Laserfiche WebLink
PLOS ONE <br />Identifying wastewater management tradeoffs in Kona, Hawai'i <br />concentrations were assumed to remain the same, but if water demand was > 1.5 m;/d, nutri- <br />ent concentrations were assumed to increase from medium to high intensity. <br />2.3.2. Wastewater treatment. A number of cesspool conversion technologies, each with <br />its own set of costs and range of nutrient removal efficacy, could be implemented to meet the <br />requirements of Act 125. In general, most upgrade options consist of a treatment system and a <br />disposal system. The former provides primary or secondary treatment of household wastewa- <br />ter. Examples include septic tanks and ATU, some of which are capable of denitrification. The <br />latter are paired with a treatment system to dispose of the treated wastewater. Examples <br />include absorption systems and seepage pits. Based on discussions with the Cesspool Conver- <br />sion Working Group, the model assigns one of two technologies to existing cesspools depend- <br />ing on risk scores that incorporate groundwater and drinking water risk, stream and <br />watershed risk, coastal water risk, and risk related to soil type [25]. Cesspools located within <br />the same grid cells are aggregated into a single representative cesspool for each cell with an <br />averaged risk score (Fig ➢.C). OSDS risk scores range from 7 to 18 [25], and the median score <br />of 12 was selected as the conversion threshold score (see S1 ]Frig in the Supporting Information <br />section). Aggregated cesspools with an average risk score G 12 are upgraded to a septic tank <br />and absorption bed/trench system in the targeted conversion scenarios. Aggregated cesspools <br />with an average risk score > 12 are upgraded to an ATU paired with an absorption system in <br />the targeted and all-ATU scenarios. The majority of OSDS units (52%) are assigned a risk <br />score of 12. Therefore, with a conversion threshold score of 12, 60% of the OSDS units will be <br />upgraded to an ATU while 40% will be upgraded to a septic tank. If a risk score of 11 was <br />instead selected as the conversion threshold, 84% of the OSDS units would be upgraded to an <br />ATU system, whereas only 8% would be converted with a threshold risk score of 13. It is there- <br />fore important to acknowledge that total nutrient mass load can easily fluctuate, depending on <br />the proportion of OSDS units that are converted to ATU systems. Given that the effectiveness <br />of a particular conversion technology will depend on a variety of site -specific factors, low and <br />high efficiency average nutrient removal rates are considered for both septic and ATU <br />upgrades, in accordance with the range of values presented in [42]. Nutrient concentration <br />reduction assumptions for cesspool upgrade options are summarized in Talaie 2. <br />The Kealakehe WWTP, the only municipal WWTP in the study area, currently treats <br />approximately 6,400 in of sewage per day from the North Kona sewerage system to secondary <br />treatment classification through the use of aerated lagoons. The treated effluent is disposed of <br />in a nearby percolation basin (]Frig 1C), after which it eventually discharges into coastal waters. <br />Typical nutrient concentrations of this effluent are 22.6 mg/L for total N and 7.01 mg/L for <br />total P [38]. Given concerns about the potential impacts the released effluent may have on <br />nearshore water quality, an upgrade to the WWTP has been proposed in recent years. Through <br />a combination of R-1 treatment, subsurface flow constructed wetlands, and soil aquifer <br />Table 2. Assumptions regarding nutrient concentrations in released effluent for wastewater treatment <br />alternatives. <br />ols <br />(low effi <br />ATU_ upgrade (low <br />ATU uperade (hiel <br />N (mg/L) <br />60.5 <br />45.4 (25% reduction) <br />27 2 (55% reduction) <br />27 2 (55% reduction) <br />9.1 (85% reduction) <br />Current WWTP ---------------- <br />22 6 <br />Upgraded WWTP 2 3 (90 /o reduction) <br />h ps:!(dc1,org/10..�'71/�Ourr)all,przinr,025712a,1002 <br />P (mg/L) <br />Source <br />16.5 <br />[42] <br />16.5 (0% reduction) <br />[4ll] <br />13.2 (20% reduction) <br />[4Il] <br />14.9 (10% reduction) <br />[411 ] <br />11.6 (30% reduction) <br />[4111 <br />7 0 <br />[4 3] <br />0.70 (90% reduction) <br />[431 <br />PLOS ONE I Ihii tlpws://doaa .oirg/ 10.1371/�oauirirns.Il,lporne,025712 a September 8, 2021 7 / 26 <br />