SUBJECT:  Implementation of EPA's Flow                 DATE: March  15,  1973
        Regulation Policies

FROM;    David Calkins

TO:     All Water Basin Planning Officers
        Enclosed herein for your use and information are the[EPA
        guidelines regarding Storage and Release for Water Quality
        Control in Reservoirs Planned by Federal Agencies (hereafter
        referred to as Guidelines).

        The Guidelines include:

             A.  A copy of Section 102(b) of the Federal Water
                 Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

             B.  A description of the six main issues expressed
                 in the Guidelines.

                 1.  Adequate treatment for control at the source.

                 2.  Determination of the need for storage for
                     water quality control.

                 3.  Environmental assessment.

                 4.  Assessment of the value of water quality
                     control storage.

                 5.  Identification of beneficiaries.

                 6.  Assessment of widespread or national benefits.

             C.  An Appendix which is an Assessment of Adequate
                 Treatment For Implementation of EPA's Flow
                 Regulations Policy.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)

                            - 2 -
The Appendix provides quantitative information on pollutant
reductions of "at source treatment methods," however, it
should be noted that the treatment levels apply only to
flow regulation studies.  Guidelines as they relate to
flow regulation for Municipal Wastes Treatment techniques
will be published in the near future.

                                                                     JAN  1 6 1973
SUBJECT:  Policy on Storage and Releases for Water Quality Control
        in Reservoirs Planned by Federal Agencies
T0      All Regional Administrators

        1.  PURPOSE

             To amend EPA policy on determining the need for and value of
        reservoir storage for water quality control .

        2.  BACKGROUND

             a.  Section 102(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
        Amendments of 1972 requiresa in pafts that in the planning of any
        reservoir by a Federal agency0 inclusion of storage for regulation of
        streamflow shall be considered „ except that such storage shall not be
        provided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of
        controlling waste at the source,,  The Act also provides for additional
        coverage over previous legislation in that reservoirs constructed under
        license granted by the Federal Power Commission are also included.  The
        Act further provides that the need fors value of and impact of storage
        for water quality control shall be determined by EPA0 whereas the need
        for and va]ue of storage for other stream flow regulati@n purposes shall
        be determined by the Federal agency planning the reservoir.  To administer
        this legislation;, "adequate treatment or other methods of controlling
        waste  at the source" 9 must first be defined and then the pollutant
        reductions attainable from application of these measures must be estimated.

             bo  Over the past several years „ advancement in pollution control
        technology ป together with an increasing recognition of the limitations
        of flow augmentation as a means of enhancing water quality,, have indicated
        that reservoir storage for water quality control is generally a poor
        substitute for at-source pollution control measures.  This points toward
        the need for a policy requiring provisions for high degrees of pollutant
        reduction from at=source controls or treatment methods prior to consider-
        ation  of reservoir storage and releases for water quality control.  Such
        a policy would be consistent with the National goals for water quality and
        control of pollution sources set forth in Section 101 of the Act.


             The enclosed guidelines and an appendix defining "adequate treatment"
        supplement the policy statement presented below.
     EPA Form 1320-6 (1U71)


     a.  Storage to be included In a reservoir or other impoundment project
for regulation of stream flow shall not be used as a substitute for the pro-
vision of adequate waste treatment or other methods for controlling waste at
the source.

     b.  As a basic element of this policy, EPA defines "adequate waste
treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source" as the best
available pollution control technology economically achievable including
advanced waste treatment techniques9 land disposals, land management
practices„ process and procedure innovations„ changes in operating methods
and other alternatives.

     c.  Water quality monetary benefits obtainable from streamflow
regulation shall be credited only to reservoir storage specifically required
for and allocated to water quality control.

     d.  EPA shall recommend to construction agencies of Federal projects
the inclusibn of storage for water quality control by flow regulation only
where such storage is required as a supplement to application of the best
available technology and is in consonance with water quality management
plans developed under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or its
amendments.  This same provision shall also apply to reservoir projects
constructed under license granted by the Federal Power Commission.

     e.  When EPA recommends provision of storage for water quality control,
all the environmental consequences of such provision should be considlereds
so that EPA will be in a position to comment favorably on the water quality
storage aspect of the project when the environmental impact statement on the
project is circulated for comment.

     f.  An EPA recommendation regarding the provision of storage and releases
for water quality control shall take into account State laws and policies with
respect to such storage.

     g.  When water quality control storage included within existing
reservoirs is no longer needed;, such storage should be reallocated to other
purposes based upon appropriate studies and after consultation between the
construction agencies and EPA.  Reservoir operations should be modified as
indicated by the study findings,


     This policy applies to EPA's evaluation of the need for and value of water
quality control storage in reservoirs planned by the Corps of Engineerss Bureau

of Reclamation, Soil Conservation Service and other Federal agencies and in
reservoirs licensed by the Federal Power Commission.  EPA will implement this
policy to the extent of its authorities in conducting all program activities
including review of reservoir plans under Section 102(b), water quality
management planning, interagency water and related land resource planning,
and review of environmental statements.
Date.    JAN 16 373
                                                 William D. RucJcelshaus

                             GUIDELINES OF THE
                             (    REGARDING
                           STORAGE AND RELEASES
                        PLANNED BY FEDERAL AGENCIES      ;
These guidelines describe the Environmental Protection Agency's
approach in carrying out its responsibilities under Section 102(b)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  Section
102 (b) states:

           (b)(l) In the survey or planning of any reservoir
     by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other
     Federal Agency, consideration shall be given to inclusion
     of storage for regulation of streamflow, except that any
     such storage and water releases shall not be provided
     as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods
     of controlling waste at the source.

           (2) The need for and the value of storage for
     regulation of streamflow (other than for water quality)
     including but not limited to navigation, salt water intrusion,
     recreation, esthetics, and fish and wildlife, shall
     be determined by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of
     Reclamation, or other Federal Agencies.

           (3) The need for, the value of, and the impact of,
     storage for water quality control shall be determined by
     the Administrator, and his views on these matters shall
     be set forth in any report or presentation to Congress
     proposing authorization or construction of any reservoir
     including such storage.

           (4) The value of such storage shall be taken into
     account in determining the economic value of the entire
     project of which it is a part, and costs shall be allocated
     to the purpose of regulation of streamflow in a manner
     which will insure that all project purposes share equitably
     in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.

           (5) Costs of regulation of streamflow features incorporated
     in any Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the
     provisions of this Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries
     identified and if the benefits are widespread or national
     in scope, the costs of such features shall be nonreimbursable.

           (6) No license granted by the Federal Power Commission
     for a hydroelectric power project shall include storage
     for regulation of streamflow for the purpose of water quality

     control unless the Administrator shall recommend its inclusion and
     such reservoir storage capacity shall not exceed such proportion
     of the total storage required for the water quality control plan
     as the drainage area of such reservoir bears to the drainage area
     of the river basin or basins involved in such water quality control

Key elements addressed in these guidelines are:  (l) adequate treatment or
control at the source; (2) determination of the need for storage for
water quality control; (3) environmental assessment; (k) assessment of
the value of water quality control storage; (5) identification of
beneficiaries; and (6) assessment pf widespread or national benefits.


As a basic element of the flow regulation policy, the best available
pollution control technology economically achievable, rather than simply
minimum pollution control measures, shall be provided prior to provision
for water quality storage.  The best available technology includes advanced
wastฎ treatment techniques, land disposal, land management practices, process
and procedure innovations, changes in operating methods and other alter-
natives o  Because of continual progress in pollution control technology,
the definition must be time-and-specific-case-related.  Since evaluation
of storage requirements for flow regulation for water quality control and
other purposes normally involves projections for water .needs 50 years into
the future, it is reasonable to forecast any improvements in pollution
control technology that can be expected at least 10-15 years hence.
Specific waste treatment and control techniques and pollutant reductions
attainable for municipal, agricultural and mining waste are presented in
the attached Appendix,  Guidance on pollutant reductions attainable for
industrial wastes is being developed.  The Guidelines and the Appendix
will be reviewed periodically and updated as warranted by actual and anti-
cipated advancements in the state-of-the-art of waste treatment and control
technologyo  The municipal waste treatment levels presented in the Appendix
apply to flow regulation studies only.  Municipal waste treatment guidelines
defining secondary treatment and best practicable technology vill be
published to implement other provisions of the Act.  These future guidelines
shall apply if more stringent than those presented in the Appendix.

As advances are made in waste treatment and control techniques, it may
be possible in time to eliminate the need for flow regulation in the
control of man-induced pollution.  Thus, in the future, flow regulation
may be warranted only for alleviating the effects of natural pollution
(i.e., artesian systems of highly mineralized water) which are and may
continue to be particularly difficult and expensive to control through
other means.


Application of the best available technology economically acheivable may not
be sufficient, in all instances, to attain the desired water quality.  Additionally,
pollution from natural or non-point sources may not be amenable to effective
control with the techniques that are, or are expected to be, available in the
forsoeable future.  In taese iustau ..e3, the ptederal government is authorized
to give  consideration to providing reservoir storage  for water quality  control
as a means of improving  instream water  quality.

Flow regulation for water quality control should be used only where it,
in combination with the best available pollution control technology,
is demonstrated to be the best alternative for achieving water use
and quality goals.  All alternatives considered must be relevant to all
pertinent water resource planning and management activities for the
entire river basin.  Any viable alternatives to flow regulation
should be evaluated as a means of achieving the incremental increase
in quality needed over that provided by maximum practical treatment or
control at the source.  It is recognized, of course, that each of the
possible alternatives has distinct, advantages and disadvantages and are
thus not directly comparable.  Nevertheless, meaningful comparisons
can be made when the specific objectives to be achieved and conditions
to be maintained are clearly presented.

In evaluating waste water management alternatives, the emphasis should
be on measurement of quality conditions and benefits for specific
periods of time and for particular stretches of stream.  Items to be
taken into account include the water quality standards and other
pertinent environmental factors of water and related land uses, the
withdrawals of water and the returns, the consumptive losses; the quality
of the returns, land drainage, and the extent of present and probable future
stream management.  Storage for flow regulation for quality control
should be considered only if the water quality is expected to fall
below the standards or other specified water quality criteria after
the effects of all other reservoir releases and water uses and application
of the best available technology have been analyzed.  Any reservoir
storage required for low flow augmentation to offset mineral water quality
deterioration primarily attributable to irrigation (private or public)
must be allocated to that purpose rather than water quality control.

The  analytical process will facilitate making distinctions between
reservoir releases to assure a sufficient quantity of water for municipal
and industrial water supply, navigation, recreation, and other purposes
and specific releases necessary to assure a quality condition at definite
points or stream reaches.  Water quality releases must be identified with
specific water quality criteria.  Criteria contained in State and State-
Federal water quality standards must be used where applicable.  Where
no water quality standards have been formally adopted, water quality
goals contained in current approved water quality management plans developed
in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 should be given primary consideration.  Where no water quality
goals for a given stream have been expressed through water quality standards
or water quality management plans, water quality goals should be developed
for planning purposes in coordination with local and State pollution
control agencies.

When storage for water quality control is justified and a multipurpose
impoundment is constructed accordingly, this storage must be used or held

until the need for it is eliminated or
:eds are eliminated or chaneed. the stoi
for its intended purpose until the need for it is eliminated or
changed.  When storage needs are eliminated or changed, the storage
provided may be reallocated among other beneficial uses.

Operating schedules of reservoirs constructed to include water quality
control storage should be reviewed by EPA to ensure that optimal water
quality conditions are maintained downstream, especially at drought
flows approaching the design ,low flow.  Flow releases from all such federally
controlled reservoirs should be checked by EPA as necessary to determine
whether or not the operating schedule is being followed during critical
flow periods.

Should legal protection Of reservoir releases for the purpose of
water quality control not be adequately assured, EPA will analyze
this problem when determining whether wat.er quality control storage
should be provided.  Also, there must be assurances that flow releases
for quality control will in fact be made by the agency(s) in charge
of the proposed reservoir's operation in accordance with operating
criteria acceptable to EPA before EPA will recommend inclusion of such
storage in the proposed reservoir.

Flow regulation practices thai; result in lower than natural low flows
(i.e., those which would occur in the absence of the impoundment) or
release water of less than preimpoundment quality (e.g., zero dissolved
oxygen) are considered to be in violation of the anti-degradation clause
of the water quality standards.  During periods when natural flows equal
to or less than the flov values used to design waste treatment facilities
located downstream from the site of a proposed impoundment would occur,
the rate of discharge past the dam should be at least equal to the rate
of inflow above the dam; whether or not water quality storage is provided.


The evaluation of the need for water quality control storage for low
flow regulation must extend beyond simply calculating the low flow
augmentation and corresponding storage needed as a supplement to
the best available technology economically achievable with a view
toward meeting water quality standards.  Federally built or licensed
reservoirs generally require the preparation of an environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act by the lead agency,
which must assess all the environmental consequences of the action, both
adverse and beneficial.  EPA will be in the position of commenting on
such statements.  When EPA recommends provision of storage for water quality
control, all the environmental consequences of such provision should
be considered, so that EPA will be in a position to comment favorably
on the water quality storage aspect of the project when the environmental
statement is circulated for comment.                        :


Th'e environmental and economic gains obtainable from meetingJwater
quality standards, or in their absence the selected water quality
goals, cannot be fully evaluated in monetary terms.  However, such
benefits are considered to be at least worth the cost of implementing-
the best water quality management plan to meet the standards or goals.
Where the plan includes flow regulation from incremental water quality
storage in a reservoir project as a supplement to "adequate treatment",
the value of such storage, particularly downstream economic losses prevented,
shall be assessed in monetary terms to the extent practicable.  Other
environmental values not subject to economic eyaluation shall be accounted
for and described qualitatively.  Water quality monetary benefits shall
not be credited to flow regralet'ion storage designated for purposes other
than water quality control.


Beneficiaries of-flow regulation for water quality enhancement beyond
that produced by the employment of the best available pollution control
technology are primarily the dischargers of the treated wastes that
the augmented flow is intended to assimilate.
Without the augmented flow, higher cost alternatives (e.g., reduction
of  the waste-producing activities or reconstruction of  industrial
plants and facilities) would be required to meet  the water quality
standards.  Many  beneficiaries should  be identifiable froo. ap  inventor)
of  point waste  sources.


The Act requires  that an assessment be made by the agency planning the
reservoir, of the extent to which the benefits of flow  regulation
for water quality control  are widespread or national in scope.  For
this purpose, EPA will provide the planning agency with a  list of
specific beneficiaries and length of stream reaches improved.
Responsibility  for the decision as to whether or  not the benefits are
widespread or national in  scope is that of the construction agency.




                                                                      Page No.

Purpose 	 ..... 	   1

Adequate Treatment and Control  	   1

   Municipal Wastes	   1

      Present 	   1

      Future	,	   3
   Storm and Combined Sever  Overflows  . 	   k

      Present 	   k

      Future	   5

   Industrial Wastes  	   5

      Present 	   5

      Future	   6

   Agricultural Wastes   	   7

      Present 	   7

   Mine Drainage	11

      Present	  11

      Future	13


   Table 1  - Degree of Municipal  Waste Treatment
             Possible with Conventional Activated
             Sludge and  Disinfection
     • >
   Table 2  - Degrees of  Treatment of Municipal Wastes
             At-bainable  in 1971

   Table 3  - Cost  for Disinfection by  Chlorination

                          Contents (Cont'd)
   Table U - Cost for Demlneratlization

   Table 5 - Estimated Reduction of Typical Pollutants by the Proposed
             Muskegon County Wastevater Management System

   Table 6 - Degrees of Treatment of Municipal Wastes Attainable
             in 1980  .

   Table 7 - Degrees of Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflow Attainable

   Table 8 - Degrees of Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflow Attainable
             in 1980

   Table 9 - Summary of Methods for the Control of Mine Drainage
Figures                                   j

   Figure 1 - Activated Sludge Plants

   Figure 2 - Activated Sludge Plants

   Figure 3 - Nitrification in Dispersed  Floe Reactor Downstream  of
              Activated Sludge Process

   Figure ^ - Nitrif icat,ior. aav": rectification in Dispersed Floe Reactors

   Figure 5 - Multi-Media Filtration

   Figure 6 - Two-Stage Lime Clarification

   Figure 7 - ftra-ular Carbon Adsorption


The purpose of this appendix is to provide quantitative guidelines on
degrees of pollutant reduction attainable from "adequate treatment" or other
methods of controlling waste at the source to aid in the implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's policy on flow regulation for water quality
control.  This appendix presents wastewater treatment processes, other pollution
control approaches and the ranges of pollutant reductions obtainable from these
various methods.  The treatment levels presented herein apply to flow regulation
studies only.  Municipal waste treatment guidelines to define secondary treat-
ment and best practicable technology will be published to implement other
provisions of the Act.  These future guidelines shall apply if more stringent
than the treatment levels presented herein.


"Adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source"
is  interpreted  to mean the best available control technology economically
achievable.  It is expected that  the specific degrees of pollutant
reduction attainable  from such measures  will change as we proceed into
the future and  technological advancements are made.  Accordingly,
anticipated  improvements in the state-of-the-art of pollution control
technology must be reflected in the definition employed.  For continuity
in  the  application of the flow regulation policy on a national  scale,  it
is  important that the definition  of "adequate treatment or other methods
of  controlling  waste  at  the source" be as specific as possible.  This  is
necessary to minimize the individual interpretation required of policy
users,  thus  reducing  the variation in treatment or control requirements
from  river to river regarding flow regulation for quality control.  Yet,
it  is recognized that if "adequate treatment or other methods of controlling
waste at the source"  is  defined too narrowly, the definition may become
unrealistic  and arbitrary.

The definition  must be based on two considerations:  technical feasibility
and economic feasibility.  From a technical basis, it can include only
those treatment processes or other means of pollution control considered at
any point in time to  be dependable based upon full scale operation or extensive
pilot scale  testing.  Pollutant reductions presented in this document are
believed to be  attainable in most situations at costs that will not be
prohibitive.  The January 1970 cost data presented herein must be adjusted
upward  to reflect current price levels.  In addition, cost data presented are
based on national averages, and must be adjusted to account for regional
variations and  unusual local conditions.

Municipal Wastes

Present.  Standard primary and secondary waste treatment processes have
been  considered practical for many years.  Largely through research and develop-
ment efforts of EPA and its predecessor agencies, several additional waste
treatment processes have shifted from experimental to operation status.
Information presented herein on all municipal waste treatment processes was
provided by  the Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio.   The  information is based on treatment methods for which the estimated
costs are considered  sufficiently low to make the treatment methods practical.

No definite cost maximum was used in selecting the various treatment systems,
It will be found, however, that all the systems have an operating cost
substantially less than $1.00/1,000 gal. at the 10-mgd level.
The removal capability of treatment processes is in most cases difficult
to define accurately because of a lack of knowledge about the exact
composition of pollutants.  Effluent concentrations given in the
accompanying tables must be considered, therefore, to be only
approximate values based on the average of results obtained to date.
Also, these concentrations are based on conscientious operation of the

Information related to the degree of treatment that can be obtained with
a properly designed and operated conventional treatment system is being
developed to be issued as regulations required to define secondary
treatment under Section 30^(d)(l) of the Act.  The information
contained in these regulations shall be applied in the conduct of flow
regulation studies.
The maximum degree of removal of pollutants attainable at this time from
the best available technology is shown in Table 2.  In constructing
this table, six treatment systems were chosen that have either been
tested extensively on pilot scale, or that have been operated at plant
scale, or for which there is dependable evidence of technical feasibility.
These are described at the bottom of the table.  The effluent concentrations
or percentage removals for appropriate systems are shown for each waste
constituent.  Obviously, the removals for each system cannot all represent
the best removal for each constituent.  Generally, System IV, carbon
treatment of effluents from System II or System III, would give best
results.  To limit the table just to System IV, however, would eliminate
a number of less expensive systems that could be used where organic removal
was not of primary concern.

The total capital and operating costs for the six treatment systems have
not been calculated.  Costs for the processes making up the systems are
shown in Figures 1 through 7 and Tables 3 and 4.  The cost for alum
addition is approximately 5c/l,000 gal. and consists mostly of chemical
cost.  Iron addition may be somewhat cheaper if a cheap supply of chemical,
such as from pickle liquor, is available.  Capital cost is negligible
compared to the capital cost of a conventional treatment plant.  In all
cases where addition of a chemical is involved, an average dose has been
used for cost calculations.  For a first estimate of total system
treatment costs, effects of variation in chemical dose should not be
important.  Total capital and operating costs for the various systems
can be obtained easily from the included graphs and tables.

There are a few points about Table 2 that should be brought to the
reader's attention.  The first activated sludge stage of System I can
be of a high rate type which would have slightly lower cost than those

shown in figures 1 and 2.  The cost reduction would probably bot
exceed !ซ?/!,000 galป  System III does not exhibit good nitrogen removal.
Nitrogen removal could be improved to the quality of System II by
substituting three-stage activated sludge treatment (see Note a of Table 2)
for conventional activated sludge.  This substitution would increase the
cost by the amount shown in Figure 4.  The organic removals of System III
would then become at least equivalent to, and possibly slightly better
than, those of System II. All demineralization processes produce some
brine.  Disposal of this brine in a way that will not cause further
pollution is likely to be a problem.  Considerable expense could be
involved.  No cost for brine disposal has been included.

The most recent treatment and cost data available for land disposal
wastewater systems is that developed during the design of the Muskegon County,
Michigan system.  This large-scaled wastewater management system featuring
land disposal of wastewater through spray irrigation is under construction.
The overall system, design*. ' to serve a population of 168,000 plus five
major industries, will treat a design  . loซ- of 43.4 MGD.  Table  5  presents
the expected pollutant reductions based upon special project research and
design studies.  The estimated capital cost for the project is $42 million
and annual operating costs are estimated at $980,000 for the first year
of operation and $1,345,000 for the design year of 1990.

Future.  No one can state with assurance what pollution control technology
will be like over the next 50 to 100 years.  On the other hand, we should
not plan multinillion dollar water resource projects with useful lives
of 50 to 100 years or more based on the assumption that there will be no
further improvement in pollution control technology.  This becomes particularly
apparent when consideration is given to the amount of research in this
area presently underway and the research qbjectives that will have to be
met in order to maintain minimally satisfactory water quality conditions
in the future.  Estimates of levels of treatment expected to be attainable
by 1980 have, therefore, been developed.  They are considered to be conservative.

There are many known methods for removing critical pollutants to fairly
low levels.  Some of these have been identified in Table 2 for use at the
present time.  Other known methods require additional refinement before
they can be considered in the operational category.  Major problems
associated with these other methods are lack of complete reliability and
substantial treatment cost.  Current EPA research and development efforts
are aimed more at overcoming these problems than at the attainment of
higher degrees of removal.  An example is the removal of nitrogen.  If
nitrogen removal could be carried out as ammonia removal with a physical-
chemical treatment method, the upsets that can occur with biological
nitrification and denitrification would be eliminated.  Physical-
chemical methods for ammonia removal are known, but they either have
problems associated with their operation or, in their present state of
development, are more expensive than biological removal.

By 1980, some improvement in the degree of pollutant removal can be
expected.  The treatment processes and the degree of renuoval attainable by
that date are given .In Table 6.

 Improvements  in organic removal should be obtainable by use of a
 polishing chemical oxidation  treatment.  Presently, ozone  treatment
 appears  to have most promise.  Improvement in removal of all types of
 pollutants is most likely to  occur through application of  reverse osmosis.
 This  treatment method  is being developed rapidly for a number of
 applications  including treatment of industrial and municipal wastes.
 Although it has many good features, it has the disadvantage of producing
 a brine  stream which in turn  presents an ultimate disposal problem.
Also, it has never been operated at a large scale nor for a long period
of time.

Costs for ozone treatment and reverse osmosis are very difficult to
estimate.  The small amount of work completed on ozone treatment suggests
that  it may cost about the same as carbon treatment when applied to
secondary effluent.  The application in Table 6 is for polishing carbon
treatment effluent.  Both capital and operating costs would be expected
to be significantly less than costs shown earlier for carbon treatment.
Some very rough cost figures for reverse osmosis are included in Table 4.
These figures do not include brine disposal.

Storm and Combined Sewer Overflows
To date, very few storm and combined sewer discharges have been subjected
to treatment or control.  It has only seen since  1967 that significant
attention has been given to this problem.  EPA's Storm and Combined Sewer
Pollution Control Branch (SCSPCB) has, since that time, undertaken a number
of studies to evaluate a wide variety of treatment and control techniques
under varying hydrological conditions.  Much remains to be done in this
area, however.  The information presented herein on treatment and control
techniques applicable to storm and combined sewer discharges was provided

Present.  The SCSPCB demonstration program has thus far indicated that a
great deal of emphasis must be placed on the physical control of combined
sewer overflows and/or storm water discharges.  Thus, storage, diversion,
and flow routing in the system, employing remote sensing and telemetry and
computerized decision making, etc.  will form a major portion of many
metropolitan programs designed to abate pollution from these sources.

The degree of treatment applicable to combined sewer overflows and/or
storm water discharges cannot be considered apart from the areawide
control system capability.  It is anticipated, for example, that any
of the treatment methods that now appear applicable for combined sewer
overflows or storm water discharges will require that they operate in
conjunction with storage in "surge" basins.  It is doubtful that an effective
treatment process will be developed which alone will be capable of
handling the extreme flow rates encountered without this kind of "assist".
Evaluation of alternative costs will, therefore, require assessment of the
amount of storage or level of "surge" control required to match the treatment
methods under consideration.

All overflows can be completely controlled at high cost.  If they are
completely controlled the degree of treatment feasible would generally
be less than the degree feasible for basic wastewater treatment works.
When and where they are a problem, the control and treatment of storm
water discharges will very likely parallel the processes used for combined
sewer overflows.

Presently, the best available technology for reducing pollutants from
combined sewer overflow is considered to be complete interception, with
use of surge facilities, and treatment utilizing fine screening, dissolved
air flotation with chemical flocculant aids, and chlorination.  The
effectiveness of this treatment system in the removal of key pollutants
is given in Table 7.

Information available to date indicates that the capital cost (excluding
land) of a screening/flotation system would be in the range of $5,000
to $8,000 per MGD for plants greater than 50 MGD in size.  Operation and
maintenance costs would be relatively low due to the expected periodic
usage when treating combined overflow.  They are expected to be less than
$20 per MGD, excluding chemical costs.  Chemicals would be expected to
cost another $20 to $25 per MGD.

Future.  Because of the extreme variation in flow rates and generally lower
pollution potential of combined sewer overflow relative to the dry weather
wastewater flows, it is anticipated that the pollutant reduction
attainable from the best available technology for combined
sewer  overflow  will  frequently be less  than the
reduction of pollutants for the dry weather flow.  The projected degrees
of treatment attainable for combined sewer overflow by the year 1980
is given in Table 8.  Where land disposal and extensive surcharge storage
is practicable, greater removal of pollutants from stormwater may be
achievable by 1980.
The types of treatment processes providing the degrees of treatment
indicated in Table 8 would be essentially the same types that would be
employed to provide similar levels of treatment of municipal wastes.

Industrial Wastes

Present.  The wide variation in manufacturing processes and wastewater
characteristics among industrial facilities, even within the same
industrial category, produces significant differences  in effluent quality
and pollution control problems.  For issuance of permits, each industrial
plant must achieve at least minimum levels of pollution control to
meet the effluent limitation requirements of the Act.  The precise pollution
control requirements applicable to individual plants can only be determined
on a case by case basis.  As a general standardt  however, the minimum
requirements represent application of the "best practicable control
technology".  These effluent limitations, which are defined for each
category of industrial sources, reflect recent advances in technological

feasibility and assure that maximum efforts are made to control discharges
of heavy metals and toxic or hazardous substances.

The treatment levels associated with the above general standards are only
minimums.  In most areas where serious  pollution control problems exist,
more stringent requirements will be necessary to achieve compliance with
applicable water quality standards.  Under this policy, the best available
technology economically achievable, rather than sj.mply the minimum treatment
required for permit issuance, shall be applied prior to provision for reservoir
storage for water quality control.

Where guidance on the best available technology is not available, guidance
furnished Regional Offices, including quantitative data, covering pollutant
reductions obtainable from application of the best practicable control
technology to the various types of industrial wastes shall be used until
issuance of guidance regarding the best available technology.  These data
shall then be used.  The present guidance represents the best applicable
compilation of information on industrial wastes.  However, professional
judgement must be exercised on a case-by-case basis when estimating the
degree of control or treatabili ty of wastes produced by any given industrial

Treatment processes generally considered practical for use in treating
most industrial wastes include conventional primary and secondary treatment,
chemical precipitation-clarification, single or multimedia filtration, chemical
oxidation-reduction, carbon adsorption, ion exchange, conventional disinfection,
and such sub unit processes as  ^lectrodfalysls, reverse osmosis and evaporation.
Also, land disposal of industrial wastes may be practical in some cases.
The application of best available technology for the treatment of all
industrial wastewaters may also include the following in-plant control

1.  By-product recovery even when there is no feasible market or use of
    the recovered material.

2.  Water reuse and recycling.

3-  Reuse of wastewater constituent.

U.  Multi-purpose operations for the primary purpose of water pollution

5-  Waste stream segregation.

6.  Preventative process changes and maintenance.

7.  No unessential water use.

8.  Water conservation  (dry processes)

Future.  To prevent excessive water use and control stream pollution, treatment
and reuse of  industrial wastewater is becoming  more and more necessary for
continued industrial expansion.  The huge present water use and rapid growth
of water use by American industry  is such that  we cannot continue to rely
solely on traditional water  supply sources.  Even in water
abundant areas, intake water supplies for industrial use are rapidly

becoming restrictive.  The trend toward increasing water reuse is already
underwayo  It must be accelerated now in order to provide an adequate
base for future industrial expansion.

Current and future environmental standards and requirements concerning
discharges of wastewaters are expected to accelerate the move by industry
to reduce both the pollution discharge loads and magnitude of effluent
volumes, in order to minimize impacts on the environment..

Wastewater reuse is not only a resource conservation measure but also a
method of pollution control,,  It is a step in tune with future demands„
Adequate research and development activity in this field of exploration
is the key to accelerating the development of extensive wastewater reuse
systems, and ultimately the closed-loop water cycle.  The latter, which
results in a no effluent discharge situation, could comply with any present
or foreseeable water quality standards„

Industrial water quality requirements for reuse are less demanding, as a
general rule, than the needs for municipal supplies.  Accordingly, industrial
water reuse may be technically and economically achievable earlier than
municipal water reuse systems.  By 1983 effluent  limitations for all industrial
discharges to receiving waters require application of the best available
technology economically acheivable.  It shall be  assumed, for purposes of
estimating water quality storage needs in Federal reservoir, that, by the
year 1980, closed-loop systems Hill be feasible for all  industrial operations
producing toxic wastes and  for all new industrial plants.  For other industrial
operations the 1980  treatment levels shall be assumed at least equal
to that  now  obtainable from the best available technology.

Agricultural Wastes

Present.  Pollutants of agricultural origin  that  find  their way into
surface  waters in  significant amounts  generally emanate from overland  runoff
and  from overground  and underground irrigation return  flows.  Both
of these sources of pollution are 'amenable  to a certain degree of control
through improved   land management practices.  In  some  situations better
land management alone may  not be sufficient  to adequately control these
wastes.   In  such  situations treatment, where practical,  will also be
required before  consideration  can be given  to flow augmentation.

 Pollutants  accompanying runoff resulting from rainfall on cropland and
 pasture include  sediment,  nutrients, pesticides,  and decaying vegetation„
 This source  of pollution can be controlled  quite  effectively by  the
 application of land management practices directed toward minimizing
 the amount  and velocity of overland flow,,

 The suspended pollutant load accompanying runoff is proportional to
 about  the fourth  power of velocity and the  square root of slope  length.I/
 _!/ Amemiya, Minoru, "Land and Water Management for Minimizing Sediment,"
    Proceedings of a Conference Conerning the Role of Agriculture in Clean
    Water, Nov. 1969, prepared under FWPCA Grant No0 13040 EYX0

Other significant factors pointed out by Amemiya are slope gradient,
soil properties, cropping sequence, and rainfall intensity.  All except
rainfall intensity can be modified to maximize water infiltration and
thus minimize overland flow.

Practices that can be employed to minimize runoff include:

1.  Mulching-tillage methods that create rough soil-mulch surfaces and
increase subsurface storage (can increase infiltration by a factor of
eight to fifteen).

2.  Contour planting and tillage (can reduce soil loss on slopes of
moderate grade and length by 50 percent).                  '

3.  Contour strip-cropping, the practice of alternating strips of a
close growing meadow or grass crop with strips, of grain or row crops
across a hillside (the reduction on soil erosion is proportional to the
fraction of the slope that is in grass strips).

40  Terracing, the excavation of ridges and channels across the slope to
trap water running downslope and the conveyance of the water to suitable
surface or subsurface outlets at a nonerosive velocity (this serves to
reduce slope length).

Proper tillage along with terracing, alone, would almost eliminate soil
loss—  (and hence, also the suspended pollutant load in runoff) from
cropped fields on slopes up to six percent.  Since must of the nutrients,
except for nitrates, and much of the pesticides contained in runoff
are associated with soil particles, a large sediment load should produce
a similarly large reduction in the nutrient and pesticide loads.

Pollutants in the dissolved phase are usually reduced in proportion
to the reduction in runoff volume.  The amount of nutrients contained
in the dissolved and colloidal phases can be minimized by applying
only that amount of fertilizer actually needed and by ensuring intimate
mixture of fertilizer with soil.  Pesticide levels in the dissolved and
colloidal phases can also be minimized by applying the minimum amount
needed for pest control or by using biological controls.

Runoff collected by drains should not be discharged directly to a
water-course.  Discharge to an area of land where percolation into
surface soil can occur or to a pond is preferable.  However, care must
be taken to avoid possible contamination of groundwater.  Soil absorption
practices generally do not greatly reduce the! total water yield from
a watershed.  They merely reduce the surface flow component while <
increasing the subsurface flow component to partially offset the surface
 I/ Ibid.

flow reduction.  Thus, a greater percentage of the water reaching
watercourses is first filtered through the soil.

Generally, proper land management, including suitable fertilizer and
pesticide application techniques, will provide the best means of
controlling pollution from cropland.

Pollution resulting from irrigation return flows can be feasibly controlled
to a certain degree by several programs.  These programs may involve use
of previously described land management practices, improvement of
irrigation and drainage practices, or interception and disposal of
return flows high in salts and minerals.

Overland irrigation return flow (i.e., tail water) is produced by the
excessive use of irrigation water and/or poor land management.  It can
be essentially eliminated by using appropriate water application rates
and employing many of the same land management practices used to control
rainfall runoff.

Irrigation return flow in the form of drainage water that has percolated
through the soil is much more difficult to handle.  It is higher in
dissolved solids than the water applied.  Those dissolved solids consist;
primarily of sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, boron, chloride
bicaronate, and sulfate.  Significant amounts of nitrates may also be
present.  The increase in concentration of those minerals and salts
resulting from the irrigation of a soil of a given salinity is a function
of size of the area irrigated, distance of drainage water travel through
the soil from point of application to stream re-entry, and the amount
of water lost through evapotranspiration.

The size of the area irrigated can be minimized by eliminating the
unintentional irrigation of non-cropland.  The largest sinง;le
area in this category is that underlying and adjacent to the canals
transporting irrigation water to the croplands.  Seasonal losses by seepage
from unlined canals often range from 13 to 48 percent of the diversions.ฑ7
These- losses can be essentially eliminated by lining the canal with
impervious materials.

The distance that drainage water must percolate through the soil in
returning to the stream can be minimized by installing a network of
drains four feet or so beneath the area being irrigated and piping the
drainage to the stream or to a sink, whichever is more appropriate.  This
not only reduces the salt pick-up by the drainage water but also prevents
the water table from rising occasionally above the level of the drains
and depositing minerals and salts in the root zone.  This, in turn,
reduces the amount of salt deposited in the root zone and the amount pf
water that must be applied over the long-term to maintain a salt balance
in the crop growing layer of soil.
 \J Houk,  Ivan E.,  "Irrigation  Engineering"  Agriculture  and  Hydrological
   Phases, Vol.  I,  John Wiley  & Sons,  Inc., N.Y.  1951;

The loss of large amounts of applied water (an overall average in the
order of 40 to 60 percent) through evaporation and transpiration is
inevitable.  This, of course, has a concentrating effect on the
dissolved solids and is the main cause for the increase in salinity of
water used for irrigation.  Elimination of non-crop vegetation will
minimize transpiration.  Evaporation from the soil, itself, can be
minimized by subsurface application of the irrigation water.  This
method, used in the past primarily in the East and South, employs
a series of open-joint drains laid 15 to 24 inches below the ground
surface.  The water is applied through this system of piping directly
to the root area of the plants.  This method requires a comparatively
small amount of waterj essentially all of which is usefully employed.

At the present time, treatment of drainage water for the removal of
minerals and salts is considered infeasible, except in special situations.
Special situations are deemed to be where high-value crops are grown in
a water-short area and where brine disposal would be relatively inexpensive
or where the treatment would be carried out in combination with the
production of power or some other process generating large amounts of
waste heat.

Those agricultural areas  contributing  large amounts of nutrients,
pesticides, and sediment  to surface waters via rainfall runoff can
be feasibly controlled to  a much greater degree by  1980 through
improved land treatment practices.

Advancements in the treatment of irrigation return  flows are close
at hand.  Already, electrodialysis'processes are  sufficiently well
developed to provide generally adequate removal of most of  the common
ions normally present  in  irrigation  return water  in significant! amounts.
There still appears to be  some question regarding the ability of electro-
dialysis processes to  remove boron, however.!/  Howe, in 1966, investigated
the feasibility of using  an electrodialysis process to reclaim drainage
water in the San Joaquin  Valley.1' He estimated that desalted drainage
water could be produced at about $117 per acre-foot (35.9
The cost can still vary considerably, depending on the degree of treatment
needed and the cost of brine disposal.  Advances being made in distillation
and reverse osmosis technology may ultimately bring the cost of these
techniques into the feasible range„  Where removal of dissolved solids
from irrigation drainage water is not feasible, flow regulation may be
considered.  However, any storage required fnr\.such flow augmentation is
chargeable to the irrigation purpose rather .than water quality control.

Mine Drainage!./

Present.  Most methods for handling mine drainage are aimed at
controlling rather than treating the volume of discharge.  Treatment
techniques are employed where controls alone are not sufficient to
adequately reduce the volume of discharge.  The effectiveness of best
available technology varies widely depending on the quality characteristics
of the mine, and the hydrology and geology of the area.

Drainage from surface mines, whether active or inactive, is generally
easier and less costly to control than drainage from underground mines.
Control techniques applicable to surface mines are directed toward
minimizing or preventing contact between air and flowing water and
the mine's exposed strata, spoils, and other toxic and acid or alkali-
forming materials.  This is accomplished by diversion of water draining
into the mined area, and reclamation of the affected area or flooding
of the mine pit in the post-mining period.

Surface mine reclamation includes backfilling, regrading, contouring,
and revegetation of the affected landscape.  The effectiveness and
feasibility of these techniques are dependent on the nature of the
surface and overburden, slope of land, and proposed use of the
reclaimed land.

Water control structures (e.g., lined diversion ditches) may be used
in addition to surface reclamation measures.  They serve to divert
drainage from the site of an active surface mine and/or prevent erosion
at a reclaimed site.  Where drainage into an active surface mine cannot
be effectively restrained, the collection and immediate removal
of water from the mine using pumps can be an effective control.
This practice minimizes the contact time between the water and the
contaminants and thus limits the amount of water contamination that
can occur.

An alternative to post-mining water control and reclamation techniques,
where topographic and drainage features are suitable, is the construction
of impoundments to submerge acid-forming or other materials that are
most troublesome when in direct contact with the atmosphere.  This
approach also provides some degree of control over flow releases from
the area and may augment the local supply of stored water for beneficial
 l_l Information contained herein on  the control and  treatment of mine
   •drainage, unless specified otherwise, was provided by the Pollution
   Control Analysis Branch, Research Program, EPA.

Drainage from undergrourd mines presents a more complex problem.  Routes
taken by air and water entering and leaving underground mines are
difficult to identify and even more difficult to control.  There are,
nevertheless, some feasible control techniques that are effective in
many situations.  They are directed at preventing the exchange of water
and, in  certain  cases, air  in  the mine.  Control techniques for active
mines involve drainage diversion and controlled pumping.  In addition
to these two approaches, mine sealing techniques are also applicable
in inactive mines.                       j

Where waters entering an active or inactive underground mine are
of surface or localized underground origin, it is usually feasible
to divert them away from exterior openings, or seal the seepage
areas.  This is accomplished by any of a number of approaches utilizing
dikes, lined ditches, bulkheads, etc.  If water emanates from such diverse
sources  that it cannot be prevented from entering an underground mine,
consideration should be given to its collection and immediate removal
through  pumping.  This approach, which is also applicable to surface
mines, has already been described.

Additional alternative controls are available for inactive mines.  Most
are directed at permanent  sealing of a mine to prevent air exchange and/or
air contact with acid-forming and other oxidizable materials.  The
sealant may be water, an inert gas, or trapped air.  Another approach
is to place internal seals  that prevent acid production and/or
mine drainage discharge.

If air or another gas is used as the sealant, the first step is to close
the mine by constructing bulkheads or seals at all exterior openings.
If the sealant is water, only those significant openings below the
desired water level to be maintained need be sealed.  Water should
be maintained at a level sufficient to inundate all acid-forming and
other undesirable materials.

Internal seals are designed to cover exposed materials or prevent the
movement or air and water deep within the mine.  They can be formed
by grouting or pouring of concrete.

Pollution can also result from drainage from mining refuse piles and
reject tailings ponds.  Drainage  from these features is often among the
most toxic or damaging of all mine drainage.   Feasible control methods
for these waste sources entail leveling and grading of the refuse or
tailings and stabilization with a covering of soil and vegetation,
chemicals, compacted fly ash, or other impervious materials.  Acid-
forming  materials in tailings may also be stabilized byrpertnanent
flooding.  A summary of control methods and their ranges of effectiveness
is given in Table 9ซ

Where at-source controls alone cannot effectively reduce or eliminate
sources  of contaminated mine drainage, consideration should be given to
treatment of the drainage before discharge to a stream.  Feasible
treatment processes include neutralization, precipitation, sedimentation,
and aeration.  These processes are effective in the reduction or removal
of suspended solids, acidity, alkalinity, and most heavy metals.

Excess acidity, commonly the most troublesome constituent of mine
drainage, can be eliminated by neutralization with an alkaline compound.
Lime is the compound most commonly used for this purpose.  The treatment
process generally consists of adding and mixing the alkaline compound
with the drainage, aearation of the drainage if ferrous iron is present,
and sedimemtation and removal of the resulting sludge in a mechanical
facility or earthen settling ponds.  Most heavy metals commonly found
in acid mine drainage are also precipitated in the process because they
are less soluble at neutral or higher pH's than at lower pH's.

Methods of final disposal of the sludge include burial in the settling
pond, removal to another location for burial, discharge into abandoned
deep mine workings, and use of more sophisticated methods to lessen its
volume by dewatering or drying.

The maximum efficiency attainable with neutralization in the treatment
of acid mine drainage is 98 to 100 percent removal of acidity and 90
to 100 percent removal of the common metals, iron, aluminum, and
manganese.!/ The amount of alkaline compounds'needed to attain this
level of removal is dependent primarily on the concentration of acidity
and iron in the drainage.  The cost of treatment by neutralization
is largely dependent on the amount of alkaline compounds used in
the process.  Plant capacity also has an influence on treatment costs.
According to Hill, the cost of treatment by neutralization can vary
from $0.05 to $1.10 per 1,000 gallons, depending on the nature of
the above influencing factors, primarily the former.  At coses above
30 cents per 1,000 gallons, other treatment techniques (e.g., ion
exchange and distillation) begin to become competitive.  Treatment
costs for mine drainage in excess of 35 to 40 cents per 1,000 gallons
are usually considered infeasible at this time when large drainage
flows are involved or at-source controls may be used.    However,
providing treatment at costs exceeding 40 cents per 1,000 gallons may
be the least costly alternative for meeting treated water demands of
industries and municipalities in water short areas.
Future.  Research on  improved methods for the control and  treatment of
mine drainage, and their demonstration of feasibility, has only recently
received wide attention.  In the Federal sector,  the Environmental
Protection Agency and Bureau of Mines are currently funding work  in  this
area.  EPA efforts are being directed toward the  development  :of-solutions
in the  following  problem categories:   (1) control  and treatment of mine
_!/ Hill,  Ronald  D.,  "Mine  Drainage Treatment,  State of  the Art  and  Researh
   Needs,"  December,  1968.   Report of  the   FWPCA Mine Drainage  Control
   Activities, Cincinnati, Ohio.

drainage discharges from active mines; (2) procedures for closing
preBehtly operating mines that will result in no discharges; (3)
methods for reducing pollution from cooperating and abandoned mines;
and (4) new mining methods that create little or no pollution.

Within the next five to ten years many of the current at-source
control techniques applicable to abandoned mฃnes or mines at the termination
of mining will be much improved.  These include such procedures as soil
sealing, grouting, methods for minimizing water percolation through soils,
and plugs and barriers for blocking or controlling the flow of water
through and out of underground mines.  By 1980 it is expected that
feasible drainage  control techniques can be 50 to 75 percent effective
when applied to inactive mines on an area-wide basis.

Where control methods alone will not be adequate, at both active and
inactive sites or mining areas, collectioi and treatment of the drainage
will also be required to meet water quality goals.  It is expected
that, before 1980, feasible treatment methods will be feasible  in
some situations which should be considered on a case-by-case-basis.
Although much-improved control and treatment technology is needed and
will occur over the projected time periods, selective application of
presently available technology can be very effective in reducing or
eliminating the pollution effects of individual mine drainage sources.
Any tendency to generalize mine drainage pollution abatement as an
unknown area requiring further research should be avoided.  As defined
in the discussion of adequate treatment on Page 2, analysis of at-source
control and waste treatment employed must be time-and-specific-case-

                               Table 1
   Degree of Municipal Waste Treatment Possible with Conventional
                  Activated Sludge and Disinfection
The table originally developed to indicate the degree of municipal
vaste treatment possible with conventional activated sludge and
disinfection will be replaced by the regulation being
developed for Section 304(d)(l).  This information will be .
furnished when the regulation is promulgated.

                                  Table  2
           Degrees of Treatment of Municipal. Wastes Attainable in 1971

  Waste Constituent            Effluent  Concentration           Treatment System
5 Day BOD


Dissolved Organic Carbon

Total Nitrogen as N


Total Phosphorus as P

(note a)
(note b)
(note c)
(note d)

  Total Dissolved  Solids
  Suspended Solids
     Total Coliforms
450 or 40% removal
 75 or 90% removal

     1000/100 ml
     Essentially total removal
  V (note e)
 VI (hrtef)

                                                                       II, III, IV
  I/Thi:;  table was  prepared  by  the  lil'A Advanced Wer.te Treatment Research
  Laboratory, Robert A. Tnft Rcso.-irch  Center,  4676 Columbia Parkway,
  Cincinnati, Ohio  452/(>.
2 /This table applies to flow regulation studies only.
  treatment guidelines to define secondary treatment and best practicable
  technology will be published to implement other provisions  of the Act.
  These future guidelines shall be applied if more stringent  than  those
  presented herein.

                           Table 2(Continued)

Waste Constituent             Effluent Concentration            Treatment System

   Fecal Coliforms            200/100 ml                             I
                              Essentially total removal             II, III, IV

Enteric Viruses               <95% removal                           I
                              Essentially total removal             "II, III, IV
    a.  System I = Three-stage activated sludge system with alum or iron
        salt addition for phosphorus removal + disinfection.

        The first stage of the activated sludge system consists of a
        high rate aerator and a settler for removal of the bulk of the
        carbonaceous matter.  Most or all of the aluminum or iron salt
        would be added in this aerator.  Total mineral dose would be
        about 1.5 moles per mole of phosphorus.  The second stage
        of the system consists of a nitrifying aerator         and a
        settler.  Sludge from the settler is returned only to the
        nitrifying aerator.  The aerator would be sized for a 3-hour
        residence time.' The third stage would consist of a stirred
        but unaerated basin for carrying out denitrification and a
        final settler.  Detention time of the basin would be two hours,
        Menthanol would be added as an organic source in a ratio of three
        parts  by weight to each part of nitrate-N.  A part of the
        aluminum or iron salt used for phosphorus removal could be
        added before this settler.  A small amount of polyelectrolyte
        might also be added for improved turbidity removal.

    b.  System II = System I + multimedia filtration.

    c.  System III = Conventional sing'le-stage activated sludge + two-
        stage lime clarification + multimedia filtration -f- disinfection.

    d.  System IV = Either System II or System III -f granular carbon

    e.  System V = System IV + electrodialysis or ion exchange.

        This degree of demineralization is enough to prevent a build-
        up of minerals if the water were reused.

    f.  System VI = System IV + ion exchange.

        Removal of more than 90% of the Minerals from wastewater is
        possible, but probably not necc:.  .ry.  Costs increase
        significantly as degree of demiiK. utilization exceeds 90%.

                                         Table 3

                            Cost for Disinfection by Chlorination
            Capital Cost ($)

            Total Treatment'Cost (
                                     Table  5
                                   RAW WASTEWATER


Suspended Solids-mg/1

Phosphorus (Total P) rag/1

Nitrogen (Total N) mg/1

Coliforra Bacteria #/100 ml

Pathogenic Viruses
te MOD
[novn to
Known to
                              be present    be present
                              in undefined  in undefined
                              concentration concentration

                                 Table 6
     Degrees of Treatment  of Municipal Wastes Attainable  in 1980
Waste Constituent
 Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
	or Deeren of Removal	
Treatment System
5 Day BOD


Dissolved Organic Carbon

Total Nitrogen as N


Total Phosphorus as P

Total Dissolved Solids

Suspended Solids


Enteric Viruses
             85% removal

             85% removal
           >_90% removal

     Essentially total removal

     Essentially total removal

     Essentially total removal
   IV, VII  (note a)
   VIII  (note b)



   IX  (note c)






     a  System VII = System IV + ozone polishing.

     b  System VIII = Reverse osmosis treatment and disinfection  of
        effluent from conventional activated sludge.

     c  System IX = Reverse osmosis treatment and disinfection of
        effluent from three-stage activated sludge system including
        carbonaceous removal, nitrification, and denitrification.
I/ Thir table was prepared by Flow Regulation Policy Task Force .and applies
   only to flow regulation studies.

/  This table applies to flow regulation studies  only* Municipal
   treatment guidelines to define secondary treatment and best practicable
   technology will be published to implement other provisions of the Act.
   These future guideline, shall be applied if more stringent than those
   presented herein.

                                Table 7


  Degrees 'of Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflow Attainable in 1971

Waste Constituent                  Percent Removal

5 Day BOD                                75

Total Phosphorus                         85

Suspended Solids                         75

Total Coliform                     (Effluent  Concentration of  1000/100  ml)

Fecal Coliform                     (Effluent  Concentration of  200/100 ml)

Viruses                                  80
Treatment System

Surge facilities + fine screening + dissolved air  flotation using chemical
coagulants -f chlorination
\J This Table was prepared by the EPA Storm and  Combined  Sewer  Pollution
   Control Branch  and applies only   to flow regufefcion studies.

 ง/This table applies to flow regulation studies  only.  Municipal waste treatment
 X ™S^Jฐt   f"? 8ec;ndfy  ^eatment and best practi able technology will
 be published to implement other provisions of the Act.  These future guide-
 lines shall be  applied if more  stringer, t than those presented herein.

                                 Table  8
    Degrees  of Treatment  of Combined Sewer Overflow Attainable  in 1980
   Waste Constituent-

   5 Day BOD

   Total Phosphorus

   Suspended Solids

   Total Coliform

   Fecal Coliform

                                          Percent Removal of Waste Constituents
     *       85



(Effluent Concentration of
1000/100 ml)

(Effluent Concentration of
200/100 ml)

        -   80
I/ This Table was prepared by the EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
   Control Branch   and applies only to flow regulation studies.

ง/ This table applies  to flow regulation studies only.  Municipal waste treatment
   guidelines to define secondary treatment and best practicable technology will
   be published to  implement other provisions of the Act*  These future
   guidelines shall be applied if more stringent than those presented herein.

                   Summary of Methods for the Control of Mine Drainage
Control Method
Surface Mine Reclamation
   Normal Range
of Effectiveness^)

    •   25-90

Drainage Diversion

Surface Mine Iujpoundaient

Mine Sealing (Air)

Mine Sealing (Flooding)

Mine Sealing (lir_>rt Gas Blanket)

Controlled Puling and Drainage

Internal Scaling

Refuse Pile Reclamation

Reject Tailings Pond Stabilization








Includes backfilling,
grading, contouring,
end water control

Used primarily for
erosion control

Surface and underground.
Few mines can be

Not all mines can
be flooded

Method is considered
feasible but has not
yet been applied.

Primarily active mines

Method is considered
feasible but has not
yet been applied.
    Jni'or-ation in this ti;bJ.e vac provided by Pollution Control Analysis Branch,  Research
    Program, LPA.  Information on cost.-: of these control methods is contained in
    "Handbook of Pollution Control Gouts in Mine Drainage Management", December 1966,
    published by FV.TCA.


                        ACTIVATED SLUDCt  PLA.Nlb
    .'Figure 1.

Including:  Preliminary  Treatnent-G+F-i-S,  Primary Sedimentation, Pritaary

Sludge Pumps, Aerators;  Diffused Air "System, Final Scttlc-rs->Iultiple,

Recirculation Pumps,  Sludge  Thickener,  Anaerobic Digesters, Sludge

Drying Beds, Chlorination, Laboratory                  .


                                 Cost Adjusted  to January,  1970 ;r
                            •I	I--H-H H-
            ป^~*ป^-i;~: -r^-ril: •ฃ==ฃ=ฃ-=ป
                                  •- -i

                                                                     i.o -.
          1.0         .                 10.0                   -    100.0

                 Design Capacity, million0, of gallons per day

             C --^Capital Cost,  millions of dollars

             A - Debt Service,  cents per 1000 gallons (6fJ -  25  yr.)

         O + M = Operating and  Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons


        Figure 2.
                   ACTIVATED  SLUDGE  PLANTS
Including:  P roll mi nary- Treatment -G+F+S,  Primary Sedimentation, Primary

Sludge Pumps, Aerators,  Diffused Air System, Final Settlers-Multiple,

Recirculation Pumps,  Sludge  Thickener,  Anaerobic Digesters, Sludge

Holding Tanks, Vacuum Filtration,  Multiple Hearth Incineration,

Chlorination, Laboratory         .  ,        .•  '    "




    •100.0  ซ
                                      Cost Adjusted to January, 197O

                                                 2    J

           1.0         '                10.0

                 Design Capacity,  millions of gallons per  day

             C =ปCapital Cost,  millions' of dollars

             A = Debt  Service,  cents per 1000 gallons (6rJ  -  25  yr.)

         O + M = Operating and  Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons

                      Figure 3.

Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
                      Design Capacity
10. "'
• e
V ' *
~ 1 O 10
4-> ' J- • w c
8 . ;
4* t
e ''
rf ซ
H ,
0.1 ]

_]_ ^_ " ". 1 - 1
— .January,
: 1 - .]•'••
X. : : • | ' •
^*^V '
i- • •

- —



: '•


	 ^^^ป' — "** 	 i 	 * 	
t "**•

v— --; 	
:-•_.- -^7"





"? ^H.- r?..^---.:rH --r.:.

— 	 -, fซซปfc_j 'xซ> • -i 	 	
-~ 	 1~" ' 	


i . . •
— •—

' • I




•• ' -

- . — 	 , 	
1 1

1 .
. ; • j
t 1 • -




! •




. \ 	 , 	 -.- 	 --J- 	 1. _.!--.
1 " ' -
' 1*' 	 ' 	 "

-| 	 1 	

'.i ? -:-:.'"— -r

_(-___ r.T^. r-r
- — 	 	

• j^"**^^ 	 '• •

— i—


. [•• j— -

- •
.... _ 	 	 |^

--[••- •#
'• sfr •"•'•' -:\
... ..
^..r - ;.'•-. - -' :- -v-..^-:::-_.. ^ ..^XM,.^.^ : v ..-;.j:v. -..
.. ._..:• •. ^




	 	 --J .-_ -
. . _
— .V.....L..
_. i


• .

1 •

. , 1

— -



. : ...-::-- . -•rrTu:--:. -.->•': •^Rl*t*ซs.k

..(^_ 	 . — _.J^-.:ป....tesi_... _^ ...

1 ^=l*> *4^
t ^** >*^
1 jr *s*&.^
\ "~jr' i "^*
\ S \ •
c -^ ' '
	 . 	 , 	 j — , — . ,^z _; 	 . 	

1 !

r— — -S
	 . .^0,

••- •-

— r-^^rrr^—— .!:.;:. p— ~ 	

•.dr L-U ""J" -;
*: ... .,.. ._; :..i. _.;->...|

----- ^r--\ -- '••• '•- - • i •• •
- . ...


• i .
! :
r , ] 1
1 1 ! •

— — -
	 — t 	


— -


— —


_ 	 . 	

— - • 	 i 	 ^^r-.
.. ..j . .




_. . _..
i —
	 1 —
i 	 — 	 ; • • •• • —
.-.-.: T.::.. ;.^T



I i • i- -— i
1 1

__| 	 j •-


. -„.-.„


— i —

~- —



' *5t>-



•-. •.:.'

' —

— •

I .

— VTT —

— j 	




•> t-> M ' N
> . 0 C
Capital Cost, millions of dollars
z J •ป ;> c ; e <• 10 2 3 4ป6ซe?iav*J'
.0 10. 100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of 'dollars
A - Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons (6fS and 25 yr. )
& M - Operating and Maintenance Cost, cejits per 1000 gallons
T = Tot;vl Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons

                            Figure A.

      Capital  Cost, Operating 5:  Maintenance Cost, Debt  Service
      '\,   .•  .            .    Design Capacity




. 1


, 197
' ' '
	 	 1 ._. . _ i_ . j_. .
- -; -
J '



•.:--.-. ..•:-
:.::.. •".!-:•-..._•_-.
-• . - •

•—•— ::1:.- -:r; -—.r.-::
— ~**V

	 i —

_fc 	 _..
^^.~ . < ..
	 . .7^oป . ..



i (,.
i~i •" j"
' . • •

" " ,"
\ •-•'•-

._ .






,/--. 	 j.
:_'^' j • .
— i- . .

_..i ...



— -


! ' '

" —



:. -I-


" ' ' j^f


*^fc ' i i
^^* ' *ป> !
ป: ^ • !. .- ...:ซ=
|.-. ...'.j :•*:.-••*



- \ :~





-.--..: : . ..r:: ::.::
, . . ... ... ] ."..„


. . .








— \~-

	 1 	 	 	 1

1 " '

~: ^-_— -.:..: iJ
:.;-. 	 :p 	 -.




— ...i^..
• • " •' 1 \x^ * • ' "i
— ~y^~~~*
•-- 	 vฃ* 	
~i " 1 'ji^
' sr
— - -p-cX-
,""."I'"^r . :'.~ .-——
' !





'..:'.. \:::.
• • ' J :-
. . i • •


... j.__.



i ' ! '

"L- —


	 	 ... 	 :. 	 . 	 1 	
... ...I.. I ...

- ~^i*S:i*ป=**a.

f -i —



. —


_ ._



— t ••

• ! !•-



^** *-^^ "-^ Af
*^^ ' ' | ••-;-- . ^** - ซq
X"";e* ... ' • A

* f~
,— :ri~.
	 • ', j • ' 1 ; j

> i i
1 I


/•i — i

-•• I





• <
aj,.-:^. ..I'.: !:.: .::.' .. .

_; 	 '_,






?J < S> e V b i 10 2 3 4iป76 910 V . J.
.0 10. 100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day .
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Dfbt Service, cents per 1000 gallons (6ft. and 25 yr.)
& M ~ Oporat.ing and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallon
T - Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons"
millions of dollars


                            Figure 5.

                    „  MULTI-MEDIA FILTRATION1
loo.o  ;
lo.o ;'




                         COST ADJUSTED TO  DECEMBER, 197O.
        —  •- -I-


                                    ..-.-	.	

                                             	~ i.~*
                                              	I	 .
        	I _
                                                               i -I

                                                 3   ^  >  ป  j D * u~
      1.0                          10.0

              Design Capacity, millions of gallons  per day


       A = Debt Service, cents per  1000 gallons  (6f5 - 25 yr. )

       T = Total Treatment Cost,  cents per 1000  gallons

                              Figure 6.

                   TWO-STAGE  LI:-;B CLARIFICATION
100.0 ir-

                            COST ADJUSTED TO  DECEMBER, 1970 •  j_j_

         	j—J..H	{..._-j-._.t- ;.|-Hq: | .|	^~
                                           i  	..



                                                                           O '


                                                                acity,  millions  of gallons  per day

Debt  Sorvic.c, cc-nts per  1000 cjallons  (6CJ - 2

TotQl  Tre.Vi v.cnt  COL-t, cents  pci: 1000  gallons
                                              r; - 25 yr.)

                    :    " ••'•• FiCure 7.

                   ' GRANULAR  CARBON ADSORPTION

100.0 ';.
   1.0 f
                     :r	I'
                                           i	 i
             -,.---[- -r -|   COST ADJUSTED TO DECEMBER,- 1970

                                    I •'
                                                      .-...(... ;....,..  ^

                       --H- -l-i-H-



                             i_. -  |- ) ;- i      •  — j   •; •--•
                               1-1- iir!:
                                                    	  _  L_\ !_ I

                                                       I    ' I   1	I  !

                             ~r~;—f^i~. i~'<-	r	rm	:	'	^ ~

                             	I  '  	' •	^_ —' _^__j~"'' 1

   0.1  '
                        •ป  D  c  i *> r ปJ


•I  &  • 7 *  9 K- O  1

          100.  .
               Desirjn  Capacity, millions of gallons per  day
       A = Debt Service,  cents per  1000 gallons (675 - 25 yr.)

       T = Total Treatment Cost,  cents per  1000 gallons