SU0011354 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FF8.5ppm he Hantzsche/Finnemore Equation with the Crites/Tchobanoglous Formula by using om the Hantzsche/Finnemore Equation of 8.5 ppm NO3 N (38 ppm N0A we find: ate-nitrogen x 2.72 (conv. factor)=23.1 lbs N in an acre-foot of water. 861,400 ewater/yr= 325,851 gals/ac-ft water=2.6 ac-ft of wastewater disposed/yr x 23.1 lbs N/ac-ft=61.1 lbs N/yr according to the Hantzsche/Finnemore Equation. Therefore, the Crites/ Tchobanoglous Formula predicts 3.6 lbs greater nitrogen loading (in terms of lbs N/yr)than predicted by the Hantzsche/Finnemore Equation(64.7 lbs N/yr vs. 61.1 lbs N/yr). The results of these nitrogen loading determination methods are similar because nitrogen loading has been equated to a one acre basis. In comparing the predicted nitrate loading using the two methods above with nitrogen impacts from agricultural production, crops that may have been grown upgradient to the subject property have required between 175 and 255 pounds of nitrogen per acre (Examples from the Western Fertilizer Handbook: grain sorghum requires 250 lbs N, safflower 200 lbs N, sugar beets 255 lbs N, beans 175 lbs N,tomatoes 180 lbs N). Using an estimated average of all the crops listed above, a value of 215 lbs of N/acre/yr for crop uptake, with 33%nitrate-nitrogen leaching past the root zone (Ref. 1), approximately 71 lbs N/ac/yr potentially impacting the underlying groundwater from historical agricultural nitrogen fertilizer inputs. Therefore, the calculations demonstrate that nitrate-nitrogen loading between the anticipated on-site wastewater effluent and historical agricultural nitrogen inputs are slightly greater from agricultural inputs (-63 lbs.N/ac/yr vs. -71 lbs N/ac/yr). NLS§ 4.0 DISCUSSION OF NITRATE LOADING RESULTS RELATIVE TO PROPOSED METHOD OF WASTEWATER DISPOSAL The following lists the processes and procedures to mitigate nitrate loading that have been implemented into the design and operations of the on-site wastewater treatment and disposal from the two property improvements: 1. The extreme capture of food, food by-products, and oils and grease (O+G), must be done and handled as solid wastes. The constituents of concern originating from the kitchen and ultimately into the grease interceptor tanks must be reduced to an absolute minimum and should include wiping plates and utensils with paper towels before washing. Additionally, there cannot be any food waste grinders within the kitchen. 2. A large primary grease interceptor tank, followed by two smaller grease interceptor tanks will create a much greater hydraulic residence time and allow for the separation of organic material that enters the kitchen influent line. 3. The use of proper kitchen and restroom cleaning chemicals, as discussed on Page 7 of the Phase II Report, will minimize the disruption of the biology within the grease and septic tanks. Page 7 of 11 Chesney Consulting