Water supply and wastewater in coastal areas Southeastern conference, April 2-4, 1975 : [proceedings]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone 09 +30 COASTAL ZONE
Information The proceedings of the south eastern conlflelrFeOn c-ReMo ATION CENTER
Center
FEB 0 3 1977
Water Supply
and Wastewater
in Coastal Areas

Coastal Plains Center for Marine Develop-
ment Services-Coastal Plains Regional
Commission

Water Resources Research Institutes and
Sea Grant Programs of the Carolinas and
Georgia

3,
V

TD
201
S68
1975
c.2

These Proceedings may be ordered ($8.00 each per copy if prepaid or $10.00
each percopy if billed)from:

Water Resources Research Institute
124 Riddick Building
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER IN
COASTAL AREAS

Southeastern Conference
April 2-4, 1975

Sponsored by the
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development
Services, Coastal Plains Regional Commission
Water Resources Research Institute of The Uni-
versity of North Carolina
University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program

In cooperation with the
Sea Grant Program, University of Georgia
Environmental Resources Center
Georgia Institute of Technology
Sea Grant Program, South Carolina
Marine Resources Center
Water Resources Research Institute
Clemson University

Property of CSC LibrarY
Conference Host
University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Conference Secretariat
Water Resources Research Institute
124 Riddick Building
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
Edited by James M.
96M11 SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
Qk
Q) ":r CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413
ock

PREFACE

Among the most valuable resources of the Southeastern United
States are its coastal lands and waters. The coastal areas, and in
particular their estuaries, are among the most biologically produc-
tive regions of the nation, spawning major sports and commercial
fisheries. The extremely high recreational and esthetic values of
coastal lands and waters carry the seeds of their own destruction
through their attractiveness for economic development.

In recent years these areas and their fragile ecosystems have
been threatened with increasing pressures for development. Unless
these pressures are controlled and directed in a conscious way, the
very features of the coast that make it economically, esthetically,
and ecologically rich will be damaged, even destroyed. A major prob-
lem associated with increasing population growth and economic devel-
opment in these areas is the provision of safe and adequate water
supplies and management of wastewater discharges in a manner consis-
tent with public health and welfare and environmental protection.

The Conference was conducted to review the State of the Art of
proper planning and management of water supply and wastewater dis-
posal in coastal areas. Special attention was paid to defining tech-
nological and institutional alternatives, their relation to land use
planning and environmental protection, and to identifying thosewater
and wastewater problems of significance in coastal areas.

Each session had two speakers followed by a discussion period.
Excellent audience participation with lively discussions added con-
siderably to an understanding of the topics covered. Both the pre-
sentations and discussion sessions are included in the Proceedings.
Chairmen for the individual sessions were Col. Beverly Snow, Coastal
Plains Center for Marine Development Services, Ralph Heath, U.S.
Geological Survey,Marshall Staton,N.C. Department of Human Resources,
F. Eugene McJunkin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and
David H. Howells, Water Resources Research Institute.

The program planning committee included Professor F. Eugene
McJunkin, Chairman; Col. Beverly Snow, Coastal Plains Center for
Marine Development Services; Dr. B. J. Copeland, North Carolina Sea
Grant Program; Dr. Edward Joseph, South Carolina Sea Grant Program;
Dr. Edward Chin, Georgia Sea Grant Program; Dr. L. Douglas James,
Georgia Environmental Resources Center; and Dr. A. W. Snell, South
Carolina Water Resources Institute.

The Conference would not have been possible without the finan-
cial support provided by the Coastal Plains Center for Marine Devel-
opment Services, Coastal Plains Regional Commission.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Call to Order
Beverly C. Snow, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Opening Remarks
R. Jackson Hawke, Jr .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal - Planning and Problems -
in Coastal Areas
Paul S. Denison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ocean Outfall Disposal Systems
Donald L. Feuerstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Environmental Assessment of Marine Outfalls
David R. Hopkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Management and Financing Alternatives for Waste Disposal in
Coastal Areas
Warren Jake Wicker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Land Disposal of Wastewater
F. J. Humenik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Shallow Subsurface Disposal of Wastewater
A. C. Turnage, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Deep Well Disposal of Wastewater
James C. Crooks and Charles W. Sever . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
The Role of Conventional Wastewater Treatment in Coastal Areas
James C. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Groundwater Supplies of the Coastal Region
Harry E. LeGrand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
The Availability of Desalting for Water Supply From Saline
Sources
Walter L. Barnes, Jr .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Wastewater Reuse in Coastal Areas
F. Eugene MeJunkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *111
Summary: Technological Alternatives for Water Supply and
Wastewater Disposal in the Coastal Area
Billy L. Edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

BANQUET
Man Discovers the Coastal Environment: A Footprint in the Sand
James C. Wallace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

First the Water, Then the Sewer, Then Land Use Planning:
Coastal Planning in Retrospect and in the Now
James R. Hinkley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Economic Implications of Coastal Waste Disposal Alternatives
Ronald M. North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Public Participation in Water and Wastewater Planning
Benjamin C. Dysart, = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Impact of Water Supply and Wastewater on the Coastal and
Marine Environments
B. J. Copeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

CALL TO ORDER

Colonel Beverly C. Snow, Jr.
Executive Director
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services
Wilmington, North Carolina

As Executive Director of the Coastal Plains Marine Center, one
of the organizations sponsoring this meeting, I have been asked to
open it and to chair the session this afternoon. The problems we
will be discussing during the next two days and the purpose of the
meeting are set forth in your program and need no further comment
from me. I should mention, however, that we started planning this
meeting nearly a year ago and well before the proposed Wrightsville
Beach ocean outfall came to the forefront of public attention, which
really has happened only during this past month. The relationship
between this project and this meeting is coincidental. However,
since the subject in general is on the program this afternoon, the
local community as well as other interested communities throughout
the Southeast are fortunate in that they will be able to take advan-
tage of the expert knowledge available not only in this part of the
country but in others which we have managed to assemble here at this
meeting.

This brings me to the principal aspect of my own organization's
involvement in this meeting. Our role in the Coastal Plains Marine
Center is to improve the understanding, management, and use of the
Region's coastal zone and Continental Shelf resources. We are sup-
ported by the Coastal Plains Regional Commission, and it is a real
honor and pleasure for us to have with us today the Honorable Jack
Hawke, Federal Co-chairinan of the Commission. Jack will be talking
to you very shortly.

One of a number of ways in which we carry out our role in the
Center is through what we call Cooperative Projects. Projects in
this particular part of our program are joint efforts by the Center
and State agencies having marine and coastal interests, and benefit
not only the States, but more importantly have potential impact on
the orderly economic development of the Coastal Plains Region. You
will note that both the speakers and the other partigipants in this
meeting come from the member States of the Coastal Plains Regional
Commission, and from areas outside the Region, thus permitting the
sharing of available expertise and information across State lines.
As far as we are concerned, this meeting is an outstanding example
of the type of Regional cooperation in information exchange which we
are constantly striving to promote.

Cooperating with us in this conference are the Water Resources
Research Institutes and the Sea Grant Programs of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia.

OPENING REMARKS

R. Jackson Hawke, Jr.
FederaZ Co-chai2vaan
Coastal Plains Regional Commission
Washington, D. C.

I
I am extreme ly honored to be able to be with you today and ad-
dress a group of experts in a field which I have very limited knowl-
edge. You know, I tried to figure out what I was going to say to
you fol ks when I got down here today. The only thing I could think
of was a comment often attributed to W. C. Fields where he often
said, "Water--I hardly touch the stuff."

I noticed in the pamphlet that you sent out announcing your
meeting that you gave a summary of the background of the problems
that you are going to be discussing during the conference. I would
guess that this is the reason that you asked me to make a few remarks
rather than for my technical expertise. The concern of the beauty
and livability of our coastal areas of our three states was the very
reason that the Coastal Plains Regional Commission was originally
established. The Commission is composed, as Colonel Snow has already
pointed out, of the three Governors of North Carolina, South Caro-
lina, and Georgia--and just last week joined by the Governors of
Virginia and Florida--and a federal member appointed by the President
of the United States. It is meant to be a partnership to bring the
full weight of the state governments and the federal government to
bear upon the problems of the economic development within ourregion.
In our original long-range plan, which was done by the Commission,
we stated that our goal was to close the income gap between that ex-
isting in the region and the rest of the nation. That income gap
today is approximately $1,000 per person and has created related
problems within our region of poor housing, low educational attain-
ment, poor transportation systems, poor health care delivery, and all
the related problems that you can imagine, such as low per capita in-
come areas might provide. We can only achieve this goal of closing
the income gap by increasing our productivity and by attracting new
commerce to settle in our region. At the same time, the Commission
is keenly aware of the sensitive nature of the coastal environment
and has established environmental concern as one of its major pro-
gram areas. We limited our program areas to four in the last few
years. One of the four program areas is environmental concern.

A second program area which we have is marine resources which
is also closely tied with the conference that you are having today.
I@ both cases, we have an advisory committee which is appointed by
the Governors and the Federal Co-chai man and a committee of experts
to help us relate our program to the actual needs of the region. We
also helped create the Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development
Services, and we are the sole funding agency for the Marine Resources
Center. So you can see that through our programs and our involvement
we are quite interested in the conference that you are having here.
We are quite interested in the problems that you have, and we are
quite interested in working with you to find the solutions.

Your pamphlet also states, and I quote from it: "The extreme ly
high recreational and esthetic values of coastal lands and waters
carry the seeds of their own destruction through their attractive-
ness for economic development." Quite frankly, I don't think that
this really has to be true. We do have a serious need to balance
the right of the people of this region to earn a sufficient liveli-
hood with the concerns of saving the ecological balance that makes
our region unique. We can never forget that we are talking about
people with low per capita income and attempting tohelp them to earn
a sufficient income to have a sufficient livelihood. I have faith
that American technology such as that represented in this room can
help us find a way to close the income gap and at the same time pro-
tect our environment for future generations.

You know, there's probably no more natural resource that any of
us enjoy than that of water and none that we take more for granted.
We have recently experienced some of the problems that have develop-
ed with the shortage of oil. Our country went through a very trau-
matic experience, and we didn't quite know how to react. Well, I
can't personally imagine what the reaction would be if we were faced
with the same critical shortage of water today. I can remember just
a few summers ago in the neighborhood I live in in Raleigh the cries
of anguish and the wringing of the hands that developed when we had
a water shortage in our little neighborhood. You thought it was the
worst thing that had ever happened. People had to stop watering
their lawns every night; they had to stop washing their cars every
other day; they had to stop using the dishwasher, the clothes washer,
the garbage disposal; and you would have thought the world was com-
ing to an end. But it didn't take long for as soon as that water
shortage was over, we all forgot about it and went right back to the
wasteful ways we had been involved in all along.

When you talk about the disposal of wastewater, this is, again,
another problem that the average citizen doesn't,concern himself
with unless the septic tank backs up or the sewage system becomes
blocked and stinks and bothers their neighborhood in one way or
another or maybe there's a massive fish kill in one of the rivers;
then, it comes to their attention. Otherwise, we just take it for
granted. Water and wastewater disposal is so vital to our total
existence. We are so dependent upon it that we just naturally take
it for granted. This conference will review the state-of-the-art of
proper planning and management of water supply and wastewater dispos-
al in coastal areas. Our coastal areas have unique problems in this
field, but our coastal lands and waters are one of our most valuable
resources. We must face the problem as a region and find solutions
as a region. We hear much these days about developing new energy
supplies in our region. This could involve deep-water ports. We at
the Commission have just completed a deep-water port study. It could
involve the development of petro-chemical companies, new transporta-
tion systems, nuclear power plants, and on and on. Now I don't pro-
fess to be the expert, but I have to ask quite seriously: "Where is
the water going to come from for all of this development and where
are the wastes going to go?" I trust that you who are meeting here
today have those answers because I, frankly, do not.

When I received the invitation to address the conference, I
asked one of my staff members to gather some information together for

me s.o that I might have some facts in speaking to you today. All of
these facts are very familiar to you and will be discussed later
during the conference so I won't bother to go over them now; but
perhaps as a layman, I can share a few thoughts with you and empha-
size some of the problems that you face and some of the difficulties
that you face in trying to find solutions to our water problems.

Now, I really hate to pop anybody's balloon, but when I asked
for a quote that I might use, here is the first one that was given
to me: "One of the hottest issues today is ocean outfalls for waste-
water." Well, it seems to me that the average person is much more
concerned about inflation, recession, war, what's going on in Viet-
nam, skyrocketing utility costs, busing of students--you can name it;
and if we took a poll today of the top fifty concerns of the people
in the country, we'd probably find that ocean outfall wouldn't even
make the list unless it was mentioned by someone in your profession.
When I say this, I'm not trying to belittle the probleml what I'm
trying to do is to bring into focus the real magnitude of the prob-
lem we have when it's not recognized by the average citizen. The
problem must be addressed, and it must be addressed by people such
as yourselves on a regional basis. Research must be conducted to
establish whether anoutfall can actually be used in our region and,
if so, where it might be located. I am told that, unfortunately, the
research in this field is simply too far behind the need.

A second fact presented to me was: "Presently, the greatest
handicap to water resource planning is the lack of funds." To coin
an old phrase, I don't want any of you to feel "rained upon." I can
say without reservation that this is also the greatest handicap fac-
ing the Coastal Plains Regional Commission and the Jack Hawke family
at the present time. Recognizing this, then, how do we proceed from
this point? I recognize that the serious issues that you'll be dis-
cussing in this conference cannot be taken lightly, but I also real-
ize as a layman you are discussing a problem which is beyond the com-
prehension and, therefore, the concern of most of our average citi-
zens. I have been informed that our demands on water will be three
times as great as they are today by the year 2000 for industrial and
municipal uses alone. Now that's a fact and a figure that the aver-
age laymen can understand. That's also a fact and a figure to con-
front the average layman when you consider that this leaves very lit-
tle water for agriculture and recreation. Therefore, we must proceed
immediately to find ways and examine ways of meeting this problem
such as one that I know is on your program, that of reusing our wa-
ters rather than just passing them on into the ocean. About 90 per-
cent of water for industrial and municipal use in our region comes
from the ground. Yet, little has been done to assess the potential
hazards of misusing these groundwater supplies. We are already wit-
nessing chloride intrusion in several areas. The proliferation of
septic tanks is contaminating shallow wells; and worse yet, our cur-
rent land uses may be destroying vital recharge areas. Our surface
waters are being highly taken advantage of without adequate data and
management. Over recent years, hundreds of thousands of shellfish
areas have been closed in our region alone. brainage practices and
urbanization are sending too much water downstream carrying with it
sediment and polluting nutrients.

This conference has been co-sponsored by the major state uni-
versities in our three states. I am sure that you recognize that,
4

as did the original founders of the Coastal Plains Regional Commis-
sion, that our water supply and wastewater problems mustbe addressed
by the entire region. I must keep reminding myself the entire region
now includes Virginia and Florida. One of the reasons for establish-
ing a Title 5 Commission is that we're an area closely related with
the problems and, therefore, can find similar solutions to solve
those problems. The portions of Virginia and Florida that have now
joined our Commission can help to find the solutions that we are
trying to find for our entire region.

There are dozens of agencies at the present time with interest
each going their own way, each doing their own thing. Planning, re-
search in ports, management, and jurisdictional responsibilities must
be pooled. Otherwise, we will not only duplicate efforts and waste
money, but we will run the risk of critical water shortages in the
near future. Unless we collectively design the means to protect and
manage our water supplies, we may soon find ourselves with a water
supply that isn't worth protecting. I hope that we can find the
means to pool our efforts, knowledge, and resources in the years
ahead before we are confronted with the serious consequence of going
our own way. Unless we do so, the water problems that we discuss
today will be the hottest issues that we face tomorrow.

I am happy to offer our solutions as a body and a means to help
in these efforts of coordination. The Coastal Plains Commission has
a unique partnership between the federal and the state levels. We
can serve as a vehicle to achieve the cooperation in water research,
planning, and management that this region needs. We have been suc-
cessful in the past in bringing government, business, citizens, and
educational sectors to bear on a number of projects in our region,
such as the deep-water port study which I just mentioned. We would
very much like to apply our action planning approach to the water
problem, but we need your advice, support, and commitment.

A member of our staff, Eric Slaughter, is here today. He has
prepared a paper that proposes such coordination on a regional ba-
sis and proposes the establishment ofa water resources compact with-
in our region. Eric would like to meet with any of you who would be
interested in offering advice or pursuing the subject tonight at
seven o'clock and get your ideas and suggestions. I think you may
have already received a copy of his paper. Hopefully, out of these
discussions and out ofthis conference and future cooperation we will
find a way to work hand-in-hand for progress.

You know, the original settlers that came to the United States
and landed on our shores sent back the word to Europe that our land
was the "goodliest land under the face of heaven." They looked at
the abundance, the beauty, and the natural resources that we have in
our region. They talked about it as the future leader of the world
because of the beauty and the resources that we have. I think that's
still true today. You know, with the income gap that we experience,
we are still the "goodliest land under the face of heaven." But I'm
not satisfied to say this is what our ancestors said and even this
is what we can say today. I would like to be able to have-my child-
ren and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren to be able to
stand up and say the same thing. Unless we have development in our
region that goes hand-in-hand with solving the problems of our re-
gion, this won't be the case. So I take my hat off to you; I thank
5

you for coming, and I hope that you will work together in a state
of cooperative effort to help us solve these problems.

WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL-
PLANNING AND PROBLEMS-IN COASTAL AREAS

Colonel Paul S. Denison, P.E.
Henry von Oesen and Associates, Inc.
Consulting Engineers & Planners
Wilmington, North Carolina

INTRODUCTICN

I would like to begin my presentation today with a brief quote-

"Among the most valuable resources of the Southeastern
United States are its coastal lands and waters. The coast-
al area, and in particular - the estuaries - are among the
most biologically productive regions of the nation, spawn-
ing major sports and commercial fisheries. The extremely
high recreational and aesthetic values of coastal lands
and waters carry the seeds of their own destruction through
their attractiveness for economic development.

"In recent years, these areas and their fragile ecosystems
have been threatened with increasing pressures for develop-
ment. Unless these pressures are controlled and directed in
a conscientious way, the very features of the coast that
make it economically, aesthetically, and ecologically rich
will be damaged--even destroyed. A major problem associated
with increase in population growth and economic development
in these areas is the provision of safe and adequate water
supplies and the management of wastewater discharges in a
manner consistent with public health and welfare and envi-
ronmental protection."

If those statements sound familiar, they should, because they're
taken directly from the program brochure outlining the purposecrf the
conference that we're participating in today. You've heard these
thoughts expressed before on numerous occasions in other published
papers and discussions related to problems that we face in the coast-
al margin.

BACKGROLND

The topic that I'm supposed to discuss today--and again, I quote
from the program--is Water Supply and Wastewater Planning and Prob-
lems in Coastal Areas; An Overview. I think that it may be an over-
simplification to state that any problems that exist in our coastal
areas are the direct result of man's attraction to the sea and his
exploitation of the coastal region to accommodate his needs as he
sees them. These problems are not limited to water supply and waste-
water disposal needs by any means. We also have:
7

1. Coastal erosion problems (natural processes as they
interface with man's development endeavors)

2. Navigation projects to support national and local eco-
nomic interests and recreational use of coastal areas

3. Structural considerations as influenced by the coastal
environment (i.e., both on-and offshore structures as
they are affected by hurricanes and other major wea-
ther events, etc.)

But these are not the subject of this conference, so let's iso-
late and take a look atthe water supply and wastewater problems that
we are here to discuss.

WATER SUPPLY PROBLEMS

Historically, as man began to occupy the coastal margin, he
simply drilled shallow wells in the surficial sands to supply water
for drinking and other purposes. At the same time, he discharged
his sewage wastes back into the same surficial sands or land areas,
using conventional septic tanks or even more primitive disposal
means. As long as development was limited, the demands on the pro-
ductive and assimilative capacity of the lands he occupied were
minimal--the process seemed to work. But as development intensified,
the land's capacity tomeet man's needs became more and more marginal.
As development intensified, water sup ly demands increased, and
in many areas small municipal (or private@ supply and distribution
systems were established. In all cases, water supply for these sys-
tems was dependent upon shallow or deep-well systems installed in
the barrier islands to produce water to meet these demands. As we
know, the ability of surficial sands on our barrier beach islands to
produce large quantities of water is extremely limited. Perched wa-
ter or fresh-water ponds which are employed in some areas are entire-
ly dependent upon rainfall and have an obviously limited productive
capacity. Deeper well systems were more productive, but they also
have a limited capacity due to the ever-present threat of saline in-
trusion. Some of the municipal water supply systems in beach com-
munities have already experienced this phenomena. This, then, re-
sults in the necessity for these continuously growing communities to
look elsewhere for water supplies to meet their continuously growing
demand.

At the present time, the obvious solution is to augment local
water supply capabilities with additional potable water transported
from the more productive mainland areas. Two classic cases in point
exist right here in Wrightsville Beach and in the Dare Beaches area
in northeastern North Carolina. In both cases, the productive capa-
cities of water supply sources onthe beach property have reached their
limit, and programs are underway to obtain increased supplies from
areas that lie behind the beach margin itself. It appears that this
trend will and must continue with the growing beach communities look-
ing tothe water-rich areas on the mainland for augmentation of their
water supply. Obviously, the cost of transporting water from these
mainland sources to the beach margin is a primary consideration.
However, at the moment it appears to be the only viable solution to
8

the problem. I should emphasize here that not all of our developing
beach communities in North Carolina have reached this point. It will
probably be a number of years before groundwater supplies in some of
our developing beach areas experience this difficulty. In some
cases, it may never occur. As the state-of-the-art in water quality
management and recycling progresses, we may be able to resolve the
problems of the future without resorting to obtaining additional wa-
ter supplies from external sources. We hope this prospect is not too
far down the pike.

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PRCBLEMS

Wastewater disposal in the coastal area represents a more dif-
ficult and challenging problem, in my opinion. Man's increased de-
velopment and exploitation of the coastal regions results in higher
wastewater discharge loadings, which begin to overtax the assimila-
tive capacities of the lands and/or receiving waters into which they
have historically been discharged. My remarks here are primarily
directed to the problem of disposal of domestic sewage wastes in the
developing beach areas and barrier beach islands that we mentioned
relative to the water supply problem. This is not to say that in-
dustrial and commercial developments in the coastal region don't
represent serious wastewater disposal problems--they do. However,
these developments are generally confined to the mainland areas ad-
jacent to navigable fresh-water streams orthe larger tidal estuaries
and, with the exception of some smaller commercial operations such
as seafood processing facilities, these major commercial and indus-
trial developments have been under close scrutiny during the past
few years and are being required to meet continuously increasing
controls of effluent discharges into these -waters in order to sus-
tain their operations. This is not to say that problems still don't
exist, but sufficient attention has been focused on this area that I
won't attempt to discuss it in the limited time that we have today
except for cursory mention a little later in my talk.

The specific problem that we really haven@t faced up to to date is
the one of domestic wastewater treatment and disposal in the immedi-
ate beach and adjacent estuarine areas. As growth and development
has continued in these regions, the result has been ever-increasing
discharges into the surficial sands orsoils that surround our coast-
al waters to a point where the assimilative capacities of these soils
have been taxed beyond tolerable limits. This has resulted in seri-
ous potential health and sanitation problems in the beach areas them-
selves, and considerable evidence has been presented to demonstrate
that the excessive discharges of sewerage wastes into the coastal
soils are beginning to adversely affect the fragile estuarine waters
that surround these land areas. Only one beach community, the Town
of Wrightsville Beach, has constructed a municipal wastewater treat-
ment facility as a step towards resolving the problem. However, even
in this case, secondarily treated wastewater effluent is discharged
into the estuarine system adjacent to the beach (Shell Island Sound).
This area is presently closed to shellfish harvesting, and although
the facility is being efficiently operated and maintained in conso-
nance with State permits for its operation, the discharge of this
treated wastewater effluent still represents a serious impact on the
estuarine systems in the area and inhibits the recreational use of
these waters. Obviously, a better solution to the problem has to be
found. 9

The problems we're talking about are not new nor have they been
"just discovered." A number of responsible people have pointed out
this problem for the past decade or more. I personally was asked to
speak to the North Carolina Board of Conservation and Development at
their meeting in Nags Head in the fall of 1968. 1 stated at that
time that the rapid growth phenomena being experiencedin our coastal
areas pointed up the urgent necessity to establish adequate land use
plans and, specifically, that the problems of water supply and waste-
water disposal in the coastal margin would have to be 'addressed and
resolved toprevent the destruction of our valuable coastal resources
as we had seen happen in so many coastal areas of our country. Some
three years later, I was asked to speak to the North Carolina Board
of Water and Air Resources at their fall meeting in Murfreesboro,
North Carolina. In this case, I specifically addressed the growing
wastewater disposal problems in the coastal margin and had the auda-
city to suggest that we needed to take a serious look at discontinu-
ing wastewater disposal procedures that were having potentially seri-
ous pollution impacts on our fragile and productive estuarine systems
in the coastal area. I went on to say that we needed to collect and
treat domestic wastes in our beach areas and discharge them offshore
into the Atlantic Ocean through ocean outfalls rather than to con-
tinue tolerating discharge practices that are polluting our estuarine
waters.

STATUS OF WATER SUPPLY P10 WASTEWATER PLANNING PROGRAMS

I think we are making progress in addressing these problems, but
it is a slow and tedious process. This brings us to the specific
point of planning and acting to resolve these problems. After con-
siderable public involvement and a great deal of consternation, the
North Carolina General Assembly passed a coastal area management act
during its 1974 session. I won't comment on how successfully this
act may help us to home in on the specific problems of water supply
and wastewater disposal , but it does direct the local governing bod-
ies of the coastal area to direct their attention to proper and ade-
quate planning processes. More to the point, we find that the re-
sponsible governing officials in coastal areas have initiated plan-
ning actions to help resolve their water supply and wastewater dis-
posal problems. For the past three or four years, our firm alone has
been heavily engaged in studies and preparation of preliminary engi-
neering reports to help solve these problems. To date, we have com-
pleted such studies in the Dare Beaches area of Dare County, in Car-
teret, Onslow, Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties, which
pretty well covers most of coastal North Carolina. In some cases,
these studies have resulted in the construction of new water supply
distribution systems. Some examples are found in the Topsail Beach/
Surf City area, and expansion or augmentation type projects are un-
derway in Beaufort and Carteret County, Wrightsville Beach, and in
Brunswick County. An ambitious regional water supply project that
we have proposed for the Dare County complex (Dare Beaches area and
Roanoke Island) goes to referendum for public approval on the 15th
of this month. Similar projects are under consideration or underway
in other coastal counties.

The wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal programs in
these areas present a little different picture. The facility con-
struction projects that were on the verge of being implemented two
10

or three years ago were delayed by the passage of the 1972 Amend-
ments to the Water Pollution Control Act which required that 201 Fa-
cilities Plans be prepared, reviewed, and approved before any State
or Federal grant assistance could be obtained for the construction
of these facilities. I'm not criticizing the 201 facilities plan-
ning concept when I say that its advent has caused delay in con-
struction of facilities that would be operational today had the ad-
vent of this planning requirement not been levied upon the local
units of government. On the plus side, the 201 planning requirement
has accelerated action on the part of some coastal area governments
where initiatives might not have been taken for some time to come
without this stimulus. To date, 201 facilities plans have been com-
pleted for the Carteret County complex (heavily populated central
part of the county, including East Bogue Banks) and for Wrightsville
Beach. Preparation of plans are underway for the Dare County complex,
West Carteret County and the Swansboro Area, the Onslow and Pender
County beaches area, the Greater Wilmington area, South New Hanover
County area, and portions of the Brunswick County beaches area. As
you can see, this pretty well covers all of coastal North Carolina
where development has caused easily identifiable wastewater disposal
problems. The planning in each case is truly regional in scope; and
in some cases, totally regional solutions will be presented. In
other cases, it appears that the optimum solution tothe problem will
be to establish and operate sub-regional facilities within the total
facilities complex area. 1, again, may be oversimplifying a point
to state that the planning process is working. Obviously, there are
still numerous problems to be resolved between acceptance of the plan
concept and implementation of the plan itself. This could be the
topic of a whole new discussion, some of the points of which will be
discussed by other speakers participating in the program.

I would like to close my remarks by pointing up one serious
problem we have yet to face here in North Carolina. Our studies in
Carteret County and Wrightsville Beach (which have been completed)
indicate that the most viable solution to the problem of wastewater
disposal in the beach communities is to collect and adequately treat
the waste and dispose of the high-quality effluent residual into the
Atlantic Ocean through ocean outfalls. This conclusion has'been
reached after detailed consideration of every conceivable alterna-
tive in complete consonance with the Environmental Protection Agency
guidelines prescribing the planning process. Our preliminary conclu-
sions in other areas we're studying, such as Dare County, the rest
of Carteret County, Pender County, and even Brunswick County, indi-
cate that this will be the most viable solution in these areas also.
Our problem here is that the State has not promulgated rules and
regulations concerning the question of such discharges by use of
ocean outfalls; and consequently, the State is not in a position to
certify nor approve what appears to be the most cost-effective and
socially and environmentally acceptable solution to the problem.
This concept is not new--it has been studied for a number of years
and has been analyzed, approved, and is being employed in numerous
coastal areas on both the East and West Coasts of the United States,
and in other areas of the world. In my opinion, adequate and opti-
mum protection of our environment in North Carolina is being delayed
due to lack of guidelines and initiatives on the important question
of ocean outfalls. I note that a number of other speakers will ad-
dress this specific question later on in the program. I look forward
with interest to hearing what they have to say.

OCEAN OUTFALL DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

Donald L. Feuerstein, A.D.
Associate
Engineering-Science, Inc.
600 Bancroft way
Berkeley, California 94710

Submarine outfall disposal systems have been used in a number
of areas of the world effectively, and successfully, to dissipate
wastewater constituents in a receiving environment. Initial develop-
ment and use of large submarine outfalls occurred on the West Coast
of the United States, particularly in southern California, due prob-
ably to a combination of favorable or compelling conditions. Large
human populations were concentrated on the coast, the ocean provided
the only available receptor for wastewaters, and there was a need to
maintain an acceptable bacterial quality of the beach areas.

Because the bathymetry of the West Coast allows attainment of
substantial wastewater discharge depths reasonably close to shore
(e.g., in Santa Monica Bay, 18 m [60 ft] of depth occurs about one
statute mile from shore) that are not equalled on the East Coast
(e.g., in Onslow Bay, 18 m ofdepth occurs more than 13 statute miles
from shore), ithas been assumed by many that major submarine outfall
disposal systems would not be cost-effective on the East Coast; and
as such, few exist. In view, however, of the increasing awareness
of the necessity to provide for the most cost-effective and environ-
mentally sound water quality control systems, the efficacy of sub-
marine outfall disposal systems for East Coast conditions requires
reexamination.

The objective of an ocean outfall, or for that matter any dis-
posal system, isto reduce or eliminate any adverse effects of waste-
water discharges on the receiving environment. This objective is
accomplished with a submarine outfall system by effecting the neces-
sary dilution in the immediate vicinity of the discharge with a dif-
fuser section and by locating the diffuser section an appropriate
distance from areas of special concern.

Of the various mechanisms which cause the diminution of dis-
charged wastewater constituents in receiving waters, dilution and
disappearance are the two most important ones. Dilution per se oc-
curs as a result of two distinct mechanisms. The first is the so-
called jet, or initial, dilution which occurs in the immediate vicin-
ity of the diffuser section or point of discharge,and which extends
to some level in the receiving water above the discharge. The area
extending upward to this level is referred to as the initial mixing
zone. The second mechanism which causes a dilution of the waste in
the receiving water is that which occurs as a result of lateral dis-
persion, or diffusion. This is a mechanism, very similar to molecu-
lar diffusion, which occurs as the wastes are transported away from
the initial mixing zone by the receiving water currents.

The second mechanism for diminution of wastewater constituents,
at least for the non-conservative wastewater constituents, is disap-
pearance, or decay, whereby the particular non-conservative constituent
12

disappears with time due to any number of factors, such as sedimen-
tation, chemical conversion, or bacterial die-away. These, then, are
the three principal mechanisms for diminution of the wastes in the
environment which must be considered in the rational design of a sub-
marine outfall disposal system.

Because most outfall disposal systems discharge predominantly
municipal wastes into the marine environment, which is a salt-water
environment, the discharged wastes are generally of lesser salt con-
tent than the waters into which they are being discharged. In addi-
tion, the municipal wastes are generally warmer than the receiving
waters. These two factors cause the discharged waste, upon entering
the receiving waters, to rise above the discharge point or diffuser
and disperse in the initial mixing zone as a result of buoyant and
momentum forces.

A schematic of a rising wastewater plume is shown in Figure 1.
At some point in the water column over the port or diffuser, the
wastewater-seawater mixture will achieve the same density as the re-
ceiving water and thereafter will have no further tendency to rise.
Moreover, if the rising wastewater-seawater plume encounters a pycno-
cline which is a pronounced density gradient,it will generally rise
no further because of insufficient energy in the rising plume to
penetrate the pycnocline and because the rising plume would then be
surrounded by water of much lesser density. Pycnoclines, generally
about ten meters in depth, are quite common in coastal waters and
result from a well-mixed upper layer caused by action of the wind and
waves on the ocean surface. Figure 1 represents a situation in which
the rising wastewater-seawater plume encounters a pycnocline result-
ing in a so-called submerged field. The submerged field is a desir-
able feature because not only will the discharged wastewater be in-
visible from a non-submerged vantage point but the floatables and
other materials in the wastewater which have a tendency to concen-
trate at the interface, or at the top of this mixed wastewater-geaqater
zone, wi 11 have no tendency to surface and create nuisances. If there
is nopronounced pycnocline or if the energy in the rising wastewater-
seawater plume is such that the pycnocline is penetrated, the waste-
water-seawater mixture will surface and may be apparent on the sur-
face. In either case, the initial dilution, So, which occurs in the
initial mixing zone, is the concentration of the wastewater divided
by the concentration of the wastewater-seawater mixture. Because the
ocean currents at any given time are highly variable with respect to
speed and direction throughout the water column, it is important to
predict at what level the wastewater-seawater mixture will have no
further tendency to rise in the water column. It is at this level
that the wastewater-seawater mixture will be transported away from
the diffuser and will be attenuated subsequently byother mechanisms.

The relationships and calculations that will be presented are
based on the dilution of soluble material and are not applicable to
the dilution or dispersion of materials which are only slightly dis-
persed, such as floatable or particulate matter. It must be empha-
sized that these relationships do not apply if one is concerned about
concentrations of floatable or particulate matter at the surface.
Historically, the primary concern has been the resulting concentra-
tion of coliform bacteria or pathogens at some point in the receiving
water. Because coliform organisms react as a soluble or dissolved
substance in the immediate vicinity of the discharge, they can be
treated as dissolved substances. 13

PYCNOCLINE

d eco

cw INITIAL d
so =c MIXING dy
0 ZONE Ymax

(rd 1@
w-

FIGURE I
DEFINITION SKETCH OF RISING WASTEWATER -
SEAWATER PLUME
2d
* Co

IN ITI AL
MI XI NG
ZONE

The maximum height, y . achieved by the rising wastewater-
seawater plume above the diMuser can be estimated using the follow-
ing equation:

1/3
610 q 0(al - 'd)
Ymax - do 3/2 (1)
119- jy0
Ymax @ maximum height of plume above diffuser, m
q 0 = discharge per linear meter of diffuser, cu m/sec-m
a I = density of ocean water at level of source
Cyd = density of wastewater
da
0
dy = density gradient, 1/m
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/sq sec

The appropriate densities and density gradient for use in the ex-
pression are shown on Figure 1. Inspection of Equation 1 reveals
that the only variable available to the designer of the ocean outfall
which influences the maximum height of plume above the diffuser is
the term qo, which is the rate of wastewater discharge per length of
diffuser. Thus, within any particular area of wastewater discharge
(where seawater densities and density gradients are relatively con-
stant with respect to specific location, and for a specified waste-
water flow rate), the maximum height of plume rise is dependent only
upon the length of the diffuser section.

The initial dilution, SO' occurring near the top of the rising
wastewater-seawater plume, can be estimated from the relationship
shown in the following equation:
0.41 g1/6 (a I d) 2/3
0 1/3 do 01 1/2
q r-
0 Ldy I

It can be observed that again the only variable available to the de-
signer is qo, which is the wastewater discharge flow rate per length
of diffuser. The other variable factors (density of wastewater, den-
sity of ocean water at the level of discharge, and the appropriate
density gradient) are generally beyond the control of the designer.

The relationships shown by Equations I and 2 were developed for
the case of a continuous discharge into a quiescent receiving body of
water. As such, they are not exactly applicable to the very dynamic
marine environment where there exists a continual mass transport of
water past any particular location. On the basis of mass conserya-
tion considerations, the maximum initial dilution can be estimated
using the following expression:

S = u b d (3)
0 Q

u = effective current speed, m/sec
b = diffuser length, m
d = mixing depth, m
Q = wastewater discharge rate, cu m/sec

This simple expression indicates that the maximum initial dilution
occurring in the initial mixing zone is a function of the effective
current speed perpendicular to the diffuser, the length of the dif-
fuser, the mixing depth, and the wastewater discharge rate. Once
again, this equation demonstrates that with the exception ofrelocat-
ing to a point of more favorable current speed or into an area of
more favorable mixing depth the only variable available to the de-
signer is the diffuser length.

Following the initial dilution that occurs in the immediate vi-
cinity of the diffuser, the wastewater-seawater mixture will be
transported away from the initial mixing zone by the ocean currents.
This transport is accompanied by another dilution mechanism; namely,
lateral dispersion. An idealized sketch of a laterally dispersing
wastewater plume originating from the diffuser section is shown in
Figure 2. As the wastewater of.concentration C. is transported away
from the diffuser section, itdecreases in concentration due to dilu-
tion effected by horizontal dispersion. For the idealized case, the
maximum wastewater concentration at any distance from the diffuser
will occur at the center line of the plum , as shown in Figure 2.
Co is the concentration of wastewater over the diffuser following
initial dilution, and Sdif is the minimum dilution effected by hori-
zontal dispersion at some specified point downstream.

The minimum dilution due to horizontal dispersion, Sdif, can be
determined from the following expression:

Sdif erf - 1.5 3 (4)
@_a
.2/3
b

t = minimum travel time, hr
a = coefficient of diffusivity, m 2/3 /hr
erf = standard error function

This expression is applicable to a line source discharge such as
shown in Figure 2. It provides the dilution occurring along the cen-
ter line of the plume. Inspection of this expression indicates that
the only two variables subject to control by the designer are the
travel time to the point of interest and the diffuser length. Be-
cause the travel time from the diffuser to some point of concern,
such as the shoreline, is a function of current velocity and distance,
the travel time can be changed by increasing or decreasing the length
of the outfall.

The second type of diminution mechanism is that caused by the
disappearance, or decay, of non-conservative constituents. For coli-
form bacteria, the appropriate expression for estimating the dilution
effected by bacterial disappearance, Sdis' is the simple expression
shown in the following equation:
Sdis @ 10 t/T 90 (5)

Tgo @ time required for 90 percent disappearance of coliform
bacteria, hr

From this expression it can be seen that the only variable available
to the designer of the disposal system is the minimum travel time,
which is a function of the length of the outfall and the appropriate
ocean current velocity.

The relative importance of the three diminution mechanisms for
various outfall lengths, associated diffuser depths, and Tgo values
is shown in Table 1. These values have been calculated for a waste-
water discharge pte of 0.33 m3/sec (7.5 mgd); a horizontal diffusi-
Vity Of 0.010 CM2 3/sec (0.0010 ft2/3 /sec), which is a general ocean-
ic average; adiffuser length of 100 m (328 ft); an effective curreot
velocity over the diffuser of 3 cm/sec (0.058 knot); and a transport
current velocityof 9 cm/sec (0.17 knot). Lookingatthe values listed
in the column underT90 = 1 hour, a relatively small increaseindis-
tance results ina very large increase in total dilution. A T value
of one houris quite typical of values observed in warm water?oaround
the world, such as the waters in the vicinity of Acapulco Bay, Mexi-
co; Rio de Janerio, Brazil; Puerto Rico; and the Hawaiian Islands.
As one proceeds northerly into colder waters, Tgo values increase.
Values along the California coast, for example, are observed to be
nearer two to three hours. To consider the relative effect of Tgo
value at a fixed distance of two kilometers, for example, it is ap-
parent from Table I that increasing the Tgo value by a factor of four,
from one to four hours, results in a reduction in total dilution of
five orders of magnitude, or from a factor of 106 to only 101.
Therefore the Tgo value employed in the design of submarine waste-
water dis@osal systems is quite critical in determining the required
length and location of the outfall.

It isapparent from Table I that the diminution resulting solely
from horizontal dispersion is small in relation to other dispersing
mechanisms. For example, increasing the distance from the diffuser
or the length of outfall from 0.5 km to 10 km results in an increase
in total dilution from two to 69. Dilutions on the order of 50 to
100 can be achieved in the initial mixing zone by proper diffuser
design.

Although a high dilution of wastewater can be achieved with a
submarine outfall disposal system, the other major functional com-
ponent of the wastewater management system--n&rely, wastewater treat-
ment--must not be overlooked in determining the most cost-effective
system. For a given wastewater characteristic and receiving environ-
ment quality objective, there is usually a variety of wastewater
treatment and disposal systems that can be integrated to provide com-
parable results.

WASTEWATER-
Co CONCENTRATION
PROFILE

S Co
dif C,

FIGURE 2
DEFINITION SKETCH OF HORIZONTALLY DISPERSING
WASTEWATER -SEAWATER PLUME

Table I

RELATIVE MAGNITUDES OF DIMINUTIONS EFFECTED
BY SUBMARINE OUTFALL DIFFUSER SYSTEPla

Distance Depth Dilution Factor
from of b
Diffuser Diffuser Initial Horizontal d Disappearance
km miles m ft Dilution Dispersion Tgo @ I hr Tgo @ 4 hr
0.5 0.31 5.5 18.0 5.00 x 10 1 1.98 3.49 x 101 2.40
1.0 0.62 7.3 24.0 6.60 x 10 1 3.85 1.22 x 10 3 5.74
2.0 1.24 9.1 29.9 8.30 x 10 1 8.06 1.49 x 106 3.31 x 101
3.0 1.86 11.0 36.1 9.10 x 10 1 1.33 x 10 1 1.82 x 109 1.91 x 10 2
5.0 3.11 13.7 44.9 1.00 x 10 2 2.62 x 10 1 2.71 x 10 15 6.26 x 10 3
10.0 6.21 16.5 54.1 1.03 x 10 2 6.90 x 10 1 7.32 x 10 30 3.94 x 10 7
L
aWastewater discharge rate = 0.33 m3/ sec (7.5 mgd); diffuser length = 100 m (328 ft).
bOnslow Bay, North Carolina.
CEffective current velocity 3 cm/sec (0.058 knot).
dHorizontal current velocity 9 cm/sec (0.17 knot); horizontal diffusivity = 0.010 cm 2/3 /sec (0.0010 ft 2/3
sec).

In general, an increasing level of treatment or pollutant re-
moval can be matched with a decreasing dilution capacity of the dis-
posal facility tosatisfy the same receiving water quality objectives.
Because the costs, as well as the overall environmental effects, of
the various candidate systems will differ, a careful consideration
and evaluation of the overall wastewater management system must be
undertaken if the most economical and environmentally acceptable
treatment and disposal system is to be provided.

There is available a fairly large array of processes, represent-
ing a wide range of pollutant removal efficiencies, from which to se-
lect a treatment process train that can achieve a desired level of
treatment or wastewater constituent removal. With respect to dis-
posal of wastewaters into the marine environment, the wastewater
parameters of potential concern can be grouped into several generic
categories. These are settleable solids, suspended solids, float-
ables, oxygen-demanding substances, temperature, pH,nutrients, toxic
metals, toxic organic compounds, and bacteria or other infectious
agents. The magnitude of one or more of these groups of pollutants,
depending upon the particular characteristics of the wastewater and
the receiving environment, will usually define the necessary design
criteria and configuration of the treatment and disposal system.

In addition, other existing and anticipated factors should be
taken into account inthe functional design of treatment and disposal
systems. There appears to be a trend developing for more complete
treatment of wastewaters, with little or no subsequent dilution re-
quired of the disposal system because of the increasing desirability
and need in many parts of the world for wastewater reuse. Selection
of more complete treatment has associated with it, however, several
factors which require careful consideration.

One factor is an increase in waste solids requiring disposal
due to the use of additive chemicals, such as alum or lime, and to
the greater removals of both soluble and insoluble wastewater con-
stituents. The costs of processing and disposing of these waste
solids can be large, and the environmental effects of disposing of
these materials on land can be quite adverse without proper precau-
tions.

Other factors associated with more complete treatment are in-
creased process unreliability, higher frequency of operational upset,
and the need for greater knowledge and sophistication on the part of
operating personnel. As the treatment process train becomes more
extensive and complex, its reliability for providing the required
level of treatment generally lessens due to a greater need for care-
ful process control and an increase in the number of operations and
equipment that can fail or malfunction. An adequate disposal system
can provide the necessary immediate dilution to greatly reduce the
environmental effects and risks of such occurrences.

Staged implementation is another important factor to be con-
sidered in the selection and design of a wastewater treatment and
disposal system. Disposal systems, and particularly submarine out-
falls, are usually sized for ultimate flow conditions at the end of
useful life, which is normally 30 to 50 years. Therefore, the conduit
is oversized for most of its useful life, resulting in necessarily
high capitalization costs. Treatment plants, however, can be more
20

readily staged to produce an overall higher use factor over the en-
tire planning period, a more equitable distribution of capital costs,
and a certain flexibility to respond to unforeseen future changes in
wastewater characteristics, water quality objectives, and public at-
titudes. Disposal systems, on the other hand, have relatively low
recurring costs, whereas treatment systems have relatively high re-
curring costs for labor, power, chemicals, maintenance, and replace-
ment.

In general, treatment and disposal systems that rely primarily
on the disposal system for effecting the major diminution orattenua-
tion of controlling pollutants have the relative advantage of pos-
sessing high degrees of wastewater dilutions, low recurring costs,
and great reliability. Treatment and disposal systems that rely
primarily on the treatment system for reducing pollutant concentra-
tions in the environment have the relative advantage of providing
specificity of particular pollutant diminution, of reducing the pol-
lutant emission rate, and of providing flexibility to respond to un-
foreseen future changes.

In conclusion, considerations of the phenomenological aspects
of dilution effected by submarine outfall disposal systems, local
oceanographic conditions, and an ever-increasing demand to lessen
the environmental effects ofwastewater discharges indicate that sub-
marine outfall disposal systems on the East Coast could be cost-
effective and should be given careful evaluation.

QUESTIONS PND DISCUSSION
QUESTION: (Professor Eugene McJunkin) Could you redefine T 90 again?
DR. DoNALD FEUERSTEIN: The Tgo value is a convenient parameter which
is the time it takes for 90 percent of a given number of organisms to
disappear from the sample. A Tgo of one hour indicates that if you
have 100 organisms, at the end of one hour you would have 10 organ-
isms. In other words, 90 would perish or disappear.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells to Colonel Denison) In your
comments you spoke on the one hand to the future problem of increas-
ing the available water supply, perhaps having to recycle some water
particularly in the coastal fringe; and on the other hand, you point
to the efficacy of ocean outfalls and their lower costs or possible
lower costs. It seems to me that once we make the decision to take
a wastewater to sea, water incidentally which has a very low dis-
solved solids content relative to sea water, one that is really
fairly ready for reclamation, and dispose of it in the ocean, it's
gone--it's a resource gone. It would seem to me that we ought to
explore whether to discharge to sea or to land and tie this decision
back to the available water supply--whether we might not want to
think more about, say, land disposal, recharging the groundwater and
building this up for greater use. Would you care to comment?

COLONEL PAUL DENISON: I think this represents a very real question
and one that I did allude to in my talk simply by stating that when
we reach the stage that we can recycle in a true sense, obviously
this is the route we have to go. I think that the profession recog-
nizes this need and is dedicated to this objective; however, we feel
that we're still some years away from the breakthrough, so to speak,
that will actually let us recycle wastewater effluent discharges in
a sense that they can resolve the water supply question.

You asked shouldn't we look at the possibility of recycling by
land disposal in order to recharge our water supply short areas. The
answer is: Yes, we should and we have. The basic problem, I think,
stems from the fact that our present degrees of treatment and the
problems of discharging quantities of waste that still have some un-
desirable residuals, limit this possibility in large degree when we
are talking about the very narrow barrier beach islands that we are
so much concerned with. We looked at the possibility of land dis-
posal with treated wastewater effluent; but once again, with the cost
of property and the very limited availability of land in the beach
area, land disposal is not a cost-effective solution at the present
time. When you talk about transporting effluent back to some larger
land areas where land disposal can be effective, thenit is not cost-
effective because of the transport cost.

Now, other recycling concepts such as spray irrigation on golf
courses and this sort of thing which are water-supply demanding are
certainly a point of consideration. The State has established guide-
lines for this limited disposal use, which in a sense is recycling.
We find once again that the restraints or restrictions placed on this
method of disposal are extremely limiting as compared to the quanti-
ties of water that we are talking about discharging. So I think this
simply boils down once again tothe fact that with the treatment that
we can afford to provide today plus the very limited discharge capa-
22

bility as far as recharging the aquifers in the beach systems are
concerned, recharging appears to represent a very limited potential
at this stage of the game.

In reference to a very important remark that you made, the sug-
gestion for wastewater disposal by ocean outfalls at this time is not
intended to be the end-all answer to this question. It's being con-
sidered on a nationwide basis and is being approved in many other
areas at the present time as an interim solution to the problem un-
til we achieve the breakthroughs that you aye talking about and dem-
onstrate that we can effectively recycle the discharges from our
wastewater treatment facilities. Our problem now is that when you
look at the alternatives, our options are limited. I would like to
emphasize that one of the primary objectives would be to get these
discharges out of our extremely fragile estuarine systems and into
an environment that is so much more capable of assimilating them.
The ocean is a much more hostile environment relative to the small
amount of discharges that we intend to put out there than are our
estuaries. It really boils down to the question of what other op-
tions do you have? Our analysis indicates that the most cost-effective,
and we sincerely feel the most environmentally acceptable, solution
to the problem during this interim period is ocean outfalls.

QL)ESTION: (Mr. John R. Bettis) Have either of you two gentlemen
been able to get a permit from EPA in the last two or three years to
build an ocean outfall? If so, how do you meet their monitoring re-
quirements at the discharge point?

DR. DONALD FEUERSTEIN: The answer to the first question is definitely
yes. There are a number of outfall systems that have been approved
along the West Coast. One example is the system that we designed for
the City of Santa Barbara. It went through the normal permit pro-
cedures for the State of California, which had in some instances a
more stringent ocean discharge policy than does EPA; we see no prob-
lem in meeting the requirements.

We are also involved--it's not in design yet--with a system in-
volving an ocean outfall in Monterey Bay in California which has the
full blessing of EPA. There is also a system in Humboldt Bay in
northern California where, surprisingly or not, many of the local
people, and particularly the conservationists, felt that it was bet-
ter to discharge the treated wastewaters into the very limited con-
fines of Humboldt Bay; but the state and EPA said: "It shall be put
in the ocean through an outfall." The West Coast does have a more
favorable situation for submarine outfall systems in that it can
reach reasonable depths within short distances of the shore. But a
point perhaps that I did not emphasize in my paper was that nowhere
in the equation is it obvious that depth is a critical parameter to
effecting a major dilution in the ocean. Certainly, it is important
but not directly. The problem of water reclamation and reuse versus
sending it out to the ocean through an outfall disposal system has,
of course, been under consideration for California for many years.
California--particularly, southern California--is an area which is
not blessed with much rainfall; and as such, is a very water-short
area. They transport water from northern California, which means a
conduit of about 400 to 500 miles, extensive pumping, and so forth,
just to supply the water demands for southern California.

All the comments that Colonel Denison mentioned I agree with; I
would like to emphasize two points that he did not mention, however.
In California where crops are extensively irrigated and where waste-
water could be used for this purpose, one is faced with the seasonal
demand for this water and the fact that you cannot irrigate golf
courses even during certain portions of the year because of the rain-
fall. The problem then becomes what to do with this reclaimed water
during the period when it is not required. You either store it or
dispose of it in some manner.

The other problem which I did allude to in my talk is that most
reclaimed water demands require a high quality of water, even irri-
gation, and cannot tolerate major operational upsets in the treat-
ment processes which in the case of reclamation and reuse facilities
is fairly sophisticated. One is now faced with the problem of what
to do with the wastewater when it does not meet the water quality
specifications of the user. An outfall is probably the best way to
dispose of those wastewaters during that period of time and with the
least environmental effect. I think there is a strong case for con-
sidering ocean outfalls even though one anticipates substantial wa-
ter reuse in the future.

Another problem that exists with respect to reuse of reclaimed
water is the fact that although you may be in an area where everyone
demands water, it is very difficult and it takes time to line up and
get users under a long-term contract, which is required if you com-
mit yourself to a wastewater reclamation and reuse project.

Finally, the reclamation of wastewater has been practiced in
southern California probably more than anywhere else in the United
States, and most of these successful operations, particularly those
of which you may be aware in the Los Angeles County area, are on-
line systems. In other words, they are systems set on a large sew-
er main and take off the water at a constant rate, remove the solids
and provide the quality of reclaimed water desired and discharge all
of the solids and residuals back into the sewer to be transported
downstream to a conventional sewage treatment plant forultimate dis-
posal. I would say that at least in California where you have such
a situation, wastewater reclamation does have very, very good cost
benefits. But there are other areas where you don't have that ideal
situation.

QUESTION: (Mr. Ted Mew) For what projected levels of population
were you planning in the Dare Beach study?

COLONEL PAUL DENIS= The land use planning and demographic studies
that were done in the Dare Beach area, or in Dare County, were done
by two independent agencies--one by the State Planning Office (field
office in Washington) and another by an independent planner in the
Raleigh area. These two independent or separately done studies pro-
jected populations for the Dare Beach areas extending through the
year 2020. We used these projections as a basis for our preliminary
engineering reports indicating both what water supply demand needs
and wastewater disposal requirements would be. Now without refer-
ring back to the report, I have difficulty giving you the exact num-
bers, but let me mention that the very specific problem in the Dare
Beach areas (which is peculiar to almost all of the coastal areas)
is one of a tremendous swing in water supply demands and wastewater
24

loading during the peak summer season. In the Dare Beach areas, for
example, there are 35 to 40 thousand people on the beach during the
summer season whereas permanent population during the months of Janu-
ary and February will be as low as 3000 to 3500 people. Now in order
to meet water supply demands and wastewater disposal requirements
you've got to be able to handle these peak loadings. So the answer
is that the initial or 1972-1975 projection is in the range of 3500
people permanent population and 35 or 40 thousand peak population
during the summer--June through Labor Day. These projections then
go on up the scale projecting the growth phenomena that has been ex-
perienced in that area in five-year increments, ultimately reaching
by 1995 planning period some 10 million gallons a day water supply
demand and, of course, relatively equal wastewater disposal projec-
tions.

QUESTION: (Mr. Ted Mew) Would you say that these levels are at
least approaching the levels of a Virginia Beach or an Ocean City
type of development or high-rise condominiums on the beach? Is this
what's being planned for?

COLONEL PAUL DENISON: Well, we're not planning for anything except
the projections we've been given. The growth planning is the respon-
sibility of local units of government.
QUESTION: (Mr. Ted Mew) I understand that, but I mean are you plan-
ning or designing your facilities to meet the certain type of devel-
opment?

COLONEL PAUL DENISON: Our preliminary engineering reports for that
area are based on the planning projections made by the planners and
the land use plan associated with that. If you are familiar with
the plan, it simply states that there will be developments in cer-
tain areas with low densities, some medium densities, some high den-
sities, some green space set aside and so on. And, of course, the
implementation or scaling the size or rate of increase in any of
these areas will relate directly to the control established by the
local units of government andbythe planning agency within the coun-
ty. The situation and the problems I have talked about in my talk
exist; today, they are there, they are very critical, so the problem
is: resolveto it immediately in response to whatever the citizens of
Dare County determine shall be their destiny for the future. I have
publicly stated on numerous occasions before and don't hesitate to do
it today. I hope Dare County has no illusions of becoming a Virginia
Beach or an Ocean City, Maryland, or anything else. I think that
this is a primary objective that we are seeking throughout coastal
North Carolina.

QUESTION: (Professor Jake Wicker) I'm going to ask this question
as sort of a devil's advocate. Is there any need to pretreat or to
treat at all if you are going for an ocean discharge other than per-
haps to remove floatables?

COLONEL PALL DENISON: I think either Don or I could speak to this,
and he's already alluded to the fact that historically ocean dis-
charge meant the discharge of raw sewage into the ocean. This, of
course, is no longer tolerable or acceptable although some very in-
teresting studies that have been done in southeastern Florida on
ocean outfalls over 40 years' old discharging raw sewage (and this
25

is still being done in some areas, not only in this country but the
world) indicated that it was extremely difficult to pinpoint any de-
finitive long-term environmentally detrimental effect. There were
some short-term effects around the area ofthe discharge pipe itself,
but let me go specifically to your question. The answer is that we
don't feel, under any stretch of the imagination, that this is a de-
sirable means of disposal of sewage waste, domestic or otherwise. So
we do propose that we provide adequate treatment. We're speaking
specifically, and our recommendations are subject to all the reviews
by the approving authorities that will ultimately have to do this.
We are recommending a good degree of reliable secondary treatment
which will give you a treated wastewater effluent at the end of pipe;
that if caught in a glass looks very much like a glass of water with
a pinch of pepper sprinkled in it, so we are talking about a rela-
tively clear discharge. We strongly recommend, of course, that what-
ever degree of treatment is recommended by the reviewing authority
be effective; but here again, you get to the cost-effective analysis
of what you are trying to do. How much should the taxpayer be asked
to pay to achieve certain objectives?

I will regress for a moment to say that as practicing engineers
if somebody tells us that our recommendation for a $2 million solu-
tion to the problem is not acceptable and they want us to design and
construct a $10 million solution to the problem, we really and truly
have no objections to that--except that from a professional and an
ethical point of view we cannot recommend that because we do not
think it is a proper solution to the problem. Directing back a very
good question asked a few moments ago about what are the chances of
an approval, Dr. Feuerstein referred to his experience on the West
Coast. EPA Region II has been approving ocean outfalls in the north-
ern part of our country for some time. Within the last two years we
understand five have been approved in New Jersey and some number in
New York.

In New Jersey, for example, I remember that the last one subject
to approval is in Atlantic City where they are talking about 40 mil-
lion gallons a day discharged to an ocean outfall to service that
particular community. We're not talking about 40 million gallons
discharged into the Atlantic Ocean off the entire North Carolina
coast between now and the year 2000. And my personal hope would be
that the mechanisms that we were talking about in Dare County a mom-
ent ago will come tobear and that we will see prudent development in
the coastal area and that there will be whatever restrictions are
necessary to insure they get proper development. But man is still
going to want to come to the beach and still going towant to use the
area. While he's there, he's still going to demand water and gener-
ate waste; and our objectives would be to insure that the supplying
of water, treatment of this waste, and disposal of the residuals uses
the most cost-effective, social, and environmental solution that we
can come up with.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MARINE OUTFALLS

David R. Hopkins, P. E.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to talk about ocean outfalls. This method of wastewater disposal is
receiving considerable interest--both pro and con--in our partof the
country--especially in southeast Florida; and now, recently, it is
being proposed for this area.

Two years ago, the Atlanta Regional Office of EPA prepared and
released an environmental impact statement titled, ocean OutfaZZs
and Other Methods of Treated Wastewater DisposaZ in Southeast FZoYida.
As the principal project officer for this project, let me say that
we learned a great deal about the interim viabi 1 i ty of ocean outfal Is.
But we also came to realize that there's still a lot more that we
don't know. To fill in the blank spaces will require more studies.

Right now, plans are underway to I aunch the necessary studies of
the long-term effects of ocean outfalls in southeast Florida and
their relationship to the environment of southeast Florida. EPA is
cooperating with other agencies and groups in setting up these stud-
ies. Other studies are underway in southern California and Washing-
ton.

But first, I think it proper to set the stage for these studies.
To do this, let's take a look at some of the legal aspects. Two acts
are involved with ocean disposal. Ocean dumping is regulated under
the provisions of Section 102 ofthe Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. However, ocean outfalls are
regulated under Section 402 of the FWPCA; that is, National Pollu-
tant Discharge Elimination System. Section 403 of FWPCA requires EPA
to establish discharge guidelines and further adds where insufficient
information exists on any proposed discharge such as to make a rea-
sonable judgement, no such permit for a discharge into ocean waters
will be issued except in compliance with the criteria set forth in
EPA's Ocean Disposal Regulations and Criteria.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
Section 403(c), establishes criteria for the issuance of permits for
ocean discharges. FWPCA, as the legislation is hereafter referred
to, directs the EPA Administrator to establish guidelines for deter-
mining the degradation of waters of territorial seas, of the con-
tiguous zone, and the oceans. FWPCA further directs that the guide-
lines cover seven specific points. I will list these, and I quote
the exact wording of the law:

1. The effect of disposal of pollutants on human health
or welfare, including but not limited to plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.

2. The effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life,
including the transfer, concentration, and disposal of
pollutants on their by-products through biological, 27

physical, and chemical processes; changes in marine
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and
species and community population changes.

3. The effect of disposal ofpollutants on aesthetic, rec-
reation, and economic values.

4. The persistence and permanence of the effects of dis-
posal of pollutants.

5. The effectofthe disposal at varying rates, of partic-
ular volumes, and concentrations of pollutants.

6. Other possible locations and methods of disposal or re-
cycling of pollutants, including land-based altern-
atives.

7. The effect on alternate uses of oceans, such as mineral
exploitation and scientific study.

That's a big order, but EPA established the guidelines in 1973
in a document titled, Ocean Disposal Rec Zations and Critey@ia. At
.FU
the present time, these regulations are being revised, and it is a
revised draft upon which I base my comments today, although I must
emphasize that the revised regulations are not final.

Let me interject here that any state may propose criteria for
EPA to adopt--other than the criteria set forth by EPA--for applica-
tion to the evaluation of permits for dumping material in ocean wa-
ters within the state's jurisdiction or in other ocean waters which
the state demonstrates will affect the state ocean waters.

I also add that in the case of municipal outfalls, which in all
probability will have a grant, the application must first be certi-
fied to us by the state which means state approval comes before EPA.
We cannot act on the grant without the state approval nor could we
approve a permit without state approval .

To continue, let's go into the details of the criteria. FWPCA
requires that criteria for the issuance of ocean disposal permits be
promulgated after several considerations. These are:

1. the environmental effect of the proposed waste dis-
posal operation,

2. the need for ocean disposal,

3. alternatives to ocean disposal, and

4. the effect of the proposed action on aesthetic, rec-
reational, and economic values and on other uses of
the ocean.

The criteria deal with the evaluation of individual permit ap-
plications on a case-by-case basis from information supplied by the
applicant. Such information includes the characteristics of the
waste and the effect of the water on the receiving environment. Not-
withstanding any other provisions of these criteria, no permit will
28

be issued when the disposal will result in violation of applicable
state water quality standards approved or adopted by the EPA Admin-
istrator.

What are the prohibitions, limits, and conditions for issuing a
permit for ocean disposal? First, obviously, there must be a deter-
mination that the proposed waste disposal will not unreasonably de-
grade or endanger the marine environment. To be more specific, it
must be shown that the disposal will present no unacceptable adverse
effects on human health and nosignificant damage to the resources of
the marine environment. It must alsobeshown that the disposal will
present no unacceptable adverse effect on the marine ecosystem. Fur-
ther, it must present no unacceptable adverse persistent or permanent
effects due to the discharge of the particular volumes or concentra-
tion of these materials. And finally, there must be no unacceptable
effect on the ocean for other uses as a result of direct environment-
al impact.

Under no circumstances will EPA approve the discharge from an
ocean outfall of any of the following:

1. High-level radioactive wastes as defined in the regu-
lations.

2. Materials in whatever form (including without limita-
tion solids, liquids, semi-liquids, gases, or organ-
isms) produced or used for radiological, chemical, or
biological warfare.

3. Materials insufficiently described by the applicant in
terms of their composition and properties to permit
application of the environmental impact criteria es-
tablished by EPA.

4. Persistent inert synthetic or natural materials which
may float or remain in suspension in the ocean in such
manner that they may interfere materially with fishing,
navigation, or other legitimate uses of the ocean.

Furthermore, for the most part, EPA will not approve the dis-
charge from ocean outfall the following waste constituents as other
than trace contaminants:

1. organohalogen compounds and compounds which may form
such substances in the marine environment,

2. mercury and mercury compounds,

3. cadmium and cadmium compounds,

4. oil of any kind, and in any form, including but not
limited to petroleum, oil sludge, oil retuse, crude
oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil, lubricating oils, hy-
draulic fluids, and any mixture containing these, and

5. known or suspected carcinogens, mutagens, and terato-
gens.
29

The prohibition and limitation of the last list, however, may
not apply provided the applicant can demonstrate with veritable sci-
entific data that such contaminants are present in the waters only
as chemical compounds or forms non-toxic to marine life and non-
bioaccumulative to the marine environment. Further, it may be damcn-
strated that such constituents are present onlyaschemical compounds
or forms which, within four hours of disposal, will be rendered non-
toxic to marine life and non-bioaccumulative in the marine environ-
ment by chemical or biological degradation in the sea.

Now, if the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that waste
proposed for discharge satisfies the criteria I've listed, a permit
for ocean outfall discharge will be issued unless--and there are
these three additional conditions:

1. There is no need for outfall discharge, or alternative
means of disposal are available, as determined in ac-
cordance with the established EPA criteria, or

2. There are unacceptable adverse effects on aesthetic,
recreational or economic values and determined in ac-
cordance with the established criteria, or

3. Unless there are unacceptable adverse effects on other
uses of the ocean as determined in accordance with the
established criteria.

Even if the waste proposed for ocean disposal satisfies the en-
vironmental impact criteria, the EPA Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator, as the case may be, could determine that any of the
foregoing conditions applies and deny the permit. In that case, he
may issue an interim permit if certain conditions are met. For ex-
ample:

1. that the material must not contain any of the prohib-
ited material,

2. that there is a need to ocean discharge the waste and
that no alternatives are available, and

3. that the need for discharge and the unavailability of
alternatives are of greater significance to the pub-
lic interest than the potential for adverse effects.

In addition, there are limitations on discharge of waste con-
taining living organisms. Such wastes may not be discharged if the
organisms would extend the range of biological pests, viruses, path-
ogenic microorganisms or other agents capable of infecting or alter-
ing the normal population of organisms. Neither may they be dis-
charged if they degrade uninfected areas or introduce viable species
not indigenous to an area. I might point out, however, that this
prohibition does not include effluents or sludges from sewage treat-
ment works provided they have been treated to the equivalent of sec-
ondary treatment.
The impact of ocean outfall disposal on aesthetic, recreation,
and economic values will be evaluated on an individual basis. Con-
sideration shall be given to the potential for the outfall disposal
30

for affecting recreational use and values of ocean waters, inshore
waters, beaches, and shorelines. Consideration shall also be given
to the Dotential foraffecting the recreational and commercial values
of living marine resources.

For all proposed waste discharges, full consideration will also
be given to such non-quantifi able aspects as aesthetics, recreational
and economic impact. These include responsible public concern for
the consequences of the proposed discharge. It also includes the
consequence of a permit being denied, including, without limitation,
the impact on aesthetic, recreational, and economic values with re-
spect to the municipalities and industries involved.

So much for the fine print in the Ocectn DisposaZ ReguLations
coid C2-iteria. Let's go on to some of the other matters. Certain
terms constantly pop up in connection with the ocean outfall dis-
posal, which should be defined.

ReZease zone. In the case of ocean outfall discharge, the re-
lease zone is the area swept out by the locus of points constantly
100 meters from the point at which the waste material enters the
ocean if no diffuser is used, or from the length of the outfall along
which diffuser ports are located.

Disposal site use will be regulated by setting limitations on
times and rates of discharge, establishing a disposal site monitoring
program, and modifying disposal site use based on annual evaluations
of disposal impact.

Let's say a little more about the monitoring program. The pri-
mary purpose of such a program is to evaluate the impact of disposal
on the marine environment. The Regulations say that each EPA man-
agement authority shall develop and maintain monitoring programs for
continuing evaluation of all disposal sites assigned to it. When
disposal sites are being used on a continuing basis, such programs
may consist of several components. These include:

1. Trend assessment surveys conducted at intervals fre-
quent enough to assess the extent and trends of envi-
ronmental impact.

2. Special studies conducted by the permittee to identify
immediate and short-term impacts of disposal operations.

The Regulations also call for an annual evaluation of the im-
pact of the disposal at each site, and this evaluation shall be sub-
mitted as an appropriate part of the Annual Report to Congress due
at the end of each fiscal year. Such reports will be prepared by or
under the direction of the EPA management authority for a specific
site. And it shall be based on an evaluation of all data available
from baseline and trend assessment surveys, monitoring surveys, and
other data pertinent to conditions at or near a site.

The purpose of a baseline or trend assessment survey is to de-
termine the physical, chemical, geological, and biological structure
of a proposed or existing disposal site at the time of the survey. A
baseline or trend survey is to be regarded as a comprehensive synop-
tic and representative picture of existing conditions. Each such

survey is to be planned as part of a continual monitoring program
through which changes in conditions at a disposal site can be docu-
mented and assessed. Surveys will be planned in coordination with
the ongoing programs of NOAA and other federal, state, local or pri-
vate agencies with missions in the marine environment.

Relative emphasis on individual aspects of the environment at
each site will depend on the type of waste disposed of at the site.
It will also depend on the manner in which such wastes are likely to
affect the local environment. But no major feature of the disposal
site may be neglected. The observations made and the data obtained
are to be based on the information necessary to evaluate the site
for ocean disposal. Furthermore, the parameters measured will be
those indicative, either directly or indirectly, of the immediate
and long-term impact of pollutants on the environment at the dis-
posal site and on adjacent land or water areas.

An initial disposal site evaluation or designation study should
provide an immediate baseline appraisal of a particular site. But
it should also be regarded as the first of a series of studies to be
continued as long as the site is used for waste disposal.

Where the bottom is smooth or evenly sloping, stations for wa-
ter column measurements and benthic sampling and collections, other
than trawls, should be spaced throughout the survey areas. Spacing
should also be in such a manner as to provide maximum coverage of
both the disposal site and contiguous control areas, considering
known water movement characteristics.

And there are other considerations, as follows:

** The number of samples collected from the water column should
be sufficient to identify representative changes throughout the wa-
ter column as to avoid short-term impact due to disposal activities.

'" A minimum of five water chemistry stations should be occupied
within the boundaries of a site.

... Sampling stations for the biota in the water column shall be
as near as feasible to stations used for water quality; in addition,
at least two night-time stations in the disposal site and contiguous
areas are required.
...Samples at the bottom shall be taken for both sediment com-
position and structure, and to determine the nature and numbers of
benthic biota. - At each station, sampling may consist of core sam-
ples, grab samples, dredge samples, trawls, and bottom photography or
television, where available and feasible, depending on the nature of
the bottom and the type of disposal site.

- The size distribution of sediments, mineral character, and
chemical quality of the bottom will be determined to a depth appro-
priate for the type of bottom. Parameters to be measured at all sta-
tions include particle size distribution, major mineral constituents,
texture, settling rate, and organic carbon.

The direction and speed of water movement shall be character-
ized at levels appropriate for the site and type of waste to be dis-

charged. Where depths and climatic conditions are great enough for
a thermocline of halocline to exist, the relationship of water move-
ment to such a feature shall be characterized.

FWPCA requires the uniform attainment of effluent limitations
based on secondary treatment for all publicly owned treatment works.
However, there have been expressions of reservation on the necessity
of secondary treatment of ocean discharges. Responding to these
reservations, the EPA Administrator authorized a Task Force to report
its findings and recommendations.

The Task Force spent six months on the study, and in a draft re-
port has concluded that there is some justification for modifying the
secondary treatment requirements as they apply to ocean discharges.
But it found further that technical information available is not
substantial enough to support an amendment to Public Law 92-500.

Specifically, the study group draft report concluded that pollu-
tants of general concern in all ocean waters are toxic and persistent
metals and organics, settleable solids, floatables, and pathogens.
However, at the present time itdoes not believe that enough is known
to relate the environmental effects of these pollutants to effluent
quality on a quantitative basis. It suggested that more research is
needed in this area.

Oxygen -deman ding substances are of concern in most shallow near-
shore ocean waters such as estuaries, bays, and the like; however,
because ofthe dilution and dispersion possibilities, these materials
do not generally cause adverse effects at most open ocean discharges.

Of the technologies considered by the Task Force, secondary
treatment generally achieves the best removal of pollutants. How-
ever, this is designed primarily to remove oxygen-demanding pollu-
tants and suspended solids. The removal of toxic and persistent or-
ganics in secondary treatment is incidental and attendant to the re-
moval of BOD and suspended solids. However, reduction of BOD and
suspended solids contributes significantly to the success of highly
disinfected effluent. The Task Force suggests that technologies not
yet fully developed may be better suited to marine pollution control.

EPA's Region IV has made a thorough study of ocean outfalls in
southeast Florida which has been widely read and discussed. In March
of '73 we released this study--a generic environmental impact state-
ment titled, Ocean OutfaUs and Other Methods of Treated Wastewater
DisposaZ in Southeast FZorida. This document is an examination of
the impact of treated wastewater disposal methods in southeast Flor-
ida. The specific study area included Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade
Counties.

In addition to discharge to the ocean via ocean outfalls, the
alternative wastewater disposal methods considered were: discharge
to freshwater canals and to estuarine waters; injection into the
shallow and deep groundwater aquifers; discharge into the Everglades,
land disposal, and septic tanks.

I must point out here that this environmental impact statement
does not dictate the ultimate solution to the wastewater disposal
problems of southeast Florida since it was not the intent of this
33

environmental impact statement to select one effluent disposal al-
ternative over others. Rather, it is to explore and discuss the
various effluent disposal options available in southeast Florida.

We found that the disposal of secondary treated wastewater to
the ocean via outfalls is a viable method of disposal for southeast
Florida. We believe that diversion of wastewater from inland surface
waters to ocean outfalls will substantially and immediately improve
the quality of those surface waters. And we believe it will contri-
bute to the long-term enhancement of inland surface water quality.

However, we also set three conditions under which the ocean out-
fall method of disposal may be used.

1. Alignment of the outfalls will be established to mini-
mize disturbance of the reefs. A physical and biologi-
cal site survey will be required to establish that
alignment.

2. The outfalls will end beyond the last reef such that,
under maximum shoreward current conditions, the boil
will not overshadow the reef.

3. A continuous monitoring program will be initiated to
detect any unforeseen changes in the maritime environ-
ment and, should such changes occur, alternate dis-
posal methods will be required.

It's EPA's policy, as reflected in the FWPCA, to eliminate dis-
charge to the nation's navigable waters. Ocean outfalls are con-
sidered an interim solution to total wastewater disposal until reuse
and reclamation methods are identified, developed, and reliably im-
plemented.

Incomplete studies described in our impact stateimnt suggest
secondary treatment and discharge beyond -the reef line is a prudent
course of action. Our position, however, strongly recommends addi-
tional long-term studies to determine what, if any, the long-term
subtle effects are of continuing the discharge. We further state
that results of these studies would be the basis for initiating any
changes in the proposed ocean outfall disposal practices.

In conclusion, then, I want to leave you with these thoughts.
The ocean is both a huge sump into which all discharges ultimately
end and also a fragile and in many cases, unknown environment. Be-
fore we introduce new perturbations in the environment, we need to
know what is there to be disturbed so that we can hope to understand
the changes so that we can make rational decisions about whether or
not to reverse those decisions.

MANAGEMENT AND FINANCING ALTERNATIVES FOR
WASTE DISPOSAL IN COASTAL AREAS

Warren Jake Wicker
Assist=t Director
Institute of Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

INTRODUCTION

Waste disposal in coastal areas presents some,special problems
as the previous speakers on the program this afternoon have indi-
cated. My assignment is to open our discussions on the financing and
management questions that must also be addressed if we are to meet
waste disposal needs adequately.

Perhaps I should start by listing an assumption and a general
qualification to what I shall s@y. First, I assume that federal fi-
nancial assistance will continue, but direct federal involvement in
management is unlikely.1 This means that for most of us at this
conference the key financial and management questions involve state
and local governmental actions. My remarks will be focused on state-
local arrangements, although in your discussion you may not so limit
yourselves if you prefer.

Second, I shall speak primarily from rty knowledge and experience
with the particular arrangements in North Carolina. This conference
represents three southern states, and we shall draw from the experi-
ence of all, but my opening remarks will primarily reflect a single
state's background. This will have the advantage of making my re-
marks concrete evenif they are not equally specific for those of you
from South Carolina, Georgia, and other states. The translations to
arrangements in your respective states will, I think, not be diffi-
cult--North Carolina's arrangements are not that different.

The factors that affect financing and management decisions with
respect to waste disposal in coastal areas are for the most part the
same kind that affect decisions of this type in other areas. But
there are some differences, and some of the factors appearin special
forms in coastal areas.

Our previous speakers this afternoon have outlined most of them
well. Those that specially affect financing and management should be
listed again. I would cite seven:

1. The coastal region frequently contains areas of envi-
ronmental concern--fragile environmental systems re-
quiring special management approaches.

2. The preservation of natural and recreati 'onal resources
in coastal areas is often a matter of statewide and
national concern.

3. Waste disposal is often especially difficultin coastal
areas and the necessary facilities especially complex
compared with facilities that are adequate in other

regions. This usually means that costs are compara-
tively high.

4. The year-round population of the coastal areas in the
three states is relatively low, and urban development
is essentially small towns and communities despite the
presence of Myrtle Beach in South Carolina and some
modest-sized cities like Savannah, Charleston, and Wil-
mington just back of the beaches.

5. The peak populations--the summer populations for which
adequate disposal systems must be designed--are rela-
tively large. In some places, the July flows may be
twenty or more times the December flows. This varia-
tion has implications for financing and management as
well as for engineering.

6. Much of the property in beach communities is owned by
people who live--and vote--elsewhere. These develop-
ments are resort communities with extensive absentee
ownership.

7. The small communities that represent the typical beach
development in this region are also frequently char-
acterized by limited financial capacity.

Areas of environmental concern are found in places other than
the coast. There are small communities, poor communities, absentee
ownership, difficult waste-treatment problems, aid resorts elsewhere.
But rarely do they all come together to present the special problems
for financing and management that we typically find on the coast.
These factors condition the arrangements that must be developed to
provide adequately for waste disposal.

FINANCING AND MANAGEMENT APPROACHES

The traditional approach to financing and managing waste dis-
posal in the United States has been to rely primarily on local ini-
tiative and local financing and management. Significant levels of
state and federal financial aid are fairly recent. And even today,
if one considers the total cost of waste disposal--outfalls, treat-
ment facilities, interceptors, collection sewers, operation and
maintenance--most of the cost is met from local sources.

There is increasing thought being given, however, to the possi-
bilities of further modifying the traditional approach--including
more state and federal financing and state management or sharing of
management.

For our discussions today, I will outline briefly three classes
of approaches that deserve consideration:

A. Local management and financing

B. State management and financing

C. A combination of state and local management and financing

Because the local arrangements are traditional and because in
many places they will meet the needs quite adequately, I will review
the local approaches first.

A. Locat Management and Finouncing AAAangements

As suggested before, arrangements in this class of approaches
assume the continuation of the present levels of state and fed-
eral support for the construction of waste-treatment facilities.
These arrangements are also based on the anticipation that there
will be continued local support to some extent, that local re-
sponsibility for the sewer collection system will continue, and
that management will be local under state and federal regulations
as to the nature of treatment required and the character and
places of discharges. Five organizational arrangements may be
cited:

1. Cities. Individual cities were the first local units
to provide waste disposal. Uniformly, they have ade-
quate legal authority, they are on the scene, and are
usually the first financing and management option con-
sidered. In some cases, an individual city is an ade-
quate and appropriate vehicle for local waste disposal
financing and management. But increasingly, as areawide
and regional solutions become more desirable,it is not.

2. Counties. InNorth Carolina and a numberofother states,
tTe -county government is increasingly viewed as the unit
of I ocal government with special advantages for areawi de
and regional waste disposal management. Where counties
have been given adequate legal and financing authority,
they often have the necessary jurisdiction and are more
viable financing units because of their larger tax bases
and borrowing capacity and have ability to draw upon ex-
tensive management resources. An EPA study published
last year reported on an examination of regionalgovern-
mental arrangements about the country to determine which
was most effective in dealing with regional environment-
al management problems.2 The urban county--a countywith
powers traditional to cities--was judged to be the most
effective. Two-tier arrangements, city-county consoli-
dation, annexation, special districts, and councils of
governments were all examined in this study.

The county exists, it is organized, and it often covers
the necessary jurisdiction. Frequently, it is already a
regional government. Its major drawback is not its
structure but its image. Too often county government is
viewed as country government--both by citizens and by
county officials.

Fifty years ago, Jefferson County, Alabama, became the
unit responsible for waste disposal for Birmingham and
surrounding cities. The county (through the health de-
partment) provided the sewage disposal facility and in-
terceptors while each individual municipality provided
its own collection system. In a parallel area--solid
waste disposal --counties are increasingly using the same

approach: the county operates the disposal facility
while cities and private haulers provide collection
services. Waste disposal by county governments appears
to be a promising arrangement for the future.

In many states, counties have been authorized to create
subordinate taxing and service districts that are not
separate units of governments but are administratively
and organizationally a part of the county government.
The advantage of these districts is that they permit use
of county borrowing power while taxing only the areas
that receive the service--an important consideration in
waste disposal since the service is typically provided
on less than a countywide basis. North Carolina law
provides for such an arrangement, and atleast two coun-
ties are preparing to use it in connection with water
supply. 3 1 know of no use yet with waste disposal.
3. [email protected]. Joint agreements between cities
and counties have become widespread in recent years in
the United States. Most states now have an interlocal
agreement statute similar to the model recommended by
the U. S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re-
lations; under such a statute two or more local units
may undertake jointly any function each is authorized
to undertake alone.4 Joint agreements are an effective
means to share local financing, consolidate management
(in either the city or the county), or share in particu-
lar ways. Examples abound over the nation as well as
in North Carolina. The major defect in such an approach
is usually in securing joint agreement--and in a timely
manner.

4. LocaZ authorit Most states permit the creation of lo-
cal water aneLsewer authorities.5 Typically, the au-
thori ties are created by two or more units of local gov-
ernment and are authorized to operate water and sewer-
age services on a utility basis. Normally, an authority
has no taxing power, and the members of its governing
board are appointed rather than elected. It is an ex-
cellent device for bringing together a numberofdiffer-
ent units. Its flexibility in how financing and manage-
ment decisions are shared often make an authority an
attractive vehicle. Sometimes, it is used because po-
litically no other solution--county action or a joint
agreement--is possible.
5. metro@oZit= distr@ct. The metropolitan or special
district (names vary) that encompasses several units is
authorized in many states. In some places its govern-
ing board is elected; in others, it is appointed by the
participating units. As I refer to them here, I have
in mind districts that have authority to levy property
taxes and issue general obligation bonds--the chief
powers that are missing from an authority organization.
Otherwise, in terms of management, the metropolitan
district has many of the same advantages and would be
used for much the same reasons as would the authority.6
38

B. State Financing and Management AAAangement6

Because of the special conditions present in coastal areas, and
especially on the beaches, a strong argument can be made for the
state's managing waste disposal facilities in coastal areas and
providing the non-federal initial financing of disposal facili-
ties.

Infomal discussions about such a move in North Carolina have
been underway for the past two years. Actions in Ohio, New York,
and Maryland and arrangements for the North Carolina Ports Au-
thority suggest models for the forms of state action.7

Five principal arguments for state management are usually ad-
vanced:

1. Qualified management is needed. Often, the local units
of government are not large enough to command qualified
personnel.

2. In many places, a single treatment facility and ocean
outfall to serve several communities is indicated. Se-
curing concurrent agreement on financing is often dif-
ficult. The state is in a much better position to act
and to provide financing.

3. The special environmental concerns of the coastal areas
and the financial impoverishment of the local units make
state action necessary.

4. The recreational character of the beaches and the nature
of the property ownership all argue for the use of ini-
tial state borrowing and recovery of costs from user
charges.

5. The state's advantages in borrowing would be great, re-
sulting in lower interest costs. Substantial borrowing
may also be done within the two-thirds limitation in
North Carolina and without a vote of the p&ople. Dif-
ferent provisions, of course, may apply in other states
and must be considered.

How would a state management arrangement work? There are many
possibilities, but let me suggest one as illustrative.

1. The state agency should,be a water and sewer authority,
probably with some 'immbers appointed by the Governor
and some by the General Assembly and with requirements
for special classes of representation and competence.

2. In many areas, combined water and sewerage operations
would be advantageous, and often some of the same fac-
tors suggesting state action in regard to waste disposal
also apply to water supply. It, thus, seems desirable
to authorize the agency to undertake both.

3. The authority should have statewide jurisdiction. While
coastal concerns might be the impetus for creating the
39

authority, most states have other areas that need state
management and financing, and the same management ve-
hicle could serve these as well.

4. State financing should be provided for constructing in-
terceptors, lift stations, pumping stations, treatment
facilities, and outfalls. Part or all of these costs
should be recovered from the communities served. In
some cases service might beon a wholesale basis to com-
munities; in others, charges might be levied directly
on individual customers. The power of the agency to set
rates, enter into contracts, issue revenue bonds, and
otherwise operate as a local water and sewer authority
should be provided.

5. Collection systems would be the responsibility of the
local governments. The authority, however, might oper-
ate the systems under contract with local units in some
cases.

6. Standards for involving state participation and opera-
tion should be provided. For example, standards of the
following type might be used:

(a) A community system is needed--individual dis-
posal units not working.

(b) The communities to be served include areas of
environmental concern.

(d) Anticipated use is great enough to meet opera-
tion and maintenance costs at reasonable rates.

C. Combination oj State and Locai Rezponsibitity

Obviously, there could be a middle ground--one that could take a
variety of forms. Systems with divided responsibility for finan-
cing and management are frequently found.

Our public school system operates principally with local manage-
ment and state financial support, but also with some local fi-
nancing and state management. Similarly, divided systems are
used for highways and hospitals.

One mixed possibility would be state financing and local manage-
ment, with the state prescribing the standards for the entire
management structure of the waste disposal operations. Already,
we have certification requirements forwastewater treatment-plant
operators. With federal support for constructing the most cost-
effective areawide disposal facil ities and state requirements for
management, together with the present level of federal aid and
increased state financing support, such a divided system should
work.

Area or regional supervisors employed by the state to monitor
the operations might be needed in addition to the water-quality
monitoring that is already required.

Another possibility would be to provide for state management un-
der separate individual systems--similar to the community college
arrangement. Separate boards representing local and state agen-
cies could be organized to operate under general state supervi-
sion. This approach would mesh operations indefined areas--per-
haps two or more 201 study areas or a single 208 study area--in
order to secure anadequate jurisdiction and justify a complement
of qualified personnel.

Other combinations are also possible; given the creativity of
those present, I have no doubt that they will be offered.

SLMARY

The traditional approach to the financing and management of waste
disposal in coastal areas inwhich cities and towns have accepted the
local responsibility appears unlikely to meet present and future
needs in many cases. Increasingly, action by county governments and
by cities and towns jointly is needed. And in some cases, direct
state participation in management may be desirable. An examination
of forms of state and local response to the financing and management
of waste disposal in coastal areas would be especially appropriate
at this time.

FOOTNOTES

1. Federal regulations are, of course, central to much financial and
management planning, but these are covered by other speakers and
will not be reviewed here.

2. RegionaZ GovernmentaZ Arrangements in MetmpoZitan Areas: Nine
Case studies, Office of Research and Development, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., January 1974 (EPA
600/5-74-024).

3. The County Service District Act of 1973, N. C. Gen. Stat. Ch.
153A, Art. 16.

4. 1970 CumuZative ACIR State LegisZative Program, Advisory Commis-
sion on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D. C., 1969.
North Carolina's is found in G.S. Ch. 160A, Art. 20.

5. North Carolina's statute authorizing the creation of authorities
is found in G.S. Ch. 162A, Art. 1.

6. In North Carolina, there are both a Metropolitan Water District
statute (G.S. 162A, Art. 4) and a Metropolitan Sewerage District
statute (G.S. 162A, Art. 5). The Water District statute permits
both water and sewerage services and usually would be the recom-
mended form. However, it currently has defects--service outside
41

the county and transfer of funds to organizing units am prohib-
ited--that need correction before the statute may be used in
many situations. Both of these defects appear to have been in-
advertent errors in drafting and probably could be corrected
without difficulty.

7. The Maryland Environmental Serviceis authorized to undertake wa-
ter supply, wastewater treatment, and solid-waste disposal proj-
ects on a "wholesale" basis. Title 3, Subtitle 1, New Revised
Code. It is located within the Department of Natural Resources,
whose secretary appoints the director and the two other officers
who make up its board of directors.

The New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (Title
12, Public Authorities Law) was first organized in 1967 as the
New York Pure Waters Authority. The Corporation is headed by a
board of seven persons: the Commissioner of Environmental Con-
servation (chairman); the Commissioner of Health, and the Com-
missioner of Local Government, who serve ex officio; and four
persons appointed by the Governor with the advice of the Senate.
The executive head is a president appointed by the Governor with
the advice of the Senate. The corporation is authorized to con-
struct and operate water supply, wastewater treatment, storm wa-
ter, solid waste, and air pollution control.

The Ohio Water Development Authority (Chs. 6121 and6123, Revised
Code) has powers that parallel those of the Maryland agency. It
is headed by a board composed of the directors of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Protection, who serve ex offi,ci,o, and
five members appointed by the Governor with the advice of the
Senate.

North Carolina's State Ports Authority is effectively an inde-
pendent agency under the direction of a board with nine members
appointed by the Governor. G.S. Ch. 143, Art. 22.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
QUESTION: (William E. Brunett) Will federal funds be available to
conduct necessary site surveys for ocean outfalls?
MR. DAVID R, HOPKINS: There is talk and discussion within the agency
of making monies available for the site survey through the 201 pro-
gram; but as yet, I don't see a firm decision on that. The kind of
studies I was talking about here are probably a lot more expensive
than a 201 program could support. It is going to require cooperative
studies between other firms and other programs of EPA, NOAA, the
Coastal Plains Commission and Coastal Zone Management people.

QUESTION: (William E. Burnett) What if you want to build an outfall
today?

MR. DAVID R. HOPKINS: Do you want to build it without adequate in-
formation as to effects of that outfall?' If so, then you don't want
to build it now. The existing laws require you to have some knowl-
edge before you build anymore outfalls.

QUESTION: (William E. Burnett) In what step of the three-step fed-
eral planning process will the site studies occur?
MR. DAVID R. HOPKINS: Step one is the process in which you do the
planning and look at the alternatives for waste disposal. Obviously,
if you do consider ocean outfalls as a disposal alternative, you have
got to know the impact of all the disposal alternative areas. So you
should have the site plan available at the time you are doing the 201
plan. If you've got step one done, you've already decided whether
you've got the information or not. Therefore, you need the informa-
tion to help yot[ decide.

QUESTION: One of tKe color slides showed pieces of broken coral.
Is that a result of ocean outfalls or a natural occurrence?

MR. DAVID R. HOPKINS: This may be a natural pruning process. It
was the opinion of the biologist who looked at the corals, without
any indepth studies, that it was just abnormal eroding. They were
not able to define or say why it was abnormal.

QUESTION: Are you saying that these studies are required regardless
of the number of gallons per day of effluent or the degree of treat-
ment of that effluent?

MR, DAVID R, HOPKINS: We're going to have to look at those things on
a case-by-case basis. The effects or the magnitude of one MGD efflu-
ent cannot justify a million-dollar study out there just to find out
the effects. On the other hand, I think there is room for case-by-
case evaluation. But I think we are going to look at them very
closely because we want to satisfy ourselves that we are not in vio-
lation of the law and, two, that we do have reasonable basis to as-
sess the impact of the discharge. EPA will take a hard look at the
plan. The emphasis on regulation now is to require more baseline
surveys.. The surveys will indicate the criteria you then put on that
disposal. Maybe you will find unique features or resources which
must be protected, and you have to keep the outfall away from that
area. The purpose of the annual surveys will be to identify anything
43

you couldn't see when you issued the permit. There is some degree of
risk that the laws tomorrow may change the rules by which you are
doing it.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells to Professor Wicker) It would
seem to me that if I were a mayor of a community along the North
Carolina coast and I had sat here and heardall this discussion about
the studies that would be required for ocean outfalls, I would have
a very cold feeling in the pit of my stomach and not know how we
could meet all these requirements. It would seem that it would be a
very attractive alternative to turn to a state or regional agency to
which I could contract all this responsibility. If there is inter-
est, what would be the next logical step--the legislative process or
more studies?

PROFESSOR JAKE WICKER: I would think that somewhere in the official
bodies of your local government and agencies it would be time to form
a group to officially look at this. This group should involve people
from state and local levels. To my personal knowledge the consider-
ation so far has been limited to state agencies, and at this stage,
informal rather than formal. We have all the relevant state agencies
here, and to my knowledge neither South Carolina nor Georgia has a
state agency comparable to that in Maryland. I think the states
here are similar with respect to state agencies to manage and oper-
ate facilities.

QUESTION: What has been the treatment requirements for previous out-
falls?

MR. DAvID R, HOPKINS: In southeast Florida there are nine outfalls
in the Palm Beach and Miami area. At the present time, the City of
Boca Raton has an outfall which is about 10,000 feet long; it has
secondary treatment on it. The treatment plant went on line in Jan-
uary 1973. The outfall was in place for about two years before that
discharging raw sewage. The City of Miami, the Virginia Key outfall
which was one of the slides, has what they call intermediate treat-
ment with about 50-70 percent removal, and it is discharging now
about 5,000 feet from shore. We just recently approved plans so they
let the bids open for extending that outfall another 14,000 feet
where it will be a little over three miles offshore. They are also
in the process of upgrading a treatment plant and expanding it so
that it will meet secondary treatment levels. All of the other out-
falls in that area are in some stage of planning secondary treatment
for those outfalls.

QUESTION: Would you describe any specific studies on what the ef-
fects of outfalls might be for the Wrightsville Beach area?

PIR. DAvID R. HOPKINS: I don't really know what information is avail-
able for this area or what the effect of an outfall might be at
Wrightsville Beach. I'd want to see that information in a 201 plan.

QUESTION: (Dr. Jay Langfelder) In some instances, there will be a
very low probability of environmental damage. Within what range of
probability will EPA be willing to operate? Will they, for example,
tolerate a 5 percent probability of environmental damage?
MR, DAyID P., HOPKINS: I don't have a feel for those kinds of num-
bers about what is an acceptable threshold level or an acceptable
44

risk. If you've got the data to plug in those kinds of analyses, I
would be interested inseeing it. I think that kind of analysis would
be appropriate for all the alternatives you are going to be working
with and should be part of your decision-making process.
QUESTION : (Dr. Donald E. Francisco) First, I'd like to say that
I'm impressed and overwhelmed by the rigor by which you approve ocean
outfalls. Are the same types of precautions for discharges being
used for the discharges behind the barrier islands? Do you ask for
the same amount of data in both areas?

MR, DAvID R. HOPKINS, I would like to think that we are.
QUESTION: (Dr. Donald Francisco) Colonel Denison, with regard to
the 201 analysis, where did you obtain the effluent guidelines in
order to determine what unit process and the degree of pretreatment
would be required in order to compute the cost of the system?

COLONEL PAUL DENISON: We concur with the general feeling that sec-
ondary pretreatmentis required although there is some question as to
whether additional treatment is required.

QUESTION: Would you comment on what you really Tnean when you say
that there will be no discharge of specific chemicals?

MR. DAvID R. HOPKINS: The regulations are written in a way that dis-
charges containing any amount ofsome parameters shall be prohibited.
It allows others in trace quantities. I agree that when the regula-
tion specifies none, then it really becomes a chemical sensitivity
question.
QUESTION: (Mr. Frank Reynolds) What is EPA's policy regarding en-
vironmental impact statements for projects stemming from 201 plans?

MR. DAvID R, HOPKINS: Our policy is to look at each project to de-
termine whether or not we should write an EIS. We do have regula-
tions which contain a section entitled, Criteria for Preparation of
EnvironmentaZ Inpact Statements. One of the sections addresses the
question of significant adverse secondary impacts from the project.

QUESTION: Who will decide what the impacts of the project are?

ViR. DAyID R. HOPKINS: First, I don't think local people can decide
what this impact will be. There is a chapter in the 201 planning
guidance called the Environmental Assessment. This chapter indicates
the complete 201 plan should include a discussion ofprimary and sec-
ondary impacts. We use the Environmental Assessment to help us de-
cide whether or not there are significant impacts from the project
and whether our decision to approve that project would require an
environmental impact statement. The NEPA requirements are basically
a procedural thing. You've got to discuss all of these things. Pub-
lic disclosures are important so the public and other decision mak-
ers can make an informed decision. The public then has knowledge as
background for making the decision so they can somehow understand
the impact of that decision. If they .want to provide for 100 percent
financing or if they want to grow from 3,000 to 30,000 in the next
two years, do they really understand what they are saying when they
make that decision to commit to that growth at least in sewers? Are
45

they also considering the secondary impact and the other thinTs that
have got to go along with the city sewer? And if they haven t con-
sidered those, the impact statements inreality were backing it up a
little bit, forcing you to put it in the assessment statement so that
the people can understand what's going on. If they want to do that,
then that's fine.

OUESTION: Do you feel that the general approach for EIS in Florida
could be used here?

MR. DAVID R. HOPKINS: see no reason why the same approach cannot
be used here. That may be an answer as much out of ignorance as any-
thing else. We wrote several EIS's in south Florida. We wrote one
whi ch I 'l 1 cal I the generi c EIS, whi ch was the broad area approach.
We intended it to just look at disposal alternatives in the south-
east Florida area--the Palm Beach to Miami area. There, we looked at
outfalls, deep wells, shallow wells, and septic tanks. We then wrote
three individual impact statements in Dade County. We wrote three
more individual impact statements in Broward County, which covered
Hollywood, Ft. Lauderdale, and North Broward County, and we only did
one in Palm Beach County. EPA did the impact statements in varying
degrees, the applicants did assessment statements. But the impact
statements we wrote on those individual projects referenced that big,
thick, yellow generic impact statement, and each contained rather
brief discussions of the disposal -methods applying the general dis-
cussion to the specific situation at each one of those regional
treatment plants. They did not all go to ocean outfalls. The one
for south Dade County actually went to deep wells. There was a time
when the one for north Dade County was vascillating between deep
wells versus ocean outfalls. The one in Palm Beach went to deep
wells. They actually had a piece of an ocean outfall constructed
when they got involved with the whole environmental impact statement
process. There was a citizen law suit which said: "EPA, you can't
get away with a negative declaration in this case." We reconsidered
our decision, stopped construction on the project, and went through
the impact statement process and actually ended up reversing our de-
cision.

QUESTION: Is itpractical to repeat the saine south Florida procedures
in North Carolina and South Carolina areas?

MR, DAvID R, HOPKINS: It seems to me it could, but we had a lot more
data to start with down there. We had outfalls in existence down
there which had been studied. So we could talk about an effect, and
we could look at them. I don't know what the effects would be up
here. I don't know what there is out there for the outfalls to af-
fect. This is where an assessment statement or studies should be
done even if we didn't have the money to do what needs to be done.
QUESTION: (Mr. Everett Knight) You are aware, Dave, of the national
goal of no discharge by 1985. How do you see ocean outfalls fitting
into that objective or what purpose will they serve after that date?
MR, DAvID R, 11OPKINS:- I did try to throw some qualifying words in
-my paper about how we felt that outfalls were an interim solution.
QUESTION: (Mr. Everett Knight) In what way is EPA attempting to rec-
oncile the problems of water reuse and ocean outfalls?

MR, DAvID R, 11OPKINS: I think EPA is wrestling with that problem.
We wrestled with it down in south Florida. too. One of the ration-
alizations we came up with would be first of all south Florida has a
water management problem. To solve that problem, it appears that
some time in the future we are going to have to go to some kind of
reuse. We feel that at that time any of these treatment processes
do have failings and at that time outfalls still would be available
as a safety valve.

QUESTION: (Professor F. E. McJunkin) We are so enamored with soph-
isticated waste treatment techniques that perhaps we are overlooking
the important management aspects and the need for possible regional
management to operate these facilities to perform as designed.

PROFESSOR JAKE WICKER: I agree, and I should point out to some of
you who might be interested that Colonel Denison and his group and
Freeman Associates did recommend a local authority that would have
management responsibility for all the facilities. I am reminded of
an experience, and I don't know whether it has any bearing or not,
but I've worked with some of the people in this room on berms and
erosion control for a great many years and nothing has happened.
So it may be that one of the things you don't need an environmental
impact statement for is doing nothing.
MR. DAYID R. HOPKINS: Let me respond; one of the specific items in
the National Environmental Quality Act is the alternative of doing
nothing.

LAND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER

F. J. Humenik
Associate Department Head
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University at Raleigh

Terminal land disposal Is limited either by the hydraulic or
process loading rate that a particular plant-soil receiver system can
accommodate. Hydraulic loads may or may not be reasonably controlled
depending upon the wastewater source and influence over dilutional
inputs. Generally, dilute wastewaters from domestic or municipal
sources are hydraulically limited whereas the more concentrated in-
dustrial and agricultural wastes are limited by the quantity of one
or several controlling constituents that would severely restrict the
capacity of the land receiver system and,ultimately result in envi-
ronmental degr6dation. Each wastewater must be evaluated to assess
concentrations of potentially harmful or process-limiting constitu-
ents. Generally, nitrogen is the process constituent which limits
wastewater application rates in the moisture-excess Southeast and
not salts as in arid areas for wastewaters which do not contain high
concentrations of materials that would cause an imbalance in the soil
chemistry or be toxic to the vegetative cover. Regions with high wa-
ter tables and very permeable soils such as the Coastal Plains neces-
sitate special attention to assure preservation of groundwater qual-
ity.

Recognizing the commonality of problems inherent in wastewater
management and exercising the conservation of design technique, it
becomes obvious that similar systems can be developed for the treat-
ment of domestic, industrial, and agricultural waste. Although the
generation and characteristics of various wastewaters are somewhat
different, many of the unit processes used for industrial or agri-
cultural processing waste can also be employed for domestic waste;
and in fact, most of these unit processes were originated for the
treatment of this more dilute waste. Correspondingly, many of the
simple techniques currently being developed for the pretreatment and
terminal disposal of animal or agricultural waste on land can be ap-
plied to municipal waste and often represent a very feasible and
economical alternative to stream discharge. Phosphorus and nitrogen
can be removed more reliably and conveniently by land disposal sys-
tems than by many of the elaborate and expensive processes currently
being employed to remove these constituents prior to stream dis-
charge.

The classic sewage stabilization pond is one of the most simple
units for waste pretreatment and final stabilization in areas where
evaporation exceeds rainfall. Increased degrees of treatment can be
obtained if aeration is employed to help satisfy the oxygen demand
and control odor. Lagoons can be placed in series to allow alterna-
tive aerobic-anaerobic treatment strategies for biological denitri-
fication and other cellularized pretreatment strategies.

The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement
by the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Stationof the products
named, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.
48

Some of the most successful lagoons are in arid regions where
evaporation exceeds rainfall. Therefore, these lagoons can act as
total containment devices and thus provide for terminal waste dis-
posal. In moisture excess regions such as the Southeast where rain-
fall exceeds evaporation, excess lagoon liquid must receive further
treatment before stream discharge orbeapplied to land to meet regu-
latory criteria. Lagoons may not overflow because of bottom leakage
and thus present a high potential for groundwater contamination. Al-
though no regulatory criteria concerning lagoon sealing exist at pre-
sent, caution should always be exercised when planning lagoons for
areas with high water table and soil permeability conditions such as
coastal areas.

Effluent characteristics for various types of stabilization
ponds and pond systems are shown in Table 1. Tables 1 and 2 have
been reproduced from material in the new book by Metcalf and Eddy
entitled, Wastewater Engineering, This book has an excellent sec-
tion on various simple and advanced wastewater treatment units. How-
ever, virtually no lagoon sampled in this area approaches the treat-
ment performance and, thus, effluent characteristics presented in
Table 1. In fact, effluent concentrations from many animal waste and
agricultural processing lagoons am orders ofmagnitude stronger than
those listed in Table 1. These data on effluent characteristics of
various types of stabilization ponds and pond systems must be viewed
carefully because if all lagoons performed as noted, the excess wa-
ter or effluent could bedischarged into surface streams because none
of these have effluent parameter concentrations that exceed 1.5 mg/l.
Ponds can provide significant waste degradation and act as a storage
reservoir, but extreme caution must be taken before it is assumed
that excess liquid can be discharged to receiving waters.

Design parameters for stabilization ponds are shown in Table 2.
Loading intensity in terms of pounds of BOD5/acre/day varies from
about 50 to 500. The totally anaerobic pond receives the highest
BOD loading rate. It is a well-established principle that anaerobic
ponds can accommodate a much higher loading rate in terms of organic
carbon and oxygen demand than aerobic units. So it is logical to
use an anaerobic lagoon as the first treatment unit in a series sys-
tem. Today's challenge is to load an anaerobic lagoon so that the
optimum degradation rate is realized without the production of offen-
sive odors.

Current SCS national engineering standards for disposal lagoons
and agricultural waste storage facilities are specified state by
state on the diagrams presented in Figures 1 and 2. North Carolina
criteria are 50.1b BOD5/acre/day for 30 days' detention time. Al-
though loading'rates on these diagrams are responsive to geoclimatic
conditions, criteria for contiguous states still vary in an unexplain-
able manner, such as between North Carolina and Virginia. Also, sev-
eral states do not yet have complete design criteria, indicating the
tentative status of stabilization pond design. Loading rates of
anaerobic lagoons by zone presented in Figure 2 are related to the
daily mean temperature, and the 3 lb BOD5/1000 ft3/day for North
Carolina is equivalent to about 785 lb BOD5/acre/day for a 6-ft deep
unit. Comparison of this value with the stabilization pond rate of
50 lb BOD5/acre/day verifies that much higher loading rates are spec-
ified for anaerobic lagoons than stabilization ponds. However, the
expected performance for these different type ponds remains elusive.
49

Ln Table 1
C)
APPLICATION AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF STABILIZATION PONDS AND PCND SYSTEMS

Effluent Characteristics
Suspended Solids, mg liter*_ BOD,,, g/litert
Micro-
Type of pond Algae organisms Other Soluble Suspended
or pond system Application (BODS) (BODs) (BODS) (SS)
Aerobic (6-18 in. deep) Nutrient removal, treatment of 0.5-1.2 0.2-0.5 L ow 0.02-0.1 0.3-1.2
soluble organic wastes, pro-
duction of algal cell tissue
Aerobic (up to 60 in. deep) Treatment of soluble organic 0.4-1.0 0.2-0.5 Low 0.02-0.1 0.3-1.0
wastes & secondary effluent
Aerobic-anaerobic Treatment of untreated screened 0.2-0.8 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.4 0.02-0.1 0.3-1.0
(oxygen source: algae) or primary settled wastewater
& industrial wastes
Aerobic-anaerobic Treatment of untreated screened 0.02-0.1 0.2-0.5 0.1-0.4 0.02-0.1 0.3-0.8
with & without effluent re- or primary settled wastewater
circulation (oxyVen source: & industrial wastes
surface aerators)
Anaerobic Treatment of domestic & indus- ... 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.05-0.2 0.3-0.8
trial wastes
Anaerobic + aerobic- Complete treatment of waste- ... 0.2-0.5 0-.-0-5 -_0_. -0 7. 0- 0.3-0.8
anaerobic with recircula- water & industrial wastes
tion from aerobic-anaerobic
to anaerobic
Anaerobic + aerobic- Complete treatment of waste- 0.05-0.1 _OXMA57-0 .-V_ 0.02-0.1__@ 0.3-1.0
anaerobic + aerobic pond water & industrial wastes
system with recirculation with high bacterial removals
from aerobic to anaerobic I
Effluent suspended solids are composed of algae and other microorganisms which are estimated in terms of influent
(BOD5)i and a fraction of the influent suspended solids (SS)e-
t Effluent BODS i@ com osed of a fraction of the soluble influent BOD5 (BOD5)i plus a contribution fromthe effluent
suspended solids (SST

Table 2

DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR STABILIZATION PONDS

Type of Pond
Parameter Aerobic* Aerobic-anaerobic Aerobic-anaerobic Anaerobic AerattLj@@
Flow regime Intermittently ................. Mixed surface layer ............. Completely mixed
mixed
Pond size, acres <10 multiples 2-10 multiples 2-10 multiples 0.5-2.0 mult. 2-10 multiples
Operationt Series or Series or parallel Series or parallel Series Series or para.
parallel
Detention time, dayst 10-40 7-30 7-20 20-50 3-10
Depth, ft 3-4 3-6 3-8 8-15 6-20
pH 6.5-10.5 6.5-9.0 6.5-8.5 6.8-7.2 6.5-8.0
Temperature range, 'C 0-40 0-50 0-50 6-50 0-40
Optimum temperature, OC 20 20 20 30 20
BOD5 loading, lb/acre/ 60-120 15-50 30-100 200-500
day**
BOD5 conversion 80-95 80-95 80-95 50-85 80-95
Principal conversion Algae, C02, Algae, C02, CH4, C02, CH4, bacter. C02, CH4, C02, bacterial
products bact. cell bacterial cell cell tissue bacterial cell tissue
tissue tissue cell tissue
Algal concentration, 80-200 40-160 10-40
mg/liter
Effluent suspended 140-340 160-400 110-340 80-160 260-300
solids, mg/litertt I I I
Conventional aerobic ponds designed to maximize the amount of oxygen produced rather than the amount of algae
produced.
t Depends on climatic conditions.
Typical values (much higher values have been applied at various locations). Loading values are often specified
by state control agencies.
tt Includes algae, microorganisms, and residual influent suspended solids. Values are based on an influent soluble
BOD5 of 200 mg/liter and, with the exception of the aerobic ponds, an influent suspended-solids concentration of
H] 200 mg/liter.

Figure I
STABILIZATION POND DESIGN

-4 L

'Mi

2L8
12
35

T21

2. 17.4 5

20 30 IEi
3o 5. LEGEND
33 -
i5o 1b 8051ac/day
T4_
detention tinie (days)

no pre ent
designTiteTia
37
91.

. .. . .......

Initially, animal waste lagoons were constructed on the basis
of design criteria for sewage stabilization ponds. Existing infor-
mation for sewage stabilization ponds based on BOD loadings/surface/
acre, which are somewhat arbitrary, was extrapolated to develop siz-
ing criteria for animal waste lagoons. However, itwas not adequately
appreciated that sewage is a very dilute waste compared to the agri-
cultural and animal waste that would be imposed upon these lagoons.
Therefore, it was not unusual that many animal waste lagoons failed
in that they became filled with solids and were very odorous.

Design criteria recommended by different agencies for various
types of animal waste lagoons presented in Table 3 still are not as
uniform on the basis of BOD loading per acre as would be expected.
Although this is in part due to the nature of the wastes, these data
variances are currently being considered. However, it is obvious
that a much larger surface area is required for aerobic, unaerated
lagoons. This tremendous increase in size required for aerobic la-
goons without mechanical aeration indicates that it is not generally
economically feasible to consider an unaerated lagoon that would act
as an aerobic unit.

Early research at the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station was directed at the pollutional potential of effluent from
animal waste lagoons and runoff from agricultural land. Although
about an 80 percent removal of COD occurred in the first lagoon and
another 25 to 50 percent in the second lagoon of a two-unit series,
52

Figure 2
ANAEROBIC LAGOON LOADING RATES BY ZONES
Do. DAILY MEAN TEMPERATURES OCCURRING ABOUT ONCE IN 13 YEARS
(FROM ASHRAE 1963 GUIDE)
S. DEFARTANE@ OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

-4
S -30* _2 o
-2
M NTAIIA NL-1H DIKOTA MINNES TA -20*
30e* -R V IOAH a " I "
SOUTH D iAKOTA WISC N N MP'SS.
YO G -2d* D PE"SN' 10. 1
NES IOWA
"EVADA UrAH c IL INO'S DIANA ()KID Nj le
co RADO W YA
10 MISSOURI NTUG OLI 20*
0o i TENAMESS E IN IVA CAR
Ri OKLAH B SOUT" LOADING RATE
NE MEXICO ARK CARO (puunds/1000c.f@ ay)
1%. ALABAMA DIP,
10" Zone BOD e
< A Solids
a TEX
20o A 4 - 16
4 B 3 - 12
A C 2 8
D Note: Loading r tes for sw@ode
.-All and poult y manure SIT Id D 4
be about one-half the
tabulated

All-

.... ... ....

Table 3

DESIGN PARAMUERS FOR ANIMAL WASTE LAGOCNS

D@@e I Poultry_
Ft' surface area/animal

a. Anaerobic lagoons six feet deep

Midwest Plan Service 150 33 2.2
Soil Conservation Service 110 13 ---
North Carolina 110 25 5
1. # BOD/acre (N. C.) 790 487 175

b. Aerobic lagoon without mechani-
cal aeration Ft2surface areal/animal
Soil Conservation Service 2420 290 21
North Carolina 2400 290 20

the quality of excess liquid or effluent was not suitable for stream
discharge. However, runoff from watershed areas where swine were
on pasture or animal waste was terminally disposed was very similar
to runoff from a natural watershed devoid of farm animals. There-
fore, it was concluded that land disposal of waste according to rec-
ommended practices was far superior to just lagoon pretreatment and
total liquid treatment attendant to stream discharge. It was further
shown that the water quality in receiving streams had a significant
level of background pollution. This emphasizes the necessity to
establish ambient conditions prior to the installation of any waste
disposal system, especially one which exercises terminal land appli-
cation.

Results from model field lagoons which are operated in a 3-unit
series show that the liquid in the third or terminal series unit
generally has an organic content very similar to the liquid in the
secondary lagoon. Visual observations verify that the third unit
acts as a biomass generator because algal blooms are very frequent.
Based upon these data and other practical experience, three lagoons
in a series are not recommended.

Aeration strategies employed for animal and agricultural waste
lagoons aretoprovide minimum horsepower to achieve complete surface
agitation for elimination of odor and floating scum. Aeration equip-
ment that promotes surface pumpage instead of complete unit Tnixing
is selected. Additionally, aerators can be equipped with anti-
erosion shields to minimize bottom scour and resuspension of bottom
sludge solids. Floating aerators are very desirable for lagoon in-
stallations because these units will easily fluctuate with liquid
levels. The top agitated zone of this type pond may carry a bulk
phase oxygen excess; but generally, the unagitated bottom area is
anaerobic. Thus, a diphasic type of lagoon is established allowing
anaerobic decomposition in the bottom sludge zone but yet providing
an aerobic supernatant layer to minimize odor and nuisance problems.

Experience with an aerated lagoon at one of our swine research
farms shows a 90 percent removal of oxygen demand and organic carbon
with the maintenance of a dissolved oxygen concentration of about 10
mg1l in the surface liquid. However, the lagoon liquid still has a
COD of 135 mg/1 for this treatment strategy consisting of a series
unaerated lagoon and aerated secondary pond. The excess liquid from
this lagoon system is irrigated onto Coastal Plains-bermuda grass
plots similar to typical land receiver areas that would be utilized
in the coastal region.

Loading rates for stabilization ponds, animal waste lagoons,
trickling filters, and activated sludge are summarized in Table 4.
It is noteworthy that the loading rates for aerated lagoons are very
similar to the loading rates for low-rate trickling filters and con-
ventional activated sludge. If terminal land disposal is utilized,
then aerated lagoons become very desirable on a cost-effectiveness
basis.

Table 4

SUMMARY OF LOADING RATES

Unit lb BODs --a
,/acre/d@
Unaerated aerobic animal waste lagoon 30 - so
Aerobic-anaerobic pond 15 - 100
Unaerated stabilization pond
SCS criteria 20 - 80
Metcalf & Eddy 200 - 500
Unaerated anaerobic animal waste lagoons 130 - 1,000
Unaerated anaerobic lagoons (SCS) 250 - 1,000
Aerated lagoons (surface agitation) 3,500 - 10,000
Trickling filter
Low-rate 1,800 - 10,000
High-rate 3,000 - 40,000
Activated sludge
Conventional 8,500 - 50,000
High-rate aeration 45,000 - 450,000

PjLoduce,t Scate DemomtAation Site

Hatchery Waste. Chick Sales, Inc., Siler City, North Carolina,
is a broiler-chick hatchery which has served as a demonstration site
to evaluate pretreatment techniques prior to terminal land applica-
tion. The waste management system now operational represents the
culmination of cooperative activities by the North Carolina Agricul-
tural Experiment Station and Extension Service, the Soil Conservation
Service, and the hatchery management. This joint project has allowed
assemblage of data required to routinely design a land-based treat-
ment system for hatchery waste and has provided one of the first such
producer-operated demonstration sites. A schematic of the total sys-
tem for domestic and processed wastewater management at this hatchery
55

is shown in Figure 3. This series separator-grinder, septic tank,
aerated lagoon, and polishing pond-reservoir pretreatment prior to
terminal land irrigation waste management system at Chick Sales
Hatchery provides for no-discharge recycling of all wastewater com-
ponents for pasture improvement.

ROAD (U-111141)

FESCUE PASTURE
TERMINAL IRRIGA71ON AREA
15 ACRES
To
UNITARY
LANDFILL
I KATCHERY

O'-fi,
L WATER Eoq SIMI... W..'
POND
cmck

12 DO Gol. S""' T-k'
F1,
A@d "Ch'ie'l, I

P,I..,, L.j..
0 0 0 W/3-5 KP
TEST A--.
ME LL ...... P.1101.,
31-1. P..d
COASTAL BERMUDA PASTURE
TERMINAL IRRIGATIOk - a ACRES
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - 7-- 7--

GRASS BUFFER ZONE
CREEK:>

Figure 3
Schematic of system for domestic and processed wastewater management
at Chick Sales Hatchery.

The two hatchery waste streams requiring management are the
washwater clean-up and the effluent from the separator-grinder which
receives hatching tray waste. Trays containing the no-hatches are
washed into a separator-grinder which allows egg shel Is to be ground
and separated for easy land disposal. Pond water or:recycled second-
ary lagoon liquid can provide the 5-gal/min flushing water for the
separator-grinder instead of well water utilized for the potable
supply. Washwater is screened several times byfloor traps to facil-
itate chickdown and solids removal. A vacuum system is used prior to
any waterwashing to remove as much chickdown as possible. A central
low-volume/high-pressure cleaning system has been adopted for more
efficient washdown of walls, floors, and equipment. This system has
proven extremely efficient in a clean-up as well as-minimizing over-
all water usage. All detergents and disinfectants used in this high
56

pressure system are biodegradable and have had no adverse effect on
the total waste management system. Septic tanks were utilized to
provide additional opportunity for phase separation of domestic and
hatchery waste solids and, in particular, more complete removal of
chickdown and egg shells before the lagoon system. Septic tank ef-
fluent is piped to the influent side of the primary aerated lagoon.

Aeration requirements were calculated on the basis of labora-
tory COD data for whole eggs and then extrapolated into the maximum
waste load associated with the lowest expected hatchability rate of
,80 percent. The projected double capacity load of about 150,000 no-
hatches per week resulted in an oxygen demand of about 44 lb/hr
which requires about 15 hp of aeration based upon a transfer of 3 lb
of oxygen per horsepower hour. The domestic load oxygen demand was
insignificant. Aeration horsepower required for odor control by com-
plete surface agitation is generally defined to be about one-halfthe
input BOD5 or one-third of input COD. Generally, the treatment
strategy employed is to utilize minimum horsepower required for com-
plete surface agitating by floating aerators but not to employ the
energy levels required for complete reactor mixing and achievement
of high levels of dissolved oxygen. However, in this situation suf-
ficient horsepower was provided to satisfy the total input COD be-
cause of the desirability to establish an exemplary site with high
management flexibility. Therefore, three 5-hp aerators with anti-
erosion shields designed to promote surface pumpage were purchased
to provide sufficient oxygenation for the total COD input associated
with the poorest expected hatchability.

This 6-ft deep aerated lagoon had water surface dimensions of
51 ft by 130 ft with a total capacity of 33,750 ft3 for a volumetric
rating of 2250 ft3 /hp or a surface rating of 445 ft2 of horsepower.
Thus, this lagoon was sized between the equipment manufacturer's
recommendation of 1333 ft3 or 167 ft2/hp for complete mix, and 4000
ft3 of 766 ft2/hp for complete surface agitation. This aerated unit
which provides a 63-day mean resonance time has excellent total sur-
face agitation with all three 5-hp units operating and good surface
agitation with just the outside two aerators running. Characteristic
aerated lagoon levels are about 1500 mg/l COD and 300 mg/l TKN, with
secondary unaerated lagoon values being 500 mg/l COD and 150 mg1l
TKN.

Odor control was achieved after initial start-up with just the
center aerator operating until the total present production capacity
was recently achieved. Thereafter, the outside two 5-hp aerators
have been required for odor control, and in addition have provided
total surface agitation. Foaming has been an intermittent problem,
especially on overcast days. The response most generally effective
is reduced aeration by shutdown of the oxygenator at the input side.
Thus, this unit documents minimum surface area required for complete
surface mixing and helps set our recommendation range for achieving
complete surface agitation at about 700 to lQ0O ft2/hp for these
floating aerators.*

*Aerators used for all full-scale lagoon studies were manufactured
by Sydnor Hydradynamics, Inc., Richmond, Virginia. 57

The plant-soil receiver system is divided into 8 acres of coast-
al bermuda grass and 15 acres of Kentucky 31 fescue grass to allow
year-round application to an active vegetative cover. Application
rates for a total nitrogen content of about 300 mg/l at a sprinkler
rate of .26 in/hr would be 5.58 in. requiring 22.5 hr for the 400 lb
N/acre/year for fescue and 8.8 in. requiring 34 hr for 600 lb N/acre/
year for coastal bermuda. Irrigation application intensities are
7059 gal/acre/hr, and for nitrogen 17.7 lb/acre/hr.

The permanent set irrigation system has manual angle valves on
each lateral for operating irrigation headers. Sprinklers are both
part circle and full circle spaced on an 80 ft by 80 ft interval.
The sprinklers have a 140ft diameter throw with a maximum horizontal
trajectory of 10 ft. Operating pressure is 55 lb/in 2 to minimize
aerosol production. Sprinklers are placed 18 in. above ground sur-
face. Following a wastewater application, the systemis flushed with
fresh water for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Effluent is ap-
plied to the coastal bermuda grass during the warm months and to the
fescue during cool months. No application is planned during the
months of December, January, and February. No effluent is applied
within 100 ft of receiving streams, and maximum application during
any one irrigation event is specified as .5 in. to preclude runoff
as a result of wastewater irrigation. Irrigation is prohibited when
high wind velocities or saturated soil conditions exist. Judgments
are also made to avoid irrigation prior to anticipated rainfall.

A sampling program has been established to routinely monitor
receiving streams above and below the terminal irrigation plots.
Groundwater isalso routinely sampled in test wells. Such Tnonitoring
strategies are most important for environmentally sensitive areas as
exist in the coastal regions.

Swine Wastes. A similar system installed at Lexington Swine
Breeders, Lexington, North Carolina, hasdemonstrated the impact that
surface aeration for odor control can have on nitrogen reduction. A
new aerated pond has been installed prior to an existing 1.5-acre
lagoon. Sludge zone nitrogen removal for aeration units designed
according to this strategy has been recorded to be about 25 percent
of the total input. A high degree of additional nitrogen reduction
has been achieved at this demonstration unit because the total Kjel-
dahl nitrogen supernatant concentrations in the secondary lagoon are
only about 15 percent of the values recorded for the primary aerated
unit. Since construction of the aerated lagoon, the nitrogen con-
tent in the original unaerated lagoon supernatant has been reduced
by 50 percent, and a 75 percent reduction in oxygen demand has been
realized. Originally, unaerated lagoon levels of 4500 mg/l COD and
450 mg/l TKN dropped to about 800 mg/l COD and 175 mg/l TKN. Thus,
odor control and nitrogen removal of up to 85 percent on a concentra-
tion basis have been achieved at this demonstration unit which has
the surface aeration rating of 1000 ft'/hp.

Conctu6iom

Analysis of contemporary waste treatment systems show that un-
aerated ponds can provide significant pretreatment at a very low
cost. The treatment effici,ency of ponds can be increased by using
series systems and providing aeration in the first uni,t. Pond sys-
tems can also be managed to facilitate nitrification-denitrification

when aeration is employed in the first unit and the second unit is
maintained anaerobic by direct raw waste inputs. Up to 85 percent
removal of nitrogen has been recorded on a concentration basis when
minimum horsepower required for complete surface agitation by float-
ing aerators rather than complete reactor Tnixing and achievement of
high levels of dissolved oxygen are the operational strategy for
wastes with a high TKN content. The primary removal inechanism for
such large nitrogen reductions is ammonia volatilization because of
the increased surface area and surface renewal provided by these
floating aerators which augment volatilization of the high levels of
ammonia nitrogen.

Pond systems can also be very effective in removing heavy met-
als if the organic waste input is high and the organic Tnetal complex
remains in the bottom sludge. However, pond systems should not be
considered as terminal treatment devices in which excess water can
be discharged to surface streams. Pond-systems must be considered as
pretreatment devices prior to terminal land irrigation of excess
liquid. In areas with high water tables, caution must be exercised
to avoid groundwater contamination. Ponds can be sealed or built
above ground to minimize impact on groundwater. Obviously, land
values and area usage have a great impact on cost benefits of pond
systems prior to terminal land irrigation.

Land irrigation is limited either by the hydraulic or process
load. The higher degree of pretreatment provided or the lower con-
centration of nitrogen, the less value the excess water has for fer-
tilization and the more hydraulic loading controls. Conversely, the
hydraulic load becomes insignificant when dealing with wastewaters
that have a high concentration of any constituent that would affect
the plant-soil receiver system. Generally, nitrogen limits in the
Southeast and current recommendations are to apply no nore nitrogen
than fertilizer requirements for a particular vegetative cover.
Therefore, the most economic approach is to balance the process load
with the hydraulic input by degradatory pretreatment if possible so
that the application limit for both closely interrelate attendant to
minimum acreage requirements.

It is not always best to treat wastewater to as high degree as
possible before discharge to streams because land-based systems can
provide a more economical alternative. The use of land application
as a substitute for tertiary treatment of nitrogen, phosphorus, col-
or, metals, and solids to meet current regulatory criteria can be
much less expensive in most areas, including coastal regions beyond
the high-intensity recreational areas. Land application systems can
have very little impact on ambient environmental quality and thus
pose minimal health or pollutional hazards when proper precautionary
measures are taken, good agronomic conservation techniques followed,
and recycling.for utilization practices. Therefore, many of the
systems currently being developed for agricultural waste management
may have great applicability for the treatmentofmunicipal, process-
ing, and industrial waste as emphasis on waste utilization and
achievement of non-point source discharges becomes more directive.
Correspondingly, Section 201 of the 1972 amendment to the Water Pol-
lution Control Act stipulates that alternative methodsof discharging
wastewater to land areas instead of the nation's water resources be
evaluated henceforth in an effort to abate pollution and realize na-
tional water quality goals.

SHALLOW SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER

A. C. Turnage, Jr.
RegionaZ Engineer
Division of Environmental. Management
North Carolina Department of Natural. and Economic Resources

Our concern is with the disposal of wastewater in the coastal
areas. For purposes of regulating wastewater treatment and disposal,
the North Carolina Boardof Water and Air Resources--now the Environ-
mental Management Commission--has defined the coastal areas. it
might be well to consider this definition. Coastal areas are defined
as: (1) the Outer Banks, (2) those land areas bordering the coastal
waters, including all waters assigned a salt-water classification
and all tributaries that experience excessive growths of microscopic
or macroscopic vegetation or that, because of their relative size
and lack of water exchange, are found by the Board to be subject to
such excessive growths, and (3) land areas bordering all natural im-
poundments situated east of a line previously established to desig-
nate coastal waters. This line follows the approxinate route Cala-
bash, Cape Fear River Lock No. 1, Jacksonville, New Bern, Washington,
Edenton, Hertford, Elizabeth City, Moyock .. An exact description can
be found in the Board's Regulation 79. The important point is that,
for purposes of this regulation, coastal areas are land areas in
close proximity to certain specified water bodies.

We are concerned, then, with the shallow subsurface disposal of
wastewaters in areas so defined. I think the key word hem is dis-
posal. The surface waters adjoining these land areas have been as-
signed classifications that require the maintenance of very high wa-
ter quality. Most of the waters are classified either "SA" or "SB"
for shellfish harvesting and bathing, respectively. Many of these
water bodies also are experiencing or are subject to severe vegeta-
tive growths, either microscopic or macroscopic or both. For these
reasons, the discharge of even a well-treated sewage effluent is not
desirable. Therefore, the really limiting factor in these areas is
disposal.
There are two possible methods of shallow subsurface disposal
that will be discussed.

The first of these, the septic tank-nitrification line system,
is in a sense a combined treatment and disposal system. However,
while the system does provide some treatment, it is basically a dis-
posal system. Such systems are logical and acceptable methods of
disposal for small quantities of wastewater in isolated or sparsely
developed areas. In such cases, their primary purpose is the dis-
posal of the liquid waste.

This is evidenced by the fact that the major basis of design is
the ability of the soil to absorb water. The septic tank serves the
purpose of removing gross soli.ds that, ifnot removed, would fill the
soil interstices and destroy the soil's absorption capability.

Unfortunately, the removal of gross solids leaves a wastewater
that is still far from clean. It contains-many pollutants--dissolved

solids, both organic and inorganic; various nitrogen components; and
pathogenic viruses and bacteria, to name a few. These materials,
discharged through the nitrification lines, are introduced to the
pore-water and eventually to the groundwater.

The success or failure of a septic tank system has historically
been measured by one factor only, rather than by the several factors
that should be considered. The one factor normally noted is whether
or not the soil does, in fact, absorb the water. Measured by this
standard, a successful septic tank installation is one that does
not result in sewage coming to the surface of the ground.

There are, however, other considerations. A septic tank system
that is operating properly as measured by this criteria may, in fact,
be significantly degrading water quality in the nearby surface water
body or in the underlying groundwater reservoir. These potentiali-
ties for polluting are especially critical in the coastal areas.
Soil can be too pervious, and Tnany of the coastal soils are. Septic
tank effluent introduced into loamy soil is not only disposed of but
receives additional biological treatment due to the adsorptive pro-
perties of the soil and the biological activity of soil bacteria.
Significant reductions in coliform bacteria and viruses are known to
occur in such systems. On the other hand, septic tank effluent in-
troduced into coarse sand apparently does not receive comparable
treatment during its -movement through the soil.

The open, hi ghly porous soi I structure al I ows high I oadi ng rates
and thus invites high-density development. In addition, the rapid
movement of effluent through the soil, together with the reduced ef-
fectiveness of treatment during this movement, results in a high po-
tential for degradation of quality of both surface and groundwater.

Indiscriminate and unwise development where septic tank systems
are used poses a potentially serious danger of contaminating the
adjacent waters with fecal coliform and viruses. Even in less densely
developed areas the installation of septic tanks in sand fill placed
over existing organic muck or marsh-type vegetation can result in
rapid horizontal movement of septic tank effluent along the sand-
muck interface into the surrounding surface waters.

Unwise use of septic tank systems appears to be a major cause
of large areas of our coastal waters being closed for shellfish har-
vesting. While this cause-and-effect relationship has not been pos-
itively documented, there is tentative documentation of such a rela-
tionship in several areas.

In those parts of the coastal area where shallow groundwater is
used for water supplies, the contamination of the groundwater is of
even greater concern. As an example, the Dare County Outer Banks de-
pends entirely on a thin lens of shallow fresh water, trapped on top
of the underlying salt water, for the total water supply needs of its
inhabi.tants. While existing evidence indicates that the water sys-
tems being used, both public and private, are generally not contami-
nated, the continued use of septic tank systems in this area will
eventually result i'n contamination of this fresh-water lens.

Studies presently underway have yielded some interesting--and
frightening--preli.mi.nary@res-ults. Dye studies in one beach colanunity

have indicated a travel time, from bathroom through septic tank to
adjacent surface water of four hours. The implications are obvious.
Samples taken from test wel Is near high -density septic tank instal la-
tions in another beach community contained up to 50 mg/I of ammonia.
Let me repeat that these are preliminary findings only, and that
studies in both areas are incomplete. However, the potential for
serious degradation of both ground and surface waters is apparent.

There is a place for septic tank systems in the coastal areas,
but extreme care must be exercised in their approval and installation.
In low-density areas where soil structure is suitable and where ade-
quate separation from surface waters and groundwaters can be main-
tained, such systems should be acceptable. Particular attention
should be paid to the possible presence of a compacted muck or vege-
tative layer underlying sand fills because of the likelihood of an
impervious interface resulting in horizontal movement of effluent.

As density of development increases or in areas that do not meet
the necessary standards, some other means of waste disposal must be
found.

This brings us to the other method of shallow subsurface dis-
posal--the introduction to the subsurface soil of properly treated
wastewater. This pre-supposes the collection of wastes at a central
location for treatment. Consideration of such a system should be
tempered by two restrictions of paramount importance. First, these
systems are not a panacea. They can serve a useful purpose in some
instances, but there are many locations where such systems cannot be
used. Second, these systems should be considered in most cases as
interim solutions only. The ultimate solution to the handling of
wastewater from rapidly developing beach areas is the provision of
regional sewage collection and treatment systems with disposal of
the treated effluent by ocean outfalls or some other satisfactory
method. However, the subsurface disposal ofadequately treated waste-
water from individual developments does constitute an acceptable in-
terim step in the development of such regional systems. Obviously,
these systems should be designed so that they can be integrated into
the regional system as it becomes available.

The Board of Water and Air Resources, now the Environmental Man-
agement Commission, in July 1973 adopted a regulation containing
criteria for the design of shallow subsurface systems in the coastal
areas.

This criteria applies to both types of systems I have been dis-
cussing. It specifies that septic tank systems will not be approved
in high-density areas, defined as areas containing more than three
residential units per acre or areas producing more than 1200 gallons
of wastes per acre per day. The latter restriction is designed to
apply to commercial development.

With respect to disposal of treated effluent, the regulation in
general re uires the following: (1) wastes must receive tertiary
treatment Niological treatment followed by solids removal) and bac-
tericidal treatment; (2) treatment plants must be enclosed in solid
or semi-solid enclosures, inust have noise and odor control devices
and automatic standby power sources, andmust contain duplicate units
for all essential operating units; (3) subsurface disposal facili-
ties must be located at least 1500 feet from impounded public water
62

supplies or public shallow wells, 500 feet from private shallow
wells, and 100 feet from surface water bodies; (4) subsurface dis-
posal areas must be loaded at a rate not exceeding 1 1/2 gallons per
square foot of trench bottom per day, and must contain at least 1000
square feet of open "green area" for each residential unit served
with not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the required area
covered with non-traffic bearing paved surfaces such as tennis courts,
patios, or walkways.

These requirements are given here in very general form and are
not to be considered complete. The complete regulation, No. 79, is
available from the Division of Environmental Management.

Systems designed as required by this criteria, if properly in-
stalled and operated, should provide adequate protection for the wa-
ter resources of the State for the time required to provide regional
systems for collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

QUESTION: (Professor James C. Brown) Dr. Humenik, would you review
the process of pond Tnixing to increase aTwonia removal?
DR. FRANK HUMENIK: The treatment strategy under investigation is to
employ the minimum horsepower needed for complete surface agitation
by floating aerators but not to employ the energy le-vels required for
complete reactor mixing and achievement of high levels of dissolved
oxygen. The top agitated zone of this type pond may carry a bulk
phase oxygen excess; but generally, the bottom unagitated area is
anaerobic. Up to 85 percent removal of nitrogen has been recorded
for pilot scale and also producer sized units employing this aera-
tion strategy. We think the primary removal mechanization is ammonia
volatilization because the increased surface area and surface renewal
provided by these floating aerators augment volatilization of the
high levels of ammonia nitrogen characteristically around 500 to
1500 mg/l.

The opportunity for denitrificationalso exists because nitrates
are generated in the upper areas which are aerobic. Denitrification
then could occur in the lower anaerobic levels or even on a nolecular
basis in regions which have some dissolved oxygen. A large number of
minute bubbles have been observed to be liberated when the surface
aerators were stopped. These bubbles were much s-maller than normally
observed in lagoons as characteristic of gas released from bottom
sludge. Concentrations of gas components for samples collected at
the surface were highly variable; but generally, products of anaer-
obic fermentation such as methane and carbon dioxide and a high ni-
trogen content were present. The explanation for these recorded
gaseous quality and quantity data and corresponding -mechanisms is
not yet fully developed. Either surface level nitrification followed
by bulk phase liquid denitrification or entrained air bubbles which
are stripped of oxygen present potential origins of these bubbles
with a high nitrogen content.

Recorded nitrate levels of 10 to 15 mg1l are low but do not
rule out significant nitrogen generation or either pmmise for the
high nitrogen content of generated bubbles. Unfortunately, a nitro-
gen mass balance will not indicate denitrification losses because of
the compounding effect of ammonia volatilization. We commonly real-
ize about 25 percent nitrogen removal due to settling in the primary
lagoon. The increased removal of nitrogen on a concentration basis
is attributed to ammonia volatilization. This high level of nitro-
gen reduction on a concentration basis has been very surprising. Re-
sults for both model field reactors and full-scale lagoons corro-
borate about a 50 to 85 percent removal of nitrogen on a concentra-
tion basis. We feel that this is one of the significant results as-
sociated with our studies on minimum surface aeration for odor con-
trol and scum elimination. We currently recommend surface aeration
of ponds for two priTnary functions--nuisance or odor control and ni-
trogen removal. Complete organic stabilization is not iTnportant be-
cause these lagoons are used in conjunction with terminal land ap-
plication, and in our area application intensities are limited either
by the hydraulic loading or nitrogen aglication rates * Nitrogen ap-
plication should not exceed crop upta e capabilities or reconrended
fertilization schedules, and for waste with a high nitrogen content

this amount of nitrogen is supplied in a small amount of liquid that
can be easily accommodated by the soil-plant receiver system.

QUESTION: (Professor James C. Brown) Do you think this phenomenon
has any application in domestic waste treatment?

DR. FRANK HUMENIK: Ammonia levels in domestic waste are not nearly
as high as those in animal waste or industrial waste. If aerobic
pretreatment is applied, the low ammonia and organic nitrogen con-
tent of 10 to 75 mg/1 would generally be completely converted to ni-
trate. Ammonia -volatilization without pH control will work best for
waste with a high ammonia content because the driving force for vol-
atilization is so much greater.
QUESTION:(Mr. Paul L. Anthony) I have questions. First, what are the
relative merits of the percolation tests only versus soil tests for
septic tank design? My second question refers to a law which came
out in January stating that the field of a septic tank must have 100
foot separations between nitrification lines and SA waters. This law
has been hel d to be not val i d by the Attorney General . When will it
be re-established?

MR. A, C. TuRNAGE: To answer your second question, this was not a
law; it was a regulation adoptedbythe Environmental Management Com-
mission and Department of Human Resources. It was held to be invalid
by the Attorney General because of some procedural difficulties in
its adoption. It is my understanding that this will be readopted in
the reasonably near future and presumably will become effective@at
that time. After spending several years in municipal work with city
engineers, city managers, and town boards, I learned a long time ago
not to predict what a public body will do. I assume that both of
these regulations will be adopted, but I don't know that they will.

In response to your first question, percolation rate determina-
tion is a part of soil testing. But there are a lot of other fac-
tors involved in soil testing besides percolation. This is what I
referred to briefly before; the structure of the soil and the type
of soil are important. Yes, these things should be considered in
septic tank design. In fact, the mechanism for using these tests is
being developed by the two agencies involved. It's going to be kind
of an academic question at least in the beach areas because the soil
structure in the beach areas is well known. It is nothing but coarse
sand so perhaps what we're looking at here is not relying on soil
testing so much as using the percolation test and building in a saf-
ety factor to the loading rate. Mike Bell, representing the Depart-
ment of Human Resources, and Everett Knight from the Division of En-
vironmental Management are here. Perhaps they would like to address
this point.
QUESTION: (Mr. Mark Stephens) Could the systems discussed here be ap-
plied to domestic waste needs --real i zing a great fluctuation in the
Coastal Plains region?

DR. FRANK IlLfiENIK: Yes, but one must recognize that domestic waste
is rather dilute, and thus in evaluating the overall system possibly
a different pretreatment strategy would be employed and terminal
land application would be limited by the hydraulic load and not the
nitrogen as with stronger agricultural and industrial waste. Other
65

limiting constituents for plant-soil systems such as heavy metals,
salts, high amounts of sodium and potassium, and other exotic mater-
ials must also be considered because excessive application intensi-
ties can result in soil sealing or destruction of vegetative cover
crop. The management of the soil-plant receiver system is very im-
portant for either situation that may limit the process or hydraulic
load. I f the hydraul i c 1 oad governs , then the -soi I -water character-
istics are very important in determining maximum liquid loading based
upon infiltration characteristics and storage capabilities of the
soil. Internal soil drainage is also important in determining the
maximum rate of liquid application.

CatIENT BY MR. A. C. TuRNAGE: There is also a problem here with re-
spect to the pretreatment units. There's the highly varying hydraul-
ic waste. Of course, this is a problem no matter what your ultimate
method of disposal is. This is always a problem in the treatment
process itself, and we have found that this can behandled quite well
by our engineering process, either by putting in a process that can
adapt to this changing hydraulic load or by putting parallel plains
in this process so that you can operate the number ofplains that are
required for the situation. At least from the treatment standpoint,
it can be engineered out.

COH@FM By DR. FRANK HUMENIK: Capacity to handle variable wastewater
flows represents a significant advantage inherent in ponds that have
high detention times and thus dilution or stabilization capacity.
The primary aerated unit is generally not based on detention time or
operated as a plugged flow reactor but is sized according to horse-
power per surface area or volume recommendations. These aerated
units overflow by gravity into a reservoir polishing pond which gen-
erally provides up to 13 weeks' storage. Thus, these systems can
accommodate changes in hydraulic load with time and season easily.
QUESTION: (Mr. Marshall Staton) With reference to the dye studies
where you found very rapid movement to the surface waters, how far
were the denitrification lines from the water in question?

MR. A. C. TURNAGE: They were quite close and were deliberately chos-
en to be quite close. However, they did meet the requirements in
the particular county. They were at least as far from the water as
the requirements of that particular county. I want to point out that
these were finger canals which had been constructed similar to many
projects in the coastal areas. They were finger canals going up in-
to subdivisions or, in this case, trailer parks. There was an inter-
face ofmuch sand that created a lateral movement that was more rapid
than would be expected.

QUESTION:(Mr. Marshall Staton) Doyou thihk a 100-foot separation from
denitrification lines to separate waters was adequate if there had
not been an interface to create this horizontal movement?

MR. A. C. TuRNAGE: I don't think there is anything magic about the
100 feet. Obviously, it would seem to be a logical distance. Per-
haps we need to do some studies to find out. At this point, I
wouldn't want to be committed to it, and I think some testing and
some researching in the area is definitely in order.

QUESTICN: (Mr.Mike Bell)Would you give us some additional details on
the test wells you described?

MR. A. C. TuRNAGE: I did not intend to imply that the water supply
in this area was not being protected. If I did leave this impression,
I apologize. I'm aware that deep water supplies are being developed
for this Dare County area. We did not find any significant coliform
numbers in these shallow wells.

QUESTICN: (Mr. Mike Bel-1 )What other tests were run on these samples?
MR. A, C. TuRNAGE: The only two that I have any numbers in mind are
coliform and ammonia. We did not find any significant coliform;
however, these tests were done in February when usage there was very
low. In fact, the ammonia we found was probably residual from the
latter part of the previous season. These are preliminary findings.
We've got a number of test wells; and of course, this is the worst.
We didn't find this everywhere we looked. This study will be con-
tinuing in the next few months, andwewill have more data which will
be available to you as it is developed.

DEEP WELL DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER

James W. Crooks*
Chief
Hydrogeology Section
Office of Water Programs
EPA - Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
and

Charles W. Sever
HydmZogist
Office of Water Programs
EPA - Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia

In relation to other forms of wastewater management, deep-well
waste disposal and storage have received only minimal support or at-
tention. As controls over the disposal of wastewaters to surface
streams become more stringent and more vigorously enforced, there
has resulted an increased interest by wastewater producers to evalu-
ate deep wells as an alternate mode for discharge of their wastes.
Injection of liquid wastes into the subsurface has proved to be both
safe and economical and is gaining wide acceptance. It is expected
to grow in popularity, particularly as a means of disposal to avoid
prosecution under federal and state enforcement programs and among
water management agencies in areas of water deficiency.

If the purpose of an injection well system is to dispose of 50
gallons per day of toxic wastewaters that contain non-degradable
pesticides, heavy metals, radioactive minerals, or other hazardous
materials by storing them underground ina confined system where they
cannot accidentally re-enter man's habitat, then the criteria for a
disposal well system would be quite different than if the purpose is
to dispose of 30,000,000 gallons per day of highly treated municipal
wastewater of a quality suitable for indirect reuse as artificial re-
charge.

Underground space, which consists of the area available between
sand grains in some rock strata and of cavities or fractures in other
rock strata, is recognized as a natural resource of considerable
value. Virtually all this subsurface pore space is already occupied
by natural water, either fresh or mineralized to some extent. Thus,
injection does not usually involve the filling of unoccupied space
but, rather, consists of the compression or displacement of existing
fluids.

For certain municipalities and in certain locations, the under-
ground injection of wastes may be the most environmentally acceptable
practice available. In many areas across the nation where water de-
ficiencies or management problems are forecast for the foreseeable
future, the Environmental Protection Agency has recognized the need

* Oral presentation by Mr. Crooks.
68

to start conserving wastewater that has a potential for reuse by fu-
ture generations whenever practical to do so. Storage of treated
wastewaters for reuse is destined to become a major element for con-
sideration in water resource management of water deficient areas.

Several deep injection wells have been constructed in Florida,
Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois, and Texas for storage of secondary
treated sewage effluent into salt water aquifers. Secondary and
tertiary treated municipal wastewater is of such good quality and in
such large volumes that it is much too valuable to waste in areas
where water shortages are forecast for the foreseeable future. Un-
der certain conditions a double benefit canbe realized by injecting
a good quality sewage effluent into a saline aquifer; potentially
harmful viruses and bacteria that might survive the secondary treat-
ment process are removed from man's environment; and the injected
fresh wastewater displaces a poorer quality (salty) groundwater thus
creating a new reserve of useable water in underground storage. Ex-
pansion of this method of reuse as a tool of long-range water quality
and water resource management is being encouraged by EPA1 and many
state regulatory agencies as long as measures are taken to protect
the pubZic heaZth. The method is particularly adaptable and accept-
able when the planned reuse is for agricultural or other non-potable
demands.

Along many coastal areas, the heavy withdrawal of potable ground-
water for municipal, industrial, and other uses from fresh-water
aquifers has caused salt water encroachment inland into the aquifer
systems. In such areas, treated wastewaters may be injected into the
aquifer system to create a hydraulic barrier and hold back the en-
croaching salt water.

Since 1965, tertiary-treated sewage has been injected at Bay
Park, New York, into a shallow artesian sand aquifer used for public
water suppl@ to create a hydraulic barrier against salt water en-
croachment. Bacteria were apparently filtered out after about 20
feet (6 meters) of travel through the sand while iron, chloride, and
other dissolved elements (minerals) were detected in significantly
higher concentrations at distances of up to 100 feet (30 meters).

Similar experiments were conducted in Orange County, California.
Fresh-water aquifers were recharged with effluent from a trickling
filter sewage plant after the tertiary treatment. The wastes were
injected into unconsolidated aquifers at depths of about 30 to 100
meters (100-350 feet). The tests indicated that after about 150
meters (500 feet) of travel, the injected water was free of bacteria
and toxic substances, and the ammonia content was substantially re-
duced.

Since the early 1930's, the State of New York has required that
water pumped from- wells on Long Island at rates of 2.81 ps (45 gpm)
or more must be returned, through injection wells, into the same
aquifer from which the water was pumped. This requirement was im-
posed because heavy pumping has caused a sharp decline in groundwa-
ter levels in Western Long Island, with concurrent coastal encroach-
ment of sea water.

Drainage wells are used extensively in certain areas of the
country to control and store excess surface runoff after rains. Gen-
69

erally, these wells are shallow and inject into the uppermost aquifer
zone (usually a drinking water source). An estimated 20,000 of this
type injection wells have been drilled in Florida alone.
ISome problems that developed from this practice have added con-
siderably to our understanding of underground hydrology. A common
practice in the early days of the rapidly developing-citrus process-
ing industry in Florida was the disposal of citrus pulp and related
wastes into the shallow groundwater systems. When, during the 1954
to 1956 drought of Florida, the water tables lowered drastically,
water lines in private homes began discharging methane instead of
water. Some enterprising individuals converted their water lines
with methane burners to free heating and cooking facilities. Admit-
tedly, this was, at least at the time, somewhat unusual; but it did
point up the need for better understanding and knowledge before
wastes are arbitrarily discharged underground as a matter of simple
expediency.

Everyone recognizes that the underground emplacement of fluids
by well injection will cause changes in the environment and to some
extent may preempt other uses. However, the improper injection of
municipal or industrial wastes or injection of urban runoff of other
fluids for storage or disposal to the subsurface environment could
result in serious pollution of water supplies or other environmental
hazards. Therefore, each and all proposals for subsurface injection
should be critically evaluated todetermine that the subsurface stor-
age capacity is conserved and used for its maximal benefit.
2The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized underground
storage of wastes as a usable resource but also has taken steps to
identify the need, to protect the underground water resources and re-
lated environment. Specifically, the EPA has stated its position on
underground disposal of wastes under the Administrator's Policy
Statement No. 5 and the EPA Policy Statement on Water Reuse. Fur-
ther, the EPA is now in the process of developing regulations to com-
ply with the new Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Administrator's statement recognizes that to ensure protec-
tion of the underground drinking water sources3 "it is the policy of
the Environmental Protection Agency that:

1. The EPA will oppose emplacement of materials by sub-
surface injection without strict controls and a clear
demonstration that such emplacement will not interfere
with present or potential use of the subsurface envi-
ronment, contaminate groundwater resources or other-
wise damage the environment.

2. All proposals for subsurface injection should be crit-
ically evaluated to determine that:

a. All reasonable alternative measures have been
explored and found less satisfactory in terms
of environmental protection;

b. Adequate preinjection tests have been made for
predicting the fate of materials injected;

c. Thereis conclusive technical evidence to dem-
onstrate that such injection will not inter-
fere with present or potential use of water
resources nor result in other environmental
hazards;

d. The subsurface injection system has been de-
signed and constructed to provide maximal en-
vironmental protection;

e. Provisions have been made for monitoring both
the injection operation and the resulting ef-
fects on the environment;

f. Contingency plans that will obviate any envi-
ronmental degradation have been prepared to
cope with all well shut-ins or any well fail-
ures;

g. Provision will be made for supervised plug-
ging of injection wells when abandoned and
for monitoring to ensure continuing environ-
mental protection.

3. Where subsurface injection is practiced for waste dis-
posal, it will be recognized as a temporary means of
disposal until new technology becomes available en-
abling more assured environmental protection.

4. Where subsurface injection is practiced for underground
storage or for recycling of natural fluids, it will be
recognized that such practice wil I cease or be modified
when a hazard to natural resources or the environment
appears imminent.

5. The EPA will apply this policy tothe extent of its au-
thorities in conducting all program activities, includ-
ing regulatory activities, research and development,
technical assistance to the states, and the adminis-
tration of the construction grants, state program
grants, and basin planning grants programs and control
of pollution at federal facilities in accordance with
Executive Order 11752.

Briefly, the EPA policy on water reuse is:

1. EPA supports and encourages the continued development
and practice of successive wastewater reclamation, re-
use, recycling and recharge as a major element in wa-
ter resource management, providing -the reclamation
systems are designed and operatedso as to avoid health
hazards to the people or damage to the envirorTment.

2. In particular, EPA recognizes and supports the poten-
tial for wastewater reuse in agriculture, industrial,
municipal, recreational, and groundwater recharge ap-
plications.
71

3. EPA does not currently support the direct intercon-
nection of wastewater reclamation plantswith municipal
water treatment plants. The potable use of renovated
wastewaters blended with other acceptable supplies in
reservoirs may be employed once research and demonstra-
tion have shown that it can be done without hazard to
health. EPA believes that other factors must also re-
ceive consideration, such as the ecological impact of
various alternatives, quality of available sources,
and economics.

4. EPA will continue to support reuse research and demon-
stration projects including procedures for the rapid
identification and removal of viruses and organics,
epidemiological and toxicological analyses of effects,
advanced waste and drinking water treatment process
design and operation, development of water quality re-
quirements for various reuse opportunities, and cost-
effectiveness studies.

The new Safe Drinking Water Act has for the first time estab-
lished a sincere, detailed, technical approach to protection of
groundwater by the Federal Government. Parts of this Act are specific
in respect to actions that must be taken to protect groundwater from
unrestricted injection of wastes into the ground. Mr. Sever, who was
to present the speech today, now isin Washington working with others
in EPA in developing regulations covering this aspect of groundwater
protection.

I would like to provide a few excerpts from the Act to show the
significanceof this very new effort to protect groundwater resources:

"Sec. 1421. (a) (1) The Administrator shall publish pro-
posed regulations for State underground injection control
programs within 180 days after the date of enactment of
this title. Within 180 days after publication of such pro-
posed regulations, he shall promulgate such regulations
with such modifications as he deems appropriate.

" (b) (I ) Regulations for State underground injection pro-
grams shall contain minimum requirements for effective
programs to prevent underground injection which endangers
drinking water sources within the meaning of subsection
(d) (2). Such regulations shall require that a State pro-
gram, in order to be approved under Section 1422 -

"(A) shall prohibit, effective three years after
the date of the enactment of this title, any un-
derground injection in such State which is not
authorized by a permit issued by the State (ex-
cept that the regulations may permit a State to
authorize underground injection by rule);

" (B) shall require that the applicant for the
permit to inject must satisfy the State that the
underground injection will not endanger drinking
water sources, that no rule may be promulgated
which authorizes any underground injection which
72 endangers drinking water sources;

"(C) shall include inspection, monitoring, re-
cordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
"(D) shall apply to underground injections by
Federal agencies, and any other person whether or
not occurring on property owned or leased by the
United States."

"(2) Regulations may not prescribe requirements which in-
terfere with or impede -

"(A) the underground injection of brine or other
fluids which are brought to the surface in con-
nection with oil or natural gas production, or

"(B) any underground injection for the secondary
or tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas, unless
such requirements are essential toassure that un-
derground sources of drinking water will not be
endangered by such injection.

"(2) The Administrator may, upon application of
the Governor of a State which authorizes under-
ground injection by means of permits, authorize
such State to issue one or more temporary permits
each of which is applicable to a particular in-
jection well and to the underground injection of
a particular fluid and which may be effective un-
til the expiration of four years after the date
of enactment of this title, if the State finds,
on the record of such hearing -

"(A) that technology to permit safe injection is
not generally available.

"(B) that injection of the fluid would be less
harmful to health than the use of other available
means of disposing of waste or producing the de-
sired product; and
"(C) that available technology has been employed
(and will be employed) to reduce the volume and
toxicity of the fluid and to minimize the poten-
tially adverse effect of the injection on the
public health. Further, and for brevity this must
be out of context - I would like to emphasize the
following:

11 (C) any person who operates anew underground in-
jection well in violation of subsection (b), (1)
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more
than $5,000 for each day in which such violation
occurs, or (2) if such violation is willful, such
person may, in lieu of the civil penalty author-
ized by clause (1), be fined not more than $10,000
for each day in which such violation occurs.

"(e) If the Administrator detemi.nes that an area
has an aquifer which is the sole or principal
73

drinking water source for the area and which, if
contaminated, would.create a significant hazard
to public health, he shall publish n6fice of that
determination in the Federal Register. After the
publication of any such notice, no commitment for
Federal financial assistance (through a grant,
contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may,be
entered into for any project which the Adminis-
trator deterTnines may contaminate such aquifer
through a recharge zone as to create a signifi-
cant hazard to public health, but a commitment
for Federal financial assistance may, if author-
ized under another provision of law, be entered
into to plan or design the project to assure that
it will not so contaminate the aquifer.

Finally, I would like to restate--waste disposal by deep-well
injection can be used beneficially to preserve usable water and
wastes --but- -the proper controls mustbe recognized and usedif we are
to prevent irreparable damage to resources we will have even greater
demands on in the future.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Statement on Water
Reuse, July 7, 1972.

2. J. Vecchioli, Exper@lmental Injection of Tertiary Treated Sewage
in a Deep Well at Bay Park, Long Island, New York@ A Summary of
Early Results, 1972, Journal, New England Water Work's Associa-
tion, Volume 136, Number 2, Pages 87-103.

3. The Environmental Protection Agency, Sub.@iur_face D?pZacement of
Fluids, Administrator's Decision Statement Number 5, Federal
Register, Volume 39, Number 69, Tuesday, April 9, 1974, Pages
12922-3.

THE ROLE OF CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IN COASTAL AREAS

James C. Brown
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
and
Director
UNC Wastewater Research Center
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

INTRODUCTION

Should conventional treatment of wastewater and disposal of
treated effluents to coastal waters be considered as a reasonable
alternative in coastal areas? To establish a basis for considera-
tion of this question, the meaning of conventional treatment and
coastal waters should be defined. In this regard, the following
definitions will be adopted:

Conventional treatment - Treatment of wastewater in such
engineered facilities as primary treatment plants, second-
ary treatment plants, oxidation ponds, and advanced treat-
ment in physical-chemical plants or in conjunction with any
type of primary or secondary treatment.

Coastal waters - Waters of the nears hore ocean, sounds, es-
tuaries or estuarine rivers. Waters offree-flowing streams
which discharge into sounds, estuaries or estuarine rivers
can have a very important effect on the quality of coastal
waters, but for the purpose of this paper are not considered
to be coastal waters.

Considering the geographical characteristics of the coastal areas
in North Carolina,coastal communities and industries have three rea-
sonable alternatives for disposal of treated wastewater. These are:

1. discharge to sounds or estuarine rivers,
2. discharge on land, and
3. discharge to the ocean.

DISCHARGE TO SOUNDS OR ESTUARINE RIVERS
Many areas of the sounds and estuarine riversin the coastal re-
gions ofNorth Carolina are classified as SA (for shell fish culture)
or SB (contact water sports). Those waters classified as SC (fish
propagation) are, in general, so classified because of existing pol-
lutional discharges, not because the lower classification results in
the most beneficial use of the receiving waters. Under present reg-
ulations, discharge of effluents into SB and SC waters may be con-
tinued if the required criteria are maintained and nearby SA waters
are not downgraded. However, it is likely that future state and fed-

eral requirements will prohibit new discharges and require the elim-
ination of existing discharges.

A number of important environmental and ecological considera-
tions argue against the dischargeof wastewater effluents into sounds
or estuaries. These types of coastal waters have long been recog-
nized as some of the most valuable and productive of our water re-
sources. Such waters are critically important to the growth of har-
vestable living organisms. They serve as nurturing areas for young
organisms. Some species of high commercial value, such as oysters,
spend their entire life cycle in these waters. In fact, it has been
estimated that over half of the 4.5 billion pounds of fishery prod-
ucts harvested annually by U. S. fishermen are derived from species
whose existence depends on clean estuarine waters during some or all
of their life cycle. Water quality requirements for shell fish cul-
ture are quite critical. These and other bivalve marine organisms,
because ofthe nature of their feeding mechanism, tend to concentrate
and accumulate viruses and bacteria, including pathogenictypes, from
the surrounding water. Some species--e.g., oysters--are frequently
eaten raw.

Sound and estuarine waters are also subject to excessive algae
growth, particularly ifthe natural nutrient balance is upset. Waste-
water plant effluents, even after secondary treatment and chlorina-
tion, contain much larger concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen
than occur naturally and can upset the natural balance with conse-
quent nuisance growths. Such growths will reduce the natural diver-
sity of marine organisms and reduce the production of undesirable spe-
cies. In addition, such nuisance growths will affect the esthetic
quality of the water and seriously inhibit its use for recreational
purposes.

Although some areas of North Carolina's coastal waters are
classified SC, large areas remain in the SA and SB classification.
Waters in these latter classifications are relatively unpolluted.
This absence of pollution contributes to the esthetic attractiveness
of these waters, enhancing their value for recreation and tourism.
To discharge inadequately treated wastewater effluents into these
waters would seem counter to the long-term interests of the local
communities.

LAND DISPOSAL

The discharge of treated wastewater effluents on soils has been
considered more frequently in recent years (1.2); and as higher water
quality criteria are required, this method of ultimate disposal will
become more prevalent. In general, this method involves two steps:
(1) secondary treatment is provided, and (2) the secondary effluent
is discharged to the soil usually by methods of spray irrigation or
overland flow. The soil is considered to act as a living filter.
bacteria and virus are removed by filtration, residual organics are
absorbed or filtered out and utilized in plant growth, phosphorus is
either precipitated or absorbed by soil particles and is partially
utilized in plant growth. On the other hand, some materials--e.g.,
nitrates and heavy metals--are not completely removed and can result
in contamination of groundwater.

Another factor which should be considered is the possible fail-
ure of the soils to assimilate all the effluent. If surface soil
layers become saturated with water, additional application of efflu-
ent results in runoff with consequent pollution of the surface wa-
ters. Such a condition might occur during wet periods of the year.
To guard against this possibility, holding ponds are usually con-
structed to permit storage of effluent during periods when the soil
is not in condition to accept additional water.

Much of the soil in the coastal regions of North Carolina is
loose sand with some clay to a depth of twenty to twenty-five feet,
and is suitable for the application of secondary effluent. On the
other hand, the groundwater tableis close to the surface and, hence,
vulnerable to contamination. Because almost all small community and
individual water supplies are drawn from relatively shallow wells,
groundwater contamination by surface disposal could be a serious
problem.

DISCHARGE TO THE OCEAN

Discharge of wastewater to the sea through ocean outfalls has
been practiced for a number of years in some coastal regions of the
United States. On the lower east coast of Florida from Palm Beach
to the Florida Keys, there are ten ocean outfalls ranging in design
capacity from 8 to 40 mgd with ocean lengths of from 4,500 to 10,000
feet. No treatment except comminution is provided for five of these
outfalls. The EPA conducted an extensive study (3) of these outfalls
and concluded as follows:

"Secondary sewage treatment followetby adequate disinfec-
tion provides substantial reduction oil <isease-causing or-
ganisms and additional inactivation is obtained by expos-
ure of organisms to ocean waters. Dilution of residual
pollutional matter, including pathogenic organisms, aid the
separation of effluent from the general population provided
by ocean outfalls, will protect the public health. Ocean
outfalls have been used to dispose of untreated and par-
tially treated sanitary sewage from the populated areas of
southeast Florida for over 30 years. Based on recent stud-
ies, it was found that there are no detectable adverse ef-
fects beyond the small zone atthe end of the outfall pipe.
Neither is there any evidence of cumulative adverse effects
resulting from the long-term discharges of untreated wastes.
This, however, does not eliminate the possibility that changes
are occurring which may be so subtleas to be undetectable
by short-term observation."

In California, 125 coastal communities, including eleven of the
thirteen largest cities, disposeofraw or primary treated wastewater
through ocean outfalls. Concerning the effect of some of these out-
falls on the marine environment, a recent article (4) based on the
results of an extensive study of ocean outfalls conducted by the
Southern Cal i f orni a Coastal Water Research Project reported as fol 1 ows:

1. There is no evidence that present ocean disposal prac-
tice has had any substantial adverse effects on the
general ecological characteristics of the Southern 77
California Bight.

2. Sea organisms exist in great variety and show great
versatility and tolerance because of the wide range of
conditions and natural fluctuation under which they
evolved. There is little evidence that the open sea
contains the delicately balanced communities which ex-
ist in marsh and estuarine waters.

3. The gross organic materials in normal domestic waste-
water differsin no fundamental way from natural detri-
tal material which serves as food for major members of
the marine ecosystem.

4. Ocean discharge should be preceded by effective remov-
al of floatable solids which may tend to accumulate in
nearshore areas.

Considerations of environmental protection of land and freshwa-
ter resources along with the protection of productive estuarine wa-
ters and public health all seem to favor ocean disposal of wastewa-
ter effluents generated in coastal regions. However, in North Caro-
lina there are institutional constraints which inhibit the implemen-
tation of this method. The most important of these are:

1. Ocean waters are classified SB to a point three miles
offshore and current regulatory interpretation of Rule
VI of Rules, Regulations, Classifications and Water
QuaZity Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters of
North Carolina as adopted by the North Carolina Com-
mission of Environmental Management effectively pro-
hibit new discharge to these waters.

2. Regulatory authorities do not consider that studies of
ocean outfalls conducted elsewhere--e.g., Florida and
California--provide reliable data for conditions off
the coast of North Carolina. Studies in local off-
shore waters are just now in the formative stage and
may require as much as five years to provide results.
The effects of ocean outfalls are difficult to evaluate
when no actual outfall exists.

Under these circumstances, it appears that conventional methods
of wastewater treatment along with direct discharge to surface waters
or in more critical situations discharge on land, will be called on
to meet coastal area wastewater disposal needs in the near term fu-
ture.

EXISTING CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS

Most coastal towns and communities with permanent populationsof
less than 1000 are served by individual septic tank systems. Given
suitable soils for drainage fields, along with adequate design, in-
spection during construction and a system to provide competent tech-
nical assistance to owners when problems occur, septic tank systems
can and have provided adequate service without polluting surface wa-
ters. However, ideal conditions in regard both to soils and insti-
tutional arrangements are not always found. As a result, septic
tank systems have failed in some cases and have fallen into general
78

disrepute. This is unfortunate as in many instances they can provide
an economical and environmentally satisfactory solution. Although
septic tank systems are unsuitable forsome high-density beach resort
communities where the summer population may be 10 to 20 times the
number of year-round residents, they may be an excellent solution
for small coastal towns with a more stable population.

Most ofthe incorporated coastal area towns and cities with pop-
ulations over 2000 have some type of conventional wastewater treat-
ment plant. The table below represents some data relative to the
types of conventional treatment provided at North Carolina communi-
ties located in the immediate vicinity of coastal waters.

MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS*

Tota
Desi 1 1Presen
No. on t
Population No. of of Trt. Type of Flo@ I Flow
__Lroup Communities Population-Plants Trt. Plant (mgd)l (mgd)

14.000
-47.000 5 120,100 7 all T.01) 30.1 17.1
4000 5 29,100 5 3 T.F '(2) 5.9 3.4
-13.999 2 A.S.

400 7 A.S.
3999 9 14,500 9 1 Oxi. Pond 3.3 2.1
1 Imhoff Tk.

TOTALS 19 163,700 21 39.3 22.6

*Not including military bases
(l)T.F. - trickling filter
(2) A.S. - activated sludge

As can be seen, the larger communities are served by trickling
filter type plants. These are all of the high-rate type designed to
remove about 85 percent of the BOD5 and suspended solids in the in-
fluent wastewater. With two exceptions, the smaller communities are
served by package type activated sludge plants.

Almost all of these treatment plants have been built during the
last 15 years, and many of the package plants are of quite recent
origin. With one or two exceptions, they are operating at well be-
low their design flow. The summary table shows that the average flow
at all the plants is only 57 percent of the design capacity. The
water quality management plans prepared by the State under the re-
quirements of Section 303 of PL 92-500 report few contraventions of
receiving water quality standards attributable to discharges from
these plants. It would appear, on the basis of the water quality
parameters reported in the management plans, that these conventional
treatment plants are doing an acceptable job. But is this actually
the case? 79

ROLE OF CONVENTIONAL 14ASTPI,-'@!ATER TREATMENT

In general , low level s of dissolved oxygen have not been a seri-
ous problem in coastal waters. Where low D.O.'s have been observed
near treatment plant discharges, the condition has been highly local-
ized. This problem can often be remedied by providing facilities to
promote the adequate diffusion and mixing of wastewater effluent with
the receiving waters.

Bacterial concentrations in effluents can be controlled by ade-
quate disinfection prior to discharge. With regard to harmful virus,
not enough is known about their survival in salt waters. Disinfec-
tion, however, is known to aid in their control. On the other hand,
serious questions have been raised concerning the overall ecological
and environmental effects of universal chlorination of wastewater
effl uents. In any case, in regard to D.O. levels and bacterial con-
centrations, conventional treatment plants can perform an acceptable
job in North Carolina coastal areas.

On the other hand, problems of coastal water quality are far
more complex than indicated by D.O. and bacteria. For example, ma-
jor sections of Albemarle Sound are considered to be eutrophic and
portions of Pamlico Sound are borderline eutrophic. In the long run,
such conditions can seriously affect the beneficial productivity of
these waters and lessen their value as recreational resources. But
discharges from conventional treatment facilities in coastal areas
contributed only marginally to eutrophication. Eutrophic conditions
develop when excessive quantities of nutrients, principally nitrogen
and phosphorus, are available. These nutrients are contributed to
the sounds and estuarine rivers by the entire tributary drainage
areas, which extend far inland. Treated and untreated domestic and
industrial wastewaters along with land runoff, especially that from
agricultural lands, are the major sources of excess nutrient concen-
tration in tributary waters.

The first step in controlling this problem should be to deter-
mine an acceptable level of primary 'or algal productivity for the
waters to be protected. The second step should be the determination
of the limiting nutrients and the allowable nutrient concentration
such that the acceptable level of primary productivity will not be
exceeded. Finally, a technically and economically feasible plan must
be developed to control point and non-point sources of nutrients.
This is a large order, but until it has been accomplished, little
can be expected in the control of eutrophication in coastal waters.

If it is found desirable to control eutrophication,conventional
treatment can play an important role. With modifications and addi-
tions both phosphorus and nitrogen canbe removedat treatment plants.
The technical literature is ample on this subject (5,6,7,8). Phos-
phorus may be removed by chemical precipitation using salts of alum-
inum or iron. The application of these methods also improves the
overall performance of typical secondary treatment plants.

Phosphorus may also be precipitated by treatment with lime.
This method raises the pH of the wastewater resulting in the conver-
sion of ammonia-nitrogen to the gaseous phase, andit inay be stripped
from the wastewater by physical methods. Nitrogen removal is likely
to be more important than phosphorus removal in most coastal waters
80

as research has shown that the productivity of saline waters is fre-
quently nitrogen limited. Nitrogen can also be removed by biologi-
cal methods using a combination of aerobic and anaerobic processes.
This system has been demonstrated at the pilot-plant scale. It is,
however, a complicated and expensive procedure and probably not suit-
able for use at medium and small-sized plants.

If nutrient control, particularly nitrogen removal,is eventual-
ly found necessary for wastewaters discharged to the sounds and es-
tuaries, the most feasible solution forsmall and medium-sized treat-
ment plants in the coastal area will be that of land or ocean dis-
posal of normal secondary effluents.

One of the most serious impediments to the effectiveness of con-
ventional treatment plants results from inadequate operation. As
plants are required to produce higher quality effluent, they become
increasingly complex, and operating problems multiply. One of the
greatest deficiencies in the present water pollution control law is
its lack of provision for financial assistance for plant operation.
At the regional level, joint management of several small treatment
plants located in the same region could provide operations expertise
otherwise unavailable. We have not done enough to provide the legal
and institutional framework to encourage this practice.

Sur*MY

It appears that conventional wastewater treatment is and will
continue to be an important factor in any water quality management
plans for our coastal waters. It is reasonable to conclude that:

1. Under the present regulatory guidelines, secondary
treatment is usually sufficient to maintain the legal-
ly required water quality standards.

2. In the future, as nutrient discharge limitations are
developed, additional processes canbe added to conven-
tional treatment plants for the removal of nitrogen or
phosphorus.

3. When removal of nutrients isnot technically or econom-
ically feasible at a plant, conventional secondary
treatment can serve as pretreatment for ultimate dis-
posal by land-spreading methods.

4. Ocean outfalls offer the most environmentally and eco-
logically attractive solution for permanent and resort
communities located reasonably close to the ocean.
Therefore, when regulatory problems are resolved, con-
ventional treatment methods can serve as pretreatment
for ultimate disposal in the ocean.

REFERENCES

1. Environmental Protection Agency, "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
by Land Application - Volume II "Environmental Protection Series,
EPA 660/2-73-006b (August 1973).

2. Environmental Protection Agency, "Land Application of Sewage Ef-
fluents and Sludges," Environmental Protection Series, EPA 660/
2-74-042.

3. Anon., "Final Environmental Impact Statement Ocean Outfalls
and Other Methods of Treated Wastewater Disposal in Southeast
Florida," EPA Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia, March 19, 1973.

4. Hederoth, Charles W., Special Report: "Ocean Disposal - Good or
Bad?", Water and Wastes Engineerinc 10, 10, pp. 32-38 (October
g
1973).

5. Brown, James C., "Alum Treatment of High-Rate Trickling Filter
Effluent at Chapel Hill, N. C.," Proceedings of National Sympos-
ium on Ultimate Disposal of Wastewater and Their Residuals," Wa-
ter Resources Research Instituteof The University of North Caro-
lina (1973).

6. Black and Veatch, "Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal,"
EPA Technology Transfer Publication (October 1971).

7. Downing, A. L., H. H. Painter, and G. Knowles, "Nitrification in
the Activated Sludge Process," Jour. Inst. of Sewage Purification
(Brit.) 2: 130 (1964).

8. McCarty, P. L., L. Beck, and P. St. Amant, "Biological Denitri-
fication of Wastewater by Addition of Organic Materials," Pro-
ceedings of 24th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette,
Ind. (1969).

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells) What do you mean by existing
flows? Is it the peak summer flow or the average flov,, or winter
flow or what?

PROFESSOR JAMES C. BR%N: The data came from the state summaries
which were usually based on yearly averages. Most of the towns with
treatment plants are not resort communities. They are generally the
more permanent types of communities which are subject to excessive
summer growth such as occurs at the resort communities on Bodie
Island, Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, or Boaue Bank community. Most
communities on the banks do not have treatment plants. We're talk-
ing about towns like Edenton and Elizabeth City. Swansboro is one
that might have some substantial summer growth as well as Southport.
Most of them don't have that dearee of summer growth, but I would
expect during the summer that all of them would have somewhat higher
flows.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells) Could average flows for
these communities be giving a false impression of what actually ex-
ists?

PROFESSOR JAMES C. BRaf4; Yes. It could perhaps make a false im.-
pression.

OUESTICN: (Mr. Harry LeGrand) I have a question relating to deep-
well disposal of toxic wastes in salt water below the fresh water
aquifer. Each state has different attitudes on deep-well injection,
and I wonder what the rationaleis in North Carolina for complete in-
jection of deep-well injection.

COMMENT BY MR. EVERETT KNIGff: We had an experimental project in
North Carolina involving the deep-well disposal of industrial efflu-
ent. This was discharged into an aq ,uifer which was primarily salt
water. The data available from intensive monitorino in this study
indicated that these wastes posed a hazardto the fresh water strata.
It was on the basis of this information that the regulations were de-
veloped.

QUESTION: Do current regulations cover the injection of heated water?

IFIR. JAMES CROOKS: Heat is considered a pollutant. If you have hot
water, then you are going to have to cool it by cooling towers or
whatever. When all other available disposal sites have been found
deficient and the best technology has been used, then the solution
will be to use the system least dangerous to human health. In this
instance, it may cause less damage to human health to inject heated
water into the groundwater which would be more acceptable than to
put it into the stream where it may cause proliferation of viruses
and pathogenic organisms, kill fish, or whatever. In that case, it
may be permissible to inject the heated wastes for a short period of
time, while technology was being developed to improve treatment nec-
essary to allow that heated water to be disposed of in some other
manner.

QUESTION: (Mr. Ralph Heath) Jim, do you mean that we are going to
replace all those recharge wells on Long Island with cooling towers?
83

MR. JAMES CROOKS: No, I'm not saying what you are going to do. I'm
saying that there is a policy statement on deep-well injection. There
is a policy on water reuse, and there are other provisions in the
Safe Drinking Water Act concerning groundwater protection. Right now,
for example, in Florida they are injecting hot acidic wastes in some
of those limestone areas. You can imagine what they do. They're
dissolving part of Florida away. This is going on right now under
some sort of grandfather clause, and I don't really know how this
can be continued. This is going to be stopped eventually. In other
words, treatment will be required to upgrade the water to the point
where it will no longer be hot and acidic. It will have to be more
compatible with the environment into which it is discharged. The
same thing applies to the discharge wells of Long Island. There are
existing conditions which can't be automatically stopped. We are
working in a progressive fashion to cause a turn-around. Some of the
material I read to you stated that a period of four years may be per-
mitted to develop the kind of technology needed. There are a lot of
things involved, more than just pure technology.
QUESTION: Will the Drinking Water Act contain any provisions for
controlling groundwater withdrawals from interstate aquifers?
MR. JAMES CMOKS: I don't think we are going to have any control
along interstate lines for groundwater. We realize this is a physi-
cal thing--aquifers--rather than political. Everybody has talked
about it for some time and have tried the best approach. Now we're
going to have to live with the fact that we dohave interstate ground-
water aquifer systems but that controls will have to be at the state
level.

QUESTION: Could you give us the current status of groundwater re-
search relating to underground disposal in deep wells?
MR. JAMES CROOKS: Ralph Heath could probably give you more informa-
tion because the USGS is doing considerably more research on ground-
water than EPA. EPA is reaction oriented through most of its efforts
as you well know. The USGS, of course, has years of experience in
collecting data, analyzing it, and building analog models of ground-
water systems, and I do not think that we in EPA generally have the
expertise to get into that kind of work.

MR, RALPH HEATH: The USGS is doing a great deal of research rela-
tive to underground waste disposal in deep wells. The Bay Park study
on Long Island is actually being done by the Survey. The Florida re-
charge area north of Pensacola and several other areas are being
studied by the Survey. The Survey has just completed a study of Nor-
folk relating to injection of excess fresh water in salty water zones
which the city could withdraw during the summertime when they had
higher rates of use. Them are a great many other places we're
studying, but these are some of the new ones. In almost every place
that we've made these studies we have encountered unforeseen problems.
Amonq the worst of t-hese problems, I think, are the reaction of the
fluids that are being injectedandthe fluids that are already in the
ground and the aquifer itself. It is very difficult to take both
sets of material and the implaced fluid and bring them up to the land
environment and carry out your tests in the surface environment. So
we are still in for a lot of surprises with deep waste injection.

QUESTION: What steps are being taken to improve the operator train-
ing and management of existing waste treatment facilities?

PROFESSOR JAMES C. BROWN: We have made some progress in training
with the development of regional schools where the training is more
locally available for the operator. The reorganization of the train-
ing and development of new curricula, some of which I've been in-
volved in,is a help; but no amount of training is really going to do
the job because training, although very important, is probably not
the real problem at the treatment plant. The problem is to pay a
salary sufficient to attract and retain competent and responsible
people. The second is probably to greatly expand the capacity of the
regional offices to maintain surveillance on these plants. I think
that the salary level has to be increased. I would like to see it
done on a local level, but it probably isn't going to be done there
because most private citizens are mainly concerned that wastewater
drains away from their homes and generates no nuisance. We don't
really pay much attention to the sewage treatment plants except in
two cases: (I) when the plant is going to be expanded, when we think
our sewer rates and taxes will go up, and (2) when it smells. Those
are the only two times the average citizen cares much about the sew-
age treatment plants. So it may be difficult to raise salaries at
the local level given this amount of disinterest by the citizen.
Therefore, it may be necessary for the federal or state government
to allow some sort of operating financial support to maintain ade-
quate salaries.
PROFESSOR DAvID 11. HOWELLS: Having trained, qualified personnel for
waste treatment plants has always been a major problem. Until em-
ployees see some opportunity for growth and advancement, I believe
this problem is not going to be resolved. Regional management sys-
tems would provide these career opportunities. Through contractual
arrangementsor other mechanisms the regional management system could
be large enough tohave professional personnel aid adequate laboratory
equipment to really operate these waste treatment facilities.

PROFESSOR JAMES C. BROWN: I certainly concur with that, and one
other thing I think I mentioned in my paper was the desirability of
regional management. But one other point I think Dave is making is
that all of us want somebody, our boss or the people we work with,
to recognize that what we' re doing is an important contribution. If
you are the only operator in a small town and the rest of the people
don't care, you may lose interest. If you are a member of a large
organization where not only your boss but your colleagues are in-
terested in what you am doing, where there is communication in this
regard, there is more incentive to try to do a good job. That is
another point in favor of regionalization.

MR. JAMES CROOKS: With regard to regional management systems, EPA is
trying to develop the process as it works with the states. Each
state will soon be developing water quality management plans as a
part of 303(e) and the 208 planning efforts. The 208 planning effort
is limited generally to urban areas. We are now including non-
designated areas or non-urban areas which means that each state will
have a statewide plan. Part of that water quality management plan
will include regional management systems for the entire state.

In a water quality management plan developed for the Pascagoula
River Basin in Mississippi, a key element was not accomplished in
that there was no designation of the implementing agency to imple-
went the plan. The State of Mississippi retained that authority and
responsibility, but the one who developed the plan, primarily the
planning agency, was the Water District. The District proposed a
management system which would include the training of the operators
and providing them with adequate salaries. There would be a central
point where personnel would be trained and then would have the re-
sponsibility for sampling, checking, and monitoring treatment facil-
ities to provide a good management system. This is part of the wa-
ter quality management plan. I think this is about the only way you
are going to get to this thing. The state has the responsibility
for such planning. In North Carolina, this would be the Department
of Natural and Economic Resources.

In an effort to promote this concept, we plan an early meeting
with the people in North Carolina to try to do a pilot study in ru-
ral areas. Our emphasis on this form of management will be particu-
larly towards non-point source pollution control. We will be con-
sidering the best management practices for controlling non-point
sources and preventing pollution. Not to treat the wastes but pre-
.,vent degradation is the best way. The regional management system
will have to develop and incorporate non-point source management
systems as an integral element of the base plans or statewide water
quality management plans. The state will have to incorporate that
into the pollution control program and include provisions for proper
salaries and proper training. Many of us have seen treatment plants
and are appalled at what we see--just millions of dollars to put up
treatment plants and then we come back later and find out that some-
one has been paying the guy $15 or $25 a week to operate a costly
treatment plant. You can't expect any better than that. You've got
to train that man and get his sincerity and his feeling for his job.
One way to achieve this is to get proper personnel, train them, and
pay them adequate salaries. This can only be done, I think, through
this water quality management planning system.
QUESTICN: (Mr. J. Luke Hause) Dr. Brown, would you comment on non-
point source pollution and its significance? Do you know of any work
being done on getting baseline data and means of control?

PROFESSOR JAMES C. BROWN, I recognize this as a problem, but I don't
have any answers. By definition, non-point sources generally con-
sist of water sources that become polluted, either through running
over the natural ground, or over agricultural land and then discharg-
ing into surface water in a condition which may degrade the surface
water quality. David Howells and the Water Resources Research Insti-
tute has sponsored some research along these lines, particularly some
efforts to assess the effect ofdischarging from urban and agricultu-
ral areas. The current 208 study in North Carolina is addressing
this problem quite seriously. Hopefully, in the next few years we
will have some ideas. How we can reasonably control non-point run-
off will present some difficult economic and technical problems.

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OF THE COASTAL REGION

liarry E. LeGrand
ConsuZting Hydrogeologist
Raleigh, North Carolina

INTRODUCTION

Groundwater is a valuable resource throughout the southeastern
states, but it is an essential resource in coastal areas. In this
discussion, the groundwater conditions will be outlined, the nature
of the problems will be defined, and suggestions will be made about
future management policies.

The critical factor in developing groundwater in the coastal re-
gions is the quality of water rather than the quantity of water. The
volume of water in storage is large, the many hundreds of feet of
sands, clays, and limestones underlying the land surface being com-
pletely saturated with water except in the sandy surface soil. Un-
fortunately, much of the underlying water is salty.

The extension of brackish surface water inland for some distance
from the mouths of coastal streams limits the use of surface water
for municipal water supply and places a burden on the groundwater
supplies. Problems have developed locally because of heavy pumping,
but the region still has large areas of undeveloped groundwater.

The withdrawal of groundwater is unevenly distributed. Pumping
is concentrated in populated beach areas and where cities and indus-
tries use groundwater. Proper management of the groundwater resour-
ces of the region is very important to prevent salt-water encroach-
ment, which could permanently damage parts of the water-bearing sys-
tems, or aquifers.

Useful studies of the groundwater resources of the region have
been made, chiefly by the U. S. Geological Survey and various state
agencies. Intensive studies were started where heavy groundwater
withdrawal was already in progress, including: Miami, Savannah,
Brunswick, Parris Island, Myrtle Beach, and the North Carolina phos-
phate area of Beaufort County, North Carolina. A study that would
integrate the available information and cast it in a form for re-
gional management is still lacking.

GROUNDWATER FEATURES

The Coastal Plain is no more than a few hundred feet above sea
level along its inner margin, and it slopes gently to the sea, ex-
tending beyond the coastline as the submarine Continental Shelf. Be-
neath the plain, beds of sand, clay, marl, and limestone of Creta-
ceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary age dip seaward. The geologic mater-
ials commonly are soft and unconsolidated exceptfor some limestones.
They lie on a floor of hard consolidated rocks that are similar to
those of the Piedmont exposed along the inner margin of the Coastal
Plain. The bulk of the sediments accumulated beneath the sea, which
invaded the region and retreated many times. 87

The most striking structural features' of the Coastal Plain are
(1) the seaward dip of the beds, (2) a coastward increase in thick-
ness of individual beds, and (3) a coastward increase in number of
beds. The beds commonly dip only a fraction of one degree--toward
the Atlantic Coast to the east.

The Coastal Plain is underlain by an immense artesian system--
simple in general terms, but complex in many details. The alternate
layers of permeable and relatively impermeable beds and their gently
seaward slopes are ideally suited to the occurrence of artesian water.
Aquifers, which commonly are medium to coarse-grained sands or lime-
stones, and intervening impermeable beds which are commonly clays or
shales, vary greatly in thickness and areal extent. Some geologic
formations contain several aquifers and several impermeable layers,
whereas other formations compose only a part of an aquifer. Many
aquifers are separated by beds that are lenticular and not altogether
impermeable. Thus, there is considerable leakage between many aqui-
fers where there is a difference in artesian head between them.

Beneath all ofthe Coastal Plain, except a narrow belt along the
inner margin, the groundwater occurs in three zones in downward suc-
cession. They are: (1) the zone of unconfined water at shallow
depths, (2) the zone of naturally fresh artesian water, and (3) the
zone of salty artesian water. The shallow zone is the water-table
aquifer, which extends throughout the Coastal Plain and contains
fresh water everywhere except in a few localities near coastal sur-
face waters and in some swampy parts of southern Florida. The zone
of fresh artesian water occurs throughout the Coastal Plain except
beneath a thin strip along the inner margin and locally along the
outer margin of the Coastal Plain; it is commonly thickest in the
hinterland where it ranges in thickness from a few hundred to about
2000 feet. The salt-water zone includes the basal beds in the outer
two-thirds of the region. The salt-water zone occupies much more
than half of the total aggregate volume of sediments in North Caro-
lina, Georgia, and Florida, but not in South Carolina.

The chemical quality of groundwater in the Coastal Plain ranges
greatly. In most places, the water in the shallow water-table aqui-
fers is low in total dissolved mineral matter but is slightly acid
and corrosive. Fresh artesian water in limestone is largely of the
calcium bicarbonate type, and the hardness commonly ranges between
100 and 300 parts per million. Where the fresh artesian water occurs
in sands, the mineral content generally increases gradually with
depth in each aquifer, and the water changes from calcium bicarbonate
to sodium bicarbonate to chiefly sodium chloride.

Almost all of the sediments either were deposited in sea water or
had sea water introduced into them at some time in their history.
Yet, almost nowhere do the sediments now contain water identical to
that of the sea. Movement has been the keynote to changes in the
character of the water, for all the water has moved some distance
and in doing so has been influenced by the character of sediments
and by the character of contiguous water in its path. Water from
precipitation has flushed out the former salt water in most of the
beds along the inner margin of the Coastal Plain and in the uppermost
beds in most of the coastal areas. Thus, we must make a distinction
between the water that is fresh and potable and water that is salty.

For the purposes of this report, water containing less than 500 ppm
of chloride is considered fresh.

The water table is near the ground in many places, and excess
waterislost by evapotranspiration oris diverted to surface streams.
Some water from the water-table aquifers moves downwardtothe under-
lying artesian beds at high inland places, but generally at a slow
rate. Where artesian water occurs at depths of several hundred feet
or more, the natural rate of movement may be in feet per year, or
even in feet per century. Most rapid groundwater circulation occurs
in the water-table aquifers and in the shallow parts of the artesian
aquifers. The rate of movement is also quickened around wells that
are pumped.

In Figure 1 the water table and uppermost artesian aquifers are
incised by streams, resulting in relatively rapid movement of water
to the streams. The zone maybe considered as extending 100 or200feet
beneath the base of the streams, and the rate of movement maybe con-
sidered in terms of feet per day to feet per year. The base of Zone
2 is also arbitrary and may be considered to extend to a depth of
several hundred feet or perhaps to a depth at which the water is
salty; the water in Zone 2 has no good discharge facilities, and its
rate of movement may be considered generally in terms of feet per
year. Zone 3 contains only salty water and has extremely poor facil-
ities for discharging water; the rate of movement may be considered
in terms of feet per century. It must be realized that withdrawal
of water from wells or introduction of fluids through wells would
steepen the hydraulic gradient and would greatly quicken the flow in
any of the zones.

Conditions in Figure 1 are typical of those slightly inland ftm
the coast in North Carolina and northeastern South Carolina. In this
region several fresh-water artesian sand aquifers are separated by
clay beds. Toward the coast, however, the brackish water zone tends
to rise so that the fresh-water zone may be-much thinner than that
shown in Figure 1.

The well owner in the coastal area is concerned with the depth
to salty water under normal, non-pumping conditions, but he is more
directly concerned with the possibility of encroachment of salty wa-
ter which might impose limitations on the withdrawal of water. if
salt-water encroachment is known to be possible in an area, the dif-
ference in specific gravity between fresh water and sea water is an
important factor to be considered.

As sea water has a specific gravity of about 1.025, 40 feet of
sea water will balance about 41 feet of fresh water. This difference
in speci 'fic gravity of fresh water and sea water has led to the gen-
eral rule of 40-to-l ratio. Where the rule can be applied, the depth
in feet below sea level to the contact between fresh and salt water
theoretically will be 40 times the number of feet the static water
level of fresh water is above sea level. Although strict application
of the rule requires a stable relation betweenthe fresh and salt wa-
ter, a condition that probably does not existi nnature, it serves as
a useful measure in studying problems of salt-water encroachment.

The relation of fresh to salty water under shallow water-table
conditions is shown in Figure 2A. Where artesian conditions exist,
89

WA TER TA BL
LAND SURFACE)
Z 0 N E
5
MA
Fresh uncon
. ..........
----.Z fined water
........ .....

ZONE
rtesian
Fresh a
water

. . ......... .....
..... .... .*`i*.--*.'-':.
...............

Brackish
ZONE
artesian water
3
Salty
hiefly sand 200 artesian water
F771 Chiefly clay

0 5
MILES

Figure 1. Vertical zones of the Coastal Plain, showing movement of water at different rates. Zone 1 includes the
water-table aquifer and the shallower part of the uppermost artesian aquifer; discharge of water is con-
siderable, and movement may be considered in terms of feet per day. Zone 2 includes most of the fresh
artesian water and perhaps some salty artesian water, several aquifers generally being involved; water
moves slowly, to some extent downdip and coastward and to some extent upward through relatively imperme-
able layers, but facilities for discharge are poor. Zone 3 contains salty water at considerable depth;
water is so confined that movement may be considered in terms of feet per century. The thickness of each
zone may vary considerably from place to place. The multiple aquifer shown is typical of that in Horry
County, South Carolina, and western Pender County, North Carolina; but the general zonation applies also
to the limestone aquifer. (LeGrand, 1962)

WATER TABLE
WELL PUMPING WATER TABLE BEFORE
LAND PUMPIN WAS STARTED
SURFACE
SEA -E@EL

H
WATR FRESH
@ I 1A T
WA!ER H A111

ZONE OF CONTACT
0 TWEEN FRIES AND
CONE OF SALT SAELT WATERWtTH
WATER CAUSED@ WELL PUMPING
aY PUMPING WELL
ZFO@NE OF CONTACT BETWEEN
R S H AND SALT WATER BEFORE
A PUMPING WAS STARTED B

INTAKE
AREA I WATER
TABLE WELL CONE OF
PIEZOmETRC D PRESSION
-_SURFACE@
SEA LEVEL

SALT WATER

re, FRESH
Rj US WATER
SPRING

A. ISLAND OR PENINSULAR STUD@

B U-TUBE, LABORATORY CONDITIONS

C, ARTESIAN CONDITIONS

Figure 2. Relation of salt water to fresh water in aquifers of
coastal areas (after Warren, 1944).
@@l T j1R
0'
SA
E

as in Figure 2C, sea water has access to the aquifer at its outcrop
beneath the sea where it is not covered by confining beds. The rela-
tion between salt and fresh water under these conditions may be com-
pared to those conditions in a U-shaped tube, as shown in Figure 2B,
one side of which is filled with salt water and the other with fresh
water. One leg of the tube is comparable to the sea and the other
to the aquifer, and the walls of the tube represent the confining
beds (Stringfield, 1966, p. 156).

PROBLEMS OF THE SHAUDW (WATER-TABLE) AQUIFER

Groundwater suitable for domestic water supplies occurs at shal-
low depths throughout the coastal region. Sands cover most of the
region, and these sands represent the water-table aquifer except in
the Miami area and a few local spots where limestone is the shallow
aquifer.

The water table lies within a few feet of the land surface, re-
sulting in the abundance of relatively inexpensive drive point wells
for most individual water supplies. Most yields range between 5 and
100 gallons a minute for the shallow sand aquifer, although higher
yields may occur where clay bedsdonot underlie the aquifer at rela-
tively shallow depths.
Problems of quality of water@in the shallow sand aquifer are
widespread. The problems are rel4ted to the natural quality of the
groundwater, to salt-water encroac@ment, and to pollution from man-
made sources.

Waterin the shallow aquifer tends to be lowin dissolved mineral
matter but picks up carbon dioxide in the soil zone, which makes it
corrosive. This corrosive water may dissolve iron and other metals
from pipes causing stains on plumbing fixtures.

The subject of salt-water encroachment, discussed in a general
way earlier, is important to well owners on the beach and near salt-
water estuaries. Excessive pumping within a few hundred feet of the
shore may lower the fresh-water head enough to cause salty water to
intrude into the aquifer. Techniques for preventing encroachment of
salty water into a shallow sandy coastal aquifer are described by
Winner (1975).

The most serious overall qual i ty-of -water problem concerning the
water-table aquifer is pollution from septic tank effluent and other
waste products. The problem is especially severe in beach areas and
other developed areas where lots are small andwells and septic tanks
are closely spaced. Sanitary engineers working in the region have
learned that individual wells and septic tanks in a development on
lots as small as one-half acre and smaller often lead to polluted
dritiking water. Studies have been made to evaluate the potential for
wastes topollute nearby wells, using qyd@rogeologic factors (LeGrand,
1964); the results of these studies arein general agreement with the
"lot size" and "ground distance" regulations that counties and states
enforce to guard against undue groundwater pollution.

. Hydrogeol ogi c factors need to be studied careful ly for si tes that
are considered for disposal of wastes in the region. Concern about
92

polluting estuaries and beaches is placing emphasis on disposing of
wastewater in the ground. The high water table, resulting in the
aquifer being near land surface, is an unfavorable factor and indi-
cates that the aquifer can be polluted easily from waste disposal
operations. However, the spread of polluted water in the shallow
aquifer from a single disposal operation is not likely to be great,
partly because the aquifer is thin and the permeability is rather
low; thus, it is likely that useful compromises may be reached--try-
ing to protect the aquifers from pollution in general but allowing
some disposal of wastes even if small segments of an aquifer are
polluted. This is not a drastic policy because the water-table aqui-
fers beneath our towns and cities in the Coastal Plain are partly
polluted because of leaky sewers, storm runoff, and leaching of oil
wastes and other materials at land surface.

PRC1BLFJ4S OF THE ARTESIPN AQUIFERS

Broad useful generalizations, such as those made about the shal-
low water-table aquifer, do not apply as well to the artesian aqui-
fers. The artesian aquifers range in character and in chemical qual-
ity of their waters from place to place, and special studies and maps
are essential. Two major types of artesian aquifers occur in the
region--the limestone aquifer of Tertiary age and the underlying
multiple-sand aquifers of Cretaceous age.

Limestone Aqui4et

The extent of the Tertiary limestone aquifer is shown in Figure
3. Considered in its entirety, it is one of the most productive
aquifers of the world. The economics of Florida and coastal Georgia
are dependent on it, and it is important in parts of coastal South
Carolina and North Carolina.

In coastal Florida and Georgia, the limestone aquifer is at least
several hundred feet thick and is covered by thick impermeable clays
that confine the artesian water. The relatively high permeability
of the aquifer has resulted from circulation of water in the geologic
past that has led to enlargement of openings in the rocks by solution
action. Some large caverns exist, but the permeability results
chiefly from a widespread network of small solution openings. As is
characteristic of most limestone systems, the permeabilityis uneven-
ly distributed. A part of the aquifer system is so impermeable, for
example, northwest of Charleston, South Carolina, that the city uses
an unlined tunnel in the rock to transport water from the Edisto
River.

The limestone aquifer becomes thinner and less well covered
northeastward from Savannah, Georgia, and is near land surface in the
Charleston area. It is absent in the northeastern coastal plain of
South Carolina but is present again at shallow depths in the south-
eastern coastal region of North Carolina. In parts of Brunswick
County, North Carolina, it is so thinly covered by sands that it is
a water-table aquifer. Farther northeastward, as in Carteret County,
it is confined and yields fairly large supplies of artesian water.
It thins to the north in Beaufort County, North Carolina, and is not
present northward into Virginia.

N. C.

S. C.
ALA G A
I>
C_ 7;1

01
q.

400

F ... 40o

2oo

o
EXPLANATION
.0: 2co

Tertiary limestone of or near land surface AOO
2owo
6oo
Boo
Principal area in which sinks breach the Hawthorn Formation
&PP -7 looo
Line north,andwest of which:omaerthin oatches of Tertiary
imes one may occu no land surface

Line beyond which limestone thickens and is more deeply buried

@200---@
Top of Tertiary Iimestone, in feet below sea le,el 11, o 11, 111 2. .1..s

figure 3. Maps showing distribution of limestone at the land sur-
face and beneath it (Stringfield and LeGrand, 1966).

The artesian pressure in the limestone. aquifer is caused by its
confinement beneath clays near the coast and to higher intake and
recharge areas in the interior part of the Coastal Plain. Some of
the water entersin the ground in south central Georgia at elevations
of a few hundred feet causing a high fresh-water head alongthe Geor-
gia and north Florida coast. The upper part of the aquifer contains
fresh water in some places a few miles off the coast of Georgia.

In spite of the great fresh-water head in many places in the
limestone aquifer, the presenceofsalty water or concern about salt-
water encroachment is still a vital problem. All of the aquifer con-
tains salty water in southern Florida, parts of southeastern South
Carolina, and parts of extreme eastern North Carolina; elsewhere the
lower part of the system contains brackish water along the coast.
It is understandable that where heavy concentrated pumping has occurred
there has either been encroachment of salty water or fear of encroach-
ment.

The limestone aquifer yields a hard calcium bicarbonate water.
The hardness generally ranges between 100 to several hundred parts
per million.

The odor of hydrogen sulfide is present in much of the artesian
water. The iron content of the water is generally low, the high iron
content in Craven County, North Carolina, being an exception.

A center of heavy pumping from the limestone aquifer at a phos-
phate mine on the south side of the Pamlico River estuary at Lee
Creek, Beaufort County, North Carolina, has caused a lowering of wa-
ter levels in a large surrounding area (Peek and Nelson, 1967). In
order to mine the ore body, it was necessary to dewater the base of
the ore by pumping from the limestone aquifer that lies just below
the'ore. A total pumping rate of about 60 million gallons of water
a day is required to accomplish the dewatering. The dewatering wells
showed an almost immediate increase in saltiness because of upward
flow from mineralized water in the lower part of the limestone aqui-
fer. There is a hydraulic gradient from the brackish water estuary
to the center of pumping, but because of beds of low permeability
within the path of the water, the likelihood of salt-water contami-
nation from this sourceis not likely in the near future. The concern
of salt-water contamination in this region has resulted in an inten-
sive study and monitoring system by the North Carolina Department of
Natural and Economic Resources.

The City of Savannah, Georgia, and several nearby industries
have been pumping, in aggregate, more than 50 million gallons of wa-
ter a day for more than 20 years. A large cone of pumpin de res -
sion occurs in the limestone aquifer. Counts a - ?1963@ re-
port that salty water in the aquifer northeast of Savannah is moving
very slowly toward the center of pumping. Large additional supplies
are available if the pumping is distributed more widely and if the
additional water is withdrawn from the aquifer 15 or 20 miles west,
northwest, and southwest of the city. McCollum and Counts (1969)
estimate that about 40 mgd is the maximum that can be pumped indefi-
nitely without lateral movement of salt water toward Savannah if
pumping centers are not dispersed.

In Brunswick pumpage of more than 100 million gallons a day has
reduced the head in the limestone aquifer enough so that trapped
brackish water underlying the fresh water is infiltrating into the
fresh-water zones (Karuse and Gregg, 1972). With the aid of digital
modeling, the U. S. Geological Survey has made future predictions of
drawdown of the water level and of movement of contaminated water
under various pumping conditions.

A composite cone of pumping depression occurs at St. Mary, Geor-
gia, and nearby Fernandina Beach, Florida, where in 1971 about 40
million gallons a day of water was pumped and about 70 million gal-
lons a day at Fernandina Beach. Although the center of the cone is
more than 10 feet below sea level, salt-water encroachmentis not yet
a problem.

AAtesian Sand Aquifleu

Where the limestone aquifer is absent in much of coastal South
Carolina and some of southeastern North Carolina, sands and clays
represent the usable artesian system. These beds, of Cretaceous age,
are generally layered in alternating fashion, each bed commonly be-
ing less than 20 to 35 feet thick. Each of the sand beds is water-
bearing to'a certain degree. In developing water for cities and in-
dustries from this type of aquifer system, the procedure is to place
a screen or slotted pipe opposite each sand bed so that water from
several beds can be used. Such multiple-sand wells are common in the
interior parts of the Coastal Plain of Georgia and the Carolinas,
where they,represent a chief source of water supply. They are the
sourc'e of supply also at Georgetown and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
The sand@and clay artesian systems extend to great depths, but the
lower parts are salty everywhere eastward from the central part of
the Coastal Plain. Most of the multiple-sand wells yield as much as
several hundreds of gallons per minute.

The chemi cal qual i ty of the fresh-water part of the sand artesi an
system is generally good. By moving through natural water-softening
materials in the ground, the water is of the soft sodium bicarbonate
type. The fluoride content is generally high enough to retard tooth
decay; but locally, the water may contain several parts per million
of fluoride which is somewhat more than desired.

Salt-water encroachment in the artesian sand aquifers is not yet
a serious problem, but excessive concentrated withdrawal of ground-
waterin this region could lead to serious salt-water problems. Along
the coastal parts of North Carolina and Georgia, the multiple-sand
aquifers naturally contain salty water and are buried beneath the
limestone aquifer.

Studies of the multiple-sand system by the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey and state agencies are being made in the Myrtle Beach region be-
cause of the concentration of people in this coastal part of South
Carolina.

A cone of depression in the multiple-sand aquifers resulting from
heavy pumping atFranklin, Virginia, extends its lowered water levels
into northeastern North Carolina. Studies by Peek and Nelson (1967)
and Brown and Cosner (1974) show a gradient in the water levels from
the eastward salt-water zone toward the fresh-water zone at Franklin.
96

These workers endorse a monitoring program to determine the extent
of migration of the salty water.
Centers of pumping from the multiple-sand aquifers at (1) Kin-
ston, by the City of Kinston, (2) Grifton, by DuPont Company, and (3)
Cove City, by the City of New Bern, have resulted in cones of de-
pression in the water levels that have overlapped. The inland nature
of this composite coneof depression and the fact that saltywater in
the aquifer is not in close range prevent an immediate problem of
salt-water encroachment in this area.

Almost everywhere in coastal regions around the world the brack-
ish water in aquifers gets saltier with increasing depth. This is
not the case in the Charleston and Beaufort Areas of South Carolina,
where water in the multiple-sand aquifers is fresh below salty water
in the overlying limestone aquifer. Siple (1965) reports the pres-
ence of fresh water at a depth of 2800 feet in a well at Parris
Island, representing the deepest fresh water on the Atlantic Coast.
The water is warmer than most aquifer water. Some limited develop-
ment of the aquifer is possible, but the danger of salt-water en-
croachment is potentially great because a lowering of fresh-water
head could cause encroachment of salt water from both overlying and
underlying beds.

MANAGEMENT PHIUDSOPHY

The remainder of this discussion is somewhat philosophical, but
the attitudes taken toward managing the groundwater resources of the
region are very important. The often-heard statement that "ground-
water is a renewable resource" needs to be qualified because there
is evidence that the volume of usable groundwater in the region is
progressively shrinking by salt-water encroachment. To prevent or
retard this shrinkage is a management goal that needs further con-
sideration.

Being a renewable resource which is derived from abundant preci-
pitati on in the regi on, the total vol ume of groundwater hasn' t changed
much through the years. In a sense, the aquifers are so full of wa-
ter that the water table is near land surface, and much water seeps
out into streams and into the ocean. The problem is, then, one of
competition of space between contaminated and uncontaminated water.
The contaminating water includes (1) the naturally occurring salty
water in the ocean and estuaries and in the underlying deeper arte-
sian system, and (2) the contaminated water from waste disposal and
other man-made operations. Both types of contaminated water have
made inroads into space formally occupied only by uncontaminated wa-
ter. The salty water is especially prone to encroachment in certain
places where the fresh-water head is lowered by pumping of wells.

The contaminated water cannot be removed readily from the fresh-
water aquifers. Such features of the natural environment as air or
surface water can generally be restored to pristine conditions rather
quickly by removing the source of pollution. In only a few places is
the movement of groundwater fast enough to eliminate the contamina-
tion in a short time; in some shallow permeable water-table aqui-
fers, as in the Miami area, any contaminated water may move as much
as several tens of feet per day and be replaced by water from preci-
pitation. However, in most of the aquifers, the movement of ground-
water is slow, and the contaminated water does not find a ready dis-
97

charge outlet, especially in artesian aquifers. Thus, parts of aqui-
fers in the Coastal region are permanently shrinking in size and can
be permanently damaged if they are not managed properly.

Some intensive groundwater studies have been made of parts of the
Coastal region, but these studies and other regional knowledge need
to be integrated into a framework that can be used properly for man-
agement of the total resources of the region. The fresh-water and
salt-water contacts in the water-table aquifer and the upper arte-
sian aquifers are irregular in distribution and have not been mapped
regionally.

Considering the irregular distribution of fresh groundwater in
coastal areas and the delicate encroachment possibilities of the
salty water, it is safe to say that the groundwater resources cannot
be managed ex cathedra from the state capital by simply enforcing a
set of laws and regulations. Good regulations and controls areessen-
tial, of course. The capacity use law in North Carolina, which
limits groundwater withdrawal in certain critical cases, and the reg-
ulation that deep oil tests must be properly sealed to prevent salty
water from leaking into fresh-water beds are examples of good regu-
lations that apply to the coastal areas. Yet, the great ranges of
hydrologic conditions locally are not amenable to rigid regulations
because some decisions would not prevent contamination of water where-
as others would deny use of water without fear of contamination. A
good approach would be a.blend of useful regulations that can be mod-
ified with provisional or compromising decisions based on a thorough
knowledge of the hydrology of the region.

The past policy toward managing the groundwater resources of the
region has been to let a problem develop before taking action. This
approach has led to intensive studies by the U. S. Geological Survey
and various state agencies at certain coastal areas where problems
have developed includina: Miami, Brunswick, Savannah, Myrtle Beach,
and Beaufort County, North Carolina. Sincethe aquifers extend across
county and state boundaries and since no systematic regional study
has been done, the following recommendations are made;

I. In the hydrological field -

A. Make a regional study of coastal groundwater hy-
drology. The study should include the preparation
of appropriate maps of the fresh-water artesian
system showing: (1) water levels, (2) distribu-
tion of permeability, (3) depth to salty water,
and (4) location of deep wells in the salt-water
zone that could contaminate the aquifer. The study
should also include assessing local and regional
features of the water-table aquifer, such as: (1)
defining current problems of pollution, (2) evalu-
ating areas for disposal.of wastewater and solid
wastes, and (3) outlining areas offuture problems.

B. Develop a reasonable monitoring system so that ad-
ditional problems can be forestalled, especially
those relating to the quality of groundwater.

C. Prepare predictive models which will show danger
spots and danger conditions and will show conse-
quences of actions by man relating to the ground
environment in the region. (The hydrologic studies
recommended should be along two lines. The excell-
ent specific studies by the U.S. Geological Survey
in cooperation with state agencies in progress
should be supported strongly. Because of the spe-
cific and local character of these studies and be-
cause the aquifer systems cross state boundaries,
a broader type of study is essential. Thus, a
regional study that synthesizes all work and inte-
grates findings for management officialsis neces-
sary. It is recommended that a special team of
hydrologists be assigned this task).

II. In the management fieZd -

A. Review all current and proposed regulations, keep-
ing in mind that some apparently good regulations
may not be suitable when the hydrologic conditions
that range in space and vary with time are con-
sidered.

B. Request that hydrologists provide current informa-
tion that can be related to management of the re-
sources.

C. Be prepared to cope with a management enigma that
might be called incrementaZ peymissiveness (we may
define incrementaZ pexinissiveness as a separate
action which appears to do little overall harm,
but which, if repeated many times, may be harmful
enough to prohibit it; for example, a little with-
drawal of groundwater, which lowers the artesian
head a little near salty water, may not cause any
encroachment but an increase beyond a certain de-
gree would cause encroachment).

D. Be prepared to cope with plans for a better dis-
tribution of withdrawal of groundwater at inland
places to be used at coastward places. All anti-
cipated problems dealing with the concept of sub-
surface trespass should be in the management pol-
icy.

E. Have suitable guidelines for assessing disposal
plans of wastewater and solid wastes.

What is the outlook for the future of groundwater resources in
the region? One can be pessimistic if the past and present water
management practices are continued. Justification for thi.s outlook
is based on predicted increase in use of water in the face of some
bad waste disposal practices and some shrinkage of the fresh-water
artesian system by salt-water encroachment. However, one can be op-
timistic if proper management is developed. This optimism is based
on the fact that enormous volumes of usable groundwater are still
99

wasted by discharging naturally into the sea and estuaries. By sal-
vaging some of this wasted water, by selectively dispersing the cen-
ters of heavy withdrawal of water from wells, and by carefully man-
aging waste-disposal practices, it will be possible to greatly in-
crease the withdrawal of groundwater in the region. It is difficult
to see how programs of water and land use management in the region
can be successful without improved hydrogeologic input.

In the final analysis, a touch of skillful brinkmansh.ip is in-
volved because we must go almostto the brink of pumping contaminated
water to get optimum use of uncontaminated water. We will neverknow
in all cases how far we can go without getting into trouble, salt-
water encroachment bei,ng th-e major source of trouble. The management
proposed is not intended to sound wishy-washy but is intended to al-
low as much development of groundwater resources as possible without
contaminati,on damage to the system.

REFERENCES

1. Brown, G. A. and Cosner, 0. J., 1974, "Ground-water Conditionsin
the Franklin Area, Southeastern Virginia," U.S. Geol. Survey Hy-
drologic Atlas, 538, 3 sheets.

2. Counts, H. B. and Donsky, Ellis, 1963, "Salt-water Encroachment,
Geology, and Ground-water Resources of Savannah Area, Georgia,
and South Carolina," U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1611,
100 pp.
3. Krause, R. E., and Gregg, D. 0., 1972, "Water from the Principal
Artesian Aquifer in Coastal Georgia," Georgia Dept. Natural Re-
sources Hydrol. Atlas 1, 1 sheet.
4. LeGrand, H. E., 1962, "Geology and Ground-water Hydrology of the
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain as related to Disposal of Radio-
active Wastes," U. S. Geol. Survey TEI-805, 169 pp.
5. , 1960, "Geology and Ground-water Resources of Wilmington-
New Bern Area," N. C. Dept. Water Resources, Ground-water Bull.
1, 80 pp.

6. , 1964, "System for Evaluating the Contamination Potential'
of Some Waste Sites," Am. WaterWorks; Assoc. Jour., V. 56, No. 8,
pp. 959-974.

7. McCollum, M. J. and Counts, H. B., 1964, "Relation of Salt-Water
Encroachment to the Major Aquifer Zones, Savannah Area, Georgia,
and South Carolina," U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1613-D,
26 pp.

8. Mundorff, M. J., 1945, "Progress Report on Groundwater in North
Carolina," N. C. Dept. Cons. and Dev. Bull. 47, 78 pp.

100

9. Peek, Harry, and Nelson, Perry, 1967, "Ground Water Problems in
the Coastal Plain Related to Heavy Withdrawals," Water Resources
Research Institute of Univ. of N. C., Proc. Symposium on Hydrol-
ogy of Coastal Waters of 14. C., pp. 62-80,

10. Siple, G. E., 1965, "Salt-water Encroachment in Coastal South
Carolina," Conference Proc. Hydrologic Activities in the South
Carolina Region, Clemson Univ., March 17-18, 1965, 33 pp.

11. Stringfield, V. T., 1966, "Artesian Water in Tertiary Limestone
in the Southeastern States," U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 517,
226 pp.

12. Stringfield, V. T. and LeGrand, H. E., 1966, "Hydrology of Lime-
stone Terranes in the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern United
States," Geol. Soc. America Special Paper 93, 46 pp.

13. Wait, R. L., 1965, "Geology and Occurrence of Fresh and Brackish.
Ground Water in Glynn County, Georgia," U. S. Geol.Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1613-E, 99 pp.

14. Wait, R. L., and McCollum, M. J., 1963, "Contamination of Fresh-
Water Aquifers Through an Unplugged Oil-Test Well in GlynnCounty,
Georgia," Georgia Mineral Newsletter, V. 16, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 74-
80.

15. Warren, M. A., 1944, "Artesian Water inSoutheastern Georgia, with
Special Reference to the Coastal Area," GeorgiaGeol. Survey Bull.
49, 140 pp.

16. Winner, M. D., 1975, "Ground-water Resources ofthe Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, North Carolina," U. S. Geol. Survey Hydrol.
Atlas 540, 2 sheets.

101

THE AVAILABILITY OF DESALTING FOR WATER SUPPLY
FROM SALINE SOURCES

Walter L. Barnes, Jr.
Office of Water Research and Technology
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.

The title of my contribution to this conference is The AvaiZa-
bility of Desatting for Water Supply from Saline Sources. In our
work at OWRT, Saline Water covers the entire spectrum of waters
from the so-called brackish right on up to seawater. In addition
to working with seawater, a very large part of our earlier (and on-
going) work had to do with brackish water of less than 3000 ppm totr
al dissolved solids (TDS) from underground sources. I expect that
most of you have greater familiarity with that category of water as
opposed to seawater. Having said that, I hasten to assure you that
I recognize I'm talking here to a peer group whose collective knowl-
edge of down-to-earth water problems and their solutions is far su-
perior to my own. Consequently, I shall attempt to tell you what de-
salting technology is available, what is being-applied, and perhaps
some information about costs. The characteristics of individual wa-
ter supply cases will determine whether or not desalting is a viable
alternative either for total supply or augmentation.

For the benefit of those who had familiarity with the two of-
fices, Water Resources Research and Saline Water, we have been con-
solidated to form a new entity, the Office of Water Research and
Technology (OWRT). The consolidation was triggered by the National
Water Commission's report, Water Policies for the Future, which
spelled out those recommendations it believes necessary for the ef-
ficient and environmentally responsible management of our water re-
sources.

A statement by Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton
sums up the marriage in very succinct fashion: "This consolidation
provides a broader-based organization for implementing our water re-
search development programandwill simplify research program coordi-
nation and administration." The new office will continue the func-
tions assigned to the Department as previously carried out by the
parent organizations.

The official demise of the Office of Saline Water, then, does
not bring to an end the ambitions and goals so enthusiastically pro-
jected by the original OSW. A small group of former OSW people is
still on board under an assistant director for Saline Water Conver-
sion. Accordingly, those comm_unities faced with chronic water short-
ages or poor quality watermaystill review the results ofgovernment-
sponsored research and development in considering alternatives for
relief.

The Saline Water Act, as re-enacted by the Congress in 1971,
whi,ch extended the activities of the OSW to include cooperation with
state and municipal agencies, continues in force, although the fund-
ing for such activities is now virtually nil. However, the needs
102

which brought the OSW into being are still with us. The need for
good quality water continues to expand as the average salinity con-
tent of most U.S. water supplies continues to grow. Our mission "to
develop practical means for economical production of water suitable
for agricultural, municipal and other beneficial uses from sea or
brackish water," has not changed. As you are aware, the part about
economical production has always been difficult to define quanti-
tatively; and under current economic conditions, the degree of dif-
ficulty has increased.

Briefly speaking, desalting processes fall into two categories-,
The first embodies a phase change, either the eva orative-condensing
cycle (distillation) or crystallization (freezing@ process; the sec-
ond embraces all those processes which remove the salts from water
in the liquid phase eitherbyreverse osmosis (RO) or electrodialysis
(ED) orby ion-exchange, eachof which employs a different principle.
RO forces water from the contaminated stream through a membrane by
the application of pressure; ED drives both positively and negative-
ly charged ionized solids through a membrane by electrical energy
leaving a relatively pure residual stream. Ion-exchange, as the name
implies, involves an actual exchange of ions.

All of you here today have certainly had more than just a nod-
ding acquaintance with the energy dilemma, a thing which has made
all of us energy-conscious to a degree never realized before. In
view of this energy consciousness within the United States and other
energy-importing nations as well, the potential applications for the
distillation processes for large-scale desalination appear to be
somewhat limited, except in dual purpose power/water plants or in
combination with solid waste incineration or other waste heat avail-
ability situations or those areas of the world where energy is abun-
dant, such as the Middle East. Distillation processes around the
world now account for about 93 percent of all desalination--something
in excess of 400 million gallons per day (mgd). The United States
accounts for 60 mgd of this total. Those countries having an abun-
dance of oil and natural gas will undoubtedly continue with the dis-
tillation processes for a long time to come, but we think a transi-
tion is bound to occur.

The distillation process development activities of the Office
of Saline Water were ended late in 1972 due in part to the success-
ful achievement of certain goals and in part to the sharp curtailment
of R&D funds. Some of our facilities were closed. The distillation
plants at Freeport, Texas, and San Diego, California, have been dis-
mantled and the sites restored to their original conditions. The
elimination of funds for further development of distillation tech-
nology resulted in termination of many contracts. The Thermodynamic
Processes Division has made a major effort to publish and make avail-
able to the public the resulting sudden influx of technical material
including final reports on a wide range of projects related to the
distillation processes. Our only remaining distillation project in-
volves evaluation of the VTE/MSF module at Orange County, California,
which is now in the start-up phase of operations. The combination
of vertical tube evaporators with multi-stage flash pre-heating is
currently the most advanced distillation technology available.

The membrane processes, along with ion-exchange, hi stori cal ly
have been the preferred methods for desalting brackish waters.
103

Chronologically, electrodialysis is the oldest of these in terms of
research by OSW. The techniques for producing ion-selective mem-
branes were developed at about the time of OSW's original charter and
were the subject of some of our earliest contracts. The lessons
learned in bringing the quarter-million gpd plant at Webster, South
Dakota, to an acceptable level of performance contributed immeasur-
ably to this area of desalting technology. The question as to prefer-
ence of ED over RO is sometimes argumentative; the break point lies
somewhere in a gray area which can be resolved only by a process of
optimization taking into account all the factors from feedwater qual-
ity to final cost. Technically speaking, there is no upper limit to
the salinity of a water that can be desalted by ED; current density
and residence time are the governing factors.

Reverse osmosis follows electrodialysis by about 10 years in the
OSW chronology.

We've come quite a longwayfrom that day when Professor Reid at
the University of Florida first forced water from a saline source
through a cellulose acetate membrane and cameupwith desalted water.
In the academic world, this was an event comparable to the splitting
of the atom. It was the first time that dissolved solids were sep-
arated from water without a phase change. It wasn't until Dr. Sidney
Loeb's entrance on the scene, however, that a membrane yielding a
sufficiently high flux was developed to enable the consideration of
reverse osmosis as a viable desalting pro..;ess. Even so, the early
experimental membranes were something less than perfect; they de-
generated under certain conditions, they were subject to pinhole
leaks; they compacted to an unacceptable degree under the necessary
high pressures.

Because of these limitations, it seemed for a long time that RO
would be limited to relatively low-pressure use with brackish water.
But through a programof controlled research and development, greater
flux was achieved along with lowered pressure, sophisticated modular
systems were developed, and a conviction began togrow that by multi-
ple staging water of greater salinity could be desalted and, ulti-
mately, seawater. Approximately five years ago experiments were
initially aimed at desalting seawater in a two-pass reverse osmosis
system.

A highly condensed version of all the events leading up to the
successful culmination of this sometimes torturous program would
produce quite a lengthy book. All the research done by so many peo-
ple, the progression of cellulosic membranes through the diacetate
and triacetate formulations, the rekindling of interest in the hol-
low fiberinembrane leading to the introduction of the polyamide hol-
low fi,bers, all have been milestones in the progression to the com-
mercial availability of RO and ED process equipment for producing
hi gh-qual i ty water from bracki sh water sources. Addi tional ly, through
the continued development and refinement of the technology of mem-
brane systems, we have arrived at another important pinnacle of suc-
cess. During FY-75, we constructed and are presently operating a
test unit of 25,000 gpd potable water capacity, single pass, at less
than 900 psi, here at Wrightsville Beach. The results thus far indi-
cate that RD may become economically superior to seawater distilla-
ti,on.

104

Under the redirected Saline Water Conversion program, the area
of major development activity has centered on reverse osmosis for
desalting seawater. The Wrightsville Beach Test Facility has be-
come the OWRT workshop for seawater conversion operations. The
facility was redesigned some time ago for pilot plant evaluation of
new seawater reverse osmosis and crystallization processes and is
today the major testing ground for new and improved membranes and
membrane systems. As an integral part of these systems, a 300 gpm
central feedwater pretreatment system has been incorporated into the
facility. In the past, there has been a tendencyto look on pretreat-
ment somewhat as the proverbial orphaned cousin, but we have learned
that there can be no realistic appraisal of membrane desalting costs
without adequate knowledge of the type and degree of pretreatment
necessary for a given feedwater. This is particularly true for the
many types of brackish water where the required pretreatment can vary
extensively. In the case of seawater, it appears that chemical
pretreatment procedures, once established, are very likely to be ap-
plicable at any shoreline site, modified to some extent for saline
tidal estuarial waters and for turbidity.

A considerable degree of flexibility has been built into the
central pretreatment system at the Wrightsville Beach Test Facility
in order that the several methods utilized for suspended solids re-
moval may be examined. The high degree of clarification necessary
to avoid membrane plugging and consequent decrease in flux can be
arrived at by experimentally varying the sequence and degree of sub-
treatments making up the central pretreatment system. As one exam-
ple, a recent problem involving exceptional turbidity was solved by
using just such experimental techniques. The 20 percent less salt
than normal seawater being fed to a four-inch diameter module of
polyamide was subjected to alum coagulation, sand or diatomaceous
earth filtration, followed by chlorination and pH adjustment by acid
addition. Residual chlorine was removed by adding sodium hypochlorite
or by activated carbon treatment. At 800 psig and 30 percentproduct
water recovery, the unit produced 1500 gpd water ofless than 500 ppm
at over 99 percent salt rejection.

Shifting the scene for a moment and laying out a little ground-
work for a somewhat different viewpoint, the seawater membrane de-
salting systems operate at a relatively low product water recovery
factor, approximately 30 percent. The ZimitZess supply of feedwa-
ter from the sea puts the recovery factor into a relatively non-
essential category process-wise. At inland locations, the supply of
feedwater is more limited, and brine disposal becomes an important
consideration. Such a problem is currently undergoing investigation
at our Roswell, New Mexico, test facility. A High Product Recovery
(HPR) system will attempt a product water recovery of 90 percent or
more, probably to the upper limit of dissolved solids concentration
in the brine stream at which certain compounds begin to precipitate.
In this system, several pilot plants each comprisingone stage of the
HPR system, are operated in series. A first stage accepts feedwater
of 3300 ppm; each succeeding stage operates on the brine from the
preceding stage. Some amount of product water is withdrawn at each
stage; total recovery from the HPR is currently 87.5 percent. The
final effluent, then, is a very low percentage of the feed and is at
a concentration well above 200,000 ppm, well advanced toward dryness.

105

It isat Roswell, too, that much of the ground work on the Colo-
rado River Salinity Control Projectis being laid. The Wellton-Mohawk
plant, as itis familiarly known, to be built at Yuma, Arizona, will
process salt-laden waters from the Wellton-Mohawk Canal. The Wellton-
Mohawk Irrigation District receives water for irrigation by diversion
from the Colorado River. The ground-water level is controlled by a
system of pumps which release water to the drainage canal which re-
turns to the river. This water carries with it salts leached from
the soil and seasonal suspended solids. One hundred and thirty mgd
of canal water will be desalted yielding 100 mgd of product water
for blending with the remainder of the drainage water prior to re-
entry to the Colorado River. The TDS of the river will then be sat-
isfactory to Mexico.

The total flow of the Colorado River is allocated for use by
various water agencies including a treaty-controlled quantity for
delivery to Mexico. The waste stream from the desalting plant will
not be credited toward the required amountof water to Mexico; there-
fore, the waste stream constitutes a loss from the Colorado River
system. The need for high recovery becomes apparent by virtue of the
necessity for reducing the waste stream to the absolute minimum.

Other development work at Roswell, r(@cently made possible by a
supplemental appropriation by Congress, will be directed toward equip-
ment improvements to reduce the capital and operating costs of the
Wellton-Mohawk Desalting Plant.

The quality of the Colorado River as it enters Mexico has long
been a source of diplomatic concern between our two countries. it
is gratifying that technology developed by OWRT will contribute to
the solution of this long-standing diplomatic problem between our
two countries.

Good progress has also been made here at Wrightsville Beach on
the development of a new freeze desalting process in a 75,000 gpd
pilot plant. The plant has been operated producing potable water at
full capacity for short periods. Various mechanical problem areas
have been defined and are being corrected. Some modifications to
obtain improved efficiency of individual components and to obtain
system reliability are programmed.

All the advantages that originally attracted OSW's attention to
the freezing process are still there, in theory at,least; and in
practice, we believe such a process may approach near perfection. In
the absence of elevated temperatures, the corrosion/erosion problems
are reduced to a bare minimum; and since there are no internal process
heat transfer surfaces, scaling and fouling will be non-existent.
Best of all, however, and perhaps most important from the standpoint
of operating costs is the absence of the need for pretreatment.

The eutectic freezing process for the reduction of effluent
brines to a solid component, along with the production of a potable
water stream, has moved from the conceptual design stage to the de-
tailed design of a 10,000 gpd pilot plant. A complete construction
bid package will be available this fiscal year, and development of
this unique process wfll proceed when funds are available.

106

The eutectic freezing process must be evaluated in terms of a
process for final brine disposal or a specialized salt recovery op-
eration. In cases where the disposal of brine from a desalting plant
is either not feasible or represents a significant increase in the
overall production cost of fresh water, reduction of the brine to
solids must be considered.

Eutectic freezing offers a process universally acceptable for
all types of saline waste streams without pretreatment. As a side
benefit, over 99 percent of the initial saline water is recovered
as potable product.Therefore, the preliminary desalting would be ac-
complishea by the most advantageous desalting scheme dictated by
site factors and by the inlet water conditions. The eutectic process
would be used on the reject brine stream and its costs would be eval-
uated considering:

1. additional pretreatment for greater product recovery,
2. brine disposal costs, and
3. credits for additional potable water production.

More relevantly, in terms of specifics as they might be related
to your current or potenti,al water supply problems, everyone, of
course, has a pretty fair general idea of what good water should be;
we'd like it to taste good, smell good, certainly look good, and it
shouldn't contain any toxic elements orharmful bacteriological forms.
The U. S. Public Health Service has gone beyond all this and defines
the standards which determine whetheror not the water you use really
is suitable for potable purposes. Among these, of course, is the re-
quirement concerning the amount of total dissolved solids (TDS) per-
missible, and that's where desalting may enter the picture. If the
source of supply contains excessive salts in solution, a desalting
process may be needed.

The practicality of desalination in these southeastern coastal
areas is being proven in south Florida where there are a numb-er of
desalting plants operating on the abundance of brackish water-found
there. Again, comparisons are difficult, and each problem involving
brackish water desalination must be analyzed on the basis of local
factors. As a very general statement, it may be said that desalting
costs for brackish water are less than $1 per thousand gallons.

There are a number of subjects of interest to us that would be
discussed at some length. I've tried to avoid discussing subjects
that other speakers have been assigned as outlined by the program.
At OWRT, we are very much interested in the recycling of wastewater,
for example, and there will certainly be many instances for the ap-
plication of desalting know-how in that area. We're told the world's
overall supply of water will last us well into the next centary--but
nature hasn't always put the good water where it is needed --and in
those areas, treatment and reuse will reach their most advanced ap-
plication. Some of the figures projected for future needs are mind-
boggling; the processing of oil shale., the development of coal re-
serves in the western U. S. inay require all the expertise available
i.n the puri,fication and reuse of industrial wastewater along with the
ultimate disposal of aqueous wastes.

107

So as we see it, the future for desalting is a bright one, and
appreciation of its promised potential will grow as the need becomes
more apparent. The greatest enthusiasm for continued development
will come, naturally, from the water-short areas. Our saline water
conversion group will continue research and developmentto the extent
possible on all methods of desalination with greater emphasis on
those processes which promise the greater yield. None of the pro-
cesses will be completely neglected; we learned long ago that there
is always room for improvement, and we'll always be looking for the
least energy consuming, lowest cost characteristic to put us a lit-
tle closer to the optimum process for a unique situation.

108

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSICN

QUESTION: (Dr. Philip Singer) You mentioned the limestone artesian
aquifer with some sulfide content and not much iron. Could you il-
lustrate perhapson your slide what region you are talking about when
you do find the sulfide? I believe in certain aquifers you will have
fairly high iron content.

MR. HARRY LEGRPND: That was a rather sweeping statement, of course.
There appears to be a lot of iron in the limestone water in the New
Bern area and in a few other places. I'm inclined to think overall
throughout the region iron is not a big problem in the limestone
aquifer. It may be in North Carolina, but it certainly is not very
important in Georgia and Florida.

DR. PHILIP SINGER: I think in Florida it is really significant.
MR. HARRY LEGRPND: Itis a problem locally--there's no question about
it.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells to Mr. Barnes) Would you give
us information as to how energy hungry each one of these systems is
in relative terms such as kilowatt hours? This is a matter of con-
siderable interest at the moment.

MR. WALTER BARNES; The desalting plant which we are proposing for
the Colorado River Project is in the planning stage. The Wellton-
Mohawk plant will be a reverse osmosisor combination electrodialysis-
reverse osmosis plant of 100 Tnillion gallons per day using about 30
megawatts for the 100 mgd. In distillation processes, the perform-
ance ratio varies from about 10 pounds of water per pound of steam
up to about 15 pounds of water per pound of steam depending on the
type of distillation process selected. In terms of cost of steam,
in the plants we are lookingatfor areas such as the Middle East, we
are using at least 70 cents per million btu. Generally speaking, re-
verse osmosis is less energy consuming than distillation. Brackish
water reverse osmosis is 15-30 kw per thousand gallons of product.
Seawater reverse osmosis is 25-40 kw per thousand gallons. Freezing
is about 35-50 kw per thousand gallons. I believe when we talk to
the individuals at the Wrightsville Beach Test Facility tomorrow,
they will be able to give you additional information on energy for
the various processes. The freezing process, the seawater reverse
osmosis system, and some other units will be working. You'll get an
on-the-spot, up-to-date energy report when you talk to the individual
pilot plant operators. Generally speaking, cost of energy in a dis-
tillation plant runs about 40 percent of the operating cost.

QUESTION: (Professor F. E. McJunkin) Could you link the energy in-
put with the total dissolved solids by process?

MR, WALTER BARNES: In electrodialysis (ED), the higher you go in
total dissolved solids (TDS) the more energy it takes. The break
point in economy and whether a reverse osmosis (RD) system is to be
selected versus an ED system will depend on the salinity, probably
around 2500 to 3000 parts, and the constituents of the water. The
ED people will deny this, but we found that, generally speaking, be-
yond 3000 ppm feed it's less expensive to go to RO. The energy re-
quirement is less. Then, too, the question of plant size enters into
109

it. Those kinds of comparisons are awfully difficult to make. We
haven't really done enough with high temperature ED to be able to
make any accurate predictions either for brackish water or seawater.
QUESTION: (Mr. Leo Ormiste) Mr. LeGrand, you said that for the
purpose of your paper water containing 500 ppm or less chloride con-
tent is considered fresh. From the standpoint of the consumer, what
could be an optimum concentration of chlorides--250, 400 or 500 ppm?
MR. HARRY LEGRAND: I was merely using the figure 500 parts per mil-
lion to distinguish water in the aquifer that might be suitable from
that which is unsuitable. I could have used 250 parts per million
just as easily because, normally, the fresh water in both the water
table aquifer and artesian aquifer is commonly less than 25 to 50
parts per million. When the chloride begins to rise to 200 parts per
million, there is a suggestion that encroachment may be near. It's
an eye-opener, so to speak, and I just arbitrarily used 500 parts per
million for my purpose.
QUESTION: (Mr. Warren Stiles) My question has to do with both de-
salting and your question of how much salt is too much. Our opera-
tors over at the Saline Water Plant have found that the non-smokers
could detect the taste of salt at the TDS of about 200 ppm. The non-
smoker has better taste buds so you have to consider the consumer.
I had the opportunity to install one of the earliest commercial RO
unitsin North Carolina in the beach cottage of a millionaire down at
Sunset Beach. They had water from a 400-foot well with 2400 ppm,
and his wife was allergic to salt and had a heart condition. The RO
units brought it to about 40 ppm.
QUESTION: (Mr. Mike Bell) Mr. Barnes, the State of North Carolina
has studies for a desalting plant for water supply with Ocracoke
Island. This will be our first municipal water supply using a de-
salting process. Although this island is surrounded by the Pamlico
Sound and the Atlantic Ocean, the proposal is to get the water from
the deep well. Could you mention any advantages or disadvantages of
going to well water rather than the surrounding water?
MR. WALTER BARNES: I presume the well water is brackish, or is it
seawater?

MR. MIKE BEH : It's brackish.

MR, WALTERBARNES: The advantage, I suppose, is that it's less cost-
ly to desalt brackish water than it is seawater. I don't know the
quality of the water either. For example, if it has H2S and other
such things that are detrimental to membranes, the pretreatment sys-
tem may be expensive and add considerably to the cost of water. I
presume you've calculated these already; but generally speaking, if
it's a good quality brackish water, it's less expensive to desalt
than seawater.

110

WASTEWATER REUSE IN COASTAL AREAS

F. Eugene McJunkin
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill

Apropos my subject, I have some good news and some bad news.
The good news is that by 1985 we will be drinking treated sewage.
The bad news is that there won't be enough to go around!

Reuse is a topic more and more in the public domain. After
all, as the saying goes, "If we can put men on the moon, why can't
we make pure drinking water from sewage?" This paper will review
in a general way the prospects for wastewater reuse in the south-
eastern coastal zone, not only for human consumption but for other,
more probable, near-term uses.

MY REUSE WASTEWATER

Wastewater reuse serves several purposes:

1. Pollution Control. Wastewater reuse and the asso-
ciated increased wastewater treatment result in less
pollution discharged to receiving waters. The dual
of this observation is worth noting: as treated ef-
fluent requirements become more stringent--e.g., 1983
zero discharge--the effluent becomes more attractive,
cost and quality-wise, for reuse.

2. Water Supply Augmentation. Wastewater reuse reduces
the need for development of new sources and/or import-
ing distant water. Environmental disruptions by new
reservoirs and transmission lines are lessened. Inter-
basin transfers may not be required.

3. Economic Alternative Source. Reuse may be a less ex-
pensive alternative. Thishas been widely demonstrated
for many industrial and agricultural uses and even, in
unusual circumstances, for domestic use as at Wind-
hoek, South West Africa (Clayton, 1972).

HISTORY OF WASTEWATER REUSE

Reuse of sewage for farming is an ancient practice. Sewage
farming with effluent collected in sewers from the community goes
back evenin the United States well over a century. Land irrigation
with treated wastewater has been recently discovered anew although
over a hundred small communities have followed this practice a de-
cade or more.

ill

. Perhaps the first conventionaZ wastewater reclamation plant in
the United States was the activated sludge plant constructed in
1926 at Grand Canyon National Parkin Arizona (California Department
Water Resources, 1973, p. 9). This facility was designed to pro-
vide reclaimed water for disposal of wastes from park restrooms and
for lawn sprinkling, cooling water, and boiler-feed water at the
Grand Canyon power plant.

In 1929 Pomona, California, began irrigating lawns and gardens
with municipal effluent. San Francisco has been using reclaimed
water from an activated sludge plant in Golden Gate Park since 1932
for irrigating lawns, shrubs, and gardens and for several recrea-
tional lakes within the park.

More recent California reclamation projects include Whittier
Narrows in Los Angeles County, Santee in San Diego County, and In-
dian Creek Reservoir at Lake Tahoe. At Whittier Narrows, treated
effluent is used for replenishment of ground water; at Santee, to
maintain several artificial lakes and irrigate a golf course; and
at Tahoe for water recreation and agricultural irrigation. Over
200 reclamation plants are in operation in California with most of
the effluents used for irrigation.

Reuse of both cooling and process water in industry has become
an established practice. The gross use of water by the manufactur-
ing industry in the United States in 1965 was 90,000 bgd. Only
40,000 bgd,of this were withdrawn from available natural water re-
sources. Thus, each gallon of water was, on the average, recircu-
lated two and one-quarter times before being discharged or consumed
(Water Resources Council, 1968).

Another form of industrial reuse of water is illustrated by
the practice of the Sparrow's Point mill of the Bethlehem Steel
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, which uses more than 120 mgd of ef-
fluent from the nearby Back River municipal sewage treatment plant
(2,3).

An abbreviated list of industrial users of reclaimed municipal
wastewaters is shown in Table 1.

NATIURAL" REUSE

Raw wastes or partially treated wastes, when discharged to a
stream or body of water of better quality, immediately undergo di-
lution by the receiving body of water. The degree of immediate im-
provement of quality in the combined bodies of water, over that of
the wastewater, is dependent on the relative quantities and quality
of the two. The dilution approach may be suitable for those areas
in which the amount of wastes being discharged is relatively minor
and the water resources available for dilution are abundant. How-
ever, while these situations do occur at some locations throughout
the United States, they are apt to occur less frequently in the fu-
ture. They are rare in this area.

Wastes discharged to a receiving stream undergo a natural pro-
cess of self-purification given enough time and if biologically de-

112

Table I

INDUSTRIAL USERS OF RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL WASTEWATERS
(From: Sawyer, Chem. Eng., July 1972)
Flow Municipal Industri-51-
Industrial User Usage Million gal/day treatment In-plant treatment
Power
T-ity of-Burbank, Burbank, Calif. Cooling 1.0 AS A, C, Ci, AF
Grand Canyon National Park
Grand Canyon, Ariz. Cooling 0.2 AS F, C
Lansdale Municipal Power
Lansdale, Pa. Cooling 0.3 TF L, AL, FL, F, FF
Cos Alamos Scientific Lab
Los Alamos, N. M. Cooling 0.5 TF C, A, SA, Ci
Nevada Power Co., Las Vegas, Nev. Cooling 3.0 AS C, L, AL, FL, Ci, AF, A
North American Rockwell Corp.
Canoga Park, Calif. Cooling 0.2 AS C
Providence Sewage Disposal Works
Providence, R. I. Cooling
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Lubbock, Tex. Cooling & boiler 3.0 AS L, A, C (F, D Boiler)
Amarillo, Tex. Cooling 3.0 AS L, A, C
Petroleum Production and Refining
Champlin Petroleum Co., Enid, Okla. Cooling & boiler I.u L, AL, C
Cosden Oil & Chemical Co.,
Big Springs, Tex. Boiler & process 0.2 TF HL, F, Z, DA, AF, Ci
Humble Oil & Refining Co.,
Andrews, Tex. Process 0.6 PR L, FL, C (1963-68)
Long Beach Oil Field Producers
Long Beach, Calif. Oil-well flooding 8.4 AS None (Start in 1972)
Schaefer Oil Co., Matoon, Ill. Oil-well flooding 1.0 AS C
Standard Oil Co. (Ohio), Boiler feed 1.5 AS L, FL, F, D, DA, AF
Lima, Ohio (1970-71)
Texaco, Inc., Amarillo, Tex. Cooling & boiler 0.8 AS L, AL, AF, A, C,
0.5 AS HL, Z, DA, C
Mininq and Metals
Bagdad Copper Co., Bagdad, Ariz. Ure processing U.Z P@' None
Bethlehem Steel Co. Cooling & process 100 AS/TF, C
Sparrows Point, Md. AL
Escondido Sand & Gravel Works Washing & dust 1.0 TF None (ended 1965)
Escondido, Calif. control
Inspiration Consolidated Copper
Co., Inspiration, Ariz. Ore processing 0.1 ST None
Kaiser Steel Corp., Fontana, Cal. Cooling 0.5 TF- C
Kennecott Copper Corp.,
Hurley, N. M. Ore processing 0.4 ST L
Phelps Dodge Corp., Copper-ore Not
Morenci, Ariz. processing Available ST None
U.S. Steel Corp., Provo, Utah Cooling & proce ss 0.7 TF* C
Man ufacturing
Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
Hampstead, Md. Cooling & process 0.1 TF* C
CRe micals
Dow Chemical Co., Midland Mich. Cooling, process
fire 6.5 TF C, OP
El Paso Products Co., Odessa, Tex. Cooling & boiler 6.0 AS L, F, Z, 0, DA, AF, Ci, C
A Acid addition Ci Corrosion inhibitors FL Flocculant aids SA Soda ash
AF Anti-foam D Demineralization HL Hot line ST Septic tanks
AL Alum DA Deaeration L Lime TF Trickling Filter
AS Activated sludge F Filtration OP Oxidation pond Z Zeolite
C Chlorine FF Foam fractionation PR Primary treatment @Sanitary waste is generated on site.

113

gradable. The concentration of pathogenic bacteria will eventually
drop to low levels. In addition, chemical and physical processes,
such as sedimentation, aidin alteration and removal of contaminants.
Some have described this self-purification,process as a natural cy-
cZe of water reuse.

DIRECT REUSE

If the treatment necessary to meet effluent or stream quality
standards results in a very high quality effluent, such that very
little additional cost would be required to make it of drinking wa-
ter standards, the possibility of reuse in domestic systems, even
for potable water, becomes a possibility. This has been described
by some as the"direct cycle of water reuse." Thus, there may be a
potential for combining the facilities needed to meet water quality
standards with those for increasing municipal supplies, particular-
ly in areas of critical shortage, in a true joint-use manner.

Although not widely recognized, much of the water withdrawn for
municipal purposes has seen prior use. Koenig (1966) has pointed
out that in 155 municipalities, representing 34 percent of the total
population of the United States served by surface water supplies,
the median reuse of water from upstream sources during the low-flow
months in 1961 was about 3.5 percent of the flow. Thus, one gallon
out of every thirty gallons diverted for use had passed through the
wastewater treatment facilities ofupstream cities. In extreme cases
it was as much as 18 percent. Koenig also pointed out that if in-
dustrial wastewater were included, the median reuse factor would
rise to 50 percent and in extreme cases to 300 percent.

Karl Imhoff observed during the dry summerof 1929 a large part
of the water of the Ruhr (W. German river) used to supply water to
the heavily industrialized area of North Rhine-Westphalia had for a
short time been passing through the water/wastewater/water cycle
three times over without any adverse effecton the water supply sit-
,uation or public health in the area. A similar cycle in the dry
summer of 1959, however, disruptedwater quality, particularly taste.
Non-degradable detergents in drinking water rose to 1.7 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) (Mull6r, p. 8, 1969). The change to a chepticaZ
society and its effects on water quality between 1929 and 1959
should be noted.

The recycling of treated wastewater for drinking, while not
widely accepted for ordinary situations, does have historical pre-
cedent in unusual situations. During two months of a serious drought
at Chanute, Kansas, in 1956, the domestic sewage effluent, diluted
as much as possible by the low river supply, was used after a well-
controlled water purification process had made the water potable.
No ill effects were noted even though there were enteric viruses
present in the treated wastewater. Also, for two months during an
emergency situation, the city of Ottumwa, Iowa, used treated river
water containing one-third to one-half raw sewage from the upstream
city of Des Moines. This author has wondered about the water intakes
at Raleigh and Smithfield on the Neuse River during the 1968 drought.
Perhaps half the flow in the river was upstream wastewater effluent.

114

As previously mentioned, the metropolitan area of Windhoek, in
South West Africa, is meeting one-third of the water supply for a
population of 84,000 by returning its treated wastewater effluent
directly to the city's supply system. This is in an area where new
sources of water supply are virtually unattainable. This procedure
was initiated in late 1968 with complete public acceptance. Similar
plans are being considered for Pretoria and Johannesburg. By the
year 2000, South Africa expects to be reusing 600 mgd of reclaimed
wastewater.

Another form of reuse often practiced in coastal areas which
has not been widely recognized as such is the return to ground wa-
ters of septic tank or other such effluent by percolation through
the soil. In properly designed and managed systems, septic tank
effluents improve in quality as a result of purification processes
within the soil. Such reuse has been termed the indirect cycZe of
water reuse. This leads to the possibility of returning sewage
plant effluent, by percolation or well injection, to ground water
aquifers where depletion or salt-water intrusion has occurred. In
some situations, further treatment may be required prior to percola-
tion or injection.

AREAS WITH POTENTIAL FOR REUSE

The attractiveness of direct reuse of wastewater is simple to
demonstrate; for example, if a city or a factory were to recycle 80
percent of the water it uses, its existing fresh water supply would
effectively be increased by 400 percent.

The potential for direct and indirect reuse of wastewater in-
creases in regions where municipal water supply problems exist.
Problems of arid and semi-arid regions are obvious. Although south-
eastern coastal communities have ample rainfall, there are still
many cities and towns whose demand for water exceeds conventional
sources of supply. They include areas where ground water supplies
are unable to keep up with demand because of depletion or salt wa-
ter intrusion and regions where the cost of supplying water from
distant sources will exceed the cost of purification' for reuse.
They may even include localities where, despite adequate water re-
sources, the cost of installing and maintaining needed new water
supply and sewage treatment facilities will be higher than the cost
of building and operating a treatment plant for direct reuse alone.
Reuse for industrial supply appears to offer the greatest po-
tential for the near future for increasing available water resour-
ces. Nationwide self-supplied industrial withdrawals of fresh wa-
ter for process purposes totaled 46 bgd in 1965 while municipal
withdrawals were only 24 bgd some of which also was used for indus-
trial purposes. Replacement of slightly more than half of the in-
dustrial supply by reclaimed wastewater would have doubled the
available municipal supply. In addition, steam-electric power re-
quirements for cooling water were 63 bgd in 1965. With continued
growth of cooling water use, it also offers a considerable Tnarket
for future treated wastewater.

As development of natural water supplies becomes more expen-
sive and as natural supplies become limited either totally or sea-
115

sonally, reuse will receive greater attention. Also, as wastewater
technology develops, decreases in cost, and becomes more widely
known, advanced treatment of secondary effluent will have a greater
utility for supplying high-quality water for industrial and munici-
pal purposes.

In short, the reuse of treated wastewater is an alternative
that should bear equal consideration toother alternatives for meet-
ing future growth in water use.

CBSTACLES TO REUSE

Only economics seems to limit increased wastewater reuse by in-
dustry and agriculture. The technology to meet quality standards
required by the majority of industrial and agricultural uses is
readily available. Public acceptance is not a barrier.

However, reuse of wastewater for human consumption is beset
with more serious problems which can only be briefly highlighted
here. Okun (1975) has summarized these as follows:

"If using polluted sources is uncertain, the direct reuse
of wastewaters for drinking, being urged upon us by many,
including dedicated environmentalists, may pose greater
hazards. The benefits and protection afforded by (1) time
in transit between the point of discharge of wastewaters
and the point of recovery from the stream for water sup-
ply ,(2) the dilution afforded by fresh water in the stream,
and (3) the disinfection by sunlight, sedimentation, and
natural biochemical degradation that takes place in natu-
ral water courses are not available where direct reuse of
wastewaters is practiced.

"Direct reuse of wastewaters for potable water supplies
poses other problems:

1. Water and wastewater treatment plants that are now
available or that are likely to be economical in the
foreseeable future do not assure the complete removal
of chemical contaminants that are likely to be pre-
sent in wastewaters from urban centers.

2. The operation of these facilities is almost always be-
low the design intention, particularly in smaller in-
stallations. Often the quality of the operators,
their supervision by regulatory agencies, and the lack
of investment in maintenance preclude efficient per-
formance of treatment plants.

3. The technology for analysis and routine monitoring of
potable waters is just not available to assure their
continuous safety when they are drawn from highly
contaminated sources.

4. FaiZ-safe technology for treatment and monitoring is
not yet available.

5. The public is understandably reluctant to ingest its
own wastes."
116

"The American Water Works Association, in a Policy State-
ment in 1971, indicated thatthe Association encourages an
increase in the use of reclaimed wastewaters for benefi-
cial purposes, such as industrial cooling and processing,
irrigation of crops, recreation, and . . . ground-water
recharge . . . current scientific knowledge aid technology
in the field of wastewater treatment are not advanced
sufficiently to permit direct use of treated wastewaters
as a source ofpublic water supply, and it notes with con-
cern current proposals to increase significantly both in-
direct and direct use of treated wastewaters for such
(potable) purposes. Nothing since 1971 has indicated any
basis for a change in this policy.

"The proponents of direct reuse, particularly the South
Africans responsible for the off-cited facility at Wind-
hoek, the capital of the territory of South West Africa,
still the only direct-reuse facility in the world, claim
that it is entirely feasible for such facilities to meet
Drinking Water Standards. Such claims are misleading,
particularly to the public. These standards, whether the
1962 PHS standards, the new standards now being promul-
gated by EPA, or the WHO standards, are all recognized as
being inadequate in identifying organic chemical and virus
limits, in part because of their uncertain health signif-
icance and inpart because of the difficulty of monitoring
for them. Instead of depending entirely upon nwnbers,
these standards call for protection of the source with
sanitary surveys to assure raw water quality, and they
call for drawing supplies from the best available source.
By definition, a wastewater treatment plant outfall can-
not be considered the best available source, as in every
instance, higher quality water is available even if in
limited quantities only sufficient to meet drinking water
requirements."

TECHNOLOGY *

An understanding of the processes and potential for advanced
treatment and reuse requires, first, an appreciation of the primary
and secondary wastewater treatment processes and, second, of the
types ofpollutants which can be removed only by advanced treatment.

Primary treatment consists of plain sedimentation for the re-
moval of about 90 percent of the settleable solids from raw sewage.
From 40 to 70 percent of the suspended solids am so removed.

Secondary treatment processes reduce the amount of organic
matter in sewage through bacterial action, oxidation and synthesis.
The most common methods are the trickling filter and the activated
sludge processes. These processes, following primary treatment,
typically remove 90 percent of suspended solids, 90 percent of bio-

*This section draws heavily on Gavis (1971).

117

degradable organics, 60 percent of non-biodegradable organics, 50
percent of nitrogen, 30 percent of phosphorus, and over 99 percent
of pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Total unit treatment costs for
this stage (including debt service) are typically 8 1/2 cents to 11
cents per 1000 gallons for a 10-mgd plant and 4 112 cents to 6 1/2
cents per 1000 gallons for a 100-mgd plant.

After secondary treatment, the following impurities usually re-
main in the effluent:

1. suspended and'colloidal solids;
2. refractory organic matter that is resistant to bio-
logical treatment, such as pesticides, and the prod-
ucts of bacterial metabolism;
3. plant nutrients, principally phosphorous and nitrogen
compounds;
4. dissolved mineral matter, such as sodium chloride and
other mineral salts, all of which are present in an
original water supply but are usually increased by
use; and
5. bacteria and viruses, some of them pathogenic.

Suspended and colloidal solids are mostly poorly or non-floc-
culated bacterial cells, debris from dead cells, and extra-cellular
insoluble products of bacterial metabolism. Suspended solids com-
prise only 20-30 percent of the total organic matter in secondary
effluent (1) but account for most of the biodegradable organic mat-
ter present.

Refractory organic matter includes all organic material in sol-
ution which resists biological treatment. Most substances in this
group have remained unidentified, but such materials as ABS deter-
gents, pesticides, some organic compoundsin industrial waste, prod-
ucts of bacterial metabolism, tannins, lignins, and other color im-
parting substances have been found. Generally,these aye high molec-
ular weight compounds. Estimation of concentrations are difficult
to make and have not often been reported because of the lack of
identification of the substances and the lack of standard measure-
ment techniques that can give unequivocal and reproducible results
(3). Secondary effluent contains an average concentration of 50 ppm
of non-deqradable organic Tnatter (4).

Plant nutrients include organic phosphorous and nitrogen com-
pounds. Phosphorous occurs in secondary effluent mainly as the
phosphate ion. About half of it is introduced into wastewater as a
constituent of detergents and other cleaning aids, but some appears
as a product of the degradation of organic wastes.

Nitrogen occurs as ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite. Nitroqen
is a constituent of organic waste matter and is released in the form
of ammonia or ammonium ion upon degradation of the waste. Some of
the ammonia is then oxidized and produces nitrite and nitrate ions.
A small amount of soluble organic nitrogen may reTnain in secondary
effluent as a result of incomplete degradation.

118

Inorganic substances are dissolved mineral matter in sewage
and are not removed in conventional treatment plants. Usually, about
half of the total mineral content originates in municipal water sup-
plies; the remainder is added during use. Minerals occur in solu-
tion as ions. Although mineral content of water varies throughout
the country, major ionic constituents in secondary effluent include
sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chloride, bicarbonate, sul-
fate, and silicate.

Ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, and phosphate ions, although class-
ified as nutrients, are actually inorganic substances. If these
are included, the total mineral content averages about 875 mg/l
(compared with sea water at 30,000 mg/l)! In addition to the ions
listed, smaller quantities of such ions as ferric iron, cooper, and
zinc occur. Also, waste from industrial processes may contribute
relatively large concentrations, in particular instances, of other
less widely distributed metallic ions.

Secondary treatment removes most of the pathogenic bacteria in
wastewater. Those that survive are a potential hazard in secondary
effluent, but known techniques of disinfection are capable of re-
moving the hazard. Although the activated sludge process can remove
as much as 90 percent of the pathogenic viruses in wastewater, those
remaining constitute a potential hazard which disinfection by pre-
sent methods may not be able to cope with satisfactorily.

The technological problem in wastewater reuse is the reduction
of the concentrations of the contaminants to acceptable levels, at
a cost commensurate with the cost of alternative water supplies.
Despite the fact that the total concentration of contaminants is
usually less than 2000 ppm in secondary effluent (i.e., the water
is more than 99.8 percent pure), separation of the contaminants is
not a simple process. No process has yet been devised which is
able to remove all of the contaminants in a single step economical-
ly, at the flow rates encountered in practice. At the present time
it is necessary to apply a series of successive processes, each
specific for a single group, or at most for two groups of contami-
nants.

The residual suspended and colloidal solids that remain after
secondary treatment can be removed by any of several filtration
methods, at the relatively low costs of one cent to two cents per
1000 gallons. It would also remove non-soluble biodegradable or-
ganic impurities.

The principal plant nutrientsin secondary effluent (phosphate,
nitrate, and ammonia) induce algal growth. Upon death, the algal
cells become food for the bacteria which consume the oxygen dis-
solved in the water and so may produce septic conditions. The nu-
trients can be reduced by chemical processes to concentrations that
will prevent growth stimulation, at a cost of about 14 cents and
8 1/2 cents per 1000 gallons, for a 10-mgd and 100-mgd plant, re-
spectively. Suspended solids are removed at the same time.

Non-biodegradable (refractory) organic matter can be reduced
to the very low concentrations present in natural water supplies,by
adsorption by activated carbon for a cost of about 10 cents and 7
centsperlOOO gallons, fora 10-mgd and 100-mgd plant, respectively.
119

Pathogenic bacteria can be removed by chlorination ata cost of
less than one cent per 1000 gallons. Viruses are removed in large
part by the secondary and advanced treatment processes, but there is
considerable difference of opinion as to the degree of hazard that
remains after the treatment processes are completed. The consensus
seems to be one of extreme caution--most scientists agree that it
has not yet been proven that 6 hazard does not exist. However, some
sanitary engineers and health officials have expressed the opinion
that the probability of virological hazard is low. Ozonation is
another alternative.

Dissolved mineral concentrations may be reduced from about 850
ppm to the Public Health Service drinking water standards of 500
ppm by electrodyalysis, for an additional cost that is in the order
of 12 cents per 1000 gallons. Other methods also are available;
e.g., ion exchanqe, reverse osmosis--at a higher cost. Present
technology limits this process to a plant size of 10 mgd.

In considering the costs of advanced wastewater treatment, it
should be recognized that many of the processes used in advanced
waste treatment (such as sedimentation, coagulation, filtration,
chlorination, activated carbon, aeration and demineralization) also
are used, to varying degrees, in treatment of alternative sources
of water supply with which reuse should be compared. Thus, it is
not simply a case of comparing the cost of advanced treatment for
reuse with the cost of an alternative means of physically supplying
water; they must be compared on a common basis. If the alternative
water supply source includes treatment, the treatment cost must be
added to it to compare with a reuse source. Similarly, of course,
any cost of conveyance to bring a reuse supply to a common point
with an alternative source must be included in the reuse cost.

It is quite conceivable, therefore, that the net cost of ad-
vanced treatment to make water available for reuse will be quite
small. Other than a desalting alternative, most alternatives to
reuse will incur significant ireatment costs, which must be added
to the alternative cost to compare it with tile purified supply made
available by advanced waste treatment. In effect , then,, the net
advanced treatment costs are equal to its total costs less the treat-
ment costs of the alternative supply, plus or minus any difference
in conveyance costs to bring alternative supplies to a common point.

The status of wastewater technology is summarized in Table 2.

The 7.5-mod plant at South Lake Tahoe, California, exemplifies
the capabilities of present technology for removal of contaminants
from secondary effluent. It consists of an integrated series of
processes which, being complementary to each other, maximize the
effectiveness of each process and thereby reduce costs. Each pro-
cess, individually, may eventually prove not to be the most desir-
able one for removal of a particular type of contaminant, but the
plant illustrates what can be done at today's level of technologi-
cal development.

At South Lake Tahoe, secondary effluent is subjected to two-
stage lime precipitation for the removal of suspended solids and
phosphate ion. Ammonia is removed by air stripping between the

120

Table 2
STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY FOR REMOVING CCM@N CONSTITUENTS OF WASTEWATERS
(After Sawyer, 1972)

Status
Common Established Development Percent Cost
Constituents Processes removal t/1000 gal.
Coarse Solids Screening X 90 0-5
Comminuting X 0-5
Suspended Solids Sedimentation X 60 0-5
Flotation X 60 5-20
Coagulation & Floccula. X 80 5-20
Microstraining X 60 0-5
Soluble Organics Stabilization Basins X 50 0-5
Activated Sludge X 60 5-20
Trickling Filter X 60 5-20
Aerated Lagoon X 50 5-20
Anaerobic Contact X 50 20-40
Activated Carbon X 70 20-40
Oils Gravity Separation 95 0-5
Air Flotation X 90 5-20
Adsorption X 30-80 5-20
Filtration X 90 0-5
Acids, Bases Neutralization X 99 5-20
Bacteria, Viruses Chlorination X 99 0-5
Irradiation X 99 5-20
Ozonization X 99 0-5
-- -- - ---- - - --- -- - - --- -- - -- --- - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - --- -- -
Fine Suspended Coagulation & Floccula. X 70 5-20
Solids Filtration X 70 0-5
Microstraining X 60 0-5
Ammonia Nitrification X 90 5-20
Stripping X 85 5-20
Chlorination X 99 5-20
Ion Exchange X 90 5-20
Nitrogen Denitrification X 85 5-20
Ion Exchange X 90 5-20
Algae Ponds X 50-80 5-20
Phosphorus Precipitation X 95 5-20
Ion Exchange X 90 5-20
Biol. Uptake X 30 5-20
Trace Organics Activated Carbon X 95 20-40
Soluble Inorganics Electrodialysis X 90 @40
Ion Exchange X 90 -40
Distillation X 95 <40
Reverse Osmosis X 90 @40
Precipitation X 20-95 5-20
Freezing X 80 <40
Liquid-Liquid Extract. X 80 @40
Heat Evaporative heat Exch. X 70 5-20
Reservoir X 70 0-5
Non-Evap. heat Exch. X 70 20-40
--- ----- - ------------ -- -- --- --- -- ----- - --- - -- -- ------
Sludge Dewatering Coagulation & Floccula. X 5-20
Flotation X 0-5
Thickening X 0-5
Evaporation X 0-5
Centrifugation X 0-5
Vacuum Filtr. X 0-5
Sludge Reduction Aerobic Digestion X 0-5
Anaerobic Digestion X 0-5
Wet Oxidation X 0-5
Incineration X 5-20
Calcination X 5-20
Ultimate Disposal Marine 0-5
Land 0-5
Air 0-5

FROM: Sawyer, V A.; "New Trends in Wastewater Treatment and Recycle," Chemical Engineering, pages 120-128.
(July 24, 1972).

121

stages. The lime is recovered upon calcination of the precipated
sludqe. Some of the recovered lime is sent to the primary treatment
plant with fresh lime used as make-up in order to prevent calcium
phosphate build-up. The carbon dioxide produced is used in the
second-stage precipitator. After filtrationin continuous gradation,
mixed media filters, the effluent is passed through activated car-
bon adsorption columns to remove refractory organic matter, and
discharged after being chlorinated. Actually, the final effluent
is not discharged into Lake Tahoe but is pumped 29 miles to Indian
Creek Reservoir to be used for irrigation and eventually for crea-
tion of an artificial lake for recreational use involving body con-
tact sports.

The capital cost of the 7.5-mgd South Lake Tahoe plant, exclu-
sive of the cost of engineering studies and of land, was about $3
million; operating costs of about 13.4 cents/1000 gallons were in-
curred as of May 1969.

PLBLI C ACCEPTPNCE

Public acceptance of the concept of reuse for potable water
supply will be a major obstacle. Some experiences in this area in-
dicate that acceptance was obtained when the need became acute. The
emergency experiences in Chanute, Kansas, and Ottumwa, Iowa, cited
earlier are indicative. So, also, is the continuing experience in
Windhoek, South West Africa, and the plans that are being made in
South Africa for additional installations. Plans underway by Den-
ver, Colorado, also indicate a belief that public acceptance can be
won.

On the other hand, the long history of fluoridation battles,
the current concern with carcinogens inwater as exemplified by the
New Orleans controversy, increased consumerism, and bureaucratic
timidity as illustrated by the ocean outfall discussions at this
meeting indicate more opposition than many reuse enthusiasts may
suspect.

The question of risk to human health is the major obstacle to
widespread acceptance and use. If we do not have to drink reclaimed
sewage as in desert areassuch as Windhoek, prudence would seem to
indicate a go slow approach pending resolution of some of the basic
health-related questions and the development of fail-safe technolo-
gies.

Partial reuse--i.e., reuse for purposes other than drinking--
is an idea whose time has already come. Reuse by industry and ag-
riculture will stretch the current supplies and, thus, indirectly
affect the human consumer.

122

REFERENCES

1. California Department of Water Resources, "Waste Water Reclama-
tion, State of the Art," Bulletin No. 189, 43 pp., March 1973.

2. Clayton, R. J., "The Water Reclamation Works at Windhoek (South
West Africa)," Aqua, No. 3, pp. 14-18, 1972.

3. Gavis, Jerome, "Wastewater Reuse," Report NWC-EES-71-003, Na-
tional Water Commission, Arlington, Va., 161 pp., July 1971,
Available from National Technical Information Service, Spring-
field, Va.

4. Koenig, Louis, "Studies Relating to Market Projections for Ad-
vanced Waste Treatment," Publication No. WP-20-AWTR-17, U. S.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ch.
2, 1966.

5. Mull9r, W. J., Re-Use of Waste Water in Germany, Organisation
for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, 29 pp., 1969.

6. Okun, Daniel A., "A Potential for Water Reuse - Dual Supplies,"
Paper presented at American Water Works Association Seminar on
Water Reuse, Minneapolis, Minn., 12 pp., June 8, 1975.

7. U. S. Water Resources Council, The Nation's Water Resources,
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 4, 1968.

123

SUMMARY: TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER
SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL IN
THE COASTAL AREA

Billy L. Edge
Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

lnt)toduct@on

The title of this paper is somewhat misleading. I do not pre-
tend to offer you a simple chart listing all of the technologies
available for water supply and wastewater treatment for the Coastal
Zone along with a unit cost for each. Instead, my chargein this pa-
per is to discuss those alternatives that have been suggestedby the
previous speakersand perhapsto gointo some additional possibilities
that have not been mentioned from a conceptual view. I will feel free
in this presentation to make a point to refer to the previous papers
whenever appropriate.

In October a year ago, the famed ocean explorer Jacques Yves
Cousteau testified before the Oceans and Atmosphere Subcommittee of
the Senate that unless man acts and acts quickly, not only will the
oceans be dead in 50 years but so will you and I. We can certainly
not disagree that man is closely intertwined with life in the sea.
Cousteau continued to state that from hisown observations life in the
oceans has diminished by as much as 50 percent in the past 20 years.
According to his testimony, there is only one kind of pollution be-
cause every single chemical whether in the air or on the land will
end upin the oceans. Whatis flushed into the harbor at Rotterdam or
even Minimata Bay will end up on the shore of Wrightsville Beach. DDT
and herbicides which have been washed out of Iowa fields can be traced
down the Mississippi into the Gulf, into the food chain, and even in-
to the tissue of the Polar Bear in the Arctic and the tissue of the
penguin in the Antarctic.

The author, anthropologist and movie maker Thor Heyerdahl, has
also testified before the same Senate subcommittee concerning the vast
amount of fiZth stretched across the Atl antic Ocean which he saw when
he crossed in the Ra 11. Imagine, if you will, a solid stretch of
polluted water all the way from Morocco to Barbados.

Now I know that our job at this meeting is to study the technical
aspects of water supply and wastewater disposal in coastal areas.
Nevertheless, I wantto impress uponyou the importanceof considering
the global aspects of ocean pollution andin dealing with our coastal
areas. Engineers, scientists, and laymen alike must beginto look at
pollution as a whole. This is the obstacle we must face, and the
sources of our troublesin this area are insidious and diverse; they
include: domestic sewage, agricultural runoff, industrial wastewater,
oil spills, thermal discharges, dredgespoil, and radioactive wastes.

124

Technicat Aitmativa

The solution to all disposal in the coastal zone could be recy-
cling. Most probably, this will notbe the optimum (in some sense of
the term) for all waste disposal operation. Rather, for some wastes
i t may be best to seek ocean disposal techniques that cause very I i t-
tle or minimal damage to the ecosystem, and that ecosystem includes
you and me. The problems of controlling ocean disposal are very broad
in scope and require the interaction of many disciplines (and agen-
cies) before adequate solutions can be posed to the decision makers.
As I see it, you and I have a very important role in the solution of
these complex problems.

So far in this symposium the feasibility of ocean disposal has
been discussed much more in depth than any other form of disposal.
The arguments given on both sides have been generally quite sound
and are making the decision process much more difficult. I say this
in spite of the negative approach EPA is taking according to the
earlier presentation by Mr. Hopkins. There are other groups in EPA
who do not consider this subject as negatively as does Region IV.
For example, Robert Dean of the Ultimate Disposal Research Program
of EPA said:

"Disposal to the ocean takes advantage of the hugh dilu-
tions available and is often the best method, considering
all alternatives. For example, sodium chloride, calcium
chloride, and magnesium sulfate brines will be undetect-
able against the natural background of these salts in the
ocean--even hydrochloric acid can safely be diluted in the
ocean--whereas since these substances are water soluble
and cannot practicably be converted into solid precipi-
tates, their disposal on the land or into fresh waters is
highly objectionable."

Between the obvious perils of mercury and the obvious
safety of sodium chloride, there is a vast range of sub-
stances whose candidacy for disposal in the ocean is not
so clear-cut. General organic wastes that settle to the
bottom, including garbage, will be decomposed by marine
bacteria. Iron salts will form ferric hydroxide minerals,
which are already present in ocean sediments along with
many other minerals. The key to safe disposal of such
substances is control of quantity. "Certain nutrients,
both organic and inorganic maybebeneficial in increasing
the harvestable crop from the ocean, and in colder waters
thermal wastes may also be useful."

While there has been very little work on the effects of sludge
and dredged spoil disposal at sea, sewer outfalls have been careful-
ly investigated, and these studies point to the rather surprising
conclusion that such outfalls if properly designed do not constitute
serious threats to the environment as some woul@ have us to believe.
The Hyperion Plant in Los Angeles is a good example of this. Dr. Brown
mentioned that this morning.

In a recent issue of CiviZ Engineering, Harvey Ludwig was quoted
as saying:

125

"We could bemaking a colossal mistake in pouring billions
of dollars into upgrading waste treatment plants in our
coastal cities. Many of the large cities of the world
are located close to oceans. Typically, their waste
treatment plants dump effluents into estuaries and bays.
Yet, the really critical ecology, the most productive
areas on earth for synthesizing living matter, are pre-
cisely in these estuaries, bays, and shallow waters (less
than 100 ft.) along the sea. The oxidizing capacity of
ocean is vast. Thus, there is no sense in wasting money
to remove organic materials to reduce BOD. Because tra-
ditional design is geared up to remove BOD, civil engi-
neers blithely copy the same old thing."

On the other hand, Donald O'Connor of Hydroscience has cau-
tioned, "Why spend millions on a pipeline only to find out we're
doing damage out there? Is the ocean really an infinite sink?" This
is a point well taken and one which emphasizes that engineers and
scientists know pitifully little about the impact of wastes on the
marine environment. This point also adds importance to the comments
of Wicker yesterday; i.e. , should the economic life, and consequent-
ly the productive life, of a disposal scheme and consequently the
life of a bond issue be ten years (or 1985-1975)?

Let me now address a remark made yesterday, by Colonel Paul Den-
ison and others. There is, indeed, a major amount of money allo-
cated to 208 and 201 studies of the coastal areas. Where does this
manna come from--heaven? No, it comes from your pocket and mine.
The question asked yesterday was, "Will EPA provide additional money
to do the baseline field study and all the monitoring studies that
will be required according to Mr. Hopkins' remarks?" They are go-
ing to be spending excruciating sums of your money to make these
studies possible to obtain information which in some cases is of
questionable value. For example, EPA wants settling rates. Set-
tling rates of what? Moreover, are these again to be the tradition-
al settling rates of the wastewater suspended solids as determined
in distilled water so that it can be related to an equivalent size
of round quartz orwill they be conducted in saline solutions indic-
ative of the water chemistry at the site? This small difference
may affect changes in answers on the order of a factor of 10 or 100.
What will be done with this data once it is presented to EPA? Will
they throw in some magic factor to account for turbulence, concen-
tration and pycnocline to predict where the Tnaterial will go? Even
if this data were available, would they have been able to predict
the observed movements of the taconite tailings from Reserve Mining
Company or the internal surface slicks from the acid disposal of
National Lead on the pycnocline that moved out of the disposal area?
I concur with the need for detailed information on fiddler crabs,
polycheates, and featherduster worms, but I remain uncertain just
how this information can be properly evaluated.

At the 1972 Coastal Zone Pollution Management Symposium in
Charleston, South Carolina, Erman Pearson of the University of Cali-
fornia said:

"Today there isno si.gnificant scientific basis to support
the arbitrary upgrading of all open coastal pri-marytreat-
ment plants having effective outfall dilution-dispersion
126

systems to secondary treatment. The cost-benefit ratio
or cost-consequence of such action appears to be extreme-
ly high. Expenditures of such magnitude likely could have
more profound and beneficial effects on the local ecology
if they were expended in determining in the field the sig-
nificant and currently undocumented pollution problems of
concern. This would insure that future expenditures for
waste treatment would deal with the substantive problems
rather than perpetrating tradition at the experse of the
environment."

Let us turn from surface disposal to subsurface disposal.
Dr. Humenik did an excellent job this morning ofshowing us just how
successful certain projects for land disposal can be. He did not,
however, allude toany failures that others may have been associated
with. Now his suggestions may well be appropo on the mainland, but
I would question their use on high-priced ocean frontage except on
golf courses. Surface land disposal was considered at North Myrtle
Beach and found to be infeasible. However, treated sewage is to be
transported to the mainland and land owned by International Paper.
Lastly, I understand that a very large-scale application of munici-
pal waste in Michigan is not considered healthy by the local people.

Mr. Turnage offered the personal opinion that the major reason
for high fecal coliform in shellfish areas is due to indiscriminant
use of septic tanks. I will have to take exception to the applica-
tion of that on a broad basis. In particular, I am thinking of the
Charleston area.

What about deep-well disposal? A good argument has been given
for this practice in many situations although specific criteria are
not really available. Allow me to refer to a recent article in
Science which provided a convincing argument that some of our food
additives may be responsible through the aid of lengthy residence
times (i.e., if we don't eat enough bulk to push food through our
system more rapidly) for creating complex compounds that have been
linked to cancer. Now it is logical to ask the question, "What will
be the effect of high pressures and long residence times on these
wastewaters which are injected into deep well whether treated or
not?" Will new long chain chemicals be produced that may be con-
sidered very detrimental to human life not to mention the rest of
the ecosystem. Now let's add one-more complication, some of many
aquifers (we really don't know which) emerge at some place, maybe
(most likely) the ocean. If this situation has any possibility of
actually occurring, however remote, can we afford to ignore it?

Conc&oion

"Remember the bologna sandwich on the Alvin." How many times
will we be reminded of that sandwich which went down with the re-
search submarine Alvin and was lost for a year. You probably recall
that the sandwich and a thermos of tea was recovered with the Alvin
after laying at 900 feet for nearly a year and that the sandwich,
though soaked throughout, was still edible. "Why didn't the bac-
teria destroy the sandwich as they would in open air?" is the ques-
tion that has been raised somany timesby biological oceanographers.
Certainly, there are secrets of the oceans which we will never un-
127

veil; but why must we be blinded by that veil? We must make deci-
sions on the basis of what we know instead of what we don't know.

128

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSICN

QUESTICN. (Mr. Leo Ormiste) Considering the facts and figures we
now have in the field of water supplies and wastewater disposal in
coastal areas, how good an indicator is the coastal zone of the well
being of the ocean and the mainland?

MR. BILLY L. EWE: In reports done by Skidaway Institute of Ocean-
ography about a year or so ago, they were 1 ooki ng for mercury concen -
trations in the ocean, and there they were noting that the mercury
concentrations behaved exponentially as one went out towards the
ocean. The conditions in the Savannah estuary indicated much more
severe state of affairs than were actually apparent when one was 20
miles offshore. You consider that concentrations there were unde-
tectable compared to what was coming down the estuary, and I think
that the estuarine zone in that case was not such a good indicator.
We've heard earlier this afternoon that the organism that lives in
the delicate balance that exists in the estuaries is much more deli-
cate than that in the ocean. In the ocean, the critters are very
able to get along with large changes in temperature, large changes
in chemical composition, and large changes in turbidity. They seem
to be able to adapt themselves pretty well. In the estuaries, it's
not the case. The instability there can come a lot quicker than in
the ocean.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells) I'm not a biologist, but I'd
be a little concerned about depending too much on decay, as such, un-
less I knew what was going on in the biological system. It just
could be that uptake is occurring and materials are moving into the
life system. I think one would have to know not just what was in
the water but also what was in the whole system. It could be more
troublesome than a solution, could it not?

MR. BILLY L. EWE: Yes, sir; I'll agree with that, and I'll also
agree that probably all that uptake is done by organisms in the es-
tuary or near the estuaries and not 20 miles out.

QUESTION: (Mr. Frank R. Reynolds) You are associated with the fa-
cilities plan in the Grand Strand area where there is a peak popula-
tion now of approximately 300,000 people, and it is projected to go
to about 500,000 people in the next 20 years. The study there shows
that it's better to dispose of the treated wastewater into a coastal
waterway canal than to go to ocean outfall. The study at Wrights-
Yille Beach with a volume projected to be 1.3 million gallons per
day shows it to be more cost-effective to go to an ocean outfall
rather than to discharge to an estuary. It would seem that those two
results were sort of contradicting each other because it would seem
that the more volume you had the more the ocean outfall would be
cost-effective. Could you comment on what you know about the situa-
tion and what your feelings are concerning ocean outfalls?

MR. BILLY L. EDGE: I'd be glad to. This is my-first chance to make
an official statement on that. I suggested to the contractor work-
ing on that plan for the State that they consider the feasibility of
an ocean outfall. They went back to the office, and the next morn-
ing they called me and said, "Okay, we've thought about it." That's
the tentative comparison you can draw betweenthe situation there and
the situation here. They thought about it down there; up here, they
did the calculations. 129

QUESTION: (Mr. A. C. Turnage to Professor McJunkin) What is your
feeling about the possibility of ball contamination with domestic
sewage used on golf courses? Land disposal in an unoccupied area is
one thing; land disposal in an area habitually used may be something
else. Would you comment?

PROFESSOR F. EUGENE MCAINKIN: It's not my field, but I'll comment
just the same. I wouldn't worry about it if it were done under pre-
scribed conditions, the timing were good, and under proper weather
conditions. This has been discussed in connection with the land
disposal meetinq that Dr. James Stewart and Dr. Frank Humenik and
others organized in Raleigh about two months ago. Frank, could you
comment on that?

DR. FRANK HumENIK: I think everyone appreciates the need to be con-
cerned about public health and to be very cautious about the disease
potential of aerosols; but if we become too obsessed with airborne
pathogens or viruses and emphasize the hazard so much that we neglect
practical and historical evidence, the utilization of land disposal
systems will be severely hamstrung and possibly for little justifia-
ble reason. Chlorination can always be exercised prior to land ir-
rigation of wastewater as need dictates; but to universally require
this technique could represent unwarranted expenses and have an in-
hibiting effect upon the soil-plant microflora mandatory for waste
stabilization.

By means of an example, I would like to re-emphasize points made
earlier concerning whether the hydraulic or process load would limit
terminal land application and correspondingly the applicability of
our work on concentrated wastes to very dilute wastewaters such as
domestic sewage. A wastewater flow of 27,150 gallons/day, which
equals one acre inch, would be a very convenient hydraulic load. As-
suming a nitrogen concentration of 10 ppm, the pounds of nitrogen to
be handled per year would be 27,150 x 365 x 10 106 z 900 lbs. Pas-
ture fertilization recommendations for fescue grass are 400 lbs N/
acre/year and about 600 lbs for coastal bermuda; therefore, approxi-
mately 2 1/4 acres of fescue of 1 1/2 acres of coastal bermuda pas-
ture would be required to accommodate this nitrogen load. The hy-
draulic load of27,150 gallons/day or one acre inch/day would require
7 acresif the plant-soil receiver system could accommodate one inch/
acre/week. In this situation, land disposal is limited by the hy-
draulic load because about 7 acres are necessary to assimilate the
liquid and only about 2 acres for the waste nitrogen. Assuming that
the hydraulic application could be increased to 2 or 3 inches/acre/
week, then the hydraulic and process load would be matched, and such
system optimization would result in minimum acreage requirements.
If the nitrogen content would increase to about 100 mg/l, then about
15 to 25 acres would be required. This would far exceed land re-
quired for the hydraulic load. In this case, degradatory pretreat-
ment pursuant to nitrogen removal would be appropriate to allow a
more equitable matching of the acreage required for both the process
and hydraulic load. Therefore, for weak waste such as domestic sew-
age, the hydraulic load generally limits; and thus, minimum pretreat-
Rent is required while for stronger industrial and agricultural-type
waste the process load generally limits and degradatory pretreatment
helps reduce the acreage required for terminal land application when
disposal rather than utilization is directive.

130

DR. B. L. CARLIL.E: I would like to get back to the comment that
Mr. Turnage and Mr. Edge made earlier about applying wastewater to
our coastal soils and sandy beach soils. Dr. Humenik alluded to this
problem a little bit this morning. The activity and the treatment
aspects of soils really occurs near the surface. This is especially
true for the deep sands we've got. If you examine one of these deep
sands, you'll find all the activityis near the surface in this root-
ing zone in the upper 6 to 8 inches. This is true for all soils but
even more so for these sandy soils. What we are doing in the Outer
Banks is putting wastes three feet below the surface. We are using
septic tanks with nitrification fields three feet below the surface
and below any activity in the soil. Getting back to this question,
it it better to putit on a golf course or put it in a septic tank in
nitrification fields? If we're trying to get the maximum treatment,
trying to balance the capability of a soil with the water, we would
be far ahead by putting it on a golf course, at least putting it up
on the surface.

How much land is needed will depend on the capability of that
particular soil and the characteristics of that wastewater. We need
to get it near the surface where we have the maximum capability for
treatment. Nearly 95 percent of the treatment for nutrients, bac-
teria, viruses, and organic compounds occursin the top foot of soil.
This is really critical in these sandy soils where you don't have any
activity down in the 3-foot level.

Getting back to the question on some of the failures that we've
had, yes, we've been observing land disposal systems in this State
and in adjoining states. There have also been surveys made of sys-
tems in west Texas and California. There have been failures and for
the reason Dr. Humenik alluded to. Failures occur when people de-
signed systems without understanding the capabilities of the land.
They were trying to design a system in west Texas based on informa-
tion that was gathered in Michigan or they tried to design a system
in North Carolina based on information that was gathered in Texas,
and it doesn't work. I think that we have more information on the
soil and the typecrF systems we can design and could operate success-
fully on land application than we do on many other types of systems
including ocean outfalls. There is a lot of information that has
been gathered from observing land application systems that have been
in operation for 30 or 40 years. We do have a great deal of infor-
mation, and I thinkif we know what's in the waste and the character-
istics of the land, then we can design a system that will operate
successfully most of the time.

PROFESSOR F. EUGENE MCJUNKIN: Let's go back to the question of vir-
uses and having to have absolute certainty to prove something. In
anything we do, there is a hazard. It infuriates me to hear a regu-
lator, whether he's in Human Resources or EPA, standing with a cig-
arette in his mouth, inhaling it, and telling me that he has to be
absolutely certain about advising on spray irrigation of golf cour-
ses, advising someone else when he's puffing awayon his lung cancer.
I am serious, though. With many of these ideas, we should point out
that they have been around a long time. There are the questions in
land application and the aerosol transport of viruses into the at-
mosphere and how far they are transported. We've gone for years and
years with virtually no attention to the activated sludge aeration
tank which is spraying out an unchlorinated aerosol. That has been
131

around a while, and we accept that. The question is how much abso-
lute certainty can we pay for and how much of a risk can we take.
Anything in life is a risk. I haven't noticed many steel umbrellas
stacked in the corner today. When you walk out to your car, you may
be hit by a meteorite; you have to be ready. This has happened seven
times in the history of the world. It becomes easy for a bureaucrat
to hide behind making a decision for some of these new outfalls or
for land application. He is making the decision by making no deci-
sion. Wrightsville Beach cannot wait five years for perfect infor-
mation, much less pay for it. They've got to get this permit. You
can never be criticized for making the conventional decision. On the
other hand,i fWrightsville Beach invests millions of dollars in this
outfall and it doesn't work, it has a crushing weight of bonded in-
debtedness. There may be people like swine processors, chicken pro-
ducers, and other industries who may run the risk a little more than
public services and pioneer these efforts. Maybe we can find an in-
dustry on the Carolina coast that can set up an ocean outfall.
CO11MENT BY MR. SAM MORRIS: I believe the failure which was referred
to earlier was actually from cannery wastes where an operator had
left a valve open. In that instance, you had a personnel failure
rather than a failure in the process itself.

DR. PETER ASHTON: I'd like to commend Gene just now for that comment
on rationality in decision making. I'd like to make one comment with
respect to deep-well injection which we were talking about earlier.
First of all, in the hundreds and hundreds of examples that there
are of deep-well injectionin this country, I think there's only been
about two failures. So we've got the same kind of argument going
here again. We have to make the decision one way or another, and
sometimes you can't make the decision with absolute certainty. The
two examples you hear of are the Denver and the Pennsylvania situa-
tion, which were from engineering misdesign and nothing else. Also,
one should not forget or overlook the potential of deep-well injec-
tion in terms of occupying groundwater. Simply writing off an aqui-
fer as a social objective and using it as a disposal area might have
a higher and better use in a disposal area than it has for a ground-
water supply area. These things should perhaps be recognized and
not come to any hard and fast categorical decision about blanket de-
nial of deep-well injection as a system of disposal.

132

MAN DISCOVERS THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT:
A FOOTPRINT IN THE SAND

James C. Wallace*
Professor
University Studies
North Carolina State University

Some four hundred years ago, the English and Spanish were ex-
ploring such shores as the one on which we sit tonight, finding this
fringe of the new world, in the words of North Carolina's Lost CoZ-
ony, to be the "goodliest land beneath the cope of Heaven."

Giant trees extended to the water's edge. Clear water was abun-
dant, suitable as habitat for Hiawatha's celebrated sturgeon, which
moved its fins "on the bright sandy bottom" of those pristine sounds
and rivers; and through the clear air the birds of the sea's margin
wheeled and cried.

As the years passed, the great forests became boats from which
to fish along the shore; the dunes disappeared; and the restless, un-
ending wash of the sea took the sand to the southwest.

And now we return to this fragile strip of sand, to the most
youthful portion of the continent whose birth was as recent as five
thousand years ago. But this time, unlike the first, we come to it
from the Zand and not from the sea; and instead of that great origi-
nal purity, we find evidence that we have been here before. Many of
our kind have preceded us and have left footprints--and much else--
in the sand.

The sounds are lined with septic tanks and grow more nutritious
every day. The slender bubble of fresh water that rises so peril-
ously atop the saline ocean below is in danger of irremediable con-
tamination as health department officials sow several crops of these
permits each year, much in the manner of an infamous sale of indul-
gences long ago. The wastewater from this dinner, and what has pre-
ceded it, will enter an overloaded system which operates at the suf-
ference of the State.

The consequences of lack of planning, of poor planning, and of
excessive multiple-use planning are everywhere. Consider the coast
of North Carolina alone, remembering that much the same thing can be
said for the other states represented here. One enters the State by
passing through a wildlife refuge on the way to Currituck, an area
now being developed. South of this still natural area lies the Kill
Devil Hills-Nags Head complex over twenty miles in length with vast
summer populations--an area with a water system and without a waste-
water system. Beyond lies Hatteras Island where roads are breached
by every major storm cycle, and improperly located motels are swept
away amid great clamor for public assistance. Morehead City sports
a major terminal and continual maintenance dredging. Bogue Banks is
naked, its brush cover having been ripped off, and its phalanx of

*Note: Banquet speaker on April 3.
133

trailers awaiting the first hurricane to sweep them away. Topsai I
Beach and Surf City are trailer and sepsis ridden, and subdividers
plan homesites where water from a major high tide will lap against
the doorsteps. Open G-ounds, Inc., a 46,000-acre Italian-owned super
cattle farm, proposes to drain the area of its fresh water and dis-
charge it into the South River whichis brackish and currently class-
ified for shellfish. (Which shall take precedence--the shellfish or
the cattle?)

Wilmington, like Morehead, is a major terminal; and its beach
area, Wrightsville, this very spot, is a mecca for tourists. Many
stay at this place, the Blockade Runner, where once the old Ocean
Terrace stood. Others stay at the Holiday Inn which is built upon
the site of a closed inlet and which, by all rights, should be known
as the Holiday Inlet for surely the inlet will come again! At South-
port, there stands the greatest obscenity of all--the Brunswick Nu-
clear Power Reactor whose ominous, bulbous concrete containment ves-
sel protrudes awesomely above the natural cover of undulating marsh
grass. Below its concrete bottom lies the Castle Hayne aquifer, wa-
ter supply for much of the Carolina coastal reqion. By its conden-
sers wends a huge canal and a diversion of the Cape Fear River to
cool its core. Soon it will start up; and thus, will Uranium, heat,
water, and biota be nearly conjoined, co-existing in a state of per-
petual tension and unease representing still another casting of the
dice in our on-going Faustian Bargain with Nuclear Energy and still
another and supererogatory genflection to the bloated fetish of mul-
tiple-use which bestrides us like a colossus and would-be god.

And all the while the fishermen, fin and shell, ply their an-
cient trade even as the vital marshes are drained, land is sucked
into existence from bottoms, pumps lower water tables, coliform
counts close shellfish beds, swamps go dry as hardwoods fall, and
excess nutrients and obscure pesticides percolate at great removes.

Offshore there lies still another great resource which has not
yet been addressed. North Carolina hag 14,000 square miles of con-
tinental shelf. Already great pressure is beginning to build for
its exploitation. Possible plans include offshore drilling, dumping,
sewage outfalls, mining, and offshore nuclear plants--all of these
items in addition to continued use by commercial and sports fisher-
men and sports divers who already use the shelf extensively.

Thus, by way of introduction, I have painted a picture of coast-
al contradiction and confusion; and I insist that what we do in the
future must transcend in both power and concept what we have done
thus far.

Emerson in his Phi Betta Kappa oration entitled The Amey-lcan
schoZar, remarked that "public and private avarice make the air we
breathe thick and fat. The scholar is decent, indolent, complaisant.
See already the tragic consequence. The mind of this country, taught
to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." This call for leadership,
made at Cambridge in 1837, possesses an even greater urgency today.

If we are to save the coastal environment,orany environment for
that matter and Man along with it - then, it is clear that we must
have a great deal of planning. It is also clear that our planning
must be of a kind quite different from the inadequate process which
134

is currently masquerading as planning. (Please bear in mind during
the remainder of these remarks that I speak notas an unloving critic
nor as an uncritical lover but as a loving critic who is acutely im-
pressed with our collective tardiness and with the great damage, the
irreversible damage, which has already been done.)

When Emerson was speaking, the city was an islandin the forest.
In our own time, the forest is becoming an island in the city whose
fringe skirts the sea. This sobering circumstance is both a measure
of how far we have gone in urbanizing America and a warning that our
natural bounty has precise limitations associated with it.

So it is that we must have planning. And planning we have, at
least in name. Towns and counties have planning boards. Regional
councils of governments have planning staffs. States have planning
departments. Everywhere one looks, in fact, there are planners. The
word planning has in recent years experienced a tremendous vogue,
and the word ecology though suspect by some (especially in a period
of economic recession) emerges as a good word to be dropped in the
right places.

At a recent public hearing in a nearby town, a developer--well-
fed and prosperous in appearance--after having finished his usual
spiel added a wholly unexpected filip by proudly announcing that his
subdivision would not damage the ecology of the area. The planning
board involved was thunder-struck. Whatever the motivations, and I
don't think we should bother with such obscure items, many people
are now speaking the languageof planning, most of them for the first
time.

Unfortunately, planning, as it is now practiced, is, at worst,
a false prophet and, at best, a rationalizer of an unplanned world.
Today's zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, boards of ad-
justment and all the rest, represent the application of a set of ra-
tional procedures through the use of which a feeling of local secur-
ity can be generated. The hidden parameters which lie beyond these
exercises are seldom glimpsed and never tackled.

No city, no region, and no nation can ever be plannedunless one
first knows how many people will live there and the typeof existence
they would identify with the good life. To attempt piece-meal jerry-
building in the name of planning while one is hooked to an uncon-
trolled Gross National Product--the crudest measure of quantity yet
to be employed by mankind--and to an ascending popul ati on with ascend-
ing appetite to match is to dream the fatuous and to indulge in the
irrational.

Yet, this is precisely what we do: first, we project a popula-
tion increase. This is the most important unplanned parameter. Then,
we make certain economic assumptions. This is the second unplanned
parameter which is closely connected with the first. We then take
the space available within the jurisdiction and distribute the people
therein. Finally, we connect it together with a sufficient number
of sewer pipes, provide a water supply andutilities including waste-
water disposal, dot the map--between clusters of development--with
green streaks of open 3pace, and presto! The plan is finished. Or,
more accurately, the plcm is started. The chances are astronomical
against its ever being finished.
135

Why is this so? Never have we had so many planners. Never have
we needed so much planning. Why, then, if the need is so acute and
planners so plentiful don't we resolve some of our more pressing
crises? The answer, alas, is that the planners are, after all, only
servants. They propose, but the appropriate decision-makers call
the tune. Thus, it is that a local planner is quite pleased if he
is successful in getting a small fraction of his latest 20-year pZcos
implemented by the board which pays his salary. More often than not
the 20-year projections are briefly discussed and then filed andfor-
gotten.

What we are now hailing as progress in the field of planning is
merely the averting of disaster and gaining another day during which
serious planning can be put off. Despite the platitudes to the con-
trary--whether they are calling for city planning, regional planning,
state, national, global orinter-galactic planning--despite such pro-
tests, and I think that we are beginning to protest a little over-
much, it is still clear that we don't want real planning. Rather,
what we are really talking about is accormodation in the cheapest
way possible to the wholly unplanned parameters of growth and greed.

What we are pleased to call planning is only action in the mi-
crocosm, the essentially small-change rationalizing of a worsening
situation which was brought about oris being brought about by forces
over which we have no control. We must realize that zoning and sub-
division regulations, however brilliantly drawn, are ultimately fu-
tile unless they can exist within the broader and protecting context
of a planned environment.

The planner's task, as it is presently constituted, is an im-
possible one. He is unable to determine the population of any area with
which he is concerned; and he finds it difficult to guess at its fu-
ture geographical boundaries. Without such fundamental determina-
tions as these, it is not even possible to identify the patient much
less do anything about making him well. Add to this amorphous sit-
uation the fact that commercial enterprise within the area, whatever
the area happens to be, will eventually succeed in warping the com-
munity out of shape. And, last of all, the planner has virtually
no money available to him in order that he might stave off some of
the worst consequences of disappearing open space.

Given such massive limitations as these, one wonders what them
is left to plan? And with what tools will such planning be done?
Thus, we are forced back to the microcosm, the tiny world of zoning
and subdivision regulation, the world of Lilliput. We are forced to
go at our task with a penknife, and with this small weapon we attack
the carcass of a whale. And the affluent Gullivers who crowd the
hearing rooms with their attorneys and their sheaves of plans (for
it is they, in truth, who do most of the planning) are vastly amused
as citizens complain about such things as spot zoning and tearfully
bemoan the fact that their neighborhood, which they thought was pro-
tected by zoning, is going to the dogs.

Fortunately, there are indications that our planning enterprise
is now undergoing major changes both in relation to scale and to de-
gree of specificity. Thus, it is possible to foresee our being freed
from the Lilliputian box. While federal land use planning is not
yet a reality, it is reasonable to expect some motion in this direction
136

in the near future. Also, while we wait upon this development, there
have appeared- several collateral devices which are supportive of
larger and more effective planning programs. The Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act is just a first step but an important one. The
Clean Air Amendments of 1970, while not a substitute for a land-use
plan, can have a significant--even deteminative--influence on de-
velopment. The FWPCA Amendments of 1972 can exert a similar effect
regarding our water resources and especially so if EPA's broad inter-
pretation of navigabZe waters should prevail over the more narrow
view of the Corps of Engineers.

Finally, the individual states themselves are taking some be-
lated--though very welcome--action. And this action is due in part
to the growing recognition that there is real value in what has here-
tofore been considered valueless: the dunes, the marshes, the green
belts, the clean air, the clean water, and the unspoiled hills. This
recognition, inturn, owes much of its force to the rapid advances in
quantifying these environmental amenities , so-called, which have
been achieved by the new generation of ecosystem analysts. The guilt
feelings of romantics, bird-watchers, and old-time conservationists
have finally been undergirded by some hard facts! At long last, in
other words, two can play at the benefit-cost game.

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act, deficiencies and
all, is a case in point. At least an effort will be made to identi-
fy areas of environmentaZ concern , and in the dialogue something of
value will have been accomplished.

While I welcome such a development (and hope we have a similar
act for the Mountain area), I am confident that it will succeed only
if it limits the vast spectrum which until now has characterized the
fuzzy doctrine of multiple use. The application of this doctrine by
the federal government has been and continues to be a damaging dis-
appointment. It is simply not possible, with any satisfaction to
the parties, simultaneously to graze on, camp on, raise wood on, hike
on, and mine the same irrigated farmland. Yet, some of our multiple
use fantasies verge upon being this absurd.

Von Neumann has demonstrated thatit is not possible to maximize
for more than one variable. Optimization for many variables means,
per force, maximization for none. And the more items we try to opti-
mize, the lower the optimal level common to them all.

Thus, we cannot simultaneously achieve a desirable situation
with components so diverse as oil and gas wells (virtually all of
North Carolina's coastal waters are under lease for exploration pur-
poses), ocean outfalls, nuclear reactors, fish and marine life, min-
ing phosphate lying under rivers (North Carolina receives rentals on
such deposits each year; yet, it is difficult to imagine how they
will ever be extracted without marine life catastrophe), tourism and
agri cul ture.

What is to be permitted inust be rather severely limited if we
are to succeed at al I. The cri ti.cal watch word must be conrpatabiZity.
Marshes, rivers, fishing, conventional small-farm agriculture, and
tourism (supported bymunicipal or regional water and wastewater sys-
tems) would seem to be a compatible arrangement. Ocean outfalls,
after advanced treatment, might prove acceptable, given sufficient
137

depth and distance, hut piping effluent to the mainland would be
superior to subsurface disposal. Large farming operations, necessi-
tating extensive draining, ground exposure, fertilizing, and pesti-
cide use should be discouraged as should mining and possibly off-
shore drilling activities, although the last might possibly be made
acceptable.

We come, finally, to this essential proposition and guidepost:
let us permit development, yes; but letus permit it as the temporary
and changing thing that it is to occur only within the context of
preserving our great permanent natural resources.

Let us bring an end to an environment which in the words of
Emerson "eats upon itself," and let us teach the "mind of this coun-
try" to aim at higher objects. Ours is a moment of great opportuni-
ty. The stakes are vast, and the outcome is crucial. No challenge
could be greater than the one before us.

138

FIRST THE WATER, THEN THE SEWER, THEN LAND
USE PLANNING: COASTAL PLANNING IN
RETROSPECT AND IN THE NOW

James R. Hinkley, AIP
North Carolina office of State Planning

Here I am, a land-use planner, talking to a conference on water
supply and wastewater. Land-use planners have been responding to peo-
ple such as you for years. In many instances, not onlyin our coastal
areas but elsewhere in our nation, land-use planning for community
development decision-making has been beside the point whether plans
to follow existed or not. Water and sewer extensions and street and
highway construction since time in memorium, and recently, zoning,
very unfortunately have been the setters of land-use and growth pat-
terns. In coastal North Carolina, these three growth pace-setters,
individually and inconcert, can be 'consideredtobe growth management
and direction mechanisms. In most all cases, these planning tooZs
have been applied unconsciously, without benefit of comprehensive
municipal, county, regional, state, or federal planning.
Let me define comprehensive planning for the purpose of this
presentation. Comprehensive planning is a process which includes
goal setting, policy formulation, survey and analysis of existing con-
ditions, design, implementation tool development and application,
community facilities planning, public improvements programming, and
capital improvements budgeting. The process applies not only to
land use but to all the infrastructure which is necessary to serve a
community, county, or region. The process, out of necessity andgen-
eral democratic principle, includesthe participationof the citizenry
to a high degree. For not to include the people is to spell doom
for even the b@st ofplans. Planners have finally come to this reali-
zation after learning the hard way. The plans on shelves gathering
dust are planners' inanimate trophies won by not leaving their ivory
towers.

The American way of life is less hospitable to planning than
any other. We have an independent spirit and a strong tendency to-
ward free enterprise--"to live and let live" rather than "to live
and to help live" might be our slogan. Doing our own thing is the
way our country has been brought up. But for some strange reason we
are preoccupied with planning; we are at least aware of its need.
Planning is in Vogue. "To plan or not to plan," that is not the
question in North Carolina's coastal area. We must plan, we know
that. The real question is: "Must we implement?" The answer here
is: "Of course. Why plan if we don't implement?" I am slowly com-
ing to the conclusion, however, that planning is fairly well known to
be harmless since it usually is not implemented, and that is why it
is generally accepted. Recently, I heard this statement which is
apropos: "To plan is human; to implement is divine."

So planning in the Southeast and in the coastal area is popular.
Not because it has been accepted as an integral part of governmental
management, but because it has become in many cases a step in a pro-
cess for local units to become and remain eligible for federal fin-
139

ancial assistance. In North Carolina, at least, community and coun-
ty planning, and in some cases regional planning, have been going on
for years. This necessary evil--planning.--has been in part financed
through the HUD 701 planning program. Urban, rural, and regional
planning grants from the Department of Housingand Urban Development,
under the provision of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as
amended, were given to local units of government which matched up to
one-third of the total planning cost. Most of the technical assist-
ance has been provided by the Division of Community Assistance of the
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources since
the late 1950's. A large number of local units have completed the
elements of the 701 planning program, but little evidence of plan
application can be seen. Of the 412 active municipal corporations
in North Carolina, over 200 have received assistance from the Divi-
sion of Community Assistance along with about 75 counties. And at
least 25 to 30 other local units of government are large enough and
well off enough to hire professional planning staffs full time. Ex-
cept in a very few cases, one cannot distinguish the planned towns
from the unplanned towns in North Carolina. Our track record is not
good. My point is: we have planned a lot; we are obsessed with plan-
ning. But our implementation record leaves much to be desired. We
are hypocrites.

PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA

North Carolina has been called the most rural state. It has the
largest rural non-farin population in the nation. Although we rank
eleventh with over 5 million people, some 55 percent live in non-
urban areas. The coastal area (20 counties designated by the Coastal
Management Act) is even more rural with 60 percent living in non-urban
areas. Patterns of development in coastal North Carolina are not com-
pletely typical of those found in other parts of our Eastern Seaboard.
There is at least one significant difference. There is a broadcast
distribution of rural communities of fewer than 2500 inhabitants.
Other states in the Southeast have large concentrations ofpopulation
on their costs with relatively fewer incorporated municipalities.

As accessibility improved over the years, towns in the coastal
area began to change in nature. Rather than each providing the en-
tire range of services necessary to support its immediate area, many
communities began to provide specialized services in order to with-
stand the new economic competition from more accessible urban cen-
ters.

New concentrations of population are generated by the location
of consolidated schools and new industries. These kinds of peopze
generators give rise to residential subdivision development. Settle-
ments are appearing on the rural landscape in response to strategi-
cally placed special uses.

lndu6t@iaUzat@on sans UAbanization

It is not uncommon to hear of coastal residents traveling 50 to
60 miles one way to work every day. This phenomenon is marked by
car pooling and crossroads parking lots which dot the countryside.
North Carolina's coastal industrial development plays checkers with
existing settlements. The industrial-residential checkerboard devel-
140

opment pattern can be seen most clearly. Much of the new industry
which has been lured to the coastal area tends to locate out in the
wide open spaces at chief highway interchanges, along major rivers,
and at large mineral deposits, but with the important factor of dis-
tance from a number of surrounding communities (which are willing to
overextend themselves in providing services such as water and sewer,
fire and police protection, and other services) also serving in site
location. The tendency to drive long distances to earn a living is
also influenced substantially by the strong ties the coastal North
Carolinian has to his land. These ties provide roots and security--
a homestead. Owning land is a part of the Great American Dream. The
influence of this heritage continues the strongest in rural areas
where the people are closest to the land.

PERPETUATING THE PATTEF44

Ru,4a Ruidentiat-1ndu,6t&&e StAip Devetopment

The industrialization of eastern North Carolina without signifi-
cantly adding to existing communities and without building new towns
has contributed to strip development along major highways. It is be-
coming more uncommon to travel along a major highway and not to be
within site of homes or other buildings. Most amazing is the density
of yard lights that one sees dotting the countryside as he flies
across the area at nighttime. In recent months, I have had the op-
portunity of taking Piedmont Airlines' 11:00 p.m. Raleigh-Kinston-
Wilmington flight. Rural residential development along paved roads
stretching out as tentacles between towns andto special use complexes
is on the rise. The density accentuated at night by yard lights is
really amazing.

The coastal-rural strip development phenomenon can be compared
to commercial strip development which takes place between communities
in metropolitan areas. NC-11 running through Bethel, the Burroughs-
Wellcome and Procter and Gamble Plant complexes, Greenville, the
Pitt Technical Institute complex, Winterville, Sonoco Corporation
complex, Ayden, Grifton, the DuPont industrial area, Graingers, and
Kinston is an example of a rural residential -industrial strip develop-
ment route. The proposed Winterville-Ayden-Grifton sewer line, if
implemented, will serve to strengthen this strip development.

In rural areas the federal and state governments play key roles
in perpetuating strip development patterns suchas this. Thedecision-
making, by default, is not totally in local government hands--it
lies with agencies suchasthe Farmers Home Administration (FHA), the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the State.
Water and sewer planning studies were financed by FHA in all except
eight metropolitan counties in North Carolina. This planning, which
in most cases received cursory review and quick approval of county
planning boards and commissioners, plots mains and lines in virtually
all areas where rural residential developmenthas alreadytaken place.
The prime purpose of the plans was to insure that as many existing
homes and other uses as possible would be served. Implementation of
the plans (completed in 1970-71) will perpetuate and induce new strip
development in rural areas. The irony hem is that the Department of
Agriculture in recent years also has been promoting good land use
planning. The Department has talked about the atrocities of strip
141

development, of inordinate prime agricultural land consumption, and
of the need for differential tax treatment for farmland to protect
it. At the same time, one of its agencies (FHA) promotes just what
the Department preaches against.

FHA's housing assistance and HUD's 236 housing programs directed
at building single-family housing units for lower to moderate income
people also have been partly responsible for perpetuating strip de-
velopment. Homes are built along major highways where investments
for access and street paying can be kept to a minimum. An example of
this can be seen along the rural sections of US-264--the Wilson-
Saratoga- Farmvi I le-Greenvi Ile strip.

State departments such as Natural and Economic Resources, Public
Education, and Community Colleges influence placementof industry and
institutions in rural areas. DNER has been very influential in the
not too distant past in placing new plants in areas beyond where
needed infrastructure exists. Evidence of new industry location just
outside municipal limits or even extraterritorial land use control
areas can easily be established. Community colleges and technical
institutions also have had a very strong tendency to locate several
miles from towns. And their existence has perpetrated the extension
of services and utilities long distances intothecounty. Invariably,
the routes of these extensions become new growth lines which will
become strips of residences often times straining the services in-
stalled to serve the industrial or institutional development at the
end of the line. This type of development has been promoted by the
State, but the State now knows better. Several bodies and agencies
are speaking out against this type of development.

You know as well as I, and even better I suspect, what water
and sewer extension can do to promote growth. Let we tell you about
zoning. Many county governments believe that zoning is planning.
And in a sense it is, because zoning sets a pattern for land devel-
opment. "Not to plan is to plan." Where abutting local units of gov-
ernment are not planning together, zoning canbemisused, abused, and
tragic in consequences.

An example here is the strip zoning by counties of governments
major arterials radiating from communities. The zoning sets the
stage for development. What happens is that the county, although it
has no idea what it is promoting, is planning for community expansion.
As communities annex land to provide more sophisticated services for
developed areas, they inherit the land uses perpetrated by counties.
This way, options for growth for the community are all but eliminated.
Zoning can be a wolf in sheep clothes. A specific example of this
miscarriage of planning tool application can be seen between Raleigh
and the Durham County line on US-70 and between Raleigh and Garner.
Raleigh is inheriting the poor development practices promoted by Wake
County.

In short, planning coastal North Carolina has not left a good
mark. The mode has been unplanned growth, or more accurately, growth
without regard for plans. The response to the demand for services
has been unplanned and more like panic responsetoneed without long-
range financial consideration. In one instance, I know of a city
council which was surprised by an announcement in the newspaper that
stated that the local school board was going to build a new high

142

school just outside the municipal limits. To the amazement of the
council, the article went into detail as to how the new school would
use city water and sewer. Without reference to the city plan and
without the courage to say, "no, this is not applicable," the council
moved into a response mode: "Howdowe meetthe school board's needs?"

Another case is typical. A small industry located just beyond
a town to take advantage of lower taxes in the county, but the new
plant wanted a 10-inch town water main to insure proper operation of
its sprinkler system. The sprinklers were to be installed to allow
the company to benefit from lower fire insurance rates.

In still another case, a plantwas situated just beyond a town's
extraterritorial planning limits so that it did not have to meetzon@
ing and subdivision standards. The town installed a water main and
the county paid for the materials. Subsequently, along the main a
number of homes and a convenience shopping center were built. Be-
fore long, water pressure required by the plant was insufficient.
The town considered building another water tower and laying a larger
pipe parallel to the existing main. Every move the town and county
made after that to respond to this need seemed to get them in deeper
and more expensive trouble. The plant which was lured to the area
hired 50 people of which only two or three resided or shopped in the
town. Many lived out in the country or in surrounding communities
and counties.

Sotution6 on the HoAizon

The 1974 North Carolina General Assembly passed two pieces of
landmark legislation--the Coastal Area Management Act and the State
Land Policy Act. A Coastal Resources Commission and Coastal Resour-
ces Advisory Council have been activated to guide the formulation of
land use plans in each of 20 counties and their respective municipali-
ties in the coastal area. In addition, the Commission will designate
areas of environmental concern including marshlands, beaches, sand
dunes, navigable waters, national and state parks, and areas of his-
torical importance. Use of these areas is not prohibited but will
require extreme care. A permit system will be put into effect. Any
development within an area of environmental concern must have a per-
mit including: projects of greater than 20 acres, drilling and exca-
vating, construction of one or more structures in excess of 60,000
square feet, and any projects currently needing state perTnits. Lo-
cal units of government will be asked to issue permits.

In this case, local units of governments are called upon again
by a higher authority to plan. This time, through the auspices of
the Coastal Management Act, it is the state rather than the federal
government. Some have questioned the need to do land use planning
for whole towns and counties when the thrust of the Act tends to em-
phasize the importance of Areas of Environmental Concern. We must
gear ourselves to plan as comprehensively as possible. To leave out
elements is foolish. Urban and rural development affect water qual-
ity, air quality, vegetation, wildlife, and other elements of the en-
vironment. We must look at our situation as a unit. I do not be-
lieve that we are biting off more than we can chew, and I do believe
that land use planning is an integral part of managing the coastal
area--at the municipal, county, regional, and state level in con-
cert. The pitfall which must be faced in coastal planning is the
143

arch-enemy of all planning--apathy. This can be avoided by insuring
strong citizen participation--an element which is being emphasized
in coastal management for North Carolina. If participation is suc-
cessfully achieved, the coastal management effort will be a success.
If it is not achieved, it will fail. In the words of Jim Wallace,
"Commercial enterprise will succeed in warping the coastal area out
of shape."

The land of North Carolina is a resource basic to the welfare
of her people. As we become more industrialized, as we continually
change our places of residence, and as our population increases, the
demand for land for residential, commercial, industrial, transporta-
tion, institutional, and energy production purposes increases. This
demand appears to have taken precedence over our one-time basic de-
pendence upon the land for sustenance--food production, wood and
fiber supply, and water and mineral extraction.

North Carolina's towns and cities are growing, and they are con-
suming lands at an increasing rate which have been historically val-
uable for other purposes. Many communities of necessity and conven-
ience were settled in the midst of the State's best farmland. As
these municipalities expand, conflicts in land use must be faced.
These conflicts present us with some very difficult decisions. We
are called to insure that the very land resource upon which we have
depended for so long is not completely consumed or destroyed by non-
sustentative needs. To enable preservation and enhancement of our
land resource, to come to grips with inordinate use and consumption
of land in North Carolina, and to deal realistically with necessary
trade-offs, the 1974 General Assembly passed the Land Policy Act.

The Land Policy Act is a state law which gives state government
the responsibility for formulating policy for direction of land con-
servation and development. The Act also requires the creation of a
land classification system for counties to use in guiding future use
of land. Through a land classification system, counties and munici,-
palities will be given some new land use planning tools to provide
direction for growth, utilities extension, and to protect local
amenities from desecration and destruction.

In accordance with the State Land Policy Act, a Land Policy
Council andan Advisory Committee on Land Policy have been appointed.

Land PoZicy CounciZ. The Council is a 14-member body consist-
ing of: the principal officers of the State Departments of Adminis-
tration, Agriculture, Commerce, Cultural Resources, Natural and Eco-
nomic Resources, Revenue, Human Resources, and Transportation; the
Lieutenant Governor and a senator appointed by hiin; the Speaker of
the House and a representative appointed by him; and two elected lo-
cal officials, one each selectedbythe Association of County Commis-
sioners and the League of Municipalities. The Counci'l is chaired by
the Secretary of Administration.

The Land Policy Counci.1 has been chargedby the General Assembly
to formulatethe policy and land classification system. The Council's
broader purpose is to promote orderly growth and development in a
manner consistent with the wise use and conservation of North Caro-
lina's land resources: (1) preparing a land use informati,on system
for the State and local units of government; (2) considering inter-
144

state aspects of land use issues; (3) accountin for institutional
and financial resources for land use planning; N establishing a
method of identifying areas of environmental concern; (5) providing
the technical assistance and training programs in land use for State
and local agency personnel; (6) instituting a method for coordinat-
ing all State and local programs and services which significantly
affect land uses; and (7) preparing a system of valuation of property
related to public services available in land classification. The
Council will hold six public hearings--two each in the Coastal, Pied-
mont, and Mountain areas during the first half of 1976.

Advisory Comittee on Land Policy. The Committee is a 24-member
body appointed by the Governor. Twelve members are selected (six
each) from a list ofelected officials recommended by the Association
of County Commissioners and the League of Municipalities. Twelve are
selected from a broad cross-section of interests including farming,
agribusiness, forestry, land development, home building, manufactur-
ing or extractive industries, parks and recreational management, the
tourist industry, the environmental and/or health sciences, and public
interest organizations. The Governor designates the chairperson and
vice-chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Land Policy.

The Committee advises the Land Policy Council in formulating
policies and management techniques, in securing full public partici-
pation, in developing the Land Classification,System, in identifying
possible future problem areas, and in providing assistance in other
ways. The Committee serves as the chief lin@ with the people. One
of its prime purposes is to openly disseminate proposals and altern-
atives, provide opportunities for public comment, and develop in-
formation and education programs in support of the Council's deter-
mining State Land Policy.

The North Carolina General Assembly has proclaimed that the land
is a basic resource. It has also found that there have been incon-
sistencies inpolicy and inadequacies in planning for the present and
future uses of the land resource. These shortcomings stem from a
lack of: coordination of governmental action; clearly stated, sound
and widely understood guidelines for planning; and systematic col-
lection, classification and utilization of information regarding the
State's land resources.

The General Assembly also has found that governmental agencies
responsible for controlling land use and private and public users of
land are often independently unable to develop guidelines for land
use practices. This ability is basic in providing adequate and mean-
ingful di recti on for future demands on the 1 and resource whil e at the
same time allowing current needs to be met. It was also stated that
systematic and sound decisions as tothe location and nature of major
public investments in key facilities are crucial. Sound planning
cannot be done without a comprehensive State policy regarding North
Carolina's land resource.

The General Assembly declared that all those who would be af-
fected by a State land use policy and decisions must be given an op-
portunity for full participation in the policy and decision-making
process. The process must allow for the final implementati,on of pol-
icy by local governments. The State is charged to do what it can to

145

encourage and assist local units of government in meeting their re-
sponsibility to control current uses and to guide future uses of the
land resource.

Let us look at the State land classification system which is
emerging. The system consists of five simple classes of land called
Developed, Transition, Community, Rural, and Conservation. Each of
these five classes is mutually exclusive; taken together they will
cover all the lands of the State.

The land classes will accommodate all types of land uses. Lo-
cal land use plans frequently contain from ten to twenty different
land use categories. There are only five land classesin the system.
Simplified land use plans could result.

The classes represent degrees of land development intensity or
population density. Ranging from Developed, which is urban in nature
with a high density, to Conservation, which is completely undeveloped,
the classification system covers the entire range of development in-
tensity.

The land classes are a clear expression of comitment to public
facilities and services. Some of the classes of land will require
few or no public services, as in the case of conservation. Other
classes will entail a commitment to a complete range of urban ser-
vices, as in the Developed and Transition classes. The demand for
public services is geared to the intended land use and the intensity
of development.

The classifying of lands will be the responsibility of local
government. The State will formulate the rules and standardsby which
all lands are to be classified. As lands am classified by local
government, the State will ensure that fundsfornew facilities, pur-
chase of land and easements, and regulation of development will be
consistent with the land classification plans. Hence, implementation
will be based upon the intent of land use planning. Local units will
commit themselves to growth management and economy in service and
utilities provision.

Land classification serves as a basic tool for coordinating num-
erous policies and regulations at the local and State levels. Coord-
ination may be described in five applications:

1. The land classification system is a method of linking
local land use plans and State land use policies. The
land classes are applied in practice by local govern-
ment but within the context of State Land Policy.

2. The system provides a framework for budgeting and plan-
ning for investmentsin land in advance of need and de-
velopment. Lands classi,fi.ed Conservation will alert
State and local agencies to areas, that should be given
high pri,ority for buying land for recreation. Like-
wise, land classi.fi.ed Transition will alert local and
State officials to begi.n acquiring land and easements
for water, schools, fire stations, recreation, streets
and sewers. By i.dentifyi.ng such lands in advance,
State and local governments can work together toward
146 common ends by budgeting for use in advance.

3. The system provides a framework for budgeting and plan-
ning for community facilities such as water and sewer,
fire and police protection, etc. Resources of many
State and federal agencies are expended in grant pro-
grams to assist with construction of water, sewer and
many other community facilities. The State-local sys-
tem of land classification will lead to coordination
of all these diverse programs.

4. The system provides a framework for coordinating regu-
latory policy. For example, lands classified Conser-
vation deserve special attention from State regulatory
agencies. In Transition lands, local government needs
to mobilize its zoning powers and subdivision regula-
tions based on land use plans within the context of
classification to assistin orderly growth and develop-
ment.

5. The system provides a framework for the equitable dis-
tribution of the land tax burden. Private lands class-
ified for Rural purposes need to be taxed at a rate
that is compatible with the use of the land as a re-
source, while land that is provided with more public
services needs to be taxed at a rate that reflects the
higher density of development.

In short, land classification is a system for joint local-state
involvement in land use planning and management. It provides a wide
range of choices for local government in deciding its own future. At
the same time,it provides an opportunity for the people of the State
to ensure that their needs are met.

Along with EPA 208 planning, these two Acts (Coastal and State
Planning) may turn land use planning into a viable management tool
rather than the sham or false prophet that it is today. Through
strong public involvementthe new planning tools coming down the pike
have a good chance of being of value.

In addition to involving the general public, there is a dire
need to work evangelically among public utility directors, city and
county engineers and managers, and local elected officials to bring
them around to participating in comprehensive planning and to seeing
its value. Importance must be placed in comprehensive land use plan-
ning by people such as you for it to also gain acceptance by the gen-
eral public.

I hope that I can someday title a speech: First the PZanning,
Then the Water, Then the Sewer: Coastal Planning in the Now. I can
only wish that I can live long enough to deliver it someday.

Thank you for your attention.

147

ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF COASTAL WASTE
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

Ronald M. North
Associate Director
Institute of Natural ilesources
University of Geo-rgia

Our topic for discussion contains three insurmountable oppor-
tunities--economic implications, coastal areas, and waste disposal.
The three combined should be sufficient to challenge our minds and
imaginations for a half hour. It seems that the majority of our
speakers have engineering backgrounds. I presume that a large num-
ber of you participating also have engineering and related technical
backgrounds or at least work regularly with engineers in solving wa-
ter supply and waste disposal problems of your communities and cli-
ents. Given your professional interests and with a disregard for
the fact that economics has been a major growth profession between
the two great depressions, I wish to give a few definitions and
statements of principles.

Such basic reminders to ourselves and to those with whom we
communicate are as essential for economists as for other profession-
als. It is the simplicity of the principles which we must remember
whether it is Boyle's Law, Newton's Law, or Gresham's Law. These
principles were astutely formulated and have been both intuitively
and empirically demonstrated thousands of times.

Our first concernis the most basic of economic principles which
might apply to our discussion and to our effort to provide some sys-
tematic analysis to the job of improving wastewater disposal in the
coastal areas. The general theory of political economy can be sum-
marized by two laws of economics. The first law: "There ain't no
such thing as a free lunch;" and the second law: "Them that has gets."
You recognize, of course, that these laws define the full range
of implications for all economic decisions. Furthermore, these laws
define the real implications of most choices made in society whether
those choices are consciously economic or political or technical or
operational. The first law is obviously the economist's fetish with
efficiency. Every choice involves a complex matrix of costs either
monetary or opportunity. Every decision incurs or imposes costs,
either to the decision maker or to someone else. Th.e-minimization
of these costs or its equivalent, the maximization of profits, pro-
vide the objective functions and criteria by which we measure effi-
ciency in a competitive, free-market economy.

The second law is the iron law of distribution which determines
the incidence of benefits and costs which results from any economic
or political decision and from-most technical decisions. This is
the familiar equity or distribution impact of such decisions. This
impact is resolved in the competitive economy by decisions to trans-
fer certain economic or welfare gains and losses among affected
groups--those both favorably and adversely affected. The final dis-
tribution of economic goods isdetermined by the net result of owner-
ship of or access to resources plus the transfers which are effected
either voluntarily or under duress.
148

Therefore, the resultof any policy decision, political maneuver,
technical development or operational activity is likely to spawn two
consequences: an efficiency consequence; i.e., how much is produced
or saved, and a distributional consequence; i.e., how is the product
factored among the owners of resources and among others in the econ-
omy. These two impacts occur rather simultaneously, and it is often
difficult to precisely define the magnitudes. However, for those
economic goods and services and resources with an established market
one can make reasonable estimates of both efficiency and equity im-
pacts.

The case of wastewater disposal is one exception of sorts since
water is usually a negative economic good, and waste disposal is a
negative economic service. We only need to realize that we incur
costs to dispose of wastewater without any corresponding benefits
except inthose activities where reuse and recycling produce a valued
by-product. Therefore, the intuitive reaction to waste disposal is
to avoid costs by discharging our wastes directly to our land, our
water courses or our air and in so doing rid ourselves of liabilities
or negative economic goods. The accepted and institutionalized ap-
proach to wastewater disposal is to discharge the effluent at the
least cost to ourselves directly. We wish to disown or to dispossess
ourselves of waste as quickly as possible. We only want ownership
and responsibility for positives--not negatives.

The efficiency argument for direct discharge of wastewater to
the environment is based on the concept that Mother Nature can dis-
pose of the waste by recycling at the lowest possible cost; viz., at
zero cost and, hopefully, at some positive replenishment of resour-
ces. Unfortunately, the limits of nature's assimilative capacity
are quickly reached when populations are dense and when industrial
processes are concentrated.

We observe that for at least two classes of goods and services
we do not have established markets. These are the public goods and
the option goods. Briefly, the public goods include all those goods
and services which we acknowledge the need of but which we can some-
how avoid the payment for without compulsion. Option demands are
those cultural and environmental values we reserve and pay for pri-
vately without any particular expectation of direct benefit. Waste-
water disposal is one of those public goods which we deem free until
such time as we recognize the social costs imposed on all of us by
ourselves. Since we as individuals do not wish to assume responsi-
bility for waste disposal as long as nature will assimilate such
wastes or as long as we can transfer waste disposal costs to another
group, we are faced with the necessity for public measuresto protect
all of us collectively from ourselves individually. Even though
waste disposal seems to be a public good, we cannot avoid the need to
consider both the efficiency and equity consequences of the numerous
technical and institutional alternatives for solving the problem.

The economic implications of waste disposal are derived from
these dual considerations of efficiency and equity. First, the ef-
ficiency consideration is thatof "how much wastewater disposal must
we have and what is the least cost method of getting the amount we
need?" Secondly, the equity consideration is that of "who is to pay
for the wastewater disposal we need?"

149

It becomes abundantly clear thatthe mostly subjective decisions
of what quality of water we want and the mostly technical decisions
of the least-cost method of achieving a given water quality are di-
rectly related to the question of who pays or how do we distribute
the costs. A third factor also related to those of efficiency and
equity isthe existence or development of an institutional system for
managing our water quality. In fact, the institutional arrangements
are likely to affect the efficiency and distribution impacts of
wastewater disposal more than the choice of the technical alterna-
tives. Without our development and acceptance of new institutional
arrangements, we are not likely to use the best technical solutions
for maintainina water quality. If we are not willing to adjust jur-
isdictional boundaries orto impose taxes and fines for effluent dis-
charges, our costs for wastewater disposal are likely to be much
higher than they should be, and we are likely to impose adverse trans-
fers of these costs.

Before further discussion of economic implications and wastewa-
ter disposal, I would like to address the central theme of this con-
ference which involves the coastal environment. First, the environ-
ment is where we all live and always have lived, but we didn't know
it until a few years ago. The coastal area is a difficult simultane-
ous equation. It is at once both a very sensitive ecological area
and a very tough natural system. I once heard a paper entitled, The
Pconlisun, which described this remarkable paradox (Eller). The author
was familiar with coastal ecology generally and, in case you recog-
nized the term PwnZisun, he was also familiar with the great Pamlico
Sound to the north of us.

This thesis was that man's efforts to tame the coast, especially
the Pamlico Sound, were ultimately futile given the great forces which
formed, maintained, and reformed the coastal environment. His exam-
ples were the great man-made drainage projects for agriculture and
the historical sites of man-made settlements, neither of which could
survive the natural forces of wind and water and sun. But the Pcan-
Usun lived on. He also noted the substantial ecological damages
produced by the improper alterations of the PanZisun, such as excess-
ive silt from the drainage projects or the beach erosion from build-
ing on the protective dunes or the waste loads from the towns and
industries.

Professor Eller, as many of you, was aware of the fragility of
both the coastal ecological system and of the coastal economic sys-
tem--both of which could be damaged easily by the intrusions of man.
He was also aware of the powerful forces of the PconZisun which could
correct the intrusions with the next storm or wear them away with
the relentless tide, and winds and sun. Our coastal areas in the
Southeast were the first settled and are yet the least developed be-
cause of the heavy costs of trying to maintain a superficial econom-
ic system.

If we build our motels and summer houses on the beach, that
beach disappears in a few years to be replaced by rock riprap or
concrete or by so-called beach nourishment programs paid for by in-
vestors from the hinterlands or by the taxpayers through the Corps
of Engineers. The superficial coastal community is maintained by
large imports of capital. Also, if we build our industries on the
estuaries where there must be (in our mind's eye) infinite sources

150

of dilution water for our concentrated wastes and unlimited ground-
water for our processes, then we are soon faced with empty or con-
taminated oyster beds and salt-water aquifers. In this instance,
there are dual economic implications. First, we are subsidizing con-
sumers of these products by not including the full costs of their
production in the prices. Secondly, we are imposing significant
costs on the natural and survivable coastal industries to subsidize
consumers elsewhere until such time as we recognize this problem and
act to internalize these costs or cross subsidize the disinherited
industries. In summary, the coastal zone has particular problems in
combating the adverse effects of wastewater disposal both from its
own effluents and from those disposed of upstream.

These observations are not made with any intent to suggest that
we should not use our coast, thatwe should not build homes and motels
or factories or plant soybeans. However, I am suggesting that the
alternatives we speak of in economics must include the full costs of
our activities and demands if we are to pursue and preserve both a
viable economy and a healthy, attractive environment. This means
that we should intensify our efforts to identify and to implement
both the technological and institutional alternatives for waste dis-
posal and water quality along the coastal zone.

The coastal zone is faced with the dual problems of accepting
the unassimilated waste loads from the hinterlands and of providing
the buffer or transition zone between the marine and upland environ-
ment. These stresses are particularly severe when there are low
flows from upstream catchments or droughts or heavy waste loads from
mal functi oning treatment pl ants or storm runoff from non-point sources.
It is the coastal zone which bears the real costs of stream or estu-
ary degradation. This means that the coastal zone may be asked to
share a disproportionate burden when stream standards are critical
or when upstream effluents are not properly managed. Also, the ef-
fluent from the coastal communities will often be the marginal in-
crement of waste load which degrades the system below its optimum
assimilative or environmentally sound capacity. This is particular-
ly true of the estuaries.

It is imperative that I use this time to.address the economic
and institutional alternatives for coastal zone wastewater disposal
in greater detail than the technological alternatives. The technolo-
gical alternatives of biological and chemical treatment, deep well
i njecti on, di rect recycl ing, ocean outfal 1 , I and treatment, and other
variations have been well treated by specialists in these methods.
My greatest challenge in a meeting such as this is to outline the
economic alternatives which produce the incentives to achieve the
required water quality standards efficiently and equitably for the
sensitive coastal zone.

We approach these economic alternatives with the four basic
questions of economic choice: (1) How much water quality (or waste-
water treatment) do we want and with what degree of certainty? (2)
What system of technological alternatives will provide our water
quality demands? (3) What institutional arrangements are required
to achieve an efficient and equitable wastewater disposal system?
and (4) Who is to pay for the water quality achieved? The final
achievement of any water quality level will rest with the choices
made for each of these questions. 151

The following outline ofeconomic alternatives are sufficient to
show that the real progress in achieving improved water quality in
the coastal areas will rest in the implementation of the appropriate
technical systems, orcombinations of technical systems--not on their
development. As we can see, the technical alternatives are well
known, but it is our reluctance to adopt the least-cost alternatives
which inhibit our progress in wastewater disposal.

OUTLINE OF ECCNOMIC ALTERNATIVES FOR COASTAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

How Much Wate& QuaUty?

What is the demand function for water qualities?
What is the demand function for wastewater disposal?
What are the economic uses of water downstream?
What are the benefit-cost relationships for effluent dis-
charge versus zero discharge?
What are the ecological parameters of various stream qual-
ities?
What are the assimilative capacities, nutrient needs of
given streams and estuaries?
What are the life support needs of given streams and estu-
aries?
How much water quality can we afford?

What In.6titutionof- AAAangement6 a)Le RequiAed?

Should organizations for wastewater management be local
only or river basin or estuary?
Should legal systems be redefined to increase responsibil-
ity for waste disposal?
Should permits be issued for variations in effluent or
stream standards?
Should effluent standards or stream standards or a combin-
ation be adopted?

How Shoutd the WateA QuaUAy Levet6 be Paid jo&?
Should costs be internalized by lawso that users pay (i.e.,
an absolute zero discharge)?
Should effluent taxes or fees or general assessments be
levied for wastewater disposals?
Should water supplies be sold with surcharges for waste
disposal?
Should subsidies from general funds be continued so we can
avoid direct responsibility for waste disposal?

A few examples of wastewater management studies will serve to
illustrate our lack of resolve in trying to achieve an efficient and
152

equitable wastewater management system. These studies of the Potomac
and Delaware Estuaries are most appropriate for this conference where
we are concerned with similar estuarine water quality problems.

In these studies the first question to answer is how much water
quality? This seems to be a silly question--one which only an econ-
omist would ask. The question deserves a serious answer. First,
what are our alternatives for the amount of water quality? Briefly
stated, our alternatives range from that of unlimited discharge of
effluents into our water courses plus the damages and degradation
from development schemes to the pristine or rainwater standard. That
is, in terms of economic costs, we can minimize individual or intern-
al costs by unlimited effluent discharges and fail to provide public
waste discharge services for zero direct costs and unknown social
costs. Or, we can internalize all costs by demanding private or pub-
lic treatment to at least drinking water standards at a rather high
direct cost and minimum social costs. For today's requirements un-
der P.L. 92-500, these levels range from no treatment to zero dis-
charge of pollutants.

The correct approach to this question of how Tnuch water quality
depends on a consolidation of much knowledge of the relationships
among waste treatment levels, stream quality results, and downstream
water uses. Even though water quality standards are usually based
on technological parameters such as BOD5 removed or D.O. levels main-
tained, the correct approach should be based more on ecological par-
ameters such as primary productivity or diversity indices when these
dynamics are more fully discovered. When effluent standards are de-
fined and maintained for ecological rather than technological param-
eters, then we will be achieving a true economic efficiency for a
market system in which all costs are internalized. There should be
no externalities or social costs related to wastewater disposal when
such ecological standards are met vith polluters paying the full
costs; i.e., with no subsidies.

Examples of viable alternatives for stream standards have been
proposed with respect to the studies in the Delaware and Potomac Es-
tuaries (Tables I and 2). In these studies various technical altern-
atives were proposed to maintain dissolved oxygen from 2 ppm D.O. to
7 ppm D.O. The costs of 4 ppm D.O. levels would range from a low of
$20 million for simple instream reoxygenation to $140 million for low
flow augmentation and up to $170 million for convention waste treat-
ment methods for the Potomac Estuary (Davis, p. 82). The costs for
similar standardsin the Delaware Estuary are estimated to range from
a low of $10-70 million for a range of 2.5 to 4.5 ppm D.O. with sim-
ple, instream reoxygenation to a high of $130-460 million for uniform,
conventional wastewater treatment methods (Herfindahl and Kneese,
pp. 334-356).

The objective, economic choice must be made with respect to the
expected marginal benefits and marginal costs for the most efficient
solution. For the Delaware Estuary, this would occur at about 3 ppm
D.O. level with less than 90 percent BOD5 removal . An administrative
or subjective decision to maintain a given D.O. level such as 4 ppm
leaves one with only the choice of the least-cost solution to main-
tafn that standard. For the Potomac Estuary this least-cost solution
for 4 ppm D.O. was simple reoxygenation at a system capital cost of
153

$20 million.* For the Delaware Estuary this reoxygenation would cost
only $40 million to achieve the same results as uniform conventional
treatment at a cost of $3.5 million."

Why do we spend $315 million to do a $40 million job? The an-
swer is found in our third and fourth questions of what institutional
arrangements are required for aneffective wastewater disposal system
and who will pay for the system to achieve some degree of equity.
First, we do not have sufficient legal authority nor political ini-
tiative to adopt a system of reoxygenation which displaces the imag-
ined local control over wastewater treatment and discharge. Further-
more, we are most reluctant topropose such institutional flexibility
outside academic reports. Secondly, we have been happy to accept
federal subsidies, which began in 1948 and which have grown with in-
creasing largess, for inefficient methods because we innocently be-
lieve the Federal Government is paying 75 percent of the capital
cost. All we have to do is contract for a conventional, off-the-
shelf treatment plant and directly avoid any institutional innova-
tions. The more serious economic implication of these policies is
the misallocation of resources by subsidizing the most pollution in-
dustries and governments. Adoption of these policies must contribute
to other problems such as inflation, which has been defined as that
condition when nobody has enough money because the government and
everybody else has too much. Perhaps, these inefficiencies are also
explained by the modern definition of progress which occurs every
year when it takes less time to fly across the Atlantic and more time
to drive to the office.

These costs are system costs including capital plus Operation-
Maintenance-Replacement (OM&R) for a 50-year plant at a 4 percent
discount rate for an estimated operation of 3.5 months annually.
These costs are system costs based on a 20-year plant life at a
discount rate of 3 percent.

154

Table 1

ESTIMATED COSTS OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF WASTE TREATMENT
SYSTEMS FOR PROJECTED 1975-80 WASTELOADS IN THE DELAWARE ESTUARY
DissoTved Conventional trea tment metho dsc o ective
Objective oxygen Unifo rm zoneT-7-75st reoxygenation
set no.a level treatment treatmentl minimization systevP
I
PPM -------------- 7-M" ion dollars ----------------

1 4.5-7.5 460 460 460 70
.2 4.0-6.5 315 250 215 40
3 3.0-6.5 155 120 85 12
4 2.5-5.5 130 80 65 12
5 11.0-7.1 d I d I d d.

a. Provides for 92-98 percent BOD5 removal for all waste sources for
all programs and includes instrearn aeration in critical reaches.

b. This method limited only to maintaining D.O. levels and does not
consider other water quality parameters. It is also partial in
that stream quality upstream or reoxygenation facilities would
be lower than the waste treatment.

c. These waste treatment methods provided for 7 other water quality
parameters including chlorides, coliforms, turbidity, plt, alka-
linity, hardness, phenols.

d. Estimates not available. This objective would be to maintain 1964
conditions without further degradation.

Source: Orris C. Herfindahl and Allen V. Kneese, Economic Theory of
Natural Resources, pp. 340-347.
Table 2
ESTIMATED COSTS OF VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF WASTE
TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR THE POTOMAC ESTUARY
(Based on Standard of 4ppm DO or 90% BOD removal)
System
Alternative treatment system costa
Mi 11 ion
dollars

I . Reoxygenation, Instream 20
2. Chemical Polymers and Reoxygenation 25
3. Step Aeration and Reoxygenation 30
4. Microstrainers and Reoxygenation 36
5. Diversions Downstream and Reoxygenation 36
6. Diversions, Conventional Treatment and Reoxygenation 45
7. Low Flow Augmentation and Reoxygenation 60
B. Low Flow Augmentation, Treatment and Reoxygenation 60
9. Low Flow Augmentation, Primarily 139
10. Conventional Waste Treatment, Primarily 170

a. Based on Capital and Operation, Maintenance andReplacement costs
made equivalent to present value at a discount rate of 4 percent
and 50 years.

Source: Robert K. Davis, The Range of Choice in Water Management -
A Study of DissoZved oxygen in the Potomac Estuary, pp. 79-
83. 155

REFERENCES

1. Robert K. Davis, The Range of Choice in Water Management - A Study
of Dissolved Oxygen in the Potomac Estuary,- The Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, 1968.

2. Professor Eller, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Car-
olina, at a National Science Foundation -sponsored short course,
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, July 1967.
(The exact title of the paper is, regretfully, not remembered;
the message was.)

3. Orris C. Herfindahl and Allen V. Kneese, Economic Theory of Nat-
ural Resources, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus,
Ohio, 1974. For additional detail on the Delaware Estuary Study
see excerpts in Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower, managing
Water Quality: Economics., Technology, Institutions, The Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1968, pp. 25, 225-234, 274-292. Also
see the original study published by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study:
Preliminary Report and Findings., Philadelphia, 1966.

156

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION

QUESTION: (Mr. Mark Stephens to Mr. James R. Hinkley) You stressed
that there was a major problem orfailure to implement land use plans.
I wonder what you thought would be the key problem faced by land use
planners under the Coastal Management Act?
PiR. JAmEs R. HINKLEY: I think one of the key problems that's going
to be faced bycommunities in preparing land use planning is doing it
within a 300-day time period. The General Assembly in all of its wisdom
set a time frame for local land use planning in the Coastal Manage-
ment Act at 300 days. The State wasn't ready with the guidelines crF
development until the first day of those 300 days. The mapping ap-
parently still is in the process of development by the Department of
Natural and Economic Resources. I suspect what's going to happen is
that many plans are going to be insufficient the first time around,
and they will not be approved by the Coastal Resources Commission at
the end of this period. After that period the Commission's reactions
will be given to local units of government. Local units may well
come back with more sufficient plans to meet guideline stipulations.
I suspect implementation will be difficult if the citizenry is not
involved. This could turn out to be a key problem, also. However,
the Department of Natural and Economic Resources has machinery now
getting off the ground where public participation will become an in-
tegral part of the planning process. I believe that when peoDle are
not involved in planning, plans end up on the shelf. There is a pos-
sibility this time that there will be concerted implementation of
local land use planning because the people will be involved. If lo-
cal units use a process such as the one which is being used in Ral-
eigh called GoaZs for RaZeigh, there will be a good chance for imple-
mentation. If I plan for you, you are going to say, "What the hell;
this is my life." If you plan for me, I'm going to say the same
th,ing to you, but if we plan together, with the people, then the chan-
ces of our doing something together are pretty high.
QUESTION: (Dr. Peter Ashton) Why do sewer rates always seem to go
up at the same time when we are seeking economics of scale, regional-
ization, and large-scale operations?
MR, RONALD M. NORTH: Well, I wasn't aware that they always went up,
but I can give you an answer which my colleague at the University of
Georgia, Professor Gene Odom, would give. He contends thatthe econ-
omist doesn't understand economies of scale when we say that bigger
is better. He contends that bigger is not better. Of course, the
theory of economies of scale includes economies as well as disecono-
mies. However, I think we should certainly take a serious look at
regional or basin-wide treatment systems. I could see very clearly
that the cost of collection systems for such basin-wide or regional
treatment organizations could far exceed the costs of conventional
localized treatment systems. However, the problem here is also prob-
ably institutionalized in that we are not identifying the proper al-
ternative. For example, in the Potomac Estuary in the study by
Robert K. Davis for Resources for the Future, the Corps of Engineers
really lookedatonly one alternative. That was low-flow augmentation
which would cost, on a present value, 50 years discounted basis, @40
million to provide four parts per million dissolved oxygen at vari-
ous points in the Potomac Estuary. Davis' study showed, after look-
ing at all the alternatives such as microstrainers, reoxygenation,
157

instream aeration and others t hat the lowest cost alternative, which
is not identified or considered by the people who made the original
plan, would be reoxygenation. This alternative would cost only about
.$20 million on the same basis to achieve the same dissolved oxygen
level. The fact is that we are not selecting the proper alternative,
and we are locked in to some conventional systems which may, in fact,
become increasingly expensive regardless of size because the conven-
tional system is less efficient in the beginning.

COMENT BY MR. ',11ARREN STILES: With a regional management system re-
placing several small systems, we expect better bookkeeping; there-
fore, it is more likely that all costs will be tabulated and in the
proper columns.

We will also have better treatment of our wastes. This presum-
ably transfers an intangible social cost of a damaged environment to
an accountable operating cost.

Professional managers, better trained and usually higher paid
operators, who are not on the job because of nepotism but because of
demonstrated abilities, will insist on better maintenance of equip-
ment and operations. This cost shows up in the annual operations and
maintenance budget and the savings show up in (a) a better environ-
ment, and (b) longer life of plant and equipment.

A classic example is in the treatment of wasted sludge. Many
small plants have antiquated sludge drying beds which can only be
cleaned manually. Lots of man-hours with pitch forks are required.
If the sludge is overboarded or surreptitiously pumped out with the
plant effluent, this operating cost is avoided ... with the added so-
clal cost of concentrated sludge being added to our surface waters.

Another example is comparison of a regional system such as
Greenville, South Carolina, where septic tank service is part of the
regional system budgeted responsibility to any area where septic tank
service is an individual responsibility.

These are transferred costs ... where the user pays a sewer tax
that is higher but avoids individual repair bills to private septic
system repairmen.

Then, there is the individual who does not call a repairman but
knocks a hole in something and lets the partially treated effluent
go where it may. This results in a higher social cost again.

QUESTION: (Dr. Donald Francisco) P. L. 92-500 regulations do allow
for the choosing of the least costly alternative. Would the addition
of industrial surcharges tend to internalize part of the cost?

'
MR. RONALD Mi. NORTH: Well, it would certainly help. I see nothing
@Iut help in that area. However, in Georgia, they are not allowing
the full range of alternatives under P.L. 92-500. The environmental
protection division within the State of Georgia is putting consider-
able pressure on firms to discharge only into the municipal system.
Those fi rms would be charged a certain allocated portion of the tot-
al cost, capital and operating and maintenance. I believe this ap-
plies only to the federal portion of the investments. This would
help internalize costs. However, in Georgia, they are not allowing
158

the firms to choose the design and build their own treatment system
which may be, for those firms, a lower cost alternative than dis-
charging into the municipal system. That would also internalize.
They should have a chance to decide whether they dump into municipal
systems or build their own. If they build their own treatment fa-
cilities, of course, they would have to maintain the effluent stand-
ards that are required.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells) Due to pressures from cities
like Chicago with old systems which have some difficulty, I guess,
in dealing with industrial inputs, EPA has requested that the Act be
amended to credit ad valorem taxes paid in lieu of or in conjunction
with user charges. It seems to me we have just begun to make some
progress on this business of internalizing cost with economic incen-
tives. It gets a little rough as anything does when you are making
a transition, and then we back off and the whole thing goes down the
drain. I may be wrong on that; what was your comment?
MR. RDNALD M. NOR114: Of course, if these ad valorem taxes were al-
ready paying the cost of this water system, you are just making a
technical substitution. To the extent that the ad valorem taxes were
not allocated for some other general purpose, then it is a substitu-
tion, and it may be that the full cost is still not being internal-
ized because users cannot identify the ad valorem taxes with their
particular uses.

QUESTION: (Professor David H. Howells) This wouldn't be the case,
would it, unless ad valorem taxes were, in fact, related to waste
volumes and waste composition? The ad valorem tax may not have any
relationship to the waste discharge and water use. You could have a
good clean electronics assembling plant that would have essentially
nothing but domestic waste but a big ad valorem tax.
MR. PDNALD M. NORTH: You are correct. The ad valorem tax is gener-
al , particularly in a larger town where you have more than one in-
dustry. Effluent tax would not necessarily be related to pollution
load. I'm not recommending it, but I was only suggesting that to
the extent the effluent tax was related to the waste discharge, then
it would simply be a substitution.

QUESTION: (Mr. Frank Reynolds) What do you think of the current or
prevailing tendency tobuild waste treatment plants which are greatly
in excess of current needs, particularly with the apparent slowing
of population growth?
MR. RONALD M. NORTH: The equity question is one of the most serious
that we have. I see nothing particularly wrong with building in ex-
cess capacity if we have a very reasonable and judicious judgment
with respect to what we expect the populations and demands to be.
As a matter of fact, I'm quite in favor of the present generation in-
curring some of the cost of future generations. This is really the
economic explanation of conservation. The present generation pro-
vides something for the future generation. So I don't have any prob-
lem with that. Whether it's fair or not may be another question. I
think it is fair in the sense that we would be perhaps paying for
some of the social cost of things we are consuming today or can ex-
pect for the future. I rationalize that in Tny own mind.

159

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN WATER AND
WASTEWATER PLANNING

Benjamin C. Dysart,, III
Associate Professor
Environmental Systems Engineering
and
Director
Water Resources Engineering Graduate Program
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina

It is a real pleasure to be with you this morning to discuss a
very important aspect of water supply and wastewater in our coastal
areas, an aspect which is normally afforded too little attention and
even that usually provided too late. Previous speakers on the pro-
gram have dealt with some critical technological subjects pertaining
to water and wastewater matters in the coastal zone. I shall address
the matterof public participation because it is absolutely necessary
if we are to have the type of water supply and wastewater systems
which are responsive to current and emerging needs of the public.

I clearly recognize that water and wastewater problems are per-
haps more critical in the coastal zone than in most other areas.
This is due to a number of factors which have been discussed at this
meeting and which are well known to you. Now and in the coming years
we will have large concentrations of people and industry located in
and very near our coastal areas.

It seems that many of the very difficult problems th.at have
arisen concerning development and public acceptance relative to en-
vironmental and water resources mattersin recent years have occurred
in coastal areas. I anticipate that this trend will continue in the
future. I would insist, though, that the coastal zone does not have
a monopoly on such problems!

I would like now toproceed into the matter of public participa-
tion. First, I would ask the question: "Why is public participation
or citizen involvement needed?" The objective of a water or waste-
water plan or project is to respond to legitimate mandates from the
public in a socially responsible manner, considering the relevant
alternatives, long and short-range factors, and the great diversity
of needs. A rather recent EPA document (18) states the purpose of
facilities planning as follows:

The (facilities) planning process features systematic eco-
nomic and environmental evaluationof feasible alternati.ves
and public involvement in the choice amongthe alternatives.

Public works projects in general are not conceived, designed,
and constructed si.mply to keep us engineers busy building things. In
the past, goals, needs, and desires on the part of the public were
much simpler and more straightforward than they are today. Now and
in the future things will be much more complex. We must listen and
be perceptive to changesin preferences which can occur rather quick-
160

ly. Let us very briefly review two key pieces of legislation that
have emphasized this in recent years.

I suppose it would be an understatement to say nothing in our
field has been the same since the passage of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (17). Engineers, planners, and public of-
ficials have always tried to be responsive to the needs of the public
as they could see it. But NEPA told all of us that we had to look at
new dimensions and consider in more depth and explicitly some addi-
tional factors.

The public had a new tool in the required environmental impact
statements and a stronger voicein what sort of public works projects
would be provided. Since NEPA became law in early 1970, there have
been in excess of 400 suits brought charging inadequate evaluation
of environmental impacts (20). These covered a wide variety of proj-
ects, not just in the water supply and pollution control field.

The public desired not simply to react after the fact to proj-
ects and plans they found unacceptable; the public wanted to parti-
cripate in the planning (20). Section 101(e) of the 1972 Water Pol-
lution Control Amendments (16) was quite explicit about this:

Public participation in the development, revision, and en-
forcement ofany regulation, standard, effluent limitation,
plan, or program established by the Administrator (of EPA)
or any State under this Act shall be provided for, encour-
aged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.
(Emphasis added)

This would seem tocover just about everything in the water sup-
ply and wastewater treatment field. Not only should citizen partici-
pation be tolerated but nowit must be "provided for, encouraged, and
assisted."

When the minimum public participation regulations called for in
Section 101(e) of P. L. 92-500 were promulgated in 1973 (19), the
language was clear:

The major objectives of such (public) participation include
greater responsiveness of governmental actions to public
concerns and priorities, and improved popular understand-
ing of official programs and actions. Although the primary
responsibility for water quality decision-making is vested
by law in public agencies at the various levels of govern-
ment, active public involvement in and scrutiny of the in-
tergovernmental decision-making process is des-@rabZe to
accomplish these objectives. Conferring with the public
after a final agency decision has been made will not meet
the requirements of this part. The intent of these regu-
lations is to foster a spirit of openness and a sense of
mutual trust between the public and the State and Federal
agencies in efforts to restore and maintain the integrity
of the Nation's waters. (Emphasis added)
The guidelines (19) went on to point out, among other things,
that public participation should be a continuing process, that it
should be initiated as early as possible, that a variety of formats
161

should be utilized as appropriate (i.e., not sole reliance on meet-
ings and hearings), and that the process should be convenient to the
public. Meaningful summaries of public participation programs de-
veloped and implemented pursuant to these regulations were, with
certain exceptions, to be a part of all plans and grant applications
submitted to EPA for approval or funding.

Public participation in agency decision-making relative to pub-
lic works planning has been recognized as important for a long time.
A public meeting or hearing used to suffice, but not so in recent
years, especially when issues are complex and controversy is pre-
sent (20). In a very recent study, the General Accounting Office
reiterates the message of the EPA guidelines in insisting upon early
involvement, the use of various formats for participation, and a
continuing process of seeking public input (20).

So we see that one very good answer to the questi on , "Why i s pub-
lic participation needed?" is that it is required if we are to get
the job done right today.

As public officials, planners, engineers, or citizens, we are
cognizant of the fact that financial resources for social investment
are indeed limited. We are more aware of this today than we have
been in past years. A great concern I have is that we be effective
in informing the public of the need for and the benefits resulting
from environmental control and water resources developments in gen-
eral.

Those of us who are extremely close to these areas seem to feel
that they are justified and always will be. The public, however,
with a broad array of needs and desires, is constantly trying to de-
termine what benefits they receive from differing areas of public in-
vestment. They are becoming more aware that it is their decision.
I am concerned that in our quest for environmental protection and
certain other areas we may tend to overdo things with the assumption
that the public supports our actions. Improved understanding of en-
vironmental control programs on the part of the general public is
cited as an objective of effective citizen involvement (19).

If we tend to devote what appears to be an excessive amount of
investment in this area without the public fully appreciating what
they are getting, it is quite possible that the public could lose
confidence in us and desire that public funds be allocated to other
areas. It has been noted (20) that "citizens no longer trust gov-
ernment officials to make decisions in the public interest about
public works projects." I, too, have encountered such apprehensions
on the part of a numberof citizens relative to environmental control
decisions.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to do a good job of commun-
icating with the public so that our projects and actions may be more
responsive. My emphasis is on being responsive and not selling our
projects.

If you are a consulting engineer, you are interested in getting
good projects conceived, planned, and implementedin a timely manner.
That is your business. If you are a public official, your principal
interest is in solving a problem for your constituents in a timely

162

manner. In any event, good public participation can help you a great
deal.

The public as a whole can and will influence the future demand
for activities related to the environment and water resources devel-
opment. This includes all facets of water supply and wastewater
treatment, as well as all other areas. Municipalities, federal and
state government agencies, developers, industry, and all other par-
ties can and must consider this as they make projections and perform
their early planning as well as during the process of developing
alternative courses of action (12, 13).

In recent years, we have seen a significant evolution of goals,
preferences, priorities, and attitudes on the part of the public. We
must be aware of the emerging group of consumers, decision-makers,
voters, and citizens. Not too many years ago, bigness was equated
with goocbsess in the minds of most. Today, however, there is con-
siderably more interest in and concern about the quaZity of Zife.
This is being manifested in recent legislation and guidelines per-
taining to water-related planning (17, 21).

All of this will affect the future demands for wastewater treat-
ment, development of new water supplies for expanding populations,
urban and rural development patterns, etc. within any portion of the
coastal zone.

We have seen trends in the past which perhaps indicate an increas-
ing demand for certain services related to water and wastewater. Many
of the projects now under construction, designed, or well along in
the planning process have been based upon this. Being realistic, we
are somewhat limited in the changes that we can make in the very near
future.

The publ i c, however, is going to have a great deal to say as they
change their desires, consumption patt6rns, and attitudes toward de-
velopment as it relates to demand for water-related services on into
the future, outon the planning horizon where many of us are now con-
centrating (12). In five or ten or twenty years, these changing pre-
ferences could well be manifested and could lead to significantly
different demands for water supply and wastewater activity in the
coastal zone. We are inviting difficulty if we try to project too
many trends of the past too far into the future without adequately
involving the public.

As we get into larger-scale systems--e.g., regional water supply
and area-wide wastewater systems, we see that the mix or blend of
art and science changes drastically. For the smaller-scale systems--
e.g., an individual treatment plant--we are more concerned with the
nuts czd boZts or technoZogicaZ matters. As we get into subjects
that are of concern to most of us here, we see that an increasing
facility in economic, institutional, legal, political, and social
matters assumes a tremendously important role. This is contrasted
with the technology, engineering, and more straightforward scientif-
ic aspects of the smaller-scale systems.
As we go into this systems zone where we are encountering some-
times more art than science, we must develop or utilize different
attributes if we are to deal responsibly and effectively with the
163

public (6). Included are matters such as the following: (a) com-
munication skills, (b) sensitivity, (c) perceptiveness, (d) respon-
siveness, (e) openness, (f) sincerity, (g) cooperation, (h) toler-
ance, (i) understanding, (j) willingness to listen, and (k) willing-
ness to work with others. Several of the latter attributes--i.e.,
tolerance, willingnessto listen, and willingness toworkwith others--
are especially important as they relate to working with non-technical
individuals. It is important to note that these are the people who
comprise most of the public or publics. The previously cited GAO re-
port (20) alludes to similar needs on the part of planners. You and
I may feel that we understand how decisions are made concerning pub-
lic works and development matters. Too often, however, large numbers
of the public or key representatives of the public feel this is done
in an environment which is somewhat hostile to and insulated from
public input. They feel that it is very difficult to have inputs or
that comment, advice, and suggestions from the public are not partic-,
ularly welcome.

It will take our very best efforts in the future to achieve amore
desirable and open environment where the public feels welcomet) have
inputs and also where the public feels they are really having some
impact upon what happens. We engineers, planners, and public offi-
cials may think we are doing a thoroughly adequate job; but it is
the public's perception of the process which really counts.

I would now pose the question, "What is effective and meaningful
public participation?" Perhaps we should ease into the matter of
public participation through the side door by considering some
thoughts on just what public participation or citizen involvement
involves.

Really, it is much easier to talk about what public participation
does not involve (14). First, public participation is not "PR." It
is, or at least should be, a great deal more than just a public re-
lations operation which is designed and conducted for the sole pur-
pose of promoting public acceptance of a project.
Second, public participation is not overwhelming the public with
miscellaneous information. Included are notices of public meetings,
fact sheets, various sorts of documents, studies, reports, etc. Too
frequently, the publicis literally overwhelmed with such information
that is not designated to do a very effective job of providing them
with the information that they need to really be prepared to inter-
face with us in a meaningful manner.
Finally, public participation should not be considered as iden-
tically equal to holding a public meeting or hearing in the local
high school gymnasium. Such functions are usually equipped with a
tape recorder so that a record might be provided, a sign-in sheet
(where you sometimes indicate before the meeting whether you wish to
speak for or against the proposal!), dedicated public servants, and
prepared statements presented by opponents and advocates. All too
frequently, these meetings go on for a inore or less previously de-
termined periodof time, perhaps two hours, with the record held open
for 30 days so that additional comments may be received and consid-
ered in reaching a decision. As I will indicate later, this may not
be a very good way to try to achieve effective, Tneaningful public
participation! Both EPA and the GAO have recognized the limitations
of relying strictly on public meetings (19, 20).
164

There is a great deal of difference between taZking to the pub-
lic at a public hearing and communicating with the public utilizing
a variety of formats and on a continuing basis.

Summarizing the previous comments, public participation should
be viewed as neither a frill, a cover-up, a smoke screen, an add-on,
a gimmick, an optional activity, nor an item from the "PR" trick
bag. Public participation is necessary to facilitate good, sound,
responsive, socially acceptable projects and plans. After all, this
is what all of us, you and I, are and should rightly be concerned
with.

Next, I would liketo provide some commentson differing concepts
of public participation. I would like to discuss briefly their ef-
fectiveness, and also suggest some approaches applicable to projects
in the water supply and wastewater treatment areas.

What are the major componentsof a public participation program?
There are three major components that somehow must be provided for
in such a program (14). First, there must be a communication method
to provide information necessary to evaluate project alternatives.
Second, there must be a mechanism for planners and the participating
public to interact. Third, there must be an iterative mechanism for
planners, engineers, and public officials as well as the public or
the publics to review the recommendations after comment has been ob-
tained, additional study has been accomplished, and revisions made.

One investigator (1) has suggested something of an ascending
participation Zadder which might be as follows:

1. manipulation 5. placation
2. therapy 6. partnership
3. informing 7. delegated power
4. consultation 8. citizen control

The first two steps on this Zadder--i.e., manipulation and therapy--
are simply levels of non-participation for all practical purposes.
The third step--i.e., informing--may in many instances also be in the
realm of non-participation or merely tokenism. The next three steps
on the ladder--i.e., consultation, placation, and partnership--are
pretty much degrees of tokenism. The last two steps on the ladder--
i.e., delegated power and citizen control--are indicative of some
substantial degree of citizen power in the process. The sixth cate-
gory--i.e., partnership--may in many instances denote some degree of
actual citizen power but will normally be more in the nature of tok-
enism.

I am sure that all of us have seen a good bit of some of the
first types of participation used. We may have infrequently encoun-
tered activities borderingon partnership and some level of delegated
power. The latter categories or steps on the participation ladder
are not frequently encountered in.practice.

Another source (14) has suggested a somewhat different classi-
fication of public participation levels. These are referred to as
authority ZeveZs. These are as follows:

165

1. non-participation
2. information participation
3. consulting participation
4. iterative participation
5. authorization participation

The first level--i.e., non-participation-As fairly self-explana-
tory. The second level--i.e., information participation--has the di,-
mensions of informing the public but does not provide for any mech-
anism to interface the public in a meaningful manner with the actual
planning and development process.

The third authority level--i.e., consulting participation--usu-
ally takes the formofcommittees or boards to review and comment up-
on development proposals and other activities. In this approach, the
public is interfaced with the process; but there is no implied ob-
ligation to actually consider or incorporate the input or to neces-
sarily provide a meaningful feedback mechanism.

The fourth level--i.e., iterative participation--allows a sig-
nificant level of involvement by a group including representatives
of the publics. The engineers, planners, and public officials are
obligated to revise the plan in line with recommendations from the
group up to a point. The final decision, however, as to,what form
the plan will take or when the participation process will be termin-
ated is up to the development or governmental participations.

The final level--i.e., authorization participation--involves a
very significant degree of participation by the public. The group,
whatever form it may take, has legislated or delegaL.,ed powers to
override the engineers, planners, or oovernment officials as to the
final decisions relative to the project or plan.

The first three levels--i.e., non-participation, information
participation, and consulting participation--are commonly encountered
in practice. The fourth level of participation--i.e., iterative par-
ticipation--is encountered in practice but fairly infrequently with
any meaningful level of activity or accomplishment in the final anal-
ysis. The highest level--i.e., authorization participation--is ex-
tremely rare if you have encountered it at all.

I suggest that authorization Zevel participation in any form
should be approached with great caution on the part of public offi-
cials and developers. I say this not because of a lack of confidence
in all of the parties but because all concerned should be thoroughly
familiar with the ramifications and the great degree of commitment
that is required at this level. If all of the parties are thoroughly
aware of what they are getting into, this could be very useful and a
meaningful experience which should promote wiser and more responsive
planning and development in the water supply and ft wastewater areas.
The various parties should know what is involved for other levels of
participation as well if it is to produce useful results.
In my own opinion, one of the really critical factors involving
public participation is the matter of everyone's obtaining a good
feeZ for the trade-offs and the cause -and-ef fect relationships that
are present in the environmental control and waiter resources devel-
opment areas (6, 10, 14). The public must be informed on what they
166

are going to get as a result of various approaches, options, and
levels of development. They need to be informed of just what it will
cost them now and on into the future.

If they are sufficiently acquainted with the positive and nega-
tive aspects of a proposal and know the costs that they will be ob-
ligated to bear, they are in a much better position to determine
whether they still want this sort of development, whether it is in-
deed acceptable to them, or whether they would like to look at var-
iations of the alternatives which have been developed, or maybe even
throw them all out and have additional alternatives developed and
investigated (12, 13). As stated previously, with meaningful parti-
cipation, the situation of having only unacceptable alternatives to
present in the later stages can be minimized or avoided.

Many technical and professional people such as engineers, plan-
ners, and others have concerns about whether the public is really
able to consider alternatives and to address the matter of trade-
offs. The public does this all the time, just as we do, in their
own personal affairs. They have limited resources which they may
allocate to a variety of activities.

If you look at something as common as an electric power bill,
something that is in everyone's home once a month, you can appreciate
the fact that the public is seeing this sort of information on a reg-
ular basis (10). When the public considers the increase in power
bills over the last year or two years, they should be aware that a
great deal of this cost is due to additional pollution control de-
vices, environmental impact studies, low-sulfur coal, environmental/
quality monitoring programs, and the like as well as inflation.

The public can have a great deal to say about what direction
power rates are heading in the future. If they are less concerned
about environmental control, they should be able to state this in a
manner such that related costs to the utilities will decrease. if
they are willing to pay more for greater environmental protection,
this, too, will occur.

The point is that the public is dealing with matters related to
trade-offs in their everyday lives. The question may be whether they
are cmare that these trade-offs exist and that they are impacting
directly upon the individual, as opposed to being strictly in the
domain of the technical and professional person.

Sometimes I am asked whether a topic such as pubZic participa-
tion is really engineering or not. If we consider that an important
aspect of good engineering as well as good planning and doing a good
job of being a good public official happens to be developing and
choosing among alternatives for the investment of public money, then
I would say, "Yes." Public participation is an important part of
good engineering today (6). It enables us to do a more effective and
responsive job of choosing among different alternative courses of
action. -

And, of course, even a good planis of no value unless it can be
implemented. An EPA planning document (18) states this very concise-
ly:

167

The three essential ingredients for plan implementation are
pubZic support, institutional arrangements,aid a financial
program and schedule. PubZic support is an outgrowth of
the pubZic invoZvement program . (Emphasis added)

Perhaps you can better understand why I say public participation is
an integral part of good engineering today.

I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of
good planning and good public participation with public officials,
engi neers, pl anners, envi ronmental i s ts (a vague term) , and just pl ain
citizens in recent years (2-14). All have seemed to agree that it
would be useful to them in their respective roles.

Today, many people seem to view environmental aid water resources
development matters as being simply a matter of choosing between two
extremes, these being the advocates for more development and more
growth on one end of the spectrum and those who would say no more
growth, no more development at the other end of the spectrum.

It is a much more complex situation today. This is especially
the case if you look and listen hard enough to what is going on with
the public. When you consider the tremendous array of interests,
opinions, and preferences on the part of the public, you can see why
the conscientious engineer, planner, and public official is having a
very difficult time assimilating this in the process of making wise
and reasoned investment decisions (5, 10).

I have stated previously that public participation should not
be confused with holding a public hearing toward the end of the de-
sign process. A question that I am frequently asked is, "Just when
ccaz the various publics get involvedin the decision-making process?"
My reaction is that the public can and should get involved from the
very beginning all the way to the time the project goes on line but
in varying degrees and utilizing varying formats. This contention
is supported by the GAO report (20) and recommendations in the EPA
guidelines (19 .

To illustrate this, consider just how a municipality, any other
government body, oran industry might get some sort of facility actu-
ally into operation. What are the steps that are involved in this?
I have listed a lengthy setof steps below for illustrative purposes:

1. predict future conditions
2. predict future demands forwater supply and wastewater
services
3. investigate financing
4. preliminary review of sites and technologies
5. preliminary designs
6. preliminary reviews by regulatory agencies
7. narrow down sites and technologies combinations
8. more preliminary design
9. more information and review
10. narrow down alternatives further
11. further reviews by regulatory agencies
12. more design and information
13. select a suitable site and technology combination
14. more detailed studies and design
168

15. preliminary approvals from agencies
16. application for funding
17. environmental report and license application, ifappro-
priate
18. review, hearings, etc.
19. approval to construction permit
20. final financing decisions-
21. final revision of designs
22. construction
23. review, inspection, operating permit
24. start up
25. finally, produce water-related services.

As may be seen from this, there are usually many years involved be-
tween the time future conditions are predicted until the time that
you actually begin producing services for the public! The public's
input must be sought and obtained throughout the long process, not
after all of the decisions of any significance have been reached.
This is what we are, or should be, striving for now and on into the
future. EPA indicates that public participation should be involved
all the way from delineating planning areas to the completion of im-
plementation arrangements in facility planning (18).

A variety of formats will be required throughout the project.to
obtain this necessary and desirable public input (14, 20). In the
process of getting a project completed, public participation will
tend to i nvol ve a wider and wider ci rcl e of persons and deal more and
more with specifics as opposed to concepts and preferences in general.

Over many years, then, the public can have input in various man-
ners. Whether we are talking about the need for a wastewater treat-
ment facility, a power- generating facility, or improved transportation
facilities, we go through basically the same steps. We ask, "How
much of this particular service is the public going to need? Or how
much does the public want? Or how much will they accept at some time
in the future?" As we proceed, we determine what are the preferences
of the public concerning different types of technologies and differ-
ent locations for such activities.

We can and should obtain reactions to preliminary selections of
alternative combinations of sites and technologies. We get feedback
from discussion with the public and from a presentation of a limited
number of alternatives that appear to be technologically and economi-
cally feasible and acceptable to the public. Then, we finally get a
reaction to the final plan and proceed. There is no excuse for wait-
ing until very latein the process to delve into the matter of public
involvement. It can be used early in the process, and it should be,
as well as throughout the process (18, 20).

As I am sure you can understand, the same format for obtaining
the needed public participation is not necessarily appropriate or
sufficient throughout the process. Previous citations to GAO (20)
and EPA (19) documents indicate the need to utilize other formats in
addition to the public meeting or hearing in many instances. The
public meeting or hearing may be very appropriate for review of the
small number of potentially feasible alternatives for which prelimi-
nary design has been accomplished and also for the presentation of
169

the final plan. In the early phases, however, the number of people
involved and how the whole procedure is handled must be quite dif-
ferent.

Putting together and actually implementing a meaningful and ef-
fective public participation programis a very complex and individual
matter. I have listed below a number of factors which must be con-
sidered when putting together a public participation program (14).
You will find some very interesting, Stimulating, andpeyfiaps bother-
some factors in this list:

1. What interests will be represented?

2. One representative per interest group, or representa-
tion in proportion to numbers or other considerations?

3. Who nominates orselects the interests to be represent-
ed or the actual individuals?

4. All citizens or mix including eaTerts?
5. Small versus large group? (Flexible and manageable
versus unwieldy?)

6. Closedoropen operation? (Quiet and constructive ver-
sus forum for dissent?)

7. Formal or informal?

8. Specific charge to group or wide latitude?
9. High level or low level? (How much prestige? What
type of person can be attracted?)

10. Continuing, intermittent, or one-shot operation?

11. How early and how long involved?

12. What information to be made available?

13. Any staff? What types? Expert input? If so, inde-
pendent or from concerned parties?

14. What resources will be available? Funds from what
source?

15. Freedom or constrained?

16. Form of output?

17. To whom does group report?

18. How will differences behandled? Will they be reported
and how?

19. Single or multiple output? Over duration of effort,
at end, or both?

170

20. Will media be involved? When?

21. How often will committee meet? What goes on between
meetings?

22. How will group be organized and led?

23. Will format change over duration?

24. How much influence will committee or results actually
have? How much do they think they will have?

25. Show-case operation or genuine?

26. Constructive environment or allow conflictsto surface?

27. Etc.

There are, too, a number of different interests and publ i cs that
may be concerned with a major water or wastewater plan. There are
also a great variety of techniques of public participation that may
be appropriate and useful for various typesof projects or at various
times during the course of the project (19, 20). It is apparent,
then, that the matter of putting together a meaningful and appro-
priate public participation program can be very involved.

The depth, format, duration, commitment, etc. can vary from one
public participation efforttothe next effort and should be tailored
to fit certain important aspects of the situation. Included are
factors such as magnitude or scale of the project, level of inter-
,est or concern, physical conditions or characteristics of the loca-
tion, potential adverse effects of various types, etc. These are
factors which must be evaluated for the specific project or type of
project or plan with which you are concerned.

I would reiterate that simply holding a public meetingor a hear-
ing automatically at the prescribed point or points during a project
may completely fail so far as obtaining meaningful citizen involve-
ment is concerned (20). Just as it is possible to provide too lit-
tle in the way of public participation opportunities, it is also pos-
sible to provide more extensive opportunities and programs than are
necessary. This is why I have a basic quarrel with any guidelines
or interpretation of such guidelines which would advocate and promote
a rigid and fairly limited program of public participation. You can
have the si tuati on of an overki 11 or a compl ete farce in al 1 too many
instances.

Recently, I had the opportunity to review the public participa-
tion approaches and attitudes of several major overnment agencies
working with the environment and water resources M. The results,
many of them of a very informal nature, were rather enlightening to
me; and I would like to share a couple of them in passing. It seemed
that most of the persons I contacted were using public participation
for two reasons. These were, first, legal requirements for the use
of public participation and, second, the feeling that itwas or -might
be good for their image or was simply the right thing to do.

Most of the agency people with whom I spoke stated that they
would really like to see more public participation going on. I am
171

not quite sure what to make of this. I am sure many of these pro-
fessionals have a genuine desire to get a better feel for what the
public wants and also to devise and implement plans and projects
which are responsive to the public's needs.

It is likely, however, that in too many instances these indivi-
duals are not sufficiently aware of what you can get into if you
really seek public participation. I am not sure all of them are in-
terested in the level of commitment and effort that might be required
to engage in what I consider to be effective, meaningful public par-
ticipation.

I found a good proportion, perhaps a majority, of these persons
were not really sure what was supposed to be involved in a citizen
involvement program. They gave strong indications of a very limited
knowledge of alternative formats, techniques, and approaches which
might be utilized in obtaining citizen input. Most seem to feel that
public meetings and public hearings, combined with the opportunityto
submit written comments on proposals, was about the extent of public
participation.

My conclusion was that, in most instances, what was occurring
was a process of more or less going through the required motions of
obtaining citizen input pursuant to legislation, requirements, and
guidelines.

There is a greatly differing opinion on the part of many as to
whether public participation and citizen involvement is a waste of
time, a distraction, a necessary evil , a detriment to action, and a
tool for delay on the one hand or whether it is useful, helpful,
beneficial , and in general a very valuable tool on the other hand (7).
The benefits that may accrue to consulting engineering firms, vari-
ous levels of government, and all other parties is proportional to
the attitude of the group which is responsible for the project, the
de-pth of public involvement they have sought, and the commitment,
perceptiveness, and responsiveness of all parties concerned.

For j.ust a moment, let us look at public participation from the
viewpoint of a government body or perhaps an industry (4, 8, 10). We
should pose the question, "Why should they want and need public par-
ticipation of the right kind and the right times?" They need it for
at least two reasons. First, they want and value the good will and
good opinion of the public. Also, they are interested in producing
good service or attaining their mission whatever this may be. I
think this is sufficient for the first point.

Second, they (and we) simply cannot afford not to engage in pub-
lic participation today. A very strong case for effective and mean-
ingful public participation can bemade on a simple \doll ars-and-cents
basis. This presumes, of course, that it is in the long-run best
interest of the public to have some sort of development such as that
which is being considered. I would concede that there are certain
types ofprojects, developments, etc. which probably would not profit
from a very open and thorough public participation program!

Consider for a moment the capital cost of a major water resour-
ces or environmental control project today. A large nuclear power
plant may cost $1.5 billion. A large area-wide waste treatment sys-

172

tem may cost $100 million. (If you include in such a system the col-
lection system, pumping stations, etc.,we are certainly talkingabout
a large sum of money.) A dam and reservoir project can easily get
into the $250 million category.

We should consider the effectsof a one-year delay due to a lack
of public acceptance, litigation, or any other reason. I did recent-
ly and discussed it with a group of engineers (8). The interest
alone on the capital would be substantial. For the power plant, the
waste treatment system, and the reservoir project, we could be talk-
ing in terms of $225 million, $10 million, and nearly $40 million,
respectively. In order to be completely candid about the costs in-
volved, we should also throw inthe expenses of litigation, interven-
tion, endless professional manpower tied up, wear and tear on all
parties concerned, erosion of public confidence, lost benefits to
the public, and many other factors. Among these other factors are
bleeding ulcers and the like which tend to visit those who are most
deeply involved in such matters.

What are the probabilities ofsuch a delay or maybe even a long-
er delay due to a project's being out of line with the desires or
preferences of some part of the public? Today, we have a number of
groups which have the expertise, the resources, and the commitment
to intervene and to fight projects very effectively. In certain in-
stances, a major effort to influence the course of a project or to
intervene in a development may be initiated and supported by a very
small group of people. In such cases, we must be very careful to
differentiate between broad, legitimate public interest and support
on the one hand and concern aid interests which have been put together
for perhaps less noble or less well-informed purposes on the other.

In any event, the probabilities of delay on major projects could
easily fall into the range of 10 to 25 percent. Now we may talk in
terms of expected costs due to delays and lack of public acceptance
of major projects. The expected annual cost for delays, considering
only interest on the capital, is in the neighborhood of $20 to $60
million for the power plant, from $1 to $3 million for the waste
treatment system, and from $4 to $10 million on the reservoir project.
This is for only one year.

In my opinion, neither government at any level, development in-
terests, industry, nor the public can afford wasteof this magnitude,
especially if there is a viable alternative. First, if the services
of the project are needed, problems, losses, and inconveniences will
result to the public and everyone else from the delay. Second, the
project may well be out of line with the public's desires, prefer-
ences, and needs. As such, this could constitute a waste of resour-
ces even if it were built on time. Third, this is simply a great
deal of money. The public, the consumers, and the taxpayers will
ultimately bear the cost of delayed projects which are not acceptable
to the public.

It is unfortunate and unnecessary for this waste and delay to
occur for, as an EPA document (18) states:

If the public involvement program and the environmental
evaluation have been well done, the important issues and
evaluative factors should be known by the time a plan se-
lection is made. (Emphasis added) 173

This same source (18) makes the interesting, though sometimes over-
looked, observation that "the environmental evaluation should have
some impact on the initial assumptions, development and screening
al ternati ves. "

The recent GAO report on citizen participation in the planning
of public works projects (20) cited a statement made in 1972 that
"if (public) involvement were well carx-led out, agreements could be
reached and costly project delays avoided in most cases." (Emphasis
added)

The GAO report (20) emphasizedthat especially for controversial
matters, "Whe earlier issues are recognized, the greater flexibil-
ity there is in planning."

If a situation concerning a water supply or wastewater project
or any other development or public works project degenerates into a
fight involving government agencies, industry, other development in-
terests, the public, or other parties, it is a foregone conclusion
that all parties will lose (5, 14). It is only a matter of degree
as to who will lose the most (8). When involvement comes too late,
there is a "tendency . . . to defend previously determined courses
of action, rather than to explore any new information or views re-
ceived (20)."

This would be extremely unfortunate, as an environment of mu-
tual respect and credibility can beestablished by means of effective
public participation programs. In this manner, constructive input
and give and take can replace needless polarization and adversary re-
lationships. In some instances, it must be admitted, intervention
and litigation are warranted.

It is entirely unrealistic to expect that you will ever be able
to achieve total agreement by all individuals and parties in a mean-
ingful and effective citizen involvement effort. In a situation
where broad and easy agreement is obtained, one should be suspect of
at least a couple of things. One is that the matter is trivial and
did not warrant an extensive program to begin with. Second, it might
well be that a handpicked or non-representative group of individuals
are participating in order to give the illusion of public participa-
tion.

Even though unanimity may not be expected under any conditions,
at least all of the parties will have the facts and, hopefully, be
able to appreciate why other parties do not agree on all of the fa-
cets of the project.

Real public participation efforts require a very significant
commitment from all parties concerned. This includes the public or
its representatives as well as those participants from the various
levels of government, industry, development interests, etc. This
commitment must be to a responsive and constructive effort entered
into in good faith. It must be an effort in which all parties are
open-minded and respect the honest convictions of others who may
well differ at the beginning and when the process is over.

When properly conceived, designed, implemented, and maintained,
meaningful public participation programs have resultedin experiences

174

which have been gratifying to all concerned. This applies to repre-
sentatives of the various publics as well as those who are from gov-
ernment, industry, and development interests.

In the last three years, I have been involved in putting to-
gether or contributing to several major public participation progra7is
for environmental and water resources projects with a total capital
investment in excess of $3 billion. These varied from one shot ef-
forts to continuing, in-depth programs.

I can speak with some degree of authority in saying that some
very tangible beneficial results have come from these efforts. it
has indicated to me, to representatives of the environmental commun-
ity, to government officials, and tosome responsible development in-
terests that citizen involvement may be achieved to a meaningful de-
gree over an extended period of time. There were many skeptics in
the formative stages admittedly; but most have a different view of
public participation now.

The sponsors and developers felt that the effort expended in
these programs was very worthwhile and did lead to, or are leading
to, developments and courses of action which are better than origi-
nally intended. They are certainly more responsive to legitimate
public preferences, some ofwhich were poorly understood or not fully
appreciated prior to initiation of the programs. All have learned
from the experience.

In one instance, a suggestion from a citizen participant led to
a design modification which should reduce the quantity of waste re-
leased to the environment and resulted in a sizeable savingsin capi-
tal cost!

In summary, I see the role of public participation and citizen
involvement as being an extremely important one if we are to do our
jobs as public officials, engineers, planners, and good citizens.
Public participation can be a positive and constructive activity
which allows the various interest groups to gain better appreciation
of the opinions and preferences of others. It can and will lead to
improved projects and more effective utilization of not only limited
financial resources but our natural resources as well.

This must be a continuing process starting atthe very beginning
of a project when the needs for services are being projected, contin-
uing on through the alternative definition and evaluation stage, and
into detailed planning and design. It cannot wait until the end of
the process to be initiated or retrofitted.

As public participation continues in the course as a planning
effort, more and more people must become involved;and different for-
mats of public participation are appropriate.

Effective and meaningful public participation is money and time
and effort well spent if we are to serve the needs of the public in
a responsible manner.

I believe in and appreciate the philosophies contained in the
work of Aldo Leopold. One quote from Leopold's Sand County AZmanac
(15) comes back to me whenever I think of planning, public participa-
tion, and our challenges inmeeting the responsibilities ahead of us:
175

. . . Man, while now captain of the adventuring ship, is
hardly the sole object of its quest, and . . . his prior
assumptions to this effect arose from the simple necessity
of whistling in the dark.

It is not necessary that we whistle in the dark when we and.-the pub-
lic can have a real input into the process of deciding on projects
and plans in the environmental area. Instead, we can have informed
and constructive dialogue between responsible citizens and respon-
sible government, industry, and professionals.

I encourage you to promote and implement effective public par-
ticipation. In the long run, it can make your job a lot easier and
can make the results of your efforts much more responsive to the
needs of society whom we all seek to serve.

REFERENCES

1. Amstein, S., "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the
American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1969).

2. Dysart, B. C., III, "Begin Planning Today to Meet E.P.A. Require-
ments in 1977 and 1983," 9th Annual Air and Water Pollution Con-
trol Seminar, Clemson, South Carolina (1973).

3. Dysart, B. C., III, "The Challenge for Informed Public Involve-
ment in Natural Resources Decision-Making, .. Blue Ridge Conserva-
tion Summit, Black Mountain, North Carolina (1974).

4. Dysart, B. C., III, "A Clear Overview of Engineers and Conser-
vationists . . . or . . . Observations from the Middle of the
Pile," Annual Technical Conference of the Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers South Carolina Affiliation, Columbia,
South Carolina (1974).

5. Dysart, B. C., III, "A Constructive Role for Citizens and Con-,
servationists in Environmental Decision Making," South Carolina
Press Association, Clemson, South Carolina (1971).

6. Dysart, B. C., III, "Educating Water Resources Engineers for Ef-
fective Public Participation," American Society of Ci.vil Engi-
neers National Environmental Engineering Meeting, Kansas City,
Missouri (1974).

7. Dysart, B. C., III, "Education of Planners and Managers for Ef-
fecti ve Publ i c Parti ci pati on, " Proceedings of the South Atlantic-
Gulf-Tennessee Regional Conference on Public Partic' ation 'i .n
Water Resources Planning, Raleigh, North Car
olina (1974

8. Dysart, B. C., III, "Engineers, Conservationists, and the Public
Interest: Some Inside Perspectives," American Society of Civil
Engineers, North Carolina Section, Southern Branch, Charlotte,
North Carolina (1975).

176

9. Dysart, B.C., III, "Important Environmental Issues Facing Local
Elected Officials in South Carolina Today and in the Near Future,"
Symposium for Local Elected Officials, Columbia, South Carolina
(1973).

10. Dysart, B.C., III, "The Public's Role in the Environmental Deci-
sion-Making Process," Energy and the Environment Workshop, Lake
Hickory, North Carolina (1974).

11. Dysart, B. C., III, "What the Public Needs to Know about Public
Participation in Water Resources and Environmental Control," En-
vironmental Protection Agency/Conservation Foundation/Audubon
Society Public Participation Workshop, Columbia, South Carolina
(1974).

12. Dysart, B. C., III, and A. H. Barnett, "Determination of Public
Environmental Preferences inWater Resources Planning and Devel-
opment," American Society of Civil Engineers National Environ-
mental Engineering Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri (1971).

13. Dysart, B. C., III, and A. H. Barnett, "Public Preferences and
Environmental Quality in South Carolina - Results of the Green-
ville County Study," South Carolina Water and Pollution Control
Association Annual Meeting, Columbia, South Carolina (1971).

14. Dysart, B. C., III, and L. W. Curtis, "Public Participation in
Environmental Planning," American Society ofCivil Engineers Na-
tional Environmental Engineering Meeting, Kansas City, Missouri
(1974).

15. Leopold, A., A Sand County AZmanac, Oxford University Press, New
York (1966).

16. U. S. Congress, "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972," P. L. 92-500 (1972).

17. U. S. Congress, "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,"
P.L. 91-190 (1970).

18. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, FaciZities PZanning Swn-
mary (1974).

19. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Public Participation in
Water Pollution Control," FederaZ Register, Vol. 38, No. 163
(1973).

20. U. S. General Accounting Office, PubZic InvoZvement in PZanning
PubZic Works Projects ShouZd be Increased, Report B-153449 to
the Congress (1974).

21. U. S. Water Resources Council, "Principles and Standards for
Planning Water and Related Land Resources," FederaZ Register,
Yol. 38, No. 174 (1973).

177

IMPACT OF WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER ON THE
COASTAL AND MARINE ENVIRONMENTS

B. J. Copeland
University of North Carolina
Sea Grant Program
Raleigh, North Carolina

At the beginning of this conference, we were challenged by Col.
Beverly Snow in his call-to-order to direct our minds and experien-
ces to solving the problems related to water supply and wastewater
disposal in the coastal zone. He referred to our cast of characters
as experts who will review the state-of-the-art for proper planning
and management of water supply and wastewater disposal in coastal
areas. We were further directed to focus special attention to defin-
ing technological and institutional alternatives, their relation to
land-use planning and environmental protection, and to identifying
those water and wastewater problems of significance in the coastal
area. My role here today, therefore, is to serve as one of those so-
called experts to develop two lines of thought: (1) to summarize the
conference and to place it in environmental perspective, and (2) to
share with you some of my experiences relating to the impact of wa-
ter supply and wastewater on the coastal and marine environments.

As oneof the many co-hosts of this conference, I take this op-
portunity to express our appreciation to all of you for attending the
conference and helping to make it the success that it has been. One
of our goals was to bring together government officials, engineers,
scientists, planners, developers, and other groups interested in de-
velopment of the coastal area along with the University community to
focus upon these important issues. From that standpoint, the confer-
ence has been a resounding success, and we are ready now to bring it
to conclusion. But before we do, let me challenge youtonot let this
be the end but to go forth from here with the action program neces-
sary to solve the problems that have been identified. It is my plea-
sure to conclude this conference by discussing the two points given
me by the program committee.

SUVWY OF THE CCNFERENCE

Ove,%view

We heard at the outset that water and wastewater problems were
only a part of the overall complexity of management of the coastal
zone. Certainly, these are important ones, but the list facing us is
almost endless. Preserving the environment, which has been said to
be the key to the attractiveness tothe coastal zone for economic de-
velopment, is certainly an important goal.

Water supply in the local environment is quickly exceeded by
man's development and gives rise to a larger spectrum of problems
such as salt-water intrusion and deterioration of quality. Thus, we
must consider alternatives for providing adequate water supply while
protecting the public health and welfare and environmental resources.
178

A critical problem is the question of what to do with our waste
which taxes the assimilative capacity of receiving lands and waters.
A solution suggested as being reasonable was to collect, treat, and
dispose of domestic waste by ocean outfalls; but before this can be-
come a viable reality we must explore the alternatives and determine
the most cost-effective and environmentally sound meansof waste dis-
posal.

Wate)L Suppty

Alternatives for augmenting water supply in the coastal zone
range from utilizing underlying fresh water of varying and decreas-
ing quality to stealing water from somewhere else and transporting
it at great costs. All suggested alternatives presented considerable
problems; and solving these problems is going to require coordination,
more advanced technology, large costs, and detailed planning.

Groundwater sources were discussed, but little was saidcrf their
quality and degree of required treatment. Most groundwater sources
on the barrier islands are limited, and great economic and environ-
mental problems exist with their use.

Conversion of saline water to drinking water was one viable al-
ternative described. Problems here, however, exist in economics,
environmental impact, and transportation. For example, the usage of
such water is uphill from the source thus requiring great energy to
transport it.

Perhaps the most exciting alternative was the suggestion for re-
use of wastewater. This alternative promises the potential of maxi-
mizing the demand for water with the need to dispose of the waste.
There are problems, however, with costs, public acceptability, and
technology.

Wa6tewateA Di6posat

Alternatives given for disposal of wastewater in the coastal
zone range from individual septic tanks to regional collection sys-
tems with ocean outfalls. We were given the framework for manage-
ment and financing alternatives for waste disposal. The coastal
zone presents a unique set of circumstances in that local sources
must support the program, but most of these activities are owned by
people who live and vote elsewhere. Because of the great complexity
and need for qualified management in the coastal area, state level
support for these facilities will probably be desirable.

Se tic tank disposal is at present a common means of waste di,s-
posal @and it was emphasized here that it is a disposal technique
rather than a treatment technique); and it presents a serious problem
to surface and sub-surface water quality because of seepage and con-
tamination of those water sources. It is necessary for septic tanks
to be used with caution, and at best they offer a tentative aid interim
solution.

Land disposal of waste has proven to be a viable means of dis-
posing of animal waste in the Piedmont area. More work needs to be
done, however, with the unique soi.1 types in the coastal zone before
land disposal can become a reality there.
179

Deep-well injection was suggested as a potential a lternati ve.
Problems here include the need to know the fate of the wastes and
the potential for groundwater contamination.

Ocean outfalls were described as cost-effective and environ-
mentally safe means of waste disposal in the coastal zone. Examples
of working facilities from elsewhere in the country were given, but
the uniqueness of North Carolina's coastal zone should be considered.
A representative from the Environmental Protection Agency outlined
the criteria whereby that agency would evaluate each ocean outfall
case individually. We were given a list of do's and don't's that de-
fied comprehension concerning ocean outfalls.

We were also reminded that traditional treatment facilities were
still in operation and that innovations in conventional treatment can
improve wastewater. There is a disposal problem here, however, that
generally results in wastewaters reaching the sounds and estuaries,
which may be more productive and vulnerable than the ocean.

Ptanning

The need for the development of comprehensive planning was dem-
onstrated, but we were cautioned that the citizenry must be involved
if it is to be a workable plan. We were told that considerable plan-
ning has been done, but there is little evidence of its implementa-
tion. A parallel case is environmental planning with little evidence
of implementation and tangible results.

The enactment ofthe Coastal Area Management Act has established
a framework for areas of environmental concern which will set forth
implementation of plans for management of our coastal resources. Be-
fore any of these planning activities can become a reality, we need
to develop institutional arrangements for managing water and wastewa-
ter choices along with protecting the environment.

We were told that whatever we do, including noth.ing, would cost
us in money or in opportunities lost. It is important that these
costs be accurately distributed so that we do not continue subsi,diz-
ing industries at the cost of consumers and natural coastal resources.

Perhaps the most important aspect of all was the involvement of
citizenry participation in any planning and management scheme. Until
this has been assured, plans or implementation developed to manage
the coastal zone and its resources are doomed to failure.

THE NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Built into any system for management of water supply and waste-
water disposal is the need for protection and management of the sen-
sitive coastal environment. The great variety of coastal ecological
systems in North Carolina are valuable as ecological and aesthetic
resources. These systems are biologically productive and, as such,
provide the basis for many of the resources that man utilizes there.

Coastal ecological systems possess great complexity as well as
having certain fragile characteristics. Because of this complexity
and fragility, these ecosystems receive great pressures from devel-
180

opment. Therefore, in order to maximize utilization of coastal re-
sources we must also take fi m and timely measures to protect the
very environment creating the attractiveness of the coastal zone.

GENERAL ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES

The estuaries and sounds behind the North Carolina barrier is-
lands are particularly vulnerable to man's activities. These eco-
systems are easily accessible, they are attractive, and they present
a rather complex make-up.

Estuaries serve as major nursery areas for about 85 percent of
our commercial and sports fisheries species. These organisms migrate
into the productive coastal ecosystems as larvae and post-larvae,
utilize the great productivity there, grow at tremendous rates, and
later leave as juveniles. This phenomenon is extremely critical to
the maintenance of commercial and sports fisheries resources in our
State.

Marsh and estuarine ecosystems are great mixing and assimilative
zones for taking fresh water, nutrients, and organics from the land
and creating great masses of floating and swimming protoplasm. Be-
cause of this, these systems are among the most productive systems
in nature. A key to the productivity of estuarine ecosystems is the
flow of fresh water bring nutrients, vitamins, organic foods, and
physical energies to support that productivity. Som of our studies
have shown that up to 50 percent of the productivity maintenance is
reliant upon fresh water input.

Compared to other more stable ecosystems, estuaries are lower
in diversity, but they produce greater amounts of these organisms
utilizing them. Compared to the ocean, estuaries are 100 times more
productive per unit area; thus, the magnitude of their importance.

Great precaution should be taken, therefore, to protect these
important ecosystems for the production of food, aesthetic appeal,
recreation, and other benefits to man. Although these systems have
great recuperative ability, the resulting ecosystem Tnay not be de-
sirable to man. One great principle in nature is that some'sort of
ecosystem will resultin response towhatever environmental character-
istics are extant (i.e., a sewage pond is an ecosystem); but in gen-
eral, these new and imposed ecosystems are low in the productivity
of interest to man, and their aesthetic and recreational capabilities
are generally low.

POTENTIAL ENVIRCNMENTAL PROBLEMS FOR WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES

GAoundmate)L SouAce,6

Salt-water intrusion is a likely result of excessive pumping of
fresh water from groundwater supplies on barrier islands. Even though
this in itself is a water quality problem, there are other, more far-
reaching ramifications of salt-water intrusion. Because of the shal-
lowness of water tables, salt-water intrusion could conceivably change
the vegetative patterns of those terrestrial systems relying upon
the shallow water tables for their support.
181

Another consequenceof groundwater use is the potential for sub-
sidence in areas where considerable pumping has occurred. Subsidence,
in addition to changing land uses, can also give rise to the devel-
opment of secondary land vegetative systems.

Conve&sion oj Sab@ne Watex6

Aside from the energetic cost of moving desalinated water up-
hill, there is the problem of the disposal of brine wastes. These
wastes are characteristically very concentrated, reaching concentra-
tions as high as 200,000 ppm. Although the oceans and sounds may
appear to be great dilution sinks, there is the problem of imbal-
anced ratios of ions. Unfortunately, the dissolution of sea salt is
at a different chemical concentration than is the resolution. Thus,
the dilution of brine wastes is not a viable solution to their dis-
posal.

Wo,6tewate)L Reu6e

The recycling of wastewater through the water supply system is
potentially an optimal choice ofsolving water problems of the coast-
al zone. This process would eliminate many environmental problems of
waste disposal by utilizing the wastes for potable water supply. It
would reduce the need to obtain new sources of water supply in an
already water depressed area.

There is still the problem, however, of disposing of the solids
developed in such a recycling operation. These solids could, how-
ever, be used to generate alternate energy sources by their conver-
sion to methane gas.

T&akt6po,%t 6)Lom Etsewhe)Le

The most viable means of providing water supply alternatives
for the coastal zone is the transport of potable water from upland
areas. This, however, would require long-distance transport systems
which, if not properly planned and constructed, could result in en-
vironmental problems. These transport systems could create barriers
as they cross the sounds to the barrier islands interrupting normal
circulation of water and materials within the sound ecosystem.

A perhaps more subtle environmental impact is the deprivation
of estuaries of needed fresh water return flows. Picking up fresh
water in upland areas and transporting it around the estuaries and
sounds to the barrier i sl ands where the return flows reach the I ower
sounds or the ocean might upset the normal rate of input of fresh
water to estuarine ecosystems. As stated earlier, this could result
in subtle changes in estuarine productivities.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PRC13LEMS FORWASTEIIATER DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

Sept@c Tankz

Septic tanks are al ready in wide use in the coastal zone, par-
ticularly in some of the developments along the Outer Banks. Seyeral
environmental problems have been attributed to septic tanks;,. i.e.,
poor installation, exceeding their capacity, or too many-,per unit
area.
182

Before moye septic tanks are permitted in the coastal zone, there
is a need for complete soil testing and hydrology data for realistic
siting and sizing. The soilsin the coastal zone tend to be very por-
ous, and the water table sits very near the surface resulting in se-
vere problems in the use of septic tanks.

A significant problem with septic tanks is the seepage of nu-
trients, organics, poisons, and pathogens into nearby surface and
sub-surface waters. This, of course, would upset the use of existing
shallow groundwater for water supply in water-depressed areas. There
is considerable evidence now that pathogens from septic tanks have
reached estuarine waters resulting in their closing for commercial
shellfishing.

Land Dizpozat

Disposal of treated domestic waste on land may be an economical
solution and at the same time provide needed fertilizers which have
become increasingly short in supply. Land disposal has been worked
out as a viable means of disposing of animal wastes in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Work has also been done in North Carolina on the
disposal of sewage on marshes where high organics and nutrients al-
ready exist.

Two types of problems exist with land disposal of wastes. Nu-
trients and trace metals flowing throbgh the soil to groundwaters
and then into surface waters presents one of the I arger problem areas.
With the porous soils and high water tablesin the coastal zone, this
problem is difficult to overcome. A second problem is the existence
of pathogens in the sewage and their transport off the land and
through the soil to nearby surface and groundwaters. If the basic
knowledge of soil-water characteristics of coastal soils can be com-
pleted and loading rates equated to the assimilative and holding ca-
pacity of the soils, land disposal of domestic wastes in the coastal
zone may become a reality.

Holding ponds, which are apparently necessary for land disposal
pretreatment, are a potential hazard inareas with high water tables.
Perhaps the provision of buffer zones, of vegetati.on between the land
disposal site and adjacent waters can help provide the necessary
safety factor for land disposal. The availability of enough land
area for effective disposal on the barrier islands is another prob-
lem.

Deep-weU Injection

Although deep-well injection does not hold much potential as an
effective waste disposal alternati 've in the coastal zone, it could
be useful in some special areas. Here, we are faced with the con-
tamination of precious groundwater supplies by the injection of domes-
tic wastes into the ground. It is very difficult to determine the
fate of the injected materials, and there is great potential for
leakage of these into the sounds and the oceans. I do not believe
that the out-of-sight and, therefore, out-of-mind technique for the
disposal of domestic waste is a viable and workable solution in the
coastal zone.

183

Conventionat T&eatment Ptant6

During the very near future, conventional treatment facilities
and the disposal of treated wastes in situ seems to be the most pre-
sently usable solution to wastewater disposal problems. Even with
various sophisticated treatments, we still must dispose of the ef-
fluent containing some nutrients and pathogens to the sounds and es-
tuaries. This, of course, has its obvious results; and we are faced
with those already.

Ocean _0u-tAaU6

A new technique for the disposal of wastewater in the coastal
zone has been suggested to collect, treat, and dispose of domestic
waste by ocean outfall. Of the many ocean outfalls around the peri-
phery of the United States, some have worked well, and others have
not. Critical to the environmental impact of an ocean outfall is
its proper design and operation in concert with the environmental
conditions present at the site. The North Carolina coastal zone is
somewhat different than inother areas of the country, and the south-
ern coast is different from the northern coast. Thus, the critical
factor is the proper design with the existing environmental condi-
tions.

Ocean outfall systems must contend with a very complex current
and mixing situation off North Carolina. The dilution capacity is
most likely adequate, butwemustbe careful regarding the back trans-
port of sewagetobeaches where there is large, potential people con-
tact. Design criteria must be collected to prevent the localization
of sludge at the outfall site and the proper use of diffusers to min-
imize the localization of sewage.

A perhaps more subtle impact of ocean outfalls is the depriva-
tion of estuaries of varying amounts of needed fresh, water inputs.
The ocean outfall concept includes regional collection with adequate
treatment and then disposal of the wastes offshore. This, of course,
diverts ordinary inputs of fresh water around the estuaries where it
may be of importance to maintenance of productivity.

An important point at the present time is that basic information
for the design, construction, and operation of ocean outfalls is
lacking in North Carolina. Studies are underway and others are
planned to provide this basic information. Regardless of the avail-
ability of basic information and the design and monitoring criteria,
we must work out a realistic permitting system witha monitoring pro-
gram that has provisions for remedial action.

From an environmental point of view, it would seem that ocean
outfalls is a viable alternative for disposal of wastesfn the coastal
zone providing the proper design and siting techniques are uti.lized.
A pycnocline apparently exists nearshore off North Carolina with. a
net onshore drift of surface waters. If this is true, then proper
design would have to place the outfall beneath the pycnoclineso that
the back transport towards the shore would be mini'mized.

184

QUESTICNS AND DISCUSSION

QUESTION: (Dr. Donald Francisco) In public hearings you are always
confronted with opposing viewpoints by supposed experts. How do we
avoid having the public view hearings as a negative response or nega-
tive feedback rather than positive?

DR. BENJAMIN C. DYSART: You posed a question there that I sometimes
have a problem getting over to my students. There are varying view-
points; and anything can be proven and supported by expert witnesses
who will stand up and state that this is the casein good conscience.
They will also have the data and information to prove it. Then, they
are followed by someone who may take the.same data or different data
that's just as good and come to completely different conclusions.
This is confusing to the public in case anyone actually came to such
a meeting to learn what was going on. This is something which under-
scores the need for having involvement prior to that point so the
public will know more about what is going on. I don't think we are
ever going to get to the point where everyone is going to agree,
whether we are talking about laymen simply deciding how much devel-
opment they want in an area or whether we're talking about profes-
sionals who look at a situation the same way. We have to start early.
If a public meeting or hearing is set up as the forum for hammering
out these completely different viewpoints, then I think this is un-
fortunate. That should not be happening, though. If it is a matter
of trying to gain advocates and convince somebody that this side is
right, that's the wrong function of the hearing or meeting.

DR. B. J. COPELAND: I don't know how to answer your question, Don,
except to say that it's a very sticky one. As Ben says, I think the
public hearings are structured somewhat wrong in thatwegenerally
wind up in a kind of adversary situation where opposing points of
view using the same data base are often given. I've been involved
in some of those. So the public goes away saying,"Those guys don't
know what they are doing--they're crazy!" I agree with Ben also that
when you have a series of interactions with the public about a ques-
tion in point so that they can begin to see the background they can
end up better making their own decision. When I am faced with this
kind of situation, I always try to back up and give as much of the
background as possible so that the interpretation that we place on
the data can get there in the context of the background. When you
begin to see how it could take place and how the interpretation was
obtained, you can make sense out of it. But that's difficult.

DR. BENJAMIN C. DYSART: In many public meetings and hearings when
you come in the back door, some nice young lady is sitting there
handing out cards and asking you to sign in and indicate whether
you wish to speak in opposition to or in support of. I've had
students ask me, "Isn't there another box that should be on there--
that you came with an open mind to learn?" It is assumed that you
are coming to be an advocate of one side or the other. So we are
starting out on the wrong foot. Another problem which we have had
in the coastal area is conflicting expert testimonyeven on one side
of an issue. I looked into a situation where the party proposing a
course of action had too many consultants and experts presenting
testimony in their behalf, and their consultants seemed to draw
conflicting conclusions. When that happens, what does some member

185

of the public sitting out in the audience think? Not only are
they disagreeing among themselves but outside parties are disagree-
ing, too. If I were involved with the'development interest, I would
say, "Let's go through our things in advance," and I thought that
always took place. But this seemed not to happen in this case. May-
be that's an extreme situation.

QUESTION: (Mr.*William E. Burnett) A question to Dr. Copeland.
Would you please comment on studies by the Sea Grant Program or other
groups which you are aware of in the Onslow Bay area in North Caro-
lina?

DR. B. J, COPELAND: We have, this past winter, initiated a small
project to bring togetherthe existing information concerning the On-
slow Bay in particular but also for all of the North Carolina coast.
The physical dispersion characteristics of the nearshore environment,
along with some analysis of potential for ocean outfalls, will be
available in about two to three weeks. The second project has to do
with a large physical oceanographic undertaking of trying to nail
down some of the localized current and dispersion characteristics of
Onslow Bay, which include current arrays, developing physical models,
and a mathematical model to be predictive and try to fill in points
to make the physical model real with the existing environment. These
are the two major studies that are underway at the present time, par-
ticularly relating to Onslow Bay. Dr. Ernest Carl, Department of
State Planning,is trying to pull together several aspects from their
point of view and trying to get a sound base of where we are in that
analysis so we can take off with somewhat longer-range studies to
get at the problem of where to put outfalls, how to build them, eco-
nomics of the situation, development and design criteria, etc.

QUESTION: (Mr. William E. Burnett) Do you have any information or
conclusions from the first study?

DR. B. J. COPELAND: I have with me an abstract which I'm supposed
to present to the North Carolina Mari.ne Science Council this after-
noon at a meeting over at the Marine Biomedical Lab. This will give
a preliminary view of findings. The major conclusion is that we do
have presently off our coast, a pycnocline and it is relatively very
shallow. There are net toward-shore currents and so forth so there
are problems we have to overcome before we stick a pipe out there.

QUESTION: How can citizens obtain the kind of information needed be-
forehand and quick enough to have an input into hearings with only a
15-day notice?

DR. BENJAMIN C, DYSART: This, of course, is not a new problem. The
usual course of action for environmental groups is to try to get in-
volved as early as possible and identify the problems and indicate
that there is controversy. With only a short period of time, you
cannot make a thorough review of a technical proposal. As far as
solving your , particular problem, I don't know what they could do
about that, other than try to obtain some expert advice and trY to
dig into it. It seems there is-more and -more recognition of the need
to have more time, or an appropriate amount of time, for people who
have the desire and can obtain the capability to be able to assess
and address technical-matters. For something that someone or some

186

agency has spent a year and a half and 50 or 100 thousand dollars or
took 5 years in developing the plan, it's difficult to address that
whether you have 15 days or 30 days or 90 days. It's difficult for
state agencies with a lot more capability and manpower than you all
have at your disposal to respond to things that seem to be pulled
out from under the cover on short notice. I'm afraid I don't have a
very good answer in your particular situation. If you look at the
legislation and guidelines concerning public participation for EPA
and other agencies, I would think thatit would be very difficult for
someone to justify giving you only 15 days. It is quite possible
that something was available or information could have been obtained
prior to this. I would suspect if they had been following guidelines
that are in effect, something must have been announced and available
if people had known about it and had gotten onto it early enough.

187

WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER IN
COASTAL AREAS

Southeastern Conference
April 2-4, 1975

Conference Host
University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Conference Secretariat
Water Resources Research Institute
124 Riddick Building
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

Edited by James

3 6668 00001 2544