SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES AND PERFORMANCE
processes can be arranged to effect the desired
degree of treatment.
This chapter will discuss system alternatives and
(3) Size of installations requiring treatment.
performance data for wastewater treatment and
Specific data are not presented in this manual on
solids handling systems commonly used for mili-
the sizes and types of unit processes or opera-
tary installations. Information and descriptive
tions employed at Army installations, but statis-
data on available unit operations and processes
tical data indicate over one-half of the Army
have been included and are presented herein to
installations are receiving less than 1.0 mgd of
enable the establishment of sound engineering
wastewater flow. Table 8-1 shows that less than
and economic relationships among alternatives.
2 percent exceed 10.0 mgd. These data are based
This chapter principally addresses domestic treat-
on all reported Army installations including both
ment methods with notations concerning the
domestic and industrial wastewater sources,
impact of industrial or military wastes. Theoreti-
government-owned, government-operated (GOGO),
cal and design factors are not covered and
at U.S. as well as overseas facilities. The intent of
reference should be made to textbooks and the
this information is to classify the size range of
U.S. EPA design manuals listed in the bibliogra-
existing facilities and thus determine which unit
phy for more detailed description of wastewater
processes or operations must receive emphasis on
treatment methods and limitations. Appendices C
the basis of size alone. It is apparent that
and D present design and cost factors also.
processes applicable to small installations will
8-2. Wastewater treatment systems
Table 8-1. Classification of Army facilities by wastewater flow
a Treatment system alternatives.
Number of Facilities
(1) Treatment evaluations. For some installa-
tions, certain alternatives may readily be ex-
cluded from consideration due to climate, land
requirements, flow quantity and other factors.
Most installations, however, will require evalua-
tion of several treatment alternatives to either
upgrade existing systems or provide new facili-
ties. The treatment alternatives presented herein
(4) Type of installations requiring treatment.
are proven methods which are most practical for
These are five basic types of military installa-
wastes from military installations. Many other
tions, all of which require different considerations
processes have been tried or are in use at other
for wastewater treatment.
than military installations and some are currently
(a) Large camps-equivalent to a Division
in the technical development stage. Authority to
plus families and day workers; usually have
deviate from using the proven methods in this
year-round domestic flows in the 2 to 5 mgd
section must be obtained from HQDA (DAEN-
ECE-G) WASH DC 20314.
(b) Summer training camps-Division size
(2) Treatment alternatives. Wastewater treat-
load during the summer; very small flows in
ment methods which shall be considered for
military wastes are categorized in figure 8-1.
(c) Reserve training centersabout one
System alternatives are arranged by increasing
week per month may have up to 600 personnel;
degree of treatment:
other times, only 5 to 10.
(d) Army depotsessentially warehouse op-
erations; up to about 1000 personnel, including
families; relatively steady year-round flows.
(e) Industrial installations-small domestic
Within each of the broad treatment classifica-
tions, there is a listing of principal unit processes.
(5) Degree of treatment required. Under Ex-
These represent those alternatives most generally
ecutive Order 12088, Federal agencies must en-