The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About700369.tiff WSJ Ctil .1 I1 i1 ANAEROBIC LAGOON TREATMENT OF H1 PACKINGHOUSE DASTEWATERvi '' By Mark J. Hammer and C. Dale Jacobson I ' r� fir - Presented at the ' Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons Kansas City, Missouri , June 23-25, 1970 A Technical Report of Research Sponsored by The Engineering Research Center ;1, of the University of Nebraska and d./ PA' Training Grant No.. 5T1-IJP-120-02 4� from the ln' ; a tenor Federal Water Quality Administra "_P /J The Department of Civil Engineering S a University of Nebraska /_�. Lincoln , Nebraska flrn-1 laaV 700369 ,.!," Rra'Npw..N,�k+l 1.r]'°. 4'F' w`.. 'E r'1.' ,f' y �.F r r , '.� 4?b��'� � ,,,n. ../ w 1,C r a.f !L m l Anaerobic Lagoon Treatment of Packinghouse Wastewater i a Mark J. Rammer and C. Dale Jacobson INTRODUCTION Meat-Processing Wastewaters1,2 A slaughterhouse is principally a killing and dressing plant which does little or no processing of by-products. Packinghouse operations, in addition to slaughtering, normally involve cooking, curing, smoking and pickling of meat, manufacture of sausage, and rendering of edible and inedible fats. Wastewater sources include: i• killing floor, carcass dressing, casing cleaning, rendering, hog hair removal, hide processing, meat processing, cooling room, ,,, general cleanup and animal holding pens. The quantity of waste resulting from slaughtering and meat packing depends to a considerable extent upon the methods used for the recovery and processing of by-products. Blood recovery for a salable by-product is commonly practiced. Normally, paunch wastewater is separated and screened to remove coarse solids. In older plants paunch material may be washed down the sewer. In the most recent waste-saving process, paunch contents are handled dry and hauled away for disposal without washing. Rendering can be performed by wet or dry processes. Current practice for edible rendering is either dry or wet with evaporation of tank water, while inedible rendering is generally dry. Wet rendering without evaporating the tank water creates the greatest pollutional load. Ff "1,.:,,;_" _,T,nritrwK?i'Ig:w+rWr�,.7a;4°'ux �n'r��Rir r'y g40,1 in.'"i�,'M1: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 ru Meat-Processing Wastewaters 1 Anaerobic Treatment 3 Anaerobic Treatment Processes 5 LABORATORY ANAEROBIC LAGOON STUDY 7 g i`ru� ANAEROBIC LAGOON DESIGN 1 13 Pretreatment of Wastewater 14 Dimensions 14 Inlets and Outlets 16 ° ^" Recirculation Pumping 16 Multiple Cells 17 Solids Retention and Accumulation 18 Grease Cover and Temperature 18 ri Odors 19 Loadings and Removal Efficiencies 20 SUMMARY 22 , ', REFERENCES 23 14.1 0,4 ,.tp�k��I.. Pi11�1,N TIFF , iti v f'.. A ,SCE 5 .d' 171 IL i 1 x,mLTi'� t o f l� 1 '44 � �e ,i ,�n @ .a ,Lt4�Y 4 ; *±`4x5 n�.faL&w...,,Haiw .&nN''t : ln! I'"' {.p�..,u,°� �fYl}.'RE'1# ..'�'1c. P; A',a• ,"�r.y�dr��'..t ' Y%; $d o1 ? lLi'a', .k 2 ZU bl 0s, In addition to blood recovery, paunch manure removal and low- 0,i pollutional rendering, many meat-processing plants skim their raw 5 r wastewater in a holding tank. The settled solids and skimmed grease ? kk. are processed by inedible rendering. A properly designed settling- cy, skimming tank can reduce wasteloads by approximately 25 percent. r. ' A minimum detention time for economic grease recovery is 20 minutes,2 ,. i rah I il however, for maximum waste strength reduction the detention time p should be at least 40 minutes. Air flotation, although not commonly used at meat-processing plants, is effective in removing grease and 14, T. i t2i suspended solids. F^ t. k Table I is a listing of wasteloads after grease skimming with 44 i� C reference to process technology based on questionnaire data from , Fro approximately one-half of the federally inspected slaughterhouses in T his TABLE I ('� AVERAGE BOD LOAD AND WASTEWATER FLOW FROM MEAT-PROCESSING PLANTS ,r = AFTER SETTLING-SKIMMING TANKS (Ref. S-4 and 32) 7 �;s 2, pp. S1, , Type of Percentage lb BOB , Gallons BOD t 24`�a technology of plants 1000 lb LWK 1000 lb LWK mg/1 ,, ; 1966 �� L:� Old 10 20.2 21I2 1150 w rw! Typical 80 14.4 1294 1350 '' r i.:.1 Advanced 10 11.3 1116 1210 y'rs tl 1i' * LWK . Live Weight Kill 11 2 the U.S. Typical wastewater characteristics from meat—processing P,— plants are listed in Table II. Fes: Pni Ol nun 57.'1. '7I'i'M. 1 i �'' F5 fj k .'Nr' F*,'In'i�, xrr+r § °r,11!1ff)It% a ,r:" °E14 115 ubar, il"57J.�..F.o. 'e or4'i y��,{ er �i: ". � �is`J� 'ffii, i l avx+��1J4�NAmr b_..�1+ ti� ,1. .+ �9 i FIAC.!4%"r V� k Ir ,� {�' ' �. er tlS, x�'` f�T Yuhs 1. 3 ih TABLE II ' TYPICAL SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 6 Parameter Common Range Typical Valuesj' Flow, gal/1000 lb LWK 500-2000 1200 BOO, mg/1 1000-2000la 1400 Suspended solids, mg/1 400-2000 1000 Grease, mg/1 200-1000 500 Id Total nitrogen, mg/1 150 Temperature, of 80-90 82 pH 6.8-7.5 7.0 ' ", Meat-processing plants usually operate 5 days per week for a period . :f of 12 to 18 hr per day. The bulk of processing and cleanup waste flows occur during operating periods on weekdays. Peak hourly flows may vary between 200 and 300 percent of the average daily flow. Weekend wastewater flows are generally limited to cleanup and maintenance operations and cooling water. AniatriCic Treatment - 3 Anaerobic digestion is carried out by a wide variety of bacteria categorized into two groups, acid-forming bacteria and methane-forming bacteria. The acid-formers are facultative or anaerobic bacteria that metabolize the organic matter forming organic acids as an end product, along with carbon dioxide and methane. The acid-splitting methane- formers use organic acids as substrate and g produce. the gaseous end , products of carbon dioxide and methane. These methane bacteria are 'AI" ,'"b c / fl n rti r'9^ 1 7?"41i� 1t hW 'p"flF"1tfiF'm,'. "R''''�,l" 117,7 6 u p g` 'u'% . 7 rlf _. �, x�'fio-F� �';, �'� �' 1'F"'�� ! �,r'�s'�i r�,,,l, � +'Ffs'r„ ,�., �. r � � * � �a �� P�" J�� '�aN4'$' rl�, t a r��:4>ti, bk � F M' � .., ,, d e ifrJ;; ". FTv t,kgelvl r'ir 'iy,-44i ap'TP4t'R7.o;A P_`(alti"P 1"43`0.ttr'f;nil.. ""ON""i 3Jf,4 n? v `ufr 1;k; .. 4 .A i, strict anaerobes inactivated by the presence of dissolved oxygen and ' inhibited by the presence of oxidized compound: They are sensitive to '' MI variations in pH and other environmental changes.. ''u, The two major groups of bacteria must operate cooperatively ..to , perform gasification of organic matter. The first stage produces , y19 food (organic acids) for the second stage, while the second stage +' ;' consumes these organic acids preventing excess, acid accumulation.' ' In k ;'4 1 addition to producing food for the methane bacteria, the acid-formers i ,, also reduce the environment to one of strict anaerobiosis by using i oxidizing compounds and producing reducing agents, such as hydrogen . z«. sulfide. ,.', Advantages of anaerobic treatment in comparison to aerobic treat- Iment are: high degree of waste stabilization is possible; low pro- duction of waste biological sludge; low nutrient requirements; no LA.r7.1 , oxygen requirements; and methane produced is a useful end product. F Disadvantages of anaerobic treatment are:. incomplete :metabolism of waste organics; and relatively high temperature requirements. i 1{';, Optimum environmental conditions for anaerobic digestion include; - an operating temperature in the general range of 85° - 95°F; pH,in the II range of 7.0 - 7.1; strict anaerobiosis; complete mixing; and a solids retention time of 10 to 20 days. r Important characteristics for a wastewater to be amenable to q' anaerobic treatment are: high organic strength, particularly in-proteins and fats; sufficient inorganic biological nutrients; adequate alkalinity;; rirelatively high temperature; and freedom from toxic materials. Meat- processing wastewaters have these characteristics. MI—, 5 ql v ; ry it 3 7l i t '," i rialr aaienkgt.;rcAraa�'r'��is7. f i'Pif tnawUna li. gi r iPinte v i. W. 5. ^V I Anaerobic Treatment Processes A schematic diagram of the anaerobic contact process is shown `' 1, ,I in Fig• 1• Full-scale anaerobic contact processes have been in S . ,py F! operation since 1959.1,4 The influent wastewater flow is equalized V over a 24-hr period by storage in a tank. After preheating to 95 F, 1 the wastewater is fed at a uniform rate to the complete mixing digesters. Detention time in the digesters is approximately 12 hr with a mixed liquor suspended solids concentration of 7,000 to p12,000 mg/1• Mixed liquor flows through vacuum degasifiers to gravity , sludge separators. Detention time in the separators is about 1 hr r based on total flow. Settled sludge is removed by suction-type k. removal mechanisms and recycled at a rate of approximately three volumes per volume of incoming raw wastewater• Excess sludge is " $ 779 wasted to a disposal lagoon, and the wastewater effluent flows to 4 I. oxidation ponds for final polishing. BOD removal in the anaerobic , rcontact process is in the range of 96 to 98 percent. n u A schematic diagram of an anaerobic lagoon is illustrated in r;. ri „r, Fig. 2. Several full-scale anaerobic lagoon systems for treating meat-processing wastewaters have been constructed and evaluated itt 4 �� the last 10 years.4,5,6,2,8,9 Influent' wastewater flows directly into 11 the anaerobic lagoon without prior equalization. Raw wastewater enters , ; pear the bottom and mixes with the suspended active microbial solids 1 in the sludge blanket. The discharge pipe is located on the opposite , end of the lagoon submerged below the liquid surface. Excess grease 1,ii floats on the liquid surface forming a natural cover for retaining w rt l r rt s i+ s +� Mi4..w 5A Y�y�'11 Z;ry' ,i rNI"r 1 jAHiP"4 `F'Ixiw.,,,T� r P',:,� � ".. 3=ir ��.i. x� '�'Sf�x�+�w,�� : pSiru�°�" Ig...,t it .a,9Yt.'n,��Flr�n J! �,1 L!!u C�� + Y,t , 7 ��0., *,. Y� n.l Y�^hh� r.) -. a 6 • ., era 3i II Sao ..av'gIiFl. gas -.3 equal- afflwr►t :ll'.i influent ---s. iutioa —7-40 digester "'��"'lll��JTT��upgtatlt� iFj tank V dlgasifilr , excess yr sludge 4 C return sledge is to disposal a Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram of the Amasxobit Contact � • `tl i ' 'a wscu it grease cover influent supernetatt„ 0.12 vol. solids pmt',• / 7/7 7-7 7 /7 /7 77 i,yst it's sludge. 3-42 n+3. so .4111 r1 Fig. 2. Schematic Diagram of as Anaerobic Lagoa.. P NI.., 6a . i M h .>p.:�i wi�jl: P7Ff°"K' j CdF4T�' - � r � s � p. a^ �Ar P� 'nut P F e :t i n rr 3t'-, i x� +• 7,47: ,+4{d '� � ,ri:q�H iR � �:��t� JJGa,!!�''�°�'',� �r ti}��,3wy��ry4"itdil�{xaJ tis .1��1�t!��:�� '1�� ,xirti,tira��w{7�� ?'s,�4.•" Kr'"�eL�5ue.!�rJc�Mj{� i"+Iu�5.W�.�+'' *u��.[.;�•n'H 7 heat and maintaining anaerobic conditions. At a BOD loading of 15 lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day the liquid detention time is approximately 6 days. Equalization, digestion and sedimentation all take place in the anaerobic lagoon, whereas, in the anaerobic contact process 2" each of these operations are performed in a separate tank. Excess "!? solids are wasted in effluent from a lagoon, therefore, process efficiency is lower than in the anaerobic contact process where excess Ji sludge is wasted to disposal. BOD efficiency of anaerobic lagoons is generally in the range of 70 to 90 percent. 1. First stage lagoons using over-and-under baffles have been con- c, structed for treating poultry processing wastewater.10 The baffles ,' apparently enhance lagoon treatment by providing a series of settling ir. 1 compartments, and top to bottom mixing. Baffling has not been used in anaerobic lagoons treating slaughterhouse wastes since the baffles 7.' would interfere with formation of a grease cover. The latest anaerobic treatment process being evaluated is anaerobic filtration. Results of laboratory tests using upflow anaerobic O.! , 1 filters indicate that the process may have several advantages in treat 11 ing soluble wastes: high solids retention times can be achieved ;9 without recirculation; satisfactory operation is possible at lover , ' X xx, temperature; and intermittent operation is possible with rapid restarting I 1. when wastewater flow is restored,11 ' , I LABORATORY ANAEROBIC LAGOON STUDY , 1 The following laboratory study, performed at the University of r Nebraska, was conducted in an attempt to evaluate anaerobic lagoon , ! r Ld {7 '�7a A ,T}.R sr�Mq�man�I"F 17, uN 'a:rTZ `7r,nTj'�il" ! 57 r.e gW��rPv�{;ry� y?nyit� Lp 0.,��aq.�'{a�.�}.rq�,'!�,, I ,��t rsl�'. ,Sal i^�4::".� .,''�I(pR�y!�'L'Y�Y"��I LPV�i�tlrl� 'I','R�+r 1�a y...J'..�i f1 Il N!.,l{ �'� ��iq. YT., "'^fi'.rA!P��A1 � .�M^'k1{wtihl�h_�l�� 8 "= treatment of packinghouse wastewater. The laboratory anaerobic digester, shown in Fig. 3, consisted of an enclosed plastic tank with a liquid volume of 15.9 liters. The unit h. was provided with: plastic over-and-under baffles, a recirculation return line from the final compartment to the influent, a gas-tight k cover with a line to a separate gas collector, and accessory holes through the cover to measure pH and temperature. The tank was placed j " A in a hot water bath to maintain a constant digestion temperature of ep 1.43 79°F. Jd The feed was a settled and skimmed packinghouse wastewater held F: at refrigeration temperature. A positive displacement pump was f - used to pump continuously-mixed feed wastewater from the refrigerated Lri pl jug to the tank at a constant rate. Effluent from the tank returned by gravity to a, refrigerated storage container. p The seed sludge used to start the anaerobic unit was a screened, 'diluted, anaerobic, digesting sludge from a high-rate sewage sludge digester. Initial operation of the tank was tested using a soluble, high-strength organic wastewater. The unit did not function without the over-and-under baffles due to short-circuiting. With the baffles r im in the tank, a high degree of anaerobic digestion of the soluble , wastewater was achieved at a detention time of 3 days. Recirculation was used to improve mixing of the tank contents: After these preliminary tests using the soluble organic wastewater, the feed was changed to a settled and skimmed wastewater from a local packinghouse plant. For the initial run, the wastewater was applied Li at a loading of 18 lb DOD/1000 cu ft/day with a $ day detention time. '1 L Y" ( "r11"77' Y^F I^I 'f„7"" '6777 •(.— .. v� f rv7 f t¢As, A"MAS�+ih 0ON",glq'q.k'i'x'YlinT FP'mc!'"m A H*T 77.1 !e i Tx '9'M:17u a"t ,1 vr ! + 1 .. 1 fa ; 1 �� af' ,� f Ik""!v + rw4 x n p�' m , . + � z b,,.5< <in r . + �' z � 1 _ ,. ! d � u '+4r t '+ ea ^j" �+ XIS} d p�, ie i.syy�,B li . , �t µ ' •z r V + rZr,�r", �indtlt. � �s d��+₹�ameizOtM, � 'r '�N��TW'"1 .'MId'�v�� • . 9: „•; , li 44 '11:;..Ji I i • '1. : J. N • (44 ',.',Z;:il '44 f .0 0 Il ......, 2 .r4 O > ' '.r; 1 , • ' `1. :"...::...:•• ',..%... .it•••,...•• ...2,;-.':' .1.'"..-1; i VII ;..1'�.i�••y'i , A•l•..i.. 1 t . I� ' y t `1 . ,I_;. F•r it • • j.,i';',�' ' I `'. }r;1. • t , 'il _ 4! • .. (e.' ., ,i"d':ti'q;t':_'i''i • 'J:L M....7'C.R16, !?i'�r ':" ',.'R+!r. aiggrirM!"1'73�?R?7? 1 1"'::��1'.�w4411.r"f,.. .'` ilii:;FT: :+.: ;tral.7;Vang •�1`Y.1 ......a i .... 7:: �"..1 3.J.'lI�R : :T': :-:Lii.7+91 ..-, . 10 , _I! It was observed during this initial run that recirculation to improve u mixing was actually detrimental to the process rather than enhancing i it. Raw suspended solids were being carried through the tank too i7� rapidly and appeared in the effluent. Under steady state conditions ;, at a detention time of 5 days without recirculation the BOD removal a, h1 efficiency was 84 percent (Table III). The feed rate was then increased reducing the detention time to '11 3 days. Gas production began to decrease after the first day at this higher feed rate. After three days, the effluent became odorous, • contained raw solids, and the pH of the tank contents was dropping. Y rY The anaerobic process was rapidly approaching failure. n Failure in the baffled tank appeared to result from the loss of _.,.t 6IL w active solids, too short a solids retention time. At this time, the i.: last two baffled compartments (Fig. 3) were filled with 1/2 in. carbon LA Raschig rings having a free gas space of 74 percent and 114 sq ft of irl surface area per cu ft. t' The remainder of the experimental runs were performed using the baffled tank with two compartments filled with the filter media. 7 ' The results are shown in Table III. Experimental runs with filter , media were conducted at hydraulic detention times of 4.8, 3.8, 2,4, and 0.9 days. The BOD loadings ranged from 17 to 58 lb BOD/1000 rl k W] cu ft/day. r:; A plot of BOO removal efficiency at various hydraulic detention ' times is given in Fig. 4. The BOO removal efficiencies were all in r " t the range of 79. to 90 percent. The results show that SOD efficiency ' , is relatively independent of hydraulic detention time above 1 dap. '` f .2.o ,ir ryryk r� m eaMTW'Sr�'iFG1�.+T'i`�a`r^xi?'. RYr..."gs�"'+"';i 7CYg�-771,"57,17149,1:1 +' r �i. ..c� �„�xa a n�4�'�+ y � F �d XC G1;%r ��l+u`Si��W»iddewMh�'1�f' . • 11F • 1I ART . .•i` .,,r... TABLE III lt:d ,iii• DATA FROM LABORATORY ANAEROBIC LAGOON STUDY Fl Settled and Skimmed Packinghouse Wastewater 1 BOD Hydraulic Gas Removal Efficiencies' ,� '�.''' Loading Detention Production ala B0D • COD . •lb BOD/day Time cu ft/day ,�: t 1000 cu ft days lb BOD applied X X Anaerobic Tank without Filter Media :' . ; , v. 5 , 65 3 0.7 Impending Failure S s t: • Frlk with Filter Media a • Anaerobic Tan • 7 • 20 4.8 3.3 89 95 .,s i 75 91 : .:':.!'',V-;.;, :::::. 17 3.8 3.0 ;' • . 40 2.4 3.6 87 95 .,`. •. ,• + • 58 0.9 3.3 75 80 i t'+••=::, The efficiency is also relatively independent of B0D loading since the. ,. :... , loads varied between 17 to 58 lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day. The plot, o.f?gas;•` 1“.) • r. :,?,•tip..:;: "` production versus hydraulic detention time in Fig. 5 also'indicates 4 `''`;.,:. . 1. that digestion efficiency is independent of hydraulic loading in a •': ..`.r: • ' baffled tank provided with filter media. ;• • This laboratory study points out the difficulty in'attempting. to: .K 's"' t'i analyze large-scale systems in the laboratory. ,.Instead of studying' a °`:'. ,::i :' , : simple anaerobic lagoon, the laboratory system was modified to 's! ,° „ ••i'; baffled lagoon containing an anaerobic filter. Several eneral`, ,.6. ~' i:Y ivi ..yy.-^ 7>!i. '� ..L eau('. ' u. 'i; M'1 i ;�.: 7 it „ •'e e,,,t �'`^.5„ .'fix: "° ''ri,t�s':.' ''-r ..,,, .y. •ggrr mti ;:i: T r '_• t:,T ! r. �+„.tit { Y;.r i:;{'sa'+tirl��'��-r.',:T,:j:.t'�"Y �ri��,l�,t�.trii!s,.�-1�:i!.};s. 4'4r114�'�u;♦'-;,K��tr�d:f�r,,..�y',�i`f:ii.•Fti, •��'-!:,•+?�!r `�-`� i{,1;« 'i�:�'?41�'•.•t+':, ii M _��1.�4'?f Ix�!�E:X;-Y6rV 1 "x'�yt�4�' Y , 1}Yl.�rT. t. C. Y -�,-p� .{'n.e., l 1'�, '�,.'. �1r7 1 1 1.' Y Iy F e � d .Y+k'..4. t' :tl"' 161 �'9 t ..i 'A b 1h t� Y*'S.!{f',.,' 1 :. ,,pt� . /y r t" i.il:?4,�4 ?a, , , :. a` 7�t �r .S•. L c..",.i . IKfttk <':ti"+ii.�� { +� 'SrNF:Y � 13� '..'.'+ .. .PtL.�m{;f3.. .. '. ' •_ i.Z/---N, 't ^ ; { K.......... r! tic, Dr . w I M it' it4 y11 ' 1fn is i. , t,i ai u jtY ',I'll r , 1 Cix ! p I tar.1'; s , 1' 'tt .. { t� rl 1 r t r- iO U �h 'J ! t t l I I I dp 'i „ 'It ,,,r,,,,:,;',,,,,,,,,. 1,{r} .0 ift m a ; H ,o 4 iltt Lep/p.Ttdd1 QO[ 4t/» no 'ao;ssspoaa D :1:$-I',',� �, '°x �(, �, f ly 1,1, 1� tl r'{,f RM `.I IIti) llert$,,,A:YClC"i♦, 4,dl } rya S •t C rU i,7 t 1�•1 t i� f 5 5 I� 1 i. I t I ,1 �� Q �i tiAI ; tp �` 11 V , 1 I,y 1 � v� 1� r v rd., y. M O 'y� I@ ,,to•i1 " v� '' \. -, • i till ,5 ,4 /46,11 . r. 1 � d ii 1 .` ,. t :! Iltl dY , "'� ; y "ICI,' ee4Pki` .r { 't a } 1:,..,% r)( iv$ �t �. I i,, t ?!.' tlrl ti ItJ t dn. r, ' ItlIN • q �i,)dll1,,'! t1 n 1, d ,t.,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,„tl d1 �rt '< at � i 0,1,-..,,,,..:',„1 ,-,',,,,-,41,4,,i,,-., tr- 9• L; - x f . . 17 R . I r311�'1 �'r,4r.' il ' �" t�ty tl• �" ly 1y Fps I 1 :''24'...i '' o 1 ) rbJ'CxC Irtrx41 '..� 4 V . ti r c rd k,s t t, r`I! s, t, rlmr`,�tlz ��; 1 1 p iv •,,',, t{ p�:Irl t{ ,1i 1 } li t "‘L';'• (, Ln1t rf ,y,wp, • • ii z , J�1� , a xrty t . t y 1 t i• t xpI{ 1f ix I ,iet, ; ( 4 q ... y . y v ij�y L .u� j;'°N'i ;ittIo1Ajy,, t i ' t 1 f- I . { T ! , v74 A ' yyt Y t . I ,• , 1 '. i,ihr r'''',;1' t II � � C ox "" �Ii'C'' l��h � ,tll .nlq� s r :ast t' ll,,nt b . !1 , , i d7 1, a a � p! {n tYy,l t Y 111{. 1rr4 { /�, . .� �' IjVA.P�g;Q:OH rt 11,1 {t rYt "t ,,lid II td��i I 7, ' r W'. t ;14 (14H 6r 1 f t 11•AiP I$•4ir Itl I 1, ;,6 , ,1"`YI pA'`! x t ,1(� t 4 r It ,tax lo-ck � y��Pt G'i' ,yt; { A r �S (1111,1 Ip AJ t ty{ Id 4 " M '.'c iii "Y11 Il,t �[ fix'vAi A,,V 1'r i t t' ,1 �xx yti iy',xntfY 6 n ,FtR.� u+rm zil3k:MNYi[u dlvaP•.• z — '1_ !17 54,:?₹ r,`. '.•N:1 -}v �"Mr•rrr*d ti _aa 13 conclusions may be inferred from the laboratory data: (1) the concept 12 of biological solids retention time, as documented by several authors, is extremely important in anaerobic processes; (2) an anaerobic filter is very effective in reducing loss of biological solids and preventing passage of raw suspended solids; and (3) if the solids retention time q+' can be increased by changes in design of anaerobic lagoons, i.e. , by including baffling and filtration, significant increases in BOD and hydraulic loadings will be possible. ANAEROBIC LAGOON DESIGN i« Anaerobic lagoons are being used extensively for first-stage treat- f �9 ment of meat-processing wastewaters from slaughterhouses and packing- , 4.4 houses in rural locations for the following reasons: 1. meat-processing wastes are very amenable to anaerobic treatment; U 2. lagoons have low first cost with minimum operation and maintenance costs; 3. anaerobic lagoons can accept highly variable BOD loadings i and shock loads that result from accidental spills or un- 1 avoidable dumping of grease or blood, without significant adverse effects; 4. anaerobic lagoons can be loaded intermttently, e.g., 'no loads on weekends, without loss of efficiency; and, 5. anaerobic lagoons are simple systems that require very little smr, operational control. h: The—dtsafivsrtta8•s" of nnaar�h_ i�A��re: r, a _ Td7m T+'117"4 xi yr i os. mnnxlws�9f5".N4°p! ':! 3'dNC�45P.��L"N,TYrT�„I:^•N'7K!n d of �"�I Mai f i17,1 yHr tii�O"L�`-10,,... 44 � �1?. f 4tPt u� i M� i. w '�.,.i�?.ii? v�d�r t� 'c1u}ra, '�pA��l� � .v m�'ai.�r W1')iNP•i�:N1"Aw�h�" a�'�� tam 14 1. anaerobic lagoons must be followed by secondary aerobic treatment because of incomplete anaerobic metabolism; and, 1 `1 2. in the case of urban locations, anaerobic lagoons require significant land area and may emit odors. Pretreatment of Wastewater. If anaerobic lagoons are used for 4 .ma 1'I first-stage treatment, it is essential that paunch manure and heavy settleable solids be removed from the wastewater to reduce solids accumulation in the lagoons. This is best achieved by segregating ti a paunch contents for separate disposal and treating all process waste- water in a settling-skimming tank. Grease removal should be sufficient 1. wa to prevent massive accumulations of grease in the lagoons, but it must ( not be so efficient that an adequate grease cover will not form on the t. 471 liquid surface. Blood and other by-products should be recovered from wastes for economical operation. The volume of wastewater should be reduced as much as possible to reduce daily flow and retain a high , , 1 wastewater temperature. IDimensions. Anaerobic lagoons should be constructed as deep as possible with minimum surface area. The liquid depth should be 15 ft y rl ; F. or greater and preferably not less than 12 ft. Side slopes should be as steep as possible for soil conditions at the site. In actual ist .41 construction, side slopes have been as steep as 1 to 1 and as flat as ',, 3 to 1. Where site soil conditions are suitable for lagoon constructipn0 Li natural cut and compacted fill embankments of 1-1/2 horizontal to 1 ?44. 4 vertical should provide stable interior slopes (Fig. 6). The outside t dike slopes should not be steeper than 3 to 1 to facilitate grass mowing'. i3 "91 :••p.`"WfirWe-x••.{ 4:M'. rtrti-if'"i4 . e'kgrnilf°.^IF. rIngir air-try; 4:k 7117111' !GAMM,,T Iti dAitirrO; iFN'RA' r `i.r,..gapititr,is 15 �: t b A • a 41-I ^, \\\ Po al a r..4%.,4).....4 ''twi 41 KIN IDN l, Latit.re 42 53.1 is N4de I' r: N a o • u a a a 5 w i e ,: ; r G � ,Y ', Ile w; r a rly04 M 'P1 r 9 W ! a � P f,„ / `a 91. Iy ci (,3 r1 t a \� 3 S. d� 'I':la"!w' VIM..Inr*A '#1 !'rwir'r'",firittiF i1,ONgq1C,.'�i. 1',1,tinrituFtq'i'ift i ;.'TNx WuT'.,u.7 k'T'Cr i'ft 4 �,��.j:� r�. fi many 44 A Anaerobic lagoons are generally constructed rectangular with the.length approximately twice the width. ° ,) Inlets and Outlets. Inlets should be placed near the bottom so sthat influent wastewater mixes with the active sludge solids which settle toward the bottom. However, they should not be placed directly on the s sr, bottom where heavy settleable solids may accumulate. An inlet invert elevation of 2 to 3 ft above the lagoon bottom has proven to be tattie— r.a factory. Although multiple inlets are used in large lagoons, a single inlet for a lagoon bottom width of 20 ft to 30 ft is generally satisfactory. Outlets should be placed below the liquid surface submerged sufficiently to prevent clogging by floating grease. An outlet invert } elevation 2 ft below the liquid surface is normally satisfactory. Multiple outlets are recommended to reduce exit velocities which tend to disturb the sludge blanket resulting in loss of active sludge solids thus reducing solids retention. Inlet and outlet structures must be designed for easy maintenance, 11.1 Grease in the influent wastewater may cause periodic clogging of inlet pipes, therefore, it is recommended that inlet pipes be 12-in. diameter with provisions for easy cleanout. An anaerobic lagoon effluent is very corrosive. Splitter and outlet boxes should be covered with xt corrosion resistant open grating, and fiberglas, rather than metal, Pie stops and guides are recommended. Recirculation Pumping. Several anaerobic lagoon installations have recirculation systems. The most popular system pumps sludge from t • tr-vg imirroiniturttlgrItrr 1r cm!v,trorrtE'i 0M^^^rFr 9r r4K.'rE'?Irr :""*',"'"9" C"TCItrargV , rri a K. t7M,3 G Aral `a t' i 1 1: 17 Ld the bottom near the effluent end of the lagoon back to the inlet box. In two-stage anaerobic lagoon systems, recirculation is conventionally { provided from the bottom of the second-stage lagoon to the inlet of s the first-stage lagoon, in addition, recirculation for mixing within the first-stage lagoon is provided. Based on available published data and personal observation, re- A circulation within a lagoon does not improve removal efficiencies at rA current lagoon loading rates. Apparently gasification, and inlet flow entering below the surface of the sludge blanket, provides adequate c „5 s mixing. Multiple Cells. It is recommended that anaerobic lagoon installations ,;:r be constructed with a minimum of two cells designed for parallel operation.. The primary reason for parallel construction is to permit operation with !r_ one cell temporarily out of service. g Few published reports have evaluated two-stage anaerobic lagoons. I The concept of returning settled sludge from a second-stage cell to a 4 first-stage lagoon to increase the solids retention time may have soma 1{ merit, but two-stage systems have not proven to be more efficient than .:, single-stage cells having the same overall detention. It is difficult to maintain an adequate grease cover on a second-stage lagoon, therefore, l heat losses from secondary cells can result in lower operating temperatures. Based on the limited published information and personal observation of two-stage and single-stage lagoon systems, there appears to be no advant- t" age in constructing anaerobic lagoons in series. Single-stage lagoons, i without provisions for recirculation, appear to be the optimum system ' •.r for both BOD removal efficiency at current lagoon loading rates and .,I,r• a �..4r,Y nit 011 .w I 'TAT :!"x n 'p -7 r eriznitn!T+,.nt n arri i r'a.''_,iFATEr irltA ae,W K 18 minimum cost of construction. Solids Retention and Accumulation. Maximum solids retention time can be achieved by constructing deep lagoons with steep sides and proper placement of inlets and outlets. A field study that included sampling the interior of an anaerobic lagoon revealed that two distict layers formed within a lagoon. The lagoon had a liquid depth of 15 ft and cell walls constructed with 1-1/2 to 1 side slopes. The upper layer, 44 9 ft in depth, consisted of supernatant containing approximately 0.1 percent volatile solids. A well-defined surface of a sludge blanket existed 6 ft above the lagoon bottom. The bottom sludge layer consisted' of a flocculent, black, digesting sludge containing 3 to 4 percent volatile solids (Fig. 2) . This dense sludge blanket occupied approxi- mately one-third of the liquid volume of the lagoon. The volatile solids I retention time, calculated by dividing lb of volatile solids in the lagoon by lb of volatile solids discharged in the effluent daily, was approximately 100 days. (The HOD removal in this lagoon was 80 to 85 percent under an average ROD loading of 31 lb HOD/1000 cu ft/day.) ', The accumulation rate of solids in a lagoon where the wastewater T is treated for removal of paunch manure and settled in a skimming tank is negligible. Disposal of paunch manure with wastewater will result P in a rapid solids buildup. If heavy settleable solids, other than. paunch contents, are not removed from process wastewaters in a skimming- a `,_„„ settling tank, accumulation of settled solids of several inches per year ":.. on a lagoon bottom could result. Grease Cover and Temperature. A complete cover of accumulated fWaen ra;: .i M t r^r • ,m .� 57,71T.1Ir W_Y''' ' rry M,p 'xl, vr, t47 I i �n -F41""A�y,771 y �S ` s u�,'.�P:!�-, �":fSk..yr? �.::�;: .i� �„w'. ..e-w, :� � .7 wiW�.:� Z , y+.�ii,�if4i -.t�' �'I,�rc�nnr A},�U�t51 ��k^t��yS�.l�+nk"yx'Zib^�' .. ,. !. is grease is essential for good digestion to occur, in an anaerobic' F• lagoon. The grease cover provides insulation to prevent cooling of liquid in the lagoon; prevents wind mixing of the liquid surface; .thus. ;,'• retaining anaerobic conditions; and appears to suppress obnoxious_:'.: odors. • The temperature of...raw meat-processing wastewater> is generally 8.0 •:.:.4 to 85 F. Temperature drop due to heat loss in an anaerobic lagoop': °•. . .. : depends upon the condition of the grease cover, ambient' air.';temperature and wind conditions. During winter months in northern'elimatee tha ;•:q� temperature drop between influent. and effluent.'is,'.generally 1.'.to 2°F •'� per day of detention. For a typical lgaoon this would drop in temperature of 5 to 10 F. Commonly reported operating temperatures for liquid contents'` ' '•' :'`: in anaerobic lagoons are between 75 and 80°F. Based on literature. :data; r: . it appears that operating temperatures in excees of 75°F. in.;lagoons;.with. .,: :•... _:,� BOD loadings up to 30 lb BOD/1000:cu ft/day do not'significantly:•'influence. •removal efficiencies. At an operating temperature .of 700F or.lower. BOD 4 removal efficiencies appear to be adversely Odors. Lagoons emit a characteristic odor,:however, .except .in the•::, : ' immediate vicinity of the inlet and outlet boxes a "wall a erati„g '.. %1.,) ' anaerobic lagoon does not create serious odor problems. Tn ins el ationa...: where secondary treatment, is provided by facultative lagoons','•these' ' r: . lagoons are more likely to be the source of`obnoxious°odors:: ` ( A high sulfate ion concentration in process:water can cause'serious:' .'..,: hydrogen sulfide odors when the wastewater is traa;ed anaerobically • i�r„;a1, �w�.:!!'. .'.rn:,�*+,f. :.I?`�t ,;�yrs.e» _ :an.1i...4Mifd JE^.'. •�-Li:�r� „sill .t� �:.sagt� ".;.. •:w..• q,�•:-.;s.'r., ,'ti;Y•"�?!{� � P! '�,': 'T'1.. .�iT•_.Y�.:irirMr C rgir�::F...'f rZ:�,; ...S:{. .�..`��.� r;qr i.: I IIS.`'tl3::1 "_ ,fY•I.c ,''+I�. �.. .Y7 '4� niil'i .. .:.. !•u�i..l. :,i:,�`�.;��'yl.�°t�.;tsi�r: .., .F. ti al. .t�t.. •", r .:ak I .f!• '-�'� � :�..:�ZYxvNwfci�5YS!►h1?r?�Gi�Mr � � The authors are familiar with one extremely foul smelling anaerobic lagoon system where excessive hydrogen sulfide odor is the result of'. : a sulfate concentration greater than 500 mg/I in the water supply. ,'•' ; The anaerobic lagoon effluent contains a hydrogen sulfide concentra ° '"' .4 I 3 r tion in excess of 100 mg/l. Loadings and Removal Efficiencies. BOD loadings in operating 'lagoons x ; range from less than 10 to greater than 30 lb B0D/1000 Cu ft/day, , 'r ' while detention times generally range from 4 to 10 days. , Common design .:'''..',z '. f 1 criterion specified by regulatory agencies is 15 lb B0D/1000 .'cti ft/clay. ;,.:_ ,; s For a wastewater BOD concentration of 1400 mg/1, a 25 lb BOD...'design::;..::• ;4 loading would result in a detention time of 5.8 days. ` i,. 4: m BOD removal efficiencies range from 60 to 90 percent, however, :. there is no consistent correlation between removal efficiencies and,- ' ,:`"•:, ,';' c BOD loadings. Low BOD loadings do not necessarily mean high. 80D::ICe-. .2, moval efficiencies, nor do high loadings relate to low removal .: 1'J':::: : ".::''''* :' ;, efficiencies. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any' correlation " ; • between removal efficiencies and detention times. Although solids..,, "..•:),:,.O,.,., : retention time is probably one of the most significant factors affectM:,,:: ',_`:::.•( . 1 . , i P ing removal efficiency, there are few data available to evaluate ,this parameter. The common removal efficiency allowed•by regulatory'agenafes'`- is 60 percent BOD removal in anaerobic lagoons loaded at 15 'lb.BOD/2000 I;, ' 1 ' cu ft/day. . • After reviewing available anaerobic lagoon loading and.efficiencx' .,P ,::,'' f ' .::�•' is fi data, it appears that those lagoons loaded in excess of 15 1b. 80D/1000. ;.; ', _ •'.; cu ft/day operated consistently at BOD removal efficiencies between :a. I '• `• ..e,.•,...., , rr•�„w 777: w••t'e^� :•a 'ia'e »': •-t•-i, - r.,�v:�„7i7't.^•;��:.,��;,,�,.•�+._.r. •�, rwr :�'^��,;•Y.-t^fi�:".. .4„ •,j�� F;47; �•!!:;r14'.7.7 t+xx'.7. ' . t r, 7T%'} *-sR4!�'�•�t�:W7.77.11.77:114 ', I i a ' ,S "i s .. /,i,�,r.y ,,j-....e e��,.I,, rj.�,-»J;-(i�.p :.'�"Ft�.` �•.�•(! t+r,''1 .,....�'f.,�t1{;yyh"�•7:. I ll � r d :•.9 it�'}�y }• {# � nr. �tir�� .r{l'��''i'" �3hIMN8' '�� p +NVI. 21 75 and 85 percent provided that the lagoon was a single-stage system I operating at a temperature of 75oF or higher. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the following design criteria for properly con- structed single-stage anaerobic lagoons: BOD loading of 20 lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day; minimum detention time of 4 days; BOD removal efficiency of 75 percent; and minimum operating temperature of 75°F. rr Ica RJy Li r1 w n .. ,t-7,:" 5:i ,47# �1'��'Vf 't y i }fi fi� ,. ....-• :>wt" f" h;`5P�pEq°r'�.,fwr. W"'..".',.��M1'!�k' p�T�,`��..i, ..'"f��9 nd .i �ill""r •t.:;r"' ?1P.,gi..i' �.,t�. zrsrt �v,,:. .ti., F� <.q•,. ti µ SUMMARY ' per unit of meat production varies ; ' DOD and wastewater flow . significantly from one meat-processing plant to another. Fnrthe.F4'..''..: .: : . • :.,•' r: . I more, the daily wasteload from any given plant can vary consider~ sI:ably from the average daily wasteload depending upon the quantities. I, - j of products processed and the operation of by-product recovery : .. .::::: . ::...s.':' ,. i : units. The 5-day work week and the operational period i;. hr per weekday creates a wasteload that fluctuates between day :'' : ; r: -. Y~ and night, and between weekday and weekend. 4r. • 2. Meat-processing wastewater due to its high strength,. adequate inorganic nutrient content, and relatively .high temperature is. ;:,j amenable to anaerobic treatment. 3. Anaerobic processes currently being used to treat meat-processing: :'.: '-A;•1- i.,..L:, wastewaters are the anaerobic contact process and anaerobic; Lagoons:•`. '.:.: ..;.. .,• Anaerobic lagoons are preferred for the first-stagstreatment•.,.. of meat-processing wastewater in rural locations:, ' . . ;,';' . get..:of anaerobic•.: ! --.i.";-v''!.,•,'••'' ." ' .-„� 4. The following factors must be considered in dssi '''" lagoons: pretreatment of the wastewater, lagoon dimensions.. :-; �, Y. ea• andplacement of •; meta: .::', i:;,7. particularly liquid depth and side slop P and outlets. 1:...';! • 5. Recommended design criteria for single-stage anaerobic:lag .'.•; .IA are• average BOO loading of 20 lb BOD/1000 cu ft/day,:.minim . '-i'" • detention time of 4 days, BOD removal efficiency of 75 percent, 1, perature of 150E • . ', '" • ! and minimum operating tam ! ' I..'`i i. X'.'1!;7.' yY� Yy }' y�+ [(' fps 7 7Y'.,,t 4. • ..1'`• '.?i`.. t�1:�w�fr r'''''''' •.�1',�. ...e, _ av4''. 1R7fk!i� !Cr'.415 'T`� '��.'•�;�� 'j.t >'^ "�1. ,'�,7lV��.'.�":1.�{kn�1•' .. 7.. 4 �: .pry v1 :�4i1�. ' 'T 1M17i �:'Yii • .. 23 f,• •• REFERENCES -• 1. "An Industrial Waste Guide to the Meat Industry," U.S. Department. ': of Health, Education, and Welfare, Division of Water Supply and: ��k f; -J Pollution Control, PHS Pub. No, 386, 1965. , ,! vi 2. "The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial. Waste Profile . :::.1- ''.:...ii No. 8, Meat Products," U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal, `' ` ; Water Pollution Control Administration, FWPCA Pub. No. I.W.P.-8, F Sept., 1967. '', • j•3. McCarty, P. L, , "Anaerobic Waste • • :' . '• rt:•. • • Treatment Fundamentals," Public ;':••.},. i'. i• o ,t Works, Sept., Oct., Nov., and Dec., 1964. :• 1 • 4. Dietz, J. C., Clinebell, P. W., and Strub, A. L., "Design Conte r siderations for Anaerobic Contact Systems," Journal Water•Pollution, : 1 r'•r s': ;j Control Federation, vol. 38, no. 4, April, 1966, pp. 517530. 5. Steffen, A. J. , "Stabilization Ponds for Meat Packing Wastes," : ;, ., ,r:-�N Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 35, no. 4, April,, '.. , ;r, ;'1 . 1963, pp. 440-4. .�,! 6. Enders, K. E., Hammer, M. J. , and Weber, C. L., "Field Studies on; ': .., •.'."; .:•••q • ,• . `" an Anaerobic Lagoon Treating Slaughterhouse Waste," Proceedirc4s, ' ,:' s 22nd Industrial Waste Conf. , Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind:, 1967, pp. 126-137; and, Water and Sewage Works, vol. 115, no. 6, : ; • . June, 1968, pp. 282-288. 7. Stanley, D. R., "Anaerobic and Aerobic Lagoon Treatment of Packing..:. .-.*:- .. .. :f:-. Plant Wastes," Proceedings, 21st Purdue Industrial Waste Conf., ,.....4 Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., 1966, .pp. 275-283. ra 8. Rollag, D. A. , and Dornbush, J. N. , "Anaerobic Stabilization Pond ::, • Treatment of Meat Packing Wastes," Proceedings, 21st Industrial Waste Conf., Purdue University, Lafaette, Ind., 1966, pp. 768-7$2; ~ and, "Design and Performance Evaluation of an Anaerobic Stabilization' • Pond System for Meat-Processing Wastes," Journal Water Pollution ,r•.; 805•-12. : Control Federation, vol. 38, no. 11, Nov.,Nov ,1966, pp E. "Treatment of a Slaughterhour e .;. , . }' :....� 9. 4Jymore, A. K. , and White, J. � Proceedings, 23rd... Waste Using Anaerobic and Aerated Lagoons," Pr .•:, . ..4 • Industrial Waste Conf. , Purdue University, Lafayette; Incl . 1,968; ..' • '• pp• 601-618; and, Water and Sewage Works, vol. 115, no 10, Oat., ' '' 1968, pp. 492-98. 10. Nemerow, N. L. , "Poultry Processing Waste Treatment at mllsLnro,; P..` Delaware," Proceedings, 22nd Purdue Industrial Waste.Conf., :'�� .`. ,,.:i Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. , 1967, •pp. '526-536; and, Baffled :: `' :' Biological Basins for Treating Poultry Plant Wastes, Journal .. • :w,-•0-T:r.:. .,Y • • .,.t::p.••,•;•,.;;T,.„':rN>!ui}Yrr .I'''.,. �'•��r.. �".'',.. • - . r•;•; .,z•^..'.~= ., era .yr,,l•1 ppp�� •z,Altl�ti'i'i±�h1z:1�7:::;; �ff��..��jr_ 's .. .y. ,.•.r?• '.�, ".� .:.'A'.:.. :.y^r;•.,;,V.... ,_ :"A;h�bY►: ,:r ..., ^%r M. ;'�.;;L.;; �!'!t!.ti'.i : . !�, • • 24 1; is .,at ..J:'.1 Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 41, no. 9, Sept. , 1969, , � : :. • .:i pp. 1602-12. • y. • • 1 !;7; 11. Young, J. C. , and McCarty, P. L. , "The Anaerobic Filter for Waste • .'.,` '•, , Treatment," Proceedings, 22nd Industrial Waste Conf., Purdue . ; :.• '' `. ;: University, Lafayette, Ind., 1967, pp. 559 .574; and Journal Water •.: Pollution Control Federation, vol. 41, no. 5, May, 1969, pp. R160 :`i': - neq ,• R173 :i 12. vague, R. R. , McKinney, R. E. , and Pfeffer, J. T., "Solids Retention'' t .7,1 in Anaerobic Waste Treatment Systems," Journal Water Pollution , , Control Federation, vol. 42, no. 2, Feb. , 1970, pp. R29-R46. c; :` ' `. , ' r:11,. a' e. :3 ruse: .,• :' >r: • K !'i M • • ,: :t • J ':;� :w+x- ^v r,►'+?TCH!Si7.;. �!E".. � t,�7,I�'•'.'Rtwy�•.�.«;;�",-,+ •., :yam.;7• e,,TK;iri'"gT z' •.. ''Sr: ';�;' .�:�;'ri'',4�ir-!'•r.�'..r_r^'.1r,•'..t'1?��'.l"-..,..�"•.�:`. ,'.�*'-•-«;;,4y,t, d .r.�''�:..u��r-.'�h{�'�cr4r:�;.;-..'Is�'. +{?.'t��t�,t'„•;b,.iM..�j...•.:�JWi.�1. ,�1. �..f4{�iE;tiF'�: i'�'A.:�.,�1�.._ m • 1 CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOONS By James E. White Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company Kansas City, Missouri • Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons Kansas City, Missouri June 23-25, 1970 CURRENT DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ANAEROBIC LAGOONS James E. White I. INTRODUCTION: Anaerobic lagoons have played a major role in the treatment of wastes containing high suspended solids and organic concentrations. These lagoons have been compared to uncovered digesters. Current design criteria has, quite often, been based on operating experiences of earlier lagoon installations. Increasing interest is being placed on anaerobic lagoons due to the strict water quality standards imposed by the various government water pollution control agencies. Anaerobic lagoons have been attempted at very wide range of loading rates, at depths of 11 ft. to 20 ft. ; and under all types of weather conditions. The purpose of this paper is to present current design criteria presently (,) accepted by various government agencies and operation data of existing anaerobic lagoon installations. II. STATE AGENCIES DESIGN CRITERIA: Several state water pollution control agencies were asked to submit criteria they have used in their review of anaerobic lagoon projects. None of the states contacted have published design criteria for anaerobic lagoons. However, several of the states did submit criteria they have used in the past in their review of anaerobic lagoon projects. A summary of the criteria is given in Table 1. 1. 0 k TABLE 1 STATE AGENCIES ANAEROBIC LAGOON CRITERIA t BOD, Suspended Solids, Detention, Expected State lbs/1000 ft3 lbs/1000 ft3 Days Reduction, Colorado None at this date Georgia 3,* 15** 1.25*, 8** - 60-80 Illinois 15-20 -- 5 60 Iowa 12-15 -- 5-10 60-80 ;1 Montana 2-10 -- 10 minimum 70 Nebraska 12-15 -- 3-5 75 1` North Dakota None at this date South Dakota 15 -- -- 60 Texas 25-100 100-400 5-30 50-100 * No recirculation provided I** 1: 1 recirculation provided a As Table 1 indicates, the major parameter for lagoon design is BOD loading. The average loading for the various states is 12-15 lbs. BOD/1000 ft3. Expected efficiency was fairly consistent, 60-80% reduction, among the states. Only one state, Georgia, allowed an increased loading for recirculation. In general the recirculation ratio recommended by Georgia is 1:1. l' All states agree that the lagoons should be as deep as possible, 10 to 15 feet. z The lagoons have presently been approved for the following types of wastes: Slaughterhouses beef . pork poultry Feedlots beef . hogs poultry 2. Rendering Plants it Textile Dye Plants Canning Tannery III. LOADING CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING INSTALLATIONS: There are numerous articles recorded in the various technical journals on anaerobic lagoons. Unfortunately, many of them contain incomplete data to accurately analyze the lagoon design criteria and lagoon performance. There are also a variety of dimensions to express lagoon loadings. For example, lagoon loading rates have been expressed in the following terms: lbs. BOD/acre lbs. BOD/1000 ft 3 . lbs. BOD/lb. volatile solids in accumulated sludge lbs. Volatile solids/lb volatile solids in accumulated sludge lbs. suspended solids/1000 ft3 sq. ft. lagoon area/animal lbs. volatile suspended solids/1000 ft3 .11 If the recorded data is incomplete, it is difficult to compare the various facilities in terms of a common loading dimension. Sollol obtained considerable data on an anaerobic lagoon used in the // treatment facilities of a meat packing house. Pretreatment ahead of the lagoon consisted of primary treatment and grease recovery. Over a 3 year period, the lagoon averaged 85 percent BOD reduction. Sludge recirculation y''r was practiced during the sampling program. One surprising factor, however, was the fact that a 10 ft. depth of sludge accumulated in 21 years. Thettc sludge was pumped to a field for disposal where it dried readily with no nuisance. 3. r.�.� � � , t.M' n ' , . „ ^f i � %ems , s..��y� L,T1 r �y�'�'r e iRil ri er s. {, +e r Val in �,.6_ �ni2.tu '" .%. .- k '�rv+ ;"y�9.` zlaw at. ? Jc� ita: t o�' ,t r4:^-.., t 4. �.x t r_. ir', �' - r� r ;3 r.. .,y,p «_ t t fr jilt it Stanley2 observed the operation of two anaerobic lagoons operated in series If at a meat packing plant in Canada. With a detention of 3 to 5 days, the lagoons j J averaged 80 percent BOD reduction during one composite survey. It was found that the second lagoon provided little additional treatment. ry iS Rollag and Dornbush3 also conducted surveys on two anaerobic lagoons operated i in series on a meat packing waste. The only pretreatment provided was grease ,. recovery. The lagoon loadings for the first cell were 16 lbs. BOD/1000 ft3 and tr 8.2 lbs suspended solids/1000 ft3. The first cell removed 58 percent BOD and 77 percent suspended solids. The minimum temperature recorded of the lagoon contents was 76.9°F, indicating good insulation being provided by the grease cover. They determined that little additional reduction occurred in Cell No. 2. Enders, Hammer, and Weber4 made a study on an anaerobic lagoon in Nebraska serving a slaughterhouse. The average of 3 composite surveys indicated BOD loadings and effiency of 31.4 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 and 87 percent respectively. i The loadings, based on a different parameter, were expressed as 0.046 lb BOD/lb. volatile solids in the lagoon sludge and 0.055 lb volatilehs d /lb. volatiles latle solids in the lagoon sludge. Based on these parameters, tlagoon at a rate similar to an anaerobic digester. An anaerobic lagoon system serving a packing house at Cherokee, Iowan was designed for an average BOD loading of approximately 10 lbs BOD/1000 ft3. The lagoon is presently removing 85 percent of the applied BOD. Recirculation is available up to a 1:1 ratio. During the winter months the lagoon contents remained above 80°F. The Iowa State Department of Health6 made an extensive study of five separate I anaerobic lagoon systems serving various packing houses. The ROD eRODaloagsranged from a low 9 lbs/1000 ft3 to a high of 60 lbs/1000 ft3. In general, the average loadings were in the 12-15 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 range. The efficiencies of the lagoons were consistently above 70 percent. Those lagoons operating in the 12-15 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 range averaged 85 percent removal. The one lagoon with the 60 lbs/1000 ft3 BOD loading also provided excellent treatment, removing 72 percent of the applied BOD in a 3.4 day detention. 4. The Iowa Health Department also obtained sludge samples from the anaerobic lagoons for determining sludge accumulation. From their studies they estimated that packing houses discharging high suspended solids will have an accumulation of approximately seven inches per year in the anaerobic lagoons. The sludge t averages 55 to 65 percent volatile material. Excellent gas production is evident in all the lagoons as volatile acids run consistently below 200 mg/l. 1. Wymore and White7 designed an anaerobic lagoon system for a slaughterhouse r t in Iowa based on 15 lbs BOD/1000 ft3/day loading rate. Anticipated removal J was 60 percent. The lagoons are presently being loaded at an average rate of 13 lbs BOD/1000 ft3/day and are providing approximately 65 percent removal during the winter months. The temperature of the lagoon contents during the winter months averaged 60°F. f k Table 2 is a summary of the lagoon loading rates discussed. TABLE 2 Anaerobic Lagoons for Meat Packing Wastes Author Type of Waste Loading Rate Efficiency 1; Sollo - 11.2 lbs BOD/1000 ft3* 85** Stanley - - 80 Rollag Beef 16.1 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 58 Enders Beef 31.4 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 87 Reckert Beef & Hogs 10.0 lbs Bon/1000 ft3 85** Iowa State Health Dept. Beef & Hogs 12-15 lbs BOD/1000 ft3*** 85 Wymore & White Hogs 13 lbs MOD/1000 ft3 65 * Pilot Plant Loading Rate ** Recirculation Provided *** Average of all plants studied Several field studies have also been conducted on the disposal of livestock wastes by anaerobic lagoons. Dornbush and Anderson8 assisted an owner of a mechanized egg production unit who had major odor problems with his anaerobic lagoon. The odor was eliminated by raising the water level in the lagoon which reduced the lagoon loading and by providing intermittent mixing. Lagoon loading rates of 5 to 10 lbs. volatile solids/1000 ft3/day provided satisfactory results. 5. Loehr9 performed studies on an anaerobic lagoon treating milking parlor wastes. The lagoon was loaded at about 8.6 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 during the summer months and provided 85 percent reduction. This loading rate would be approxi- mately one-fifth the loading of a conventional single stage digester. The raw wastes entering this lagoon did not have the characteristics of typical live- stock wastes. Evidently the milking parlor floors were dry cleaned before wash down. Bhagat10 determined the loading rate on a lagoon treating dairy manure was ' about 20 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 per day and provided 88 percent BOD removal. In \I terms of volatile solids, the loading rate was 70 lbs/1000 ft3 per day. Thus \/ only about 28 percent of the biological solids are biodegradable according to the 5—day BOD test. Table 3 is a summary of the loading characteristics of the manure lagoons discussed. TABLE 3 Anaerobic Lagoons for Livestock Wastes • Author Type of Waste Loading Rate % Removal Dornbush Poultry Manure 5-10 lbs VS/1000 ft3 — Loehr Milking Parlor 8.6 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 85 Bhagat Dairy Manure 20 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 88 IV DISCUSSION: A. Organic Loading: As presented, the majority of states where anaerobic lagoons are located generally allow loading rates in the range of 12 to 15 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 per day. Operating experiences of lagoons treating packing house wastes certainly support this loading range for providing excellent treatment. However, there are also some data available to justify higher loading rates. Two separate anaerobic lagoon installations serving packing houses in Iowa have operated at 20 to 25 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 per day loading rates and provide 75 to 85 percent BOD removals. , The pH of these lagoons remains near 7.0 while the volatile 6. acids remain relatively low, less than 200 mg/1. The wastes from feedlots have different characteristics than packinghouse wastes. Some of the characteristics are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 Characteristics of Packinghouse and Beef Feedlot Wastes Packinghouse Beef Feedlot10,11 Wastes? Wastes ROD: Volatile Solids 0.8 to 0.9 0.3 to 0.5 BOD: COD 0.4 to 0.5 0.3 BOD: Total Solids 0.6 0.2 to 0.3 Table 4 clearly indicates the differences between the two wastes. Thus, when one compares the loading rates of lagoons treating different types of f wastes, care should be taken in making direct comparisons without knowing the waste characteristics. It is obvious that an anaerobic lagoon treating a feedlot waste will -' I accumulate considerable more nonbiodegradable material than a lagoon treating a packinghouse waste if both lagoons are loaded at the same rate. For this reason, anaerobic lagoons treating feedlot wastes usually need to be cleaned considerably more often than packinghouse waste lagoons. Acceptable loading rates for anaerobic lagoons treating feedlot wastes are highly variable. If a lagoon is in an isolated area, where odors are not a problem, quite often the Owner will be able to receive adequate treatment at a higher loading rate than if the lagoon were in a location where odors would be a nuisance. Another important factor to be considered when attempting to arrive at a lagoon loading rate is how often the owner wishes to remove the accumulated solids from the lagoon. High loading rates will obviously cause a lagoon to be- come filled with solids sooner than one at a low loading rate. In general, lagoons treating feedlot wastes have demonstrated satisfactory results at loading rates of 10 to 20 lbs BOD/1000 ft3 per day. Considerably higher loading rates have also provided satisfactory treatment, but have the major disadvantage of requiring sludge removal more often. L---- 7. 7. B. Temperature: The temperature of the lagoon contents plays a major role in the operating efficiency of the anaerobic lagoon. Research shows that lagoons which continue to operate satisfactorily during winter months usually have a lagoon temperature above 75°F. These lagoons always have an excellent cover consisting of grease and inert solids. If the lagoon temperature drops below 55 or 60°F, gas pro— duction usually drops to a minimum. When this happens, the lagoon does little more than act as a settling basin. C. Lagoon Depth: It is common knowledge that an anaerobic lagoon functions mucky better whew deep, 10-15 ft. , than when shallow. Wind action has a much less effect on the oon contents and the scum layer. Usually it is more economical to construct a deep lagoon than a shallow one because of theland areas required. . However, care should be taken not to place the lagoon bottom near ground` water. With the present water quality standards now in force, one does not wish to contaminate a ground water supply. Also, the temperature of the ground water will certainly lower the temperature of the sludge on the bottom of the lagoon. Since this is where a major portion of the gasification occurrs, 'if the temperature drops below 55 or 60°F, the efficiency of solids and BOD reduction in the lagoon will certainly be reduced. D. Recirculation: In theory, sludge recirculation, provides definite advantages and increased efficiency in lagoon operation. Any type of biological treatment is greatly improved when the active microorganisms are brought in immediate contact with the raw wastes. This has been clearly _proven in _high rate anaerobic digesters and activated sludge processes. However, there has been little research in anaerobic lagoon installations to determine the exact design parameters for optimum recirculation rates. Economics is certainly a major factor in determining the merits of recirculation. 8. 1 For example, if 1:1 recirculation allowed loading rates to be increased by 20 percent, the construction and operating costs of the recirculating pump station i must be compared with the construction cost of increasing the lagoon volume by 20 percent. The numbers in this example are not based on any installation, V but are used only to illustrate the importance of an economic study of a proposed Sf!` lagoon. However, until more field data is obtained, little can be said con— p sidering .design requirements for sludge recirculation._ E. Series vs. Parallel Design: k There seems to be little advantage in operating anaerobic lagoons in series. E Those installations which have been operated in series show very little increase R in efficiency than those operated in parallel. However, if high recirculation rates are provided, a second cell in series may be warranted., to provide a more clarified effluent. F. Effluent Quality: The quality of_Yhe effluent from an anaerobic lagoon usually needs agar � , tional treatment before it_ can be discharged to a water course. The BO may V range from 150 mg/1 on up, depending on the lagoon loading rate and other factors previously discussed. The effluent also has no dissolved oxygen. Since there is little nutrient removal in anaerobic lagoons, the majority of nutrients in the raw waste are discharged in the effluent. 1 V CONCLUSIONS: Anaerobic lagoons will provide excellent treatment of wastes containing high organic and solids concentrations when designed and operated properly. Most experience with anaerobic lagoons has been in the meat packing and feedlot • industries. However, anaerobic lagoons have also served the canning, textile, rendering, and tannery industries. - The economics of construction and operation of anaerobic lagoons certainly make them appealing for the various wastes suitable for this type of treatment.. 9. ., _ REFERENCES 1. Sollo, F. W., "Pond Treatment of Meat Packing Wastes," Proc. 15th Purdue Industrial Wastes Conf. , 386-391, 1960. 2. Stanley, D. R. , "Anaerobic and Aerobic Lagoon Treatment of Packing Plant Wastes," Proc. 21st Purdue Industrial Wastes Conf., 275-283, 1966. 3. Rollag, D. A. , and Dornbush, J. N. , "Anaerobic Stabilization Pond Treatment of Meat Packing Wastes," Proc. 21st Purdue Industrial Wastes Conf. , 768-782, X 1966. 4. Enders, K. E. , Hammer, M. J. , and Weber, C. L., "Field Studies on an Anaerobic Lagoon Treating Slaughterhouse Wastes," Proc. 22nd Purdue 1 Industrial Wastes Conf. , 126-137, 1967. 5. Rekert, R. D. , Walker, J. T. , and McClurg, P. T., "Anaerobic - Aerobic Treatment of Packinghouse Wastes at Cherokee, Iowa," Presented at the 49th Annual Conference, Iowa Water Pollution Control Association, 1967. 6. Frederick, R. A. , "Meat Packing Waste Treatment Lagoons Report," Presented at the 49th Annual Conference, Iowa Water Pollution Control Association, 1967. 7. Wymore, A. H., and White, J. E. , "Treatment of a Slaughterhouse Waste Using Anaerobic and Aerated Lagoons," Proc. 23rd Purdue Industrial Wastes Conf., 601-618, 1968. 8. Dornbush, J. N. , and Anderson, J. R. , "Lagooning of Livestock Wastes in South Dakota," Proc. 19th Purdue Industrial Wastes Conf. , 317-325, 1964. 9. Loehr, R. C. , and Ruf, J. A. , "Anaerobic Lagoon Treatment of Milking-Parlor Wastes, JWPCF, 40, 83-94, Jan. 1968. 10. Bhagat, S. K. , and Proctor, D. E., "Treatment of Dairy Manure By Lagooning," JWPCF, 41, 785-795, May 1969. 11. Loehr, R. C. , "Effluent Quality From Anaerobic Lagoons Treating Feedlot Wastes," JWPCF, 39, 384-391, March 1967. 12. Loehr, R. C. , "Fundamental Mechanisms of Anaerobic Lagoons," Presented at the 3rd Annual Sanitary Engineering Conference, Missouri University, 1966. • • This paper was presented at the 2nd International Symposium on _- Wastewater Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri , Juno 23 - 25, 1970: '' June 23, 1970 }$' ANAEROBIC LAGOON TREATMENT OF MEAT PACKING WASTE IN LOUISIANA by JAMES F. COERVER, Assistant Director Bureau of Environmental Health Louisiana State Department of Health k' New Orleans, Louisiana , Within the last ten years, nearly fifty abattoirs and packinghouses in Louisiana have installed anaerobic ponds to treat wastes from their operations. ' Use of anaerobic ponds for this purpose has been actively f promoted by the Louisiana State Department of Health after observing satisfactory performance of such a facility at the Autin Packing Company, Houma, Louisiana. Anaerobic ponds have found favor with the Louisiana meat packers because of low installation cost, ability to handle "shock I loads", and dependable nuisance-free performance. In the typical packinghouse installation, all of the wastes from slaughtering, including paunch manure, blood, fleshings, and other wastes not profitably salvaged, and sanitary wastes incidental to plant operation are discharged directly into the anaerobic pond. The effluent of these anaerobic ponds usually receives additional treatment in one or more aerobic ponds before discharge to receiving streams. HISTORY: The anaerobic and secondary ponds nt the Autin Packlnp Company in Houma were installed sometime in 1948 according to the recollection of the 4 rrit h 3I! owner, Mr. A. A. Autin. However, there are no records available to ,. , t definitely establish the date of original use. Mr. Autin also indicated' that the inner levees separating the series of three ponds (see Figure Si) ' ' ` originally contained French drains made of oyster shells. Some treatment ,:n;t . was apparently expected as the waste water trickled through the oyster :.ryrr sheets between the three ponds in series. The oyster shell French drains soon clogged, and trenches were cut across the Inner levees to allow the A, . liquid to pass through the series of ponds to the effluent drainage ditch. ` } F The system operated without nuisance and the effluent from the system caused no problems in the receiving ditch running by several residences x; y. : " adjoining properties. Little attention was paid to this operation for ti many years. A Interest in. the Autin disposal system developed in May of 1960 when : 4F1 the owners requested advice on improving the existing operation. At that; 4 ,, time, the anaerobic and the first of two secondary ponds were almost filled "Ail s, with sludge and repairs were needed on the levees. After dredging to remove i k ' excess sludge, and repair of the levees, study and evaluation of the Autin • disposal facilities began with the Idea of developing design criteria for ,'•, ` yt' the use of similar facilities at other packinghouses. A- 44 r The three ponds at the Autin plant in Houma are approximately the same t4tyfr shape and size. The average liquid depth in the ponds was approximately , r � 2 feet in May, 1960 but was deepened to about four feet when the ponds were 2,, ' ; ry reconditioned in the fall of 1960. Figure No. I shows dimensions and " '71'74,4;17.c: r' arrangements of facilities at this installation. „. • '+ w; r f r 'r 1. 4, , ky Ps':'91f i2 ANAEROBIC POND Volume - 0.95 Acre-ft. PACKINGHOUSE C�--r►^ Avg. depth - 4.0' Sump & Pump TRANSITIONAL POND Area - 0.28 Acres Avg. Depth - 4.0' 1 AEROBIC POND Area - 0.28 Acres Avg. Depth - 4.0' FIGURE NI - Autin Packing Co., Houma, La, Flow diagram of waste disposal facilities. All of the waste from the plant, with the exception of the drainage from the , hide house, drains into a large sump from which it is pumped to the anaerobic pond by a heavy duty sewage and trash pump. As some difficulty was experienced at the outset with solids deposition in the sump, due primarily to paunch manure, a large stirring device was installed in the sump to mix the waste into a slurry that could be handled readily by the pump. The high solids content raw waste caused the shallow anaerobic pond to fill with sludge. Mr. Autin had these accumulations removed from the pond with a drag line and stacked into large piles in the yard adjacent thereto. The sludge thus deposited has not produced an odor or insect problem and most of the dried accumulation in the yard was removed by truck farmers for use as a soil conditioner. - 3 - Until the pond was deepened in 1960, the sludge has been removed approximately biennially. At the time the anaerobic pond at Autin was observed in May 1961 , its It surface was covered with a thick scum or crust. It was assumed that formation of the surface crust was essential to the odor free operation of the pond 4 However, anaerobic ponds Installed subsequently at other packinghouses sometimes did not become "crusted over" but nevertheless operated without odor nuisance, probably due to an anerobic environment favorable for the predominance of methane fermentation• Paunch manure was observed to be the most prominent ingredient of the crusts that have formed. DESIGN CRITERIA: Shortly after tests and observations began at Houma, i-t became apparent that the anaerobic pond was a very effective waste treatment device. The problem then was to determine how this knowledge could most effectively be put to use elsewhere. Several meat packers were already interested in using similar facilities because of the low installation cost in comparison to other treatment methods and the ability of the pond system to handle troublesome paunch manure. Accordingly, design criteria was developed on the basis of the results obtained at the Houma installation. Inasmuch as data on raw waste volume and strength at the Houma installation was not available in early 1961 , the decision was made to comparatively size disposal facilities at future installations on the basis of the number and type of animals slaughtered in a representative time period.4 Slaughtering load was calculated in terms of the total waste from slaughtering one hog, hereafter referred to as one "hog unit". Hog unit equivalents for the waste from slaughtering animals other than hogs are 'R"* , nufi nrott armrayr'm 'on mi is44swal i{;n;n 4 in'P!17-7'r"' r ir_we•rn; estimated according to the following table: ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WASTE EQUIVALENT One hog I hog unit 4 One sheep I hog unit 3' One calf ( less than 600 lbs. live weight) I hog unit N One medium beef (600 to 900 lbs. live weight)3 hog units One heavy beef (over 900 lbs. live weight) 5 hog units The "hog unit" method of estimating waste was selected because most abattoir and packinghouse operators in Louisiana can estimate accurately how many animals will be processed but have no means of estimating plant waste volume or strength. Estimates of the number of animals to be killed per week was adopted as the most convenient planning unit. '" The Autin Packing Company furnished detailed information on the number, type, and size. of animal slaughtered each month during calendar year 1960. Computation by the hog-unit method indicated an average weekly loading of 386 hog units. Since waste loadings on anaerobic ponds are normally calculated in terms of volume, the loading on the Houma anaerobic pond before deepening was calculated at approximately 800 hog units per week per acre-foot and 400 hog units per week per acre-foot after deepening. 500 hog-units per week per acre-foot was arbitrarily selected as the design criteria for future anaerobic pond installations. While the anaerobic pond at Houma was originally very shallow (2 feet deep) it was recommended future installations be made as deep as possible to reduce area requirements and aid in early "crust" formation. Deeper ponds ^—_ .a.. .�q.. , ,..._..,..+m..r+.�....-•y --r^-weT�+ao+ewparm+m�nrm. Mt t t- k have subsequently been found to perform satisfactorily, as expected. An 1,;. easy access along one side for cleaning sludge accumulations was also I recommended. !t. EVALUATION PROCEDURES: Following adoption of standard design criteria by the State Department of Health, several meat packinghouses built anaerobic pond installations. Two of these installations, one at Slidell , La. and another at Gonzales. La., were closely observed and evaluated along with the Houma installation, and s the results are included in this report. 0 The Slidell installation (Guillot Packing Company) is owned and operated 1 by Mr. Arthur J . Guillot. Operation of the plant and waste treatment facilities f began in April of 1961 . A flow diagram for these facilities is shown on Figure No. 2. These waste stabilization ponds were designed by Lionel E. Flotte and Associates, Consulting Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana using the design criteria cited previously. Operation at the Slidell facility is similar to the operation at Houma. All of the waste from slaughtering, including blood, paunch manure and sanitary wastes are discharged into a hopper bottomed receiving sump and pumped from there to the anaerobic pond. The top of the anaerobic pond covered over with scum in February of 1962. Information on the total number of animals killed over a six month period indicates a weekly killing load at the Slidell installation of 600 hog-units, and an anaerobic pond loading of 667 hog units per week per acre-foot. The Gonzales installation (Stevens Meat Company) is owned and operated by Mr. Leo Stevens. Operation of the treatment facilities began in January, 4 r 1962. A flow diagram for these facilities is shown on Figure No. 3. The L C Yc Sump g Abattoir Pump 0.9 Acre - ft. ANAEROBIC POND • Liquid depth of all ponds =A 4' drainage ditch 0.23 Acre "TRANSITIONAL" POND 0.4 Acre AER0131C POND FIGURE #2. - Guillot Packing Company, Slidell , Louisiana Flow diagram of waste disposal facilities. • Abattoir AEROBIC POND. 1 . 12 Acres Sump & Pump Depth Y 4' ANAEROBIC 1 POND 4.0 Acre- Ft. • "TRANSITIONAL POND" Depth=O' 0.45 Acre Depth = 4' FIGURE #3. - Stevens Mat Company, Gonzales, Louisiana Flow diagram of waste disposal facilities. } pond system was designed by the author and built by the owner. This system has operated satisfactorily and without nuisance from the outset. The ponds remedied a very serious stream pollution problem. • The average weekly killing load at the Gonzales plant is 1 ,328 hog— units, making the average weekly loading on the anaerobic pond 332 hog- units per acre foot. As no funds or personnel were available for a special study and a' evaluation project, a limited study and evaluation was worked into the existing field service program of the State Department of Health. This was to be accomplished by scheduling occasional visits to these installations by field engineers for the purposes of making observations and collecting' samples for analysis. Although determinations for B.O.D. , settleable solids, suspended solids, total solids, volatile solids and pH were made ti in the course of the investigation, this report is concerned primarily i{ with 8.0.D. reduction. Analysis procedures were according to the latest n5 edition of "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters . At the time of the visits to these waste disposal facilities, the engineers would observe the physical condition and appearance of the ponds, . pond effluent and receiving ditch or stream, and submit a detailed report. If slaughtering operations were in progress on the days of the visit, samples of the raw waste were collected for B.O.D. analysis. Samples for B.O.D. analysis from the ponds were collected at a point about 6 inches below the water surface near pond outlets. s At the Houma and Gonzales plants included in this study, private wells are used as the primary source of water in the plant operation. The Slidell plant has unmetered use of the City supply. Water consumption figures were therefore not available for use in estimating waste flow �s: volume. In March, 1961 , the waste pump flow rate at the Houma installation �.x was calibrated and a time lapse meter installed in the electrical circuit of the pump to record pump operation. Waste flow from the Houma installation was found to average 214 gallons per hog-unit. Flow measurements at four r'. other Louisiana packinghouses not covered in this report were found to average 135, 200, 245 and 20 gallons per hog-unit. The 20 gallon figure came from a small rural establishment killing a small number of animals weekly, and dry collecting most wastes. RESULTS: The results of B.O.D. analysis of untreated and treated packinghouse, waste at each of the three anaerobic pond treatment facilities described r in this report are shown in Tables No. I , No. 2, and No. 3. These indicate an average B.O.D. reduction ranging from 94.3% through a pond receiving wastes from slaughtering 332 "hog units" per week per acre-ft. to 76.7% A . reduction through a pond loaded at 667 hog units per week per acre-ft. Figure #4 shows a graph of the percent 8.0.0. reduction In each of the three anaerobic pond systems studied versus the waste loading applied to the pond each week in terms of hog units per acre-ft. Based on the measured average waste flow of 214 gallons per hog unit at the Autin installation in Houma, Louisiana and the average raw waste B.O.D. there of 2,338 ppm, the daily B.O.D. loading on anaerobic ponds at the recommended design loading of 500 hog units per week per acre-ft. is approximately 300 pounds of B.O.D. per acre-ft. per day. ,,. ,. ,.. , ,.. .. P,IC9R'3!?4 'fi9N.4av�xan;.? e�9F?SA: " " Si' _ '• '_' 4r JJJ4 T A B L E Xl - Autin Packing Co. Waste Treatment Facilities jt Houma, Louisiana , • Results of B.O.D. Analysis �' IC', li Composite Anaerobic I Raw Pond % Waste Effluent BOD I' ' Date ppm BOD ppm B0D Removal l;- December 13, 1960 340 • January 31 , 1961 3,900 `' February 16, 1961 252 4 i4 February 23, 1961 300 • '''t t March I , 1961 186 April 5, 1961 213 April 13, 1961 2,600 161 93.8 4 June 15, 1961 2,723 166 94.0 q'l 9, July 6, 1961 1 ,250 69 94.4 October 5, 1961 2, 100 63 97.0 a IF December 19, 1961 2,800 36 98.7 • January 25, 1962 920 158 82.8 ,ry it, MEAN 2,328 177 92.4 ' l',. N` a i t . y1, 1-' • • T ABLE N2 - Guillot Packing Company Waste Treatment Facilities Slidell , Louisiana Results of B.O.D. Analysis Composite Anaerobic Raw Pond Waste Effluent DOD DATE BOO ppm BOO ppm Removal September 21 , 1961 1 .758 - - September 28, 1961 1 ,480 - - October 12, 1961 2,080 565 _ 72.8 October 25, 1961 2.593 762 82.3 November 9, 1961 4, 120 602 85.4 January 5, 1962 - 398 - January 18, 1962 2,680 131 95. 1 March 26, 1964 785 169 78.5 April 3, 1964 465 131 71 .8 April 17, 1964 1 ,306 (sludge) February 9, 1967 842 471 44. 1 February 17, 1967 1 ,215 600 50.6 February 22, 1967 2,910 506 82.6 • April 3, 1970 706 196 72.2 MEAN 1 ,765 412 76.7 • s 100 s7 Figure #4 Packinghouse Waste Treatment In Anaerobic Ponds. BOD Removal vs Pond Loading 95 STEVENS MEAT CO. , p GONZALES, LA. AUTIN PACKINGHOUSE, N HOUMA, LOUSIANA 90 el • 0 85 w \ • • • rC • 0 80 C) G m GUILLOT PACKINGHOUSE ---5""\ 75 HOUMA, LOUSIANA • 70 ', r y J y�-------- ----'� 300 400 500 600 700 800 ANAEROBIC POND LOADING • - HOG-UNITS PROCESSED PER WEEK PER ACRE-FOOT. • Fi ;' „4SE:. jT' I"° ;Payin r_r-9, 0A nWri f*ee ,FIFi i C r. r i TABLE #3 - Stevens Meat Company Waste Treatment Facilities i Gonzales, Louisiana 1 li Results of B.O.D. Analysis E* Composite Anarobic Raw Pond % v Waste Effluent BOD I Date BOD ppm BOO ppm Removal October 26, 1962 792 132 83.4 August 22, 1963 2,245 140 93.8 February 21 , 1964 - 125 - '',- March 20, 1964 2,543 115 95.5 April 10, 1964 - 87 February 10, 1967 2,970 147 95. 1 , February 16, 1967 1 ,900 96 94.5 z ' . February 23, 1967 2,265 III 95.1 Apr11 8, 1970 986 64 93.5 4: MEAN 1 ,957 113 94.3 ; + 1, ii . The mean annual temperature in south Louisiana where the three study pond systems are located is 68°F. Winters are usually rather mild. Since anaerobic ponds for treating packinghouse wastes can be made rather deep, := 14: and "crusts" usually form rapidly over them if paunch manure is received, and such a crust may be of value as an insulator, the anaerobic ponds should perform satisfactorily without artificial heating in somewhat colder end climates than prevalent in south Louisiana. Such ponds located in the colder northern part of Louisiana have operated without problems but performance data on these to date is very limited. No odor nuisance, insect nuisance or other problems have been reported , to date at any of the 50 such installations in Louisiana except for slight odors at initial start-up. SUMMARY: The results of treating packinghouse wastes in an anaerobic pond at }} Houma, Louisiana, and comparatively designed installations at Slidell and Gonzales, Louisiana, indicate that packinghouse wastes, including blood . and paunch manure, can be successfully treated in low cost anaerobic ponds without nuisance or health hazard. These ponds receive an approximate F B.O.D. loading of 300 pounds per acre-ft. per day; however, anaerobic pond designs in Louisiana are usually based on the number of animals processed. in a given time period (500 hog units per week per acre-ft.) wIFAmvr»IP4flttreMMISMIF^'nr,.wNIFMIr ca.,,.,teffliterrlitnirlirrnir 1n ri.tt r u�...,: ..4 5`- REFERENCES CITED I . "Slaughter Houses With Pond Systems", General Files, Division of Engineering, Louisiana State Department of Health, New Orleans, La. 2. Coerver, James F. , "Anaerobic and Aerobic Ponds for Packinghouse Waste Treatment in Louisiana", Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Purdue Industrial Wastes Conference, Lafayette, Indiana, May 5-7, 1964 pp 200-209 3. Meyer, James L., "Anaerobic Stabilization Ponding for the Treatment of Wastes from Small Abattoirs", Masters Thesis, The Graduate School , Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, Ruston, La., August 1965 4. "A Practical Report on the Disposal of Wastes From Small Slaughterhouses", The Pennsylvania State College Department of Engineering Research bulletin, No. 63, 1953 5. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, "Standard Methos for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", v Ilth edition, New York ( 1962) . iimnync•.�.... ,,,,, 5m T ._•,--•.,.•.rv+,-Tm.F�-= ...�,rwi,,,meo.an^^,m,M.-rn•'TE�C"n�A�llrll+ • • •.'" 0 . (D • .X • 01 . Tri :1 •I-). C- • N C: • 1.j )'• '.} , t.' 1 • 0 • <) • O •O` :t O • T �'_ . r15 51. • 0 SI I f_ ; . .j .: O H rt N :3 -.:5•:,-,:.i•''. H. P. *b 0 • '-; • •• •:.. . . . N J • .). I I-) F-' rt O;e t (n.':,. ~ 0 w CI, G. I P. Iiii . ',0 • C) () 0 0) • (1. (-) O t O 0) r} ; o . • b' b .• CO°-s' :• • 0 . H. • N o i� i i C) O...r. j' V • • (1 • �t 'i , • Sz.- _._....._..__ -- -__.__. _—__.. r__ _ (> >c • r~y, to al m 3 '..3'. 1. L_; 7 N cD • :. C 1L . .) L`. :; rt (� J N. w, it/•i • �J • - rj i i. Cl) r b . Cl Z (;-) ;0 r' T )i :". 0 1I 1C j . iJ. • P • . •J. 1{11 C !J•� Cl N. P. `. I- rt • r-• , • f) fO MIro .y CTJ `< �' iD ..-.. • N S' (D ).�. i H• . 1-5' M) `) �' S H. t0 I { '/i (D tD IQ f K ti H • OCnUi. ' 0 .: iJ (D u) 'b (s) N m o o ro • c • H .OO . • H P.•.rrt 0 H• H. v4D-3) CL• •0 rt Co 0 rt 0 `00, uCi o • I H • rt o • +0-'.. x •:N • (D. D Cl : s y 0 • Cl' . i-( �. z p~, rt • i.i- �y I. ) • i. 1 r�•.. :•.' ¢ . . et et 11 D, • %) i 0) 0 w a • r r) H w to (� A) C) N )� T1 H L 17 (r) • ..T :, (D.. .. :'. • p, ' µ. I-' � !� N O C)) (n.J N.'. •0 W N 0 N • to 1 . t. . C • H) •Cl' Cl.; . .N. ..' A Clu p `C • HI • Ch H. : 1-. • N rt . 0) . . N n . H .:. fl N A) • W . I W , N v N`.'.. LA 0 O • Mk CO J O . I•5 O LID I 1--! y r� O N .• .,. O O.; l.0 C) • 0 l<U CD O 0 r• [. o to o .A : . - 0 1 to. .. (). • r 0 O: 0•O . O 411 H •r• CO . n~-. •. . (A • 0-1 . IV -4 . - 1 {n I A • _ 0, U) 0 rj ,W ' .' 0 . ' N N . H F• ni H • N ' . H ' I H. N .N • :� • . '� H Fes• • • tT N • H 0 . fJ' y . 3 . o r �.. • O 0 00 C) • 'd 0 O O . Z . - , is - r'H I f . • p . b 0 • N• (D 1-,.:•. 1-' N . 1,0 0 N N rt 0 • (D C i , ¢ (D A)•J N I-1 0 to - d rt..,. • it,:: .- y M .. M • it'a rr • E I N N1.••; tD' •.....:72: (D r-.•• 1-h p'j • t..h • I-•.•' (D 11 1 r,. 0, ~ rat ,. K lb . • Pi.. , O 1r-' r (0p:. r• ri tt • T., (D r, .. PI • .0. ... (D . p-, p. • N f !� �- :w. d ) N_ p) el:• H- -;v C i • • () i (n. • is p' `C N . • rn cn 4 M .-0 • by Cl.' ... A} P. 0 , rt 0. r•n H rt • w p• H ►Oi O 0 O rt 7 rD O h'•_n p I I O O H. W ¢ W a C) I-' (J SL F • H. Q N'. O O •) rb O I1. • n .- j o 0 • • rt (DD ~•i 1 O i-h• H. 0 tf.( LO n t cn CD 0 o 0 w o w ROii:I t'• 5(D VI rjtQ i 'O bE'• K CO QI RI j I. CPo M HVI al p-i C N tt • W H E W x w 'CI .p m. '� .n 10 N J p- lO (DD CO C � }3 rr�� (D -i . N rt t'i Cl 9 o rt W p. µ. (J1 t 0 . r ti V to 5 � ° oo w Di a m .w (n m cn• (D td V y H .. rt rt 'O rt O 01 O A• • '*i n . b . th N• 0 G . O m (7p• Cl) O X O Q. :d (D C7 P• N• + F{ O • Y .I-' 0 's n W . W II ( >i ,, H N.'< W n a rt H n g 0 Co 0 w a a W 't, i W Pi-H C HI rat ' 0 tJ H 1-' 0 N ,t+ Cl) rt N H, I-' • rt tD rt, co • SP N Pi `t p . tom' .• fa• CD CD ----------r1— • iv to r, u, to N W `N l7 CD C) CO H ..pp UUi •• I-' In In � n C) O • a H : c3 - H 0 -. O 0 -• CD 0 C) 0 ' N A . n r) y to H CO CO H H co Cry . H F-' F Di Cr) of 0 H H I n) Cr) - fA H N cr)H N.) ND I = x O C' o n n 0 n - w o O', r) F' H [ 0 O tq Di H H µ H W H H t m + ' HH �. o o ao o £ 0 F . 0 H �... a a ri N Z H O H -------_—:-._ -:ro'. Y CD a a N• £ CD '0 'd • CI) 0 ''ti P. P. En nr C. N CD co w rt p (Q in rt rt (D . ` 4 O (OD n Cu N `c Fes-' • (0 N U) H t-. H i •• H 4.C U) to • G CD 0 N P. to N (D (D tD £ 00 Oa rt b :Y H ti oz u:1 Ci N art Ci .0 D0 :' '` . ,.. H H £ 0 O+ 4-n CD cn 0 - Cl) . (D C3 N A• CDD ufi b ''*J < Di (rt0 N n C • .. 0 rt ' a 0 m • M r, E.+. ~' (D N• 1--'• 1171 CD t" ( ' 0. H . o, (U P- W •S 1' cn t�i� H tR .. co r m w (D w w• w . ..� N..)0 U) (v z � �' CD 'ids } t° .f. mw rt il r 1 o . . . . :. . , • . . ,-. : ,c: , ; .r_ =-- — -.- • ?i 0 ) •y .r C� C •"' I--3 j '. . t • I� (D Co C P. } '1 Imo'• m i•) n, 3.• S Sr •• i rn H. 0 ' • t Di i • rt .: to }J. I-1• N C) H N In I ' i. p ►ii pi 'i P. 0 n 0 I"h :-.1i(. D 0 0r1• 1 I • I m P. ti i n E 0. P. r.-) Ps . . '. P. Pi o v rt 0 a i-'• S D rrt 0 . .. ..,:. . 0 • o P. `< '• • a) PP- .11 C) I-,.rt • * 7 rfi (n • H- • • P. Ct N N• • ' • ° ' • rr • ' •t H ri C11 al• i • N . a • L rt I - • fi 41 CO (1) Co a m - o • . . n c ,� �' �, 'j • .. , . 0 •':,. w• ''s. (D W n ,� �C u, 4,-, M 09- n..,.. n, ti o o art • µ Imo' (n C) td o $ o) I 0 y ¢, py F_-I. C) (D n t1b (D < (D co . P n, i ; o .N n a o C H. .. rt (D ' <piN I • • I )-1 In • '(7 51. FJ V' (D ' i . • . I-3 ;' i . to (D (n ! • 'd • I fi0 (D ! C) t ID I •1 • I I • • (D F•'• ' Co r•t O Ow n C X m O C O' n • t i I ' • • w ( c� rt. F• • 0 • n p 0 JCo IT: tx) M P- ° • H . • :� SL ' (D H 0 ro . C) P. O� rt i o rt t �j trl rj* C).`' I.1 •• rt 'i . 0 CO(A X t7 • • • N O �rNt Z n rt I-s ,y • C P.•• Z n Fes+• ' 0 OZ Fes'• C 0 :' 0 J i w : H rt ; NEn. 0. l (n 1-h (D N H Imo-• { • • . co H' , • I. , C) 0 u Owl '.. Lo CD J 0 1 H • ' H , . O � . O O O 0 . C . O j ►d ; , ::. : f., I-, • ' ; . j., r . . • • • • !-• • H +-t, HI I-h • F FI . . H' H, CO : nn H . E- • ' • • . �� O co N N P.. • I �. .i. (I) I . W I i �0 _...._ _ ......_.. ._. .__...w,..,.....---' :1:1 O K A• li W � y H X H � (�D . :�' l. Il V n Y. cn .•CJ ; (D l 'H. F.,. rt cn rt ' i2. 1-4 I ' N • ri (Q Sv n Fes fli' Ii n i I-p < (D () I- H I-' P.'C { ' !1 (D N a In N N i Cl Q• (D W • • , -.. ro tr. �'.(n I-3 o •P•4 'd CDm a n 0 (q . i••' ate . 11 'V o U I-1 al D + ' a n •. , N.,b • N• (D • '� n rt • K (D P < .. r Y P. a I w Cu (D G 5. r H • O- n ' I-I p (D • 0) : `� m:. CD C rt ~' •d ro i ' ...-.1 .•w . a H '' • . .; : ' ' •• •Ln ti N O rt N P H- `.': 1117 • • '• .'.' Cl fD ID N Y• ' O In 'd ° • N N t •. • dam' om t;J :. l7 nt.- ).t' . n :►: OO C) O rOC) , t0 '.1.0 ;J., 0 0 r) W P. 1-', (D w O F' F, rt r t F-' i N C) H. J . N. Di ,. r; it rt U4 • t ( N CD '•' it Q • 0 HI P• (I) K �n () H, 3 I i ►i .. ti 0 I • rt H4 H w O P N• I-T• . 1-'• w • '• O O K " `C O H O O 1- .) 1-1 d _ ' �i O ti " rt O w 7 O rt N rt (D L y P. w rt N PI N• ai 1- vD C) O w Q P.w " O ., ti • -• J. . ' -• N. w (7.. M w n C) 0 w n O -I.(:2 O HI ►-h u)1-4 C) I� 11) w P. w w w Ci) . . fi I✓ O U) O w w N. ' I-. rD . V it 1-' 3 I� 0) 5 0 0 0 N• r`) `' • O n i-3 rat H, H. P. rt n a y o ' O. ° I-h H ) ) n rt J. V • y w CD w ,y H- '-, 0• H- . P• (c w O w w. .. cr HI 3i • ¢ 11 i •rU P H u) f ' II fir 1 ) t;• P. PI j �• U) O• 0 w rt y " t� ••D • 0 0 • ((DD Ch O H ((DD O .'. 0 n. (D m O - O w H H D '1 C H, n I ri rr rt a in c) . Ifi : . '...'. m rt N CD W w (II 'i• I n • CD D `C O j a' iD (CD C (I) P. N . P, CD M Cu 0 (D (D w P. ••:,::�C ^ rt P • HI CD ,1 o N 0 rt . I i. • C7 N O C] Cn [�r� o SL • ' rD •? W O 1-r • N P•• (D P. w rn O CO r Q' N UN'. O 0 C) • N •P µ N C rt w O r O vj c.n O LO O O (D `C •rr' -4 y � N r!I O 0 0 H 1-' � C0 H 3 x :•4 H 0 a u) . , H- < o 0' ' u.1 )-1 mw p o l-' o . Ot33 O03 w w rt o r � (D " O P.U' g ' 11 HH P1 - nrn C Or mo ;; CV) I a, �O X 0 ln t-3 11 o 0 X s.m " �" ID. OQ, r) A) �"• 15 CD HH *i w FJ to c) rh x n w w rt N CT Cu • c •o. N I-h 1) En CI)a P. is.) Cio H� F'• • N td • Pi )O ro 1-• �; p I-, O O o.. P. N O P. 1-I, C • • �. r „� z • • t) H. •: . H, C • Z (Q h• ' O . , . • P. 441; CI sn !L • tDLC rt O I .. (n •• x n N O N 6r l 4 }fiw O r u) 1J A I-I w I-•I. W Oi` O . N co 1� O P NO la: H I H 0 0 o 0 Z P O PO • HQ Cr, o 0 .'.' O O 0 N 0 O OOO 0 CD o I-+ 0 0 0 H i. C� • O • C) • !-� ' 4 Y 1-1 I-' N rt, C7 r-ti I•t, r-h +-h. rh • ►h H, rt. W 4" • N t71 O) N co .• co co m • O00 H H , . H . 0 t 0 G � z P) } rt '� CD X 0 0 al (D PaP PI rt, O r U) (D N F' 11 . R.1 O < 'i7 (n HO z Qa O () Ems-' H ( rt O H. SDD (I a m ro w I-h rt. rr • N I �� I Hi . . (D p. . : P. m H cc) 6-95. b n b ):6::' it :°(()Ds: n rtP4 • ►i (D (DHt1 DI o 0 6, o• • o rD H- CDr°: w w(1) PIDH m H- . pJ rrt (DD 'rrt O X `P aH, a,. ry rOt 3 to LI• M . N .P. W r-h h 0 ;:n O1 O (Do o m (D 0 • E,. H Q ' r F-r•. •• • tiF 5t J _._ ..�y,�s..);j'•. .�.f.r.: :i:r, . �. . .f%.r;V!.tp=...... .. !:t:x�..y:>:•'•4�:Ye�. ,... .. oo f'• (n N • 1 7 I--, I fL . I }i- O co H fli H. ; in • rt rt i fi � Fi � pi rt tJ ~. H. F'. . H'• F-' N. ro. . rt,O rt h P. ►i (D r fi t7d rt,., rfi pi M Ut . H O N. '0 O N 0 11 el 0i Q K Q . C' N H (D 0 • 0 O rt • . • • 1 r1 i 0 FS P. II O .,•1 � •.i O (t j . •S H. • ,. :, ; rt 5:1 rt 0 . H. 0 N'C 'rl W .i .. (D 0 N. O . (n O Pi. H O f.i. lv 1-'• rt • a O H. n }''" p> >. rt u) rS t� p a •i p1 `C F•• • ft Fsv, N 1-1, n 0 Oct '0 o�-t .. O.' O H. 0 AW N Y �(•4 .- ., `7 • - ',.• • M P-1rt K (t 0 P.'C. (t - HI �-h • O a �. • • . a• w (DH HI rt CI Pi '• • gj F'S ►i rrtt .• 0 • a 0 < - • +1 H . I y M W 0 W 4 e• (n n t l . (D '..-.',' ca 0 N O O I I ro ¢0 . trl 0' (D P (D rt H. N ( • OP. H- • • p' Fl.. i--•' .cq (D et CD 'U 0 rrt 0 (D to 0" •` . N H t•i . N cq 0 'tt n I H .• IJ ty ,. 0•(n a %d c rt 0 tr1 to t z ( (i a ' . . H..0 m' ((DD txJ 0 . , �x H. H. f Z CD H. •o . 1. • C) LI I-'.'.. 0 O (D i cor. • m Fh •i N 0_ 0 P. co ro 4 �S m 0 t I • Ai '''t •. It %•'0 0 �' . . `< _. 0 , (D �' ro H rt . P- tiG .. f. (n • N to 0 .rt rS { ' '1 ' t !. H _.-. -- N ( (n Ul w C o • • y • t o -ro ;I �' 0 'H.1 tai w S1+ O p� H. • 1v 9 • N 1-71 Pi 1-1 MLA V1 j P• -P. r, rt f h . O < `+ m H rt 4 co` .d O , u, bi cn rn `<.' :. M 0 it rt0, ti 0 . CD • d 0 (D et h • 0 x rr H „ ,.. 1. O 0 a s • '� ct 0 y bd ro C �i • ¢' y P. 0 . , 0 i to t cn • .. H O .Q (D i w F.i. . (DH G 0x ty . n t� : N C)al fli N .,• N 0 x OH i- O H. C] o • :,' f Oct I-• Y• •. H. h w p' P-• > (v j Ai . t • pi a) . 00 vs. II H-' 1-1 H -P•... (11;: C }- 1, IH.-h O PI. O H. HJ co 0 P• . 0 •1 N• U) . Hi. : . - N [n ._.I •- M . • . • • • • p H+ • f'. N (7 ro Fi, SD Pi N Fes', P' _._—:_ H H w H • • H . p • N O O .) Ms• 1 1 W (v O • O .. .• ' O.. 0 .O . • I! w O •O O J • O 0 • 0 • O O f 'V 1,•.., 9-3 •" .. • 0 O H pi. fn ►fi ••1+ .. . • i s y. • • •(n O 0 t-] 0 •Ti `- ( , .` t'S OH - H -1 i- __•. ...ro....rYa •ti m . O rat 0 '`0 10--' G •0 d N n • rt r cq rf t F� t rt NH (D G rt rt 1--' 1-11 rtn . C 0 m ,� n p' 0 i00+ ...II. :..' •• . ... ' :y P (D N (0 N H O H ii 0 r0} (A h� P. (D (D O 1-' 1 .:. 1 • iJ �.s ( 1 r H a N n N H• '0 I-h N I a. (0 crtt 0.Q• Q N N• 0 DI C `c a •.N o. n 0. '.I : .' n to 0 O (D .1-1 as Z (0D O `rt 0 t .`C Cr (o HI ((DD I-, 0 `� . G N . .l .d 1, CO r 0 M'O • (n (n O 0 0 0. -- N N H j A I µ . .• £ a ro (D(0ct (n H. N I O art rt 0" H• (D 0 ''.. ':1 • : .. y N rt . N • rt 'C H- ro 0 L.J.O N • 0 �.•O `C O • . �l rt p+ • b ,i , b Q. Co OW 0 • , ti `•� "'' .b N (D • Fh ( ( . 0 . H H rt O N. N n i-i (p , •_ �,. .0,. :) _ ' (, lo 0 p( }'. (D. P.ft rt Z. cD w 1-4. 1. i:: i ; ' F' ;t •Cj (• rt f' W 1 • :.P. Cr P. ••t• • Q (i _ 0Ill: rt H 0 .� --....�._ 'rh-.i -! Nom. •• ... 1.*7--e-4.-.--------•":, .f-f.. ,'••-:-•-•--'7.-4-14-."-------:--- . W rat Di N �f�.u-+ 0 O' 1 1 O r• rt I*2 k o n b 1 N• (D vi 0 (t r i ,d O u) rt Imo• rf ti Q �. O i ft O O rt Q . 1" II )..I, :r1 O 0 m f 9 7 O `<1 0 (D • . ii r-t, n 5 +C P. H (D 0 • ; (1) P. ri n ° 0 • • ;v c-i C.. t� . . 1 m rn • M fD O m N Gj • . . !, C.) R• rt H • •-••C • 0 N • .�; • tr HPi O . .: 0.. r... , 0_.t,.. c O • r . tlj P . rt O P. O tY H tri C13 . . CD n (0 • .. txi (n XI y y� (D o rt I- F'• b , . E-. .Ti Ox O c N i d i tn .. W O A) • N i (n ' H . r l• b a I1 • t a 0 �CD " O O [3• p 0 •no ri co 0 H y • a (D -. 0 G O O O , o co H f m F--' H ' t7 ; 5 H H . rr O 0o n? O n O - f) Ni L Z • 17 0~ O1F-' H . I-, H CD O In 0 H • C H O H O Z ' N. U) • O I 0 •. . rt O , `C....... _.... _... ...__ _ .i.._._.�_1 o �' � `� I _ . in In in F,• o I rt. n rt rt R. (D '• • I . ! ' M m m Imo' , N per, CD w i O ''O hh 07 I . 1-1N b F•r, I W (D ID F-' ( F-' ! i � ."jd. H, rt i_. rt (D O ! [I ; N I.r, rt R (D (D , �' ' H W (D M ` N ! Du (D O OO , J. . P •IV tr. . SU tcl (D I 0 ,.1 N r: U) H . frtt Q, I- o ' p • r• N !, • nr nr 0 !J -, 0 ors stn ss ;? � a *s ! • . :: �. O 0 H rt. C D n H�. H, rh rt i. . .. I g, .0. a m t 0 J ro 11 0 °, 0 n i v 0 t°s • 3 N N " '< P.w 0 C3 i o p P. SD I.'. P. Ai 1) to Cu • t r°i, P. x P. f'• 0 , • Cli (n W a 'i 0 A, 0 P. H. rt a P. a a P. , •r rt • i]' (n• w H P. �. V. ° (7 rt • rt .n rat• n cn *i • o H. n n ^t I..�. .., rt :• • `C a .,C O a . t t+ O 'wP h, r 0 P. A• .• -• N At ►-h t O rt et CD ' 1 h II Cu . H. fU (D • 0 : rt P. N H'. rnt • 0 . ;� CI M [a Ai N *)i in . o I.4 •c.' a t. d n O W '17 • C C ti '. th. O 0 0 al (0D I"'• H. '*7 • I •• Uy • Q `C O • n I Sj `N C) . W to • 0 N hi N I-art • rt 1-4 G. • Mll t' o ric- . . C.) r i A; CD• 0 II CD rrt rt x 0 g `Q. 3 w O• rt Q II I } i 11 `3 ,1 m cD tY o A' o I i • • . Ft nCD 0 ro :1 tr• t • r ; � .•of• o _ _.1.._.. .,.--1 .. ...' OM r] (7 on) b V'' cn LT' F. • ¢, H 1• H U••rrt• xo 7 p • F-' rt Ai � L 0 O _ co 0O I n ' ° uni ct G �i • t± • • a'�` ED n 0 �• •H n' a I-JCf x ': H, x . ¢'; G fli o a a s .. 0 (D rt • 0 0 • H I ri . a 0 0' I.O rt . (P`C , �j p Fa-, • w a'Oct ' no OH V H .• a rtU) 0 Z N '0 ) ,'tu-f ca N _ Q. t p0 ru 0 w 0 . rt n 0 x n i ' C n ¢ nrrtt l•-t•• CO0 IH'. Hrt C7 . . Ai U3 H • N Hi . Hz H •a 1• i cn Jfm H wo Cn ' H o o ' I I.-I '• •• y o o• o a 0 o H , j M ` N : } + •H , I • H N H . o� H I- a) i ? ' . 0 I. () • N.) -. N ~ 1 H ' . w rn In I N ..1 rn . ~ I • 1 H O I _I • H -4... H OH N. (7D 0 O c0# O ..': t w r3 .. 0 . ...0. 0 ..;'•. co co n cn i°•J cn et £ la rt, S 1-h rt 0 , rt (n n G . rt rt SD N Ai •O P `C cn Cu £ rn N •£.• , i!•W O w N . b' H (D I-, I--' m N •H c `C to 0. H • ; i' H F-3 P. - C (D HY a H f,. N rt £ rn CD HI Cl) I-I 1 ;' 'i p. n • 0 H : O a a CO a CD I-1 N m 0 H P. (D . • £ x w Ir 0 • v o a a ow rt0 rntG � CD W `d �' t�- ,o E 0 H 0, N n w (n 0 I- m 'o •I ; • [T,J. .•• S I ma a• £ P. • I• VI N A' H H ;a n +� • �,•, • N. 'o.. . F.'. . • i� p' • , (D N p rt . rrt ,. .N CO I_,• H P. 0 H O P'� rt : s }_+ (D . rt (D n 0 (D rt (D N G N . G . 7• , CA (D • Hi 0 R• fi H 0 Fi •P O U) • G 1 • 1' a h .• y (D (D P. Di W 2 co i I i . • '0 (D . P.` 0 's7 (..t W (D trt ▪ •d 0 0 . . . b •0 CD �., ty t.: i o n I--, et rD ' • ° +• x I , Ct N h , . o '-C i µ O O . el (1 (-3 ($ O a N G Y () to co a I 0 • cn - p n• al n+ : 0. p C 5 . ;rte rt w I • t:'. • • rt < ;t..t. H, �'.O PI .'•:' d •.• H, o H, N o a " ..w O is av► cfi • ►i rt n ro n a G OO a o ' 9.. n • F .G . ' fb• O: ; '.. ' toi} a p, ,- a P. N N i ;`: ' NO H ct. • " .. H, CO: K p •H, Cr) n ''. (� 0 P. o `< O `< , ; M► O w.. a o ft O ' e I P ." �� WO `<.. ..'�'�; rrt O. P. Co 0 U ` I o •P. N • a w O O rfi rt, Em • r MOB (D - HI'd • MC G M t�1 .; _ • 4 0 n ,� G ,� G . i / . M V • H a bo 0 ii p• y b `C Pi N P' tli aa'�• } H w • Gd ,< o n y O a rt N G:• cq P. ri '� • H ti N 0,0 •O •• }.i. H O H. 1111} N O n n a 5 n 7r. n cD LP ` I }•,� N W c° `� rt. . O co l i.' y `< el o Pi f •i y cn . ton cn •v P. N. o �• o a i C f tv Y C a • a N. . a F-' a < rt 0 rt m H al Y a • O. Z a rt < �c O << -P' rt o y ct phi rt N • �. O O rt H N `,I'. R} X N• CI 'S> td ax . {-� r' Coa Co ►ti A,Pi rt . . . O • O ', .. I-) OH OH ~ a X I a ' V o. • a • 11 : n O1. . 0, a w. f Co (D rNt •-•::. •w w 1'• ;" _ { to p W ':F'.O . :::.H• O O ... F-' o } ' O �-! O. p I 1 r3 il+ o N-p ..o O 0 0 o op O H O p o p (DPI L._, 0~0. N CO O N .. 1 Z •k ' • .. _ ..• co y N M O G •-- rt. t-• ri G U) O. :. . • ri 'd.... 'b (D b $ n G G *' m '.. r• , n Al (D t-+• . < O a ri+ . }�. to t 1 c .•. p ao ari. O rtrt O O. � '.ri► G O O rt N } F,• . ui. PO :. ...� (D b rt gm b G ti w g r H N rt rt • U) '1r (D } •I. ) • tti W ct ' G M 1� (11 _ • ri �. N •d 0 N 0 : w a • •.: H. . .. • n H N •i 1.. : C] tD N Q , N• a , co _._. .__ _ • •s t7 to r i • N M� V� tD to cn.• 7,.-. • . • . rt - . '� o • . ty • • (D 'C) M •1 • i . •' • 'r3 0.1 . t-t • !11 a • Arts O .H i , tD ' M to . I Ri ff • • y to • •• ° :: • N ;: _• .O • r . 1• • • �'•r . :..•• su p w O i H • ,.; tyt c • . • .rrt LU'' I .H . • ' • . , .t • IJ • . tD I-i • g S cn wti , ��• + U) :� F,...� i • rt et I • • CTS f • • • '3 Y 4 ?' 7 N �__ In p •P f rU - ' Z .. LA 0 m to 'MM:: • y .' _. • • o I 1 • • CD q in .. • r H 1 O 1-'• O .f - Z ' __. y y °Z '� I . ra N 7 (� t D I :. • m • CD V : • Fi • . . N ° N n CD • . w *� tr mi . cn m �• cn £ rt I . 0 • ro w n J.. . • N . • C-7 y X C) G) () C) CJ VI r' h z o ,- ! ', , ' cn C < ct In •. • ' u)• f•-•• ¢, ' M k< rt t7 (D rt N P. '. '(D N •• • • •et SD • P• w n ) p• y . p k< rai h,• o. p ei w O ` M A, m ri n .• rt a P. 0 O . H. N •.i Q • : i 0 et H. H • En • P. N. rri a C 0 . �' rt • ,�..' 0.1 • • n N to P. Cu• P G F.3 P.P. rt ((D N. O W. r: • Fn- '3 • M 'S rt ri n Pi f1 o - . 4; • w (CI �'• . rt f-•• y 0 P.. w tC •• a. •• 0 in • H' rt . .. ; N rt. PI y • H• n • tq •i I' ,• 0 C . < .. .• �o • • • •. • H H. • N. cq x H 0 ` lD 0••. n u) i .. t . X 9 P.rt a w (D H f D • y ti • M • • rt n w . ' M• �••:• . H • 0 trl • Hz ; (D r3 n rt H.H P. CD P. N..< • m £ - '•'. cD Z.... H. H r3 p, ;. . '� �, a o (D o in r n ,1 w .• CD 0 x . . CD p.•• i:' :. i' ..• N rt rt H ,0 Q, .'. y . . 1. • Pi c cwt 0' • • . • kq ►3 p. • y I .. I . • ro : .t.OP 00 '1w • • —_—..— •--L------__________ __— . — -GI Pr; cnidtri- 'TI I-1 '' VVJ c�H ww • i 1 '7. Leif En O ' N H LO N `` H ti CD • O O .•' as H • y' Uj En 01 rt M • Iw G) x ,j i y u) �" •R• • y� ^P y •y H C). in rt < W Pia, • • c P. ky q+ • ., in 0 w •*30 No' Q' 0 H 0 o Nx H ' H• . . ro e • . . w O rt H Q. H rt lo HX P. (D H O 0 .. (11 F•, P. cD N. H, ° O W > in (D H N o Di C U]. ,I .*:•EE ,: N F� • (n (D a r) O C H 0 0 •. H n H .• • in rt P. fD P. in 0 N H rat CJ M (� . , r . 1 .:;:. v t✓.. . O d H P• : H,•• r-h 1-' £ 0 w in V H to �, �. r-t, N ' C) M ..in ,..t, Fil :. i C: • • r 0 - .�.r l0 Lrl f r n o N •P . 0 o d • »:: O H o a b :.I . c o g w rnto H 0 o } M .� ?..;i3 a• N No N) H p NO I C : i :. H 1t• ,..•• P N '• .•• ; ... N • O rt COr O •• C0 .H: N HI. ,• . b f) 1. ,: • • 'd H• N j 1•j �'.. : Ll . o 0 H1J1 • O• H 0 i H•N. Co C) p p 'O2' • ._^ n Do, H 0...t..w. •. 0 x a -t--, W H W D W w 00 '� • .. _ cn rt A o rt • rt W £ (Art ' Curt. (D '4' c m p• .. i •:.1., SS E 'Pi r3 w (n . N p• • O N cn rt rt ' ':E i w 3L D rt rt o i-' v rt (' (Q o p. C . N 'c ' ; Pi (Dorrtw wo ow • n • Niu WK : '::,' • rt (7 w n • rt 'U u' n • •'• • ! . Dr` • r tn • O �.. aG rr to aaP• Grl y H PI mP •• H tr En r `` t 8• ' Et'....'';• ,� • sob warn wmc ( ci • . P. (n y (n V.J(1 y .rt N. (D ILI ••0 d W ••• 44+ rt. . N 0 t•o • H rt H. • H p, N H ,. in (D 0 P• r< rt '0 H' H (D a: r tD N N .:,1:.•••• :''.••.``:. • i a m •D .. H. a . . 0' r3 ri : • rt .� ,.• -• • � . P b G P• 0 fD 'J O `. • 0H N• (D• Fes-, P. rat 0 • 3 1,' • Di bf %. N N H m O: ( E° • O • 0 • 1 + DI A. D �' u. 0 • (Nil 0 ' W o F'. O. O rt pp0 • rt • . 0 0. : Pr W Y. ( Y • j .• . N N N • O' (1, Oi H IJ I-' / • . H J rt L' 0 P. ¢ F+•'C. ..-I.!..< j: () ''}' ' . '. . • • HI'C • ri 0 •. • 0. H, 1-t, :J • f'ti • •, Ffi O. a : 1 P. • I-! Y• •0 . I rt p, .. 4: `G ( 1'l• . .. ;::: _ } Q, . o.. p • •CD '• • A' • • .,-• rt y N rt C Y ►•i o o o rt 0 (D O 0 • x O • tD,.0 I • r .n la) t-i (n 0 ri o rD P+ cn tr. ro r rfl R• : M'.I . • • },. C • rt. Di 0 '-i 0 ri 0 • 0 ro • P+ 0 . ,i 0 - : •1' • • : CI✓.... H : wu� ,. ten ; a H • su) !' I•,s t-' • tl rt'rt:• .. trJ . . b H Y• n : P. N ¢ .. {.' (p c}-+n• +NS • (0D Pte+ • . 0 '- 0 0 M: • 0 i 'kri • : CIE ro - tD • (D X . I--'. I-I • H,� P. O.. rt . E•. I `� • n • Fi £ H`G H I-i • G •:.• ,. 1a• . ( } . ' rt C) Cl) (D . •µ• 'Li. r0i (rtD .ro � co •t • 1 • ( I, rt. • �, .: Q '• fa• 0 ►roi I : . I • (n ' roro' f rn • rt • C 0 0 • I 1 '[f • cn -I, 'v 'E H W txi w cn � cn (n n ' I. • H ' . - • 0 w :' I� • O .00 O v • ' Arts N• ►H 0 rt C rat .' 0 0 H .• ; °' • 0 O • a " 0 co H, h, Sp, .rrt `< 4 • +0i 0 ro rrt O' Y E Or N. O _ : O x':; 1 `C • . 0 O IH• 0 , Ou � 0 H . •O, HO' I-, I-, (D H . . • l 4" H . ; of° , ' rt a0 I.., �, '.I ! .• g O cot7 N [� ..: • nro �° rt rt s~ P Oct ,. P+ P. H • . ! to . . • H cn n . � . a0 �.• I-, • 0m.• P. P. rt +fi Hl • . I I. . . I - w IQ w H H H I H N In U) N . O . O O , o I .pL) i-• r N CD O O CO S O 0 0 • . ' - •f-1 • O . 0 1 'd '.1 O 0 CD O • 0 Cr) - O ' • �,+ M.. t• y • - • H OH k' - • H tv al 1 C : , N 00 0 . I-' w tv -P. I.-0 ' 3 O OC) H n 0 0 O 0.� O C) ;. I- ;. : H H H }-• I' H . n : : N• . PI-1 7.. H H • to H (D Co H N F--• in 1 H •1 : O u7 o O U) •to -. � O •: O I .H °O CD O • N- O ••o (ft~i i 0 • ' .. , 4'' O Z N iI •• 11 rt •• • Y•• arrf rrt O • O w rt 0• rt ro 'TJ ri n I-1 Yr Di ti 0 N• N N• (n Y- H I--' In t7' (kM (r"t� �r_rt . . rt • O Fi p . 0 0 G 0 •511! cn I I W. . rt 'xi r5. O w r: r: , i: . F •• to 1 7 ro • rn s-s0 a • rt 0 .i: , r • .. •0•a',_:3i't p`,3:t i «+�:�".E:'pV rl. • {D t7 ' ggyy, P:v.-',.. 31''�; t, .:}P!:IiH<:k;t•T.qtiyr.(h.Tlr�'7. ',:hj'r.�Vw!�t..: i... ..li!c.IM..•,.i.T.r.•.1. . �.a..• :..��-:..._r.'�n+w_. k • TENTATIVE DRAFT - NOT FOR PUBLICATIONttit'610/44\ \ t ,a., ANAEROBIC TREATMENT OF ANIMAL WASTES .40 64-4 ... • Prepared by J.R. Miner '14,4s For Consideration by NC-69 August 1968 O' 4 • • • \• - . -i r ,• INDEX Benefits of Anaerobic Treatment. 2 2 Anaerobic Disgestion Process 4 Environmental Requirements 6 laboratory Demonstration 9 Lagoons in Service 11 Heated Anaerobic Digesters 19 Future Developments 23 References 26 Anaerobic Treatment of Animal Wastes NC-69 When animal manure is allowed to pile up on a manger floor, is pushed or flushed to a storage pit, or flows into a lagoon it undergoes some anaerobic decomposition. This is natures way of releasing the nutrients contained in the manure so they may be reused. With the advent of modern livestock production prac- tices , man has attempted to utilize this process in a somewhat controlled environment to treat livestock manures. The purpose of this treatment is to ease the task of their disposal with little attention to utilization of the associated nutrients. In order to be considered satisfactory the manure treatment scheme must ease the burden of manure disposal without creating objec- tionable side effects nor involving an unreasonable expenditure of labor or capital . -2- Anaerobic processes are those which take place in an environment de- void of molecular oxygen, in such an environment chemically bound ox- ygen is used for the final energy producing metabolic step. The oxygen may be bound with sulfur in sulfate ions , with nitrogen in nitrate ions, with carbon and hydrogen in various organic compounds , or with carbon alone in carbon dioxide N carbonates. Among anaerobic systems currently of importance in waste treatment are the septic tank, the anaerobic di- gester, and the anaerobic lagoon. Benefits of Anaerobic Treatment The basic attraction of the anaerobic process is its ability to decompose more organic matter per unit volume than its aerobic counter- part. For this reason alone, the anaerobic processes deserve consider- ation for the stabilization of strong organic wastes. The second characteristic of anaerobic digestion is the production of methane as a principal endproduct, Depending upon the exact nature of the raw wastes and digestion conditions , the gas produced in a pro- perly operating digester is 60 to 80% methane. This gas may be captured for use as heat , electrical or mechanical energy, depending upon the need. The remainder of the gas is carbon dioxide and hydro- gen with small quantities of various intermediate products . It is this last group, less than one percent of the gas produced, which is re- sponibie for most of the toxicity and odor problems which have histori- cally limited the use of anaerobic digestion. Other uses and application of the anaerobic treatment processes may be as important as organic disposal and methane production. Among these other uses are the following: -3- 1 . improved dewatering characterisics. Undigested organic sludges retain water with great tenacity. Anaerobic digestion has traditionally been used as the pretreatment for sewage sludge before drying on sand beds. Well digested sludge drains and dries quickly as contrasted with undigested or poorly digested sludge which must depend upon surface • evaporation and diffusion for drying. 2 , Reduction of solids volume, Depending upon the nature of the waste constituents, organic solids may be reduced forty to nearly one hundred percent. Carbohydrates are completely converted to methane car- bon dioxide and water while certain more resistant materials are reduced only fifty percent or less. Only limited reduction in inorganic solids may be expected in anaerobic digestion. Conventional sludge digestion in municipal waste treatment schemes produces a fifty percent reduction in organic (volatile suspended) solids. 3. Odor Reduction.. Well digested anaerobic sludge does not have an offensive odor. It dries rapidly and does not support further anaero- bic decomposition. Thus, digested solids may be field spread in areas where odor complaints would prevent the spread of fresh manure. Coupled with the reduction in odor potential is the reduction in fly problems. Digested solids are less attractive to flies both because of the lowered putrescible organic matter content and the increased dewatering speed. 4. Pretreatment ahead of aerobic systems . The high volumertric organic .removal rate of anaerobic processes make them particularly suit- able as the first step in a combined anaerobic-aerobic system. Combined systems of this type offer a high degree of treatment in a more economical manner than the exclusive use of an aerobic system. Systems of this type have found several applications in the packinghouse industry and have been explored to a limited extent for animal waste treatment. _4- 5. Treatment for discharge. Recent work in the improvement of anaerobic treatment processes has led to the anaerobic activated sludge process. This process offers effluent quality approaching that from the conventional activated sludge process. Such a process should have both lower operating costs, since no aeration equipment is required. Anaerobic Digestion Process The anaerobic decomposition of wastes is the result of anaerobic and facultative bacteria. . The environment is not suitable for the growth of either algae or higher animals. Aerobic bacteria activity is excluded by the absence of dissolved oxygen. Acid Forming Phase Microorganisms hydrolyze organic matter and metabolize the pro- ducts to organic acids, alcohols, sulfides, amines , and carbon dioxide. No single group of bacteria is able to degrade the variety of raw materials present in animal wastes, therefore a heterogeneous popu- lation is needed. The make-up of the population 15 a function of both the raw manure quality and the prevailing environmental conditions. This phase involves a liquification of insoluble substances by the hy- drolylic enzymes followed by the further metabolism of these materials. Cellulose, hemicelluloses, pectins , lipids and proteins are-the more common classes of materials which are partially decomposed by en- zyme activity. Lignins are largely unchanged in anaerobic decomposi- tion. The hydrogen acceptors for the initial breakdown of complex organics are nitrate and sulfate ions as well as combined oxygen exist- ing in organic compounds. Typical reactions during this phase include: Organic Sulfate Bacterial Organic Matter + Reducing•+ SO4lP Growth + intermediates + H2S + CO2 + HZO + Energy Bacteria Organic Facultative Bacterial Organic Hatter + Bacteria "," Growth + intermediates + CO2 + Energy intermediate breakdown products during this phase of digestion include various hexose:s_ suth as glucose, mannose, fructose, etc. from the cellu- lose and hemiceliuioses. The various hexoses may be further degraded to short chain fatty acids, alcohols, ketones, and aldehydes. The pectins yield methanol and galac.turonic acid. The major products from lipid degradation are fatty acids and glycerol . Proteins are successively hydrolyzed into peptides, amino acids and finally to ammonia. The net result of organic degradation during this phase of diges- • tiion is to convert many of the insoluble raw materials into soluble intermediates. This produces a sufficient concentration of organic acids to depress the pH and essentilly stop anaerobic digestion. For this reason, batchwise digestion of animal wastes is not operable. The acid forming phase must be conducted in the presence of organisms which can utilize the intermediate acids. Acid Recovery Phase In order to maintain anaerobic digestion the intermediates of raw material breakdown must be converted to suitable end products. This process is the conversion of the intermediate acids to successively . simpler compounds. Amino acids are broken down into ammonium Ion and the appropariate acids. Hydrogen sulfide and various mercaptans are produced from the sulfur containing amino acids . The methane bacteria are 'responsible for converting the short chain (1 to 6 carbon) acids and alcohols to methane and carbon dioxide. Thus methane bacteria are responsible for preventing a build up of acids within the system. In order for this to occur, a proper balance is re- quired between organic feed rate* and methane bacterial activity, which _b_ which is dependent upon environs<<entsi conditions. Methane bacteria are strict anaerobes and they require the presence of ammonium ion as a nitrogen source. kweral species have been Isolated, each having specif'sc subMtrate reiugirements. As an example, Methenobac- terlum suboxydans utilizes butyrate and va'ierate by not acetate. Several other species are able to utilize acetate but no single species is able to utilize the full range of substrates. Environmental Requirements The anaerobic digestion process is a complex one and environmental control is the primary means whereby man is able to influence it. The environmental factors of primary importance include temperature, pH, Band the presence of toxic materials. Temperature Like other biological processes, anaerobic digestion is quite temp- erature sensitive. Even more Important however is the need for a stable temperature in maintaining a proper balance of acid producing and utilizing bacteria. Temperature variations produce changes in the relative balance of bacterial species required to maintain activity. In practice, two temeprature ranges are generally recognized for effective anaerobic digestion. Mesophilic digestion (15 to 45°C.) €s the most com- mon; however thermophilic is digestion (.i5 to 65°C.) is somewhat more effic- lent. The lncr°eaeed operating problems involved in maintaining a digester at the higher temperature have however, generally discouraged the practice. Various schemes have been presented to correlate the l of l ucce of temperature on digester performance. Table 1 presents the time required to obtain 90% of the ultimate gas production in domestic sludge digesters -7- operating at various temperatures. TABLE 1 . Time required for 90% anaerobic digestion at various temperatures(1) . Temperature T i me (°F.) (days) 60 56 80 30 100 24 . 120 16 140 18 Most anaerobic digester malfunctions are related in some manner to pH conditions. The optimum pH for anaerobic digestion is reported by McKinney(2) to be about 6.5. When the pH falls below this level , methane bacteria are inhibited by the free hydrogen ion concentration. As the pH increases above 6.5 the voliatle acids (formic, acetic, proprionic, butyric, valeric, hexonic, heptonic and octonic) are increasingly trans- formed to their salts which are unavailable to the bacteria. The most frequent cause of low ph conditions in anaerobie.digestion is a shock loading of organic material which stimulates the faculative .acid producing bacteria. These organisms respond much more rapidly than the slow growing methane bacteria thereby producing an adverse pH condition which further inhibits the methane bacteria. This same reasoning explains why the aner•obic digestion process is often difficult to establish. To avoid this problem, anaerobic digesters are frequently seeded with sludge from an operating unit in which a proper bacterial population exists. -8- The concentration of volatile acids in a digester is frequently used as a diagnostic analysis. Volatile acids (VA) are generally found to increase. before the pH begins to fall . By regularly monitor- ing the volatile acids concentration, the operator may respond to a digestion problem before severe situations are created. This tool has produced some erroneous ides, however, because some operators and researchers have attributed digester problem mainly to VA toxicity, Further research has shown that volatile acids per se are not toxic but they may indicate an imminent ph decline which will adversely affect the process (1) . Toxic Materials Being a biological process, anaerobic digestion is subject to inter- ference by toxic materials which inhibit or kill bacterial cells. Hydro- gen ion concentration is the most common toxic material to adversely affect digesters; however, heavy metals , salts, and the more dramatic poisons of our day are known to present potential problems. Evaluation of toxicity problems in digesters has proven to be as difficult as evaluating animal toxicity, The toxicity is generally a function of the existing environmental conditions, the health of the system, the concentration of the potential poison and the concentration of other ions within the system. Among the heavy metals of importance in anaerobic digesters are copper, hexavalent chromium, nickel , and zinc. All of these have been implicated In digester toxicity problems; however, definite toxic limits are difficult to determine. Values in the range of 200 mg/I are commonly reported; however the amount of metal in true solution is much lower than -9- this In digesters. As an example, McDermott, et al . (4) reported the . maximum concentration of soluble copper concentration observed in norm- ally operating digesters to be 0.7 mg/1 . This is in sharp contrast to the values of several hundred commonly read as the toxic level , but muwh more reasonable when compared to the toxic level of metallic ions ' in other biological systems. in order of increasing toxicity the following cations have been observed to inhibit anaerobic, digestion: (a) calcium, (b) magnesium, (c) sodium, (d) potassium, and (e) ammonium (3) . These toxicities are such that up to 10,000 mg/1 of volatile acids may safely be neutralized with calcium or magnesium hydroxide but not with sodium, potassium or ammonium hydroxide. The antagonism between ions =s such that combinations of ions are much less inhibitory than a single ion. As an example, 2,370 mg/1 of Cl" when added as NaCI was observed to be severely inhib- itory to anaerobic digestion while 2,370 mg/1 of Cl- of both sodium and calcium chloride showed negligible inhibition (3) . Laboratory Demonstration The feasibility of anaerobic digestion as a treatment process for animal manures has been amply demonstrated by laboratory studies. These studies have been conducted utilizing daily manure feeding, essentially complete mixing, and constant temperature. The operating parameters were essentially those of normal sewage sludge digesters. Table 2 sum- marizes a number of laboratory anaerobic digestion trials as reported by four different investigators. -10- TABLE 2. Performance of Laboratory Anaerobic Digesters. Feed Temp, Loading(e) 1-;al Prod. ft3/lb Lbs VS* dest- Ref. __W.. . 0F. VS destrfeck roared/f't3 - day Poultry manure 74. . 17 5.1 .042 5 IS 95 17 9.5 .055 5 74 .2.8 5.3 .027 5 95 .31 10.7 .049 5 Dairy manure 7.4 .13 ii .O .011 5 95 . 12 16.2 .015 5 " 74. .2.0 16.1 .010 5 95 .22 14.3 .028 5 Swine manure 95 .20 6 AS 96 .15 13.0 .075 7 • Cow manure 97 . 15 6.4 .065 7 • 4i 97 .22 5.0 • .115 7 Sheep manure 96 .15 6.0 .059 7 Cattle manure 97 . 10 5.0 8 Is 97 .40 6.0 8 (a)Lbs. Volatile Solids per cubic foot per day *VS Volatile Solids The anaerobic digestion process depends upon contact between enzymes secreted by the bacteria and food material . This mixing-contact require- ment along with the physiological water requirement of bacteria requires the solids content within a digesternot exceed ten percent. This is no problem in hydraulic manure handling systems as sufficient water is used in diluting the manure to betweeni 2.5 and 5 percent solids. . Organic loadings on anaerobic units are expressed as pounds of vola- tile solids per cubic foot per day. Volatile solids are generally con- sidered a suitable measure of organic matter. Due to volatile solids being a quicker and easier analysis it has been selected over biochemical or chemical oxygen demand. For reference, the following daily volatile -1I- solids quantities have been reportedin various animal daily discharges. TABLE 3. Volatile Solids Quantltiee In Various Daily Manure Discharges. Volatile Solids in Animal manure discharge Reference 1000 'lb, cow 8.4 Ib./day 5 5 lb. chicken 0.051 lb./day 9 100 lb. pig 0.625 lb./day 9 150 lb. pig 0.35 lb./day 10 1000 lb. dairy cow 8.5 lb./day 11 100 lb. swine 0.71 lb:/stay 12 • 5-18 lb. turkey 0. 15 lb./day 13 In terms of gas production, the data of Table 2 indicate that at 95°F. , 0.3 to 1 .0 cubic feet of gas are produced per day per cubic foot of digester capacity. Higher vales are produced with increased loading rates and as would be expected, ruminant wastes produce gas at a lower rate than non-ruminants due to the higher concentration of • biologically. resistant materials. Lagoons in Service Anaerobic lagoons have found widespread application in the treatment of animal wastes because of their low initial cost , ease of operation, and perhaps more Importantly the lack of any serious alternatives. As a treatment system, lagoons developed by a trial and error process from their distant relative, the municipal aerobic waste stabilization pond. There is little similarity between an anaerobic lagoon and an aerobic waste. stabilization pond in terms of the processes involved and many of -12- the characteristics transferred from one to the other have proven detri- mental . As an example, aerobic waste stabilization ponds depend upon the presence of free oxygen for proper functioning thus a large surface area is beneficial for oxygen absorption from air and algae stimulation by sunlight. in contrast, oxygen is detrimental to the methane bacteria of anaerobic lagoons so a maximum surface area is not to be desired. Aerobic waste stabilization -ponds are designed shallow to achieve maxi- mum oxygenation, while anaerobic lagoons should be as deep as practical to achieve maximum temperature stability, and to minimize the escape of odors from the water sufface. The anaerobic digestion process is essentially the same whether taking place in a laboratory reactor, an operating digester, or an anaerobic lagoon. Lagoon design is improved by incorporating whatever features are possible from the more efficient digesters without sacrificing their low cost features. The design features of anaerobic lagoons to be pre- sented are the result of experience in various parts of the country. This experience has shown lagoons to be useful components of an overall animal waste treatment scheme. They have provided manure storage in northern climates where winter spreading is not feasble. in such areas, the goal is to provide the necessary storage without creating water pol- lution problems or the production of offensive odors. In central and southern United States, lagoons have provided significant organic decomp- osition as well as manure storage. LOADING RATES Loading rates which prescribe the design volume of anaerobic lagoons have been reported by investigators from various parts of the country. -13o • These have been based on observations of units in which an adequate bal- ance of acid producing. and utilizing organisms have been established. in such units;, offensive odors are minimized and sludge removal is required on an i rt f recur nt basis. Table 4 sumo r i zes some of the reported lagoon loading rates found operable, TI,&.•r 4. Reported Lagoon Volumes. Lagoon Volume Animal C.u..ft../Aniial Location Reference, Swine 130 to 260 South Dakota 14 Swine 475 Illinois 10 Swine 124 California 5 Swine 135 . lama 17 Poultry 14.6 South Dakota 14 Poultry 6 California 15 Poultry 13.6 Oallfornia 9 Cattle 1547 Wisconsin 16 Cattle 795 California 9 Using rho. average daily volatile solids contribution of various animal presented previously, the recommended loading rate is from 0.001 to 0.01 pounds of volatile solids per cubic foot per day. This ten fold range in values in riot excessive when one considers the variability of climates from which the data arise. in the design of a lagoon., one should be guided by the climatic conditions in which it +wi 1 i operate. For moderate mldwestern climates a rregoon loading rate of 0.005 pounds VS per cubic foot per day appears reasonable. Lagoon sixes for various animal wastes are given in Table 5. The capacityes given in Table 5 assume the complete waste loans form the animal wi 1 i be discharged into the lagoon but no provision is rEcluded.. for bedding. -14 ABLE 5, Lagoon :size Recommendations for Various Animals -- Central U.S. Lagoon Capacity- Animal Cu.f _r head Swine (100 lb.) 125 Cattle (1000 lb.) 1500 Poultry (5 lb. hen) 10 Required capacity may be increased up to fifty percent in areas of severe winters or where infrequent manure removal is important. Warm winter climates may justify capacity decreases of 25 percent. Since 'anaerobic lagoons are biological systems , a design based on organic loading rates is preferable to one based upon liquid retention times. Thus using the suggested loading rate of 0.005 lb. VS per ft3/ day, detention time will be a function of the volume of water used to transport the manure. Where the volatile solids concentration is 1 percent (10,000 mg/t ) a detention tine of approximately 120 days will result. Where large quantities of water are used for manure transport, care should be exercised to provide at least 60 days detention. Under severe winter- condition , little biological activity takes place in anaerobic lagoons. Upon warming, the manure pr•ev4lusly depos- ited in the lagoon becomes available to the facultative acid producing bacteria, it is at this time that adverse odor conditions are most likely. Conservative lagoon~ loading rates hare helpful in minimizing this condition; however, they are not always successful . The above loading rate does not provide long term storage space for digested sludge. When lagoons are designed based on these criteria, one may expect to remove sludge at intervals of one to three years. Larger -15- lagoons may be used to extend the period between, ,Fudge removal incidents. The sludge from a lagoon may be sprayed or spread on farm land, or dried or, sand zeds for use by gardeners. The sludge should be e:.sentially radar free and non-attractive to flies or rodents. While the loading rate io the most important single design feature of anaerobic lagoons , other -features are important in obtaining a satis- factory facility, 1. plath, Lagoons should be constructed as deep as is economically feasible while maintaining the bottom above the ground-water elevation. Depths of 12 to 14 feet have proven popular and appear.. to be quite satis- factory. 2. Saailnr . 6n order to perform c. tiafactori !y, lagoons must not show appreciable exfi `tr�atior sxf"i itration presents an inmediate threat to ground-water supplies of an area which must be protected. Before con- struction is begun, one !hoc: b Yert. in that an impervious seal can be achieved. in certain locations , soil additives such as bentonite clay and various polyphosphates havepro,ren helpful . Where problems arise or doubts exist one is wise in consulting an expert on the pe #errand; of soils in the area. Related to exflltration is the matter of maintaining a satisfactory water level within the lagoon. When the water surface is below the destgr, level,exc„essive organic loads per unit volume are placed en the unit. In addition, exposed solids are attractive to =ner and .are prone to pro- duce odors. When considering the constructon of a lagoon, serious con- sideration should be given to the water balance. r 1 a,ani. re . r • . .. ...1 '..,. ..' 1:. ..... . 1 .. ,. e, t _ 17_. ,rrr , • qct_ -20- similar wastes. 1 , oaadrj_ Anaerobic digesters would logically be designed on the bases of weight of volatile solids per unit volume at a specified temper- ature. From the research data available, a loading of 0.2_ pounds of '.,oiati 1e solids per cubic foot per day would seem to he a easan: ble design basis for a unit operating at 95oF. This leads to the following volumes on a per animal basis. Anaerb e Digester , tinirrai Volume per headz ft , Cow (moo lbs.) 45 Swine (150 lbs.) Poultry (5 lbs.) 0.5 2. Dilution. Adequate water is generally available when manure is hydraulically transported to the treatment facility. Where manure is handled in a dry state, sufficient water should be added to reduce the solids content to five to ten percent. Higher solids concentrations generally interfere with active anaerobic fermentation and complicate . thorough mixing, 3. Klxi,n9, Adequate mixing is essential in the operation of a high speed anaerobic digestion process. Mixing brings fresh manure into contact with the bacteria which are capable of metabolizing it . Further- more, mixing allows the full buffering capacity of the digested sludge to be utilized, prevents the development of unused "deed" spaces, and maintains a uniformly active bacterial population. Several schemes may be used for the mixing of an anaerobic digester. Continuously pumping from the buttons through a centrifugal pump and discharging int*• the top of the tank, is a popular way of sludge mixing -21- r. technique m tritei µ. all of the eEoipment outside the tank for easy maintenance. xttcrnat ."lys either gas or mechanical mixing may be prac- ticed within: the tank. Where gall mixing is utilized, some of the gas produced by the digestion process is compressed and discharged near the ►.ottom of the unit. Mechanical mixing involves the inste lat'ton of some type of mechanical agitator wichin i n the tank which is coupled to an exterior power supply. 4, ai;,u.t'i:le. Ad :quate temperature control is essential for high rate digestion, A temperature of 95OF. has been found to be desirable for adeouetc digestion and attainable in practice without undue diffi- culty. Where mixing :c accomplished by pumped recirculation, it is generally convenient to place a heat exchanger in this system following the pump,. Heating coils or pipes within the digester have generally been found difficult to maintain due to sludge cakingt on the surfaces and reducing neat transfer efficiencies. 5. Loester Construction_ Digesters are generally concrete tanks • fitted with some type of cover to prevent the entrance of air. The shape: of the tank is somewhat inconsequential ; however round tanks with hopper ahSaped bottoms are most common. hopper bottom faci l i' ates sludge pumping and tends to prevent sludge from solidifying in corners and other areas where t iqutd movement is hard to maintain. Digester covers may be fixed or floating. Floating covers provide a variable gas storage volume within the digester which in many cases et iminates the need for exterior storage, Fixed covers, howev'er',, are somewhat easier to construct and are cheaper. -22 C�. D oes ter GAS. The gas produced by an rreroh i c digester treating animal wastes may be expected to be about 60 percent methane and k0 percent carbon di xide(6) . This gas has a heating value of approximately 570 BTU per cubic font. The quantity of ga≥•+s may he some- what variable but 7 to 10 cubic feet per pound of volatile solids fed the unit may be expected under conditions of good digestion. In ,:,::'drier to utilize the gas produced In anaerobic digestion it must be collected, stored and burners in a controlled manner. Limited vo i care_;, o€ gas may be stored within the digester and such s toraue may be sufficient If a uniform gas use rate is envisioned. Where non- uniform gas demands are planned, separate: gas holding and in sore cases compression k advisable. Gas systems must include the necessary safety features to prevent explosion damage to the equipment . Minimum features normall ly include a vacuum and pressure relief , a flame trap and pressure regulating t.ing system. 7. Start-up Problems. If a charge of raw manure= is placed directly into an empty anaerobic digester, severa! weeks may be required before acsivo methane production begii:'a. The most satisfactory method of mini- mizing this start-up period is to initially seed the digester with act- ively digesting siudge then bring the digester up to full load in incre- menta6' steps over e period of two to throe weeks. Suitable seed may be obtained from another properly operating anaimal waste digester or a aun cipia sewage digester. If neither source is available, siurge from c manure lagoon shoJld be used. During the star -up perio6 it is important that careful temperature control be maintained. Also at this time, ph control becomes quite -23- critical : of possible, the pH should be monitored and is tt falls below 6.0 .enure additions should be temporarily stopped. if the ph does not 5'.aai l ize within a few days , small quantities of a lime slurry may be fed to raise the pH to 6.0. Where a ph meter or indicator tape is rot available, at.verae conditions may be detected as a gray color • accompao i ed by a sharp pungent odor a(pea ed Results A properly operating digester may be expected to coftvert at least sev!;.^.nty-five percent of the entering organi : solids into gas and to con- vert the remainder to a sludge whic`, wi i i be legs of@ens ivE and more easily hardleed than the fresh manure,. The liquid effluent, supernatant, from a digester is amenable to further biological treatment prior to discharge or reuse. This organic material will have been stabilized for considerable less cost than if similar results had been achieved with an aerobic system. in addition of the reduced operating costs which may he achieved, the gaseous by-product may be ctuirned for energy production. Future DeveloErrent. As animal waste treatment techniques become more sophisticated full utilization of the various treatment processes may be expected. The treatment schemes which achieve final acceptance must be corripaf._ ibla with eft Zcient. animal m gentent systens while protecting the var- ious aspects of our environment, Furthermore, the waste treatment facil- ities must add a sr.trtimum of cost to the finished product in term of initial Investment, operating cost and labor requirements. -24- Aanure Transport Difficulties in providing efficient so l les handling systems has prompted anima' producers to utilize hydraulic systems. Just as the modern housewife prefers to flush garbage down the drain with water, so likewise does the animal raiser prefer to flush manure away. Shovelling, scooping, and scraping have become unacceptable. This desire to adopt water carr?ed manure handling systems is tempered, however, by the lack of an unlimited water supply and the current mandate that environmental pollution, particularly water pollution be prevented. One answer to this dilemma is water reuse in which the water used for manure transport is treated to the point it may be recirculated through the system.. Combined Aoaerobit.'-Aerobic S stems Effluent from anaerobic treatment units has been demonstrated to be amenable to further aerobic biological treatment. The meat packing industry has been among the leaders in this form of complete waste treat- ment. In a typical system they would utilize a mixed anaerobic lagoon with a detention of 7 to 10 days in which the incoming waste would be mixed with sludge recirculated from the bottom. From the anaerobic cell the liquid flows into an aerated chamber with a detention of from 1 to 3 days. In this chamber aerobic organisms feed on the intermediate break- down products left by' the anaerobic organisms of the previous step. This aerobic unit is the more expensive of the two since it requires mechanical aeration to maintain a dissolved oxygen concentration of roughly one mg per liter or above at ail times. Following the ;:aerated chamber the waste flow would then likely be diverted to an aerobic lagoon for further sedimentation and clarification. In many CYse.'-.'. theae units have been designed to provide for not only treatment but storage of the waste flow during low flow periods €n the stream. in t ch a syatem sutra may ..e€ect the time of the year when the discharge wi l l take place. Many aerobic cells following the mechanical treatment process have been raw i gned for 60 to 90 days detention. Data whichare currently available for this treatment scheme indicate a BOD +'emoval of 95 or greater for most of the year. it has been noted in these units that the anaerobic cell provides approximately 70 of the total organic destruction. This form of treatment may he expected to become of greater importance in the animal waste handling technology of the future. This would in essence involve the combination of the anaerobic lagoon and the oxidation ditch or modified activated sludge unit into a single processing system. Such a system would require the improvement of our current lagoon design and opertttiag procedures with the possible addition of mixing or heating the facilitle.s;. The final design of such a unit must await further research and testing to determine the proper design parameters and opera- ting procedures. -26- REFERENCES I . ASCE--t4anuai of Practice No. 36, Sewage treatment plant design. p.209. 1959. 2, MGKuine'y, R,E. iiicrobiologyr for Sanitary Engineers. McGraw-Hill . 1962, p. 251. 3 . McCarty, P.L. end McKinney, S.L. Salt toxicity and anaerobic diges- tion. JWPCF 33: ( 355 1 iai . 4. McDermott, G,N. , Moore, W.A. , Post, M.A. and Ettinger, H.B. Copper and anaerobic sludge digestion. JWPCF 35: (8) 655, 1963. 5. Hart , S.A.. Digestion of livestock wastes, JWPCF 39: (6) 746, 1963. 6. Taivar,ides, E.P. : Baumann, E.R. Johnson, M.P. and Hazen, T.E. Anaerobic; digestion of hog wastes. journal of Aq-irraitural Engineer- ing Research 8: (4) 327-333, 1963.. 7. Jeffrey. E.A_ , Blackman, Irt.C. . Ricketts, R.L. Aerobic and anaerobic digestion chaaac.teristics of livestock wastes, University of Missouri luiletir. 1963. 8. Lehr, R.C. Effluent quality from anaerobic lagoons treating feed-- lot. wastes. JWPCF 39:(3) 384, 1967, 9. Hart, S,A. and Turner, M.E. The design of waste stabilization ponds for the treatment of agricultural washes , Advance s in water quality improvement. University of Texas. Apri 4-7, 1967. 10. Clark, C.C. Hog waste dispose) by iacooninq. Journal of San. Engr. Div. , ASCE:. SAG, 27. Dec. 1965, 11 . iauf, J.A. Anaerobic lagoon treatment of milking parlor waste. Unpubt isi'ed Mauster's, thesis. University of Kansas. 1566. 12. Teiganides , E..i'. , Hazen, T:E. Baumann, E.R. and Johnsar , H.P. Properties and pumping characteristics of hog wastes, Trans. A.S.A.E. 7(2) , 1964, 13. While, J.W. , Hothen, F.J . and Richer, A.C. Production, composition and value of poultry manure. Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 469, 1944. 14. 0ornbush, ..a.ha. and Anderson. J.R. layooning of livestock wastes in South Dakota,. Presented at. the 19th Annual Purdue andustriai Waste Conference, 1964. • -276- 15. Cwo=`r, A.c. , 0swatd; W.J. and Bronson, J.C. Treatmert of organic industrial wastes by lagoontng. Presented at the 20th Annual Purdue i ridus t r i a t Waste Conference, 1965, 16. Wi trerl l , S.A. .McCoy, E. and Lehner, R. What are the chemical and biological reactions when lagoons are used ror cattle? Paper 64-417, A.S.A.E. , 1964. 17. Wiilrich, T.L. Primary treatment of swine wastes by lanooning. Proc. Management of Farm Animal Wastes Conf. 70-74. 1966. Special Task Force Report on Sewage Treatment Alternates City of Greeley February 1970 SPECIAL TASK FORCE REPORT ON SEWAGE TREATMENT ALTERNATES CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO February 1970 i 1 1 1 1 1 "" i Son .. ooplear '� 1 diliti V.� ,�* iM� .a�' m`1 t is .P *,r otko {j It GREELEY CIVIC CENTER February 24, 1970 GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 OC 64 t i otoRp9 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Greeley, Colorado CITY COUNCIL Gentlemen: MAYOR DR RICHARD A. PERGHLIK Your special task force which was appointed to find an alternate solution to the. proposed Mumner Hill sewage COUNCILMEN treatment lagoon has completed its work. We are pleased GEORGE HALL to submit herewith our report which describes what we GIL HAUSE believe to be an excellent solution. This selected TOM RAPP solution provides not only an answer to our immediate JAMES BUCKER WAYNE 5DDMAN problem, but insures great benefit to the City of WAYNE WELLS Greeley for long range development of an adequate sewerage system. CITY MANAGER B H CRHCE Many interested citizens have given enthusiastically of their time, energy, knowledge , and advice to develop an answer to this most important problem. The Planning Commission and the entire task force stand ready to assist the City Council in the successful completion of this project. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF GREELEY PLANNING COMMISSION Ric and D. Weber, Chairman RDW/mji Cf 1 'Y '. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SECTION I INTRODUCTION General 1 Purpose and Goals 1 Task Force Composition 3 Study Procedures 4 SECTION II INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES General 6 Study and Evaluation of Published Engineering Report 6 Technical Studies 8 Financial Studies 10 Alternate Sites 11 Site IV 13 Estimate of Cost - Site IV 15 Site V 16 Estimate of Cost - Site V 18 Site VI 19 Estimate of Cost - Site VI 20 Greeley's Sewage Treatment Plant 21 Recommended Site 25 SECTION III FINANCES Present Condition 26 Bond Market Conditions 27 Proposed Financial Solution 28 Summary 30 SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions 31 Recommendations 33 EXHIBIT Following Page 33 SECTION I INTRODUCTION GENERAL At the February 10, 1970 meeting of the Greeley City Council , the Mayor and City Council appointed the City Planning Commission as a special task force to "find a satisfactory alternate solution to building a sewage treatment lagoon immediately north of Greeley on Mumper Hill " . The Mayor charged the Planning Commission with the responsibility of developing an alternate solution with a method of financing and reporting back to the Council in two weeks with a plan that could be readily approved by Monfort of Colorado, the State and local health officials , the citizens of Greeley, and the City Council . The Planning Commission accepted this responsibility and has completed its work. This report contains the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the special task force. PURPOSE AND GOALS Prior to undertaking the study, the Planning Commission met with Mr. Monfort and several citizens of the community who have a keen interest in the acceptable solution of this problem. Included in this meeting, in addition to the Planning Commission, were representatives of the Greeley Chamber of Commerce, the Greeley Area Business and Industrial Development Foundation, the Weld County Planning Commission, and some private citizens. At this meeting in Mr. Monfort's office, the basic purposes of the effort were established as follows: - 1 - 1 . To find a solution that would solve Monfort of Colorado's sewage _ treatment problem and, at the same time relieve, or if possible eliminate, the odor problem at the City's sewage treatment plant. 2. To find a solution that would cost Monfort of Colorado no more than the proposed Mumper Hill solution and, at the same time, would cost the City of Greeley only that which could be justified by direct benefits to the City sewage system. 3. To find a solution that would enable Monfort of Colorado to continue to expand its operations and, at the same time, a solution that would con- tribute to the future development of the City' s domestic sewage system. 4. To find a solution that would enable the City to own and operate the sewage system and thus take advantage of Federal aid and the improved interest rates available to a municipality and, at the same time, insure a sewer service charge to Monfort of Colorado that would amortize the net cost of the new facility. Once the basic purposes of the study were identified, it was necessary to set some ground rules for the conduct of the study. These ground rules were set so that the basic goal ; A SOLUTION UPON WHICH ALL PARTIES CAN AGREE, could be achieved with a minimum of effort and without delay. The following ground rules were readily agreed to by all parties present at the meeting: 1 . The anaerobic-aerobic lagoon treatment method designed by Mr. W. James Wells, Jr. , is a satisfactory method of treatment and will be used as the basis for all subsequent studies. - 2 - 2. The sewage effluent is a special industrial waste and should be treated independently of the City's domestic sewage, at least insofar as the primary anaerobic treatment process is concerned. This does not necessarily preclude the future co-mingling of domestic and industrial sewage in the aerobic lagoons. 3. Monfort of Colorado can be depended upon to participate in the financing of the finally selected solution. Financing is to be based upon the full amount of the costs as if the system were constructed with private funds. This includes proper recognition of land costs , interest costs, operation and maintenance costs, and any other true and identifiable costs and/or savings to Monfort of Colorado. 4. The City of Greeley can be depended upon to use its municinal status and powers to expedite the construction and minimize the net cost of the finally selected solution. This includes the power of condemnation, the issuance of municipal bonds , the obtaining of Federal aid, and the financing of those improvements that will benefit the City exclusively. 5. The finally selected solution must conform to all legal require- ments of the State and local health officials, all fiscal requirements of the outstanding revenue bond issue , the City Charter, the physical requirements of efficient treatment as determined by the engineers, and be capable of being described and agreed to in a long term contract between the City of Greeley and Monfort of Colorado. TASK FORCE COMPOSITION The City Planning Commission decided that additional help would be required to successfully complete the study. To provide this additional - 3 - assistance, several individuals were drafted for service on the task force. The following is a list of individuals who have served the committee well by making their time, information, and advice available when needed and without compensation: City Planning Commission Richard D. Weber, Chairman Elton Williams , Vice-Chairman (absent) Leonard Bartels Richard Boettcher Charles Gill James Kadlecek John McAfee Citizen Membership Clark Ewald, President, Greeley Chamber of Commerce Larry Scott, Vice-President, Greeley National Bank Calvin K. Snyder, Executive Director, Greeley Area Business and Industrial Development Foundation, Inc. Technical Assistance Robert Mitchell , Real Estate Appraiser Carl Gustafson, Bond Counsel William Bohlender, City Attorney John L. Haley, Engineer Vern C. Nelson, Engineer Robert K. Britzman , Planner W. James Wells , Jr. , Engineer Floyd Oliver, Colorado Pipelines , Inc. Monfort Representatives Kenneth Monfort Lowell Adams Hank Brown Don Mueller STUDY PROCEDURES Although there were numerous individuals performing multiple tasks simultaneously, a basic study procedure was outlined and followed , so - 4 - that all information could be properly correlated and valid decisions made. Basically, the procedure was to assign specific subjects to various individuals for research and reporting. Special meetings were held by the entire group to hear the individual reports and to make decisions concerning additional information needs , etc. Finally, individuals were assigned the task of writing sections of the report which were reviewed in draft form by the entire group. After the finally selected solution was agreed upon by the entire group, this report was published for presentation to Monfort of Colorado, the Mayor and City Council , and the citizens of Greeley. As presented herein, the solution has been informally approved by the entire task force, the City Attorney, the City's fiscal agent, the State Health Department officials, the local Health Department officials, the Greeley Chamber of Commerce, the Greeley Area Business and Industrial Development Foundation, the Greeley Clearing House Association, and Mr. Ken Monfort, President of Monfort of Colorado. - 5 - SECTION II INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES GENERAL To insure a thorough and comprehensive investigation of the subject, the work was divided into the following basic components : 1 . Study and evaluation of published "Study and Report - Waste Treatment Facilities - Monfort Packing Company" . 2. Technical studies with engineers , Health Department officials, - attorneys, contractors, land appraisers, and City officials. 3. Financial studies with City's fiscal agent, local banks, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration officials, Monfort' s financial staff, and City officials. 4. Study and evaluation of alternate sites , including advantages and disadvantages of each and a detailed cost estimate. - 5. Evaluation of the City' s treatment plant with and without Monfort's industrial waste. STUDY AND EVALUATION OF PUBLISHED ENGINEERING REPORT Mr. W. James Wells , Jr. , P.E. , of the Architect-Engineer firm of Bell , Galyardt and Wells, Omaha, Nebraska, published a report entitled "Study and Report - Waste Treatment Facilities - Monfort Packing Company" , wherein three alternate treatment sites and numerous sewage treatment methods were discussed in detail . This report was the basis for Monfort selecting the Mumper Hill site and an anaerobic-aerated lagoon treatment system. - 6 - The site locations investigated by Mr. Wells were restricted to those lands either owned by or controlled by Monfort of Colorado. Vern Nelson and John Haley, engineers, have reviewed the report in detail and agree that the methods of treatment, the construction cost estimates , the operational cost estimates, and the force main delivery solutions are appropriate for each site studied. The efficiency in treating high temperature packing plant wastes in an anaerobic lagoon is well established. The use of aerated lagoons and polishing ponds for final treatment promises efficiency with capacity for impact loading and long range future expansion. The method of treatment, the size of pipe and lagoons, the construction cost estimates, and the flow-through diagrams have been accepted as a valid basis for evaluating all alternate sites. In short, the plan for the Mumper Hill site has been picked from the report and placed on all alternate sites as a basis for evaluation and comparison. The technical factors concerning heat loss between the plant and the proposed site, the length and size of force main, the variances in con- struction quantities and added cost factors , such as river crossings, increased lagoon lining cost, the increased land area and cost, etc. , have been considered and agreed upon using the report as a base. Those contractors used by Mr. Wells in establishing cost estimates have been interviewed, and there is complete agreement that the unit prices shown in the report by Mr. Wells are as valid as can be expected from a preliminary design. - 7 - TECHNICAL STUDIES During the course of this study, there have been numerous meetings with various officials, professionals, and experts on the technical aspects of locating and constructing the proposed facility. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of these discussions, their subject matter, and conclusions: 1 . Engineers: There have been several meetings between Jim Wells and Lowell Adams, engineers representing Monfort, and Vern Nelson and John Haley, engineers representing the task force, wherein the techni- calities of sewage treatment, construction problems , construction costs , and operational costs were discussed. In each discussion the basic design criteria of Mr. Wells, the design engineer, was accepted as a reasonable basis for all proposed solutions. The recommended solution carries the approval of all the engineers as being technically proper and efficient. The construction cost estimates shown herein are considered to be reasonable and well within the accuracy required for planning purposes . The actual design and preparation of detailed plans and specifications will no doubt alter the individual unit prices ; however, the total cost estimate should not vary materially. The requirement to deliver raw sewage to the anaerobic lagoons at a temperature of 85 degrees Fahrenheit has had a major influence on the recommended solution. 2. Health Department Officials: Mr. Glen Paul of the local Health Department, and Mr. Gene Facetti and Mr. Frank Rozich of the - 8 - State Health Department have been consulted to establish their attitude and recommendations with regard to the proposed solution. Each of these people has encouraged the concept of having the City construct the facility and operate it as a municipal project. Although no official endorsement can be obtained until an official request for approval is made, the consulted officials can find no major objection to the recommended solution. 3. Attorneys : Mr. William Bohlender, City Attorney, has been apprised of the task force's actions , conclusions and recommendations , and although there is much legal work to be accomplished in the form of land procurement, design contracts , construction contracts, applica- tion for Federal aid, issuance of bonds and service contracts between Monfort of Colorado and the City of Greeley, there appears to be no legal obstacle to the proposed solution. Mr. Hank Brown, attorney for Monfort, agrees that the apparent legal problems can be resolved. 4. Contractors : Mr. Floyd Oliver of Colorado Pipelines , Inc. , and Mr. George Goodell , a local earthwork contractor, have been consulted and have confirmed the validity of the construction approach and con- tract prices. 5. Land Appraiser: Mr. Robert Mitchell , a local appraiser, has furnished the task force with an informal land appraisal for each of the alternate sites. Because a specific land description could not be furnished, a formal appraisal could not be made; however, the land values cited herein are considered to be adequate for planning purposes. - 9 - 6. City Officials: Mr. B. H. Cruce, City Manager; Mr. Charles E. "Pink" Willson, General Superintendent of Public Works; Mr. Leonard Wiest, Finance Director; and other City officials have furnished information and advice with regard to the present sewage treatment plant, the present sewage revenues , the Monfort contract, etc. This information has been invaluable in arriving at a final solution. FINANCIAL STUDIES Various members of the task force have contacted several officials and authorities on the financial solution to the problem. The following paragraphs provide a brief description of these discussions, their subject matter, and conclusions. 1 . city's Fiscal Agent: Mr. Carl Gustafson, the City' s fiscal agent, was invited to meet with the entire task force and brief the group on the present bond position of the City. In addition, he was asked to advise on ways in which the proposed solution could be financed with a minimum of delay and at a minimum expense. Mr. Gustafson confirmed that additional bonds could be issued within the statutory limits of the City Charter, and without breaching the requirements of the 1964 bond issue. To positively insure the success of this program, it will be necessary to have the bonds purchased locally. Mr. Gustafson advised that a bond issue up to $1 ,100,000 could be handled under the proposed plan. 2. Local Banks: Mr. Larry Scott, a member of the Clearing House Association and a member of the task force, met with the local bankers association and received their assurance of support for purchasing the - 10 - necessary bonds at six per cent or less. The bonds would be purchased by the local banks who are members of the Clearing House Association. 3. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration: Mr. Vern Nelson has contacted officials of the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission, and through them, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, and has been assured that there are Federal assistance funds available in Colorado and that this project would receive favorable consideration; provided the normal requirements of Public Law 660 and the regulations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration are met. Similar municipal - industrial sewage treatment solutions in Colorado have been approved for Federal funding in the past. 4. Monfort' s Financial Representative: Mr. Don Mueller, Treasurer for Monfort of Colorado, has attended all meetings where the financial solution has been discussed and has agreed with the recommended solution. A formal contract must be prepared that will underwrite Monfort' s portion of the financing plan; however, there is agreement that such a document can be signed if it conforms to the plan outlined in this report. 5. City Officials: Mr. William Bohlender, City Attorney, has reviewed the financing plan and sees no reason why it cannot be implemented, if it meets with the approval of the City Council , the City's fiscal agent, and the bond attorneys. ALTERNATE SITES The three sites discussed in Mr. Wells' report are shown on the attached exhibit in red. These sites were visited and evaluated by - 11 - members of the task force prior to inspecting alternate sites. The soil conditions, topography, access, proximity to other improvements , pipeline routing, and apparent construction problems were all studied and evaluated. Based upon these inspections and evaluations , the entire area north and east of Greeley was examined to find comparable or better alternate sites. It was decided that all alternate sites should contain at least 160 acres, in order to provide for future expansion of the sewage system and to make land cost factors uniform. It was further decided that each alternate site should be capable of being served both by the force main transmission line from Monfort's plant and by a gravity line from the Greeley sewage plant. In addition, all alternate sites were chosen with the surrounding land use and future development in mind. Each of the alternate sites chosen for more detailed study is discussed below. An aerial photograph of each of the alternate sites is included in this report. A tabulation of the apparent advantages and disadvantages for each site is included, along with a detailed cost estimate. - 12 - I. •xl, � T.'. — .•r Y !; k ' • •1. ,,f• F ** r el .A. '''',.. „ . ••• • ! ' -- '1 . ...... \.,..„ .,.. . _ „...., . _ .... • . --. ,,,,,,,,,t , i . . . 4 . .. .. - . - 7 ". l'r % ' ' ' y • s .;. SITE TT SITE IV This site is located in the East Half (El/2) of Section 3 north of Colorado Highway 263 and immediately west of the airport. To the south is the Cache La Poudre River and a pig farm. To the west is the Davis Feed Lot, and to the north is irrigated farm land. Sand Creek is adjacent to the site. The selected site is south of the airport runway alignment and would not be involved in any extensions of the present or future runways. The land is moderately sandy and there is sufficient fall from north to south to provide efficient organization and construction of the proposed lagoons. The advantages of this site are: 1 . Relatively close to both the Monfort Plant and the Greeley sewage treatment plant. 2. Excellent construction site for both the fifteen foot deep anaerobic lagoons and the five foot deep aerobic lagoons without interference from ground water. 3. Adjacent land use would not be materially affected by the proposed facility. 4. Capable of being served from the Greeley sewage treatment plant along the route of the Ogilvy Ditch. 5. Moderately priced land. 6. Readily accessible while not in an area subject to conflicting industrial or residential development. 7. Entirely above the river. - 13 - 8. Minimum construction cost. 9. Minimum temperature loss in force main. 10. Entire area can be used productively. The disadvantages of this site are: 1 . Not located directly adjacent to the South Platte River so that service as a regional sewage treatment site, while still practical , would involve additional sewer cost in the future. 2. Approximately two miles east of the residential area of Greeley. 3. Not as isolated as Sites V and VI. - 14 - ESTIMATE OF COST - SITE IV Item Description Total Cost 1 . Lift Station $ 36,000 2. 16" Force Main 105,000 3. Highway Crossing 5,250 4. Site Improvements 15,000 5. Anaerobic Lagoons 30,000 6. Extended Aeration Ponds and Equipment 59,500 7. Clarifiers 66,000 8. Sludge Return System 23,000 9. Piping and Control Structures 12,500 10. Aerobic Lagoons (30 Acres) 60,000 11 . Effluent Ditch 4,500 12. Electrical at Site 4,000 13. Sealing of Lagoons 10,500 Total Construction Cost $431 ,250 10% Construction Contingency 43,125 Legal , Engineering, and Administration 40,975 Project Cost $515,350 Land 140,000 Total $655,350 Less 30% of $515,350 (Federal Grant) 154,605 Balance $500,745 SAY $500,000 - 15 - " ( n Imo' r • if 'k!Mf,�, � ...`.tip...+ .1 r*, ^ ie ' L' '� x' �i;.: t .if , '.,.-'.* • ee 44 gyp, `' de• t:,4, . , --1-4,t-T. 'jda : 4' jj J • r r.,ij�b. - S' vT y�� ; #ham j .. t�,.y�" t . *p�{ 44;,./...-"-----46---,'#),- . .. p ti( Y Y Myp 4Nfx 'y} + .1,470-- Y'W � fit t 11 ita, V } .Y,"sr'i3 ..•,� { i 'i J" ;d Y r ,p �L.J♦ �Yrt U Va ,t 'if t v t..� 's.' rf f'. ' w ,- ,y .P' "r• `ham ..ti.. 14 ., y* rvw ln1MRv �j" .� fy y..•a✓fr f .� �� tlA*' t.• -fix , t x 1'F f 'v w :. � xq�*ryg aO4 w � rq" !�:� j /Or �' t .47 `4 yam 4 t { n S F ,}�f } .5}.Ny44. f 4 • S. "i. L' ! 7 S/TE 3 SITE V This site is located in the Delta and more specifically in the Northwest Quarter (NW1/4) of Section 12. To the north is the Cache La Poudre River and to the south is the South Platte River. On the east and west the land is basically pasture land and irrigated row crop. The selected site is very isolated and would not be involved in any residential or industrial development. - The land is basically sand and gravel , but with a silty soil layer that should provide adequate material for the earthwork involved in the construction. It is a flat area but above the 1965 and 1969 flood plain. The advantages of this site are: 1 . Almost complete isolation. 2. Provides an ideal site for a regional sewage treatment facility in that it is at the convergence of both river basins. 3. Satisfactory construction site for lagoon type treatment facilities. 4. Adjacent land use would not be materially affected by the proposed facility. 5. Low priced land. 6. Reasonable construction cost. The disadvantages of this site are: 1 . In the river bottom land. 2. Difficult access. 3. Requires construction of relatively long outfall sewer in a high water table for future treatment of domestic wastes. - 16 - 4. Marginal temperature loss in force main. 5. Added construction difficulties with river crossing , etc. 6. Pumping operations and control problems. - 17 - ESTIMATE OF COST - SITE V Item Description Total Cost 1 . Lift Station $ 36,000 2. 16" Force Main 171 ,500 3. Highway Crossing 5,250 4. River Crossing 10,000 5. Site Improvements 20,000 6. Anaerobic Lagoons 45,000 7. Extended Aeration Equipment and Ponds 59,500 8. Clarifiers 66,000 9. Sludge Return System 23,000 10. Piping and Control Structures 12,500 11 . Aerobic Lagoons 60,000 12. Effluent Ditch 1 ,500 13. Electrical at Site 4,000 14. Sealing of Lagoons 15,000 15. Control Valve, Line and Structures 30,000 Total Construction Cost $559,250 10% Construction Contingency 55,925 Legal , Engineering, and Administration 53 ,125 Project Cost $668,300 Land 85,000 Total $753,300 Less 30% of $668,300 (Federal Grant) 200,500 Balance $552,800 SAY $550,000 - 18 - N !' '� �' sue,. • > -4 -) : ;.'1'' .,e I3i'7.. • * 1 . • # " . .. 1� X14 1 e. ,„ ,4::).-- • 'JF.: is t r .w. ' Y. t % J ,'l BMW' 4 . y y * ' ,I• # ,". ' ' -."44-410:' it- . ty ',..t.f• •'. ,- 41." .. : *. It. ••••••Ct.. :tit ,i •* 2,t,•,--,„ • lln • gi µrd- s/. " ,.'._, .y�.- ' c • `J X , - .air' aC 7 M. k - }M' •a\.1'I• `„ + �ot .F^v R'iyG .. .Y 4,K1 '.'�.'a. • r 4. : it; y{»t lie ye s .' ti'N . C ... + , � ok t ` It fir. a' F �.i'l,ys :!..s::1/4.\ F M R' v, 14.8B�Jf^—• 1 n \ 4 iri.,..Est ?..%. - • .. .r .i f�, ;t ,ryi4 ti. ,w R • 14 • • t 10 . '- .Stitt• • » '£• +t. .. ;, S. SITE Ilf SITE VI This site is located in the Northeast Quarter (NE1/4) of Section 7 south of the South Platte River below the junction with the Cache La Poudre River. To the south is the Plumb Ditch and a bluff. To the east and west the land is basically irrigated pasture. The selected site is isolated and would not be involved in any residential or industrial development. The land is basically sand and gravel but with a thick layer of silty soil that would provide good construction material . It is a flat area but well above the 1965 and 1969 flood plain. The advantages of this site are: 1 . Well isolated from the public. 2. Provides an excellent site for a regional sewage treatment facility in that it would serve both river basins plus Kersey. 3. Excellent construction site for lagoon type treatment facilities. 4. Adjacent land would not be materially affected by the proposed facility. 5. Low priced land. 6. Above the flood plain. 7. Reasonable construction cost. The disadvantages of this site are: 1 . In river bottom land. 2. Requires construction of long outfall sewer in a high water table for future treatment of domestic wastes. 3. Excessive temperature loss in long force main. 4. Added construction difficulties with river crossing. 5. Pumping operations and control problems. - 19 - ESTIMATE OF COST - SITE VI Item Description Total Cost 1 . Lift Station $ 36,000 2. 16" Force Main 217,700 3. Highway Crossing 5,250 4. River Crossing 15,000 5. Site Improvements 20,000 6. Anaerobic Lagoon 45,000 7. Extended Aeration Equipment and Ponds 59,500 8. Clarifiers 66,000 9. Sludge Return System 23,000 10. Piping and Control Structures 12,500 11 . Aerobic Lagoons 60,000 12. Effluent Ditch 1 ,500 13. Electrical at Site 4,000 14. Sealing of Lagoons 15,000 15. Control Valve, Line and Structure 35,000 Total Construction Cost $615,450 10% Construction Contingency 61 ,545 Legal , Engineering, and Administration 58,470 Project Cost $735,465 Land 80,000 Total $815,465 Less 30% of $735,465 (Federal Grant) 220,640 Balance $594,825 SAY $595,000 - 20 - GREELEY'S SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT One of the major goals of this study is the reduction or complete elimination of odors from the present sewage treatment plant. To establish the feasibility of accomplishing this goal , the task force spent considerable time investigating the past history of the plant, the present condition and capacity of the plant, and the resultant conditions when the Monfort sewage has been removed. In this investigation , the task force further took into consideration the fact that domestic sewage is high in volume and low in strength, while the Monfort sewage is , by comparison, low in volume and high in strength. The following paragraphs describe the studies , findings , and conclusions resulting from these investigations: 1 . History: Portions of the south plant have been in service for at least thirty-five years , dating back to the time the original plant site was selected and the first treatment facilities were constructed. The major components of the south plant were constructed in 1955. Most of the mechani- cal equipment in the south plant is fifteen years old and is beginning to show its age. In 1958, when the south plant was relatively new, the plant was doing a satisfactory job of treating all the City' s sewage, according to State Health Department records. It seems logical , therefore, to assume that the south side plant is capable of satisfactorily treating the sewage load equivalent to 20,000 to 25,000 people. This assumes , of course, that the plant is brought to as good a condition as it was in 1958. In 1965 when the new north plant was added, the design was based upon the premise that all industrial sewage (Monfort and Kuner-Empson) would be - 21 - handled by the south plant, and all domestic sewage would be treated by the new north plant. The north plant was designed to handle the 1965 population of 38,000 people, plus a growth or 10,000 people, or a total population of 48,000, or its equivalent. Although the north plant is now five years old, there is no reason to believe that it cannot accommodate at least this design population. Based upon these design factors, the combined capacity of both plants (assuming the south plant is renovated) is 48,000 plus 20,000 to 25,000, or 68,000 to 73,000 persons; Say 70,000 persons , or the equivalent thereof. 2. Present Conditions : At the present time , all of the domestic sewage and some of Monfort' s sewage is being treated by the north plant. The exact amount of industrial sewage going to the plants cannot be determined because of the manner in which the inlet pipes are inter-connected. However, it is estimated that 25 per cent of Monfort' s sewage is going to the north plant, with the remaining 75 per cent being treated in the south plant. To establish the present loading on each plant, it is necessary to reduce the packing plant waste to a population equivalent based upon organic content. Engineers advise that each person contributes approximately 0.25 pound of BOD per day to the domestic sewage system. Applying this factor to Monfort sewage, each pound of BOD in packing plant waste is equivalent to the contribution of four persons to the domestic system. The present discharge from Monfort is estimated to be 20,000 pounds of BOD with a future two-shift operation loading of 30,000 pounds of BOD. This is an 80,000 population equivalent at present, and a prediction of 120,000 population equivalent in the near future. - 22 - Assuming the 25 per cent - 75 per cent distribution described above to be correct, the Monfort waste is loading the north plant with an equivalent population of 20,000, and the south plant with an equivalent population of 60,000. At the present time, there are approximately 45,000 persons being served by the domestic sewage system, including the student population and all outside users such as Highland Hills , etc. The sewage flows resulting from this population represent a volume of from four to five times that of the Monfort waste. Accordingly, the present organic loading on the two plants can be estimated to be: North Plant: 45,000 plus 20,000 = 65,000 population equivalent South Plant: 60,000 population equivalent It is quite apparent that both plants are overloaded. Although the discharge to the river may meet the State Health Department standards , the overloading is intolerable because of the heavy odor emission. Even if both plants were operating at peak efficiency, it is not reasonable to expect these plants to handle organic loads amounting to 135 per cent of capacity in the north plant and 270 per cent of capacity in the south plant. 3. Future Conditions : Greeley's present domestic loadings are estimated to be 45,000 persons plus. If Monfort' s sewage is removed from the system, the north plant alone should be capable of handling the present domestic load. The capacity of the old south plant could then be available for future growth. - 2 3 - It is estimated that, without Monfort's sewage, both plants could handle the entire domestic load for several years. However, in 1975, all parts of the south plant will be at least twenty years old with some parts being at least forty years old. It is questionable whether the south plant should be expected to serve past 1975. Certainly the south plant cannot be maintained in service much longer without major costly repairs. How the future use of the present plant should be scheduled should be determined by a detailed engineering study. The task force does not con- sider it a part of their job to make comment on this subject. However, the above analysis does point out certain obvious facts : 1 . When Monfort's sewage is removed from the existing plants, the overloading has been eliminated and the odor problem should be materially reduced if not eliminated entirely. 2. With only the domestic sewage to treat, the north plant alone can handle the present loading. 3. With some repairs , the south plant can be depended upon to treat additional loads resulting from future growth up to at least 1975. 4. Between now and the time the south plant is no longer usable, a gravity sewer line from the present plant to the selected sewage treatment site should be constructed. At that time, peak flows or the entire load on the south plant can be sent downstream to be treated at the new location. This treatment can readily and economically be provided if a 160 acre site is available when needed. - 24 - RECOMMENDED SITE After careful consideration of all the advantages and disadvantages of each site, and with particular attention to the items of temperature loss, construction cost, operational cost, regional development potential , and construction expediency, the task force has unanimously agreed to recommend Site IV near the airport. _ _ 25 _ SECTION III FINANCES PRESENT CONDITION In order for the task force to arrive at an acceptable method of financing any new sewer effort, it was necessary to examine the present sewage system debt condition. To accomplish this, the City's fiscal agent, Mr. Carl Gustafson, was called upon to explain the outstanding 1964 sewer revenue bond. Further, the sewer revenues from 1964 through 1969 were examined in detail . The 1964 issue was a refunding and improvement revenue bond for $1 ,800,000. Approximately $1 ,380,000 remains outstanding. The covenants of the 1964 bond issue require the sewer revenues to first satisfy all operating and maintenance expenses, and then furnish 130 per cent of the principal and interest payment. The following is a tabulation of sewer revenues and expenditures from 1964 through 1969: Operation & Maintenance Principal Year Revenues Expense & Interest 1964 $274,093.67 $ 65,105.61 $ 67 ,364.45 1965 240,973.92 82,666.33 143,530.57 1966 303,136.52 170,542.41 149,277.33 1967 242,061 .22 173,866.02 138,297.50 1968 257,968.49 114,916.32 188,439.76 1969 303,725.34 139,434.34 162,136.51 - 2 6 - Although current revenues are sufficient to satisfy the operation and maintenance costs and to make the principal and interest payments, there is no 130 per cent coverage. It is apparent that an increase in sewer revenues will be required just to satisfy the requirements of the 1964 bond issue. At the present time, Greeley's sewer rates are low when compared to its municipal neighbors. A recent survey of single family rates of these cities appears as follows: Greeley $ 3.75 quarterly Fort Collins $ 7.50 quarterly Loveland $ 5.00 quarterly, or 60% of water bill , whichever is greater Brighton $ 6.00 quarterly Longmont $ 4.50 quarterly, or 1/3 of water bill , whichever is greater Boulder $ 6.00 quarterly Evans $16.50 quarterly Broomfield $10.50 quarterly BOND MARKET CONDITIONS The fact that a new sewer bond issue must be junior to the 1964 bond issue creates a problem of marketability. This, coupled with the City Charter's requirement that all bonds must fall within a six per cent interest ceiling, makes the new bonds even less marketable. Greeley enjoys the best credit ratings available, but with these burdens, it is questionable whether any new revenue bond issue could readily be placed on the open market. - 27 - An alternate plan considered by the task force was the issuance of general obligation bonds. Although the City has sufficient value to support such an issue, it was felt that a general obligation bond should not be considered because of the press of time. — Another alternate worthy of serious consideration by the City Council is the recalling and refunding of the 1964 bond issue, in order that its restrictive and unnecessary impediments be removed. This refunding bond issue could then be expanded to include the necessary financing for the proposed industrial sewage treatment facilities. This alternate would require a detailed evaluation of the advantages in light of the present — bond market conditions. The task force does not have the time to conduct such a study, but the City Council should give serious consideration to this alternate. The solution for financing the proposed improvements that gives positive assurance of success calls for the issuance of a new revenue bond issue that is admittedly junior to the 1964 issue. In spite of the junior position of these bonds and the tremendous demand for credit presently being experienced, the Greeley commercial banks have indicated a willingness to cooperate in the placement of these bonds. PROPOSED FINANCIAL SOLUTION The task force recommends that the City Council issue a new revenue bond in the amount of $500,000. These bonds, coupled with the available thirty per cent Federal aid, will finance the proposed improvements. It is further recommended that the 1970 issue be paid back at an annual level rate of $43,600. It is anticipated that approximately - 28 - $5,000 per year for 18 years will need to be set aside as a debt reserve fund, and that these bonds will require 130 per cent coverage to give them equal coverage standing with the 1964 issue. It is suggested that the 1970 issue be satisfied entirely by a service contract with Monfort of Colorado. In addition, the contract should require Monfort to pay all operation and maintenance costs for the new facility. These costs are estimated to run up to $30,200 per year. The suggested service contract should contain the following provisions: 1 . An annual payment sufficient to amortize the entire $500,000 bond issue ($43,600) . 2. An additional annual payment to establish and maintain a bond reserve fund ($5,000) . 3. A provision that Monfort of Colorado pay all operation and maintenance costs for the new facility, even though it remains the City's property. 4. A provision that the entire unused portion of the 160 acre site be leased to Monfort of Colorado for one dollar per year for agricultural uses until needed for additional sewage improvements. 5. A provision that, when the 1970 bond issue has been paid off, the service charges will be reduced to only that required for reason- able capital improvements , plus the continuing obligation to pay all operation and maintenance costs. - 2 9 - SUMMARY From the above paragraphs, it can be seen that the new facilities can be constructed and paid for without expenditure of any City of Greeley funds. The suggested contract insures that Monfort of Colorado will bear all expenses of construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the new facility. Although the bonds are being paid off by Monfort, the City has and will retain ownership of the entire system, including over 100 acres of land for future sewage development. - 30 - SECTION IV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS It is the conclusion of the task force that all the original purposes and goals of the committee have been met. While there are always certain disadvantages to any recommended solution, there is no question that the goal of removing the proposed facility from the Mumper Hill site can be fairly and reasonably accomplished. _ By removing the anaerobic facility from close proximity to the City, the seriousness of the odor problem will be drastically reduced. The recommended solution offers positive relief from the odors emitting from the City sewage plant, and , while there is no guarantee that all odors will be completely removed, there is positive assurance that they will be substantially reduced. The recommended solution can be financed at no cost to the City of Greeley and, at the same time, the cost to Monfort of Colorado will be no more than the proposed privately financed facility on Mumper Hill . _ The recommended solution will allow Monfc 't of Colorado to proceed with its present expansion plans with assurance of adequate sewage treatment capacity meeting the requirements of the Stream Standards , _ as defined by the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission. At the same time, the City of Greeley will be assured of a future development site at no cost to the City and at a minimum future construction cost. - 31 - Use of the recommended service contract assures the City of continued control over the entire sewage system and assures Monfort of Colorado of adequate and proper service at a minimum cost. The selection of Site IV near the airport will contribute to the proper and orderly future development of the airport facility. Mr. Cruce advises that Mr. H. T. Kimbell , Jr. of the Denver Federal Aviation Administration office has been urging the City and County to proceed with the procurement of the land immediately west of the airport. By purchasing the land west of the airport under this project, the City will be in a better position to insure the airport expansion presently programmed by the Airport Board, the County Commissioners , and the City Council . The present runway is 5,000 feet long and, as a general aviation facility, the Federal Aviation Administration will reimburse 53 per cent of land and construction costs to extend the runway to 6,100 feet. The City of Greeley has funds appropriated in the 1970 budget for the City' s share of the five year $160,000 land procurement and construction fund. The selection of Site IV provides an adequate site for the required sewage treatment facility. It should be recognized that any of the alternate sites would require the pumping of sewage from the gravity service lines up into the sewage treatment facility. Site IV, while further removed from the South Platte River, is an optimum site for future construction of lines from Greeley and the area along the Cache La Poudre River. The site can be extended south across Highway 263 in the future, and thus provide an even more attractive site for the future construction of a large mechanical treatment plant. 32 - RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council take the following immediate steps to implement the project: 1 . Enter into an engineering agreement with Mr. W. James Wells, Jr. for the detailed design, preparation of plans and specifications, and the preparation of contract bid documents for construction of the proposed facilities. _ 2. Enter into an agreement with Monfort of Colorado in accordance with the contents of this report. 3. Initiate immediate action to procure the selected site adjacent to the airport. 4. Initiate immediate action to authorize the issuance of $500,000 of sewer revenue bonds, and to construct the facility. 5. Upon completion of detailed plans and specifications , make immediate application for thirty per cent Federal assistance for con- struction under Public Law 660. 6. Retain the services of a qualified engineering firm to undertake a detailed evaluation and report on the existing sewer plant and the long term future needs of the City of Greeley sewage system. This study should include a detailed rate study aimed at advising the City Council and the citizens of Greeley on the proper method of paying for the future domestic sewer needs . - 33 - C 'AN STATE OF COLORADO / John A. Love, Governor thsa WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION / COLORADO DEPT OF HEALTH d 910 E. 11th Avenue- LW. Ten Eyck, Denver, Colo,ado 80220 C LEAN Chairman Phone 388-6117 Hank.Roach. Lxt 231 Lechnical Secretary NOTICE OF HEARING before the WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3-16-2 and Article 28, Chapter 66, C.R.S. 1963, (1967 Perm. Cum. Supp. ) , as amended by Chapters 61 , 62 and 63, Session Laws 1970, the Water Pollution Control Commission hereby notifies all interested parties of public hearings to be held in regard to the following item: PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RULES FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS Public hearings will be held commencing at 10:00 A.M. , on Monday, November 16, 1970, in Room 150 of the Colorado Department of Health Building, 4210 East 11th Avenue, Denver, Colorado. AND at 10:30 A.M. , on Wednesday, November 18, 1970, Conference Room, Mesa County Health Department , 515 Patterson Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. At these hearings an opportunity will be provided to the public for the presen- tation of testimony before a hearing officer concerning the above item. A copy of the Rules with the proposed changes noted is attached. Any person wishing to submit a written statement, but unable to appear in person at the hearings , may submit written comments to the Commission through the Technical Secretary , Mr. Frank J . Rozich, Colorado Department of Health , 4210 East 11th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80220. Oral statements made at the hearing will be recorded, but for accuracy of record it is suggested that statements be submitted in writing. Dated October 27, 1970 T�'W. Ten Ey , Chairma Water Pollution Cp,trol Commission f_,.,,'r!- ,7 e/rf,; Rot ), Cleere, 1M.fr , M.P.H. Executive Director Colorado Department of Health COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBE4E HEALTH Water Pollution Control Commission 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver , Colorado 80220 Effective Date: March-ii;-}968 October 27, 1970 PROPOSED RULES FOR SITE LOCATION APPROVAL OF RE31-PEMFI-kL SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS I . AUTHORITY: Ao--ehapter-k4c--Sections-i;-5{e};-i9;-i8;-Eoiorado-Session-taws-4966;-as amended-by-Ehapter-2i3;-Eo4orado-Session-bawl-i96Y- A. CHAPTER 66-28-1 , 5(e) , 8 AND 13, CRS 1963 (1967 Suppl . ) AS AMENDED BY COLORADO SESSION LAWS 1970. B. Section-i3 CHAPTER 66-28-13 of the law provides that the Commission must approve all domestic waste treatment facility site locations . C. Section-48-CHAPTER 66-2-6 requires organized local , county, and district health departments to enforce the rules and regulations of the Water Pollution Control Commission. II . DECLARATION OF POLICY: Inasmuch as a septic tank is a facility for domestic sewage treatment and as such is a potential source of water pollution , the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission declares the following policy which shall be considered in reviewing site location applications : A. The septic tank-absorption system sewage treatment method depends upon the soil for bacterial removal after solids from raw sewage are partially decomposed and settled within the tank. The absorption system is therefore the key part of the treatment system and not merely a point of liquid disposal . Soil capacity for removing bacteria and virus is poorly understood but experience has shown that its capacity is limited. Therefore, ample area and volume of soil treat- ment space should be allowed in order to provide a factor of safety. B Septic tank systems in areas where residence density is low can give acceptable service if they are properly designed, carefully construc- ted and maintained. Even in such situations , absorption systems must be at a considerable distance from the domestic water supply wells , springs or surface streams. Since the distance that pollution will travel underground depends upon numerous factors including character- istics of the subsoil formations and the quantity of sewage discharges , it is not practical to specify minimum distances that would be rea- sonable in all localities . Ordinarily, the greater the distance, the greater will be the safety provided. NOTE : Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing rules. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing rules. - 1 - COLORADO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval of Res+dentte+ Septic Tank Systems C. Where residency density is high, the septic tank system cannot be certain to function safely because of the limited soil volume and area available to each absorption system. In such situations, a central treatment facility is a necessity if risk to public health is to be eliminated. D. Current housing trends toward satellite subdivisions , recreation area lodges , mobile home parks , and other concentrations of people in areas not served by central treatment facilities , place unreasonable demands upon the septic tank treatment method. It is clearly unsuit- able for such service and other more positive treatment methods are required. Good planning dictates that account be taken of immediate future growth and land use in any area when selecting the sewage disposal method. Every effort should be made to secure public sewer extensions. Where connection to an existing public sewer is not physically or econor;ically feasible and when a considerable number of residences are to be served, consideration should be given next to the construction of a central collection system and treatment plant. The use of septic tanks is the least desirable of several alterna- tives, If septic tank-absorption systems are used initially, provision should be made for a future central collection and treatment system. Builders and others interested in land development should investigate sewage disposal aspects prior to land acquisition. E. The following table taken from Environmental Health Planning Guide, U.S . Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Public Health Service, compares the economic justification of public sewerage service with various population densities: 1 I Population Density Equivalent Lot Size Service Economic Justification I Over 5 ,000 persons Less than 1/2 acre Public sewerage is justified per square mile 1/2 Public sewerage is normally 2,500 - 5,000 persons to 1 acre justified g per square mile a is not normally 1 ,000 - 2,500 persons 1 to 2 acres Public sewerage per square mile justified Less than 1000 Over 2 acres Public sewerage is rarely persons per sq . mile justified Local characteristics such as topography and subsoil conditions may alter the criteria of the above table which are based on research results for average soil and topographic conditions . - 2 - COLORADO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval Of Res+dentra4 Septic Tank Systems F. Nothing in the rules of the Water Pollution Control Commission shall relieve local , county, or district health departments of their respon- sibility for abating nuisances and health hazards in addition to water pollution caused by malfunctioning septic tank systems . G. All septic tank system site location applications for other than one or two family dwellings shall be referred to the Commission. III . DEFINITIONS: A. "Commission" shall mean the State Water Pollution Control Commission as designated in the Colorado Water Pollution Control Act of 1966, as amended. B. "Residence" or uresfdentta+u shall mean a one- or two-family dwelling, C . "Individual Sewage System" shall mean a sewage disposal system other than a public or community system, which receives either human excreta or liquid wastes, or both, Included within the scope of this definition are septic tank soil absorption systems , D. "SEPTIC TANK" SHALL MEAN ANY NON-MUNICIPAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM INTENDED OR USED PRIMARILY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF HUMAN WASTES AND SHALL INCLUDE, WITH- OUT LIMITATION, AERATION FACILITIES, PRIVIES, SUMPS AND CESSPOOLS. E. "Local Board of Health" in organized county or district health depart- ments shall mean those boards legally constituted under Article 2, Chapter 66, Colorado Revised Statutes , 1963. In areas not served by an organized county or district health department, the County Commis- sioners constitute the local board of health as defined in Article 3, Chapter 66, Colorado Revised Statutes , 1963. F. "Absorption System" shall mean the system of drain tile, trenches , dis- tribution box and land area utilized to allow the liquid waste from the septic tank to absorb into the ground without contaminating either sur- face or groundwaters of the state, G. "Absorption Field" shall mean a system of absorption trenches . H. "Seepage Pit" shall mean a covered pit with open-jointed lining through which the septic tank effluent may seep or absorb into the surrounding porous soil , I , "Percolation Test" shall mean the test as written in the Manual Of Septic Tank Practice, U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 526, latest revision, J . "Useable Land" means total land area owned by an individual and avail- able for proper functioning of a septic tank system. IV. APPLICATIONS FOR SITE APPROVAL: Applicants requesting approval of septic tank site locations shall apply for such approval , on a form to be furnished by the Commission , in one of the following ways : - 3 - COLORADO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval Of Residentfe+ Septic Tank Systems A. 1 . If a proposed site is in a county having a local , county, or district health department, which department has adopted and is enforcing septic tank regulations conforming to Sections 66-2-16 or 66-3-14, CRS 1963 (1965 Perm. Cum. Supp. ) and the rules on site location of the Commission, the application shall be made to the local , county, or district health department. SUCH DEPARTMENTS MAY REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE, 2. All applications approved by the local , county , or district health department shall be reported monthly , on a form to be furnished by the Commission, by such departments to the Commission for confirming final approval by the Commission. B. If a proposed site is in a county which has not adopted and is not enforc- ing septic tank regulations , the application shall be made directly to the Commission. C. The Commission reserves the right of review of any application. V. RULES FOR APPROVAL OF RES+BENT+AE SEPTIC TANK-ABSORPTION SYSTEMS SITE LOCATIONS: A. The following criteria shall be met for approval of resfdentie+ septic tank-absorption systems site locations: 1 . Percolation rate is not slower than 1 inch in 60 minutes. For seep- age pits , the percolation rate shall not be slower than 1 inch in 30 minutes. Such tests shall be made by a qualified person authorized to make such tests by County Commissioners and/or local , county, or district boards of health. 2., Individual systems shall be designed as to topography and soil condi- tions so as to avoid pollution to a neighboring property. 3 . Subsurface absorption systems , including seepage pits , shall be located as follows : a. A minimum of 100 feet from any water supply well . b. A minimum of 50 feet from any stream or water course c. A minimum of 10 feet from dwellings or property lines . 4. The maximum elevation of the groundwater table, rock formation or other impervious strata should be at a depth of 4 feet or more below the bottom of the trench of the absorption field. A-deftn+t+on-on-"Eentrat-Water-Sapp+y" has-been-omftted-as-en-ed+torfa+-change becense-ft-was-not-ref4eeted-+n-the-adopted-ra+es: - 4 - COLORADO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval Of Res+dentza} Septic Tank Systems 5. All septic tank absorption systems shall be designed and construc- ted in accordance with design standards prescribed by the U.S . Public Health Service Publication No. 526, latest revision. 6 Seepage pits may be permitted as an alternative when absorption fields are impractical ; where the top 3 or 4 feet of soil is underlaid with porous sand or fine gravel ; where the percolation rate is not slower than 1 inch in 30 minutes ; where the bottom of the pit will be at least 4 feet above the maximum elevation of the groundwater table; and where subsurface conditions are otherwise suitable for pit installations . 7. Areas with existing septic tank systems , prior to approval of a site location application , shall be evaluated for evidence of pollution and health problems occurring from the existing septic tank systems. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluation of the new application: a Quality of the domestic water supply. b. Efficiency of the septic tank systems . c. Condition and quality of surface and underground water. B. In addition to meeting the above criteria, the applicant shall own a sufficient amount of useable land for the proper functioning of the proposed septic tank system. C. These criteria are minimum and more stringent criteria may be applied to meet local conditions . D. Approvals issued under the above rules shall be valid until such time as the system fails or a central collection system becomes available, or there is evidence of area-wide pollution or a health hazard occurring . VI . A' s-new-ptatted-subdfvrsfons-shalf-be-submi•tted-to-the-Eommtssfon-for ccnsuttat*on-on-the-sewage-treatment-fac++fttes-pfanned-for-the-area: Pertinent-engtneerfng-analyses-sha++-be-avaf+abte. VI , PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS: ALL PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSUL- TATION ON THE SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES PLANNED FOR THE AREA. A PERTINENT DETAILED REPORT BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE SHALL BE AVAILABLE. THIS REVIEW SHALL BE MADE PRIOR TO FILING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, VII . IDENTIFIED AREAS: A. AUTHORIZATION BY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUC- TION AND USE OF SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS IN ANY LOT, TRACT, SUBDIVISION, AREA, POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OR ANY OTHER PORTION OF THE STATE WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRS 66-28-8 (3) , AS A PORTION OF THE STATE IN WHICH FACTORS INDICATE THAT UNREGULATED FLOW FROM ONE OR MORE SEPTIC TANKS WOULD OR MIGHT POLLUTE THE WATERS OF THE STATE. - 5 - COLORADO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION Rules For Site Location Approval Of Resrdenttat Septic Tank Systems B. UPON NOTIFICATION BY A REGULATORY AGENCY OR BY OTHER ACCEPTABLE SOURCE THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS EXIST IN AN AREA OF THE STATE WHICH WOULD OR MIGHT POLLUTE THE WATERS OF THE STATE, THE COMMISSION SHALL GIVE NOTI - FICATION OF INTENT TO IDENTIFY SUCH AREA, SUCH PROCEDURE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRS 66-28-8 (3) . C, AT THE TIME THE COMMISSION SO IDENTIFIES ANY PORTION OF THE STATE REQUIR- ING SPECIAL AUTHORIZATION, IT SHALL ALSO DETERMINE THE TERMS AND CONDI - TIONS FOR SEPTIC TANK CONSTRUCTION, USE DESIGN, MAINTENANCE, SPACING AND LOCATION UTILIZING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: SOIL CONDITIONS; GEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS; SLOPE OF TERRAIN (FINISHED SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 PERCENT) ; PERCOLATION RATE (THE RATE SHALL NOT BE FASTER THAN 1 INCH IN 5 MINUTES OR SLOWER THAN 1 INCH IN 30 MINUTES) ; UNDERGROUND WATER TABLE AND SUBSURFACE ROCK (MAXIMUM SEASONAL ELEVATION OF THE GROUNDWATER TABLE SHALL BE AT LEAST 4 FEET BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH OR SEEPAGE PIT, ROCK FORMATIONS OR OTHER IMPERVIOUS STRATA SHALL BE AT A DEPTH GREATER THAN 4 FEET BELOW THE BOTTOM OF TRENCH OR SEEPAGE PIT) ; POPULATION DENSITY; PERCENTAGE OF LOTS WHICH WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE "MANUAL OF SEPTIC TANK PRACTICE; PUB. NO. 526, LATEST EDITION; PERCENTAGE OF MALFUNCTION OR FAILURE OF OTHER SYSTEMS IN THE AREA; CONDITIONS WHICH MAY SATURATE THE AREA (SNOW COVER, RUN-OFF, IRRIGATION WATER, ETC. ) ; AVAILABILITY AND/OR FEASIBILITY OF A PUBLIC SYSTEM, AND PROXIMITY OF WATER WELLS, LAKES, STREAMS, IRRIGATION DITCHES AND OTHER WATER SOURCES IN THE AREA. D. ALL APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS IN AN IDENTIFIED AREA SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION. E. IN SUCH CASES WHERE APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF SEPTIC TANKS IN AN IDENTIFIED AREA, THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE SUCH APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A DETAILED REPORT BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINE, EXCEPT IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT SUCH DETAILED INFORMATION PRESENTED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SUFFICIENT AND APPLICABLE. F. SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEEMED APPLICABLE TO THE IDENTIFIED PORTION OF THE STATE SHALL BE STATED IN THE AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION. VIII . NOTIFICATION AND PENALTY: CHAPTER 66-28-12 (3) OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED, (CHAPTER 63, SECTION 2, COLORADO SESSIONS LAW 1970) PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO WILFULLY VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1 ) OR (2) NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE; REPORTING OF DISCHARGE, OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR, AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN FIFTY DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. - 6 - • STUDY OF $E9'LG DISPOSAL • • .irvtv and. °' ..1 970 I visited Tt3 Va June � a eight G �t,c. ��'. .i. u.`'.i.'Y�:L� E`.t.�3�td .L►7oVIJal plantsin. an effort to determine the. good and bad points of those presently LI operation. Notes made on each follows s Sundays!' June 7, 1970 • Minden; Nebraska A lagoon .»�-., system .was used for the city wastes. When the c • JItiS�e:�` from a. smallsmallpc�.packing��. plant t 4 wereca.dGCC�9 itJv�began to terrible. �. The lagoon is�located right beside the packing house a..lsd ,the odor is noticeable in ts'10 miles sT..., • city plans• to co stru c;r aai a t rreaticn e systemK;:in 1.970 • .to correct this problem. 9r Monday* June 8, 1.970 Missouri, Valley, Iowa: A conventional sewer system has boon installed and there it no odor in the towns Denison, Iowa: Nixon Feeds is located mile south of the lagoons :lade, for the Iowa Beef .2rocessorsa. ersonn l at the Nixon Peed Company stated that the lagoon was made for the packing -.1:,.:Lant wa stes only and was not used for the town wastes. l"ie , noticeable .odor there at tines. • a. • C1'''4/) rnicivIL3n • • 1 ��1�,�//, -oafs 171` 2 D3.::�.:,.^ ,. �� ) � � s.o+rra: (Continued) Chamber of Cm:lac:co .Z09 North 14th Denison* Iowa $1,v42 `' i son city sower is sici {s" `=� the conventional Iowa u+Vvf�' Bciiei ? so•1s9 Incorporated Lob Lr.air* T:a:r ar DuiIt its ovr. :;.goon and G.Kg walls. `::.M•i a. Y!C�i•r•L•.v G.e i�. .e c1 lagoons o s n t Iowa Beef e f 4 a .�' the a;;;yv.rY:,,, c;.V ,�;t�4.J, �rt.v.`v�':i a,i w'ar:.i ast* Zno. Darrel Laker, Manogor Duilt own lagoon. nthe aG very s••, and ..� ,y V Vry \ t.. � �.S. .=� t.packing ».' ,..r plant. wit 'f wii.1...,3► r.1:..� Ir�...a made just .LVi his i.Ci �1�.L1►iL.�n plan✓. Uorld Wide ham..its �+, ai4,�Gj it vp Will Pro„o Lsors oily. 1'l ill out o ' u r ..,,,�t.,�.�� ato. \ •.. beef quarters tv� into steaks, ro ao os Will ta;, ° city -' r and water. ��: dui J uv5�7�,s. c+.a. Duo to the oev.�'t.om' o.s the oa. 00Q city � , pocllla put up�with the odors of the two packing plants for the money the bring into the community. L cam. NtY plant � cannot L ch :aw�tg D tit must havo its own lagoon. The t:*w,; :ot be mized with the city sower. The ton uno against the lagoon f it sewage—mostly A 3 ce� �.o�. city because of -�..:: ;.:��:.•� t 10 to 12% of the solids and fats aro retur�.ed to the 2a Loyor River. Tuesday* June 9 19?0 .me;,, lowers Ralph W. Briloy Chief Operator WPC Plant Cj.ty Hall Amos* Iowa 50010 Tole phones Area Code 515 232-$116 r _,,� ..,�". Briley has been superintendent af c�zc plant f c� r ycar . 3 �' S i..:...Ja, i.vv.�v CG:iir.raZi�:E:1.) Plant desiga; :545!; L•V4'tJ. Plant cons Vruc od; 194y-19 O. I✓ Z 'nr�.l.d' .n; October ♦ • .r 0 Logan C t:.iu.v.;.0a+. v.:v::+3C:1:;. .:.`J„�L. •t Contractor; s.i.�per J Brothers 'w, ' action Oc i��ar �rV ►.'i �Vila 1.I+ Boone, Iowa ar..4. s Oklahoma C° f� w.w:�;::wa City, lr Vii►r�i�y.�,n i«.:.'%t l VSJc^a.`y'•u R, C:r'een Col:;.a: . Cedar R a_;ds, lo-ca 4.::ZV w iiliilw ii ii 4:V\:.: fi'oi`L 1.:4I.k.LIo1 Control Plant Y No lagoon o ':4.. d is s v::c;:o nor has there eti"ar f:T=33 G. Young E y ,n n.... l..�. �. w�rr L'l�nii•�Ci�jw Z�:V tlr Iowa G. State University Ames, Iowa 50010 F t41)(/- 1afiv l,I /�J�, _ Q an cn .,, specialist in sezra;o •t: l it L -.,.' and is acquainted ed with 1r. 11� �.�i. t, r.. ♦:i 4».v � L and his opinions a �y� lagoons will be outlawed probably by the fodera? :, w\ A heal�h department in the next few years. Odor and pollu;::.o_:: aro the reasons. Amos, Iowa State Universi t'r _ mrleng a study of .. s . at the pi u.rgZlt time. Engineers and plant l maanager:3 from all over he state Iowa are meeting a t �d ascn City t4 vli:.v week to so s. w aY o discuss t.i.�.I.� the +.f lagoon systems in Iowa and their Guars Conventional methods are far� superior to lagoons. „fir. k i rj. G v s 7"'�..;r�t sewage .-. L t t n �1 W �'.=r-�i lit t2Ci?,:�71?�u Lust treat V vir9'J�.Cs`" w�/ the plant to y c'si1�i Y w 990i; of the fats.s and solids. Icwa!s ground is too valua"o e to uwe 150 acres for .Sagoen (Valuoa ,f,31600-$1800 per ii.�ire. .c..- b.Loar�. Conventional plant � s e wyS e about < J ... ..�...�. plant ....t Ames i�..CS�...�_i.�:s only ►~,.�Jo��! two �...L.r Conven4ional plane, at rimes is much larger than Greeley°s pres.. plant and serves loss peoplea 3_,000. . o el that in a few years tee will be no f c e ra . w allotted for lagoons. •r � ti j • D. rd. 41V.t.^ro—. AJ•La .•�.i.:.�• r .a�l.'i�k Vi.V S. E. •3'J-Vii a '+ir u.:''.Lai a Doc l::GineSy Iowa i'j:i0G .� I atyJ a:..�.Ir4.i.3.`. �I..i.:.�.:�:.VN .�_. v.:� .L,.r•:.....:.. J SFrw, ��•1 � � .w �� r� �•i.rf.'�i�� .: �' ... „ ^ ... ,w i�.j.;.rL4.:i iti�iii V w.� '�a:.,��ir..,a VGw V ^•r. q _ atea _ ri� L�...+i.�rG...0 L%L V w uw C r✓1r y:,w.�•.. . a`V N::iar iwCw..ra• a= jr4} wL.a�J:lri•`d w4 ii va.� .•.V:i.•l:� 1 rr�'•. ..:tire' s not rV ad and thcJ' no*,; 4 ....... iw L.K�iv ii N�*• J�+ �r'.1.CiVi.V"ft, es Vvir.rk .,. .t�a'ta.t Lolton .�►.: N VlI vt ^.... - n a ...•r .. ..,«�.^r. .,. .l.ia� :i � i4� awl 0,4 airVa.a...y4:wiVFi Colorado Clorinz;s few. ►po M.:.alf.s V in 1i ri J..r,n;.cntal control. ) of. .:.I.i:.5.4 atLos ♦+1V..iw4►. �iDa1�u }}..'�yy [.C a.. ya.l.: ...,... - _. Works very �,rt V�/Y'V V L♦ Iowa i 4L. lso io`iiaa Vf:z^aon Dale li .:i~:,i ti : 1603 .:'11' ' Iowa Palls4 Iowa 5O:26 ':. ✓cep ,,.. :_9 Iowa c;.i.� ��ali3 G'i t�'ci:=iw�..: c. `�a r't.L,l. hogs y 3,000 YJ�:L` day.. caaVc: own lagoons (4)* lc'3.vG' vs.-Jac (2). One la 2730 foot doL:-. and the other one fc c V d op. sod to use a drag' chain and .`sir lift to , n ..- V\ri tl^of �L O cy1ilerAt tank. Wasa_v.Y as---- -.w•-;•ti Now I. ��:rtLty a 30)000 .iai1on batik with h.F a +r'D:L.i.ai.:.4.o r aa Viso o Vto= fora skimraer on the F-.\.•r,.. .:i D for 1L1r►r which ia%..iVvv about �.i�_.�i• ✓ of •iro0 ra,a Plows by gravity from :i:.�t.�z.t .i"..z�-,00n into iiho sect�:�::;; 'ilea it lc J1t j pee into the last two lo. ooai:' . 2.lid is r.00i-oulatvd ibc ero 't -t''oos to ho r' c . 750 gallons Der hour bao: to the first lagoons to^ iarzo par zic1cs in the lagoons. �` • tCCI_ : .. .. a.�. :ail :IL�.Q 1.'4L in oh ''•._ a ••••kg/ „i. •.G.�V V�1Vr.��... .... •r�r •. alai n�..� -JrGi�'' 2.Cr �. / •..1� . •-•'; .. 4 ' f +a" "...•' r. ... rl >IGN V.:►1i v..«-V'via ti :.1L 4 10 V ...nac. VvLi.tvw..rw.�..:r, r, the t .°° of „ r i��•�iI <:.L u4J V Vva.: 4+J. u12C:r •. ... .. Ce:J.:iu V.L C�l ::i•vl.Yv.�v • .Jam: "� • ...� r. was are.:.;, ei a Iowa: 229 Sth 1.a.. erJ.00;a IGL':n. ,f;OriCk,ConventionalVV r� y �4/ai144Jy G.a:.:�NY`Icr.r{7 r ' �• ?^`�..-..!. iCd C "NY 'u•r 'Ci'V i::rti �...1 " �.ry,..•y c•-' ` q. equivalent 'tf •�, .= Ci•+�w.:.G,.,�vl.i.�J�n, t/.r. �Jc:...i..:-ti.i,VV .:.i.i Vim: VV� �'.i':. `•`r `c✓ -i el�v i Y�.ilen V Vi 3v0: JO L, " '` ••. . -. ryrya 4 .� '+ tli ♦ 7,� .q .S `r4 . '{ �rL �-! t� 1✓ri E/ i.ry .iaui 1. Ia iJ ~y hard to J.r c.a V 1.0‘.4.4.14.4...k.3 .4ai V IQ YI��w, V ~ i�:•irw Li Sall natural u.S T: •^.' ?.^� heated cr ,Owto•..•.i.4 i.A.0 V..*.o4 N.. .J Vi:IJ ai hea tred a•,� v r.....q•.r r, t. _ there. F /�� t•�r�y��SW��•► s::L�V V J. ► X b4� �!� bw:{r" i Kir V in.ti w.ia w•.•Cs y+.� 1.�..z.. . (Methane gas. ) Superintendent �-ho plant q of r r •M at City on the oori ,3rob1C:jua Talked tr^ over .j. • `'-Lyys' e a �..a:.:�..:ni o and young ohf� �'c w had a "' .�.C;-o t': .':: young t~".'sw.Z.ti�v who '��c.`�'(i r«.�. qw-.J... f— _ rrff clean }.� d �y V�.Q.N�V�t`w' i��is:i •�,, 'Rath has to oleaan so'yTag at the i1.� 1_ with gobs ofn fat 1 ' adtV. .i:G:� take out �: ( a io pn:blem ar' Des Moines.) `: .. .x;41 before mi '�ait �, it tv'Y.;.Lh o.it cw�►i4r:y...k .� w�.'.Y7�'.vGi C4 .a'r Rapids, Iowa: SutV... n ande +4it Guoi�'re. r t, Lsow�3�.�n H. yy Crean�.�, Jar • .Li"•' �.1�r�a ,, , , 17 lot Avenue S• E. L . Cedar Rapids,, Iowa 521.01 O 2. 4i-;.i••LtrrJ Cho.•.is end 1J 1...b:.• r61.eIL Usu.,:i .I•Vr:Goo GJ•v�:.i..:.f �iiiv.rVuvk ►+iiV1..Gi ?,..p..t,..4:i..V...:.,`y 404,A. blPv Ir. G.t?:ati :on Procli; Lab TL,ohnio.ian t-:1.:.L Vi:.i.i Voi.� t✓:�V.:. .�4`V ��U•,�� sly` .:. �iG.i,wSLyt„j, o t Loc;c .cuo i..O:w i.z y``^�' �". gone t ' . t+-.�:i: were at: ..O ri♦ �.•:w s/✓.L.V J.. w ++i u,.i.I,i.G.`r i.�iL' .�.LoV4v. d •vt/ ..b1�:y V,L i+i.N •"�•`V.r`i.i• "' .y..... . V V...4G:r.:.:.:•W VGr river 5•r :ti .. �..... a 42..„r �.•\r K«.�.. Y r a G:.i1... a.ve L::o lip. oon .. Lv.:i ✓.- . 1:4 :►.-,J.. f r :y..,:..... E/LrrC/igi�:. plant itself L..�Jr:� .v;. �...:•-�•'� Ozone _ • wJ%! odor. Dow `ct w •, .. r...:.V,w...v.:.� C' �J��L'"e' V^�'i..:•i.�r: i�N t✓:i: "�..`, C".^irlal yn I3`/u"� trouble witsi planuS Right TL G.c.fw�S- �`� (.0() Vim. �iLr V gas ,`Jii�a'1.Lt+:M"ra'•Kl.r�:�}r1.i` i.i or lime.) i Vk iwGw or Vented „ to ^ "`•d" :::`.'' Cu.:+:�•'.�1'ii above Coda;tall Rapids. j~�.e� put �iwG� out ::..d ids. `.:+�4.idiI,1;. was 5 tc,;1,—;,:: -.. Lagoons are vary `aou;:r a m' :-x be homdled with hard r �.tZ�J vYli t v ..�•�rLjvS.C..rVG (:•.Lid control. Ecpoc ally hard to operate. in the wintertime. Packing house wastes make it even. more a difficult. Very slow process. Moro Sewage can be handled with a conventional al -o ant Codar Rapids Environmental and Pollution Control Plant: Wilson n on packing Plant paid for " r half :r, ry of .e: ,`J:1i„wr a Coda ��i.:,J.:,G.kV and still �JK�• J.�'riL�1`=.- ,L\'r 1r►7 I:�cc V1'L:.w1ry r: •1.\{ th the load they deliver there. -� Uastes cannot be pipod very far from .ackir,-, li �: • .:r`1N fs}i.i-, i�la .n .tom.. '1� • r' • r.. es will 'L G p• i.Irf,«..1.1vg ie Y: .•1"L: ' s L across i • r . �� 11 r�Ly7�dM tWit� 'pipes LZ •n i7 .•+,=+ Wi�'. .i.`.`'.V•V...... ' Codar -+ pip+es had to e wrapped to k the • up. it C�r, �!/. the •:.. . keep -J v.._4�..:...�..•V�....��.: M•they caa cheaper y� to �1/f�'.�ic�gt w7.:.�e across the river., i.- had been ±nitalled under d'r the river it 1l d 1... on too cold . '�r„ for sewage to have been transported without apr b I►J`►ra°. e '^S n t ,,.. ,r� `L/�r.•NriJi1.KC�►l) Mai tcn .c oJ.1 ..•+n nVai +,w�v Line Nwt 5. with :Jilt Zoo"; cal v:eodz off dike olezr down into V:a V1Gi.Vb.1.$ �4C►Ii�r�G�. �ii:.... t Lao e*:ic`'1. level 3a:» ,►v bo ..: y e' •� 0 do you do in. •c i wir:.el t:aao wilen the La--oohs are obsolete. lit .h.- • L,i) EVALUATION OF REINFORCED PLASTIC MORTAR PIPE FOR WATER RESOURCES APPLICATIONS A PROGRESS REPORT by L. 0. Timblin, Jr. and C. E. Selander Office of Chief Engineer Bureau of Reclamation United States Department of the Interior Denver, Colorado Presented at the ASCE Irrigation and Drainage Division Conference "Water for 2020" Austin, Texas, November 6, 1969. EVALUATION OF REINFORCED PLASTIC MORTAR PIPE FOR WATER RESOURCES APPLICATIONS A PROGRESS REPORT by L. 0. Timblin, Jr.1/ and C. E. Selander2/ It is my pleasure to he present at this ASCE Specialty Con- ference on Irrigation and Drainage to tell you about our work in evaluating Reinforced Plastic Mortar Pipe for water resources applications. Reinforced Plastic Mortar pipe, more commonly called RPM pipe, is a new product that appears to have potential use in water conveyance systems and in sewerage systems. Some use may be made in drainage systems in collector pipes and/or transport piping, but not in the drains themselves because the smallest presently available diameter is S inches. Introduction What is RPM pipe? Perhaps some of you are not familiar with this product. Two small coupons cut from a piece of pipe and a piece of 8-inch pipe are shown in Figure 1. 1/Chief, Chemical Engineering Branch, Division of Research, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado. 2/Materials Engineer, Chemical Engineering Branch, Division of Research, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado. a aM1 « s q ffi x n„ A. Left - Inner surface of RPM pipe. Right - Outer surface of RPM pipe. Photo PX-D-65567. x�x� $,�asFa �idT�eFJx«_. '+r sue•-*«, X As a - x B. 8-inch-diameter RPM pipe. Photo PX-D-65570. x K M mow. a 4 A$ 9 Ax.8,. { c • $; 44 8 a o- a$#li4 *Raid l��erery. a ffi. „9P Y�4r v Figure 1 2 RPM pipe is a composite built from polyester resin, silica sand, and glass filament reinforcing. The glass reinforcement when properly combined with the resin-sand mortar results in reinforced plastic mortar, or RPM. The resin used is a basic isophthalic polyester resin which gives the product excellent resistance to a wide variety of chemical solutions. The sand is a clean, well- graded, pure silica sand. One size is used in the sand-rich liner to achieve erosion resistance. A larger size is used in the pipe wall as a filler to produce a product at a competitive cost by replacing the expensive resin by the low-cost sand. The reinforcing filament is a particular type of borosilicate glass with a special surface treatment to enhance the adhesion of resin to glass. You can see the layered structure and sand-rich liner in Figure 2. The pipe is built up in layers on a mandrel on a machine by what is essentially a filament winding process modified to incor- porate the sand into the process. The pipe is manufactured in standard 20-foot lengths with bell-and-spigot, rubber-gasketed (0-ring) joints. The joint is essentially the Bureau's R-4 joint. The bell is fabricated as an integral part of the pipe on the man- drel during the winding process. The spigot is cast on the out- side of the pipe wall at the end of the pipe. Thus shorter than standard lengths can be easily made. A cross section of the spigot and the joint are shown in Figures 3 and 4. 3 s> .* `d '" 40, A g Cross section of RPM pipe showing laminated or layered structure. 4X magnification. Photo PX-D-65568. Figure 2 4 a o-". Gx xa r ej .a -s`' s. w err'*' pYD¢ *R �b..,n �.Yu s wx#� K"aC�a,'{'•� t»pv.r — a a o- r , R ♦ ' n" �.' xg aB. Y Cross section of molded RPM pipe spigot - 48-inch-diameter pipe. (About 1-1/2 times enlarged.) Photo PX-D-65569. Figure 3 S 1IIII 1� CIJ 0 C.- CI, a WI a a 1 o n. I co IE( � a � w W h Cr J o 3 t i--' Ca' LI t 1P \ oo ? W O O 2 t, Oc �S r o W !ME opNCZ y\ Cb o U cn ty Cc r 01p W -..- -4-/S 1-.-\ 4 0/p adld 6 RPM pipe was first developed by UTC, United Technology Center, a Division of United Aircraft Corporation, Sunnyvale, California, in 1966 following some discussions on pipe requirements with the Bureau at our Denver Research Center. The Bureau's interest was in obtaining another type of high-quality pipe to compete as an alternate to conventional pipes such as cement asbestos, concrete, and steel. The Bureau felt that a new reinforced plastics tech- nology could be perfected to produce a new pipe which would have some important advantages while being competitive costwise. How- ever, it was appreciated that a great deal of developmental work by industry would be required. During the next 2 years of development several different pipes were produced by UTC beginning with rubber-lined pipe, then unlined pipe, then to that currently produced with a resin-sand liner rein- forced with a polyester mat. During this period, UTC was actively engaged in testing the various pipes as they were produced. These test results were furnished the Bureau for information and compari- son with our own preliminary studies. In 1968 Johns-Manville negotiated with UTC for a license to produce an RPM pipe under their own trademark. UTC also has nego- tiated with several foreign firms for licenses to produce RPM pipe. UTC's pipe, called Techite, is available in sewer pipe and in four classes of pressure pipe in diameter sizes from 8 through 7 48 inches. (1) Larger sizes will be available in the near future. Pipe up to 96 inches in diameter has been fabricated for demonstra- tion and test purposes. A section of 96-inch pipe to be used for test purposes is shown in Figure 5. J-M's pipe, called Flextran, is currently available only in sewer pipe in sizes ranging from 15 through 48 inches in diameter. (2) Larger sizes are also planned for the near future, as are pressure classes for water conveyance. Government-Industry Cooperative Study of RPM Pipe While the potential merits of RPM pipe in water resources engi- neering were recognized, the fact that this new product would have certain disadvantages and limitations was also recognized. Being a 1' new product, little was known about the physical properties of RPM and how these properties were affected by time and exposure. How- ever, since it is essentially a reinforced thermosetting plastic certain things were expected. (3) High strength-to-weight ratios, excellent chemical resistance, flexibility, and product uniformity could be realized. Wet strengths would be less than dry strengths there would be losses in strength due to age and environment or because of fatigue under cyclic stressing. Creep would occur as it does in all materials. Being a pressure vessel , crazing above a certain stress level would occur with weeping as an end result, and since the pipe is flexible changes in the stiffness would have to be evaluated. It should be emphasized that a general property (1)Numbers in parenthesis refer to References. 8 it "� gnu„re �. , a • :. �. CM-1071-INA, 96-inch-diameter RPM pipe is shown. Characteristic thin wall is apparent in this large pipe. Photo PX-D-65564. Figure 5 9 of reinforced thermosetting plastics is the nonlinear character of stress aging in which early effects are very pronounced and long- term effects are minimal. This allows the prediction of long-term aging effects on the basis of rather short-term tests through the use of a stress aging diagram which will be discussed later. (4) Recognizing these facts, the Bureau and industry outlined an extensive program of environmental exposure and testing. The indus- try, recognizing the value of such a program, agreed to participate in the program. Consequently, in June of 1968 an agreement between the Bureau, UTC, and J-M was reached wherein the division of effort and responsibilities between the three participants were finalized. At that time, the program was christened the "Government-Industry Cooperative Study on RPM Pipe," or the GICS Program for short. I would like to note that the industry participants, UTC and J-M, have accepted substantial testing responsibilities as their contri- butions to the program. The objectives of the GICS Program are to generate sufficient performance data and knowledge to enable the preparation of Bureau specifications which could, with adequate assurance, result in obtaining a realiable pipe of good durability. This includes obtain- ing necessary data to define the properties, advantages, and limita- tions to permit design engineers to work with RPM pipe and to obtain necessary test results to determine adequately the long-term dura- bility characteristics of an RPM pipe. The GICS program is not all 10 inclusive concerning all important materials and engineering prop- erties of RPM pipe and further studies will be needed at the comple- tion of this program. However, data generated to date show that the basic objectives of the program will be met. So far, performance has been essentially as expected with numbers now filling spaces where unknowns existed previously. The GICS Program is a three-phase program covering laboratory tests, field studies, and specifications and design. Detailed out- lines of the program are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Laboratory Program The Laboratory Program is separated into several distinct phases or series designed to evaluate properties of RPM pipe that are important to pipeline use. In Series A we are evaluating changes in certain physical properties after environmental expo- sure. In Series B we hope to determine if performance of large- diameter pipe can be correlated to performance of small-diameter pipe by scaling factors. In Series C we are attempting to relate stiffness data for the various classes of RPM pipe. We are also conducting what we call Soil Box Tests where the deformation of RPM pipe subjected to external load when buried in compacted soil is determined. It is not our intent to give you all of the data related to this testing at this presentation since they will be presented in a Bureau Laboratory Report to be published in the near future. (5) The intent here is to discuss significant events and trends as established by available data. 11 Z O Z CD O s N U. W _ O 0 W a. Cl) 0 c cc 0ac a Z d < o w Q cc a.CC W CD a o 0 0.cr a IT C z W CC > CO O cn 0 D cc a o d �- cc d CD I 0 t m a 4 -J Y O J N `e0 m cc y O W Q m r- e _ 0 le u o � 2 0 N O N W Q W U- J LL W o0 CC W N 0 N Cr) O U B �N V oa a a N Q cr 0 0 0 e N .L m � m C7 N � 2 - a 0 cc U W N LL N Y I 2 tF_ W co Q W U N UJ t W Q W i Cr m a W O N —' a 3 W J 0 13 Series A - Basic Properties These tests are being conducted on 12-inch lengths of 12-inch- diameter Class 60 irrigation pipe. The pipe specimens are being environmentally conditioned in five solutions that represent solutions that might be encountered either internally or externally during service. These are: sul- furic acid, pH of 5; sodium hydroxide, pH of 9; a synthetic soil extract (a salt solution representing the extract drawn from a "typically aggressive" saturated soil) , pH between 7.8 and 8.2; Denver tap water; and distilled water. The specimens are totally immersed in the solutions for the time periods required for each physical test. The solutions are checked regularly and, when nec- essary, adjustments made to maintain the required pH. The tempera- tures of the solutions are the same and remain relatively constant, about 730 F. The specimens are precisely measured and weighed before exposure and at each time period of test. These data are taken after a fixed period of storage at standard conditions after removal from the solutions. After measuring, the specimens are placed in plastic bags for shipment to the industrial participants where specific tests are to be performed. The data taken just prior to test show little or no change occurring during the ship- ment of samples. At 6 months and 1 year exposures there were no measurable dimensional changes, slight increases in weight due to 14 r absorption, and slight changes in hardness. There were no signif- icant differences noted among the five solutions, each resulting in similar changes in these data. Fatigue testing after environmental exposures is being con- ducted by industry. Two types of tests are being conducted, steady state and cyclic. In the steady state tests the specimen is pres- surized to a pressure one-third of the ultimate (in this case, one- third of the ultimate is 310 psi) and that pressure sustained for 1,000 hours after which the specimen is pressurized to burst. In the cyclic tests the specimens are subjected to a cyclic pressure from zero to one-third ultimate for 250,000 cycles, and then burst. To date the control tests and the 6-month tests have been com- pleted. However, some of this work is being repeated due to equip- (- ment problems experienced in the early work. The specimens were destroyed without obtaining data. Special equipment was developed for these tests. It is the only piece of equipment of its kind and consequently went through a series of preflight problems, but is now operating satisfactorily. The data indicate a minimum burst strength retention after both sustained and cyclic pressure loading after immersion in the environ- mental solutions of about 75 percent, which, as will be seen later, correlates very well with other test data. The mode of failure after fatigue testing was primarily by weeping. 15 Condensed data are as follows: Fatigue Tests - 6 Months Average Results Failure pressure, Percent Environment Fatigue psig retention 1/ Controls Cyclic 2/ - Sustained 780 84 Tap water Cyclic 2/ - Sustained 900 97.0 H2SO4 Cyclic 700 75.2 Sustained 750 80.8 NaOH Cyclic 765 82.3 Sustained 810 87. 1 Distilled H2O Cyclic 765 82.3 Sustained 850 91.4 Synthetic Cyclic 3/ - soil extract Sustained 820 88. 1 Average after Cyclic 743 79.9 environmental Sustained 826 88.8 exposure 1/Based on original burst of 930 psi. 2/No result - equipment failure. 3/No burst - weeping occurred during fatigue exposure. Originally 100,000 pressure cycles were scheduled; however, this was modified to test up to 250,000 cycles. This is roughly equivalent to 125 years' service at 5 cycles per day which prob- ably represents a much more severe service condition than a pipe- line would experience during its life. The Bureau currently designs for a 100-year life. The fatigue tests where equipment failures occurred (controls and tap water immersion) are being rerun. In addition, tests after 16 100 and 1,000 hours environmental conditioning are scheduled to better define the ultimate shape of the stress aging curve. Tests at various stress levels are also planned to better define the performance properties of the pipe. External load-crush tests are also being conducted by indus- try. The test is the three-edge bearing test conducted under ASTM C497. Load readings are taken at deflections of 5, 10, and 15 percent as well as at ultimate. Of significance at this time are the strength retentions at ultimate after the 1-year immer- sions in the test solutions. The least retention was 79.5 percent after the distilled water immersion. The others ranged from 84.0 to 87.0 percent retention. The data are as follows : External Load - 1 Year Average Results Average load at Percent strength Environment ultimate, pounds retention Control 1,593 - NaOH 1,348 84.5 Tap H2O 1,370 85.8 Distilled H2O 1,270 79.5 Synthetic soil extract 1,387 87.0 H2SO4 1,340 84.0 Average 1,343 84.2 Internal pressure tests being conducted by industry are run to evaluate the changes in resistance to leakage and burst strength after exposure. After 1 year of exposure there is an average strength reten- tion of 69 percent. There is no evident trend for the individual 17 r r 'rk r k i (' It xr, :�kr. .')4 ,l�i` ` %./0 { d f . :- i hi iyi X�"•t /j`r ,r :1444,41.id '*'* +' ' t - A. Before internal pressure test. Photo PX-D-65565. ;F - P. '1 s ldr CH-1OTI.2 NA .C/`<1 f , R ' /1/04,4" t . r tt r*r 4 .•: *' *�* t rr k74 e •y, Tt *xrtY; B. After internal pressure -7.,'- `;`e..** ,/ I` " 0` ' - test to failure. Photo : `a'xxt r'{_a;' 2/fJ PX-D-65566. '4414-041/4 ?� ` mili r,.,x ;t,{ /7. r y.R i' TYf •r' i hA .r is*ti r.!x% 2.4.,.-• x'x r r,"r t_Ar rr__ }s.t t f H 1,'7' 3'1:. •jt? r:i+'_'s{` Burst Specimens Figure 8 19 with plastics where the majority of the change occurs in a rela- tively short time. One type of stress aging curve is as shown in Figure 9. We have data for Points A and B. The additional tests will define the data for Points C and D and the 2-year results for Point E. The long-term performance is predictable by extrapolat- ing the curve to the right. Creep tests are being conducted by the Bureau. The purpose is to evaluate the creep characteristics of RPM pipe with and with- out the influence of the test solutions. Creep, in this instance, is the increase in deflection in time under a fixed load. In this regard, we wish to emphasize that this is strictly a study of a r property of the pipe and in no way should the results he related to in-service performance. The tests without side support are not comparable to an in-ground pipe-soil system. Two tests are being run: Creep from an initial 5 percent deflection and creep from an initial 10 percent deflection. Speci- mens are being tested in air and in the five solutions previously described. Data are as follows : 20 0 0 o lotyEARS O r O o O O i r - r W r _ - � - -2 YEARS ----- - 00 _O 03 1 YEAR — O - -- - - - - 6 M.QNIHS - - - - - CD O cc N — O) O - - - - - - --gyp 0 OO Q• X � N � W N V' 1 W K LL F F- N 0 U - - — - - - - - --0 O 0 X O 0 X X X X 03 Q 1- t0 b C K) N - STRESS 21 Creep Initial deflection, 1-year deflection, Environment percent — percent Air (dry) 9.8 14.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.8 NaOH 10.0 14.9 5.0 7.3 5. 1 7.5 H2SO4 10.4 15.7* 5.0 7.2 5.0 7.6 Synthetic 10.6 15.4 soil extract 5. 1 7.8 4.7 7.0 Distilled H2O 10.4 15.7* 4.6 6.7 5.0 7.7 Tap H2O 9.9 16.2 5.2 7.8 5. 1 7.5 Average for 10.2 15.6+ five test 4. 8 7.8 solutions *Six-month deflection specimen failed between 6- and 9-month readings. +Including specimens which failed. The stress aging diagrams are shown in Figures 10 through 15. Note that in this case, the deflection under constant load is plotted vs log of time, in which case the slope of the line is positive. This is another type of aging diagram. New tests are being run where failures have been noted. It has been found that 22 000`001 000 06 N 000'09 to in 000'0! I I 1 000'09 r m o 000`09 000'06 o 66 Z Z Z 000'02 0 66 O cd oo0'D2 a a a - ^N f U N O a W c c c Oci Q- 000'111 0 0 0 000 0 0 00019 0 ` a- 0_ 000`1 - ° °' 000'9 w y C pCC 000'9 - v o a - m m 4 000`6 _ x 0- O 0 F- a in 000'2 r + .- N < < < - m ,_t° O x H H H a O 000'2 O O 0 0 O O `L O 0 0 O in m 19 2 N a O 0 4- 0006 O - c 006 O d ❑ - O - I- m -- 008 0 — in— w N E ¢ 009 N 0 a 00S Q c OOb 0 0_ W 00£ 0 o N o a _ m - m _I 0 F 002 - W _ 40 o U - in w o IT w - V Z 001 06 - O - m a tL H Z 4 01 F 09 - N N N OS D W D 017NCC N O 02 I _ 03 F- W N c W D 01 F U 6 - 6 U- 9 0_ L 9 W 9 W b D: 2 0 a e 0\1 . N I in 0 m O N O— _ - p O In N N S 3 H O N I - N O 1 1 0 3 1 d 3 0 1V101 l O l 23 000'pol 000O6 - 000 O9 N to 1- 000'0). I I 000'09 000'09 (0 10 - 000'04 o 66 000'0£ Z Z Z U U U • 000`02 0. 0.0. N> (/I wM - I`N • O — v w c' c-c I^ 000'p1 0 O a OR a 000,6 +- t r — 4o)- — 0 MASS...c v ig)- 000'9 .- ww 000'5 v v v O Cr U) 000`4 3 071Yi - - Q I x 0 000`£ } .4-- O it I— 0- c c c I _ O co a' 0 • f 000'2 H H H ma 0 0 r a' d' a° co O a f N O LO In (0I 0 000'I - a O U t c 0 006 0 G ❑ — O 0 — d - 00.1. M E x 009 w Cl)N w OOS _ N a Q a OOb J c O W O 00£ G a a _ _ 003 -, m O J 0 in - - w - 10 O O 0 - is, ta 06 V - CC Z - O9 Q Oh -i M Q Li. F 09 ~ Z to 09 -i N N — D O4 N w N CC O£ — _ _ I — 0Z I_ w colt w 7 61 l_ — 9 li c a 9 9 w b w CC 2 0 Z P bi I 0 O O In O in 0 N O- I/1 N N - - 0 O S 3 N O N I - N 0 1 1 0 3 1 3 3 0 1 V 1 0 1 24 • C 000`poI 000 06 000109 Cu Cu In 000`0L — I 000'09 000`09 m — I.0 000`0b o 0 0 00`0£ Z Z Z 000`0£ r o U o 000'02 a a a I N> cn (f) N — or'N o - a W C C in 000'pl 0 O 0 0 CI- 000 6 - • '- - 000`8 w w w In- O_ 000`L w w w 000'9 w 4- +w 000`9 v 0 v O a - O 000'b _ • 0 O O o H x N 000`£ + c u) cr W OO 000'2 - a o I e c o _ 0 O N o ,n ,n 0 00011 — a O 0 c w o00 6 009 O a ❑ I l o O c - H - 001 , Fox ir 009 w N O I" 009 • - Cu a Q > a 004 -I W O 4 G _ 0 00E w -O ci O w _r 002 _ w O H W w O 0 o _ w is, CC w 001 - a z z 06 - 0 - 09 I 1m Ls. a OL H H 09 0 2 In 09 • - 0 D 0 in W Co cc OE N - - I — OE H W CC (f) D W 0 01 • H W 6 8 I. 0_ 9 W 9 W b I CC 4 0 2 a N s as O in O w O w 0— In N N — —• O O S 3 H O N 1 — N 0 1 1 0 3 1 d 3 0 1 '1101 25 '- oo0`po1 000 06 00009 Cu N 4n 000101 000'09 in 000`09 r — — 000'0b - a o0 Z Z Z 000'0£ 0 O O O� 000'OZ a a a _ CV n> (OtOV N O a Id 4. 000`pl O O O O¢ • 0 O 0 " - a D-------000000`9L 0 al 000`9 • d7_ 000'9 'O .Ov O d - m -I- 0004( -.Urn'vd • Q 3 0 0 O f in 000`£ r CO 000'Z .• i-4.. m 4 O - O in O N 1 3 O 00011 a o U o — o 001 O a o - O PO cr I- w ec 009 - w u1 c w 009 i • - N a. 4 o 0. 0017J O 0 c O 00£ - O C W 4 - m O -1- —II^ 0 002 0 -' O y W I— • — to O 0 O - 1 w wz 001 5 5I ' - a z 0: — gS toa OW 4 01 Li- r. 09 I- z (n 09 1 O — Ob n W N CC 0£ - - I M_ 02 F U1 W W cc m 01 H O 6 8 11 1 0. 9 9 W b W• CC £ 0 Z e N 1 a 0 O in O in O N O- p N N - O O 1-. S 3 H 0 N I - N 0 1 1 0 3 1 3 3 0 1 ,0' 101 26 '' 000'901 - 000 O6 000 08 in N 1n 00010E I I I 000'09 aNIn 00o'oc 000'04 p o 0 2 Z 2 000'02 0 0 0 000'0? ld aaa _ N> NwN p_0, 0 — a w c' c' c 1n 000p6 o OO _ com CL — 0008 - 000 ")— a 000'L a1 w a1 000'9 w w 4- 000's v v v 0 Cr 000'4 _ — Q `y 000 co 000'£ 1— O re c c c co 3 _ o r 7 000'? •» •• •• 01 ¢ O o O I 3° Z° 2' _ O 0 2 I- 0 into at 1 - N 1 -.- o 00011 a 0 U c d o 006 8 oa0 O - E - 001 In ¢ I- c0 009 _ w t0 w 009 N a Q •- a 004 J W 0 4 00£ d t n 1- 0 _ - o N 00Z - w J O I- - p W - woo 0 "^ w w 001 a z K z 06 O 08 - n ¢ W 4 0 c- 09 N 2 1n O£ - N 7 - 7 04 N W N O£ I' I - 02 H W W0' W U 61 ~ IL 8 L1 0_ 9 £ W 4 W 0: 2 C 2 a 61 I 00 O in O in o n O- m N N O 6 S 3 H 0 N I - N 0 I l 0 3 1 3 3 0 1 V 1 0 1 27 000`p01 000'09 en N N 000'0L I I I 000'09 000109 tom O oo0'ob 0 0 0 Z Z Z 000'0£ U O O OC • 000103 40 o N _ of a a 0 O N ced- UI V) <!) — a W n X00 O• a 0o0'pl 0 0 0 _ ow a 00L ddd 000'L 000'9 d d '4- OCC 000`S v o v _ m 000'4 a O O O ~ N 000`£ 42 r + - O N K Q i-C-I H H _et 0 Q Q O 000'3 0 c 2 a° a° a° - 40 d = onn _ N I E * O U c O 006 0001 O — o 0 9 0 < 0 _ ¢ ~ .� 00L - w N W ¢ 009 N a a a 009 J N OOb o cv a 1- o 00£ O Q C _ 0 in 0 O OOZ - 9 W - n U o - n w a w 001 - y Z O - 0641 M a W 09 F 01 Z I- 09 - N N — N OS 7 7 Ob w W 0 — N 0£ - - I W CC OZ I- M O W Ii l- 6 01 9 a L 9 W S W V M £ 0 Z 4- N I -% In O n O N O- O - - o 0 Kj N Cu S 3 H O N I - N 0 I 1 0 3 1 3 3 0 1 V 1 0 1 28 prewetting of the specimens improves their performance in this creep test. Stiffness factor tests are being run by industry after envi- ronmental exposure by the Bureau. In this instance, there is a major change in procedure. In all other cases, pipe specimens are exposed and each individual specimen then tested to destruction. For stiffness, one set of specimens is being tested repeatedly. At each time interval, the specimens are removed from the solu- tions and tested to 5 percent deflection. After testing, the specimens are returned to the solutions for further exposure. The specimens are being tested at 6-month intervals. In addition to the solution exposures, one set of specimens is being exposed to a freeze-thaw environment. Stiffness is tested by the parallel plate method under ASTM D-2412. At 5 percent deflection there is about a 14 percent loss in stiffness after 1 year of exposure to all environments. The per- cent reduction in stiffness decreases as the deflection increases, and there is much less stiffness loss during the last 6 months of exposure than during the first 6 months. The following table shows the average percent reduction in stiffness for all specimens: 29 Stiffness Average Results Average percent reduction in stiffness at deflections of: Time 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% Six months 21.0 17.5 13.9 12.1 10.4 One year 24. 1 19.0 16.5 16.5 13.6 The percent reductions in stiffness for each environment, based on the load and not on the stiffness factor, are as follows : Average percent reduction at deflections of: Environment Time 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% H2SO4 6 mo 10.9 9. 1 9.3 10.4 6.9 1 yr 22.6 17.4 14.6 12.7 15. 1 NaOH 6 mo 14.5 13.7 11.8 9.9 8.2 1 yr 27.3 21.3 18.0 16. 1 13.1 Synthetic 6 mo 18.3 18.3 14.9 13.0 11.7 soil extract 1 yr 19. 1 19.6 16.8 15.3 14. 1 Tap H2O 6 mo 25.2 16.8 13.7 11.9 11.4 1 yr 28.7 18.3 15.3 13.3 12.5 Distilled H2O 6 mo 27.6 27.6 17.0 13.8 12.1 1 yr 26.0 19.8 17.2 15.1 14.0 Freeze-thaw 6 mo 29.5 19.4 16.8 13.5 11.5 1 yr 20.9 17.8 16.9 13.8 12.7 Since these tests were performed on the same specimen at each time interval the results are especially significant. It is noted that no particular effects were evident after the freeze-thaw exposure. Series B - scaling factors This series of tests was established in an attempt to deter- mine if performance of large-diameter pipe can be correlated to performance of small-diameter pipe. If similar performance is 30 found, scaling factors may be established. Such scaling factors would allow some insight into the probable behavior of larger pipe in some of the other tests. Data on 12-inch-diameter pipe are generated in Series A tests. In this series, B, 24- , 36- , and 48-inch-diameter C1-60 pipes are being tested in external load-crush tests, fatigue tests, and inter- nal pressure (burst) tests. In addition a section of a 96-inch pipe will be tested in external load. At this time, industry has completed external load-crush tests by the three-edge bearing method on three specimens each of 24- 36-, and 48-inch pipe. Data were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 percent deflections, and at ultimate. Data on the loads at ultimate are as follows : Scaling Factor Crush Tests Average Results Diameter, inches Load at ultimate, _pounds 12 1,593* 24 1,051 36 1,352 48 1,841 *From Series A. No fatigue or internal pressure tests have been completed as yet in this series. We have not made a detailed evaluation of the available data, since only data from one test procedure are available, so we cannot meaningfully discuss the significance of these results in establish- ing scaling factors. 31 Series C - Stiffness Correlation This series was initiated to evaluate the stiffness factor of various classes of pipe in one particular size of pipe. The 24- inch size of pipe was selected, and tests have been run by industry on this size of C1-60, C1-100, C1-150, and C1-200 pipes. Parallel plate loading is the test method and data are recorded at 5, 10. and 25 percent deflections. Within the permissible 5 percent deflections independent of class of pipe (glass content) , the modulus of elasticity is rela- tively constant. The modulus ranged from 2.3 to 2.8 million with an average of about 2.6 million. The modulus is affected at deflec- tions greater than 5 percent. As would be expected from the equation for Stiffness Factor, stiffness varies with wall thickness. A small change in "E" (of EI) results in only a small change in stiffness , but a small change in thickness results in a relatively larger change in stiffness. Soil Box Tests Soil box tests are being conducted in the Bureau laboratories on samples of 18-inch C1-60 irrigation pipe. Each specimen is 6 feet long and is buried under closely controlled conditions in a soil box. The purpose is to study deformation under external load when buried in compacted soil. The buried pipe is subjected to external loads up to 100 psi on the soil. Two tests have been completed, one at 90 percent modified Proctor density, the second at 100 percent modified Proctor. These 32 tests are quite comprehensive and the data are too extensive for presentation during this discussion. A separate Bureau laboratory report is in the final stages of preparation and will be issued in the near future. Of particular interest is the finding that the deflection of RPM pipe under the soil box test conditions are not that predicted by Spangler's formula. This indicates much further study of this general subject should be made. Field Testing Under the GICS Program, two field studies are being conducted. The first is a test on 15-inch RPM pipe in the Westlands Irrigation District in California. The pipe in test here is an early model pipe, about only the second generation of RPM, and is rubber lined. The pipe wall, however, is typically RPM so some useful performance data will evolve. The test section, about a half mile long, was installed about 2 years ago and was first pressurized about 19 months ago. Strain gages were installed in the wall of one pipe section, and strain data recorded at regular intervals since the line was pressurized. In addition, several removable sections of rubber-lined and also unlined pipe were installed in the line. These are being removed at periodic intervals for testing. As yet, no tests have been run on these pipe sections. At this time, the strain data have been compiled and are under critical review by the Bureau and by both industry participants. No conclusions are available at this time. 33 could, with adequate assurance, result in obtaining a reliable pipe of good durability. The GICS program is comprised of three parts : Laboratory test- ing, field testing, and reports and specifications. There will be 2 years of testing and about 1 year for reporting and final prepara- tion of specifications. Laboratory studies are divided into several series to study basic physical properties of RPM pipe, scaling factors, and stiff- ness correlation. Field studies are mainly at two locations; at the West lands Irrigation District in California, and at the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation District in Montana. Preliminary specifi- cations have been prepared and will be revised in the light of program data as it becomes available. A report on 1 year of test- ing is in preparation and a final report after 2 years of testing is planned. To date, performance generally is as expected. Changes in the properties due to environmental exposures are of an acceptable magni- tude to date. These data, when plotted on stress aging curves, show the early "large" changes with tapering off in time. This indicates that when the stress level is of an acceptable magnitude such curves can be used for predicting long-term performance of RPM pipe. They may also find some use in determining the maximum stress level under a particular type of loading. If the present performance trends continue, RPM pipe may eventually be specified as an alternate to other types of pipe in water resources applications. * * 36 References (1) Techite - product data; United Technology Center, Division of United Aircraft, Techite Department, Post Office Box 5222, Sunnyvale, California 94088. (2) Flextran - product data; Johns-Manville, Flextran Pipe Divi- sion, 22 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016. (3) Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, 1968, Vol. 45, No. 1A. (4) Environmental Effects on Polymeric Materials, D. V. Rosato and R. T. Schwartz, 1968, Vol. 1, Chapter 9. (5) Evaluation of Reinforced Plastic Mortar Pipe - Government- Industry Cooperative Study Program - 1-year Progress Report, December 1969 (in preparation) . (6) Tentative Specification for Reinforced Plastic Mortar Pressure Pipe, August 1969, USBR. 37 GPO 855.505 -I �i _ / C _ U � LEMN ThLL1WCS j/Ltft.i'h� ,^-,,1 ova 077 ,hJd6J- A COUNTY - WIDE WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM CHILTON COUNTY, ALABAMA c//• • A paper by Robert M. Alexander, Jr., P.E., County Engineer, Chilton County, Clanton Alabama and James V. Walters, Ph. D. , P.E., Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. To be presented at the First Annual Solid Waste Workshop, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Apri1' 20, 1972. 2 the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Chilton County lies in the geographic center of Alabama and is traversed by Interstate Highway 65. The Coosa River is its major eastern boundary. Nearly a tenth of its 699-square-mile area lies within the Talladega National Forest. Timber and other agricultural efforts dominate its land use, but the prime eco- nomic resources of the county are the many industrial enterprises which have grown there. The 1960 population of Chilton County was approximately 26,000. The approximate population in the incorporated municipalities were: Clanton 5,700; Jemison 1,000; Maplesville 700; and Thorsby 1,000. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO PROJECT CLEAN AND GREEN The environmental conditions relatable to solid waste disposal which existed in Chilton County before the commencement of project CLEAN AND GREEN were similar to those found in most rural counties of Alabama today. Wastes in municipalities were being collected house-to-house and disposed of by dumping and burning. Wastes generated by rural familes were disposed of by the individual householder at the place where he could most conveniently "throw it", and wastes generated by transients were rather thoroughly distributed along the county's highways. The four municipalities each operated a dump, and burned wastes there to reduce their volume. The odor and smoke from these operations were objectionable, and in each case, the capacity of the site being used was nearing complete utilization. In the rural areas the householders had created and used approximately forty major unauthorized dumps, and many more small dumps were observed along the roads of the county. In an effort to reduce the hazards and undesirable conditions resulting from this large number of unauthorized dumps, the county had previously 3 attempted to encourage the use of dumps in four specific locations where the landowners were agreeable to the use of their property for such purposes. At those four locations county equipment was sent periodically to cover the accumulation of wastes with soil. With only four such areas in the entire county the haul distances to those locations discouraged the householders who majorally ignored these efforts and continued to dispose of their wastes at the unauthorized dumps. The amount of wastes generated at the boat landings on the river had prompted the county to locate 55-gallon steel drums near the landings and in the adjacent picnic areas. The placing of those containers was well received by the public. For several years the sportsmen had cooperated by placing wastes in those con- tainers which were periodically emptied by county personnel. Ultimate disposal of these wastes was at one of the existing dumps. Another costly activity the county was forced into was the clean-up of the right-of-way along its highways. All of the conditions described above caused the governing bodies of the county and its municipalites to give serious consideration to their solid waste disposal problem. The factors which compelled them to adopt an improved pro- gram of waste disposal were the unacceptable condhions resulting from the unauthorized dumps in the county and the municipal dumps, the costs involved in clean-up of solid wastes distributed over large areas along the highways, and the relative inavailability of land for use as future dumps. ODUNTY-WIDE SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL SYSTEM The unsatisfactory conditions caused by dumping and burning, the scarcity of land for future disposal by that method, and the extremely high cost of operating individual sanitary landfills for each municipality lead the governing booties to consider the use of one centrally located sanitary landfill. Because the county also had solid waste disposal problems and because the selection of 4 one central disposal site necessarily must be outside the boundaries of at least three of the municipalities, it was reasonable that the county be chosen for major responsibility in the implementation of a central landfill project. The responsibility for administration of the operation was placed in the county engineer's office in order that the personnel and equipment of that office might be made available for the construction and other non-routine activities proposed for the project. Since the municipalities already owned and operated municipal collection equipment, it was decided that they should continue to be responsible for the door-to-door waste collection within their corporate limits. The cost of door- to-door collection in the rural portion of the county prohibited its consideration. Because rurally generated waste was - already being carried some distance by the householder before it was disposed of at one of the existing unauthorized dumps, it was felt that if a suitable container were made available at a distance no greater than that to which he was accustomed, the householder might be expected to deposit the waste satisfactorily in the container to await its collection and transportation to the central landfill. The county-wide system chosen for implementation includes continued door- to-door collection by the municipalities of wastes generated within their corporate limits, collection by the county of rural wastes from approximately 60 approved container sites, and satisfactory disposition of all solid wastes generated in Chilton County by placement in a central sanitary landfill. Operation of the rural collection system was made the responsibility of the County Engineer as was the rehabilitation of all the existing dumping areas. CENTRAL SANITARY LANDFILL The county was fortunate to already own a parcel of land which appeared to be a satisfactory site for the landfill operation. Evaluation of that site 5 was initiated by surveying and topographic mapping of the property. Alabama's State Geologist was helpful in evaluating the geology of the plot. To vertify his inferences, a subsurface investigation was performed by personnel of the county engineer's office. Soil borings at the site were advanced below ele- vations to which landfill operations are expected to occur. Soil samples from these borings were analyzed to evaluate their water carrying characteristics and their satisfactoriness as landfill cover material. The sand-clay soil sampled by the borings performs very suitably as a landfill cover. The bore- holes opened during soil sampling were used for ground water table observations. Water table observations allowed planning for all waste placement above the existing water table elevations over the proposed fill areas at the site. When full evaluation of the site indicated its desirability, it was possible to begin site preparation and construction of facilities for operation. All other system operations were dependent upon the initiation of the central landfill. For documentation of the landfill operations it was necessary to install scales to allow the weighing of all wastes disposed within the landfill. The scalehouse was planned to provide shelter and sanitary facilities for landfill personnel and to allow office space for the landfill manager. An all-weather road was constructed to provide access from the nearest paved county road. The access road subsequently has been paved. Fencing was erected to prevent un- controlled site entry and undirected deposition of waste before and after the normal hours of operation. Waste receptacles were installed just outside the gate to allow deposition of wastes at those times. The utility services necessary for the scalehouse were electricity, water and telephone. The needs for gas and sewer services were avoided by the use of electric heaters and a septic tank respectively. The major item of equipment necessary for the landfill operation was the tractor which was purchased for the placing, compacting and 6 covering of deposited wastes. Some clearing and grubbing of the site prior to• initiation of the landfill was desirable. Several pieces of county equipment in addition to the landfill bulldozer were used in the site clearing and road building operations. The chosen 33-acre landfill site is relatively hilly and is contiguous with both highway I-65 and the county airport at Clanton. Utilization of the site has been planned so that wastes will be placed at the lower elevations on the property, and cover material will be excavated from the tops of the hills. The full effect of the plan will be to improve the surface shape of the ground by making it more uniformly sloped, and to uncover two large areas of undis- turbed, preconsolidated soil suitable for the support of buildings. The areas which will be filled can be used for the storage of commodities not undesirably affected by subsidence of the surface which supports them or for such purposes as playgrounds or parking lots. The improved surface shape and the three- quarter-mile proximity to the nearest I-65 interchange should make the site very desirable for the construction of an industrial or insitutional facility. Personnel required for operation of the central landfill have been the manager, the operator and the utility maintenance operator. Under supervision of the County Engineer, the manager directs operation of the facility, weighs all wastes deposited and maintains records of the activity. The operator drives the bulldozer to compact and cover the wastes. The utility operator directs individual trucks to the proper spot for waste discharge, helps main- tain the cleanliness of the site, can relieve either of the workers in the event of their illness and performs other duties to be mentioned below in the rural collection operation. Full operation of the central landfill was begun during September of 1968. As soon as it became available for waste disposal, efforts were turned toward closing the existing dumps. 7 DUMP REHABILITATION From the outset it was realized that the implementation of a rural col- lection system would be pointless unless disposal )at the unauthorized dumping areas were terminated. To mark the termination of unauthorized dumping and to remove the hazards which past dumping had created, rehabilitation of the old dump areas was planned. A most important facet of dump rehabilitation was rodent eradication. Chilton County's Sanitarian, Mr. C. C. Gay, Jr. , in conjunction with per- sonnel from the Alabama State Department of Health and from the Public Health Service, planned this rehabilitation function. Their eradication plan called for initial poisoning with red squill in a bait composed of sardines and rolled oats. Secondary poisoning was with Warfarin in coarse corn meal. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the poisoning was to be based upon rodent population surveys before and after the poisoning. When surveys indicated that satisfactory eradication had been accomplished, a bulldozer was brought to the previous dump for the burial of all the wastes. The area would then be dressed and seeded in a manner which would emphasize the posted notice that the area no ,longer was to be used for the disposal of solid wastes. For the rehabilitation of former dumps a D-7 bulldozer was the only equipment required except in the case of work at the Clanton dump. There, three bulldozers, 2 15-cubic yard scrapers and one motor grader were used to excavate a hole in the middle of the area, move the waste materials into that hole, and finally cover the entire area with a graded, compacted soil surface. To date, approximately fifty dumps have been rehabilitated at a cost slightly in excess of $12,500. This cost, based upon national average equipment rental rates for the pieces of county owned equipment used, 8 averaged about $390. per acre for the 32 acres of dumps already rehabilitated. For the rehabilitation of the rural dumps it was necessary to wait until the county-wide system of rural collection was begun in order that an acceptable 1 alternative to the old dumps be available for disposal of the wastes generated / along the highways of the county. RURAL COLLECTION SYSTEM Several criteria were used in the initial selection of probable container sites. Containers should be located near existing unauthorized dumps to take advantage of the householders' operational habits, but they should be far enough away from the dumps to specially separate the disposal concepts represented by the new containers and the old dumps. They should be located within to the right-of-way of county roads and in places where they would not cause hazardous conditions for people depositing wastes or for the driving public. During initial planning for the project, it would not be anticipated with exceeding confidence that the State Highway Department and the Bureau of Public Roads would allow the use of their rights-of-way for container sites. Since initiation of the project, however, an evaluative trial of three such sites has been negotiated. A third criterion was to place a container within ten minutes of driving time of the vast majority of the rural homes in Chilton County. In the original selection of trial container sites it was necessary to remember that they must be located along a route which could be served by a single piece of collection equipment because the purchase of two collection packer trucks would be beyond the financial resources of the county. The distances involved in the tentative collection routes required the utilization of the largest easily manuverable loader-packer body available on a standard truck frame. A thirty-cubic-yard E-Z Pack packer body was chosen for mounting on an International cab-over-engine truck frame. This and 60 4-cubic-yard 9 containers were the equipment originally purchased for use in the rural collection system. By November of last year, 43 container sites had been implemented. Those sites utilized 57 containers and were located in such a manner that 50 percent of the rural households were nearer than 1.6 miles to the closest site, 90 percent were nearer than 3.7 miles, and 95 percent were closer than 4.8 miles. Additional sites have been implemented since then so that 79 containers now are used at 60 sites. A dozen other containers owned by the county board of education are located at schools for their specific use, but the wastes are collected from them by the project's collection truck. In order to improve the all-weather utility of the rural collection system for use by the public, all of the container sites located in county road rights-of-way have been paved. The essence of the rural collection system is graphically presented in Figure 1. All roads except major arteries and those used as a part of the collection routes have been omitted to promote clarity. As it exists presently, the county-wide solid waste collection system \ comprises two collection routes. Twenty-three container sites lie along the northern route which is approximately 90 miles long. The southern route is approximately 125 miles in length and passes 37 such sites. The two routes a e serviced on alternate days to provide collection from each rural storage contai er three times per week. The personnel assigned to the collection activity and routine maintenance of the packer truck are the packer truck driver and the utility operator mentioned above who also serves as a relief driver. It was deemed desirable to have a half-ton pickup truck dedicated to the waste disposal operation of the county in order that it might be used for clean-up around the rural waste collection receptacles. As they go about their normal jobs, all of the personnel of the county engineering department are responsible for the observation of conditions at the various receptacle sites. 10 0 0r cirri 00 ° N Z 10\ C:5". O a uj O •s•n S �� 0 O O 0 Z „ a 0 8: 5°�' z co. ° ° 8� N. J. O i. 0Q a O- o ~� $ 8 HI L SP ,�� 0 8 1— ._ _ _J ,+ ° oo O CJ ,-i_ O C‘• I to O 00rCJr_ _ I I O O 4 L. I Y ° OO • O ti d f-. ° �.I, O ,, o 8 O 0 -1 - 8 q d z 0 ,1 7 ti ;or- —1 ° L+. j -4 V,, o. 0 L cO CO d 0 O LM ' °0 TE. •S ° F^ 1" n 0 0 ° > U; 00 LI) ,1� ° ° Z •' 00 0 n I 12 y 5 0 0 - OC ua el 00 - 6Ei"VTVt-__ ' x w co 7l , -, 4 /// ...Si a CO W u _ti0 0 N L,4 1:CIA -1 I-; 0 c c C -2 w' w LLI •H .H •7 ¢ Z CO VD 0 I-. O +) 4, C C C uI o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.) 0) .4 , o CT - O C C •ri O U U) 0 U) O 0 0 x 11 Use of their two-way radio system allows immediate reporting of any undesirable conditions and makes quick correction of the conditions by the clean-up crew possible. One or more of the landfill operating personnel perform such clean-up services. With the beginning of rural collections during January, 1969, the entire county-wide solid wastes disposal system became operational. Experience reportable here covers approximately two years of landfill operation and about eighteen months of rural waste collection. During the first twenty months of sanitary landfill operation, 5.2 acres of the site had received the placement of 12,100 tons of waste which occupies a volume of 19,100 cubic yards. The average density of the waste as compacted is approximately 1,270 pounds per cubic yard. About 28,300 cubic yards of soil were used to cover the deposited wastes. This volume of cover material immediately strikes the reader as being extremely excessive. It should be pointed out that about 6,000 cubic yards of this soil was used to construct a barrier between the exterior of the first (and lowest) landfill cell and the creek. The average thickness of the barrier wall is about 15 feet. Even when allowance is made for that construction, it is recognized that the volume of cover material used is excessive. It must be pointed out, however, that for this particular site, the only cost of fill is the cost of tractor fuel and that selected excavation of the higher elevations on the site results in ultimate site improvements. Tables I and II respectively present representative costs for a month of operation of the rural collection system and of the central sanitary landfill. 12 TABLE I Cost of Rural Waste Collection For a Representative Month Wastes Collected 363 Tons $1,036.35 Labor Costs 170.06 Fuel and Supplies Costs262.33 Repair and Maintenance Costs 22. 3 Supervisor's Salary 0 Other Cost 34 8.10.00 Equipment Depreciation 5 Total Operating Cost $2,027.37 Total Operating Unit Cost $ 5.58 per ton TABLE II Cost of Central Sanitary Landfill Operation For a Representative Month Wastes Placed in Landfill 1767 Tons $ 452.51 Labor Cost 77.41 Fuel and Supplies Costs 77.670. Utility Costs 8367 Equipment Repairs 323.22 Supervisor's Salary 91 3.91 Other Cost 542.11 Equipment Depreciation 6 Total Operating Cost $2,242.29 Total Operating Unit Cost $ 1.27 per ton 13 • The trend since commencement of the county-wide system has been for the rural waste collections to increase from month to month. Because the major cost items in Table I are relatively independent of the amount of material handled, it is anticipated that unit costs for rural collection will be somewhat further reduced before the system comes to generate the full demand of which it is capable. (Generation of increased demand for its services is one result of the initiation of such a system. ) The effect of increased demand upon the unit cost is dramatically evidenced by the fact that the unit cost for the month shown in Table I is $5.50 per ton, but the unit cost for the same month during the previous year was $6.75 and prior year $10.17 per ton when 116 tons of waste were collected. Other operational results of this system are less technical and much more readily recognizable. Anyone riding thru Chilton County before and after the commencement of CLEAN AND GREEN could surely see the difference caused by the absence of roadside dumps. Anyone familiar with the previous municipal burning dumps would readily notice the absence of air pollution they caused. The members of highway right-of-way mowing crews have given unprompted reports of the dramatic decrease in the number of cans, bottles, and parcel of waste they encounter daily. The most important overall result of CLEAN AND GREEN is that it demonstrates the availability of a practical county-wide solid waste disposal system which almost any rural county can afford to adopt. I.- Y { h IR R ^ L. ti. 4 R .. ••W N C 7 r� a 74 • :d,:~ J� :i '. Ems. 't W',; p T O v < a i C: A �. • r , = -,V,47-' ` � .1,- � _ .. g cD r .TJ O n =4 i�� n . • '4'.y< O{p a §.A w •v r "" tss - ' Y 'a -, S W rt 1 . = g .. -, 3 __ ..... 5 eT - 6 cm' v. " - -z• E: `C,,i -:- rc- :, ,7, E. ----: sgl..7:to =_c:Eno a-mil S :::w M:?•-' ';4° g' -,. ‘i. lcc.?"--r)VSF 't '.-- ;:4; \ 4 11 g XII 1t1i1 ! . ii:1'.'. „ T —" p ^q 1..! 74 A 'A e.2 a 4.—5., .T..til in % g: 111.5D11 .S`S N 1 1 i 54 Vail' c pro = °�°s � 3 � r { 3 +� 't *.-:"- )- --i, 11 ft2.1111.1 ;'''' 2)''t : 7 .-., , ,... ,. • y T7 it C f9 .r.: r8 F . . , ' . ligel. .„ ; R„ R' 'a' s N.-% I k t 5.' listiiii --4.0, V't . ill t .: i !Ill - Wig- i .,.., a 4 i 41 •tv i * --I A 3; 7 S 2 S rye``' �Af t ' v * 1 • :`'"a'3;. , � , : . ee�� qqt. _ . 1.21\ 4n X'‘ -' rtql i,A1,11lis il,t6ail-iii-li,..c: i-§. fglis _ 1.4, ,, Igty a �' �I 'w ••, 1 m g�4Ce. C a �o 1.1- l� t i :nt ,3 0O• ;�.:^ -.?fa, agv.7 ¢ G.r .. 2. . a °o I ro t ', 11 4 ._• w2`a ;ini IN 3 � � 4 1 I :---- kw .• < Sao � c . a 4, a''_ 1 mots '''o xj `J a '' is — i J s°E. m. G 3 N a �"`". ••5rkfi�-0 ^ks �uC for SIIVICe pool reiectet GREELEY (UPI)—A bust tillltle appeared a poss$YMT Wilesday between the Arid f itbeiey and the Weld t 1:7E: leymis and after the loners rejected the se Ollmpt to solve a sewage rob.. illhe commissioners rejected a est for a zoning variedee city had asked for a sevwia al pool about two_mike of Kersey. --- twits LiRseventh site the city hilt ropf%sed for disposal of ex- o-sewa sincege from its tre tmes- the initial applies- werebegunn in October of l4n year. ., . - ilhe commissioners denied Ss application because the swag of Hersey nasal- �1y opposed the variance; ' xso .of the... potential. ninth of the area in ques- il in because they claimed the }lil„showed no good reason lie b eatioa of the pool then li Fsomewhere else, sal ee the commissioners . was not the best use at %agricultural land. ley Mayor Richard Per- kaid he was disappointdd ` ,mayor paid it appear$ ;ley had four courses of a itis open to it, He said they. S. Abandon the project alto- empt a bond issue * MrQnewer sewer treatment e the battle to court,or 'llampt to locate it at an site. Peteli ik said he had called a especial city council meeting for next Monday night to consider the city's course of action. _ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • ..f 9 T aa. ii , , &.,,lilt q- r ii... • _ at ' i +. §' e ft lh "nom (s Yea ne t S .. A"' ff, ',.'1,,,,. t ` § ,<^ ,..1' � ,r r "' + '�� t i pr# t14 ,4„,i,'"' rr^ lit sr 1 ,,pp _, ' � fa! .�`,y�, 1 ,:l':`,''''.41,° ';'1'''',,t '5 ar �?, tbearin 'i aft r7e ' �F" e 4r; gs Fa� u#a'• muleta 's ,y ! r !s f ay ah- idm' and door **tail bgt °dlallaitilll✓ 1au` pia 3a2esa to' a :x.. rY ` A of the„ax ti '''''''''"7.04:—..."" . R''.�vaam �. A Peraops h, tar, Pleas Cited krk. a* C h osborne read a seven-page osi ttie E statenNat 1n which he ea ides built tCon raged A is 515 pressed the opinien that anyw solution to die slaughterhii Wel6 added,it con Waa w a a#e ' lem. Es better , storied arouiid Jufy� ,lie Ih " ihelli sinew Pretests of the commissioners that ran stallation of effective waste gtr�8 iadivldual protegts lope, •'facilities should be completed tisn W Coked M the s, e` Stout me nest i StIfr removal at the slaughterhouse. •. Kenneth Monfort, head of He cited,teeatineMt 1• aara con Monfort racking Co.,theft t He H®gan, Brush l t east e}ey ke�1e pltst, ; , ..4'-'..^' .,. the Kenneth oor le le sterling,a; lea of plants ! ,t included ' + ,- which! are ,. C X _tba_a f � ctacr.,cn or e Glenn . 3 P 7tei 7 packing plantKerB�y'P1WarAB:Ce ��annoueced-. l e a+r producing offensive he' Cis'of tlfat victor R. Klink and $aln that the County result of pretreatment given at 1 treat paCkht�plant waeGi the slaughterhouses involved. . vim1c k�s had met ' He 5150 bard Site t# Osborne also said he didn't fee feel it was for#a Greeley to: ,* Y M r try to solve tts newlige problsm l m5i$aodad:#rte rse +i! " - hY Flaem$ om ' *Olaf a r pr Y .� someone toe0a a d° by $ dm's` lop the 1l,- cc, 4 J. Gus The 'wall f of�, f d:the needlerthem Pollution ;Deg wee rhea h of J. which: of ails ft. —Ilse Prh red by City this' int that T-. d a net► Mention of the sewage lagoons Nt Ik�tl John Po at Site Seven would subject eC odors and the first consider 'traetrnent proceea 'at Seedgn, � ea facilities sF !*De tD "i. , said a Plant•1a., sites , odors. She the ptocesa to treat t * Omaha Iteb ettgkesr by bu9d+a atech • x�, the P Pr Mold be l ' VI a the city for the proposed facility at tree clty park since there, 1' lg • project y P-,--..,iii would be no odor , any time its own at wee. s M�I4Ile�et Haley, making the pri ppl He added the initial coat would Rif Pe then be around$11 million and that• '' presentation read an 11 page ern ' s z ofd the the plant cgptd be 'ler t#lt le"gttt�g` a wtement an ideahich l ik Lagoon uw° s* a. in a►a J " ^al for the pMpaeed facilities, ti Tilt i:, TM•.The it.k Wpm the confluence ce of The_ayti*ney :aM , ' P fttdta ' » , - ttk the^South Platte and Gat*0la miptas'a Cron t°was that .tire f?opdre Rivers la/Mr� , : was ha process was a comp y no- sequentlq could, awe as . These I-tried system in this country and a on r e lop sewage treatment wE ;� � "" a i espl that to obtain federal by lu1P ply gait of the ;strea ty , the be built' 5` w th the thhaatsewage lagoons are nbt a ;a Y ' Haley ported out n 'th is practical o; proper way' for°t: connection that Site Seven is in treat'tile:* ng to • i e f ;ezcesa of 150 acres in size.He and q op conelwled; said the initial facilities planned that it't R " a>s'opened the meeting uP, t to treat.Monfort Packing Co. at peeking ,to presentation of petitions and „sewage would take only no retsilrtion Of the cityra, ' by 1;rouPa ,acres,thus 100 acres would be would remove the 'crick, ' I available for building facilities presently facing both a to treat,do'saestie sewage when and Monfort's. needed in the f mre. Burroughs also announced a employes favoring the site. committee was sub • �77 J w{s questions of Robert petitons signed by nearly ft fl opponents, C.$�.attorney for the area'residents opposed to• 1 "#cam ' i Haley said the Seven as a lagoon site.el8 1 r 1ld not ,construction of any cit s � ` lagoon east of Greeley. a t .hi whidh to handle the Monfort sewage t The attorney then Called oeolk' ;recoil. O s b o r n e, Fort i .. t l y organized grump, was because the packing plant's professional esgaswer,to --troll its support to waste is extremely hot and it on;beha8•el lMlsAOpoa als. 1 i#fCoone t Site was the great)* opinion a l ;Be efficient.wamechanical y ant was trestst an uch waste. Haley said also it was the judgment of what he considered top authorities that the lagoon I facilities would satisfactorily .treat the Monfort waste and there will be no odors of any consequence. Wells 'etplained;':that;,the proposed facilities,which would include paired anaerobic lagoons, aerated lagoons, clarifiers and polishing lagoons, are extremely effective in treating packing plant 'waste and will remove all but *out one per cent of the pollutions. in the waste. • Only Way: Monfort VOL.62_ NUMBER 150 GREELEY,COLORADO MONDAY, JUNE •7, 1970 WEEKLY TRIBUNE EIS.rABLISHEC Hearing Wednesuay • t F . lagoon SiteSelection ,,, a Is Termed Crisis• • • 4 �. Selection of a n ,. ew sewage ,� -��. ,,,�, ,; ,�,„ :� �. treatment site was termed al � N,„ "crisis issue" by Mayor Richard A.Perchlik of Greeley �,^ " •a "»«� " -•„ °,. s%..� ._� M:' °•.. Monday. � 1. He urged all residents who g „vwitr .:believe the city's lagoon pro s3zrdr posal is a sound solution to the x :7r� ,z . st 3 problem of treating Monfort •. ;. e �, Packing Co. sewage to attend . �s, ' ' "a public hearing on the issue ., to be held by the County Col• - - 3 missioners at the Courthouse ai 3 p.m.Wednesday. � �� ,a�• � The Mayor, in a statement sal.: taking office in; November as mayor of Greeley e e few issues I have faced could ".. be termed crucial, but the see ¢ lee of a new sewage treat ment site must be considered v a crisis issue. " '. "The Greeley area has a serious problem of major • ` proportions. Present sewa treatment facilities for month _.•. a, have not been adequate to sere one of our major county Indus- , - - • tries,Monfort of Colorado, and soon to be expanded production just cannot be handled at th t;,. present treatment plant. � "The odor from ouz over- strained plant is unbearable and it is not only a terrible burden to local residents but is probably costing our community (all this area) hundreds of thousands of dollars in proapec-. five businesses and residents- "We cannot refuse to accept packing plant was To do so PROPOSED LAGOON SITE — This view from air at 3 p.m. Wednesday. The site, 5'/s miles east of here, stro one of oto major' look looking west along 8th Street road (Colorado 263) towards son property owned by Mrs. Conrad Hoff, which extends industries. ratstty's major, Greeley shows location of land, indicated by arrow, on from 8th Street road south to the nearby South Platte River.which city •is seeking permission to build lagoons to treat The Webster Feed Lots are across 8th Street road to the This is aa county-wide as well; Monfort Packing Co.sewage.The request will be the subject northwest of the site. as a his la a problem.Over Hoe of.a public hearing to be held by the County Commissioners ,Monfort Pack employes live t outside of Greeley. "For example, 30 employes I Jive in the Kersey area alone.' Average weekly wages paid to non-Greeley residents by Mon- fort Pack are$71,200 or a total of$3,702,400 annually. "When one considers feed and cattle raising and related busi- nesses created by the plant and, its employes' salaries, by no stretch of the imagination can Monfort Pack be considered solely a Greeley industry. i "Greeley economic health and total Greeley area development depends on adequate sewage (Continued on page 6) uw> ' a a m m v h.�o v— , s u e ,^_, �,^.cd oc°.°v"i .. Gw•cmc, .w.��w�°cwAN�,�'a u��Gsm m�`o =•oc �m;�d, >,' .LE-tpe e- ,�� y�oo�v : ��„ �.'aF og U. C NAL g�TF N0C A'ai.''''=C.`p. a, 8 v n,�3�".s�.a�°Ni T: �.Y �vyG3`.,,,-6uuoc�-E1-,,�teFa,n G.� �.,5'c U�.5o, w��o n�m,c a+ 'ooa�, v o�ai°`''"->,o'co.bum Na .>'-a Z.--a' .ab .3.,,,..4.:g cv >,m hv Ls v vu� s^�¢ swgwaoi mA'E >,L"aa c�m�41' go.�oo '74.1,0-_- °ia*.-0 TL . a+ a;.,... yww`h c �...-: ,•yFo- m .s..5.-K•o o�dmc9i Ea��oco t°y w 3s °: w4��o'na m )— 'G ys°'..,•o cd,c o'- -'-' 'gUo�,=`aaFf°i a� u W ti-.b Yam 3oumvw°'-'=c c 3—�h . aa w o_,�g"4 U 0.',..eo el&N2N`o"a�'^a '' �a—'icw A.c �Aa3,�°u�T°c°ew >,t°.`°>;`°'m^��i cm'e. oa.m c°'0 �J 4ow.?p.—, .E'g�$a.'' F;$N`C'"_.= ��v�'..,oa�.'�'c�C�ytia��o° ° u�� a6a9, u o- e- o m'9 d y 3 x ti 8' y d ,n en o o'o v�n c -_-- ,_ -- o US5FC7c �S uC�:.. 'a3 no...,masn Eaa a�i h:d t7so ..°-- § ° wa U.c°'..•v ity suspend ., wor. OnSite even (County ..,.�. Decision e�' teao � AND Is Awaited Written by Horaee Greeley in 1871 THE GREELEY REPUBLICAN By FRANK COLOHAN VOL.62-NUMBER 160 GREELEY,COLORADO FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1,70 WEEKLY TRIBUNE ESTABLISHED 1811 Tribune Staff Wrtier -- —City Council decided at ... ��.�.. emergency meeting Thursday to I suspend all engineering work on the proposed sewage lagoon Site Seven, pending a decision on i '(the site by the County Corn-' missioners. The council also decided to' formally request the County Commissioners to hold a public hearing on the lagoon site which, the commissioners have set for June 3 in the evening, rather, than at 3 p.m. as presently.( scheduled. The council's actions were announced in a news release! Idistributed Friday by Mayor I Richard Perchlik. The council's request the public hearing be held in the. evening is based on a desire 'to allow for full public in- volvement, the news release. said. "The City Council fell that,: although the legal questions ll '.surrounding a hearing are in I doubt,it is imperative that this, project have vast public ac- ceptance if it is going to suc- Icoed,"the release stated. "Even if the County Com-, missioners and Planners should approve this project, it might Ibe unwise and divisive of our! 'community to proceed unless there is extensive public support, from wit as well as within' t the Greeley city limits. "The City Council urges all ,citizens within the county who have a stake in Greeley area economic development and Monfort.Packing Co. expansion' to attend the June 3 public hearing." Copy of Letter The news release also said the council had authorized Mel '.Mayor in communicate its request that the public hearing 'be held in the evening to the County Commissioners by, 'I letter. A copy of a letter Mayor Perchlik has sent to the com- missioners,making this request, '(was attached to the news release. Addressed to Glenn Billings,chairman of the Board! of County Commissioners, the, (letter said: "Although we are deeply (,concerned by the delay and its- attendant cost to area tax (payers, we concur with the' Board of County Commissioners Ithat no final decision be made! on the new sewage lagoon site' until there is a full public'( 'hearing and all interested, !parties are given an opportunity, to present their case. 'Accordingly, the city of' Greeley has suspended all work I' on the Site Seven project, in-'' eluding surveys and expenditure of funds pending a decision by 'the Board of County Com- missioners to be announced) •after the June 3 public hearing. Equal Opportunity 'However, the vital im portance of this issue to the!, total Greeley area community'( demands that all parties beII given an equal opportunity to!. Ibe heard. "Consequently, w e are requesting that the June 3,', Ihearing be held in the evening' l of June 3 at 7 p.m. and in a meeting hall which will Icommodate a large audience. r "The city has arranged for,( (Continued on Page 61 I City Sa (Continued From. , Page One) it and offers to'lour board, the! use of the Greeley:kiotnmunjty thnftS for thipt .,ireSI nearingi is itt 9 r"a surrounding co .Wan testify. In the hundreds.of Wel ' Cotod' tens who derive, eir iv directly and indirectly t from ebb Monfort Packing Co. s have's' chaffed . - 4 h�d to sad tin Ilk h Weld- residetdb`` its Persoteresttss a to of ;`tire ':held aad iieve Pmaial* heard." ell at its weekly v♦ninr dtac!tallae ` reccnmendation by its lagx. ineer „�• ... Jr. t$maiia. risk,` an serial'survey be- mad Sits Seven estimated.cost of $l, to ne dM. However, the ' til decided ez- tQ„ ' . to County planning i an lime at, tedautal objections Approval of t8ise n site by the County tanning Corn- mission is a requisite if the city is to'obtain federal financial assidE ' k -c structing the treatment facilities,. It was reported*St)*council meeting that Abe`commission bad met in regard.to the,site t , . 'W S..-, .the st sh to make# by thet County CeiteldellIOners.� The council members agreed Tuesday Mining tsp. cuss, oboe in ' tenter spin' Thut dnY, t.t an f i Hello