Document text
Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
Special Programs
Graduate School, U SD A
ftT D H 'iO
, M5
(Hopy- Q-
AGRICULTURAL
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
FIELD
MANUAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Trade names or proprietary names are used in this
publication solely to provide specific information.
Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee
or warranty of the product by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and does not imply either a recommendation
for its use or an endorsement over comparable products.
This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain
recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here
have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate
State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.
CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,
desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife — if they are not handled or applied
properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended
practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
rouow TMB UAMU '
(| t. Simtaial 31 tllltUltL'K
August 1975
PREFACE
This manual presents information, data, and guidelines for plan-
ning, designing, and operating agricultural waste management systems.
It is intended for use by field offices of the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) . It supplements but does not supersede national or state
standards, specifications, or requirements of SCS as they pertain to
various conservation practices.
Every effort has been made to render this manual as accurate, use-
ful, and nearly complete as possible. For this reason, there is some
overlapping of materials in the various chapters. It should be noted
too that research and field experience continually provide improvements
in basic data and concepts for agricultural waste management. Because
of such rapidly changing technology and also in order to provide data to
the field as quickly as possible, further refinement of the manual has
not been attempted at this time.
It is expected that state or regional additions will be made to
various chapters of the text to conform with local, state, and regional
waste management standards, laws, rules, and regulations, as well as
experience .
This manual was developed under the guidance of John T. Phelan,
former director, and Neil F. Bogner, director, Engineering Division,
SCS, Washington, D.C.; and prepared by the Agricultural Waste Manage-
ment Field Manual Committee, consisting of the following members:
Charles E. Fogg, chairman, sanitary engineer, Engineering Division,
Washington, D.C.
Glenn E. Stucky, water management engineer, Engineering and Watershed
Planning Unit, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania
Richard Patronsky, water management engineer, Engineering and Water-
shed Planning Unit, Lincoln, Nebraska
Grant W. Woodward, water management engineer (ret.). Engineering and
Watershed Planning Unit, Lincoln, Nebraska
William F. Long, water management engineer (ret.), Engineering and
Watershed Planning Unit, Portland Oregon
Edward L. Alexander, water management engineer, Engineering and Water-
shed Planning Unit, Fort Worth, Texas
Specialists who compiled the various chapters or parts
are credited in the table of contents for each chapter.
thereof
400726
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Laws, Rules, and Regulations
Chapter 2 Water Quality
Chapter 3 Municipal Waste Water Treatment
Chapter 4 Waste Characteristics
Chapter 5 The Role of Soils in Waste Management
Chapter 6 The Role of Plants in Waste Management
Chapter 7 Geologic Considerations in Waste Management
Chapter 8 Fish and Wildlife Aspects of Waste Management
Chapter 9 Livestock and Poultry Waste Management
Systems
Chapter 10 Food Processing Waste Management Systems
Chapter 11 Land Application of Wastes
Chapter 12 Waste Management System Components
Chapter 13 Solid Waste Management
Chapter 14 Pesticides and Other Chemicals
Chapter 15 Waste Management Equipment
Chapter 16 Monitoring and Sampling
Conversion Factors and Tables
Glossary
Dfpr
^ 770AM/ 4np,FJGRlCULTURr
OF
/lr,R!CuLTURAL
LIBR/\Ry
AUG
12
CATALOt
GIRq _
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 1. LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
Compiled by R. C. Barnes, Jr., assistant director. Engineering Division,
SCS, Washington, D.C.
Contents
Page
Federal Responsibility 1-1
Air 1-1
Water 1-1
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System... 1-2
Feedlot Effluent Guidelines and Standards 1-2
Solid Waste 1-4
State Responsibility 1-4
Appendix: Short Form B and General Instructions 1-5
1-1
CHAPTER 1. LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS
1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal regula-
tory agency responsible for controlling air and water pollution,
drinking water quality, solid waste management, pesticide uses, envi-
ronmental radiation, and noise. The broad legislative authorities
given EPA to deal with air and water pollution and solid waste manage-
ment have special interest for SCS.
AIR
The federal government’s authority began with the Air Pollution
Act of 1955 authorizing federally funded air pollution research. Later
legislation included the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act of 1965,
the Air Quality Act of 1967, and the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Clean
Air Act provides for uniform air quality standards and control of emis-
sions from existing facilities. Also, it prohibits construction of new
facilities that violate or interfere with federal or state regulations
for air quality standards.
WATER
Federal legislation for water quality began with the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1886 and 1889. A national policy for prevention, con-
trol, and abatement of water pollution was established in 1948 with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This act was amended in 1956.
The federal role in water pollution control was enlarged by the Water
Quality Act of 1965, the Clear Water Restoration Act of 1966, and the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970.
The most far-reaching legislation came with Public Law 92-500,
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the objective
of which is to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integ-
rity of the nation's water. To achieve this objective, the law sets a
national goal of no discharge of any pollutants into navigable waters
of the United States by 1985.
The 1972 law's basic requirement is that operators of point source
discharges, such as those from industrial and municipal facilities,
feedlots, and other discrete significant sources, must obtain a permit
specifying allowable amounts and constituents of effluents and a
schedule for achieving compliance
States are required to develop a comprehensive planning process
for water quality management. Plans must include not only controls
for point source pollution but also controls for diffuse land runoff
and other nonpoint (accumulative) source pollution.
1-2
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Procedures to be followed by EPA in processing and issuing permits
under NPDES were published in the Federal Register on May 22, 1973, and
became effective immediately. Many categories and classes of agricul-
tural and silvicultural operations are excluded from the permit system.
These exclusions apply to smaller, insignificant discharges, which in-
clude minor irrigation return-flow discharges and runoff from fields
and from crop and forest lands.
To help determine who must apply for a permit, the specific in-
structions for Short Form B — Agriculture include a listing of types and
numbers of animals held for 30 days or more annually in confined animal
production facilities:
Slaughter steers and heifers 1,000 or more
Dairy cattle 700 or more
Swine over 55 lb 2,500 or more
Sheep 10,000 or more
Turkeys (open lots only) 55,000 or more
Laying hens or broilers
(constant flow watering) 100,000 or more
Laying hens and broilers
(liquid manure handling system).- 30,000 or more
Ducks 5,000 or more
Equivalent combinations of these (See instructions.)
Certain commercial fish production facilities also are subject to
permit requirements. These include fish raceways or similar structures
where discharge to receiving waters occurs for 30 or more days a year
and facilities that contain, grow, or hold species of nonnative fish
and other aquatic animal life. Specifically excluded are closed ponds
that discharge only during annual harvest or periods of excess runoff
and caged facilities in lakes, estuaries, or marine waters.
A system that has irrigation return flow through a point source
such as a pipe, channel, or other discrete conveyance, whether owned or
operated by an individual, company, or organization, is subject to per-
mit requirements if it provides irrigation service to land areas of
3,000 or more cultivated acres.
Further, the owner or operator of any point source that contri-
butes significantly to pollution is subject to permit requirements, re-
gardless of the size, of the operation.
General instructions for applying for a permit under NPDES and a
copy of Short Form B — Agriculture (EPA Form 7550-?7 [7-73]) are included
at the end of this chapter. Short Form B is used to provide informa-
tion for irrigation activities and fish production facilities as well
as animal facilities.
Feedlot Effluent Guidelines and Standards
Proposed effluent guidelines and standards applicable to feedlots
of all sizes were published by EPA in the Federal Register on September
7, 1973. They would have required that, except for duck feedlots, there
1-3
be by July 1, 1977, no discharge to navigable waters of waste water or
runoff except runoff resulting from more than a 10-ryear, 24-hour storm.
This is a rainfall event with a probable recurrence interval of once in
10 years. These guidelines and standards would have required also that
for all feedlots there be by July 1, 1983, no discharge of waste water
or runoff except runoff resulting from more than a 25-year, 24-hour
storm (rainfall event with probable recurrence interval of once in 25
years) .
After public review and the consideration of resulting comments,
however, final effluent guidelines and standards for feedlots of the
same size as those covered under NPDES were published February 14,
1974, and became effective April 15, 1974. Guidelines and standards
for smaller lots are still under evaluation by EPA and will be pub-
lished at a future date.
The effluent guidelines and standards for large feedlots published
February 14, 1974, are summarized as follows:
Existing Feedlots, Except for Ducks (by July 1, 1977). — The per-
tinent section of the rules and regulations is headed "Effluent limita-
tions guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available."
No process waste water pollutants shall be discharged, except that
". . . Process waste pollutants in the overflow may be discharged to
navigable waters whenever rainfall events, either chronic or cata-
strophic, cause an overflow of process waste water from a facility de-
signed, constructed and operated to contain all process generated waste
waters plus the runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the
location of the point source." (The term "process waste water" includes
any precipitation that comes in contact with wastes; "process generated
waste water" excludes precipitation.)
Existing Feedlots for Ducks (by July 1, 1977) .—"Effluent limita-
tions guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best practicable control technology cur-
rently available."
Concentrations of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^)!./ in
effluents shall not exceed 3.66 lb (1.66 kg) per 1,000 ducks (maximum
for any one day) and 2.00 lb (0.91 kg) per 1,000 ducks (average of
daily values for 30 consecutive days). Concentrations of fecal coli-
form in effluents are not to exceed most probable number (MPN) of
400/100 ml at any time.
Existing Feedlots, Including Ducks (by Julyl, 1983). — "Effluent
limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology econom-
ically achievable."
No process waste. water pollutants shall be discharged, except that
" . . . Process waste pollutants in the overflow may be discharged to
1/
BOD and other terms and abbreviations are explained in detail in
chapter 4 and the glossary.
1-4
navigable waters whenever rainfall events, either chronic or cata-
strophic, cause an overflow of process waste water from a facility de-
signed, constructed and operated to contain all process generated waste
waters plus the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the
location of the point source."
New Sources, Including Ducks (Effective April 15, 1974) .—"Stand-
ards of performance for new sources."
No process waste water pollutants shall be discharged, except that
" . . . Process waste pollutants in the overflow may be discharged to
navigable waters whenever rainfall events, either chronic or cata-
strophic, cause an overflow of process waste water from a facility de-
signed, constructed and operated to contain all process generated waste
waters plus the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the
location of the point source."
SOLID WASTE
Congress in 1965 enacted the Solid Waste Disposal Act. This act
was the first federal legislation dealing with the effects on the en-
vironment of solid waste disposal. It resulted mostly in money grants
to state governments for further disbursement through different state
agencies for waste disposal programs being initiated.
In 1970 Congress amended the 1965 act with the Resources Recovery
Act, which officially recognized the potential economic benefits of
recovering some portion of discarded refuse. This legislation also
directed new grant programs to urban areas with solid waste problems.
The Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-419), when
implemented, provides for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assist-
ance in solid waste disposal as part of Public Law 566 and Resource
Conservation and Development (RC&D) projects.
2. STATE RESPONSIBILITY
Laws of all states must meet the minimum requirements of the fed-
eral laws dealing with air and water quality and disposal of solid
wastes. Many states already have such laws, and in some cases the
state laws are more stringent than the federal laws. In the absence
or neglect of state laws, EPA assumes enforcement.
All work in which SCS assists must meet the minimum requirements
of federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Land owners or op-
erators are responsible for obtaining required approvals and permits
and for operating facilities in accordance with these laws and regula-
tions .
1-5
3. APPENDIX: SHORT FORM B AND GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE
SHORT FORM B-AGRICULTURE
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by Public
Law 92-500, enacted October 18, 1972, prohibits any person from
discharging pollutants into a waterway (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes)
from a point source (see definitions below), unless his discharge is
authorized by a permit issued either by the U S. Environmental
Protection Agency or by an approved State agency. (See “Proce-
dures for Filing.”)
Requirements
If you have a discharge or discharges, such as that described in
the first paragraph of these instructions, you must complete one of
the following forms to apply for a discharge permit. The forms
differ by types of discharges as indicated below:
Short Form A-Municipal Wastewater Dischargers.
Short Form B-Agriculture.
Short Form C-Manufacturing Establishments and Mining.
Short Form D-Services, Wholesale and Retail Trade, and All
Other Commercial Establishments, Including Vessels, Not
Engaged in Manufacturing or Agriculture.
If your business or activity involves production of both raw
products and ready-for-market products, you may be required to
complete two of the above forms. For example, if you produce a
raw product, such as milk, and, on the same site, process the raw
milk into cheese, you must complete Form B-Agriculture, and
Form C-Manufacturing and Mining.
If the discharge is from a Federal facility’s treatment plant
receiving more than 50 percent domestic waste (based on the dry
weather flow rate), complete and submit form A.
If the discharge is from a sewage treatment process which is not
from a municipal, agricultural, or industrial facility (eg., housing
subdivision, school), complete and submit form D.
Exclusions
You are not required to obtain a permit for the following types
of waste discharges:
1. Sewage discharged from vessels (e.g., ships); or
2. Water, gas, and other materials injected into a well to
facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association
with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, where
authorized by the State in which the well is located; or
3. Dredged or fill material; or
4. Discharges from properly functioning marine engines; or
5. Those discharges conveyed directly to a publicly or privately
owned waste treatment facility (however, discharges originating
from publicly or privately owned waste treatment facilities are not
excluded); or
Note. -Municipal and manufacturing dischargers
that believe they are exempt due to item 5 are
requested to complete certain items and return the
form (see “Procedures for Filing”).
6. Most discharges from separate storm sewers. Discharges from
storm sewers which receive industrial, municipal, and/or agricultural
wastes, or which are considered by EPA or a State to be significant
contributors to pollution, axe not excluded.
Procedures for Filing
If you have any questions as to whether or not you need a
permit under this program, contact your State water pollution
control agency or the nearest regional office of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. A list of EPA regional offices is given in
table 1.
Copies of all forms are available at State water pollution control
agencies and at all Environmental Protection Agency regional
offices.
Data submitted on these forms are to be used as a basis for
issuing discharge permits. Depending on the adequacy and nature of
the data submitted, you may be called upon for additional
information before a permit is granted.
Complete the appropriate form(s) for your operation, being sure
that each item is considered and the required data submitted. Give
the answer which most nearly applies to you and your operation. If
an item does not apply, please enter, in the appropriate place, “Not
Applicable” or "NA” to show that the item was given consideration.
Most of the items on the form require the checking of one or more
of several possible answei».
If the application is to be sent to the Environmental Protection
Agency, there is an application fee of S 10. This fee, in the form of a
check or money order made payable to the Environmental
Protection Agency, should be mailed with the original of the
application form to the EPA regional office having jurisdiction over
the State in which the discharge is located.
If the State in which the discharge is located has a federally
approved permit program, the application should instead be sent to
the State agency administering the program. You will be informed as
to the amount of the application fee, if any, and the address to
which the application and fee should be sent.
Agencies and instrumentalities of Federal, State, or local
governments will not be required to pay an application fee to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Anyone who applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a
discharge permit under the Refuse Act of 1899 need not reapply for
a permit for the same discharge, unless it is substantially changed in
nature, volume, or frequency; application must also be made for any
other discharges not covered by the Refuse Act.
Applications for proposed discharges must apply at least 180
days before the date the discharge is due to begin, unless a delay is
granted by the approved State agency or by EPA.
Signature on Application
The person who signs the application form will often be the
applicant himself. When another person signs on behalf of the
applicant, his title or relationship to the applicant should be shown
in the space provided. In all cases, the person signing the form
should be authorized to do so by the applicant. An application
submitted by a corporation must be signed by a principal executive
officer of at least the level of vice president, or his duly authorized
representative, if such representative is responsible for the overall
operation of the facility from which the discharge(s) described in
the form originate. In the case of a partnership or a sole
proprietorship, the application must be signed by a general partner
or the proprietor, respectively. In the case of a municipal, State,
Federal, or other public facility, the application must be signed by
EPA Form 7550-7A (7-73)
1-6
TABLE 1 .-Addresses of ERA regional offices and States within their jurisdiction
Region
Address and phone
States
1.
Regional Administrator, Region 1, Environmental Protection Agency,
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Room 2303, Boston, Mass.
02203. Attention: Permits Branch. 617-223-7210.
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont.
II.
Regional Administrator, Region II, Environmental Protection
Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 908, New York, N Y. 10007.
Attention: Permits Branch. 212-264-9895.
New Jersey, New York, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico.
III.
Regional Administrator, Region III, Environmental Protection
Agency, Curtis Bldg., Sixth and Walnut Sts., Philadelphia, Pa.
19106. Attention: Permits Branch. 215-597-9966.
Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia.
IV.
Regional Administrator, Region IV, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1421 Peachtree St., N.E., Atlanta, Ga. 30309. Atten-
tion: Permits Branch. 404-526-3971.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee.
V.
Regional Administrator, Region V, Environmental Protection Agency,
1 North Wacker Dr., Chicago, III. 60606. Attention: Permits
Branch. 312-353-1472.
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin.
VI.
Regional Administrator, Region VI, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1600 Patterson St., Suite 1 100, Dallas, Tex. 79201.
Attention: Permits Branch. 214-749-1983.
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.
VII.
Regional Administrator, Region VII, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1735 Baltimore Ave., Kansas City, Mo. 64108. Atten-
tion: Permits Branch. 816-374-5955.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.
VIII.
Regional Administrator, Region VIII, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1 860 Lincoln St., Suite 900, Denver, Colo. 80203.
Attention: Permits Branch, 303-837-4901 .
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming.
IX.
Regional Administrator, Region IX, Environmental Protection
Agency, 100 California St., San Francisco, Calif. 941 1 1. Atten-
tion: Permits Branch. 415-556-3450.
Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, American
Samoa, Trust Territories.
X.
Regional Administrator, Region X, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Wash. 98101. Attention:
Permits Branch. 206^142-1213.
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.
either a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or other
duly authorized employee.
Use of Information
All information contained in this application will, upon request,
be made available to the public for inspection and copying. A
separate sheet entitled “Confidential Answers" must be used to set
out information which is considered by the applicant to be methods
and processes entitled to protection as trade secrets. The informa-
tion must clearly indicate the item number to which it applies.
Confidential treatment can be considered only for that information
for which a specific written request of confidentiality has been
made on the attached sheet. However, in no event will identification
of the contents, volume, and frequency of a discharge be recognized
as confidential or privileged information, except in certain cases
involving the national security.
Definitions
1. A “person” is an individual, partnership, corporation, associa-
tion, State, municipality, commission, other political subdivision of
a State, or any interstate body.
2. The term "pollutant" includes solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,
biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or dis-
carded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water.
3. A “point source” is any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance including but not limited to a pipe, ditch, channel,
tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock.
concentrated animal-feeding operation, or vessel or other floating
craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
4. A “discharge of pollutant” or a “discharge of pollutants”
means any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the United
States from any point source; any addition of any pollutant to the
waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source
other than a vessel or other floating craft.
5. A “discharge,” when used without qualification, includes a
“discharge of pollutant” and a “discharge of pollutants” (see
above).
6. The term “municipality” means a city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, association, or other public body created by
or pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
areawide waste treatment management agency.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
Who Must Apply
The owner or operator of any facility as described below or any
facility, regardless of size, which the Regional Administrator or
Director of the State water pollution control agency or interstate
agency considers to be a significant pollution problem. Final
determination on the need for a permit will be based upon a review
of the application and, in many instances, site visits.
1 . Animal production facilities.
A. A facility that has or may have a discharge, providing a
confined area for feeding or holding animals, but not including areas
EPA Form 7550-7A (7-73)
1-7
used for growing crops or vegetation for animal feed, which holds,
or during the previous 12 months held for a total of 30 days or
more, any of the following number of animals:
Types of animals
Number of
animals
Slaughter and feeder cattle
1,000
Mature dairy cattle— milker and dry
700
All swine over 55 pounds
2,500
Sheep
10,000
55,000
Turkeys— in open lots
Ducks
5,000
Laying hens and broilers:
Facilities with continuous
overflow
100,000
Facilities with liquid manure
handling systems *
30,000
•Any system where the manure is collected, stored, or
transported utilizing liquid manure conveyance by gravity
flow or pumping system.
B. Any facility that has or may have a discharge, wherein
animals are held, or during the previous 12 months were held for a
total of 30 days or more, in such combination that the sum of the
following animals multiplied by the following multipliers equals or
exceeds 1,000:
Slaughter and feeder cattle
Mature dairy cattle
Swine over 55 pounds . . .
Sheep
1.0
1.4
0.4
0 1
No. 6 of the American Fisheries Society, entitled, “A List of
Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and
Canada.” (For purposes of this application, carp, brown trout, and
goldfish are not considered to be nonnative species.)
3. Irrigation activities. -Discharges of irrigation return flow (such
as tailwater, tile drainage, surfaced ground water flow or bypass
water), operated by public or private organizations or individuals
if: (1) there is a point source of discharge (e.g., a pipe, ditch, or
other defined or discrete conveyance, whether natural or artificial)
and; (2) the return flow is from land areas of 3,000 or more
contiguous acres, or 3,000 noncontiguous acres which use the same
drainage system. It is the individual or organization who actually has
control of or responsibility for the discharge of irrigation return
flow who must apply for the permit. For example, if water is
supplied by an organization but returned to navigable waters by an
individual who has 3,000 or more acres under irrigation, it is the
individual who must apply for a permit. On the other hand, if an
irrigation organization supplies and controls the irrigation return
flow discharged from a total of 3,000 or more acres to navigable
waters, the organization must apply for a permit; an individual
whose acreage is counted in the organization’s total, even though
the individual’s acreage alone may be 3,000 acres or more, need not
apply for a permit if the organization, and not the individual,
controls the discharge of return flow.
4. General agriculture activities. -Any agricultural operation
with any point source discharge, otherwise excluded from manda-
tory application filing requirements, which the EPA Regional
Administrator or State or interstate agency identifies as a significant
contributor of pollution.
5. Voluntary filing. -None of the above requirements preclude
the voluntary filing of an NPDES application by the owner or
operator of an agricultural pr silvicultural activity.
Example:
Number of anjmals
Times
Multiplier
Equals
Slaughter and feeder cattle
. . 600
X
1.0
600
Mature dairy cattle
. . 200
X
1.4
280
Swine over 55 pounds . . .
. . 500
X
0.4
200
Total
1,080
Since the total exceeds
1,000, a
permit
application must be
submitted.
C. Owners or operators, whether individuals, partnerships, or
corporations, with more than one confined animal production
facility located on adjacent or nearby properties, where:
(1) such facilities utilize a common waste control system or
disposal area, and
(2) the total number of animals or combination of animals in
the individual operations exceeds the above animal limits.
2. Fish and aquatic animal production facilities.
A. Facilities such as hatcheries, fish farms, or other facilities
which contain, grow, or hold aquatic animals in ponds, raceways or
other similar structures for purposes of production and from which
there is or will be a discharge for any 30 days or more per year.
Closed ponds which discharge less than 30 days per year or only
during periods of excess runoff are excluded from these require-
ments except as provided in 2B and 4 below. In addition, facilities
which produce less than 20,000 pounds of aquatic animals per year
are excluded from filing an application, except as provided for in 2B
and 4 below.
B. Any facility which contains, grows, or holds any species of
fish or other aquatic animal life nonnative to the United States,
from which there is a discharge to a navigable water at any time.
The nonnative species of fish are as defined in Special Publication
Instructions for Individual Items
Section I-General.
Item I. A. Give the name, as it is legally referred to, of the
person, firm, public organization, or any other entity which owns or
is directly responsible for the facility or activity described in this
application. This may or may not be the same name as the facility
or activity producing the discharge. Do not use colloquial names as a
substitute for the official name.
B. Give the complete mailing address of the applicant’s main
office. This often will not be the same address used to designate the
location of the facility or activity.
Item 2. Give the name, title, address, and telephone number of a
person who is thoroughly familiar with the facts reported on the
forms and can be contacted by reviewing offices if necessary.
Item 3. The facility is the distinct activity or installation, under
the responsibility of the applicant, which produces or may produce
one or more point sources of pollution. Name the facility as it is
officially or legally referred to in order to distinguish it from similar
entities in the same geographical area. Do not use colloquial names
as a substitute for the official name. Check the appropriate box in
item 3.B to indicate if the facility is publicly or privately owned or
both. Check the box in item 3.C if this is a federally owned or
operated facility. Give the actual location of the facility in item 3.D.
If the area in which the facility is located uses the grid system (i.e.,
township, section, quarter, range) for specifying location, complete
items 3.D.1 (a-f). If the grid system is not used, complete items
3.D.2 (a-c).
Item 4. Indicate whether the facility is existing (currently
operating) or proposed (to be operating in the future).
Item 5. For an existing facility, give the date construction was
completed for its current capacity. The expected completion date
should be given if the facility is currently under construction or
planned.
EPA Form 7550-7A (7-73)
1-8
Item 6. Name the waterway(s) (e.g., stream, river, lake) at the
point(s) of discharge. Use the name of the waterway by which it is
usually designated on published maps of the area; if possible, refer
to one of the map series published by the U.S. Geological Survey.
When the discharge is to an unnamed tributary, please so state and
give the name of the first body of water fed by that tributary that is
named on the map, e.g., “ Unnamed ditch to Vaughan Creek;”
“ Unnamed arroyo to Serpent River,” where Serpent River is the
first body of water reached by the discharge that is named on the
map.
Item 7. Self-explanatory.
Item 8. Self-explanatory.
Item 9. Directions should use known landmarks and route
numbers if possible.
Item 10. Self-explanatory.
Item II. Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate the one or
more types of agricultural operations which are being described in
this application. Proceed to the appropriate section(s) according to
the box(es) checked
Section II-Animal confinement and feeding facilities.
Item I. Give the largest number of each type of animal held by
the facility for 30 days or more during the previous 12 months. If
possible, use the same designations for the types of animals as was
listed at the beginning of these instructions under “Who Must
Apply.”
Item 2. Give only the area used for the animal confinement or
feeding facility. Do not include area used for growing or preparing
feed.
Item 3. Give acres of land that are owned or leased by the
facility for manure disposal.
Item 4. Indicate in 4.A whether the animals are entirely in the
open, totally under roof, or partially under roof. Indicate in 4.C
the percentage of the lot that is roofed versus that which is open.
Item 5. If the facility is planned to be expanded in the future,
give the expected date for this expansion and the new total capacity
by type and number of animals.
Section Ill-Fish and other aquatic animal production facilities.
Item I. Give the month during which the maximum total weight
of the combined species on hand occurs. For that month, list the
type and average pounds of each species in the system. Fish names
listed should be the proper, common, or scientific names as given in
Special Publication No. 6 of the American Fisheries Society, “A List
of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States
and Canada.”
Item 2. The above publication should also be used as the
reference to determine whether or not a fish species is native to the
United States, except that carp (Cyprinus carpio), goldfish (Caras-
sius auratus ), and brown trout (Salmo trutta ) are deemed native for
purposes of this program.
Item 3. Self-explanatory.
Item 4. Self-explanatory.
Item 5. Provide the values for the parameters listed in the units
specified. Samples should be representative of the month indicated
in item 1. In order for the values to be representative, they should
be based on at least a 24-hour composite sample. If grab samples
were taken, values should represent a minimum of the average of 4
consecutive weeks. Analytical methods to be used and level of data
reported are shown in table 2.
Item 6. Give the average number of pounds of food fed per day
for the month listed in item 1 in which the maximum total weight
of the combined species on hand occurs. Also, give the type of food
utilized; i.e., specify moist pellets, dry pellets, offal, or other
specific food type.
Section IY-Irrigation activities with point return flows.
Item I. If return flows from the irrigation occur the year
around, check the box provided in item l.A. Otherwise, check the
box(es) beside the month(s) listed under item l .B to show when the
flows occur.
Item 2. Give the acreage irrigated by each irrigation method.
Item 3. Give the total water diverted (t.otal inflow) by this
activity for irrigation from a basic source of supply, such as a river,
reservoir, or well. Give the total water returned from point sources
and discharged to surface waters (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, etc.).
Item 4. Give the number of separate discrete points at which
water is being diverted for irrigation purposes and the number of the
return points.
TABLE 2 .-Chemical parameters: standard analytical methods (interim)
[To be used with item 5, section 1 1 1 1
References
Parameter, units, and (code)
Method
Standard
Methods
1 3th edition,
1971
A.S.T.M.
Standards,
Part 23,
1972
EPA
Methods, 1971
Total suspended (nonfilterable) solids, milligrams
per liter (00530)
Ammonia (as N), milligrams per liter (00610)
Glass fiber filtration 103°-105° C.
Distillation-nesslerization or
automated phenolate.
p. 537
p. 278
p. 134, p. 141
BOD 5-day, milligrams per liter (00310)
Modified winkler or probe method.
p. 489
p. 618
p. 15
Note.— This table is to be used as a guide in reporting the data concerning each parameter. The first column, "Parameter, units, and (code)"
indicates the preferred units for reporting data for a given parameter. The second column, "Method," lists the preferred analytical method for
determining the required parameter values. The next three columns, "References," give the page numbers in standard reference works where a
detailed description of the recommended analytical techniques given under "Method" can be found. These standard references are:
1. "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters," 13th Edition, 1971, American Public Health Association, New
York, N Y. 10019.
2. "A.S.T.M. Standards," pt. 23, Water; Atmospheric Analysis, 1972, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103.
3. "EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," April 1971, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
Copies of the publications are available from the above sources, or for review in the regional offices of the Environmental Protection Agency
or the State water pollution control agency.
Data must be reported with an accuracy of at least two significant digits; i.e., values less than 1 must be reported at least to the nearest .01,
values between"! and 10 to the nearest 0. 1 , values between 10 and 100 to the nearest 1 .0, and so forth.
EPA Form 7550-7 A (7-73)
1-9
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE
SHORT FORM B
Agriculture
To be completed by confined animal production facilities, fish farms, hatcheries, and preserves, and irrigation activities meeting size or
other criteria described herein. Please print or type.
I. GENERAL
1. Name and address of applicant
A. Legal name of applicant
B. Mailing address of applicant
(1)
Street route, or P O hox No
(2)
(3)
County, parish, or borough
(4)
Stare
(5) Zip code
C. Telephone number
Area code Number
2. Applicant's authorized agent
A. Name B. Title
C. Mailing address of agent
( 1 ) Street, route, or P.O. box No.
(2) City or town
(3) County, parish, or borough
(4) State (5) Zip code
D. Telephone number
Area code Number
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such in-
formation is true, complete, and accurate.
Printed name of person signing Title
Signature of applicant Date application signed
18 U.S.C. section 1001 provides that:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies,
conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representa-
tion, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be
fined not more than $ 1 0,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
EPA Form 7550-7 (7-73)
1-10
3. Name, ownership, and physical location of facility
A. Name of facility
B Ownership (check one)
(1)Q Public (2) Q Private (3) | | Both public and private
C. Check box if this is a federally owned and/or operated facility (for example. Black Creek National Fish Hatchery)
D. Location (complete as applicable)
(1) Facility located where grid system is used
a.
Township
b.
Section
c.
Quarter
d.
Range
e.
County
f.
State
(2) Facility located where grid system is not used
a. City or town (as applicable)
b. County c. State
FOR AGENCY USe|
TTTT
Ti
CITY
COUNTY
4. Is this facility (check one) A. Q Existing? B. Q Proposed?
5. Date facility was (or will be) constructed Z
Month/Year
6. Receiving water(s) (e.g., stream, river, lake)
Name(s)
7. State water pollution control permits
A. Have you applied for a State water pollution control permit for this facility? (1)0 Yes (2>0
B. If a State water pollution control permit for this facility has been issued, give date of issue and permit number
(1) Date of issue Z Z
Mon th /Day /Year
(2) Permit number
8. Have you received, from any level of government, written notice of complaint pertaining to water pollution from this facility?
A. O Yes B. O N°
9. Give directions to this facility from nearest town
1-11
10. Attach a sketch, aerial photograph, or map of the existing or proposed facility and/or activity, with the following information
marked (a Soil Conservation Service aerial photograph, or a U.S. Geological Survey Map, of the area involved is preferred).
A. Approximate overall dimensions of the facility
B. Direction and location of surface drainage and other discharges from the facility
C. General location of waterways (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes) in the area
D. Location of area for manure disposal
E. Direction and location of diversion points for irrigation activities
11. Submission of this application is the result of (check as many as are applicable)
A
□
Animal confinement facility
B.
□
Fish farm, hatchery, or preserve
C.
□
Irrigation return flow
D.
□
Other (specify)
If 11A was checked, complete items in, section II, "Animal Confinement and Feeding
Facilities."
If 11B was checked, complete items in section III, "Fish Farms. Hatcheries, and
Preserves."
If 1 1C was checked, complete items in section IV, "Irrigation Return Flows "
II. ANIMAL CONFINEMENT AND FEEDING FACILITIES
1. Largest number of animals held by confinement or feeding facilities at any one time in the previous 12 months. Give type and
number of animals.
TYPE OF ANIMAL NUMBER OF ANIMALS
2. Approximate area used for animal confinement or feeding. acres
3. Approximate land available for manure disposal. acres
4. A. Animals in this facility are (check one) (1)d) ln open confinement
(2)Q Housed under roof
<3)0 Both in open confinement and housed under roof
%
If there is open confinement, has a run-off diversion been constructed to prevent surface run-off into the confinement area?
(UQYes (2)\jNo
D. If there are any housed animals at this facility, is there a liquid manure handling system used for manure management?
( 1 ) □ ^es —
(3) □ Yes
B Percentage of animals housed under roof is
C.
EPA Form 7550-7 (7-73)
(2) □ No
(4) □ No
If yes, is there a discharge to a waterway (e.g., stream, river, lake)?
1-12
5. Do you anticipate expansion of this facility in the future?
A. Q Yes B O No If yes, complete the following statements.
C. Date of future expansion zl
Month/Year
D. TYPE OF ANIMALS NUMBE R OF ANIMALS
III. FISH AND AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES
1. A. The maximum weight on hand of all species combined occurs during the month of
B. List the type and average pounds of each species on hand during the month given in 1A
(1) SPECIES (2) AVERAGE POUNDS
UNDER PRODUCTION
2. Do you produce, cultivate, or hold any nonnative (not native to the United States) species of fish or other aquatic animals?
A.Q Yes B. Q3 No C. If yes, describe the procedures, such as disinfection or ultraviolet treatment,
which you use to insure that parasites and pathogens do not escape into navigable waters.
3. Is there a discharge for more than any 30 days per year? A. Q Yes B. Q No
If yes, answer 4, 5, and 6.
4. Facility designed for continuous cleaning? A. Q Yes B. Q] No
If no, state the averages to the following questions.
C. Facility cleaned times per (1)Qday (2) [^] month (check one).
D. Time required is hours per cleaning.
5. Discharge information.
PARAMETER AND (CODE)
Flow (00056)
Total suspended solids (00530)
Ammonia (00610)
DAILY AVERAGE
VALUE DURING NORMAL OPERATION
gallons per day
milligrams per liter
milligrams per liter
BOD 5-day (00310)
EPA Form 7550-7 (7-73)
milligrams per liter
1-13
6. Average pounds of food fed per day is A. pounds of B Uype of food).
IV. IRRIGATION ACTIVITIES WITH POINT RETURN FLOWS
1. A. Check here if discharge occurs all year. Q
B. If discharge does not occur all year, check the month(s) discharge occurs.
(1) | | January (2) | j February (3) | March
(5) | | May (6) | | June (7) | | July
(9) | | September (10) | | October (11) | [ November
2. Estimate the total number of acres under irrigation using
A. Surface method of irrigation acres
B. Sprinkler method of irrigation acres
C. Other methods of irrigation acres
3. Estimate the total water
A. Diverted for irrigation by this activity acre-feet/year
B. Discharged to surface waters (e.g., lakes, streams, rivers) from irrigation return flow acre-feet/year
4. Estimate the number of separate points at which
A. Water is diverted for irrigation
B. Water is returned to surface waters
COMMENTS
(4) April
(8) | | August
(12) | | December
EPA Form 7550-7 (7-73)
I
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 2. WATER QUALITY
Compiled by Charles E. Fogg, sanitary engineer, SCS, Washington, D. C.
Contents
Page
General 2-1
Drinking Water Standards 2-1
EPA Water Quality Criteria 2-9
Other Water Quality Requirements 2-10
Tables
Table 2-1 Federal Drinking Water Standards 2-2
Table 2-2 Tabular Summary of Numerical Criteria 2-3
Table 2-3 Recommended Limits (1973) for Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Insecticides in Public Raw
Water Supply 2-9
2-1
CHAPTER 2. WATER QUALITY
1. GENERAL
Water used for crop irrigation may have different quality require-
ments from that used for drinking, livestock, fish and other aquatic
life, or recreation. However, public health and safety being paramount,
the quality of water used for any specific purpose should also be con-
sidered in light of all other probable uses. Water should be free of
impurities offensive to sight, smell, and taste. Table 2-2 is a summary
of proposed EPA water quality criteria for various water uses.
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
The first standards published in this country in 1914 were to pro-
tect the health of the traveling public. These standards were revised
periodically by the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) . They generally
apply to all public water supplies.
The quality of water used for all purposes, including drinking, is
now the responsibility of EPA although EPA continues to use the USPHS
drinking water standards published in 1962 as the current federal
drinking water standards (see table 2-1).
A low bacteria count is important for good quality of drinking
water. Table 2-1 does not show all the bacteria counts required by
federal, state, and local agencies. Procedures for required sampling,
testing, reporting, and determining acceptable coliform counts for pub-
lic water supply are complex and beyond the scope of this chapter. See
the 1962 USPHS drinking water standards and consult local and state
health agencies for details on the bacterial quality required in speci-
fic cases. See also USPHS drinking water standards for radioactivity
limits.
The desirable limits listed in table 2-1 should not be exceeded if,
in the judgment of the reporting agency and certifying authority, more
suitable supplies can be located. Concentrations of substances in ex-
cess of the maximum limits listed constitute grounds for rejection of a
water supply.
In December 1974 the Safe Drinking Water Act was signed into law.
EPA has now proposed national drinking water standards, which are cur-
rently under review. The new standards, due to become effective in
December 1976, expand the 1962 USPHS standards. Maximum limits are pro-
posed for additional parameters such as mercury (0.002 mg/1) and certain
pesticides in public drinking water. Turbidity standards proposed are
more restrictive, 1 turbidity unit as desirable and a maximum limit of 5
units where turbidity does not interfere with disinfection and microbio-
logical determinations.
2-2
Table 2-1. — Federal drinking water standards
Maximum
Component Desirable limit limit
Physical :
Turbidity (Jackson turbidity units) ... 5 units
Color (platinum- cobalt units) 15 units
Threshold odor No 3
Chemical: — a —
Alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS) 0.5
Arsenic .01
Barium
Cadmium
Chloride ...... 250
Chromium (Cr+ )
Copper 1
Cyanide .01
Carbon chloroform extract (CCE) .2
Fluoride (limit varies with annual
average of maximum daily air
temperature)
mg/1
0.05
1.0
.01
.05
.2
50.3° - 53.7
53.8° - 58.3°
58.4° _ 63.8°
63.9° - 70.6
70.7° - 79.2°
o o
79.3° - 90.5
Iron
Lead
F
1.2 (
0. 9-1.7)
L/z.k
F
1.1 (
.8-1.5)
y 2.2
F
1.0 (
.8-1.3)
1/2.0
F
9 (
.7-1.2)
1/1.8
F
8 (
.7-1.0)
ft:
F
7 (
3
.6- .8)
05
Manganese . . .
Nitrate (N0^)
Phenols
.001
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate (SO^) 250
Total dissolved solids 500
Zinc 5
.01
.05
—^Concentrations of fluoride greater than twice the optimum constitute
grounds for rejection of the supply.
2/
Public should be warned of water known to have a nitrate content m
excess of 45 mg/1.
Table 2-2. — Tabular summary of numerical
2-3
P —
c c
-P «H
If! iH
a' -h
p t
cO oo G O'
■P I Xi I
C- to c
<D • .p •
U vc. in in
O 3
< r:
eg in
o u
• P] rH
C \
— • CP
P E
c x:
in i eg
\ VD •
•H O O
c in
. CJ rH
c J \
w cr
• E
o p
c^in
*H | C
K& •
H CTi O
c • C
. rH cr p; fH
c \ \
w cr • cr
E o p E
co c x;
(N me «h | in
\ O . \sc •
H X! H H C> H
«H |
P 4-1
<U -H
•P P3
a to
P 3
Cu CT
<
0 £
fO
C -P
o a
•H o
•P U
■H U
TJ (0
*0 C
< 3
• \
£ j?
O OCN
(N mo
in y o’
c —
P X
3 o
■P 0
rH 4-»
3 in
u <y
•h >
P H
\
E
\
CP
E
P 0
3 -H
■P -P
P p
Cp h
< w
rH \ •
\ cp w
CP E P
E >,
”Mo limit", where it appears in this table, refers to constituents that were addressed hut for which it was indicated
that insufficient data existed for prescribing limits.
Table 2-2. — Tabular summary of numerical criteria — Continued
2-4
■P -P
<U Is-
P 3
C
r <
n u
2
SI rH
to £
<D p
P
jr; 4->
to <0
C 3
I
\\ •
&> C7> W
E E P
c • E
w P
x: '-i
CHC
r— i fN\ 04
\S
P £
C 'C -P
c \ .
E C'C
E-h
m E
o in
c c o
• m
© C w
\\ W
Cn c- P
t7>\ M
B cn P
E >,
ICC coo
in
•h o
• PI «H
C \
• Cn
P E
C JZ
*h | in
\ vc
i cn »
o SZ
04 |
wo
OH^s
HH U)\ .
\\ Cn tO
CT1 O'1 >i E P
E E T3 >1
C O
O O fO • O
• • w in oi
04 i-H ' r- 1
P
o r. .
in | (
O rn rH
m.E \
C
• E
rH \ .
\ tr- w
cn E P
E >i
\ O'
tj> E
E
I
If copper or zinc is present >1 ng/l, then AF
2-5
*
C CO
o u
•H o
• o
CO C
<d 0
rH H C\E
\ to \ o tn f3
C' ai ^ u s a’
3X3 U
C -H
C X>
•H <0
»H 3
ITJ C
I <
r-> O r—i O
in in c id
e u «h • U
0 *J\ O iJ H
CT — \
— • E
M
e x: rH
ID | O
\VO .
rl O' O
o u
IN I
rH O
<N m
C \
— . £■
Jh E
c x:
ID | rH
\vc .
rH O C
•H O
CT ID
• (Jr
c \
— . o-i
U 3
c r.
<N | C
\VD •
n Cl LI
M C-
<D C-
4J 3
fO C/J
5
x: u
CO -H
0 rH
£
U 3
C,
Cr
E rH
HJ
(N 4J
° p
c £-•
H —
a c
4J MH
x:
Cr in
C7MH
3
C
ID -H
#
j o
x: -h
to 4-»
C ITJ
M 3
Ch C
<
o
c
o
rH U
\
c- .
3 4-'
o
<N E<
U TJ 4->
c wi o
rH o 3 tH
\ U CTX3
O' \
3 • CP >, O
3 V C
ID > 0 0
C < ID tt U
0 'C+J
c ^ o
rH o 3 E-I
\ o crx:
Cn \
3 • C~ >i U
3 -P CT> 3 V C
0 id > 0 0
CM tr* O < ID CQ CJ
D'
P
c x:
ID i
V*v£>
rH c>
0
P X,
3 U
4J 0
rH 4J
3 10
0 0
•H >
M -H
< w
O
HT I ^
\ C w
rs*
XI <*o
otc
o o Z
rH (J w
Ito limit — — — Ho limit
Table 2-2. — Tabular summary of numerical criteria — Continued
2-6
C C-
4-> D
ro O'.
<1> c
n c
3 -H
4J 4J
CP M
< w
O
in m
c u
in m
e u
— ' • c
p e
o sr.
\vi. •
HCO
• c
c C £
C X!
rH i in
.
H Ci C
& >!
> id
id E
caw c
Co E >,-0 0
(C H (0 (H 0) H
CJ \ W 'C <D \
E o '
u c
o <#> c X o
\
~ H1?
O 4-> >
O C OH
O (T3 O +J
in ko-ri
I 0 r
I c
\
£
0)
m oo
I l
O'. I c
u •
It r
P -H
■P £
0 rd
T3 4->
0
o a
E
4J 0
o u
C 'w
E <0
— E
a
T3 Id
c <u w
lin'd
o.*j -h
w <-h
3 QJ 0
C/3 C/3 C/3
I
I
I
Individual sample
Table 2-2. — Tabular summary of numerical criteria — Continued
2-7
C W
o P
•H G
4-> +J
03 <0
G £
P
O
(1)
u
o
I u
0)
5s in
£ u
•H
G 4-’
c a
•h 3
u tr
<0 <
U CL
d a
v 3
(0 IT.
\
o
£
i
m r-i
O •
jz o
■> a
C in
L; C G
h «o 4J
: o re
3 P £
C C-
\ W \ -H
O < O' E
E U E — * H
W rH
ro in in CL
• • • < O
cr e — n
a 1C
j-
in o
U
u — -
C G
4-) M-»
n x; cj
•H £ 4->
E O
•h in E
c M O
C u
i: 4J a
O'
c CP
E -h
C
E -P
C C
C 5
-P <n
u ro a) *4)
■H 73 HI H
JZ in
>1 in
o m
a
• (J M -H O H
O XI o U H X.
w 4-j *H .C G
• X (D h
O U c O rH
C £ K ^ -H o
rH 1 O 1C in
\IC JZ o > «H
H ^ El C (0 «3
Q.'O
C
• IP
a c <**
C <cc
O - rH
U U A
•H >
P -H
tPX)
< w
JZ c
4->
2 C G
O G <H
p G £
tr p iz
CP-P
> I C.
> g a
(5 D O
G
C 4J
G G
10 £
M p
CP H
< —
I I
I I
c
in
'D
G
G
G
•H
>,
rH
3
E
O
4J
XI
4-*
in
•H
c
•H
•H
G
O'
in
•H
•H
o
0
•P
c x:
c in
rH
■P
o o
rH
•H
a
Q
O
•H
o u
•H 4J
0
P
in
•H flj
3
■P
<0
1
G
£}
X3 O
E c
G
0
c
X CP
4J
in
<
■*r
in
M
p in
<0 G
<
G
rH
0
.0 *H
0
G
G
y
c
3
10 'O
O CP
XT
O
u
f <
tt
u
Q
cr*
CN
M
£
u <
a <
2
U
u
>
Table 2-2. — Tabular summary of numerical criteria — Continued
2-8
d
c
o
<0
QJ
u
o
0)
DS
CO
u
o
4J
— u
U QJ 0)
0) 4n 4->
4J *H H fl
d n3 £
£ H to
u a o~ tJ i
qj -h t: c x i
c • p a -h d
•H 03 Eu ^ tj
h 3 C C
dj tr qj -h d
E < Q) M -P
— COD W
I
I
JZ o
10 cu
•h a
44
I
>1 p
*H QJ
H C, 4->
qj a »h d
4J 3 d £
d co i-i co
5 qj tr,o
£ U 'C C U
(0 *H QJ -h d
<d -h t, .* 'c
u jz c c
p a -h d
QJ H 4->
— w c w
i
o>
JH
C-
c
c
4-» -H
•H 4J
E dd
•H H QJ
f-\ O U
4-> U
O d C
^ CO •*-!
*H |
X I
o
E
c
l r.
CN
4->
•H
E
•H
•P
•H
E
§
0)
C
p
Eu
CO
l-l —
c c
4-’ 4h
d -h
C- P
d ■*->
P U
O rH
E 44
QJ
rH
£
•H
CO
•H
>
o
•H
0
O'
c
•H
■P
d
o
44
QJ
CO
d
6J
P
u
c
•H
o
I
I
P
c
4->
d
£
co
0)
p
U-
CJ
44
•H
U
■H
4->
d
p
tr
<
d
p
c
tj
qj
t,
a
a
w
p
QJ
■P
d
•h d
P +J
C CO
X c
d o
E-i H
X
O'
E
CN
O
O
o
in mg
o u
• XI i— i
o X
w • O'
P E
o £
CN I CN
X VC .
rH O O
c in 1A4J O'
H O D X W A.
JZ *H 04J\
•HO CO'
CO w • QJ C E
•H P C E
> c x: d -h o
<N | X Tj O
O X VO C Co
£4 rH Ov ~ C0 fH
x
O'
p
m
o
•H ^ QJ
X P P OB
O' QJ O' CO ro
p -P X CO
d O'-H to
CN 5 P 4-1 QJ
C rH
o c in c X
• -H • -H d
0 w 0 ^
l
P
QJ
a 0',o
O' xi
< ~
U* -X 'C
c c
CO Q CO
o 0 d
m co to
p
a
P
d
P
QJ
TJ
QJ
Ek
QJ
QJ
co
I
I
4J
c
QJ
P >1 >,
4J 44 -P
•H I -H *H
4-» O > C
CO -H "H *H
C TJ 4-* rH
0 d o d
u b; d w
a>
4J
d
44
p
to
CO
QJ
rO
•H
P
W
CO
4J
c
QJ
O'
Jh
QJ
4J
QJ
Q
QJ
C
a
u
u
(0
QJ
O' O
C C
•h d
■P 4-1
C CO
d Ӥ
Eh to
o
T>
O
I
Li^ht — — — <10% change
2-9
EPA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Public Law 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, requires EPA to publish water quality criteria. Notice of
publication of proposed water quality criteria was included in the Fed-
eral Register, October 26, 1973.
The proposed criteria are for water for irrigation and livestock,
water for recreation and pleasure, marine water for aquatic life, and
fresh water for wildlife, aquatic life, and public intake. These cri-
teria are based in part on information in the National Technical Advi-
sory Committee (NTAC) report on Water Quality Criteria (1968). The
major source of information, however, is the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) Water Quality Criteria of 1972.
Comments on the proposed EPA water quality criteria were received
through June 1974. Publication of final criteria is expected in the
spring of 1975.
Table 2-2 tabulates the numerical criteria included in the EPA
publication. This table is reproduced directly from appendix B of
that publication and provides a comparison of water quality criteria
for the various uses listed above. More detailed criteria and their
rationale are given in the publication, which is available at EPA
regional offices and state water pollution control agencies.
Table 2-2 does not list the quality required for water for farm-
stead uses — drinking, cooking, cleaning equipment used for processing
milk and produce — but this water should meet federal drinking water
standards.
Table 2-3 lists limits (1973) for certain insecticides not
included specifically in table 2-2.
Table 2-3. — Recommended limits (1973) for chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides in public raw water supply
Compound
Recommended limit^
mg/1
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
0.001
2/ .003
.05
.001
.0005
2/ .0001
.0001
n I . 005
I/1'0
.005
2/ Assume average daily intake of water of 2 liters.
2J Adjusted for organoleptic effects.
Adjusted for interconversion to H. epoxide.
2-10
OTHER WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Many industries have special water quality requirements to maintain
quality of their products or to get satisfactory results from their
processes and equipment.
For bottled beverages, fine chemicals, canned goods, processed milk,
ice, packed meat, edible oils, and for laundering and for printing and
dyeing of textiles, water must be of good bacteriological quality —
clear, colorless, tasteless, relatively soft, and free from iron, manga-
nese, hydrogen sulfide, and organic matter.
Laundries, electroplating plants, milk plants, ice plants, and
textile mills require soft water. On the other hand, breweries, distill-
eries, and bakeries need relatively hard water.
Pulp and paper mills, tanneries, oil refineries, and steel mills
often have quality needs somewhat less demanding than those for domestic
water. Yet high quality paper needs very high quality water.
In actual practice, each individual enterprise has its own partic-
ular water quality needs. Consult industry representatives, textbooks,
and other references for the needs of specific industries.
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 3. MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Compiled by Charles E. Fogg, sanitary engineer, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Contents
Page
General . 3_1
Primary Treatment.., 3-1
Secondary Treatment 3-2
Biological Treatment 3_2
Aerobic Waste Treatment 3-2
Activated Sludge Process 3-2
Trickling Filter Process 3_2
Other Aerobic Processes 3_3
Anaerobic Waste Treatment 3_3
Chemical Treatment 3_3
Tertiary Treatment 3_4
Effluents 3-4
Sludge Treatment and Disposal 3-5
%
i
3-1
CHAPTER 3. MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER TREATMENT
1. GENERAL
This chapter is intended to provide familiarity with treatment of
municipal waste water rather than a basis for design.
Municipal waste water normally includes waterborne wastes from
households, called domestic sewage, and from commercial and industrial
establishments, called trade or industrial wastes. Occasionally, storm
water is included and the wastes are then called combined sewage. This
occurs in older municipal systems that still use combined storm and san-
itary sewers. The complex of collection, treatment, and disposal facil-
ities is called a sewerage system.
Types of treatment for municipal waste water are basically physi-
cal, chemical, or biological. Physical treatment includes removal of
solids from waste water by screening, skimming, and sedimentation.
Chemical processes are used to flocculate and precipitate suspended
solids (SS) and dissolved solids (DS) , increase settling, and remove
selected contaminants from waste water. Additional colloidal and dis-
solved matter is converted into settleable solids with biological treat-
ment .
Degrees of treatment are commonly expressed as primary, secondary,
or tertiary (also called advanced), depending on the relative amount of
BOD and other pollutants removed in the process.
2. PRIMARY TREATMENT
The first unit operation in waste water treatment normally is
screening. The screening unit may be a rack of parallel bars, rods, or
wires or a screen of wire mesh or perforated plates. This screening
process removes the larger solids and floating material from the waste
water stream.
Screening is usually followed by sedimentation (separation by grav-
ity of suspended particles that are heavier than water). The first sed-
imentation device is commonly a grit chamber, in which grit, sand, and
gravel separate from the waste water and organic matter passes through.
The next sedimentation device is a primary settling basin, in which
organic and other particulate matter settle.
The waste water after screening and primary settling is often re-
ferred to as primary effluent. Primary treatment normally removes 25 to
40 percent of the BOD5 in the raw sewage. Until recently, many commun-
ities chlorinated this effluent and discharged it to receiving waters.
Current laws and regulations, however, require additional treatment
before discharge.
3-2
3. SECONDARY TREATMENT
In secondary treatment, following primary treatment, the effluent
from the primary settling basin is given further biological or chemical
treatment, or both, by a number of processes. Tertiary treatment is
often intermixed with secondary treatment processes.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
The objectives of biological treatment are to coagulate and remove
the nonsettleable colloidal solids and to degrade organic matter. Micro-
organisms such as bacteria, algae, and protozoa consume soluble food.
They use organic matter as a source of energy, and convert finely di-
vided suspended solids and dissolved matter into gelatinlike substances
that flocculate and precipitate from the waste water.
Biological treatment is basically aerobic or anaerobic, depending
on the availability of free oxygen and the kinds of micro-organisms
used. Some treatment facilities are facultative, in which both aerobic
and anaerobic micro-organisms function. This situation is more common
in stabilization ponds or lagoons with aerobic conditions near the sur-
face and anaerobic conditions near the bottom.
AEROBIC WASTE TREATMENT
Aerobic micro-organisms are used in the activated sludge process
and in facilities such as trickling filters, aerated lagoons, and natu-
ral aerobic stabilization ponds.
Activated Sludge Process
The first step for turning waste into activated sludge is directing
effluent from the primary settling basin to a large tank called a re-
actor. Air is then forced through the liquid by diffused or mechanical
aeration, and the biological mass called activated sludge builds up.
As the waste water becomes stabilized, additional biological solids are
added to the mass. These solids are then separated in a secondary set-
tling basin or tank. A portion of the separated solids is recycled to
the reactor to keep biological activity at a maximum, and the remainder
are removed for further processing.
Trickling Filter Process
In the trickling filter process, the waste water after primary set-
tling is sprinkled over a bed of stones or other highly permeable medium.
Biological solids form and attach to the filtering medium as the waste
water trickles through. Organic material in the waste water is degraded
by micro-organisms on the medium. An underdrain system collects the
treated effluent and biological solids as they are detached. The under-
drain also helps provide air to maintain aerobic conditions within the
3 to 8 feet of filter bed. The underdrain discharges to a secondary set-
tling basin within which solids are separated from the effluent and re-
moved .
3-3
Other Aerobic Processes
Other aerobic waste treatment processes include aerated and natu-
ral (photosynthetic) lagoons or stabilization ponds. An aerated lagoon
functions about the same as the activated sludge process except that
part of the biological mass is not recycled. Oxygen is supplied by me-
chanical aerators floating on the surface or by compressed air forced
through perforations in tubes located at the bottom of the pond. A nat-
ural or photosynthetic stabilization pond relies on natural wave action
and algae to. provide oxygen needed by the bacteria.
ANAEROBIC WASTE TREATMENT
Anaerobic treatment processes have been used mostly for the diges-
tion of concentrated sludges. However, they are receiving increased at-
tention for use with some waste waters.
One such waste water treatment process is the anaerobic contact
method, by which raw wastes high in BOD are mixed with recycled sludge
solids and digested in a digestion chamber. The solids are then sepa-
rated in a clarifier or other solids separation unit, and the remaining
liquid is discharged as effluent. This is not a common method for
treating typical domestic waste water.
A second method, the anaerobic filter process, as yet is too new
for its potential for treating domestic waste water to be fully devel-
oped. In this method, waste water flows upward through a column filled
with small rocks or other medium. Anaerobic bacteria grow and are re-
tained on the medium and the treated effluent is discharged at the top
of the column. This method appears well suited to treating waste waters
low in BOD or other contaminants.
Anaerobic lagoons are used occasionally as a first stage in treat-
ing municipal waste water. These lagoons are heavily loaded with or-
ganic matter to maintain anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic bacteria
are effective in stabilizing strong organic wastes. Facultative or
aerobic lagoons are 'often used for further treatment.
Septic tanks are used principally for treating waste water from
individual homes and, in rural areas, for sewage from schools, camps,
trailers, parks, recreation facilities, and the like. Waste water is
directed to tanks, often with two or more sections or chambers, where
solids settle and are stabilized anaerobically. The effluent is then
directed to leaching fields where it percolates into the ground. Re-
moval of stabilized solids from septic tanks is normally required every
2 to 3 years.
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Chemicals are sometimes used to help precipitate solids and improve
the efficiency of biological treatment processes. In secondary treat-
ment, chemicals are also used to control pH and to disinfect effluents
before they are discharged. Treatment with chemicals is used extensively
in tertiary treatment. In both secondary and tertiary treatment, proc-
esses using chemicals require physical units for mixing, precipitating,
and settling.
3-4
4. TERTIARY TREATMENT
With stricter laws, rules, and regulations governing the discharge
of pollutants to surface or ground water, many municipalities now must
provide treatment beyond conventional secondary treatment. This ad-
vanced, or tertiary, treatment is often required to remove additional
BOD, nutrients, and other contaminants that pollute receiving waters.
Many substances in municipal waste water are not greatly affected
by conventional primary and secondary treatment. Such substances in-
clude calcium, potassium, sulfate, nitrate and phosphate ions, and many
complex synthetic organic compounds. Their removal requires advanced
treatment facilities. Physical, chemical, and biological unit opera-
tions are all applied in accomplishing the various objectives of tertiary
treatment .
Some common constituents of waste water that may have to be re-
moved by advanced treatment are:
Ammonia, which increases chlorine demand and may be toxic to fish.
Calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg), which increase water hardness.
Chlorides, which give salty taste and interfere with industrial
processes .
Mercury (Hg), which is toxic to human beings and to aquatic life.
Nitrates (NO3), which can cause methemoglobinemia in infants (blue
babies) and stimulate eutrophication.
Phosphates (PO4) , which can stimulate eutrophication and interfere
with some treatment processes.
Sulfates (SO4), which have a cathartic action.
Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus to reduce eutrophication currently
is receiving particular attention.
Advanced waste treatment processes are many and include air strip-
ping of ammonia, filtration, distillation, flotation, reverse osmosis,
carbon adsorption, chemical precipitation, ion exchange, nitrification,
denitrification, and land application.
5. EFFLUENTS
The characteristics of typical raw domestic waste water and of ef-
fluent from secondary treatment plants are listed in chapter 4. Ef-
fluent characteristics vary widely, depending on such factors as nature
of the area, treatment process, and even the time of year.
Primary treatment may remove 25 to 40 percent of the BOD5 in incom-
ing waste water. It removes a high percentage of settleable solids but
does not remove 80 to 90 percent of the suspended solids as required by
most regulations. Dissolved solids removal is minimal.
Secondary treatment normally removes 85 to 95 percent of the sus-
pended solids and BOD5 in raw waste water. Because more oxygen is avail-
able, more of the nitrogen will be in nitrate form in the effluent from
trickling filters than in that from activated sludge plants. However,
extended aeration added to the activated sludge process leads to greater
nitrification and, consequently, more nitrate in the effluent.
3-5
Effluents from tertiary treatment plants vary in characteristics,
depending on the primary objectives of the treatment plants. Removal of
nitrogen or phosphorus to prevent overenrichment of receiving waters is
a primary purpose of many tertiary treatment plants. Effluents with a
low nutrient concentration can be expected from such plants.
6. SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Solids removed from the screening devices are sent through grinders
or disintegrator pumps and returned to the waste water flow, disposed
of in landfills, or incinerated. The screenings removed from waste
water range in quantity from 0.5 to 30 ft^ per million gallons, depend-
ing on size of the screening device and characteristics of the waste
water .
Grit from the grit chambers is most commonly disposed of as fill.
Covering may be required for the fill because some organic material is
normally trapped in the grit chamber with the grit. Occasionally, the
grit is incinerated. The grit separated from waste water ranges in
quantity from about 0.3 to 24 ft^ per million gallons of waste water
treated, depending on the collection system and characteristics of the
area served.
Sludge production per million gallons of waste water also varies
widely. The yield of undigested sludge from primary settling basins is
about 3,000 gallons (95 percent moisture). The activated sludge process
yields about 20,000 gallons of sludge (98.5 percent moisture), and the
trickling filter process about 750 gallons of sludge (92.5 percent
moisture) .
Because sludge from primary settling basins already has a relatively
high solids content, it usually is not put through a thickening process.
Sludge concentration can reduce the volume of activated sludge to be
handled. Reducing the moisture content from 98.5 percent to 95 percent
results in volume that is only 30 percent of the original. Mixtures
of primary and activated sludge are occasionally thickened to a solids
concentration of 5 or 6 percent.
Since raw sludge becomes offensive quickly, it is usually treated
by anaerobic digestion, with digestion accomplished by micro-organisms
in heated, covered tanks.
Raw sludge being anaerobically treated in a tank usually separates
into four layers. First, digested sludge settles in a layer at the
bottom of the tank. Sludge being actively digested then rests on the
layer already digested. A supernatant liquor develops above the active
sludge, and a layer of scum forms on top of the liquor. Methane gas,
a product of anaerobic decomposition, is collected at the top of the
tank and used to heat the new sludge being added. Methane gas is also
occasionally used for other heating purposes.
Anaerobic sludge lagoons can be used in conjunction with small
waste treatment plants if sufficient area for the lagoons is available.
Two disadvantages, however, are that methane gas cannot be recovered
from a lagoon or open pond and that digested sludge must be removed
periodically to maintain lagoon capacity.
Aerobic sludge digestion is not as common as anaerobic digestion
3-6
but is used occasionally in small waste water treatment plants. It is
sometimes used to stabilize activated sludge or mixtures of activated
sludge or trickling filter sludge and primary sludge. Aerobic digestion
is done in tanks similar to those for anaerobic digestion. Large quan-
tities of air are forced through the mixture to maintain a dissolved
oxygen (DO) content of 1 to 2 mg/1. Considerable energy is required
for mixing and adding the required oxygen. Aerobic digestion, although
higher in operational cost, produces a more stable and odorless end
product that dewaters readily and is more easily disposed of than anaer-
obically digested sludge.
Sludge conditioning is an additional process used to improve de-
watering. The two methods of conditioning most commonly used are chem-
ical and heat treatment. The purpose of dewatering is to reduce the
moisture content of sludge so that it can be handled as a semisolid for
disposal. Methods of dewatering include spreading on drying beds,
vacuum filtration, centrifugation, and pressure filtration. Incineration
is used to reduce sludge to ash for easy disposal. Methods for dis-
posal of sludge include spreading on soil; lagooning (a temporary
expedient only); dumping of completely stabilized sludge, inert solids,
or grit; sanitary landfilling by mixing with refuse; and ocean dumping,
which is becoming more restricted.
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 4. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Compiled by Charles E. Fogg, sanitary engineer, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Contents
Page
General 4_1
Water Pollution 4.3
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 4-2
Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio (C-N Ratio) 4_2
Total Solids (TS) 4_2
Volatile Solids (VS) 4_3
Nitrogen (N) 4_3
Phosphorus (P) 4_3
Potassium (K) 4_3
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 4_3
Units of Measure 4_4
Livestock and Poultry Manure 4_5
Feedlot and Barnyard Runoff 4_7
Feedlot Solid Wastes 4_7
Manure Lagoon Influent and Effluent 4-10
Municipal Sewage 4-11
Effluent and Sludge from Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 4-11
Fruit and Vegetable Processing Wastes 4-13
Meat Processing Wastes 4-1S
Dairy Processing Wastes 4-1S
Tables
Table 4-1 Daily Production and Composition of Livestock Manure. 4-6
Table 4-2 Characteristics of Feedlot Runoff 4-8
Table 4-3 Characteristics of Wastes Removed from
Unpaved Outdoor Beef Cattle Feedlots 4-9
Table 4-4 Solid Waste Accumulation on Concrete-
Surface Feedlots 4-9
Table 4-5 Composition of Manure Lagoon Influent 4-10
Table 4-6 Composition of Typical Raw Domestic Sewage 4-11
Table 4-7 Composition of Effluent from Typical
Secondary Waste Treatment Plants 4-12
Page
Table 4-8 Composition of Sludge from a Secondary
Waste Treatment Plant 4-13
Table 4-9 Composition of Vegetable, Fruit, and
Cereal Wastes from Various Processing Plants 4-14
Table 4-10 Composition of Slaughterhouse and
Packinghouse Wastes 4-15
Table 4-11 Composition of Milking Center Wastes 4-16
Table 4-12 BOD5 of Waste Water from Dairy Food Plants 4-16
Table 4-13 Composition of Waste Water from Dairy Food Plants . . . 4-17
4-1
CHAPTER 4. WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
1. GENERAL
This chapter deals primarily with agricultural wastes and such
other wastes that may be applied to the soil and its plant cover for
treatment or disposal. Wastes become pollutants when they are intro-
duced into air, water, or soil in excessive amounts or when they other-
wise become offensive in the environment.
Excessive wastes in surface or ground water can deplete dissolved
oxygen, increase the potential for excessive algal or plant growth, in-
crease the risk of waterborne diseases, and add materials that can be
toxic to man, animals, or plants. Pathogens along with other contami-
nants can be introduced by wastes into air. Offensive odors result.
Excess wastes can render soil unproductive and offensive and add to
the pollution of ground water and surface runoff. Each medium — air,
water, soil — has a definite limit to the amount of various waste com-
ponents it can safely assimilate.
2. WATER POLLUTION
A brief discussion of some of the more common constitutents of
waste materials adversely affecting water follows.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
Biochemical oxygen demand of wastes depletes dissolved oxygen in
the water of our streams and lakes. BOD is determined by incubating a
mixture of waste and water under aerobic conditions for a specified time
and measuring the oxygen used. An incubation period of 5 days is gen-
erally considered standard. The oxygen consumed is called BOD^ (5-day
BOD) of the waste.
Until recently, BOD5 has been the principal measure of the pol-
lution potential of domestic sewage. The degree of treatment achieved
at sewage treatment plants is usually measured as a percentage reduc-
tion of BOD5.
Occasionally a long-term BOD of waste is needed. Long-term BOD
is determined by incubating the waste and water for an extended period
such as 30 to 45 days. The resulting determination is BOD^q or BOD45.
For animal wastes and many food processing or manufacturing wastes,
the long-term BOD, e.g., BOD3Q, is usually many times greater than
the BOD5 .
4-2
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
Chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the oxygen required to re-
duce all oxidizable material in wastes. It is evaluated chemically by
sulfuric acid and potassium dichromate to determine the quantity of
oxygen required for total oxidation. COD often is only slightly greater
than long-term BOD.
The effect of COD is to deplete the dissolved oxygen in water, just
as BOD does. Wastes with high COD also cause additional deposits of
sludge on the bottom of streams and lakes. These settled sludges exert
a continuing benthal demand on dissolved oxygen in the waters above
them.
The analytical procedure for determining COD is similar to that
used by soil scientists for determining organic carbon (OC) . COD can
be converted to organic carbon by multiplying by 0.375 (assuming com-
plete oxidation of the organic carbon) . This value of organic carbon
can be used to determine the carbon-nitrogen ratio of the waste.
CARBON-NITROGEN RATIO (C-N RATIO)
The carbon-nitrogen ratio governs the rate of waste decomposition
in soil. Wastes with a C-N ratio greater than about 30 do not have
enough nitrogen to maintain a microbial population adequate for active
decomposition. These wastes decompose slowly and can withdraw nitrogen
from the soil, thus causing nitrogen deficiency in plants. As decom-
position proceeds, the C-N ratio decreases and the rate of decomposi-
tion increases.
Wastes with a C-N ratio less than 10 to 15 support large microbial
populations and decompose readily. They rapidly release nitrogen to the
soil as ammonia. Some of this ammonia converts to nitrate and is taken
up by the plant, lost by denitrification, or leached through the soil.
The nitrogen content of wastes applied to the land often limits the ap-
plication to rates that prevent leaching of nitrates to ground water.
TOTAL SOLIDS (TS)
Total solids are the residue after water is evaporated from a waste
sample and the remaining material is dried by heating to about 103° C.
These solids in the liquid waste are suspended solids or dissolved
solids. The suspended solids that settle to the bottom of a sample
container are settleable solids. A determination of settleable solids
is an indication of the amount of solids removable by sedimentation.
Raw domestic sewage usually contains less than 0.1 percent total
solids; digested sludge from a waste treatment plant contains 3 to 7
percent. Liquid animal manure with a TS content of more than about 6
percent is difficult to pump through pipelines and spray nozzles.
Solids — floating matter, suspended solids, oil, and grease — in
surface waters are unsightly and cause odor. Organic solids deplete dis-
solved oxygen and render wastes and receiving waters putrescible. Set-
tleable solids form sludge banks. Pathogenic bacteria and other orga-
nisms make the waters dangerous to human and other life forms.
4-3
VOLATILE SOLIDS (VS)
Volatile solids are the solids driven off as gases when total
solids are heated to 600° C for 1 hour. The solids remaining are known
as fixed solids. As organic matter burns, the volatile portion is a
measure of the amount of organic matter present in the waste. The ratio
of volatile solids to total solids can vary between different wastes,
but VS normally make up 60 to 85 percent of TS.
NITROGEN (N)
All animal and human wastes contain nitrogen. Ammonia nitrogen,
often called free ammonia (NH^), is the initial product from the de-
composition of nitrogenous organic matter. When ammonia is oxidized,
nitrites (NO2) are formed. Nitrite forms of nitrogen are readily con-
verted to nitrates (NO^), the end product of oxidation of nitrogenous
matter.
Nitrates are an important source of fertility in both soil and
water. Since nitrates are highly stable and soluble in water, however,
excessive amounts are readily leached through the soil to pollute ground
water as well as surface water. Overenrichment of surface water thus
promotes excessive algal and plant growth and causes generally undesir-
able conditions.
Water containing more than 45 parts per million (ppm) nitrate ion
is unsafe for human consumption (see ch. 3: TERTIARY TREATMENT, ni-
trates). High nitrate content can also poison animals.
PHOSPHORUS (P)
Phosphorus is also a major constituent of animal and human wastes.
Like nitrogen, it is a basic nutrient contributing to overenrichment of
surface water. Unlike nitrogen, however, phosphorus in water does not
leach through to ground water so readily because it is adsorbed on the
clay particles of soil.
Water pollution by phosphorus is usually caused by direct runoff of
water or wastes containing the nutrient to a stream or lake. Phos-
phorus also rides piggyback on eroded soil particles carried to streams
and lakes.
POTASSIUM (K)
Potassium, also contained in animal and human wastes, is a nutrient
necessary for plant growth. It is not usually a pollutant to surface
or ground water and does not contribute to over enrichment of surface
water. Because of its fertilizer value, knowledge of the K content of
wastes applied to land is valuable.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO)
Oxygen can be absorbed by water in small amounts. The amount of
oxygen that can be absorbed, referred to as dissolved oxygen, depends on
4-4
water temperature and, to a lesser degree, on elevation and the amount
of other substances in the water. Turbulent water absorbs oxygen more
rapidly than still or slow-moving water. The amount of oxygen that
pure water can absorb at mean sea level ranges from 14.6 mg/1 at 0° C
(32° F) to 7.6 mg/1 at 30° C (86° F). Salt water at mean sea level con-
taining 20,000 mg/1 chloride becomes saturated with 11.3 mg/1 oxygen at
0 C and with 6.1 mg/1 oxygen at 30° C. Water at 5,000 and 10,000 feet
above mean sea level can absorb 84 and 69 percent, respectively, of
the oxygen it would absorb at mean sea level.
3. UNITS OF MEASURE
Production of wastes and components for various units of animals,
food processed, etc., is commonly expressed in the United States as
pounds per day (lb/day). Other units of measure can be determined by
referring to appropriate conversion charts or factors.
The concentration of various components in wastes is commonly
expressed as milligrams per liter or parts per million. One mg/1 is
1 milligram (weight) in 1 million parts (volume), i.e., 1 liter. One
ppm is 1 part by weight in 1 million parts by weight. Therefore,
mg/1 = ppm if a solution has a specific gravity equal to that of water.
Generally, substances in solution up to concentrations of about
7,000 mg/1 do not materially change the specific gravity of the liquid
and mg/1 and ppm are numerically interchangeable. Concentrations are
sometimes expressed as mg/kg or mg/1,000 g, which are the same as ppm.
Occasionally, the concentration is expressed in percent. A 1 per-
cent concentration equals 10,000 ppm. Very low concentrations are some-
times expressed as micrograms per liter \(yg/l). A microgram is 1 mil-
lionth of a gram.
Some confusion exists in the chemical expressions for pollutants,
especially for nitrogen and phosphorus. An example is the dually stated
safe limit for nitrates in drinking water. Water containing 45 mg/1
nitrate ion (NO^) is considered unsafe. The same thing is said of water
containing more than 10 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen (NC^-N) . Both mean the
same thing. The nitrate ion (NO^) has a molecular weight of 62, whereas
nitrogen (N) has a weight of 14. The NC^ weight is just under 4.5 times
the weight of N when expressed as a concentration.
Nitrogen concentration is sometimes expressed as N, NO2 , NO^, NH^,
and so forth, but it is more commonly expressed as NC^-N, NO^-N, NH^-N,
organic N, etc. The same is true of phosphorus and its various forms:
P, PO^, and P2°cr* Care must be taken to determine how concentrations
are expressed when considering limiting the amounts that can be applied
to the soil and its plant cover. Following are the atomic or molecular
weights of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and oxygen in their common
forms :
4-5
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Oxygen
N = 14
P = 31
K = 39
0 = 16
NH3 = 17
NH4 = 18
N2 = 28
P04 = 95
P205 = 142
K20 = 94
02 = 32
N02 = 46
NO3 = 62
4. LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY MANURE
Estimates of manure production per head or per 1,000 lb live weight
of livestock and poultry vary widely. The same is true of manure com-
ponents. Variations are due to climate, types of feed, production
methods, and measurement techniques. Onsite measurements and labora-
tory analyses of a given livestock operation are necessary to estimate
accurately both manure production and quantities of components.
Sizes of domestic animals vary by species and breed. Mature beef
cattle normally weigh 800 to 1,000 lb per animal; dairy cattle, 1,200
to 1,500 lb; horses, 1,000 lb or more; swine, 100 to 200 lb; laying hens
and broilers, 4 to 5 lb; turkeys, 15 to 25 lb; and ducks, 4 to 6 lb.
Table 4-1 summarizes data on the daily production and composition
of livestock manure from studies of fresh manure production by live-
stock and poultry across the country. The upper figure in each tabula-
tion represents the average production per 1,000 lb live weight for
fresh manure. Extremely high and low values have been excluded. The
lower figure gives the general range of values. Comparable figures for
people are also provided, assuming an average weight of 125 lb per
person.
Actual production from livestock and poultry can be expected to
vary from the values contained in table 4-1. For example, analyses of
manure from laying hens studied at Cornell showed an average BOD^ of
only 1.6 lb/day per 1,000 lb live weight. Yet, usual BOD^ production
is about 3.4 lb/day. Beef cattle in Minnesota on a high-energy ration
produced only 29 lb/day of manure per 1,000 lb live weight, compared to
the more usual 62 lb/day reported.
Manure normally contains many other elements and compounds in ad-
dition to those listed in table 4-1. For example, analysis of swine
manure from various parts of Michigan showed production of 0.5 lb cal-
cium (Ca) ; 0.07 lb magnesium (Mg); 0.12 lb sulfur (S) ; 0.02 lb iron
(Fe) ; 0.-005 lb zinc (Zn) ; 0.004 lb boron (B) ; and 0.0014 lb copper (Cu)
per 1,000 lb live weight per day.
Swine in Scotland consuming 328 mg/1 Cu in feed produced 0.009 lb
Cu per 1,000 lb live weight per day in manure. Copper inhibits biologi-
cal treatment of wastes and must be considered when designing waste
treatment facilities. Antibiotics commonly fed to livestock can appear
in manure and are also thought to inhibit biological treatment and af-
fect standard BOD^ tests.
The foregoing points out the need, when planning an overall waste
management system, for measuring and analyzing the manure produced
4-6
T P TJ
p e
CO *H
CO CO
<u <u
O 42
CD CO
ip co
^ Q
P a
p P
CO 3
E 4J
a)
a.
cl
4M CD CL
O > O
•H P
P
P 60 CL
a)
O CL
HP CD
•H <D P
V P
4J 60
OJ *P
•P P 4->
p &
CO CO O
PQ co
O P P
a
E Q) >>
O 42 P
CJ 4-> 4-1
P
p
CD <D
d l d)
np P
p p
QJ *H
co <d p
<D S
CO o
(p CO
P <D
O P
•H CL
4J CD
<u
O P
T— 1
P
■U
np co
4->
O <d
CO
P P
CJ
CL p
00
iw
0)
tP <4-1
a)
•H
PQ
<t vD r- ) m CM <}•
• • \D ° (N • O -CM
sTsTOCMcOMHcONOO
• I *| • I • I *1 o
cOsflNHH^rooOvt-O
rH CO |
* » I
CO 00 I
vO CM CJ O in N
• I *1 ® I
1 — I O \f I — I [N
O r-".
<T <-*
O O
vo <r n h
• • CM O
O G> CO O O H <)■
oa^<rcooor^omo
o o co o
i
o o o <t-
<f CM
o
• o
o
* v£>
t— i •
<f co in «— 1 1 <— 1 1
CM I • I • •
^ co <f m h
CM| HH J •
CM
CM
CM
<f r-L 4P O (J\ «— I
• I *1 ® I
t— i o o vo
i— 4 • •
• o o
CM
, CMl
CM|
r^- cm • in \o • O • in •
cooo'HcoH<finmHcoH<i-ocoo
ini • i •• *i • i *i *i *i
cMcoooocovocMinomooocM
CO H • r-4 • • i— l • <f CM t-L
On CO rP <Js • • •
00
U • • • -in • • Ui *
C^O^CMO^f^'f^'COCMC^r^-<fO--^OCMO
vO I *l • l - I - I - I - I • I
0r^0Ln0cM0inr^000<j\00
in • • • • cm O »— i
md <t cm • •
o o o
CM
1 m
vO
00
cm co
r—i <j\ oo m r— I
oo oo
O m O i-M co
• co • • co •
(^^stOOOCMO
I
I
OOOMDCOi— lOr^vDOOOcOO*-*
o
in co f— i O m
• cjn oo • in q-' 1 — * ro
O co • • co n* • vo ° O •
m^cOf-^<^r^<f'— 'coOoOcmo
CO I • • *1 ol *1
CMO'COiDr^HCOCOCMOaiOOOCO
r- • • • • CM CM O
v£) in O <f • O •
o • o
o
o
CL
a a
o o
PQ O
T)
p
p
o
a
TJ
o
p
CL
TP
<D
"d
p
a
a
CM|
luction figures per 1,000 ducks and assuming an average weigi
4-7
under existing field conditions. Local data and experience provide the
best basis for designing system components.
5. FEEDLOT AND BARNYARD RUNOFF
Variations in composition of runoff from feedlots and barnyards
across the country are attributed to climate, slope, type of feed,
nature of feedlot surface, and stocking rate. Winter runoff in northern
climates contains much higher concentrations of waste components than
summer runoff. Runoff in warm, dry areas, however, has higher concen-
trations of chemicals than that in cool, humid areas. A high concen-
tration of salts can adversely affect vegetation of areas on which the
runoff is applied.
Runoff from feedlots on flat slopes has higher concentrations of
dissolved solids, K, Na, and chloride than that from similar feedlots
on steeper slopes. Runoff from steep slopes has higher concentrations
of total solids, P, and N and a higher chemical oxygen demand.
As one might expect, paved lots retain less initial rainfall and
have a higher percentage of runoff than unpaved lots. Lots with a high
concentration of livestock and manure retain more initial rainfall than
those with a lower concentration. Because animals on high-energy feed
produce less manure than those on high-roughage feed, a higher percent-
age of runoff can be expected from feedlots containing livestock on
high-energy feed.
The manure pack on beef feedlots retains from 0.25 to 0.9 inch}
averaging about 0.5 inch, of initial rainfall before runoff occurs.
Available data show the runoff ranges from about 30 percent to over
60 percent of summer rainfall. Less runoff occurs on flatter slopes
and high density stocking rate areas than on steeper slopes and low
density stocking rate areas.
Table 4-2 presents data on feedlot runoff for two locations in
Texas and one each in Kansas and Nebraska. Note the wide range in
concentration of the various components.
There are not enough data on the characteristics of feedlot run-
off in eastern United States to compare them with those for the Midwest
and Southwest. This lack of information emphasizes the need for onsite
measurements and analyses to properly design waste management systems
for feedlot runoff.
6. FEEDLOT SOLID WASTES
The volume and characteristics of solid wastes removed from feed-
lots vary with climate, animal density, cleaning periods, and other
factors .
A Mead, Nebr., study found that total dry matter removed was 0.9
and 2.34 tons per acre of feedlot for each day that cattle were in the
feedlots at animal densities of 200 and lOOft^ per head. This repre-
sents 17 to 21 lb dry matter per day per head. About 38 percent of the
dry matter was volatile. Nitrogen and phosphorus removed averaged 27.3
4-8
Table 4-2. — Characteristics of feedlot runoff— ^
[Upper figure is average; lower figures represent the range.
Dashes indicate data not available]
Austin Co . ,
Texas
Bushland ,
Texas
Kansas
Nebraska
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Total solids . . .
9,000
—
8,450
2,080-42,500
5,000-50,000
214-19,250
2,400-17,400
Volatile solids.
4,500
—
3,890
—
800-14,000
—
36-9,550
1,200-7,300
Nitrogen as N . .
50
—
675
—
4-125
600-2,400
165-1,580
39-455
Phosphorus as P.
85
—
79
—
5-305
100-500
9-242
14-47
Potassium as K .
340
—
—
—
20-740
900-2,100
—
—
Sodium
230
—
—
—
65-700
400-1,100
—
—
Chloride
410
—
—
—
30-890
1,250-2,200
—
—
COD
4,000
—
7,600
—
500-14,000
—
800-16,000
1,300-8,250
Conductance . . . .
—
— ^6-10
—
—
Information for this tabulation was obtained from the unpub-
lished paper "Water quality of storm runoff from a Texas beef feed-
lot" by D. L. Reddell and G. G. Wise, Texas A&M, Belleville, Tex. 1973.
.^/Conductance is reported in millimhos per centimeter (mmho/cm) .
and 2.5 lb per ton of dry matter, respectively. The electrical conduc-
tivity of the saturation extract averaged about 1.2 mmhos/cm (about 770
ppm dissolved salts) and pH ranged from 4.6 to 9.4.
Table 4-3 presents moisture COD, N, P, TS, VS, pH, and conductiv-
ity values for the period November 1968 to November 1970. The remaining
values are for the period November 1969 to November 1970. The periods
between cleaning of the lots ranged from 112 to 203 days.
In the southern High Plains region of northwest Texas, it was found
that solid waste accumulation was affected most by ration composition.
An all-concentrate finishing ration resulted in 2.3 lb dry waste accum-
ulation per head per day while a 12 percent roughage ration resulted in
an accumulation of 5.0 lb per head per day. In this study, cattle
were concentrated on concrete-surface feedlots. The data in table 4-4
are based on studies of 13 to 27 head on concrete-surface feedlots for
136 to 173 days.
4-9
Table 4-3. — Characteristics of wastes removed from unpaved
outdoor beef cattle feedlotsi/
Animal density
Characteristic 100 ft^/head 200 ft^/head
pH?/ ■
Moisture content—
Total solids—....,,
Volatile .solids-i. ,
Total ■
Total
coni/
Potassium^/
Calcium^/ • •.
Magnesium^'
Zinc—/
Copp^ri/ • • •
Iron—'
Manganese^/
as K .
4. 6-9. 2
5. 1-9. 4
i — . .mmho/cm. .
0.4-1. 6
0.6-1. 6
wet weight . .
33-59
33-63
wet weight . .
41-67
37-67
wet weight . .
8-25
11-24
mg/1
1,500-8,600
1,100-10,000
mg/1
59-1,200
59-1,200
mg/1
10,900-190,000
12, 400-286, 00(
mg/1
410-1,246
475-1,010
■mg/1
400-4,632
1,178-7,640
■mg/1
532-3,574
224-3,346
■mg/1
236-1,880
633-2,356
•mg/1
1.9-37.4
3.8-46.4
•mg/1
1. 1-8.5
1. 1-8.4
■mg/1
146-3,985
686-7,425
■mg/1
18-1,224
39-245
i/pata summarized from Gilbertson, C. B. , T. M. McCalla, J. R.
Ellis, and W. R. Woods. Characteristics of manure accumulations re-
moved from outdoor, unpaved beef cattle feedlots. Proc. Int .
Symp. on Livest. Wastes, Columbus, Ohio April 19-22, 1971.
—^Fvom November 1968 to November 1970.
i/From November 1969 to November 1970.
Table 4-4. — Solid waste accumulation on concrete-surface
feedlots
1/
Animal
density
Average
weight for
period
Waste
produced
per day
Dry matter
produced
per day
ft /head
Cattle fed 173 days:
All-concentrate ration
lb/head
lb/head
lb/head
(open lot)
12 percent roughage
95
745
4.8
2.3
(open lot)
Cattle fed 136 days:
10 percent roughage
88
775
10.7
5.0
(covered lot)
10 percent roughage
42
678
8.3
4.0
(open lot)
10 percent roughage
41
679
9.2
4.5
(continuously wet
lot) 84
649
10.9
4.8
i/From Wells, D. M. , G. F. Meenaghan, R. C. Albin} and others.
Characteristics of wastes from Southwest beef cattle feedlots.
Proc. 1972 Cornell Agr. Waste Manage. Conf . , Syracuse, N.Y.
4-10
7. MANURE LAGOON INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
Influent wastes to lagoons generally contain the components of the
excreted manure diluted by wash water and other added water. Table 4-5
shows the normal range in concentration of manure components when ma-
nure influent is diluted to a total solids content of 4 percent.
It should be noted that aerobic lagoon influent of wastes and
water generally is less than 1 percent total solids but may range from
less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. This wide range emphasizes
the need for analyses of samples taken at the site.
The composition of the effluent from lagoons depends on influent
characteristics, period of retention, rainfall and evaporation, seep-
age losses, and climate. Data at this time are insufficient for a
table showing composition of typical lagoon effluents.
Evidence indicates that properly functioning anaerobic lagoons
can remove 75 to 80 percent of total solids, 85 to 90 percent of COD,
60 to 70 percent of BODc; , and 45 to 50 percent of nitrogen. A sub-
stantial amount of phosphorus remains with the sludge in the lagoon.
Reliable figures on the percentage of influent potassium remaining
with the sludge are not available.
Table 4-5. — Composition of manure lagoon influent (diluted to 4
percent total solids content)
[Upper figure is typical; lower figures are the range]
Component
From dairy
cattle
From beef
cattle
From swine
From poultry
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Total solids.
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
Volatile
solids .
29,700
25,000-34,000
31,000
21,000-37,000
31,600
22,000-39,000
31,100
23,000-37,000
B0D5
6,000
3,400-7,700
6,700
4,000-8,100
12,800
11,000-16,000
9,800
4,600-16,00
COD
36,200
18,000-57,000
35,600
30,000-40,000
32,800
26,000-39,000
36,000
27,000-46,000
Nitrogen
as N .
1,600
1,250-2,200
1,900
1,300-2,600
2,500
1,100-3,900
2,900
1,300-4,300
Phosphorus
as P .
300
110-430
400
100-760
950
500-1,500
1,100
580-2,200
Potassium
as K.
860
340-1,500
1,100
500-1,700
1,400
600-3,300
1,100
340-1,400
4-11
Properly operated aerobic manure lagoons with sufficient retention
time can be expected to remove up to 80 or 90 percent of the entering
B0Ds and 80 or 90 percent of the volatile solids. Nitrogen removal
ranges from 15 to 40 percent. The effluent from aerobic lagoons
contains algae, which as they die exert BOD on receiving waters.
The effluent from both anaerobic and aerobic manure lagoons
normally contains too much BOD^ and other waste components for dis-
charge to surface waters.
8. MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
The composition of raw municipal sewage depends on the area
served. Amount and types of industry, water use per capita, whether
garbage grinders are used, and nonresidential connections such as
hospitals and laundries all influence the composition of sewage.
Table 4-6 shows typical concentration of the common components of
raw domestic sewage.
Table 4-6. — Composition of typical raw domestic sewage
Component Concentration
mg/1
BODc 200
COD 450
Total solids 500
Volatile solids 350
Suspended solids 300
Volatile suspended solids.. 250
Dissolved solids 200
Volatile dissolved solids.. 100
Nitrogen as N 30
Phosphorus as P 10
Potassium as K 10
Total salts 200
Boron 0.2
Sodium 50
Magnesium 5
Calcium 10
Sulfate 20
Chloride 100
Alkalinity as CaCO^ 125
9. EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE FROM MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
The characteristics of effluent and sludge from sewage treatment
plants depend on characteristics of the raw waste entering the plant
and type and efficiency of the treatment provided.
Table 4-7 shows the characteristics of secondary effluent to be
expected from typical municipal plants. Considerable variation can
4-12
Table 4-7. — Composition of effluent from
secondary waste treatment plants
[Dashes indicate data not available
typical
]
Component
Concentration
Typical Range
mg/1
mg/1
PH
^7.0
i/6.5-8.0
B0Ds
20
15-30
COD
50
25-70
Total solids
500
350-950
Suspended solids
25
15-40
Dissolved solids
475
300-900
Nitrogen as N
20
15-35
Phosphorus as P
10
7-15
Potassium as K
12
10-14
Chloride
100
30-200
Iron
0.5
0.1-5. 5
Copper
0.13
0-1.4
Cadmium
0.1
0-0.2
Nickel
0.2
0.03-0.35
Zinc
0.2
0.1-0. 5
Lead
0.05
0.01-0.1
Boron
0.2
0-1.0
Calcium
40
25-60
Magnesium
17
15-25
Manganese
0.2
—
Sodium
40
35-100
Aluminum
0.9
—
Chromium
—
— pH is reported in units.
be anticipated from one plant to another and from one time of year to
another .
Sludge from secondary treatment plants is normally about 3 to 7
percent solids. Components of the sludge are in much greater concen-
tration than those in the effluent, which is generally less than 0.1
percent solids.
Table 4-8 is based on an analysis of activated sludge from a
plant in Chicago, 111.
4-13
Table 4-8. — Composition of sludge from a secondary
waste treatment planti/
Component Range in concentration
mg/1
Total solids
Mineral
Organic
Alkalinity as CaCO^
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Potassium as K
Magnesium
Manganese
Total nitrogen as N
Ammonia as N
Sodium
Nickel
Phosphorus as P....
Lead
Silicon
Sulfur
Zinc
27,500-34,300
13,200-17,800
14,300-16,500
2,460-2,750
227-636
(2/)
0. 9-5.1
1.0-2. 4
1,180-1,240
170-490
26-49
(2/)
24-32
1,500-1,666
114-152
291-446
14-143
1,450-1,767
528-790
119-129
Trace-3
680-740
6-90
2,773-9,800
45-288
90-92
•^Activated sludge from a waste-water
treatment plant at Chicago, 111.
iL/Not detected.
10. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING WASTES
There is no effluent from fruit and vegetable processing plants
that can be called typical. BOD and suspended solids are usually
high (300 to 5,000 mg/1) after raw waste water has been screened and
allowed to settle. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations are usually
low (10 to 100 mg/1 and 3 to 30 mg/1, respectively). These wastes often
have a high sodium and chloride content.
Table 4-9 lists the concentration of waste components from
various kinds of processing plants. The composition in the table is
not necessarily typical; rather, it illustrates the variability found.
Values above and below those listed are also occasionally reported.
4-14
«— i iii cm i oo i a i i • • i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
COIIIOIOIIIIIII
<}• I I I
l o • • I
I I I I I
I I I I I I
o o
o o
o o
•» - o
n cn n m
i i
i o o m
o o
O m
i i i i i
r-iOOOOOOOO^O<rcOCMOOvOOO
• • O O O O CO r-i rH • 00 M VO o <f
r-ocMinocMONNO co cm «— i <j-m
oomooooooomoNOooo
• • ooooooocor^inND<i-<r
OOnOOOOOOcN co CO
co <r o o o o
• ♦ o o o o
m o r— i co co oo
r— « I CM I CO CM I— I H
o o
o o
o - o
* O O
I in H H H
i i i
• o o
o o
o o
I I I I I I
£) C/3
n i a;
H -C
a) cn
oo ctj
03 Q
<f n- O O O O
• • o o o o
vo o Is cj
^|CM| rS rH r-T rH
no o O O O
• • in o in o
vD O CM O' ON CO
— • | in co <j-
00 co o o o o
. .oomi in , |
\f rl O O Is CM |
rH |cn | m -sf mt
CNJ CO
r"~ cnj
I I
NO CNJ
in o
in | cm|
o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o
in m m o o o o oo
„„#»*»*>*.Ocoininom «m
CMHHCNlCNJvt'inCMcnCOst'HHH
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ooooooomr^oocooo
OmOOOOrH CNJ rH 00 H
CNJ r-J CO CM co
cn cn
cn -d
TJ *H -H
_ *H »H r— J
o cn r— < o o
TJ O cn cn
rH -h cn
<i> cu a)
cn -
I XJ >
^ C B
CM3
cu o -h
C i — i • • cn E 3
4J(uo • • o a w 3 -h
c0OiCnu'i»Mcnaj-HO
J) W H to l/l 0 Q JJ o U 3 H
K^OOO-HOo-HXO o co
aw h>coQ«oswp-.coo;
-i\ CM I
I
I
I
4-15
11. MEAT PROCESSING WASTES
Types of plant processes and the extent of byproduct recovery are
major influences on the composition of effluents from slaughterhouses
and packinghouses processing meat. Blood recovery, now common, greatly
reduces the pollution load in effluents. Pure blood has a BODc; of
over 150,000 mg/1 and a COD of nearly 220,000 mg/1. The blood from
each 1,000 lb of animal killed contains about 4.7 lb BOD^ and 6.5 lb
COD. Paunch content (rumen), also commonly recovered, has a BOD^ of
about 50,000 mg/1 and COD of about 177,000 mg/1. The paunch content
of each 1,000 lb of animal killed has about 2.5 lb BODc; and 8.8 lb
COD. Grease recovery also reduces waste concentration in effluents.
Table 4-10 shows what can be expected in effluents from meat
processing plants. These figures represent the concentration of com-
ponents of effluents from which blood and rumen have been excluded.
12. DAIRY PROCESSING WASTES
The volume and strength of milkhouse wastes depend on the care
and management practiced in the milkhouse and in cleaning procedures.
For example, deposited manure flushed during cleanup adds substan-
tially to the concentration of pollutants in milkhouse effluent.
With good milkhouse management, about 0.08 to 0.15 lb B0Dr^ per day
is contributed per cow.
Table 4-10. — Composition of slaughterhouse and packinghouse wastes
[Dashes indicate data not available]
Component
Poultry
Hogs and beef
mg/1
mg/1
pH
i/7.1
i/7.0
Electrical conductivity
i/0.5
—
Alkalinity as CaCO^
—
400
Total solids
800
2,600-5,800
Volatile solids
700
2,000-3,000
Suspended solids
500
1,000-1,500
Dissolved solids
300
1,100-4,300
B0Ds
500
1,400-2,600
COD'
800
3,100-4,400
Nitrogen as N
—
140-150
Phosphorus as P
4
—
Potassium as K
23
Sodium
37
Calcium
32
—
Magnesium
8
—
Chloride
300
—
Grease
300
500-550
i/pH is reported in units.
2/Electrical conductivity is reported in millimhos
per centimeter.
4-16
Table 4-11 shows the range and average concentration of compo-
nents of milking center wastes. The figures for average concentra-
tion reflect good milking center management.
Table 4-12 gives BODc; data for dairy food processing plants
obtained by a survey of 57 plants.
Table 4-11. — Composition of milking center wastes
[Dashes indicate data not available]
Component
Range
Average
mg/1
mg/1
pH
-/6.5-7.4
I/7.0
Total solids
800-10,400
5,000
Volatile solids....
—
—
Suspended solids...
200-7,800
2,700
Dissolved solids...
—
2,300
BODs
600-2,500
1,500
Nitrogen as N
60-740
250
Phosphorus as P....
50-540
200
—/pH is reported in units.
Table 4-12. — BOD,, of waste water from dairy food plants'
1/
B0Ds
BOD^ per 1,
000 lb concentration
Product
milk processed in effluent
lb
mg/1
Milk
4.20
1,290
Cheese
2.04
650
Ice cream. ................
5.76
2,060
Condensed milk
7.60
3,620
Butter
0.85
1,060
Powdered milk
2.27
610
Cottage cheese
34.00
5,670
Cottage cheese and milk...
3.47
1,890
Ice cream, cottage cheese,
and
milk ... 6.37
2,530
Mixed products
3.09
1,320
Overall
5.85
2,400
— /From data presented
by
W. J. Harper and J.
L. Blaisdell of Ohio
State University at the Second
National Symposium
on Food Processing
Wastes, 1971.
4-17
The ratio of BODq; to COD in raw dairy-plant wastes ranges from
0.10 to 0.88 and averages 0.53. Detergents or matter other than milk
in the waste water may slow biological oxidation and yield BOD^ tests
indicating ratios of 0.4 or less.
Table 4-13 shows the range and average concentration of various
components of waste water from dairy food plants.
Note that, except for nitrogen, raw whey has a high concentration
of pollutants. Studies suggest the following values as representative
of raw whey strength (pH 4.3).
mg/1
Total solids 63,000
Volatile solids 57,000
B0Ds 35,000
COD 70,000
Nitrogen as N 15
Phosphorus as P 530
Calcium 510
Chloride 1,950
Table 4-13. — Composition of waste water from dairy food plants
[Dashes indicate data not available or entry not appropriate]
Component
Concentration
Range Average
PH
Total solids . . . .
Volatile solids.
Suspended solids
B0Ds
Nitrogen as N. . .
Phosphorus as P.
Potassium as K. .
' Sodium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
mg/1
mg/1
. .~5. 3-9.4
i/7.1
.. 135-8,500
2,400
.. 57-4,700
1,500
.. 24-5,700
—
.. 15-4,800
2,100
. . 15-180
76
.. 11-160
50
. . 11-160
67
322
. . 57-112
37
. . 25-49
—
.. 48-469
276
i/pH is reported in units.
i
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 5. THE ROLE OF SOILS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compiled by C. R. Berdanier, Jr., soil scientist, SCS , Lincoln, Nebr.
Contents
Page
General 5_1
Soil-Waste Interactions 5_1
Filtration 5_1
BOD and Soils 5_1
Chemical Precipitation 5_2
Adsorption 5_2
Properties Used in Soil Rating Guides 5_2
Available Water Capacity 5-2
Consistence 5-2
Depth to Bedrock 5-3
Depth to Water Table 5_3
Flooding 5_3
Infiltration Rate 5_3
Organic Matter 5_3
Percolation 5_3
Permeability 5_4
Runoff 5_4
Slope 5_4
Soil Drainage Class 5_4
Stoniness or Rockiness 5_5
Texture 5_5
Examples of Soil Descriptions and Ratings 5_5
Septic Tank Absorption Fields 5_6
Sewage Lagoons 5-7
Sanitary Landfills 5_8
Trench-Type Sanitary Landfills 5_g
Area-Type Sanitary Landfills 5_9
Sources of Cover Material for Area-Type Sanitary
Landfills 5_9
Disposal of Biodegradable Material by Land Application . . . 5-9
Application of Liquid Wastes 5-10
Application of Solid Wastes 5-10
5-1
CHAPTER 5. THE ROLE OF SOILS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. GENERAL
Soil, as the word is used in this text, is a collection of natu-
ral bodies on the earth's surface, in places modified or even made by
man of earthy materials, containing living matter and supporting or
capable of supporting plants outdoors. The upper limit of soil is air
or shallow water. At its margins soil grades to deep water or to bar-
ren areas of rock or ice. Plant roots commonly colonize the upper
soil horizons. Chapter 6 describes soil-water-plant relationships as
well as nutrient uptake by plants.
Soils are used as absorption fields for septic systems and as
disposal sites for biodegradable material applied to the land. Exca-
vations in soils are used for sanitary landfills, sewage lagoons, and
temporary storage basins for liquid waste. Completely effective filter
systems would destroy BOD, utilize biostimulants such as phosphates and
nitrates or remove them by some nonpolluting mechanism, provide long-
term storage for harmful trace elements such as heavy metals, and de-
activate virus or other pathogenic organisms and pesticides. Chapter
14 discusses pesticides and trace elements.
Effective filter systems are those permeable enough to allow per-
colation of purified water through and from the system but in which
the percolation rate is slow enough to allow reduction of BOD and util-
ization of biostimulants such as phosphates and nitrates.
Completely effective sites for sanitary landfills, sewage lagoons,
and temporary storage basins would be impervious and prevent the move-
ment of any leachate. Chapters 9, 10, 12, and 13 discuss lagoons and
sanitary landfills.
SOIL-WASTE INTERACTIONS
Filtration
In soil-waste systems, liquid wastes percolate through the soil
and the particles in suspension are trapped at the surface or in the
pore spaces. The particulate content of liquid wastes usually is non-
soluble organic material. Substances in solution such as soluble salts
or sugar are not removed .
BOD and Soils
Organic substances in suspension and solution enter soils as part
of the applied waste. Aerobic soil organisms use the organic wastes as
food. Oxygen from the soil atmosphere is used in this oxidation process,
and BOD of the waste is reduced. Some of the end products are resistant
to breakdown and remain for years as part of the soil organic matter.
5-2
Chemical Precipitation
Some waste constituents in solution in the soil water are removed
from solution by chemical precipitation. The precipitates that are
relatively insoluble can be held in the soil for a long time. For ex-
ample, phosphorus is precipitated and immobilized in soils with avail-
able calcium, iron, or aluminum. Heavy metals are precipitated in soils
in which pH is near 7; if the soil pH drops, the heavy metals revert to
soluble forms.
Adsorption
Other waste constituents in solution and colloidal waste particles
are held on the surface of soil particles by adsorption. The adsorbed
cations (positive charge) can be returned to the soil solution through
exchange processes. Particles in the colloidal size range, such as
those of clay or organic matter, and microbes, commonly have a negative
surface charge. The surface charge causes the particles to function as
small magnets and attract particles with a positive charge.
2. PROPERTIES USED IN SOIL RATING GUIDES
AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY
Available water capacity is a measure of the soil water that is
available to plants. An estimate of available water capacity is the
water retention difference (water held at 15-bar tension minus that
held at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension). Plants extract more water from the
top part of the soil than from the deeper parts. This property is
used to rate soils as sites for disposal of biodegradable material ap-
plied to the upper horizons. Estimates of water retention difference
or available water capacity are available for many soils in soil sur-
vey investigation reports, in published soil surveys, and in computer
storage .
CONSISTENCE
Soil consistence comprises the attributes of soil material that
are expressed by degree and kind of cohesion and adhesion or by re-
sistance to deformation or rupture. Soil consistence is dependent on
the soil water state (dry, moist, or wet). Moist soil consistence is
a property used to rate soil suitability as a source of cover material
for sanitary landfills. Moist soil consistence is reported as loose,
very friable, friable, firm, very firm, and extremely firm. Consist-
ence is determined by pressing a soil ped between the thumb and fore-
finger. Consistence values are included in all soil series descrip-
tions .
5-3
DEPTH TO BEDROCK
Depth to bedrock is used to rate soil suitability for septic tank
absorption fields, trench-type sanitary landfills, and sewage lagoons.
For sanitary landfills a distinction is made between hard (nonrippable)
and rippable bedrock.
DEPTH TO WATER TABLE
Minimum annual depth to phreatic water is used to rate soil suit-
ability for septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary
landfills, whether trench or area type. Prevention of water-table pol-
lution is the important consideration.
FLOODING
Flooding is used to rate soil suitability for septic tank absorp-
tion fields, sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills whether trench or area
type, and sites for disposal of biodegradable material applied to the
upper horizons. In this context ponding is considered to be flooding.
Flooding is a function of soil position and of stream control instal-
lations .
INFILTRATION RATE
The infiltration rate is the rate at which water enters the soil
surface horizon. It is used to evaluate soil for disposal of liquid
carrying biodegradable material applied to the upper horizons. In-
filtration is influenced by surface sealing tendency, slope and con-
figuration, surface texture, frozen vs. nonfrozen surfaces, and kind
and growth stage of vegetation.
ORGANIC MATTER
Soil organic matter is composed primarily of material resistant
to alteration, such a lignin and humic acid. The organic matter con-
tent of the subsoil is commonly lower than that of the surface horizon.
Organic matter content is used to rate soil for sewage lagoons, which
are commonly constructed in the subsoil. Subsoil horizon properties,
therefore, are the values used in rating soils. Organic matter con-
tent of many soils is reported in soil survey investigation reports
and in published soil surveys.
PERCOLATION
Percolation is the movement of liquid through a porous medium.
The percolation rate is determined by measuring the rate of water re-
moval from a straight-sided hole bored or dug into the soil. Commonly,
the soil surrounding the hole is saturated before the rate of water
removal is measured. The percolation rate is measured at individual
sites. It is usually more rapid than the permeability rate.
5-4
PERMEABILITY
Permeability is estimated on the basis of soil characteristics
observed in the field that influence the downward movement of water in
the soil, particularly soil structure, porosity, and texture. The per-
meability rate is expressed in inches per hour (in/hr) as very slow
(<0.06), slow (0.06-0.20), moderately slow (0.20-0.6), moderate (0. 6-2.0),
moderately rapid (2. 0-6.0), rapid (6.0-20), and very rapid (> 20). Per-
meability is used to evaluate soils for septic tank absorption fields,
sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills whether trench or area type, and
sites for disposal of biodegradable material applied to the upper hori-
zons. The permeability rate of the most slowly permeable layer of
soil beneath the surface horizon is the one reported in a soil series
description.
RUNOFF
Runoff is expressed as the rate of water movement from a site by
flow over the soil surface. It is used to evaluate soil suitability
for use as sites for disposal of biodegradable material applied to the
surface horizon. Runoff is influenced by slope and surface configura-
tion, frozen vs. nonfrozen surface, infiltration rate, permeability
rate, soil water content, storm intensity and duration, soil structure,
and cropping patterns.
SLOPE
Soil slope is a property of surface configuration and deviation
from a horizontal plane. Soil slope is used to rate soil suitability
for septic tank absorption fields, sewage lagoons, sanitary landfills
whether trench or area type, and sanitary landfill cover material.
SOIL DRAINAGE CLASS
Soils are grouped according to the rate of water removal in re-
lation to the water supply. Soil drainage classes are:
1. Very poorly drained. Water remains at or on the surface
during most of the growing season.
2. Poorly drained. The soil is saturated or remains wet for
long periods during the growing season.
3. Somewhat poorly drained. Where not artificially drained,
the soil remains wet enough of the time to limit crop selec-
tion and growth.
4. Moderately well drained. The soil is wet for a small part
of the growing season but long enough periodically to affect
some crops.
5. Well drained. Water is removed from the soil readily but
not rapidly.
6. Somewhat excessively drained. Water is removed from the
soil rapidly in relation to supply.
5-5
7. Excessively drained. Water is removed from the soil very
rapidly in relation to supply.
This property is used to rate soil suitability for sanitary land-
fills whether trench or area type, sanitary landfill cover material,
and sites for disposal of biodegradable materials applied to the upper
horizons. Many somewhat poorly drained and wetter soils can be tiled
or ditched if an outlet is available. Some of them can be diked and
pumped if no gravity outlet exists. These corrective measures can
create the aerobic zone needed for waste disposal, but the effluent re-
moved should be monitored for pollutants such as nitrates and, when
necessary, treated to remove the pollutants.
STQNINESS OR ROCKINESS
Stoniness refers to a content of stones larger than 10 inches in
diameter. Rockiness refers to an area in which bedrock crops out or
the soil over hard bedrock is too shallow for use. These properties
are used to rate soil suitability for septic tank absorption fields,
trench-type sanitary landfills, and cover material for area-type san-
itary landfills.
TEXTURE^
Texture refers to the proportions of the various size groups of
individual grains (sand, silt, and clay) in a total mass. This prop-
erty is used to rate soil suitability for sewage lagoons, trench-type
sanitary landfills, and cover material for area-type sanitary land-
fills. Many systems of texture classification have been devised and
used. Those used in soil guides issued by SCS include the USDA soil
texture classification, the Unified soil classification, and the Amer-
ican Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) soil classification.
3. EXAMPLES OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS AND RATINGS
This section illustrates how the major soil in all areas delineated
by a given mapping unit is rated. Since soils differ within the map-
ping unit, onsite evaluation at a proposed construction site is neces-
sary for detailed planning.
The mapping unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, as defined for
the soil survey of La Moure County, N. Dak., has been selected as an
example.—' Ratings for soil waste systems following SCS guides are
given. The soil description follows.
— / Texture in the USDA classification considers only material
<2mm. The Unified and AASHO systems, included here for convenience,
classify material >2mm as well as that <2mm .
—'Thompson, D. G. Soil survey of La Moure County and parts of
James River Valley. 123 p. 121 pi. Soil Cons. Serv., U.S'. Dep.
Agr. 1971.
5-6
Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Sv) . This soil occurs
on glacial till plains. Included in mapping were areas, less
than 2 acres in size, of Barnes, Hamer ly, and Tonka soils.
Most of the acreage is cultivated. Small grain, corn, flax,
and alfalfa are suitable crops. Management practices are needed
to conserve moisture and maintain fertility. Erosion is not a
problem. Stubble-mulch tillage, management of crop residue,
establishing windbreaks, and fertilizing are beneficial prac-
tices. Trees for field and farmstead windbreaks are well suited.
The Svea series consists of deep, nearly level, moderately
well drained soils on glacial till plains in La Moure and
Dickey Counties. These soils formed in medium textured to
moderately fine textured glacial till.
In a typical profile the surface layer, about 10 inches
thick, consists of black loam. The subsoil, about 11 inches
thick, consists of very dark grayish brown, friable loam that
has moderate medium prismatic structure breaking to moderate
coarse subangular blocky. The underlying material consists of
mottled , light olive brown, light clay loam and loam. This
material is moderately calcareous to calcareous. It has an
accumulation of segregated lime just below the subsoil.
Permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately
slow in the substratum. The moisture-holding capacity is high.
These soils are well supplied with organic matter.
Most areas of Svea soils are cultivated along with the
closely associated Barnes soils. Small grain, corn, flax, and
alfalfa are well suited.
The Svea soil is rated for each type of disposal system covered by
SCS soil rating guides. The inclusions — soils in the Barnes, Hamerly,
and Tonka series — in the Svea loam mapping unit could be rated by using
the same procedures. The numbered guide sheets referred to for each
item are in the SCS guide for interpreting engineering uses of soils.—'
SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS
A septic tank absorption field is a soil absorption system for sew-
age disposal. It is a subsurface tile system laid in such a way that
effluent from the septic tank is distributed with reasonable uniformity
into the natural soil. Criteria used for rating soils (slight, moderate,
and severe) for use as absorption fields are based on the limitations of
the soil to absorb effluent. Use guide sheet 3.
3/
— Soil Survey Staff,
soils. 87 p. Soil Cons.
Guide for interpreting engineering uses of
Serv. , U.S. Dep. Agr. 1971.
5-7
Using the format provided by this guide, Svea soils as in mapping
unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rate as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea Rating
soils
Permeability
Hydraulic conductivity..
Percolation rate
Depth to water table....
Flooding
Slope
Depth to hard rock,
bedrock, or other
impervious material.
Stoniness class
Rockiness class
Moderate in subsoil
Usually >1 in/hr
Commonly greater than
permeability .
Water table not mentioned,
apparently is deep.
None
0-2 percent
Soils on glacial till;
bedrock’ not mentioned,
apparently is deep.
0
0
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
The major part of the mapping unit has slight limitations for sep-
tic tank absorption fields. Inclusions of Tonka soil in the mapping
unit have severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because
they are occasionally ponded.
SEWAGE LAGOONS
Types and functions of lagoons are discussed in chapters 9 and 12.
The soils must be considered for two functions: (1) as a vessel
for sewage impoundment (usually subsoil) and (2) as material for the
embankment. Use guide sheet 4.
Svea soils as in the mapping unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
rate as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils
Rating
Depth to water table . . .
Water table not mentioned,
Slight
Permeability
apparently is deep.
Moderately slow in substratum.
Slight
Depth to bedrock
Mapping unit on glacial till;
Slight
Slope ..................
bedrock not mentioned,
apparently is deep.
0-2 percent
Slight
Coarse fragments
<20 percent
Slight
Surface area covered
<3 percent
Slight
with coarse fragments .
Organic matter
<2 percent below 21 inches
Slight
Flooding
None
Slight
Soil groups (Unified
CL
Slight
soil classification
system) .
5-8
The major part of the mapping unit has slight limitations for sew-
age lagoons. Inclusions of Tonka soil in the mapping unit have severe
limitations because they are occasionally ponded.
SANITARY LANDFILLS
Sanitary landfills are discussed in chapter 13. Soil information
is useful for eliminating sites with severe limitations. Trench-type
sanitary landfills commonly extend to a depth of 15 ft, whereas
excavations for area-type landfills are shallow. Because of depth
and digging equipment requirements , the guide for trench-type land-
fills has several more items affecting use than the guide for area-
type landfills. Those sites rated as having only slight limitations
according to soil information should be investigated further and to
greater depth for information on properties other than those observed
normally for soil characterization. (See chapter 7 for a discussion
of geologic considerations.) Use guide sheets 7 and 8 to rate limi-
tations of soils for use as trench-type and area-type sanitary land-
fills, respectively.
Trench-Type Sanitary Landfills
Svea soils as in the mapping unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
rate as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils
Rating
Depth to seasonal high
Water table not mentioned,
Slight
water table.
apparently is deep.
Soil drainage class . .
Moderately well drained
Slight
Flooding
None
Slight
Permeability
<2 in/hr
Slight
Slope
0-2 percent
Slight
Soil texture .........
Loam
Slight
Depth to bedrock
Soils on glacial till;
bedrock not mentioned,
apparently is deep.
Slight
Stoniness class
0
Slight
Rockiness class
0
Slight
The major part of the mapping unit has slight limitations for
trench-type sanitary landfills. Inclusions of Tonka soils in the
mapping unit have severe limitations because they are occasionally
ponded .
5-9
Area-Type Sanitary Landfills
Svea soils as in the mapping unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
rate as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils
Rating
Depth to seasonal high
Water table not mentioned,
Slight
water table.
apparently is deep.
Soil drainage class . . .
Moderately well drained
Slight
Flooding
None
Slight
Permeability
<2 in/hr
Slight
Slope
0-2 percent
Slight
The major part of the mapping unit has slight limitations for area-
type sanitary landfills. Inclusions of Tonka soils in the mapping unit
have severe limitations because they are occasionally ponded.
Sources of Cover Material for Area-Type Sanitary Landfills
Many area-type sanitary landfills require an auxiliary source of
cover material. Use guide sheet 9 to rate the soils for this purpose.
Ratings are in terms of suitability rather than limitations.
Svea soils as in the mapping unit Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes,
rate as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils
Rating
Moist consistence
Friable
Good
Texture
Loam to 21 inches
Good
Thickness of material..
<40 inches
Fair
Coarse fragments
<15 percent
Good
Stoniness class
0
Good
Slope
0-2 percent
Good
Drainage class
Moderately well drained
Good
The major part of the mapping unit has fair suitability for use as
a source of cover material for sanitary landfill areas because of the
thickness of suitable material. Inclusions of Tonka soil in the mapping
unit have fair suitability because of dominant texture and common wet
consistence .
DISPOSAL OF BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL BY LAND APPLICATION
Land application methods are discussed in chapter 11. SCS has
issued an interim guide for rating limitations of soils for disposal
of waste. 4 J
4/Soil Survey Staff. Interim guide for rating limitations of soils
for disposal of waste. 26 p. (Mimeographed) Soil Cons. Serv. , U.S. Dep.
Agr. 1973.
5-10
Application of Liquid Wastes
Using the format provided by table 1 in the interim guide, Svea
soils as in the mapping unit, Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rate
for land application of liquid wastes as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils
Rating
Permeability
Moderately slow
Moderate
Infiltration rate ...
Moderate
Slight
Soil drainage class..
Moderately well drained
Slight
Runoff
Very slow or slow
Slight
Flooding
None
Slight
Available water
High
Slight
capacity to 60 inches
or to a limiting layer.
The major part of the mapping unit has moderate limitations for
land application of liquid wastes because of its moderately slow per-
meability. Inclusions of Tonka soils in the mapping unit have severe
limitations because they are occasionally ponded.
Application of Solid Wastes
Using the format provided by table 2 in the interim guide, Svea
soils as in the mapping unit, Svea loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rate
for land application of solid wastes as follows:
Item affecting use
Character (degree) in Svea soils Rating
Permeability
Soil drainage class . . .
Runoff
Flooding
Available water capacity
to 60 inches or to a
limiting layer.
Moderately slow
Moderately well drained
Very slow or slow
None
High
Moderate
Slight
Slight
Slight
Slight
The major part of the mapping unit has moderate limitations for
land application of solid wastes because of its moderately slow per-
meability. Inclusions of Tonka soils in the mapping unit have severe
limitations because they are occasionally ponded.
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 6. THE ROLE OF PLANTS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compiled by Joseph W. Turelle, chief agronomist (ret.), SCS,
Washington, D.C.
Contents
Page
Soil-Water-Plant Relationships 6-1
Uptake and Movement of Chemical Elements by Plants
Movement and Reaction of Key Plant Nutrients in Soil 6-2
Nitrogen 6-2
Phosphorus 6-3
Potassium, Calcium, and Magnesium 6_3
Sulfur 6_3
Micronutrients 6-3
Effect of Field Crops, Vegetables, Grasses, and Legumes in
Neutralizing Wastes 6-6
Effect of Trees and Forests in Neutralizing Wastes 6-10
Removal Efficiency 6-11
Tables
Table 6-1 Plant Nutrient Uptake by Specified Crops 6-4
Table 6-2 Probable Available Form, Average Composition (Range),
and Suggested Tolerance Level for Heavy Metals in
Selected Agronomic Crops Monitored 6-7
6-1
CHAPTER 6. THE ROLE OF PLANTS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. SOIL-WATER-PLANT RELATIONSHIPS
Plants are well equipped to neutralize wastes. In the process of
translocation, dissolved food and organic compounds in the plant move
through it (downward) via conductive plant tissue called phloem, and
water and minerals that are taken in move through it (upward) via tis-
sue called xylem. In standard crop production, translocation is an ac-
cepted and ordinary plant function. In neutralizing or recycling wastes
on land, however, it merits special attention because, for this use,
the amount of additional water a growing plant can take up and the ad-
ditional amounts and kinds of minerals it can use are basic consider-
ations .
In ranking plants for their suitability in waste management sys-
tems, we need to have the following information:
1. Water requirement, removal capability, and tolerance.
2. Nutrient requirement, chemical removal capability, and toler-
ance, especially to metals and other micronutrients.
3. Soil conditions needed for effective growth and plant toler-
ance to salinity and acidity.
4. Season of growth, longevity, and dormancy periods of plants.
5. Effect of wastes on plant quality for marketing. Waste man-
agement systems, for example, may not be suitable for producing
leaf vegetables. Crops produced with effluent must be thor-
oughly disinfected or washed before human consumption.
6. Tolerance to diseases that may be caused by wastes. For example,
bermudagrass uses large amounts of NO3-N, and buildup of NO3-N
in reed canarygrass is relatively slow. These qualities make
the possibility of NO3 poisoning of animals grazing the plants
remote. But large applications of waste material on tall fescue
and ryegrass cause NO3 buildup and, thus, poisoning in animals
grazing these plants. Plants also vary in tolerance to sodium
and pH, which may be affected by applications of waste material
on land.
7. Suitability for different cultural and crop management systems.
In double cropping, for example, the total uptake of waste in-
gredients by plants certainly increases. Plants must also fit
into crop management systems required by a land operator to
achieve his particular economic goals.
2. UPTAKE AND MOVEMENT OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS BY PLANTS
Of the components of wastes applied to the land, chemical elements
have the greatest environmental implications. Fortunately, most of these
elements (in varying amounts) are necessary for plant growth.
6-2
Waste management must balance the capacity of plants to take up
chemical elements against amounts present in the wastes applied to the
land. Either a lack or an excess of these chemicals can cause defi-
ciencies in plant growth. An excess can also cause toxicity. Key re-
quirements in any waste management plan are to apply nutrients in
quantities that benefit plants and to provide a repository for non-
essential compounds.
Plants require some 16 chemical elements. They get carbon and ox-
ygen from the air and hydrogen from soil water. Nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, sulfur, calcium, and magnesium are needed in large quantities
and are taken from the soil solution. Iron, manganese, zinc, boron, cop-
per, chlorine, and molybdenum are needed in smaller amounts. These also
come from the soil solution. Other elements may be taken up by the plant
from the soil solution, sometimes with benefit, sometimes with detriment.
Sodium taken up by a plant may exert a minor effect on potassium so that
less K is needed. Excess sodium in the soil solution, however, may re-
tard plant growth. Silicon is taken up and incorporated into the cell
walls of grasses. Silicon promotes vigor and resistance to disease and
drought in several grasses. Cadmium stimulates growth of certain grasses,
especially creeping bentgrass. Cobalt is needed by nitrifying bacteria
on clover roots. But an excess of any micronutrient damages plants.
Plants differ in their capacity to absorb nutrients from the soil.
Some of these differences are genetic in origin and are associated with
physical distribution and chemical characteristics. Almost any element
in the soil solution is taken into the plant to some extent, whether
needed or not. An ion in the soil goes from the soil particle to the
soil solution, through the solution to the plant root, enters the root,
and moves from the root through the plant to the location where it is
used or retained.
The process of mineral uptake by plants is complex and our knowledge
of it incomplete. Some of the known points are: (1) The process is not
the same for all plants nor for all minerals. (2) The complete process
occurs in a healthy root system supplied by carbohydrate and oxygen; the
process is not complete if roots are destroyed by disease, starved from
excess mowing, or smothered by excess water or compaction. (3) The neces-
sary minerals must be available in the root zone in suitable amounts.
(4) Uptake varies from mineral to mineral (table 6-1).
3. MOVEMENT AND REACTION OF KEY PLANT NUTRIENTS IN SOIL
Generally, five things can happen to elements in waste materials
applied to land. They can (1) be used by the crop, (2) become part of the
soil, (3) leach downward through the soil, (4) be washed away by erosion,
or (5) volatilize and escape as a gas.
NITROGEN
Nitrogen is the only element entering to a significant extent into
all five possibilities. Nitrogen fertilizer may occur as free ammonia,
urea, ammonium, and nitrate. All forms of nitrogen applied to land usu-
ally are converted to nitrates. A plant is not affected by the source,
6-3
inorganic or organic, of nitrate or ammonium ions. Much of the nitrogen
in waste management systems is from organic sources.
An important point is that NO3 moves freely in the soil water be-
cause it is adsorbed on soil particles weakly or not at all. Thus irri-
gation, which is usually associated with waste management systems, pre-
sents a problem or dilemma — to provide enough nitrogen in the root zone
for efficient crop growth without risking its excessive leaching from
the soil.
Volatilization also occurs in the soil through biological reduction
of nitrate to nitrous oxide, elemental nitrogen, and possibly nitric
oxide. Thirty percent of nitrogen applied may be lost through volatil-
ization. Actually, insofar as nitrogen is concerned, this gaseous dis-
posal is not a disadvantage in waste management systems because more
nitrogen can be applied than will be used in plant growth.
PHOSPHORUS
The chemical forms of phosphorus generally are more complex than
those of nitrogen. Phosphate fertilizers added to the soil break down
and react quickly to form dozens of new compounds. Phosphorus does not
move appreciably in the soil unless the soil is washed away by erosion.
In one experiment phosphorus applied to a soil moved no more than 8
inches in 50 years. Movement may be much greater in sandy sails and
peat. But if the lower horizons have more clay, downward movement vir-
tually stops. Thus} phosphorus leaching usually presents few problems in
waste management systems. Even if some forms of phosphorus are fixed or
tied up, plants take up the phosphorus they need if there is enough
phosphorus in the soil.
POTASSIUM, CALCIUM, AND MAGNESIUM
Potassium, calcium, and magnesium have similar reactions in soil.
Upon dissolution, each produces cations that are attracted to negatively
charged, minute particles of clay and organic matter. Potassium is much
less mobile than nitrogen but more so than phosphorus. Leaching losses
of potassium generally are insignificant except in sandy soils. Calcium
and magnesium may occur in drainage water but this creates no problem.
SULFUR
Part of the sulfur applied to well-drained soils ends up in sulfate
form. Sulfates are moderately mobile and may be adsorbed on clay min-
erals. Under irrigation in waste management systems, sulfates may be
leached into the subsoil and even into ground water. Under poor drainage
conditions, sulfates are converted to hydrogen sulfide and lost to the
atmosphere .
MICRONUTRIENTS
Boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc are fairly im-
mobile in soils. Boron may be leached from sandy soils. Copper, iron, and
6-4
Table
6-1 . — Plant nutrient uptake by specified, crops—'
1/
Crop and yield
: N :
P2°5
: K20 :
Mg :
S
Pounds per
acre
Corn :
180 bu grain
. . . 170
70
48
16
l4
8,000 lb stover
70
30
192
34
16
Cotton :
1,500 lb lint and 2,250 lb seed ....
94
38
44
11
7
Stalks, leaves, burrs
. . . 86
25
82
24
23
Wheat :
80 bu
. . . 144
44
27
12
5
8,000 lb straw
42
10
135
12
15
Oats :
100 bu
80
25
20
5
(2/)
Straw .
Barley :
35
15
125
15
(2/)
100 bu
. . . 110
40
35
8
10
Straw
40
15
115
9
10
Rice :
7,000 lb grain
... 77
46
28
8
5
7,000 lb straw
35
l4
140
6
7
Grain sorghum:
8,000 lb grain
. . . 120
60
30
l4
22
8,000 lb stover
. . . 130
30
170
30
16
Sugar beets:
30 tons roots
. . . 125
15
250
27
10
16 tons tops
. . . 130
25
300
53
35
Sugarcane :
100 tons stalks
. . . 160
90
335
40
54
Tops and trash
. . . 200
66
275
60
32
Tobacco (flue-cured):
3,000 lb leaf
... 85
15
155
15
12
3,600 lb stalks, tops, suckers .....
4l
11
102
9
7
Tobacco (burley) :
4,000 lb leaf
. .. 145
14
150
18
24
3,600 lb stalks, tops, suckers
95
l6
114
9
21
Soybeans 3./ :
60 bu
. . . 252
49
87
17
12
7,000 lb stalks, leaves, pods
. . . 84
l6
58
10
13
Peanut sh./ :
4,000 lb nuts
. .. l4o
22
35
5
10
5,000 lb vines
. . . 100
17
150
20
11
I
6-5
Table 6-1. — Plant nutrient uptake by specified crops — Continued
Crop and yield :
: N :
: P205
: K20 :
Mg :
S
Pounds per
acre
Coconuts :
3,600 nuts + 12 fronds lost annually..
75
25
120
20
12
Apples :
600 boxes (42 lb)
20
8
50
2
(2/)
Blossom, fruit, new wood
80
38
130
22
(2/)
Peaches :
600 bu
35
10
65
(2/)
(2/)
Tree annually
60
30
55
(2/)
(2/)
Grapes :
12 tons fruit
66
23
120
(2/)
(2/)
Vines
36
12
36
(2/)
(2/)
Oranges :
600 boxes (90 lb)
90
23
162
10
7
Trees (70/acre)
175
32
168
28
21
Tomatoes :
40 tons fruit
l44
67
288
10
28
4 ,400 lb vines
88
20
175
26
26
Potatoes :
500 cwt
150
80
264
12
12
Vines
102
34
90
20
12
Celery :
75 tons tops
255
130
680
(2/)
(2/)
Roots
25
35
70
(2/)
(2/)
Sweetpotatoes :
400 bu
53
26
126
5
(2/)
Vines
50
14
84
6
(2/)
Cabbage :
35 tons
(2/)
35
128
9
64
23 tons stem and leaf
Snap beans :
(2/)
28
121
27
(2/)
4 tons
70
21
77
8
( 2 / >
Plants
Table beets :
68
12
86
9
(2/)
25 tons roots
170
30
210
30
13
20 tons tops
190
13
370
74
28
Flax:
30 bu
76
20
16
7
4
2,100 lb straw
19
5
44
6
5
Cucumbers :
10 tons
40
l4
66
4
(2/)
Vines
50
14
108
21
(2/)
6-6
Table 6-1. — Plant nutrient uptake by specified crops — Continued
Crop and yield
: n :
: P?0S :
: K20 :
Mg
S
Pounds per
acre
Peas :
3 tons
45
9
17
8
(2/)
Pods and vines
105
17
62
14
(2/)
Onions : 30 tons
Lespedezeui/ : 3 tons
180
80
160
18
37
150
50
150
25
20
Johnsongrass : 12 tons
890
190
630
60
50
Paragrass: 12 tons
308
98
46o
79
4l
Napiergrass: 12.5 tons
303
147
605
63
75
Guineagrass : 11.5 tons
288
101
436
99
46
Bluegrass (turf): 3 tons
200
55
180
20
25
Tall fescue: 3.5 tons
135
65
185
13
(2/)
1/
From Potash Institute of America. Plant food utilization. Atlanta, Ga.
1973.
2/
Figures unavailable.
3/
Legumes get most of their nitrogen from the air.
zinc move less than 1 inch from the point of application in most soils.
The data in tables 6-1 and 6-2 indicate the effectiveness of spec-
ified plants in uptake of chemical elements.
4. EFFECT OF FIELD CROPS, VEGETABLES, GRASSES, AND
LEGUMES IN NEUTRALIZING WASTES
Crops have been grown for centuries on land also used for spreading
manure and sewage. These materials were long regarded as fertilizers,
not wastes, and no one considered that their use posed any problems of
crop selection and management. Animal manure was spread on food and feed
crops at the rate of a few tons per acre. Sewage and human waste were
less often used, particularly in Western countries; but many cities
spread sewage, with or without primary treatment, on land used for crops.
Although effluent and sludge have been applied on many kinds of
grasses, vegetables, legumes, field crops, and woody plants, grasses
seem to be the most effective in neutralizing wastes. Grasses are supe-
rior "biological pumps;" many species have a high water use factor com-
bined with abundant root production. Grass roots and sod retard runoff
and improve infiltration, and plant leaves transpire water back into the
atmosphere. The effectiveness of pastures has been demonstrated many
times .
6-7
Table 6-2. — Probable available form, average composition (range),
and suggested tolerance level for heavy metals in selected
agronomic crops monitored^/
Metal
: Probable
: available
: form
: Average :
: compos it ion^/ :
: (range) :
Suggested
tolerance
level3/
PPm
CATIONS
Barium
Ba++
10-100
200
Cadmium
Cd++
0.05-0.30
3
Cobalt
Co++
0.01-0.30
5
Copper
Cu++
3-U0
150
Iron
Fe++
20-300
750
Manganese
Mn++
15-150
300
Mercury
Hg++
0.001-0.01
0.0U
Lithium
Li+
0.2-1. 0
5
Nickel
Ni++
0
1 — 1
1
1 — 1
0
3
Lead
Pb++
0.1-5. 0
10
Strontium
Sr++
10-30
50
Zinc
Zn++
15-150
300
ANIONS
Arsenic
AsO^ —
0.01-1.0
2
Boron
HBO3--
5-75
150
Chromium
CrO
0.1-0. 5
2
Fluorine
F"
1-5
10
Iodine
1“
0.1-0. 5
1
Molybdenum
Mo 01|
0. 2-1.0
3
Selenium
SeOi|
0.05-2.0
3
Vanadium
VO3-
0. 1-1.0
2
— ^From Melstad, S.W. Some practical considerations in waste
management. Univ. 111. Dep. Agron. July 1973.
2/
— Average values for corn, soybeans, alfalfa, red clover, wheat,
oats, barley, and grasses grown under normal soil conditions.
Greenhouse values (both soil and solution) are not included.
3/
— Values are for corn leaves at or opposite and below ear level
at tassel stage, the youngest mature leaves and petioles on soybean
plants after first pod formation, upper stem cuttings of legumes
in early flower stage, whole cereal plants at boot stage, and
whole grass plants at early hay cutting stage.
6-8
In many waste management systems, plants are used successfully to
recycle effluent and sludges on land. Some examples follow.
Berlin’s sewage farm was started about 1850; by 1905 it covered
21,000 acres and supplied one-fourth of the vegetables for the city's
population. Paris established its first sewage farm in 1870. Both these
cities, and many others in Europe, grow vegetables, tree fruits, cere-
als, and forage crops. Werribee Farm in Melbourne, Australia, began op-
eration in 1893 and since then has produced 266,000 cattle and nearly
1.5 million sheep on pastures irrigated and fertilized with sewage.
Pasadena, Calif., started a sewage farm in 1887; by 1935 90 of the
310 municipalities in California were spreading sewage on land. Vege-
tables, fruit trees, grapes, alfalfa, sugar beets, hops, and cotton
were grown; only salad vegetables and berries were forbidden. San Antonio,
Tex., started using waste materials in 1915 for growing corn, grain
sorghum, cotton, forage, pecans, citrus, vegetables, and roses for cut
flowers .
Pleasanton, Calif., a city of 7,000 people, annually disposes of
370 million gallons of effluent on about 85 acres of pasture. Forage
includes several mixtures of grasses and legumes. Ryegrass (Lolium spp.),
orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) , and hardinggrass (Phalaris tuberosa
stenoptera) are the grasses commonly used in the pasture mixtures.
Annual application is 13 to 14 acre-feet. Current application is about
1 acre-foot per day in a 30- to 35-day rotation. Beef cattle graze con-
tinuously throughout the year. The effluent applied to this pasture con-
tains the equivalent of 400 lb nitrogen per acre per year, more than 200
lb phosphorus per acre per year, and more than 500 lb potassium per acre
per year. Grasses in waste management systems should be kept properly
grazed or mowed. Water use and chemical uptake by plants are greater
when plants are succulent and growing.
At Oregon State University, 15,000 gal liquid manure are pumped
daily onto a 60-acre 'fawn' fescue (Festuca arundinacea) pasture. It is
estimated that 60 tons per acre of manure, including bedding, is applied
each year. Contained in this liquid manure are 660 lb nitrogen per acre,
130 lb phosphorus per acre, and 500 lb potassium per acre. The annual
volume of liquid manure applied to pasture is 5.5 Mgal (17 acre-ft).
Experience with heavy rates of waste application on grass and leg-
ume pasture by Washington State University contrasts with the Oregon
State University results. Irrigation with liquid manure containing as
much as 9 percent solids heavily coated the leaves of legume plants and
stifled their growth. But ryegrass, because of its narrow leaves and
upright growth habit, performed well under the heavy loading.
Legumes, which have broad leaves, are less effective in waste disposal
systems than grasses.
Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) can use large amounts of nitrogen. In
Arizona 40 to 60 tons per acre of dry manure were applied on 1,000 acres
of irrigated pasture consisting of bermudagrass for warm-season grazing
and overseeded ryegrass for winter grazing. No critical nitrate levels
have been found in this operation.
In Florida, the annual nutrient uptake per acre for coastal bermuda-
grass in summer (March to November) was 570 lb N, 145 lb P2O5, and 400 lb
K2O. For ryegrass overseeded in winter (December to March), the annual
nutrient uptake per acre was 205 lb N, 75 lb P2O5, and 135 lb K2O.
6-9
In experiments in the Southeast, no nitrate poisoning has resulted
from grazing bermudagrass fertilized with chicken litter at 20 tons per
acre per month during the growing season. At 40 lb nitrogen per ton of
chicken litter, 5,600 lb nitrogen per acre are applied during a 7-month
season. These findings contrast with those from tall fescue pasture in
Nevada. When harvested as hay, tall fescue fertilized with 16 tons per
acre of chicken litter in September contained 0.6 percent nitrate,
enough to induce poisoning and cause grass tetany. The Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) has determined that 5 tons per acre per month of
chicken litter is detrimental.
In California, chicken litter has been successfully used on vege-
tables, strawberries, irrigated pasture, and annual dryland grass range.
On annual grass range, forage yields increased by 1,600 lb per acre for
each ton of litter applied. The practical upper limit was found to be 4
tons per acre. Above this rate yields increased only slightly or were
depressed .
At the Board of Works Farm in Melbourne, Australia, almost 14,000
acres of permanent pasture are irrigated by waste water. The land is
planted to mixtures of grasses to provide a balanced pasture throughout
the year: perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) , Italian ryegrass (Lolium
multif lorum) , white clover (Trifolium repens) , strawberry clover (T .
f ragif erum) , alsike clover (T. hybridum) , orchardgrass (Dactylis
glomerata) , timothy (Phleum pratense) , and meadow fescue (Festuca
elatior ) . During the peak of the irrigation season, water is applied to
pasture at a rate of 220 acre-feet a day or 2 inches per acre per week.
In a typical summer, the total quantity used for grass production is
about 34,000 acre-feet.
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) , with its high water re-
quirement and rhizomatous growth, has proved effective in waste manage-
ment systems. In Pennsylvania State University research, reed canary-
grass was effective in removing nitrogen. In 1965-1970, harvested reed
canarygrass removed 2,073 lb nitrogen per acre, equivalent to 86 percent
of the nitrogen in 536 inches of applied effluent. Nitrate buildup in reed
canarygrass is extremely slow, making nitrate poisoning a remote pos-
sibility. Total hay cuttings per year resulted in nitrate content below
the acceptable level of 1,500 ppm. Reed canarygrass has also controlled
the leakage of nitrates into ground water. In the Penn State University
studies, the nitrate nitrogen (NO^-N) leakage ranged from 2.8 mg/1 in
1965 to 2.2 mg/1 in 1970. The limit recommended for drinking water by
USPHS is 10 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen or 45 mg/1 nitrate. However, the ni-
trate nitrogen in ground water under corn silage exceeded the USPHS
limits. This excess was caused by late-season planting and earlier har-
vesting periods that avoid nitrogen buildup in the soil. No-till plant-
ing might help solve this problem.
On a private dairy farm in Chester County, Pa., 7.5 acres were
seeded in 1970 to sudangrass (Sorghum vulgare sudanense) for green chop.
From July to frost, five cuttings were harvested. In 1971, rye (Secale
cereale) was seeded before sudangrass and planted again after the last
sudangrass harvest in the fall. This system certainly increased the
total chemical uptake by the plants.
6-10
In a University of Maryland study, Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pra-
tensis), ladino clover (Trifolium repens), and strawberry clover (T.
fragiferum) were found to tolerate heavy irrigations of waste material.
In the Illinois Shawnee National Forest, a one-time application of
121 tons of dry sludge per acre produced a healthy stand of weeping
lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) on surface-mined areas. Water quality
measurements over 1 year revealed that concentration of iron declined
81 percent; aluminum, 86 percent; manganese, 67 percent; sulfate, 61
percent - and acidity, 76 percent. Plans are to apply 200 tons (dry
weight) of sludge per acre through sprinkler irrigation systems.
In a Florida University study, oats, rye, and ryegrass are being
produced during the winter with sewage effluent. Sorghum, kenaf , corn,
millet, and coastal bermudagrass are grown in summer. Another study
showed a 240 percent increase in napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum) and
Japanese cane when effluent was used to irrigate these crops.
At the Pratt Feedlot in Kansas (33,000 head on 220 acres), an aver-
age of 1,000 lb dry manure per animal per year is recovered. In 1969,
this manure contained 20 lb nitrogen per ton. Yields of corn for silage
were 23.2 tons per acre from an optimum application of 103 tons of ma-
nure (2,060 lb N per acre). Rates of application ranged up to 320 tons.
The optimum annual application, however, may be considerably less than
100 tons per acre per year, considering the additive effects that may
occur. Nitrate levels were less than 0.03 percent and no threat to live-
stock. The maximum tolerance for nitrates in forage is 0.15 percent.
5. EFFECT OF TREES AND FORESTS IN NEUTRALIZING WASTES
Forested areas provide a feasible medium for recycling agricul-
tural wastes on land. In the Penn State waste water renovation and con-
servation project, effluent was applied on forest and cropland. The
first stage of waste-water renovation in the forested areas occurred
during passage of effluent through the forest floor. Percolation through
the upper 4 feet of soil further increased the renovation. The disposal
site had a native mixed oak stand consisting primarily of white oak
(Quercus alba) , black oak (Quercus velutina) , red oak (Q. rubra) , and
scarlet oak (Q. coccinea). Ground vegetation consisted mostly of black-
cap raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) , blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), teaberry
(Gaultheria procumbens) , violet (Viola spp.) and wildsarsaparilla (Aralia
nudicaulis) . The forest floor had a layer of about 1.5 inches of organic
matter, much of which was well-developed humus.
Results showed that over a 6-year period the forested areas were
efficient removers of chemical components. Phosphorus concentration at
the 2-foot soil depth was reduced by 98 to 99 percent. Nitrate concen-
tration was reduced 68 to 82 percent at the 12-inch soil depth. Contin-
uous irrigation of effluent could become a major problem because of
excessive nitrates. This may deter long-term use of forested areas unless
biodenitrification processes are promoted.
At the Seabrook Farms in New Jersey, annual applications of effluent
on areas of white and black oak were 400 to 600 inches over an 8-month
period. A few isolated areas received as much as 800 to 1,000 inches.
After 7 years, hydrophytic plants replaced native trees and shrubs,
6-11
forming a thick carpet of decaying vegetation. Although forest cover was
eliminated, waste water continued to be satisfactorily renovated with no
adverse effects on ground-water reservoirs.
In a study at Grand Mere plantations, Quebec (reported by J. D.
Gagnon, Canadian Forest Service), white spruce was the test tree. Digested
sludge was applied at 500 lb per acre (dry weight). The plantation on
a sandy soil gave a 30 percent height-growth response over control trees
after 4 years. The researchers of this project feel that digested sludge
can be used successfully as a fertilizer to increase tree growth.
Considerable amounts of nutrients are taken up by trees in forested
areas. Many of these nutrients are redeposited annually in leaf and
needle litter and are not removed as are those in harvested agronomic
crops. Waste management systems can often be operated continuously
throughout the year. In northern climates where much freezing occurs,
waste management must rely more on the absorptive capacity of the soil
and less on microbes and plant roots.
Because of the acid condition of the soils, forested areas during
winter provide better infiltration conditions and larger phosphorus-
adsorptive capacity than croplands and grasslands do. Some ice buildup
may occur, but there is no serious damage. Thus, a combination of crop-
land, grassland, and forests provide much flexibility in operating a
waste management system on land.
6. REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Dr. L. T. Kardos of Pennsylvania State University expresses the
capacity for chemical uptake by plants as "renovation efficiency,"
which essentially is a ratio of the weight of nutrient removed in the
harvested crop to the weight of the same nutrient applied in the waste
water. For example, in one experiment (1965) in which effluent was ap-
plied at the rate of 1 inch per week, corn silage removed nutrients
equivalent to 202 percent of the total nitrogen applied, 39 percent of
the phosphorus applied, and 62 percent of the potassium applied. Even
at the 2-inch per week level, corn silage removed the equivalent of 103
percent of the nitrogen applied.
Since there is great diversity in the composition of waste material,
crop tolerance, and soil and climatic conditions, it is not possible to
make specific crop and management recommendations. The lack of informa-
tion on long-term effects of waste disposal on land is also a hindrance.
I
k
7-1
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 7. GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compiled by Alfonso F. Geiger, engineering geologist,
SCS, Washington, D.C.
Surface indicators cannot be relied upon to disclose accurately
the nature of the geologic environment for any given waste management
site. Adverse effects of waste application on or beneath the ground
surface can be transmitted far beyond the site if certain conditions
prevail. A common adverse effect is the pollution or degradation of
surface or ground waters by chemical or biological components of
leachates or liquid wastes.
Waste management sites are normally chosen on the basis of the
ability of the soils and plant cover to absorb and renovate wastes.
But subsurface conditions may be such that, through highly permeable
lenses, joints, cracks, or solution channels, the waste liquids to-
tally or partially bypass the soil and are transmitted directly to
ground or surface waters.
Land that resists mass movement under natural conditions may be-
come unstable under heavy application of liquid wastes. This can hap-
pen in sloping areas underlain by shale or certain other materials
that are less permeable than the overlying soils.
Poisonous, explosive, or odoriferous gases have been transmitted
through sand lenses and buried channels considerable distances from
sanitary fills. While this transmittal of gases may be an uncommon
problem, it is exceptionally difficult to correct once it happens.
Generally, under continuous operation the maximum rate of appli-
cation of liquids to the ground surface is controlled by the least
permeable stratum between the surface and the water table or by the
depth to the water table. If subsurface materials are not as permeable
as surface ones or if the water table is shallow, the liquids from
heavy application infiltrate, reach the less permeable layer or satu-
rated zone, spread laterally, and build up a ground-water mound or a
perched or semiperched water table. The mound or perched water table
thus formed may reach to the ground surface, causing waterlogging and
surface runoff. In effect, usefulness of the system is diminished or
eliminated.
Lagoons or holding ponds must be investigated for potential seep-
age losses and to evaluate sealing procedures if they are needed. Ponds
with seemingly impermeable bottoms often fail if they overlie rocks
containing solution channels or open joints or bedding planes. Failure
is through piping and may be sudden and catastrophic, resulting in
widespread surface and subsurface pollution. Concrete holding tanks
have failed because of undermining resulting from small leaks with
subsequent soil piping into rock voids.
7-2
To evaluate the geologic considerations for a given waste manage-
ment practice, the following questions should be answered:
1. What is the thickness of unconsolidated material?
2. What is the nature of any material between the soil and bed-
rock— stratification, structure, permeability, texture, etc.?
3. What is the nature of the bedrock — rock type, structure, dip
and strike, permeability, etc.?
4. Is the rock jointed, fractured, open bedded, or otherwise
altered? If so, what is the size and attitude of the openings
and are they enlarged by solution?
5. Do either rock or unconsolidated, confined, or unconfined
aquifers exist at the site, and what is their depth and per-
meability? Usually estimates of permeability are adequate,
with emphasis on relative permeability of the various strata.
If flow computations are to be made, field permeability tests
are necessary.
6. What are the seasonal changes in ground-water levels, and when
do the minima and maxima occur? What about permanent or ephem-
eral springs or seeps?
7. What is the direction and rate of ground-water movement (slope
of water table or piezometric surface)?
8. What is the present quality of the ground water?
9. What will be the quality of any waste water or leachate reaching
the ground water?
10. What are the projected long-term effects on the quality and
future use of the ground water?
11. Does potential for mass movement exist at this site? Do land-
slides occur in the area and, if so, is their cause (causes)
understood?
With answers to these and other questions that apply to a given sit-
uation, and with a geologic analysis, impact of a waste management prac-
tice on the environment can be better understood and evaluated.
AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FIELD MANUAL
CHAPTER 8. FISH AND WILDLIFE ASPECTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compiled by L. D. Marriage, biologist, SCS, Portland, Oreg .
Contents
Page
General g_j_
Aquatic Habitat g_l
Semiaquatic Habitat g_2
Terrestrial Habitat 8-5
Summary 8-5
Tables
Table 8-1 Some Aquatic Habitat Parameters 8-3
Table 8-2 Salinity Tolerance of Some Waterfowl Foods .... 8-4
<
I
8-1
CHAPTER 8. FISH AND WILDLIFE ASPECTS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
1. GENERAL
Wildlife depend on the extent and quality of their habitat.
Health of animals, their number, and their kind are indices of change
in quality of the habitat. Reduction in number or disappearance of a
species from an area may be an indication of pollution.
Changes in habitat quality can come about through natural proc-
esses such as geological erosion and plant succession or be man induced
through any of a number of activities such as reservoir construction,
intensive land use, land clearing, deforestation, and poor agricultural
practices. Any ill-advised, poorly planned, and single-purpose oriented
activities can be deleterious and even disastrous. Conversely, man's
activities that are properly planned and carried out can bring about
beneficial changes in wildlife habitat.
2. AQUATIC HABITAT
Wildlife species requiring aquatic habitat include fish, amphibians,
molluscs, crustaceans, and certain insects. All require specific kinds
of food, cover, and water quality. Requirements vary from one species to
another and result in the occupation of a variety of niches in the aquatic
habitat. Some common causes of pollution and other factors relating to
aquatic habitat are explained in the paragraphs that follow.
Some agricultural activities (use of pesticides and fertilizers and
manure-silage drainage) in the United States resulted in 1.8 million fish
killed in 1970. For the second year in succession, wastes from Kansas
livestock feedlots accounted for the majority of that state's pollution-
caused fishkill in 1972.
Improperly applied irrigation water flows over the soil surface,
picking up plant stains and carrying in suspension fine clay particles
and silt into streams, lakes, and reservoirs. Excessive amounts of silt
smother small fish, eggs, and food organisms . Silt can cover spawning
beds and cause turbidity. Turbidity reduces sunlight penetration, makes
it difficult for fish to find food, and retards growth of phytoplankton,
an essential element of the aquatic food chain.
Waste water from irrigated land picks up organic matter and carries
it into streams and ponds. The decomposition of this material may cause
oxygen deficiency, which can severely harm fish.
Irrigation water may also pick up residues of pesticides, fungicides,
or herbicides. These residues have a toxic or lethal effect on fish, and
may also harm other animals and human beings. Minimal use of persistent
i^EPA Office of Water Programs. Fish kills caused by pollution in
1970, 11th annual report. 24 p. 1972.
8-2
pesticides and other chemicals and the development of shorter lived ones
are desirable.
Much has been written about eutrophication, most of it in condemna-
tion. However, eutrophication is a natural process involving the conver-
sion of waterborne nutrients to biomass, whether plant or animal. Eutro-
phication results in a gradual accumulation of sediment and organic matter
that eventually cause a pond or lake to fill and become a marsh. The
process may take several decades or several hundred years, depending on
the size and configuration of the body of water and the nutrient level.
If the nutrient level is excessive, as it may be when mineral or organic
fertilizers from agriculture enter the pond or lake, the process is
speeded up and often results in a deficiency in dissolved oxygen, gener-
ation of hydrogen sulfide gas, and fishkills. Controlling the use of min-
eral fertilizers in warm-water fishponds combined with correct dam design
and proper management can result in an increased yield of usable fish
and a smaller aquatic plant community. Thus controlled and managed for
wildlife, eutrophication can be a beneficial use of resources.
Alteration of water temperature is another agriculture-related form
of pollution. Land treatment, pond and reservoir construction, reduction
of water depth and widening of streams, removal of streamside vegetation,
and irrigation are examples of activities that may affect water temper-
ature and increase sediment loads of aquatic habitat. A rise in water
temperature decreases water's ability to absorb oxygen; increases metab-
olism, respiration, and oxygen demand of fish and other aquatic life;
intensifies the toxicity of many substances; and favors the growth of
undesirable kinds of algae, fungi, and bacteria. These changes can alter
the composition of the aquatic community.
Conservation measures on land that help to maintain or create proper
water temperatures for fish include minimum tillage, grassed waterways,
streambank protection, and proper grazing use.
The use of chemicals for fish culture is restricted by the expensive
documentary research necessary for federal registration. The chemicals
that are registered for use in fish culture are several piscicides —
Antimycin-A, Fintrol-5, and rotenone; food additives — sulfamerazine and
Terramycin; a tranquilizer — tricaine methanesulf onate (MS-222); and the
algaecides — copper sulfate and copper triethanolamine (Cutrine) .
Some selected habitat and life history parameters are given in
table 8-1.
3. SEMIAQUATIC HABITAT
Semiaquatic wildlife habitat supports animals that may depend for
survival on both terrestrial and aquatic environs. Marshes, wetlands,
bogs, and swamps are examples. These areas support such animal species
as waterfowl, shore birds, and some furbearing mammals.
Semiaquatic areas are affected by agriculture-related pollutants in
much the same way that aquatic and terrestrial areas are. They can be
reduced in value or physically destroyed by sediment, pesticides, changes
in salinity, and excessive nutrients. Mud-covered grass and debris-
filled marshes remain unattractive to animals for a long time. Pesticides
can be disastrous to food organisms and to desirable species. Increases
8-3
Table 8-1. — Parameters for representative aquatic habitat
Parameter
: Cold-water fish :
: (trout) :
Warm-water fish
(bass, bluegill,
channel catfish)
Water temperature
50-65 necessary for optimum
growth; 32-50 and 65-75
result in slow growth; 46-
55 necessary for optimum
egg incubation and hatch-
ing; 86 is lethal level.
65-95 necessary for
optimum growth; 60-
70 results in slow
growth; 60 results
in little or no
growth.
Dissolved oxygen
5 is minimum requirement;
saturation desirable; 7
necessary for egg incu-
bation and hatching.
3 is minimum require-
ment; saturation is
desirable .
Hardness (as CaCO^)
ppm. .
50-250 is desirable
50-200 is desirable.
PH
6. 0-8.0 is desirable; 4.5
and 10.0 are extremes.
6. 5-8. 5 is desirable
for growth and re-
production; <4.0 is
lethal level <5.0
results in no spawn-
ing; 5.0-6.c> results
in slow growth.
Turbidity
1/
< 10 is desirable
f 50 is desirable.
Carbon dioxide (free CO^ )
. . .ppm. .
25 is maximum requirement.
25 is maximum require-
ment .
Hydrogen sulfide
<1.0 is maximum require-
ment .
<1.0 is maximum
requirement .
Chlorinated hydrocarbons .
..mg/1 ..
0
0.
Nitrates
<5.
…[truncated]