SU0007105 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

! x 21.23 it6T(89.4 m, N/u 1 -0.20-+ 12'in/ -x 0.1 m L Nr _ (21.23 in/yr+ 12 it/yr) Nr - 4�.7 ppm s nilratelfi gen(NO,-N)cm 65:1 p as nitrate(NO,) Result an echarge.(Nr) from a completed KSC Travel Center project is 4'6x the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for nitrate-nitrogen (10 ppm). However, as referenced, this does not account for a decrease in nitrogen concentrations within septic tanks before the RSF and nitrogen uptake from grass-type plant transpiration within the dispersal areas. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The on-site soils within proposed wastewater Dispersal Area#1 are conducive for the acceptance and management of septic tank treated°effluent based upon the test results obtained. Test results reveal the top surface soils (within 24 inches below existing grade) of Area 41 possess a faster permeability potential of betweenAx and 6x than that of Area#2. This was evidenced in the 24 inch deep perc test(5.9 min/in vs. 35.7 min/in) and for the double ring infiltrometer test (2.81 cm/hr vs. 0.72 cm/hr). Observing the application rates between the two Dispersal Areas from the percolation tests exclusively, we find an'average rate throughout the tested soil profile of 0.633 gallons/ft'/day for Area#1 and 0.494 gallon/ftz/day for Area#2. When the application rates from the double ring infiltrometer tests are-examined, we see a further decline in permeability between the two Areas at 0.390.gallons/ftz/day for Area 41 and 0.100 gallons/ft'/day for Area'#2. If the infiltrometer test data is incorporated into the percolation test data, Area#1 has an average application rate of 0.584 gallons/ft'/day throughout the soil profile to --11 ft, and Area#2 has an average application rate of 0.415 gallons/fftz/day throughout the soil-profileto -11-ft. Of significant importance is the infiltrometer test results for.Area#2, in which there was very slow I infiltration at the 20 inch depth.: If drip dispersal of the effluent is to be installed in Area#2, infiltration and percolation maybe very slow in comparison to Area#1. Bylacctanceatoso a'ned om the�percolation and infiltration tests, it is observed th the tw eas can theoretically man e..an average daily flow (ADF) of 18,5&Dha For ex ie g e average rate for Area at .584 gallon/ft /day and applyinf of the total ADF (9,000 gpd) equally between the two Areas, we have a needed disposal area of: 9,000 gpd 0.584 gallon/ftz/day=.1.5,411 ft' or 0.3.53_acres of area would be required,based on the test results: Dispersal Area#1 is proposed to be 132-acres. Similarly, taking the average application rate for Area#2 at 0.415 gallons/ft'/day results in a needed dispersal area of: 9,000 gpd 0.415 gallons/ftz/day.=21,687 ftz or 0.498 acres based on the test results. Area#2 is proposed to be 1.73 -acres... If a total dispersal area of 1:32+ 1.73 =3.05 acres has been designated, and 0.353 +0.498 = 0.851 acres is theoretically required for.disposal, there is more than sufficient-area for both primary disposal and 100%reserve/replacement: There is an excess dispersal acreage of: 3.05 acres - 0.851 _ acres =2.2 acres,which establishes a reserve/replacement area'of approximately: 2.2 acres_ 0.851 ! acres ,2.58, or -250%.. Page -14- k Chesney Consulting