SR0056541 SSNL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rNLS§ 4.2, SSS§ 6.7. From the soil test results, it appears that nitrate-nitrogen concentrations have increased under the existing leachlines in comparison to nearby virgin soil. Given the soil conditions, there is almost assuredly a fair degree of denitrification potential, otherwise, the nitrate- nitrogen concentration in the soil under the leachlines would probably be much higher. Of greater importance is the on-site shallow well water analyses, which reveals nitrate to be non-detect. This well is 66 feet types deep. In other soil t es and in areas that are not next to bodies of water, nitrate concentrations would most likely be found in these wells. iTlie`o(pth&the peat soils must be, preventing;by denitrification;the downward�iiigratioii of nitrate along with dilution from fresh water: SSS§ 6.8. The Average Daily Flow is calculated toeb' 37�, 7Y als/day from the facility. With a mound system basal area of 30 ft x 85 feet= 2,550 ft' the sail-ef erg" terface should accept the anticipated average daily flow. A Lori erm Acceptance Rat of 0.155als/ft2/day gives an ADF of: 2,550 fe x 0.15 gals/ftz/day 383 d. 0.15 gallons is equ - 1.2 pints, or 2.4 cups. NLS§ 4.1. The nitrate loading potential calculated on Page 12 indicates the percolating effluent may have a resultant nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 9.5 ppm, which is below the drinking water �1 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).f Consequeritly,the,nitrate-diet may form from.the recharge effluerit.watei will1theoretically be denitrified as it migrates downward. As referenced it is imperative that all food and all food by-product wastes articular) including fats oils andgrease) from the Manager's Apartment and the future Food Preparation/Bar area be handled as solid wastes and not be disposed of into the septic system. In addition, water usage from all fresh water sources must be.kept to an absolute minimum especially from the future Food Preparation/Bar area. The manager of the facility will ensure these procedures are followed and will contract with an future owners of the facility that they must abide by these procedures. All parties must be made aware of the monitoring of the wastewater flow meter. FHD will also be monitoring this flow meter. Th_e wastewater disposal'system installer mu-Si insure that proper grade`s are established and ,maintained'for.the mound system'. In the referenced Finnemore and Hantzsche paper, they discuss ,three.opt ons to consider as po'tential,methods of reducing the water.table ` rhounding"phenomenon. The=first-is.--increasing"the size-of`the-disposal-field:jBased upon the average daily flow calculations found on Page 9, it is-anticipated 1961disposal_area is sufficient.in size to accommodate the.projected flow�volumes'after-compl-etibn� The disposal area is based on mathematical computations for sizing found in the EPA Desi n Manual - On Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. The second method is elongating the shape of.the area covered by the disposal field, and orientating .the mound perpenidicular,to groundwater directional flow.::M"hoted on the design plans, the mound system-;is.elongated in a 2.8:1Wlength7to-width ratio and.it is orientated north-to-south. Groundwater flow is approximately east-to=west based on the orientation of the land surface to Middle River. Thirdly;-operating the field-intermittently should_decrease-:the.mounding effect.-As noted in this Report,.effluent-will_be.pumped by two alternating-pumps that will-pump small doses of approximately-75•gallons-per dose. s 19 Chesney Consulting E