PB82-101635
EVALUATION OF ON-STTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AND HSPOSAL OPTIONS
D. H. Bauer, et al
SCS Engineers
Reston, Virginia
September 1981
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
NTIS
-------
?B32-101635
EPA-600/2-81-178
September 1981
EVALUATION OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
by
David H. Bauer
E. T. Conrad
Donald G. Sherman
SCS ENGINEERS
Reston,"Virginia 22091
Contract No. 68-03-2627
Project Officer
Robert P. G. Bowker
Uastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
fPkau reed Iswjcnonj on tIi ,e ene before co,nrdernvgj
1. REPORT NO 12.
EPA-60 0J2—8 1 -178 ORD Report
3 MECIPIENIS ACCESSIOINO.
1 0 1 6 3 5
. . TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
Evaluation of On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Options
5 REPORT OATS
September 1981
6. PERFORMIP O GANIZATZON CODE
7. AUTNORIS)
Bauer, 0.11., Conrad, E.T., Sherman, D.G.
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIO1d REPORT NO
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS
SCS Engineers
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, VA 22090
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
AZB18
l1.CONTRACTIG AN1 NO.
68-03-2627
12.SPOIdSOAIPJG AGENCY NAME AND AOORESS
Municipal Enviroinental Research Laboratory -Cinti,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD CO’IERED
Final: 10/77 - 10/78
14.SPoNSOR It4GAGENcY O o E
EPA/600f14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Robert P. G. Bowker (513) 684—7620
16.
A literature review of published and unpublished data was conducted to identify all
conceivable alternative on—site systems, including wastewater manipulation,
treatment and disposal options. Wastewater manipulation options included flow
reduction, wasteload reduction and waste segregation. Treatment options included
disinfection, biological, and physical/chemical methods. Disposal options included
air, soil and surface water methods, and practical combinations.—
Both tested and untested systems were identified, and combinations of the various
components were developed. Am equipment inventory was then performed to determine
the availability of hardware for the systems and system components identified.
Data on engineering, economic, and environmental acceptability characteristics
were collected.
These systems were evaluated on the basis of performance, operation and maintenance,
environmental acceptability, and total annual cost for 15 pec fic site conditions.
Site conditions were defined by soil percolation rate, soil depth, slope, available
land area, direct discharge effluent requirements, and net evaporation.
U. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
1 OE SCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOED TERMS
C COSATI Ficid/Group
Sewage treatment
Sewage disposal
Septic tanks
On-site sewage disposal
Non-sewered area
13 B
21
lB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19 SECURITY CLASS (ThuRe onJ
unclassified
22.PR ICE
EPA Form 2 12 0-I (9.73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitte endorsement or
recommendation for use.
II
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of
increasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the P uerican people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of the environment and the interplay between its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and developiient is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Enviorninental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from
municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public
drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
In recent years, individual on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
systems have enjoyed increased attention as technically viable and
environmentally sound, cost—effective alternatives to traditional gravity
collection and centralized wastewater treatment facilities in rural areas.
This renewed interest has spawned considerable research and developoent of
technology applicable to on—site wastewater handling. This report provides an
evaluation of both existing and potential on—site wastewater alternatives for
the purpose of; defining the application of existing and conceptual
wastewater systems, determining the needs for future hardware developiient, and
assessing the desirability of future demonstrations of untested but promising
on—site wastewater handling alternatives.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A literature review of published and unpublished data was conducted to
identify all conceivable alternative on-site systems, including wastewater
manipulation, treatment and disposal options. Wastewater manipulation options
included flow reduction, wasteload reduction and waste segregation. Treatment
options included disinfection, biological, and physical/cnemical methods.
Disposal options included air, soil and surface water methods, and practical
combinations.
Both tested and untested systems were identified, an car oinations of the
various components were developed. An equipment inventory was then performed
to determine the availability of hardware for the systLis and system
components identified. Data on engineering, economic, and enviroriental
acceptability characteristics were collected.
These systems were evaluated on the basis of performance, operation and
maintenance, environmental acceptability, and total annual cost for 15
specific site conditions. Site conditions were defined by soil percolation
rate, soil depth, slope, available land area, direct discharge effluent
requirements, and net evaporation.
Where site conditions are appropriate, septic tank — conventional soil
absorption systems were found to be the least-cost and top—ranked method of
on—site wastewater treatment and disposal. Under other conditions, systems
incorporating other methods of disposal , such as soil disposal with modified
distribution, mounds, evapotranspiration, irrigation, evaporation, or direct
discharge, are appropriate. A septic tank normally provides adequate
pretreatment for most of these disposal methods. Where irrigation or surface
discharge disposal is used, additional treatment, such as that provided by an
intermittent sand filter and iodine disinfection, may be required. Use of low
pressure membrane filtration where high quality effluent is required also
appears promising, based on very limited operating experience.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03—2627 by
SCS Engineers under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. This report covers work
performed from October 1977 to October 1978.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreward 111
Abstract iv
Figure Vi i
Tables Viii
Acknowledgments Xlii
1. Introduction 1
Project Objectives and Scope
References 3
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 4
Project Findings and Conclusions 4
Recommendations 6
3. System Concept Development and Ranking Criteria 8
System Concept Development 8
Component and System Ranking Criteria 10
4. Wastewater Characteristics
References 23
5. Wastewater Manipulation 26
Flow Reduction 25
Wasteload Reduction 30
Wastewater Segregation 43
References 48
6. BIological Treatment 50
Aerobic-Suspended and Fixed Growth 50
Anaerobic-Septic Tank 55
Anaerobic-Packed Reactor 58
Lagoons 62
Biological Treatment Component Comparisons 65
References 69
7. PhysIcal-Chemical Treatment 72
General 72
Media Filtration 72
Membrane Filtration (Pressure) 80
Coagulation and Chemical Precipitation 87
Sorption 90
Physical-Chemical Component Comparisons 95
References 99
8. Disinfection Options 103
General 103
Chlorine 103
Iodine 107
Ozone 111
Ultraviolet Irradiation 116
V
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Disinfection Component Comparisons 121
References 125
9. Disposal Options 128
General 128
Atmosphere Disposal 128
Soil Disposal 131
Surface Discharge 143
Combinations 145
Disposal Component Comparisons 148
References 152
10. Comparative Analysis 157
Methodology 137
System Ranking — Hardware and Performance Data Available . . 159
System Rank - Hardware (But No Performance Data) P’ailable . 161
Undeveloped System Concepts 164
Appendices
A. Treatment and Disposal System - Site Condition Tables 168
B. Reuse Water Quality Objectives 215
vi
-------
FIGURE
Number
1 Average Daily Flow Pattern From Eleven Rural Households 21
v i,
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Top Ranked Systems—Hardware and Performance Data Available . . . . 5
2 On-Site Component Options 9
3 Physical Site Conditions for System 11
4 Component and System Ranking Criteria 13
5 Wastewater Flow from Various Household Sources . . . . 15
6 Combined Household Wastewater Characteristics 16
7 Wastewater Constituent Contributions from Various Household
Sources 17
8 Blackwater (Toilet Only) Characteristics 18
9 Grey Water Characteristics 19
10 Garbage Disposal Wastewater Characteristics 20
11 Glow and Wasteload Reduction—Except Toilet 26
12 Flow and Wasteload Reduction Toilet 27
13 Wastewater Flow Reduction 28
14 Wasteload Reduction 31
15 Incinerating Toilet Costs 35
16 Composting Toilet Costs 38
17 Costs of Oil Recirculating Toilet System 40
18 Non-Water Carriage Toilet Component Comparison for Components
with Sufficient Information 41
19 Non-Water Carriage Toilet Component Comparison for Components
with Incomplete Information 42
viii
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number
20 Wastewater Segregation Options Matrix 44
21 Wastewater Segregation Option Impact 45
22 Biological Treatment Options . 51
23 Aerobic-Suspended Growth Unit (Extended Aeration) Performance 53
24 Aerobic Fixed Growth Unit Performance 54
25 Aerobic Suspended and Fixed Growth Treatment Unit Costs 56
26 Anaerobic Septic Tank Performance 57
27 Anaerobic Septic Tank Treatment Unit Costs 59
28 Anaerobic-Packed Reactor Treatment Unit Performance 61
29 Anaerobic Packed Reactor Treatment Unit Costs 63
30 Lagoon Performance 64
31 Aerobic (Not Aerated) Lagoon Costs 66
32 Biological Treatment Component Comparison for Components with
Sufficient Information 67
33 Biological Treatment Component Comparison for Components with
Incomplete Information 68
34 Physical-Chemical Treatment Options 73
35 Pressurized Media Filtration Performance 75
36 Pressurized Media Filtration Costs 77
37 Gravity Filtration Unit Performance 79
38 Gravity Filtration Costs 81
39 Ultrafiltration Performance 84
40 Ultrafiltration System Costs 86
41 Coagulation and Chemical Precipitation Performance 89
ix
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number
42 Coagulation and Chemical Precipitation Costs 91
43 Sorption Performance
44 Sorption Unit Costs 96
45 Physical-ChemiCal Component Comparison for Components with
Sufficient Information 97
46 PhysIcal-Chemical Component Comparison for Components with
Incomplete Information 98
47 DIsinfection Options . 104
48 Dry Feed Chlorine Disinfection Performance 106
49 ChlorinatIon Costs 108
50 IodIne Performance Data for Various Effluent Types 110
51 Cost Estimate for an lodination Unit for On—Site Wastewater
Disinfection 112
52 Ozone Performance Data iorVarlous Effluent Types 114
53 Ozonatlon System Costs 117
54 Ultraviolet Disinfection Unit Description . . . 119
55 UltravIolet Disinfection Unit Performance . . . . 120
56 UltravIolet Disinfection System Costs 122
57 DIsinfection Component Comparison for Components with
Sifficlent Information 123
58 DisInfection Component Comparison for Components with
Incomplete Information 124
59 Disposal Options 129
60 El Bed Costs 132
61 Mound Performance Data 136
62 Mound Costs . . . 138
x
-------
Number
TABLE S
(Continued)
63
Modified Distribution Costs
142
64
trrigation Costs
144
65
Evaporation/Infiltration Lagoon Costs
149
66
Disposal Component Comparison for Components with Sufficient
Information
150
67
Disposal Component Comparison for Components with Incomplete
Information
151
68
Top Ranked Systems-Hardware and Performance Data Available . .
.
160
69
Top Ranked Systems-Hardware Available, Inadequate Performance
Data
162
70
SIte Condition-System Development Needs Matrix
165
Al
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition 1 . . .
169
A2
Treatment and Disposal Systems -— Physical Site Condition 2 . . .
172
A3
Treatment and Disposal Systems -— Physical Site Condition 3 . . .
175
A4
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition 4 .
. .
178
A5
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition 5 .
. .
181
A6
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition 6 .
. .
184
A7
Treatment and Disposal Systems —- Physical Site Condition 7 .
. .
187
A8
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition 8 .
. .
190
A9
Treatment and Disposal Systems —- Physical Site Condition 9 .
. .
193
AlO
Treatment and Disposal Systems —- Physical Site ConditIon 10
. .
196
199
All
Treatment and Disposal Systems -- Physical Site Condition
. .
A12
Treatment and Disposal Systems —— Physical Site Condition 12
13
. .
202
205
Al3
Treatment and Disposal Systems —- Physical Site Condition
. .
Al4 Treatment and Disposal Systems --
Physical Site Condition 14
208
x l
-------
TABLES
(Continued)
Number
A15 Treatment and Disposal Systems —— Physical Site Condition 15 . . 211
A16 Treatment/Reuse Systems for Segregated Waste Streams 214
Bl Reuse Categories and Applications 216
B2 Toilet Flush Water Quality Objectives (a) 217
B3 Utility Grade Water Quality Objectives 218
B4 Body Contact Grade Water Quality Objectives 219
xii
-------
ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS
The conduct of this project was accomplished through
EPA, universities, equipment manufacturers, government
personnel. The guidance of Mr. Robert P. G. Bowker,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (MERL) of
Cincinnati, OH is gratefully acknowledged.
the cooperation of
agencies and SCS
Project Officer,
the U.S. EPA,
We wish to express our appreciation to the members of the Technical
Advisory Committee — Mr. Jack L. Abney, Parrott, Ely and Hurt, Lexington, KY;
Dr. William C. Boyle and Mr. Richard J. Otis, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI; Dr. J. 1. Winneberger and Mr. James A. Burgel , Consultants,
Berkely, CA; and Mr. Pio Lombardo, Pio Lombardo & Associates, Boston, MA - for
their assistance in locating information and reviewing most of this report.
The services performed by the Technical Advisory Corrunittee should not be
construed as an endorsement of the contents and conclusions of this report. A
number of the committee members hold views contrary to the report’s assessment
and conclusions. The assistance of Kamber Engineering, a subcontractor on the
project, is also appreciated.
SCS project participants were Mr. E. T. Conrad, Project Director; Mr.
David H. Bauer, Project Manager; and Mr. Donald G. Sherman, Project Engineer.
xiii
-------
SECTION 1
I NTRODUCT ION
The provision of adequate wastewater treatment at a reasonable cost in
rural and unsewered areas has become a matter of increasing concern for both
public officials and private citizens. According to the 1970 census, 19.5
million housing units or roughly 30 percent of the housing units in the
United States dispose of their wastewater through some form of private
wastewater treatment system (1). Most of these households use septic tank -
soil absorption systems.
Septic tank — soil absorption systems have often been considered a
stop—gap measure to be used until municipal wastewater collection and
treatment becomes available to unsewered areas. However, two-thirds of the
total annual cost of a conventional municipal system is often for the
collection sewers. As a result, multiple treatment and disposal systems
serving dispersed individual houses or groups of houses (not requiring an
extensive collection system) may provide a cost—effective alternative to
centralized municipal treatment in rural areas (2).
Sections 201(h) and (j) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95—217)
authorized construction grants funding of privately owned treatment works
serving Individual homes or groups of homes (or small commercial
establishments), provided that a public entity (which will ensure proper
operation and maintenance) apply on behalf of a number of such individual
systems.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Section l04(q)(l) of P.L. 92-500 directs the EPA Administrator to
conduct a program of research and develop iient of alternatives to conventional
sewerage and septic tank — soil absorption sytems for rural areas where these
traditional approaches are either technically or economically infeasible.
Developnent of alternative on—site systems as part of the resulting EPA Small
F1o Research Program and Increased system developnent and promotion in the
private sector made this study of the alternatives desirable. The major
objectives of this twelve month study were:
• Identify all potential in—the—house and individual home on—site
wastewater treatment, handling, reuse, and disposal options. The
on—site system unit processes (components) considered included
in—the—house water conservation devices, waterless systems, recycle
-------
systems, separation systems, and other wastewater manipulation
schemes; biological and physical/chemical treatment options; and
disposal options.
• Conduct a technological and economic comparative analysis of all
manipulation, treatment, and disposal options resulting in a ranking
of alternatives and identification of a small number of selected most
feasible alternatives.
The data base for the project included both published and unpublished
literature and personal interviews. Published literature was first reviewed
to extract pertinent data. Where data was lacking or incomplete, individual
researchers, sanitarians, and consultants were contacted to obtain available
unpublished data. Equipment manufacturers were also contacted to obtain
non—proprietary data and to discuss relevant specific topics. Data collection
and subsequent system evaluations focus on the following topic areas: (1)
performance, (2) operation and maintenance requirements, (1) environmental
acceptability, and (4) cost.
Technical ranking criteria and a standard cost basel me were then
developed to provide a basis for system evaluation. The ranking criteria used
are discussed in the body of the report (see Section 3). The cost estimates
are based on manufacturer price quotes, literature data, and standard
engineering cost estimation guides. All costs are presented in January 1978
doll ars.
For the purposes of this study, on—site wastewater systems are defined as
systems which serve a single residential dwelling. Thus, systems serving
groups of houses or commercial establishments are specifically excluded, as
are pressure or vacuum sewers and similar technologies appropriate for these
appi ications.
This report is intended for use by technical R & D personnel familar with
on—site wastewater systems. It is not intended for use by the layman. Speci-
fic design information has purposely not been included as this was not the
intent of the study. In addition, not all possible wastewater treatment and
disposal alternatives have been considered. For example, pit privies,
although considered to be primitive by many, are a well known and demonstrated
means of waste containment. However, in this study, septic tank — soil
absorption systems have been considered a baseline from which other, less
conventional alternatives could be evaluated to determine their technical and
economic feasibility and to determine whether further demonstration uld be
justified.
2
-------
REF ERENC ES
1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census. General
Housing Characteristics for the United States and Regions. Current
Housing Reports Series H-150—73A, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 975. 99p.
2. Otis, R.J., W.C. Boyle, J.C. Converse and E.J. Tyler. On-site
Di sposal of Small Waste ter Fl ova. EPA-625/4—77—O11, U.S.
Envirornental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1977. 60 p.
3
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A review of the available literature on on-site wastewater treatment and
disposal systems for single family homes has been conducted. Evaluation of
the Information collected, based on the ranking criteria and site conditions
considered, lead to the developnent of Table 1 which sui iiar1zes the top
ranked systems for each of fifteen site conditions. Systems Included in
Table 1 were generally limited to those with a. total annual cost within $250
of the top ranked system for each site condition. As shown, systems were
ranked on the basis of performance (5 poInts. maximum), operation and
maintenance (5 points maximum), and environmental acceptability (nuisance and
hazard) (3 points maximum). Brief discussion of the systems shown is
provided in the comments section 0 f Table 1.
Additional conclusions are ‘as follows:
1• Reduction of wastewater flow Is particularly desirable where limited
land area Is available for disposal or relatively expensive disposal
options are required, since reduced flow generally permits reduced
disposal unit size (and may permit reduced treatment unit size).
2. Flow reduction in the range of 10 to 40 percent (depending primarily
on the device used) of the normal household total should be
consistently achievable utilizing flow reduction devices for
batch—flow sources (i.e., toilet, laundry and dishwasher). The flow
reduction achieved from batch-flow sources depends primarily on the
specific devices utilized, and secondarily on user habits. Flow
reduction achieved on continuous flow sources is highly dependent on
user habits and Is extremely variable (i.e. 1 showers, sinks).
3. Wastewater reuse Is a potential method of flow reduction. However,
the cost of treatment for reuse of either combined or segregated
waste streams is not typically offset by reduced disposal costs
resulting from reduced volume for any of the site conditions
considered. Thus, systems incorporating wastewater reuse are not
normally economically viable, although they occasionally may be
applicable In specific situations (e.g., very limited water
availability).
4
-------
TABLE 1. lIP RAMcED SYS1EMS - RARÜ4PRE AM) FERFU I°WCE [ MA AVAILABLE
_________________ !fl
• 0 1 I I 40
• I I I I Mo
• I I I ‘ I I
10’ It ‘0
• I I 0 41*
100
1014.411 ,0 1 1 00000I.tiaM000l1
• l lo l •.otlaI. ha l I st Il l.
• S 0 h O IOO oa.40 . 4’00’—o. l l n00 oo o Ia
000.000 — 0*0 100*1 — 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 4 - I
( 400004-Il 11.4 4 1 1 0 .
• I 0 I I Mo h a l l S .oio.*l. 1 1.0 both. 0
1 7 0 .4* po l .44-’0l oUt 00 0 0ia li t.
titl!o.oto’,tl 1 1 .1 1 *
1 4 71 9
* 0 1 I I 010°
• I l I I ‘00 0l- opt—0 0
• I S 0 0*0 I I ,n h ’n. lot. 00 ,05004-0 0.0
• o ,o too? 0*111 1. ,o,l (400)1.11. ‘ I I I
I . o to too’ oo...eo rn’.no, a.. to a ’ as
I I 0 0 144 ‘fltl00 100104014 10 00 0 . 01 1 00 I I ,
no,Vaoo ’(oo l oo 1 ’
40* (1140 01 0 0 ,0 4 - I I , 000 l M o
09 *0* . 4.04.
• o to 5.41 oat ’.. lo ll ( C 0011 1. 1 10
4 1 0 I 000 4l.ltlnnOOll 100 1nt(TInOllItO Otf
I I I I •,inoo(l1I 04044 II On ’ S
44 1(0 010 400 0*4 CtI l S I l o —
0 4 0 I Mo 1. 14 1 ,100 40,4 4 0 * 1.100 0 10 1. 11 010 1
1* 11047 ‘1 * 1 10010 001.4-100.111
lIl t, I ’ . 4 % 40 1 140
O’lIOOOoOUIlfltfll ST ‘4*04044
a ,s OooI O •.0oI 00 1InItl 100 000
I I .g,..l.t*... .Lt l l 4l ltl0tf
ood I, 0 011Ic l l lOoll
,Ill *0 II I to loon coo l l , ol.0
1lo’o 1 01(1 1 , 4’ 00000001.4 •T,’
t o n i 110010.44 IiO.tqo, 1(0110 1100
1 I I I 0*0 *00704 1 00*00*04400 1104 1 00 . 4
o 0 I t a 101114,41100 .I..flU00n 1 0Motr0
1010’ .,.,.l 0 .11,1,1 1011100 toll 4*
O OI IT,00ll0010lt lU O 11010101 .00
•
boll. -
00 0 4 44-01 9000 olo 0 l
10041, 1 OlOl0 10hlOllI loomOs 100010
0401.1.40*00 ia 1 . 4100070 *Mo’
totI,o’ ’ 10000 0% tb0I00
no . 4 1740 1 0004000 1* 10 , O 00 00*0
4- I000t?0l’t 4*0(0.4 boIl 0 000?. .
o I I I I Mo “0000’o oI oIollOilto 00010101 000010
.0010 Mo llOOtN a’1104-0011000’10*’
0 0 0 0 4- 10000 000 11100 1 llh .bI.0 too 440
• a, olnooMolIloo . 0 ‘.410011.44 ¶°•“tl 111 1 0.
o 001 1 . III ,’’.. — .1 4 40.1.1.1 lUll 410l°f001l4.
lo ot oo* l.ola loot . n Too ‘0 *0011 4 . 44 110 00104 ot l O 000n0 — 00.00,1 Ito. .0*4411 . 4 I I 44 010400.0
• 0*1000 0 00 dsoa10o,Mo
• 1o0 lt I0o lt *Il 0 0 .,,. 00 .l 40 .O, ot n.,_.oool(.(looO.l)on).’ooo.4sII(n0oolt( IlM4-0lon0t0tcool
10. 10110.100 ofl1*00i4-0*Il004 o.0 000.001loIl 0 .0*10000flt0* flUIt’O 51100 t,00o0flb1 t0lr0044
O .o?aI solon 0* oi l s o4-I0Ion 010 4000 100.90* Mo 1n* 1 solo 01,.lI01 *00 17110 0*0 1007 1t1..0
lobS 00 0 ‘oi.I.Wy ool Oo .boo. 1140100000 0 .11 4 -I *110*1000 1o0 foO l. 0 10. OMoonMnlln 0400
owSlOl 10011011.00 —
I 0001 11 14- lO ll , lInI
loll *100001100 1(0100 )040b
o 0*0 ,11004
4* 1, 1 1 10 , (0 lb
o 1004 10 O1 1000000I100tOl00000(
101110.01100 l.qo
o bon Ito 1000
n’s.ott 00oUl’ l oll
0 1L0l loo lo,tlo,,nfl.*iol.*1
1141 100017101 1 010004
0. 1 ,4. 1, 14 40 . 11 11*00 110 00100 il
010100000.
.1 ,0410 11011.1 1401 I.olI ’Ip 01 0.0010 1
041 0 . . 1 11 0
7 ,0411410
I ?I 00 010 0’fl 1M 0.40 4 0 0 40 0000°
Ii ,. Or010Ioo
o_ l ototlolIto
4110011010 so Il Moo. o.n1.loll
1. 0 1 10 010 4.40 i i i 0 0 .0 . 4100? .
04 * 0 004-0 444 14- l0 ’ °‘fl. O
o 1001111111 00) .0111 *411
1.00 11 11000 0t0 ’ Oco
o ia.lfllo boll 100104-
0*11001 400041014-I 0 4 411*10
Ia no.0 ObP40t.Oa000
o 0000.00010 0011 MoO OJMo1IO
01001140 110010101 (0.00000 00)00
o r 1 : :h: nj 0 fl,7l*
(17001 h a— Un OIl
boll. 00 I 00)00110.1*
boo 10U
O 0o , o..llo. 4010) 4 0110.10 4
00.1001? 100100 •oo,balo
44- O Il 0o7 7 00-l a
0 bloblOot 10 1 00)00110.1*
00141001.4,07100100 •*,lotl.
,.,.tlIbo (4700? 1 000.000
O 0000 osolboo 1400(1011 ,011*
1.101001 00007100100
Ia 00040 007 007. 0 0 4-
I I 11.001 II 00 00 *40 1 1 0 0
Oh ola.000 010000 0 4 1
000100 0**Iol. O W - W I l.oa
I I 1101 1 1 1,0 •‘ 11 r ’ 1 , 1 1 1.0 11001.
I.-. 001000 11741f I W
40
90001010 Mo 0110 0 11
“iO n / I 00001 00*0*
1011.111 1 . 1 1l 1400 100l0 1 1 •.o,loolo
I a I 49 (0 41_I 0)10001,00
‘0,0101. alIt 10 I I
0 I0 ll 0 O n /lI 4-
0000 100
00 000(00 (0 I-I WI 00110 01*
;r ;r ir °
0 14014- (04 I 441 solo . 110
110. .O*t0* 00.010 *0
ooll 0040 1 1h
0 Ito. t.iatboo’*OIO IW O
1.0041 1004 0 1 0 10lIo? •
011104.0104000 ’ I
lll4-o (00)
ol e. I0100IloO.0010l00 *0
0140000 (0, 10*
Oal loO*°-
1.411144* aO’lltn°
410 ‘°‘oo 1b00 001 1.5100
0 10-tIll 04000*00 (07 laM
oh. 0Otl0l4-0001 1 1 1—
-4-
O Oonll o 00(14 10 lhlIrO.
IIoI.l000ba’ l,tlnooIo.
Ito. ‘*00*00*101001.40-
V ’ 1410 11010000 10, 04-
10.01.1000 000001 100
ololoboollod ol.ool
1 1 1 . 7 1 1 00
100040 *0 n.o000r0011tn4tia
000110 0*4 4000 00&
1.00 0000(0 100011.11
10001171110 *74l?t *ll.4l
I 00,1 Co 10 lot 1/00
o 001101.01 . 011. 1 loll
° no ’” ’
0 1000 110 tO ’ 00 , 1 —loon
1 4100100* ut bi l lo I l
.Ioot. ? oo 07 000 1 0’
o 1001141071 10401 ‘04 044
11.00 00.4,0 o.00000il
0I0t,000,l 010400 010100040
I Via .nOboo - aIls Ion 0 0 0 tO
a -
I 00.11100011011001001110.
1 0 0 ,1 401 0 . 4
I 0.01111104 0000011007
,ooaonl soil 04401000
5
-------
4. Systems incorporating wastewater segregation options are generally
not cost—competitive for any of the site conditions considered,
unless segregation is a part of flow reduction and flow reduction in
excess of approximately 35 percent of the normal household total is
required. However, use of a non—water carriage or recircul ating
toilet system to control wastewater nitrogen concentrations, or
segregation of bath and laundry wastewater from kitchen and toilet
wastewater to facilitate denitrification, may be appropriate if
nitrogen discharge limitations are applicable.
5. Systems with available hardware and performance data are available at
a reasonable cost for the site conditions considered, except 1) where
steep slopes prevent area intensive construction and direct discharge
is not feasible; 2) where soils have very limited purification
capacity, and direct discharge and evapotranspiration disposal are
not feasible; or 3) where available land for disposal is very
limited, soil percolation is slow and direct discharge is not
feasible. In these instances, holding tanks wi i periodic pump—out
may be used, but this is very costly.
6. SeptIc tanks normally provide adequate pretreatment for all methods
of soil disposal (except irrigation), evapotranspiration (ET), and
infiltration/evaporation lagoon disposal. Additional pretreatment is
required for soil absorption disposal in shallow soils without
adequate purification capacity or direct discharge to surface
waters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Demonstration of on—site wastewater systems for which there is available
hardware, and further developiient of treatment requirements and methods are
recommended. Specific recommendations for further development of treatment
requirements and-methods are as follows:
1. Development of effluent quality requirements and treatment methods
for on—site irrigation and subsurface disposal in shallow soils with
limited purification capacity. Requirements will likely be affected
by soil characteristics and available land area;
2. Further development of evaporation equipment which is relatively
independent of precipitation (i.e., mechanical evaporator); and
3. Development of a one—step process (i.e., membrane filtration) for
on—site applications to provide high quality effluent (including
nutrient removal , if necessary) for reuse and/or variety of dispos-
al methods (i.e., direct discharge, irrigation, or subsurface dispos-
al in shallow or excessively permeable soils) would be desirable if
future developments indicate the total annual cost uld be compara-
ble to currently available alternatives.
6
-------
Based on the ranking criteria and site conditions considered, it is
recommended that the following systems be field tested to obtain definitive
performance and cost data, determine operation and maintenance requirements,
and assess environmental acceptability:
1. Septic tank — soil absorption with dosing and resting
2. Septic tank — soil absorption with alternating fields
3. Septic tank — covered intermittent or recirculating sand filter -
irrigation
4. Septic tank — evaporative lagoon
5. Septic tank — low pressure membrane filtration — irrigation or direct
discharge
6. Septic tank - mechanical evaporator (hardware could be made readily
available).
7
-------
SECTION 3
SYSTEM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND RANKING CRITERIA
SYSTEM CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
The overall purpose of this study was the comparison and evaluation of
on—site wastewater alternatives. The first step necessary to accomplish this
was the Identification of conceivable alternative systems. Identification of
alternative systems has been termed “concept development” and includes
consideration of those systems and system components CL rently in use in on—
site applications; those which have as yet found application only on ,a larger
scale; and finally, those which are In the developmental or conceptual stage.
System components for both existing and potential on—site wastewater
systems logically fan Into three general categories:
• manipulation
• treatment
• disposal
In general, wastewater manipulation options include flow reduction, wasteload
reduction, and segregation. Treatment options include biological, physical—
chemical and disinfection. Disposal may utilize the atmosphere, soil, or
surface water or various combinations.
Specific component options considered in developing alternative systems
are shown in Table 2. SInce the vast majority of wastewater manipulation
options are applicable to all treatment/disposal systems, manipulation options
and,treatment/disposal options were handled separately in developing alterna-
tive systems.
In order to ensure consideration of all combinations of treatment and
disposal system components, a matrix of the options identified In Table 2 was
developed (see Appendix A). Since thousands of combinations of treatment and
disposal options are possible, the following criteria were used to Identify
the more reasonable combinations:
• Treatment systems selected for a disposal method should not provide
a higher level of treatment than necessary. For example, if system
A can produce a 30/30 BOD/SS effluent, then system A with the
addition of a component to achieve a 10/10 effluent is not
considered If secondary treatment standards control direct discharge
disposal.
8
-------
TABLE 2. ON-SITE COMPONENT OPTIONS
Manipulation
• t b . reduction
• , asteboad reduction
• segregation
Treatment
• biological
— aerobic/anaerobic
- aerobic
— anaerobic
— emergent uegetatisn
- undeneluped treatoent processes
— conposting
• physical cheuical
— filtration
— separation
— coagulation and chemical precipatatien
— sorption
— oxidatinn
— desurptiun
— undeunleped treatneet processes
— incineration
• disinfection
Disposal
• air
— evupetranspirutiun
— lined lagoon
- mechanical
— thermal
• water
— direct discharge
• soil
— cooeertionaV soil absorption field
— seepage pit
— soil absorption field with nmdified aistrihution
pressure distributiun
— alternating beds
— dosing & resting
— sail modification (i.e., mound)
— irrigation
‘
.
combinations
— evwpetramspiratiee/ahsorPti on
— unlined lagoon
— lagoon with overflow
•
reuse
— teilet fluohing
- tuilet flunhing. lawn watering,
— loam sprinkling, bath, shower,
car washing and laundry
and car washing
toilet flushing,
9
-------
• Systems with inherent environmental acceptability limitations are
not considered if similar, but more acceptable systems are possible.
For example, an anaerobic lagoon is not considered if an aerobic
lagoon can accomplish the same objective in a given system.
• Treatment systems are based on compatible components so that unneces-
sary pre—treatment prior to a specific component is not..utilized.
• Treatment systems are based on sanitary engineering principles
applicable to on—site conditions.
• Treatment/disposal systems provide adequate environmental pro-
tection. For example, disinfection is assumed to be required for
direct discharge.
As mentioned previously, the applicability of on—site systems Is often
limited by variable site—specific conditions. The most significant site
conditions are identified in Table 3. As shown, the list is limited to
physical conditions. Variable conditions such as regulatory requirements and
aesthetic perceptions are not included as site conditions since they are
continuously changing and are not relevant to the engineering evaluation of
alternatives #iich was the objective of this study. Since site conditions
often occur in combination to limit the applicability of on—site systems,
common combinations of site variables were also indicated in Table 3.
For each combination of site conditions the practical on—site systems
were identified by first determining the feasible disposal options. The pre-
treatment required for each disposal option was then considered in conjunction
w h_tj ”practicability” criteria listed above to determine the practical
system alternatives. Tabulations of the system alternatives identified for
each of the 15 site condition combinations shown in Table 3 are provided in
Appendix A.
Wastewater manipulation options are discussed in detail in Section 5. In
general, the available options are applicable to all treatment and disposal
systems, although the degree of applicability depends on specific system and
site characteristics. However, specific treatment systems are appropriate for
segregated waste streams in some instances -- primarily when reuse Is part of
the system. Thus, treatment options for segregated waste streams were
developed using a matrix format similar to that for combined wastewater
treatment and disposal systems (see Appendix A, Table A—l6).
COMPONENT AND SYSTEM RANKING CRITERIA
In order to evaluate the alternative systems identified through the
concept developlient process, ranking criteria were developed (see Table 4).
The criteria selected represent the characteristics of greatest concern (in
addition to cost) for on—site systems.
10
-------
TABLE 3. PHYSICAL SITE CONDITIONS FOR SYSTEM EVALUATION
av il& leLar.1E
Dlr t D1 cMn l V to 0
3120 -_ —--Fea thle Gron0.ater/tre tce BoSu ( VP-W I . f o (iii
CodItI Soil Pe latkr o (8 0- )372m S1cp N 8D11S 10/10 10/10 0. )i.2n )1.2 t Q 5 2.5 -5 35.
oo. I essi 9 thle Heroin I L Liedtirej 0 ( m ft ) 410) ft ) 4IX) ft) 5Z >2 Foeslble 03/)) 4(1) PQ ((ift) (14ft) 4tt) ( ) ( 12) C > 1
1 S S • S S
2 8 5 8 * S
3 1
4 5 5
5 5
6 5 5 5 *
7 1 1 5
8 1 5 1
— 9 5 2 5 *
10 * C S
11 * S S • S
12 1 8
13 8 8
54 1
15 1 5
A. Lzc e4ne p d wSy. er ark*1 IIS *Ith inoiiq ote iuIf1catIC cap It ’. * C ldero1 to be e sl Iuica* 1*n )Ultco 0 rtstrtctt e (or tbe i ItIc
B. kiitdnle. PerrolatIm rat2 wfthln ralVP co 14So01 xig$ de1e t y eret It4te Cr l a1 r elatlcr0 t aethtki .
C. l4eroioel Hey be u cqM1e t sr wwerttmal C1 1 systoe wlLthtL slgn OX )*fIC4IOO
0. LtsltIrg 0.ns to ate (or o syst roiylr9 o 1i ç w1atio . e g.. tl c1 iotIs. S IU 5-re 5tr Cthe site wnfltlus.
1. Lzcheive oi I’orlostal t—b
F. s sk e aro*4eui th be i i u tie dlspssal qtkeo ro j1rtr - 4nta Iei? ,wtbes (I.e.. 31l *1 i field. lapxi. ito.).
C. Lnapxatlc.n isin* p 4pit im (tie o fltc.a] .
H. Uu1s&tu f1.
-------
Since concept development Included a range of options from proven systems
to conceptual and untested unit processes, the ranking criteria are best
applied by separating the alternative systems Into three categories:
• systems with available hardware and on-site performance data;
• systems with available hardware but incomplete data (If any) on
on—site performance; and
• systems 1thout hardware appropriate for on—site application.
Determination of the availability of hardware and performance data for
the systems identified required consideration of the specific configurations
and process options within the general treatment/disposal categories (such as
h$aeroblc,u uflltration,uI or °separation”) used to develop alternative systems.
Thus, process options within each treatment/disposal caUgory were grouped
according to hardware and performance data availability and then evaluated
based on the ranking criteria shown in Table 4 (see Secti’is 6—9).
The most appropriate and highest ranked process options were then
selected for each system. Systems in the first two categories were eanked
according to the criteria ,1le systems in the third category were not ranked
due to Insufficient information. Systems with incomplete performance and O&M
data were ranked based on engineering judgment and these rankings are subject
to revision Thon data becomes available, All rankings assume proper equipment
Installation and operation.
12
-------
TABLE 4. COMPONENT AND SYSTEM RANKING CRITERIA*
I. Performance.
Rating ___________
B. Equipment failure (requiring
h .4 . .i.. .l service) rating
Description
Infrequent
((l/yr)
Frequent
(>lIyr)
__________________________ Description
Simple, few or no noving
parts, minimal skills
required far servicing
Moderate, intermediate in
mechanical/el ectrical com-
plexity, servicing may re-
quire some degree of skill
and/or training
Complex, Involves sophisti-
cated mechanical or electri-
cal equipment, skilled and
trained serviceman required
for servicing
__________________________ Freedom from potential
hazards and nuisanCes#
_______ Descri pt ion
No hazard or nuisance
No hazard, minor nuisance
Limited hazard and/or major
nuisance
Significant hazard
+ Effluent toxicity, health effects (disease transmission
potential), safety (fire, explosion, chemical toxicity)
Odor, vectors, noise, aesthetics, special residuals disposal
probl ems
* Criteria i re applied assuming moper installation and
operation.
S
4
2
0
Level and consistency of treatment achieved
Description
High and consistent level of
treatment provided
Adequate and consistent level of
treatment provided
Adequate but inconsistent treatment
Inadequate and inconsistent
treatment
II. OAM Requirements Scheduled service
failure, and hardware
A. Scheduled maintenance frequency
frequency, equipment
complexity
Description
rating
2
<1/yr
1
2-4/yr
0
)4/yr
0
C. Hardware complexity rating
2
0
III. Envirorwiental Acceptability
Rating
3
2
0
13
-------
SECTION 4
WASTEWATER CHARACTER ISTICS
On-site wastewater quantity and quality characteristics have been
reported in the literature by several investigators. Data derived from actual
sampling and analysis of on—site wastewater are summarized in tabular form as
follows:
Table Information Presented
5 Wastewater Flow From Various Household
So urces
6 Combined Household Wastewater Characteristics
(excluding garbage disposal)
7 Wastewater Constituent Contributions from
Various Household Sources
8 Blackwater Characteristics
9 Greywater Characteristics
10 Garbage Disposal Characteristics
The data presented in Tables 5—10 are based on mean values reported in the
literature (1—10). These values fluctuate widely, depending primarily on
individual household occupant habits.
Wastewater flow val ues used for this study (presented in the next to the
last column of Table 5) are based on a weighting of the reported data into
similar wastewater generating sources. Factors used to weight the data
included distribution of other” wastewater generation data into kitchen,
bathroom, and service sinks; assigning more weight to research based on a
larger number of data points; and giving less weight to data based on
literature review. Similarly, kitchen wastewater was distributed between sink
and dishwashing for those studies which had attributed all kitchen waste to
either the sink or the dishwaster.
Wastewater influent to on-site wastewater systems is received
intermittently throughout the day according to the general pattern shown in
Figure 1 (1). Maximum hourly flows averaging approximately 11.5 lpch (3.0
gpch) generally occur between 7 and 10 a.m. and 5 and 7 p.m. Low flow periods
of less than 3.8 lpch (1 gpch) are generally experienced between midnight and
6 a.m. In addition, instantaneous peak flow rates of 30 to 65 ipil (8—17 gpm)
are reported to occur periodically throughout the day (9). Seasonal
variations of wastewater generation rates are not significant when compared to
the variation of wastewater generation rates between households (8).
14
-------
TABLE 5. WASTEWATER FLOW FROM VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD SOURCES
Investiqator
This Study
•0
c
I .
ciai
Source
C l pcd )k ic
0
E
I—
I —
‘0
.
C
(0
C
w
.C
O
.-
U)
•—
- C
‘0
10
.J
•
-
Qi
. —
1J .
4- —
0J
> ,
CO
aD
0
C
(0
.
- -,
C —
‘0
.t.I
4- 0
4-’
0 4 (
C In
c
C) .
aD
•
ô
In
•. .. C..J
I —
C
0 . 1W
• .—
CM >,
0
- aD
4.J
- ‘
(0
aD
.-
a
U)
U)
I n
0.1
>
-
‘0
4.
CM
0
0) u
•I -,-
- .
C•
—
CJC
1010
. o .O
4 .
0 10
— D C
‘ 0
L 4 _
OC •—
— .— C ..
10
C V
C) .— 0 C.’
0 0 . 4-’
s.. x
.) 0J .—O
0.. O In
Sink
Dishwasher
Garbage
Disposal
Laundry
Jth chine)
Bathrooms ,
Total
(w/o toilet
BathJ
shower
Sink
Water
Softener
Other
(sinks not
included
above)
TOTAL
Greywater
*
Manual and/or automatic dishwashiflg
+ Values represent daily per capita water usage
Excluding garbage disposal
Data have been rounded
Kitchen
Total
13.3
37.9
47.3
Toilet
Fecal
Non—fecal
13.6
28.0
40.1
32.2
7.9
74.9
156.6
81.8
17.0
9.8
4.2
3.0
43.9
51.8
32.9
16.9
55.6
168.0
109.7
28.4
5.7
12.1
10.6
56.5
18.5
26.6
7.1
19.5
130.0
92.8
39.8
23.8
55.1
68.3
197.0
131.9
22
9
13
37
45
33
12
50
6
160
110
18.5
39.8
37.9
34.7
10.0
20.6
161.2
126.5
14
6
8
23
28
21
7
31
4
100
69
15
-------
TABLE. 6. COMBINED HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
(Excluding Garbage Disposal )*
Parameter
(g/cap/d)+
Investigator
•
This
Study
. .—
.I_
.
u”——
Q I-
U,
.
.
(.,
. —.
Ia’ .
.
—
0
‘
4. C•J
V.—.
. a,
4’g’
—
‘‘
..-
a
O
—‘n
—
,..
V
.5 ,;
— C I
V.4
I#,
SOD 5
SOD 5 filtered
COD
TOC
TOC filtered
TS
TVS
$5
V$5
TKN
NH 3 —N
N0 3 —N
2 .N
TP
P0 4 .P
011 and QrQaae
MSA S
flow (lpcd)
45
—.
120
.-
..
130
83
48
40
12.1
•.
•.
a.
3.8
. .
- .
a.
131.5
48.7
.•
119.4
.
..
—.
——
•
——
•—
3.2
0.1
. .
—.
4.0
..
a.
186.7
34.8
.—
121.5
..
—.
146.3
74.6
47.3
41.6
8.5
•—
—.
• .
..
3.7
—
. .
165.3
49.5
30.4
•.
32.1
22.0
113.4
63.1
35.4
26.6
6.1
1.3
0.1
••
4.0
1.4
14.6
..
119.4
49.5
3u.4
—
32.1
22.0
113.4
63.1
35.4
26.6
6.1
1.3
0.1
• .
4.0
1.4
.—
..
161.2
48
30
120
32
22
125
10
40
31
6
2
0.1
• .
4
1.4
15
3
180
* Also excludes water softener!
Data hove been rounded
-------
* Excluding garbage disposa1 and water softener, and sinks other than kitchen.
+ I unded to nearest percent.
Source: Reference 2 and 8.
TABLE 7. WASTEWATER CONSTITUENT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
VARIOUS IIOUSEHOLD SOURCES* (percent)+
-S
Source
NN ,
Parameter “
.
Kitchen
Laundry
Clothes_Washer
Bathrom
Toilet Flush
Automatic
Sink Dishwasher
Total*
Wash
Rinse
Total
Bath/
Shower
Fecal
Non-
Fecal
Total
BOO 5
BODE fIltered
TOC
17
15
16
26
26
23
42
41
39
22
23
24
8
9
8
30
32
32
6
6
5
5
9
8
11
7
13
13
13
14
22
21
24
22
TOC filtered
19
21
40
25
9
33
9
16
25
IS
12
16
28
33
10
43
12
19
31
TVS
15
17
32
23
8
31
18
18
36
SS
12
15
27
23
9
31
6
19
19
38
YSS
14
17
31
18
7
25
5
25
44
68
TKN
7
8
15
10
2
12
47
41
88
flH 3 -N
N0 3 -N
TP
3
3
11
4
6
21
7
9
31
2
25
40
1
15
14
2
40
54
11
1
2
9
7
8
31
7
13
40
14
22
Ortho-P
13
27
39
29
8
37
22
6
17
23
Grease
16
17
33
13
10
-------
TABLE 8. BLACKWATER_(TOILET ONLY) CHARACTERISTICS
Investigator
This
Study
aJ -
4.)
w
S..
C S.-
—
.,-
aJ
S..—’
c c .-
S_-a
ccc
c c c
.-
Lf )
cc
4 - ’
4.)
4JW
W )
•.-,-
V >
0
—
C3
I—
•
w c
4.).-
C
J4- )
0.
>,
Parameter
0 —
Ln
L/I
+.
-
..—=
E
. . -
+
(g/cap/d)
(0
V)
BOD 5 20 23.5 6.9 10.7 10.7 15
BOD 5 fll ered -— 6.3 6.3 6
COD 72 67.8 65 -— 68
TOC 7.7 7.8 8
TOG filtered -- 4.8 4.8 5
TS 53 76.5 28.5 28.5 45
TVS 39 55.8 - 19.7 19.7 30
SS 30 36.5 12.8 12.5 20
VSS 25 31 10.2 10.2 16
TKN 11 5.2 4.1 4.1 5
NH 3 —N 2.78 1.11 1.11 1
N0 3 -N 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03
N0 2 -N -- -— ——
TP 1.6 -- 0.55 0.55 0.6
P0 4 -P 2.16 3.1 0.31 0.31 0.3
Oil and Grease 3.35 3
MBAS -- --
pH 8.9 5.6
Total Bacteria 6.2x10 10
(#/cap/d)
Total coliform 4.8x10 9
(#/cap/d)
Fecal coliform 3.8x10 9
(#/cap/d)
Fecal strep -- -— —-
Flow (ipcd) 8.5* 74.9 55.6 26.6 34.7 - 50 -
* Study households equipped with Vacuum tone s
+ Data has been rounded
18
-------
TABLE 9. GREY WATER CHARACTERISTICS*
Parameter
(gfcap/d)
Investigator
This
Study
0
‘5
I—
-V
OC
.C >
cr -V
‘5
,
..
5J
c -
I. •V
C
‘ 5
—
.-.
C
o -
n
no
— C
0 ‘5
_
0
—
..—
fl
V
0.
.
—
.
‘5
‘5
w+
—-—
p .
..—
0
—
->
Co
‘ 5
E
010
‘5
—
•0 •
C —’
‘5
-,
- V
4 . cJ
o
C U I
C C
U —
—J
.
. . ‘
‘n—
•—C’J
t —
0J 0
.—.—
.fl>.
V
•
.1V
— C
‘5
(fl
‘ ,
80D 5 25 25.2 24.5 27.9 38.8 38.8 33
BOO 5 filtered —— -— —— -— 24.1 24.1 24
COD 48 51.6 -- 56.5 -- -- 52
TOC —— -— —— 17.8 24.4 24.4 24
TOC filtered -— —— —— -— 17.2 17.2 17
Is 77 -— 70.8 69.8 85 85 80
TYS 44 -— -- 18.8 43 43 dO
SS 18 —— 15.4 10.8 22.6 22.6 20
VSS 15 -— —— —— 10.6 16.5 16.5 15
T l 1.1 -— —- - — 1.3 1.9 1.9 2
NH 3 -N -— -— 0.44 —— -- 0.16 0.16 0.2
N 0 3 -N - — -- 0.6 -— -- 0.04 0.04 0.05
N0 2 —N trace -- -- —— -— —— -- --
IP 2.2 -— - - 2.7 -— 3.43 3.43 3
P0 4 -P -— -— 1.8 -— 0.6 1.10 1.10 1.1
Oil and Grease -— -— —— —— —— 11.3 —— 11
MBAS •— -— -- -— 3.4 -— —— 3
pH -— 7.2 —— -— -— —— —— 7 2
Total Plate
Count (#fcap/d 7.6x10’°
Total coliform
(#/cap/d) 1.3x10 I.95x10 500** 6500**
Fecal collforin
(#/cap/d) 2.5x10 550** 55C
Fecal strep
(#/capld) -— —- -— —- 94** 94** ——
Flow (lpcd) 121.5* 81.8 98.3 109.7 92.8 126.5 110
* Excluding garbage d posal and water sortener.
+ Based on bath/shower, dishwash ng, and laundry only.
# Based on kitchen and bath/shower data only.
** Based on laundry and bath/shower data only.
44 Cata have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 10. GARBAGE DISPOSAL ’WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
BOD 5
BOD 5
COD
TOC
TOC filtered
TS
TV S
ss
V SS
TKN
NH 3 -N
N0 3 -N
N0 2 -N
TP
p0 4 -p
011 and Grease
MBAS
pH
Total coliform
(MPN/l00 ml)
FécaT coliform
(MPN/l00 ml)
Fecal strep
(MPN/100 ml)
Flow (lpcd)
10.9
2.6
7.3
3.9
25.8
24.0
15.8
13.5
0.63
0.01
trace
11
3
36
7
4.
28
23
18
15
0.5
0.01,
trace
U
0.1
0.1
2
6.4
Investigator —
This
Study
.
Parameter
(g/cap/d)+
. r . . ,
.
4 . )
0J4
u,
t, •,-
ec—
c . .J
4 . )
v,
.
— )
4J
, . ‘ >
.— .,-
.
O)V’
4-’
.-. —
4-’
— I,
12.3
35.6
32.5
22.1
20.2
19.0
0.2
0.1
6.4
3.0
0.13
0.09
2.1
10.6
* Garbage grinders did not receive all meal
owned dogs which received table scraps.
+ Data have been rounded
7
waste. Study families
20
-------
AVERAGE FLOW 16L2 LPCO (42.6 GPCD)
T - TOILET
L - LAUNDRY
B - BATH OR SHOWER
o - DtSH WASHER
O - OTHER
WS- WATER
SOURCE: Reference L
FIGURE 1. AVERAGE DAILY FLOW PATTERN FRO 1
ELEVEN RURAL KOUSEROLDS
U
a-
-j
C-,
a-
TIME OF DAY
21
-------
It is also important to note that variations of constituent loadings to
on—site wastewater treatment systems occur concomitant with variations in
wastewater flow from individual household sources throughout the day. Thus,
on—site wastewater treatment systems must be able to accommodate considerable
long and short—term fluctuations in pollutant as wall as hydraulic loadings.
22
-------
REF ERENCES
1. Otis, R.J., W.C. Boyle, d.C. Converse and E.J. Tyler. On—site
disposal of small scale wastewater flows. University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Small Scale Wastewater Management Project, 1977. 34 p.
2. Witt, M., R. Siegrist, and W.C. Boyle. Rural household wastewater
characteristics. In: Proceedings of the National Home Sewage
Disposal Symposium, Chicago, IllInois, December 9—10, 1974. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp.
79-88.
3. Bennett, E.R. and K.D. Linstedt. Individual home wastewater
characteristics and treatment. Completion Report Series No. 66,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Environmental Resources
Center, 1975.
4. Ligman, K., N. Hutzler. and W.C. Boyle. Household wastewater
characteristics. J. Environ. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 100
(EEl): 201—213, February 1974.
5. Laak, R. Relative pollution strengths of undiluted waste materials
discharged in household and the dilution waters used for each. In:
Manual of Grey Water Treatment Practice, J.T. Winneberger, ed,
Monogram Industries, Inc., Santa I’bnica, California, 1974. pp. 6—16.
6. Cohen, S. and H. Waliman. Demonstration of waste flow reduction from
households. EPA—670/2—74—07l, General Dynamics Corporation, Groton,
Connecticut, September 1974. 111 p. (Available from National
Technical Information Services (NTIS) as PB—236 904).
7. Olsson, E., L. Karlgren, and V. Tullander. Household wastewater
Report No. 24, National Swedish Institute for Building Research,
Stockholm. Sweden, 1:968. 26 p.
8. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Management of small waste
flovG. Appendix A. Wastewater characteristics and treatment.
EPA—60012 —78—1 73. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati
Ohio, September 1978. 764 p.
9. Jones, J.E., Jr. Domestic water use in individual homes and hydraulic
loading of and discharge from septic tanks. In: Proceedings of the
National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December
9—10, 1974. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1975. pp. 89—103.
23
-------
10. Hypes, W. Characterization of typical household greywater. In:
Manual of Grey Water Treatment Practice, J.T. Winneberger, ed.
Monogram Industries, Inc., Santa Monica, California, 1975. pp.
19-26.
24
-------
SECTION 5
WASTEWATER MANIPULATION
On—site wastewater treatment systems can be significantly affected by the
influent wastewater quantity and characteristics. Wastewater manipulation
techniques consisting of flow reduction, wasteload reduction, and/or
segregation can be used with both new and existing systems to facilitate and
enhance wastewater treatment and disposal , extend system life, reduce system
O&M requirements, reduce system capital and O&M costs, and reduce household
water consumption.
A summary of generic types of household wastewater flow and wasteload
reduction devices for greywater and blackwater generating sources are
presented in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. Flow-reduction data in Table 11
assumes full open flow for continuous functions and full volume per use for
batch functions as baseline conditions.
Additional capital costs included in Tables 11 and 12 are the incremental
costs for flow and wasteload reduction devices in excess of the capital costs
for conventional (non—flow or -wasteload reducing) equipment. For example,
the difference in capital cost betwaen a faucet with an in-line flow
restrictor and a conventional faucet is the additional capital cost. Where
there is no comparable conventional equipment (i.e., a faucet aerator), the
capital cost of the device is considered to be an additional cost. In Table
12, the present worth of the incremental capital costs, including replacement,
(amortized over 20 years assuming 7 percent interest, discount, and inflation
factors) are added to the annual operation and maintenance costs.
FLOW REDUCTION
Significant water consumption and wastewater flow reductions have been
observed without installation of flow reduction devices in several locales as
a result of government agency water conservation education programs, and/or a
perceived need by household water users (1). The potential savings of flow
reduction devices Is presented In Tables 11 and 12. Actual performance of
many devices depends on user habits. On the other hand, successful per-
formance of some flow and wasteload reduction devices is virtually independent
of user habits. Estimates of achievable flow reductions (the amount of water
that can actually be saved by a typical household) for various household
wastewater sources are presented in Table 13. These estimates are based on
data reported in the literature and on engineering judgement, focusing primar-
ily on studies of observed flow reductions demonstrated in household moni—
25
-------
Generic Type
KITCHEN (22 ifcup/d)’
Sink faucet (N l/capld) 15—30 1pm
Flow resiricters
In—line, upstream of
faucet
incsrpurated into
faucet
Aeration devices
Spray Cups
Cut—off valves
Specialty faucet systems
(pre—set cluing valves,
ate)
Dishiaasisen’ (13 1/eap/d) 45—70
if cyc Ia
Multi—cycle control
Ultrasonic (cmnblned
with microwave even)
Garbage disposal
(7 l/capfd)+
Neducad flew dispasul
Sri ndnr w/cantri Fuge/
sepera tar
Eliminate gurbu disposal - - —
LAssme (31 1/cip/d) 100 -260
1/cycle
Automatic washing machive
Heltl-level/cycle control
Suds—savers
Detergents Wlow P or
filler solids
Slot fuscet (see kitchen)
BATHROOMS (45 l/cap/d)
ButlVshower (33 l/cap/d)
Bathtubs 210 I/use
Low water voluse tub
Showers 20-60 I pm
Flow restrictions
in—lies, upstream
of showerhead
Incerpureted into
sisseerheed
Conpressed air
assisted eeretisn
devices
Cot—off valves
Specialty faucet
systems (pro—set
niulng valves, etc.)
Sink faucets (12 l/cep/d(
(see kitchen)
6 so-go
6 10-40
100
10-40 Nooe
10-30 1, BOO, 55
0 P,SS
o Indicate full-open flow rete (continuous fsectisns) or stusdard water siege per event (batch functions)
.jOO’ connentlossul flsturn
indIcates percent reduction in flow rite dies flowing wide open, or in volize/aua Potential changes In
soer isebita with chasging flee rate are not included
I Capital tests em the incremental costs for flow sod wustelosd rsductios devices is escoss of the capital
costs for casvustiosal equipment
* Dateline value used for purpose of this study, Subject to wide fluctuation (as sock + SOt or sore fur
various functions) Is Isdividual homes
+. Not included in kitchen total
TABLE 11. FLOW AND WASTELOAD REDUCTION-EXCEPT TOILET
Flow
Fsrformaece —
Additional
Capital
Cast Range
(5) 1
Dependent
On User
Independent
of User
Flow
Reductiont
lduoteluod
Reduction
Range°
Habits
Habits
(Percent)
(Cosst ltuentt)
11mw Retrofit
30- /0
None
1—10
10-25
0
1
1
1
40-80
40-70
30-10
60-NO
None
None
None
None
(I-S
(1—S
1— I ?
10-110
(I- S
(I-S
/- 12
20-140
Rone
25-00
35-100
None
50-90
60-100
BOO,
55 ‘,
08/,
Unknown
Unknown
0
0- 40
Hone
10-20
5-30
0
0
0
0
95
95
BOO,
000,
55, 080
55, 080
Unksewm
---
Unknown
---
50-15
15-35
50—15
15—25
0
0-30
lIons
0
0
0
40-80
None
1-10
10-35
0
10-40
sone
5-IS
5-IS
U
U
60-NO
60-NO
None
Nose
260-300
10—110
300-500
20-ida
26
-------
TABLE 12. FLOW AND WASTELOAD REDUCTION TOILET
Systuii0lM Ncqiiroiets
Eiydp’ait
Pafon,ace Fru 1 ieir3i of Failiro
en lst Irole eid t flisa wacteload Sc Ieslalal (ru airirg
Ilmi ot tee of Usa ’ Rerictiot ReiSctiaq Malnlowce iiardsure snldiokilid trisiravetaital Pccvitthility
Gecult I n R Wilts IWsito (Peiwit) Selected Cantitssits Mapaacy ( 1/yr) Cuapievity sereice)SI (jutatial haranas aid naisaices )
1011(15 (50 l/capvd)g 15—10 l/iae
Sate carria9s
ffihael tat flieS A 10-60 cue aj asars relisile <1 s vie infrapent
iOta’ neluati
Dvii cie flieS V 10-30 cue ogea’s relidale ciiiu a It o N. 55, R h, F, vpias relivtiie 54 naSaate- frolint residuals dlspsai
toilet sysiuin iaicntiolcgical riutlea
Nm-ia.ittr catiaijv
Dated
IrcieC&atitxl A 100 N, 55, ff0, P, mean relidale >4 oiolerate frupent i d a, air onisslo,n, aid safety
(cuateatlon) eilcrdsiol ejical
[ ewatiro - A 110 N, 55, ff0, F, inflame sate s> conpius sat a n ida, and residuals disiesal
ceaalonsatloi eicrthlolt9iaal
Fraeli A U I N, $5. ff0, F, pluttially 14 ‘a u ate fruii.ost ‘ sc, s a ta n, aid resid uals disiusal
miineiolo ical ccl idale
011 rictrculatir A 1(0 N, 55, ff0, F, iettntl lly 2-4 cospiet frupait ala aid residuals dispanal
oiisntiulojical ccl asia
Cn4nstliy
Snail A SW N, 55, ff0, F, utuitlally >4 iauSnrate frupait ala, vectors, residuals dls osal,
ioicethlolo lcat reilavie safety a ol fealth efficto
Lanije A 1(0 N, SO, ND, F, otasutlally 24 sssple Infrupast oSr, vectors, residuals disasal.
oricritlolojical relltile saicty sal lsivlth effects
lbldiiaj
Pakaglnj A Ito N, 55, 1W, P . p>tentlally 4 oalaate fritipaint iakr, etisturs, aid residuals
oicniaioltvjical relldile dis leasal
* lidicates patent nsdvctiol in fsdl-qen fire rate (wstlwn Section) ir stsitaul iota- anaje cr want (batch fsactlun) (or ruwoittasal fiatsres
Basal a’ I cu 3 tuaila.s a luaselold.
Anvetced capital cast (to otues of cixwonticesal’ upalpiant) plus ecevil qeratlon ad euletanaice ants.
• Basales> valor veal & pu-pases of Oils scaly, sdajict to safe flactuatioris (as nan as or ecu-si far caine (section) in individual hates. (i at iiclnikal iv batireas total).
(Snip Ia cawastlasal flatizot,
gg Relative c ia tat vVLr ices listed.
cv fa nias capital cast (atsusli9 nhalstonaoat at wlstlnj iqaliecast ii> relate (tori) plan euwl qaratiuai ad naiittasste ants.
-------
TABLE 13. WASTEWATER FLOW REDUCTION
Flow Rate:
Estimate of
Estimate of
Weighted
used in
value
this
achievable
(actual)
achievable
(actual)
study
Wastewater Source (lpcd)
flow range
(lpcd)
flow reduction
(percent)* Reference
Greywater
Kitchen
Total 22 14-21 5-35
Sink 9 6-9 0 30 (5,9)
Dishwasher 13 8-12 10-40 (2,6)
Laundry 37 22-33 10—40 (1,2,6)
Bathroom
Total 45 17-45 0-60
Bath/shower 33 3-33 0_70# (1 ,3,4,7,8
Sink 12 7-12 0-40 (5,9
Other 6 4—6 0-30 (9)
Grevwater TDtal 110 57-105 5-50
Bl ackwater
Toilet
50
0-45
l0-lO0
(1,4,6,8)
Household Total
160
50-150
5-65
* Values are rounded.
+ Achievable reduction Is 100% with recycle or non—water carriage toilet.
# Estimated achievable reduction approaches 70% with compressed air assist
showerhead (8).
28
-------
toring programs, where available (1-10). In many cases, the estimates pre-
sented in Table 13 are much lower than the flow reductions listed in Tables 11
and 12. Explanations for some of the apparent discrepancies are:
• Flow ranges and reductions listed in Tables 11 and 12 are based
on full open flow, although most conventional continuous flow sources
are not regularly operated in this mode.
• User habit changes. Continuous flow source fixtures equipped with
flow reducing devices may be operated to actually increase the volume
of wastewater generated due to longer duration of usage.
• Inadequate device design. Some batch flow devices may require a
second batch operation due to inadequate device performance, or
improper operation by user. For example, a reduced volume toilet may
be flushed a second time in order to completely clean the bowl.
• Improper device installation. For example, an improperly installed
toilet dam may lose its seal and become ineffective.
• Incompatibility of device with existing plumbing. Pipe cloggings may
occur due to increased waste solids c ncentratioflS and reduced
wastewater flow volumes caused by wastewater flow reductions.
• Device removal or circumvention by homeowner.
Overall, the potential exists for significant flow reductions from both
continuous and batch flow sources. In general, the most effective flow
reducing devices (primarily for batch functions) are those that are virtually
independent of user habits. Slightly less effective devices simply require
the user to select the reduced flow cycle. For example, reduced flush water
volume toilets are virtually assured of wastewater flow reductions (unless
additional flushes are required as a result of inadequate flush water
velocity) while multi—cycle dishwasher or dual cycle flush toilets require
selection of the appropriate cycle to achieve flow reductions. On the other
hand, decreases in wastewater quantity directly attributable to installation
of flow reducing devices on continuous flow sources have had mixed successes
(1, 3, 4, 5), depending primarily on the perceived need for flow reduction.
For example, flow reductions as high as 50 percent resulting solely from
changes in users habits were reported in Cal ifornia during the summer of
1977.
Since the toilet, laundry, and bath/shower typically generate the largest
quantities of household wastewater, Installation of flow reducing devices on
these sources can have a significant impact on the quantity of wastewater
requiring on—site treatment and/or disposal . From the foregoing discussion
and the information presented in Tables 11. 12, and 13, it can be seen that
installation of flow reducing devices for the toilet, laundry, and dishwasher
(batch-flow sources) are most likely to be consistently successful, but are
more expensive. Installation of flow reducing devices for the shower
29
-------
(continuous flow source) are not always effective, but most of them are
inexpensive. Similarly, installation of flow reducing devices for sink
faucets may not always be effective, but they are normally inexpensive.
Combined small wastewater flow reductions from individual sink faucets can be
significant.
Wastewater reuse is an additional method of flow reduction. On—site
wastewater reuse systems generally treat the waste stream from one or more
household fixtures to provide the water supply for the same or other water
consuming fixtures. Since the operation of wastewater reuse systems is almost
completely independent of user habits, their effectiveness in reducing flow is
virtually assured. The amount of the flow reductions achieved depends upon
the type of reuse system and the household fixtures served.
Reuse water quality criteria are presented in Appendix B. Several of the
nwnerous wastewater reuse options available are describe! in the wastewater
segregation section of this chapter as part of Tables 19 and 20 and in
Appendix A, Table A—16.
WASTELOAD REDUCTION
As previously indicated in Tables 11 and. 12, some flow reduction
techniques reduce the mass of waste constituents generated as well as decrease
constituent concentrations. These techniques may be used individually, in
combination, or in conjunction with segregation of specific household waste
generating sources to facil itate on—site wastewater treatment and disposal
Other flow reduction techniques have no effect on the mass of waste
constituents (wasteload) requiring treatment and/or disposal , as indicated in
Tables 11 and 12, although they increase waste constituent concentrations.
These resulting concentration increases primarily affect individual treatment
and disposal system component design (size, configuration, etc.); they usually
have little impact on the selection of unit processes (component types). In
addition to wastewater flow reductions accompanied by wasteload reductions,
wasteloads alone may be reduced.
Methods to achieve household wasteload reductions and the constituents
affected are described in Table 14. As an example of wasteload reduction
methods, both with and without flow reduction, the quantity of phosphorus
influent to an on—site treatment system may be reduced by eliminating toilet
discharges and the use of high phosphate detergents. The value of these
efforts might be to eliminate a specific phosphorus removal treatment step
prior to surface discharge. Similarly, elimination of toilet discharges to
the treatment system uld reduce the input of all constituents considered in
Table 14. With the exception of toilet discharges, the methods of wasteload
reduction listed In Table 14 are self—explanatory and need no further
discussion.
Several methods for eliminating toilet waste discharges (and thereby
reducing flow) were identified in Table 12. All but one of these methods
involve the use of non-water carriage toilet systems. Descriptions of these
30
-------
TABLE 14. WASTELOAD REDUCTION
Method
Wasteload
Reduced
Accompanied
by flow
reduction
BOD
SS
N
P
O&G
Micro—
biological
Eliminate garbage
disposal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Eliminate use of
detergents with
phosphorus and/or
filler solids
X
X
Install laundry
“sud- saver
X
X
X
Eliminate toilet
discharges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* “X’ indicates constituents reduced.
+ Inert solids added by detergent manufacturers as abrasives to enhance
detergent performance.
31
-------
non—water carriage toilet systems for which there Is available on-site
hardware and performance Information follow.
Incinerating Toilets
System Type
Gas—fl red
(liquifled
propane or
natural gas)
System Requirements
Toilet bowl, combustion chamber,
insulation, ignition source (elec-
tric spark plug), air-fuel supply
system, flue gas vent end b1o r,
4nd system controls consisting of
cycle activation switch and timer.
can be used to eliminate
by drying and incinerating
Coments
Frequent removal of
combustion residual s
Is required. In-
complete combustion of
was:es may result in
odor rroblems. Slight
p ential for explo-
sion or fire hazard.
Oil fired
Electric (115
or 220 volts
AC, or 12
volts DC)
Same as above
Toilet bowl, combustion chamber,
electric heating element, in-
sulation, flue gas vent and b1o r,
and system controls consisting of
cycle activation switch and timer.
Same as above
Frequent removal of
combustion residuals
Is required. Waxed
paper bowl liner
may be required to be
placed in toilet prior
to each use.
Gas and oil—fired Incinerating toilets require significantly more
frequent maintenance (associated with fuel supply and combustion equipment)
than electric incinerating toilets. On the other hand, electric incinerating
toilets have significantly higher energy costs. Thus, the applicability of
the various types of incinerating toilets is largely site dependent.
Performance—-
There are a number of commercially available incinerating toilets.
Howaver, discussion of performance of these units will be limited to the
gas—fired and electric units since oil—fired unit performance data ware not
readily available.
In general, Incinerating toilets are designed to dry and incinerate
influent toilet wastes, producing ash which requires subsequent disposal. For
gas—fired units, the complete combustion/cooling cycle takes approximately
20 minutes (15 for combustion and 5 for cooling); while electric units
normally require approximately 45 minutes (15 for combustion and 30 for
cooling). Although the cycle can be interrupted for toilet use, additional
combustion cycles without introduction of waste may be required
Non—water carriage, incinerating toilets
household blackwater flow and reduce wasteloads
toilet wastes, as briefly described below.
32
-------
following peak use periods to avoid incomplete waste combustion. (Personal
CommunicatiOn. 1. G. Townley. March 19, 1978.)
System O&M Requirements--
Routine removal and disposal of cc iibustlon residual s about once a week are
necessary for gas-fired incinerating toilets. Residuals removal can be
perfomed using a vacuum cleaner or a dustpan—and-brush if waste incineration
is complete. If incineration is incomplete (as has been reported for some
units) waste must be scraped from the incineration chamber (11). The toilet
bowl must also be wiped clean with a damp cloth at weekly intervals. Periodic
cleaning and alignment of the gas—fired burner assembly, adjustment of the
air/fuel ratio, and adjustment and/or replacement of spark plugs may be
required two to four times per year by a trained technician to maintain
combustion efficiency. Frequent unscheduled maintenance necessitated by spark
plug fouling, faulty timers, blower motor failure, or corrosion of internal
parts may be required (11,12).
Similarly, routine removal and disposal of combustion residuals are
required approximately once per week for electric incinerating toilets.
Residuals can be removed by a vacuum cleaner or a dustpan—and—brush if waste
incineration is complete. As previously mentioned, a waxed paper bowl liner
may be required to be placed in the toilet (manufacturer specification) prior
to each use. Weekly cleaning of the toilet bowl by wiping with a damp cloth
is required. The heating element may require cleaning two to four times per
year to maintain combustion efficiency. Ventilation systems, including a
blower and piping, need to be cleaned with hot water, soap, and brush
approximately two to four ‘times a year. Enfrequent, unscheduled repair and
maintenance include--inspection-—and - replacement of the heater element by a
trained technician.
Because positive ventilation is required to discharge flue gases, homes
using incinerating toilet may consume additional energy to maintain household
temperatures due to heat losses or gains caused by flue gas venting.
Environmental Acceptabil ity—-
Although the high operating temperatures of incinerating toilets
adequately sterilize the ash produced by incineration of toilet wastes, there
are several environmental concerns related to use of incinerating toilets.
These are as follows:
• Odor problems resulting from incomplete waste combustion. (Masking
agents or catalytic deodorizer may help to alleviate or eliminate the
symptoms);
• Slight potential of explosion or fire hazards for gas— or oil-fired
incinerating toilets; and
33
-------
System Type
Large
cornposti ng
toilet
- System Requirements
Compost tank with toilet
stool (typical tank effec-
ti e volume of 30 to 70
ft ), and ventilation
system. Addition of dry
carbon source, such as
sawdust, may be required.
Compost tank with toilet
stool (typical tan effec-
tive volume 0.5-un ),
and ventilation system.
Electric heating element
and stirring or leveling
on some units.
Requires large space
for composter tarn .
Tank vclume expand-
able in section fash-
ion for some units.
Loading of kitchen
wastes allowable and
often desirable. Po-
tential odor problems
(resulting from exces-
sive liquid loadings),
vector problems, and
limited fire hazards.
Energy may be lost
from household through
vent
Occasional odor pro-
blems resulting from
excessive liquid
build—up. Potential
insect problems and
fire hazard. Energy
loss from house
through vent may be a
problem.
Performance——
Both large and small compost toilets should be capable
relatively stable end products. As a result of the difference
compost volumes, large compost toilets rely largely on low
biological mechanisms to degrade toilet (and kitchen) wastes,
of producing
in effective
rate aerobic
while small
• Air pollution potential of combustion products escaping with flue
gases.
Cost--
Capital , operation and maintenance and total annual costs for gas-fired
and electric incinerating toilets ae presented in Table 15.
Composting Toilets
Non—water carriage, composting toilets can be used to eliminate
household blackwater flow and reduce wasteloads by converting toilet wastes
into compost, which may be suitable for land application as a soil conditioner
or fertilizer. Types of composting toilets available are:
_____________________ Comments
Small
Cornposti ng
Toilet
34
-------
TABLE 15. INCINERATING TOILET COSTS
Capital Cost
Item
Design
life
(yr)
Capital
Cost ($)
Electric
Unit
Gas Unit
Toilet unit
20
600-800
600—800
Installation*
——
200—350
150—250
Total Capital
Cost*
$800-1150
$750-lOSO
Annual O&M
Item
Cost
Annual
O&M Cost ($)
Gas Unit
Electric
Unit
Maintenance (@$lO/hr)
Routine 70 70
Unscheduled repairs 20 20
Repla 9 nient Parts 15 10
Energy & liner (if required) costs 200 300
Total Annual 0811 Cost $305 $400
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum
of the capital
costs amortized over 20
years @ 7%
interest, discount and
(factor = 0.09439)
inflation
76—109
71—99
Annual 0&M Costs
305
400
Total Annual Cost*
$381—414
— $380-.410
$471-499
— $470-500
* Lower value is for new construction; higher value is for
retrofit app] ications.
+ Energy consumption is estimated to be 135 g (0.3 lb) LP gas/use
at $0.5/lb for gas units and 1.2 kwh/use at $0.05/kwh for electric
units (3).
35
-------
compost toilets generally depend on thermal dehydration and high-rate aerobic
mechanisms to stabilize toilet wastes. Key factors relating to the perfor-
mance of compost toilets are as follows (Personal Communication. M. Findlay
and C. Lindstrom. April 1978.) (13):
Large Compost Toilets Small Compost Toilets
Long detention time Short detention time
Microorganisms as well as higher Microorganisms such as bacteria and
organisms such as arthropods and fungi predominate. Thermal dehydra-
earthworms predominate tion also takes place
Pathogens are killed by long— Pathogens killed by neat and natural
term predation, competition, die—off
and natural die-off
0pera ing temperature ranges, 0p rating temper tur. ranges, 15 to
20—35 C 55 C
No comparative studies of the long—term reliability of composting units have
have been conducted In this country. Studies of .the composition of the end
product from various compost units indicate that It can be relatively
pathogen—free for some commercially available units (13—15). However, the
continuous nature of the composting process In the available large coinposting
units provides the potential for short—circuiting and the contamination of
stabilized compost by °fresh” waste materials. At least one model of small
composting units provides a pasteurizing step Immediately before the compost
container is emptied. If it Is effective, this pasteurizing step would
eliminate a potential short—circuiting problem.
The potential for short—circuiting in the large units increases if
Inadequate liquid absorption capacity Is provided. Excess liquid build—up can
also cause odors (which may be a particular problem If the ventilation system
is inadequately designed or installed) resulting from anaerobic conditions.
The relative health effects associated with the potential for liquid build-up
and short—circuiting for compost toilets as compared to conventional systems
have not be determined.
System Operation and Maintenance Requirements--
Routine system operation and maintenance of large units includes periodic
removal and disposal of compost approximately once per year, after initial
compost mass development. Also, periodic addition of sawdust or kitchen weste
to facilitate the composting process Is required approximately 6 to 12 or more
times per year. This Is desired to prevent the compost mass from becoming
compacted, to equalize moisture distribution, and to facilitate system
aeration and waste decomposition. Infrequent unscheduled maintenance,
consisting of replacement of mechanical equipment (I.e., ventilation fan) and
compost mess mixing, removal, or sawdust addition is expected.
36
-------
For small composting toilets, periodic removal and disposal of compost is
required four or more times per year. Periodic mixing of the compost mass by
an electric or manual stirrer is also required to facilitate the evaporation
and aeration. Unscheduled maintenance and repairs for small composter toilets
include infrequent replacement of broken stirrers, corroded heating elements,
and ventilation fans, and mixing or removal of compost mass (13).
In addition, energy loss from the house through the toilet ventilation
system of both large and small compost toilet systems may increase the energy
requirements of a household.
Environmental Acceptabil ity——
Potential factors affecting the environmental acceptability of both large
and small composter toilets include odor problems due to occasional anaerobic
conditions and inadequate venting, health hazards resulting from inadequate
pathogen destruction in the compost mass, fire hazards associated with
addition of hot ashes to excessively dry compost mass, and air emission
problems. In addition, there may be vector problems associated with
inadequate venting of the units and handling of the compost. In general,
these potential problems can be minimized if the user is committed to proper
management of the compost process. -
Costs--
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs of the compact
composting toilet and large composting system are presented in Table 16.
Costs for both new homes and retrofit installation are included.
Oil Recirculating Toilets
Non—water carriage, oil recirculating toilets can be used to eliminate
household blackwater flow and reduce wasteloads for on—site treatment and
disposal. This is accomplished by separating toilet wastes from a
recirculating petroleum—base flushing liquid, as briefly described below
(Personal Communication. T. Woltanski. January, 1978.) (10,16):
System Type System Requirements Comments
Oil recirculating Toilet bowl, waste separa— Waste separation and
tion and storage tank, holding equipment re—
flushing oil, oil—waste quires large space.
separation and purlfica— The environmental ac-
tion system, pump and ceptability of dispo-
control s . sal of oil—coated re-
siduals is uncertain.
Disinfectant addition
may be required to
eliminate microbial
contamination and de-
gradation of the
flushing oil.
37
-------
TABLE 16. COMPOSTING TOILET COSTS
Design
Capital Cost life Capital
Cost ($)
Item (yr) Small
Large+
Compost unit 20 650
1600
Shipping and installation —- 200_400*
700—1500
Total Capital Cost $850-1050
$2300—3l00
Annual
Annual O&M Cost
Item Small
Electricity 3i
O&M Cost ($)
Large
15#
Replacement Parts 15
10
Mai ntenance requi rement
@ $8/hr
Routine 48
24
Unscheduled repairs
112
Total Annual O&M Cost $125
$60
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital
costs amortized over 20 years @ 7%
interest, discount, and inflation
(factor 0.09439) 80—100
217—292
Annual 0&M Costs 125
60
Total Annual Cost 205—225
277—352+
—-$210-230
— ‘$28O—350
* Lower value is for new construction; higher value is for
retrofit applications.
+ This assumes one toilet per unit. However, some large units
can accommodate additional toilet stools, which would result
in significant economies of scale for multiple toilet instal-
lations of these units, as compared to single toilet units.
f Reference (14), $O.O4Jday for the large unit and $0.09/day for
the small unit.
38
-------
Performance——
Oil recirculating toilets separate and store toilet wastes for subsequent
removal and disposal. Performance may be adversely affected by several
characteristics, including the following:
• Incomplete separation of aqueous base liquids from the flushing oil
due to the formation of oil—water emulsions;
• Deterioration of the flushing oil due to chemical reaction with
toilet wastes;
• Bacterial contamination and degradation of the flushing oil.
Addition of an oil soluble bactericide disinfectant which is not
toxic to toilet users nay alleviate this problem; and
• Odors and toilet discoloration due to inadequately purified oil
(10,16).
Generally, these problems can be overcome by periodic replacement of the
flushing oil.
System Operation and Maintenance Requirements——
Removal and disposal of residuals from the waste storage tank is required
annually for a system with a 1900 1 (500 gal) storage capacity. Inspection,
cleaning, and maintenance of the complex hardware by a skilled serviceman
should be performed one to three times per year. This includes addition of a
disinfectant and odor and color masking agents, and replacement of exhausted
filtration media and flushing oil (50 1 (13 gal) per year) (Personal
Communication. 1. Woltanski. January, 1978.) (10). Frequent unscheduled
maintenance of the coalescer and filter assemblies, system pumps and chemical
addtion systems (if any) may be required.
Environmental Acceptabil ity——
Flushing oil odor and discoloration are minor nuisances associated with
oil recirculating toilets, while flushing oil microbial contamination is a
limited hazard. Addition of masking agents and disinfectants should alleviate
these problems. However, disposal of oil—coated residuals and exhausted
filtration media and flushing oil can be a more severe problem (16).
Costs——
Capital • operation and maintenance, and total annual costs for oil
recirculating toilets are presented in Table 17.
Component Compari sons
Non-water carriage toilet component comparisons for units with sufficient
on—site performance information and hardware to permit detailed eval uation are
presented In Table 18. Component comparisons for units with available on—site
39 -
-------
TABLE 17. COSTS OF OIL RECIRCULATING TOILET SYSTEM
Design
Capital Cost Life
Item (yr)
Capital
Cost
($)
2—toilet oil recirculating 20
system
Shipping and Installation ——
Centrifugal oil pump 10
Float SwItches 5
6,000
700_1,500*
150
140
Total Capital Cost
$700—$7500
Annual O&M Cost Unit Cast
Item Amount ($)
Annual O&M
$)
Cost
Maintenance required
Routine 4 hr 12/hr
Unscheduled 2 hr 12/hr
Residuals removal and
disposal 1 50
Disinfectant and masking
agent refills and
filtration media re-
placement 2/yr 75
Flushing oil addition .501/yr 1/1
Electricity 240 kwh 0.05/kwh
—— -—
Replacement Parts
Total Annual 0&M Cost
48
24
50
150
50
12
50
$ •
Annual Cost
Present worth of the stan of the capital costs
amortized over 20 years @ 7% interest, discount
and inflation (factor 0.09439)
Total Annual Cost
$632-lOB
$344
$976—1052
— $980—1050
* Estimated cost for new and retrofit Installation, respectively.
40
-------
TABLE 18. NON-WATER CARRIAGE TOILET COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR
COMPONENTS WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION*
Ranking
group
Component
Ranking
Total
annual
cost Cs)
Retrofit
Performance
(5 max.)
O&M
requirements
(5 max.)
Environmental
acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
New
A
Small composting
3
3
1
7
210
230
Large compostlng
3
4
1
8
28O
35O
IncineratIng
3
2
1
6
380-470
410-500
B
Oil recirculating
3
2
1
6
980
1050
* For components with sufficient on-site performance information and hardware available to permit
detailed evaluation. See Chapter III for explanation of the ranking system.
+ This assumes one toilet per unit. However, some large units can accormiodate additional toilet stools,
which would result in significant economies of scale for multiple toilet installations of these units,
as compared to single toilet units.
1
-------
TABLE 19. NON-WATER CARRIAGE TOILET COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR
COMPONENTS WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION*
Range of
Ranking total
O&M Environmental annual
Rank in j Performance requirements acceptability Total — cost ($)
group Component (5 max.) (5 niax.) (3 max.) (13 max.) New Retrofit
A Freezing 3 1 1 5 125-115 150-225
Packaging 3 1 1 5
* For components with available on—site hardware, but insufficient on—site performance information.
This comparison is based on engineering judgeinent and is subject to revision when data become
available.
-------
hardware but insufficient performance information shown in Table 19 are based
on engineering judgment and are subject to revision when data become
available.
WASTEWATER SEG EGP TI0N
Isolation or segregation of specific household waste generating sources
may be employed independent of or in combination with flow and/or wasteload
reduction to facilitate on-site wastewater treatment and disposal. For one or
more household waste streams, waste segregation and separate treatment and
disposal may result in the following:
• The reduction of the quantity of wastewater requiring on-site treat-
ment or disposal;
• The reduction of treatment and disposal system size, 0&M requirements,
and capital and 0&M costs;
• The extension of system life;
• The reuse of wastewater for non-potable purposes; and
• The simplification, enhancement, or elimination of treatment prior to
reuse or disposal.
Matrices of 18 potential weste segregation options and potential impacts
are presented in Tables 20 and 21, respectively. This listing is not intended
as a complete list of all options. Rather, the segregation options shown are
based on systems previously tested by researchers, currently operating
systems, and theoretically promising systems (Personal communication. R.
Laak. May 1978. and L. Waldorf. April 1978.) (4, 5, 17—21). These matrices
systems were developed based on the following principles and assumptions:
• Wastewater will not be reused in the kitchen or for drinking purposes;
• The quantity of wastewater intended for reuse must satisfy intended
demands or make-up water must be provided;
• Concentrated waste streams will not be treated for reuse if a
sufficient quantity of a more easily treated waste stream is
available; and
• Flow reduction will normally be used In conjunction with wastewater
segregation. However specific waste streams to E 1ch flow reduction is
applied and the level of flow reduction achieved is dependent on the
method of treatment and disposal selected and thus will be variable.
For the mass balances presented in Table 20, it is assumed that the
volume of wastewater generated will equal the volume required for
reuse.
43
-------
TABLE 20. WASTEWATER SEGREGATION OPTIONS MATRIX
Segregation
Mite Streae
Iiast
Select
e Stream 1
ed Cues
tl;uI
ruts Segregated
Waste Stream P
(pert
cot)
Waste
Stream 3
BUt)
53
I P
O
B00
558 P
0 56
BOO
99
8 P
086
Option.
1
2
3
a
b
c
d
e
I
g
k•LB•1
I .L•B
I
B
k L .8
L
B
—
T
k.B.T
C•L•T
T(k.L B)”
C.B 1(t)
6. 1.1(8)
—-
---
—
—c.
—-
-—-
—-
100
00
30
s
81)
3)
5
100
69
3)
5
65
3)
5
100 100
3085
1Q55
5
3) 05
10 55
S <5
lOU
iS
20
20
19
20
20
—-
30
18
95
25
10
99
—- —- —
351019
109045
9995)95
40 IOU 50
70 18) 70
99 tOO tOO
—
26
80
90
35
89
85
—
B
L.B
6.1
---
35
35
155$
45
65
658549
55
I
L.8
6.1(1.8)
—-
35
39
15 59
45
65
70 1110 65
65
J
B
B
B
6 .L(8).1(8)
6.1
---
1”
5
5
5
5
5 <5
5(5
20
20
95
10
95 100 )9S
602585
80
55
20
39
7015
25
1
a
ii
o
p
q
r
8
8
6
0
L B
I
1
L(8)
6.1(8)
1.8
I.
L (L.B)
L(k.1B).
8(6.1.8)
8
K.T(B)
1(8)
1(1.0)
t.T(L)
6.7(1.8)
1(I.L.8
6.1(6)
5
5
43
5
35
41)
30
S
5
25
5
39
25
3)
5 <5
S <5
IS 33
5<5
8 8
IS 30
10 55
20
20
35
20
45
35
20
3)
70
29
20
31
15
5
3) IS 55
60 30 85
30 IS 55
301085
3 ) H II
40 II H
9 S <5
25
55
45
20
80
51)
20
65
20
25
65
65
25
65
65
35
40
65
65
25
65
85 45
10 IS
85 35
9565
ii a’
ii Ii
85 45
55
25
39
60
60
25
55
• I.2 3 i60icate ledleldual c lmed waste stre with separate comayence. treutonot. or disposal systons
• Appromimate n percentage of onss of selected constituents heusehold total true Tables Il— I ai 11-3. the sun of in-
diytdoal waste streon constituents may total mare or less than 100 percent for segregation options incorporated wostewater reuse.
Oeuelopaent of Tables 1—9 and V-lU is based on sinclp1es lIsted 10 the test aed reuse wster psality Wjecuves presented in
Appeixlle 8.
• kItchen waste stream wit t a garbage grinder; I • la. ry waste stream. 8 • bathn. was- stream (euc1ud n toilet). 1 — toilet
uCste stream.
1(KL9) indicates intluent to toilet stream is effluent true kitchen-laundry-bath systue (following tre?tneflt).
System may inclnde closed—loop recycle toilet. holding toilet with off-site treato or sisposal. or ue-slte treatwent and dispoSal.
• Constituent quantity is depasxlrnt ma tmtmalg syston pertosma and voI of wunLewater recycled.
-------
TABLE 21. WASTEWATER SEGREGATION OPTION IMPACT
Segregation Waste Stream
OptIon 1 2 3
— Co xments -
f JI
uuoS
- .
•! u
u—
“° .,
a K ,L.B.T . - —-- --- --, Conventional Ov 5tev
K,L,B I ——— 2 1.2 1.2 --- On-site treatment and disii T f greywater o .ily
required when used in conjunction •ith closed-
loop recycle toilets. non-water Carriage toilet.
or holding toilet Alternatively, separate
treatment followed by rucowhtnation of watt.
streaen may facilitate denitrifscation if
required, P—removal from waste stream 1 only may
be sufficient
c f ,B,T -—— 1,2 ——. Reuse of portion of waste stream may
yossible with treatment
B K,L,T ——— 1 1.2 -—— Required treatment of waste stream I required
prior to disposal (or reuse). (For enample, eo
treatment nay be required prior to disposal by
irrigation, or oniy disiiifection may be re—
uired prior to lawn wuterln )
Treatment of all
will produce
e K,L.ii T(k,L ,B) -—— 1,2 1,2
greywater
quantity in eucess of that required for reuse
as toilet flush water Separate treatment, dis.
tosal . and/or alternate reuse of excess r u9t be
! 91!ii 1 ’d.
I K.B,T(L) ... 1 1 1,2 1,2 Does not facilitate treatment of waste stream 1
for resse as
ofwuste stremoT
B K,L .I(il) .-- 1 1 1.2 1,2
required
prior to reuse. Quantity may be Insufficient
unless low volume flush toilet is used or make-
up water provided
1
N-removal 0-br
h L,B K,T --- 1 1.2 1,2 --- stream
may ent require
- to aisponal
I.B K,T(L ,B) .-- 1 1,2 1,2 Delatlvely dilute waste stre.us itFeated for re-
use If low noluvie flush toilet is used,
separate treatment, disposal, and/or alternate
reuse of encess mast be j 1 rooiied
orwaste
J B Kj(8), ——— 1 1 1.2 1,2 Reduced
stream required prior
1(W) to rouse Quantity will be iiisufficient unless
very iow voliane flush toilet is used and/Or
male-up water Is provided
(7 1
-------
TABLE 21. (cONTINUED)
Segregation Waste Stream
Option 2 3
Potential_Ipoacts+________
Cai .nents
i-u
.
.
i ’ m
; -;
mi
ii
, uaO
._1
L
L;
ouv
B K,1 F 1.3 1.2.3 I .2.3 -.. Use or closed—loop recycle or eon-water carriage
toilet, and segregation of remaining waste
streams nay allow disposal (Or reuse) or waste
stream with reduced treatment For systems pro-
viding on.nlte disposal of all waste streams. P—
removal (If required) fi ma waste stream 2 only
nay be sufficient.
1,2,3 Reduced treatment of waste stream 1 required
1 B L(B) K,T(B) 1 1,2 1,2,3
prior to reuse. Quantity will be Insufficient
unless very low volume flush toilet Is used and/
or make-up water is provided. Separate treut—
sent disposal and/or reuse of asy excesu must be
provided. If required, N-removal frau waste
stream 2 only many be sufficient
1,2,3 Reduced treatment or waste stream 1 may be re-
o 6 ,1(6) T)B) 1,2
quired prior to reuse Does not facilitate
treatment or disposal as effectively us option
o K 1,6 T(L .6) 2 1,2 1.2,3 2,3 Treatment of entire waste stream 2 will produce
quantity In excess of that required for reuse as
toilet flush waste. Separate treatment, dis-
posal , and/or alternate reuse of eucess rust be
i rind
prou
o 6 i. K,T(L) 1,2 1.2 1,2,3 2,3 Reduced treatment of waste stream 1 required
prior to reuse or disposal Quantity of treated
waste stream 2 nay be Insufficient unless low
volume flush toilet is used or make—up water
provided. Separate treatment, disposal, and/or
alternate reuse of any eucess roast be provided.
‘f.- sh’ water enters recycle system as bathrona
p 1,8 1(1.6) e,T(1,B) 1,2 1,2
Wa .e stri’am. Concentrated wastes euit with
toilet wax_c stream
1,2,3 1,2,3 Fresh water enters recycle system as kitchen
q K 1( 1 1,1,6 , T(K,L,B) 1,2
B(C,1,B was stream Coacentrated wastes exit with
toilet waste stream
r 1 8 c,1( 8J 1,1 1,0 i .d.5 £,J
eeuse or a pursiun of waste stream 1 may be
possible With minimal treatment Reduced
treatment of waste stream 2 required prior to
reuse Quantity of treated waste stream 2 may
be insufficient ulless loia uolaoue flush toilet
is used or make-up water provided. Separate
treatment, disposal, and/or reuse of any eucess
-i iv in ira lilni.
it • kitchee waste stream without a garbage grinder, I • laundry waste streams. B — b .rtiiracun waste Sti. au i aciudng toilets). • toilet
waste stream.
Pucentin) impacts (as croapared with camibined on-site wustewater treatioeilt and/or disposal) uffecting waste Streams iiidlcatud ky nuo ers
0 •.
-------
• The entire flow of an individual or combined waste stream utilized for
more than one reuse application will be treated to meet water quality
objectives of the more stringent of the reuse applications; and
• For the mass balances presented in Table 20, treatment of any
waste stream for reuse is assumed to result in 60 percent P removal
and 0 percent N removal
The wastewater segregation options identified in Table 20 can be
effective. However, the feasibility of the individual options is dependent on
the accompanying treatment and disposal system feasibility, including the
successful implementation of wastewater flow and wasteload reduction
techniques where utilized; site conditions; and comparative feasibility of
combined v stewaster treatment and disposal systems. For example, segregation
option G (segregation and treatment of bathroom t ste-—excluding toilet——for
reuse In the toilet) will effectively reduce total household wast ter flow.
The feasibility of implementing this segregation option will depend on the
cost and performance of system as compared to the alternatives.
In general, segregated systems compare favorably with combined systems
only In the following situations:
• When the cost of segregation and treatment of a waste stream for reuse
is off—set by reduced treatment and disposal costs;
• When limited land or water availability requires significant flow
reductions achieved by reuse, with treatment for reuse facilitated by
segregation;
• When off—site disposal (i.e., holding tank with periodic purnpout) of a
portion of total household stewater is desirable due to limited land
availability for disposal, reduced level of treatment required, or
restrictive on—site environmental quality requirements; or
• When segregation facilitates treatment or containment of specific
pollutants, such as nitrogen.
Due to this relatively limited applicability, segregation options are
included on a case-by—case basis in the system comparative analysis (see
Section 10).
47
-------
REF ERENCES
1. Sharpe, W.E. and P.W. Fletcher. The impact of water saving device
Installation programs on resource recovery conservatiofl. Research
Publication 98, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, 1977. 44 p.
2. Water conservation devices, residential water conservation. Stock No.
024—000—00837—1, Technology Transfer Water Research Capsule Report, ‘.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., Office o Water Research and
Technology, 1978. 8 p.
3. SI egri St, R. L., 1. Wol tanskl , and L. E. Wal dorf. Water conserv atlon
and wastewater disposal. In: Proceedings of the SeconL National Home
Sewage Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December 12—13, 1977.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1978.
pp. 121—136.
4. Cohen, S. and H. Wailnian. Demonstration of waste flow reduction from
households. EPA—670/2—74—071, General Dynamics Corporation, Groton,
Connecticut, September 1974. 111 p. (Available from National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) as P8-236 904).
5. BaIley, J.R., R.J. Benolt, J.L. Dodson, J.M. Roby, H. Wallman, and
C.L. Swanson. Water flow reduction from households. Water Sewage
Works, l22(4):57—66, April 1975.
6. Kuhner, 3., 0. Luecke, and R. Sharpln. Water use and wastewater and
residuals generation in households: potential for conser,atlon. In:
Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium
Chicago, Illinois, December 12—13, 1977. AmerIcan Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1978. p. 260-267.
7. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Management of small waste flows.
Appendix A. Waste ter characteristics and treatment. EPA-600/2-78—173.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1978.
764 p.
8. Schatzberg, P., D.F. Jackson, C.M. Kelly, and L.R. Harris. Energy
conservation through water resource management——a reduced flow bathing
shower. Conference on Water Reuse, Chicago, Illinois, May 4—8, 1975.
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York. Pp. 141—146.
9. Nelson, J.0. North Mann’s Little Compendium of Water Saving Ideas.
North Mann County Water District, Novato, California, 1976. 273 p.
48
-------
10. Mime, M. Residential water conservation. Report No. 35, University of
California. Davis, California Water Resources Center, 1976. 469 p.
11. Abney, J. Evaluation of 19 on—site waste treatment systems in Southeastern
Kentucky. Contract No. CA—8—2575-A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1978. 107 p. Draft.
12. Carpenter, J.W., Jr. Individual sewage disposal prototype study.
Appalachian Environmental Health Demonstration Project, Corbin, Kentucky,
March 1971. 17 p.
13. McKernarn, J.M. and D.S. Morgan. Experiences with the Clivus—Multruni and
Mull—ba toilets in Northern Manitoba; an interim report. Manitoba
Department of Northern Affairs, Winnipeg, August 12, 1976. 16 p.
14. Ojttormsen, 0., 0. Lind, T.A. Pedersen, E. Bjerkel nud and S. Leborg. 21
biological toilets—decomposition toilets for cabins and holiday homes.
Extract from Consumer Report No. 10, Agricultural College of Norway (no
date) 23 p.
15. Flaherty, A. Analysis report. Process Research, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts, May 12, 1975. 1 p.
16. SCS Engineers. Technical Advisory Committee meeting minutes. Cincinnati,
Ohio, March 23, 1978. 12 p.
17. Withee, C.C. Segregation and reclamation of household wastewater of an
individual residence. University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1975. 286 p. (Available from
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as PB—268 881).
18. Duncan, D.L. Individual household recirculating waste disposal system for
rural Alaska. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 36 (12):l468—1473, 1964.
19. McLaughlin, E.R. A recycle system for conservation of water
residences. Water Sewage Works, 1l(4);l75-l80, April 1968.
20. Bailey, J. and H. Waliman. Flow reduction of wastewater from households.
Water Sewage Works, 118(3);168—l74, March 1971.
21. Texidyne, Inc. Household water reuse project preliminary report and
budget estimate. Cleiison, South Carolina, 1977. 30 p.
49
-------
SECTION 6
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Many biological treatment options may be utilized for on—site wastewater
treatment applications to remove COD, BOO, suspended solids, phosphorus, and
nitrogen. Biological options are summarized in Table 22. Those with
available hardware and on—site performance data are sunmi rized below, e\.ept
composting Iiich was covered in Section 5.
AEROBIC-SUSPENDED AND FIXED GROWTh
Numerous aerobic suspended and fixed growth process variations have been
utilized for municipal wastewater treatment applications. Systems for wtuch
on—site hardware and performance information is available include suspended
growth extended aeration units, fixed growth rotating disks, and fixed growth
packed reactors. Brief descriptions of these major system types are provided
below.
System Type System Requirements Comments
Suspended Growth- Process tank, aeration and Periodic pumpout
Extended Aeration circulation system, pro— of waste solids
(may be batch visions for solids separa— is required.
or continuous flow tion and controls. (Pre—
unit) treatment of grease and
gross solids, surge tank,
and solids return system
may be required).
Fixed Growth— Process tank, contactor Periodic pumpout of
Rotating Disks “media° and drive assembly, waste solids is re—
provisions for solids quired.
separation - and control s.
(pretreatment of grease, and
surge tank, may be required).
Fixed Growth— Process tank, media for solids Periodic pumpout
Packed Reactor separation, and controls. of waste solids
(bio—filter) (Pretreatment of grease and is required.
and gross solids; surge tanks;
and aeration, circulation,
or ventilation systems may
be required)
50
-------
TABLE 22. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPTIONS
cdl 2U M n nt
— i c
la kntl
Sdtj St
ltlntace
Gao- Ic Ty a CoictraatAffe4fl Aay fty )
4 ,
Ca lscity
Irasutrug
LP i cJ Ia
¶a-4t )
Eml,ure,tcl Cictil l
rr 0 nczn .4 rthnc)
Cat
[ U’
aflCrnnflBlC
- alintlig
natal ciw. C, 53. iCc 4 4 2 flaittdTy 24 teas k*uat ad asusla
nflaa -
C. cc, stat a
clad rain C, 35, 42 ”4( owtU1ly ? frets
ga s
t_ —
ordain 21551 aus. c fled a n oeua* 24 ruia•ate rifr ait uo- so rtietln
• ntaus rain . 5 3 L— , 033 wsazisfly 24 e frnant —
flad (ctts)
rUattrq 0*3 C. 53, (d4 1 —11½] n we t Unit 24 saflsts ffrapnc —
-. c C. 55. u.c— cj a” weloart 24 teats fr ant —
fladi a d ga C, 53, nattially 24 n —
retstat
IK&tBLC
- ic tad C, 53. (35g. I I ) weluad tl kGEi ithe fl —
naff tad C, 55, (Ctg. It) inally ]5 sects lrifra zrt —
• 35 1 r”-’
nun “ sate’ C, 3, (lC t42) aiallp 24 fle’ tg fretnt — -
alga
Oral otI ,
roatirq 51*3 C , 53, (ftU ,- ) t r i T o n ratom sane mean
— o- C, 53, C$j—l ji woget 24 tea. trth’esn ttyrsel gelclty
wQU,—ii,J.LC 53]
fiOdIal ad C, SC (QC —M }5 a nn marion can. imon
c c c -
Ct .tatc
(fojititto) C. 3, (6.1 lIed otatid I c 24 tints Iefrnmt a, a ’, ad netletti
Wei3fl
nfllc
dello(ne lIt, 5 3 0kg I ad a”s wnlcat 24 stale irthTosit w, as, ad aMtln
S C SI) L a ’ Ml,524
9 an C. 53,(Sc.1 lied cteutlally 24 tens lrdrnfl . a ’ s, 1dm ad
(nfl) a’ n4,—e0 1 ) n a t e
- aCIc 5a c C, 55, C35i lied fla’shally 2.4 s de ln* a.t a, ectei, ad et1a
alga
Sta lls flSAtIUI C, 3, W] fletIn lly 2-1 sf4.0 Ii*cdct PevotSI pd.ts, a, a’s
((lad, caçnad. nelite i c o m a n ad steletfo
w floitlrcj
Sta Id wet)ofl a s adell7 eW&. tune, g a a s flSlad fr g t e rvwalsJwwelae 4 toe nat han.
* tl 031 111 a pin anal tflt ad miasma al.
51
-------
Hardware alternatives which may be utilized to perform various system func-
tions include the following (1,2):
Functions Hardware Alternatives
Pretreatment of grease Setti ing chamber, septic tank,
and gross solids screens, and “hydraulic” corn—
minutors.
Aeration and circulation Mechanical aerators, com-
pressed or forced air dif-
fusers, natural convection,
and fans and blo rs.
Solids separation (see Physical— Clariflers (upflow and down-
Chemical Treatment Section 7) flow, batch and Continuous),
tube and plate settlers,
filtration (f ric and media),
skimmers.
Solids return Gravity, air lift pumps, and
draft tubes. (Units utiliz-
ing filter bags or batch flow
hydraulics don’t require
sol ids return since they re-
tain solids within the aera-
tion unit.)
Performance
Information and data describing the performance of aerobic suspended and
fixed growth treatme it units are presented in Tables 23 and 24, respectively
(2—11). Conclusions based on the results of these Investigations are as
follows:
• Suspended growth units normally provide from 70 to 90 percent BOD and
SS reductions for combined household westewater, yielding effluent BOO
and SS concentrations in the range of 30—70 mg/i and 40—100 rng/l,
respectively, depending on unit configuration, flow type (batch or
continuous), method of solids separation and return (if provided), and
pretreatment and maintenance provided (2—9);
• Fixed growth units with prior setti ing produce effluent BOD and SS
concentrations in the range of 10—40 mg/i and 10-25 mg/i,
respectively. However, data are available only for units tested witri
municipal or synthetic wastewater and the performance indicated from
the data presented cannot be assumed to be representative of on—site
installations receiving combined household wastewater;
• Effluent BOO and SS variability normally requires that additional
treatment be provided prior to direct discharge disposal; and
52
-------
TABLE 23. AEROBIC-SUSPENDED GROWTH UNIT (EXTENDED AERATION) PERFORMANCE
Rafarece Va-il AVaixe Pt 8ride
(3) (4)
Inflicit ,aistaata- Caibuul Iuachi ld Cct iirel Ia-aichld
P ,a-ra-tha it Settliry datha- —
lra-ta,* Ihits (teid
rurter sites)
diffenit Is
Fliw i,y3a
Sdlpies (tr Ial)
(ffltast (ciJl)
11341
34 1
la_al cul l law’
Glasser Patters c i
(5) (6)
Ccibimd lasrsthsld CciblruJ lmiseteid
Cairr itnitlar. —
settl in
• Cata res is .nsa-t we eals effluat ccs.wrtratrcci a_tic-es Ic r tie s a-u(ic alt testid, b lat n34rtal
• lakes na-act icil curlier er 1ff) nil
93
2
Ti x c i
(7)
f l ilc f
(8)
(9)
(2)
latef aid
Cathrnil frra-laid
Cerhrr luisbluld
Ccibiiul uisdtld
—
itaie(t,aLdr n1
—
ciartlaics arts),
578t 1c ta-k
(cartlrws mit)
5 12 55
5 7 6
56
6
— Batch a- cietinees Batch a- awtitaxa Batch a- wetinoit
>Rfl 124 - -
27—rn 23-16) 33-279
- -- 1 88 -561
56-104 69-515 41-204
10-73 — —
10-12.5 — —
— 4 —32 —
- 38.67 -
10 5 4
3 4 4
Batch Batch a- aartrr.aw latch a- awtirsarms
I A ) 14-18 78- 118
18-54 47 6-55
- -- 11-159
91-321 9 )
- -- 0 -1
- - 19-34
9-32
37-4.9 — 3.1-4 3
-------
TABLE 24. AEROBIC FIXED GROWTH UNIT PERFORMANCE
Packed reactor+
Conti rnious
55—85
11
53
15
36
Refereii.e S 1
N’dbery
& K ng
(2)
(10)
S5 R ’P, Mason
(2, 11) _________
Cothin@J jsehld (synt tic)
Inflt nt ste ter
Caitinei use1oId (s ,nthetic)
Mirncipal
Prtreat r nt
Septic
tank (2.0-4.0 n?)
settling diaiter
Treatji nt units (total
ruiber of sites)
2
Ntiiba- of differ t nxdels
Type of itut
Rotating disk
Rotating disk
Fla.i type
Saiples (ruiber)
Continucus
27-69
Continucus
Eff1t nt ( p gf1)*
BW 5
C C I)
SS
N13 3 -N
NOB—N
1?
17-38
51-52
15—16
7
31
32
10
—
13
10
5
3.4
* t4iere reported, ranges represent nean effi cent cor entration truces for the specific uiit types tested.
+ Also referred to as “suth rged nedia” (2)
-------
o Effluent suspended solids concentrations are highly dependent on
solids separation methods utilized (2). For example, units with
pumped s1udge return operate more effectively than those with gravity
return.
Finally, considerable controversy exists regarding the relative
performance of some subsequent treatment and disposal units receiving
aerobically versus anaerobically treated wastewater. At present, this issue
remains unresolved (1,12—14).
System O&M Requirements
Periodic system maintenance consisting of mechanical adjustments of the
complex hardware (aerators, solids separation and sludge return mechanisms,
timers, pumps, etc.) by skilled servicemen is required two or more times per
year. In addition, removal and disposal of accumulated solids is normally
required approximately once a year.
Frequent unscheduled maintenance consisting of unclogging undersized
pumps, skimmers, and air and sludge return lines, and replacement of faulty
mechanical and electrical components has been reported (1, 2). Proper unit
design and component hardware may alleviate these problems.
Envi ronmental Acceptability
Reported problems relating to the environmental acceptability of properly
operated and installed on-site aerobic suspended and fixed growth treatment
units include odors (especially when discharged to a dry ditch) and increased
noise levels.
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are estimated
in Table 25.
ANAEROB IC-SEPTIC TANK
Traditionally, septic tanks have been utilized in most on—site wastewater
treatment systems to remove settleable and floatable sal ids.
Performance
Documentation of septic tank performance Is widely available throughout
the literature. Data describing typical septic tank performance is presented
in Table 26 (Personal Communication. R. Laak. May 1978.) (2,9,15—18). Con-
clusions based on these investigations are as follows:
• Effluent BOD and SS concentrations typically range from 120—150 mg/i
and 40—70 mg/l, respectively, but can vary over a wider range
55
-------
TABLE 25 AEROBIC SUSPENDED AND FIXED GROWTH TREATMENT UNIT COSTS
Capital Cost
Item
Design
Life
(yr)
Capital
Cost
(5)
Aerobic treatment unit
Including Installation
20
21OO
Total Capital Cost
$ 2100
Annual 0&M Cost
Item Amount
Unit
Cost
($)
Annual O&M
Cost
($)
Mat ntenance
Routine 8 hr/yr
Unscheduled 4. hr/yr
10/hr
10/hr
80*
40*
Replacement parts --
(mechanical and electrical)
-—
40*
Solids removed 1/yr
50
50
Electricity 1500 kwh/yr
0.05/kwh
75
Total Annual O&M Cost
$285
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs
amortized over 20 years assuming 7% Interest,
discount, and Inflation (factor 0.09439)
Annual 0&M Costs
198
$285
Total Annual Cost
$483
._$480
* Manufacturers provide service contracts which typically cost $100
to $120 per year, including parts for the first 1 to 2 years.
+ Life of mechanical components Is less than 20 years; cost of re-
placement parts Is included In the annual 0&M costs.
# Price will vary approximately depending on location and
manufacturer.
56
-------
TABLE 26. ANAEROBIC SEPTIC TANK PERFORMANCE
Refen!ce
W
(2)
—
(2)
b 1beI
(16)
5 Ia to
(16)
8en4.a,
(9)
1h n s & B di en
( Il)
Br s
(I8)
B,-aitJe
(18 ) ’
b8 tre D
Carbti i
lu etcld
0 - iata
(s eu14tet)
Ca bIr
tu eto1d
Caxblr 1
touselold
CaibIr 1
tee dOld
Caibii 4
lo. el 1d
Cui8I
Iua d 1d
8l CL ’ V
beUv Sirt
Ca46 1n61 iwsetold
Wo tosvJ y
TreeWut euts
(I. er)
7
2
5 )
19
4
I
I
1
I
Yalw (e )
4.1 (3.5-7.6)
3.0 (2.0.4.0)
2.6 (1.7-18)
—
1.8
—
4.0
28
34
S ples (ueter)
55-115
27-67
44 -55
51
18-21
—
47- 40
E1fh it (usJI)
½
( I D
53
78
1 8 13_l I
lO 6
IP
F aI a liI rie
Fecel
138 (67-272)
277 (as-562)
49 (34-69
49 27-16
31 19.46
04 0.1-0.1)
13 (11—31)
5 7 (5.3.6.4)
3.6 (2.4-5.1)
81 (62-101)
838(111-238)
46 46-47)
38 31-37)
I 8 I 4-2.1)
—
62 (40—44)
(4 5.6.6)
(480.4.3)
138
-
155
—
—
—
—
—
140
-
101
38
—
—
—
—
-
55
—
—
—
—
—
93
2 8)
45
33
—
—
—
—
120
an
38
—
—
—_
—
14
-
8)
153
141
.i
19.2
5 6
—
I SO
448
15
75
69
0 I
IS_ a
6.4
—
Sate rusj pesent e e s effl * Wesest(45 1J1 CeUWeS (SI specific tiiit t s taste).
+ VeIws .resus* Icy iu tas per 10) ml.
Cusstit usct ascustratlaSI e bssel us ss pIInj *ic tar8 s&ad ac9Brtilsect 8$ercetent.
Peiccial Cusciuiicattus. 8. La c. roy 1978.
-------
depending on tank size, configuration (inlets, outlets, shape, etc.),
number of compartments, frequency of sludge pumping, and influent
wastewater characteristics (2,9,15—18).
System O&M Requirements
Routine system O&M requirements consist of inspection of the sludge level
and scum mat approximately every two years, and sludge pumping by an un-
skilled serviceman when necessary. Pumping is generally requ red approximate-
ly every three to five years to prevent excessive sludge or scum build-up
which would cause a deterioration in effluent quality (18,19). Unscheduled
maintenance, such as unclogging or replacement of baffles, is required very
infrequently.
Environmental Acceptability
No problems relating to the environmental acceptability of on-site sep-
tic tank treatment units are reported (2,9,15—18).
Costs
Capital, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are summarized
in Table 27.
ANAEROBIC - PACKED REACTOR
Anaerobic packed reactor (anaerobic ‘filter”) treatment units can be used
to remove COD, BOD, and SS from on—site waste streams receiving varying levels
of previous treatment (20—22). Alternately, anaerobic packed reactors can
provide denitrification of previously nitrified influent waste streams
(Personal Communication. R 0 Laak. May 1978) (23,24). Anaerobic packed
reactor system requirements are summarized below:
System Type
Anaerobic packed
reactor for
organics and
sol ids removal
Anaerobic packed
reactor for deni-
trlficatlon
System Requirements
Reactor (tank), media, and
Wastewater distribution
piping.
Reactor (tank), media,
carbon source addition
system, wastewater dis-
tribution system (in-
cluding pump, controls
and piping).
Coments
Primarily for COD, BOO,
and SS removal . Peri-
odic media cleaning is
required to prevent
clogging.
Primarily for denitrifi-
cation. Methanol or
segregated waste stream
may be utilized as car-
bon source. Infrequent
media cleaning is re-
quired to prevent clog-
ging.
58
-------
TABLE 27. ANAEROBIC SEPTIC TANK TREATMENT UNIT COSTS
Capital Cost
Item
Design
Life
(yr)
Capital
Cost
Cs)
Septic tank, including
install ation
20
400
Total Capital Cost
$ 400
Annual 0811 Cost
Item
Amount
Unit
Cost
($)
Annual O&M
Cost ($)
Mai ntenance
Routine
Unscheduled
0.5 hr/yr
--
8/hr
——
4
-—
Sludge pumping
-——h
50
12
Total Annual 0811 Cost
$ 16
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum
amortized over 20 years
discount, and inflation
Annual 0&M Costs
of the capital costs
assuming 7 interest,
(factor = 0.09439)
38
16
Total Annual Cost
$ 54
—$50
* Once every three to five years.
+ Price may vary approximately + $150, depending on the manufacturer,
material used, and site conditions.
59
-------
P erformance
Data describing the performance of on—site anaerobic packed reactor
treatment units are presented in Table 28 (20—23). Based on this information,
It Is concluded that anaerobic packed reactors used for organics and solids
removal perform as follows:
• Units receiving combined wastewater pretreated by a septic tank
provide average BOO and SS reductions of approximately 30 and 40
percent, respectively, yielding effluent BOO and SS concentrations in
the range of 50—100 mg/i and 20—70 mg/i. Reductions achieved depend
on media size, loading rate and unit configuration (20-22); and
• Additional treatment of the effluent from these units will generally
be required prior to surface discharge.
In addition to the anaerobic packed reactor for denltrlf 1 catlon described
in Table 28, system variations are currently being Investigated by several re-
searchers (23,24). One of those systems 1nvol ies the use of jreywater septic
tank effluent to provide the carbon source for donitrificatlon of biackweter
septic tank—sand filter effluent In an upflow anaerobic pecked reactor. (Per-
sonal Communication. R. Leak. May 1978,) Anothev variation Incorporates the
denitrification system (with methanol addition) as part of a subsurface dispo-
sal system (24). This system Is not a pecked reactor per so, but functions on
the same basic principles. Based on these investigations and Information pre-
sented in Table 28, It Is concluded that anaerobic packed reactors for doni—
trification perform as follows:
• The limited data available indicate that units receiving nitrified
effluent (septic tank—Intermittent sand filter) provide average
nitrate reductions of approximately 90 percent, yielding effluent
nitrate concentrations consistently less than 7 mg/i (averaging
approxImately 3 mg/i) If a denitrlflcation carbon source is
available.
System O&M Requirements
System O&M requirements for the uncomplicated on-site anaerobic packed
reactors consist of periodic media cleaning by•an unskilled serviceman approx-
imately every one to three or more years, depending on influent wastewater
characteristics. Systems utilizing chemical feed for denitrificatlon will
also require periodic chemical refills and adjustment and maintenance of the
chemical feed equi nent two to four times per year. Unscheduled maintenance
Is required Infrequently.
EnvIronmental Acceptability
Some concerns relating to the environmental acceptability of on—site an-
aerobic packed reactors for organics and solids removal are reported. On—
site anaerobic packed reactors for denitrificatlon utilizing methanol as a
60
-------
TABLE 28. ANAEROBIC-PACKED REACTOR TREATMENT UNIT PERFORMANCE
Refensce ktniltce R ss , & 0sikl a alndieger, et al. Sikara, et al.
(20) (21) (22) ( 23)
lefitac stacta C bir fasePold B laliieca- 0a. iuiicipal Ccibi Poisem ld
?riltree.tren (IT?) Septic wt 4.2( Septic tark (2.2.3.9) Ccmnnjtion Sept ic - said filter
Tnjst ilt(nrDa) I 3 1
tie ecluas (i i ) 3.4 0 .44.6 0.8 0.8
PRi la alas (a$ 1.9—5.1 0.2-1.9 3.8—6.4 0.9
Ptla Js ($ 1.9 0.1—1.1 1.5 0.1
fl tyep pi1as 1%sfloe aid doaillae-t.pflca Itiflue
CAJIUIatIee q.eratisai
the (smiio) 25 l9-25 12
SaTples (mji r) 3 - 16
OITar&teristics” -
8W m utant 181 188-240 - —
efflant 13 52.61 — l 4
nro a1 ) (281 (6 1 — 15 ) (——)
C l ) infliant 466— /7 1 310-431 —
erfitast 236 116-3 2 0 117- 166 —
(re na l) (23) (53 —66) (61—40) (—)
55 m utant 67 1 81 -812 129-205 —
aff luait 39 18-3(8 2- I / —
(rea M) (42) — - (65.73) - (77—.8) )r99lible awge( -
l i ii l ,III ILt •L — — — 31 3
erfiusic — — 23 42
(renal) ) —) ) —) ( -.) (87)
1*63-il mutant — — — 0.7
effitait — — 21 <01
(renta l) — — — (>85)
infitsiet — — —
efflmamt — — — 3.1
(ru.nval ) (—) )—) ) —) (99)
Infl menc 8.2 7.1—7.8 — —
effimait 8.0 6. 1-7.5 — —
• FIlter cl iiq rit at 19 r nere a nn ie b si lts testS
+ iitrtficatnma nart-ap data lies i Sets.
• Mw iicIu nltrate-nitrugei.
ietlssnol to 1&tal rent tofimeet.
7 naltent &d effluent anntlttmtes uswtratla,e eip-essad as r ’I melee tateneen iocS motels a lressid to ptmcoit.
5t.etst aiLs.
61
-------
carbon source may require that service personnel ar respirators to avoid in-
haling toxic vapors (23). This should pose rio threat to the homeowner during
normal treatment unit operation, although excess unreacted methanol may cause
the effluent to be toxic. Reactors which utilize carbon sources other than
methanol (i.e., segregated wastewater) avoid toxicity problems, although ex-
cess carbon source addition will still adversely affect effluent quality.
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are estimated
In Table 29.
LAGOONS
Lagoons may be utilized for both on-site wastewater treatment and dispos-
al applications. The use of non—discharging lagoons for disposal, such as
an infiltration/evaporation lagoon, Is discussed in Section 9. System
requirements for discharging lagoons are summarized below -
System Type System Requirements
Berm must be designed to
prevent surface runoff
entering lagoon. Odor,
vector, aesthetic, safety,
and groundwater quality
considerations may affect
environmental acceptabil i—
ty.
P erformance
Although hardware suitable for aeration of on-site lagoons exists, no
performance data for aerated on—site lagoons were available. Furthermore,
detailed data describing on—site wastewater treatment applications of other
lagoon systems are largely unavailable. A sumary of existing effluent
quality data describing aerobic (not aerated) lagoons is provided in Table 30
(25,26).
Conclusions based on the data presented in Table 30
investigations of on—site aerobic (not aerated) lagoons are
(25—29):
• Effluent BOO and SS concentrations range from <10—70 nig/l and <2—130
mg/l, respectively (25—27). Thus, additional treatment is normally
required prior to surface discharge
• Facultative
• Aerobic (not
aerated)
• Anaerobic
• Aerated
Coi ments
Bermed lagoon, inlet pipe
and support, fence, and
outlet pipe. Impermeable
liner may also be required.
Aerator is required in
addition to the above
requirements
In addition to above
comments, noise could be
an adverse impact
and other
as follows
62
-------
TABLE 29. ANAEROBIC PACKED REACTOR TREATMENT UNIT COSTS
Design
Capital Cost Life
Item (yr)
Organics and
Solids Removal
Unit ($)
Denitrification
Unit
( 5)
Reactor (tank) including 20
400
400
excavation and access
20
75
50
Media (crushed stone)
Distribution piping 20
Methanol pump, controls, 10
100
——
100
250
and storage tank
20
——
300
Wet well
10
——
250
Pump and controls
Total Capital Costs
$575
$1350
Annual 0&M Cost
Annual 0&M Cost
($)
Annual O&M
($)
Cost
Item
Mai ntenance
16
30
Routine
8
10
Unscheduled
75
25
Residuals disposal (from media
——
60
Methanol
-—
2
Electricity
Total Annual O&M Cost
99
127
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital
20
costs amortized over
years
discount, and
assuming 7% interest,
Inflation (factor 0.09439)
54
99
174
127
Annual 0811 Costs
Total Annual Cost
$153
- $l50
$301
— ‘$300
63
-------
TF BLE . LAGOON PERFORMANCE
Reference Asp len 4 Karikari
(25) (26)
Influent wastewater Combined household Combined household
(from 2 homes)
Pretreatment Aerobic unit Septic tank
Treatment unit Aerobic (non—aerated) Aerobic (non—aerated)
lagoon lagoon
Volume (m 3 ) 1400 85
Depth (m) 2.1 0.8
Samples (number) 7-20 6—8
Effluent (mg/1)*
COD . —- 308 164-555)
BOD 17 (3-66) 33 15-68)
SS 60(<2. 130) -—
TS 910 (560-1900) 742 (645-805)
TN — - 33 (11-64)
N0 3 —N 0.21 (0.01—0.65) -—
TP 1,94 (0.65-2.6) -—
Dissolved oxyg n 10.3 (7.5—13.8) - —
• Fecal collfornV’ 2.2 (<0.5-3.9) -—
* Values within parentheses represent data range.
# Log #1100 ml.
+ Non-discharging lagoon designed for lnflltratlon/evaporatlofl disposal.
64
-------
• Many supposed aerobic lagoons actually function as facultative
lagoons with an aerobic layer on the surface (27). This is primarily
dependent on the relationship between influent waste quantity, lagoon
temperature, surface area, and depth; and
• Lagoon performance has significant seasonal variability which has
not been quantified (25,29). Also, growth will adversely effect
effluent SS.
System O&M Requirements
Periodic operation and maintenance requirements for the simple aerobic
(not aerated) lagoons may consist of removal of accumulated sludge from the
lagoon bottom (particul arly adjacent to the inlet pipe) once every three to
five or more years with a dragline or backhoe (39). Routine maintenance in-
cludes triming vegetation and adding water to maintain the desired depth dur-
ing the summer (approximately 2 to 4 times per year). Unscheduled maintenance
of inlet and outlet pipes is required infrequently.
Environmental Acceptability
Odor, vector, and aesthetic nuisances may. affect the environmental
acceptability of lagoons. Lagoon configuration utilizing rounded corners and
steep interior slopes should help to reduce developoent of stagnant water and
growth of vegetation below the water level , thus reducing odor and vector
nuisances. Aesthetics may be improved by screening with plants or fences.
Use of impermeable bottom soils or plastic liners should eliminate any threat
to groundwater qual ity, and safety fencing around the perimeter can keep small
children and animals out of the area.
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are estimated
in Table 31.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT COMPONENT COMPARISONS
Biological treatment component comparisons for components with sufficient
Ofl— site performance information and hardware avail able to permit detailed
evaluation are presented in Table 32. Comparisons for components with avail-
able on-site hardware but insufficient on-site performance information shown
in Table 33 are based on engineering judgeiient and are subject to revision
when data become available.
65
-------
TABLE 31. AEROBIC (NOT AERATED) LAGOON COSTS
Capital Cost
Item
Design
Life
(yr)
Capital
Cost
(3)
Lagoon including excavation,
20
1000
installation of inlet pipe
and support, and seeding of
berm
Fencing (3 strand barb-wire 0 $ 5/rn)
150
Total Capital Cost
1150*
Annual
Annual 0&M Cost
Cost
Unit Cost
Item Amount
($)
($)
Sludge removal 1/10 yr
250
25
Maintenance required
Routine 4/yr
8/hr
32
Unscheduled 1/yr
8/hr
8
Total Annual O&M Cost
$
65
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs
amortized over 20 years assuming 7% interest,
discount, and inflation (factor = 0.09439)
109
Annual 0&M Costs
65
Total Annual Cost
$174
* If a liner is required, total capital cost and the total annual cost are
estimated to increase by $700 and $65, respectively.
66
-------
0 .
-J
TABLE 32. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR
COMPONENTS WITh SUFFICIENT INFORMATION*
* For components with sufficient on-site performance information and hardware available to permit
detailed evaluation. See Component Ranking Criteria for explanation of the ranking system.
,
— Ranking
Total
Annual
Ranking
Group
Performance
Component (5_max.)
O&M
Requirements
(5_max.)
Environmental
Acceptability
(3_max.)
Total
(13_max.)
Cost
($)
A
Septic tank 4
(anaerobic)
5
3
12
50-100
B
Packed reactor for 4
denitrification
(anaerobic—fl xed growth)
Extended Aeration 4
(aerobic—suspended
growth)
Rotating disks 4
(aerobic—fixed growth)
Packed reactor 4
(aerobic—fixed growth)
Packed reactor for 3
organics and solids
removal (anaerobic-
fixed growth)
Lagoon - Aerobic—shallow 4
(not aerated)
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
9
9
9
9
8
9
300—400
400—550
400—550
400-550
100-200
150-300
-------
TABLE 33. BIOLOGICAL IREAThENT CWIPOXEtff COXPPR ISON FOR
cO4PO3IEtITS Mli i i IUCOXPLEIE IIIFORMATION*
Ranking
.
Total
OS I
Enviroomental
Annual
Cost
Ranking
Group
Component
Performance
- (5 max.)
Requir ents
(5 iiiax..)
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
($)
A
Mixed reactor
(anaerobic- suspended
growth)
4
2
3
9
309-450
B
Emergent vegetation
Oxidation ditch
(aerobic/anaerobic—
alternating process
Oxidation ditch
(aerobic-suspended
growth)
Extended aeration
(aerobic/anaerobic—
alternating process
Lagoon (facultatjve)
Lagoon (aerated)
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
1
4
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
8
6
8
7
8
8
250-500
400-650
400-700
500-650
150-300
200-500
* for components with available on-site hardware, but insufficient on-site perfonnance
information. This comparison is based on engineering judgenent nd should be reevaluated
when data become available.
+ These are treatment lagoons for direct discharge.
-------
REF ERENCES
1. Hutzler, N.J., L.E. Waldorf, and J. Fancy. Performance of aerobic
treatment units. In: Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage
Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December 12-13, 1977.
American Society of -Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan,
1978. pp. 149-163.
2. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Management of small waste
flows. Appendix A. Wastewater characteristics and treatment.
EPA-600/2-78-173. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, September 1978. 764 p.
3. Voell, A.T. and R.A. Vance. Home erobic wastewater treatment
systems-—experience in a rural county. In: Proceedings, Ohio Home
Disposal Conference, Ohio State University, Columbus, January 1974.
Pp. 26-36.
4. McBride, R.N. Individual home aerobic wastewater treatment systems.
Masters thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, 1972. 116 p. PB-226 478.
5. Glasser, M.B. Garrett County home aeration wastewater treatment
project. Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
Baltimore, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, 1974. 38 p.
6. Patterson, M. Residential sewage disposal survey. Indiana State Board
of Health, Indianapolis, March 1977. 11 p.
7. lipton, D.W. Experience of a county health department with individual
aerobic sewage treatment systems. Jefferson County Health Depart nent,
Lakewood, Colorado, Environmental Health Division, 1975. 8 p.
8. Waldorf, L.E. , Appalachian Regional Commission, Washington, D.C., July
5, 1978. 22 P. (Unpublished data.)
9. Bernhardt, A.P., Wastewater from homes. University of Toronto,
Canada, 1967. 173 p.
10. Ahlberg, N.R. and T.S. Kwong. Process evaluation of a rotating
biological contactor for municipal waste water treatment. Research
Paper No. W2041, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Canada, 1974,
37 p.
11. Mason, D.G. A unique biological treatment system for small plants.
Presented at 50th Water Pollution Control Federation Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, October 1977. 15 p.
69
-------
12. Stockton, E.L. Biological oxidation — a technology assessment. In:
Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, December 9—10. 1974. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp. 17-22.
13. McGauhey, P.H. and J.H. Winneberger. A study of methods of preventing
failure of septic tank percolation systems. SERL Report No. 65-17.
University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory, 1965. 31 p.
14. Krebs, J.R. Sizing, design, and application factors in home seuage
treatment systems. In: Proceedings of the National Home Sewage
Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December 9—10, 1974. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp.
182—190.
15. Weibel , S.R., C.P. Straub, and J.R. Thoman. Studies on household
se age disposal systems. Environmental Health Lenter, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1949. 279 p. (Available from National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) as P6—217 671.)
16. Salavato, J.A. Experiences with subsurface sand filters. Sewage Ind.
Wastes, 27(8):909—914, August 1955.
17. Thomas, E.R. and T.W. Bendixen. Degradation of wastewater organics in
soil. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 41(5):808-8l3, May 1969.
18. Brandes, M. Accumulation rate and characteristics of septic tank
sludge and septage. Research Report W63, Ministry of the Environment,
Toronto, Canada, February 1977. 20 p.
19. Manual of septic—tank practice. PHS-Pub—256, U.S. Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C., Division of Sanitary Engineering Services,
1969. 96 p. (Available from National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) as PB—218 226.)
20. Hamilton, J.R. Treatment of septic tank effluent with an anaerobic
filter. Master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 1975.
92 p.
21. Raman, V. and N. Chakladar. Upflow filters for septic tank effluents.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 44(8):l552-l560, 1972.
22. Winneberger, J.H., W. I. Saad, and P.H. McGauhey. A study of methods
of preventing failure of septic tank percolation fields; first annual
70
-------
report. University of California, Berkeley. Sanitary Engineering
Research Laboratory, December 1961. 76 p.
23. Sikora, L.J., J.C. Converse, D.R. Keeney, and R.C. Chen. Field
evaluation of a denitrification system. In: Proceedings of the
Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois,
December 12-13, 1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan, 1978. pp. 202-207.
24. Andreoli, A., R. Reynolds, N. Bartilucci and R. Forgione. Pilot plant
study: nitrogen removal in a modified residential subsurface sewage
disposal system. Suffolk County, Department of Health Sciences,
Hauppauge, New York, October 1977. 36 p.
25. Asplen, E.W. Evaluation of domestic waste disposal by berrned
infiltration ponds 1971—1975. Maryland State Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, Maryland, Environmental Health Administration, July
1976. 15 p.
26. Karikari, T.J., C.E. I3eer, and R.J. Smith. Treatment of a residential
septic tank effluent in an aerobic lagoon. In: Proceedings of the
National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Cbicago, Illinois, December
9—10, 1974. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1975, pp. 144-151.
27. Hines, M.W., E.R. Bennett, and J.A. Hochne. Alternate systems for
effluent treatment and disposal. In: Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December
12—13, 1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1978. pp. 137—148.
28. Witz, R.L. Twenty—five years with the NODAK Waste Disposal System.
In: Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, December 9—10, 1974. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp. 168-174.
29. Franks, W. Above ground sewage disposal in rural Saskatchewan. In:
Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, December 9-10, 1974. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp. 163—167.
71
-------
SECTION 7
PHYS ICAL-CHEM ICAL TREATMENT
GENERAL
Physical-chemical treatment processes may be used for on—site wastewater
treatment In conjunction w th, or Independent of, biological treatment
processes. In general , physical—chemical treatment proceres may be util ized
for the following purposes:
• Reduce wastewater COD, BOD and SS concentrations to lower levels then
possible using biological treatment processes alone;
• Remove wastewater constituents such as. phosphorus and dissolved
Inorganic salts which do not respond readily to biological treatment
processes; and
• Remove wastewater constituents such as COD, BOO, 55, ammonia, nitrate,
and phosphate without using biological treatment processes (1).
Physical—chemical treatment processes and their applicability to on—site
wastewater treatment are summarized In Table 34. Those with available
hardware and on-site performance data are summarized below.
MEDIA FILTRATION
Pressure Filtration
The use of pressurized media filtration to separate suspended solids and
associated wastewater constituents from on—site waste streams is briefly
described below:
System Type System Requirements Coments
Cartridge Surge tank pressurization Frequent cartridge
pump, tank, controls, replacement re—
cartridge filter, bypass quired (when pres-
piping and strainer, check sure drop across
valves, filter becomes ex-
cessive)
Diatomaceous Surge tank, pressurization Backwash water re-
Earth pump, tank, controls, dia— quires disposal
tonite filter, recircula- periodically.
72
-------
-TABLE 34. PHYSICAL—CHEMICAL TREATMENT OPTIONS
Fru eay of
Sd 1u1&
H thL ,.ite
II/w l
Caoilexftv
f oI l r
(r o1rkg
u Iu u1a1
seMce)
1 r
1nfru a$
2- >4 ate
(1-4 sbi le
>4
En truru daI kc *4iIity
(çoo i,tiaI hazai ds
of b buth later
11
—I
Rw j of
1ot l Pju 1
C ot
1 1-]W
2W -4x)
— lI4
• - we siro
55. [ . P)
ai 1st t
gronty
55, (1H l& . aD]
( Ig t
- m1crootralnir
5$ (aD]
p t iti lly
u o g
-
p-os o
OIU-dffltratIJl
55, (all, ao,
L IOU)lol OJic aI)
w 1s i
2-4
a ile
Infrixpent
disjnsal of c trat n kiu ls
D)J-5W
- r e Is
5$, W), aD,
IcrWio1C9IC4l
p t tlal1y
w I )I tu t
2-4
cnxple*
uixo
disjnsol of e trat ,ol n skJa Is
4W-UI)
• dUI -u1la1pl1
, 1w. aD.
i lol ogi l
i J a ii
)4
cca ltx
uexxan
dispisal of rOW ) nsk1 aIs
iU-UIJ
i ox p 5ue
•
5$ (8W]
w lste*
1-4
s1xp 1e
tnfr 1 ent
—
25-tO
ofI iA11Ul
-
- clarifiers
- tilai plate
SS ( SW)
SS [ ISO)
a pear aa ert
p tartIafly
2.4
2-4
m atO
uu ate-
infre Ent
u*zUl 5
1(i )-3 D)
uii)cwi
settlers
w Istest
c x1ca
- flotaticoi
5$ (aD]
p ta t lal1y
34
utd -ate-
uiSawS
uitntwi
- cur i(u
5$ (aD)
aj lst ent
p t tiafly
a el SLrxit
>4
cssxplca
cuxplsn
ials
—
ixe
CIPaIATID) liii OO4ICPI.
ss. P ( W. ISO,
woist t
2-4
nu$irate
fru t
tntn as r skiu ls rati i
110-3 ( i)
R iU.IPI IATIW
wIcr tblolcWc alJ
SO IN III1
- caiixn a1sx tIon
(ID, 01) (55]
cca Ist it
1-4
sb i e -
I nfre ent
dlsjusal of edsaDtoi u1ia
250-350
- li i nidsonje
Nt ° , tOt, 8J4
(553
w I st st
1-4
mxtrate
stisile
oaa ) -rate
Infre unt
dis osaI of & te1 n&Oia
3 1)- SW
U - SLI4P II W
- air strIxpIrs ta er
Ni 3
34
ocstx -ate
u*ncoe
is Ise d sU tIcs
oxI
- d. nlc a l
W i (55 crthloloylcal)
uib e
34
mx ler ate -
cu iolus
ir4nw s
efiliunt toxicity aid s foty
- tiseimal
01). 55, alcrthiolxplcal
u*ima,
34
cai )oc
i b twi
air omssiain
• fraketuj osisLIti s are s darily if lertol.
‘A i ,rtloxl capital Wg pie iuI quratian aid usinlasexy coxts.
-------
tion pump, bypass piping,
strainer, check valves,
backwash water supply,
distribution, collection,
and holding or disposal
system
Single media Surge tank, pressurization Backwash water re—
pump, tank, controls, quires disposal
filter media, tank or periodically.
column, bypass piping,
strainer backwash water
supply, distribution,
collection, and holding
or disposal system.
Multiple media Surge tank, pressurizatidn Bac wash water re—
pump, tank, controls quires disposal
filter media, tank or p .iodically.
column, bypass piping
strainer, backwash water
supply, dfstribution,
collection, and holding
or disposal system.
Pressurized media filtration units which require very frequent (more than
4 times per year) backwashing will likely utilize automated backwash systems.
Performance-—
Greywater filtration data for various pressurized media filtration
systems are given in Table 35 (2,3). Blackwater and combined household
wastewater filtration data were unavailable. Furthermore, performance data
for some commercially available units were considered proprietary and
therefore unobtainable. Conclusions based on available data presented for
pressurized media filtration systems are as follows:
• Greywater and bath/laundry suspended solids and turbidity reductions
of approximately 40 to 70 percent can be achieved (2,3);
• COD, BOD, and pho horus removed are the fractions associated with the
suspended solids removed (2); and
• Little bacterial removal was observed (2).
It should also be noted that the dual media filtration system oerformance
was less than optimal due to improper selection of media sizes, filter area,
and backwash system (2).
System 0&M Requirements-—
In general, pressurized media filtration systems have moderately complex
hardware and require maintenance performed by semi-skilled servicemen.
74
-------
TABLE 35. PRESSURIZED MEDIA FILTRATION PERFORMANCE **
Wittas Wi l l i e Wa(Thws Wa ! hail Walirsat
7ef arai (2 ) (2) (3) (3) (3)
Waste stream Ge aete Cre)aete Bath at l3atry Bath art Lauairy Bath at Laniry
£aai lastlas (statS floe ad Eaiaulzatlon at E a1 latlais aid ditorire 04a1 laitlill at thiorirs l
ostietatlas cBIa-lse dlelrtfectlas disirtettlas dislutettlas
Treaties asit Dial isle Dial aS ia O1atm wa rarts Qrlrld64 (Brf&e-t3w) Cartligi (tWasth-ty )
(0.9reatlrxlte (0.Ootsastistlta
0.5 c m asd) 0.5 c m said)
Test rlSjda)i) 9 5 48 71
Volure 1 r ssai c m nar (1) — — (7,033 (2,50 b5 .
toSl’q rate (oats) 0.133 0.133 — — —
lbnlrsai sal Ids rersval
5(22 (r isCram) 15 0
Canalatl’e flita- osantlos
the asthi isa rsinath as
( Iso) 8- 10 2 ’ ) — - -
Its iaisatrd&flis(PB I) 0 . 9 . 71 0.4 (2.4 (2.4 2.4
Ittjs3d t bxkiesll sate, air ad sator rue .ater r ue rue
tossotitisasts’
C 5 Irfirast 12 - -
effltat 46 10 — —
(rue ,a() (46) ((7) — —
55 infltet 6 0 V 60-70 0 3-103
effltaat 67 18 3-35 35-70
(resseal) (3) (33) (49-46) (60.15)
isfiteet 213 64 — —
efflisast 13 6 0 — —
(reveal) (39) (3) — — _ —
14344 isflierst 3.0 8 ,5 — —
efflint 2.0 (0.8 — —
(rerwal) ( 1 — (-21 — —
Ta-bidity rsflrant if 13 • io-C
afflierst 27 6.6 40-65 30-C
(rerovai) (41) (49) (25 45) 60—70
Co(lfsrrd (oIliest 6.2 6 3 — —
affirm 62 6.3 — —
(resuval) (0) ( 0) — —
(ofltest at effitaist ruetittast astastratiwe erlressS as og’), reluiais m4resWS as (a-Cast,
C,jrnS as JI l l.
£oçresrel as ( so. air Cml., sane s rat (rdlcata Wetta- valuEs am for total a- focal colltmrs.
Typical çeforrrrarte data for salts testS.
as wa.
75
-------
System Type
Cartridge
filters
Diatom aceo us
earth filters
Single and multiple
media filters
System O&M Requirements
Require frequent replacement of cartridge ele-
ments five to eight or more times per year.
Require continuous recirculation of filter
system effluent to maintain the diatomaceous
earth coating on the filter surface. Filter
backwashing utilizing 30 to 150 1 of filter
effluent Is required every one to three months
(Personal Communication. W. Hypes. June 1978)
(3). Spent backwash water must be collected
and disposed. Also, addi ion of make-up media
(lost during backwashing) is anticipated 2 to 4
times per year.
Require frequent ftlter backwashing utilizing
250 1 or more of fil ter effl uent (up to 5
percent of filter forward flow) one to four
times per month. Spent backwash water must be
collected and disposed. Also, addition of
make—up media (lost during backwashing) is
anticipated two to four times per year
(Personal Communication. J. Scandon. June
1978).
There appear to be no problems relating to the environmental acceptabili-
ty of pressurized media filtration system effluents. Although odor problems
have been reported with the holding of spent backwash ter prior to disposal,
proper design of the holding facility should eliminate odor problems (3). The
adequacy of landfill disposal of discarded filter media has not been
determined, but preliminary Indications are that this method is appropriate.
CoStS——
Capital, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are presented
In Table 36.
Gravity Filtration
Gravity filtration of on—site wastewater has been accomplished using a
variety of configurations, as described below:
Routine adjustment and maintenance of filtration equipment
required two to four times per year. Unscheduled maintenance,
repair, media replacement or system controls repair, is required
Routine 0&M requirements for specific systems are
generally is
such as pump
infrequently.
as follows:
Environmental Acceptabil ity-—
76
-------
TABLE 36
PRESSURIZED MEDIA FILTRATION C0STS
Cost Cs)
Single
or
Design
Diatomaceous
Multiple
Capital Cost Life
Item (year) Cartridge
Earth
150
Media
150
Surge tank 20
Filtration unit and
800
controls 20 125
100
Pressurization tank 20 100
100
Pressurization pump and
225
225
controls 10
Pipe syst n (pipe, valves,
check valves, fittings,
bypass. strainer) 20 150
Recirculation pump (very
250
75
250
--
low h.p.) 10 --
Total Capital Cost $750
$1100
$1525
Annual 0&M Cost Item
Maintenance required
(@$10/hr)
-
50
50
Routine
10
Unscheduled 10
10
Filter media 60
8
Electricity 5
Total Annual 0&M Cost $165
$96
$78
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital
costs amortized over 20 years @ 7%
interest, discount and inflation
132
165
(factor = 0.09439) 92
96
78
Annual 0&M Costs
Total Annual Cost $257
$228
$243
—$240
—$260
—$230
* Disposal of backwash water is not included. It is assumed that backwash
water residuals will be handled in conjunction with residuals from other
treatment processes (especially biological).
77
-------
System Type
Buried sand
filter
System Regui rements
Distribution and collection
piping; sand and gravel; surge
tank and self-priming siphon
(or pump and control s)
Comments
Conservative applica-
tion rates are re-
quired since routine
maintenance of media
surface is impractical
Single stage
intermittent
sand filter
Recirculating
sand filter
Surge tank and self-priming
siphon (or pump and controls);
sand and gravel; two filter beds;
distribution and collection
piping.
Recirculation tank with-pump and
controls; sand and gravel; dis-
tribution and collection piping
Freezing and odors may
limit applicability un-
less insulated cover
or furrowed sand sur-
face is provided
Same as above.
Surge tank and self-priming
siphon (or pump and controls);
sand (2 or more sizes) and gravel;
four or more filter beds and dis-
tribution and collection piping.
The four systems listed above are all single media downflow filters.
Upflow filters are discussed in Section 6. Horizontal filters have also been
proposed, but data on their performance are lacking. Gravity multi—media
filters have not seen wide application presumably since single—media filters
perform adequately for most applications. A variety of media have been tried
(4), but sand is most commonly used. Use of mixtures of sand and limestone or
“red niud for phosphorus removal is discussed under SORPTION.
Performance-—
Selected on-site sand filter performance data from recent investigations
are shown in Table 37. As indicated, the sand filters studied consistently
reduced average BOD and SS levels of combined stewater to less t an 10 mg 1
and significantly reduced coliform levels by factors of 10 to 10
Nearly total nitrification (94 to 99 percent conversion of ammonia to nitrate)
was observed for intermittent filters receiving septic tank effluent.
Despite the consistently high level of treatment for BOO and SS indicated
in Table 37, filter performance depends on several interdependent factors,
mci uding:
• Wastewater characteristics;
• Filter characteristics, including temperature and media size, uniform-
ity and depth;
Series inter-
mittent sand
filter
Same as above
78
-------
TABLE 37. GRAVITY FILTRATION UNIT PERFORMANCE
8 Favre S r Dadry SiupiSt S1 riSL
( 5 ) (6) ( 1) (7) (4) (8) (8)
F;lter . iroilatirg trtu1ati19 Int ltt t Lniei 1tt Inu nultta1t Inte, lttu t Int . Ittent
h Vbe Z udt(i) & ixIC t t Sel*k t t Se*K t t P. thic intl Se AIc let S t6 t i1. Sqtic 141 11
Cnzt itr CaI6IIUI CoiCIr Co 5I i n ii & iiter Ce Ler
Ty e Field Field Field Field Field LWiy Ld1UraLo.y
Avine e IQeIfr9 rd2
(et’U ( 1/da /ft )) 0.12(3) 0. 12(3) 0.2(5) 0.1 5(3.8) 0 (b-o.07 0.15(38) 0. 9(1 3)
(1.2-1.8)
c 0tt
— (Rin ))
S D inflc i nct — — 123 26 315 (15-46) 112( 56-6U)
effltin 4( 1—Il) 4 ( 1- 7) 9 2-4 4(2.2—9.3) 1(13) 1(13)
65 influint — — 48 48 88 46(41-Si) 44(41-51)
- __..sffliuil fl4) -— - 5f (. 5 ) 6-9 9—11 6(48.98) 9(6-8) 1.3(9-19)
flI -4i infltinct — — . 192 0.4 37 21(1 1-2 5) 2 1(1.7-2 5)
efflcat — — 08-1.1 0.3 05(02- 14) -- —
inflcnnt (1.3 338 03 — —
efflusct 19.6-20.4 368 31 ((9.42) — --
(U 4 inf•1U S lt 8.7 36 1 14 31(3 1-3 /) 34(31-3/)
effliast 6.7-7.1 Z26 6(1 8-98) — —
reCal C 1ifoid
8IL141 (Ran . ))
lnllten( — — 5.9xU 5 19 n 8) 5 35e1
efflu 6.7 e i 1 o 4 0.5 &- 1.3 ( 103-/ l I ))
(22 O - (4x1O -
42 ,i8 )
Total ColifoS
(AveCa (Renjc))
lnflcn.t — 90 o.0 3 5 ( .5,.W
effl a rnt — l.3x& l3 0J 2x 5 3
(I 2 x
I x l0 )
(l ta peesctel ftir9 fulte, -Lujs. Valies givasi are aseCa4e l es d31leae185 (arrti ITt ci tie t5ce
Valin In eeJI (ecelIt 45 lrdicatel.
MTlfb cn1.
Las ucallzgI 6414.
-------
• Wastewater loading rate; and
• Maintenance.
Thus, improper design, construction or maintenance can result In Incon—
s1stent and reduced levels of treatment.
System O&M Requirements——
Routine operation and maintenance requirements of gravity filtration
units vary with the system type. Since burled filters are inaccessible for
maintenance of the media, 0&M requirements consist of annual adjustment and
inspection of the self-priming siphon or pump and controls. The other three
types of filters require maintenance of the media surfaca (raking and/or
replacement of the top 10 cm (4 In.) of medIa) 2 to 4 times per year in
addition to siphon or pump maintenance requirements. rntermittent filters
(effective sand size of 0.4 mu and a uniformity coefficient of 3 to 4)
receiving combined wastewater from a septic tank generally reiuire maintenance
4 tImes per year while filters receiving combined wastewater from an aerobic
treatment unit require less frequent maintenance, ap çox1mat ’ly 2 tImes per
year at loading rates of 0,2 m/day (5 gal/ft’/day). Less frequent
maintenance would be required for lower loading rates, Filters receiving
septic tank effluent must be taken out of servic& for ma1ntenance therefore
two filter beds are required. (Personal Communication. D, K. Sauer. June
1978.)
For all 4 types of systems discussed, the equipment Is fairly simple and
requires only moderately skilled personnel training to ensure adequate ser—
v1ce Unscheduled maintenance, such as repair of level control apparatus, is
required Infrequently.
Environmental Acceptability.-
The environmental acceptability of gravity filters also depends on system
type. Uncovered filter units (typically the Intermittent or recirculating
system types) have a limited potential for health hazards (Including vector
problems nulaance odors (primarily a, concern with units receiving anaerobic
influent and undealrable appearance.. Covered filters generally present no
hazard or nuisance,
Coats——
Capital, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 38.
MEMBRANE FILTRATION (PRESSURE)
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration as applied to on—site wastewater treatment is a membrane
filtration process which depends on a relatively low pressure driving force
and,a ,membranepermeable to some wastewater constituents, and impermeable to
80
-------
TABLE 38. GRAVITY FILTRATION COSTS
Life
Installed
Cost (S)
Capital Cost
Item (year)
Intermittent
Recirculating
Buriec
Dosing (or
tank & self—priming siphon 20
Pump and controls 10
20
200
——
400
30O
225
400
+
200
225
—-
Filter structure
AggregateS
20
300
150
800
• filter
20
100
50
--
• pea gravel
20
100
50
200
• coarse gravel
Distribution & collection
20
200
200
300
piping
Total Capital Costs
51300* -
$1375
$1725
Annual 0&M Cost Item
Maintenance required
(@$8/hr)
Routine (includes
replacement sand)
Unscheduled repairs
80
——
— —
80
——
10
20
——
Electricity
$20
Total Annual O&M Costs
$80
$90
Annual Cost
of capital
Present worth of sum
20
costs amortized over
years
and
@ 7% interest,
0.09439)
120
130
190
inflation (factor =
Annual O&M Costs
....J.
$210
Total Annual Cost
$200*
$220
* Cost for units receiving anaerobic effluent; cost of units receiving
aerobic effluent is estimated to be $160 due to reduced maintenance
frequency.
+ Does not md ude Sm phon.
81
-------
System Type
Closed—loop
recycl e
Comments
Membrane deteriora-
tion possible. Peri-
odic membrane cleaning
required to restore
permeate flux. Perio-
dically, concentrate
must be bled from sys-
tem and disposed.
Single pass
Surge tank, high capacity low
pressure pump and controls,
membrane el enents, pressure
reduction valve, concen-
trate holding tank.
Membrane deter bra-
tLn possible. Peri-
odic membrane clean—
i g required to re-
store oermeate flux.
Membrane Materials
Cellulosic (cellu-
lose rnoni—, di—,
or tn—acetate)
Properties
Narrow pH operating range
(3.5—7.5), susceptible to
aerobic microbiological
degradation.
Comments
Not likely to be used
widely for on-site
appl ications (with
the possible excep-
tion of treatment of
anaerobic ste
streams).
Non- cellul osic
(proprietary
synthetic poly-
meric formula-
tions)
Broad pH operating range
(0.5 to 12.5), resIstant
to many organic solvents,
free chlorine, and both
aerobic and anaerobic micro-
biological degradation.
Most applicable to
on—site treatment.
Membrane
Configurations
Spiral sound
Characteristics
Moderate to high oper ting
pressu es ftomii 3.5x10 to
1.OxlO N/rn’ (50-150
psi), low flux rates from
1.2 to 2.4 rn/day (30-50
gsfd).
Low operating pres ures from
1.4 to 3.5x10 5 N/rn’ (20—
50 psi), low to high flux
rates from 1.2 to 6.1 rn/day
Coments
Fair resistance to
p1 ugging and good
resi stance to
fouling. Generally
operated with turbu-
lent flow regime.
Fair resistance to
plugging and
fouling. May be
operated with
others. The most common types of ultrafiltration systems are summarized below
(9—16).
System Requirements
Feed tank, high capacity low
pressure pump and controls,
membrane elements.
Hollow fiber
82
-------
(30—150 gsfd), inside dia-
meters from 0.1 to 1.0 m
(0.004 to 0.04 in.).
Low to moderate operating
pressures from 1.4 x IO to
6.9 x 1O N/rn 2 (20—lOOps 1)
low to moderate flux rates
from 1.2 to 4.0 rn/day (30—
100 gsfd), inside diameters
from 1.3 to 2.5 cm
(0.5 to 1.0 in.).
laminar or turbulent
flow regime. May be
backwashed with pro-
duct.
Excellent resistance
to plugging and foul-
ing. Operated
with turbient flow
regime. May be
cleaned chemically or
mechanically. Suit-
able for treatment of
highly concentrated
wastes with large
amounts of suspended
materials.
Most ultrafiltration systems employ more than one membrane element and
are described as having series, parallel, or tapered membrane arrangements.
Closed—loop recycle, non—cell ulosic, tubul ar ultrafiltration membrane systems
using either parallel or tapered membrane arrangements appear most sui tabi e
for on—site wastewater treatment applications.
Performance—-
Ultrafiltration has been used as part of on—site scale investigations for
treating toilet wastes for reuse as toilet flush water; treating segregated
and combined laundry and shower waste streams for reuse in the same fixtures;
and treating combined household wastewater following anaerobic treatment,
prior to discharge to a soil absorption system (17-20). Performance of the
ultrafiltration units within these systems is described in Table 39.
Conclusions reached by these investigations (17—22) were as follows:
• Ultrafiltration membranes consistently reduce blackwater average SS
level s to lees tha 15 mg/i and reduce fecal col iform levels by
factors of 10 to 10
• Low pressure membrane filtration systems utilizing reverse osmosis
membranes with molecular weight cut—offs <500 are moderately to highly
effective in removing BaD, COD, dissolved solids, and bacteria
contained in on—site waste streams (19,20).
Tubular
• Ultrafiltration membrane
>20,000 have little effect
ammonia, nitrates, etc.)
associated with waste ter
systems with molecular weight cut-off
on removal of dissolved solids (phosphates,
and only affect chemical constituents
wilds (18,19,22); and
83
-------
TI4BLE 39. ULTRIWILTRATIO I PERFORMANCE
1 . S d a. BrUa3 &)7 & Ne1n
(17) ( IB ) 0) ( (19) (3))
m It-t .. - 9 rw I 4tiI e L diy 9i t Ra II1Klp3l
_ (9-
___ — - I t— .. . tx n Ca Irw5 FiiIo1 b W
l 1 c i4inu
I ’ I1-1 f 1f a hbi fl I FId Ti Il (cr1IuI Ic)
(cd ac 114
. (.1) 8.31 14 LI 23 C l i — — S _I si to 3 —
I%4 .e1 9 - 95f 110 ) 2 )I ___ 3 1W) 9-0 511) -,
— — Fbr n Fu rw1 Sq*k t &
______ 1 r- ad 1 rt -
a,nd c i cNtrlnst ci
P, e ) 1 __z - S
3.95
fli ( ) 195.62 6.1-0.9 24-09 5.1-1.8 88-3.4 53-l_3 6.94.6 1.6-0.2 1.1-0.6 0.5.0.18
99hwaric
— — — — — b-fix Ii- 1 -
t x3 95.3 11) 311 - 3 1 3) - - 331)
___ __-__—- --- - -- -
133 I&t ifi) __ - - - -
dfl 6-1) 5 I I 41 — — — — —
( 6o 3 ( 1933 8) .j) 7) (95.1) (—3 (193) (-3 (99 (-)
1)8 - - - -. - - 88 __ -
- - - - - - 195 - -
(rr tkxO (-93 (-3 (-) (-3 I-) (—3 (-3 (12-93) (13-17) (-)
— — — — — 99-11) — — — 2)1)
dfl - — - — - - - —
(ieJ Ii ) (—) (—) (—3 (-4 (—3 (fl (—) (_) (_) (93)
- - - - - __ - - - -
dfl - - - - - - - - --
(‘ ‘ (-3 (-1 (-) (-3 1-) p123 L ) (-) (-) (—)
- - - - - - . — *18 15-23) -
— — — — — — 6 20-31 —
(1rj (-) (-) (-) (-3 (-3 (-3 (-) (9J-09 ) (3 18) (-)
— — — — — — — — — 3 S
gI1 — — — — — — — — 095
( tIw (—3 (—) 4—) (_.) 4..) (—3 (—3 (_) (_) (13)
t 1ict — — — — — — — 18) — 33
— — — — — — — 2 — 5
(teJ93im) (—) (—3 4—) (—3 (_) 4-) 4 ) (95.93) p5.95) (95)
tx1I 1i t( — — — — — — — 9)) 359-893 410
— — — — — 1)0
(ie tIi (—3 (—3 4—) (—3 4-) (-4 ( ( .95) (59)
F& * OilI - —— __________________ — -— — — —
(k w.II)) ) W1 57-8.1 62-08 61-9.2 6.1-92 3.6-61 — — — — —
C.0.6. ’ 14 4.1” 2.2 14 L I- Il) — — — 0
(r - (1 .2-7 .6) (533 (16) (5.5) 31.5) (—3 (—3 (—) (—3 (-)
• I I I 95b9 5 t
• MI
• - _____ (pe dci Ici Il)i IT 8 • (88 S 3.
- I .
11 r. _____
1 fl 95 1. t 2 5 cc i 95 t.
-------
Depending on the specific ultrafiltration system utilized and the method
of wastewater disposal or reuse anticipated, additional treatment for removal
of BOD, nutrients, bacteria, color, and odor may be required.
System O&M Requirements--
Routine operation and maintenance of complex tubular ultrafiltration
membrane systems (estimated at 4 times per year) by highly skilled service
personnel consi sts of mai ntenance of mechanical components, removal and
disposal of concentrated residuals rejected by the rneiibranes, and membrane
element inspection. If tubes become clogged, they may be cleaned mechanically
with brushes or chemically with solvents, detergents, or other cleaning
liquids which do not react with membrane materials. Unscheduled maintenance
may be required due to mechanical equipment failures, caused by excessive feed
stream concentrated residuals build-up or failure of the membrane or membrane
seal . Overall , tubular membrane el enient life is expected to be approximately
15,000-20,000 hours of operation.
The reported length of membrane operation possible before mechanical or
chemical cleaning is required varies substantially from study to study,
depending on factors such as membrane material and configuration, influent
waste characteristics, bulk velocity of fluid over the menbrane surface, flow
path channel height, and mode of operation (continuous or intermittent). Some
researchers have reported severe clogging by colloids for membranes receiving
septic tank effluent (Personal Communication. W. C. Boyle. October 1978).
Others have reported adequate membrane flow for 1500 hours of operation of
bench—scale membranes receiving septic tank effluent (20) and 15,000 hours of
maintenance fee operation for membranes receiving aerobically digested
wastewater in on—site applications (Personal Communication. A. Coviello.
November, 1977). Thus, it appears that membrane materials, configuration, and
operation can be matched with the influent wastewater characteristics to
minimize membrane maintenance requirements.
Environmental Acceptabil ity——
Since membrane ultrafiltration is a physical separation process, no toxic
substances are generated. In fact, it has been showi that recycled laundry
and shower wastes concentrated more than 100-fold are not toxic or irritating
to humans when appropriate membrane systems are utilized (19). The applica-
bility of current methods of wastewater sludge disposal for disposal of
concentrated residuals has not been determined, although preliminary
Indications are that these methods are suitable.
Cost s——
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are presented
in Table 40.
85
-------
TABLE 40
ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM COSTS*
Design
Capital Cost Life
Item (year)
Capital
Cost
Cs)
Vault for ultrafiltration
system including
excavation and access
hatch 20
500
Ultrafiltration system
including feed tank and
membrane elements 20
Pump and controls 10
300
Total Capital Cost
$2000
Annual 0&M Cost
Unit Cost
Annual O&M
Cost
Item Amount
(5)
(5)
Maintenance requirements
72
Routine 6 hr/yr
12/hr
‘Unscheduled 2 hr/yr
12/hr
40
Electricity 800 kwh/yr
0.5/kwh
75
Membrane replacement 1/yr
75/ea
Total 0&M Costs
$211
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital
costs amortized over 20 years @ 7%
Interest, discount and inflation (factor
0.09439)
211
Annual 0&M Cost
Total Annual Cost
$428
— $430
* Disposal of concentrate Is not included. It Is assumed that con-
centrate Is returned to the previous treatment unit in most
systems. When ultrafiltration of untreated wastewater is empioyed,
concentrate handling and disposal will cost an estimated $75
annually.
86
-------
C GULATION AND CHEMICAL PRECEPITATION
Chemical addition to on—site waste streams may
setti ing of colloidal and suspended wastewater
precipitate otherwise soluble wastewater constituents
both. The types of chemicals which may be added
treatment are described below.
be utilized to enhance
solids, to chemically
(such as phosphorus), or
for on—site wastewater
Chemical Type
Polymers (cat-
ionic, anionic,
or non—ionic)
Aluiiininii salts
(aluminum sul-
fate (alum),
sodium aluninate,
or aluminum
chl oride)
Iron salts (fer-
nc chloride,
ferric sulfate
and ferrous
sul fate)
Purpose
Coagulation and sedimention of
colloidal suspended solids.
Coagulation and sedimentation of
colloidal suspended solids and!
or phosphorus precipitation.
Coagultion and sedimentation of
colloidal suspended solids and/
or phosphorus precipitation.
Conmients
Cationic polymers
give most favorable
results. Not likely
to be used if filtra-
tion immediately fol-
lows coagulation.
Aluminum salt solu-
tions are corrosive.
Not likely to be
used if very low
effluent SS desired.
Iron salt solutions
are highly corrosive
and may cause stain-
ing. Ferrous sul-
fate Ineffective for
coagulation of
anaerobic ste
streams.
Lime
Coagulation and sedimentation of
colloidal suspended solids and!
or phosphorus precipitation.
May require consid-
erably higher dos-
ages than aluminum
or Iron salts. Not
likely to be used if
low effluent 55 de-
sired. Generates
more sludge than
other chemicals.
In addition, combinations of the chemical types also may be utilized.
Use of combinations of chemicals generally will serve a combination of the
purposes described above for each chemical type.
Sod I inn
bicarbonate
Buffering of wastewater, sedi-
mentation of colloidal sus-
pended solids
Less effective than
the alternatives for
SS removal
87
-------
These chemicals may be added to waste streams in either liquid or solid
form. Hardware usually consists of chemical metering pumps or siphons which
add a preset quantity of chemical to fixed volume of wastewater. Fixed waste—
water volumes are provided using a tipping bucket arrangement (which activates
the chemical feed), or by operating the treatment unit In a batch mode (with
the chemical feed activated by the same mechanism which operates the batch
cyci e).
Following chemical addition, mixing and separation must be provided.
Mixing may rely on turbulence induced by the waste stream flow and treatment
unit configuration, or on mechanical mixing provided by Impellers or aeration
equipment. Separation generally consists of sedimentation which takes place
in the treatment unit following mixing, with additional solids removal
occurring In subsequent treatment or disposal components.
Performance
Data describing on—site chemical addition 1nvest1 t1ons are given in
Table 41 (23—29). In general, these Investigations have focused on the
applicability of the various chemical types &nd dosages In ombinat1on with
biological wastewater treatment, with little or no emphasis on chemical
addition, mixing, and sedimentation hardware performance. From the data
presented the following conclusions are drawn:
• Consistently, catonic polymer or aluminum sulfate addition can
provide approximately 50 percent BOO reductions and 70 to 90 percent
SS reductions
• Phosphorus removals In excess of 80 percent, along with substantial
fecal coliform reductions, can be achieved with aluiiinum sulfate
addition;
• Significant Increases (approximately 300 percent) In sludge generation
accompany aluminum sulfate addition. Although sludge density may also
be increased, It Is not likely to offset the need for additional
sludge storage volune (27,28); and
• Sodium bicarbonate appears to provide approximately 75 percent
reduction in septic tank effluent suspended solids concentrations
based on an extremely small number of samples (26).
In general, conclusions applying to aluminum sulfate addition are likely
to apply to the addition of other salts of aluninun and Iron, with the pos-
sible exception of ferrous sulfate. Ferrous sulfate Is generally Ineffective
as a coagulant In anaerobic waste streams (30—32).
System 0&M Requirements
Routine operation and maintenance of coagulation and chemical
precipitation systems may vary significantly for different types of hardware.
In general, chemical refills, adjustment of feed quantities, and maintenance
of the moderately complex mechanical equipment by a semi—skilled technician is
88
-------
TABLE 4L COAGULATION AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE
I I I 1 4 LI Lbb 1411
0) 0) (5795)
l951 ,ob 6 1 b LIlCIJI bLI LI I4 M8 LI 91114 554A14 ILI l adol4 54 11.1 LI LIi, I S O 8..
p 1 9 5 ,_ 5a bOLI. c 95 i — — flI — —
95 ILI (9011
Tr. s . ,I c . ,b90.141 E La Ia llnS5411 81.1. 8.88 548 La 95*6 PLIOgIa , (031) k. .18.25a . . (1133 I) P114 . 1Ia*95Ia (1331 I)
* (1951) 95898414(901 1 *.¼ 54* (ID I) (U LI 14* 4* (380 I) 84 .IasIs 4 8l,*aIo , (303 I) c1.1l6a80 (LII)
(1031) 1141161403(901)
Iakn Sn
(*03) 3 5 4 -6 l b —
4-fl 99584-148 4-fl , 9 95*14 1148*995*6 hlfl. . .*l*cIalIa —
84* 14* 14*8 14*
— fltsfl, — —
_. _!LI _!LI_ 095 _!LI LI28. i _ co3121 _______
4803 C14003 Ca — 844 * 1* — 14898 — gliMa. .41 .1* 038 — .1.1,... th*l* — .1 1 .1 . . . .I ,ahl.a .i.pn*.
II 4* 4 P . 11*0 1I 14I 4) 5603* 4-1 111* 4- 1 111* 1 4 1( 1 (1* 1111)1*
0a.3. 9511) 31 03 — I — 8 — 28) — 146.495 431 — — — —
L II 1111*03 DI LI 10 — — — — 121 — — - — — — - —
11ll , . .* 80 80 Ill — — — — LI — — *9 Ui - — —
(n . .l) (54) (54) (83) )—) (—1 (—) (—4 (25) 4—) 4—) I—) 4—) (—) — — —
- - 0 ’ - - - - -
1111488 — — 73 2143 91 6 1 8) 143 0 I 1 8 733
( , ,.. ..I( (— I (—I I—) I—) I—I I—) I—) (95) C—) I —) C—) C—) C1 (9) )31) (9)
TI *314814 — — - - — - — — -
lffl .LI - - 959 02 195 523 546 591 - - —
(— I ( —) (—I (—I I—) (—I I—) (-1) C—) (— I I—I I—) (—C — — —
13 )nfl 295 295 20 — — — — 95 — - — — —
.111*11 27 95 61 0 06 41 30 14 25 10 25 25 II 95 4- 14
(0) (95) (0) 4—) )—) 4—) (—4 (—25) (—C )—) (— I I—) C—) (31) ( 77) (0)
1* .148 — — — — — — — — 76 I I lb
. 7, 1*1. — — — — — S I S ii
I-) )-) C-) ) (81) (95)
11411 01 18*1
)I .f 03.))
110. 1 ,4 — — — — — SI 39 51
lI ) 9LI** .1195)
740 1.114 — — II 10 Ii 72 II — —
0*9.8*31911.101
(409) — — — — — — I )’ IS 7( 8 .171
• *9538)4314.03 Sn 9548 180 879 903 7101119914 12 4* •ft9 4.4544 031189.
• 8519*01
1 .I. . 18.I ,( * 1 * 1 49 ID)
l31I .d *.03Ia84i8. d . .
) lI.* ,S LI 11)1 .9999 .8149* .495 1 .11. ,03. 14I* 14 14 p9*8*-
-------
required 2 to 4 times per year. In addition, removal of accumulated sludge
directly resulting from coagulation and chemical precipitation is required
approximately one to four times per year depending on the chemical used and
the system characteristics. Frequent unscheduled maintenance may be required
for existing hardware as a result of plugging and malfunctioning of chemical
feed equipment. The latter may be caused by the corrosive nature of chemicals
stored or by hydraulic overloads.
Environmental Acceptability
The corrosive nature of iron and aluminum salt solutions may create safe-
ty problems for those handling the chemicals, but should pose no threat to the
homeowner during system operation. Also, effluent dissolved solids (especial—
ly iron or aluiiinun concentrations) may increase substantially, but effluent
toxicity should not present any problems. Howaver, staining problems may
occur at high effluent iron concentrations.
Cost
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual cos s are shown in
Table 42.
SORPTION
As applied to on—site wastewater treatment, sorption processes involve
the accumulation of initially dissolved wastewater constituents on or In solid
media. The sorption processes iich are currently most applicable to on—site
wastewater treatment are briefly described below.
System Type System Requirements ________
Carbon adsorption
(activated carbon)
Surge tank, self-priming siphon
or pump and controls, carbon
adsorption media, media tank or
column. (Systems incorporating
pressurization and backwashing
require additional equipment
similar to pressurized media
filtration systems).
Media replacement
(or regeneration)
may be required at
frequent intervals
for wastes with high
organic or solids
concentrations.
Ion exchange:
• cllnoptllollte
• limestone
• ‘red mud” (bauxite
purification by-
product)
Surge tank, self—priming siphon
or pump and controls. Ion ex-
change media, media tank or
column. (Systems incorporating
pressurization and backwashing
Media. replacement
(or regeneation)
may be required at
frequent interval s
depending on the or—
Con nents
90
-------
TABLE 42
COAGULATION AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION COSTS
Chemical
Addition
Chemical Unit with
Design Addition Sedimentation
Capital Cost Life Unit Chamber
Item (years) (5) Cs)
Chemical storage and
feed unit 10 300 300
Sedimentation chamber 20 ——— 300
Total Capital Cost $300 $600
Annual O&M Cost
Item
Amount
Unit Cost
(5)
Cs)
Mai ntenance requirements
6 hr/yr
10/hr
60
Routine
3
10/hr
30
Unscheduled
4—8
2—10/kg
8—80
Chemical Costs
50/pumpout
50
Chemical sludge pumping
1/yr
Total Annual 0&M Cost
5148—220
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum
of the capital
@ 7% interest,
costs
discount,
amortized over 20 years
and inflation (factor =
0.09439)
28— 55
148—220
Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual Cost
$176—275
—$ 180—280
91
-------
• hydroxy—al iilnum require additional equipment ganic and solids
saturated catlonic similar to pressurized media concentration of the
resins filtration systems). wastewater and the
• other synthetic exchange capacity of
catlonic the resin used.
anionic resins “Red mud” is not
generally available
in parts of the
country.
Generally 1 most on-site sorption process units will receive flow
intermittently. Both pressure and gravity application of wastewater can be
utilized, with media backwash capabilities frequently accompanying pressure
distribution units. In most cases, sorption processes will be preceded by
biological or other physical—chemical treatment. Exhausted media will be
replaced by media regenerated off-site, or by new media (2,4,33).
A listing of specific wastewater constituents and orp 1on media which
may be utilized to remove them from on—site waste streams are listed below.
Wastewater Constituents Sorption Media Type
COD, BOD, C1, 1, SU, Activated carbon
and edor producing substances
NH 4 Naturally occurring
cationic resins such
as the al n1ninosil1cate
zeolites (Including
clinoptilolite) and
synthetic resins
NO 3 Naturally occurring
and synthetic anionic resins
P0 4 3 Naturally occurring
anionic resins such as lime-
stone (including calcite and
dolomite?, activated al anina,
“red mud’ and synthetic resins
P erformance
Data describing on-site sorption unit performance are given in Table 43
(1,2,4,33—36). Several full—scale applications of activated carbon treatment
of on—site waste streams exist for which performance information Is not
readily available. One application involves pressurized, downflow activated
carbon treatment of blackwater preceded by anaerobic and aerobic treatment,
sedimentation, and ultrafiltration. Following disinfection, the treated
blackwater Is recycled for toilet flushing (Personal Communication. A.
92
-------
TABLE 43. SORPTION PERFORMANCE
— -- — — -
Oq.I ) . 600 1 I. 76)332300 000104 23161003- 000104 005 003- 00 2376. 3
2300. — 23 404 0134199 069. 03.231
003. 761332300 _ 476 . 66900
.40123041.4. a00t
I—
161% I. 01 . 4.76 S • 01— 6970004 I • 01 I E l 697.2323 7 2323 0600
a 0000 0000
(p00 .3 . 60023 (p03 . 6 007623. (p00pl00 0076a. (p - 3 00.97.,. (p *l00 00 )523.
2 333 2301 69 ,43 .33 . 4* b .*l .d .433369*33*43
C 604 34 4 I* ld
0423* 01* 7693’ 1.61 . 5693* & 73700 7693* 06*
.69_ ( .3) 0 . 09
0 0 3 .690,0. 3.3
1231. 00aS 1003w) 2.0
1690.00(2333 ) 4-4
7723.04.300.23 0033) I S
000754 23
733*42 1 OS4 I 42300
0n20 1
01 • 01
007076693-
20431.1,4500
6I 00)5,4
6001
‘3
2.51
4 . ,
3.0
OS I 009 0600
069600
100 l0*s)
020
i i
2.9
4 .9
II
3.09 00
2.23
4
3.0
0 .09009 0 000
I (1611_ • 000.6 (nat 1 165 .5 1236.7000023.7 .6%.
3410*23 10400 p*00 769 .23 0 03.33w 11)0 (010 1 16067)33 3323)15
.4 0 1 2 .01 0 10 4* 314 00695a0154. 0)123)
00 S 0*300 65)73. . 01 00. 0 0 76* 04.
0007331 1*23123 00,3 3 3 )Iv.m I , 4 06501 23.54 0.3.9
. 3 -In
0040,40 54 . C- 3.9
55 ,734 0.04 • 2.44
2.04 3.01 3.01
—
oa*o’ 2 .00.3.06
001.0.01 2.060.309
202 5 0 032
-
— 001
— 03
I A
— ( 5
— 2.230 11
‘I , 4 t.
— I I
3.0
IS
I .)
0.0
3.0
(
( . 2 3 1 3 - St
00 70410* 00
.71100 43
( . j( (II )
010k *7)00 SI
17100 II
(100.1) (16)
IS 01100 02
.0000 204
Cr0032) (
0(5 70400
.3600 55
(.0032) (97)
712 6900 34
.01.. 2(5
(ra*.l) (II)
90 l04. 0 23
.SflaO *3
).0d) (23)
112 01533* 9
.77105 —
3_I
(5.3.10.6 *45o4 20
.10*9 I S
) ...i) (70)
0
239
42
(04)
01
U
(73)
26 1
00
( 51)
01
51
(42)
4 2 3
04 )
(23)
04
24
( 53)
23
V
)
32
I 1
(.4)
0
04
29
( II )
1 -S
(73)
00
3
00)
I I
23
(25)
279
I I ) )
6)
23
(5))
V
4
(16)
4
3.0
(.43)
2.25
04
77
( 5 ))
6
(33)
461
(4)
16
72
CS)
2 ( 5
747
36)
I ?
55
( ( 5)
23
(-(5)
0.6
05
(I ))
4 - 1
—
3— —)
3..)
-
-
(—3
—
I —)
-
—
3—)
—
—
3..)
—
5
).. )
—
—
) ..)
—
(—.3
511
02.04
o )
-
-
(— .3
-
—
) --) _
-
—
( —3
—
—
)_)
a
14-13
(51.23)
74
2 0 1.2.2
(01.42)
33
•
-
.
(—3
—
—
3.-)
-
. .
I— )
-
..
3--)
-
—
3_I
—
..
)_(
—
—
) _ —)
—
—
) .)
43341
.70.65 0
5
(_j
020
(55)
03
70)
—
00-0.2
) 99)
—
——
(0051))
743341 16500 —
.4*00 —
3..)
.
3—)
)_)
(3
—
3
0.40
(04 *3))
V 101500 II . )
.ffl .. 133
3)0
90
(0)
33.4
3)41
(04)
33.5
290
( .3)
.
—
.
..
(.00.1)
704100 141
30
0. 5
0.4
—
—
Il l
03471
04fl.** 33
(0023) (00)
2.0
( . 3 2 5)
73.0
( II )
17.0
(23)
—
—
. .
0 .7)
( 2 3 - 7 1f)
00 .4 .00 1040123 2304 0074
(001 ( 01*. 00023. 330004
1 11 1,4
.650. 10-24 — 39
• 1 -01*096 . -t1
0069
16403 01 54. C.i0.9
64 540.04 (b o I l. p73.
l3* la 04.9000)
3 .4 ’
071
00110006
010
00
00
314)
01
(263
00
7 . 0
(II )
723)
13.6
06
(33)
73.6
CI
(*99)
UI
014
I I . I?
69.04)
(—. 3
I - .
I— )
3-)
3—)
(.1.3)2311
UI
CI
04
3.,
7*)
(16)
04)
5)1
(7 6 ’)
02
( 59)
It o
770
13.)
) 55)
7 )4
05
( 0 4 )
23.6
UI
(*6)
0 2
54 4.0
(Il 74)
• l fle4 so eno* atlr.s d00 n . nI. r.)I .9 01 p700*
• 0047000005)15(01 040010040 1433 1 1 3 6
1004337 (.4 a6 — 4 .llp 440100.4 23 ,.o-rn . 305 7*9 .115765. N ftJ 23 dflot * 576.0234000061.6 .1103312310, *3 4.09
0194. II.’ 1*3317691)001. 005 230134601
932 I o 00 00 flIt 00 — 23 ( 0 0 3 4 . I I
23 9773312*1000 00 2300 23 41000..
-------
Coviello. November 1977). Another application described in Table 43 also
produces an effluent which is reused for toilet flushing (35).
Conclusions based on the performance of the sorption processes included
in Table 43 and those discussed in the preceding paragraph are as follows:
System Type Performance
Activated carbon Consistently provides significant removals of COD (60-75
percent), BOD (40-70 percent), and volatile dissolved
solids (30-50 percent) from all waste streams tested
(2,35). Suspended solids are removed by carbon acting
as a filtration media (2).
Clinoptilolite Consistently provides significant ammonia removals (>9
percent) from septic tank effluents, with similar
results anticipated for other non-ni rified waste
streams (33). Suspended solids and orcanic nitrogen
removed by clinoptilolite acting a filcration media
(33). Rapid media exhaustion experienced (1).
Limestone Dual media (sand and sand—limestone mixture) filtration
provides significant phosphorus removal (50 percent in
the first year of operation) from septic tank effluent
in excess of that provided by sand filtration alone.
Other sand filter performance characteristics are
unaffected. Similar results are anticipated for other
influent waste streams suitable for sand filtration
(4,34).
Large limestone chips provide less significant
phosphorus removal from sand filtered (nitrified)
septic tank effluent under anaerobic conditions than is
provided with the smaller diameter, sand-limestone
mixture discussed above (4,34).
“Red mudu Dual’media (sand and sand-red mud mixture) filtration
(bauxite purifi— consistently provides significant phosphorus removal
cation by—product) (70 percent the first year and 60 percent the second
year) in excess of that provided by sand filtration
alone. Other sand filter performance characteristics
are unaffected. Similar results are expected for other
influent waste streams suitable for sand filtration
(4,34).
Generally, all sorption process efficiencies decline during treatment
unit operation (1,2,4,33,34,36,37). Since the rate of decline depends on the
wastewater characteristics and sorption media, these two factors must be
properly matched to mininilnize O&M requirements. Additional methods of
alleviating the decline include the following:
94
-------
• Media backwashing;
• Prefiltration; and
• Chemical addition (chlorine, iodine, etc.) to inhibit growth of
biological slime.
System O&M Requirements
Routine system O&M requirements consist of media addition or replacement
2 to 12 or more times per year by semi-skilled service personnel, depending
primarily on the system design, influent wastewater quality, and media voli e
and exchange capacity. In addition, routine maintenance of mechanical
equipment 1 to 2 times per year is also required. Unscheduled maintenance of
the pump and controls and/or media will be required infrequently.
Environmental Acceptability
Sorption unit effluents should not present any environmental problems.
Similarly, media regeneration and disposal will take place off—site, and
should not pose any special problems.
Cost’
Capital cost, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are
presented in Table 44 with the exception of pressurized sorption units
equipped with backwash capabilities. Costs for these units are similar to the
costs for pressurized media filtration units equipped with backwash
capabilities, previously presently in Table 36.
PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL COMPONENT COMPARISONS
Comparisons for physical—chemical components with available hardware and
on—site performance information sufficient to permit detailed evaluation are
presented in Table 45. Component comparisons for components with available
on—site hardware but insufficient on—site performance information shown in
Table 46 are based on engineering judgment and are subject to revision Men
data become available.
95
-------
TABLE 44
SORPTION UNIT COSTS
Capital Cost
Item
Design
Life
(year)
Capital
Cost
($)
Sorption column or tank
(Including medIa)
Surge tank (wet well)
Pump and controls
Distribution piping
20
20
10
20
600
200
300
100
Total Capital Cost
$1200
Annual 0&M Cost
Item
Amount
Unit Cost
($)
Annual 0&M
($ )
Cost
Maintenance required
RoutIne
Unscheduled
Sorption media
ElectricIty
8 hr/yr
2 hr/yr
50.1000 kg/yr
200 kwh/yr
10/hr
10/hr
0.15—0,30/kg
0.05/kwh
80
20
80-300
10
Total Annual 0&M Cost
$190-410
Total Annual Cost
Present rth of the sum
amortized over 20 years
discount, and inflation
Annual 0814 Cost
of capital costs
@7% Interest
(factor 0.0 439)
141
190-410
Total Annual Cost
$331 .551
—$330-550
96
-------
TABLE 45. PHYSICAL—CHEMICAL COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR COMPONENTS WITH StiFF ICEENT INFORMATION*
Ranking
Group Component
Performance
(5 max.)
O&M
Requirements
(5 max.)
Environnental
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
Total
Annual
Cost
($)
A Gravity filtration
5
4
3
12
150—250
Pressure filtration
4
3
3
10
200—300
Carbon Adsorption
4
3
3
10
250-350
B Coagulation and chemical
precipitation
4
2
3
9
150-300
Ultrafiltration
5
2
3
10
400-500
Ion Exchange
5
2
3
10
450-500
* For components with sufficient on-site perfonnance information and hardware available to permit
detailed evaluation. See Section 3 for explanation of the ranking system.
0
-.4
Ranking
-------
TABLE 46. PHYSICAL—CHEMICAL COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR COMPONENTS WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION*
Ranking
Group
Component
Ranking
Annual
Cost
($)
Performance
(5 max.)
O&M
RequirBnents
(5 max.)
Environmental
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
B
Clarification
4
3
3
10
100—300
Microstraining
4
2
3
9
200—400
Reverse Osmosis
5
2
3
10
400-600
* For components with avail able on—site hardware, but insufficient on—site performance
information. This comparison is based on engineering jucigement and should be reevaluated when
data become available.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Management of small waste
flows. Appendix A. Wastewater characteristics and treatment.
EPA—600/2-78—173. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, September, 1978. 764 p.
2. Withee, C.C. Segregation and reclamation of household wastewater at
an individual residence. University of Colorado, Boulder, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 1975. 286 p. (Available from
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as PB-268 810.)
3. Cohen, S. and H. Waliman. Demonstration of waste flow reduction from
households. EPA—670/2—74—071 , General Dynamics Corporation, Groton,
Connecticut, September 1974. 111 p.
4. Cho 1hry, N.A. Septic tank-sand filter systems for treatment of
domestic sewage. Publication No. W64, Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto, June 1977. 47 p.
5. Bowne, W.C. Experience in Oregon with Hines-Favreau recirculating
sand filter. Presented at the Northwest States Conference on On-Site
Sewage Disposal , Seattle, Washington, August 1977. 7 p.
6. Hines, N. and R.E. Favreau. Recirculating sand filters; an
alternative to traditional sewage absorption systems. In.
Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago.
Illinois, December 9—10, 1974. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp. 130—136.
7. Sauer, O.K. Treatment systems required for surface discharge of
on-site wastewaters. In: Individual On—Site Wastewater Systems,
Proceedings of the Third National Conference, Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. pp. 113-130.
8. Siegrist, R.L. Waste segregation to facilitate on—site wastewater
sewage disposal alternatives. In: Proceedings of the Second National
Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December 12-13,
1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1978. pp. 271-281.
9. Battacharja, 0., K.A. Garrison, and R.B. Grieves. Membrane
ultrafiltration waste treatment application for water reuse. Indus.
Water Eny. 12(4):6-l2, April 1975.
99
-------
10. Weber, W.J., Jr. Physicochemical processes for water quality control.
Wiley—Interscience, New York, 1972. pp. 413-466.
11. Hardwick, W.H. The application of reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration
to the purification and treatment of natural waters and effluents.
NATO Advanced Study Institute Series E, No. 13. Noordhoff
International Publishing Company, Leyden, Netherlands, 1975. pp-
43 5-4 64
12. Mahlinan, -l.A., W.G. Sisson, K.A. Kraus, and J.S. Johnson, Jr.
Crossflow filtration in physical—chemical treatment of municipal sewage
effluents. EPA—600/2-76-025, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee,
February 1976. 121 p.
13. Porter, M.C. and A.S. Michaels. Membrane ultrafiltration. Chem.
Tech., 1:56-63, January 1971.
14. Guinn, R.M. and W.K. Hendershaw. A comparison current membrane
systems used in ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. md. Water
Eny., 13(3):12-15, March 1976.
15. SCS Engineers. Wastewater management for new housing development:
advanced wastewater treatment techniques and new development.
HUD/RES—132l, Long Beach, California, January 1977. 47 p. (Available
from National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as PB—279 778.)
16. Krause, K.A. Cross—flow filtration and axial filtration. Proc.
Indus. Waste Conf., 29: 1059-1075, 1974.
17. Hoover, P.R., K.J. McNulty, and R.L. Goldsmith. Evaluation of
ultrafiltration and disinfection for treatment of blackwater. U.S.
Army Mobility Research and Development Command, Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, 1977. 47 p.
18. HarrIs, L.R. and C.M. Adema. Processing of raw sewage by
ultrafiltration. Report MAT-77-79, David W. Taylor Naval Ship
Research and Development Center, Bethesda, Maryland, 1977. 12 p.
19. Battacharya, 0., A.B. Jumawan, Jr., R.B. Grieves, and S.O. Witherup.
Ultrafiltration of complex stewaters; recycling for non—potable use.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 5O(5):846-86, May 1978.
20. eth1eln, N.E. Anaerobic digestion and menbrane separation of
domestic wastewater. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 50(4):754-763,
April 1978.
21. Poradek, J.C. I WO/NASA MIST ultrafiltration test proyrarn for
application in the MIUS demonstration; draft report. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, Texas, Lyndon B.
Johnson Space Center, 1977. 43 p.
100
-------
22. Gollan, A.Z., K.J. McNulty, R.L. Goldsmith, N.H. Kieper, and D.C.
Grant. Evaluation of membrane separation processes, carbon
adsorption, and ozonation for treatment of MUST hospital waste; final
report. Abcor, Inc., Wilmington, Massachusetts, Walden Research
Division, August 1976. 454 p.
23. Winneberger, J.H., A.B. Menar, and D.H. McGauhey. A study of methods
of preventing failure of septic—tank percolation fields; third annual
report. SERL Report No. 63—9, University of California, Berkeley,
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, December 1963. 82 p.
24. Winneberger, J.H. and D.H. McGauhey. A study of methods of preventing
failure of septic-tank percolation fields, fourth annual report. SERL
Report No. 65-16, University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory, October 1965. 56 p.
25. Hutzler, N.J. Evaluation of on—site treatment devices receiving a
controlled simulated waste. Masters Report, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1974. 138 p.
26. Laak, R., J.J. Kolega, B.J. Cosenza and M.S. Weinberg. Feasibility
studies on utilizing sodium bicarbonate with septic tank systems. In:
Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago,
Illinois, December 9—10, 1974. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1975. pp. 202-209.
27. Brandes, M. Phosphorus removal from human wastewater by direct dosing
of alum to a septic tank. Research Report W61, Ministry of the
Environment, Toronto, Canada, September 1976. 42 p.
28. Brandes, N. Effective phosphorus removal by adding alum to septic
tank. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 49(1l):2285-2296, Nov8iiber
1977.
29. Ulmaren, L. Reningresultat from provning an sma paketerenings—verk
vid Akeshous Reningsverk (Purification reports from testing of small
package sewage treatment plans at the Akewhov Sewage Treatment Plant).
Vatten No. 3, 1971. 362 p.
30. Barkshied, R.D. and H.M. El—Baroudi. Physical—chemical treatment of
septic tank effluent. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 46(10):
2347-2354, Noveiiber 1974.
31. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering; Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal. McGraw Hill, New York, 1972. 782 p.
32. SCS Engineers. Review of techniques for treatment and disposal of
phosphorus—laden chemical sludges; draft report. Contract No.
68-03-2432, Long Beach, California, February 1978. 451 p.
101
-------
33. Smith, J.J. The feasibility of using clinoptilolite for removal of
ammonia from septic tank effluents. Master’s study report.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Department of Clvii and
Environmental Engineering, 1978. 140 p.
34. Chowdhry, N.A. Domestic sewage treatment by underdralned filter
systems. Publication No. 53, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto,
Canada, Pollution Control Branch, 1974. 93 p.
35. Waldorf, L.E. The Boyd County Demonstration Project - a system
approach to individual rural sanitation (an update). In: Individual
On-Site Wastewater Systems, Proceedings of the Third National
Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Novenber 1976. An Arbor Science
Publisher,. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977. pp. 235-244.
36. Slkora, L.J., J.C. Converse, D.R. Keeney, and . C. Chen. Field
evaluation of a denitrification system. In: Proeedlnys of the
Second National Home Sewage Symposium, Chicago, IllinoIs, December
l2-l3 1977. American Societj of Agricultural Engineos, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 19784 pp. 202-207.
37. Z.arnett, G.D. Sorption capabilit1 s of soils for phosphorus removal.
Publication No. S58, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Canada,
Pollution Control Branch, January 1976. 56 p.
102
-------
SECTION 8
GENERAL
DISINFECTION OPTIONS
On—site wastewater treatment system effluents may require disinfection
prior to disposal by direct discharge, irrigation, or non—potable reuse (e.g.
toilet flushing) to meet environmental and/or public health requirements.
Disinfection is the selective destruction of disease-causing organisms and can
be effected by both physical and chemical agents (1). Disinfection options
and their applicability to on—site systems are summarized in Table 47. Those
with available hardware and on-site performance data are summarized below,
except composting and incineration which were discussed in Section 5.
CHLORINE
Solid chemi-
cals to create
liquid feed
System Requirements
Pellet or cake storage chamber
with flow—through mixing provi-
sions, and contact tank. Surge
tank and self-priming siphon (or
pump and controls) may be utilized
for more accurate dosage control.
Surge tank and self-priming
siphon (or pump), dry chemical
storage and feed device, solu-
tion mixer, solution storage and
feed tank, feed activation de-
vice. (If water supply for solu-
tion is household potable water,
a cross connection preventer
must also be provided.)
Surge tank and self-priming
siphon (or pump), dry chemical
storage and feed tank, feed
activation device, and contact
tank.
Comments
Chemical feed malfunc-
tion due to caking”
possible. Pellet or
cake storage must be re-
filled periodically.
Dry chemical storage
must be refilled perio-
dical ly.
Feed equipment malfunc-
tion possible. Liquid
solution storage must
be filled periodically.
Chlorine used as a wastewater disinfectant may
as briefly described below.
System Type
Sol id Feed
be added in several forms
Liquid Feed
103
-------
TABLE 47. DISINFECTION OPTIONS
Frequency of
Scheduled
Maintenance
Generic Type Performance ( 1/yr)
Hardware
Cueplesity
Equipment
Failure
(requiring)
unscheduled
service)
Envinemental Acceptability
(potential hazards and nuisances)
Range of
Mnu u l
Coat
($)a
ChEMICAL N Ot ES
Halogens
Chlorine Consistent 2-4 Sinpin Frequent Toxicity (chlorinated organics) 150-250
Iodine Consistent 2-4 Sizqsle Infrequent Toxicity uncertain 150—250
Bronine Potentially consistent Uninown Unknown Unknown Unknown 250-350
Halogen Mixtures Potentially consistent 2-4 Sinple-ncsdsrute frequent toxicity (kalognnated organics) 250-350
- Ozone Consistent 2-4 Coxplen treqsnst Toxicity unknown, safety (tsr
pure oxygen feed) 450-600
- Halogen plus Ozone Potentially consistent 2-4 Coopiex Preqsent Toxicity uncertain 500—650
- Acids and Bases potentially cansintent Unknmm Moderate Unknown Neutralization rnqairnd 450-600
- Alcuflols potentially consistent Unknsws Moderate Unknown Increeses effluent ROD 250-450
- Dyes Ineffective - — ---
- Heavy Metals Potentially consistent Unknown Untnoies Unknown Toxicity, residuals disposal 450-600
Hydrogen Peroxide Ineffective -—- ---
- Pernsanganate Potentially consistent Unknown Unknown Unknown Residuals disposal 450-600
a
Phenols Potentially consistent Unknown Moderate Unknown Effluent tsaicity 250-450
Quaternary Pcaonia Potentially consistent Unknown Unknown Unknown Tonicity 450—600
- Snrfactants Ineffective -- .
PHYSICAL AGENTS
Irradsat ion
Ultruvislet Consistent 2-4 Moderate Infrequent Tosicity anksown 15 0 -258
Canine ray Appears cossistent 2-4 Canp les Inireqasst Safety 580-700
X-ray Potentially consisteat Unknown Moderate Unknown Safety 400-600
Electrochessical Unknown -- —--
Thermal
aeating Potentially consistent 2-4 Moderate Frnqannt High nfflunnt tnnperatpre 1500t
Freezing Potentially consistent — — ———
ultrulsltratsse Potentially consistent 2—4 Moderate Frequent Lscestrate disposal 250—400
- Ultrasonics Unknown -- ---
PiiOSICM. PtUS CMENLCAL
AGENTS
— U ltraoio let plus
ozonee Appears csnsistent 2-4 Moderate Infrequent Taxicity nnknosin 150-250
- Ultraviolet plus
halogens Potontally consistent 2—4 Moderate Frequent Tnoicity (haiogenated nrganics) 300-600
• Aniortizcd capital cost plus annual operation and eaintenance costs
o Ozone generated ky specialized EN lenp
-------
Gas Feed Gas storage cylinder, regulator, Toxic gases or explosion
feed equipment with diffuser, possible if equipment
and contact tank. fails. Gas storage
cylinder refilling re-
quired periodically.
Gaseous feed chlorination
not likely to be widely
used for on-site applica-
tions due to potential
hazards.
Preniixed liquid solutions or dry solid feed chlorination systems are
normally most suitable for on—site applications.
Performance
Currently available dry feed chlorine disinfection units have been shown
to provide adequate disinfection of various on-site wastewater treatment
system effluents. Specific data describing the performance of these units is
shown in Table 48 (2,3). Additional data documenting on—site applications of
cnlorine disinfection of wastewater were not available.
• Number, type, nature, and condition of organisms that are to be
killed;
• Wastewater pH and temperature;
• Presence oxidizable inorganic and organic substances in wastewater
(H 2 S, Mn , Nil 3 , amino acids, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.);
and
• Presence of microorganisms enmeshed in solid material contained in
the wastewater (1,2,4—7).
These variables also affect the amount of contact time and therefore the
size of the contact chamber required to achieve the desired level of
disinfection (1,4,6,7). Overall, bacteria are readily killed by chlorine
disinfection, while viruses are somewhat resistant, and spores and cysts are
more resistant (6,8).
Due to the Inherent variability of influent wastewater characteristics,
on—site systems with flow - proportional chlorine feed (yielding constant
chlorine dosages) exhibit a wide range of free and combined chlorine residuals
and levels of disinfection. Furthermore, many systems are not capable of
achieving uniform (flow-proportional) chlorine dosages, consistent levels of
disinfection, or chlorine residual. Thus, overdosing is normally required to
ensure that the desired level of disinfection is consistently achieved for
systems which are not capable of providing consistent chlorine dosages. As a
result, high levels of chlorine residual may be found in the effluent.
105
-------
TABLE 48. DRY FEED CHLORINE DISINFECTION PERFORMANCE
• Pei-seot destfuctlo. are — ., 0 d fr or$gtaal (2). to 1t erst s. d1scrrp clrt have revolted
4 Cb1orl e mi a1i ljplcallj wI fr 0.1 to 1.0 J1. alt cevtrati as 6i as 1W .oJl e revorte
• Ike rates wIati t s to w .
Serce: Refecei P 3.
-a
Parter
£t t., R8tt ftcit
1t lr
ll
te
( d )
ftlwI
(maJl)
‘‘
T
(to f
Disiafecti it Performance
Re ct ion of
Oqanima C ao L
ld3 t
Lo 1 1 100 ml.
(9 51 Cf. lot.)
log 41100 .1 Peas
(951 f. lot.)
Log tv ts
Fercqit
Peon
Pea#
local Colifoom
3 1c T - S Filter
Septic 1 — Filter
lc it - S Filter
000-1W
400-000
100-1 50
11-36
1-11
18
9-13
45-9
.14-Il
2.8 (7.0-3.1)
3.7 (2.1-4.1)
3.3 (3.0-3.6)
0.3 (-0.3-I. ))
L8 (0.7-2.9)
0.9 (0.5-1.3)
2.5
1.9
2.4
2 6
99.7
98.7
99.6
99.7
Total Colifoom
Focal Strepto-
cocci
S *ic t - S Filter
tic T — Smad Filtas
Mr00lc lt - 3 4 FIlter
Septic T — -- Filter
Septic I — Seed Filter
,thtc I it - S Filter
000-400
4 0 0-1W
100-150
200-1W
400-000
100-150
11-36
1-17
18
11-36
7-11
18
9-18
4.5-9
14-11 -
5-18
4.5-9
14-11
3.1 (2.3-4.0)
4.2 (3.3-5.1)
42 (3S.3)
1.8 (1.0-2.2)
2.3 (1.3-3.0)
2.1 (2.2-3.1)
0.5 (.0.3-1.2)
2.3 (1.0-3.6)
1.5 (1.0-2.1)
0.3 (-0.2-1.8)
1.1 (0.3-2.0)
0.9 (0.5-1.2)
5.0
1.9
2.7
1 5
I 2
1 8
1 8
98.7
99.8
96.8
93.6
98.4
98.4
10101 BacterIa
Septic T - 5d FI1
Septic T — Sd Fflter
tc $t - I Filtir
1W-400
000-1W
100-150
11-36
7-Il
18
5-18
4.5-9
14-17
6.8 (9.9-7.8)
7.1 (3.2-0.1)
6.8 (6.5-7.1)
7.5 (1.0-7.8)
5.6 (5.14.0)
0.3 (--)
0.2
1.2
1 1
37.0
93.1
92.1
Pteud as
SOFII9itoSI
Septic Imat - seed FIlter
Septic T - S flltrv
lc I 1t — S Filter
200-1W
400-000
100-150
11-36
7-Il
10
5-18
4.5-5
14—17
1.4 (0.1-2.1)
—
2.4 (2.0-30 )
—
0.7 (0.3-1.1)
--
1 7
--
98.0
-------
System 0&M Requirements
Routine operation and maintenance of premixed liquid feed chlorination
systems consists of chemical refills, adjustment of feed quantity, and
maintenance of mechanical components two to four times per year. Currently
available dry feed chlorination systems require somewhat less frequent
chemical refills, but require more frequent chemical feed chamber cleaning to
prevent caking of hypochiorite tablets or pellets. Caking problems can cause
the system to provide insufficient chlorine dosages, requiring that the
equipment be cleaned and the chemicals replaced at least four times per year.
Additional unscheduled feed chamber cleanings will still be required. New
feed chamber designs may eliminate this problem.
Environmental Acceptability
Levels of combined chlorine residual as low as 0.05 mg/i have been shown
to be toxic to aquatic life in receiving waters (9,10). Since measurement of
a free chlorine residual is generally required to demonstrate that adequate
disinfection has taken place, chlorine disinfection of on-site wastewater
effluents may be environmentally undesirable for surface discharge. However,
the relatively snial 1 flow vol umes from on—site systems may be dil uted many
fold by the receiving waters, in which case the problem is minimized.
Disinfection requirements will be determined by state or local regulatory
authorities.
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 49.
IODINE
Iodine application to wastewater effluent provides disinfection, as
briefly described below.
System Type System Requirements Comments
Solid Feed Tank for iodine crystal storage Iodine crystal storage
and saturated iodine solution, must be refilled pen—
with wastewater flow—through odically.
-provisions (iodine “saturator”),
and contact tank. Surge tank
and self—priming siphon (or pump
and controls) may be used for
more accurate dosage control.
Liquid Surge tank and self-priming Feed equipment malfuric-
siphon (or pump), solution tion possible. Liquid
storage and feed tank, feed solution storage must
107
-------
TABLE 49. CHLORINATION COSTS
Initial Capital
Cost ($)
Capital Cost Item
Vault for chlorination system including
excavation and access hatch 20
$
400
Chlorination unit 10
200
Contact Chamber 20
100
Total Capital Cost
5
700
Unit Cost
Annual 0&M Cost Item Amount (S)
Annual O&M
Cost Cs)
Maintenance requi rements
Routine 4 hr/yr 8/hr
Unscheduled repairs 2 hr/yr 8/hr
$32
16
Chemical cost (calcium hypochlorite
@ 70% available chlorine) 4.75 kg/yr 2.65/kg
13
Total Annual 0&M Cost
$61
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs ortized
over 20 years @ 7% Interest, discount, and inflation -
(factor = 0.09439)
85
Annual O&M Costs
61
Total Annual Cost
$146
. $150
Design
Life
(vr)
108
-------
activation device, and contact be refilled periodi—
tanks. Systems continuously cally. Liquid solu—
preparing solution on-site must tions not widely avail—
provide iodine crystal storage able commercially,
and mixing tank, and water necessitating solution
supply. If water supply for preparation on—site.
solution is potable water, a
cross connection preventer is
required. If pH control is
required, a second chemical solu-
tion storage and feed tank, and
feed activation device must be
provided.
Solid feed iodination systems appear most suitable for on—site iodine
wastewater disinfection applications. Factors affecting iodine dosages
required to achieve a desired level of disinfection are as follows:
• Number, type, nature, and condition of organisms to be killed;
• Presence of oxidizable inorganic and organic substances in the
wastewater; and -
• Presence of microorganisms enmeshed in solid material contained in the
wastewater (6,11,12).
These variables also affect the amount of contact time and therefore the
size of the contact chamber required.
P erformance
Limited data indicate that iodine saturators ’ provide adequate
disinfection of effluent from an aerobic treatment unit followed by a holding
tank. Analysis of effluents from iodine contact chambers providing approxi-
mately 20 mm detention times reportedly revealed only trace fecal coliform
counts (Personal Communication. L. Waldorf. April 1978.) Virtually no other
documentation of iodine disinfection of on-site wastewater treatment system
effluents was found.
Data summarizing a recent study which attempted to achieve target fecal
coliform counts of 200/100 nil using various secondary and tertiary municipal
wastewater treatment system effluents are presented in Table 50 (12). In
general, these Investigations revealed a strong linear correlation between
wastewater turbidity and iodine dosage required to achieve specific effluent
fecal coliform counts (12). MunicIpal wastewater and on—site water
disinfection experience (11) indicate that bacteria are readily killed by
iodine disinfection while viruses are somewhat resistant and spores and cysts
are more resistant (11,13—18).
Since the solubility of iodine in water nearly doubles as temperature
increases from 0 to 20°C, the concentration of iodine contained in the
109
-------
-a
-a
TABLE 50. IODINE PERFOI1 ANCE DATA FOR VARIOUS EFFLUENT TYPES*
(Contact. Time — 45 mm)
lodive
t rr
thaj ctr,1atic3
Fecil
loflorit
(Log
1/100 .1)
Coliforu Count
Lffluent
(Log
1/100 .1)
R,t6jctloe of Colifot. Count
3led t 1
Lfflu t type ( l) (.uJl)
T tidky
(J1u)
155
(ofI)
- 800
(i11)
813-4
(.g /11
.
i .
(C°)
(Log w tts) (Per t)
an vean
Activated S1 9.30 0 4
(519—11.81) (0.18-1.54)
1.0
(5.1—12_0)
81.0 -
(IL1—29.0)
33.6
(25.0-45.0)
14.2
(10.8-18.5)
14.2
( 13.0-IS I)
4.9
(4.1-5.3)
2.?
(0 6-3 1)
2.7
99.75
Wil l dla FIltered 5.49 0.21
Activated Sledge (4.J0—4. ) (0.10-0.54)
3.8
(p_ i- 5.2)
13.5
( 9.3-15.7)
9.1
( 6.3-15.6)
11.3 -
(16.0-19.0)
30.0
(19.0-71 I)
4.9
(3.7-55)
2 5
(I 0-3.1)
2 4
98.57
tatiog II I . 3.96 0.
Caguctor litri- (1.84—5.81) (0.24-1.81)
fled tffl t
? 1
(1.8- 2.3)
6.3
( 3.3- 8.1)
9.5
( 5.9-14.5)
0.6
( 0.9- 2.0)
23.6
(22.4-25.0)
.
4 2
(3.7-4.6)
3 0
(I 6-3 6)
1.2
81 6
Activated SIu 2.81 0.
UltrIfied (2.81) (0.22-0.30)
EFfla t
12
(0.9— 1.6)
2.4
( 1.1— 3.6)
3.5
( 3.0- 4.0)
—
0.0
(0.0)
13.6
(13.0- 14.2)
2.6
(2.0-3.01
I 4
( 1. 0 -I 7)
1.2
- 94.91
• rrt of parentheses tadicale r ge of &ta
Sourva. Soferuact 12.
-------
saturated iodine solution feed tank is highly dependent on the wastewater
temperature (11,19,20). Thus, flow-proportional feed of a constant strength
iodine solution is difficult to achieve. To cope with this and the
variability of influent wastewater constituents reacting with iodine,
overdosing may be required to consistently achieve adequate levels of
disinfection. Manual or automatic control of flow through iodine saturators
could reduce the degree of overdosing resulting from increased iodine
solubility at higher temperatures (11).
System O&M Requirements
Routine system maintenance (2 to 4 times per year) and chemical refills
(once every 1 to 2 years) are required for iodine disinfection systems. As
part of the routine maintenance, it may be necessary to adjust the valves
controlling flow through the iodine saturator (as discussed above), and to
redistribute iodine crystals within the saturator if flow channelization
through the saturator occurs. Unscheduled maintenance, such as adjustment of
the iodine dosage or pump maintenance, is infrequent (Personal Communication.
L. Waldorf. April 1978.).
Environmental Acceptability
Although iodine generally does not react with organics present in
wastewater to form carcinogens, the toxicity to aquatic life of free iodine
residuals and wastewater constituents oxidized by iodine is uncertain
ii,18,2l). Slight overdosing of effluents intended for reuse should not be a
problem (e.g., toilet staining should not occur) (22).
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 51.
OZONE
Use of ozone as a wastewater disinfectant is briefly described below.
System Type System Requirement Comments
Injection of Surge tank, self-priming siphon Explosion hazard with
ozone gener— (or pump), oxygen gas cylinders pure oxygen gas cylin—
ated from pure and regulator, ozone generator der failure. Gas
oxygen gas controls, ozone injection and storage cylinder re—
cylinders contact device and cooling ter placement (refilling)
supply (optional). required periodically.
Injection of Surge tank, self_priming siphon Ozone generators uti—
ozone gener— (or pump), ozone generator, linng air as an oxygen
111
-------
TABLE 51. COST ESTIMATE FOR AN IODINATION UNIT
FOR ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISINFECTION
Initial Capital
Cost (S)
Capital Cost Item
.
Vault for iodinat on system including
excavation and access hatch 20
$ 400
Iodinator, (Iodine saturator) 8-lb unit 10
300
Contact Chamber 20
100
Total Capital Cost
$ 800
Unit Cost
Annual O&M Cost Item Amount ($)
Annual
Cost
O&M
($)
Mai ntenance Required
Routine 3 hr/yr 8/hr
Unscheduled repairs 1 hr/yr 8/hr
$ 24
8
Chemical (crude iodine) 2.5 kg/yr 16/kg
40
Total Annual O&M Cost
$ 72
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs amortized
over 20 years @ 7% interest, discount, and inflation -
(factor = 0.09439)
$ 104
Annual 0814 Costs
72
Total Annual Cost
$176
$180
Design
Life
(vr’
112
-------
ated from controls, ozone Injection and source without air pre—
oxygen in contact device, and cooling paration equipment re—
ambient air water supply (optional). quire more frequent
maintenance and reduce
service life.
Injection of Same as above, with addition of Air dryer desiccant
ozone gener- air filter and heatless air cartridge refills re—
ated from dryer. quired periodically.
oxygen con-
tained in pre—
treated ambient
air
Air feed ozone generators with or without air preparation equipment are
available and appear suitable for on—site wastewater disinfection
applications. Dosages required to achieve a desired level of disinfection
depend on several factors including:
• Number, type, nature, and condition of organisms that are to be
killed;
,i Presence of reactive inorganic and organic substances present in the
wastewater;
• Presence of microorganisms enmeshed in solid material contained in the
wastewater; and
i Method of ozone injection into and contact with the wastewater.
P erformance
Virtually no data are available in the literature docunenting performance
of on—site ozone wastewater disinfection units. Data summarizing a recent
study which attempted to achieve target fecal col iform counts of 200/100 ml,
using various secondary and tertiary municipal wastewater treatment system
effluents are presented in Table 52 (12). These and other investigations
revealed the following trends:
• There is a strong correlation (quadratic) betwaen wastewater turbidity
and ozone dosage required to achieve specific effl uent fecal col iform
counts (12);
• Time required for bacterial kill Is short, with most bacteria killed
within the first three minutes of contact (12,23);
• Dissolved COD, nitrite, and TOG are the primary wastewater constit-
uents that reduce the effectiveness of ozone as a disinfectant. The
method of ozone injection and contact is also significant (24,25);
and
113
-------
TABLE 52. OZONE PERFORMN1CE QATA FOR VARIOUS EFFLUENT TYPES*
(Contact TiLe - 1.6 .in)
• N ers of p r thts Iud1c te r of t .L
Source: Reference 12.
-S
-a
Effluent Type
ie e.age
(.qJl)
.r tenfttIcs
Fecal Coliforn
l.fluent
tff I ueot
Colt For. Count
Tcebidfty
( .1101
13$
(311)
e
(.oIl )
-i
( . i11
1 .
(C )
(Log
11100 ml)
(Log
11100 .1)
(Log th it ) (P.rce.t)
Mepn Meen
3 99 34
Activated Sludge
13.41
(W.W - 14.65)
1.0
(5.1—12.0)
30.0
(12.7—33.0)
33.1
(25.0—45.0)
II?
( 10.8-15.5)
14.2
(13.0-15.1)
4.9
(4.1—5.3)
4.9
2
(1 3-3 2)
2 4
2.5 99.58
1 ia1 dIa Filtried
Activated Sludge
4.30
(L9 —5.W)
3.5
( 2.7—5.2)
12.5
(9.3-15.1)
Li
(63—15.6)
17.3
(16.0-15.0)
30.0
(19.0—21.1)
(3.7—5.5)
4.2
(2 0-2 7)
2 0
2 2 99.30
ReLating FIlm
C t tue Situ-
lied Effluent
3.58
(2.96.4.06)
2.1
(1.8-2.3)
6.3
(3.3-8.7)
9.6
(5.9-14.5)
a 6
(0.9-2.0)
(33.6—25.0)
(3.7-4 6)
2 6
(1 5-2 2)
I I
1 5 92.58
Activated Sludge
UltrItied
Effluent
3.61
(3.33..4. )
1.2
(0.5-1.6)
2.4
(11-3.6)
3.5
(3.0.4.0)
0.0
(o 0)
13.6
(11.0-14.2)
.
(2.0-3 0)
(0 7-1 5)
-------
. Ozone residuals dissipate to zero within approximately three minutes
of injection into the wastewater (12,23,24). Thus, pathogenic re—
growth and/or recontamination is possible (6). Additional
disinfection may be required if disinfected stewater is to be stored
prior to reuse or recycle. This may be achieved by continuously
recirculating the wastewater through the disinfection system,
recirculating it immediately prior to reuse, or by the addition of a
secondary, residual producing disinfectant.
Although the method of ozone injection into and contact with the
wastewater affects the overall efficiency of the disinfection process,
performance of the various ozone injection and contact systems for on—site
application is largely untested or proprietary in nature.
System Requi rements
Routine system maintenance is required two to four times per year if
ozone is generated by electrical current. This maintenance consists of
cleaning precipitated material (if any) from the ozone generator tubes, and
replacing the air dryer desiccant cartridges ( f system is so equipped).
Generators utilizing air—fed oxygen without air preparation equipment require
significantly more frequent maintenance (4 or more, times per year) and have a
potentially reduced service life since moisture in the air can combine with
oxides of nitrogen formed in the generator to produce highly corrosive nitric
acid. Additionally, cooling water may be required. Highly skilled personnel
are required to maintain these ozone disinfection systems. Frequent
unscheduled maintenance, such as desiccant replacement or generator
adjustment, is anticipated.
If ozone is generated by UV light, routine replacement of the UV lamp is
required annually. This maintenance can be performed by an unskilled
serviceman. Infrequent unscheduled maintenance such as desiccant replacement
or generator adjustment, is anticipated.
Environmental Acceptability
The explosive potential of pure oxygen feed systems, when considered
along with both the positive and negative factors relating to their use
(increased ozone generation rates versus frequent gas refills) is likely to
Inhibit their wide acceptance for on—site applications.
Generally, ozone disinfection Is not thought to produce any lasting
residual compounds toxic to higher life forms (although add lti9nal research Is
presently being conducted) (6,10,23,25). Since free ozone injected Into
wastewater dissipates rapidly, ozone disinfection of on—site wastewater
treatment system effluents with dosage levels required to ensure adequate
disinfection (including possible °overdosing”) should be acceptable for direct
discharge (providing other discharge requirements are met). However,
115
-------
unreacted ozone gas may destroy adjacent vegetation and other oxidizable
materials as a result of prolonged low—level oxidant exposure. (Personal Com-
munication. W. C. Boyle. May 1978.).
Costs
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 53.
ULTRAVIOLET IRRADIATION
The use of ultraviolet irradiation to disinfect on-site wastewater
effluent is briefly described below.
System Types
Thin film (thin
wastewater
layer thick-
ness, high UV
intensity,
short deten-
tion time)
System Requirements
Surge tank, self—priming siphon
(or pump), ultraviolet disin-
fection unit (with lamp emitting
UV radiation of 254 nm), and
controls.
Comments
Periodic UV lamp
auart sleeve clean-
ing and occasional
1 amp r p1 acement re-
quired. Automatic
lamp sleeve wiper
systems are available
which should reduce
the frequency (but
not eliminate) clean-
ing and improve UV
radiation transmission
between cleanings
Thick film
(thick waste—
water layer
thickness,
low UV in-
tensity,
long deten-
tion time)
Surge tank, self-priming siphon
(or pump), ultraviolet disin-
fection unit (with lamp emitting
UV radiation of 254 nm), and
control s.
Same as above, except
lamp may not have
quartz sleeve. Lamp
may require more fre-
quent repl acement.
Relatively large
irradiation chamber
required as part of
disinfection unit.
Thin film UV disinfection systems appear to be more practical for on—site
applications than thick film systems. The dosage of WI irradiation required
to achieve a desired level of disinfection depends on several factors,
including:
• Nature, type, number and condition of organisms that are to be
killed;
• UV lamp intensity;
116
-------
TABLE 53. OZONATION SYSTEM COSTS
Design
Life
Capital Cost Item (yr)
Ca
pital Cost
($)
Vault for ozone generator including
excavation and access hatch 20
$
400
Ozone generation system including tube type
generator, controls, air preparation package
(filters, compressor and dryer), and injection
system and contact chamber 10
1800
Surge tank and self-priming siphon (or pump) 10
200
Total Capital Cost
$
2400*
Unit Cost
Annual 0&M Cost Item Amount ($)
Annual 0&M
Cost ($L
Electri city
(ozone generator, pumps,
compressor and dryer) 160 kwh/yr 0.05 kwh/yr
$ 8
Maintenance
Routine 4 hr/yr 12/hr
Unscheduled 2 hr/yr 1w/hr
Water 9100 gal/yr 0.001/gal
75/ea
48
24
9
15
Desiccant cartridge 1/five yr
Total Annual 0&M Cost
$104
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs amortized’ over
20 years @ 7% interest, discount, and inflation - (factor =
0.09439)
415
Annual 0&M Cost
Total Annual Cost
$ 519
‘ $520
*price will vary depending primarily on the manufacturer and location. UV
generation of ozone will be significantly less expensive (an estimated $150 -
$200 total annual cost), but the capacity of current units (single lamp)
requires some previous removal of pathogenic organisms. Data on multi-lamp
performance was not available.
117
-------
• Wastewater layer thickness and distance from the UV lamp;
• Wastewater transmlssivity; and
• Wastewater detention (exposure) time and flow pattern within the
disinfection unit (2,6,25—29).
Performance
Currently available UV disinfection units appear to be capable of
providing consistently high levels of disinfection provided that routine
maintenance is performed. Data describing the performance of specific on-site
thin film UV disinfection units are shown in Tables 54 and 55 (2). AdditIonal
data docunenting on-site wastewater applications of UV disinfection were not
available. It should be noted that these investigations did not present data
detailing westewater transmissivlty or power por unit area actually received
by the wastewater. In general, these and other lnvestigat:ons revealed:
• Mean log col iform reductions are inversely propo ional to wastewater
flow rates and directly proportional’ to wastewater transmissivity
(25)
• Suspended solids concentrations as high as 35 mg/i and flow rates as
greet as 25 1/mm (6.5 gpm) did not significantly affect the level of
disinfection achIeved (2); and
• Wastewater transmlsslvity is most significantly decreased by the
presence of turbidity, color, dissolved organics, and Iron (6,28,30).
Overall, bacteria and viruses are’ most readily killed, while spores and
cysts require somewhat higher levels of I.N energy and detention times (28).’
It should be noted that pathogenic regrowth or recontamination of UV
disinfected wastewater Is possible since UV Irradiation does not produce a
residual capable of providing long—term disinfection. Additional disinfection’
may be required If disinfected wastewater is to be stored prior to reusing or
recycling. This may be achieved by continuously recirculating the wastewater
through the disinfection system, recirculating it immediately prior to reuse,
or by the, addition of a secondary residual—producing disinfectant.
System O&M Requirements
Periodic manual cleaning (at least 3 tImes per year) of accuiiulated
materials Is required to restore tranamissivity of the UV lamp and/or the
quartz sleeve surrounding the UV lamp to its Initial level for systems in
which the equipment Is In contact with the wastewater. Cleaning Is required
more frequently for systems which receive wastewater intermittently, but
operate the UV lamp continuously. Automatic mechanical wiper systems for
cleaning UV lamp sleeves are commercially available, and their use should
reduce the frequency of periodic manual cleanings to twice or less per year.
(Personal Communication. 0. Sauer. Feb. 1978.) However, operation of
118
-------
TABLE 54. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION UNIT DESCRIPTION
Intensity
Effective
Wastewater
Film
Quartz
Sleeve
Chamber
Wall
Unit
Watts a
@ 2,537 A
Length
(cm)
Thickness (cm)
O.D. (cm)
I.D. (cm)
A
15
75
2.5
2.4
7.3
B
10.2
30.5
1.0
5.6
7.6
SOURCE: (2)
119
-------
TABLE 55. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION UNIT PERFORMANCE
Flow Rate
(1/Sn)
Detention
Tire
(sec)
Estimated
Ihesretica l
Power Per
Unit Area
(Oesign)u
( 11 sec/cm 2 )
15
11
75, 1 1 00
15
ii
75,000
7.5 —15
11- 22
75,000— 150,000
N)
0
Disinfection Unit Perfonnance
Reduction of
Inf luent
Log Sf100
ml mean
0 88
2.94
4 85
(3.52-6 0)
4 4*_a
(0 3 —5.5)
OIsief.ction Wastewater
Unit Enters
Letter Unit
Parameter ( si ll— Il .) Frcc
Fetal A aerobic onit —
Coliforns sand filter
A septic teak
sand filter
A aerobic unit
(su rged media)
8 ultrafiltration
(blackwater only)
Total A aerobic unit -
Colifoess sand filter
A septic tank —
sand filter
Feca l A aerobic unit
Streptococci sand filter
A aerobic unit
sana filter
A aerobic unit
(satarged media)
Total Bacteria A aerobic unit
(subuerged media)
Psesdmssoeas A aerobic unit
aeruginosa (submerged media)
Pulsoniras I A septic tank —
sand filter
(ffluent
Log 1/100
•l mean
z O,0
-0.11
1 45
(-0 43-2.78)
2
( 00 -5 1)
LogUn lts
mean
>0 88
3 05
3.40
(2 16-6.40)
1 6 ”
(0 -48(
15 11 75, 1100 53 h0.0 >1 53
15 11 75,000 301 001 306
75 .000
75,000
75,000- 150,000
1 31
2 56
4 01
(3 36—5 33)
Percent
mean -
>86
99.91
99.96
97 3*u
(0 -100)
>97
99 91
96 7
99 8
99 95
99 S b
99.95
>99 997
15 11 —017
15 11 —0.21
7.5 -15 11- 22 0.70
(-0 70-2 90)
1.5 -15 1 1- 22 75,000- iso,biio 8 85 5,58
(6 37—9 46) (3.93—7 0?)
7 5 —15 11- 22 75,000— 150,000 4 26 0 94
(3 lI-b 8) (0 30—2 73)
11 75,000 4 0 0 e+
15 liter
batch
1.48
2 77
3 31
(1 67—4 14)
3 27
(2 13-4.14)
3 32
(-0 43-5 08)
>4 6
Idastewater transmissiwity aed power per anit area actually received were not measured
Median of data presents
“ Units log f lU/a l.
Source (2)
-------
currently available lamp cleaning equipment requires a source of air or water
pressure, and results in additional capital and O&M costs. Development of
electrically operated wiper systems could potentially provide adequate lamp
sleeve cleaning at reduced capital and 0&M costs.
Periodic lamp replacement (approximately every 7,500 hours of continuous
operation) is required for all UV disinfection systems. More frequent
replacement is required if the output is reduced to an unacceptable level due
to “sol an zi ng” of the lamp surface. In general , occasional unscheduled
service (such as lamp cleaning) one or more times per year can be expected for
on—site UV disinfection systems.
Environmental Acceptabilit _ y
Generally, ultraviolet disinfection is not thought to produce any lasting
residual compound toxic to higher life forms, although additional research is
presently being conducted (25). Thus, UV disinfected wastewater should be
acceptable for direct discharge, providing other discharge requirments are
met.
Costs
Capital , operating and maintenance, and total annual costs for on-site IJV
disinfection systems are shown in Table 55.
DISINFECTION COMPONENT COMPARISONS
Disinfection comparisons for components with available hardware and
sufficient on—site performance information to permit detailed evaluation are
presented in Table 57. ComparisonS for components with available on-site
hardware but insufficient on—site performance information shov i in Table 58
are based on engineering judgment and should be reevaluated wtien data become
available.
121
-------
TABLE 56. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION SYSTEM COSTS
Initial Capital
Cost CS)
Capital Cost Item
Vault for UV disinfection unit including
excavation and access hatch 20
$ 400
UV disinfection unit and controls 10
550
Surge tank and self-priming siphon (or pump) 10
200
Total CapitalCosts
$1150
Unit Cost
Annual 0&M Item Amount ($)
Annual
Cost
O&M
($)
Electricity 55 kwh/yr 0.05/kwh
$ 3
Maintenance
Routine 3hr/yr 8/hr
Unscheduled 1 hr/yr 8/hr
24
B
UV lamp replacement 1/five yr 75/ea
15
Total Annual 0.&M Costa
$50
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs amortized
over 20 years 0 7% Interest, discount, and inflation -
(factor • 0.09439)
179
Annual 0&N Costs
50
Total Annual Costs
$ 229
$ 230
Design
Life
(yr)
22
-------
TABLE 57. DISINFECTION COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR COMPONENTS
WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION*
Ranking
Group
Component
Component
Ranking Factor
Ratings
Environmental
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
Total
Annual
Cost
($)
Performance
(5 max.)
O&M
Requirements
(5 max.)
A
Ultraviolet
5
3
3
11
230
Chlorine
4
3
1
8
150
Iodine
4
4
2
10
180
B
Ozone
5
2
1
8
520
* For components with sufficient on—site performance information and hardware available to permit
detailed evaluation. See Component Ranking Criteria for explanation of the ranking system.
-------
TABLE 58. DISINFECTION COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR COMPONENTS
WITH INCOMPLETE !NFORMATION*
Ranking
Group
Components
Component
Ranking Factor RatIngs
O&M Environmental
Requirements Acceptability
(5 max.) (3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
Range
of
Annual
Cost($)
Performance
(5 max.)
A
Ultraviolet plus
ozone+
5
3
3
11
150-250’
B
Halogen mixtures
4
3
1
8
250-350
Ganina ray
5
2
1
8
500-700
Ultraviolet plus
halogens
5
2
2
9
300-600
Halogen plus ozone
5
1
1
7
500-650
C
Heating
5
2
3
-
10
-
1500+
* —
or coniponents with available on-site hardware, but insuffirlent on-site performance intormation.
This comparison is based on engineering judgement and is subject to revision when data becomes
available.
+ Ozone generated by specialized UV lamp.
-------
REF ERE NCES
1. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment
and Disposal. McGraw—Hill, New York, 1972. PP. 353-363.
2. Small Scale Waste Managanent Project. Managoment of small waste
flows. Appendix A. Wastewater characteristics and treatment.
— EPA—600/2—78-173. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, September 1978. 764 p.
3. Sauer, D.K. Dry feed chlorination of wastewater on-site. University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Small Scale Waste Managenent Project, 1976.
16 p.
4. Clark, J.W., W. Veissman, and l.J. Hari ner. Water Supply and Pollution
Control. 2d. ed. International Texthook Company, Scranton,
Pennsjlvania, 1972. 674 p.
5. General El ectric Corporation. Water recovery and sol id waste
processing for aerospace and domestic applications. Volume II.
Final report. GE Document No. 73SD 4236, Valley Forge Space Center,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973. pp K1-K8.
6. Weber, W.J., Jr. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control.
Wiley—Interscleflce, New York, 1972. pp. 413-456.
7. Fair, G.M., J.C. Geyer, and D.A. Okuni. Water and Wastewater
Engineering. Wiley, New York, 1966-68. 2 vols.
8. Pelczar, M.J. , Jr. and R.D. Reid. Microbiology. 2d. ed. McGraw—Hill
New York, 1965. 670 p.
9. Zill ich, J.A. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals to freshwater
fish. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 44:212, 1972.
10. Ward, R.W., R.D. Giffin, G.M. DeGraeve, and R.A. Stone. Disinfection
efficiency and residual toxicity of several wastewater disinfectants.
EPA-600/2—76-156, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 146 p. (Available from National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) as PB—262 245.)
11. Cook, B. Iodine dispenser for water supply disinfection. Equipment
Developuent and Test Report 7400-1, U.S. Forest Service, San Dinias,
California, Equipment Develo uent Center, January 1976. 21 p.
125
-------
12. Budde, P.E., P. Nehm, and W.C. Boyle. Alternatives to wastewater
disinfection. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1 49(lO):2144-2156, October
1977.
13. Chang, S.L. and J.C. Morris. Elemental Iodine as a disinfectant for
drinking ter. md. Eng. Chein. 45(5);1009-1012, 1953.
14. Gershenfeld, L. Iodine as a vircidal agent. J. Mi. Pharm. Soc., Sd.
Ed., 44(3): 177—182, 1955.
15. Bl ack, A. P. , R. N. Ki ninan, W. C. Thomas, Jr., G. Freund, and E. D. Bird. Use
of Iodine for disinfection. J. Mi. Water Works Assoc., 57(11): 1401-1421,
1965.
16. Cramer, W.N., K. Kawata, and C.W. Kruse. Chlorination and lodinatlon
of poliovirus and f2. J. Water Pollut. Control ssoc., 48(l):61-76,
January 1976.
17. Berg, G. S. . Chang, and E K Harris. Devital izatlon f rnlcrorganlsrns
by •len.ntal iodine. I. ., Dynamics of the de ltll1zatlon of
enteroviruses by elemental Iodine. •Vlrology, 22:469-481, 1964.
18. Cook, B. Using iodine to disinfect water supplies. In: Individual
Onsite Wastowater Systems Proceedings of the Fourth National
Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 1977. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, MichIgan, 1978. pp. 217-226.
19. Allen, T.L. and R.M. Keefer. The formation of hypolodous acid and
hydrated Iodine cation by the hydrolysis of iodine. J. Am. Chein.
Soc., 77:2957-2960, 1955.
20. Hughes, W.L. The chemistry of lodination. Mi. N.Y. Acad. Sd.,
70(l):3-18, August 30, 1957.
21. Morgan, D.P. and J.P. Karpen. Test of chronic toxicity of iodine as
related to purification of water. U.S. Armed Forces Med. J.,
4:725-728, 1953.
22. Sax, Nd. Dangerous Properties of Industrial MaterIals. 4th ad. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975. 1258 p.
23. an, 1.9., C.L. Chen, and R.P. Miele. The significance of water
quality of wastewater disinfection with ozone. In: International
Ozone Institute Disinfection Symposium Proceedings, Chicago, Illinois,
June 2-4, 1976. pp. 46-65.
24. Nobel, C., R.D., Gottschling, R.L. Hutchison, T.J. McBride, D.M.
Taylor, J.L. Pavoni, M.E. Tittlebauin. N.E. Spencer, and H.
126
-------
F leischman. Ozone disinfection of industrial-municipal secondary
effluents. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 45(l2):2493-2507, December
1973.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology transfer notes.
Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1977. 10 p.
26. Huff, C.B., H.F. Smith, W.D. Boeriny and N.A. Clarke. Study of
ultraviolet disinfection of water and factors in treatment
efficiency. Public Health Rep., 80(8):695-705, 1965.
27. Berg, G. Removal of viruses from sewage effluent and waters. Bull.
W.H.O. 49:451-460, 1973.
28. Mazy, R. Water sterilization by ultraviolet radiation. Research
Report BL—R-6-1059-3023—1, Westinghouse Electric Company, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Lanys Division, 1955.
29. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News No. 2. American Water Works Research
Foundation, Denver, Colorado, Novenber, 1977.
30. Hoover, P.R., K.). McNalty, and R.L. Goidsinith. Evaluation of
ultrafiltration and disinfection for treatment of black water. U.S.
Army Mobility Equipment Research and Developnent Command, Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, 1977. 47 p.
127
-------
SECTION 9
DISPOSAL OPTIONS
GENERAL
On—site wastewater treatment system effluents may be discharged to the
atmosphere, surface water, soil or combinations. Soil disposal , in the form
of a 11 conventional” soil absorption field, is by far the most common and
accepted on-site disposal method. However, site—specifc limitations often
make other methods of disposal necessary or desirable. Dis osal options and
their applicability to on—site systems are summarize in Table 59. The
options with available on—site hardware and performance data are discussed
below, except incineration which was covered in Section 5.
ATMOSPHERE DISPOSAL
As shown in Table 59, atmosphere disposal may be accomplished by a
variety of means. However, evapotranspiration (ET) is the only method listed
with available on—site hardware and performance information which discharges
exclusively to the atmosphere. Mechanical evaporator pilot studies have been
conducted, and additional hardware development is planned. Evaporative
lagoons are generally unlined, and are discussed under COMBINATIONS of
disposal methods.
Evapotranspi ration
ET disposal is most likely to be used in situations where direct
discharge or soil disposal is not feasible and adequate net evaporation
potential is available. The primary El configuration options are indicated
bel ow.
System Type System Requirements Comments
Built to Distribution piping, im— Aesthetically most accept-
existing grade pervious liner, gravel, able. Evapotranspiration
sand (with appropriate must exceed precipitation In
capillary rise character— all months or storage faci—
istics), and selected lities are required.
vegetation (tolerant of
moisture extremes)
Mounded Same as above. Mounded to reduce precipita-
tion infiltration; effec-
tiveness is variable. Eva—
128
-------
TABLE 59. DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Pu-futs ice
Frapcscy at
Fatlwe
51e*,iIal
(rututrur pi
$tuuitasn flin%aue
t i /w i Comlexuty
uusja,lulS
se.,ucx)
Aftectal , esy
WGlstatt
p3tonuaI 13 ’
w%lstuC
gntustial ly
ceusustat
1 utattal ly
utusustat
(n,urauwutxl fluxqut4nl uty
Irreaurual hx,austs ant nuusjitut)
-a
N)
u . n
Rsge at
fetal Nesaul
Ctet
(5).
U staple
2-4 staple
)4 auletate
)4 eo rde -
couple.
trtnsputet
tutruup eat
utadi
uton
eta’ asi mstluttcs
titttcs
aIr uja tssluts
n1c T a
Am
- eea i*ri lratt Ni
(ll )
- it ’s e, Iw
- cu ueskal
-
53IL
- n f l duusfltIul
- . aawut lmai
• uro ilf tel
dislrtbuttuu
Null
,nttftcatlu’
- unigattco
• dr ip
ufray
aeaiad flu ,
iira InTTR
- direct disdauw
WliIMTlt l G
- evapittauspirdiuV
- .ailtrei Ia in
u’oeeflu,
30-350
PEt
ao, 55. N . P .
uatcrdulolcgical
ao, 55, N, P.
elcgthIaIo tlcel
ao. $5, N, P .
talcrdulola tlcal
an, ss. N, P.
eicruiuiolotlcal
$5, 613, P. N
atudstolo lcaI
55, , P . N
wtcaetiolc ical
55, aD, P. N
aIQ5$tel lCal
$5, NI), P N
eicrduuolu ic.ul
55, aD, P, N
elceduuolojical
53, 613, P . I I
uotcutduuolroical
53, liD, P, N
micutbueluitical
5$, liD, P, N
etatbiolcuptal
5$, liDS P . N
autatb tolog lcal
ceusistast
<1
staple
iofreptet
pna-c%etsi p u 1 uty sipacts
IW-2P)
c i
staple
tthupnit
9nsoSctsi paul ity sipucts
203-4 10
((0-203
utentuaIIy
w u susteaut -
ceusustet
2-4
2-4
2-4
staple
staple
staple
uatuxuau
uatunau
utoju
t, tealth effects,
uSys, tusaith effects, ,uesuettts
cut ’s. t lth effects. agtpttcs
150-26)
1 ( 0-203
1 otattully
aunustcot
( I
staple
uefnspaant
NDaasl53( Dug/I, grain
sate pualuty, aid ef flint
toselcuty
pwsttta polity urpacts
2 03-353
wntstat
cuuststait
C l
2-4
staple
staple
trufre euut
uatru 4 aiuut
ubr, instietucs sit pixautautur
1 1 0- Il)
uxusistat
2-4
eutate
urffnicpant
cpualuty brpacts
SD aid 55< Dull stniao iota
cpuxlity, etfluast tosucuty,
ott aid pt.ssiuatter polity
313-350
Aiurtuzel capital plus .enial qiuratiuru an) esuuetou.oou cnts Ibis r IrcIuta cir.t a setnaatisst.
-------
potranspiration must exceed
precipitation in all months
or storage facilities are
requl red.
Covered Same as above, plus trans— Designed to expand the
parent covering • climate range for which El
disposal is feasible.
Additional options incorporating other methods of disposal, such as unlined El
beds, are discussed under COMBINATIONS.
Performance——
The performance of El beds depends primarily on appropriate sizing, which
depends on local ET potential. In addition, appropriate selection of cover
vegetation and the use of sand with adequate capillary nsa characteristics
are important. A variety of methods are available for estimation of ET
potential 1 including:
• Blaneyi.Cnlddla method (l
• Jonsen-}taise method (2)
• Penman method (3)
• Priestley and Taylor method (4)
However, the accuracy of these methods In predicting El varies with
locatIon (5,6). Thus, use of these methods for determining ET bed size will
result In variable performance. In addition, there are significant
differences of opinion between researchers on the effects of advection,
wastewatar heat, biological heat production, wastewater quality and vegetation
cover on El rates (5,7,8). Thus, field data are currently recommended for
optimal El bed design.
Field data on determination of El rates are currently rather limited,
although additional field Investigations are currently In progress (Personal
Communication. N.J. Pence, F.G. Longry, L. Pasaren, and K. Lomax. December
1977, AprIl 1978, February 1978, and February 1978, respectIvely.) Data from
21 months 0 f testing In Colorado and observation of field Installations In
Colorado and elsewhere, indicate that El disposal is effective. However, the
reported range of climatic conditions In which ET is effective varies
considerably (Personal Communication. H.T. Pence. December 1977) (7,8,).
Data from Colorado Indicate that provision of necessary wastewater storage
capacity Is Impractical in areas where evaporation does not exceed
precipitation by at least 5 cm (2 in.) in every month of the year (8).
Salt accumulation occurs In El beds as a result of dissolved solids
contained In the wastewater applied. Observations of El beds which have been
in operation for 5 years indicate no major problems associated with salt
accumulation. Salt accumulation Is particularly pronounced at the surface of
the ET bed during dry periods (although It Is redistributed by rainfall) and
130
-------
could potentially have an adverse effect on vegetation after a long period of
use (8).
System O&M Requirements--
Routine maintenance of a properly designed and constructed ET disposal
unit is normally required only if wastewater is pumped to the ET unit. Pump
and level control inspection and adjustment is normally required annually.
Unscheduled maintenance, such as repair of level control apparatus, is
required infrequently.
Environmental Acceptabil ity——
Depending on specific system characteristics, including the vegetation
utilized, the size of the system and the extent of site grading required,
visual aesthetics may be a problem for some installations. Otherwise, El
disposal generally presents no nuisance or hazard.
Cost s--
Capital, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 60 for an El bed without provisions for long-term storage.
SOIL DISPOSAL
On—site disposal of wastewater to the soil may be accomplished by use of
a “conventi onal” soil absorption field (al so cal led “leach field .‘ “disposal
field” or ‘drainfield”) ; a variety of soil modification techniques (i.e.,
mounds); modified distribution approaches (i.e., dosing and resting or
pressure distribution); or irrigation. In certain areas wtiere groundwater is
deep, especially in some western states, seepage pits are used instead of a
“conventional” soil absorption field. The function of each of these soil
disposal methods normally is to provide treatment as well as disposal of the
wastewater applied. In general, soil disposal is considered to perform
adequately if it absorbs all the wastewater applied, provides an acceptable
degree of treatment before the wastewater reaches the groundwater, and has a
reasonably long life (approximately 20 yrs) (9).
Conventional Soil Absorption Fields
The characteristics of conventional soil absorption field configuration
options are Indicated below.
System Type System Requirements Comments
Trench system Distribution piping and Most common type of on-site
aggregate . disposal
Bed system Distribution piping and Applicability generally
aggregate, limited to sites with rela—
131
-------
TABLE 60. ET BED COSTS*
Capital Cost
Item
Amount
Design Installed
Life Unit Cost
(yr) ($)
Capital Cost
($)
Sand
Plastic liner
260 m
475 in
20 7.5/rn 3
20 1.1/rn 2
1 ,950
520
Distribution piping
Gravel
Excavation
190 rn
30 m
290 nr ’
20 4/
20 7.Bm .,
20 1.l/m
760
225
320
Pump and controls
1
10 250
250
Pumping Chamber
1
20 300
300
$4,
Total Capital Cost
$4,325
Annual 0&M Cost
Unit Cost
Annual 0&M Cost
Item
Amount
($)
($)
Maintenance requi red
Routine
2 hr
10/hr
20
Unscheduled repairs
0.5 hr
10/hr
5
Total Annual 0&M Cost
$25
Annual Cost
Present worth of the
sum of the capital
costs amortized
over 20 years @ 7%
(factor = 0.09439)
interest, discount
and inflation
432
Annual 0&M Cost
25
Total Annual Cost
$457
— $460
* Costs are presented for 465 m 2 (5,000 ft 2 ), 0.6 m (2 ft) deep El bed
(the size typically required for a residence in Boulder, Co.).
Availability and therefore the cost of appropriate sand is a significant
variable. It addition, provision of storage capacity for extended periods
will significantly increase the cost. Bed size varies substantially with
climate.
132
-------
tively coarse grained
soils since the permeability
of these soils is not ad-
versely affected by
construction practices.
Specific characteristics vary widely, including:
• Aggregate size;
• Type of distribution piping;
• Trench or bed dimensions and overall size; and
• Trench configurations (i.e., continuous, parallel, etc.).
Performance— -
Studies of conventional soil absorption field longevity and ability to
accept wastewater indicate that field performance depends on a variety of site
specific factors, including:
• Soil percolation rate;
• Depth of unsaturated soil;
• Slope;
• Soil type;
• Design and construction practices;
• Influent wastewater characteristics; and
• Hydraulic loading rate (10—21).
Although effective removal of all wastewater contaminants in the soil
system is important for the protection of groundwater quality (and surface
water qual ity where groundwater and surface water contact) , publ ic health
concerns center primarily on the effectiveness of the soil in removing the
bacteria, viruses, phosphorus and nitrogen. Detailed discussion of the
factors affecting the removal of these constituents in the soil system are
available in the literature (12,22,23).
In general , the extent to which pathogens are removed by soil depends on
several factors, including:
• Soil moisture;
• Soil texture;
• Soil type;
• Soil temperature;
• pH;
• Biological Interactions; and
• Application rates.
Unsaturated flow conditions, higher temperatures, finer soil particle
size and developoent of a clogging mat at the infiltrative surface all tend to
facilitate pathogen removal. Coarse—grained soils generally have the lowast
capacity for pathogen removal. Howaver, laboratory studies indicate effective
133
-------
pathogen removal is achieved in 0.6 in (2 ft) of coarse-grained soil following
development of a biological mat. Under saturated flow conditlons without the
biological mat, adequate pathogen removal may not be realized (23).
Ammonia Is oxidized to nitrate under aerobic soil conditions, except in
some fine textured soils where ammonia is retained by complexing with the
soil. Nitrates are generally mobile and free to percolate through the soil
and Into the groundwater, although denitrificatlon In the soil will occur
under some conditions. Dilution Is the principal means of alleviating harmful
nitrate concentrations In the underlying groundwater. In the areas where the
density of soil absorption fields is high and/or other sources of nitrate
input to the groundwater are significant, nitrate contamination of the
groundwater may be a problem.
In general, “conventional” soil absorption fields have been shown to
perform well at sites In soils with measured percolation rates less than
24 mm/an (<60 min/in.) with a depth to groundwater or bedrock of at least
0.9 in (3 ft), and with level or gently sloping topography (9). However, many
systems which provide adequate treatment. anddisposal ha, also been Installed
under a wide variety, of other conditions ,(Personal Commun1c t1on. J. Abney
and J.T. Wlnneberger. March 1978.).
System 0&M Requirements—-
Maintenance of a properly designed and constructed conventional soil
absorption field Is normally not required. However, rehabilitative
maintenance (i.e., “regeneration”) or replacement will be required for
“falling” systems. Regeneration,, such as treatment with hydrogen peroxide, or
replacement may be accomplished by an unskilled laborer under.the.dlrectlon of
a trained and experienced supervisor.
Environmental Acceptabil Ity-—
A properly designed and constructed soil absorption field preceded by
pre—treatment for removal 0 f settleable and floatable solids, generally
presents no hazard or nuisance. However, nitrate contamination of groundwater
may be a problem in regions with a high density of soil absorption systems.
The density level at which soil absorption systems may pose a health hazard is
dependent on soil and groundwater characteristics and has not been quantified.
Where nitrate contamination of groundwater is the primary concern, a reduction
In nitrogen loading could be accomplished by pretreatment or segregation and
containment of blackwater.
Costs—-
The principal factors determining the capital cost of a soil absorption
field include the size, trench width, trench depth a d aggregate costs . Costs
have been reported to range from $1O.7S—$22.6O/ ($1.00—%.1O/ft ) (24).
For the purposes of this study, a value of $16/rn’ ($1.50/ft ) will be used
for cost estimation purposes. Thus for a range of soil absorption field size
134
-------
of 35 to 93 m 2 (375 to 1000 ft 2 ), the capital cost is $560 to $1500.
Annual 0 & M costs are considered to be negligible. Based on a 20 year
service life for the absorption field, the total annual cost range is $53 to
$142.
Soil Modification Absorption Fields
In many areas of poor site suitability for conventional subsurface
disposal (shallow, permeable soils over creviced or porous bedrock; permeable
soils with seasonally high groundwater; or, in some cases, slowly permeable
soils), additional satisfactory soil material may be provided in order to
achieve proper treatment of the wastewater and provide a controlled
infiltration rate to the native soil. The most common approaches to soil
modification with subsurface application are briefly described below:
System Type System Requirements Comments
Mound with bed Pumping chamber, pump and con- For sites with exces—
distribution trols (or dosing siphon if site sively or moderately
topography is appropriate), sand, permeable soils (with
gravel, and distribution piping. high groundwater or
shallow creviced or
porous bedrock)
Mound with Same as above. For sites with slowly
trench dis- permeable soils.
tribut ion
Site specific characteristics, particularly soil type, soil depth, soil
percolation rate, and slope, will determine important design features such as
bed or trench dimensions, trench spacing, and overall disposal area dimensions
(23, 25—27).
In areas wtiich would be suitable for conventional subsurface disposal
except for shallow groundwater, it may be possible to artificially divert the
groundwater to lower the water table. At such sites where diversion is
effective, conventional soil absorption systems could be used. (Personal
Communication. J. Abney. October 1978.)
Performance——
In general, modified soil treatment and disposal systems are considered
to perfom satisfactorily if surface seepage is absent and groundwater quality
Is protected. Mound designs developed in Wisconsin (23, 25-27) have been used
to construct several hundred mounds in the state. (Personal Communication.
J. Harkin. May 1978.) Performance data for four prototype mound field
installations based on a preliminary design are presented in Table 61. As
shown, the mounds generally achieved significant reductions in BOD, COD, total
nitrogen and colifom levels (28,29). However, seepage was observed at two of
the mounds despite actual loading rates being significantly below the design
13S
-------
TPBIE 61. N1 OPERF 1 4 NI TA
BOO
COD
NH , iO
Total N
Fecal Fecal Total
Coliform Streptococcus Coli’ormo
—eq_ /i
rn ers m
Vmur d I
1nfloent
Seepage at toe
of ousna
Not det ected°
14i(19)
12(l)
--
323(20)
166(2)
.—
42(13) 2.5(15)
O.4C2) 1.5(2)
.- . —
58(11)
3.7(2)
——
3,900(22) 3(21) 19,000(23)
0.5(4) l.1 ’lO) 2.4(7)
5 I 0
Maund 1
Criflueot
Seepage at toe
of uewid
Nat detected
107(19)
11(1)
-—
249(20)
140(3)
.—
34(15) 5(16)
2.1(3) 2.3(3)
— - -
50(13)
6.2(3)
-—
5,900(21) 46(2.) 39,000(20)
.5.6(2) 0.8(3) 9.1(4)
5 3 3
Mound 111
Inf lue ot
Liquid within
00 ,0 ,4 at toe
Not detected
91(19)
13(4)
--
217(19)
57(3)
-—
33(11) 0.5(13)
0(2) 11(2)
- — - -
40)10)
18 (2)
-—
12,000(20) 240(18) 59,900(19)
1.0(9) 0.6(6) 17(6)
0 2 0
Mound V
lnfluent
Collection -
dike
90.35
0
256.80
42
56.9 01
2lI 54i.4 ’°
-—
-—
2,500(14) 1oO(13) 31,90O(15)
5(7) 1.8)9) 54(13)
O.02)4) (0.02(3)
Gemeetnic sean values are reparted
Not detected (NO) indicates the number of bacteriological samples with oegative results
Le., (0.1 organisms/mi.
dian values edtalved freq lay-probability graphs.
NIoi ers in parentheses indicate the number of ueples.
Values reported for l4ay sampling as l*i -M arid V03 N * 1 8 )2_il. Values for Oecerober sere
significantly lilfereec (30 PP’ 50 3. 6 ppm NH 4 )
Sourte Ref. 28 and 29.
‘136
-------
loading rates. Seepage was attributed to a lack of surface soil plowing and
uneven distribution of flow.
More recently constructed mounds based on an improved design have
provided improved levels of treatment and significantly reduced the occurrence
of seepage (due in large part to improved methods of soil preparation prior to
construction and use of pressure distribution systems). Mound designs
developed in Pennsylvania and North Dakota have also been successfully used
for on—site wastewater treatment and disposal. However, quantitative data on
their performance has not yet been assembled. (Personal Communication. U.
Harkin. May 1978.)
System O&M Requirements——
Operation and maintenance requirements of mounds or similar modified soil
treatment and disposal methods are limited to the pump and associated controls
which are normally required to lift wastewater from preceding buried treatment
units into the elevated mound. Routine maintenance is required annually for
pump and control inspection and preventive maintenance. Unscheduled
maintenance, such as repair of level control equipment, is required
Infrequently. Necessary maintenance can normally be performed by semi—skilled
personnel.
Environmental Acceptabil ity——
A properly designed and constructed mound preceded by appropriate pre-
treatment (i.e., septic tank), generally presents no hazard or nuisance.
Occasionally, the appearance of a mound may be objectionable to a homeowner,
but this can normally be minimized through landscaping. In certain areas,
nitrate contamination of groundwater by mound systems may be a concern.
However, the land area requirements of mound systems normally preclude their
use In high density areas. In addition, nitrogen removal could be
accomplished by pretreatment or segregation, if required to protect
groundwater qual ity.
Since mounds rely on the underlying topsoil in addition to the imported
fill material to provide the necessary degree of wastewater treatment, the
pathogen content of seepage from a mound uld pose a health hazard. However,
mounds are designed to prevent seepage and experience in Wisconsin indicates
that seepage has occurred at only a very few of the several hundred mounds
constructed based on the Wisconsin design. Where seepage has occured,
improper fill material was used, except In one instance . (Personal
Communication. J. Harkin & R.J. Otis. May and October, 1978.)
Costs—-
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 62 for the three most common mound applications.
137
-------
TABLE 62. MOIJND COSTS
-a
C .)
Capital cost
item
Design
life
(yrs)
Installed
Unit
Cost(S)
Mound over shallow
excessively
permeable soils*
Hound over shallow
moderately
nermeable soils*
Mound over
slowly
uermeable soils*
Piping 20
4/ in
150
175
200
Pump and controls 10
250
250
250
250
Pumping chamber 20
300
300
300
300
Aggregates:
Sand 20
Gravel 20
7.5/m
7.5/m ’
1,200
200
1,600
200
3,000
200
Equi *nent rental —
—
200
200
200
Total Capital Cost
$2,300
$2,725
$4,150
Annual 0814 Cost Item
‘
Maintenance requirements
Routine (at $10/hr)
20
20
20
Unscheduled repairs (at $10/hr)
Electricity (at $0.05/kwh)
5
2
5
2
5
2
Total Annual 0814 Cost
$fl
$27
$27
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sun of the
cost nortlzed over 20 years
@ 7% interest, discount and
inflation (factor 0.09439)
Annual 0814 Cost
240
22
$262
281
22
415
22
$437
Total Annual Cost
—$260
— $300
$440
* Based on designs provided In ref. 25-29 on sites with zero percent slope-
-------
Soil Absorption Fields with Modified Distribution
System Type
Pressure distri-
bution
System Requirements
Pumping chamber, pump and
controls, and distribution
piping (appropriately
sized and perforated).
Comments
Applicable to mounds as
well as ‘ conventional’
systems. Most often used
to improve treatment by
maintaining unsaturated
flow conditions. Achieves
dosing and resting and
provides a flexible dose!
rest schedule
Dosing and
resting
Alternating fields
Proprietary
systems
Dosing tank, self-priming
siphon and distribution
piping (pump may be re-
quired in place of-siphon,
depending on site topo-
graphy)•
Dosing tank, self—priming
siphon and distribution
piping (pump may be re-
quired in place of siphon,
depending on site topo-
graphy).
Varies with manufacturer;
most utilize concrete
chambers or cells of
various configurations
Resting period is usually
several hours to a day.
Intended to increase the
quantity of wastewater
absorbed per unit area
and/or the life of the
absorption field. Allows
biochemical oxidation of
clogging mat during rest
cycles
Resting period generally
ranges from several months
to one year. Intended to
increase the quantity of
wastewater absorbed per
unit area and/or increase
the life of the absorption
field. Allows biochemical
oxidation of clogging mat
during rest cycle.
Effectiveness generally un-
proven; some system have
poor performance records
Performance——
Pressure distribution systems have been shown to achieve uniform
wastewater distribution throughout a soil absorption field (23). Uniform
distribution can provide unsaturated flow conditions and correspondingly
improved treatment, which is particulary important in coarse -grained soils
ln an effort to increase the loading rate of soil absorption fields and
to improve the treatment provided, several modified distribution systems have
been developed, as described below:
139
-------
where adequate treatment under saturated conditions may not be achieved prior
to the deve1opnent of the clogging mat (30).
Uniform distribution may also be important in a dosing and resting
distribution system, depending on the soil characteristics, although
adequately uniform distribution may be achievable through the use of siphons
and gravity piping systems. The magnitude of potential performance advantages
(decreased field size and/or extended life) of dosing and resting as compared
to conventional absorption fields is unclear. Some laboratory studies report
improved infiltration rates with intermittent wastewater application (31-34).
Other laboratory studies indicate that a greater wastewater vol uiie is absorbed
through continuous ponding (35) or that decreased infiltration is obtained
with short—term alternating aerobic—anaerobic conditions (33). Data from the
first 10—months of an ongoing field study indicate that daily dosing of
waste ter to an experimental soil absorption field prevented development of a
clogging mat, while data from other sites Indicate that clogging would
normally have been expected (36).
Potential performance improvements associated w1t ’ dosing and resting
systems are unclear not only as a result of conflicting study conclusions, but
also because of the following factors:
• An insufficient number of long-term field studies have been
conducted;
• Laboratory methods differ from study to study;
• Most laboratory studies utilize columns with impervious sides, thus
ignoring the side wall infiltration and aeration of field systems, and
making extrapolation of laboratory data to the field particularly
suspect;
• Wide variations in the resting periods Investigated;
• Failure of many investigations to report the total quantity of
wastewater absorbed over extended periods; and
• Differences in soil texture and structure.
System 0&M Requirements——
Routine operation and maintenance requirements of modified distribution
systems are limited to annual inspection and preventive maintenance of the
dosing siphon or pump and control mechanisms. Unscheduled maintenance of the
pump or siphon is required infrequently. Both siphon and pump system
maintenance require semi—skilled maintenance personnel.
Environmental Pcceptabil ity——
The environmental acceptability of soil absorption fields with modified
distribution is at least comparable to a conventional field. In the event
that a modified distribution approach improves treatment in excessively
140
-------
permeable soils or improves the performance of a ‘failing” field, the
environmental acceptabilitj is improved.
Costs-—
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are shown in
Table 63 for alternating fields, gravity dosing and resting, and dosing and
resting with pressure distribution.
Irrigation
On-site disposal of wastewater by irriyation has been practiced on a
limited basis using the specific options described below.
System Type System Requirements Cormnents
Spray irrigation Pu np and controls, pumping chamber Open or forest
distribution piping, sprinkler land may be used.
heads and drain check valves. Pretreatment re-
quired varies with
location.
Drip irrigation Pump and controls, pumping chamber Distribution sjs-
distribution piping (appropriately teui may be buried
sized and perforated for uniform or exposed. Most
application) and drain check applicable to
valves, landscaped areas.
Both types of irrigation systems provide both wastewater treatment and
disposal. Deslyn and operation characteristics are generally dependent on the
same characteristics described above for conventional soil absorption fie1ds.
In addition, runoff control must be included.
Performance- -
Quantitative data on on-site irrigation disposal system performance were
not available. En certain areas (e.g., Kentucky), spray irriyation of settled
aerobic effluent, both with and without filtration and disinfection, from
combined westewater systems has been practiced for at least five years. These
systems are reportedly functioning well. Specifically, no runoff is observed
from systems with application rates of less than 1.0 cii i (0.4 in.) per day and
soil samples reportedly indicate fecal coliform removal within the top 0.3 m
(1 ft) of soil. (Personal Conuinunication. P. Cuffe. May 1978,)
Drip irrigation systems are significantly less common, and the on-site
performance of these systems is even less well documented than for spray
systems. However, experience with larger applications indicates adequate
on-site performance is likely.
For both types of irrigation systems, extended periods (several weeks) of
sub—freezing temperatures may result in runoff due to freezing of the soil
surface and temporary loss of infiltration capacity.
141
-------
TABLE 63. MODIFIED DISTRIBIII ION COSTS
Capital Cost Design Life
Item ( ‘rs)
Conventional SAS 20
Alterating
fields
840-225&
Dosing and resting
v/gravity distri-
bution
5601500
Dosing and resting
w/pressure distri-
bution
560-1500
Alternating valves 20
150
--
--
250
Dosing chamber 20
—
250
Dosing siphon 10
—
150
-
250
Pump and controls 10
—
-
Total Capital Cost
$990—2400
$960 -1900
$1060-2000
Annual OM Cost It a
Maintenance requirements
Routine (at $10/hr)
10
10
20
Unscheduled repairs (at $10/hr)
Electricity (at $0.05/kwh)
—
-
5
-
5
Total Annual 0 I Cost
$10
$10
$30
Annual cost
Present worth of the sun of the
capital cost amortized over
20 years 7% interest, discount
and inflation (factor = 0.09439)
-
123-212
Annual 0 M Cost
93—226
10
105 194
15
30
-
$103—236
$120-209
$153-242
Total Annual Cost
4100-240
1120-210
—
* Based on a cost of $16/m2 ( 1.50/ft 2 ) of trench and a range of trench size required of 35
to 93 m 2 (375 to 10 O ft 2 ).
** Based on a cost of 116/ ( 1.50/ft 2 ) of trench and a range of trench size
to 140 in 2 (563 to 1500 ft 2 ). Range of trench size required will vary with
requirements. For conparison purpose it is assunal that each field is 75%
conventional soil absorption field.
-a
required of 53
local
as large as a
-------
System O&M Requirements-—
Equipment associated with irrigation systems is moderately complex, and
thus requires that operation and maintenance personnel have some training.
Routine preventive maintenance of the pump and control mechanisms is required
on an annual basis. Infrequent unscheduled repairs may be required as a
result of pump or control s breakdown, check val ye mal functi on or simil ar
mechanical failures. (Personal Communication. P. Culfe. May 1978 .) Spray
and drip irrigation systems are slightly more likely to require unscheduled
maintenance resulting from sprinkler-head or ejector valve clogging.
Environmental Acceptabil ity-—
The environmental acceptability of irrigation is highly variable
depending on several factors, including:
• Irrigated wastewater quality;
• Site topography
• Depth to groundwater
• Soil characteristics;
• Available buffer areas; and
• Type of cover crop.
Irrigation systems which apply a disinfected aerobic effluent to open
fields or woodlands reportedly present no nuisance or hazard, especially if
application is performed at night (to minimize potential for human contact).
However, the potential for odors, health effects and undesirable appearance is
significantly greater than for subsurface disposal.
Spray or surface drip irrigation of non—disinfected effluents may
occasionally be acceptable if large buffer areas are available and access is
restricted to reduce the potential health hazards.
Costs— —
Capital , operation and maintenance and total annual costs are shown in
Table 64.
SURFACE DISCHARGE
Direct discharge of on—site treatment system effluent is a disposal op-
tion if an appropriate receiving water is available. If a receiving water is
available, the level of treatment required may vary depending on local regula-
tions, stream water quality requirements and other site—specific conditions.
For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that on-site treatment system
effluent disposed by surface discharge must at least meet secondary treatment
standards of 30 mg/l BOD and SS and have coliform levels less than 230 #1100
ml. Depending on site-specific conditions, more stringent BOD and SS dis-
charge requirements and/or limitations on N and P discharges may be appli-
cable.
143
-------
TABLE 64. IRRIGATION COSTS
Design Costs ($ )
Capital Cost life Spray Drip
Item (yrs) irrigation irrigation
Distribution piping 20 450 450
Pump and controls
(or siphon) 10 250 250
Pumping chamber 20 30fl 300
Sprinkler heads and/or
miscellaneous hardware 10 100 50
Site preparation (berms
and grading) 20
Total Capital Cost - $1 ,l00 $1 ,050
Annual O&M Cost Item
Mdi ntenance requi rerients
Routine (at $10/hr)
Unscheduled repairs (at $1O/hr)
Electricity (at $0.05/kwh)
50
20
5
35
10
5
Total Annual 0&M cost
$75
$50
Annual Cost
Present work of the sum of the
capital costs amortized
over 20 years @ 7% interest,
discount and inflation
(factor 0.09439)
Annual O&I4 Cost
135
J
120
iQ.
Total Annual Cost ($)
$210
$170
144
-------
The performance, operation and maintenance requirements, and environ-
mental acceptability of surface discharge disposal are predominantly dependent
on the preceding treatment system. These characteristics of on—site treatment
options are identified in Sections 5—8. Operation and maintenance
requirements associated specifically with surface discharge disposal may
include infrequent routine or unscheduled cleaning of the effluent pipe, and
pump maintenance, if gravity conveyance to the receiving water is not
practical. For the subsequent cost estimate it is assumed that gravity
conveyance is used. In addition, monitoring will likely be required, but the
parameters and frequency will vary with applicable regulations.
Surface discharge of on—site treatment system effluent is currently used
for disposal at several locations in Kentucky, as well as in other areas of
the country. Monitoring data reportedly indicates that some preceding
treatment systems can provide effluent which meets secondary discharge
requirements. (Personal Communication. L.E. Waldorf and J.W. Leake. May
1978 •) In addition, no maintenance has been required on the gravity
conveyance systems used for surface discharge.
The cost of surface discharge conveyance systems depends on site—specific
factors such as the distance to the receiving water, the ease of excavation,
labor rates, and depth of excavation required. Assuming an average trench
depth of 1 in (3 ft), and a length of 18 in (60 ft), the estimated capital cost
is $180. Amortized at 7 percent interest over 20 years, the annual cost is
$18. 0&M costs associated with conveyance are insignificant. Monitoring
costs will be highly variable.
COMB INAT IONS
As shown in Table 59, some methods of on—site wastewater disposal use
combinations of air, water and/or soil disposal. The combination disposal
methods most frequently used are evapotranspiration/absorptiOn, unlined
evaporative lagoons and lined or unlined lagoons with discharge to surface
waters. Lagoons which discharge to surface waters are discussed in Section 6.
Evapotranspi ration/Absorption
EvapotranspiratiOfl/abSOrptiOfl (ETA) disposal of on-site wastewater in
unlined evapotranspiratiOfl disposal systems, as briefly described below, is in
use at several thousand locations in North America (8). In addition,
°conventional” soil absorption systems may use ET as well as absorption for
on-site wastewater disposal, especially if shallow trenches are used.
System Type System Requirements Comments
ETA Distribution piping, gravel, sand Avoids possible salt
(with appropriate capillary rise accumulation problems;
properties), top soil and selected may be used where net
vegetation (tolerant of moisture El is negative in some
extremes) . months without pro—
145
-------
viding storage capac-
ity; and generally
requires less land
area than El disposal
Performance--
Quantitative data on the performance of ETA disposal re not avail able.
Since ET and soil disposal can perform adequately under appropriate climate
and soil conditions, respectively, It Is anticipated that ETA disposal will
also perform adequately If soil percolation rates, net El potential, sand
characteristics (with the necessary capillary rise characteristics) and
vegetation cover are appropriately coordinated In the design. The presence of
thousands of functioning systems also indicates that ETA disrosal can perform
adequately; however, the extent of evapotranspiratlon in combined disposal
systems has not been determIned (8).
Field data on El rates Is desirable for design of ETA disposal units to
ensure adequate performance. A careful analysis of the potential relative
contributions from El and soil absorption is required In the d sign of such a
system. If winter net ET rates are negligible, designing to maximize El may
not be justified.
System 0&M Requirements--
Routine maintenance of a properly designed and constructed ETA disposal
unit is normally raq i1red only If waste ter Is pumped to the ETA disposal
unit. Pump and level control inspection and adjustment Is normally required
annually. Unscheduled maintenance, such as repair of level control
apparatus, Is required Infrequently.
Environmental ceptabil ity-—
ETA di posa1 generally presents no nuisance or hazard. Depending on
specific system characteristics, including the vegetation utilized, size of
the system, and height Of mound (if that configuration Is aiiploysd), visual
aesthetics may be a problem for some Installations. Otherwise, ETA disposal
appears environmentally acceptable.
As with soil disposal , nitrate contamination of ground ’ater may be a
concern In some instances, depending on site-specific factors such as the
density of systems, aquifer and soil characteristics and depth to ground ter.
Costs-—
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs per unit area
are approximately the same as those for El disposal (shown in Table 60).
Ho ver, the size and thus the cost, of an ETA disposal unit will be less than
an El unit for the same climatic conditions. The cost difference will be
primarily a function of the soil percolation rate. In general, the capital
146
-------
and total annual costs of most ETA installations is in the range of $1 ,500 to
$3,000, and $200 to $350, respectively.
Lagoons
As metioned in Section 6, lagoons may be utilized for both on—site
wastewater treatment and disposal applications. System requirements for
lagoons designed for disposal by evaporation and soil absorption are
summarized below:
System Type System Requirements Comments
Evaporation! Bermed lagoon, inlet Berm must designed to
Infiltration pipe and support, and permit surface runoff
lagoon fence from entering lagoon.
Odor, vector, aesthetic,
safety and groundwater
quality considerations
may affect environmental
acceptabil ity.
Performance- -
Quantitative data on the performance of evaporation/infiltration lagoons
were not available. However, several investigations have reported that this
type of lagoon provides adequate treatment and disposal of on—site wastewater
when pretreatment with a septic tank is provided (38-40). In all cases,
adequate disposal depends on soil characteristics, net evaporation and proper
lagoon sizing. Adequate treatment depends_primarily on soil and groundwater
characteristics and groundwater depth.
System 0&M Requirements--
Routine maintenance includes trimming vegetation and adding water to
maintain the desired water depth during the summer (approximately 2 to 4 times
per year). Niai ntenance may al so i nd ude sl udge removal from the lagoon. The
frequency of sludge removal will depend on the pretreatment provided,
wastewater characteristics, lagoon design, and operation and maintenance. In
general, sludge removal is anticipated to be required very infrequently (every
five or more years). Unscheduled maintenance, such as repair of the inlet
pipe or berms, is required very infrequently.
Environmental Acceptabil ity-—
Odor, vector, and aesthetic nuisances may affect the environmental
acceptability of lagoons. Lagoon configuration utilizing rounded corners and
steep interior slopes should hel p to reduce devel opinent of stagnant water and
growth of vegetation below the water level, thus reducing odor and vector
nuisances. Aethetics may be improved by screening with plants or fences. A
fence is advisable in any case to keep small children and animals out of the
147
-------
area. As with other soil disposal methods, groundwater quality may be
adversely affected if the lagoon design or location is inappropriate.
Cost—-
Capital , operation and maintenance, and total annual costs are estimated
in Table 65.
DISPOSAL COMPONENT COMPARISONS
Disposal comparisons for components with available hardware and
sufficient on—site performance information to permit detailed evaluation are
presented in Table 66. Ccmparisons for components with available on-site
hardware but insufficient_-on-site performance information sho i in Table 67
are based on engineering judgment and are subject to revision when data become
available.
148
-------
TABLE 65. EVAPORATION/INFILIRAIION LAGOON COSTS
Capital Cost Iteii Design Life (yr)
Capital Cost (5)
Lagoon, including excava-
tion installation of inlet
pipe and support, and
seeding of berm 20
1000-2500
Fencing (at 5 5/m) 20
150—350
Total Capital Cost
$1150—2850
Annual O&M cost Item Unit cost Cs)
Annual O&M Cost
(5)
Maintenance requl red
Routine 8/hr -
Unscheduled 0.5/hr
32
4
Total Annual 0&M cost
$36
Annual Cost
Present worth of the sum of the capital costs
amortized over 20 years assuming 7% interest,
discount and inflation (factorO.09438)
108—269
36
Total Annual Cost
$ 144—305
$140-31O
* In general , these lagoons range from 9 to 260m 2 (1000 to 3000 ft 2 ) and
cost approximately $10.75/m’ ($1.00/ft ), depending on climate, soil
infiltration capacity, and the quantity of wastewater handled.
149
-------
TABLE 66
DISPOSAL COIIPO) NT COMPARISON FON CONPOI NTS WITh SUFFICIENT INFORMATIOII*
Ranking
Group
C onent -
Ranking
Annual
Perfon ance
(5 sax.)
O J4
Requir ents
(5 ax.)
Enviromoental
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
Cost
($)
A
Conventional soil thsorption
4
5
3
12
50-150
Pressure distribution soil
absorption
4
4
3
11
150-240
Soil modification absorptIon
(mound)
4
4
2
11
260-440
Evapotranspiration/absorption
4
4
2
10
200-350
B
Evaporation/Infiltration lagoon
4
4
1
9
140310
Irrigation (disinfected
effl uent)
3
4
2
9
110-210
Evapotranspiration
3
5
2
10
460
* For components with sufficient on-site performance information and hardware available to permit
detailed evaluation. Section 3 for explanation of the ranking system. Costs do not include
pretreatment.
-a
(7 ’
a
-------
TABLE 67
DISPOSAL COMPONENT COMPARISON FOR COMPONENTS WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION*
Ranking
Group
Performance
Component (5 max.)
Ranking
Environmental
Acceptability
(3 max.)
Total
(13 max.)
Total
Annual
Cost
($)
O&M
Requirements
(5 max.)
A
Alternating fields 4
5
3
12
100-240
Dosing & resting soil
absorption (wino
pumping) 4
4
3
11
120-240
Evaporation lagoon
(lined) 4
4
2
10
200-350
Mechanical evaporation 4
3
2
9
600+
* For components with available on-site hardware, but insufficient on-site performance information.
This comparison is based on engineering judgement and should be reevaluated when data becomes
available. Costs do not include pretreatment.
(7 ’
-------
REFERENCES
1. Blaney, H.F. and W.D. Criddle. Determining consumptive use and
irrigation water requirements. Technical Bulletin 1275, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1962. 59 p.
2. Jensen, M.E. and H.R. Raise. Estimating evapotranspiration from solar
radiation. J. Irrig. Drainage Div., Mi. Soc. Civ. Eng., 89 (IR 4):
15—41, 1963.
3. Jensen, M.E., H.G. Collins, R.D. Burman, A.E. Ciibbs, and A.I.
Johnson. Consumptive use of water and irrigation water requirements.
Technical Report. Irrig. Drainage Div., Mi. Soc. Ci - Eng., New York,
New York, 1974. 215 p.
4. Priestly, C.H.B. and R.J. Taylor. On the assessment of surface heat
flux and evaporation using large—scale parameters. Mon. Weather Rev.,
100:81—92, 1972.
5. Tanner, C.B. and J. Bouma. Influence of climate on subsurface
disposal of sewage effluent. University of Wisconsin, Madison, &nall
Scale Waste Management Project, 1975. 16 p.
6. Hasfurther, V.R., D.H. Foster, and G.D. Lloyd. Sizing an evapo—
tranpiration waste disposal system for summer operation. In:
Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, December 12—13, 1977. Mierican Society of
Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan, 1978. pp. 175—184
7. Bernhardt, A.P. Treatment and disposal of wastewater from homes by
soil infiltration and evapotranspiration. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, Canada,’l973. 173 p.
8. Bennett, E.R. Sewage disposal by evaporation transpiration; draft
final report. EPA Grant No. R803871-01-O, University of Colorodo,
Boulder, 1978. 170 p.
9. OtIs, R.J., G.D. Plews, and O.K. Patterson. Design of conventional
soil absorption trenches and beds. In: Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois. December
12—13, 1977. Mierican Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1978. pp. 86-99.
152
-------
10. Hill, D.E. and C.R. Frink. Longevity of septic tank systems in
Connecticut soils. Bulletin 747, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station, New Haven, 1974. 22 p.
11. Clayton, J.W. An analysis of septic tank survival data from 1952 to
1972 in Fairfax County, Virginia. J. Environ. Health, 36(6):562-567,
1974.
12. Tyler, E. J., R. Laak, E. McCoy, and S.S. Sandhu. The soil as a
treatment system. In: Proceedings of the Second National Home Sewage
Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December 12-13, 1977.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan, 1973.
pp. 22-37.
13. Viraraghaven, 1. and R. G. Warnock. Groundwater quality adjacent to a
septic tank system. J. Pm. Water Works Assoc., 65(ll):61l—614,
November 1976.
14. Robeck, G.G., J.M. Cohen, W.J. Sayers, and R.L. Woodward. Degradation
of ABS and other organics in unsaturated soils. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed., 35(lO):1225-1236. October 1963.
15. Pitt, W.A.J. Jr. Effects of septic tank effluent on groundwater
quality, Dade County, Florida; an interim report. Ground Water,
12(6):353—355, 1974.
16. Guan, E.L., H.R. Sweet, and J.R. Illian. Subsurface sewage disposal
and contamination of groundwater in East Portland, Oregon. Ground
Water, 12(6):356—368, 1974.
17. Reneau, R.B., Jr., and D.E. Pettry. Movement of coliform bacteria
from septic tank effluent through selected coastal plain soils of
Virginia. J. Environ. Qual. 4(l):4l—44, 1975.
18. Reneau, R.B., Jr. and D.E. Pettry. Movement of methylene blue active
substances from septic tank effluent through two coastal plain soils.
J. Environ. Qual., 4(3):370—375, 1975.
19. Reneau , R.B., Jr., J.H. Elder, Jr., D.E. Pettry, and C.W. Weston.
Influence of soils on bacterial contamination of a watershed from
septic sources. J. Environ. Qual. 4(2):249—252, 1975.
20. Schwartz, W.A. and 1.5. Bendfxen. - Soil system for liquid waste
treatment and disposal; environmental factors. J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed., 42(4):624-630, April 1970.
21. Walker, W.G., J. Bouma, D.R. Keeney, and F.R. Magdoff. Nitrogen
transformations during subsurface disposal of septic tank effluent in
sands. II. Groundwater quality. J. Environ. Qual., 2(4):521—525,
1973.
153
-------
22. MIller, F.P. and D.C. Wolf. Renovation of sewage effluents by the
soil. In: Individual Onsite Wastewater Systems; Proceedings of the
Second National Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 1975. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977. PP. 89—118.
23. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Management of small waste
flows. Appendix B. Soil absorption of wastewater effluents.
EPA-600/2—78—173. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati
Ohio, September 1978. 764 p..
24. Machnieler, R.E. Design criteria for soil treatment systems.
Scientific Journal Series Paper No. 9358, Minnesota Agricult.
Experiment Station, St. Paul, 1975. 21 p.
25. Converse, J.C., R.J. Otis, 3. Bouma, W. Walker, J. Anderson and D.
Stewart. Design and construction procedures for m unds In slowly
permeable soils with or without seasonally high water tables.
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Small Scale Waste Management
Project, March 1976. 19 p.
26. Converse, J.C., R. 3. Otis, J. Bouma, W. Walker, J. Anderson and D.
Stewart. Design and constructlon procedures for fill systems In
permeable soils with shallow creviced or poro’us bedrock. University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Small Scale Waste Management Project, March
1976. 17 p.
27. Converse, J.C., R.J. Otis, J. Bouma, W. Walker, J. Anderson and 0.
Stewart. Design and construction procedures for fill systems in
permeable soils with high water tables. University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Small Scale Waste Management Project, March 1976. 17 p.
28. Bouma, J., J.C, Converse, R.J. Otis, W.G. Walker, and W.A. Ziebell.
Mound system for on—site disposal of septic tank effluent In slowly
permeable soils with seasonally perched water tables. J. Environ.
Qual., 4(3):382-388, 1975.
29. Botana, J., J.C, Converse, and F.R. Magdoff. A mound system for
disposal of septic tank effluent in shallow soils over creviced
bedrock. In: Proceedings of the Internat1o al Conference on Land for
Waste Management, Agricultural Institute of Canada, Ottawa, 1913.
pp. 367—378.
:30. Converse, J.C., J.L. Anderson, W.A. Ziebell, and J. Bouma. Pressure
distribution to improve soil absorpotlon systems. In: Proceedings of
the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, Chicago, Illinois,
December 9—10, 1974. Mierlcan Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, MIchigan, 1975. pp. 104—115.
31. McGauhey, P.M. and J.H. Winneberger. A study of methods of preventing
failure of septic—tank percolation systems. SERL Report No. 65—17,
154
-------
University of California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research
Laboratory, 1965. 31 p.
32. McGauhey, P.H. and R.B. Krone. Soil mantle as a wastewater treatment
system; final report. SERL Report No. 67—11, University of
California, Berkeley, Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory 1967.
153 p.
33. Thomas, R.E., W.A. Schwartz, and T.W. Bendixen. Soil chemical
changes and infiltration rate reduction under sewage spreading. Soil
Sci. Mi. Proc. 30(5):641-646, 1966.
34. Bendixen, T.W., M. Berk, J.P. Sheehy, and S.R. Weibel . Studies on
household sewage disposal systems. Part II. Environniental Health
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1950. 94 p.
35. Kropf, F.W., R. Laak and K.A. Healey. Equilibrium operation of
subsurface absorption systems. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 49(9):
2007—2016, 1977.
36. Bomana, J., J.C. Converse, and F.R. Magdoff. Dosing and resting to
improve soil absorption beds. Trans. Mi. Soc. Agric. Eng., 17(2):
295—298, 1974.
37. Hines, M.W., E.R. Bennett, and J.A. Hoehne. Alternate systems for
effluent treatment and disposal. In. Proceedings of the Second
National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, December
12—13, 1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, 1978. pp. 137—148.
155
-------
SECTION 10
C 1IPARATIVE ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
The approach used to develop on—site wastewater treatment and disposal
systems and the technical ranking criteria used in the com’iarative analysis of
these systems are described in Section 3. The systems developed according to
this approach for each of the 15 site conditions (see Table 3) considered are
presented In Appendix A. The methodology used to evaluate the systems
identified and the resulting conclusions are presented here.
As discussed in Section 3, alternative systems are evaluated in three
separate categories: -
• Systems with available hardware and on-site performance data;
• Systems with avail able hardware but incompi ete (if any) on—site
performance data; and
• Systems without hardware appropriate for on—site application, which
therefore require further developnent.
Systems in the first two categories are evaluated using technical criteria and
the total annual cost (rounded to the nearest $50). Technical ranking of
systems in the first category was based on operating experience, while ranking
of systems in the second category was based on engineering judgment and is
subject to revision when data become available. System concepts requiring
further developiient are discussed qualitatively.
Comparative evaluation of the systems presented in Appendix A was based
primarily on the component comparisons developed in Sections 5-9. First, the
- top-ranked components (both those with available hardware and performance
data, and those with only available hardware) ware identified from the
component comparisons in Sections 5—9 for each of the general component
categories (i.e., filtration, aerobic biological treatment, disinfection,
etc.) used in the Appendix A matrices. Next, the top-ranked components in
each general category were used to define each system alternative (A,B,C,
etc.) identified in the matrices. These systems were then reviewed to
identify the top ranked systems (five or less) for each site condition. For
systems with the same technical ranking, those with a total annual cost of
$250 more than the least expensive system ware not generally included as
top-ranked systems.
156
-------
Some systems were identified for which there was available hardware and
performance data for all of the system components, but not for the system as a
whole. In these instances, engineering judgment of component compatability
was used to determine whether the system should be considered to have
available performance data. Systems employing components shown to be
adaptable to various influent wastewater characteristics were generally
classed as having available performance data. Where less was known about the
impacts of influent wastewater characteristics on one or more system
components, the systems were considered to have inadequate performance data.
System ranking was based on the concept that a system would get the
ranking of the lowest ranked component for each of the ranking criteria unless
the combination of components in the system improved their performance, 0&M
requirements and/or environmental acceptability. For example, ranking of a
system consisting of a septic tank followed by low pressure membrane
filtration with direct discharge disposal was as follows:
Ranking
Criteria
Environmental Annual
Components Performance O&M
Acceptability Total Cost (5)
Septic tank 4 5 - 3 12 50
Low pressure
membrane
filtration 5 2 3 10 430
Direct
discharge — — 20
System Total
As shown, the system receives an 0&M ranking of 2 since the combination of
components does not reduce the O&M requirements of the membrane filtration
unit. However, the system gets a performance ranking of 5 since it
consistently provides a level of treatment significantly superior to the
normal direct discharge requirements of 30 mg/i BOO and SS, as a result of the
membrane filtration unit.
Estimated costs are generally based on the cost data presented in
Sections 5-9. However, simple addition of the total annual costs for each
system component to obtain the total cost of a system was often inappropriate
for two reasons. First, specific equipment such as vaults, surge tanks, and
pumps included in component cost estimates may be duplicated unnecessarily for
some systems. Similarly, equipment in addition to that specified In component
cost estimates may be required for some systems. In these instances, the sum
of the component costs was adjusted to reflect appropriate equipment
modifications.
Secondly, the sum of annual 0&M labor requirements for components
assembled into a system is sometimes inappropriate (usually too high) for the
system as a whole. In these instances, the O&M requirements have been
adjusted to more accurately reflect the total system.
157
-------
SYSTEM RANKING - HARDWARE AND PERFORMANCE DATA AVAILABLE
The top-ranking systems identified with available hardv re and
performance data are described in Table 68. For the site conditions
considered, the following general conclusions are drawn from Table 68:
• Septic tank - conventional soil absorption field Is the top—ranked and
least cost system where site characteristics permit its use.
• Where shallow soils (0.3—1.2 m) are encountered which would not
provide adequate treatment for a conventional soil absorption field,
septic tank — mound systems are the top-ranked and least cost systems
if ad equate 1 and area is av all able • Flow red uction may be used to
minimize area requirements and cost.
• Use of flow reduction — holding tank — off—site disposal Is the top—
ranked and least cost system only where to ’—aphj prevents “area
Intensive” construction and direct discharge Is not feasible, or where
depth to bedrock or ground ter Is less than O.3m :ft) and direct
discharge and ET disposal are not feasible. Even with flow reduction,
costs are very high.
• ET disposal (with septic tank pretreatment) is top ranked and least
cost system where disposal to the soil and direct discharge are not
feasible, and EVP-PPT Is greater than 5 cm/mo (2 In/mo).
• Disposal by direct discharge is the top-ranked method where soil and
ET disposal are not feasible, or where limited land area is available
for disposal and sufficient flow reduction Is not feasible. The top—
ranked and least cost tretnient for direct discharge Is a septic tank —
covered Intermittent or recirculating gravity sand filter —
disinfection pretreatment system if nutrient discharges are not
limited. If nitrogen discharge Is limited (<10 mg/l) and 0 mg/i BOO
and SS is required, a septic tank — covered intermittent or
recirculating gravity sand filter — fixed growth anaerobic reactor —
disinfection is the top-ranked treatment system. If phosphorus is
also limited (<2 mg/i), use of the same system with a sand/”red mud”
filter substituted for the sand filter and/or elimination of phosphate
detergents is the top ranked treatment system 1 Nitrogen may also be
significantly reduced through the use of a non-water carriage or
recirculating toilet system, but variable household wastet’ ter
characteristics make consistent achievement of effluent nitrogen
concentrations <10 mg/i .mcertaln.
• Septic tank — soil absorption with pressure distribution systems are
the top-ranked and least cost systems where soils are excessively
permeable.
158
-------
TABLE 68. in! RA D S iS1ThS - E R&4ARE AN) €RFG MAWE TA AVAILABLE
i I 101144 •nlI*i
I — 01 i(O1P0 7 0 I
£424044410040 0.04400 I.
Il —i ..illoit 1*4 13 4’’OOO
4100444404401310 0t1 fl0 .0441*
3 10.403144.120 2 * — 000 )0 )4
•,4 11310 1*0113 70 4 .
• OPt ’ 3 01 * £100 033
o 0)41)0 . ((0-) 43) 0 4)70 4 1 4 4
w3 1041 *0301111 * •nlIal.
. 4 34 ( 4 .- JO ’ a 0 I *
i00 7t041l* (3 34) 3411; 4113
...(i1 ,. tt).o I* •.;Ii 43I .
3*41743) op-oot (00*144
o 044( 103(001 3.iooIII42*
j7, tT-nVo sow..
3 4) 0 4(190 7 .1 190 0 * 404 * 4 ..)l*It
( l b 411013 0(OLtIlW
‘..t lbI. ( * 4 0 31 7 ( q)’
P oqii ) D IPPY
03 * 2 *
— (4311101100 i ’a
4 43400 ( 4 314 .47) *0 * 4 0 37101 04 1 * 1 343443 ( 4* 4 (I T) or..oI loo4)
,.. ll.3 1.I4s n o a ..,ooo.tl* l o l l 1 (14*1 1104(44 — ( ‘M l
p, 43 ,pIIoll* ((0—Pt)) 4 441* 2 4.01’ ’ 44 °
(732)
3 1.0111 (*0 ,oooo1,0004 1 140 103/
l oTl l( ’4 ll *
1 . 411* ( I I I to) ot’Io .1) 0 I 100111 1440 *43 4
4 1 4 (14 1 40’
404 II 1)0 — 0 P oT 1 (* * ‘ “ “ ‘? 44 )o ,0*4)
• (0 1440 1 ll 14 1l0 1
0 1* .pO.tII*.0000l( 1*4 0 3 1
3*4 4 0 7 II
...n l.n lnhlo M O On l I *
T 3ll — TIIal° 4 0 °
.1.132.1 11*’ 411011
4)1344 4 *4*4
I . 1 1 ________
3h _________
• 4 3 0 .14 I I 140 1711* I I 040T0’ v I *0 10
l 4*4l4.4 *w•’O
4 4 4 4) *4 04(444 1*3103240*4
$ I 001
£ ( (I 110 041I0(llIll tI (I (0111*40(1 .111
I 0 I (14 h171 v
4 i , ao 41111) l 4)l l 4 . P*(l 1 04 lll _0
.4134 14*’ 4. 2(1041 I II I’MIM ) 4 . 40 4
(340 4*4.4*4 orow..*..l it to
(40 0010*1) ‘1* 10*11)04 4.114
I0O 1*4)443*0*143)0)4 341)3*0
4.0 10 (1) 14(1 1
£34 .473043 iltt 00444*04 41*10*4
11* 4 43 N’I ’) 1) 3) 0 )0 44
• 1 1 42 (3.43 0404”l’l 4 ,)...) 1 10 111 * I l l s
4 4 0 I I 034 11—4 4 )010* I I
• 0 0 3 340 l14l•4(l1.11. 10 4(044*0 4 74 ) 4
.oti’,( IPII’ 3)4
o 0 0 I I 1044k ¶4.11.. s oIl (4. 4 3(11444400-3144
- 41 1*30)
4 4 0 I I 4441 l._d .o o ’ o 2o0 4 0 14 1*4400 11
£44 *40144*4040*41*4430 11314
O 3 01114 ‘ IIl— 11.11 —4 4(0 - 3 0 5 ) 4 0 4 1 01
11444:443
4* 144 £( *44400( 14 90*1104
1 1*1 340404 43 444 114410
0 0 13 10*’ 11ol)..1.ll (4043) 110130 *0114
400 1434 $1 0 1 1l10001l0033100*l*3094
lIlt 4,00*41 09 31 3)0-44 0 0044
40411*10*4)44314403(0 44(4*
4(40(*)l0l)1100041 l1410 4 341(’0 (‘40101
1041* 00744 C l 41300147 ( 0*411.14
•)fl 114) 1 7 •Oft’IIIP 41100441(40
(1*013*4 10*4*4 14( 1441 so U l
(34 404*34)4 00)) 4010 7314 4404344
‘.0? 140 1) 1411
3 1 0 0 334 (oI Ioo4.lo4o003I00*l 0(ltT
1110014) ( 11* 14101 14133’0
3? 74 44007!3 I Ii 3t itotl o 014 I I
*1(444 *1 114431 o.p)44 4)40*
1 24410 ( 0001 ’ .114 II. ’ .4,1*
1 I I 444 *oo.43**0**0144fl4*410
O 0 I 7 344 4011 1 1 0 • s.pfl14O 1(01*10*432*
0 •,c 04112700 11.14411*44 ,0443 44
— (40 14 114 101414140 44010
0f)0(l00Il*107 (to
I 3 0 ‘ :;tC
.o. 1133)o 0 0077 44043) I . 1.4 I 4I 0
0741* *4444)40 I.t.t 1 1*10 0410
104 .C 0 * 104 ( 0 1 t 1
04)30 4004*0 ? 1 *30110(0 3)0404)
10* 740 14301*4lIIl7 10(143344 lob
1(43410 0(4*0 (00(0 7 1* 00*441*
I I 4. I — — .4 I3N —4
*4 104404*0 4*4(0 ¶ 4 ,,.olip *3)00
P 1iooo 4 14 101431 1* po*lllO( *3214’
I I 004 t 00
4410 141117
9 (007 0051(01 (4330) t oil S .1 1 2
, ,r . .;: ; ,
:‘. ‘u
(04444 T.l.Io (07 -007 3*3*
; *1 .
(1011140 .OIlo00040444 144 00411*11
101 (700 410011 4 1311117
1.341010 (*4 433 I0qI(
‘10 4411 107 001 43140144
* 14 140
1.o111 0444—
o (400114404 *4Ifll3’•
•Itl.?*1(* 1,4104(1*
0*4 tSO 0 * ¶ 4141401*1
54) 0 14 41440.24 14y (440
4 3 3 (4)
1* 40*4(1*440413 (040
3 1 0(404 411147 4
413 13)441 1 4 4 i,fl 4I*
0 4* ‘0*431000414140*44
04? 0140 470*344 7(0 (*0
100111 1*4 t444 40000”
41,10 )0111*’ 41 ,040
001 11 140 *4.014* 0 4 1400 1 *
340410 1*4
o o o c 4 4 too a ol . , ’ oI
)44,)4I0I0ll1I1* -
411*1 014(047*
0 1410)1 ( 00 to,I.I 101
44404044 4* p9 7*44.
*1*10301411020.1
411103144 •* pw)4’
O 144111 3*4 3*44 004 OOC
0,1441 4(44 p0410 l1
(to ’ 4*4(7i’IM 4*)
( 4
(3 34411* (0 3 I ¶4) .0110 41 4 4
0 .1 4 30 (44 1411 n 4 1 14310
1*4 00—170 0T °- °T 0 3 4 W —
I 012.00400 144 143413 (*4 3 3 0 (4 040’
I 3*0411 l l01l a3 I* 1 4 0 I I 0 *
01 90 000344.0 413321303110
3 340411 4*4 — 4 4 0 10
0 t o oth 1*4 0 lll(oo• 4 1 1 40 *4
. .otl0l.I 300143444041-
4410
444434*0 .I1 0* OIl 41 144 (3404.4700 0 0 1 20 0 *0330114 1100 •ll*jI 44*41I ( 4 401 /04 11 31103 4 1340 1 4 1 (003
II. 7.1)44110 1, 41 loll *0 1*0 400 • oo l•lo 000W-I 001311* 10(4 ( 1 .0 41041 004 .10*410 01.44 01*12
3 1fl 3I 0o1* 0 4* 0114 (4.41114* 490 0344 04 TIoo 034 01*4044 0 1014 41740011104 40017013 434 0477 040 001
(00*444 00 4 0000Ifl*7 0 3 1*31 * 0 41*3111440 .ojl*.l.l0I4oI*4 *04. lot 1*10 0 4* o0•.olo0 4100
W-I0* *3(003(0*
159
-------
• Flow reduction (10—40 percent) often permits the use of systems which
are technically superior to and less costly than other alternatives,
and which would otherwise not be feasible due to site condition
limitations, such as limited available land.
• Systems Incorporating wastewater segregation options are not top—
ranked for any of the site conditions considered unless segregation is
a part of flow reduction or nitrogen limitations must be met.
SYSTEM RANKING — HARDWARE (BUT NO PERFORMANCE DATA) AVAILABLE
The top ranked systems identified with available hardware but inadequate
performance data are described in Table 69. Since adequate data on the field
performance of these systems for the site conditions considered is not
available, rankings are based on engineering judgment. Field testing of these
systems prior to widespread application is recomniendei. For the site
conditions considered, the following general conclusions are drawn from Table
69.
• Systems utilizing potential methods of increasing the long-term
loading rate (rn/day) for a subsurface disposal field (e.g., dosing and
resting or alternating fields) are the -top—ranked and least cost
systems where soils are not limiting, but limited area is available
for disposal . Even where septic tank — conventional soil absorption
systems are applicable, systems using dosing and resting may be
preferred if they increase the system life and reduce the total annual
cost.
• Where shallow (0.3—1.2m) soils are encountered, septic tank — covered
intermittent or recirculating gravity sand filter — coventional soil
absorption, or chemical addition — septic tank - conventional soil
absorption systems may be alternatives to available systems.
Docunentation that such systems provide adequate treatment is still
required.
• Septic tank - mechanical evaporator systems have the most general
applicability, although they are only rarely appear to be the least
cost of the top-ranked alternatives. Costs are uncertain since
hardware is not currently commercially available. Applicability is
limited in colder climates unless wastewater storage is provided at
additional cost.
• Septic tank — evaporation lagoon systems are the top-ranked and least
cost systems where soils are marginally permeable and very shallow
(<0.3 in), and ET and direct discharge disposal are not feasible.
Septic tank - sand filter pretreatment is the top-ranked least cost
system. Howaver, the adequacy of lagoon performance requires
docunentatlon. Land requirements and the need for disinfection also
need to be determined.
160
-------
TABLE 69. TOP RANKED SYSTEMS - HARDWARE AVAILABLE, INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE DATA
Silo Cnollt lot
Io p4.o1ltlUl
I. 1111 041 otIdiot.
15 .110110 IO0) S 112 é
.fr i .otItgta S S
2 2.1 Ia (0.34. aIls dot ad Z4 le
p. I15Iot. .aIIItll lad t ) -lfl .
(W.W! S S
3 L15Il all t . bIt o)n . ) Ia’S
adgin,. o .1l 1 5* . lad ((1 01
19-W I) S otta
I OLl . all 3...d Idiot,
n lI15lS lad 0 liii. dt,ott dIs-
Olotot 000 10in. 09-Wi) S
S 00011510 .111 lataIItIot.
o..1115 1. lad 93-V2 t. (W.WT
)S . slcta>00
6 9oIIot (0.3-1.2 nIln 0115
otnoLtIot. o..II01 I. tad S 112 #.
1W -WI (2 S
I laY 1541101 (43.3.) .1111 0115 1ntl
ça totko. otolI15l lad ) 112
09-WI 2.5-5 otla
I. laS - .411 t.as tint dot adlo ad .01th9 4
2. 151011 tat - .1(1 t00 )Olat 0115 £taatllO 410115 4
11 lat . sad 41 100.W.aZk1.0I 1111
01otilta 0)1001
2 0no11 0 1 óiltbl . 10111 tat -1115581001 an
010010151131501
I flno 0000140,- . al l 01sa km 0115
6401,5 ad r010I ,9
2 10)111 Oak 00l 101WI
Rot 58150401- 10111 tat-otit 00.11101.413
155101 ad 1150119
I. t oio tat -
I. 150140 tat . sad 11106 - all t0400
0115 01totadl , 5 110115
2 105011 Oak - tad lila ’. all 15.1-5010,
.40 . 610119 ad 00119
3. 0 1coI 15IItlo ,- .11010 tat- all 4,otyt Ion
dot 001 ’s ad .1501’s
0. 10 010 tat - 15nl ftlto ’ - IrriOdl o ,
I. 141*40 tat - 1515 no ( tt*a l* . 4ot
2. 2.010 tat . iod 11115 ’ - S ’ 1 4 4 4t 1 0 1
3. Ik tat - n0.d aWirad ’
4 105040 tat- lst . 4-..ath . 1f llt115 1 0f
- l ,r 458 1 0 1
I. 141010 tat- sad 6 )15°-all 009 10 100 .415
.115810119 210415
2 101k tot. lad fill.’- all 00 , I0 1 0 0 . 4th
6.4,90 ( 1 001 , 5
3 S ’ sZII tot fIlio ’ - b, -i 4I a.
4 141140 tat .
S. iOtlc tat- lot p.ot, , a . tiIn15Ir,
- all 15.n 0 0I .4th 610115 ad .15 1 1 , 5
I 15)140 tat. lad 1111011. 1r 5 44 4 0 ,
2 101111 tat - lcd aota
3 So L4c 5 . lot 95861058406 1lIIr44O1
-4019410.
1 11ct 01 15 501 adlLI , (Inootad 115) at II . , dl .io .01 11.18 (pta.-
0101 .6 p10Ipit4b 2005 151*6110.0158. on ads La
01 11-01 58 15ot 5 14 1 58,140031 p58 0t 111 dl , i58l 6, (3 2 (I
it) 01 all lla9nno ddo , . 00 61to ,01ot 00 .615 58011 ItnI ’ s
ad .00696 olWontbli 41.415 l ,oota tlllllOItlO , In all, 0115
01594001 atotl.tlot.
lk.i . olt . t. 49 e0grat0 lotoOn a. .100.111 .0 1 1 4 5 101101
.5t t .194411001.5 ad 0115801.41 adqlE ,lIlL1 150111301 11-
Si nffl ,a15 to p1001 . .10tn . .11 .0 l...jolal to 01.51.. La sayIn.
diy a i. all, tads tad flJ 1100.1954.0100 i-3t 00
to 1110.040 s40t .1 04.1 C WtIOt20 La 1101,90 a01
111104401 tOll 1l11l o 41 .ronk a1 ii 11-to .fl1 * 00406.
.tdy 915150900.1510 .44.1113
1111 ltj 01 9-11 efflond to p WI.l 900.1516.0011160115 to 001101
ba 1.195141195.004.1. alIt on) ef0.dlon0n of 5ol . on) .0101 , 9 ad
41(1.1156960115 lnt10tnnl 190$ a 1 5s tngl ,g flat totot la , ol94
00 .102040 59 60090* 111040 04 . 190158 010 tdçOtlIt lO Lot p40 5—
-.a 2111.-otto, .411 llI ly So .u lk t l. only If $2.01 offlott
.15 01044410175858 58 l54to0 loll 13
05
-J
p
4 3 II *1 49490611.4.10011 61t t01 , . .400496.1,9 ad .0111,56.1.
4 3 II 00 115581 , 9 110115 not a01 dl , o14l 14.1.1 lit . .jlto .50. II .
.40 41r 0 . ad II 01. It dot rifotIns cots
4 3 3 ID ID 015.100100158 O14ItIon (Sot 001 lILa (1001.1 61010
(pta*l01 49 pwlIdL4049 ) 0105
4 i 9 00 58000301 11-01 o 0)otIC . 4 01dltlon-ST p 0 0 4 0 0 5 8t 4901100.01 6.
(12. (4 it) 01 vll
O 4 3 II Oaf L111101 01411611. lad an. .e o100 lot lotOttol (to all 81958.
01 1511107016.ltç ad 10101,915 ptnit as ’ sId . 9 t-ta In
4 3 3 tO 64 ) 9*101.10110. 00 Will to nI ,lfn.att fib. ,e50040 1 ( 1 . 5*) .s-
144158. 110 lot 00 atn It 405-ada. Itotanicol ‘Ic o I tat-
01 in ot149 cl .n 0 ,169 . .go000 110058 II p0, It 001—
13on01 00. lot .ai ,otkn on.id ,05.1.- 580).
4 4 3 I I 1Sf 154)40701 00)15 ad .01010] 131100 10 1111640 Cqt61l0 115601.
noo o in 00 qtolt 49611.. 60 potly to limo .ndottko. .004015
(Ito) 64. 010 10.00 IS 1510611,0
4 3 2 9 64) 140000 25 101101) tI lt r It10 , to O OIO 011 tinIlto 581
5 14.15001. 158 1a404 e. oplt ,r ltat01 1.5869 tllatot .00.55000-
.0000 (1p . I. p041015 4 , ( 1lIIad t,. floo .0240. co .ld 004..
000
4 9 .llot (03.1 2.) all, 1 5th 1.191191
p tn1.tIot. a16l018 1 lad 93-372 I’.
1. 2 91(25.195 -
9 lay tallot (113.3.) .11110115 19l0.l
p00l15I0 1. 4.0110111 tad 61.372 01
[ 9461 (2 55595
4 3 1 10 II )
4 3 3 tO 110
4 2 3 9
4 3 I 0 1511
4 j. g as
4 3 I 9 00
4 3 2 9 1111
8 3 3 tO 631
4 3 3 10 34)
4 3 3 so as
0 3 2 9 41)
4 3 2 9 81)
4 3 3 tO 20
4 3 I 8 01) 11I1It o( 11-01 offlat to I000rt 0-04.1.004014151 frr13ot01 to.
4 3 2 9 WI 114110.50.019104113 000011. all, aol. t*n1I ’ s not r00gtlon
4 3 3 I I 643 .1106004.1900(10 6104001 . 2111,15400 tyttotI t 0460110115
L a 9014 .400040. r ,IU - 0 104 , on)) Iliofyta (611. only lIST-to
.ftl ,atl 0000 414611 Iy .0(1151.91440)4069*1117
-------
TABLE 69. (CONTIMJED)
_______ h
14 — I. . _ I _ - 4 2 3 9 1 Ia mw. C M tItb. 14
__________ - 4 2 3 - • ____
1414914; ) S - — - —
3. ‘
______ 9 — . m .14 CM 14tt 14
L Lt I - __________ 4
- 4 3 7 9 — Ie m 9 141411 14
— LLdl*J.
L II ,mi m I L k - —— - ________ — —‘ ‘
53 -3R a. — p 14 i hidy M CaC_I t14I 1y . 114 p9-
£ • 14 I. 0 .3 I I - 14 CM - ma — .d 14o -dC mis to npIlk 14to-
— - I 4 3 2 9 ti I14 _ mid I p n nI•E Ij I C CMI.
( 1 4- iI
1 1 1 4k t*_...1..lnI -- 4 3 I - I __ -
13 1411 114 g . 14 L CM - ________- S 7 3 - — L • d . Io
>m a. dS — — hid, C9 t14hl dI ,. I pm a.
mid p I_I f14 14iy (0 .Mr mU
— ( M I $ . 14 PQ I) 3 4 7 3 9 CM -’ 9 3 J IC £t uFICM ..ig 1114
Os FV4 1 4
N) 3. kCM- - 4 3 7 ‘ 9
14aIIm ( 0 3-I l I . CM - - -—-‘ S 1 1 14 99 mY I 114 (,41014a 00.5 OCiM 14 sIplfiCM
• nM14m iJ toip .. f I.M.Iy to , CMI.
3 4 3 7 9
14 14 Im (0.3.1.2 I. t CM - mi — ________ a i t d LdoI ,tj nn Im.. o lsId t flCM
_fl • — ___
___ - a IC . . .L t 14 ds M b 14 14. mi
3 — - - 5 • Q S I I , Ihnt. • $ p CM 00. c lt a.
3 — - 5 1 7
• — — - - —I. 1 p14 8 3 i -
I — —
C ___ ________ — — 1414
a
• ____ 14 ___ I , 1414 i I C d ly Imt CM
I ___ _______
— — m bi * . . CM 9 CM __
S ___ d CM tI 7 .I . (014 d 5 5 5n 14 dI0 P14
I 14 p b
I ________ — — — — •14 0114 mi
-------
• Disposal by direct discharge is the least cost method where soil and
El disposal are not feasible, or where limited land area is available
for disposal and flow reduction is not feasible. Low pressure
menbrane filtration appears to be a promising method of treatment. If
nutrient discharges are not limited, ultrafiltration (UF) menbranes
are the most appropriate. If nutrient discharges are limited (N < 10
ppm; P < 2 ppm) , reverse osmosis (RU) menbranes are the most
appropriate.
• Segregation of bath and laundry wastes from kitchen and toilet wastes
to facilitate nitrogen removal appears promising. Additional field
testing is required.
• Flow reduction (generally 10—40 percent) occasionally permits the use
of subsurface disposal systems where available land area is very
limited but soils have acceptable percolation characteristics and
purification capacity. Where more extensive flow reduction is
required, reuse for toilet, laundry and/or bath to maximize flow
reduction is appropriate.
The relative importance of field—testing the systems with available
hardware but without performance data depends primarily on the technical
adequacy and total annual cost of systems with proven performance. Comparison
of the systems in Tables 68 and 69 based on these technical and economic
considerations leads to the recommendation that the following systems have
priority for field testing:
• Septic tank — soil absorption with dosing and resting;
• Septic tank — soil absorption with alternating fields;
• Septic tank — covered intermittent or recirculating sand filter —
irrigation;
• Septic tank — evaporative lagoon;
• Septic tank — low pressure membrane filtration (UF or RO) — irrigation
(for sites with very shallow soils) or direct discharge; and
• Septic tank — mechanical evaporator.
UNDEVELOPED SYSTEM CONCEPTS
The impact of the specific characteristics of each site condition
evaluated in this study (see Table 3) on the on—site wastewater treatment and
disposal alternatives and the most promising system concepts for further
developiient to improve the alternatives are summarized in Table 70. The
relative improvement in on—site wastewater alternatives to be derived from the
needs sho ni in Table 70 depends on a variety of factors, including:
163
-------
TABLE 70. SITE CONDITION - SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT NEEDS MATRIX
Site
Condition System Developeent iieedsn
Site conditions are appropriate for septic tank - conventional soil absorption systems. Thus,
develninent of new systems is best focused en methods of increasing the Imng term loading rate (rn/day)
of the absorption field (thereby reducing site requirements and tost), incliuling ( I) absorptioe
field design modificatioes ( I e., dosing and resting or alternating fields) and (2) modified
pretreatmmit
2 Shallow soils (0.3 to (1.2 m) Wiich would sot provide adequate treatment capacity for a conventional
septic tank — soil absorption system require more extensive pretreatment than a geptic tank provides.
Thus • determination of the level of pretreatment requi red and development of methods to peon ide the
required pretreatment is desirable.
3 Marginally permeable soils and nery limited land area available for disposal make development of
methods to increase the loading rate (eVday) desirable, iiicluaiing. (I) absorptisn field design
modifications (i.e., dosing and resting) and (2) modified pretreatment. iintheds of evaporation iduich
are not land- intensive would also improve on currently avail able system alternatives. #thods of
achiening consistent flow reduction are also desirable. Developoent of aimimim pretreatment
requirements for irrigation would help maoimice this eption Improved trentment methods abich provide
effluent suitable for extensive reuse are desirable.
4 Very limited land area avail able for disposal and feasibility of direct discharge are the controlling
as site characteristics line system deeelnpanent should focus on methods of increasing the lung tern
a loadieg rate of the absorption field and improved netheds of treatment for direct discharge. Mathods
of evaporation sdsicii are not land-intensive would also improve on currently available system
altereatives. Pintheds of achieving consistent flow reduction are also desirable. tleneloiunent of
ainimiias pretreatment requirements for irrigatinn scold help mau iaize this option.
Steep slope prevents ‘area intensive’ construction (i.e • momids, tt soil absorption, lagoon. etc.)
Thus, evaporation equipment is most pu-noising. This can he facilitated by flow reduction Methods of
irrigation cool d be tested • but signi ficaot runoff is anticipated.
5 Marginally permeable and shallow (0.3 to <1.2 m) soils and very low net U rate are the controlling
site characteristics. Thus, evaporation disposal Wilch is relatively independent of precipitation,
requirmsents and methods of pretreatment for conventional soil absorption disposal, design modifica-
tions for increasing the long tern loading rate, and identification of ainimtuv pretreatment
requirements for Irrigation are appropriate for development.
7 Very shallow soils (<0.3 m) prevent subsurface disposal (at current lev,Js of nderstanding) mid net IT
rate of 2.5 to S on/no minimms in every month prevents (P disposal. Irrigation, evaporative lagoons
and mechanical (or similar) evaporation disposal methods appear feasible Pretreatment methods and
requirements for these disposal methods, and subsurface disposal vi hi 9 s quality effluent (i e., low
pressure brane filtration) are appropriate for devel opnent.
0 Marginally permeable and shallow (0.3 to <1.2 m) soils and very low net PT rate are the controlling
site characteristics. Thos, evaperation disposal oduich is relatively independent of precipitation,
requirements and methods of pretreatioent fur covventionul soil absorption disposal, design modifica-
tions for increasing the long tern loading rate, and identification of ninisitan pretreatment
requirements for irrigation are appropriate for developuent. lietheds of achieving consistent flow
redsictlmss are also desirable.
-------
TABLE 70. (CONTINUED)
Site
Conditioei System Development Needs°
9 Very shallow soils (<0.3 ii) prevent, subsurface disposal (at cwrent levels of isiderstanding), and very
low net CT rate and limited avuilalale land (<312 51 i) prevents CT or evaporatine lagoon disposal.
Irrigation and mechanical (or sie lla.) evaporation disposal methods are feasible. Pretreatment methods
and regal r e ments for these aispasai metiiods, aid subsurface disposal of high quality effi sent (i.e..
frmo low pressure mosbrane fi I trat iou) are appropi ate for devel opsent.
10 TIght clay soils prevent soil disposal and very limited available land area (<93 d) limits
evaporation disposal to methods idiacit are not land-intensive. Thus, direct discharge and mechanical
(or sieilar( evaporation are the top ranked disposal options. Improved methods of treatment for direct
discharge are appropirate for doveloiisent.
11 Tight clay soils prevent soil disposal and direct discharge Is sot feasible. Thus, evaporation is the
top rasked disposal option Methods of enaporation and necessary pretreatment coola be improeed,
especially desigv criteria for CT. maintenance requirements of evaporative lagoons, and equipment for
mechanical evaporutios.
12 Tight clay soils prevent soil disposal and very low net E l rate make direct discharge (and possibly
mechanical evaporation) the most practical disposal option. Metsods ef nitrogen removal appropriate
— for development inclnde biological (alternating aerobic-anaerobic anaerobic processes) and
0 5 physical/chemical (lit, sorption and desorption processes) treatments methods and waste segregation
0 ’ load reduction.)
13 Tight clay soils preventing soii disposal and a very low net CT rate make direct discharge (and
possibly mechanical evaporation) the most practical disposal nptiou Methods of nitrogen removal
appropriate for development inclnde biological (alteriuating aerobic-anaerobic and anaerobic processes)
and physical/chemical (FiG, sorptinn and desorptioe processes) treatment methods, and wsste segregation
(load reductien). Methods of phosphoros removal ear development md o le chemical addition (and
associated hardware) and improvnd sorption media.
14 Eecessively permeable and shallvw (0.3 to <1.2 m) soils require improvnd efflusest qoality for
suhsurface disposal. Thus • dvtenuinatinn of tue lead of pretreatment required and development of
methods to provide the required pretreatment are desirable. Improved hardiere fsr mechanical
evaporation might eahe it a viable e 1 tioi,.
15 Eecessively permeable soils require umsaturated flow to provide adequate treatment of septic efflisist
disposal by soil absorptios. More cemplete trnatuuuent prior to soil disposal or omciuasical esaporatios
are alternatives for development.
System development needed to improve en aeai I able system alternatives
-------
• Technical adequacy and total annual cost of currently avail able
options for each site condition;
• Relative frequency of occurrence, of the various site conditions; and
• Extent of additional developi ent required.
Comparison of the limitations on system alternatives for each site
condition and the developnent needs Identified with the factors listed above
provides the following conclusions:
• Developnent of additional alternatives for site conditions 1, 2, 6, 8,
14, 15 is a relatively low priority since existing hard re with
proven or pr nlsing performance and reasonable costs is available;
• Devel opBant of effi uent qual Ity requl rements and ti eatment methods for
on—site irrigation and subsurface disposal In shallow soils is
desirable. Requirements will likely ‘be aff cted. by soil
characteristics and available land area;
• Further devalop entof evaporation equipoent ,ich is relatively Inde-
pendent of precipitation (1.e., mechanical evaporator) Is desirable;
and
• Developi ent of a one—step process (i.e , meiibrane filtration) for on-
site applications to provide high quality effluent (inclt 1ng nutrient
removal if necessary) for reuse and/or a variety of disposal methods
(i.e., direct discharges 1 irrigation or subsurface disposal In shallow
or excessively permeable soils) would be desirable if future
develo nents Indicate that the cost would be c nparable to currently
avail able alternatives.
166
-------
APPENDIX A
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM - SITE CONDITION TABLES
Tables A—i through A—15 are matrices of on-site wastewater
treatment/disposal system alternatives for each of the 15 site conditions
considered in this study. Numbers In the matrices under the treatment section
indicate the order of the treatment units and the X’s which appears in the
disposal section indicate the disposal options for the treatment unit(s)
specified. For example, in Table A—i, the alternatives for system A include
an anaerobic treatment unit (i.e. septic tank) followed by evapotranspiratlOn
disposal , conventional soil absorption, modified distribution soil absorption,
soil modification or evapotranspiration/abSOrPtion disposal
Table A-16 summarizes optional treatment and reuse systems for segregated
waste streams. Numbers treatment section of the matrix indicate the order of
the treatment units and the X’s in the waste stream and reuse sections indi-
cate the waste streams and types of reuse which are applicable to the treat-
ment system specified.
167
-------
TABLE Al. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 1
—
—
1o1oq1ci
Pe i ci1-C% 1c,1
.
.
.
Ai,
I
.E
Soil C blnatianI
T
— —
!
‘ . 2 . .5
l
. . .24
.2
!
.
.
x
x
x
xx
x
xx
xx
x
xx x
xx x
0
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
2
3
x
x
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
•1
•0
•A
a
C
D
a
r
G
H
I
J
K
L
£4
N
0
p
Q
ft
S
1’
U
V
w
z
V
I
Ba
1.
2
1
2
3.
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1.
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
1
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
5
5
4
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
2
3
4
4
3
S
168
-------
TABLE Al (Continued)
—
—
L i ..
—
- — P a at !Ce!_ _
8
.
2 ;
Mr -
8
i
. a
-
— I
gU!±
I
-
— z
E
3
a a 3
!
2
2
2
.3
3
1
2
32 1
2.4
31
4
41
5
31
2
3 1
3 1
4
3
4
4
cc
EE
GG
m l
II
JJ
LL
m l
NW
00
PP
QQ
ss
w
ww
x x
1
S
6
5
6
S
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘ C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘ C
‘C
2
2
.3
1
2
1
2
1
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
K
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
K
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
K
K
x
‘C
x
‘C
K
K
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
K
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
K
‘C
K
x
K
K
K
K
‘ C
‘C
‘C
‘C
2
2
K
x
‘C
K
K
K
‘C
‘C
‘C
K
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
169
-------
TABLE Al. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order In which systems appear does not imply ranking.
14 Numbers which appear In the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units In a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with othe specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although It Is recognized that new dl:posal options
are possible no 9 black box” is included for disposal options since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment re4ulred for
en Unknown disposal method.
‘# Soil Absorption System.
H For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
170
-------
TABLE A2. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTE1IS --
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 2
—
— —
$ I1 C bi .at1Qn
RrzIt
SIotoqIc
PhtciICt . tca1
:
Air
—
g !! !
:!F .l
“
.
.
;
E
.
!
x
x
x
x
x
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
1
1
.3
.3
2
2
2
x
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
I.
1
1
1
1.
2
I
2
1.
2
2
2
a
3
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
I.
14
N
0
Q
a
U
V
V
x
I
z
BB
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
NI
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
S
S
4
3
3
4
4
S
5
4
6
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘ I
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
2
.3
3
.3
4
14
2
1.4
3
25
171
-------
TABLE A2 (Continued)
Tr,.t,, t . .
— —
Is ou% —
I O1OQtUI
P tyiIcal. h tut
Mr S f C bi 1tI fiI
• — — —
I
.
1
S
.
.
-
r
—
=
£
2
2
2
32 14
A
5
31
4
41
3
31
2
3 1.
3, 1
3
1
2
4
3
4
4
cc
DD
PP
GG
II
I.L
00
PP
QQ
RP.
8$
.rr
UU
w
1
2
1
2
2
.3
1
2
2
5
6
5
6
5
4
S
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
K
x
x
x
x
*
x
K
x
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
x
K
K
K
x
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
x
K
x
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
C
C
C
IC
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
172
-------
TABLE A2. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
** Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although It is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example a holding tank with periodic pumping.
173
-------
TABLE A3. TREATMENT AND DISPOS I. SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 3
— — O4i ,uI —
— - — - — - Mr - - — .!° !_ — -
:15 1
E’i
.1
3 1.
K,
K ,
3 1,
31
0
3 1 .
31
K.
K.
31 ’
K.
31
K
31
31
31
K
31
N
1
1
1
A
C
B
L
0
H
I
.7
L
N
N
0
p
Q
I
‘U
V
N
x
I
H
BB
1
2
I
2
3
2
I
.3
a
a
a
2
‘3
‘3
2
1
3 ,
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
a
3
2
3
3
2
3
4
5
‘5
4
3
3
4
3
4
S
5
4
6
K
31
31
31
K
K
31
*
K
K
K
K
31
31
K
K
K
K
K
K
31
31
K
K
31
31
K
K
31
*
K
K
K
31
31
31
31
31
K
31
31
31
31
31
K
31
31
K
31
31
31
31
1
1.
3
4
4
3
S
174
-------
TABLE A3 (C ntinued)
TFuD,t —
—
Oia oi.I —
Ilologicol
P liyi1cil.C i e c l
Air
Soil
Ca b1natIorS
Rr,te
-
-
a
r z
g
a
a
;_
lo
-.
;
!
!
.z-•
!
!
a
r
——
a
— .
a
r
a a
—
a
a
‘
a-a
—
.z
a
a a
. aa
DO
LE
FF
GG
II
JJ
LL
MM
NM
00
pp
QQ
RR
5s
DO
w
-ww
x x
4
5
4
5
2
2
2
3
1
2
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
S
6
5
6
5
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x.
x.
x.
x.
x.
x.
x.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C.
C
C
C
C
C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x.
‘ C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
175
-------
TABLE A3. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Ilumbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
-- Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with othLr specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although It Is recognized that new spo al options
are possible no “black box” Is included for disposal options since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
• Soil Absorption System.
H For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
• Applicable only if used in conjunction with other disposal methods
not affected by the 1000 ft 2 available land limitation, such as
mechanical or thermal evaporation, off-site disposal, drip irrigation,
etc. -
176
-------
TABLE A4. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS --
PHYSICAL. SITE CONDITION 4
Tr rit
—
elo1o lc,l
Pl. $ul—CJ lcIl
.
: . .:
Al,
I
L
Sell
= !!‘
h
§
I .
x
!
—
.
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
x
K
x
x
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
1
1
1
x
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
A
B
C
0
B
F
G
a
I
.7
K
t
P 1
N
0
p
Q
R
S
U
V
w
x
Y
B
AA
83
CC
2
1
1
.3
‘3
‘4
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1.
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
I.
1
2
1
1
I
1
1
1.
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
3€
K
K
K
x
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
F
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
X I
3
4
x+
K K
K
K
X+
K
K 3€
77
-------
TABLE A4 (Continued)
Wu , .t
D it ut
St,l %
PI ys icji—C i . ics1
Air
—
Soil
!
W i !
—
C lRatiofls Riuji
Ii
111
Jill!
8 t
Iflifliffiliffi
1
4
3
5
4
5
4
5
2
3
.3
3
1,
3
B
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
Yr
00
1a
3X
LL
00
pp
QQ
1*
U
w
x x
IT
M
B ’
3
1.4
3
3
1
1
3
3
1.
1
3
1
1
S
4
8
5
6
5
6
S
4
S
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3 1
31
31
N
31
N
N
31
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
*
N
31
N
N
*
I
N
N
N
K
31
N
N
31
K
31
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N,
N ’
31
N’
I I
N.
N,
N
N
N
N
*
N
I.
I.
N
*
31
31
x
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
K
*
N
N
31
L
2
1 .
2
2
1
1
3 1’
11’
31’
N
N
31’
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
31
N
K
N,
N
N
N
31
31
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
31
N
N
31
N
31
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
. N’
178
-------
TABLE A4. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table Indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
£ Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new disposal Options
are possible no “black box” is Included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
U Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
Applicable only If flow reduction and/or off-site disposal of a
portion of the total wastewater are used to reduce disposal area
requirement.
179
-------
TABLE A5. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ——
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 5
Trt eiit —
-
Dt, osaI
Iolo icaI Ply Ic. i.Ch Ieil
-
.
3
Air S i1
T
C iniiion rjs.
4I
!
!;
T
3 !
A
A
A
A
x
1
1
1.
1
A
B
C
0
E
F
H
I
.7
K
I .
M
0
p
Q
a
S
T
U
V
U
x
I
B
Ba
1
2
1
I
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1 .3
L4
2
2
2
2
2
1.
1.
1.
2
2
1
1
1
2
2.
2
2
2
1
2
3
‘3
3
£
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
S
4
3
3
3
(
I.
A
x
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
x
x
x
A
A
A
A
A
x
x
A
A
x
A
x
A
A
1
1
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
x
A
x
A
A
A
A
A
A
x
A
A
x
x
A
x
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
3
4
4
3
5
4
S
4
5
180
-------
TABLE A5 (Continued)
trH M
— —
S I1 C I atioii
1ocjI tI
Pt ysIci1.Ch $ciI
At,
i
g
g
aj
!
$
!
E
3
2
1
2
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
FT
U
U.
M M
M M
00
Pp
QQ
RB.
ss
x
x
x
1
2
1
.3
1
2
1
5
4
S
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
181
-------
TABLE A5. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table Indicate the order of
treatment units In a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) Indicated under given site
conditions. Although It is recognized that new d:3posal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal o7tions since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
182
-------
TABI.E A6. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAl. SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 6
—
—
—
Stolegicil P iyc*I—Cl . Ici Air
.
a a
Soil C biution R s
.. . .. ao -
•
2
!
A
a
C
D
P
G
K
I
.1
K
L
N
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
U
x
y
S
SB
0
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1.
N
1
3.
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2
1
1
.2
.2
‘4
2
2
2
2
1.2
2
1.4
1
1
2
3.
1
1
1
1.
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
4
S
5
4
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘ C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
1
1
3
4
4
3
5
183
-------
TABLE A6 (Continued)
Tres ,st.. —
— Oispoia l —
1i0 1 09 1C1 1
P 7 iica l.Ch.qir.i
Air Soil CoobioIIo.us
T.
!
a —. —
I
•
E !
.
2
2
2
3
1
2
32
S
31
4
41
5
31
2
3
1
3:
1
4
3
4
4
2
cc
FT
C C
It
3 .7
I.L
WI
NN
00
PP
QQ
P.R
Ss
UU
w
.ww
‘ D C
I.
L
3
5
6
5
6
5
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
x
x
x
x
L
2
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
*
C
x
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
*
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1.
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
184
-------
TABLE A6. FOOTNOTES
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
** Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
185
-------
TABLE A2. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 7
—
Olueiil —
SIeq - -
- -
-
-
-
- - -
2
i
I
N
N
N
*
N
N
2
1
2.
a
3
3
2
3
2
3
N
ii
I
C
D
I
7
N
I
3
I
Ta
N
N
0
p
g
N
I
V
V
I
I
5
33
2.
2
2.
a
L
a
a
a
2
a
3
x
N
x
N
N
*
I
*
I
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
N
*
N
I
I
I
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
2.
2
2.
2.
3
4
5
S
4
3
3
4
3
4
S
5
4
6
I I
N
N
N
N
I
N
N
N
N
N
K
I
N
I
N
N
N
N
N
I
N
N
I
I
I
N
N
N
*
N
*
I
N
N
N
N
N
I
I
N
I
I
N
*
K
I
K
N
N
I
2.
1.
2
2
‘3
,
4
3
4
14
2
3
L4
25
186
-------
TABLE Al (Continued)
Tr i t•
— - — p tc I.Q tca1 -
- —
.
,E
- - - aI1 — C 1nUIons — —
-
3k j
.
3
!
.
.
E
s
.
S
5
2
2
2
32
1
31
41
31
2
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
4
3
4
4
2
2
L
1
if
GG
Eli
II
JJ
MM
MN
00
pp
QQ
BR
ss
Ti ’
w
ww
0c
3
5
6
5
6
5
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘ C
‘C
x
‘C
2
2
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
I.:
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
187
-------
TABLE A7. FOOTNOTES
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear In the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
* Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) Indicated under given site
conditions. Although It is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” Is included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatn nt required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
188
-------
TABLE A8. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS --
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 8
Tp s.t —
— —
S’It Cx ln .t1
Ifolo ( I
P?iysIcal-Ch Ic .)
.
A r
!
—
—
2
=
- . .! .y
I
.
.
i
‘
E
g
g
5
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
K
1
NO
3.
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
A
B
C
D
£
V
G
U
I
3
K
I.
14
N
0
P
Q
a
S
T
U
V
w
x
I
z
hA
BB
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
5
5
a
E
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
x
K
K
K
K
x
K
x
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
1
1
2
2
.3
3
4
14
2
1.4
3
25
189
-------
TABLE AB (Continued)
—
1PM IlI —
— Disposal —
Ii la -
-
lul - - -
IlliDildil
- kfl_
-
a.
S
h}jj ’
J
J ”_
h
lihlil
1
Ii
k
I
I
ii
!
IIIU
4
5
4
S
a
a
a
pa
3
1
a
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
a
a
pa
1
D
U
F,
00
3 a7
00
‘p
U
U
‘2
w
N W
x x
3
3
4
3
a
3
a
2
a
1
1 .
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
a
1
5
6
5
6
5
4
S
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
N.
N
N.
N.
ii.
N.
N.
K
K
K
K
K
K
1
2
a
3
1
1
*
x
N
*
N
N
I
K
K
K
K
K
N
N
N
N
I
N
N
N
K
*
N
N
N
*
*
N
K
N
N
N
N
*
I
N
N
N
K
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
190
-------
TABLE A8. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table Indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
- •- - Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method. -
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
Applicable only If flow reduction and/or off-site disposal of a
portion of the total wastewater are used to reduce disposal area
requirement.
191
-------
TABLE A9. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 9
— — D ouI —
BtoIaq1c l
PhyiIciI.th .IciI
.
Mr
8
-
.
Sot Co bI imt onI
1
RFøI
8
4
.
E
8
!
I
A 21 X
B 1 x
C I X
U NO E x ‘C
E 1 2 3 ‘C ‘C ‘C
F 21. - x x x x
G 2 • 4 ‘C ‘C X
H 2 41 5 x x x
I 3 • 2 5 X X X
3 2 3 1 4 ‘C ‘C ‘C
K 1 2 3 x x x
L 1. 2 3 X ‘C X
N 321 4 x x x
N 1 2 x
O 2 1 3 x x x x
P 1 2 x x
Q 1 2
R 2 3 1. x
S 321 X
.3 x
U 2 x
V 2 3 4 x xx
W 2 4 5 x x ‘C
X 3 14 5 x x x
Y 2 3 1 4 x x x
I • 25 6 x x x c
192
-------
TABLE A9 (Continued)
T,e, ut,. —
— O ls ataI — -
Slolul
P0,tIc Ii.C OMICII
--
! Wiffl
2
Air
-
!
9-
Soil
C3 Moations 01014
--- ---
.I
.
9-
-
g
2 ‘ —
2
j!
3
•
.
g
!
I
:
9-
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
32
14
-
5
31
41
5
31
2
3 1
3 1
4
3
4
4
RB
cc
DD
BE
FT
GG
HE
II
JJ
K Y .
LL
‘HI
NH
00
pp
QQ
BK
ss
Dr
UTJ
Dr
I
I.
2
1
L
2
I
S
6
5
6
S
4
5
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I C
I
I
IC
I
I
I
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
I
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
I
IC
I
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
I
IC
x
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
I.
1
2
1.
2
2
1.
1
C
IC
IC
193
-------
TABLE A9. FOOTNOTES
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
14 Numbers which appear in the body of the table Indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) Indicated uncer given site
conditions. Although it Is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” Is included for dlspo:31 options since
It would ‘not be possible to,,speclfy the pretreatment required for
an Unknown disposal method.
• Soil Absorption System.
•# For example, a holding tank’with periodic pumping.
194
-------
A
B
C
0
E
p
G
H
I
‘3
K
L
H
N
0
p
Q
R
S
T
U
z
TABLE MO. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS --
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 10
Tru , at4 —
D$t ci.i1 —
•I&oqIcaI
Pb,t$C.I.ch fCIl
Air
Soil
Coc i itIOi S
eU%,
—
a—
a
9
•
g
3
•
:
. ? .9 5 .9 .9
!
a . a
.9 3 .1 .9
.9
.5 19
P5Z
—
.
.9 3 .9 .‘—
— i ’ .. a
P—3
g -
!
‘ 3
. — .9 .9 .2 .2.9
x
x
x
2
2
4
3
2
x
x
1
I
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3.
.3
.3
.4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
4
6
5
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘ C
‘ C
x
‘ C
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
1
1
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
3
4
4
3
S
4
5
4
5
4
‘C
‘C
‘C
195
-------
tABLE Ala (Continued)
Yr, . rIt’ —
—
Riv*I -
IIoto Ici
Pu,i1caI- IcaI
Air
!
a t
A A
A
Sofl Co.bIudo
—
8A ! 3
.
- .
!%
4
—
..
;
.
-
E
-
—
A
.
1
2
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
88
cc
DD
EE
IF
GG
88
II
I L
00
pp
1
2
1
.3
1.
2
1
x
x
x
5
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘ C
‘C
x
*
x
x
x
x
x
x
A
A
A
A
x
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
x
196
-------
TABLE AlO. FOOTNOTES
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear In the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
** Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption Syst .
# For example, a holding tank with periodic p ping.
197
-------
TABLE Mi. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS -—
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION ii
—
D1 iat —
- If jciI -
- -
at .&* . -
— A r — - — .?‘L. — —
II !
UdUhiIdflhIU
± i
IIHI1
s
I
Ji
it
!
U
Ii
!
g
U
U
1!
A 1
B 21 x x
C 2 1 x
D 1 x
1 x x
7 I xx x
2 3 xx
0 21 xx x
Z 2 1. 4 xx
. 2 4 . 5 xx
3 .2 S xx
1. 2 3 1. 4 xx
N 1 2 3 xx
1 2 3 xx
o 32 4 xx
P 3 3 xx x
Q 2. 2 3 4 xx
2 4 5 xx
$ 2 14 5 X X
2 3 1. 4 xx
0 3 1 25 6 xx x
V 3214 5 x
V 5 - 6
31 4 5 x
T 23 42 3 6 x
5 2 31 5 x x
198
-------
TABLE A11( ntinued)
— trss .nto. —
IIoI o9t .l P IIftICITC ICa1
A ir
Soil
Dlop oi.t
C !nitIoo
Rr s.
:
. 2
2 .. . 2
2
.2 °
. 2
g
:
;
.2
. 2
.2.2
-
2 2 .2
.2.2.2
.
8
—
a . -:
. 2 ;
8
.2 -
—
; •
8.
—
S•2
2 —
Z.!•
8 .
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
2
‘3
1
2
2
Mt
3D
cc
DD
FF
GG
II
Ji
ici
LI
M l
01
P1
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1
1.
1
1
I . :
1
2
1
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
x
x
C
C
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
z
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I
IC
199
-------
TABLE A12. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new ‘lisposal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment equired for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
200
-------
TABI E A13. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS --
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 13
—
Trn st$+ —
—
hit c bin.tic i R 1.
ia oifci
piwsica1.( ica1
Air
— —
C a—
C
—
I
.
-
.
.
.
E
•
—
a
-..
-
. i
.
r
x
x
x
x
2
2
3
2
a
C
D
F
G
a
I
.7
I.
14
N
0
p
Q
a
S
T
U
V
V
a
V
3
M
Ba
1
2
1
1
•1
2
2
2
2
4
24
‘4
4
2 .5
I.5
x
x.
x+
x
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
3
5
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
5
5
3
4
4
1
1.
1
1
1
3
4
S
5
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
5
S
4
5
5
6
5
6
S
4
6
6
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
a
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
3
3
4
2
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
C
C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
201
-------
TABLE All. FOOTNOTES
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear In the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units In a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) Indicated under given site
conditions. Although It Is recognized that new di posal options
are possible no “black box” is included for disposal options since
It would not be passible to specify the pretreatm it equired for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
H For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
202
-------
TABLETh12. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 2
Air
S3i1 C bir .ItIlTl%
AtU1
-
ioioq iei1
PI yitCI1.CA iCai
----
-------
—
i a
S
.
-
3
S
:
3
E
8
:
—
3
—
:
3
F t
— —
3 3 5
—
-.
3
...
-. . .!
3 333
.Z
3
x
x
x
2
2
N
I
I .
1
1
2
1
1
1
I
1
a
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
S
K
L
N
N
0
P
Q
K
S
U
V
N
K
Y
z
AA
BE
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
1.3
.3
3
x
x.
X l
X l
1
2
3
3
1
2
I ,
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
3
4
2
5
3
4
3
:3
4
5
S
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
5
5
4
S
5
5
4
6
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
‘C
X
x
X
‘C
X
X
X
X
X
‘C
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
X
X
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
*
‘C
x
‘C
3
4
2
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
X
3 ,
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
X
‘C
X
x
1
1
2
‘C
‘C
X
‘C
203
-------
TABLE A1Z (Continued)
Tri* It’
— Dhpos.l —
C blii.dwiI
•to1oq cI
P1,ys1cat.ch Icat
!
!
a
3
Al,
-
• —
:
5:
S
- p
•
..! :
p
..
E
. 3
S
—
.
E
p
g
3
g
S
p
j
:
3
:
.
3
cc
DO
EE
FT
GG
Ha
I’
x x
LL
MM
NM
00
pp
QQ
PR
as
UU
vv
M W
xx
1
3
1.
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
S
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
6
5
5
$
6
5
4
S
5
3
3
4
3
3
2
:3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I C
IC
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
IC
I.
2
2
1
1
IC
IC
x
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
204
-------
TABLE A13 IContinuedi
—
Afr
OIt ou1 —
I I1 Co I iI oM
iu
Sto1 qtca1
:
.
—
!
.
5 .,
a
R..!
2. -:—
. —
. : ;
3
I
•
2
3
-:
.
—
—
—
.
. -
—
3
1
3
1.:
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
5
3
S
4
4
3
4
4
2
1
I
1
1
F
GG
RH
II
JJ
KR
RH
RN
00
pp
QQ
HR
Ss
Dr
Uu
vv
ww
U
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1 .:
1
2
1
4
6
5
S
S
6
5
4
5
S
3
3
2
3
3
I
x
x
3
3
x
3
x
3
x
x
3
3
3
3
x
x
x
3
3
3
x
I C
I
I
3
3
3
3
x
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
x
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
205
-------
TABLE A13. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of bthloglcal treatment
indicated.
* Order In which systems appear does not imply ranking.
4+ Numbers which appear In the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option s) Indicated under 1ven site
conditioni. AlthougJ It s recognized that new dLposal options
are possible no “black box” Is Included for disposal op’ions since
It would not be possible to specify the pretreatment, required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption Systei .
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
206
-------
TABLE A14. TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 14
—
— Otsooul —
Stoloqical
Pbis1c.t—cl ic.1
.
Air SoU Ce bin.Iio
S .- I
g5ä
3
3 3 5
Rs .
t-
—
4
-
3 3
.
E
g
—
3
c
a33
5
A
B
C
D
£
P
G
H
I
‘3
I.
U
0
p
Q
It
S
T
U
V
U
H
I
z
A
Ba
0
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘ C
1
N
1
1
1
1.
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
‘3
.3
2
.4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
II
2
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
S
S
4
3
3
4
3
4
5
5
4
E
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘ C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
1
1
3
4
4
3
5
207
-------
TABI.E A14 (Continued)
trH ut4
—
OIi iat —
IIeIo aI
Ph. Ic I.O tt I
At,
—
Ii
:
Sail Cab4n ttani
g
.-:
.
•
. .
teul.
.
•.. •—
!L
.
e
•
:
..
I
4
S
4
5
2
2
2
L3
3
1
2
4
3
4
4
2
I.
I.
I .
2
2
2
2
DO
F?
Ga
II
J3
LL
tel
NN
00
PP
QQ
PR
ss
TI
DO
w
1
4
1
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
1 .
1
1
3.
1
1
2
1
5
6
5
6
S
4
5
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
C
C
C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
I
2
2
2
1
1
2
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
208
-------
TABLE A14. FOOTNOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
indicated.
* Order In which systems appear does not imply ranking.
+4 Numbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
• * Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or In combination with other specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) Indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new disposal options
are possible no “black box” Is included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
209
-------
TABLE A15. TREX NENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS --
PHYSICAL SITE CONDITION 5
-
—
DhDoIat —
lshlGI1
P Ie 1—CbIcat
a
jiUtult
If p kIl
a
iiiULJ
Ce bf st1eM
-
IIIIU
huti
a
iH1
H
ii
I
ii
A 1
1 21 * xx
C 2 1 X X
1 X l i
3 ‘xx
0 I. I
3 .3 N
2 i i
I 2 4 x xx
J 2 5 x xx
X 3 2 5 * x l i
1.’ 2 3 1 4 ‘ ‘ ‘ , x
1 2 3 * xx
1 3 3 ‘ * xx
o 33 , 4 * x x ,
P 1 2 ix
O 1 3 * xx *
ft 3 x x
$ L 3 xx *
? 3 3 1 xx
5 321 **
V 2 3 xx *
V I 4, xx
2 3 4 x xx
1 2 . 34 5 x xx
3 2 3 14 5 x xx
2 3 4 x xx
13 3 425 8 x x *
210
-------
TABLE A15 (Continued)
T,,.t mit 4
— OftpouI
eU%e
R cIo I j1
P1 yitcil.Ch 1cal
Atr
-
—
.3 .3 . 3
SoI’ Co bI’ lttofiI
.z-
E..
— -E
. . —
.3 .3 3 .3’ 33.3 th
•.
;
.3
.
i
$
.3 .3
g
.3
.3
:
E .3
3
.
.3
4
5
4
5
2
2
2
1 .3
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
4
4
cc
DO
FE
GG
HH
II
3 . 3
LL
M M
MN
00
pp
QQ
ss
UTJ
vv
L
2
1
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
6
S
6
5
4
5
S
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
1
2
2
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
x
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
‘C
x
x
‘C
‘C
x
‘C
x
‘C
x
x
x
1
2
2
2
1
1
4
211
-------
TABLE MS. FOCTItOTES
+ Indicates that the lagoon provides the type of biological treatment
Indicated.
* Order in which systems appear does not imply ranking.
++ Numbers which appear in the body of the table indicate the order of
treatment units in a system.
** Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment
required (either singly or in combination with oth r specified
processes) for the disposal option(s) indicated under given site
conditions. Although it is recognized that new c”spo al options
are possible no “black box” Is included for disposal options since
it would not be possible to specify the pretreatment required for
an unknown disposal method.
# Soil Absorption System.
## For example, a holding tank with periodic pumping.
212
-------
TABLE Al 6. TREATMENT/REUSE SYSTEMS FOR
SEGREGATED WASTE STREAMS*
Irgotment —
Waste Stream Biological 1 Physical-Chemic 1 -
qeuse
!L
2
2
1. 3
3
3
2
4
1. 3
1.3
1_
3
4
3
2
2
4
4
A
B
C
0
C
6
ii
J
K
I .
14
N
0
p
Q
R
S
T
U
V
I
I
B
I
B
B
a
B
I
a
a
a
a
I
.4
I
a
a
2
2
4
a
B
0
B
a
x
4
2
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
a
a
I
I
a
a
0
2
FOOTNOTES:
• Iscludes only treatment systems unique to segregated •aste streams The treatment/dIsposal
system tables for each site variable isdicate the treatment Systems applicable prior to reuae
of cu fned wastewater Many of the systems or Table 1 are also applicable to segregated
waste streams
Indicates unknown process capable of providing the treatment required (either singly or is
cembinetion with other specified processes) or the reuse option(s) indicated
• Order in which systems appear does sot imply ranking
213
-------
APPENDIX B
REUSE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
For the purposes of this study, reuse water quality objectives are re-
quired to determine the level of wastewater treatment necessary prior to on-
site reuse. Considerable variation exists for reuse water quality character-
istics at existing reuse sites; reuse water quality criteria recommended by
several national and International organizations; and reuse water quality cr1—
terla enacted by various legislative bodies. Despite the variations, protec-
tion of publtc health and environmental and aestheti.. acceptability have
generally been the gui d1 ng.pr1 nd pies.
To ensure pràtection of pubi Ic, heal th, reuse water qual Ity recommenda-
tions and requirements generil ‘have been b ed n the likelihood of human,
contact and/or 1n ast1on of reuse water. Some form of bacteriological
measurement (usually the number of coilforni organisms per 100 ml) Is used as
an Indicator of health hazard potential . Physical and chemical water charac-
teristics are ai o Indicators of !afety hazards and toxicity danger of the
reuse water, as well as Indicators of environmental and aesthetic suitability
of reuse applications.
Cate9OrleS used to descri e reuse applications, for this study are based,
on the considerations shown In Table 8 -1 (1). Tables ‘B-?. 8-3, and B-4 pre-
sent •the’water. qualttyobjectIves used In this study for reuse categories 8,
C, andO. respect1 eiy.. Theia water quality objectiveswere estimated based
on the data presented and the judgment of the project team. In general • the
specific values selected are weighted means of the data presented. Thus, the
adequacy of these values requires further demonstration before they can be
used outside of the context of this report.
214
-------
TABLE B-i. REUSE CAT [ GURI [ S AND APPLICATIONS*
Category
Consideration
Reuse Type
Application for
On-Site
Reuse Systems
A
Risk of limited contact with reuse
water is unlikely
Aesthetic lakes (boating, fishing
and swinuiiing not allowed)
None
B
Risk of limited contact with reuse
water is significant, but ingestion
is unlikely
Recreational lakes with boating &
fishing (but swirnnlng not allowed),
toilet flushing
Toilet flushing grade:
Toilet flushing reuse
C
Risk of full body contact with
reuse water is significant,
limited ingestion is likely
Irrigation of (i.e., golf courses,
athletic fields, and parks), park
fountains, car washing
Utility grade: Lawn
watering, irrigation,
car and house washing,
and toilet flushing
reuses
D
Full body contact with reuse water
is assumed, limited ingestion is
likely
Recreational lakes with boating,
fishing, and swinuiing allowed.
(potable reuse not allowed)
Body contact grade:
Laundry, shower, lawn
watering, irrigation,
car & house washing,
and toilet flushing
reuses
E
Potable reuse assunied
Full potable reuse
Uncertain
U,
* Adapted from Reference 1.
-------
TABLE B-2. TOILET FLUSH WATER OUALITY OBJECTIVES (a)
R - t1 saI 1 EtD al lain
(vitA ibstlrg ,vi (with stIrq avi P r this
flsh lri sJ fisMr J Toilet fhohir9 (d,g) Toilet f1 AIn e) sti ’ - Toilet
Soothe C uity, CA (b,e) aeter. CA (biM T*y . Ja s — flt$tli?9 vie
(2.3) (2.3) (4) (1) —
3.5 0.4 (5-10) (20) (20) (20)
c r0 41 (45-75) (45)
5-10 5 (10) (20) (20)
1.110 544 ( - ) (5, )
Total C 1Ifos V
120 ml .2 (0-2.2) (245) (240)
Ttstldtty (I1J) 5 1.5 (3-10) (25) (25)
Cole- (S.U.) (oo d1saroo t1e (ro d1salree 1e
cole-) cnle-)
(S.U.) (ro dlsegroethle (r s.offetmIve) (re-..ofres ve)
F1 t le Q (r visible) (ot vistle)
(S_U.) 7.7 6.15 (6.5-7.0) (6.5—4.0) (6.5—9.0)
144341 0.20 1.0 (0.1-15.0) (20)
1.1 (1-3)
0.21
1.0 1.9 (1-4)
Tall 4. 5(3 .20)
104 0.21 (0.1-0.5)
17 3.6 6.20
th le-ides (403)
thloire
RelttheS 0 3 4 (0.5—2.5)
(7-15) (2)
104 5 (2.4)
114 201 158
o 15
0. (0.8-1.4)
SM (5-7)
Totol Alkalinity
O SCACZ 3 244 15(14-140)
lotol 114r&mss
as C ia ) 3 520 15( -110) (443)
2.4 1 5(l)
Wsmlc 0
0v iui 0
0 .06
Lr i 0.17 (1)
r nr rse 0.20
Selesbes 0
ZIrt 0.24
(a) (OrtU - i ll irlass 1roeise fot —
(b) ta Tepe ixally iottrg x sality dirxt lsttco tniass
r boo ‘ot
(c) P4ebes e In rwvisth , eSet 1xa11yr ir site- qility
d) TIt o b14tro 1ltai COesiToo6.. tootative a1te-I
a) Colibm ltsitatbes Is ase , 1r oo4
(f) utortas Rogbosui Wale- l j 1 ity Cootrol ibard l ilroon’t3. Cclifom Ibeltatbes
of 2.2 is ata ro uIree-t
(g) flath elet of s-es.em rxtcle fluid 13.3 (udnbrue)
ikate’s sleses In orestibros repe It lrtallj rrterresdwi site- 17iality cite-ia
Teicity tyol LOS)) rq/k9
10.05 o e irritati On - , irr1t tt ,
Pr*s y in lrr1tatl - mild or si Igit irritatboo at 12 urn
Sem’ial LOS)) 20.SD egtk9
Ir*alatios 1207>20 e11
216
-------
TABLE B-3. UTILITY GRADE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
3.8 3 12 10 5—10(10) (10) (10) (78))d) (15)
(20)
2.0 1 Il 20 10(10) ( I c) (5) (78)(d) (15)
(0 )
870 1 616 (1 )
<1 2.2 0(207)
2.0
48.0
178
1.5
267
112
0.34
0.77
0. 0.014
0. 103
0.03?
(2.2)
(100:0)
(5;
350 203 ( ) (207)
— - (02)
(1 0)
(203)
(0 5)
(0.5)
(30)
3b (S.U.) Sigi. 0 1 ire
flod le (03
0 1 (S.u.) 7.2 7.8 7.5 7.6
1 14 3 -N 14.5 0
2.5 2.2
1 0 , - i l 0.16 0.37
0.38 13.2
48 .8
hit 0.033 0.076
Le 40.012 0.
.8.02 0.033
6 1D2 1 0.031
flIm- Ith 0.20 0.38
0.0:6 0.034 _________________
(a) Iailt5 . nj/I inlevo 0Jt r . . i e fL*
b Data re revot litally 1sttnj quality Lm1 S 07h1rw1 r.Xui
C l6 s .is In pir it )r s n4re 1I 1 a1ly rquair tir q 1tty r j1ruie t3
d skwi In 10i rolre03l litally arte quality
Da as (7 s &ytr c ,u nrwasiu
1) Salt. axinilatla in ash itcun die 03 hI s 136 efl 1 a tat1
g) Hl s dsloias reilduil inIntair to disco.rage mamas urXt03
6) t.tflizt staroarto fir U.S. VIr’O ln Islaito
I) Jacisn lDetrg Cir rntIai r nsa ietir gel lty stasla ,ds fir rit1iir ate
p’xnmd Criteria ( aX &)
Flash Int of rass .aqatcui nx cIe hind 73.3’t (sdnmrie)
lavicity ib-al L > 02 mg/kg
Le Irritatiti l — Ia Irmitatlini
Pimavy skim irritition - mild ir £1 19* Ir,ltatlai at 72 irm
0.rnal L003 >20.0:0 ag/kg
Ii4ialatias Lt > 78 ag/i
(6) S ifk naitas- seltotini kansi osStMdardM t1xels i1,tIca1 poiniLre
(0) (240) (23)(k)
(ra*us - (lus.
plasseit) affevoive)
(r
visible)
(6.7-8.5) (5.8.8.6) (6 -8)(d)
(0.5)
(m 415-
agus le
tour)
offerolve)
(02
visible)
(5 .5-8.5)
100
an
36
TS
136
T i1 avl ihbnj’
103 ml
Fatal avl ifav
1187 ml
Total b02erIW
Ill) ml
Tetidity (16)
ia1des
O skrire
s1 d i a al
Fotal ibrdres.s
Iron
Cola- (S.U.)
217
-------
TABLE B-4. BODY CONTACT G ADE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
—, . . l
TiUld )laU a 5. fTIl• u 1’ I .
t) ftflu I I1it 140b4 14o * t ILl luoly.
L,dlm Od .. ls , . lTdI g CTou 3. OWL 14wy I? . 1 ’ wb*Ili .
All. 0, ol t t ( Obtl,4 dv t ItW Cr I LI
(b 7 ) Afrta l1L1, cl .1) (4I OltL ( c i) w ’o.
14) LI) In I ’ ) ,oc IIr fidiro
Ii 4 . 1 ) 1) 0.41) ( X II . ) 0)
4( 0)
5 05) ( X I ) .) ( 0)
Ti Ti
Troil d
Ti I SM 0 (I) ( I) (I) ) OJ)
Iddly(S ) 13.01 t) 45) (I) )I)
dv ( M L) I 5) )i, r )s dv)
(IlL) C ) (i lt*) )Lm4 1 f4)
140111 (40 .ftlTI) (40 .I .r ’ .)
• (LI’) 1.11.4 II 1.04.1) (14) (I)
(4.11.4)
5.3.310
1l.IJ LI (0.4)
0 ,4 101.0.5
1 1.0.4 4 ( 5) 0) 5)
Ti• 11( 1.0)
54 •., 0.45
51 10.0. 0
(WI 5450)
S 150)
4iS1l 1 4 4 , 1 II
• 1 7(0 .4)
I I I I
O TI
Tail 1 1 14(0
Tool -
• 50)
( Li) ( Li) (Li)
il • (1.0) ((.0) (hO)
(Li) ( Li) (WI)
lii (LI)
C li)
(101) (LOll (0.01)
(WI) (WI) (WI)
110
( Li) C l i ) Cl i)
(0.00) (0.00) (0.0 5)
14405 14405
(4405 .4405
C.)
(I) 1ua )eil) u ) 1 15 7)i
- I __ l Wd dv
(1 I __ lalhi 1 1I5 114011
II 140e Ti
U) 540 i . 5. Tal I l Ia d I I IL
140 h.s Ti iflal 7,10115440 0 04050(015 0 (I .40 IlL .v 40 ‘ )* 0(405
• o ) SI
(IT 40 0 1 1 01700144 (ai dv)
7040 01A400 034), flAL 7T.3C LL$
blOISI SI) ITi (Ti Ihi
LI Ti 11114040’ 0 111010(0,
450y In 1ff50 101. rid 010 (45 *11701014 a TO v i
dv (Ti I 40 ( 0
14 virt dv ii 40 40$octtnIty ,i 4 )01
(I) 4.td do I Id 10 14014544 LtiII .4 n44 I*It (7 ).
218
-------
REFERENCES
1. NSF. Proposed national sanitation foundation standard for wastewater
recycle and water conservatIon devices. National Sanitation Foundation,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Portions of these standards were not adopted.)
1977.
2. Schmidt, C. J. and E. V. Clements. Demonstrated Technology and Research
Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater, EPA—670/2-75-038. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1975.
3. CA—DOH. Wastewater Reclamation Criteria, California Administrative Code,
title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health, State of California,
Department of Environmental Health, Berkeley, California. 1975.
4. AWWA Research Foundation. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News, No. 4, January
1978.
5. AWWA Research Foundation. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News, No. 3,
December 1977.
6. World Health Organization. International Standards for Drinking Water,
Third Edition, Geneva, Switzerland. 1971.
7. EPA. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
EPA—570/9—76—003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
1976.
8. AWWA Research Foundation. Municipal Wastewater Reuse News, No. 5,
February 1978.
219
------- |