ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR BEST
PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-13
-------
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
FOR BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT
-------
NOTES
To order this publication, MCD-13, write to:
General Services Administration (8-FY)
Centralized Mailing List Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
This publication should be placed in Part III, Guidelines of
the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Contruction Grants
Program manual.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I: Introduction 1
A. Statutory Requirements 1
B. Legislative History 1
C. Synopsis 2
Chapter II: Criteria for Best Practicable Waste Treatment 2
Chapter III: Waste Management Techniques Involving Land
Application or Land Utilization 3
A. Land Application Techniques 4
Irrigation 4
Overland Flow 9
Infiltration-Percolation 11
Other Land Application Techniques 12
B. Land Utilization Techniques 12
Land Spreading of Sludge 12
Landfill of Sludge 12
Landfill of Incinerator Ash 12
Composting and Final Disposal 12
C. Non-Point Sources of Pollutants 12
Chapter IV: Waste Management Techniques Involving Treatment
and Discharge 13
A. Flow Reduction 21
B. Techniques to Achieve Secondary Treatment and
Nitrification 21
Biological 21
a. Ponds 21
b. Activated Sludge 21
c. Trickling Filters 22
Physical-Chemical 22
Land Application 24
C. Storm and Combined-Sewer Control 24
Separation of Combined Sewers 24
Control of Combined Sewers 24
Storage and Treatment of Combined Overflows 24
Dual Use 25
Treatment of Combined Overflows 25
D. Advanced Waste Treatment (Nutrient Removal) 26
Biological 26
Physical-Chemical 26
Land Application 27
E. Sludge Handling Techniques 27
Stabilization 27
a. Biological 27
b. Chemical 28
c. Physical 28
Thickening 28
a. Gravity 28
-------
b. Flotation 28
c. Centrifugation 28
Conditioning 28
a. Chemical 29
b. Heat 29
c. Freezing 29
Dewatering 29
a. Sand Beds 29
b. Vacuum Filtration 30
c. Centrifugation 30
d. Filter Presses 30
e. Belt Filters 30
f. Screens 30
Final Disposal 30
a. Incineration 31
b. Wet Oxidation 31
c. Land Spreading of Sludge 31
d. Landfill of Sludge 31
e. Landfill of Incinerator Ash 31
f. Pyrolysis 31
g. Composting and Final Disposal 31
h. Reuse of Treatment Plant Wastes 31
Chapter V: Reuse Techniques 31
A. Reuse of Wastewater 32
B. Reuse of Other Treatment-Plant Wastes 32
C. Integrated Reuse Facilities 32
Appendix A—Bibliography 33
I. General Information 33
II. Land Application Techniques 34
III. Land Utilization Techniques 40
IV. Flow Rduction 42
V. Ponds 43
VI. Activated Sludge 45
VII. Trickling Filters 48
VIII. Physical-Chemical Treatment 49
IX. Storm and Combined Sewers 51
X. Advanced Waste Treatment 53
XI. Reuse Techniques 55
Appendix B—Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines
(40 CFR 35) 59
Appendix C—Secondary Treatment Information (40 CFR 133) 62
Appendix D—Ground Water Requirements 66
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
This document is intended to provide infor-
mation pursuant to Section 304(d)(2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (the Act) on practicable
techniques by which publicly-owned treatment
works can restore and maintain the integrity of
the Nation's waters. The document identifies the-
currently known techniques, summarizes the
technology, and includes an extensive bibliog-
raphy (Appendix A).
A. Statutory Requirements
The Act (P. L. 92-500) refers to best practicable
waste treatment technology (BPWTT), or to the
manner in which it is to be determined, in three
key sections.
Under Section 304(d)(2), which imposes the
earliest deadline ("within nine months of the
enactment of this title, and from time to time
thereafter"), EPA is to publish:
"Information on alternative waste treatment
management techniques and systems avail-
able to implement Section 201 of this Act."
Section 201, the only section where the phrase
"best practicable waste treatment technology"
actually appears, declares that:
"Waste treatment management plans and
practices shall provide for the application of
the best practicable waste treatment tech-
nology before any discharge into receiving
waters, including reclaiming and recycling
of water, and confined disposal of pollutants
so they will not migrate to cause water or
other environmental pollution and shall pro-
vide for consideration of advanced waste
treatment technques."
To realize this purpose, Section 201(g)(2)(A)
stipulates that:
"The Administrator shall not make grants
from funds authorized for any fiscal year be-
ginning after June 30, 1974, . . . unless . . .
alternative waste management techniques
have been studied and evaluated and the
works proposed for grant assistance will
provide for the application of the best prac-
ticable waste treatment technology over the
life of the works consistent with the pur-
poses of this title."
Funds for FY 1975, the first year affected by the
BPWTT requirement, became available January
1, 1974.
Under Section 301(b)(2)(B) the requirements
which pertain to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTW's) receiving Federal funds are general-
ized to all POTW's for 1983:
"In order to carry out the objective of this
Act (to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Na-
tion's waters) there shall be achieved . . .
not later than July 1,1983, compliance by all
publicly owned treatment works with the re-
quirements set forth in Section 201(g)(2)(A)
of ;nis Act."
In summary, the information developed under
Section 304, which is first used for funding pur-
poses under Section 201, is eventually used for
enforcement purposes under Section 301. This is
accomplished through National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
issued under Section 402, which allow the dis-
charge of pollutants, provided the discharge
meets all applicable requirements of the Act (in
this case, of Section 301).
B. Legislative History
The earliest guidance on Sections 201, 301, or
304 is contained in the Senate. Committee Re-
port's comments on Section 201. There is a
strong emphasis on land disposal, reflecting the
original version.of the legislation. It required land
treatment as BPWTT except where a municipal-
ity could prove the superiority of another
technique. In a different vein, the Committee also
warned against reliance on conventional dry-
weather waste treatment technology. The Com-
mittee noted that in many places water quality
objectives will remain beyond reach until atten-
tion is given to the treatment of storm water
runoff and combined sewer overflows.
The House Committee Report on Section 201
is in many respects a rejoinder to the Senate re-
port. The House Committee warned against reli-
ance on any one treatment technique as a
panacea. Rather, it listed three standard alter-
native techniques for consideration: treatment
and discharge to receiving water, treatment and
reuse, and spray-irrigation or other land disposal
methods. In its comments on Section 304. how-
-------
ever, the House Committee did urge that the in-
formation EPA publishes on alternative waste
management techniques emphasize land dis-
posal. Finally, under Section 201, the House
stressed that any determination of BPWTT
should consider possible trade-offs between air,
land, and water disposal of pollutants.
C. Synopsis
The information contained in this document
will guide policy-owned treatment works in se-
lecting waste treatment alternatives to restore
and maintain the integrity of the Nation's waters.
Chapter II specifies the criteria to meet best
practicable .vaste treatment for the broad cate-
gories of treatment and discharge into navigable
waters, land application and utilization practices,
and reuse of treated wastewater. Criteria less
stringent than those established in Chapter II are
not acceptable. Criteria which are more stringent
must be justified or be pursuant to more stringent
State and local law.
Chapters III, IV, and V develop the rationale
behind the criteria as well as present information
pertaining to acceptable alternative waste man-
agement techniques. These chapters are not in-
tended to include all possible approaches that
are or might become practicable. Therefore,
techniques and technologies not discussed in
this document can be employed to achieve the
criteria in the most cost-effective manner.
CHAPTER II:
CRITERIA FOR BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT
Applicants for construction grant funds au-
thorized by Section 201 of the Act must have
evaluated alternative waste treatment manage-
ment techniques and selected the technique
which will provide for the application of best
practicable waste treatment technology. Alterna-
tives must be considered in three broad cate-
gories: treatment and discharge into navigable
waters, land application and utilization practices,
and reuse of treated wastewater. An alternative
is "best practicable" if it is determined to be
cost-effective in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Part 35 (Appendix B to this
document) and if it will meet the criteria set forth
below.
(A) Alternatives Employing Treatment and Dis-
charge into Navigable Waters
Publicly-owned treatment works employing
treatment and discharge into navigable waters
shall, as a minimum, achieve the degree of treat-
ment attainable by the application of secondary
treatment as defined in 40 CFR 133 (Appendix
C). Requirements for additional treatment,
or alternate management techniques, will
depend oh several factors, including avail-
ability of cost-effective technology, cost
and the specific characteristics ofthe af-
fected receiving water body.
(B) Alternatives Employing Land Application
Techniques and Land Utilization Practices
Publicly-owned treatment works employing
land application techniques and land utilization
practices which result in a discharge to navi-
gable waters shall meet the criteria for treatment
and discharge under Paragraph (A) above.
The ground water resultina from the land ap-
plication of wastewater, including the af-
fected native ground water, shall meet the
following criteria:
Case /: The ground water can potentially be
used for drinking water supply.
(1) The standards for chemical quality and
pesticides specified in the EPA Manual for Eval-
uating Public Drinking Water Supplies (Appendix
D) for drinking water supply sources should not
be exceeded except as indicated below (See
Note 1).
(2) If the existing concentration of a parame-
ter exceeds the standards for chemical quality or
pesticides, there should not be an increase in
the concentration of that parameter due to land
application of wastewater.
Case //: The ground water is used for drinking
water supply.
(1) The criteria for Case I should be met.
(2) The bacteriological standards for drink-
-------
ing water supply sources specified in the EPA
Manual for Evaluating Drinking Water Supplies
(Appendix D) should not be exceeded (See Note
1).
Case ///: Uses other than drinking water sup-
ply.
(1) Ground water criteria should be estab-
lished by the Regional Administrator based on
the present or potential use of the ground water.
The Regional Administrator in conjunction
with the appropriate State officials and the gran-
tee shall determine on a site-by-site basis the
areas in the vicinity of a specific land application
site where the criteria in Case I, II, and III shall
apply. Specifically determined shall be the
monitoring requirements appropriate for the proj-
ect site. This determination shall be made with
the objective of protecting the ground water for
use as a drinking water supply and/or other des-
ignated uses as appropriate and preventing ir-
revocable damage to ground water. Require-
ments shall include provisions for monitoring
the effect on the native groundwater.
(C) Alternatives Employing Reuse
The total quantity of any pollutant in the
effluent from a reuse project which is directly at-
tributable to the effluent from a publicly-owned
treatment works shall .not exceed that which
would have been allowed under Paragraphs (A)
and (B) above.
NOTE 1
Any chemical, pesticides, or bacteriological
standards for drinking water supply sources
hereafter issued by EPA shall automatically ap-
ply in lieu of the standards in the EPA Manual for
Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies.
CHAPTER III:
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES INVOLVING
LAND APPLICATION OR LAND UTILIZATION
Land application systems can be classified
with respect to the ultimate disposition of the ap-
plied wastewater: (1) percolation of wastewater
through the soil until it becomes part of the per-
manent aquifer and (2) collection of land applied
wastewater either by means of underdrain sys-
tems or as a result of surface runoff. Percolation
systems which result in permanent ground water
must meet the ground water quality criteria
established for such systems. Land application
systems which collect the applied wastewater in
underdrain systems and/or result in surface run-
off must comply with the wastewater treatment
and discharge criteria if the collected waste-
water is discharged to navigable waters.
Three different cases can be identified for per-
colation of wastewater through the soil: (1) the
receiving ground water has the potential for use
as a drinking water supply; (2) the receiving
ground water is used as a drinking water supply;
and (3) the receiving ground water has other
uses. Achieving best practicable technology for
these cases requires meeting the applicable
ground water criteria. The specific ground water
criteria are determined on the basis of the level
of ground water protection necessary.
Where the receiving ground water has the po-
tential to be used as a drinking water supply, the
bacteriological criteria for drinking water sup-
plies (Appendix D) can be met by standard water
treatment practice at a reasonable cost. How-
ever, because the water treatment technology
available for the removal of chemical pollutants
and pesticides is not widely practiced and is
costly, the chemical and pesticide criteria (Ap-
pendix D) should apply when land application is
considered.
In the case of receiving ground water which is
already being used as a public or private water
supply, protection of the ground water from path-
ogenic pollution is necessary in addition to
meeting chemical and pesticides criteria. The
bacteriological criteria in this case should be
consistent with the level oflreatment received by
the ground water prior to public use. If, for exam-
ple, a number of existing private wells use the
ground water resulting from the land application
system, the bacteriological standards for ground
water usable without treatment shall apply.
When the ground water is not being used as a
water supply because of contamination and d.oes
not have the potential through treatment to be
used as a drinking water supply, the Regional
Administrator will determine the applicable
ground water criteria on a case-by-case basis. In
making these determinations, the Regional Ad-
ministrator will consider localized conditions as
well as the future intended uses of the ground
water.
For all of the above categories, if the existing
-------
concentrations of any pollutant parameter are at
a higher level in the receiving ground water than
allowed by the applicable criteria, further in-
creases in concentration of that parameter shall
not be allowed. Furthermore, any public drinking
water standards for raw or untreated drinking
water supplies that are hereafter issued by EPA
to prescribe maximum allowable limits or permis-
sible concentrations of chemicals, pesticides,
bacteriological quality, or other parameters will
apply as required.
Grant applications involving land application
techniques will be evaluated with the procedures
established in an EPA Technical Bulletin entitled
"Evaluation of Land Application Systems, EPA-
430/9-75-001." The specific engineering details
and monitoring requirements are the subject of
that manual. The following information is pre-
sented for informational purposes and as design
criteria.
A. Land Application Techniques
The following Discussion is largely based on
"Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Ap-
plication," written by Charles Pound and Ronald
Crites of Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. under contract
to EPA.
Irrigation, overland flow, and infiltration-perco-
lation, the three basic approaches to land appli-
cation, are shown schematically in Figure 1.
Their major characteristics are listed in Tables 1
and 2 and Figure 2. In all three approaches'
wastewater may be applied by spraying or other
surface application techniques, such as leaching
fields and evaporation ponds.
Municipal wastewater, usually pretreated to
some extent, has been applied to land mainly by
irrigation and infiltration. Recently, municipal in-
stallations have begun to experiment with over-
land flow. Industrial wastewater, generally
screened or settled, has been applied using all
three approaches, with the choice usually de-
pendent on the type of soil nearby.
Irrigation
Irrigation is the most widely used type of land
application; between 100 and 450 U. S. com-
munities practice this approach. The controlling
Table 1. COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
LAND-APPLICATION APPROACHES
Factor
Liquid-loading rate
Annual application
Land required for
1-MGD flow
Application techniques
Soils
Probability of influ-
encing groundwater
quality
Needed depth to
groundwater
Wastewater losses
Type of Approach
Irrigation
0.5 to 4 in/wk
2 to 8 ft/yr
62 to 560 acres
plus buffer zones
Spray or surface
Moderately per-
meable soils with
good productivity
when irrigated
Moderate
About 5 ft
Predominantly
evaporation or
deep percolation
Overland Flow
2 to 5.5 in/wk
8 to 24 ft/yr
46 to 140 acres
plus buffer zones
Usually spray
Slowly permeable
soils such as clay
loams and clay
Slight
Undetermined
Predominantly
surface discharge
but some evapora-
tion and perco-
lation
Infiltration-
percolation
0.3to1.0ft/wk
18 to 500 ft/yr
2 to 62 acres
plus buffer zones
Usually surface
Rapidly permeable
soils such as
sands, loamy sands,
and sandy loams
Certain
About 15 ft
Percolation to
groundwater
-------
EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLICATION
SLOPE VARIABLE
DEEP
PERCOLATION
SPRAY
APPLICATION
SLOPE 2-6 %
a) IRRIGATION
EVAPORATION
GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
SHEET FLOW
PERCOLATION
100-300 FT
RUNOFF
COLLECTION
b) OVERLAND FLOW
SPREADING BASIN
INFILTRATION
ZONE OF AERATION
AND TREATMENT
SURFACE APPLICATION
PERCOLATION THROUGH
UNSATURATED ZONE
NEW WATER TABLE
OLD WATER TABLE
c) INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION
Figure 1. LAND APPLICATION APPROACHES
-------
M
IRRIGATION
\
OVER-
LAND
FLOW
i
\
V
<
cc
O 8
5
o 10
_l
Q
O
3
ui
o
<
£ 20
<
\
INFILTRATION-
PERCOLATION
m*
o 09 at &
oooo
i
CLAY
CLAY
LOAM
SILT
LOAM
LOAM
SOIL TYPE
SANDY LOAMY SAND
LOAM SAND
Figure 2. SOIL TYPE VERSUS LIQUID-LOADING RATES FOR
DIFFERENT LAND-APPLICATION APPROACHES
-------
Table 2. COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL OBJECTIVES
FOR LAND-APPLICATION APPROACHES
FROM THE LITERATURE
Objective
Use as a treatment process with
a recovery of treated water
Use for treatment beyond
secondary:
1. For BOD and suspended
solids removal
2. For nitrogen removal
3. For phosphorus removal
Use to grow crops for sale
Use as direct recycle to
the land
Use to recharge groundwater
Use in cold climates
Type of Approach
Irrigation
Generally
impractical
90-99%
85-90%
80-99%
Excellent
Complete
0-30%
Fair3
Overland Flow
50 to 60%
recovery
90-99%
70-90%
50-60%
Fair
Partial
0-10%
__b
Infiltration-
percolation
Up to 90%
recovery
90-99%
0-80%
70-95%
Poor
Complete
Up to 90%
Excellent
Conflicting data-woods irrigation acceptable, cropland irrigation marginal.
"Insufficient data.
factors in this type of land application are site
selection and design, methods of irrigation,
loading rates, management and cropping prac-
tices, and the expected treatment or removal of
wastewater constituents.
The major factors involved in site selection are
type, drainability, and depth of soil; nature, varia-
tion of depth, and type of underground forma-
tion; topography; and considerations of public
access to the land. Climate is as important as the
land in the design and operation of irrigation
systems. It is not a variable, however, because
feasible sites must be within economic transmis-
sion distance of the source.
Table 3 lists major factors and generalized
criteria for site selection. Soil drainability is per-
haps the primary factor. Agricultural extension
service advisers or adjacent farmers should be
consulted about drainability of cropland, and
university specialists should be consulted for for-
est or landscape irrigation. The drainability is im-
portant because, coupled with the type of crop
or vegetation selected, it directly affects the
liquid loading rate. The ideal is a moderately per-
meable soil capable of infiltrating approximately
2 inches per day or more on an intermittent
basis. In general, soils ranging from clay loams
to sandy loams are suitable for irrigation. Soil
depth should be at least 2 feet of homogenous
material and preferably 5 to 6 feet throughout the
site. This depth is needed for extensive root de-
velopment of some plants, as well as for waste-
water treatment.
For crop irrigation, slopes are generally limited
to about 10 percent or less, depending upon the
type of farm equipment to be used. Heavily
foliated hillsides up to 30 percent in slope have
been spray-irrigated successfully.
A suitable site for wastewater irrigation would
preferably be located in an area where contact
between the public and the irrigation water and
land is limited. However, this criterion is often
impossible to meet in landscape irrigation.
Spray, ridge and furrow, and flood are three
-------
Table3. SITE SELECTION FACTORS AND
CRITERIA FOR IRRIGATION
Factor
Criterion
Soil type
Soil drainability
Soil depth
Depth to groundwater
Groundwater control
Groundwater movement
Slopes
Underground formations
Isolation
Distance from source
of waste water
Loamy soils preferable, but most soils from
sands to clays are acceptable
Well-drained (more than 2 in./day) soil
preferred; consult experienced agricultural
advisers
Uniformly at least 5 to 6 ft throughout
site
Minimum of 5 ft at all times
May be necessary to ensure treatment if
water table is less than 10 ft from
surface
Velocity and direction must be determined
Up to 15% are acceptable with or without
terracing
Should be mapped and analyzed with respect
to interference with groundwater or per-
colating water movement
Moderate isolation from public preferable,
the degree depending on wastewater charac-
teristics, method of application and crop
Economics
basic methods of irrigating. Spray irrigation may
be accomplished using a variety of systems from
portable to solid-set sprinklers. Ridge and furrow
irrigation consists of applying water by gravity
flow into furrows; relatively flat land is groomed
into alternating ridges and furrows, with crops
grown on the ridges. Flood irrigation is the inun-
dation of land with several inches of water. The
type Of irrigation system used to maintain the
specified ground water quality objectives de-
pends on soil drainability, crop, topography, cli-
mate, and economics.
The important loading rates are liquid loading
in terms of inches per week, and nitrogen load-
ing in terms of pounds per acre per year. Or-
ganic loading rates are less important if an inter-
mittent application schedule is followed. Liquid
loadings should not exceed the infiltration
capacity of the soil and may range from 0.5 to 4.2
inches per week depending on soil, crop, cli-
mate, and wastewater characteristics. Crop re-
quirements generally range from 0.2 to 2.0 in-
ches per week, although a specific crop's water
needs will vary throughout the growing season.
Typical liquid loadings are from 1.5 to 4.0 inches
per week. Although wastewater irrigation rates
have ranged up to 7 or 8 inches per week, a gen-
eralized division between irrigation and infiltra-
tion-percolation systems is 4 inches per week.
Nitrogen-loading rates have been calculated
because of nitrate buildup in soils, underdrain
waters, and ground waters. To minimize such
buildup, the weight of total nitrogen applied in a
year should not greatly exceed the weight re-
moved by crop harvest. With loamy soils, the
permissible liquid-loading rate will be the con-
trolling factor in most cases; for more porous,
sandy soils the nitrogen-loading rate may be the
controlling factor.
Crop selection can be based on several fac-
tors: high water and nutrient uptake, salt or
boron tolerance, market value, or management
-------
requirements. Popular crop choices are grasses
with high year-round uptakes of water and nitro-
gen and low maintenance requirements. A dry-
ing period ranging from several hours each day
to several weeks is required to maintain aerobic
soil conditions. The length of time depends upon
the crop, the wastewater characteristics, the
length of the application period, and the texture
and drainage characteristics of the soil. A ratio
of drying to wetting of about 3 or 4 to 1 should be
considered a minimum.
Treatment of the wastewater often occurs after
passage through the first 2 to 4 feet of soil. The
extent of treatment is generally not monitored;
when it is, however, removals are found to be on
the order of from 20 to 99 percent for BOD, sus-
pended solids, and bacteria. As irrigation soils
are loamy with considerable organic matter, the
heavy metals, phosphorus, and viruses have
been found to be nearly completely removed by
adsorption. Nitrogen is taken up by plant growth;
if the crop is harvested, the removals can be on
the order of 90 percent.
Wastewater irrigation has been shown to have
a long, useful life, e. g., the systems at Chey-
enne, Wyo., operating since 1881; at Fresno,
Calif., since 1891; and at Bakersfield, Calif.,
since 1912.
Wastewater treatment is quite effective at
direct recycling of pollutants to the land. Irriga-
tion has had many positive effects on the en-
vironment, such as providing wildlife habitats
when public access is properly managed. In
general, irrigation is considered the most reliable
approach to land application of wastewater.
Capital costs for irrigation include those for
land, pretreatment, transmission, and distribu-
tion. Operating and maintenance costs are for
labor, maintenance, and power. The direct eco-
nomic benefits from irrigation can offset some of
the operating costs. The information reported
below provides an indication of the range of
costs for existing systems and does not neces-
sarily reflect the costs of meeting the BPWTT cri-
teria for land application systems.
Land costs vary tremendously, but a typical
current price is $500 per acre. Pretreatment costs
for a 1-million-gallon-per-day (MGD) system
range from 2.7 cents per 1,000 gallons for
screening to 34.6 cents per 1,000 gallons for acti-
vated sludge. These costs are totals determined
by adding amortized capital costs (25 years at 7
percent) to operating and maintenance costs.
The figures are updated to January 1973.
Capital costs for spray irrigation for 10
Michigan sites in 1972 ranged from $1,000 to
$5,000 per acre. Costs reported for cannery
waste-disposal systems (in 1971) varied from
$200 to $2,300 per acre. A cost (in 1967) for a 1-
MGD system on 129 acres of $2,700 per acre was
also reported; the amortized cost (20 years at 6
percent) was 10 cents per 1,000 gallons of
wastewater treated.
For spray sites the reported costs were $800
per acre (in 1968) for the solid set system at
Idaho Supreme; $1,500 per acre (in 1966) for golf
course irrigation at Moulton-Niguel in Southern
Calif.; and $140 per acre (in 1968) for a center pi-
vot rig at Portales, N. M.
Reported operating and maintenance costs,
including pretreatment, for six municipal systems
varied from 2.7 to 11.6 cents per 1,000 gallons.
The costs for six industrial-wastewater systems
ranged from 7.3 to 23.9 cents per 1,000 gallons in
1972. The higher operating costs were for can-
neries operating on a seasonal basis. Estimated
cost for spraying hardboard wastes is 5 cents
per 1,000 gallons.
At the Mount Vernon Sanitary District in
California, costs for a 1,000-acre ridge-and-
furrow irrigation system (in 1956) were $75 tier
acre, including leveling, preparation, and fertiliz-
ing. Other plants reported ridge and furrow capi-
tal costs of $300 per acre for a Minnesota cream-
ery (in 1950) and $2,000 per acre for a Wisconsin
creamery (in 1954).
Operating and maintenance costs at Beard-
more, Canada (in 1958) were 12.7 cents per 1,000
gallons. Costs at the Green Giant Co. cannery in
Montgomery, Minn, (in 1953) were 22.2 cents per
1,000 gallons.
Provided that the land is relatively level,
capital costs for flood irrigation will be less than
for spray or ridge and furrow. Capital costs, how-
ever, were not reported in the literature. Operat-
ing and maintenance costs for flooding at Abi-
lene, Tex., were 7 cents per 1,000 gallons and at
Woodland, Calif., 4.2 cents. Both costs include
pretreatment.
Cities using irrigation derive direct benefits in
different ways. At Woodland, Calif., the city's
land is leased for $23 per acre per year for sum-
mer irrigation; in addition, a duck club pays
about $6 per acre per year for the same land for
duck-hunting privileges in late fall. At Abilene,
Tex., city land is leased for $12 per acre per year,
and additional effluent is provided to adjacent
farms. Pomona purchases treated wastewater
from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
at $7 per acre-foot and sells it to various users at
$5 to $22 per acre-foot. San Angelo, Tex. oper-
ates a 750-acre city farm at an annual profit of
$30 per acre.
Overland Flow
In overland flow the land is sloping, the water
runs off, and the crop is not always harvested.
Overland flow has been used for some time.
-------
The method has been tried experimentally on
municipal wastewater at Ada, Okla., but it has
been more compledely developed for use in the
United States on food-processing wastewater.
The important factors in overland flow are site
selection, design loadings, management prac-
tices, and treatment to be expected. If the runoff
water is collected and discharged into a naviga-
ble water, it will have to meet the treatment and
discharge criteria.
Soils suited to overland, flow are clays and
clay loams with limited drainability. The land
should have a slope of between 2 and 6 percent,
so that the wastewater will flow in a sheet over
the ground surface. Grass is planted to provide a
habitat for the bacteria which help purify the
wastewater. As runoff is expected, suitable sur-
face waters should be nearby to receive the dis-
charge.
Because ground water will not likely be affect-
ed by overland flow, it is of minor concern in site
selection. The ground .water table should be
deeper than 2 feet, however, so that the root
zone is not waterlogged.
Even though climatic constraints have not
been thoroughly tested, systems are being oper-
ated in Calif., Tex., Ohio, Pa., Ind., and Md. A
system is being considered which will attempt to
use overland flow when the ground is frozen. At
Melbourne overland flow is used only during the
mild winters when evaporation is low.
Overland flow systems are generally designed
on the basis of liquid-loading rates, although an
organic-loading or detention-time criterion might
be developed in the future. The process is
essentially biological, with a minimum contact
time between bacteria and wastewater required
for adequate treatment. Liquid-loading rates
used in design have ranged from 2.5 to 5.5 in-
ches per week, with a typical loading being 4 in-
ches per week. At Ada the optimum loading has
been around 4 inches per week, while at Mel-
bourne it is 5.2 inches per week.
Management practices important in overland
flow are maintaining the proper hydraulic
loading cycle (periods of application followed by
resting), maintaining an active biota and a grow-
ing grass, and monitoring the performance of the
system. Hydraulic loading cycles have been
found to range from 6 to 8 hours of spraying fol-
lowed by 6 to 18 hours of drying. Periodic cutting
of the grass with or without removal is important,
but the effects on organic oxidation have not
been fully demonstrated. Loading cycles must be
monitored for maximum removal efficiencies.
Treatment of wastewater by overland flow is
only slightly less complete than for irrigation.
The overland flow systems at Melbourne and
Ada (both using municipal wastewater) and at
Paris, Tex. (using industrial wastewater) have
been monitored to determine removal efficien-
cies. The results suggest BOD and suspended
solids removals of from 95 to 99 percent, nitro-
gen removals of from 70 to 90 percent, and phos-
phorus removals of from 50 to 60 percent. Solids
and organics are removed by biological oxida-
tion of the solids as they pass through the vege-
tative litter. Nutrients are removed mainly by crop
uptake. Other removal mechanisms for nutrients
include biological uptake, denitrification, and
fixation in the soil.
Less is known about the useful life of an
overland flow system than about an irrigation
system. The Melbourne system has been operat-
ing successfully for many years as a wintertime
alternative to irrigation. The oldest operating
system in this country, however, has been treat-
ing industrial wastewater for less than 20 years.
Analysis of the literature suggests that an indefi-
nite useful life may be possible if effective man-
agement continues.
Adverse environmental effects should be
minimal. As a runoff flow is created, it must be
stored, reused, or discharged to a surface water-
course. As infiltration into the soil is slight, the
chances of affecting ground water quality'are
low.
Cost data on overland flow facilities are
scarce because of the limited number of over-
land flow sites in operation. Capital costs in-
clude land, pretreatment, transmission, earth-
work, distribution, and collection. Land costs are
quite variable; even at the Paris site, they varied
from $50 to $600 per acre for the 500 acres pur-
chased. Pretreatment generally consists of
screening. Transmission generally is by pum-
ping.
Earthwork will vary with the original
topography of the site. At Paris, the rolling land
was regraded at a cost of $306 per acre for clear-
ing, $108 per acre for grass cover, and $188 per
acre for miscellaneous work. On the other hand,
complete regrading of flat land to 2.5 percent
slopes at the Hunt-Wesson Co. site in Davis,
Calif, cost $1,500 per acre.
The original distribution system for Paris cost
$348 per acre to install. The cost (in 1971) for the
piping at the Davis site was about $1,250 per
acre. Collection systems for the runoff are nor-
mally included under earthwork. At Davis the
collection ditches amounted to 10 percent of the
earthwork cost, or about $150 per acre.
At Paris, the annual operational cost is 5 cents
per 1,000 gallons. The operational cost is re-
duced slightly by the income of 0.4 cent per
1,000 gallons from crops produced on the site. At
Davis the annual cost is 5 to 10 cents per 1,000
gallons.
10
-------
Infiltration-Percolation
Infiltration-percolation had been used with
moderate loading rates (4 to 12 inches per week)
as an alternative to discharging effluent to sur-
face waters. High-rate systems (5 to 8 feet per
week) have been designed to recharge ground
water. Because high-rate systems have been
carefully designed and monitored, they will be
stressed in the following discussion.
Soil drainability on the order of from 4 to 12 in-
ches per day or more is necessary for successful
use of infiltration-percolation. Acceptable soil
types include sand, sandy loams, loamy sands,
and gravels. Very coarse sand and gravel are
less desirable because they allow wastewater to
pass too rapidly through the first few feet, where
the major biological and chemical action takes
place.
Other factors of importance include deep per-
colation rates; depth, movement, and quality of
ground water; topography; and underlying geo-
logic formations. To control the wastewater after
it infiltrates the surface and percolates through
the soil matrix, the subsoil and aquifier charac-
teristics must be known. Recharge should not be
attempted without specific knowledge of the
movement of the water in the soil system.
Organic-loading rates of municipal systems
range from 3 to 15 tons of BOD per acre per year.
Industrial systems have operated successfully at
90 tons. Municipal systems generally pretreat the
wastewater to secondary quality to maintain high
liquid-loading rates. Industries have tended to
rely more on the assimilative capacity of the soil,
generally using pretreatment only to avoid op-
erational problems.
Management practices important to in-
filtration-percolation systems include mainte-
nance of hydraulic loading cycles, basin surface
management, and system monitoring. Intermit-
tent application of wastewater is required to
maintain high infiltration rates, and the optimum
cycle between inundation periods and resting
periods must be determined for each individual
case. Basin surfaces may be bare or covered
with gravel or vegetation. Each type of surface
requires some maintenance and inspection for a
satisfactory operation. Monitoring, especially of
ground water levels and quality, is essential to
system management.
The filtering and straining action of the soil are
excellent, so suspended solids, bacteria, and
BOD are almost completely removed in most
cases. Nitrogen removals are generally poor un-
less specific operating procedures are estab-
lished to maximize denitrification. Phosphorus
removals range from 70 to 90 percent, depending
on the percentage of clay or organic matter in
the soil matrix which will adsorb phosphate ions.
Wastewater treatment by infiltration-
percolation varies considerably with soil charac-
teristics and management practices. By careful
management of the hydraulic loading cycle (2 to
3 weeks of wetting, 2 weeks of drying), Flushing
Meadows, Ariz, has obtained nitrogen removals
up to 80 percent. Overall nitrogen removal, tak-
ing into account the high nitrate concentration
flushed to the ground water at the beginning of
inundation, averaged 30 percent. Removals of
phosphorus and heavy metals were also gener-
ally less than for irrigation.
The useful life of an infiltration-percolation
system will be shorter, in most cases, than that of
irrigation or overland flow. This is caused by un-
acceptably high loadings of inorganic constitu-
ents, such as phosphorus and heavy metals, and
by the fact that these constituents are fixed in
the soil matrix and not positively removed.
Therefore, exhaustion of the fixation capacity for
phosphorus and heavy metals will be a function
of the loading rate and the fixation sites avail-
able. At Lake George, N. Y., phosphorus reten-
tion on the basis of recent monitoring in some
percolation beds appears to have been ex-
hausted. The system had been operating about
35 years at moderate rates of from 7 to 15 inches
per week.
From the standpoint of environmental effects,
infiltration-percolation is the least reliable of the
three approaches relative to the best practicable
criteria. However, most systems that have been
monitored and managed properly proved to be
quite reliable.
Capital and operating costs for infiltration-
percolation systems will generally be less than
those for irrigation or overland flow because less
land is used and distribution is by gravity flow.
For high-rate systems, however, pretreatment
needs are substantially greater.
The capital costs for infiltration-percolation
are for land, pretreatment, earthwork, transmis-
sion and distribution, and recovery. At Westby,
Wis., basins were constructed in a 5 percent hill-
side. The land cost was $750 per acre; earthwork
was $2,500 per acre. The earthwork cost at
Flushing Meadows was $4,500 per acre. Others
have calculated the cost of transmission and
distribution at Flushing Meadows at $98,000. The
recovery wells there cost $35 per foot, or $17,500
for each well.
Operation and maintenance costs for in-
filtration-percolation systems consist of costs for
labor, maintenance, and power. At Flushing
Meadows, the operating cost is 2.4 cents per
1,000 gallons, while at Whittier Narrows, Calif., it
is 2.7 cents.
Simpson Lee Paper Co. operates two pulp and
paper waste-disposal systems by infiltration-
11
-------
percolation. At Vicksburg, Mich., 1 inch per day
is applied by spraying. The operating cost is 2.9
cents at Vicksburg. Pretreatment costs for pri-
mary settling are included.
Other Land Application Techniques
There are several other approaches to land
application, including subsurface leach fields,
deep-well injection, and evaporation ponds.
Such techniques are generally limited in their ap-
plicability. Leach fields are prevalent in rural
areas for small systems involving septic tanks
and are unlikely to become more widespread.
Deep-well injection provides no substantial
renovation to the wastewater and is not allowed
by the best-practicable-treatment criteria unless
pretreatment is of a sufficiently high quality. Eva-
poration ponds also have limited applicability
because of their large land requirements and cli-
matic constraints, but some are in use.
B. Land Utilization Techniques
Wastes and sludges from wastewater treat-
ment plants are often ultimately disposed of on
the land by such processes as surface spreading
or landfill disposal of dewatered and stabilized
sludge, landfill disposal of incineration ash, and
composting.
Land Spreading of Sludge
Land spreading of either chemically- or
biologically-stabilized sludge is generally similar
to the land application of wastewater. Occasion-
ally, land spreading is limited by the ability of the
land to accept the large amounts of water in the
sludge. More often it is limited by the ability of
the land to accept high concentrations of salts,
organic matter, heavy metals, and pathogenic
organisms.
Sludge can be applied by spray or ridge and
furrow irrigation. Procedures used in land appli-
cation techniques are followed for site selection
and cropping. Likewise, the amount of nitrogen
compounds, nitrates and ammonia, is expected
to be limiting. Ammonia may have to be reduced
prior to application. Ammonia may interfere with
seed germination, and nitrates may reach the
ground water.
In Great Britain 20 to 30 communities practice
land spreading. The solids content of the stabil-
ized sludge varies between 2 and 5 percent. The
application of less than 5 tons of dry solids per
acre per year has been successful. Monitoring of
heavy metals has not revealed problems at this
level of application.
The Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District is
now spraying sludge on 7,000 acres. The land is
prepared by leveling to less than 5 percent grade
and building earth berms to control runoff. Appli-
cation rates of 2 inches of sludge per year are
expected to be successful. At higher rates, nitro-
gen compounds would have to be removed.
Aeration techniques have been studied and
should be successful in oxidizing ammonia
nitrogen.
Another method of land spreading involves
application of dried sludge, which contains less
nutrient, namely nitrogen. When the dry sludge is
packaged, as it is in Milwaukee, Wis., it can be
sold as a soil conditioner. This conserves space
in land disposal sites.
Landfill of Sludge
Stabilized sludge, which has been ad-
equately dewatered, can be disposed of by
sanitary landfill, the controlled burial of
waste beneath an earth cover. Sufficient
land must be available, runoff and perco-
lation of the leachate to the grounawater
must be controlled and monitored, and odors
and pathogenic problemsmust be dealt with.
The^ U.S.Department of Agriculture is ex-
perimenting with a variety of sludges, suc-
essfuIly burying the sludges 'in 2-fpot-wide.,
2-to 4-toot deep trenches with a l-foot soil
cover. Other methods such as deep disking
and rotary tilling will also be tested.
Another method of disposal is sanitary
landfilljng l.iqyjd sludge mixed with solid
waste. In addition to the safegaurds cited
above, careful consideration must also be
given to the site characteristics ana1 the na-
ture and quantity of the waste when design-
ing for this method of disposal.
Landfill of Incinerator Ash
Where land is scarce or distant, incineration is
often an economically attractive method for dis-
posing of treatment-plant sludge. The ash from
incinerated municipal sludges is only from 3 to
10 percent of the mass of dewatered sludge
cake, and incineration reduces odors and patho-
gens. The stack discharges to the atmosphere
and the air environmental concerns must be
properly addressed.
Composting and Final Disposal
Sewage sludge can be decomposed by com-
posting, an aerobic digestion process that con-
verts organic material into a soil conditioner.
Moisture content of the sludge is reduced to ap-
proximately 50 percent. Biological action heats
the sludge to an average temperature over 70° C.
for an excess of 5 days. Nearly all pathogenic
organisms are destroyed. The end product can
be applied to the land or put into a sanitary land-
fill.
C. Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants
Information on nonpoint sources of pollutants,
such as runoff from agriculture, construction,
12
-------
and mining activities is being published pursuant
to Section 304(e) of the Act. However, the infor-
mation and techniques discussed in that publi-
cation should be an integral part of the total
area-wide waste management system. All tech-
niques of water pollution abatement should be
considered in area-wide programs to arrive at
the best practicable treatment.
CHAPTER IV:
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES INVOLVING
TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE
There are an estimated 21,118 publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW's) in the United States
employing different methods of treatment (Table
4). Treatment and discharge is the technique
used by the largest number of such facilities.
The development of treatment and discharge
technology follows a basic pattern (Figure 3):
Raw discharge, primary treatment, secondary
treatment, advanced waste or tertiary treatment
for nutrient removal, and renovation. The initial
goal of the Act requires that POTW's utilizing
treatment and discharge meet secondary treat-
ment as defined by EPA by July 1, 1977 or June
1, 1978 (for new construction). The second goal
of the Act is to provide application of best prac-
ticable treatment by July 1, 1983.
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
RAW
PRIMARY-
SECONDARY-
AWT (NUTRIENT REMOVAL)-
RENOVATION
VISUAL AESTHETICS-SEDIMENT
PATHOGENS-DISSOLVED OXYGEN
EUTROPHICATION
HEAVY METALS. PESTICIDES,
DISSOLVED SALTS
Figure 3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE
13
-------
Table 4. ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED
TREATMENT WORKS
None
Primary
Pond
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Secondary-Other
Land Disposal
Tertiary
Total
Major Plants
(1 MGDor more)
WQLa
29
549
87
574
235
42
112
5
42
1,676
ELb
32
366
50
382
219
29
77
3
30
1,188
EL-00C
3
62
7
57
35
4
13
-
4
185
Minor Plants
(1 MGD or less)
WQL
944
828
1,800
1.367
872
686
518
58
169
7,242
EL
1,462
1,278
2,791
2,015
1,162
1,071
879
91
263
11,012
Total
2,467
3,022
4,728
4,338
2,488
1,828
1,586
157
504
21,118
aPlants located on water-quality-limited segments.
Plants located on effluent-limited segments.
cPlants located on effluent-limited segments with ocean outfalls.
Criteria for best practicable treatment must be
environmentally sound as well as techno-
logically achievable. The areas of concern which
are likely to warrant additional attention after the
application of secondary treatment controls in
1977 include oxygen-demanding material, nutri-
ents which contribute to eutrophication
(phosphorus and nitrogen), heavy metals, pesti-
cides, and dissolved solids.
Review of the literature and existing water
quality surveys indicates that protection of the
dissolved oxygen in receiving waters has the
highest priority in the vast majority of cases. Ap-
proximately 50 percent of the Nation's POTW's
discharge into receiving waters where the water
quality problem is unsolved by existing regula-
tions. In these water-quality-limited segments, al-
most all of the plants are expected to require an
effluent containing less oxygen-demanding
material than that achievable by secondary treat-
ment.
Eutrophication typically occurs mainly in lakes
and slow-moving estuaries. A recent study re-
veals that only 15 percent of the POTW's dis-
charge to lakes, and half of these (or 7.5 percent
of the total) require phosphorus control and one-
third (or 5 percent) require nitrogen control. Riv-
er and estuary needs for nutrient control have
not presently been surveyed on a national scale.
The fecal coliform standards as established by
the secondary treatment criteria were set at
levels which would ensure the highest recrea-
tional (primary contact recreation) use.
The parameter used in secondary treatment to
measure oxygen-demanding material in waste is
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODs). The
BODs test essentially measures the oxygen de-
mand of only the carbonaceous organic material
in the wastewater effluent. It usually does not
measure the oxygen demand of the nitrogenous
organic material, which exerts its effect in the
test later than the carbonaceous material (Figure
4).
A parameter, ultimate oxygen demand (UOD),
is a superior parameter for measuring the oxygen
demand from municipal plants and is thus su-
perior in protecting the oxygen level of the
stream since it includes both sources of biologi-
cal oxygen demand (the carbonaceous and
nitrogenous) and allows credit for any dissolved
oxygen in the effluent. A similar parameter, ulti-
mate biological oxygen demand (UBOD), can be
used where no nitrogenous demand is expected.
A third useful parameter to evaluate oxygen de-
mand is chemical oxygen demand (COD). This
test measures carbonaceous demand for oxygen
from both biodegradable and nonbiodegradable
compounds and is intended to prevent the dis-
charge of slowly-degrading industrial waste.
Consideration should be given to COD in efflu-
ents from POTW's which receive substantially
nonbiodegradable industrial wastes.
14
-------
SOURCES
CARBONACEOUS DEMAND
TIME
BOD..,, =
ult = 1.5(BOD5)
NITROGENOUS DEMAND
202 = H+
NH
I
NH3 - N = 14;02 = 64
N03 + H20
NOD tt = — (NH,N) = 4.6 (NH, - N)
Ult . -a •*
CREDIT
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = 1.0 (DO)
NOTE:
K1 IS GENERALLY 1.5
K2 IS GENERALLY 4.6
FORMULAS
UOD=K1 (BODg) + K2 (NH3N) - 1.0 (DO)
UBOD=K1 (BOD5) - 1.0 (DO)
Figure 4. DERIVATION OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN
DEMAND (UOD)
Carbonaceous oxygen demand is the largest
source of biological-oxygen demanding-material
in effluents from raw discharge or primary treat-
ment (Table 5). In secondary treatment (high-rate
system) as defined by EPA, the nitrogenous de-
mand is by far the largest residual demand in the
effluent. Thus, UOD as a means of measurement
is particularly useful.
In addition to the treatment of wastewaters
which pass through municipal plants, other ap-
proaches to improve water quality have been
examined, including treating combined sewer
overflows, treating storm water, and controlling
nonpoint sources. Demonstrated technology to
control storm water and nonpoint sources essen-
tially does not exist. Efforts are being made to
15
-------
Table 5. TYPICAL VALUES OF ULTIMATE OXYGEN DEMAND (UOD)
Raw
Primary
Secondary (High-Rate)
Secondary (Conventional)
(Winter)
(Summer)
Two-Stage Nitrification
Advanced Waste Treatment
Carbonaceous
300
180
45
23
23
23
8
Nitrogenous
100
95
90
90
23
23
12
Total (UOD)
400
275
135
113
46
46
20
% Removal
0
31
69
74
88
88
95
Table 6. YEARLY CAPITAL COST OF INCREASED TREATMENT
AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL IN SELECTED CITIES
Estimated Increased
Treatment Cost3
($/pound UOD
Removed/yr)
Overflow Controls Cost
($/pound UOD Removed/yr)
Cleveland, Ohio
Oakland, Calif.
Atlanta, Ga.
Bucyrus, Ohio
New York City, N.Y.
Kenosha. Wis.
Sacramento, Calif.
Chippewa Falls, Wis.
0.21
0.39
0.19
0.48
0.98
0.22
0.37
0.46
2.22 (Filtration)
13.70 (Holding tanks)
13.60 (Sewer repair)
8.80 (Fine screening)
8.80 (System control)
28.00 (Separate systems)
0.51 (Storage and screening)
1.84 (Storage and chlorination)
42.10 (Separate systems)
8.35 (Lagoons)
27.00 (Primary treatment)
21.20 (Overflow control)
11.80 (Storage and treatment)
23.80 (Storage and treatment)
22.60 (Storage and treatment)
19.80 (Storage and treatment)
aAdditional capital cost over secondary treatment to achieve seasonal nitrification.
quantify the problems and identify the effects on
receiving waters.
The combined sewer overflow problem is bet-
ter quantified, and EPA research has demon-
strated many types of treatment and control sys-
tems. On an amount basis, the cost of removing
oxygen-demanding material by combined sewer
overflow treatment is much greater than the cost
resulting from removal by increasing treatment at
the plant (Table 6). This is always true on a
16
-------
Table 7. CAPITAL COST OF INCREASED TREATMENT AND
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL ON A YEARLY
AND PER-STORM-ONLY BASIS3
COST ON A YEARLY BASIS
Capital Cost
UOD removed (pounds/year)
Cost ($/pound of UOD
removed/year)
Estimated Increased
Treatment Costb
$150,000
324,000
0.46
Overflow Control
Cost
$895,000
45,000
19.80
COST ON A PER-STORM-ONLY BASIS
Capital Cost
UOD removed during storm only
(pounds/storm)
Cost ($/pound of UOD removed/
storm)
$150,000
111
1,350
$895,000
4,905
182
aChippewa Falls, Wis., 5 ea. storm.
Additional capital cost over secondary treatment to achieve seasonal
nitrification.
3.0
O
u
2.0
1.0
UJ
cc
WINTER
SEASONAL NITRIFICATION
SECONDARY
SUMMER
20
40 60
UOD REMOVAL
80
100
Figure 5. COST VS. PERCENT OF UOD REMOVED
17
-------
60
50
~3 40
|l
Q ««
Z D
TOTAL DISCHARGES
FROMPOTWIFIMO
TREATMENT IS
REQUIRED
Q UJ
UJ CO
(3 Q
30
IF SECONDARY
TREATMENT IS GOAL
FOR ALL POTW
20
ESTIMATES OF ACTUAL DISCHARGE
LEVELS FROM POTW
10
BEST PRACTICABLE
TREATMENT (SECONDARY
TREATMENT AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS)
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992
1996 2000
TIME
FigureG. UOD REMOVAL, 1960-2000
18
-------
1.00
.90
.80
.70
.60
.50
.40
.30
.20
01
< .10
-.09
£ .08
§ .07
cc
U .06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
10 15 20 25
TEMPERATURE °C
30
Figure 7. EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON THE GROWTH
RATEOFNITRIFIERS
19
-------
Table 8. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF ACTIVATED
SLUDGE TREATMENT
Electrical
Amount used
Percent of total
electrical usage
for a city
Annual cost
Fossil fuel to in-
cinerate sludge
Amount used
Comparative usage
Annual cost
Secondary
5 watts/cap
0.4%
44 cents/cap/yr
370 Btu/cap/day
1 gal of fuel
oil/cap/yr
1 2 cents/cap/yr
Seasonal
Nitrification
7.5 watts/cap
0.6%
66 cents/cap/yr
280 Btu/cap/day
3/4 gal of fuel
oil/cap/yr
9 cents/cap/yr
% Increase
+ 50%
-25%
yearly basis, but it is not always true on an event
basis (Table 7). Also, the water quality benefits
from overflow treatment are poorly documented.
Overflow treatment and control needs vary
greatly from one city to the next and can best be
handled on a case-by-case basis. Systems with
combined sewer overflows must be controlled to
minimize the discharge of pollutants during wet-
weather conditions.
A study conducted by EPA to determine the
level of effluent quality required to ensure that 90
percent of the rivers and streams would meet
dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria for fish and wild-
life standards in fresh water—5 milligrams per
liter (mg/l) of DO—revealed that a yearly average
of UOD of 33 mg/l was required. Statistically, this
results in an approximate monthly maximum of
50 mg/l and a weekly maximum of 75 mg/l.
The cost for removing oxygen-demanding
material from wastewater is economically rea-
sonable up to 88 percent removal (Figure 5). Re-
movals greater than this level result in much
higher marginal costs per pound of pollutant
removed.
The secondary treatment requirements in com-
bination with water quality standards would off-
set the increased rate of UOD discharge asso-
ciated with increased population (Figure 6).
The rate of biological oxygen removal
resulting from the nitrifying action of ammonia
varies dramatically with temperature (Figure 7).
With very cold waters (either receiving waters or
in wastewater being treated biologically), the
nitrification process is slowed, reducing the im-
portance of removing ammonia. However, in
lakes and reservoirs where the water tempera-
ture increases, ammonia becomes more impor-
tant and may still require year-round control.
As the environmental significance of ammonia
diminishes with lower temperatures, the eco-
nomic cost of'satisfying its oxygen demand
rises. The technology to achieve nitrification is
well understood. As early as the late 1920's,
plants were designed to accomplish 88 percent
UOD removals. The capital and operating costs
of seasonal nitrification in biological processes,
however, will increase with decreasing waste-
water temperature, as a result of decreasing bio-
logical nitrification rates. Likewise, in a physical-
chemical treatment process such as ammonia
stripping, an increase in cost will occur with de-
creasing temperature. If the nitrification is ap-
plied only to wastewaters above 20° C, the cost
increase (both capital and operating) will be typ-
ically 30 percent greater than the cost of achiev-
ing secondary treatment. The cost of year round
20
-------
nitrification would be 75 percent greater than re-
quired secondary treatment.
In an EPA study where the discharge was to
streams with intermittent or no flow, the nitrified
effluents were sufficient to meet fish and wildlife
standards in an estimated 90 percent of the
cases. However, in only a few cases would sec-
ondary treatment levels meet these standards
because of excessively low dissolved oxygen
and fish toxicity caused by uncontrolled dis-
charge of ammonia.
Nitrification would result in approximately a 50
percent increase in electrical power consump-
tion for municipal waste treatment (Table 8). The
resulting total demand for wastewater treatment
would be less than 1 percent of the total commu-
nity demand.
As a tradeoff for electrical demand,
nitrification would produce less sludge and re-
duce fossil fuel requirements for incineration by
up to approximately 25 percent (Table 8). Solid-
waste management problems are likewise de-
creased. With a decrease of 25 percent in total
sludge production, air pollution problems arising
from incineration would be reduced as a result.
A. Flow Reduction
Information on reducing the total flow of
sewage is being prepared for a report to Con-
gress pursuant to Section 104(o)(2) of the Act.
The techniques discussed in that report should
be recognized as part of the total areawide
waste management system and essential to
achieving the best practicable treatment.
Excluding reuse and recycling, the techniques
for reducing total flow of sewage can be placed
into four major categories. The first is the reduc-
tion of infiltration and inflow into the sewage col-
lection system. Infiltration problems must be
solved, according to Section 201(g)(3) of the Act,
before a Federal grant can be made. The pro-
cedures for complying with this section are con-
tained in the regulations "Grants for Construc-
tion of Treatment Works" (40 CFR Part 35.927).
The second, the reduction of household water
consumption, involves installing devices to re-
duce water usage in existing household applian-
ces and fixtures as well as designing and install-
ing new appliances and fixtures that use less
water. The third category involves economics
and pricing policies to reduce use of water. A
final technique is to change public attitudes as
they relate to water consumption.
B. Techniques to Achieve Secondary Treatment
and Nitrification
Extensive information has been available
since the 1920's on the biological techniques to
achieve the effluent quality required by second-
ary treatment and nitrification. The techniques
fall into four categories: (1) biological treatment,
including ponds, activated sludge, and trickling
filters; (2) physical-chemical processes, includ-
ing chemical flocculation, filtration, activated
carbon, breakpoint chlorination, ion exchange,
and ammonia stripping; (3) land application sys-
tems; and (4) systems which combine the pre-
vious techniques.
Biological
The most widely used systems of wastewater
treatment employ biological treatment. With the
exception of anaerobic ponds, the systems use
aerobic (air- or oxygen-requiring) metabolism to
degrade the pollutants. Oxygen and bacterial
cultures can be provided in many ways, includ-
ing large shallow ponds exposed to the air, trick-
ling filters with a bacterial culture supported on a
rock or synthetic medium which is exposed to
the atmosphere, and activated sludge, in which
the culture of bacteria is aerated with air or oxy-
gen.
Ponds. Sewage oxidation ponds, often called
lagoons, are widely used throughout the United
States. These systems require little energy be-
cause they rely on natural forces such as aera-
tion and produce minimum quantities of sludge.
Since the design and operation of ponds vary
widely, it is hard to generalize on their capabili-
ties. A multicelled pond with intermittent-dis-
charge capabilities can achieve secondary treat-
ment and best practicable treatment without
additional aeration or filtration if average loading
does not exceed 20 pounds of BODs per acre
per day and if it has at least a 6-month stofage
capability. However, this is not true of ponds
which discharge continuously. Normally, am-
monia is readily converted; however, BODs re-
moval and ultimate removal of nitrogen, both of
which are dependent upon the effective capture
of suspended solids, are more difficult.
Ponds with lesser capabilities can employ
mechanical aeration or rely on pretreatment
(such as primary sedimentation) or postfiltration
to achieve the required levels. High solids carry-
over, seasonal changes, algae growth, hydraulic
short-circuiting, and overload conditions are
problems which arise in many ponds and make
achieving the standards more difficult.
In the 0.1- to 4.0-MGD size range, total costs
for ponds range from $3 to $9 per person per
year, versus from $9 to $20 for activated sludge
or trickling filters. Where land costs are high,
however, ponds lose their cost advantages.
Activated sludge. The activated sludge
process consists of an aerator and clarifier and
is usually preceded by primary sedimentation.
21
-------
The aerator, utilizing air (either diffused or me-
chanical) or pure oxygen, provides conditions
for a suspended microbial growth which metabo-
lizes the biodegradable wastes. The microbial
growth is clarified and a portion recycled to
maintain metabolism in the aerated tankage. The
other portion (the build-up of microbial growth)
and the primary solids go to an appropriate
solids-handling facility. The use of chemicals—
lime, ferric and ferrous salts, alum, sodium alumi-
nate, or polymers—can enhance the capture of
particulates in both primary sedimentation and
secondary clarification, thus improving operation
of the process. These techniques are examples
of combined biological and physical-chemical
treatment.
Activated sludge plants can be operated to
establish and maintain bacteria to nitrify am-
monia. This can be accomplished by supplying
additional aeration, by ensuring that the nitrify-
ing organisms propagate at a faster rate than
they are destroyed, and by providing sufficient
capacity in the aerator and/or clarifier to handle
the higher mass of microbial growth resulting
from the reduced wasting rate.
Several other new techniques have been em-
ployed to increase the capabilities of activated
sludge plants without increasing the size of
aerators or clarifiers. Rotating disks have been
tested successfully in pilot plants. By using a
disk, extra biological solids can be maintained in
the aerator. A pilot plant in Tracy, Calif., used a
synthetic red wood media to allow a larger
culture of bacteria to be maintained in the aera-
tor. A similar facility is operational in San Pablo,
Calif.
Separate biological nitrification, which is
basically similar to an activated sludge system,
can also be used. The biodegradable wastes are
largely reduced to approximately secondary
quality in preliminary treatment. The aerobic mi-
crobial growth is then largely established and
maintained on the metabolism of ammonia. A
separate nitrification stage is more reliable and
can remove ammonia at much colder tempera-
tures than the methods previously discussed.
The capital and operational costs are expected
to be from 25 to 75 percent greater than those for
single-stage systems.
Another new system, tested in pilot plants at
Washington, D. C. and Central Contra Costa,
Calif., uses chemical treatment to reduce the or-
ganic loading to the activated sludge aerator.
The pilot results were excellent, with ammonia
removed easily and reliably by nitrification. The
system, however, does produce high quantities
of sludge.
Still another system using combined biological
and physical-chemical methods is to employ
breakpoint chlorination or ion exchange (both
discussed later) to remove the ammonia from a
nonnitrifying biological plant to acceptable
levels.
Trickling filters. Trickling filter plants are
similar to activated sludge plants except that mi-
crobial growth is not suspended. Instead it is at-
tached to a fixed medium, such as rocks or a
synthetic material, over which the wastewater is
repeatedly recycled. The excessive microbial
growth is sloughed off the media and captured in
a clarifier. Trickling filters employing standard
loadings below 10 to 20 pounds of BODs per
1,000 cubic feet of rock medium per day can
meet secondary treatment requirements. Synthe-
tic media are available with larger void spaces
and greater surface area per cubic foot. These
med, have been successfully piloted and
operr jd at loading rates of as much as 2 to 5
times that of rock media; they can be operated at
higher hydraulic loading rates. The performance
and costs are generally competitive with Equiva-
lent activated sludge systems.
A modification of the trickling filter concept in-
volves rotating closely packed disks through the
sewage. Large masses of bacteria are main-
tained and aerated on the disk during rotation.
Initial work in Passaic Valley, N. J., Pewaukee,
Wis., and at the University of Michigan has
demonstrated the system's capabilities. The ro-
tating disk can be used in the same variety of ap-
plications as rock or synthetic media filters,
namely as conventional secondary treatment for
bulk removal prior to subsequent treatment
(roughing filter) or to achieve nitrification.
Physical-Chemical
Chemical flocculation of suspended and
colloidal solids (using lime, ferric or ferrous salts,
alum, and sodium aluminate, often with polymer
addition and subsequent sedimentation) can of-
ten achieve suspended solids effluent quality
equivalent to secondary treatment. The dis-
solved BOD and COD are not substantially re-
moved, and wastewater with high dissolved-or-
ganic concentrations may not achieve effluent
quality equivalent to secondary treatment
without additional treatment.
Suspended solids and the associated BOD
can be removed by filtration in any of the
methods discussed to improve the effluent qual-
ity above secondary treatment. A wide selection
of filtration media is available. Either pressure or
gravity filtration can be used. Removal of sus-
pended solids is usually desirable prior to acti-
vated carbon, breakpoint chlorination, ion ex-
change, or ammonia stripping.
22
-------
Activated carbon has proven its ability to ad-
sorb organic material in wastewater. Because
activated carbon does not rely on bacterial ac-
tion, it can remove biodegradable and nonbiode-
gradable material. Several techniques have been
used to bring the activated carbon in contact
with the wastewater; various forms of carbon
have been used. Granular carbon is the most
widely used and highly developed technique.
Contact methods include pressurized downflow,
gravity downflow, and suspended-bed .upflow.
Powdered carbon systems can also be used and
show excellent potential, although still in a re-
search and development stage.
Breakpoint chlorination (superchlorination)
can be used to reduce ammonia concentrations
in wastewater. Chlorine, sodium hypochlorite,
and calcium hypochlorite can be added at ratios
between 7.6:1 and 10:1 of chlorine to ammonia
nitrogen. This will oxidize the ammonia to nitro-
gen gas if reaction takes place at about pH 7.
Proper controls and operation must be main-
tained at all times.
Selective ion exchange systems are available
for removal of ammonia. The ion exchange me-
dium normally used is clinotilolite. After regen-
eration with a salt and/or lime brine, it will ex-
change either the sodium ion or calcium ion for
Table 9. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR COMPLETE SEPARATION
OF STORMWATER AND SANITARY SEWERS
City
Chicago, III.
Cleveland, Ohio
Concord, N.H.
Detroit, Mich.
Haverhill, Mass.
Kansas City, Kans.
Lawrence, Kans.
Lowell, Mass.
Milwaukee, Wis.
New Haven, Conn.
New York, N.Y.
Portland, Ore.
Seattle, Wash.
Spokane, Wash.
Toronto, Ontario
Washington, D.C.
Total
Total Project
Cost
$2,300,000,000
470,000,000-
700,000,000
8,000,000
1,315,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
70,000,000
425,000,000
10,000,000
4,000,000,000
100,000,000
250,000,000
145,000,000
50,000,000
285,000,000
214,000,000
$9,662,000,000b
Cost/acre
$17,000
12,000-
18,000
10,500
7,745a
13,500
12,000
8,250
le.ses8
25,000-
30,000
3.100-
7,750
3,890
1,800
17,000
18,000
$12,427b
Cost/
capita
$482
360-535
280
360
650
187
915
780
440
560
492
260-652
260
415
250
$468b
aBased on actual project cost.
Using the average costs for those cities reporting ranges.
23
-------
the ammonium ion in wastewater. The regenera-
tion brine contains the removed ammonia. The
removal from and the disposal of ammonia can
be accomplished by steam distillation and sub-
sequent condensation and recovery of ammo-
nium hydroxide. Electrolytic or chlorine oxida-
tion of the ammonia in the brine to nitrogen gas
has been demonstrated in pilot studies. Hot air
stripping of ammonia from the brine, followed by
acid readsorption and precipitation of ammonia
salts, has also been investigated. The salts can
be used as fertilizer.
Ammonia can be stripped from wastewater,
although it requires from 100 to 800 cubic feet of
air per gallon of water. The ammonia is usually
discharged directly to the atmosphere, but this
practice should be avoided in areas where the
discharge could degrade the quality of the at-
mosphere. The process has other disadvan-
tages: Lime or other caustic chemicals must be
added to the influent before the ammonia can be
stripped. Further, effectiveness of stripping de-
creases with decreasing atmospheric tem-
perature.
Land Application
Often land treatment is not viewed as a treat-
ment and discharge process. However, an un-
derdrain or similar water removal procedure
used with overland flow can achieve the effluent
quality required by secondary treatment stand-
ards. This technique is presently being demon-
strated in Muskegon County, Mich.
C. Storm and Combined-Sewer Control
Storm and combined-sewer overflows can be
a source of significant quantities of pollutants.
Demonstrated technology to control storm sewer
discharges does not exist. Efforts are being
made to quantify the problem and identify the ef-
fect on receiving waters.
The combined-sewer overflow problem is bet-
ter quantified, and EPA research has demon-
strated many types of control and treatment
techniques. The techniques fall into five cate-
gories: (1) separation of sewage and storm col-
lection systems; (2) operational control of the
existing system; (3) storage and subsequent
treatment; (4) dual use; and (5) direct treatment
of overflows. Combinations of the techniques of-
ten result in the most cost-effective solutions, as
has been demonstrated in Atlanta, Ga. and
Bucyrus, Ohio.
Separation of Combined Sewers
One approach to minimizing overflows from
combined sewers is to separate the systems.
Complete separation is the most costly. In 1984,
the cost for separating sewers in 16 cities was
estimated at $9.6 billion (Table 9), for an average
cost of $468 per person. The 1964 estimate for
the United States was $25 to $30 billion. Today,
the cost may be in excess of $50 billion.
Another approach is to partially separate the
systems in a cost-effective manner. Partial sepa-
ration includes separation of roof drains, area
drains, foundation drains, air conditioning
drains, and yard drains. This procedure would
have cost $176 per person in 1964 (Table 10), or
a total U. S. cost of $10.4 billion. The cost now
may be in excess of $20 billion.
Control of Combined Sewers
Proper design, maintenance, and control of
combined sewers (as now required for best prac-
ticable treatment) can markedly reduce the dis-
charge of pollutants. A manual of practice pre-
pared by the American Public Works Association
for the Federal water pollution control program
points to design and maintenance practices as
the key to minimizing overflow pollution. Also, a
study of the Hudson River concluded that proper
maintenance of valves and other flow-regulating
devjces could substantially reduce overflows.
An even more effective control technique is
regulating combined collection systems so as to
utilize their capacity to the utmost. For example,
Metro-Seattle uses continuous flow measure-
ments and computerized control to divert flow to
portions of the system that are under-utilized. A
similar system operated by the Minneapolis-St.
Paul Sanitary District (now the Metropolitan
Sewer Board) reduced the quantities of overflow
by 66 percent and the duration by 88 percent.
The control system cost $1.75 million and had
approximately the effect of a separation project
costing $200 million.
Another control system which has experimen-
tally shown promise of reducing pollution is peri-
odic flushing of sewers during dry weather. Esti-
mated to cost between $620 and $1,275 per acre
in 1972, flushing can substantially reduce the
wash out and overflow of the deposited materials
from the system.
Storage and Treatment of Combined Overflows
An excellent way to eliminate or reduce com-
bined overflows is to store and subsequently
treat the overflows. This technique was success-
fully demonstrated in Chippewa Falls, Wis. An
asphalt-paved detention basin was built to retain
overflows up to a 5-year storm. The system cap-
tured 93.7 percent of the quantity of overflow,
which was treated in the wastewater treatment
plant during low-flow periods. The capital cost in
1972 was $6,780 per sewered acre.
Other storage devices have been tested. In
Cambridge, Md., a 200,000-gallon flexible under-
water container stores combined sewer over-
24
-------
Table 10. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PARTIAL SEPARATION
OF STORMWATER AND SANITARY SEWERS
City
Des Moines, Iowa
Elmhurst III.
Eugene, Ore.
Findlay Ohio
Granite City, III.
Hannibal Mo.
Kendallville Ind.
Lafayette Ind.
La Porte Ind.
Lathrup Village, Mich.
Louisville Ky.
Michigan City Ind
Minneapolis, Minn.
Mishawaka, Ind.
Napa, Colo.
Sedalia Mo.
Seattle, Wash.
Tacoma Wash
Total
Total Project
Cost
$25,000,000
8 770 000
3,410,000
15108000
13,200,000
613000
969 000
5 024 000
9187000
961 500
30 538 000
3 500 000
30,000,000
4,392,000
1,549,000
4,470,000
69,000,000
7 960 000
$223,651,500
Cost/
acre
$7,800
3,100
4,900
3,040
972
640
1,860
$3,1 8T3
Cost/
capita
$170
237
76
500
330
43
143
120
437
302
73
95
69
129
52
213
124
53
$176°
Average.
flows. This device contained 96 percent of the
overflow for subsequent treatment. The capital
cost was $1.85 per 1,000 gallons captured.
Dual Use
Several methods have been used to directly
treat the overflow from combined sewers. In
Kenosha, Wis., the existing wastewater treat-
ment plant is operated to maximize biological
adsorption in the aerator during wet-weather
flows. The adsorbed organics are later biologi-
cally degraded. Prior to construction of the dual-
use facility, removals of suspended solids and
BODs were 64 and 82 percent, respectively. Fol-
lowing construction, removals were 88 and 94
percent. During wet weather, the plant still re-
moves 91 percent of suspended solids and 82.5
percent of BODs. This technique cost $917 per
sewered acre and was $7 million cheaper than
separation. Another technique is to expand the
wastewater plant so that it can treat overflows,
either partially or fully. The District of Columbia
has designed primary sedimentation tanks to
handle excessive wet-weather flows. The exces-
sive flows will receive primary treatment and
chlorination.
Treatment of Combined Overflows
Other techniques have shown capability of
treating excessive wet-weather flows where land
is scarce. One such technique is high-rate dual-
media filtration. Experimental results showed 93
percent removal of suspended solids and 65 per-
25
-------
cent removal of BODs at high filter rates. In 1971,
estimated capital cost for this system was ap-
proximately $23,000 per MGD of design capacity.
The expected operational cost was from $90,000
per year for a 25-MGD plant to $390,000 for a
200-MGD plant. Another technique uses a rotat-
ing fine screen. In pilot plant tests, 34 percent of
suspended solids, 27 percent of COD, and 99
percent of floatable and settleable solids were
removed. The estimated cost for a 25-MGD plant
is 22 cents per 1,000 gallons treated. In-sewer
fixed screens with screen openings ranging from
one-eighth inch to 1 inch have been tested, with
varying degrees of success. Chemical treatment
using polyelectrolytes, lime, alum, or ferric chlo-
ride is also being investigated to help treat ex-
cessive wet-weather flows.
Another treatment technique is disinfection.
Chlorine gas can be used just as it is in waste-
water treatment plants. Recently, however, elec-
trochemical cells have been used to produce
hypochlorite disinfectant in isolated or unatten-
ded installations. The cell uses 1.6 kilowatt hours
of electricity and 2.1 pounds of salt per pound of
sodium hypochlorite produced. Large installa-
tions are expected to produce chlorine for 3 to 4
cents per pound.
D. Advanced Waste Treatment (Nutrient
Removal)
The term "advanced waste treatment" is used
in many different ways. In this report the term is
used to describe unit processes or systems de-
signed to prevent the discharge of pollutants or
nutrients which can cause accelerated eu-
throphication of the receiving waters. The key
nutrients are carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Euthrophication may b1"a significant problem in
certain receiving waters. Nutrient removal, how-
ever, is not required by best practicable treat-
ment on a national basis. Advanced waste treat-
ment (or nutrient removal) techniques are usually
used in conjunction with the techniques to
achieve secondary treatment. The techniques
fall into four categories: (1) biological; (2) physi-
cal-chemical; (3) land application; and (4) com-
binations.
Biological
Biological methods to remove carbon are the
same techniques discussed earlier—ponds, acti-
vated sludge, and trickling filters. When higher
degrees of removal are necessary, however,
longer detention periods are required or im-
proved liquid solids techniques such as larger
clarifiers or filtration must be employed.
The biological method to remove nitrogen is
nitrification followed by denitrification. Both can
be accomplished in a mixed suspended culture
followed by clarification (similar to activated
sludge) or on a fixed medium (similar to a trick-
ling filter). The Blue Plains Plant at Washington,
D. C. is currently building a 300-MGD biological
nitrification and denitrification system. Separate
denitrification requires an organic supplement.
Methanol has been most commonly used. For
successful operation, approximately 3.5 parts of
methanol are required to each part of nitrate ni-
trogen. Both nitrification and denitrification are
temperature-sensitive. At 10° C. the metabolic
kinetic rates can decrease to less than 20 per-
cent of the rates observed at 30° C. Normally,
nitrogen cannot be removed by a single-stage
biological process. However, in recent experi-
ments at a pilot plant in Washington, D. C. an in-
termittently-pulsed aerobic and anerobic system
removed up to 80 percent of the nitrogen, thus
drastically reducing the methanol requirements.
Recent experiments at Washington, D. C. and
other localities have shown that biological re-
moval of phosphorus can be achieved. Less than
0.55 mg/l of phosphorus was obtained in the ef-
fluent while meeting secondary treatment re-
quirements. The system couples conventional
aeration with rapid removal of solids from the
clarifier. The solids are then anaerobically di-
gested for 6 to 20 hours; the phosphorus in the
sludge is released and precipitated in the side
stream. The solids are then recycled to the aera-
tion tank. The higher concentration of phospho-
rus in the side stream allows lower lime dosages
for precipitation than full flow treatment.
Physical-Chemical
Physical-chemical methods are probably the
most widely relied on in advanced waste treat-
ment. Carbon in large complex molecules can be
removed from wastewater by carbon adsorption.
BODs of 5 mg/l or less can be achieved. Gravity
flow, pressurized downward flow, and pressur-
ized upflow contact methods have been'demon-
strated utilizing a variety of size and gradation of
media. The Piscataway, Md. plant is using car-
bon adsorption in a 5-MGD advanced waste
treatment facility. Also, ozone oxidation of or-
ganic carbon has been shown to reduce the
BODs to substantially less than 5 mg/l in experi-
ments in Washington.
The physical-chemical removal techniques for
nitrogen include breakpoint chlorination, ion ex-
change, and ammonia stripping. Effluents con-
taining less than 2.5 mg/l of total nitrogen have
been produced with these techniques. Tests on
breakpoint chlorination were conducted at
Washington, and the method is being proposed
for facilities in Cortland, N. Y.; Montgomery
County, Md.; Gainesville, Fla.; Bucks County,
Pa.; and Occoquan, Va. Ion exchange is being
considered in Alexandria, Va. and Neosho, Mo.
Ammonia stripping has already been used on
26
-------
full-scale installations in Orange County and
South Lake Tahoe, Calif.
Lime, ferric salts, alum and aluminum salts are
used in the physical-chemical methods of remov-
ing phosphorus. Addition of the chemical and
precipitation can be done throughout the proc-
ess—in primary sedimentation, in the secondary
system, or as a separate final stage (often termed
tertiary treatment). Many plants around the Great
Lakes are using ferric and alum salts in either
primary or secondary stages to reduce phospho-
rus. Lime can be used in primary sedimentation
for phosphorus removal, as demonstrated in pilot
studies in Washington, or as separate tertiary
treatment as currently employed in a 5-MGD
plant in Piscataway, Md., and in South Lake Ta-
hoe, Calif.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Las Vegas,
Nev.; Monroe County, N.Y.; and in other loca-
tions.
Land Application
Land application techniques discussed earlier
can be designed and operated as advanced
waste treatment systems. Nutrients are removed
as the wastewater comes in contact with the soil
and are then available to plant life.
E. Sludge Handling Techniques
An integral part of most wastewater treatment
systems is the sludge handling facility. The re-
moved pollutants and resulting chemical precipi-
tant from the various unit processes must be pro-
cessed to an environmentally sound condition
for final disposal. There are several possible
steps leading to final disposal: sludge stabiliza-
tion, sludge thickening, sludge conditioning, and
sludge dewatering. The goal of these processes
is generally to minimize the noxious aspects of
the sludge or remove the excess water to mini-
mize the sludge volume to be disposed.
Sludge Stabilization
Before sludge can be disposed, it must first be
treated to reduce adverse impact on receiving
land, air, or ocean. The term "sludge stabiliza-
tion" is used to describe those methods which
will reduce the detrimental impact of sludge dis-
posal, i. e., render the sludge as innocuous as
practical. The following are the primary require-
ments for "stabilization": Removal or treatment
of the highly volatile portion of the sludge so that
rapid decomposition, with resultant rapid oxygen
consumption and the creation of odors, does not
occur; rendering of toxicants in a form which
would not immediately and adversely affect the
environment; achievement of a high degree of
kill or inactivation of various types of pathogens.
a. Biological: (1) Anaerobic Digestion. Ana-
erobic digestion, a widely-employed process, in-
volves biological decomposition of organic
sludges in an environment devoid of dissolved
oxygen. The bacterial growth is inhibited by the
presence of oxygen in the sludge and often is
sensitive to heavy metals. The optimum tem-
perature for bacterial action is from between 85°
and 95°F; below about 70°F, their activity practic-
ally ceases. Anaerobic digestion reduces the vo-
latile matter by 40 to 60 percent. Since anaerobic
digesters must be at a temperature of from 85° to
95°F, heating of digesters is necessary.
Anaerobic digesters are designed for single-
stage or two-stage operation. In the two-stage
system, the sludge in the first-stage unit, where
most of the biological decomposition takes
place, usually is continuously mixed by gas-lift
circulation, pumped recirculation system, or
mechanical mixers. In the second-stage unit,
there is often no direct requirement for heating
or mixing; thus, a quiescent condition is provid-
ed which leads to settling out of the solids and a
supernatant.
In general, the digestion proceeds for about 30
to 60 days in either the single- or two-stage sys-
tem. Higher-rate anaerobic digestion of primary
and activated sludge has been successfully
practiced, but operations must be strictly con-
trolled. After equilibrium, the solids are allowed
to settle and are periodically removed for dewa-
tering. The supernatant is normally sent back to
the biological treatment plant because it is high
in BOD, fine suspended solids, and nutrients.
However, there must be assurance that such
practice will not degrade the final effluent. Other-
wise, it should be given proper separate treat-
ment. The resulting sludge normally is de-
watered.
a. Biological: (2) Aerobic Digestion. Aerobic
digesters for stabilizing sewage sludge are be-
ing used more frequently because of their ease
of operation compared with that of anaerobic di-
gesters. The process basically consists of aerat-
ing sludge in a tank that is usually uncovered
and unheated. The principal operating cost is
the power required for aeration. The sludge is
supplied with oxygen so that dissolved oxygen
exists in all portions of the basin. The aeration
can be accomplished by means of compressed
air and porous diffusers, surface-type mechani-
cal aerators, or submerged turbines supplied
with compressed air (or oxygen). However, with
relatively thick sludges (above 2 percent solids),
it is almost impossible to dissolve and distribute
oxygen throughout the entire sludge mass un-
less some sort of mechanical device is used.
Aerobic digestion is not as sensitive to temp-
erature as anaerobic digestion. There is no great
adverse effect from temperature variations from
between 50 to 105°F. Normally a 10- to 15-day re-
tention time is sufficient to stabilize the sludge
27
-------
and accomplish a reduction in volatile solids of
from about 30 to 55 percent.
a. Biological: (3) Composting. (See the dis-
cussion of composting and final disposal in the
section on "Land Utilization Techniques.")
b. Chemical: (1) Lime. The principal chemical
process that can stabilize a sludge is the appli-
cation of lime to obtain a pH of 11.5. It has been
known for some time that applying lime to organ-
ic matter and raising its pH to above 11 will
cause complex changes in the volatile solid mat-
ter, especially when such a lime-treated sludge
is dewatered. If placed on the land, putrefaction
will be suppressed for a considerable time; then,
as the pH drops, gradual decomposition of the
organic matter will occur with considerably re-
duced generation of odors. Furthermore, at a pH
of 11.5, the destruction of organisms and inacti-
vation of viruses are good.
b. Chemical: (2) Chlorination. Another
chemical treatment that has been used recently
to stabilize sludge and often enhance its dewa-
tering characteristics is the addition of large
dosages of chlorine. The equipment for this
proprietary process consists of a pressure tank
and recirculating pump (Purifax Process). The
chlorine is applied to the raw sludge, which is
pumped into a pressurized holding tank under
about 45 psi and held there for from 10 to 15
minutes.
Experimental work indicated that dosages of
500 mg/l of chlorine added to each percent
solids concentration of an organic sludge would
eliminate odors; the color of the sludge changed
from black to light tan. This chlorine dosage also
increased the drainability of the sludge. The re-
cycled liquor must be properly managed to pre-
vent toxic or inhibitory effects to the rest of the
plant.
c. Physical Methods. The only practical stabi-
lization method that can be considered as being
essentially physical is heat treatment. Since
temperature of about 350 to 400°F can destroy
pathogens and degrade a large portion of the
volatile solids (see the later discussion of wet
oxidation processes), the final sludge is consid-
ered stabilized and can be disposed on the land
or in a landfill after dewatering.
Also, Pasteurization (150°F for about 1/2 hour)
of liquid sludge has been considered in this
country and is practiced at several localities in
Germany. It destroys pathogens to a high de-
gree, but does not stabilize the sludge since it
does not reduce the volatile solids.
Sludge Thickening
Since sludge from the main treatment stream
is removed at concentrations normally well be-
low 5 percent solids, the bulk of the sludge is
water. The removal of this water is desirable for
many efficient and effective disposal schemes.
a. Gravity Thickening. Gravity thickening is
the most common sludge concentration process
in use at wastewater treatment plants. The
sludge particles may be separated from water by
maintaining quiescent conditions. Gravity thick-
eners usually follow gravity clarification, some-
times in the same unit, but the emphasis is on re-
moving water from solids rather than solids from
water, as in clarification. In thickening, the pre-
dominant mechanism is settling. An advantage
of gravity thickening is its simplicity. However, in
some cases gravity thickening does not normally
produce as highly concentrated a sludge as do
other thickening processes.
Normally primary sludge thickens readily, and
often separate thickening beyond that in the
primary process is not necessary. Secondary
treatment sludge from a biological process nor-
mally exhibits poor thickening characteristics
and requires separate external thickening. Com-
mon practice often employs a separate thicken-
ing process for both primary and secondary
sludges.
b. Flotation. Like gravity settling, flotation has
been adopted for thickening waste sludges, es-
pecially organic sludges that do not thicken eas-
ily by gravity settling, such as waste activated
sludge. To accomplish good thickening and to
also achieve a relatively clear underflow, the raw
sludge is frequently "conditioned" with either an
organic or inorganic coagulant.
Flotation is accomplished first by taking a
volume of relatively clear water (usually the un-
derflow) and pressurizing it up to 30 to 70 psi. Air
is injected into the pressurized liquid so that dis-
solution occurs. This pressurized liquid is then
released through a specially designed valve to a
pressure equal to the hydrostatic head in the flo-
tation basin and mixed with the raw sludge. The
drop in pressure causes microscopic air bubbles
to come out of solution and attach themselves to
the sludge particles or floe; thus rapid flotation
results.
c. Centrifugation. Centrifuges have been pri-
marily used in the wastewater treatment field for
sludge dewatering; however, recently one type
of centrifuge, known as the disk or nozzle type,
is coming into use for thickening of activated
sludge. The disk (or nozzle) type centrifuge has
been used for many years in the chemical pro-
cess industry, but its use for sludge thickening in
the field of wastewater treatment is relatively
new, and only a few installations exist.
Sludge Conditioning
Sludge conditioning encompasses those pro-
28
-------
cesses which involve biological, chemical, or
physical treatment (or their combinations) to
make the separation of water from sludge easier.
Also, it should be kept in mind that certain con-
ditioning processes accomplish more than mere-
ly increasing the dewaterability of sludge; they
may also alter the sludge chemically, disinfect it,
destroy odors, and may even accomplish a cer-
tain amount of destruction of the sludge mass by
liquifaction or oxidation in some processes.
a. Chemical Conditioning. Chemical condi-
tioning is a method used to break down the
gelatinous nature of sewage sludges which
makes it difficult to separate the water from the
solids. By adding certain chemical flocculants,
the "bound" water can be separated from the
solids with much less effort and cost.
The inorganic chemicals used for such condi-
tioning are alum, ferrous sulfate and ferric
chloride, and lime. Alum is used primarily to ag-
glomerate the fine floe of an activated sludge to
aid in its thickening. Ferric sulfate is not used
much because of the difficulty of getting it into
solution in cold water. Ferrous sulfate is used us-
ually with lime. The most widely used inorganic
conditioner is a combination of ferric chloride
and lime. The pH is raised to from 10.5 to 11.5,
and good conditioning is obtained. The high pH
causes the death of many pathogenic organisms
and the inactivation of many viruses. The precip-
itated ferric hydroxide is aided in conditioning
the sludge by the precipitation of calcium carbo-
nate from the calcium alkalinity in the water and
the CO2, thus adding weight to aid in thickening
light sludges.
A great many of the new organic polyelectro-
lytes, especially of the cationic type, are effective
flocculants and conditioners. Their use does not
add any significant quantity of solids, which can
be important in economic considerations for siz-
ing an incinerator.
Many sludges that do not dewater readily with-
out a large amount of conditioning chemicals
can be dewatered easily on vacuum filters by
adding a "filter aid" such as diatomite, fly ash
from coal-fired power plants, or sludge incinera-
tor ash. The production of fly ash from coal-fired
plants is tremendous. It has been estimated that
if all secondary wastewater treatment plant
sludges produced in 1970 were dewatered using
such fly ash as an aid, it would only use up about
one-third of the total fly ash production. Such fly
ash consists principally of silica and alumina,
with varying amounts of iron oxides and carbon.
b. Heat Conditioning. It is generally acknowl-
edged that heat treatment of sludges, especially
those containing a large percentage of organic
matter, will greatly improve their dewaterability.
Wastewater sludge can be classified as being to
a large degree a colloidal-gel system, and heat-
ing allows entrapped water to escape the gel
structure. Some have referred to this as "heat
syneresis."
Basically, this process involves the heating of
partially thickened sludge in a closed reactor up
to a temperature of 350° to 400°F at a pressure of
about 200 to 250 psi, and holding it under these
conditions for about 30 minutes.
c. Freezing. A detailed study to evaluate con-
ditioning and dewatering of sewage sludge by
freezing was sponsored by EPA and carried out
by the Milwaukee, Wis. Sewerage Commission.
The initial conclusion was that the freeze-thaw
process had technical merit. However, the final
conclusion was that the total cost of the process
was greater than existing chemical conditioning
processes. Other than cost another disadvan-
tage appeared to be that it was essentially a
batch process.
Sludge Dewatering
All the various treatment processes to which
the sludges have been subjected, such as thick-
ening, stabilization, conditioning, etc., we're di-
rected, to a large degree, towards facilitating the
removal of entrained water from the solids. This
is termed "dewatering" so that the solids can be
more economically and more readily disposed in
an environmentally acceptable manner.
a. Sand Beds. The most common method of
municipal wastewater sludge dewatering is on
sand beds. Although sand beds are particularly
suitable for small installations, they are used at
treatment plants of all sizes and in geographical
areas of widely varying climates. Many industrial
sludges and water treatment plant sludges are
also dewatered on sand beds. Generally, a well-
designed and properly operated sand bed can
produce a drier sludge than any mechanical de-
watering device.
Dewatering on sand beds is by drainage and
evaporation. The proportion removed by drain-
age may vary from 20 to 85 percent. Normally,
most of the drainage is accomplished in the first
two days on the bed; evaporation is the principal
effect thereafter. After a few days, the sludge
cake shrinks horizontally, producing cracks at
the surface which expose additional sludge sur-
face area and enhance drainage as well. The li-
quid draining from the sludge is often returned to
the treatment plant. Though its volume is small, if
the sludge being dried has been digested, for ex-
ample, the drainage contains'a high concentra-
tion of soluble organic matter, ammonia or ni-
trates, and phosphates. The sludge is removed
by hand shovel or by a mechanical scraper de-
vice after one or more months of dewatering.
29
-------
b. Vacuum Filtration. All types of municipal
sludges —raw, digested, primary, activated,
trickling filter, and mixtures—can be dewatered
by vacuum filtration.
The rotary drum type of vacuum filter has been
widely used for sludge dewatering. Basically,
there are two types: the stainless steel coil filter
and the belt filter, which uses a belt of fabric (us-
ually synthetic) as the filtering medium.
The basic principle used by and of the wide
variety of commercially available vacuum filters
is suction. Mechanical equipment produces a
vacuum on the inside of a drum. The vacuum
draws the water from the sludge leaving a dry or
dewatered sludge on the media side. The de-
watered sludge is then removed for disposal.
c. Centrifugation. Again centrifugation can be
and is used on a wide variety of municipal
sludges. The basic principle is to separate the
solids from the water by centrifugal force.
The unit generally used for wastewater sludge
dewatering is the horizontal solid bowl centri-
fuge. It operates on a continuous basis and has
produced a sludge cake of from 15 to 25 percent
solids in normal operation.
Centrifuges require little space. However, in
general, the solids capture is not as good as with
vacuum filters unless optimum chemical condi-
tioning is used, and then the cake invariably is
not as dry. Centrifugation has been used suc-
cessfully and competitively in practice in lieu of
vacuum filtration.
d. Filter Press. The standard type filter press,
or pressure leaf filter as it is sometimes called,
has been used for many years in the chemical
process industry for dewatering slurries. It con-
sists of "leaves" covered with some type of por-
ous fabric. These leaves or plates form a series
of chambers; the sludge is retained between the
fabric on both sides of the leaf. These plates are
first pushed together and compressed by hy-
draulic or mechanical pressure exerted on the
ends of the series of plates to prevent leakage.
Drainage ports are provided in the plates for the
liquid to escape. The pressure is imposed by
pumping in the sludge which is retained be-
tween the filter fabrics. The final pressure can
amount to several hundred psi, though usually
for sewage sludge it is about 100 psi.
e. Belt Filters. Another type of filtering device
used for dewatering sludge is the belt filter
press. One form was first used in Europe and has
been introduced to the U.S. market in recent
years. It consists of two endless belts, normally
made of finely woven stainless steel wire, travel-
ing in the same direction but opposite to each
other. Chemically conditioned sludge is fed con-
tinuously between the belts and is subjected to
gradual pressure exerted by two individually ad-
justable rollers. The end product is a fairly dry
sludge with solid concentration of approximately
15 percent.
This process is effective only when water and
solid in the sludge are readily separable. Proper
chemical conditioning prior to dewatering is
therefore the key to the success of the belt filter
press operation.
Another unique type of horizontal belt filter was
developed in Europe and used for industrial type
slurries. It depends on capillary suction action on
the water portion of the conditioned sludge to ex-
tract the liquid from the sludge layer formed on top
of a sponge-like belt. The liquid is squeezed out of
the "sponge" belt, and the cake is further squeezed
between steel rollers for additional dewatering. The
sludge cake adheres to one of the rollers and is
doctored off.
A unit that has been used fairly extensively is the
so-called dual cell gravity concentrator. It has sev-
eral unique features which produce dewatering of
sludge through a synthetic porous fabric by the ac-
tion of gravity. The first cell accomplishes the re-
moval of'the major portion of the water from a thick-
ened sludge; then the sludge mass is carried over
into a second cell where final dewatering is accom-
plished.
f. Screens. Specially designed self-cleaning
metal screening devices are used (and are neces-
sary) ahead of disk (or nozzle) type centrifuge
thickeners for waste activated sludge.
At the Hyperion Treatment Plant in Los Angeles
an unusual use is reportedly being made of fairly
coarse horizontal and sloping screens, of the vibra-
tory type, for removing the larger solids from di-
gested sludge before it is disposed. The organic
screened-out solids are macerated and returned to
the main sludge stream, while the inert and hard
materials are separated and hauled to a landfill.
Recently, a stationary sloping screen of an unus-
ual design from a hydrodynamics standpoint has
been introduced. The experience with it is still very
limited, but it has application for non-flocculent
type sludges, such as those from primary clarifiers
and trickling filters, and for removing fibrous and
discrete particles. The simplicity of design and low
cost compared to other systems warrant its thor-
ough testing and consideration.
Final Disposal
In some of the processes used to dispose the
sludge to the land, air, or oceans, the sludge must
be dewatered to a high degree; in others, it is dis-
posed in liquid form, usually after some thickening.
Some processes, such as incineration, may merely
dispose the organic portion leaving the ash and the
30
-------
liquid (if removed from the sludge before incinera-
tion) for further processing and/or disposal.
a. Incineration. Since the municipal wastewater
solids and sludge (including grit and skimmings)
that are generated have a large portion of organic
matter, the burning of such sludge is a logical final
disposal process. However, an ash remains for final
disposal.
Whether the combustion is self-supporting de-
pends on the calorific value of the solids and the
degree of dewatering that was accomplished. The
incinerators are always provided with auxiliary fuel
for use when needed—such as during startups. Do-
mestic wastewater sludge dewatered preferably to
solids content greater than 30 percent will permit
self-supporting combustion. Although either may
be incinerated, raw sludge is preferable to digested
sludge because of its greater calorific value.
Sewage sludge incineration has been practiced
for many years and is becoming considered in ur-
ban areas as sludge volumes increase and as land
areas for alternative operations become more
scarce. Also, the development of greatly improved
designs to control air pollution and possible recov-
ery of the heat has increased the use of incinera-
tion. The incineration process must not produce
objectionable smoke, odor, or other atmospheric
pollutants.
Incineration achieves volume reduction and
solids sterilization. The two most common types of
sludge incinerators are the multiple hearth and the
fluidized bed. A less common type is the flash dry-
ing and burning unit.
b. Wet Oxidation. In the wet air oxidation pro-
cess, organic compounds in the sludge are chem-
ically oxidized in the aqueous phase by dissolved
oxygen in a specially designed reactor at tempera-
tures of from about 500°F to 700°F and pressures of
from 1,000 to 2,000 psi. The degree of oxidation
achieved in the process can vary considerably, de-
pending on sludge characteristics, temperature,
and detention time. In practice, oxidations ranging
from 70 to 80 percent in terms of decrease in oxy-
gen demand are normally sought. Wet air oxidation
of sludge produces a sterile, stable product that de-
waters and filters readily. The process produces a
sidestream when the oxidized sludge is thickened
and dewatered, usually by settling, vacuum filtra-
tion, centrifugation, or a combination of these pro-
cesses.
c. Land Spreading of Sludge. (See the discus-
sion in the section on "Land Utilization Tech-
niques.")
d. Landfill of Sludge. (See the discussion in the
section on "Land Utilization Techniques.")
e. Landfill of Incinerator Ash. (See the discus-
sion in the section on "Land Utilization Tech-
niques.")
f. Pyrolysis of Sludge. Pyrolysis is a process in-
volving the heating of organic matter in the ab-
sence of oxygen. The term "destructive distillation"
is used when wood is subjected to this treatment to
produce methanol. Depending on the nature of the
organic matter, the decomposition of sludge by py-
rolysis at temperatures varying from 900°F to
1,700°F produces compounds such as char, tars,
various liquids, and gases such as hydrogen, car-
bon monoxide and dioxide, methane, and ethane.
g. Composting and Final Disposal. (See the dis-
cussion in the section on "Land Utilization
Techniques.")
h. Reuse of Treatment Plant Wastes. (See the
discussion in the section on "Reuse Techniques.")
CHAPTER V: REUSE TECHNIQUES
Reuse and by-product recovery is one of the
major techniques for handling wastewater. Uni-
form criteria for best practicable treatment can-
not be set for reuse purposes, since some indus-
trial reuse needs such as cooling and quenching
require minimum treatment of domestic waste-
water; in other cases, water of drinking quality or
better must be achieved.
The reuse criteria for best practicable treat-
ment are set according to the medium (land or
surface waters) into which reuse water is ulti-
mately discharged and reflect two considera-
tions: (1) as a minimum, no greater pollutional ef-
fect should result than if treatment and discharge
or land application criteria were employed. This
is to ensure equity among municipal works and
prevent degradation of the receiving waters
through the indirect discharge of untreated do-
mestic waste; (2) as a maximum, as few addi-
tional restrictions as possible should be im-
posed. This is to carry out the purpose stated in
the Act to encourage wastewater reuse, particu-
larly when such facilities will produce revenue.
For the above reasons, the reuse criteria for
best practicable treatment require that the quan-
tity of pollutants discharged from a reuse project,
31
-------
attributable directly to the publicly-owned treat-
ment works, meet the minimum criteria for non-
reuse techniques.
A. Reuse of Wastewater
Reuse opportunities from wastewater treat-
ment plants do not only, include reuse of the ef-
fluent, although this technique is still the most
important. Use of methane gas from anaerobic
digestion, recovery of coagulant in systems em-
ploying lime precipitation, and regeneration of
activated carbon are also possible.
The effluent quality required for reuse may
vary as discussed earlier. In many cases, reuse
may require additional treatment beyond nutrient
removal. Often the problem is high dissolved-
solids concentration, for which several methods
have been proposed. The most advanced tech-
nology of dissolved-solids removal is reverse os-
mosis. Distillation, ion exchange, and freezing
techniques are still in the research or small-scale
pilot stage.
A major steel company in Baltimore, Md. ob-
tains sewage which does not receive secondary
treatment. The industry treats to its needs. Other
systems, such as one being planned at the Cen-
tral Costa Sanitary District, Calif., require advan-
ced waste treatment prior to industrial reuse. The
Central Costa facility is expected to be revenue-
producing.
Recharging ground water, directly or indirect-
ly, is also a potential reuse and is being prac-
ticed with increasing frequency in the arid
Southwest. Also, in the East, Long Island, N. Y. is
recognizing the need for ground water recharge
and is planning a demonstration study. The pre-
vention of salt water intrusion is also an excel-
lent reuse opportunity. Direct reuse for drinking
water is being practiced in Windhok, South
Africa, but not in this country.
Another wastewater reuse is in development
of arid land. Examples include grassland or golf
courses watered with treated effluent, develop-
ment of forest land (being researched at the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania), and a recreation facility
developed by Los Angeles County in Antelope
Valley, Calif. New land application techniques
are expected to provide conditions for producing
sod, Christmas trees, hay, or even beef cattle.
The treated effluent from the South Lake Tahoe,
Calif, plant is pumped to a reservoir for eventual
use in irrigation. Highly-treated wastewater from
the proposed Upper Occoquan, Va. plant will be
discharged to a reservoir used for water supply.
In a land application system the water
recovered and used for subsequent irrigation is
considered a reuse technique. That portion must
comply with the irrigation requirements. Only the
water remaining as permanent ground water
must comply with the standards for land appli-
cation.
Revenue-producing facilities are being con-
sidered with increasing frequency. A plant in the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Calif., is
in the early design stage. It is expected to sell
highly-treated effluent to industries, thereby sav-
ing major development of new water supplies.
B. Reuse of Treatment-Plant Wastes
Reuse of treatment-plant wastes such as
sludges, methane gas, and waste-activated car-
bon is also possible. For several decades, meth-
ane gas from anaerobic digestion of a sludge
has been used for fuel, electrical power genera-
tion, and heat.
Sludge can also be reused. The sale of dried
sludge as a soil-builder, a unique operation in
Milwaukee, Wis., has been revenue-producing.
Another technique, demonstrated in pilot studies
in Washington, D. C. and in full-scale operations
at Piscataway, Md. and South Lake Tahoe, Calif.,
recovers coagulant from a lime precipitation
process. The organic sludge is incinerated; the
calcium carbonate that results from lime precipi-
tation is calcined back to lime for subsequent re-
use. South Lake Tahoe also has facilities to re-
activate the activated carbon spent in waste-
water treatment.
Other sludge-reuse techniques are also being
investigated. Acid treatment of alum sludges to
recover alum is actually being used in Japan. Hy-
drolysis of organic sludges, which employs sul-
fur dioxide, heat and pressure, shows potential
in producing animal feed. After the hydrolysis,
evaporation concentrates digestible organics
valued at 2 to 5 cents per pound. Organic and
chemical sludges can also be used to condition
barren soil and improve cashcrop potential.
C. Integrated Reuse Facilities
Reuse techniques benefit from total area plan-
ning and increasing utilization of integrated fa-
cilities. One potential integrated facility is the
proposed Delaware Reclamation Project, where
wastewater treatment sludges, municipal refuse,
and garbage would be composted, separated,
and heat-treated. At another proposed facility in
Montgomery County, Md., organic sludges
would be pretreated and used as a supplemental
fuel source in thermoelectric power production.
The effluent could also be used to supplement
cooling water. Other integrated concepts which
have been widely used are incorporation of sep-
tic-tank treatment capabilities in a plant and the
use of joint municipal and industrial treatment fa-
cilities.
32
-------
APPENDIX A—BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
The Law
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500).
Regulations
"Secondary Treatment Information" (40 CFR 133) published in the Federal Register on August 17,1973.
"Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" (40 CFR 35 Appendix A) published in the Federal Register on September
10, 1973.
"Grants for Construction of Treatment Works" (40 CFR 35) published as f I nal regulations in the Fed-
eral Register on February II, 1974.
"State Continuing Planning Process' (40 CFR 130) published as interim regulations in the Federal
Register on March 27, 1973.
Agency Programs
Technology Transfer Staff
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Research Information Division
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Municipal Construction Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Municipal Pollution Control Division
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Federal Bibliographic Sources
"Bibliography of R and D Research Reports"
Research Information Division, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
"Selected Water Resources Abstracts," published semi-monthly
Water Resources Scientific Information Center, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
20240.
Notice
Publication of the following bibliographic information has been approved by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency but does not necessarily signify that the items in the bibliography reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
33
-------
II. LAND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
Bibliographies
"Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application—Bibliography." Prepared by Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency, May, 1973.
"Bibliography—Survey of Facilities Using Land Application." Prepared by the American Public Works
Association for the Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1973.
"Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges: Selected Abstracts." Prepared by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, May, 1974.
Bibliographic List
Allen, M. L. "North Tahoe Agencies Test Disposal in Volcanic Cinder Cone." Bulletin Calif. Water Pol-
lution Control Assoc., Vol. 9 (January, 1973): 31-38.
Allender, G. C. "The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System for the Renovation of Treated Municipal Waste-
water." Master's Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, (September, 1972).
Amramy, A. "Waste Treatment for Groundwater Recharge." JWPCF, Vol. 36 (No. 3, 1964): 296-298.
Anderson, D. R., et al. "Percolation of Citrus Wastes through Soil. In Proceedings of the 21st Industrial
Waste Conference, Part II, pp. 892-901. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1966.
"Assessment of the Effectiveness and Effects of Land Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Manage-
ment." Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wastewater Management Report 72-1,
January, 1972.
Aulenbach, D. B.,; Glavin, T. P.; and Rojas, J.A.R. "Effectiveness of a Deep Natural Sand Filter for Fin-
ishing of a Secondary Treatment Plant Effluent." Presented at the New York Water Pollution Con-
trol Association Meeting, January 29, 1970.
Baffa, J. J., and Bartilucci, N.J. "Wastewater Reclamation by Groundwater Recharge on Long Island."
JWPCF, Vol. 39 (No. 3, 1967): 431-445.
Bendixen, T. W., et al. "Cannery Waste Treatment by Spray Irrigation Runoff." JWPCF, Vol. 41 (No. 3,
1969): 385-391.
Bendixen, T. W., et al. "Ridge and Furrow Liquid Waste Disposal in a Northern Latitude." ASCE San.
Engr. Div., Vol. 94 (No. SA 1, 1968): 147-157.
Blaney, H. F., and Griddle, W. D. "Determining Consumptive Use and Irrigation Water Requirements."
Tech. Bull. No. 1275, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, December, 1962.
Blosser, R.O., and Owens, E. L. "Irrigation and Land Disposal of Pulp Mill Effluents." Water and Sew-
age Works, Vol. 3 (No. 9, 1964): 424-432.
Borushko, I. S. "The Influence of a Water Body on the Temperature and Air Humidity of the Surrounding
Territory." Jr. Glavn. Geofizich. Observatorii, No. 59 (121), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1956.
Bouwer, H. "Ground Water Recharge Design for Renovating Waste Water." ASCE San. Engr. Div., Vol.
96 (No. SA 1, 1970): 59-74.
Bouwer, H. "Renovating Secondary Effluent by Groundwater Recharge with Infiltration Basins." Pre-
sented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest
and Cropland, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, August 21-24,
1972.
Bouwer, H. "Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent Systems Using Secondary Sewage Effluent." Pre-
sented at the Artificial Groundwater Recharge Conference, University of Reading, England, Sep-
tember 21-24, 1970.
34
-------
Bouwer, H.; Rice, R. C.; and Escarcega, E.D. "Renovating Secondary Sewage by Ground Water Re-
charge with Infiltration Basins." U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Office of Research and Moni-
toring, Environmental Protection Agency, Project No. 16060 DRV, March, 1972.
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. "Waste Water Reclamation." California State Department of Public
Health. Prepared for Calif. State Water Quality Control Board, November, 1967.
Bureau of Water Quality Management. Spray Irrigation Manual. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental
Resources, Publication No. 31 (1972).
Buxton, J. L. "Determination of a Cost for Reclaiming Sewage Effluent by Ground Water Recharge in
Phoenix, Arizona." Master's Thesis, Arizona State University (June, 1969).
Canham, R. A. "Comminuted Solids Inclusion with Spray Irrigated Canning Waste." Sewage and Indus-
trial Wastes, Vol. 30, (No. 8, 1958): 1028-1049.
Center for the Study of Federalism. Green Land—Clean Streams: The Beneficial Use of Waste Water
Through Land Treatment, Stevens, R. M., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University, 1972.
Coast Laboratories. "Grape Stillage Disposal by Intermittent Irrigation." Prepared for the Wine Institute,
San Francisco, Calif., June, 1947.
Coerver, J. F. "Health Regulations Concerning Sewage Effluent for Irrigation." In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation. Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July 30,
1968.
C. W. Thornthwaite Associates. "An Evaluation of Cannery Waste Disposal by Overland Flow Spray Irri-
gation." Publications in Climatology, Vol. 22 (September, 1969).
DeTurk, E. E. "Adaptability of Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 7 (No. 4,1935):
597-610.
De Vries, J. "Soil Filtration of Wastewater Effluent and the Mechanism of Pore Clogging." JWPCF, Vol.
44, (No. 4, 1972): 565-573.
Drake, J. A., and Bieri, F. K. "Disposal of Liquid Wastes by the Irrigation Method at Vegetable Canning
Plants in Minnesota 1948-1950." In Proceedings of the 6th Industrial Waste Conference, pp. 70-79.
Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1951.
Drewry, W. A., and Eliassen, R. "Virus Movement in Groundwater." JWPCF, Vol. 40 (No. 8, Part 2):
R257-R271.
Dubrovin, L. V. "Computation of the Influence of a Reservoir on Absolute Humidity in the Littoral Zone."
Materialy Pervogo Nauchno-tekhnicheskogo Soveshchaniya Po Izercheniyu Kuybyshevskogo
Vodokhranilishcha, No. 2, Kuybyshev, 1963.
Duffer, W. "EPA Supported Research." Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal of Municipal Ef-
fluents and Sludges, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, March 12-13, 1973.
Dunlop, S. G. "Survival of Pathogens and Related Disease Hazards." In Proceedings of the Symposium
on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July 30, 1968.
Ebbert, S. A. "Spray Irrigation of Food Plant Waste Waters." Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting,
Federation of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Associations, University Park, Pennsylvania, August
13-15, 1958.
Eliassen, R., et al. "Studies on the Movement of Viruses with Groundwater." Water Quality Control Re-
search Laboratory, Stanford University, 1967.
"Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muskegon County, Michigan Wastewater Treatment -
Irrigation System." Muskegon County Board and Department of Public Works, Federal Water Qual-
ity Administration, Program No. 11010 FMY, September, 1970.
Fisk, W. W. "Food Processing Waste Disposal." Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 3 (No. 9, 1964): 417-420.
Foster, H. B.; Ward, P. C.; and Prucha, A. A. "Nutrient Removal by Effluent Spraying." ASCE San. Engr.
Div., Vol. 91 (No. SA 6, 1965): 1-12.
Fried, M., and Broeshart, H. The Soil-Plant System in Relation to Inorganic Nutrition. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1967.
Gilde, L. C., et al. "A Spray Irrigation System for Treatment of Cannery Waste." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (No. 8,
1971): 2011-2025.
35
-------
Gillespie, C. G. "Simple Application of Fundamental Principles of Sewage Treatment." Sewage Works
Jour. Vol. 1 (No. 1, 1928): 68.
Gotaas, H. B. "Field Investigation of Waste Water Reclamation in Relation to Ground Water Pollution."
Calif. State Water Pollution Control Board, Publication No. 6, 1953.
Gotaas, H. B., et al. "Annual Report on Investigation of Travel of Pollution." University of California:
Sanitary Engineering Research Project, Berkeley.
Gray, J. F. "Practical Irrigation with Sewage Effluent." In Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July 30, 1968.
Guerri, E. A. "Sprayfield Application Handles Spent Pulping Liquors Efficiently." Pulp & Paper, Vol. 45,
(No. 2, 1971): 93-95.
Haas, F. C. "Spray Irrigation Treatment." In Proceedings of Symposium on Potato Waste Treatment,
University of Idaho and FWPCA, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, July, 1968.
Hill, R. D.; Bendixen, T. W.; and Robeck, G. G. "Status of Land Treatment for Liquid Waste—Functional
Design." Presented at the Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, Bal Harbour, Florida,
October, 1964.
Huff, F. A., et al. "Effect of Cooling Tower Effluents on Atmospheric Conditions in Northeastern Illinois."
Illinois State Water Survey, Circular 100, Dept. of Registration and Education, 1971.
Hutchins, W. A. "Sewage Irrigation as Practiced in the Western States." Technical Bulletin No. 675, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, March, 1939.
Hyde, C. G. "The Beautification and Irrigation of Golden Gate Park with Activated Sludge Effluent."
Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 9 (No. 6, 1937): 929-941.
Kardos, L. T. "Crop Response to Sewage Effluent." In Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July 30, 1968.
Kaufman, W. J. "Notes on Chemical Pollution of Groundwater." Presented at the Water Resources En-
gineering Educational Series, Program X, Groundwater Pollution, San Francisco, California, Jan-
uary, 1973.
Kirby, C. F. "Sewage Treatment Farms." Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Melbourne, 1971.
Kolobov, N. V., and Vereshchagin, M. A. "The Influence of Kuybyshev and Volograd Reservoirs on Met-
erological Conditions in the Littoral Zone." Materialy Pervogo Nauchno-tekhnicheskogo Sovesh-
chaniya Po Izucheniyu Kuybyshevskogo Vodokhranilishcha, No. 2 Kuybyshev, 1963.
Krone, R. B.; McGauhey, P.H.; and Gotaas, H. B. "Direct Discharge of Ground Water with Sewage Efflu-
ents." ASCE San. Engr. Div., Vol. 83 (No. SA 4, 1957): 1-25.
Krone, R. B.; Orlob, G. T.; and Hodgkinson, C. "Movement of Coliform Bacteria through Porous Media."
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 30 (No. 1, 1958): 1-13.
Lance, J. C. "Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms." JWPCF, Vol. 44 (No. 7, 1972): 1352-1361.
Larson, W. C. "Spray Irrigation for the Removal of Nutrients in Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent as
Practiced at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota." In Algae and Metropolitan Wastes, Transactions of the
1960 Seminar, U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1960.
Laverty, F. B., et al. "Reclaiming Hyperion Effluent." ASCE San. Engr. Div., Vol. 87 (No. SA 6, 1961): 1-
40.
Law, J. P., Jr.; Thomas, R. E.; and Myers, L. H. "Nutrient Removal from Cannery Wastes by Spray Irriga-
tion of Grassland." FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Program No. 16080, November, 1969.
Lawton, G. W., et al. "Spray Irrigation of Dairy Wastes." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31, No. 8,
1959): 923-933.
Linsley, R. K.; Kohler, M. A.; and Paulhus, J. L. H. Hydrology for Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1958.
"Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing Fruits and Vegetables." National Canners Association, Of-
fice of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, Program No. 12060 EDK,
August 1971.
Ludwig, H., et al. "Disposal of Citrus Byproducts Wastes at Ontario, California." Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 23 (No. 10, 1951): 1255-1266.
36
-------
McCarty, P. L, and King, P. H. "The Movement of Pesticides in Soils." In Proceedings of the 21st Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Part 1, Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, pp. 156-171.
McDonald, J. E. "The Evaporation-Percolation Fallacy." Weather, Vol. 17 (No. 5, 1962): 168-177.
McGauhey, P. H., and Krone, R. B. "Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment System." SERL Report No.
67-11, Berkeley, University of California, December, 1967.
McGauhey, P. H., and Winneberger, J. H. "A Study of Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank
Percolation Systems." SERL Report No. 65-17, Berkeley: University of California, October, 1965.
McMichael, F. C., and McKee, J. E. "Wastewater Reclamation at Whittier Narrows," Calif. State Water
Quality Control Board, Publication No. 33, 1966.
McQueen, F. "Sewage Treatment for Obtaining Park Irrigation Water." Public Works, Vol. 64 (No. 10,
1933): 16-17.
"Manual of Septic-Tank Practice." Public Health Service Pub. No. 526, U.S. Dept. of HEW (Revised
1967).
Martin, B. "Sewage Reclamation at Golden Gate Park." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 23 (No. 3,
1951): 319-320.
Mather, J. R. "An Investigation of Evaporation from Irrigation Sprays." Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 31
(No. 7, 1960): 345-348.
Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. "Waste into Wealth." Melbourne, Australia, 1971.
Merrell, J. C., et al. "The Santee Recreation Project, Santee, California, Final Report." Cincinnati, Ohio:
FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1967.
Merz, R. C. "Continued Study of Waste Water Reclamation and Utilization." Calif. State Water Pollution
Control Board, Publication No. 15, Sacramento, California, 1956.
Merz, R. C. "Third Report on the Study of Waste Water Reclamation and Utilization." Calif. State Water
Pollution Control Board, Publication No. 18, Sacramento, California, 1957.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972.
Metcalf, L., and Eddy, H. P. American Sewerage Practice, Vol. Ill, Disposal of Sewage, 3rd ed., pp. 233-
251. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935.
Miller, R. H. "The Soil as a Biological Filter." Presented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated Munici-
pal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, Universi-
ty Park, Pennsylvania, August 21-24, 1972.
Mitchell, G. A. "Municipal Sewage Irrigation." Engineering News-Record, Vol. 119 (July 8, 1937): 63-66.
Monson, H. "Cannery Waste Disposal by Spray Irrigation—After 10 Years." In Proceedings of the 13th
Industrial Waste Conference, pp. 449-455. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1958.
Morlock, J., et al. "Reduces Wastewater Treatment Costs 20-30%; Saves Estimated $2 Million Capital
Expense." Food Processing, Vol. 34 (No. 1, 1973): 52-53.
Nelson, L. "Cannery Wastes Disposal by Spray Irrigation." IVasfes Engineering, Vol. 23 (No. 8, 1952):
398-400.
Nesbitt, J. B. "Cost of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater Renovation." Presented at the Symposium on Re-
cycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, August 21-24, 1972.
Pair, C. H. (ed.) Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: Sprinkler Irrigation Association, 1969.
Parizek, R. R., et al. "Waste Water Renovation and Conservation." Penn State Studies No. 23, University
Park, Pennsylvania, 1967.
Parker, R. P. "Disposal of Tannery Wastes." In Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference,
Part I, pp. 36-43. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1967.
Parsons, W. C. "Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the Manufacture of Hardboard." In Proceedings of the
22nd Industrial Waste Conference, pp. 602-607. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1967.
Philipp, A. H. "Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by Land Irrigation." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (No. 8,
1971): 1749-1754.
37
-------
Poon, C. P. C. "Viability of Long Storaged Airborne Bacterial Aerosols." ASCE San Engr. Div., Vol. 94,
No. SA6, (1968): 1137-1146.
Rafter, G. W. "Sewage Irrigation." USGS Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 3, U.S. Dept. of the In-
terior, Washington, D.C., 1897.
Rafter, G. W. "Sewage Irrigation, Part II." USGS Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 22, U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1899.
Reinke, E. A. "California Regulates Use of Sewage for Crop Irrigation." Wastes Engineering, Vol. 22
(1951): 364.
"Role.of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution Control," Part 1. Bailey, G.W., Southeast Water Labora-
tory, FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, March, 1968.
Rudolfs, W.; Falk, L.L.; and Ragotzkie, R. A. "Contamination of Vegetables Grown in Polluted Soil: VI.
Application of Results." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 23 (1951): 992-1000.
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory. "Studies in Water Reclamation." Technical Bulletin No. 13.
Berkeley: University of California, July, 1955.
Schraufnagel, F. H. "Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation for Industrial Wastes Disposal." JWPCF, Vol. 34 (No.
11, 1962): 1117-1132.
Schwartz, W. A., and Bendixen, T. W. "Soil Systems for Liquid Waste Treatment and Disposal: Environ-
mental Factors." JWPCF, Vol. 42 (No. 4, 1970): 624-630.
Scott, R. H. "Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes on Land," JWPCF, Vol. 34 (No. 9, 1962): 932-
950.
Sepp, E. "Disposal of Domestic Wastewater by Hillside Sprays." ASCE Env. Engr. Div., Vol. 99 (No.
EE2, 1973). 109-121.
Sepp, E. "Nitrogen Cycle in Groundwater." Berkeley: Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Calif. State Dept.
of Public Health, 1970.
Sepp, E. "Survey of Sewage Disposal by Hillside Sprays." Berkeley: Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
Calif. State Dept. of Public Health, March, 1965.
Sepp, E. "The Use of Sewage for Irrigation—A Literature Review." Berkeley: Bureau of Sanitary Engi-
neering, Calif. State Dept. of Public Health, 1971.
Skulte, B. P. "Agriculture Values of Sewage." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 25 (No. 11, 1953):
1297-1303.
Skulte, B. P. "Irrigation with Sewage Effluents." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 28 (No. 1,1956): 36-
43.
"Soil-Plant-Water Relationships." Chapter 1 In Irrigation. Section 15 of SCS National Engineering
Handbook. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, March, 1964.
Sorber, C. "Protection of Public Health." Presented at the Symposium on Land Disposal of Municipal
Effluents and Sludges, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, March 12-13, 1973.
"Sprinkler Irrigation." Chapter 11. In Irrigation, Section 15 of SCS National Engineering Handbook. Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, July, 1968.
"Study of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled through Groundwater." Vol. 1. Boen, D. F., et al. Eastern
Municipal Water District, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency,
Project 16060 DDZ, July, 1971.
Sullivan, D. "Wastewater for Golf Course Irrigation." Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 117 (No. 5, 1970):
153-159.
Thomas, R. E., and Bendixen, T. W. "Degradation of Wastewater Organics in Soil." JWPCF, Vol. 41 (No.
5, Part 1, 1969): 808-813.
Thomas, R. E., and Harlin, C. C., Jr. "Experiences with Land Spreading of Municipal Effluents." Pre-
sented at the First Annual IFAS Workshop on Land Renovation of Waste Water in Florida, Tampa,
June, 1972.
38
-------
Thomas, R. E., and Law, J. P., Jr. "Soil Response to Sewage Effluent Irrigation." In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July 30,
1968.
Thomas, R. E.; Schwartz, W. A.; and Bendixen, T. W. "Soil Chemical Changes and Infiltration Rate Re-
duction Under Sewage Spreading." So/7 Science Society of America, Proceedings, Vol. 30 (1966):
641-646.
Urie, D. H. "Phosphorus and Nitrate Levels in Groundwater as Related to Irrigation of Jack Pine with
Sewage Effluent." Presented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and
Sludge through Forest and Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
August 21-24, 1972.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Agriculture Handbook
No. 60, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1963.
van der Goot, H. A. "Water Reclamation Experiments at Hyperion." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol.
29 (No. 10, 1957): 1139-1144.
"Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land." Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Special Report
171, Hanover, N.H.: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, May, 1972.
Water Resources Engineers, Inc. "Cannery Waste Treatment, Utilization, and Disposal." California
State Water Resources Control Board, Publication No. 39, 1968.
Wells, D. M. "Groundwater Recharge with Treated Municipal Effluent." In Proceedings of the Sympos-
ium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Institution, July, 1968.
Wentink, G. R., and Etzel, J. E. "Removal of Metal Ions by Soil." JWPCF, Vol. 44 (No. 8, 1972): 1561-
1574.
Wesner, G. M., and Baier, D. C. "Injection of Reclaimed Wastewater into Confined Aquifers." JAWWA,
Vol. 62 (No. 3, 1970): 203-210.
Williams, T. C. "Utilization of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater Disposal in Small Residential Develop-
ments." Presented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
through Forest and Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
August, 1972.
Woodley, R. A. "Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical Wastes." In Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial
Waste Conference, pp. 251-261. Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, 1968.
Younger, V. B "Ecological and Physiological Implications of Greenbelt Irrigation with Reclaimed
Water." Presented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
through Forest and Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, August
21-24, 1972.
Zimmerman, J. P. Irrigation, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966.
Acknowledgment
The information in the text and bibliographic list on land application techniques are excerpted from
the report "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Aplication" prepared by Charles E. Pound and
Ronald W. Crites of Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency.
39
-------
III. LAND UTILIZATION TECHNIQUES
Bibliographies
"Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application—Bibliography." Prepared by Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc. for the Environmental Protection Agency, May, 1973.
"Bibliography—Survey of Facilities Using Land Application." Prepared by the American Public Works
Association for the Environmental Protection Agency, April, 1973.
"Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges: Selected Abstracts." Being prepared by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, May, 1974 (proposed date).
Bibliographic List
Acevedo-Ramos, G., et al. "Effect of Filter-Press Cake on Crop Yields and Soil Properties." Compost
Science, (Winter 1963): 34.
Allaway, W. H. "Agronomic Controls Over the Environmental Cycling of Trace Elements." Advances in
Agronomy, Vol. 20 (1968): 235-274.
Anderson, A. "Some News Regarding the Use of Municipal Wastes Within Farming." Grundfoerbaetter-
ing, Vol. 22 (1969): 42-43.
Anderson, M. S. "Fertilizing Characteristics of Sewage Sludge." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31
(No. 6): 678-682.
Berg, G. "Virus Transmission by the Water Vehicle. II. Virus Removal by Sewage Treatment Pro-
cedures." Health Library Science, Vol. 2 (No. 2, 1966): 90.
Cameron, R. D. "Prediction of Settlements in Landfills Constructed From Centrifuged Digested Sewage
Sludge." Water Poll. Abstracts (Gt. Britain), Vol. 44 (Aug., 1971).
"Chicago Reclaiming Strip Mines With Sewage Sludge." Civil Engineering-ASCE, (Sept., 1972): 98.
Citrate Solubility Tests from "Ultimate Disposal of Advanced Waste Treatment Residues." Journal of
TAPPI, (March, 1969).
Coker, E. G. "Utilization of Sludge in Agriculture." In Sludge Treatment and D/'sposa/—Proceedings of
the Symposium on the Engineering Aspects of the Use and Reuse of Water. Institution of Public
Health Engineers. Municipal Publishing Company, Ltd., 1967.
"Composting Dewatered Sewage Sludge." Report on Contract with Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Eimco Corp., 1969.
Compton, C. R., and Bowerman, F. R. "Composting Operation in L. A. County." Composting Science,
(Winter 1961).
DeTurk, E. E. "Adaptability of Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 7 (No. 4,1935):
597-610.
Dotson, G. K.; Dean, R. B.; and Stern, G. "The Cost of Dewatering and Disposing of Sludge on Land."
Presented to 65th Meeting of the AlChE, New York, Nov. 26-30, 1972. To be published in "Water-
1972."
Ewing, B. B., and Dick, R. I. "Disposal of Sludge on Land." In Wafer Quality Improvement by Physical
and Chemical Processes, E. F. Gloyna and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., eds. Austin: Univ. of Texas
Press, 1970.
Farrell, J. B.; Smith, J. E.; Hathaway, S. W.; and Dean, R. B. "Lime Stabilization of Chemical-Primary
Sludges at 1.15 MGD." Presented to the 45th Annual Conf., Water Poll. Control Federation, Atlanta,
Georgia, Oct. 8-13, 1972. (To be published in JWPCF.)
FLOWSHEET, The, Envirotech Corp., No. 7 (Summer-Fall, 1973).
Fuller, J. E., and Jourdian, G. W. "Effect of Dried Sewage Sludge on Nitrification in Soil." Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, Vol. 27 (No. 2): 161-165.
40
-------
Hinesly, T. D.; Braids, 0. C.; Molina, J. A. E.; Dick, R. I.; Jones, R. L; Meyer, R. C.; and Welch, L. Y.
"Agricultural Benefits and Environmental Changes Resulting from the Use of Digested Sewage
Sludge on Field Crops." Annual Report, Univ. of Illinois and City of Chicago, 1972. EPA Grant DO
1-UI-00080, unpublished.
Hinesly, T. D.; Jones, R. L.; and Ziegler, E. L. "Effects on Corn by Applications of Heated Anaerobically
Digested Sludge." Compost Science, Vol. 13 (July-August 1972): 26-30.
Hinesly, Thomas D. and Sosewitz, B. "Digested Sludge Disposal on Crop Land." 41st Annual Conven-
tion, Water Pollution Control Federation, Chicago, Illinois, September, 1968.
Kenner, B. A.; Dotson, G. K.; and Smith, J. E., Jr. "Simultaneous Quantitation of Salmonella Species and
Pseudomonas Aeroginosa." EPA-NERC-Cincinnati, internal report, 1971.
Lunt, H. A. "The Case for Sludge as a Soil Improver." Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 100 (No. 8): 295-
301.
Le Riche, H. H. "Metal Contamination of Soil in the Woburn Market—Garden Experiment Resulting
from the Application of Sewage Sludge." J. Agri. Sci. Camb., Vol. 71 (1968): 205-208.
Liebman, H. "Hygienic Requirements for Sludge Pasteurization and Its Control in Practice." Internation-
al Research Group on Refuse Disposal (RGRD), Info. Bull. Nos. 21-31, Aug. 1964-Dec. 1967, pp.
325-330.
Nusbaum, I., and L. Cook, Jr. "Making Topsoil with Wet Sludge." Wastes Engineering, (August, 1960):
438-440.
Olds, J. "The Use and Marketing of Sludge as a Soil Conditioner." In Proc. of the 8th Southern Munici-
pal and Industrial Wastes Conference, pp. 219-225, 1959.
Olds, J. "How Cities Distribute Sludge as a Soil Conditioner." Compost Science, (Autumn, 1960): 26-30.
Olexsey, R. A., and Farrell, J. B. "Sludge Incineration and Fuel Conservation." News of Environmental
Research in Cincinnati, EPA, May 3, 1974.
"Permissible Levels of Toxic Metals in Sewage Used on Agricultural Land." (Advisory Paper No. 10)
London, England: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, 1972.
Peterson, J. R.; Lue-Hing, C.; and Zenz, D. R. "Chemical and Biological Quality of Municipal Sludge."
In Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Waste Water and Sludge Through Forest and Crop-
lands. University Park, Pa.; The Pennsylvania State University, 1972.
Peterson, J. R.; McCalla, T. M.; and Smith, G. E. "Human and Animal Wastes as Fertilizers." In Fertilizer
Technology and Use, 2nd ed. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America, 1971.
Proceedings of the Conference on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and Sludges, Rutgers Universi-
ty, New Jersey, March 12 and 13, 1973. Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, and the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Rutgers University.
Reeves, J. B. "Sanitary Aspects of Composted Sewage Sludge and Sawdust." Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 31 (No. 5): 557-563.
Routson, R. C., and Wildung, R. E. "Ultimate Disposal of Wastes to Soil." Water-1969. Chemical Engi-
neering Progress Symposium Series. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 65 (No. 97,
1969): 19-25.
Scaulon, A. J. "Utilization of Sewage Sludge for the Production of Topsoil." Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 29 (No. 8): 944-950.
Scott, R. H. "Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes on Land." JWPCF, Vol. 34 (No. 9): 932-950.
Sebastian, F. P., and Cardinal, P. J. "Operation, Control and Ambient Air Quality Considerations in
Modern Multiple Hearth Incinerators." National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York City,
June 5, 1972.
Sebastian, F. P., and Isheim, M. C. "Advances in Incineration and Resource Reclamation." Fourth Na-
tional Incinerator Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 17-20, 1970.
"Sewage Sludge as Soil Conditioner." Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 106. Ref. No., pp. R-403-R-424.
Skibniewski, L. "Chemical Problems in the Utilization of Sewage in Agriculture," Gaz. Woda. Tech.
Sanitarna (Polish), Vol. 23 (February, 1949).
"State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice." FWQA Report No. 170 70 DIV, April, 1970.
41
-------
"State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice." Errata, 170 70 DIV, April, 1970.
"Study of Municipal Sludge for Soil Improvement." Current studies on U.S.D.A. Research Center. Clean
Air and Water News, (No. 4, 1972): 427.
"The Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge and Sludge Composts." Tech. Comm. No. 7. Ministry of Agri-
culture and Fisheries, Great Britain. October, 1948.
Troemper, A. P. "Disposal of Liquid Digested Sludge by Crop Land Irrigation." Unpublished paper of
Springfield, III. Sanitary District, 1972.
Ullrich, A. H. and Smith, M. W. "Experiments in Composting Digested Sludge at Austin. Texas." Sew-
age and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 22, (No. 4): 567-570.
Unterberg, Dr. W.; Sherwood, R. J.; and Schneider, G. R. Computerized Design and Cost Estimation for
Multiple-Hearth Sludge Incinerators. Rocketdyne, A Division of North American Rockwell Corp.,
for the Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, Project No. 17070
EBP, Contract No. 14-12-547, July, 1971.
West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority, The. General Manager's Report, 1965-1966.
Wiley, J. S. "Discussion of Composting of Refuse and Sewage Sludge." Compost Science, (No. 8,
1967): 22.
IV. FLOW REDUCTION
Bibliographic List
American Public Works Association. Prevention and Correction of Excessive Infiltration and Inflow into
Sewer Systems—A Manual of Practice. EPA Contract No. 14-12-550, January, 1971.
American Water Works Association Committee of Water Use. Journal of the American Water Works As-
sociation (May, 1973).
Bailey, J. R.; Benoit, R. J.; Dodson, J. L.; Robb, J. M.; and Wallman, H. A Study of Flow Reduction and
Treatment of Waste Water From Households. General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, EPA Con-
tract No. 14-12-428, December, 1969.
Bailey, J. R., and Cohen, S. Demonstration of Waste Flow Reduction from Households. General Dynam-
ics, Electric Boat Division, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0041: Compilation of progress reports, latest
dated June, 1973.
Berger, Herbert F. "Evaluating Water Reclamation Against Rising Costs of Water and Effluent Treat-
ment." Tappi (August, 1966).
Boland, J. J.; Hanke, S. H.; and Church, R. L. An Assessment of Rate-Making Policy Alternatives for the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 1971.
Bremner, R. M. "In-Place Lining of Small Sewers." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (July, 1971).
Carcich, I. G.; Parrel, R. P.; and Hetling, L. J. "Pressure Sewer Demonstration Project." JWPCF, Vol. 44
(February, 1972).
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Research and Technology. "Modular Inte-
grated Utility System (MIUS), Program Description." December, 1972.
Eller, J.; Ford, D. L.; and Gloyna, E. F. "Water Reuse and Recycling in Industry." Journal of American
Water Works Association (March, 1970).
Environmental Protection Agency. "Alaska Village Demonstration Projects." Report to Congress, pr-
epared by the Office of Research and Development, July 1, 1973.
42
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidelines for Sewer System Evaluation." Draft, September, 1973.
Ethridge, D. E., and Seagraves, J. A. Two Methods of Studying the Effect of Municipal Sewer Sur-
charges on Food Processing Wastes. Economics Research Report No. 18. North Carolina State
University, December, 1971.
Fristoe, C. W.; Goddard, F. 0.; and Keig, N. G. Applied Criteria for Municipal Water Rate Structures. De-
partment of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Florida OWRR Project C-
1082.
Gilkey and Beckman. Water Requirements and Uses in Arizona Mineral Industry. Bureau of Mines Infor-
mation Circular 8162, 1963.
Gomez, Hector J. "Water Reuse at the Celulosa Y Derivades, S. A. Plants." In Procedings, 23rd Indus-
trial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1968.
Guarneri, C. A.; Reed, R.; and Renman, R. E. Study of Water Recovery and Solid Waste Processing for
Aerospace and Domestic Applications, Vols. 1 and 2. Contract NAS 9-12503, Grumman Aerospace
Corp., December, 1972.
Gysi, M.."The Effect of Price on Long Run Water Suppy Benefits and Costs." Water Resources Bulletin,
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 7 (No. 3, 1971).
Hirshleifer, J.; De Haven, J. C.; and Milliman, J. W. Water Supply: Economics, Technology and Policy.
Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Howe, C. W., and Linaweaver, F. P., Jr. "The Impact of Price on Residential Water Demand and Its Rela-
tion to System Design and Price Structure." Water Resources Research, Vol. 3 (First Quarter, 1967).
Howe, C. W.; Russell, C. S.; Young, R. A.; and Vaughan, W. J. Future Water Demands: The Impacts-of
Technological Change, Public Policies, and Changing Market Conditions on the Water Use Pat-
terns of Selected Sectors of the United States Ecnomy: 1970-1990. Prepared for the National Water
Commission. Washington, D. C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., March, 1971.
Mann, P. C. Water Service Prices: A Principal Component and Regression Analysis of Determinants.
Prepared for Office of Water Resources Research, project number C-2012. Regional Research In-
stitute, West Virginia University, July, 1972.
Ridge, R. The Impact of Public Water Utility Pricing Policy on Industrial Demand and Reuse. General
Electric Re-Entry and Environmental Systems Division, OWRR Contract 14-31-001-3697, November,
1972.
Russell, Cliffords S. Industrial Water Use, Section 2, Report to the National Water Commission. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc.
Schmidt, O. J. "Pollution Control in Sewers." JWPCF, Vol. 44 (July, 1972).
Shumacher, E. A. Study of Water Recovery and Solid Waste Processing for Aerospace and Domestic
Applications. 2 vols., Contract NAS 9-12504, Martin Marietta, January, 1973.
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. "Final and Comprehensive Report, Cabin John Drainage
Basin, Water-Saving Customer Education and Appliance Test Program." (February, 1973).
V. PONDS
Bibliographic List
Benjes, Henry, Jr. "Theory of Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Boyko, B. I., and Rupke, J. W. "Aerated Lagoons in Ontario—Design and Performance Considera-
tions." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
43
-------
Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers. "Upgrading Lagoons." Prepared for the Technology Trans-
fer Design Seminar, Denver, Colorado, October 31-November 1, 1972.
Burns, G. E.; Girling, R. M.; Pick, A. R.; and Vanes, D. W. "A Comparative Study of Aerated Lagoon
Treatment for Municipal Wastewaters." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas Ctty, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Canham, R. A. "Stabilization Ponds in the Canning Industry." In Advances in Water Quality Improve-
ment, p. 464. Austin, Texas: Univ. of Texas Press, 1968.
Clark, Sidney E.; Coutts, Harold J.; Jackson, Robert. "Alaska Sewage Lagoons." Presented at the Sec-
ond International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25,
1970.
Coerver, J. R. "Louisiana Practice and Experience with Anaerobic-Aerobic Pond System for Treating
Packinghouse Wastes." JWPCF, Vol. 36 (1964): 931.
Cooper, Robert C.; Oswald, William J.; and Branson, Joseph C. "Treatment of Organic Industrial
Wastes by Lagooning." In Proc. 20th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Ext. Ser. 118, 357, 1965.
Day, John W., Jr.; Weiss, Charles M.; and Odum, H. T. "Carbon Budget and Total Productivity of an
Estuarine Oxidation Pond Receiving Secondary Sewage Effluent." Presented at the Second Inter-
national Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Dornbush, James N. "State of the Art—Anaerobic Lagoons." Presented at the Second International
Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Fisher, Charles P.; Dryman, W. R.; and Van Fleet, G. L. "Waste Stabilization Pond Practices in Can-
ada." In Advances in Water Quality Improvement, p. 435. Austin, Texas: Univ. of Texas Press, 1968.
Fitzgerald, George P., and Rohlich, Gerard A. "An Evaluation of Stabilization Pond Literature." Sewage
Works, p. 1213.
Gloyna, E. F. and Aguirre, J. "New Experimental Pond Data." Presented at the Second International
Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Goodnow, Weston, E. "Current Design Criteria for Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second Interna-
tional Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Hemens, J. and Slander, G. J. "Nutrient Removal from Sewage Effluents by Algal Activity." Presented at
the Fourth International Conference on Water Pollution Research, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Sep-
tember 2-6, 1968.
Horn, Leonard W. "Chlorination of Waste Pond Effluents." Presented at the Second International Sym-
posium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Howe, David O.; Miller, A. P.; and Etzell, J. E. "Anaerobic Lagooning—A New Approach to Treatment of
Industrial Wastes." In Proceedings of the 18th Indiana Waste Conference. Purdue University Ex-
tension Series, 115, 233, 1963.
Little, John A.; Carroll, Bobby J.; and Gentry, Ralph E. "Bacteria Removal in Oxidation Ponds." Present-
ed at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri,
June 23-25, 1970.
Lyman, Edwin D.; Gray, Melville, W.; and Bailey, John H. "A Field Study of the Performance of Waste
Stabilization Ponds Serving Small Towns." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Loehr, R. C. "Anaerobic Lagoons—Considerations in Design and Application." American Soc. Agric.
Engrs. Trans., Vol. 11 (May-June, 1968): 320.
Mackenthun, Kenneth M., and McNabb, Clarence D. "Stabilization Pond Studies in Wisconsin."
JWPCF: 1234.
Marais, G. v. R., and Capri, M. J. "A Simplified Kinetic Theory for Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the
Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25,
1970.
McCarty, P. L. "Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals." Public Works, Vol. 93 (September-Decem-
ber, 1964).
McKinney, Ross E. "State of the Art—Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Sym-
posium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
44
-------
Mees, Quentin M., and Hensley, J. R Survival of Pathogens in Sewage Stabilization Ponds. Final report,
NIH Research Grant E-3436.
Middleton, Francis M. and Bunch, Robert L. "Challenge for Wastewater Lagoons." Presented at the
Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25,
1970.
Myers, Earl A., and Williams, T. C. "A Decade of Stabilization Lagoons in Michigan with Irrigation as Ul-
timate Disposal of Effluent." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treat-
ment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Oregon State University Dept. of Civil Engineering. Final Report: Waste Water Lagoon Criteria for Mari-
time Climates. Corvallis, Oregon: Engineering Experiment Station.
Pohl, Edward F. "A Rational Approach to the Design of Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second In-
ternational Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons. Kansas City,
Missouri: FWQA.
Richmond, Maurice S. "Quality Performance of Waste Stabilization Lagoons in Michigan." Presented at
the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June
23-25, 1970.
Roesler, Joseph F. and Preul, Herbert C. "Mathematical Simulation of Waste Stabilization Ponds." Pre-
sented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City,
Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Schurr, Karl. "A Comparison of an Efficient Lagoon System with Other Means of Sewage Disposal in
Small Towns." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons,
Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Shindala, Adnan. Evaluation of Three Waste Stabilization Ponds in Series. Engineering and Industrial
Research Station, Mississippi State University, August, 1971.
Slanetz, L. W.; Bartley, Clara H.; Metcalf, T. G.; and Nesman, R. "Survival of Enteric Bacteria and Vir-
uses in Municipal Sewage Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste
Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Sudweeks, Calvin K. "Development of Lagoon Design Standards in Utah." Presented at the Second In-
ternational Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
Ullrich, A. H. "Use of.Wastewater Stabilization Ponds in Two Different Systems." JWPCF: 965.
Vennes, John W. "State of the Art—Oxidation Ponds." Presented at the Second International Sympos-
ium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
VI. ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Bibliographic List
Agnew, W. A. "A Mathematical Model of a Final Clarifier for the Activated Sludge Process." FWQA,
Department of the Interior, No. 14-12-194, March, 1970.
Albertson, J. G.; McWhirter, J. R.; Robinson, E. K.; and Walhdieck, No. P. "Investigation of the Use of
High Purity Oxygen Aeration in Conventional Activated Sludge Process." FWQA, Department of
the Interior Program No. 17050 DNW, Contract No. 14-12-465, May, 1970.
Barth, E. F.; Mulbarger, M.; Salotto, B. V.; and Ettinger, M. B. "Removal of Nitrogen by Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants." Presented at the 38th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Atlantic City, New Jersey, October 10-14, 1965.
45
-------
Bechtel Incorporated. A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May, 1973.
Bishop, D.; O'Farrell, T.; Stamberg, J.; and Porter, J. "Advanced Waste Treatment Systems at the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, District of Columbia Plant," A.W.J.R.L., EPA, March, 1971.
Delwiche, C. C. and Finstein, M. S. "Carbon and Energy Sources for the Nitrifying Autotroph Nitrobac-
ter." J. of Bad., Vol. 90 (No. 102, 1965).
Dick, Richard I. "Gravity Thickening," Summer Institute in Water Pollution Control—Biological Treat-
ment. Manhattan College, New York, 1969.
Dick, Richard I. and Ewing, Benjamin B. "Evaluation of Activated Sludge Thickening Theories." Journal
Sanitary Eng. Div. ASCE, (SA4, 1967): 9.
Dick, Richard I., and Ewing, Benjamin B. Closure "Evaluation of Activated Sludge Thickening
Theories."Jouma/ Sanitary Eng. Div. ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SA2 (April, 1969): 333.
Dick, Richard I., and Vesilind, P. A. "The Sludge Volume Index—What Is It?" JWPCF, Vol. 41 (July,
1969): 1285.
Downing, A. L; Tomlinson, T. G.; and Truesdale, G. A. "Effects of Inhibitors on Nitrification in the Acti-
vated Sludge Process." Jour, and Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif., Part 6: (1964).
Duncan, J. W. K., and Kawata, K. Discussion of "Evaluation of Sludge Thickening Theories." Journal
Sanitary Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SA2 (April, 1968): 431.
Dye, E. 0. "Solids Control Problems in Activated Sludge." Sew. and Ind. Wastes, Vol. 30 (No. 11,1958):
1350.
Eckenfelder, W. W., and Weston, R. F. ''Kinetics of Biological Oxidation." In Biological Treatment of
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1956.
Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. "Extended Aeration—A Summary." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the ASCE, New York, N.Y., October 17, 1961.
Eckhoff, D. W., and Jenkins, D. "Transient Loading Effects in the Activated Sludge Process." In Advan-
ces in Water Pollution Research, Munich: JWPCF, Vol. 2 (1967).
Engel, M. S., and Alexander, M. "Growth and Autotrophic Metabolism of Nitrosomonas Europaea."
Jour. Bacteriol., Vol. 76 (1958): 217.
Garrison, Walter E., and Carl A. Nagel. "Operation of the Whittier Narrows Activated Sludge Plant."
Water and Sewage Works, Reference No. R-189: (November, 1965).
Grieves, R. B.; Milbury, W. F.; and Pipes, W. O. "The Effect of Short Circuiting Upon the Completely-
Mixed Activated Sludge Process." International Journal Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 8 (1964): 199-
214.
Hais, Alan; Stamberg, J; and Bishop, D. "Alum Addition to Activated Sludge with Tertiary Solids
Removal." A.W.T.R.L, E.P.A., Preliminary Report, March, 1971.
Heukelekian, H. "The Influence of Nitrifying Flora, Oxygen and Ammonia Supply on the Nitrification of
Sewage." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 14 (1942): 964-979.
Heukelekian, H. "The Relationship Between Accumulation Biochemical and Biological Characteristics
of Film and Purification Capacity of a Biofilter and a Standard Filter—III. Nitrification and Nitrifying
Capacity of the Film." Sewage Works Jour. Vol. 17 (1945): 516.
Heukelekian, H.; Orford, H. E.; and Manganelli, R. "Factors Affecting the Quantity of Sludge Production
in the Activated Sludge Process." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 23 (1951): 945-957.
Hydroscience, Inc. Advanced Waste Treatment Studies for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal. Written
for Baldwin and Cornelius Company, March, 1971.
Hydroscience, Inc. Nitrification in the Activated Sludge Process, City of Flint, Michigan. Prepared for
Consoer, Twnsend and Associates, Chicago, Illinois, July, 1971.
Ingersoll, A. C.; McKee, J. E.; and Brooks, N. J. "Fundamental Concepts of Rectangular Setting Tanks."
Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 81 (January, 1955).
Jenkins, D., and Garrison, W. E. "Control of Activated Sludge by Mean Cell Residence Time." JWPCF,
Vol. 40 (1968): 1905.
46
-------
Jenkins, S. H. "Nitrification," Wat. Pollut. Control 1969, p. 610.
Jensen, H. L. "Effect of Organic Compounds on Nitrosomonas." Nature, Vol. 165 (1950): 974.
Jones, R.; Briggs, R.; Carr, J. G.; and Rotten, A. H. "Automatic Control of Aeration in a Fully Nitrifying
Activated Sludge Plant." Paper presented at the Institute of Public Health Engineers, Land, March
6, 1969.
Katz, W. J., and Geinopolos, A. Discussion of "Flow Patterns in a Rectangular Sewage Sedimentation
Tank." In Advances in Water Pollution Research, Proceedings 1st International Conference. Lon-
don, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964.
Keefer, C. E. "Relationship of Sludge Density Index to the Activated Sludge Process." JWPCF, Vol. 35
(No. 9, 1963): 1166.
Krone, Ray B. Discussion of "Evaluation of Sludge Thickening Theories." Journal Sanitary Eng. Div.,
ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SA3: (June, 1968): 554.
Lawrence, A. L., and McCarty, P. L. "Unified Basis for Biological Treatment Design and Operation."
•Journ. of Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., S.E.D., Vol. 96 (1970): 757-778.
Lesperance, Theodore W. "A Generalized Approach to Activated Sludge." Water and Wastes Engineer-
ing, (May, 1965).
Levin, G. V.; Topol, G. J.; Tarnay, A. B.; and Samworth, R. B. "Pilot Plant Tests of a Phosphate Removal
Process. JWPCF, Vol. 44 (1972): 1940-1954.
Levin, G. V.; Topol, G. J.; and Tarnay, A. G. "Biological Removal of Phosphates from Wastewater."
Chem. Tech., Vol. 3 (1973).
Levin, G. V., and Shapiro, J. "Metabolic Uptake of Phosphorous by Wastewater Organisms." JWPCF,
Vol. 37 (1965): 800-821.
McCarty, P. L. Nitrification-Denitrification by Biological Treatment. University of Massachusetts,
W.R.R.C. Correspondents Conf. on Denitrification of Municipal Wastes, March, 1973.
McCarty, P. L. "Stoichiometry of Biological Reactions." Presented at the International Conference To-
ward a Unified Concept of Biological Waste Treatment Design, Atlanta, Georgia, October 6, 1972.
McKinney, Ross E. "Fundamental Approach to the Activated Sludge Process - II. A Proposed Theory of
Floe Formation." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 24 (No. 3, 1952): 280.
McKinney, R. E.; Symons, J. M.; Shifrin, W. G.; and Vezina, M. "Design and Operation of a Complete
Mixing Activated Sludge System." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 30 (March, 1958): 287.
McKinney, R. E. "Mathematics of Complete-Mixing Activated Sludge," Jour. San. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer.
Soc. Civil Engr., Vol. 88, SA3 (1962): 87.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Nitrification and Denitrification Facilities. E.P.A. Technology Transfer Program,
Chicago, Illinois, Design Seminar, November 28-30, 1972.
Morris, Grover L.; Van Den Berg, Lowell; Gulp, Gordon L.; Geckler, Jack R.; and Porges, Ralph. Extend-
ed-Aeration Plants and Intermittent Watercourses. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health, Ed-
ucation, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, July,
1963.
Mulbarger, M. C. "Nitrification and Denitrification in Activated Sludge Systems." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (1971):
2059-2070.
Mulbarger, M. C. "The Three Sludge System for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal." A.W.T.R.L., E.P.S.
(April, 1972).
Okun, D. A.; and Lynn, W. R. "Preliminary Investigation into the Effect of Oxygen Tension on Biological
Sewage Treatment." In Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes: Vol. I, Aerobic Oxi-
dation. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1956.
Reed, S. C.; and Murphy, R. S. "Low Temperature Activated Sludge Settling." Journal Sanitary Engi-
neering Division, ASCE, No. SA4 (August, 1969).
Rimer, A. E.; and Woodward, R. L. "Two Stage Activated Sludge Pilot Operations at Fitchburg, Massa-
chusetts." JWPCF, No. 44: (1972): 101-116.
Sawyer, C. N. "Final Clarifiers and Clarifier Mechanisms." In Biological Treatment of Sewage and In-
47
-------
dustrial Wastes. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1957.
Sayer, C. N. "Milestones in the Development of the Activated Sludge Process." JWPCF, Vol. 37 (Febru-
ary, 1965).
Smith, Robert. A Compilation of Cost Information for Conventional and Advanced Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants and Processes. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Waste Pollu-
tion Control Administration, Advanced Waste Treatment Branch, Division of Research; Cincinnati
Water Research Laboratory, December, 1967.
Stamberg, John B.; Bishop, Dolloff F. Hais; Alan B.; and Bennett, Stephen M. System Alternatives in
Oxygen Activated Sludge. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re-
search and Monitoring, National Environmental Research Center.
Stamberg, John B.; Bishop, Dolloff, F.; and Kumke, Gordon. Activated Sludge Treatment With Oxygen.
Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Labora-
tory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, March, 1971.
Stankewich, Michael J., Jr. "Biological Nitrification With the High Purity Oxygenation Process." Pre-
sented at the 27th Annual Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, May
2-4, 1972.
Wilcox, E. "Operating Experience and Design Criteria for 'Unox' Wastewater Treatment Systems." EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar, New York, New York, February 29-March 2, 1972.
Wild, H.; Sawyer, C.; and McMahon, T. "Factors Affecting Nitrification Kinetics," JWPCF, Vol. 43 (1971):
1845-1854.
VII. TRICKLING FILTERS
Bibliographies
Dow Chemical Co. A Literature Search and Critical Analysis of Biological Trickling Filter Stud-
ies—Volume II. United States Environmental Protection Agency, December, 1971.
Bibliographic List
Balakrishnan, S., and Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. "Nitrogen Relationships in Biological Treatment Pro-
cess—II. Nitrification in Trickling Filters." Water Resources, Vol. 3 (1969): 167.
Benzie, Wallace J.; Larkin, Herbert 0.; Moore, Allan F. "Effects of Climatic and Loading Factors on
Trickling Filter Performance." Presented at the 35th Annual Conf. of WPCF, October 7-11, 1962.
Bloodgood, D. E.; Teletzke, G. H.; and Pohland, F. G. "Fundamental Hydraulic Principles of Trickling
Filters." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31 (March, 1959): 243.
Brown, James C.; Little, Linda W.; Francisco, Donald E.; and Lamb, James C. Methods for Improvement
of Trickling Filter Plant Performance. Contract 14-12-505, Project 11010 DGA, Program Element
1B2043. Washington, D.C.: Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Burgess, F. J.; Gilmour, C. M.; Merryfield, F.; and Carswell, J. K. "Evaluation Criteria for Deep Trickling
Filters." Presented at the 33rd Annual Conf. of WPCF, Philadelphia, October 2 - 6, 1960.
Cameron, W. M., and Jamieson, A. R. "Further Operation of an Enclosed Filter at Dalmarnock Sewage
Works." Jour, and Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif., Part 4: (1950): 417.
Duddles, Glenn A., and Richardson, Steven E. Application of Plastic Media Trickling Filters for Biologi-
cal Nitrification Systems. Contract 14-12-900, Project 17010 SJF. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Eckenfelder, W. W., and Hood, S. W. "The Role of Ammonia Nitrogen in Sewage Treatment." Water and
Sewage Works, Vol. 97 (1950): 246-250. (Pollution Abstracts: 1951, p. 1027).
48
-------
Fair, G. M.; Fuhrman, R. E.; Ruchhoft, C. C.; Thomas, H. A.; and Mohlman, F. W. "Sewage Treatment at
Military Installations—Summary and Conclusions." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 20 (January, 1948):
52.
Fairall, J. M. "Correlation of Trickling Filter Data." Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 28 (September,
1956): 1069.
Franzmathes, Joseph R. "Operational Costs of Trickling Filters in the Southeast." JWPCF, Vol. 4 (May,
1969): 814.
Grantham, G. R.; Phelphs, E. B.; Calaway, W. T.; and Emerson, D. L "Progress Report on Trickling Fil-
ter Studies." Sewage Works Jour. Vol. 22, No. 7 (1950): 867.
Hanumanulu, V. "Effect of Recirculation on Deep Trickling Filter Performance." JWPCF, Vol. 41, No. 10:
1803.
Hazen and Sawyer. "Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants: Case Histories." Presented at
the Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Program Design Seminar, Pittsburgh,
Pa., August 29-31, 1972.
Heukelekian, H. "The Relationship Between Accumulation Biochemical and Biological Characteristics
of Film—III. Nitrification and Nitrifying Capacity of the Film." Sewage Works Jour. Vol. 17 (1945):
516.
Moore, W. A.; Smith, R. S.; and Runchhoft, C. C. "Efficiency Study of a Recirculating Sewage Filter at
Centralia, Mo." Sewage and Industrial Wasfes, Vol. 22 (1950): 184.
NRC Sub-Committee on Sewage Treatment. "Sewage Treatment at Military Installations—Summary and
Conclusions." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 20 (January, 1948): 52.
Rankin, R. S. "Evaluation of the Performance of Biofiltration Plants." Trans. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., No.
120 (1955): 823.
Sack, William A., and Phillips, Stephen A. "Evaluation of the Bio-Disc Treatment Process for Summer
Camp Application." Project S-800707, Program Element 1B2043. Washington, D.C.: Office of Re-
search and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Schroepfer, G. J.; AI-Hakim, M. B.; Seidel, H. F.; and Ziemke, N. R. "Temperature Effects on Trickling
Filters." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 24 (June, 1952): 705.
Shriver, Larry E., and Young, James C. "Oxygen Demand Index as a Rapid Estimate of Biochemical
Oxygen Demand." JWPCF,'Vol. 44 (November, 1972): 2146.
Sinkoff, M. D.; Porges, R.; and McDermott, J. H. "Mean Residence Time of a Liquid in a Trickling Filter."
Jour. San. Engr. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., Vol. 85, SA6 (November, 1959): 51.
Sorrels, J. J., and Zeller, P. J. A. "Two-Stage Trickling Filter Performance." Sewage Works Jour. Vol.
28, No. 8 (1956): 934.
Thoman, John R., and Jenkins, Kenneth H. "Use of Final Settling Tanks With Standard-Rate Trickling
Filters." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 31, No. 5: 842.
Velz, C. J. "A Basic Law for the Performance of Biological Filters." Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 20, No. 4
(July, 1948): 607.
VIII. PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Bibliographic List
Battelle-Northwest, Richland Washington, and South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District, South Lake Ta-
hoe, California. Wastewater Ammonia Removal by Ion Exchange, Project 17010 ECZ 02/71. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Bishop, D. F. "Advanced Waste Treatment Research at the FWPCA-DC Pilot Plant." Presented at the
FWPCA Technical Workshop, Fredericksburg, Va., May 13, 1969.
49
-------
Bishop, D. F, et al. "Studies on Activated Carbon Treatment." JWPCF, Vol. 39 (1967): 188.
Bishop, Dolloff F.; O'Farrell, Thomas P.; and Stamberg, John B. "Physical-Chemical Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater." JWPCF, Vol. 44 (March, 1972).
Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers. Process Design Manual for Phosphorous Removal. U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Program, October, 1971.
Burns and Roe Inc. Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Technology Transfer Program, October, 1971.
Cassel, Alan F.; Pressley, Thomas A.; Schuk, Walter W.; and Bishop, Dolloff F. Physical-Chemical Nitro-
gen Removal From Municipal Wastewater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced
Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio:
March, 1971.
CHbM/Hill and Associates. Regional Water Reclamation Plan, Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority, Jan-
uary, 1971.
CHbM/Hill and Associates. Wastewater Treatment Study, Montgomery County, Maryland, Volumes I and
II. Prepared for Montgomery County, Maryland.
Gulp, Gordon L. "Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Design." Presented at the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Technology Transfer Seminar, Pittsburgh, Pa., August, 1972.
Gulp, G., and Slechta, A. "Phosphate and Nitrogen Removal at South Tahoe Public Utility District Water
Reclamation Plant." Presented at the 39th Annual Conf. of WPCF, Kansas City, Mo., September,
1966.
Engineering Science, Inc. Design Report for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal for Parkway Sewage
Treatment Plant. Prepared for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, March, 1970. -
Engineering Science, Inc. Regional Wastewater Management and Reclamation for Santa Barbara. Pre-
pared for the City'of Santa Barbara, California, August, 1971.
English, J. N., et al. "Removals of Organics from Wastewater by Activated Carbon." Presented at the
67th National Meeting of the AlChE, Atlanta, February, 1970.
Hager, D. G., and Reilly, D. B. "Clarification-Adsorption in the Treatment of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewaters." JWPCF, Vol. 42 (1970): 794.
Joyce, R. S.; Allen, J. B.; and Sukenik, V. A. "Treatment of Municipal Wastewater by Packed Activated
Carbon Beds." JWPCF, Vol. 38 (1966): 813.
Joyce, R. S., and Sukenik, V. A. Waste and Water—Sewage Treatment Project No. 4-1007-02. Report
No. 1. Pittsburgh Activated Carbon Company, a subsidiary of Calgon Corporation, May 15, 1967.
Koon, John H., and Kaufman, Warren J. Optimization of Ammonia Removal by Ion Exchange Using
Clinoptilolite. For the Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency Grant No. 17080
DAR., September, 1971.
Molof, A. H., and Zuckerman, M. M. "High Quality Reuse Water from a Newly Developed Chemical-
Physical Treatment Process." Presented at the 5th International Water Pollution Research Confer-
ence, San Francisco, Calif., July, 1970.
O'Farrell, T. P.; Frauson, F. P.; Cassel, A. F.; and Bishop, D. F. "Nitrogen Removal by Ammonia Strip-
ping." Presented at the 160th National ACS Meeting, Chicago, September, 1970.
O'Farrell, T. P.; Stamberg, J. B.; and Bishop, D. F. "Carbon Adsorption of Lime Clarified Raw, Primary,
and Secondary Wastewaters." Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of AlChE, Houston, March,
1971.
Parkhurst, J. D.; Dryden, F. D.; McDermott, G. N.; and English, J. "Pomona Activated Carbon Pilot
Plant," JWPCF, Vol. 39, No. 10:R70, Part 2 (1967).
"Physical Chemical Treatment." EPA Technology Transfer Bulletin, July, 1971.
Pressley, T. A.; Bishop, D. F.; and Roan, S. G. "Nitrogen Removal by Breakpoint Chlorination." Present-
ed at the 160th National ACS Meeting, Chicago, September, 1970.
Rizzo, J. L. "Adsorption/Filtration: A New Unit Process for the Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters."
Presented at the 63rd Annual AlChE Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, November 29 - December 3, 1970.
50
-------
Rizzo, J. L, and Schade, R. E. "Secondary Treatment With Granular Activated Carbon." Water and
Sewage Works (August, 1969).
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers. Concept Engineering Report: Advanced
Wastewater Treatment, Piscataway Treatment Plant. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission,
April, 1972.
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers. Process Design Manual for Upgrading
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer, Oc-
tober, 1971.
Smith, Clinton E., and Chapman, Robert L. Recovery of Coagulant, Nitrogen Removal and Carbon Re-
generation in Wastewater Reclamation. Final Report of Project Operations, Department of Interior,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Grant WPD-85, June, 1967.
Stamberg, J. B.; Bishop, D. F.; Warner, H. P.; and Griggs, S. H. "Lime Precipitation in Municipal Waste-
waters." Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of AlChE, November, 1969.
Stander, G. J., and Van Vuuren, L. R. J. "The Reclamation of Potable Water from Wastewater." JWPCF,
Vol. 41 (1969): 355.
Swindell-Dressier Company. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Technology Transfer, October, 1971.
Villers, R. V.; Berg, E. L.; Brunner, C. A.; and Masse, A. N. "Treatment of Primary Effluent by Lime
Clarification and Granular Carbon." Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of ACS, Toronto, May,
1970.
Water Pollution Control Federation. Sewage Treatment Plant Design. (WPCF Manual of Practice No. 8.)
Washington, D.C.: 1959 (Fifth Printing: 1972).
W. J.; Hopkins, C. B.; and Bloom, R., Jr. "Physiochemical Treatment of Wastewater." JWPCF: (January,
1970).
IX. STORM AND COMBINED SEWERS
Bibliographic List
American Public Works Assn. Combined Sewer Regulation and Management—A Manual of Practice.
Report No. 11022DMU08/70, Chicago, Illinois.
American Public Works Assn. Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities. Report No.
11022DMU07/70, Chicago, Illinois.
American Public Works Assn. Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows—7967. Report No.
11020—12/67, Chicago, Illinois.
American Public Works Assn. Research Foundation. The Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer
Overflow Regulator Facility. Report No. EPA-R2-72-008 (11023 GSC), Chicago, Illinois.
American Society of Civil Engineers. Combined Sewer Separation Using Pressure Sewers. Report No.
11020EKO 10/69, Cambridge, Mass.
Anonymous. "Characterization, Treatment and Disposal of Urban Stormwater." Presented at the Intl.
Conf. on Water Pollution Research, Munich, Germany, September, 1966.
Banister, A.W. "Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewage as An Alternate to Separation." Presented
at Seminar on Storm and Combined Sewer Overflows, Edison, N.J., November, 1969.
Benjes, H. H., et al. "Storm-Water Overflows from Combined Sewers." JWPCF, Vol. 33 (No. 12: 1961).
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Sources and Abatement, Atlanta,
Ga. Report No. 11024ELB01/71, Atlanta, Ga.
Bowles Engineering Corp. Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator. Report No. 11020DGZ 10/69,
Silver Spring, Md.
51
-------
Burgess and Niple, Ltd. Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus,
Ohio. Report No. 11024FKN 11/69, Columbus, Ohio.
Burm, R. J. "The Bacteriological Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows on the Detroit River." JWPCF,
Vol. 39 (March, 1967): 410.
Burm, R. J., and Vaughan, R. D. "Bacteriological Comparison Between Combined and Separate Sewer
Discharges in Southeastern Michigan." JWPCF, Vol. 38 (March, 1966): 400.
Burm, R. J., et al. "Chemical and Physical Comparison of Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges."
JWPCF, Vol. 40 (January, 1968): 112.
Caster, A. D. "Monitoring Stormwater Overflows." JWPCF, Vol. 37 (September, 1965).
Caster, A. D. and Stein, W. J. "Pollution From Combined Sewers, Cincinnati, Ohio." Presented at ASCE
National Water Resources Engineering Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee, January, 1970.
City of Chippewa Falls, Wise. Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No. EPA-
R2-72-070 (11023 FIY).
Cochrane Division, Crane Co. Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer Overflows. Report
No. 11023EVO 06/70, King of Prussia, Pa.
Detroit Metro Water Department, Detroit Sewer Monitoring and Remote Control. Combined Sewer Over-
flow Abatement Technology, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Water Pollution Control Research Series, 11024, 06/70.
Dodson, Kinney and Lindblom. Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks, Columbus, Ohio. Report No.
11020FAL 03/71, Columbus, Ohio.
Environgenics Co., Div. of Aeroject-General Corp. Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow
Pollution, Sacramento, California. Report No. 11024FKM 12/71, El Monte, Calif.
Federal Water Quality Administration, Div. of Applied Science and Technology, Storm and Combined
Sewer Pollution Control Branch. Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology. Report No.
11024—06/70, Washington, D.C.
Field, Richard. "Management and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows." Presented at the 44th An-
nual Meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control Association, New York, January, 1972.
Field, R., and Struzeski, E. "Management and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows." JWPCF, Vol. 44
(July, 1972).
Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Ltd. Stormwater Overflow Study: Lima, Ohio. Marion, Ohio, 1973.
FMC Corporation, Central Engineering Laboratories. A Flushing System for Combined Sewer Cleans-
ing. Report No. 11020DNO 03/72, Santa Monica, Calif.
Glover, G. E., and Herbert, G. R. Micro-Straining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer Over-
flows—Phase II. Report No. EPA-R2-73-124 (11023 FWT), King of Prussia, Pa.: Crane Co.
Greeley, Samuel A., and Langdon, Paul E. "Storm Water and Combined Sewage Overflows." J. of the
San Engr. Div., Proc. of the Am. Soc. of Civil Engin., Vol 87 (1961): 57.
Havens and Emerson. Feasibility of a Stabilization—Retention Basin in Lake Erie at Cleveland, Ohio.
Report No. 11020—05/68, Cleveland, Ohio.
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. Engineering Investigation of Sewer Overflow Problems. Report No.
11024DMS 05/70, Roanoke, Va.
Hicks, W. I. "A Method of Computing Urban Runoff." In Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 109 (1944): 1217.
Karl R. Rohrer Associates, Inc. Underwater Storage of Cmbined Sewer Overflows. Report No:
11022ECV 09/71, Akron, Ohio.
Koelzer, V. A., et al. "The Chicagoland Deep Tunnel Project." Presented at the 41st Annual Conf. of
WPCF, September 22 - 27, 1968.
Melpar Division of E Systems. Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage Facility. Report No.
11022DPP 10/70, Falls Church, Va.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. Storm Water Management Model, Vol. I - IV, Final Report. Report No.
11024DOC, Palo Alto, Calif.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. Storm Water Problems and Control in Sanitary Sewers, Oakland and
52
-------
Berkeley, California. Report No. 11024EQG 03/71, Palo Alto, Calif.
Metropolitan Sewer Board, St. Paul. Dispatching System for Control of Combined Sewer Losses. Report
No. 11020FAQ 03/71, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mytelka, A. I., et al. Combined Sewer Overflow Study for the Hudson River Conference. Report No.
EPA-R2-73-152 (11000—), New York, N.Y.: Interstate Sanitation Commission.
Nebolsine, Ross; Harvey, P. J.; and Chi-Yuan Fan. High Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows.
Report No. 11023FYI 04/72, New York, N.Y.: Hydrotechnic Corp.
Pavia, E. H., and Powell, C. J. "Chlorination and Hypochlorination of Polluted Storm Water at New
Orleans." Presented at the 41st Annual Conf. of WPCF, September 22 - 27, 1968.
Portland Department of Public Works, City of Portland, Oregon. Demonstration of Rotary Screening for
Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No. 11023FDD 07/71, Portland, Ore.
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Ecology Division. Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows.
Report No. 11020FDC 01/72, Milwaukee, Wise.
Rhodes Corporation. Dissolved-Air Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No.
11020FKI 01/70, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Conceptual Engineering Report—Kingman Lake Project. Report No. 11023FIX
08/70, West Chester, Pa.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives, Washington, D.C. Report No.
11024EXF 08/70, West Chester, Pa.
Shuckrow, A. J. "Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows." Presented at the 44th
Annual Meeting, New York Water Pollution Control Assn., New York, January 26 - 28, 1972.
Shuckrow, A. J.; Dawson, G. W.; and Bonner, W. F. Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined and
Municipal Sewage. Report No. EPA-R2-73-149 (11020 DSQ), PNW Laboratories, Battelle Memorial
Inst., Richland, Wash.
Simpson, George D. "Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows and Surface Waters at Cleveland,
Ohio." Presented at the 41st Annual Conf. of WPCF, September 22 - 27, 1968.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control. Pollutional Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined Sewer Sys-
tems—A Preliminary Appraisal, November, 1964.
University of Cincinnati. Urban Runoff Characteristics. Report No. 11024DQU 10/70, Cincinnati, Ohio:
The University.
X. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Bibliographic List
Antonie, R. L. "Application of the Bio Disc Process to Treatment of Domestic Wastewater." Presented
at the 43rd Annual Conf. of WPCF, Boston, Massachusetts, 1970.
Barth, E. F.; Brenner, R. C.; and Lewis, R. F. "Chemical-Biological Control of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
in Wastewater Effluent." JWPCF, Vol. 40 (1968): 2040-2054.
Barth, E. F.; Mulbarger, M.; Salotto, B. U.; and Ettinger, M. B. "Removal of Nitrogen by Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants." JWPCF, Vol. 38 (1966): 1208-1219.
Bishop, D. F. "Advanced Waste Treatment at the FWPCA-DC Pilot Plant, Washington, D.C." Presented
at a Water Pollution Control Technical Workshop on Nutrient Removal Needs, Methods, and Costs,
Fredericksburg, Va., May, 1969.
Bishop, Dolloff F.; O'Farrell, Thomas P.; and Stamberg, John B. "Physical-Chemical Treatment of Muni-
cipal Wastewater." JWPCF, Vol. 44 (March, 1972): 361.
Bishop, D. F.; O'Farrell, T. P.; Stamberg, J. B.; and Porter, J. W. "Advanced Waste Treatment Systems at
the FWQA-DC Pilot Plant." Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of AlChE, Houston, March, 1971.
53
-------
Bishop, D. F., et al. "Studies on Activated Carbon Treatment." JWPCF, Vol. 39 (February, 1967): 188-
203.
Black, S. A. Lime Treatment for Phosphorus Removal at the Newmarket/East Guillimburg WPCF (Paper
No. W3032) Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of the Environment, May, 1972.
Black and Veatch. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal. E.P.A. Technology Transfer Pro-
gram No. 17010, October, 1971.
Buswell, A. M.; Shiota, T.; Lawrence, N.; and Van Meter, I. "Laboratory Studies on the Kinetics of the
Growth of Nitrosomonas with Relation to the Nitrification Phase of the BOD Test." Applied Micro-
biology, No. 2 (1954): 21-25.
Cassel, Alan F.; Pressley, Thomas A.; Schuk, Walter W.; and Bishop, Dolloff E. Physical-Chemical Ni-
trogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental Protection Agency
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, March,
1971.
Coyen, J. M. "Nutrient Removal from Wastewater by Physical-Chemical Processes." In Proceedings,
151st A.C.S. Meeting, Los Angeles, California, March, 1971.
Gulp, Gordon L. Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Design. Environmental Protection Agency Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August, 1972.
Gulp, G., and Slechta, A. "Phosphate and Nitrogen Removal at South Tahoe Public Utility District Water
Reclamation Plant." Presented at the 39th Annual Conf. of WPCF, Kansas City, Mo., September,
1966.
Dawson, R. N., and Murphy, K. L. "Temperature Dependency of Biological Denitrification." Water Re-
search, No. 6 (1972): 72.
Dryden, Franklin D., Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. "Demineralization of Reclaimed
Waters." J. Industrial Wastes Eng. (August/September, 1971).
Duddles, G. A.; Richardson, S. E.; and Barth, E. F. "The Application of Plastic Media Trickling Filters in
Biological Nitrification Systems." Presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, At-
lanta, Georgia, 1972.
English, J. N., et al. "Removals of Organics from Wastewater by Activated Carbon." Presented at the
67th National Meeting of the AlChE, Atlanta, February, 1970.
Hager, D. G., and Rizzo, J. L. Advanced Waste Treatment Design Seminar.
Hager, D. G., and Reilly, P. B. "Clarification-Adsorption in the Treatment of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewater." JWPCF (May, 1970).
Haug, Roger T., and McCarty, P. L. Nitrification with the Submerged Filter. (E.P.A. Technical Report No.
149) August, 1971.
Hortskotte, G. A.; Niles, D. G.; Parker, D. S.; and Caldwell, D. H. "Full Scale Testing of a Water Re-
clamation System." Presented at the 45th Annual Conf. of WPCF, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
Hydroscience, Inc. Advanced Waste Treatment Studies for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal. Written
for Baldwin and Cornelius Company, March, 1971.
Johnson, W. K., and Schroepfer, G. L. "Nitrogen Removal by Nitrification and Denitrification." JWPCF,
Vol. 36 (1964): 1015-1036.
Kelly, S., and Sanderson, S. "The Effect of Chlorine in Water on Enteric Viruses." American Public
Health, No. 48 (1958): 1323.
Kreusch, Ed., and Schmidt, Ken. "Wastewater Demineralization by Ion Exchange." Water Poll. Res.
Series 17040 EEE 12/71, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Nitrification and Denitrification Facilities. E.P.A. Technology Transfer Program,
Chicago, Illinois, Design Seminar, November 28 - 30, 1972.
McCarty, P.L. Nitrification-Denitrification by Biological Treatment. University of Massachusetts,
W.R.R.C. Correspondents Conf. on Denitrification of Municipal Wastes, March, 1973.
Mulbarger, M.C. "Nitrification and Denitrification in Activated Sludge Systems." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (1971):
2059-2070.
Mulbarger, M.C. "The Three Sludge System for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal." AWTRL, E.P.A.,
April, 1972.
54
-------
O'Farrell, T.'P.; Bishop, D. F.; and Bennett, S. M. "Advanced Waste Treatment at Washington, D.C."
Presented at the 65th Annual AlChE Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, May, 1969.
O'Farrell, T. P.; Stamberg, J. B.; and Bishop, D. F. "Carbon Adsorption of Lime Clarified Raw, Primary,
and Secondary Wastewaters." Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of AlChE, Houston, March,
1971.
Pressley, Thomas A.; Bishop, Dolloff F.; and Roan, Stephanie G. Nitrogen Removal by Breakpoint
Chlorination. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center,
September, 1970.
Rimer, A. E., and Woodward, R. L. "Two Stage Activated Sludge Pilot Operations at Fitchburg, Massa-
chusetts." JWPCF, No. 44 (1972): 101-116.
Rizzo, J. L., and Schade, R. E. "Secondary Treatment with Granular Activated Carbon." Water amd
Sewage Works (August, 1969).
Rizzo, J. L. "Adsorption/Filtration. . .A New Unit Process for the Treatment of Industrial Wastewaters."
Presented at the 63rd Annual AlChE Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, November 29 - December 3, 1970.
Sanks, R. L. Report on Waste Treatment in the Merrimack River Basin by Ion Exchange. Report to North
Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, May, 1971.
Stamberg, J. B.; Bishop, D. B.; Warner, H. P.; and Griggs, S. H. "Lime Precipitation in Municipal Waste-
waters." Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of AlChE, November, 1969.
Stensel, H.D.; Loehr, R. C.; and Lawrence, A. W. "Biological Kinetics of the Suspended Growth Denitri-
fication Process." JWPCF, Vol. 45 (1973): 244-261.
Tittlebaum, et al. "Ozone Disinfection of Viruses." Presented at Institute on Ozonation in Sewage Treat-
ment, University of Wisconsin, November, 1971.
Torpey, W. N., Heukelekian, H.; Kaplowsky, A. J.; and Epstein, R. "Rotating Disks with Biological
Growth Prepare Wastewater for Disposal or Reuse." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (1971): 2181-2188.
Van Note, Robert H.; Herbert, Paul V.; and Patel, Ramesh M. A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective
Wastewater Treatment Systems. Contract Number 68-01-0973, Municipal Wastewater Systems Divi-
sion, Engineering and Design Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, February, 1974.
Warriner, T. R. "Field Tests on Chlorination of Poliovirus in Sewage." Jour. San. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 93,
SA5 (1967): 51.
Water Pollution Control Research Series. Methanol Requirements and Temperature Effects in Waste-
water Denitrification. Environmental Protection Agency, August, 1970.
Wild, H.; Sawyer, C.; and McMahon, T. "Factors Affecting Nitrification Kinetics." JWPCF, Vol. 43 (1971):
1845-1854.
XI. REUSE TECHNIQUES
Bibliographic List
Advanced Waste Treatment by Distillation. (Report No. AWTR-7) Public Health Service, Dept. of HEW,
March, 1964.
Advanced Waste Water Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe. EPA Report No. 170 10-ELQ-08/71,
South Tahoe Public Utility Dist., August, 1971.
Aerojet-General Corp., Environmental Systems Division. Reverse Osmosis Renovation of Municipal
Wastewater. Federal Water Quality Administration Program No. 17040 EFQ, Contract No. 14-12-184
Cincinnati, Ohio: Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory.
Ayres, R. U. "A Materials-Process-Product Model." Environ. Quality Analysis Papers from a Resources
for the Future Conf. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Press, 1972.
Bayley, R. W., et al. Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Department of Environment. "Some
Recent Advances in Water Reclamation." Water Pollution Control. Vol. 71, No. 1 (1972).
55
-------
Bouwer, H. Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent Systems Using Secondary Sewage Effluent. (Paper
No. 8) Phoenix, Ariz: U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, September, 1970. 19 pp.
Bouwer, Hermand; Rice, R. C.; Escarcega, E. D.; and Riggs, N. W. Renovating Secondary Sewage by
Ground-Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Pollution Control Research Series 16060DRV, 1972. 102 pp.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa Water District. Municipal Wastewater Renova-
tion Pilot/Demonstration Project. Draft report submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency,
April, 1972.
Chojnacki, A. "Recovery of Coagulants from the Sludge After Waste Treatment." Inst. Hydrotech. Res.
Sci. Sess., Bucharest, September 4, 1964, pp. 25-26. (Water Pollution Abs., September, 1965.)
Chojnacki, A. "The Treatment and Use of Alum Sludge." Int. Water Supply Congress, Barcelona, Spain,
October, 1966. p. Q11.
Cohen, Philip, and Durfor, C. N. Artificial Recharge Experiments Utilizing Renovated Sewage-Plant Ef-
fluent—A Feasibility Study at Bay Park, New York, U.S.A. In Symposium of Haifa, Artificial Re-
charge and Management of Aquifers, pp. 193-199. Internal. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology, Pub. No. 72,
1967.
•
Cooper, J. C., and Hager, D. G. "Water Reclamation with Granular Activated Carbon." Chemical Engi-
neering Progress Symposium, Series No. 78, Vol. 63 (1967): 185.
Cooper, C.; Spear, R. C.; and Schaffer, F. L. Virus Survival in the Central Contra Costa County Waste-
water Renovation Plant. Berkeley, Calif.: Public Health, University of California, January, 1972.
Cosf of Purifying Municipal Waste Water by Distillation. (Report No. AWTR-6) Public Health Service,
Dept. of HEW, November, 1963.
Gulp, Gordon, and Gulp, Russell. "Reclamation of Wastewater at Lake Tahoe." Public Works Maga-
zine, (February, 1966).
Gulp, R. L, and Gulp, G. L. Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1971.
Gulp, R. L. "Wastewater Reclamation by Tertiary Treatment." JWPCF, Vol. 35 (June, 1963): 799.
Gulp, Russel L., and Roderick, Ralph E. "The Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Plant." JWPCF (February,
1966): 147.
Dryden, Franklin D. "Demineralization of Reclaimed Waters." J. Industrial Wastes Engineering
(August/September, 1971).
Eastern Municipal Water District. Study of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled Through Ground
Water. EPA, Water Pollution Control Research Report Series No. 16060DDZ07/71, Vol. I, July, 1971.
Fuhrman, Ralph E. "The Potential for Reuse of Wastewater as a Source of Water Supply." Presented at
the American Water Works Association Conference, Chicago, Illinois, June 7, 1972.
Gavis, J. Wastewater Reuse. National Water Commission, NWC-EES-71-003, 1971.
Gomez, H. J. "Water Reuse in Monterrey, Mexico." JWPCF, Vol. 40 (April, 1968): 540.
Haney, P. D., and Hamann, C. L. "Dual Water Systems." JAWWA, Vol. 57, No. 9: 1073.
Hansen, C. A. "Standards for Drinking Water and Direct Reuse." Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 6
(April, 1969).
Horstkotte, G. A.; Niles, D. G.; Parker, D. S.; and Caldwell, D. H. "Full Scale Testing of a Water
Reclamation System." Presented at the 45th Annual Conf. of WPCF, Atlanta, Georgia, 1972.
Irving, C. E. "How One City Sells its Sludge." Compost Science, (Spring, 1960): 18 - 20.
Isaac, P. C. G., and Vahidi, I. "The Recovery of Alum Sludge." In Proc. Soc. Wat. Treatm. and Exam.,
Vol. 10: (1961): 91.
Jimento, Francisco, J. Reclaimed Effluent in Golf Course Irrigation. Mexico City, Mexico.
Kiess, I. F. "Combined Sludge-Garbage Composting." Compost Science, (Summer, 1962): 13 - 14.
Kreush, Ed, and Schmidt, Ken. IVasfewafer Demineralization by Ion Exchange. Project No. 17040 EEE,
Contract No. 14-12-599, Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, De-
cember, 1971.
56
-------
Lambie, John A. Progress Report, Demonstration Project Grant No. WPD 50-03-66: Waste Water Re-
clamation Project for Antelope Valley, California. Los Angeles, Calif., May 1, 1967.
Leaver, R. E. "Marketing Sewage Sludge in the Northwest." Compost Science, (Spring, 1961): 44 - 47.
Long, William N., and Bell, Frank A., "Health Factors and Reused Water." JAWWA, Vol. 64 (April, 1972):
220-225.
Lusczynski, N. J., and Swarzenski, W. V. Salt-Water Encroachment in Southern Nassau and Southeast-
ern Queens Counties, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geol. Survey, Water Supply Paper 1613-F, 1966.
76 pp.
Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Waste into Wealth. Melbourne, Australia, 1971.
Merrell, John C., Jr.; Katko, Albert; and Pintler, Herbert E. The Santee Recreation Project, Santee, Cali-
fornia. Summary Report, Public Health Service Publication No. 99-WP-27, December, 1965.
Mitchell, J. K., and Samples, W. R. Report on Reclamation of Wastewater for Well Injection. Los Ange-
les, Calif.: Los Angeles County Flood Control District, 1967.
Morris, J. Carrell. "Chlorination and Disinfection—State of the Art." JAWWA, No. 63 (December, 1971):
769.
Moyer, Harlan E. "The South Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Project." Public Works, (December, 1968).
Muskegon County Board and Department of Public Works, Muskegon, Michigan. Engineering Feasibil-
ity Demonstration Study for Muskegon County, Michigan: Wastewater Treatment-Irrigation System.
Federal Water Quality Administration Program No. 11010 FMY, September, 1970.
North Star Research and Development Institute. New and Ultrathin Membranes for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment by Reverse Osmosis. FWQA Project No. 17020 EFA, Contract No. 14-12-587.
Nuper and Slander. "The Virus Problem in the Windhoek Wastewater Reclamation Project." Presented
at the 6th International Water Pollution Research Meeting, June, 1972.
Parizek, R. R., et al. "Waste Water Renovation and Conservation." The Pennsylvania State University
Studies No. 23, University Park, Pa.: The University, 1967.
Pennypacker, Stanley; Sopper, Willliam E.; and Kardos, Louis T. "Renovation of Wastewater Effluent by
Irrigation of Forest Land."
Peters, J. H., and Rose, J. L. "Water Conservation by Reclamation and Recharge." Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.
Jour., San. Div., Vol. 94, SA4 (1968): 625-639.
"Recycling Sludge and Sewage Effluent by Land Disposal." Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 6 (October, 1972).
Reuse of Wastewater in Germany. Paris: OECD, 1969.
Rex Chainbelt Inc., Ecology Division. Amenability of Reverse Osmosis Concentrate to Activated Sludge
Treatment. Environmental Protection Agency Project No. 17040 EUE, July, 1971.
Roberts, J. M., and Roddy, C. P. "Recovery and Reuse of Alum Sludge at Tampa." JAWWA, Vol. 52
(July, 1960): 857.
Sawyer, George A. "New Trends in Wastewater Treatment." Chemical Engineering, (July 24,1972): 120.
Seabrook, Belford L. Irrigation of Liquid Digested Sludge: An Alternative Technique.
Slechta, Alfred, and Gulp, Gordon. Plant Scale Regeneration of Granular Activated Carbon. Public
Health Service Demonstration Grant 84-01, February, 1966.
Slechta, Alfred, and Gulp, Gordon. Recovery and Reuse of Coagulant from Treated Sewage. Public
Health Service Demonstration Grant 85-01, February, 1966.
Smith, Clinton E. "Use and Reuse of Lime in Removing Phosphorus and Nitrogen from Wastewater."
Presented at the 67th Annual Convention of the National Lime Association, Phoenix, Ariz., April 10
- 11, 1969.
Southern Research Institute. Demineralization of Wastewater by the Transport-Depletion Process. En-
vironmental Protection Agency Project No. 17040 EUN, Contract No. 14-12-812, February, 1971.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. (13th ed.) APHA, AWWA, WPCF,
1971.
57
-------
State of California, The Resources Agency, State Water Quality Control Board. Wastewater Reclama-
tion at Whittier Narrows. (Publication No. 33) Sacramento, Calif., 1966. 99 pp.
Stephan, David G., et al. "Wastewater Treatment and Renovation Status of Process Development."
JWPCF, Vol. 42 (1970): 339.
Stephan, D. G., and Weinberger, L. W. "Water Reuse—Has it Arrived?" JWPCF, Vol. 40 (no. 4, 1968):
529.
Stevens, R. M., and the Center for the Study of Federalism. Green Land—Clean Streams: The Beneficial
Use of Waste Water Through Land Treatment. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University,
1972.
Symons, George E. "Water Reuse—What Do We Mean?" Water and Wastes Engineering. Vol. 5: (June,
1968).
Task Group 2440-R on Artificial Ground-Water Recharge. "Experience with Injection Wells for Artificial
Ground-Water Recharge." JAWWA, Vol. 57, No. 5 (1965): 629-639.
Tchobanoglous, George; Eliassen, Rolf; and Bennett, George E. Progress Report, Water Reclamation
Study Program: Demonstration Project Grant No. WPD 21-05. Stanford, California: Stanford Univer-
sity, October, 1967.
University of Florida. Feasibility of Treating Wastewater by Distillation. Environmental Protection
Agency Project No. 17040 DNM, Contract No. 14-12-571, Gainesville, Florida, February, 1971.
"Use of Reclaimed Wastewaters as a Public Water Supply Source." AWWA Policy Statement, In
JAWWA Yearbook, Vol. 63, No. 11: 55.
Van Vuuren, L. R. J.; Henzen, M. R.; Slander, G. J.; and Clayton, A. J. The Full-Scale Reclamation of
Purified Sewage Effluent for the Augmentation of the Domestic Supplies of the City of Windhoek.
Advances in Water Pollution Research, Pergamon Press, 1970.
58
-------
APPENDIX B—COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES (40 CFR 35 - APPENDIX A)
59
-------
24639
Title 40—Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D—GRANTS
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Appendix A—Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
On July 3, 1973, notice was published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER that the En-
vironmental Protection Agency was pro-
posing guidelines on cost-effectiveness
analysis pursuant to section 212(2) (c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (the Act) to be published
as" appendix A to 40 CFR part 35.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were invited and received
from interested parties. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency has carefully
considered all comments received. No
changes were made in the guidelines as
earlier prop.osed. All written comments
are on file with the agency.
Effective date.—These regulations shall
become effective October 10, 1973.
Dated September 4, 1973.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.
APPENDIX A
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS CDIDELINES
a. Purpose.—These guidelines provide a
basic methodology for determining the most
cost-effective waste treatment management
system or the most cost-effective component
part of any waste treatment management
system.
b. Authority.—The guidelines contained
herein are provided pursuant to section 212
(2) (C) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
c. Applicability.—These guidelines apply
to the development of plans for and the
selection of component parts of a waste
treatment management system for which a
Federal grant Is awarded under 40 CFR,
Part 35.
d. Definitions.—Definitions of terms used
In these guidelines are as follows:
(1) Waste treatment management sys-
tem.—A system used to restore the Integrity
of the Nation's waters. Waste treatment
management system Is used synonymously
with "treatment works" as defined In 40
CFR, Part 35.905-15.
(2) Cost-effectiveness analy'sis.—An analy-
sis performed to determine which waste
treatment management system or compo-
nent part thereof will result In the minimum
total resources costs over time to meet the
Federal, State or local requirements.
(3) Planning period.—The period over
which a waste treatment management sys-
tem is evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The
planning period commences with the Initial
operation of the system.
(4) Service life.—The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be capable of
performing a function.
(5) Useful life.—The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be required to
perform a function which Is necessary to
the system's operation.
e. Identification, selection and screening
of alternatives—(1) Identification of alter-
natives.—All feasible alternative waste man-
agement systems shall be Initially Identified.
These alternatives should Include systems
discharging to receiving waters, systems
using land or subsurface disposal techniques,
and systems employing the reuse of waste-
water. In Identifying alternatives, the possi-
bility of staged development of the system
shall be considered.
(2) Screening of alternatives.—The iden-
tified alternatives shall be systematically
screened to define those capable of meeting
the applicable Federal, State, and local
criteria.
(3) Selection of alternatives.—The
screened alternatives shall be initially ana-
lyzed to determine which systems have cost-
effective potential and which should be fully
evaluated according to the cost-effectiveness
analysis procedures established in these
guidelines.
(4) Extent of effort.—The extent of effort
and the level of sophistication used in the
cost-effectiveness analysis should reflect the
size and importance of the project.
f. Cost-Effective analysis procedures—(1)
Method of Analysis.—The resources costs
shall be evaluated through the use of oppor-
tunity costs. For those resources that can be
expressed in monetary terms, the Interest
(discount) rate established in section (f) (5)
will be used. Monetary costs shall be calcu-
lated In terms of present worth values or
equivalent annual values over the planning
period as defined in section (f)(2). Non-
monetary factors (e.g., social and environ-
mental) shall be accounted for descriptively
In the analysis In order to determine their
significance and Impact.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 174—MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1973
-------
24640
The most cost-effective alternative shall be
the waste treatment management system
determined from the analysis to hare the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent an-
nual value without overriding adverse non-
monetary costs and to realize at least Identi-
cal minimum benefits In terms of applicable
Federal, State, and local standards for ef-
fluent quality, water quality, water reuse
and/or land and subsurface disposal.
(2) Planning period.—The planning period
for the cost-effectiveness analysis shall be 20
years.
(3) Elements of coat.—The costs to be
considered shall Include the total values of
the resources attributable to the waste treat-
ment management system or to one of Its
component parts. To determine these values,
:ill monies necessary for capital construction
costs and operation and maintenance costs
ihall be Identified.
Capital construction costs used In a cost-
offectiveness analysis shall Include all con-
tractors' costs of construction Including over-
head and profit; coets of land, relocation, and
right-of-way and easement acquisition;
design engineering, field exploration, and en-
gineering services during construction; ad-
ministrative and legal services Including
costs of bond sales; startup costs such as op-
erator training; and Interest during con-
struction. Contingency allowances consistent
with the level of complexity and detail of the
cost estimates shall be Included.
Annual costs for operation and mainte-
nance (Including routine replacement of
equipment and equipment parts) shall be
Included In the cost-effectiveness analysis.
These costs shall be adequate to ensure ef-
fective and dependable operation during the
planning period for the system. Annual costs
shall be divided between fixed annual costs
and costs which would be dependent on the
annual quantity of wastewater collected and
treated.
(4) Prices.—The various components of
cost shall be calculated on the basis of mar-
ket prices prevailing at the time of the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Inflation of wages and
prices shall not be considered In the analysis.
The Implied assumption Is that all prices
Involved will tend to change over time by
approximately the same percentage. Thus,
the results of the cost effectiveness analysis
will not be affected by chinges in the gen-
eral level of prices.
Exceptions to the foregoing can be made
If their Is Justification for expecting signifi-
cant changes In the relative prices of certain
items during the planning period. It such
cases are Identified, the expected change In
these prices should be made to reflect their
future relative deviation from the general
price level.
(5) Interest {discount) rate.—A rate of 7
percent per year will be used for the cost-
effectiveness analysis until- the promulgation
of the Water Resources Council's "Proposed
Principles and Standards for Planning Water
and Related Land Resources." After promul-
gation of the above regulation, the rate
established for water resource projects shall
be used for the cost-effectiveness analysis.
(6) Interest during construction.—In cases
where capital expenditures can be expected
to be fairly uniform during the construction
period, interest during construction may be
calculated as IX'/2 PXC where:
I = the Interest (discount) rate In Section
f(5).
P = the construction period In years.
C = the total capital expenditures.
In cases when expenditures will not be
uniform, or when the construction period
will be greater than three years, Interest dur-
ing construction shall be calculated on a
year-by-year basis.
(7) Service life—The service life of treat-
ment works for a cost-effectiveness analysis
shall be as follows:
Land Permanent
Structures 30-50 years
(Includes plant buildings,
concrete process tankage,
basins, etc.; sewage collec-
tion and conveyance pipe-
lines; lift station struc-
tures; tunnels; outfalls)
Process equipment 15-30 years
(includes major process
equipment such as clartfler
mechanism, vacuum filters.
etc.; steel process tankage
and chemical storage facili-
ties; electrical generating
facilities on standby service
only).
Auxiliary equipment 10-15 years
(Includes instruments and
control facilities; sewage
pumps and electric motors;
mechanical equipment such
as compressors, aeration sys-
tems, centrifuges, chloii-
nators, etc.; electrical gen-
erating facilities on regular
service).
Other service life periods will be acceptable
when sufficient Justification can be provided.
Where a system or a component Is for
Inte-im service and the anticipated useful
life Is less than the service life, the useful
life shall be substituted for the service life of
the facility In the analysis.
(8) Salvage value.—Land for treatment
works, Including land used as part of the
treatment process or for ultimate disposal of
residues, shall be assumed to have a salvage
value at the end of the planning period equal
to Its prevailing market value at the time of
the analysis. Right-of-way easemente shall
be considered to have a salvage value not
greater than the prevailing market value at
the time of the analysis.
Structures will be assumed to have a
salvage value If there is a use for such struc-
tures at the end of the planning period. In
this case, salvage value shall be estimated
using stralghtllne depreciation during the
service life of the treatment works.
For phased additions of process equipment
and auxiliary equipment, salvage value at the
end of the planning period may be estimated
under the same conditions and on the same
basis as described above for structures.
When the anticipated useful life of a facil-
ity Is less than 20 years (for analysis of In-
terim facilities), salvage value can be claimed
for equipment where It can be clearly'dem-
onstrated that a specific market or reuse
opportunity will exist.
[FR Doc.73-19104 Filed 9-7-73:8:45 am]
-------
APPENDIX C—SECONDARY TREATMENT
INFORMATION (40 CFR 133)
-------
FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 • Number 159
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WATER PROGRAMS
Secondary Treatment
Information
Ho. 159—pt. n 1
63
-------
22298
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS
PART 133—SECONDARY TREATMENT
INFORMATION
On April 30,1973, notice was published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER that the En-
vironmental Protection Agency was pro-
posing information on secondary treat-
ment pursuant to section 304(d)(l) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
Reference should be made to the pre-
amble of the proposed rulemaking for a
description of the purposes and intended
use of the regulation.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were invited and received
from interested parties. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency has care-
fully considered all comments received.
All written comments are on file with the
Agency.
The regulation has been reorganized
and rewritten to improve clarity.
Major changes that were made as a re-
sult of comments received are sum-
marized below:
(a) The terms "1-week" and "1-
month" as used In § 133.102 (a) and
(b) of the proposed rulemaking have
been changed to 7 consecutive days and
30 consecutive days respectively (See
5 133.102 (a), (b),and(O).
(b) Some comments indicated that the
proposed rulemaking appeared to re-
quire 85 percent removal of biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids
only in cases when a treatment works
would treat a substantial portion of ex-
tremely high strength industrial waste
(See § 133.102(g) of the proposed rule-
making) . The intent was that in no case
should the percentage removal of bio-
chemical oxygen demand and suspended
solids in a 30 day period be less than 85
percent. This has been clarified in the
regulation. In addition, it has been ex-
pressed as percent remaining rather than
percent removal calculated using the
arithmetic means of the values for in-
fluent and effluent samples collected in
a 30 day period (See § 133.102(a) and
(b)).
(c) Comments were made as to the
difficulty of achieving 85 percent removal
of biochemical oxygen demand and sus-
pended solids during wet weather for
treatment works receiving flows from
combined sewer systems. Recognizing
this, a paragraph was added which
will allow waiver or adjustment of that
requirement on a case-by-case basis
(See §133.103(a)).
(d) The definition of a 24-hour com-
posite sample (See § 133.102(c) of the
proposed rulemaking) was deleted from
the regulation. The sampling require-
ments for publicly owned treatment
works will be established In guidelines
issued pursuant to sections 304 (g) and
402 of the Act.
(e) In i 133.103 of the proposed rule-
making, It was recognized that secondary
treatment processes are subject to upsets
over which little or no control may be
exercised. This provision has been de-
leted. It Is no longer considered necessary
In this regulation since procedures for
notice and review of upset Incidents will
be included in discharge permits issued
pursuant to section 402 of the Act.
(f) Paragraph (f) of § 133.102 of the
proposed rulemaktng, which relates to
treatment works which receive substan-
tial portions of high strength industrial
wastes, has been rewritten for clarity. In
addition, a provision has been added
which limits the use of the upwards ad-
justment provision to only those cases in
which the flow or loading from an indus-
try category exceeds 10 percent of the
design flow or loading of the treatment
works. This intended to reduce or elimi-
nate the administrative burden which
would be involved in making insignifi-
cant adjustments in the biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids
criteria (See § 133.103(b)).
The major comments for which
changes were not made are discussed
below:
(a) Comments were received which
recommended that the regulation be
written to allow effluent limitations to be
based on the treatment necessary to meet
water quality standards. No change has
been made in the regulations because the
Act and its legislative history clearly
show that the regulation Is to be based
on the capabilities of secondary treat-
ment technology and not ambient water
quality effects.
(b) A number of comments were re-
ceived which pointed out that waste sta-
bilization ponds alone are not generally
capable of achieving the proposed efflu-
ent quality in terms of suspended solids
and fecal coliform bacteria. A few com-
menters expressed the opposite view. The
Agency is of the opinion that with proper
design (including solids separation proc-
esses and disinfection in some cases) and
operation, the level of effluent quality
specified can be achieved with waste
stabilization ponds. A technical bulletin
will be published in the near future which
will provide guidance on the design and
operation of waste stabilization ponds.
(c) Disinfection must be employed In
order to achieve the fecal coliform bac-
teria levels specified. A few commenters
argued that disinfectant is not a second-
ary treatment process and therefore the
fecal coliform bacteria requirements
should be deleted. No changes were made
because disinfection Is considered by the
Agency' to be an important element of
secondary treatment which Is necessary
for protection of public health (See
§ 133.102(c)).
Effective date. These regulations shall
become effective on August 17,1973.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator
AUGUST 14,1973.
Chapter I of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Is amended by add-
ing a new Part 133 as follows:
Sec.
133.100 Purpose.
133.101 Authority.
133.102 Secondary treatment.
133.103 Special considerations.
133.104 Sampling and test procedures.
AUTHORITY: Sees. 304()(1), S01(b)(1)(B),
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments, 1D72. Pi. 92-600.
§ 133.100 Purpose.
This part provides information on the
level of effluent quality attainable
through the application of secondary
treatment.
§ 133.101 Authority.
The information contained in this
Part Is provided pursuant to sections
304(d) (1) and 301(b) (1) (B) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500 (the
Act).
§ 133.102 Secondary treatment.
The following paragraphs describe the
minimum level of effluent quality attain-
able by secondary treatment In terms of
the parameters biochemical oxygen de-
mand, suspended solids, fecal coliform
bacteria and pH. All requirements for
each parameter shall be achieved except
as provided for in § 133.103.
(a) Biochemical oxygen demand (five-
day). (1) The arithmetic mean of the
values for effluent samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 30 milligrams per liter.
(2) The arithmetic mean of the val-
ues for effluent samples collected in a
period of seven consecutive days shall
not exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the val-
ues for effluent samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean
of the values for influent samples col-
lected at approximately the same times
during the same period (85 percent re-
moval).
(b) Suspended solids. "(1) The arith-
metic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected In a period of 30 con-
secutive days shall not exceed 30 milli-
grams per liter.
(2) The arithmetic mean of the val-
ues for effluent samples collected in a
period of seven consecutive days shall
not exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the val-
ues for effluent samples collected in a
period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean
of the values for Influent samples col-
lected at approximately the same times
during the same period (85 percent re-
moval) .
(c) Fecal coliform bacteria. (1) The
geometric mean of the value for effluent
samples collected In a period of 30 con-
secutive days shall not exceed 200 per
100 mllllllters.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 159—FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1973
-------
(2) The geometric mean of the values
for effluent samples collected in a period
of seven consecutive days shall not ex-
ceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
(d) pH. The effluent values for pH shall
remain within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0.
§ 133.103 Special considerations/
(a) Combined sewers. Secondary
treatment may not be capable of meet-
ing the percentage removal requirements
of paragraphs (a) (3) and (b) (3) of
§ 133.102 during wet weather in treat-
ment works which receive flows from
combined sewers (sewers which are de-
signed to transport both storm water
and sanitary sewage). For such treat-
ment works, the decision must be made
on a case-by-case basis as to whether
any attainable percentage removal level
can be defined, and if so, what that level
should be.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) Industrial wastes. For certain in-
dustrial categories, the discharge to nav-
igable waters of biochemical oxygen de-
mand and suspended solids permitted
under sections 301(b) (1) (A) (i) or 306 of
the Act may be less stringent than the
values given in paragraphs (a) (1). and
(b) (1) of § 133.102. In cases when wastes
would be introduced from such an indus-
trial category into a publicly owned
treatment works, the values for biochemi-
cal oxygen demand and suspended solids
in paragraphs (a)(l) and (b)(l) of
§ 133.102 may be adjusted upwards pro-
vided that: (1) the permitted discharge
of such pollutants, attributable to the
industrial category, would not be greater
than that which would be permitted
under sections 301(b) (1) (a) (i) or 306
of the Act it such industrial category
were to discharge directly into the navi-
gable waters, and (2) the flow or loading
22299
of such pollutants introduced by the in-
dustrial category exceeds 10 percent of
the design flow or loading of the publicly
owned treatment works. When such an
adjustment is made, the values for bio-
chemical oxygen demand or suspended
solids in paragraphs (a) (2) and (b) (2)
of § 133.102 should be adjusted propor-
tionally.
§ 133.104 Sampling and tost procedures.
(a) Sampling and test procedures for
pollutants listed in § 133.102 shall be in
accordance with guidelines promulgated
by the Administrator pursuant to sec-
tions 304(g) and 402 of the Act!
(b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
or total organic carbon (TOO may be
substituted for biochemical oxygen de-
mand (BOD) when a long-term BOD:
COD or BOD:TOC correlation has been
demonstrated.
[PR Doc.73-17194 Piled 8-16-73)8:48 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOt. 38, NO. 159—FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1973
-------
APPENDIX D
GROUND WATER REQUIREMENTS
Water Treatment Requirements*
1. General Requirements
The water quality requirements of the EPA Drinking Water Standards are minimum
requirements, and good quality water should have physical and chemical characteris-
tics considerably better than the limiting values established in the EPA Drinking Water
Standards (Sections 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2). For example, water with turbidity of 5
units and a color of 15 units may be acceptable, but in a coagulated, filtered water such
values could indicate serious malfunctioning of the purification process. (The EPA
Drinking Water Standards are being revised currently, and will contain a recommenda-
tion that the turbidity standard be reduced to 1 turbidity unit. This and other revisions of
the Drinking Water Standards, proposed at the time of this printing, are shown on the
following pages.) Similarly, increased concentrations of copper and iron could indicate
a corrosiveness that would be objectionable to consumers, even though the concen-
trations of the metals did not exceed recommended limits. In well water an increase in
chlorides over the normal amount found in ground waters in the area may be the first
indication of pollution.
The type of treatment required depends on the characteristics of the watershed, the
raw water quality, and the desired finished water quality. If pollution of the source water
is increasing, plant facilities, which were adequate for treatment of a nonpolluted
water, may become inadequate. The production of water that is free from pathogenic
organisms, aesthetically satisfactory to the senses, and reasonably acceptable chemi-
cally becomes increasingly difficult when the raw water has a high and varying
chlorine demand, contains large numbers of coliform bacteria, or contains high con-
centrations of dissolved solids, toxic substances, or taste and odor producing substan-
ces.
When evaluating the ability of a water supply system to constantly produce a safe
and satisfactory water, these factors should be considered:
(a) the quality of water produced at times of unusual stress, such as during heavy
run-offs, periods of drought, or periods of excessive demand as shown in the records;
(b) the quality of the raw and finished waters, as determined by laboratory data and
sanitary surveys, and any trends in improvement or deterioration;
(c) the purification processes, including the facilities used to apply disinfectants at
various locations in the treatment process, and their capacities compared with the
capacities considered necessary to meet maximum anticipated requirements;
(d) the treatment processes used and their reliability in changing raw water charac-
teristics to produce a finished water that continuously meets the PHS Drinking Water
Standards;
(e) the minimum residual chlorine concentration in the plant effluent water, when
chlorine is used, together with the time that this or greater chlorine levels were main-
tained;
(f) the qualifications of the operators and laboratory personnel, as indicated by ap-
propriate training, or certification, or both; and
*"Manual For Evaluating Public Drinking Water Supplies" U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, I97I, pp. 4-I2; updated with Proposed Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, June I975.
66
-------
(g) the laboratory facilities and analytical procedures, frequency and extent of their
use, and application of the data to operational control.
2. Extent of Treatment
The Public Health Service recommends that all municipal water supplies, whether
they be ground water or surface water, receive treatment by disinfection regardless of
the quality of the water. The benefits from the added protection provided by disinfec-
tion far outweigh the increased cost and the added maintenance incurred by the water
utility. When coliform density is used as one criterion for judging treatment require-
ments, raw waters can be divided into three groups: clean, clear, and polluted waters.
The coliform densities of the raw waters can be expressed in terms of the most proba-
ble number (MPN) from the multiple-tube fermentation technique, or actual coliform
counts determined by the membrane filter (MF) technique.
The requirements are given for three groups of water: those usable without treat-
ment, those needing disinfection only, and those needing complete treatment. The
quality requirements listed below are the proposed EPA primary drinking
water standards* , that are proposed as revisions to the current PHS Drinking Water
Standards. They differ from the current PHS Standards in that some standards have
been added, some have been deleted, and others modified.**
Group I. Requirements for Water Usable Without Treatment
A. Bacteriological Quality: The coliform standard remains the same as the PHS
Drinking Water Standards, 1962, plus the inclusion of a standard plate count
limit of 500 organisms per ml.
B.Physical Quality: should meet the following standards.
Turbidity 1 turbiditv unit
(up to 5 TU may be allowed in some cases)
*Proposed Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation , March 14, I975
**The EPA is also considering secondary drinking
water regulations pertaining to color, taste and
odor, chloride, copper, foaming agents, iron,
manganese, sulfate and zinc. Ground water
requirements for land application systems should
consider these parameters in terms of aesthetic
acceptability of existing and potential drinking
water supplies and the cost-effectiveness of control
by standard water treatment practice.
67
-------
C. Chemical Quality: chemical concentrations should not exceed the following:
Maximum Allowable
Limits
concentration
Substance mg/liter
Arsenic (As) 0.05
Barium (Ba) I
Cadmium (Cd) 0.010
Chromium (Cr) 0.05
Cyanide (CN) 0.2
Flouride (F) a
upto53.7°F 2.4
53.8-58.3 2.2
58.4-63.8 2.0
63.9-70.6 1.8
70.7-79.2 1.6
79.3-90.5 1.4
Lead (Pb) 0.05
Mercury (Hg) 0.002
Nitrate Nitrogen 10
Organics-Carbon Absorbable
CCE 0.7
Selenium (Se) 0.01
Silver (Ag) 0.05
Annual average of maximum daily air temperature.
Substances not included in the above table that may have deleterious physiological
effect or that may be excessively corrosive to the water supply system should not be
permitted in the raw water supply.
D. Radioactivity: should comply with the following limits:
RADIUM 226, RADIUM 228, and GROSS ALPHA PARTICLE RADIOACTIVITY
Combined Radium 226 and Radium 228 - 5pCi/l
Gross Alpha Particle Activity - ISpCi/l
BETA PARTICLE and PHOTON RADIOACTIVITY from MAN-MADE RADIONUCLIDES
The average annual concentration of beta particle and photon radioactivity
from man-made radionuclides shall not produce an annual dose equivalent
to the total body or any internal organ greater than 4 millirem, assuming a
2 liter per day drinking water intake.
68
-------
E. Pesticides: should not exceed the following limits:
Maximum permissible
Pesticide concentration, mg/l
Chlordane 0.003
Endrin 0.0002
Heptachlor 0.0001
Heptachlor epoxide 0.0001
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor O.I
Toxaphene 0.005
2, 4-D O.I
2, 4, 5-TP 0.01
Group II. Requirements for Water Needing Disinfection Only
A. Physical, Chemical, Radioactivity, and Pesticide Requirements: the re-
quirements as shown for untreated raw ground water (Groups I.B, I.C, I.D,
and I.E) should be met. If the water does not consistently meet all these re-
quirements, consideration should be given to providing additional treatment
during periodic decreases in quality that result from high turbidity, tastes,
etc.
B. Bacteriological Quality:
1. Fecal Coliform Density: If fecal coliform density is measured, the total coli-
form density discussed below may be exceeded, but fecal coliform density
should not, in any case, exceed 20 per 100 milliliters as measured by a
monthly arithmetic mean. When the fecal coilform vs. total coliform criterion
is used for Group II water, the fecal coliform count should never exceed the
20 per 100 milliliters monthly arithmetic mean. This fecal coliform standard
only applies when it is being measured on a regular basis.
2. Total Coliform Density: Less than 100 per 100 mililiters as measured by a
monthly arithmetic mean.
Group III. Requirements for Water Needing Treatment by Complete Conventional
Means Including Coagulation, Sedimentation, Rapid Granular Filtration, and Disinfec-
tion (Pre and Post)
C. Bacteriological Quality:
1. Fecal Coliform Density: If fecal coliform density is measured, the total coli-
form density discussed below may be exceeded, but fecal coliform should
not exceed 2,000 per 100 milliliters as measured by a monthly geometric
mean.
69
-------
2. Total Coliform Density: Less than 20,000 per 100 milliliters as measured by a
monthly geometric mean.
The same rationale applies here as in the Group II waters concerning the
use of the fecal coliform vs. total coliform criterion. In no case should the
fecal coliform count exceed the 2,000 per 100 milliliters monthly geometric
mean.
The arithmetic mean is used with the Group II waters because the bac-
teriological data from these waters will be of lesser magnitude than that from
the Gr-oup III waters; this difference in magnitude between the monthly
means of the Group II and Group III waters is best reflected by the arithmetic
and geometric means, respectively.
These bacteriological limits may possibly be exceeded if treatment (in addi-
tion to coagulation, sedimentation, rapid granular filtration, and disinfection)
is provided and is shown to be doing a satisfactory job of providing health
protection.
B. Physical Quality: Elements of color, odor, and turbidity contribute signifi-
cantly to the treatability and potability of the water.
1. Color: A limit of 75 color units should not be exceeded. This limit applies
only to nonindustrial sources; industrial .concentrations of color should be
handled on a case-by-case basis and should not exceed levels that are
treatable by complete conventional means.
2. Odor: A limit of 5 threshold numbers should not be exceeded.
3. Turbidity: The limits for turbidity are variable. Factors of nature, size, and
electrical charge for the different particles causing turbidity require a varia-
ble limit. Turbidity should remain within a range that is readily treatable by
complete conventional means. It should not overload the water treatment
works, and it should not change rapidly either in nature or in concentration
when such rapid shifts would upset normal treatment operations.
C. Chemical Quality: Since there is little reduction in chemical constituents with
complete conventional treatment, raw water should meet the limits given
for Group I.C.
D. Radioactivity: Should comply with Certification Limits given in Group I.D.
E. Pesticides: Should comply with requirements for pesticides as shown for un-
treated raw ground water in Group I.E.
Infectious material, the increasing diversity of chemical pollutants found in Group III
raw waters, and the many different situations encountered in regional and local prob-
lems make it impractical to prescribe a limited selection of facilities and processes that
can effectively handle all problems presented by raw water and its sources. Future im-
provements in treatment technology cannot be reasonably assisted or regulated by re-
quiring the fixed process steps considered good for today's technology. Table 1 de-
scribes some factors that increase the difficulty in securing disinfection, e.g., adequate
disinfection with halogens depends on temperature, pH, contact time, and concentra-
tion of disinfectant.
Types of disinfection other than chlorination must be demonstrated to function effec-
tively in all compositions of water likely to be encountered from the source used. If a
distribution system is of any considerably length, the disinfection method should pro-
vide a residual protection that can be easily measured.
70
-------
Table 1. CONDITIONS CREATING DIFFICULTIES AT THE WATER PLANT AND
IN THE WATER MAINS
Bacterial and biological
conditions
Increasing numbers of
coliforms
Biological pollution, i.e.. algal
or fungal metabolic products
that effect chlorine demand
Filter clogging organisms that
effect chlorine demand
Chemical conditions
Ammonia nitrogen
Toxic materials or taste and
odor requiring removal
Color or organic dispersing
agents (anticoagulants), ligni
compounds
Chlorine demand
Iron and manganese
High organic content
High or organic content
High or fluctuating pH
Physical and operational
conditions
Low temperature
Extended distribution sys-
tems
Highly variable water
quality
Rapid variation in flow and
turbidity of surface water
resource
Tidal effects
Where water sources show continuing quality deterioration or the quality of water
available is not adequate for future demand, the water purveyor should be examining
alternate or auxiliary sources of supply and should have positive plans to procure
adequate facilities and sources.
71
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1975—All-3I6/100tEG1ON NO. I
------- |