Evaluation of Land Application of Wastewater As A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AS A NUTRIENT REDUCTION CONTROL STRATEGY IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED by Marlyse K. Williams A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Civil Engineering Spring 2006 Copyright 2006 Marlyse K. Williams All Rights Reserved UMI Number: 1435842 UMI Microform 1435842 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER AS A NUTRIENT REDUCTION CONTROL STRATEGY IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED by Marlyse K. Williams Approved: ____________________________________________________________ William F. Ritter, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Michael J. Chajes, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Eric W. Kaler, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Engineering Approved: ____________________________________________________________ Conorado M. Gempesaw II, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic and International Programs ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks and praise to God for this great opportunity, and for allowing me to excel at everything I endeavor to do. Thank you Dr. William Ritter, for all of your advice and encouragement. Thank you for having confidence in me when I didn’t always have confidence in myself. You helped spark a passion in me for research. Thank you. Thank you, Dean Michael Vaughan, the RISE staff, and the NSF/LSAMP Bridges to the Doctorate Program. The support and guidance you all gave me was so invaluable. I thank God for each of you, and yes Dean Vaughan, the program works. This manuscript is dedicated to: My family, my personal fan club. Thank you all for your love, encouragement and support. My friends who continue to support me in all my endeavors and dreams. “We’re gonna RISE together.” iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………….........................................vii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………..viii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………...ix Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………1 1.1 Chesapeake Bay Watershed…………………………………………1 1.2 Land Treatment……………………………………………………...5 1.3 Slow Rate Irrigation…………………………………………………7 1.4 Project Objectives…………………………………………………...8 References…………………………………………………………...9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………...11 2.1 Effect of Nutrient on the Bay Watershed.………………………….11 2.2 Criteria for an Efficient Land Application Process.……………….15 2.3 Phosphorus and Nitrogen Chemistry in Land Application………...21 2.4 Crop Production……………………………………………………27 2.5 Public Health Concerns……………………………………………31 iv 2.6 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)………………………………38 References………………………………………………………….43 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS………………....…...………………………51 3.1 State Regulations..............................................................................51 3.2 Site Analysis…………………………………………………….....61 3.3 Area Requirements…………………………………………………63 3.4 Determination of the Amount of Nutrient Reduction.......................66 3.5 Cost Estimation…………………………………………………….73 References……………………………………………………….....79 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………...……………………….....82 4.1 Prospective Sites for Land Application…………………………....82 4.2 Land Application Analyzed……………………………………......86 4.3 Estimate of Nutrient Removal from Bay………………………......94 4.4 Chesapeake Bay Alliance Nutrient Removal Goals.......................102 4.5 Cost Estimation and Comparison to BNR………………………..106 References………………………………………………………...112 v 5 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………......114 5.1 Site Assessment………………………………………………......114 5.2 Effectiveness of Land Application…………………………..........116 5.3 Future Considerations……………………………………….........118 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………….......120 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………….........185 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 4. 1: Some of the Significant POTWs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed .......... 83 Table 4. 2: POTWs Considered in Each State in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed........ 83 Table 4. 3: Some Virginia POTWs Evaluated Based on Site Characteristics ............... 85 Table 4. 4: Number of Acceptable Sites after Performing Site Analysis....................... 85 Table 4. 5: Area Requirements Estimation Using Preliminary Design Equations ........ 87 Table 4. 6: Results of Area Requirement Estimation Using Planning Equations.......... 89 Table 4. 7: Potential Treatment Facilities in NY with Large Area Requirements......... 91 Table 4. 8: Comparison of Area Estimations to Area Required for 9-month OT.......... 93 Table 4. 9: The Number of Full and Partial Recommended Treatment Sites by State.. 94 Table 4. 10: Estimated Average Nitrogen Loading ......................................................... 95 Table 4. 11: Average Yearly Crop Uptake and Approximate Nitrogen Losses............... 97 Table 4. 12: Total Nitrogen Removed by Land Application by State ............................. 98 Table 4. 13: Comparison of Crop Uptake and Percolate ............................................... 100 Table 4. 14: Comparison of the Amount of Nitrogen Removed.................................... 101 Table 4. 15: Total Nitrogen Removed from the Chesapeake Bay ................................. 102 Table 4. 16: Cheasapeake Bay Alliance Nutrient Reduction Goals............................... 103 Table 4. 17: Nutrient Reduction Goals for the 300 Significant Treatment Facilities .... 104 Table 4. 18: Total Nutrients Removed through Land Application ................................ 105 vii Table 4. 19: Cost of Upgrading to Land Application..................................................... 107 Table 4. 20: Cost of Upgrading to a BNR process......................................................... 109 Table A- 1: The 300 Significant POTWs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed .............. 121 Table A- 2: Area Requirements based on Estimation Equations .................................. 133 Table A- 3: Area Requirements Based on Planning Equations 3.1 – 3.3...................... 137 Table A- 4: Comparison of Area Estimations to 9-month OT...................................... 141 Table A- 5: Potential Full and Partial Application Sites............................................... 146 Table A- 6: Estimated Average N Loading Based on Acres......................................... 151 Table A- 7: Average Yearly Crop Uptake and Approximate N Losses........................ 155 Table A- 8: Comparison of Crop Uptake & Percolate for ............................................ 159 Table A- 9: Total N Removed by Land Application..................................................... 165 Table A- 10: Comparison of N Removed for Intercropping vs. Separate Treatment ..... 168 Table A- 11: Estimated Cost of Land Application.......................................................... 172 Table A- 12: Estimated Cost of BNR.............................................................................. 177 Table A- 13: Cost of Land Application vs. BNR............................................................ 180 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Boundaries of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed................................................... 2 Figure 2: Significant Publicly Owned Sewage Treatment Facilities.................................. 4 ix ABSTRACT The health of the Chesapeake Bay, a source of industry and recreation, has deteriorated due to nutrient pollution. Three main sources of the pollution are agriculture, air pollution, and sewage treatment facilities. This project focused on the nutrient pollution caused by sewage treatment facilities. In the Chesapeake Bay region, there are approximately 300 significant publicly owned treatment facilities that discharge over 0.5 MGD. It is estimated by the Chesapeake Bay Program that approximately 285 million pounds of nitrogen was discharged into the Bay in 2000, reducing DO levels, which in turn adversely affects the Bay ecosystem. Therefore, a study was conducted to determine the feasibility of using land application of treated wastewater effluent to reduce the pollution of nitrogen and phosphorus. Using soil maps and state regulation documentation, we determined the potential of present POTWs to upgrade to utilize spray irrigation. Also, using planning equations, the amount of acres needed for the treatment process was estimated and the suitability of new treatment sites within a 5-mile radius of the wastewater facilities were evaluated. From the sites that were deemed inappropriate for full wastewater application, we determined possible areas that would be able to manage partial applications based on reduced flow conditions. Next, we devised a way to estimate the amount of nutrients removed by land application. Lastly, we compared the projected capital and operation and management costs of the possible land application x sites to that of a biological nitrogen removal (BNR) process. Our goal is to use the method of land application of treated wastewater to help divert nutrients from the waterways, in an effort to restore the health of the Bay and enhance crop yields efficiently and effectively. xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Chesapeake Bay Watershed The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the