EVALUATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM DRAIN FIELDS

by

WESLEY WARREN INGRAM, B.S.P.E.

A THESIS

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

CIVIL ENGINEERING

^ Approved

/^ Accegted

May, 2000 J
Copyright © 2000 by Wesley W. Ingram.
All rights reserved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge several people who helped to

make this thesis possible. First, I want to thank my committee and project team: Dr.

Andrew Jackson, Dr. Tony Mollhagen, Dr. Kenneth Rainwater, Dr. Hey ward Ramsey,

Dr. David Thompson, Dr. Lloyd Urban, and Dr. Richard Zartman.

Dr. Jackson, as the chair of my committee, provided guidance and focus. Dr.

Urban provided drain field schematics that were perfectly suited for the thesis.

A sincere thank you to Brad Thomhill, who supervised and worked with us on the

project installation. In addition, he allowed me the use of his equipment and provided

guidance as needed to troubleshoot the project.

In addition, I want to thank the group of fellow students who worked with me

during the project installation phase and who worked in the laboratory doing the sample

analyses. Without them, I would not have had a projectfromwhich to write a thesis. Of

the group that worked with me on a daily basis at the research site, I want to single out

Amandeep Kang for his companionship and conscientiousness.

Finally, I want to thank all of the faculty members who had a part in my pursuit of

the Master's Degree, with a special thank you to Dr. Ramsey for his support and advice

throughout my time as a graduate student in the Department of Civil Engineering.

11
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOV^EDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER

L nSlTRODUCTION 1

Problem Statement 1

Objectives 3

n. LITERATURE SEARCH 4

Introduction 4

Lifespan of Fields 5

Soil Properties 6

Infiltration Concepts 6

Clogging Mechanisms 18

Impact on Drain Field Performance 21

Evaporation Studies 23

Evaporation/Evapotranspiration -

Lake and Vegetation 23

Evapotranspiration Drain Fields 26

Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 30

Backgroimd 30

iii
Regulations ^1

Field Tests in Texas 35

Artificial Wastewater 39

ffl. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 41

Site Selection - Reese Center 41

Infiltrometer Test and Soil Survey 44

Drain Field Construction 49

Tanks and Supply System 57

Level Control System for Fields and Tanks 60

Weatherstation 61

Artificial Wastewater 64

IV. START-UP OPERATIONS 66

Original Program 66

Modified Program 67

Fill Volumes 70

Clean Water Fields 70

Daily Operation 73

V. PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS 74

Predicted Infiltration Rates versus

Actual Demand Rates 74

LTAR Comparisons 80

Climatic Effects 87

Clean Water Field Phenomenon 95

IV
Sample Analysis 95

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110

Conclusions 110

Recommendations for Further Research 113

VIL SUMMARY 114

REFERENCES 116

APPENDICES

A. ESIFILTROMETER TEST DATA 124

B. START-UP AND SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS 136

C. FE^AL FACILITY CONFIGURATION/FHSIAL

FIELD CONFIGURATION 148

D. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES 154

E. FIELD LOADING DATA 161

F. SAMPLE ANALYSES 176
ABSTRACT

At the time of this thesis, the practice in Texas was to install absorptive drain

fields in a septic system. The Texas On-Site Wastewater Treatment Research Council

raised the question as to whether the combination of evapotranspiration and absorption in

a septic system drain field in the arid and semi-arid regions of Texas could reduce the

size of the drain field. As a result, a two-year study was undertaken in an attempt to

answer that question.

A field test facility was designed and installed at Reese Center near Lubbock,

Texas. This facility consisted of septic tanks, header tanks, distribution system, and 18

drain fields. The 18 drain fields were divided evenly between wastewater and clean

water. Three treatments were tested and include absorption (AB) fields,

evapotranspiration (ET) fields, and combined evapotranspiration and absorption (ETA)

fields. Each treatment and its control were installed in triplicate to enable statistical

analyses of the results.

Each drain field was operated with a liquid full gravel envelope. As a result, the

loading rates were substantially larger than those recommended for long term acceptance

rates by TNRCC. The artificial wastewater used in this test was mixed twice daily and

monitored weekly to ensure that it continued to mimic what would be observed in a

residential septic tank effluent. Samples were analyzed for COD, BOD5, TKN, TSS and

other solids components, and major cations and anions. Weather data including wind

direction and speed, barometric pressure, temperaure, solar radiation, humidity,

precipitation, and dew point was collected daily.

vi
The test facility was in operation for approximately six months when this thesis

was written. As with all systems, a few modifications were required. Overall the system

functioned as required to provide the data necessary for further analysis.

An initial assessment of the data indicated that the ET fields digested the

wastewater further because of a longer residence time. Evidence of sulfide production

was observed in the ET fields. For the clean water AB and ETA fields, much higher

infiltration rates were observed than those indicated by the infiltrometer tests. Seasonal

changes were more evident with the ETfieldsthan either the AB or ETA fields.

Even at this writing, there was evidence that combining absorption and

evapotranspiration in a drain field could result in smaller drain fields in the arid and semi-

arid areas of Texas. All variables except evapotranspiration were held constant to the

extent possible to determine the overall effects of evapotranspiration. Further

investigation of calculated versus actual loading rates were indicated by this study.

Vll
LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Long-Term Application Rates for Texas Soils 22

2.2 Wastewater Constituents 40

3.1 Infiltration Rates for Unlined Drain Fields 47

3.2 Soil Composition, Classification, and Moisture Content 48

3.3 Artificial Wastewater Recipes 64

3.4 Septic Tank Influent Constituents 65

4.1 Soil Moisture Content 72

6.1 Sample Analyses 96

A.1 Infiltration Data 125

A.2 Infiltration Volumes 135

E.l Clean Water AB Field Loading Data 162

E.2 Clean Water ETA Field Loading Data 163

E.3 Clean Water ET Field Loading Data 164

E.4 Wastewater AB Field Loading Data 167

E.5 Wastewater ETA Field Loading Data 170

E.6 Wastewater ET Field Loading Data 173

F.l Wastewater Lab Analyses 177

viu
LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 ListofOnsite Wastewater Treatment Systems 4

2.2 USDA Soil Classifications 8

2.3 Texas Soil Classifications 9

2.4 Soil Permeability Classifications Based on Texture 13

2.5 Soil Suitability Chart 14

2.6 Clean Water Phenomenon 20

3.1 Simplified Process Flow Diagram 42

3.2 Test Site Plot Plan (Local Relative Elevation) 43

3.3 Drain Field Trench 45

3.4 Double Ring Infiltrometers 45

3.5 Reese Drainfields-Cross Section Views 50

3.6 Drain Field Piping 51

3.7 Typical Drainfields 52

3.8 Hemispherical Form 53

3.9 ET Field Liner 55

3.10 ET Pipe with Bushing 55

3.11 AB Field Cover 56

3.12 AB Field Sensor and Observation Pipes 56

3.13 Field Valving 58

3.14 Septic Tanks 58

3.15 Level Sensor Probes 62

ix
3.16 Weatherstation 62

4.1 Mixing Tanks 69

4.2 Pressure Tanks 69

6.1 Daily Demand - AB Fields 76

6.2 Daily Demand - ETA Fields 77

6.3 Daily Demand - ABW Fields 78

6.4 Daily Demand - ETAW Fields 79

6.5 AB Correlation - Predicted versus Demand 81

6.6 ETA Correlation - Predicted versus Demand 81

6.7 ABW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand 82

6.8 ETAW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand 82

6.9 AB Loading Rate versus Texas LTAR 83

6.10 ETA Loading Rate versus Texas LTAR 84

6.11 ABW Loading Rate versus Texas LTAR 85

6.12 ETAW Loading Rate versus Texas LTAR 86

6.13 ET Loading Rate versus Other Locations 88

6.14 ETW Loading Rate versus Other Locations 89

6.15 Daily Demand-ET Fields 90

6.16 Daily Demand - ETW Fields 91

6.17 Precipitation Event ET Fields 92

6.18 Precipitation Event ETA Fields 93

6.19 Average ETW Data 94

6.20 BOD5 - Wastewater AB 97
6.21 BODs - Wastewater ETA 98

6.22 BOD5 - Wastewater ET 99

6.23 BOD5 - Wastewater Mean and Standard Deviation 100

6.24 COD - Wastewater AB 101

6.25 COD - Wastewater ETA 102

6.26 COD - Wastewater ET 103

6.27 COD - Wastewater Mean and Standard Deviation 104

6.28 COD - Clean Water ET 106

6.29 TKN - Wastewater Mean and Standard Deviation 107

6.30 pH - Wastewater Fields 108

6.31 Sulfate - Wastewater Mean and Standard Deviation 109

C.l Legend for Final Facility Layouts 149

C.2 Final Control Building Layout 150

C.3 Final Septic Tank Layout 151

C.4 Final Drain Field Layout 152

C.5 Final Drain Field Layout (Expanded View) 153

xi
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

The septic tank and its associated drain or leach fields are used throughout the

United States as an onsite means to treat the wastewater produced b

an individual

residence or a small community. All the wastewater generated (sinks, toilets, washing

machines, etc.) is collected in a piping system, which in turn routes the fluid to a septic

tank. This tank is usually located underground and is constructed of a variety of

materials. The primary purpose of the septic tank is to separate settleable solids and

floatable scum particles from the wastewater passing through the tank. Treatment and

storage of the solids/particles take place within the tank. A septic tank must have

sufficient volume to provide adequate treatment of the wastewater before it is passed

from the tank to the drain fields. In many locations, these drain fields are strictly

dependent on soil absorption of the effluent from the septic tank. The drain field

construction enables the effluent to be distributed for adequate treatment as it passes

through the soil on its way to the aquifer.

Within Texas, onsite wastewater treatment facilities are under the regulatory

authority of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). A

majority of the drain fields that TNRCC oversees are designed with absorption as the

primary disposal method for septic tank effluents. The relatively high precipitation

amounts in east Texas resulted in the development of absorption only designs. However,

in the semi-arid and arid portions of Texas, this design probably results in drain field
installations that are larger than necessary. The potential evaporation in the arid and

semi-arid regions of Texas is three-four times greater than the annual precipitation and

therefore, the gain from evaporation and transpiration in drain fields could be substantial.

As a result, a two-year study requested by the Texas On-Site Wastewater

Treatment Research Council was undertaken in an attempt to quantify the contribution of

evaporation when combined with absorption in a drain field. The system used for this

study included a multi-field design with absorption (AB), evapotranspiration (ET), and

combined evapotranspiration and absorption (ETA) drain fields. The evapotranspiration

system combined the effects of evaporation from bare soil and transpiration, which is the

moisture removed by vegetation and evaporated through its leaves. The fields were

operated so that the effects of evaporation could be determined, which meant that the

effluent level and wastewater strength were kept as constant as possible. For the

wastewater strength to remain appropriate, a three-day residence time was required.

Several variables have an effect on the combination of evapotranspiration and

absorption. These include seasonal climate changes (wind, temperature, precipitation,

solar radiation), vegetation type, wastewater quality, drain field construction (depth,

backfill material), and effluent level in the drain field. All of these aspects were

incorporated into this study to provide useable information for those involved with drain

field installations.

Due to the longevity of this study, it was completed in two parts. This thesis

covered the literature search, field installation, field start-up, and analysis of the data

through the end of February 2000. Several recommendations for areas of further research
were included. The second thesis will have a final analysis of the evaporation effects and

of the wastewater treatment effectiveness.

Objectives

There were four objectives for this thesis concerning the absorption and

evapotranspiration components of a septic tank drain field. These objectives provided

information for the main project objective of determining if the combination of

absorption and evapotranspiration would reduce the size of a drain field. These four

objectives were:

• Literature Search -

• Field Lifespan,

• Soil Properties,

• Evaporation Studies,

• Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment;

• System Design and Implementation;

• Start-up and Daily Operations;

• Data Analysis.
CHAPTER II

LITERATLUE SEARCH

Introduction

A literature search was performed to review various aspects of onsite wastewater

treatment that would be applicable to the current research project at Reese Center. Three

primary areas were considered: (1) soil properties and their effect on infihration and

clogging, (2) evaporation studies with particular emphasis on semi-arid climates, and (3)

types of onsite systems used in Texas, the regulations related to those systems, and some

system field tests.

In addition to the primary areas of this literature search, another area of interest

involved systems currently in use in the United States versus those in Texas. According

to a survey performed by Brown (1979), the following systems were in use throughout

the United States (Figure 2.1).

Septic Tanks • Home Aerobic Plants

Blackwater • Greywater

Integrated Blackwater/Greywater • Composting Toilets
Recycle Devices
Elevated Sand Mounds • Tile Fields

Evapotranspiration Beds • Evapotranspiration/Absorption Beds

Wastewater Incinerator • Vacuum Sewer

Grinder Pumps • Pressure Sewers

Figure 2 1. List of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
In 1979, all of the above alternatives were in use in Texas except for the recycle and

incinerator systems. Some additional alternative systems used at the time of this 1979

survey include lagoons, stabilization ponds, electro-osmosis, recirculating fihers,

leaching chambers, different methods of irrigation, low pressure systems, and various

sand filters. In recent years, installers in Texas have experimented v/ith various methods

of irrigation, low-pressure systems, and leaching chambers. Field trials of these systems

are discussed in the section about Texas onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Lifespan of Fields

The lifespan of an absorption field can vary dramatically depending on siting,

sizing, and maintenance. A study done on gravel absorption systems in sandy soil

resulted in a predicted life of 9.4 years (Keys, 1996). An increase in field loading rates

hastened the biomat maturation and resulted in a shorter field lifetime (Keys, Tyler, and

Converse, 1998). Predictions made on a gravel system indicated a reduction in predicted

life from 11 years to 7 years as the loading rate was increased by approximately 2.5

times. Kaplan (1991) mentioned that the lifespan of a leachline could range from 20

years to indefinite because there were two mechanisms at work, clogging and

anticlogging. Winneberger (1974) stated that the sidewall areas were often more useful

than the bottom areas since the bottom areas usually remain inundated resulting in

continual clogging of that surface. In addition, multiple fields that could be ahernately

placed in operation could produce an indefinite life since the biomat dries and the

infiltrative surface was regained. This alternating field method could be done on a

variety of schedules. Some systems operated on a yearly basis, while others alternated on
monthly or weekly basis. One system in New Zealand (Gunn, 1987), operated with the

system loaded for one week and then allowed to rest for three weeks. Proper septic tank

maintenance can prolong the field life. This maintenance entails removal of sludge and

scum from these tanks to prevent it from flowing into the drain fields.

In the following sections, the effects of soil properties on infiltration and clogging

in a drain field are discussed as these items have a direct bearing on the potential lifespan

of a drain field. Another major constituent in determining the lifespan is related to the

strength of the wastewater treated by the drain fields.

Soil Properties

Infiltration Concepts

Soil characteristics have a large impact on the amount of water that is transported

through different types of soil and the suitability of these soils for long-term wastewater

absorption. In general, these characteristics include texture, structure, color, consistency,

density, porosity, pore size, water saturation, hydraulic conductivity, permeability,

restrictive layers, and percolation rates. Some characteristics resulting from construction

processes are compaction, fill soils, cut areas, introduction of gravel fines, and masking

of the soil at the gravel-soil interface. Characteristics associated with the topography and

geography of an area impact the water transport capabilities of the soil and its ability to

treat wastewater. Included in these are slope, water table height, depth to bedrock, type

of bedrock, and thickness of formation.

Soil characteristics are separated into qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Texture, structure, and color of the soil provide a qualitative measure of the soils
absorptive capability (Gross, Owens, Dennis, Robinson, and Rutledge, 1998). The

percolation rate provides a quantitative measure that is valid only for the small surface

area tested since soils can change rapidly over a relatively short distance. Other

characteristics such as porosity and density that appear to be quantitative have the same

qualification as observed with the percolation rate.

Soil texture has a direct effect on the movement of water in and through soil

layers (Johnson, Brasfield, and Beville, 1974). Texture relates to the composition of the

soil as it pertains to sand, silt, and clay percentages. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, 1980) soil classifications are based on the twelve textural classes

developed by the USDA (Figure 2.2). In Texas, TNRCC uses five classes (Figure 2.3) of

soils that are based on the sand, silt, and clay percentages to determine the suitability for

absorptive drain fields (Tifle 30 Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.90, 1997). Soils

having high percentages of silt and clay might have slow absorption rates (Meyer,

1974b). Soil texture affects the permeability, but the relationship is weak as the

percolation rate for one sandy loam ranged from less than 5 to more than 25 minutes/inch

(Kaplan, 1991). In a coarse soil, the pore size is larger and the water movement more

rapid (Johnson et al, 1974). Soils with uniform particle size have pores that are in

proportion to the grain size (Tyler, Drozd, and Peterson, 1991). As a result, a fine-

grained soil has small pores, a coarse-grained soil has large pores, and a mixture of grain

sizes results in small pores. Therefore, a coarse soil will have greater porosity and larger

pores than a finer soil such as clay. In many situations, the clay in the soil swells and

dramatically reduces the infiltration rate (Johnson et al., 1974).
T00%

100%
n/San silt
100% 60 50 40
sand Percent Sand
by Weight

Figure 2.2. USDA Soil Classifications
Source: EPA 625/1-80-012,1980.

8
PERCENT
PERCENT SILT
CLAY

100 60 50 40 10
PERCENT SAND

SOIL PARTICLE SIZE:
ClQy - Smaller t h a n 0.002 nr\ in dianeter.
Silt - 0.05 t o 0.002 r\r\ in dianeter.
Sand - 2.0 t o 0.05 nn in dianeter.
Gravel - G r e a t e r t h a n 2.0 nr\ in dianeter.
nn = nilUneter
Note 1: Sand shall be f r e e of organic n a t t e r and shall be conposed
of silica, quartz, nica, or any other stable nineral.
Note 2: Class la soils contain nore than 30X gravel, t h e r e f o r e , they
are not portrayed or^ the soil triangle.

Figure 2.3. Texas Soil Classifications
Source: 30 TAC§285.90,1997.
The soil structure is related to the soil particle arrangement pertaining to cracks or

weakness planes (Kaplan, 1991) There are several arrangements including prisms,

plates, round or nutlike, and non-structured. The plate or platiform configuration is the

least permeable. However, the nuciform (round or nutlike) structure, which is created by

worms and roots, can result in high permeabilities even in clays Overall a strong soil

structure composed of granular, blocky, or prismatic particles is preferred over the platy

or unstructured soils (Parker, Lehr. Roseler, and Paeth, 1977), because the granular,

blocky. or prismatic particles enhance vertical flow while the others decrease it (Tyler et

al. 1991). The unstructured soil also known as single grain or massive does not have

secondary pores, whereas the stronger structure does resulting in better infiltration

capabilities. For each particle configuration, compaction affects the structure by reducing

the macropores and porosity (Westepal and Schirmers, 1997; Kaplan, 1991)

Soil color is an indication of the moisture content and also provides information

on the aeration potential of the soil (Johnson et al., 1974). Brighter colors indicate higher

aeration levels, whereas, the duller or mottled colors indicate lower aeration and iron

reduction with the potential presence of sulfate or methane. Meyer (1974b) reported that

a gray colored soil has difficulty absorbing rainfall while red-brown soils allow

absorption and passage of precipitation. Parker et al. (1977) indicated that the bright

colored soils have better drainage than dull coloration soils. In addition, the mottled

colors, which range from a brown to yellow-orange to gray, are indicative of alternating

saturation of a soil horizon. The depth to the mottling along with observable iron

concentrations provide information on the water table (Sawka, Collins, Brown, and Rao,

1987: Gross etal., 1998).

10
Another important characteristic of soil is its consistency or strength; in other

words, how well the soil particles hold together (Johnson et al., 1974). A strong soil

would have a high bulk density, reduced porosity, low infiltration, and low hydraulic

conductivity (Tyler et al., 1991). If a soil is moist, the consistence terms are loose (sand),

very friable (barely can be handled), friable (crushed easily), firm (moderate) and very

firm (requiring substantial pressure) (Westepal and Schirmers. 1997). However, a dry

soil is defined as having a hard consistence (Tyler et al, 1991).

Two soil characteristics, hydraulic conductivity and permeability, are viewed in a

similar manner even though there are distinctions. EPA (1980) defined hydraulic

conductivity when applied to soils as the ability of the soil to transmit water through the

pores. This ability is related to the size, number, and configuration of the pores in

addition to the moisture content. Amoozegar (1997) agreed by stating that hydraulic

conductivity is a function of the soil characteristics and the liquid used. Permeability

according to EPA (1980) is defined as the ease with which gases, liquids, and roots

penetrate or pass through a soil. Permeability is a measure of pores that are

interconnected and is independent of the moisture content (Amoozegar, 1997; EPA,

1980).

A soil's hydraulic conductivity should be determined at both saturated and

unsaturated conditions to provide for the best prediction of flow conditions (Bouma,

1975). Hydraulic conductivity is high in sandy soils, moderate in loamy soils, and low in

clay soils (Cjross et al., 1998). These values will change depending on the saturation

level and can result in a clay that is more permeable than a sand at low saturation levels

(Bouma, 1975). Bouma (1975) further stated that permeability is high under saturated

11
conditions and decreases as the water content decreases. Otis. Converse, Carlile, and

Witty (1977) stated that when permeability is measured quantitatively as the rate of water

flow through a unit cross section of soil during a unit time, the resuh is considered

equivalent to hydraulic conductivity Tyler and Converse (1994) stated that the hydraulic

conductivit>- is a constant for a given soil and moisture content and that a higher

hydraulic conductivity is achieved if the soil was saturated, which is due to the water

filled pores.

The permeability of a soil is dependent on texture (Figure 2.4). bulk density,

coarse fragment content, clay mineralogy, organic matter content, structure, and soil

chemistry (Hantzche, Neikirk, and Wistrom, 1981). Texture, bulk density, and coarse

fragment (pebbles, gravel) are the three primary determinants of permeability Bulk

density indicates compactness of a soil and the coarse fragment can provide information

on void size. Kaplan (1991) elaborated on the voids by stating that the fraction of pore

space occupied by large pores and their continuity has a direct bearing on permeability,

which impacts the wastewater-loading rate of the soil

Percolation tests of soils have long been the standard in determining the suitability

(Figure 2.5) of different areas for the installation of wastewater absorption fields. Henry

Ryon of the New York Health Department devised the initial percolation test in 1926 to

investigate failing absorption systems (Bemhart, 1973; Otis, 1978). The percolation test

is a practical field tool, but should be performed with standard valid procedures

(Winneberger, 1974). To perform the test, percolation units should be uniformly spaced

and at the depth of the proposed system (Otis, 1978). EPA (1980) recommended a

minimum of three uniformly spaced test holes within the area of interest with more being

12
100

N^^. a^W ^^I7MNDT

W1P^f^3

MCPWP

J^P

PERCENT SAND

NOTES:
1. Correction for Gravel and Cobble - Add 1', sand for each lO'r gravel
and cobble. (Vol.)
2. The solid center line separating the permeability classes is for soils
that have moderate nedium structure, or fine granular, or medium or
coarse granular or single grained. The dotted line below the solid line
is the extension of the permeability class for soils that have weak or
fine structure or very fine granular. The dotted line above the solid
line is the extension of the permeability class for soils that have
strong structure or prismatic blocky, thick platy or massive.

Reduce rating one or more classes for soils that are compact or that have
pH >9.0. Rate one class irore rapid soils that have many medium or
coarse pores. Rate as compact loam or finer textu'^ed soils that have
bulk density of -1,5 and soils more sandy thar loam that have b u U
density of 1.7 or higher.

Figure 2.4. Soil Permeability Classifications Based on Texture
Source: Erickson, 1973

13
PEtCENT SANO

Instructions:

1. Plot t e x t u r e on t r i a n g l e based on percent sand, s i l t , and clay (USDA
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) as determined by hydrometer a n a l y s i s .

2. Adjust f o r coarse fragments by moving the p l o t t e d p o i n t i n the sand
d i r e c t i o n an a d d i t i o n a l 2% f o r each 10'; (by volume) of fragments
greater than 2mm :n diameter.

-- Adjust f o r compactness of s o i l by moving the p l o t t e d p o i n t i n the clay
d i r e c t i o n an a d d i t i o n a l Ib.c f o r s o i l s having a b u l k - d e n s i t y greater
thar 1.7 gm/cc.

Figure 2.5. Soil Suitability Chart.
Source: Hantzche etal., 1981.

14
required if different soils are present. These test holes should be scraped to eliminate

potemial soil smearing (Bemhart, 1973). According to the EPA (1980), the test holes

should be filled with water to a depth of 8 inches, with 6 inches of water above the 2

inches of gravel placed at the bottom of the hole. Then, according to Bemhart (1973), the

soil should be soaked until the percolation rate becomes constant (Bemhart, 1973), while

the EPA (1980) recommended that only clay soils be soaked. Readings of the water level

are to be taken until consecutive measurements do not vary by more than 1/16 of an inch

(EPA, 1980). In Califomia, three consecutive measurements are required (Kaplan, 1991),

whereas the EPA (1980) recommended two.

Although the percolation test is criticized and does not result in reproducible

results, it is simple, objective, inexpensive, and provides a rational basis for system

design (Plews, 1978). This test is criticized because it uses clean water rather than

wastewater and it is performed over a short rather than long time span. In addition, the

test does not have a standardized soil soaking procedure, and does not specify a single

test hole size, although the EPA (1980) recommended 6 inches (Bemhart, 1973; Kaplan,

1991). However, this test helps determine absorptive characteristics, which are related to

soil permeability and hydraulic conductivity, but does not measure them. Although the

tests provide quantitative values for the area of interest, they result in highly variable

values due to the small area tested. Variations were noted in different seasons, in

adjacent test sites, and in the operator performing the test (Otis, 1978).

The varying heads of water used in these percolation tests could resuh in a large

percolation rate range. Winneberger (1974) reported a doubling or tripling of the

infiltration rate with only a 2-inch change in head and even larger differences in more

15
permeable soil Since the infiltration rate is affected by the hydraulic head, the water

level in the test unit should be kept as constant as possible between readings to provide

the most reliable results (Kaplan, 1991; Winneberger, 1984). McGauhey (1975) noted

that the percolation test allows for inadequate bottom area as it was originally used in the

design of narrow trench systems. The EPA (1980) indicated that when percolation test

rates vary by more than 20 minutes/inch, they should not be averaged as the variation is

probably due to different soil types.

In addition to the natural soil characteristics, there are several that are created

during the constmction phase of a drain field. The manmade soil characteristics include

three categories: fill, cut areas, and compacted soils. In these soils, the hydraulic

conductivity could increase, decrease, or have high variations and that affects the

infiltration rates. In the case of fill material, the hydraulic conductivity would probably

have a high variability from one area to another due to the fill composition. While with

cut and compacted soils, the hydraulic conductivity is reduced (Westepal and Schirmers,

1997).

A fill area could be used for an absorption system if several precautions are taken

during the fill process (Otis, 1978). The fill soil must closely match the texture of the

natural soil and there must be no layering of soils as a clogging barrier could be created.

Further testing of a fill area would be required to evaluate the effects of settling on

infiltration rates and this could extend the evaluation time of the site by as much as two

years. Meyer (1974a) reported that failure of fill areas usually occurs at the interface

with the old soil or with effluent surfacing through the fill after it has settled. As with a

16
fill area, a cut area could be used for an absorpfion field if the soil conditions are

adequate regarding infiltration and depth to water table or impervious layer (Otis, 1978).

Wastewater treatment might not be as effective in fill or cut areas (Westepal and

Schirmers, 1997). A fill could contain components such as large particles or non-soil

material that would reduce the treatment of wastewater. In a cut area, alteration of the

landscape could affect seasonal high water table elevations. Fewer treatment problems

are expected in cases of compacted soil since the soil depth for treatment is still available.

The infihrafion rates into the compacted soil would decrease and as a result, this soil

would not treat the same volume of wastewater as a non-compacted soil. More

compaction, smearing, and puddling is expected in soils having more than 25% clay

(Otis, Plews, and Patterson, 1977). In areas where the soil was disturbed, the soil

characteristics must be re-evaluated since the use of soil characteristics from undisturbed

sites nearby would result in erroneous conclusions (Westepal and Schirmers, 1997).

When a field is being installed, the infiltration rates could also be affected by the

fines remaining in the gravel and the masking that would take place at the gravel - soil

interface (Amerson, Tyler, and Converse, 1991). The results of the study by Amerson et

al. (1991) indicated no statistical differences in the infiltration rate due to compaction or

contact area from the gravel installation. Keys (1996), however, noted a 5 to 10.4%

change in hydraulic conductivity at a soil/gravel interface. Knowledge of the soil texture

could determine how gravel fines (gravel particulates) affect infihration. Amerson et al.

(1991) reported a decrease in infiltration for a sih loam soil, but not for a sandy soil In

every case, it was recommended that the gravel be washed before placement to eliminate

potential problems with fines (Otis et al., 1977).

17
The topography should be included in a site evaluation when determining the

suitability of acreage for a drainage field. A slope not greater than 20 to 25% is

acceptable with a convex slope absorbing more than a concave slope (Parker et al, 1977).

In addition, ditches, drains, rivers, existing wells and disposal systems should be recorded

during the site evaluation (Anderson, Grossman, Healy, and Skaggs, 1977).

Clogging Mechanisms

Clogging of an absorpfion field is related to many of the characteristics that affect

infiltration especially that of hydraulic conductivity (Otis, 1984). The hydraulic

conductivity could be reduced by compaction and smearing during constmction, by gases

present in the soil or those created by biological activity, by soil swelling due to

prolonged wetting, and by biological activity, which could break down soil stmcture or

add byproducts that reduced pore size. Based on several studies, it was determined that

there are three to four phases in the clogging process. These studies were performed

using different procedures and the definition of the phases varies considerably. However,

a rapid decline in infiltration rates was noted in each case and was probably caused by a

chemical or biological change in the soil resulting from wastewater application. The

third or fourth phase (procedure dependent) had a slow decline in infiltration rates. Otis

(1984) indicated that although the rapid decrease was obvious, controlling the overall

slow decline was probably more important. Many methods are used to control the

infiltration rates, but none are consistently successful.

The clogging appears to be a surface phenomenon and is primarily attributed to

the biological activity stimulated by wastewater nutrients (Otis, 1984). Suspended solids

18
also assist in the clogging during the initial stages of wastewater application in a drain

field. If the system then moved to an anaerobic atmosphere, infihration is reduced further

because the organic decomposition is slowed and the microbial by-products produced

under these conditions appear to enhance clogging. In addition, soil temperature,

moisture content, and aeration play a major role in determining the rate of clogging

(Siegrist, 1987). When the soil temperature is low, clogging is inhibited with wastewater

having no suspended matter and stimulated with wastewater having an appreciable

amount of suspended matter. A soil with low moisture content, high permeability and

good aeration should not clog as quickly as one with high moisture, low permeability,

and poor aerafion (Ofis, 1984; Siegrist, 1987). Also, the quality of the wastewater would

have an impact on the rate of clogging since the microbial activity forms a biomat.

Producing a better quality wastewater with less organic matter and suspended matter

benefited wastewater treatment in granular soils more than in fine textured soils.

Clogging increased when humic substances formed during wastewater infiltration

(Siegrist, Smed-Hildmann, Filip, and Jenssen, 1991; Siegrist, 1987). Siegrist et al (1991)

noted that the formation of humic substances in sandy soils is likely with long-term

wastewater infiltration, but that no conclusions could be made regarding the silt loam

soils that were tested. Two methods that appear to reduce the clogging are intermittent

dosing of the system and periodic resting of the system (Otis, 1984).

Eventually, clogging would occur even where clean fresh water is used if the soil

is continuously inundated (McGauhey, 1975). Laboratory tests on cores and in field tests

were used to determine that an unusual phenomenon occurred in a clean water

application. This phenomenon is pictured in Figure 2.6, where it can be seen that the

19
e
o
s
s
o
fi

s

c
o
c
a>
B
oc

o O o o o O o o o op
oOv o00 o o
VO o»r> orl- oen oCN o—"
r^
(pdS) QOi;Bj;pjni

20
infiltration rate initially dropped for a period of about 10 days and then increased for

approximately 25 days before once again decreasing to a relative low rate (Winterer,

1922, 1923). The initial drop was attributed to soil slaking in which the soil's affinity to

water and cohesive forces were akered. In the second phase, air was removed from the

pores and this has implications regarding the percolation of water by capillary action

away from the main drain field. The decline during the third phase was a result of

clogging due to the biological activity. Winneberger (1984) also noted that in the case of

sterile water, the infiltration rate would remain at the level seen at the end of the 25 days.

Kaplan (1991) noted that clear water was absorbed at rates 45 to 1100 times faster than

wastewater.

Impact on Drain Field Performance

The installer's evaluation of the soil at each potential site for an onsite wastewater

treatment system will determine the type of system to be installed and the potential

success of that system. An infihration or percolation test provides initial information as

to the soil's potential to absorb effluent. The infiltration rate however is also affected by

absorption fields that are continuously ponded; in other words, water is always at the

gravel-soil interface (Otis, Converse, Carlile, and Witty, 1977). In addition, each soil has

a long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) (Anderson, Machmeier Sr., and Hansel, 1981) that is

not necessarily related to the values obtained from the infiltration test. Winneberger

(1984) stated that clogging of the infiltrative surface is the LTAR determinant and that

the rates are determined in the laboratory using simulated wastewaters. Based on the

laboratory-determined rates, rates for other soils are calculated using coefficients of

21
permeability that are estimated from a correlation with the percolation test rates. The

calculated values then become the loading rates used in administrative codes (Tyler and

Converse, 1994). As expected, the LTAR does not change from original infiltration rates

when tap water or an effluent with reduced organic matter is used. A table correlating the

Texas soil classes with then- long-term applicafion rates can be seen in Table 2.1 (30

Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.90, 1997).

Table 2.1. Long-Term Application Rates
for Texas Soils

Long-Term Application Rate
Soil Class (gallons/square foot/day)

la >0.50

lb 0.38

II 0.25

III 0.20

IV 0.10

In addition to a percolation or infiltration test, performing a soil profile

determines the thickness and coloring of layers, depth to bedrock, type of bedrock, depth

to free ground water and to soil mottling (Hantzsche et al, 1981). When the soil profile

is combined with the soil texture, stmcture, and consistency characteristics, a more

informed decision can be made as to the size and location of an absorption field. In many

22
cases, valuable starting points for a site evaluation can be determined from a soil map,

but the soil map should not be used in place of a site evaluation (Anderson et al., 1977)

The initial care taken in sizing the absorption field when followed by proper

operation and maintenance of the system assists in prevention of soil clogging by

enabling proper loading of the drain field. Using multiple drain fields that are altemately

put into operafion would decrease the clogging potential by allowing the resting field to

dry and reclaim some of the infihrative surface. Eventually, all systems have soil

clogging effects unless they are extremely overdesigned.

Evaporation Studies

Evaporation/Evapotranspiration - Lake and Vegetation

Evaporation from a lake, surface water body, is only defined precisely when the

entire water balance is known. However, since this is usually not the case, evaporation

pans are used to determine the evaporation amounts. These pans overestimate the lake

evaporation, but pan coefficients were determined to provide reasonably accurate values

of lake evaporation. In addition, the climate, altitude, latitude, and seasonal variations

affect evaporation. Vegetation provides another means to retum moisture to the

atmosphere. This means is known as transpiration as the vegetation releases moisture

through its leaves. Using the information from the open surface evaporation and plant

transpiration, evapotranspiration from a drain field should be a viable disposal means for

septic tank effluent.

Lake evaporation is dramatically affected by the lake's microclimate, the

surrounding terrain, and the climate. A study of Lake Kinneret, Israel indicated that the

23
evaporation on opposite sides is affected by the microclimate that occurs over the lake

(Assouline and Mahrer, 1996). Winds around Lake Kinneret are predominately westeriy

and as a resuh the climate on the east side of the lake is more humid, has lower winds,

and has lower pan evaporation rates. Evaporation rates on the west side of the lake are

twice those on the east side. Based on a review of Canadian lakes, evaporation rates

varied from 5 inches in July to 0.4 inches in November (Bemhart, 1973). Lake Toba, a

deep tropical lake located in northem Sumatra, has only slight seasonal variations (Sene,

Gash, and McNeil, 1991). As a resuh, the variation in wind velocity is the dominating

evaporation factor with the necessary heat energy provided by the lake.

The type of terrain could increase or decrease the evaporation rates. Toronto,

which has a continental climate with severe winters (Gunn, 1987) has a lower

evaporation rate due to its location on Lake Ontario (Bemhart, 1973). Higher

evaporation rates are in desert-like areas in Southem Califomia and in the southwestem

United States.

Kondo and Xu (1997) reported that in arid regions, the evaporation is proportional

to the precipitation, but that in humid areas an apparent upper limit is imposed on

evaporation. This limit was determined as a function of potential evaporation and soil

types, with the upper limit for loamy soils being 2 to 3 times that of a sandy soil. If the

soil surface was essentially saturated in a humid area, the evaporation rate would be

strongly affected by wind velocity, solar radiation, air temperature and specific humidity.

However, the specific humidity and soil moisture content were the dominating factors

when the soil surface became dry, with wind velocity and air/ground temperatures

providing minor effects. In a catchment in Norway where the temperature remained

24
relatively constant, Tallaksen and Erichsen (1992) reported that the estimated

evapotranspiration decreased due to reduced soil moisture content during the dry season

The city of Lanzhou, China has many of the same climate characteristics as

Lubbock, Texas with similar precipitation/evaporation ratios. Lanzhou is also located at

the same latitude as Lubbock. Therefore, the fact that soil-moisture content in the upper

soil levels dominated during dry periods of the year in Lanzhou should also be tme for

Lubbock. In addition, moisture content due to rain in Lanzhou is recycled to the

atmosphere in 5 to 15 days (Kondo and Xu, 1997), which appears to equal that in

Lubbock based on an evaporation rate of 0.21 inches/day (30 TAC §285.90, 1997).

The soil type also affects the evaporation rate, with sand losing moisture most

rapidly by evaporation followed by sihy sand, clay loam, and volcanic ash (Kondo and

Xu, 1997). A sandy loam soil surface had an evaporation rate greater than 80% of the

moisture available if the water table was only 16 inches below the surface (Kaplan,

1991). However, when the water table was more than 40 inches below the surface, the

evaporation was below 10% of the moisture present. A test in riverbed sand revealed that

at a depth of 24 inches, the evaporation rate had dropped to almost 10% of available

moisture and never achieved the higher rates seen in the sandy loam even at a 3-inch

depth. The tests performed on these soils confirmed that higher evaporation rates would

be achieved in a drain field that is shallow and operated with a high effluent level

Evapotranspiration is dependent on climate, vegetation, and length of growing

season (Bernhart, 1973; Raddatz and Shaykewich, 1998). In cases where the surface is

wet, available energy and aerodynamic conditions limit the evapotranspiration; whereas

in areas of partial saturation, the plant community controls the evapotranspiration

25
(Konzelmann, Calanca, Muller, Menzel, and Lang, 1997). Since climate is a crhical

aspect of evapotranspiration, the areas along the Pacific and Atlantic coastal areas pose

special challenges as a resuh of higher precipitation and increased humidity (Bemhart,

1973).

A semi-arid area near Bushland, Texas was studied regarding evapotranspiration

rates in irrigated winter wheat (Howell, Steiner, Schneider, and Evett, 1995). Howell et

al (1995) reported that high spring winds and high vapor pressure deficits increased the

evapotranspiration from irrigated winter wheat. During the remainder of the growing

season, the evapotranspiration appeared to track reasonably well with the daily

temperature and solar radiation. For spring wheat grown in Canada, the total annual

evapotranspiration decreased as a result of higher temperatures shortening the growing

season (Raddatz and Shaykewich, 1998). With a shorter growing season, the wheat did

not transpire as much moisture.

Evapotranspiration Drain Fields

Evapottanspiration (ET) drain fields are used throughout the world with varying

degrees of success. Bemhart (1973) did some of the first intensive studies with ET drain

fields in the Toronto area during the early 1960's. In the late 1970's, many units were in

operation in Canada and the United States with a few in New Zealand and Israel

(Bemhart, 1978).

An ET drain field should be designed to maximize evapotranspiration, which

necessitates careful placement of the gravel and sand used in the bed to facilitate effluent

wicking to the surface (Frank, 1996). Evapotranspiration is a function of the air and ET

26
bed temperatures, wind exposure, relative humidity, bed-fill material, effluent height, and

type of vegetation. The potential evapotranspiration for a shallow ET bed with sandy

material could be increased by 200 to 250% over lake evaporation (Bemhart, 1973). One

third of this increase was attributed to the energy added by the microbes active in the

effluent. Higher gains were realized in the summer months when the effluent level

remained high within the ET bed. The increased evapotranspiration occurred because

the capillary action required at a higher effluent level was less. Bemhart (1978) indicated

that evapotranspiration under aerobic conditions in well designed beds was at least three

times the normal pan evapotranspiration and more likely to be five times as much. An

evapotranspiration rate measured in an evapotranspiration bed in Toronto was 0.1 gallons

per square foot per day (gpd/ft ) and that figure is still used as a design criterion

(Bemhart, 1973). A study at Chesapeake Bay indicated that grass could transpire water

at the annual rate of 0.08 gpd/ft^ of bed area (Lomax and Lane, 1979). Bennett and

Linstedt (1978) reported cold weather evapotranspiration for Colorado and northem

Nevada to be 0.03 gpd/ft . Further studies in Colorado indicated an evaporation rate

from an ET bed in April and May to be about 70% of pan evaporation (Hines, Bennett,

and Hoehne, 1977). This rate dropped during the summer months due to a lower soil

moisture level. The annual evaporation rate for this drain field was about 40% of the pan

evaporation.

The depth of the effluent in the drain field either increases or decreases the

evaporation potential. With an effluent level 3 inches or less below the bed surface, the

evaporation increased by 50% above pan evaporation (Bemhart, 1973). This dropped to

0% when the effluent was 8 inches below the surface and as the effluent level dropped

27
further, there was a negative effect on the evaporation rate. The evaporation rate

decreased by 90% when the effluent level was 24 inches below the surface. Based on

this information, Bemhart (1978) recommended an evapotranspiration bed depth ranging

between 18 to 24 inches. Hart (1997) essentially agreed stating that the depth of the drain

field should be no more then 19.68 inches (0.5 meters) with the lines being installed at a

depth between 11.81 to 19.68 inches (0.3 to 0.5 meters).

A project in San Antonio, Texas, using ET beds determined that during periods

with low pan evaporation rates and an effluent level 10 to 16 inches below the surface,

the surface moisture was completely evaporated, but quickly replenished (Rugen, Lewis,

and Benedict, 1977). However, at a high pan evaporation rate, the surface dried rapidly

and developed a cmst, which decreased or prevented the replenishment of the evaporated

water by capillary action and resulted in an overall reduction in evapotranspiration.

When the effluent level was 16 to 24 inches below the surface, the soil was moist, but not

saturated as with the higher effluent level. As a result, evapotranspiration continued to a

greater depth at high pan evaporation rates since a cmst did not form.

Climate has a large impact in determining the depth of a combination

evapotranspiration/absorption drain field. A drain field in an arid climate with less than

20 inches of precipitation could operate with 24 inches of permeable soil below the

trench. If there were less than 10 inches of precipitation, the bottom of the trench could

contact the restrictive soil layer (Parker et al., 1977). In situations where the system

primarily depended on evapotranspiration, humid climate conditions could result in a

drain field so large as to be impractical Hines et al. (1977) stated that an average

Colorado home producing 200 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater required an ET bed of

28
5000 to 7500 square feet (ft^). The ET bed area required for two operating Colorado ET

systems in Colorado was 4000 ft^ for a three-bedroom house and 5300 ft^ for a four-

bedroom house (Church, 1997). These systems experienced periodic overloading

because of excessive water use within the residence.

An ETA system operating in Leigh, New Zealand requires about 4850 ft^to

handle an effluent load of approximately 1200 gpd (Gunn, 1987). This system is located

in a temperate climate that has longer growing seasons, higher precipitation, and higher

evaporation than Toronto, Canada, where ET beds are operating in a continental climate.

As a result, these systems could perform better than those established on similar soil in

Toronto. During the summer months in Leigh, New Zealand, the active ETA beds had

low effluent levels with the resting beds being dry. However, during the winter, the

loaded beds were slightly surcharged with the effluent/precipitation water level up to the

bottom of the topsoil The resting beds had varying levels of effluent/precipitation

depending on the length of time they had been off-line. Without the rest cycle for these

ETA beds, the system would probably not have been successful all year. As of 1987, the

system has been operating successfully for four years. Experience with the system in

New Zealand indicated that a better operating practice for ETA fields is to have them on

an in-service rotation cycle.

Capillary action is important in the overall effectiveness of evapotranspiration

(ET) drain fields. Kaplan (1991) reported that capillary rise from a leachfield to the

surface was negligible except under special circumstances and could take a considerable

amount of time. As a soil became more saturated however, the capillary flow rate in the

saturated portion increased. For the highest capillary action in a Colorado ET drain field,

29
it was determined that the backfill should be an imported select medium-fine sand

(Bennett, Linstedt, and Fekon, 1975). The pores in the sand must be such that water

could rise by capillary action at least to the height of the ET bed (Bennett et al, 1975;

Otis, 1985). A balance must be maintained between having small enough pores for

capillary action, but not too small to adversely affect the hydraulic conductivity (Bennett

et al, 1975). Bemhart (1973) noted that capillary rise occurred best through sand with a

grain size of 0.02 to 0.04 inches (0.5 to 1.0 millimeters). Based on a Colorado study, the

ideal sand for good capillary action in an ET drain field would be in the D50 range of

0.0047 to 0.007 inches (0.12 to 0.18 mm) with a uniformity coefficient less than or equal

to four (Bennett et al, 1975). In a well-designed ET drain field, the expected capillary

rise is 8 to 12 inches (Bemhart, 1973). Hart (1997) stated that the soil used in a drain

field should have capillarity equal to or less than that of the undisturbed surrounding soil,

but should be capable of a 3.28 to 16.4 ft (1 to 5 meter) rise. Kaplan (1991) recorded

capillary rise in sands of 1 to 2 feet and up to 4 feet in clay soil. However, capillary

activity under the right conditions could rise nine feet (Bemhart, 1973).

Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

Background

In the state of Texas, the majority of onsite wastewater treatment systems are the

conventional septic tank and drain field. However, many areas of the state have soil

conditions that are not conducive to installing this type of system. Some of these soil-

limiting conditions include high percentages of clay, soil depths too shallow to provide

adequate treatment, low infihration rates, and fractured bedrock.

30
Due to the various soil properties and climates throughout Texas, a variety of

ahemative onsite wastewater treatment systems have been proposed, and a variety of

systems installed. According to Brown (1979), the following systems, some

experimental, are used in Texas to do onsite treatment of wastewater. These systems

include home aerobic plants, septic tanks, composting toilets, tile fields, elevated sand

mounds, evapotranspiration with and without infiltration, pressure sewers, and grinder

pumps. The training center has working models of many altematives currently in use

throughout Texas (Lenning, Dow, Lesikar, Lindbo, and Miles, 1998). An onsite system

consists of two parts, the pretreatment part and the disposal part (e.g., septic tank and

drain field). Pretreatment systems include different types of septic tanks, aerobic units,

sand filters, and constmcted wetlands. Disposal/dispersal systems include spray and drip

irrigation, pressure dosed and conventional drain fields, with and without gravel, mound,

and evapotranspiration.

Regulations

In Texas, permits are issued for a wide variety of onsite wastewater treatment

systems. However, Texas does not authorize the use of boreholes, cesspools, or seepage

pits for onsite wastewater treatment (30 Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.3, 1999).

With suitable soils (Class lb - Class III), the use of a conventional septic tank and drain

field is probably more cost effective. A site evaluation must be performed for onsite

sewage facilities. The evaluation should include a soil analysis relating to texture,

stmcture, depth, and depth to restrictive horizon. In addition, the groundwater elevation,

local topography, potential flood hazard, and overall site suitability must be evaluated.

31
The standard treatment systems used in Texas (30 TAC §285.32, 1999) include

the gravity flow septic tank, intermittent sand fihers, and a fiher bed. A gravity flow-

septic tank must have a minimum water level of 30 inches, inlet and outlet devices with

the inlet device being higher than the outlet device, baffles within the tank or muhiple

tanks, and inspection and cleanout ports. The tank is to be watertight and may be made

from concrete, fiberglass, plastic polyethylene, or other material approved by the

Executive Director. Intermittent sand fihers provide further treatment following the

primary treatment provided by the septic tank. In the case of the filter beds, the sand

used must meet certain specifications. The bed, which must be contained, has a

maximum loading rate, a minimum surface area, and a minimum depth of sand.

Alternative systems such as surface and subsurface irrigation, and low-pressure

dosing systems require electronic monitoring that automatically informs a maintenance

company of mechanical malfunctions (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). This monitoring system

includes a disinfection system when one is required. The surface irrigation system

application must be accompanied by a technical report, site drawing, landscape plan,

maintenance documents, affidavit, schedule for ongoing testing and evaluation of the

system, and an effluent disinfection program.

Proprietary systems shall be approved by the Executive Director and an

application to install a proprietary system must be accompanied by the documentation

required for surface irrigation systems (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). A primary criterion for

ongoing approval is the availability of firms qualified to service the units. If the systems

have not been approved by previous tests, temporary authorization may be issued by

TNRCC to allow installation of several units in areas typical for fliture installations. A

32
two-year test period is required with up to a five-year monitoring period to follow if the

unit passes the initial test.

Several disposal processes are used in the Texas, with the standard methods

considered to be absorption, evapotranspiration, and to a lesser extent, pumped effluent

(30 TAC §285.33, 1999). The absorption fields are to be installed in suitable soils

(Classes lb, II, or HI). These fields are composed of porous media, perforated drainline,

permeable soil barrier (geotextile), and backfilled with the excavated soil. An ET drain

field may be used in unsuitable soils (Classes la and IV), provided that an impermeable

liner is placed between the excavated soil and constmcted ET bed. The top of the liner

should be a minimum of two inches above the natural grade to prevent surface water

mnoff or groundwater intmsion. Sizing these beds is a critical step as an undersized bed

could restrict the homeowner's water usage or resuh in a potential heahh hazard if

wastewater ponds on the ground surface. These beds should be backfilled with Class II

soil, have a vegetative cover for transpiration, and have a leak detection system. Finally,

the ET drain fields should be used only where annual evaporation exceeds annual

precipitation. A pumped effluent drain field is used in level areas with clay soils. These

systems are to be used by single family dwellings and not commercial or institutional

stmctures. A pumped effluent drain field includes narrow trenches, small diameter pipe,

and a pump to transfer the effluent to the pipe network. If the ground slope is greater

than 2%, a pumped effluent drain field should not be used because the effluent

distribution would be unbalanced.

Proprietary disposal systems include gravel-less drain field piping, leaching

chambers, and drip irrigation (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). A gravel-less system is limited to

33
areas that will support standard subsurface disposal systems. The excavated area for

leaching chambers can be 40% smaller than the conventional drain field installation.

This system can be installed in lieu of a conventional pipe and gravel system without

requiring permit revision. A drip irrigation system is also suitable for Class IV soils since

the roots from plants at the surface will absorb the effluent. Fihering is required

upstream of the drip irrigation piping to prevent plugging of the irrigation emitters.

The final types of disposal systems are called non-standard processes. These

processes include the following systems: dosed low-pressure, soil-substitution drain

fields, surface irrigation, and mounds (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). One additional non-

standard process is the use of a drain field following approved aerobic units, secondary

treatment, and disinfection. The low-pressure system requires a means of controlling the

pump and a high water alarm. A soil substitution drain field is similar to a conventional

drain field, except that a suitable soil (Classes lb, II, or III) is placed to a depth of two

feet around the trench to an elevation less than the top of the porous media. As a result,

this system can be installed in Class la soils, which include fractured or fissured rock, or

other high permeability characteristics. A specific regulation regarding the surface

irrigation systems is that they can not be used on any acreage where products for human

consumption are grown. In addition, the effluent can not be applied to unseeded bare

ground. With these systems, the application rate should be uniform and not create mnoff.

The process with the approved aerobic unit, secondary treatment, and disinfection can be

used in Class la soils. This process has the same application requirements as those for a

surface irrigation system.

34
Field Tests in Texas

Field tests were conducted using several ahemative wastewater disposal methods.

A field test was conducted on the Nutt-Shell treatment system, which is identified as the

Pressurized Subsurface Effluent Dosing (PSED) system (Hart, 1979). This system uses a

low-pressure pump to transfer the wastewater through small diameter pipes into covered

soil trenches for absorption or evapotranspiration. These systems were initially installed

near Houston in a subdivision with soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems. One

of the primary advantages of this system is lower cost due to smaller pipe, no gravel, and

narrow trenches resulting in less excavation. These narrow trenches also provide more

soil-effluent contact area and therefore can be useful in tight soils. A primary

disadvantage is the level of operating and maintenance costs for this system since there

are pumps, alarms, a pretreatment system with an aerator, and a pressure control system

all of which must be kept operational. Also, problems could develop if the pump

provides too much pressure or if proper care was not taken in the original site evaluation

to confirm that the soil and climate are conducive to this type of system. Hart (1979)

indicated that 300 of these units have been installed throughout Texas, except for far

West Texas.

A system that has been field tested in the coastal area of Texas uses no gravel

Three varieties were evaluated by Carlile and Osbome (1981) and include the SB2®,

which uses a wrapped cormgated pipe (25 centimeters in diameter), the aerobic

pressurized subsurface effluent dosing (APSED) system, and Turf-Flow®, a semi-

pressurized dosing system using slitted corrugated plastic pipe. Approximately 150

systems were analyzed.
35
When compared to a conventional system, fewer problems were reported with the

SB2® system (Carlile and Osbome, 1981). The SB2® subsurface system was installed in

trenches that are 18 to 24 inches wide and 20 to 30 inches deep with the excavated soil

being used for backfill. This system was also installed as mound and partial mound units.

Overall, these systems performed well with 80 to 85% reporting minor or no operational

problems. Basically, this system could be used where the soils are acceptable for the

conventional system, but it is not capable of overcoming major site and soil limitations.

The APSED system was installed in 32 locations in Victoria County and

Montgomery, Texas (Carlile and Osbome, 1981). These systems include an aerobic tank

with air compressor, a pump tank with sump pump, and a distribution system of small

piping. The piping was installed in narrow/deep trenches and backfilled with the

excavated soil. An evaluation of these systems indicated major operational problems,

with 60% having ones that would classify as severe, high nuisance, or a public heahh

hazard. Most of the failures were a result of effluent ponding at the surface. However,

unlike the conventional system where the effluent usually mns off the property, the

effluent with these systems was absorbed by the surrounding soil

Turf-Flow® was the third system to be analyzed and the slitted cormgated plastic

pipes were installed in narrow/deep trenches using the excavated soil for backfill (Carlile

and Osbome, 1981). The remainder of the system consists of a septic tank for

pretreatment and a pump tank with submersible pump to pump the effluent into the

plastic pipes. Eighteen units were evaluated and three of these had significant problems,

which were primarily due to improper site evaluation. With over 89% of these systems

36
being installed in clay soils, they appeared to have a much lower failure rate than

conventional systems for the initial 2 to 3 years of use.

A third ahemative onsite wastewater treatment system includes several irrigation

methods from surface and subsurface drip to spray. Residential wastewater treatment

using subsurface drip irrigation was evaluated at sites in D'Hanis and Stephenville, Texas

(Lesikar, Neal, Sabbagh, and Jnad, 1998). Both locations have three bedroom houses,

but the Stephenville location also has effluent from an RV dump and a dog kennel. The

RV dump and dog kennel effluent is processed through a small septic tank before

combining with the house effluent. The system design, which consists of a septic tank,

constmcted wetlands, pump tank, and drip tubing, is similar for both locations. However,

the systems are installed in dissimilar soils and climates. The system in D'Hanis is

located in a drier climate with sandy loam soil and the one in Stephenville has a soil

consisting of a loamy surface overlaying a sandy clay loam, with a base of clay. Both

systems performed well with neither area having a buildup of nutrients in the soil or

additional trace metals deposited. However, the salinity and the sulfur concentrations

increased at both locations.

A sand filter followed by a drip irrigation system is used in the Austin to San

Antonio corridor (Venhuizen, 1998). In this region of Texas, the conventional systems

are problematic due to tight or shallow soils, and to regulations regarding aquifer

recharge zones. The sand filter/drip irrigation system comprises a septic tank, sand fiher

dosing tank, sand fiher, final effluent tank, and drip irrigation piping. In Texas, existing

septic tanks are retrofitted for this system even though package units are available. As a

resuh, the retrofitted unhs are not as efficient, but still provide low turbidhy water for the

37
drip irrigation unit. An effluent from this system could provide some or all of the

required landscaping irrigation at individual residences. This system has proven to be a

good combination system of pretreatment followed by wide dispersal of the effluent

through the irrigation piping. For the types of soils in central Texas, this system is

reliable and cost effective.

In the coastal area around Galveston, Texas, surface and subsurface irrigation

systems are in use, because the soils are unsuhable for conventional unhs (Carlile, 1994).

These systems consist of pretreatment using a septic tank and an aerobic unit followed by

a disinfection unit before the effluent is pumped to the spray or subsurface drip irrigation

piping. The drip irrigation system was installed on lots under 5000 ft and has had little

or no problems in 2.5 years. A spray system is ideally suited for larger lots and several of

these were installed around Lake Livingston using spray nozzles to distribute the treated

effluent more evenly. In some areas near the lake, she restrictions do not allow surface

irrigation. As a result, drip irrigation systems were installed, but due to the clayey soils,

the fields are much larger than those in the coastal areas. These systems provide a viable

ahemative that meets State Constmction Standards.

Another altemative to conventional systems is the chamber leaching system. This

system is composed of open bottom chambers that interlock to form an underground

cavem above the infihrative surface (EPA, 1980). The wastewater is discharged into this

underground cavem via a central weir, trough, or splash plate and allowed to flow over

the entire infihrative surface. There is no masking due to gravel and there is a larger

storage volume than that available in a gravel system (Infiltrator, 1993). The Infiltrator®

has end plates that are screwed on and the other sections just slip together to make the

38
desired length. Several of these were installed in the Texas Panhandle and a field test

was conducted to determine their suhabiHty in a variety of soils and if the claim that they

could be sized at 60% of a conventional field was valid (Dix and May, 1997). A total of

42 systems were monhored, all of which were sized at 60% of the conventional field.

These fields were evaluated over a five-year period whh no failures or seasonal

variabilhy in performance noted. Since this evaluation, an additional 678 chamber

leaching systems were installed at the 60% criteria whh no failures reported.

Artificial Wastewater

Literature on artificial wastewater is rather limited and as a result, h was

necessary to use studies on actual septic tanks to determine the appropriate levels for

five-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total

Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total suspended solids (TSS) in an artificial wastewater

effluent. The ASTM Standard D 5905 (1997) describes a standard practice for the

preparation of an artificial wastewater that has characteristics similar to municipal

wastewater. This artificial wastewater procedure has the following ingredients: reagent

water, reduced calorie beer. Kaolin - USP grade, flour (general, all-purpose, bleached,

enriched, pre-sifted, wheat), ocean sahs, and a Triton X-100 solution. Table 2.2 is a

comparison of several studies that record actual and artificial wastewater constituents.

The artificial wastewaters had higher COD and BOD5 levels than those seen in actual

septic tanks. To use these artificial wastewaters, they must be diluted or the ingredients

reduced in order to mimic actual septic tank effluent.

39
Table 2.2. Wastewater Consthuents

Data Source Constituent Wastewater
BOD5 COD TKN TSS Type
(mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l)
Septic Tank
EPA (1980) 142 296 42 77 Effluent
Peeples and Septic Tank
Mancl (1998) 15-181 144-187 11-45 40-133 Effluent
Septic Tank
Keefer(1940) 57-96 31-202 Effluent
Septic Tank
Keefer(1940) 67-142 110-326 Influent
Peeples and Artificial
Mancl (1998) 700 114
ASTM Artificial
D5905 (1997) >570 3500 30 232

40
CHAPTER m

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

She Selection - Reese Center

As requested by the Texas On-She Wastewater Treatment Research Council, a

proposal for an onshe effluent disposal system was developed to determine if including

evapotranspiration from a drain field could reduce the drain field size. To enable a

comparison between different field types, the study included evapotranspiration (ET)

fields, absorption (AB) fields, and combination evapotranspiration/ab sorption (ETA)

fields. The proposed test facility included 18 fields, nine using clean water and nine

using wastewater. In each set of nine, 3-ET, 3-AB, and 3-ETA beds were included to

provide adequate replicates of each type. The order of these fields on the site was

determined by random selection.

The proposed system, which comprised artificial wastewater mixing tanks, septic

tanks, header tanks, and eighteen drain fields, was reviewed and a design developed. A

simplified process flow sheet is shown in Figure 3.1. Based on this design, the two-acre

plot, which is located approximately 11 miles west of the Texas Tech campus, at Reese

Center (formerly Reese Air Force Base) was surveyed. Using the survey information,

contour maps were generated. These contour maps were then used to place the eighteen

fields, control building, and septic tanks. A plan view of the test she is shown in Figure

3.2.

The she was staked for a control building, septic tanks, and drain field installation

along with electrical and water supplies. Then, eighteen field trenches having a width of
41
co •i -

iel
Q Q .H
o Pu o ^
h- H
M
•4—»
c« H /
^ u^
(L> (i> V
•4^
T3 \,

Hea
N
U X

H
a.
c/:i

a

3

0)
O
O

£

iJO

42
c
o
>

w
>

13
o
o

c
CO

H

3
00

43
36 inches, depth of 24 inches, and a length of 20 feet were exca\ated. These trenches are

spaced 26 feet apart centerline to centerline. A picture of a drain field trench can be seen

in Figure 3.3. Upon completion of the excavation, soil samples were taken and

infiltration rates predicted for all eighteen fields. After completion of the infihration test,

the constmction of the individual fields began.

When the fields were complete, the field piping was installed. Then, the

polyethylene tanks required for the system and their associated piping were placed. After

this, the control building was placed on location and the final plumbing and electrical

connections required for the system were installed.

Infiltrometer Test and Soil Survey

An infiltration test, beginning on June 24, 1999, and concluding on June 26, 1999,

was performed in each trench within hours of their excavation. In order to aid in the

interpretation of the test resuhs, two conttol evaporation units were placed on the bottom

of fields 8 and 17 The control units were used to determine the amount of evaporation

that occurred during the infiltration test. Three double-ring infihrometers were installed

in each trench to determine the infiltration rate. Units were shed at each end and mid

point of each trench as can be seen in Figure 3.4. Each infiltrometer consisted of a metal

inner ring (5.04 inches (128-mm) in diameter) and a PVC outer ring (8.07 inches (205-

mm) in diameter). The inner ring was driven 2.95 inches (75 mm) into the ground and

then the larger pipe set around h and driven approximately the same depth into the soil to

provide a water seal A 6-inch (15-cm) mler was attached to the inner ring to aid in

accurately measuring the level of water. Next the annulus between the rings was filled

44
Figure 3.3. Drain Field Trench

—^
>*^.;-.

X

,-i.'rX%.;;, V
»-«^

,-.^', '" • r

y.'-
' * - « • » _ • tr •»
',1
-«. . • - — „ • " ' . ^ "•*""^^

-"«'- .S.^
"/', .^'€ 2*^
-..••^:)ixl.-?^.
- ' •

;..^ 4 * , C^*:.-i*-c
" '* / -* ^,"T"^
"<?• •*•<
,*-".-

Figure 3.4. Double Ring Infiltrometers

45
with 2.12 quarts (2 Ihers) of well water and then the inner ring was filled whh 2.12 quarts

(2 Ihers) of water. An inhial infiltration rate (Stage I) was determined by monitoring the

level at 15 second intervals for a minute. After these measurements were complete, the

annulus received an addhional Iher of water and the inner ring received a volume that

would bring hs water level to 5.5 inches (14 centimeters) on the mler. This volume was

recorded for use in the calculations. Level readings were taken over the next few days to

determine Stage n and Stage HI infihration rates. The infihration rates were averaged

and a daily infiltration volume calculated for those drain fields that would not be lined.

These infihration rates are shown in Table 3.1 and the raw data used to determine them is

in Appendix A.

While the infihrometers were installed and the Stage I test mn, soil samples were

taken to a depth of 3 feet (0.915 m) below the trenches. The sampling was done in one-

foot (0.305 m) increments at a location near the downstream end of each trench. A hand

auger was used to obtain these samples and the sample designated for the full one-foot

range as mixing does occur. The soil samples were analyzed for the percentage of sand,

sih, and clay. Based on these percentages, the soils were classed according to the Texas

classification chart introduced in the soil section of the Iherature search and are tabulated

for the unlined fields in Table 3.2. In addition to determining the soil composhion, the

moisture content for each interval was determined and is also recorded in Table 3.2.

46
Table 3.1. Infiltration Rates for Unlined Drain Fields

Unit and Infiltration Rates ( mm/hr) Unh Std.
Type Avg. Dev. Infihration
Site A SiteB SiteC (mm/hr) (mm/hr) Vol. (gpd)

1 ABW 1.14 2.29 4.05 2.49 1.5 88

2AB 1.16 0.28 0.58 0.67 0.4 24

3 AB 1.73 0.58 0.38 0.90 0.7 32

4 ETAW 5.23 4.71 5.20 5.05 0.3 178

7 ETA 10.12 13.77 5.39 9.76 4.2 345

9 ETAW 7.19 12.10 3.16 7.48 4.5 264

11 ABW 1.97 2.95 0.81 1.91 1.1 67

12 AB 3.03 0.78 0.78 1.53 1.3 54

13 ABW 8.89 4.44 6.02 6.45 2.3 228

14 ETA 12.14 14.29 20.29 15.57 4.2 550

15 ETA 0.82 8.39 11.32 6.84 5.4 242

16 ETAW 14.00 22.00 16.89 17.63 4.1 623

Notes: 1. The infihration rates were determined after approximately 24 hours.

2. The unh average is the average of the three infihration rates.

3. Std. Dev. is the standard deviation for the infiltration rates.

A. The infihration volume is calculated using a bottom area of 60 ft .

47
Table 3.2. Soil Composhion, Classification, and Moisture Content

Unlined Sample Soil Composition Texas Moisture
Drain Depth (ft) Sand Sih Clay Soil Content
Fields Class (%)
1 ABW 0-1 56.94 21.32 21.75 m 12.5
1-2 60.79 18.99 20.22 • ii-m 11.3
2-3 77.54 11.22 11.25 n 11.0
2AB 0-1 57.84 17.80 24.36 III 10.1
1-2 60.21 18.00 21.79 III 10.6
2-3 68.82 15.60 15.57 II 10.2
3 AB 0-1 61.34 16.80 21.86 III 9.3
1-2 59.56 16.32 24.12 m 13.0
2-3 66.09 18.03 15.87 n 1.7
4 ETAW 0-1 61.49 21.96 16.55 II 8.5
1-2 57.38 16.47 26.16 III 12.9
2-3 67.60 18.62 13.78 II 7.2
7 ETA 0-1 61.64 21.58 16.78 II 9.6
1-2 61.21 14.32 24.47 III 8.7
2-3 68.34 16.18 15.47 II 8.1
9 ETAW 0-1 66.08 19.26 14.66 II 8.3
1-2 58.61 18.81 22.59 m 9.3
2-3 66.39 14.49 19.12 II 9.7
11 ABW 0-1 58.36 15.74 25.90 m 4.6
1-2 58.54 23.28 18.17 n 4.8
2-3 68.10 21.89 10.01 II 3.0
12 AB 0-1 58.68 19.38 21.95 ni 10.3
1-2 56.44 20.79 22.77 m 4.8
2-3 65.80 17.66 16.54 II 10.1
13 ABW 0-1 54.85 23.65 21.50 ni 7.7
1-2 48.25 20.70 31.05 ni 12.2
2-3 63.66 17.17 19.18 n 6.0
14 ETA 0-1 63.43 21.43 15.14 II 7.0
1-2 62.44 15.45 22.10 m 10.0
2-3 47.28 33.32 19.41 II 7.0
15 ETA 0-1 66.06 14.42 19.52 n 7.3
1-2 65.00 15.28 19.73 u 8.6
2-3 68.28 13.97 17.74 n 9.0
16 ETAW 0-1 64.59 17.60 17.80 n 8.5
1-2 62.49 10.81 26.70 m 11.4
2-3 62.14 19.91 17.95 n 11.8

48
Drain Field Constmction

The eighteen drain fields are divided into three sets: 6-ET, 6-ETA, and 6-AB

fields. Cross sections of these fields can be seen in Figure 3.5. The intemal portion of

each field has a 4" perforated PVC pipe mnning the length of the trench, whh 0.5-inch

perforations every 6 inches at the 4 and 8 o'clock poshions on the pipe. Figure 3.6 shows

three views of the intemal field piping. At each end of this pipe is a four way cross whh

perforated pipe to the bottom of the field and solid piping to the surface. There is a

support pipe in the middle to keep the 20-foot length of pipe level. The top of this pipe is

approximately 16 inches from the bottom. The perforated pipe to the bottom of the field

allows the fluid level in the field to equalize and be visually monhored at each end of the

field. Also, there is an addhional perforated pipe wrapped whh geotextile in which a

level sensing system is installed.

After installation of the piping within each drain field, the form designed to

enable the formation of a gravel bed in a hemispherical form was placed in the trench.

Figure 3.7 includes a cross section of a hemispherical gravel bed drain field used in Texas

(30 TAC §285.90). The 8-foot long form used in this project was constmcted using a

metal frame and paneling. A picture of this form can be seen in Figure 3.8. The paneling

was attached to the metal frame with an opening in the top for the gravel to fall through.

This frame was then moved manually down the trench to enable filling the gravel along

the entire 20-foot length. As the frame was moved, h was noted that the gravel did not

remain in the hemispherical shape but sought hs angle of repose resulting in an

approximate 25° slope from the horizontal. The gravel was placed to a depth to just

cover the 4 inch perforated effluent distribution line. DeWitt Mh-acle Mat (geotextile)

49
ETA Field

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

AB Field

Plastic Liner

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

ET Field

Plastic Liner

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

Figure 3.5. Reese Drainfields - Cross Section Views

50
O
P-
o

e
c
a

N
u<
Q
C4-1
0 &u

ipin
^
u cu
>
•0
c u
W tu

vd a» a> «5
3 -tt > <w
«c «^ »S u
fS U O .g
I I
I

(iti to
C
c
•5,
(X
15
c c
• •-^
CO c
N4H >-.
o Q Q
CtH
o Cu
O
> c
o >
H Q
so
en
: o

51
BACKFILL son. USE TDP SFFACT ra?
CLASS lb OR n use SOIL aASS C«.CaATING E.T.
SOIL BACKFILL, FKLT. ORAINFIELI] SIZE
ASS I I BACKTIll
FDR ALL E.T. "

GEO TEXIILE
FABRIC 18-36
18-36
INDCS
INCHES
3-4 INCH DPTIDNAL
PERFORATED PIPE YBACK

12
INCHES POROUS MOIA
MINIMUM ffDTEXTlLE
FABRIC
E V a BOTIDM

h»—3FT. MAX-M Ltm
Bonm

MULTIPLE DRAINLINE DPTIDNS ABSIRPTIVE
SINGLE PIPE DRAWING OR LT. OPTIDN
ABSORPTIVE DR EJ. (EXCAVATION WIDTH > 3rT>
ABSORPTIVE DR E.T.
BACKFILL WITH SOIL aASS
lb DR I I ONLY

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BACKHLL WTH
CLASS IB DR I I m y
POROUS MEDIA OR
GRAVELESS PIPE

B OR 10 INCH
MWINALDIA
DISTRIBUTION PDt
GRAVELESS PIPE
VITHAPPRDVED
WRAP SOIL aASS lb OR I I

L£Va BOTHW
| « - 5 FT MIN — ^
SOIL SUBSTITUTION DRAINFELD CONSTRUCTED
OVER HIGHLY PERMEABLE GROUND
GRAVELLESS S I N a E PPE DRAINFELD (FRACTURED ROCK GRAVEL, GEOLOGIC FAULT)

Figures.?. Typical Drainfields
Source: Title 30 TAC §285.90,1997.

52
•X.

5b

> 1
was placed on top of the gravel bed prior to backfilling to prevent soil from plugging the

pores in the gravel. The backfilled soil was slightly mounded to assist in precipitation

runoff.

The ET fields are lined with 60-mil high-densit>- polyethylene (HOPE) plastic

manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. as can be seen in Figure 3.9. The Imer is

folded at the comers to maintain a good water seal in the trench. A circular hole was cut

in the upstream end of the plastic to install the piping for the incoming effluent. This

pipe was installed with a bushing assembly to seal the opening and then silicone was

placed around the bushing as a second leakage barrier. Figure 3.10 is a picture of the

pipe with bushing assembly.

The AB fields are covered with 60-mil HDPE plastic (Figure 3.11) that extends

13 feet either side of the field centerline and 7 feet past each end of the field to prevent

evaporation and the intrusion of precipitation. In the random placement of the fields,

three AB fields are adjacent to each other on each half of the installation, which enabled

the plastic cover to be spread over three fields without a seam. To enable the plastic

cover to lie flat, it was cut and forced down around the observation pipes and the level

sensing pipe (Figure 3.12). Afi:er the plastic was on the ground around these pipes, black

roofing tar was used to seal these openings.

Upon completion of all 18 fields, the piping to connect them to the clean water

and wastewater header tanks was installed. In a center ditch running the fiill length of the

field, 1-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping was placed for clean water supply,

wastewater supply, and wastewater retum. Spears 1-inch ball valves were installed at the

end of the wastewater piping and the clean water piping so that these lines could be

54
.^J"
'4 9 ^*

^

•-^fe

Figure 3.9. ET Field Lmer

aurc3.10. ET Pipe with Bushing
Fiiiurc
Fiiiure 3.11. AB Field Cover

Figure 3.12. AB Field Sensor and Observation Pipes

56
flushed to a large French drain installed at the end of the field. Then individual fields

were connected to the appropriate clean water or wastewater piping. Each field

connection consists of 1-inch PVC piping with a Spears 1-mch ball valve for positive

shut-off followed 20-pipe diameters downstream by a Hayward FloSite 2100 flowmeter

and then a Weather Matic 1-inch solenoid valve (Figure 3.13). This I-inch piping is

connected to the 4-inch drain field piping using PVC bushings.

Tanks and Suppiv Svstem

The tank system initially included two mixing tanks, a clean water storage tank, a

wastewater storage tank, and two gravity header tanks. While these tanks were being

installed, it was determined from the infiltrometer data that insufficient wastewater

storage volume was available for a three-day retention time and a second wastewater

storage tank was added. Later, a third wastewater storage tank had to be installed to

provide sufficient wastewater residence time to enable the remaining wastewater fields to

come on-line. During the initial start-up of the system, the gravity header tanks were

replaced with pressure header tanks.

The first tanks to be installed were the 750-gallon clean water tank and a 1500-

gallon wastewater tank (Figure 3.14). The 1500-gallon septic tank is divided into two

sections by a baffle, with the upstream side containing two-thirds of the volume. The

baffle came with a large hole for fluid passage about one third of the way down. Two

additional 2-inch holes were added at one-foot intervals starting 18 inches from the

bottom of the tank. The holes were added to enable flow to transfer from the upstream

side when the level required for a three-day retention time is below that of the main

57
Fiiiure 3.13. Field Valvinii

*' Figure 3.14. Septic Tanks

58
passage. Piping at the inlets and outlets of both septic tanks was completed to the extent

possible and readied for connecting to the piping from the water supply well and from

and to the control building. At this point, a second wastewater septic tank was installed

with its outlet connected to the inlet piping for the first (primary) wastewater septic tank.

The inlet piping to the primary tank was modified to enable either septic tank to receive

artificial wastewater by manually changing the position of two ball valves. As with the

primary tank, the baffle in this tank also received additional holes. All three septic tanks

were equipped with Sta-Rite 1/3-hp sump pumps to transfer water to the next tank

whether it is another septic tank or a header tank.

After the control building was placed on location, two 225-gallon mixing tanks

and two 65-gallon header tanks were placed in the building. These mixing tanks are

provided with a water source and piping for feeding the wastewater mixture to either of

the septic tanks by gravity or by pumping. The piping and valve system between the mix

tanks allows one tank to be filled while the other is drained to the septic tank and is done

by manually switching the correct valves. A Sta-Rite V2 hp centrifugal pump connected

inline is used to shorten the transfer time from a mixing tank to a septic tank. To aid in

cleaning the mix tanks, a drain line with ball valve is installed on each tank with the

drained fluid routed to a 1.5 inch main that empties into a small French drain to the north

of the control building.

Each of the original 65-gallon gravity header tanks was piped so that the water

entered near the top and exited near the bottom. The outlet piping from the primary

wastewater septic tank and the clean water septic tank is connected to the wastewater and

clean water header tanks respectively. Each header tank's outlet piping is connected to

59
its corresponding field piping. The wastewater field piping includes a retum line that was

connected near the top of the wastewater gravity header tank, but is now connected to the

combined inlet/outlet piping for the wastewater pressure header tank. A Sta-Rite Vi hp

centrifiigal pump is used to occasionally circulate the wastewater in the field piping to

prevent stagnation at the end of the field.

Level Control Svstem for Fields and Tanks

Level control systems, each consisting of three sensing probes (Figure 3.15), and

a relay (Omega LVC 511) switch that activates a solenoid valve (field) or pump (tank),

are installed in each field, each header tank, and in two of the septic tanks. One probe is

considerably longer and is the reference probe for the system since plastic pipes and tanks

are being used. The remaining two probes were cut to the appropriate lengths to maintain

the desired levels in the field or tank. In each drain field, the water level is maintained

within one inch of the top of the gravel envelope. Therefore, when the water level drops

one inch (i.e., below the low probe), the electrical circuit is opened and electrical power

is provided via the relay to the solenoid valve causing it to open and allow flow into the

field. As the water level rises to the point where contact was made with the high probe,

the electrical circuit is closed and the relay switch no longer supplies electrical power to

the solenoid valve and it closes. Three of the septic tanks are set up in a similar manner.

In the wastewater septic tanks, the sensing system activates a pump when the tank is

about half-full and then shuts off the pump near the top of the tank. The clean water

septic tank system activates and deactivates a solenoid valve to refill that tank with well

water. Both of the gravity header tanks are configured with even a wider range of

60
operation and in both cases, the system activates and deactivates a septic tank sump

pump.

The field level controls are operated on a 24-volt altemating current (VAC)

system with the 110 voltage reduced using ACME transformers. Six fields are connected

to each transformer in the following manner: fields 1 to 3 and 10 to 12 - first transformer;

fields 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 - second transformer, fields 7 to 9: 16 to 18 - third transformer.

The wiring used for the field sensors and relays is automated sprinkler s\ stem wire. A

shallow trench was dug in the top of each field to accommodate the wire for the sensors.

For each field, this wire is connected to the sensors and then attached to the relay socket

in the valve box located at the upstream end of the field. Additional wire was run

through the center trench to the control building to enable connection of the fields to their

respective transformers. In the tanks, the level controllers operate on 110 volts. Conduit

was run to each location where power is required and 12/3 Romex wire pulled through

the conduit. An on/off switch is installed for the 110 VAC sensing system in the primary

wastewater septic tank to enable manual filling.

Weather Station

A weather station (Figure 3.16) was installed to monitor several conditions used

in the calculation of evapotranspiration and in evaluating how the fields react to weather

changes. The weather station is a GroWeather manufactured by Davis Instruments

(Davis, 1997). This unit has an anemometer for measuring wind speed and direction.

Wind chill is calculated using the information from the anemometer and temperature

sensor. Air temperature, humidity, and dew point are measured using the combination

61
I igure 3.16. Weadier Station

62
temperature/humidity sensor. In addition, the Gro Weather measures solar radiation,

barometric pressure, and precipitation. Solar radiation for this unit is composed of the

direct component from the sun and a diffiise component from the sk>. In actualit\. the

Gro Weather measures atmospheric pressure and once the local barometric pressure is

entered, the unit converts atmospheric pressure to a local barometric pressure reading.

There is also a symbol indicating whether this pressure is steady, rising, or falling.

Precipitation is measured with a tipping bucket rain gauge accurate to 0.01 inch.

All the recorded weather information can be viewed by using the keyboard unit

mounted in the control building. A data logger is connected to this unit and records

weather conditions every thirty minutes and uses this data to calculate evapotranspiration

each hour. One time per day, the data logger is downloaded to a computer using the

CjroWeatherLink Software. The data downloaded to the computer is exported to a

computer disc at the end of each month.

The weather station is located on a pole cemented into the ground approximately

75 feet from the control building. In order to provide the correct wind values for the

Penman-Monteith evapotranspiration equation, the anemometer was installed 2 meters

above the surrounding area. A compass was brought to the site to aid in calibrating the

wind direction arrow. The barometric pressure was adjusted using the barometric

pressure measurements from a local television station. These were later verified with a

hand-held barometric pressure unit.

63
Artificial Wastewater

Based on the Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Wastewater

(ASTM D 5905, 1997) and the known effluent values from actual septic tanks, which

were recorded in the literature review, an influent was prepared in the Environmental

Science Laboratory. After a three-day residence time, it was desired that this influent

would result in an effluent with 200 mg/l BOD5, 300 mg/l COD, 75 mg/l TKN, and 80

mg/l TSS. Using the standard (ASTM D 5905, 1997) resulted in an atypical effluent with

high COD and no TKN. Therefore, it was decided to add urea, as a nitrogen source, to

the recipe and make fiirther refinements to achieve an effluent that would closely mimic

the effluent from an actual septic tank. The ASTM and Texas Tech University recipes

are listed in Table 3.3 and influent constituents compared in Table 3.4.

Table 3.3. Artificial Wastewater Recipes

ASTM Texas Tech
Ingredient D5905 Ingredient University
Recipe Recipe
Reduced Calorie Anheuser-Busch
Beer Natural Light
240 ml/1 Beer 2.51 ml/1
All-Purpose
Flour Bleached/
Flour 800 mg/l Enriched 53 mg/l

Kaolin-USP 160 mg/l Kaolin-Filler 40 mg/l
Grade Grade

Ocean Salts 4000 mg/l Ocean Salts Omg/1

Triton X 40 ml/1 Triton X 24 mg/l

Urea Omg/1 Urea 65 mg/l

64
Table 3.4. Septic Tank Influent Constituents

ASTM Texas Tech
Wastewater D5905 (1997) University
Constituent Artificial Artificial
Wastewater Wastewater

65
CHAPTER rV

START-UP OPERATIONS

Original Program

For the originally proposed start-up program, the wastewater septic tanks were

seeded and artificial wastewater ingredients added. The mixture was allowed to sit for

five days to reach the desired BOD5 and TSS levels that would mimic an actual septic

tank effluent. Then, it was envisioned that all of the fields would be started

simultaneously. The volumes calculated for the initial loading of the wastewater fields

were based on a gravel porosity of 25%. After the initial loading, a schedule for mixing

artificial wastewater would be determined that would provide a three-day residence time

to maintain the wastewater strength and provide for the daily loading requirements.

Samples were to be taken weekly from the wastewater header tank and analyzed for TSS,

pH, conductivity, TKN, ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N), COD, and BOD5.

After reviewing the infiltrometer data and recognizing the higher gravel porosity,

a revised schedule was developed to bring the fields on in a staggered fashion over a six-

day period. The process was designed to maintain a fairly balanced request from the

artificial wastewater septic tank. In this procedure, the following analyses were to be

performed after the fields began coming on-line. For the clean water fields, COD and

TSS would be monitored on a weekly basis with BOD5 monitored on a biweekly basis.

In the case of the wastewater, daily samples would be collected from the header tank and

analyzed for COD, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), TKN, NH4-N, and a fiill solids

complement, which included total solids (TS), TSS, total dissolved solids (TDS), total

66
volatile solids (TVS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), and volatile dissolved solids

(VDS). A weekly analysis would be done for BOD5. The wastewater fields would be

sampled at both upstream and downstream locations and these samples anal) zed for COD

and TSS. Weekly samples would be taken at both locations and analyzed for BOD5

content. This sample regimen would be reduced at a later time to daily samples for COD

and TSS at the wastewater header tank and a weekly sample for BOD5. The wastewater

fields would be sampled weekly at upstream and downstream locations for COD, BOD5,

and TSS. A sampling schedule would be determined for the clean water fields based on

results during the early days of operation.

Modified Program

One of the first four fields was brought on-line using the revised procedure

described in the previous section. However, a problem was noted with the flowmeter and

solenoid valve operation. Electronic interference was the cause and was eliminated by

moving the two units fiirther away from each other within the valve box. The system was

started again with four fields coming on-line, three clean water and one wastewater. This

time, the drain fields saturated rapidly and it was determined that there was insufficient

pressure to operate the solenoid valves. As a result, pressure header tanks were installed

and the fields were gradually brought on-line.

All of the clean water fields were brought on-line within a ten-day period. With

the wastewater fields, the three-evapotranspiration fields were the first to be brought on-

line. After these fields had been on-line a few days, additional wastewater fields were

started. In starting the additional wastewater fields, the wastewater demand was

67
monitored closely to maintain a three-day residence time in the septic tanks. Ulien a new

field was brought on-line, the residence time would sometimes drop to two days for a few

days. After bringing six wastewater fields on-line, the daily loading was at the limit for

maintaining the three-day residence time and remained that wa> for almost a month. At

that time, the seventh field was brought on-line. As it became apparent that the actual

infiltration rates occurring in the ABW and ETAW fields were substantially different

from those calculated using the infiltrometer tests, it was determined that a third

wastewater septic tank would be required to enable the remaining fields to come on-line

in a timely manner. The two remaining wastewater fields were brought on-line after the

third 1500-gallon tank was installed. A detailed description of the start-up operations and

the modifications made to the system is located in Appendix B.

The final system layout for the wastewater includes two mixing tanks (Figure

4.1), three 1500-gallon septic tanks, and a pressure header tank (Figure 4.2) to provide

the effluent to the drain fields. On the clean water side, the system comprises a 750-

gallon septic tank and a pressure header tank to provide clean water to the drain fields.

Detailed layout drawings of the final configuration for the tank system and drain fields

are located in Appendix C.

After start-up, samples were collected twice a week from the wastewater drain

fields and header tank. COD was measured twice each week, BOD5, TKN, pH, TSS and

other solids were measured once a week, and major cations and anions were measured

every other week. Clean water drain field samples were taken on a bi-weekly basis and

analyzed for COD, TKN, and major cations and anions. The clean water septic tank was

sampled weekly and the COD and TKN measured.

68
Figure 4 1. Mixir.ii Tanks

Figure 4.2 Pressure Tanks

69
Fill Volumes

During the filling phase of the drain fields, it was observed that the loading

volume required was two to three times larger than what was predicted. Part of the

additional volume was due to the soil being dry and it was suspected that the remainder

might be a result of the gravel porosity being greater than 25%. Therefore, a porosity test

described by Kaplan (1991) was conducted using some of the gravel used in the field.

Kaplan (1991) recommended that the test be performed without tamping or shaking the

gravel as described in the ASTM method, since the gravel in the drain field was not

tamped or shaken. The test was done by filling a one-liter container with gravel and then

water from a one-liter measure was added to the gravel filled container. This procedure

was repeated with three separate containers of gravel with water being added and drained

from each container four times. The first fill for each container provided a porosity

without the gravel being shaken and the average of the three containers was 48%. Each

separate container yielded shaken/settled porosities of 41%, 43%, and 42% with an

overall average of 42%. Apparently the gravel used at Reese Center is more uniform in

size than was expected. Using the new porosity figures resulted in fill volumes of 226

gallons, almost double the original prediction of 115 gallons.

Clean Water Fields

The daily demands from the clean water AB and ETA fields increased gradually

within days of being brought on-line. As this increase was being observed, it appeared

that the moisture level in the soil surrounding the ETA fields was increasing. A weekly

survey was conducted in which the obviously moist areas around each were roughly

70
measured. These areas grew from week to week and in a couple of areas, almost met in

the open ground between fields, a distance of 13 feet from the field centerline. With the

increasing saturation zone, it was suspected that there could be interference with the

wastewater fields nearby. A soil moisture analysis was conducted in the accessible area

of the field with 13 samples being collected at the midway point between fields or 9 feet

downstream in the case of #9 and #18. These samples were collected from auger holes

approximately 3.25 inches in diameter and at a depth of 24 inches. This analysis

confirmed that the moisture level down slope of the ETA's was approximately 20%,

about twice that of the base level. In addition, the soil was glistening due to the salts

from the water. Based on this analysis and the fact that the well pump was operating at

50 % capacity without all the fields being on-line, it was decided to take the clean water

AB and ETA fields off-line. As a result, the current field operation has all nine

wastewater drain fields and the three clean water evapotranspiration drain fields on-line.

The gravimetric water content, location of sample, and status of each field at the time of

the soil test are shown in Table 4.1.

As a result of the lateral saturation with the clean water fields, the wastewater

ETA fields were observed and all of them had some of the same tendencies. However,

the area being saturated is approximately one-fourth to one-third of that noted with the

clean water fields. A soil moisture analysis of these areas has not been performed and as

a result, actual moisture content is not known.

71
Table 4.1 Soil Moisture Content

Sample Location Gravimetric Water Field Status
Content (%)

3 AB-4 ETAW 12.31 3 AB - on-line / 4 ETAW - off-line

5ETW-6ET 11.98 5 ETW - on-line / 6 ET - on-line

6 ET - 7 ETA 13.52 6 ET - on-line / 7 ETA - on-line

7 ETA - 8 ETW 20.85 7 ETA - on-line / 8 ETW - on-line

8 ETW - 9 ETAW 10.01 8 ETW - on-line / 9 ETAW - off-line

D/Sof9ETAW 9.38 9 ETAW - off-line

l O E T - 1 1 ABW 13.46 10 ET - on-line /11 ABW - on-line

13 A B W - 1 4 ETA 20.77 13 ABW - off-lme / 14 ETA - on-line

14 E T A - 1 5 ETA 19.66 14 ETA - on-line /15 ETA - on-line

15 E T A - 1 6 ETAW 16.29 15 ETA - on-line / 16 ETAW - on-line

16 E T A W - 1 7 ETW 14.32 16 ETAW - on-lme /17 ETW - on-
line

D/Sofl8ET 9.48 18 ET-on-line

72
Dailv Operation

The daily operation of the research project involves recording the totalizer

readings for each drain field and the one on the wastewater septic tank outlet. In addition

to these readings, a set of readings is taken from the weather station monitor as a back up

to the weather data logger system. These readmgs are taken at the same time each day to

provide more consistent data for analysis. Daily field demands are determined and

plotted on weekly graphs, which allows rapid detection of major changes.

Artificial wastewater is mixed twice daily and drained to the septic tanks. By

mixing twice each day, the wastewater strength is maintained at a relatively constant

level. Samples of the wastewater fields and header tank are collected twice per week

with the clean water septic tank sampled once per week and the clean water drain fields

only sampled on a bi-weekly basis. Once each month, the weather data that has been

downloaded from the weather station is exported to a separate disc to provide a back-up

copy should the power fail.

Appendix D includes the form used for the daily readings. In addition, the

procedures for mixing the artificial wastewater, for sampling the drain fields and header

tanks, and for downloading the weather data are included. Afinalprocedure located in

Appendix D is the one for tapping the keg.

73
CHAPTER V

PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

Predicted Infiltration Rates versus Actual Demand Rates

The predicted infiltration rates for the clean water fields based on infiltrometer

test data were a fraction of observed flow rates during actual operation. The wastewater

fields however had a closer agreement between the test and actual values. Using the test

infiltration values would have eliminated most of the proposed drain fields, since the

EPA (1980) recommended that conventional trench and bed designs not be installed in

soils having a percolation rate slower than 60 minutes/inch. This research project has ten

of twelve absorption drain fields with a slower rate, ranging from 150 to 2300

minutes/inch. However, while in service, the six clean water fields took anywhere from 2

to 65 times what the infiltration numbers indicated, which was within the 45 to 1100

range for clean water absorption reported by Kaplan (1991).

Such a wide variation in calculated versus actual infiltration rates could be caused

by a combination of items. First, since the values for soil texture and infiltration rates did

not correspond to the EPA (1980) numbers, there was an indication that either the soil

stmcture or clay mineralogy was having a significant effect on hydraulic conductivity or

that the methodology used in the infiltration test was not representative. Second, the fact

that infiltration rates were only calculated for the bottom surface of the drain field

resulted in smaller volumes. Since these systems are operating with a liquid level of

approximately 16 inches, adding the sidewall infiltrative surface area doubled the total

infiltrative surface for each drain field from 60fi:^to 121 ft^. In addition, the added

74
hydraulic head could more than double the infiltration rate as recorded by Winneberger

(1974). Fourth, the EPA (1980) stated that infiltration rates varying by more than 20

minutes/inch should not be averaged since the variation was indicative of different soil

types. Every drain field in the project reflected variations of more than 20 minutes/inch

amongst its three test sites. A maximum infiltration volume using the highest infiltration

rate could have been used. However, even in that case, the calculations would have been

approximate as too many other factors described above also impact these rates.

Using the calculated infiltration rates, the daily infiltration volumes were

predicted for the AB and ETA drain fields. All of the clean water fields exceeded the

predicted volumes by a considerable amount as can be seen by comparing data in Table

3.1 with the graphs in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. A conclusive comment could not be made

about the wastewater fields due to the impact of solids in the effluent and the

development of a biomat at the infiltrative surface. The graphs for the wastewater AB

and ETA fields are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. Field loading data is located in

Appendix E.

An attempt to determine if a correlation exists between the predicted infiltration

rates and the actual infiltration rates for the AB and ETA fields was performed. Two

qualifying statements must be made as background before describing any possible

correlation. First, as can be seen in the demand graphs for these fields, a stabilized

demand rate had not been achieved for either the clean water or wastewater fields.

Second, the fact that there were only three data points resulted in a weakly defined trend.

To properly define a trend, a minimum of four data points are needed with the best

situation having 5 to 9 data points. As a consequence, these possible correlations are

75
(N
<N m —
-a -o •o
u 0) o
u. u. u.
1 11 5
!
1 t

^ .
4-

%;
^

%;
^

en

%;.
PQ o
<

03

e %;.

^v !»
O -a
(U
• v4
Pu
m
<
-pu
%
<SJ
a0)
Q
>%
%. *3
J^ Q
^
VO
(U
;->
3
^^. 00
;r
(pdS) paBinsQ Ja^c^v

76
r^ — —
12 2 2
a> a> u
cJu ii. iZ

%;
^

%.
^

^.
4^

2
%;.
o

R es
^..
&
R

CO
% T3
o a>
UH

<
H
U
%;
1
O
ca
s
o
O
>>

^^v> 'S
<r D
c>i
VO
(U
VM
3
O o o o o o o ^ .
;r
o o o o o o
o o 00

(pdS) paenidci -oit^AV

77
^-. fO
"-" —~ ^
• o T3 -o
(L> 0) D
ii.
u. u.
1 1 s
i

11 1

4^
as
O

CQ
<

c
CO

£
Q
C3

Q

VO
<D
3

(pdS) poBinda J9)eAid)SB^

78
VO \
Tj- o

- Field

Field
-Field
1 «

2

H
es

<

§
e
Q

Q
'^'
v6
Li
3
00

(pdS) puemaQ jaicMaise^

79
highly suspect. A review of the correlation attempts seen in Figures 6.5 to 6.8 indicated

that little correlation exists as the trend lines had both positive and negative slopes. The

clean water correlations are worse than the wastewater ones. With the infiltrometer test

conducted with clean water, the fact that a correlation appears to exist for the wastewater

fields is coincidental.

LTAR Comparisons

Comparisons were made with the Texas LTAR for absorptive fields and the

loading rates observed at the research project for the ETA and AB fields (Figures 6.9 to

6.12). Texas's LTAR is based on the bottom infiltrative area plus one foot up the

sidewall around the entire perimeter (30 TAC §285.3-.33, 1999) whereas the project

infiltrative surface includes the bottom area and 16 inches up the sidewall. The high

hydraulic head for the fields in the research project results in higher loading rates being

achieved. However, a review of the comparison revealed that the loading rates are

substantially higher than what is recommended for a Class II soil within Texas (30 TAC

§285.3-.33,1999) and indicated that these figures are quite conservative.

A review of the field data for the precipitation event that occurred on October 18,

1999, revealed that the loading rates for ETA fields of both types dropped. The decrease

in the wastewater field demand was equivalent to a loading rate of 0.248 gpd/ft^, which is

essentially equal to the LTAR of 0.25 gpd/ft^ for a Class II soil in Texas. This resuh

indicated that the combination of evapotranspiration and absorption could potentially

reduce the drain field size in an arid to semi-arid climate. In comparing the current

demand rates for the wastewater AB fields to that for the ET fields, the reduction in size

80
Clean Water AB Fields R^ = 03177

a.
w

es
£

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.5. AB Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

Clean Water ETA Fields
R2 =0.8331

1250

1200 -^N^: •
a.
w
en 1150
08
1100
c
es
£ 1050
a
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.6. ETA Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

81
Wastewater AB Fields
R2 = 0.9963
250

•o 200
Q.

^^^
K
V
-^tf
150
C8
OS
•o 100
e
e:
S 50
Q

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.7. ABW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

Wastewater ETA Fields
R2 = 0.786
i 400
1
I

1 350 ^
^^
IS
300
j ec
GA 250
a>
0 8 200
<
— •
«
•o 150
s
08
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.8. ETAW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand
82
<N
<N m

LTAR
- Field

- Field
-Field
11 ' 1

1

. 66-N

66-N

- 66-N

2
. 66-0

<

es
es
s - 66-0
es a
9i

<
H
- 66-0 m
a
X
(U
H
3

i.- 66-0 >

a:
00
c
66-S 13
O
CO
<
ON
VO
66-S
00 VO -^ 3
00
(*y*bs /pdS) 9|FH Soipeoq

83
2 <
IZ

66-N

66-N

66-N

2
"a*
b 66-0
H
Cis]

V

66-0 ©
e
es
<
H

66-0 X
d)
H
3

>
66-0

c
•T3
C3
O

66-S <

VO
66-S
00
3
(N VO <N 00

{^ *bs /pdS) 3)6^ Soipeoq

84
— m
2 2 2 <
o (u a> ^
iZ iZ cZ J

- ' 5
00-J

00-J

J J 00-i

00-J
' ^ "^

00-f

-^--^ ^ i 00-f

00-f

on 00-f
2
00-f
*x^ »
V 66-a
es 9i
'*^
1
66-a ^
Vi
es 1 (
)
7
I Qi
1 / J
66-a <

J
^[j,^ 66-a
X
o
66-N C/3
3
W5
h.
- - - - 66-N >
u
•ti
66-N a:
00
66-N c
^03
O
66-N J
^
66-0 <
1
^
66-0
VO
1 ^ ^ ^ — 1, 1
0)
• 1 H ^ \ _ 66-0 3
ON oo VO u^ m cs OO
b
(•y-bs /pdS) 3JEH SmpBoq

85
VO
I Tt o — ^
i2 2 2 <
I D U 0) ^
IZ E iZ J

2

H
u
V
es
es
Q
an
es <

Vi
a
X
(U
H
M
3

i-i
>

00
c
'•3
CO
o
<
H
W

vd
ui
— O 00 NO »o m 3
o ts — 00
(Tl'bs /pdS) d|BH Snipeoq

86
appeared to be on the order of 10%. However, with horizontal capillary action adding to

the evaporative area for an ETA field, the size reduction was probably closer to 30%.

For the ET fields, a comparison was made with evapotranspiration values for

Colorado (Bennett and Linstedt, 1978), Toronto (Bemhart, 1973), and Chesapeake Bay

(Lomax and Lane, 1979). These comparisons can be seen in Figures 6.13 and 6.14. The

loading rates for the ET fields compared reasonably well with the data for fields in

Toronto and Chesapeake Bay. However, the vegetation on the fields at Reese Center is

not well established and the results after another year of operation may indicate that

higher loading rates can be achieved.

Climatic Effects

In reviewing the flow rate charts for all fields, it was possible to note some effects

caused by changes in climate. For the ET fields, it is quite evident when a major

precipitation event occurs, as the daily demand drops to approximately zero. Two such

events are seen on the daily demand graphs for the ET fields (Figures 6.15 and 6.16). A

clearer example of this can be seen in Figure 6.17, where the recorded flow rates and the

precipitation amounts for a week in mid-October 1999 are depicted. Even for the ETA

fields, it is obvious that a precipitation event occurred as seen in Figure 6.18 for the same

week.

Since the weather data recorded to date is still in a raw form, it is difficult to be

definitive on changes due to variations in temperature. However, in the ET fields, lower

flow rates were detected from about mid-December to mid-February when temperatures

were low, but flow rates are increasing as the temperature mcreases. Figure 6.19 is a

87
>>
X
A^

.*.
u
.:^
o oc T3 o u
VO c

oron
b.
•o T3 •o cr

iel

iel
u • ^ 1>

u. ~ u. ^/ r- o

II

en

2

H
*^
es

e
es V3

c

o

CO
3

>

00
a
o
H
PQ

m
VO

o O o o o o O
o 00 VO o 3
c5 00
(•y-bs /pdS) a|BH SnipBoq

88
es

U
>/-> 00 — re •g c
ra
S :2 2 c o
O i> 1> "2 g

II
£ iZ iZ '

Vi

H

es

•«rt
c
•4->

O
o

3
en
t-i

>

00

o

H

VO

3
op
(-^j'bs /pdS) 9|e^ Soipeoq

89
o 00
; VO ^- —
•o "O T3
<u 0) ii
tu u. U.

11 f

%
<y
%.
^
%.
^
^O.

2

(id %;
u
a
*^ ^cr. es
es
s
es %;

%;

%;

^ . 2
%;

%;
-a
^ . c
b s
%; Q
b
CO
^ .
b
%;. Q

vd
^^. 3
<r 00

(pdS) pneoida ja^CAV

90
r^
«/^ oc

eld
ield

eld
r w
— —
1 4

1

^a
%.

^^.

%.

%.

Vi
%.
^
2
% .
••
H
^..
9i
es es
%;

^.

%;

%; 2
^ .

^ .
-3
^ . C
E
^ .
b
%;.
b
%; VO
b
%;
b o
ob
o o O q o q %;
o o o b
o
(pdS) paeiQdQ jaiCMdise^

91
tati
o oo t^
o — «/^ 0 0 •~ c
•a T3 -a -o -o -a 3
o o o u u u o
'- u. /.^

(i^Bp/ui) noi^eiidpajJ
11H S3 S
f
^ .35 m CN
ITi U-i
O
o o o O O O O

ON
en
CM
2
H
O^
• * * o
e ^_
<N
>
o
^"^
S
o ON
ON 4^

Dat
0/20
(J
""^

ON V3
ON
-o
ON U
;"* PH
O

ntET
ON
ON u
>
00
>—1
w
3
o O
)itat

ON
ON
'o
(U

VO

O o o m m 3
00
(pdS) pnBinaQ

92
c
o
T VI vc re
f~- c
•o
— — ""
-o -o -o o
u u

•ic
•ie
(Xep/ni) aope;idp3Jj 11 1 < V
ic

in in m tn
«*i <s o

ON
ON
m

Ov

<N

2
ON
ON
<

>
Ed
e ON
o ON
O es
Q

ON Vi
5N
ON 2
<
H
ON
c
>
OO

C
o

ON
ON

00

VO

o o o o o o o o o 3
o
ON
o
00
o
t^
o
NO o
yr, o
Tt o o
C^l o
^^
m op
(pdS) pncmaa 11^

93
%.

^a
%.

^a
^a
%.

^a
^a
^a.^
Of)
^a./ •
es

< 4>
•*rt
es
Q
H %..
Ed
%;
es

•*^ ^ .
Vi

%;

%;

%;

%;
B
^ . Q

%;
tu
%; 00
b
^ . >
b <

^ . ON
b
O q q O o o q O
O
q o q ^ .
b
06 vo' o 00" o 3
00
(pdS) pneoidQ J3)CM3|se^

94
graph of the average ET values for all three wastewater ET fields. The daily flow rates in

the wastewater ETA fields are still too large to detect changes due to temperature.

Clean Water Field Phenomenon

All the AB and ETA fields had a high initial daily volume as shown in Figures 6.1

to 6.4, which was due to the fill and initial saturation volumes. However, the clean water

AB and ETA fields developed an interesting trend by dropping to a lower rate for 3 to 9

days after the initial fill and then beginning a gradual increase. This trend was similar to

that reported by Winterer (1922, 1923) in laboratory and field tests. However, in tiiis

research project the level declined for less than the 10 days experienced by Winterer

(1922, 1923) before beginning an increasing trend that continued until these fields were

taken off-line, 45 days versus 25 days. Several of the clean water fields appeared to be

reaching a plateau after being in operation about 45 days.

Sample Analvsis

As proposed, samples were collected from the wastewater header tank and fields,

and from the clean water fields and their septic tank. The samples collected from the

wastewater systems are used to monitor wastewater quality and treatment. The analyses

performed for the wastewater and clean water samples are shown in Table 6.1.

95
Table 6.1. Sample Analyses

Wastewater Analyses Clean Water Analyses

BOD5

COD COD

TKN TKN

TSS

pH

Major Cations and Anions Major Cations and Anions

In reviewing the analyses of the samples, several graphs were developed to more

easily present the data, which is listed in Appendix F. The BOD5 graphs for the

wastewater fields have similar trends for each set of replicates as can be seen in Figures

6.20 to 6.22. As expected, the BOD5 measurements for the ET fields are less than those

for the AB and ETA fields as more treatment of the wastewater is taking place. A graph

of all three-field treatments with the mean and standard deviation shown can be seen in

Figure 6.23. In this figure, it is apparent that the AB and ETA fields performed in a

similar manner with the ET fields having BOD5 measurements at approximately 50% of

these other treatments. The analyses results for the ETA and ABfieldsmimic that seen

in the wastewater header tank at this point, because these fields replace 50% or more of

the storage volume in the gravel each day.

Similar results were seen with the COD analyses for the wastewater fields and

these are depicted in Figures 6.24 to 6.26. The COD standard deviation graph (Figure

6.27) had similar trends to those in the BOD5 graph. A review of the clean water ET
96
2 <<
< — m

II
^a
*^

^a
^

^o.
^

^a
^

^a
/•

^a
/*

^o.
an
r
2 %.
^

CQ %;
V <?
es ^ x «

<? i
Vi
es
^
%;
fi
<?
fi
^.
o O
CQ
^^.
4^
^^. ffl
4- <
^
^^-.
4-
<^.
4^ C/3
CO
^
^^.
4- 1
«r>
<3fr Q
^b O
m
% o
VO
%;
O
3
o o o o
o o ^ . .SP
o tJU
W1
o
(i/Sin) aoa

97
^ ^ <
< < h-
h- E- UJ
u:
•rr
uj NO
ON

1 1 •£

^a^^
^a
^

^a^
^a^
%
••
^a y^

^^
2 /-

^a/ "
H
%;
(?
es
%; «
*^
Vi >^
Q fii
es
^v.
Q
o <%;

CQ (?
"^^^
4- <
^^. H
4^ W
ui
%;
CO
4^
Vi
4^ CO
^
^^.
4- 1
<s^ Q
^b O
ffl
%; .
O (N
VO
^ .
o U
3
^
o o
o
O o
o
o
»n %; op
CNJ O E
(i/3in) aoa

98
^ * ^
ua h- S-,
t-, UJ w l
— tn oo

1 1 <

^d?.

^a
^a
%.

% .
•r
^o..
^

Vi
^a.
/"

2 ^a.
fa y^

H
Ed %;.
u
V
es %;

w
es %;
<?
<%;
o
sa
%;
4^
%;
V
%; H—>
CO

^ .
V to
CO

%.

<%; Q
b O
ffl
%;
b fN

VO
%;
b <u
i-l
3
o o o o o
o o o o o %; 00
00 VO 00 NO b
(i/Sm) aoa

99
< ^ ^
r- m H
Lu < u:

I If

Vi

2
fa 3
V .2
es 2
'>
en es Q
es
CO
T3
o 3
CO
••->
00
•TD
3
CO
3
CO

CO

to
CO

I

Q
O
ffl

(N
VO

3
00

(i/3ui) aoa

100
5 <<

M
^^.

%

%

%

%

^a.
y

^o.
2 y
"aS
fa %.
CQ V
<
V \
•«^
es
%;_ es
Vi
es
^ .
fi
o
u ^ .

^ .
4- ffl
^ . <

CO
%;


CO
%;

%; Q
b O
U
%;
b ^"

%; VO
b (U
3
00
o o o o o O o o
o »n o »n o vn »n
o

(l/3ra) ao3

101
^ ^ <
< < ^
H H L:
Li: LU VO
•^ ON —

I 'I
^a
^a
^a
^a
%.

^a.
/*
»3
2
"3
^^.
y
fa
<
H
fa
u
es
9i %;.
• *

Vi
*
fi
%;
fi
o
%.

^ .
4^ <

^.
W
0)
CO
<%;

Vi
CO
%;

%. Q
b O
U
%;
b CNj

%; so
b <u
u<
3
00
o o o o O o o o
o »n o »n vn
o o

(l/3ra) aOD

102
UJ PJ r-
«n 00 —

I 'I
^ ^^ .

cc ^ <^a

^O.
J^^ ^ ^O.
'^ y^ %.

S^^'^S^
/ <^s
^,. i >
Vi
2"53
fa
V C-C
H
fa <<c^'=^^
u
Si
'es

•^^
Vi
^~"^^^^sr\ <%•,

Q
0)
es
fi
- = 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^
^z^^^^
es
%;
fi
o
^.

'^ ^^=^r-i
%;

^
4^
^.

- ^ ^
<%;

^^^7
"
^^^
^5
^
CO
^.
V

— - ^
_
_-=
.^
^
i - ^ - ^
%;

%;
b
b
Q
O
U

^. vd
b tu
3
00
o o o O o o o
«n o «n »n o >n
en fn o
(l/3in) a 0 3

[03
< * »
L: < u:

VI

"a*
fa
u
• ^ * c
es _o
2
es es >
fi tu
Q
fi
CO
o c
.2
-o
c
CO
c
CO
(U

(U
CO

tu
•<—>
Vi
CO

Q
O
U
r^
CN
vd
0)
la
3
o
o o o o O o 00
*n o o
m o
o o
(l/8ra) aOD

11 A^t
1 1 ^
fields' COD graph in Figure 6.28 indicated that the three replicates are in close

agreement except for an early measurement. These values are small, which would be

expected with clean water. The mean and standard deviation for the nitrogen in the

wastewater fields resuhed in a plot (Figure 6.29) sunilar to those seen for the COD data,

with the ET fields having values lower than those of tiie AB and ETA fields. Also, the

clean water ET fields had COD values that were about one tenth those of the wastewater

AB and ETA fields.

The primary comment that can be made about the pH graph (Figure 6.30) for the

wastewater fields is that these fields appear to be operating in an aerobic manner since

the pH values remained above seven and odors indicative of anaerobic behavior have not

been detected. However, the high buffering capacity of the water used could also

contribute to the higher pH values.

One additional data series was analyzed and it is the sulfate content in the samples

from the three-wastewater treatments. As these fields were sampled, it was observed that

the samples from the wastewater ET fields were a darker color and it was suspected that

sulfides were forming in this water. The sulfate level (Figure 6.31) is considerably lower

in the ET fields, confirming that sulfide precipitation is occurring.

105
w
^ ^ '^
H uj -
LJ o oc

fi
o
uI
H
fa
u

S
es

la
(U
CO

C
CO

U

o
o
00
«N
vd
tu
3
op

(l/3in) a 0 3

106
^1*
OQ H h-
< UJ uj

11 ^
r^ — ' \—1
i
1 • 1 1
1 \

J
1 t

1 W \ \
j

i u.*^
\-L\ ^
!
( \ %
^>^
1

1
1
\ 1 ^^>
Vi
2 liMb
[3
T-mm. 1 •^^^^-T^
1
"^^v.
/"

•4^

a
4>
41^
I
/ '[1^ 1 kJL^ 1 '•^w

•Nfc^
i
1

•K•"
cn f ^?
es • 1 3
^ i: O
"^>
1
!/ \ 1
itr gen

\ <u
; % •*—
o 1
1
' r\ ' es O
! \ fi 13
1
1 \ "^^W CO
Z 1 3
Is 1 / CO

'a 1
C> C/3
"« 1 1 •*-^-'' ' <Sk •3
1 X- 1
g
3
otal

1 ' \ '
CO
\
1« 4*
r" i1 tu
i 4^ to
i1
I i "i
"^^ B
i 4^ to
1 II
hV CO

1
ji I-4H 4^
1
1
/ 2
:2j
! \
H
j ON
1
%
i Nd
1 \ \
1
\ ^ %; tu
\
1 \ 0 3

<D O o o o o o <o %; tin
t•.*. NO m -^ m CN —
O
( I/2ai)ND11

107
CQ CQ u. ^
h < < l^ l^
-i. — m sc r^
in oc o^ — — — —

\ -^W
^a
%.

^a
%.

^o.

^a.
%.

X %.
a.
u
o %.
es

Vi
<%;
es ^ es
%-, fi

^ .

^ .

%; CO

4^ 2
^ .
V
^ .
V tu
•t-i
Vi
^ .
V CO

%;

a.
^ .
b o
m
vd
%; tu
b 3
00
«n rn ON in ON «n ^ .
00 00 00
d vd
d b
Hd

108
I <*
CQ H h-
< u: u
II
%.

<=??.

<%.
K

^a

%

2
"3 %,
fa
3
9i
^ CO

^ x
tu

%;
<^ ®1 Q
-3
I CO
(? T3
3
%; .2
(? C/3
TJ
3
^v. CO
(? 3
CO
tu
4^
u>
(U
%;
CO
4-
aste
4^
^
^^.
1
4-
^>.
4^
s
(U

3
C/3
^ .
b m
%; vd
b u
3
o o o o o o o o o ^ . 00
o o o o o o d b
VO o o VO •^ <N
oo
o (l/3in) 3)ejins

109
CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The primary objective of the two-year study was to determine if the combination

of evapotranspiration and absorption in a drain field could reduce the size of that drain

field. This study was divided into two segments and the four objectives for this segment

were: (1) perform a literature search, (2) describe the design and installation of the test

facility, (3) describe the start-up, and (4) analyze the data through February, 2000.

1. A literature search was performed emphasizing drain field lifespan as related to soils,

the effects of evaporation, and regulatory requirements for drain fields. Lifespans of

drain fields were affected by the soil type and by the effluent applied to the soil with

coarser soil and cleaner effluent providing a longer life. Evaporation did have a

positive impact in arid and semi-arid areas. Several viable options to the absorption

drain field system were available, but the absorption drain field was preferred and

simpler to regulate. Information about clean water systems provided potential

explanations for the high demand rates observed in the clean water drain fields at

Reese Center.

2. The test facility design was installed on two acres located at Reese Center. Two

systems were installed, clean water and wastewater. The clean water system included

a storage tank, pressure header tank, and nine drain fields. The wastewater system

comprised two mixing tanks, three storage tanks, one pressure header tank, and nine

drain fields. A weather station and control building were also placed at the site.

110
3. The start-up of the system began in September 1999. with several of the clean water

drain fields coming on-line. All the clean water drain fields were on-line in early

October and the process of bringing the wastewater drain fields on-line began. For

the wastewater to maintain the desired strength, the wastewater fields were brought

on-line gradually with the final field coming on-line in January 2000. In November

1999, the clean water AB and ETA drain fields were taken off-line because of

potential interference with the nearby wastewater drain fields. All nine of the

wastewater drain fields and three clean water ET drain fields were on line as of this

writing.

4. An analysis of infiltrometer, field, and laboratory analyses data resulted in several

conclusions.

• First, the infiltrometer tests provided information that could be used to

estimate potential infiltration rates. However, these values did not reflect

actual infiltration rates and this is probably a result of the higher hydraulic

head and larger infiltrative surface than used for the calculation.

• Second, it was not possible to develop a logical correlation between the

calculated infiltration values and actual values as the trends had both negative

and positive slopes. A comparison of the loading rates for the AB and ETA

fields with the LTAR of Texas indicated that the regulations were

conservative. At this point, it appeared that a much higher loading rate could

be achieved. The loading rate comparison for the ET fields was done with

other measured loading rates at other locations and these fields at Reese

Center appeared to be able to maintain a 0.1 gpd/ft^ average loading rate.

Ill
• Third, studying the data from the precipitation event resulted in the conclusion

that combining evapotranspiration and absorption could result in smaller drain

fields for arid and semi-arid regions of Texas. This conclusion will be

verified as more data is collected over the remaining life of the project.

• Fourth, a review of the early field data concluded that precipitation events

were detectable not only on the ET fields, but also with the ETA fields. This

indicated that correlations relating loading rates and various weather aspects

should be possible as fiirther loading rate and weather data become available.

It was already clear that the seasons were having an effect on the loading rates

for the ET fields as distinct differences in demand were seen from winter to

spring.

• Fifth, the data from the lab analyses was evaluated and it was determined that

the three replicates for each wastewater treatment have similar trends. There

were similar results for both the AB and ETA fields, which was due to the

larger volumes processed by these fields. It was concluded that additional

treatment of the effluent was taking place in the wastewater ET fields as their

BOD5, COD, and TKN values were substantially less than those from the

wastewater AB and ETA fields.

The test facility continues to operate with additional data being collected to more

clearly define the effects of combining evapotranspiration and absorption in a wastewater

drain field. Correlations between evapotranspiration and changing weather conditions

should also be possible with additional data. In addition, fiirther analysis of the

112
differences in wastewater treatment for the AB, ET, and ETA drain fields will be possible

during the coming months.

Recommendations for Further Research

The project at Reese resulted in several additional research ideas. First, Woodruff

(2000) recommended comparing a leaching chamber with a standard gravel drain field

regarding loading capacity.

A second item related to drain fields would be to construct an ETA bed with sand

wicks extending to the bottom infiltrative surface through the gravel bed (Winneberger,

1984). This unit would be loaded at a lower fluid height to determine how effectively the

sand wicks transport liquid to the surface. Although the sand does not provide maximum

capillary action, it will provide enough for moisture to be wicked to the surface. Another

treatment could be done using a dosing method to apply the wastewater rather than

maintaining a set level. Both of these should be operated in conjunction with a bed

similar to that used in this research project.

In the case of the clean water fields, either two AB or two ETA fields should be

left on-line for an extended period to determine if clogging will eventually occur in these

drain fields. This test could also be used to confirm the clean water phenomenon

(Winterer, 1922,1923).

A final area of interest relates to the infiltrometer/percolation test. This test in

some form is used in much of the United States as a device for sizing drain fields. A

procedure is needed that will allow more consistent results and should be devised to

include sidewall effects.

113
CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY

The purpose of this thesis was to chronicle the design, installation, and start-up of

a septic tank/drain field project. Four objectives were defined to accomplish this purpose

including a literature search, project implementation description, project start-up

description, and preliminary data analysis. However, the main objective of this two-year

project was to determine if combining absorption and evapotranspiration in a drain field

resulted in construction of a smaller drain field. Early indications from the data gathered

through February 2000 were that reducing the drain field size was a real possibility.

An exhaustive literature search was conducted with the primary topics being field

lifespans and soil properties, evaporation studies, and onsite sewage facilities in the

Texas. Several references describing the relationship of soil properties to absorption

rates and clogging provided possible explanations for the high infiltration rates observed

with the clean water fields. The evaporation studies confirmed that combining absorption

and evapotranspiration in a drain field would have a higher success rate in an arid or

semi-arid climate. Quite a few of the studies indicated that the type of vegetation being

grown could dramatically increase or decrease the evapotranspiration. In the review of

Texas onsite sewage facilities, it was noted that field tests have been conducted on a

variety of altemative systems and resulted in several of them becoming viable

altematives to the septic tank system. Even so, the standard was still the septic tank and

its associated drain field. This was primarily due to the ease of constmction and cost

when compared to other onsite wastewater treatment options.

114
The project design included absorption, evapotranspiration, and combined

evapotranspiration and absorption treatments with three replicates of each treatment.

Prior to constmction of the individual fields, a soil survey and an infiltration rate test

were conducted in each field. Then the fields were constmcted followed b\ tiie

installation of tanks and piping in which to mix. store, and distribute the artificial

wastewater and clean water. A level control system was used in the tanks and indi\idual

fields. For the individual field systems, it was recommended that the level sensing pipe

not be wrapped with geotextile on fiiture installations as this material became clogged

and resulted in poor level control.

Start-up operations provided opportunities for troubleshooting as operational

difficulties arose in several areas. Although all of these situations were resolved, the

start-up was prolonged by several weeks.

An analysis of the data collected to date was performed. Within each treatment,

the drain fields provided the same level of wastewater treatment as evidenced by the

similar BOD5 and COD values. A review of the individual drain field intake revealed

that it was possible to detect precipitation events in those fields having evaporation.

However, it was significantiy more pronounced in the evapotranspiration beds. Another

item of particular note was the increasing intake observed with the clean water fields. It

was suspected that these volumes were related to the higher hydraulic head experienced

in each field compared to that during the infiltration test and to the doubling of the

infiltrative surface with the sidewall area included.

115
REFERENCES

Amerson, R. S., Tyler, E. J., and Converse, J. C. (1991). "hifiltration as Affected by
Compaction, Fines, and Contact Area of Gravel." On-Site Wastewater Treatment,
Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 10-91. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 243-247.

Amoozegar, A. (1997). "Comparison of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and
Percolation Rate: Implications for Designing Septic Systems." Site
Characterization and Design of On-Site Septic Systems, ASTMSTP 1324. M. S.
Bedinger, J. S. Fleming, and A. I. Johnson, eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 129-143.

Anderson, J. L., Grossman, R. B., Healy, K. A., and Skaggs, W. (1977). "Site Testing for
the Design of Septic Systems." Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the
Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, ASAE Publication 5-77.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 16-21.

Anderson, J. L., Machmeier Sr., R. E., and Hansel, M. J. (1981). " Long-Term
Acceptance Rates of Soils for Wastewater." On-Site Sewage Treatment,
Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE Publication 1-82. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 93-100.

Assouline, S. and Mahrer, Y. (1996). "Spatial and Temporal Variability in Microclimate
and Evaporation over Lake Kinneret: Experimental Evaluation." Journal of
Applied Meteorology, 35, 1076-1084.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) D 5905 (1997). "Standard Practice
for the Preparation of Substitute Wastewater." 1997 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 11.01, 781-782.

Bennett, E. R., Linstedt, K. D., and Felton, J. (1975). "Comparison of Septic Tank and
Aerobic Treatment Units: The Impact of Wastewater Variations on These
Systems." Water Pollution Control in Low Density Areas, Proceedings of a Rural
Environmental Engineering Conference. University Press of New England,
Hanover, New Hampshire, 95-108.

Bennett, E. R. and Linstedt, K. D. (1978). Sewage Disposal by Evaporation-
Transpiration. Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, USEPA-600/2-78-
163. Cincinnati, Ohio.

116
Bemhart, A. P. (1973). Treatment and Disposal of WastewaterfromHomes by Soil
Infiltration and Evapotranspiration. University of Toronto Press. Toronto,
Canada.

Bemhart, A. P. (1978). "Evapotranspiration - A Viable Method of Reuse (or Disposal)
of Wastewater in North America, South of the 52"'* or 55^ Parallel." Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference 1978.
N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor. Michigan,
185-195.

Bouma, J. (1975). "Use of Soil for Disposal and Treatment of Septic Tank Effluent."
Water Pollution Control in Low Density Areas, Proceedings of a Rural
Environmental Engineering Conference. University Press of New England,
Hanover, New Hampshire, 181-189.

Brown, R. M. (1979). "Practice, Policy, Experience: Where Are We?" Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference 1979.
N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,
7-29.

Carlile, B. L. (1994). "Performance Evaluation of Altemative Waste Systems for Lake
and Coastal Developments of Texas." On-Site Wastewater Treatment,
Proceedings of the Seventh Intemational Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 18-94. E. Collins, ed.,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 238-244.

Carlile, B. L. and Osbome, D. J. (1981). "Some Experience with Gravel-less Systems in
Texas Coastal Areas." On-Site Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Third
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Treatment,
ASAE Publication 1-82. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 160-169.

Church, E. O. (1997). "Drip Irrigation Onsite Wastewater Systems - Colorado." Site
Characterization and Design of On-Site Septic Systems, ASTMSTP 1324. M. S.
Bedinger, J. S. Fleming, and A. I. Johnson, eds., American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 294-301.

Davis. (1997). GroWeather System; Console User's Manual. Davis Instruments Corp.,
Hayward, Califomia.

Dix, S. P. and May, R. (1997). "A Review of the Field Performance of Chamber
Leaching Systems." Site Characterization and Design of On-Site Septic Systems,
ASTMSTP 1324. M. S. Bedinger, J. S. Flemmg, and A. I. Johnson, eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
248-260.

117
EPA, (1980). Design Manual ~ Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems.
EPA625/1-80-012. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mtmicipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Erickson,A. J. (1973). Soil Permeability Class Related to Texture. Unpublished
Workmg Document, USDA Soil Conservation Service, Utah, as cited in:
Hantzche, N. N., Neikirk, W. T., and Wistrom, T. V. (1981). "Soil Textural
Analysis for On-Site Sewage Disposal Evaluation." On-Site Sewage Treatment,
Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Treatment, ASAE Publication 1-82. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 51-60.

Farley, E. T. Jr. (February 2000). Personal Communication. Engineering Technology,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Frank, W. L. (1996). "Engineering Parameters in the Design of Evapotranspiration
Beds." Water/Engmeering and Management, 143(11), 31-37.

Gross, M. A., Owens, P. R., Dennis, N. D., Robinson, A. K., and Rutiedge, E. M. (1998).
"Sizing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Using Soil Characteristics as
Compared to the Percolation Test." On-Site Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings
of the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems, ASAE Publication 03-98. D. M. Sievers, ed., American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 52-59.

Gunn, I. W. (1987). "Leigh Laboratory Evapo-Transpiration System." On-Site
Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 10-87.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 122-131.

Hantzche, N. N., Neikirk, W. T., and Wistrom, T. V. (1981). "Soil Textural Analysis for
On-Site Sewage Disposal Evaluation." On-Site Sewage Treatment, Proceedings
of the Third National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Treatment, ASAE Publication 1-82. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Michigan, 51 -60.

Hart, S. W. (1979). "Pressurized Subsurface Effluent Dosing - The Texas Experience."
Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National
Conference 1979. N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 245-257.

118
Hart, S. W. (1997). "Minimizing On-Site Septic System Drain Field Size by Combining
Absorbic and Evaporative Disposal Methods." Site Characterization and Design
of On-Site Septic Systems, ASTMSTP 1324. M. S. Bedinger, J. S. Fleming, and
A. I. Johnson, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 144-149.

Hines, M. W., Bennett, E. R., and Hoehne, J. A. (1977). "Altemate Systems for Effluent
Treatment and Disposal." Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, ASAE Publication 5-77.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 137-148.

Howell, T. A., Steiner, J. L., Schneider, A. D., and Evett, S. R. (1995).
"Evapotranspiration of Irrigated Winter Wheat - Southem High Plains."
Transactions of the ASAE, 38(3): 745-759.

Infiltrator. (1993). The Infiltrator - The Chamber Leach Field System Engineered for
Excellence. Infiltrator® Systems Inc. Old Saybrook, Connecticut.

Johnson, R. W., Brasfield, J. F., and Beville, B. (1974). "Using Soil Survey Information
to Plan Home Sewage Disposal Systems." Home Sewage Disposal, Proceedings
of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, ASAE Publication Proc -
175. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 210-214.

Kaplan, O. B. (1991). Septic Systems Handbook, T^ edition. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea,
Michigan.

Keefer, C. E. (1940). Sewage-Treatment Works, 1^^ edition, 2"** impression. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, New York, 177.

Keys, J. R. (1996). "Septic Tank Effluent Infiltration and Loading Rates for Gravel and
Chamber Absorption Systems." Master's Thesis. University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin.

Keys, J. R., Tyler, E. J., and Converse, J. C. (1998). "Predicting Life for Wastewater
Absorption Systems." On-Site Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of the Eighth
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
ASAE Publication 03-98. D. M. Sievers, ed., American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 167-176.

Kondo, J. and Xu, J. (1997). "Seasonal Variations in the Heat and Water Balances for
Nonvegetated Surfaces." Journal of AppUed Meteorology, 36(12), 1676-1695.

Konzelmann, T., Calanca, P., Miiller, G., Menzel, L., and Lang, H. (1997). "Energy
Balance and Evapotranspiration in a High Mountain Area During Summer."
Joumal of Applied Meteorology, 36(7), 966-973.

119
Lenning, D. A., Dow, D. B., Lesikar. B. J., Lindbo, D. L.. and Miles. R. (1998).
"Training Center Design and Demonstration Techniques." On-Site Wastewater
Treatment, Proceedings of tiie Eightii National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 03-98. D. M. Sievers,
ed., American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 103-112.

Lesikar, B. J., Neal, B. A., Sabbagh, G. J., and Jnad, I. (1998). "Subsurface Drip Systems
for the Disposal of Residential Wastewater." On-Site Wastewater Treatment.
Proceedings of the Eighth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 03-98. D. M. Sievers, ed.,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 146-154.

Lomax, K. M. and Lane, L. S. (1980). "Evapotranspiration - The Chesapeake Bay
Study." Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National
Conference 1979. N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 207-216.

Long, J. H. (1980). "Soil Factors as They Relate to Onsite Sewage Disposal." Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference 1979.
N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor. Michigan.
93-96.

McGauhey, P. H. (1975). "Septic Tanks and Their Effects on the Environment." Water
Pollution Control in Low Density Areas, Proceedings of a Rural Environmental
Engineering Conference. University Press of New England, Hanover, New
Hampshire, 43-53.

Meyer, W. J. (1974a). "Research needs for Disposal of Wastewater in Soil." Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the First National Conference 1974.
N. I. McClelland, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,
25-36.

Meyer, W. J. (1974b). "Soil - A Predictive Tool for Individual Waste Disposal
Systems." Home Sewage Disposal, Proceedings of the National Home Sewage
Disposal Symposium, ASAE Publication Proc - 175. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 26-28.

Otis, R. J. (1978). "Site Evaluation for Soil Absorption Systems." T^ Northwest On-Site
Waste Water Disposal Short Course. University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, 38-59.

Otis, R. J. (1984). "Soil Clogging: Mechanisms and Control." On-Site Wastewater
Treatment, Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 07-85. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, .238-250.

120
Otis, R. J. (1985). Design Module: Evaporation and Evapotranspiration/Absorption
Systems. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Otis, R. J., Converse, J. C , Carlile, B. L., and Witty, J. E. (1977). "Effluent
Distribution." Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second National
Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, ASAE Publication 5-77. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 61-85.

Otis, R. J., Plews, G. D., and Patterson, D. H. (1977). "Design of Conventional Soil
Absorption Trenches and Beds." Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the
Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, ASAE Publication 5-77.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 86-99.

Parker, D. E., Lehr, J. H., Roseler, R. C. and Paetii, R. C. (1977). "Site Evaluation for
Soil Absorption Systems." Home Sewage Treatment, Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, ASAE Publication 5-77.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 3-15.

Peeples, J. and Mancl, K. (1998). "Laboratory Scale Septic Tanks." Ohio Joumal of
Science, 4/5: 75-79.

Plews, G. D. (1978). "Sizing of Standard Drainfields." 2^ Northwest On-Site Waste
Water Disposal Short Course. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington,
71-77-

Raddatz, R. L. and Shaykewich, C. F. (1998). "Impact of Warm Summers on the Actual
Evapotranspiration from Spring Wheat Grown on the Eastem Canadian Prairies."
Canadian Joumal of Soil Science, 78:171-179.

Rugen, M. A., Lewis, D. A., and Benedict, I. J. (1977). Evapotranspiration - A Method
of Disposing of Septic Tank Effluent, Report No. G 75-185. RABA and
Associates, Inc. San Antonio, Texas.

Sawka, G. J., Collins, M.E., Brown, R. B., and Rao, P.V. (1987). "Evaluation of Florida
Soils for On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems." On-Site Wastewater Treatment,
Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 10-87. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 384-393.

Sene, K. J., Gash, J. H. C , and McNeil, D. D. (1991). "Evaporation from a Tropical
Lake: Comparison of Theory with Direct Measurements." Joumal of Hydrology,
127(1991), 193-217.

121
Siegrist, R. L. (1987). "Hydraulic Loading Rates for Soil Absorption Systems Based on
Wastewater Quality." On-Site Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of tiie Fifth
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
ASAE Publication 10-87. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan, 232-241.

Siegrist, R. L., Smed-Hildmann, R., Filip, Z. K., and Jenssen, P. D. (1991). "Humic
Substance Formation During Wastewater Infiltration." On-Site Wastewater
Treatment, Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Individual and
Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 10-91. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 223-232.

Tallaksen, L. and Erichsen, B. (1992). "Evapotranspfration Calculations Using tiie
AMOR Model." Climate Change and Evapotranspiration Modelling, The Nordic
Hydrological Programme, NHP Report No. 31. L. Tallaksen and K. A. Hassel,
eds., NAVF Norges allmennvitenskapelig forskningsrad, Oslo, Norway, 85-98.

Title 30 Texas Annotated Code §285.90-.91 (30 TAC §285.90-.91). (1997). Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission Chapter 285. On-Site Sewage
Facilities. Texas Register, Austin, Texas.

Title 30 Texas Annotated Code §285.3 - .33 (30 TAC §285.3-.33). (1999). Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission Chapter 285. On-Site Sewage Facilities.
Texas Register Vol. 24, Austin, Texas.

Tyler, E. J. and Converse, J. C. (1994). "Soil Acceptance of Onsite Wastewater as
Affected by Soil Morphology and Wastewater Quality." On-Site Wastewater
Treatment, Proceedings of the Seventh Intemational Symposium on Individual
and Small Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 18-94. E. Collins,
ed., American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 185-194.

Tyler, E. J., Drozd, E. M., and Peterson, J. O. (1991). "Estimating Wastewater Loading
Rates Using Soil Morphological Descriptions." On-Site Wastewater Treatment,
Proceedings of the Sixth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, ASAE Publication 10-91. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 192-200.

Venhuizen, D. (1998). "Sand Filter/Drip Irrigation Systems Solve Water Resources
Problems." On-Site Wastewater Treatment, Proceedings of the Eighth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Commimity Sewage Systems, ASAE
Publication 03-98. D. M. Sievers, ed., American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 356-362.

122
Westepal, M. S. and Schirmers, S. B. (1997). "Site Evaluation Procedures for hidividual
Sewage Treatment Systems in Disturbed Soils." Site Characterization and
Design of On-Site Septic Systems, ASTMSTP 1324. M. S. Bedinger, J. S.
Fleming, and A. I. Johnson, eds., ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 99-
112.

Winneberger, J. H. T. (1974). "Ryon's Septic-Tank Practices Corrected." Home Sewage
Disposal, Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium,
ASAE Publication Proc - 175. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan, 215-221.

Winneberger, J. H. T. (1984). Septic Tank Systems - A Consultant's Toolkit; Volume 1,
Subsurface Disposal of Septic-Tank Effluents. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham,
Massachusetts.

Wmterer, E. V. (1922). "Percolation of Water Through Soils." California Agricultural
Experimental Station Annual ReportfromJuly 1, 1920 to June 30, 1921.
University of California, Berkeley, California, 160-161 as cited in: Winneberger,
J. H. T. (1984). Septic Tank Systems - A Consultant's Toolkit; Volume 1,
Subsurface Disposal of Septic-Tank Effluents. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham,
Massachusetts, 69.

Winterer, E. V. (1923). "Percolation of Water Through Soils." California Agricultural
Experimental Station Annual ReportfromJuly 1, 1922 to June 30, 1923.
University of California, Berkeley, California, 234-237 as cited in: Winneberger,
J. H. T. (1984). Septic Tank Systems - A Consultant's Toolkit; Volume 1,
Subsurface Disposal of Septic-Tank Effluents. Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham,
Massachusetts, 69.

Woodruff, T. (March 2000). Personal Communication. President of Adobe Inc.
Shallowater, Texas.

123
APPENDDC A

INFILTROMETER TEST DATA

124
Reese Site - Infiltration Data
This document contains the infiltration data obtained at the site for the 18 test units. Three units
were installed in the bottom of each unit and measurements made from the afternoon of June 24 to the
morning of June 26, 1999. The data has not been corrected for evaporation. A rainfall event was
experienced at the site on the evening of June 24. Even though the trench bottoms were wet on the 25th,
rainfall amounts were slight. The bottoms of the trenches were still dampfromthe amount of rain that had
fallen within the past month.
Evao. Unit in Unit 8 Evap. Unit in Unit 17
Initial Level at 15:24 24-Jun 14.00 Initial Level at 15:34 24-Jun 14.00
13.36 25-Jun 13.70 13:57 25-Jun 13.80
15:17 25-Jun 13.60 15:28 25-Jun 13.65
10:45 26-Jun 12.95 10:44 26-Jun 13.05

Table A. 1. Infiltration Data

Infiltration 2
ETime Infiltration , ^, I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration ^ . „ ,
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/nr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 1 ABW (a)
Type I = 180 mm/hr
1.8 5.0 2.78 3.0 1.65
23 42.0 1.98 45.0 1.96
24.75 2.0 1.14 47.0 1.90
43.37 42.5 2.28 89.5 2.06

ABW (b)
Type 1 = 60 mm/hr
1.78 5 2.81 6.0 3.34
23 42 1.98 48.0 2.09
24.75 4 2.29 52.0 2.10
43.36 50 2.69 102.0 2.35

ABW(c)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
1.75 16 9.14 18.0 10.19
22.98 89 4.19 107.0 4.66
24.71 7 4.05 114.0 4.61
43.33 82 4.40 196.0 4.52

Unit 2 AB (a)
Typel = Omm/hr
1.62 5.0 3.09 5.0 3.05
22.85 23.0 1.08 28.0 1.23
24.58 2.0 1.16 30.0 1.22
43.18 23.0 1.24 53.0 1.23
Table A. 1. Continued

I Time Infiltration Infiltration I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/hr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 2 AB(b)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
1.63 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00
22.86 6.0 0.28 6.0 0.26
43.18 9.0 0.44 15.0 0.35

AB(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
1.66 2.0 1.20 3.0 1.79
22.91 18.0 0.85 21.0 0.92
24.63 1.0 0.58 22.0 0.89
43.21 27.0 1.45 49.0 1.13

Unit 3 AB(a)
Type 1 = 0 mm/hr
1.58 5.0 3.16 5.0 3.13
22.83 48.0 2.26 53.0 2.32
24.56 3.0 1.73 56.0 2.28
43.14 49.0 2.64 105.0 2.43

AB(b)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
0.07 1.0 14.29 1.0 11.54
1.52 5.0 3.45 6.0 3.95
22.79 33.0 1.55 39.0 1.71
24.51 1.0 0.58 40.0 1.63
43.09 29.0 1.56 69.0 1.60

AB(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.0167 1.0 59.88 2.0 59.94
1.47 2.0 1.38 4.0 2.72
22.72 8.0 0.38 12.0 0.53
43.04 12.0 0.59 24.0 0.56

Unit 4 ETAW (a)
Type I = 240 mm/hr
0.12 1.0 8.33 5.0 36.59
1.39 16.0 12.60 21.0 15.11
22.67 150.0 7.05 171.0 7.54
24.39 9.0 5.23 180.0 7.38
42.94 140.0 7.55 320.0 7.45

1 *% •*
IZO
Table A. 1. Continued

Infiltration I
2 Time Infiltration I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/hr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 4 ETAW (b)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
1.35 5.0 3.70 6.0 4.39
22.65 44.0 2.07 50.0 2.21
24.35 8.0 4.71 58.0 2.38
42.90 48.5 2.61 106.5 2.48

ETAW (c)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
1.30 8.0 6.15 6.0 4.56
22.60 85.0 3.99 91.0 4.03
24.33 9.0 5.20 100.0 4.11
42.86 100.0 5.40 200.0 4.67

Unit 5 ETW (a)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.12 3.0 25.00 5.0 36.59
1.24 21.0 18.75 26.0 20.97
22.56 170.0 7.97 196.0 8.69
24.28 24.0 13.95 220.0 9.06
42.8 170.0 9.18 390.0 9.11

ETW(b)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.07 4.0 57.14 5.0 57.69
1.2 28.0 24.78 33.0 27.50
22.53 Empty
24.23 1.9 1.12
42.75 Empty

ETW (c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.033 2.0 60.61 3.0 60.40
1.17 33.0 29.02 36.0 30.77
22.5 :Empty
24.2 17.0 10.00
42.72 168.0 9.07

Unit 6 ET (a)
Type I = 180 mm/hr
1.10 1.0 0.91 4.0 3.58
22.43 27.0 1.27 31.0 1.38
24.15 4.0 2.33 35.0 1.45
42.65 27.0 1.46 62.0 1.45
Table A. 1. Continued

^ ^. ^ _, . Infiltration
Z Time Infiltration _. . I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration „ , . «^
(hrs) Vol. (mm) „ , ^ Rate (mm/hr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 6 ET (b)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
1.05 7.0 6.67 9.0 8.44
22.40 51.0 2.39 60.0 2.68
24.10 4.0 2.35 64.0 2.66
42.60 57.5 3.11 121.5 2.85

ET(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
1.00 10.0 10.00 10.0 9.84
22.38 91.0 4.26 101.0 4.51
24.06 17.0 10.12 118.0 4.90
42.56 88.5 4.78 206.5 4.85

Unit 7 ETA (a)
Type 1 = 180 mm/hr
0.13 4.0 30.08 7.0 46.77
0.95 10.0 12.24 17.0 17.89
22.33 154.0 7.20 171.0 7.66
24.01 17.0 10.12 188.0 7.83
42.49 177.5 9.60 365.5 8.60

ETA(b)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.07 4.0 57.14 6.0 69.23
0.90 14.0 16.87 20.0 22.22
22.30 Empty
23.97 23.0 13.77
42.45 Empty

ETA (c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.83 7.0 8.40 8.0 9.42
22.25 88.0 4.11 96.0 4.31
23.92 9.0 5.39 105.0 4.39
42.40 112.0 6.06 217.0 5.12

Unit 8 ETW (a)
Type I = Omm/hr
0.12 4.0 33.33 4.0 29.27
0.77 3.0 4.62 7.0 9.09
22.20 72.0 3.36 79.0 3.56
23.83 6.0 3.68 85.0 3.57
42.31 79.0 4.27 164.0 3.88

IZd
Table A. 1. Continued

Infiltration I
I Time Infiltration I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration .
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/hr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 8 ETW (b)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.72 3.0 4.17 5.0 6.79
22.17 88.0 4.10 93.0 4.19
23.80 11.0 6.75 104.0 4.37
42.27 115.5 6.25 219.5 5.19

ETW (c)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.67 6.0 8.96 8.0 11.65
22.15 72.0 3.35 80.0 3.61
23.77 8.0 4.94 88.0 3.70
42.22 83.0 4.50 171.0 4.05

Unit 9 ETAW (a)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.08 1.0 12.50 3.0 31.03
0.58 5.0 10.00 8.0 13.79
22.06 122.0 5.68 130.0 5.89
23.59 11.0 7.19 141.0 5.98
42.05 122.0 6.61 263.0 6.25

ETAW (b)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.50 11.0 22.00 12.0 23.23
22.05 Empty
23.62 19.0 12.10
42.05 Empty

ETAW (c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.52 2.0 3.85 3.0 5.59
22.07 59.0 2.74 62.0 2.81
23.65 5.0 3.16 67.0 2.83
42.08 74.0 4.02 141.0 3.35

Unit 10 ET (a)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
1.97 4.0 2.03 4.0 2.01
24.50 23.0 1.02 27.0 1.10
25.73 2.0 1.63 29.0 1.13
44.13 23.0 1.25 52.0 1.18

1 v-\/\

izy
Table A. 1. Continued

^ ^. ^ _, Infiltration
I Time Infiltration ^ ~ . I Infiltration
Infiltration _ , . ,
(hrs) Vol. (mm) / Rate /I \
Rate (mm/hr)
(mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 10 ET(b)
Type 1 = 300 mm/hr
0.10 3.0 30.00 8.0 68.57
1.93 17.0 9.29 25.0 12.95
24.48 66.0 2.93 91.0 3.72
25.68 5.0 4.17 96.0 3.74
44.10 87.0 4.72 183.0 4.15

ET(c)
Type 1 = 300 mm/hr
1.98 4.0 2.02 9.0 4.51
24.51 31.0 1.38 40.0 1.63
25.71 2.0 1.67 42.0 1.63
44.13 31.0 1.68 73.0 1.65

Unit 11 ABW (a)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
1.82 3.0 1.65 5.0 2.72
24.22 32.0 1.43 37.0 1.53
25.49 2.5 1.97 39.5 1.55
43.87 34.0 1.85 73.5 1.68

ABW(b)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.07 3.0 44.78 4.0 47.81
1.78 17.0 9.90 21.0 11.77
24.18 66.0 2.95 87.0 3.60
43.83 5.0 0.25 92.0 2.10

ABW(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
1.73 6.0 3.47 7.0 4.01
24.15 27.0 1.20 34.0 1.41
25.38 1.0 0.81 35.0 1.38
43.80 27.5 1.49 62.5 1.43

Unit 12 AB (a)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
1.63 6.0 3.68 8.0 4.86
23.91 42.0 1.89 50.0 2.09
25.23 4.0 3.03 54.0 2.14
43.61 42.0 2.29 96.0 2.20
Table A.l. Continued

^ ^. ^ -, Infiltration y
2 Time Infiltration ^, . I Infiltration
/u \ 17 1 / \ Kate JInfiltration „ , . n^
Rate (mm/hr)
(^> ^"^-^"^"^^ (mm/hr) (mm)
Unit 12 AB (b)
Type 1 = 60 mm/hr
0.83 1.0 1.20 2.0 2.36
1.58 8.0 10.62 10.0 6.32
23.88 38.0 1.70 48.0 2.01
25.16 1.0 0.78 49.0 1.95
43.54 31.0 1.69 80.0 1.84

AB(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
1.52 5.0 3.29 6.0 3.90
23.84 32.0 1.43 38.0 1.59
25.12 1.0 0.78 39.0 1.55
43.50 32.0 1.74 71.0 1.63

Unit 13 ABW (a)
Type 1 = 120 mm/hr
0.13 3.0 22.56 5.0 33.41
1.65 24.0 15.82 29.0 17.58
23.80 169.0 7.63 198.0 8.32
25.15 12.0 8.89 210.0 8.35
43.52 175.0 9.53 385.0 8.85

ABW(b)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.07 3.0 42.86 4.0 46.15
1.45 7.0 5.07 11.0 7.59
23.58 77.0 3.48 88.0 3.73
24.93 6.0 4.44 94.0 3.77
43.29 89.0 4.85 183.0 4.23

ABW(c)
Type I = 60 mm/hr
0.03 1.0 30.30 2.0 40.27
1.42 15.0 10.81 17.0 11.97
23.53 123.0 5.56 140.0 5.95
24.86 8.0 6.02 148.0 5.95
43.24 125.0 6.80 273.0 6.31

IJl
Table A. 1. Continued

I Time Infiltration l " ' ' ' " ^ ' ™ J i Infiltration
(hrs) Vol.(nm,) , ^ ' •"fi'""°" Rate(,mnAr)
^ ^ rmm/lir) (mm)
Unit 14 ETA (a)
Type I = 60 mm/lir
0.15 2.0 13.33 3.0 18.00
'^ 1 A
1.33 18.0 15.25 15.79
23.31 92.0 4.19 113.0 4.85
24.71 17.0 12.14 130.0 5.26
43.09 Empty

ETA(b)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
0.07 2.0 28.57 2.0 23.08
1.25 26.0 22.03 28.0 22.40
23.27 Empty
24.67 20.0 14.29
43.02 Empty

ETA (c)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
L22 44.0 36.07 44.0 36.07
23.24 Empty
24.62 28.0 20.29
42.97 Empty

Unit 15 ETA (a)
Type I = 120 mm/hr
0.12 3.0 25.64 5.0 37.41
1.17 26.0 24.76 31.0 26.56
22.97 Empty
24.44 1.2 0.82
42.91 190.0 10.29

ETA (b)
Typel = Omm/hr
0.08 1.0 12.05 1.0 10.03
1.13 2.0 1.90 3.0 2.65
22.95 Empty
24.38 12.0 8.39
42.75 Empty

ETA (c)
Typel = Omm/hr
1.08 18.0 16.67 18.0 16.41
22.90 178.0 8.16 196.0 8.56
24.33 16.0 11.19 212.0 8.71
42.70 208.0 11.32 420.0 9.84

IJZ
1 aoie A. 1. v..ontinuea

I Time Infiltration mriitration I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/br)
(mm/ hrl (mm)
Unit 16 ETAW (a)
Type i = 120 mm/nr
0.12 4.0 34.19 6.0 44.89
LOO 26.0 29.45 32.0 32.00
22.67 Empty
•4 s /\ /\
ZH.l/ Zl.U l^.UU
42.55 Empty

ETAW (b)
l y p e i - izu mm/nr
0.07 3.0 44.78 5.0 59.76
.« -^ A 4 4 -^ A
HJ.ZO

22.62 Empty
'^ A t '^ T > A '^'^ A A

42.50 Empty

ETAW (c)
lype I — t ^\J m m / i n

0.90 22.0 24.44 24.0 26.67
1 0 iCA IT.—......

24.08 25.0 16.89

Type I = 60 mm/hr
in (\ 11 n
0.17 60.24 J. A . v f

0.85 29.0 42.40 40.0 47.06
22.40 Empt>'
23.91 24.0 15.89

ETW (b)
Type I = Omm/hr
0.73 6.0 8.22 6.0 8.04
22.30 83.0 3.85 89.0 3.99
23.80 7.0 4.67 96.0 4.03
42.20 74.0 4.02 170.0 4.03

ETW (c)
Type I = 0 mm/hr
0.72 29.0 40.28 18.0 25.00
22.30 Empty
23.80 18.0 12.00
42.20 Fmntv
Table A. 1. Continued

I Time Infiltration mnitration I Infiltration
Rate Infiltration
(hrs) Vol. (mm) Rate (mm/hr)
(mm^nr) (mm)
Unit 18 ET(a)
type 1 = 300 mm/hr
0.10 14.0 140.00 19.0 162.86
0.63 59.0 111.32 78.0 123.81
22.05 Empty
» ^S 4 4
Z.J.D8 OO.U 4:).14
42.05 Empty

ET(b)
-% • • A n
lype1 -
30V mm/nr 155.38
0.07 7.0 104.48 13.0
A 4 A
A
U.OZ
r'^\ O 1
Ol.U
A 1 il ^
IH/.Z/
' > ^
152.35
22.05 Empty
A A ^ A
23.57 68.0
41.52 Empty

ET(c)
T .^ T — ->AA _ . ~ . /U_
1 ype I - J v / u m m / 111
0.57 6.0 10.53 11.0 18.75
22.00 99.0 110.0 5.00
23.55 7.0 4.52 117.0 4.97
41.60 82.0 4.54 199.0 4.78
ir, o
3 « r^ m <N rvi ::a r-.
"o :5 -^
> 15 ra

mm/hi <
vC oc
Water
rr r-.
vq ^ . 00
k_

'-^ ^^ Cv — «ri vd —

T3 OJQ
£
CJ > o
60
.£ <
"^ "^^ ra
Urn
•-* ' 2 o
'^ •=; >
D <
o 00 00 "* t^ 00 f<^ ov >-, 0 0 m
oc t~- VO VO «N (N • * « <s •n
—* <N <N VO • ^
:a c^
-^ "ra
"o :5
> 15 00
t^ OJD 00
« >
^^ <
mm/hr

ON OO in m (N
W/W

p Ov VO o vq O
vd > d
•^ 3
73 QO •-
CO « > o
00
= < ra
c .ts
>
^ D5 <
O
>
"O -^
c o ^o
o C
Bell
Unli

>^ > . > . > . c c >. e >-> c >. >. >-> >> >> >. c •—
Q.
S < ^ <
H H OQ H H
c— § UJ U < U U
— t^
r~~ —
1§ < 3: s< < II
§ < <
tu 5 SH H
<
ra >->
< tu tu tu 11 «

w-i oo
•T)
00
c^
o
<N
o (N • * VO t ^ ^ 4 0 0 <N Ov <N ov ^ "Si- - *
ON
1
p o "-^ cn ov -^_ vq 0 0 r^ O r^ m_ 0 0 o m -^ i^ «n ov
fS •n o
U Tf' d d <ri d d «n -*' fo' ^ d d vd d M vd <N "^' 00 t^ 00 t^ VO vO
u o "^ "^ <N —" — —' — -^
BC
•^^
t^
^
E
c Ov 00 00 ^-1 <n r^ I O o r- «o 0 0 "* Ov Ov o r- ^ oc
fS «ri VO
• ^ <N CM <n r- »— f<n r- r- ^^ -^ ov r^ T f «N m o VO r- m rr 00
onOQ tN d d '^" _J t s c^' vd <N r t <N d ^" " * 0 0 <N "^" '^' d 00 vd
^H <S T}- wmi
-«« ^^ •n
«: .^^
a>
u 1/)
s •<*
_© «n
-^rf
VO
Tt VO m m <o f«n <N 00 ON r-i t^ c<-i Ov ^ (N o OV•^ - * VO <N vO
•*ri .-^ i-^
r» <N Ov
m -^ vq ' ^ vq OV p 00 ^^ 00 o 00-^ o tn <N «n,
vd
cs < ^H
m' <N ^dM c*^ K »-H
^^ ^^ m' 1M.4 ^H
en 00 <N
^H d "*"
^M wHK r^ 0 0
^ vd ^^ oo" «n
QJ
"^ •^ ^^ • ^

'"* "^ II
W
>
<
^-< <N m •* V-) VO t^ 00 OV o .^ <N m " * >n VO r- 00 II >
CA
<
5o II
"5 0 0 ^
^ 2 .£
3
1 1 CJ w < ^

135
APPENDIX B

START-UP AND SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS

136
START-UP AND SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS

Start-up Operations

Several preliminary operations were performed to ready the system for start-up.

One of these was checking the pipmg from the well to the project site for leaks. This

check included the following lines: line to clean water septic tank, line to sink, line to

hose bibbcock, and line to mixing tanks. No leaks were detected in this section of the

piping.

Second, the level controls in the septic tanks and the header tanks were tested for

proper operation. These checked out, except for the primary wastewater septic tank

overflowing. The problem was a loose connection on the high probe of the level sensor.

With that tightened, the level was controlled properly.

Another preliminary operation involved flushing the lines followed by an

overnight pressure test of the clean water and wastewater systems. This test concluded

that the wastewater system held pressure, but that there was a leak on the clean waterside.

A general check of the clean water system did not reveal an obvious problem. However,

when each individual field was checked, it was discovered that the ball valve on #6 ET

was not holding. This ball valve was installed to shut-off the flow, thereby allowing

easier cleaning of the meter and solenoid valve. However with this being a clean water

field and the leak being small, it was decided that the valve would not be replaced.

The wastewater septic tanks were seeded by adding 20 gallons of settled sewage

per tank. This settled sewage was obtained from the Lubbock wastewater treatment

facility. After seeding the tanks, the ingredients needed to mix 1500 gallons of artificial

137
wastewater mix were added to each wastewater septic tank. These tanks were then

allowed to sit for several days to reach a level of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and

total suspended solids (TSS) that would be similar to that of a residential septic tank.

Another preliminary operation involved verification that all the flow meters were

operational and calibrated. These meters can register either an instantaneous flowrate or

a totalized flow. Therefore, calibration factors had to be determined and each meter

checked and set as needed. Only a few meters were calibrated to gallons per day (gpd)

and total gallons.

On the morning of September 3, 1999, the first clean water field was to be

brought on-line. A final check of the clean water line was made and the valve to the

French drain closed. At this time, no water was flowing into the supply line as the valve

exiting the clean water header tank was closed. Then the ball valve for #2 AB was

opened and the level sensor relay plugged into its socket. As soon as the relay was

connected, the flow meter began registering 10.3 gallons per minute (gpm). The situation

that caused the meter to register required that the meter and solenoid valve be separated

by several inches.

After modifying the location of the flow meters, one clean water field and one

wastewater field were brought on-line and although flow was heard going through the

meters, nothing appeared on their digital screens. The systems were shutdown and the

meters rotated to a 45° angle as described in the troubleshooting hints for the flow meters

to determine if air bubbles were causing the problem. This rotation eliminated the

problem and flow rates were being recorded. However, the flow rate seemed extremely

low and after some evaluation, it was determined that there were air pockets in the

138
system. Opening the drain valves to the French drain forced the air pockets from the

systems. After dispelling the air, two additional clean water fields were brought on-line.

The following morning, two of the clean water fields were saturated to the surface

and it appeared that their solenoid valves were not closmg properly. An attempt to

determine a cause in the field was unsuccessful, so the fields were shut-in and a call was

made to the solenoid valve manufacturer for information about the valve. The solenoid

valves required more pressure for a positive shut-off than was available. As a result,

pressure header tanks were installed.

After this modification, two of the clean water fields were brought on-line to

verify the operation of the system. Within the next eleven days, the remaining clean

water fields were brought on-line. Two of these fields had minor leaks associated with

the o-ring in the flow meter unions. By re-positioning the o-ring and properly tightening

the imion, these were alleviated. Also, during this time, one of the flow meters was

replaced due to a fault in the meter electronics.

On the eleventh day of operation, all three wastewater ET fields were brought on-

line. Starting these fields required the mixing of several 200-gallon batches of artificial

wastewater. Over the next few days, these fields were monitored and one field had a

malfunctioning level control relay. It was replaced and operation returned to normal.

Monitoring of the wastewater mixing procedure resulted in modifications.

About three days after the wastewater ET fields came on-line; the first ETAW

field was brought on-line. This field experienced some early problems due to loose

connections at the relay and the level sensing probes. Once these were tightened, the

audible stuttering sound from the solenoid valve disappeared. The wastewater operations

139
continued with only four fields operating for abouttiireedays to allow the total demand

to drop sufficiently so that when the next field was added, the wastewater residence time

would still be between 2 to 3 days. A similar procedure was adopted for starting the next

two-wastewater fields, although the wait for tiie seventh field was moretiiana montii.

During the period up to the seventh wastewater field coming on-line, there were

several minor problems. One solenoid stuck open due to something blocking the port in

the solenoid valve. Manually operating the solenoid valve resolved that situation.

However on another field, manual operation of the solenoid valve did not solve the

problem and it had to be replaced. The level sensors in one field malfimctioned over a

two-day period allowing an excess amount of fluid to that field. Although several checks

were made, no obvious cause was pinpointed and the level control has operated correctly

since that time. In another field, the level control relay worked loose in its socket and

resulted in the solenoid valve not being able to stay open and fill the field. Another field

began to overflow slightly at the downstream observation port and the level control

system was the first suspect. However, microbiological clogging of the geotextile on the

level sensor pipe was the cause.

An electrical malfunction in a relay for one of the fields resulted in a tripped

breaker and shut-in all of the fields. When the breaker was switched on, one of the

transformers for the fields began to smoke. The breaker was switched off and the

incoming power lines removed from the bad transformer. All the relays powered by this

transformer were temporarily removed from service. Then, the bad transformer was

removed and replaced with the spare. Before starting the fields again, the resistance in

the removed relays was checked and one varied substantially from the others and it was

140
replaced. These relays were re-installed one at a time with no fiirther problems being

experienced in that circuit.

Prior to bringing the remaining two wastewater fields on-line, it was determined

that additional septic tank capacity would be required. Another tank was installed and

the remaining fields started. During the ensuing weeks, some electrical and level sensing

problems have occurred and been rectified.

Flow Meter Positioning

The morning of September 3, 1999, a clean water field (2 AB) was readied for

start-up by opening the shut-off ball valve and plugging the relay into its socket. As soon

as the relay was plugged into the socket, the flow meter registered aflowrate of 10.3

gpm. Since the valve from the header tank had not been opened yet, it was suspected that

a compressed air pocket was forcing water into the field. The valve from the header tank

was opened and there was no change in the flow rate, so it was closed. Then the ball

valve at the upstream end of the field was closed and still the flow meter rate stayed the

same. At this point, it was suspected that the electromagnet that operates the solenoid

valve was creating a false signal to the flow meter, which measures flow using a small

magnet located in each paddle. The system was shut down and a flow meter and solenoid

valve were taken to the Environmental Science Laboratory at Texas Tech University for

further testing.

A test of the solenoid valve and flow meter in the laboratory confirmed tiiat the

solenoid's electromagnet was creating a false reading on the flow meter. Testing

continued to determine the minimum distance at which there was no interference. The

141
minimum distance was approximately 5 inches. This information was brought back out

to the project to determine how far apart the two components could be in tiie existing

valve box. A maximum separation of 8 inches was possible and the modification of all

18 drain fields began. At this distance, all interference should be eliminated. After

several of the fields had been modified, two fields (one clean water and one wastewater)

were put on-line and the flow meters no longer registered flow when there was no flow.

Solenoid Valves and Header Tanks

After completing the modification with the flow meters, several fields were

brought on-line. However, the next morning, two of these fields were saturated to the

surface and still had flow going into them. A fu-st check indicated that the solenoid

valves were not closing completely. Therefore, one of the saturated fields was shut-in

and the solenoid valve checked and it appeared to be in working order. The manufacturer

of the valve was contacted and it was determined that the valve required 10 pounds per

square inch (psi) differential for a positive shutoff. With the header tanks in the control

building completely full, the maximum pressure attainable was between 3 to 4 psi.

At this time, it was decided that pressure tanks would have to be installed to

replace the gravity header tanks. Two Well-Rite On-line header tanks were purchased

and installed. The installation required some piping revisions inside the control building

and the addition of a check valve in the mcoming lines to prevent backflow to the septic

tanks. These header tanks had a pre-charge pressure of 40 psi, but since the system at

Reese would operate in the 20 to 40 psi range, this pressure was reduced to 20 psi. The

drawdown volume in the tanks is approximately 30 gallons in that pressure range. When

142
tiie clean water header tank installation was complete, a test was conducted to determine

if tiie existing sump pump could generate enough pressure head to fill tiie tank.

However, the maximum head achievable was about 6 psi. As a result, the sump pump

had to be replaced.

A review of a variety of submersible pumps, jet pumps, and centrifugal pumps

was imdertaken to determine which would be the most suitable for this system. It was

decided that a submersible pump could be purchased that would provide the volume and

head required for the system. A submersible pump (7 gpm) manufactured by Grundfos

was chosen for the clean water system. After completing this installation, the clean water

side of the system was brought back on-line and the system monitored closely as fields

were brought on-line. With several fields on-line, it was noted that the submersible pump

struggled to keep up with the volume requirement when another field was added. Based

on this information, it was decided that a 10 gpm submersible pump capable of supplying

the same pressure head as the one used in the clean water tank would be installed in the

wastewater primary septic tank.

Artificial Wastewater Mixing Procedure

Initially, the artificial wastewater was mixed by adding beer, Triton X

(surfactant), flour, urea, and Kaolin directiy to 200 gallons of water and this mixture

stirred with a V2 inch drive DeWalt drill that had a paddle mixer attached. This procedure

was used for several batches before it was observed that most of the flour, urea, and

Kaolin mix was settling in the bottom of the tank. So instead of adding that mix to the

mixing tanks, it was decided that the dry mix should be added directly to the septic tank

143
depending on tiie wastewater coming in to provide tiie necessary mixing. Further

discussion regarding tiie dry mix resulted in it being mixed as a slurry. The slurry was

added to the mixing tanks and mixed witii tiie otiier ingredients. After about two weeks,

it was observed that these ingredients in the slurry still seemed to be settling in tiie

mixing tank. Therefore, it was decided tiiat tiie slurry mix would be added directly to the

septic tanks.

In addition, the method by which Triton X was added to the artificial wastewater

was modified. Due to its density, Triton X in an undiluted form had a tendency to settle

to the bottom of a water column. Therefore, it was decided to pre-mix it in a one-liter

container until it all went into solution and tiien add it to the 200-gallon mix.

Field Level Sensors

Approximately 15 days after filling #16 ETAW, it began to overflow slightly at

the downstream observation point. The solenoid valve was closing, but not until the

observation pipe had filled to the top. A check of the level sensors revealed that they

were connected properly and should be providing the correct signals. The relay appeared

to be operating correctly, but a replacement one was installed to see if it made any

difference. However, the field continued to overflow and the next revision was to lower

the level, which had no effect. When replacing the solenoid valve did not improve the

situation, the question was raised as whether the geotextile that was wrapped around the

level sensing probes could be starting to plug due to solids in the effluent or the formation

of a biological mat. The field was shutdown, water bailed until the level was below the

first row of perforations in the level sensor pipe, and the geotextile punctured at one of

144
tiie perforations. Water flowed into tiie pipe, indicatingtiiattiiegeotextile was plugging.

As a result, tiie fu-st row of perforations were punctured intiiisfieldand in the remaining

three fields that were not on-line. The level-sensing device was able to operate correctiv

after this modification.

About mid-January 2000, it was noticed tiiat some oftiieother wastewater fields

were beginning to fill the observation pipe ahnost completely before the solenoid valve

would shut. As a result, a tool was devised that enabled all of the holes covered by the

geotextile in the sensor mbe to be punctured. In the one and a half months since tiiat

operation, all of the fields have maintained their set levels properly.

Additional Septic Tank

Another significant modification was the addition on January 10, 2000, of a third

1500-gallon wastewater septic tank. This tank was necessitated to maintain the

wastewater residence time between 2 to 3 days when the remaining twofieldswere

brought on-line. If the operation had continued with two septic tanks, the wastewater

strength would no longer mimic an actual system.

The additional septic tank was installed and piped so that each septic tank could

receive artificial wastewater from the mixing tanks by manually changing the position of

several valves. Effluent from this tank is pumped into the secondary tank. After the

piping to the third tank was complete, it was filled with 1400 gallons of artificial

wastewater. Approximately 50 gallons of wastewater from the header tank was added to

the third tank to properly seed it. During the next month, approximately four liters of

wastewater from the header tank was added to each artificial wastewater batch mixed to

145
ensure seeding of tiie tiiird tank. As soon as tiiis tank developed tiie pungent odor

detected in the other septic tanks, seeding was discontinued.

A level system identical to that on the primary tank was installed in the secondar>

tank and a sv^tch installed at the tertiary tank to manually turn off tiie pump. The s>'Stem

was then put into operation and it was noticed that the only time tiiat the pump in the

third tank operated was when the pump in the second wastewater tank was operating.

Having both pumps operate simultaneously seemed to work okay as the pumps appeared

to be reasonably well matched.

However, when the last field was being started, it was noticed that the flow had

dropped substantially as the field filled. A check of the septic tanks revealed that the

primary was almost empty and the transfer pumps in the other wastewater septic tanks

were not operating to transfer wastewater. The entire wastewater system was shutdown

to determine what had malfunctioned. A check of the relay on the primary tank level

system revealed that it had failed. After replacing it, the wastewater fields were re-

started. Two days later, the primary tank had overflowed and once again, a relay had

failed. Further review of the level sensing systems was undertaken and it was discovered

that this system was being required to operate two 9.8 amp pumps with a relay that has a

maximum load of 10 amps. The system was re-wired to provide a separate power source

for the second relay.

With the existing level sensor probe lengths, the system was frequently operated

manually to maintain sufficient volume in the tanks. When the daily volume decreased, it

was possible to exchange the deep probes, with shorter probes and place the system on

automatic. After the shorter probes were installed, the primary tank fill system worked

146
correctly, but the one in the secondary tank did not. Following several days of work on

this system, it was discovered that the connection on the reference probe was loose.

Upon tightening this connection, the system performed as expected for several trial runs.

However, within less than a day, it was no longer operating properly and Farley (2000)

indicated that there might be a short circuit between the low probe and reference probe,

keeping the circuit closed. He suggested that the system be cleaned and dried to

determine if it would then operate correctly. Apparently moisture had caused the

problem, since this system operated correctly once it was dry.

147
APPENDIX C

FINAL FACILITY CONFIGURATION

FINAL FIELD CONFIGURATION

148
0 1" Ball Valve
Z Electrical Box
PVC Waste Line
PVC Water Line
PVC Drain Line
Electrical Line
i Flow Meter
Solenoid Valve
Z Controller 1

- - Gravel Drain Field

0 Pressure Gauge
^ Pressue Regulator
Check Valve

1ft

Figure C. 1. Legend for Final Facility Layouts

149
o —^ ^-^
= CO 3 O
\
\ ^
O'-C ^ C TO \
CO > CLK ^
\
\
i \V
^
c

ank
alio
to ^ ~ ^
Q. O) \ \ /•
1-
E lO
CVJ
^—v^ V
0)
a>
3 CNi _i
Q. \

•^
^

3
o

c

3
CQ

c
o
U
c

z _J
CO
u
3
00

<

150
fe ^
ti C
^ a
I^H
c .S^ ;
ca -ti
U Cl.
r-r «
U CO

3
O
>-.

c
«
H

uw^

O.

a
c/3
U
CO
3
SO
CO

151
• .~

Figure C.4. Final Drain Field Layout
152
J

Kl^^

^
V

c
O.
X
&

o

2
c
a
Urn

Q
c

-ff-
U
(p>
60

^ e

153
APPENDDC D

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

154
Reese ETA System Project

Time(a.m./p.m.) Date(m/d/y)
Weather Conditions Reading Units
Temperature Degrees F
Wind MPH and Direction
Sun W/M'
Rain Hourly rate / total inches
Barometer In.ofHG/(F/S/R)
Humidity %
Dew Point Degrees F
ET In. -day

Field Number Totalizer Reading
1 ABW
2AB
3AB
4 ETAW
5 ETW
6ET
7 ETA
8 ETW
9 ETAW
10 ET
11 ABW
12 AB
13 ABW
14 ETA
15 ETA
16 ETAW
17 ETW
18 ET
Waste Totalizer

REMARKS:

155
Reese Artificial Wastewater

Fill both 225 gallon mixing tanks (to your left as you walk into the control building) to
tiie 200 gallon mark by opening the valve on the linetiiathas tiie water label on it. Fill
only one tank at a time, as the well pump can not generate sufficient head to fill both
tanks simultaneously.
NBI Watch when filling the mixing tanks as there is no automatic shut-ofTand they
can easily overflow onto the floor.

1.Fill two-liter measure to 1.91 (1900 ml) by dispensing beerfi-omkeg using
valve on line connected to keg. Periodically, the gas valvefi-omthe CO2
bottle will need to be opened to pressurize the keg, but otherwise the valve
should be closed to prevent loss of CO2. The pressure should be
approximately 3 psi to prevent the creation of too much head as the beer is
dispensed. (Keg tapping procedure on separate page).
a. Two containers of beer are left for the next person mixing artificial
wastewater.
2. Pour beer into 225-gallon mix tank.
3. Add pre-mixed Triton X to 225-gallon mix tank.
a. Fill one of the Gatorade botties about halffiillof water and add 18 ml
of Triton X. Shake mixture until Triton X dissolves (nofloatersseen
in the water).
b. Pre-mixed batches are left beside each mixing tank for the next
artificial wastewater mixer.
4. Mix the solution in the mix tank for 30-45 seconds using the drill with
mixing paddle attached.
5. Open the valve to the transfer pump/septic tank. This line is labeled
wastewater.
6. Mix one package of dry mix, which contains flour, urea, and Kaolin in about
1.0 liter of water in one of the two-liter measures. Mix until dissolved and
add to the northem most (fiirthest from the control building) wastewater
septic tank by removing the lid and pouring this mixture into the stream
coming from the mixing tank thereby allowing the incoming flow to dilute
mixture.
7. If mixing more than one batch, the transfer pump between the two 225 gallon
tanks can be turned on at the switch by the pump. Do not allow the pump to
run dry - gurgling sound occurs just prior to the tank being empty. Also,
with the added distance to the wastewater septic tank, this transfer pump will
often shut-off due to overheating. Allow pump to cool and resume pumping.
8. The last batch mixed can be drained by gravity allowing the mixer to leave
the site.

156
Sampling procedure

Field Sampling

1 Prior to going into the field to sample, place labels on one-liter sample botties
by using 1" white label tape (available from Environmental Science
Laboratory). The label is to go around the entire bottle and overlap to prevent
it coming off in transit. Label the bottles with field number and date.
2. Samples are collected from the downstream observation pipe on each drain
field, which is the onefiirthestfromthe valve cover box.
3. Using the proper sampling pipe (labeled as clean water or wastewater),
connect the rubber stopper to the plasticfittingconnected to the vinyl tubing
on the pipe.
4. Connect the hand held vacuum pump with its vinyl tubing and plastic elbow
to the rubber stopper.
5. Put the sampling pipe into the observation port and allow it to sit on the
bottom of the observation port pipe. This will enable all samples to be taken
from the same depth.
6. Using one liter sample bottles, remove the lid, insert the rubber stopper, and
start operating the hand vacuum.
7. Fill the container about halffiill,release vacuum, remove stopper, and rinse.
For these samples, one rinse of the container is needed.
8. After rinsing container, fill container to top by operating hand vacuum pump.
Do not allow fluid into the vacuum pump.
9. Release vacuum, place hd on bottie, and note time of sample on bottle label.
10. Complete custody transfer form for the samples by listing samples, how many
of each (1), matrix (water), preserved (none), sampling date and time, and
analyses requested (see sampling schedule).

Header tank sampling

1. Wastewater header tank sample is taken from the hose bibb connected to the
wastewater header tank in the control building.
a. Label bottle.
b. Fill bottle and rinse.
c. Fill bottie, replace lid, and complete label in same manner as done for
field samples.
2. Clean water header tank sample is taken from the clean water septic tank by
using the sampler (one-liter bottie attached to broom handle).
a. Label bottie.
b. Dip water from septic tank, fill bottie, and rinse.
c. Fill bottie, replace hd, and complete label in same manner as done for
field samples.

157
Sampling schedule

Clean water
Sample clean water septic tank on a weekly basis.
Sample all fields, procedure to be done every other week.

Analyses to be done:
COD
TKN
Cations and anions

Wastewater
Every Monday, sample all fields at downstream end and also
wastewater header tank.

Analyses to be done:
COD
TKN
pH
TSS and other solids components
Every other week- cations and anions

Every Thursday, sample all fields and header tank

Analyses to be done:
COD
BOD

Revised 4/1/00

158
Weather Station Procedures

Changing time for daylight savings or normal time.

1. Have unit on wall set to time.

2. Press enter and hold until correct hour appears.

3. Press enter again and hold until correct minute appears.

4. This same procedure can be done for changing month, day, year.

5. This procedure can also be used to change other values being measured by the

weather station.

Download weather data to disc

1. Turn monitor on.

2. Insert disc infloppydrive.

3. Select Database.

4. Select Browse

5. Select Edit.

6. Select Export Records.

7. Select items to export (usually month just completed)

8. Select OK.

9. Export files as *.txt (Rees300.txt, next year - Rees301 .txt)

10. Select drive a.

11. Select OK and the computer should download to the disc in thefloppydrive.

159
Keg Tapping Procedure

1. Valve on top of CO2 bottle should already be closed.

2. Close small ball valve on CO2 line from CO2 bottle to keg tap.

3. Release black dispensing valve handle on keg tap. This handle has a white arrow on

it.

4. Pull pressure valve release ring on keg tap to relieve any pressure.

5. Rotate keg tap 90° counterclockwise to remove tap.

6. Place tap on new keg after removing plastic capfromkeg.

7. Rotate keg tap 90° clockwise imtil it reaches stop.

8. Open small valve on CO2 line.

9. Push dispensing handle down on keg tap to complete tap when ready to dispense the

beer.

160
APPENDIX E

FIELD LOADING DATA

161
Table E.l. (:iean V^ater AB Field Loadi ngData

Water AB fields-#2.3. 12
gpd gpd sod o/ft^/H g/ft'/d g/ftVd
Date Field 2 Field 3 Field 12 Field 2 Field 3 Field 12 LTAR
9/22/99 1 533 4.4 0.25
9/23/99 497 521 i 41 ; 4.3 0.25
9/24/99 i 477 i 317 39 26 0.25
9/25/99 1 491 318 40 2.6 0.25
9/26/99 467 ; 302 38 2.5 0.25
9/27/99 i 498 315 41 2.6 0.25
9/28/99 ; 509 i 319 j , 42 2.6 0.25
9/29/99 : 540 1 339 ; 45 2.8 0.25
9/30/99 530 ! 327 i 4.4 2.7 0.25
10/1/99 537 324 ! 4.4 2.7 0.25
10/2/99 535 320 ; 474 1 44 2.6 39 0.25
10/3/99 567 336 365 4.7 2.8 3,0 0.25
10/4/99 598 ! 347 374 1 4.9 2.9 3,1 0.25
10/5/99 616 355 i 395 51 2.9 3.3 0.25
10/6/99 620 347 1 396 ; 5 1 2.9 3.3 0.25
10/7/99 624 t 341 389 51 2.8 3.2 0.25
10/8/99 634 342 385 • 5.2 2.8 3.2 0.25
10/9/99 668 361 ' 397 5.5 3.0 3.3 0.25
10/10/99 703 368 i 405 5,8 3.0 3.3 0.25
10/11/99 698 369 ! 415 • 5.8 3.0 3.4 0,25
10/12/99 728 375 421 i 6.0 3.1 3,5 0.25
10/13/99 735 369 413 : 6.1 3.0 3,4 0.25
10/14/99 765 380 i 422 6.3 3.1 3.5 0,25
10/15/99 764 372 417 ; 6.3 3.1 3.4 0,25
10/16/99 283 374 1 417 2.3 3.1 3,4 0.25
10/17/99 1325 i 396 ': 440 i 10.9 3.3 3,6 0.25
10/18/99 846 i 414 i 457 | 7.0 3.4 3,8 0.25
10/19/99 820 399 ! 445 1 6.8 3.3 3,7 0.25
10/20/99 822 407 i 454 : 6.8 3,4 3,7 0.25
10/21/99 810 ! 396 444 j 1 6.7 3.3 3.7 0.25
10/22/99 846 414 455 7.0 3.4 3.8 0.25
10/23/99 881 419 466 7.3 3.5 3.8 0.25
10/24/99 922 439 491 7.6 3.6 4.0 0.25
10/25/99 912 i 430 i 469 7.5 3.5 3.9 0.25
10/26/99 970 ! 452 I 505 8.0 3.7 4.2 0,25
10/27/99 994 468 1 515 ! 8.2 3.9 4.2 0,25
10/28/99 1014 477 ! 193 1 8.4 3.9 1.6 0.25
10/29/99 1037 485 925 8.5 4.0 7.6 0.25
10/30/99 1049 490 541 8.6 4.0 4.5 0.25
10/31/99 1113 524 581 9.2 4.3 4.8 0.25
11/1/99 1120 527 591 9.2 4.3 4.9 0.25
11/2/99 1122 528 i 594 ! 9.2 4.4 4.9 0.25
11/3/99 1137 537 603 i 9.4 4.4 5.0 0,25
11/4/99 1123 521 588 9.3 4.3 4.8 0.25
11/5/99 1150 527 602 i i 9.5 4.3 5.0 0.25
11/6/99 1027 458 519 I ! 8.5 3.8 4.3 0.25
11/7/99 1185 565 651 i 9.8 4.7 5.4 0.25
11/8/99 1155 546 634 I ' 9.5 4.5 5.2 0.25
11/9/99 1181 554 650 i 9.7 4.6 5.4 0.25
11/10/99 1208 : 577 669 ! 10.0 4.8 5.5 0.25
11/11/99! 1254 ! 597 706 J ' 10.3 4.9 5.8 0.25
11/12/991 1280 619 714 i 10.5 5.1 5.9 0.25
11/13/99: 1291 629 741 | 10.6 5.2 6.1 0.25
11/14/99 1299 1 632 ' 745 ! : 10.7 5.2 6.1 ^ 0.25
11/15/99 1311 642 812 ; 10.8 5.3 6.7 0.25
11/16/99 1315 645 1 773 • : 10.8 5.3 6.4 0.25
11/17/99 1318 641 774 : 10.9 5.3 6.4 0.25
11/18/99 1311 640 ! 771 10 8 5.3 6.4 0.25

162
Table E.2. C leanW ater ETA Field Load ing Data
L
1 L
Water ETA fields - a 7.14,15
' 1

gpd gpd g'ft-d g'frd gft-d
Date Field 7 Field 14 Field 15 Field 7 Field 14 Field 15 LTAR
9/22/99 600 4,9 0.25
9/23/99 419 3.5 025
9/24/99 411 3.4 0 25
9/25/99 439 3.6 0 25
9/26/99 431 3.6 0.25
9/27/99 461 3.8 0.25
9/28/99 477 836 3.9 6.9 0.25
9/29/99 970 495 601 8.0 4.1 5.0 0.25
9/30/99 594 489 580 4.9 4.0 48 0.25
10/1/99 563 489 588 4.6 40 4.8 0.25
10/2/99 564 497 608 46 41 5.0 0.25
10/3/99 623 518 651 5.1 4.3 5.4 0.25
10/4/99 651 533 680 5.4 4.4 5.6 0.25
10/5/99 668 541 695 5.5 4.5 5.7 0.25
10/6/99 684 546 704 5.6 4.5 5.8 0.25
10/7/99 702 551 708 5.8 4.5 5.8 0.25
10/8/99 710 549 705 5.9 4.5 5.8 0.25
10/9/99 739 561 725 ' 6.1 4.6 6.0 0.25
10/10/99 : 766 576 : 745 '• 6.3 4.7 6.1 0.25
10/11/99 785 591 751 6.5 4.9 6.2 0.25
10/12/99 795 604 : 758 6.6 5.0 6.2 0.25
10/13/99 i 791 610 1 759 6.5 5.0 6.3 0.25
10/14/99 1 801 619 772 6.6 5.1 6.4 0.25
10/15/99 : 795 581 763 6.6 4.8 6.3 0,25
10/16/99 797 624 771 6.6 5.1 6.4 0.25
10/17/99 : 803 654 802 6.6 5.4 6.6 0 25
10/18/99 806 577 738 6.6 4.8 6.1 0 25
10/19/99 1 819 645 794 6.8 5.3 6.5 0.25
10/20/99 ! 835 675 811 6.9 5.6 6.7 0.25
10/21/99 i 819 668 800 6.8 5.5 6.6 0.25
10/22/99 ! 830 686 : 818 6.8 5.7 6.7 0.25
10/23/99 j 840 701 836 6.9 5.8 69 0.25
10/24/99 , 867 1 720 868 7.1 5.9 7.2 0.25
10/25/99 871 ! 724 1 878 1 7.2 6.0 7.2 0.25
10/26/99 891 • 735 899 7.3 6,1 7.4 0.25
10/27/99 901 1 734 . 912 7.4 6,0 7.5 0.25
10/28/99 914 736 902 7.5 6.1 7.4 0.25
10/29/99 927 743 977 7.6 6.1 8.1 0.25
10/30/99 945 756 964 7.8 6.2 1 7.9 0.25
10/31/99 1008 807 1019 8.3 6.7 ; 8.4 0.25
11/1/99 1008 ' 817 1 1028 8.3 6.7 8.5 0.25
11/2/99 1023 827 ] 1034 8.4 6.8 8.5 0.25
11/3/99 1023 824 • 1035 8.4 6.8 8.5 0.25
11/4/99 1021 820 1 1020 8.4 6.8 8.4 0.25
11/5/99 1039 ' 827 1041 8.6 6.8 8.6 0.25
11/6/99 980 730 : 908 81 6.0 7.5 0.25
11/7/99 1082 i 863 1 1069 : 89 7.1 8.8 i 0.25
11/8/99 1052 837 '• 1034 8.7 6.9 8.5 1 0.25
11/9/99 1076 860 j 1060 8,9 7.1 ! 8.7 i 0.25
11/10/99 1095 : 887 ! 1082 , 9,0 7.3 8.9 ' 0.25
11/11/99 1136 922 1 1121 1 9,4 7.6 9.2 0.25
11/12/99 1164 ! 953 : 1141 9,6 7.9 9.4 : 0.25
11/13/99 1176 ; 967 1153 i 9.7 8.0 9.5 ' 0.25
11/14/99 1185 1 981 1164 9.8 8.1 9.6 0.25
11/15/99 1203 1001 1174 9.9 8.3 9.7 ; 0.25
11/16/99 1207 , 1004 1175 9,9 8.3 9.7 0.25
11/17/99 1199 1 1008 : 1176 9,9 8.3 9.7 0.25
11/18/99 1200 1021 ! 1183 • 9,9 8.4 9.8 0.25
!

163
Table E.3. Clean Water ET Field Loading Data

Water ET fields - # (), 10, 18
gpd gpd gpd g/ft^/d g/ft^/d g/ft'/d
Chesapealce
Date Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Colorado Toronto
9/22/99 3.6 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/23/99 0.4 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/24/99 0.2 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/25/99 4.2 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/26/99 12.4 0.21 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/27/99 10.7 : 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
i

9/28/99 10.7 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
t-
9/29/99 9.3 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
9/30/99 7.3 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/1/99 8.5 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/2/99 11.4 19.0 64.4 i 1 0.19 0.32 1.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/3/99 9.4 12.9 18.6 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/4/99 10.6 14.5 10.3 • i 0.18 0.24 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/5/99 9.0 13.2 13.1 : 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/6/99 9.4 13.2 18.5 1 0.16 0.22 0.31 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/7/99 13.2 19.7 6.7 0.22 0.33 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/8/99 11.5 35.6 12.6 ; 0.19 0.59 0.21 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/9/99 7.8 38.0 8.6 : 0.13 0.63 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/10/99 7.5 34.8 5.9 ! 0.13 0.58 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/11/99 9.0 34.2 10.4 0.15 0.57 0.17 0.03 0.1: 0.08
10/12/99 8.6 31.7 16.2 : 0.14 0.53 0.27 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/13/99 10.3 33.6 8.8 0.17 0.56 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/14/99 10 30.4 12.4 ! 0.17 0.51 0.21 0.03 0.11 0.08
10/15/99 11 34.7 16 , 0.18 0.58 0.27 0.03 0.1 i 0.08
10/16/99 12.1 32 16.7 ' 0.20 0.53 0.28 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/17/99 11.4 31.7 19.9 i 0.19 0.53 0.33 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/18/99 0.8 20.5 7 i 0.01 0.34 0.12 0.03 o.il 0.08
10/19/99 0 33.2 19.5 : 0.00 0.55 0.33 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/20/99 4.1 33.7 18 0.07 0.56 0.30 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/21/99 6.8 34.1 17.7 1 0.11 0.57 0.30 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/22/99 7.2 31.9 27.1 ! 0.12 0.53 0.45 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/23/99 8.8 29.7 35.5 1 0.15 0.50 0.59 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/24/99 9.9 29.3 35.9 0.17 0.49 0.60 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/25/99 8.7 28.5 34.9 i 0.15 0.48 0.58 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/26/99 10 29.3 34 0.17 0.49 0.57 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/27/99 9.2 31.2 6 , 0.15 0.52 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/28/99 9.2 28.2 10.5 0.15 0.47 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/29/99 8 29.6 22 0.13 0.49 0.37 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/30/99 9 27.6 27.4 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/31/99 9.6 31 27.8 0.16 0.52 0.46 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/1/99 8.8 31.1 29 ! 0.15 0.52 0.48 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/2/99 10.6 29.9 40.7 i ! 0.18 0.50 0.68 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/3/99 6.9 28.7 42.3 j 1 0.12 0.48 0.71 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/4/99 8.4 28.4 41.5 ! 0.14 0.47 0.69 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/5/99 9.5 27.5 50.3 1 0.16 0.46 0.84 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/6/99 1.8 27.5 12.1 1 0.03 0.46 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/7/99 9.1 32 0.1 ! ! 0.15 0.53 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
1
11/8/99 6.7 30.4 1.5 ! 0.11 0.51 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/9/99 8.1 31.6 8.6 1 0.14 0.53 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/10/99 7.6 31.4 16.3 ! 0.13 0.52 0.27 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/11/99 8.1 31.2 20.8 i 0.14 0.52 0.35 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/12/99 8.9 30.6 20 0.15 0.51 0.33 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/13/99 6.6 30.3 21.6 ' 0.11 0.51 0.36 0.03 0.1 0.08

164
Table E.3. Continued
Water ET fields - # 6 , 10, 18
gpd gpd gpd g/ft^/d g/ft^/d e.ft-/d
Chesapeake
Date Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Colorado Toronto B3V
11/14/99 7.8 29.7 6.7 , 0.13 0.50 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/15/99 6.8 27.5 3.9 1 0.11 0.46 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/16/99 5.2 30.4 4.5 0.09 0.51 0.08 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/17/99 7.8 31 3.1 0.13 0.52 0.05 0.031 0.1 ! 0.08
11/18/99; 9.4 30.5 1.3 0.16 0.51 0.02 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
11/19/99 9.6 29.6 9.2 0.16 0.49 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/20/99 6.3 28.4 13.1 0.11 0.47 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/21/99 i 6.9 28.3 0.5 0.12 0.47 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/22/99 6.9 28.4 23.5 : 0.12 0.47 0.39 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/23/991 8.5 28.4 11.1 0.14 0.47 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/24/99' 6 28.2 9.4 0.10 0.47 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/25/99 5 26.5 8.8 0.08 0.44 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/26/99 5.1 27.9 9.2 0.09 0.47 0.15 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
11/27/99 7.1 27.6 11.2 0.12 0.46 0.19 0,03; 0.1 0.08
11/28/99 7.6 28.4 12.1 0.13 0.47 0.20 0,03 0.1 0.08
11/29/99 6.5 29.7 11.3 0.11 0.50 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/30/99 5.3 27.1 8.2 0.09 0.45 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/1/99 4.9 27.5 8.6 0.08 0.46 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/2/99 5.4 26.8 9.7 0.09 0.45 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/3/99 7.1 28.5 10.9 0.12 0.48 0.18 0.03' 0.1 0.08
12/4/99 5.6 24.2 8.1 0.09 0.40 0.14 0.03' 0.1 0.08
12/5/99 0 11.2 0 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/6/99 0 31.4 0.5 0.00 0.52 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/7/99 13.8 21.9 0.8 0.23 0.37 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/8/99 2.6 21.7 4.1 0.04 0.36 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/9/99 2.8 21.5 11.2 0.05 0.36 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/10/99 0 17.9 0 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/11/99 0 18 0 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/12/99 2.5 21.4 5.9 0.04 0.36 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/13/99 4.6 20.7 6.8 0.08 0.35 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/14/99 3.5 21.4 11.3 0.06 0.36 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/15/99 6.9 21.7 8.2 0.12 0.36 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/16/99 3.7 , 21.1 7.9 0.06 0.35 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/17/99 3.5 21 6.3 0.06 0.35 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/18/99 4.9 21.4 7 0.08 0.36 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/19/99 3.9 20.9 6.3 ! 0.07 0.35 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/20/99 4.5 20.4 6.6 0.08 0.34 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/21/99 4.5 20.4 6.6 0.08 i 0.34 0.11 0.031 0.1 0.08
12/22/99 19.1 1.9 ! 0.02 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/23/99 4.2 20.7 6 0.07 0.35 •' 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/24/99^ 2.5 20.3 4.7 0.04 0.34 0.08 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/25/99 1.4 19.8 5.9 0.02 0.33 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/26/99 5.4 19.2 4.2 0.09 i 0.32 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/27/99 2.6 23.2 i 4.8 : 0.04 0.39 0.08 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/28/99 i 5.2 20 6.9 0.09 0.33 i 0.12 0.03, 0.1 0.08
12/29/99 3.9 14 6.3 0.07 0.23 I 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/30/99, 52 18.1 6.7 0.09 0.30 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/31/991 5.2 18.2 8.5 0.09 0.30 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/1/00 5.1 16.8 5.4 0.09 : 0.28 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/2/00 5.8 18.5 8.4 ' 0.10 0.31 i 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/3/00 1 6 18 6.8 : 1 0.10 ! 0.30 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/4A)0 j 8.3 i 17.7 10.3 , 0.14 0.30 0.17 0.03; 0.1 0.08
1/5/00 ! 3.4 19.6 4.1 0.06 i 0.33 0.07 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
1/6/00 4.5 16.5 6 0.08 0.28 0.10 0.03; 0.1 0.08

165
Table E.3. Continued
Water ET fields - # 6, 10, 18
gpd gpd gpd g/ft-/d g/ft^/d g/ft^/d
Date ! Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Field 6 Field 10 Field 18 Colorado Toronto Bav
1/7/00 ! 4 12.3 5.6 0.07 0.21 0.08
0.09 0.03 0.1
1/8/00 1.1 15.9 3.3 0.02 0.27 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/9/00 4.5 16.1 6.2 0.08 0.27 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/10/00 1! 5 i 17.7 13.3 0.08 0.30 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/11/00 5.9 17.3 5.3 0.10 0.29 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/12/00 4 16.8 5.6 0.07 0.28 0.09 0.03 0.1 0,08
1/13/00 6.8 17.2 8.8 0.11 0.29 0.15 0.03 0.1' 0,08
1/14/00 4.9 16.4 5.5 0.08 0.27 0.09 0.03 0.1 0,08
1/15/00 1 4.1 17 6.1 0.07 0.28 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/16/00 3.9 ! 15.5 ! 5.4 ! 0.07 0.26 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/17/00 4.9 17.5 5.9 0.08 0.29 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/18/00 ! 4.2 15.4 6.2 0.07 0.26 0.10 0.03 O.I 0.08
1/19/00 i 4.6 i 16.4 11.2 I 0.08 0.27 0.19 0.03 0.1: 0.08
H —
1/20/00 ' 5.9 ' 17.2 3.6 ' 0.10 0.29 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/21/00 4.8 i 14.8 1 6.4 0.08 0.25 '• 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/22/00 5.6 17.6 ! 5.8 0.09 0.29 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/23/00 5.3 i 16 ! 7.2 0.09 0.27 i 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/24/00 4.6 1 17.6 i 5.8 0.08 0.29 0.10 0.03 0.1. 0.08
1/25/00 3 15.7 8.5 0.05 0.26 0.14 0.03 0.11 0.08
1/26/00 5.2 16.7 14.2 I 0.09 0.28 0.24 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/27/00 1.8 16.5 18.6 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.03 0.1' 0.08
1/28/00 2.6 1 15.7 1 0.2 : 0.04 0.26 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/29/00 3.1 15.1 0.2 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/30/00 2.7 1 14.9 1.1 ! 0.05 0.25 ! 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/31/00 3.7 16 2.4 : 0.06 0.27 0.04 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/1/00 1.7 15.5 3.5 . 0.03 0.26 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/2/00 0.8 ; 14.2 1.1 0.01 0.24 : 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/3/00 2.5 i 15.1 3.5 0.04 0.25 0.06 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/4/00 5.4 15.8 7.4 : 0.09 0.26 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/5/00 4.2 16.6 5.9 ' 0.07 0.28 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/6/00 4.2 14.8 4.9 0.07 0.25 1 0.08 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/7/00 4.5 i 12 6.8 0.08 0.20 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/8/00 4.4 ! 14.5 6.2 1 0.07 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/9/00 6.4 13.4 6.2 i 0.11 0.22 , 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/10/00 5.8 15.6 8.6 0.10 0.26 1 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/11/00 5.8 15.6 8.6 : 0.10 0.26 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/12/00 4.6 14.6 13.6 i 0.08 0.24 0.23 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/13/00 4.6 15.3 1.8 0.08 0.26 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/14/00 6.7 15.9 8.5 0.11 0.27 0.14 0.03 0.1; 0.08
2/15/00 6.6 15.4 12.9 0.11 0.26 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/16/00 7.8 15.9 4.2 ' 0.13 0.27 0.07 0.03 0.1: 0.08
2/17/00 6.6 15.2 6.9 0.11 0.25 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/18/00 6.8 16 15.2 1 0.11 0.27 0.25 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/19/00 6.3 15.2 6.3 1 0.11 0.25 I 0.11 0.03 0.1, 0.08
2/20/00 ' 5.2 13.7 6.6 1 0.09 0.23 0.11 0.03 0.1. 0.08
2/21/00 5.3 14.3 6.6 1 0.09 0.24 : 0.11 0.03 0.1! 0.08
2/22/00 6.2 13.5 5.8 0.10 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.1 ! 0.08
2/23/00 4.7 13.9 7.4 0.08 0.23 , 0.12 0.03 0.1 i 0.08
2/24/00 ' 8.5 14.6 4.1 0.14 0.24 1 0.07 0.03 0.1 > 0.08
2/25/00 i 8.4 14.7 9.1 ! 0.14 0.25 ! 0.15 0.03 0.1, 0.08
2/26/00 8.1 13.3 10.5 ! 0.14 0.22 ! 0.18 0.03 0.1 i 0.08
2/27/00; 8.3 14.8 8.8 0.14 0.25 ; 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/28/00 1 5.6 10.7 9.2 0.09 0.18 1 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/29/00 1 8.4 12.7 8.8 0.14 0.21 1 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08

166
Table E.4. Wastewater AB Field Loading Data

Wastewater ABW fnilds - # 1. 11. 13
gpd gpd gpd g/ft-/d g/ft-/d g/ft^/d
Date Field 1 Field 11 Field 13 Field 1 Field 11 Field 13 LTAR
10/11/99 992 8.2 0.25
10/12/99 216 1.8 0.25
10/13/99 339 2.8 0.25
10/14/99 303 2.5 0.25
10/15/99 270 2.2 0.25
10/16/99 326 256 2.7 2.1 0.25
10/17/99 730 259 6.0 2.1 0.25
10/18/99 454 266 3.7 2.2 0.25
10/19/99 365 252 3.0 2.1 0.25
10/20/99 307 247 2.5 2.0 0.25
10/21/99 273 232 2.3 1.9 0.25
10/22/99 259 227 2.1 1.9 0.25
10/23/99 240 220 2.0 1.8 0.25
10/24/99 236 217 1.9 1.8 0.25
10/25/99 214 217 1.8 1.8 0.25
10/26/99 207 219 1.7 1.8 0.25
10/27/99 198 216 1.6 1.8 0.25
10/28/99 190 220 1.6 1.8 0.25
10/29/99 183 220 1.5 1.8 0.25
10/30/99 182 221 1 1.5 1.8 0.25
10/31/99 186 238 1.5 2.0 0.25
11/1/99 182 242 1.5 2.0 0.25
11/2/99 174 238 1.4 2.0 0.25
11/3/99 171 234 1.4 1.9 0.25
11/4/99 162 231 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/5/99 158 229 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/6/99 162 230 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/7/99 160 242 1.3 2.0 0.25
11/8/99 155 217 1.3 1.8 0.25
11/9/99 152 228 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/10/99 153 221 1.3 1.8 0.25
11/11/99 156 218 1.3 1.8 0.25
11/12/99 153 227 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/13/99 157 232 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/14/99 146 219 1.2 1.8 0.25
11/15/99 146 222 1.2 1.8 0.25
11/16/99 149 209 1.2 1.7 0.25
11/17/99 149 220 1.2 1.8 0.25
11/18/99 144 185 1.2 1.5 0.25
11/19/99 134 210 ! 1.1 1.7 0.25
11/20/99 152 193 1.3 1.6 0.25
11/21/99 135 176 1.1 1.5 0.25
11/22/99 144 200 1.2 1.6 0.25
11/23/99 133 214 j 1.1 1.8 0.25
11/24/99 157 233 1 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/25/99 156 225 i 1.3 1.9 0.25

167
Table E.4 . Continued

Wastewater ABW fields - # 1 , 1 1 , 1 3
gpd gpd gpd g.ft-/d g/ft^/d g/ft-/d
Date Field 1 Fie Id 11 Field 13 Field 1 Field 11 Field 13 LTAR
11/26/99 162 229 1.3 1.9 0.25
11/27/99 154 196 1.3 1.6 0.25
11/28/99 146 195 1.2 1.6 0.25
11/29/99 141 193 1.2 1.6 0.25
11/30/99 144 207 1.2 1.7 0.25
12/1/99 157 197 1.3 1.6 0.25
12/2/99 132 191 1.1 1.6 0.25
12/3/99 141 185 1.2 1.5 0.25
12/4/99 98 186 0.8 1.5 0.25
12/5/99 116 138 1.0 1.1 0.25
12/6/99 192 196 1.6 1.6 0.25
12/7/99 148 167 1.2 1.4 0.25
12/8/99 144 163 1.2 1.3 0.25
12/9/99 141 164 1 1.2 1.4 0.25
12/10/99 152 169 1.3 1.4 0.25
12/11/99 142 • 164 1 1.2 1.4 0.25
12/12/99 144 166 1.2 1.4 0.25
12/13/99 145' 162 1.2 1.3 0.25
12/14/99 141! 159 1.2 1.3 0.25
12/15/99 137! 163 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/16/99 143 164 1.2 1.4 0.25
12/17/99 139 161 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/18/99 150 163 1.2 1.3 0.25
12/19/99 134 158 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/20/99 138 162 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/21/99 138 1621 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/22/99 153! 162 1.3 1.3 0.25
12/23/99 153 1651 1.3 1.4 0.25
12/24/99 156' 166i 1.3 1.4 0.25
12/25/99 152i 162 1.3 1.3 0.25
12/26/99 158 164i 1.3 1.4 0.25
12/27/99 154: 159 1.3 1.3 0.25
12/28/99 1481 162 1.2 1.3 0.25
12/29/99 122; 157 1.0 1.3 0.25
12/30/99 135! 153 1.1 1.3 0.25
12/31/99 173 157 1.4 1.3 0.25
1/1/00 142 155' 1.2 1.3 0.25
1/2/00 135 154! 1.1 1.3 0.25
1/3/00' 91 152 0.8 1.3 0.25
1/4/00 188! 160i 1.5 1.3 0.25
1/5/00 i 142! 157i 1.2 1.3 0.25
1/6/00 131 152i 1.1 1.3 0.25
1/7/00 1631 157: 1.3 1.3 0.25
1/8/001 142: 155 1.2 1.3 0.25
1/9/00 i 148; 148 1.2 1.2 0.25
1/10/00! 152 150 1.3 1.2 0.25
1/11/00 i 1511 150; 1.2 1.2 0.25
1/12/00 145! 151! 1.2 1.2 0.25
1/13/00 1601 150 1.3 1.2 0.25

168
Table E.4. Continued
Wastewater ABW fields - # 1, 11,13
gpd gpd gpd g/ft^/d g/ft^/d g/ftVd
Date Field 1 Field 11 Field 13 Field 1 Field 11 Field 13 LTAR
1/14/00 165 155 1.4 1.3 0.25
1/15/00 151 152 1.2 1.3 0.25
1/16/00! 149 148 1.2 1.2 0.25
1/17/001 153 150 1.3 1.2 0.25
1/18/00 146 142 1.2 1.2 0.25
1/19/00 162 143 1.3 1.2 0.25
1/20/00 109 142 0.9 1.2 0.25
1/21/00: 82 54 312 0.7 0.4 2.6 0.25
1/22/00! 203 178 950 1.7 1.5 7.8 0.25
1/23/00 130 123 589 1.1 1.0 4.9 0.25
1/24/00 132 124 524 1.1 1.0 4.3 0.25
1/25/00 159 79 460, 1.3 0.7 3.8 0.25
1/26/001 134 139 416; 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.25
1/27/00 130 118 375 1.1 1.0 3.1 0.25
1/28/00 141 121 353 1.2 1.0 2.9 0.25
1/29/00 142 120 3291 1.2 1.0 2.7 0.25
1/30/00 141 117 3071 1.2 1.0 2.5 0.25
1/31/00 134 118 293! 1.1 1.0 2.4 0.25
2/1/001 140 115 279; 1.2 0.9 2.3 0.25
2/2/00 140 120 280 1.2 1.0 2.3 0.25
2/3/00 121 116 266 1.0 1.0 2.2 0.25
2/4/00 126 114 265! ' 1.0 0.9 2.2 0.25
2/5/00! 143 83 271! 1.2 0.7 2.2 0.25
2/6/00' 86 59 233' 0.7 0.5 1.9 0.25
2/7/00 145 91 235! ! 1.2 0.8 1.9 0.25
2/8/00 118 129 229 f 1.0 ' 1.1 1.9 0.25
2/9/00! 104 104 216! 0.9 0.9 1.8 0.25
2/10/00! 99 103 201 i 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.25
2/11/00! 99 103 201 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.25
2/12/00 140 104 194; I 1.2 1 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/13/00 j 107 103 185| 0.9 0.8 1.5 0.25
2/14/00 89 106 187 0.7 i 0.9 1.5 0.25
2/15/00; 89 105 185 0.7 0.9 1.5 0.25
2/16/001 133 106 188 1 1.1 ; 0.9 1.5 0.25
2/17/00; 89 107 182! 0.7 0.9 1.5 0.25
2/18/001 134 105 194 ' 1.1 i 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/19/001 89 110 203! ! 0.7 0.9 1.7 0.25
2/20/00 i 133 107 199 ; 11 ! 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/21/001 90 109 197! 1 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.25
1
2/22/00 133 106 192! 1.1 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/23/00' 69 105 189 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/24/00 i 132 107 193 1.1 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/25/00! 88 105 189! 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/26/00; 89 110 197i 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/27/001 102 106 190 1 0.8 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/28/00 119 105 197 1.0 0.9 1.6 0.25
2/29/00- 90 106 192 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.25

169
Table E.5. Wastewater ETA Field Loading Data

Wastewater ETAW fields - # 4 9.16
gpd gpd gpd g/ftVd g/ft^/d g/ftVd
Date Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 LTAR
10/6/99 969 8.0 0.25
10/7/99 668 5.5 0.25
10/8/99 478 3.9 0.25
10/9/99 501 4.1 0.25
1
10/10/99 468 3.9 0.25
10/11/99 452 3.7 0.25
10/12/99 434 ) 3.6 0.25
10/13/99 407 3.4 0.25
10/14/99 443 3.7 0.25
10/15/99 424 3.5 0.25
10/16/99 417 i 3.4 0.25
10/17/99 426 , 3.5 0.25
10/18/99 ! 396 3.3 0.25
10/19/99 422 3.5 0.25
10/20/99 424 3.5 0.25
10/21/99 431 3.6 0.25
10/22/99 461 3.8 0.25
10/23/99 463 3.8 0.25
10/24/99 461 ! 3.8 0.25
10/25/99 482 4.0 0.25
10/26/99 475 3.9 0.25
10/27/99 475 3.9 0.25
10/28/99 470 3.9 0.25
10/29/99 1 460 3.8 0.25
10/30/99 416 3.4 0.25
10/31/99 446 3.7 0.25
11/1/99 453 3.7 0.25
11/2/99 341 2.8 0.25
11/3/99 323 2.7 0.25
11/4/99 322 2.7 0.25
11/5/99 316 2.6 0.25
11/6/99 314 2.6 0.25
11/7/99 : 330 2.7 0.25
11/8/99 316 2.6 0.25
11/9/99 314 0.25
i ^-^
2.6 0.25
11/10/99 318
11/11/99 : 324 ! 2.7 0.25
11/12/99 322 2.7 0.25
11/13/99 : 321 : 2.6 0.25
11/14/99 325 1 2.7 0.25
11/15/99 315 2.6 0.25
11/16/99 1240 : 320 10.2 2.6 0.25
11/17/99 885 316 ; 7.3 1 2.6 0.25
11/18/99 681 309 5.6 ' ' 2.5 0.25
11/19/99 595 305 4.9 2.5 0.25
11/20/99 560 311 4.6 2.6 0.25
11/21/99 485 i 300 4.0 1 2.5 0.25
11/22/99 452 287 3.7 i 2.4 0.25

170
Table E.5. Continued
Wastewater ETAU fields - # 4, 9,16
gpd gpd gpd g/ftVd g/ft^/d g'ft^/d
Date Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 LT.\R
11/23/99 417 293 3.4 2.4 0.25
11/24/99 408 300 3.4 2.5 0.25
11/25/99 380 291 3.1 2.4 0.25
11/26/99 389 297 3.2 2.4 0.25
11/27/99 362 279 3.0 2.3 0.25
11/28/99 349 266 2.9 2.2 0.25
11/29/99 328 256 2.7 2.1 0.25
11/30/99 349 275 2.9 2.3 0.25
12/1/99 337 263 2.8 2.2 0.25
12/2/99 324 255 2.7 2.1 0.25
12/3/99 313 248 2.6 2.0 0.25
12/4/99 299 238 2.5 2.0 0.25
12/5/99 274 155 2.3 1.3 025
12/6/99 0 259 0.0 2.1 025
12/7/99 460 237 3.8 2.0 0.25
12/8/99 308 230 2.5 1.9 0.25
12/9/99 304 225 2.5 1.9 0.25
12/10/99 287 208 2.4 1.7 0.25
12/11/99 277 197 2.3 1.6 0.25
12/12/99 309 219 2.5 1.8 0.25
12/13/99 313 210 2.6 1.7 0.25
12/14/99 306 : 215 2.5 1.8 0.25
12/15/99 311 209 2.6 1.7 0.25
12/16/99 317 ! 204 2.6 1.7 0.25
12/17/99 303 ! 212 2.5 1.7 0.25
12/18/99 314 206 2.6 1.7 0.25
12/19/99 295 194 2.4 1.6 0.25
12/20/99 318 : 198 2.6 1.6 0.25
12/21/99 318 198 2.6 , 1.6 0.25
12/22/99 318 187 2.6 1.5 0.25
12/23/99 327 : 197 2.7 1.6 0.25
12/24/99 338 196 2.8 1.6 0.25
12/25/99 329 203 . 2.7 1.7 0.25
12/26/99 330 191 ' 2.7 1.6 0.25
12/27/99 332 ; 193 2.7 1.6 0.25
12/28/99 338 194 2.8 1.6 0.25
12/29/99 326 188 2.7 1.5 0.25
12/30/99 318 194 2.6 1.6 0.25
12/31/99 333 , 190 2.7 1.6 t 0.25
1/1/00 329 1 185 2.7 1.5 0.25
1/2/00 339 i 191 2.8 1.6 0.25
1/3/00 338 186 2.8 1.5 0.25
1/4/00 358 196 3.0 1.6 0.25
1/5/00 355 179 2.9 1.5 0.25
1/6/00 355 185 2.9 1.5 0.25
1/7/00 355 180 2.9 1.5 0.25
1/8/00 360 ! 184 3.0 1 1.5 0.25
1/9/00 347 : 166 2.9 1.4 0.25
1/10/00 359 177 3.0 . 1.5 0.25
1/11/00 371 183 1 3.1 • 1.5 0.25
1/12/00 368 176 3.0 1.5 0.25

171
Table E.5. Continued
Wastewater ETAW fields - * 4,9,16
gpd gpd gpd g/ft^/d g/ft7d g/ft-'d
Date Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 Field 4 Field 9 Field 16 LTAR
1/13/00 379 1008 181 3.1 8.3 1.5 0.25
1/14/00 394 545 183 3.2 4.5 1.5 0.25
1/15/00 387 1 467 176

io io
UJ
3.8 1.5 0.25
1/16/00 389 ' 441 165 3.6 1.4 0.25

UJ
1/17/00 392 432 172 3.2 3.6 1.4 0.25
1/18/00 398 397 166 J.J 3.3 1.4 0.25
1/19/00 397 384 148 J.J 3.2 1.2 0.25
1/20/00 407 380 149 3.4 3.1 1.2 0.25
1/21/00 157 137 58 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.25
1/22/00 473 468 189 3.9 3.9 1.6 0.25
1/23/00 343 336 132 2.8 2.8 1.1 0.25
1/24/00 355 334 131 2.9 2.8 1.1 0.25
1/25/00 361 314 127 3.0 2.6 1.0 0.25
1/26/00 364 ; 311 125 3.0 2.6 1.0 0.25
1/27/00 360 285 120 3.0 2.3 1.0 0.25
1/28/00 362 279 117 3.0 2.3 1.0 0.25
1/29/00 360 ! 269 115 3.0 2.2 0.9 0.25
1/30/00 358 ! 251 113 3.0 2.1 0.9 0.25
1/31/00 358 ! 240 112 3.0 2.0 0.9 0.25
2/1/00 354 235 108 2.9 1.9 0.9 0.25
2/2/00 342 231 106 2.8 1.9 0.9 0.25
2/3/00 352 218 106 2.9 1.8 0.9 0.25
2/4/00 358 220 108 3.0 1.8 0.9 0.25
2/5/00 378 222 115 3.1 1.8 0.9 0.25
2/6/00 343 189 98 2.8 1.6 0.8 0.25
2/7/00 359 201 108 3.0 1.7 0.9 0.25
2/8/00 362 197 105 3.0 1.6 0.9 0.25
2/9/00 363 195 106 1 ! 3.0 1.6 0.9 1 0.25
2/10/00 359 1 188 104 3.0 1.5 0.9 0.25
2/11/00 359 188 104 3.0 1.5 0.9 0.25
2/12/00 353 ! 182 101 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/13/00 356 i 183 101 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/14/00 362 181 103 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/15/00 359 185 101 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/16/00 365 183 107 3.0 1.5 0.9 0.25
2/17/00 357 1 182 100 1 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/18/00 358 186 103 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/19/00 358 184 100 ! 3.0 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/20/00 353 i 189 100 i 2.9 1.6 0.8 0.25
2/21/00 350 181 100 2.9 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/22/00 343 1 184 97 2.8 1.5 0.8 0.25
2/23/00 337 ; 189 78 2.8 1.6 0.6 0.25
2/24/00 340 189 118 : ! 2.8 1.6 1.0 0.25
2/25/00 335 194 96 2.8 1.6 0.8 0.25
2/26/00 340 198 102 2.8 1.6 0.8 0.25
2/27/00 338 1 197 98 2.8 1 1.6 0.8 ! 0.25
2/28/00 316 ; 206 90 2.6 1 1.7 0.7 0.25
2/29/00 324 204 92 ! 2.7 1.7 0.8 0.25

172
Table E.6. Wastewater ET Field Loading Data

Wastewat er ETW fie;lds - *; 5, i5,17
gpd gpd gpd g/ftVd g/ftVd g/ft7d
Giesapeake
Date Field 5 Field 8 Field 17 Field 5 Field 8 Field 17 Colorado Toronto Bty
10/2/99 7.7 37.0 49.0 0.13 0.62 0.82 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/3/99 2.5 14.8 20.5 0.04 0.25 0.34 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/4/99 7.6 6.4 10.2 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/5/99 5.4 20.8 13.5 0.09 0.35 0.23 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/6/99 6.3 9.4 10.9 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/7/99 8.1 10.1 13.1 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/8/99 7.5 9.8 12.3 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/9/99 5.0 5.3 9.2 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/10/99 6.5 7.7 6.8 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/11/99 4.5 8.5 10.3 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/12/99 6.5 6.4 9.0 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/13/99 6.7 10.5 10.3 0.11 0.18 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/14/99 8.3 8.4 10.4 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/15/99 5.9 5.5 11.6 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/16/99 8.5 11.1 13.4 0.14 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/17/99 6.3 11.7 11.3 0.11 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/18/99 0 0 1.5 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/19/99 0 3.9 0.4 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/20/99 0.2 8 5.3 0.00 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/21/99 5.3 8.4 10.1 ! 0.09 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/22/99 6.9 9.7 9.2 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/23/99 7.5 11.9 11.3 0.13 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/24/99 7.4 11 10.8 I 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/25/99 7.9 11.5 11.9 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/26/99 7.6 11.5 11.9 ; 0.13 0.19 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/27/99 5.4 11.8 9.9 0.09 0.20 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/28/99 7.3 10.8 10.5 0.12 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/29/99 7.5 10.6 10.4 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/30/99 7.6 12.8 10.5 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
10/31/99 6.8 11.8 11.8 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/1/99 6.6 12.1 11.3 0.11 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/2/99 7.3 14 11.6 ; 0.12 0.23 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/3/99 6.9 10.4 10.5 ; 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.03 0.1; 0.08
11/4/99 7.6 11 2.4 0.13 0.18 0.04 0.03: 0.11 0.08
11/5/99 5.3 11.8 0.5 1 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.03' 0.1' 0.08
11/6/99 7.1 12.5 28.2 ! 0.12 0.21 0.47 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/7/99 7.1 9.8 8.7 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.03! 0.1 i 0.08
11/8/99 5.2 9.6 8.9 ! 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
11/9/99 4.9 12.6 10.3 0.08 0.21 0.17 0.03! 0.1 0.08
11/10/99 7.1 12.4 10.1 i 0.12 0.21 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/11/99 6.4 12.3 10.6 ! 0.11 0.21 0.18 0.031 0.1! 0.08
11/12/99 7.7 13.2 9.6 0.13 0.22 0.16 0.031 0.1 0.08
11/13/99 4.5 12 9.2 1 0.08 0.20 0.15 0.031 0.1 0.08
11/14/99 4.9 12.5 10.2 0.08 0.21 0.17 0.03 0.11 0.08
11/15/99 7.4 12.3 9.3 : 0.12 0.21 0.16 0.03! 0.1 0.08
11/16/99 4.7 10.1 10.1 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
11/17/99 7.5 13.5 9.9 ' 0.13 0.23 0.17 0.03 0.1! 0.08
11/18/99 7.5 14.3 11.4 0.13 0.24 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08

173
Table E.6. Continued
Wastewater ETW fields - # 5. 8. 17

gpd gpd gpd g/ft7d g/ft^/d g/ft^/d
Chesapeake
Date Field 5 Field 8 Field 17 Field 5 Fields Field 17 Colorado Toronto Bav
11/19/99 7.9 17.5 13.9 0.13 0.29 0.23 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/20/99 5.2 9.5 8.7 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/21/99 5.3 13.3 10.7 0.09 0.22 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/22/99 7.3 12.7 9.2 0.12 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/23/99 7.5 14.3 11.6 0.13 0.24 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/24/99 5.3 11.1 9.1 0.09 0.19 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/25/99 3.5 6.7 6.8 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/26/99 5 10.5 6.7 0.08 0.18 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/27/99 5.7 10.5 9.1 0.10 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/28/99 5.9 12 11.2 i 0.10 0.20 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/29/99 6.6 13.8 8.8 0.11 0.23 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
11/30/99 3.1 7.6 6.9 ! 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/1/99 5.3 7.5 7.6 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/2/99 6.1 12.5 6.9 0.10 0.21 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/3/99 5 13.3 9.5 j 0.08 0.22 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/4/99 6.4 8.3 8 ;' 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/5/99 244.1 0 0.3 4.07 0.00 0.01 ! 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/6/99 0 6.5 0.6 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.11 0.08
12/7/99 0.1 5.7 2.4 0.00 0.10 0.04 ! 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/8/99 1.5 10.7 7.6 : 0.03 0.18 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/9/99 1.7 3.5 6.2 I 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/10/99 0.2 0.3 0.9 ! 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/11/99 0.4 7.3 2.1 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/12/99 0.6 6.7 7 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/13/99 5 7.6 7.7 ' 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/14/99 4.1 8.5 7.7 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/15/99 8 12.7 11 1 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/16/99 3.5 6.5 6.7 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/17/99 3.7 6.4 5.3 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/18/99 4 7.3 7.5 i 0.07 0.12 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/19/99 3.9 7.4 6 ! 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/20/99 4.2 8.3 6.3 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/21/99 4.2 8.3 6.3 0.07 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/22/99 3.6 0 2.8 I 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/23/99 2.2 8.5 6.3 ' 0.04 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/24/99 3.6 7 5.7 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/25/99 2.4 3.6 4.7 : i 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/26/99 3.6 9.1 4.2 ! 1 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/27/99 2.4 4.2 5.9 , 1 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/28/99 4.2 7.9 7.3 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/29/99 5.9 8.8 5.1 i 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/30/99 4.3 8.9 8.5 ' ' 0.07 0.15 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
12/31/99 4.1 11.8 8.5 [ : 0.07 0.20 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/1/00 6.1 8.3 6.3 0.10 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/2/00 4.2 12 8.7 i 0.07 0.20 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/3/00 6.2 8.5 8.6 ' 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/4/00 6.5 10.9 10.8 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/5/00 5.5 7.5 6.6 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/6/00 2.4 6.7 6.4 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
1/7/00 5.3 7.2 6.5 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/8/00 3.4 4.9 1.3 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.1 ! 0.08
1/9/00 2.4 7.2 7.3 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08

174
Table E.6. Continued
Wastewater ETW fields - # 5, 8, 17
gpd gpd gpd g/ft^/d g/ft'/d g/ft^/d
Chesapeake
Date Field 5 Field 8 Field 17 Field 5 Field 8 Field 17 Colorado Toronto Bav
1/10/00 6.6 11.4 8.8 0.11 0.19 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/11/00 4.8 8 9 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/12/00 4.8

in bo
Ov
8 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/13/00 7.2 11.6

00
0.12 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/14/00 4.7 11.9 8 0.08 0.20 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/15/00 4.7 7.1 5.9 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/16/00 2.5 7.6 7.3 ' 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/17/00 4.8 7.7 6.7 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/18/00 5 8 7.6 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.1: 0.08
1/19/00 5 7.8 7.4 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/20/00 5 11.6 10 0.08 0.19 0.17 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/21/00 1.7 2.2 3.9 i 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/22/00 10.6 8.1 9.5 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/23/00 4 5.4 5.9 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/24/00 5.1 5.5 6.9 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/25/00 5.8 4 8.1 : 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/26/00 4.2 5.6 7.4 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/27/00 5.7 6.2 7.7 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/28/00 3.4 2.1 5.8 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
1/29/00 3.8 6.2 5.5 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.03' 0.1 0.08
1/30/00 5.6 3.5 6.8 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.1; 0.08
1/31/00 3.3 3.4 5.2 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/1/00 3.1 4 4.3 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.1; 0.08
2/2/00 1.1 0 1.9 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/3/00 2.7 4.1 6.1 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/4/00 7.5 6.2 8.7 0.13 0.10 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/5/00 3.1 6.6 7.1 0.05 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/6/00 5.3 4.4 6.2 0.09 0.07 0.10 ; 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/7/00 5.2 6.8 7.4 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/8/00 5.2 6.3 7.6 i 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.03 O.L 0.08
2/9/00 4.8 6.2 9.1 0.08 0.10 0.15 0.03 0.1: 0.08
2/10/00 6.1 7.7 9.4 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.03 0.11 0.08
2/11/00 6.1 7.7 9.4 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.03 i 0.11 0.08
2/12/00 5.6 5.8 7.6 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.031 0.1 0.08
2/13/00 5.5 8.3 8.5 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.03! 0.1 0.08
2/14/00 7.4 8.1 9.8 1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/15/00 7.5 6.5 9.8 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.03 i 0.1 0.08
2/16/00 7.1 10.8 11.1 0.12 0.18 0.19 0.031 0.1 0.08
2/17/00 5 6.5 8.5 1 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.031 0.1 0.08
2/18/00 7 10.9 11.9 1 0.12 0.18 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/19/00 7.4 6.5 8.4 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.03! 0.1 0.08
2/20/00 5.1 6.8 7.1 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.03^ 0.1 0.08
2/21/00 5.4 6.5 8.2 ; 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.11 0.08
2/22/00 5.6 6.8 8.3 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/23/00 4.6 8.3 9.1 1 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.031 0.1 i 0.08
2/24/00 6.9 8.1 11 1 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.03 0.11 0.08
2/25/00 7 10.3 11 1 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.03 0.11 0.08
2/26/00 9.4 10.1 12 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/27/00 8.5 9.8 11.6 ! 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.1! 0.08
2/28/00 5.8 9.1 8.8 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.1 0.08
2/29/00 7.2 9.8 11.4 0.12 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.1 0.08

175
APPENDIX F

SAMPLE ANALYSES

176
Table F.l. Wastewater Lab Analyses
Sample ID # Sample Date PH BOD5 (mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
Waste Hdr 10/5/99 106
Waste Hdr 10/8/99 174
#5 ETW 10/11/99 7.38 < 47 70.4 8
#11 ABW 10/11/99 7.50 139 315 92.4 30
#16 ETAW 10/11/99 7.60 151 331 9.29 30
Waste Hdr 10/11/99 7.30 138 303 141 28
#5 ETW 10/14/99 7.51 102
#8 ETW 10/14/99 7.73 183
#16 ETAW 10/14/99 7.53 322
#17 ETW 10/14/99 7.51 288
Waste Hdr 10/14/99 7.17 353
#1 ABW 10/18/99 7.98 310 95 30
#5 ETW 10/18/99 7.97 44 8
#8 ETW 10/18/99 7.96 38 84.6 12
#11 ABW 10/18/99 7.97 275 32
#16 ETAW 10/18/99 7.89 292 32
#17 ETW 10/18/99 7.91 62 67.6 12
Waste Hdr 10/18/99 7.36 325 32
#1 ABW 10/21/99 7.41 157 340
#5 ETW 10/21/99 7.59 < 61
#8 ETW 10/21/99 7.63 < 45
#11 ABW 10/21/99 8.09 < 13
#16 ETAW 10/21/99 7.73 162 345
#17 ETW 10/21/99 7.90 < 70
Waste Hdr 10/21/99 7.45 174 345
#1 ABW 10/25/99 7.44 266 32
#5 ETW 10/25/99 7.44 58 32.7 18
#8 ETW 10/25/99 7.50 52 15
#11 ABW 10/25/99 7.51 274 102 32
#16 ETAW 10/25/99 7.41 251 136 32
#17 ETW 10/25/99 7.52 46 15
Waste Hdr 10/25/99 7.37 273 103 32
#1 ABW 10/28/99 7.37 154 288
#5 ETW 10/28/99 7.42 < 64
#8 ETW 10/28/99 7.43 48.1 130
#11 ABW 10/28/99 7.95 < 12
#16 ETAW 10/28/99 7.47 82.6 217
#17 ETW 10/28/99 7.40 < 48
Waste Hdr 10/28/99 7.02 140 317
#1 ABW 11/1/99 7.46 262 32
#5 ETW 11/1/99 7.40 48 16
#8 ETW 11/1/99 7.43 67 13
#11 ABW 11/1/99 7.49 281 32
#16 ETAW 11/1/99 7.39 268 32
#17 ETW 11/1/99 7.39 42 12
Waste Hdr 11/1/99 7.02 322 32
Waste Hdr 11/4/99 168 312
#1 ABW 11/4/99 144 249

177
Table F.L Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH BOD5 (mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
#5 ETW 11/4/99 50 79
#8 ETW 11/4/99 < 48
#11 ABW 11/4/99 135 273
#16 ETAW 11/4/99 151 290
#17 ETW 11/4/99 73 30
Waste Hdr 11/8/99 7.22 340 88.1 32
#1 ABW 11/8/99 7.45 306 133 32
#5 ETW 11/8/99 7.92 79 5.84 13
#8 ETW 11/8/99 7.85 110 ????? 18
#11 ABW 11/8/99 7.57 321 80.3 32
#16 ETAW 11/8/99 7.83 312 73 32
#17 ETW 11/8/99 7.75 103 10.1 17
#1 ABW 11/11/99 , 199 118
#5 ETW 11/11/99 49.7 40
#8 ETW 11/11/99 89.9 76
#11 ABW 11/11/99 10
#16 ETAW 11/11/99 162 124
#17 ETW 11/11/99 79.9 73
#1 ABW 11/15/99 7.51 117 32
#5 ETW 11/15/99 7.54 48 18
#8 ETW 11/15/99 7.65 75 20
#11 ABW 11/15/99 7.54 124 32
#16 ETAW 11/15/99 7.64 129 32
#17 ETW 11/15/99 7.71 49 15
Waste Hdr 11/15/99 7.08 171 32
#1 ABW 11/19/99 177 88
#4 ETAW 11/19/99 179 111
#5 ETW 11/19/99 60.6 39
#8 ETW 11/19/99 87.4 52
#11 ABW 11/19/99 175 80
#16 ETAW 11/19/99 191 147
#17 ETW 11/19/99 57.4 44
Waste Hdr 11/19/99 I
187 133
#1 ABW 11/22/99 8.19 100 64.1 28
#4 ETAW 11/22/99 8.02 126 68.4 24
#5 ETW 11/22/99 8.04 43 10.6 6
#8 ETW 11/22/99 8.20 : <•*•%"* 71 2.23 10
#11 ABW 11/22/99 8.04 120 90.3 28
#16 ETAW 11/22/99 8.20 130 96.4 28
#17 ETW 11/22/99 8.23 124 3.81 8
Waste Hdr 11/22/99 7.13 98 82.8 28
#1 ABW 11/29/99 7.76 53 24
11/29/99 7.70 137 " 26
#4 ETAW
#5 ETW 11/29/99 8.13 127 8
#8 ETW 11/29/99 8.20 182 14
#11 ABW 11/29/99 7.64 209 22
#16 ETAW 11/29/99 7.58 227 28
#17 ETW 11/29/99 8.05 109 14

178
Table F.l. Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH B0D5(mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
Waste Hdr 11/29/99 7.62 279 26
#1 ABW 12/2/99 100 183
#4 ETAW 12/2/99 108 195
#5 ETW 12/2/99 < 80
#8 ETW 12/2/99 71.5 148
#11 ABW 12/2/99 112 159
#16 ETAW 12/2/99 110 201
#17 ETW 12/2/99 44.4 134
Waste Hdr 12/2/99 120 292
#1 ABW 12/9/99 125 304
#4 ETAW 12/9/99 149 269
#5 ETW 12/9/99 30.3 251
#8 ETW 12/9/99 60.9 166
#11 ABW 12/9/99 150 316
#16 ETAW 12/9/99 148 277
#17 ETW 12/9/99 50.8 113
Waste Hdr 12/9/99 190 344
#1 ABW 12/6/99 7.13 151 74.9 42
#4 ETAW 12/6/99 7.13 202 93.6 52
#5 ETW 12/6/99 7.46 59 8.38 18
#8 ETW 12/6/99 7.76 51 1.27 20
#11 ABW 12/6/99 7.17 125 76.0 34
#16 ETAW 12/6/99 7.12 159 83.0 44
#17 ETW 12/6/99 7.52 38 2.174 20
Waste Hdr 12/6/99 7.36 270 32.761 46
#1 ABW 12/13/99 7.44 227 62.656 36
#4 ETAW 12/13/99 7.43 252 74.033 36
#5 ETW 12/13/99 7.28 26 3.435 14
#8 ETW 12/13/99 7.34 64 1.797 12
#11 ABW 12/13/99 7.43 235 64.057 34
#16 ETAW 12/13/99 7.34 242 75.811 34
#17 ETW 12/13/99 7.29 54 3.791 14
Waste Hdr 12/13/99 7.35 265 80.803 34
#1 ABW 12/21/99 7.30 269 28
#4 ETAW 12/21/99 7.04 240 28
#5 ETW 12/21/99 7.37 52 16
12/21/99 7.28 - 141 18
#8 ETW
#11 ABW 12/21/99 7.19 224 30
#16 ETAW 12/21/99 7.05 256 28
#17 ETW 12/21/99 7.28 88 26
Waste Hdr 12/21/99 7.16 289 0
#1 ABW 12/16/99 95.9 241
: 104 249
#4 ETAW 12/16/99
#5 ETW 12/16/99 <28.2 43
#8 ETW 12/16/99 <28.2 92
#11 ABW 12/16/99 129 257
#16 ETAW 12/16/99 108 256
#17 ETW 12/16/99 •'

Related Interests

-

<28.2 73

179
Table F.l. Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH B0D5(mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
Waste Hdr 12/16/99 90.8 294
#1 ABW 1/3/00 7.53 251 26
#4 ETAW 1/3/00 7.27 273 28
#5 ETW 1/3/00 7.25 117 16
#8 ETW 1/3/00 7.35 214 22
#11 ABW 1/3/00 7.35 237 26
#16 ETAW 1/3/00 7.35 257 26
#17 ETW 1/3/00 7.46 149 18
Waste Hdr 1/3/00 7.01 281 26
#1 ABW 1/10/00 7.53 ;
285 40
#4 ETAW 1/10/00 7.36 310 44
#5 ETW 1/10/00 7.50 141 26
#8 ETW 1/10/00 7.49 199 30
#11 ABW 1/10/00 7.41 308 38
#16 ETAW 1/10/00 7.32 314 60
#17 ETW 1/10/00 7.52 173 32
Waste Hdr 1/10/00 7.22 321 42
#1 ABW 1/13/00 94 300
#4 ETAW 1/13/00 139 284
#5 ETW 1/13/00 60.9 134
#8 ETW 1/13/00 88.7 205
#9 ETAW 1/13/00 119 297
#11 ABW 1/13/00 • 111 287
#16 ETAW 1/13/00 117 290
#17 ETW 1/13/00 76.3 176
Waste Hdr 1/13/00 133 308
#1 ABW 1/6/00 89.7 246
#4 ETAW 1/6/00 103 245
#5 ETW 1/6/00 29.3 89
#8 ETW 1/6/00 66.5 160
#11 ABW 1/6/00 103 250
#16 ETAW 1/6/00 101 245
#17 ETW 1/6/00 ."• •'••i»rS&^ 31.8 107
Waste Hdr 1/6/00 139 327
#1 ABW 1/18/00 7.25 233 52.7 40
#4 ETAW 1/18/00 7.04 297 88.3 46
#5 ETW 1/18/00 7.79 114 21.9 32
#8 ETW 1/18/00 7.15 204 50.4 42
#9 ETAW 1/18/00 7.20 285 86.7 42
#11 ABW 1/18/00 7.28 301 72 40
#16 ETAW 1/18/00 7.15 287 82.1 60
#17 ETW 1/18/00 7.31 144 26 38
Waste Hdr 1/18/00 7.79 315 82.8 40
#1 ABW 1/20/00 97 239
#4 ETAW 1/20/00 •*i. 122 261
#5 ETW 1/20/00 42 122
#8 ETW 1/20/00 86.3 221 •

#9 ETAW 1/20/00 ' 102 264

180
Table F.l. Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH B0D5(mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
#11 ABW 1/20/00 114 275
#16 ETAW 1/20/00 118 275
#17 ETW 1/20/00 47.8 150
Waste Hdr 1/20/00 128.8 292
#1 ABW 1/24/00 7.26 257 24
#4 ETAW 1/24/00 7.36 303 22
#5 ETW 1/24/00 7.24 116 12
#8 ETW 1/24/00 7.29 212 18
#11 ABW 1/24/00 7.28 282 24
#13 ABW 1/24/00 7.23 294 26
#16 ETAW 1/24/00 7.26 297 28
#17 ETW 1/24/00 7.28 171 20
#9 ETAW 1/24/00 7.18 294 28
Waste Hdr 1/24/00 7.21 304 24
#1 ABW 1/27/00 135 292
#4 ETAW 1/27/00 146 359
#5 ETW 1/27/00 ', 49.6 129
#8 ETW 1/27/00 88.4 197
#9 ETAW 1/27/00 148 342
#11 ABW 1/27/00 168 334
#13 ABW 1/27/00 179 345
#16 ETAW 1/27/00 150 315
#17 ETW 1/27/00 71.2 159
Waste Hdr 1/27/00 149 345
#1 ABW 1/31/00 7.53 264 78.5 28
#4 ETAW 1/31/00 7.25 322 79.2 28
#5 ETW 1/31/00 7.42 112 19.8 16
#8 ETW 1/31/00 7.54 177 22.8 18
#9 ETAW 1/31/00 7.31 307 68.6 26
#11 ABW 1/31/00 7.25 300 57.0 28
#13 ABW 1/31/00 7.36 291 85.6 24
#16 ETAW 1/31/00 7.33 298 75.31 28
#17 ETW 1/31/00 7.52 113 8.25 16
Waste Hdr 1/31/00 7.19 338 68.9 28
#1 ABW 2/3/00 168 293
#4 ETAW 2/3/00 190 339
#5 ETW 2/3/00 svst"^^* >^; 84.6 143 "
#8 ETW 2/3/00 v4
96.2 188 •

#9 ETAW 2/3/00 ^^v.s. i 178 314 - .'•'"• ':f '•/i^>.,..,.-• - . - \

#11 ABW 2/3/00 X^^'i^ •^ 175 306 • ' " ' • ' - ^ ' ^ .

M' •'• • '
#13 ABW 2/3/00 157 307 • ' . fii'^

< 3 >."». -
#16 ETAW 2/3/00 176 315
#17 ETW 2/3/00 S- . * * * ^ ^ i S ' ^ N-S 77.9 161
Waste Hdr 2/3/00 160 331
#1 ABW 2/7/00 7.36 230 44
#4 ETAW 2/7/00 7.08 284
^ "*«^v "f^*!^ : ^ ^'^ i^ ';
36
#5 ETW 2/7/00 7.22 •\ 121
* - ^ " *" - 22
#8 ETW 2/7/00 7.24 173 26

181
Table F.l. Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH B0D5(mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
#9 ETAW 2/7/00 7.16 256 28
#11 ABW 2/7/00 7.16 270 42
#13 ABW 2/7/00 7.25 262 32
#16 ETAW 2/7/00 7.23 279 30
#17 ETW 2/7/00 7.15 191 22
Waste Hdr 2/7/00 7.10 327 34
#1 ABW 2/10/00 143 242
#4 ETAW 2/10/00 205 305
#5 ETW 2/10/00 84.3 114
#8 ETW 2/10/00 129 202
#9 ETAW 2/10/00 155 339
#11 ABW 2/10/00 225 308
#13 ABW 2/10/00 163 296
#16 ETAW 2/10/00 197 307
#17 ETW 2/10/00 113 200
Waste Hdr 2/10/00 172 401
#1 ABW 2/14/00 7.34 167 58.5 28
#4 ETAW 2/14/00 7.30 237 66.8 26
#5 ETW 2/14/00 7.44 67 61.7 14
#8 ETW 2/14/00 7.33 164 36.9 22
#9 ETAW 2/14/00 7.41 226 50.1 28
#11 ABW 2/14/00 7.40 272 28
#13 ABW 2/14/00 7.45 217 26
#16 ETAW 2/14/00 7.35 236 30
#17 ETW 2/14/00 7.32 146 24
Waste Hdr 2/14/00 7.13 275 30
#1 ABW 2/17/00 168 194
#4 ETAW 2/17/00 189 267
#5 ETW 2/17/00 69 81
#8 ETW 2/17/00 133 153
#9 ETAW 2/17/00 206 256
#11 ABW 2/17/00 183 253
#13 ABW 2/17/00 183 250
#16 ETAW 2/17/00 185 269
#17 ETW 2/17/00 100 123
Waste Hdr 2/17/00 194 296
#1 ABW 2/21/00 7.39 241 28
: 285 28
#4 ETAW 2/21/00 7.31
#5 ETW 2/21/00 7.34 ? 114 14
#8 ETW 2/21/00 7.46 199 22
#9 ETAW 2/21/00 7.50 273 . . ' • • • ' ' 4 : f-t
32
>/:v-'v.
#11 ABW 2/21/00 7.39 •
292 40
#13 ABW 2/21/00 7.42 l 279 34
#16 ETAW 309 : 30
2/21/00 7.19
^ 30
#17 ETW 2/21/00 7.41 '•_•

174
Waste Hdr 2/21/00 7.26 318 38
#1 ABW -
2/24/00 i.-' 174 247
#4 ETAW 2/24/00 216 325

182
Table F.l. Continued
Sample ID # Sample Date PH B0D5(mg/l) COD (mg/l) Sulfate TN (mg/l)
#5 ETW 2/24/00 76.1 104
#8 ETW 2/24/00 159 199
#9 ETAW 2/24/00 196 293
#11 ABW 2/24/00 168 317
#13 ABW 2/24/00 215 12
#16 ETAW 2/24/00 216 347
#17 ETW 2/24/00 118 179
Waste Hdr 2/24/00 189 324
#1 ABW 2/28/00 7.10 152 12.0 32
#4 ETAW 2/28/00 7.20 231 41.9 30
#5 ETW 2/28/00 7.17 112 19.8 28
#8 ETW 2/28/00 7.22 171 28.3 32
#9 ETAW 2/28/00 7.14 256 19.3 42
#11 ABW 2/28/00 7.05 212 26.3 32
#13 ABW 2/28/00 7.13 247 25.9 32
#16 ETAW 2/28/00 7.20 234 37.0 36
#17 ETW 2/28/00 7.15 144 29.0 24
Waste Hdr 2/28/00 7.19 252 37.6 34

183
PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely
avaUable for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly
purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor.
It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain
shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user
may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

"StudenFs^gnatuiFe "^ Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student's Signature Date

Related Interests

an individual

residence or a small community. All the wastewater generated (sinks, toilets, washing

machines, etc.) is collected in a piping system, which in turn routes the fluid to a septic

tank. This tank is usually located underground and is constructed of a variety of

materials. The primary purpose of the septic tank is to separate settleable solids and

floatable scum particles from the wastewater passing through the tank. Treatment and

storage of the solids/particles take place within the tank. A septic tank must have

sufficient volume to provide adequate treatment of the wastewater before it is passed

from the tank to the drain fields. In many locations, these drain fields are strictly

dependent on soil absorption of the effluent from the septic tank. The drain field

construction enables the effluent to be distributed for adequate treatment as it passes

through the soil on its way to the aquifer.

Within Texas, onsite wastewater treatment facilities are under the regulatory

authority of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC). A

majority of the drain fields that TNRCC oversees are designed with absorption as the

primary disposal method for septic tank effluents. The relatively high precipitation

amounts in east Texas resulted in the development of absorption only designs. However,

in the semi-arid and arid portions of Texas, this design probably results in drain field
installations that are larger than necessary. The potential evaporation in the arid and

semi-arid regions of Texas is three-four times greater than the annual precipitation and

therefore, the gain from evaporation and transpiration in drain fields could be substantial.

As a result, a two-year study requested by the Texas On-Site Wastewater

Treatment Research Council was undertaken in an attempt to quantify the contribution of

evaporation when combined with absorption in a drain field. The system used for this

study included a multi-field design with absorption (AB), evapotranspiration (ET), and

combined evapotranspiration and absorption (ETA) drain fields. The evapotranspiration

system combined the effects of evaporation from bare soil and transpiration, which is the

moisture removed by vegetation and evaporated through its leaves. The fields were

operated so that the effects of evaporation could be determined, which meant that the

effluent level and wastewater strength were kept as constant as possible. For the

wastewater strength to remain appropriate, a three-day residence time was required.

Several variables have an effect on the combination of evapotranspiration and

absorption. These include seasonal climate changes (wind, temperature, precipitation,

solar radiation), vegetation type, wastewater quality, drain field construction (depth,

backfill material), and effluent level in the drain field. All of these aspects were

incorporated into this study to provide useable information for those involved with drain

field installations.

Due to the longevity of this study, it was completed in two parts. This thesis

covered the literature search, field installation, field start-up, and analysis of the data

through the end of February 2000. Several recommendations for areas of further research
were included. The second thesis will have a final analysis of the evaporation effects and

of the wastewater treatment effectiveness.

Objectives

There were four objectives for this thesis concerning the absorption and

evapotranspiration components of a septic tank drain field. These objectives provided

information for the main project objective of determining if the combination of

absorption and evapotranspiration would reduce the size of a drain field. These four

objectives were:

• Literature Search -

• Field Lifespan,

• Soil Properties,

• Evaporation Studies,

• Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment;

• System Design and Implementation;

• Start-up and Daily Operations;

• Data Analysis.
CHAPTER II

LITERATLUE SEARCH

Introduction

A literature search was performed to review various aspects of onsite wastewater

treatment that would be applicable to the current research project at Reese Center. Three

primary areas were considered: (1) soil properties and their effect on infihration and

clogging, (2) evaporation studies with particular emphasis on semi-arid climates, and (3)

types of onsite systems used in Texas, the regulations related to those systems, and some

system field tests.

In addition to the primary areas of this literature search, another area of interest

involved systems currently in use in the United States versus those in Texas. According

to a survey performed by Brown (1979), the following systems were in use throughout

the United States (Figure 2.1).

Septic Tanks • Home Aerobic Plants

Blackwater • Greywater

Integrated Blackwater/Greywater • Composting Toilets
Recycle Devices
Elevated Sand Mounds • Tile Fields

Evapotranspiration Beds • Evapotranspiration/Absorption Beds

Wastewater Incinerator • Vacuum Sewer

Grinder Pumps • Pressure Sewers

Figure 2 1. List of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems
In 1979, all of the above alternatives were in use in Texas except for the recycle and

incinerator systems. Some additional alternative systems used at the time of this 1979

survey include lagoons, stabilization ponds, electro-osmosis, recirculating fihers,

leaching chambers, different methods of irrigation, low pressure systems, and various

sand filters. In recent years, installers in Texas have experimented v/ith various methods

of irrigation, low-pressure systems, and leaching chambers. Field trials of these systems

are discussed in the section about Texas onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Lifespan of Fields

The lifespan of an absorption field can vary dramatically depending on siting,

sizing, and maintenance. A study done on gravel absorption systems in sandy soil

resulted in a predicted life of 9.4 years (Keys, 1996). An increase in field loading rates

hastened the biomat maturation and resulted in a shorter field lifetime (Keys, Tyler, and

Converse, 1998). Predictions made on a gravel system indicated a reduction in predicted

life from 11 years to 7 years as the loading rate was increased by approximately 2.5

times. Kaplan (1991) mentioned that the lifespan of a leachline could range from 20

years to indefinite because there were two mechanisms at work, clogging and

anticlogging. Winneberger (1974) stated that the sidewall areas were often more useful

than the bottom areas since the bottom areas usually remain inundated resulting in

continual clogging of that surface. In addition, multiple fields that could be ahernately

placed in operation could produce an indefinite life since the biomat dries and the

infiltrative surface was regained. This alternating field method could be done on a

variety of schedules. Some systems operated on a yearly basis, while others alternated on
monthly or weekly basis. One system in New Zealand (Gunn, 1987), operated with the

system loaded for one week and then allowed to rest for three weeks. Proper septic tank

maintenance can prolong the field life. This maintenance entails removal of sludge and

scum from these tanks to prevent it from flowing into the drain fields.

In the following sections, the effects of soil properties on infiltration and clogging

in a drain field are discussed as these items have a direct bearing on the potential lifespan

of a drain field. Another major constituent in determining the lifespan is related to the

strength of the wastewater treated by the drain fields.

Soil Properties

Infiltration Concepts

Soil characteristics have a large impact on the amount of water that is transported

through different types of soil and the suitability of these soils for long-term wastewater

absorption. In general, these characteristics include texture, structure, color, consistency,

density, porosity, pore size, water saturation, hydraulic conductivity, permeability,

restrictive layers, and percolation rates. Some characteristics resulting from construction

processes are compaction, fill soils, cut areas, introduction of gravel fines, and masking

of the soil at the gravel-soil interface. Characteristics associated with the topography and

geography of an area impact the water transport capabilities of the soil and its ability to

treat wastewater. Included in these are slope, water table height, depth to bedrock, type

of bedrock, and thickness of formation.

Soil characteristics are separated into qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Texture, structure, and color of the soil provide a qualitative measure of the soils
absorptive capability (Gross, Owens, Dennis, Robinson, and Rutledge, 1998). The

percolation rate provides a quantitative measure that is valid only for the small surface

area tested since soils can change rapidly over a relatively short distance. Other

characteristics such as porosity and density that appear to be quantitative have the same

qualification as observed with the percolation rate.

Soil texture has a direct effect on the movement of water in and through soil

layers (Johnson, Brasfield, and Beville, 1974). Texture relates to the composition of the

soil as it pertains to sand, silt, and clay percentages. The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, 1980) soil classifications are based on the twelve textural classes

developed by the USDA (Figure 2.2). In Texas, TNRCC uses five classes (Figure 2.3) of

soils that are based on the sand, silt, and clay percentages to determine the suitability for

absorptive drain fields (Tifle 30 Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.90, 1997). Soils

having high percentages of silt and clay might have slow absorption rates (Meyer,

1974b). Soil texture affects the permeability, but the relationship is weak as the

percolation rate for one sandy loam ranged from less than 5 to more than 25 minutes/inch

(Kaplan, 1991). In a coarse soil, the pore size is larger and the water movement more

rapid (Johnson et al, 1974). Soils with uniform particle size have pores that are in

proportion to the grain size (Tyler, Drozd, and Peterson, 1991). As a result, a fine-

grained soil has small pores, a coarse-grained soil has large pores, and a mixture of grain

sizes results in small pores. Therefore, a coarse soil will have greater porosity and larger

pores than a finer soil such as clay. In many situations, the clay in the soil swells and

dramatically reduces the infiltration rate (Johnson et al., 1974).
T00%

100%
n/San silt
100% 60 50 40
sand Percent Sand
by Weight

Figure 2.2. USDA Soil Classifications
Source: EPA 625/1-80-012,1980.

8
PERCENT
PERCENT SILT
CLAY

100 60 50 40 10
PERCENT SAND

SOIL PARTICLE SIZE:
ClQy - Smaller t h a n 0.002 nr\ in dianeter.
Silt - 0.05 t o 0.002 r\r\ in dianeter.
Sand - 2.0 t o 0.05 nn in dianeter.
Gravel - G r e a t e r t h a n 2.0 nr\ in dianeter.
nn = nilUneter
Note 1: Sand shall be f r e e of organic n a t t e r and shall be conposed
of silica, quartz, nica, or any other stable nineral.
Note 2: Class la soils contain nore than 30X gravel, t h e r e f o r e , they
are not portrayed or^ the soil triangle.

Figure 2.3. Texas Soil Classifications
Source: 30 TAC§285.90,1997.
The soil structure is related to the soil particle arrangement pertaining to cracks or

weakness planes (Kaplan, 1991) There are several arrangements including prisms,

plates, round or nutlike, and non-structured. The plate or platiform configuration is the

least permeable. However, the nuciform (round or nutlike) structure, which is created by

worms and roots, can result in high permeabilities even in clays Overall a strong soil

structure composed of granular, blocky, or prismatic particles is preferred over the platy

or unstructured soils (Parker, Lehr. Roseler, and Paeth, 1977), because the granular,

blocky. or prismatic particles enhance vertical flow while the others decrease it (Tyler et

al. 1991). The unstructured soil also known as single grain or massive does not have

secondary pores, whereas the stronger structure does resulting in better infiltration

capabilities. For each particle configuration, compaction affects the structure by reducing

the macropores and porosity (Westepal and Schirmers, 1997; Kaplan, 1991)

Soil color is an indication of the moisture content and also provides information

on the aeration potential of the soil (Johnson et al., 1974). Brighter colors indicate higher

aeration levels, whereas, the duller or mottled colors indicate lower aeration and iron

reduction with the potential presence of sulfate or methane. Meyer (1974b) reported that

a gray colored soil has difficulty absorbing rainfall while red-brown soils allow

absorption and passage of precipitation. Parker et al. (1977) indicated that the bright

colored soils have better drainage than dull coloration soils. In addition, the mottled

colors, which range from a brown to yellow-orange to gray, are indicative of alternating

saturation of a soil horizon. The depth to the mottling along with observable iron

concentrations provide information on the water table (Sawka, Collins, Brown, and Rao,

1987: Gross etal., 1998).

10
Another important characteristic of soil is its consistency or strength; in other

words, how well the soil particles hold together (Johnson et al., 1974). A strong soil

would have a high bulk density, reduced porosity, low infiltration, and low hydraulic

conductivity (Tyler et al., 1991). If a soil is moist, the consistence terms are loose (sand),

very friable (barely can be handled), friable (crushed easily), firm (moderate) and very

firm (requiring substantial pressure) (Westepal and Schirmers. 1997). However, a dry

soil is defined as having a hard consistence (Tyler et al, 1991).

Two soil characteristics, hydraulic conductivity and permeability, are viewed in a

similar manner even though there are distinctions. EPA (1980) defined hydraulic

conductivity when applied to soils as the ability of the soil to transmit water through the

pores. This ability is related to the size, number, and configuration of the pores in

addition to the moisture content. Amoozegar (1997) agreed by stating that hydraulic

conductivity is a function of the soil characteristics and the liquid used. Permeability

according to EPA (1980) is defined as the ease with which gases, liquids, and roots

penetrate or pass through a soil. Permeability is a measure of pores that are

interconnected and is independent of the moisture content (Amoozegar, 1997; EPA,

1980).

A soil's hydraulic conductivity should be determined at both saturated and

unsaturated conditions to provide for the best prediction of flow conditions (Bouma,

1975). Hydraulic conductivity is high in sandy soils, moderate in loamy soils, and low in

clay soils (Cjross et al., 1998). These values will change depending on the saturation

level and can result in a clay that is more permeable than a sand at low saturation levels

(Bouma, 1975). Bouma (1975) further stated that permeability is high under saturated

11
conditions and decreases as the water content decreases. Otis. Converse, Carlile, and

Witty (1977) stated that when permeability is measured quantitatively as the rate of water

flow through a unit cross section of soil during a unit time, the resuh is considered

equivalent to hydraulic conductivity Tyler and Converse (1994) stated that the hydraulic

conductivit>- is a constant for a given soil and moisture content and that a higher

hydraulic conductivity is achieved if the soil was saturated, which is due to the water

filled pores.

The permeability of a soil is dependent on texture (Figure 2.4). bulk density,

coarse fragment content, clay mineralogy, organic matter content, structure, and soil

chemistry (Hantzche, Neikirk, and Wistrom, 1981). Texture, bulk density, and coarse

fragment (pebbles, gravel) are the three primary determinants of permeability Bulk

density indicates compactness of a soil and the coarse fragment can provide information

on void size. Kaplan (1991) elaborated on the voids by stating that the fraction of pore

space occupied by large pores and their continuity has a direct bearing on permeability,

which impacts the wastewater-loading rate of the soil

Percolation tests of soils have long been the standard in determining the suitability

(Figure 2.5) of different areas for the installation of wastewater absorption fields. Henry

Ryon of the New York Health Department devised the initial percolation test in 1926 to

investigate failing absorption systems (Bemhart, 1973; Otis, 1978). The percolation test

is a practical field tool, but should be performed with standard valid procedures

(Winneberger, 1974). To perform the test, percolation units should be uniformly spaced

and at the depth of the proposed system (Otis, 1978). EPA (1980) recommended a

minimum of three uniformly spaced test holes within the area of interest with more being

12
100

N^^. a^W ^^I7MNDT

W1P^f^3

MCPWP

J^P

PERCENT SAND

NOTES:
1. Correction for Gravel and Cobble - Add 1', sand for each lO'r gravel
and cobble. (Vol.)
2. The solid center line separating the permeability classes is for soils
that have moderate nedium structure, or fine granular, or medium or
coarse granular or single grained. The dotted line below the solid line
is the extension of the permeability class for soils that have weak or
fine structure or very fine granular. The dotted line above the solid
line is the extension of the permeability class for soils that have
strong structure or prismatic blocky, thick platy or massive.

Reduce rating one or more classes for soils that are compact or that have
pH >9.0. Rate one class irore rapid soils that have many medium or
coarse pores. Rate as compact loam or finer textu'^ed soils that have
bulk density of -1,5 and soils more sandy thar loam that have b u U
density of 1.7 or higher.

Figure 2.4. Soil Permeability Classifications Based on Texture
Source: Erickson, 1973

13
PEtCENT SANO

Instructions:

1. Plot t e x t u r e on t r i a n g l e based on percent sand, s i l t , and clay (USDA
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) as determined by hydrometer a n a l y s i s .

2. Adjust f o r coarse fragments by moving the p l o t t e d p o i n t i n the sand
d i r e c t i o n an a d d i t i o n a l 2% f o r each 10'; (by volume) of fragments
greater than 2mm :n diameter.

-- Adjust f o r compactness of s o i l by moving the p l o t t e d p o i n t i n the clay
d i r e c t i o n an a d d i t i o n a l Ib.c f o r s o i l s having a b u l k - d e n s i t y greater
thar 1.7 gm/cc.

Figure 2.5. Soil Suitability Chart.
Source: Hantzche etal., 1981.

14
required if different soils are present. These test holes should be scraped to eliminate

potemial soil smearing (Bemhart, 1973). According to the EPA (1980), the test holes

should be filled with water to a depth of 8 inches, with 6 inches of water above the 2

inches of gravel placed at the bottom of the hole. Then, according to Bemhart (1973), the

soil should be soaked until the percolation rate becomes constant (Bemhart, 1973), while

the EPA (1980) recommended that only clay soils be soaked. Readings of the water level

are to be taken until consecutive measurements do not vary by more than 1/16 of an inch

(EPA, 1980). In Califomia, three consecutive measurements are required (Kaplan, 1991),

whereas the EPA (1980) recommended two.

Although the percolation test is criticized and does not result in reproducible

results, it is simple, objective, inexpensive, and provides a rational basis for system

design (Plews, 1978). This test is criticized because it uses clean water rather than

wastewater and it is performed over a short rather than long time span. In addition, the

test does not have a standardized soil soaking procedure, and does not specify a single

test hole size, although the EPA (1980) recommended 6 inches (Bemhart, 1973; Kaplan,

1991). However, this test helps determine absorptive characteristics, which are related to

soil permeability and hydraulic conductivity, but does not measure them. Although the

tests provide quantitative values for the area of interest, they result in highly variable

values due to the small area tested. Variations were noted in different seasons, in

adjacent test sites, and in the operator performing the test (Otis, 1978).

The varying heads of water used in these percolation tests could resuh in a large

percolation rate range. Winneberger (1974) reported a doubling or tripling of the

infiltration rate with only a 2-inch change in head and even larger differences in more

15
permeable soil Since the infiltration rate is affected by the hydraulic head, the water

level in the test unit should be kept as constant as possible between readings to provide

the most reliable results (Kaplan, 1991; Winneberger, 1984). McGauhey (1975) noted

that the percolation test allows for inadequate bottom area as it was originally used in the

design of narrow trench systems. The EPA (1980) indicated that when percolation test

rates vary by more than 20 minutes/inch, they should not be averaged as the variation is

probably due to different soil types.

In addition to the natural soil characteristics, there are several that are created

during the constmction phase of a drain field. The manmade soil characteristics include

three categories: fill, cut areas, and compacted soils. In these soils, the hydraulic

conductivity could increase, decrease, or have high variations and that affects the

infiltration rates. In the case of fill material, the hydraulic conductivity would probably

have a high variability from one area to another due to the fill composition. While with

cut and compacted soils, the hydraulic conductivity is reduced (Westepal and Schirmers,

1997).

A fill area could be used for an absorption system if several precautions are taken

during the fill process (Otis, 1978). The fill soil must closely match the texture of the

natural soil and there must be no layering of soils as a clogging barrier could be created.

Further testing of a fill area would be required to evaluate the effects of settling on

infiltration rates and this could extend the evaluation time of the site by as much as two

years. Meyer (1974a) reported that failure of fill areas usually occurs at the interface

with the old soil or with effluent surfacing through the fill after it has settled. As with a

16
fill area, a cut area could be used for an absorpfion field if the soil conditions are

adequate regarding infiltration and depth to water table or impervious layer (Otis, 1978).

Wastewater treatment might not be as effective in fill or cut areas (Westepal and

Schirmers, 1997). A fill could contain components such as large particles or non-soil

material that would reduce the treatment of wastewater. In a cut area, alteration of the

landscape could affect seasonal high water table elevations. Fewer treatment problems

are expected in cases of compacted soil since the soil depth for treatment is still available.

The infihrafion rates into the compacted soil would decrease and as a result, this soil

would not treat the same volume of wastewater as a non-compacted soil. More

compaction, smearing, and puddling is expected in soils having more than 25% clay

(Otis, Plews, and Patterson, 1977). In areas where the soil was disturbed, the soil

characteristics must be re-evaluated since the use of soil characteristics from undisturbed

sites nearby would result in erroneous conclusions (Westepal and Schirmers, 1997).

When a field is being installed, the infiltration rates could also be affected by the

fines remaining in the gravel and the masking that would take place at the gravel - soil

interface (Amerson, Tyler, and Converse, 1991). The results of the study by Amerson et

al. (1991) indicated no statistical differences in the infiltration rate due to compaction or

contact area from the gravel installation. Keys (1996), however, noted a 5 to 10.4%

change in hydraulic conductivity at a soil/gravel interface. Knowledge of the soil texture

could determine how gravel fines (gravel particulates) affect infihration. Amerson et al.

(1991) reported a decrease in infiltration for a sih loam soil, but not for a sandy soil In

every case, it was recommended that the gravel be washed before placement to eliminate

potential problems with fines (Otis et al., 1977).

17
The topography should be included in a site evaluation when determining the

suitability of acreage for a drainage field. A slope not greater than 20 to 25% is

acceptable with a convex slope absorbing more than a concave slope (Parker et al, 1977).

In addition, ditches, drains, rivers, existing wells and disposal systems should be recorded

during the site evaluation (Anderson, Grossman, Healy, and Skaggs, 1977).

Clogging Mechanisms

Clogging of an absorpfion field is related to many of the characteristics that affect

infiltration especially that of hydraulic conductivity (Otis, 1984). The hydraulic

conductivity could be reduced by compaction and smearing during constmction, by gases

present in the soil or those created by biological activity, by soil swelling due to

prolonged wetting, and by biological activity, which could break down soil stmcture or

add byproducts that reduced pore size. Based on several studies, it was determined that

there are three to four phases in the clogging process. These studies were performed

using different procedures and the definition of the phases varies considerably. However,

a rapid decline in infiltration rates was noted in each case and was probably caused by a

chemical or biological change in the soil resulting from wastewater application. The

third or fourth phase (procedure dependent) had a slow decline in infiltration rates. Otis

(1984) indicated that although the rapid decrease was obvious, controlling the overall

slow decline was probably more important. Many methods are used to control the

infiltration rates, but none are consistently successful.

The clogging appears to be a surface phenomenon and is primarily attributed to

the biological activity stimulated by wastewater nutrients (Otis, 1984). Suspended solids

18
also assist in the clogging during the initial stages of wastewater application in a drain

field. If the system then moved to an anaerobic atmosphere, infihration is reduced further

because the organic decomposition is slowed and the microbial by-products produced

under these conditions appear to enhance clogging. In addition, soil temperature,

moisture content, and aeration play a major role in determining the rate of clogging

(Siegrist, 1987). When the soil temperature is low, clogging is inhibited with wastewater

having no suspended matter and stimulated with wastewater having an appreciable

amount of suspended matter. A soil with low moisture content, high permeability and

good aeration should not clog as quickly as one with high moisture, low permeability,

and poor aerafion (Ofis, 1984; Siegrist, 1987). Also, the quality of the wastewater would

have an impact on the rate of clogging since the microbial activity forms a biomat.

Producing a better quality wastewater with less organic matter and suspended matter

benefited wastewater treatment in granular soils more than in fine textured soils.

Clogging increased when humic substances formed during wastewater infiltration

(Siegrist, Smed-Hildmann, Filip, and Jenssen, 1991; Siegrist, 1987). Siegrist et al (1991)

noted that the formation of humic substances in sandy soils is likely with long-term

wastewater infiltration, but that no conclusions could be made regarding the silt loam

soils that were tested. Two methods that appear to reduce the clogging are intermittent

dosing of the system and periodic resting of the system (Otis, 1984).

Eventually, clogging would occur even where clean fresh water is used if the soil

is continuously inundated (McGauhey, 1975). Laboratory tests on cores and in field tests

were used to determine that an unusual phenomenon occurred in a clean water

application. This phenomenon is pictured in Figure 2.6, where it can be seen that the

19
e
o
s
s
o
fi

s

c
o
c
a>
B
oc

o O o o o O o o o op
oOv o00 o o
VO o»r> orl- oen oCN o—"
r^
(pdS) QOi;Bj;pjni

20
infiltration rate initially dropped for a period of about 10 days and then increased for

approximately 25 days before once again decreasing to a relative low rate (Winterer,

1922, 1923). The initial drop was attributed to soil slaking in which the soil's affinity to

water and cohesive forces were akered. In the second phase, air was removed from the

pores and this has implications regarding the percolation of water by capillary action

away from the main drain field. The decline during the third phase was a result of

clogging due to the biological activity. Winneberger (1984) also noted that in the case of

sterile water, the infiltration rate would remain at the level seen at the end of the 25 days.

Kaplan (1991) noted that clear water was absorbed at rates 45 to 1100 times faster than

wastewater.

Impact on Drain Field Performance

The installer's evaluation of the soil at each potential site for an onsite wastewater

treatment system will determine the type of system to be installed and the potential

success of that system. An infihration or percolation test provides initial information as

to the soil's potential to absorb effluent. The infiltration rate however is also affected by

absorption fields that are continuously ponded; in other words, water is always at the

gravel-soil interface (Otis, Converse, Carlile, and Witty, 1977). In addition, each soil has

a long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) (Anderson, Machmeier Sr., and Hansel, 1981) that is

not necessarily related to the values obtained from the infiltration test. Winneberger

(1984) stated that clogging of the infiltrative surface is the LTAR determinant and that

the rates are determined in the laboratory using simulated wastewaters. Based on the

laboratory-determined rates, rates for other soils are calculated using coefficients of

21
permeability that are estimated from a correlation with the percolation test rates. The

calculated values then become the loading rates used in administrative codes (Tyler and

Converse, 1994). As expected, the LTAR does not change from original infiltration rates

when tap water or an effluent with reduced organic matter is used. A table correlating the

Texas soil classes with then- long-term applicafion rates can be seen in Table 2.1 (30

Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.90, 1997).

Table 2.1. Long-Term Application Rates
for Texas Soils

Long-Term Application Rate
Soil Class (gallons/square foot/day)

la >0.50

lb 0.38

II 0.25

III 0.20

IV 0.10

In addition to a percolation or infiltration test, performing a soil profile

determines the thickness and coloring of layers, depth to bedrock, type of bedrock, depth

to free ground water and to soil mottling (Hantzsche et al, 1981). When the soil profile

is combined with the soil texture, stmcture, and consistency characteristics, a more

informed decision can be made as to the size and location of an absorption field. In many

22
cases, valuable starting points for a site evaluation can be determined from a soil map,

but the soil map should not be used in place of a site evaluation (Anderson et al., 1977)

The initial care taken in sizing the absorption field when followed by proper

operation and maintenance of the system assists in prevention of soil clogging by

enabling proper loading of the drain field. Using multiple drain fields that are altemately

put into operafion would decrease the clogging potential by allowing the resting field to

dry and reclaim some of the infihrative surface. Eventually, all systems have soil

clogging effects unless they are extremely overdesigned.

Evaporation Studies

Evaporation/Evapotranspiration - Lake and Vegetation

Evaporation from a lake, surface water body, is only defined precisely when the

entire water balance is known. However, since this is usually not the case, evaporation

pans are used to determine the evaporation amounts. These pans overestimate the lake

evaporation, but pan coefficients were determined to provide reasonably accurate values

of lake evaporation. In addition, the climate, altitude, latitude, and seasonal variations

affect evaporation. Vegetation provides another means to retum moisture to the

atmosphere. This means is known as transpiration as the vegetation releases moisture

through its leaves. Using the information from the open surface evaporation and plant

transpiration, evapotranspiration from a drain field should be a viable disposal means for

septic tank effluent.

Lake evaporation is dramatically affected by the lake's microclimate, the

surrounding terrain, and the climate. A study of Lake Kinneret, Israel indicated that the

23
evaporation on opposite sides is affected by the microclimate that occurs over the lake

(Assouline and Mahrer, 1996). Winds around Lake Kinneret are predominately westeriy

and as a resuh the climate on the east side of the lake is more humid, has lower winds,

and has lower pan evaporation rates. Evaporation rates on the west side of the lake are

twice those on the east side. Based on a review of Canadian lakes, evaporation rates

varied from 5 inches in July to 0.4 inches in November (Bemhart, 1973). Lake Toba, a

deep tropical lake located in northem Sumatra, has only slight seasonal variations (Sene,

Gash, and McNeil, 1991). As a resuh, the variation in wind velocity is the dominating

evaporation factor with the necessary heat energy provided by the lake.

The type of terrain could increase or decrease the evaporation rates. Toronto,

which has a continental climate with severe winters (Gunn, 1987) has a lower

evaporation rate due to its location on Lake Ontario (Bemhart, 1973). Higher

evaporation rates are in desert-like areas in Southem Califomia and in the southwestem

United States.

Kondo and Xu (1997) reported that in arid regions, the evaporation is proportional

to the precipitation, but that in humid areas an apparent upper limit is imposed on

evaporation. This limit was determined as a function of potential evaporation and soil

types, with the upper limit for loamy soils being 2 to 3 times that of a sandy soil. If the

soil surface was essentially saturated in a humid area, the evaporation rate would be

strongly affected by wind velocity, solar radiation, air temperature and specific humidity.

However, the specific humidity and soil moisture content were the dominating factors

when the soil surface became dry, with wind velocity and air/ground temperatures

providing minor effects. In a catchment in Norway where the temperature remained

24
relatively constant, Tallaksen and Erichsen (1992) reported that the estimated

evapotranspiration decreased due to reduced soil moisture content during the dry season

The city of Lanzhou, China has many of the same climate characteristics as

Lubbock, Texas with similar precipitation/evaporation ratios. Lanzhou is also located at

the same latitude as Lubbock. Therefore, the fact that soil-moisture content in the upper

soil levels dominated during dry periods of the year in Lanzhou should also be tme for

Lubbock. In addition, moisture content due to rain in Lanzhou is recycled to the

atmosphere in 5 to 15 days (Kondo and Xu, 1997), which appears to equal that in

Lubbock based on an evaporation rate of 0.21 inches/day (30 TAC §285.90, 1997).

The soil type also affects the evaporation rate, with sand losing moisture most

rapidly by evaporation followed by sihy sand, clay loam, and volcanic ash (Kondo and

Xu, 1997). A sandy loam soil surface had an evaporation rate greater than 80% of the

moisture available if the water table was only 16 inches below the surface (Kaplan,

1991). However, when the water table was more than 40 inches below the surface, the

evaporation was below 10% of the moisture present. A test in riverbed sand revealed that

at a depth of 24 inches, the evaporation rate had dropped to almost 10% of available

moisture and never achieved the higher rates seen in the sandy loam even at a 3-inch

depth. The tests performed on these soils confirmed that higher evaporation rates would

be achieved in a drain field that is shallow and operated with a high effluent level

Evapotranspiration is dependent on climate, vegetation, and length of growing

season (Bernhart, 1973; Raddatz and Shaykewich, 1998). In cases where the surface is

wet, available energy and aerodynamic conditions limit the evapotranspiration; whereas

in areas of partial saturation, the plant community controls the evapotranspiration

25
(Konzelmann, Calanca, Muller, Menzel, and Lang, 1997). Since climate is a crhical

aspect of evapotranspiration, the areas along the Pacific and Atlantic coastal areas pose

special challenges as a resuh of higher precipitation and increased humidity (Bemhart,

1973).

A semi-arid area near Bushland, Texas was studied regarding evapotranspiration

rates in irrigated winter wheat (Howell, Steiner, Schneider, and Evett, 1995). Howell et

al (1995) reported that high spring winds and high vapor pressure deficits increased the

evapotranspiration from irrigated winter wheat. During the remainder of the growing

season, the evapotranspiration appeared to track reasonably well with the daily

temperature and solar radiation. For spring wheat grown in Canada, the total annual

evapotranspiration decreased as a result of higher temperatures shortening the growing

season (Raddatz and Shaykewich, 1998). With a shorter growing season, the wheat did

not transpire as much moisture.

Evapotranspiration Drain Fields

Evapottanspiration (ET) drain fields are used throughout the world with varying

degrees of success. Bemhart (1973) did some of the first intensive studies with ET drain

fields in the Toronto area during the early 1960's. In the late 1970's, many units were in

operation in Canada and the United States with a few in New Zealand and Israel

(Bemhart, 1978).

An ET drain field should be designed to maximize evapotranspiration, which

necessitates careful placement of the gravel and sand used in the bed to facilitate effluent

wicking to the surface (Frank, 1996). Evapotranspiration is a function of the air and ET

26
bed temperatures, wind exposure, relative humidity, bed-fill material, effluent height, and

type of vegetation. The potential evapotranspiration for a shallow ET bed with sandy

material could be increased by 200 to 250% over lake evaporation (Bemhart, 1973). One

third of this increase was attributed to the energy added by the microbes active in the

effluent. Higher gains were realized in the summer months when the effluent level

remained high within the ET bed. The increased evapotranspiration occurred because

the capillary action required at a higher effluent level was less. Bemhart (1978) indicated

that evapotranspiration under aerobic conditions in well designed beds was at least three

times the normal pan evapotranspiration and more likely to be five times as much. An

evapotranspiration rate measured in an evapotranspiration bed in Toronto was 0.1 gallons

per square foot per day (gpd/ft ) and that figure is still used as a design criterion

(Bemhart, 1973). A study at Chesapeake Bay indicated that grass could transpire water

at the annual rate of 0.08 gpd/ft^ of bed area (Lomax and Lane, 1979). Bennett and

Linstedt (1978) reported cold weather evapotranspiration for Colorado and northem

Nevada to be 0.03 gpd/ft . Further studies in Colorado indicated an evaporation rate

from an ET bed in April and May to be about 70% of pan evaporation (Hines, Bennett,

and Hoehne, 1977). This rate dropped during the summer months due to a lower soil

moisture level. The annual evaporation rate for this drain field was about 40% of the pan

evaporation.

The depth of the effluent in the drain field either increases or decreases the

evaporation potential. With an effluent level 3 inches or less below the bed surface, the

evaporation increased by 50% above pan evaporation (Bemhart, 1973). This dropped to

0% when the effluent was 8 inches below the surface and as the effluent level dropped

27
further, there was a negative effect on the evaporation rate. The evaporation rate

decreased by 90% when the effluent level was 24 inches below the surface. Based on

this information, Bemhart (1978) recommended an evapotranspiration bed depth ranging

between 18 to 24 inches. Hart (1997) essentially agreed stating that the depth of the drain

field should be no more then 19.68 inches (0.5 meters) with the lines being installed at a

depth between 11.81 to 19.68 inches (0.3 to 0.5 meters).

A project in San Antonio, Texas, using ET beds determined that during periods

with low pan evaporation rates and an effluent level 10 to 16 inches below the surface,

the surface moisture was completely evaporated, but quickly replenished (Rugen, Lewis,

and Benedict, 1977). However, at a high pan evaporation rate, the surface dried rapidly

and developed a cmst, which decreased or prevented the replenishment of the evaporated

water by capillary action and resulted in an overall reduction in evapotranspiration.

When the effluent level was 16 to 24 inches below the surface, the soil was moist, but not

saturated as with the higher effluent level. As a result, evapotranspiration continued to a

greater depth at high pan evaporation rates since a cmst did not form.

Climate has a large impact in determining the depth of a combination

evapotranspiration/absorption drain field. A drain field in an arid climate with less than

20 inches of precipitation could operate with 24 inches of permeable soil below the

trench. If there were less than 10 inches of precipitation, the bottom of the trench could

contact the restrictive soil layer (Parker et al., 1977). In situations where the system

primarily depended on evapotranspiration, humid climate conditions could result in a

drain field so large as to be impractical Hines et al. (1977) stated that an average

Colorado home producing 200 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater required an ET bed of

28
5000 to 7500 square feet (ft^). The ET bed area required for two operating Colorado ET

systems in Colorado was 4000 ft^ for a three-bedroom house and 5300 ft^ for a four-

bedroom house (Church, 1997). These systems experienced periodic overloading

because of excessive water use within the residence.

An ETA system operating in Leigh, New Zealand requires about 4850 ft^to

handle an effluent load of approximately 1200 gpd (Gunn, 1987). This system is located

in a temperate climate that has longer growing seasons, higher precipitation, and higher

evaporation than Toronto, Canada, where ET beds are operating in a continental climate.

As a result, these systems could perform better than those established on similar soil in

Toronto. During the summer months in Leigh, New Zealand, the active ETA beds had

low effluent levels with the resting beds being dry. However, during the winter, the

loaded beds were slightly surcharged with the effluent/precipitation water level up to the

bottom of the topsoil The resting beds had varying levels of effluent/precipitation

depending on the length of time they had been off-line. Without the rest cycle for these

ETA beds, the system would probably not have been successful all year. As of 1987, the

system has been operating successfully for four years. Experience with the system in

New Zealand indicated that a better operating practice for ETA fields is to have them on

an in-service rotation cycle.

Capillary action is important in the overall effectiveness of evapotranspiration

(ET) drain fields. Kaplan (1991) reported that capillary rise from a leachfield to the

surface was negligible except under special circumstances and could take a considerable

amount of time. As a soil became more saturated however, the capillary flow rate in the

saturated portion increased. For the highest capillary action in a Colorado ET drain field,

29
it was determined that the backfill should be an imported select medium-fine sand

(Bennett, Linstedt, and Fekon, 1975). The pores in the sand must be such that water

could rise by capillary action at least to the height of the ET bed (Bennett et al, 1975;

Otis, 1985). A balance must be maintained between having small enough pores for

capillary action, but not too small to adversely affect the hydraulic conductivity (Bennett

et al, 1975). Bemhart (1973) noted that capillary rise occurred best through sand with a

grain size of 0.02 to 0.04 inches (0.5 to 1.0 millimeters). Based on a Colorado study, the

ideal sand for good capillary action in an ET drain field would be in the D50 range of

0.0047 to 0.007 inches (0.12 to 0.18 mm) with a uniformity coefficient less than or equal

to four (Bennett et al, 1975). In a well-designed ET drain field, the expected capillary

rise is 8 to 12 inches (Bemhart, 1973). Hart (1997) stated that the soil used in a drain

field should have capillarity equal to or less than that of the undisturbed surrounding soil,

but should be capable of a 3.28 to 16.4 ft (1 to 5 meter) rise. Kaplan (1991) recorded

capillary rise in sands of 1 to 2 feet and up to 4 feet in clay soil. However, capillary

activity under the right conditions could rise nine feet (Bemhart, 1973).

Texas Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems

Background

In the state of Texas, the majority of onsite wastewater treatment systems are the

conventional septic tank and drain field. However, many areas of the state have soil

conditions that are not conducive to installing this type of system. Some of these soil-

limiting conditions include high percentages of clay, soil depths too shallow to provide

adequate treatment, low infihration rates, and fractured bedrock.

30
Due to the various soil properties and climates throughout Texas, a variety of

ahemative onsite wastewater treatment systems have been proposed, and a variety of

systems installed. According to Brown (1979), the following systems, some

experimental, are used in Texas to do onsite treatment of wastewater. These systems

include home aerobic plants, septic tanks, composting toilets, tile fields, elevated sand

mounds, evapotranspiration with and without infiltration, pressure sewers, and grinder

pumps. The training center has working models of many altematives currently in use

throughout Texas (Lenning, Dow, Lesikar, Lindbo, and Miles, 1998). An onsite system

consists of two parts, the pretreatment part and the disposal part (e.g., septic tank and

drain field). Pretreatment systems include different types of septic tanks, aerobic units,

sand filters, and constmcted wetlands. Disposal/dispersal systems include spray and drip

irrigation, pressure dosed and conventional drain fields, with and without gravel, mound,

and evapotranspiration.

Regulations

In Texas, permits are issued for a wide variety of onsite wastewater treatment

systems. However, Texas does not authorize the use of boreholes, cesspools, or seepage

pits for onsite wastewater treatment (30 Texas Annotated Code (TAC) §285.3, 1999).

With suitable soils (Class lb - Class III), the use of a conventional septic tank and drain

field is probably more cost effective. A site evaluation must be performed for onsite

sewage facilities. The evaluation should include a soil analysis relating to texture,

stmcture, depth, and depth to restrictive horizon. In addition, the groundwater elevation,

local topography, potential flood hazard, and overall site suitability must be evaluated.

31
The standard treatment systems used in Texas (30 TAC §285.32, 1999) include

the gravity flow septic tank, intermittent sand fihers, and a fiher bed. A gravity flow-

septic tank must have a minimum water level of 30 inches, inlet and outlet devices with

the inlet device being higher than the outlet device, baffles within the tank or muhiple

tanks, and inspection and cleanout ports. The tank is to be watertight and may be made

from concrete, fiberglass, plastic polyethylene, or other material approved by the

Executive Director. Intermittent sand fihers provide further treatment following the

primary treatment provided by the septic tank. In the case of the filter beds, the sand

used must meet certain specifications. The bed, which must be contained, has a

maximum loading rate, a minimum surface area, and a minimum depth of sand.

Alternative systems such as surface and subsurface irrigation, and low-pressure

dosing systems require electronic monitoring that automatically informs a maintenance

company of mechanical malfunctions (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). This monitoring system

includes a disinfection system when one is required. The surface irrigation system

application must be accompanied by a technical report, site drawing, landscape plan,

maintenance documents, affidavit, schedule for ongoing testing and evaluation of the

system, and an effluent disinfection program.

Proprietary systems shall be approved by the Executive Director and an

application to install a proprietary system must be accompanied by the documentation

required for surface irrigation systems (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). A primary criterion for

ongoing approval is the availability of firms qualified to service the units. If the systems

have not been approved by previous tests, temporary authorization may be issued by

TNRCC to allow installation of several units in areas typical for fliture installations. A

32
two-year test period is required with up to a five-year monitoring period to follow if the

unit passes the initial test.

Several disposal processes are used in the Texas, with the standard methods

considered to be absorption, evapotranspiration, and to a lesser extent, pumped effluent

(30 TAC §285.33, 1999). The absorption fields are to be installed in suitable soils

(Classes lb, II, or HI). These fields are composed of porous media, perforated drainline,

permeable soil barrier (geotextile), and backfilled with the excavated soil. An ET drain

field may be used in unsuitable soils (Classes la and IV), provided that an impermeable

liner is placed between the excavated soil and constmcted ET bed. The top of the liner

should be a minimum of two inches above the natural grade to prevent surface water

mnoff or groundwater intmsion. Sizing these beds is a critical step as an undersized bed

could restrict the homeowner's water usage or resuh in a potential heahh hazard if

wastewater ponds on the ground surface. These beds should be backfilled with Class II

soil, have a vegetative cover for transpiration, and have a leak detection system. Finally,

the ET drain fields should be used only where annual evaporation exceeds annual

precipitation. A pumped effluent drain field is used in level areas with clay soils. These

systems are to be used by single family dwellings and not commercial or institutional

stmctures. A pumped effluent drain field includes narrow trenches, small diameter pipe,

and a pump to transfer the effluent to the pipe network. If the ground slope is greater

than 2%, a pumped effluent drain field should not be used because the effluent

distribution would be unbalanced.

Proprietary disposal systems include gravel-less drain field piping, leaching

chambers, and drip irrigation (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). A gravel-less system is limited to

33
areas that will support standard subsurface disposal systems. The excavated area for

leaching chambers can be 40% smaller than the conventional drain field installation.

This system can be installed in lieu of a conventional pipe and gravel system without

requiring permit revision. A drip irrigation system is also suitable for Class IV soils since

the roots from plants at the surface will absorb the effluent. Fihering is required

upstream of the drip irrigation piping to prevent plugging of the irrigation emitters.

The final types of disposal systems are called non-standard processes. These

processes include the following systems: dosed low-pressure, soil-substitution drain

fields, surface irrigation, and mounds (30 TAC §285.33, 1999). One additional non-

standard process is the use of a drain field following approved aerobic units, secondary

treatment, and disinfection. The low-pressure system requires a means of controlling the

pump and a high water alarm. A soil substitution drain field is similar to a conventional

drain field, except that a suitable soil (Classes lb, II, or III) is placed to a depth of two

feet around the trench to an elevation less than the top of the porous media. As a result,

this system can be installed in Class la soils, which include fractured or fissured rock, or

other high permeability characteristics. A specific regulation regarding the surface

irrigation systems is that they can not be used on any acreage where products for human

consumption are grown. In addition, the effluent can not be applied to unseeded bare

ground. With these systems, the application rate should be uniform and not create mnoff.

The process with the approved aerobic unit, secondary treatment, and disinfection can be

used in Class la soils. This process has the same application requirements as those for a

surface irrigation system.

34
Field Tests in Texas

Field tests were conducted using several ahemative wastewater disposal methods.

A field test was conducted on the Nutt-Shell treatment system, which is identified as the

Pressurized Subsurface Effluent Dosing (PSED) system (Hart, 1979). This system uses a

low-pressure pump to transfer the wastewater through small diameter pipes into covered

soil trenches for absorption or evapotranspiration. These systems were initially installed

near Houston in a subdivision with soils unsuitable for conventional septic systems. One

of the primary advantages of this system is lower cost due to smaller pipe, no gravel, and

narrow trenches resulting in less excavation. These narrow trenches also provide more

soil-effluent contact area and therefore can be useful in tight soils. A primary

disadvantage is the level of operating and maintenance costs for this system since there

are pumps, alarms, a pretreatment system with an aerator, and a pressure control system

all of which must be kept operational. Also, problems could develop if the pump

provides too much pressure or if proper care was not taken in the original site evaluation

to confirm that the soil and climate are conducive to this type of system. Hart (1979)

indicated that 300 of these units have been installed throughout Texas, except for far

West Texas.

A system that has been field tested in the coastal area of Texas uses no gravel

Three varieties were evaluated by Carlile and Osbome (1981) and include the SB2®,

which uses a wrapped cormgated pipe (25 centimeters in diameter), the aerobic

pressurized subsurface effluent dosing (APSED) system, and Turf-Flow®, a semi-

pressurized dosing system using slitted corrugated plastic pipe. Approximately 150

systems were analyzed.
35
When compared to a conventional system, fewer problems were reported with the

SB2® system (Carlile and Osbome, 1981). The SB2® subsurface system was installed in

trenches that are 18 to 24 inches wide and 20 to 30 inches deep with the excavated soil

being used for backfill. This system was also installed as mound and partial mound units.

Overall, these systems performed well with 80 to 85% reporting minor or no operational

problems. Basically, this system could be used where the soils are acceptable for the

conventional system, but it is not capable of overcoming major site and soil limitations.

The APSED system was installed in 32 locations in Victoria County and

Montgomery, Texas (Carlile and Osbome, 1981). These systems include an aerobic tank

with air compressor, a pump tank with sump pump, and a distribution system of small

piping. The piping was installed in narrow/deep trenches and backfilled with the

excavated soil. An evaluation of these systems indicated major operational problems,

with 60% having ones that would classify as severe, high nuisance, or a public heahh

hazard. Most of the failures were a result of effluent ponding at the surface. However,

unlike the conventional system where the effluent usually mns off the property, the

effluent with these systems was absorbed by the surrounding soil

Turf-Flow® was the third system to be analyzed and the slitted cormgated plastic

pipes were installed in narrow/deep trenches using the excavated soil for backfill (Carlile

and Osbome, 1981). The remainder of the system consists of a septic tank for

pretreatment and a pump tank with submersible pump to pump the effluent into the

plastic pipes. Eighteen units were evaluated and three of these had significant problems,

which were primarily due to improper site evaluation. With over 89% of these systems

36
being installed in clay soils, they appeared to have a much lower failure rate than

conventional systems for the initial 2 to 3 years of use.

A third ahemative onsite wastewater treatment system includes several irrigation

methods from surface and subsurface drip to spray. Residential wastewater treatment

using subsurface drip irrigation was evaluated at sites in D'Hanis and Stephenville, Texas

(Lesikar, Neal, Sabbagh, and Jnad, 1998). Both locations have three bedroom houses,

but the Stephenville location also has effluent from an RV dump and a dog kennel. The

RV dump and dog kennel effluent is processed through a small septic tank before

combining with the house effluent. The system design, which consists of a septic tank,

constmcted wetlands, pump tank, and drip tubing, is similar for both locations. However,

the systems are installed in dissimilar soils and climates. The system in D'Hanis is

located in a drier climate with sandy loam soil and the one in Stephenville has a soil

consisting of a loamy surface overlaying a sandy clay loam, with a base of clay. Both

systems performed well with neither area having a buildup of nutrients in the soil or

additional trace metals deposited. However, the salinity and the sulfur concentrations

increased at both locations.

A sand filter followed by a drip irrigation system is used in the Austin to San

Antonio corridor (Venhuizen, 1998). In this region of Texas, the conventional systems

are problematic due to tight or shallow soils, and to regulations regarding aquifer

recharge zones. The sand filter/drip irrigation system comprises a septic tank, sand fiher

dosing tank, sand fiher, final effluent tank, and drip irrigation piping. In Texas, existing

septic tanks are retrofitted for this system even though package units are available. As a

resuh, the retrofitted unhs are not as efficient, but still provide low turbidhy water for the

37
drip irrigation unit. An effluent from this system could provide some or all of the

required landscaping irrigation at individual residences. This system has proven to be a

good combination system of pretreatment followed by wide dispersal of the effluent

through the irrigation piping. For the types of soils in central Texas, this system is

reliable and cost effective.

In the coastal area around Galveston, Texas, surface and subsurface irrigation

systems are in use, because the soils are unsuhable for conventional unhs (Carlile, 1994).

These systems consist of pretreatment using a septic tank and an aerobic unit followed by

a disinfection unit before the effluent is pumped to the spray or subsurface drip irrigation

piping. The drip irrigation system was installed on lots under 5000 ft and has had little

or no problems in 2.5 years. A spray system is ideally suited for larger lots and several of

these were installed around Lake Livingston using spray nozzles to distribute the treated

effluent more evenly. In some areas near the lake, she restrictions do not allow surface

irrigation. As a result, drip irrigation systems were installed, but due to the clayey soils,

the fields are much larger than those in the coastal areas. These systems provide a viable

ahemative that meets State Constmction Standards.

Another altemative to conventional systems is the chamber leaching system. This

system is composed of open bottom chambers that interlock to form an underground

cavem above the infihrative surface (EPA, 1980). The wastewater is discharged into this

underground cavem via a central weir, trough, or splash plate and allowed to flow over

the entire infihrative surface. There is no masking due to gravel and there is a larger

storage volume than that available in a gravel system (Infiltrator, 1993). The Infiltrator®

has end plates that are screwed on and the other sections just slip together to make the

38
desired length. Several of these were installed in the Texas Panhandle and a field test

was conducted to determine their suhabiHty in a variety of soils and if the claim that they

could be sized at 60% of a conventional field was valid (Dix and May, 1997). A total of

42 systems were monhored, all of which were sized at 60% of the conventional field.

These fields were evaluated over a five-year period whh no failures or seasonal

variabilhy in performance noted. Since this evaluation, an additional 678 chamber

leaching systems were installed at the 60% criteria whh no failures reported.

Artificial Wastewater

Literature on artificial wastewater is rather limited and as a result, h was

necessary to use studies on actual septic tanks to determine the appropriate levels for

five-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total

Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total suspended solids (TSS) in an artificial wastewater

effluent. The ASTM Standard D 5905 (1997) describes a standard practice for the

preparation of an artificial wastewater that has characteristics similar to municipal

wastewater. This artificial wastewater procedure has the following ingredients: reagent

water, reduced calorie beer. Kaolin - USP grade, flour (general, all-purpose, bleached,

enriched, pre-sifted, wheat), ocean sahs, and a Triton X-100 solution. Table 2.2 is a

comparison of several studies that record actual and artificial wastewater constituents.

The artificial wastewaters had higher COD and BOD5 levels than those seen in actual

septic tanks. To use these artificial wastewaters, they must be diluted or the ingredients

reduced in order to mimic actual septic tank effluent.

39
Table 2.2. Wastewater Consthuents

Data Source Constituent Wastewater
BOD5 COD TKN TSS Type
(mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l)
Septic Tank
EPA (1980) 142 296 42 77 Effluent
Peeples and Septic Tank
Mancl (1998) 15-181 144-187 11-45 40-133 Effluent
Septic Tank
Keefer(1940) 57-96 31-202 Effluent
Septic Tank
Keefer(1940) 67-142 110-326 Influent
Peeples and Artificial
Mancl (1998) 700 114
ASTM Artificial
D5905 (1997) >570 3500 30 232

40
CHAPTER m

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

She Selection - Reese Center

As requested by the Texas On-She Wastewater Treatment Research Council, a

proposal for an onshe effluent disposal system was developed to determine if including

evapotranspiration from a drain field could reduce the drain field size. To enable a

comparison between different field types, the study included evapotranspiration (ET)

fields, absorption (AB) fields, and combination evapotranspiration/ab sorption (ETA)

fields. The proposed test facility included 18 fields, nine using clean water and nine

using wastewater. In each set of nine, 3-ET, 3-AB, and 3-ETA beds were included to

provide adequate replicates of each type. The order of these fields on the site was

determined by random selection.

The proposed system, which comprised artificial wastewater mixing tanks, septic

tanks, header tanks, and eighteen drain fields, was reviewed and a design developed. A

simplified process flow sheet is shown in Figure 3.1. Based on this design, the two-acre

plot, which is located approximately 11 miles west of the Texas Tech campus, at Reese

Center (formerly Reese Air Force Base) was surveyed. Using the survey information,

contour maps were generated. These contour maps were then used to place the eighteen

fields, control building, and septic tanks. A plan view of the test she is shown in Figure

3.2.

The she was staked for a control building, septic tanks, and drain field installation

along with electrical and water supplies. Then, eighteen field trenches having a width of
41
co •i -

iel
Q Q .H
o Pu o ^
h- H
M
•4—»
c« H /
^ u^
(L> (i> V
•4^
T3 \,

Hea
N
U X

H
a.
c/:i

a

3

0)
O
O

£

iJO

42
c
o
>

w
>

13
o
o

c
CO

H

3
00

43
36 inches, depth of 24 inches, and a length of 20 feet were exca\ated. These trenches are

spaced 26 feet apart centerline to centerline. A picture of a drain field trench can be seen

in Figure 3.3. Upon completion of the excavation, soil samples were taken and

infiltration rates predicted for all eighteen fields. After completion of the infihration test,

the constmction of the individual fields began.

When the fields were complete, the field piping was installed. Then, the

polyethylene tanks required for the system and their associated piping were placed. After

this, the control building was placed on location and the final plumbing and electrical

connections required for the system were installed.

Infiltrometer Test and Soil Survey

An infiltration test, beginning on June 24, 1999, and concluding on June 26, 1999,

was performed in each trench within hours of their excavation. In order to aid in the

interpretation of the test resuhs, two conttol evaporation units were placed on the bottom

of fields 8 and 17 The control units were used to determine the amount of evaporation

that occurred during the infiltration test. Three double-ring infihrometers were installed

in each trench to determine the infiltration rate. Units were shed at each end and mid

point of each trench as can be seen in Figure 3.4. Each infiltrometer consisted of a metal

inner ring (5.04 inches (128-mm) in diameter) and a PVC outer ring (8.07 inches (205-

mm) in diameter). The inner ring was driven 2.95 inches (75 mm) into the ground and

then the larger pipe set around h and driven approximately the same depth into the soil to

provide a water seal A 6-inch (15-cm) mler was attached to the inner ring to aid in

accurately measuring the level of water. Next the annulus between the rings was filled

44
Figure 3.3. Drain Field Trench

—^
>*^.;-.

X

,-i.'rX%.;;, V
»-«^

,-.^', '" • r

y.'-
' * - « • » _ • tr •»
',1
-«. . • - — „ • " ' . ^ "•*""^^

-"«'- .S.^
"/', .^'€ 2*^
-..••^:)ixl.-?^.
- ' •

;..^ 4 * , C^*:.-i*-c
" '* / -* ^,"T"^
"<?• •*•<
,*-".-

Figure 3.4. Double Ring Infiltrometers

45
with 2.12 quarts (2 Ihers) of well water and then the inner ring was filled whh 2.12 quarts

(2 Ihers) of water. An inhial infiltration rate (Stage I) was determined by monitoring the

level at 15 second intervals for a minute. After these measurements were complete, the

annulus received an addhional Iher of water and the inner ring received a volume that

would bring hs water level to 5.5 inches (14 centimeters) on the mler. This volume was

recorded for use in the calculations. Level readings were taken over the next few days to

determine Stage n and Stage HI infihration rates. The infihration rates were averaged

and a daily infiltration volume calculated for those drain fields that would not be lined.

These infihration rates are shown in Table 3.1 and the raw data used to determine them is

in Appendix A.

While the infihrometers were installed and the Stage I test mn, soil samples were

taken to a depth of 3 feet (0.915 m) below the trenches. The sampling was done in one-

foot (0.305 m) increments at a location near the downstream end of each trench. A hand

auger was used to obtain these samples and the sample designated for the full one-foot

range as mixing does occur. The soil samples were analyzed for the percentage of sand,

sih, and clay. Based on these percentages, the soils were classed according to the Texas

classification chart introduced in the soil section of the Iherature search and are tabulated

for the unlined fields in Table 3.2. In addition to determining the soil composhion, the

moisture content for each interval was determined and is also recorded in Table 3.2.

46
Table 3.1. Infiltration Rates for Unlined Drain Fields

Unit and Infiltration Rates ( mm/hr) Unh Std.
Type Avg. Dev. Infihration
Site A SiteB SiteC (mm/hr) (mm/hr) Vol. (gpd)

1 ABW 1.14 2.29 4.05 2.49 1.5 88

2AB 1.16 0.28 0.58 0.67 0.4 24

3 AB 1.73 0.58 0.38 0.90 0.7 32

4 ETAW 5.23 4.71 5.20 5.05 0.3 178

7 ETA 10.12 13.77 5.39 9.76 4.2 345

9 ETAW 7.19 12.10 3.16 7.48 4.5 264

11 ABW 1.97 2.95 0.81 1.91 1.1 67

12 AB 3.03 0.78 0.78 1.53 1.3 54

13 ABW 8.89 4.44 6.02 6.45 2.3 228

14 ETA 12.14 14.29 20.29 15.57 4.2 550

15 ETA 0.82 8.39 11.32 6.84 5.4 242

16 ETAW 14.00 22.00 16.89 17.63 4.1 623

Notes: 1. The infihration rates were determined after approximately 24 hours.

2. The unh average is the average of the three infihration rates.

3. Std. Dev. is the standard deviation for the infiltration rates.

A. The infihration volume is calculated using a bottom area of 60 ft .

47
Table 3.2. Soil Composhion, Classification, and Moisture Content

Unlined Sample Soil Composition Texas Moisture
Drain Depth (ft) Sand Sih Clay Soil Content
Fields Class (%)
1 ABW 0-1 56.94 21.32 21.75 m 12.5
1-2 60.79 18.99 20.22 • ii-m 11.3
2-3 77.54 11.22 11.25 n 11.0
2AB 0-1 57.84 17.80 24.36 III 10.1
1-2 60.21 18.00 21.79 III 10.6
2-3 68.82 15.60 15.57 II 10.2
3 AB 0-1 61.34 16.80 21.86 III 9.3
1-2 59.56 16.32 24.12 m 13.0
2-3 66.09 18.03 15.87 n 1.7
4 ETAW 0-1 61.49 21.96 16.55 II 8.5
1-2 57.38 16.47 26.16 III 12.9
2-3 67.60 18.62 13.78 II 7.2
7 ETA 0-1 61.64 21.58 16.78 II 9.6
1-2 61.21 14.32 24.47 III 8.7
2-3 68.34 16.18 15.47 II 8.1
9 ETAW 0-1 66.08 19.26 14.66 II 8.3
1-2 58.61 18.81 22.59 m 9.3
2-3 66.39 14.49 19.12 II 9.7
11 ABW 0-1 58.36 15.74 25.90 m 4.6
1-2 58.54 23.28 18.17 n 4.8
2-3 68.10 21.89 10.01 II 3.0
12 AB 0-1 58.68 19.38 21.95 ni 10.3
1-2 56.44 20.79 22.77 m 4.8
2-3 65.80 17.66 16.54 II 10.1
13 ABW 0-1 54.85 23.65 21.50 ni 7.7
1-2 48.25 20.70 31.05 ni 12.2
2-3 63.66 17.17 19.18 n 6.0
14 ETA 0-1 63.43 21.43 15.14 II 7.0
1-2 62.44 15.45 22.10 m 10.0
2-3 47.28 33.32 19.41 II 7.0
15 ETA 0-1 66.06 14.42 19.52 n 7.3
1-2 65.00 15.28 19.73 u 8.6
2-3 68.28 13.97 17.74 n 9.0
16 ETAW 0-1 64.59 17.60 17.80 n 8.5
1-2 62.49 10.81 26.70 m 11.4
2-3 62.14 19.91 17.95 n 11.8

48
Drain Field Constmction

The eighteen drain fields are divided into three sets: 6-ET, 6-ETA, and 6-AB

fields. Cross sections of these fields can be seen in Figure 3.5. The intemal portion of

each field has a 4" perforated PVC pipe mnning the length of the trench, whh 0.5-inch

perforations every 6 inches at the 4 and 8 o'clock poshions on the pipe. Figure 3.6 shows

three views of the intemal field piping. At each end of this pipe is a four way cross whh

perforated pipe to the bottom of the field and solid piping to the surface. There is a

support pipe in the middle to keep the 20-foot length of pipe level. The top of this pipe is

approximately 16 inches from the bottom. The perforated pipe to the bottom of the field

allows the fluid level in the field to equalize and be visually monhored at each end of the

field. Also, there is an addhional perforated pipe wrapped whh geotextile in which a

level sensing system is installed.

After installation of the piping within each drain field, the form designed to

enable the formation of a gravel bed in a hemispherical form was placed in the trench.

Figure 3.7 includes a cross section of a hemispherical gravel bed drain field used in Texas

(30 TAC §285.90). The 8-foot long form used in this project was constmcted using a

metal frame and paneling. A picture of this form can be seen in Figure 3.8. The paneling

was attached to the metal frame with an opening in the top for the gravel to fall through.

This frame was then moved manually down the trench to enable filling the gravel along

the entire 20-foot length. As the frame was moved, h was noted that the gravel did not

remain in the hemispherical shape but sought hs angle of repose resulting in an

approximate 25° slope from the horizontal. The gravel was placed to a depth to just

cover the 4 inch perforated effluent distribution line. DeWitt Mh-acle Mat (geotextile)

49
ETA Field

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

AB Field

Plastic Liner

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

ET Field

Plastic Liner

Backfill

Perforated Pipe

Geotextile Barrier

Gravel

Figure 3.5. Reese Drainfields - Cross Section Views

50
O
P-
o

e
c
a

N
u<
Q
C4-1
0 &u

ipin
^
u cu
>
•0
c u
W tu

vd a» a> «5
3 -tt > <w
«c «^ »S u
fS U O .g
I I
I

(iti to
C
c
•5,
(X
15
c c
• •-^
CO c
N4H >-.
o Q Q
CtH
o Cu
O
> c
o >
H Q
so
en
: o

51
BACKFILL son. USE TDP SFFACT ra?
CLASS lb OR n use SOIL aASS C«.CaATING E.T.
SOIL BACKFILL, FKLT. ORAINFIELI] SIZE
ASS I I BACKTIll
FDR ALL E.T. "

GEO TEXIILE
FABRIC 18-36
18-36
INDCS
INCHES
3-4 INCH DPTIDNAL
PERFORATED PIPE YBACK

12
INCHES POROUS MOIA
MINIMUM ffDTEXTlLE
FABRIC
E V a BOTIDM

h»—3FT. MAX-M Ltm
Bonm

MULTIPLE DRAINLINE DPTIDNS ABSIRPTIVE
SINGLE PIPE DRAWING OR LT. OPTIDN
ABSORPTIVE DR EJ. (EXCAVATION WIDTH > 3rT>
ABSORPTIVE DR E.T.
BACKFILL WITH SOIL aASS
lb DR I I ONLY

GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
BACKHLL WTH
CLASS IB DR I I m y
POROUS MEDIA OR
GRAVELESS PIPE

B OR 10 INCH
MWINALDIA
DISTRIBUTION PDt
GRAVELESS PIPE
VITHAPPRDVED
WRAP SOIL aASS lb OR I I

L£Va BOTHW
| « - 5 FT MIN — ^
SOIL SUBSTITUTION DRAINFELD CONSTRUCTED
OVER HIGHLY PERMEABLE GROUND
GRAVELLESS S I N a E PPE DRAINFELD (FRACTURED ROCK GRAVEL, GEOLOGIC FAULT)

Figures.?. Typical Drainfields
Source: Title 30 TAC §285.90,1997.

52
•X.

5b

> 1
was placed on top of the gravel bed prior to backfilling to prevent soil from plugging the

pores in the gravel. The backfilled soil was slightly mounded to assist in precipitation

runoff.

The ET fields are lined with 60-mil high-densit>- polyethylene (HOPE) plastic

manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. as can be seen in Figure 3.9. The Imer is

folded at the comers to maintain a good water seal in the trench. A circular hole was cut

in the upstream end of the plastic to install the piping for the incoming effluent. This

pipe was installed with a bushing assembly to seal the opening and then silicone was

placed around the bushing as a second leakage barrier. Figure 3.10 is a picture of the

pipe with bushing assembly.

The AB fields are covered with 60-mil HDPE plastic (Figure 3.11) that extends

13 feet either side of the field centerline and 7 feet past each end of the field to prevent

evaporation and the intrusion of precipitation. In the random placement of the fields,

three AB fields are adjacent to each other on each half of the installation, which enabled

the plastic cover to be spread over three fields without a seam. To enable the plastic

cover to lie flat, it was cut and forced down around the observation pipes and the level

sensing pipe (Figure 3.12). Afi:er the plastic was on the ground around these pipes, black

roofing tar was used to seal these openings.

Upon completion of all 18 fields, the piping to connect them to the clean water

and wastewater header tanks was installed. In a center ditch running the fiill length of the

field, 1-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping was placed for clean water supply,

wastewater supply, and wastewater retum. Spears 1-inch ball valves were installed at the

end of the wastewater piping and the clean water piping so that these lines could be

54
.^J"
'4 9 ^*

^

•-^fe

Figure 3.9. ET Field Lmer

aurc3.10. ET Pipe with Bushing
Fiiiurc
Fiiiure 3.11. AB Field Cover

Figure 3.12. AB Field Sensor and Observation Pipes

56
flushed to a large French drain installed at the end of the field. Then individual fields

were connected to the appropriate clean water or wastewater piping. Each field

connection consists of 1-inch PVC piping with a Spears 1-mch ball valve for positive

shut-off followed 20-pipe diameters downstream by a Hayward FloSite 2100 flowmeter

and then a Weather Matic 1-inch solenoid valve (Figure 3.13). This I-inch piping is

connected to the 4-inch drain field piping using PVC bushings.

Tanks and Suppiv Svstem

The tank system initially included two mixing tanks, a clean water storage tank, a

wastewater storage tank, and two gravity header tanks. While these tanks were being

installed, it was determined from the infiltrometer data that insufficient wastewater

storage volume was available for a three-day retention time and a second wastewater

storage tank was added. Later, a third wastewater storage tank had to be installed to

provide sufficient wastewater residence time to enable the remaining wastewater fields to

come on-line. During the initial start-up of the system, the gravity header tanks were

replaced with pressure header tanks.

The first tanks to be installed were the 750-gallon clean water tank and a 1500-

gallon wastewater tank (Figure 3.14). The 1500-gallon septic tank is divided into two

sections by a baffle, with the upstream side containing two-thirds of the volume. The

baffle came with a large hole for fluid passage about one third of the way down. Two

additional 2-inch holes were added at one-foot intervals starting 18 inches from the

bottom of the tank. The holes were added to enable flow to transfer from the upstream

side when the level required for a three-day retention time is below that of the main

57
Fiiiure 3.13. Field Valvinii

*' Figure 3.14. Septic Tanks

58
passage. Piping at the inlets and outlets of both septic tanks was completed to the extent

possible and readied for connecting to the piping from the water supply well and from

and to the control building. At this point, a second wastewater septic tank was installed

with its outlet connected to the inlet piping for the first (primary) wastewater septic tank.

The inlet piping to the primary tank was modified to enable either septic tank to receive

artificial wastewater by manually changing the position of two ball valves. As with the

primary tank, the baffle in this tank also received additional holes. All three septic tanks

were equipped with Sta-Rite 1/3-hp sump pumps to transfer water to the next tank

whether it is another septic tank or a header tank.

After the control building was placed on location, two 225-gallon mixing tanks

and two 65-gallon header tanks were placed in the building. These mixing tanks are

provided with a water source and piping for feeding the wastewater mixture to either of

the septic tanks by gravity or by pumping. The piping and valve system between the mix

tanks allows one tank to be filled while the other is drained to the septic tank and is done

by manually switching the correct valves. A Sta-Rite V2 hp centrifugal pump connected

inline is used to shorten the transfer time from a mixing tank to a septic tank. To aid in

cleaning the mix tanks, a drain line with ball valve is installed on each tank with the

drained fluid routed to a 1.5 inch main that empties into a small French drain to the north

of the control building.

Each of the original 65-gallon gravity header tanks was piped so that the water

entered near the top and exited near the bottom. The outlet piping from the primary

wastewater septic tank and the clean water septic tank is connected to the wastewater and

clean water header tanks respectively. Each header tank's outlet piping is connected to

59
its corresponding field piping. The wastewater field piping includes a retum line that was

connected near the top of the wastewater gravity header tank, but is now connected to the

combined inlet/outlet piping for the wastewater pressure header tank. A Sta-Rite Vi hp

centrifiigal pump is used to occasionally circulate the wastewater in the field piping to

prevent stagnation at the end of the field.

Level Control Svstem for Fields and Tanks

Level control systems, each consisting of three sensing probes (Figure 3.15), and

a relay (Omega LVC 511) switch that activates a solenoid valve (field) or pump (tank),

are installed in each field, each header tank, and in two of the septic tanks. One probe is

considerably longer and is the reference probe for the system since plastic pipes and tanks

are being used. The remaining two probes were cut to the appropriate lengths to maintain

the desired levels in the field or tank. In each drain field, the water level is maintained

within one inch of the top of the gravel envelope. Therefore, when the water level drops

one inch (i.e., below the low probe), the electrical circuit is opened and electrical power

is provided via the relay to the solenoid valve causing it to open and allow flow into the

field. As the water level rises to the point where contact was made with the high probe,

the electrical circuit is closed and the relay switch no longer supplies electrical power to

the solenoid valve and it closes. Three of the septic tanks are set up in a similar manner.

In the wastewater septic tanks, the sensing system activates a pump when the tank is

about half-full and then shuts off the pump near the top of the tank. The clean water

septic tank system activates and deactivates a solenoid valve to refill that tank with well

water. Both of the gravity header tanks are configured with even a wider range of

60
operation and in both cases, the system activates and deactivates a septic tank sump

pump.

The field level controls are operated on a 24-volt altemating current (VAC)

system with the 110 voltage reduced using ACME transformers. Six fields are connected

to each transformer in the following manner: fields 1 to 3 and 10 to 12 - first transformer;

fields 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 - second transformer, fields 7 to 9: 16 to 18 - third transformer.

The wiring used for the field sensors and relays is automated sprinkler s\ stem wire. A

shallow trench was dug in the top of each field to accommodate the wire for the sensors.

For each field, this wire is connected to the sensors and then attached to the relay socket

in the valve box located at the upstream end of the field. Additional wire was run

through the center trench to the control building to enable connection of the fields to their

respective transformers. In the tanks, the level controllers operate on 110 volts. Conduit

was run to each location where power is required and 12/3 Romex wire pulled through

the conduit. An on/off switch is installed for the 110 VAC sensing system in the primary

wastewater septic tank to enable manual filling.

Weather Station

A weather station (Figure 3.16) was installed to monitor several conditions used

in the calculation of evapotranspiration and in evaluating how the fields react to weather

changes. The weather station is a GroWeather manufactured by Davis Instruments

(Davis, 1997). This unit has an anemometer for measuring wind speed and direction.

Wind chill is calculated using the information from the anemometer and temperature

sensor. Air temperature, humidity, and dew point are measured using the combination

61
I igure 3.16. Weadier Station

62
temperature/humidity sensor. In addition, the Gro Weather measures solar radiation,

barometric pressure, and precipitation. Solar radiation for this unit is composed of the

direct component from the sun and a diffiise component from the sk>. In actualit\. the

Gro Weather measures atmospheric pressure and once the local barometric pressure is

entered, the unit converts atmospheric pressure to a local barometric pressure reading.

There is also a symbol indicating whether this pressure is steady, rising, or falling.

Precipitation is measured with a tipping bucket rain gauge accurate to 0.01 inch.

All the recorded weather information can be viewed by using the keyboard unit

mounted in the control building. A data logger is connected to this unit and records

weather conditions every thirty minutes and uses this data to calculate evapotranspiration

each hour. One time per day, the data logger is downloaded to a computer using the

CjroWeatherLink Software. The data downloaded to the computer is exported to a

computer disc at the end of each month.

The weather station is located on a pole cemented into the ground approximately

75 feet from the control building. In order to provide the correct wind values for the

Penman-Monteith evapotranspiration equation, the anemometer was installed 2 meters

above the surrounding area. A compass was brought to the site to aid in calibrating the

wind direction arrow. The barometric pressure was adjusted using the barometric

pressure measurements from a local television station. These were later verified with a

hand-held barometric pressure unit.

63
Artificial Wastewater

Based on the Standard Practice for the Preparation of Substitute Wastewater

(ASTM D 5905, 1997) and the known effluent values from actual septic tanks, which

were recorded in the literature review, an influent was prepared in the Environmental

Science Laboratory. After a three-day residence time, it was desired that this influent

would result in an effluent with 200 mg/l BOD5, 300 mg/l COD, 75 mg/l TKN, and 80

mg/l TSS. Using the standard (ASTM D 5905, 1997) resulted in an atypical effluent with

high COD and no TKN. Therefore, it was decided to add urea, as a nitrogen source, to

the recipe and make fiirther refinements to achieve an effluent that would closely mimic

the effluent from an actual septic tank. The ASTM and Texas Tech University recipes

are listed in Table 3.3 and influent constituents compared in Table 3.4.

Table 3.3. Artificial Wastewater Recipes

ASTM Texas Tech
Ingredient D5905 Ingredient University
Recipe Recipe
Reduced Calorie Anheuser-Busch
Beer Natural Light
240 ml/1 Beer 2.51 ml/1
All-Purpose
Flour Bleached/
Flour 800 mg/l Enriched 53 mg/l

Kaolin-USP 160 mg/l Kaolin-Filler 40 mg/l
Grade Grade

Ocean Salts 4000 mg/l Ocean Salts Omg/1

Triton X 40 ml/1 Triton X 24 mg/l

Urea Omg/1 Urea 65 mg/l

64
Table 3.4. Septic Tank Influent Constituents

ASTM Texas Tech
Wastewater D5905 (1997) University
Constituent Artificial Artificial
Wastewater Wastewater

65
CHAPTER rV

START-UP OPERATIONS

Original Program

For the originally proposed start-up program, the wastewater septic tanks were

seeded and artificial wastewater ingredients added. The mixture was allowed to sit for

five days to reach the desired BOD5 and TSS levels that would mimic an actual septic

tank effluent. Then, it was envisioned that all of the fields would be started

simultaneously. The volumes calculated for the initial loading of the wastewater fields

were based on a gravel porosity of 25%. After the initial loading, a schedule for mixing

artificial wastewater would be determined that would provide a three-day residence time

to maintain the wastewater strength and provide for the daily loading requirements.

Samples were to be taken weekly from the wastewater header tank and analyzed for TSS,

pH, conductivity, TKN, ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N), COD, and BOD5.

After reviewing the infiltrometer data and recognizing the higher gravel porosity,

a revised schedule was developed to bring the fields on in a staggered fashion over a six-

day period. The process was designed to maintain a fairly balanced request from the

artificial wastewater septic tank. In this procedure, the following analyses were to be

performed after the fields began coming on-line. For the clean water fields, COD and

TSS would be monitored on a weekly basis with BOD5 monitored on a biweekly basis.

In the case of the wastewater, daily samples would be collected from the header tank and

analyzed for COD, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), TKN, NH4-N, and a fiill solids

complement, which included total solids (TS), TSS, total dissolved solids (TDS), total

66
volatile solids (TVS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), and volatile dissolved solids

(VDS). A weekly analysis would be done for BOD5. The wastewater fields would be

sampled at both upstream and downstream locations and these samples anal) zed for COD

and TSS. Weekly samples would be taken at both locations and analyzed for BOD5

content. This sample regimen would be reduced at a later time to daily samples for COD

and TSS at the wastewater header tank and a weekly sample for BOD5. The wastewater

fields would be sampled weekly at upstream and downstream locations for COD, BOD5,

and TSS. A sampling schedule would be determined for the clean water fields based on

results during the early days of operation.

Modified Program

One of the first four fields was brought on-line using the revised procedure

described in the previous section. However, a problem was noted with the flowmeter and

solenoid valve operation. Electronic interference was the cause and was eliminated by

moving the two units fiirther away from each other within the valve box. The system was

started again with four fields coming on-line, three clean water and one wastewater. This

time, the drain fields saturated rapidly and it was determined that there was insufficient

pressure to operate the solenoid valves. As a result, pressure header tanks were installed

and the fields were gradually brought on-line.

All of the clean water fields were brought on-line within a ten-day period. With

the wastewater fields, the three-evapotranspiration fields were the first to be brought on-

line. After these fields had been on-line a few days, additional wastewater fields were

started. In starting the additional wastewater fields, the wastewater demand was

67
monitored closely to maintain a three-day residence time in the septic tanks. Ulien a new

field was brought on-line, the residence time would sometimes drop to two days for a few

days. After bringing six wastewater fields on-line, the daily loading was at the limit for

maintaining the three-day residence time and remained that wa> for almost a month. At

that time, the seventh field was brought on-line. As it became apparent that the actual

infiltration rates occurring in the ABW and ETAW fields were substantially different

from those calculated using the infiltrometer tests, it was determined that a third

wastewater septic tank would be required to enable the remaining fields to come on-line

in a timely manner. The two remaining wastewater fields were brought on-line after the

third 1500-gallon tank was installed. A detailed description of the start-up operations and

the modifications made to the system is located in Appendix B.

The final system layout for the wastewater includes two mixing tanks (Figure

4.1), three 1500-gallon septic tanks, and a pressure header tank (Figure 4.2) to provide

the effluent to the drain fields. On the clean water side, the system comprises a 750-

gallon septic tank and a pressure header tank to provide clean water to the drain fields.

Detailed layout drawings of the final configuration for the tank system and drain fields

are located in Appendix C.

After start-up, samples were collected twice a week from the wastewater drain

fields and header tank. COD was measured twice each week, BOD5, TKN, pH, TSS and

other solids were measured once a week, and major cations and anions were measured

every other week. Clean water drain field samples were taken on a bi-weekly basis and

analyzed for COD, TKN, and major cations and anions. The clean water septic tank was

sampled weekly and the COD and TKN measured.

68
Figure 4 1. Mixir.ii Tanks

Figure 4.2 Pressure Tanks

69
Fill Volumes

During the filling phase of the drain fields, it was observed that the loading

volume required was two to three times larger than what was predicted. Part of the

additional volume was due to the soil being dry and it was suspected that the remainder

might be a result of the gravel porosity being greater than 25%. Therefore, a porosity test

described by Kaplan (1991) was conducted using some of the gravel used in the field.

Kaplan (1991) recommended that the test be performed without tamping or shaking the

gravel as described in the ASTM method, since the gravel in the drain field was not

tamped or shaken. The test was done by filling a one-liter container with gravel and then

water from a one-liter measure was added to the gravel filled container. This procedure

was repeated with three separate containers of gravel with water being added and drained

from each container four times. The first fill for each container provided a porosity

without the gravel being shaken and the average of the three containers was 48%. Each

separate container yielded shaken/settled porosities of 41%, 43%, and 42% with an

overall average of 42%. Apparently the gravel used at Reese Center is more uniform in

size than was expected. Using the new porosity figures resulted in fill volumes of 226

gallons, almost double the original prediction of 115 gallons.

Clean Water Fields

The daily demands from the clean water AB and ETA fields increased gradually

within days of being brought on-line. As this increase was being observed, it appeared

that the moisture level in the soil surrounding the ETA fields was increasing. A weekly

survey was conducted in which the obviously moist areas around each were roughly

70
measured. These areas grew from week to week and in a couple of areas, almost met in

the open ground between fields, a distance of 13 feet from the field centerline. With the

increasing saturation zone, it was suspected that there could be interference with the

wastewater fields nearby. A soil moisture analysis was conducted in the accessible area

of the field with 13 samples being collected at the midway point between fields or 9 feet

downstream in the case of #9 and #18. These samples were collected from auger holes

approximately 3.25 inches in diameter and at a depth of 24 inches. This analysis

confirmed that the moisture level down slope of the ETA's was approximately 20%,

about twice that of the base level. In addition, the soil was glistening due to the salts

from the water. Based on this analysis and the fact that the well pump was operating at

50 % capacity without all the fields being on-line, it was decided to take the clean water

AB and ETA fields off-line. As a result, the current field operation has all nine

wastewater drain fields and the three clean water evapotranspiration drain fields on-line.

The gravimetric water content, location of sample, and status of each field at the time of

the soil test are shown in Table 4.1.

As a result of the lateral saturation with the clean water fields, the wastewater

ETA fields were observed and all of them had some of the same tendencies. However,

the area being saturated is approximately one-fourth to one-third of that noted with the

clean water fields. A soil moisture analysis of these areas has not been performed and as

a result, actual moisture content is not known.

71
Table 4.1 Soil Moisture Content

Sample Location Gravimetric Water Field Status
Content (%)

3 AB-4 ETAW 12.31 3 AB - on-line / 4 ETAW - off-line

5ETW-6ET 11.98 5 ETW - on-line / 6 ET - on-line

6 ET - 7 ETA 13.52 6 ET - on-line / 7 ETA - on-line

7 ETA - 8 ETW 20.85 7 ETA - on-line / 8 ETW - on-line

8 ETW - 9 ETAW 10.01 8 ETW - on-line / 9 ETAW - off-line

D/Sof9ETAW 9.38 9 ETAW - off-line

l O E T - 1 1 ABW 13.46 10 ET - on-line /11 ABW - on-line

13 A B W - 1 4 ETA 20.77 13 ABW - off-lme / 14 ETA - on-line

14 E T A - 1 5 ETA 19.66 14 ETA - on-line /15 ETA - on-line

15 E T A - 1 6 ETAW 16.29 15 ETA - on-line / 16 ETAW - on-line

16 E T A W - 1 7 ETW 14.32 16 ETAW - on-lme /17 ETW - on-
line

D/Sofl8ET 9.48 18 ET-on-line

72
Dailv Operation

The daily operation of the research project involves recording the totalizer

readings for each drain field and the one on the wastewater septic tank outlet. In addition

to these readings, a set of readings is taken from the weather station monitor as a back up

to the weather data logger system. These readmgs are taken at the same time each day to

provide more consistent data for analysis. Daily field demands are determined and

plotted on weekly graphs, which allows rapid detection of major changes.

Artificial wastewater is mixed twice daily and drained to the septic tanks. By

mixing twice each day, the wastewater strength is maintained at a relatively constant

level. Samples of the wastewater fields and header tank are collected twice per week

with the clean water septic tank sampled once per week and the clean water drain fields

only sampled on a bi-weekly basis. Once each month, the weather data that has been

downloaded from the weather station is exported to a separate disc to provide a back-up

copy should the power fail.

Appendix D includes the form used for the daily readings. In addition, the

procedures for mixing the artificial wastewater, for sampling the drain fields and header

tanks, and for downloading the weather data are included. Afinalprocedure located in

Appendix D is the one for tapping the keg.

73
CHAPTER V

PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

Predicted Infiltration Rates versus Actual Demand Rates

The predicted infiltration rates for the clean water fields based on infiltrometer

test data were a fraction of observed flow rates during actual operation. The wastewater

fields however had a closer agreement between the test and actual values. Using the test

infiltration values would have eliminated most of the proposed drain fields, since the

EPA (1980) recommended that conventional trench and bed designs not be installed in

soils having a percolation rate slower than 60 minutes/inch. This research project has ten

of twelve absorption drain fields with a slower rate, ranging from 150 to 2300

minutes/inch. However, while in service, the six clean water fields took anywhere from 2

to 65 times what the infiltration numbers indicated, which was within the 45 to 1100

range for clean water absorption reported by Kaplan (1991).

Such a wide variation in calculated versus actual infiltration rates could be caused

by a combination of items. First, since the values for soil texture and infiltration rates did

not correspond to the EPA (1980) numbers, there was an indication that either the soil

stmcture or clay mineralogy was having a significant effect on hydraulic conductivity or

that the methodology used in the infiltration test was not representative. Second, the fact

that infiltration rates were only calculated for the bottom surface of the drain field

resulted in smaller volumes. Since these systems are operating with a liquid level of

approximately 16 inches, adding the sidewall infiltrative surface area doubled the total

infiltrative surface for each drain field from 60fi:^to 121 ft^. In addition, the added

74
hydraulic head could more than double the infiltration rate as recorded by Winneberger

(1974). Fourth, the EPA (1980) stated that infiltration rates varying by more than 20

minutes/inch should not be averaged since the variation was indicative of different soil

types. Every drain field in the project reflected variations of more than 20 minutes/inch

amongst its three test sites. A maximum infiltration volume using the highest infiltration

rate could have been used. However, even in that case, the calculations would have been

approximate as too many other factors described above also impact these rates.

Using the calculated infiltration rates, the daily infiltration volumes were

predicted for the AB and ETA drain fields. All of the clean water fields exceeded the

predicted volumes by a considerable amount as can be seen by comparing data in Table

3.1 with the graphs in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. A conclusive comment could not be made

about the wastewater fields due to the impact of solids in the effluent and the

development of a biomat at the infiltrative surface. The graphs for the wastewater AB

and ETA fields are shown in Figures 6.3 and 6.4. Field loading data is located in

Appendix E.

An attempt to determine if a correlation exists between the predicted infiltration

rates and the actual infiltration rates for the AB and ETA fields was performed. Two

qualifying statements must be made as background before describing any possible

correlation. First, as can be seen in the demand graphs for these fields, a stabilized

demand rate had not been achieved for either the clean water or wastewater fields.

Second, the fact that there were only three data points resulted in a weakly defined trend.

To properly define a trend, a minimum of four data points are needed with the best

situation having 5 to 9 data points. As a consequence, these possible correlations are

75
(N
<N m —
-a -o •o
u 0) o
u. u. u.
1 11 5
!
1 t

^ .
4-

%;
^

%;
^

en

%;.
PQ o
<

03

e %;.

^v !»
O -a
(U
• v4
Pu
m
<
-pu
%
<SJ
a0)
Q
>%
%. *3
J^ Q
^
VO
(U
;->
3
^^. 00
;r
(pdS) paBinsQ Ja^c^v

76
r^ — —
12 2 2
a> a> u
cJu ii. iZ

%;
^

%.
^

^.
4^

2
%;.
o

R es
^..
&
R

CO
% T3
o a>
UH

<
H
U
%;
1
O
ca
s
o
O
>>

^^v> 'S
<r D
c>i
VO
(U
VM
3
O o o o o o o ^ .
;r
o o o o o o
o o 00

(pdS) paenidci -oit^AV

77
^-. fO
"-" —~ ^
• o T3 -o
(L> 0) D
ii.
u. u.
1 1 s
i

11 1

4^
as
O

CQ
<

c
CO

£
Q
C3

Q

VO
<D
3

(pdS) poBinda J9)eAid)SB^

78
VO \
Tj- o

- Field

Field
-Field
1 «

2

H
es

<

§
e
Q

Q
'^'
v6
Li
3
00

(pdS) puemaQ jaicMaise^

79
highly suspect. A review of the correlation attempts seen in Figures 6.5 to 6.8 indicated

that little correlation exists as the trend lines had both positive and negative slopes. The

clean water correlations are worse than the wastewater ones. With the infiltrometer test

conducted with clean water, the fact that a correlation appears to exist for the wastewater

fields is coincidental.

LTAR Comparisons

Comparisons were made with the Texas LTAR for absorptive fields and the

loading rates observed at the research project for the ETA and AB fields (Figures 6.9 to

6.12). Texas's LTAR is based on the bottom infiltrative area plus one foot up the

sidewall around the entire perimeter (30 TAC §285.3-.33, 1999) whereas the project

infiltrative surface includes the bottom area and 16 inches up the sidewall. The high

hydraulic head for the fields in the research project results in higher loading rates being

achieved. However, a review of the comparison revealed that the loading rates are

substantially higher than what is recommended for a Class II soil within Texas (30 TAC

§285.3-.33,1999) and indicated that these figures are quite conservative.

A review of the field data for the precipitation event that occurred on October 18,

1999, revealed that the loading rates for ETA fields of both types dropped. The decrease

in the wastewater field demand was equivalent to a loading rate of 0.248 gpd/ft^, which is

essentially equal to the LTAR of 0.25 gpd/ft^ for a Class II soil in Texas. This resuh

indicated that the combination of evapotranspiration and absorption could potentially

reduce the drain field size in an arid to semi-arid climate. In comparing the current

demand rates for the wastewater AB fields to that for the ET fields, the reduction in size

80
Clean Water AB Fields R^ = 03177

a.
w

es
£

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.5. AB Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

Clean Water ETA Fields
R2 =0.8331

1250

1200 -^N^: •
a.
w
en 1150
08
1100
c
es
£ 1050
a
1000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.6. ETA Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

81
Wastewater AB Fields
R2 = 0.9963
250

•o 200
Q.

^^^
K
V
-^tf
150
C8
OS
•o 100
e
e:
S 50
Q

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.7. ABW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand

Wastewater ETA Fields
R2 = 0.786
i 400
1
I

1 350 ^
^^
IS
300
j ec
GA 250
a>
0 8 200
<
— •
«
•o 150
s
08
100
50
0
0 200 400 600 800
Predicted Infiltration Rates (gpd)

Figure 6.8. ETAW Correlation - Predicted versus Demand
82
<N
<N m

LTAR
- Field

- Field
-Field
11 ' 1

1

. 66-N

66-N

- 66-N

2
. 66-0

<

es
es
s - 66-0
es a
9i

<
H
- 66-0 m
a
X
(U
H
3

i.- 66-0 >

a:
00
c
66-S 13
O
CO
<
ON
VO
66-S
00 VO -^ 3
00
(*y*bs /pdS) 9|FH Soipeoq

83
2 <
IZ

66-N

66-N

66-N

2
"a*
b 66-0
H
Cis]

V

66-0 ©
e
es
<
H

66-0 X
d)
H
3

>
66-0

c
•T3
C3
O

66-S <

VO
66-S
00
3
(N VO <N 00

{^ *bs /pdS) 3)6^ Soipeoq

84
— m
2 2 2 <
o (u a> ^
iZ iZ cZ J

- ' 5
00-J

00-J

J J 00-i

00-J
' ^ "^

00-f

-^--^ ^ i 00-f

00-f

on 00-f
2
00-f
*x^ »
V 66-a
es 9i
'*^
1
66-a ^
Vi
es 1 (
)
7
I Qi
1 / J
66-a <

J
^[j,^ 66-a
X
o
66-N C/3
3
W5
h.
- - - - 66-N >
u
•ti
66-N a:
00
66-N c
^03
O
66-N J
^
66-0 <
1
^
66-0
VO
1 ^ ^ ^ — 1, 1
0)
• 1 H ^ \ _ 66-0 3
ON oo VO u^ m cs OO
b
(•y-bs /pdS) 3JEH SmpBoq

85
VO
I Tt o — ^
i2 2 2 <
I D U 0) ^
IZ E iZ J

2

H
u
V
es
es
Q
an
es <

Vi
a
X
(U
H
M
3

i-i
>

00
c
'•3
CO
o
<
H
W

vd
ui
— O 00 NO »o m 3
o ts — 00
(Tl'bs /pdS) d|BH Snipeoq

86
appeared to be on the order of 10%. However, with horizontal capillary action adding to

the evaporative area for an ETA field, the size reduction was probably closer to 30%.

For the ET fields, a comparison was made with evapotranspiration values for

Colorado (Bennett and Linstedt, 1978), Toronto (Bemhart, 1973), and Chesapeake Bay

(Lomax and Lane, 1979). These comparisons can be seen in Figures 6.13 and 6.14. The

loading rates for the ET fields compared reasonably well with the data for fields in

Toronto and Chesapeake Bay. However, the vegetation on the fields at Reese Center is

not well established and the results after another year of operation may indicate that

higher loading rates can be achieved.

Climatic Effects

In reviewing the flow rate charts for all fields, it was possible to note some effects

caused by changes in climate. For the ET fields, it is quite evident when a major

precipitation event occurs, as the daily demand drops to approximately zero. Two such

events are seen on the daily demand graphs for the ET fields (Figures 6.15 and 6.16). A

clearer example of this can be seen in Figure 6.17, where the recorded flow rates and the

precipitation amounts for a week in mid-October 1999 are depicted. Even for the ETA

fields, it is obvious that a precipitation event occurred as seen in Figure 6.18 for the same

week.

Since the weather data recorded to date is still in a raw form, it is difficult to be

definitive on changes due to variations in temperature. However, in the ET fields, lower

flow rates were detected from about mid-December to mid-February when temperatures

were low, but flow rates are increasing as the temperature mcreases. Figure 6.19 is a

87
>>
X
A^

.*.
u
.:^
o oc T3 o u
VO c

oron
b.
•o T3 •o cr

iel

iel
u • ^ 1>

u. ~ u. ^/ r- o

II

en

2

H
*^
es

e
es V3

c

o

CO
3

>

00
a
o
H
PQ

m
VO

o O o o o o O
o 00 VO o 3
c5 00
(•y-bs /pdS) a|BH SnipBoq

88
es

U
>/-> 00 — re •g c
ra
S :2 2 c o
O i> 1> "2 g

II
£ iZ iZ '

Vi

H

es

•«rt
c
•4->

O
o

3
en
t-i

>

00

o

H

VO

3
op
(-^j'bs /pdS) 9|e^ Soipeoq

89
o 00
; VO ^- —
•o "O T3
<u 0) ii
tu u. U.

11 f

%
<y
%.
^
%.
^
^O.

2

(id %;
u
a
*^ ^cr. es
es
s
es %;

%;

%;

^ . 2
%;

%;
-a
^ . c
b s
%; Q
b
CO
^ .
b
%;. Q

vd
^^. 3
<r 00

(pdS) pneoida ja^CAV

90
r^
«/^ oc

eld
ield

eld
r w
— —
1 4

1

^a
%.

^^.

%.

%.

Vi
%.
^
2
% .
••
H
^..
9i
es es
%;

^.

%;

%; 2
^ .

^ .
-3
^ . C
E
^ .
b
%;.
b
%; VO
b
%;
b o
ob
o o O q o q %;
o o o b
o
(pdS) paeiQdQ jaiCMdise^

91
tati
o oo t^
o — «/^ 0 0 •~ c
•a T3 -a -o -o -a 3
o o o u u u o
'- u. /.^

(i^Bp/ui) noi^eiidpajJ
11H S3 S
f
^ .35 m CN
ITi U-i
O
o o o O O O O

ON
en
CM
2
H
O^
• * * o
e ^_
<N
>
o
^"^
S
o ON
ON 4^

Dat
0/20
(J
""^

ON V3
ON
-o
ON U
;"* PH
O

ntET
ON
ON u
>
00
>—1
w
3
o O
)itat

ON
ON
'o
(U

VO

O o o m m 3
00
(pdS) pnBinaQ

92
c
o
T VI vc re
f~- c
•o
— — ""
-o -o -o o
u u

•ic
•ie
(Xep/ni) aope;idp3Jj 11 1 < V
ic

in in m tn
«*i <s o

ON
ON
m

Ov

<N

2
ON
ON
<

>
Ed
e ON
o ON
O es
Q

ON Vi
5N
ON 2
<
H
ON
c
>
OO

C
o

ON
ON

00

VO

o o o o o o o o o 3
o
ON
o
00
o
t^
o
NO o
yr, o
Tt o o
C^l o
^^
m op
(pdS) pncmaa 11^

93
%.

^a
%.

^a
^a
%.

^a
^a
^a.^
Of)
^a./ •
es

< 4>
•*rt
es
Q
H %..
Ed
%;
es

•*^ ^ .
Vi

%;

%;

%;

%;
B
^ . Q

%;
tu
%; 00
b
^ . >
b <

^ . ON
b
O q q O o o q O
O
q o q ^ .
b
06 vo' o 00" o 3
00
(pdS) pneoidQ J3)CM3|se^

94
graph of the average ET values for all three wastewater ET fields. The daily flow rates in

the wastewater ETA fields are still too large to detect changes due to temperature.

Clean Water Field Phenomenon

All the AB and ETA fields had a high initial daily volume as shown in Figures 6.1

to 6.4, which was due to the fill and initial saturation volumes. However, the clean water

AB and ETA fields developed an interesting trend by dropping to a lower rate for 3 to 9

days after the initial fill and then beginning a gradual increase. This trend was similar to

that reported by Winterer (1922, 1923) in laboratory and field tests. However, in tiiis

research project the level declined for less than the 10 days experienced by Winterer

(1922, 1923) before beginning an increasing trend that continued until these fields were

taken off-line, 45 days versus 25 days. Several of the clean water fields appeared to be

reaching a plateau after being in operation about 45 days.

Sample Analvsis

As proposed, samples were collected from the wastewater header tank and fields,

and from the clean water fields and their septic tank. The samples collected from the

wastewater systems are used to monitor wastewater quality and treatment. The analyses

performed for the wastewater and clean water samples are shown in Table 6.1.

95
Table 6.1. Sample Analyses

Wastewater Analyses Clean Water Analyses

BOD5

COD COD

TKN TKN

TSS

pH

Major Cations and Anions Major Cations and Anions

In reviewing the analyses of the samples, several graphs were developed to more

easily present the data, which is listed in Appendix F. The BOD5 graphs for the

wastewater fields have similar trends for each set of replicates as can be seen in Figures

6.20 to 6.22. As expected, the BOD5 measurements for the ET fields are less than those

for the AB and ETA fields as more treatment of the wastewater is taking place. A graph

of all three-field treatments with the mean and standard deviation shown can be seen in

Figure 6.23. In this figure, it is apparent that the AB and ETA fields performed in a

similar manner with the ET fields having BOD5 measurements at approximately 50% of

these other treatments. The analyses results for the ETA and ABfieldsmimic that seen

in the wastewater header tank at this point, because these fields replace 50% or more of

the storage volume in the gravel each day.

Similar results were seen with the COD analyses for the wastewater fields and

these are depicted in Figures 6.24 to 6.26. The COD standard deviation graph (Figure

6.27) had similar trends to those in the BOD5 graph. A review of the clean water ET
96
2 <<
< — m

II
^a
*^

^a
^

^o.
^

^a
^

^a
/•

^a
/*

^o.
an
r
2 %.
^

CQ %;
V <?
es ^ x «

<? i
Vi
es
^
%;
fi
<?
fi
^.
o O
CQ
^^.
4^
^^. ffl
4- <
^
^^-.
4-
<^.
4^ C/3
CO
^
^^.
4- 1
«r>
<3fr Q
^b O
m
% o
VO
%;
O
3
o o o o
o o ^ . .SP
o tJU
W1
o
(i/Sin) aoa

97
^ ^ <
< < h-
h- E- UJ
u:
•rr
uj NO
ON

1 1 •£

^a^^
^a
^

^a^
^a^
%
••
^a y^

^^
2 /-

^a/ "
H
%;
(?
es
%; «
*^
Vi >^
Q fii
es
^v.
Q
o <%;

CQ (?
"^^^
4- <
^^. H
4^ W
ui
%;
CO
4^
Vi
4^ CO
^
^^.
4- 1
<s^ Q
^b O
ffl
%; .
O (N
VO
^ .
o U
3
^
o o
o
O o
o
o
»n %; op
CNJ O E
(i/3in) aoa

98
^ * ^
ua h- S-,
t-, UJ w l
— tn oo

1 1 <

^d?.

^a
^a
%.

% .
•r
^o..
^

Vi
^a.
/"

2 ^a.
fa y^

H
Ed %;.
u
V
es %;

w
es %;
<?
<%;
o
sa
%;
4^
%;
V
%; H—>
CO

^ .
V to
CO

%.

<%; Q
b O
ffl
%;
b fN

VO
%;
b <u
i-l
3
o o o o o
o o o o o %; 00
00 VO 00 NO b
(i/Sm) aoa

99
< ^ ^
r- m H
Lu < u:

I If

Vi

2
fa 3
V .2
es 2
'>
en es Q
es
CO
T3
o 3
CO
••->
00
•TD
3
CO
3
CO

CO

to
CO

I

Q
O
ffl

(N
VO

3
00

(i/3ui) aoa

100
5 <<

M
^^.

%

%

%

%

^a.
y

^o.
2 y
"aS
fa %.
CQ V
<
V \
•«^
es
%;_ es
Vi
es
^ .
fi
o
u ^ .

^ .
4- ffl
^ . <

CO
%;


CO
%;

%; Q
b O
U
%;
b ^"

%; VO
b (U
3
00
o o o o o O o o
o »n o »n o vn »n
o

(l/3ra) ao3

101
^ ^ <
< < ^
H H L:
Li: LU VO
•^ ON —

I 'I
^a
^a
^a
^a
%.

^a.
/*
»3
2
"3
^^.
y
fa
<
H
fa
u
es
9i %;.
• *

Vi
*
fi
%;
fi
o
%.

^ .
4^ <

^.
W
0)
CO
<%;

Vi
CO
%;

%. Q
b O
U
%;
b CNj

%; so
b <u
u<
3
00
o o o o O o o o
o »n o »n vn
o o

(l/3ra) aOD

102
UJ PJ r-
«n 00 —

I 'I
^ ^^ .

cc ^ <^a

^O.
J^^ ^ ^O.
'^ y^ %.

S^^'^S^
/ <^s
^,. i >
Vi
2"53
fa
V C-C
H
fa <<c^'=^^
u
Si
'es

•^^
Vi
^~"^^^^sr\ <%•,

Q
0)
es
fi
- = 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " ^
^z^^^^
es
%;
fi
o
^.

'^ ^^=^r-i
%;

^
4^
^.

- ^ ^
<%;

^^^7
"
^^^
^5
^
CO
^.
V

— - ^
_
_-=
.^
^
i - ^ - ^
%;

%;
b
b
Q
O
U

^. vd
b tu
3
00
o o o O o o o
«n o «n »n o >n
en fn o
(l/3in) a 0 3

[03
< * »
L: < u:

VI

"a*
fa
u
• ^ * c
es _o
2
es es >
fi tu
Q
fi
CO
o c