Rortk Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Sclenees Project No
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
OVERLAND FLOW PRETREATMENT OF \dASl EIJATEK Rortk Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station and Life Sclenees Raleigh, North Ca Project No. B-067-NC Agreement Na. 1 -31 -009%-41 13 June 1976 TABLE OF CONfENTS (continued) Page LIST OF REFERENCES .........................79 APPENDICES ..............................83 GLOSSARY ...............................138 RESULTANT PUBLICATIONS ........................140 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Environmental low Sheet for Production Process. 2 2. Economic Balance for Wastewater Pretreatment Process and Land Application. 4 3. Land koa n GP? &eria for '> 7I 4, Biochemic jl 5. Dimensions .......... , 0 30 .s*or*.*.. oadi ng Parameters : ........... 32 aste Loading .......... 3 3 tewater, OLFi ... 34 nd Wastewater ems ........ 34. stewater Based on ations Within ...*...... 35 ting Rainfall rsheds .-..... 6.1 the Thornthwai te Method.. ............................ 42 14. Volumetric Water Ma e (To~alfor Study Period) for Poultry Manure Slur s~~~................. 42 15. Water Mass Balance ash in OLF System for Poultry Manure .......................... 43 16. Nitrogen Mass Balance Slurries.. ........................... 44. LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page 18. Comparison of Percent Concentration Reduction Relative to Time During Sampling Event - OLF of Poultry Manure ........... 9 19. Percent TKN Concentration Reduction: Mean and Standard Deviation - QLF of Poultry Manure ....................... 20. Percent MM3-N Concentration Reduction: Mean and Standard Devia- tion - OLF of Poultry Manure ................... 50 21. Percent OGN Concentration Reduction: Mean and Standard Devia- tion - OLF of Poultry Manure ................... 59 22. Generalized Change in Concentration Reduction from First to Last Part of OLF Study .......................... 51 23. Comparison of Concentration Reduction Means Between OLF Terrace Systems Receiving Poultry Manure Sl urry .............. 5 5 24. Comparison of Concentration Reduction Means at Flow Distances Within an OLF Terrace System .................,. 5 7 25. Simple Statistics of Independent Variables for Poultry Manure OLF Study. ..a..m................,......r;~ 26. Regression for TKNAVG Concentration Reduction through an OLF Pretreatment System of Poul try Manure Slurry ........... 6 7 27. Regression for NH3AVG Concentration Reduction through an OLF Pretreatment System of Poultry Manure Slurry ........... 6 ? 28. Regression for OGNAVG Concentration Reduction through an OLF Pr2treatment System of Pouf try Manure Sl urry ........... 63 29. Regression for OGNAVG Concentration Reduction for Last Half of OLF Study. ............................ (7 6 30. NO3--N Concentration in OLF Runoff: Mean and Standard Deviatim . 69 31. Mean NO3-N Concentration in Soi 1-Water Beneath OLF Site (mg1.4) . 70 32. Mean NO3-N Soil-Water Concentration Beneath OLF Terrace System with Time (mg/X) ......................... 7 0 33. NO3-N in Grass Harvested from OLF Terraces Receiving Poultry Manure Slurry (ppm Dry Wt. ) .................... 7 1 34. Redox Readings with Depth of OLF Terraces Just Prior to Normal Wastewater AppB ication (Eh) .................... 7 3 1 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 35. Concentrati on-Based and Mass Removal s far OLF Pretreatment of Pou1 try Manure, Influent Specified in Table 9 . 7 4 36. OLF Area Requirements for Pretreatment Combinations Using in a 7 (-I Farm Scale (1 0,000 Birds) Waste Management Sys tern . I 'J SUMMARY The research concerning overland flow (OLF) pretreatment of waste- waters was initiated with three objectives : (1) an assessment of establ ished treatment mechanisms and literature data to rank the potential uses of the OLF process for municipal , industrial , and agricultural wastes according to advan- tageous usage in the Southeast; (2) experimental research into nitrogen trans- formations occurring in 01-F for poultry manure; and (3) the scale-up appl ica- tion of research and project results to a farm animal prodwct~on level, Results were projected to encourage further use of OLF pretreatment for municipal and agricultural wastes in North Carolina and the Southeast. With regard to municipal wastes, OLF was estimated to be most advantageous when used to replace secondary treatment followed by direct stream discharge or by advanced treatment, Benefits were also derived when OLF was used as secon- dary treatment prior to terminal 1 and application, The least justification for OLF usage was as a form of advanced treatment following conventional secondary treatment whether a water or land-based receiver was employed, Industrial or agricultural wastes with nitrogen or organics as the land-limiting constituents can be effectively treated with OEF systems. The OLF study of nitrogen transformations for poultry manure slurry indi- cated the largest N pathway was the unaccounted for losses which include ni trification-denitriff cation and ammonia volati 1 lzation (50-70 percent of i nf 1 uent N) . Grass uptake was 5-20 percent, and conversion to nitrate in the effluent liquid was 5-10 percent of the influent N, The smallest pathways (1-3 percent) were the soil-water percolation beyond 2,4 m depth and rajnfall runoff losses. Similar levels of total N losses were achieved for 1670 kgN/ha./yr and 2970 kgN/ha./yr; for hydraul ic loadings of 4 cmjweek and 7 -6 cm/week; and for rest periods of 22 hours and 46 hours. Nitrogen losses increased from 50- 65 percent after 15 m of flow to 70-80 percent after 30 m of flow distance, Increased rest periods and lower waste application rates favored larger nitri- fication potential. Utilization of OLF for a farm scale animal waste system is consistent with the objective of minimizing the land area needed for waste disposal by reducing the manure nitpogen quantity. Based on a 10,000 bird module, OLF distances of either 15 m or 30 m, and land application of resultant OLF effluent, the total Sand area needed is 10-12.5 ha. and 7,5-10 ha., respectively. This is 30-50 percent of the system size for direct land application of the poultry manure. A system was evaluated containing a lagoon following OLF, lagoon water recycled to flush and transport the manure, and land applicat-ion of the total system contents four Times per year. The total land area was 5-6 ha. and 5-6.5 ha. for 15 m and 30 m OLF distance, respectively, This system yequires 20 percent of the land area for direct land application of poultry manure, Specific con- clusions for each research objective are grouped SndividualSy and listed under the Conclusion Section, CONCLUSIONS Overl and Flow Pretreatment Overview - Municipal Wastes A. OLF systems have been used as secondary and advanced treatment processes for municipal wastes in whlch the terminal receiver of OLF effluent can be water or land based. B. OLF of primary treated waste yields an effluent in which the BODu is nearly equal to that from advanced treatment, nitrogen removal is 60-98 percent, and phosphorus levels are about 4 mg t-POL-P/R and BOD, < 20 mg/R, C, OLF of secondary treated effluent dfd not yleld a substantially higher quality effluent than the OLF effluent from primary treated waste; hence, the cost effectiveness of CLF for secondary effluent is less. D. OLF of primary treated municipal waste can be used %o reduce the nitrogen content ("30%) to the poSnt at which hydraulic factors limit the land application of OLF effluent. E. OLF of secondary treated municSpa1 waste is beneficial if sub- stantial water losses occur, but research results are not cur- rently avail able to document such water removal s, F. The use of ground-level waste water land application can be used to economic benefit by reducing the magnitude of aerosol control buffer zones. Overl and Flow Pretreatment Overview - Agricul tura7 and Industri al Wastes A. These wastes typically have high levels of organic and nitrogen compounds ; and thus , the subs tanti a1 pretreatment removal s of OLF systems are advantageous. Treatment levels suitable for stream discharge are not common with concentrated wastes; hence, land application or further treatment must be considered, The OLF behavior of salt constituents in agricul tural and industri a1 wastes is not we14 documented. Overall Removals of Waste Constituents During OLF Pretreatment of Poultry Man ure A. On a mass basis TKN, NH3-N, and 0-N reductions were 70 percent, 83 percent, and 58 percent, respectively, after 15 m of flow dis- tance; and 90 percent, 95 percent, and 85 percent, respectively, after 30 m of flow. The NH3-N performance remained constant throughout the study while 0-N reductions decreased to the zero percent to 20 percent level, B. On a mass basis, H20, COD, TOC, t-PO4-P and C1 reductions were 45 percent, 82 percent, 75 percent, 65 percent, and 25 percent, respecttvely, after 15 rn of flow distance; and 70 percent, 93 ' percent, 90 percent, 85 percent, and 65 percent, respectively , after 30 m. C. Completely smooth terraces were not necessary fop OLF pretreat- men t as no concentsatl on reduction difference was determined for liquid in channeled areas and liquld in more dlffuse overland f 1OW areas, D. At least three months of operation is needed to approach OLF operation characterqstic sf l ong-term performance, IV. Ni trogen Trans formati ons and Control 1 ing Vwlables In general, the terrace system receiving the lower waste loadings (2.7 cm/week and 1100 kg N/ha,/yr) yielded significantly greater TKN removals than the more heavily loaded terrace system (2,6 - 5,0 cm/week ~nd1900 kg N/han/yr), The differences between ter- race systems reflected In NH3-N and 0-N