TM 5-814-8

EVALUATION CRITERIA GUIDE FORWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION, CONTROL,

AND ABATEMENT PROGRAMS

H E A D Q U A R T E R S , D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E A R M Y23 APRIL 1987

REPRODUCTION AUTHORIZATION/RESTRICTIONSThis manual has been prepared by or for the Government and is publicproperty and not subject to copyright.

Reprints or republications of this manual should include a credit substan-tially as follows: “Department of the Army, Technical Manual TM5-814-8, Evaluation Criteria Guide for Water Pollution Prevention,Control and Abatement Programs.”

Technical manual

No. 5-814-8

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

AppendixAppendixAppendix

EVALUATIONPREVENTION,

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

A.B.c.

GENERALPurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*TM 5-814-8

HEADQUARTERSDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Washington, DC 23 April 1987

CRITERIA GUIDE FOR WATER POLLUTIONCONTROL, AND ABATEMENT PROGRAMS

Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONSIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water Resources and usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effects of discharge on the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NATURE AND ORIGIN OF WASTEWATERSIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wastewater characteristics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sources of industrial and sanitary wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Comparison of domestic and industrial wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REGULATIONSArmy Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The NPDES permit system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Establishment of effluent limitations for NPDES Perrnits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pretreatment of industrial wastes discharged to municipal treatment systems . . . . . . . .WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FORMULATIONIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water and wastewater inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Solution methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Disposal alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Upgrading of existing facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Environmental impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Specific treatment needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSESPreliminary and primary wastewater treatment processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Biological wastewater treatment processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Physical and chemical wastewater treatment processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Industrial process wastewater treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSALIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sludge characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conditioning and stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thickening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dewatering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Solids handling process comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND PERFORMANCEIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wastewater treatment systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Effluent discharge alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Solids handling systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Construction costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Life cycle cost evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND SOLIDS HANDLING COST DATAWASTEWATER AND SOLIDS HANDLING DESIGN CRITERIAREFERENCES

Paragraph

1-11-21-3

2-12-22-3

3-13-23-33-4

4-14-24-34-44-5

5-15-25-35-45-55-65-75-8

6-16-26-36-4

7-17-27-37-47-57-67-77-8

8-18-28-38-4

9-19-29-3

Page

1-11-11-1

2-12-12-1

3-13-13-73-9

4-14-14-44-64-13

5-15-35-55-85-145-185-185-20

6-16-66-146-20

7-17-17-27-27-37-37-37-4

8-18-18-98-10

9-19-19-1A-1B-1C-1

“This manual supersedes TM 5-814-8, dated July 1976.

TM 5-814-8

Page

BibliographyGlossary

BIBLIOGRAPHY-1GLOSSARY-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.3-1.3-2.3-3.4-1.4-2.5-1.5-2.6-1.6-2.8-1.8-2.9-1.A-1.A-2.A-3.A-4.A-5.A-6.A-7.A-8.A-9.

A-10.A-11.A-12.A-13.A-14.A-15.

Table No.2-1.3-1.3-2.3-3.3-4.3-5.3-6.3-7.3-8.3-9.

3-10.3-11.3-12.3-13.3-14.4-1.4-2.4-3.4-4.4-5.4-6.4-7.

4-8.

4-9.4-10.4-11.

5-1.

TitleComparison of domestic wastewater with selected military industrial wastewater.Typical TNT production process.Typical shell-filling and renovating (LAP) plant operation.Highlights of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.Features of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).Program formulation problem solving cycle.Factors to be considered in a wastewater management program.The effect of equalization on a wastewater with variable pH.Emsulified oil removal by cracking and chemical coagulation.Alternative wastewater treatment processes for military installations.Alternative sludge processing systems for military installations.Commonly used indices.Cost of raw waste pumping.Cost of preliminary treatment.Cost of primary clarifiers.Cost of FeCl3 addition.Cost of activated sludge.Cost of high rate trickling filter.Cost of suspended growth vitrification system.Cost of final clarifiers.Cost of two stage lime clarification.Cost of multi-media filtration.Cost of chlorination.Cost of granular carbon absorption.Cost of two stage anaerobic digestion.Cost of vacuum filtration.Cost of sludge drying beds (uncovered).

LIST OF TABLES

Undesirable characteristics and effects of wastewater discharges and remedial approaches.Common enteric pathogenic bacteria and related disease.Common parasites and related disease.Average pollutant loading and wastewater volume from domestic household (four members) (100).Sewage volume and BOD for various services (126).Comparison of domestic wastewater characteristics with selected military industrial wastewater.Average characteristics of domestic sewage.Summary of wastewater quality from maintenance and exterior cleaning activities.Characteristics of phenolic aircraft paint-stripping wastewater.Typical laundry waste characteristics.Analysis of photographic processing wastewater discharge.Typical TNT wastewater characteristics.Typical nitroglycerine wastewater characteristics.Typical munitions metal parts wastewater characteristics.Typical LAP facility industrial wastewater characteristics.NPDES primary industry categories*.Toxic organics.Existing BPT effluent guidelines for point sources.Toxic pollutants.BPT and BAT Standards for metals finishing 40 CFR Part 433 (mg/L).U.S. EPA secondary treatment standards for municipal discharges.Pretreatment standards for electroplating point source category, existing sources, all subcategories,

discharge of 10,000 gpd or less.Pretreatment standards for electroplating point source category, existing sources, all subcategories,

discharges of 10,000 gpd or more.Pretreatment standards metal finishing.Prohibited industrial discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTW’s).Industries for which initial categorical pretreatment standards are being written.Example of waste load reductions by in-plant control.

Page3-103-163-194-24-35-25-46-46-318-28-119-2A-2A-3A-4A-5A-6A-7A-8A-9A-10A-11A-12A-13A-14A-15A-16

Page2-33-53-63-73-83-103-113-123-143-143-143-173-173-183-184-74-84-104-114-124-12

4-13

4-144-154-154-165-7

ii

TM 5-814-8

Table No.5-2.5-3.5-4.6-1.6-2.6-3.6-4.6-5.6-6.7-1.7-2.7-3.8-1.8-2.8-3.8-4.8-5.8-6.8-7.8-8.9-1.

LIST OF TABLES (Cent’d)

Potential non-compliance materials and example control measures.Stream classification for water quality criteria.Ten top ranked causes of poor plant performance.Typical effluent levels of principal domestic wastewater characteristics by degree of treatment.Summary characteristics of the activated sludge process variations.General trickling filter design criteria.Summary of primary and biological wastewater treatment processes.Expected effluent suspended solids from multi-media filtration of secondary effluent.Summary of physical and chemical wastewater treatment processes.Typical raw sludge quantities.Typical raw sludge solids content.Summary of solids handling and disposal.Classification of Army facilities by wastewater flow.Performance of typical wastewater treatment system alternatives.Chemical conditioning requirements for various sludge types (167).Thickening characteristics of various sludge types (percent solids) (167).Advantages and disadvantages of using sludge drying beds.Typical sludge concentrations produced by vacuum filtration.Typical dewatering performance of belt filter presses.Typical dewatering performance of filter presses (167).Typical geographical variations in cost indices (values are ENR construction cost index for

March 1983).

Page5-105-115-156-26-96-126-156-196-207-17-17-58-18-48-128-138-138-138-138-14

9-1

iii

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 1

GENERAL

1-1. Purpose

This manual provides general information, guid-ance, and criteria for water pollution prevention,control, and abatement programs for Departmentof the Army activities and installations, includingcontractor activities located on property underthe jurisdiction of the U.S. Army. Direction isprovided for formulating pollution control pro-grams at government facilities located in the U.S.where effluent and stream requirements havebeen or are being established, as well as atoverseas installations where guidelines for pro-tecting water resources may not have been for-malized. Program steps outlined are intended toconform to basic policy outlined in ExecutiveOrder 12088 and implemented by Ar 200-1 andAR 200-2. This directive stipulates that Federalagencies are to design, construct, manage, oper-ate, and maintain their facilities to conform withFederal, State, interstate, and local water qualitystandards and effluent limitations in accordancewith the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, asamended. This manual will assist field offices andcommands in formulating water pollution preven-tion, control, and abatement programs to meetrequirements established in the Executive Orderwhich include the following:

–Assurance that all applicable water qualitystandards and effluent limitations are met ona continuing basis.

–Development of an abatement plan and sched-ule for meeting applicable standards.

–Presentation of an annual plan for funding ofimprovements in the design, construction,management, operation, and maintenance ofexisting and new facilities as may be neces-sary to meet applicable standards.

–Consideration of the environmental impact foreach new facility or modification to an exist-ing facility in the initial stages of planning inaccordance with the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act.

—Development of cost information on alterna-tive process considerations for new facilitiesor for modification of existing facilities sothat budget requests for design and construc-tion shall reflect the most cost-effective alter-native for meeting applicable standards.

–Consultation, as appropriate, with Federal,State, and local regulatory agencies concern-

ing best techniques and methods available forthe prevention, control, and abatement ofwater pollution.

To assist users of the manual, bibliographicreferences are shown as numbers in parenthesesthroughout the text to provide in-depth coverageof the processes and treatment trains for themany wastes discussed in this manual.

1-20 Scope

This manual describes principles and proceduresto be followed in formulating and conducting awater pollution prevention, control, and abate-ment program, and in planning facilities requiredfor solution of water pollution problems. Themanual provides guidance for selecting and apply-ing proven technologies for wastewater treatmentand for solids handling and disposal. Both capitalexpenditures and operating costs are outlined.While the manual is directed primarily towardhandling of domestic wastewaters, system alter-natives for handling special process wastes frommunitions manufacture and processing, metalplating, washrack, photographic, laundry, hospitaland other sources are also addressed. The manualincludes technical and cost information needed forproject decisions and supporting data. Authorityto deviate from guidelines presented herein shallbe obtained from HQDA (DAEN-ECE-B),WASH DC 20314-1000. Water pollution prob-lems resulting from surface drainage or stormwater runoff are not within the scope of thisdocument. Guidance for pollution prevention fromthose sources is contained in TM 5-820-1 or TM5-820-4. Guidance for pollution prevention fromCentral Vehicle Wash Facilities and from Sched-uled Vehicle Maintenance Facilities is not withinthe scope of this document and will be containedin forthcoming guidance.

1-3. Synopsis

a. Waste water management considerations.Management of water quality at military installa-tions requires evaluation of existing water re-sources, present and future uses, and existing andpotential pollution problems, followed by develop-ment and implementation of a program for effec-tive water use and pollution control. Either efflu-ent or stream standards will dictate the treat-ment performance required. The raw wastewater

1-1

TM 5-814-8

characteristics and local site conditions are themost important factors which determine treat-ment requirements.

b. Nature and origin of waste waters. Waste-water can primarily be classified as domestic orindustrial in nature. Industrial wastewaters canbe very complex and contain a wide variety ofconstituents. Before a plan for treating thewastewater can be formulated, these constituentsmust be identified. Characterization of the wastestream by flow measurement and chemical analy-sis is used to identify the undesirable elements, todetermine the source of these pollutants, and toimplement a solution to control them to anacceptable level.

c. Waste water discharge legislation. Over thelast decade, legislation and regulations governingthe discharge and disposal of wastewater andsolid wastes have had a significant impact on allaspects of wastewater management. Under theresponsibility y of the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA), Federal legislation, such asthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA), have been enacted to reduce or eliminatepollutant discharges and provide for safe handlingand disposal of hazardous waste. Other legislationhas been enacted to set standards for publicdrinking water, to control toxic substances, toregulate insecticides, etc. In addition to Nationalregulations, State and local governments haveestablished environmental regulations which insome cases are more stringent than the nationalcounterpart.

d. Waste water management program formula-tion. The most critical step in effecting pollutioncontrol is the initial definition of overall programobjectives and content. Without careful planningat an early stage, cost-effective pollution controlsystems will not be implemented. Other stepswhich must be taken include conducting a waterand wastewater inventory, evaluating waste re-duction practices, assessing the environmentalimpact of various control schemes, analyzingtreatment alternatives, and defining specific treat-ment needs.

e. Wastewater treatment processes. Most pollu-tion control programs at military installationswill require upgrading existing wastewater treat-ment systems to meet more stringent criteriawhich have been established. Some new facilitieswill likely be needed in the next 10 years, but the

emphasis will remain on improving performanceat present sites. Treatment alternatives must beevaluated to determine the most cost-effective and environmentally acceptable systems for aparticular installation. Improved treatment per-formance may include:

(1) Modifications or additions to preliminarytreatment units which may include equalization,pH control, preaeration, or other operations whichwill reduce the load or improve the efficiency ofsubsequent facilities.

(2) Changes to primary treatment facilitieseither to reduce the load on secondary units or toremove specific constituents such as phosphorus.

(3) Upgrading secondary processes by provid-ing additional “polishing” units, by changing theload on existing facilities, or by modifying theplant operations.

(4) Addition of advanced treatment processesto remove or convert nitrogen, to remove phos-phorus, or to provide additional suspended solidsand organics removal.

f. Solids handling processes. The methods forhandling and disposal of removed wastewaterresidues must be evaluated along with analysis ofwastewater treatment processes. Both liquid andsolids treatment must be considered in cost-effective evaluations. Resource conservation andbeneficial use of waste solids shall be imple-mented to the maximum practical extent indesign and operation of sludge treatment anddisposal systems.

g. Waste water handling system alternatives.The process of combining several technicallyproven unit processes and operations into atreatment system to meet specific effluent goalsrequires identification of the performance ex-pected from each unit. Usually many combina-tions of unit processes are available to meeteffluent criteria. Operational requirements shallbe included in cost evaluations and effect on theenvironment must be weighed in evaluating alter-native processes.

h. Economic considerations. It is the govern-ment’s desire to implement the most efficient,cost-effective solution to polluted discharges frommilitary facilities. Cost evaluations must considerboth capital investment and operation and main-tenance expenses on a life cycle basis. The impactof both schedule for start of construction andgeographical location of treatment facilities mustbe evaluated in preparing cost estimates.

1-2

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 2

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

2-1. Introduction

a. Technological considerations. Programs for-mulated to manage the discharge of wastewatersgenerated by domestic use and industrial opera-tions require a broad understanding of the rela-tionship between water sources, waste generation,and the environmental consequences of wastedisposal. With very few exceptions, all problemsassociated with wastewater discharges have envi-ronmentally acceptable solutions. The technologyfor achieving any desired level of effluent qualityis already developed and in most cases, wellproven. The task of the environmental engineerdealing with wastewaters is to identify the prob-lem and to apply the most appropriate technologyin order to achieve the desired goal.

b. Wastewater disposal. Liquid wastes fromdomestic and industrial sources are ultimatelydisposed of into receiving water bodies or ontoland. Portions of the waste products may be vola-tilized and discharged to the atmosphere, whilepart or all the water may be recycled for repeateduse. When an environmentally acceptable solutionto a problem is being sought, equal emphasisshould be placed on all three components of theenvironment, i.e., land, air, and water.

2-2. Water resources and usages

a. The hydrologic cycle. The cycle of water innature allows water to be used repeatedly. Watervapor is condensed from the atmosphere in theform of precipitation which falls to the groundand either flows as runoff to surface waters(streams, rivers, lakes and eventually oceans) orinfiltrates the ground to feed groundwater aqui-fers. Plants draw water from surface water orgroundwater sources or intercept the water asprecipitation and return a portion of the water tothe atmosphere through evapo-transpiration.Evaporation from surface waters contributes themajority of the water returned to the atmosphere.

b. Water uses. Water quality criteria in theU.S. are normally established to protect the waterusers. In foreign locations where no pertinentwater quality regulations exist, downstream wa-ter uses must be recognized and pollution controlsteps taken to avoid interference with these uses.

(1) Water supply. Water supplies are requiredfor domestic, industrial and agricultural uses.Domestic uses include water for drinking and

food preparation, washing, waste transport, lawnsprinkling, fire fighting and commercial wateruses. industrial uses include process water, cool-ing water and transportation of waste materials.The main agricultural water use is irrigation;others are livestock watering and waste disposal.

(2) Indirect water reuse. The indirect methodof water reuse is commonly practiced whenwastewater from one community is discharged toa receiving water and subsequently used as awater supply by another community. Due to thetreatment provided by modern water treatmentfacilities and the natural assimilation of wastesby the receiving water, this type of water reusehas become acceptable. The main pollution con-trol need for waters used for public supplies is toremove constituents that may pass through thewater treatment facility or result in excessivetreatment costs.

(3) Wildlife habitat. Wildlife, such as water-fowl, waterbased animals, fish, shellfish, planktonand other aquatic life, require water that is freeof oil, excess solids and other toxics and thatmeets their needs for dissolved oxygen, tempera-ture, etc. The successive buildup of chemicals inthe flesh of predator animals has been extensivelydocumented. Similarly, the buildup of toxic mate-rials and flavor tainting substances have beenobserved in fish and shellfish.

(4) Recreation. The pollution control require-ments to maintain recreational uses are related tothose of wildlife habitation through hunting, fish-ing and other activities that utilize wildlife.Primary (complete) body contact activities suchas swimming have strict water quality require-ments regarding bacteria, pH and turbidity.

(5) Aesthetics. Waste treatment requirementsfor aesthetic reasons have become increasinglyimportant with the emphasis on environmentalconcerns and protection of the complete humanenvironment. Control of odor, color and turbidity;removal of objectionable and unsightly floatingmaterials; and elimination of secondary effects onaquatic or stream bordering plants will usuallysatisfy aesthetic requirements.

2-3. Effects of discharge on the envi-ronment

Water usage generally results in production ofwastewaters requiring disposal. These wastes are

2-1

TM 5-814-8

usually disposed of by discharge to surface water-ways. Thus, water is returned to the water cyclealong with a variety of contaminants incorporatedin the wastewater during use. These contaminantsmay have detrimental effects on the environmentof the receiving surface waters.

a. Waste water characteristics. In dealing withwastewaters, several typical undesirable charac-teristics may be identified. These are listed intable 2-1. Although an individual wastewatermay not have all of these characteristics, it isimportant to recognize the detrimental factorswhich may be present and the effects they mayhave on the environment. The parameters used todescribe the quality of wastewater are discussedin chapter 3. Examples of typical wastewatercharacteristics from specific sources are also pre-sented.

b. Surface discharges. Federal, State, and localgovernments have placed restrictions onwastewater discharge quality in order to controlthe detrimental effects of contaminants as de-scribed in the last section. These restrictions mayrequire a certain type of treatment system beused, or they may specify concentration limits oncertain parameters regardless of the treatmentsystem used. Typically, the quality of the receiv-ing stream or body of water is taken intoconsideration along with the intended use of thewater following the wastewater discharge. Eachstate has classified its major streams and bodiesof water according to their own set of useclassifications. The regulations involved in waterquality control are discussed in the followingchapter.

c. Ocean discharges. Domestic users and indus-trial plants located on the ocean coast maydischarge their treated wastewater through anocean outfall. Although the ocean offers abundantdilution water, careful attention should be givento the fate of the various constituents as they aredischarged and their effects on the marine envi-ronment. Generally, most degradable organics canbe safely discharged to the sea if proper dischargefacilities are installed. However, inadequate de-sign of discharge facilities may result in severe

environmental nuisances including oxygen deple-tion, color and turbidity, algae blooms, and publichealth problems. Non-degradable constituents andtoxic materials should generally be eliminated from wastewaters prior to discharge to the ocean.Once these materials reach the marine environ-ment their fate is unknown and uncontrollable.Toxic materials may be passed to man throughmarine food chains. They may cause fish kills orsublethal effects on marine organisms.

d. Land discharges. Wastewater discharged toland should be considered on a constituent-by-constituent basis in order to make sure thatno land is irreversibly removed from some otherpotential use. Land application of wastewaterrequires intimate mixing and dispersion of thewaste into the upper zone of the soil-plant systemwith the objective being assimilation of all con-stituents by mechanisms such as microbial de-composition, adsorption, immobilization, andplant recovery. Adequately designed land applica-tion systems should avoid groundwater or surfacewater contamination from leachates, air pollution,and other aesthetic nuisances in the applicationarea. Assimilative capacities of each wastewaterconstituent must be carefully established in orderto make sure none are exceeded.

e. Atmospheric discharges. The atmospheric en-vironment should also be considered during allphases of a wastewater management program.Although only a small portion of the wastewaterconstituents is intentionally discharged to the airthere may be unintentional discharges of suffi-cient magnitude to cause environmental concern.Atmospheric pollution can be caused by gaseousmaterials, particulate, or aerosols. The mostfrequent complaint is associated with malodorousgases in the vicinity of a treatment plant. Al-though this is the most obvious air pollutionnuisance it is not necessarily the most severe.Toxic gases and to a lesser extent pathogen-carrying aerosols may have significant publichealth effects. Careful attention should be givento the potential air pollution problems that mayarise in any waste treatment design.

2-2

TM 5-814-8

Table 2-1. Undesirable characteristics and effects of wastewaterdischarges and remedial approaches

Constituent Undesirable Characteristics andRemedial Approaches

Soluble Degradable Depletion of dissolved oxygen inOrganics streams leading in severe cases to fish

kills; development of anaerobic condi-tions; evolution of malodorous gasesand an unsightly environment. Dis-charge within assimilative capacity ofwater body or by effluent standards.

Toxic Materialsand Elements

Adverse effects on squat i c life;accumulation of toxic materials andtransfer to man via food chains; intro-duction of toxic materials to domesticwater supply systems. Usually rigidlimitation imposed on discharge ofsuch materials.

Color and Turbidity Aesthetically undesirable; imposeincreased loads on water treatmentplants.

Refractory Organics Persist in the environment for longperiods; may cause aesthetic (e.g.,foam) or public health (e.g., chlori-nated hydrocarbons) problems.

Oil and Floating Aesthetically undesirable; may inter-Materials fere with natural stream reaeration.

Regulations usually require completeremoval.

Nutrients (nitrogen Enhance eutrophication (i.e., bloomsand phosphorus) of algae in lakes and ponded areas);

critical in recreational areas.

Suspended Solids Create sludge deposits in streamsresulting in malodorous and anaerobicconditions. Discharge limits areimposed by regulatory agencies.

Acids and Alkali Shift the acid-base equilibria instreams; endanger aquatic life;adversely affect water quality fordomestic, industrial, and navigationaluse. Most regulatory codes requireneutralization of wastewater prior todischarge.

Heat

Dissolved Salts

Thermal pollution resulting in deple-tion of dissolved oxygen; thermalbarriers restrict movement of aquaticorganisms and cause a shift in bioticcomposition.

Increases the salinity of receivingfresh water i.e., brackish water;impairs reuse for water supplies.

2-3

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 3

NATURE AND ORIGIN OF WASTEWATERS

3-1. Introduction

While domestic wastewaters can be consistentlyclassified as to their strength and constituents,industrial wastewaters and domestic/industrialdischarges may be highly variable. The lattertypes of wastewaters are usually a complexrather than a simple misture of constituents.Characterization of the waste stream by flowmeasurement and chemical analysis is used toidentify the undesirable characteristics, to deter-mine the source of these characteristics, and toimplement a solution to control them to anacceptable level.

3-2. Wastewater characteristicsWastewaters may contain any material whichmay be dissolved or suspended in or on water.Wastewater constituents are classified into or-ganic, inorganic, particulate and pathogenic.Tests serve as a first step in determining thetreatment requirements for a particular waste-water to preclude potential negative environmen-tal impact.

a. Primary organic parameters. Organic materi-als in wastewater have traditionally been themajor concern in the field of water pollutioncontrol. The decrease in dissolved oxygen due tothe process of biodegradation is detrimental to

. the health of the receiving waterways and aquaticlife. There are four major tests used to measureorganic material in wastewater: the customarypollutant parameter, Biochemical Oxygen De-mand (OBD); the noncustomary pollutant parame-ters Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Or-ganic Carbon (TOC), and Total Oxygen Demand(TOD).

(1) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). TheBOD test is an indirect measurement of biode-gradable organic material. The test does notmeasure specific organic materials but indicatesthe amount of oxygen required to stabilize thebiodegradable organic fraction. This test wasdevised to simulate the impact of a particularwstewaster on the dissolved oxygen level in thereceiving waters. Adequate dissolved oxygenmust be provided in order to maintain aquaticlife. The BOD test measures the oxygen depletedafter a period of five days in a closed systemwhich contains a mixture of wastewater and anacclimated seed of microorganisms. The test may

also measure a quantity of reduced inroganicmaterials such as ammonia or sulfites.

(2) Chemical oxygen demand (COD). COD isanother indirect measurement of organic material.COD measures the oxygen equivalent of theorganic material oxidized by bichromate orpermanganate during acid digestion. This parame-ter was developed in order to substitute for themore time-consuming BOD test.

(3) Total organic carbon (TOC). The TOC testis an indirect measurement of organic material.The test measures the quantity of carbon dioxideliberated during the combustion of the waste-water sample. Thus, TOC is the amount of carbonpresent in organic molecules contained in thewastewater sample.

(4) Total oxygen demand (TOD). TOD is anindirect method of measuring organic materialconcentration. However, it is the most directmeasurement of oxygen demand. TOD is thedifference in the oxygen content of a samplebefore and after combustion. TOD measures theamount of oxygen required to burn the contami-nants in the wastewater sample.

b. Organic parameter relationships. A prelimi-nary step in developing treatment alternatives fora specific wastewater should be an analysis of theorganic parameter relationships. This analysis willprovide the designer with a general idea of thetreatment technologies most likely to be effectiveon the wastewater.

c. Additional organic parameters. As attentionhas been focused on the TOD, TOC, COD, andBOD parameters, it is necessary to recognizeother important organic evaluations, such as oiland grease content, phenols, organics containingtoxic functional groups, etc. Oil and phenol analy-ses are particularly significant when evaluatingunit processes for the treatment of wastes con-taining petroleum distillates. Quantities of toxicorganic compounds, such as pesticides, present inwastewaters entering the environment are ex-tremely significant and require a great deal ofeffort to control. The need to analyze or treatthese organic compounds is site specific. If asubstance is used or manufactured in an indus-trial activity, then the possibility exists that it ispresent in the wastewater.

(1) Oil and grease. Oil and grease in waste-water is usually a characteristic of petroleum-

3-1

TM 5-814-8

based chemical manufacturing, machining, vehiclemaintenance, kitchen and restaurant wastes and,to a lesser degree, domestic wastewater. Oil andgrease is an indirect measurement defined andquantified by an analytical procedure. Oil andgrease is an expression of all substances ex-tracted by the organic solvent (Freon) employedin the test procedure. Oil and grease may includehydrocarbons, fatty acids, soaps, fats, waxes, oilsand any other Freon extractable substance thatwill not volatilize during the test procedure. Oiland grease, in large quantities, is a dangerousenvironmental pollutant. Oil and grease is diffi-cult to remove by conventional treatment pro-cesses such as anaerobic or aerobic biologicalprocesses and is an interference in most physical-chemical treatment processes. Oil and greasetreatment usually consists of removal by skim-ming or flotation and disposal by reuse, incinera-tion, or landfilling.

(2) Phenol. Phenol is encountered most fre-quently in the petroleum refining and chemicalprocessing industries, but is present where indus-trial activities utilize petroleum distillates. Phenolis very soluble in water, oils, carbon disulfide andnumerous organic solvents. The wet chemicalanalysis of phenol measures directly a variety ofphenolic compounds. Phenol is a toxic andmutagenic substance in high concentrations andmay be absorbed through the skin. Phenols are,for the most part, biodegradable.

(3) Cyanide. Cyanide is found in metal plat-ing, petroleum refining, plastics, and chemicalsmanufacturing wastewaters. The cyanide ion ishighly toxic to aquatic life and humans at verylow concentrations. Most cyanide appears as achemical complex with a metallic compound. As aresult, toxicity of cyanide depends upon thenature of the complex. Some cyanide compoundsare harmless. Cyanide compounds are usuallybiodegradable and are otherwise treatable byalternate methods.

(4) Surfactants. Surfactants are found inhousehold and industrial cleaning detergents andmany industrial wastewaters. The presence ofsurfactants is indicated when there are largequantities of foam in the collection or treatmentsystem.

(5) Other organic compounds of significance.Many wastewaters contain U.S. EPA identifiedtoxic organic compounds not identifiable exceptby direct measurement using specialized analyti-cal techniques such as infrared spectrophotome-try, gas chromatography, gel chromatographyand mass spectrometry. Other analytical methodsmay be required depending upon the substance.

d. Wastewater solids. Wastewater solids arepresent in nearly all wastewater discharges. Sol-ids occur in wastewater as a result of stormwaterrunoff, sanitary discharge, chemical precipitationreactions in the waste and direct discharge ofsolid materials.

(1) Definitions. Waste solids are classifiedaccording to gross physical properties and chemi-cal composition. The three basic types of solidsinclude:

—settleable solids,—suspended solids (TSS), and—dissolved solids (TDS).

Settleable solids are particles which settle out ofa wastewater sample during a 1 hour settling testusing an Imhoff cone. Grit and most chemicalsludges are settleable solids. They are denserthan water and, therefore, cannot remain insuspension. Suspended solids are particles re-tained by filtering a wastewater sample. Thesuspended solids test may include settleable sol-ids if the sample is thoroughly mixed. Dissolvedsolids are basically salts of organic and inorganicmolecules and ions that exist in solution.

(2) Testing. Wastewater solids may be classi-fied by direct gravimetric test methods. Sus-pended and dissolved solids are termed “volatile”if they are vaporized after ignition for 1 hour at1,022 ± 122 degrees F in a furnace. Inwastewater treatment, solids are said to be non-filterable or insoluble if they are retained on thesurface of a 0.45 micron filter. The filtrate is saidto represent the soluble fraction of the liquid.

e. Significant inorganic parameters. There aremany inorganic parameters which are importantwhen assaying potential toxicity, general charac-terization, or process evaluation. Although specialsituations require the evaluation of any numberof inorganic analyses, it is the intent here todiscuss only the more prevalent ones.

(1) Acidity. The acidity of a wastewater isimportant because a neutral or near neutral wa-ter is required before biological treatment can beeffective. In addition, regulatory authorities havecriteria which establish strict pH limits to finaldischarges. Acidity is attributable to the non-ionized portions of weakly ionizing acids, hydro-lyzing salts, and certain free mineral ions. Micro-bial systems may reduce acidity in someinstances through biological degradation of or-ganic acids, or they may increase acidity throughvitrification or other biochemical processes. Acid-ity is expressed as mg/L CaC03.

(2) Alkalinity. Alkalinity may be consideredthe opposite of acidity and it is also expressed asmg/L CaC03. Alkalinity is imparted by carbonate,

3-2

TM 5-814-8

bicarbonate and hydroxide components of naturalwater supplies. Industrial wastes often containthese species in addition to mineral and organicacids. Alkalinity determinations are useful indetermining wastewater neutralization require-ments.

(3) PH. pH represents the hydrogen ion (H+)or proton concentration in waters or wastewaters.pH is an extremely important wastewater param-eter as it affects the solubilities of metals, saltsand organic chemicals, the oxidation-reductiontendency and direction of wastewater compo-nents, and the rate of chemical activity inwastewater solutions. Gross wastewater charac-teristics affected by pH include toxicity, corrosiv-ity, taste, odor, and color. Th pH of pure water isgiven the value of 7. Acid solutions have a pHbelow 7 and alkaline or basic solutions have a pHabove 7.

(4) Nitrogen. In wastewater treatment, thenitrogen forms of primary concern are:

–Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),–Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N),–Nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), and–Nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N).(a) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen represents the

organic nitrogen plus ammonia nitrogen indicatedin the Kjeldahl test procedure. Following mea-surement and removal of the ammonia nitrogen,the organic nitrogen in the wastewater sample isconverted to ammonia nitrogen by catalyzed aciddigestion of the wastewater. The resultingN H3-N is then analyzed and reported as theorganic nitrogen fraction. Not all organic nitrogencompounds, however, will yield ammonia nitrogenunder catalyzed acid digestion. Acrylonitrile andcyanuric acid are examples of compounds that areonly partially hydrolyzed by the Kjeldahl testprocedure.

(b) Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) as well asorganic nitrogen is present in most natural watersin relatively low concentrations. Concentrationsas low as 0.5 mg/L have been reported to be toxicto some fish and concentrations as high as 1,600mg/L have proved to be inhibitive to biologicalwaste treatment plant microorganisms. The toxic-ity of ammonia is a function of pH, being highlytoxic at an alkaline pH and less toxic at an acidicpH. Ammonia nitrogen is also an essential nutri-ent in biological waste treatment systems and aslight residual (0.5 to 1.0 mg/L) is recommendedfor optimum biological activity.

(c) Nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) may appear inwastewaters as dissociated nitric acid, HNO3, ormay result from the biological vitrification ofammonia to nitrate. Nitrate nitrogen should be

restricted from drinking water supplies because itinhibits oxygen transfer in blood. MaximumNO3-N concentrations of 10 mg/L are allowed indrinking water under National Interim PrimaryDrinking Water Regulations.

(d) Nitrite nitrogen (NO2-N) is most com-monly found in treated wastewaters or naturalstreams at very low concentrations (0.5 mg/L).Nitrite is a metabolic intermediate in the nitrifica-tion process. It is rapidly converted to NO3-N bynitrifying organisms. Nitrite is an inhibitor to thegrowth of most microorganisms and for thisreason is widely used as a food preservative.

(5) Phosphorus. Phosphorus occurs naturallyin rivers and streams as compounds of phosphate.Elemental phosphorus does not persist naturallyin aquatic systems as it is quickly oxidized bymolecular oxygen to phosphate. Phosphates arecommonly found in industrial and domesticwastestreams from sources including corrosioninhibitors, detergents, process chemical reagents,and sanitary wastes. Phosphorus is an essentialnutrient in biochemical mechanisms. A residual of0.5 to 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus is usuallyrequired in biological waste treatment systems toensure efficient waste treatment. Excessive phos-phorus in natural waterways, however, can bevery harmful resulting in algal blooms andeutrophication.

(6) Sulfur. Sulfur occurs naturally in riversand streams as compounds of sulfur. Elementalsulfur does not persist naturally in aquatic sys-tems as it is oxidized by molecular oxygen tosulfate. Due to the cathartic effect of sulfate uponhumans, the drinking water limit for sulfate hasbeen placed at 250 mg/L in waters intended forhuman consumption.

(a) In some industrial waste streams sul-fate and sulfur compounds are present in highconcentrations and may be a major component ofTDS and conductivity. Sulfates can cause odorand corrosion of sewer pipes under the properconditions. The malodorous gas, hydrogen sulfide,is produced by the anaerobic biological reductionof sulfate to hydrogen sulfide. As pH is increased,the chemical equilibrium favors the ionization ofsulfur and prevents the formation of hydrogensulfate (H2S). As pH is decreased, the formationof H2S is favored.

(b) Crown corrosion of sewers occurs whenthe H2S gas is released and rises to the crown ofthe sewer. At the crown, condensed water andH2S form sulfuric acid which dissolves concrete.

(7) Chlorine. Chlorine is widely used as adisinfectant for drinking water supplies and fortreated sanitary discharges. Chlorine is toxic to

3-3

TM 5-814-8

all forms of life in the proper concentrations butdoes not persist in aquatic systems. These twoqualities have helped promote the use of chlorineas a disinfectant. However, chlorine does reactwith other chemical compounds such as ammoniaand certain hydrocarbons to form the toxicchloramines and potentially toxic or mutagenicchlorinated hydrocarbons. For this reason, chlori-nation is not recommended for certain industrialand combined domestic/industrial waste streams.

(8) Chlorides occur in all natural water sys-tems and many industrial waste streams. Sea-waters are very high in chlorides. Chlorides arerelatively harmless to humans in low concentra-tions. At a concentration of 250 mg/L, drinkingwater is found to have an objectionable taste. Insome cases, water containing concentrations ofchloride up to 1,000 mg/L are consumed withoutill effects. Chloride concentrations of 8,000 to15,000 mg/L have been reported to affect ad-versely biological waste treatment systems.

(9) Heavy metals. Some of the heavy metalsof interest are copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), cad-mium (Cd), zinc (Zn), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), andmercury (Hg). These materials may be measureddirectly. These elements may be inhibitive ortoxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms and themicroorganisms employed in biological wastetreatment systems.

(a) Copper. The primary sources of copperin industrial wastewaters are metal process pick-ling baths and plating baths. Copper may also bepresent in wastewaters from a variety of chemicalmanufacturing processes employing copper saltsor a copper catalyst. Copper is an essentialnutrient for most organisms including humans.Copper can impart a bitter taste to water inconcentrations above 1 mg/L. Copper salts areused to control algae growth in reservoirs andfarm ponds.

(b) Chromium. Chromium is found in metalplating and anodizing wastes, tannery wastes,and in certain textile processing wastewaters.Chromium commonly appears in the hexavalent(+6) and the trivalent (+3) valence states andalso exists in less soluble complexes. Hexavalentchromium is highly toxic to microorganisms.

(c) Cadmium. Cadmium is present inwastewaters from metallurgical alloying, ceram-ics, electroplating, photography, pigment works,textile printing, chemical industries and lead minedrainage. Cadmium is relatively abundant in theearth’s crust and the metal and its salts arehighly toxic.

(d) Zinc. Zinc is present in wastewaterstreams from steel works, rayon manufacture,

battery manufacture, sodium hydrosulfite manu-facture and other chemical production. Zinc is anutritional trace element but is toxic at higherconcentrations.

(e) Lead. Lead is present in wastewatersfrom storage battery manufacture, drainage fromlead ore mines, paint manufacture, munitionsmanufacture, and petroleum refining. Lead istoxic in high concentrations.

(f) Nickel. Nickel is present in wastewatersfrom metal processing, steel foundry, motor vehi-cle and aircraft, printing and chemical industries.Nickel may cause dermatitis upon exposure to theskin, and gasrointestinal distress upon ingestion.

(g) Mercury. Mercury is used in the electri-cal and electronics industries, photographic chem-icals, and the pesticides and preservatives indus-tries. Power generation is a large source ofmercury release into the environment through thecombustion of fossil fuel. Mercury in its methyl-ated form is a highly toxic compound. In itselemental form, it is readily absorbed by inhala-tion, skin contact and ingestion.

f. Additional wastewater characteristics.(1) Temperature. Temperature is a very im-

portant wastewater characteristic. The chemicalequilibrium of complex wastewaters is very tem-perature dependent. Different reactions may befound at higher temperatures as compared tolower temperatures. Waste treatment system effi- ciency is affected by extremes in temperature. Atlow temperatures (39 degrees F), biochemical andchemical reaction rates are extremely slow, andwaste treatment operations are often severelylimited. At temperatures greater than 100 degreesF, many waste treatment plants experience oper-ating difficult y. Biological processes are impaired,air and oxygen volubility becomes limited, andother physical properties such as sludge densityand settling rate affect overall waste treatment.

(2) Tastes and odors. Tastes and odors inwater are generally associated with dissolvedinorganic salts of iron, zinc, manganese, copper,sodium, and potassium. Phenolics are a specialnuisance in drinking water supplies especiallyafter chlorination because of their very low tasteand odor threshold concentration (less than 0.2parts per billion). Petrochemical discharges andliquid wastes from the paper and synthetic rubberindustries often cause taste and odor problems.Sulfides from these sources cause odors in concen-trations of less than a few hundredths of a partper million. Tastes and odors may also be associ-ated with decaying organic matter, living algaeand other microorganisms containing essential —oils and other odorous compounds, specific or-

3-4

.

TM 5-814-8

ganic chemicals such as phenols and mercaptans,chlorine and its substituted compounds, andmany other chemical materials.

(3) Color. Color in water and wastewatersmay result from the presence of metallic ionssuch as chromium, platinum, iron, or manganesefrom humus and peat materials such as tanninand algae. Color caused by suspended matter issaid to be “apparent color”. Color caused bycolloidal or soluble materials is said to be “truecolor”. True color is the parameter by which coloris evaluated. An arbitrary standard is employedto evaluate color. The color produced by 1 mg/Lof cobalt-platinum reagent is taken as one colorunit. Dilutions of cobalt-platinum reagent aremade in the O to 70 unit range and placed inspecial comparison tubes. Water samples are thencompared and matched between the cobalt-platinum standard dilutions.

(4) Radioactivity. Regulatory agencies haveestablished standards for the maximum allowableconcentrations of radioactive materials in surfacewaters. It is possible to differentiate between thefollowing three types of radioactivity:

—alpha rays.—beta rays.—gamma rays.(a) Alpha rays consist of a stream of parti-

cles of matter (doubly charged ions of helium witha mass of four) projected at high speed fromradioactive matter. Once emitted in air at roomtemperature, alpha particles do not travel muchmore than 4 inches. These particles are stoppedby an ordinary sheet of paper.

(b) Beta rays consists of a stream of elec-trons moving at speeds ranging from 30 to 90percent of the speed of light, their power ofpenetration varying with their speed. These parti-cles normally travel several hundred feet in airand may be stopped with aluminum sheeting atenth of an inch thick.

(c) Gamma rays are true electromagneticradiation which travel with the speed of light, andare similar to x-rays but have shorter wavelengths and greater penetrating power. Propershielding from gamma rays requires an inch ormore of lead or several feet of concrete. The unitof gamma radiation is the photon.

(d) Radioactive materials commonly used intracer studies in research in biology, chemistry,and medicine are the isotopes of carbon (C14) andiodine (125). In sewers and waste treatment plantscertain isotopes, such as radioiodine andradiophosphorus, accumulate in biological slimesand sludges.

(5) Toxicity. Toxicity is most often related toaquatic organisms such as fish, arthropods, shell-fish, and microorganisms. The toxicity bioassaytest has been developed to evaluate the relativetoxicities of individual wastewaters. The purposeof the test is to determine the lethal concentra-tion of pollutant that will kill 50 percent of thetest organisms (LC50) in a given period of time.The LC50 is an indirect method of measuringtoxicity.

(6) Pathogens. Wastewaters that containpathogenic bacteria can originate from domesticwastes, hospitals, livestock production, slaughter-houses, tanneries, pharmaceutical manufacturers,and food processing industries. The major patho-gens of concern include certain bacteria, viruses,and parasites.

(a) The coliform group of bacteria has beenused to indicate the bacterial pollution of waterand wastewater. Generally used test parametersemployed as water quality indicators are totalcoliform and fecal coliform. The total coliformtest includes organisms other than those found inthe gastrointestinal tracts of mammals.

(b) The fecal coliforms are differentiatedfrom the total coliforms by incubation at anelevated temperature in a different, growth-specific medium.

(c) Fecal Streptococci are non-coliform bac-teria which are widely used as indicators ofpollution. Streptococci are particularly useful inthat they are commonly found in heavily pollutedstreams and almost always absent from non-polluted waters. Other pathogenic bacteria ofconcern and related diseases are listed in table3-1.

Table 3-1. Common enteric pathogenic bacteriaand related disease

Bacteria Disease

Salmonella typhosa Typhoid feverSalmonella paratyphi Paratyphoid feverSalmonella typhimurium SalmonellosisShigella sonnie, S. flexneri ShigellosisVibrio chlorea CholeraPseudomonas aeruginosa Enteric infectionKlebsiella sp. Enteric infectionDiplococcus pneumonia Infectious pneumoniaClostridium botulinumBrucella sp.

Botulism -

Brucellosis

(d) Viruses are submicroscopic obligate par-asites which can only replicate in a host cell.However, viruses can survive for weeks, evenmonths outside a host cell awaiting the opportu-nity to reinfect another host. Viruses cause alarge number of diseases including the commoncold, measles, poliomyelitis, mumps, hepatitis,

3-5

Table 3-2. Common parasites and related disease

Organism Disease Reservoir(s) Range(s)

Protozoa

Nematodes (Roundworms)Ascaris lumbricoidesAncylostoma duodenaleNecator americanusAncylostoma braziliense (cat hookworm)Ancylostoma caninum (dog hookworm)Enterobius vermicularis (pinworm)Stronglyoides stercoralis (threadworm)Toxocara cati (cat roundworm)Toxocara canis (dog roundworm)Trichuris trichiura (whipworm)

Cestodes (Tapeworms)Taenia saginata (beef tapeworm)

Hymenolepis nana (dwarf tapeworm)Echinococcus granulosus (dog tapeworm)Echinococcus multilocularis

BalantidiasisAmebiasisGiardiasisToxoplasmosis

AscariasisHookwormHookwormCutaneous Larva MigransCutaneous Larva MigransEnterobiasisStrongyloidiasisVisceral Larva MigransVisceral Larva MigransTrichuriasis

TaeniasisTaeniasisTaeniasisHydatid DiseaseAleveolar Hydatid Disease

Man, swineManMan, animalsCat, mammals, birds

Man, swineManManCatDogManMan, dogCanivoresCanivoresMan

ManManMan, ratDogDog

WorldwideWorldwideWorldwideWorldwide

Worldwide-Southeastern USATropical-Southern USATropical-Southern USASoutheastern USASoutheastern USAWorldwideTropical-Southern USAProbably WorldwideSporadic in USAWorldwide

Worldwide-USARare in USAWorldwideFar North-AlaskaRare in USA

TM 5-814-8

and distemper,most concern

to name only a few. The viruses offound in wastewaters are of the

Hepatitis, Coxsackie, Echo, Adeno and Arbogroups.

(e) Parasites and protozoa are widely foundin sanitary wastewaters of the United States.Few of these organisms directly cause death butsome do weaken the host and promote thepossibility of contracting infectious disease. Table3-2 lists the protozoans and multicellular para-sites (nematodes and cestodes) of major concern.

3-3. Sources of industrial and sanitarywastewater

a. Industrial waste waters. Industrial wastewat-ers may be defined as all wastewaters other thanthose resulting from sanitary discharge or stormrunoff. Industrial discharges include source fromwater treatment operations, vehicle wash racks,metal plating, motorpool and equipment mainte-nance shops, hospitals, laundries, x-ray and pho-tographic and chemical laboratory operations. Dis-charges classified as industrial wastes often con-tain significant quantities of oils, soluble organiccompounds, solid matter, dissolved metals, andother substances. Industrial wastes often requiretreatment operations not normally employed fordomestic wastes are quite different from domesticwastes. This section of the manual discussessources of sanitary and industrial wastewaters.

b. Sanitary discharges. Sanitary dischargesoriginate from the use of restrooms, food prepara-tion, clothes washing, and other domestic sources.When these activities are conducted on a largescale, they become an industrial source. Sanitaryor domestic wastewater is commonly referred toas sewage. Table 3-3 summarizes average sani-tary discharge loadings and sources from a typi-cal domestic household of four members. Table3-4 summarizes typical sewage volume and BODfor various services.

Table 3-3. Average pollutant loading and waste watervolume from domestic household (four members) (100)

Water Total SuspendedNumber Volume Water BOD, in Solids, in

Wastewater Per Per Use in Use in Pounds PoundsEvent Day Gallons Gallons Per Day Per Day

Toilet 16 5 80 0.208 0.272Bath/Shower 2 25 50 0.078 0.050Laundry 1 40 40 0.085 0.065Dishwashing 2 7 14 0.052 0.026Garbage

disposal 3 2 6 0.272 0.384Total 190 0.695 0.797

c. Industrial discharges. Industrial wastewatersvary considerably in strength and composition

among military installations. This is due to differ-ences in installation size and the type of siteoperations. Sources of industrial discharge com-mon to many military posts are discussed below.

(1) Water treatment. Water treatment plantscommonly employ chemical precipitation, sandfiltration, carbon adsorption and chlorination aspurifying operations. Sludges produced from theprecipitation operation have high concentrationsof minerals such as calcium, iron, and aluminum.These sludges vary in solids content from 2percent to 25 percent and are most often handledin one of three manners:

–discharge to a municipal sewage treat-ment plant.

–discharge to an industrial waste treat-ment plant.

–dewater and landfill.(2) Boiler water treatment blowdown. Boiler

blowdown is required to control suspended anddissolved solids concentration. Boiler water istreated with chemicals, notably sodium and phos-phate, to prevent scaling and corrosion. Boilerblowdown is typically high in pH, temperature,suspended and dissolved solids, and water treat-ment chemicals.

(3) Cooling water. Cooling water originatesfrom air conditioning systems and cooling towers.Most air conditioning cooling water is once-through water which is not recovered or reused.Occasionally, air conditioning cooling water istreated with biocides to prevent slime growth inthe plumbing and the condenser heat exchangers.Cooling towers are used to cool process watersand vessels, and allow reuse of utility water.Cooling towers are treated with organic andinorganic biocides to control slime growth in thetower. Severe contamination of cooling towerdischarges may occur when the heat exchangersleak process chemicals into the cooling water. Ingeneral, however, non-contact cooling water isvery low in chemical strength.

(4) Aircraft and vehicle wash racks.(a) Nearly all military installations have

vehicle wash racks to clean vehicles returningfrom field exercise and for normal maintenance.The wash waters contain grit, soil, oil and deter-gents.

(b) Centralized Vehicle Wash Facility(CVWF) are being constructed at Army facilitieswhich are complete recycle systems with nodischarge to wastewater facilities.

(5) Motor pools.(a) Motor pools have a variety of waste

sources. These include: engine cleaning, spilledhydraulic engine and transmission oils, battery

3 - 7

TM 5-814-8

Table 3-4. Sewage volume and BOD for various

VolumeType (9al/capita/day)

AirportsEach employeeEach passenger

BarsEach employeePlus each customer

Camps and resortsLuxury resortsSummer campsConstruction camps

Domestic sewageLuxury homesBetter subdivisionsAverage subdivisionsLow-cost housingSummer cottages, etc.Apartment houses(Note: if garbagegrinders installed,multiply BODfactors by 1.5.)

Factories (exclusive ofindustrial andcafeteria wastes)

Hospitalspatients plus staff

Hotels, motels, trailercourts, boardinghouses (not includingrestaurants or bars)

Milk plant wastes

Off icesRestaurants

Each employeePlus each meal servedIf garbage grinderprovided, add

SchoolsDay schools (eachperson, studentor staff)

ElementaryHigh SchoolBoarding Schools

Add per person ifcafeteria hasgarbage grinder

Swimming pools(Employees pluscustomers)

TheatersDrive-in, per stallMovie, per seat

155

152

1005050

1009080705075

services (126)

BOD(lb/capita/day)

0.110.04

0.110.02

0.390.330.33

0.440.440.390.390.390.29

15 0.11

150-300 0.67

15 0.133 (per meal) 0.07 (per meal)

1 (per meal) 0.07 (per meal)

152075

10

55

0.090.110.39

0.02

0.07

0.040.04

3-8

maintenance, spray booths, radiator cleaning andfloor wash. Engine cleaning is frequently per-formed with a decreasing agent in conjunctionwith steam and detergent cleaning or, in modern-ized facilities with high-pressure hot water, elimi-nating solvents and detergents. Although mostspent oils are recycled, spills in engine mainte-nance areas are frequently sent to floor drains.

(b) Scheduled maintenance platforms (SMP)have been provided to modernize some facilities.These will be covered to minimize wastewater andwill include oil removal. High-pressure hot waterhas replaced steam cleaning, eliminating use ofsolvents and detergents.

(6) Laboratories. Hospital laboratories usu-ally incinerate pathological solid and semi-solidwaste products. Liquid waste may be disinfectedprior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. X-rayand photographic laboratories commonly pretreatfixing solutions to recover silver prior to dis-charge (DOD Div. 4160.21-M). X-ray finishingand washing solutions are discharged directly tothe sewer.

(7) Laundries. Laundry washwaters are a sig-nificant source of BOD and flow. Wastewater isusually filtered through a lint screen and some-times cooled for heat recovery prior to dischargeinto the sewer. Dry cleaning solvents are nor-mally recycled but a small volume may enter thesanitary sewer system.

(8) Coal pile runoff . Coal pile runoffwastewater results from the passage of waterthrough coal deposits where disulfides, usuallypyrites, are exposed to the oxidizing action of air,water and bacteria. Coal piles exposed to air andmoisture will result in sulfide oxidizing to ferroussulfate (copperas) (FeS0 4) and sulfuric acid(H2SO4). The major characteristics of this runoffflow include a high suspended solids concentra-tion and turbidity, mainly from coal, a low pHand high H2SO4 and FeSO4 concentrations. Majortreatment and disposal methods involve settling,froth flotation and drainage control.

(9) Paint stripping. There are several paintstripping methods in use today: mechanical,chemical or molten salts. Chemical or solventstripping uses either a hot or a cold method. Coldstrippers may be further classified by materialused into:

–Organic solvents.–Emulsion type.–Acid type.–Combination of types.

Organic solvent stripping processes of modernpaints, involving spray-on/spray-off stripping pro-cedures, have exhibited high levels of phenolic

TM 5-814-8

compounds in the associated wastewater. Olderpaints are removed by strippers containingmostly methylene chloride and hexavalent chro-mium with additional surfactants, thickening andwetting agents. High levels of lead compoundscan be expected when stripping lead based paints.Viable treatment alternatives for phenolic wasteinclude hydrogen peroxide oxidation and/or car-bon adsorption.

(10) Metal plating. Metal plating processwastewater is defined as all waters used forrinsing, alkaline cleaning, acid pickling, platingand other metal finishing operations; it alsoincludes waters which result from spills, batchdumps and scrubber blowdown. The cleaning,pickling and processing solutions may contain avariety of chemical compounds, most of which atvery low concentrations have a toxic potential toaquatic life. At higher concentrations, they mayalso be toxic to humans. The suspended solidsconcentration is elevated due to components suchas precipitated metal hydroxides, tumbling andburnishing media, metallic chips and paint solids.Treatment methods commonly used include batchtreatment for cyanide destruction, continuousflow-through treatment for cyanide and chromiumcontaminated rinse waters and an integratedtreatment system for cyanide and chi-omit acidprocess solutions. Lime precipitation can be usedfor the removal of other metals. When clarifica-tion of the treated rinse water containing precipi-tated metal hydroxide is required, it normally isaccomplished with settling tanks or clarifiers orfiltration using pressure filters.

(11) Munitions manufacturing. Propellantsand explosives are materials which, under theinfluence of thermal or mechanical shock, decom-pose rapidly and spontaneously with the evolua-tion of a great deal of heat and much gas. Someof the most common industrial and militarypropellants and explosives include gunpowder,nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, ammonium nitrate,trinitrotoluene (TNT), picric acid, ammonium picr-ate, RDX, HMX, and lead azide. When thesecompounds are manufactured, the associatedwastewater is an acidic, odorous flow sometimescontaining metals, organic acids and alcohols, oilsand soaps. Major treatment methods includeflotation, chemical precipitation, biological treat-ment, aeration, chemical oxidation neutralizationand adsorption.

3-4. Comparison of domestic and in-dustrial wastewaters

a. Composition and concentration. All waste-waters differ in composition and concentration.

3 - 9

TM 5-814-8

For this reason comparison between domestic and rameters of special significance such as phenolindustrial wastes is made on a case-by-case basis.However, some general conclusions may be drawnfrom the major differences between domestic andindustrial wastes.

(1) First, a major portion of the BOD indomestic sewage is present in colloidal or sus-pended form while BOD in industrial wastewatersis usually soluble in character. The non-de-gradable COD in domestic sewage is low (usuallyless than 200 mg/L) while industrial wastewatersmay have a non-degradable COD level in excessof 500 mg/L. Domestic sewage has a surplus ofnutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, relative tothe BOD present. Many industrial wastewatersare deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus.

(2) Total dissolved solids (TDS) in domesticsewage primarily reflect the concentration of thecarrier water, while many industrial activitiessubstantially increase the TDS through the pro-cess areas. Certain industrial wastes contain pa-

cyanide. Figure 3-1 schematically illustrates acomparison between domestic sewage and mili-tary industrial type wastewaters. Figure 3-1 andtable 3-5 present a comparison between domesticsewage characteristics, aircraft stripping waste-water, and vehicle washrack discharges.

Table 3-5. Comparison of domestic waste watercharacteristics with selected military industrial wastewater

(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

AircraftSanitary Stripping Washrack

Wastewater Wastewater WastewaterpH (units) 6.8-7.5 6.2-7.5 7.0BOD 75-276 375-478 10-29COD 195-436 5,388-18,946 105-1,620TSS 83-258 34-76 180-12,390Phenol Nil 71-2,220 Nil

b. Characteristics of domestic wastewaters. Do-mestic sewage is composed of organic matter

or

3-10

TM 5-814-8

present as soluble, colloidal, and suspended solids.The pollutant contribution in sewage is usuallyexpressed as a per capita contribution. A study of

data reported by 73 cities in 27 states in theUnited States (96) during the period 1958-1964showed a sewage flow of 135 gal/capita-day and aBOD and suspended solids content of 0.20lb/capita/day and 0.234 lb/capita/day, respectively.The average composition of domestic sewage isshown in table 3-6. It should be recognized thatthe presence of industrial wastes in a domesticsystem may radically alter these concentrations.These levels may be expected to vary by about aratio of 3 over a 24-hour period. Flow and BODloadings generally peak between 1400 and 1900hours. The lowest loadings generally occur be-tween 0300 and 0500 hours.

Table 3-6. Average characteristics of domestic sewage(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Parameter High Average LowBODCODpH (units)Total Solids

Suspended, totalFixedVolatile

Dissolved, totalFixedVolatile

Settleable Solids (mL/liter)Total Nitrogen (as N)Free Ammonia (as NH3)Total Phosphorus (as P)Chlorides (as Cl)Sulfates (as SO.)Alkalinity (as CaCO3)Grease

350 200800 4007.5 7.0

1,200 700350 200100 50250 150850 500500 300350 200

20 1060 4030 1520 10

150 10040 20

350 225150 100

1002006.5

400100

2575

300200100

52010

55010

15050

c. Characteristics of industrial wastewater. In-dustrial wastes vary widely in composition andquantity. The purpose of this section is to de-scribe the characteristics of major industrial dis-charges and particularly those discharges foundon military installations. The major portion ofwastewaters from most military installations aredomestic in nature. However, military industrialwastewaters are produced from operations suchas photographic processing, metal plating, laun-dry, maintenance, and munitions manufacturing.

(1) Aircraft and vehicle washing.(a) Ground equipment is routinely washed

to remove any accumulated oil film, grease, metaloxides, salts and dirt. This is normally accom-.

plished by pressure spraying with water or clean-ing compounds to remove surface films, followedby scrubbing with brushes and cleaners to loosenforeign matter, and finally rinsing thoroughlywith water to remove emulsified oils and dirt. Analkaline, water-based cleaner normally is used.Wastewater flows and concentrations are highlyvariable. This is due primarily to the type vehiclebeing washed, type of washing operation, amountof water used, inclusion or exclusion of stormwater, variation in type of cleaning agents, andsampling procedures used. Automobile andground vehicle washing requires 30 to 50 gal ofwater per vehicle. Washwater characteristics de-termined from ground vehicles are presented intable 3-7. Principal wastewater constituents in-clude free and emulsified oils, suspended dirt andoxides, phosphates, detergents, and surfactants.

(b) Aircraft are routinely washed to removeforeign material from the aircraft surface. Thesurvey results indicate significantly higher wasteloads than those experienced during ground vehi-cle washing. BOD values ranging from less than100 to several thousand mg/L and oil and greaselevels of less than one to several thousand havebeen observed.

(2) Wastes from paint stripping operations.Aircraft and other vehicles are stripped of paintperiodically as routine maintenance in preparationfor repairs or overhaul. Aircraft are usually re-painted every three or four years to preventcorrosion of metallic surfaces. The paint-stripperis brushed on and allowed to set on the paintedsurfaces, causing the paint to swell and blister.This loosened paint is then removed with a highpressure water spray. Modern paints are strippedwith a phenolic paint remover, while the olderpaints are removed by strippers containingmostly methylene chloride (dichloromethane) andhexavalent chromium with additional surfactants,thickeners, and wetting agents. Flows and charac-teristics are highly variable. For example, approx-imately 3,350 gallons of paint-stripper, 715 gal-lons of which is phenolic paint-stripper, are usedfor large aircraft; while smaller aircraft mayrequire some 300 gallons of stripper. It is esti-mated that from 45 to 75 gallons of water arerequired to rinse each gallon of paint-stripper.The principal pollutants from a phenolic aircraftpaint-stripping wastewater and the ranges ofconcentration are presented in table 3-8.

3-11

ITM 5-814-8

TABLE 3-7 Cent’d.

Summary of Wastewater Quality From Maintenance andExterior Cleaning Activities

TotalGrease Suspended Settleable Dissolvedand Oil Solids Solids Solids BOD COD Orthophosphate(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Alkalinity pH mg/L

Fort DrumMaintenanceExterior 4-22 1,500-10,000 20-1,200

5.9-268.5 603-1,100 1.6-4.0 15.5-43.8 110-289 65-137 7.1-7.4 0.8-2.6

Fort CarsonMaintenanceExterior .1-3,096 2-7,844 3-1,078 1-3,366

Fort CarsonMaintenanceExterior 25-3,096 30-15,700 8-1,078 7.0-8.1

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

TM 5-814-8

Table 3-8. Characteristics of phenolic aircraftpaint-stripping waste water

(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

ParameterPhenolsMethylene ChlorideCODChromiumSuspended SolidsOilspH (units)

Concentration1,000-3,0001,000-3,000

5,000-30,00050-200

100-1,000100-2,000

8.5-8.5

(3) Wastes from machine shops. The machin-ing of metal parts for aircraft, ground vehicles,and large guns is an operation where the majorwater flows are used for cooling purposes. How-ever, there are large amounts of both lubricatingand cooling oils which eventually must be wasted.This operation is often incorporated in a largeequipment rebuilding and maintenance depot butmay be present in tactical posts. The majorpollutants are soluble, emulsified, and free oils;and metal ions, shavings, and flakes.

(4) Wastes from vehicle mechanical mainte-nance. Engine maintenance on military installa-tions can result in a number of wastewater flows.Waste sources from engine maintenance areas in-clude: steam cleaning condensate, spilled hydrau-lic, engine and transmission oils, battery mainte-nance, radiator cleaning, and fuel tank cleaning.A major source of contamination from mainte-nance shops is solvents, especially petroleumdistillates.

(5) Laundry wastes. Most military installa-tions have a large central laundry facility to cleanuniforms and work clothes. Wastewaters fromlaundries vary in composition due to the type oflaundry operation, the type of detergents used,the use of dyes, and the condition of the clothingbeing laundered. Table 3-9 lists typical laundrywaste characteristics. TM 5-842-2 indicateswastewater flows and characteristics will varydepending on the type of laundering operationsused, the type of detergents used and the condi-tion of the incoming laundry.

Table 3-9. Typical laundry waste characteristics(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Parameter Maximum Average MinimumpH (units)Temperature (degrees F)BODGrease and OilTotal SolidsSuspended SolidsDetergents (as ABS)PhosphatesFree Ammonia

11140

3,8101,4103,310

784126430—

8100700800

1,700160

55150

3

5.15045

150120

1531

—

(6) Photographic laboratory wastes. Mostmilitary bases have one or more photographiclaboratories on site. Photographic wastes nor- mally represent a very small fraction of a facilitywaste load. However, separate treatment of pho-tographic wastes is sometimes required to removetoxic materials or to recover silver.

(a) There are a number of different types ofphotochemical processes and each results in adifferent type of wastewater. Color processesproduce more pollutants than black and whiteprocesses. Photographic wastes are a combinationof spent process chemicals and washwater. Somespent process chemicals, notably fixing agents,are often treated separately for silver recovery.The three most common types of silver recoveryprocesses are: metal replacement, electrodeposi-tion, and precipitation. Metal replacement in-volves passing the wastewater through a finesteel wool screen. The iron in the steel woolreplaces the silver in solution resulting in asettled silver-rich sludge. Electrodeposition in-volves plating nearly pure silver on the cathodeof an electrolytic cell. Precipitation of silver isusually achieved by the addition of chlorine andsulfide to form insoluble silver chloride or sulfide.

(b) The other constituents of a typical com-bined photographic wastewater are listed in table3-10. This analysis represents the combined pro- cess chemical and wash wastewaters. The toxicchemicals of concern include silver, chromium,cyanide, and boron.

Table 3-10. Analysis of photographic processingwaste water discharge

Constituent

CODDissolved SolidsSuspended SolidsOils and GreaseSurfactants (as LAS)PhenolsNitratesPhosphatesNitratesSulfatesCyanidesSilverIronzincCopperManganeseChromiumLeadCadmium

Concentration(mg/L)2,2345,942

702213

048

3801,100

2606.701.960.200.080.050.050.050.050.01

(c) Silver ion is highly toxic to aquaticorganisms. However, silver in photographic wastes is largely precipitated as silver chloride or

3-14

TM 5-814-8

silver sulfide and in these forms represents mini-mal risk of toxicity.

(d) Chromium is present in the hexavalentform (Cr+6) in some bleach solutions. However,hexavalent chromium is reduced to the trivalentform (Cr+3) by strong reducing agents present inphotographic wastewaters.

(e) Cyanide is present in bleaching solu-tions as potassium ferrocyanide. After chemicalaction by other reducing agents and by oxidationof silver, complex insoluble cyanide compounds areformed. These cyanide complexes are potentiallydangerous as their degradation releases toxic

. cyanides.(f) Boron is present in photographic wastes

in small quantities and is usually precipitated ascalcium borate.

. (7) Metal plating wastes. Metals are platedonto both metallic and nonmetallic surfaces fordecoration, corrosion inhibition, increased wearresistance, or improved hardness. Commonlyplated metals are copper, cadmium, chromium,nickel, tin, and zinc. The surface to be platedserves as a cathode. An electrode made of themetal being deposited in most instances acts asthe anode. With some metals, such as in chro-mium plating, an inert anode is used and theplating bath supplies the metal deposited. Nonme-tallic surfaces to be plated must be made conduc-tive by application of a conductive material suchas graphite. Metal stripping, cleaning, pickling,and phosphatizing are preparation steps for theactual plating operation. Anodizing of aluminumin a chromate bath is considered a related opera-

. tion since it produces a waste similar in charac-teristics to plating waste.

(a) A wide range of processing steps isused in the plating operation. Selection of suchsteps is based on the type of material receivingthe plated layer, the type of metal being plated,individual plating technique preferences, and vari-ous final product requirements. A typical platingoperation will include the following steps:

–Cleaning by solvent decreasing and/oralkaline cleaner.

–Rinsing.–Acid cleaning or pickling.–Rinsing.–Surface preparation such as phospha-

tizing.

–Flash plating.—Principal plating.—Rinsing.–Drying.

(b) The major waste sources are rinse wateroverflow; fume-scrubber water; batch-dumps ofspent acid, alkali, or plating bath solutions; andspills of the concentrated solutions. Importantparameters include pH, cyanides, emulsifying andwetting agents, and heavy metals. Cyanide isconverted to highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas atlow pH; therefore, cyanide-plating solutions mustnot be mixed with acid-cleaning or acid-platingsolutions.

(8) Wastes from munitions manufacture.Wastes generated from munitions manufactureoriginate from manufacturing areas as well asloading, assembling, and packing (LAP) areas.Wastewaters are generated from the manufactureand use o f explos ive chemica ls such astrinitrotoluene (TNT), nitroglycerine, cyclonite(RDX), HMX, and tetryl. The amount and compo-sition of munitions wastewaters varies with theexplosive being produced.

(a) TNT (CH3C 6H 2(NO2)3). In TNT manu-facture, toluene is reacted with nitric acid in athree-step process, using fuming sulfuric acid asa catalyst and drying agent. Excess acids arewashed away from the crude TNT, forming in awaste stream known as “yellow water”. Un-wanted beta- and gamma-TNT isomers are selec-tively removed from the desired alpha-TNT in asolution of sodium sulfite (sellite). This purifica-tion step generates a dark red-colored wasteknown as “red water”. The purified TNT is thenrecrystallized, dried and flaked. TNT contains upto 0.4 percent dinitrotoluene (DNT) which also isan explosive and considered hazardous. Thewashdown water from processing areas containssuspended TNT and is known as “pink water”.Originally, production was a batch-type operation,however nearly all plants have been converted tocontinuous-type systems, as shown in figure 3-2.The continuous operations normally employ chem-ical recycle and result in a smaller quantity ofmore concentratedoperations. Typicalfrom both types oftable 3-11.

waste than the batch-typewastewater characteristics

operations are presented in

3-15

TM 5-814-8

Residual Gases

TM 5-814-8

Table 3-11. Typical TNT waste water characteristics(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Continuous-Type Process

24-Hour Grab Batch-TypeParameter Composite Sample Sample Process

TNTpH (units)CODNitrate (as N)Sulfate (as SO4)Color (units)Total SolidsVolatile SolidsSuspended SolidsTemperature

(degree F)Flow (gal/lb of TNT)

20.32.564

2131,821

1612,7921,377

619

95—

1452.05274

53842228

1,160960224

—2.6

673107638

6,7002,048

85098

—11.2

(b) Nitroglycerine (CHNO3(CH2N O3)2). Ni-troglycerine is produced by mixing glycerine withconcentrated nitric and sulfuric acids, similar tothe TNT manufacturing process. The acids arethen decanted, and the nitroglycerine is washedwith water and soda ash to remove any residualacids. The two principal wastewaters are thewaste acid and the soda ash washwaters; andboth contain nitroglycerine. Typical wastewatercharacteristics are presented in table 3-12.

Table 3-12. Typical nitroglycerine waste water characteristics(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Parameter Maximum Minimum

NitroglycerinepH (units)CODNitrate (as N)Sulfate (as SO4)Color (units)Total SolidsSuspended SolidsTemperature (degrees F)Flow (mgd)

3159.9**340

1,920470

8025,000

4080

0.17

01.710

0.515

5110

150

0.04

**High values indicate a dump of the soda ash washingsolution.

(c) HMX and RDX, HMX ((CH2N2O 2)4) andRDX (CH2N202)3) are very similar chemical com-pounds and are manufactured by essentially thesame process, except for different operating tem-peratures and raw material feed ratios. Hexamine,acetic anhydride, nitric acid, and ammonium ni-trate are fed into a reactor, forming crude HMXor RDX; which is then aged, filtered, decanted,and washed with water. Wastewaters result fromspillage of raw materials or product, discharge ofcooling water, washwater and filtered water; andflows from equipment and floor cleanup opera-tions. HMX and RDX wastes typically have aBOD of 900 to 2,000 mg/L and a pH ranging

from 1.6 to 6.0. Analysis of wastewater must bemade to determine specific treatment needs.

(d) Nitrocellulose (C6H 7O 5(NO2)3). To pro-duce nitrocellulose, purified cellulose in the formof cotton-linters or wood-cellulose is treated witha mixture of sulfuric acid, nitric acid and water.The nitrated cellulose is then purified by acombination of centrifugation, boiling, macerat-ing, solvent extraction or washing operations. Thenitrocellulose (“green powder”) is then combinedwith other explosive materials to be processedinto various propellants. Waste materials gener-ated include the cellulose- and nitrocellulose-contaminated acid waters from the vitrificationand purification steps, alcohol and ether solvents,and other waste material from the refining andprocessing steps. Accidental fires caused by pro-cessing of nitrocellulose into propellants are oftenextinguished by automatic sprinklers, generatedhighly contaminated wastewater.

(e) Black powder. The industrial classifica-tion used by the Bureau of Mines defines blackblasting powder as all black powder having so-dium or potassium nitrate as a constituent. Blackpowder and similar mixtures were used in incendi-ary compositions and in pyrotechnic devices foramusement and for war, long before there wasany thought of applying their energy usefully forthe production of mechanical work. Where smokeis no objection, black powder is probably the bestsubstance that is available for communicating fireand for producing a quick hot flame. It is forthese purposes that it is now principally used inthe military. (129)

(f) Nitroguanidine (NO 2NHC(NH)NH2) .Nitroguanidine exists in two forms. The alpha-form invariably results when guanidine nitrate isdissolved in concentrated sulfuric and the solu-tion is poured into water. This is the form whichis commonly used in the explosive industry.When alpha-nitroguanidine is decomposed byheat, a certain amount of beta-nitroguanidine isfound among the products. Beta-nitroguanidine isproduced in variable amounts, usually along withsome of the alpha-compound. This is accom-plished through nitration of the mixture ofguanidine sulfate and ammonium sulfate which isformed from the hydrolysis of dicyanodiamidewith sulfuric acid. Nitroguanidine on reduction isconverted first into nitrosoguanidine and theninto aminoguanidine (or guanylhydrazine). Thelatter substance is used in the explosives industryfor the preparation of tetracene.

3-17

TM 5-814-8

(g) Lead azide (PbN6). Lead azide is manu-factured by treating sodium azide with leadacetate or nitrate. Sodium azide is formed fromsodium amide and nitrous oxide. Lead azide isused where it is desired to produce, either fromflame or from impact, an initiatory shock for thedetonation of a high explosive such as found incompound detonators and in the detonators ofartillery fuzes. The commercial preparation of theazides is carried out either by the interaction ofhydrazine with a nitrite or by the interaction ofsodium amide with nitrous oxide.

(h) Lead styphnate (PbC6H 02(N02)3). Leadstyphanate is commonly prepared by adding asolution of magnesium styphnate to a well-stirredsolution of lead acetate at 158 degrees F. Dilutenitric acid is added with stirring to convert thebasic to the normal salt, and the stirring iscontinued while the temperature drops to about86 degrees F. The product consists of reddish-brown, short, rhombic crystals. Lead styphnate isa poor initiator, but it is easily ignited by fire orby a static discharge. It is used as an ingredientof the priming layer which causes lead azide toexplode from a flash. (132)

(i) Projectiles and casings. The manufactureof the lead slugs, bullet jackets, and shell casingsgenerates wastewaters different in compositionthan those from explosives manufacture. Wasteconstituents include heavy metals, oils andgrease, soaps and surfactants, solvents, and ac-ids. Lead slugs are manufactured by extrudinglead wire, then cutting and forming the lead forinsertion in the bullet jacket. Alkaline cleaners,soluble oils, and cooling waters constitute thewastewater flow. Typical characteristics includehigh pH of about 11 and a moderate COD of 286mg/L. Small arms bullet jackets and casings arenormally brass (copper and zinc alloy), althougheither may be made of steel for certain applica-tions. The larger artillery shells are generallysteel. The manufacturing processes used for bothbrass and steel are essentially the same, consist-ing of stamping out plugs from metal sheets, thendrawing, trimming, tapering, and shaping theplugs into either a shell, bullet jacket, or casing.Conventional metal conditioning operations, suchas alkaline cleaning, pickling, phosphatizing, andmetal coating occur between steps. One qualitycontrol check involves the use of a mercurousnitrate solution, creating an opportunist y for mer-cury pollution. Total wastes have widely fluctuat-ing pH with heavy metals (mercury, copper, zinc,and iron), oils and surfactants. Table 3– 13 indi-cates typical munitions metal parts wastewatercharacteristics.

Table 3-13. Typical munitions metal partswaste water characteristics

(mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Parameter Maximum A v e r a g e Temperature (degree F)pH (units)Alkalinity (as CaCO3)Total SolidsSuspended SolidsZincCopperLeadIronOil

1209.2370

5,000725

1832

less than 0.221

168

653.3

0650

277

0.6—

less than 3.00

(j) Loading, assembling and packing (LAP).The main LAP operations are explosives receivingand melting operations, cartridge and shell-fillingoperations and shell-renovation. Figure 3-3 is aschematic of a typical shell-filling and renovatingfacility showing major waste flows. Wastewater isgenerated from the four following sources:

— air-scrubbing.— shell-filling.—shell-washout water.—cleanup water.

Dust from the unloading operation and fumesfrom the molten explosives are scrubbed from theair with water. When the shells are being filledwith explosives, any spillage or over-filling willcontaminate the water bath unless the water is covered. The washout water from rejected orrenovated shells is heavily contaminated withexplosives. The metal-cleaning and metal-treatingrinse waters are contaminated with alkali soapsand surfactants, as well as dissolved copper. Acomplete washdown of all areas and equipmentwhich could be contaminated with explosives isusually performed at least weekly, resulting inlarge flows of highly contaminated water. Table3-14 indicates typical total wastewater character-istics.

Table 3-14. Typical LAP facility industrial waste watercharacteristics (mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Parameter Maximum Average MinimumpH (units) 8.4 7.9 6.8Total Solids 1,790 1,401 903Suspended Solids 336 138 22Total Volatile Solids 956 548 426Total (Kjeldahl) Nitrogen 25 17 10TNT 235 178 156RDX 180 145 88

(k) Coal pile runoff. Large quantities ofcoal are used at many military facilities for powergeneration. The coal that is stored for this purpose is maintained in large outdoor storagepiles. Rain infiltration generates a coal pile runoff

3-18

TM 5-814-8

I

3-19

TM 5-814-8

flow which must be treated due to its elevatedTSS and turbidity, as well as an increased FeSO4

and H2S O4 concentration resulting from the coaloxidizing environment. Construction of a retain-ing curb surrounding the area of potential con-tamination, as well as a collection sump for short

term storage, will allow for complete collectionand routing of this flow to the wastewatertreatment system. Construction of a coal pile cover, where applicable, would negate the need forflow collection as well as protect the coal fromenvironmental influences and degradation.

3-20

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 4

WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REGULATIONS

4-1. Army Regulations

The Department of the Army has prescribedgeneral policy on environmental protection in theform of AR 200-1 and AR 200-2. The policycontained in these documents or their successorsis the governing regulation for Army facilities.Any conflict between these regulations and thischapter are inadvertent. In all cases, AR 200-1and AR 200-2 take precedence.

4-2. Legislation

a. Historical perspective. The decade of the1970’s saw the enactment and implementation ofa variety of legislation designed to protect theenvironment and to regulate the disposal of wastematerials. While some legislation was enactedprior to the 1970’s, the statutes were generallycumbersome in the delegation of authority forenforcement of standards. In addition to thepassage of several significant pieces of Federallegislation in this decade, the formation of theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) in December, 1970, created, for the firsttime, a single Federal agency responsible for allaspects of environmental control including:

—air pollution.—water pollution.—solid and hazardous wastes..—pesticides.—radiation.—noise.

This chapter will be limited to the major pieces oflegislation and the resulting regulations affectingwater pollution control.

b. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The enactment of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NE PA) of 1969 established protectionof the environment as a national goal. AlthoughNEPA is a short piece of legislation whosedeclared purpose is to establish a national policyto encourage productive and enjoyable harmonybetween man and the environment; the Act didcontain “action-forcing” provisions for the prepa-ration and evaluation of environmental impactstatements. AR 200-2 prescribes the Departmentof the Army policy with regard to the implemen-tation of NEPA.

(1) Environmental Impact Statement. A ma-jor provision of NEPA was the requirement ofEnvironmental Impact Statements (E IS) for all

major projects of Federal agencies and all Stateor local projects funded or regulated by a Federalagency. The E I S is required to address all thefollowing considerations:

(a) Potential environmental impacts of theproposed action.

(b) Any unavoidable adverse environmentaleffects resulting from implementation of the pro-posed action.

(c) Alternatives to the proposed action.(d) Irreversible and irretrievable resource

commitments associated with implementation ofthe proposed action.

(e) Local short-term use of the environmentas compared to the preservation of long-termproductivity.

(2) Public participation. By requiring the pub-lication of an EIS for public comment prior tocommencement of any action on applicableprojects, NEPA established the means for publicparticipation and, therefore, promoted the field ofenvironmental law through citizen’s suits andother types of litigation. Another provision ofNEPA established the Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ) to advise the President on environ-mental matters, to review Environmental ImpactStatements, and to prepare an EnvironmentalQuality Report assessing the status and conditionof the air, aquatic, and terrestrial environments.

c. Federal Water Pol lut ion Contro l Act(FWPCA) The Federal Water Pollution ControlAct of 1972, PL 92-500, provided a comprehen-sive revision of prior water pollution controllegislation. This Act superseded the original Fed-eral Water Pollution Control Act passed in 1956,and its amendments prior to 1972 including theWater Quality Act of 1965, the Clean WaterRestoration Act of 1966, and the Water QualityImprovement Act of 1970. The Clean Water Actof 1977 further amended PL 92–500 which subse-quently is commonly referred to as the CleanWater Act.

(1) Legislative requirements. The Federal Wa-ter Pollution Control act established nationalgoals for elimination of all pollutant dischargesby 1985 and called for attainment of interimwater quality standards to provide “fishable andswimmable” waters by July 1, 1983. This legisla-tion also established requirements for:

4 -1

TM 5-814-8

—Establishment of a permit system torestrict discharges of pollutants frompoint sources.

–Development of necessary technology toeliminate the discharge of pollutants intonavigable waters.

—Federal financing programs for construc-tion of publicly owned treatment works(POTW’s).

—Development of area-wide waste treat-

pollution control in each State.–Control of toxic pollutants.–Federal facility compliance with Federal,

State, and local requirements.This comprehensive piece of legislation containedmany other provisions relating to water pollutioncontrol. The items mentioned above will be dis-cussed in more detail in paragraphs 4–3 and 4-4of this chapter. Major highlights of this legisla-

ment management programs to insure tion are summarized in figure 4-1.

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

1972 AMENDMENTS - CLEAN WATER ACT

1. Water Quality goals established

2. Established NPDES permit system for discharges

3* Permits to be based on technology-based effluent limits

4. Federal financial assistance provided for publicly owned treat-ment works

5. Regional administration of Federal Policy be established

6. Major research and demonstration efforts be made to developtreatment technology

7. Federal facilities shall comply with all Federal, State, andlocal requirements

1977 AMENDMENTS

1. Increased emphasis on control of toxic pollutants

2. Compliance date modified

3. Best Management Practice regulations to be issued

4. Modifications to industrial pretreatment program

5. Federal facilities must investigate innovative pollution con-trol technology

Figure 4-1. Highlights of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

4-2

TM 5-814-8

(2) Effluent limitations. Perhaps the mostsignificant changes in the Federal approach towater pollution control contained in the CleanWater Act included the establishment of a per-mitting system by which all discharges wererequired to meet prescribed “effluent limitations”and the appropriation of significant Federal ex-penditures for control of water pollution. The Actprovides that all discharges to surface waterwaysmust, as a minimum, meet certain effluent crite-ria. In addition, the Act requires the establish-ment of water quality standards for all watersand requires that all wastes must be treated to alevel sufficient not to interfere with the mainte-nance of these water quality standards, even ifthis requires treatment in excess of the minimumlevel established by the effluent criteria.

(3) Amendments. As a result of the first fiveyears of experience with the 1972 Amendments,Congress, in 1977, passed the 1977 Amendmentsto the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Themost important changes recognized by the 1977Amendments include the following:

The

—An increased emphasis on the control oftoxic pollutants was added.

—U.S. EPA was authorized to issue “bestmanagement practices” regulations forthe control of toxic and hazardous pollut-ants contained in industrial plant siterunoff, spills or leaks, and dischargesfrom other activities ancillary to indus-trial operations.

—Modifications in requirements for pre-treatment of industrial wastes requiredfor discharge to municipal sewage treat-ment systems were made.

-Federal facilities were required to investi-gate innovative pollution control technol-ogy before construction of new facilities.

d. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) of 1976. In 1976, Congress enacted theResource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). This legislation completely revised theolder Solid Waste Disposal Act. Perhaps the mostsignificant impact of this legislation was the

—Several changes in compliance dates were requirement for controlling the handling and dis-made allowing more time for compliance posal of hazardous wastes. A summary of thewith certain regulations. features of RCRA is presented in figure 4-2.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)

1. Established office of Solid Waste within U.S. EPA

2. Requires hazardous waste management regulations including mani-fest system and permit requirements

3. Requires guidelines for solid waste management

4. Provide technical and financial assistance to maximize the con-servation and utilization of valuable resources

5. Developed criteria for landfi11 design and operation

6. Provide technical assistance to State and local governments

Figure 4-2. Features of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

significance of RCRA to wastewater treat- lished guidelines regulating various aspects ofment is that wastewater itself may be classified solid waste handling practices by:as a hazardous waste and the sludge generated –Requiring the U.S. EPA to develop andby wastewater treatment may be hazardous. publish guidelines and performance stan-

(1) Provisions of the Act. The Act estab- dards for solid waste management.

4 - 3

TM 5-814-8

—Establishing the Office of Solid Wastewithin the U.S. EPA.

–Requiring the development of hazardouswaste management regulations.

—Establishing minimum requirements forState or regional solid waste plans byproviding technical and/or financial assis-tance for developing environmentally safedisposal methods which also maximizethe utilization and conservation of valu-able resources.

–Developing criteria for sanitary landfills,especially with respect to characteristicsdistinguishing sanitary landfills fromopen dumps and, consequently, provi-sions for the prevention of open dumping.

–Establishing resource and recovery panelsto provide technical assistance to Stateand local governments.

(2) Manifesting disposal. Perhaps the singlemost important feature of RCRA is the establish-ment of a “manifest system” regulating thehandling of hazardous wastes which incorporatesa “cradle-to-grave” concept. Generators of hazard-ous wastes will be required to initiate documenta-tion regarding the transport, handling, and dis-posal of these wastes. Permits will be required ineach step of the handling and disposal processesand records will be kept by the waste generatoridentifying all persons who have responsibility fortransportation and disposal of a particular waste.

e. Safe Drinking Water Act (SD WA) of 1974.The Safe Drinking Water Act required the estab-lishment of national standards for all public watersupplies.

(1) The National Interim Primary DrinkingWater Standards were established for contami-nants known to have adverse effects on humanhealth. Compliance with the maximum contami-nant levels (M CL) which comprised the primarystandards is compulsory and enforceable byStates having approved programs or by the U.S.EPA. Secondary standards will be established toregulate parameters such as color and odor withrecommendations being made as guidelines tostates for the further protection of public welfare.

(2) The major impact of the Safe DrinkingWater Act on waste management is the inclusionof restrictions on underground injection ofwastes. All aquifers or portions of aquifers cur-rently serving as drinking water sources aredesignated for protection under these regulations.In addition, any other aquifer which is capable ofyielding water containing 10,000 mg/L or less oftotal dissolved solids also comes under theseregulations. Permits will be required for all wells

which are used for the injection of wastes. Permitholders’ will be responsible for maintaining injec-tion wells in such a manner to prevent thecontamination of drinking water supplies.

f. Other pertinent federal legislation.(1) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

of 1976 requires control of chemicals which havea known adverse effect on human health. Someprovisions of this Act relate specifically to thehandling of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’S).

(2) Pesticides are specifically regulated underprovisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended by theFederal Environmental Pesticide Control Act(FEPCA) of 1972 and the FIFRA Amendments of1975. This Act is important in that it requiresregistration of all new pesticide products andprovides for Federal control over the use ofpesticides.

(3) The Marine Protection, Research andSanctuaries Act of 1972 regulates the transporta-tion for dumping and the dumping of materialinto ocean waters. This would prohibit transport-ing wastewater or wastewater treatment sludgeto the open seas for dumping without a permit.

(4) The Comprehensive Environmental Re-sponse, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980establishes responsibility and penalties for dis-charge or release of hazardous substances intothe environment. This includes release into a body of water or onto land.

4-3. The NPDES Permit System

a. Legislative authorization. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency was authorized under Section402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act toestablish a national permit program to control thedischarge of pollutants into the nation’s water-ways. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-tion System (NPDES) is the primary mechanismfor the Federal enforcement of effluent limitationsand State water quality standards. According toNPDES regulations, discharges into navigablewaters from all point sources of pollution includ-ing industrial discharges, the effluent from munic-ipal treatment plants, and large agricultural feedlots must have an NPDES permit to lawfullydischarge wastewaters. Industrial discharges tomunicipal treatment systems are not required tohave NPDES permits; however, such dischargersare required to meet certain pretreatment stan-dards as discussed later in this chapter. Althougha Federal program, it is the intent of the programthat the authority and responsibility be delegatedto each State, when the States enact legislation and provide adequate staff to enforce the system.

4 - 4

TM 5-814-8

(1) Penalties for non-compliance. The NPDESpermit, in essence, is a contract between adischarger and the government. Substantial pen-alties for failure to comply with this permit areprovided by Federal law. If a discharger violatesthe terms of a permit or makes illegal dischargeswithout a permit, civil penalties up to $10,000 perday may be levied by the permitting authority.Negligent violations may be punished by fines upto $50,000 per day and up to two years in prison.

(2) Permit duration. Permits are issued forperiods of up to five years in duration. Holders ofNPDES permits must apply for reissuance of thepermit at least 180 days before expiration of thecurrent permit. Detailed regulations and proce-dures regarding the NPDES system have beenissued by the U.S. EPA and are listed in Title 40of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(3) Enforcement of permit. The U.S. EPA cantake enforcement action against a discharger whois in violation of his permit if the appropriateState agency fails to do so. The U.S. EPA canalso revoke a State’s permitting authority if theprogram is not administered in compliance withfederal requirements.

b. Permitting of Federal facilities. The FWPCArequires that all U.S. Government agencies com-ply with Federal, State, interstate, and localwater pollution control laws and regulations. Thiscompliance will be in the same manner and to thesame extent as any non-governmental entity. Assuch, Federal installations discharging pollutantsinto water bodies are covered by the NPDESpermit system and, therefore, may be permittedby the U.S. EPA and/or the State in which thefacility is located. Compliance with any interstateor local water pollution regulations is required, ifthese regulations are different from Federal orState regulations. The compliance of federal facili-ties was further amplified by Executive Order12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution ControlStandards, whereby each executive agency isrequired to obey pollution control laws and regu-lations.

(1) Exemptions. The Act gives the Presidentthe authority to exempt any Federal effluentsource from compliance if it is in the nationalinterest to do so. However, no exemption may begranted from new source performance standardsand effluent standards for toxic pollutants, orfrom compliance with pretreatment standards forwastes going directly into municipal treatmentsystems. The President may not grant an exemp-tion because of a lack of funds to bring a Federalfacility into compliance unless he has specificallyasked Congress for the funds and Congress has

failed torequiresCongressfor each

appropriate the money. The Act alsothe President to report annually toall exemptions granted with the reasonexemption. In addition to exemptions

from particular effluent limitations, the Presidentmay issue regulations exempting military opera-tions, including weaponry, equipment, aircraft,vessels and vehicle operations from compliancewith requirements pertaining to other Federalfacilities. This exemption may serve to limitaccess to the military property by regulatoryagencies. Such exemptions may also be grantedfor military operations due to lack of appropria-tion of the required funds.

(2) Cooperation with local agencies. Federalfacilities, such as U.S. military installations arerequired to cooperate with local authorities in thedevelopment of area-wide wastewater manage-ment plans. In developing wastewater treatmentfacilities, Federal facilities must also considerutilizing innovative treatment processes and tech-niques. For new treatment works at Federalfacilities, the use of innovative treatment pro-cesses and techniques must be employed unlessthe life-cycle cost of the innovative treatmentalternative exceeds that of the most cost-effectivealternative by 15 percent. The innovative treat-ment process and techniques shall include but notbe limited to methods for materials recycle andreuse and land treatment. The U.S. EPA Admin-istrator may waive this requirement if he deter-mines it is in the public interest to do so.

(3) Foreign facilities. If Federal facilities arelocated outside the United States, they shallcomply with environmental pollution control stan-dards of general applicability in the host countryor jurisdiction. In many countries, no appropri-ated water pollution control regulations exist. Insuch cases, water quality management principlesdiscussed herein shall be considered as a generalguide in establishing treatment requirements.

(4) Federal facilities coordinator. By execu-tive order of the President, the U.S. EPA main-tains a national Federal facilities coordinator andstaff to work with Federal facilities in the imple-mentation of the Clean Water Act. The coordina-tor and his staff work in the Office of Programand Management Operations of the U.S. EPAOffice of Enforcement in Washington, D.C. Inaddition, a Federal facilities coordinator is locatedin each U.S. EPA regional office.

c. Content of a permit. The NPDES permitestablishes specific effluent limitations whichmust be met by the discharger and places on thedischarger the obligation to report any cases ofnon-compliance with these conditions to the per-

4 - 5

TM 5-814-8

mitting authority. The elements included in thepermit include the following:

(1) Effluent limitations and monitoring re-quirements. This section will contain the specificconstituents present or suspected to be presentin the wastewater, numerical effluent limitationsfor each constituent, and monitoring required ofthe discharger. Effluent limitations are usuallyexpressed as a “monthly average” which consistsof the average over a 30-day operating period anda “daily maximum” which cannot be exceeded inthe monitoring period. Effluent limitations areusually expressed in mass/time units (lb/day orkg/day), although limits for some constituents areexpressed in concentration-related units.

(2) Schedule of compliance. If a permit holdercannot be in compliance with the final effluentlimitations at the time the permit is issued, aschedule of compliance will be established duringwhich time the permit holder must upgrade hiswater pollution control facilities.

(3) Monitoring and reporting. Instructionsare given for monitoring of the waste discharge,reporting of the monitoring results, retention ofrecords, etc.

(4) Responsibilities. The permit holder is ad-vised of additional responsibilities regarding theright of the regulatory agency to enter thepremises from which the waste is discharged,transfer ownership of the facilities, and the avail-ability of reports submitted to the regulatoryauthority.

(5) Management requirements. Additionalconditions regarding permit compliance are enu-merated in this section. The permit holder isadvised to report any changes in the nature ofthe discharge or non-compliance with the permitconditions to the applicable regulatory agency.Additional instructions are given regarding by-passing of facilities, modification of the permit,revisions in the permit to insure compliance withtoxic pollutant discharges, civil and criminal lia-bility, oil and hazardous substance liability, com-pliance with State laws, etc.

d. Permit modification suspension or revoca-tion. The NPDES permit may be modified, sus-pended, or revoked if terms of the permit areviolated; if the permit holder made misrepresenta-tions to the permitting authority in obtaining thepermit; or if all relevant data regarding thedischarge were not disclosed at the time thepermit application was made. Due to the detailednature of permit requirements, legal advice mayat times be advisable in determining complianceor non-compliance with stated permit conditions.

e. Applying for a permit. Many States nowhave obtained the NPDES permitting authorityfrom the U.S. EPA. Therefore, the appropriate State or U.S. EPA regional office must be firstcontacted in the permit application process. Thebasic procedure which must be followed for issu-ance of a permit is as follows:

(1) The applicant must obtain and completean NPDES Application for Permit to Discharge.Completed application forms should be filed withthe appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office.

(2) After receiving the permit application, theU.S. EPA Regional Office and/or State agencywill evaluate the form, request additional informa-tion if required, and may inspect the site of theproposed discharge.

(3) The State or U.S. EPA will send a copyof the permit application to other state and/orfederal agencies for comments.

(4) A draft permit will be developed whichwill contain all the provisions proposed by theagency for the final permit.

(5) Public notice is given of the agencies’intention to issue or deny the permit. Followingthe public notice, a minimum of 30 days isprovided to receive comments on the draft per-mit. Based on comments that are received, apublic hearing regarding the proposed permit maybe held.

(6) The final permit is issued based on infor-mation available in the “administrative record”.The administrative record includes the permitapplication, draft permit, supporting documents,correspondence, and other information which hasbeen received by the agency regarding the pro-posed permit. This record is open to the publicfor inspection and copying. For a period of 30days following issuance of the final permit, inter-ested parties including the permit holder maycontest the permit by filing a request for anevidentiary or panel hearing. Uncontested permitsbecome effective 30 days following issuance of thefinal permit.

4-4. Establishment of Effluent Limita-tions for NPDES Permits

a. Technology based limitations. Section 301 ofthe Clean Water Act provides for the establish-ment of technology-based effluent limitations.Each industrial point source category listed intable 4-1 is to have effluent limitation guidelinesestablished which set forth the degree of reduc-tion of applicable pollutants that is attainablethrough the application of various levels of treat- ment technology. Many of the primary industriesplus other categories at present have limitations

4-6

TM 5-814-8

promulgated. U.S. EPA permit writers are in-structed to use “engineering judgment” in estab-lishing similar effluent limitations for those indus-trial categories which have no guidelinesestablished. For municipal dischargers, U.S. EPAhas established a definition of “secondary treat-ment” which essentially defines a level of technol-ogy which must be applied for the treatment ofthese wastewaters. These effluent limitations es-tablish a minimum level of treatment acceptablefor direct discharge to waterways.

Table 4-1. NPDES primary industry categories*

Adhesives and SealantsAluminum FormingAuto and Other LaundriesBattery ManufacturingCoal Mining.Coil CoatingCopper FormingElectrical and Electronic ComponentsElectroplatingExplosives ManufacturingFoundriesGum and Wood ChemicalsInorganic Chemicals ManufacturingIron and Steel ManufacturingLeather Tanning and FinishingMechanical Products ManufacturingNonferrous Metals ManufacturingOre MiningOrganic Chemicals ManufacturingPaint and Ink FormulationPesticidesPetroleum RefiningPharmaceutical PreparationsPhotographic Equipment and SuppliesPlastics Processing

‘ Plastic and Synthetic Materials ManufacturingPorcelain EnamelingPrinting and PublishingPulp and Paper MillsRubber ProcessingSoap and Detergent ManufacturingSteam Electric Power PlantsTextile MillsTimber Products Processing

*Effluent guidelines have been and will be established forcategories in addition to the primary industries.

Source: “NPDES Permits Regulations”, 40 CFR Part 122,Appendix A.

b. Water quality limitations. In addition tomeeting the minimum level of treatment estab-lished by the technology-based effluent limita-tions, all discharges must, according to Section302 of the Act, be of sufficient quality to providefor the attainment or maintenance of streamwater quality to protect downstream uses asestablished by the State regulatory agency. Por-tions of streams which have insufficient assimila-tive capacity to accept a waste discharge treatedto the level required by the technology-based

effluent limitation are referred to as “waterquality limited segments” and the effluent limita-tions determined for these discharges are referredto as water quality-based limitations.

c. Technology-based limitations for industry.The 1972 amendments to the Clean Water Actspecified that industries must employ “best prac-ticable control technology currently available”(BPCTCA or BPT) as a minimum level of treat-ment no later than July 1, 1977 and that wastesmust be treated using “best available technologyeconomically achievable” (BATEA or BAT) byJuly 1, 1984. The 1977 amendments to the Actsubstantially revised requirements for achievingtreatment levels in excess of BPT. As of the timeof this document publication, two bills were underconsideration in Congress (HR 3282, Water Qual-ity Renewal Act and S 431, Clean Water Actamendments) to reauthorize the Clean Water Act.The levels of treatment required according to thetechnology-based standards for industries and thedates by which these levels of treatment will berequired are summarized below.

(1) Best practicable technology was requiredof all industries by July 1, 1977. U.S. EPA hasdefined BPT as “the average of the best existingperformance by well-operated plants within eachindustrial category or sub-category”. BPT empha-sizes end-of-pipe treatment technologies, but canalso include alternative in-plant modifications toreduce pollutant discharges. In determining BPTrequirements, U.S. EPA was instructed to strikea balance between the total cost of treatment andthe benefits of effluent reductions achieved.

(a) BPT as well as BAT regulations seteffluent limitations for total toxic organics (TTO)which is defined by the regulations as the summa-tion of all values greater than 0.01 mg/L of thetoxic organics listed in table 4-2. The regulationsindicate that the control authority (State orFederal) may eliminate monitoring for TTO uponcertification of the discharge that concentratedtoxic organics have not been dumped into thewastewater and that a solvent management planis followed. However, to eliminate monitoringrequirements, the discharger must submit a sol-vent management plan that specifies the toxicorganic compounds used, the method of disposalused instead of dumping and the proceduresemployed to prevent discharge into the waste-water. If monitoring is required it would belimited to the specific compounds likely to bepresent.

(b) At the time this manual was written,BPT Standards were available for the followingpoint-source discharge categories of concern.

4 -7

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-2. Toxic organics

4-8

TM 5-814-8

—Hospitals (40 CFR Part 460).—Metal finishing (40 CFR Part 433).—Explosives manufacturing (40 CFR

Part 457).—Photographic processing (40 CFR Part

459).The existing regulations are summarized in table4-3.

(c) Laundries have been exempted by theU.S. EPA from both BPT, and BAT guidelinesand no national standards will be forthcoming.However, in the absence of categorical standardsU.S. EPA expects to provide a guidance docu-ment.

(2) Best conventional pollutant control tech-nology (BCT) was to be required of all industriesby July 1, 1984. BCT will include levels oftreatment for “conventional pollutants,” usuallyin excess of the BPT requirements. Conventionalpollutants include BOD, total suspended solids,fecal coliforms, pH, and oil and grease. Theproposed Water Quality Renewal Act wouldchange this deadline to July 1, 1987.

(3) Industries were to provide BAT treatmentfor the control of “toxic pollutants” no later thanJuly 1, 1984. The list of toxic pollutants ispresented in table 4-4. For these substances U.S.EPA must promulgate effluent limitations consis-tent with best available treatment technology. Inthe future, U.S. EPA may add to or delete fromthis list. Information relating to such additions ispublished in the Federal Register. In January,1980 U.S. EPA made a proposal to add ammoniato this list. At the time this manual was written,no final decision had been made regarding thestatus of ammonia as a toxic pollutant. Bestavailable technology has been defined as thehighest degree of technology and treatment mea-sures capable of being designed for plant-scaleoperation. BAT requirements may be developedaround in-plant process changes to achieve speci-fied effluent limitations in addition to end-of-pipetreatment.

(a) BAT Standards for hospitals had beenreserved with U.S. EPA concentrating resourceson more significant categories of industrial dis-charge with no activity foreseen in the nearfuture.

(b) Explosives manufacturing and photo-graphic processing have been exempted fromBAT Regulations, with U.S. EPA prefering not topublish national guidelines. Such facilities oroperations will be regulated on a site specificcase-by-case basis. However, in the absence ofcategorical standards, U.S. EPA does expect topublish guidance documents for these industries.

(c) BAT Standards for the metal finishingpoint source category (40 CFR Part 433) aregiven in table 4-5. The regulations are inclusiveof electroplating operations addressed separatelyunder 40 CFR Part 413 which deals only withpretreatment standards.

(4) Compliance with BAT limitations for“non-conventional pollutants” must be accom-plished within three years of promulgation, butno later than July, 1987. Non-conventional pollut-ants are defined as all other pollutants which arenot specifically identified as conventional or toxic.

(5) New industrial facilities classified as “newsources” must meet New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS) from the time the facility isplaced into operation. NSPS limitations are basedupon “best available demonstrated technology”(BADT). A “new source” for regulatory purposesis defined as an industrial category for which newsource performance standards were issued priorto the initiation of construction of the facility.These limitations apply to grass roots facilities,significant modifications to existing facilities, andadditions of new facilities at existing plant siteswhich function independently of an existing plant.

d. Best management practices. The 1977amendments authorized the U.S. EPA to requirebest management practices (BMP) of industries tocontrol discharges of toxic or hazardous wastesfrom ancillary industrial activities. U.S. EPA mayprescribe regulations to control plant site runoff,leaks and spills, sludge and waste disposal prac-tices, and drainage from raw material storageareas which are associated with industrial manu-facturing or treatment operations. BMP regula-tions were proposed in August, 1978 and finalregulations were promulgated as Subpart K ofthe final NPDES regulations. However, imple-mentation of these regulations has been delayeddue to a court challenge. U.S. EPA has prepareda BMP guidance document to assist in thepreparation of BMP requirements for NPDESpermits. As of the writing of this manual, U.S.EPA intends to withdraw the BMP regulations.

e. Secondary treatment standards for municipaldischargers. Municipal dischargers were requiredto achieve secondary treatment levels by July 1,1977. U.S. EPA has defined secondary treatmentas shown in table 4-6. Exceptions to theserequirements may be granted for facilities whichdischarge to the ocean. All municipal treatmentfacilities were to meet best practicable treatmenttechnology by July 1, 1983. At the time thismanual was written, U.S. EPA had not definedapplicable BPT requirements for municipal treat-ment systems.

4-9

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-4. Toxic pollutants

4-11

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-5. BPT and BAT standards for metals finishing (mg/L)

BPT BATDaily 30 Day Daily 30 Day

Parameter Maximum Average Maximum Average

Cadmium (T)a 0.69 0.26 0.69 0.26Chromium (T) 2.77 1.71 2.77 1.71Copper (T) 3.38 2.07 3.38 2.07Lead (T) 0.69 0.43 0.69 0.43Nickel (T) 3.98 2.38 3.96 2.38Silver (T) 0.43 0.24 0.43 0.24Zinc (T) 2.61 1.48 2.61 1.48Cyanide (T) 1.20 0.65 1.20 0.65 “TTOb 2.13 2.13 --Oil and Grease 52 2 6 -- --TSS 60 31 -- --pHCyanide (A)d 0:86 0:32 0.86 0.32

All values in mg/L except pH.

a(T) = TotalbTTO = Total Toxic Organics, which is the summation of all valuegreater than 0.1 mg/L for toxic organics.cWithin 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.dA means amenable to alkaline chlorination. This value is an alter-native cyanide value for industrial facilities with cyanidetreatment.

Source: 40 CFR Part 433.

Table 4-6. U.S. EPA secondary treatment standardsfor municipal dischargers

Effluent Concentration MinimumMonthly Weekly Removal

Parameter Average Average (%)BOD (mg/L) 30 45 85TSS (mg/L) 30 45 85Fecal Coliforms

(organisms/100 mL) 200 400 —pH Value must be between 6.0 and 9.O

at all times.

f. Water quality determined effluent limitations.The Clean Water Act contains specific provisionsfor the establishment of efflulent limitations morestringent than technology-based guidelines wherenecessary for the maintenance of water qualitystandards in a stream. The Act also required theattainment of “fishable-swimmable” water quality

across the nation by 1985. Treatment facilitieslocated either in areas where the number andquantity of discharges is large compared to theflow in the stream or along waterways where verystringent quality standards have been establishedmay be required to provide a level of treatmentconsiderably higher than that required bytechnology-based standards or by the U.S. EPAsecondary treatment criteria. Present criteria forthe establishment of these water quality deter-mined effluent limitations are contained in Qual-ity Criteria for Water. Typically, establishment ofwater quality determined limitations requiresmathematical modeling of the stream to establishthe allowable discharge at low flow conditions.Water quality modeling is not an exact scienceand significant room for negotiation usually ex-

4-12

TM 5-814-8

ists in establishing effluent limitations which arecompatible with the required stream water qual-ity.

.4-5. Pretreatment of industrial wastesdischarged to municipal treatment sys-tems

a. Pretreatment programs. The Clean WaterAct authorizes the U.S. EPA to establish pre-treatment standards for industries dischargingwastewaters to municipal treatment systems. Mu-nicipalities receiving industrial wastes must de-velop local pretreatment programs which aredescribed in the U.S. EPA pretreatment regula-tions.

(1) Photographic processing, explosives man-. ufacturing, laundries, and hospitals. Photographic

processing, explosives manufacturing, and laun-dries having been exempted from BAT Standardswere also exempted from national guidelines forpretreatment standards. In addition, no pretreat-

ment standards are expected for hospitals. TheU.S. EPA expects that these standards will beset by state and local requirements.

(2) Electroplating and metal finishing. Pre-treatment standards for electroplating (40 CFRPart 413) and metal finishing (40 CFR Part 433)are in effect and include regulation of TTO asdiscussed above. The standards applicable toelectroplating are presented in tables 4-7 and4-8. The regulations indicate that after October12, 1982, no user introducing wastewater to aPOTW may change the use of process wastewateror dilute the wastewater as a partial or totalsubstitute for adequate treatment to achievecompliance with the standard. The pretreatmentstandards for metal finishing are summarized intable 4-9. These standards cover both existingand new sources. Note that the only differencebetween the existing and new source category isthe stricter limitation proposed for cadmium.

Table 4-7. Pretreatment standards forelectroplating point source category,existing sources, all subcategories,

discharge of 10,000 gpd or less

Basic Standard (mg/L)Daily 4 Day 30 Daya

Parameter Maximum Average Average

CN, Ab 500 2.7 1.5

Pb 0.6 0.4 0.3

Cd 1.2 0.7 0.5

TTOC 4.57

Applicable only with consent of the controlling authority, in theabsence of strong chelating agents, after reduction of hexavalentchrome, and after neutralization using calcium oxide or hydroxide.

applicable to discharges combined with regulated discharges thathave 30-day average standards.

bCN, A = Cyanide Amendable to ChlorinationCTTO = Total Toxic Organics, standards reported are proposed.

Source: 40 CFR Part 413

4-13

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-8. Pretreatment standards for electroplating point source category,existing sources, all subcategories,

discharges of 10,000 gpd or more

Mass Based StandardBasic Standard (mg/L) (mg/sqm - operation) Optional Standarda ~m /L)

Daily 4 Day O Dayb Dai ly 4 Day- Dai ‘[y 4 Day +O D~Parameter Maximum Average Average Maximum Average Average Maximum Average Average

CN, Tc 1.9 1.0 0.55 74 39 21 1.9 1*O 0.55

Pb

Cd

Cu

Ni

Cr

Zn

Agd

Total Metalse

pH

TTof

TSS

0.6

1.2

4.5

4.1

7.0

4.2

1.2

10.5

2.13

0.4

0.7

2.7

2.6

4.0

2.6

0.7

6.8

0.3

0.5

1.8

1.8

2.5

1.8

0.5

5

23

47

176

160

273

164

47

410

’16

29

105

100

156

102

29

267

12 0.6 0.4 0.3

20 1.2 o* 7 0.5

70

70

98

70

20

195

7.5-10.0

2.13

20.0 13.4 10

applicable only with consent of the controlling authority, in the absence of strong chelating agents, afterreduction of hexavalent chrome and after neutralization using calcium oxide or hydroxide.

bllpplicable to discharges combined with regulated discharges that have 30-day average standards.CCN, T = Total Cyanide‘Applicable to precious metals subcategory only.eTotal Metals = Sum of the concentration or mass of Cu, Ni, Cr(T) and Zn.f TTO = Total Toxic Organics, standards reported are proposed.

Source: 40 CFR Part 413

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-9. Pretreatment standards metal finishing

Existing Sources (mg/L)Daily 30 Day

New Sources (mg/L)Daily 30 Day

Parameter Maximum Average Maximum Average

Cd (T)a

Cr (T)Cu (T)Pb (T)Ni (T)Ag (T)Zn (T)CN (T) TTO (T)b

CN, Ac

0.692.773.380.693.980.432.611.202.130.86

0.261.712.070.432.380.241.480.65

0.112.773.380.693.980.432.611.202.130.86

0.071.712.070.432.380.241.480.65

0.32

a(T) Means totalbTTO = Total Toxic OrganicsCCN, A means amenableto alkaline chlorination. This limit may applyin place of Cyanide (T) for industrial facilities with cyanidetreatment.

Source: 40 CFR Part 433

b. Non-compliance pollutants. The U.S. EPAregulations prohibit or control certain dischargesto municipal systems. Prohibited industrial dis-charges which apply to all industrial users ofpublicly owned treatment works (POTW’s) arelisted in table 4-10. Categorical standards arebeing developed by U.S. EPA and will specifymaximum quantities of non-compatible pollutantswhich can be discharged to municipal systems.These limitations will be equal to or greater thanbest available treatment limitations for specifiedsubstances. Incompatible pollutants are definedas those substances which will require pretreat-ment to prevent interference with the operation ofthe POTW, contamination of sludge, or objection-able pass-through of the substance to a receivingstream or to the atmosphere. Exceptions tocategorical pretreatment standards may be

granted under certain conditions if the POTW hasthe capacity to handle adequately the non-com-patible pollutant. The U.S. EPA has been di-rected to prepare categorical standards for indus-tries which are listed in table 4-11.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.7.

Table 4-10. Prohibited industrial discharges topublicly owned treatment works (POTW’S)

Pollutants that create a fire or explosion hazard, such asfuels, solvents, etc.Pollutants that cause corrosive structural damage, such asacids, bases, solvents, etc.Any discharge with a pH less than 5 unless the POTW isspecifically designed for same.Pollutants in amounts that create obstructions to flow inrivers or to the operation of the POTW.Any pollutant discharged in an amount or strength thatinterferes with the POTW.Heat in an amount that interferes with the POTW.Heat which causes the influent temperature to rise above40°C.

4-15

TM 5-814-8

Table 4-11. Industries for which initial categoricalpretreatment standards are being written

Auto and Other Laundries*Coal MiningInorganic Chemicals*Iron and Steel*Leather Tanning and Finishing*Machinery and Mechanical Products

Battery Manufacturing*Plastics ProcessingFoundries*Coil CoatingPorcelain EnamelingAluminum FormingCopper ProductsElectric & Electronic*Ship Building Metal FabricationElectroplating*

Miscellaneous Chemical Mfg.Pesticide ManufacturingPhotographic ProductsGum and Wood Chemicals*PharmaceuticalExplosives*Adhesives and SealantsCarbon Black

Nonferrous Metals*Ore Mining and DressingOrganic ChemicalsPaint and Ink Formulation and Printing*Paving and Roofing Materials*Petroleum RefiningPlastic and Synthetic MaterialsPrinting and PublishingPulp & Paper Products*Rubber Processing*Soap and DetergentsSteam Electric Power PlantsTextile Mills*Timber Products*

*Certain subcategories of industrial categories are exempt fromregulation pursuant to paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. Costle consentdecree.

4 - 1 6

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 5

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FORMULATION

5-1. Introduction

a. General requirements. D e v e l o p i n g awastewater management program requires theevaluation of the quantity, quality, and locationof wastes produced; the sizing and configurationof collection systems; and a determination of thedegree of treatment required to comply withdischarge or stream standards. This chapter de-scribes the approach and principles used to defineand meet specific system requirements. The majorportion of wastes will be domestic, although mostmilitary systems contain at least some industrialwastes. Specific information on industrial wasteswhich may require special consideration is pre-sented in chapter 6. Wastewater characteristicsare discussed in chapter 3. There are somedifferences in approach used in assessing the needfor modifying or upgrading an existing systemcompared with that used for establishing therequirements of new facilities. At most militaryinstallations, a wastewater management programwill require upgrading treatment as opposed toconstruction of completely new facilities.

b. Planning cycle. As discussed in chapter 4,numerous regulations are imposed on the dis-charge of both domestic and industrial wastewat-ers and the safe disposal of solids generated inwaste treatment. Since all such discharges areregulated by law, program formulation and solu-tion development can be seen as problem-solvingcycle beginning and ending with specific regula-tory requirements. The planning cycle is pre-sented schematically in figure 5-1 and discussedbriefly below.

(1) Regulatory requirements. At both the be-ginning and end of the planning cycle, regulatoryrequirements in themselves define the ultimateobjectives of any wastewater management pro-gram. The cycle may be triggered for one or acombination of the following reasons:

—Permit violations with existing systemsrequiring upgrading and/or new construc-tion.

—New limitations requiring increased levelsof treatment.

—The imposition of discharge limitationson non-conventional pollutants such asammonia or chemical oxygen demand re-quiring the extension of existing or con-struction of new facilities.

—The imposition of discharge limitationson toxic pollutants not previously regu-lated and requiring a re-evaluation ofexisting processes and/or treatment meth-ods.

—Limitations on the handling and disposalof hazardous wastes not previously iden-tified but requiring immediate attention.

Once the program is in motion, it must becoordinated as applicable with local, State, inter-state, and Federal agencies. The Federal FacilitiesCoordinator of the Regional U.S. EPA officehaving jurisdiction should be utilized as the pointof contact for obtaining all applicable effluentrequirements, for approval of treatment processesselected, and for securing of the required dis-charge or disposal permits.

(2) Problem identification/definition. The ini-tial steps in identifying and defining a probleminvolve setting specific objectives, reviewingavailable data, and developing a program outline.

(a) Objectives. Program objectives, basedon the previous step, are developed to establishgeneral constraints on work to be performed.Such objectives should include, but may not belimited to identifying the following:

—Area or facilities to be served.–Source, configuration, and location of

waste sources in question.—System components to be included

such as lateral sewers, trunk sewers,and existing treatment facilities.

—Provision for future facilities.–Process waste to be handled.—Location of treated wastewater dis-

posal.–Location of treatment process residuals

disposal.–Specific modifications that may be re-

quired for existing systems.—Any special considerations resulting

from regulations and/or safety in han-dling specific process wastes (e.g., ex-plosives, etc.).

(b) Data review. All available data shouldbe reviewed. Specific information for new facilitiesmay be limited to reports and preliminary plansof proposed construction plus quantitative dataon the function and staffing of the installation.For modification, expansion, or upgrading of

5-1

TM 5-814-8

REGULATORYREQUIREMEN78

PROBLEMIDENTIFICATION/DEFINITION

DECISIONMAKING

PLANNINGPROCE88

DOUBLE HEADED ARR0w8 INDICATE FEED” BACK

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PLANNING PROCE$$

PERMIT VISITATIONS SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT

INCREASED LEVELS OF TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

LIMITS ON NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS COSTS DEVELOPMENT

LIMITS ON TOXIC POLLUTANTS

LIMITS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

SPECIFIC TREATMENT NEEDS

PROBLEM iDENTIFICATION/DEFINITION

DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES

DATA REVIEW

PROGRAM OUTLINE

DEC1810N MAKIN(3

ALTERNATIVE REVIEW

NEGOTIATIONS

PROCESS SELECTION

FINANCIAL DECISIONS PROCUREMENT

IMPLEMENTATIONFigure 5-1. Program formulation problem solving cycle

existing facilities, additional data such as detailed 5-814-3), which stipulate requirements for sewer-system plans, design criteria, and operating age and wastewater treatment at military instal-records are generally required. Reference should lations. Military installations of a similar nature be made to applicable planning guides andtechni- should be contacted to determine how similarcal manuals (TM 5-803-1, TM 5-803–3, and TM problems have been addressed. The review should

5-2

TM 5-814-8

be conducted with a secondary purpose of defin-ing and obtaining missing data or information.

(c) Program outline. After objectives havebeen developed and a review of available data anddefinition of missing information has been com-pleted, a preliminary plan for implementing thewastewater management program should be for-mulated. The program outline prepared can beexpected to vary depending on the types offacilities required. Typical types of facilities in-clude the following:

—Upgrading existing wastewater man-agement systems to correct deficienciesand/or modification to achieve a higherlevel of treatment.

— Wastewater management programs forcompletely new installations includingfacilities to meet mission requirements,personnel housing, and supporting ser-vice and recreational facilities.

—Treatment facilities to serve an addi-tion of personnel housing with supportfacilities.

—Treatment and disposal facilities toserve an addition of a functional facil-ity such as a major equipment mainte-nance center at a storage depot.

—Modification of an existing wastewatersystem for an installation where achange in mission of the facilitychanges the waste quality or quantity.

The above is not a complete list of facilities;however, it does illustrate the need for differencesin the approach to program development.

(3) Planning process. Having clearly definedthe program objectives and set general con-straints on the work required, the planning pro-cess may begin. The typical course of the plan-ning process is presented schematically in figure5-2 with work elements proceeding in order fromleft to right. The specific work elements areaimed at problem solution, alternatives, and costdevelopment.

(4) Decision making. As the project pro-gresses, information is generally fed forward todecision makers controlling financial decisions,procurement, and project implementation. Feed-back from decision makers based on initial re-views of alternatives and additional negotiationswith regulatory agencies serves to direct the workin progress and ensure that ultimate objectivesare met. The decision making process feeds for-ward to the original objectives and with imple-mentation and procurement represents the finalstep in the process.

,

5-2. Water and wastewater inventorya. Introduction. The water and wastewater in-

ventory is an important part of any environmen-tal control program. It provides a data base fromwhich solutions to wastewater management prob-lems can be developed. In any type of inventory,various waste streams are characterized for flowrate, concentration of pollutants and source. Thisinformation is essential in developing a treatmentor abatement strategy and is required by Federal‘Law for inclusion in an NPDES permit applica-tion. Military installations desiring to dischargeinto municipal sewage systems often mustpresent the municipality with a completewastewater characterization before connection willbe considered.

(1) Inventory objectives. Due to the impor-tance of such inventories, accurate, complete, andreliable survey information is essential. For thisreason, the planner and the survey team shouldalways keep in mind the major objectives of anindustrial waste survey. These objectives are:

(a) To locate and inventory the wastesources.

(b) To quantify the waste sources in termsof pollutant concentrations, flows, and mass load-ings.

(c) To classify the waste stream as: lowstrength, i.e., suitable for reuse or untreateddischarge; incompatible or hazardous; valuable forrecovery; amenable to or requiring treatment; orcomplex and/or high strength.

(d) To identify problem areas.(e) To develop preliminary control philoso-

phies and alternatives.(2) Loadings and variability. The inventory of

waste streams is necessary as a matter of recordand to ensure that all waste streams have beenconsidered. Quantifying each of the wastestreams provides the basic waste load informationrequired for selection of alternatives and designof treatment systems. Particular attention shouldbe given to the variability of the waste streamquantities.

(3) Reviewing alternatives. In developing thesurvey data, the characteristics of each wastestream should be closely examined to determinepotential alternatives for handling the stream.The first step in this process is to classify thewaste stream. Low strength wastewaters “may besuitable for reuse elsewhere or for dischargewithout treatment. Incompatible waste streamsmay be hazardous, extremely difficult to treatwhen mixed with water or other wastes, or veryeasy to treat when not mixed with other wastes.

5-3

WATER AND WASTEWATER WASTE MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES UPGRADING EXISTINGINVENTORY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC TREATMENTALTERNATIVES

.FACILITIES

●

CONSIDERATIONS NEEDS

Figure 5-2. Factors to be considered in a wastewater management program.

TM 5-814-8

Some wastewaters may contain valuable metals,oil, or other materials suitable for recovery.Waste streams amenable to or requiring treat-ment are moderate in strength and probablyrequire no special consideration. High strengthwastewaters may be a very complex mixture ofsubstances or a highly concentrated source of afew constituents. In either case, the wastewaterrequires special consideration when it is includedin a collection system where it will be diluted andprobably more difficult to treat. Once problemareas have been identified, alternative controlschemes should be assembled on a preliminarybasis. This provides the starting point for anevaluation of the alternatives which will result indeveloping a solution to the problems.

b. Domestic waste. Domestic or sanitarywastewaters at military installations are derivedfrom barracks, households, schools, hospitals, ad-ministrative buildings, and any other sourcesrelated to the general population served. Typicalparameters required to define the size of domesticwaste collection and treatment facilities includeflow, BOD, suspended solids, phosphorus, andnitrogen content. Average daily per capita contri-butions are defined in TM 5-814-1 and TM5-814-3. Data for BOD and suspended solids aretabulated in TM 5-814-3. Similarly, flow data areshown in TM 5–814-1. Combining per capita use,population and the capacity factor, sewage treat-ment facilities can be sized. Hydraulic characteris-tics of all facilities must be based on peak flows.The relationship between peaking factor and pop-ulation is shown in TM 5-814-1. Most domesticwater sources can discharge directly to the sewersystem without pretreatment. However, somesources of domestic waste, such as food prepara-tion facilities, may require preliminary treatmentunits such as grease removal or coarse screens tominimize problems in the sewers or at the treat-ment plant.

c. Industrial waste. Industrial or processwastes at military installations are produced bymetal finishing operations, vehicle repair depots,photographic processing, munitions plants, laun-dries, and other similar facilities. Industrial chem-icals and the by-products from these facilitiescontribute to the process wastewater. Referenceshould be made to chapter 3 in this manual forcharacteristics of wastes from these sources. Insome instances, process wastes can be routeddirectly to sewers handling sanitary wastes with-out pretreatment. If the process waste contains atoxic compound, a hazardous compound, or exces-sive quantities of such materials as oil and

grease, separate pretreatment is required. Wastes

which cause sewer plugging, interfere with thetreatment system, or pass through the systemand cause contamination of the receiving streamshould be kept out of the sanitary sewer until theinterfering effect is eliminated. Flow and qualitycharacteristics of process wastes which combinewith sanitary waste must be included to yieldtotal system capacity requirements. In somecases, process wastes are collected and treated ina separate system which discharges directly tothe receiving stream.

d. Wastewater characterization. The use of pub-lished standard data for determining the magni-tude of parameters for flow and waste constitu-ents is normal practice; often no other data areavailable at new facilities. An adequate allowanceis included in published standards to provide afactor of safety in system sizing. However, it isprudent to supplement this approach by alsoconsidering characterization of wastes from anysimilar existing facilities or installations. Thislatter approach can be implemented by examininglaboratory records, data logs, and reports. Wasteflows can also be determined by correlation withwater use after adjustment for lawn watering,cooling losses, and other uses wherein water isnot returned to the sewer. Wastewater character-ization can also be accomplished by examiningthe industrial chemicals used in the processescontributing to the waste stream. To determinethe constituents of the industrial chemicals, theappropriate Military Specification (MIL SPEC)should be examined and the quantity of eachconstituent verified.

5-3. Solution methodology

a. Alternative approaches. In order to solve awastewater management problem, it is first neces-sary to define an approach to the problem. Theapproaches commonly employed are end-of-pipecontrol and in-plant control. End-of-pipe controlusually involves collecting all the waste sourcesinto one waste stream and designing treatmentprocesses to remove the undesirable constituents.In-plant control involves handling wastes at theirsource either by modifying the source or byremoving undesirable constituents while they arestill concentrated. Often, the most attractivesolution to a waste problem will be a combinationof both abatement philosophies.

b. In-plant/source control. Control techniquesfor in-plant pollution abatement are usually ori-ented toward a single source. In developing suchcontrols it is necessary to consider the means bywhich the waste is generated. In general, in-plantcontrol consists of one or more of the following:

5-5

TM 5-814-8

—Segregation.—Recirculation and recycling.—Disposal of concentrated residuals.—Pretreatment.—Reduction in volume or waste load.—Process modification.(1) Segregation. Segregation means isolating

the waste streams originating from varioussources or types of sources from others. Segrega-tion usually involves controlling the manner inwhich wastes are collected. Often, segregation ofwaste streams is the key to implementing in-plant control because each source may requireindividual consideration. Segregation may be nec-essary before any of the other in-plant controlscan be exercised. For example, in order to reclaimwaste oils, it is necessary to collect used oilbefore it enters the sewer. Thus, segregation isthe key to oil reclamation. Potential undesirableeffects of segregation should also be considered.These arise whenever two streams which arecomplimentary in some respect are segregated.When an acidic stream is segregated from a basicstream pH adjustment problems may intensify.Similarly, warm and cold streams are sometimesbetter treated when combined due to temperatureeffects on treatment efficiency. A nutrient con-taining waste stream is desirable in a mixture ofpredominantly carbonaceous waste and should,therefore, not be segregated. All these and similarfactors should be considered whenever segrega-tion is contemplated.

(2) Water recirculation and recycling. In-plant control by recirculation and recycling refersto the reuse of wastewaters from some operationeither within that operation or within anotheroperation. Recirculation and recycling may re-quire some form of local treatment in order torender the wastewater recyclable. An example ofa case where treatment is not necessary would beheat recovery from laundry wastewater to preheatboiler water. An example of a waste that requirestreatment before reuse would be the filtering ofwater in a wet spray booth scrubber beforerecycling. These operations will result primarily inreduced hydraulic loading of the treatment plant.

(3) Disposal of concentrated residuals. Insome instances, wastes can be collected in asemi-dry or otherwise concentrated state andrecovered for reuse or separate disposal. Potentialbenefits of special disposal are enhancement ofend-of-pipe treatment due to a reduction inpollutional load or by elimination of toxic orotherwise hazardous material which may be detri-mental to end-of-pipe treatment. Income can also

be generated by the marketing of reclaimablesubstances such as oils or solvents.

(4) Pretreatment. Isolated waste streams maybe treated locally for removal of specific constitu- ents before discharge to the main collectionsystem. Such pretreatment is possible in a vehiclemaintenance area by installation of an oil/waterseparator on the sewer which collects floor wash-ings. A number of treatment processes may beused for pretreatment as illustrated in table 5-1.

(5) Reduction in volume or waste load bybetter housekeeping. A close examination of mostprocesses will reveal a number of operationswhich result in unnecessary dumping to thesewer. Needless flushing of spilled materials,emptying of old or used containers, running ofunused hoses, and leaking of worn equipment areall examples where reduction can be effective. Inmany cases, good housekeeping practices, propermanagement, adequate supervision and everydaycommon sense can be applied to reduce wastedischarges.

(6) Process modification. In considering thein-plant controls, a frequently overlooked methodis modification of the operation which generatesthe waste. Modification can occur by either chang-

ing or replacing the equipment or materialsemployed in the operation. Equipment modifica- tion could involve repair, renovation or replace-ment of existing process machinery. An exampleof this would be to replace a wet scrubber with acyclone or fabric filter to remove cinders from awaste paper incinerator. The replacement of chem-icals and materials used with ones having lesspollutional impact can also have a significantin-plant control.

(7) Combined sewers. Many sewer systemshave served as combined sewers handling bothsanitary and storm flows. In some instances, thiswas purposely planned to eliminate the need fortwo separate systems. However, this practice wasimplemented prior to the time when any signifi-cant waste treatment was required. Today, com-bined sewers do not exist to a significant extenton military installations and are prohibited in newconstruction. If a combined sewer is encounteredduring modification of an existing facility, thestormwater flow should be separated from theprocess flow.

(8) Cooling water. Water used for indirectcooling purposes (such as shell and tube heatexchangers) normally contains essentially no BODor suspended solids. Once-through cooling waterscan be diverted from the sanitary sewer system. For recirculating evaporative cooling systems,

5-6

Table 5-1. Example of waste load reductions by in-plant control

In-plant Flow BOD LoadControl Description of Reduction ReductionMethod Modification MGD Percent lb/day Percent

Segregation and Incineration of high 0.04 0.4 6,510 11.7special disposal strength organic streams

Wet scrubber replaced 0.30 2.7 560 1.0with afterburner

Process modification Repair and replacement of 1.60 14.4 4,650 8.3process equipment

Unit shutdowns due to 0.25 2.2 1,860 3.3the age of the processor product*

Substitution

Recycling

Reduction

Use of raw materials o 0 560 1.0with less pollutant load

Reprocessing of specific 0.01 0.1 560 1.0wastestreams to recovermore product and concentratewaste

A number of small, varied 0.60 5.4 3,900projects

Totals 2.8 25.2 18,600

*These were not caused by environmental considerations but they were a factor.

7.0

33.3

TM 5-814-8

dissolved solids may be high and diversion maynot be possible.

(9) Infiltration/inflow. Entry of storm flowand groundwater into the sewer system throughfaulty sewer lines or illicit connections can be amajor contribution to sewer flows. Infiltration isparticularly serious for the several days followinga major storm event or other periods whengroundwater levels are high. Inflow impacts thesewer flow during and immediately following thestorm event when roof drain or storm sewerconnections contribute. Infiltration/inflow can cre-ate undesirable environmental conditions andhealth hazards by sewer overflows and by requir-ing bypassing of treatment facilities when hy-draulic capacity is exceeded. To produce neededenvironmental protection with minimum costs,infiltration/inflow must be effectively controlledeither by corrective action to the sewer system,provision of equalization/surge basins or by provi-sion of increased treatment capacity.

(10) By-product recovery. By-product recov-ery, applied to process waste, is another means ofwaste reduction wherein materials from a wastestream are recovered for further use. It is quiteoften not economically feasible, but it should beconsidered and evaluated.

(11) Equalization. An indirect means of wastereduction before treatment can be accomplishedby equalization of wastes. This involves variousmethods for smoothing out the wastewater loadsreaching a treatment facility, and is especiallyapplicable to the treatment of wastes from indus-trial or process operations.

(12) Examples. The use of centralized vehiclewash facilities (CVWF) provides an excellent ex-ample of exercising in-plant control techniques.The centralized wash facility is designed to beused for exterior washing after tactical operationsand employs water conservation by treatmentand recycle of wash water. Segregation is accom-plished by isolating the wash water for exteriorwashing from the wastewater generated by vehi-cle maintenance activities and any otherwastewater source. Recycling ,and treatment areaccomplished by collecting wash water, removingsettleable solids and floating oils, passing itthrough an intermittent sand filter and storing itfor reuse. The volume of wash water can beminimized by using baths for soaking and loosen-ing the dirt from vehicles and by using automaticshut-off nozzles on all wash hoses. Detergents,solvents or other cleaning aids are not allowedbecause they are not necessary for exterior wash-ing, and they complicate the waste strem. An-other example of using an in-plant control ap-

proach to pollution abatement is presented intable 5-1. In this case, a chemical plant was facedwith implementing a comprehensive control pro-gram employing both in-plant and end-of-pipe technologies. The total reduction in BOD wasteload was 33 percent and the flow reduction was25 percent due to in-plant control. Table 5-1illustrates how this reduction was achieved. Pro-cess modification and segregation for specialdisposal played key roles in attaining the reduc-tion. The in-plant controls resulted in a corre-sponding decrease in the size of end-of-pipe treat-ment facility required.

c. End-of-pipe control. Pollution control usingand end-of-pipe abatement philosophy meanstreating the waste discharges from a number ofoperations after these wastes have been combinedin a common sewer. End-of-pipe control usuallyaddresses removal of a large variety of waste-water constituents. There are many treatmentprocesses which can be employed in a treatmentsequence to obtain an acceptable discharge qual-ity. This approach is generally more attractivethan in-plant control because all wastewater treat-ment operations are carried out in a single,central location. Technologically, the end-of-pipealternative may pose severe treatment problemsdue to the variety of pollutants in the wastewaterand the variability of wastewater characteristicsto be handled by a single facility.

5-4. Disposal alternatives

A major factor in developing a solution forwastewater management is the method of ulti-mate disposal of the treated wastewater. Veryoften there is more than one disposal alternativeand it is the planner’s task to select the onewhich is most suitable for the specific waste.There are four general wastewater disposal alter-natives:

–Discharge to a domestic wastewater treat-ment plant.

—Dilution in surface waters.–Land disposal.—Deep well injection.

The following is a brief discussion of each ofthese disposal alternatives as related to wastewa-ters from military installations.

a. Discharge to a domestic waste water treat-ment plant. Military installations may be locatedwithin or near a civilian community which owns atreatment plant, or they may have a treatmentsystem for their own domestic wastes. In bothcases the industrial and new domestic wastewatermay be d ischarged to the ex is t ing p lant for -

treatment in combination with the existing waste-

5-8

TM 5-814-8

waters. Before proceeding with combined treat-ment of industrial and domestic wastes, severalfactors should be considered.

(1.) Verification of waste compatibility. Non-compatible industrial discharges can be identifiedbased upon physical and chemical wastewaterparameters which could damage or make inopera-tive the sewage treatment facilities. Industrialdischarges can reduce the biochemical reactionrates or decrease the sludge settling velocity forbiological treatment systems. Sludge handlingproblems commonly result from poor settleabilityand dewaterability of combined industrial/municipal sludges. Additionally, toxic compounds,such as heavy metals, may render the municipalplant’s sludge unacceptable for common disposal

. methods.(2) Loading variations. The contaminant con-

centrations of industrial wastes are usually muchmore variable than that of domestic wastes.Variations in the amount or type of the wastegenerated can significantly impact the municipalplant operation and performance. Batch processesor changes in production methods result in or-ganic, hydraulic, and toxic loading variationswhich domestic systems have difficulty anticipat-ing and responding to.

(3) Pretreatment technologies. The applicablepretreatment technologies can only be definedafter a comprehensive assessment of the wastecharacteristics, discharge limitations and consid-eration of alternative generation and treatmenttechniques. Occasionally, non-compatible wastecomponents can be eliminated by processchanges. Frequently, production or maintenanceschedules can be adjusted to minimize dischargesor reduce the impact on municipal plants duringswitching to new products or operations. Exam-ples of in-plant and end-of-pipe techniques arepresented in table 5-2 for removal of potentiallynon-compatible materials in industrial discharges.

(a) Selection of the pretreatment technol-ogy should also include consideration of reducingthe amount and concentration of compatible pol-lutants. Such consideration can frequently resultin a substantial reduction in the sewer use forindustrial discharges. Installation of aerated la-goons or anaerobic pretreatment systems can alsoresult in significant savings. Biological systemscan be used to reduce waste loads discharged to aphysical-chemical treatment system.

(b) The most commonly used physical/chemical pretreatment methods are screening,emulsion breaking, oil/water separation, sedimen-tation, equalization, and neutralization. Biologicalpretreatment methods which are most commonly

used are aerated lagoons, rough trickling filters,and rotating biological contactors. Examples ofpretreatment methods employed at military in-stallations before discharge to municipal sewersare:

—Screens used for lint collection in laun-dries.

—Removal of oil and grease from washrack wastes.

—–Sedimentation of solids from wash rackwastes.

—Gravity separation of oils and wastesfrom motor pool maintenance facilities.

b. Dilution in surface waterways. Discharge ofwastewaters to surface waterways is the mostcommon ultimate disposal method. Both the loca-tion of discharge point and the type of dispersionmechanism are important for protecting waterquality. A properly designed subsurface disper-sion system will allow maximum utilization of thereceiving water assimilative capacity.

(1) Federal, State and local governments haveplaced restrictions on wastewater discharge qual-ity in order to control the detrimental effects ofcontaminants as described in chapter 2. Theserestrictions may require a certain type of treat-ment system be used, or they may specifyconcentration limits on certain parameters regard-less of the treatment system used to obtain these.Typically, the quality of the receiving stream orbody of water is taken into consideration alongwith the intended use of the water following thewastewater discharge. Each state has classifiedits major streams and bodies of water accordingto their own set of use classifications. Table 5-3lists some typical classifications and the associ-ated quality criteria and required treatment meth-ods for each one. The regulations involved inwater quality control are discussed in chapter 4.

(2) Of the various pollutants discharged tosurface waterways, oxygen-depleting compoundshave received the most attention. These com-pounds are primarily soluble organics, the dis-charge of which may be extremely damaging tothe health of the receiving stream. Soluble organ-ics are used as food by microorganisms. Microor-ganisms exist almost everywhere in our worldand most microorganisms utilize oxygen for respi-ration. Discharge of large quantities of organicmaterial results in increased microorganismgrowth and oxygen consumption. Thus, the in-creased organism activity resulting from dis -charge of soluble organics exerts a “biochemicaloxygen demand (BOD) on the receiving strewn.This natural phenomenon may deplete dissolved

5-9

Table 5-2. Potential non-compliance materials and example control measures*

Component In-plant Control End-of-Pipe Control

Physical Constituents

1. Suspended Solids2. Floating Material3. Fiber4. Temperature5. Oily material

Chemical Constituents

1. Organicsa. Comp1ex

b. Toxic

c. Surfactants

d. Colored wastee. pH

2. Inorganica. Total dissolved fixed solids

b. Heavy metals

ClarifierSeparatorsScreenCooling towerSeparator, segregation

Activated carbon, ozoneActivated carbon, special

disposalActivated carbon, special

disposal, process substitutionActivated carbonNeutralization

Special disposalPrecipitation

Primary clarifierSeparatorsScreens, primary clarifierCombine w/other wastesSeparator

Activated carbonActivated carbon

- -

- -Neutralization

Ion exchangePrecipitation

*The waste generation rate must also be considered in terms of the diurnal discharge of domestic wastewaterinto the POTW.

Table 5-3. Stream classification for water quality criteriaa

Class Quality Criteria Required Treatment

A b Water supply, recreation Coliform bacteria, color, Secondary (tertiary inturbidity, pH, dissolved some cases to meetoxygen, toxic materials, criteria) plus dis-taste- and odor-producing infectionchemicals, temperature

Bb

Bathing, fish life, Coliform bacteria, pH Secondary plus disinfectionrecreation dissolved oxygen, toxic

materials, color andturbidity (at high levels),temperature

c Industrial, agricultural Dissolved oxygen, pH, floating Primary and, in some cases,navigation, fish life and settleable solids, secondary

temperature

D Navigation, cooling water Nuisance-free conditions, Primaryfloating material, pH

aBased upon data from (3) and (4)bMay require nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal

TM 5-814-8

oxygen in a stream to a point where other aquaticlife cannot, exist.

(3) Toxic materials and heavy metals such ascadmium, lead, mercury and zinc may severelyinhibit or kill organisms in the receiving waters.Many of these substances may concentrate inaquatic organisms. Small concentrations in thestream can be stored up in aquatic animals (bioac-cumulation) to extremely high levels which mayeventually be passed to man through the foodchain. Occurrence of this type of toxic migrationhas been documented for several toxic compoundssuch as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s).

(4) The major problem associated with addi-tions of color and turbidity to natural waters isthat these parameters reduce light penetrationinto the water. This, in turn, decreases the rate ofphotosynthesis and causes a decrease in thestream population of algae and aquatic plants.The food supply for animals feeding on algae andaquatic plants is then reduced, possibly resultingin growth inhibition or death of the higher formsof life.

(5) Nutrients, although necessary to aquaticlife, may, when present at too high a concentra-tion, cause algal blooms (where algae reproduceextremely quickly, covering water surfaces inlarge floating colonies). Although algae produceoxygen in sunlight by photosynthesis, at nightthey utilize oxygen in much the same manner asother microorganisms do. When they reach aharmful level, the lake or reservoir is consideredeutrophic. This is offensive in recreational facili-ties and may inhibit future uses of impoundedwaters unless treatment is provided.

(6) Refractory materials, such as some syn-thetic detergents, may cause foaming which isaesthetically displeasing.

(7) Oil and floating materials are aestheticallyundesirable, typically high in BOD, and maysuffocate aquatic life by blanketing gills, leavesand other oxygen transfer surfaces. Floatingsubstances may also have a capping effect on thestream decreasing or destroying the naturalstream reaeration abilities.

(8) Acids and alkalis may shock (rapid orlocalized change in conditions which is detrimen-tal to aquatic life) receiving streams if the pH ofthe waste is sufficiently different from the exist-ing pH in the stream. Most localities require thatdischarges to natural waters be neutralized towithin a pH range of 6.0 to 9.0. Some restrictionsare even more stringent,

(9) Substances resulting in atmosphericodors, such as sulfides, are aesthetically unappeal-ing and should be eliminated before discharge.

(10) Suspended solids produce a variety ofdetrimental effects. Turbidity and its associatedproblems are increased by suspended solids addi-tion to a stream. The high organic content of some suspended solids exerts a high BOD on thewater and creates oxygen depletion problems.Sedimentation of suspended solids results in anaccumulation of solids on the bottom of thereceiving body of water. This sludge bank mayalter the habitat of the bottom dwelling (benthic)organisms sufficiently to decrease or eliminatesome species populations. Additionally, biologicalactivity within the sludge bank may producegases which lift masses of decomposing sludge tothe surface creating an unsightly and malodoroussituation.

(11) Discharge of wastewaters having temper-atures significantly higher than the receivingstream may elevate the temperature of thestream. This will subsequently decrease the dis-solved oxygen content, since oxygen is less solu-ble in water at higher temperatures. Increasedbiological activity resulting from higher tempera-tures further accelerates oxygen depletion. Ther-mal pollution can therefore result in suffocationof aquatic life.

c. Ocean disposal. Within environmental con-straints either barge transport or an outfall pipecan be used for ocean disposal of industrialwastes. The former is primarily used for the —

disposal of low volume concentrated wastewaterwhereas the latter is more suitable for largevolumes of diluted wastewater.

(1) Developing an ocean outfall solution for aparticular waste should include the followingsteps:

—Define the beneficial uses of the marinewaters at the disposal site and its vicin-ity. Beneficial uses may include commer-cial fishing, marine recreation, navigation,fishery propagation and migration, andindustrial use.

—Define the water quality criteria pertinentto the relevant beneficial uses. Areas ofconcern include public health, aestheticnuisances, toxicity to marine biota, stim-ulation of planktonic blooms, and oxygendepletion.

—Define the oceanographic characteristicsof the disposal site. This includes watercirculation patterns, currents and disper-sion, density and temperature profiles,and submarine topography.

–Design wastewater disposal system to meet required quality criteria.

5 - 1 2

TM 5-814-8

(2) The main objective in the design of anocean outfall is the enhancement of dilution ofwastewater in marine waters. This is achieved byinstalling a multiple port diffuser through whichwastewater is discharged. This dilution, referredto as “initial dilution”, is primarily dependent onthe depth of sea at the point of discharge.

(3) The wastewater plume which forms at thesea surface above the diffuser is subject to oceancurrents, turbulent mixing, and wave and windeffects. This results in further dilution referred toas “turbulent dilution.” The intensity of thisdilution depends mainly on the natural turbulencein the ocean.

(4) Ocean dumping of industrial waste isclosely regulated by the U.S. EPA. Before per-mits are issued several studies have to be con-ducted including biological and oceanographicinvestigations. Therefore, this approach should betaken only as a last resort when inland treatmentand disposal are not feasible.

d. Land application. Land application ofwastewater is a treatment approach in which thecharacteristics of the wastewater are altered bymicrobial stabilization, adsorption, immobilizationand crop recovery. Industrial wastes are appliedto the land at rates that are low enough not toexceed the assimilative capacity of the soil.Pretreatment processes are almost always neces-sary to reduce toxic or pollutant species whichincrease land requirements, and thus, improve theoverall economics of the total system. Landapplication has not been widely used for indus-trial wastes due to the complexity of the waste-waters and the lack of proven design criteria.However, it is now believed that an environmen-tally acceptable rate of application can be deter-mined for any and all domestic and industrialwaste constituents with the exception of radioac-tive materials.

(1) Land application design. A rational ap-proach to developing a land application solutionshould proceed in the following sequence:

—Determine the controlling parameter inthe wastewater based on the assimilativecapacity of the plant-soil system and thewaste load on a constituent-by-constitu-ent basis. The controlling parameter isthat constituent which requires the great-est land area.

—Economically evaluate all components re-quired for the land application systemunder various levels of the land-limitingconstituents (LLC).

—Economically evaluate pretreatment orin-plant modifications for reducing the

concentration of the land-limiting constit-uent.

—Select the most cost-effective combina-tion of pretreatment and land applicationsystems.

(2) Land application design has a highlysite-specific character and requires careful devel-opment of the individual solution. Failures ofexisting systems have been most frequently at-tributed to not considering the site-specific natureof this disposal method.

(3) Determination of the land application ratefor any industrial waste constituent is based on acalculation of the mass balance of this constituentin the soil system. The result of these calculationsis the application rate, expressed in lb/acre-yr,that will not exceed the environmentally acceptedlevels of pollutant in any part of the system.There are no standard application rates for alltypes of soils and each case should be treatedindividually.

e. Deep well injection. Deep well injection is adisposal method in which industrial wastes arestored in subsurface strata of proper characteris-tics. The technology of deep well injection wasdescribed in detail by Warner (165).

(1) Deep well applications.(a) Deep wells have been used extensively

for many years in oil producing regions to returnlarge quantities of saline water underground.However, due to the uncertainties involved andthe regulatory constraints, they have not beenused extensively for industrial waste disposal.

(b) The approval of a new injection well forindustrial waste disposal requires investigation ofalternative methods which concludes that aninjection well is the most environmentally satis-factory option. Drilling of a preinjection test well,monitoring provisions, contingency plans and pro-visions for capping of wells after shutdown arealso required. Even though this method may notbe of widespread application, for a specific waste,it may be the most environmentally acceptedpractice available.

(2) Considerations for design.(a) The most important consideration in

developing deep well injection concerns the pro-tection of underground water resources frombeing contaminated by the industrial wastes. Thismeans that the wastes must remain confined in aspecified zone and not diffuse into strata whichwere not designated for wastewater storage. Thewell area and its casing must be designed andconstructed to avoid upward migration of fluidfrom the injection well. A comprehensive monitor-

5-13

TM 5-814-8

ing program has to be established for the injec-tion area.

(b) Compatibility of the wastewater withthe water in the injection zone must be studiedcarefully. The reaction between wastewater con-stituents and salinity of the groundwater mayresult in precipitation of mineral salts or forma-tion of gases both of which could render thestrata impermeable. Organic material in thewastewater may result in extensive biologicalgrowth and rapid plugging of the aquifer pores.

5-5. Upgrading of existing facilities

Upgrading existing wastewater treatment sys-tems refers to a variety of design and operationaltechniques intended to improve plant performanceor increase plant capacity. Upgrading of existingplants may be desirable for one or several of thefollowing reasons:

–To improve performance of facilities withoperational deficiencies, i.e., those facilitieswhich have poor performance due to difficul-ties in operation of the systems.

–To improve performance of facilities withdesign deficiencies, i.e., facilities displayingpoor performance due to inadequacy of de-sign.

—To increase hydraulic capacity to alleviatehydraulic overloads from infiltration and ex-pansion of services.

—To increase organic capacity compensatingfor organic overload due to the number ofconnections or high strength contributions.

–To provide compliance with more stringentstandards.

a. Plant performance. A national survey wasconducted by the U.S. EPA in 103 wastewatertreatment plants to identify and rank the majorcauses of poor plant performance. The surveyexcluded plants with hydraulic or organic over-loading problems. Table 5-4 lists the top 10ranked problem areas and provides a short expla-nation of each. The survey results indicate thatoperation and design are often the two mostimportant areas to consider when upgrading anexisting system.

b. Upgrading techniques. Methods or tech-niques used in upgrading are entirely dependentupon the problems to be solved by the upgrading.Often, several problems are involved; therefore,several techniques must be employed in a mannerto provide the level of performance required. Forsimplicity of discussion, the various approacheswill be addressed separately with the understand-ing that combined use is encouraged where neces-sary.

(1) Upgrading of poorly operated facilities.One of the most common reasons for poor plantperformance is poor operation. The operatingtechniques applied in a plant should always be considered as the first step in upgrading asystem. In order to verify performance, optimiza-tion of operations should be completed before anyother upgrading technique is applied. Specificoperating problems are listed and briefly dis-cussed in the U.S. EPA survey quoted in para-graph 5-5a. These and other problems may becategorized into the three basic problem areaslisted below:

–Improper application of process controlmethods.

–Inadequate training or guidance of plantoperators.

–Improper testing and data analyses.(2) Upgrading poorly designed facilities.

Many plants have sizing or process design defi-ciencies relating to hydraulic or organic overload-ing problems. Many design problems also resultin poor performance. These were listed in the U.S.EPA survey for five of the top 10 ranked plantproblems. Major design deficiencies include:

—Insufficient flexibility in pumping rates,preventing proper control of plant pro-cesses in times of high or low flow.

–Inadequate by-passes for repair and maintenance of equipment, resulting inentire processes being taken out of ser-vice unnecessarily.

–Lack of standby equipment, causing pos-sible loss of process operation while re-placements are ordered.

—Poor hydraulic and solids distribution toparallel units resulting in over orunderloading of different portions of thesystem.

–Lack of flexibility in process instrumenta-tion and equipment resulting in poor lowflow or low load operation.

—Poor accessibility of equipment for repairand maintenance often resulting in repairproblems and negligent maintenance prac-tices. The remedies for most of theseproblems are obvious. Correction of thesedeficiencies may result in sufficient im-provement of plant performance to elimi-nate the need for further upgrading.

(3) Upgrading to provide increased hydrauliccapacity. Although units based on flow rates areoperable when hydraulically overloaded, the re-moval efficiencies are greatly reduced. Some ofthe units most adversely affected by hydraulic overload are equalization basins, primary clarifi-

5-14

TM 5-814-8

Table 5-4. Ten top ranked causes of poor plant performance

The 10 major causes of poor plant performance are described asfollows:

1. Operator Application of Concepts and Testing to Process Control-This factor was ranked as the most severe deficiency and lead-ing cause of poor performance at 23 facilities and was a high-ranked factor at a total of 89 out of the 103 plants evaluated.It occurs when a trained operator in a satisfactorily designedplant permits less than optimum performance. This factor wasranked when incorrect control adjustment or incorrect controltest interpretation occurred, or when the use of existinginadequate design features continued when seemingly obviousoperations alternatives or minor plant modifications could havebeen implemented to improve performance. The lack of testingand control were not necessarily the result of inadequatetraining or comprehension in these areas, but simply the lackof or inability to apply learned techniques.

2. Process Control Testing Procedures - Inadequate process controltesting involves the absence or wrong type of sampling or test-ing for process monitoring and operational control. Thisdeficiency leads to making inappropriate decisions. Standardunit process tests such as mixed liquor suspended solids, mixedliquor dissolved oxygen, mixed liquor settleable solids, andreturn sludge suspended solids for activated sludge processeswere seldom or never conducted. Also, important operatingparameters such as sludge volume index, F/M ratio and mean cellretention time in suspended growth systems or recirculationrates in trickling filter plants were usually not determined.This factor adversely impacted performance at 67 of the 103plants evaluated.

3. Infiltration/Inflow - The results of this widespread problemare manifested by severe fluctuations in flow rates, periods ofsevere hydraulic overloading, and dilution of the influentwastewater so that both suspended and fixed biological systemsare loaded to less than optimal values. The extreme result isthe “washout” of suspended growth systems as a result of theloss of solids from the final clarification stage during highflow periods. This factor was ranked first at 56 of the 103plants evaluated.

. -

.

5-15

TM 5-814-8

Table 5-4 Cent’d)

4.

5.

6.

7.

Inadequate Understanding of Wastewater Treatment - This factor is distinguished from Factor #1 in that it is defined as adeficiency in the level of knowledge that individual staffs atvarious facilities exhibit concerning wastewater treatmentfundamentals. On occasion, an operator’s primary concern issimply to keep the equipment functional rather than to learnhow the equipment relates to the processes and their control.This factor adversely affected performance at 50 plants and wasthe leading cause of poor performance at nine facilities.

Technical Guidance - Improper technical guidance includes mis-information from authoritative sources including designengineers, state and Federal regulatory agency personnel, equip-ment suppliers, operator training staff and other plantoperators. At any one plant, improper technical guidance wasobserved to come from more than one source. This factor wasranked as the most severe deficiency at seven plants, and was anadverse factor at 47 facilities.

Sludge Wasting Capability- This factor was ranked as the lead-ing cause of poor performance at nine facilities and was afactor at 43 plants studied. This factor includes inadequatesludge handling facilities and the inability to measure andcontrol the volume of waste sludge. Either one or both of theseconditions was noted as having a major impact on performance atseveral plants.

Process Controllability - The lack of controllability wasevident in the inability to adequately measure and control flowstreams such as return sludge flow and trickling filter recir-culation rates. While measurement and control of return acti-vated sludge flow were the most frequent reasons for ratingthis factor, process controllability was not a major cause ofpoor performance. It prevented an operator from “tuning” histreatment system to the varying demands which were placed on itby hydraulic and organic loading fluctuations. This factoroccurred at 55 plants and was the leading factor at three facil-ities.

5-16

TM 5-814-8

Table 5-4 Cent’d

8. Process Flexibility - Lack of flexibility refers to theunavailability of valves, piping and other appurtenancesrequired to operate in various modes or to include or excludeexisting processes as necessary to optimize performance. Poorflexibility precludes the ability to operate an activatedsludge plant in the contact stabilization, step loading or con-ventional modes and the ability to bypass polishing ponds orother downstream processes to discharge high quality secondaryclarifier effluent. Either the lack of or inadequate processflexibility was noted as the leading cause of poor performanceat three plants and was a factor at 37 facilities.

90 Ineffective O&M Manual Instruction - This situation, existingat 40 plants, was judged serious although the adverse effectwas moderate. The poor quality of most plants’ O&M manualsundoubtedly has contributed to operators’ general lack ofunderstanding of the importance of process control and theinability to practice it, but a competent staff could use otheravailable information sources.

10. Aerator Design - Deficiencies in aerator design were the majorcause of poor performance at six facilities and were lesssignificant factors at an additional 21 plants. Deficiencieswere noted in the type, size, shape, capacity, and location ofthe unit and were of such a nature as to hinder adequate treat-ment of the waste flow and loading and stable operation.

ers, dissolved or induced air flotation system,filtration units, and oil/water separators.

(a) Reducing volumes. Hydraulic overload-ing may be caused by peak flows in excess ofplant design or by average flows exceeding plantdesign capacity. Peak flows may be remedied byinstalling equalization basins which will dampenthe peaks to acceptable average flow levels.Average loading in excess of hydraulic capacitymay be remedied in many cases by elimination ofinfiltration and inflow. Decreased industrial wateruse or water recycle may also help to eliminatehydraulic overloading.

(b) Process modifications. Process modifica-tions may be used to increase the hydrauliccapacity of an existing system. The addition ofchemical coagulant greatly enhances the effi-ciency of most hydraulic based units. Equipmenthas been developed to increase hydraulic capacityin some units, such as, tube settlers in clarifiersand corrugated plate interceptors in oil/waterseparators. If none of these methods providesufficient increases, construction of parallel unitsmay be necessary.

(4) Upgrading to provide increased organicloading capactiy. Biological units are most af-fected by organic overloading. Specifically, wastestabilization ponds, activated sludge systems,trickling filters, and rotary biological contractorsare among the more easily affected systems. Inthese systems, organic overloading often resultsin poor sludge settleability, sludge bulking andodor problems. Increased secondary sludge pro-duction caused by overloading could result inproblems with sludge thickeners, digesters,dewatering and disposal facilities. When over-loaded, many biological systems not only exhibitdecreased removal efficiencies, but in severe or-ganic overloading situations they may fail com-pletely. Aerobic systems may become anaerobicand/or the organisms may become completelyunsettleable due to filamentous bulking. In acti-vated sludge systems, organic overloading maysometimes result from inadequate mixing whichleads to sludge settling in the aeration basin thusreducing the effective biomass in the system.This problem can be solved by increasing the

5 - 1 7

TM 5-814-8

mixing level through the addition of mixingequipment, draft tubes or hydraulic modifications.

(a) Reducing organic loading. As with hy-draulic overloading, organic overloads may becaused by either peak loads or excessive averageloads. Peak loads may be dampened by equaliza-tion at the source or at the treatment plant. Ifthe average load still represents an organic over-load, other correctional methods must be used. Inactivated sludge systems with low dissolved oxy-gen concentrations, increasing aeration capacitymay provide the oxygen required by the bacteriato assimilate excessive quantities of organic mat-ter. Additionally, enrichment with pure oxygenmay also provide the necessary oxygen. If theproblem is not insufficient oxygen, increasing theaeration tank mixed liquor volatile suspendedsolids (MLVSS) level would provide a largerbiological population which could subsequentlyoxidize more organic matter. This line of action iscontingent upon the capability of the secondaryclarifiers to accommodate higher solids loadings.A similar effect can be achieved by increasing thevolume of the aeration basin.

(b) Temperature. One important factor inall biological treatment systems is operation atlow temperatures. Since biological reactions slowdown as temperature drops, many plants experi-ence operational difficulties under winter condi-tions. Upgrading methods for winter operationand associated problems are directed toward bet-ter heat conservation within the treatment plant.Among the possible winter upgrading methodsare reduced mixing in equalization basins, com-plete or partial bypass around equalization ba-sins, covering equalization basins, and shift fromsurf ace to diffused aeration.

(c) Capital expansion. Finally, the additionof supplementary organic load reduction unitssuch as roughing trickling filters before biologicalsystems or polishing filters following biologicalsystems, may be necessary to properly upgradethe treatment plant.

(5) Upgrading to meet more stringent stan-dards. Many plants are facing the prospect ofhaving to meet more stringent standards thanthose for which the plant was designed. Optimiza-tion of all operational and design aspects of theexisting system may be insufficient to meet thenew, more strict standards. Compliance may re-quire construction of additional units dependingon the parameters which must be met. Threeparameter commonly subject to increasing strictstandards are TSS, BOD, and NH3. Suspendedsolids removal may be increased by addition offilters, clarifiers, or air flotation systems. BOD

removal may be increased by aeration devices,increased aeration tank volumes, roughing unitsor polishing filters. Ammonia standards mayrequire the addition of biological vitrification units, in-plant control, or the operation of existingbiological systems to provide vitrification.

5-6. Environmental impactThe environmental impact statement (E IS) andthe environmental assessment are documentswhich present the results of a study of all thepotential effects of a proposed or existing facilityor activity on its environment. A discussion ofthe requirements and preparation of the EIS isincluded in chapter 4 of this manual. Detailedinstructions on the preparation of environmentalimpact statements are set forth in AR 200-2.Additional guidance is available in the DA Pam-phlet 200-1.

5-7. Other considerations

In many instances, establishing a pollution con-trol program involves consideration of factorsdifferent from those experienced at similar instal-lations and can be evaluated only at the prospec-tive site. Such factors may include the treatmentneeds of a new type of process waste; integrationwith an existing waste system; the effect ofsystem performance under different climatic con-straints; and peculiar needs such as architecture, landscaping, and materials of construction. A sitevisit should be conducted to establish the missionof the installation and to determine any unusualsite conditions which may dictate certain pollu-tion control plans.

a. Bench and pilot studies. A basic consider-ation during wastewater treatment investigationsis evaluation of the need for bench (laboratory)and pilot scale studies. There are usually twoobjectives of such studies. The first is to deter-mine whether the waste is amenable to treatmentby the proposed unit operations or processes. Thesecond is to obtain sufficient data to effectivelydesign the full scale facility. Laboratory testsshould be conducted before proceeding to pilotscale studies. For existing plants, full scale planttesting may be substituted for pilot studies undersome circumstances.

(1) Factors considered. Generally, consider-ation of the need for bench (laboratory) and pilotscale studies is encountered with treatment ofprocess or industrial wastes. Requirements maybe to treat a waste stream or streams for which asuitable treatment method has not previouslybeen established. These studies can also be used to determine if a particular process waste can be

5-18

TM 5-814-8

combined and treated with normal sanitary waste.In these instances, laboratory studies are quiteoften conducted to determine treatability by thesystem. If it is treatable, then pilot scale studiesmay be initiated to yield data required for fullscale design. Among commonly employed benchand/or pilot scale studies on industrial or com-bined domestic-industrial wastes are unit pro-cesses such as activated sludge, carbon adsorpo-tion, and dissolved air flotation.

(2) Application to domestic waste. In situa-tions where wastewater requiring treatment origi-nates from sanitary or domestic sources, the needfor bench or pilot scale facilities is normallyunnecessary. However, it may be desirable oreven necessary to conduct such studies to assessthe impact of severe climates on some processes;to confirm design criteria; or to determine themost cost-effective process selection.

b. Alternative treatment choices.(1) Connection to municipal systems. When

upgrading existing facilities to meet a higherlevel of treatment or selecting a wastewatertreatment facility for a new installation, consider-ation shall be given to discharging either raw orpartially treated wastewater to a municipal sys-tem if such a facility is within a practical andeconomical distance. When the municipality canprovide the necessary increment of treatmentcapacity, such practice eliminates facility duplica-tion and removes the operational and staffingproblems from the military installation. It canalso reduce costs. Combined or joint treatment isthe preferred method outlined in the 1972 Amend-ments to the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct.

(2) Expanding existing treatment facilities.When an existing facility is expanded to handlemore waste or upgraded to provide a higher levelof treatment, consideration must be given tointegration of additional treatment facilities.Studies must be made to determine the types ofprocesses to be added, timing to avoid serviceinterruption, and provisions for any future facilityexpansion.

c. Geographic and climatologic. In the selectionof a cost-effective treatment scheme, geographicand climatologic conditions must be carefullyanalyzed. In cold climates, the rate of biologicaldegradation of waste materials decreases withdecreasing temperature to a point where it mayvirtually cease during the winter months. Othertreatment schemes, such as physical-chemicaltreatment, need to be explored in such situations.Extreme cold may cause operating problems dueto freezing of mechanical components. Construc-

tion is more difficult in cold climates also. Ex-treme warm weather areas have few unusualtreatment problems, because biological systemsare aided by higher ambient temperatures.

(1) Cold region treatment systems. The U.S.Army Cold Regions Research and EngineeringLaboratory, P. O. Box 282, Hanover, NH 03755,should always be contacted when exploring wastetreatment alternatives for facilities located inregions where the ambient temperature is below32 degrees F for significant periods of the year.

(2) Treatment processes for other areas. In-stallations located in arid and water-short areasoften require the direct and indirect reuse ofwater due to limited supply. A high degree oftreatment is often required for wastewaters priorto discharge due to the very low dilution providedby small stream flows in these areas. In wildliferefuges, fish spawning waters, and wetland areas,wastewater discharges must have low pollutantconcentrations to preserve the delicate environ-mental balance. This is particularly true withregard to toxics, oxygen demanding material,nutrients, and temperature.

d. Treatment reliability. Components of thetreatment process must be selected to ensure ahigh degree of reliability. Duplicate units shallalways be provided for high maintenance units,treatment processes requiring frequent cleaning,and units which are essential for proper opera-tional efficiency. Some examples of these arepumps, screens, filters, and chlorination equip-ment.

(1) Toxic waste. When treating toxic sub-stances such as strong solutions of heavy metalsalts and cyanides, sufficient testing after treat-ment is required to ensure acceptable qualitybefore release. Redundant or duplicate processingsteps may also be warranted. Automatic controlsshould be arranged for fail-safe operation.

(2) Domestic waste. For treatment plantsprimarily handling sanitary wastes, treatmentsystem reliability is generally geared to estab-lished water quality standards.

(3) Establishing reliability requirements. Inareas where effluent or stream standards areestablished, coordination with the Regional U.S.EPA Federal Facilities Coordinator should beemployed to determine treatment requirementsand reliability y necessary to meet all conditions.The U.S. EPA has set forth certain designguidelines to be used to ensure reliability oftreatment processes dependent upon the type ofreceiving watercourse. Equipment and facilities tomeet these requirements shall be incorporated

5 - 1 9

TM 5-814-8

into the system during the planning and feasibil-ity study analysis.

e. Operation and management. The selection ofa wastewater treatment process shall includeconsideration of the operational expertise andmanagement required. When the geographicallocation and installation size permit use of treat-ment ponds, operating needs will be much lessthan other treatment systems. For other treat-ment processes, operational capability becomesmore of a factor in equipment selection. Theincreased emphasis on more stringent effluentquality standards and the resulting increase inthe degree of treatment complexity, make itmandatory that operators have adequate trainingand experience. One major responsibility of theoperating staff will be to perform all necessarytests to ensure that the effluent meets require-ments. When process wastes are involved, moredetailed surveillance and testing will be required.Operator capability and management needs arenot usually the determining factor in processselection, but should be evaluated and properlyweighted in life cycle cost consideration whenmaking process selection.

5 -8 . Spec i f i c t reatment needs

After all prior elements of the program arecomplete, selection of wastewater treatment sys-tem components can be made by evaluating allfactors.

a. Data analysis. Analyses of all data will beginwith the wastewater characteristics establishingthe following:

–Average waste flow.–Total system peak flow as well as peak

flows in tributary sections of the system.–Concentration of pollutants for which pa-

rameters (BOD, suspended solids, nutrients,etc. ) have been established or can be esti-mated.

–Sources and type of process wastes.–-Concentration of process chemicals and any

potentially toxic materials.(1) Waste reduction. The next step will be to

factor into these data the effect of any waste

reduction practices. The output from the proce-dure will establish system raw waste loads.

(2) Environmental consideration. The environ-mental impact statement or environmental assess-ment will document the required treatedwastewater quality and establish the performancelevel required from treatment facilities. The re-quired performance will serve as the basis fortreatment process selection.

b. Selection of pollution control alternatives. Ifbench and/or pilot scale studies have been con-ducted on wastewaters to be treated, the resultswill provide guidance in the selection of processalternatives. With data obtained from the studies,design criteria can be established for feasiblealternatives. Cost comparison and operationalrelationships can be established in selecting acost-effective system. Pertinent economic consid-erations should be investigated. If bench or pilotscale studies have not been conducted, thenprocess selection must involve preliminary anddetailed screening of available unit processes tomeet treatment requirements. Unit treatment pro-cesses and their ranges of applicability y, combinedwith economic criteria, all as discussed herein,will allow the selection of the most cost-effectivesolution.

c. Program implementation. After treatmentmethods have been established, discussionsshould be held with the Regional U.S. EPAFederal Facilities Coordinator to review environ-mental aspects, dates for implementation of theproject, and such other information as may benecessary to satisfy regulatory agency require-ments. One or more written reports are preparedduring the course of the pollution control pro-gram investigations. The number and types ofreports will depend on the complexity and timespan of the project. The final report shall outlinethe investigations conducted, and summarize thefindings and recommendations for implementationof the program. Often it is desirable to assignpriority items for implementation of the programon a staged basis. These reports will form thebasis for subsequent preliminary and/or finaldesign reports and justification for the project.

5 - 2 0

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 6

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES

6-1. Preliminary and Primary Waste-water Treatment Processes

a. Introduction. Preliminary treatment ofwastewater generally includes those processesthat remove debris and coarse biodegradablematerial from the waste stream and/or stabilizethe wastewater by equalization or chemical addi-tion. Primary treatment generally refers to asedimentation process ahead of the main systemor secondary treatment. In domestic wastewatertreatment, preliminary and primary processes willremove approximately 25 percent of the organicload and virtually all of the nonorganic solids. Inindustrial waste treatment, preliminary or pri-mary treatment may include flow equalization,pH adjustment or chemical addition that is ex-tremely important to the overall treatment pro-cess. Table 6-1 liss the typical effluent levels bydegree of treatment. This section of the manualwill discuss the various types of preliminary andprimary treatment processes available.

b. Preliminary treatment. An important part ofany wastewater treatment plant is the equipmentand facilities used to remove items such as rags,grit, sticks, other debris, and foreign objects.These interfere with the operation of the facilityand often cause severe problems. Methods of

. removing these materials prior to primary andsubsequent treatment are part of a pretreatmentor preliminary treatment. While a summary dis-cussion of the commonly employed unit opera-tions follows, a more complete description ofdesign criteria which must be used is contained inTM 5-814-3.

(1) Screening and comminution. Screeningand comminution are preliminary treatment pro-cesses utilized to protect mechanical equipment inthe treatment works, to aid downstream treat-ment processes by intercepting unacceptable sol-ids, and to alter the physical form of solids sothey are acceptable for treatment. Screening orcomminution shall always be used for militarydomestic wastewaters.

(a) Screening. Screening devices removematerials which would damage equipment orinterefere with a process or piece of equipment.Screening devices have variedwastewater treatment facilities,are employed as a preliminaryScreens are classified as fine or

applications atbut most oftentreatment step.coarse and then

further classified as manually or mechanicallycleaned. Coarse screens are used in preliminarytreatment, while fine screens are used in lieu ofsedimentation preceding secondary treatment oras a step in advanced wastewater treatment. Finescreens as a preliminary or primary treatment aremore applicable to process or industrial wastes.TM 5-814-3 provides detailed descriptions ofthese units and design considerations.

(b) Comminution. A comminutor acts asboth a cutter and a screen. Its purpose is not toremove but to shred (comminute) the solids.Solids must be accounted for in subsequentsludge handling facilities. Comminutors, like mostscreens, are mounted in a channel and thewastewater flows through them. The rags andother debris are shredded by cutting teeth untilthey can pass through the openings. Some unitsrequire specially shaped channels for proper hy-draulic conditions, resulting in more expensiveconstruction. Treatment. plant design manuals,textbooks, and manufacturer’s bulletins providedetailed information on these units. A bypasschannel is required for all comminutors to permitmaintenance of equipment.

(2) Grit removal. Grit represents the heavierinert matter in wastewater which will not decom-pose in treatment processes. It is identified withmatter having a specific gravity of about 2.65,and design of grit chambers is based on theremoval of all particles of about 0.011 inch orlarger (65 mesh). For some sludge handling pro-cesses, it may be necessary to remove, as aminimum, grit of 0.007 inch or larger (100 mesh).Grit removal, compared to other unit treatmentprocesses, is quite economical and employed toachieve the following results:

–Prevent excessive abrasive wear of equip-ment such as pumps and sludge scrapers.

–Prevent deposition and subsequent oper-ating problems in channels, pipes, andbasins.

–Prevent reduction of capacity in sludgehandling facilities.

Grit removal facilities shall be used for combinedsewer systems or separate sanitary systemswhich may have excessive inert material. Gritremoval equipment should be located after barscreens and comminutors and ahead of raw sew-age pumps. Sometimes it is not practical to locate

6-1

Table 6-1. Typical effluent levels of principal domestic wastewater characteristicsby degree of treatment (mg/L unless noted otherwise)

Wastewater Treatment .Average Advanceda

Raw (1) (2) 3 (4) ( 5 ) —Parameter Wastewater Primary Secondary (l)+(2)+NRb (3)+PRC (4)+SSORd

BOD 300 195 30e 15 5 1

COD 600 400 150 100 45 12

Suspended Solids 300 120 30e 20 10 1

Amnonia (as N) 25 25 28 3 3 3

Phosphate (as P) 20 18 14 13 2 1

pH (units) 7 6-9 6-9e 6-9 6-9 6-9

Fecal Coliform 1,000,000 15,000 200e 200 200 100(no. /100 mL)

aReasonable levels but not necessarily minimum for all constituents.bNR = Nitrogen Removal or ConversionCPR = Phosphorus RemovaldSSOR = Suspended Solids and Organics RemovaleEnvironmental Protection Agency, Secondary Treatment Information, 40 CFR, Part 133, FederalRegister, Monday, 30 April 1973.

TM 5-814-8

the grit removal system ahead of the raw sewagepumps because of the depth of the influent line.Therefore, it may be required to pump thewastewater containing grit. If this mode is se-lected, pumps capable of handling grit should beemployed.

(a) Horizontal flow grit chambers. Thistype of grit chamber is designed to allowwastewater to pass through channels or tanks ata horizontal velocity of about one foot per second.This velocity will allow grit to settle in thechannel or tank bottom, while keeping the lighterorganic solids in suspension. Velocity control andother design features are covered in TM 5-814-3.

(b) Detritus tanks. A grit chamber can bedesigned with a lower velocity to allow organicmatter to settle with the grit. This grit-organicmatter mixture is referred to as detritus and theremoval devices are known as detritus tanks.When detritus tanks are employed, the organicmatter is separated from the grit by either gentleaeration or washing the removal detritus tore-suspend the organic matter. Several propri-etary systems are available to accomplish this,and the advantage over other types is that theconfiguration of the tank is simple and thesystem allows for continuous removal of grit.

(c) Aerated grit chambers. As the nameimplies, diffused air can be used to separate gritfrom other matter. A secondary benefit to theaeration method is that is also freshens thewastewater prior to further treatment; quite oftenit is used in conjunction with a preaerationfacility. The different types of grit removal facili-ties employed are described in TM 5-814-3.

(3) Preaeration. Methods of introducing sup-plemental oxygen to the raw wastewater aresometimes used in preliminary treatment. Thisprocess is known as preaeration and the objec-tives are to:

—Improve wastewater treatability.—Provide grease separation, odor control,

and flocculation.—Promote uniform distribution of sus-

pended and floating solids to treatmentunits.

—Increase BOD removals in primary sedi-mentation.

This is generally provided by either separateaeration or increased detention time in an aeratedgrit chamber. Provisions for grit removal areprovided in only the first portion of the tank(125).

(4) Equalization. Equalization has limited ap-plication for domestic wastes, but should beemployed for many industrial discharges includ-

ing some of those from military industrial manu-facturing processes as discussed later in thischapter. Equalization reduces fluctuations of theinfluent to levels compatible with subsequentbiological or physical-chemical processes. A prop-erly designed facility dampens the wide swings offlow, pH, BOD, and other parameters to levelssuch that downstream systems operate moreefficiently and economically, and can be con-structed at a reduced capital investment. Properequalization will also minimize system upsets andmore consistently provide a better quality efflu-ent. A graphical example of how an equalizationfacility can stabilize a wastewater having signifi-cant cyclic pH variations is illustrated in figure6-1. While there are definite primary benefits forequalization, a facility can also be designed toyield secondary benefits by taking advantage ofphysical, chemical, and biological reactions whichmight occur during retention in the equalizationbasin. For example, supplemental means of aera-tion are often employed with an equalizationbasin to provide:

—Better mixing.—Chemical oxidation of reduced com-

pounds.—Some degree of biological oxidation.—Agitation to prevent suspended solids

from settling.If aeration is not provided, baffles or mechanicalmixers must be provided to avoid stratificationand short circuiting in equalization basins. Thesize and shape of an equalization facility will varywith the quantity of waste and the patterns ofwaste discharge. Basins should be designed toprovide adequate capacity to accommodate thetotal volume of periodic variation from thewastewater source (125) (130).

(5) pH control. Similarly to equalization, theuse of pH control as a preliminary treatment stepis usually limited to treatment of industrialprocess wastes. It is necessary to regulate pHsince treatment processes can be harmed byexcessively acidic or basic wastes. Regulation ofthis parameter may be necessary to meet effluentlevels specified for secondary treatment. Controlof the pH at elevated levels is usually required toprecipitate certain heavy metals and/or alleviatean odor producing potential.

(6) Flotation. In preliminary treatment, flota-tion is sometimes used for wastes which haveheavy loads of grease and finely divided sus-pended solids. These are mainly systems havinglarge industrial discharges and may apply tomilitary installations with significant oil andgrease quantities from manufacturing or laundry

6 - 3

TM 5-814-8

10

8

4

2

operations.

INFLUENT TO PLANT

.

EFFLUENT FROMEQUALIZATION

TIME

Figure 6-1. The effect of equalization on a wastewater with variable pH.

Domestic waste may also containlarge quantities of grease from food preparation.Use of air to float materials may relieve scumhandling in a sedimentation tank and lower thegrease load to subsequent treatment units. Gritremoval is often incorporated with a flotation unitproviding sludge-removal equipment. Flotation de-sign guidelines are available, but bench testing isdesirable to finalize the criteria and expectedperformance.

(7) Other methods. Other preliminary treat-ment steps include coagulation and chlorination.Coagulation is a part of sedimentation as pre-sented later in this chapter. Chlorine additionsare often made to the plant influent for odorcontrol (120). Two other operations which usuallyprecede any treatment process include pumpingand flow measurement. Wastewater bypassesmust also be provided.

(a) Pumping. Pumping facilities may beemployed to gain sufficient head for thewastewater to flow through the treatment worksto the point of final disposal. Pumping is alsogenerally required for recirculation of all or partof the flow around certain units within the plant.Pumping facilities are classified as influent, efflu-ent, or recirculation stations and perform a criti-cal function. Provisions shall be made for reliabil-ity to ensure the facility is operable at all times.This means the largest pump has a standbyduplicate so that pumping capacity is available tomeet peak flows. It also means duplicate sourcesof power and/or standby power must be provided.

6 - 4

U.S. EPA requires this flexibility for municipalfacilities. Guidelines for pumping facilities areavailable in TM 5–814-3.

(b) Flow Measurement. Metering and in-strumentation devices in numerous sections of awastewater treatment facility are necessary foradequate plant control and operating flexibility.Proper monitoring of effluent characteristics isrequired to comply with NPDES permits. Use ofdevices such as Venturi meters, weirs, andParshall flumes predominate. Parshall flumes arethe preferred flow measuring method for militaryinstallations. TM 5-814-3 provides a descriptionof sizing and design considerations. The need forother meters and instrumentation throughout thetreatment facility will be dictated by the size ofthe facility, complexity, and need for record-keeping and operator control of the process. Insmall installations, where maintenance and avail-ability of spare parts may be difficult, meteringcan be a problem. Reference should be made topublications (120) for guidelines on types ofmeasurement systems available, limitations, andpreliminary design criteria. Also standard text-books and literature from equipment manufactur-ers should be investigated thoroughly prior toselection of type and degree of plant measure-ment and instrumentation.

(c) Wastewater bypasses. Piping arrange-ments and duplicate treatment units may beprovided to the maximum practical extent so thatan inoperative unit, such as a clarifier, may bebypassed without reducing the overall treatment

TM 5-814-8

efficiency of the plant. Bypassing of the entirewastewater treatment plant through an emer-gency overflow structure during periods of ex-traordinarily high flow must be provided. In allcases, this diverted flow shall be disinfected andscreened, and the quantity of flow measured andrecorded. The appropriate regulatory agency shallbe notified of every bypass occurrence. When thewastewater is discharged to a waterway whichcould be permanently or unacceptably damagedby the quantity of bypassed wastewater, such asshellfish waters, drinking water reservoirs, orareas used for water contact sports, provisionshall be made to intercept the bypassed flow in aholding basin. The intercepted flow shall then berouted back through the treatment facility assoon as possible. Bypasses for diversion of flowaround treatment plants will be locked in a closedposition. The bypass must be controlled by super-visory personnel.

c. Primary treatment. Primary treatment forthe purposes of this manual will be limited tosedimentation with and without chemical addi-tion. Other unit processes are usually combinedwith sedimentation as a part of “primary treat-ment”, including some degree of preliminarytreatment, sludge treatment and disposal, andchlorination as a disinfection step. For manyyears, water quality criteria specified only the useof primary treatment for domestic wastewaters.Primary treatment is no longer acceptable as thetotal wastewater treatment step prior to dis-charge to a receiving body of water and second-ary treatment must now be employed to meetregulatory criteria. Therefore, the discussion pre-sented herein on primary treatment shall beutilized by military personnel concerned with:

—Alternatives that must be considered forexisting treatment facilities which are to beupgraded to meet effluent limitations andwater quality criteria.

—Design factors and alternatives that mustbe considered when planning a newwastewater treatment facility.

(1) Plain sedimentation. Wastewater, afterpreliminary treatment, undergoes sedimentationby gravity in a basin or tank sized to producenear quiescent conditions. In this facility, settle-able solids and most suspended solids settle tothe bottom of the basin. Mechanical collectorsshould be provided to continuously sweep thesludge to a sump where it is removed for furthertreatment and disposal. Skimming equipmentshould be provided to remove those floatablesubstances such as scum, oils, and greases whichaccumulate at the liquid surface. These skim-

mings are combined with sludge for disposal.Removals from domestic wastewaters undergoingplain sedimentation will range from about 30 to40 percent for BOD and in the range of 40 to 70percent for suspended solids. With optimum de-sign conditions for sedimentation, BOD and sus-pended solids removal efficiency is dependentupon wastewater characteristics and the propor-tion of organics present in the solids. One of themost important design parameters if the overflowrate, usually expressed in gal/day/sq ft, which isequal to the flow in gal/day divided by thesettling surface area of the basin in square feet.Usually average daily flow rates are used forsizing facilities. The flow rates, detention time,and other factors which shall be employed fordesign purposes are documented in TM 5-814-3.

(a) Secondary treatment sedimentation fa-cilities. It should be recognized that design princi-ples of secondary sedimentation tanks are signifi-cantly different than those for primary tanks, thefundamental difference being in the amount andnature of solids to be removed. Primary sedimen-tation facilities are basically designed on overflowrate alone; secondary units must be designed forsolids loading as well as overflow rate. Referenceshould be made to TM 5–8 14–3 for designcriteria.

(b) High-rate settlers. In recent years, thedevelopment of high-rate settlers has provenquite promising for both primary and secondarysedimentation applications. These have been usedprimarily to improve performance and to increasetreatment capacity of existing plants and shouldreceive attention for upgrading military facilities.The theory is that sedimentation basin perfor-mance can be improved by introducing a numberof trays or tubes in existing facilities, sinceefficiency is independent of depth and detentiontime. Until recent years, use of trays or tubeswas unsuitable on a practical basis because ofdifficult sludge collection and removal. Theseproblems have been largely overcome althoughslime growths may cause flow restrictions andrequire periodic cleaning. The principal advantageof the settlers is their compactness which reducesmaterial costs and land requirements. For mostmilitary installations, the land savings is notcritical but cost reductions will be important.Settlers do not improve the efficiency of primarysedimentation facilities that are already achievingreasonably high removals of suspended solids.Available data indicate that where the settlershave been installed in existing units, it has beenpossible to increase the surface overflow rate ofboth primary and final sedimentation systems

6 - 5

TM 5-814-8

from 2 to 5 times the conventional rate while stillmaintaining about the same suspended solidseffluent level. Manufacturer’s bulletins and U.S.EPA Technology Transfer series documents pro-vide data on design criteria.

(2) Sedimentation with chemical coagulation.Sedimentation using chemical coagulation hasbeen implied mainly to pretreatment of industrialor process wastewaters and removal of phospho-rus from domestic wastewaters. Chemical usageas a pretreatment step for industrial wastes andphosphorus removal is discussed later. The use ofchemical coagulating agents to enhance the re-moval of BOD and suspended solids has not beenused extensively on domestic wastewaters, sinceit is not usually economical or operationallydesirable. However, special applications may existat some installations. Advantages of increasedsolids separation in primary sedimentation facili-ties are:

–A decrease in organic loading to second-ary treatment process units.

–A decrease in quantity of secondarysludge produced.

–An increase in quantity of primary sludgeproduced which can be thickened anddewatered more readily than secondarysludge.

Chemicals commonly used, either singularly or incombination, are the salts of iron and aluminum,lime, and synthetic organic polyelectrolytes. It isdesirable to run jar studies to determine theoptimal chemicals and dosage levels. The use of agiven chemical(s) and effluent quality must becarefully balanced against the amount of addi-tional sludge produced in the sedimentation facil-ity. Design information and guidance is containedin the U.S. EPA Technology Transfer seriesdocuments.

(3) Other methods. For some industrialwastes which contain large amounts of floatableand finely suspended matter, flotation may beused in lieu of sedimentation as a cost-effectivemeans of primary treatment. Some wastewatertreatment alternatives, including ponds and ex-tended aeration, do not require primary treatmentas a distinct process step. Other secondary treat-ment processes could operate without primarytreatment but it is cost-effective to remove thesuspended organics physically rather than biologi-cally.

6 - 2 . B i o l o g i c a l W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n tProcesses

a. Introduction. Biological treatment processesare those that use microorganisms to coagulate

and remove the nonsettleable colloidal solids andto stabilize the organic matter. There are manyalternative systems in use and each uses biologi-cal activity in different manners to accomplish treatment. Biological processes are classified bythe oxygen dependence of the primary microor-ganism responsible for waste treatment (125). Inaerobic processes, waste is stabilized by aerobicand facultative microorganisms; in anaerobic pro-cesses, anaerobic and facultative microorganismsare present. The discussion of biological treat-ment processes has been further divided into thefollowing two categories:

—Suspended growth processes.—Fixed growth processes.(1) Suspended growth processes refer to

treatment systems where microorganisms andwastewaters are contained in a reactor. Oxygen isintroduced to the reactor allowing the bilogicalactivity to take place. Examples of suspendedgrowth processes include ponds, lagoons andactivated sludge systems.

(2) Fixed growth processes refer to systemswhere a biological mass is allowed to grow on amedium. Wastewater is sprayed on the mediumor put into contact in other manners. The biologi-cal mass stabilizes the wastewater as it passesover it. Examples of fixed growth processesinclude trickling filters and rotating biologicalcontractors.

b. Suspended growth processes.(1) Ponds. Ponds have found wide-spread us-

age in the U.S. In 1968, 34.7 percent of thenearly 10,000 secondary treatment systems oper-ating in the U.S. were in the category of stabiliza-tion ponds (49). Waste treatment ponds can bedivided into three general classifications: aerobicponds, aerobic-anaerobic (facultative) ponds, andanaerobic ponds. Ponds are sized on an averageBOD loading or detention time basis and arequite sensitive to climate and seasonal variations.

(a) Aerobic ponds. Photosynthetic pondsare 6 to 18 inches deep with BOD loadingsranging from 100 to 200 lb per acre per day anddetention times of 2 to 6 days. These are usuallymixed intermittently, generally by mechanicalmeans, to maximize light penetration and algaeproduction. A very high percent of the originalinfluent BOD is removed, but due to algaegrowth and release to the effluent, overall remov-als are in the 80 to 95 percent range. Suspendedsolids in the effluent are also mainly due to algae.Lower efficiencies occur during warmer periods ofthe year due to algal growths, and during ex-tremely cold periods due to decreased biologicalactivity and freezing. Aerated aerobic ponds uti-

6 - 6

TM 5-814-8

lize oxygen mixed with the wastewater eitherfrom diffused air or mechanical means, withphotosynthetic oxygen generation not playing amajor role in the process. These ponds are 6 to 20feet deep with BOD loadings ranging from 100 to300 lb per acre per day and detention times of 2to 7 days. BOD and suspended solids removals inthe range of 80 to 95 percent are obtained if aquiescent cell is provided to effect solids removalafter aeration. Aerated aerobic ponds may beconsidered for military applications where flow isvariable or land is precious. Without the aeratorsoperating, the system might function as anaerobic-anaerobic (facultative) pond during lowloads.

(b) Aerobic-anaerobic (facultative) ponds.These ponds consist of three zones: a surfacezone of algae and aerobic bacteria in a symbioticassociation; an intermediate zone populated withfacultative bacteria (aerobic or anaerobic); and ananaerobic bottom zone where settled organic sol-ids are decomposed by anaerobic bacteria. Theponds, operated in natural aeration mode, are 3 to8 feet deep with BOD loadings ranging from 10to 100 lb per acre per day and detention time of10 days to 1 year. BOD removals of 80 to 95percent are obtained with proper operation andloadings, but suspended solids removals varybecause of algal carryover. These ponds may alsobe partially mixed using mechanical or diffusedaerators to supply some oxygen. Mechanicallymixed ponds normally have BOD loadings rang-ing from 30 to 100 lb per acre per day; detentiontimes of 7 to 20 days; operational depths of 3 to8 feet; and, BOD removals of 90 to 95 percent.

(c) Anaerobic ponds. These ponds haveBOD loadings in the range of 10 to 700 lb peracre per day and can provide removals of 50 to 80percent. Detention times range from 30 days to 6months and operational depths range from 8 to15 feet. Anaerobic ponds have been used princi-pally in industrial waste applications and particu-larly in meat packing wastes. Due to the natureof the pond environment, these treatment unitsgenerally produce severely offensive odors. Theyare normally not used by themselves and in orderto produce a higher quality effluent, must befollowed by an aerobic pond. Anaerobic pondsshould not be utilized for military wastewatersexcept under special circumstances.

(d) Other considerations. In treatment ofprincipally domestic wastes, there are additionalfactors to consider (44)(154). Aside from notmeeting effluent criteria, operating problems in-clude odors, colored effluent, high effluent sus-pended solids, mosquito and insect problems and

weeds. A study (154) indicated that of 21 differ-ent pond installations studied, none would consis-tently meet the secondary treatment effluentrequirement of 30 mg/L BOD. Similarly, of 15installations reporting effluent suspended solidsvalues, none would consistently meet the 30 mg/Leffluent limit. New wastewater treatment ponddesigns and existing installations being upgradedmust recognize and provide methods which willachieve required effluent levels. Definitive designcriteria for all situations are beyond the scope ofthis manual. EPA Technology Transfer seriesdocuments and similar publications should beconsulted when planning a new wastewater treat-ment pond facility or when assessing alternativesfor upgrading an existing pond system. Locallyapplicable design criteria considering the effect ofclimate should be used when planning new orupgrading existing facilities. Wide variations incriteria are followed in the U.S. in terms ofloading rates, detention times, depths and num-ber of cells required. While most States in themidwest relate to a BOD design loading criteriain pounds BOD per acre per day, the principaldesign factor in northern states is retention time,primarily because of the extreme winter tempera-tures. In terms of organic loading, pounds ofBOD per acre per day, State design criteria rangefrom less than 20 in the northern states to ashigh as 75 in the southern, southwestern orwestern states, reflecting temperature effects onperformance.

(2) Activated sludge. Activated sludge is anefficient process capable of meeting secondarytreatment effluent limits. In recent years, thisprocess has undergone significant changes andimprovements from the conventional activatedsludge process. For further information on theprocess itself or its modifications, referenceshould be made to TM 5-814-3. The principalfactors which control the design and operation ofactivated sludge processes are:

—Detention time.—BOD volumetric loading.—Food to microorganism (F/M) ratio.—Sludge age or solids retention time (SRT).

While all of these parameters have been used tosize facilities, the most commonly used are theF/M ratio and the SRT. Reference should be madeto textbooks or TM 5-814-3 for further explana-tion and limitations to be considered when deal-ing with these parameters. Secondary sedimenta-tion is particularly important for activated sludgesystems. The design of these units is based onoverflow rate and solids loading. Design criteriafor various size plants and process modifications

6 - 7

TM 5-814-8

are available (152). A number of variations of theconventional activated sludge process were devel-oped to achieve greater treatabilit y, to minimizecapital andlor operating costs or to correct aproblem. While not all of the variations arementioned herein, the following should be evalu-ated when considering a new facility, or upgrad-ing an existing primary or secondary facility:

–Completely-mixed.—Step aeration.—Contact stabilization.—Extended aeration.—Pure oxygen system.

Summary characteristics on design criteria, re-moval efficiencies and basic applications of themodifications are described in table 6-2. Based onthe overall BOD removal efficiency reported,most variations are able to achieve a high degreeof treatment. The extended aeration system is aflexible system, but is more cost-effective forsmall populations. Extended aeration and contactstabilization are most applicable as packageplants and are described under that heading.Activated sludge systems are commonly designedto accomplish two or more of the operating modesto accommodate flexible operational requirements.An example is the completely-mixed and stepaeration systems. From the data in table 6-2, itcan be seen that depending upon volumetricloading, F/M or detention time, selection of onevariation over another can result in significantdifferences in the size of the aeration basins. Theinformation presented in table 6-2 covers therange which has been experienced.

(a) Conventional. The conventional acti-vated sludge process employs long rectangularaeration tanks which approximate plug-flow al-though some longitudinal mixing occurs. Thisprocess is primarily employed for the treatmentof domestic wastewater. Return sludge is mixedwith the wastewater prior to discharge into theaeration tank. The mixed liquor flows through theaeration tank during which removal of organicsoccurs. The oxygen utilization rate is high at theentrance to the tank and decreases toward thedischarge end. The oxygen utilization rate willapproach the endogenous level toward the end ofthe tank. Principle disadvantages of conventionalactivated sludge treatment in industrial applica-tion are:

—The oxygen utilization rate varies withtank length and requires irregular spac-ing of the aeration equipment or amodulated air supply.

—Load variation may have a deleteriouseffect on the activated sludge when it

is mixed at the head end of the aera-tion tanks.

—The sludge is susceptible to slugs or spills of acidic, caustic or toxic materi-als.

(b) Completely mixed. In the completelymixed process, influent wastewater and recycledsludge are introduced uniformly throughout theaeration tank. This flow distribution results in auniform oxygen demand throughout the aerationtank which adds some operational stability. Thisprocess may be loaded to levels comparable tothose of the step aeration and contact stabiliza-tion processes with only slight reductions com-pared to the removal efficiencies of those pro-cesses. The reduced efficiency occurs becausethere is a small amount of short circuiting in thecompletely mixed aeration tank.

(c) Step aeration. The step aeration processis a modification of the conventional activatedsludge process in which influent wastewater isintroduced at several points in the aeration tankto equalize the F/M, thus lowering the peakoxygen demand. The typical step aeration systemwould have return activated sludge entering thetank at the head end. A portion of the influentalso enters near the front. The influent piping isarranged so that an increment of wastewater isintroduced into the aeration tank at locations down the length of the basin. Flexibilityof opera-tion is one of the important features of thissystem (125). In addition, the multiple-point intro-duction of wastewater maintains an activatedsludge with high absorptive properties. This al-lows the soluble organics to be removed within ashorter period of time. Higher BOD loadings aretherefore possible per 1000 cu ft of aeration tankvolume.

(d) Contact stabilization. The contact stabi-lization process is applicable to wastewaters con-taining a high proportion of the BOD in sus-pended or colloidal form. Since bio-adsorption andflocculation of colloids and suspended solids occurvery rapidly, only short retention periods (15-30minutes) are generally required. After the contactperiod the activated sludge is separated in aclarifier. A sludge reaeration or stabilization pe-riod is required to stabilize the organics removedin the contact tank. The retention period in thestabilization tank is dependent on the time re-quired to assimilate the soluble and colloidalmaterial removed from the wastewater in thecontact tank. Effective removal in the contactperiod requires s u f f i c i e n t a c t i v a t e d s l u d g e t o remove the colloidal and suspended matter and aportion of the soluble organics. The retention

Table 6-2. Summary characteristics of the activated sludge process variations

Food/Micro- Overal1organism Mixed Liquor BOD

Volume Loading Ratio (F/M) Suspended RemovalProcess lb BOD/1,000 lb BOD/lb Solids (MLSS) Detention Efficiency,

Variation cu ft/day MLVSS/day mg/L Time, hr percent Comments

Conventional(plug flow)

Completely-Mixed

Step Aeration

ContactStabilization

Extended Aeration

Pure OxygenSystem

aContact Unit.

20-40

50-120

50-60

60-75

10-25

100-250

b

Stabilization unit.

0.2-0.5 1,000-3,000

0.2-0.6 3,000-6,000

0.2-0.4 2,000-3,500

0.2-0.6 1,000-3,000;4,000-8,000

0.05-0.2 3,000-6,000

0.3-1.0 4,000-8,000

4-8

3-6

3-6

0.2-l.5a

3-6b

18-36

1-10

85-95

85-95

85-95

80-90

75-90

85-95

TM 5-814-8

time in the stabilization tank must be sufficientto stabilize these organics. If it is insufficient,unoxidized organics are carried back to the con-tact tank and the removal efficiency is decreased.If the stabilization period is too long, the sludgeundergoes excessive auto-oxidation and losessome of its initial high removal capacity. Increas-ing retention period in the contact tanks increasesthe amount of soluble organics removed anddecreases required stabilization time.

(e) Extended aeration. The extended aera-tion process operates in the endogenous respira-tion phase of the growth curve, which necessi-tates a relatively low organic loading and longaeration time. Thus it is generally applicable onlyto small treatment plants of less than 1 mgdcapacity (125). This process is used extensivelyfor prefabricated package plants. Although sepa-rate sludge wasting generally is not provided, itmay be added where the discharge of the excesssolids is objectionable.

(f) Pure oxygen system. The variations setforth in table 6-2, with the exception of the pureoxygen system, represent flow models which arebased on plug flow or completely mixed systems.Some systems use a diffused air system, othersare more applicable to mechanical aeration, andsome variations are adaptable to either aerationsystem. All of the systems, with the exception ofthe pure oxygen system, use air as the source ofoxygen. The principal distinguishing features ofthe pure oxygen system are that it utilizeshigh-purity oxygen as a source of oxygen andemploys a covered, staged aeration basin for thecontact of the gas and mixed liquor (49). To date,the system has demonstrated its greatest applica-bility and cost-effectiveness for treatment of highstrength industrial wastes and for large plantstreating domestic wastes. Thus, pure oxygensystems for military wastewaters have limitedapplication.

(g) Continuous loop reactors. The continu-ous loop reactor (CLR) is best described as anextended aeration activated sludge process. Theprocess uses a continuously recirculating closedloop channel(s) as an aeration basin. The reactoris sized based upon the wastewater influent andeffluent characteristics with emphasis given tothe hydraulic considerations imposed by the basingeometry. hydraulic detention times range from10 to 30 hours and the mixed liquor concentrationin the basin is typically 4,000 to 5,000 mg/L. Toprovide the necessary oxygen to the system andimpart a horizontal velocity, several pieces ofequipment are available. These include:

—Brush aerators.

—Low speed surface aerator as used inthe Carrousel system.

—Jet aeration.—Diffused aeration with slow speed mix-

ers.Clarification can be accomplished using a conven-tional clarifier or by using an integral clarifier aswith the Burns and McDonnell system (159).Advantages of the CLR process include:

–The ability for the system to handleupset loading conditions.

–Produces low sludge quantities.–Can provide for vitrification and

denitrification.–Typically produces very good and sta-

ble effluent characteristics.–Simplicity of operation.

The major disadvantages include the potentialwashout of the system by excessive hydraulicflows and the large land area and basin sizes thatare required due to the typically high detentiontimes.

(h) Nitrification. The kinetics and designcriteria for this system are already well defined.Two important considerations are maintenance ofa proper pH and temperature. Nitrification is avery temperature-sensitive system and the effi-ciency is significantly suppressed as the tempera-ture decreases. For example, the rate of vitrifica-tion at pH of 8.5 and 50 degrees F is only about25 percent of the rate at 86 degrees F. Treatmentfacilities located in northern climates must besized at the appropriate loading rate to accom-plish the desired effluent level if required toprovide year-round vitrification. The loading ratesignificantly affects the capital costs for construc-tion of the nitrification tanks. The optimum pHhas been determined to range between 8.4 and8.6. However, for those wastewaters where itwould be necessary to provide chemical-feedingfacilities for pH adjustment, the cost-effectivealternative may be to provide additional tankageto allow for the reduced biological activity whenthe pH is not optimum.

(i) Biological denitrification. As with nitrifi-cation, denitrification is a process which involvesfurther removal of the nitrogen by conversion ofthe nitrate to nitrogen gas. This represents aprocess for the ultimate removal of nitrogen fromwastewater. As with vitrification, there are anumber of system configurations that have beendeveloped for denitrification. The most promisingsystem alternatives include suspended growthand columnar systems (46). While there are ad-vantages and disadvantages to either alternative,the more feasible system for military installations

6-10

TM 5-814-8

will depend somewhat on effluent criteria. Wheresuspended solids are critical, a columnar unit mayalso serve as a filter. In other instances, the

. suspended growth system will usually be mostappropriate.

c. Fixed film processes.(1) Trickling filters. This type of treatment

method has proven very popular over numerousyears in the U.S. In 1968, more than 3,700trickling filter installations existed in this coun-try. In the past, the use of the trickling filter hasbeen considered as the ideal method for popula-tions of 2,500 to 10,000. The principal reasons forits past popularity have been cost, economics andoperational simplicity as compared to the acti-vated sludge process.

(a) Types. The trickling filter process iswell documented in TM 5-814-3 and will not berepeated herein. The types of trickling filters usedand their basic design criteria are set forth intable 6-3. BOD and hydraulic loadings are basedon average influent values. Filters at militaryinstallations have either been low or high ratesingle stage facilities. One advantage of most lowrate filters is that the longer solids retention time(SRT) in the unit allows for production of ahighly nitrified effluent, provided the climaticconditions are favorable. By comparison, interme-diate and high rate filters, which are loaded athigher organic and hydraulic loadings, do notachieve as good an overall BOD removal effi-ciency and preclude the development of vitrifyingbacteria. The other classification of filters arethose termed as super rate. These employ syn-thetic media and have been shown to be able tosustain much higher loadings than a stone me-dium unit. As a result, the super rate filters, inaddition to normal applications for domestic andindustrial wastewaters, have found applicationsas roughing filters prior to subsequent treatmentfacilities. The large surface area per unit volume(specific surface area) and high percent voids ofsynthetic media allow higher organic and hydrau-lic loadings. The greater surface area permits alarger mass of biological slimes per unit volume.The increased void space allows for higher hy-draulic loadings and enhanced oxygen transferdue to increased air flow.

(b) Performance. Most existing trickling fil-ter installations must be upgraded to meet thenew secondary treatment requirements. Decreas-ing hydraulic or organic loading at existing facili-ties will not produce a significant increase inBOD removal above original design values; in-stead, additional treatment operations will beneeded to achieve greater BOD removals. Perfor-

mance of trickling filters is dependent uponseveral other factors including: wastewater char-acteristics, filter depth, recirculation, hydraulicand organic loading, ventilation and temperature.While all of these factors are important,wastewater temperature is the one which is mostresponsible for secondary effluent criteria notbeing met during winter operating conditions.Based on data from several high rate filters inMichigan, filter performance was observed tovary 21 percent between summer and wintermonths. Covering trickling filters or providing anadditional stage should be considered for improv-ing and maintaining performance.

(2) Rotating biological contractors. Anothertype of biological secondary treatment system isthe rotating biological contactor. This system hasbeen used in Europe, particularly West Germany,France and Switzerland. Manufacturers indicate1000 installations in Europe treat wastewatersranging in size from single residences to 100,000population equivalent. Domestic, industrial andmixtures of domestic and industrial wastewatershave been treated. In the process, the largediameter corrugated plastic discs are mounted ona horizontal shaft and placed in a tank. Themedium is slowly rotated with about 40 percentof the surface area always submerged in theflowing wastewater. The process is similar infunction to trickling filters since both operate asfixed film biological reactors. One difference isthat the biomass is passed through thewastewater in the biological contactor systemrather than the wastewater over the biomass asin a trickling filter unit. No sludge or effluentrecycle is employed. The system has severaladvantages, including:

–Low energy requirements compared withactivated sludge.

–Small land area requirement comparedwith trickling filters.

–A high degree of vitrification can beachieved.

—A more constant efficiency can beachieved during cold weather than withtrickling filters since the units are easilycovered. The covers allow sufficient venti-lation, but minimize the effect of lowambient air temperatures.

While the system has achieved high BOD re-moval efficiencies on domestic wastewaters in theU. S., pilot testing should be performed for anyindustrial application. A recent U.S. EPA study(42) on an industrial waste showed the biologicalcontractors could not perform at the anticipatedloading rate and achieve required removal efficien-

Table 6-3. General trickling filter design criteria

Organic Loadinglb BOD/1000 cu ft/day Depth, ft

TM 5-814-3 Hydraulic T M-5-814-3Design Loading Design

Filter Type Literature Criteria mgad Literature Criteria

Low Rate 10-20 up to 14 2-4 5-7 6(Standard )

Intermediate 15-30 -- 4-10 -- --

High Rate

Super Rate(Synthetic

up to 90 up to 70 10-30 3-6 3-6

- - - - Less Than 50Media)

-- --

TM 5-814-8

ties. It also demonstrated that the activatedsludge process was better able to handle shockloads. Although the system may not be applicablefor certain industrial waste applications unlesspretreatment is provided, it should be consideredfor upgrading existing military treatment plantstreating primarily domestic wastewater. The pro-cess has potential as a second stage unit withexisting trickling filters to improve performanceand also as a vitrification unit. The rotatingbiological contractor can be considered as anoption, however, the use may be limited to add-onor advanced wastewater treatment capacity fornitrogen removal until the RBC equipment reli-ability and economics have been improved.

(3) Activated biological filter. An activatedbiofilter (ABF) is a tower of packed redwood orother media which supports the growth of at-tached microorganisms. Influent wastewater ismixed with recycled solids from the clarifier andreturned mixed liquor. The mixture is sprayedover the media and flows through the tower.Oxidation occurs in both the falling liquid filmand in the attached growth. Less sludge isproduced from ABF treatment, diminishing thesize of the final clarifier. Reduced life-cycle andland costs, compensate for high capital cost. ABFtreatment achieves the same degree of effluentquality as activated sludge process (39). Biologi-cal towers can be designed and operated with thesame parameters as activated sludge systems.ABF’s are used for both domestic and industrialapplications.

(4) Anaerobic denitrification filter. Denitrif-ication in attached growth anaerobic reactors hasbeen accomplished in a variety of column configu-rations using various media to support thegrowth of denitrifying bacteria. In the deni-trification column, the influent wastewater isevenly distributed over the top of the mediumand flows in a thin film through the medium onwhich the organisms grow. These organismsmaintain a balance so that an active biologicalfilm develops. The balance is maintained bysloughing of the biomass from the medium, eitherby death, hydraulic erosions or both. Sufficientvoids are present in the medium to preventclogging or pending. The denitrification columnmust be followed by a clarification step to removesloughed solids. The various types of denitrifica-tion columns currently available are summarizedbelow:

–Packedporosity media.

–Packedmedia.

bed, nitrogen gas void space, high

bed, liquid voids, high porosity

–Packed bed, liquid void, low porositymedia.

–Fluidized bed, liquid void, high porosityfine media (sand, activated carbon).

Most denitrification work has been conducted onsubmerged columns wherein the voids are filledwith the fluid being denitrified. The submergedcolumns can be further subdivided into packedbed and fluidized bed operations. Recently, a newtype of column has been developed in which thevoids are filled with nitrogen gas, a product ofdenitrification.

d. Miscellaneous Biological Systems.(1) Package plants. A number of so called

“package plants” have been developed to servethe wastewater treatment needs of small installa-tions. Many of these units are available from anumber of manufacturers. The small ones are allfactory fabricated and shipped as nearly completeunits except for electrical connections and otherminor installation requirements. These will servea maximum population of 300 to 400. Largersized package plants are partially constructed inthe factory and then field erected. These types offacilities generally will serve larger installations,up to about 1 mgd. Package plants are availableas biological treatment facilities and some newunits have been developed for physical-chemicaltreatment applications. Nearly all of the biologicalunits use the activated sludge process, principallyextended aeration and contact stabilization modi-fications. The small physical-chemical packageplants have been developed mainly as “add on”units to existing biological facilities to provideadditional removal of organic and inorganic con-stituents. Physical-chemical package units areavailable for multi-media filtration, phosphorusremoval, nutrient removal and activated carbonoperations. For widely varying flows at smallinstallations, a battery of physical-chemical unitsmight be employed. The on-off operation of theseinstallations would not be satisfactory for biologi-cal units.

(2) Batch activated sludge. A batch activatedsludge system utilizes a single tank reactor. Thetypical treatment cycle consists of:

—fill, in which the wastewater is received.—react, which allows treatment reactions to

be completed.— settle, which separates the sludge from

the effluent.–draw, in which the effluent is discharged.—idle, the time period between discharge

and refill.A batch activated sludge system combines thereactor and clarifier into a single unit. Sludge

6-13

TM 5-814-8

wastage can take place at either the end of thereact cycle or after the settling cycle, prior todraw off of the effluent. If required, a higherwastage concentration can be obtained throughdraw off of the settled solids. Effluent quality canbe considered essentially equal to conventionaltreatment, with its benefits being seen mainlywith smaller sytems requiring a relatively lowflow of wastewater for treatment.

(3) Sequencing batch reactors. The sequenc-ing batch reactor system ( SBR) uses two or moretanks with various functions operating in a se-quence. The typical treatment cycle consists ofthe same steps as a single batch activated sludgetreatment system, fill, react, settle, draw, andidle. The tanks fill in sequence in a multiple tanksystem, allowing for a joint reactor-clarifier unit.As with the batch activated sludge system,sludge wastage can occur from each reactor dur-ing either the react or settle mode. Vitrificationand dentrification are possible through systemmodifications. The SBR system is capable ofmeeting effluent requirements, with operationaland maintenance cost roughly equal to, and initialcost less than or equal to conventional systems(74).

(4) Septic system with recirculating sand fil-ters. A septic system with a recirculating sandfilter utilizes a conventional septic or Imhoff tankwith a sand filter instead of a tile field (166). Thesystem also includes a recirculation tank whichreceives effluent from the septic system as well asunderflow from the sand filter. Effluent from therecirculator tank is pumped to the filter on a timebasis. Float controls may also be required to keepthe recirculation tank from overflowing. The pur-pose of the recirculation tank is to keep the sandfilter wetted at all times. This system eliminatesthe odor problem common with intermittent fil-ters. This system is applicable for small domesticfacilities, recreational areas, etc.

(5) Overland flow. This technique is the con-trolled discharge, by spraying or other means, ofeffluent onto the land with a large portion of thewastewater appearing as run-off. Soils suited tooverland flow are clays and clay silts with limiteddrainability. The land for an overland flow treat-ment site should have a moderate slope.

e. Biological system comparisons. Table 6–4provides a comparison of the key wastewatertreatment processes which must be considered forpollution control programs at military installa-tions. These comparisons include major equip-ment required, preliminary treatment steps, re-moval efficiency, resource consumption, eco-

nomics and several other factors which must beconsidered.

6-3. Physical and Chemical Waste- water Treatment Processes

a. Introduction. Physical and chemical pro-cesses may be categorized as treatment for theremoval pollutants not readily removable orunremovable by conventional biological treatmentprocesses. These pollutants may include sus-pended solids, BOD (usually less than 10 to 15mg/L), refractory organics, heavy metals andinorganic salts. In domestic wastewater treat-ment, a physical-chemical process may be re-quired as tertiary treatment to meet stringentpermit applications. In industrial applications,physical-chemical treatment is frequently used asa pretreatment process in addition to its use as atertiary process. The primary physical-chemicalprocesses included in this manual are:

—Activated carbon adsorption.–Chemical oxidation.–Solids removal (clarification, precipitation).

Each of the treatment alternatives above, as wellas, other less common physical chemical processesare discussed in this section.

b. Activated carbon adsorption.(1) Description. Carbon adsorption removes

many soluble organic materials. However, some organics are biodegradable, but not adsorbable.These will remain in the effluent from physical-chemical systems. While carbon adsorption isused in physical-chemical secondary treatmentsystems, its most significant application is aspart of an advanced wastewater treatment sys-tem employing numerous schemes for additionalconstituent removal or as part of a systemtreating an industrial wastewater stream.

(2) Applications. Carbon adsorption has beenadequately demonstrated in numerous pilot andfull scale facilities as a system which can achievea high degree of organic removal to satisfy waterquality standards. The carbon adsorption processcan be readily controlled and designed to achievevarious degrees of organic removal efficiency.This feature makes it unique as an advancedwastewater treatment step. The activated carbonsystem is utilized to treat certain industrialprocess wastewaters from military installationsincluding munitions wastes.

(3) Design considerations. Both the powderedand granular forms of activated carbon can beused. However, powdered carbon currently cannotbe justified economically due to problems associ- ated with regeneration of the material; thus, thepresent state-of-the-art in activated carbon

6-14

TM 5-814-8

Table 6.4. Summary of primary and biological wastewater treatment processes

Major Treatment PreliminaryUnit Process Purpose Equipment. Required Treatment Steps Application

Primary sedimentation tankwith sludge collectingmechanism and skimmingdevice.

Screening and usually gritremoval .

Almost all domestic waste-waters. Must precede trick-ling filter. Does not haveto precede activated sludge,but usually most economicalmethod of reducing BOD andsuspended solids.

Removal of carbonaceousBOO. Under certain environ-mental conditions mayachieve considerable nitri-fication.

Removal of carbonaceousBOO. Usually little nitrifica-tion unless designed for longsolids retention time.

Remove settleable suspendedinorganic and organic solids.

A. Primary Sedimentation

Must have primary treat-ment.

Biologically convert dis-solved and nonsettleableorganic material andremove by sedimentation.

Trickling filter, settlingtank and sludge collector,recirculation pumps (highrate units), and piping.

ter SystemsB. Trickling Fil

Aeration tank, aerationequipment, settling tank,sludge collector, sludgereturn pumps, and piping.

Usually primary treatmentalthough not necessary.

Biologically convert dis-solved and unsettleablesuspended organic materialand remove by sedimenta-tion.

c. Activated Sludge System

D. Ponds Small facilities where ade-quate land area is available.Good for intermittent waste-water discharge, but willnot meet U.S. EPA-defined secon-dary treatment standards.

Where ammonia conversionor nitrogen removal isrequired.

Earthen pond with inletand outlet structures.

None.Combines the purposes ofprimary and secondarybiological treatment aswell as sludge treatmentand disposal into one unitprocess.

Usually secondary treat-ment; although in manycases with proper designand operation, nitrifica-tion can be part ofsecondary treatment.

Biologically oxidizeammonia to nitrates.

1. Suspended GrowthSystem - vitrificationtank, aeration equipment,settling tank and sludgecollector. sludge returnpumps, and piping.

E. Vitrification(Nitrogen Conversion)

2. Tricklinq FilterSystem - low-rate filter,settling tank and sludgecollector.

3. Rotating BiologicalContactor System -several RBC stages, set-tling tank and sludgecollector.

F. Denitrification Where complete nitrogenremoval is required andvitrification facilitiesare installed. Potentialfor combining with fil-tration step is good.

Most be preceded byvitrification step.

Biological removal ofnitrogen by reductionfrom nitrates to nitrogengas.

1. Suspended Growthsystem - denitrificationtank with mixing equip-ment, final settling tankwith sludge collectionequipment, return sludgepumps and piping, chemicalfeed system, and possiblysmall aerated basin forrelease of nitrogen gas.

2. Columnar System -structure containing mediasimilar to deep bed filter(gravity or pressure sys-tem), backwash and chemi-cal feed equipment.

wastewater treatment is limited to granular car-bon. Both upflow and downflow carbon contractorscan be used. Upflow units more efficiently utilizecarbon since counter-current operation is closelyapproached. Downflow contractors are used forboth adsorption and some suspended solids filtra-tion. Dual-purpose downflow contractors offsetcapital cost at the expense of higher operatingcosts. The following basic factors should beconsidered when evaluating an activated carbonsystem (l)(127):

—To avoid clogging, the influent total sus-pended solids concentration to the acti-vated carbon unit should be less than 50mg/L.

–Hydraulic loadings and bed depth areimportant design parameters, but contacttime is the most important factor incarbon systems.

–For some domestic and certainly all in-dustrial applications, treatability studies,(laboratory and pilot scale) must be con-ducted. This is essential since the carbonremoves the dissolved trace organicsfrom wastewaters by a combination ofadsorption, filtration and biological degra-dation. Treatability studies will assist inevaluating these factors to optimize de-sign criteria for the particular wastewaterunder consideration.

c. Chemical oxidation.

6-15

TM 5-814-8

Removes 40 to 60% ofsuspended solids and30 to 40% of BOO.

Capital costs are generally Very small power consump- Simple to operate and main-tain. Most operational laborassociated with sludgeremoval.

Sludge-solids con- Severe odor problemstent 3 to 6%. if sludge is not

removed periodically.

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F.

lower than secondary -

treatment. O&M costsare low.

tion for sludge collectionmechanism.

Overall BOD removal(including primarysedimentation) about85%. Effluent sus-pended solids 30 to50 mg/L. Unlesscovered, removalsdrop off consider-ably In winter.

O&M costs are quite low. Minimal power costs. Relatively simple andstable operation. Not aseasily upset as activatedsludge systems. Tends topass rather than treatshock loads.

Sludge - humus that Filter flies thatsloughs off filter breed in filtermedium is generally medium. Potentialreturned to primary odors if overloadedsedimentation. or improperly main-

tained.

Generally can remove90+% of carbonace -ous BOD. Effluentsuspended solidsusually are lessthan 30 mg/L.

O&M costs are consid-erably higher thantrickling filter system.

High electrical powerconsumption to oper-ate aeration equipment.

Requires more skilledoperation than tricklingfilter. Subject to upsetswith widely varying organ-ic load, but can handleand treat shock loads.

Sludge - considerably None if properlymore than trickling operated. Potentialfilter system. Low odors if improperlysolids content (0.5 operated.to 1.0%).

None except land.Removes 99+% of ori-ginal BOD, but algaein effluent may re-sult in suspendedsolids (100 mg/L)and BOD (30 mg/L).High vitrificationduring warm weather.Must provide winterstorage; no treat-ment during icecover.

Greatly dependent onenvironmental factorssuch as temperatureand pH. Can reacheffluent ammoniaConcentrations downto 1 to 2 mg/L.Also removes muchof the carbonaceousBOD remaininq fromsecondary treatment.

Relatively low construc-tion cost and very lowO&M costs.

Minimal operation. Closeeffluent lines during icecover and retain all waste-water until spring thaw.

None. Odor problems duringspring thaw as pond isturning from anaerobicto aerobic conditions.

Costs similar to theappropriate secondarytreatment system (acti -vated sludge, tricklingfilter, RBC).

High power consumptionin suspended growthsystem.

Generally requires super-vision equivalent to theappropriate secondarytreatment process.

Almost negligible None if properlysludge production. operated.

A relatively small None apparent atamount of waste time.sludges are generatedin suspended growthsystem and coarsegrain columnar system.Backwash water infine grain columnarsystem.

Nitrates (as nitro-gen) can be reducedto below 1 mg/L.Columnar system withfine grain mediaalso can double asfilter with appro-priate suspendedsolids removal.

High construction costs.O&M costs relatively highdue to carbon sourcesuch as methanol thatusually is added to sys-tem.

Chemical use such asmethanol; miminal powerconsumption.

Requires skilled opera-tion, careful control ofmethanol feed, and sys-tem monitoring.

(1) Chlorination. Chlorine is the principalchemical utilized for disinfection in the U.S.Chlorine dosages vary, but for secondary treat-ment effluents the normal range is from 5 to 15mg/L with requirements for a chlorine residual ofnot less than 0.2 to 1.0 mg/L after a 15 minutedetention time at maximum flow rate (108).Regulatory requirements may differ in variousStates and consultation with the appropriateagency is recommended. Disinfection must meetthe U.S. EPA fecal coliform level of 200/100 mL.General practice is to provide the chlorine feedeither as gaseous chlorine, normally vaporizedfrom l iquid s torage , or f rom a ca lc iumhypochlorite solution feeder. Other than for ex-tremely small plants, the gaseous chlorines moreeconomical. However, many of the large metropol-itan areas, such as New York and Chicago, have

converted to the use of hypochlorite solutions dueto the potential hazards involved in transportingchlorine through populated areas. Where treat-ment facilities are remotely located, such as manymilitary installations, gaseous chlorine will beacceptable provided suitable safety precautionsare taken with shipping and handling. Possibledisadvantages of chlorine disinfection are thetoxicity of the chlorine residual to aquatic life andthe potential of the chlorine combining withorganic material in the effluent or the receivingstream to form cancer-causing compounds. SomeStates and the U.S. EPA have proposed limita-tions on the residual chlorine concentration inboth effluent and streams. Thus, for some chlori-nation systems additional detention time, addi-tion of a reducing agent (sodium bisulfite or sulfur dioxide), or passage through activated

6-16

TM 5-814-8

carbon may be required to reduce chlorine residu-als prior to discharge.

(2) Alkaline chlorination. Use of breakpointchlorination to oxidize ammonia to nitrogen gas,which is released to the atmosphere, has beenused in water treatment for numerous years. theprocess requires large chlorine dosages (8 to 10mg/L chlorine for each mg/L of ammonia oxidized)resulting in high operating costs. Adjustment ofpH is often required and formation of complexorganic-nitrogen-chlorine compounds have beenharmful environmental effects. Application will belimited to removal of trace ammonia after someother ammonia removal process.

(3) Ozonation. An alternative to chlorine isuse of another disinfectant such as ozone. Manu-facturer’s literature indicate over 500 water treat-ment plants in Europe use ozone for disinfection.Chlorine, however, remains the predominant disin-fectant for portable water in the U.S. Althoughozone has had limited application in wastewatertreatment, equipment manufacturers and otherliterature report many pilot studies have beenand are currently being conducted. Results indi-cate ozone is an effective disinfectant forwastewater effluents. Use of ozone avoids theproblems with aquatic life and disinfects at afaster rate than chlorine. Ozone, however, is 10 to15 times as expensive as chlorine and on-sitegeneration is necessary (80).

(4) Hydrogen peroxide oxidation. Hydrogenperoxide (H202) is a strong oxidizer but has onlylimited application in the disinfection ofwastewater. This is primarily because three tofour hours of contact time is required to accom-plish disinfection and it tends to leave a distinc-tive taste. The primary use of hydrogen peroxidesis in industrial applications where it is extremelyeffective in oxidizing a wide variety of pollutants.Uses include destruction of cyanide which isgenerated from electroplating and destruction oforganic chemicals including chlorinated and sulfurcontaining compounds and phenols. Hydrogenperoxide is clear, colorless, water like in appear-ance and has a distinctive pungent odor. Hydro-gen peroxide is not a hazardous substance and isconsiderably safer to handle and store than chlo-rine gas.

(5) Ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiationis a very effective alternative to chemical oxida-tion. This method consists of exposure of a filmof water up to several inches thick to quartzmercury-vapor arc lamps emitting germicidal ul-traviolet radiation. This technique has been re-ported to have been used on small systems inEurope for over 100 years. Although this alterna-

tive is receiving attention as an alternate, itremains unattractive due to high capital andoperating costs for other than very small sys-tems.

(6) Ionizing radiation. Application of ionizingradiation as an alternative to chlorine or ozone fordisinfecting wastewater and as an alternative toheat for disinfecting sludge is now in the develop-ment and demonstration stage in the U.S. and inEurope. Both gamma rays and high energy elec-trons are being evaluated. The technical feasibil-ity has been established but data to assess thecost-effectiveness are not yet available. Experi-ence to date with ionizing radiation indicates thatapplications will be characterized by relativelyhigh capital costs and moderate-to-low operatingcosts. In addition to destroying microorganismsin wastewater and sludge, ionizing radiation hasshown capabilities of reducing concentrations ofphenol and surfactants, increasing settling ratesand destroying chlorine in wastewater, and im-proving physical characteristics of sludge. Engi-neers concerned with either upgrading existingwastewater treating facilities or designing newfacilities should be aware of this developing areaof potentially applicable technology. Reference toavailable literature or contact with HQDA(DAEN-ECE-G) WASH DC 20314, is suggested,Authority to apply this emerging technology inany waste treatment process must be obtainedfrom DAEN-ECE-G.

d. Solids removal.(1) Chemical precipitation phosphorus re-

moval.(a) Description. Phosphorus removal is

needed because it is a major nutrient for algaeand other aquatic vegetation. The sources ofphosphorus in a typical domestic wastewater fora military facility are associated with humanexcretions, waste foods and laundry products.While conventional wastewater treatment tech-niques, i.e., primary sedimentation and secondarytreatment, will remove about 10 to 40 percent ofinfluent phosphorus, it often becomes necessaryto provide for additional removal to meet effluentor water quality criteria. Numerous States in theU.S. have developed water quality criteria and/oreffluent standards for phosphorus. Typical limita-tions are 1 to 2 mg/L. However, recent standardsbeing considered by regulatory agencies indicatelevels for given situations may become morestringent. The U.S. EPA should be contacted forrequirements when wastewater treatment facili-ties alternatives include phosphorus removal.

(b) Application. Some biological techniquesfor removing phosphorus have been identified,

6-17

TM 5-814-8

but no large scale or long term demonstrations ofthe process have been undertaken. The commonmethod of removal is by chemical treatmentusually employing alkaline precipitation with limeor precipitation using minerals (iron or aluminumsalts). The process can be accomplished in numer-ous ways either in the primary system, secondarysystem or as a separate system. The particularmethod to employ at a given installation is amatter of numerous constraints. The two predom-inant methods are mineral addition to the pri-mary clarifier and lime clarification after second-ary treatment, although addition of minerals orlime to the final clarifier of trickling filter sys-tems has been successful. Mineral additions tothe primary or secondary clarifier will not usuallyprovide quite as low a phosphorus level as limeprecipitation. All precipitation processes increasesludge quantities which must be handled.Recalcination of lime will not be economical atmost military facilities. Design considerations forthe various phosphorus removal alternatives arepresented in TM 5-814-3 and the U.S. EPAProcess Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal.

(2) Sedimentation.(a) Process description. Sedimentation is

the separation of suspended particles that areheavier than water from water by gravitationalmeans. It is one of the most widely used unitoperations in wastewater treatment. This opera-tion is used for grit removal; particulate-matterremoval in the primary settling basin; biological-floc removal in the activated sludge settlingbasin; chemical-floe removal when the chemicalcoagulation process is used; and for solids concen-tration in sludge thickeners. Although in mostcases the primary purpose is to produce a clari-fied effluent, it is also necessary to producesludge with a solids concentration that can beeasily handled and treated. In other processes,such as sludge thickening, the primary purpose isto produce a concentrated sludge that can betreated more economically. In the design ofsedimentation basins, due consideration should begiven to production of both a clarified effluentand a concentrated sludge (125).

(b) Clarifier design. Clarifiers may either berectangular or circular. In most rectangular clari-fiers, scraper flights extending the width of thetank move the settled sludge toward the inlet endof the tank at a speed of about 1 ft/min. Somedesigns move the sludge toward the effluent endof the tank, corresponding to the direction of flowof the density current. Circular clarifiers mayemploy either a center feed well or a peripheralinlet. The tank can be designed for center sludge

withdrawal or vacuum withdrawal over the entiretank bottom. Circular clarifiers are of three gen-eral types. With the center feed type, the waste isfed into a center well and the effluent is pulled off at the weir along the outside. With a peripheralfeed tank, the effluent is pulled off at the tankcenter. With a rim-flow clarifier, the peripheralfeed and effluent discharge are also along theclarifier rim, but this type is usually used forlarger clarifiers. The circular clarifier usuallygives the optimal performance. Rectangular tanksmay be desired where construction space is lim-ited. The circular clarifier can be designed forcenter sludge withdrawal or vacuum withdrawalover the entire tank bottom. Center sludge with-drawal requires a minimum bottom slope of 1in/ft. The flow of sludge to the center well islargely hydraulically motivated by the collectionmechanism, which serves to overcome inertia andavoid sludge adherence to the tank bottom. Thevacuum drawoff is particularly adaptable to sec-ondary clarification and thickening of activatedsludge. The mechanisms can be of the plow typeor the rotary-hoe type. The plow-type mechanismemploys staggered plows attached to two oppos-ing arms that move about 10 ft/min. The rotary-hoe mechanism consists of a series of shortscrapers suspended from a rotating supportingbridge on endless chains that make contact with the tank bottom at the periphery and move to thecenter of the tank.

(3) Microscreening. The use of microscreeningor microstraining in advanced wastewater treat-ment is chiefly as a polishing step for removal ofadditional suspended solids (and associated BOD)from secondary effluents. The system consists ofa rotating drum with a peripheral screen. Influentwastewater enters the drum internally and passesradially outward through the screen, with deposi-tion of solids on the inner surface of the drumscreen. The deposited solids are removed bypressure jets located at the top of the drum. Thebackwash water is then collected and returned tothe plant. The screen openings range from about23 to 60 microns depending upon manufacturertype and material. However, the small openingsthemselves do not account for the removal effi-ciency of the unit. Performance is dependent onthe mat of previously trapped solids which pro-vide the fine filtration. Thus an important factorin design is the nature of the solids applied to thesystem. The strong biological floes are better formicroscreening; weak chemical floe particles arenot efficiently removed. Depending upon the in-f l u e n t w a s t e w a t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d t h e microfabric, suspended solids removals have

6-18

TM 5-814-8

ranged from about 50 percent to as high as 90percent. Maintenance of the units can be costly,since they require periodic cleaning. For furtherinformation, the U.S. EPA “Process Design Man-ual for Suspended Solids Removal”, and “ProcessDesign Manual for Upgrading Wastewater Treat-ment Plants”.

(4) Filtration. Secondary effluents normallycontain minerals which range from the easilyvisible insoluble solids to colloids. Filtration isone means of removing the suspended solids (andthe BOD associated with the suspended solids)remaining after secondary sedimentation to alevel which will meet effluent or water qualitycriteria. Filtration methods most applicable tomilitary facilities are the multimedia filter andthe diatomaceous earth system. For informationon design criteria and operating considerations,the U.S. EPA Process Design Manual for Sus-pended Solids Removal should be consulted.

(a) Multi-media. Recently, dual-media,mixed-media and multi-media filtration unitshave basically replaced the conventional singlemedium filter otherwise known as the “rapid-sandfilter” for wastewater applications. These filters,widely utilized in advanced wastewater treatment,are sometimes referred to as “deep-bed” filters.Single medium filters have a fine-to-coarse grada-tion in the direction of flow which results fromhydraulic gradation during backwash. This grada-tion is not efficient, since virtually all solidsremoval must take place in the upper few inchesof the filter with a consequent rapid increase inheadloss. A coarse-to-fine gradation, as used bymulti-media units, is more efficient since it pro-vides for greater utilization of filter depth, anduses the fine media only to remove the finerfraction of suspended solids. The multi-mediafilter is capable of producing effluents with sus-pended solids of less than 10 mg/L from typicalfeed concentrations of 20 to 50 mg/L. This alsoreduces the BOD since about one-half of theBOD of a secondary effluent is normally associ-ated with the suspended solids. The feed concen-tration must be kept below 100 mg/L of sus-pended solids for practical backwash cycles. Atypical multi-media system consists of three ormore materials, normally anthracite (coal), sandand garnet, with carefully selected specific gravi-ties. Dual-media filters usually utilize anthraciteand sand. The filtering system is supported by afew feet of gravel or other support means. Addi-tion of small amounts of coagulant chemicalssuch as alum or polymer enhances filtration.Multi-media filtration is a process normally asso-ciated either with physical-chemical wastewater

treatment or as a polishing step after biologicaltreatment. It is particularly applicable for re-moval of the weaker chemical floe particles whilesurface straining devices such as rapid-sand fil-ters and microstrainers work well with the stron-ger biological floes. Use of the filters for the dualpurpose of solids removal and as a fixed mediafor denitrification should also be considered whereboth processes are necessary. A summary ofinformation on effluent suspended solids to beexpected from a multi-media filtration system isindicated in table 6-5.

Table 6-5. Expected effluent suspended solidsfrom multi-media filtration of secondary effluent*

Effluent SuspendedEffluent Type Solids, mg/L

High-Rate Trickling Filter 10-20Two-Stage Trickling Filter 6-15Contact Stabilization 6-15Conventional Activated Sludge 3-10Extended Aeration 1--5

*Adapted from the U.S. EPA “Process Design Manual forSuspended Solids Removal”.

(b) Diatomaceous earth. Filtration bydiatomaceous earth consists of mechanically sepa-rating suspended solids from the wastewaterinfluent by means of a layer of powdered filter aidor diatomaceous earth, applied to a supportmedium. The use of the system for clarification ofdomestic secondary treatment effluent has beendemonstrated only at pilot scale facilities. Multi-media filters are more cost–effective for domesticwastewaters from military installations. However,the diatomaceous earth system is applicable andcurrently being used as part of a treatment stepin munitions wastewater treatment.

e. Membrane processes. Other feasible methodsof advanced wastewater treatment consist ofwhat are generally known as the membraneprocesses, and include electrodialysis, ultrafil-tration and reverse osmosis. These processes canremove over 90 percent of the dissolved inorganicmaterial to produce a high quality product suit-able for discharge or reuse. Considerable pretreat-ment is required. Use of these membrane pro-cesses in the field of wastewater treatment is atthe present time limited because the costs arevery high and applications will be to small flowsat best. For example, a possible application is thetreatment for reuse of small process discharges atmilitary field installations. Three different reverseosmosis units were evaluated at a field locationby the U.S. Army Environmental HygieneAgency (1). This study was initiated to determinethe feasibility of treating and reusing wastewaterfrom field laundries, showers and kitchens. Where

TM 5-814-8

it may be necessary to consider the application ofa membrane process for reuse or discharge, refer-ence should be made to appropriate design manu-als or manufacturer’s literature for information ondesign criteria.

f. Physical and chemical process comparisons.Table 6-6 provides a comparison of the keywastewater treatment processes which must beconsidered for pollution control programs at mili-

ing or equipment maintenance, the major portionof wastewater produced at a military installationwill be domestic waste similar in characteristicsto that produced in a residential area. However, for those installations with industrial facilities,certain process wastes produced on-site requireseparate consideration. The following are exam-ples of these waste producing processes:

–Munitions manufacturing, loading, assem-tary installations. These comparisons include ma- bling and packing.jor equipment required, preliminary treatment –Metal plating.steps, removal efficiency, resource consumption, –Washing, paint-stripping and machiningeconomics and several other factors which must erations.be considered. –Photographic processing.

6-4. Industrial process wastewater –Laundry.Other process waste sources include hospitals and

treatment blowdown from cooling towers, boilers and gas-a. Introduction. Except at those facilities where scrubber systems. Chapter 3 of this manual

the principal function is manufacturing, process- describes typical industrial waste producing pro

Table 6-6. Summary of physical and chemical wastewater treatment processes

Major Treatment PreliminaryUnit Process Purpose Equipment Required Treatment Steps Application

At least secondary treat-ment. Nitrogen must be inammonia form. The higherthe degree of treatment,the less chlorine requiredto reach breakpoint.

A. Breakpoint Chlorinationfor Ammonia Removal

Removes nitrogen by chemi -tally concerting to nitro-gen gas. Process also servesas disinfection step.

Chlorine contact basins andchlorination equipment mayrequire carbon adsorptionstep to remove potentiallytoxic chloro-organiccompounds formed.

Nitrogen removal . Hiqhchemical costs and sideeffects make process mostattractive as a back-upsystem in case of failure ofprimary nitrogen removalprocess and for removal ofremaining trace ammoniaconcentrations.

Where standards requireover 90% phosphorus removal,or phosphorus concentrate ionsbelow 0.5 mg/L, or as an ad-ditional step for suspendedsol ids removal. Recalcinationof lime sludge generally un-economical in plants under10 mgd capacity.

B. Lime Clarification Primary purpose is tochemically precipitatephosphorus. Secondarypurpose is to remove sus-pended solids and associ-ated BOO.

Clarifier, usually solidscontact up-flow type, withsludge collection equip-ment; chemical feed equip-ment; and recarbonationfacilities. Low alkalinitywastewaters may requiretwo-stage system withtwo clarifiers. Lime recal -cining furnance and re-lated equipment may beused for large facilities.

Chemical feed equipment,mixing and flocculatingbasins for existing pri-mary sedimental ion basins.

Usually secondary treat-ment although lime clari-fication of raw wastewateris practiced in physical-chemical plants.

c, Mineral Addition toPrimary Sedimentation

Primary purpose is tochemically precipitatephosphorus. Secondarypurposes are increasedsuspended sol ids and BOOremoval in primary sedi -mentation, thereby de-creasing the load onsecondary treatmentfacilities.

Suspended sol idsremova 1.

Screening and usual1 ygrit removal.

D. Multi-Media Filtration Filters and backwashequipment.

Generally at least sec-dary treatment.

E. Microscreening Suspended sol ids removal. Microscreens and tanks. Seconary treatment.

F. Granular CarbonAdsorption

Carbon contractors, carbonregeneration furnance,and carbon storagefacilities

1. AWT - secondarytreatment followed byfiltration for down-flowcontractors. Filtrationnot necessary for up-flowcontractors.

2. PCT - chemicalcoagulation of rawwastewater.

1. AWT - to remove traceorganic and produce highquality effluent.

2. PCT - remove carbon-aceous BOD as in secondarybiological treatment.

2. PCT - remove organicmaterial instead of bybiological treatment.

6-20

TM 5-814-8

None. Adds cnnslderabl(]anuunt of chlori(lesto wastewater.

A.

B.

trol dose and PH. Mayrequire addition of chem-icals to control PH.

very small-amountswith regeneration.

cesses, waste characteristics. This section de-scribes waste reduction and treatment methodol-ogy applicable to military installations.

(1) Considerations. The need to consider in-dustrial process wastes separately is based on thefollowing potential effects:

—Degradation of the sewer lines by corro-sion or chemical attack and/or productionof an environment dangerous to mainte-nance and operating personnel.

–Interference with normal treatment plantprocesses.

–Inability of treatment plant processes toreduce a process waste constituent to alevel required by regulatory constraintsor other environmental considerations.

(2) Limitations. Brief descriptions of pro-cesses are included in chapter 3 to serve as abasis for consideration of the effect of suchwastes on facility planning. Typical analyses of

6-21

TM 5-814-8

some process wastes are also provided. Thequantity and quality of process wastes producedoften vary in similar installations; therefore, datapresented are descriptive only. To establish basicdesign criteria, more detail is required. The appli-cability of the wastewater treatment and sludgedisposal processes presented elsewhere is dis-cussed for each special process in this section.

b. Munitions wastes. Wastes generated fromthe munitions industry originate from both manu-facturing (MFG) plants as well as loading, assem-bling and packing (LAP) facilities.

(1) Explosives and propellants. The majorexplosive product produced is trinitrotoluene(TNT). Other explosive chemicals that are gener-ated in military installations include:

—nitroglycerine.—HMX and RDX.—tetryl.—nitrocellulose.—black powder.—nitroguanidine.—lead azide.—lead styphnate.

A description of the manufacturing process uti-lized for each explosive, as well as typical waste-water characteristics are included in chapter 3.

(a) Waste reduction. Process changes toinclude increased chemical recovery/reuse andgood housekeeping are important waste reductionpractices in the manufacture of explosives andpropellants. For examples, as indicated in chapter3, changing from batch-type to continuous TNTmanufacturing resulted in lower chemical andwater usage and reduced waste volumes (20)(23)(116). High pressure water sprays also may resultin decreased cleanup water usage. Batch-dumpingof process wastes and acids must be discouraged.Whenever cooling water is reasonably uncontami-nated, it should be segregated from the contami-nated water streams, thereby reducing the vol-ume of waste to be treated.

(b) Sampling and gaging. Care must betaken in establishing a sampling program forexplosives manufacturing wastes which will accu-rately represent the waste flow and characteris-tics. This is necessary because of the difference inwaste characteristics from different manufactur-ing plants, even if they are making the sameproduct. Batch dumping, periodic cleanup opera-tions and changes in production levels all contrib-ute to wide variations in flows and concentra-tions. Such variations can result in the need foradded treatment capacity and/or provision forequalization storage. Cost-effective design andoperation of treatment equipment depend on

accurate assessment and management of wasteflow and quality.

(c) Environmental impact. The blood-red color from red water produced in TNT manufac-ture and fish kills resulting from high acidconcentrations are the most readily visible envi-ronmental impacts of improperly treated explo-sive wastes. High oxygen demand, excessive ni-trate compounds, elevated temperature and highsuspended solids also contribute to the gradualdegradation of the receiving body of water.

(d) Treatability. Explosives manufacturingwastes are sometimes toxic to conventional bio-logical treatment plants, but may be treated byphysical and chemical methods and by specificallyadapted biological means. Waste acids may beneutralized with lime or other alkaline materialusing conventional pH control methods. Acti-vated carbon adsorption has been successful forremoving color-causing TNT compounds as wellas HMX and RDX (20)(116)(130). The acidicwastes must not be neutralized with lime untilafter carbon treatment, because color removalefficiency is greater at low pH, and precipitatesformed by lime addition will encrust and clog thecarbon column. Color may also be removed by ionexchange, although problems exist with resinregeneration. Wastewater from an acid plant in aTNT manufacturing complex has been success- fully treated by lime precipitation followed by ionexchange (11 5). Biodegradable explosives wastes,including dynamite, nitrocellulose, HMX andRDX and TNT to some extent, may be treated bybiological methods such as land irrigation oractivated sludge after process proof by bench andpilot scale studies (77)(106)(107). Lead resultingfrom the production of lead azide and leadstyphnate may be removed by chemical precipita-tion using sodium sulfhydrate.

(e) Red water treatment. Red water is cur-rently one of the most difficult disposal problems.Red water has been sold to kraft paper millswhen transportation costs make this economicallyfeasible. In other cases, it has been burned in anincinerator. Where land permits, evaporationponds have been used; care must be taken toeffectively line the pond to prevent ground watercontamination from leaching. Fluidized bed incin-eration and recycle of the resultant ash are beingstudied (87).

(2) Projectiles and casings. The manufactureof the lead slugs, bullet jackets and shell casingsgenerates wastewater different in compositionthan from explosives manufacture. Waste constit- uents include heavy metals, oil and grease, soapsand surfactants, solvents and acids.

6-22

TM 5-814-8

(a) Waste reduction. Waste reduction prac-tices which should be evaluated include use ofcounter-current flow of successive rinse waters,separation and reuse of lightly contaminatedwater (such as cooling water), elimination ofbatch-dumping of processing solutions, recoveryand reuse of metals and pickling liquor, andprovisions to divert highly contaminated spills toholding tanks for individual treatment.

(b) Gaging and sampling. Due to the ex-treme variations in flows and characteristics en-countered, careful sampling and gaging proce-dures must be employed in order to characterizethe waste and identify peak values. Identificationof peak values is helpful in tracing batch dump-ing and is essential to cost-effective design oftreatment facilities.

(c) Environmental impact. The environmen-tal impact of metal working wastes can be acute.Heavy metals, acids, surfactants and oils are allhighly toxic to aquatic life. Serious stream degra-dation results from the direct discharge of insuffi-ciently treated metal wastes.

(d) Treatability. Toxic materials present inthe wastewaters from munitions metal parts man-ufacturing can interfere with biological treatment.Treatment methods available include neutraliza-tion with lime, heavy metal removal and recoveryby precipitation or cementation, and oil removal

by gravity separation. Suitably pretreated wasteswill be cost-effectively treated along with domes-tic wastes in biological facilities (21).

(3) Loading, assembling and packing wastes.The main LAP operations are explosives receiv-ing, drying and blending operations, cartridge andshell-filling operations and shell-renovation. Themain waste sources are spillage, cleanup water,dust and fume scrubber water and waste flowsfrom renovation operations.

(a) Waste reduction. Waste reduction whichshould be considered in a pollution control pro-gram can be accomplished by reuse of lightlycontaminated water for air-scrubbing and shell-washout. In the shell-loading operation, the use ofcovered hot water baths and shell-loading funnelscan reduce or eliminate explosives contaminationof the water baths. High-pressure water sprayscan reduce the amount of water used for cleanup.Recovery of waste explosives from shell-washoutoperations reduces the waste load and is aneconomic incentive. Proper wastewater gagingand sampling practices can be quite helpful inidentifying the source of any unauthorized batch-dumps and lead to waste reduction practices.

(b) Environmental impact. The environmen-

tal impacts of LAP wastes include red colorationfrom TNT-containing wastewater, heavy metaltoxicity, oxygen depletion and toxicity and bittertastes from excess nitrates (11)(20).

(c) Treatability. LAP plant wastes havebeen treated successfully by diatomaceous earthfiltration followed by activated carbon adsorption.Effluents of less than 5 mg/L of TNT are readilyattainable. Suspended solids removals by thediatomaceous earth filters have, in some in-stances, been much less than expected. Presenceof suspended solids in waste entering the acti-vated carbon filter greatly reduces the effectivelife of the carbon unit due to clogging. Normally,the spent carbon is burned, although experimen-tal work is being performed to determine thefeasibility of regeneration in fluidized beds. Car-bon usage varies from 2 to 7.5 lb carbon/1000 gal(11)(20). Plating wastes from renovation opera-tions are treated in the manner described inchapter 3.

c. Metal plating. The major waste sources arerinse water overflow, fume-scrubber water, batch-dumps of spent acid, alkali, or plating bathsolutions, and spills of the concentrated solutions.

(1) Plating waste separation. Processing solu-tions are often replaced on an intermittent basis;consequently, dumps of spent solutions impose aheavy short term load on treatment facilities.Therefore, separate collection of waste processsolutions and rinse waters should be evaluated.Separation as to type of waste is also desirable tofacilitate later treatment and to avoid the produc-tion of the toxic hydrogen cyanide gas at low pHlevels. Categories for waste separation are asfollows:

—Oil bearing wastes from cleaning opera-tions.

—Acid wastes including waste pickling li-quor, acid-plating solutions, and anodiz-ing solutions.

—Alkaline wastes including cyanide-platingsolutions.

(2) Waste reduction practices. There are anumber of waste reduction practices which can beeffective and should be considered for platingoperations including: dragout reduction, process/chemical changes, and good housekeeping(35)(41)(111).

(a) Plating waste dragout reduction. Reduc-ing the dragout from chemical baths not onlyreduces the contamination of successive rinsewater, but it also prolongs the life of the chemicalbath. Some dragout reduction practices whichshould be evaluated are:

6-23

TM 5-814-8

—Design special drip pans,fog-sprays, air knivesmechanisms.

high-pressureand shaking

— Improve racking procedures and mini-mize overcrowding on the rack to facili-tate drainage of process chemicals backinto the chemical tank.

—Increase drainage time over the processtank or install an empty tank upstreamfrom the rinse operation in which theprocess solution can be drained andreturned to the process tank.

–Reduce the viscosity of plating agentswith either water or heat.

—Add wetting agents to process solu-tions to reduce surface tension andfacilitate drainage.

(b) Plating process changes. Changes inprocess or chemicals used can result in a reducedwaste volume, reduced waste strength or a wastewhich is more readily treatable. Process/chemical changes include the following and shouldbe considered in pollution control evaluations:

—Eliminate use of breakable containersfor concentrated solutions.

—Employ a recovery step for metalsfrom the waste stream. This adds aneconomic incentive to cleanup the efflu-ent.

—Recirculate the water used in the fume-scrubber systems.

—Separate cyanide wastes from chro-mium bearing and other acid wastes toavoid production of lethal hydrocyanicacid fumes.

—Substitute high-concentration platingsolutions for low-concentration solu-tions, reducing the volume of waste tobe treated.

—Replace cyanide salt plating solutionswith low cyanide or cyanide-free solu-tions.

—Use counter-current rinse flows ratherthan using fresh water in all rinses.

(c) Plating waste reduction by other means.Good housekeeping steps are important wastereduction practices which should be employed forall industrial operations; those particularly impor-tant to plating include the following:

—Curb areas which have chronic spillageor leakage problems and divert spills toa holding tank for treatment.

— Increase inspection and maintenance ofpipes, valves and fittings to preventleaks and spills.

6 - 2 4

(3) Gaging and sampling. Because of theconcentrated processing solutions used and theirhighly variable characteristics, proper wastewatergaging and sampling is essential in determining the characteristics and sources of batch-dumpsand the resultant peaks. Sampling of effluentsfrom the individual waste sources can be animportant supplement to end-of-pipe data.

(4) Environmental impact. The extremes ofpH and the high concentrations of heavy metalsand cyanides are extremely toxic to all forms oflife. Fish kills and even fatalities to livestockhave been reported when plating wastes were feddirectly to a body of water (34). The accumulationof heavy metals in sediment causes long termpollution. In addition, toxicity to micro-organismsretards the self-purification abilities of the receiv-ing stream.

(5) Treatability. Plating wastes may betreated by conventional municipal biological pro-cesses if sufficient dilution is provided. Otherwise,the extreme toxicity of the waste will seriouslyinterfere with the biological processes. Just asheavy metals become concentrated in streamsediments, they also accumulate in treatmentplant sludge and can interfere with subsequentbiological treatment processes and disposal proce-dures. Pretreatment of industrial wastes to reduceconstituents to levels which will be compatible with biological treatment is required. Pretreat-ment requirements for plating wastewater toensure successful subsequent treatment with do-mestic waste may require pilot scale studies(34)(76)(78). The pH control, cyanide destructionand heavy metal removal/recovery methods dis-cussed in chapter 3 are capable of providing therequired pretreatment for discharge to a biologi-cal treatment system or directly to a receivingbody of water. Such treatment may also permitrecycling and reuse of the water for some processneeds. In many cases, it is desirable to integratethe treatment operations into the overall platingscheme (33)(109).

d. Washing, paint-stripping and machining.Washing and paint stripping of aircraft and landvehicles is performed as routine maintenance or inpreparation for repairing, overhauling and ma-chining of a part or component of the aircraft orvehicle.

(1) Waste reduction practices. The volume ofwashrack and paint-stripping wastewater to betreated can be reduced considerably by excludingstorm water and by employing practices to reducethe amount of water used. It is reported that some U.S. commercial airlines have used hot,rather than cold, water sprays in the paint-

TM 5-814-8

stripping operation, resulting in a water usage ofonly four gallons per gallon of stripper. Also,squeegees are used to remove the paint-stripperand paint skins onto plastic sheets which aredisposed of at a sanitary landfill (29).

(2) Gaging and sampling. Care must be takenwhen sampling wastewaters with high oil con-tents, such as washrack and paint-strippingwastes, to ensure that a representative sample isobtained (15 1). The precaution is required due tothe tendency of oil to float on the water surface.

(3) Environmental impact. Washrack andpaint-stripping wastewaters containing high con-centrations of phenols, organic solvents, chro-mium, oils and surfactants are extremely toxic toaquatic life. Failure to properly contain and treatthese wastes can result in fish kills, streampurification inhibition and odors. All of these areunacceptable by any water quality standards(26)(29)(1 13). Oils from machining operations canbe toxic and may impose a high oxygen demandon the receiving body of water.

(4) Treatment. Unless highly diluted, the rawwastewaters from machining and paint-strippingoperations and washracks utilizing solvents arehighly toxic to the microorganisms of biologicaltreatment plants, interfering with both aerationand sludge digestion processes. Paint-strippingwastes are particularly toxic. A typical pretreat-ment system for a major facility would includethe following steps:

–Gravity separation tank equipped to re-move floating oils and settleable solids.

–Detention tanks with mixing to provideequalization of flow and waste strengthas well as to permit evaporation of vola-tile solvents.

–Chemical addition in a rapid mix tankfollowed by slow mixing in a separatetank to promote flocculation, break emul-sions and agglomerate solids.

–Final treatment in an air flotation unit toremove flocculated particles.

For smaller facilities, where washrack wastes areonly a small part of the total waste flow, analternate approach can be used. A storage tank,arranged to receive this waste and equipped withair mixing and adequate air emission controls,would provide for evaporation of a part of thevolatile solvents and permit pumping to the mainsewer at a controlled rate. At the main treatmentplant, the primary settling tank preceding biologi-cal treatment will have adequate oil and solidsremoval capacity.

e. Photographic processing. Because of thewidespread use of photography in military opera-

tions, the military services operate many photo-processing facilities. The size of such facilitiesvaries greatly, with waste flows of 10,000 to1,000,000 gallons per month. Liquid wastes origi-nate from the discharge of spent processingsolutions and associated rinse or washwaters.Approximately 90 percent of the liquid wasteproduced is from the rinse operations.

(1) Waste reduction practices. Waste reduc-tion practices include recovery of silver, regenera-tion of ferrocyanide and other chemicals, chemicalbath reuse and the use of squeegees to reduce thecarryover, or dragout, of chemicals from one stepto another.

(a) Silver recovery. Because of the highmarket value of silver, it can be economicallyrecovered from the spent bleach and fixer solu-tions as well as from the final washwater. Suchrecovery reduces the impact of silver as a pollut-ant and in some cases allows the fixer solution tobe reused, reducing chemical replacement costs.Silver recovery is most often accomplished bypassing the waste effluent through a proprietarysteel-wool-filled canister where silver is exchangedfor iron. Silver can also be removed by precipita-tion with sodium sulfide or by electrolysis.

(b) Bleach regeneration. The bleach solutionmay also be reused by regenerating ferrocyanidefrom the spent ferrocyanide using oxidizingagents such as persulfate and ozone. One manu-facturer offers a packaged bleach regeneratormaterial (123). Regeneration provides a cost sav-ings as well as pollutant reduction. Methods ofcomplete cyanide destruction are discussed laterin this chapter.

(c) Equalization. Equalization is very im-portant if photographic wastes are treated biolog-ically, particularly when the photographic pro-cessing operation occurs during only part of theday. Daily variations in flow and concentrationcan cause serious operating difficulties at thetreatment plant.

(2) Gaging and sampling. To define waste-water quality and quantity for a new installation,sampling and gaging data from a similar operat-ing facility is valuable. The presence of a largeamount of free silver metal will inhibit biologicalaction and yield unreliable BOD test data. Largeamounts of thiosulfates from the fixing bath willexert an oxygen demand. Care must be taken toprepare appropriate waste dilutions to avoid theseinterferences with the BOD tests.

(3) Environmental impact. The environmentalimpact of discharging improperly treated photo-graphic waste can be severe due to high concen-

6-25

TM 5-814-8

trations of toxics. Heavy metals such as silverare toxic to aquatic life and can accumulate insediments. Cyanides, strong reducing agents andconstituents with high oxygen demands are allcapable of seriously degrading water quality.

(4) Compatibility with domestic wastewatertreatment. Experimental work has shown thatphotographic processing wastewater is treatableby biological means. One survey (30) indicatedthat almost 80 percent of Air Force base photo-graphic facilities discharge all or part of theirwastes to sanitary sewers. The Air Force Envi-ronmental Health Laboratory at Kelly AFB rec-ommended disposal of desilvered photographicwastewater in trickling filter or activated sludgeplants in proportions not exceeding 0.05 percentof the total waste influent. It is further specifiedthat the plant should discharge to a streamproviding a dilution of at least ten to onehundred times, to account for the conversion offerrocyanide to toxic cyanides. Mohanro, et al.,(75) chemically treated photographic wastes withalum to reduce the COD by 40 percent, thenpolished the effluent in activated sludge units.With roughly a two to one ratio of domesticsewage to chemically treated photographic waste,90 percent BOD reductions were obtained. Dagon(70) reported on a 20,000 gal/day package acti-vated sludge plant operating totally on rawphotographic wastewater and obtaining as muchas 85 percent BOD reduction. However, problemswere experienced with poor sludge settling. There-fore, it is generally recommended that photo-graphic wastes be treated witih domestic sewagein a biological plant after providing silver recov-ery and bleach regeneration; the photographicwaste portion should be kept to less than 20percent of the total. Bench scale or pilot planttesting may be required to define the treatmentapproach in some instances.

f Laundries. Central laundering facilities areprovided at most military facilities. At facilitiesengaged in industrial-type operations, additionalpollution problems may result from the launder-ing of the employees’ work clothes.

(1) Waste reduction practices. In recent yearsa variety of different synthetic laundry deter-gents have been used. Biodegradable detergentshave replaced “hard” detergents. In some areas,low phosphate or non-phosphate detergents havereplaced the established high phosphate com-pounds. The type of detergents used does warrantsome consideration because of treatment require-ments to meet regulations covering effluentcharacteristics.

(2) Gaging and sampling. Gaging and sam-pling of laundry wastewaters present no particu-lar problems. However, due to the differing char- acteristics of the various laundering processesand wash cycles within a process, some care mustbe taken in order to obtain representativewastewater samples.

(3) Environmental impact. The older “hard”synthetic detergents such as alkyl benzene sulfon-ates (ABS) were resistant to degradation bybiological means. Thus, they were dischargeduntreated to bodies of water, causing foamingproblems. Currently used biodegradable deter-gents such as linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS)have eliminated this problem. These detergentsare biodegradable and exert a BOD in addition tothat of the soil, grease, starch and other materialswashed from the soiled garments.

(a) Phosphate. There has been a greatamount of controversy about the contribution ofdetergent phosphate compounds toward theeutrophication of lakes and rivers. Some statesand cities have banned the use of phosphate-containing or high-phosphate detergents. The en-vironmental effects of phosphates or the elimina-tion thereof are still unresolved.

(b) Explosives. In explosives manufactur-ing or LAP facilities, the laundering of employ-ees’ work clothes can create “ p i n k w a t e r ” c o n - lamination of the laundry effluent, with theresultant toxic effects and undesirable aestheticconditions.

(4) Treatability. Laundry wastewaters maygenerally be treated with domestic sewage byconventional biological systems. Due to the highlevels of emulsified grease, BOD and phosphates,special primary treatment, or pretreatment at thelaundry, may be required depending on the rela-tive proportion of laundry flow to total plantflow. Chemical precipitation and flotation havebeen used successfully as pretreatment (103)(130).Because surfactants (ABS and LAS) interferewith oxygen transfer, special care should be takento ensure that biological processes are receiving asufficient oxygen supply. When phosphorus re-moval is required, chemical precipitation pro-cesses should be employed.

(a) Unacceptable treatment. Laundrywastewaters should not be treated anaerobically,as in a septic tank-drainage field system. Thesynthetic detergents are not broken down and aretherefore more likely to enter water supplies.There is evidence that the detergents may also facilitate the movement of coliform bacteriathrough the soil (25).

6-26

TM 5-814-8

(b) Treatment and recycle. Laundry waste-waters may be treated in commercially availablephysical-chemical units with the possibility ofrecycling the effluent. One system involves chemi-cal precipitation with alum, followed by sandfiltration, carbon adsorption and ion exchange.Another system consists of chemical precipitationand diatomaceous earth filtration. About 94 per-cent phosphate removal, 90 to 98 percent ABSremoval, 60 to 80 percent COD reduction and 60to 70 percent BOD reduction can be obtained (35).

g. Other generators. Other wastewaters typicalof some military facilities include hospitals dis-charges, boiler water blowdown, cooling watersystem blowdown, blowdown from boiler flue gas-scrubber systems and vehicle washing facilities.

(1) Hospitals. Hospital wastewaters requirespecial attention because of several factors. Thediurnal peaks and minimums of both flow andconcentration may be different from those nor-mally associated with domestic wastewaters dueto the unique hospital patterns of activity. Patho-genic organisms will probably be present inhigher than normal concentrations; however, mod-ern biological or physical-chemical secondarytreatment plants with post-chlorination shouldeliminate excess pathogens in the effluent. Con-servative design of chlorination facilities is en-couraged. Operating personnel must exercise spe-cial care to reduce the possibility of infection.Ample design and maintenance of screeningequipment should be exercised to eliminate mostproblems caused by excessive quantities of gauze,rags and bandages in the wastewater. Averagesewage flows from hospitals are estimated atabout 100 gallons per resident per day in TM5-814-1, while other sources estimate as high as200 gallons per bed per day. These values arequite similar to those for normal domestic sew-age. Resident population includes patients andfull time employees.

(2) Boilers. This waste is normally hot, up to210 degrees F, and contain phosphates (30 to 60mg/L), sulfite (30 to 60 mg/L), organic matter andsome suspended material. Normally, blending thiswater with other wastes reduces various constitu-ents to a level which will not inhibit subsequentbiological treatment. Direct discharge of blow-down to a receiving stream would require treat-ment to reduce phosphate and sulfite concentra-tions. In addition, cooling would be required fordirect discharge.

(3) Cooling water systems. Cooling water sys-tems can be classified in these general categories:

–Once-through systems.–Closed systems.

—Evaporative recirculating systems.(a) In once-through systems, the cooling

water is obtained from a lake or stream andreturned to the same stream with little or notreatment. Periodic additions of biocides aresometimes required to prevent fouling of thecooling water equipment. Chlorine is the mostcommonly used biocide. In some instances, thewater may require de-chlorination prior to returnto the stream.

(b) Closed cooling systems are used wherethe composition of the cooling water is critical,such as in the cooling of high temperaturesurfaces. The cooling water rejects heat to anair-cooled radiator or through a heat exchanger toa once-through or evaporative recirculating sys-tem. Blowdown or other losses from a closedsystem are small but contaminated. Corrosioninhibitors sometimes contain chromate, zinc, so-dium nitrate, and borax which must be removedprior to biological treatment or stream disposal.

(c) The evaporative recirculating systemuses a cooling tower or spray pond to dissipateheat by evaporation of a part of the flow.Although limited by blowdown, this results in anincrease in the concentration of dissolved solidsto a level of 3 to 5 times that found in themakeup water. To avoid corrosion, scale andbiological problems, acid, inhibitors and biocidesare added to the system. Treatment of theblowdown is sometimes necessary for removal ofany chromate, zinc compounds or other materialsused as an inhibitor.

(4) Scrubber systems. Scrubbers are used toavoid air pollution. Airborne wastes, accumulatedby the recirculating liquid, require that the liquidbe periodically or continuously treated for re-moval of wastewater constituents. In scrubbingof boiler stack gases, fine ash and sulfur oxidesmust be removed or neutralized. Other scrubbingsystems have similar treatment requirements.

h. Treatment methods. Special treatment pro-cesses are required for some industrialwastewater constituents. These processes may beemployed to provide for pretreatment prior tomixing with other wastes for completewastewater treatment and discharge, or for recov-ery of special constituents.

(1) pH control. For discharging wastewaterto a biological treatment process or directly to areceiving stream, pH must generally be main-tained in the range of 6.0 to 9.0; although limitsmay be much closer in certain instances. Treat-ment processes to destroy cyanides, to reducehexavalent chromium and to precipitate heavymetals also require pH control.

6 - 2 7

TM 5-814-8

(a) Acid waste neutralization. Neutraliza-tion of an acid waste (low pH) can be accom-plished by adding alkaline materials such ascrushed limestone, lime, soda ash or sodiumhydroxide to the acidic waste. Limestone (CaCO3)neutralization of a waste containing sulfuric acidforms a salt of limited volubility (CaS04) which cncause adherent deposits on equipment surfacesand piping. Hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) or quicklime(CaO) are more commonly used, since these mate-rials have more neutralizing capacity per poundthan limestone. However, lime may also formcalcium sulfate sludges. Strong bases such assoda ash (Na2C03) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH)quickly neutralize strong acids, forming solublesalts and virtually eliminating the sludge prob-lem, although increasing the dissolved solidscontent of the water. Strong bases require specialequipment and handling and are four to eighttimes as expensive as lime or limestone.

(b) Alkaline waste neutralization. Neutral-ization of an alkaline or basic wastewater (highpH) can be accomplished by adding acidic materi-als such as carbon dioxide (CO2) or sulfuric acid(H2S04). Carbon dioxide may be added by passingboiler flue gas or bottled CO2 gas through thealkaline waste, forming carbonic acid (H2C O3)which then neutralizes the base. Sulfuric acidreadily neutralizes bases, although it is highlycorrosive and requires special equipment andhandling. Other strong acids, such as hydrochlo-ric acid (HC1), can be used depending on acidcosts.

(2) Heavy metal removal and recovery.Heavy metals which are of most concern aresilver (Ag), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper(Cu), iron (Fe), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni),tin (Sri), and zinc (Zn) because of their toxicityand/or high market value (86). Military sources ofheavy metals include munitions production, metalplating, aircraft and motor vehicle washing, paint-stripping and metal-working, photographic pro-cessing and cooling water system blowdown. Themost commonly used heavy metal removal tech-niques are chemical precipitation, metallic replace-ment, electrodeposition, ion exchange, evapora-tion, and reverse osmosis, although solventextraction, activated carbon adsorption and ionflotation are being developed and are applicable insome situations (32)(33)(39)(86).

(a) Chemical precipitation. the most com-monly used removal method, particularly whenmetal recovery is not a consideration, is precipita-tion. This process is based on the fact that mostmetal hydroxides are only slightly soluble andthat some metal carbonates and sulfides are also

only sparingly water soluble. The typical precipi-tation process using sodium hydroxide or lime asa reactant is generally applicable to copper, zinc, iron or nickel removal with no special modifica-tions.

–Chromium exists in wastewater in boththe highly toxic hexavalent and theless toxic trivalent forms. To precipi-tate chromium, the hexavalent formmust first be reduced to the trivalentform using reducing agents such assulfur dioxide, ferrous sulfate, metalliciron, or sodium bisulfite. The reactionis best performed in an acidic solutionwith a pH of 2.0 to 3.0. The trivalentchromium is precipitated as chromiumhydroxide by raising the pH with limeor sodium hydroxide (34)(39)(86).

–Cadmium hydroxide precipitation bylime occurs at high pH. If cyanide isalso present (as inplating waste), itmust be eliminated first by addingsodium sulfide. The proprietary“Kastone” process is a hydrogen perox-ide oxidation-precipitation systemwhich simultaneously oxidizes and pre-cipitates cadmium as cadmium oxidewhich can be recycled to some processsolutions (130).

–Lead may be precipitated by substitut-ing soda ash for lime in the conven-tional lime precipitation scheme. Bothmercury and silver as well as lead maybe precipitated as sulfides with theaddition of combinations of sodium sul-fide, sodium thiosulfate or sodium hy-droxide (21)(86). The precipitated sul-fide sludge may be sold to a refineryfor recovery (130).

(b) Metallic replacement. The metallic re-placement or displacement process is used whenmetal recovery is desirable, such as silver recov-ery from photographic wastes and copper recov-ery from brass-working wastes. In this process, ametal which is more active than the metal to berecovered is placed into the waste solution. Themore active metal goes into solution, replacingthe less active metal which precipitates (or plates)out and is recovered. Zinc or iron, in the form ofeither dust or finely-spun wool, is often used torecover silver or copper (30)(86). A proprietaryspun-iron cartridge is used to recover silver fromwaste photographic fixing solutions in normally acontinuous operation (111). The treated fixing solution may still contain at least 1,000 mg/L ofsilver as well as the ionized iron and cannot be

6-28

TM 5-814-8

reused because the iron is a contaminant in thefixing process. The high residual concentration ofpotentially toxic metal also requires that benchand/or pilot scale studies be used to establish thetreatability of the waste by conventional biologi-cal systems.

(c) Electrodeposition. Like metallic replace-ment, electrolytic recovery is used to recovervaluable metals such as silver or copper fromphotographic processing, brass pickling or copper-plating wastes. When a direct electrical current ofthe proper density is passed through thewastewater solution, the metal in solution platesout in a pure form on the cathode. The electro-lytic method may be operated continuously orbatch-wise, is effective over a range of 1000 to100,000 mg/L of influent metal and may producean effluent as low as 500 mg/L of metal. How-ever, close supervision is required in order tomaintain proper current density (30)(86)(130).Again, the residual metal concentrations are highenough to limit biological treatment of the waste.

(d) Ion exchange. Ion exchange technologyhas been developed for treating chromium wastesfrom plating processing to include chromiumdetoxification or recovery, water reuse and heatrecovery from hot rinses. This is normally acontinuous flow process rather than a batch-typeoperation. Mixed wastes of chromium and cya-nides can be treated first by a cation exchangerto remove metals from complex metal cyanidesgenerating hydrogen cyanide, and then by ananion exchanger to remove the liberated cyanide.The concentrated solution formed by regeneratingthe exchange resins can be a source of recoverableproduct in many cases (34). Ion exchange is alsobeing investigated for the recovery of silver fromphotographic processing wastes, chromate fromcooling water system blowdown (115) and cad-mium from plating solutions.

(e) Evaporation. Evaporation is used torecover heavy metals particularly chromate fromsome plating solutions. Evaporation by applyingheat or vacuum to the solution may be employed.The distilled water from evaporation is reused asprocess rinse water (129). Rinsing with highpurity water results in low rinse water use.

(f) Reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration. Re-verse osmosis and ultrafiltration processes havebeen rapidly improved in recent years, and areused in several cases to treat plating rinse waters.Use of membrane processes for treatment ofcooling water blowdown for dissolved solids andchromate removal has also been reported(45)(50)(92).

(3) Cyanide destruction. Cyanides are foundprincipally in metal plating wastes (includingthose wastes from metal-renovation operations)and photographic processing wastewaters. Themost toxic form of cyanide is hydrogen cyanide(HCN), while the complex iron cyanides (Fe(CN6)

-4

and (Fe(CN)6)-3 and the cyanate (CNO) - are less

toxic by several orders of magnitude. The mostwidely used cyanide destruction process is alka-line chlorination. Other treatment processes whichhave been used in actual practice include oxida-tion using hydrogen peroxide (including the pro-prietary “Kastone” process), and ion exhange(32)(33)(34).

(a) Alkaline chlorination. Alkaline chlorina-tion involves oxidation of the cyanide to carbondioxide and nitrogen gas using chlorine in a highpH solution. This is normally a single-step reac-tion requiring about 4 hours with a solution pHof 11. A two-step operation consists of cyanideconversion to cyanate at pH of 11, requiringabout 30 minutes, followed by complete destruc-tion of cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogengas at pH of 8, requiring another 30 minutes.About 5 mg/l of excess chlorine is maintained(129). Vigorous agitation is required, especiallywhen metal-cyanide complexes are present, toprevent precipitation of untreated cyanide salts(34)(130). Generally, flows smaller than 20,000gallons per day use batch treatment in two tanks,in which one tank of waste is treated while theother is filling. A continuous treatment schemerequires instrumentation to control the chemicaladditions, and is normally uneconomical for smallflows. Either chlorine gas or hypochlorites maybe used as the chlorine source, depending oneconomics and particular preference. Either so-dium hydroxide or lime is used to raise the pH(34)(109).

(b) Hydrogen peroxide oxidation. Cyanidesmay be oxidized to cyanate by hydrogen perox-ide. This process is used in Europe and has theadvantage of not introducing an additional pollut-ant (residual chlorine) into the water (33). Theproprietary “Kastone” process is basically a hy-drogen peroxide-formaldehyde method of cyanideoxidation. Formaldehyde reacts with the cyanideto form formaldo-cyanohydrin which is readilyoxidized by the hydrogen peroxide. This processis particularly advantageous for plating wastetreatment because the hydrogen peroxide alsoprecipitates bevy metals as oxides (124).

(c) Ion exchange. Ion exchange using astrong base anion exchange resin can removecyanides effectively from plating wastes, althoughnot always from photographic wastes due to resin

6-29

TM 5-814-8

poisoning by the iron cyanide complexes.Wastewater is first passed through a cationexchanger to remove metals, breakup complexmetal cyanides, and free the cyanide for removalby the successive anion exchanger. The anionresin may be regenerated with caustic, recover-ing the cyanide as sodium cyanide. The volume ofthe recovered cyanide solution is only 10 to 20p e r c e n t o f t h e o r i g i n a l w a s t e v o l u m e(34)(109)(111).

(4) Oil removal. Wastewater from munitionsmetal parts manufacturing and flows from air-craft and vehicle washing, paint-stripping andmetal-working operations may contain large quan-tities of oils in any of three forms: free floatingoil, emulsified oil or soluble oil. Physical, chemicaland biological treatment steps may be used invarious combinations in order to reduce oil con-centrations to levels required by water usage orregulatory criteria.

(a) Free oils. Free oils readily float to thewater surface to be removed by gravity separa-tors such as conventional primary clarifiers withsurface skimming devices or separators designedaccording to American Petroleum Institute (API)criteria. The effectiveness of these and othermeans of removing free oil from wastewatervaries depending on the type of oil, temperatureof the waste, and other factors. As a guide,however, some generalizations can be made. Grav-ity separation devices are effective in reducing oilconcentrations to about 150 to 200 mg/L. Dis-solved air flotation, similar to that used tothicken sludge, is effective in reducing oil levelsto 50 to 100 mg/L. Granular media filters, pre-ceded by gravity or flotation separators, canreduce oil concentrations to 10 to 20 mg/L.Chemical coagulation and precipitation, followedby gravity separation or dissolved air flotation,can remove all but about 5 mg/L of oil(95)(129)(156).

(b) Emulsified oils. Emulsions can be eitheroil-in-water or water-in-oil types. The more com-mon oil-in-water emulsions are dispersions of tinydroplets or oil suspended in water. Emulsifyingagents such as soaps, sulfated oils and alcoholsand various fine particles enhance the stability ofthe dispersed oil, preventing the droplets frommerging together into larger droplets which couldbe removed from the water (95). Prepared emul-sions are used as coolants and lubricants inmachining operations. Emulsions are also formedwhen oily wastewater comes in contact withsteam, soaps, caustic or agitation. The emulsionmust first be broken, then the oil released isremoved as a free oil. Emulsion cracking is the

term used to describe treatment of wastewatercontaining large amounts (2 to 7 percent) ofemulsified oils, such as emulsions used in machin-ing operations. Cracking involves addition of chemicals such as sulfuric acid, iron salts, alum,calcium chloride, or proprietary organic com-pounds, followed by heating to 100 to 140 degreesF. This is followed by two to four hours ofcoalescence. The effluent may still contain a fewhundred mg/L of emulsified oil, and should befurther treated, along with other waste streamshaving a similar level of oil content, by addingcoagulating salts to lower the oil concentration.Wastewaters with less than 500 to 1000 mg/L ofemulsified oil, or the effluent from the crackingstep, may be treated by adding iron or aluminumsulfate salts, forming a metal hydroxide-oil sludge(95)(108)(129). A typical treatment scheme isshown on figure 6-2.

(c) Soluble oils. Soluble oils, such as certainanimal and vegetable oils, may be readily re-moved by conventional biological treatment pro-cesses (89)( 120). In general, oils derived frompetroleum are neither readily soluble norbiodegradable, although biological systems canbe developed to provide treatment of some of thesoluble fractions of petroleum oils. Domestic sew-age helps to provide inorganic nutrients essentialfor the biological degradation of the high BODoils.

(5) Deep well injection. Pumping waste liq-uids into deep wells which tap porous rockformations has been used to dispose of “untreat-able” or hard-to-treat organic and inorganicwastes from various industries.

(a) Pretreatment requirements. Wastesmust be pretreated to remove any suspendedsolids which could clog the pores of the receivingrock formation. In addition, biological growth(and the resultant slime formation or corrosion)must be inhibited with the addition of biocides.Typical pre-injection treatment is costly and in-cludes chemical addition, neutralization, oil re-moval, clarification and multi-stage filtration.

(b) Geological requirements. Careful geol-ogy and soils investigations must be undertakento find a deep strata which is confined so thatwaste fluids will never reach a fresh water aquifer(92). The underground disposal area must alsohave satisfactory reservoir storage (107). Thewaste must not be capable of reaction with thebrine at disposal level to form an insolublematerial. Extreme care must be taken in drilling,constructing, and sealing the well to prevent anycontamination of groundwater in other subterra- nean formations (37). Well casings must be highly

6-30

TM 5-814-8

MACHINING FLUIDS(2 TO 7% OIL)

I

CHEMICALADDITION

- iRAPID MIX I

ACID ‘NEUTRALIZATION

(If Required)

Figure 6-2. Emulsified oil removal by cracking and chemical coagulation.

corrosion-resistant to prevent leakage from corro-sion caused by high pressure injection of acidsand salts. Duplicate wells should be drilled ifthere is no alternative treatment or holdingcapacity in case the disposal well should fail. Inaddition, a number of sample wells must bedrilled and maintained in order to monitor any

--- leakage into ground water (72)(107). Trace leakagemay be impossible to identify.

(c) Application to military wastes. Due tothe extreme need for providing a fail-safe system,deep well injection is an expensive undertaking.Because of uncertainties with deep well opera-tions (well leaks or clogging), careful comparisonshould be made of all other possible treatmentalternatives prior to initiating a deep well system.Present U.S. EPA and Army policies discouragedeep well disposal. The U.S. EPA requires proof

6-31

TM 5-814-8

that no adverse environmental impacts will result expensive, research effort. In general, deep wellfrom construction or operation of the well injection is an unacceptable process for handling(99)(102). This can often require involved, and military installation wastewaters.

6-32

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 7

SOLIDS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL

7-1. Introduction

a. Most treatment processes normally em-ployed in water pollution control yield a sludgefrom a solids-liquid separation process or pro-duce a sludge as a result of a chemical orbiological reaction. Solids handling and disposalrepresent 30 to 50 percent of the total cost oftreatment. Cost-effective treatment requires effi-cient solids handling and disposal along withliquid treatment procedures. Process use is lim-ited by sensitivity to the quantity handled, clima-tological effects, land area and soil constraints,and technological development. Information onproven processes applicable to handling domesticsewage sludge from military installations is pre-sented herein. Industrial wastes may place con-straints on the use of some sludge processes andmust be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

b. The ultimate objective in solids handling anddisposal methods is to reduce the water andorganic content of sludges. These methods in-clude:

–Thickening.–Digestion.–Conditioning.–Dewatering and drying.–Incineration.

Digestion and incineration are primarily used for. the removal of organic matter in sludge while

thickening, conditioning and dewatering are pri-marily used for the removal of water from thesludge. This chapter discusses these methods anddescribes the application in which they should beused.

7-2. Sludge characteristics

All evaluations of sludge systems should includea detailed mass balance of solids in the system.The mass balance defines the sludge quantities,dry solids content, volatile solids content andextent of recycle or supernatant flow back to theliquid treatment processes, and thus identifies thebasis for evaluating different sludge systems.

a. Quantity. The quantity of dry solids pro-duced per day from domestic sewage at militaryfacilities will generally range as shown in table7-1. Variations in primary sludge quantities aredue to the type of collection system, i.e. combinedsystems yield more grit and other suspended

material which require solids handling. For sec-ondary sludges, all of the activated sludge sys-tems generate the higher values except extendedaeration which produces very low quantities.Most treatment plants at military installationsare trickling filters and sludge from the finalclarifiers is routinely returned to the primarysettling tanks for subsequent solids withdrawal.Thus, the combined primary-secondary sludgequantities in table 7-1 are most appropriate andshould be used for planning purposes. Whenchemical precipitation methods are employed forphosphorus removal or other purposes, the solidsshown in table 7-1 will increase to a leveldependent on the type and quantity of chemicaladdition and the chemical characteristics of theraw wastewater. The quantity of chemical sludgemust be estimated for each application and, inmost instances, will warrant bench testing priorto facility design.

Table 7-1. Typical raw sludge quantities

Dry Solids Per DaySludge Type lb/capita

Primary Sludge 0.12-0.20Secondary Sludge 0.05-0.20Combined Primary & Secondary 0.17-0.40

b. Volatility. The volatile solids content ofundigested primary and/or secondary sludges is60 to 80 percent. The volatile solids loading isparticularly important for sizing digesters.

c. Specific gravity. The specific gravity of thedry volatile solids is about 1.0 and dry fixedsolids about 2.5. The specific gravity of a particu-lar mixture of sludges depends upon the relativefraction of volatile solids. Most wet raw sludgeshave a specific gravity ranging from about 1.01to 1.03.

d. Solids content. The percent dry solids offresh sludges drawn from clarifiers range asshown in table 7-2. Sludges can be efficientlypumped when the dry solids content is under 5 to6 percent. Most sludges over 10 percent drysolids content must be transported as a semi-solidusing such equipment as conveyor belts.

Table 7-2. Typical raw sludge solids content

Solids Content(percent dry solids

Sludge Type by weight)Primary 2.5-5.0Trickling Filter 5.0-8.0

7-1

TM 5-814-8

Table 7-2. Typical raw sludge solids content–ContinuedSolids Content

(percent dry solidsSludge Type by weight)

Combined Trickling Filter andPrimary 3.0-6.0

Activated Sludge 0.5-1.5Combined Activated and Primary 3.0-5.0

7-3. Conditioning and stabilization

For most military installations, disposal of sludgein landfills or on the land will be cost-effectiveand must be utilized. The rare exceptions areareas where incineration can be justified by theexcessively long hauling distances required forreaching an acceptable disposal site or by thepresence of industrial wastes that preclude landdisposal. These land disposal methods requiresome previous stabilization step to avoid environ-mental degradation.

a. Anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion,although sometimes difficult to control, is a verydesirable and proven stabilization step. It con-serves energy when the system produces a com-bustible gas that can be used for sludge heatingand for other purposes. The process will functionwell in most climates and renders a stabilizedsludge. For military installations, anaerobic diges-tion shall be used unless highly variable solidsloads are expected or unless local factors justifyuse of alternative processes. The most importantfactor for sizing digester capacity is the volatilesolids loading. TM 5-814-3 should be referred tofor acceptable design criteria.

b. Aerobic digestion. Aerobic digestion is astabilization process applicable to facilities whereblowers are installed or are required for the liquidtreatment operations. Since most military plantsdo not have blower systems, aerobic digestion willnot be feasible. Other disadvantages are highpower requirements and low efficiencies for mili-tary installations located in extreme northernclimates. Aerobic digestion may have applicationat small package plant facilities or where wideload variations cause difficulties with anaerobicdigestion.

c. Thermal conditioning. “Cooking” sludge un-der elevated temperature and pressure is a ther-mal conditioning and stabilization process receiv-ing more attention in the U.S. It eliminateschemicals needed to condition a sludge prior todewatering and also increases dewatering rates.Disadvantages are that it is a fuel consumerunless heat recovered from a combustion processis available, and supernatant recycle flows can

add 15 to 30 percent additional BOD load on theliquid treatment system. Generally, thermal sys-tems are only practical for larger plants, greaterthan 10 mgd, or for special applications where high bacteriological kills are necessary for landdisposal.

d. Chemical conditioning. Where mechanicaldewatering is utilized, some form of chemicalconditioning is common. Most plants find thatlime and/or ferric chloride produce the best re-sults and are most economical. Where disposal ofnondigested sludges occur, high lime treatment(pH of 11.5 for over 2 hours) will render astabilized sludge. Lime, unlike ferric salts, is abactericide which assists in treating the sludge.

7-4. Thickening

Most military facilities recycle secondary sludgesto the primary tanks. Since most plants aretrickling filters, the resulting sludge mixture is inthe 5 percent dry solids range and thickening istherefore not warranted. At new activated sludgeinstallations, thickening may be necessary due tothe low solids content; flotation will usually becost-effective for these applications. Gravitythickening is appropriate for combined sludges.

a. Gravity. Gravity thickening is accomplishedin a tank equipped with a slowly rotating rakemechanism that breaks the bridge between sludgeparticles, thereby increasing settling and compac-tion. The primary objective of a thickener is toprovide a concentrated sludge underflow. Thedesign of a mechanical thickener is generallybased upon a solids loading rate. Typical solidsloading rates are in the range of 10 to 30 lbs/sqft/day. Gravity thickeners should be designed tomaintain aerobic conditions in the unit. Anaerobicconditions may cause floating sludge and odorproblems with the unit. Thickener performancecan be improved by the addition of coagulant tothe influent feed. Polyelectrolytes are the mostcommon type of coagulant aid used in thickening.

b. Dissolved air flotation. Thickening throughdissolved air flotation is becoming increasinglypopular and is particularly applicable to gelati-nous sludges such as activated sludge. Flotationthickeners can be loaded at higher levels thangravity thickeners because of a more rapid sepa-ration of the solids from the sewage. Loadings aretypically in the range of 10 to 55 lbs/sq ft/daydepending on the sludge and the degree ofconditioning. In flotation thickening, small airbubbles released from solution attach themselvesto and become enmeshed in the sludge floes. Theair-solid mixture rises to the surface of the basin,

7-2

TM 5-814-8

.

where it concentrates and is removed. The pri-mary variables are recycle ratio, feed solids con-centration, air-to-solids (A/S) ratio, and solids andhydraulic loading rates. Air pressures between 40to 60 psi are commonly employed. The recycleratio is related to the air-to-solids ratio and thefeed solids concentration (72). Experience hasshown. that in some cases dilution of the feedsludge to a lower concentration increases theconcentration of the floated solids. The use ofpolyelectrolytes will usually increase the solidscapture and the thickened sludge concentration.

c. Centrifuges. Centrifugation is employed bothfor the thickening and the dewatering of sludges.The process of centrifugation is an acceleration ofthe process of sedimentation by the application ofcentrifugal forces. There are three types of centri-fuges available; the solid bowl, the basket typeand the disc-nozzle separator. The basic differencebetween the types of centrifuges is the method inwhich solids are collected in and discharged fromthe bowl. Sludge solids settle through the liquidpool and are compacted by centrifugal forceagainst the walls of the bowl and are thenconveyed by the screw conveyor to the drying orbeach end of the bowl. The beach area is aninclined section of the bowl where furtherdewatering occurs before the solids are dischargedover adjustable weirs at the opposite end of thebowl (80) Typically, centrifuges can thicken anactivated sludge to a concentration of 5 to 10percent without chemical addition.

7-5. Dewatering

a. Drying beds. When stabilized sludge is de-posited in a wet condition on the land, nodewatering is practiced. For facilities that requiredewatering prior to disposal and have sufficientland area, drying beds are cost-effective andshould be used. Usually drying beds will befeasible up to plant capacities of about 1 mgd.Sufficient storage should be provided in digestersto allow operational flexibility.

b. Vacuum filters. Vacuum filtration is themost widely applied mechanical dewateringmethod in the U.S. This method is well estab-lished for removing moisture from sludge and canachieve from 15 to 25 percent solids concentra-tion in the cake after dewatering. Vacuum filtersshall be used for mechanical dewatering unlessother methods are cost-effective for special appli-cations.

c. Belt presses. The belt press is a recentlydeveloped piece of dewatering equipment that

presses sludge between two porous belts thatforces water from the sludge through compres-sion. The pressing operation is continuous and isusually preceeded by a chemical addition phasewhere flocculants are added to improve thedewatering characteristics of the sludge. With theproper conditioning, belt presses can achieve acake solid in the 20 to 30 percent range foractivated sludge and up to 35 to 40 percent cakesolids for metal hydroxide sludges.

d. Plate presses. Filter presses are an alterna-tive to vacuum filters and belt presses. Filterpresses have higher capital and operating coststhan either of the previous alternates, but pro-duce a drier cake (solids concentrations in therange of 25 to 40 percent). These units may bedesirable at some installations to minimize fuelrequirements when a combustion process followsor to reduce haul costs when long distances areinvolved.

7-6. Incineration

Sludge incineration reduces the volume handled inthe transportation and ultimate disposal stepsand sterilizes the residue. High investment andoperating costs, and stringent air pollution crite-ria are significant considerations in determiningthe need for incineration. Fuel is also a factor andwithout sufficient dewatering (to at least 35percent solids) the furnaces will be energy con-sumers. Rarely has incineration been used atmilitary treatment facilities and it shall be evalu-ated only for special applications or land scarceareas. Fluidized bed furnaces may be consideredfor some industrial wastes. Multiple hearth unitsare predominantly used to burn sewage sludge.Mixing sludge with refuse for burning takesadvantage of the net heat generated by refusecombustion.

7-7. Other processes

Many other sludge handling, processing and dis-posal operations have been tried and are in use atother than military installations and some pro-cesses are currently in the technical developmentstage. These include pyrolysis, heat drying,comporting, freeze dewatering, drying lagoons,rail and barge transport systems, fertilizer pro-duction and others. Most of these are not practi-cal or feasible for military facilities. Authority todeviate from using the proven processes pre-sented in this section must be obtained fromHQDA (DAEN-ECE-G) WASH DC 20314.

7-3

TM 5-814-8

7-8. Solids handling process compari- for military facilities. These comparisons of pre-

sons liminary treatment steps, applications, resourceconsumption, operat ions and other fac tors are

Table 7-3 presents a general comparison of the merely to summarize typical applications. Localsludge unit processes which may be considered factors will, of course, cause some exceptions.

7-4

Table 7-3. Summary of solids handling and disposal

Major Equipment PreliminaryUnit Processes Purpose Required Treatment Steps App lication

None. All plant sizes and sludgetypes. Usually not used formilitary plants since trick-ling filter sludges predomi-nate which are returnedto the primary.

Thickening Reduce volume handled insubsequent steps by re-moval of water.

Gravity or flotation equip-ment, tanks, usually coversfor flotation.

A.

9.

c.

D.

Sometimes thickening. All plant sizes. Is particu-larlydesirable for militaryinstallation.

Anaerobic Digestion Biologically stabilizes Tanks, covers, gas collec-tion equipment, heat ex-changers, and mixingequipment.

and transforms sludge intoa material suitable fordisposal on the land.

on Biologically stabilizesand transforms sludge intoa material suitable fordisposal on the land.

ioning/ Thermally conditions sludgefor dewatering without

Sometimes thickening. Usually plants under 15 to20 mgd.

Tanks and aerationequipment.

Aerobic Digest<

Thermal ConditStabilization

Usually economical forplants larger than10 mgd.

Must have a thickenedsludge for economicaloperation.

Thermal reactor, steamgenerating equipment, heatexchangers, sludge, grinder,pumps and piping, anddecant tanks.

chemicals and-stabilizesthe material by heat dis-infection for subsequentland disposal.

Reduces the sludge moisturecontent for easier handlingin final disposal, changessludge from a liquid to asemi-solid.

Mechanical Dewatering Reduces the sludge moisturecontent for easier handling

E. Sludge Drying Beds Usually plants under 1 mgd.Limited to areas which havesufficient land.

Land, sand and gravel beds,and underdrain system.

Must have digestion toavoid odors.

May be used for raw ordigested sludges. Equip-

Filter units, pumps,piping, conveyor equipment,

Digestion, thermal con-ditioning or chemical

F.

in final disposal, changes-

sludge from a liquid to asemi-solid.

Reduces hauling and finaldisposal land requirements.Provides acceptable materialfor disposal.

Dispose of sludge solidsunder soil cover in anenvirornmentally acceptablemanner.

Disposes of sludge solidson the land in an environ-mentally acceptable manner.

chemical conditioning facili-ties, and building.

conditioning, usuallythickening.

Dewatering.

Stabilization and de-watering

Stabilization.

ment selection dependenton means of disposal

Mainly for very large plants(over 10mgd) in metropoli-ton areas where land is ex-tremely scarce and costly.

All plant sizes.

G. Sludge Incineration Furnaces, feed and airblower equipment, ashhandling equipment, andair pollution control

Land and landfill equip-ment.

H. Landfill

I. Land Spreading Land, pumping, piping,storage ponds, mixers,and spray equipment forliquid sludge; or tractors,and solids storage andspreading equipment fordewatered sludge.

Table 7-3 (Cont’d). Summary of solids handling and disposalResource Aesthetic

Performance Economics Consumption Operation Side Streams Problems

Increases solid contentto the 4 to 6 percentrange

Flotation requires closer Supernatant or sub-operator attention, natant return must beparticularly if chemicals considered in design.are used.Requires close operator Supernatant return mustattention; subject to be considered in design.upsets with wide varia-tions In load.Relatively free of upsets Surpernatant return must

Potential odors ifimproperly operated.

Flotation is usually lowerin capital but higher inoperating.

Lower power use; flota-tion is higher thangravity.

A.

B.

c.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

Digested sludge readilydewaters and isstabilized for sub-sequent disposal.Digested sludge some-times difficult to de-water. Stabilizedsludge for subsequentdisposals.

Eliminates use ofchemicals for con-ditioning. Stabilizessludge for land dis-posal. Improvedcake moisture.

Relatively high capitalcosts.

Produces combustiblegas for the process andother uses; also producesa soil conditioner.

Improperly operatedunits will produceodors.

Lower capital coststhan anaerobic digestion,but operating costs arehigher.

Higher energy use thananaerobic digestion.

Improperly operatedunits will produceodors

Poor operation in cold be considered in design.climates. Simpler opera-tion than anaerobicdigestion.

High capital and operatingcosts.

Large fuel use. Skilled labor required A major portion ofthe sludge is resolubil-ized and is returned asa supernatant. This loadmust be considered in theliquid treatment faci-lities design loading.

Underdrainage must bereturned to the plant.

Odors may resultwith improper opera-tion.

Proper dewatering canbe accomplished, butis usually difficultto control since itis weather dependent.

Sludge cake solidscontent: vacuum filter15 to 25 percent;belt press 20 to30 percent; filterpress 25 to 40percent.Renders a sterile ashwhich can be readilydisposed of on theland. Air pollutioncontrol can be aproblem.

Suitable disposal tech-nique with properfacility siting andoperation.

Usually lower costs thanmechanical dewateringuntil large areas arerequired.

Minimal power orchemical use. Large landusage.

Normally poor winteroperation.

Potential odors.

Power use high. Smallland area used.

High capital andoperating costs.

Nearly continuousoperator attentionrequired.

Filtrate return must bebe considered in design.

Odors for personnelworking in buildingwith equipment.

High capital andoperating costs.

Large fuel use. Dis-regards other bene-ficial uses of thewaste solids.

Skilled operatorsrequired.

Air emissions must becontrolled, scrubberwater returnmust be considered

Potential odor andparticulates fromexhaust gases If notproperly operated.

Minimal fuel and landuse.

Moderate costs. De-pendent on land valuesin the specific area.

Mixing with refuse isdesirable for efficientoperation.

None unless materialis improperly stabi-lized or landfill isnot properly locatedor operated.

Potential odors Ifimproperly operated.

Suitable disposal tech-niques with properfacility siting andoperation. Carefulcontrol of applica-tion rates and otherfactors are particu-

Moderate costs. Oe-pendent on land valuesin the specific area.

Minimal fuel use.Moderate power use withliquid spreading. Highland use, but solidsused beneficially as asoil conditioner.

Winter storage facil-ities are needed incold climates. Applica-tion to the land isquite dependent oncrops, soils, andweather.

None unless materialis Improperly stabil-ized or applied.

Potential odors ifimproperly operated.Use of large landareas for sludgedisposal may bea problem in someareas.

larly importantliquid sludge.

for

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 8

SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND PERFORMANCE

8-1. Introduction

This chapter will discuss system alternatives andperformance data for wastewater treatment andsolids handling systems commonly used for mili-tary installations. Information and descriptivedata on available unit operations and processeshave been included and are presented herein toenable the establishment of sound engineeringand economic relationships among alternatives.This chapter principally addresses domestic treat-ment methods with notations concerning theimpact of industrial or military wastes. Theoreti-cal and design factors are not covered andreference should be made to textbooks and theU.S. EPA design manuals listed in the bibliogra-phy for more detailed description of wastewatertreatment methods and limitations. Appendices Cand D present design and cost factors also.

8-2. Wastewater treatment systems

a Treatment system alternatives.(1) Treatment evaluations. For some installa-.

tions, certain alternatives may readily be ex-cluded from consideration due to climate, landrequirements, flow quantity and other factors.Most installations, however, will require evalua-tion of several treatment alternatives to eitherupgrade existing systems or provide new facili-ties. The treatment alternatives presented hereinare proven methods which are most practical forwastes from military installations. Many otherprocesses have been tried or are in use at otherthan military installations and some are currentlyin the technical development stage. Authority todeviate from using the proven methods in thissection must be obtained from HQDA (DAEN-ECE-G) WASH DC 20314.

(2) Treatment alternatives. Wastewater treat-ment methods which shall be considered formilitary wastes areSystem alternativesdegree of treatment:

–Preliminary.–Primary.–Secondary.–Advanced.

Within each of the

categorized in figure 8-1.are arranged by increasing

broad treatment classifica-tions, there is a listing of principal unit processes.These represent those alternatives most generallyapplicable to military facilities. Combinations of

processes can be arranged to effect the desireddegree of treatment.

(3) Size of installations requiring treatment.Specific data are not presented in this manual onthe sizes and types of unit processes or opera-tions employed at Army installations, but statis-tical data indicate over one-half of the Armyinstallations are receiving less than 1.0 mgd ofwastewater flow. Table 8-1 shows that less than2 percent exceed 10.0 mgd. These data are basedon all reported Army installations including bothdomestic and industrial wastewater sources,government-owned, government-operated (GOGO),at U.S. as well as overseas facilities. The intent ofthis information is to classify the size range ofexisting facilities and thus determine which unitprocesses or operations must receive emphasis onthe basis of size alone. It is apparent thatprocesses applicable to small installations willpredominate (97).

Table 8-1. Classification of Army facilities by wastewater flowAverage Wastewater Number of Facilities

Flow Category As Percentmgd In Category of Total

0.1 14 10.80.1-1.0 61 47.3

1.0-10.1 52 40.310.0 2 1.6

129 100.0

(4) Type of installations requiring treatment.These are five basic types of military installa-tions, all of which require different considerationsfor wastewater treatment.

(a) Large camps-equivalent to a Divisionplus families and day workers; usually haveyear-round domestic flows in the 2 to 5 mgdrange.

(b) Summer training camps-Division sizeload during the summer; very small flows inwinter.

(c) Reserve training centers–about oneweek per month may have up to 600 personnel;other times, only 5 to 10.

(d) Army depots–essentially warehouse op-erations; up to about 1000 personnel, includingfamilies; relatively steady year-round flows.

(e) Industrial installations-small domesticflows.

(5) Degree of treatment required. Under Ex-ecutive Order 12088, Federal agencies must en-

8-1

PRELIMINARY

OTHER METHODS

SEDIMENTATIONWITH CHEMICAL

COAGULATION PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL

OTHER METHODS OTHER METHODS

NITROGEN REMOVAL

Figure 8-1. Alternative wastewater treatment processes for military installations.

TM 5-814-8

sure that their facilities are designed, constructed,managed, operated and maintained to conformwith Federal, State, interstate and local waterquality standards and effluent limitations. Thesestandards are or will be established in accordancewith the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, asamended. All the U.S. EPA wastewater treatmentrequirements in furtherance of the Act have notyet been established. Treatment requirements forsome industrial categories have been delayed dueto lack of developed technology; however, perti-nent U.S. EPA regulations should be investigatedfor specific details at a particular location. TheU.S. EPA has set effluent limitations for publicly-owned and industrial wastewater treatment facili-ties. Interpretation of these requirements as theyapply to military installations is as follows:

(a) Military installations which providewastewater treatment for principally domesticsources will be required to meet criteria as setforth for publicly-owned facilities.

(b) Military installations which generate in-dustrial or process wastewaters will be requiredto meet either limitations set forth by thatspecific industrial classification or limitations for-mulated by the U.S. EPA for that class ofFederal facility.

b. System performance.(1) Introduction. For the flow schemes pre-

sented in table 8-2, typical concentrations ofimportant wastewater constituents are given fol-lowing various stages of treatment. These concen-trations shall serve only as a general guide forpreliminary planning purposes. It is emphasizedthat wastewater concentrations, both raw andtreated at various stages, may vary widely fromthose shown for a specific military installation. Inmany cases, bench or pilot studies will be neces-sary to predict the unit process loadings andremoval efficiencies that would be used in finaldesign. The wastewater treatment alternativesshown in table 8-2 include treatment processesdesigned to convert or remove various forms ofthe following constituents:

–Carbonaceous BOD.–Suspended solids.–Nitrogen.–Phosphorus.

(2) Preliminary and primary treatment. Pri-mary sedimentation will remove a significantfraction of the suspended solids in the rawwastewater. It also removes the insoluble BOD,nitrogen (primarily organic nitrogen), and phos-phorus associated with the removed suspendedsolids.

(3) Secondary treatment. Secondary biologicaltreatment will convert most of the soluble andnonsettleable organic material into biological cellmass. In the process, much of the organic nitro-gen will be converted to ammonia. A smallfraction of the nitrogen, as well as a portion ofthe phosphorus, will be tied up in the biologicalcell mass. The degree of bio-flocculation of the cellmass will determine the efficiency of suspendedsolids removal in the final sedimentation step.The activated sludge system achieves better bio-flocculation than the trickling filter process;therefore, suspended solids in the final effluentfrom an activated sludge system are generallylower than a trickling filter system.

(4) Advanced treatment.(a) Filtration. Filtration of a secondary ef-

fluent will reduce suspended solids considerably.The BOD is also lowered by the amount due tothe suspended solids in the secondary effluent.Usually the soluble BOD in a secondary effluentis below 10 mg/L, so the majority of the BOD isexerted by the suspended organic material.Again, trickling filter system effluents are not aswell flocculated as activated sludge system ef-fluents; therefore, multi-media filtered effluentsfrom trickling filters will contain higher sus-pended solids than filtered effluents from anactivated sludge system.

(b) Vitrification. Little vitrification takesplace in either the high rate trickling filter oractivated sludge process at normal design load-ings. To assure good vitrification, a second stagetrickling filter system or suspended growth nitri-fication system should be employed. These sys-tems can reduce ammonia to about 2 to 4 mg/l,and will also result in a reduction in thecarbonaceous BOD.

(c) Phosphorus removal. Phosphorus re-moval may be accomplished by mineral or limeaddition to the primary sedimentation tank, limeclarification of the secondary effluent, or additionof lime or minerals to the final clarifier oftrickling filter systems. Side benefits of theseprocesses are suspended solids removal alongwith removal of nitrogen and carbonaceous BODassociated with the suspended solids. Mineraladdition to the primary sedimentation tank is theleast expensive process where phosphorus remov-als of less than 90 percent are required. Bench orpilot studies are necessary to determine the bestchemicals to use as well as the required chemicaldosage. Lime clarification of the secondary efflu-ent is the process to use if high degrees ofphosphorus removal are required. With low alka-linity wastewaters, a two-stage lime clarification

8-3

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-2. Performance of typical wastewater treatment system alternatives

Influent Concentrations FollowingConstituent Concentration Treatment Units

(mg/L) 1 2 (mg/L)

BOD 300 150 40

SuspendedSolids 300 90 40

Phosphate 20 4 2(as P)

Ammonia 25 25 22(as N)

OrganicNitrogen(as N)

Nitrate(as N)

25 10 4

0 0 5

1 2

BOD 300 150 25

SuspendedSolids 300 90 25

Phosphate 20 4 2(as P)

Ammonia 25 25 26(as N)

OrganicNitrogen(as N)

Nitrate(as N)

25

0

10 3

0 2

8-4

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-2 (Cent’d). Performance of typical wastewater treatment systemalternatives

HIGH-RATE SECOND STAGETRICKLING TRICKLING MULTl-

PRELIMINARY PRIMARY FILTER FILTER MEDIA CARBONTREATMENT SEDIMENT~lON S Y S T E M SYSTEM FILTRATION A d s o r p t i o n

Influent Concentrations FollowingConstituent Concentration Treatment Units

(mg/L) 1 2 3(mg/L)4 5

BOD

SuspendedSolids

Phosphate(as P)

Ammonia(as N)

Organ i cNitrogen(as N)

Nitrate(as N)

PRELIMINARYTREATMENT

300 195

300 120

20 18

25 25

25 15

0 0

ACTIVATEDPRIMARY SLUDGE

SEDIMENTATION SYSTEM

45 25 10

50 30 10

14 12 11

26 4 4

5 3 1

4 2727SUSPENDEDGROWTH MULTl-t’J\TstW~~ATION MEDIA

FILTRATION

2

10

11

4

1

27

CARBONADSORPTION

~~1 2 3 4 5

BOD 300 195 30 15 5 1

SuspendedSolids 300 120 30 20 3 3

Phosphate 20 18 14 13 11 11(as P)

Amnonia 25 25 30 3(as N)

3 3

Organ i cNitro en(as N7

Nitrate(as N)

25

0

15

0

4 2 1

1 29 29 29

8-5

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-2 (Cent’d). Performance of typical wastewater treatment systemalternatives

Influent Concentrations FollowingConstituent Concentration Treatment Units

(mg/L) 1 2 3 (mg/L)4

BOD 300 195 45

SuspendedSolids 300 120 50

Phosphate 20 18 14(as P)

Ammonia 25 25 26(as N)

OrganicNitrogen 25 15 5(as N)

Nitrate o 0 4(as N)

ACTIVATEDPRELIMINARY PRIMARY SLUDGETREATMENT SEDIMENTATION SYSTEM

20 10

20 2

2 1

24 24

2 1

4 4

MULTl-LIME MEDIA

CLARIFICATION FILTRATION

1 2 3 4

BOD 300 195

SuspendedSolids 300 120

Phosphate 20 18(as P)

Ammonia 25 25(as N)

Organ i cNitrogen 25 15(as N)

Nitrate o 0(as N)

30 10 5

30 15 2

14 2 1

30 28 28

4 2 1

1 1 1

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-2 (Cent’d). Performance of typical wastewater treatment systemalternatives

HIGH-RATE SECOND STAGETRICKLING TRICKLING MULTl-

PRELIMINARY PRIMARY FILTER FILTER LIME MEDIA CARBONTREATMENT SEDIMENTATlON SYSTEM SYSTEM CLARIFICATION FILTRATION Adsorpt ion

5

Influent Concentrations FollowingConstituent Concentration Treatment Units

(mg/L) 1 2 3(mg/L)4 5 6

BOO

SuspendedSolids

phosphate(As P)

Ammonia(as N)

OrganicNitrogen(as N)

Nitrate(as N)

PRELIMINARYTREATMENT

300

300

30

25

25

0

PRIMARYSEDIMENTATION

195 45

120 50

18 14

25 26

15 5

0 4SUSPENDED

ACTIVATED GROWTHSLUDGE NITRIFICAT10NSYSTEM

25

30

12

4

3

27

LIMECLARIFICATION

10

15

2

4

2

27

7 2

1 1

1 1

4 4

1 1

27 27

MULTi-MEDIA CARBONFILTRATION ADSORPTION

BOD 300 195 30 15 5 4 1

SuspendedSolids 300 120 30 20 10 1 1

Phosphate 30 18 14 13 2 1 1(as P)

Ammonia 25 25 30 3 3 3 3(as N)

OrganicNitrogen(as N)

Nitrate(as N)

25

0

15 4

0 1

2

29

2 1 1

29 29 29

8-7

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-2 (Cont’d). Performance of typical wastewater treatment systemalternatives

HIGH-RATETRICKLING MULTl-

PRELIMINARY PRIMARY FILTER MEDIATREATMENT SEDIMENTATlON SYSTEM FILTRATION

Influent Concentrations FollowingConstituent Concentration Treatment Units

(mg/L) 1 2 3(mg/L)

BOO 300 195 45 15

SuspendedSolids 300

20

120 50 15

18 14 12Phosphate(as P)

Ammonia(as N)

25 25 26 26

Organ i cNitrogen(as N)

25 15 5 1

0 0 4Nitrate(as N)

1 2 3

BOD 300 195 30 10

SuspendedSolids 300

20

120

18

30 6

14 12Phosphate(as P)

Ammonia(as N)

25 25 30 30

OrganicNitrogen(as N)

25

0

15

0

4

1

1

1Nitrate(as N)

TM 5-814-8

process may be necessary. The need for a single-stage or two-stage process along with requiredlime dosages can only be determined from benchor pilot studies. Filtration of a lime clarifiedsecondary effluent will generally result in effluentphosphorus concentrations less than 1 mg/L be-cause of the removal of phosphorus tied up withthe suspended solids in the effluent from limeclarification (142).

(d) Additional suspended solids and organicremoval. Various combinations of lime clarifica-tion and/or filtration can reduce wastewater BODto the 5 to 10 mg/L range, and suspended solidsto 1 mg/L or less. In order to get the BOD below5 mg/L, it is almost always necessary to use agranular carbon adsorption step. Carbon willadsorb most of the soluble organic compoundsthat cause the remaining BOD. A properly de-signed and operated carbon adsorption step canreduce the final wastewater BOD to as low as 1to 2 mg/L.

(e) Land treatment. An alternative to theseveral mechanical treatment processes followingsecondary treatment in table 8-2 is land applica-tion. Many military installations which have con-siderable land of the proper soil characteristicsmay find that land treatment is a cost-effectivealternative. With proper site location and opera-tion, disposal of a secondary-treated effluent tothe land will provide treatment equivalent to orbetter than that from a carbon adsorption systemor other mechanical facilities.

8-3. Effluent discharge alternatives

a. Surface water. Analysis of the impact ofwastewater discharge on the receiving surfacewater (stream, lake, ocean, estuary) requires infor-mation on a number of parameters for properformulation. For example, the impact of a dis-charge on the oxygen resources requires knowl-edge of the deoxygenation rate of the wastewater;reaeration rate of the stream; physical character-istics of the stream including flows, geometry andvelocities; stream and waste temperatures; qualityof the stream prior to discharge; and characteris-tics of other waste discharges along the stream.Methods for analyzing the impact of effluentsdischarged to surface waters are well documented(43)(147)(149). The impact of constituents otherthan those which affect oxygen can be evaluatedusing some of the same analytical techniques asindicated for oxygen. Normally in the U. S., Stateand Federal pollution control regulatory agencieswill provide performance criteria for treatmentwhich negates the need for extensive streamsurveys. In foreign locations, however, more anal-

yses of the impact of an effluent on the streammay be necessary.

b. Land application. Land treatment can be aneffective means of providing advanced treatmentfor secondary effluents and shall be consideredfor military installations requiring a high degreeof treatment. Approaches for spreading treatedeffluent on the land can be classified as eitherrapid infiltration-percolation, overland flow, orspray irrigation. Evaluation, design and costingmethods for land application are available(53)(71)(72)(126). Regulatory agencies should beconsulted for specific project applications.

(1) Rapid infiltration-percolation. Thismethod consists of dosing spreading basins on anintermittent basis to maintain high infiltrationrates. The main portion of the wastewater entersthe groundwater after filtering and treatment bythe soil, although there is some loss to evapora-tion. Soils are usually deep, permeable types suchas coarse textured sands, silty sands or sandysilts.

(2) Overland flow. This technique is the con-trolled discharge, by spraying or other means, ofeffluent onto the land with a large portion of thewastewater appearing as run-off. Soils suited tooverland flow are clays and clay silts with limiteddrainability. The land for an overland flow treat-ment site should have a moderate slope. In theU. S., overland flow has been developed mainly fortreatment for high-strength wastewater, such asthat from canneries. This process has not beenextensively used for the treatment of domesticwastewater in the U. S., although Australia hasused it for this purpose for a number of years,with BOD and suspended solids removals ofabout 95 percent.

(3) Spray irrigation. This process is the con-trolled discharge of secondary treated effluent, byspraying on land to support plant growth. Maxi-mum amounts of wastewater consistent with cropyields may be applied. Although overland flowand infiltration-percolation may have merit underspecial circumstances, irrigation is probably thebest method for application to different soil typesand cultural practices. In addition, irrigationmaximizes nutrient benefits of the wastes. How-ever, precautions and safeguards against contami-nation by aerosol dispersion of pathogenic organ-isms or viruses by spray application is necessary(7).

(4) Design considerations. Some factors to beconsidered when evaluating the applicability of anirrigation system are the amount of availableland, the need for reclaimed water, wastewatercharacteristics and flow rates, and type of soil at

8-9

TM 5-814-8

available sites. Other factors which are importantin site selection include climate, soil characteris-tics and depth, topography, and hydrologic andgeologic considerations. For land treatment appli-cations, the equivalent of secondary treatentshould be provided. Normally, the chlorinatedeffluent from existing ponds or trickling filters atmilitary installations can be applied to the landwithout further treatment.

(a) Hydraulic capacity. Whenever possible,the site should be selected so the pollutantremoval capacity of the soils is the limiting factorrather than the hydraulic capability. This willminimize the land area needed. The hydrauliccapacity will vary with each site since it isdependent upon the type of soil, local precipita-tion and whether or not underdrains are provided.Where agricultural crops are the means by whichthe wastewater effluent is reused, an applicationrate of about two inches per week seems to be acontrolling factor. The local precipitation, winterclimate, type of crops and soils all dictate theproper schedule and the area of land needed forland application.

(b) Nitrogen capacity. One of the aspects ofwastewater irrigation that is not well defined isthe allowable nitrogen loading. Some nitrogen isevaporated during application, the soil can elimi-nate some, the crops can utilize a portion, butnitrates can still be transported to the groundwa-ter. The acceptable nitrogen loading rate dependsupon the type of soil and crop. It is oftennecessary to limit the nitrogen loading to theamount that crops can assimilate in certain typesof soil. This may require a reduction in the liquidloading rate in some areas and at certain times ofthe year.

(c) Phosphorus capacity. Some limitationson long term use of sites for land treatment maydevelop from the phosphorus balance. The soilcan accumulate a certain amount, but after aperiod of time phosphorus will leach with therenovated water. Special soil surveys are neededto assess the life of a site when the phosphorusloading is considered.

(d) Organic capacity. The biodegradableorganics measured by the BOD test can be almosttotally removed by the soil matrix. This overallremoval generally occurs in the upper 5 to 6inches of soil, and the major filtration oftenoccurs in the top few centimeters.

(e) Beneficial use. In climatic zones whereirrigation is required, land application of effluentsfrom military installations handling primarily do-mestic wastes is quite feasible. In areas whereirrigation is of less benefit, the need for an

economic and feasible alternative to surface waterdisposal is an important factor for consideringland applications.

c. Other. Several other methods of effluentdischarge are available depending on the circum-stances at particular military installations. Atfacilities needing large quantities of cooling wa-ter, reuse of a well-treated (secondary) wastewaterfor such purposes is often practical. Similarly,water reuse occurs indirectly when discharge is toa stream rather than to the land. Reuse is alsopracticed quite often when treated effluents areused to spray golf courses, park facilities, andother such areas which may exist at militaryinstallations. In arid areas, effluent dischargemay approach zero with proper use of evaporationponds. Some wastewater treatment facilities now utilize this technique of evaporation for finaleffluent disposal. Both water reuse evaporationmethods should be considered in planning pollu-tion control programs at military installations.

8-4. Solids handling systems

a. System alternatives. A line diagram of thesludge handling and disposal systems whichshould receive consideration at military installa-tions is presented as figure 8-2. The sludgehandling steps are arranged in sequential orderfrom left to right with various alternatives under each major step. These systems are discussed inthis section and figure 8-1 shows the systemwhich is applicable to most military installationsconsidering the size and existing facilities. Avail-able references (55) and (125) can provide acomprehensive summary on detailed design crite-ria and extensive bibliographies on sludge han-dling. Some design criteria are summarized inappendix B for sludge handling processes thatcan be utilized to make preliminary cost-effectivecomparisons with cost curves presented in appen-dix A.

b. Existing systems. Military facilities com-monly have existing sludge handling facilitiesconsisting of anaerobic digestion plus dewateringand landfill or land spreading disposal. Thesehandle settled solids from primary units or thecombined solids from both primary and secondaryunits. Evaluations of facility upgrading mustconsider the interrelationship of the existing liq-uid and solids handling operations. For example,where sufficient digester capacity exists, it maybe cost-effective to utilize a liquid treatmentprocess which produces more solids than another alternative. When the sludge system is nearcapacity, the choice of a particular liquid treat-

8-10

Figure 8-2. Alternative sludge processing systems for military installations.

TM 5-814-8

ment plan may be dictated by the need to expandthe solids processing facilities.

c. Solids disposal alternatives. The two mostfeasible methods for disposing of sewage solidsfrom military installations include sanitary land-fill and land spreading.

(1) Landfill. Disposing of dewatered sewagesludge with refuse in a sanitary landfill is nor-mally an economical operation. Sewage solidstend to sift among the voids in compacted refuse,and nominal land savings are achieved. Combin-ing the two waste materials at one facility is alsodesirable from a management standpoint.

(2) Landfarm. Land spreading dewatered sew-age sludge is currently used by several militaryoperations and is a cost-effective alternative tosanitary landfill. The land spreading techniquecan be utilized for either liquid or dewateredsludge, but the sludge must be stabilized; rawsludge application is unacceptable. This disposalmethod effectively utilizes the soil conditioningcharacteristics of the sewage solids. Proper moni-toring and close attention to procedures employedduring spreading are required to avoid potentialenvironmental difficulties. Land requirements forspreading are greater than landfill; consequently,this method is feasible only where sufficient landarea is available.

d. System performance.(1) Introduction. The performance of solids

handling systems is dependent upon many vari-ables including: solids loading, operation, chemicaladdition, equipment maintenance and waste char-acteristics. These variables will greatly affect theoutput of the unit and should be considered whendesigning the system and when comparing perfor-mance data from similar type units. The perfor-mance and general design criteria discussed beloware recorded average values and should be usedas guidelines in preparation of design documentsor in reviewing the performance of an existingfacility. Bench scale testing or jar tests arerecommended to determine the optimum operat-ing point or quantity of chemical required. Foradditional information, refer to the U.S. EPAProcess Design Manual, “Sludge Treatment andDisposal”. For additional description of the typesof solids handling systems available, refer tochapter 7.

(2) Conditioning and stabilization. Sludgeconditioning is generally described as a pretreat-ment of sludge to improve water removal by amethod of thickening or dewatering. Common

conditioning methods include:—Polymer addition.—Inorganic chemical addition.—Heat treatment.–Ash addition.(a) Chemical conditioning requirements. Ta-

ble 8-3 lists the common types of chemicals usedfor conditioning sludge and enumerates a range ofdosages common for various types of sludge.

Table 8-3. Chemical conditioning requirements forvarious sludge types (167)

FeCl3 Ca(OH) z Polymerslb/ton lb/ton lb/ton

Sludge Type dry solids dry solids dry solidsRaw Primary 20-60 0-100 3-5Primary & Activated

Sludge 80-160 0-300 6-15Activated Sludge 120-200 100-300 8-25Digested Primary 40-60 60-160 3-8Digested Primary &

Activated Sludge 120-200 100-300 6-20

(b) Heat treatment. Heat treatment ofsludge uses a combination of temperature, timeand pressure to condition a sludge without theuse of chemicals. The process significantlychanges the characteristics of the sludge bybreaking down the cellular matter and releasing amajor portion of the water in the cell mass. Thedewaterability is improved by reducing the spe-cific resistance to the sludge for filtering. Temper-atures in the range of 350 to 450 degrees F andpressures in the range of 200 to 500 psig aregenerally required. Additional information con-cerning the design of a heat treatment systemcan be found in the literature (10)(11) (167).

(c) Ash addition. Ash is primarily used as afiller to reduce chemical addition requirementsand improve the dewatering characteristics of thesludge. Generally, ash is used to improve the cakerelease from belt or filter presses and improve thedewatering of sludge in a vacuum filter. Depend-ing on the type of ash available, a hydrolysisbetween free water in the sludge and ash willresult in a dryer cake. Bench scale tests arerecommended to determine the optimum dosageof ash because excess quantities may only resultin an increased volume of sludge without anyadditional improvement in the dewaterability.

(3) Thickening. Sludge thickening can be ac-complished by a variety of methods. These meth-ods have been discussed in Chapter 7 and include:gravity, air flotation and centrification. Table 8-4summarizes typical performance data for theseprocesses for different types of sludges.

8-12

Table 8-4. Thickening characteristics of varioussludge types (percent solids) (167)

CentrificationGravity Air (solid bowl

Sludge Type Thickener Flotation type)Raw Primary 8-12 5-7 28-35Activated Sludge 2-3 3-6 12-15Trickling Filter 4-7 3-7 15-20Primary & WAS 4-6 6-8 18-24

(4) Dewatering. Dewatering is the removal ofwater from wastewater treatment plant solids toachieve a volume reduction greater than thatachieved by thickening. Dewatering is done pri-marily to decrease the capital and operating costsof the subsequent direct sludge disposal or con-version and disposal process. Dewatering sludgefrom a 5 to a 20 percent solids concentrationreduces volume by three-fourths and results in anon-fluid material. Dewatering is only one compo-nent of the wastewater solids treatment processand must be integrated into the overall waste-water treatment system so that performance ofboth the liquid and solids treatment schemes isoptimized and total costs are minimized. Thedewatering processes discussed in chapter 7 in-clude: drying beds, vacuum filters, belt pressesand plate presses.

(a) Drying beds. Drying beds are the mostcommon type of dewatering equipment in use atmilitary installations today. Drying beds are usedthroughout the United States in small and largetreatment systems; however, their use has de-clined over recent years. Their most common useis in drying of domestic wastewater sludge butsome industries also use this method. Table 8-5lists the advantages and disadvantages of sludgedry beds.

Table 8-5. Advantages and disadvantages ofusing sludge drying beds

Advantages Disadvantagesa.

b.

c.

d.

e.

When land is readily avail- a.able, this is normally thelowest capital cost.Small amount of operator b.attention and skill is re-quired.Low energy consumption. c.

Less sensitive to sludge d.variability.

Low to no chemical con- e.sumption.

Requires more land thanfully mechanical methods.

Removal usually labor in-tensive.

Lack of a rational engi-neering design approachallowing sound engineer-ing economic analysis.Must be designed withcareful concern for cli-matic effects.Requires a stabilizedsludge.

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-5. Advantages and disadvantages ofusing sludge drying beds

Advantages Disadvantagesf. Higher dry cake solids con- f. May be more visible to

tents than fully mechanical the general public.methods.

(b) Vacuum filters. Vacuum filters con-sume more energy per unit of sludge dewateredthan drying beds and are labor intensive. Perfor-mance data for vacuum filters is presented intable 8-6.

Table 8-6. Typical sludge concentrations producedby vacuum filtration

Cake Solids RateSludge Type (percent) (lb/hr/cu ft)

Raw Primary 25-30 5-10Primary & Activated Sludge 20-25 3-6Activated Sludge 12-18 2-5Digested Primary 28-32 4-6Digested Primary & 20-24 3-5Activated Sludge

(c) Belt presses. Belt press performance ishighly dependent upon chemical addition, pres-sure, cloth type, etc. and it is difficult to general-ize their operating efficiency. Table 8-7 has beenprepared as a summary of the reported minimumand maximum cake solids for various types ofsludges.

Table 8-7. Typical dewatering performance ofbelt filter presses

PolymerCake Solids Feed Solids lb/ton of

Sludge Type percent percent dry solidsRaw Primary 28-24 3-10 2-9Activated Sludge 16-32 1-3 2-4Primary & Activated

Sludge 12-28 0.5-1.5 4-12Anaerobically Digested

Activated Sludge 18-22 3-4 4-8Metal Hydroxide

Sludge 35-50 3-5 2-6

(d) Filter presses. Recessed plate pressurefilters have been proven to yield the highest cakesolids concentration of all the dewatering meth-ods discussed. A disadvantage of the units is ahigh capital and labor cost and its requirementthat it be operated in a batch mode. Table 8-8provides ranges of performance of filter presseson various sludges. Additionally, cycle times maybe as long as 6 to 8 hours per batch beforeoptimum cake solids is achieved.

8-13

TM 5-814-8

Table 8-8. Typical dewatering performance of filter presses (167)

Cake Solids(percent dry solids

Sludge type by weight)Raw Primary 40-50Activated Sludge 25-40Primary & Activated Sludge 35-45Alum Sludge 25-40Metal Hydroxide Sludge 45-60

(5) Incineration. The two most common typesof incinerators in use, both in civil and militaryinstallations, are multiple hearth and fluidized

sand bed furnaces. The multiple hearth furnace isnot designed for intermittent operation primarilybecause a significant amount of fuel is required for start-up of the unit. For fluidized sand bedfurnaces, the sand retains enough heat that thefurnace can be shut down for 8 to 10 hours andthen be restarted without the use of start-up fuel.Fuel requirements for normal operation of theunits are 20 to 25 percent higher for fluidized bedfurnaces. The selection of the type of furnaceused should be made on a case by case basis.

TM 5-814-8

CHAPTER 9

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

9-1. Introduction

This section provides economic considerationsconcerning water pollution control systems. Inkeeping with the intent of Executive Order 12088,budget requests for water pollution control workat Federal facilities should reflect an effective lifecycle cost solution. This involves an evaluation of

. both capital and annual costs (total life cyclecosts). Guidelines have been issued by DOD andDA for making life cycle costing studies. Totalsystem costs are sensitive to materials of con-struction, i.e., steel tanks cost less than rein-forced concrete tanks but have a shorter life; typeof equipment; inflationary effects on material,chemical and labor costs; energy availability; andgeographical location.

9-2. Construction Costs

Construction costs include expenditures for laborand materials to build facilities including piping,steel, concrete, excavation, buildings, electricalwork, heating and ventilation, etc. Costs forspecial localized site development factors may--include site or trench dewatering, piling, and rockexcavation.

a. Cost curves. Appendix A contains typicalconstruction cost curves for several treatmentunit operations. The curves show the range ofcost values associated with varying plant capaci-ties. The bibliography contains additional refer-ences pertaining to treatment plant costs.

b. Cost indices. Cost indices relate costs at onetime and place to costs at any other time and/orplace. For example, if a project was estimated tocost $100,000 in 1973 using an index of 1138,that same project would cost 2233/1 138 multi-plied by $100,000 or $196,221 in 1982 when thecost index rises to 2233. Geographical adjust-ments may also be necessary. AR 415-17 pro-vides guidance on cost adjustment factors.

(1) Commonly used indices. Indices com-monly used are the U.S. EPA Sewage TreatmentPlant (EPA-STP) Cost Index and the Engineer-ing News-Record (ENR) Indices (see figure 9-l).The slopes of the curves represent the relativeincrease in costs with time. The basic differencebetween the two indices is that the EPA-STPindex includes skilled labor and mechanical equip-ment costs, while the ENR index includes struc-tural steel, cement, 2 X 4 lumber, and common

labor (69). As a result of different price changesfor the various types of material and labor, therelative slopes of the lines are different. Costs inappendix A are related to a EPA-STP indexvalue. The ENR indices are updated weekly in theEngineering News-Record and the EPA-STP in-dex value is updated quarterly in the JournalWater Pollution Control Federation.

(2) Geographic variability. Costs will vary atdifferent geographical locations due to transporta-tion and other expenses. Thus, cost indices at agiven time will vary from place to place. Table9-1 illustrates this point by the variation in theEPA-STP at several key U.S. cities. Appendix Arelates all costs to a national index, rather thanan index for a particular geographical location.The cost adjustment for foreign locations must beevaluated on a specific case-by-case basis. Some-times availability of materials is critical and mayaffect design decisions. Thus, early assessment offoreign economic conditions is important.

Table 9-1. Typical geographical variations in cost indices(values are ENR construction cost index for March 1983).

Base Value: 1967 = 100

Location Index ValueAtlanta 390Baltimore - 350Birmingham 352Chicago 341Cleveland 380Dallas 410Denver 365Kansas City 406Los Angeles 418Minneapolis 347New York 329Philadelphia 381St. Louis 347San Francisco 390National Average 374

9-3. Life cycle cost evaluation

All pollution control plans for military installa-tions must include a life cycle cost evaluationwhen applicable. This evaluation is an analysis todetermine the wastewater treatment system orcomponent thereof which will result in the lowesttotal cost in meeting regulatory criteria. Theevaluation must include total capital and annualcosts for the complete treatment system and foralternative unit operations within the overallsystem. For this reason, the construction cost

9-1

YEARFigure 9-1—Commonly used indices.

curves in appendix A are presented on a unit treatment. Procedures for more detailed construc-operation basis such as pumping, sedimentation, tion cost estimates used in facility design arefiltration, etc., rather than a total treatment outlined in TM 5-800-2. Questions relating tosystem such as trickling filter plant or activated those pollution studies which are applicable spe-sludge plant. The unit operations should be cifically to water pollution abatement projectsevaluated individually and assembled into a total should be directed (DAEN-ECE-G) WASH DCtreatment scheme capable of effecting the desired 20314.

9-2

TM 5-814-8

APPENDIX A

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND SOLIDS HANDLINGCOST DATA

A-1. The costs included herein have beenrelated to average wastewater flow so that theymay be readily usable for preliminary cost esti-mating purposes without requiring a preliminarydesign.A-2. In order to relate all costs to averagewastewater flow, certain assumptions were made.These assumptions are specifically listed on theapplicable cost curves and are categorized asfollows:

a. Influent waste and wastewater consider-ations. These include peak to average wastewaterflow ratios, influent BOD concentrations, averagequantities of sludge produced by specific pro-cesses, average efficiencies of upstream treatmentunits, etc.

b. Unit loading rates. These include total dy-namic pumping head, hydraulic detention times,cubic feed of air per pound of BOD, gallons ofwastewater per square foot per day, etc.

c. Additional units included in the treatmentsystem package. For example, diffused air aera-tion system costs are included with the totalactivated sludge system costs, and carbon regen-eration costs are included in the total carbonadsorption system cost.A-3. The peaking factors and design parame-ters used for cost development are taken fromtechnical manuals, standard engineering text-books and other references.A-4. Construction costs are related to a

EPA-STP index value for December, 1983 of 370.This construction cost index value is a nationalaverage, and may be adjusted to a specificgeographical location in accordance with AR415-17.A-5. It must be recognized that costs obtainedfrom these costs curves are sufficiently accuratefor preliminary, planning construction cost esti-mation only. For preliminary cost comparisons,additional costs should be included for items suchas engineering, legal, administration, and contin-gency factors. More detailed cost estimatesshould be prepared as outlined in TM 5-800-2.A-6. Costs for lagoons, landfills, land treatmentand similar land-intensive systems are not pre-sented due to the extremely wide variations incosts that can be experienced at a given location.The main factors influencing these variationsinclude land cost and availability y, soil type andclimate.A-7. Because of uncertainties regarding econo-mies of scale, and in view of the lack of publisheddate concerning costs for treatment plants withdesign flows less than 1.0 mgd, the curves arepresented as broken lines between 0.1 mgd and1.0 mgd. In this range, the curves should be usedwith discretion, realizing that the costs are basedupon extrapolations of data for larger plants.A-8. Figures A-1 through A-15 provide ap-proximate costs of unit processes related tosystem flow rate.

A-1

TM 5-814-8

0.1 1.0 10

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-1. Cost of raw waste pumping.

TM 5-814-8

0.1 1.0 10AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-2. Cost of preliminary treatment.

TM 5-814-8

o

0.1 1.0 10AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-3. Cost of primary clarifiers.

TM 5-814-8

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-4. Cost of FeCl3 addition.

A-5

TM 5-814-8

.

.

.

1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I , I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 {0.1 1.0 10

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-5. Cost of activated sludge.

A-6

TM 5-814-8

1 I v J 1 I 1 I 1 9 I ? 1 1 I r 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 r

A-7

0.1 1.0 10AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-7. Cost of suspended growth vitrification system.

A-8

TM 5-814-8

A-9

TM 5-814-8

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-9. Cost of two stage lime clarification.

A-10

TM 5-814-8

. -

10,0000.1 1.0 10

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-10. Cost of multi-media filtration.

A - I I

CONSTRUCTION COST, Dollars

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-12. Cost of granular carbon adsorption.

A-13

TM 5-814-8

I

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-13. Cost of two stage anaerobic digestion.

TM 5-814-8

Figure A-14. Cost of vacuum filtration.

A-15

TM 5-814-8

AVERAGE FLOW, mgd

Figure A-15. Cost of sludge drying beds (uncovered).

A-16

TM 5-814-8

APPENDIX B

WASTEWATER AND SOLIDS HANDLING DESIGN CRITERIA

1. Primary sedimentation.

Average Design Flow Surface Loading Rate(mgd) (gpd/sq ft)

0.01 150

0.01 to 0.10 5000.10 to 1.00 6001.00 to 10.0 80010.0 1,000

Hydraulic detention time = 2 to 2.5 hr.. Air supply capacity based on 1,500 cu ft of air per pound of BOD5 applied to the aeration tank.

2. Final clarification

Average Design Flow Surface Loading Rate(mgd) (gpd/sq ft)

3..

4.

5.

6.

7.

0.01 1000.01 to 0.10 3000.10 to 1.00 4001.00 to 10.0 50010.0 600

Suspended growth vitrificationHydraulic detention time = 3 to 5 hr at average flow.Overflow rate = 500 to 800 gpd/sq ft.Diffused air application = 1.0 cu ft/galph = 8.0 to 8.6Granular carbon adsorptionInfluent suspended solids concentration less than 50 mg/LHydraulic loading = 2 to 10 gpd/sq ft.

Contact time = 18 to 36 min at average flow.Carbon Requirements:

1. Secondary wastewater treatment: 0.5 to 1.8 lb/1,000 gal2. Advanced wastewater treatment: 0.25 to 0.35 lb/1,000 gal

Multi-media filtrationApplication rate = 2 to 10 gpm/sq ft at average flow.Lime clarificationLime dosage = 150 to 200 mg/L (single stage)

300 to 400 mg/L (two stage)ChlorinationContact time = 15 to 30 min at 4 hr peak (1.75 times average) flow rate.Dosage = 15 mg/L for

8 mg/L for6 mg/L for5 mg/L for

Anaerobic digestion

trickling filter effluent.activated sludge effluent.sand filter effluent.multi-media filter effluent.

ConventionalRate High Rate

Sludge retention time (days) 30- 60 10- 20Solids loading (lb volatile solids/cu ft/day) 0.03-0.08 0.15-0.40

B-1

TM 5-814-8

9. Vaccum filtration

Filter Yield(lb/sq ft/hr)

Anaerobically digested—-

6-7PrimaryPrimary and trickling filter 5-6Primary and activated sludge 4-5

10.

TM 5-814-8

APPENDIX C

Department of the ArmyAR 200-1 Environmental Protection and Enhancement.AR 200-2 Environmental Effects of Army Actions.AR 415-17 Empirical Cost Estimating for Military Construction and Cost

Adjustment Factors.DA Pamphlet 200-1 Army Handbook for Environmental Impact Analysis.TM 5-800-2 Preparation of Cost Estimates, Military Construction.TM 5-803-1 Sanitary and Industrial Waste Collection.TM 5-814-1 Sanitary and Industrial Wastewater Collection-Gravity Sewers

and Appurtenances.TM 5-814-2 Sewage and Industrial Waste Collection-Pumping Stations and

Force Mains.TM 5-814-3 Domestic Wastewater Treatment.TM 5-820-1 Surface Drainage Facilities for Airfields and Heliports.TM 5-820-4 Drainage for Areas Other Than Airfields.TM 5-842-2 Laundries and Dry-Cleaning Plants.

Department of DefenseDOD Directive 4-160.21-M Defense Disposal Manual, July 1979.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, DC 20460.Handbooks for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater (August 1973)Process Design Manual for Carbon Adsorption (October 1973)Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control (October 1975)Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment Disposal (September 1979)Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal (January 1975)Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants (October 1975)

Office of Water Enforcement, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.40 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Parts 122-124

40 CFR Part 124

40 CFR Part 125

40 CFR Parts 144-14640 CFR Part 40340 CFR Part 41340 CFR Part 43340 CFR Part 457

40 CFR Part 459

40 CFR Part 460Executive Order 12088

Consolidated Permit Regulations;Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground Injection Control; CWANational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; CWA 404Dredge or Fill Programs; and, CAA Prevention of SignificantDeterioration.Environmental Protection Agency Regulations or Procedures forDecision Making Regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-nation System Permits.Criteria and Standards for Imposing Best Management Practicesfor Ancillary Industrial Activities.Regulations for Underground Injection Control Programs.EPA Pretreatment Standards.EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Electroplating.EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Metal Finishing.EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Explosives Manufac-turing.EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Photographic Pro-cessingEPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Hospitals.Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, October13, 1978.

TM 5-814-8

7 United States Codes (U. S. C.) 136 Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, PLet. seq. 92-616.

15 U.S.C. 2601 Toxic Substances Control Act33 U.S.C. 1401 et. seq. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, PL

92-532.33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act as Amended by the Clean

Water Act of 1977, PL 96500.42 U.S.C. 4341 The National Environmental Policy Act.42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Lia-

bility Act of 1980, PL 96-510.

C-2

TM 5-814-8

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDepartment of the ArmyCorps of Engineers:

1. Technical and Economic Review of Advanced Waste Treatment Processes, 1973.2. Regional Wastewater Management Systems for the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Technical

Appendix, March 1972.3. Regional Wastewater Management Systems for the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Cost Data Annex

to the Technical Appendix, March 1972.4. Land Disposal of Wastewater, an Assessment of its Impact on the Agricultural Economy, Detroit

District, March 1973.5. Wastewater Irrigation using Privately Owned Farmland in Southeastern Michigan, Phase VI

Report, Detroit Dist., 23 July 1973.6. Land Treatment of Wastewater in Southeastern Michigan, Detroit District, June 1973.7. Irrigation and Collection Facilities for Southeastern Michigan Wastewater Management Program,

Detroit District, November 1972.8. Economic Assessment, Southeastern Michigan Wastewater Management Study, Detroit District,

April 1973.Environmental Hygiene Agency:

9.100

11.12.

13.

14.

15.

. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Report of Industrial Waste Survey, Red River Army Depot, May 1967 and January 1968.Report of Industrial Waste Survey, Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant, January-February 1966.Report of Preliminary Sanitary Engineering Survey, Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, June 1965.Sanitary Engineering Special Study No. 24-020-70 Domestic Waste Treatment Plant, Fort Knox,Kentucky, 6-11 December 1969.Sanitary Engineering Survey and Industrial Waste Special Study No. 24-038-70/71, BadgerArmy Ammunition Plant, May 1970.Special Study of Industrial Wastes, Survey No. 24-002-70, Burlington Army Ammunition plant,August 1969.Special Study of Industrial Wastes, ” Survey No. 24-006-69/70, New Cumberland Army Depot,October-November 1969.Special Study of Industrial Wastes, Survey No. 24-011-69/70, Radford Army Ammunition Plant,June 1969.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 24-001-72, Industrial Wastewater, Radford ArmyAmmunition Plant, October 1971.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 24-009-71, Industrial Waste, Scranton ArmyAmmunition Plant, December 1970.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 24-021 -72/73, Industrial Wastewater, HolstonArmy Ammunition Plant, June 1971.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 24-02%-72/73, Wastewater Study, Joliet ArmyAmmunition Plant, June 1972.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 24-034-71/72, Industrial Wastewater, Twin CitiesArmy Ammunition Plant, October 1972.Water Quality Engineering Special Study No. 25-030-71/72, Industrial Wastewater, Lake CityArmy Ammunition Plant, August 1971.

Medical Research and Development Command:23. A systems Analysis of Water Quality Survey Design, Wilcox, L. C., August 1973.

Department of Air ForceEnvironmental Health Agency:

24. Toxic Effects of Color Photographic Processing Wastes on Biological Systems,August 1970.

25. Water Pollution Survey, Griffith Air Force Base, August 1968.26. Biological Treatability of T-38 Paint Stripping Wastes, Kelly AFB, May 1967.27. Treatment of Aircraft Wash Rack Wastewater, Kelly AFB, September 1966.

Kelly AFB,

TM 5-814-8

28. Wastewater Treatment and Discharge Survey, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, October 1973.Weapons Laboratory:

29. Treatment of Phenolic Aircraft Paint-Stripping Wastewater, Kirtland AFB, January 1973.30. Chemical Wastes Generated by Air Force Photographic Operations, Kirtland AFB, September

1972.31. USAF Mobility Program Wastewater Treatment Systems, Kirtland AFB, April 1972.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:32. An Investigation of Techniques for Removal of Chromium from Electroplating Wastes,

Washington, March 1971.33. An Investigation of Techniques for Removal of Cyanide from Electroplating Wastes, Washington,

November 1971.34. A State-of-the-Art Review of Metal Finishing Waste Treatment, Washington, November 1968.35. Treatment of Laundromat Wastes, Washington, February 1973.36. Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. EPA, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976.37. Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facili-

ties, Washington, October 1971.38. Treatment of Complex Cyanide Compounds for Reuse of Disposal, Washington, June 1973.39. Chemical Treatment of Plating Wastes for Removal of Heavy Metals, Washington, May 1973.40. Procedural Manual for Evaluating the Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Washing-

ton.41. Proposed Criteria for Water Quality, Washington, October 1973.42. Report on Activated Sludge-Bio-Disc Treatment of Distillery Wastes, Washington, December

1973.43. Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality, March 1971 and Addendum of May 1972.44. Waste Treatment Lagoons-State-of-the-Art, Washington, July 1971.

Technology Transfer Office:45.

46.47.

48.49.50.51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.57.58.

59.

60.

In-Process Pollution Abatement-Upgrading Metal-Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution, July1973.Vitrification and Denitrification Facilities-Wastewater Treatment, August 1973.Oxygen Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Systems-Design Criteria and Operating Experi-ence, August 1973.Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, August 1973.Upgrading Lagoons, August 1973.Waste Treatment-Upgrading Metal-Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution, July 1973,Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents, Design Factors-1, EPA-625/4-76-010,January 1976.Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents, Design Factors-11, EPA-625/4-76-010,January 1976.Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents, Case Histories, EPA-625/4-76-010, January1976.Leffel, R. E., “Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works”,EPA-430/9-76–003, Washington, D. C., 1976.Evans, F. L. III, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA Technology Transfer: Sum-mary of National Operational and Maintenance Cause and Effect Survey, U.S. EPA, Environ. Res.Info. Center, Cincinnati, OH, July 1979.Physical Chemical Nitrogen Removal, Wastewater Treatment, EPA 625/4-74-008, July 1974.Wastewater Infiltration, Design Considerations, EPA 625/4-74-0072, July 1974.Evaluation of Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Treatment of Electroplating Rinsewater,EPA-600/2-80-084, May 1980.Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, On-Site Disposal/Septage Treatment andDisposal, EPA-625/4-77-011, October 1977.Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, Cost/Effectiveness Analysis,EPA-625/4-77-011, October 1977.

Office of Research and Development:61. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application, Volumes I and II, August 1973.

Bibliography-2

62. Economics of Consolidating Sewage TreatmentMains, April 1971.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIORFederal Water Pollution Control Agency (FWPCA):

TM 5-814-8

Plants by Means of Interceptor Sewers and Force

63. A study of Sludge Handling and Disposal, May 1968.64. Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria to the Secretary

of Interior, April 1968.FWPCA Water Research Laboratory:

65. A Compilation of Cost Information for Conventional and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plantsand Processes, December 1967.

Geological Survey:66. Water Supply Paper No. 2020 (Available from Government Printing Office).

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration:

67. Environmental Enhancement in Airports--Industrial Waste Treatment, April 1973..

TECHNICAL JOURNALS:Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation:

68.69.70.71.72.73.

74.75.

76.77.

78.

. 79.80.81.82.

83.

84.85.

Antonie, R. L., et al., Evaluation of a Rotating Disk Wastewater Treatment Plant, 46, 1674, 1974.Berthouex, P. M., et al., Discussion/Communication on Cost Index Comparison, May 1973.Dagon, T. J. Biological Treatment of Photo Processing Wastes, October 1973.Fish, H., Pollution Control Financing in the United Kingdom and Europe, April 1973.Gulas, V., et al., Factors Affecting the Design of Dissolved Air Flotation Systems, 50, 1835, 1978.Hunter, J. V. and Heukelekian, H., “The Composition of Domestic Sewage Fractions”, 37, 1142,1965.Ketchum. L. H., Jr., et al., First Cost Analysis of Sequencing Batch Reactors, 51, 235, 1979.Mohanro, G. J., et al., Photo Film Industry Waste: Pollution Effects and Abatement, March1966.Mohlman, E. W., Industrial Wastes in Wartime, November 1943.Nay, M. W., et al., Biological Treatability of Trinitrotoluene Manufacturing Wastewater, March1974.Rhodes, G. H., et al., Treatment of Combined Aircraft Overhaul and Domestic Wastes, December1973.Poduska, R. A. and Anderson, B. D., Successful Storage Lagoon Odor, 53, 299, 1981.Wankoff, W., et al., Evaluation of High- and Low-Speed Centrifuges, 52, 1568, 1981.Matsch, L.C. and Drnevich, R. F., Autothermal Aerobic Digestion, 49, 296, 1977.Koers, D. A. and Mavinic, D. S., Aerobic Digestion of Waste Activated Sludge at LowTemperatures, 49, 460, 1977.Dawda, M. M. and Davidson, M. L., Granular Media Filtration of Secondary Effluent, 50, 2134,1978.Patterson J. W., et al., Carbonate Precipitation for Heavy Metals Pollutants, 49, 2397, 1977.Pietila, K. A. and Joubert, P. J., Examination of Process Parameters Affecting Sludge DewateringWith a Diaphragm Filter Press, 53, 1708, 1981.

Environmental Science and Technology:86.87.88.89.90.91.92.

Water93.94.

Dean, J. G., et al., Removing Heavy Metals From Wastewater, June 1972.Forsten, I., Pollution Abatement in a Munitions Plant, September 1973.Greek B., Deep-Well Disposal Continues, December 1913.Injection Wells Pose a Potential Threat, February 1972.Multipronged Attack on Photo Wastes, November 1971.North Looks at Wastewater Cleanup Needs, November 1973.Witmer, F. E., Reusing Wastewater by Desalination, April 1973.and Waste EngineeringBrune, D. N. and Cook, J. H., Air Flotation Answers Airport Needs, August 1974.Monti, R. P. and Silberman, P. T., Wastewater System Alternatives: What they are . . . . andwhat cost? (A Four-Part Series), March-June 1974.

Bibliography-3

TM 5-814-8

Pollution Engineering:95. Lin, Y. H. and Lawson, J. R., Treatment of Oily and Metal-Containing Wastewater, November

1973.Public Works:

96. Loehr, R. D., “Variation of Wastewater Parameters”, 99, 81, 1968.97. Tchobanoglous, George, Wastewater Treatment of Small Communities (A Two-Part Series)

July-August 1974.Civil Engineering:

98. Bouwer, H., What’s New in Deep-Well Injection, January 1974.99. Relative Prices Around the World, October 1971.100. Ligman, et al., Household Wastewater Characteristics, Vol. 100, 1974.

Journal American Water Works Association:101. Fiedler, R. P., On-Site Caustic Chlorine Generation for Water Disinfection, January 1974.102. Okun, D. A., Planning for Water Reuse, October 1973.

Industrial Wastes:103. Niles, C. F., Jr., Treatment of Industrial Laundry Waste, March-April 1974.

Chemical Engineering:104. Woods, G. A., Bacteria: Friends or Foes?, 5 March 1973.

Purdue Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings:105. Dickerson, B. W., Treatment of Powder Plant Wastes, 1951.106. Lever, N. A., Disposal of Nitrogenous Liquid Effluent from Modderfontein Dynamite Factory,

1966.107. Mudrack, K., Nitro-Cellulose Industrial Waste, 1966.108. Montens, A., Treatment of Wastes Originating from Metal Industries, 1967.109. Schreur, N., The Lancy Integrated System for Treatment of Cyanide and Chromium in

Electroplating Plants, 1967.110. Swisher, R. D., Biodegradation of LAS Benzene Rings in Activated Sludge, 1967.111. VonAmmon, F. K., New Development in the Treatment of Metal Finishing Wastes by Ion

Exchange of Rinse Waters, 1967.112. Manning, J. C., Deep Well Injection of Industrial Wastes, 1968.113. Mueller, J. A., and Melvin, W. W., Jr., Biological Treatability of Various Air Force Industrial

Wastes, 1968.114. McClelland, N. J., and Mancy, K. H., The Effect of Surface Active Agents on Substrate

Utilization in an Experimental Activated Sludge System, 1969.115. Patton, T. H., et al., Development of a Water Management Plan for Acid Manufacturing Plant,

1973.116. Schulte, G. R., et al., The Treatability of a Munitions-Manufacturing Waste with Activated

Carbon, 1973.

ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SOCIETY MANUALS:Joint Committee of the Water Pollution Control Federation and the American Society of Civil Engineers:

117. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers, 1970.118. Sludge Dewatering, 1969.119. Anerobic Sludge Digestion, 1968.120. Sewage Treatment Plant Design, 1967.

American Water Works Association:121. Water Quality and Treatment, 1971.122. Culp, R. L., Direct Filtration, 69, 375, 1977.123. Trussell, R. R., et al., Recent Developments in Filtration System Design, 72, 705, 1980.

TEXTBOOKS:124. Sittig, M., Pollutant Removal Handbook, Noyes Data Corporation, 1973.125. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment and Disposal, McGraw-

Hill Book Company, 1972.126. Green Land, Clean Streams, The Beneficial Use of Wastewater Through Land Treatment, Temple

University, 1972.

Bibliography-4

TM 5-814-8

127. Culp, Russell, L., and Culp, Gordon, L., Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Van NostrandReinhold Company, 1971.

128. Goodman, Brian L., Manual for Activated Sludge Sewage Treatment, Technomic Publishing Co.,Inc., 1971.

129. Lund, H. F., Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.130. Nemerow, Nelson, L., Liquid Waste of Industry Theories, Practices and Treatment, Addison-

Wesley Publishing Co., 1971.131. Fair, Gordon, M., et al., Water and Wastewater Engineering, Volume 2. Water Purification and

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal, John Wiley and Sons j Inc., 1968.132. Davis, D. L., Chemistry of Powder and Explosives, 1943.133. Adams, Ford and Eckenfelder, Development of Design and Operational Criteria for Wastewater

Treatment, Enviro Press, Inc., 1981.134. Culp, Wesner and Culp, Handbook of Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Second Edition, Van

. Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series, Litton Educational Publishing, Inc., 1978.135. Eckenfelder, W., Principles of Water Quality Management, CBI Publishing Company, Inc., 1980.136. Clark, Viessman and Hammer, Water Supply and Pollution Control, Third Edition, Harper and

Row, 1977.137. Cherry, F., Plating Waste Treatment, Ann Arbor Science, 1982.138. Tchobanoglous, Theisen and Eliassen, Solids Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management

Issues, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1977.139. Rich, G., Low-Maintenance Mechanically Simple Wastewater Treatment Systems, McGraw-Hill,

Inc., 1980.140. Dinges, R., Natural Systems for Water Pollution Control, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.141. Bewick, W. M., Handbook of Organic Waste Conversion, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1980.142. Eckenfelder, W. W. and Adams, C. E., Process Design Techniques for Industrial Waste

Treatment, 1974.143. Adams, C. E., and Ford, D. L., and Eckenfelder, W. W., Development of Design and Operational

Criteria for Wastewater Treatment.144. Butler, S. S., Engineering Hydrology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957.145. Arbuckle, J. Gordon, et al., Environmental Law Handbook, 5th ed., Government Institutes Inc.,

Washington, D. C., 1978.146. Babbitt, H. E. and Baumann, E. R., Sewerage and Sewage Treatment, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

1967.147. Camp, Thomas R., Water and its Impurities, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1963.148. Rich, L. G., Unit Processes of Sanitary Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963..149. Eckenfelder, W. W. and O’Conner, D. J., Biological Waste Treatment, Pergamon Press, 1961.150. Rich, L. G., Unit Operations of Sanitary Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS:151. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health

Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washing-ton, D. C.

152. Recommended Standards, for Sewage Works, A Report of Committee of the Great Lakes-UpperMississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, 1971.

153. McKee, Jack Edward and Wolf, Harold W., Water Quality Criteria, 2nd ed., The ResourcesAgency of California, State Water Quality Control Board, Publication No. 3-A, 1963.

154. Second International Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons, Missouri Basin EngineeringHealth Council and Federal Water Quality Administration, Kansas City, Missouri, 23-25 June1970.

155. Disposal of Photographic Processing Wastes, Eastman Kodak Company Publication J-28, 1969.156. Boyd, J. L., et al., “Treatment of Oily Wastewater to Meet Regulatory Standards”, Presented

before American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Toledo, Ohio, March 1971.157. Sludge Handling and Disposal-Phase I-State-of-the-Art, prepared for Metropolitan Sewer Board of

the Twin Cities by Stanley Consultants, Inc., November 1972.158. Goodman, B. and Foster, J. W., Notes on Activated Sludge, Smith and Lovelace, Lenaxa, Kansas,

1969.

Bibliography-5

TM 5-814-8

159.

160.

161.162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.168.

Innovative Wastewater Treatment System Eliminates Equipment Produces High QualityEffluent with Dramatic Cost Savings, presented before WPCF Conference, St. Louis, MO, 1982.“Study of Wastewater Characteristics on Vehicle Washrack Discharges at Ft. Stewart, Georgia”,McWhorter and Associates, Inc., 1979.Eckenfelder, W. W. and Ford, D. L. and Burleson, N., Unpublished report, 1968.Mohlman, F. W. and Edwards, G. P., Industrial Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition, 3:1191931.“Local Pretreatment Requirements and Guidance”, Environmental Technology Consultants Inc.,Springfield, VA, June 1979.Overcash, M. R. and Pal., D., “Design of Land Treatment Systems for Industrial Wastes–Theoryand Practice”, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1979.Warner, D. L., “Deep Well Disposal”, in Industrial Waste Disposal, R. D. Ross, (ed), VanNostrand Reinholds Co., New York, pp 245-260, 1968.Teske, M. G. Recirculation-An Old Established Concept Solves Some Old Established Problems,WPCF Conference, 1978.Water Pollution Control Federation, Manual of Practice (MOP 8), 1977.ISCO, Open Channel Flow Measurement Handbook, 1979.

Bibliography-6

TM 5-814-8

GLOSSARY

Colloids. Microscopic suspended particles which do not settle in a standing liquid and can only beremoved by coagulation or biological action.Demineralization. The process of removing dissolved minerals from water by ion exchange, reverseosmosis, electrodialysis, distillation or other processes.Denitrification. The biological process which converts nitrates in the wastes to molecular nitrogen.Desalinization. The process of removing dissolved salts from water.Detention (Retention). The dwell or residence of wastewater, usually expressed in hours, in a treatmentunit.Disinfection. The process of killing the major portion of microorganisms in a waste stream with theprobability that all pathogenic organisms are killed. This is not necessarily true for viruses.

. Dissolved Oxygen. Elemental oxygen dissolved or molecularly dispersed in wastewater. Does not includeany oxygen present in the combined form even though a compound may be an oxidizing agent.Expressed in mg/L.Dissolved Solids. The solids remaining in a waste after filtering by specific test procedures. Expressed inmg/L.Dragout. The liquid which is removed from a process step such as plating by the film retained on thework or part passing through the process.Effluent. Wastewater leaving a particular system, treatment process or treatment plant.Environmental Impact. The effects of a proposed facility or action on the environment, including changesto the air, streams, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, recreation and other similar factors.Equalization. The holding or storing of wastes having differing qualities and rates of discharge for finiteperiods to facilitate blending and achievement of relatively uniform characteristics.Explosive. A material which by the influence of thermal or mechanical shock decomposes rapidly withthe evolution of much heat and gas. In the military context, it is the material used to propel a projectileor to produce fragmentation of the projectile at its terminal point. Such explosives are classified into twodivisions, termed high and low explosives in accordance. with behavior or use. Detonating or highexplosives include primary explosives such as detonators (lead azide, mercury fulminate, etc.) andsecondary explosives such as RDX and TNT. Low explosives exert a powerful push with a low burningrate and are used primarily as propellants and are often referred to by that name. Propellants includematerials such as nitrocellulose, nitroglycerine and nitroguanidine.Filtration. A unit operation in which solid or colloidal material is separated from a liquid by movementthrough a granular or porous sheet type material such as cloth or paper.Fixed Solids. The non-volatile component of the total solids, either suspended or dissolved, consisting orinorganic materials. The ash residue remaining after igniting dried residue from the total solids test at550°C. Expressed in mg/L.Floe. Gelatinous mass formed in liquids by the addition of coagulant, by microbiological processes or byparticle agglomeration.Flocculation. The process of floe formation normally achieved by direct or induced slow mixing.Flume. An open, inclined channel or conduit for conveying water.Fume Scrubber. Equipment used to remove objectionable fumes from a gas or air stream. Normallyachieved by contact of the gas stream with a counter-current liquid stream in “which objectionableconstituents are collected.Grease. A group of substances including fats, waxes, free fatty acids, calcium and magnesium soaps,mineral oils and certain other non-fatty materials. The grease analysis will measure both free andemulsified oils and greases. Generally expressed in mg/L.Grit. Heavy suspended mineral matter such as sand, gravel and cinders which is present in wastewater.Hardness. A characteristics of water imparted principally by the presence of calcium and magnesiumcompounds. Hardness is undesirable from the standpoint that it reacts with soap resulting in increasedconsumption. Also it is the prime cause of boiler scale and can adversely affect some industrialprocesses. Normally expressed in mg/L as CaCO3.Heavy Metals. Metals that can be precipitated by hydrogen sulfide in an acid solution, for example lead,silver, mercury, copper, chromium, zinc and nickel.

Glossary-1

TM 5-814-8

Infiltration. The quantity of groundwater which enters a sewer pipe through faulty joints, porous wallsor breaks.Inflow. Includes storm flows and non-contaminated flows such as cooling water which are diverted to aseparate sanitary sewer. Can cause sewer overflows and overloading of treatment facilities.Ion Exchange. The reciprocal transfer of ions between a solid and a solution surrounding the solid.Ionization. The process by which, at the molecular level, atoms or groups of atoms acquire a charge bythe loss or gain of one or more electrons.Land Application (Land Spreading or Land Treatment). Disposal of wastewater by discharge to the land(such as irrigation) or disposal of waste sludge by spreading on the land.Life Cycle Costs. All cost applicable to a facility over the period of its useful life. Such costs includefixed charges such as depreciation, interest, taxes, and insurance as well as operating expenses, labor,maintenance and supplies.Vitrification (Nitrogen Conversion). The conversion of nitrogenous matter into nitrates.Nitrogen, Ammonia (NH3-N). A measure of the amount of nitrogen which is in the form of ammonia.Expressed in mg/L as N.Nitrogen, Kjeldahl (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen or TKN). A measure of nitrogen combined in organic andammonia forms. Expressed in mg/L as N.Nitrogen, Nitrate (N03-N). A measure of the amount of nitrogen which is in the form of nitrate.Expressed in mg/L as N.Nitrogen Removal. Unit operations and unit processes required to remove different forms of nitrogenfrom a water. This may be accomplished partially in a biological process used in secondary treatment;however, normally it entails subsequent aerobic and anaerobic processes, ammonia stripping, chlorinationor other similar steps.Package Plant. A treatment plant, pumping station or major functional part thereof which has beenpre-assembled prior to delivery for installation.pH. A measure of the intensity of acid or alkaline condition of the solution. The logarithm of thereciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration. In an aqueous solution, neutral pH is 7.0, alkaline pHgreater than 7.0, and acid pH less than 7.0. pH differs from alkalinity and acidity which measure thecapacity of a solution to provide hydrogen or hydroxylions.Phosphatizing. Application of a phosphate-bearing coating to a metal part as a corrosion inhibitor and/or as a base for other coatings.Phosphorus Removal. The process of removing phosphorus from the wastewater by precipitation,adsorption or biological means.Physical-Chemical Treatment (PCT). A combination of unit operations arranged to achieve treatmentequivalent to conventional secondary biological treatment. Basically suspended solids are removed byaddition or a coagulant and coagulant aid followed with a clarification step achieved by settling. Theeffluent may be filtered to ensure essentially complete suspended solids removal. Dissolved organicpollutants are removed in a subsequent activated carbon unit.Pickling. The treatment of a metallic material or part with acid to remove surface oxide.Pond. An engineered impoundment containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which aerobicand/or anaerobic stabilization occurs. Sometimes referred to as a lagoon.Preliminary Treatment. Treatment operations such as screening, grit removal, comminution andequalization which preceded primary treatment.Pretreatment. Those treatment operations used at a point source or upstream from the wastewatercollection system. This is particularly applicable to industrial process wastewaters to eliminateconstituents such as grease or toxic materials which may adversely affect the collection system orsubsequent treatment processes.Primary Treatment. Removal of waste constituents (suspended solids and BOD associated with thesettleable solids removed) by settling, usually without addition of coagulant or coagulant aids.Propellants. See explosives.Raw Waste. Waste entering a treatment facility.Reverse Osmosis. A process whereby water is forced to pass through semi-permeable membranes underhigh pressures. Water passing through the membrane is relatively free of dissolved solids; solids areretained in concentrated form on the feed side of the membrane and are wasted.Secondary Treatment. A stage of treatment to perform additional waste constituent removal beyond that provided by primary treatment. The most common form of secondary treatment is a biological process

Glossary-2

TM 5-814-8

such as an activated sludge or trickling filter followed by a secondary settling tank. Equivalentsecondary treatment performance can usually be attained by physical-chemical processes.Sedimentation. Clarification (settling).Sewers. Lateral Sewer-One that discharges into a branch or main sewer and receives wastewater fromindividual sources.Branch Sewer-One that serves a small area and receives wastewater directly from sources or fromlateral sewers.Main or Trunk Sewer-One that receives wastewater from many tributary branch sewers and serves alarge area.Interceptor Sewer-One that receives wastewater from trunk sewers and branch sewers and conducts itto the point of treatment or discharge.Sludge. A concentrate in the form of a semiliquid mass resulting from settling of suspended solids in thetreatment of sewage and industrial wastes.Sludge Conditioning. Treatment of liquid sludge, usually by heat treatment or addition of chemicals,.before dewatering to facilitate water removal and enhance drainability.Sludge Dewatering. The process of removing a part of the water from the sludge to convert to asemisolid form. Methods used include draining, pressing, vaccum filtration, pressure filtration,centrifugation and others..Sludge Incineration. The burning of dewatered sludge under sufficiently high temperature to oxidize allorganic components. The resulting residue is a sterile ash.Sludge Stabilization. Any treatment including such operations as anaerobic or aerobic digestion whichconverts sludge to a form which can be disposed of without a detrimental effect on the environment.Sludge Thickening. Settling, air flotation, centrifugation or similar operations to decrease the watercontent of the sludge yet maintain it in a fluid form.Suspended Solids. Solids retained by filtering a sample of a water or wastewater stream. Retainedmaterial is dried at 103°C prior to weighing. Expressed in mg/L.Total Solids. This dissolved and suspended solids content of a water or wastewater stream. Determinedby evaporating liquid and drying to a residue at 103°C prior to weighing. Expressed in mg/L.Toxic Material. Any material which inhibits normal biological processes in animals, treatment processes,or the environment. Normally these are materials which cause such inhibition at low concentration levels.Turbidity. A measure of fine suspended material (usually colloidal) in a liquid. Usually expressed instandard Jackson turbidity units. In most cases, suspended material consists of fine clay or siltparticles, dispersed organics and microorganisms.Volatile Solids. Solids, dissolved or suspended, which are primarily organic and exert the significantportion of the BOD during stabilization. Expressed in mg/L.

. Wastewater Inventory. A detailed listing of all wastewater sources including data on flow, temperature,BOD, suspended solids and other parameters necessary to define quality.Weir. A control device placed in a channel or tank which facilitates measurement or control of the waterflow.

Glossary-3

TM 5-814-8

The proponent agency of this publication is the Office of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army.Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (RecommendedChanges to Publications and Blank Forms) direct to HQDA (DAEN-ECE-B), WASH DC 20314-1000.

By Order of the Secretary of the Army:

JOHN A. WICKHAM, JR.General United States Army

Official Chief of StaffR. L. DILWORTH

Brigadier General United States Army. The Adjutant General

Distribution:To be distributed in accordance with DA Form 12-34B, requirements for TM 5-814 Series: Sanitary

& Industrial Wastewater Collection.

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987-177-656