REVISION OF AGENCY GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF LAND
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EMPLOYING SURFACE APPLICATION
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM 79-3
Prepared for
Environmental Research Information Center
Seminar on
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
June 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
J4"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
«OV 1 5 1973
0 CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM 79-3
SUBJECT: Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of Land
Treatmeijt Alternatives Employing Surface Application
O ff\r> \J^~*\
FROM: ThomasjG.^JomTng, Assistant Administrator
Water and Wa;s]te Management (WH-556)
11 I
TO: Regional Administrators (Regions I thru X)
I. PURPOSE
This memorandum consolidates and updates Agency policy and guidance
for evaluation of land treatment alternatives using slow rate, rapid
infiltration, or overland flow processes in the Construction Grants
Program. It provides guidance on the extent and nature of material to
be included in facility plans to ensure that these land treatment alter-
natives have been given thorough evaluation.
II. DISCUSSION
Evaluation of land treatment in facilities planning has been
mandatory under PL 92-500 (the Act) since July 1, 1974. The EPA con-
struction grants regulations as published in the Federal Register
vol. 39, no. 29, February 11, 1974, provided for coverage of land
application techniques in facility planning [35.917-1(d)(5)(iii)].
Three land application (land treatment) techniques were included in the
description of alternative techniques for best practicable treatment
published in October 1975. Many other technical information bulletins,
PGM's, and PRM's have been issued as guidance for the evaluation of land
treatment alternatives in the Construction Grants Program.
This approach was used to provide the latest information available
to the Regional Offices with a minimum of delay. While the objective of
timely distribution of technical information and guidance has been
achieved, this piecemeal distribution has also resulted in some disparities
in the interpretation and implementation of policy.
-------
Distribution of the Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater (EPA 625/1-77-008) consolidates most of the technical
information on surface application approaches into a single reference
source. This consolidation of technical information provides a sound
basis from which to establish more consistent and effective implementation
of Agency policy on land treatment alternatives using the slow rate,
rapid infiltration, or overland flow processes.
In the process of coordinating with the Regions on specific projects
involving land treatment, OWPO staff has had the opportunity to review a
number of selected facility plans with respect to their handling of land
treatment alternatives. In addition to providing information pertinent
to the specific projects being evaluated, this review has been used to
determine what, if any, changes in guidance are needed to achieve more
consistent and complete evaluation of land treatment alternatives.
Areas being considered include technical assistance and staff training
as well as revision of guidance documents.
The results of this review to date show that land treatment technologies
have had and continue to have inadequate assessment in many instances.
In addition and for substantially more cases, detailed coverage of land
treatment has missed the mark for a variety of reasons. Three of the
frequently encountered reasons are: (l)!overly conservative and,
consequently, costly design of slow rate (irrigation) systems, (2)
failure to consider rapid infiltration as a proven and implementable
land treatment alternative, and (3) provision for a substantially higher
and more costly level of preapplication treatment than is needed to
protect public health and ensure design performance.
Such inadequate assessment of land treatment alternatives has led
to rejection of land treatment in cases where it appears that a thorough
assessment would identify less costly alternatives utilizing the recycling
and reclamation advantages of land treatment. Consistent with the
revised construction grants regulations resulting from enactment of
PL 95-217, award of Step 1 grants and subsequent approval of facility
plans must ensure that the selected alternative is cost-effective and
emphasizes energy conservation and recycling of resources. This is
important both to meet the statutory requirements of the law and to
provide the maximum pollution control benefits attainable with the funds
allocated to the Construction Grants Program.
The Administrator's memorandum of October 3, 1977, emphasizes that
the Agency grants program will include thorough consideration of land
treatment as compared to conventional treatment and discharge to surface waters.
This program requirements memorandum is designed to consolidate the
existing base of guidance into a uniform but still flexible set of
guidelines for slow rate, rapid infiltration, and overland flow systems.
This should improve our capability to effectively and consistently
implement the Agency policy on recycling and reclamation through land
treatment alternatives.
-------
III. POLICY
The Administrator's memorandum of October 3, 1977 (Attachment A)
spells out three major points of policy emphasis on land treatment of
municipal wastewater as follows:
1. The Agency will press vigorously for implementation of land
treatment alternatives to reclaim and recycle municipal
wastewaters.
2. Rejection of land treatment alternatives shall be supported by
a complete justification (reason for rejection shall be well
documented in the facilities planH-
3. If the Agency deems the level of preapplication treatment to
be unnecessarily stringent, the costs of achieving the excessive
level of preapplication treatment will not be considered as
eligible for EPA cost sharing when determining the total cost
of a project.
These points highlight the Agency's role in implementing the legislative
mandates of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217. PL 92-500 required EPA to encourage
waste treatment management that recycles nutrients through production of
agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products. PL 95-217 re-
emphasizes the intent to encourage innovative/alternative systems including
land treatment with many tangible incentives including (1) the "115%"
cost preference, (2) 85% Federal grants.with the specific set asides,
(3) the eligibility of land for storage, and (4) 100% grants for modification
or replacement if project fails to meet design criteria. It is imperative
that the Agency moves positively and uniformly to implement land treatment
which is clearly identified as an innovative/alternative technology
which recycles nutrients and conserves energy in conjunction with wastewater
management.
IV. IMPLEMENTATION
The guidance detailed in this PRM will apply to all facility
planning grants (Step 1) awarded 30 days after the date of this PRM. In
addition it should be applied on a case-by-case basis to those unapproved
facility plans for which it appears that further assessment of land
treatment alternatives could result in: (1) the timely and effective
implementation of a reclamation and recycling alternative; and (2)
benefits to the applicant while making better use of EPA construction
grant funds.
A. Action Required
Facility plans in which land treatment alternatives are eliminated
with only cursory coverage will be rejected as not fulfilling Agency
requirements. A facility plan should not be approved until the coverage
of these land treatment alternatives satisfies the guidance detailed
-------
below. As a minimum, the coverage of these land treatment processes
will include assessment of at least one slow rate (irrigation) alternative
and one rapid infiltration alternative. Coverage of an overland flow
alternative will be optional (case-by-case) until additional information
which is presently being developed furnishes design information for
routine construction grant implementation. The technical design basis
of these land treatment alternatives will be in accordance with the "EPA
Design Manual on Land Treatment" (EPA 625/1-77-008), and "Costs of
Wastewater Treatment by Land Application" (EPA 430/9-75-003). To be
adequate, coverage of these land treatment alternatives shall include
enough detail to support development of costs, except in those cases
where thorough screening for available sites shows no suitable sites
within economic transport distances. Designs for slow rate systems and
rapid infiltration systems will include preapplication treatment which
is in accord with the discussion of preapplication in the Design Manual
(pages 5-26 thru 5-30) and summarized in Attachment B.
A universal requirement to reduce biochemical oxygen demand and
suspended solids to 30 mg/1 and to disinfect to an average fecal coliform
count of 200/100 ml will be considered as excessively stringent preappli-
cation treatment if specified for all land treatment alternatives.
States shall be requested to reconsider use of such universal and
stringent preapplication treatment requirements when it is established
that a lesser level of preapplication treatment will protect the public
health, protect the quality of surface waters and groundwater, and will
ensure achievement of design performance for the wastewater management
system.
States should be encouraged to adopt standards which avoid the use
of uniform treatment requirements for land treatment systems, including
a minimum of secondary treatment prior to application to the land. The
EPA guidance on land treatment systems specifies ranges of values and
flexible criteria ,for evaluating factors such as preapplication treatment,
wastewater application rates and buffer zones. For example, simple
screening or comminution may be appropriate for overland flow systems in
isolated areas with no public access, while extensive biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids control with disinfection may be called for
in the case of slow rate systems in public access areas such as parks or
golf courses.
B. Specific Guidance
The scope of work for preparation of a facility plan will provide
for thorough evaluation of land treatment alternatives. This evaluation
of land treatment alternatives may be accomplished in a two-phase approach.
Such a two-phase approach would provide flexibility for establishing
general site suitability and cost competitiveness before requiring
extensive on-site investigations. The first phase of the two-phase
approach would include adequate detail to establish whether or not sites
are available, wastewater quality is suitable, and land treatment is
-------
cost competitive. The second phase would include in-depth investigation
of sites and the refinement of system design factors to complete all of
the requirements for preparing a facility plan. Approval of a facility
plan will ensure that the following details for evaluation of land
treatment are clearly delineated in the plan.
1. Site Selection. A regional map shall be included to show the
tracts of land evaluated as probable land treatment sites. The
narrative discussion of site evaluation should detail the reasons
for rejection of tracts as well as the availability of tracts used
in the preliminary design for. land treatment alternatives.
Table 2-2 of the Design Manual (Attachment C) delineates general
site characteristics for land treatment alternatives which the
narrative should cover, in detail.
Categorical elimination of land treatment for lack of a
suitable site (during pha£e one of a two-phase evaluation) should
be documented with support materials showing how the applicant made
the determination. For example, elimination for lack of suitable
soils should be documented with soils information from the area
Soil Conservation Service representatives or other soil scientists
who may be available. Any categorical elimination of land treatment
should demonstrate that additional engineering necessary to overcome
site constraints would make the .alternative too costly to fund in
accordance with the cost-effectiveness requirements of the law.
2. Loading Rates and Land Area. The values for these parameters
evaluated in the facility plan should concur with the technically
established ranges for application rates and land area needed for
a system. The cost of land treatment is sensitive to these factors
and overly conservative design unduly inflates the cost of technically
sound alternatives. Designs in a facility plan should fall within
the general ranges given in Table 2-1 and Figure 3-3 of the Design
Manual. Designs falling outside of these ranges should do so only
because of extenuating circumstances peculiar to the site. These
extenuating circumstances should be discussed in detail. Table 2-1
(Attachment B) is recommended as a quick reference for determining
that designs are reasonable.
3. Estimated Costs. The estimated costs of land treatment
alternatives should be comparable to those obtained by using
EPA 430/9-75-003 pages 59-127, updated using local construction
cost indices. Cost estimates generated by using this source are
being compared to actual costs for recently constructed facilities.
If this comparison shows that the curves in EPA 430/9-75-003 need
adjustment, corrected curves will be made available as necessary.
Elimination of land treatment in the cost-effective analysis
because of land costs or transport costs should be documented by
means of an actual evaluation for the cost of land or cost of
-------
transport. This evaluation should show clearly that the cost of
land or the cost of transport does rule out land treatment using
the approach shown in "Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment" (EPA 430/9-75-016). Examples
on pages 23-24 (Attachment D) of that source show how to make these
comparisons. . .
4. Preapplication Treatment. The level of preapplication treatment
prior to storage or actual application to the land should be in
accordance with the guidance given for screening wastewaters to be
applied to the land in the Design Manual. A universal minimum of
secondary treatment for direct surface discharge as published in
the August 17, 1973 Federal Register and later modified (Federal
Register July 26, 1976 and October 7, 1977) will not be accepted
because it is inconsistent with the basic concepts of land treatment.
Imposition of a defined discharge criteria at an intermediate point
in a treatment train is, in most instances, an unnecessarily
stringent preapplication treatment requirement as stated in .the
Administrator's memorandum dated October 3, 1977. Criteria imposed
at an intermediate point should be for the purpose of ensuring
overall system performance in the same context that primary sedi-
mentation precedes biological secondary treatment by trickling
filter or activated sludge processes.
Assessment of the level of preapplication treatment proposed
should be in accord with the discussion in Section 5.2 (pages 5-26
to 5-30) of the Design Manual. Guidelines for evaluating the level
of preapplication for slow-rate, rapid infiltration, and overland
flow systems in relation to existing state regulations, criteria
and guidelines are included in Attachment E. Preapplication
treatment criteria more restrictive than the ranges of treatment
levels described in Appendix E will be considered unnecessarily
stringent unless justified on a case-byrcase basis. When the more
stringent preapplication treatment criteria cannot'be justified,
the EPA will consider that portion of the project to meet EPA
guidance as eligible for Agency funding. The costs -of the additional
preapplication increment needed to meet more stringent preapplication
treatment requirements imposed at the state or local level would be
ineligible for Agency funding and thus would be paid for from state
or local funds.
5. Environmental Effects. Assessing the environmental effects of
land treatment alternatives involves a somewhat different concept
than for conventional treatment and discharge to surface waters.
The assessment for land treatment should include emphasis on the
quality and quantity of both surface and groundwater resources; on
energy conservation as well as energy demands; on pollutant (resource)
recycling as well as chemical needs, and on land use in the overall
coverage of environmental effects.
-------
The assessment should determine that the proposed land treatment
system is in accord with Agency policy on groundwater protection.
The Agency policy for groundwater resulting from land treatment
systems is set forth in the criteria for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment. Technology (BPWTT). These criteria specify that the
groundwater resulting from a land treatment system must meet different
requirements depending on current use and quality of the existing
groundwater. The basic thrust of these criteria is to protect
groundwater for drinking water purposes by specifying adherence to
the appropriate National Primary Drinking Water Standards. The
BPWTT criteria further require land treament systems which are
underdrained or otherwise designed to have a surface discharge to
meet the standards applicable to any treatment and discharge
alternative. The criteria are fully described in 41 FR 6190
(February 11, 1976) which is attached as Appendix F.
An overall Agency policy statement on groundwater protection
is scheduled for issuance in the near future. The draft Agency
groundwater policy is generally consistent with present criteria
for land treatment systems. However, any revisions to the present
guidance on site evaluation and system monitoring as a result'of
this statement will have to be accounted for as they are developed.
In the meantime, existing guidance should be used to evaluate
groundwater influences.
Attachments
-------
V. REFERENCES
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
EPA 625/1-77-008 October, 1977.
October 3, 1977 memorandum from Administrator:"EPA Policy on
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater".
"Cost of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application" Technical Report
EPA-430/9-75-003 June, 1975.
"Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment" Technical Report EPA-430/9-75-016,
November, 1975.
Secondary Treatment Information Federal Register 38(129),
August 17,, 1973, pgs 22298-22299.
Secondary Treatment Information Federal Register 41(1440,
July 26, 1976, pp. 30786-30789.
Suspended Solids Limitations Federal Register 42(195),
October 7, 1977, pp. 54664-54666.
Water Quality Criteria 1972 EPA-R3-73-033, March 1973, pp. 323-366.
Quality Criteria for Water, USEPA, July, 1976.
Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable
Waste Treatment EPA 430/9-75-013, October, 1975.
Final Construction Grants Regulations Federal Register 39, No. 29
February 11, 1974.
-------
VI. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment -C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Administrator's Oct. 3, 1977 memo "EPA Policy on
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater"
Table 2-1 from Design Manual
Table 2-2 from Design Manual
Pages 23-24 from EPA 430/9-75-016
Guidance for assessing level of preapplication
Alternative Waste Management Techniques (BPWTT)
-------
ATTACHMENT A
UNI 1 ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 40->'iO
OCT 3 1977
THE ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: EPA Policy on LandX/eat/ient of
Wastewater
FROM: The Administrator
TO:. Assistant Administ'ratorfe and
Regional Administrators (Regions l-X)
President Carter's recent Environmental Message to the Congress
emphasized the design and construction of cost-effective publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities that encourage water conservation as
well as adequately treat wastewater. This serves to strengthen the
encouragement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500} to consider wastewater reclamation and recycling by-
land treatment processes.
At the time P.L. 92-500 was enacted, it was the intent of Congress
to encourage to the extent possible the development of wastewater manage-
ment policies that are consistent with the fundamental ecological principle
that all materials should be returned to"the cycles from which they were
generated. Particular attention should be given to wastewater treatment
processes which renovate and reuse wastewater as well as recycle the
organic matter'and nutrients in a beneficial manner. Therefore", the
Agency will press vigorously for publicly owned treatment works to
utilize land treatment processes to reclaim and recycle municipal"wastewater.
RATIONALE
Land treatment systems involve the use of plants and the soil to
remove previously unwanted contaminants from wastewaters. Land treatment
is capable of achieving removal levels comparable to the best available
advanced wastewater treatment technologies while achieving additional
benefits. The recovery and beneficial reuse of wastewater and its
nutrient resources through crop production, as well as wastewater
treatment and reclamation, allow land treatment systems, to accomplish
far more than most conventional treatment and discharge alternatives.
-------
z
The application of wastewater .on land is a practice that has been
used for many decades; however, recycling and reclaiming wastewater that.
may involve the planned recovery of nutrient resources as part of a
designed wastewater treatment facility is a relatively new technique.
One of the first such projects was the large scale Muskegon, Michigan,
land treatnent demonstration project funded under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1966 (P.L. 84-560), which began
operations in May 1974. .
Reliable wastewater treatment processes that utilize land treatment
concepts to recycle resources through agriculture, silviculture and
'aquaculture practices are available. The technology for planning,
designing, constructing and operating land treatment facilities is
adequate to meet both 1983 and 1985 requirements and goals of P.L. 92-
500.
Land treatment is also presently in extensive use for treatment of
•nany industrial wastewatsrs, particularly those with easily degraded
nrganics such as food processing. Adoption of suitable in-plant pretreatnent
for the renoval of excessive metals and toxic substances would expand
f.he potential for land treatment of industrial wastewater and further
enhance the potential for utilization of municipal wastewater and sludges
for agricultural purposes.
APPROACH
Because land treatment processes contribute to the reclamation and
recycling requirements of P.L. 92-500, they should be preferentially
considered as an alternative wastewater management technology. Such
consideration is particularly critical for smaller communities. While
it is recognized that acceptance, is not universal, the utilization ofj
land treatment systems has the potential'for saving billions of dollars.
This will benefit not only the nationwide water pollution control program,
but will also provide an additional mechanism for the recovery and ,
recycling of wastewater as a resource.
EPA currently requires each applicant for construction grant funds
to make a conscientious analysis of wastewater management alternatives
with the burden upon the applicant to examine all available alternative
technologies. Therefore, if a method that encourages water conservation,
wastewater reclamation and reuse is not recommended, the applicant should
be required to provide complete justification for the rejection of
land treatment.
Imposition of stringent wastewater treatment requirements prior to
land application nas quite often nullified the cost-effectiveness of
land treatment processes in the past. We must ensure that appropriate
Federal, State and local requirements and regulations are imposed at the
-------
.1
proper point in the treatment cyst-em 'irpj are not 'iseci in a manner that
may arbitrarily block land tr^a tment; projects. Wh^ncv-jr States insist
upor placing unnecessarily stringent preapplicatTon treatment require-
ments upon land treatment, S'uch as requiring EPA secondary effluent
quality in all cases prTpr to application on the land, tne unnecessary
•wastewatsr treatment facilities will not be funded by £?A. This should
encourage the States to re-examine -and revise their criteria, and so
reduce the cost burden, especially to small communities, for construction
and operation of unnecessary or too costly facilities. The reduction of
potentially toxic metals and organics in industrial discharges to municipal
systems often is critical to the success of land treatment. The development
and enforcement at the local level of pretreatment standards that are
consistent with nati'onal pretreatment standards should be required as an
iategral part of any consideration or final selection of land treatment
alternatives, in addition, land treatment alternatives iiust be fully
coordinated with on-going areawide planning under section'203 of tne
Act. Section 208 agencies should be involved in the review and development
of land treatment options.
Research will be continued to further improve criteria for preappli-
cation treatment and other aspects of land treatment processes. This
will add to our knowledge and reduce uncertainties.about health and
environmental factors. I am confident, however, that land treatment of
municipal wastewaters can be accomplished without adverse effects on
human health if proper consideration is given to design and management
of the system.
INTER-OFFICE COORDINATION
The implementation of more recent mandates from the Safe Drinking
Water'Act (P.I. 93-532), the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469),
and She Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580)
must1be closely coordinated with the earlier mandate to recycle wastes
and Cully evaluate land treatment in P.L. 92-5GO. Agencywide coordination
is especially important to the proper management of section 201 of P.L.
92-500, because the construction and operation of thousands of POTW's
involve such a broad spectrum of environmental issues. A; concerted
ef-fort must be made to avoid unilateral actions, or even the appearance
of unilateral actions, which satisfy a particular mandate'of one Act
while inadvertently conflicting with a major Agency policy based upon
another Act. The intention of P.L. 92-500, as it concerns land treatment,
is compatible with the pertinent aspects of more recent environmental
legislation.
' . !
ACTION REQUIRED
Each of you must exert maximum effort to ensure that the actions of
your staffs reflect clearly visible encouragement of wastewater reclamation
and recycling of pollutants through land treatment processes in order to
move toward the national goals of conserving water and eliminating the
discharge of pollutants in navigable waters by. 1985.
-------
This policy will apply 1o all future municipal construction grant
activities, as well as all current grant applications in the Step 1
category that have not been *poroved as of this date. Detailed information
and guidance for implementation of this policy is under preparation and will
be issued in the near future.
-------
TAHLE 2-1
COMPARISON OF DESKifl FEATURES FOR LAW) TREATMENT PROCESSES
Feature
Application techniques
Annual application
rale, ft
field area required.
acreso
Typical uc.-L-l.ly appli-
cation rati.-. in.
Minimum preappl i cat Ion
trea Imenl provided
Slon rate
Sprinkler or
surface4
2 tu 20
i>6 (o 5C.O
0.5 tu 4
Primary
sedimentation1-'
Principal processes
Rapid Inflliratlun
Usiully surface
20 to 560
2 to 56
4 tu 120
Primary
sedimentation
Other processes
Ovcildilil (low
Sprinkler or
surface
10 to 70
16 to 110
2.S to 6C
6 to IbJ
Sci'L'L-nimj and
ijri t removal
Hollands
Sprinkler or
sin face
4 lu 1UO
II (u 2110
1 to 25
Primary
sedimentation
Subsurface
Subsurface
B tu 07
13 to 140
. 2 to 20
pluin.j
Primary
si:din.entallon
In Uni led Stales
of
Evapolranoulr.vllon Mainly
and jiercolat lun [lercolallon
Sin face iiuiotf and Evj|iotr>iiiS|ilrattoii. Percolation
ev.i|Hiti diiipI ration |>ei eolation. hitli some
witli iuiii..- Jnj runoff evd|>olran:>piratlon
perculalion
for veijetatlon
Re>|ulreil
Optional
llei|u"l red
Optional
a. Includes ridtjc-anU-furrctj ami Lnrdur strip.
b. field area In acres not Includin'j luiffer area, roads, or dltrhes for I Mjal/d (-n.il l/s) flow.
C. Itanije lor application uf SCH.-eiied tf.iS tev/.ller.
d. flJii'ji: for appl lc.it lun of laijuon and secondary efllucnt.
e. Depends on Hie use Of the- el I luenl and Hie type uf CiOu.
I In. = 2.54 cm
I fl ' 0. JOS m
I aCi•<• - 0.40'j ha
3>
—I
-4
O
re
-------
.TABLE 2-2
COMPARISON Ol: SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES.
Principal processes
Other processes
Characteristics
Slow rate
Kapid infiltration
Overland flow Wetlands
Subsurface
Slope
Less tlun 20t on culti
vated land;. less than
401 on nuiicullivated
land
(lot critical; excessive Finish slopes Usually less Hot critical
slopes require much 2 to til than St
earthwork
Soil permeability Moderately slow to
moderately rapid
1 ft « 0.305 m
Rapid (sands,
Sands)
Slow (clays. Slow to
silts, and moderate
soils willi
impei ii.caljle
Slow to rapid
Depth to
(jr uund.oier
Cliuuiic
restrictions
2 to 3 ft (minimum)
Storage often nee
for cold weather
precipitation
ded
and
10 ft (lesser depths
ure acceptable ultere
underdrainaije is
provided)
None (possibly modify
operation in Cold
t.eather)
Not critical
Sloraije often
needed lor
cold weather
Not critical
Storatje may
be needed
for cold
weather
Not critical
None
o
-------
ATTACHMENT I)
Example No. 2 '. ••" •;; ; .'. .,/..''f .O"':
~———~~~"~—~~~~~~~~*~ •• r '''' v , \ '.:••'' • ,
Requirements. An existing .20-m'gd activated sludge plant is
required to upgrade its ef.fluerit quality to meet the following
criteria: " . ....
BOD -. I'd mg/1
SS ;.-.' 10 mg/1 ( .
N — • 3 m'g/1
P -:0.5 mg/1
Alternatives. . It is evident from a review of Table 2 that
'the only methods of treatment capable of providing the neces-
sary degree of treatment '•ar'e-; AWT-4 and irrigation.' In this
example, the cost of AWT-4 :is:-'.- compared with that of irrigation
under varying conditions of conveyance distance (Cas.e A) and
land costs (Case 3). Since secondary treatment is existing,
activated sludge or .aerated" lagoo'n will not be necessary.
Case A - Consider a moderately favorable site for -
irrigation-, a" distance of 5 miles away from
the existing^ treatment plant site. How
much can be pa'id for. land and have the
irrigation system competitive with the.
AWT-4 system? . -
Table 12. -.dos'T-COMPARISON FOR CAS-E A
Tro-itmant •
xethbd.
AWT-4
Irri-^atiorr
Cose compdhSnc
AWT-4 " • . . - ' .... \ ,'
Existing activated
sludge ad jus Caen t '
Total . ' ' . •
Icrv^arAdn' System -
Aerated Idgadn. . ,
del jus cmeh t. .- ^ ..,'
Land ~os t " '' • - '
Subtotal ,
Amount A'iaiikatttd-
;oc land - v28. 0-13.0)
Total area, acres
Cost
7/1.000 gal. Source
44.
-{16.
28.
14 .
-(4'.
-(6.
U.
15.
4 . JOO
0
0)
0
0
J)
7)
0
0
Figure 1
Figur* 1
Fi.q.upp 1
Figura 1
Table* 7
Table 7
_ _ s '-ros't/icJa
f ,20 .-nqd •gSt/l.OO'O ;-?jl-. I :tJ3) ^ .14;. ^00 cr-jsf
-------
Conclusions. Under the assumed site conditions for the
irrigation system, as much as $4,500 per acre could be paid
for land and have the irrigation system competitive with
AWT-4.
Case B
Consider a moderately .favorable irrigation site
at a cost of $2,000 per acre. How far away from
the existing treatment plant could the site be
and have the irrigation system competitive with
AWT-4? •
Table 13. COST COMPARISON FOR CASE B
Treatment
method
AWT-4-
Irrigation
*'
> Cost component
From Case A
Irrigation system
Aerated lagoon adjustment
Conveyance cost
Subtotal
Amount available for
cbnveyance » (28. C - 18.0)
. Allowable distance, railefe
Cc 5 1
C/1,OOC gal.
28. C
2<.0
-(•J.3)
-d.7)
18.0
10.0
33
Source
figure 1
figure 1
figure 1
Table 7
__
table 4
Conclusions. Under the assumed site conditions for the
irrigation system, wastewater could be conveyed as far as
33 miles and have irrigation be competitive with AWT-4.
Special conditions such as river or highway crossings and
easements may add substantial costs and reduce this distanc
somewhat.
24
-------
ATTACHMENT E
Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment
I. Slow-rate Systems (reference sources include Water Quality Criteria
1972, EPA-R3-73-003, Water Quality Criteria EPA 1976, and various
•state guidelines).
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access and when limited to crops not for
direct human consumption.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes plus
r control of fecal coliform count to less than 1,000' MPN/100 ml
' acceptable for controlled agricultural irrigation except for
human food crops to be eaten raw. !
C. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes with
additional BOD or SS control as needed for aesthetics plus
disinfection to log mean of 200/100 ml (EPA fecal coliform
criteria for bathing waters) - acceptable for application in
public access areas such as parks and golf courses.
II. Rapid-infiltration Systems
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes - acceptable
for urban Icoations with controlled public access.
III. Overland-flow Systems
A. Screening or comminution - acceptable for isolated sites with
no public access.
B. Screening or comminution plus aeration to control odors during
storage or application - acceptable for urban locations with
no public access.
-------
6100
NOTICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IFRL 483-6]
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR BEST PRACTICABLE
WASTE TREATMENT
Supplement
Pursuant to Section 304(d) (2) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-500).
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), gave notice on October 23, 1975
(40 PR 49598) that Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Prac-
ticable Waste Treatment has been pub-
lished in final form. The final report
contains the criteria for best practicable
waste treatment technology and infor-
mation on alternative waste manage-
ment techniques.
The criteria for Best Practicable Waste
Treatment for Alternatives employing
land application techniques and land
utilization practices required that the
ground water resulting from land appli-.
cation of wastewa'ter meet the standards
for chemical quality [inorganic chemi-
cals] and pesticides [organic chemicals]
specified in the EPA Manual for Evalu-
ating Public Drinking Water Supplies in
the case of groundwater which poten-
tially can be used for drinking water
supply. In addition to the standards for
chemical quality and pesticides, the
bacteriological standards [microbiologi-
cal contaminants] specified in the EPA
Manual for Evaluating Drinking Water
Supplies were required in the case of
Kroundwater which is presently being
used as a drinking water supply. The
pertinent section of the EPA Manual for
Evaluating Public Drinking Water Sup-
plies was included as Appendix D of the
Alternative Waste Management Tech-
niques for Best Practicable Waste Treat-
ment report.
Also specified In the Criteria for Best
Practicable Waste Treatment is that
"any chemical, pesticides, or bacterio-
logical standards for drinking water sup-
ply sources hereafter issued by EPA shall
automatically apply in lieu of the stand-
ards in the EPA Manual for Evaluating
Public Drinking Water Supplies. The
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations were published hi
final form on December 24, 1975.
In consideration of the foregoing.
Chapter II and Appendix D of Alterna-
tive Waste Management Techniques for
Best Practicable Waste Treatment shall
read as follows.
Dated: February 4,1976.
j RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
^ Administrator..
CHAPTER H
CRITERIA FOB BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE
TREATMENT
Applicants for construction grant. funcle
authorized by Section 201 of. the Act must
have evaluated alternative waste treatment
management techniques and selected the
technique which will provide (or the appli-
cation of best practicable waste treatment
technology. Alternatives must be considered
ti\ three broad broad categories: treatment
and discharge Into navigable waters, land
application and utilization practices, and
rouse ot treated woHlowalcr. An altcrnatlvo
Is'"best practicable" It It Is determined
to bo cost-clTectlvo In accordance with the
procedures Bet forth In 40 CFR Part 36
(Appendix B to this document) and If It
will meet the criteria set forth below.
(A) Alternatives Employing Treatment
and Discharge Into Navigable Waters. Pub-
licly-owned treatment works employing
treatment and discharge Into navigable wa-
ters shall, as a minimum, achieve the degree
of treatment attainable by the application
of secondary treatment as defined In 40 CFK
133 (Appendix C). Requirements for addi-
tional treatment, or alternate management
techniques, will depend on several factors,'
Including availability of cost-effective tech-
nology, cost and the speclflc characteristics
of the affected receiving water body.
(B) Alternatives Employing Land Appli-
cation" Techniques and Land Utilization
Practices. Publicly-owned treatment works
employing land application techniques and
land utilization practices which result In a
discharge to navigable waters shall meet the
criteria for treatment and discharge under
Paragraph (A) above.
The ground water resulting from the land
application of wastewater. Including the af-
fected native ground water, shall meet the
following criteria:
Case 1: The ground water can potentially
be used for drinking water supply.
(1) The maximum contaminant levels for
inorganic chemicals and organic chemicals
specified In the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141)
(Appendix D) for drinking water supply sys-
tems should not be exceeded except as Indi-
cated below (see Note 1).
(2) If the existing concentration of a
parameter exceeds the maximum contami-
nant levels for Inorganic chemicals or organic
chemicals, there should not bo an Increase
in the concentration of that parameter due
to land application of wastewater.
Case II: The ground water is used for
drinking water supply.
(1) The criteria for Case I should be met.
(2) The maximum microbiological con-
taminant levels for drinking water supply
systems specified In the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40
CFR 141) (Appendix D) should not be ex-
ceeded In cases where- the ground water Is
used without disinfection (see Note 1)-.
Case ni: Uses other than drinking water
supply.
(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
grantee shall determine on a slte-by-slte
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 require-
ments appropriate for the project site. This
determination shall be made with the objec-
tive of protecting the ground water for use
as a drinking water supply and/or other
designated uses as appropriate and prevent-
ing irrevocable damage to ground water. Re-
quirements shall Include provisions for mon-
itoring the effect on the native ground water.
(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 Par-
agraphs (A) aud (D) above.
NOTE 1.—Any amendments of the National
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
and any National Revised Primary Drinking
Water licnulallana hereafter Irmiccl by EPA
prescribing standards for public water sys-
tem relating; to Inorganic chemicals, organic
chemicals or microbiological contamination
shall automatically apply In trio samo man-
ner as the National Interim Primary Drink-
ing Water Regulations.
APPENDIX D
GROUND WATER REQUIREMENTS
The following maximum contaminant
levels contained in the National Interim Pri-
mary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
141) are reprinted for convenience and clar-
ity. The National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations were published In final
form in the FEDERAL REGISTER on Decem-
ber 24, 1875. In accordance with the criteria
for best practicable waste treatment, 40 CFR
141 should he consulted In Its entirety when
applying the standards contained therein to
wastewater treatment systems employing
land apppllcatlon techniques and land uti-
lization practices.
Maximum contaminant levels for inor-
ganic chemicals. The following are the max-
imum levels of inorganic chemicals other
than fluoride:
Level
(milligram*
Contaminant: per liter)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium li.
Cadmium 0. 010
Chromium o.'OS
• Lead 0.05
Mercury , 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10.
Selenium 0. 01
Silver 0;05
The maximum contaminant levels tor
fluoride are:
Temperature
(U'crrcs
Fahrenheit'
Degrees Celsius
Ix-vcl
niiUlcmm*
per liter)
.'.3,7 nml In-low I2ap
-------
Maximum microbiological contaminant
levels. The maximum contaminant levels for'
conform bnctcrla, applicable to community
•water systems and non-community water
systems, are as follows:
(a) When the membrane filter technique
pursuant to § 141.21 (a) Is used, the number
of conform bacteria shall not exceed any of
the following:
(1) One per 100 mllUllters as the arith-
metic mean of all samples examined per
month pursuant to § 14121 (b) or (c);
(2) Four per 100 mllHllters In more than
..one sample when less than 20 are examined
per month; or
(3) Four per 100 mllllllters In more than
.five percent of the samples when 20 or more
are examined per month.
NOTICES
(b) (1) When tho fermentation tube
method and 10 mlllllltdr standard portions
pursuant to § 141.21 (a) arc. used, conform
bacteria shall not be present In any of tho
following:
(1) Moro than 10 percent of tho portions In
any month pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(11) Threo or more portions In more than
one sample when less than 20 samples are
examined per month; or
(111) Three or more portions in more than
five percent of the samples when 20 or more
samples are examined per month.
(2) When the fermentation tube method
and 100 mllllllter standard portions pursuant
to § 141.21 (a) are used, collfonn bacteria
shall not be present In'any of the following:
Cl'Jl
(1) Moro than. CO percent of the portions
In any month pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or
(C);
(11) Five portions In more than one sample
when loss than flvo samples arc examined
per month; or
(111) Five portions In more than 20 percent
of the samples when live or more samples
arc examined per month.
(c) For community or non-community
systems that are required to sample at a rate
of less than 4 per month, compliance with
Paragraphs (a), (b) (1), or (2) shall be based
upon sampling during a 3 month period, ex-
cept that, at the discretion of the State.
compliance may be based upon sampling
during a one-month period.
[PR Doc.76-3932 Filed 2-10-?6;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 41, NO. 29—WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976
•ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 657-O11/7O33
------- |