Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups
Land
Treatment
What is land treatment?
When should land treatment
be considered?
What are the advantages
of land treatment?
What site factors are important
to land treatment?
Citizen Handbook
-------
This program was prepared by
The Pennsylvania State University
Institute of State & Regional
Affairs
Middletown, PA 17057
Dr. Charles A. Cole
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Project Co-Director
Prof. Lorna Chr. Stoltzfiis
Editor
This unit was prepared by-
David A. Long
Advisory Team for the Project
David Elkinton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frome, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Hetherington, EPA
Region 10
Rosemary Henderson, EPA
Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Neiss, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, EPA Region 2
Paul Pinault. EPA Region 1
Earlene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA
Headquarters
Charles Kauflman, EPA
Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Project Officer
Barry J. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations
Acknowledgements
Typists:
Ann Kirsch, Jan Russ, Teas
Startoni
Student Assistants:
Corinne Berti, Fran Costanzi,
Kathy DeBatt, Mike Moulds, Terry
Switzer
Illustrator:
Charies Speers
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public Awareness.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Photograph provided by United
States Department of Agriculture.
-------
Land Treatment
What is Land Treatment?
It is an old idea that has come of age—in
the West, that is. Orientals have recycled
human wastes for centuries. Although this
approach is based on the same principle, it
is a different practice. Eastern cultures
such as China use waste solids called
"night soils." In the United States
wastewater is used. Called land treatment
or land application, it means applying
wastewater to land rather than discharging
it into lakes and .streams.
When wastewater is put onto land a whole
series of physical, biological, and chemical
actions take place. The soil acts first as a
filter to strain out suspended solids. The
remaining bacteria and dissolved materials
are broken down biologically, or become
absorbed into the soil. Plants growing on
the ground surface also play an important
role by removing water and nutrients such
as phosphorus. The land treatment process
is truly a "living filter" at work.
When Should Land
Treatment Be Considered?
When should land treatment be
considered? Always!
The Clean Water Act of 1977 is clear.
Communities seeking federal funds for
wastewater treatment systems must
consider land treatment as an alternative
treatment method. Land treatment is one
of three broad categories:
• Treatment and discharge into surface
waters (conventional waste treatment)
• Reuse of treated wastewater
• Land application and utilization
practices.
Land Treatment in the United States
-------
Advantages of Land
Treatment
Land treatment has several advantages
over conventional waste treatment
systems. They include:
• Recycling of plant nutrients
• Reuse of resources through crop
production
• Retention of water in watersheds
• Recreation and open space
• Reduction of sludge.
Land treatment can remove nutrients as
efficiently as the best conventional
processes, while achieving additional
benefits. The recovery and reuse of
wastewater and nutrients through crop
production is one advantage.
Another is to keep water in a watershed.
In many conventional treatment systems it
is common to discharge effluents miles
from where waters are withdrawn and
wastes are generated. In water-sparse
communities this water transfer is a
problem because local groundwater is not
replenished.
Land treatment may also provide
opportunities for recreation and open space
to a greater extent than conventional
systems. All of these activities, as well as
wastewater treatment and reclamation,
allow land treatment systems to
accomplish far more than most
conventional treatment and discharge
alternatives.
Role of Advisory Groups
Citizen advisors can help assure that
land treatment receives its deserved
consideration. They can assist in the
following ways:
• Help pick suitable sites including
those set aside for parks, open spaces,
and green belt areas.
• Through meetings and other informal
contacts, bring farmers into the
planning.
• Promote the consideration of
wastewater as a resource out of place,
not a problem.
• Carefully scrutinize the analysis of
land treatment to make sure that
technical and management aspects
have been adequately evaluated.
• Point out local problems and
opportunities which the consultants
may have trouble identifying.
• Seek assistance from the state water
pollution control agencies and the
EPA.
This living filter at Muskegon provides advanced
treatment for wastewater. Organic matter is
decomposed by soil microorganisms. Nutrients
are bound by plants and soil. Suspended matter
is filtered out by the soil. Heavy metals, colored
substances and viruses are adsorbed by organic
matter and soil particles. After percolation
through the living filter, the renovated icater is
collected by a drainage system.
-------
Impetus for Land
Treatment
Conventional wastewater treatment
systems, especially those of a regional
scope, are very expensive. Additionally,
they are ill-suited to some localities.
In an effort to meet the needs of
communities, and to stretch tax dollars,
Congress passed two major water quality
laws in the past decade. The Clean Water
Act of 1972, PL 92-500, requires the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to encourage waste
management that recycles nutrients in
agriculture, forestry, and fish farming. The
Clean Water Act of 1977, PL 95-217,
reemphasizes recycling through innovative
and alternative wastewater systems,
including land treatment. This legislation
authorizes monetary incentives. They
include:
• Making land used for wastewater storage
and application eligible for grant
assistance
• Allowing land treatment alternatives to
receive funding even if they are 15 percent
more costly than conventional treatment
• Supplying federal grants for 85 percent of
the construction costs
• Allowing full modification or replacement
if innovative or alternative projects fail to
meet required water quality criteria.
In implementating the Congressional
mandates, the EPA administers policies on
land treatment. They include:
• Vigorous promotion of land treatment to
reclaim and recycle municipal wastewaters
• Full justification when land treatment is
rejected in facilities planning
• Exclusion from EPA funding those works
designed for high levels of treatment before
applying wastewater to the land.
Facility plans which give only cursory
coverage to land treatment will be rejected
as not fulfilling EPA requirements.
Land Application
Techniques
Land application techniques consist of
three categories:
• Slow-rate irrigation
• Overland flow
• Rapid infiltration
(infiltration-percolation).
Wastewater is usually applied by spraying,
flooding, or running between ridges and
furrows.
Municipal wastewater, usually treated to
some extent, is applied to land mainly by
the irrigation and rapid-infiltration
methods. Municipal installations currently
are just beginning to use overland flow.
Industrial wastewater, generally screened
or settled, is applied using all three
approaches, with the choice usually
dependent on the type of soils.
The water just does not disappear when it
is placed on the soil. It becomes part of the
water resources of the region! For this
reason, the land-treated wastewater must
meet the criteria established for the
receiving waters. For example, permanent
groundwater recharge must meet drinking
water quality criteria, and surface runoff
must meet surface water quality criteria.
Treatment of Wastewater Prior to
Land Application
Pretreatment requirements vary from state
to state. Some are more demanding than
others. The EPA asks that states modify
stringent preapplication treatment
requirements when a lesser level of
treatment will still protect the public
health, protect the quality of surface
waters and groundwater, and ensure
satisfactory performance of the wastewater
management system.
States should adopt flexible criteria and
standards for regulating land treatment
systems. This flexibility conserves
-------
resources, and supports systems that are
best suited for local conditions. For
example, only simple screening or grinding
may be appropriate for overland flow
systems in isolated areas with no public
access. However, extensive removal of
organic pollutants followed by disinfection
may be necessary for slow-rate systems in
public areas such as parks or golf courses.
Secondary wastewater treatment prior to
land application should be held to a
minimum.
Slow-Rate Irrigation
Irrigation is the most widely used type of
land application. As many as 3,000 U.S.
communities practice this approach.
Factors controlling this type of land
application are the site, the method of
irrigation, the application rate, the
management and cropping practices, and
the expected pretreatment or removal of
wastewater constituents.
The major factors involved in site selection
are:
• Type, permeability, and depth of soil
• Nature, depth, and type of underground
geological formation
• Soil surface topography
• Considerations of public access to the
land.
Evaporation
Spray
Slow-Rate Irrigation
Soil drainage is perhaps the primary
factor. Drainage is important because,
coupled with the type of crop or vegetation,
it directly affects the application rate for
liquid. The ideal soil is moderately
permeable. The agricultural extension
service or neighboring farmers can be
consulted about the drainage of cropland.
University specialists can offer advice on
forest or landscape irrigation.
For crop irrigation, slopes are generally
limited to about ten 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.
An ideal site for wastewater irrigation is
in an area with limited contact between
the public and the irrigation water. An
obvious exception is the controlled
irrigation of parks, golf courses, and other
public use areas.
Irrigation Factors
The type of irrigation system depends on
soil drainage, crop, topography, climate,
and economics. These factors control the
rates at which effluent substances can be
removed by the soil.
Loading rates are important for water,
nitrogen, heavy metals, and organic
matter. A loading rate is the amount of
water or pollutant placed on the soil in a
certain length of time. Organic loading
rates are less significant if an intermittent
application schedule is followed. Nitrogen
loading rates are of concern because of
nitrate passing down through the soil into
the groundwater. If wastewater is applied
at a proper rate, crops can absorb and
utilize the nitrate, thus preventing it from
entering the groundwater.
System Life
Wastewater irrigation sites can have long,
useful lives. For example, systems have
been operating in Cheyenne, Wyoming,
since 1881 and in Fresno, California, since
1891. Many other irrigation systems in the
United States and throughout the world
have equally long records of successful
operation.
Irrigation has many positive effects on the
environment, such as providing wildlife
habitats when public access is properly
managed. It is effective for recycling
-------
nutrients to the land. In general, irrigation
is considered the most reliable approach to
land application.
Economic Considerations
Capital costs for irrigation include those
for land, and facilities for pretreatment,
transmission, and distribution of effluent.
The main operating and management costs
are for labor, power, and system
maintenance.
The economic benefits from irrigation can
offset some of the operating expenses. In
addition to the water, wastewater
nutrients are an increasingly important
contribution to crops. These nutrients
replace synthetic fertilizers that become
more expensive as energy costs increase. In
1975, Muskegon County, Michigan, realized
$714,000 from the sale of crops and
services. These revenues helped to markedly
reduce the gross operating costs of
$1,946,000 for the land treatment system.
Over four years of successful operation, the
crop revenues have been approximately 30
percent of the annual operating and
maintenance costs. The Muskegon facility
used publicly-owned land. For successful
land treatment projects, land acquisition is
not necessary in many cases.
Overland Flow
In overland flow the wastewater is applied
to sloping land. The water runs downhill to
a collection ditch. The crop or vegetation
on the ground surface is not always
harvested.
Overland flow has been used for a long
time. The method has been tested on
municipal wastewater, but in the United
States it has been more completely
developed for food processing industries.
Several community systems are now under
Irrigation
Site
Analysis
Factor
Criterion
Soil type
Soil drainage class
Soil depth
Depth to groundwater
Groundwater control
Groundwater movement
Slopes
Underground geological
formations
Isolation
Distance from source
of wastewater
Loamy soils are preferable, but
most soils from sands to clays are
acceptable
Well-drained (more than 2 in./hr.)
soil is preferred
Uniform depth of at least 5 to 6
ft. throughout the site is necessary
More than 2 ft. is preferred at all
times
Drainage may be necessary to ensure
performance if water table is
seasonably shallow
Velocity and direction must be
determined
Up to 15% slopes are acceptable with
or without terracing
Rock strata are analyzed for
interference with groundwater or
percolating water movement
Moderate isolation from the public
is preferable, the degree depending
on level of preapplication treat-
ment, method of application, crop,
and site use
Economics
-------
design or construction in southern states.
The important factors in overland flow are:
• Site selection
• Design loadings
• Management practices
• Type of pretreatment.
The runoff water collected and discharged
into a stream has to meet the treatment
and discharge criteria.
The treatment of wastewater by overland
flow is less complete than for irrigation.
Also, relatively less is known about the
useful life of an overland flow system. In
Melbourne, Australia, the treatment
system has been operating successfully for
many decades as a winter alternative to
irrigation. The oldest operating systems in
this country have been treating industrial
wastewaters for up to 20 years. The
literature suggests that a long useful life
may be possible if effective management
continues.
Evaporation
Overland Flow
New water table
Old water table
\ V -
-------
Wastewater treatment by rapid infiltration
varies considerably with soil
characteristics and management practices.
This process is very effective for removal of
suspended solids, organic substances,
phosphorus, and metals. It is less effective
for taking out nitrogen, although special
management techniques have obtained
nitrogen removals up to 80 percent. Overall
nitrogen removal averages 30 percent for
commonly used operating techniques.
The useful life of a rapid infiltration
system may be shorter than irrigation or
overland flow systems. This situation is
caused by high loadings of inorganic
constituents, such as phosphorus and
heavy metals, and by the attachment of
these substances to the soil particles.
Therefore, the loading rate and soil
characteristics are important in
determining how long a site may be used.
Overall phosphorus removal is excellent for
systems which have been operating about
35 years at moderate application rates of
seven to fifteen inches per week. At Lake
George, New York, phosphorus has
saturated about fifteen feet of soil, but
some percolation beds have an additional
life span of 100 years because of the depth
of sand still available for phosphorus
removal.
From the standpoint of environmental
effects, rapid infiltration is also a
satisfactory method of wastewater
treatment. Many systems when managed
properly are 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-loading rate systems, however, prior
needs and costs are substantially greater.
Other Land Application Techniques
There are several other approaches to land
application, including:
• Subsurface adsorption beds
• Deep-well injection
• Evaporation ponds.
Such techniques are very limited in their
applicability. Adsorption beds are
subsurface fields in which effluent seeps
into the ground. Usually limited to small
flows, they are prevalent in rural areas as
individual or cluster systems for disposal
following septic tank treatment. Deep-well
injection involves pumping wastewater to
the groundwater table. It provides no
substantial renovation to the wastewater,
and is prohibited unless pretreatment is
sufficiently high. Evaporation ponds also
have limited use because they require
large amounts of land, and cannot be used
except in very dry climates.
Important Siting Factors
Advisory groups should pay close
attention to the following points
concerning the siting of land treatment
systems.
Some of these points are:
• Because land treatment requires land
and land involves cost, land
application systems may be too
expensive for communities, especially
when acreage is near a large city.
• High land costs favor conventional
treatment systems, especially where
large buffer areas are required around
the application areas.
• Land treatment sites are not limited
to municipal ownership. Public
agencies and farmers can combine
resources to create mutually beneficial
systems based on leases or easements.
• A city may supply the pretreated
wastewater to a holding pond. Through
agreements with the city, farmers can
withdraw the water and apply it to
their lands.
• A city must maintain adequate
operational and monitoring controls to
protect water resources when utilizing
lease or easement arrangements to
supply water for the irrigation of
private land.
• Regional differences in factors such
as climate and availability of land are
important.
-------
Cost-Effectiveness of Land
Treatment
Today the issue of cost-effective
wastewater treatment closely relates to
system performance. The EPA now
requires secondary treatment for all
municipalities. Several consultants have
made cost comparisons of land treatment
versus other alternatives. These analyses
show that land treatment is very
competitive with conventional treatment
under favorable site conditions. There are
so many site specific variables that it is
impractical to make many general
projections about average costs for the
slow-rate, rapid-infiltration, or overland
flow processes. However, some
generalizations can be made about the
comparative costs of land treatment,
conventional secondary treatment, and
advanced waste treatment processes:
• Land application systems are less
sensitive to the economics of scale,
meaning that large facilities are not
needed to achieve low costs as compared to
conventional treatment processes.
• Under favorable conditions land
treatment is more cost-effective than other
treatment technologies for removing
phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended
solids.
• Under unfavorable conditions (cold
climate or poor soil) land treatment
becomes less competitive because of greatly
increased capital costs for storage and land
area. However, differences exist among the
types of land treatment. While slow-rate
systems are particularly vulnerable to
these conditions, rapid infiltration systems
are less susceptible.
• Because the costs of operation and
management are lower for land treatment
systems, the local share of total costs is
much smaller than with advanced
wastewater treatment facilities. Slow-rate
systems usually recover a substantial
fraction of the overall costs of treatment.
These revenues come from the sale of crops
or irrigation water.
Summary
The technology of land treatment systems
is well-proven all over the world. The use
of this technology often depends more on
policy considerations than it does on
technological ones.
Because land treatment processes
contribute to the reclamation and recycling
requirements of the Clean Water Act as
well as conserve energy, they are defined
as an alternative wastewater management
technology. As such, land treatment
proposals are eligible for a ten percent
increase over the usual 75 percent federal
grant. This 85 percent federal share, plus
the potential for low long-term operations
and management costs, may be
particularly beneficial to smaller
communities.
While they are not accepted everywhere,
land treatment systems have the potential
for saving billions of dollars. This will
benefit not only the nationwide water
pollution control program, but will also
provide a way to recover and recycle
wastewater as a resource.
The EPA currently requires each applicant
for construction grant funds to thoroughly
analyze wastewater management
alternatives, including land treatment.
Requiring stringent wastewater treatment
prior to land application has quite often
made land treatment processes too costly.
The advisory group must be assured
that appropriate federal, state, and
local requirements and regulations are
carried out, but not in a manner that
arbitrarily blocks land treatment
projects.
Given the strong and clear mandate of
the Clean Water Act, an advisory group
should expect that the consultant and
grantee will give careful consideration
to land application of wastewater.
Advisory group members can help by
locating suitable application sites, and
by seeing that all appropriate factors
are taken into account. If land
application is feasible the advisory
group can lead the way for public
acceptance of this treatment method.
Because land treatment is often
misunderstood, and sometimes causes
local controversies, it may not be easy
to develop. Public forums,
presentations by experts from EPA and
the states, field trips, and community
workshops can help to foster reasoned
and informed discussion of the issues.
-------
Case Study
Land Treatment
Using Spray
Irrigation
Muskegon County, Michigan
Adapted from Wastewater: Is Muskegon County's Solution Your
Solution? EPA-905/2-76-004. MCD-34. Chicago, IL: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V, August 1979. 55 pp.
Near the end of the 1960's, citizens, industry, and
community leaders in Muskegon County were becoming
aware of their overburdened wastewater treatment
facilities. The county's three main recreational lakes were
being polluted. Because of wastewater problems, older
industries were leaving or closing rather than rebuilding.
New industries and businesses were not coming to
Muskegon.
Muskegon County's Solution
Community leaders and planners in Muskegon County
came to grips with the seriousness of the problems in
1969. Enormous political difficulties were involved in
uniting the many independent communities within the
county toward development of a common wastewater
treatment system. Authorities, including the state and the
Federal Water Quality Administration (a predecessor of
EPA) had to be convinced that Muskegon's idea was
worthy of funding and support. Large-scale projects using
wastewater for spray irrigation and crop production in a
northcentral location of the United States was an untested
concept. This made very difficult the task of designing and
building a large spray irrigation system to provide
efficient treatment while protecting the environment and
enriching the quality of the soil.
The Cost
Combined county, state, and federal efforts have resulted
in a land treatment system which is yielding very
cost-effective treatment and utilization of wastewater.
Construction costs were approximately $44 million.
Federal sources supplied approximately 45 percent of the
funding.
The 1978 total cost for treatment was 250/1,000 gallons of
wastewater. This cost is charged to users via a 170/1,000
gallon operational fee, a 4.50/1,000 gallon debt retirement
fee, and acreage charges. Muskegon County's sewer
charge is lower than any of several systems surveyed,
regardless of the level of treatment given to the
wastewater.
The Setting
Muskegon County, Michigan (population 160,000), which
lies directly along the Lake Michigan coast, began its plan
prior to Public Law 92-500.
The county-wide land application system has two separate
wastewater treatment areas, a 10,500 acre site near
Muskegon and a 600 acre site near Whitehall. Renovated
water from the Whitehall site enters the White River and
runs into White Lake and Lake Michigan. Renovated
water from the main Muskegon site is collected by
under-drains and discharged at two points. One discharge
enters Mosquito Creek and then flows into Muskegon
Lake before entering Lake Michigan. The other discharge
enters Big Black Creek which feeds Mona Lake before
emptying into Lake Michigan.
The Main Muskegon System
The main Muskegon County Wastewater Management
System has a 42 million gallons per day (mgd) wastewater
treatment design capacity. The system consists of
collection, transmission, aeration, storage, irrigation, soil,
crop, and drainage components. The system treated 27
mgd of wastewater at startup in 1975, 60 percent of which
was industrial flow, leaving a reserve capacity of 15 mgd
for serving additional residential and industrial
development.
Wastewater is collected via a conventional sewer system
and pumped eleven miles to the land treatment site. After
reaching the management site, wastewater is treated in
aerated lagoons and then discharged to the large capacity
(150 day retention time) storage lagoons. Prior to entering
irrigation ditches the water is chlorinated to meet health
standards.
The pretreated wastewater is distributed to irrigation rigs
by buried pipes. There are 54 irrigation rigs located in
circular fields of 35 to 140 acres. The soils are mostly
sandy.
During the 1978 season, over 5,000 acres were planted
with corn, and irrigated with wastewater up to 4 inches
per week. Another 100 acres were in rye grass. Total
wastewater applied to the 5,200 acres varied from none to
-------
over 100'inches per field during 1978. Irrigation was
performed from mid-April to mid-November with time out
for cultivating, planting, and harvesting the corn crop.
Thus far corn has been the main crop, and it has been
marketed through normal channels.
Recycling-Resource Recovery
The irrigation-soil-cropping phase of the wastewater
treatment system provides advanced wastewater
treatment, as well as utilizes nutrients in the wastewater
for growing crops. The sale of corn reduced the 1.9 million
dollar operating cost for wastewater treatment during
1978 by about one-third. Over $120,000 worth of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium from the wastewater wax
reclaimed as fertilizer in 1978 to improve the soil and grow
food. Additional chemical fertilizer was injected into the
wastewater only during the active part of the growing
season to increase corn growth and yield, and to stimulate
increased removal of phosphorus, potassium, and other
wastewater nutrients.
Operations, Management, Research,
and Development
The entire system is being operated by 40 full-time
persons and an additional part-time labor force of 10
workers. The success of this operation depends heavily on
expert management, which in turn is based on sound
business, farming, engineering, and scientific skills.
Personnel also have laboratory analysis and research
capabilities.
Management has benefited from the creation of a farm
advisory board made up of agricultural agents from
Michigan State University, and from a research advisory
board made up of EPA personnel. As a direct result of
good management, assisted by research and development
efforts, progressive improvements have been achieved and
operational problems have been overcome at very modest
cost.
Outlook and Life Expectancy
The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System
has maintained its successful operation since 1974 by
producing highly renovated wastewater while, at the same
time, using wastewater and recycled nutrients to produce
field corn. Pollutant removal has remained the same since
start-up: 98 percent for BOD, suspended solids, and
phosphorus; and about 75 percent removal of nitrogen.
Average yields on 5,000 acres of corn irrigated with
wastewater increased from 60 bushels per acre in 1975 to
75 bushels per acre during 1976 to 1978. This yield has
been consistently higher than the county average even
though the primary purpose of the system is to renovate
wastewater. The income from sale of corn has continued to
help offset operational costs such that the net operation
and maintenance cost in 1978 (including debt retirement)
was about 25c per thousand gallons of wastewater treated.
This is an increase of about 1C per thousand gallons over
the 1975 figure.
Increased Agricultural Productivity by
Renovation/Reuse of Wastewater in Muskegon
Corn Yield and Income
1975 1976 1977
1978
Wastewater site
County average
Cross crop revenue 0.35
bu/acre
60 81 73-75 73-75
65 45-50 60 71
millions of dollars
0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9
Finally, Muskegon is in the process of expanding its
system. Not only are additional residential and
commercial areas in the county being connected, but there
are increased flows from industrial expansion. The county
plans to add additional land, irrigation rigs, and other
equipment for treating the anticipated increase in
wastewater volume.
Any wastewater treatment system has limitations. The
Muskegon County Wastewater Management System is no
exception. In its present mode most of the cropped soils at
Muskegon are expected to adequately remove wastewater
contaminants like phosphorus for much longer than the
design life of the project, at least 50 years. If and when
the land becomes saturated with phosphorus and can no
longer provide adequate phosphorus removal, many other
uses for the land will be possible. Alternative uses such as
energy production and recreation are being developed.
10
-------
Selected Resources
Guide to Clean Water Act Amendments. EPA No. OPA 129/8. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, November 1978.
This publication contains many of the provisions of PL 92-500 (The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972) and PL 95-217 (The Clean Water Act of
1977). It can be obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
Hartman, Willis J., Jr. An Evaluation of Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater and
Physical Siting of Facility Installations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army.
May 16, 1975. 65 pp.
This reported study and evaluation is directed toward providing some guidance
to those who might select land treatment as an alternative process. Particular
emphasis is placed on siting facilities in more populated areas. The report costs
$8.00 and can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. The order number is ADA016118.
Jewell, William J. and Seabrook, Belford L. A History of Land Application as a
Treatment Alternative. EPA-430/9-79-012. MCD-40. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 1979. 83 pp.
This publication presents a complete history of land treatment technology
including discussions of policy and a consideration of the future of land
treatment. This publication can be ordered from General Services
Administration (8FSS) Centralized Mailing List Services, Bldg. 41, Denver
Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the MCD number and title of
publication.
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Three Volumes. Cincinnati, OH:
Technology Transfer Municipal Seminar Publications, 1979.
These publications cover the various methods of wastewater treatment
techniques on land including slow-rate irrigation, rapid infiltration, and
overland flow. It is a good set of reference manuals suitable for persons with
limited knowledge but interested in land treatment. They are available free
from CERI, Technology Transfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH 45268. Specify order number 4010.
Pounds, Charles E., Crites, Ronald W. and Smith, Robert G. Technical Report
Costs-Effective Comparison of Land Application and Advanced Wastewater Treatment.
EPA-430/9-75-016. MCD-17. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
November 1975. 25 pp.
This report is intended to be used for general cost comparisons of advanced
wastewater treatment and land application systems. The curves shown in the
figures are presented only for comparative purposes and should not be used to
estimate costs of specific alternatives in facilities plans. This publication can be
ordered from General Services Administration (8FSS) Centralized Mailing List
Services, Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the MCD
number and title of publication.
Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater. EPA-430/9-73-006. UNA-03.0.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973. 377 pp.
This report presents the results of a field survey of 100 facilities where domestic
or industrial wastewater effluents were applied to the land. Ninety-nine tables
and the collected data are presented along with photographs of representative
facilities used to illustrate land application practices. This publication can be
ordered from General Services Administration (8FSS) Centralized Mailing List
Services, Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the
number and title of publication.
Assistance may be provided by the Land Treatment Coordinator in the Water Division of
each EPA regional office.
Need More
Information?
11
-------
Glossary
Absorption Bed—a subsurface leaching
system in which effluent is piped to an
underground field and allowed to seep down
through the soil.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment—
treatment processes that go beyond secondary
or biological stage; removal of nutrients such as
phosphorus and nitrogen and toxic substances.
Aquaculture—underwater farming of plants
and animals.
Aquifer—underground bed or layer of earth,
gravel, or porous stone that serves as a
reservoir for groundwater.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)—
amount of dissolved oxygen required in the
biological process of breaking down organic
matter in water.
Buffer Zone—land surrounding a land
treatment site that is not used in the treatment
process and acts as a health and safety barrier
between the site and the public.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis—determination
of whether a project or technique is worth
funding; involves both monetary and
nonmonetary costs.
Deep-Well Injection—pumping high quality
treated wastewater into the groundwater table.
Effluent—treated or untreated wastewater
discharged into the environment.
Infiltration—the action of water moving
through small openings in the earth as it seeps
down into the groundwater.
Land Treatment—process of putting
wastewater onto land for the removal of
pollutants; sludge (the solids removed from
wastewaters) also may be disposed on land, but
it is not called land treatment.
Loading Rate—rate at which pollutants
accumulate in soil or surface waters.
Nitrification—biological conversion of
nitrogenous matter into nitrates.
Overland Flow—land application technique in
which wastewater is sprayed onto gently
sloping ground planted with vegetation.
Percolation—downward flow of water through
pores or spaces in rock or soil.
Rapid Infiltration—land application technique
in which wastewater is applied to land and is
allowed to percolate through the soil and enter
the groundwater, thereby treating the
wastewater.
Secondary Treatment—microbiological
treatment of wastewater to consume organic
wastes usually in the presence of oxygen.
Floating and settleable solids, and about 85
percent of oxygen demanding substances and
suspended solids are removed. Disinfection with
chlorine is the final stage of secondary
treatment.
Silviculture—a phase of forestry dealing with
the establishment, development, reproduction,
and care of forest trees.
Suspended Solids—small particles of solid
pollutants in sewage that cause cloudiness and
require special treatment to remove.
Watershed—the land area that drains into a
stream.
12
-------
Working for Clean Water is a
program designed to help advisory
groups improve decision-making in
water quality planning. It aims at
helping people focus on essential
issues and questions by providing
trained instructors and materials
suitable for persons with
non-technical backgrounds. These
materials include a citizen
handbook on important principles
and considerations about topics in
water quality planning, an
audiovisual presentation, and an
instructor guide for elaborating
points, providing additional
information, and engaging in
problem-solving exercises.
This program consists of 18
informational units on various
aspects of water quality planning-
• Role of Advisory Groups
• Public Participation
• Nonpoint Source Pollution:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Mining
• Urban Stormwater Runoff
• Groundwater Contamination
• Facility Planning in the
Construction Grants Program
• Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Overview
• Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Details
• Small Systems
• Innovative and Alternative
Technologies
• Industrial Pretreatment
• Land Treatment
• Water Conservation and Reuse
• Multiple Use
• Environmental Assessment
• Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
• Wastewater Facilities Operation
and Management
U.S. Environmental Protection A
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
*— «— t
The units are not designed to
make technical experts out of
citizens and local officials. Each
unit contains essential facts, key-
questions, advice on how to deal
with the issues, and
clearly-written technical
backgrounds. In short, each unit
provides the information that
citizen advisors need to better
fulfill their role.
This program is available through
public participation coordinators at
the regional offices of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency.D
This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative
Agreement No. CT900980 01. The
information program has been
reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation
for use.
------- |