D Engineering and Management Options for Controlling Coastal Environmental Water Quality

INTRODUCTION

As discussed in the main body of this report, approaches to wastewater management and engineering in coastal areas should be designed to suit the characteristics of the surrounding environment. This appendix discusses five engineering and management options for wastewater and storm water in coastal urban areas: source control, wastewater treatment systems, disinfection, combined sewer overflows, and nonpoint source controls. Wastewater outfalls are not included here, but are discussed in Appendix C in connection with transport and fates in the coastal environment.

Whereas traditional wastewater management with its single medium focus revolves around treatment and disposal, a fully integrated approach addresses a broader range of considerations including source control; potential impacts on all environmental media (water, air, and land); water, energy, and other natural resource conservation; recycle and reuse; and nonpoint source control.

SOURCE CONTROL

The three basic source control alternatives, which may be practiced independently or concurrently in any municipality, are pollution prevention, pretreatment, and recycle and reuse.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas D Engineering and Management Options for Controlling Coastal Environmental Water Quality INTRODUCTION As discussed in the main body of this report, approaches to wastewater management and engineering in coastal areas should be designed to suit the characteristics of the surrounding environment. This appendix discusses five engineering and management options for wastewater and storm water in coastal urban areas: source control, wastewater treatment systems, disinfection, combined sewer overflows, and nonpoint source controls. Wastewater outfalls are not included here, but are discussed in Appendix C in connection with transport and fates in the coastal environment. Whereas traditional wastewater management with its single medium focus revolves around treatment and disposal, a fully integrated approach addresses a broader range of considerations including source control; potential impacts on all environmental media (water, air, and land); water, energy, and other natural resource conservation; recycle and reuse; and nonpoint source control. SOURCE CONTROL The three basic source control alternatives, which may be practiced independently or concurrently in any municipality, are pollution prevention, pretreatment, and recycle and reuse.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention is the common sense notion of trying to prevent or reduce pollution at the source before it is created. It may include a wide range of activities, programs, and techniques. Elimination or minimization of water pollutants at the source is becoming more important as wastewater treatment plant effluent criteria become more strict. Once a pollutant is discharged into a sewer system, it is diluted by several orders of magnitude and usually much more difficult to remove. Analysis and treatment of these diluted pollutants can be difficult and expensive. Depending on the pollutant's dominant characteristics, it may volatilize into the atmosphere, biodegrade, settle out with the sludge, or pass through into the final effluent. Pretreatment Pretreatment refers to the treatment of wastewater at industries or commercial establishments before it is discharged to a sewer system. Pretreatment of wastewater reduces the release of conventional and toxic pollutants into the system. Pretreatment processes include physical and chemical treatment and biological treatment. These processes typically result in some type of cross-media transfer of pollutants from wastewater to land or air. For example, chemical or biological processes produce residuals that contain concentrated levels of pollutants removed in treatment. Thermal and biological processes, however, can destroy all or most of some compounds, but others will concentrate in residuals or escape to the atmosphere. To date, pretreatment has been the main approach used by the federal government to control the discharge of industrial or commercial waste to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effluent guidelines are based on the best available control technology. The enforcement of federal pretreatment standards by POTWs has helped reduce the amounts of contaminants, especially metals and some toxic organics, from being discharged to the nation's waterways. Recycling and Reuse Recycling and reuse involve transformation of potential waste materials into products. Internal recycling and reuse occurs when a material that has served its original purpose and could become a waste is recovered and reused at the site of waste generation; the material is controlled by the waste generator. Internal recycling by industry can involve the installation of closed-loop or in-process recycling systems. Internal recycling takes place in the home when, for example, vegetable wastes are composted rather than disposed as garbage. External recycling and reuse occurs away from the site of waste generation. External recycling is a multiple-step process

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas involving separation and collection of the material, transport to a recycling center and/or a reprocessing facility, and resale to a new user. Pollution Prevention in Municipal Wastewater Management—Background and Definitions In the recently enacted 1990 Federal Pollution Prevention Act, source reduction (or source control) has been interpreted by the EPA as ''any practice that reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any wastestream prior to recycling, treatment and disposal" (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.).1 Pollution prevention in the context of coastal municipal wastewater management refers to the use of materials, processes, or practices that eliminate or reduce the creation of pollutants, either toxic or conventional, or wastes (e.g., plastics, paper) at the source. Sources can be domestic, commercial, institutional, or industrial. Pollution prevention includes any on-site source reduction or substitution undertaken prior to discharge to a municipal sewer system to reduce the total volume or quantity of pollutants generated or hazardous materials used in order to minimize the impact of the waste itself. It also includes practices that reduce the use of water, energy, or other natural resources at the source. Actions taken away from the source of the waste-generating activity, including off-site treatment of wastes or off-site recycling, are not considered pollution prevention activities by the EPA. These activities may still serve to improve wastewater influent quality. Pollution prevention options include product changes, technology modifications, raw materials and process changes, and operational changes. In the context of municipal wastewater management, some of the chief pollution prevention activities include source reduction, water conservation, energy conservation, and some approaches to nonpoint source control. In applying pollution prevention concepts to the field of municipal wastewater management, all sources—domestic, commercial, institutional, and industrial—are potentially significant. Similarly, all chemicals and materials are assessed, including conventional pollutants such as total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), paper and plastics, as well as toxics. For example, at one municipality, the elimination of plastics may be the central pollution prevention project; at another, the minimization of silver and mercury amalgams from dentists' offices may be more effective. The banning of phosphate detergents is another example of source reduction or product substitution that can change wastewater characteristics significantly. 1   References to United States Code are cited with the title followed by "U.S.C." and the section.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Energy Conservation and Energy Recovery Energy conservation and recovery can be important components of an integrated coastal management program for POTWs. Municipal POTWs generally consume less than one percent of the electrical energy demand of the communities they serve. Nonetheless, optimizing existing treatment processes, limiting sludge production, and using less energy intensive treatment methods have the potential to make a significant reduction in energy demands. Energy recovery using methane gas—a natural by-product of anaerobic sludge digestion—can meet over 50 percent of the electricity needs of a POTW (CSDOC 1989). Nonpoint Source Control Nonpoint source control options include a range of activities to limit urban and agricultural runoff and atmospheric deposition into waterways that in turn degrade the coastal environment. Some of these approaches can be considered pollution prevention activities, others are structural and fall under the treatment category. The subject of nonpoint source control options is addressed later in this appendix. Pollution Prevention Programs Implementation At present there is no federal mandate to implement pollution prevention programs in municipalities and/or municipal wastewater management districts. Key ingredients in the implementation of pollution prevention programs in municipalities include 1) setting definitions and goals; 2) conducting an inventory of all resources and pollutants, including, especially, those subject to cross-media transfer; 3) systematically examining each problem pollutant to determine how it can be prevented or minimized; 4) establishing a prioritization, reporting, and tracking system for pollutants; 5) undertaking preventive routine operation and maintenance inspection programs to help eliminate unwanted plant shut-downs and avoidable discharges; and 6) implementing specific projects or actions. Examples of regulatory options that encourage the implementation of pollution prevention practices are shown in Table D.1. Examples of Pollution Prevention Programs Orange County, California. A wide range of pollution prevention activities have been instituted and are being incorporated into the existing

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas TABLE D.1 Local Pollution Prevention Regulatory Options Indirect Inducements Direct Requirements Regulatory flexibility Mandatory hazardous waste management plans Aggressive enforcement of local pollution discharge limits Mandatory pollution prevention requirements incorporated into discharge permits, including the requirement of standard reduction technologies Development of more comprehensive and stringent limits     Incentives tied to reduced regulatory requirements Nonprescriptive effluent guidelines   Development of control mechanisms for commercial and small industrial dischargers Mandatory recycling requirements for industrial dischargers   Investigation of pollution prevention opportunities required by statute prior to planning of new treatment facilities Option to use mass-based wastewater discharge limits   Development of waste exchanges and other technical assistance for regional industry to encourage waste reduction   Low interest loans   source reduction program at the Orange County Sanitation Districts. Principally, pollution prevention and waste minimization have been used as a tool to assist dischargers in attaining compliance. A program is being developed to train field inspectors in pollution prevention inspections, to coordinate multi-agency pollution prevention work, to hold workshops and other public education events, to mandate wastewater reductions of pretreatment program permittees, to apply mass emission limits instead of concentration limits for permittees, to require the implementation of pollution prevention techniques, and to provide technical assistance to permittees in violation of their permits. Springfield, Massachusetts. While the pretreatment program at the 67 million gallons per day (MGD) Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has effectively controlled the industrial discharge of cadmium, nonindustrial sources and/or nonpoint sources interfere with a Type I classification for the composting and marketing of its sludge. The Springfield pollution prevention pilot project is designed to monitor and quantify the nonpoint source pollutant load. It will be coupled with a pollution prevention educational outreach project targeted at reducing illegal discharges to storm sewers.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The city of Winston-Salem is establishing a pilot project at a large POTW by developing a model pollution program designed to meet the needs of both large and small POTWs and integrating pollution prevention evaluation techniques into existing pretreatment program elements. Cincinnati, Ohio. Cincinnati's Metropolitan Sewer District is developing a pilot program similar to that of Winston-Salem with assistance from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The program will incorporate pollution prevention techniques into the ongoing pretreatment program to reduce loadings to the POTWs. Economic Advantages of Pollution Prevention Added regulations, higher industrial treatment and landfilling expenses, and increased liability costs have caused industrial and governmental leaders to reevaluate end-of-pipe pollution control measures in favor of front-end actions. Some of the economic advantages of pollution prevention include reduced on-site capital and operational waste-treatment costs; reduced transportation and disposal costs for wastes sent to an off-site location; reduced compliance costs for permits, monitoring, and enforcement; lower risk of spills, accidents, and emergencies; lower long-term environmental liability and insurance costs; reduced production costs through better management and efficient use of raw materials, transportation, and energy; improvements in process, product quality, and product yield resulting from a reexamination of current practice and the institution of better controls; income derived from the sale or reuse of waste; reduced sewer-use fees; better employee morale; and better public relations. Economic Advantages of Recycling and Reuse Because hazardous waste disposal fees can be a major component of an industry's annual operation and maintenance costs, zero sludge production may be attractive on economic as well as environmental grounds. A study sponsored by the California Department of Health Services compared the annual waste management operating costs for two similar circuit board plants for two different treatment plants assuming 10-year lifetimes. Cost data for the first plant were based on an installed conventional treatment system with sludge handling equipment. Cost data for the second plant were based on an installed recovery system with zero sludge production. The results are shown in Table D.2. In this study, the total annual cost of the zero sludge production alternative is 9 percent higher than the conventional sludge system. However,

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas TABLE D.2 Comparison of Conventional Sludge Treatment Versus Zero Sludge Production System (Source: Cal-Tech Management Associates 1987. Reprinted, by permission, from Cal-Tech Management Associates, 1987.)   Conventional Sludge System Zero Sludge Production System Total Capital Cost $450,000 $1,250,000 Capital Recovery1 $67,000 $186,000 Operation and Maintenance2 $43,000 $75,000 Labor $75,000 $50,000 Chemicals and Power $75,000 $54,000 Water- In/Out $22,000 $2,000 Sludge Disposal & Fees $48,000 0 Miscellaneous $10,000 $5,000 Total Annual Cost $340,000 $370,000 1 Assuming an 8 percent opportunity cost. 2 Assuming 12 percent of the original capital cost per annum. only quantifiable costs have been used in defining the cost parameters. No attempt was made to examine less tangible future costs such as the value of recovered metals, increasing land disposal costs, legal liabilities, or insurance costs. Had these nonquantifiable costs been factored in, it is possible that the zero sludge production system would become the preferred option on economic as well as environmental grounds. Pollution Prevention or Pretreatment? An integrated coastal management plan for a given area would compare the environmental and cost benefits of pollution prevention with pretreatment to determine which is most advantageous. The following exercise shows the advantages and trade-offs in each set of activities. Environmental Benefits-Pretreatment In the 1991 National Pretreatment Program Report to Congress, the EPA concluded that categorical standards and local industrial discharge limits implemented by POTWs had brought about significant reductions in toxic pollutant loadings from regulated industries (EPA 1991a). The EPA estimated that metals loadings have been reduced by 95 percent to annual loadings of 14 million pounds, and organic loadings have been reduced by

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas between 40 and 75 percent to annual loadings of 65 million pounds. The EPA also concluded that the planned development of additional categorical standards would further reduce loadings of toxic pollutants to POTWs. In 1988 and 1989, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies conducted a survey of its members to determine the effectiveness of their pretreatment programs. It found that the mass discharge of 10 heavy metals had decreased 69 percent and that the mass discharge of cyanide and selected organics had decreased 66 percent (AMSA 1990). These findings confirmed the EPA's Domestic Sewage Study conclusion that "The pretreatment program has been an effective means in reducing the mass discharge of many hazardous constituents to POTWs" (EPA 1986). This success in the reduction of heavy metals through pretreatment is illustrated by the example of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California. In 1976, the Sanitation Districts adopted a new industrial source reduction ordinance which included numerical limitations on all industrial discharges. The influent heavy metals reductions at the two regional wastewater treatment plants in the 15 years of record are shown in Figure D.1. FIGURE D.1 Annual mass inflows of various metals to the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County wastewater treatment plants. (Reprinted, by permission, from County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California.)

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Environmental Benefits—Pollution Prevention Information on the effectiveness of practices for preventing or reducing discharges to urban wastewater collection systems and receiving waters is available. However, much of it is case-specific and thus complicated to compare with the more extensive information available on pretreatment. In 1985, the Robbins Company, a metal finishing and plating operation in Attleboro, Massachusetts, was in violation of its water discharge permit and was named a major polluter of the Ten Mile River that empties into Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. When federal and state officials announced plans to tighten discharge limits further, the company was faced with four options as shown in Table D.3 (Berube and Nash 1991). The Robbins Company management realized that a pollution prevention approach, through the use of a closed-loop system, although risky, was its best choice. Figures D.2a, D.2b, and D.2c show the Robbins Company's success for the years 1985 through 1990 in water conservation, chemical use, and sludge production after implementing a pollution prevention program. These figures show a 97 percent, 98 percent and 100 percent reduction, respectively, in the use of caustic soda, acid, and chlorine and nearly 100 percent reductions in water use and sludge production. The benefits of such a program are that the reductions can occur in every aspect of the process leading to multiple environmental improvements. Cost-Benefit Ratios Although some studies have examined the economics of waste management alternatives for selected industries, such as metal finishers and printed TABLE D.3 Four Pollution Management Options at the Robbins Company (Source: Berube and Nash 1991. Reprinted, by permission, from the Robbins Company.) Options Effect on Compliance Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Do nothing Completely out of compliance In compliance now but probably not in the future Full compliance Fines up to $10,000 per day $250,000 capital $120,000/yr O&M Upgrade present system     Build a full wastewater treatment plant Modify the process and build a closed-loop system   $500,000 capital, $120,000/yr O&M $250,000 capital $21,000/yr O&M   Full compliance  

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas FIGURE D.2a Pollution prevention at the Robbins Company, Attleboro, Massachusetts-Water Usage. (Source: Chatel 1992. Reprinted, by permission, from the Robbins Company.) circuit board facilities, to date there have been few comparisons of the cost benefits of pretreatment and pollution prevention. One comparison performed by the EPA looked at the costs of end-of-pipe treatment for an electroplating facility with and without pollution prevention versus a waste recovery system for an electroplating facility (EPA 1979). The three options evaluated were: 1) a system with standard single-stage running rinses and no pollution prevention, 2) a system with pollution prevention in the form of counter-current rinses instead of single-stage rinses, and 3) a system with pollution prevention in the form of recovery units installed after each plating operation in addition to counter-current rinses. As shown in Table D.4, the cost of the system with counter-current rinses and recovery units provided an annual cost savings of over 50 percent in comparison to the other systems evaluated.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas FIGURE D.2b Pollution prevention at the Robbins Company, Attleboro, Massachusetts—Chemical Usage. (Source: Chatel 1992. Reprinted, by permission, from the Robbins Company.) Grants for Small Business. While many basic pollution prevention practices (e.g., good housekeeping and operational practices, systematic maintenance, and training of personnel) require marginal or no capital investment, other more fundamental practices such as pretreatment systems, production equipment modifications, or raw material substitutions require up-front investment of funds for development, research, engineering, and equipment. Although pollution prevention may represent financial benefits, these benefits may take several years to amortize the original capital investment. Large businesses and corporations are usually able to support the burden of long term capital returns. Small businesses may not be. Consequently, small businesses are often reluctant, and frequently find it impossible, to engage in advantageous pollution prevention or pretreatment programs without federal, state or local financial assistance, such as grants.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas through a filter. Typical filtration systems include bottom or side-bank sand or natural soil filters. Experience in Florida and Texas indicates significant difficulties associated with the design, construction, and especially the maintenance of stormwater filters. It is not a question of if a filter will clog, but when, and who will maintain the filter when clogging becomes a problem. Thus filters should be used when timely maintenance is assured. Livingston et al. (1988) describes design details. Wet detention basins are characterized by a permanent pool of water and a shallow littoral zone around the perimeter that occupies 30 percent to 50 percent of the pond area. The volume of the pond itself is equal to the runoff from the wettest two weeks of an average year. This volume of water is significant in most locales, and is what distinguishes a wet pond from an extended detention basin that may have a small permanent pool associated with it. The removal of pollutants in a wet detention system is accomplished by gravity settling and biological uptake of nutrients by aquatic plants and phytoplankton metabolism. A wet pond is the best detention facility for use in locations where nutrients are of concern because they remove two to three times as much phosphorus as extended detention ponds and 1.3 to two times as much total nitrogen, if the plants are harvested. Artificial Wetlands for Stormwater Quality Enhancement. Wetlands provide water quality enhancement through sedimentation, filtration, absorption, and biological processes. They also provide flood protection through water storage and conveyance. The incorporation of wetlands into a comprehensive stormwater management system achieves wetland preservation and revitalization (Hartigan 1989). While much research has been completed on the ability of wetlands to remove wastewater pollutants (EPA 1985b, Martin 1988), many questions remain. For example, how long can a wetland continue to remove stormwater pollutants effectively? What type of maintenance is required and at what frequency? What is the ultimate fate of pollutants in wetland habitats and how do they affect the wetland ecosystem? Furthermore, treatment wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the federal wetlands protection law (Clean Water Act, Section 401[k]), which limits the way in which routine maintenance can be done. Design guidance relative to constructed wetlands can be found in Maryland Water Resources Administration (1987) and Livingston (1989). Retrofitting Structural Controls to Existing Developments. The idea of retrofitting structural controls into an existing setting appears a formidable task at first blush. However, there are a number of ways to retrofit at reasonable cost. Two devices that are fairly simple to retrofit are oil-water separators and water quality inlets. These can be installed at stormwater inlets in park-

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas ing lots, service stations, and other areas where oils and greases may be in the runoff. Infiltration trenches have been retrofitted at a number of roadways in Maryland. Also, the city of Orlando, Florida, replaced its entire downtown storm drainage system with infiltration trenches in order to protect its urban lakes from runoff pollution. Other devices such as street replacement or storm sewer system improvements can be retrofitted as part of infrastructure repairs. For example, porous pavement, modular pavement, or geotextile fabric should be considered as a replacement in parking areas that are in need of upgrading. There are many ways to retrofit runoff treatment devices to existing development. To do so requires ingenuity and knowledge of how specific treatment devices work to remove pollutants from runoff. Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of Various Treatment Practices. Table D.29 shows the relative efficiency of various urban runoff quality controls in removing pollutants. This table is based on data collected in the late 1970s and early 1980s. More recent data (Roesner et al. 1989) indicate that wet ponds, filter strips, and swales perform much better than shown, if properly designed. Notice that where suspended sediment removal is good, removal of other pollutants is good. This is because many of the noxious pollutants in urban runoff are attached to particulate matter. As a rule of thumb, if the solids can be removed from the runoff, most of the noxious pollutants will also be removed. This rule does not hold true for nitrogen or bacteria. Table D.30 shows removal efficiencies for constituents of concern. The table was developed under the assumptions that 1) copper, cadmium, and chromium will behave in the same way as trace metals and lead, 2) PAHs will be associated primarily with suspended solids and behave in the same way as heavy metals, 3) coliforms are an adequate predictor of enterovirus, and 4) oil and grease are 80 percent to 100 percent removed in any properly designed stormwater treatment device. Rating of Runoff Treatment Practices The matrix in Table D.31 provides a relative rating of structural controls. This table summarizes the characteristics of the practices described above. It is noteworthy that, in contrast to wastewater treatment processes, most of the practices are not operationally difficult. Costs for Stormwater Quality Controls Cost data for source controls are not available. Studies of source control practices (Murray 1989) do not contain information on costs for illicit connection detection or removal. Little information is available on costs of

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas TABLE D.29 Comparative Pollutant Removal of Urban Runoff Quality Controls (From Schueler 1987. Reprinted, by permission, from Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1987.)   structural controls other than that collected by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). A MWCOG study (Wiegand et al. 1986) drew together cost data from a survey of engineering estimates and bids for 65 infiltration and detention facilities built since 1982 in the Metropolitan Washington area. Based on these data, regression equations for cost versus volume were developed.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas   TABLE D.30 Comparative Removal of Pollutants of Concern by Runoff Treatment Practices  

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas TABLE D.31 Rating of Runoff Treatment Practices   REFERENCES AMSA (Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies). 1988. Draft CSO Permitting Strategy. Bulletin No. GB88-22. Washington, D.C.: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. AMSA (Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies). 1990. 1989-1990 AMSA Pretreatment Survey Final Report. Washington D.C: Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. Arora, M.L. 1992. Water Reuse in California—A Myth of a Reality? In Proceedings from the Water Environment Federation "Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse" Conference, Orlando, Florida, June 28 - July 1, 1992. Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation. Asano, T. 1991. Planning and implementation of water reuse projects. Water Science and Technology 24(9): 1-10. Asano, T., L.Y.C. Leong, M. G. Rigby, and R. H. Sakaji. 1992. Evaluation of the California wastewater reclamation criteria using enteric virus monitoring data. Water Science and Technology 26(7-8): 1513-1524. Bannerman, R., K. Baun, M. Bohm, P.E. Hughes, and D.A. Graczyk. 1984. Evaluation of Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Management in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Report No. PB84-114164. Chicago, Illinois: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Beaulac, M.N., and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An examination of land use-nutrient export relationships. Water Resources Bulletin 18:1013-1024. Berube, M.R., and J. Nash. 1991. From Pollution Control to Zero Discharge—Overcoming the Obstacles: the Robbins Company, Attleboro, Massachusetts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development, MIT. Brombach, H. 1987. Liquid-Solid Separation at Vortex-Storm Overflows. Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage. Lausanne, Switzerland, International Association of Water Pollution Research and Control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press Ltd. Brombach, H., C. Xanthopoulos, H. Hahn, and W. Pisano. 1992. Experience with Vortex Separators for Combined Sewer Overflow Control. Paper read at the International Conference on Sewage into 2000. August 31, 1992. Amsterdam, Holland. Bruskin, C.A., and K.P. Lindstrom. 1992. Water Conservation. Orange County, California: County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Cal-Tech Management Associates and SCADA Systems Inc. 1987. Final Report Waste Reduction for the Printed Circuit Board Industry. Sacramento, California. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. 1991. Proposed Wastewater Management Plan. Prepared for Cincinnati/Hamilton County Metropolitan Sewer District, Cincinnati, Ohio. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines. Title 40, Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A. Chatel, B. 1992. Pollution Prevention at the Robbins Company. Presentation given at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Chaudhary, R., Y. Shao, J. Crosse, and F. Soroushian. 1991. Evaluation of chemical addition. Water Environment & Technology February:66-71. CH2M Hill. 1988. TM-8 Preliminary CSO Control by Sewer Separation. Boston, Massachusetts: CH2M Hill. CH2M Hill. 1989. Best Management Practices Final Report, Combined Sewer Overflow Program. Boston, Massachusetts: CH2M Hill. Clinton Bogert Associates. 1991. Combined Sewer Overflow Control Facility Plan. Elizabeth, New Jersey: Clinton Bogert Associates. CSDOC (County Sanitation Districts of Orange County). 1989. Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities Master Plan. February 1989. Fountain Valley, California: CSDOC. Drehwing, F. 1979. Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows. Report No. EPA 600/2-79-134. Syracuse, New York: O'Brien & Gere Inc., and U.S. EPA. Eganhouse, R.P., and I.R. Kaplan. 1981. Extractable organic matter in urban stormwater runoff: 1. Transport dynamics and mass emission rates. Environmental Science and Technology 15:310-315. Ellis, J.B. 1986. Pollutional aspects of urban runoff. Pp. 1-38 in Urban Runoff Pollution, H.C. Torna, J. Marsalek, and M. Desbordes, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1978. Report to Congress on Control of Combined Sewer Overflow in the United States. Report EPA-430/9-78-006. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1979. Development Document for Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for Electroplating Industry. EPA 440/1-79/003. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Volume I. Washington, D.C.: EPA, Water Planning Division. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985a. Handbook for Estimating Sludge Management Costs. Report No. EPA-625/6-85-010. Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985b. Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater Management Handbook. Report No. 904/9-85-135. Washington, D.C.: EPA.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Washington D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989a. Draft Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance Manual. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989b. National Sewage Sludge Survey. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989c. Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater Sludge. EPA/625/10-89/006. Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1990. National Water Quality Inventory: 1988 Report to Congress. Report EPA 440/4-90-003. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Pollution Prevention 1991: Progress on Reducing Industrial Pollutants. Report No. EPA 21P-3003. Washington D.C.: Office of Pollution Prevention, EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991b. Proposed Development and Approved Guidance—State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control. Washington, D.C.: EPA. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992a. Facility Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA/600/R-92/088. Washington, D.C.: EPA, Office of Research and Development. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992b. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/ 625/R-92/004. Washington, D.C.: EPA. Esmund, S.E., A.C. Petrasek, Jr., H.W. Wolf, and D. Craig. 1980. The Removal of Metals and Viruses in Advanced Wastewater Treatment Sequences. U.S. EPA. Report No. EPA-600/ 2-80-149. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University. FDER (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation). 1991. Guidelines for Presentation of Reuse Feasibility Studies for Applicants Having Responsibility for Wastewater Management. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation . Federal Register. 1989. National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy 54(173). FHA (Federal Highway Administration). 1985. Management Practices for Mitigation of Highway Stormwater Runoff Pollution. McLean, Virginia: Federal Highway Administration. Folkard, G.K. 1986. Appropriate Technology for Treatment of Potable Water in Developing Countries: Coagulants Derived from Natural Materials. In Recycling in Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment. Schriftenriehe ISWW Karlsruhe Bd 50. Force, J.M., ed. 1991. Primary effluent filtration. Reactor: Wastewater Treatment News from Zimpro Passavant December(72):5. Forsell, B., and B. Hedstrom. 1975. Lamella sedimentation: A compact separation technique. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 47:834. GAO (General Accounting Office). 1990. Water Pollution: Greater EPA Leadership Needed to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution. Report # GAO/RCED-91-10. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office. Grizzard, T.L., C.W. Randall, B.L. Weand, and K.L. Ellis. 1986. Effectiveness of Extended Detention Ponds. Pp. 323-337 in Urban Runoff Quality-Impact of Quality Enhancement Technology. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Guterstam, B., and J. Todd. 1990. Ecological engineering for wastewater treatment and its application in New England and Sweden. Ambio 19(3). Hannah, S.A., B. Austern, A. Eralp, and R. Wise. 1986. Comparative removal of toxic pollutants at six wastewater treatment processes. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 58(1):27-34. Hartigan, J.P. 1989. Basis for design of wet detention basin BMPs. Pp. 122-144 in Design Criteria for Urban Runoff Quality Control. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Hauck, J., and S. Masoomian. 1990. Alternate Technologies for Wastewater Treatment. Pollution Engineering May 1990. Havens & Emerson Engineers. 1987. Value Engineering Investigation for Granite Ave. Relief Sewer. Boston, Massachusetts: Boston Water and Sewer Commission. Hazen, A. 1904. On sedimentation. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 53:45. Heaney, J.P., and W.C. Huber. 1973. Stormwater Management Model: Refinements, Testing and Decision-Making. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Department of Environmental Engineering and Science. Heidman, J. 1990. Sequencing batch reactors. In Proceedings of the U.S.EPA Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Forum. Report No. EPA 430/09-90-015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Heinking, G., and N. Wilcoxon. 1985. Use of a swirl concentrator for combined sewer overflow management. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 57(5):398. Hoffman, E.J. 1985. Urban runoff pollutant inputs to Narragansett Bay: Comparison to point sources. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Pollution: Proceedings of National Conference. Report EPA 440/5-85-001. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hoffman, E.J., G.L. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G. Quinn. 1983. Annual input of petroleum hydrocarbons to the coastal environment via urban runoff. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40(2):41-53. Hoffman, E.J., G.L. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G. Quinn. 1984. Urban runoff as a source of polycyclic aromatics to coastal waters. Environmental Science and Technology 18:580-587. Hudson, D. 1990. Experience in Operation of Real Time Process Control. North East Ohio Regional Sanitary District. Paper presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Real Time Control Workshop, Washington, D.C., October, 1990. Hunsinger, C. 1987. Combined Sewer Overflow, Operational Study. Decatur, Illinois: Bainbridge, Gee, Milanski Associates and Crawford, Murphy & Tully, Inc. Jones, M. 1991. Opportunities in water and sewage treatment. EPRI Journal June:42-44. Kaufman, H., and D. Lai. 1978. Conventional and Advanced Sewerage Design Concepts for Dual Flood and Pollution Control. Report No. EPA 600/2-78-090. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Leblanc, F. 1987. Theory, Technology and Applications of Lamella Settling. Paper presented at the International Symposium of Protection of Marine Environments from Urban Pollution, Marseille, France. Livingston, E. 1989. The use of wetlands for urban stormwater management. Pp. 467-489 in Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, L. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M. Sonnen, eds. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Livingston, E.H., E. McCarron, J. Cox, and P. Sanzone. 1988. The Florida Department Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Lord, B.N. 1989. Program to Reduce Deicing Chemical Uses. Pp. 421-433 in Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, L. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M. Sonnen, eds. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Marsalek, J. 1978. Pollution Due to Urban Runoff: Unit Loads and Abatement Measures. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: Pollution by Land Use Activities Reference Group of the International Joint Commission. Marsalek, J. 1986. Toxic contaminants in urban runoff. Pp. 39-57 in Urban Runoff Pollution, H. Torna, J. Marsalek, and M. Desbordes, eds. New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Marshall, T. 1987. Operators Manual—Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. Los Angeles: County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an urban runoff detention pond—wetlands system. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, Paper No. 22649, July 1988. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Maryland Water Resources Administration. 1987. Guidelines for Constructing Wetland Stormwater Basins. Annapolis, Maryland: Maryland Water Resources Administration. Matsumoto, M. 1991. Primary Effluent Filtration. Paper presented at 64th Conference of the Water Environment Federation, Toronto, Canada, October, 1991. McCarty, P.L., M. Reinhard, J. Graydon, J. Schreiner, and K. Sutherland. 1980. Wastewater Contaminant Removal for Groundwater Recharge at Water Factory 21. Report No. EPA600/2-80-114. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Murcott, S., and D. Harleman. 1992a. Performance and Innovation in Wastewater Treatment. Technical Note # 36. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Murcott, S., and D. Harleman. 1992b. Chitosan, Metal Salt, and Polyacrylamide Jar Tests at the Gloucester Water Pollution Control Facility. Report # MITSG 92-12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant. Murray, J.E. 1989. Nonpoint Pollution First Step in Control. Pp. 378-387 in Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, L. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M. Sonnen, eds. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Nieuwstad, T., E. Mulder, A. Havelaar, and M. Van Olphen. 1988. Elimination of microorganisms from wastewater by tertiary precipitation and simultaneous precipitation followed by filtration. Water Research 22(11):1389-1397. NHSRC (Northeast Hazardous Substances Research Center). 1991. Reader in Preventing Pollution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. September 1991. Novotny, V., and G. Chesters. 1981. Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution: Sources and Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Oberts, G.L. 1986. Pollutants associated with sand and salt applied to roads in Minnesota. Water Resources Bulletin 22:479-484. Olivieri, V., C. Kruse, K. Kawata, and J. Smith. 1977. Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater. Report No. EPA 600/2-77-087. Cincinnati, Ohio: EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory. Pisano, W.C. 1978. Case Study: Best Management Practice Solution for a Combined Sewer Program, Urban Stormwater Management Workshop Proceedings. Report No. EPA 600/ 9-78-017. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pisano, W.C. 1979. Dry Weather Deposition and Flushing for Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Control. Report No. EPA 600/2-79-133. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pisano, W.C. 1982a. Inlet Control Program, Ridge Road Sector, Parma, Ohio. Belmont, Massachusetts: Environmental Design & Planning, Inc. Pisano, W.C. 1982b. An Overview of Four Inlet Control Studies for Mitigating Basement Flooding in Cleveland and Chicago Area. Cleveland, Ohio: American Society of Civil Engineers. Pisano, W.C., and D. Wolf. 1991. Better Utilization of Storage in Treatment for CSO Control, A Case Study: 14 St. Facility, Saginaw, Michigan. Toronto, Canada: Water Environment Federation. Pisano, W.C., N. Thibault, and G. Forbes. 1990. The vortex solids separator. Water Environment and Technology 2(5):64-71. Quails, R.G., S.F. Ossoff, J.C.H. Chang, M.H. Dorfman, C.M. Dumais, D.C. Lobe, and J.D.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Johnson. 1985. Factors controlling sensitivity in ultraviolet light disinfection of secondary effluents. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 57:1006-1007. Roesner, L., B. Urbonas, and M. Sonnen, eds. 1989. Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Roesner, L.A., E.H. Burgess, and J.A. Aldrich. 1991. The hydrology of urban runoff quality management. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Water Resources Planning and Management/Symposium on Urban Water Resources. May 20-22, New Orleans, Louisiana. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Rose, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. Assessing potential health risks from viruses and parasites in reclaimed water in Arizona and Florida, USA. Water Science & Technology 23:2091-2098. Sartor, J.D., G.B. Boyd, and F.J. Agardy. 1974. Water pollution aspects of street surface contamination. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 46:458. SCCWRP (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project). 1990. Annual Report 1989-90, J. Cross, D. Wiley, eds. Long Beach, California: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority. Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Smisson, R. 1981. Storm Sewer Analysis for Implementation of Inlet Control, Euclid, Ohio. U.K.: Hydro Research & Development. Sobsey, M.D. 1989. Inactivation of health-related microorganisms in water disinfection processes. Water Science & Technology 21(3):179-195. Sonzogni, W.C. 1980. Pollution from land runoff. Environmental Science and Technology 14:148-153. Stenstrom, M.K., G.S. Silverman, and T.A. Bursztynsky. 1984. Oil and grease in urban stormwaters. Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 110(1):58-72. Sullivan, R.H., J.E. Ure, F. Parkinson, and P. Zielinski. 1982. Design Manual: Swirl and Helical Bend Pollution Control Devices. U.S. EPA Report No. EPA/600/8-82/013. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tchobanoglous, G., and E.D. Schroeder. 1985. Water Quality. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Teal, J., and S. Peterson. 1990. The Next Generation of Septage Treatment. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. April 12, 1990. Unpublished manuscript. TWA and HRD (Thames Water Authority and Hydro Research & Development). 1987. Interim Engineers Report: Attenuation Storage and Flow Control for Urban Catchments - Conflo '88. September, 1987. U.K. Uttormark, P.D., J.D. Chapin, and K.M. Green. 1974. Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Nonpoint Sources. Report No. EPA-660/3-74-020. Washington, D.C.: EPA, Office of Research and Monitoring. VSCC (Virginia Soil and Conservation Commission). 1984. Virginia Erosion Control Handbook. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Soil and Conservation Commission. Wakeham, S.G. 1977. A characterization of the source of petroleum hydrocarbons in Lake Washington. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 49:1680-1687. Walesh, S. 1985. Stormwater Control Plan for Howard Street. Skokie, Illinois: Donahue Engineers. WBNSWG (Water Board of the New South Wales Government). 1991. Improved Effluent Quality—Options for Coastal Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades. Sydney, Australia: WBNSWG. WEF/ASCE (Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers). 1992.

OCR for page 295
Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Manual of Practice 8. Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation. Whipple, W., Jr., J.V. Hunter, and S.L. Yu. 1978. Runoff pollution from multiple family housing. Water Resources Bulletin 14:288-301. Wiegand, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of urban runoff controls. Pp. 366-380 in Urban Runoff Quality—Impact and Quality Enhancement Technology, B. Urbonas, and L.A. Roesner, eds. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Wisner, P. 1984. Experience with Stormwater Management in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa. Wordelman, L. 1984. Swirl Concentrators That Treat Excess Flow at South Toledo, Ohio. Toledo, Ohio: Jones & Henry Engineers. WPCF (Water Pollution Control Federation). 1986. Wastewater Disinfection. Manual of Practice. FD-10. Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation. WPCF (Water Pollution Control Federation). 1990. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment. Manual of Practice FD-16. Alexandria, Virginia: Water Environment Federation. Zariello, P.J. 1989. Simulated water-quality changes in detention basins. Pp. 268-279 in Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, L.A. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen, eds. New York, New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.