United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of April 1979
Water Program Operations IWH-547) 430/9-79-012
Washington, D.C. 3 20460
Water
A History of Land
Application as a
Treatment Alternative
MCD-40
-------
Disclaimer Statement
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
PROJECT OFFICER'S NOTE: Both of the authors have been directly involved
in the land application of wastewaters on an international basis. Dr.
Jewell's interest in the history of applying municipal wastewaters to
the land evolved from contacts during postdoctoral study at the Water
Research Center in Stevenage, England, and has intensified through
continuing research involvement at the University of Texas, the University
of Vermont, and now Cornell University. Mr. Seabrook, now retired, was
personally involved in design of a land application system for an
industrial source in the 1940's. His continued interest in land application
techniques in general, and more specifically, the history of land application
has been stimulated by visits to operating systems around the world.
Long term continuous operations such as the Werribee Farm serving the
City of Melbourne, Australia, since 1897 have been of particular interest
to the authors and inspired them to address the history of land application
of wastewaters.
NOTES
To order this publication, "A History of Land Application as a Treatment
Alternative" (MCD-40) from EPA, write to:
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
Multiple copies may be purchased from:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-------
EPA 430/9-79-012
TECHNICAL REPORT
A HISTORY OF
LAND APPLICATION
AS A TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
by
William J. Jewell
Belford L. Seabrook
Richard E. Thomas
Project Officer
April 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
"Even the most ignorant peasant is quite aware that the rain falling
upon his dung-heap washes away a great many silver dollars, and that it
would be much more profitable to him to have on his fields what now poisons
the air of his house and the streets of the village; but he looks on uncon-
cerned and leaves matters to take their course, because they have always
gone on in the same way."
From: The Natural Laws of Husbandry,
p. 275
1863
Justus von Liebig
-------
SUMMARY
There are more than 3000 land treatment systems in the U.S. receiving
municipal and industrial wastewaters not including the 15 million plus septic
tanks that treat 3 billion gallons per day of wastewater. Thus, it is logical
to consider land application as a wastewater treatment option in all cases
involving public funding as mandated by P.L.92-500, a law intended to restore
and maintain the integrity of the Nation's waters. However, relatively few
practicing engineers are familiar with land treatment technology, and since
this law was passed less than 10 percent of all new systems have utilized this
option. Why has land treatment been adopted in so few instances? This review
was conducted to attempt to determine whether the history of land treatment
could assist in explaining the reasons behind the apparent reluctance to use
this wastewater treatment option, and to provide a basis of judging its future
prospects. The approach to explain the major shifts that have occurred through-
out the history of land treatment was to interweave the influences of social-
public health concerns, legal issues, and technological developments.
In ancient Greek and Roman times, public sanitation, the efficient
removal of wastes by running water, and even land application of wastewaters
were practiced. Shortly after this time and up until the early 1800's, public
sanitation was almost non-existent. Expl icit descriptions of unsanitary con-
ditions in densely populated areas of Europe were common. Large piles of
human excrement were allowed to accumulate between closely spaced houses; and,
when convenient, these wastes were either carried to fields to be used as
fertilizers or they were washed into the rivers and streams.
Most of the early developments in land treatment occurred in Britain
during the period from 1840-1890. The earliest system that is well documented
is the sewage farm for Edinburgh, Scotland begun in 1650. It was not until
1850 that installation of sewers, Chadwick's system of "arterial drainage,"
ii
-------
caused some method of treatment to be essential to alleviate gross pollution
of surface waters. Although the germ theory was not well accepted and under-
stood until 1890, the disastrous epidemics that'raised the annual death toll
of affected areas to nearly 10 percent of the total population were associated
with human wastes. These water borne epidemics resulted in great social and
legislative pressure to control sewage. Since the nutrients in waste had been
shown to have a beneficial impact on crop growth, sewage farming was sought
as the only adequate technology, and promoted as being profitable up until the
1890's. The literature of this time clearly reflects the fact that althouqh
the data from sewage farming was largely empirical, pollutant and soil inter-
actions were considered to be a purifying treatment process, that it was a
living system that possessed certain limitations that could be overloaded by
applying too much waste, and that when overloaded it would result in system failure.
Several key technological developments were responsible for changing the
status of land treatment from being the only adequate treatment system to one
of many alternatives between 1840 and 1890. Almost all the wastewater treat-
ment processes were developed and tested between 1850 and 1890 - chemical pre-
cipitation, activated carbon adsorption, trickling filters, biological contact
beds, and intermittent filtration. Knowledge of the disease carrying agents
provided insight necessary to judge the public health hazards of effluents,
and in the 1890's it became clear that sand filtration of sewage could remove
nearly all the bacteria. Water supply treatment by filtration was widely
adopted after this discovery; chlorine was introduced in 1910 and major
epidemics of typhoid and cholera were eliminated. Thus, by the late 1890's
discharge of partially treated wastewater effluents was considered to be safe
and the most cost effective alternative. Previously promoted as being profit
making ventures, land treatment of raw sewage had been shown by this time to
be unprofitable. Many systems installed in the mid 1800's were used for 30
to 50 years without increasing their size in response to growing populations.
Overloaded conditions resulted which provided highly visible negative
testimonials to their effectiveness. " '
Wastewater treatment alternatives in use in Europe were being examined by
the authorities in the U.S. in the 1890's. The image which they saw was
iii
-------
characterized by increasing debates over the alternatives, numerous overloaded
and poorly managed systems, and a rapidly developing water supply treatment
technology. During the period from 1890 to 1905, land treatment was considered
to be the most effective alternative in the U.S. and was used in most communities
with sewage treatment. But from the beginning, American engineers considered
sewage farming, intermittent filtration and other methods of land application
of wastes to be "disposal" systems. The last major text to present significant
material on land application of wastes occurred in 1930, and this information
indicated that land "disposal" of wastewaters was only a viable alternative in
the southwestern part of the country. From 1930 to the early 1970's, no major
engineering text included a section on land treatment.
By 1950, there were signs that the usual approach to pollution control was
no longer acceptable. The first major wastewater treatment legislation was
passed in 1956 (Water Pollution Control Act, P.U4-660). The eutrophication
issue which arose in the mid 1950's served to emphasize to the American
public that discharge of partially treated wastewaters into waterways was
causing serious deterioration of surface water quality. A major effort
to classify all surface waters in order to define the quantity of pollution
which could be assimilated by receiving streams was the major focus of pollution
control technologists up until the early 1970's. As the focus of pollution
control shifted to plant nutrients, the rational approach of dilution as a
solution to pollution and discharge of secondary sewage became much less
desirable. In numerous studies in the U.S. and elsewhere, it was shown that
the soil had a large assimilation capacity for many pollutants and that waste-
water and sludge could be beneficially recycled in land treatment systems. Thus,
when PL92-500 was developed, the alternative of land treatment to eliminate
discharges of partially treated wastewater was a highly attractive alternative.
Today, over 3000 land treatment systems are in use in the U.S. and some
have been effective for more than half a century. Surveys of land treatment
system failures have shown that most convert from land treatment to discharge
technology because of population expansion around the site, and not because
of a failure of the renovation capability of the soil. Economic studies
iv
-------
indicate that land treatment can be a highly cost effective technology. But
several barriers exist to widespread implementation of land treatment tech-
nologies. First, in all wastewater treatment situations involving public
funding, the technical community must include a comprehensive evaluation of
land treatment according to the new policy announced by EPA in 1977 without
the background to enable it to do so. Land treatment is now considered as
the technology of choice, and unnecessarily strict state regulations which
make it uneconomical will cause federal financial support to be withheld from
projects calling for discharge technologies. Second, the philosophy of land
treatment or soil treatment systems must replace the "disposal" concept.
Third, the large body of empirical information needs to be replaced by funda-
mental definitions of the pollution control cycles in soils, particularly those
relating to water, organics, toxic elements, and nitrogen. Finally, the topic
of the use of land for waste treatment needs to be emphasized in education of
environmental engineers, agricultural engineers, agronomists and others who
must cooperate in designing these systems. This final barrier will be partially
eliminated by the availability of a new EPA design manual for land treatment of
municipal wastewaters and a short-course educational program developed by
Cornell University.
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ii
LIST OF FIGURES vl*i
LIST OF TABLES V"
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vil1
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Historical Review Approach 2
Objectives 3
Scope of Study 3
II. HISTORY OF SANITARY SCIENCE AND LAND TREATMENT 6
General Background 6
Evolution of Land Treatment Technology - In Europe 6
Evolution of Land Treatment Technology - United States 15
III. PROMINENT FACTORS INDIRECTLY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF
LAND TREATMENT 26
Legal Activities - Britain 26
Legal Activities - United States 31
IV. TECHNOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES 37
Definition of Wastewater Treatment 39
Pollution Removal Efficiency and Economics 40
V. DISCUSSION 49
The Future of Land Treatment 52
REFERENCES 54
SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES 60
APPENDICES 63
A. U.S. E.P.A. Policy on Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater 64
B. Early Sewage Farms in Britain and the Economics of
the Facilities 68
C. Places that Have (or are Still Using) Land Treatment 70
D. List of Western Cities Using Irrigation of Sewage in
1934 and 1937 74
E. Summary of Land Treatment Technology in the Late 1800"s 75
F. Bibliography of Supplemental References from Rafter(1899) 77
G. Recommendations Which Would Encourage More Rapid and
Effective Adoption of Reliable Recycling and Reclamation
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives 82
vi
f
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Chronological development of factors partly
responsible for the changing status of land
treatment of wastewaters.
2 Chronological development of number of places
using land treatment as reported in the literature.
3 Location of land treatment sites in the U.S.
4 Relationship of deaths due to typhoid, installation
of water supplies and related technology.
5 Loading rates for sewage farms, spray irrigation
and filtration systems. Data points from: I860-'80
Birch 1879, 1888-'94 Rafter and Baker 1894,, 1906
Rideal, and 1930 Metcalf and Eddy.
6 Examples of process efficiency comparisons for the
treatment of domestic sewage. Data on unit processes
from Keefer (1940). Average effluent concentrations
are represented by the dots.
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Number and types of the 2,192 land treatment systems
reported in use in 1964.
2 Estimate of the total number of land treatment systems
presently operating in the U.S., excluding septic tanks,
3 Projected number of land treatment systems either
under construction or in planning stages.
4 Summary of the first sewage effluent discharge standard
which were developed in England {Denton, 1877).
B (Appendix) Early sewage farms in Britain and the economics
of the facilities (from Birch, 1879).
C (Appendix) Places that have (or are still using) land treat-
ment (Hartman, 1975; Rideal, 1906; Rater and Baker, 1894
Hutchins, 1939).
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
When P.L.92-500 was passed in 1972, the senior author of this report was
one of the many environmental engineers who questioned the competitiveness of
land treatment over the conventional unit process treatment and discharge
technology. This attitude was rapidly replaced by a new respect for this
wastewater treatment alternative as more information was uncovered that showed
the proven cost-effectiveness of land treatment of sewage and sludges. This
historical review has provided additional insight into the evaluation of land
application of wastes. Consideration of a number of factors which have
influenced development of wastewater treatment clearly indicate why the tech-
nology evolved, why it was nearly totally abandoned in the early 1900's and
why it has been brought back to a dominant position as a tool for water pollu-
tion control. Based upon the understanding obtained in this review, the
authors feel that the future of effective wastewater control will involve
widespread adoption of various combinations of land treatment systems.
No attempt was made here to provide a comprehensive review of all the
events that affected water pollution control with land treatment, since this
would have been beyond the scope of the study. An effort was made to correlate
a wide range of events in Europe and the U.S. during the period from 1800 to
the present which would provide a better technical perspective of one alter-
native for wastewater treatment. Many of the authors' friends and colleagues
provided valuable assistance in developing the broad overview. Of particular
assistance was the input and detailed review given by R.E. Thomas. Although
the time frame of this study was restricted, rapid responses and valuable
insights were also received from Messers D.A. Ardern, Thames Water Authority,
Lee Division, England; A.M. Bruce, Head^ Sludge Technology Section of the
Water Research Center at Stevenage, England; A.E. Collins, Divisional Manager
Thames Water, Chiltern Division, England; and C. Teitjen of the Institute fur
Pflanzenbau Und Saatgutforschung, West Germany.
Thanks go to S. Giamichael for assembling and typing the manuscript.
vi i i
-------
INTRODUCTION
Concern for water pollution control has grown considerably since passage
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (P.L.84-660), Although this
Act was amended several times, the most significant change occurred in 1972 with
the passage of P.L.92-500 which reflected the desire of the people to control
water pollution as soon as possible and as efficiently as could be afforded.
Land application of wastes was one of the technologies proposed as an alter-
native to be considered in all cases because of the high efficiencies of this
pollution control option achievable at low cost. Only strong lobbying efforts
prevented the option of land treatment from being promoted as the standard
against which other wastewater treatment alternatives should be judged.
The goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the Nation's waters involved a commitment of $18 billion --
a higher funding level than either the interstate highway system or the space
program. To achieve "zero discharge" of wastes either reuse of wastewater or
highly efficient land treatment systems would be required. However, for a
number of reasons the pollution control technical community was not ready to
adopt land application of wastes as a major alternative in the fight against
water pollution. In fact, the suggestion that this alternative could provide
the solution to water pollution was met with doubt from many engineers who
were well trained in the areas of unit process treatment and discharge (Rogers,
1972; Egeland, 1973).
During the four years following the passage of P.L.92-500 more than 2000
new wastewater facilities were built, but only about 10 percent of these
included land treatment (Freshman, 1976; Thomas, 1977). In order to emphasize
the fact that it had become mandatory to consider the option of land treatment
as of July 1, 1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy
1
-------
Administrator issued a memo on November 1, 1974 which directed each EPA
regional administrator to assure that the option of land treatment was care-
fully considered before approving EPA support of any wastewater treatment
facility. Because of the continuing reluctance of the pollution control
community to include comprehensive evaluation of land treatment technology
in its decision making processes, a memo was issued by the EPA administrator
on October 3, 1977 in order to clarify and define EPA1s policies in this area
(Costle, 1977 - see Appendix A). This memo clearly indicated that land treat-
ment technology must form the basis for comparison of all other alternatives.
This reinforcement of the intent of P.L.92-500 emphasizes the need to under-
stand the historical aspects of recycling wastes to the land.
Lack of experience and knowledge of the design and operation of land
treatment systems was reflected in passage of highly restrictive state legis-
lation shortly after the passage of P.L.92-500. Effectively, many states
assisted in avoiding the adoption of land treatment of wastewater by passing
legislation which made it difficult for this option to be considered the most
cost effective treatment alternative (Morris and Jewell, 1977). In most cases,
state regulations require or strongly urge secondary pretreatment prior to
land application of wastewaters. Since secondary treated effluent is quantified
as a dischargeable quality by EPA, it is obvious that this type of specification
makes the land treatment alternative uneconomical and thus not eligible for
federal grant support at the 75 percent level provided for the most cost-
effective alternative. The recent EPA memo (Costle, 1977) addresses the issue
by noting that "whenever states insist upon placing unnecessarily stringent
preapplication treatment requirements upon land treatment, such as requiring
EPA secondary effluent quality in all cases prior to application to land, the
unnecessary wastewater treatment facilities will not be funded by EPA."
HISTORICAL REVIEW APPROACH
The obvious question arises - "Why is land application of waste not
being selected more often?" This historical review was written to assist in
answering this question.
2
t
-------
Objectives
Land application was the only recognized technology before the develop-
ment of unit process wastewater treatment technologies. The present reluctance
to include this as a treatment option differs greatly from activities in recent
history of water pollution control. It was intended that this paper would
clarify the following: why land application of wastes evolved into the main
treatment alternative in the 1800's, why it was subsequently relegated to a
disposal alternative, why it is now being rejuvenated as the most effective
pollution control alternative, and what are its prospects for use in the future.
Land application of sewage sludge and septic tanks will not be included in
this review.
Scope of Study
In order to clarify the reasons for major shifts in technology it is
necessary to correlate the impact of a wide range of factors. This is
particularly true of the issues which must be taken into account in unraveling
the reasons why land treatment was nearly completely dismissed after many
years of being highly effective. Some of the factors which were included in
this review are:
- treatment efficiency - difference between disposal and purification
philosophy,
- influence of major technological developments,
- public health - relationship of treatment technology to disease in
populated areas,
- aesthetics and the importance of appearance,
- definition of pollution, relationship of this definition to process
efficiency,
- natural pollutant assimilation capacities, stream pollution and
dilution as a solution to pollution, and
- economics of the treatment situations.
Although the relationships of public health, process efficiency, treat-
ment efficiencies, and the other factors listed above to land treatment may seem
overly complex, the authors feel that it is a complex combination of these
factors which must be used to explain the reasons behind the changing status
3
-------
of land treatment. Figure 1 summarizes some of these events and the time
at which they occurred. This general figure will be used as a basis for
discussion in the following sections.
4
-------
C71
HISTORY OF SANITATION
Awakening of
Sanitary Science
Early Examples
Era of Development of
Sanitary Science
Application and Clarification
of Sanitary Principles
LAND TREATMENT STATUS
Profitable
Treatment Proce
ss Alter- Alternative, 1 A'lt. pient ^it
native Applications
Li mi ted
DISCHARGE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Undesirable
Toilet wastes used for
fertilizer, or washed Discharge Undesirable Partial Treatment and Discharge U—^^-jg
1nt0"aters Accepted Eutrophication
UNIT PROCESS DEVELOPMENT
(Chemical Precin, i Biol. Tn±. i&cti
^ I Contact Beds
Defi ned
ivated Sludge
Major epidemics
rH | < >l
in Europe
Trickling
Filters
PUBLIC HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
Germ Theory
Understood-^ ^
Major epidemics
h-—H
in U.S.
/-Bacteria removed by filters
fc
hiorination introduced
and implemented in U.S.
1800
'20
140 '60 '80 1900
YEAR
'20
'40
'60
'80
Figure 1. Chronological development of factors partly responsible for the changing status
of land treatment of wastewaters.
-------
HISTORY OF SANITARY SCIENCE AND LAND TREATMENT
GENERAL BACKGROUND
According to ancient history, the Greeks and the Romans were well aware
of the benefits of basic sanitation to society. There are also indications
that some form of water closets and sewers with water borne domestic wastes
were used for conveyance to land treatment areas (Doxiadis, 1973). At least
two references in the Bible refer to land application of wastes (Deuteronomy
xxiii, 13 and Judges iii, 20). However, from this period on throughout the
Dark and Middle Ages sanitation was a lost art. The period from about 1800
to 1850 represents a time of awakening of the professionals and the general
public to the need for improved sanitation, From 1850 to 1910 the era of
great developments and advancements in sanitary science occurred and the
period from 1910 to the present represents a period of implementation of tech-
nology. Many of the developments in wastewater treatment occurred in Britain
from 1850 to 1910, and whenever any municipality of size in America or on the
Continent would be interested in the latest treatment technology during this
time, a representative would be sent to Britain to review the status there.
Evolution of Land Treatment Technology - In Europe
The changing status of.land treatment in terms of the estimated number
of systems installed in Britain and the U.S. is illustrated in Figure 2. The
earliest sewage farm or sewage irrigation system documented in the literature
appears to be that of Bunzlau, Germany in 1531 (Gerhard, 1909). Next comes
the Crargentinny Meadows project which became a practice outside Edinburgh,
Scotland around 1650 (Robinson and Melliss, 1877; Stanbridge, 1976). Farmers
at first diverted the sewage flowing from the city in a small stream (called
the Foul Burn) to their fields for use as a fertilizer. It is no doubt that
this project became known and was accepted as an early example that proved the
value of nutrients in sewage. Another early project that influenced the farmers
6
-------
CO
L±J
00.
BRITAIN
u_
OQ
YEAR
Figure 2. Chronological development of number of places using land treatment.
Data summarized from Austin, 1857; Krepp, 1867; Rafter and Baker,
1894; Rafter, 1897; Rafter, 1899; Fuller and McCintock, 1926;
Hutchins, 1939; Hill, et al., 1964; Jenkins, 1970; Thomas, 1973;
and Thomas, 1977. Note that the number of grass filtration facilities
in Britain and the number of septic tanks are not included with this
data.
-------
in their thinking was when James Smith at Deanston in Stirlingshire, England
showed that toilet wastes could improve crop production (Stanbridge, 1976).
Several major events occurred at the same time around the 1840's to influence
the full scale initiation of land treatment. Liebig (1840) and others (Denton,
1842) had convinced a large following that the wet climate of Britain would
eventually result in washing all of the plant fertilizer in the soils to the
oceans; and that these nutrients could be largely replaced by recycling the
sewage back to the land. Secondly, general requirements of sanitation had been
recognized and continuous supplies of water under pressure were being developed
for many households. Sir Edwin Chadwick in 1841 proposed that along with the
water supplies, all houses should be sewered, i.e., an "arterial system of
drainage" should be installed (Chadwick, 1965 ). Sir Edwin Chadwick recognized
that Vetch's proposal to pump the sewage to the fields and distribute it with
a hose and jet (Chadwick, 1965) was the answer to proper implementation of sewage
collection systems and immediately recommended it. The first spray irrigation
sewage farm was established at Rugby, England in 1853. One of the first sewage
farms in the U.S. at Pullman, Illinois, also used spray irrigation.
As the population increased in Europe sanitary conditions deteriorated.
There are many references to excreta piles in the middle of narrow lanes in the
high density, back to back houses and tenements. This material would eventually
be carted away by contractors working to directions of the old Parish Vestries -
the first local government organizations.
Several major influences were growing stronger in the 18401s in England to
force the issues into the social and political arenas. First, many of the
waterways were being heavily polluted with runoff and direct discharge of
domestic and industrial wastes. The aesthetics and the public health aspects
of these waterways were of concern. Although the germ theory had not been
developed, it was felt that sewage contaminated waters were in some way
responsible for diseases. It was most commonly thought that volatile
products coming from the waters caused disease. Disasterous epidemics were
8
-------
occurring in large cities and caused major social unrest.1 The Cholera epidemic
of 1832-33 in London was followed by another in 1848, one in 1849 which claimed
14,600 lives, and one in 1854 which claimed 10,600 lives (Gerhard, 1909).
Throughout the period from 1840 to 1910, it appears that the epidemics and
the fears of diseases were responsible for developing public support needed
to implement sewerage systems, sewage treatment.and water treatment systems.
Several events that had a major impact on agriculture which were also
developing in the 18401s eventually had a negative impact on land treatment.
The importation of fertilizers was initiated in Britain in 1841. By 1862,
122,000 tons per year of Peruvian guano was being imported (Stanbridge, 1976).
In 1842, a patent was issued to manufacture superphosphate fertilizer from
phosphate rock using an acid process (Lawes, 1842.). In the early 1860's,
concentrated feeds were being given to stabled animals. This practice led
to a readily available supply of plant nutrients. Thus, at about the time
that the fertilizer value of domestic wastewaters and sludges was recognized,
other competing sources for plant nutrients were becoming available.
*The deplorable condition of London's basement population in 1847 was described
in the following quotes:
"There are hundreds, I may say thousands, of houses in this
metropolis which have no drainage whatever, and the greater part
of them have stinking, overflowing cesspools. And there are also
hundreds of streets, courts and alleys that have no sewers; and
how the drainage and filth are cleaned away and how the miserable
inhabitants live in such places, it is hard to tell.
In pursuance of my duties from time to time, I have visited
very many places where filth was lying scattered about the rooms,
vaults, cellars, areas, and yards, so thick and so deep that it
was hardly possible to move for it. I have also seen in such
places human beings living and sleeping in sunk rooms with filth
from overflowing cesspools exuding through and running down the
walls and over the floors . . , The effects of the effluvia, stench,
and poisonous gases constantly evolving from these foul accumula-
tions were apparent in the haggard, wan, and swarth countenances
and enfeebled limbs of the poor creatures whom I found residing
over and amongst these dens of pollution and wretchedness
John Phillips in a report on
conditions of London basements
9
-------
The Rugby, England sewage farm established in 1853 was one of the first
to use the spray irrigation system as proposed by Vetch and recommended by
Chadwick. Many systems were installed shortly after this period in Britain
and in other countries. By 1876, 35 towns used land treatment in Britain,
60 had direct discharge to rivers, 21 had direct discharge to the sea, and 19
towns used cesspools (Rideal, 1906). The profitable status of sewage farming in
England was summarized by Birch in 1879 for 50 different instances of sewage
farming (see Appendix B for summary of systems). Of the 100 or more land owners
using sewage, about 83 percent paid the municipality for its use at this time.
Birch (1879) mentions that there was a great deal of discussion surrounding
the question of chemical precipitation versus the use of sewage farms. This
would appear to be the beginning of discussions about which type of treatment
was appropriate to provide environmental protection at a reasonable cost.
By 1870 it became increasingly apparent that the demands of sewage
purification and agriculture were not always compatible. The crops did not
need to be irrigated at various periods, and if the sewage must be applied
it could adversely affect the crop. It was reported that a considerable amount
of "by passing" to rivers began to occur at the English sewage farms especially
during harvest and in the cold weather (Fuller and McClintock, 1926).
The first successful attempt to convert soil treatment into a controlled
unit process operation was when Sir Edwin Franklin developed the intermittent
filter (Second Commission on River Pollution, 1870; Dunbar and Calvert, 1908).
This was first reported by the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Sewage Discharge
in 1870. The following comments are from the report regarding this process:
"...(Franklin) instituted a series of experiments, and
established the faat that by passing sewage through a suitably
porous soil not constantly but intermittently, a high degree of
purification could be ensured, the object of the intermittence
being to aerate the filter and so give an opportunity for the
purifying action of> the oxygen. It is explained that a filter
so used is not a mere mechanical contrivance, but a chemical
apparatus for oxidizing and thus altogether transforming, as
well as for separating, the filth of dirty water.
10
-------
These experiments on the filtration of sewage through various
materials leave no doubt that this liquid can be effectively purified
by such processes, and that probably any variety of porous and finely
divided soil may, be employed for this purpose.
With a properly constituted soil well and deeply drained,
nothing more would be necessary than to level the surface and to
divide it into four equal plots, each of which in succession would
then receive the sewage for six hours. In this way the sewage of
a Mater-closet town of 10,000 inhabitants could, at a very moderate
estimate, be cleansed upon five acres of land, if the latter were
well drained to the depth of six feet."
In futher explaining the process, Franklin makes the following analogy:
"A field of porous soil irrigated intermittently virtually
performs an act of respiration, copying on an enormous scale the
lung action of a breathing animal; for it is alternately receiving
and expiring air, and thus dealing as an oxidizing agent with the
filthy fluid which is trickling through it. And a whole acre of
soilj 3 or 4 feet deep, presenting within it such an enormous lung
surface, must be far superior as an oxidizer, for dealing with the
drainage of 100 people, to any filter that could be practically
worked for this purpose."
There are several points that should be noted in the above quote. First,
sewage farming arid this new process were considered to be sewage purifying
or treatment processes. The term "disposal" in relation to land application
is a modern term and was rarely applied in relation to the above processes.
Denton (1870) clearly indicated that:
"Most authorities know that it (sewage) must pass through
a considerable quantity of soil before it is suited for discharge
to rivers. By thus increasing (through drainage), horizontally
as well as vertically, the amount of soil through which the sewage
will travel, it will become oxygenized in the same way as is the
case with sewage passing several miles down a river."
Thus, 20 years before the significance of biological processes and before
the existence of bacteria were known, the capability of soils as a treatment
system was known. Further, the concept of rate limiting or loading rate in
relation to an assimilation capacity was well understood, and oxygen or aerobic
conditions were stated in a number of places to be absolutely necessary for the
11
-------
continued operation of soil treatment systems. In 1871 an engineer prominent
in land application of wastes wrote a book entitled, "Sewage, the Fertilizer
of Land and Land the Purifier of Sewage" (Denton, 1871),
Because intermittent filtration was such a new process and a unique
approach, the England Rivers Pollution Commissioners suggested a number of
objections that would be raised (1868):
"First3 that the plan is wasteful3 is not fitted for producing
crops. Secondly3 that the concentration of so large an amount of
sewage on a small area will produce greater nuisance than other
modes of treatment, Thirdly3 that the soil receiving such large
quantities of sewage will3 after a timea become overloaded and
clogged3 so losing its filtering power. Fourthlys that the cost
of preparing the land is so great as to preclude its adoption; and
fifthlyt that the success of the process would be doubtful with
ordinary management on a large scale."
An extensive publication by Denton citing 14 years of operational experiences
with intermittent filtration with a number of systems provides considerable
insight into the answers given to the above objections (Denton 1885). In
general, all were shown through full scale operations to have little basis
in fact. It is interesting to compare the above objections to those brought
up by critics of land treatment today.
In 1871, Denton successfully applied the intermittent filtration concept
at Merthyr Tydfi1, Glamorganshire, Great Britain. Following this application, 12
additional installations were made (Denton, 1877).
In 1877, Denton suggested that treatment and disposal of sewage must be
accomplished by "the best practicable and reasonably available means." It was
also in 1877 that Denton suggested that the best treatment system consisted
of a combination of intermittent filtration and sewage farming. This suggestion
was made in order to make land treatment more flexible during bad weather,
crop harvest and other periods when it was difficult to use the sewage to
advantage in agriculture.
-------
In 1869 this technology reached its peak in England and Denton predicted
that "all towns will eventually use land treatment of ... wastewaters" (Denton,
1877).
Large sewage farms were begun during this period at Paris, France (in 1869--
Manning, 1876) and at Berlin, Germany, (in 1874). The Berlin system was to
become one of the largest in the world, and it also represented the only
example where unit processes such as trickling filters were abandoned in
favor of expansion of the sewage farm as the population expanded. This occurred
in 1930 when unit processes were being adopted in most of the remainder of
the world.
The status of land treatment in 1877 is reflected by conclusions drawn
by Denton from a series of lectures on Sanitary Engineering:
"I. That the liquid refuse of towns, villages3 hamlets 3 insti-
tutions3 and dwellings3 can only be continuously3 effectively3
and economically cleansed and rendered legally admissible
into inland rivers by application to land»
II. That when agricultural land can be obtained for the purpose
at a cost not exceeding fifty percent above its ordinary
saleable value3 resulting in a rent-charge not exceeding
SO shillings an acre3 the sewage should be applied to it on
the principle of surface irrigation on a wide scale3 combined
with intermittent filtration through a small proportion of
the land area purchased.
III. Sewage farming can never be remunerative...so long as (the
farmer) is compelled to take and cleanse the sewage at all
times and under all conditions. It is3 therefore3 essential
that a properly prepared plot of land for intermittent
filtration should be held by the local authority3 to receive
the sewage when not wanted by the farmer."
The Committee on the Sewage of Towns appointed by the Local Board gave
the following conclusion in 1862 regarding the status of land treatment of
sewage:
13
-------
"9. The earth possesses the power of absorbing from sewage all
the manure which it contains, if the dressings in volume
are proportioned to the depth, and quality of the soil."
"IS. Sewage may be advantageously applied to land throughout the
entire year."
"18. Large dressings and an over-taxed soil may pollute surface
streams, subsoils3 and shallow wells."
A list of early land treatment systems, the dates which they were placed in
service, and their termination date, is given in Appendix C.
From the 1880's to the late 1890's there were increasing discussions as
to whether direct discharge, unit process treatment and discharge, or land
treatment was the best alternative. Sedimentation, chemical precipitation,
screening, and other pretreatment was often combined with some form of land
treatment. By the turn of the century, the towns had expanded resulting in
increasing loadings on sewage farms with populations moving closer. Because
of the inability of these systems to expand, they were largely replaced with
percolating (trickling)filters and later, activated sludge. Most sewage farms
have been closed today in Britain.
Land treatment is still used extensively in Britain for final
"polishing" of the effluent from modern wastewater treatment facilities.
Grass plots are used as overland flow systems to achieve additional suspended
solids and nutrient removal (Institute of Water Pollution Control, England, 1974).
Four to six plots of grass are arranged with a slope of about 1 in 100 with
channels at the top to apply and at the bottom to collect the runoff. The loading
o o
rate of effluents on these plots is about 1.2 m per m per day (Ardern, 1977).
They are periodically dried and the grass is removed. Typical results from
one large facility (35,000 people) is to reduce the BODg, SS, and ammonia to
below 10 mg/£, each resulting in a 50 percent, 55 percent, and 73 percent
reduction in these parameters, respectively (Ardern, 1977).
-------
Evolution of Land Treatment Technology - United States
The first comprehensive reviews of sewage disposal in the U.S. noted
that the discussion of the various approaches to waste-water treatment was
increasing (Rafter and Baker, 1894*, Rafter, 1897, 1899). Rafter's work provides
insight into wastewater treatment in the early days of development of land
treatment in the U.S. An annotated bibliography prepared by Rafter (1899)
is included as Appendix F. Even though land treatment had begun to be
replaced by discharge technologies in Europe in the late 1800's, Rafter felt
that land application of wastes was much more effective than any treatment
and discharge alternatives. A summary of the general principles discussed by
Rafter (1897 - 1899) indicated that the technology was highly sophisticated
by this time and that the main principles were surprisingly well defined (see
Appendix E). For example, it was suggested that high rate intermittent filtra-
tion areas be included in crop irrigation systems so that a treatment area
would always be available when wastewater could not be profitably applied to
crop land. Issues such as public health were not considered to present
significant problems.
Rafter's second report (1899) focused on the status of treatment in the
U.S. Most of the 143 sewage treatment facilities in the U.S. and Canada as of
1899 were land treatment systems. The controversy over chemical precipitation
taking place in Europe did little to convince Rafter of the advantages since he
noted that: "All town authorities need to understand that, with other con-
ditions equal, the capitalized cost of land purification processes is ordinarily
less than that of the chemical. Farmers in the vicinities of towns need also
to understand this, as well as the benefits to themselves to be derived from
the utilization of sewage in agriculture."
The first sewage crop irrigation system in the U.S. was constructed in
1872 in Augusta, Maine, with a flow of 7000 gpd. A detailed list of facilities
included in Appendix C includes those cited by Rafter (1899). By the late
1880's, several eastern cities and 8 western, cities used some version of sewage
farm and 6 intermittent filters were in use (Rafter and Baker, 1894).
15
-------
The model community in Pullman, Illinois, built by the Pullman railroad
manufacturing company, utilized the spray irrigation system in 1881. It
had a population of about 11,000. In 1892, the average daily flow was 1.85
MGD and the system used less than 140 acres. This was the first large scale
U.S. sewage farm, and it is important from the standpoint that the designers
recognized the principle of providing filter areas for surplus sewage not needed
for the best results in crop irrigation.
The Pullman system received a considerable amount of attention. Visitors
reported a considerable amount of raw sewage by-passing during cold weather
into Lake Calumet (Rafter, 1899). This raised public health questions since
Lake Calumet's rice was used by the people of Chicago. It was also noted
that the soil of the Pullman system was about 1 foot deep and this was underlain
with a clay subsoil.
Around the turn of the century the system at Pullman, Illinois, failed in
what was termed a "spectacular" manner (Babbitt, 1947) and land treatment had
definitely shifted from being the optimum technology to a less desirable alter-
native. Several reasons appeared to be responsible for this change in attitudes
at this time, with the technical reasons of secondary importance. The older
systems in Europe had increasing population loads on them and in many cases
there was no opportunity for them to increase the size of the sewage farms.
The first English sewage farm at Rugby, England, which had operated since 1853
was converted to biological filtration in 1909. The effects of increased
loadings on system performance will be discussed later in this report.
These examples of changing systems and concepts led U.S. engineers to
question the effectiveness of land treatment technology. Rafter and Baker
(1894) suggested that land treatment would be too expensive and, therefore,
unpopular in the U.S. because of the high labor costs. Because of this they
suggested that it would be useful at institutions where cheap labor was
available. It is doubtful that this suggestion led many to consider this
alternative. By 1897 Rafter had changed his philosophy and felt strongly
that land treatment would be successfully adopted in the U.S.
16
%
4
-------
It is unclear why labor intensive questions arose at this time since no
other reference of this day identifies this as a major issue. The main problem
stated by many, was that land treatment systems required careful and continuous
management. The English system at Aldershop became famous as an example of
poor management when it was only managed for crop production, and Colonel Jones
took it over and turned it into a good example of wastewater treatment (Birch, 1879).
Another limiting factor was the influence of cold weather. It was stated
that the technology would not be suitable except in the southwestern U.S., thus
eliminating most of the area where the population was distributed (Rafter and
Baker, 1894; Metcalf and Eddy, 1930). In 1899 Rafter noted that no problem with
cold weather would be experienced as long as the temperature did not average
less than 32°F. A line between Boston and Portland, Maine denoted the northern
limit for sewage farming according to Rafter (1897).
The period between 1900 and 1920 was an ambivalent period for land treat-
ment techology. In 1926 the following confusing statements were made by
Fuller and McClintock (1926):
"Under favorable conditions sewage filtered through the material
of a sewage farm represents the highest degree of purity that is_
feasible to obtain ...
Land treatment can rarelys if ever, compete with other methods
now available for sewage disposal . ..
In summary, therefore3 it is fair to state that broad irrigation
or sewage f'earning is likely to be largely superseded by more modern
methods of sewage treatment in most cases. " -
The above quote reflects several major, shifts in philosophy. The obvious
is that land treatment was no longer favored or eyen thought to be a yiable
alternative for the future. Perhaps more important in relation to the future
of the technology is the shift to the concern for sewage "disposal" and the
concept that other processes are more desirable even though they are less
efficient in purifying the wastewaters. At this time, one of the primary
attractive features of competing processes such as activated sludge (developed
in 1914) was that it could be used to produce partially treated effluents
(Slater, 1888).
17
-------
The desire to produce only partially treated wastewaters for discharge
was a reflection of the development of the legal-political concerns of the
time. However, several other technological developments probably had as strong
an impact on the changing role of land treatment as any. These relate to
bacteria and its role in wastewater treatment, disease and water supply treatment.
These will be discussed in some detail later.
Hutchins (1939) reviewed sewage irrigation practices in the western states
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) in order to determine the
existing practice and whether it should be promoted. He reported on 125
municipalities that were recycling domestic sewage back to the land. From 1934
to 1937, 11 communities discontinued the use of sewage in agriculture,
primarily because of poor soil characteristics, insufficient water volume to
supply the demand, or insufficient available land. In general, this U.S.D.A.
bulletin was positive towards the use of sewage in agriculture.
An interesting follow-up study was provided to the Hutchins survey by
Pound and Crites (1973, Appendix B). They surveyed the same sites to determine
those which had ceased or changed their operation. In 1973, nearly 40 years
after the Hutchins survey, 84 percent of the systems that were operating in
1937 were still in operation. Most of those that had ceased operation did so
because of population growth and expansion around the land treatment areas.
Land treatment systems continued to be built but at a slow rate between
1920 and 1960 in the U.S. By 1964 it was estimated that there were about 2,200
land treatment systems in use (Hill, et al., 1964). These were divided among
the categories as shown in Table 1. Thomas (1973) summarized the data on the
number of places using land treatment of wastewater from 1940 to 1972. The data
shown in Figure 2 on page 7 includes this information. As noted by Thomas, there
is no single source of data which records the total number of land treatment
systems in use. This is primarily due to the number of different groups involved
in pollution control. Many small communities, private industries, especially
food processors, and others utilize land application of wastes. Although the
U.S. E.P.A. is the primary source for funding of wastewater facilities, today
the Farmers Home Administration (F.H.A.) provides grants and loans to a
-------
TABLET. NUMBER AND TYPES OF THE 2,192 LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS '
. REPORTED IN USE IN 1964 (Hill, Bendixen, and Robeck, 1964).
Distribution According
Type Wastewater
Domestic
Food Products
Petroleum
Miscellaneous
Distribution According to
Method or Place Applied
Surface
Irrigation
Subsurface
Miscellaneous
to Wastewater Handled
Number of System
914
844
179
255
Wastewater Application Method
Number of System
546
367
702
417
19
-------
significant number of small communities who often choose land treatment
technology. The F.H.A. was given responsibility of funding water supply and
wastewater treatment facilities in rural communities in P.L.89-240 passed in
October, 1965. They are presently bound by the definition of rural places
as given by the Rural Development Act which raised the maximum population to
10,000 in 1972. The total amount of wastewater facility support allocated
since inception of this program is $1.3 billion, affecting nearly 6000 projects
(Calhoun,1977). The average individual grant was for $389,310 in the 1976
fiscal year. Many of these 6000 projects would involve land treatment systems.
The present distribution of authority between E.P.A. and F.H.A. has caused
some problems in implementing land treatment technology. E.P.A. has a three-
step design and construct payment procedure. They provide for payment to
engineers at the end of step one for the infiltration-inflow analysis, environ-
mental impact statements or assessments and a study of the regional design
approaches that might be used to solve the waste treatment problem. The
second step involves the preparation of final plans, specifications, and
contract documents. The third deals with the development and construction of
the actual facility. Often F.H.A. is brought into the decision making process
after step one or two has been completed. Even if land treatment has not been
adequately investigated, the investment of several years effort makes it
prohibitive to reconsider the issue of land treatment. A recommendation to
include a representative of F.H.A. in step one is among several made by
Seabrook (1977 - see Appendix G) to increase the efficiency of delivery of
this technology.
A recent attempt to estimate the number of land treatment systems presently
in use (excluding individual septic tanks) is shown in Table 2. The approximate
number of 3400 indicates that between 10 and 20 percent of all treatment systems
in the U.S. are land treatment systems. Estimates of existing facilities that
have proposed changes to land treatment and projections for the use of the
technology in the future shows that the fraction beginning to consider using
land treatment is increasing (see Table 3). Although the projections for
future use would increase the number of land treatment systems by about 50
percent, a much larger increase will occur if the recent E.P.A. memo (Costle,
1977) achieves its intended objective.
20
-------
TABLE 2. ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
PRESENTLY OPERATING IN THE U.S., EXCLUDING INDIVIDUAL
SEPTIC TANKS
Publically Owned Facilities Financed by E.P.A. - P.L.84-660* 60
Publically Owned Facilities Financed by E.P.A. - P.L.92-500 300
Publically Owned Facilities Financed by F.H.A. - P.L.89-240 1,600
Publically Owned Facilities Built Without Federal Grants** 250
Private Systems for Privately Owned Housing 50
Private Industrial Systems 1,200
Total 3,410
*Facility equipment only eligible for support under PL84-660. The cost of
land was not supported by this grant in facilities such as the large facility
constructed at Muskegon, Michigan.
**Many of these were included in the review in reference Sullivan, et al., 1973.
TABLE 3. PROJECTED NUMBER OF LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS EITHER UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR IN PLANNING STAGES (Thomas, 1977).
Status
Total
Number
Number
Identified as
Land Treatment
Information
Source
Facilities being
built or upgraded
2500
250
EPA Grants Program
Proposed for future
construction or
1976 Facilities
upgrading
8000
1400
Needs Survey
21
-------
The above survey includes the 100+ systems documented by the American Public
Works Association (Sullivan, 1973). This survey of U.S. systems is an important
reference because it documents the fact that this technology was in use in
many places throughout the U.S. in 1972, and that it was highly reliable and
a good treatment alternative. The approximate location of U.S. systems, men-
tioned in the literature, are shown in Figure 3. This data illustrates that
the systems are distributed throughout the U.S.
The beginning of the renewal of interest in land treatment in the U.S.
occurred in the late 1950's as a result of a growing concern over availability
of water resources. Desalination using brackish and salt water was under
investigation as was the topic of reclamation and recycle of wastewaters.
Decreasing groundwater levels, salt water intrusion and growth limited by
the availability of high quality water were common problems, especially in the
arid western regions of the country. Since more than 15 million septic tanks
were in use, treating a flow of more than 3 billion gallons per day, it was
clear that the soil had a significant pollutant assimilation capacity, but that
it was poorly defined, thus, long-term definitive studies for reclamation and
recycle of wastewaters were initiated by the University of California at
Berkeley and the University of Southern California at Los Angeles to more
clearly identify limiting parameters. Several studies concentrated on the
hydraulic capacities and bacterial removal properties of soil systems when
sewage was surface applied (Orlob and Butler, 1955; Gotaas,_et al., 1955).
This data showed that five California soils could accept 0.5 to 1 foot per day
of wastewater, and that bacterial removal occurred in the first few feet of
soil. One of the classic publications from this group emphasizes that the soil
is a treatment system, and if understood, could be used to effectively control
pollutants (McGauhey, et al., 1966).
The California State Water Pollution Control Board has sponsored research
on wastewater reclamation and utilization since its activation in 1950. The
first project conducted by the University of Southern California concerned
underground recharge by sewage spreading (State Water Pollution Control
Board, California, 1953). Subsequent studies focused on such topics as
groundwater recharge potential from sewage, pretreatment needs, recreational
22
-------
127
178
*»
106
258
623
«. US cited In
. nf laod treatment site|ti&^ndVclted by numbers
Fisuve 3. Location, &W numbers per
-------
use of reclaimed sewage (on golf courses), and recycling of sewage sludge in
agriculture (State Water Pollution Control Board, California Report Numbers
6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 18). Although the results of these studies are too
extensive to include here, examples of some of the findings of these large
scale studies serve to emphasize the advanced state of understanding of the
soil as a wastewater treatment system more than 20 years ago. A demonstration
in Talbert Valley, California, showed that it was possible for a group of
private farmers to organize, finance, and construct a wastewater reclamation
system to utilize sewage effluent for economical irrigation of field crops.
Several golf courses used reclaimed sewage and showed that.planning could control
all problems related to odors, corrosion, chlorination for pathogen control and
soil salinity. Public acceptance was not a problem. In several full scale
studies it was shown that simple wastewater treatment systems consisting of
algal ponds would adequately treat raw sewage so that it could be surface
spread without problems and provide drinking water quality recharged to the
groundwater. Large scale sludge recycling studies showed that it would be
cheaper to use digested sewage sludge in agriculture than to produce a dry
sludge. Sludge application rates as high as 100 tons per acre were found to
have beneficial effects on crops. One of the primary conclusions was that:
"A sewage farm can provide necessary secondary treatment and disposal of an
amenable waste in an economical manner, or even provide the municipality with
a substantial monetary return" (State Water Pollution Control Board, California,
1955 - Report No. 12).
It is difficult to explain why the above impressive findings in the mid
1950's did not cause the sanitary engineering profession to utilize land
treatment more widely. The discharge of partially treated wastewaters was
the most common objective in most of the U.S. during this period. There
was probably also concern as to whether the results obtained in the warm
arid areas would apply to cold wet climates. The well known studies begun
in 1964 by Pennsylvania State University served to answer the questions regarding
the impact of climate (Parizak, _et jH., 1967). The positive support provided
by the promotion which the "living filter" received in these studies provided
the needed link to the past land treatment activites. This link served to
create confidence in the safe adoption of sewage irrigation.
-------
Another major step that occurred in the renewal of this technology was the
construction of the large regional Muskegon, Michigan treatment system. This
example served to illustrate that the technology could be successfully imple-
mented on a large scale to meet the goals of P.L.92-500.
An important influence on the re-emerging technology of land treatment
occurred as a result of the academic influence. The major engineering text-
books reflect trends and also establish them. Perhaps the most popular sanitary
engineering textbooks of the early 19001s were those published by the consulting
engineering firm of Metealf and Eddy (1914). In the last edition in which sewage
treatment by land was discussed (1930), it was not presented in a favorable
light. Land application of wastes was called a "disposal" method because it
"is an uncontrolled natural process" and, therefore, was to be classified in
the same area as the purification that occurs in discharges or disposal to
streams. Sewage farming up to this time had not been adopted on a large scale
in the U.S. even though it had been applied to flows up to 570 MGD (4570 M6D
during rain season) in other parts of the world (Mexico City, reported by
Seabrook, 1972) and sewage farms of 50,000 acres or more were established in
other areas.
Few if any students in wastewater control technology had access to texts
on land treatment during the period from 1950 through the present. Conspicuous
in its absence was any mention of land treatment in Fair and Geyer's well
known text, Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal (1954).
25
-------
PROMINENT FACTORS INDIRECTLY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TREATMENT
The previous section attempts to briefly summarize the history of land
treatment without providing much background as to why certain changes took
place. In reality it is impossible to separate the technical developments
in one area from those in closely related areas, or to interpret isolated
events without including background in the political and social areas in relation
to the technology. This section will be used to attempt to weave into the
history of land application of wastes, the major peripheral events and under-
standing which appear to be significant in shaping the fate of land treatment
technology.
LEGAL ACTIVITIES - BRITAIN
Almost all the legislation affecting land treatment up to about 1872
was enacted by British authorities. The earliest statute on water pollution
appears to be one of 1388 which prohibited the throwing of dung, filth, and
garbage into ditches, rivers or other waters of nearby tov/ns. A Bill of Sewers
was passed in 1531 empowering the Crown to establish commissioners. This
bill was not replaced until the Land Drainage Act of 1930. Another bill
passed in 1535 provided that "a penalty of one hundred shillings should be
paid by any person annoying the Thames or casting dung into that river"
(Ardern, 1977). The beginning of sanitary science was marked by the 1844,
"Health of Towns Commission Report." This provided a written record of the
nuisances that existed at this time. The problem of sewers backing up into
the basements of cities where sewer discharges to tidal areas was felt to be
a health hazard, as was the deposits of fecal matter on the streets. "In some
cases, whole towns deposited their wastes on the streets, even from the second
story windows or balconies." "Out shot closets" or toilets with pi pes leading
directly to ditches or streams were common at this time. It is easy to under-
stand why Chadwick proposed his "arterial system of drainage" in order to
correct these types of problems.
26
-------
In 1847 the British Towns Improvement Clauses Act first recognized land
treatment as a means of dealing with sewage. It should be remembered that
this was a time period of the great epidemics, when the death rate of various
cities soared up as high as 100 per 1000 population. In 1855 the Nuisance
Removal Act was enacted to provide local authorities with the power to order
individuals* industries, or whole villages to clean up, to be able to
designate some authority to do it for them and to force the offenders to pay
for the costs of doing it. In 1865 the Commission on Towns Sewage Disposal
stated that "land application was the only way to avoid river pollution and
make a profit." At this time some towns were convinced that a profit
could be made in sewage farming and cancelled agreements with farmers and
started city owned operations.
The Sewage Utilization Acts of 1865 and 1867 prohibited construction of
sewers that might have a direct discharge into rivers or ocean where a
nuisance could be created. This legislation provided for the acquisition
of land and the construction of sewage works. In 1868 the British Association
on the Treatment and Utilization of Sewage produced the first comprehensive
report on this topic.
The first Royal Rivers Pollution Commission published their first com-
prehensive report in 1872, and provided a great deal of information on the
role of land application of waste. This report was significant since it
produced among other things recommendations for the quality of effluents
that could be discharged to rivers. The recommended discharge standards
published in this report are reproduced in Table 4 along with another set
of standards established for the Thames River. It is interesting to compare
these standards developed more than 100 years ago to those promulgated as
a result of BL92-500. Several parameters, such as suspended solids are the
same. The fact that these standards were ahead of their time is reflected
by the fact that they were first adopted by the government in power when they
were recommended and then rejected by the next government. They were not used
after that except as a reference to effluent quality which was difficult to
acheive by treatment processes other than land treatment (Slater, 1888).
27
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF THE FIRST SEWAGE EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
STANDARDS WHICH WERE DEVELOPED IN ENGLAND
(Denton, 1877)
A. River Discharge Standards - Conservation of the River Thames
1. It should be free from an offensive odor.
2. It should be free from suspended matters, or in other words,
be perfectly clear.
3. It should not be alkaline to tumeric - paper or acid to litmus
paper.
4. It should not contain per gallon more than 60 grains of solid
matter dried at 260°F.
5. It should not contain more than three quarters of a grain of
organic and ammoniacal nitrogen per gallon.
6. It should not contain more than two grains of organic carbon
per gallon.
7. It should contain not less than one cubic unit of free oxygen
in a gallon.
B. Standards suggested by the Rivers Pollution Commission
1. Any liquid containing in suspension more than three parts by
weight dry mineral matter, or one part by weight of dry organic
matter in 100,000 parts by weight of the liquid.
2. Any liquid containing in solution more than two parts by weight
of organic carbon, or 0,3 part by weight of organic nitrogen
in 100,000 parts by weight.
3. Any liquid shall exhibit by daylight a distinct colour when a
stratum of it one inch deep is placed in a white porcelain or
earthenware vessel.
4. Any liquid which contains in solution, in 100,000 parts by weight,
more than two parts by weight ofany metal except calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
5. Any liquid which, in 100,000 parts by weight, contains whether
in solution or suspension, in chemical combination or otherwise,
more 0.05 parts by weight of metallic arsenic.
6. Any liquid which contains, in 100,000 parts by weight, more than
one part by weight of sulphur, in the condition either of sul-
phuretted hydrogen or of a soluble sulphuret.
7. Any liquid possessing an acidity greater than that which is produced
by adding two parts by weight of real muriatic acid to 100 parts
by weight of distilled water.
8. Any liquid possessing an alkalinity greater than that produced by
adding one part by weight of dry caustic soda to 1000 parts by
weight of distilled water.
28
-------
Although the discharge standards shown in Table 1 could not be achieved
by unit processes available in 1872 (mainly chemical precipitation), the
well operated sewage farms could easily meet these standards of water quality
in water discharged from the underdrains of the fields. The importance of
these standards was not in their influence in the application of the technology,
but in suggesting that partially treated wastewaters with some solids and color
could be safely discharged to rivers. Essentially this established the back-
ground philosophy which indicated that any technology which could achieve these
standards in an easier or less expensive manner than sewage farming would be
capable of producing a dischargeable effluent. It would appear that these
standards assisted in providing the early thinking necessary for adoption of
processes less efficient than the land treatment that were used 30 years hence.
Slater (1888) noted that these standards had been persistently "obtruded
upon the public" and that they were nearly adopted in the Sewage Bill of 1887.
He criticizes the standards by noting that they raised the possibility of a
manufacturer withdrawing enough river water to dilute its effluent to
obtain the required concentration; and therefore, indicates that all standards
based on concentration are "fundamentally and essentially absurd." Slater
goes on to comment that; "It is therefore, I submit, the duty of the public
to dismiss them (the standards) as impracticable, unpractical, and even
dangerous, and to propose some simpler standards, less elaborate, and turning
less on disputable analyses."
It appears that the discussion of various techniques of sewage treatment
had reached an intensive level by 1888. Slater (1888) notes that, "Unfortunately
there is no subject, outside the range of party politics, on which so much envy,
hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness prevail as on the treatment of sewage.
But I ask people to judge by the evidence of their own senses. Do not read
about this or that process, but go and look. I know instances where bitter
enemies of chemical processes have been convinced of their error by just one
unexpected and unprepared for visit of inspection."
According to the timing, the number of attendees, and the topics discussed,
it appears that the most significant meeting in the history of sanitary
29
-------
engineering took place in 1876 at the Conference on the Health and Sewage
of Towns sponsored by the Society of Arts in England. Speakers included
Col. Jones, Latham, Birch, Marham, Franklin, Dupre, Dewar, and Dibdin, many
of whom had written or were in the process of writing texts on sewage treat-
ment and disposal. This meeting provided a forum to discuss various processes
and sewage works. According to Slater (1888), "irrigationists, and filtra-
tionists led the discussion at this meeting, but room was left for the friends
of precipitation as rationally conducted with the aid of absorbents.1"
The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876 was a mild measure which was
considered to be a failure because it was not enforced (Slater, 1888). It
did not fix any standards for discharge and it ignored completely the earlier
Royal Commission recommendations. Further, it attempted to protect the
existing municipalities and industries by making them exempt from the regu-
lations. Another omission from this legislation was the lack of any concern
regarding the status of groundwater.
In 1884 the second report of the England Royal Commission on Metropolitan
Sewage Discharge indicated that most authorities were "strongly and unanimously
in favor of land treatment." This was an influential stand because it provided
the authoritative basis for all town local boards to require that adequate land
be purchased in all cases of sewage treatment where public financing was to be
involved. From this time until 1901, all instances of sewage treatment facility
construction were required to purchase enough land to incorporate land treatment,
even if the town was adopting a discharge technology. In 1901 the Local Govern-
ment Board allowed financing of a sewage treatment system at Newcastle-Under-
Lyme without the purchase of land for the first time since the 1884 report
(Stanbridge, 1976).
Because of the increasing debates surrounding the proper sewage treatment
technology, the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal was asked to determine
Plater was referring to process such as the ABC process in which the letters
stand for alum, blood, and clay. The alum acted as the precipitant while
dried blood and clay were thought to be the absorbents. The product sludge
was sold as a high quality fertilizer.
30
t
-------
whether the new methods of treatment would be efficient enough to allow
discharge around the turn of the century. In 1901 the Commission reported
that land treatment was "impractical in some cases, and that artificially
treated wastewaters could be discharged."
By 1912 the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal had adopted effluent
standards which included a BOD and suspended solids of 20 mg/&. Complete
treatment was considered to be technology which would meet these standards.
Therefore, it is clear that the legislative history of Britain made it
possible and probably preferable to convert from land treatment to partial
treatment and discharge.
LEGAL ACTIVITIES - U.S.
Complete purification of wastewaters was not a goal of U.S. legislation
and sewage treatment activities until 1972. Early sewage legislation and
research was conducted by the states. Perhaps the concepts of natural
stream purification and dilution as a solution to pollution was most prominent
since local pressures were mainly responsible .for control measures. Collection
of information on U.S. sewage practice was initiated when the Massachusetts
legislature requested that the Massachusetts Board of Health review the topic
on April 16, 1872 (Rafter and Baker, 1894). In 1876 the 4th Board of Health
Report states that there "is no better recepticle than the ocean for the
sewage."
In 1884 there was considerable concern that industry should be given
special privileges to develop, and the Mill Acts grew out of this concern.
Although this legislation was not intended to affect sewage treatment it was
responsible for establishing the "Principle of Permissive Pollution" in which
industries were allowed to use the streams and rivers as sewers so that they
could continue to develop and benefit the community without being inhibited
with the cost or inconvenience of wastewater pollution control (Rafter and
Baker, 1899; Metcalf and Eddy, 1930).
The principle of natural stream purification had been under study for
some time when the Massachusetts legislature passed a law which stated that
31
-------
tO miles of passage of raw sewage in a flowing stream will purify it so that
it can be used as a drinking water source around 1890 (Rafter and Baker, 1894).
At about this same time a New Jersey Court held that sewage from 15,000 could
be directly discharged raw into a river where it received a dilution of at least
80:1, flow 4 miles and safely enter the water supply of a population of 400,000
people.
Dilution as a solution to pollution has long been considered as a major
philosophy of wastewater control. In 1894 the minimum dilution required was
thought to be 10:1 and usually it was taken to be greater than 50:1 (Rafter and
Baker, 1894). The British Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal Report of 1912
recommended a dilution of 500:1. In 1930 the U.S. rule of thumb was to use
a dilution of 100:1 for the discharge of raw sewage (Metcalf and Eddy, 1930).
The above discussion of early legislation on water pollution control in
the U.S. should not be taken to mean that there was little concern over
pollution. In fact, there was great concern and activity in this area. However,
the distribution of the population and the availability of large quantities
of water in proximity to most of the population decreased the urgency of the
problem. It should also be noted that this period was when the germ theory
was becoming well accepted (1890) and also much debate was occurring in Europe
over the most desirable waste treatment process.
In 1914 fifteen prominent sanitary engineers were commissioned to
establish drinking water quality standards. Since the branch of government
in charge of the development was in the U.S. Treasury, these were first called
the Treasury standards. They later formed the basis for the development of
National standards when in 1974 Congress passed the first comprehensive safe drinking
Water Act (f?L.93-523). The passage of this law is important in regards to land
treatment since EPA had little authority over wastewater discharges to the
groundwater prior to the passage of this bill. The Drinking Water standards
provide clearly defined water quality criteria and land treatment systems must
be able to ensure that the groundwater under land treatment sites can continue
to meet these standards if the groundwater is presently being used as a source
of drinking water, or if it is a potential source. Land treatment systems are
-------
allowed to have groundwater quality less than drinking water in cases where it
is agreed that it is not a potential drinking water source. The EPA regional
administrators assist in developing the level of treatment standards for these
sites.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (P.L.84-660) was the first
law to provide Federal funding for publicly owned sewage plants (Seabrook, 1975)
However, funding support was limited to the treatment system and did not include
cost of land. Equipment purchased for wastewater treatment at the Muskegon land
treatment system received support under this law.
Considerable emphasis was placed on the definition of stream assimilation
capacities and the optimum use of dissolved oxygen"resources in streams from
the 1950's to the early 1970's. A Nationwide effort to classify streams
according to their optimum use and to prescribe only the required partial
treatment required to meet the stream standard into which the wastewater was
discharged was the main focus of wastewater treatment during this period.
This responsibility for classification of all streams and rivers was carried
out by the state pollution control organizations. The activity in this area
in these two decades is far too voluminous to include here. However, more
activity surrounded the attempt to classify streams and to determine optimum
usage and the amount of pollutants that they could safely assimilate than any
other single task in pollution control in the U.S. In light of this commitment
it is clear that any legislation which rejected the concept of using a
fraction of the self-purifying capacities of streams for pollution control and
replace it with the goal of "non degradation from natural background conditions"
was bound to be met with strong resistance by the technical community.
Eutrophication became a major pollution control issue in the I960's. The
pollution of surface waters with inorganic nutrients that triggered undesirable
natural plant growth caused a number of things to happen which, although they
were indirectly related to land treatment, may have been the key forces in
changing the pollution control laws. For the first time since discharge of
partially treated wastewaters was thought to be acceptable, the public became
impressed with the concept that the conventional approach to pollution control
was still causing visible degradation of surface waters. The emphasis on
phosphorus resulted in the passage of state laws banning (or severely limiting)
-------
the phosphorus content of detergents. The competition generated by the deter-
gent industry in producing and marketing clean detergents served to emphasize
the National interest in a clean environment. The eutrophication issue served
as a vehicle to make ecology and water pollution a household topic of conversa-
tion and assisted in setting the stage for the change sought by RL92-500.
The well known plan which has been called the "Zero Discharge" law, RLJ92-500,
was extensive amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.
The goal of this bill was to eliminate wastewater discharges, but this was to
be accomplished with best practicable and economically feasible techniques.
Since land treatment was used very little, it was rarely, if ever, recommended
as the best practicable technology in the years following the passage of this
law, even though the bill clearly indicated that the option of land treatment
should be carefully evaluated in all cases.
It is probably fair to say that this bill created more controversy within
the engineering profession than any other water pollution control bill. At the
time of passage of the bill the average environmental engineer (the sanitary
engineer changed his name around 1972) knew little, if anything, about land
treatment. Conversely, few agriculturalists knew very much about the use of
sewage in crop production. Thus there was considerable reluctance within the
engineering profession to give land treatment processes equal status with other
established techno! oqies. It should be pointed out that by 1972 there were a con-
siderable number of environmental engineers who were well educated and trained
in numerous bioloigcal, chemical, and physical treatment process technologies,
so the addition of land treatment as an additional option had little appeal
in terms of making pollution control technology more effective--particularly
in light of the little training which was received in this area. Thus, in
1974 EPA issued a special memorandum to its regions to avoid approving any new
installations until the land treatment option had been sufficiently evaluated
(Seabrook, 1975). As was noted earlier, this has recently been followed by a
strong statement which will require land treatment processes to be evaluated
in all circumstances (Costle, 1977).
-------
Because of the lack of modern experience with land treatment, many states,
faced with establishing guidelines for evaluating the option of land treatment,
established highly restrictive guidelines. Morris and Jewell (1973) noted that:
"State governments frequently tegi-state regulations above and
beyond those promulgated by the federal governments. But state laws
rarely beoome so strict that they jeopardize a federal mandate. This
isj however} the situation that appears to be evolving in the area
of land application of wastes. "
In a 50 state survey of guidelines established for setting up land treatment
systems, most of the states with regulations (31 either had regulations or were
developing them) specified significant pretreatment requirements, application
rates, and type of land that would be required for land treatment (Morris and
Jewell, 1977). The varied state and local requirements for the amount of treat-
ment prior to land application is of particular concern. Quite often these
requirements are not consistent with the known capabilities of soils to control
pollutants. This approach appears to be prevalent because the authorities
responsible for guidline development consider that application of wastes to
land is a disposal operation rather than use of a treatment system. The
authority of states to regulate discharges to the environment has resulted in
a misinterpretation of Section 510 of P.L.92-500. The state treatment require-
ments prior to land application assume that the soil has no renovation capability.
Since the land that is "an integral part of the treatment process" is eligible
for federal financial assistance under P.L.92-500, it is by definition a component
in the treatment process. Standards and other requirements by state and local
regulatory agencies should apply to the final effluent from the land treatment
process, and not at some internal point in the process, such as the secondary
effluent quality requirement prior to land application.
Some state agencies, notably California, that have had extensive experience
with recycling and reclamation of wastewater by land application, have regulations
which encompass proven technologies. California's regulations for land treatment
systems are based on the end use of the products produced on the sites rather
than on the internal process characteristics. Their guidelines might be con-
sidered for adoption by EPA in order to provide uniform national guides. In
35
-------
many instances land treatment would be disqualified as a cost-effective alter-
native by the EPA1s criteria if the state guidelines were followed. This would
make federal support unavailable for construction of a land treatment system
since it was required that the funded alternative be considered best practicable
technology and cost effective. Costle's memo (1977) indicates that if these
state requirements remain in effect, some portion of federal funds will be
withheld from the project.
The final legislative developments which affect land treatment relates to
the portions of the system which qualified for federal support. Up until
recently the cost of the land was not included in federal support for con-
struction of the treatment system. This has now been changed and the land
where the waste is applied is eligible for federal support at the 75 percent
funding level. This is also true for sludge application sites.
Passage of P.L.95-217 in December, 1977, expanded the eligible category
for acquisition of land to include the land that will be used for storage of
treated wastewater in land treatment systems prior to land application.
36
-------
TECHNOLOGICAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH
The remaining factors which appear to be primarily responsible for the
changing status of land treatment relate to key technological developments,
the definition of efficiency of wastewater treatment, and public health.
In many cases the occurrence of epidemics appeared to be responsible for
motivating large cities to incorporate sewers and sewage treatment. The
bacteria responsible for the most common water borne disease, typhoid, was
discovered in 1880 by Eberth. It was also about this time that a clearer
understanding of the germ theory and its relation to water and treatment
processes developed. The relationship of these events to the development of.
public water supplies and deaths attributable to typhoid is illustrated in
Figure 4.
As late as 1888 the role of bacteria was very poorly understood. Slater
(1880) notes that:
"As regards 'germs ' or morbific ferments, it is now generally
held that these tiny organisms when introduced into the system
are not the direct cause of disease and death, but that they
generate within the body they invade certain most intense poisons,
which do the deadly work. "
P.F. Frank!and first defined the capability of the intermittent filter .
to remove bacteria in 1887 (Rafter and Baker, 1894). Thus it was not surprising
that sand filteration was applied to water supply systems for bacteria control
shortly after this time. The first large scale water supply slow sand filter
was installed at Albany, New York in 1899. This was an impressive 15 MGD
facility. The first rapid sand filter was constructed at Little Falls, New
Jersey in 1901.
37
-------
CM „
1 2
o u
X
co
¥000
C5_
Ou
c/v
CC
LU
O
G£
LU
e
fd
c
o
iioo
fo
!«
CD
o 5
o
#»
g4
s_ 3
a;
CL
o 2
A
s
3=1 0
h"
«c
LU
Q
Q
1—1
O
3C
CL.
>-
Death Rate at
Niagara Falls,
New
Niagara Falls
912 Installed Filtration
& Disinfection
(Turneau and Russell
1946)
-Slow sand filters Albany,
NjY
Sand filters reportec
_£o be able to remove]
bacteria.
nlar_fciatJ
except sedimentation
¦^Number of public water
supplies in the U.S.
Typhoid
|Discovered
Death Rate of
Rural and Urban
U.S.
Death Rate of
U.S. cities larg
than 100,000
Chlorination
|Di scovered
f |7 of largest
U.S.Citiesi use Chlor.
1850
1870
1890
1910
1930
1950
YEAR
Figure 4.
Relationship of deaths due to typhoid, installation of water
supplies and related technology.
38
-------
Throughout the controversy of sewage treatment between 1870 and 1890,
it had been argued by some that it was much less expensive to treat the water
before using it as a water supply rather than to treat the wastewater prior
to discharge into a receiving water. Identification of the cause of disease
and efficient technology to control it in water supplies essentially eliminated
the need for efficient wastewater treatment.
The addition of a disinfectant to the water supply was the final require-
ment needed to provide pathogen free drinking water under most conditions.
Bleaching power was first applied to drinking water on a continuous basis
in 1908. In 1910 liquid chlorine replaced the bleaching powder, and by 1913,
7 of the 12 largest cities in the U.S. were using chlorination. The drastic
decline in deaths due to typhoid (Figure 4) was a reflection of the effective-
ness of filtration combined with chlorine to control the pathogen content of
water supplies.
In 1894 it was noted that intermittent filtration of raw sewage with
sharp, clean coarse sand filters resulted in 99.9 percent bacterial removal
at a filter loading rate of 60,000 gallons of raw sewage per acre per day,
and nearly complete bacterial removal occurred at application rates of 20,000
to 40,000 gallons per acre per day (Rafter and Baker, 1894). To a large
extent, the availability of this technology to water supplies removed the
necessity of obtaining extremely high quality water from sewage prior to
discharge into receiving waters.
DEFINITION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The early work on sewage purification indicates that a great deal of
emphasis was placed on nitrogen and the forms in which it was found in the
effluents. In fact, prior to 1890, process efficiencies were usually judged
mainly on their capability to remove nitrogen in the "albuminoid" or organic
form. The following statement indicates that nitrification was thought to
be a fermentation responsible for purifying wastewaters (Rafter and Baker,
1894):
39
-------
"The necessary essential for the resolution of organic matter
into more primary forms of matter "by the operation of nitri-
fication is that the nitrifying organisms shall be present
in conjunction with an alkaline mineral base. "
As shown in Table 1, the forms of nitrogen comprise a major focus of the
early effluent standards. Obviously, bacteria removal efficiency was not of
concern until about 1890, and neither was soluble organics. It was thought
that adequate treatment could be judged on the basis of the completeness of
the conversion of the nitrogen to oxidized forms and that this must be related
to the organic carbon cycle. In 1887 it was proved that organics and nitrogen
were oxidized by 1iving organisms. This removed the mystique that surrounded
the effect of burning which was supposed to occur in waste treatment as a
direct effect of the presence of oxygen. However, in 1890 Winogradsky
showed that certain bacteria could oxidize nitrogen without the need for the
presence of organics (Rafter and Baker, 1894). Thus, the discovery of auto-
trophic nitrifying bacteria must have injected a note of confusion into the
discussions surrounding process efficiencies as defined by nitrogen conversions.
POLLUTION REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMICS
The final two issues which are often responsible for changes in tech-
nologies are economics and treatment efficiency. Both of these issues are
highly complex and can only be briefly treated in this review. The main
question of interest is whether land treatment was a competitive process
in these two areas. The question of economics has been examined previously.
From 1850 to 1880 many thought that land treatment could be a profitable waste-
water treatment operation. By 1890 it was clear that this was not the case,
but that it still represented a technology which was more cost effective
in most instances. In 1877 Denton noted that, "practice of the last 20 years
has failed to show that any profit at all is to be obtained from sewage farming."
Several authors noted that revenue from the sale of crops could pay for
operation and maintenance of sewage treatment systems but that the income could
not cover amortization of the capital investment (Rafter and Baker, 1894;
Rideal, 1906; Keefer, 1940). This particular conclusion appears to still
hold true for modern land treatment systems, and represents an important
40
-------
economic difference between conventional discharge systems and land treatment
systems. Although operation and maintenance costs of modern facilities
represents one quarter to one half the total costs, it may represent nearly
the total cost for which the local community may be responsible. Thus the
land treatment alternative may be highly cost effective where the revenue
from crops can be used to offset most of the operating and maintenance costs.
It is difficult to make cost comparisons in the time period in which
land treatment was being phased out (1890 to 1910). But no references were
found which showed general economic advantages of discharge systems. Keefer
(1940) discusses the costs of several types of systems in the early 1930"s.
Land treatment in use in several cities was significantly less costly than
activited sludge or trickling filters. A1though the economic arguments are
not clear, it does not appear that they played a major role in the shift from
land treatment usage.
Teitjen (1977) reported on a cost comparison between the large sewage
farm at Braunschweig, Germany (about 40 MGD) and five sewage treatment plants
with equivalent populations. The five discharge systems cost, on the average,
18 percent more than this large land treatment system, and the discharge
failities achieved average BOD removal efficiency of 87 percent. Because
of the nuisance of odors produced by the application of raw sewage, intensive
aeration will be installed after sedimentation in the Braunschweig system
(Teitjen, 1977).
Other conditions under which land treatment of wastewaters would be
competitive at the present with advanced wastewater treatment and discharge
have been examined by Pound, Crites and Smith (1975). Several general con-
clusions which were made from these cost comparisons are as follows (Pound,
eta!., 1975);
1. Land application systems are less sensitive to economics of
scale than advanced wastewater treatment processes, and up to
100 MGD they are more cost effective than phosphorus, nitrogen,
and suspended solids removal added to secondary treatment.
41
-------
2. Under unfavorable conditions (cold and poor soil) the flow
rate at which land treatment is more cost effective than
advanced treatment occurs only at flows less than 3 MGD.
In many instances where conditions are more favorable, land
treatment is competitive with conventional secondary treat-
ment (with nitrification) up to a flow rate of 20 MGD.
Under good conditions land treatment is cost effective with
activated sludge up to 100 MGD.
3, Land treatment would be highly competitive with advanced waste-
water treatment in most situations.
4. Because the cost of operation and maintenance are
lower for land treatment systems, the local share of total
costs of the systems is much smaller than with advanced
wastewater treatment discharge facilities.
Today, the issue of cost effective wastewater treatment is closely
related to the efficiency question. The 1977 deadline for wastewater treat-
ment requires secondary treatment level efficiencies for all municipalities.
This means that the effluent must have a monthly average effluent quality
equal to or less than 30 mg/£ suspended solids and 30 mg/£ BODg. Many
industries have had their discharge effluent qualities set at standards that
can be achieved by secondary treatment. Thus, in general, cost effective
treatment technology will often be judged against secondary treatment dis-
charge technology such as activated sludge. Unfortunately, many state laws
and guidelines require that this level of treatment be provided before the
wastewater is taken to a land treatment system (Morris and Jewell, 1977).
In these instances it is impossible for land treatment to be economically
competitive with the discharge technology, since it is required as part of
the land treatment system.
The question of process efficiency is difficult to analyze over a time
period dating back to 1850 with the sewage farms because of the changes that
have been made in pollutant definition and measurement techniques. In the
early instances it was recognized that if the sewage could be made to flow
through 4 to 6 feet of aerated soil, that the effluent would be of a very
high quality, and close to drinking water quality. The departure from pro-
duction of such high quality effluents from the early sewage farms usually
represented a failure in a part of the system which was most often brought
-------
about by poor management. In effect, most soil systems act as an "all or
nothing" type treatment process. As long as they are not overloaded the
effluent that can be discharged from underdrains in soil systems is usually
of high quality. Furthermore, if the soil temperature remains above freezing
and the pH is around neutral it will achieve nearly complete nitrification.
Overloading of the soil with water or pollutants will rapidly lead to discharge
of almost untreated wastes, and the soil will become clogged and the wastes
will become surface runoff. Such failures were fairly common in early systems
because they were initially loaded at high rates, and few were able to expand
as the sewered population grew around them. Several researchers have stated
that the failures of this type were primarily responsible for the demise of the
land treatment technology (Stanbridge, 1976; Ardern, 1977; Teitjen, 1977).
Systems such as activated sludge that could provide some degree of treatment
under heavy fluctuating loads was considered to be superior to one which when
overloaded would fail. Failure to perceive the need to incorporate expansion
and flexibility in early land treatment may have been responsible for the failure
of many early systems.
The changing attitude towards land treatment and the value of sewage is •
reflected in the following quote from Denton (1870):
"It is not -possible, however, that although up to this time
all chemical processes have praotioally failed in purifying sewage,
so that the effluent fluid may be discharged without injury into
rivers, some process may yet.be discovered whereby a profitable manure
may be prepared out of the bulky and unwieldly matter called "sewage,"
which may extract from it every particle of matter deleterious to
human and productive of vegetable life, and which would be more
profitable in an agricultural sense than the sewage itself. This
object, however, appears very distant at the present. It is
indeed more than possible that even at this moment those substances
of organic matter which are extracted from sewage by the partial
processes in practice constitute an article more valuable, as a
saleable manure, than the whole of sewage from which it was taken -
if we adopt as the test of value the return per head of the popula-
tion contribution the sewage. But this is hardly a proper criterion: -
for as long as any portion of deleterious or fertilizing matter is
retained in the effluent liquid discharged into our rivers, we fail
to complete success, short of which we ought not to stop."
43
-------
By 1877 the loading rates used at Edinburgh Craigenetinny Meadows
exceeded a population equivalent of about 120,000 people per acre (applied
value was 2250 m/yr. according to Robinson & Mel lis, 1877.) Although
this historic sewage farm was reported to be a good example, it was in reality
a highly overloaded system which resulted in a highly offensive-smelling
swamp that produced a polluted effluent (Stanbridge, 1976). Denton (1877)
indicated the the Edinburgh system was carelessly managed and could have
resulted in a public health hazard, but "nowhere have we found instance of
ill health that are properly attributable to malaria or other causes due to
irrigation." In 1868 the doctor of the military camped on the edge of the
200 acre sewage farm noted that although, "the stench in tne uarracxs
is sometimes quite sickening," no effect on the health of the troops was
observed. The troops were also present when cholera was at epidemic
levels in Edinburgh. No cholera was reported in the population around the
sewage fields. This was true for several other sites referenced by Denton (1877).
The fact that many systems were probably overloaded by the late 18801s
wa's substantiated by Slater (1888) in which he notes that, "I have never
happened to visit or to pass near an irrigation field in warm still weather
without detecting an unpleasant odor. At Genneivilliers, near Paris, the
odor, in calm autumnal evenings, may, without exaggeration, be described as
abominable."
Thus Slater was not an ardent promoter of land treatment and concluded,
"I would submit that irrigation, though an excellent method of disposing of,
and at the same time utilizing sewage where suitable land is available, where
the climate is warm, and the rainfall scanty or intermittent, is not applicable
where these conditions are absent."
Some time later in emphasizing that land treatment systems require care-
ful management, Rafter and Baker discuss the common objection to odor as
follows (1894):
-------
"It has been frequently urged against sewage farms that the
fields are likely to become exceedingly offensive. The same is
true of neglected barnyards although in the present state of
agricultural development no one would seriously propose to abolish
all barnyards because of the patent truth, nevertheless it is
exactly what is proposed in the case of sewage farms."
Additional data was discussed by Rafter and Baker (1894) which indicated that
good management was capable of controlling odors.
An attempt to summarize the loading rates of land treatment systems over
the years is shown in Figure 5. The loading rate at two sewage farms can be
compared over a period of 40 years usage at Aldershot and Altrincham, England.
In both instances the loading rates nearly doubled due to population expansion
without increasing the size of the sewage farms.
Many present state regulations recommend the application of 2 inches per
day of secondary treated wastewater in land treatment systems. This would be
equivalent to a land treatment population loading Of about 100 people per acre
if the application sites were allowed to rest for five or six days (assuming a
wastewater flow of 100 gallons per person per day). Although the sewage flow
in the 1800's was less, the population loading rate with untreated sewage was
up to five times higher than the present recommendations. It is clear from
this analogy that the systems were heavily loaded and poor management could
easily lead to failure of the soil filtering efficiency and could result in
what was termed "sewage sickness." It is not surprising that the application
of raw sewage created offensive odors in many of these early sewage farms.
The relationship of pretreatment to the loading rate is also illustrated
in Figure 5. Although Franklin recommended a loading rate with raw sewage on
intermittent sand filters of 2300 people per acre in 1870, the recommendation
was decreased to 1000 people per acre in 1880 (Denton, 1885). In 1898 loading
rates equal to and exceeding this value were allowed by the authorities, but
only with extensive pretreatment. An application rate of 4800 people per acre
was acceptable whenever chemical precipitation and biological filtration
preceded intermittent filtration.
45
-------
4
3
2
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
(0
7
6
5
4
3
2
~ O
~
+>
Q.
n
0)
o
!»l—}
E
+>
O)
s-
CL.
4
c
o
•fa
s-:
4->
C
£
U
QJ
4_)
c
o°
"Altrincham An
* ~ TED
—"Aiders hot
~
~ '
O
in
QJ
S
S-
o
>
03
~
§
fS
X3
X5
CO
¦£
+j
OJ
s-
(X
ta
s-
0)
-o
REFERENCES
1.Actual Systems Loading Rate
•Birch 1879
~Rafter and Baker 1894
~Rideal 1906
2.Recommended Design Loadings
~ First Royal Comm. on River Poll. 1870
xFranklin's Intermittent Filtration
^Rafter and Baker 1894
ORideal 1906
©Fifth Comm. on Sewage Disp.
¦ Metcalf and Eddy 1930
ATeitjen 1977
ACommonly recomended 2 inches/day,
5 day rest peroid
Altrincham
Aldershot
CO
c
O
o
*
~
~
~
Lj™
XJ
V
l/>
E
r—
4->
•i—
rd
O
O)
CO
S-
+->
CD
CD
r—
S-
-Q
a_
<0
S-
o
o
>
as
M-
c
ZD
0
u\
C I
C)
s.
c >
if.
"X !
CS
CI
n i
a:
30 '70 '80 "90 1900 '10 '20 '30 '40 '50 '60 '70
YEAR
jure 5. Loading rates for sewage farms, spray irrigation, and
intermittent filtration systems.
46
-------
A comparison of the treatment efficiencies achieved with various processes
is summarized in Figure 6. This figure clearly indicates the partial treatment
achieved by discharge process and the more complete purification achieved in
land treatment.
Detailed considerations of the public health aspects of land treatment
technology evolution are beyond the scope of this review. However, this is
one of the main issues sited as being of concern to those unfamiliar with the
technology. Throughout the review of documents siting the historical aspects
the writers found little negative information that showed that land treatment
posed an unacceptable health hazard. Many studies indicated that there was no
negative impact on the health of the workers or those living on or close to
sewage farms. A recent comparison of the relative health effects of discharge
and land treatment systems reported has been prepared by Crites and Uiga (1977).
They concluded that under comparable conditions, land treatment was more
effective in controlling pathogens and other toxic elements.
Two recent developments will assist in the updating of land treatment
technology. The E.P.A. recognized the lack of educational material that
existed in this area and supported a study at Cornell University to develop
a comprehensive educational program beginning in 1975. This project will
provide a self-paced, audio-tutorial program which will be available to the
public in 1978. In October of 1977, a design manual for land treatment of
mubicipal wastewaters was distributed to the public by E.P.A. (U.S. E.P.A.,
et a!., 1977).
Cornell University's one week short course and the design manual were
developed so that they would be complimentary. These two items will serve
to bring individuals up-to-date on the land treatment technology.
47
-------
TOO
80
40
20
fficiency, %
Concentrat"fe&*
mg/1
m' BOD ^
ACTIVATED SLUDRE
TOO
80
60
cn
E
O
-------
DISCUSSION
The fate of the use of land for waste treatment has been reviewed by others
in an attempt to illustrate and document its development throughout different
periods of history (Hartman, 1975; Stanbridge, 1976). This brief review of
the historical development of this water pollution control option attempts to
interweave the major technical, political-social, and legal factors which appear
to have influenced the use of land application of wastes. Today, the land treat-
ment of wastewaters is not considered by the general water pollution control field
as being the standard by which other approaches should be judged, and it is not
even a popular technology. In retrospect, it seems clear as to why this is the
case and it would appear to have been predictable in light of the understanding
of various aspects of the history of water pollution.
The simple concept of returning the nutrients and other materials which
originally came from the land back .to land seems to be a valid concept upon
which to build a new era of water pollution control in the U.S. Atonetime in
past history this had been a highly successful technology and a number of treat-
ment systems are still effective after more than a half a century of operation.
In several cases these treatment systems have been used for nearly a century.
More than 3000 land treatment systems are in use for municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment. About 10 percent of the new plants and modifications for
updating existing plants are committed to land treatment. The obvious question
that this review attempts to address is: "If the technology is effective and
has been proven, why is it not being adopted at a faster rate today since its
consideration is now mandated by law (P.L.92-500)"?
Although large cities have existed for 5000 years, and many large concen-
trations of populations have existed for the last 1000 years, modern sanitary
science is only a little more than 120 years old, and the germ theory has been
accepted in its present form for only about 90 years. It is surprising to
note that most of the basic concepts of chemical, physical, and biological
49
-------
water pollution control were known by 1900, and that from this time pollution
control authorities have been involved in increasing efforts to control water
pollution.
The desire to implement land treatment of waste is a case of "history
repeating itself." We have passed through several major phases in which the
philosophy behind wastewater treatment changed. These may be represented as
follows:
First period 1840-1890. The major objective was to keep as much
of the pollutants as possible out of receiving waters, particularly
potential drinking waters. The efficiency and acceptability of a
treatment process depended on its capability to produce a safe drinking
water quality effluent. Land treatment was the most effective physical,
biological, and chemical treatment process. Zero discharge was the
ideal goal that was achievable in many instances.
Second period 1890-1972. Permissible pollution and dilution as a
solution to pollution were main themes of this period. Early in
this period it was proposed that treatment of the polluted waters in
preparation for a safe drinking water supply was cheaper than treatment
prior to discharge to receiving waters. The use and definition of
the principal of natural purification principles led to a firm basis
of predicting the degree of treatment which would be required to
result in an acceptable discharge of pollutants.
Third period 1972-present. Adoption of a policy of nondegradation
of natural waters, reuse of wastewaters, and minimization of the dis-
charge of effluents. Although processes must be cost effective, by
1985 the basis of judgement of a treatment system may depend on its
capability to produce drinking water quality effluents.
Much of the water pollution control activities between 1840 and 1890
were conducted without precise objectives and goals. Homes were supplied
with running water and the resulting collection and discharge of the wastes
50
-------
created nuisances which were thought to be associated with disease in some
poorly defined manner. Typhoid, cholera, and yellow fever epidemics were
conmon and they caused great panic among the population. This provided the
motivating force of that day to search for and identify solutions. In the
late 1840's sewage was shown to be capable of being used in agriculture to
achieve a two fold objective - that of reusing the nutrients to produce a
valuable crop and production of a purified and clarified wastewater. At first
this was thought to be a profitable pursuit.
Subsequently, however, the germ theory became more clearly defined, sewage
treatment processes, such as the intermittent sand filter, were shown to be
capable of controlling bacteria, and technology for controlling water borne
diseases was rapidly instituted. By this time it was well accepted that
sewage farms required careful management, they were not profitable, but under
certain circumstances, the crops could pay for operaton and maintenance.
However, since it was not necessary to produce a drinking water quality
effluent, cheaper and more easily managed systems which could be depended
upon to produce an acceptable, partially treated effluent, was sought and
identified. Trickling filtration, activated sludge, and some forms of chemical
treatment were instituted on a wide scale and rapidly replaced land treatment
systems. During the period from 1890 to 1970, land application of wastes
was merely a final disposal process.
The need to understand and define the physical, chemical, and biological
cycles of land treatment did not exist, since it was primarily a disposal
option. Any mention of the design basis and definition of the technology
disappeared from all major texts around 1950. Thus, most practicing engineers
who are 50 years old or younger, today have no formal education in land treat-
ment technology. Only a few consulting firms retained the capability to work
in this area.
As the population of the U.S. increased, the partial treatment achieved
by conventional discharged technologies received increasing criticism from
the general public. Eutrophication became a major issue and nutrient control
became an additional objective of wastewater treatment technology. The
51
-------
controversy over the need to control phosphorus and the passage of legislation
to prohibit phosphorus in detergents served to bring widespread public
attention to the fact that sewage was being discharged only partially treated
into waters from which it obtained its drinking water, into its neighbors
drinking water, or what was worse, into its favorite recreational area.
The accuracy of these public concerns over nutrient pollution was of no
consequence after the public attention was aroused and the political means
of dealing with this important societal issue was initiated. In effect, the
legislative process reflected the feeling that previous and existing attempts
to solve water pollution had not achieved the goal of a clean environment and
new approaches were needed. Although concern over the phosphorus issue does
not illustrate the depth of the issue, it was well known that phosphorus control
with land treatment was highly effective, and that soils could absorb great
quantities without creating secondary problems such as large quantities of
sludge. Further investigation of the possibilities of wastewater treatment
with soils led to the conclusion that it was being used in several hundred
instances in the U.S., and that it was a cost effective alternative to discharge
systems.
THE FUTURE OF LAND TREATMENT
There are several factors which need to be changed before land treatment
technology can be widely implemented. The first factor involves the develop-
ment of a body of knowledge among the engineering and agricultural communities
based firmly in a major research and educational program. The first prerequisite
of this program would be to eliminate the concept of land disposal and replace it
with the land treatment idea. The difficulty in achieving this end is that
although there is a large body of information in the historical area and also
much information being developed today, much of it is highly empirical. It is
well accepted that processes such as trickling filters and activated sludge
have certain design 1 imitating factors and that these cannot be violated.
Increasing the loading rate on an activated sludge plant in terms of pounds of
organics added per volume of reactor may result in major changes in the sludge
settleability and eventually in a failure of the system. Until the assimilation
capacities of the soil system are known to researchers , disseminated, and
52
-------
understood, the designs will be subject to question and used only under highly
conservative conditions.
Key areas that need accelerated dissemination of knowledge are the rela-
tionships of the movement of water, oxygen, carbon oxidation and the fate of
nitrogen in soil treatment systems. It is likely that nitrogen will be a key
parameter in many domestic wastewater treatment systems for many years. Effective
nitrogen management will be essential to develop cost effective land treatment
alternatives.
Another area of concern is to define the capability of various treatment
systems to control trace organics and toxic elements. The presence of pathogens,
carcinogen organics, and trace quantities of other toxic or foreign materials
will increasingly provide the basis for making water pollution control treatment
decisions. It is likely that the complex and efficient purifying capacity of
soil treatment systems will play an important role in this area.
Finally, no major text exists in the land treatment technology area. Courses
of study for environmental engineers, agricultural engineers, agronomists, planners,
the general public, and others concerned with determining the quality of the
environment must be available to provide the expertise needed to implement this
technology. Recent development of the Cornell University educational program
and the design manual will assist in making the necessary information available
to the users.
53
-------
REFERENCES
Ardern, D.A. 1977. Personal Communication.
Austin, H. 1857. Report on Means of Deodorizing and Utilizing the Sewage of
Towns, addressed to the Rt. Hon. and President of the General Board of
Health. G.E. Eyre and W. Spottiswoods, London.
Babbitt, H.E. 1947. Sewerage and Sewage Treatment. John Wiley and Sons.
692 pages.
Benarde, M.A. 1973. "Land Disposal and Sewage Effluent: Appraisal of Health
Effects of Pathogenic Organisms." J. Amer. Water Works Assoc,, June,
p. 432-440.
Birch, R.W.P. 1879. "Sewage Irrigation by Farmers; or Fifty Instances of
Profitable Sewage Utilization." Published by E. & F.N. Spon, 46, Charing
Cross, London and New York. 60 pgs.
Calhoun, D.O. 1977. Assistant Administration Farmers Home Administration.
Personal communication to B.L. Seabrook. September,
Chadwick, Edwin. 1965. The Sanitary Condition of the Labouring Population of
Great Britain. Reprint edited and with an Introduction by M.W. FT inn.
Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh, Scotland.
Commission on Towns Sewage Disposal. 1858. Preliminary Report.
Commission on Towns Sewage Disposal. 1865, British Third Report.
Cook, M.B. and Scott, R. 1977. "Special Environmental Laws Show Clean Water
Program." Public Works. March.
Costle, D. 1977. "E.P.A. Policy on Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters."
Memo issued to Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators
(Reg ions I to X). Oct. 3 (See Appendix of this report).
Crites, R.W. and Uiga, A. 1977. "Relative Health Factors for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Processes." U.S. E.P.A. Office of Water Programs Operations,
Municipal Construction Division. Report MCD-41, Report EPA 430/9-77-00.
95 pages.
Denton, J.B. (Civil Eng.). 1869. "Sanitary Works and Sewage Utilization --
Two letters reprinted from The Times." Published by E. & F.N. Spon,
48, Charing Cross, London, England.
54
-------
Denton, J.B. (No date - 1870 or earlier). "Village Sanitary Economy." From
the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. Vol. VI. S.S.
Part I. London. Printed by William Clowes and Sons, Duke Street, Stanford
Street and Charing Cross.
Denton, J.B. 1871. Sewage the Fertilizer of Land, and Land the Purifier of
Sewage. E & F.N. Spon. London.
Denton, J.B. 1877. Sanitary Engineering - "A Series of Lectures Given Before
the School of Military Engineering at Chatam, 1876." Pub. by E. & F.N. Spon.
London, 429 pgs.
Denton, J.B. 1885. Ten Years Experience (now Fourteen Years) in Works of
Intermittent Downward Filtration. E. & F.N. Spon. London. 105 pgs.
Denton, J.B. about 1885. "The Disposal of the Sewage of the Metropolis."
? 21 pages. Harrison and Sons Printers, St. Martin's Land, London,
England.
Doxiadis, C.A. 1973. "Ancient Greek Settlements: Third Report." Ekisties
35 (No. 11).
Dunbar, W.P. and Calvert, H.T. 1908. Principles of Sewage Treatment.
Charles Griffen and Co., Ltd. London.
Egeland, D.R. 1973. "Land Disposal I: A Giant Step Backward." J. Water
Pollution Control Federation. 45(7). July 1465-75.
Fair, G.M. and Geyer, J.C. 1954. Mater Supply and Wastewater Disposal.
Pub. by John Wiley and Sons, New York and London. 973 pgs.
Fair, G.M. 1966. "Fifty Years of Progress in Water Purification, 1913-63."
J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. p. 813-824.
Freshman, J.D. 1977. "A Perspective on Land as a Waste Management Alternative."
Pgs. 3-8 in: Land as a Waste Management Alternative, Edited by R.C. Loehr,
Ann Arbor Science Pub., Inc.
Fuertes, J.H. 1900. "The Sewerage of Edinburgh, Scotland," The Engineering
Record. 41, 29.
Fuller, G.W. and McClintock, J.R. 1926. Solving Sewage Problems. McGraw
Hill Book Co.
General Board of Health, 1852. Minutes of Information Collected on the
Practical Application of Sewer Water and Town Manures to Agricultural
Production.
Gerhard, W.P. 1909. Sanitation and Sanitary Engineering. Pub. by the Author.
New York. 175 pgs.
55
-------
Gotaas, H.B., McGaukey, P.H., and Kaufman, W.J. 1955. "Studies in Water
Reclamation." Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory. Technical
Bulletin No. 13, I.E.R. Series 37. July. 65 pgs.
Hartman, N.J. Jr. 1975. "An Evaluation of Municipal Wastewaters and Physical
Siting of Facility Installations." U.S. Dept. of the Army. 65 pgs.
Hill, R.D., Bendixen, T.W., and Robeck, G.G. 1964. "Status of Land Treatment
for Liquid Waste - Functional Designs." Presented at the Water Pollution
Control Federation Meeting in Bal Harbour, Florida.
Hutchins, W.A. 1939. "Sewage Irrigation as Practiced in the Western States."
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Technical Bulletin No. 675.
March. 60 pgs.
Institute of Water Pollution Control (British). 1974. "Tertiary Treatment and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment." Ledson House, 53 London Road, Maidstone,
Vent., England.
International Joint Commission on the Pollution of Boundary Waters. 1914.
Progress and Final Reports, Washington, Government Printing Office.
Jenkins, K.H. 1970. "Municipal Waste Facilities in the United States." U.S.
Dept. of the Int. F.W.Q.A., Statistical Summary 1968 Inventory. Pub!.
No. CWT-6.
Kardos, L.T. and Sopper, W.F. 1973. Renovation of Municipal Wastewaters
Through Land Disposal by Spray Irrigation, p. 148-163. In: Recycling
Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Frost and Cropland. The
Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA. 479 pgs.
Keefer, C.E. 1940. Sewage - Treatment Works. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
673 pgs.
Krepp, F. C. 1867. The Sewage Question. Longmans, Green and Co. London.
Latham, B. (Civ. Eng.). 1869. "A Scheme of Sewerage and Sewage Utilization
for Hornsey," Pub. by E. & F. N. Spon, 48, Charing Cross, London. 30 pgs.
Lawes, J. B. 1842. British Patent 9353. May 23.
Lethaby, H. 1872. "The Sewage Question." Reprint of Reports Published in
the Medical Press and Circular. Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London.
Liebig, Justus von. 1840. Chemistry and Its Application to Agriculture and
Physiology.
Loehr, R. C. (Editor). 1977. Land as a Waste Management Alternative. Ann
Arbor Science Pub., Inc. 811 pgs.
Manning, R. Tanslator, 1876. "I. Sanitary Works Abroad - Assainissement
De La Seine - Report of the Commission Appointed to Propose Measures for
Remedying the Pollution of the Seine in the Vicinity of Paris." Pub.
by E. & F. N. Spon, 48, Charing Cross. 49 pages.
56
-------
Manning, R. Translator, 1876. "II. Assainissement De Berlin. A Description
of the Works in Course of Execution for the Sewerage of Berlin, and the
Application of the Sewage to Irrigation at Marienfelder and Falkenberg."
p. 51-66. Pub. by E. & F.N. Spon, 48 Charing Cross, London.
McGaukey, P.M., Krone, R.B. and Winneberger, J.H. 1966. "Soil Mantle as a
Wastewater Treatment System - Review of Literature." Sanitary Engineering .
Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley. SERL Report No. 67.
September. 120 pgs.
Metealf, L. and Eddy, H.P. 1930. Sewerage and Sewage Disposal - A Textbook.
Second Edition. Pub. by McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 783 pgs.
Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H.P. 1935. American Sewerage Practice - Vol. III.
Disposal of Sewage. Third Ed. McGraw-Hill. 892 pgs.
Morris, G.E. and Jewell, W.J. 1977. "Regulations and Guidelines for Land
Application of Wastes - A 50 State Overview." In: Land as a Waste
Management Alternative. Ed. by R.C. Loehr. Ann Arbor Science Pub., Inc.
Myers, E.A. and Butler, R.M. 1974. "Effects of Hydrologic Regime on Nutrient
Removal from Wastewater using Grass Filtration for Final Treatment." Inst,
for Research on Land and Water Resources Research Pub. No. 88. 65 pgs.
Orlob, G.T. and Butler, R.G. 1955. "An Investigation of Sewage Spreading on
Five California Soils." Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, Univ.
of California, Berkeley, Technical Bulletin No. 12. I.E.R. Series 37.
June. 53 pgs.
Parizak, R.R., Kardos, L.T., Sopper, W.E., Myers, E.A., David, D.E., Farrel1,
M.A., and Nesbitt, J.B. 1967. Penn State Studies. No. 23. The Adminis-
trative Committee on Research. The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA. 71 pgs.
Pound, C.E. and Crites, R.W. 1973. "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land
. Application. Volume II." EPA Report - 660/2-73-006b. 249 pgs. Appendix
B. "Historical Cases of Irrigation Abandonment." pgs. 242-249. August.
Pound, C.E., Crites, R.W. and Smith, R.G. 1975. "Cost Comparison of Land
Application and Advanced Wastewaters Treatment." EPA. Technical Report
MGD - 17, EPA-430/9-75-016. 25 pgs.
Rafter, G.W. and Baker, M.N. 1894. Sewaqe Disposal in the United States.
598 pgs.
Rafter, G.W. 1897. Sewage Irrigation. Water Supply and Irrigation Papers.
U.S. Geological Survey. No. 3. Government Printing Office. 100 pgs.
Rafter, G.W. 1899. Sewage Irrigation. Part II. Water Supply and Irrigation
Papers. U.S. Geological Survey. No. 22. Government Printing Office.
100 pgs. r
57
-------
Rideal, S. 1906. Sewage and the Bacterial Purification of Sewage. 3rd Ed,
Pub. by the Sanitary Pub. Co., Ltd., London and the John Wiley Pub. Co.,
New York.
Robinson, H, and Melliss, J.C. 1877. Purification of Hater Carried Sewage.
Pub. by Smith, Elder and Co., London.
Rogers, B.G. 1972. "Editorial - Land Disposal of Wastewaters." J. Water
Pollu. Control Fed. 44(5):900. May.
Royal Commission on Metropolitan Sewage Discharge. 1884. Second and Final
Report.
Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. 1901. Interim Report.
Schiff, L. 1957. "Water Spreading for Groundwater Recharge." University of
California, Davis, Water Resources Center, Contribution No. 7. 80 pgs.
Seabrook, B.L. 1972. "Report on Mexico City Sewage System - Sewage Irrigation
Crop Production. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Programs Operations. Nov. 6-10.
Seabrook, B.L. 1975. "Land Treatment of Wastewater in the United States: An
Overview." U.S. EPA. Unp. Manuscript.
Seabrook, B.L. 1975. "Land Application of Wastewater in Australia." EPA
Technical Report. 430/9-75-017. May, 54 pgs.
Seabrook, B.L. 1977. "Land Application of Wastewaters." Paper presented at
the Cornell University Workshop on Design of Sewage Treatment Systems.
August.
Second Commission on River Pollution. First Report. 1870.
Slater, J.W. 1888. Sewage Treatment, Purification, and Utilization. Publ.
by Whittaker and Co. London and New York. 271 pgs.
Society of Arts. 1876. "Conference on the Health and Seage of Towns." May 9-11,
W. Trounce, London.
Stanbridge, H.H. 1976. History of Sewage Treatment in Britain. Part 5. Land
Treatment. The Inst, of Water Pollu. Control. Maidstone, Kent, England.
35 pgs.
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1953. Field Investigation of
Waste Water Reclamation in Relation to Ground Water Pollution." Publication
No. 6. Prepared for the State by the University of Southern California,
Los Angeles. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory.
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1955. "Studies of Waste Water
Reclamation and Utilization." Publication No. 9. Prepared for the State
by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory.
50
-------
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1955. "Report on the Investi-
gation of Travel of Pollution." Publication No. 11. Prepared for the State
by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory.
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1955. "A Survey of Direct
Utilization of Waste Waters." Publication No. 12. Prepared for the State
by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory.
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1956. "Report on Continued
Study of Waste Water Reclamation and Utilization." Publication No. 15.
Prepared for the State by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory. 90 pgs.
State Water Pollution Control Board, California. 1957. "Study Waste Water
Reclamation and Utilization, Third Reprot." Publication No. 18. Prepared
for the State by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Sani-
tary Engineering Research Laboratory. 102 pages. (Note: this is the final
report in the series, the first -and second are publication numbers 12 and
15, respectively.)
Sullivan, R.H., Cohn, M.M., Baxter, S.S. 1973. "Survey of Facilities Using
Land Application of Wastewater." EPA Technical Report. 430/9-73-006.
,July. 377 pgs.
Tietjen, C. 1977. Personal Communication, August 1.
Tietjen, C. 1977. "The Agricultural Reuse of Municipal Wastewater in
Braunschweig, Germany." Chapter 3. In: Wastewater Renovation and Reuse.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Thomas, R.E. 1973. "Land Disposal II: An Overview of Treatment Methods."
J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 45(7}:1476-84. July.
Thomas, R.E. 1977. Personal Communication. August.
Turneaure, F.E. and Russell, H.L. 1946. Public Water Supplies. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. New York. 704 pgs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture. 1977. "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewaters." Report No. EPA 625/1-77-008. October.
59
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES
Allen, K. 1896. "The Sewage of Melbourne." The Engineering Record.
33 (No. 440).
Alli n, T.D. 1905. "The Pasadena, California Sewer Farm." The Engineering
Record. 51 p. 154.
Anonymous. 1900. "Trouble Caused by Paris Sewer Farms." Municipal Eng.
p. 189.
Anonymous. 1901. "The Sewage System and Sewage Farm at the Melbourne and
Metropolitan Board of Works." Engineering News. Jan 24. p. 62.
Anonymous. 1904. "A Birds-Eye View of Some Twenty-Five British Sewage Works."
Engineering News. 51_ (No. 992).
Anonymous. 1904. "Some Observations of Sewage Farming in England." Engi-
neering News. April 21. p. 385.
Anonymous. 1908. "The Broad Irrigation Sewage Farm at Fesno, California."
The Engineering Record. 58 p. 207.
Anonymous. 1911. "Sewage Disposal at Pleasanton, California." Engineering
Record. 64 (No. 26). July!.
Anonymous. 1912. "An Alleged Sewage Farm Nuisance." Engineering News.
67 (No. 713). April 11.
Calvert, C.K., et al., 1937. "The Utilization of Sewage Sludge as Fertilizer -
Report of the Committee on Sewage Disposal, American Public Health Assoc.
Public Health Engineering Section." Sewage Works Journal. 9 (Mo. 6).
P. 861 - 912.
Calvert, C.K., Fales, A.L., Gillespie, C.6., Keefer, C.E., LaFreniere, T.J.,
Mohlman, F.W., Rudolfs, W., Veatch, F.M., Zeller, P.J.A., Pearse, L.
(Chairman of Committee). 1937. "The Utilization fo Sewage Sludge as
Fertilizer - Report of the Committee on Sewage Disposal, American Public
Health Association, Public Health Engineering Section." Sewage Works
Journal. 9(6):861-912.
Frere, P. H. 1864. "The Money Value of Night-Soil and Other Manures."
J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xxiv p. 124-131.
Fuller, G.W. 1923. "The Present Status of Sewage Treatment in England."
Engineering News Record 90 (No. 259).
60
-------
Garner, J.H. 1924. "Historical Development of Sewage Purification Processes."
Trans. Int. Conf. Sanit. Engr. London, p. 204-216.
Godwin, E.H. 1935. "Sewage Irrigation in Texas." Public Works, p. 23. March.
Hammerton, C. 1939. "The Sewage Disposal System of Cairo." Review Sewage
Waste Journal, H, (No. 717).
House of Commons Select Committee on the Utilization of Towns Sewage. 1864.
Report.
Imbeaux, M.E. 1910. "Sewage and Sewage Disposal Statistics for Cities in
France and Germany." Engineering News. April 21. p. 477.
Jones, A.S. and Roechling, H.A. 1902. Natural a»d Artificial Sewage Treatment.
Part I. E. & F.N. Spon. London.
King, F.A. and Bruce, J.P.C. (editor). 1927. "Farmers of Forty Centuries or
Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan." Published by Harcourt,
Brace and Company, New York.
Lawes, J.B. 1861. "Experiments at Rugby on the Application of Sewage to
Grass Land. Commission on Towns Sewage Disposal." Second Report.
Lawes, J. B. 1863. "FarmyardManure." J. Roy, Ag. Soc. xxiii p. 45-48,
Lawes, J. B. and Gilgert, J. H. 1862. "On Agricultural Chemisty - Especially in
Relation to the Mineral Theory of Baron Liebig. J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xii p. 1-40.
Lawes, J.B. and Gilbert, J.H. and Warington, R. "On the Amount and Composition
of the Drainage Waters Collected at Rolhamsted." Sec. Ser. xvii. Part I.
p. 241-279., Part II. p. 311-350. xviii Part I. p. 1-71.
Lawes, J. B. 1864. "On the Utilization of Town Sewage. J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xxiv p.65-90.
Lawes, J. B. and Gilbert, J. H. 1861. "On the Valuation of Unexhausted Manures."
J. Roy. Ag. Soc. Sec. Ser. xxi p. 590-611.
Lawes, J.B. "On the Valuation of Unexhausted Manures." Sec. Ser. xi_, p. 1-38.
Maignen, P.A. 1912. "Irrigation with Sewage." The Engineering Record. 65
(No. 82).
Martin, A.J. 1905. "The Sewage Problem." Pub. by D. Van Nostrand. New York.
Mitchell, G.A. 1931. "Observations on Sewage Farming in Europe." Engineering
News Record. Jan. 8. p. 66
Moule, Rev. Henry, 1864. "Earth versus Water for the Removal and Utilization
of Exremenitious Matters." J. Roy. Ag.Soc. xxiv p. 111-123.
61
-------
Ochoa, P. 1969. "A New Sewerage System for the Federal District of Mexico."
Presented at the VII International Congress of Soil Mechanics and Founda-
tions Engineering. Mexico City. 56 pgs.
Rafter. G.W. 1897. "Water Supply and Irrigation Papers." United States
Geological Survey, Paper No. 3. Government Printing Office.
Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. 1908. Fifth Report. Part III. Purifi-
cation of Sewage by Treatment on Land. pgs. 137-158.
Salkeid, T. 1913. "The Government and Public Works of Delhi, India." Engi-
neering News. 69^ (No. 1093). May 22.
Seep, E. 1963. "The Use of Sewage For Irrigation - A Literature Review."
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California State Department of Public
Health. July.
Voelcker, A. 1857. "On the Composition of Farmyard Manure, and the Changes
which it Undergoes on Keeping Under Different Circumstances." J.Roy.Ag.
Soc. xvi i p. 191-260.
Voelcker, A. 1859. "On Liquid Manure." J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xix p. 519-552.
Voelcker, A. 1860. "On the Changes which Liquid Manure in Contact with
Different Soils of Known Composition." J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xx p. 134-157.
Voelcker, A. 1863. "On the Commercial Value of Artificial Manures."
J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xxiii p. 277-286.
Voelcker, A. "On the Composition and Agricultural Value of Earth-Closet
Mnaure." Sec. Ser. viii p. 185-203.
Voelcker, A. "On the Composition and Practical Value of Several
Samples of Native Guano." Prepared by the ABC Sewage Process of The
Native Guano Company. Sec. Ser. vi_ p. 415-424.
Voelcker, A. "On the Composition of Waters of Land Drainage."
Sec. SEr. x p. 132-165.
Way. J. T. 1850. "On the composition and Money Value of the Different
Varieties of Guano." J. Roy. Ag. Soc. x. P- 196-230.
Way, 0. T. 1851. "On the Power of Soils to Absorb Manure." J. Roy. Ag.
Soc. xi. p. 313-379. xiii p. 123-143.
Way, J. T. 1855. "On the Use of Town Sewage as Manure." J. Roy. Ag. Soc.
xv p. 135-137.
Way, J. T. 1856. "The Atmosphere as a Source of Nitrogen to Plants;
Being an Account of Recent Researchers on this Subject." J. Roy. Ag.
Soc. xvi p. 249-267.
Way, J. e. 1857. "On the Composition of the Waters of Land Drainage and
of Rain." J. Roy. Ag. Soc. xvii p. 123-162.
62
-------
APPENDIX
63
-------
.. APPENDIX A
i ^
1SE£ ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 3 1977
THE ADMINISTRATOR
featltent of
SUBJECT: EPA Policy on Lanj
Wastewater
FROM: The Administr/torI
TO:. Assistant Administrator^ and
Regional Administrators (Regions I-X)
President Carter's recent Environmental Message to the Congress
emphasized the design and construction of cost-effective publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities that encourage water conservation as
well as adequately treat wastewater. This serves to strengthen the
encouragement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) to consider wastewater reclamation and recycling by
land treatment processes.
At the time P.L. 92-500 was enacted, it was the intent of Congress
to encourage to the extent possible the development of wastewater manage-
ment policies that are consistent with the fundamental ecological principle
that all materials should be returned to the cycles from which they were
generated. Particular attention should be given to wastewater treatment
processes which renovate and reuse wastewater as well as recycle the
organic matter and nutrients in a beneficial manner. Therefore, the
Agency will press vigorously for publicly owned treatment works to
utilize land treatment processes to reclaim and recycle municipal wastewater.
RATIONALE
Land treatment systems involve the use of plants and the soil to
remove previously unwanted contaminants from wastewaters. Land treatment
is capable of achieving removal levels comparable to the best available
advanced wastewater treatment technologies while achieving additional
benefits. The recovery and beneficial reuse of wastewater and its
nutrient resources through crop production, as well as wastewater
treatment and reclamation, allow land treatment systems to accomplish
far more than most conventional treatment and discharge alternatives.
64
r
-------
The application of wastewater on land is a practice that has been
used for many decades; however, recycling and reclaiming wastewater that
may involve the planned recovery of nutrient resources as part of a
designed wastewater treatment facility is a relatively new technique.
One of the first such projects was the large scale Muskegon, Michigan,
land treatment demonstration project funded under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1966 (P.L. 84-660), which began
operations in May 1974.
Reliable wastewater treatment processes that utilize land treatment
concepts to recycle resources through agriculture, silviculture and
aquaculture practices are available. The technology for planning,
designing, constructing and operating land treatment facilities is
adequate to meet both 1983 and 1985 requirements and goals of P.L. 92-
500.
Land treatment is also presently in extensive use for treatment of
many industrial wastewaters, particularly those with easily degraded
organics such as food processing. Adoption of suitable in-plant pretreatment
for the removal of excessive metals and toxic substances would expand
the potential for land treatment of industrial wastewater and further
enhance the potential for utilization of municipal wastewater and sludges
for agricultural purposes.
APPROACH
Because land treatment processes contribute to the reclamation and
recycling requirements of P.L. 92-500, they should be preferentially
considered as an alternative wastewater management technology. Such
consideration is particularly critical for smaller communities. While
it is recognized that acceptance, is not universal, the utilization of
land treatment systems has the potential for saving billions of dollars.
This will benefit not only the nationwide water pollution control program,
but will also provide an additional mechanism for the recovery and
recycling of wastewater as a resource.
EPA currently requires each applicant for construction grant funds
to make a conscientious analysis of wastewater management alternatives
with the burden upon the applicant to examine all available alternative
technologies. Therefore, if a method that encourages water conservation,
wastewater reclamation and reuse is not recommended, the applicant should
be required to provide complete'justification for the rejection of
land treatment.
Imposition of stringent wastewater treatment requirements prior to
land application nas quite often nullified the cost-effectiveness of
land treatment processes in the past. We must ensure that appropriate
Federal, State and local requirements and regulations are imposed at the
55 *
-------
proper point In the treatment system and are not used in a manner that
may arbitrarily block land treatment projects. Whenever States insist
upor placing unnecessarily stringent preapplication treatment require-
ments upon land treatment, such as requiring EPA secondary effluent
quality in all cases prior to application on the land, the unnecessary
wastewater treatment facilities will not be funded by EPA. This should
encourage the States to re-examine and revise their criteria, and so
reduce the cost burden, especially to small communities, for construction
and operation of unnecessary or too costly facilities. The reduction of
potentially toxic metals and organics in industrial discharges to municipal
systems often is critical to the success of land treatment. The development
and enforcement at the local level of pretreatment standards that are
consistent with national pretreatment standards should be required as an
integral part of any consideration or final selection of land treatment
alternatives. In addition, land treatment alternatives must be fully
coordinated with on-going areawide planning under section 208 of the
Act. Section 208 agencies should be involved in the review and development
of land treatment options.
Research will be continued to further improve criteria for preappli-
cation treatment and other aspects of land treatment processes. This
will add to our knowledge and reduce uncertainties about health and
environmental factors. I am confident, however, that land treatment of
municipal wastewaters can be accomplished without adverse effects on
human health if proper consideration is given to design and management
of the system.
INTER-OFFICE COORDINATION
The implementation of more recent mandates from the Safe Drinking
Water Act (P.L. 93-532), the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469),
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580)
must be closely coordinated with the earlier mandate to recycle wastes
and fully evaluate land treatment in P.L. 92-500. Agencywide coordination
is especially important to the proper management of section 201 of P.L.
92-500, because the construction and operation of thousands of POTW's
involve such a broad spectrum of environmental issues. A concerted
effort must be made to avoid unilateral actions, or even the appearance
of unilateral actions, which satisfy a particular mandate of one Act
while inadvertently conflicting with a major Agency policy based upon
another Act. The intention of P.L. 92-500, as it concerns land treatment,
is compatible with the pertinent aspects of more recent environmental
legislation.
ACTION REQUIRED
Each of you must exert maximum effort to ensure that the actions of
your staffs reflect clearly visible encouragement of wastewater reclamation
and recycling of pollutants through land treatment processes in order to
move toward the national goals of conserving water and eliminating the
discharge of pollutants in navigable waters by 1985.
66
V
-------
This policy will apply to all future municipal construction grant
activities, as well as all current grant applications in the Step 1
category that have not been approved as of this date. Detailed information
and guidance for implementation of this policy is under preparation and will
be issued in the near future.
67
-------
APPENDIX B. EARLY SEWAGE FARMS IN BRITAIN AND THE
ECONOMICS OF THE FACILITIES (From Birch, 1879).
Year Population
Sewage Farm Started Served
Size of
Field
(Acres)
Comments
Aberdeen
A1 dershot
1877
1865 8,000
A1tri ncham
Bodmi n
Carlisle
Chelmsford
Che!tenham
1872 12,000
1876 4,000
1860 21,000
1869 8,000
1869 50,000
Ghorley -
Cleator Moor 1876 8,000
50 Farmers paid 5 pounds* per year
per acre land preparation exten-
sive, cost 30 to 40 pounds per
acre. Thus,system lost money.
100 Free lease of land to farmers
to improve it. Land was of very
poor value, after operation it
was leased at 20 pounds per acre
to dairy farmers.
55 Operated by municipality. Expenses
fell short of income by 130 pounds
per year. Sedimentation pre-
treatment.
17 No pretreatment. Cottages with-
in 50 yards - no complaints.
30 Farmer leased farm for 4 pounds
per acre per year and rented it
for grazing at 8 pounds/ac/yr.
70 Pretreatment with screening. This
was reported to be a profitable
operation.
131 Land cost 80 pounds/ac. "Roots
grown on the private dairy
farmers land under sewage, won
first prize at an annual show at
Cheltenham, till they were ex-
cluded from the competition with
the produce from ordinary farms;
they were shown with equal success,
and the same result at Glowcester.
Reported to pay for itself.
40 Irrigation and grazing carried
on simultaneously.
*In the 1960's, one English pound sterling was valued at about $2.50 (U.S.).
68
-------
APPENDIX B (Concluded) EARLY SEWAGE FARMS IN BRITAIN
AND THE ECONOMICS OF THE FACILITIES
(From Birch, 1879).
Sewage Farm
Year
Started
Population
Served
Size of
Field
(Acres)
Comments
Cockermouth
1877
5,115
16
_
Credition
-
4,000
-
-
Denbigh
-
5,823
250
Farmers pay 110 pounds/year
for the sewage.
Devizes
1869
7,000
_
>
Doncaster
1874
20,000
263
-
Edinburgh
1769
2.5 xlO6 gpd
323
Grass is bought and harvested
by local dairymen - Hay yield
40 ton/ac, rye grass produces
up to 60 tons/ac.
Guisborough
1871
6,000
21
Operated in private lands at a
profit.
Handswork
1861
1,000
-
-
Hoddesdon
1878
2,000
17
-
Leamington
-
22,000
-
Sewage pumped 2 miles and had an
elevation increase of 130 feet.
Ormskirk
1875
6,000
40
-
Penrith
1869
7,000
70
-
Rugby
-
9,000
190
Contributed more to sewage utili
zation facts than any other placi
but Edinburgh.
Ruthin
-
3,000
112
-
South MoT ton
-
3,000
-
-
69
-------
APPENDIX C. PLACES THAT HAVE (OR ARE STILL USING) LAND TREATMENT
(Hartman, 1975; Rideal, 1906; Rafter arid Baker, 1894; Hutchins, 1939).
Modern Surveys of Land Treatment are not Included Here,
Such as Sullivan, et al. (1973).
Place
Year
Started
Year
Changed to
Treatment
and
Discharge
Area Amount of Flow (MGD)/
Used (Ac) Population
Australia
Melbourne
Canada
Victoria
Egypt
Cairo
Britain
1898
1901
1915
Plan underway 26,880
3,000
96
Aberdeen
1877
-
-
-
Al dershot
1865
-
-
-/8.000
Altrincham
1872
-
55
-/12,000
Banburg
-
_
-/12,700
Barston
-
-
_
-
Bedford
1868
-
155
1.2/-
Birmingham
1867
1903
500
15.6/-
Bedmin
1876
-
17
-/3,000
Braintree
1860
-
30
-/5,00G
Burton
_
-
430
-/46,400
Cambridge
-
_
-
Carlisle
1860
-
60
-/21,000
Chelmsford
1869
-
70
-/8.000
Cheltenham
1869
-
131
-/50,000
Chesterfield Farm
-
-
-
-
Chorley
_
-
-
-
Cleator Moor
1876
-
40
~/800
Cockermouth
1877
-
16
-/5.115
Coventry
-
-
-
-
Credition
_
-
-
-/4,000
Croydon
1860
1969
630
5.6/35,000
Parlington
1876
1936
-
-
Desborough
_
-
-
-
Doncaster
1873
-
263
-/23,600
Edinburgh
1650
1900
250
2.5/-
Eucles
-
-
-
-
Glastonbury
-
-
250
-
Guisbourough
1871
_
21
-/6,000
70
-------
APPENDIX C. (CONTINUED). PLACES THAT HAVE (OR ARE STILL USING) LAND
TREATMENT (Hartman, 1975; Rideal, 1906; Rafter and Baker, 1894;
Hutchins, 1939).
Year
Changed to
Treatment
Year
and
Area
Amount of Flow (MGD)/
Place
Started
Discharge
Used (Ac)
Population
Handsworth
1861
21
-/I,000
Hoddesdon
1878
-
17
-/2,000
Leamington
1870
1929
_
-/22,000
Leicester
-
1952
1,710
9.6/-
Manchester
-
1904
-
-
Nottingham
1880
1930
651
-/259.000
Ormskirk
.1875
-
40
-/6,000
Otley
-
_
-
-
Oxford
1880
-
318
1.5/5,000
Penri th
1869
-
70
-/7.000
Plympton
-
_
100
-/3,000
Perth
-
_
-
-
Reading
1874
1904
869
3.3/65,000
Riding
-
-
-
-
Ri pon
-
-
-
-
Rugby
1853
_
190
-/9,000
Stretford
1877
1903
77
0.8/-
South Mo1 ton
-
-
-
-/3,000
Turnbridge Wells
..
-
310
-/30,000
Tyldeslay
-
1903
-
-
Warwick
1867
-
130
1.2/12,000
Wigam
-
-
420
-/59,000
Weherhampton
-
_
-
-
West Houghton
-
1900
-
-
Wilms!aw
-
-
_
-
Wimbledon
1877
-
61
0.67/25,000
Withington
-
-
-
-
Wrexham
1871
-
80
0.4/12,000
France
Pari s
1869
-
16,000
79.2/-
Rheims
-
-
-
- •
Germany
Berl in
1874
_
68,000
40/-
Bielefeld
-
-
-
_
Braunschweig
1896
-
10,865
16/-
Bremen
1915
-
-
-
Breslau
1881
_
741
9.3/-
Bunzlau
1630
-
-
-
Celle
1870
—
—
—
71
-------
APPENDIX C. (CONTINUED). PLACES THAT HAVE (OR ARE STILL USING) LAND
TREATMENT (Hartman, 1975; Ri'deal", 1906; Rafter and Baker, 1894,
Hutchins, 1939).
Place
Year
Started
Year
Changed to
Treatment
and
Discharge
Area
Used (Ac)
Amount of Flow (MGD)/
Population
Danzig
Darmstadt
Dortmund
Freiburg
Konlgsberg
Leipzig
Liegnitz
Munster
Stadtilm
Ulzen
1871
1885
1899
1890
1899
1894
1903
1909
1900
-
385
3.6/-
India
Bombay
Delhi
New Delhi
1877
1913
1913
1938
1,250
-
Italy
Florance
Milano
-
-
-
-
Mexico
Mexico City
1900
-
111,746
1570/-
Poland
Bielefield
Lodz
Lower Silesia 1906
Ostrow Wielkopolski 1911
-
1,531
105
-
Russia
Moscow
1900
1963
6,500
-
South Africa
Johannesburg
1912
1935
**
-
United States
Abiliene, TX
Bakersfield, CA
Boulder, CO
Colorado Springs,
1949
1890
CO 1889
-
2,500
10/-
-/n ,140
72
-------
APPENDIX C. (CONCLUDED) PLACES THAT HAVE (OR ARE STILL USING) LAND
TREATMENT (Hartman, 1975; Rideal, 1906; Rafter and Baker, 1894;
Hutchins, 1939).
Year
Changed to
Treatment
Year
and
Area
Amount of Flow (MGD)/
Place
Started
Discharge
Used (Ac)
Population
Burlington, NJ
1892
_
_
Cheyenne, WY
1883
_
-
-/ll,690
Delano, CA
-
_
_
-
Deming, NM
1913
-
-
-
Fresno, CA
1890
_
2,000
14(1n 1974)/10,816(1890)
Hanford, CA
-
-
160
1.5/-
Haworth, NJ
1907
-
-
-
Helena, MT
1889
-
-
-/13,834 .
Highstown, NJ
1913
-
_
-
Kingsville, TX
-
1959
-
-
Las Vegas, NV
-
- ¦
-
Los Angeles, CA
1883
1907
-/50,395
Lubbock, TX
1915
-
-
-
Midland, TX
-
-
500
4.5/-
fit, Vernon, CA
-
-
-
- ¦
Oil dale, CA
1947
1973
400
2.4/-
Palm Springs, CA
-
-
100
1 /-
Pasadena, CA
1893
-
300
-/4,882
Pleasantown, CA
1911
-
181
1.3/-
Pullman, IL
1881
-
140
Redding, CA
1888
-
-
-/I,821
Salt Lake City, UT 1890
-
Santa Rosa, CA
1889
-
-
-/5,220
Stockton, CA
1892
-
-
-/14,424
San Angelo, TX
-
-
700
5/-
Trinidad, CO
1092
-
-
-/5,523
San Antonio, TX
1900
-
1,500
-
San Bernadino, CA
-
-
_
-
Santa Rose, CA
-
-
-
Smithville, NJ
-
-
-
-
South Framingham,
MA. 1889
-
-
-
Torrance, CA
1913
-
-
- '
Tucson, AR
1915
1965
-
-
73
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF WESTERN CITIES USING IRRIGATION OF SEWAGE
IN 1934 AND 1937 (Hutchins, 1939)
IRRIGATION WITH SEWAGE TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM OUTFALLS OR DISPOSAL PLANTS
Arizona: Casa Grande, Nogales, Phoenix,* Tucson.
California: Bakersfield, Banning, Chi no, Cloverdale, Colfax, Col ton, Corcoran,
Dixon, Elsinore, Exeter, Fowler, Fresno, Hanford, Hemet, Indio, Kingsburg,
Lemoore, Livermore, Lodi,** Madera, Manteca, Marysville, Merced, Modesto,
Ontario, Or!and, Pasadena, Pomona, Ripon, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Maria, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa, Selma, Sonoma, St. Helena, Susanville, Tulare,
Turlock, Ukiah, Vacaville, Visalia, Wasco,+ Whittier, Woodland, Yreka.
Colorado: Greeley.
Idaho: Glenns Ferry, Meridian.
Kansas: Liberal, Scott City.
Montana: Anaconda, Helena, White Sulphur Springs.
New Mexico: Clovis, Portales, Sante Fe.
Oregon: Ashland, Burns.
Texas: Abilene, Amarillo, Baird, Breckenridge, Brownfield, Canyon, Carlsbad
(State Sanitarium), Childress, Coleman, Dublin, Falfurrias,+f Georgetown,
Karnes City, Kerrville, Kingsville, Lubbock, Midland, Mission, Munday, Plain-
view, Robstown, Roscoe, Rotan, San Angelo, San Antonio, San Marcos (irriga-
tion with sludge), Snyder, Stamford, Stephenville, Sweetwater, Tahoka, Uvalde.
Utah: Brigham, Richfield, Salt Lake City, St. George.
Washington: Pomeroy, Walla Walla.
Wyomi ng: Cheyenne.
IRRIGATION WITH SEWAGE DIVERTED FROM PUBLIC STREAM CHANNELS
Arizona: Phoenix.
California: Brea, Pasadena, San Bernadino, Santa Rosa, Tracy.
Colorado: Denver, Greeley.
Nebraska: Hastings.
Neveda: Reno.
New Mexico: Raton.
Oregon: Ashland, Medford.
South Dakota: Rapid City.
Texas: San Angelo.
Utah: Ogden.
Washington: Walla Walla.
Wyoming: Cheyenne.
* Direct Irrigation only on park surrounding plant; not considered in total
figures.
** Effluent taken directly into irrigation district canal.
t Creamery waste only.
ft Sewage irrigation previously practiced and abandoned, just now being resumed.
74
-------
APPENDIX E
THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW OF LAND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
CONDUCTED IN THE LATE 1800's AND IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM-RAFTER (1887, 1889).
The more important of the general principles discussed in this paper are
brought together at this point for convenience of reference:
(1) Sewage purification is an imperative duty which municipalities owe
to the owners of riparian rights, and which can riot be neglected by muni-
cipalities without such an infringement upon those rights as it is now
well established may be prevented by legal process.
(2) Sewage utilization should go hand in hand with purification. When
operated with reference to all the necessary conditions, a proper degree
of purification may be attached as well as satisfactory utilization.
(3) The proper method of utilizing sewage is, for purposes of irrigation,
by means which do not differ, except in matters of detail, from those of
ordinary irrigation as practiced abroad for centuries.
(4) In order to utilize sewage to the best advantage, the towns should
construct, at thier own expense, intermittent filtration areas on which
the sewage may be efficiently purified when not required for use in agri-
culture. Farmers utilizing sewage in agriculture should be required to
take it only as needed for the best results on crops.
(5) The theory of the action of intermittent filtration is in effect the
theory, of purification as effected by broad irrigation, the difference
between the two being chiefly a matter of detail.
(6) In the purification of a strong acid sewage from manufacturing towns
it may sometimes become desirable to treat the sewage by a chemical process
before utilizing it in agriculture. For this purpose lime is the chemical
commonly used.
(7) In case the effluent from sev/age purification works or areas is to be
passed into streams which are the source of drinking water for towns farther
down, the degree of purification should necessarily be high. The experi-
ments of the Massachusetts State Board of Health show that there is no
trouble in removing from 95 to 99 1/2 per cent of the organic impurity, as
indicated either by the chemical constituents, or by the bacteria. When as
much as 99 per cent is removed, the sewage becomes.chemically purer than
the water of many wells, and there is, so far as known, absolutely no reason
why it may not pass safely into a stream used as the source of a public
water supply.
(8) Intermittent filtration areas are best constructed'of coarse mortar
sand, as shown by the experiments of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health.
(9) Intermittent filtration is chiefly a biological process, in which the
nitrifying organisms, with the assistance of oxygen and the minerals
naturally in solution in sewage, resolve objectionable organic matter into
mineral nitrates, etc., the whole process, when properly conducted, taking
place without the production of objectionable odor. The conditions for
successful treatment are, generally, intermittency of application and open
spaces in the filtering material to which common air may easily gain access.
75
-------
APPENDIX E (CONCLUDED)
Such filters may be expected to purify from 30,000 to 100,000 gallons per
acre per day, the amount depending upon the quality of the material in
respect to sand and water content, as defined by the studies of Mr. Allen
Hazen.1
(10) Sewage may be purified by broad irrigation at all seasons of the year
at any place where the mean air temperature of the coldest month is not
lower than about 20° to 25°F.» while by the use of intermittent filtration
it may be purified fairly well down to a limit of 18° to 20°F., provided the
sewage reaches the purification area at a temperature not lower than about
4S°F.
(11) From the experience gained abroad it is clear that we may successfully
cultivate almost any of the ordinary agricultural productions of the United
States on sewage farms, due regard being had in every case to the special
conditions required for each particular crop.
(12) The most efficient purification of sewage can be attained by its appli-
cation to land.
(13) On properly managed sewage farms the utilization of sewage is not pre-
judicial to health.
(14) In comparing the results of sewage utilization as thus far obtained in
the United States with the results obtained abroad it is clear that, generally
speaking, we have not been specially successful. As one chief step toward
a remedy for this we need to create in this country a class of sewage-farm
managers who are thoroughly familiar with all phases of the question. Thus
far the management of American sewage farms has been usually in the hands of
committees of municipal councils having little or no knowledge of the real
governing conditions.
(15) The experience in England, Germany, and France, and also that gained in
this country, all points to intermittent filtration relief areas, on which
any surplus sewage not required in agriculture may be purified, as the
rational method of procedure.
From 30,000 to 100,000 gallons of ordinary raw town sewage may be so thoroughly
¦purified that it may be admitted to streams from which "public water supplies
are taken. If a less thorough purification is required, or if the sewage has
been previously treated with lime, from 200, 000 to 300,000 gallons per acre per
acre per day nay be successfully purified.
-------
APPENDIX F
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES FROM RAFTER (1899)
Austin (Henry). Report on the means of deodorizing and utilizing the sewage
of towns. Paper; 8vo. London, 1857.
Discusses a large number of the more important questions in sewage
utilisation in such a way as to be of great value to the student of
the present day.
Backhouse (Benjamin). An account of Liernur's sewerage system in its present
state of development based upon personal inquiry. By the chairman of the
city of Sydney Improvement Board. Pamphlet; 8vo. London, 1887.
Baumeister (R.). The cleaning and sewerage of cities - sewerage, sewage disposal,
street cleaning. Translation; 8vo. New York, 1891.
A concise statement of the German views on sewerage, sewage disposal,
and street cleaning. Contains illustrations and is especially valuable
for the reader who wishes to survey the whole field of the German view
without reading a large number of works. As remarked in the introduction,
prepared by Rudolph Bering, the American reader should remember that this
work was prepared primarily for German engineers and for the conditions
prevalent in the German Empire.
Birmingham sewage inquiry. 8vo. Birmingham and London, 1871.
This report contains a very thorough review of sewage purification as
it existed in 1871, together with description and cuts of the pail system
as used in Liverpool, Manchester, Rochdale, Birmingham, etc. The reader
should remember, however, in reading the old reports, that many of the
appliances which are illustrated have been improved without recent dates,
and that the statements illustrations can only be safely taken after one
has obtained full knowledge of the subject and consequent power of selection.
Burn (R. Scott). Outlines of modern farming. 6th edition. 12 mo. London, 1888.
Treats extensively among other subjects of the utilization of town sewage,
irrigation, etc.
Corfield (W.H.) The treatment and utilization of sewage. 3rd edition, revised
and enlarged by the author and Louis C. Parks. 8vo. London, 1887.
In this work the question of sewage utilisation is examined at considerable
length, and many useful conclusions are reached.
Crimp (W. Santo). Sewage disposal works. A guide to the construction of works
for the prevention of pollution by sewage of rivers and estuaries. 1st
edition. 8vo. London, 1890. 2d edition. London, 1894.
Contains descriptions up to date of a large number of the more important
English sewage disposal works~
77
-------
APPENDIX F (Continued)
Dempsey (G.D.). Drainage of lands, towns, and buildings. Revised edition with
large additions of recent practices in drainage engineering, by D, Kinnear
Clark. 12mo. London, 1890.
Dibdin (W.J.). Report of experiments on the filtration of sewage effluent (from
the London main drainage works) during the years 1892-1895, inclusive. Paper;
4 to. London, 1895.
Frankland (Percy and Mrs. Percy). Micro organisms in water, their significance,
identification, and removal. 8vo. London, 1894.
Contains a statement of the relation of sewage-polluted water to disease.
Gray (Samuel M.). Proposed plan of a sewerage system for the disposal of the
sewage of the city of Providence. Made by order of the city council of the
city of Providence. Paper; 8vo. Providence, 1884.
Contains an account of a large number of sewage purification plants abroad
as visited by Mr. Gray, together with recommendations for the partial
purification of sewage of Providence by chemical treatment, followed by
its discharge into tide water at a point where it could not become a
nuisance along the adjacent beaches.
Health of Towns Commission. This commission made two reports - the first,
1844, published in two 8vo. vols.: the second, in 1845, also in two 8vo. vols.
These two reports may be taken as the beginning of sanitary science in
England and in the civilized world generally. These reports should be
studied by any person wishing to study the whole subject of sewage utili-
zationj by way of showing the magnitude of the evil which has been com-
batted and greatly mitigrated since 1844.
Hill (John W.). Water supplies for eitht cities in relation to typhoid-fever
rates. An address before the Society of Municipal Improvements, Chicago,
October 9, 1896. Paper; 12mo. 8 pp. Cincinnati, 1896.
Institution of Civil Engineers, Proceedings of Vols. I-CXX. 8vo. London, 1838-1895.
Contain a "large amount of information on river pollution and sewage
deodorizations filtration, interception, irrigation, manure, precipitation,
and sewage utilization generally. Detailed subject indexes have been issued
from Vols. I-LVIII and from Vols. LIX-CXVIII, to which reference may be
made for nearly every phase of the subject as discussed in England for the
last forty to fifty years.
Jones (Charles). Refuse destructors. 2d edition. 8vo. London, 1894.
Contains detailed information as to the result of garbage destruction
by fire, as well as a paper on the utilization of torn, refuse for power
production, by Thomas Tomlinson.
78
-------
APPENDIX F (Continued)
Kiersted (Wyncoop). A discussion of the prevailing theories and practice
relating to sewage disposal. 12mo. New York, 1894.
The author believes that the rivers of the country are, on the whole,
the natural place for disposing of sewage. In his view the natural
forces of nitrification will purify the sewage in streams somewhat
the same as on land.
Kinzett (C.T.). Nature's hygiene. A systematic manual of natural hygiene.
. 4th edition. 8vo. London, 1894.
Local Government Board. Reports of the medical officer.
The reports of the medical officer of the privy council and local govern-
ment hoard have contained for many years much information of interest
and value relating to sewage purification and utilization. The student
of the subject will find in these reports a vast amount of important
matter. In the supplement to the report of the medical officer for 1891
may be found a study of enteric fever in the valley of the river Lee.
In the supplement to the report for 1887 may be found papers giving full
statistics of diarrhea and diphtheria in England. The first of these is
a report by Dr. Ballard of the cause of the mortality from diarrhea which
is observed principally in the summer seasons of the year in English
communities, and the second is a statistical study by Dr. Longstaff on ,
the geographical distribution of diphtheria in England and Wales.
Dr. Ballard's statistical inquiry included the years from 1880 to 1888.
while Dr. Longstaff s included the twenty-six years ending with 1880.
The relation of these two diseases to sanitary conditions is set forth
in many tables and diagrams with great clearness.
Lowcook (Richard Sidney). Experiments on the filtration of sewage. Excerpt
from Proceedings Institution Civil Engineers, Vol. CXV. Paper; 8vo. London,
1893.
Mason (William P.). Water supply, chemical and sanitary. 8vo. New York, 1896.
Contains, an excellent statement of drinking water as affected by sewage
pollution in its relations to disease.
Massachusetts Drainage Commission, Report of. 8vo. Boston, 1886.
This commission was authorized by the Massachusetts legislature to con-
sider and report systems of drainage for the Mystic, Blackstone, and
Charles river valleys. In 1885 a report of great value was submitted,
in which questions of stream pollution and sewage disposal are discussed
at length. The engineer of the commission, Elliot C. Clark, also sub- ^
mitted a report in which he gave the details of the problem of prevention
of stream pollution and methods of sewage purification as applied to the
river valleys named. One of the best of the early American reports.
79
-------
APPENDIX F (Continued)
Metropolitan sewage discharge. Report of Royal Commissioners. 4 vols, of
reports; minutes of evidence; appendixes, etc. 4to. London, 1884, 1885.
Presents every phase of question of disposal of sewage of London as it
existed twelve yea^s ago.
Metropolitan water supply, Report of Royal Commission on. 6 vols. General
report; minutes of evidence; appendixes; index; plans, etc. 4to. London,
1893.
The most recent and extensive information as to pollution of streams ¦
and its effect on the water supply of the metropolis as applied to the
rivers Themes and Lee3 from whioh that supply is drawn.
Munroe (John M.H.). Composition and manurial value of filtered pressed sewage
sludge. Reprint from the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry,
January 29, 1885. Manchester, 1885.
Philadelphia Water Department, Annual Reports of the Chief Engineer, 1883 to
1886, inclusive.
These reports contain the results of an investigation as to the pollution
of the water supply of the oity of Philadelphia by sewage3 together with
the reports on additional supplies from unpolluted or nearly unpolluted
or nearly unpolluted sources3 with methods of preventing pollution3 eto.
They may be referred to for much valuable information on the general
question of pollution of streams and its attendant evils.
R1 vers Pollution Commission (first commission). Report of the commissioners
appointed in 1868 to inquire into the best means of preventing the pollution
of rivers. 10 vols. 4to. London, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1874.
This commission made six reports in all, The first report, in two volumes3
treats of the pollution of the basin of the rivers Mersey and nibble and of
the best means of preventing pollution therein. The second report is taken
up with a description of the A, B, C process of treating sewage. The third
report3 in two volumes3 discusses the pollution arising from the woolen
manufacture and processes connected therewith. The fourth report treats of
the pollution of the rivers of Scotland3 and gives special consideration,
among other subjects3 to the pollution arising from paper-mill wastes3 etc.
The fifth report, in two volumes, treats of the pollution arising from mining
operations and metal manufactures. The sixth report3 in one volume, treats
of the general subject of domestic water supply of Great Britain. In this
report Dr. Edwin Franklin, the chemist member of the commission, has here
worked out in detail the method of water analysis which he designated as
the combustion method. 4 large amount of information about water supplies
from cultivated and uncultivated areas and the contamination of water from
manured and unmanured, cropped and uncropped land is given, the whole forming
a vast body of sanitary information pertinent to present conditions.
80
t
-------
APPENDIX F (Concluded)
Royal Sanitary Commission, Report of. Second report. 4to. London, 1871,
Contains a history of the English sanitary laws up to that date, with
suggestions for new statute, eto.
Sewage disposal. Report of a committee appointed by the president of the local
government board to inquire into the several modes of treating town sewage.
Paper; 8vo. London, 1876.
Contains many details of sewerage work carried out in England to that
date, with a large number of analyses of raw and effluent sewage at
several sewage farms. In appendix No. 7 is given a list of a large
number of patented processes for treating sewage and producing artificial
manure therefrom, as taken out from between the years 1856 and 1875
inclusive. The report is also accompanied by a folio of plans, giving
details of a number of the more interesting sewage-disposal works of that
date.
Sewage of Towns, Report from the select committee on. Two reports, in 2 volumes.
First report ordered to be printed April 10, 1862, and the second report
April 29, 1862. 4to. London, 1882.
Sewage of Towns Commission. Three reports. 8vo. London, 1858, 1861, 1865.
These reports contain the detail of elaborate investigations made by a
royal commission appointed to inquire into the best mode of distributing
the sewage of towns and applying it to beneficial and profitable uses.
Elaborate cultivation and feeding experiments were pursued* extending
over a period of several yearss the results of which were presented in
great detail in the second and third reports. In the appendix to the
first report may be found an account of a visit made by a committee of
the commission to Milant Italy, for the purpose of examining the sewage
utilization works which had been carried out at that place. This committee
reported under date of December, 1857, that the experience of the irriga-
tion around Milan adds a striking proof to those already obtained as to
obtained as to the value in agriculture of a command of pure water and
of the immense increase of that value obtained by the addition of sewage
combined with the higher temperature derived by the liquid in its passage
through the town.
Waring (George E., Jr.). Purification of sewage by forced aeration. Report of
an experimental investigation of the value of the process of purifying sewage
by means of artifically aerated bacterial filters. Paper; 8vo. Newport,
Rhode Island, 1895.
81
-------
APPENDIX G
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE MORE RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ADOPTION OF
RELIABLE RECYCLING AND RECLAMATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
(Seabrook, 1977)
1. Provide increased internal E.P.A. agency-wide program office coordination
for implementation of the Water Quality Act Amendments (P.L.92-500), the
Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L.93-523), the Toxic Substances Control Act
(P.L.94-469), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(P.L.94-580).
2. Include conservation of energy and material resources in cost-effective
planning to obtain lowest cost operations, maintenance, and capital invest-
ment facili ties.
3. Development of more uniform National guidelines on preapplication treatment,
buffer zones, and groundwater protection.
4. Increase the use of U.S. E.P.A. construction grant funds for land application
demonstration projects.
5. Develop an effective and rapid means of transferring land treatment infor-
mation to the consultants and other decision makers operating in the waste
treatment fields.
6. The Farmers Home Administration (F.H.A.) and the Environmental Protection
Agency should develop more effective coordination when dealing with rural
communities. Since F.H.A. has authority to make grants and/or loans to
communities under 10,000 in population for water and sewage treatment
facilities, all "Step I Grants" should be reviewed by F.H.A. before the
grant is finalized by the E.P.A. regional offices. One method of achieving
this type of coordination would be to develop a special task force in each
E.P.A. regional office which would include an F.H.A. engineer in order to
provide assistance in evaluating alternative waste treatment systems for
small communities.
7. Flexible but proven national guidelines for the development of land treat-
ment systems need to be developed. The 1975 California regulations would
be good examples to start with.
8. Redefine the reference technology for best practicable treatment to refer
to well designed and well operated treatment systems.
9. Where appropriate, cost comparison and decisions should be made between dis-
charge technologies which produce water quality equivalent to land treatment
systems.
82
t
-------
APPENDIX G (concluded)
10. Congress or E.P.A. should clarify section 510 of P.L.92-500. Some states
have accepted a definition which has resulted in specification of the
internal components of the land treatment system, instead of correctly
regulating the quality of the effluent at the discharge point as is done
with conventional in-plant processes.
11. Provide a stronger, more effective communication link between politicians
and other policy makers so that more effective planning can take place.
R3
»U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 — 677-070/1101 REGION NO. 8
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 335
U.S.MAIL
c/o GSA
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
Fourth Cla:
Book Rate
------- |