ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR BEST
PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT
PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
MARCH 1974
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ALTERNATIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
FOR BEST PRACTICABLE WASTE TREATMENT
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction j_^
A. Statutory Requirements j_-|
B. Legislative History j_2
C. Summary of Conclusions !_3
II. Waste Management Techniques Involving Land TT i
Application or Land Utilization
A. Land Application Techniques U_5
Irrigation TT K
Overland Flow }}"?d
Infiltration-Percolation {}"{J
Other Land Application Techniques ij^O
B. Land Utilization Techniques H_2o
Land Spreading of Sludge TT ?n
Landfill of Sludge |}_2i
Landfill of Incinerator Ash H_2i
Composting and Final Disposal u_22
C. Non-Point Sources of Pollutants n-22
III. Waste Management Techniques Involving Treatment ni-i
and Discharge
A. Flow Reduction II1-12
-------
B. Techniques to Achieve Secondary Treatment and Nitrification 111-14
Biological 111-14
a. Ponds 111-15
b. Activated Sludge II1-15
c. Trickling Filters 111-17
Physical-Chemical II1-17
Land Application 111-18
C. Storm and Combined Sewer Control 111-18
Separation of Combined Sewers I11-19
Control of Combined Sewers II1-19
Storage and Treatment of Combined Overflows II1-22
Dual Use 111-22
Treatment of Combin a Overflows II1-23
D. Advanced Waste Treatment (Nutrient Removal) 111-23
Biologies. 111-24
Physical-Chemical 111-24
Land Application II1-25
IV. Reuse Technique-- IV-1
A. Reuse of Wastewater IV-1
B. Reuse of Other Treatment-Plant Wastes IV-2
C. Integrated Reuse Facilities IV-3
ii
-------
Appendix A - Bibliography
I. General Information
II. Land Application Techniques
III. Land Utilization Techniques
IV. Flow Reduction
V. Ponds
VI. Activated Sludge
VII. Trickling Filters
VIII. Physical-Chemical Treatment
IX. Storm and Combined Sewers
X. Advanced Waste Treatment
XI. Reuse Techniques
Appendix B - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines (40 CFR 35)
Appendix C - Secondary Treatment Information (40 CFR 133)
111
-------
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
This document Is intended to provide information pursuant to
Section 304(d)(2] of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
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 bibliography (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 there-
after"), EPA is to publish:
"Information on alternative waste treatment management
techniques and systems available 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 technology 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 provide for consideration of advance
waste treatment techniques".
1-1
-------
To realize this purpose, Section 201(g)(2)(A) stipulates that:
"The Administrator shall not make grants from funds
authorized for any fiscal year beginning 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 practicable waste treatment
technology over the life of the works consistent with
the purposes of this title".
Funds for FY 1975, the first year affected by the BPWTT require-
ment, become 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 generalized
to all POTW's for 1983:
"In order to carry out the objective of this Act [to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the Nation's waters] there shall
be achieved ... not later than July 1, 1983, compliance
by all publicly owned treatment works with the require-
ments set forth in Section 201(g)(2)(A) of this Act".
In summary, the information developed under Section 304, which is
first used for funding purposes under Section 201, is eventually used
for enforcement purposes under Section 301, This is accomplished
through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
issued under Section 402, which allow the discharge of pollutants,pro-
vided 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 Report's comments on Section 201. There is a strong
emphasis on land disposal, reflecting the original version of the legisla-
tion. It required land treatment as BPWTT except where a municipality
1-2
-------
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 Committee noted that in many places
water quality objectives will remain beyond reach until attention 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 re-
joinder to the Senate report. The House Committee warned against reliance
on any one treatment technique as a panacea. Rather, 1t listed three
standard alternative techniques for consideration: treatment and dis-
charge to receiving water, treatment and reuse, and spray-irrigation or
other land disposal methods. In its comments on Section 304, however,
the House Committee did urge that the information EPA publishes on
alternative waste management techniques emphasize land disposal. 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. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Throughout the development of the Act, Congress emphasized that
wastewater management systems other than treatment and discharge be
evaluated in determining which alternative constitutes the best practic-
able waste treatment technology. Accordingly, a substantial portion of
this document contains information on land application and treatment and
reuse techniques.
The choice of which alternative to adopt is left to each municipality
or regional sanitary district. If it receives Federal funds, however,
it must be guided by the Agency's cost-effectiveness regulations (40
CFR Part 35, Appendix B).
Once one alternative is selected, it must comply with certain
additional requirements, described in this document. For example, any
land application or land utilization techniques must, in order to qualify
for Federal funding, comply with criteria designed to protect ground waters.
These criteria are intended to ensure that the nation's ground water --
resources remain suitable for drinking water purposes. The ground waters
in the zone of saturation in any aquifer resulting from land or subsurface
disposal must meet the chemical and pesticide levels in the EPA public
drinking water criteria "Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Water".
1-3
-------
However, if the ground water presently exceeds the specified quality,
case by case exceptions may be allowed provided no further degradation
ensues. If the land application technique results in a point source
discharge to navigable waters -- for example, one which utilizes an
underdrain system ~ that discharge must comply with applicable effluent
limitations for discharges from publicly owned treatment works.
The general criteria for reuse may vary greatly depending on the
intended use of the effluent and the consequent quality of water re-
quired. Restrictions on reuse have been kept to a minimum in order to
encourage reuse of wastewaters. At the same time, reuse should not be
allowed to result in greater pollution of either ground or surface
waters than the other two major alternatives of land disposal and classical
treatment and discharge. Accordingly, in order to qualify for Federal
grant support under the Act, any reuse system must conform to the criteria
for ground water protection described above, and to the requirements
applicable to direct discharge of pollutants by publicly owned treatment
works.
Finally, this document describes several waste management techniques
involving treatment and discharge, including flow reduction and storm and
combined sewer control. The selection of any particular treatment manage-
ment technique should be governed by cost-effectiveness as well as by
general environmental considerations. The requirement that any treatment
works achieve the effluent reductions associated with secondary treat-
ment (40 CFR Part 133) Appendix B continues in force as a minimum pre-
requisite for eligibility for Federal funding. Requirements for additional
treatment, or alternative management techniques, will depend upon several
factors, including availability of technology, cost and the specific
characteristics of the affected receiving water body. As the report
indicates, protection of dissolved oxygen levels wiIVmost frequently
have the highest priority once secondary treatment levels have been
attained and may, in many cases, be required in order to meet water quality
standards. The report contains information on the use of the parameter
ultimate oxygen demand (UOD) in place of the BOD5 parameter in which
secondary treatment reduction levels are expressed. Since UOD measures
1-4
-------
not only the oxygen demand of carbonaceous organic material in waste
effluent but that of nitrogenous material as well, in areas in which
low dissolved oxygen presents a significant problem, use of this parameter
and extension of treatment to include seasonal nitrification may well
constitute best practicable treatment. Less frequently, nutrient removal
may be warranted. The report describes the efficiencies of various
treatment methods in removal of the principal nutrients: carbon; nitrogen
and phosphorus.
1-5
-------
CHAPTER II. WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES INVOLVING
LAND APPLICATION OR LAND UTILIZATION
Land application and land utilization are the two major waste-
water management techniques that do not result in point-source dis-
charges. Achieving best practicable technology by either method involves
meeting the ground water criteria.
Laid application techniques are of two types with respect to dis-
charge. One type involves collection of wastewater In underdrain
systems; where these systems discharge to navigable waters, they must
meet the treatment and discharge criteria. The other type of land
application technique involves the percolation of wastewater through
the soil until it t.ocomes part of the permanent aquifer. This does
ot constitute a point-source discharge into navigable waters.
The ground water criteria reflect the resolution of several questions.
The first question is the level of ground water protection desired.
Here, the criteria are keyed to the somewhat conflicting goals of making
land application technologically and economically feasible while pro-
tecting the ground water from permanent contamination or costly renova-
tion. Analysis of the kinds of ground water pollution that can exist
iiiggests the cut-off point.
The types of pollutants affecting ground water fall into three
broad categories: Chemical K.Tiutants such as heavy metals, dissolved
salts, and nitrates; organic pollutants such as pesticides and residual
organics; and pathogenic pollutants such as bacteria. The technology
for removing heavy metals, dissolved salts, and nitrates in a treatment
plant to leveTs that will meet drinking water standards is not practic-
able for publicly-owned plants. The technology exists to remove pesticides
and residual organic compounds from ground water. Activated carbon
adsorption can be used in a water treatment plant to reduce organic
pollutants to levels acceptable for drinking water purposes. However,
the estimated total amortized cost is from 10 to 20 cents per 100 gallons,
II-l
-------
which can be more than double the normal cost of water treatment. The
standard water treatment facility is designed to reduce pathogenic
pollution to levels acceptable for drinking water and therefore no
criteria are needed. The criteria for the best practicable treatment
in a land application system do, however, require reducing chemical
and organic pollutants to raw or untreated drinking water supply
source levels. This requirement would apply to processing of both
effluent and sludge.
Another question in land application is the determination of the
point of distinction between process effluent and ambient (ground water)
conditions. The gradations of percent saturation of the soil are
infinite, and cost of land application will vary according to where
the effluent-ambient line is drawn. The recommended point of
distinction is the point of ground water saturation, the highest
point where a well could draw out ground water. This makes better
sense environmentally and is more easily administered than setting
the effluent-ambient point at a fixed depth below ground level
or calculating it by a formula dependent upon soil type and/or climate.
Another place of measurement, which is easier to enforce, could be
imposed at the point of application prior to land application. Because
this concept would not measure the effect of land application, it is
not recommended.
For the purposes of establishing eligibility for grant funding
under Title II of the Act, the discharge of pollutants onto the land
should not degrade the air, land, or navigable or ground waters; should
not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of public health State
or local land use policies; and should insure the protection of public
water supplies, agricultural and industrial water uses, propagation of
a balance population of aquatic and land flora and fauna, and recrea-
tional activities in the area. Land application systems shall be so
designed that the permanent ground waters (ground water which is not
removed from the ground by an underdrain system or other mechanical
means) which are in the zone of saturation (where the water is not held
in the ground by capillary tension) that result from the application
of wastewater will not exceed the chemical or pesticides
U-2
-------
levels for raw or untreated drinking water supply sources in the EPA
Manual for Evaluating Public Drinking Mater Supplies as specified below:
(1) Chemical Quality:
Units of Maximum Allowable
Measurements Limits
Arsenic mg/1 0.1
Barium mg/1 1
Chloride mg/1 250
Chromium mg/1 0.05
Copper mg/1 1
Fluoride mg/1 1.1
Foaming Agents as Methylene Blue mg/1 0.5
Active Substances
Iron mg/1 0.3
Lead mg/1 0.05
Manganese mg/1 0.05
Nitrate Nitrogen mg/1 10
Carbon Absorbable Organics-Carbon; mg/1 0.3
Chloroform Extractable (CCE)
Carbon Absorbable Organics- mg/1 1.5
Carbon; Alcohol Extractable (CAE)
Selenium mg/1 0.01
Silver mg/1 0.05
Sodium mg/1 270
Sulfate mg/1 250
Zinc mg/1 5
n-3
-------
(2) Pesticides;
Units of Maximum Permissible
Measurements Concentration
Chlordane m9/
Heptachlor m9/
Heptachlor epoxide mg/J
Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide mg/1
Methoxychlor
7 4 n '
'
°-02
Expressed in terms of parathion equivalent cholinesterase inhibition.
Effluent standards for the following toxic pollutants have been
proposed pursuant to§307(a) of the Act. These proposed standards are
being considered at public hearings, and will be promulgated at the
conclusion of the hearings. Any effluent standards promulgated for
these pollutants under§307(a) will be taken into account when the
standards proposed herein are promulgated or revised:
Cadmium
Cyani de
Mercury
Aldrin and Dieldrin
DDT
Endrin
Toxaphene
Any public drinking water standards hereafter issued by EPA which
prescribe maximum allowable limits or permissible concentrationsi of
chemicals or pesticides shall apply in lieu of those listed above.
If the presently existing concentration of any parameter is higher
in the ground water than the levels specified above then the use of a
land disposal technique should not result in an increase in the concentra-
tion of that parameter.
II-4
-------
A. LAND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
The following discussion is largely based on "Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse by Land Application," written by Charles Pound and Ronald
Crites of Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. under contract to EPA.
Irrigation, overland flow, and infiltration-percolation, the three
basic approaches to land application, 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. These other approaches include leaching
fields and evaporation ponds.
Municipal wastewat^r, usually pretreated to some extent, has been
applied to land mainly by irrigation and infiltration. Recently,
municipal installations have begun to experiment with overland flow.
Industrial wastewater, generally screened or settled, has been applied
using all three approaches, with the choice usually depending on the
type of soil nearby.
Irrigation. Irrigation is the most widely used type of land appli-
cation. Between 100 and 450 U. S. communities practice this approach.
The controlling factors in this type of land application are site
selection and design, methods of irrigation, loading rates, management
and cropping practices, and the expected treatment or removal of
wastewater constituents.
The major factors involved in site selection are: type, drain-
ability, and depth of soil; nature, variation of depth, quality, and
present and potential use of ground water; location, depth, and type
of underground formation; topography, and considerations of public
access to the land. Climate is as important as the land in the design
and operation of irrication systems. It is not a variable, however,
because feasible sites must be within economic transmission distance of
the source.
II-5
-------
EVAPORATION
OR
SUiifUE
IMPLICATION
ROOT ZONE
SUESCIL
CROP
tflilitefllllll
AA^PTP Ml Ml M A
SLOPE VARIABLE
-DEEP
PERCOLATION
a) IRRIGATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY APPL/CATIOH
SLOPE 2-6'
GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
SHEET FLOW
RUNOFF
COLLECTION
b) OVERLAND FLOfl
SPREADING BASU^ SURFACE APPLICATION
INFILTRATION —
ZONE OF AERATION
AND TREATMENT
RECHARGE MOUNtT~
PERCOLATION THROJGH
^ / UNSATURATED ZONE
NEW WATER TABLE
OLD HATER TABLE
C) IKFILTRAT10N-PERCOLATION
Figure 1. Land Application Approaches
II-6
-------
1. Comparative Characteristics of Land-Application Approaches
Factor
Type of Approach
Irrigation
Overland flow
Infiltration-
percolation
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:
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
2 to 5.5 in/wk
8 to 24 ft/yr
46 to 140 acres
plus buffer zones
Usually spray
Slowlv permeable
soils such as clay
loa'ns and clay
Slight
Undetermined
Predominantly
surface discharge
but seme evapora-
tion and perco-
lation
0.3 to 1.0 ft/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 loans
Certain
About 15 ft
Pe-rcolation to
groundwater
-------
Table 2. Comparison of Potential Objectives
for Land-Application Approaches
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
Impractical
90-99%
85-90%
80-99%
Excellent
Complete
0-30%
Faira
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%
i
Excellent
CO
a. Conflicting data — woods irrigation acceptable, cropland irrigation
b. Insufficient data.
marginal.
-------
af.
t—
t
ee
C3
UJ
CO
1
2
4
b
S
in
itO
40
60
Bit
« n A
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
OVERLAND
FLOW
IRRI
r
\
\
\ *
\
\
\
A
.
CATION
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
INFILTRATIOM-
PERCOLATION
\
\
\
\
\
SOIL TYPE
Figure 2. Soil Type Versus Liquid-Loading Rateo for Different Land-
Application Approaches
II-9
-------
The major factors and generalized criteria for site selection are
listed in Table 3. Soil drainability is perhaps the primary factor,
and agricultural extension service advisers or adjacent farmers should
be consulted about drainability of cropland. For forest or landscape
irrigation, university specialists should be consulted. The drainability
is important because, coupled with the type of crop or vegetation selected,
it directly affects the liquid loading rate. The ideal is a moderately
permeable 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 development of some
plants, as well as for wastewater treatment.
The minimum depth to ground water should be 5 feet to ensure aerobic
conditions. If the native ground water is within 10 to 20 feet of the
surface, control procedures such as underdrains or wells may be required.
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 is often impossible in land-
scape irrigation.
Three basic methods of irrigating are spray, ridge and furrow, and
flood. 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 inundation of land with several
inches of water. The'type of irrigation system used depends on soil
drainability, crop, topography, and economics.
11-10
-------
Table 3. Site Selection Factors and Criteria
for Irrigation
Factor
Soil type
Soil drainabilLty
Soil depth
Depth to groundwater
Groundwater control
Groundwater movement
Slopes
Underground formations
Isolation
Distance from source
of wastewater
Criterion
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
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,
thr degree depending on wastewatcr charac-
teristics, method of application, and
crop
Economics
n-n
-------
The important loading rates are liquid loading in terms of inches
per week, and nitrogen loading in terms of pounds per acre per year.
Organic loading rates are less important if an intermittent application
schedule is followed. Liquid loadings may range from 0.5 to 4.2 inches
per week depending on soil, crop, climate, and wastewater characteristics.
Crop requirements generally range from 0.2 to 2.0 Inches 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 generalized division between irrigation and infiltration-percola-
tion systems is 4 inches per week.
Nitrogen-loading rates have been calculated because of nitrate
buildup in soils, underdraln waters, and ground waters. To minimize
such buildup, the weight of total nitrogen applied in a year should not
greatly exceed the weight removed by crop harvest. With loamy soils,
the permissible liquid-loading rate will be the controlling factor 1n
most cases; for more porous, sandy soils the nitrogen-loading rate
may be the controlling factor.
Crop selection can be based on several factors: 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 nitrogen and low maintenance requirements. A
drying 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, and the length of the
application period. 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 99 percent for BOD, suspended 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 1s taken up by plant growth; if the crop is
harvested, the removals can be on the order of 90 percent.
11-12
-------
Wastewater irrigation has been shown to have a long useful life. Examples
are the systems at Cheyenne, Wyo., operating since 18811 at Fresno,
Calif., operating since 1891; and at Bakersfield, Calif., operating
since 1912.
Wastewater treatment is quite effective at direct recycling of
pollutants to the land. Even if an irrigation operation is poorly
managed, the adverse environmental effects are slight. Irrigation has
had many positive effects on the environment, such as providing wild-
life habitats. 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 distribution. Operating and maintenance costs are
for labor, maintenance, and power. The direct economic benefits from
irrigation can offset some of the operating costs.
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 activated 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.
fiapital 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 California;
and $140 per acre (in 1968) for a center pivot rig at Portales, N.M.
11-13
-------
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 canneries 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 per
acre, including leveling, preparation, and fertilizing. Other plants
reported ridge and furrow capital costs of $300 per acre for a Minne-
sota creamery (in 1950) and $2,000 per acre for a Wisconsin creamery
(in 1954).
Operating and maintenance costs at Beardmore, 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 however, were not reported in the literature. Operating and
maintenance costs for flooding at Abilene, Tex., were 7 cents per 1,000
gallons and at Woodland, Calif., 4.2 cents. Both costs include pre-
treatment.
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 summer 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 Sanita-
tion Districts at $7 per acre-foot and sells it to various users at
$5 to $22 per acre-foot. San Angelo, Tex. operates 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.
U-14
-------
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
completely developed for use in the United States on food-processing
wastewater. The important factors in overland flow are site selection,
design loadings, management practices, and treatment to be expected.
If the runoff water is collected and discharged into a navigable water,
it will have to meet the treatment and discharge criteria.
Soils suited to overland flow are clays and clay loams with limited
drainabilHy. 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 surface waters
should be nearby to receive the discharge.
Because ground water will not likely be affected 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 operated in California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
and Maryland. A system designed at Glenn, Mich., in 1972 will attempt
to use overland flow when the ground is frozen. At Melbourne overland
flow 1s 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 inches per week, with a typical loading
being 4 inches per week. At Ada the optimum loading has been around
4 inches per week, while at Melbourne it is 5.2 inches per week.
11-15
-------
Management practices Important 1n overland flow are maintaining the
proper hydraulic loading cycle (periods of application followed by rest-
ing), maintaining an active biota and a growing grass, and monitoring
the performance of the system. Hydraulic loading cycles have been
found to range from 6 to 8 hours of spraying followed by 6 to 18 hours
of drying. Periodic cutting of the grass with or without remova 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 com-
plete than that 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 effi-
ciencies. The results suggest BOD and suspended solids removals of 95
to 99 percent, nitogen removals of 70 to 90 percent, and phosphorus
removals of 50 to 60 percent. Solids and organics are removed by
biological oxidation of the solids as they pass through the vegetative
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 an irrigation system. The Melbourne system has been operating
successfully for many years as a wintertime alternative to irrigation.
The oldest operating system in this country, however, has been treating
industrial wastewater for less than 20 years. Analysis of the litera-
ture suggests that an indefinite useful life may be possible if effective
management 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 affect-
ing ground water quality are low.
Cost data on overland flow facilities are scarce because of the
limited number of overland flow sites in operation. Capital costs in-
clude land, pretreatment, transmission, earthwork, 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 purchased.
Pretreatment generally consists of screening. Transmission generally
is by pumping.
11-16
-------
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
clearing, $108 per acre for grass cover, and $188 per acre for miscel-
laneous 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 normally in-
cluded 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 reduced 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.
Infiltration-Percolation. Infiltration-percolation has been used
with moderate loading rates (4 to 12 inches per week) as an alternative
to discharging effluent to surface waters. High-rate systems (5 to 8
feet per week) have been designed to recharge ground water. As they
have been carefully designed and monitored, they will be stressed in
the following discussion.
Soil drainability on the order of 4 to 12 inches 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 waste-
water to pass too rapidly through the first few feet, where the major
biological and chemical action takes place.
Other factors of importance include deep percolation rates; depth,
movement, and quality of ground water; topography; and underlying
geologic formations. To control the wastewater after it infiltrates
the surface and percolates through the soil matrix, the subsoil and
aquifer characteristics must be known. Recharge should not be attempted
without specific knowledge of the movement of the water in the soil system.
11-17
-------
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 re'iy more on the assimilative capacity of the soil,
generally using pretreatment only to avoid operational problems.
Management practices important to infiltration-percolation systems
include maintenance of hydraulic loading cycles, basin surface manage-
ment, and system monitoring. Intermittent 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 unless specific
operating procedures are established 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 consider-
ably with soil characteristics 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, taking 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 generally less than for irrigation.
/
The useful life of an infiltration-percolation system will be
shorter, in most cases, than that for irrigation or overland flow. This
is caused by higher loadings of inorganic constituents, such as phos-
phorus and heavy metals, and by the fact that these constituents are
11-18
-------
fixed in the soil matrix and not positively removed. The^Jore?1?x^^'flinction
HOT of the fixation capacity for phosphorus and heavy met als will be a function
of the loading rate and the fixation sites available. At Lake George,
New York; phosphorus retention on the basis of recent monitoring In
JSe SriolKlSn beds appears to have been exhausted The system had
been operating about 35 years at moderate rates of 7 to 15 inches/week.
From the standpoint of environmental effects, 1nf j1^'0?- to
percolation is the least reliable of the three approaches relative to
the best practicable criteria. Most systems that have been monitored
and managed properly, however, 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, transmission and distribution, and recovery
At Westby, His., basins were constructed in a 5 percent hillside. The
land cost was $750 per acre; earthwork was $2,500 per acre. The earth-
work cost at Flushing Meadows was $4,500 per acre. Others .have cal-
culated the cost of transmission and distribution at Flushi no Meadows
at $98,000. The recovery wells there cost $35 per foot, or $17,500
for each well.
Operation and maintenance costs for inf11trat1on-Percola5J°JlllcMnn
system? 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-percolation. At Kalamazoo, Mich., 7 inches per
daf?s apjl ed by sprayiSg and at Vicksburg, Mich. ,1 inch P^ dayis
applied by spraying. The operating cost is 2.6 cents per 1,000 gallons
at Kalamazoo, and 2.9 cents at Vicksburg. Pretreatment costs for
primary settling are included in both costs.
11-19
-------
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
gently limited in their applicability. Leach fields are Prevalent
In rural areas for small systems involving septic tanks and are unl kely
to become more widespread. Deepwell
renovation to the wastewater and is not allowed by the
treatment criteria unless pretreatment is of a high-enough quality.
Evaporation ponds also have limited applicability because of their
large land requirements and climatic constraints, but some are in use.
B. LAND UTILIZATION TECHNIQUES
Wastes and sludges from wastewater treatment plants are often
ultimately disposed of on the land by such processes as surface spread-
ing 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
blologically-stabfllzedsluSge is generally similar to the land appli-
cation of wastewater. Occasionally, 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 application techniques are followed for site
selection and cropping. Likewise, the amount of nitrogen compound,
nitrates and amnonia, is expected to be limiting. Ammonia may have
to be removed by denltrification prior to application. Airmonia 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 stabilized 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.
11-20
-------
The Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District is now spray ng sludge
on 7,000 acres The land is prepared by leveling to less than 5 percent
grade and building earth berms to control runoff. Application rates of
finches of sludge per year are expected to be successful. At higher
rates nitrogen compounds would have to be removed. Aeration techniques
have beenVtudied and should be successful in oxidizing amnoma nitrogen.
Another method of land spreading involves application of dried
sludge, which contains less nutrient, namely nitrogen, ™ the.liq ,,?c
treats. When the dry sludge is packaged, as it is in Mi waukee Wis.,
it can be sold as a soil conditioner. This conserves space in land
disposal sites.
Landfill of Sludge. Stabilized sludge, ^^f^^/PP^fely
30 percent solids, caS be disposed of by sanitary landfill, the con-
trolled burial of waste beneath an earth cover. Another method of
iandftll is dumping. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is experiment-
ing with a variety of sludges, successful y burying the s udges in
2-foot-wide, 2- to 4-foot deep trenches with a 1-foot so cover
Other methods such as deep disking and rotary tilling will also be
tested.
Dumping of dewatered sludge without cover requires great care to
prevent damage to the environment. Sufficient land must be available,
funoff and percolation of the leachate to the ground water must be con-
trolled and monitored, and odors and pathogenic problems must be dealt
with. When properly managed, dumps generally compare in °Per^°"al
cost to sanitary landfill. Landfill is much more sound environmentally,
and 1s the preferred method of disposal.
Landfill of Incinerator Ash. Where land is scare or distant,
incineration is often an economically attractive method ^disposing
of treatment-plant sludge. The ash from incinerated municipal sludges
is only 3 to 10 percent of the mass of dewatered sludge cake, and
incineration reduces odors and pathogens.
-------
Composting and Final Disposal. Sewage sludge can be decomposed by
composting, an aerobic digestion process that converts organic material
Into a soil conditioner. Moisture content of the sludge 1s reduced to
approximately 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 landfill.
C. NONPOINT SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS
Information on nonpoint sources of pollutants, such as agricultural
runoff from agricultural, construction, and mining activity is being
published pursuant to Section 304(e) of the Act. However, the infor-
mation and techniques discussed in that publication ought to be an
integral part of the total area-wide waste management system. All
techniques of water pollution abatement should be considered in area-
wide programs to arrive at the best practicable treatment.
11-22
-------
CHAPTER III.
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES INVOLVING TREATMENT
AND DISCHARGE
Treatment and discharge is the technique used by the greatest
number of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW's). There are an estimated
21,118 such works of different sizes in the United States employing
different methods of treatment (Table 4).
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 treatment 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 practicable
treatment by July 1, 1983.
Table 4. Estimated Distribution of Publicly-Owned
Treatment Works
tone
Vimary
Jond
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge
Extended Aeration
Secondary - Other
Land Disposal
Tertiary
Total
Major Plants
(1 MGD or 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
/M
91
263
11,012
Total
2,467
3,022
4,728
4,338
2,488
1,828
1,586
in
157
504
21,118
a. Plants located on water-quality-limited segments.
b. Plants located on effluent-limited segments.
c. Plants located on effluent-limited segments with ocean outfalls.
III-l
-------
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
RAW
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
AWT (NUTRIENT REMOVAL)
RENOVATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
•VISUAL AESTHETICS -SEDIMENT
PATHOGENS - DISSOLVED OXYGEN
EUTROPHICATION
HEAVY METALS. PESTICIDES.
DISSOLVED SALTS
Figure 3. Environmental Problems Associated With Treatment and
Discharge
III-2
-------
Criteria for best practicable treatment must be environmentally
sound as well as technologically achievable. Three types of water
quality problems are likely to remain after the application of the
secondary treatment controls in 1977: oxygen-demanding material,
nutrients which contribute to eutrophication (phosphorus and nitrogen),
and fecal coliform. Review of the literature, and review of existing
water quality surveys indicate that protection of the dissolved oxygen
in receiving waters has the highest priority in the vast majority of
cases. Approximately 50 percent of the Nation's POTW's discharge into
receiving waters where the water quality problem is unsolved by existing
regulations. In these water-quality-limited segments, almost all of
the plants are expected to require an effluent containing less oxygen-
demanding material than that achievable by secondary treatment.
Eutrophication typically occurs mainly in lakes and slow-moving
estuaries. A recent study reveals that only 15 percent of the POTW's
discharge to lakes, and half of these (or 7-12 percent of the total)
require phosphorus control and one-third (or 5 percent) require nitrogen
control.
The fecal coliform standards as established by the secondary
treatment criteria were set at levels which would ensure the highest
recreational use (primary contact recreation).
The parameter used in secondary treatment to measure oxygen-demand-
ing material in waste is 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). The 6005
test essentially measures the oxygen demand of only the carbonaceous
organic material in the wastewater effluent. It 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 thus superior
in protecting the oxygen level of the stream since it includes both
sources of biological oxygen demand (the carbonaceous and nitrogenous)
and allows credit for any dissolved oxygen in the effluent. A similar
parameter ultimate biological oxygen demand (UBOD), can be used where
no nitrogenous demand is expected. A third useful parameter to evaluate
oxygen demand is chemical oxygen demand (COD). This test measures
carbonaceous demand for oxygen from both biodegradable and nonbiodegrad-
able compounds and is intended to prevent the discharge of slowly-
degrading industrial waste. Consideration should be given to COD in
effluents from POTW's which receive substantially nonbiodegradable
industrial wastes.
III-3
-------
SOURCES
CARBONACEOUS DEMAND
(BODu|t)
TIME
BOD
ult=1.5(BOD5)
(BODp
NITROGENOUS DEMAND .
NH3 + 202 = H+ -» N0~3
I
NH3-N
NODU|, = — (NH3 N) = 4.6 (NHg -N)
CREDIT
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = 1.0 (DO)
FORMULAS
UOD = 1.5 (BOD5) + 4.6[NH3 N) - I.O(DO)
UBOD=l".5(BOD5)-1.0(DO)
Figure''4. Derivation of Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD)
III-4
-------
Carbonaceous oxygen demand is the largest source of biological-
oxygen demand1ng-mater1al In effluents from raw discharge or primary
treatment, as Table 6 shows. In secondary treatment (high-rate system)
as defined by EPA, the nitrogenous demand is by far the largest residual
demand 1n the effluent. Thus, UOD as a means of measurement is par-
ticularly useful.
In addition to the treatment of wastewaters which pass through
municipal plants, other approaches to improving water quality have
been examined. These approaches include treating combined sewer over-
flows, treating storm water, and controlling non oint sources. Demon-
strated technology to control storm water and nonpoint sources essentially
does not exist. Efforts are being made to quantify the problems and
Identify the effects on receiving waters.
The combined sewer overflow problem is better quantified, and EPA
research has demonstrated many types of treatment and control systems.
On an amount basis, the cost of removing oxygen-demanding material by
combined sewer overflow treatment is much greater than the cost of the
same removal by increasing treatment at the plant (Table 6). This is
always true on a yearly basis, but it is not always true on an event
basis (Table 7). Also, the water quality benefits from overflow treat-
ment 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 wildlife standards
—5 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of D0~revealed that a yearly average
of UOD of 33 mg/1 was required. Statistically, this results in an
approximate monthly average of 50 mg/1 and a weekly average of 75 mg/1.
III-5
-------
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 Costa
($/pound UOD
Removed/'yr)
Overflow Controls Cost
($/pound UOD Removed/yr)
Cleveland, Ohio
Oakland, Calif.
Atlanta, Ga.
Bucyrus, Ohio
New York City, N.Y.
Kenosha, Wis.
Sacramento, Calif.
Chippewa Falls, Wis.
0.21
0.39
0.19
0.48
0.98
0.22
0.37
0.46
2.22 (Filtration)
13.70 (Holding tanks)
13.60 (Sewer repair)
8.80 (Fine screening)
8.80 (System control)
•
28.00 (Separate systems)
0.51 (Storage and screening)
1.84 (Storage and chlorination)
42.10 (Separate systems)
8.35 (Lagoons)
27.00 (Primary treatment)
2120 (Overflow control)
11.80 (Storage and treatment)
23.80 (Storage and treatment)
22.60 (Storage and Treatment)
19.80 (Storage and treatment)
a. Additional capital cost over secondary treatment to achieve seasonal nitrification.
-------
TabU 7. Capital Ccst of Increased Treatment and Combined
Sewer Overflow Control on a Yearly and Per-Storm-Only Basis'*
COST ON A YEARLY BASIS
Capital Cost
UOD removed (pounds/year)
Cost ($/pound of UOD
removed/year)
Estimated Increased
Treatment Cost"
$150,000
324,000
0.46
Overflow Control
$895,000
45,000
19.80
COST ON A PER STORM ONLY BASIS
Capital Cost
UOC removed during storm only
(pounds/storm)
Cost ($/pound of UOD removed/
storm)
$150,000
111
1,350
$895,000
4,905
182
achippewa Falls, His., 5 ea. storm
Additional capital cost over secondary treatment to achieve seasonal
nitrification.
The cost for removing oxygen-demanding material from wastewater is
economically reasonable up to 88 percent removal (Figure 5). Removals
greater than this level result in much hiaher marginal costs per pound of
pollutant removed.
The secondary treatment requirements in combination with water
quality standards would offset the increased rate of UOD discharge associ-
ated with increased population (Figure 6).
The rate of biological oxygen removal resulting from the nitrifying
action of ammonia varies dramatically with temperature (Figure 7). With
very cold waters (either receiving waters or in wastewater being treated
biologically), the nitrificatio- process is slowed, reducing the importance
of removing ammonia.
III-8
-------
3.0 r
i-
to
O
u
O
I*"
IU
2.0
< 1.0
.SEASONAL JUIRIFI.CATIQN
SECONDARY
UJ
cc
/$
40 60
UOD REMOVAL
'V-
— ^ SUMMER
80
100
Figure 5. Cost vs. Percent of UOD Removed
III-9
-------
60
0
Ł *
* <
UJ
LU
O
UJ u.
< °
^ in
Ł H
t- O
CD
50
•10
30
20
10
ESTIMATES OF ACTUAL DISCHARGE
LEVELS FROM POTW
IF SECONDARY TREATMENT IS GOAL
FOR ALL POTW
BEST PRACTICABLE TREATMENT
(SECONDARY TREATMENT AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS)
1 1
^3 ^f
o> en
1
en
1
CN
1
tO
en
1
§
O)
1 -
s
en
1 .
oo
00
o
T-
1 -
CM
O>
O)
T-
1
o>
1
o
o
o
CN
Figure
TIME
UOD Removal, 1960—2000
111-10
-------
1.00
.90
.00
70-
.60-
.!>0-
A0\
.30-
.20
UJ
\-f
DC
*
^:
b
(y
6
10
09
oc
07
.06
.05
04
.03
.02
.01
10
13
20
Ł3
TEf.'.PEKATUfu: "C
Figure 7. Effect of Temperature on the Growth Rate of Nitrifiers
III-ll
-------
As the environmental significance of ammonia diminishes with lower
temperatures, the economic 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 biolog-.cal processes, however, will increase with decreasing waste-
water temperature, as a result of decreasing biological nitrification
rates. Likewise, in a physical-chemical treatment process such as
ammonia stripping, an increase in cost will occur with decreasing tem-
perature. If the nitrification is applied only to wastewaters above
20°C, the cost increase (both capital and operating) will be typically
30 percent greater than the cost of achieving secondary treatment. The
cost of year round nitrification would be 75 percent greater than required
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 30 percent of the cases. However,
in only a few cases would secondary treatment levels meet these standards
because of excessively low dissolved oxygen and fish toxicity caused
by uncontrolled discharge of ammonia.
Nitrification would result in approximately a 50 percent increase
in electrical power consumption for municipal waste treatment (Table 8).
The resulting total demand for wastewater treatment would be less than
1 percent of the total community demand.
As a tradeoff for electrical demand, nitrification would produce
less sludge and reduce fossil fuel requirements for incineration by
approximately 25 percent (Table 8). Solid-waste management problems
are likewise decreased. 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 Congress pursuant to Section Iu4(o)(2) of the Act.
The techniques discussed in that report should be recognized as part
of the total area-wide waste management system and essential to achiev-
ing the best practicable treatment.
111-12
-------
Talus 8. Energy Requirements of Activaled Sludge Treatment
iJcctricail
Amuunt used
Percent uf total
electrical usage
for a cjty
Annual cost
Fossil fuel to in~
cinerate sludge
Amount used
Comparative usage
Annua] cost
Secondary
5 watts/cap
O.ltf
Mtf/cap/yr
370 Btu/cap/day
1 gal of fuel
oil/cap/yr
12^/cap/yr
iffiWiitlon
7-5 watte /cap
0.6JS
66(/-/i.ap/yr
280 Btu/cap/day
3/^ gal of fuel
or /cap/yr
9^/cap/yr
?J Increase
+ 50^
- 25#
111-13
-------
Excluding reuse and recycling, the techniques for reducing total
flow of sewage can be placed into four major categories. The first
technique 1s the reduction of infiltration and inflow into the sewage
collection system. Infiltration problens must be solved, according to
Section 201(g)(3) of the Act, before a Federal grant can be made. The
procedures for complying with this section are contained in the regula-
tions "Grants for Construction of Treatment Works" (40 CFR Part 35.927).
A second technique is the reduction of household water consumption.
This involves installing devices to reduce water usage in existing
household applicances and fixtures as well as designing and
installing new applicances and fixtures that use less water. A third
category of techniques involves economics and pricing policies to reduce
use of water. The final techniques are the changes of public attitudes
as they relate to water consumption.
B. TECHNIQUES TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY TREATMENT AND NITRIFICATION
Extensive amounts of information have been available since the 1920's
on the biological techniques to achieve the effluent quality required
by secondary treatment and nitrification. The techniques fall into
four categories:
o Biological treatment, including ponds, activated sludge, and
trickling filters.
o Physical-chemical, including chemical flocculation, filtration,
activated carbon, breakpoint chlorination, ion exchange, and
ammonia stripping.
o Land application with underdrains.
o Systems which combine the previous techniques.
Biological. The most widely used systems of waste-water 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,
111-14
-------
Including large shallow ponds exposed to the air, trickling 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 oxygen.
a. Ponds. Sewage oxidation ponds, often called lagoons, are
widely used throughout the United States. These systems require little
energy because they rely on the natural forces such as aeration and
produce minimum quantities of sludge. Since the desiqn and operation
of ponds vary widely, it is hard to generalize on th»:-r capabilities.
A multicelled pond with intermittent-discharge capabilities can achieve
secondary treatment and best practicable treatment without additional
aeration or filtration if average loading does not exceed 20 pounds of
BODc per acre and if it has up to 6-month storage capability. However,
this is not true of ponds which discharge continuously. Normally,
ammonia is removed naturally; removal of BOD5 and suspended solids is
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 carryover, seasonal changes, algae
growth, hydraulic short-circuiting, and overload conditions are problems
which arise 1n 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 $9 to $20 for activated sludge
or trickling filters. Where land costs are high, however, ponds lose
their cost advantages.
b. Activated sludge. The activated sludge process consists of
an aerator and clarifier and is usually preceded by primary sedimenta-
tion. The aerator can be aerated by air (either diffused or mechanical)
or pure oxygen and provides conditions for a suspended microbial growth
which metabolizes 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 sol Ids go to an appropriate solids-handling facility. The use
of chemicals—lime, ferric and ferrous salts, alum, sodium aluminate,
or polymers—can enhance the capture of partlculates in both primary
111-15
-------
sedimentation and secondary clarification, thus Improving operation of
the process. These techniques are examples of combined oiological and
physical-chemical treatment.
Activated sludge plants can be operated to establish and maintain
bacteria ,to nitrify ammonia. This can be accomplished by supply-
ing additional aeration, by ensuring that the nitrifying 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 mlcroblal growth resulting from the reduced wasting rate.
Several other new techniques have been employed to increase the
capabilities of activated sludge plants without increasing the size of
aerators or clarlflers. Rotating disks have been tested successfully
in pilot plants. By using a disk, extra biological solids can be main-
tained 1n the aerator. A pilot plant in Tracy, Calif., used a synthetic
or red wood media to allow a larger culture of bacteria to be maintained
in the aerator. This minimizes the need for extra clarification.
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 primary treat-
ment. The aerobic microbial 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 temperatures than the methods previously discussed.
The capital and operational costs are expected to be 25 to 75 percent
greater than 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 organic loading to the activated sludge aerator. The pilot results
were excellent, with ammonia removed easily and reliably by nitrifica-.
tion. The system, however, does produce high quantities of sludge.
Still another system using combined biological and physical-chemical
methods 1s to employ breakpoint chlorination or ion exchange (both dis-
cussed later) to remove the ammonia from a nonnltrifying biological
plant to acceptable levels.
111-16
-------
c. Trickling filters. Trickling filter plants are similar to
activated sludge plants except that microbial growth is not suspended.
Instead it is attached 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 of the media and captured in a clarifier.
Trickling filters employing standard loadings below 10 to 20 pounds of
BOD5 per 1,000 cubic feet of medium per day can meet secondary and best-
practicable-treatment requirements. The performance and costs are
generally competitive with equivalent activated sludge systems.
A modification of the trickling filter concept involves rotating
closely packed disks through the sewage. Large masses of bacteria are
maintained and aerated on the disk during rotation. Initial work in
Passaic Valley, N.J., Pewaukee, Wis., and at the University of Michigan
have demonstrated the system's capabilities.
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 often
achieve effluent quality equivalent to secondary treatment. Subsequent
filtration may be needed, although not in all cases.
Suspended solids and the associated BOD can be removed by filtration
in any of the methods discussed to improve the effluent quality above
secondary treatment. A wide selection of filtration media is available.
Either pressure or gravity filtration can be used. Removal of suspended
solids is usually desirable prior to activated carbon, breakpoint chlori-
nation, ion exchange, or ammonia stripping.
Activated carbon has proven its ability to adsorb the organic
material in wastewater. Because activated carbon does not rely on
bacterial action, it can remove both biodegradable and nonbiodegradable
material.
Several techniques have been used to bring the activated carbon
into contact with the wastewater, and various forms of carbon have been
used. Granular carbon is the most widely-used and highly-developed
technique. Contact methods include pressurized downflow, gravity down-
flow, and pressurized suspended-bed upflow. Powdered carbon systems can
also be used, and show excellent potential, although still in the research
and development stage.
111-17
-------
Breakpoint chloMnation (superchl on nation) 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
nitrogen gas if reaction takes place at about pH 7. Proper controls
and operation must be maintained at all times.
Selective ion exchange systems are available for removal of ammonia.
The ion exchange medium normally used is clinotilolite. After regenera-
tion with a salt and/or lime brine, it will exchange either the sodium
ion or calcium ion for the ammonium ion in wastewater. The regeneration
brine contains the removed ammonia. The removal from and the disposal
of ammonia can be accomplished by steam distillation and subsequent
condensation and recovery of ammonium hydroxide. Electrolytic or chlorine
oxidation 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 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
atmosphere. The process has other disadvantages. Lime must be added
to the influent before the ammonia can be stripped. Further, effective-
ness of stripping decreases with decreasing atmospheric temperature.
Land Application. Often land treatment is not thought of as a
treatment and discharge process. However, an underdrain or similar
water removal procedure used with overland flow can achieve the effluent
quality required by secondary treatment and best practicable treatment
standards. This technique is presently being demonstrated in Muskegon
County, Michigan.
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 effect on receiving waters.
111-18
-------
The combined-sewer overflow problem is better quantified, and EPA
research has demonstrated many types of control and treatment techniques.
The techniques fall into five categories: (1) separation of sewage and
storm collection 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 often 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 1964, 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 U.S. was $25 to $30 billion.
Today, the cost may be in excess of $50 billion.
Another approach would be to partially separate the systems in a
cost-effective manner. Partial separation 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 Us now required for best practicable treatment) can
markedly reduce tne discharge of pollutants. A manual of practice
prepared 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 or the Hudson
River concluded that proper maintenance of valves and other flow-regula-
ting devices could substantially reduce overflows.
111-19
-------
Table 9. Estimated Costs for Corn-.lets Separation
of Stcirmw?ter and Sanitary :.^.w. rs
City
Chicago, 111.
Cleveland, Ohio
Concord, N.H.
Detroit, Mich.
Haverhill, Mass.
Kansas City, Kans.
Lawrence, Kans.
Lowell, Mass.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Now Haven, Conn.
New York, N.Y.
Portland, Ore.
Seattle, Wash.
Spokane, Wash.
Toronto, Ontario
V.'ashington, 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
16.3633
25,000-
30,000
3,100-
7,750
3,890
1,800
17,000
]8,000
12,42', '
Cost/
capita
$482
360-535
280
360
650
187
915
780
440
560
492
260-652
260
415
• • • •
250
468b
a. Based on actual project cost.
b. Using the average costs for those cities reporting
ranges.
111-20
-------
Table 10. Estimated Costs for Partial Separation
ot Stormwatcr ?nd Sanitary Sewers
City
Des Moines, Iowa
Elmliurst, 111.
Eugene, Ore.
Findlay, Ohio
Granite City, 111.
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
15,108,000
13,200,000
633,000
969,000
5,024,000
9,187,000
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
233,651,500
Cost/
acre
$7,800
• • •
3,100
• • •
4,900
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
3,040
972
640
• • •
1,860
3,187a
Cost/
capita
$170
237
76
500
330
43
143
120
437
302
73
95
69
129
52
213
124
53
176a
a. Average.
111-21
-------
An even more effective control technique is regulating combined
collection systems so as to utilize the-> capacity to the utmost. For
example, Metro-Seattle uses continuous flow measurements and computerized
control to divert flow to portions of the system that are und:r-utill zed.
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 oroject
costing $200 million.
Another control system which has experimentally sK- .-ro-ise of
reducing pollution is periodic flushing of sewers dun'ng ^ry w. "Cher.
Flushing is estimated to cost between $620 and $1,275 per acre Jn 1972)
and 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 combined overflows is to store and subsequently treat
the overflows. This technique was successfully demonstrated in Chippewa
Falls, Wis. An asphalt-paved detention basin was built to retain over-
flows up to a 5-year storm. The system captured 93.7 percent of the
quantity cf overflow, which was treated in the wast.ewater 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 underwater container stores combined sewer over-
flows. This device contained 96 percent of the overflow for subsequent
-reatment. 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 waste-
water treatment plant is operated to maximize biological adsorption in
the aerator during wet-weather flows. The adsorped organlcs are later
biologically degraded. Prior to construction of the dual-use facility,
-emovals of suspended solids and BOD5 were 64 and 82 percent, respectively.
Following construction, removals were 88 and 94 percent. During wet weather,
the plant still removes 91 percent of suspended solids anc 32.5 percent of
BOD5. This technique cost $917 per sewered jcre and was $/ .illion
111-22
-------
cheaper than separation. Another technique is to expand the wastewater
plant so it can treat overflows, either partially or fully. The District
of Columbia has designed primary sedimentation tanks to handle excessive
wet-weather flows. The excessive flows will receive primary treatment and
chlorination.
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 percent
removal of BODc at high filter rates. In 1971, estimated capital cost
for this system was approximately $23,000 per MGD of design capacity.
The expected operational cost was $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 1/8 inch to 1 inch have been tested, with varying degrees
of success. Chemical treatment using polyelectrolytes, lime, alum, or
ferric chloride 1s also being investigated to help treat excessive
wet-weather flows.
Another treatment technique is disinfection. Chlorine gas can be
used just as it is 1n wastewater treatment plants. Recently, however,
electrochemical cells have been used to produce hypochlorite disinfectant
in isolated or unattended installations. The cell uses 1.6 kilowatt
hours of electricity and 2.1 pounds of salt per pound of sodium hypo-
chlorite produced. Large installations 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
designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants or nutrients which can
cause accelerated euthtophication of the receiving waters. The key
nutrients are carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Euthrophication may be
a significant problem in certain receiving waters. Nutrient removal,
however, is not required by best practicable treatment on a national basis.
Advanced waste treatment (or nutrient removal) techniques are usually
used in conjunction with the techniques to achieve secondary treatment.
The techniques fall into four categories— biological , physical -chemical ,
land application, and combinations.
111-23
-------
Biological. Biological method3 to remove cjroon are the same
techniques discussed earlier—ponds, sctivated sludge, and trickling
filters. When higher degrees of removal are necessary, however, longer
detention periods are required or improved liquid solids techniques
such as larger c^rifiers or filtration must be employed. Tne biological
method tc remove n'troqen is nitrification followed by dem'trification.
Both can be accomplished in a mixed suspended culture follows, by clari-
fication (similar to activated sludge) or on a fixed media (similar to
a trickling filter). The Blue Plains Plant at Washington, D. C., is
currently building a 300-MGD biological nitrification and -nitrifica-
tion system. Separate dem'trification requires an organic s :p"iement.
tfethanol has been most commonly used. For successful operation, approxi-
mately 3.5 parts of methanol are required to each part of nitrate
nitrogen. Both nitrification and denitrification are temperature-sensitive.
At 10°C, the metabolic kinetic rates can decrease to less than 20 percent
of the rates observed at 30°C. Normally, nitrogen cannot be removed by
a single-stage biological process. However, in recent experiments at
a pilot plant in Washington, P. C., an int'-mittently-pulsed aerobic
and anae .obic system removed u;j ,o 80 percent of the nitrogen, thus
drastically reducing the metharol requirements.
Recent experiments at Washington have shown that biological
removal of phosphorus can be achieved. Less than 0.5 "ig/1 of phosphorus
remained in the effluent. The system couples com- 'H:onal aeration
with rapid removal of solids from the clarifier. The solids are then
aerobically digested for 6 to 20 hours; the phosphorus in the sludge
is released and precipitated in the si\Je stream. The solids are then
recycled to the aeration tank.
Physical-Chemical. Physical-chemical methods are probably the most
widely relied on in advanced waste treatment. Carbon in large complex
molecules can be removed from wastewater by carbon adsorption. BODc of
5 rug/1 ?•-• less can be achieved. Gravity flow, pressurized downward
flaw, a pressurized upflow contact methods have been de. tnstrated
ut lizing a variety of size and gradation of media. The P.scataway,
Md., plant is using carbon adsorption in a 5-MGD a '-anced waste treat-
ment facility. Also, ozone oxidation of organic carbon has been shown
to reduce the BODr to substantially less than 5 mg/1 in experiments in
Washington.
111-24
-------
The physical-chemical removal techniques for nitrogen include break-
point chlorination, ion exchange, and ammonia stripping. Effluents con-
taining less than 2.5 mg/1 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, Maryland; Gainesville, Fla.; Bucks County,
Pennsylvania; and Occoquan, Va. Ion exchange is being considered in
Alexandria, Va., and Neosho, Mo. Ammonia stripping has already been
used on 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 removing phosphorus. Addition of the chemical
and precipitation can be done throughout the process—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 phosphorus. Lime can be used in primary sedimentation for
phosphorus removal, as demonstrated in pilot studies in Washington, or
as separate tertiary treatment as currently being employed in a 5-MGD
plant in Piscataway, Md.
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.
111-25
-------
IV. REUSE TECHNIQUES
One of the major techniques for hand!in; wastewater is wastewater
reuse and by-product recovery. Uniform criteria for best practicable
treatment cannot be set for reuse purposes. For some industrial reuse
purposes such as cooling or quenching, no treatment of domestic waste-
water 1s required. Other reuse purposes require water to be of dnnfe-
ing-water quality or better.
The reuse criteria for best practicable treatment are set according
to the medium (land or surface waters) into which reuse water is
ultimately discharged. They reflect two considerations. First, as a
minimum, criteria for reuse should result in no greater pollutional
effect than if treatment and discharge or land application criteria
were employed. This is to ensure equity amon: municipal works and
prevent degradation of the receiving waters through the indirect dis-
charge of untreated dome-,tic waste. Second, as a maximum, criteria
for reuse should impose as few additional restrictions as possible.
This 1s to carry out the purpose stated in the Act to encourage waste-
water reuse, particularly when such facilities will produce revenue.
For the above reasons, the reuse criteria for best practicable
treatment require that the quantity of pollutants disch rged from a
reuse project, attributable directly to the publicly-oi.i.ed treatment
works, meet the minimum criteria for non-reuse techniques.
A. REUSE OF WASTEWATER
Reuse opportunities from wastewater treatment plants do not only
include reuse of the effluent. Use of methane gas from anaerobic
digestion, recovery of coagulant in systems employing lime precipitation,
and regeneration of activated carbon are also possible. The reuse of
wastewater effluent, however, is still the most important.
The effuent quality required for reuse may vary as discussed
earlier. In many cases, reuse may require additional treatment beyond
nutrient removal. )ften the problem is high dissolved-solids concen-
tration. Several methods have been proposed. Distillation, ion
exchange, and freezing techniques are still in the -^search or small-
scale pilot stage. The most advanced technoV. - of dissolved-solids
removal 1s reverse osmosis.
IV-1
-------
A major steel industry in Baltimore, Md. requires no pretreatment.
The industry treats to its needs. Other systems, such as one being
planned at the Central Costa Sanitary District, Calif., require advanced
waste treatment prior to industrial reuse. The latter facility is
expected to be revenue-producing.
Recharging ground water, directly or indirectly, 1s also a potential
reuse. This 1s being practiced with increasing frequency 1n 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. Similarly,
the prevention of salt water intrusion is an excellent reuse opportunity.
Direct reuse for drinking water is being practiced 1n Wlndhok, South
Africa. It 1s not being practiced 1n 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 University 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 1s pumped
to a reservoir for eventual Irrigation. Highly-treated wastewater from
the proposed Upper Occoquan, Va. plant will be discharged to a reservoir
used for water supply.
Revenue-producing facilities are being considered with increasing
frequency. A plant in the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Calif.,
is 1n the early design stage. It is expected to sell highly-treated
effluent to Industries, saving major development of new water supplies.
B. REUSE OF OTHER TREATMENT-PLANT WASTES
Reuse of treatment-plant wastes such as sludges, methane gas and
waste activated carbon Is also possible. For several decades, methane
gas from anaerobic digestion of sludge has been used for fuel, for
electrical power generation and heat.
IV-2
-------
Sludge can also be reused. In Milwaukee, WIs., dried sludge has
been sold as a soil builder, thus producing revenue. This Is
a unique operation. Another technique, demonstrated in pilot studies
in Washington, D. C. and in full-scale operations at "K?*""^^-
and South Lake Tahoe, Calif., recovers coagulant from a lime Pralpita-
tion process. The organic sludge is incinerPted and the "leiurn carbonate
that results from line precipitation is coined back to lime for subse-
quent reuse. South Lake Tahoe also has f.-:1lU1es to reactivate the
activated carbon spent in wastewater treatment.
Other sludge-reuse techniques are also being 1nv«..igated. One
such system is the acid treatment of alum sludges to recover alum:
this system is actually being used in Japan. Hydrolysis <*. Or9a.nic. .
sludges shows potentian in producing animal feed. Sulfur dioxide, heat
and pressure are employed. After the hydrolysis, evaporation concen-
trates digestible organlcs valued at 2 to 5 cents per pound. Organic
and cnemit sludges can also be used to condition barren soil and im-
prove cash-crop potential.
C. INTEGRATED REUSE FACILITIES
Reuse techniques benefit from total area planning and increasing
utilization of integrated facilities. One potential integrated facility
is the proposed Delaware Reclamation Project, where wastewater treatment
sludges, municipal refuse, and garbage would be composted, separated,
and hec.t-treated. At another proposed facility in Montgomery County,
Md., organic sludges would be pretreated and usec 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 septic-tank treatment
capabilities in a plant and the use of joint municipal and industrial
treatment facilities.
IV-3
-------
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
Interim regulations in the Federal Register on February 28, 1973.
"State Continuing Planning Process" (40 CFR 130) published as interim
regulations in the Federal Register on March 27, 1973.
Agency Programs
Municipal Construction Division
Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460.
Municipal Pollution Control Division
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460.
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.
-------
Federal Bibliographic Sources
"Bibliography of R and M Research Reports"
Research Information Division, Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. 20460.
"Selected Water Resources Abstracts", published Semimonthly by the
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 Protection Agency 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.
-------
II. LAND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
Bibliographies
"Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application - Bibliography"
prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. for the Environmental Protection
3ency, May 1973.
"Bibliography - Survey of Facilities Using Land Application" prepared
by the American Public Works Association for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, April 1973.
"Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges: Selected Abstracts"
being prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, May 1971*
(proposed date).
-------
Bibliographic List
1 Allen, M.L., "North Tahoe Agencies Test Disposal in
Volcanic Cinder Cone," Bulletin Calif. Water Pollution
Control Assoc., 9_, No. 3, pp 31-38 (January 1973).
2. Allender, G.C., "The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System
for the Renovation of Treated Municipal Wastewater,11
Master's Thesis, .The Pennsylvania State Univ.,
(September 1972).
3 Amramy, A., "Waste Treatment for Groundwater Recharge,"
Jouf. WPCF, 36, No. 3, pp 296-298 (1964).
4. Anderson, D.R., et al., "Percolation of Citrus Wastes
through Soil," Proceedings of the 21st Industrial
Waste Conference, Part II, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, pp 892-'901 (1966).
5. "Assessment of the Effectiveness and Effects of Land
Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Management,"
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wastewater
Management Report 72-1 (January 1972).
6. Aulenbach, D.B., Glavin, T.P., and Rojas, J.A.R.,
"Effectiveness of a Deep Natural Sand Filter for
Finishing of a Secondary Treatment Plant Effluent,"
Presented at the New York Water Pollution Control
Association Meeting (January 29, 1970).
~8~. ' Baffa, J.J., and Bartilucci, N.J., "Wastewater
Reclamation by Groundwater Recharge on Long Island,"
Jour. WPCF, 39_, No. 3, pp 431-445 (1967).
9. Bendixen, T.W., et al., "Cannery Waste Treatment by
Spray Irrigation Runoff," Jour. V.'PCF, 41, No. 3,
pp 385-391 (1969).
10. Bendixen, T.W., et al. , "Ridge and Furrow Liquid Waste
Disposal in a Northern Latitude," ASCE San. Engr. Div. ,
94_, No. SA 1, pp 147-157 (1968).
11. Blaney, H.F., and Griddle, V.'.D. , "Determining Consump-
tive Use and Irrigation Water Requirements," Tech.
Bull. No. 1275, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C. (Decerber 1962).
-------
12. Blosser, R.O., and Owens, E.L., "Irrigation and Land
Disposal of Pulp Mill Effluents," Water and Sewage
Works. Ill, No. 9, pp 424-432
13. Borushko, I.S., "The Influence of a Water Body on the
Temperature and Air Humidity of the Surrounding
Territory," Tr. Glavn. Geofizich. Obseryatorii, No. 59
(121), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat (1956).
14. Bouwer, H., "Ground Water Recharge Design for Reno-
vating Waste Water," ASCE San. Engr. Div., 9Ł, No.
SA 1, pp 59-74 (1970).
15. Bouwer, H., "Renovating Secondary Effluent by Ground-
water Recharge with Infiltration Basins," Presented at
the Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water and Sludge through Forest and Cropland," The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania (August 21-24, -1972).
16. Bouwer, H., "Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent
Systems Using Secondary Sewage Effluent," Presented at
the Artificial Groundwater Recharge Conference,
University of Reading, England (September 21-24, 1970).
17. Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, "Waste Water Reclama-
tion, ' California State Department of Public Health,
Prepared for Calif. State Water Quality Control Board
(November 1967) .
18. Bureau of Water Quality Management, Spray Irrigation
Manual , Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Resources,
Publication No. 31 (1972).
19. 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).
20. Canhan, R.A., "Comminuted Solids Inclusion with Spray
Irrigated Cannin^ Waste," Sevage 5 Industrial Wastes,
5^, No. 8, pp 1028-1049 (1953) .
21. Center for the Study of Federalism Green Land—Clean
Streams: The Beneficial Use of Waste "Tater through
Land Treatment, Stevens, R.M., Temple University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ,.1972) .
-------
22. Coast Laboratories, "Grape Stillage Disposal by
Intermittent Irrigation," Prepared for the Wine
Institute, San Francisco, Calif. (June 1947).
23. Coerver, J.F., "Health Regulations Concerning Sewage
Effluent for Irrigation," Proceedings of the Symposium
on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana
Polytechnic Institution (July 30, 1968).
24. C.W. Thornthwaite Associates, "An Evaluation of Cannery
Waste Disposal by Overland Flow Spray Irrigation,"
Publications in Climatology, 22^ No. 2 (September 1969),
25. DeTurk, E.E., "Adaptability of Sewage Sludge as a
Fertilizer," Sewage Works Jcurnal, T_, No. 4, pp 597-
610 (1935).
26. De Vries, J., "Soil Filtration of Wastewater Effluent
and the Mechanism of Pore Clogging," Jour. WPCF, 4Ł,
No. 4, pp 565-573 (1972).
27. Drake, J.A., and Bieri, F.K., "Disposal of Liquid
Wastes by the Irrigation Method at Vegetable Canning
Plants in Minnesota 1948-1950," Proceedings of the
6th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, pp 70-79 (1951).
28. Drewry, W.A., and Eliassen, R., "Virus Movement in
Groundwater," Jour. WPCF, 40., No. 8, Part 2, pp R257-
R271 (1968).
29. Dubrovin, L.V., "Computation of the Influence of a
Reservoir on Absolute Humidity in the Littoral Zone,"
Materialy Pervogo Nauchno-tekhnicheskogo Soyeshchaniya
Po Izercheniyu Kuybyshevskogo Vodokhranilishcha, No. Z,
Kuybyshev (1963).
30. Duffer, W. , "EPA Supported Research," Presented at the
Symposium on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and
Sludges, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
(;-;:u-ch 12-13, 1973) .
31. Dunlop, S.G., "Survival of Pathogens and Related
Disease Hazards," Proceedings of the Symposium on
Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana
Polytechnic Institution (July 50, 1968).
-------
32. Ebbert, S.A., "Spray Irrigation of Food Plant Waste
Waters," Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting, Federa-
tion of Sewage and Industrial Wastes Associations,
University Park, Pennsylvania (August 13-15, 1958).
33. Eliassen, R., et al., "Studies on the Movement of
Viruses with Groundwater," Water Quality Control
Research Laboratory, Stanford University (1967).
34. "Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for
Musl-egon County, Michigan Wastewater Treatment -
Irrigation System," Muskegon County Board and Depart-
ment of Public Works, Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration, Program No. 11010 FMY (September 1970).
35. Fisk, W.W., "Food Processing Waste Disposal," Water
and Sewage Works, III, No. 9, pp 417-420 (1964j~i
36. Foster, H.B., Ward, P.C., and Prucha, A.A., "Nutrient
Removal by Effluent Spraying," ASCE San. Engr. Div. ,
91., No. SA 6, pp 1-12 (1965).
37. Fried, M., and Broeshart, H., The Soil-Plant System in
Relation to Inorganic Nutrition, Academic Press. New
York (1967).
38. Gilde, L.C., et al., "A Spray Irrigation System for
Treatment of Cannery Wastes," Jour. WPCF. 43, No. 8,
pp 2011-2025 (1971). ~~
39. Gillespie, C.G., "Simple Application of Fundamental
Principles of Sewage Treatment," Sewage Works Journal,
1., No. 1, p 68 (1928).
40. 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) .
41. Gotaas, H.B., et al., "Annual Report on Investigation
of Travel of Pollution," Sanitary Engineering Research
Project, University of California, Berkeley (1955).
42. Gray, J.F., "Practical Irrigation with Sewage Effluent,"
Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage
jŁti.lucr.t bor irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Insti-
tution (July 30, 1908).
-------
43. Guerri, E.A., "Sprayfield Application Handles Spent
Pulping Liquors Efficiently," Pulp 5 Paper, 4_S, No. 2,
pp 93-95 (1971).
44. Haas, F.C., "Spray Irrigation Treatment," Proceedings
of Symposium on Potato Waste Treatment, University of
Idaho and FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (July 1968) .
45. 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).
46. 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 (1.9'/I) .
47. Hutchins, W.A., "Sewage Irrigation as Practiced in the
Western States," Technical Bulletin No. 675, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture (March 1939).
48. Hyde, C.G., "The Beautification and Irrigation of
Golden Gate Park with Activated Sludge Effluent,"
Sewage Works Journal, 9_, No. 6, pp 929-941 (1937).
49. Kardos, L.T., "Crop Response to Sewage Effluent,"
Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sex\rage
ETfluent for Irrigation, Louisiana Polytechnic Insti-
tution (July 30, 1968).
50. Kaufman, W.J., "Notes on Chemical Pollution of Ground-
Water," Presented at the Water Resources Engineering
Educational Series, Program X, Groundwater Pollution,
San Francisco, California (January 1973).
51. Kirby, C.F., "Sewage Treatment Farms," Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Melbourne (1971).
52. Kolobov, N.V., and Vereshchagin, M.A., "The Influence
of Kuybyshev and Volgograd Reservoi-rs on Meteorological
Conditions in the Littoral Zone," Materialy Pervogo
Nauchno-tekhnichogkogo Soveshchaniya Po Izucheniyu
Kuvbyshevskogo Vodokhranilishcha, No. Z Kuybyshev
(1963).
-------
54. Krone, R.B., McCauhey, P.H., and Gotaas, H.B., "Direct
Discharge of Ground Water with Sewage Effluents," ASCE
San. Engr. Div., 8_3, No. SA 4, pp 1-25 (1957).
55. Krone, R.B., Orlob, G.T., and Hodgkinson, C., "Movement
of Coliform Bacteria through Porous Media," Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 30_, No. 1, pp 1-13 (1958).
56. Lance, J.C., "Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms,"
Jour. WPCF, 4Ł, No. 7, pp 1352-1361 (1972).
57. Larsci, W.C., "Spray Irrigation for the Removal of
Nutrients in Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent as Prac-
ticed at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota," Algae and Metro-
politan Wastes, Transactions of the 1960 Seminar, U.S.
Dept. of HEW (I960) •
58. Laverty, F.B., et al., "Reclaiming Hyperion Effluent,"
ASCE San. Engr. Div., 8_7, No. SA 6, pp 1-40 (1961).
59. Lawton, G.tf., et al., "Spray Irrigation of Dairy
Wastes," Sewage § Industrial Wastes, 51, No. 8,
pp 923-933 (1959).
60. Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H.,
Hydrology for Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New York,
pp 122-132 (1958).
61. "Liquid Wastes from Canning and Freezing Fruits and
Vegetables," National Canners Association, Office of
Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection
Agency, Program No. 12060 EDK, pp 61-65, 73-74 (August
1971).
62. Ludwig, H., et a1.., "Disposal of Citrus Byproducts
Wastes at Ontario, California," Sewage 5 Industrial
Wastes, 23^, No. 10, pp 1255-1266 (1951).
63. McCarty, P.L., and King, P.H., "The Movement of Pesti-
cides in Soils," Proceedings of the 21st Industrial
Waste Conference, Part 1, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana, pp 156-171 (1966).
64. McDonald, J.E., "The Evaporation-Percolation Fallacy,"
Weather, 17_, No. 5, pp 168-177 (196:).
65. McGauhey, P.H., and Krone, R.B., "Soil Mantle as a
V.'astcv.'ater Treatment System," SGRL Report No. 67-11,
University of California, Berkeley (December 196") .
-------
66. McGauhey, P.H., and Winneberger, J.H., "A Study of
Methods of Preventing Failure of Septic-Tank Percola-
tion Systems," SERL Report No. 65-17, University of
California, Berkeley (October 1965).
69. McMichael, F.C., and McKee, J.E., "Wastewater Reclama-
tion at Whittier Narrows," Calif. State Water Quality
Control Board, Publication No. 33 (1966).
70. McQueen, F., "Sewage Treatment for Obtaining Park
Irrigation Water," Public Works, 6_4, No. 10, pp 16-17
(1933).
72. "Manual of Septic-Tank Practice," Public Health Service
Pub. No. 526, U.S. Dept. of HEW (Revised 1967).
73. Martin, B., "Sewage Reclamation at Golden Gate Park,"
Sewage 5 Industrial Wastes, 2.3, No. 3, pp 319-320
(1951).
74. Mather, J.R., "An Investigation of Evaporation from
Irrigation Sprays," Agricultural Engineering, 31,
No. 7, pp 345-348 (1960).
76. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, "Waste into
Wealth," Melbourne, Australia (1971).
77. Metcalf $ Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., New York (1972) .
78. Metcalf, L., and Eddy, H.P., American Sewerage
Practice, Vol. Ill, Disposal oŁ Sewage, 3rd Ed.,
pp 235-251, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1935).
79. Merrell, J.C., et al., "The Santee Recreation Project,
Santee, California, Final Report," FWPCA, U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio (1967).
80. Merz, R.C.., "Continued Study of Waste Water Reclamation
and Utilization," Calif. State Water Pollution Control
Board, Publication No. 15, Sacramento, Calif. (1956).
81. Merz, R.C., "Third Report on the Study of Waste Water
Reclamation and Utilization," Calif. State Water
Pollution Control Board, Publication No. 18,
Sacramento, Calif. (1957).
-------
82. Miller, R.H., "The Soil as a Biological Filter,"
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).
83. Mitchell, G.A., "Municipal Sewage Irrigation,"
Engineering News-Record, 119, pp 63-66 (July 8, 1937;.
84. Monson, H., "Cannery Waste Disposal by Spray
Irrigation - After 10 Years," Proceedings of the 13th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, pp 449-455 (1958) .
85. Morlock, J., et al., "Reduces Wastewater Treatment
Costs 20-30%; Saves Estimated $2 Million Capital
Expense," Food Processing, 34_, No. 1, pp 52-53 (1973).
86. Nelson, L., "Cannery Wastes Disposal by Spray Irriga-
tion," Wastes Engineering, 2,3, No. 8, pp 398-400 (1952).
87. Nesbitt, J.B., "Cost of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater
Renovation," 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).
88. "Nutrient Removal from Cannery Wastes by Spray Irriga-
tion of Grassland," Law, J.P. Jr., Thomas, R.E., and
Myers, L.H., FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Program
No. 16080 (November 1969).
89. Pair, C.H., edit.. Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd Ed.,
Sprinkler Irrigation Association, Washington, D.C.
(1969).
90. Parizek, R.R., et al., "Waste Water Renovation and
Conservation," Penn State Studies Mo. 25, University
Park, Pennsylvania (1967).
91. Parker, R.P., "Disposal of Tannery Wastes," Proceedings
of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Part I, Purdue
University, Lafayette, Indiana, pp 36-43 (1967).
92. Parsons, W.C., "Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the
Manufacture of Hardboard," Proceedings of the 22nd
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana, pp 602-607 (1967).
-------
93. Philipp, A.H., "Disposal of Insulation Board Mill
Effluent by Land Irrigation," Jour. WPCF, 43^ No. 8,
pp 1749-1754 (1971).
94. Poon, C.P.C., "Viability of Long Storaged Airborne
Bacterial Aerosols," ASCE San. Engr. Div.. 94_,
No. SA 6, pp 1137-1146 (1968).
96. Rafter, G.W., "Sewage Irrigation," USGS Water Supply
and Irrigation Paper No. 3, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. (1897).
97. 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).
99. Reinke, E.A., "California Regulates Use of Sewage for
Crop Irrigation," Wastes Engineering, 22, pp 364, 376
(1951).
100. "Renovating Secondary Sewage by Ground Water Recharge
with Infiltration Basins," Bouwer, H., Rice, R.C., and
Escarcega, E.D., U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory,
Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Project No. 16060 DRV (March 1972).
101. "Role of Soils and Sediment in Water Pollution Control,"
Part 1, Bailey, G.W., Southeast Water Laboratory,
FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (March 1968).
103. Rudolfs, W., Falk, L.L., and Ragotzkie, R.A., "Contam-
ination of Vegetables Grown in Polluted Soil: VI.
Application of Results," Sevage 5 Industrial Wastes,
2^, pp 992-1000 (1951).
104. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, "Studies in
Water Reclamation," Technical Bulletin No. 13, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley (July 1955) .
105. Schraufnagel, F.H., "Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation for
Industrial Wastes Disposal," Jour. WPCF. 34, No. 11,
pp 1117-1132 (1962).
106. Schwartz, W.A., and Bendixen, T.W., "Soil Systems for
Liquid Waste Treatment and Disposal: Environmental
Factors," Jour. WPCF, 42, No. 4, pp 624-630 (1970).
-------
107. Scott, R.H., "Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes
on Land/" Jour. WPCP, 34,, No. 9, pp 932-950 (1962).
108. Sep-), E., "Disposal of Domestic Wastewater by Hillside
Sprays,1' ASCE Env. Engr. Div. , 9Ł, No. EE2, pp 109-121
(1973).
109. Sepy, E., "Nitrogen Cycle in Groundwater," Bureau of
Sanitary Engineering, Calif. State Dept. of Public
Health, Berkeley (1970).
110. Sepp, E., "Survey of Sewage Disposal by Hillside
Sprays," Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, Calif. State
Dept. of Public Health, Berkeley (March 1965).
111. Sepp, E., "The Use of Sewage for Irrigation—A
Literature Review," Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
Calif. State Dept. of Public Health (1971).
112. Skulte, B.P. , "Agricultural Values of Sewage,"
Sewage 5 Industrial Wastes, 25_, No. 11, pp 1297-1303
(1953).
113. Skulte, B.P., "Irrigation with Sewage Effluents,"
Sewage § Industrial Wastes, 2Ł, No. 1, pp 36-43 (1956),
115. "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) .
117. 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).
118. "Sprinkler Irrigation," Chapter 11 in Irrigation,
Section 15 of SCS National Engineering Handbook, Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (July
1968).
119. "Study of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled through
Groundwater," Vol. 1, Boen, D.F., et al., Eastern
Municipal Water District, Office of Research and Moni-
toring, Environmental "Protection Agency, 'Proj-ect 16&6-0
DDZ (July 1971).
-------
120. Sullivan, D., "Wastewater for Golf Course Irrigation,"
Water $ Sewage Works, 117, No. 5, pp 153-159 (1970).
123. Thomas, R.E., and Bendixen, T.W., "Degradation of
Wastewater Organics in Soil," Jour. WPCF, 41, No. 5,
Part 1, pp 808-813 (1969) .
124. Thomas, R.E., and Harlin, C.C., Jr., "Experiences with
Land Spreading of Municipal Effluents," Presented at
the First Annual IFAS Workshop on Land Renovation of
Waste Water in Florida, Tampa (June 1972).
125. Thomas-, R.E., and Law, J.P., Jr., "Soil Response to
Sewage Effluent Irrigation," Proceedings of the
Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation,
Louisiana Polytechnic Institution (July 30, 1968).
126. Thomas, R.E., Schwartz, W.A., and Bendixen, T.W.,
"Soil Chemical Changes and Infiltration Rate Reduction
Under Sewage Spreading," Soil Science Society of
America, Proceedings, 50, pp b41-646 (196b).
129. Urie, D.H., "Phosphorus and Nitrate Levels in Ground-
water 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).
130. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Diagnosis and Improvement
of Saline and Alkali Soils' Agriculture Handbook No.
60, J.S. Dept. of Agriculture (1963).
131. van der Goot, H.A., "Water Reclamation Experiments at
Hyperion," Sewage § Industrial Wastes, 29_, No. 10,
pp U39-1144 (1957).
133. "Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land," Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Army, Special Report 171, Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,
N.H. (May 1972) .
135. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Cannery Waste Treat-
ment, Utilization, and Disposal," California State Water
Resources Control Board, Publication No. 39 (1968).
-------
136. Wells, D.M., "Groundwater Recharge with Treated Muni-
cipal Effluent," Proceedings of the Symposium on
Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana
Polytechnic Institution (July 1968) .
137. Wentink, G.R., and Etzel, J.E., "Removal of Metal Ions
by Soil," Jour. WPCF, Ł4, No. 8, pp 1561-1574 (1972:.
138. V/esncr, G.M. , and Baier, D.C., "Injection of Reclaimed
V'astewater into Confined Aquifers," Jour. AVv'l'.'A, 62 ,
No. 3, pp 203-210 (1970) .
139. Williams, T.C., "Utilization of Spray Irrigation for
Wastewater Disposal in Small Residential Developments,1
Presented at the Symposium on Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and
Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania (August 1972).
140. Woodley, R.A., "Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical
Wastes," Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
pp 251-261 (1968).
141. Younger, V.B., "Ecological and Physiological Implica-
tions of Greenbelt Irrigation with Reclaimed Water,"
Presented at the Symposium 0:1 Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and
Cropland, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania (August 21-24, 1972).
142. Zimmerman, J.P., Irrigation. John Wiley § Sons, Inc.,
New York (1966).
Acknowledgment
The information in the text and bibliographic list on land appli-
cation techniques are excerpted from the report "Wastewater Treatment
and Reuse by Land Application" prepared by Charles E. Pound and
Ronald W. Crites of Mecalf and Eddy, Inc. for the Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
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 1073.
"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 Environmental Protection Agency, May 1971* (proposed date).
Bibliographic List
1. Acevedo-Ramos, G., et al. "Effect of Filter-Press Cake on Crop Yields
and Soil Properties," Compost Science, Winter 1963, p. 34.
2. Advisory Paper No. 10, 1972. "Permissible Levels of Toxic Metals in
Sewage Used on Agricultural Land." Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,
and Food, London, England.
3. Allaway, W. H. Agronomic Controls Over the Environmental Cycling of
Trace Elements. Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 20: 1968. pp. 235-274.
4. Anderson, A. "Some News Regarding the Use of Municipal Wastes Within
Farming," Grundfoerbaettring. Vol. 22: 1969. pp. 42-43.
5. Anderson, M. S. "Fertilizing Characteristics of Sewage Sludge," Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 678-682.
-------
6. Berg, G. "Virus Transmission by the Water Vehicle. II. Virus Removal by
Sewage Treatment Procedures," Health Library Science, Vol. 2, No. 2:
1966. p. 90.
7. Cameron, R. D. "Prediction of Settlements in Landfills Constructed From
Centrifuged Digested Sewage Sludge," Water Poll. Abstracts (Gt. Britain),
Vol. 44, No. 1646: Aug., 1971.
8. "Chicago Reclaiming Strip Mines With Sewage Sludge," Civil Engineering-
ASCE; Sept. 1972. p. 98.
9. Coker, E. G. "Utilization of sludge in agriculture." In Sludge Treat-
ment and Disposal - 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. 136 p.
10. "Composting Dewatered Sewage Sludge," Report on Contract with Bureau of
Solid Waste Management of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Eimco Corp., 1969.
11-. Compton, C. R., and F. R. Bowerman. "Composting Operation in L. A.
County," Compost Science, Winter 1361.
12. DeTurk, E. E. "Adaptability of Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer," Sewage
Works Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4: 1535. pp. 597-610.
13. 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 AIChE,
New York, Nov. 26-30, 1972. To be published in "Water-1972."
14. Ewing, B. B., and Dick, R. I. "Disposal of Sludge on Land." In "Water
Quality Improvement by Physical and Chemical Processes," Univ. of Texas
Press, Austin: 1970. E. F. Gloyna and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., editors.
-------
15. Farrell, J. B., Smith, J. E., Hathaway, S. W., and Dean, R. B. "Lime
Stabilization of Chemical-Primary Sludges at 1.15 MOD." Presented to
45th Annual Conf., Water Poll. Control Federation, Atlanta, Georgia,
Oct. 8-13, 1972. To be published in JWPCF.
16. Fuller, J. E., and G. W. Jourdian. "Effect of Dried Sewage Sludge on
Nitrification in Soil," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 27, No. 2.
pp. 161-165.
17. 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 l-UI-00080, unpublished.
18. Hinesly, T. D., Jones, R. L., and Ziegler, E. L. "Effects on Corn by
Applications of Heated Anaerobically Digested Sludge," Compost Science,
Vol. 13, No. 4: July-Aug. 1972. pp. 26-30.
191. Hinesly, Thomas D., and B. Sosewitz. "Digested Sludge Disposal on Crop
Land," 41st Annual Convention, Water Pollution Control Federation, Chicago,
Illinois, Sept., 1968.
20. Kenner, B. A., Dotson, G. K., and Smith, J. E., Jr. "Simultaneous
Quantitation of Salmonella Species and Pseudcmonas Aeroginosa," EPA-NERC-
Cincinnati, internal report: 1971.
21. Lunt, H. A. "The Case for Sludge as a Soil Improver," Water and Sewage
Works, Vol. 100, No. 8. pp. 295-301.
22. 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. pp. 205-208.
-------
23. Liebman, H. "Hygienic Requirements for Sludge Pasteurization and Its
Control in Practice," International Research Group on Refuse Disposal
(IRGRD), Info. Bull. Nos. 21-31, Aug. 1964-Dec. 1967. pp. 325-330.
24. Nusbaum, I., and L. Cook, Jr. "Making Topsoil with Wet Sludge," Wastes
Engineering, August 1960. pp. 438-440.
25. Olds, J. "The Use and Marketing of Sludge as a Soil Conditioner," Proc.
of the 8th Southern Municipal and Industrial Wastes Conference. 1959.
pp. 219-225.
26. Olds, J. "How Cities Distribute Sludge as a Soil Conditioner," Compost
Science. Autumn 1960. pp. 26-30.
27. Peterson, J. R., C. Lue-Hing, and D. R. Zenz. "Chemical and Biological
Quality of Municipal Sludge," Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal
Waste Water and Sludge Through Forest and Croplands. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pa.: 1972.
28. Peterson, J. R., T. M. McCalla, and G. E. Smith. "Human and Animal
Wastes as Fertilizers," Fertilizer Technology and Use, 2nd edition. Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin: 1971.
29. Proceedings of the Conference on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and
Sludges, Rutgers University, 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.
30. Reeves, J. B. "Sanitary Aspects of Composted Sewage Sludge and Sawdust,"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31, No. 5. pp. 557-563.
31. Routson, R. C., and R. E. Wildung. "Ultimate Disposal of Wastes to Soil,"
Water-1969. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series. American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 65, No. 97: 1969. pp. 19-25.
-------
32. Scaulon, A. J. "Utilization of Sewage Sludge for the Production of Top-
soil," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 29, No. 8. pp. 944-950.
33. Scott, R. H. "Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes on Land," JWPCF,
Vol. 34, No. 9. pp. 932-950.
34. Skibniewski, L. "Chemical Problems in the Utilization of Sewage in
Agriculture," Gaz. Woda. Tech. Sanitarna (Polish), Vol. 23, No. 52:
February 1949.
35. "Sewage Sludge as Soil Conditioner," Editors, Water and Sewage Works,
Vol. 106. Ref. No., pp. R-403-R-424.
36. "State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice," FWQA Report
No. 170 70 DIV: April, 1970.
37. "Study of Municipal Sludge for Soil Improvement," Current studies on
U.S.D.A. Research Center, Clean Air and Water News, No. 4: 1972. p. 427.
38. "The Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge and Sludge Composts," Tech. Comm.
No. 7, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Great Britain, Oct. 1948.
39. Troemper, A. P. "Disposal of Liquid Digested Sludge by Crop Land
Irrigation." Unpublished paper of Springfield, 111. Sanitary District:
1972.
40. Ullrich, A. H., and M. W. Smith. "Experiments in Composting Digested
Sludge at Austin, Texas," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 22, No. 4.
pp. 567-570.
41. The West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority, General Manager's Report,
1965-1966.
42. Wiley, J. S., "Discussion of Composting of Refuse and Sewage Sludge,"
Compost Science, No. 8: 1967. p. 22.
-------
23. Liebman, H. "Hygienic Requirements for Sludge Pasteurization and Its
Control in Practice," International Research Group on Refuse Disposal
(IRGRD), Info. Bull. Nos. 21-31, Aug. 1964-Dec. 1967. pp. 325-330.
24. Nusbaum, I., and L. Cook, Jr. "Making Topsoil with Wet Sludge," Wastes
Engineering, August 1960. pp. 438-440.
25. Olds, J. "The Use and Marketing of Sludge as a Soil Conditioner," Proc.
of the 8th Southern Municipal and Industrial Wastes Conference, 1959.
pp. 219-225.
26. Olds, J. "How Cities Distribute Sludge as a Soil Conditioner," Compost
Science, Autumn 1960. pp. 26-30.
27. Peterson, J. R., C. Lue-Hing, and D. R. Zenz. "Chemical and Biological
Quality of Municipal Sludge," Symposium on Recycling Treated Municipal
Waste Water and Sludge Through Forest and Croplands. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pa.: 1972.
28. Peterson, J. R., T. M. McCalla, and G. E. Smith. "Human and Animal
Wastes as Fertilizers," Fertilizer Technology and Use, 2nd edition. Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin: 1971.
29. Proceedings of the Conference on Land Disposal of Municipal Effluents and
Sludges, Rutgers University, 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.
30. Reeves, J. B. "Sanitary Aspects of Composted Sewage Sludge and Sawdust,"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. Vol. 31, No. 5. pp. 557-563.
31. Routson, R. C., and R. E. Wildung. "Ultimate Disposal of Wastes to Soil,"
Water-1969. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series. American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 65, No. 97: 1969. pp. 19-25.
-------
32. Scaulon, A. J. "Utilization of Sewage Sludge for the Production of Top-
soil," Sewage and Industrial Wastes. Vol. 29, No. 8. pp. 944-950.
33. Scott, R. H. "Disposal of High Organic Content Wastes on Land," JWPCF,
Vol. 34, No. 9. pp. 932-950.
34. Skibniewski, L. "Chemical Problems in the Utilization of Sewage in
Agriculture," Gaz. Woda. Tech. Sanitarna (Polish), Vol. 23, No. 52:
February 1949.
35. "Sewage Sludge as Soil Conditioner," Editors, Water and Sewage Works.
Vol. 106. Ref. No., pp. R-403-R-424.
36. "State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice," FWQA Report
No. 170 70 DIV: April, 1970.
37. "Study of Municipal Sludge for Soil Improvement," Current studies on
U.S.D.A. Research Center, Clean Air and Water News, No. 4: 1972. p. 427.
38. "The Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge and Sludge Composts," Tech. Comm.
No. 7, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Great Britain, Oct. 1948.
39. Troemper, A. P. "Disposal of Liquid Digested Sludge by Crop Land
Irrigation." Unpublished paper of Springfield, 111. Sanitary District:
1972.
40. Ullrich, A. H., and M. W. Smith. "Experiments in Composting Digested
Sludge at Austin, Texas," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 22, No. 4.
pp. 567-570.
41. The West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Authority, General Manager's Report,
1965-1966.
42. Wiley, J. S., "Discussion of Composting of Refuse and Sewage Sludge,"
Compost Science, No. 8: 1967. p. 22.
-------
IV. FLOW REDUCTION
Bibliographic List
1. 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 (Jan. 197l).
2. American Water Works Association Committee of Water Use. Journal of the
American Water Works Association: May, 1973.
3. Bailey, J. R., Benoit, R. J., Dodson, J. L., Robb, J. M., and WaUman, H.
A Study of Flow Reduction and Treatment of Waste Water From Households.
General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, EPA Contract No. 14-12-428:
Dec., 1969.
4. Bailey, J. R., and Cohen, S. Demonstration of Waste Flow Reduction from
Households. General Dynamics, Electric Boat Division, EPA Contract No.
68-01-0041: compilation of progress reports, latest dated June, 1973.
5. Berger, Herbert F. "Evaluating Water Reclamation Against Rising Costs of
Water and Effluent Treatment," Tappi: August, 1966.
6. 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 (l97l).
7. Bremner, R. M. "In-Place Lining of Small Sewers," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 43, No. 7: July, 1971.
8. Carcich, I. G., Farrel, R. P., and Hetling, L. J. "Pressure Sewer
Demonstration Project," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 44, No. 2: February, 1972.
-------
9. Department of Housing and Urban Development, OiTice of Research and
Technology. "Modular Integrated Utility System (MIUS), Program Descrip-
tion." December 1972.
10. Eller, J., Ford, D. L., and Gloyna, E. F. "Water Reuse and Recycling in
Industry," Journal of American Water Works Association: March, 1970.
11. Environmental Protection Agency. "Alaska Village Demonstration Projects,"
Report to Congress, prepared by the Office of Research and Development.
July 1, 1973.
12. Environmental Protection Agency. "Guidelines for Sewer System Evaluation."
Draft, September 1973.
13. Ethridge, D. E., and Seagraves, J. A. Two Methods of Studying the Effect
of Municipal Sewer Surcharges on Food Processing Wastes. Economics
Research Report No. 18, North Carolina State University: December, 1971.
14. Fristoe, C. W., Goddard, F. 0., and Keig, N. G. Applied Criteria for
Municipal Water Rate Structures. Department of Economics, College of
Business Administration, University of Florida OWRR Project C-1082.
15. Gilkey and Beckman. Water Requirements and Uses in Arizona Mineral
Industry. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8162: 1963.
16. Gomez, Hector J. "Water Reuse at the Celulosa Y Derivades, S. A. Plants,"
Proceedings, 25rd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University: 1968.
17. 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.
18. Gysi, M. "The Effect of Price on Long Run Water Supply Benefits and
Costs," Water Resources Bulletin, Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, Vol. 7, No. 3: June, 1971.
-------
19. Hirshleifer, J., De Haven, J. C., and Milliman, J. W. Water Supply:
Economics, Technology and Policy. University of Chicago Press: 1960.
20. Howe, C. W., and Linaweaver, F. P., Jr. "The Impact of Price on
Residential Water Demand and Its Relation to System Design and Price
Structure," Water Resources Research. Vol. 3, No. 1: First Quarter, 1967.
21. 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 Patterns of Selected Sectors
of the United States Economy; 1970-1990. Resources for the Future, Inc.,
prepared for the National Water Commission: March, 1971.
22. Mann, P. C. Water Service Prices: A Principal Component and Regression
Analysis of Determinants. Regional Research Institute, West Virginia
University, prepared for Office of Water Resources Research, project
number C-2012: July, 1972.
23. 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.
24. Russell, Cliffords S. Industrial Water Use. Section 2, Report to the
National Water Commission, Resources for the Future Inc., Washington,
D.C.
25. Schmidt, 0. J. "Pollution Control in Sewers," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 7: July, 1972.
26. Shumacher, E. A. Study of Water Recovery and Solid Waste Processing for
Aerospace and Domestic Applications. 2 vols., Contract KAS 9-12504,
Martin Marietta: January, 1973.
-------
27. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, "Final and Comprehensive Report,
C.-Uiin John Drainage Basin, Water-Saving Customer Education and Appliance
Test Program." February, 1973.
-------
V. PONDS
Bibliographic List
1. Benjes, Henry, Jr. "Theory of Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second
International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City,
Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
2. Boyko, B. I., and J. W. G. Rupke. "Aerated Lagoons in Ontario—Design
and Performance Considerations." Presented at the Second International
Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25,
1970.
3. Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers. "Upgrading Lagoons." Prepared
for the Technology Transfer Design Seminar, Denver, Colorado, October 31-
November 1, 1972.
4. Burns, G. E., R. M. Girling, A. R. Pick, and D. W. Vanes. "A Comparative
Study of Aerated Lagoon Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters." Presented
at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
5. Canham, R. A. "Stabilization Ponds in the Canning Industry." In Advances
in Water Quality Improvement, Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas: 1968.
p. 464.
6. Clark, Sidney E., Harold J. Coutts, and Robert Jackson. "Alaska Sewage
Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste
Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
7. Coerver, J. R. "Louisiana Practice and Experience with Anaerobic-Aerobic
Pond System for Treating Packinghouse Wastes," JWPCF. Vol. 36: 1964.
p. 931.
-------
8. Cooper, Robert C., William J. Oswald, and Joseph C. Bronson. "Treatment
of Organic Industrial Wastes by Lagooning," Proc. 20th Ind. Waste Conf..
Purdue Univ., Ext. Ser. 118, 357, 1965.
9. Day, John W., Jr., Charles M. Weiss, and H. T. Odum. "Carbon Budget and
Total Productivity of an Estuarine Oxidation Pond Receiving Secondary
Sewage Effluent." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
10. 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.
11. Fisher, Charles P., W. R. Dryraan, and G. L. Van Fleet. "Waste Stabiliza-
tion Pond Practices in Canada." In Advances in Water Quality Improvement.
Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas: 1968. p. 435.
12. Fitzgerald, George P., and Gerard A. Rohlich. "An Evaluation of
Stabilization Pond Literature," Sewage Works, p. 0213.
13. Gloyna, E. F., and J. Aguirre. "New Experimental Pond Data." Presented
at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
14. Goodnow, Weston E. "Current Design Criteria for Aerated Lagoons." Pre-
sented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons,
Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
15. Hemens, J., and G. J. Stander. "Nutrient Removal from Sewage Effluents
by Algal Activity." Presented at the Fourth International Conference on
Water Pollution Research, Prague, Czechoslovakia, September 2-6, 1968.
-------
16. Hem, Leonard W. "Chlorination of Waste Pond Effluents." Presented at
the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
17. Howe, David 0., A. P. Miller, and J. E. Etzell. "Anaerobic Lagooning—A
Hew Approach to Treatment of Industrial Wastes," Proceedings of the 18th
Indiana Waste Conference. Purdue University Extension Series, 115, 233:
1963.
18. Little, John A., Bobby J. Carroll, and Ralph E. Gentry. "Bacteria Removal
in Oxidation Ponds." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
19. Lyman, Edwin D., Melville W. Gray, and John H. Bailey. "A Field Study of
the Performance of Waste Stabilization Ponds Serving Small Towns." Pre-
sented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons,
Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
20. Loehr, R. C. "Anaerobic Lagoons—Considerations in Design and Applica-
tion," American Soc. Agric. Engrs. Trans., Vol. 11, No. 3: May-June,
1968. p. 320.
21. Mackenthun, Kenneth M., and Clarence D. McNabb. "Stabilization Pond
Studies in Wisconsin," Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
p. 1234.
22. Marais, G. v. R., and M. J. Capri. "A Simplified Kinetic Theory for
Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Symposium for
Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
23. McCarty, P. L. "Anaerobic Waste Treatment Fundamentals," Public Works,
Vol. 93, No. 9, 10, 11, and 12: September-December, 1964.
-------
24. McKinney, Ross E. "State of the Art—Aerated Lagoons." Presented at the
Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City,
MiscourL, June 25-25, 1970.
25. Mees, Quentin M., and J. R. Hensley. Survival of Pathogens in Sewage
Stabilization Ponds. Final report, NIH Research Grant E-3436.
26. Middleton, Francis M., and Robert L. Bunch. "Challenge for Wastewater
Lagoons." Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste
Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
27. Myers, Earl A., and T. C. Williams. "A Decade of Stabilization Lagoons
in Michigan with Irrigation as Ultimate Disposal of Effluent." Presented
at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
28. Oregon State University Dept. of Civil Engineering. Final Report: Waste
Water Lagoon Criteria for Maritime Climates. Engineering Experiment
Station, Corvallis, Oregon.
29. Pohl, Edward F. "A Rational Approach to the Design of Aerated Lagoons."
Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
30. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, FWQA, Kansas City, Missouri.
31. 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.
32. Roesler, Joseph F., and Herbert C. Preul. "Mathematical Simulation of
Waste Stabilization Ponds." Presented at the Second International Sym-
posium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
-------
33. Schurr, Karl. "A Comparison of an Efficient Lagoon System with Other
Means of Sewage Disposal in Small Towns." Presented at the Second Inter-
national Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri,
June 23-25, 1970.
34. Shindala, Adnan. Evaluation of Three Waste Stabilization Ponds in Series.
Engineering and Industrial Research Station, Mississippi State University:
August, 1971.
35. Slanetz, L. W., Clara H. Bartley, T. G. Metcalf, and R. Nesman. "Survival
of Enteric Bacteria and Viruses in Municipal Sewage Lagoons." Presented
at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas
City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
36. Sudweeks, Calvin K. "Development of Lagoon Design Standards in Utah."
Presented at the Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment
Lagoons, Kansas City, Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
37. Ullrich, A. H. "Use of Wastewater Stabilization Ponds in Two Different
Systems," Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 965.
38. Vennes, John W. "State of the Art—Oxidation Ponds." Presented at the
Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City,
Missouri, June 23-25, 1970.
-------
VI. ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Bibliographic List
1. Agnew, W. A. "A Mathematical Model of a Final Clarifier for the Activated
Sludge Process," FWQA Department of the Interior, Wo. 14-12-194: March,
1970.
2. Albertsson, J. G., J. R. McWhirter, E. K. Robinson, and No. P. Walhdieck.
"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.
3. Earth, E. F., M. Mulbarger, B. V. Salotto, and M. B. Ettinger. "Removal
of Nitrogen by Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants." Presented at the
38th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Atlantic
City, New Jersey, Oct. 10-14, 1965.
4. Bechtel Incorporated. A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Waste-
water Treatment Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: May,
1973.
5. Bishop, D., T. O'Farrell, J. Stamberg, and J. Porter. "Advanced Waste
Treatment Systems at the Environmental Protection Agency, District of
Columbia Plant," A.W.T.R.L.. E.P.A.: March, 1971.
6. Delwiche, C. C., and M. S. Finstein. "Carbon and Energy Sources for the
Nitrifying Autotroph Nitrobacter," J. of Bact., Vol. 90, No. 102: 1965.
7. Dick, Richard I. "Gravity Thickening," Summer Institute in Water Pollu-
tion Control - Biological Treatment. Manhattan College, New York: 1969.
8. Dick, Richard I., and Benjamin B. Ewing. "Evaluation of Activated Sludge
Thickening Theories," Journal Sanitary Eng. Div. ASCE, SA4: 1967. p. 9.
-------
9. Dick, Richard I., and Benjamin B. Ewing. Closure "Evaluation of Acti-
vated Sludge Thickening Theories," Journal Sanitary Eng. Mv. ASCE, Vol.
95, No. SA2: April, 1969. p. 333.
10. Mck, Richard I., and P. A. Vesilind. "The Sludge Volume Index - What Is
It?," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 41, No. 7: July,
1969. p. 1285.
11. Downing, A. L., T. G. Tomlinson, and G. A. Truesdale. "Effects of In-
hibitors on Nitrification in the Activated Sludge Process," Journal and
Proceedings of the Inst. Sew. Purif., Part 6: 1964.
12. Duncan, J. W. K., and K. Kawata. Discussion of "Evaluation of Sludge
Thickening Theories," Journal Sanitary Eng. Div., ASCE,Vol. 94, No. SA2:
April, 1968. p. 431.
13. Dye, E. 0. "Solids Control Problems in Activated Sludge," Sewage and
Industrial Wastes. Vol. 30, No. 11: 1958. p. 1350.
14. Eckenfelder, W. W., and R. F. Weston. "Kinetics of Biological Oxidation,"
Biological Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes. Reinhold Publish-
ing Corp., New York: 1956.
15. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. "Extended aeration - a summary." Paper pre-
sented at "the Annual Meeting of the ASCE, New York, N.Y.: October 17,
1961. 4 pp.
16. Eckhoff, D. W., and D. Jenkins. "Transient Loading Effects in the Acti-
vated Sludge Process," in Advances in Water Pollution Research, Munich:
Journal WPCF, Vol. 2: 1967.
17. Engel, M. S., and M. Alexander. "Growth and Autotrophic Metabolism of
Nitrosomonas Europaea," Jour. Bacteriol., Vol. 76: 1958. p. 217.
-------
18. 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.
19. Grieves, R. B., W. F. Milbury, and W. 0. Pipes. "The Effect of Short
Circuiting Upon the Completely-Mixed Activated Sludge Process," Interna-
tional Journal Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 8: 1964. pp. 199-214.
20. Hais, Stamberg, J., and D. Bishop. "Alum Addition to Activated Sludge
with Tertiary Solids Removal," A.W.T.R.L., E.P.A., Preliminary Report:
March, 1971.
21. Heukelekian, H. "The Influence of Nitrifying Flora, Oxygen and Ammonia
Supply on the Nitrification of Sewage," Sewage Works Journal, Vol. 14:
1942. pp. 964-979.
22. 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 FiLn," Sewage Wks. J., Vol. 17: 1945. p. 516.
23. Heukelekian, H., H. E. Orford, and R. Manganelli. "Factors Affecting the
Quantity of Sludge Production in the Activated Sludge Process," Sewage
and Industrial Wastes. Vol. 23: 1951. pp. 945-957.
24. Hydroscience, Inc. Advanced Waste Treatment Studies for Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal. Written for Baldwin and Cornelius Company: March,
1971.
25. Hydroscience, Inc. Nitrification in the Activated Sludge Process. City
of Flint, Michigan. Prepared for Consoer, Townsend and Associates,
Chicago, Illinois: July, 1971.
-------
26. Ingersoll, A. C., J. E. McKee, and N. H. Brooks. "Fundamental Concepts
of Rectangular Settling Tanks," Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., Vol. 81, No.
590: January, 1955.
27. Jenkins, D., and W. E. Garrison. "Control of Activated Sludge by Mean
Cell Residence Time," Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 40, 1968.
p. 1905.
27. Jenkins, S. H. "Nitrification," Wat. Pollut. Control 1969. p. 610.
28. Jensen, H. L. "Effect of Organic Compounds on Nitrosomonas," Nature,
Vol. 165: 1950. p. 974.
29. Jones, R., R. Briggs, J. G. Carr, and A. H. Potten. Automatic Control of
Aeration in a Fully Nitrifying Activated Sludge Plant. Paper presented
at the Institute of Public Health Engineers, Land, March 6, 1969.
30. Katz, W. J., and A. Geinopolos. Discussion of "Flow Patterns in a
Rectangular Sewage Sedimentation Tank," Advances in Water Pollution
Research, Proceedings 1st International Conference, London, Pergamon
Press, Oxford: 1964.
31. Reefer, C. E. "Relationship of Sludge Density Index to the Activated
Sludge Process," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 35, No.
9: 1963. p. 1166.
32. Krone, Ray B. Discussion of "Evaluation of Sludge Thickening Theories,"
Journal Sanitary Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 94, No. SA3: June, 1968. p. 554.
33. Lawrence, A. L., and P. L. McCarty. "Unified Basis for Biological Treat-
ment Design and Operation/1 Journ. of Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., S.E.D.,
96, 757-778, 1970.
34. Lesperance, Theodore W. "A Generalized Approach to Activated Sludge,"
Water and Wastes Engineering: May, 1965.
-------
35. McCarty, P. L. Mtrification-Denitrification by Biological Treatment.
University of Massachusetts, W.R.R.C. Correspondents Conf. on Denitrifi-
cation of Municipal Wastes: March, 1973.
36. McCarty, P. L. "Stoichiometry of Biological Reactions." Presented at
the International Conference Toward a Unified Concept of Biological Waste
Treatment Design, Atlanta, Georgia: October 6, 1972.
37. 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. p. 280
38. McKinney, R. E., J. M. Symons, W. G. Shifrin, and M. Vezina. "Design and
Operation.of a Complete Mixing Activated Sludge System," Sew, and Ind.
Wastes. Vol. 30, Ho. 3: March, 1958. p. 287.
39. McKinney, R. E. "Mathematics of Complete-Mixing Activated Sludge," Jour.
San. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., Vol. 88, SA3: 1962. p. 87.
40. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Nitrification and Denitrification Facilities.
E.P.A. Technology Transfer Program, Chicago, Illinois, Design Seminar,
November 28-30, 1972.
41. Morris, Grover L., Lowell Van Den Berg, Gordon L. Gulp, Jack R. Geckler,
and Ralph Porges. Extended-Aeration Plants and Intermittent Watercourses.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio: July,
1963.
42. Mulbarger, M. C. "Nitrification and Denitrification in Activated Sludge
Systems," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 43: 1971. pp. 2059-2070.
43. Mulbarger, M. C. "The Three Sludge System for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal," A.W.T.R.L.. E.P.S.: April, 1972.
-------
44. Okun, D. A., and W. R. Lynn. "Preliminary Investigation into the Effect
of Oxygen Tension on Biological Sewage Treatment," in Biological Treat-
ment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes: Vol. I, Aerobic Oxidation.
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York: 1956.
45. Reed, S. C., and R. S. Murphy. "Low Temperature Activated Sludge
Settling," Journal Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE.No. SA4: August,
1969.
46. Rimer, A. E., and R. L. Woodward. "Two Stage Activated Sludge Pilot
Operations at Fitchburg, Massachusetts," J.W.P.C.F., No. 44: 1972. pp.
101-116.
47. Sawyer, C. N. "Final Clarifiers and Clarifier Mechanisms," in Biological
Treatment of Sewage and Industrial Wastes. Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York: 1957.
48. Sawyer, C. N. "Milestones in the Development of the Activated Sludge
Process," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 37, No. 2:
February, 1965.
49. Smith, Robert. A Compilation of Cost Information for Conventional and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants and Processes. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Advanced
Waste Treatment Branch, Division of Research; Cincinnati Water Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio: December, 1967.
50. Stamberg, John B., Dolloff F. Bishop, Alan B. Hais, and Stephen M.
Bennett. System Alternatives in Oxygen Activated Sludge. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring, National
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
51. Stamberg, John B., Dolloff F. Bishop, and Gordon Kumke. Activated Sludge
Treatment With Oxygen. Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced Waste
Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio: March, 1971.
52. Stankewich, Michael J., Jr. "Biological Nitrification With the High
Purity Oxygenation Process." Presented at the 27th Annual Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana: May 2-4, 1972.
53. Wilcox, E. "Operating Experience and Design Criteria for 'Unox1 Waste-
water Treatment Systems," EPA Technology Transfer Seminar, New York, New
York: February 29-March 2, 1972.
54. Wild, H., C. Sawyer, and!. McMahon. "Factors Affecting Nitrification
Kinetics," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 43: 1971. pp. 1845-1854.
-------
VII. TRICKLING FILTERS
iiibliofiraphicr.
Dow Chemical Co. A Literature Search and Critical Analysis of Biological
Trickling Filter Studies—Volume II. United States Environmental Protection
Agency: December, 1971.
Bibliographic List
1. Balakrishnan, S., and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. "Nitrogen Relationships in
Biological Treatment Process—II. Nitrification in Trickling Filters,"
Water Resources, Vol. 3: 1969. p. 167.
?.. Benzie, Wallace J., Herbert 0. Larkin, and Allan F. Moore. "Effects of
Climatic and Loading Factors on Trickling Filter Performance." Presented
at 35th Meeting of WPCF: October 7-11, 1962.
3. Bloodgood, D. E., G. H. Teletzke, and F. G. Pohland. "Fundamental
Hydraulic Principles of Trickling Filters," Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 31, No. 3: March, 1959. p. 243.
4. Brown, James C., Linda W. Little, Donald E. Francisco, and James C. Lamb.
Methods for Improvement of Trickling Filter Plant Performance. Contract
14-12-505, Project 11010 DGA, Program Element 1B2043, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5. Burgess, F. J., C. M. Gilmour, F. Merryfield, and J. K. Carswell.
"Evaluation Criteria for Deep Trickling Filters." Presented at 33rd
Meeting of WPCF, Philadelphia: October 2-6, 1960.
6. Cameron, W. M., and A. R. Jamieson. "Further Operation of an Enclosed
Filter at Dalmarnock Sewage Works," Jour, and Proc. Inst. Sew. Purif.,
part 4: 1950. p. 417.
-------
7. Buddies, Glenn A., and Steven E. Richardson. Application of Plastic
Modci Trickling Filters for Biological Nitrification Systems. Contract
14-12-900, Project 17010 SJF, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C.
8. Eckenfelder, W. W., and S. W. Hood. "The Role of Ammonia Nitrogen in
Sewage Treatment," Water and Sewage Works. Vol. 97: 1950, pp. 246-250.
Pollution Abstracts; 1951, p. 1027.
9. Fair, G. M., R. E. Puhrman, C. C. Ruchhoft, H. A. Thomas, and F. W.
Mohlman. "Sewage Treatment at Military Installations--Summary and Con-
clusions," Sewage Works Jour.. Vol. 20, No. 1: January, 1948. p. 52.
10. Fairall, J. M. "Correlation of Trickling Filter Data," Sewage and
Industrial Wastes. Vol. 28, No. 9: September, 1956. p. 1069.
11. Franzmathes, Joseph R. "Operational Costs of Trickling Filters in the
Southeast," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 4, No. 5: May, 1969. p. 814.
12. Grantham, G. R., E. B. Phelphs, W. T. Calaway, and D. L. Emerson.
"Progress Report on Trickling Filter Studies," Sewage Wks. J., Vol. 22,
No. 7: 1950. p. 867.
13. Heukelekian, H. "The Relationship Between Accumulation Biochemical and
Biological Characteristics of Filjn and Purification Capacity of a Bio-
filter and a Standard Filter—III. Nitrification and Nitrifying Capacity
of the Film," Sewage Wks. J.. Vol. 17: 1945. p. 516.
14. Hanumanulu, V. "Effect of Recirculation on Deep Trickling Filter Per-
formance," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 41, No. 10. p. 1803.
15. Hazen and Sawyer. "Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants: Case
Histories." Presented at Environmental Protection Agency Technology
Transfer Program Design Seminar, Pittsburgh, Pa: August 29-31, 1972.
-------
16. Moore, W. A., R. S. Smith, and C. C. Ruiichhoft. "Efficiency Study of a
Rccirculating Sewage Filter at Centralia, Mo.," Sew, and Ind. Wastes,
Vol. 22: 1950. p. 184.
17. NRC Sub-Committee on Sewage Treatment. "Sewage Treatment at Military
Installations—Summary and Conclusions," Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 20, No.
1: January, 194=8. p. 52.
18. Rankin, R. S. "Evaluation of the Performance of Biofiltration Plants,"
Trans. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr.,, No. 120: 1955. p. 823.
19. Sack, William A., and Stephen A. Phillips. Evaluation of the Bio-Disc
Treatment Process for Summer Camp Application. Project S-800707, Program
Element 102043, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20. Schroepfer, G. J., M. B. Al-Hakim, H. F. Seidel, and W. R. Ziemke.
"Temperature Effects on Trickling Filters," Sewage Works Jour.. Vol. 24,
No. 6: June, 1952. p. 705.
21. Shriver, Larry E., and James C. Young. "Oxygen Demand Index as a Rapid
Estimate of Biochemical Oxygen Demand," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 44, No. 11:
November, 1972. p. 2146.
22. Sinkoff, M. D., R. Porges, and J. H. McDermott. "Mean Residence Time of
a Liquid in a Trickling Filter," Jour. San. Engr. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil
Engr., Vol. 85, SA6: November, 1959. p. 51.
23. Sorrels, J. H., and P. J. A. Zeller. "Two-Stage Trickling Filter Per-
formance," Sewage Wks. J., Vol. 28, No. 8: 1956. p. 934.
24. Thcman, John R., and Kenneth H. Jenkins. "Use of Final Settling Tanks
With Standard-Rate Trickling Filters," Sewage Works Jour.. Vol. 31, No.
5. p. 842.
-------
25. Velz, C. J. "A Basic Law for the Performance of Biological Filters,"
Sewage Works Jour., Vol. 20, No. 4: July, 1948. p. 607.
-------
VIII. PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Bibliographic List
1. Battelle-Northwest, Richland Washington, and South Lake Tahoe Public
Utility District, South Lake Tahoe, California. Wastevater Ammonia
Removal by Ion Exchange, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Project
17010 ECZ 02/71.
2. Bishop, D. F. "Advanced Waste Treatment Research at the FWPCA-DC Pilot
Plant." Presented at the FWPCA Technical Workshop, Fredericksburg, Va.:
May 13, 1969.
3. Bishop, D. F., et al. "Studies on Activated Carbon Treatment," Jour.
Water Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 39: 1967. p. 188.
4. Bishop, Dolloff F., Thomas P. O'Farrell, and John B. Stamberg. "Physical-
Chemical Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," J.W.P.C.F., Vol. 44, No. 3:
March, 1972.
5. Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers. Process Design Manual for
Phosphorous Removal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology
Transfer Program: October, 1971.
6. Burns and Roe Inc. Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Program: October,
1971.
7. Cassel, Alan F., Thomas A. Pressley, Walter W. Schuk, and Dolloff F.
Bishop. Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal From Municipal Wastewater.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio:
March, 1971.
-------
8. Cl-^M/Hill and Associates. Regional Water Reclamation Plan, Upper Occoquan
Sewage Authority. January, 1971.
9. CHgM/Hill and Associates. Wastewater Treatment Study, Montgomery County,
Maryland, Volumes 1 and 11. Prepared for Montgomery County, Maryland.
10. Gulp, Gordon L. "Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Design." Presented
at Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Seminar,
Pittsburgh, Pa.: August, 1972.
11. Culp, G., and A. Slechta. "Phosphate and Nitrogen Removal at South Tahoe
Public Utility District Water Reclamation Plant." Presented at the 39th
Annual Conference WPCF Meeting, Kansas City, Mo.: September, 1966.
12. Engineering Science, Inc. "Design Report for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal for Parkway Sewage Treatment Plant." Prepared for the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission: March, 1970.
13. Engineering Science, Inc. "Regional Wastewater Management and Reclama-
tion for Santa Barbara." Prepared for the City of Santa Barbara, Cali-
fornia: August, 1971.
14. English, J. W., et al. "Removals of Organics from Wastewater by Acti-
vated Carbon." Presented at the 67th National Meeting of the AIChE,
Atlanta: February, 1970.
15. Hager, D. G., and D. B. Reilly. "Clarification-Adsorption in the
Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewaters," Jour. Water Poll.
Control Fed., Vol. 42: 1970. p. 794.
16. Joyce, R. S., J. B. Allen, and V. A. Sukenik. "Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater by Packed Activated Carbon Beds," Jour. Water Poll. Control
Fed.. Vol. 38: 1966. p. 813.
-------
17. Joyce, R. S-., and V. A. Sukenik. 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.
18. Koon, John H., and Warren J. Kauftaan. Optimization of Ammonia Removal by
Ion Exchange Using Clinoptilolite. For the Water Quality Office, Envir-
onmental Protection Agency Grant No. 17080 DAE.: Sept., 1971.
19. Molof, A. H., and M. M. Zuckerman. "High Quality Reuse Water from a
Newly Developed Chemical-Physical Treatment Process." Presented at the
5th International Water Pollution Research Conference, San Francisco:
July, 1970.
20. O'Farrell, T. P., F. P. Frauson, A. F. Cassel, and D. F. Bishop.
"Nitrogen Removal by Ammonia Stripping." Presented at the 160th National
ACS Meeting, Chicago: September, 1970.
21. O'Farrell, T. P., J. B. Stamberg, and D. F. Bishop. "Carbon Adsorption
of Lime Clarified Raw, Primary, and Secondary Wastewaters." Presented at
the 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Houston: March, 1971.
22. Parkhurst, J. D., F. D. Dryden, G. N. McDermott, and J. English. "Pomona
Activated Carbon Pilot Plant," Jour. WPCF. Vol. 39, No. 10:R70, Part 2:
1967.
23. Pressley, T. A., D. F. Bishop, and S. G. Roan. "Nitrogen Removal by
Breakpoint Chlorination." Presented at the 160th National ACS Meeting,
Chicago: September, 1970.
24. Rizzo, J. L. "Adsorption/Filtration; A New Unit Process for the Treat-
ment of Industrial Wastewaters." Presented at the 63rd Annual AIChE
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois: November 29-December 3, 1970.
-------
25. Rizzo, J. L., and R. E. Schade. "Secondary Treatment With Granular
Activated Carbon," Water and Sewage Works; August, 1969.
26. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers. Concept
Engineering Report .'Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Pis cat aw: y Treatment
Plant« Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission: April, 1972.
27. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Environmental Scientists and Engineers. Process
Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer: October, 1971.
28. Smith, Clinton E., and Robert L. Chapman. Recovery of Coagulant, Nitrogen
Removal and Carbon Regeneration in Wastewater Reclamation. Final Report
of Project Operations, Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration Grant WPD-85: June, 1967.
29. Stamberg, J. B., D. F. Bishop, H. P. Warner, and S. H. Griggs. "Lime
Precipitation in Municipal Wastewaters." Presented at the 62nd Annual
Meeting of AIChE: November, 1969.
30. Stander, G. J., and L. R. J. Van Vuuren. "The Reclamation of Potable
Water from Wastewater," Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed.., Vol. 41: 1969.
p. 355.
31. Swindell-Dressier Company. Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer: October, 1971.
32. Villers, R. V., E. L. Berg, C. A. Brunner, and A. N. Masse. "Treatment
of Primary Effluent by Lime Clarification and Granular Carbon." Presented
at the 47th Annual Meeting of ACS, Toronto: May, 1970.
33. Water Pollution Control Federation. Sewage Treatment Plant Design, WPCF
Manual of Practice No. 8. Washington, D.C.: 1959 (Fifth Printing: 1972).
-------
34. Weber, W. J., C. B. Hopkins, and R. Bloom, Jr. "Physiochemical Treatment
of Wastewater," Journal WPCF; January, 1970.
-------
IX. STORM AMD COMBINED SEWERS
Bibliographic List
1. American Public Works Assn. Combined Sewer Regulation and Management—A
Manual of Practice. Report No. 11022DMU08/70, Chicago, Illinois.
2. American Public Works Assn. Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities.
Report No. 11022DMU07/70, Chicago, Illinois.
3. American Public Works Assn. Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and
Overflows—1967. Report No. 11020—12/67, Chicago, Illinois.
4. 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.
5. American Society of Civil Engineers. Combined Sewer Separation Using
Pressure Sewers. Report No. 11020EKO 10/69, Cambridge, Mass.
6. Anonymous. "Characterization, Treatment and Disposal of Urban Storm-
water," Intl. Conf. on Water Pollution Research, Munich, Germany: Septem-
ber, 1966.
7. Banister, A. W. "Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewage as An Alternate
to Separation." Presented at Seminar on Storm and Combined Sewer Over-
flows, Edison, N.J.: November, 1969.
8. Benjes, H. H., et al. "Storm-Water Overflows from Combined Sewers,"
JWPCF, Vol. 33, No. 12: 1961.
9. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
Sources and Abatement, Atlanta, Ga. Report No. 11024ELB01/71, Atlanta, Ga.
10. Bowles Engineering Corp. Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator.
Report No. 11020DGZ 10/69, Silver Spring, Md.
-------
11. Burcess and Niple, Ltd. Stream Pollution and Abatement fron Combined
Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio. Report No. 11024FKN 11/69, Columbus,
Ohio.
12. Burm, R. J., "The Bacteriological Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows on
the Detroit River," JWPCF, Vol. 39, No. 3: March, 1967. p. 410.
13. Burm, R. J., and R. D. Vaughan. "Bacteriological Comparison Between
Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges in Southeastern Michigan," JWPCF,
Vol. 38, No. 3: March, 1966. p. 400.
14. Burm, R. J., et al. "Chemical and Physical Comparison of Combined and
Separate Sewer Discharges," JWPCF, Vol. 40, No. 1: January, 1968. p. 112.
15. Caster, A. D. "Monitoring Stormwater Overflows," JWPCF, Vol. 37, No. 9:
September, 1965.
16. Caster, A. D., and W. J. Stein. "Pollution From Combined Sewers, Cincin-
nati, Ohio." Presented at ASCE National Water Resources Engineering
Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee: January, 1970.
17. City of Chippewa Falls, Wise. Storage and Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows. Report No. EPA-R2-72-070 (11023 FIY).
18. Cochrane Division, Crane Co. Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined
Sewer Overflows. Report No. 11023EVO 06/70, King of Prussia, Pa.
19. Detroit Metro Water Department, Detroit Sewer Monitoring and Remote
Control. Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Water Pollution
Control Research Series, 11024, 06/70.
20. Dodson, Kinney and Lindblom. Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks, Columbus,
Ohio. Report No. 11020FAL 03/71, Columbus, Ohio.
-------
21. Envirogenics Co., Div. of Aerojet-General Corp. Urban Storm Runoff and
Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution, Sacramento, California. Report No.
11024FKM 12/71, El Monte, Calif.
22. Federal Water Quality Administration, Div. of Applied Science and Tech-
nology, Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control Branch. Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology. Report No. 11024— 06/70, Washing-
ton, B.C.
23. Field, Richard. "Management and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows."
Presented at 44th Annual Meeting of the New York Water Pollution Control
Association, New York: January, 1972.
24. Field, R., and E. Struzeski. "Management and Control of Combined , ewer
Overflows," JWPCF, Vol. 44, No. 7: July, 1972.
25. Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Ltd. Stormwater Overflow Study; Lima,
Ohio. Marion, Ohio: 1973.
26. FMC Corporation, Central Engineering Laboratories. A Flushing System for
Combined Sewer Cleansing. Report No. 11020DNO 03/72, Santa Monica, Calif.
27. Glover, G. E., and G. R. Herbert. Micro-Straining and Disinfection of
Combined Sewer Overflows—Phase II. Report No. EPA-R2-73-124 (11023 FWT),
Crane Co., King of Prussia, Pa.
28. Greeley, Samuel A., and Paul E. Langdon. "Storm Water and Combined
Sewage Overflows," J. of the San Engr. Div., Proc. of the Am. Soc. of
Civil Engin., Vol. 87: 1961. p. 57.
29. Havens and Emerson. Feasibility of a Stabilization—Retention Basin in
Lake Erie at Cleveland, Ohio. Report No. 11020— 05/68, Cleveland, Ohio.
30. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. Engineering Investigation of Sewer
Overflow Problems. Report No. 11024DMS 05/70, Roanoke, Va.
-------
31. Hicks, W. I. "A Method of Computing Urban Runoff," Proceedings ASCE,
Vol. 109: 1944. p. 1217.
32. Karl R. Rohrer Associates, Inc. Underwater Storage of Combined Sewer
Overflows. Report No. 11022ECV 09/71, Akron, Ohio.
33. Koelzer, V. A., et al. "The Chicagoland Deep Tunnel Project," 41st
Annual Conf. of WPCF: September 22-7, 1968.
34. Melpar Division of E Systems. Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage
Facility. Report No. 11022DPP 10/70, Falls Church, Va.
35. Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. Storm Water Management Model, Vol. I—IV,
Final Report. Report No. 11024DOC, Palo Alto, Calif.
36. Metcalf and Eddy Engineers. Storm Water Problems and Control in Sanitary
Sewers, Oakland and Berkeley, California. Report No. 11024EQG 03/71,
Palo Alto, Calif.
37. Metropolitan Sewer Board, St. Paul. Dispatching System for Control of
Combined Sewer Losses. Report No. 11020FAQ 03/71, St. Paul, Minnesota.
38. Mytelka, A. I., et al. Combined Sewer Overflow Study for the Hudson
River Conference. Report No. EPA-R2-73-152 (11000 ), Interstate
Sanitation Commission, New York, N.Y.
39. Nebolsine, Ross, P. J. Harvey, and Chi-Yuan Fan. High Rate Filtration of
Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No. 11023FYI 04/72, Hydrotechnic Corp.,
New York, N.Y.
40. Pavia, E. H., and C. J. Powell. "Chlorination and Hypochlorination of
Polluted Storm Water at New Orleans," 41st Annual Conf. of WPCF: Septem-
ber 22-27, 1968.
-------
41. Portland Department of Public Works, City of Portl.-uul, Oregon. Demonstra-
tion of Rotary Screening for Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No.
11023FDD 07/71, Portland, Ore.
42. Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Ecology Division. Screening/Flotation Treatment of
Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No. 11020FDC 01/72, Milwaukee, Wise.
43. Rhodes Corporation. Dissolved-Air Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows. Report Wo. 11020FKE 01/70, Oklahoma City, Okla.
44. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Conceptual Engineering Report—Kingman Lake Project.
Report No. 11023FK 08/70, West Chester, Pa.
45. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives,
Washington, D.C. Report No. 11024EXF 08/70, West Chester, Pa.
46. Shuckrow, A. J. "Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined Sewer Over-
flows." Presented at 44th Annual Meeting, New York Water Pollution
Control Assn., New York: January 26-28, 1972.
47. Shuckrow, A. J., G. W. Dawson, and W. F. Bonner. Physical-Chemical
Treatment of Combined and Municipal Sewage. Report No. EPA-R2-73-149
(11020 DSQ), PNW Laboratories, Battelle Memorial Inst., Richland, Wash.
48. Sijnpson, George D. "Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows and Surface
Waters at Cleveland, Ohio," 41st Annual Conf. of WPCF: September 22-27,
1968.
49. 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 Systems - A Preliminary
Appraisal. November, 1964.
50. University of Cincinnati. Urban Runoff Characteristics. Report No.
11024DQU 10/70, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-------
X. ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Bibliographic List
1. Antonie, R. L. Application of the Bio Disc Process to Treatment of
Domestic Wastewater. 43rd W.P.C.F. Conference, Boston, Massachusetts:
1970.
2. Barth, E. F., R. C. Brenner, and R. F. Lewis. "Chemical-Biological
Control of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wastewater Effluent," JWPCF, Vol.
40: 1968. pp. 2040-2054.
3. Barth, E. F., M. Mulbarger, B. U. Salotto, and M. B. Ettinger. "Removal
of Nitrogen by Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants," JWPCF, Vol. 38:
1966. pp. 1208-1219.
4. 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.
5. Bishop, Dolloff F., Thomas P. O'Farrell, and John B. Stamberg. "Physical-
Chemical Treatment of Municipal Wastewater," JWPCF, Vol. 44, No. 3: March,
1372. p. 361.
6. Bishop, D. F., T. P. O'Farrell, J. B. Stamberg, and J. W. Porter.
"Advanced Waste Treatment Systems at the FWQA-DC Pilot Plant." Presented
at the 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Houston: March, 1971.
7. Bishop, D. F., et al. "Studies on Activated Car' on Treatment," JWPCF,
Vol. 39, No. 2: February, 1967. pp. 188-203.
8. Black, S. A. Lime Treatment for Phosphorus Removal at the Newmarket/East
Guillimburg W.P.C.F. Paper No. W3032, Ministry of the Environment,
Toronto, Ontario: May, 1972.
-------
9. Black and Veatch. Process Design Manual I'or Phosphorus Removal. E.P.A.
Technology Transfer Program No. 17010: October, 1971.
10. liuswell, A. M., T. Shiota, N. Lawrence, and I. Van Meter. "Laboratory
Studies on the Kinetics of the Growth of Nitrosomonas with Relation to
the Nitrification Phase of the BOD Test," Applied Microbiology, No. 2:
1954. pp. 21-25.
11. Cassel, Alan F., Thomas A. Pressley, Walter W. Schuk, and Dolloff F.
Bishop. Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency Advanced Waste Treatment Research Labora-
tory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio: March,
1971.
12. Coyen, J. M. "Nutrient Removal from Wastewater by Physical-Chemical
Processes," Proceedings, 151st A.C.S. Meeting. Los Angeles, California:
March, 1971.
13. Culp, Gordon L. Physical-Chemical Treatment Plant Design. Environmental
Protection Agency Technology Transfer Seminar, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
August, 1972.
14. Culp, G., and A. Slechta. "Phosphate and Nitrogen Removal at South Tahoe
Public Utility District Water Reclamation Plant." Presented at the 39th
Annual Conference WPCF, Kansas City, Mo.: September, 1966.
15. Dawson, R. N., and K. L. Murphy. "Temperature Dependency of Biological
Denitrification," Water Research, No. 6: 1972. p. 71.
16. Duddles, G. A., S. E. Richardson, and E. F. Earth. "The Application of
Plastic Media Trickling Filters in Biological Nitrification Systems."
Water Pollution Control Federation Conference, Atlanta, Georgia: 1972.
-------
17. Dryden, Franklin D., Sanitation District of Los Angelos County. "De-
miueralization of Reclaimed Waters," J. Industrial Wastes Enp;.; August/
September, 1971.
18. English, J. N., et al. "Ranovals of Organics from Wastewater by Activated
Carbon." Presented at the 67th National Meeting of the AIChE, Atlanta:
February, 1970.
19. Hager, D. G., and J. L. Rizzo. Advanced Waste Treatment Design Seminar.
20. Hager, D. G., and P. B. Reilly. "Clarification-Adsorption in the Treat-
ment of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater," JWPCF; May, 1970.
21. Haug, Roger T., and P. L. McCarty. Nitrification with the Submerged
Filter. E.P.A. Technical Report No. 149: August, 1971.
22. Jlorstkotte, G. A., D. G. Niles, D. S. Parker, and D. H. Caldwell. "Full
Scale Testing of a Water Reclamation System." Presented at 45th W.P.C.F.
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia: 1972.
23. Hydroscience, Inc. Advanced Waste Treatment Studies for Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Removal. Written for Baldwin and Cornelius Company: March,
1971.
24. Johnson, W. K., and G. L. Schroepfer. "Nitrogen Removal by Nitrification
and Denitrification," JWPCF. Vol. 36: 1964. pp. 1015-1036.
25. Kelly, S., and S. Sanderson. "The Effect of Chlorine in Water on Enteric
Viruses," American Public Health, No. 48: 1958. p. 1323.
26. Kreusch, Ed., and Ken Schmidt. "Wastewater Demineralization by Ion
Exchange," Water Poll. Res. Series 17040 BEE 12/71, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
27. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Nitrification and Denitrification Facilities.
E.P.A. Technology Transfer Program, Chicago, Illinois, Design Seminar:
November 28-30, 1972.
28. McCarty, P. L. Nitrification-Denitrification by Biological Treatment.
University of Massachusetts, W.R.R.C. Correspondents Conf. on Denitrifi-
cation of Municipal Wastes: March, 1973.
29. Mulbarger, M. C. "Nitrification and Denitrification in Activated Sludge
Systems," JWPCF, No. 43: 1971. pp. 2059-2070.
30. Mulbarger, M. C. "The Three Sludge System for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Removal," AWTRL, E.P.A.: April, 1972.
31. O'Farrell, T. P., D. F. Bishop, and S. M. Bennett. "Advanced Waste
Treatment at Washington, D.C." Presented at the 65th Annual AlChe Meet-
ing, Cleveland, Ohio: May, 1969.
32. O'Farrell, T. P., J. B. Stamberg, and D. F. Bishop. "Carbon Adsorption
of Lime Clarified Raw, Primary, and Secondary Wastewaters." Presented at
the 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Houston: March, 1971.
33. Pressley, Thomas A., Dolloff F. Bishop, and Stephanie G. Roan. Nitrogen
Removal by Breakpoint Chlorination. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Federal Water Quality Administration, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio: Sep-
tember, 1970.
34. Rimer, A. E., and R. L. Woodward. "Two Stage Activated Sludge Pilot
Operations at Fitchburg, Massachusetts," JWPCF, No. 44: 1972. pp. 101-
116.
35. Rizzo, J. L., and R. E. Schade. "Secondary Treatment with Granular
Activated Carbon," Water and Sewage Works; August, 1969.
-------
36. Rizzo, J. L. "Adsorption/Filtration...A New Unit Process for the Treat-
ment of Industrial Wastewaters." Presented at the G3rd Annual AIChE
Meeting, Chicago, Illinois: November 29-December 3, 1970.
37. 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.
38. Stamberg, J. B., D. B. Bishop, H. P. Warner, and S. H. Griggs. "Lime
Precipitation in Municipal Wastewaters." Presented at 62nd Annual
Meeting of AIChE: November, 1969.
39. Stensel, H. D., R. C. Loehr, and A. W. Lawrence. "Biological Kinetics of
the Suspended Growth Denitrification Process," JWPCF, No. 45: 1973. pp.
244-261.
40. Tittlebaum, et al. "Ozone Disinfection of Viruses." Presented at Insti-
tute on Ozonation in Sewage Treatment, University of Wisconsin: November,
1971.
41. Torpey, W. N., H. Heukelekian, A. J. Kaplowsky, and R. Epstein. "Rotating
Disks with Biological Growth Prepare Wastewater for Disposal or Reuse,"
JWPCF, No. 43: 1971. pp. 2181-2188.
42. Warriner, T. R. "Field Tests on Chlorination of Poliovirus in Sewage,"
Jour. San. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 93, SA5: 1967. p. 51.
43. Water Pollution Cor.trol Research Series. Methanol Requirements and
Temperature Effects in Wastewater Denitrification. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency: August, 1970.
44. Wild, H., C. Sawyer, and T. McMahon. "Factors Affecting Nitrification
Kinetics," JWPCF, No. 43: 1971. pp. 1845-1854.
-------
45. Van Note, Robert H., Paul V. Hebert, and Ramesh M. Patel. A Guide to the
Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems. Contract Number
68-01-09T|3, Municipal Wastewater Systems Division, Engineering and Design
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency: February, 1974.
-------
XI. REUSE TECHNIQUES
Bibliographic List
1. Advanced Waste Treatment by Distillation. Report No. AWTR-7, Public
Health Service of Dept. of HEW: March, 1964.
2. Advanced Waste Water Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe. EPA Report
No. 170 10-ELQ-08/71, South Tahoe Public Utility Dist.: August, 1971.
3. 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, Advanced Waste Treatment
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
4. Ayres, R. U. "A Materials-Process-Product Model," Environ. Quality
Analysis Papers from a Resources for the Future Conf., Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, Md.: 1972.
5. Bayley, R. W., et al. Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Depart-
ment of Environment. "Some Recent Advances in Water Reclamation," Water
Pollution Control. Vol. 71, No. 1: 1972.
6. Bouwer, II. Water Quality Aspects of Intermittent Systems Using Secondary
Sewage Effluent. U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Ariz.,
Paper No. 8: September, 197C. 19 pp.
7. Bouwer, Hermand, R. C. Rice, E. D. Escarcega, and N. S. Riggs. Renovating
Secondary Sewage by Ground-Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series
16060DRV: 1972. 102 pp.
8. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa Water District.
Municipal Wastevater Renovation Pilot/Demonstration Project. Draft report
submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency: April, 1972.
-------
9. Chojnacki, A. "Recovery of Coagulants from the Sludge After Waste Treat-
ment," Inst. llydrotech. Res. Sci. Sess., Bucharest, Sect. 4: 1964. pp.
25-26. (Water Pollution Abs.; September, 1965.)
10. Chojnacki, A. "The Treatment and Use of Alum Sludge," Int. Water Supply
Congress, Barcelona, Spain: October, 1966. p. Qll.
11. Cohen, Philip, and C. N. Durfor. Artificial Recharge Experiments
Utilizing Renovated Sewage-Plant Effluent—A Feasibility Study at Bay
Park, New York, U.S.A. In Symposium of Haifa, Artificial Recharge and
Management of Aquifers: Internat. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology, Pub. No. 72:
1967. pp. 193-199.
12. Cooper, J. C., and D. G. Hager. "Water Reclamation with Granular Acti-
vated Carbon," Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium, Series No. 78,
Vol. 63: 1967. p. 185.
13. Cooper, R. C., R. C. Spear, and F. L. Schaffer. Virus Survival in the
Central Contra Costa County Wastewater Renovation Plant. School of
Public Health, University of California, Berkeley: January, 1972.
14. Cost of Purifying Municipal Waste Water by Distillation. Report No.
AWTR-6 of Public Health Service, Dept. of HEW: November, 1963.
15. Gulp, Gordon, and Russell Gulp. "Reclamation of Wastewater at Lake
Tahoe," Public Works Magazine: February, 1966.
16. Gulp, R. L., and G. L. Gulp. Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co.: 1971.
17. Gulp, R. L. "Wastewater Reclamation by Tertiary Treatment," JWPCF, Vol.
35, No. 6: June, 1963. p. 799.
18. Gulp, Russel L., and Ralph E. Roderick. "The Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation
Plant," JWPCF: February, 1966. p. 147.
-------
19. Dryden, Franklin D. "Demineralization of Reclaimed Waters," J/Industrial
Wastes Engineering: August/September, 1971.
20. Eastern Municipal Water District. Study of Rcutillzation of Wastcwntcr
Recycled Through Ground Water. EPA, Water Pollution Control Research
Report Series No. 16060DDZO7/71, Vol. I: July, 1971.
21. Fuhrman, Ralph E. "The Potential for Reuse of Wastewater as a Source of
Water Supply." Presented at the American Water Works Association Confer-
ence in Chicago, Illinois: June 7, 1972.
22. Gavis, J. Wastewater Reuse. National Water Commission, NWC-EES-71-003:
1971.
23. Gonez, H. J. "Water Reuse in Monterrey, Mexico," JWPCF, Vol. 40, No. 4:
April, 1968. p. 540.
24. Haney, P. D., and C. L. Hamann. "Dual Water Systems," JAWWA, Vol. 57,
No. 9. p. 1073.
25. Hansen, C. A. "Standards for Drinking Water and Direct Reuse," Water and
Wastes Engineering. Vol. 6, No. 4: April, 1969.
26. Horstkotte, G. A., D. G. Niles, D. S. Parker, and D. H. Caldwell. "Full
Scale Testing of a Water Reclamation System." Presented at 45th W.P.C.F.
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia: 1972.
27. Irving, C. E. "How One City Sells its Sludge," Compost Science; Spring,
1960. pp. 18-20.
20. Isaac, P. C. G., and I. Vahidi. "The Recovery of Alum Sludge," Proc.
Soc. Wat. Treatm. and Exam.. Vol. 10: 1961. p. 91.
29. Jimeno, Francisco J. Reclaimed Effluent in Golf Course Irrigation.
Mexico City, Mexico.
-------
30. Kiess, I. F. "Combined Sludge-Garbage Composting," Compost Science:
Summer, 1962. pp. 13-14.
31. Kreusch, Ed, and Ken Schmidt. Wastewater Demineralization by Ion Ex-
change. Project No. 17040 EEE, Contract No. 14-12-599, Office of Research
and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency: December, 1971.
32. Lanibie, John A. Progress Report, Demonstration Project Grant No. WPP
, 50-05-66: Waste Water Reclamation Project for Antelope Valley, Cali-
fornia. Los Angeles, Calif.: May 1, 1967.
33. Leaver, R. E. "Marketing Sewage Sludge in the Northwest," Compost
Science: Spring, 1961. pp. 44-47.
34. Long, William N., and Frank A. Bell, Jr. "Health Factors and Reused
Water," Journal American Water Works Association, Vol. 64: April, 1972.
pp. 220-225.
35. Lusczynski, W. J., and W. V. Swarzenski. Salt-Water Enchroachment in
Southern Nassau and Southeastern Queens Counties. Long Island, Hew York.
U.S. Geol. Survey, Water Supply Paper 1613-F: 1966. 76 pp.
36. Moyer, Harlan E. "The South Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation Project,"
Public Works; December, 1968.
37. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Waste into Wealth. Melbourne,
Australia: 1971.
38. Merrell, John C., Jr., Albert Katko, and Herbert E. Pintler. The Santee
Recreation Project, Santee, California. Summary Report , Public Health
Service Publication No. 99-WP-27: December, 1965.
39. Mitchell, J. K., and W. R. Samples. Report on Reclamation of Wastewater
for Well Injection. Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los
Angeles, Calif.: 1967.
-------
40. Morris, J. Carrell. "Chlorination and Disinfection—State of the Art,"
JAWWA, No. 63: December, 1971. p. 769.
41. Muskegon County Board and Department of Public Works, Muskegon, Michigan.
Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muskegon County, Michigan;
Wastewater Treatment-Irrigation System. Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion Program No. 11010 FMY: September, 1970.
42. North Star Research and Development Institute. New and Ultrathin Mem-
branes for Municipal Wastewater Treatment by Reverse Osmosis. FWQA
Project No. 17020 EFA, Contract No. 14-12-587.
43. Nuper and Stander. "The Virus Problem in the Windhoek Wastewater Recla-
mation Project." Presented at the 6th International Water Pollution
Research Meeting: June, 1972.
44. Parizek, R. R., et al. "Waste Water Renovation and Conservation," The
Pennsylvania State University Studies No. 23, University Park, Pa.: 1967.
45. Pennypacker, Stanley, William E. Sopper, and Louis T. Kardos. "Renovation
of Wastewater Effluent by Irrigation of Forest Land."
46. Peters, J. H., and J. L. Rose. "Water Conservation by Reclamation and
Recharge," Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. Jour., San. Div., Vol. 94, SA4: 1968. pp.
625-639.
47. "Recycling Sludge and Sewage Effluent by Land Disposal," Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 10: October, 1972.
48. Reuse of Wastewater in Germany. OECD, Paris: 1969.
49. Rex Chainbelt Inc., Ecology Division. Amenability of Reverse Osmosis
Concentrate to Activated Sludge Treatment. Environmental Protection
Agency Project No. 17040 EUE: July, 1971.
-------
50. Roberts, J. M., and C. P. Roddy. "Recovery and Reuse of Alum Sludge at
Tampa," JAWWA, Vol. 52: July, 1960. p. 857.
51. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastevrater. APHA,
AWWA, WPCF-Thirteenth Edition: 1571.
52. State of California, The Resources Agency, State Water Quality Control
Board. Wastewater Reclamation at Whittier Narrows. Sacramento, Calif.
Publication No. 33: 1966. 99 pp.
53. Stephan, David G., et al. "Wastewater Treatment and Renovation Status of
Process Development," JWPCF, Vol. 42: 1970. p. 339.
54. Stevens, R. M., and the Center for the Study of Federalism. Green Land-
Clean Streams: The Beneficial Use of Waste Water Through Land Treatment.
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1972.
55. Symons, George E. "Water Reuse--What Do We Mean?", Water and Wastes
Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 6: June, 1968.
56. Sawyer, George A. "New Trends in Wastewater Treatment," Chemical Engi-
neering: July 24, 1972. p. 120.
57. Seabrook, Belford L. Irrigation of Liquid Digested Sludge; An Alterna-
tive Technique.
58. Slechta, Alfred, and Gordon Gulp. Plant Scale Regeneration of Granular
Activated Carbon. Public Health Service Demonstration Grant 84-01:
February, 1966.
59. Slechta, Alfred, and Gordon Gulp. Recovery and Reuse of Coagulant from
Treated Sewage. Public Health Service Demonstration Grant 85-01:
February, 1966.
-------
60. Smith, Clinton E. "Use and Reuse of Lime in Removing Phosphorus and
Nitrogen from Wastewater." Presented at 67th Annual Convention of the
National Lime Association, Phoenix, Ariz.: April 10-11, 1969.
61. Southern Research Institute. Demineralization of Wastewater by the
Transport-Depletion Process. Environmental Protection Agency Project No.
17040 EUN, Contract No. 14-12-812: February, 1971.
62. Task Group 2440-R on Artificial Ground-Water Recharge. "Experience with
Injection Wells for Artificial Ground-Water Recharge," JAWWA. Vol. 57,
No. 5: 1965. pp. 629-639.
63. Tchobanoglous, George, Rolf Eliassen, and George E. Bennett. Progress
Report. Water Reclamation Study Program: Demonstration Project Grant No.
WPP 21-05. Stanford University, Stanford, California: October, 1967.
64. Use of Reclaimed Wastewaters as a Public Water Supply Source. AWWA
Policy Statement, JAWWA Yearbook, Vol. 63, No. 11. p. 55
65. University of Florida. Feasibility of Treating Wastewater by Distilla-
tion. Environmental Protection Agency Project No. 17040 DNM, Contract
Wo. 14-12-571, Gainesville, Florida: February, 1971.
66. Van Vuuren, L. R. J., M. R. Henzen, G. J. Stander, and A. J. Clayton.
The Full-Scale Reclamation of Purified Sewage Effluent for the Augmenta-
tion of the Domestic Supplies of the City of Windhoek. Advances in Water
Pollution Research, Pergamon Press: 1970.
-------
APPENDIX B - COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES (UO CFR 35 - APPENDIX A)
-------
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 CFB part 35.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemakmg 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 proposed. All written comments
are on file with the agency.
Effective date.—These regulations shall
become effective October 10.1973.
Dated September 4,1973.
JOHN QUAHLES,
Acting Administrator.
APPENDIX A
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIUELINK8
a. Purpose —These guidelines provide a
basic methodology for determining the most
cost-effective waste treatment management
system or the most cost-offcctlvc 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 1B72 (the Act).
c. AppticabUUy.—These guidelines apply
to the development of plans for and the
Eeleetlon of component parts of a waste
treatment management system for which a
Federal grant Is awarded under 40 CFB.
Fart 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 35.906-15.
(2) Coat-effectiveness analysis.—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 H/e.—The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be capable of
performing a function.
(6) 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) (S)
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 (eg. 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 eball be
the waste treatment management system
determined from the analysis to have the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent an-
nual value without overriding advene non-
monetary costs and to realize at least Identi-
cal minimum benefits In terms of applicable
Federal. State, and local standards tor 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 30
years.
(3) Elements of cost.—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 ports. To determine these values.
nil monies necessary for capital construction
r.osts and operation and maintenance costs
ihall be Identified.
Capital construction costs used In a cost-
cffectlveneBS analysis shall Include all con-
tractors' costs of construction Including over-
head and profit; costs of land, relocation, and
right-of-way and easement acquisition;
design engineering, field exploration, and en- -.
glneertng 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
nnd 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 changes tn the gen-
eral level of prices.
Exceptions to the foregoing con be made
if their Is justification for expecting signifi-
cant changes In the relative prices of certain
items during the planning period. If such
coses ore Identified, the expected change In
these prices should be made to reflect their
future relative deviation from the general
price level.
(6) 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 Belated Land Resources " After promul-
gation of the above regulation, the rate
established for woter 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 % PXC where'
I=the Interest (discount) rate In Section
f<6).
P=the construction period In years
C=the total capital expenditures.
in coses 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 H/e—The service life of treat-
ment works for a cost-effectiveness analysis
shall be as follows.
tjatit Permanent
Structures 30-W) years
(Includes plant buildings.
concrete process tankage,
basins, etc : sewage collec-
tion and conveyance pipe-
lines; lift station struc-
tures, tunnels: outfalls)
Process equipment 16-30 years
(Includes major process
equipment such as clarlfler
mechanism, vacuum filters,
etc; steel process tankage
and chemical storage facili-
ties; electrical generating
facilities on standby service
only).
Auxiliary equipment 10-16 years
(Includes Instruments and
control facilities; sewage
pumps and electric motors:
mechanical equipment such
as compressors, aeration sys-
tems, centrifuges, chlort-
nators, etc.; electrical gen-
erating facilities on regular
service).
Other service life periods will be acceptable
when sufficient Justification can be provided.
Whcie a system or a component is for
Interim 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 volue at the time of
the analysis. Right-of-way easements shall
be considered to have a salvage value not
gieater 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 durmg 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.
[PR Doc 73-19104 Filed 9-7-73,8 45 am]
-------
APPENDIX C - SECONDARY TREATMENT
INFORMATION (1*0 CFR 133)
-------
FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1973
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 38 • Number 159
PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WATER PROGRAMS
Secondary Treatment
Information
HO. in—pt.n—i
-------
22298
Tide 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHArTER D-WATEH PROGRAMS
PART 133—SECONDARY TREATMENT
INFORMATION
On April 30,1073. 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)U) of
the Federal .Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1072 (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
rulemaUng 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
.
Effective date. These regulations shall
become effective on August 17,1073.
JOHNQTTABIBB,
Acting Administrator.
AUGUST 14,1073.
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.
138.101 Authority.
133.102 Secondary treatment
133.103 Special considerations.
133.104 Sampling ana test procedures.
AOTHOMTY: Been. 304()(1). 801 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 millfllters.
KOERAL 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 mUllliters.
(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
8133.102 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) (1) 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)
------- |