976. Chemical and Biological Quality of
Treated Sewage Effluents. In: Recycling Treated Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. Sopper, l~.E.
]
and l.T. Kardos (ed.). University Park, Pennsylvania State
University Press. pp. 6-25. ]
Idelovitch, E.) R. Terkeltoub and f1. Michail. September 6-7, 1979. The
Ro 1e of Groundlvater Recharge in Wastel'/ater Reuse: The Dan Reg; on
Project - Israel. Presented at the Symposium on Wastewater Reuse
for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona, California.
1
Jenne, LA. 1968. Control of Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu and Zn Concentrations
in Soil sand Water: The Significant Role of Hydrous r~n and Fe
]
Oxides. In: Trace Inorganics in Hater. Advances in Chemistry
Series. 73.

Jordan/lviathis and Associates. June 1974. Flood Plain Information. San

1
Benito River - Pajaro River to Tres Pinos Creek.
Kirkman, D. and W.l. Powers. 1969. Advanced Soil Physics. N.Y. Wiley -
l
Interscience. 534p.
Kirkman, D. S. Toksoz, and R.R. Van der Ploeg. 1974. Steady Flow to
Drains and Wells. In: Drainage for Agriculture, J. van
J
Schilfgaarde, ed. American Society of Agronomy, No. 17.

Klute. A. 1969. The Movement of Water in Unsaturated Soils. In: Proc.

l
First Int. Seminar for Hydrology Professors, The Progress of
Hydrology. Vol. 2. pp. 821-888. J
Koerner, E. T. and O.A. Haws. 1975. Long-Term Effects of Land Appl i ca­
tion of Domestic Wastewater: Vineland, New Jersey Rapid Infiltra­
tion Site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-79-072 I
I

, Landon, R.A. September 1978. Po11ution Prediction Technique for Waste

I Di sposa 1 Siti 119 - A State-of-the-Art Assessment. Proceed; ngs of
the First Annual Conference of Applied Research and Practise on
Municipal and Industrial Waste, Madison, Wisconsin.

I Lance, J .C., and F.E. Whisler, 1972. Nitrogen Balance in Soil Col umns
Intermittently Flooded with Secondary Sewage Effluent. Journal of
Environmental Quality. 1(2):180-181.
I Lance, J.e., and C.P. Gerba. 1980. Poliovirus Movement During High Rate
Land Filtration af Sewage Water. Journal of Environmental Quality.
I 9(1):31-34.

lance, J.C., R.C. Rice, and R.G. Gilbert. 1980. Renovation of Waste­
water by Soil Columns Flooded with Primary Effluent. Journal of
I the Water Pollution Control Federation. 52(2):381-388.
Lehman, G.S. and L.G. Wilson. 1971. Trace Element Removal From Sewage
I Effluent by Soil Fi1~:ration. Water Res. (7) 90-99.
Leach, L.E., C.G. Enfield, and C.C. Harlin, Jr. July 1980. Summary of
I Long-Term Rapid Infiltration System Studies.
Protect; on Agency EPI, ­ 600/2-9-165.
U.S. Environmental

Lutwick, G.W. January, :l978. Study of the Phosphorous Adsorption

I Capacities of Several Southern Alberta Soils, Environmental
Protection Services, Earth Sciences and Licensing Division,
Technical Development Branch.
I McKeague, J.A. (ed.). 1978. Manual on Sampling and Methods of Analysis.
Prepared for tne Subcommittee on Methods of Analysis, Canada Soil
Survey Committee, 212 p.
I Menzie, J.D. and R.L. Chaney. 1974. Factors Involved in Land Applica­
tion of Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. U.S. Department of
I Agriculture, Agdculture Research Service. Beltsville, Maryland.
Metcalf & Eddy, 1979. Wastewater Engineering, published by McGraw-Hill

I OWRT, Department of the Interior. April, 1979. Water Reuse

Recycling - Volume 2 - Evaluation of Treatment Technology.
and

I Postlewait, J.C. and :-t.J. Knudsen.

Land Acquisition for a Land
July 9-13, 1973. Some Experiences in
Disposal System foY' Sewage Effluent.
Presented at the C,)nference on Recycling Municipai Sludges and
I Effluents on Land, Champaign, Illinois.
Ng, S.K. and C. Bloomfield. 1972. The Effect of Flooding and Aeration

I on the Mobility of Certain Trace Elements in Soils. Plant Soil.

16: LlOB-135.

Ongerth, J.E. and Bhagat. S. 1975. Feasibility Studies for Land

I Disposal of a Dilute Oily Wastewater. In: Proceedings of the 30th
I ndustri al Waste Conference, Purdue Uni vers i ty ~ Ind.

Parizek, R.R. 1973. Site Selection Criteria for Wastewater Disposal ­

Soils and Hydrogeological Considerations. In: Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forests and Cropland.
J
Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos (ed.). Penn. State University Press.
pp 95-147. l
Parr, J.F. and A.R. Bertrand. Water Infiltration into Soils. In:
Advances in Agronomy. Norman, A.G. (ed.) N.Y. Academic Press.
331-363.
pp. .]
Patrick, W.H. Jr., and I.C. Mahapatra. 1968. Transformation and
Availability to Rice of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wasterlogged
Soils. Advances in Agronomy. 20:323-359.
J
Pound, C.E., and R.W. Crites. 1973. In: Recycling Municipal Sludges
and Effluents on Land. National Association State University and
J
Land-Grant Colleges. Washington, D.C.

Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. 1973. Nationwide Experiences in Land ]

Treatment. Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal of Munici­
pal Effluents and Sludges, New Brunswick, New Jersey. March 12-13.
Pound, C.E., R.W. Crites and J.W. Olson. 1975. Assessment of Long-Term
1
Effects of Applying Wastewater to the Land, EPA Contract Report
No. 68-03-2361.
Pound, C.E.. R.W. Crites and D.A. Griffes. 1975. Evaluation of Land
1
Application Systems. EPA 430-9-75-00.
Pound, C.E., R.W. Crltes and J.V. Olson. April 1978. Long-Term Effects
1
on Land Application of Domestic Wastewater - Hollister, California,
Rap; d I nfi 1trati on Si teo U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency. ]
EPA-600-2-78-084.
Pound, C.E., and R.W. Crites. 1980.
Powers, J.A. NoveTllber 1978.
Unpublished EPA Report.
Feasibility Study and Preliminary Site
1
Identification for Land Treatment in Middle Tennessee in Proceed­
ings from Conference on Land Treatment of Wastewater. ]
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
October, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology
Transfer. EPA 625-1-77-008.
]
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. 1981.
US Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer. I
Purves, D. and £OJ. Mackenzie. 1974. Phytotoxicity Due to Boron In
Municipal Composts. Plant and Soil 40:231-235. I
Reed, S.C., R.W. Crites, R.E. Thomas, and A.B. Hais. SeptelTlber 1979.
Cost of Land Treatment Systems, EPA 430-9-75-003.
I

, Reed, S.C., R.E. Thomas, and N. Kowal. April, 1980. Long-Term Land
I Treatment, Are There Health or Environmental Risks? Presented at
the ASCE National Meeting, Portland.

I Reid, D.M. 1972. Water Quality Changes Due to Surface Spreading of

Reclaimed Water. California State Polytechnic College Report.
Rhoades, J.D., R.D. Ingralson, and J.T. Hatcher. 1970. Adsorption of
I Boron by Ferromagnesium Minerals and Magnesium Hydroxide.
Science Amer. Proc. 34:938-941.
Soil

I Rice, R.C. 1974.

Effluent.
Soil Clogging During Infiltration of Secondary
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 46:708.
Rice, R.C. and R.G. Gilbert. 1978. Land Treatment of Primary Sewage
I Effluent: Water and Energy Conservation. In: Hydrology and Water
Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 8:33. Tucson, Arizona.

I Russell, E.W. 1973.

Group Limited,
Soil Conditions and Plant Growth.
Tenth edition. p. 849.
London, Longman

I Satterwhite, M.B., B.J. Condike, and G.L. Stewart. December 1976.

Treatment of Primary Sewage Effluent by Rapid Infiltration. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory.
I Sawyer, C.N. and P.L. McCarty. 1976. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
I Schalscha, E.B., et al. 1973. Boron Adsorption by Volcanic Ash Soils in
Southern Chile. Soil Sci. 116:70-76.

I, Schaub, S.A. et al. ~1ay, 1975. Land Application of Wastewater Fate of

Viruses, Bacteria and Heavy Metals at a Rapid Infiltration Site.
US Army Medical Bio-Engineering Research & Development Laboratory.
I Schurrer, K., H. Kuhn, and J. Luttmer. 1956. Investigation on the
Fixation of Boron by Inorganic Constituents on the Soil. Soils and
I Fertilizers 19:1501.
SCS Engineers. September, 1977. Reuse of Municipal Wastewater for
Groundwater Recharge. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I EPA-600/2-77-l83.
SCS Engineers. 1978. Draft Final Report. Solid Waste Landfill
I Practises, USEPA Contract Report 68-01-3915.
Seabrook, B.L. May, 1975. Land Application of Wastewater in Australia.

I Envi ronmental Protecti on Agency, Off; ce of Water Programs.

EPA-430/9-75-017.

I
I
I
 J
Signor, D.C. September 6-7, 1979. Sampling Equipment and Techniques for
Monitoring Groundwater During Artificial Recharge Operations.
Proceedings of the Symposium on Wastewater Reuse for Groundwater

!
Recharge, Pomona, California.

Sills, M.A. R. Costello, and R. Leak. August 20-25, 1978. Pretreatment

Techniques and Design Modifications for Rapid Infiltration Land
l
Treatment Systems. Proceedings of the Symposium on Land Treatment
of Wastewater, Hanover, New Hampshire. J
Sims, J.R. and F.T. Bingham. 1968. Retention of Boron by Layer
Silicates. Soil Science Soc. Amer. Proc. 32:364-268. J
Smith, D.G., K.D. Linstedt, and LR. Bennett. August, 1974. Treatment
of Secondary Effluent by Infiltration-Percolation. U.S. Environ­
mental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-79-174. !
Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1970. Aquatic Chemistry, Wiley
Interscience, New York. ]
Sullivan, R.H. March 12-13, 1973. A Survey of Land Application of
Wastewater Facilities. Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal
of Municipal Effluents and Sludges, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
]
Thomas, R.E., W.A. Schwarz, and LW. Bendixen. 1966. Soil Chemical
Changes in Infiltration Rate Reduction under Sewage Spreading.
Proceedings of the Soil Scientists Society of America.
35(5):641-646.
Thomas, R.E. and C.C. Harlin, Jr. 1972. Experiences with Land Spreading
of Municipal Effluents. Proc. First Annual IFAS Workshop on Land
1
Renovation of Wastewater in Florida, Tampa.
]
Thomas, R.E. 1973. Fate of Materials Applied. In: Proceedings of the
Conference on Land Disposal Municipal Effluents Sludges.
EPA-902/9-73-001. pp. 181-200. 1
Tofflemire, T.J. and M. Chen. September-October, 1977. Phosphate
Removal by Sand and Soils. Groundwater. 15(5):377-387. ]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. 40 CFR 35, Appendix A,
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
]
Vaccaro, R.F. et al. August, 1979. Wastewater Renovation and Retrieval
on Cape Cod. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-79-176. I
Van Schiftgaarde, J. Theory of Flow to Drains. In: Advances in
Hydroscience.
43-103.
Chow, V.T. (ed.). N.Y. Academic Press. pp.
I
Waldbott, G.L. 1973. Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants.
Mosby. I

J
I

 I Weber, W.J. Adsorption. 1972. In: Physiochemical Processes for Water

I Quality Control. Walter J. Weber, Jr., Ed., John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York.

I Webber, l.R. and A.J. leyshon. 1975. Soil Changes Due to Effluent
Irrigation. In: Spray Irrigation of Treated Municipal Wastewater.
W.K. Oldham, ed. Economic and Technical Review Report,

Environmental Protection Service (Canada). EPS 3-PR-76-1.

I
Wesner, E.M. et ale March, 1978. Energy Conservation in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment. EPA 430/9-77-011.
I Whitehouse, Jeffrey and Debbrecht. 1960. Differential Swelling Tenden­
cies of Clay Minerals in Saline Waters. In: Clays and Clay
Minerals Monograph 5, Ingesson E. (ed.) p. 63.
I Whiting, D.M. 1975. Use of Climatic Data in Design of Soils Treatment
Systems. EPA 660/2-75-018.
I Wild, H.E., C.N. Sawyer, and T .C. McMahon. 1971. Factors Affecting
Nitrification Kinetics. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
I Federation. 43: 1845-1854.

\~illiams, R.B., J.A. Faisst, and G.l. Culp. March, 1979. Treatment
Techno logy for Water Reuse. Water Reuse Sympos i urn, Washi ngton,
I D.C.

,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J

J
l

1
1
l
l
]

,
I ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Key Word
INUTRIENTS ." I norgani cs

Alexander, M. Introduction to Soil Microbiology. John Wiley and Sons, Nitrification and
, Inc. New York. 1961. deni trifi cat ion
react; ons
~ailey, G.W. Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution Control,
I
Nitrogen and
Part 1. U.S. Department of the Interior. March 1968. phosphorus removal
R.• and B. James. Behavior of Chromium in Soils; III.
IfBarlett,
Oxidation. Journal of Environmental Quality. 8(1):31-35. 1979.
Chromium removal

Bingham, F.T •• A.L. Page. and J.R. Sims. Retention of Cu and Zn by

H-Mo~tmorill?nite. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of

I Amerlcac 28.351-354. 1964.

f:ll00m, B.C. Sorption of Cadmium Soils. Cold Region Research and
by
I Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, New Hampshire. 1974.
Broadbent, F.D., and N.E. Tusneem. Losses of Nitrogen from Some
I Flooded Soils in Tracer Experiments. Proceedings of the Soil
Science Society of America. 35:922. 1971.

1 Treatment ofDisposal
.
1rown, K.W. The Fate of Sewage Effl uent Heavy Metal s in Land
~~astewater Sites. Proceedings of the Symposium on Land
Wastewater. Hanover, New Hampshire. August 20-25,
Study of mobil i ty of
five metals (cadium,
copper, nickel. lead
I 1978 • & zinc)

. Cady. F.B., and W.V. Bartholomew. Sequential Products of Anaerobic

Denitrification in Norfoll( Soil Material. Proceedings of the Soil

I CAST. Application of Sewage Sludge to Cropland: Appraisal of

Science Society of America. 24:477. 1960.

Trace Element

I Potential Hazards of the Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals.

Report No. 64. 1976.
Removal

Chang, A.C. and A.L. Page. Fate of Inorganic Micro-contaminants During Typical concentrat­
I Groundwater Recharge. Presented at the Symposium on Wastewater
Reuse for Groundwater Recharge. Pomona, California. September
ions of trace
elements in waste­
6-7,1979. water effluents
lI:hristensen, T.H., and D.A. Carlson. Sorption of Cadmium Onto Two
I Mineral Soils. Presented at the Symposium on Land Treatment of
Wastewater. Hanover, ~Jew Hampshire. August 20-25, 1978.
deHaan, F.A.M., and P.J. Ziverman. Pollution of the Soil. In: Soil

Chemistry, Volume A. Basic Elements. G.H. Bolt and M.G.M.

I Bruggenwert, eds. Elservier Scientific Publishing Co. New York.

1976. P 222.

t .ElliS, B.G. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In: Recycling Treatment

. Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. W.E.
Sopper and T.T. Kardos, eds. Pennsylvania State University Press.
 1973.
I

Ellis, B.G. and A.E. Erickson. Movement and Transformation of Various

Phosphorus Compounds in Soils. Soil Science Department, Michigan
I

State University and Michigan Water Resource Commission. July

1967-aune 1969.
Ellis, B.G. and B.D. Knezek. Absorption Reactions of Micronutrients in
i

Soils. In: Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Science Society

of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1972. 1
Enfield, C.G. Wastewater Phosphorus Removal Using Land Application.
Proceedings of the Journal of Civil Engineering. 1977. pp
58-60. J

l1er, W.H. Movement of Selected Metals, Asbestos, and Cyanide in

Soil: Applications to Waste Disposal Problems. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-77-0202. April 1977.
!

Gilbert, R.G., J.C. Lance, and J.B. Miller. Denitrifying Bacteria

Populations and Nitrogen Removal in Soil Columns Intermittently
1
Flooded with Secondary Sewage Effluent. Journal of Environmental
Quality. 8:101. 1979.
Gilbert, R.B., J.B. Robinson, and J.B. Miller. The Microbiology and
1
Nitrogen Transformations of a Soil Recharge Bas;n Used for
Wastewater Renovation. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Land for Waste Management. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
1
October 1-3, 1973.
Gilmour, C.M., F.E. Broadbent, and S.M. Beck. Recycling of Carbon and Denitrification
]
Nitrogen Through Land Disposal of Various Wastes. In: Soils for reactions
Management and Utilization of Organic Wastes and Wastewaters.
American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin. 1978. ]
Hem, J.D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Trace el ement
Natura"' Water. U.S. Geological Survey Waste Supply Paper 1473. removal ]
1970.
Hook, J.E., L.T. Kardos, and W.E. Sopper. Effect of Land Disposal of
Wastewaters on Soil Phosphorus Relations. In: Recycling Treated 1
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. W.E.
Sopper and L.T. Kardos, eds. Pennsylvania State University Press.
1973. ]

Huang, C.P., H.A. Elliot, and R.M. Ashmead. Interfacial Reactions and
the Fate of Heavy Metals in Soil-Water Systems. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation. 49:745-756. 1977.
1
Jenne, E.A. Control of Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn Concentrations in Removal mechanismJl
Soils and Water: The Significant Role of Hydrous Mn and Fe for manganese, ir~
Oxides. In: Trace Inorganics in Water. Advances in Chemistry
Series. 73. 1968.
cobalt, nickel,
copper and zi nc I
John, M.K. Cadmium Adsorption Maxima of Soils as Measured by Langmuir
Isotherm. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 52:343-350. 1972.
I

JlJUrinak. J.J. and J. Santillan-Medrano. The Chemistry and Transport of

Lead and Cadmium in Soils. National Technical Information Service,
I Kao, C.W. and R.W. Blancher. Distribution and Chemistry of Phosphorus in
U.S. Department of Commerce. Springfield, Virginia. 1974.

I Journal
an Abagualf Soil After Years of Phosphorus Fertilization.
82
of Environmental Quality. 2:237-240. 1973.
Keeney, Chemical Properties of Soils. In: Soils in Management of
D.R. Trace element
I, America. Madison,
Organic Wastes and Wastewaters. R.C. Dinauer, ed. Soil Society of
Wisconsin. 1977.
removal mechanisms

I
,
Ketchum, S.H. and R.F. Vaccaro. The Removal of Nutrients and Trace
Metals by Spray Irrigation and in a Sand Filter Bed. In: Land as

a Waste Management Alternative. R.C. Loehr, ed. Ann Arbor,

Michigan. 1977.

I ~ance, J.C. Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms. Journal Water

11 Pollution Control Federation. 44{7):1352-1361. 1972.
_ance, J. C. Phosphate Removal from Sewage Water by Soil Columns.

Journal of Environmental Quality. 6:279. 1976.

lI_ance, J.C., et. a1. Maximizing Denitrification During Soil Filtration

of Sewage Water. Journal of Environmental Quality. 5:102. 1976.
I.ance, J.e., and F.D. Whisler. Nitrogen Balance in Soil Columns Lab studies to
Intermittently Flooded with Secondary Sewage Effluent. Journal of determine nitrogen
Environmental Quality. 1(2):180-181. 1972. removal during RI
tI_ance, J.C., and F.D. Whisler. Simulation of Denitrification in Soil
Columns by Adding Organic Carbon to Wastewater. Journal Water
II Pollution Control Federation. 48:346. 1976.
~ Lance, J.G., F.D. Whisler, and R.C. Rice. The Effect of Vegetation on
Denitrification and Phosphate Movement During Rapid Infiltration of
I Soil Columns Flooded with Secondary Sewage Effluent. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation. 50:2183. 1978.

I .and Application of Wastes, An Educational Program, Nitrogen

Considerations. Cornell University. New York. May 1976.
Nitrogen removal
i ncl udi ng
denitrification
Ilehman, G.S., and L.W. Wilson. Trace Element Removal from Sewage

Effluent by Soil Filtration. Water Resources Research. 7:90-99.

I 1971.
.evine, P.E. Sorption of Zinc, Lead and Cadmium on a Glacial Outwash
Removal of trace
Soils. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle,
elements from
soil
I
Washington. 1975.

Lindsay, W.L. InorganiC Phase Equilibrian of Micronutrients in Soils.

Trace element
In: Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Science Society of
removal
I
. America. I~adison, Wisconsin. 1972.

lin say,
d 'r/. L. Inorganic Reactions of Sewage Wastes with Soils.

I
 Presented at the Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludge and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. July 9-13, 1973.
,
Miller, R.H. Soil as a Biological Filter. Presented at the Conference Biological
J
on Recycling Wastewater. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. August
21·-24. 1972.
phosphate removal ]I
Manke, E.J. et al. Movement of Pollutant Phosphorus in Unsaturated Soil.
Technical Report No. 46, Purdue University Water Resources Research
Center, West Lafayette, Indiana. June 1974. J
Ng, S.K" and C. Bloomfield. The Effect of Flooding and Aeration on the Trace element
Mobnity of Certain Trace Elements in Soils. Plant Soil.
16:108-135. 1962.
removal I
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer. EPA
625/1-77-008. October 1977.
U.S. Nitrogen and
phosphorus
removal
J
Reddy, K.R. Nitrificiation-Denitrification Reactions in Flooded Soils. ]
Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. 1976.
Reddy, K.R., and W.H. Patrick, Jr. Effect on Long-Term Alternate
]
Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions on Redox Potential, Organic Matter
Decomposition and Nitrogen Loss in a Flooded Soil. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry. 7:87. 1975. ]
Rouston, R.C., and R.E. Wilding. What Happens in Soil Disposal of
Wastes? In: Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium. Series 97,
Volume 5. October 1970.
J

Sawhney. B.L., and D.E. Hill. Phosphate Sorption Characteristics of

Soils Treated with Domestic Wastewater. Journal of Environmental
]

Quality. 4:342-346. 1975.

Sillapaa, M. Trace Elements in Soils and Agriculture. Soils Bulletin ]
17. United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome.
1972 .
Sommers, L.R. et a1. Principles and Design Criteria for Sewage Sludge Nitrogen and
l
Application on Land. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency phosphorus removaJi
Technology Transfer. EPA 625/4-78-012. October 1978.
Stanford, G., R.A. Vander Pol, and S. Dzienia. Denitrification Rates in
Relation to Total and Extractable Soil Carbon. Proceedings of the
Soil Science Society of America. 39:284. 1975. ]
Tofflemire, T.J. Phosphate Removal by Sands and Soils. In: Land as a
Waste Management Alternative. R.C. Loehr. Ann Arbor Science. Ann
Arbor, Michigan. 1977. pp 151-170. I
Van Cleemput, 0., W.H. Patrick, Jr., and R.C. McIlhenny. Nitrate
Decomposition in Flooded Soil Under Different pH and Redox
Potential Conditions. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of
I
America. 40:55. 1976.
J
I
r iets, F.G., Jr., and R.H. Hageman. Factors Afecting the Accumulation of
Nitrate in Soil, Water and Plants. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agriculture Research Service. Agricultural Handbook No. 413.
Washington, D.C. 1971.
IIAalsh. L.M., M.e. Sunner, and R.B. Corey. Consideration of Soil in
Accepting Plant Nutrients and Potentially Toxic Nonessential
Elements. In: Land Application of Waste Materials. Soil
_
I.
Conservation Society of America. Ankeny, Iowa. 1976.

-I
I
I
I
I
,

I
I
I
I
I
,
I

ORGANICS
I

Alexander, M. Introduction to Soil Microbiology. John ~liley & Sons,

J
Inc. New York. 1961.
Armstrong, D.E., and J.G. Konrad. Nonbiolog;cal Degradation of
Pesticides. In: Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C.
Chemical
degradation of
J
Dinauer, ed. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. trace organi cs
1974. J
Chang, A.C., et a1. Fate of Stable Organic Substances of Treated Trace organic II
Wastewater Effluent During Groundwater Recharge. Research Proposal removal mechan; smsl
to California State Water Resources Control Board. February 1978.
Dunlap, W.J. et a1. Isolation and Identification of Organic Contaminants
in Groundwater. In: Identification and Analysis of Organic
Pollutants in Water. Lawrence H. Keith, ed. Ann Arbor Science.
3
Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1976.
Green, R.E. Pesticide-Clay-Water Interactions. In: Pesticides;n Soil Trace organic
1
and Water. Richard C. Oinauer, ed. Soil Science Society of sorption meChanis~
America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974.
Guenzi, W.O., and W.E. Beard. Volatilization of Pesticides. In: Rates of
Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C. Dinauer. ed. Soil Science vol at; 1ization fo:!
Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974. trace organ; cs •
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. Sorption of Hydrophobic
Pollutants on Natural Sediments. Water Research 13:241. 1979. ]
Kaufman, D.O., Degradation of Pesticides by So;l Micro-organisms. In:
Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C. Dinauer, ed. Soil
Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974.
]
Lance, J.C., F.D. Whisler, and H. Bouwer. Oxygen Utilization in Soils
Flooded with Sewage Water. Journal of Environmental Quality.
1(2). 1973.
1
Letey, J., and W.J. Farmer. Movement of Pesticides in Soil. In: Diffusion of :J
Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C. Dinauer, ed. Soil trace organics
Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974.
McCarty, P.L.. B.E. Rittman, and M. Reinhard. Processes Affecting the ]
Movement and Fate of Trace Organics in the Subsurface Environment.
presented at the Symposium on Wastelt/ater Reuse for Groundwater
Recharge, Pomona, California. September 6-7, 1979. J
Piet, G.J., and B.C.J. Zoeteman. Organic Water Quality Changes During Trace organ; cs
Sand Bank and Dune Filtration of Surface Waters in Netherlands. removal from iI
Unpublished Manuscript. September 1979. polluted Rhine L

Roberts, P.V., et a1. Organic Contaminant Behavior During Groundwater

Recharge. Presented at the 51st Annual Conference on the Water
Removal of trace
organics followin
I
Pollution Control Federation, Anaheim, California. October 1978. direct injection

,
Weed, S.B., and J.B. Weber. Pesticide-Organic Master Interactions. In: Trace organic
I Pesticides in Soil and Water. Richard C. D;nauer, ed. Soil
Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 1974.
sorption mechanisms

I Williamson, K., and P.L. McCarty. A Model of Substrate Utilization by

Bacterial Films. Journal WPCF. 48:9. 1976.
Use of model to
describe kinetics

PATHOGENS
J,

Akin. E.W., et a1. Health Hazards Associated with Wastewater Effluents Vi ruses that may
J
t,<:..
and Sludge: Microbiological Considerations. Proceedings of the in wastewater
Conference on Risk Assessment and Health Effects of Land
Application of Municipal Wastewater and Sludges. B.P. Sagik and J
C.A. Sorber, eds. Center for Applied Research and Technology, The

82rnar~,
University of Texas, San Antonio. 1977.
M.A. Land Disposal and Sewage Effluent: Appraisal of Health
l

Effects of Pathogenic Organisms. Journal of American Water Works

Association. 65:432-440. 1973. ]

8itton, G, Adsorption of Viruses onto Surfaces in Soil and Water. Water

Research. 9:473-484. 1975.
J
Bouwer. H., and R. L. Chaney.Land Treatment of Wastewater. In: Bacteria removal
Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 26. Academic Press, Inc. San rates during rapi~
Francisco, California. 1974. infiltration .I
Burge, W.O., and N.K. Enkiri. Virus Adsorption by Five Soils. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 7(l}:73. 1978. ]
Butler~R.G., G.T. Orlob, and P.H. McGauhey. Underground Movement of Pathogen removal ]
Bacterial and Chemical Pollutants. Journal of the American Water mechanisms
Works Association. 46:97-111. 1954.
Drewry, W.A, and R. Eliasson. Virus Movement in Groundwater. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation. 40:R257-R271. 1968. ]
Duboise, S.M., B.E. Moore, and B.P. Sagik. Poliovirus Survival and
l~ovement ina Sandy Forest Soil.
Microbiology. 31:536-542. 1976.
App 1i ed and Envi ronmental ]
Garrison, W.E. M.H. Nellor, and R.B. Baird. A Study in the Health Virus & bacteria]
Aspects of Groundwater Recharge in Southern California. Presented survival .
at the Symposium on Wastewater Reuse for Groundwater Recharge,
Pomona, California. September 6-7,1979.
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. Adsorption of Selected Enteroviruses to Vi rus removal
]
Soils. Presented at the Symposium on Land Treatment of Wastewater,
Hanover, New Hampshire. August 20-25, 1978. ]
Gerba, C.P. and J.C. Lance. Pathogen Removal from Wastewater During Pathogens in waste­
Groundwater Recharge. Presented at the Symposium on Wastewater water and factors"
Reuse for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona, California. September 6-7, affecting mobili~
1979. and survival
Gerba, C.P. and J.C. Lance. Poliovirus Removal from Primary and
Secondary Sewage Effluent by Soil Filtration. Applied and
Effects of pre-
application treat~
I
Environmental Mibrobiology. 36:247-251. 1978.
Gerba, C.P., C. Wallis, and J.L. Melneck. Fate of Wastewater Bacteria
ment on vi rus
removal II
and Viruses in Soil. American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal
I

I
~

of Irrigation and Drainage Division. 101:157-174. 1975.

IIi 1bert,LandR.G., et a1. Virus and Bacterial Removal from Wastewater by
II Treatment.
32(3):333. 1976.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

oyal, S.M., and C.P. Gerba. Comparative Adsorption of Human

I Enteroviruses, Simian Rotavirus, and Selected Bacteriophages to

Soil. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 38(2):241. 1979.

I'Health Study.
Effects Work Plan. Orange and Los Angeles Counties Water Reuse
Los Angeles County Sanitation District. 1978.
Work plan for
health aspects
study
liori, D.H. et a1. Migration of Poliovirus Type 2 in Percolating Water
II Through Selected Oahu Soils. Technical Report No. 36. Water
k!esollrce Centre, University of Hawaii. Honolulu. 1970.

I
r'one~ R.B. The r~ovement of Disease-Producing Organisms Through Soil. Survival of patho­
Pr'esented at the Sympos ium \)n the Use of Municipal Sewage Effluent gens
for Irrigation. louisiana Polytechnic Institute, Ruston. July
I 1968.
_ance, J.C. Fate of Bacteria and Viruses in Sewage Applied to Soil.

Trans·-American Society of A9 r ;cultural Engineers. 21(6}:1114.

ILance, 1978.

\J,C"C.P. Gerba.
and Removal from Sewage During High Rate
Virus
land Filtration. International Sympos"ium on i<later Reuse, American
I Water 1979.
Works Association Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Pes(~arch

IFnce, J.C., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick. Virus Movement in Soil
Columns Flooded with Secondary Sewage Effluent. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 32:520-526. 1976.
liller, R.H. Soil Microbiologica'j Aspects of Recycling Sewage Sludges General \f':" -.'

and Waste Effluents on Land. Presented at the Conference nn pathogen> 01 4

')

Recycling Municipal Sludge and Effluents on Land, Champaiqn, & heavy l1:sta i 1r
I Illinois., July 9-13, 1973. soil
ocess Des; gn Manual for land. Tr(~atment of Muni cipal vJastewater. u.s. Di scuss oj (JilS
f Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer. EPA
625/1-77-008. October ~977"
pathogen:.;

dOlfS, W., l.L. Fank, and R.. A. l~agotzkie. Literature Review on the
f Occurrence and Survival of I:nteric, Pathogenic and Relative
I Organisms in Soil, Water, Sewage, and Sludges. and on Vegetation.
Sewage & Industrial Wastes. 22:1261-1281. 1950.
~chaub, S.A., et a1. Land Application of Wastewater. Fate of Viruses,

I•
Bacteria, and Heavy Metals at a Rapid Infiltration Site. U.S. Army
Medical Bioengineering Research and Development laboratory. May
1975.

r haUb, S.A., and C.A. Sorber. Virus and Bacteria Removal from
Wastewater by Rapid Inf'l1trntion Through SoiL Applied and

I
 Environmental Microbiology. 33:609-619. 1977.
J
Uiga, A., R.C. Fehrmann, and R.W. Crites. Relative Health Factors
Comparing Activated Sludge Systems to Land Application Systems.

J
Presented at the Symposium on Land Treatment of Wastewater,

Hanover. New Hampshire. August 20-25, 1978.

]
Vaughn, C.M., et al. A Survey of Human Virus Occurrence in Wastewater
and Recharged Groundwater on Long Island. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 36. 1978. J
Weaver. R.W., et a1. Sewage Disposal on Agricultural Soils: Chemical Survival of virusl
and Microbiological Implications. Vol. II. U.S. Environmental bacteria & paras;"
Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-78-131a. June 1978. in soil
Wellings, F.M., et al. Demonstration of Virus in Groundwater After
Effluent Discharge onto Soil. Applied Microbiology. 29:751-757.
1975.
J
3
J
]
]
]

]
l

,
I

iISCELLANEOUS

Beyer, S.M. Flow Dynamics in the Infiltration-Percolation Method of Land Rates compared at

I Treatment of Wastewater. M.S. Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic

1 tute Troy, New York. May 1976.
several sand beds

,akeslee, P.A. Monitoring Considerations for Municipal Wastewater Monitoring object­

I
.
Effluent and Sludge Application to Land. Presented at the
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
Champaign, Illinois. July 9-13, 1973.
ives, design and
sampling procedures

lIouwer, H. Design and Operation of Land Treatment Systems for Minimum

. Contamination of Groundwater. Groundwater. 12(3):140. May-June
1974.
I ~ouwer, H. Treatment of Liquid Waste: The Hydrologic System.

La~d Review of land

Presented at the Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
treatment planning
I Effluents on Land, Champaign, Illinois. July 9-13, 1973.
aspects
Bouwer, H. R,enovat i n9 Secondary [ffl uent by Groundwater Recharge with

I
Infiltration Basins. If1: Conference on Recycling Treated

Municipal Wa~tewater Through Forest and Cropland. U.S.

Envi ronmental Protecti 01 Agt:llCY. EPA-660/2-74-003. 1974.

louwer, H. Water Quality Asp,:!cts of Intermittent Systems Using Secondary

Sewage Effluent. U.S.4ate" Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix,
Arizona, Paper No.8. Sep':!mber 1970 .

I
.' ouwer, H. Zoni ng Aquifers f)\" T,?rti ary Treatment of Wastewater.
Water. 14(6) :386. Nov·=mbe~-December 1976.
Ground

louwer, H., and R L. Chaney. Lanj Treatment of ~Jastewater Advances in

, Agronomy. 26:133-176. 197/L

Ihr;stman, R.F., al. Asse;smelt of tile Effectiveness and Ef;~ec'cs of

land Disposal Methodolo'~ies of Wastewater Management. ILS. Army
Coros F::ngi neers. DA': Wn-73-C-0041, 42 and 43. 1972.

IU1P, R.L. ~cting

Treatmer: P."ocesses to f~eetWater Reuse Factors J.7 f~ ,

I Requirement,;. Presented at the Symposium on Wastewater Re!ls0 for

Groundwater Recharge, P::nnOtB, California. September 6-7, .,919 •
water reb;;;
decisions

.Junbar, J .0. Publ ic Acceptan:e - Educational and Informationa'i i·leeds.

Presented at th~ Conference 0:1 Recycl ing Municipal S1udge .'m1

I Effluents on Land, Cham~~ig1, Illinois. July 9-13. 1973.

I
Hayek, B.F. Chemical Interact'ion; of Wastewater in a Soil Environment.

Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 41(11):!775, 1Q69.

LMce, J.e . ,
R,C. Rice, and R.G. Gilbert. Renovation of WastevH":er by Results
Soil Columns Flooded with Primary Effluent. Journal Water study
I
. Pollution Control Federation. 52(2}:381-388. 1980.

ance, 'J,C-, and F.D. Wh-isler. T!le Effect of Increasing the Org(i.nic
l Carbon Content of Sewage on Nitrogen, Carbon, and Bacteria' ~emoval

I
 and Infiltration in Soil Columns. In: Hydrology and Water

I
Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 5:57. Tucson, Arizona.

1975.
J
r12n.:::';r::, ,J.D., and R.L. Chaney.Factors Involved in Land Application of
Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
}-\gl';jCultul~e Research Service. Beltsville, Maryland. 1974.
1
O\~RT > Department of the
Interior. Water Reuse and Recycl in9 - Vol ume 2 ­
Eva1uation of Treatment Technology. April 1979. J
Postlewait, J.e., and H.J. Knudsen. Some Experiences in Land Acquisition
for a Land Disposal System for Sewage Effluent. Presented at the
Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
I
Champaign, Illinois. July 9-13. 1973.
Pound, C.E., and R.W. Crites. Nationwide Experiences in Land Treatment. General review
Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents 1 and treatment
and Sludges, New Brunswick, New Jersey. March 12-13, 1973. processes
Pound, CoCe, and R.W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Various aspects of
Application. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. rapid infiltrati0;l
EPA-660/2-73-006a and b. August 1973.
Reid, D.M, Water Quality Changes Due to Surface Spreading of Reclaimed
Water. California State Polytechnic College Report. 1972. ]
Rice, R.C. Soil C10gging During Infiltration of Secondary Effluent.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 46:708. 1974.
]
Rice, R.C., and R.G. Gilbert. Land Treatment of Primary Sewage Effluent:
Water and Energy Conservation. In: Hydrology and Water Resources
in Arizona and the Southwest. 8:33. Tucson, Arizona. 1978. ]
SCS Engineers. Contaminants Associated with Direct and Indirect Reuse of
Municipal Wastewater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/1-78-019. March 1978. ]
SCS Engineers. Reuse of Municipal Wastewater for Groundwater Recharge.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/2-77-183. September ]
1977 •
Signor, D.C. Sampling Equipment and Techniques for Monitoring Ground
Water During Artificial Recharge Operations. Presented at the
Groundwater
sampling devices
JI
Symposium on Wastewater Reuse for Groundwater Recharge, Pomona,
California. September 6-7, 1979.
]
Sills, M.A., R. Costello, and R. Leak. Pretreatment Techniques and
Design Modifications for Rapid Infiltration Land Treatment Systems.
Presented at the Symposium on Land Treatment of Wastewater,
Hanover, New Hampshire. August 20-25, 1978.
I
Sullivan, R.H. A Survey of Land Application of Wastewater Facilities.
Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents
and Sludges, New Brunswick, New Jersey. March 12-13, 1973.
I
Thomas, R.E., W.A. Schwarz, and T.W. Bendixen. Soil Chemical Changes in J
I
,
I Infiltration Rate Reduction under Sewage Spreading. Proceedings of
the Soil Scientists Society of America. 35(5):641-646. 1966.
II .s. Arw~ Corps of Engineers. State of Knowledge in Land Treatment of
Wastewater, Vol. I and II. International Symposium, August 20-25,
1978, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1978.

lIiga, A., and R.S. S1etten. An Overview of Land Treatment from Case

Studies of Existing Systems. Journal Water Pollution Control

Federation, 50, 277. 1978.

I.

"'tJlga, A. 1978. Development of Land Application Design Criteria from Site selection,

Field Investigations. In: Proceedings from Conference on Land parameters, mapping

I Treatment of Wastewater. November.

Uni versity of and. Proc. Symposium on Land Treatment

!'~aryl Waste
of

I 1978. Effluents. April 25-26, 1978. Technical Report No. 48. Water
Resources Res. Centre. University of Maryland, College Park.

I'astewater Reclamation at Whittier Narrows. California State Water

Quality Control Board. Pub'iication No. 33. 1966.
ITlliams, R.B., J.A. Faisst, and G.l. Culp. Treatment Technology for
Water Reuse. Water Reuse Symposium, Washington, D.C. March 1979.
iright, K.R •• and C.K. Rovey. 1979. Land Application of Waste - Colorado, general.
l
, State-of-the-Art. Groundwater. Vol. 17, No, 1. February_ land treatment
'right. K.R and R.L. Toren. 1972, Land Treatment of Sewage for Co lorado 1i;l r:d
I
C
Environmental Quality and R,=source Cycling. Paper Presented at 33
Annual Conference on Chemurgic Council, Washington, D.C. May.
application, case
study example

I ;r;ght,Removes
K.R., 1976. Sewage ,::ffl'Jent Turned to Snow. Pl"ovides Storage
Poll utants. CiltilI:ng;neer; ng. ASCE. May.
]

1
l

J
]
]
]
]
]
l
]
]
]
]
I
I
I
I
,
I APPENDIX I

AVAILABLE INFORMATION
I
Published information pertaining to an individual project area will vary
I considerably within the Province. The level and source of information
important to rapid infiltration planning is given in the following sec-
I tions:

I A. BASE MAPPING

In general, 1:50,000 scale NTS maps provide a useful base for plot­
I ting information and outlining potential sites. They can be
obtained from ;/!,lberta Government Technical Services, Geological
I Survey of Canada (Calgary) and many bookstores.

I Aerial photogr3iJhs are particularly helpful even for personnel un­

trained in ael';al photographic interpretation. They prov'idi~

I obvious inhrmation in terms of existing land use and vegetation.

They are particularly useful during the detailed phase when a rrKH'(>
technical i;1terpretation is carried out. Attempts should be made
I to receive the most recent aerial photographs (and topographical
rna p s) av ai1 ab1e
I
I B. HYDROGEOLOGY

I The known sources of hydrogeological data and the methods for ac-'
Quiring additional information are discussed below. ~I;th the nemt:

of each source is a brief description of thE: type and r;ontent

I
information and the form in which it is avai;able. ~Jhere Ul(;

information is of questionable accuracy or reliability this r·a~.

'I; been noted. The order in which the sources ale listed is not re­

"
lated to the quantity or quality of the data" It is advisabletn
I acquire all available data from each source befor'e atternpting to
select potential sites.

I
I-I
I
 J
Information pertaining to granular deposits will, for the most
part, be limited to the locations of the deposits. However, some
J
sources will also provide specific data concerning areal extent,
thickness and permeability. l
B.l Alberta Research Council - Geology Division l
Published and open file reports and maps outlining the types, dis­
tribution and origin of surficial deposits are available for seve­
J
ral areas of the province. Some reports also provide specific data
about sand and gravel deposits such as histograms of sieve analy­ l
ses, pebble counts, and the amount of surface incrustation.
Terrai n ana1ysi s maps which incl ude information about surfici al
]
geology, topography and slope are available for some parts of the
province. ]
Bedrock geology information is also available from reports and maps ]
published by the Geology Division. These reports and maps cover
the entire province in various scales. ]
B.2 Alberta Research Council - Gravel Inventory Project
]
This is perhaps the best source of sand and gravel information in

the Province. The Project has, as of 1980, delineated and des­ ]

cribed sand and gravel deposits occurri n9 over a 12% area of the

Province which includes 75% of the area around major population ]

centres. The deposits delineated are:

• mappable at a scale of 1:50,000,

• at least one metre thick, and
]
• have an overburden ratio no greater than 1:1.
]
Volume estimates are based on geological interpretation. The des­

cription of the deposits often includes lithology, grain-size dis­ I

tribution, structure, areal extent and mode of deposition.

1-2
J
I
I The reports and maps published by the Geology Division are avail­
able at the Alberta Research Council Library. Geology Branch per­

I sonnel, particularly those involved with the Gravel Inventory

Project, should be contacted for additional information.

I B.3 Geological Survey of Canada (GSC)

I Reports and maps outlining the type, distribution and origin of

surficial deposits in several areas of the Province have been pre­

I pared. The GSC also have prepared reports and maps of bedrock geo­
logy for the majority of the Province. The reports and maps are in
the form of open file information and can be viewed at:
I The Institute of Sedimentary and Petroleum Geology
3303 - 33 Avenue N W
I Calgary Alberta
T2l 2A7
I Copies of some of the file information can be purchased from

I private reproduction companies. The aforementioned agency should

be contacted for the names and locations of these companies.

I B.4 Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program (AOSERP}

I Surficial geology maps have been prepared for the r~cMurray Oil
Sands area of the Province by this organization. These maps are
I available from the Map and Airphoto Distribution Services of the
Alberta Departmant of Energy and Natural Resources, and further in··

I formation may be obtained from the Publications Officer at AOSERP.

B.5 Alberta Environment - Groundwater Information Service

The information available consists of water well drillers ' reports

I and reports prepared by consul tants and government agenci es,
significant number of the reports contain borehole lithologs from
.\

I which the thickness, lithology and the depth to the various geo-­
logic units can be determined. The water well drillers' reports

I
1-3
I
 1
will vary in data quality and should, therefore, be interpreted
with caution. The reports prepared by the Consultants and govern­
]
ment agenci es may incl ude the resul ts of si eve analyses for uncon­
solidated deposits in addition to borehole lithologs. It may be
]
possible to determine the areal extent of a deposit by plotting on
a map the locations of boreholes that have encountered sand or
gravel.
l
]
Interpretation of the drillers· reports requires technical know­
ledge to ascertain hydrogeologic parameters. Accordingly, tech­
nical experience should be retained for hydrogeological interpreta­
]
tion of this material.
]
B.6 Alberta Environment Materials and Testing Branch
]
This Branch of Alberta Environment maintains information on file

for sand and gravel pits used in vari ous Al berta Government pro­ ]

jects. The information available is usually limited to the loca­

tions of the pits and sieve analysis reports. Locating pits for

the projects is usually accomplished by verbal communication with

]
Alberta Transportation, local municipalities and local sand and
gravel contractors. ]
B.7 Alberta Energy and Natural Resources, Land Management and Develop­
ment - Public Lands Division
1
]
The occurrences of sand and gravel deposi ts on Crown Land are on
file with the Land Management and Development Branch. Applications
submitted to the Branch from contractors wishing to establish sand
]
and gravel pits on Crown Land contain basic information about the
deposit, including thickness and grain size distribution. However, ]
the accuracy of this information is usually questionable.

B.8 Alberta Transportation - Aggregate Division

J
Because sand and gravel deposits may be of economic importance,
I
virtually all of the information on file is confidential and not
I
I - 4
I
I
I available to most people outside of Alberta
However, the Division may be aware of the occurrences of deposits
Transportation.

I in the study area which are not useful to Alberta Transportation,

but may be suitable for rapid infiltration. Therefore, it is

I worthwhile to contact the Aggregate Division for assistance.

B.9 Alberta Research Council - Groundwater Division

I Hydogeological information can be found in published reports and
I maps available at the Alberta Research Council Library. Detailed
information with respect to sand and gravel deposits such as un­

I saturated thickness, permeability, and water quality may be given

where the deposit represents a significant aquifer.

I
C. LAND USE
I
Two general sources of Land Capability information are availab'le

I throughout the Province. The Canada and Alberta Land Inventory

includes a ser'ies of 1:250 000 maps which show land capability fiJi'

I various resource uses including agriculture,

recreation and sport fishing. Although actual
forestry, wildlife,
land use is not
given directly, these maps do indicate restricted areas. The)
I available from sources selling topographical maps and aerial photo­
ati:'

graphs.
I
Present designated land use is not avai'able throughout the

I Province in a standardized published form; most municipalities de­

signate their own Land Use. This information is generally avaii­

I able directly from the local mun'icipality concerned.

:1 D. SOILS

I General soils information in Alberta is restricted to the followinq

sources:
I
I I - 5
 J
Alberta Research Council - Soils Division and the Alberta Institute
0.1
of Pedology J
The reports and maps prepared by these two agencies contain infor­ ]
mation not only on the type of soil but also on the parent material
of soils and, in some cases, discussions on the occurrences of sand
and gravel. Information from the reports and maps will delineate
l
areas where the parent material of soils is sand and gravel. The
Alberta Research Council has conducted exploratory surveys in the
J
northern and west-central areas of the province resulting in broad
regional classification of soil types. Both agencies have prepared
]
reconnaissance soil survey reports and maps for many large areas as
well as detailed soil surveys of urban centres and areas adjacent ]
to them. The reports and maps can be obtained from the Al berta
Research Council Library. ]
0.2 Canada land Inventory Forestry Sector Program and Alberta Land ]
Inventory Forestry Section Program

A series of W!PS entitled "Special Geomorphic (Landform) Maps" pre­

]
pated by these two programs are available from the Map and Airphoto

Distribution Services of the Alberta Department of Energy and ]

Natural Resources. These maps include data on parent geological

mater<j a1 whi ch may provi de useful information. The seri es only ]

covers several areas in the northern half of the Province.

0.3
]
Alberta Agriculture - Irrigation Division, Lethbridge

If the project of concern is located in an irrigated area~ this

]
division may be able to provide significant information in terms of

soil type) drainage suitability~ parent material and watertable ]

depth.

I - 6
I
•I Eo CLIMATE

Environment Canada maintains detailed climatic information from

I numerous stations and areas in the Province. They can provide data
regarding temperature preCipitation (both rain and snow) and num­
t

I ber of frost-free days as well as other climatic parameters. The

three parameters mentioned are important in designing an RI site.

I
I F. OTHER

A reconnai ssance of the area by ground and at r may al so prove use­

I ful in locating potential sites by providing up to date land use

information. Verbal communication with local government officials,

I sand and gravel contractors, residents, water well dri llers, con­

sultants and employees of government agencies may provide addition­

I
al information not available in the reports and maps for a study

area.

I
I
I
I
I
I
-I

I - 7
I
]

)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1

I
I
I
I
I

I
APPENDIX II

I
MAXIMUM INFILTRATION CAPACITY AND NATURAL DISCHARGE CAPACITY

A.
MAXIMUM INFILTRATION CAPACITY (MIC)
I

Maximum infiltration capacity is defined as the maximum daily volume

I
of wastewater that can infi 1trate downward beneath an i nfil tration
basin. MIC;s a function of both the nature of the materials present
I
beneath a site and their areal extent. An estimate of maximum infil­
tration capacity is necessary to carry out a site evaluation and

I
design.

Infiltration capacity can be estimated by using Figure 7 (Chapter 4),

I
the site area and hydraulic conductivity of the surficial materials
present. Site area can be measured di rectly from the composite map
I
by using grids or planimeter. Hydraulic conductivity will normally
be estimated from Table 11-1 based on the known nature of the

I
deposit.

Table 11-1 Hydraulic Conductivities of Various Granular DepOSits

I
Deposit Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/sec)
I
Clean, well sorted sand and gravel 10-1

I
Clean sand, moderately sorted gravel 10-2

Moderately sorted sand and gravel 10-3

I
Poorly sorted sand and gravel 10-4

Inf"iltration capacity is estimated by the following procedure:

I
1. estimate site hydraulic conductivity, in em/sec
2. determine annual hydraulic loading (10% of above) and convert em/sec to

I
m/yr (multiply by 3.15 x 10 4 , this includes a 10% allowance).

I
II - 1
 1
3. extrapolate site area (on the y-coordinate of Figure 7) using the line
most closely representing the estimated hydraulic loading rate deter­

]
mined.

4. maximum daily infiltration capacity of the site in question can be read ]

off the x-coordinate.
]
Design Example:

Assume that a site has been delineated consisting of 30 ha of 1

moderately sorted sands and gravels. Calculate the maximum infil­
tration capacity of the site.
]
Step 1. using Table II-I, the hydraulic conductivity of the sur­ ]
ficial deposits can be estimated at 10- 3 cm/sec.
]
Step 2. Annual hydraulic loading rate

= 10- 3 x 3.15 x 104

= 3.15 x 101

]
= 31.5 m/yr.

]
Step 3. Extrapolating from Figure 7, 30 ha would allow a maximum
infiltration capacity of 25 x 106 L/day at a hydraulic ]
loading of 31.5 m/yr.
]
This calculation is shown on Table II-2. Note that maximum infil­
tration capacity has been calculated for four sites.
]
B. NATURAL DISCHARGE CAPACITY (NDC)
J
This calculation involves an estimate of the volume of renovated

water which will naturally flow from the infiltration site to the ]

area of natural discharge. In most cases, this area will be a sur­

face water body such as a stream or lake. In cases where the NOC ]

exceeds that daily application of wastewater no drainage procedures

will be required. Where the daily application is greater than the

NDC, then drainage procedures will be required for the difference. I

I
II - 2
I
I
I The volume of renovated water flowing away from an RI site can be
approximated from Darcy1s Equation:

I where
Q :: KIA
Q = volume of flow
K :: hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal pl ane
I I :: hydraulic gradient
A :: cross-sectional area of flow

I If the hydraulic conductivity in the horizontal plane is not known,

I it will be necessary to derive one based on geologic interpreta­

tion. The hydraulic gradient will likely be an unknown entity and,

I as such, it may be feasible to use the difference between the

ground surface and the nearest water body_ The cross-sectional
area of the RI site is the product of the length (L) of the site
I perpendicular to the direction of flow and the thickness (T) of the
saturated flow region (aquifer). The length can usually be deter­
I mi ned by interpretati on from a topographic map. The saturated
thickness of the aquifer will have to be estimated from geologic

I interpretation if quantitative data are not available.

I Natural discharge capacity can be est"imated by using the following

procedure:

I Step 1. Determine the cross-sectional area through which flow will

occur. This is done by multiplying the saturated thickness
I (after wastewater application) and the portion of the site
through which natural flow will occur.

I Step 2. Determine the hydraulic gradient. Hydraul i c gradient is

I equal to:
rise
run
I and is expressed as a dimensionless number.

I II - 3
 J
Step 3. Estimate aquifer hydraulic conductivity. This usually will
require technical interpretation and normally will be in J
the range of an order of magnitude. Generally, the aquifer
hydraulic conductivity will be higher than the hydraulic
conductivity of the surficial soils.
J
]
Step 4. Determine NDC using the following formula:
NDC = KIA
where, K = hydraulic conductivity in cm/sec x 8.64 x J
10 4 sec/day
I = hydraulic gradient, dimensionless
A = cross-sectional area, m2
I
Design Example:
J
Assume that the site of interest (presented in Figure II-I) is a
J
site 8 m above and 475 m a\oJay from a nearby river. Its area ;s 30
ha of which the length of the infiltration site through which
J
iii

natura 1 flow will occur ;s 2,100 m. The aquifer hydraul ic

conductivity is estimated to range from 10
-1
to 10
-2
J
cm/sec. Calculate the natural discharge capacity.

Step 1. Cross-sectional area

I
= 10 m x 2100 m = 2.1 x 10 4 m2 I
Step 2. Hydraulic gradient
= rise = 8 m = 0.017
I
run 475m

Step 3. The hydraulic conductivitv is estimated to range from

-1 -2 .

10 to 10 em/sec. Therefore the range of NDC

is shown in the following two cases.

Case 1 NDe = KIA

(K = 10- 2)
-2 -2
= (10 cm )(8.64 x 10 4 sec)(2.1 x 10 4 m2)(1.7 x 10 ) I
sec day
= 3.0 x 10 3 m3/day
= 3.0 x 106 L/day II - 4 I
I
-

I
150 M

a
PLAN VIEW
A
~
DD PROPOSED RI BASINS
A'
o
o
N

I
DO
I
(L=2100M)

I
X·SECTION
A A'

I
I
I

I
I'"
..-11
475M - - - -..
BASINS

I
20

t
(8MI

I
~'L- ______ ~~~~~~ ____ ~~ _________ W_A_T~E:L-TA_B_l_E~_
I SCALE 1M) 10
i

T(lOMI

~
<W" ~ /W /if'
I o ~----------------r-----------------
o 500 1000

__
BEDROCK

I FIGURE II-I
NATURAL DISCHARGE CAPACITY CALCULATION

I
II - 5

 I
J
=(10- 1 cm)(8.64 x 104 sec)(2.1 x 104 m2)1.7 x 10- 2 )
sec day
J
= 3.0 x 104 m3/day
= 30 x 106 L/day S
As can be seen, a range of one order of magnitude in hydraulic con­
ductivity produces a corresponding range of one order of magnitude
J
in NOC.
1
NOCls have been calculated for four sites and are presented an an
example in Table Il-2. MIC indicates whether the site is accept­ J
able for the designed wastewater loading. The difference between
design daily wastewater loading and NOC indicates the amount of I
artificial drainage necessary. This is discussed in Chapter 5,
Section 5.5.5. )
Table 11-2 has been completed to illustrate a typical analysis of 4
sites. The information shown will prove most useful when discuss­ J
ing project feasibility and cost estimation.
J
]

J
]
I

II - 6
I
.. 1­ - _..... --- .. ,--­ - -,-~ - ...
TABLE 11-2 - PROJECT EVALUATION CHART (NON-MODIFIED SITES)

-----­

PHYSICAL SETTING HYDRAULIC SETTING

SITE ~-.--- -oTstance Estimatea Ryarogeology Max1mum Natura I YO I ume ot was te- SUMMARY REMARKS
NUMBER Area From Waste :>urttc1 a I mat- Aquifer hy- Slope lnfil t- Discharge water requiring
(ha) Source Oepth to erial hydrau­ draulic con- Soil s 'f, ration C<I.pacity artificial drain
(km) wt (m) 1 ic conducti­ ductivity Capacity (lU 6L1day) (10 6 L1dayl*
vi ty (cml sec) (cm/sec)
- (10 6 L1day)
--­
1 30 1.0 2 - 5 1O~3 10(-1) sandy loan 3 - 4 24 3 - 30 NA small area near
to waste source
........
-­
10(-2)
1-1
2 125 5.5 10 - 15 10-3 lO{ -1) good site; smaller
".1
to than 3&4 but closer
"-.J lOl -2) loamy san~ 4 100 20 - 200 o- 50 to was te source and
has highest natural
discharge capacity
-­ -­ -----.­
3 450 6.8 10 - 15 10-3 lOt -1) sand 2 - 360 6 - 60 10 - 64 good 1a rge site
to farthest away
---­
10(-2)
4 350 6.5 5 - 10 10-3 1Q{-l) soi 1s may be res-
to sl1t loam 2 - 280 0.3 - 3.0 67 - 69.7 trict ive. very
lO( -2) small natural dis­
charge capac i ty

* assumes a daily wastewater loading of 70 x 10 6 L/day.

J

J
J

J
J

~l

'I

I
I
,
APPENDIX II I
RATING FACTORS FOR RI SITE SELECTION

I Characteristics Suitability Rating*

1)Permeabili~~, cm/sec**

I
1.0
1.0
x 10_ 3
x 10_
E
1
1.0 x 10_ 21 6
I 1.0 x 10 9

2}Depth of granular materials, m

I 0.6 - 1.5
1.5 - 3.0
>3.0
E
4
8

I 3)Slope, %
o- 2 8
2 - 5 4
I 5 - 10
>10
1
E

I
4)Minimum depth to groundwater, m

<1.2
1.2 - 3.0
E
2
>3.0 6
I 5)Planned land use
Industrial/High density residential/urban E
I Low density residential/urban
Forested
Agricultural or open space
1
1
4

I *Overall suitability rating (sum of values)

Low <16

I.
Medium
High
Not Suitable
16 - 25

25 - 35
E
I ** Permeability of most restrictive layer in soil profile

I' Note: The higher the number in each characteristic, the greater the
suitability. Characteristics are presented in decreasing order
of importance.
I

II I - 1
I I
~,
I

J
I

'l

I APPENDIX IV

I COST ESTIMATION

I The following appendix contains numerous curves which can be used to

estimate costs of various components of an RI system. All costs are
expressed in September 1980 Canadian dollars.
I
Two alternative sites are evaluated at the end of this Appendix. These
I consist of examples worked out using the chart displayed on Table 5, in
Chapter 4.

I IV - 1

J:

S
]

J
J
I

J
I

I
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT - SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL ­
Figures IV-lA, IV-IB
I
I
The cost curves are developed for a sequence of bar screens, grit chamber,
and flow meter.
I Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 402
I 2. Labor rate including fringe benefits - $24,000/yr

I Assumptions
1. Capital costs include flow channels and superstructure, bar
I racks, grinders (for screening), grit chambers, grit handling
eqUipment, and Parshall flume with flow recording eqUipment.
2. Volume of screenings assumed to be 0.3 to 1.0 m3/10 6L/day
I of flow and grit (including ground screenings) 0.6 to 1.6
m3/10 6L/day.

I 3. The cost of grit disposal is not included in the capital or 0

&Mcosts.

I
I
I
I
,
I
~
IV - 2

I
 I

CAPITAL COST
PR,ELfMINARY TREATMENT,. SCREENING & GRIT REMOVAL J
1:0~000
~
J

6€)(i)&

5QOO
40013

3000

* 1
i
m
I

2000

II~ ~ I

as:
(I.)
a: tQOO
<'
...J
...J
0
0
Sll)0

600

~'i'
-:7
./
I

(Ii) 500

~~
I

0
Z 400

-< ~
(Ii)
300

./
:::>
0
,,;'
/
X

I- 200

. /
,., ,. ~
~,
-­ I

1/

../
./
I

V
1
la
•
.

ffi )

1
:2 345681'0 20 30 40 50 60 sa 100 200 300 400500 1000
J

FLOW 106 L/OAY FIGURE IV lA

0PIfRiATI'ON· &' MAINTENANCE

I PP.I1l5lI1M'IIN,ARY TR:EATM ENT

I 1'00(iI
8tIC9

I
OO!)
54)0

M)0

I 300

200
!
I ,
I c:
«
w
10(;)
MATERIALS
'~
I
!
?::
tt.)
I
I .. "­

I c:
«
...J
...J
8@

6Q
50 ,,"
-7
./
"­
.".
0
Cl ," ~

I en
Cl
Z
«
en
40

30
LABOU~

Y'""
.;V' i

V
1/
"..

I
;:)
0 20
- -"""" \..,.

7!
:t:
r-
~~
. "'~
I t.(i)
8
-0'

".
'"
V •I
6'

I 5
4
./
/' 1
i

V I

I 3

2
l.-­ ,..".,. ...- 1.00­ ... "'" I
i

I r
I
I

1 2 3 4 5 6 a H) 2(') 30 4(:) 50 60 S0100 200 300 400500 1000

I FLOW 106 L/DAY

FIGURE IV 18

J
]

1
I
J
I
J
!
I
I
J

J
I

,
CAPITAL COST OF PIPELINES ­
Figures IV-2A, IV-2B

I
Assumptions
1. C = 100

I
2. Minimum Velocity = 0.6m/sec
3. Maximum friction head loss of 1 m per m of pipe
I
4. Includes land, clearing and grubbing, excavation and backfill,
material and installation, cathodic protection (for steel pipe)
I
5. Total dynamic head = 60 m

I
6. Good Soil conditions
7. Slope 0-3%

I
8. Not including crossings, air relief valves, engineering and
coating.

I
IV - 5

J'

>

J'

CAPITAL COST

PIPELINES

225

I
'i
J
200
v
175
V
V J
/
w
0:
150
'I' I
I-
w
:E 125 /
0:
w
Q..
en
100 ~ I
0: 10'"
< ~
..J ",. ~
I
..J
0
0 75
~
~ - ~
",.
I I I

50 ~
~
J
25
3
0
2 3 4 5 6 1 8 910

ANTICIPATED FLOW 106 L/DAY

20 30 40 50 60 80 100
J
FIGURE IV 2A I

!
J
I
I
I
I

.,
OPERATI N.G· &. MAINTENANCE

PhPEUN!ES

I
1i(!)(!)Cil

B0l9
&00.
6tl)(I)

M)(!)
m
I
306

!
I
~~TEfll ~LS
I
I

I
1/
/1
y
1
..-- -
I
-
.... ",,'" .....-
~ - ~ ~ ~"'"

i--" ~
~!"'"
------
L.oooo ~

.",.,..",. ~

-
I""'"

~ .... -"" ~ 1'\

I
~
""......... ~ \
U SOUR

I
1I~1
s·
..

I
6

5'

I
3

I
1 2 3 4 5 6
aH) 2() 30 4Cl 50 60

ANTICIPATED FLOW 10 6 LlDAY

ao 100 200 300 500 700 1000

I
FIGURE IV 28

CAPITAL COST OF PUMPING STATIONS ­

Figure lY-3A J
1
Assumptions
1. 60 m total head ]
2. One standby pump
3. Includes 15% for lighting and heating
J
4. Pump efficiency - 0.65
I
5. Includes 20% for contingencies
Curve A - Stand by power, peak hour capacity (P.F.
- No flow balancing required
= 2.5) J
- Tel emetry
Curve B - Average da"ily flow capaci ty
J
- Require one day retention flow balancing facility
-
-
Tel emetry
No stand by power J
1
J
J

J
I

J
IV - 8
I
I

CAPITAL COST
I PUMP STATIONS

12
f
I
11
II
I
I
10
...
II
I
9

/
8

I
7
V
I
6
~V ~;
~
0
0
0 CURVE 'A' :/ /
v
I
0
0,...
~
5 -
, / /
V
4
~ /~
I
><
V ~
~
CURVE 'B'
~
3
v ~ "",.,.­

I
2
- - ~
~ """"'"
~
,.,fIlII" ~
~~

I
----­
o
I
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 60 80 100

ANTICIPATED FLOW 106 L/DAY

I
FIGURE IV 3A

J
CAPITAL COST OF flOW BALANCING FACILITIES -
Ffgure IV-38
,
Assumptions l
1. Earth Berms
2. 24 Hour Retention at Average Daily Flow
I
3.
4.
Length = Width, i.e. square lagoon
4:1 slide slopes
I
5. 3.5 m top width of Berm I
6. Depth = 3.5 metres. Liquid
7. Includes 20% for contingencies
1
8. Includes inlet/outlet structures ]
9. Minimum cost = $100,000
!
1
J
J
J
J
I

IV - 10
I

I
I

I
CAPIT AL COST

FLOW BALANCING FACILITIES

I 4

I 3
I
J
I (fJ
a:
~
I
«
...J

...J
V
0
0
~2
z
1/
I «
(fJ
:>
0 vV
:z:
I l-

Vi.
~ !

I
i

I a
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30
I
40 50 60
I

80
!
100

I ANTICIPATED FLOW 106 L/DAY

FIGURE IV 38

I
I
I
I
 I

J
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF PUMPING STATIONS ­
1
Figures IV-3A, IV-3C

J
Basis of Costs 1
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 402
J
2.
3.
Assumptions
Labor rate including fringe benefits
Electrical power cost = $0.06/kwh
= $24,000/yr
,
1. Capital and power cost curves given for various total heads in
m.
J
2. Capital costs are related to peak flow in mgd.
maintenance costs are related to average flow.
Operation and 1
3. Capital cost includes:
J
a) Fully enclosed wet well/dry well type structure

b)
c)
d}
Pumping equipment with stand by facilities

Piping and valves within structure

Controls and electrical work.

4. Labor cost includes operation, preventative maintenance, and

minor repairs. 1
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside
contractor and replacement of parts. ]
6. The peak flow for distribution pumping is the maximum rate

determined by system design. It is not the peak rate for raw

sewage flow in the municipality. ---­

J
7. The annual labor and power costs should be adjusted in
proportion to the actual number of days per year that pumping
J
occurs.
J
I
IV - 12
J
I
J

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

I 'liN
PtlMPliN.G STAnONS

I
81

•
tnt I

I
SQ'

44ll
ttl
I 3(1)

2Q
,
I I

I I
a:
<t: l,e I
::
L5OmH~AD
w
>­
...... s
I to
a:
<t:
...L
Ii
5,
...J
0 I ~ !. ! T
4 '30m HEAD
I a
z
0 3
V !. I • .

...J
...J
2 ~OW~R II
I :E
~ ........ -.....
"­ "'­
""-' ... 10m HEAD
l
....
I eta
l1li11 ......
~
~s

I (,114

0.3
"'""" ~ ....
1""'100
I""~LABOURl
I 0i2
..

M.ATERIA~~ ....... ......

~ ....
I 0.1
2 3 4· 5 6 a r0 20 31ll 40 59 S0 80100 200 300 400 500 1000

1'06 LlDAY
I
FIGURE IV 3C

I
'I

S
J
!

1
]

I,

"

1
J

J
J
I

I
I
I BASIN CONSTRUCTION -
Figures IV-4A, IV-4B
I
I Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 402
I 2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $24,ODO/yr

I Assumptions
1. Multiple unit infiltration basins with 1 m dike (a minimum of 2
basins for all cases, maximum site of individual basin 12 hal.
I 2. Dikes formed from native excavated material.

I 3. Inside slope of dike 3:1; outside slope, 2:1 1.9 m wide dike
crest.
4. Deep sandy soi 1.
I 5. Materials cost includes annual rototilling of infiltration
surface and major repair of dikes after 10 yr.
I 6. Includes inlet and outlet systems, control valves, etc.
7. Does not include costs for rough grading, clearing or
I grubbing.

I
I
I
I
I
I IV - 14

I
 I
J
)

CAPITAL COST
1
BASI:N CONSTRUCTION
(Not ineluding rough grading and clearing) ]
1!1l;;000
S8lN ]

6flf)(I.
5ClM
4000
3000
J
2000
vi I

rJI
a:;:
«
...J
...J.
tOO(;)
see
V I
! ]

eCil. 6(MI) ~

('.0-
Q
Z
500
400
,I
~
]

~
~ 3OIi)
~f'
::::r
0
I
..... ~
I V ]

V I' 3
l/
LI
I..f
J
..,V
3E1

~ """ 1
J

1 2' 3 4- 5 6· 8 l'(i) 200 300 400 500 1000

FIELD AREA ha

FIGURE IV 4A
J
!
J
I
I

,
, (OPERATION Be M,A.INTEN;ANCE
8A>SlN MAINTENANCE

I 1:~0t!)Ii)

tt l=E
I fSIII0e.
BCIf)0
I

4QCOO t
I 3000

I
2000
r--.......
-
I
I
a:
-<
w
~
1.
~ r-......
..... ..... r...
......
............... "A(

- tfffi
""""
..J.. . .
~
.....
LABOUR II I

-
UiI see
a!:.
-<
..J
..J
0
&tlGI
54)0. ~
!, ........ ­
-"'~ ...

I tZI
Z
<::)
4W

300
......... "'-..
......
r--..... ~
- -
::::i MATERIALS
..J ....
I :E 200
............-.. - --
I
I f:m:
I
36

I 261

I TO
1 2 3 4 5 6 S to 2& 30 4a 5960 8G 100 200 300 400500 1000

I FIELD AREA ha FIGURE IV 48

I
I
I
I

J
I
l
l
1
1
1
1
I
I
J

 UNDERDRAINS ­
Figures IV-5A, IV-58

Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 402
I 2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $24,OOO/yr
Assumptions
I 1. Costs given for spacings of 30 and 120 m between drain pipes.

I 2. Capital cost includes:

a) Drain pipes buried 1.8 to 2.4 m
I
b)
c)
Interception ditch along length of field
Weir for control of discharge.
3.
Labor cost includes inspection and unclogging of drain pipes at
I outlets.
4.
Materials cost includes high pressure jet cleaning of drain
I pipes every 5 yr, annual cleaning of interceptor ditch, and
major repair of ditches after 10 yr.

I Note: Spacings as small as 30 m may be required to clayey soils; a

120 m spacing is typical for sandy soil conditions.

I
I
I
I
I
I IV - 17

I
 I

1
1
CAPITAL COST
UNDER DRAINS
(Assumes drain spaee of 30m)
1
ra,_ l
~
SII!tile

6fl00
5000 ]
I
4000
!
I
3000

2fJOO
I
I

I i } I 1
i

I
I
/1 ]
~
CIt 1;8)(00
,
/ I

:s 8610

- J
-I
0
,
tEl G0G
<A ~
0
Z 44)(j)
I""
<
~
:::J
0
::c
3(\)0

I ~V
1/ I l
I­ 200
/' ]
1'(00 /
SIiI

60
.7

I
]
~
SEI 7'
40

30
" J
20
1
I
10
, 2 3 4S6 81'Q 20 30 40 50 60 80 lOa 200 300 400 500 1000 !
FIE.LD AREA ha
FIGURE IV SA
I
I
I
I
I

I c!)P'ER,ATION, & MAINTENANCE

UND'ER DRAINS

I
_E
I
I 300
=t-- ....

..
,
$:f
i
•
~i""'--.. I

I
200
~

- r- "- MATERIALS
I
I

I
a::
<I(
w
.
>­......
1'.
80' '"'" 100..
I"""
I

-
6C)

I
JZ.
CI)'
I1r:

0(

...J
~
10
5EI
40

3G
.."""-
...........
- LA )OUR
~I-

I 28

I 1'0
8:
i

I 5
4 t
3

I 2

I 2 3 4· 5 6 S to 20 3(1) 40 Sfl6@ SID 100 200 300 400 500 1000

I FIELD AREA ha FIGURE IV 56

1
1
1
J

J
iJ

1
1
J
1
]

S
I

I
RECOVERY WELLS ­
Figures IV-6A. IV-68
I

I Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 402

I
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $24,000/yr
I 3.
Assumptions
Electrical power cost = $0.06 kwh.

I 1. Capital and power cost curves given for well depths of 15 and
30 m.

I 2. Total head equal to well depth.

3. Capital cost includes:
I a) Gravel-packed wells
b) Vertical turbine pumps
c} Controls and electrical work.
I 4. Labor cost includes operation, preventative maintenance, and
minor repairs.
I 5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside
contractor and replacement of parts.
I Note: The costs do not include any p'p,ng away from the well. The
cost of discharge piping can be obtained from Figures IV-2A
and IV-2B.
I
I
I
I
I IV - 20

I
 !
l
]

CAPITAL CO~ l
aE~OVEFlt'Y WIE:LLS

1
L

H=t I
I
I
I
]
/
/ ,
/

I
if
/
/
I
1
2000

I
I
I
V I J
c.9
1'E:
1000 J I
~
..J
..J
84lt
I
IL

I I
()
/El'
eli)
6f)ID
5f)O
j
1/
,
Cl
Z
0(
(Ill
4M

3fJ&
30m HI:AD_
~
if
if I
::J
0
:I:
I­ 200
J II ]
tOO
ae
/ / ~
I
I
]
/
M

/ _1'5m HEAD
50

4a ,... ~ " :---' J

30 "".,.­
~~ ~"'"
lfI'"
21·
,.",...­
.,.".,..".. ~
J
10
1000
J
FLOW OF RENOVATED WATER 106 UDAY
FIGURE IV 6A I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I CDPf:J!tAnNG & MAINTENiANCE
RiECOVERY WELLS
I tOOl
8IDI

I 6fJt
!lei
400

I a::
3QQ i
i
«
I w
>-
.....
..J
I
I
- tOO

a!).
0
.....
I (Q.
at
~
..J
..J:
81

&III
56)
O.
... ,-
I Cl
c.o
0
Z.
3411 ~- l -
I
...... 1-1- r--~~l"iEAD
Ip IV ER 1
~.

I
::>
0
J:
2111
t-....
-r-i- ~~ 1--- I--
l"­

110
"'" ~ """-..
15m IE) D

I "
I"'"

tt rllJ f-
t ""'"'" I-
s "'....
I ~
~
~
...... ,...
~
3'
""" ~~ LABOUF
I I

/'
I 2." ~
t"'-... r--..
~
~~
I 1
l' 1000

FLOW OF RENOVATED WATER 106 L/DAY

I FIGURE IV 68

I
I
I
J

1
]
]
J
J

J
J

J
1
l

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I ADDITIONAL COSTS

SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING ­

I
Figure IV-7A, IV-7B

I
Basis of Costs

I 1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 402

Assumptions
I 1. Costs of service roads and fencing given versus field area
based on typical system layouts.
I 2. 4 m service roads, with gravel surface, around perimeter of
area and within larger fields.

I 3. 1.2 m stock fence around perimeter of area.

4. Material costs includes major repair after 10 yr.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J IV - 23

I
 J

1
CAPlTAL COST

SERVICE ROADS AN,D FENCtNG

,
'"

r0~00(!)
I

I
eeoo
66)0(!)
5000
J

4000
3000

I
J

2000

i
!
J
CI')
a: HlOO
«
....J
....J
0
Q
aoo
600
§§ I
I J

5Q(I)
CI')
,;
0
Z
«
CI:l
400

300
SERVICE ROADS,
~ ./' J

::> 7
0
::t
r­ 200 , ../ , J
",,~

1
_. / /" "" "" ]

E:: ;'
_1.
,
"" ...."
~ ..... FENCING
~
",. ]

..,V
I,/' J
,,""
~
~
1(1)
2 3 <t. 5 6 8 ro 26 30 40 5060 8Cil 1-1:)0 200 300 400500 1 000
J

SERVICE ROADS FENCING FIGURE IV 7A I

_I

I c)PEAATION & MAINTENANCE

SERVICE RQADS·AND FENCING

I
I
I

tjj
I

lOO
+m I
I
I
I
.......
~ I
a::
...
'J:QID

I fm-­
<I(
LI:I,

­
, SERVICE ROAD;:,
<..,. eo -...
-
~
<E' se
C/;l

I a:
.q;
....I
....I.
O.
4Cil

38 '"'i,
.........
I

,
O. ....
ze
I
I ••.. "' ...........
......

I
.
4
m I FENCING
"'­
J' . . . r--....
r--....
3

I
I 1
1 2345'68t6 200 3100 400 500 1000

I
FIELD AA·EA ha FIGURE IV 78

·1
1
]

1
s,>,

1
]
]
J
J
J
]

1
]
I
I
I
I
 I

I ADDITIONAL COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES ­
Figure IV-SA, IV-S8

I
I Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 402
I 2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $24,000/yr
Assumptions
I 1. Capital cost includes:
a) Administration and laboratory building
I b} laboratory equipment
c) Garage and shop facilities.

I 2. Labor cost includes:

a) Laboratory analyses and reporting
I
bi Collection of sampies
c) Maintenance of buildings.
3. Labor cost does not include administrative supervision. Labor
I for supervision included under individual components.
4. Material cost includes:
I a) Chemicals and laboratory supplies
b} General administrative supply items.
I Note: When the land application system is to be an addition to an
already existing conventional treatment system, complete
facilities (as described here) are not required, and the
I costs giver. should be reduced accordingly.

'I
I

IV - 26

 J
]
]
J
€"AP'ITAL COST
ADMIN & LAB FACIUneS
I
T
J
i J
I
I
2000 ,
I
I
.,
CI!l lmtXil
I.. . . .
£I!:
-<
-l
-l
0
800

8M
~
~
l.,;'"
I
c;)
!56le
C.(i)
0
Z
.(
400
./
."",
~
~

i
]
eR
3"
:)
0
::r:
F­
2G)Q
V
./ I
-H--I- H--
I ]
V
.-- ~~~
I

I I
-
",-

"00
.--- ".. .
I
]
l-

--I-- 1-- I
i

I
]
I

-
-~-
ji ~----

1
TEl
, 2 34568-Hi)
I
200 300 400 500 1000
l

FLOW 106 UDAY

FIGURE IV 8A I

J
I
 I

I- OPERATION & MAiNTENANCE

ACMtN & LAB FACILITIES

I 1>(00
Be

I ae
50
4Q

I 30

I
20
,
I a::
«
!
!
~ 10
.....
I ~
:5
8'
6' "
..J
o
o ..
S
"' i'...
I U'J I
~
""
i

«
3 ....
~
U'J
...... ~ ....
I
:::> 2
o:x:.

'" VLABOUR
~ .........

'"
1-'
V
~ ......... /'
_•..
I !'oo.
....
...........
.....
"""'"
"
Ole
.......-.,.,
-.... " ....
I o"s
0.4

0,3
" ..... ...... .... i"'......
.......... ~ JM.<1TERIAI S

~r<
I 0:.2
"""
I 0.1
1 :2 3 4- 5 6 8 10 20 30 4Q sa 60 8Q 100 200 300 400 500 1000

I FLOW 106 L/DAY FIGURE IV 88

I
I
I
J

J
I

 I
I GENERAL NOTES FOR TABLE IV-I

Costs for project components provided from cost curves in this

I 1.
Appendix.

I 2. Projected wastewater flows assumed to be 70 x 10 6 L/day.

I Specific Notes
(following numbers correspond to numbers in brackets on Table

I 1.
IV-I)
Different conditions (A & B) reflect the range in Natural Discharge

I Capacity provided in Table II-I (Appendix II); A is the most

optimistic and B is the most pessimistic condition.

I 2. Volume of wastewater infiltrated provided from difference of natu­

ral discharge capacity (Table II-I) and anticipated wastewater
I 3.
fl ow.
Minimum land area required to infiltration 70 x 10 6 L/day; based

I on infiltration capacity + site area x 100.

4. Cost provided from curves in this Appendix.

I
5. Calculated from distance to waste source (Table II-I) x 1.5.
I
6. Assumes 50 m head.
I 8. Underdrains not required when infiltration capacity is greater than

I anticipated flow.

Recovery well s requi red when natural di scharge capaci ty is greater

I 9.
than anticipated flow (see Note 2, above)

I 10. From Appendix IV, Figures 2A and 2B.

I 11. From Appendix IV, Figures 3A and 3C (10 m) head

I 12. Total is a comparison value only.

I
I IV - 29
 TABLE IV-l - ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT (expressed tn $ thousands)

1'"'" i...
lffiTrl [on­ Under­ Recovery Return Return ::Ier1l1ce /(( A(hln.
R.- ry T,.. t· struct Ion drajns Wells Water Pip Water ilnd fenc­ ilnd TOTAL
(7 (61 (91 jng (tal PUll ping ing (11) Lab (121 (12)
slutcondl V.,"", .f
wastewate Area t 14)
NO. t Ion recovered (ha) C 0 & o, C 10 & M C o &H C o , M C o&" c o, " C o&~ C 0&1' C o, H
0) 10 6 LIddY (3)
___ (2_)_

I 81d
"j
e NA NA NA NA NA NA 47(
...... lIb A 0 83 55 16911 380 11 NA 16( 4 60 4451 578
<:
lib 8 50 83 42 55 169 8 81 360 71 NA llO( 190 175 90 33C 76 16C 4 41( 60 605t 934
w
0
III
A 10 83 42 55 189 J 10 81 J 360 71 NA. g( 46 9C 65 2H 19 16( 4 47(] 60 5061 710

551 189110 I NA
III
B 64 83 42
J 81j 380 71 ISO( 240 190 94 SSC 94 l6e
... .
_.
4
c­
470 60
...
603f 1063

C .. Capital costs
0 '" Operation costs
M Maintenance costs

_ '_ _ _ '. . . 1. . . . . . .
.... ... . . .
,1M ......... .. k" Of'"
.....
 I
APPENDIX V
I
INIT1AL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
I
A public participation program to solicit and determine the degree
I of public interest about a proposed RI scheme should include the
following groups:

I • local elected officials,

• provincial and local government officials, including

I planning commissions, councils of government and individual

agencies,
• provincial and local public works officials,
I t conservation/environmental groups,
• business and industrial groups,
I • property owners and users of potent; al
adj acent si tes,

facil ity sites and

I • service clubs and civic organizations,

• key individuals who do not express their preferences

I through, or participate in, any groups or organizations.

• media (newspapers, radio, television, etc.).

I Dependi ng upon the ci rcumstances of each proposal, the fo 11 ow; ng

groups may be contacted, where appropriate:
I • federal agencies,
• farm organizations,

I • educational institutions, including

schools, and vocational schools,
universities, h-igil

I
• profeSSional groups and organizations,

• other groups and organi zations, possib'ly inc'l udi ng vari ou!:>
urban groups, economic opportunity groups, po 'Ii tical clubs,
I and associations,
• labor unions,
I Education of the effected publ ics concerning the nature of the pro­

I posed RI system and its ramifications to the surrounding area is of

key importance at the outset of the p"j ann; ng stu di e~; . An educa ted

I
v- 1
/1
I
 I
public will result in meaningful public input and fewer emotional
misconceptions about RI systems. J
Although some of the above groups are traditionally perceived as
intransigent, many of the influential groups (such as the media,
l
civic and service organizations) can be educated to the need for an
RI site after the financial and environmental alternatives related
I
to wastewater treatment by RI have been examined. The support and
education of these groups at the initial planning stages alleviates
J
misconception problems before they blowout of proportion and
become an emotional issue. Support gained early in the process I
produces meaningful communication during subsequent PPP activities.
I
It is important that local officials are notified about the project
during preliminary planning stages. This will allow officials to
form objective and educated opinions about the project and will
J
prepare them for inquiries from the public, Identifying specific
groups and individuals as targets for public involvement efforts
J
hel ps to focus time and money on the most 1 ikely partici pants. to
define the objectives of the PPP, and to interpret how well the
]
various involvement mechanisms are working (SCS, 1978).
1
Methods of PPP
]
Methods of releasing information to the public in the preliminary
phase are outlined below. During initial stages, the public is ]
informed and educated primarily by a one way flow of information
from the development agency. As part of the initial planning stage
a list of perceived concerns is compiled from previous public con­ S
cerns regarding RI. Refer to Table V-l.

1. Workshops. (Key PP participants, i.e. public officials). The

l
purpose of these meetings is to acquaint the concerned officials
with the technical considerations relevant to RI and to obtain
I
input from local officials on appropriate timing of activities
and areas of potential public concern.
I

v- 2
I

 I
2. Advisory committee. The role of this group is to help organize
I and educate citizen groups of the proposed plan, to act as a
sounding board to various proposals, and to take an active part
I in decision making. The group should include representatives of
local government departments, community organizations, private
I industry, and others. Consultant progress reports can be
presented during these meetings and later publicized.

I 3. Mailing list. Comprehensive mailing lists are the foundation of

an information output program. They must be representative of a
I broad cross-section of groups and individuals potentially
affected and a constant effort is required to expand and update
I these lists if they are to be effective.

I 4. Liaison/contact persons. These positions should be held by

persons who are actively involved in the RI decision making

I process; e.g., a consulting engineer, public works official, or

other comparably informed individual. In large municipalities
it may be advantageous to hire an individual to handle public
I relations. These people are indispensible for receiving input,
answering questions, expanding mailing lists, and being general­
I ly responsive. They ensure that records are kept of all
questions and that issues of general concern are directed to the
I appropriate people for consideration.

I 5. Classroom educational materials. This can be an effective way

of educating school children and their parents. A more econ­

I omical approach than presentations in each individual school is

to des; gn spec; al newsl etters and brochures that can al so be
distributed to other audiences.
I
6. Media program. This involves organizing an € f fective publicity
I campai gn through the use of vari ous medi a. The medi a shoul d be
contacted as early as possibl e and evey'y effort shaul d be made
I to educate them of both the need for an RI system as well as the

v- 3
I
 I
effectiveness of such systems before the topic
emotional issue. In this way. objective treatment of the issue
becomes an
J
by the media is more likely. Again, the extent of this program
depends upon the particular situation. Various channels l
inc1ude:
J
a. Newspapers. A series of informative articles on RI systems
can be timed to appear during the project to sustain public
interest and serve as an educational tool. Each article or

J
news release can also transmit hard news such as notices of )

public meetings. or articles describing events at public

meetings.

]
b. Television. This method can be expensive, but can also be
very useful in transmitting information. However, through J
careful planning, some free coverage of the project can

probably be arranged through news programs, public service ]

announcements, or station editorials.

]
c. Advertisements. Full-page newspaper advertisements could be
used to relate complex information. They can incorporate a
mailback feature to highlight citizen concerns, and solicit

]
partiCipation of interested individuals.

]
d. Posters, brochures, or displays. These can be highly effec­
tive educational tools, especially when particularly creative ]
and put in high traffic areas or given wide distribution.

e. Radio advertisements or informational talks. The radio can

1
be used to adverti se events or information in much the same
way that newspapers are used. l
I

v- 4
I
I

I TABLE V-I

I POSSIBLE PUBLIC CONCERNS

I • adequacy/inadequacy of existing waste treatment facilities

• existing arrangement for local waste treatment

I • technical options for local waste treatment

• temporal and spatial requirements of rapid infiltration
• choice of and rationale for boundaries of area within which
I rapid infiltration site to be located
• existing physical and biological conditions of study region, its
I ecological classification and special area or conditions
• existing land tenure, land use, land classification, land
I zoning, of study region and special areas of heritage or related
volume
• geographical areas directly and indirectly influenced by advent
I of rapid infiltration facility
• groundwater disruption and/or pollution
I • odour
• aesthetics, including site visibility
I • safety and public health
• traffic and noise
I • sedimentation and erosion
• reclamation
• resettlement and compensation
I • adjacent land uses and land values
• cost of an RI system in relation to alternative treatment
I systems.

I
I v- 5
J

J
]

1
]

1
l

'I

I
I APPENDIX VI

I SUGGESTED INITIAL FIELD PROGRAM

I An initiftl field program is suggested prior to detailed field work

and des~gn to confirm the assumed site parameters. The program
I w'il1 involve some drilling and infiltration testing near the pro­
posed site but not necessarily on site (unless the site is already

I owned by the wastewater generator).

I
The driliing pl"ogram is necessary to determine:

41» hydrogeology (type of deposits, thickness~ depth to wate'

tab 1e L
I • surficial soils (type)

I A minimum effort would involve several backhoe test pits to be (k::)

to accurately assess the suitabil ity of the upper 3 or 4 III

I materials for RI.

I Preliminary laboratory analysis of collected samples

undertaken to provide grain size characteristics and hycrau'!ic con
shoulG'

ductivity estimates.
I
Infiltration testing should be carried out using back-hoed trenthts
I or pits and shoul d be run for long enough 1';me to estimate stEcu"
state infiltration capacity (these proceGt:r~es arE: discussed;

I detail in Appendix VII.)

I
I
I
I VI -, 1

I
I

J
1
J
J
]

1
]

1
]
·1
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX VII

I DETAILED FIELD PROGRAM

SOILS
I A.

Detailed soils surveys at potential sites will be necessary in most

I cases. The scale of survey most useful for this purpose will vary
with the project size but in general it should be at scales ranging
I from 1:1 000 to 1:5 000 with all delineations and boundaries check­
ed. All soil types in the mapped area should be described and

I classified to Soil Series level. The major soils should be sampl

for future laboratory analysis (see Appendix VIII).

I
A.l INFILTRATION RATE
I
The infiltration rate is defined as the rate at which water enter:;:.
I the soil from the surface. This involves interactions between thR
soil and applied wastewater. When the soil profile is saturated .

.1 the infiltration rate is equal to the effect1Ve saturated perme..

ability of the soil profile. When the soil profile is relatively

I dry, the infiltration rate is higher because water is enterit1<:

1a rge pores and crack s . With ti me, these 1a rge pores fi 11 and any
cl ay parti cl es present wi 11 swell reduci n9 the infi 1tration rate
rather rapidly until a near steady-state value is approached. Thf'
steady-state infiltration rate is important and. generally serves a!
the basis for determination of hydrauliC loadirq rate for slow rat?
and rapid infiltration systems.

Where restricting or impermeable layers are present in the soil; i y

may be preferable to predict the potential 1:1'=ntration rate fl':>

measurements of the hydraulic conductivity !)rofile ot' the ~.;().; ..
Techniques are available fot' field measurement.s of h'ydl~culic '~On
ductivity at different depths, above as well as below the wats'
table.

VII - 1
 I
The actual average long-term infiltration rate of hydraulic loading
for wastewater will be less than the potential rate because of:
J
• clogging by suspended solids,
• clogging by biological action, and
]
• the need for drying or resting periods.
J
Also the ionic composition of the wastewater may cause defloccula­
tion of the clay in the soil resulting in a decrease in the hydrau­
lic conductivity. The maximum ratio between hydraulic conductivity
I
and hydraulic loading rate is recommended as ten to one.
J

Infiltration rates are affected by:

• soil texture, J
• temperature,
• porosity, and J
• the ionic composition of the soil and applied wastewater.
]
Any tillage of the soil surface will affect infiltration rates.
Factors which have as tendency to reduce infiltration rates
i ncl ude:
]
• clogging by solids in wastewater,
• classificatoin of fine soil particles, 1
• clogging due to biological growths, and
• gases produced by soil microbes. ]
There are many techniques available in the field measurement of ]
soil infiltration capacity, such as basin flooding, sprinkler
infiltrometers, cylinder infiltrometers and lysimeters. In
general, field determinations are much preferred to laboratory pro­ J
cedures. However, the method selection should reflect the actual
method of wastewater application being considered (Pound and ]
Crites, 1977). Therefore, for rapid infiltration systems, flooding
basins, cylinder infiltrometers and lysimeters would be most appro­ "I
priate. It is strongly recommended however, that no infiltration
rate be used for design purposes without using pilot infi1tration
basins.
I
I
VI I - 2
I
I
I Where pilot basins have been used for determination of infiltra­
tion, the plots have generally ranged from 1.0 m2 to 100 m2.

I Larger plots are provided with a border arrangement for application

of the water. If the plots are filled by hose, a canvas or burlap
sack over the end of the hose will minimize disturbance of the soil
I (Parr and Bertrand, 1960).
should be used whenever possible,
Although basin tests are desirable, and
the technique requires large
I volumes of water for adequate measurements.

I A useful
(1956).
reference on cylinder infiltrometers is Haise et al
The basic technique, as currently practised, is to drive

I or jack a metal cylinder into the soil to a depth of about 15 em to

prevent lateral or divergent flow of water from the ring. The
cyl i nder shaul d be 15 to 35 cm in di ameter and approximately 25 em
I in length.
u
Divergent flow ;s further minimized by means of a
IIbuffer zone surrounding the central ring. The buffer zone is
I commonly provided by another cylinder 40 to 75 cm in diameter
dri yen to a depth of 5 to 10 cm and kept part; ally full of water

I during the time of infiltration measurements from the inner ring.

Alternatively a buffer zone may be provided by diking the area

I around the intake cylinder with low (10 cm) earthern dikes.
VXI-1 shows a typical double ring infiltrometer.
Figure

I The quantity of water that might have to be supplied to the double

cyl i nder system duri ng a test can be substanti al and mi ght be con­
I sidered a limitation of the technique. For highly permeable seil,
a 5,000 L tank truck might be needed to hold a dayls water supply

I for a series of tests.

I This technique is thought to produce data that are at least re­

presentative of the vertiea'l component of flov-'. In most 50ils, the
infiltration rate will decrease throughout the t~qt and approach
I steady state value asymptotically. This may r'"!quif'e .}s littlE as
8

20 to 30 minutes in some so"ils and many hours in oth'2rs. The tc·;t

I cannot be terminated until the steady state is ;::ttained.

I
I VII - 3
 I

.l

~
.;i;' i~.".'. •"
. ' t ". ]
~:'t'
',-
...,.". ,"
0:.':\' '

l
]
...
]

1
]
1
FIGURE VII-l
TYPICAL DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER l
I
.J
I
VII - 4
I
I
If a more restrictive layer is present below the intended pOint of
I infiltration and this layer is close enough to the intended plane
to interfere, the infiltration cylinders should be embedded into

I this layer to ensure a conservative estimate.

I The method of placement into the soil may be a serious limitation.

Disturbance of natural structural conditions (shattering or compac­
tion) may cause a large variation in -infiltration rates between re­
I plicated runs. Also, the interface between the soil and the metal
cylinder may become a seepage plane, resulting in abnormally high
I rates. In cohesionless soils (sands and gravels), the poor bond
between the soi 1 and the cy1 i nder may allow seepage around the

I cyl i nder and cause lip; pi ng" • Thi s can be observed easily and cor­
rected, usually by moving a short distance to a new location and

I trying again. Variability of data caused by cylinder placement can

largely be overcome by leaving the cylinder in place over an exten­
ded period duri n9 a seri es of measurements {Parr and Bertrand,
I 1960} .

I Knowledge of the ratio of the total quantity of water infiltrated

to the quantity of water remaining directly beneath the cy'linder is

I essential if only vertical water movements are of interest.

correc.tion is made for lateral seepage, the measured infiltration
If no

I rate in the cylinder will be well in excess of the actual infiltra­

tion rate (Hillel, 1971).

I Precautions shoul d be taken to make sure that the results are ap­
plicable to the entire field or system. Thus, cylinder infiltro­
I meters should be of sufficiently large diameter to mini
effect of flow divergence on the measured infiltration rate.
ze the
Also~

I the infiltrometer (cylinder) should cover a sufficient area to give

real i sti c infil trat i on rates incase restri cti ng 1ayers are present

I at some depth in the soi 1 profi1 e. When a Silta 11 infi ltrometer 1S

used under those conditions, lateral flow will occur in the ground­
water mound that will be formed above the '('estrictrn~ 1
I Infiltration inside the cylinder will then be h-igher than the
infilttation rate for a large al"'ea, where iater'(ll nov, above thE.'
I restricting layer cannot occur.

VII - 5

I
 I
Care should be taken when using infiltrometers on sloping land with
shallow soil. In such cases, the infiltration capacity of the J
field may be determined by how much water can flow downhill as sub­
surface runoff in the soil above the restricting layer. If water
is applied to a small area, as with an infiltrometer, all the water
1
that i nfi 1trates may eas il y move downh i 11 as subsu rface runoff.
However, if larger areas are wetted, the subsurface runoff may not
I
be sufficient to dispose of all the infiltrated water. In such a ]
case, the soil will become completely saturated and surface runoff
will occur. The actual infiltration rate is then only a fraction
of that indicated by the infiltrometer.
]
Lysimeter studies, using either undisturbed cores (cohesive soils) ]
or disturbed samples compacted careful1y to, or near, the field
bulk density of the undisturbed sample, may have potential for ]
bridging the very large gap between short-term field tests with
clean water and long-term pilot scale field studies with the actual
]
wastewater.

If clean water ;s used in lysimeter tests, close agreement with the

]
results of cylinder infiltrometer results should be obtained, pro­

vi ded that the infil trometer tests were made carefully and with ]

sufficient replicates. With actual wastewater, however the results

wi 11 not match. In a study by Ongerth and Bhagat (1975), a 45 cm ]

diameter lysimeter loaded at somewhat less than 110 kg/ha.d,

averaged about 5 to 10% of the infiltration rates observed on the

undisturbed soils using clean water. Follow-up studies on a pilot

J
basin of approximately 0.1 ha showed that rates significantly high­
er than those observed in the lysimeters could be sustained (Pound 1
and Crites, 1977). After one year of operation, the infiltration

rate from the pilot basin averaged about 25% of those measured by ]

the original cylinder infiltrometer testing on this site. This is

almost three times the rate predicted from the lysimeter tests.
-I
Exact reasons for these differences are not known, but the packing
of the disturbed soil into the lysimeters is probably a major
factor.
I
I
VII - 6
I
 I
I As pointed out by Van Schi1fgaarde (1970),
hydrau'iic conductivity on soil samples often shown wide variations
measurements of

I within a relatively small area.

on some si tes.
Hundredfold differences are common
Assessi ng hydraul i c capaci ty for a project si te is
especi ally difficult because test plots may have adequate capaci ty
I when tested as 1s01 ated portions but may prove to have inadequate
capacity after water is applied to the total area for prolonged
I periods. Parizek (1973) has observed that problem areas can be
anticipated more readily by field study following spring thaws or

I prolonged periods of heavy rainfall and recharge.

and near saturation conditions may be observed for brief periods at
Runoff, ponding,

I sites where dra'inage problems are likely to occur after

application begins.
extensiv"~

I The prediction of infiltration rates for disposal fields is rrore

difficult than the prediction of normal infiltration rates :n
I watershed hydrology or irri gation des i gn where rai nfall
quality water is. used. This is due to the high suspended solids
or hi Slh

I contained in wastewater. These solids tend to accumulate on the

surface of the soi 1 and may di rectly reduce infil tration rates C·"

I result in biological growths that restrict infiltration

Chemi stry of the wastewater can have an unfavourable effect on soil
rates.

structure causing additional reductions in soil infiltration rates.

I The best way to determine infiltration rates for a land application
system is through field trials, using the actual wastewater and
I application system to be employed (furro\,/s or basins). The:,,",
tri al s may a1 so serve to eva1 uate optimum amounts and frequenc; es

I of application and to determine the effectiveness of vegetation or

other surface treatments of the disposal field.

I Sometimes, infiltration measurements with clean water may be desir­

able to determine the "potential" hydraulic loading rate of the up
I per soils at a particular site and to compare individual sites ;L

to their suitability for wastewater disposal,

I

I
i

VII - 7
 J
]

B. HYDROGEOLOGY

A detailed hydrogeological program is primarily concerned with ex­ I.'

pansion and revision of the initial information compiled. The
program includes determination of: J

• vertical and horizontal extent of the granular deposit

• detailed geological stratigraphy including restrictive, low- ]
permeable layers (i.e. clay, silt),
• infiltration rate, ]
• local and regional groundwater flow regimes,
• determination of water chemistry, and
• existing groundwater use.
]
]
B.1 TEST DRILLING
]

Much of the hydrogeological information necessary to carry out a

detailed evaluation will be provided through excavation of test
pits, test drilling and sampling. Economic benefits may be realiz­
]

ed if the drilling program can be carried out in conjunction with

the detailed soils investigation. 1

Test drilling within the basin areas should be sufficiently exten­ ]

sive to provide a detailed understanding of the hydrogeological

setting. Drilling intensity will vary with the size of the pro­ ]

ject, variability in materials and the number of additional uses

for the holes. However, as a guide, it is expected that at least
one test hole will be required for each 2 ha of basin area. J
Drilling rigs are preferable to auger-type rigs where the site con­
tains gravel; these can be either rotary or cable-tool, however, 1
shoul d a rotary ri g be used it is suggested that the air rotary
method by employed. J
J
I
VI I - 8

I
I

I A sufficient number of test holes must penetrate the surficial

deposits in order to determine the areal extent, thickness, strati­

I graphy and structure of all surfical materials present. A detailed

litholog, and preferably a geophysical log, must be obtained for

I each test hole. Samples of the surficial deposits should be col­

lected at regular intervals if the deposits are relatively homo­
genous or for each different lithology encountered.
I
A sufficient number of test holes must be drilled into the bedrock
I strata as well. Where a relatively impermeable surficial deposit
underl i es the granul ar materi al, only the uppermost bedrock strata

I need be inve~,tig('.ted. HO~Jever. if the granular materials overlie

a pel~meable bedrock strata, it will be necessary to penetrate the

I uppermost impermeabl e bedrock strata. Technical interpretation of

the resul ts shoul d provi de a detai 1ed understandi n9 of the hydro­
geological setting of the entire site.
I
I B.2 HYDROGEOLOGICAL FIELD TESTS AND MEASUREMENTS

I The purpose of hydrogeological field tests and measurements is to

provide quantitative estimates of the key parameters which contY'ol

I the hydraul i c performance of the RI system. Of fi rst rank import­

ance are the hydraulic properties of each major lithologic unit.
Nearly all measurements can he accomplished by completing test
I holes in each unit and conducting a variety of conventional tests.
Aquifer pump; ng tests can def; ne the permeabil ity and storati vity
I of most units. The lower conductivity units can be studied direct·­
1y by conducting relatively inexpensive Hvorslev (hydY'i3ul'ic con­

I ductivity) tests with piezometers completed in these units. Th!::'

results of the aquifer tests, Hvors1ev tests, test drilling and

I geophysical log data can also be used to determine the isotropic1

(similarity) and homogeneity of each lithologic unit.

I VII -- 9
 I
The permeability and storativity of the unsaturated portion of the
site can be estimated from small scale infiltration studies.
J
Characterization of the unsaturated zone can be determined from
infiltration rates (see Section A) and measured water level changes 1
in several surrounding observation wells.
J
~

In addition to the piezometers a number of test holes should be

completed as watertable observation wells so that a watertable map
can be prepared for the entire area. Depending on the topography
J
of the area surrounding the basin, additional watertable informa­ ]
tion should be obtained in order to compare the watertable eleva­
tions at the RI site with the watertable elevations of the sur­
rounding area.
]
In addition to hydraulic parameters and water level data, it is 1
al so necessary to provi de informati on on the transport parameter
for the major geological units. Dispersible characteristics of the
deposit can be determined by field testing. There are four main
J
types of field dispers;vity tests:
]
• single well withdrawal-injection tests,
• natural gradient tracer tests,
• two-well recirculating withdrawal-injection tests, and
]
• two-well pulse tests.
]
The test methods and their interpretation are discussed by Freeze

and Cherry (1979). ]

It may be necessary in some cases to evaluate the nature of

chemical interaction between the wastewater and the porous medium l

of the native groundwaters. Such data are required, for example,
to evaluate the minimum length of flow systems required to achieve l
a given degree of wastewater renovation or to evaluate the
potential for formation plugging due to fluid incompabilities. ]
Field tests in this case could utilize the same small-scale
experiments involving wastewater injection that were discussed
previously. However, provision in the tests should be made for
I
collecting water samples at various depths and distances from the
injection pOint.
I
VII - 10
I
I
I B.3 GROUNDWATER USE

I In order to qualitatively assess the amount of groundwater use in

the area all water wells located within at least three kilometres

I of the i nfi ltrat ; on basi ns shou 1d be 1oca ted. The water 1eve 1 sin
the wells should be measured and the distance between the well and
the infiltration area must be determined. Other details to be ob­
I tained include water quality, the ownerls name(s), total depth~

depth of casing, the slotted or screened interval (s), the litholog,

I the estimated long-term yield, and an estimate of the daily produc-·

tion. This information will be necessary later during the public

I participati0n program.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I VII - 1l
I

,
'"

J
I

I,
'~

f I J.

!
1I APPENDIX VI II
j
~

-I
i
SITE ~ESEARCH PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETATION

SJIlS

t,;.0UTlNE AND 'SOILS CHEMISTRY

I An analysis of soil chemical properties is essential for predicting

I t~e so;l behaviour in response to wastewater application.

are required to determine the site's capability for rapid infil­
The data

I tration.
eva~luated
The soil chemistry properties which are most commonly
in this type of study are:
1) pH
I 2) OI~ganic matter (OM) percentage
3) cation exchange capacity (CEe)

I 4}
5)
exchangeable Ca, Mg, Na
available forms of nitrogen ( NH4+, N03-, N02-)

I 6) detailed sal i nity analyses (electrical conductivity and water

soluble Ca, Mgt Na)

I
7)
8}
extractable free oxides (Fe, Al, Mn, Si)

CaC03 percentage equivalent.

I A.2 SPECIAL SOILS TESTS

I Several laboratory procedures that can provi de useful information

regarding the suitability of a site for rapid infiltration include:

I; 1)
2)
soil column experiments,
phosphorus adsorption isotherms,

I 3)
4}
porosity,
soil texture, and

5) bulk density.

I
The following section discusses some of these parameters in detail
I and important factors to consider when evaluat'ing them in terms
of suitability for RI. Additional information is discussed in

I Appendix X regarding the effects of soils in treatment performance.

VII I - 1

I,

 I
A.3 SOIL SUITABILITY FOR RI
I
A.3.1 Soil pH
I
An ideal soil pH for RI would be in the range of pH 7.0 to 8.5, At
PH values higher than 8.5, sodium salts are usually present and I
soil structure problems may result. Reference should be made to
the SAR values (Section A.3.4) at these high pH values.
I
Alkaline soils may be desirable for RI because:
• Soils with this pH are usually buffered by calcium and
I
magnesium carbonates which are "important for precipitation
of phosphorus and buffer against excessive decreases in soil I
pH which might otherwise occur from nitrification
reactions. J
• Soils with high pH have fewer trace metals in soil solu­
tions. This would be a beneficial control on elements such
as Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and B, especially if any are found in high
I
concentrations in the soil or wastewater.
• Soils with high pH are usually base rich and this kind of
J
environment is required for nitrification (Buckman and

Brady, 1969) (see Chapter 5, and Appendix X). J

A.3.2 Organic Matter Percentage J
Sandy soils suitable for rapid infiltration should have low organic
matter percentages in the B-horizon (i .e. less than 1 percent);
I
most of the organic matter will be found in the A-horizons.
Organic matter percentages over 0.5 percent and less than 3 percent I
are considered more favourable because of the benefits that organic
matter may provide, such as: t
• higher CEC for nutrient detention,
• increased capability for complexing heavy metals,
• better soil structural properties, which may result in

J
higher infiltration rates for longer periods, and

• higher levels of microbial activity which may reduce

J
pathogen survival times.

I
VIII - 2
I
I

I
3.3 Cation ~xchange Capacity

I Sandy -Ioams generally have CEC values less than 10 meq/100 9 and

I sands less than 5 meq/lOO g (Buckman and Brady, 1969). Moreover,

the CECin sandy soils can usually be well correlated with organic
matter and free oxide contents as clay particles are not abundant.
I CEe values below 5 meq/lOO g are not too reliable for comparative
purposes for RI. Therefore, a soil with a CEC of 4 meq should not
il be considered superior to one with a CEC of 2 meq/100 g, as many
other factors are as, or more, important to determi ne the nutri ent

I adsorpti on capac'i ty of a soi 1.

I A.3.4 Sal'inity and Electrical Conductivity

Conductivities of saturated extracts from the sandy soi 1s of an

I optimum rapid infiltration site will be less than 2 mS/cm 2 •
Soil s with hi ghe\" conductivities may al so be suitable but when con­

I ductivities in excess of 4 mS/cm2 are found the potential

for movement of large volumes of salt to groundwaters increases.

I However, if the groundwaters in the area are sal i ne to begi n wi th

then the problem is less significant.
j

I Soil sal i nity is measured by the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR);

this ratio can be expressed as follows:
I SAR =
+
-;::=;::;:N=a=::=:=-_
" ca++ + Mg++
I 2
where Na+, Ca++, and Mg++ are the

I concentrations of sodium, calcium, and

magnesium expressed in milli-equivalents
per litre.
I
I

I VII I - 3
 I
As the SAR increases, the zone of hydration surrounding clay par­

ticles in the soil grows larger and the clay begins to swell. Near I

an SAR of 15, the zone of hydration is large enough that the clay's

mi neral fraction begi ns to di sperse and causes infil tration rates }

to decrease. For this reason, Leach et !l (1980) recommend that an

SAR value of 15 be used as the upper design limit for RI systems.

If possible, they suggest that the SAR be restricted to values of 9

I
or less. However, if the soil contains very few clay particles,

infiltration rates may not be significantly affected by SAR values

I
in excess of 15 (Bianchi, 1970).

J
In the event of a choice between simil ar soil s with low CEC and

CaC03 contents, the soil wi th the hi gher amounts of free oxides

waul d 1i kely have the hi ghest nutri ent retenti on and trace metal

I
fixing capacity.

I
A.3.5 Total and Available and Trace Metals
I
Analyses for total and available elements are useful for determin­

ing whether there are any present concentrations which are likely
I
to be removed or altered during wastewater additions. Also, the
availability indices will provide information on the present I
ability of the soil to fix the various elements treated.

Free Oxides Free oxides of Fe, Al, Si and Mn are responsible for

I
much of the cation exchange properties of some sandy soils,

especially those in acidic environments. In addition, free oxides I

can be useful for adsorption of phosphorus and trace metal s. In
sandy podzolic soils, free oxide contents may be found near the J
following values:
Fe = 0.50% 'J
Al = 0.30%

Si = 0.10%

Mn = 0.10%
'l
I

VII I - 4
I
 I

I
AQ3.6 C~lc~um Carbonate Percentage

I:.i Soils with calcium carbonate percentages greater than 1.0 in some
part of the profile will have higher phosphorus fixing capabilities
I and buffe~~'lng capacities than those having lower or no calcium car­
bonate. Free carbonates proved to be beneficial in both the
I Koilister (Pound et al, 1977) and Flushing Meadows (Bouwer et al,
1974) rapid infiltration sites.

I A.4 SPECIALIZED SOILS CHEMISTRY

I T\;JOspecialized soil testing procedures are briefly discussed in

following section. The other specialized soils tests are used
I determine the amount of treatment the RI site will provide.
They are therefore discussed in Appendix X on the effects of soils
I on treatment.

I A.4.1 Soil Column Studies

I Soil column studies have been used to simulate natural and opera­
tional field conditions and to quantify the potential for a given
soil to remove wastewater nutrients, metals and organic materials.
I Most experiments of this kind are carried out under saturated soil
conditions because unsaturated soil-water cond'itions are difficult
I to control (Landon, 1978). Although valuable information can be
obtained from soil column studies, the results can be easily mis­

I interpreted.

I A.4.2 Nutrient Adsorption

Discussed in Appendix X.
I

.1

j
I VIII - 5
 I
A.4.3 Soil Texture
I
An ideal soil texture for rapid infiltration will be a loamy sand
to a sandy loam which is capable of handling the design loading
rate. In general, the fi ner soil texture (sandy loam) will be
better for contaminant removal. The soil should have less than 60
percent coarse fragments (particles greater than 2 mm) and stones
(greater than 15 cm diameter) should occupy less than 3 percent (by
vol ume).
I
Evaluation of soils for their suitability for use as rapid infil­
I
tration basins will require grain size analyses. Although the
specification of the proportions of sand, silt and clay will allow I
calculation of a soil textural classification, this information may
not be sensitive enough to rate one soil against another. For
example, two areas may both have sandy soil textures; however, if
I
one of the sites has dominant fine sand it may react quite dif­
ferently (hydraulically and chemically) from an area with coarse
I
sand materi al •
J
A coarse fragment description should accompany the presentation of
soil textural information. This follows since the soil texture is J
based only on the soil particle which will pass a 2 mm sieve.
Standard terminology from the Canadian System of Soil Classifi­
cation (Canada Soil Survey Committee, 1978) should be used in these
I
descriptions.
I
Stratification of soil textures (sands overlying gravels overlying
loamy sands, etc.) in the soil profile should be at a minimum. J
This will avoid problems of perched watertables which can occur
between soil materials with differing permeabilities. J
A mixture of inorganic and organic particles making up a mineral ]
soil can be texturally cl assifi ed by determi ni ng the proportions
of the three major soil separates -- sand, si 1t and clay.
exponential rise in surface area, adsorption capacity, swelling,
An
I
J
VI II - 6
I
I
plasticity, cohesion, and heat of wetting occurs when soil par­
I ticle size decreases from sand to colloidal clay. The effect of
soil texture on the direction of change of soil physico-chemical

t plAoperties is summarized in Table VIII-I.

I Au4.4 ~lk Densi~y and Soil Porosity

Bul k dens ity measurements refl ect the status of so; 1 structure,
I wh~ch in turn affects water movement, aeration, and porosity.
Porosity is a measure of total soil space not occupied by solid
I matter and ; s affected by texture, organi c matter content,
aggregation~ root penetration, and compaction.
I son porosity can bE~ calculated from bulk density as follows:

I % P :: (1- Qb) 100

I P

whe~e %P = percent pore volume

I Db
P
= bulk density

= particle density, assumed as 2.65 glee

I As discussed earlier, the greater the porosity the greater the

I allowable infiltration rates; therefore~ sites with

densities will generally have higher infiltration capacities.
lower bulk

I B. HYOROGEOLOGY

I Water samples should be collected from each completed test hole in

order to characteri ze the base 1i ne conditions at the site. The
I results will be used to determine the extent of wastewater spread
in any test or when the RI system is operating and to evaluate the

I possibilities for fluid incompatibility. Appropriate methods of

sample collection and analyses will have to be developed because

I many of the important contaminants in the water are not stable for
very long.

I
VII I - 7
I
 I
TABLE YIII-l
Physio-Chemical Properties of Soils as Related to Textural Classification
I
(Ba11 ey, 1968)
I ~

Soil Texture
I

Soi 1 Property
Sand, loamy sand Loam, Sandy clay,
sand loam silt,
silt loam
sandy cl ay silty clay, )

loam, clay loam, clay

silty cl ay loam
I
Surface Area
---------------------------------)

Molecular
adsorption
I
---------------------------------)
CEC
---------------------------------) I
Swelling
Plasticity
---------------------------------)
---------------------------------)
I
Heat of wetting
---------------------------------)
,

J
"'

Water holding
capacity*
Infiltration*
--------------------------------) !

<
Percolation*
Permeabi 1ity*
< I

External drainage
<

---------------------------------)
j

Aeration*
Organic matter
(---------------------------------­ I

content*
---------------------------------)
Structure*
---------------------------------)
J
Bul k dens i ty*
<------­ )

Porosity (total)* - - -
------------------------)
* Colligative properties
I

NOTE: Arrow indicates direction of magnitude increase

VIII - 8
I

I
S.l HYDROGEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

t
, The chemical characteristics of the water and lithologic samples
collected during the field work may determine, in part,
potential site will offer the greatest amount of wastewater renova­
tion. The samples should be analysed for the concentrations of the
which

I major organic and inorganic constituents which are usually found in

the wastewater. The characteristics of the lithologic samples

I which relate to chemical and biological processes should also be

determined.

I The results of the field study which relate to the hydrogeological

sett-j (1g shoul d be presented on cross-sections and maps before an
I a!1alysis is made. Several cross-sections should be prepared for
the infiltration site so that the geological details can be studied
I in three dimensions. The position of the water table and the
variations of permeability, transmissivity and storativity should

I also be noted, where possible, in the cross-section. A water-table

;:onfiguration map must be prepared and show the direction of native

I groundwater flow. Other maps detai 1 i n9 the bedrock topography and

the areal distribution of the bedrock strata and surficial deposits
should be prepared as well.
I
It is desirable to have hydrogeological boundaries across which
I there is little or no flow. This will occur if the sediments
adjacent to the sand and/or gravel have a hydraulic conductivity at

I least one order of magnitude less than the actual site.

areas where this may cause a problem are where a very permeable
The only

I bedrock aquifer underlies the deposit or subcrops adjacent to it.

I n cases where permeable bedrock aquifers are present or adj acent

I to a potential site, flow into these aquifers will not occur if the
fluid potential in the bedrock is higher than the fluid potential
I in the infiltration deposit. This condition is most likely to
occur in the discharge area of an intermediate or regional ground­

I water flow system.

I VIII - 9
 I

C. COMPUTER MODELLING I

There are basica11y two different types of stresses which can be

applied to a groundwater system from rapid infiltration. F'jrst are
i
the changes in hydraulic head (hydraulic effects) that develop
simply because larger than normal amounts of water are recharged.
J
Marked water level changes, development of groundwater mound, flow
to recovery well s (if they are part of the RI system) and alterna­
I
tions to the local groundwater flow systems result from these
changes in hydraulic head. Second are the geochemical effects that J
develop because the water being added is often very different than
the nat; ve groundwaters due to hi gh concentrations of nutri ents,
organic materials or heavy metals. Once the wastes are in the flow
I
system, there is a possibility for groundwaters down-gradient from
the site to be contaminated.
J
Separate models are available to handle these two kinds of I
problems. Groundwater flow models can be used to predict the
changes in hydraulic head (hydraulic response) which result from J
the addi ti on of water. Contami nant transport models descri be the
spread of various contaminants away from a site under the influence
of processes such as advection, dispersion, adsorption and chemical
J
precipitation. Because the pattern of contaminant spread in a
groundwater system depends very much on the flow of water, a conta­
I
minant transport model always has to be used in conjunction with a
flow model. Thus, a complete hydrogeological evaluation of a I.·
potential site for rapid infiltration requires two models, one to
describe the flow of water and a second to describe the flow of I
mass or contaminant.

The ability of properly designed and calibrated models to predict

J
how a model rap; d infi ltration system wi 11 perform duri n9 infil­
tration can be of enormous use in evaluating the site. For
J
example, using a groundwater flow model and data collected from the
J
I

VIII - 10
I
I
I field studies, it should be possible to simulate an infiltration
event and to predict; the shape of the recharge mound, the capacity
of the groundwater flow system to accept recharge under gi yen con­
I~
ditions permeability and layering, or the time required for the
mound to di ssipate when recharge is stopped. A groundwater flow
I
.•i!
and contaminant model, used in conjunction with available field
data, w·j 11 hel p to determi ne the:

I • rate and spreading direction of the recharged water,

• location of possible discharge areas (for a system with no

I recovery well s),

• residence time of wastewater in the groundwater system, and
• the concentration distributions.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VIII - 11
I
I

J
l
'"

J
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
'1
J
3
I

I
I
APPENDIX IX

PROCESS DESIGN INFORMATION AND CALCULATIONS

I
A. HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES
I The hydr'aulic loading rate is the amount of wastewater that can be

I applied to a site in one year. Hydraulic loading rates used at RI

systems can vary from 6 to 120 m/yr. Actual loading rates are

I listed for several sites in Table IX-I.

TABLE IX-l

I
HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES AT SELECTED RI SYSTEMS

I Level of Hydraulic

I location Preapplication
Treatment
Soil Type loading rate,
m/yr

I
Phoenix, Arizona Secondary Sand 110
I lake George, New York Secondary Sand 43
Calumet, Michigan Untreated Sand 34
I Boulder, Colorado Secondary
Ft. Devens, Massachusetts Primary
Sandy loam
Sand & Gravel
30
29

I Vineland, New Jersey Primary Sand & Gravel

Hollister, California Oxidation ponds Sandy loam
19
15

I Westby, Wisconsin Secondary S1l t loam 11

I Based on the available information, hydraulic loading rates in

Alberta should average from 15 to 40 m/yr.
I

IX - 1

 I
B. FACTORS AFFECTING LOADING RATES
J
B.1 PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT

Most RI systems incl ude some level of preapp1 i cation treatment,

generally primary or secondary wastewater treatment. The purposes
are to:
• obtain better overall wastewater treatment,
• minimize soil clogging,
• reduce the risk of public health impacts, and
• minimize nuisance potential (i .e. odours).

Various levels of preapplication treatment have been used to

achieve each of these purposes and are summarized in Table IX-2.

To limit clogging, primary treatment for settleable solids removal

is the recommended minimum preapplication treatment. Providing
secondary treatment further reduces wastewater soli ds concentra­
tions and allows for increased hydraulic loading rates.

Soil cloggi ng may result from al gae carryover if lagoons are used
for preapplication treatment. This problem occurred at Phoenix
when secondary effluent was conveyed to a 32 ha pond prior to being
applied for rapid infiltration. Construction of a channel that by­
passes the pond, followed by abandonment of the pond, has all owed
substantial increases in the infiltration rate (USDA, 1979).

Preappl i cati on treatment level s a1 so may be affected by storage

requirements, if there are any, and by the method used to convey
wastewater to the application site. Storage design parameters,
such as length of storage and climate, will determine the level of
treatment that must precede storage. If the stored wastewater has
a high oxygen demand, the storage reservoir should be aerated.

IX - 2

I
TABLE IX-2

PURPOSES OF PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT

1

I
Purpose Level of preapplication treatment required

I ._--_.--------------------------------------------------------­
Better overall
As level of preapplication treatment increases,
I
wastewater treatment renovated water quality (BOD and SS but not
necessarily N or P) at a specified loading rate
I
improves. However, as level of preapplication
treatment increases, returns diminish and costs
I
increase substantially.

I
Minimize soil

clogging
Screening - may be used if basin maintenance is
frequent
Primary - requires less frequent basin mainte­
I
nance or the use of vegetation
Secondary - requires periodic basin maintenance
I
Reduce public Screening - may be used if spreading area is post­

I health impacts ed and fenced or surrounded by buffer

zones

I
Secondary - adequate for most areas

Minimize nuisance
Primary useful for removing potentially
I
odorous solids
Secondary or aerated lagoons - may be required to
I
reduce odour potentials especially if
BOO loading is high
t
I

IX - 3
I
Also, variations in storage reservoir design can provide additional
treatment, including solids deposition, pathogen reductions, and
biological treatment.

Various wastewater constituents may affect hydraulic loading rates.

Suspended solids tend to accumulate at the soil surface, clog water
transmitting pores, and thereby reduce infiltration rates.
Dissolved organic material also may cause soil clogging, as micro­
organisms that grow on or near the soil surface ingest this material
and mutiply. However, when clogging is a problem it is usually due
to accumulated suspended solids.

Using secondary effluent, Bouwer et a1 (1974) have shown that clog­

ging is directly proportional to the amount of total solids that has
been applied to the RI site. If the hydraulic gradient in the sur­
face layer of the soil increases, the accumulated solids compact and
infiltration rates are further reduced. When the soil surface is
clogged, the effect of the water depth above the soil surface on the
I
infiltration rate increases. In contrast, when clogging occurs
below the soil surface, the relative effects of water depth on the I
; nfi 1trati on rate decreased. These trends are due to the tendency
of water pressure to increase when cl oggi ng occurs below the soil
surface and to decrease when clogging occurs at the soil surface.
J
The concentration ratio of certain dissolved inorganic wastewater
J
constituents can also affect infiltration rates. Infiltration rates
tend to decrease as the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of the applied
I
wastewater increases.
I
If industrial wastes are a significant portion of the wastewater
loading at an RI system, industrial waste pretreatment may be neces­
sary to avoid excessive waste loading. Pretreatment of industrial
I
wastewaters may a1 so be needed to protect the collection and treat­
ment systems or to remove constituents that adversely affect waste­
J
water treatment or woul d be unaffected by the treatment system and
would cause unacceptable effluent quality. Industrial waste pre­
J
treatment may be necessary to protect the system from trace
1
IX - 4
I
 I
organi cs and may be requi red if wastewaters contai n unacceptable
I concentrations of heavy metals.

1 Stabilization ponds are not recommended for preapplication treat­

ment in cold climates such as Alberta's unless adequate cold

I weather storage is provided. Freezing of the basin surface can

occur when the temperature of the applied wastewater is too low.

t For example, at Brookings, South Dakota, wastewater from the

stabilization pond effluent was spread on the Brookings' pilot
infiltration basins resulting in the formation of ice on the weeds.
I The effluent was applied to weed-filled basins and as a result the
ice that formed could not float when wastewater was applied and a
I t.h'kk ice layer resulted.

I For this reason, the researchers that operated the Brookings'

sys.tem deci ded that wi nter storage woul d be necessary if
stabilization pond effluent was to be used for RI. However, they
I note that trickling filter effluents at Brookings remain near 10°C
even during the severest part of winter. Applications of
I wastewater at this temperature should not cause icing problems.

I Other systems that use trickling filters for preapplication treat­

ment, including the pilot facilities at Boulder, Colorado, and the

I RI plant at Lake George, New York, do not normally experience icing

problems during cold weather (Smith, et al, 1979 and Aulenbach,

I 1979) . Therefore, 1agoons are not recommended for preappl i cati on

treatment unless the RI site has additional basins for cold weather
storage or the applied wastewater is not too cold.
I.
B.2 LOADING CYCLES
I Most RI systems in operation have been designed to maximize infil­
I tration rates although a few have attempted to promote nitrogen re­
moval. The latter of these sytems include the pilot study near

I Phoenix, Arizona, and the facilities at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.

Seasonal variations in loading cycles are listed for a few RI sys­

I tems in Table IX-3. Although Hollister, California, used a shorter
IX - 5

,I
~
 I
TABLE IX-3
HYDRAULIC LOADING CYCLES AT SELECTED RI SYSTEMS I
Loading Resting
Location Soil Surface Loading objective Period Period J
Boulder,
Colorado
Sandy loam Maximize i nfil trati on
rates
1d 2-3 d
J
Calumet, Sand (not Maximize infiltration 1-2 d 7-14 d
Michigan
Fort Devens,
cleaned)
Grass (not
rates
Maximize infiltration 2d 14 d
I
Massachusetts cleaned) rates
Maximize nitrogen removal 7 d 14 d
1
Holl i ster.*
Cal iforni a
Sand (disked) I
Summer Maximize infil tration 1d 14-21 d
Winter
rates
Maximize infiltration 1d 10-16 d
I
rates
Lake George,
New York
Sand (cleaned) I
Summer Maximize infiltration 9h 4-5 d
Winter
rates
Maximize infil tration
rates
9h 5-10 d J
Phoenix,
Arizona
Sand (cleaned)
and grass cover
J
Year-round Maximize
Summer
Winter
Maximize
Maximize
nitrification
infiltration
infiltration
2d
2 wk
2 wk
5
10
20
d
d
d
I
Year-round Maximize nitrogen removal 9d 12 d
Vineland, Sand (disked) Maximize infiltration 1-2 d 7-10 d
1
New Jersey solids turned rates

Westby,
into soi 1
Grass Maximize infiltration 2 wk
.1
2 wk
Wisconsin rates
I
* For system in use until 1979.
t
J

IX - 6
I
I
I cycle in winter than in summer, this is not typical of RI systems.
Because Hollister receives much more rain in winter than in summer,

t not as much wastewater could be applied per loading during the win­
ter season. Thu s, was tewater had to be app 1i ed mo re frequently and
1 oadi ng eycl es had to be shortened to accommodate all wastewater
I flows. Winter conditions in Alberta will set the limiting loading
cycle.
I B.3 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS
I Soil drainage must be sufficient to prevent infiltration rates from
decreasing unacceptably during wastewater application and to
I maintain sufficient distance between the soil surface and the
watertable for treatment to occur. Furthermore, drainage must be
I rapid enough that drying and soil reaeration occur between loading
cycles in order to ensure that oxidation of BOD and nitrification
I of ammonia nitrogen will proceed. Thus, the hydraulic loading rate
is limited both by the soil drainage that can be obtained during

I wastewater appl ication and the time needed to thoroughly drain the
site between wastewater applications. The following method shows
how to determine the type of drainage necessary.
I
The first step necessary is to determine the hydraul ic head neces­
I sary for natural drainage to occur. This can be calculated using
the following equation (Bouwer, 1974),
I WI = KDH
L
where:
I W= width of infiltration area, m
I = average infiltration rate, cmld
I K = hydraulic conductivity, cm/d
D = average thickness of the aquifer below the watertable

I and perpendicular to the direction of the flow, m

H = di fference in el evati on between the water level of the

I surface water and the maximum allowable watertable be­

neath the application site, m
L = lateral flow distance, m
I
IX - 7
I
 The permeabil ity w; 11 be pro v; ded from on- s; te tes t i ng du ri ng the

I
detailed field program, width of area and hydraulic loading rate

from tri al and error, and D and H from fi el d data. Because it is

I
the product of Wand I that is determined by existing conditions,

these two values can be varied for optimize treatment and use of I
available land. These parameters are shown schematically in Figure

IX-l.
3
In several cases site drainage is used for groundwater protection
rather than maintaining hydraulic loadings. For example, the Dan

I
Region of Israel withdraws renovated water from the ground immed­

iately after infiltration-percolation (Idelovitch et al, 1979).

1
This procedure allows the Dan Region to maximize wastewater reuse
while ensuring that native groundwater is not contaminated with I
lower quality water. Other drainage systems are designed to
protect both the native groundwater and the renovated water. In J
Phoenix, the salinity of the groundwater is fairly high. Renovated

water is withdrawn following infiltration-percolation both to avoid

potential groundwater contamination with pathogens and other waste­

J
water constituents, and to avoid increasing the total dissolved

solids concentration of the renovated water.

J
B.4 MOUND PREDICTION
]
The following paragraphs describe a quick method for estimating the J
mound height that will occur under various loading conditions. As
a result, this method al so can be used to predict whether natural
drainage is adequate.
J
The method has been described by Bianchi and Muckel (1970) and is

J
based on heat-flow theory and the Dupuit-Forchheimer assumptions.

These assumptions include the following: J

• groundwater flow occurs along horizontal flow lines whose
velocity is independent of depth, and 1
• velocity along these horizontal lines of flow is propor­
tional to the slope of the free water surface. J
IX - 8
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I r ' -I
I

I 11 TER TABLE

I I
H

I'
l.rEI.ElILE LlT£R

I
I
I
I
I FIGURE IX-l
NATURAL DRAINAGE OF RENOVATED WATER INTO SURFACE WATER
I (Bouwer, 1974)

IX - 9
I
 I
Mounding predicted by this approach has been compared with actual
mounding conditions at existing RI sites (Bianchi and Haskel', I
1968). The predicted values were quite close to the observed
values. I
The mound height at the centre of the spreading ares is determined
in several steps. First, values of W/.y4 a t and Rt must be
1
calculated, where:
W= width of the recharge basin, m
I
OC = KD/V, m2js
K = aquifer hydraulic conductivity, mjday !
o = saturated thickness of the aquifer (watertable), m
V = specific yield or fillable pore space, cm3 jcm 3 I
t = time, after infiltration, d
R = IjV, m/s
I = Infiltration rate or volume of water per unit area of soil
!
surface, m3jm2 .s
1
To apply this equation, values of Wand I must be assumed. For
initial planning purposes values of K, 0 and V may be determined I
from site selection testing and assumptions (Appendix VII). Once
the value of W/"4 a t has been determined, plots of W/~
versus ho/Rt, provided as Figures IX-2 (for square spreading
J
areas) and IX-3 (for rectangular spreading areas), can be used to
obtain the value of ho/Rt. Multiplying this value by the
J
calculated value of Rt results in ho, the predicted rise in
elevation at the centre of the groundwater mound.
J
Given a maximum acceptable value of ho, Wand I can be varied to J
optimize treatment and effective use of available land. In this
case, the equati on and Fi gures IX-2 and IX-3 are used to verify
that groundwater mounding remains in the acceptable range.
J
The depth to the groundwater mound at vari ous di stances from the
1
centre of the spreadi n9 area can be determi ned us i n9 Figures IX-4
(for square spreading areas) and IX-5 (for spreading areas that are
1
J
IX - 10
1
I
I
1
I
I 1.11

I 0.8

I ­
"r
.&:: ""
,,,,,,/
0.6

0.4

I o. 2

I o ~--------~----------~----------~-----
o 1.0 3.0
I
I

I FIGURE IX-2
MOUNDING CURVE FOR CENTRE OF A SQUARE RECHARGE AREA
I (Bianchi, 1970)

I
I
I
I
I
IX - 11
I
 I
1
I
1.0
!
0.'
I
O.B
I
I
0.4
I
D.2
.l
D.O ~

o
____________
1.0
~ ____________-L____________- J
2.0 3.0

I
(Y4~t )

J
FIGURE IX-3 J
MOUNDING CURVE FOR CENTRE OF A RECTANGULAR RECHARGE AREA AT DIFFERENT
RATIOS OF LENGTH (L) TO WIDTH (W)
(Bianchi, 1970)
1
J

1
J

IX - 12
!
 I

I.· r
I

I
l"':s··
1.••-........,
I

V(f;T
2. D
(.J.)
\

["1..\.
I
I.

1.•. -........, \\
(DIE DF 'UT

I
t. T
,
I 1.\
~
1.1 •

I
.-........
"', 1 "'.

I
D.' r-,·D,.
I

,I

: : '-D'_.",
t-D""~
~

Ir ' - - ~~: "

I
O. I
.-0.2-._
I
:~~~iO.8
- _
.
'-
....:~~.
2. ~:
·-0.1_._ _ .•, _~.

I
- _
•. 0 L-_ _ _ _ _-..J. - _
0.5
...;;-~.
i.b·
_ _ _ _" " - - _

1.0

,
(.1.)
I

FIGURE IX-4

I RISE AND HORIZONTAL SPREAD OF MOUND BELOW A SQUARE RECHARGE AREA

(Bianchi, 1970)

IX - 13
I

I.' j--
•. I
~
I

"­

............
' ............2.0 •
I
t.1 ~ 1.1'

"

I.............1.1'' .
............
D.' ~
'"
1.4~:
J

0.7
·l. . . . 2". 1.
•
IlIE IF PlOT
I

·l--1.~· J
0.6
---0.", I
~ .. , ~ (":')~' J
.. ~-.' ...... ~. )
'.3 ~ . ~
J
\3.. )\~O'6
., .
J
0.1 r- O
~'04
.2_. - _. _ _. ~1}::;:!
\

1
._0.1_._
--. ... ~~2. :0.2

.......

o. ---:
0.0 ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - . . :
1.5 1.'
1
(..!.)
• J
FIGURE IX-5 J
RISE AND
HORIZONTAL SPREAD OF MOUND BELOW A RECTANGULAR RECHARGE AREA
WHOSE LENGTH IS TWICE ITS WIDTH
-I
{Bianchi, 1970}

!
IX - 14
I
I
I
I twice as long as they are wide). Firstly, the values of W/V4 a t
and Rt are calculated. Next, X/W ;s determined, where X is the
hori zontal di stance from the centre of the spread; ng area. Then
1 Figure IX-4 or Figure IX-5 is used to obtain a value of h/Rt.
Again, multiplying this value by the calculated value of Rt results

I in h. the ri se of the groundwater mound at a di stance X from the

centre of the spreading area. The distance from the soil surface

I to the mound equals the difference between the distance to the

groundwater table before wastewater application and the mound

I height, h.

Sample calculations for these situations are given in the paper by

I Bianchi and Muckel (1970). If the groundwater mound is excessive,
infiltration rates and the land treatment system will be reduced.
I For this reason, mounding must be limited.

I Bouwer (1976) recommends that the watertable following an applicat­

ion period be at least 1 to 2 m below the soil surface, and that

I the capillary fringe above the watertable be at least 0.5 m beneath

the bottom of the application area. Within 2 to 3 days of a waste­
water appl ication, the groundwater mound shoul d drop to at least
I 1.5 m below the soil surface.

I By adjusting the hydraulic loading rate or by

engineered drainage, it is possible to maintain these watertable
constructing

I depths and the necessary rate of change in depth.

B.5 DRAINAGE METHODS

I
When the groundwater table and the impermeable soil layer under­
I lying the aquifer are relatively close to the soil surface, under­
drains can be used to collect renovated water. Under these con­
I ditions, it is less expensive to recover renovated water with
underdrains than by installing and pumping wells.

IX - 15
I
 I
B.5.1 Underdrains
J
Underdrains may be either open ditches or closed drain pipes. At
the Boulder demonstration facilities, drainage is provided by drain I
pipes located at a depth of 2.4 to 3.0 m (Appendix XIV). Collected
water flows by gravity to a manhole at the end of each spreading !
,;;,

basin, then to a central manhole for monitoring and sampling, and

finally, into a wet well where it is pumped to Boulder Creek. In
contrast, an open ditch is used at Santee, California, to collect
I
renovated water.
J
Various underdrain configurations have been used at rapid infiltra­
tion facilities. Two frequently used configurations are shown in
I
Figures IX-6 and IX-7. In the first alternative shown, the drains
are open at all times. Using the second alternative, all drains J
beneath areas receiving wastewater are closed and renovated water
is collected from drains below the areas that are drying. When one
application period is conpleted and an area is left to dry, the
1
drains under the area are opened. Likewise, when a drying period
is completed and application to an area is resumed, the drains

J
below the area are closed. This configuration maximizes under­ ]

ground detention times and travel distances while making effective

use of available land.

J
Drain spacing can be determined from the following equation
(Kirkham, et a1, 1974) J
S2 = 4KH (2d + H)

where:

L J
S = drain spacing, m

K = horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the soil, cm/d

J
H = npi nnt of t.hp nrollntiwl'ltpr
L = hydraulic loading rate,

III()Ilnn ~hC\vp thp nrai ns, III

!
d = distance from the drains to the underlying impermeable layer, m

IX - 16
I

.:J.

I
I
I
I
I d-.1:-:;::9
I '77777/777777777717177777.l71777777771777777717777777717777777777777777)
IMPnMEAILE

I
,
I FIGURE IX-6
CENTRALLY LOCATED lINDERDRAIN
I (Bouwer, 1974)

I
I
I
I
I
IX - 17
I
 I

-'"

eJJ!\=~:7!\:~ :7!xtl;
7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777.17.%7.17777777777777777777
IIIPERILEABLE I

c~j!(~!tu:S
7777777777777777777777777777777%Y,Q?77/777777777777777777777777777777

o DRAIN OPEN
IIIPERMEABLE
J
~ DRAIN CLOSED
J
FIGURE IX-7
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM USING ALTERNATING INFILTRATION AND DRYING STRIPS
!

(Bouwer, 1974)
1
1
1
J
)

I
IX - 18

I
I For clarification, these parameters are illustrated in Figure IX-B.
If K, L, and the maximum acceptable value of H are known, appro­
priate values for S can be calculated by assuming values for d.
I
For example, consider a rapid infiltration system loaded at an
I average rate of 29 m/yr (B cm/d). The horizontal hydraulic con­
ductivity of the selected site has been determined to be 1000 cm/d.
I The maximum acceptable height of the groundwater table is known, as
is the depth to the impermeable layer underlying the groundwater.

I The distance from the drains to the underlying impermeable layer is

assumed to be O.B m. The difference between the maximum acceptable
groundwater mound and the assumed distance from the drains to the
I impermeable layer is 1.0 m.

I Because the hydraul i c load; ng rate must include preci pi tation in

addition to wastewater, a design storm of 2.5 cm/d is added. Thus,
I the design loading rate is 10.5 cm/d.
calculated as follows:

The drain spacing is

52 = 4KH (2d + H)

I L

I 32 = 4(1000 cm/d (lm)

10.5 cm/d
(1.6 m + 1m)

I 52 = 990 m2
S = 31. 5 m

I Usually underdrains are 15 m or more apart and are placed at depths

of 1.2 to 3.0 m. In soils that have high horizontal hydraulic con­
I ductivity, underdrains may be placed up to 150 m apart. Although
short distances between underdrains allows greater watertable con­
I trol, as the distance between underdrains decreases the total cost
of site drainage increases. To balance these factors, different
I combinations of 0 and S should be evaluated during system design
and the optimum combination selected.

IX - 19
I
 I
J
I
_J

1
_----r---­, r'TER TABLE

!
_________ 1_______ _
H

r--r------- s ------­
]

..L 1
J
]
FIGURE IX-B
PARAMETERS USED IN DRAIN DESIGN

1
(Bouwer, 1974)
]
3
1
J
J
J
IX - 20
!
I
I The preceding equation used was derived using the Dupuit-Forcheimer
assumptions and assumes that the application rate ;s uniform. For
sites where the impermeable layer is not shallow anough to use the
I assumption of horizontal flow lines in the aquifer, equivalent
depths to the impermeable layer can be determined graphically and

I~
should be used (Bouwer, 1974).

I
When the watertable is relatively deep or the aquifer is un­
I confined, wells should be used to remove renovated water. Examples
of systems that currently use wells to withdraw water following
I infiltration-percolation are Phoenix and the Dan Region of Israel.
Wells are also indirectly involved in the reuse of renovated water

I at Whittier Narrows, California, and at Hollister.

sites, wells are used to pump groundwater.
Near these two
Although the pumped

I water contains some renovated water, the intent is to obtain water

and not specifically to remove renovated water.

I Various well arrangements have been used at RI facilities. Three

possible configurations are shown in Figure IX-g.
I If the purpose of the wells is to recover all the applied waste­

I water without disturbing the native groundwater, the configuration

shown in Figure IX-9a should be used. In this case, the wells

I shoul d penetrate at least the upper, acti ve reg; on of the aquife,'

and possibly the entire aquifer. Groundwater levels outside the
infiltration area should be monitored to ensure that pumping does
I not increase or decrease groundwater table elevations, since
increases would indicate that some applied wastewater has not been
I recovered and decreases shoul d indicate that some native ground­
water has been removed. For this purpose, monitoring wells are

I often located at the periphery of an application site.

'I
I
IX - 21
I
 !

Well arrangements shown in Figures IX-9b and IX-9c are appropriate

when renovated water is to be diluted before reuse. Because the
1

wells in these two arrangements are located between the application

area and areas overly; n9 native groundwater, water pumped from
!

these wells will be a mixture of renovated water and native ground­

water. Since additional groundwater is being pumped, pumping costs J

for these two confi gurati ons wi 11 be hi gher than for the arrange­
ment shown in Figure IX-9a. J
]

1
l

1
l

1
]

IX - 22

I'

I'il
I

•
•~

I. IULS IIDIlY lUlU.. JIG lPfLICA"'" ITiI PS

•
I
• • • •

~
• • • •
~
• •

, •
(II)
• •
•
(e)
•

I
I
, . ••• e. IELLS (1"1) .,I.IU... I.' ."LICATI ... &IEAS
(IUCMn nus)

-Ii FIGURE IX-9

WELL CONFIGURATIONS

(Bouwer, 1974)

1\

,
IX - 23

I
, APPENDIX X

SOILS PARAMETERS, TESTS AND PROCESSES

I WHICH AFFECT RI

I A• SOILS PARAMETERS

• While the physical makeup of soils primarily affect infiltration

rates in RI systems, it is the soil chemistry and method of opera­

- tions which primarily control final effluent quality. (Other

factors such as slope and hydrogeology have some control on fina'

•I
water quality_ These are discussed in detail in Chapter 5).

The following section reviews and discusses the important soil

i
chemical parameters and how these affect RI operations. The
information is presented to allow the interested reader an under­

I standi n9 of chemical and bacteri a1 reactions and how they affect

RIo

I A.l SOIL pH

1\ The pH of. the soil-water system is critical since it influences the

nature and rates of most chemical and biological reactions. Some
I,
.J
of the more important pH - dependent soil processes are those
relating to:
11
,
• solubility and availability of nutrients and heavy metals,
I
• retention or adsorption of various elements, and
• intensity of microbial activity •

•I
In natural soil systems, pH is affected by organic matter content,
presence of alkaline - earth carbonates, hydrous oxides of iron and
aluminum and soil moisture content. The pH of soils subjected to
I wastewater applications will be affected by leaching of soluble
elements and the addition of organic and inorganic materials.
II
I

x- 1

One of the mal n reactions related to soil pH reductions is the

oxidation of NH4+ to N03- by the following reactions:

When amnonium is converted to nitrate in oxidizing soil environ­

ments, two moles of H+ are produced for every mole of NH4+
oxidized. The hydrogen produced may acidify the soil to values
below the pH of the wastewater.

After 30 years of wastewater application to rapid infiltration beds

at Hollister, California (Pound et al., 1977),the soil pH had
decreased between 0.5 and 1.6 units depending on the depth below
the surface. The pH of surface soil samples decreased from values
near 8.2 to values less than 7.3, which was the average pH of the
wastewater. This suggested that oxidation of NH4+ was
contributing to lowering of soil pH values near the surface of the
basins. However, it is believed that in this particular operation,
the pH decl i ne was largely a result of leaching of carbonates of
Ca, Mg and Na to groundwater and lower soil depths.

The soil pH in infiltration basins is not alw~s lowered by waste­

water application. After 50 years of operation, the pH of infil­
tration basin soils at Vineland, New Jersey (Koerner and Haws,1979)
ranged from 5.2 to 5.6 This was compared to control soil s which
ranged in pH from 4.0 to 5.2. In this case, the wastewater pH
averaged 6.5.

The pH of wastewater can be quite alkaline and may maintain high

soil pH values in some soils. For example, at Milton, Wisconsin
(Benham-Blair et a1., 1979), the wastewater pH averaged 8.2 and
aftp.r 40 VP;JfS nf n!lp.r~ti on "art Plot ~Cr~i!Se{l the- "P.C1.n pU t)f ""5 of I"!
soils significantly when compared to control soil pH values of
8.9.

x- 2
I ;

I The pH of wastewater can be modified by the soil's buffering capa­

city and by the chemical and biological reactions which take place

I within the soil profile at a rapid infiltration site. Wastewater

which contains organic acids can show an increase in pH as it moves
through the soil because the aci ds are bi odegraded and lost from
I the system (Aulenbach et al., 1975). On the other hand, for bio­
degradable material pH may decrease because soil microbial activity
I produces C02 and organic acids.

I ;
At Flushing Meadows, Arizona, the pH of sewage effluent was about
8, whereas that of the renovated water was approximately 7. This

I pH drop was attributed to the bacterial production of C02 and

organic acids. Nitrification and removal of carbonates would also
reduce the pH (Bouwer, 1974).
I
At the Lake George Village, New York, rapid infiltration site,

I secondary effluent pH was 6.94 while that of the renovated water in

a wel' 4.9 m directly beneath an infiltration basin was slightly

I lower at 6.37 (Hajas,1975). Production of organic acids and

carbon dioxide by soil bacteria and nitrification of ammonium were

I, thought to be responsible for the slight pH drop (Ayers and

Westcot, 1966).

I: At Fort Devens, Massachusetts, the pH of soi 1 water extracted by

suction lysimeters at 1.5 m increased slightly in one lysimeter and
Ii
,
stayed the same in another (Satterwhite et al., 1976). Control
site soil pH ranged from 4.6. to 5.2 whereas the treatment bed pH
ranged from 5.7 to 6.2. Comparison of effluent and groundwater pH

, di rectly beneath spreading basins at a depth of 24.4 m showed a

drop from 7.0 to 6.8 standard units.

Renovated water from RI systems generally has a lower pH value than

Ii the applied effluent. With time, a corresponding rise in pH of
native groundwaters (receiving effluent) can be expected.
I(
II
=..1

- x- 3
 ~
~
A.2 CAlCIUM CARBONATE

I
Accumulations of free lime or CaCOl in soil layers will buffer

the soil-water system to pH values near 8.2, which is the equi-

1ibrium pH of pure CaCOl in water. This may be important where

the wastewater to be app 1i ed iss1i ghtly aci di c and the ground­

water in the area has alkaline pH values. Whereas IOOre soluble

I
forms of carbonate or bicarbonate (such as NaC03 or MgHC03) are
predominant in the soil, pH values of 9.0 and greater will occur. ~
.~
A.l ORGANIC MATTER

Soil organic matter influences the: 1

J
• soil water holding capacity,

~
,
• stability of soil structure,
• pH,

I exchange capacity,

I retention of trace metals by chelation, and

~
• cycling of carbon: nitrogen and phosphorus.

Soil organic matter has a much higher gravimetric cation exchange

capacity than any clay mineral and has a surface area comparable to

that of expandable clays. Its exchange capacity is highly pH

J
dependent, being very low at pH values less than 5, but rising to
jl
over 300 meq/100g at pH values of 8.5. Of some interest is the fact
that organic matter tends to counteract the unfavourable effects of
high exchangeable sodium percentage on soils by stabilizing .~
aggregates of clay minerals, thus diminishing dispersion and pore
J
clogging. It serves as an energy material for microorganisms which
in turn form humates, fulvates, and other polymers which form and
stabilize aggregates. ,
The balance between input and decay of organic matter is IOOdified
by such factors as composition of the input material, type of

1
..
microorganisms present, temperature, pH, availability of lOOisture,

and the oxygen content in the immediate environment.

-j
x - 4

,
, In general, sandy and gravelly soils suitable for rapid infiltra­

,
tion systems will have low organic matter percentages (less than 2%

by wei ght) except near the so11 surface. If all other factors are

,
constant, the trend is usually to higher organic matter percentages

in surface soils with finer soil textures. Because of the low

amounts of organic materials in RI soils, levels of organic matter

can be easily manipulated by additions of organiC materials.

~ However, such additions may cause substantial reductions of nydrau­

lic loading rates.

~ Addition of wastewater to soils may naturally cause an increase in

I I
i
soil organic matter content. At Hollister, California treated
soils had organic matter contents ranging from 2.19% at the surface

-I 1
to 0.03% at 300 cm after 30 years of operation compared to control
soils which had 1.35% and 0.01% organiC matter in these depths,
respectively (Pound et al., 1977). However, at Calumet, Michigan,
only slight increases (less than 1%) in soil organic matter
percentage were noted at depths of 10 to 25 em, compared to

•I forested control soils (Baillod et al., 1975). Similarly, after 10

years of operation of the system in Phoenix, Arizona there was no
accumUlation of organic carbon in the soil (Bouwer et a1., 1979).
Provided sufficient resting time is allowed for microbial
decomposition, the increase in organic matter percentages will be
I J
small in most rapid infiltration systems.

A.4 CEC, EXCHANGEABLE CATIONS AND SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO (SAR)

El ectrostati c charges at soi 1 surfaces ari se from atomic substitu­

tion in al uminosilicate mineral s, hydrogen-hydroxi de reactions at
the aqueous-soli d interface, and specific adsorption of weak aci ds
or bases (Ellis and Morgan, 1970). These negative charges create
electromagnetic force fields which attract cations and repel
anions. The exchanged ions near the charged surfaces are in
dynamic equilibrium with the cations of dissolved salts in an outer
solution. If the composition of the salt solution changes, it is
reflected by a correspond; ng change of composition in the inner
exchange phase.

x- 5
 ~

The soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a property of paramount

importance for it is associated with nutrient availability, soil
permeability, and the ability of the soil to temporarily remove
cations from a wastewater influent. i

The soil CEC is a function of:

• pH,
I

• presence of organic matter,

• surface area, ~

• type of clay mineral, and 1

• the analytical method used. 1

Generally, that portion of the soil that hydroxylates or deproto­ J

.J
nates easily as the pH is increased (amorphous hydrous oxides and
organic colloids) will show a corresponding CEC increase. That
fraction of CEC due to atomic substitution will remain relatively
~

unaffected by changes in pH. Soil surface area can be correlated

with the CEC if the dominant source of CEC is atomic substitution. I'
'I,'"

Affinity relationships of soil colloids for ions have been measured ~

for many species in wastewater. In general, the selectivity of an
exchanger for a given ion is a function of ionic charge and size. ;J

The preference for ions of higher charge increases with dilution of

the electrolyte, While within a series of ions of equal charge, the
ion with the smallest hydrated radius is preferred (Weber, 1972).
.,~

Therefore, for those ions generally defined as being exchangeable,

the order of preference is: ~

Ca+2> Mg+2> K+> Na+

..1
when ions are of comparable concentrations.

Though all four of the major cations (Na+, K+, Ca+ 2 ,

Mg+2) found in wastewater undergo exchange reactions with
,
soi 1s, the fate of applied Na+ is generally of greatest concern. 1

J'

.1

x- 6

,
--l
 When the wastewater ratio ,of sodium to calcium and magnesium is
large, highly hydrated sodium cations replace less nydrated Ca and
Mg on the sol1. Thi s process causes the di spersi on of soil cl ay
particles, resulting in a decrease in soil permeability. The
nature of rapid infiltration systems is such that the sodium hazard
is generally considered minimal, because the clay percentage is
usually so small that the effect is not noticed.

If the reuse of renovated water for irrigation purposes is an

objective, sodium hazard must be considered. In most cases, soil
permeability becomes a hazard before direct sodium toxicity is
noticed although in a few plants this is not strictly true (Pound
and Crites, 1913). To determine the sodium hazard, the sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) was developed by the u.s. Department of
Agriculture Salinity Laboratory. SAR is defined as follows:
SAR = Na
[1/2 (Ca + Mg)] ~/2
where Na, Ca, and Mg are concentrations of the respective ions in
meg/L of water. Ratios less than 9-10 are generally acceptable on
almost all sol1s, though higher values are suitable for waters of
higher conductivity. A detailed description of the SAR and sodium
hazard are found in references (U.S. Salinity Manual, 1963; Sawyer
and McCarty, 1976).

A.S TRACE ELEMENTS

The greatest concerns regarding trace elements has been their

potential health and pl ant toxicity hazard (Bouwer and Chaney,
1974). Soil has been shown to be effective in reducing the con­
centration of trace elements in percolating effluent over limited
periods of time. However, their long term ability to remove metals
has been questioned because of their ineffectiveness after sorption
saturation (Lehman and Wilson, 1971).

x- 7

 ~
~
B. SPECIALIZED SOILS TESTS

B.1 Soil Column Experiments

Soil column experiments are often utilized to predict final

I
effluent quality. Information gained from such experiments is

generally useful for site design. However, strict interpretation

I
~
of the results should be avoided. The following information

summarizes several cases where soil columns were used.

In a comparative study for the Westby, Wisconsin wastewater dis"·

posal system (Thomas et !l., 1968), indoor and outdoor so11 lysi­

"l
meters were used to test Westby soil and Ottawa sand efficiencies

for removal of contaminants from wastewater. One of the major

J
~
,
findings of this study was that the performance of the lysimeters

changed gradually over time until the systems matured. For example,

under a flood type of was tewater app'1i cati on ammoni a removal had

reached a maximum of approximately 90% (from an original 40%).

tJ
In the Westby case, the lysimeters used were approximately 1 m in
diameter and 1.5 m deep and the experiments were conducted over 22
months. The full scale land disposal system was shown to provide
comparable waste treatment to that obtained in controlled lysi­
,
meters.
.".~
Smaller diameter (10 cm) soil columns were used by lance and
Whisler (1973) to test nitrogen transformation and oxygen utiliza­
.J
tion during treatment with wastewater. Soil for these columns was

taken directly from the recharge basins from the Flushing Meadows

fiel d project.
J
)1
Net nitrogen removal averaged 30% when the soil columns were inter­
mittenly flooded with secondary sewage effluent at infiltration

rates that resulted in a total annual infiltration of 85m of water.

.,
Nitrogen removal by denitrificaiton was increased by three dif­

ferent methods:

x- 8
-J
•
 ,
~ 1) Nitrogen removal was increased to 80 to 90S in so11 columns
when 150 mg/L soluble carbon, as glucose, were added to the

I 2)
sewage.

Nitrogen removal was increased to 75 to 80S when high nitrate

I water was collected from the columns mixed with sewage water,
and recycled through the columns. With this method, 65 m of
~ water per year were infiltrated.

-~
I
3) Nitrogen removal was increased to 80S when the infiltration
rate was reduced from 35 to 15 cm/day. The lower infiltra­
tion rate still resulted in a total annual infiltration of 40m
of water.

-I In an experiment designed to simulate a soil profile in a drainage

basin at the Boulder, Colorado site (Smith et a1., 1979), a PVC
pipe 20 cm in diameter and 3.7 m long was used for construction of
a soil column. 1t was capped on one end, and a 15 cm 1ayer of

~ gravel was placed in the bottom to serve as an underdrain system.

A 2.1 m layer of sand was placed directly above the gravel, and a
Ir 10 cm silt-loam layer was added on top of the sand. Sampling ports
were placed at depth of 20 cm, 56 cm, 12 m, 1.8 m from the top, and
at the bottom of the column.
I J
The sample collection apparatus at each port consisted of a 65 mm
II
,
funnel attached to a section of rubber tubing at the discharge end.
!
To prevent clogging of the funnel, a small piece of fine screen was
placed within the mouth of each funnel.

, Since the amount of sample that could be collected at each sampling

was quite small, it was necessary to make a series of column runs
to adequately evaluate the soil column performance. This series
Ii
! I consisted of several column loading cycles for assessing the
organic removal behaviour of the soil column.

x- 9
 11
These were followed by two column runs for evaluating the removal

J
,
of phosphorus in the soil. The following two loadings provided the

data for evaluating the flow, nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium pro­

files. The next loading was tested for calcium, hardness, alkali­

nity, and chlorides, and a run for coliform and phosphorus analyses

completed the series.

,
~

In each series of test, 0.30 to 0.33 m of secondary effluent was

applied to the top of the column. During the wastewater applica­

tion, a portable gravel layer was set on top of the soil while the

wastewater was applied slowly through small holes 1n a plastic bag

~.~

to prevent disturbance of the top loam layer.

The removal of COD, phosporus, nitrogen, dissolved solids, and

!
J

~
coliforms by the infiltration-percolation soil column was evaluated
under a number of different loading cycles.

B.l.l Phosphorus Adsorption Studies

Studies of nutrient adsorption from wastewater would most frequent­

-~
ly refer to removal of phosphorus and heavy metals by ion eXChange,

precipitation, oxi dation - reduction

, reactions and/or biological

transformation. However, nitrogen and sulphur balances would also

)l
be influenced by these mechanisms.

Jl
Several types of experiments can be used for measuri ng adsorption
characteristics, but the most widely used is the "batch" or j)
"shaker" method (Landon, 1978). This procedure consists of com­
bining a known volume of waste leachate of a predetermined composi­
tion with a given mass of air dry soil. This mixture is shaken

JI
untn equilibrium is attained. Adsorption coefficients can be

determi ned from the di stribution of the constituents between the

II
adsorbed contaminants and water. Similar experiments in which the

nutrient solution is shaken and left to equilibriate with the soil

'1
J
have also been used (Como et al., 1978).

\1
x- 10 JI
II
 I
, I

, B.1.2 Bulk Density

, Bulk density measurements, reflect the status of soil structure,

which in turn affects water movements, aeration and porosity.

Dry dens i ty of a sol1 is defi ned as the "oven dry mass of soil per

~ unit volume of undisturbed soil" (e.g. g/cm3 ). The volume thus

includes void (air plus water) volume as well as particle volume.

I J
The bulk density of mineral soils can range from about 0.8 g/cm3
for recently tilled soi 1s to about 1.9 g/cm3 for hi ghly compacted

~
sol1s. Plant growth ceases above a bulk density of 1.6 to 1.7
g/cm3 due to mechanical impedance of root extension. Organic
sol1s can have bulk density values as small as 0.2 g/cm3 • Bulk
~ density is not a constant property, but tends to decrease as cl ay
particles swell on wetting and to increase as the particles shrink

I on drying. When field measurements are not available, a commonly

assumed value for bulk density of mineral soils is 1.33 g/cm3 •

~ Bulk density is an important property because it is used to convert

I concentrations of soil constituents expressed on a weight or mass

basis to concentrations expressed on a volume, area or depth basis.
For instance, soil moisture content of an incremental depth of the
I
. J
soil profile, when measured gravimetrically, is expressed in terms
of g/water/g/soil. This value (Om) may be converted to volumetric
water content (Ov, gm/cm3 ) by multiplying by the bulk density.
In irrigation work, 0v, is often expressed as an equivalent depth
of water in an incremental depth of soil per unit area of soil
(i.e. cm of water). A similar conversion is necessary for concen­
trations of other sol1 constituents such as nutrients and metals
that are measured 1n the laboratory on a mass basis.

x- 11

 ,
~
8.1.3 Porosity

,
,
Porosity is a measure of the total void space in a soil profile.

If the soil bu"lk density (Db) and the soil particle density

(P) are known, porosity (If,p) may be calculated from the following
equation:

'f,p= (l-Db) 100

P
.~
The average particle (Pp) of most mineral sol1s is about 2.65 ... ~
g/cm3•

Porosity is of interest because if affects hydraulic properties of

aquifers.
! J

~
C.

C.l
NUTRIENT REMOVAL PROCESSES OF SOILS

NITROGEN
,
Nitrogen transformations in soils used for sewage effluent disposal
are quite complex. However, a brief review of the nitrogen cycle

~
in soils will serve as a basis for predicting soil response to the }2

added wastewater.

For the most part, plants acquire nitrogen from the soil as N03­
Jl
(nitrate) or NH4+ (ammonium) ions. As part of the plant,

the nitrogen is in an organic state. After plant death the organic

1
.1
nitrogen is mineralized by a variety of soil organisms to the
NH4+ form. Mineralization proceeds best under well-drained JJ
and well-aerated conditions.

The NH4+ produced by mi nera 1i zat i on can be converted to

II
N03- under well-aerated and well-drained conditions, fixed

by clay minerals, held on the soils cation exchange complex,

,1_1

converted to NH3 or taken up directly by living plants or soil

organisms. II
x - 12 JI
II
 J
., Any N03- produced may be taken up by living plants on soil

, organisms, lost to leaching waters or denitrified to a gaseous form

and lost by volatalization.

, Nitrogen accumulation can be expected to occur when organic forms

, of nitrogen are introduced into the soil system or when the domi­
nant form of nitrogen is the alllllonium cation (Bailey, 1968). In
contrast, nitrogen losses are expected when nitrogen is in a mobile
anionic form (N03- or N02-) or when it is converted

- to a gaseous speci es (N2, N20, NO, NH3) • The rate. and

magnitude of N03- loss to underlying groundwater is signifi­

- cant since at high concentrations it may cause methemoglobinemia in

infants (Pound &Crites, 1977); as a result, normal drinking water

-I
standards restrict nitrate amounts to 10 mg/L (Canada Drinking
Water Standards and Objectives, 1968).
\

The species of nitrogen and the rates and types of transformations

that occur in the soil are influenced by pH, temperature, aeration,
I water content, availability of a carbon source and the presence of
appropriate microorganisms. With sewage effluent disposal systems,

I all these factors are influenced by the type of effluent and the
rate at which it is applied to the land.

- t.l.l Loading Rates

-I The infiltration rate, depth to groundwater, residence times and

resting periods affect the concentration of nitrogen in the reno­
vated water. The improvement of the wastewater quality as it seeps
through the soil is usually greatest for low-rate (2 to 5 cm per

I week} systems (Bouwer, 1973). For example, if secondary sewage

effluent is applied to a vegetated basin at a rate of 2 cm per

I week, t~e nitrogen load is of the same order as the nitrogen uptake
by the actively growing crop, leaving little nitrogen in the
renovated water (Bouwer, 1973). However, rapid infiltration
Ii generally does not allow for plant uptake and usually produces
effluents with higher amounts of nitrogen.
I x- 13
I
 J!

'­

~
C.l.2 Effects of Soils on Nitrogen Removal

Typical medium strength domestic wastewater may contain 30-40 mg/L

of nitrogen of which 20-25 mg/L is in the form of NH4-N and 12-15

mg/L is in the organic form. A review of several rapid infiltra­

I
tion projects indicates that the concentration and form of nitrogen

being applied to the soil is the same after primary or secondary

I
treatment. Ammonium and organic nitrogen applied to soils at rapid
i nfil tration sites are almost completely converted to the nitrate ~
~
form. The availabil ity of oxygen is critical to the conversion
process. Short and frequent application cycles, from 0.5 to 3 'days
flooding followed by 5 to 14 days before reapplication, maximize
nitrificati on. ~
In addition to nitrification, denitrification is an important con­
version process and is responsible for the removal of nitrate from
~
percolating wastewaters. The denitrifying bacteria are faculative
anaerobes whi ch use ni trate-ni trogen as an el ectron acceptor when
oxygen concentrations become very low. Organic carbon is needed to
supply energy to denitrifying bacteria. The level of organic
•~
carbon in the supplied wastewater is critical to the removal of the
highly mobile nitrate ion. 1
1

.J
,
The distribution of carbon in the soil profile influences the loca­
tion where denitrification might take place. At the Hollister

rapid infiltration site, soil organic matter was highest near the

surface and declined progressively with depth. Gilmore et al show­

ed that a flooded surface soil containing 0.9to total carbon 00­

nitrified added nitrate readily without organic amendments but the

subsoil containing O.48to total organic carbon failed to denitrify

J
J1
unless an available organic substrate was supplied. Therefore, the

zone of most active denitrification is likely to be near the soil

surface in spite of its proximity to the atmosphere. This has been

demonstrated in fi el d experiments by Rol ston et a1 (l976) who

.,
observed maximum rates of production of N20 and N2 within the

top 10 cm. Lance et al (1916) also observed that denitrification J

j
x - 14
 ~
~ takes place near the soil surface. By monitoring redox potentials
versus depth in sewage flooded soil columns, it was shown that a

I denitrification zone was established in the top 20 cm or less.

At Hollister, a 93t reduction in total nitrogen was achieved as the

I wastewater passed from the surface to the shallow water table. The
infiltration rate at Holl ister was in the range reported by Lance

~ et al (1976) for good nitrogen removal. Nitrate-N level s in the

shallow water table are approximately 1 mg/L and therefore posed no
-I immediate contamination problem to permanent groundwater supplies.

~
Deni trificati on is believed to be the primary nitrogen removal
mechanism. Favourable conditions for conversion at the infiltra­
tion site include:
~ • availability of an energy source,
• temporary anaerobism due to soil flooding,

I • adequate detention time due to moderate infiltration rate,

and

-,I C.2
• a near neutral pH.

PHOSPHORUS

Soil phosphorus is known to occur both in organic and inorganic

~ forms. The chemistry and thermodynamic relationships of the
organic forms, however, are not well understood.

~ In general, the major controls exerted by the soil system on in­

I:l organi c phosphorus availabil ity are adsorption onto clay mineral s
and hydrous oxides or iron, aluminum, and manganese as well as the
formation of precipitates with calcium, iron and aluminum. Organic
I forms are thought to be adsorbed in a manner similar to inorganic
forms (Bailey, 1968). Because the removal mechanisms are still not
I i
fully understood, the term sorption 1s increasingly used to desribe
any loss of soluble phosphorus from the system (EPA, 1977; Enfield
I! I
and Bledsoe, 1975). Sorption is a function of:

~
x- 15
I
 I
'1
soil type,
particle size,
-~
I

I
pH,
redox potential,
temperature,
I
I

I
organic matter content, and
reaction time.
I
Classical adsorption isotherm expressions have been used to des­
l
cribe phosphorus sorption. The two most common are the Langmui r
and Freundlich expressions; though the slow mineralization of phos­ -~
phorus in organic matter, as well as the slow migration of adsorbed
P to interstitial precipitation sites, make it impossible to deter­ ._J
mine the precise sorption capacity of a soil (Enfield, 1977).
'~
Theoretical and empi rica1 equations have been used to describe the
kinetics of phosphorus uptake by soils (Enfield and Bledsoe, 1975).

Fixation and chemical precipitation are the primary mechanisms for

,
phosphorus removal in rapid infiltration systems. Although the
capaci ty of the soi 1 for phosphorus removal is difficul t to pre­
j
dict, it is finite, and, for soils low in clay and organic matter,
it may 1imit the long-term use of the site. The research work by
EPA has resulted in a predictive model that can be used on 20 dif­
l
ferent mineral soils (Enfield and Shew, 1975). The model has been _J
verified for at least one soil: Bouwer has measured 95' phosphorus
removal after 61 m of travel through sandy loam, sand and gravel
(Bouwer et a1, 1972).
.,
Phosphorus presents less of a pollution hazard than nitrogen in J
groundwater. While nitrate can move freely with soil water, phos­
phorus is relatively immobile in the ground. It exists in both
organic and inorganic forms, roughly in equal parts. Organic phos­
phorus is mineral i zed in the ground, and app1i ed or mi nera11 zedf n­
•,
organic phosphorus is converted rapidly to water-insoluble forms.
The inorganic forms exist as calcium, iron and aluminum phosphates.
The mobility of phosphorus compounds in'a soil is low and only
J
_I
x - 16

•
 ,
I small amounts are expected in groundwater. Soil erosion processes,
however, may move substantial amounts of phosphorus as constituents
of soil particles and soil organic matter.
I Phosphorus removal in rapid infiltration systems has been studied
I in the Fl us hi ng Meadows project. The phosphorus concentration in
the wastewater averaged 15 mg/L in 1969, but decreased to about 10

I mg/L for the period 1970 to 1972. Phosphorus removal increased

with an increase in travel distance and residence time in the soil

- profile. A travel distance of 9 m removed about 70% of the phos­

phorus in 1969, but removal efficiency was reduced to about 30% in

,-
1970 when a substanti al increase in flow rate occurred. With a
flow distance of 100 m, phosphorus removal increased to about 90%
and was greater with an even longer travel distance. After five
years of operation and phosphorus additions of nearly 48000 kg/ha,
the removal efficiency was rather stable.

I Pratt {l977} points out that rapid infiltration systems require

I sandy soil s that can sustain high water intake rates and high
transmissivity in the subsurface environment. Therefore, no layers
wi th high sorpti ve capaci ty for phosphorus are 1ikely to be en­
II countered. Where little sorptive capacity is present, the existing
capaci ty may soon be saturated and the retention wi 11 then depend
Ii J on mineral izati on and preci pi tation reactions. One logical pre­
cipitant is the calcium supply in the wastewater.
II The coarse gravelly soil at Flushing Meadows (Bouwer et al, 1974;

IJ Bouwer et al, 1972) is calcareous and contains little or no iron

and aluminum oxides. Therefore, it was concluded that P removal
resulted from the precipitation of calcium phosphate species,
I ammonium magnesium phosphates, and other insoluble compounds.

Ii At the Lake George Village rapid infiltration site, total phos­

phorus in an observation well 4.9 m below the surface averaged 0.9
II !
mg/L, as compared to an input level of 2.1 mg/L. Unchlorinated

IJ
x-
I 17
x- 18

 ,
•I APPENDIX XI

TREATMENT PROCESS CALCULATIONS

A. TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
I A.l BOD REMOVAL

• BOD removals vary somewhat at RI sites. Several loading rates that

have been used with the resulting renovated water concentrations

•~ that have been achieved are presented in Table XI-I. As shown on

the Table, 85 to 95% of applied BOD is normally removed during the
first 3 m of travel. BOD removal increases with wastewater travel
distance and residence time and varies from site to site.

I) A.2 NITROGEN REMOVAL

I Most of the nitrogen contained in wastewater is in the form of am­

monium (NH4+)' When wastewater is applied to spreading basins

~
for RI, some ammonium is immediately converted to nitrate (N03­
through a pair of reactions collectively known as nitrification:

NH4+ + (1.5)02 Nitrosomonas~ N02- + H20 + 2H+

II I N02- + (0.5)02 Nitrobacter) N03­

1'1
,_.1
These reactions utilize oxygen that has entered the soil during the

resting portion of the load; n9 cycle. Later. in the flooding

Ij period, when oxygen is depleted, ammonium is sorbed in increasing

amounts by negatively charged clay particles and organic colloids

IJ in the soil (See Appendix X). With prolonged flooding, the ammo­

, nium adsorption capacity becomes saturated and ammonium moves down­

ward through the soil. When flooding is halted, the soil is re­

aerated and the adsorbed ammonium is oxidized to nitrate.

11 The amount of ammonium that can be adsorbed during one loading

period depends of the cation exchange capacity (CEe) of the soil,

11 J
which can range from 1 to 2 meq/100 g of soil in very sandy soils

to over 100 meq/lOO g in soils that contain large amounts of clay

or organic matter (Lance, 1975). Because other cations, especially

divalent cations such as calcium and magnesium, compete with

XI - 1
IJ
 TABLE XI-1
,
.~
BOD AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL DATA FOR SELECTED RI SYSTEMS

BOD
Average Treated water Average
"
SS
Treated

•
•J
Location loading concentration Remo- loading water Sampling

rate, mg/L val rate, concen- depth, m

kg/ha.d* kg/ha.d* tration
m9/ L
Boulder, 86** 20**81 71 20 2.3

Colorado

Calumet, 80 nil 86 48 3.3

-}
Michigan

Fort Devens,
Massachusetts

87 12 86 20
;.I.
~
Hol1i ster, 177 8 95 221 8
California
Lake George, 53 1.2 98 3

New Yorl<
11
•l
Milton, 155 <1.0-19.0 88-99 168 8-29

Wisconsin

Phoenix, 45 0-1 98-100 60 0.8 30

Arizona
Vineland,
New Jersey

48 6.5*** 86 13

* Total applied in kg/ha-d divided by the number of days in the opera­

2-14

,
ting season, or 265 for these systems. .]: i

** COD. 'J

***Average value from several well s.

I Soil column studies.

III Soluble TOC.

J
•1
Note: All sites sampled within 3m of infiltration basins.

-_I

XI - 2

,
, anmonium for exchange sites, the fraction of the CEC that can be
used to adsorb ammonium depends on the wastewater concentrations of
these other cations.
I To determine this fraction, known as the exchangeable ammonium per­
I centage, the ammonium adsorption ratio (AAR) must be determi ned
first. The AAR may be calculated as follows:

- AAR = NH4+

-I [1/2(Ca 2+ + Mg2+)] 1/2

where NH4+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ are the wastewater concen­

trations of ammonium, calcium and magnesium ions in meq/L.

I The exchangeable ammonium percentage can then be obtained from the

following equation:
I Exchangeable = 100(0.0360 + 0.1051 AAR)
I ammonium percentage 1 + (0.0360 + 0.105AAR)

For example, wastewater that contains 2 meq/L NH4-N (28 mg/L), 3

I, meq/L Ca 2+ and 1 meq/l .Mg2+ has an AAR of 1.41 (Lance,
1975). Furthermore, the exchangeable ammonium percentage would be
1\ 15.6~, meaning that 15.6~ of a soil's cation exchange sites would
be occupied by ammonium ions following flooding with this
1\
, '
wastewater. For soil with a CEC of 5 meq/100 g, 0.78 meq or 10.9
mg of NH4-N could be adsorbed per 100 9 of soil. Assuming the

I sol1 has a specific gravity of 1.6, up to 0.174 kg of NH4-N could

be removed by 1 m3 of soil during flooding before ammonium
breakthrough would occur. Using these expressions, the amount of
I ammonium that can be retained at any RI site and, hence, the
maximum acceptable loading period for each particular site can be
f determined once the soil CEC is determined.

I:;
I
I XI - 3
 ,
,
,
A second reaction that occurs during the flooding periods when oxy­
gen in the soil has been depleted is the denitrification reaction:

N03- + organic matter -various

- - -bacteria
- - - ) N2 + H20 + C02 + OH­
(e.g., 6 N03- + SCH30H > 3M2 + 7H20 + SC02 + 60H-'

This reaction converts nitrate, including the nitrate formed during

11
nitrification, to nitrogen gas, thereby completing nitrogen removal
from the applied wastewater. With RI systems, the nitrification­
J
denitrification combination is the primary nitrogen removal 'J
mechanism.

The bacteria responsible for nitrification are autotrophic, obli­

gate aerobes that are commonly found in soil and are usually
.,,
present in concentrations that would allow rapid conversion from

•
ammonium to nitrate. Although nitrifying bacteria require oxygen,
they function at oxygen concentrations well below atmospheric.
Studies indicate that nitrification will even occur at di ss01 ved
oxygen concentrations approaching O.S mg/l (Wil d et a1, 1971).
Nitrification rates are highest when the pH is neutral to slightly
alkaline; they decrease rapidly in acid conditions and are negli­
gible when the pH reaches approximately 4.S (Broadbent, 1957). The
•l
effects of soil pH are discussed in detail in Appendix X.
.l
The optimum temperature range for nitrification is 30 to 35°C. The
nitrification rate decreases with temperature and nitrification .. ~
stops entirely near the freezing point for water.

At operating RI sites, nitrified effluents have been produced

J
following applications of up to 67.2 kg/ha.d (Crites et al, 1977).
Using soil columns, even higher nitrification rates can be attained
(lance, 1972, 1973). Studies indicate that S to SO mg/l of ammonia
nitrogen (on a soil bash) may be oxidized to nitrate each day
•1
under favourable moisture and temperature conditions (Broadbent,
19S7). Generally, if wastewater flooding periods are so short that J
the soil remains aerobic, complete nitrification of applied ammonia
occurs. ~I
XI - 4
 I

I In contrast with the nitrifiers, denitrifying bacteria are

, i
facul tative anaerobes that rely on gaseous oxygen as an electronic
accepter unless oxygen concentrations are very low. When oxygen has

, been depleted, denitrifiers use nitrate and nitrite as electronic

acceptors. Deni tri fi ers are also common, wi dely distri buted soil s
bacteri a.

I {
To convert nitrate ions to nitrogen gas, denitrifying bacteria

require an organic source of energy. Organic energy sources are

I usually derived from decomposing organic material.

present in the:
These are

I , • soil,
• applied wastewater, or

I • in the form of plant life on the infiltration site surface.

As the level of preapp1 icati on treatment increases, the amount of

I organic material in the applied wastewater declines and the
importance .of soil organic matter rises.

I Soil organiv material tends to be most concentrated near the

I, surface, with the concentration decreasing with depth. Therefore,
it is not surprising that maximum denitrification often occurs

I within the first few centimeters of soil where organic concentra­

tions are highest. Further information on organic matter can be

I, i
found in Appendix X.

Ii.-
The optimum temperature range for denitrification is a1 so 30 to
35°C. Denitrifying bacteria are inhibited at temperatures below
I
10°C and show little activity between 2°C and 5°C (Bremner, 1958). I
I The optimum wastewater pH for denitrification is in the neutral to
I
I
I slightly alkaline range. Below pH 6.0, oxides of nitrogen such as
N02 and NO may be produced in addition to or in place of nitrogen !
I,I
gas. Below pH 5.5, denitrifying activity declines substantially.
I
I. II
,
-1l

XI - 5
,
~

f
 ~
~

Denitrification rates also decrease when there are inadequate

concentrations of organic material. For example at Flushing

Meadows, Arizona~ denitrification studies were conducted using

J
,
secondary effluent and an infiltration rate of 30 to 40 cm/d (Lance,

1972). The effluent contained approximately 30 mg/L ammonia

nitrogen, 1 mg/L nitrate, and 1 mg/L organic nitrogen. During these
studies, the dissolved organic carbon concentration of the applied

wastewater varied from an average of 15 mg/L to approximately 150

mg/L. At the same time, the amount of ni trogen removed increased

from 30 to 90%.

1.'
'f
Other pilot studies have used methanol as an organic source of
energy. Theoretically, the denitrification equation indicates that
38.1 mg/L of methanol should be sufficient for denitrifying 20 mg/L
,J
of nitrogen in the form of nitrate. In practice, 90~ denitrHica­
.J
tion was achieved using 70 mg/L of methanol. Adding methanol on a
large-scale, routine basis would probably be uneconomical, especial­
ly if wastewater organics can be used effectively.
,
Lance et al, (1972) have suggested two methods for improving the
efficiency of denitrification while utilizing wastewater organics.
JJ
Both methods promote mixing of nitrate formed during drying periods
with freshly applied wastewater. In this way, denitrifying bacteria
~
have access to both nitrate and organic substate. The two methods,
which have achieved nitrogen removals of 80%, are as follows: .J
1) Reduce the infiltration rate, allowing nitrate formed during ~
resting periods to disperse through a large volume of wastewater
once flooding is resumed, and allow an adequate detention time
for fairly complete denitrification.
J
11
2) Collect the percolate obtained during the first few days of
flooding and mix it with wastewater that is to be applied later ,
.­
in the flooding portion of the cycle.

I
XI - 6

II
 I
The latter of these two methods could be implemented by using tile
I drains to collect the initial percolate and a holding pond for mix­
ing percolate and wastewater. Nitrogen removals attained using

I various infiltration rates at the Flushing Meadows site are shown in

Figure XI-i.

I Although nitrification is enhanced by short flooding and drying

It peri ods, denitrification and, therefore, overall nitrogen removal

does not occur unless longer application periods are used. For
example, Lance et al, 1972 demonstrated that a loading cycle con­
I !
sisting of two days of flooding and five days of drying did not
allow denitrification to occur, but that a loading cycle of 9 to 23
I} day application periods followed by five day drying periods resulted
in nitrogen removal of 30%.
1,\ I:
Nitrogen removal s ach i eved at several rapi d i nfi 1trat i on si tes are

I listed in Table XI-2. Obviously, nitrogen removal varies widely

from site to site. At Hollister, where the ratio of applied organic

I matter to nitrogen was relatively high and infiltration rates

relatively low, nitrogen removal of 93% was achieved. Although
Phoenix had one of the highest flooding to drying time ratios, it
I,j also had one of the lowest BOO to nitrogen ratios and a high
infiltration rate. Nitrogen removal at Phoenix was only slightly
1'\ ,.i
above average for the selected systems. It is therefore difficult
to predict nitrogen removals based on flooding and drying cycles

Ii. only •

, •.1

A.3 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL

Several factors influence the amount of phosphorus removed during

I RI, including soil type (discussed in Appendix X) loading rate,
depth to watertable and the distance the applied wastewater travels
r: before phosphorus concentrations are measured. In addition, Lutwick
(1978) found that the levels of ammonium-acetate-extractable calcium
I; /magnesium affected removal. Adsorption is affected by the surface

I:'_J
• XI - 7
 ~

I'
II
70
.,

WIt
10
50
J
.J
C
"..
c:J
U :J

....•
•z
...
CD'
3D
J
-...•
c:J

z 20

,O~------~----~--~--~~
10 3D 40 50 6D
I
,

~
)
FIGURE Xl-i.

EFFECT ON INFILTRATION RATE ON NITROGEN REMOVAL FOR RI. PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Source: Lance et al, 1977

•1
I
XI - 8

I
 I
I TABLE XI-2
NITROGEN REMOVAL DATA FOR SELECTED RI SYSTEMS

I
•.­ Location
Loading rate,
m/yr
BOD:N
ratio
Flooding to
drying time,
day
Nitrogen
removal, ,;

I Boulder,* 48.8 2.3:1 1:3 10

-~
Colorado

Brookings, 12.2 2:1 1:2 80

South Dakota

I Calumet,
Michigan
17 .1 3.6:1 1:2 75

~ Disney Worl d, 54.9 0.3:1 150:14 12

Ii I
Flori da

30.5 2.4:1 2:12 60

-I.
Fort Devens,
Massachusetts

Holl1ster,fl 15.2 5.5:1 1:14 93

j

California

I Lake George, 58.0 2:1 1:4 50

New York
I Phoenix, 61.0 1:1 9:12 65
I. Arizona

I
* Project purpose was to promote maximum nitrification only.
I
I' XI - 9
 ~
area of the soil particles as well as the amount of clay in the
soil. Coarser soi 1s have much more limited phosphorus adsorption ~
capacity than soils with finer texture. As an example, for over 20
years, Milton, Wisconsin, used a 3 to 9 m excavation in an abandoned
gravel pit for RI. At this site, phosphorus removal averaged only
I
35~; about 65~ of the phosphorus coul d be detected in well s 50 to

280 m downgradient of the site (Benham-Blair, 1979).

I
Phosphorus removal is limited by the rate the soil can adsorb and
~
precipitate phosphorus and, eventually, by the soil phosphoru.s
moval capacity. The rate of adsorption and precipitation
re­
is ~
~
i nf1 uenced by:
• temperature,
• amount of phosphorus already sorbed (both adsorbed and
precipitated) by the soil, and ~
• concentration of phosphorus in the app1 i ed wastewater and

soil.
J
As the temperature drops, sorption rates also decrease (Barrow,
1975).
4
.J

.~
The number of adsorption sites is limited and once these sites are
occupied, a certain amount of time is required for mineralization to
occur and make the adsorption sites available again. Increasing the I1

1oadi ng rate tends to cause reduced phosphorus removal effici ency

(Lance et a1, 1980). ~
Studies documenting this tendency were conducted at the Flushing
Meadows proj ect in Phoenix, Ari zona. These stu di es showed that
J
during 9 m of travel, 40~ of the applied phosphorus was removed when
the loading rate was 100 m/yr and approximately 80% was removed when 11
t.ho lo~.rfinq r~rt;p w~s ti~cr~(\sed to f'O ",/yr (~ol.lwp.r et fa', l 0 70 ). ~)

The following equation can be used to estimate the minimum amount of

phosphorus that a system can remove at a specified loading and J
J
XI - 10
,
 I
1
within a specified distance of the appl ication site (Leach et a1,

, 1979) :

where:
Co = total applied phosphorus concentration, mg/L
I Cx = total phosphorus concentration at a point a distance x along
the flow path, mg/L.

k = instantaneous rate coefficient (0.002h- 1 at neutral pH)

~ t = soil detention time = x0

I
1 ;
x = distance along the flow path from the application area, m
o = volumetric water content of the so11 (assumed to be 0.4)

1 i
I = infiltration rate during system operation, cm/h

To apply this equation the infiltration rate during operation must

be determined using a field tested infiltration rate or a rate
estimated from published permeability data. For a worst case
estimate the value of 0 is set at 0.4. The equation can then be
solved as follows:

Given:

Co = 10 mg/L in wastewater applied

k = 0.002/h

o = 0.4

I = 0.001 cm/sec = 3.6 cm/h

I, ,
X = 100 m

Sol ve:

I t = soil detention time, h

= X0
I I
= (100m) (0.4) x 100 cm
I
I. _
3.6 cm/h
4
- 0.11 x 10 h

1m
I
I Cx = Coe- kt

= 10e-(2x10- 3 ) (0.11 x 104) I

= 10e- 2•22
t = 1.08 mg/L
f
II
I
XI - 11
 JI

If the infiltration rate is reduced to 1.0 cm/h from the 3.6 cm/h

the expected concentration would drop to about 0.5 mg/L.

If the concentration predicted by the equation exceeds local phos­

phorus limits, a phosphorus adsorption test should be performed
I
(Appendix Xl.
I
Experimental data have been compared wi th phosphorus removal s pre­
dicted by this equation. The equation has given a conservative
~
~

estimate of phosphorus removal capacity for many soils {Leach et al,

1980}. The equation has also proved to be invalid for some soilS,

~
including quartz sands.

As mentioned previously, the soil sorption capacity is finite and

limits the lifetime of a rapid infiltration site. However, limiting
phosphorus concentrations may not be reached for many years. At the
~
Hollister RI site, 68% of the soil's experimentally determined sorp­
tion capacity remained after 30 years of wastewater application ~
~
(Pound et al, 1978). Although samples taken from shallow wells at
the site contained increased phosphorus concentrations, no evidence

.~
of phosphorus contamination was found in intermediate, deep, or off­
site wells. After 10 years of operation, the Flushing Meadows pro­
ject in Phoenix experienced no decrease in phosphorus removal
(Bouwer et al, (1978). In fact, it is estimated that it might take
100 to 200 years to reach the sorption limit at Flushing Meadows.
~
For some soils in Alberta it was estimated that phosphorus could be
removed for 76 years in coarse textured soils and twice as long in
J
fine textured soils (Lutwick, 1978). Phosphorus removal efficiency
at the Calumet, Michigan, facilities are still 89 to 97% after over J
88 years of RI. Although the adsorption capacity of the soils II
immediately beneath the Vineland, New Jersey RI basin has been
reduced as a result of 50 years of infiltration using primary
effluent, the capacity of the soils downgradient from the basin has
•.,
not been exhausted (Koerner et a1, 1979). Instead, phosphorus
concentrations in samples taken about 0.8 km from the site are not .~
greater than 1 mg/L. Studi es of phosphorus removals in vari ous
Alberta soils indicate removal rates greater than 80% {Gravel and and
J
XI - 12 ,
 I
Milne, 1972). In fact, in a laboratory study by Graveland (1973)
I almost all of the applied phosphorus was removed by the soil
column.
J Application rates used at several RI systems and the resulting phos­

I phorus concentrations following land treatment are listed in Table

XI-3.

I This table shows the wide variety that has been experienced in the
removal of phosphorus from wastewater. At Fort Devens, 18% of the

-I, input phosphorus remained after 1.5 m of travel, but only 10 to 14%
remained after 80 to 150 m (Satterwhite et al, 1976). At the
Ho1lister site, travel through 6.7 m of soil removed 23 to 35% of
the applied phosphorus (Pound et al, 1978). At Lake George, ortho­
1 phosphate was largely removed in the top 3 m of soi 1, and total
phosphorus concentrations decreased from an initial value of 3 to 4
mg/L to less than 0.1 mg/L within 10 m of travel (Aulenbach,
I 1979).

I, J
Similarly, phosphate removal at Flushing Meadows ranged from 50 to
80% during the first 9 m of vertical travel, and increased to over
I: 90% after an additional 30 m of lateral movement (Bouwer and Rice,
1978). The Osoyoos, B.C. operation produced an effluent spring 70m

1\ downgradient which never exceeded 1.0 mg/L and generally was in the
order of 0.15 mg/L (Underwood, 1980).

I;
, ) A.4 TRACE ELEMENT REMOVAL

Several removal mechanisms are involved 1n the removal of trace

elements during RI. Although these mechanisms often occur sequen­
I tially, no theories have been developed to date that could be used
to predict trace element removal capacity at a specific RI site.
I Mechanisms identified as important in trace element removal
incl ude:
• ion exchange,
I • adsorption,
• preCipitation, and
~ • complexation.
XI - 13
I
 I
J

TABLE XI-3

PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL DATA FOR SELECTED RI SYSTEMS ~

Treated Water
I
Location
Average applied
conc. total P,
Concentration
soluble P,mg/L
Depth
m
Removal
Efficiency I
mg/L
~
t

Holl ister, 12.4 8.8* 2.7 41 . ]

.1
California
~
~
Lak.e George, 4.1 ** 0.7 ** 6.0 83
New York 4.1 ** 0.1 ** 8.3 98
2.6 ** 0.5 ** 6.0 73
2.6 ** 0.05** 8.3 98 ~
4.0 ** 0.3 ** 6.0 93
4.0 ** 0.1 ** 8.3 98
~
Landis,
New Jersey
9.0 4.50 1.0 to 5.2 50
l
Milton, 5.4 4.0 2.4 to 8.8 26 l
Wisconsin

Vineland, 9.3 1.7 1 to 4.3

l
82
New Jersey
J
Osoyoos, B.C. 7 to 8 <1.0 70*** >87
J
* Total phosphorus
1
** Total phosphates
*** Horizontal distance I
XI - 14
J
J
 I
'I Ion exchange is a non-permanent, selective adsorption process. The

, role of ion exchange 'in removing trace elements is uncertain. Ion

exchange sites accept ionic alkali metals and earths, all of which

, are found in wastewater at higher concentrations than trace ele­

ments (Chang and Page, 1979). In spite of this fact, s011s appear
to have a high affinity for trace metals, indicating that some
exchange sites may be selective for these elements.
'I f

Adsorption of trace elements does not appear to be affected by soil

I )
cation exchange capacity or texture. Similar to the soil adsorp­
tion of phosphorus, trace element adsorption is usually followed by

I .'
precipitation of the adsorbed elements. Together, these two
mechani sms are referred to as sorption, a process that normally

I l
occurs at the surface of amorphous crystalline forms of iron, man­
ganese, and aluminum oxides (Jenne, 1968).

J ,
Trace elements al so may chelate with organic material to form
organometallic complexes. The characteristics of such complexes
I vary; some complexes are insoluble and immobHe, while others are
not. This removal mechanism does not proceed unless sufficient

I )
organic material is present.

-
The number of mechanisms involved 1n trace element removal means
that the overall process is quite complex. However, several

-I
studies of the process have been conducted.

Studies at the Fort Devens site revealed elevated heavy metals and
organics concentrations in a zone 45 cm below the soil surface
(Schaub et al, 1975). During cold winter months, the concentra­

I tions appeared to increase whereas in the sUl1lller, the concentra­

tions decreased.

-I" Studies at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, centred around a 6.9 ha aban­

doned spreading basin that had been used to dispose of over 22
mi 11 ion m3 of secondary effluent between the years 1940 and 1973
(Vaccaro et al, 1979). During regular operation, the wastewater

I
I XI - 15
 I

application rate had been 51.2 m/yr. Sand from the spreading basin
I

,
was analyzed in 1974 for trace elements. These analyses were
compared to the recorded trace element concentrations in the
applied secondary effluent. The results of the study, summarized ,
in Table XI-4, show that over 95% of the retained trace elements
were found in the top 15 cm of the spreadi ng bas in. Mos t of the
trace elements apparently were retained in the spreading area both

during the years of application and in the year after spreading

i.
~.
"

.,
halted. Groundwater, at a depth of 7.4 m, may have been reached by
zinc and possibly chromium.

In contrast, studies at the Flushing Meadows site indicated that

')
trace elements did not accumulate in the top 1.5 m of soil (Bouwer
and Chaney, 1974). Accumulation may have been inhibited by:
• low heavy metal concentrations in the applied wastewater,
• low organic and clay content of the basin soils, and
J

,
• the short detention time of water in the surface soils.

•
•J
As shown in Table XI-5, rapid infiltration during this study
removed much of the applied copper and zinc, but little of the cad­
mium and lead.

The results of trace elements studies at the Hollister facilities

are summarized in Table XI-6. Trace elements concentrations in the
applied wastewater all were within the irrigation and drinking .J
water standards with the exception of lead. A1 though fi ve of the
metal concentrations di d not increase substanthlly duri ng rapi d ,)
infiltration, six showed Significant increases, including copper,
iron, 1ead, manganese, ni cke 1 and zi nc • Previ ous work by Ng and J
•1
Bloomfield (1972) had indicated that heavy metals may by mobilized
during periods of flooding if there is sufficient organic materhl
present. The Hollister studies indicated that conditions there
were favourable for solubilization of both manganese and iron, and
possible mobilization of copper, lead, nickel, and zinc (Pound et
!!.' 1978).
'J

,J

•
XI - 16
 ~-"-

I
TABLE XI-4

I , HEAVY METAL RETENTION IN A SAND FILTER

I
, De2th
cm
Cd Cr Cu
%
Pb Zn

-
-I
0-4 84 87 76 88 82

4 - 6 12 10 23 12 13
I"

14 - 16 1 0 0.4 0 1
I ,
24 - 26 1 2 0.4 0 2

I 29 - 31 1 0 0.1 0 0.8

I 44 - 46 0.5 1 0.1 0 1.2

I "
50 - 52 0.5 0 0.0 0 0

1\
,; Total 100 100 100 100 100

I / Percent reten-
tion of 33
I year loads 113 62 85 129 49

1\ ,

I: i

t,
, XI - 17
 ,
TABLE XI-5 ,
METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN APPLIED WASTEWATER AND RENOVATED WATER AT FLUSHING
MEADOWS PROJECT
,
,
(Bouwer, et al, 1974)

Element Secondary Effluent Renovated Water* '~

Cd (cadmium) 0.008 0.007 ,~

Cu (copper) 0.123 0.017
Hg (mercury) 0.002 0.001 I
J
Pb (lead) 0.082 0.066

Zn (zinc) 0.193 0.037 .~

* Samples are from well located 27 m from the basin.

,
,~
.~

!~
.­
)

,II

-.J
XI - 18

I
• TABLE XI-6

COMPARISON OF TRACE ELEMENT LEVELS TO IRRIGATION AND DRINKING WATER LIMITS

mg/L

(Pound et al, 1978)

Hollister, California
El ement Recommended Maximum* Average Average
maximum in concentration wastewater shallow
irrigation in drinking concentration groundwater
waters waters concent rat ion

Ag (silver) ** 0.05 <0.008 <0.006

As (arseni c) 0.1 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Ba (barium) ** 1.0 <0.13 <0.13
Cd (cadmi um) 0.01 0.005 <0.004 0.028
Co (cobalt) 0.1 ** <0.008 0.010
Cr (chromi urn) 0.05 0.05 <0.014 <0.014
Cu (copper) 0.2 1.0 0.034 0.038
Fe (i ron) 5.0 0.3 0.39 0.36
Hg (mercury) ** 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Mn (rna nganese) 0.2 0.05 0.070 0.96
Ni (nickel) 0.2 ** 0.051 0.13
Pb (lead) 5.0 0.05 0.054 0.09
Se (selenium) 0.02 0.01 <0.001 <0.001
Zn (zinc) 2.0 5.0 0.048 0.081

* Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, 1978.

** None set

XI - 19

 ~
~
While the mechanisms of trace element removal are complex, the two
factors which appear to affect removal rates are:
• h,i9h valences of metals which allow them to precipitate
earlier than other lower valence ions (Na, Ca, Mg), and
• mobilization of heavy metals in soils is related to redox I
I,
'::, -. "

potential (Eh).

A.5 MICROORGANISM REMOVAL

\

Pathogenic bacteria that may be found in wastewater include

Salmonella sp., the causative agent of typhoid; and Shigella sp.

and Vibris sp. , both of which cause gastroenteritis (Gerba and

,J
I
,
Lance, 1979). Bacteria are removed primarily by soil filtration,
~
particularly at the soil surface. Adsorption may also be involved
in bacteria removal. Fecal coliforms and other bacteria that have
been used to indicate whether pathogenic bacteria are present, are

generally not observed after filtration through one or more metres

of soi 1 (Bouwer et al, 1974). Deeper penetration of fecal colf­

,
.~
forms was observed at Fl ush i ng Meadows when seco.ldary effl uent was
applied to spreading basins that had been dried for prolonged
periods. When this occurred, coliform removal improved as
suspended solids accumul ated at the soil surface, until almost all 3 ,I
applied fecal coliforms were removed within the top metre of soil.

Bouwer et a1 (1974) hypothesized that the organic material that

clogs the soil surface after extended wastewater application

'J )

.~

periods acts as a bacterial filter. When this material dries and

decomposes during resting periods and the soil surface is IOOre

open, the filtering action is less effective.

}
Studies at the Fort Devens facilities have shown that large concen­
trations of total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococcus
bacteria are retained by the soil surface (Schaub et al, 1975). In
,
samples taken from beneath the soil surface, the number of micro­
organisms found decreased gradually with depth. Some of the
.-1 j

groundwater samples taken from immediately underneath the spreading

basins, which receive unchlorinated primary effluent, contained
I j

fecal Streptococcus. The studY concluded that bacteria may be able

XI - 20
-,
-­
"
 I \.

·1 to migrate into groundwater immediately adjacent to spreading

, basins even though indicator bacteria are concentrated at the soil

surface. For this reason, either adequate distances should be

, maintained between spreading basins and potable groundwater

supplies or additional pretreatment (particularly disinfection) may
be required (Bouwer and Chaney, 1974).

I Fecal coliform removals have been measured at several RI sites and

are presented in Table XI-7.
I As indicated by the data shown in Table XI-7, effective fecal coli­

I form removals can be obtained when adequate travel distance is pro­

vided. This fact has been demonstrated at Hollister where samples
from some of the shallow groundwater wells contained approximately
Ii 99' less fecal coliforms than the applied wastewater. Fecal coli­
forms were not found in any of the deep well s and all but one of
I I

the intermediate wells. At Fort Devens, where total coliform con­

centrations in the applied wastewater ranged from 18 to 53 x 106
I MPN per 100 ml, no fecal coli forms were measured in samples taken
60 to 100 m from the spreading basins (Satterwhile et a1, 1976).
Below the Vineland spreading basins, no fecal coliforms were
I: detected at depths greater than 9 m. Down gradient from the newest
Vineland infiltration basin, one sample contained fecal coliforms,
I~ but no fecal coliforms were found in samples taken downgradient

I ')
from the two 01 der basins. The one positive sample was taken 50 m
}; from the new basin at a depth of about 25 m. In soil col umn
experiments at Flushing Meadows, only 5 to 10 cm of soil was needed
& to remove 90 to 99' of the poliovirus 1 that had been applied in
secondary effluent (lance et al, 1976). Identical removals were

,­
achieved when primary effluent was substituted (Gerba and lance.
1978). These soil column tests were conducted using influent
poliovirus 1 concentrations ranging from 102 to 104 virus
particles per mL and application rates between 15 and 55 em/d. In
both studies, the virus penetrated to a depth that did not vary as
I .­
ii
the applied virus concentration increased. lance and Gerba (1980)
concluded that there were so many adsorption sites that, at the
I} virus concentrations used in these studies, the number of available

XI - 21
I
 ,
I.

TABLE XI-7
FECAL COLIFORM REMOVAL DATA FOR SELECTED RI SYSTEMS I ,

J
Fecal co1iforms, MPN, per 100 ml
Distance of I
Location Soil Type Applied Renovated travel, m
I
Hemet, Sand
Wastewater

60,000
Water

11 2
, \

California I
Holli ster,
California
Sandy
loam
12,400,000
12,400,000
171,000
6
9
21
I J-

Lake George Sand 359,000 72 2 J

New York 359,000
° 7
t
."

Landis, Sand & TNTC* 16 1-2

New Jersey gravel J
Milton,
Wisconsin
Gravel TNTC*
° 8-17 J
Phoenix, Sand 1,000,000 >10 30 J
Arizona
J
•1
Santee, Gravel 130,000 >8 61
Cal itorn; a

Vinel and, Sand & TNTC* 6-7

New Jersey Gravel
°
I
* At least one sample too numerous to count •.
J
XI - 22
I
•II
sites remained high following
this hypothesis is correct,
adsorption of the applied virus. If
then pretreatment coul d be used to

I reduce the number of viruses

would not prevent penetration
penetrating to given depths, but it
to a characteristic depth •

•I
,,I
During these same experiments at Flushing Meadows, virus movement
was studied as a function of infiltration rate. When infiltration
was increased from 120 to 1200 cm/d more viruses travelled through
the soil column; however, it did not affect virus movement. For

I
. ,
this soil, virus adsorption appeared to be si gnificantly reduced
above some "breakpoint" flow value •

I.I Enteric viruses have been detected in groundwater beneath a few

rapid infiltration sites. These sites are listed in Table XI-8
together with the distance travelled prior to detection.

Pathogenic protozoa that may be found in wastewater include

Entamoeba histolytica, the causative agent of amoebic Qysentry, and
Giardia lamblia, which causes a variety of intestinal problems.
Helminths that may be present include Ascaris and tapeworm ova.
Both protozoa and helminths tend to be large enough that they a1 so
are removed primarily by filtration at the soil surface (Gerba and
Lance, 1979).

A.6 TRACE ORGANICS REMOVAl

Sorption of trace organics is a complex process that involves at

least six distinct sorption mechanisms:
• cation exchange,
• anion exchange,
• nydrogen bonding,
• nydrophobic bonding,
• van der Waals attraction, and
• cation-dipole and coordination bonding (Bouwer, 1976).

Basic trace organics can exchange with soil cations. Removal by

this mechanism improves when the soil is saturated with more

XI - 23
 ~
TABLE XI-8
REPORTED ISOLATIONS OF VIRUS AT RI SITES I i
(Serba and Lance, 1979)

I
Distance of migration, m I
Location
Vertical Hori zontal
~
J j

East Meadows, New York 3.4 '1

,
1.0
.!

Fort Devens, Massachusetts* 185.5 56

Holbrook, New York 1.8 14 ·f

.'
)

Vineland, New Jersey* 5.2 76

4
~
* Application of unchlorinated primary effluent.

,
)

.~
)
,
1 )

~
J
XI - 24
,
 I
electronegative cations (Green, 1974). Acidic trace organics can
I exchange with soil anions, however, this process is negligible at
hi gh soil pH. Hydrogen bond; ng may occur if the trace organics
I contain amino, carbonyl, or hydroxyl groups. Nonpolar organic
solutes may be removed by hydrophobic bonding. Nonionic, nonpolar

I molecules also may be retained as a result of van der Waals forces.

Polar trace organics may be removed by cation-dipole or coordina­

I tion bonding.

In the soil, both biological and chemical degradation occur.

I Although many trace organics cannot be metabolized by soil micro­
organisms, biological degradation still removes more trace organics
I than chemical degradation. Microbial degradation of trace organics
may be limited by:

I • soil pH,

• temperature,

I • moisture content.
• cation exchange capacity, and
• the availability of oxygen (Alexander, 1~61).
I Examples of chemical degradation include photo-oxidation and hydro­
lysis (Armstrong and Konrad, 1974).
I: Vol ati lizati on occurs both during wastewater application and fo1­
I_il lowing infl1 tration. The latter of these invol ves trace organics
that have been sorbed in the soil profile. The amount of volatili­

II 'J
zation that occurs depends on the physical and chemical properties
of the trace organics in the wastewater, the appl ication method,
and the atmospheric conditions (Guenzi and Beard, 1974).
I
Few studies have been conducted to determine the efficiency of
I trace organics removal during RI. At the Vineland and Milton

r
sites, appl ied wastewater and groundwater were analyzed for six
pesticides: endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
2,4,5-TP silvex. The results of these anlayses are listed in Table

I) XI-g.

I)
XI - 25
I
 I
I

,~

, Table XI-9
RECORDED PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED RI SITES

,
(mg/L x 10-3)
... "

(Benham-Blair. 1979; Koerner and Haws, 1979)

I

Vineland, New Jersel* Milton, Wisconsin

I

Shallow Control Shallow** Contro 1

Pesticide
ground- ground-
A~~l ied water water A~elied
ground-
water
Down­
gradient***
ground­
water
'-
Endrin
Lindane
0.03
2,830-
0.03
453-
0.03
21.3
0.03
41
0.03
157.6
0.03
3.9
0.03
7.4
'J
1,227
Methoxychlor 0.01
1,172
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
J"

Toxaphene 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 J I

2,4-0 9.5- 16.4- 10.4 53.8 92.4 23.6 31.0

2,4,5-TP
10.5
72
13.0
26.8- 185 16.2 41.2 38.6 76.8
J
s i lvex 120
t
_ ,I

* If two values are listed, the first is for the Vineland site and the second is for

the landis site. If one value is listed, results were the same at both sites.

** Shallow groundwater was sampled directly below infiltration basins.

J
-J
*** Groundwater sampled apprOXimately 50 m downgradient from the infiltration basins.

,
J
•.,
'J
XI - 26
J
,
 I i

I As shown in this table, endrin, methoxychlor, and toxaphene were

not detected at either site, and 2,4,5-TP si1vex concentrations

II never exceeded the concentrations found in the control groundwater.

The concentration of 2~4-D in samples taken immediately beneath the

If
'j
Milton site was significantly higher than the control concentra­
t i on, but decreased to control levels during approximately 46 m of
travel. Lindane concentrations in !-1i1ton groundwater also
I!
decreased substantially with distance from the infiltration site.
At both sites, even the concentrations of 2,4-0, and 2,4,5-TP

I silvex were below the maximum acceptable Canadian Drinking Water

Standards (Health and Welfare, 1978). Some lindane samples

-I
I

J
B.
exceeded the maximum permissible limits.

EXAMPLES OF COLD WEATHER EFFECTS ON TREATMENT PERFORMANCE

During the winter months, the soil at Bou1der ' s spreading basins

J tended to accumulate ammonia nitrogen. Increased amounts of

ammoni urn a1 so \'1ere found in the renovated \'Jater. As ternperatures

I increased and nitrification proceeded more rapidly, nitrogen \;las

released from the basin soils. Nitrogen removal would have

I ,
increased with greater underground travel length and detention
time. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal was not affected by
temperature.
Ij

At Lake George, by the time appl ied wastewater travelled 400 to

I i
500 m underground, nitrification was essentially complete, regard­
less of season (Aulenbach, 1979). Within this distance, denitrifi­

! cation al so occurred. Although nitrate levels in the renovated

water were slightly higher in the winter, ammonium and organic

I nitrogen levels did not vary significantly between summer and

\'Iinter. Normal application rates are successfully used during the
harsh winter months. With each application, trickling filter
I effluent melts the ice covering both the application area and the
soil underneath. Eventually, the applied wastewater itself begins
I to freeze, but this does not occur until most of the \'iater has
entered the soil and has not been a problem historically.
1\
~ XI - 27

j I
 ~
Although nitrification rates decline as temperature decreases, at
Fort Devens the primary form of nitrogen in the groundwater down­
I !,

gradi ent from the spread; ng basins duri ng all seasons of the year
I
was nitrate (Satterwhite, 1976). Samples taken from underneath or
immediately east of the basins were high in organic and ammonia
,
,
nitrogen, but some nitrification had occurred at a greater dis­
tance. Total nitrogen val ues were si gnificantly lower in ground­
water samples than in the applied wastewater and did not appear to
be affected by season although both nitrification and denitrifica­

,~
tion rates undoubtedly declined during winter months.

J
J
-r
I

~
~

~
J
,
J
"

..
~
XI - 28
.J
I i:
".
 I

I
APPENDIX XII

,
MONITORING SYSTEMS

,
A year-round monitoring program should measure applied wastewater
quality, groundwater quality, soils characteristics, and quality of
any water recovered from the aquifer for some type of reuse. Samp­

.J
les should be collected near the application site and from pOints

,
located downgradient from the site. Groundwater samples should be
taken from wells deep enough to intercept flow from the spreading

,
basins, but close and shallow enough that the time period between
wastewater appl ication and the appearance of wastewater constit­
uents in the well sample is not unreasonably long.

,
Proper sampling locations are shown schematically in Figure XII-I.
i

Well C in this figure is too deep and samples from this well would
not reflect current site conditions. Samples from Point 0 would
not indicate groundwater quality accurately because the groundwater

I
is diluted by surface water at this point. In contrast, samples
from Wells A and B would be used to indicate groundwater quality.
Additional guidelines for monitoring well design and sampling
I
procedures have been discussed by Blakeslee (1973).

f
Another important aspect of groundwater monitoring is to record any
changes in back ground groundwater qual i ty • Whenever possib 1e ,
background samples should be collected at points both within and
beyond the area that the RI system influences.

I
Soil conditions must be monitored to ensure that excessive heavy
metals buildup, which might limit the site life, does not occur.
I
Monitoring may al so prevent so11 permeab11 ity problems, caused by
high pH (above 8.5) or by high concentrations of sodium in the

•I
soil.

Both applied wastewater and renovated water that is recovered for

reuse should be monitored. Regulatory agencies usually require

XII - 1
I

 I !

J
, !

,
LUO TIEl flENf
,
~
J
II

LUlID
.1'ElYlOUS
LAyn
, 1

~
,IDUHDIITlR fAILE

UNSlTUlaTlt FLO.

SA TUIl TED fUI

I~
.ICO.IICT .ONITOI'NI

-~
LlClTIO••

A_. CDIIICT ••• lfaIINI

LOCATI O.S

~
J
FIGURE XII..1
SCHEMATIC OF GROUNDWATER FLOW LINES AND ALTERNATIVE MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS
,
(Seabrook, 1975) i
•.1

!,.
J
XII - 2
,
I
"
I applied wastewater analyses, but such analyses are also necessary
for process control and to determine whether groundwater quality
may be adversely impacted. Renovated water quality must meet what­

I ever criteria have been established for the intended method of

reuse •

•I An example of a monitoring program intended for use at a large RI

system is presented in Table XII-l. Sampling frequencies indicated
in this table are for routine operations. Sampling frequencies
during startup and initial system operation would normally be
I J greater than shown in Table XII-l. Furthermore, sampling
frequencies for any of the parameters may be increased if initial
I monitoring data indicate a need for increased monitoring.

-I
-I
I)

I!

, ,.

I j

I!
,
, XII - 3
 I j

Table XII-l SAMPLE MONITORING PROGRAM FOR LARGE RI SYSTEM

!
Applied
~re9uency or ana1ls;s
Groundwater
Onsite Perimeter Background

, J

Parameter
Flow
wastewater 5011
C
we11s wells wells

J "

BOD or TOC M Q Q Q

COD M Q Q Q

Suspended
soli ds

M ~
Nitrogen,
total

M Q M M M

J
Nitrogen, M M M

.J
nitrate
Phosphorus,
total

Coli forms ,
M

M
M M

Q
M

Q
M

,
,.
I

total
pH M Q Q Q Q
!J
Total
dissolved
M Q Q Q 'J
solids
Alkalinity M Q Q Q
,.J
~
SAR M Q Q Q Q
Depth to M M M

groundwater

J
Heavy metal s P P P P P

,
,
Trace P P P P P

organics

Cl M M M M

Note: C =continuously
o = daily
Q = quarterly
P = periodically, or as
J
W= weekly
M= monthly

required ,I
....:I

XII - 4

 I
I
APPEND IX XI II

, DETAILED PHASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

, The majority of the public interest on an RI project will occur during the
detailed site selection and design phase. Although there may be more than
I one preferred site area all of the possible sites shou14 be reviewed with

., f
the public. Public attitudes on all aspects of the project should be
solicited. Concurrently, . selection criteria should be explained to the
public and each candidate site's rating relative to the selection criteria
publicized. Two-way communication mechanisms are valuable at this stage.
I I
Examples of PPP activities which may be employed during this stage
i ncl ude:
I 1. Public Meetings. Disseminating information, receiving input, and

J achieving one-to-one contact between consul tants, local offici al s,

and the public can be achieved through public meetings. Depending on

I the publics involved, often an informal, loosely structured meeting

format is more likely to result in dialogue. A series of such
meetings are often hel d in different locations within the pl anni ng
I area to provide maximum ,opportunity for attendance by the public. A
well organized audio-visual presentation geared to the receiving
I publ ic can prove most useful. Public meetings work well when there
are concrete issues to be discussed, and should be timed to coincide
I with particularly critical periods in the decision-making process.
For example, the public at these meetings 90uld screen the site

.
Ii selection cri teria or even rate the candi date, sites' against those
selected criteria. The more successful meetings are usually a result
of heavy advance work. Overcomi ng public apathy can be di fficul t,
I but is important in the early planning stages. Consultant contracts
should specify the requirement of participation at public meetings to
~ ensure both budget and time will be made available.

II i

XIII - 1

2. Workshops. Positive results can be obtained through workshops with

small groups of educated people regarding an RI proposal. Such
groups usually involve citizens being given courses of instruction by

~
agency staff, and then addressing specific work efforts on the basis

of such instruction. Workshops are an educational tool with good

•
•I
interaction mechanisms.

3. Radio talk-shows. Many conl1l.mities have local radio talk shows where
residents can call in and voice their opinions. The consultant and/
J
or a local official could give a short presentation on the rapid
infiltration plan and then field callers' questions. This is a good
opportunity to dispel some misinformation. It is cautioned that
J
views of the callers are not necessarily representative of those of
the general public. .J
The following procedures are recommended when public approval is necessary IJ I

in the illlllediate site area ie. after general public approval given. The
communication capability of each method is evaluated in the Table XIII-l.
•
; .
•

1. Tours/field trips. These are useful activities for special interest

groups, such as residents near the selected RI site and the press.
~
A tour of existing RI sites is especially helpful and is recommended .~
if feasible.
J
_J

2. Audio-visual presentations. These can be quite useful at public

information meetings and open houses to reach people missed by the .. ~
field trips. The effectiveness of this tool depends on the quality
'of the script and visuals, but again, can do a great deal towards
dispelli ng much of the misinformation about land wastewater treat­
J
ment.

3. Task forces. The purpose of these groups is to recommend design

procedures in areas of particular concern to the public. This group
•1
.. J

could be a sub-group of the advisory committee or a committee made up

of residents near the site. The group should have a technical I
.I
orientation in order to be most effective, but should still represent
the various interest groups.
~I
XIII - 2
I!

I
TABLE XIII-l
I
CAPABILITIES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES
I Communication Characteristics

I ,"
Level of
Abi 1ity to
Public

Contact

Handle
Specific
Degree off
Two-Way
'I Public Participation Technique Achieved
Interest CommU'nication

Public Hearings M
L L
I Public Meetings M
L M
Advisory Committee Meetings L
H H
I Mailings
Contact Persons
M
L
M
H
L
H

I Newspaper Articles
News Releases
H
H
L
L
L
L
Audio-Visual Presentations M L L
I Newspaper Advertisements H L L
Posters, Brochures, Displays H L L
I Workshops
Radio Talk Shows
L
H
H
M
H
H
I!; Tours/Field Trips L H H
Ombudsman L H H

II Tel ephone Li ne H M M

I( L = Low
M = Medium
I H = High

I
"I')
I}
_ .1

XIII - 3

I
 ,
­,
4. Formal public hearings. A public hearing is often a formality
required by law. They tend to be structured procedures, involving
prior notification, placing of materials in depositories for citizen
review prior to the hearing, and a formal hearing agenda. The
hearing itsel f usually takes the form of a presentation by the
consultants, followed by statements from the citizens in attendance.
Questions are normally allowed, but argumentative discussion and
"debates" are discouraged because of time limitations. Sponsors tend
to adopt a "listening posture" and allow the pubHc to express itself
•J
-,
J

without challenge. This kind of detached attitude tends to generate

a great deal of hostility in the public. It conveys the message that
the public is powerless to change engineering decisions and this is
precisely the type of message that a PPP is supposed to dissipate.
Shce public hearings are usually held in the deSign stage they
.~
provide an insufficient means of legitimate ci tizen involvement in
the complete planning, design, and operation decision-making process. J
The responsiveness of a public hearing can be enhanced by having
elected officials chairing or at least participating in the process.
'~.
,
'J
.._J

,~
J

,e,
N

11
,..,

~
XlII - 4
J
 I
I APPENDIX XIV

I SITE VISIT SUMMARIES

I I n order to share some f1 rst hand exper1 ence it was dec1 ded that
on-site visits of existing rapid infiltration systems would be

I
desirable. Sites located in cool, northern climates were of
particular concern. The sites chosen for visits were also well

;1
documented with substantial published information. The site visit
summaries presented in the following section represent technical as
well as personal observations by the stu~ team.
I

Ii

I:

II

Ii

11

II

1\

._J XIV - 1

I
\
 ,
LAKE GEORGE INFILTRATION SITE VISIT 1980 07 22 ,
J
Lake George Vnlage is located approximately 85 km north of
Albany, N.Y. on Interstate Highway No. 87. It is approximately the same
,
1atitude as Toronto, Ontario and in the south-eastern portion of the
Adirondack. Forest Reserve in the State of New York. The Lake George
Village Sewage Treatment Plant was put into operation in 1939 and is
located on post-glacial deltaic sands (28 m) overlying Precambrian
,
bedrock.
.J
Lake George Vnlage 1s a sumner resort and originally sumner
sewage flows were approximately three times the winter flow. The plant l
was therefore built in three modules in order to cope with the variation
of flow between summer and winter. Today, the ratio is approximately
2:1. The peak daily sumner flows reach approximately 5 x 106 L/day
I
(1.3 mgd US).
flows.
Winter flows are approximately one-half the sumner
•
At the head end of the plant are two Parshall Flumes which
receive intermittent sewage pumped from Lake George Village and Lake
George Town pumping stations. Primary treatment is carried out in three
•l
mechanically-cleaned, circular, two-compartment settling tanks.
Secondary treatment is accomplished by two high-rate rotating arm
tri ck 11 ng fil ters in summer and one cove red, standard-rate, fi xed nozzle
J
sprinkling filter in winter. Secondary sedimentation is accomplished by
two mechanically-cleaned rectangular settling tanks and two circular
l
settling tanks. Sludge treatment is carried out in one of the two
compartments of the circular settling tank.
J
After secondary treatment, sewage is di scharged wi thout
chlorination to sand infiltration beds. Gravi ty is used to convey the
treated sewage to the 14 northerly (lower end) beds. The sewage is
•11
pumped to the newer 7 southerly (upper end) beds. Normally, the sewage
is discharged two beds at a time - one lower and one upper bed. Dosing \1
XIV - 2
J
II
f

I
is changed at approximately 8:00 a.m. and at 4:00 p.m. Thus the entire

,
day's flow is discharged with a total of four beds. The effluent takes
from one-hal f to three days to seep into the ground depending on the

,
size, age and condition of the beds. The newer south beds are fairly
uniform in size but the areas of the north beds varies significantly due

,
to terrain. The newer beds have higher inf11 tration than the 01 der
beds. All beds require periodical removal of the surface mat which
forms on the sand and inhibits infiltration; however, there is no set
cleaning schedule. The cleaning of beds is based on the observed

I conditions of the bed, availability of the beds for drying and cleaning,
and upon the time spent by plant personnel on other duties. Cleaning

I consists of raking and removing of the upper few centimeters of sand and
discing followed by re1evel1ing of the sand surface. The removed sand
is replaced with new.material obtained from an on-site borrow pit. The
I mat which is removed is either taken to a sanitary landfill or is
disposed of on the forest floor in the area surrounding the treatment

I plant. Sludge from the clarifier tanks is dried on sludge drying beds
and then disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

I
The Lak.e George Village Sewage Treatment Plant has been in

I
operation for over forty years and proves that the application of
secondary-treated effluent from a conventional domestic sewage treatment
plant is feasible. Application of effluent on the sandbeds, using the
1\

)
rapi d inf11 tration technique with intermittent dosing, provi des the
equivalent of tertiary treatment and is continuously effective over a
I(

long period of time. The largest portion of the purification of the

secondary effluent applied to the sandbeds occurs within the first three
meters; total treatment occurs at a depth of 18 m. Nonreactive soluable
substances show no significant changes during vertical or horizontal

I
transport of the sand. Intermitten dosing of sandbeds is important in
maintaining both efficiency of treatment and speed of infiltration.
Actual infiltration rates range from a low of 0.07 m/day under a head of
Ii
0.15 m to a high of 0.7 m/day under a head of 0.46 m on a clean bed.
Infiltration rates with a bed covered with weeds were lower than on a
1\
weed-free bed when the depth of liqui d on the sandbed was less than
0.3 m; however, when the depth of applied liquid exceeded this the

lJ
XIV - 3

infiltration rate was higher in the weed-covered bed. The average

vertical and horizontal velocity of the sewage in' the ground was .63
m/day, and 9 m/day respectively.

Several important observations were noted and are sumnari zed

below:

1. The Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant does not give true
secondary treatment to the sewage since there is
insufficient aeration. The actual treatment of the sewage
is somewhere between primary and secondary.
2. The Lake George system of rapid infiltration provides an
effiCient, inexpensive and energy-conserving method of
tertiary treatment for the removal of most cOlllllOn
contaminants and nutrients contained in domestic sewage.
3. Phosphorous may be completely removed in a sand
infiltration system. Nitrogen is confined to the upper 18
m of the sandbeds. Neither system of removal is
completely understood at this time.
4. The Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant site is very
attractive looking and gives the observer the impression
of an IIAsian rice paddy".
5. The site conditions (clean sands, low watertable, etc.)
were the most optimum for RI of any site visited.
6. The resulting effluent quality was the best of any site
observed.
7. The Lake George system may be phased out of service if new
Legislation passed by the local government is implemented.
This legislation will require zero effluent discharge in
the Lake George basin.
Dr. Aulenbach feels that the legislation was instigated by
a well meaning but misguided pol1tican and was passed
without due consideration. Other regulatory bodies such
as the EPA are loath to criticize and therefore an
efficient and economical system may be phased out for some
less efficient operation outside the drainage basin.
8. The lake George operation was the most organized and
effici ent. We observed some maintenance currently being
neglected due to budget cuts brought on by the possible
abandonment of the site.

XIV - 4

 I
,
, APPENDIX XIV

, SITE VISIT SUMMARIES

,
I n order to share some fi rst hand experi ence it was deci ded that
on-site visits of existing rapid infiltration systems would be
desirable. Sites located in cool, northern climates were of
particular concern. The sites chosen for visits were al so well
documented with substantial published information. The site visit
I summaries presented in the following section represent technical as
well as personal observations by the stu~ team.
~
I
.,
•I
I

-,­ Xtv - 1

I
\
 LAKE GEORGE INFILTRATION SITE VISIT 1980 07 22

Lake George Village is located approximately 85 km north of

Albany, N.Y. on Interstate Highway No. 87. It is approximately the same
latitude as Toronto, Ontario and in the south-eastern portion of the
Adirondack Forest Reserve in the State of New York. The Lake George
Village Sewage Treatment Plant was put into operation in 1939 and is
located on post-glacial deltaic sands (28 m) overlying Precambrian
bedrock.

Lake George Village is a sunmer resort and originally sunwner

sewage flows were approximately three times the winter flow. The plant
was therefore built in three modules in order to cope with the variati~n
of flow between summer and winter. Today J the ratio is approximately
2:1. The peak daily sununer flows reach approximately 5 x 106 L/day
(1.3 mgd US). Winter flows are approximately one-hal f the surrmer
flows.

At the hedd end of the plant are two Parshall Flumes which
receive intermittent sewage pumped from Lake George Village and Lake
George Town pumping stations. Primary treatment is carried out in three
mechanically-cleaned, circular, two-compartment settling tanks.
Secondary treatment is accomplished by two high-rate rotating arm
trickling filters in summer and one covered, standard-rate, fixed nozzle
sprinkling filter in winter. Secondary sedimentation is accomplished by
two mechanically-cleaned rectangular settling tanks and two circular
settling tanks. Sludge treatment is carried out in one of the two
compartments of the circular settling tank.

After secondary treatment, sewage is discharged without

chlorination to sand infi ltration beds. Gravity is used to convey the
treated sewage to the 14 northerly (lower end) beds. The sewage is
pumped to the newer 7 southerly (upper end) beds. Normally, the sewage
is discharged two beds at a time - one lower and one upper bed. Dosing

XIV - 2

 "
is changed at approximately 8:00 a.m. and at 4:00 p.m. Thus the entire
day's flow is discharged with a total of four beds. The effluent takes
from one-ha1f to three day s to seep into the ground dependi ng on the
size, age and condition ,of the beds. The newer south beds are fairly
uniform in size but the areas of the north beds varies significantly due
to terrain. The newer beds have higher infiltration than the older
beds. All beds require periodical removal of the surface mat which
forms on the sand and inhibits infiltration; however, there is no set
cleaning schedule. The cleaning of beds is based on the observed
conditions of the bed, availability of the beds for drying and cleani~g,
and upon the time spent by plant personnel on other duties. Cleaning
consists of raking and removing of the upper few centimeters of sand and
discing followed by relevelling of the sand surface. The removed sand
is replaced with new,material obtained from an on-site borrow pit. The
mat which is removed is either taken to a sanitary landfill or is
disposed of on the forest floor in the I area surrounding the treatment
plant. Sludge from the clarifier tanks is dried on sludge drying beds
and then disposed of in a sanitary landfill.

The Lake George Village Sewage Treatment Pl ant has been in

operation for over forty years and proves that the application of
secondary-treated effluent from a conventional domestic sewage treatment
plant is feasible. Application of effluent on the sandbeds, using the
rapid infiltration technique with intermittent dosing, provides the
equivalent of tertiary treatment and is continuously effective over a
long period of time. The largest portion of the purification of the
secondary effluent applied to the sandbeds occurs within the first three
meters; total treatment occurs at a depth of 18 m. Nonreactive soluable
substances show no significant changes during vertical or horizontal
transport of the sand. Intermitten dosing of sandbeds is important in
maintaining both efficiency of treatment and speed of infiltration.
Actual infiltration rates range from a low of 0.07 m/day under a head of
0.15 m to a high of 0.7 m/day under a head of 0.46 m on a clean bed.
Infiltration rates with a bed covered with weeds were lower than on a
weed-free bed when the depth of 1i qui d on the sandbed was less than
0.3 m; however, when the depth of applied liquid exceeded this the

XIV - 3

infiltration rate was higher in the weed-covered bed. The average

vertical and horizontal velocity of the sewage in' the ground was .63
m/day, and 9 m/day respectively.

Several important observations were noted and are sunmarized

below:

1. The Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant does not give true
secondary treatment to the sewage since there is
insufficient aeration. The actual treatment of the sewage
is somewhere between primary and secondary.
2. The Lake George system of rapid infiltration provides an
efficient, inexpensive and energy-conserving method of
tertiary treatment for the removal of most common
contaminants and nutrients contained in domestic sewage.
3. Phosphorous may be completely removed in a sand
infiltration system. Nitrogen is confined to the upper 18
m of the sandbeds. Neither system of removal is
completely understood at this time.
4. The Lake George Sewage Treatment Plant site is very
attractive looking and gives the observer the impression
of an "Asi an ri ce paddy 1\
5. The site conditions (clean sands, low watertable, etc.)
were the most optimum for RI of any site visited.
6. The resulting effluent quality was the best of any site
observed.
7. The Lake George system may be phased out of service if new
Legislation passed by the local government is implemented.
This legislation will require zero effluent discharge in
the Lake George basin.
Dr. Aulenbach feels that the legislation was instigated by
a well meaning but misguided pol1tican and was passed
without due consideration. Other regulatory bodies such
as the EPA are loath to criticize and therefore an
efficient and economical system may be phased out for some
less efficient operation outside the drainage basin.
8. The Lake George operation was the most organized and
efficient. We observed some maintenance currently being
neglected due to budget cuts brought on by the possible
abandonment of the site.
II

XlV - 4
JI

~I
 I
,

,
9. An exception to planned operation occurred once in May
when all infiltration beds were full and the entire plant
flow was pumped to an adjacent overgrown borrow pit area

where it disappeared into the ground. This area ;s now

leased as an emergency disposal area and can be used at
anytime, if necessary.

XIV - 5

 II

MILTON, WISCONSIN SITE VISIT 1980 07 22

Milton is located in south central Wisconsin about 70 km

southeast of Madison.

The orignal treatment facilities built in 1939 were operated

until 1957 and consisted of activated sludge followed by rapid sand
fi 1ters and di scharge through dry wells in the surroundi ng graveL A
rapid infiltration lagoon was used for alternate disposal. Since 1957
an RI basin has been used with two intermediate lagoons for detention
and the sand filters have been abandoned.

The secondary treatment plant is being expanded and during the

present construction the effluent quality if not as high as it was in
1977. During the EPA research project year (1976-1977) the effluent BOD
averaged 23 mg/L. Ou~ing our visit the BOD was about 100 mg/L.

After treatment in the secondary treatment plant, the effluent

passes into a hol di n9 lagoon (previously two lagoons in series). The
site now has two RI basins each about 0.3 ha in size. Design and
operating characteristics are presented in Table 1. One basin was being
loaded continuously whne the second was being made ready for
application. No odors were observed around the RI basins. The basin ]
being loaded was about 1.2 m deep while an emergency holding pond J

~
contained effluent about 3.5 m deep (see Figure 1).

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

)
Present flow
FOR MILTON, WISCONSIN

Date of initial operation

Preapp1ication treatment
1957
1.3 x 10 6 L/day
Secondary
.,

Infiltration area
Soil type
0.67 ha
Sand and gravel
-J

Depth to groundwater 2 - 3m

loading rate
Application cycle
72 m/yr

Continuous Flooding
;J

Average snowfall 109 cm/yr

..J.
XIV - 6
~I
r~

, o C' -
\, 11_-- . __. ___
___~'" . - ..~ I

f ~ ~I'"
, j uno
--IL-UU-E DI. ".AL "OS

\1
, 43-51 -"\ l_ "'\ (- ( ....)

~~NCY
...
~
I
. \

•
-~

STORAGe
,

-I
,i

..
RAPID
INFILTRA TlON
BASINS \~
,i
J
I
HOLDING
..... I LAGOON

- (~!
~XISTIN~
"TREA TMENT/'

t
IIJI
-I WELL NUIIBER

/;~!J
,SCREEN DEPTH

J
.
-! I
D 22
••
IULE .1 UTI'U

.,

I FIGURE I
WELL AND CROSS SECT ION LOCATION, MI
LTON WISCONSIN

~
I I

I;
...... J

XIV - 1

I
 I
Treatment Performance
~
The performance of the RI system was monitored in 1977 and
selected constituents are shown in Table 2. The high groundwater and
continuous loading can explain the poor ammonia and total nitrogen
f
removal. Phosphorus removal is al so poor probably due to the high rate
of application (240 m/yr in 1977) and the coarse soil.
f
TABLE 2
WATER QUALITY DATA
J
MILTON, WISCONSIN 1 1
Concentration, mglL

BOD
Applied Effluent
23
Test groundwater
4.2 ~
COD
Nitrogen
63 32
]
I
Organic 3.4 >1.0
NH4 19.2 13.7
.~
N03 3.7 1.5

Phosphorus
Total 26.3 >16.2
iI l

P04
Total
4.2
5.4
3.8
>4.2
l
.~
Unique Features

The high loading rate of 240 m/yr was a unique feature.

-~
However, its adverse effect on treatment performance is obvious. Also, )
the continuous loading unto a single basin has, in the past, led to
breakthrough of ammoni a and fecal col itorms into the shallow ground­
water. 11
The new second basin will allow intermitten loadings and
1)

maintain annual loadings at 72 m/yr. A monitoring well that is 150 m

downgradient from the basins will be used by the State to measure !,,

effects on the groundwater.

J
XIV - 8
,
f
I
-

CALUMET, MICHIGAN INFILTRATION SITE VISIT 1980 07 23

The site was visited on July 23, 1980 in company with a

graduate student and professor from nearby Michigan Technological
University. Calumet is located on the Keweenaw Peninsula in the Upper
I
Peninsula of Michigan.

I
!
HISTORY
Calumet, Michigan has a long history of land treatment of

-I
wastewater, dating back to 1887 when the Calumet and Hecla Consolidated
Copper Company constructed a sewage farm. Initially, the system served
3,000 people. The peak population served was 14,000 in 1916. In recent
years, the population of Calumet has dwindled to 4,800 and nearby

I,
Laurium
Calumet
has· contributed wastewater from its population of 3,300 to the
system. The original site was IOOdified in 1972 to adequately
serve a population of 8,100.

I
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION

I
The reconstructed treatment site at Cal umet has infil tration
basins covering 5 to 6 ha divided into about 17 basins. Observation

I:;
wells a're located around the treatment site and adjacent to certain of
the basi ns. A schematic showing the system and observation well

IIJ location is presented on Figure 1.

At present, the plant has an average flow of 5.9 x 106 L/d.

I(
, . I
There is considerable contribution of infiltration/inflow (I/I) to the
system, particularly during the spring snowmelt. The average loading

rate on the infiltration basins is about 35 m/yr. Some of the basins

are flooded continuously.

Raw wastewater is applied directly to the infiltration basins.

This wastewater is considerably weaker than typical domestic wastewater
11
due to the influent of the 1/1. The average suspended solids, COO, and
BOO concentrations are 53 mg/L, 228 mg/L, and 87 mg/L, respectively.
1\

II..... XIV - 9

1
,i

•J
1
lit

~
J
,
LEGEND II
-,
ROADWAV
-
:r
- - DISTRIBUTION DITCH
DIKES
NOT TO SCALE
l
• OBSERVATION WELLS

.~
_ POND (I' 'lSINS)

,
J"

FIGURE I
GROUND SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY OF RECONSTRUCTED WASTEWATER
JI
DISPOSAL SITE AT CALUMET, MICHIGAN.

-1
I
~I
XIV - 10

~I

 ,
, The design and operational characteristics for Calumet are

, summarized in Table 1. The system operates throughout the year without

any separate storage. Some of the basins that are loaded continuously
are used as storage and infiltration basins. During the spring snowmelt
some of the basins overflow, however, the site is large enough to
I contain most of the runoff without a major discharge to the nearby

-
stream.

TABLE 1

- SUMMARY OF DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

FOR CALUMET, MICHIGAN

-I J
Date of initial operation
Present flow
1887
5.9 x 10 6 LId
Preapplication treatment None

I Infiltration area
Soil type
6 ha
Sand

-I Depth to groundwater
Loading rate
Application cycle
3 to 9 m
35 m/yr
4-7 days on,
0-3 days off
Janua~ mean temperature -9.5°C
I'-~
If I
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE
Several monitoring wells have been installed both in 1975 and

I 1980 for the research at Michigan Tech. Water quality data from the
1975 research are presented in Table 2.

I
, Nitrogen removal was relatively good for rapid infiltration
systems averaging 73' for the interior wells. Phosphorus removal was
excellent at 88' considering the system has been operated for 93 years.

II
, PROBLEMS
Probl ems with the operation are mainly in the di stribution
system and hydraulic control. Under the current facilities plan a
XIV - 11

I
 I l

TABLE 2
~
WATER QUALITY DATA
CALUMET, MICHIGAN
,
Wells
Concentration, mg/L
Creek
,
Constituent Influent Control Interior Perimeter Upstream Downstream ;t
COO 228 9 58 33 35 29
TOC 44 1 16 15 12 11 .~
~
Nitrogen
Organic 0.8 0.09 0.07 0.11 0.33 0.13

~
,
NH4 24.0 1.5 6.0 3.0 0.01 0.02

N03 0.2 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.8 0.7

Total 25.0 2.2 6.8 5.4 1.2 1.1
Phosphorus
P04 1.7 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00

J;t
Total 3.5 0.05 0.4 0.1 0.07 0.07

~
Coliforms*
Total **
**
10-100
1-10
10-100
1-10
100-1000
1-10
J
.~
* MPN/IOO mL.
** Not measured but assumed to be 106 to 107 • )
iI
1
,J

J
XIV - 12
,
,
.1
,

I,
,

revised di stribution system with more positive hydraul ic control swill

be install ed. The ditch system will be replaced wi th hal f-pipe (to
avoi d freezi ng in the winter from a full-pipe system). In addi tion
regular drying and scarification of the basins is being planned •

•~

,
UNIQUE FEATURES
The lack of preapplication treatment and the open ditch
distribution system are the two unique features of the Calumet system.

-I

There were no noticeable odors from the application system. There was a
slight odor at the flow monitoring structure.

I
i

I ,

I
I
I
Ii
II
....J

XIV - 13

I
 I
BOULDER RAPID INFILTRATION SITE VISIT 1980 07 24
~
,
The City of Boulder's Rapid Infiltration test site is located
on City property near the 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant and
utilizes sewage effluent from the 50 x 106L/day (12 MGD) plant. The
pilot site has in the past, been operated on both primary and secondary
,
effluent to determine maximum hydraulic loading rates with acceptable
water quality. This fall, the site is planning to infiltrate primary

~
effluent with nitrogen removal, rather than hydrauliC loading, as the -~

pri mary goal.

The site configuration consists of 3 cells, each approximately

1j

~
one third of a hectare in area. Berms were constructed using on-site
material and compacted clay. The soils on-site consist of relatively
low permeability sandy clay loarns overlying sand and gravel.
material was finer and less permeable, than in the other 3 sites
The

investigated, which eventually necessitated removal of the top 0.5 m of

.,
beds 2 and 3 after 6 months operation.
~
Initially, the site had a very high water table, less than one
metre, and necessitated the use of clay dyking and dewatering prior to ~
use. In addition, the site was underdrained by means of two perforated
PVC lateral collectors placed approximately 3m below grid surface. Jl
Numerous well points were installed in and around the facility to
measure fluctuations in water table. The basins were loaded twice Jl
weekly with loading rates varying from 4 to 27 m/yr. Weed growth was
extensive and bed scarification carried out monthly. JS
Results from the previous pilot studies were very interesting
and similar to those in other areas. These are summarized as follows:
II
1. Infiltration rates were 2 to 3 times higher immediately
following bed cleaning.
il
.J

2. The ridge and furrow method used in bed 2 needed less bed
maintenance; however, the additional work required to form

XIV - 14

~I
 furrows 1ikely resulted in simil ar work loads for the
operators overall.
3. Primary effluent applied in a similar manner produced
similar water quality in the final effluent and at
s11 ghtly hi gher infiltration rates. The higher rates are
thought to be caused by higher biological action on the
surface soils from the higher BOD in primary effluent.
4. Double-ring inflltrometer tests were not very successful;
the infiltration rates calculated were overly optimistic.
5. Winter operations were no problem when weed growth was
controlled, however, leaving the weeds long in the fall
caused anchoring of the ice and ultimate freeze-up.
6. Preferential flow of the effluent to the lateral s drains
caused excessive flow-rates and likely resulted in poorer
quality effluent than would have been the case where no
underdrains were used. This was especially prevalent in
the winter when phosphate leached through the system
relatively unchanged.
7. A better quality effluent could likely be achieved by
longer drying times and shorter application rates; this is
going to be done this fall.
8. Infiltration rates can be highly variable even over a
small site such as this one. Therefore, pre-installation
testing can produce only ranges of deSign criteria.
9. Infiltration rates were lower in winter due to the lower
viscosity of the wastewater at higher temperatures and the
better quality wastewater during the summer.
10. Phosphate reduction was variable in all three beds
although alw~s at a maximum during the warmer months.
11. Nitrogen was released at a maximum during spring - this
was thought to be caused by nitrification of the fixed
ammonium with the onset of warmer weather.
12. Several column studies were carried out to analyze
adsorption rates for various species; generally, the
results were similar to that achieved in the field,
although some preferential flow along the side of the
columns were noted.

Our overall impression of the site coul d best be described as

a -mild surprise". Considering the relatively "poor- site parameters ­
low permeability soils, shallow water table, frequent flooding cycles

XIV - 15

and shallow underdrafns - a surprisingly good quality effluent was

generally achieved. In fact. the researchers felt the system would be
feasible for all of Boulder's sewage if 90 ha of similar land could be
utilized. Although such land is available it now appears that the
social and political climate will negate full-scale operations.
Economic advantages may 11 e with mechanical plant treatment methods at
the terti ary treatment level. The researchers fel t that the econ~ of
scale does not operate effectively at high volumes (above 50 x
l06L/day (11 MGD US». The Boul der Pilot Plant is an example of a
"poorll site that can be engineered to operate effectively but restricted
socially and politically.

I
J

J
XIV - 16
,
(
II
I DELBURNE - SITE VISIT 1980 08 13

I The Village of Del burne, 40 kilometers east of Red Deer,

I
operated a "modi fi ed" rapi d i nfi 1trati on system for over 18 years pri or
to the utilization of a new system in 1979.

~ The original system, constructed in 1959, consists of one

lined and one unlined lagoon, approximately 1/2 ha each. The lagoons
I i
are located on Village property which consists of 30 m of sand
overlying bedrock (Carlson, personal comm.). The system operated by

II !
accumulating 3 to 4 months sewage in the
di scha rge to the un 11 ned 1agoon.
lined lagoon and then
The effl uent was reported to have

I, entirely infiltrated in 2 to 3 weeks. According to the Town Foreman,

Mr. H. Carl son, no bed mani ntenance was ever carried out and the
unlined lagoon was always dry prior to flooding. Weeds did grow in the

I bed but were not a problem and never restricted infiltration or winter
ice movement.
I A new system was installed in 1978 to "upgrade" the exi sting

I, system; however, the reasons why it was required are not very clear.
The new system involves the use of 5 plastic-lined lagoons

III approximately 7 ha in size, and ultimate disposal through two unlined

lagoons. The five lined lagoons operate on a cascading gravity system;
the final two lagoons are presently being filled simultaneously from
1\
, lagoon #5.

,
The 01 d discharge site is similar to that of the Milton,
Wisconsin system in that both sites utilized a holding lagoon prior to
discharge although the Milton site did have two discharge ponds rather
than the one at Del burne. The sands in the area appeared to be very

t ,
clea~ ant:! si!'!lilar to t~ose at La!(e George, ~'. Y. This coupled with the
long resting periods prior to inundation likely enabled the
infiltration rates to remain high even though no bed maintenance had
I: ever been carried out. Visual examination of the discharge bed showed

~ XIV - 17
ill
(~
 I

approximately 2 em of sludge accumulation on top of clean sand. Site ~

examination did not provide an obvious reason as to why the original

site had to be abandoned.

The new site has not operated long enough to enable a

reasonable evaluation. However, the only obvious difference between
the two systems would be that the final lagoon effluent in the new
system would be of significantly better quality. It is not Known what
•,
the ground water quality is in the vicinity of the discharge lagoons at -.~
both sites. This information coul d likely be obtained fairly easily
and would be most helpful in analyzing the effectiveness of rapid.
infiltration and its effects on final water quality. .~

.,
tJ

.J
~

J
,
1·
,
)

J
i

XIV - 18

J
f .,
(
'I
I
OSOYOOS, B.C. SITE VISIT - ·1980 10 22
I The rapid infiltration site used for the Village of Osoyoos

I was visited and discussed with the Village foreman, Mr. Toth. The
site has been modified in the last few months and the Village is
changing its operation from rapid infiltration to spray irrigation of
I a nearby gol f course.

I "(he rapid infiltration site consisted of three basins

composed of sandy gravel with total infiltration area of 1.05 ha"

I The pretreatment system involved retention in a 2.9 ha storage lagoon

and was installed in 1965 and operated successfully (according to the
Village) for 14 years. Flows to the system averaged 1.1 x' 106
I L/day. Bed maintenance was carri ed out annually and the wastewater
1 was applied to each basin for about \ a month at a. time. Some
I infiltration capacity was lost over the period of operations which
required more frequent maintenance.

I It appears that the system was abandoned due to the

I presence of Kissinger Spring 75m east of the infiltration site.

Recent work in the area indicated that the effluent was percolating
down through sand to a clay layer and then moved horizontally along
I the interface to Kissinger Spring (Underwood, 1980)*.

I Water quality in Kissinger Spring was monitored frequently

by the Waste Management Branch of the B.C. Ministry of the

I Environment. A comparison of effluent quality discharged to the

system and the water quality in Kissinger Spring is given below:

I Parameter Wastewater
(mg/L)
Kissinger Spring
(mg/L)

I Total Organic
KJEL
Nitrate
N
N
N
7.7
20
0.11
0.66
4.6
2.1
Total P 6.3 0.44
Ii * Underwood,T. letter to Reid, Crowther &Partners Limited, dated
October, 23, 1980.
I
XIV - 19

j
I
 -

Water quaHty in Kissinger spri ng is obviously quite good.

It does not appear obvious as to why the old system was abandoned. It
is possible that the increased maintenance necessary to maintain'
I

adequate infiltration rates was of substantial importance.

addition, the new spray irrigation system is being financed by
In
I

Provincial per capita grants. As a result with Village 1s able to gain

a "Deluxe" system for the price of a "Standard" system. l

-]

_J

l
l
lJ
t
l
_l
_1

•,
J
I

XIV - 20

I
r
l'I
, GREENWOOD, B.C. INFILTRATION SITE VISIT 1980 10 22

The City of Greenwood, B.C. operates a sewage treatment system

I involving pretreatment with ground disposal of the treated effluent; the
system is licensed for 950 000 L/day. Pretreatment consists of an

I oxidation ditch with clarifiers; two infiltration basins are used with a
total infiltration area of less than one hectare.

I The system was constructed in 1975 and has operated

successfully since although heavy weed growth in the infiltration basins
I occurred during the first two years. This has since been controlled and
the beds undergone semi-annual cleaning and scaping (by means of a

I front-end loader). Infiltration bed No.1 has a substantially higher

percolation rate than No. 2 (No. 2 contains a high proportion of silty
clay) and is therefore used primarily.
J
Both the City Administrator, Mr. K. Horminichi, and City Works
I Foreman, Mr. B. Scott, are pleased with the treatment system. No major
prob1ems have occurred and there is suffi ci ent area avai 1ab 1e for new
I basin construction, should it be required.

I
XIV - 21

I
 SITE DATA SUMMARY

Brookings Boulder Milton calumet Westby Vineland Lake GeorgE Fort Devens
Parameter S.D. Col. Wise. Mi. Wise. N.J. N.Y. Mass.

Average Daily 0.17 0.96 1.3 5.9 0.53 20 5 4.9

Flow (10 6 L/Day)
Primary &
Pretreatment Primary Secondary Secondary Untreatec Secondar~· Primary Secondary? Primary

Infiltration Area 0.2 0.95 0.67 6 1.5 36 2.2 6.7

(ha) _.

Infiltration Rate 1.1 - 3.4 1.3 - 4.6 1.25-2.8 - 0.5 0.75-2.3 0.3 - 3.0 -
(em/h)

Surficial Silty Clay Loamy Sand Sand & Sand Silt Loan Sand Clean Sand Sand &
Geology Gravel Gravel

Groundwater
Depth (m) 0.15-1.2* 0.15-0.46* 2 - 3 3 - 9 60 3.7 <0.1­ 2.1 3 - 12
Loading Rates 12 12 - 49 72 34 11 20 46 29
(m/yr)

Application Basins Basins Continuous Basins Ridge/ Basins Basins Basins

Method Ridqe/furr~ Flood Furrow

Application On 1 0.05 N/A 4 - 7 14 1 - 2 0.3 2

Cycle (day) Off 6 3.5 .N/A ·0 - 3 14 7 - 10 5 - 10 14
-
Perforated Perforated
Drainage Pipe Pipe N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
•
Date of 1975-78 April,
Initial Operation 1976 1939 1887 1959-72 1925 1939 1942
*before *before
Remarks underdraine underdrains
-­~- ~ L - -~--

.... L.___
.... 1M • ..... ... .... ...
L...
'1 .II • ... .... ... • - .... ..
- ~