EPA POLICY ON LAND TREATMENT AND THE
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977
Prepared by
Richard E. Thomas
Sherwood C. Reed
Prepared for
Environmental Research Information Center
Seminar
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
June 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
EPA Policy on Land Treatment and the Clean Water Act of 1977
by Richard E. Thomas and Sherwood C. Reed
The Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation represents a
major national forum for discussion of significant environmental issues.
The July 1973 issue featured "land disposal" and included articles
representing the entire spectrum of professional opinion on the topic.
That special issue was prompted by over a year of vigorous debate following
the Journal editorial of May 1972 which called for "hard technical facts
about land disposal," so: "all may evaluate them in their proper perspec-
tive." Many hard technical facts about "land disposal" or more correctly
land treatment,have been gathered and reported in the technical literature
since then. With this new information available the Congress has completed
a review and revision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972. These revisions, enacted as the Clean Water Act (PL 95-217) in
December 1977 strengthened the legislative mandate to consider land
treatment as a proven and reliable alternative for management of waste-
wafers .
This article focuses on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Policy and Construction Grants Program Guidance as they relate to tne
Agency's issuance of the October 1977 Policy Statement on Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewaters. The history of Federal legislation will be
recounted to establish a framework for the abrupt change of Federal
involvement and posture as of 1972. Emphasis will be placed on the
October 1977 EPA Policy Statement on Land Treatment; its relationship to
the Clean Water Act; and recent Construction Grants Program guidance on
land treatment.
A discussion or evaluation of the rapidly expanding base of hard
facts regarding land treatment is beyond the scope of this paper.
Perhaps it is time for the Water Pollution Control Federation to again
feature "land treatment" with emphasis on the hard facts of performance,
reliability, and recycling capabilities in relation to energy requirements
and comparative health risks.
Early Federal Legislation
The precursor of all Federal legislation for water pollution control
was the River and Harbors Act of 1899 which contained provisions to
require permits for discharge of any refuse into navigable waters.
Refuse was defined to include industrial pollutants and to cover all
foreign substances and pollutants except for municipal sewage. Other
Federal legislation pertaining to water pollution abatement fncludes the
Public Health Service Act of 1912, the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, and
the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. Sullivan1, in tracing the
early origins of Federal legislation,noted that the Federal Water Pollution
-------
Control Act of 1956 instituted a grants program containing prohibitions
and omissions that were discouraging to land treatment. Land for sewage
treatment including land used as a functional element in wastewater
treatment was not eligible for grant assistance. Also, there was no
encouragement for adoption of treatment concepts that incorporated
recycling or reclamation in conjunction with waste treatment.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 19722
mandated a sweeping Federal-State-local government program to reduce,
prevent and eliminate water pollution. This Act'contained several
provisions directly encouraging land treatment. These included: (1) a
mandate for the Administrator of EPA to encourage waste management
alternatives that would produce revenues from recycling sewage pollutants
for production of agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products;
(2) a provision that grants made from funds authorized for any fiscal
year beginning after June 30, 1974, include consideration of alternative
technologies and the works proposed for grant assistance provides for
best technology adaptable to recycling or elimination of pollutant
discharge; and (3) definition of the land that will be an integral part
of the treatment process as an allowable cost while retaining land for
construction of conventional plants as a non-allowable cost. The message
of" the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 with respect to land
treatment was straightforward. Land treatment deserved serious consideration
as an alternative that combined effective waste management with recycling
and reclamation in revenue producing projects. Land treatment was to be
encouraged as EPA implemented the multi-billion dollar program to assist
communities with 75 percent Federally funded grants to upgrade existing
or construct new waste treatment facilities.
The impact of PL 92-500 on municipal use of land treatment is
illustrated in Table 1. There was a dramatic increase in such systems
after passage of the law as compared to the preceding four years.
However, the increase from 1972 to 1976 was still only equivalent to
that realized in the 1940's when there were no Federal encouragements or
incentives. Apparently the engineering profession had lost sight of the
advantages and benefits of land treatment that were self-evident to many
in the 1940's. It was clear that further action was needed and the
result has been stronger policy by EPA and additional legislation by
Congress. The message that land treatment was to be encouraged is
repeated very forcefully in the Clean Water Act of 1977.
The Clean Water Act of 1977
The Clean Water Act3 enacted into law on December 27, 1977, did
more than carry a straightforward message that land treatment deserved
serious consideration as a viable waste management alternative. This
Act provides many financial incentives for innovative and alternative
(I/A) approaches to waste management and specifically includes land
treatment as an innovative or alternative technology. Among these
-------
incentives for I/A projects are the following: (1) the Federal share of
a construction grant may be increased from 75% to 85%; (2) a requirement
to spend 2% of allocated funds on increasing the Federal share from 75%
to 85% in fiscal years 1979 and 1980 (in 1981 this set-aside increases
to 3%); (3) the Federal government may participate with full construction
grant funding in projects which are up to 15% more costly than the most
cost-effective of the conventional alternatives; and (4) projects which
fail to meet design criteria may be eligible for 100% Federal grants for
modification or replacement. Obviously, the future holds more promise
for expanding use of land treatment for management of municipal wastewaters.
In the words of the Conference Report (House of Representatives,
95th Congress, 1st Session, Report 95-830, page 57), "The Administrator
has been provided all the legislative tools needed to require the utilizatio
of such innovative and alternative wastewater treatment processes and
techniques." This statement is included in a section of the Conference
Report in which the Congressional Conferees chastise wastewater treatment
professionals for lack of initiative to implement the intent of the 1972
amendments to redirect waste management toward recycling, reclamation
and confined disposal of wastes. The financial incentives of the 1977
Act are offered to underscore the intent of Congress to force utilization
of new and better alternatives. It is sobering and thought provoking
to ponder the fact that select members of Congress consider the mainstream
of our profession so entrenched in a rut that they have used Federal
legislation to pry us out.
EPA Policy
The initial statement of EPA policy to reinforce the encouragement
of land treatment in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 came in November 1974. The major thrust of this
statement of policy on land treatment was directed to assuring that land
treatment be considered as an alternative wastewater management system.
The Regional Administrators of EPA were urged to: "ascertain that your
regional review of applications for construction of publicly-owned
treatment works requires that land application be considered as an
alternative waste management system. If it can be demonstrated that
land treatment is the most cost-effective alternative, is consistent
with the environmental assessment, and in other aspects satisfies
applicable tests, the Region should insist that land treatment be used
and should refuse to fund projects using other systems of waste treatment."
The EPA Technical Bulletin "Evaluation of Land Application Systems"1*
was listed as the key document to be used in the review process-. The
policy statement also called for regional seminars to demonstrate the
EPA intent to emphasize consideration of land treatment, and to reacquaint
the engineering profession with the technology of land treatment. An
even stronger announcement of the Agency policy on encouragement of land
-------
treatment was issued in October 1977.5 This policy statement spelled
out three major points of emphasis on land treatment of municipal waste-
water:
1. The Agency will press vigorously for implementation of land
treatment alternatives to reclaim and recycle municipal
wastewaters.
2. Rejection of land treatment alternatives shall be supported by
a complete justification (reason for rejection shall be well
documented in the facilities plan).
3. If the Agency deems the level of preapplication treatment to
be unnecessarily stringent, the costs of achieving the excessive
level of preapplication treatment will not be considered as
eligible for EPA cost sharing when determining the total cost
of a project.
The policy statement reiterated the intent of Congress that the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 should cause a major
shift to recycling and reclamation technologies while stating that the
EPA would press vigorously to utilize land treatment. In explaining
this position the policy statement notes that land treatment is capable
of achieving treatment levels comparable to the best of the advanced
wastewater treatment technologies. Land treatment achieves these levels
of treatment with a comparatively low energy demand because recovery and
beneficial reuse of wastewater nutrients through crop production are an
integral part of the process in most instances.
The policy statement also declared that EPA was adopting a require-
ment to provide complete justification for rejection of land treatment
unless the recommended alternative encouraged water conservation, waste-
water reclamation or reuse. This declaration came about because land
treatment was receiving superficial assessment in development of alternatives
in the facility planning process. It was clear to EPA that more
encouragement was needed if land application was going to receive inoepth
assessment as it was compared to conventional treatment.
The third point of major emphasis addressed the level of preapplica-
tion treatment of the wastewater to be applied to the land. Public
health concerns, and uncertainties from lack of experience were prompting
many States to hastily adopt EPA secondary effluent criteria as the minimum
level of preapplication treatment for land application. The EPA, knowing
that these criteria were established for discharge to surface waters,
wanted to encourage establishment of preapplication criteria on a logical
evaluation of public health considerations in relation to project objec-
tives. In order to stem the adoption of EPA secondary criteria for
discharge as minimum preapplication criteria the EPA took the position
-------
that facilities needed to provide unnecessarily stringent preapplication
treatment would not be funJe-J by EPA. The intent of this position was to
encourage States to re-examine and to revise the adoption of criteria and
so reduce the probability of requiring construction and operation of
unnecessary or too costly facilities for preapplication treatment.
The EPA views the October 1977 policy statement as part of a
continuing program to achieve the intent of the Congress as established
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and reaffirmed in the
Clean Water Act of 1977. In essence it is part of a continuing program
to reorient waste management from a program of collection and disposal
to a program of collection, recycle, reclamation, and reuse.
EPA Guidance
As discussed by Ha is6 in a recent paper on Federal guidelines, most
of the EPA guidance for the use of land treatment is linked in some way
to the Construction Grants Program as established by Section 201 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Several provisions of
Section 201 and some other parts of the Act called for EPA to establish
gu-idance pertaining to land treatment. Section 201 grant applicants
were required to evaluate best practicable alternatives that include
reclaiming and recycling of water. The legislative history of the
1977 Act and the mandate that the Administrator of Et-'A encourage revenue
producing projects involving agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture
left no doubt that land treatment should be included in the "Best Prac-
ticable Waste Treatment Technologies" described pursuant to Section 304
of the 1972 Act.
EPA guidance on land treatment is comprised of many items issueo
since passage of the 1972 Act. Many technical bulletins have been
issued culminating in the "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater," which was issued concurrently with the October 1977
Policy Statement on Land Treatment. Program 'guidance (requirements)
memoranda have been issued to cover various aspects of the purchase or
lease of land. These technical bulletins and Program Requirements
Memoranda pertain only to the planning, design, and construction of
facilities which receive EPA Construction Grants. Even so, their impact
is often comparable to that of nationwide regulations because of tne
magnitude of the EPA managed Construction Grants Program.
The Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (BPWTT) criteria
published by EPA in October 1975 contain requirements which for all
intents and purposes have the effect of Federal land treatment requirements.
The basic thrust of these criteria is to protect groundwater for drinking
water purposes.
-------
The criteria for protection of groundwater describe three cases as
follows:
CASE I: The groundwater can potentially be used for drinking water
supply. In this case the groundwater resulting from the
land application of wastewater, including the affected
native groundwater, must meet the maximum contaminant
levels for inorganic and organic chemicals specified in
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
CASE II: The groundwater is presently being used for drinking water
supply. In this case, the groundwater must meet the
maximum microbiological contaminant levels specified in
the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations as
well as the levels for chemicals specified in Case I.
CASE III: The groundwater has uses other than drinking water supply.
In this case groundwater criteria are to be developed by
the EPA Regional Administrator in cooperation with the
appropriate State agencies based on the present or potential
use of the groundwater.
Land treatment systems having a discharge to a surface water must meet the
BPWTT criteria applied to any treatment and discharge system. It is
important to note that, in any case, the point at which the wastewater is
measured for compliance with the Federal BPWTT criteria is at the point it
leaves the land treatment system (i.e., becomes part of the uncontrolled
and permanent groundwater or is surface discharged). The wastewater is
not required to meet BPWTT surface discharge criteria, which are the EPA
secondary treatment requirements, prior to application to the land.
There have been two Program Requirements Memoranda issued to provide
guidance on land treatment since the October 1977 Policy Statement by EPA
and passage of the Clean Water Act. A Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM No. 78-4) issued on February 17, 1978, spelled out additional guidance
on eligibility of land. A broad-based Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM 79-3) issued on November 15, 1978, provides guidance for consistent
and indepth coverage of land treatment in facility planning.
Section 212 (2)(A) of the Clean Water Act had been modified to
make — "land used for the storage of treated wastewater in land treatment
systems prior to land application" an eligible cost. PRM 78-47 describes
two approaches for providing temporary storage that may qualify the land
as cost eligible. The first approach is for ponds constructed specifically
to meet storage needs. Such ponds should be constructed with maximum
depth appropriate for site conditions and with storage volumes commensurate
with the discussion of storage in the "A Design Manual on Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater. The second Approach is for ponds which are
constructed for combination treatment and storage purposes. Ponds with
-------
a defined storage volume greater than the treatment volume qualify the
total land area as eligible. Ponds with a defined storage volume less
than the defined treatment volume require eligibility to be prorated as
the ratio of the storage volume to the total volume.
The major points made in the EPA Policy Statement issued in
October 1977 provided the central basis for the guidance spelled out in
PRM 79-38 issued on November 15, 1978. The memorandum expands previous
guidance and stipulates what constitutes adequate coverage of land treat-
ment in facility planning for the EPA Construction Grant Program. The PRM
establishes the "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater"9 as the principal technical reference for EPA review purposes.
In addition, it stipulates that the basis of design for land treatment in
the Design Manual will be sideboards for evaluation of designs presented
in a facility plan. It further stipulates that costs for land treatment
alternatives will be reviewed in relation to the "Costs of Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application".10 Using these two documents as principal
resources for technical information, the PRM spells out procedures for
addressing planning factors which have historically limited the use of
land treatment. The factors identified are (1) overly conservative and,
consequently, costly design for slow rate (irrigation) systems, (2) failure
to consider rapid infiltration as a proven and reliable land treatment
alternative, and (3) provision (as required) of a substantially greater
and more costly level of preapplication treatment than is needed to protect
public health and ensure design performance. The PRM requires that the
coverage of land treatment will include assessment of a slow rate alterna-
tive and a rapid infiltration alternative while leaving coverage of over-
land flow optional at this time. Specific methods are presented for
reviewing the procedures used for five design related factors. These
factors are site selection, loading rates and land area, preapplication
treatment, costs, and environmental effects.
An important point to re-emphasize is EPA's approach to the issuance
of design criteria such as these. The Agency recognizes that no single
value or even one set of values can be realistically applied to all
locations considering the variability across the country in climata,
geology, treatment needs and other factors affecting the design of
land treatment systems. For this reason the EPA guidelines are varied
to suit a number of possible situations and include ranges of valjes
wherever possible. For example, the range of application rates indicated
in the PRM varies from 0.6-6 M/yr for slow rate systems to 6-170 i-l/yr for
rapid infiltration systems. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the range of
criteria for these important design factors.
This concept of flexibility is particularly important with respect to
EPA's position on preapplication treatment requirements. The EPA statements
on preapplication treatment have apparently been misconstrued by some who
have interpreted them as indicating that the Agency will not support any
project which requires secondary treatment prior to application to the land,
This is not the case. What the Agency is saying is that the level of
-------
8
preapplication treatment must be suited to the particular situation.
As previously noted, in some cases primary treated or even raw sewage
may be acceptable for application to the land, while in other instances
treatment beyond that provided by secondary may be necessary. Clearly
an arbitrary requirement that all wastewater has to receive secondary
treatment prior to land application is not consistent with the Agency's
approach. The guidance on preapplication treatment included in the PRM
ranges from simple screening or comminution for overland flow in
isolated areas with no public access to extensive BOD and suspended
solids control with disinfection for slow rate systems in public access
areas such as parks and golf courses. Table 4 summarizes EPA guidance
for assessing the level of preapplication treatment.
Summary
. Federal legislation pertaining to wastewater treatment and the
control of pollution therefrom dates back to the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899. The Federal role in control of water pollution was relatively
minor until enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.
Overall, the early Federal legislation treated pollution abatement as a
dominantly local problem and not of national programmatic concern. The
1956 Act signalled the beginning of a national effort which was expanded
into a sweeping Federal-State-local government program by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The intent is to re-
direct a treatment and disposal program to an effort which emphasizes
recycling, reclamation, and reuse. The Clean Water Act of 1977 re-empha-
sizes this intent and offers many financial incentives to those who
choose to implement innovative or alternative technologies.
EPA policy and guidance specific to land treatment Gates from an
administrative memorandum issued in November 1974. This memorandum
placed EPA on record as preferring land treatment when cost-effective
and environmentally acceptable. Many EPA issuances from November 1974
through September of 1977 provided additional guidance and technical
information on many aspects of land treatment in relation to the EPA
Construction Grants Program. Two EPA actions in October 1977 drew much
attention to land treatment as an alternative wastewater management
technology. The Administrator of EPA issued a policy statement promising
vigorous support of land treatment and a critical assessment of reasons
given for rejecting land treatment or requirement of high levels of
preapplication treatment. Simultaneously the EPA, in a cooperative effort
with the Corps of Engineers and the United States Department of Agricul-
ture, released the "Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater." The EPA has incorporated the basic thrust of the
October 1977 policy statement into guidance for the Construction Grants
Program. This expanded guidance on coverage of land treatment in
facility planning uses the Design Manual as the principal source for
technical information. When coupled with the emphasis placed on land
treatment as an innovative or alternative technology in the Clean Water
Act, this most recent EPA guidance on land treatment should cause major
movement toward achieving the recycling, reclamation, and reuse intent
of the 1972 and 1977 Acts on control of water pollution.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sullivan, Ralph H., "Federal and State Legislative History and
Provisions for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
and Sludges," Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,
July 1973, pp. 1-7.
2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of October 1972, 70 Stat. 498;
84 Stat. 91, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 1151.
3. Clean Water Act of December 1977, as amended; 33 U.S.C. 466.
4. Evaluation of Land Application Systems, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, March 1975,
EPA 430/9-75-001.
5. "Environmental Protection Agency Policy on Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater," October 3, 1977.
6. Hais, Alan B. , "Federal Guidelines for Use of Land Treatment of
Wastewater in the United States," Statement of Knowledge in Land
Treatment of Wastewater, August 1978, pp. 1-5.
7. "Grant Eligibility of Land Acquired for Storage in Land Treatment
Systems," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Program Requirements
Memorandum No. 78-4, February 1978.
8. "Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of Land Treatment
Alternatives Employing Surface Application," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Program Requirements Memorandum No. 79-3,
November 1978.
9. Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program
Operations, October 1977, EPA 625/1-77-008.
10. Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, May 1975,
EPA 430/9-75-003.
-------
TABLE 1
Municipalities in U.S. Using Land Treatment
Year
1940
1945
1957
1962
-
1968
1972
1976
Number of
Systems
304
422
461
401
512
571
694
Chair
+118
+ 39
- 60
+111
+ 59
+123
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
Feature
Application techniques
Annual application
rate, ft
Field area required,
acresb
Typical weekly appli-
cation rate, in.
Minimum preappl ica tion
treatment provided
Slow rate
Sprinkler or
surface3
2 to 20
S6 to 560
O.b to 4
Primary
SRdi ft.cn tation?
Principal processes
Rapid infiltration
Usually surface
20 to 560
2 to 56
4 to 120
P r i ma ry
sedimentation
Other processes
Overland flow
Sprinkler or
surface
10 to 70
16 to no
2.5 to CC
6 to 16d
Screening and
grit removal
Wetlands
Sprinkler or
surface
4 to 100
11 to 280
1 to 2b
Primary
sedimentation
Subsurface
Subsurface
8 to 87
13 to 140
2 to 20
piping
Primary
sedimentation
in United States
Disposition of
applied wastewater
Need for vegetation
Evdpotrarispirat ton Mainly
and percolation percolation
with some
Surface runoff and Evdpotranspiration, Percolation
evapotfanspi rat ion percolation ,
with some and runoff
peieolation
evapotranspi ration
Required
Optional
Requi red
Required
Option* !
a. Include:; ridge-and fin row and bolder strip,
b. Field area in acres not including buffer area, roads, or ditches for 1 Myal/d (<13.r._t/s)
L. t'.aiif)(: for application of sirrened wastt'w-itor.
d Kdnge foi appluation of lagoon and sucondi'ry effluent.
e. Depends on the use of the effluent and the type of crop.
1 in. = '/ 'j"i mi
1 ft - 0.3'Jb in
1 acre =• 0.40h ha
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
Characteristics
Slope
Soil permeability
Depth to
grounded ter
Climatic
restrictions
SI oh rate
Less than 20* on culti-
vated land; less than
40S on nonculti vated
land
Moderately slow to
modurately rapid
2 to 3 ft {minimum}
Storage often needed
for cold weather and
precipitation
Principal processes
Rapid infiltration
Not critical; excessive
slopes require much
earthwork
Rapid (sands, loamy
sands)
10 ft (lesser depths
are acceptable where
underdrainagt is
provided )
None (possibly modify
operation in cold
weather)
Overland flow
Finish slopes
? to 8*
Slow (clays,
silts, and
soils with
impermeable
barriers)
Not critical
Storage often
needed for
cold weather
Other pro
Wetlands
Usually less
than 5S
Slow to
moderate
Not critical
Storage IT ay
be needed
for cold
wt'iSthor
cesses
Subsurface
Not critical
Slow to rapid
Not critical
None
1 ft - 0.305 m
-------
TABLE 4
Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment
I. Slow-rate Systems (reference sources include Water Quality Criteria
1972, EPA-R3-73-003, Water Quality Criteria EPA 1976, and various
state guidelines).
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access and when limited to crops not for
direct human consumption.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes plus
control of fecal coliform count to less than 1,000 MPN/100 ml
acceptable for controlled agricultural irrigation except for
human food crops to be eaten raw.
C. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes with
additional BOD or SS control as needed for aesthetics plus
disinfection to log mean of 200/100 ml (EPA fecal coliform
criteria for bathing waters) - acceptable for application in
public access areas such as parks and golf courses.
II, Rapid-infiltration Systems
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes - acceptabl
for urban locations with controlled public access.
III. Overland-flow Systems
A. Screening or comminution - acceptable for isolated sites with
no public access.
B. Screening or comminution plus aeration to control odors during
storage or application - acceptable for urban locations with
no public access.
------- |