United States Office Of Water EPA 430/39-89-009
Environmental Protection (WH-595) September 1989
Agency
xe/EPA Effectiveness Of The
Innovative And Attemative
Wastewater Treatment
Technology Program
Report To Congress
-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INNOVATIVE
AND ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Municipal Pollution Control
401 M Street, SW
Washington, B.C. 20460
' "'ency
1070
-------
I ^AJZZ " UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\, .0^° WASHINGTON. DC 20460
SEP 1 2 1989
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Dan Quayle
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's "Report
to Congress: Effectiveness of the Innovative and Alternative
Wastewater Treatment Technology Program." It is required by
Section 517 of the Water Quality Act of 1987.
This report assesses the effectiveness on waste treatment
of innovative and alternative wastewater treatment processes
and techniques referred to in Section 201(g)(5) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which have been utilized in
treatment works constructed under such Act. This report
describes, by State, tne types of processes and techniques
utilized, the number of facilities constructed with such
processes and techniques, and a description of processes and
techniques which have not performed to design standards. This
report also describes which States have not obligated the full
amount set-aside under Section 205(i) of such Act and reasons
for each State's failure to make obligations. Further, the
report discusses issues and recommendations for providing more
effective incentives for innovative and alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques.
I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this
assessment at your convenience.
/
Sincerely- yours,
William K. Reill
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
SEP 1 2 1989
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, B.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's "Report
to Congress: Effectiveness of the Innovative and Alternative
Wastewater Treatment Technology Program." It is required by
Section 517 of the Water Quality Act of 1987.
This report assesses the effectiveness on waste treatment
of innovative and alternative wastewater treatment processes
and techniques referred to in Section 201(g)(5) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act which have been utilized in
treatment works constructed under such Act. This report
describes, by State, the types of processes and techniques
utilized, the number of facilities constructed with such
processes and techniques, and a description of processes and
techniques which have not performed to design standards. This
report also describes which States have not obligated the full
amount set-aside under Section 205(i) of such Act and reasons
for each State's failure to make obligations. Further, the
report discusses issues and recommendations for providing more
effective incentives for innovative and alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques.
I would be pleased to discuss further the results of this
assessment at your convenience.
/
Sincerely yours,
William K. Rei
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table ol Contents ^
List c* Figures iv
List of Tables v
Section I: Executive Summary i
Study Authority and Objectives 1
Background j_
Study Approach 3
Findings and Conclusions 3
Program Effectiveness 3
Technology Utilization 5
Problematic Technologies and Projects 5
Unobligated Funds 6
Issues & Recommendation 8
Section II: Introduction and Background 17
Introduction 2.7
Congressional Authority 17
Study Objectives 17
Report Organization 18
Background 18
I/A Program Organization 18
I/A Versus Conventional Technologies 18
Funding of I/A Projects 19
Modification and Replacement of Failed 22
I/A Technologies
Section III: I/A Technology Utilization by the 73
States
Technical approach 23
Results 23
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page No.
Section IV: I/A Projects Which Did Not Perform 29
To Design Standards
Background 29
The M/R Grant Process 29
Technical Approach 30
Results 30
Technologies Which Have Not Performed 35
To Design Standards
Section V: I/A Funds Not Obligated by the 44
States
Background 44
Technical Approach 45
Results 45
Section VI: Effectiveness of the I/A 63
Technology Program
Background 63
Program Objectives 63
Effectiveness at Promoting Alternative 64
Technology
Effectiveness at promoting Innovative 66
Technology
I/A Program Technology Transfer 67
Summary 68
Issues 69
Recommendation 71
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Page No.
Appendix A - Innovative/Alternative Technology 73
Categories
Appendix B - Summary Data Sheets on M/R 84
Facilities
I/A Technologies that failed and were 85
awarded a 100 percent M/R grant
I/A Technologies that failed for which 99
a request for a 100 Percent M/R grant
is in review
I/A Technologies that failed for which 130
no request for a 100 Percent M/R grant
has been made
I/A Technologies that failed for which 155
the grantee in suing the Design Engineer
and or manufacturer
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page No.
1 Alternative Technologies Funded 12
2 Distribution of Alternative Technology 13
Projects By State
3 Innovative Technologies Funded 14
4 Distribution of Innovative Technology 15
Projects By state
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
iapxe Page No.
l Cumulative FY 1979-1985 Unobligated 15
Funds in State Reserves for I/A
Technologies under Section 205(i), CWA
2 Rural Set-Aside States and Territories 21
3 Summary of Innovative Technologies 25
4 Innovative/Alternative Technology 26
Utilization By State
5 Summary of Alternative Technologies 27
6 Current Status of Potential M/R 31
Candidates by State
7 Current Status of Potential M/R 34
Candidates by Technology
8 Unobligated I/A Technology Funds in 49
State Reserves Under Section 205(i),
CWA
9 Yearly Total Unobligated I/A 61
Technology Funds
10 Reasons Reported for Failure to 62
Obligate I/A Reserve Funds by EPA
Region and State
v
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY AUTHORITY AND OBJECTIVES
This Report to Congress, required by Section 517 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, Public Law No. 100-4, presents the results
of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study of the
effectiveness of the innovative and alternative (I/A)
wastewater treatment technology program. The following are the
objectives of this study:
o summarize information by State on the types of I/A
wastewater treatment technologies and on the number of
facilities constructed employing them;
o describe I/A technologies that have not performed to
design standards;
o determine which states have not obligated the
set-aside for I/A technologies and the reasons for
failure to make such obligations; and
o recommend more effective incentives for using I/A
wastewater treatment technologies.
BACKGROUND
The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, the
Clean Water Act (CWA), dramatically increased Federal financial
support for the construction of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities through the EPA construction grants program. The CWA
clearly established the intent of Congress to promote
development and use of wastewater treatment processes that offer
lower costs or greater environmental benefits than conventional
treatment methods. However, the 1972 Act did not include any
financial incentives to encourage use of new or non-traditional
technologies and, as a result, the early years of the
construction grants program were marked by a lack of
technological innovation. Congress, recognizing the need for
bold action to promote cost savings through development and use
of alternatives to conventional treatment processes, established
the innovative and alternative (I/A) technology program as a 3
year experiment under the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water
Act. The I/A Program's success led Congress, in 1981, to
continue the incentives for I/A technology as a permanent
feature of the construction grants program. Under the 1987
Water Quality Act the I A program will terminate, for the most
part, along with the construction grants program after the
Fiscal Year 1990 appropriation. State Revolving Funds (SRF's)
-------
will replace construction grants, however the 1987 Act makes no
provision for any type of I/A incentive as part of the SRF
program.
The I/A technology incentives established by the 1977 and 1981
CWA amendments include an increased Federal grant share for
projects using I/A technology and the possible availability
of grants for up to 100 percent of the cost of
modification/replacement (M/R) of I/A projects which fail to
perform to design standards. From Fiscal Years 1977 through
1984 the uniform Federal grant share for I/A eligible projects
was 85 percent while that for conventional projects was 75
percent. From Fiscal Year 1985 to the present the Federal
share for I/A projects has been 75 percent while that for
conventional projects has been 55 percent.
Innovative technologies are wastewater treatment processes or
components which are not fully proven in the circumstances of
their intended use but, based upon documented research and
demonstration projects, appear to offer the promise of benefits
which outweigh the potential risks of failure. Projects are
designated as innovative on a case-by-case basis if they are
significantly different from proven conventional or alternative
technologies and if they offer the potential to significantly
advance the state-of-the-art in terms of life cycle costs,
environmental benefits, or more efficient use of energy and
resources.
Alternative technologies are fully proven wastewater treatment
systems that reclaim or reuse wastewater, productively recycle
wastewater components, recover energy, or eliminate pollutant
discharge. Specific alternative technologies include onsite
treatment or alternative wastewater conveyance systems for
small communities, land treatment of wastewater and sludge,
direct reuse (non-potable) of treated wastewater, aquifer
recharge, composting, co-disposal of sludge and refuse, and
methane recovery and use. Alternative technologies typically
provide a cost savings compared to conventional treatment
because of lower operation and maintenance costs or cost
recovery through productive use of wastes.
States are required to set aside a percentage of their
construction grant allotment to fund the increased Federal
share for I/A projects. The mandatory I/A set-aside was 2
percent in 1979-1980, 3 percent in 1981, and 4 percent
thereafter. The 1981 Amendments to the Clean Water Act gave
States the option of increasing their set-aside to a maximum of
7.5 percent but required that 0.5 percent of their allotment be
used to fund innovative projects. The 1981 Amendments also
required rural States to set aside an additional 4 percent of
their construction grant allotment for use in the development
of alternatives to conventional sewage treatment works for
-------
.small communities. Construction grants allotments, including
mandatory set-asides, are available for obligation during the
fiscal year in which they are made and during the succeeding
fiscal year. Funds not obligated by a State during this two
year period are reallotted to other States which have no
unobligated balance.
STUDY APPROACH
Information collected from EPA regional staff and managers,
from EPA documents, the I/A data base, and from individual
State I/A coordinators was used to identify all of the I/A
wastewater treatment technology projects nationwide. This data
also provided information on the geographical distribution of
l/'A technology utilization and State obligation of I/A funds.
The value of unobligated funds by States over the duration of
the program as well as the reasons for failure to obligate funds
were determined. In addition, technologies which have not
performed to design standards were identified through
discussions with Regional and State I/A coordinators.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Program Effectiveness
The I/A program has been tremendously successful at promoting
the development and application of more cost effective,
environmentally sound wastewater treatment technologies,
especially in small communities. Through financial incentives,
an active research and development effort and an aggressive
technology transfer program the I/A program has significantly
advanced the professional and public acceptance of I/A
technologies.
The total Federal investment in I/A facilities for municipal
wastewater treatment is nearly $4.4 billion. State and local
governments have invested an additional $1 billion. Some 2,700
I/A technology projects have been funded: 2,100 alternative
projects in which the Federal investment totals $3.3 billion and
600 innovative projects in which the Federal investment totals
$1.1 billion. Of the 2,700 I/A technology projects funded,
nearly half were in operation at the end of 1987.
The I/A program has moved alternative technologies such as land
treatment of wastewater, land spreading of sludge, alternative
collection systems, sludge composting, and onsite systems from
relative obscurity to widespread acceptance and application.
For example, prior to the I/A program about 19 land treatment
projects were initiated per year while under the I/A program the
-------
average has been about 57 per year. Alternative collection
systems were essentially unknown in the United states prior to
the I /A program, today there are nearly 400 such systems.
The design manuals ot the Water Pollution Control Federation
reflect the great extent to which the profession has accepted
and embraced alternative technologies. A 1977 wastewater
treatment plant desian manual devotes only 10 pages to land
treatment while a new 300 page Natural Systems Manual under
development will be largely devoted to land treatment.
Likewise a 1969 manual on sewer system design did not mention
alternative sewer systems; however, in 1986 an entire manual
was published devoted solely to these systems.
Alternative technology has been a particular boon to small
communities. Two-thirds of alternative projects have been
sized for communities of less than 10,000; half have been sized
for communities of less than 3,000.
The I/A program has moved innovative technologies such as
ultraviolet disinfection of wastewater and sequencing batch
reactors from research and development toward relatively wide
spread, full-scale application. Through an effective
technology transfer program and feedback-to-design network
these innovative technologies were tried and improved upon to
the point that they are now considered viable wastewater
treatment options.
An aggressive technology transfer effort has been integral to
the I/A program. The program has produced a legacy of
outstanding technical literature including design manuals,
research reports, and technology brochures. Through a network
of I/A technology coordinators at the National, Regional, and
State levels these documents and other information about the
I/A program have been effectively disseminated to engineers,
community officials, and interested citizens. In addition EPA
has also conducted or participated in numerous technical and
professional meetings and seminars which have been a key
vehicle for promoting I/A technology and the I/A program.
The I/A program has generated substantial independent interest
in I/A technologies on the part of other federal agencies and
foreign governments. In this country the private sector has
responded vigorously to the program with the development of new
companies and venture investments for research and development
of I/A technologies.
Thus, the I/A program, in addition to directly helping nearly
3000 communities effectively solve their wastewater treatment
problems, leaves a legacy of technical understanding which will
continue to benefit many additional communities, in the Nation
and around the world, for years to come.
-------
Technology Utilization
Figure 1 shows the technology distribution of the 2,100
alternative technology projects awarded through 1987. Nearly
75 percent of alternative projects involve either land
treatment of wastewater, sludge treatment, or collection
systems. Appendix A lists and defines the specific
technologies which make up each of the major groups indicated
on Figure 1. In total, approximately 25 specific technologies
have been designated as alternative. The most popular specific
alternative technologies are land spreading of sludge (a sludge
treatment technology) and slow rate irrigation with wastewater
(a land treatment of wastewater technology). Over 30 percent of
alternative projects involve one of these two technologies.
Figure 2 depicts the distribution of alternative projects by
State.
The technology distribution of the 600 innovative technology
projects awarded through 1987 is shown in Figure 3. Appendix A
defines each of the major technology groups indicated on Figure
3 and lists the specific technologies which make up each major
group. In total, approximately 120 specific technologies have
been designated as innovative. The most popular types of
innovative technology are those involving aeration,
clarification, sludge treatment, and lagoons. These four
innovative technology groups account for over 35 percent of the
innovative projects funded through 1987. Figure 4 depicts the
distribution of innovative projects by State.
A thorough environmental review is essential to the successful
utilization of any wastewater treatment technology whether
conventional or I/A. Potential cross-media impacts of each
project must be carefully evaluated as part of the
environmental review. Generally, such impacts will be minor
where the wastewater being treated is principally domestic in
origin. However, where a significant industrial contribution
is present an effective pretreatment program may be the only
means to prevent serious cross media impacts at the wastewater
treatment facility.
Problematic Technologies and Projects
To date, 70 facilities or approximately 5 percent of
operational I/A facilities have experienced performance
problems. Of these 70 facilities, 41 are innovative and 29
alternative. Thus approximately 15 percent of operational
innovative projects have not performed to design expectations
while for alternative projects the rate is 3 percent. Overall
the rate for all I/A projects is 5 percent because of the
-------
preponderance of alternative projects. Innovation inherently
involves increased risk; a reasonable number of failures is
therefore an indication that a program is pushing technology to
its limits. The failure o± some I/A technologies is therefore
expected and is not an undesirable facet of the I/A program.
One must bear in mind that ' failure" as the term is used here
refers to the inability of a project to meet design performance
expectations due to something inherent to the technology.
Conventional technology projects sometimes also fail to perform
to design expectations. When this happens it is not generally
due to anything inherent to the technology since, by definition,
conventional technology is fully proven and widely utilized.
Conventional technology failures, unlike most of the I/A
failures under consideration here, are attributable to poor
operation and maintenance, poor design, poor construction and/or
excessive infiltration and inflow.
Projects not performing to design standards typically are
reviewed under the modification/replacement (M/R) grant
program. To date, there have been 12 grants awarded under the
M/R program. There are 58 additional projects currently under
some phase of the M/R grant review process. As is common with
emerging technologies, many of the problems associated with the
technology failures are the result of insufficient knowledge of
design constraints during technology implementation.
Information necessary to improve the design of many of these
problematic technologies has since been collected and is
currently used in facilities planning and design.
Unobligated Funds
To date, approximately 8.5 percent of the I/A set-aside has
been lost by States for failure to obligate the available
dollars within the time allotted. At one time or another, 26
States, the District of Columbia, and five territories
reportedly could not obligate a portion of their I/A funds.
Some States regularly lost funds; others had problems early in
the program but have been successful at obligating their
set-aside in recent years. Still others who had been
successful at obligation of I/A funds during the early years
have recently found it difficult. A summary of unobligated
funds in State reserves for I/A technologies is presented in
Table 1. In all, the total dollar value of funds unobligated
through the period of record is approximately $54.1 million;
unobligated funds for innovative and alternative technologies
are approximately $10.2 and $43.9 million, respectively.
-------
The reasons for not expending I/A funds are varied and include
the following:
o I/A technologies are not a State priority; State
program focus is on conventional wastewater treatment
technologies.
I/A projects are not being proposed by the local
municipality or community's consulting engineers for
•FiinH i nrt
O
funding.
-------
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION
1. What should the Federal Government do about its implied
commitment to fund modification/replacement grants for
failed I/A projects once the State Revolving Fund program
is fully implemented?
The Clean Water Act of 1977, in establishing the I/A
program, authorized EPA to provide both increased grant
percentages for I/A projects and grants for up to 100
percent of the cost of modifying or replacing failed
projects (M/R grants). Although the law and EPA, through
its regulations, did not guarantee the availability of
M/R grants, the potential for them has often been cited
to encourage communities to select I/A technology. Under
the current Title II program the decision to fund an M/R
grant is left up to the States. States vary in their
positions on funding M/R grants. Those who choose to
fund M/R grants do so through their construction grants
allotment. Under Title VI (State Revolving Fund Program)
there is no provision for making M/R grants.
The potential need for modification/replacement (M/R)
grants for failed I/A projects will continue until the
last I/A funded project successfully completes two years
of operation, most likely sometime in the mid-1990's.
The two-year limit on M/R liability was established by
EPA in the construction grants regulations. The Agency
felt that any inherent technological flaws with an I/A
project would become manifest during the first two years
of operation. The Agency concluded that problems
experienced by I/A projects after two years of operation
would not be due to inherent technological flaws, but
rather to long-term operation and maintenance problems.
EPA estimates that up to 1600 I/A projects will commence
operation between 1988 and the mid 1990 's. Projected
potential M/R needs over the life of the I/A program are
approximately $100 to $200 million, although this is a
very gross estimate based on limited experience. Under
Section 205 of the Clean Water Act, a State's deobligated
funds are added to the State's last construction grants
allotment and are available for obligation in the same
manner and to the same extent as that last allotment
(i.e., for two fiscal years only). Deobligated funds
will continue to become available after construction
grants allotments cease in 1990 and would appear to offer
States that wish to fund M/R grants a source for doing
so. However, due to the maximum useful life of two years
the amount of deobligated funds available within any
-------
given State at any time may exceed, or fall short of, the
M/R grant need at that time. Furthermore, as the years
pass, the amount of deobligated funds becoming available
each year within any given State will rapidly dwindle.
Indications are \;hat the amount of deobligated funds
available to States will be sufficient to meet short term
needs. The issue of availability of long range funding
for M/R grants will need to be considered at the time the
Clean Water Act is reauthorized based on data available
at that time.
2. How can innovation in wastewater treatment technology be
encouraged after the I/A program ends?
The I/A program has been very successful in fostering
innovation and prudent risk taking in the development of
new wastewater treatment technologies. The program has
provided a framework within which promising new
technologies could move from research and development to
full scale utilization. The early years of the
construction grants program were marked by a lack of
technological innovation. It was not until incentives
for I/A technology were established under the 1977 and
1981 Amendments to the Clean Water Act that rapid
technological innovation occurred. EPA and the states
are concerned about the future of innovation in
wastewater treatment technology after the I/A program
ends.
Under Title VI of the Clean Water Act States will receive
grants to capitalize State Revolving Funds (SRF's). The
SRF program does not provide for grants to support
testing and demonstration of promising new innovative
wastewater treatment systems, but States could make
interest free loans available for this purpose. EPA does
not presently conduct technology demonstrations outside
the framework of the construction grants program which
will soon end. States are concerned that they will have
insufficient resources on their own to fund such testing
and demonstration projects and that, as a result,
innovation in municipal wastewater technology will slow
considerably, especially in the area of small community
technology.
3. How can EPA facilitate wastewater treatment technology
transfer after the I/A program ends?
From the outset technology transfer has been an integral
aspect of the I/A Program. Good communications have been
vital to the progress to date in acceptance and use of
I/A technologies.
-------
The cornerstone of the I/A program's successful
technology transfer efforts has been a network of EPA
Regional and State I/A coordinators. These individuals
are responsible for promoting the program and serving as
information resources in their States and Regions. In
turn these State and Regional coordinators are served by
a National I/A coordinator at EPA Headquarters and a
staff of I/A technology experts at EPA's Water
Engineering Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
This network of individuals is able to effectively
collect and disseminate information about I/A
technologies.
States are concerned about how, as the construction
grants program winds down, they will be able to
effectively benefit from the experiences of other
States.
Recommendat i on
EPA plans to continue promoting technology development by
providing a reliable, unbiased source of technical
information and expertise for States and communities
through the cooperative efforts of the Office of Water,
the Office of Research and Development's new Center for
Environmental Research and the Cincinnati laboratory, the
Agencywide Technology Transfer Staff, and the Regions.
This coordinated effort will maximize the benefits of
existing technology activities and would allow EPA to
serve as an authority to which States and communities
could turn with requests for technical information and
assistance.
EPA is already undertaking or may undertake the following
activities to encourage the continued development of I/A
technologies:
1) Work closely with external organizations such as the
Water Pollution Control Federation, the American
Society of Civil Engineers, the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and others to leverage
Federal resources and avoid duplication of effort.
2) Conduct technology transfer and training seminars for
those who need information about municipal wastewater
technology.
3) Conduct, publish, and distribute evaluations of the
performance of I/A wastewater technologies.
4) Prepare, publish, and distribute informational reports
and newsletters about municipal wastewater technology.
10
-------
5) Provide peer matching among States. For example, EPA
could match States with a need for certain expertise
with States, external organizations, or EPA personnel
having such expertise.
6) Provide information or referral in response to
specific inquiries or to assist in .solving specific
problems.
7) Conduct an awards program to recognise innovation in
wastewater treatment technology on the part of states,
communities, and consulting engineers.
These activities are part of an Agencywide effort to more
effectively identify the technology needs of municipalities and
the role that EPA, in both the short and long range, should
assume in meeting these needs.
H
-------
Figure 1
Alternative Technologies Funded
(Percent of Total Number of Facilities)
Other 7.5%
Sludge Treatment 24.0%
Energy Recovery
From Sludge 8.0%
Land Treatment 29.0%
On-Site Treatment 11.4%
Collection Systems 20.1%
-------
Figure 2
Distribution of Alternative Projects By State
LEGEND
Number of Projects
] 0-26
2752
53-78
EB2SS79-104
105 130
-------
Figure 3
Innovative Technologies Funded
(Percent of Total Number of Facilities)
Other16.5%
Aeration 13.9%
Sludge Technologies
10.6%
Oxidation Ditches 6.9%
Nutrient Removal 7.1%
Land Application of Effluent 4.4%
Clarifiers 10.6%
Disinfection 8.4%
Energy Conservation &
Recovery 5.2%
Filtration 5.5%
Lagoons 10.9%
-------
Figure 4
Distribution of Innovative Technology Projects
By State
IEGEND
Number of Projects
] 0-7
8-15
16-23
24 31
-------
TABLE 1
CUMULATIVE FY 1979-1985 UNOBLIGATED FUNDS
IN STATE RESERVES FOR
I/A TECHNOLOGIES UNDER SECTION 205(i), CWA
State (1)
Innovative S %l d) Alternative $ %A
Tc»al S
%UA
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
idaho
'Hindis
Indiana
:owa
Kansas
Kentucky
_ouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
American Somoa
Trust Territories
0
135,968
0
0
0
175,691
409,619
389,802
0
0
698,907
11,278
0
177,169
416,718
209,768
0
858,181
0
753,315
0
0
149,787
0
0
0
0
93,750
685,241
0
0
0
0
392,701
221,464
0
268,609
1,024,855
0
0
91,687
0
0
0
115,416
0
511,276
318,223
739,182
0
0
57,310
1,131,962
36,178
56,255
108,838
24
Z
Z
Z
2'.
38
98
•>
"
90
2
f\
~*
32
24
Z
~3
O
23
n
\;
0
8
0
0
0
0
17
87
0
0
0
0
80
4
0
22
22
0
0
20
0
0
0
40
0
31
80
44
0
0
82
97
38
79
82
0
502,858
0
0
0
866,650
1,947,627
578,311
0
0
2,395,555
0
58,370
1,298,784
1,877,859
990,318
1,770,712
2,781.287
0
476,116
0
7,783,890
16,355
0
0
0
0
0
1,233,739
0
0
0
0
1,015,029
2,638,013
0
0
2,819,759
305.888
0
112,800
0
0
0
0
0
3,365,497
1,224,557
928,538
0
0
176,202
5,964,114
201,537
301,116
237,134
0
24
0
0
0
20
34
27
0
0
59
0
0
10
28
22
26
48
0
3
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
38
9
0
0
12
12
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
38
61
10
0
0
49
95
89
77
34
0
638,826
0
0
0
1,042,341
2,357,246
968,113
0
0
3,094,462
11,278
58,370
1,475,953
2,294,577
1,200,086
1,770,712
3,639.468
0
1,229,431
0
7,783,890
166,142
0
0
0
0
93,750
1,918,980
0
0
0
0
1,407,730
2,859,477
0
268,609
3,844,614
305,888
0
204,487
0
0
0
115,416
0
3,876,773
1,542,780
1,667,720
0
0
233,512
7,096,076
237,715
357,371
345,972
0
25
0
0
0
20
34
38
0
0
64
0
0
9
28
22
22
52
0
7
0
31
1
0
0
0
0
3
39
0
0
0
0
45
8
0
3
13
10
0
7
0
0
0
6
0
37
64
16
0
0
54
96
88
78
42
TOTALS
$10,239,150
$43,868,615
$54,107,765
(1) Percentages refer to percent of total respective set-aside (I or A) which remained unobligated
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
Congressional Authority
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act established the
innovative/alternative (I/A) wastewater treatment technology
program to encourage advancement of state-of-the-art
wastewater treatment technologies with respect to meeting the
national goals of a) greater recycling and reuse of water,
nutrients, and natural resources; b) increased energy recovery
and conservation; c) improved cost effectiveness in meeting
specific water quality goals; and d) improved toxics
management. The Amendments authorized financial and other
incentives to foster development and use of I/A technologies.
Specifically, each State was required to set aside a
percentage of its federal construction grant allotment for use
in increasing the level of grant participation for projects
using I/A technologies. Section 517 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987 requires EPA to study the effectiveness of innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment technologies. This
report addresses that Congressional mandate.
Study Objectives
The objectives of this study on the effectiveness of I/A
technologies areas follows:
o Summarize information, by State, on the types of I/A
processes and techniques utilized and on the number of
facilities constructed with such processes and
techniques;
o Describe I/A processes and techniques which have not
performed to design standards;
o Determine which States have not obligated all of their
set-asides for I/A technologies under Section 205(i) of
the CWA and the reasons for each State's failure to make
such obligations; and
o Recommend more effective incentives for using I/A
wastewater treatment processes and techniques.
17
-------
Report Organization
This report is organized into the following sections:
o
I/A Technology Utilization by the States
o I/A Projects Which Did Not Perform to Design Standards
o I/A Funds Not Obligated by the States
Each section provides a topical evaluation of the
effectiveness of I/A technologies and the I/A program and
includes both a brief description of the Technical Approach
and methodology used in the study and the Results interpreted
with respect to the specific study objectives. Supporting
information has been tabulated or appended as necessary.
BACKGROUND
I/A Program Organization
The I/A program is organized and managed as part of the
Federal Construction Grants Program. Most of the program's
project-specific responsibilities have been delegated to the
States, including the responsibility for ensuring that I/A
technologies be fully considered in the planning and design of
each wastewater treatment project. A national I/A coordinator
and a national small flows coordinator at the EPA Headquarters
Program Office share overall technical and administrative
responsibility for national coordination and oversight of the
program. Each EPA Region and State designates I/A and small
flows coordinators to perform required functions for
individual projects in their respective areas. The EPA Office
of Research and Development (ORD), through its Cincinnati
Laboratory, conducts field studies and provides design, cost,
and performance information on I/A technologies. The I/A
technology database is maintained by the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse at West Virginia University.
I/A VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES
A conventional technology is defined as a proven wastewater
treatment process or established technique involving the
treatment of wastewater at a centralized treatment plant by
means of biological or physical/chemical processes followed by
direct point source discharge to surface waters.
An innovative technology is a developed wastewater treatment
process or technique which has not been fully proven under the
circumstances of contemplated use and which represents a
potentially significant advance over the state-of-the-art in
terms of life cycle costs, environmental benefits, more
efficient use of energy or resources, improved toxics
management, improved operational reliability, or improved
18
-------
joint industrial/municipal treatment. An innovative
technology includes an element of risk; however, the
corresponding benefit of the technology outweighs the risk.
There are no technologies which are generically classified as
innovative. Instead, projects are designated as innovative on
a case-by-case basis. Typically, both ORD field studies of
previously installed innovative technologies and current
program information on poorly performing innovative
technologies are used by reviewers to determine whether a
specific project will be funded as innovative.
An alternative technology as identified in both regulations
and guidance documents emphasizes conservation or elimination
of pollutant discharges by reclamation and reuse of wastewater
or productive recycling of wastewater or sludge constituents
through energy recovery systems, or other systems that produce
environmental benefits while contributing to reduced costs.
The technologies which are currently designated as alternative
technologies include the following:
Wastewater Treatment land application (rapid infiltration,
slow rate irrigation, and overland flow); aquifer recharge;
aquaculture; direct reuse (nonpotable); horticulture;
revegetation of disturbed lands; containment ponds;
preapplication treatment; and storage of treated effluent
prior to land treatment
Sludge land application; composting; and drying prior to land
application
Energy Recovery self-sustaining incineration; anaerobic
digestion with greater than 90 percent methane recovery and
use
In addition to these technologies, other alternative
technologies used primarily in small communities include
on-site individual or cluster wastewater treatment systems,
septage treatment, and alternative conveyance systems such as
pressure, small-diameter gravity, and vacuum sewer systems.
Funding of I/A Projects
The 1977 CWA Amendments established two funding provisions to
encourage the use of I/A technologies. The first increased
the federal grant participation on an I/A project from 75
percent to 85 percent of the eligible costs. To pay for this
10 percent incentive, each State was required to reserve a
percentage of its construction grants allotment for use for
I/A technologies. The I/A set-aside percentage was two
percent of the construction grant allotment in 1979-1980 and
three percent in 1981. One-half of one percent of the
19
-------
construction grant allotment was to be placed in the I/A
set-aside specifically for innovative projects.
The second provision required each rural State to set aside an
additional four percent of its allotment for alternatives to
conventional sewage treatment works for small communities
This set-aside is used to fund the regular uniform Federal
share of projects providing alternatives to conventional
treatment for small communities. A State is considered rural
if it has 25 percent or more rural population as determined by
the Bureau of Census. Non-rural States may also elect to use
this set-aside. A list of States and Territories which have
participated in rural state set-aside is presented in Table 2.
The 1981 CWA Amendments continued these set-asides but
changed the size of the I/A incentive payment. These
Amendments reduced the federal grant share for conventional
technologies from 75 percent to 55 percent. The I/A bonus was
then increased from 10 percent to a maximum of 20 percent
creating a wider funding disparity between conventional and
I/A projects. under the 1981 Amendments, an I/A project can
receive up to 75 percent funding for the eligible project
costs. To pay for this increased incentive, the 1981
Amendments require States to increase the minimum I/A
set-aside to four percent while giving States an option to set
aside a maximum 7.5 percent of their construction grant
allotment for use for I/A technologies.
Funds in the mandatory reserves must be used for the purposes
specified. Since 1984, use of the reserve funds has required
that 15 percent of a State's construction grant allotment be
used for the non-incentive portion of the Federal share
(Prior to 1984 use of the reserve required that 17-30 percent
of the allotment be used for I/A technologies.) Unobligated
funds which remain in the mandatory reserves at the end of the
two year allotment period are also reallotted to the general
grant fund for use on conventional wastewater treatment
projects. Funds placed in optional reserves (i.e. non-rural
State small community set-aside) may be released to the State
if their release is requested before the reallotment date
Otherwise, unobligated funds in optional reserves at the end
of the allotment period are reallotted. States that do not
obligate all of their reserve funds cannot participate in the
reallotment.
20
-------
TABLE2
RURAL SET-ASIDE STATES AND TERRITORIES
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Connecticut*
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio*
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
* Not considered a rural State by census standards; exercised option to use rural
set-aside.
-------
Modification and Replacement of Failed I/A Technologies
Projects using I/A components must comply with the project
performance standards (e.g., effluent standards, operation and
maintenance requirements) which were established at the time
of the grant award. Costs for modification or replacement
(M/R) of an I/A project that does not meet performance
standards during the first two years of operation may be
eligible for 100 percent federal grant assistance if the
failure was caused by the I/A components and is not
attributable to negligence on the part of any person. As a
rule, EPA guidance provides that 100 percent M/R grants must
be viewed as a one-time correction for a failed system. For
this reason, innovative technologies are generally not used to
modify or replace a failed I/A system.
22
-------
SECTION IIT
I/A TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION BY THE STATES
TECHNICAL APPROACH
This section provides an overview of the mmber and typet. of
I/A technologies which have been funded in each State since
the inception of the I/A program.
Information on the total number and types of innovative and
alternative technologies which have been funded from 1979 to
1987 was obtained from the .1987 Annual I/A Progress Report
published by EPA. These data were verified by Regional and
State I/A coordinators and retabulated to produce totals l>y
technology and State. This information is used to
characterize the types of projects funded and to compare the
emphasis given to tha program by the individual States.
The distribution of I/A projects funded among the States and
Territories is a function not only of the types of
technologies proposed for communities by consulting engineers,
but also of the amount of funds set aside by each State for
use for the I/A program. Under the CWA, each state is
required to set aside a percentage of their construction grant
allotment for use for I/A technologies. However, construction
grant allotments are based upon a formula which typically
provides larger allotments to densely populated States. These
States would therefore be expected to fund a larger number of
I/A projects than States with smaller allotments. For this
reason, the number of projects funded by each State was not
directly compared. However, a Quantitative measure of a
State's utilization of I/A technologies was calculated as a
percentage by dividing the amount of funds obligated for I 01 A
technologies, respectively, by the I or A set-aside funds for
the period of record as noted in the following example:
Total $ obligated for I technologies x 100
Total $ set-aside for I technologies
This measure is referred to as a "utilization index." States
with larger utilization indices have made greater use of I/A
set-aside funds than chose States vH tn smaller indices. A
utilization index of 100 indicates that the state obligated
all I or A set-aside funds.
Ta'cle 3 presents a summary of innovative technologies, by
technology category, which have been funded to date. There
have been 59b projects funded as innovative project". Of the
23
-------
total innovative projects, 434 provide for treatment of liquid
wastes, and 63 provide for sludge treatment. An additional 98
projects include various wastewater conveyance, and other
miscellaneous treatment processes. Currently, 280 of the 595
various wastewater innovative projects are operational.
The five most commonly funded categories of technologies
providing innovative treatment of wastewater are those
associated with aeration/mixing (83), clarifiers (63), sludge
treatment (63), lagoons (65), and disinfection (50) (see
Appendix A). These five categories account for 55 percent of
the 595 innovative projects. The most common technologies
within these categories include ultraviolet disinfection,
interchannel clarifiers, and oxidation ditches. Of the 63
sludge treatment projects, most involve drying beds and sludge
digestion, with 27 and 23 projects, respectively.
Utilization indices for innovative technologies for each state
are presented in Table 4. Several States (28) had innovative
technology indices equal to 100. Over the period of record
these States obligated all innovative technology set-aside
funds. The number of innovative projects funded in States
with innovative technology utilization indices of 100 ranged
from 2 in Utah to 31 in Alabama.
Table 5 provides a summary of alternative technology projects
by State and individual technology. To date, 2,066
alternative technology projects have been funded, 1,070 of
which are currently operational. Two technologies,involving
land treatment, land spreading of POTW sludge and slow rate
irrigation of wastewater, account for 18 and 14 percent,
respectively, of the 2,066 alternative projects.
Other frequently funded technologies include preapplication
treatment prior to land application, pressure sewers, grinder
pumps, small diameter gravity sewers, methane recovery, and
total containment ponds. These five technologies account for
an additional 35 percent of the total projects funded. Thirty
States had alternative technology utilization indices of 100
(Table 4). These States obligated all alternative technology
funds set aside over the period of record. The number of
alternative projects funded in States with alternative
technology utilization indices of 100 ranged from 8 in Utah to
130 in Illinois.
24
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIC S
STATt
Alaboma
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
N Mariana Islands
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D C
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Aeration/
Mixing
1 1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
t
1
2
1
1
1
t
2
1
6
8
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
1 1
1
-
2
3
2
1
83
danders
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
7
4
1
1
1
t
1
4
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
4
2
63
Disinfection
1
2
1
T
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
4
2
'_,
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
2
1
1
4
50
Energy Conser-
vation and
Recovery
1
3
2
!
1
1
7
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
. _ . .
1
1
3
31
"iltration
1
j
3
1
1
3
1
1
1~"
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
33
.agoons
5
1
1
T
5
1
12
10
2
2
3
3
1
8
1
1
2
2
1
1
65
Land
treatment
3
t
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
26
Nitrifi-
cation
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
8
Nutrient
Removal
1
T
i
t
i
3
4
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
-4
Oxidation
Ditches
b
1
1
!
1
4
1
_
1
b
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
6
1
41
SLUDGE TREATMENT
3rymg Beds/
Land
Application
1
1
"T
4
1
1
1
2
1
t
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
27
Incineration
1
1
1
1
1
- -
b
Composting
1
t
1
...
1
1
1
2
8
[Hcjestion
2
1
1
3
-
1
1
4
2
.'
1
1
23
MISC. (2)
/
1
i
2
— -
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
4
2
2
8
1
4
2
1 1
2
1
3
1
1
8
1
2
1
4
1
3
2
9H
TOTALS
31
6
8
1 >,
19
/
3
3
12
5
0
1
8
26
18
12
1 1
17
13
15
12
-A
16
8
0
4
3
1
13
3
28
16
1
30
18
7
19
0
3
1 1
t,
1H
0
2
5
o"
23
3
4
1 1
12
9
„. '9
(11 Includes numerous Specific Techni
(2) Miscellaneous category includes b1
>logies See Appendix A
>th sludge and wastewater management technology which could not be separoteO
-------
TABLE 4
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOG'
:-A-E
-iCDGn^c
r-iCSl-3
An;cra
Arucns:s
loiifonic
Colorcoo
Connect cut
C 6 aware
~ oma
jecraic
HCWOM
Jcno
'llmois
noiana
IOWG
u c *~ ^ c s
* •? n t 'J C - J
-'. -, srr PzZ't\C
INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
- AL . ;ET '.BLlGATeo
-E:E ,-3-35)$ • 79-351$
'525146 '625146
^00951 264983
"27907 ^27907
593326 693326
5326699 3326699
347818 672127
• 078444 668825
397399 7597
-098369 4098369
"35397 1785397
"74770 75863
-58833 457555
4588946 4688946
2596990 2419821
'298131 581413
:75924 666156
'JCC617 130061"'
' '36699 2-1851S
~:9593 "09593
2529801 1376486
2796904 2796904
3961693 3961693
1982296 1832509
S94522 894522
2404978 2404978
531198 531198
539001 539001
540253 446503
786753 101512
3381336 3381336
519368 5 1 9368
'3055388 10055388
'975037 1975037
-91418 98717
5366161 5U4697
922553 922553
'228320 959711
4576335 3551480
497236 497236
1099466 1099466
467218 375531
4137117 4137117
3914024 3914024
491276 491276
291357 175941
'255829 1855829
'574620 1163344
338763 80540
'694976 955794
2003485 2003485
518558 518558
59842 0
'•63300 0
4 ' 1 76 0
"036 0
'33122 o
JTILIZATION "CTAL •
NDEX- ="OJECTS
100 31
66 6
'00 =
•00 '3
:00 19
79 7
62 3
2 3
'00 ':
100 5
10 i
98 3
100 26
93 18
68 '2
"6 ' ':
' CO
22 ' 3
:00 '5
71 :2 -
100 10
100 8
92 26
100 12
100 16
100 8
100 4
83 3
13 1
100 13
100 3
100 28
100 16
20 1
96 30
100 18
78 7
78 19
100 3
100 13
80 6
100 25
100 18
100 2
60 3
100 23
69 3
20 4
56 11
!00 12
100 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
"~Ai A 5ET OBLIGATED
-S:E 79-35)1 A (79-85)$
-552033 7552033
2128615 1625757
3T-36072 3736072
J583147 3583147
43472726 43472726
4381580 3514930
57^6436 3828809
2142015 1563704
22912715 22912715
9241307 9241307
-034164 1638609
2488996 2488996
24523663 24465293
'3328904 12030120
'31 7 155 4939306
-588922 3598604
•i'53919 4993207
=546058 3064771
"'67171 3767171
'3961401 13485285
'4848532 14848532
21181860 13397970
'0752901 10736546
4715052 4715052
'3077657 13077657
2378459 2878459
2800668 2800668
2905624 2905624
4176810 2943071
'7961234 17961234
2346206 2846206
53383231 53383231
'0002955 10002955
2550559 1635530
29034547 26396534
4902028 4902028
6521051 6521051
24391497 21571738
2639783 2333895
5634503 5634503
2478197 2365397
18995640 18995640
20472190 20472190
2608601 2608601
1714580 1714580
9852445 9852445
S890423 5524926
2011685 787128
3998487 8069949
'1388222 11388222
2840539 2840539
358666 187056
6266825 352049
227712 0
339372 0
687906 450772
o~v 2AT10N "TAL j
'.2£X. =SCJECTS
'70 '5
"5 :o
' 73 24
' "0 24
'30 103
50 9
55 1 7
~3 i 1
' 30 33
' 30 34
4 ! 3
'20 42
'20 130
90 48
~2 47
~5 34
~- "3
= -< ."T
• -3 oo
- — ' i- J_
'-I ' 66
100 33
53 44
'CO 107
'00 22
'00 101
' 30 28
•00 55
' 00 23
~0 18
ICO 27
"00 13
'00 86
'00 36
52 47
91 63
ICO 86
'GO 49
53 64
38 4
'CO 18
95 45
"CO 39
' CO 75
' ?0 8
'CO 20
1CO 43
52 23
39 1
30 35
' OC 51
'OC 11
52 2
" "T
: o
~ o
55 8
or A
funds divided by the total ; cr A set-aside, respectively.
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES . ,
STATE
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
lelaware
Florida
Sergio
Guam
Hawaii
daho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
(onsos
Kentucky
.ouisiano
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
N Mariana Islands
Nebraska
Nevada
*Jew Hampshire
-Jew Jersey
^ew Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Trust Territories
Utah
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Woshinqton
Washington, D C
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming _
Total
Septic Tank/
Soil Absorp-
tion (Single
Family)
1
b
1
3
3
8
1
2
3
2
2
1
54
Mounds
1
1
2
2
8
, 1
4
1
1
2
?h
Evapotrans-
piration Beds
2
0
Aerobic
Units
i
1
i
,\
Sand
Filters
1
T
1~3
1
2
5
2
1
2
1
4
12
3
1
2
ii.'
Septic Tank/
Soil Absorp-
tion (Multiple
Families)
2
7
2
2
2
2
5
6
5
3
1
2
2
6
1
2
50
Septoge
Treatment
and
Disposal
1
3
7
3
19
7
11
4
2
5
63
Other
On-S.te
Treat-
ment
1
t
1
1
1
i
/
A^uo-
nilture/
Wetlondb
Marsh
5
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
b
1
,'/
Over-
land
Flow
2
1
2
i
1
6
T
1
1 1
9
2
2
1
2
1
3
|f|
Infil-
tration
1
M
1
1
2
2
I
1
1
1
2
.3
1
3
2
5
3
1
1
1
8
1
1
H
.»
7~1
Rate
f ngatiun
')
12
4
" ~:o ""
2
20
20
i
•i
3
2
16
2
2
1
5
1
13
14
2
15
8
5
6
6
21
6
31
6
5
9
1
1
1 1
3
1
1
3
:"i4
Preoppli -
cation
Tieotrnent
,-r Staraijr
1
i
24
1
III
3
9
4
1 1
b
1
5
16
9
2
3
4
10
2
4
1 ' 1
Land
1 f eulnitrnt
1
1
1
i
1
2
1
1
1
M
.'•t
.••— — •"—^•*
-------
SYSTEMS
-IS
r
Vacuum
Sewers
E
9
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
SLUDGE TREATMCNT
ENERGY RECOVERY/SLUDGE
90% Melhone
Recovery/
Anaerobic
Recovery
Ollitr
Sludge
Ireolmen
o( Disposal
-------
SECTION IV
I/A PROJECTS WHICH DID NOT PERFORM TO DESIGN STANDARDS
BACKGROUND
The CWA Amendments of 1977 initiated the I/A program to
promote the use of innovative and alternative wastewater
treatment technology, which emphasized low operation and
maintenance costs, reliability, simplicity, energy savings,
and income production. Innovation inherently involves
increased risk; a reasonable number of failures is therefore
expected and is considered desirable facet of the I/A program.
To reduce the risk to communities associated with I/A
technologies, the CWA Amendments of 1977 [Section 202(a)(3)]
initiated the modification/replacement (M/R) grant program.
This grant program is designed to provide grants to correct
failed I/A technology projects. An M/R grant can be given to
replace up to 100 percent of the cost of a failed technology.
It is intended to act as an "insurance policy" for communities
which choose I/A technologies.
The following section outlines the steps necessary to prepare
and process an M/R grant application and the status of I/A
facilities currently in the M/R process.
THE M/R GRANT PROCESS
I/A technologies which fail during the initial 2 years of
operation following construction are eligible for a 100
percent M/R grant provided the failure (1) is not due to
negligence; (2) is not the result of designer operational
problems associated with any conventional project elements;
and either (3) significantly increase operation and
maintenance costs beyond the costs that would be incurred
using conventional collection and/or treatment, or (4)
requires significant capital expenditures to correct the
failure. To obtain an M/R grant, a community must document
the failure and request M/R grant funding from the State. The
State then evaluates this request and determines whether the
project is eligible for an M/R grant. EPA Regional offices
and EPA Headquarters are available to assist the State in this
evaluation. The M/R grant must compete for funding through
the priority system/list process established by each state.
EPA conducts an evaluation of technologies with which
widespread problems have been experienced and shares this
information with Regional and State I/A coordinators. This
information takes the form of either a summary of the problems
experienced and proposed solutions, or in certain cases, are
29
-------
commendation by the EPA to discontinue funding the technology
because of the lack of adequate modifications for the failed
technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
Facilities which are presently involved in some phase of the
M/R grant process were identified through discussions with
Regional and State I/A coordinators. These M/R facilities
fall into one of the four following categories:
l. The I/A technology was declared failed and a 100
percent M/R grant was awarded.
2. The I/A technology was declared failed and a request
for the 100 percent M/R grant is in review.
3. The I/A technology has experienced performance
problems but no M/R grant has been requested.
4. The I/A technology was declared failed, but the
grantee is suing the design engineer and/or the
manufacturer.
A summary sheet was prepared on each of the failed facilities
(see Appendix B). This information—which includes the
facility name, technology, problem summary, and current
status—was used to evaluate common reasons for repeated
failure of specific technologies.
RESULTS
A total of 70 facilities, or approximately 5 percent of the
currently operational I/A projects, was identified as being in
the M/R process. Table 6 illustrates by State and technology
the current status of the 70 facilities. M/R grants have been
awarded to 12 facilities; the status of the additional 58
facilities is as follows:
o Thirty facilities have requested an M/R grant with the
grant request currently under review.
o Twenty-four facilities have had operational
difficulties and are currently being evaluated as
being potentially failed. Some of these facilities
have requested an M/R grant; however, the grant
request has not been reviewed since the technology has
not officially been declared failed.
30
-------
Table 6
Current Status of Potential M/R Candidates by State
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Community
Atmore
Opelika
Flagstaff
Paragould
Reedley
Nevada City
Ventura North Coast
Ventura Nyeland Acres
Manila
San Lorenzo
Fallen Leaf Lake
Sterling
Wayne sville
Sauget
Hanover
Hoyleton
Auburn
Portage
Fairfield
Bonner Springs
Norwood
South Portland
Presque Isle
Sabattus
Rising Sun
Elkton
Williamstown
Fall River
Wayland
Kalamazoo
Moorehead
North Koochiching
Northfield
Rochester
Greenfield
Technology
Subject of Litigation
Potential M/R Project
--%
M/R Grant in Review •
4'
M/R Grant Awarded '
Draft Tube Aerators x-'.
Draft Tube Aerators x
Combined Chtorinatton/Clarification ..x
Wetlands (Duckweed) x
Rapid Infiltration x
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds <..„...x ?
Septic Tank Effluent Pump Collection System Controllers & Pumps x '-\
Septic Tank Effluent Pump Collection System Controllers & Pumps -«..x j
Septic Tank Effluent Pump Collection System Sonic Level Detectors x I
Pressure Leach Field for Effluent Disposal «...x |
Vacuum Collection System Air Ejection System x
Microscreen Ponds x|
Community Mound Systems xj:
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) X *.
Sand Filters «*|
Sand Filters x;?
Swirt Concentrators ,.*{
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds x 4
Draft Tube Aerators ,..> *.x:|
I ntrachannel Clarifiers ,...,.» *«.4.
Pressure Sewers ,,...£ ^
Composting :«..ii s*^.
UV Disinfection 4 «*;f
UV Disinfection „>„.; i:,xf
Active Ozone Disinfection ,;..x : : I
Composting ;..x I- •*
Grinder Pumps/Pressure Sewers *.x
Self Sustaining Incineration „.„.,..x
Septage Treatment £.*
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) ..x : }
Active Ozone Disinfection ; iix ••
UV Disinfection ...x
UV Disinfection r.x
Biological Phosphorus Removal .'. iix :
Community Mound Systems *...-< »x
-------
Tables
Current Status of Potential M/R Candidates by State
(Continued)
State
Community
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Technology
Subject of Litigation
PotenM 1*8 PrPJW5t"
M/R Grant in Review -;
WR Gram A warded
Gallatin
Little Blue Valley
Bozeman
Scotts Bluff
Henderson
Incline Village
Stafford
Sante Fe
Lawrence
Plattsburg
Pilot Mountain
Greenville
Henderson
Burlington
Greensboro
Clifford
Antler
Churchs Ferry
Bedford Heights
North Olmstead
Lake County
Akron
Cranston
Mina Lake
White Rivers
Memphis
Claiborne Co.
El Paso
Levelland
Elbe
Black Diamond
Crab Orchard-MacArthur
Cambellsport
Hayward
Wittenberg
Intrachannel Clarifiers ,,„„...x
Intrachannel Clarifiers ...,„
Rapid Infiltration ,..;.....x
Mfcroscreen Ponds . x
Rapid Infiltration
Wetlands x
Vacuum Collection System Controllers
Draft Tube Aerators x
Community Mound Systems ..x
In-Vessel Composting *i...x
Jet Aeration Oxidation Ditches «^..x
Counter Current Aeration x
Dual Digestion •,.*;.. x
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) J^..x
Starved Air Incinerator «^..x
Community Mound Systems .x :
Community Mound Systems ™..x
Community Mound Systems .!.....x
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) ,,,...x
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) x
Composting ...x
In-Vessel Composting x
Draft Tube Aerators X
Community Mound Systems ......x
Total Containment Lagoons ,..,..x
Biofilters x
Counter Current Aeration ......x
Draft Tube Aerators x
Aeration/Oxidation Ditches ......i
Community Mound Systems ..x ; ;
Wetlands „.,„ ;
Draft Tube Aerators ,
Rapid Infiltration ,.x
Rapid Infiltration
Rapid Infiltration x
Totals
12 30 24 4
-------
o Four facilities have experienced operational
difficulties and are the subject of litigation between
engineers and/or equipment manufacturers and operating
authorities.
A description of the technologies which have not performed to
design standards follows. As expected, a greater number of
facilities (41) in the M/R process involve innovative
technologies; only 29 alternative facilities are in the M/R
process. Innovative facilities in the M/R process represent
approximately 19 percent of operational innovative technology
facilities; 3 percent of the operational alternative
facilities are in the M/R process. Innovative technologies
are typically not fully proven and therefore are more likely
to fail than the fully proven, alternative technologies.
Table 7 summarizes M/R grant request information by
technology. Technologies exhibiting a high number of failures
were the innovative draft tube aerators and the alternative
community mound systems.
Seven facilities that incorporated draft tube aerators into
their wastewater treatment plants reported failures. All of
the facilities had similar problems with inadequate oxygen
transfer. The oxygen transfer problem at three of the seven
facilities was due to mechanical failure of the impellers.
The other four facilities could not provide the designed
oxygen transfer value, causing the facilities to use more
draft tubes and therefore incur higher energy and increased
operation and maintenance costs.
The community mound system has eight reported failures. All
eight of these facilities reported that the wastewater flowed
out the sides of the mound systems.
33
-------
Table 7
Current Status of Potential M/R Candidates
By Technology
Tot*
Subject of Litigation
Poteflfct MR Project
M/R Grant in Review
Technology
Active Ozone Disinfection [[[ W..1 ...1 .......... 2
Aeration/Oxidation Ditches [[[ „ ............ 1 .......... 1
Biofilters [[[ r...1 ...,„,». ........ 1
Biological Phosphorus Removal [[[ «..;,. ......... i.. ..... _,1
Combined Chlon nation/Clarification ................................................ _^. .......... 1^ ...... ...t
Community Mound Systems [[[ 3;.. 3 ...2^ ...... ~flh
Composting [[[ ,,.. 2. „„,.,.. .1 ..,3
Counter Current Aeration [[[ k...2 ......... ....... .2'.;
Dratt Tube Aerators [[[ J& ......... &•.. 1 ...7;
Dual Digestion [[[ .3 ...1 - ..... —5
Pressure Leach Fields [[[ ^|..1 ...^ ......... 1
Pressure Sewers [[[ J^. ....... ,t». ...... «tv
Rapid Infiltration [[[ ~t4-2 ...3. ........ 8
Sand Filters [[[ ^ ....... «2^ ........ 2
Self Sustaining Incineration [[[ ^..1 ...„„ ......... 1
-------
TECHNOLOGIES WHICH HAVE NOT PERFORMED TO DESIGN STANDARDS
Active Ozone Disinfection
Disinfection of wastewater is necessary to reduce transmission
of infectious diseases when human contact with wastewater is
probable. In the past, chlorine has been used almost
universally as a disinfectant; however, studies have shown
that chlorine and its by-products may be toxic to aquatic
life. Other disinfecting agents which may be less toxic to
aquatic life (e.g. , ozone) may therefore be useful in
wastewater treatment. However, ozone, unlike chlorine, is an
unstable chemical and can not be stored; it must therefore be
generated at the treatment facility where it is to be used.
Two facilities (Moorehead, Minnesota; Rising Sun, Maryland)
using the innovative ozone disinfection process are currently
in the M/R grant process. These facilities have been unable
to provide adequate wastewater disinfection due to failure of
the ozone generating units.
Biofilters
Biofilters are used to provide secondary treatment of
wastewater through the use of a fixed filter media to
aerobically break down organic matter in wastewater.
One facility (Memphis, Tennessee) using the innovative
biofilter process is currently in the M/R process. Failure at
this facility has been attributed to inadequate biofilter
tower design to treat current wastewater volumes.
Biological Phosphorus Removal
Biological phosphorus removal employs variations of the
conventional activated sludge technology to remove phosphorus
from wastewater. Common biological phosphorus removal
technologies include the PhoStrip, Bardenpho, A/0, UCT,
Sequencing Batch Reactors and Waste Activated Sludge
processes.
Only one facility (Rochester, Minnesota) using the innovative
biological phosphorus removal process is currently in the M/R
grant process. This facility has been unable to meet
permitted effluent phosphorus concentrations; the reasons for
inadequate treatment have not, however, been determined.
Combined Chlorination/Clarification
This innovative technology combines two wastewater treatment
processes, clarification for solids removal and chlorination
for wastewater disinfection, into one operational process.
35
-------
One facility (Flagstaff, Arizona) is currently in the M/R
process. Failure at this facility has been attributed to
inadequate mixing during the combined process, and the
depletion of necessary biomass by chlorine addition.
L-ommunitv Mound Systems
A community mound system is an adaptation of the conventional
residential septic tank and leach field approach to wastewater
treatment and disposal. A community mound system is often
installed when soil conditions preclude the use of individual
treatment systems or when individual treatment systems are
failing. In this technology, wastewater from several sources
is collected and disposed in an above ground absorption field.
The absorption field is commonly constructed above the natural
soil surface using sand or another suitable earthen fill
material.
Eight community mound systems are currently in the M/R grant
process: Waynesville, Illinois; Greenfield, Minnesota;
Lawrence, New York; Antler, North Dakota; Churchs Ferry, North
Dakota; Clifford, North Dakota; Mina Lake, South Dakota; and
Elbe, Washington. Failures of the community mound systems
have been associated with effluent leaking out of the sides or
top of the mounds. These failures have principally been
attributed to inadequate design to handle wastewater flows or
insufficient site investigations prior to mound installation.
Composting
Composting is a process in which the complex organic
components of sewage sludge are microbially broken down into
simpler compounds. The end product of this process is a
stabilized organic residue, commonly suitable for use as a
soil amendment or conditioner.
Three facilities (South Portland, Maine; Elkton, Maryland;
Lake County, Ohio) using the alternative composting technology
are currrently in the M/R grant process. The South Portland
and Elkton facilities have not performed to design standards
due to inadequate ventilation in the composting building. The
Lake County facility requires greater amounts of bulking agent
than called for in the design specifications.
Counter Current Aeration
Counter current aeration (CCA) is a modification of the
extended aeration activated sludge process. in a conventional
activated sludge process, the aeration device in the
wastewater treatment tank is stationary. However, in CCA, the
aeration device moves through the tank to increase aeration
36
-------
efficiency. A circular tank is used and the aeration device
is suspended from a rotating bridge which travels around the
tank.
Two facilities (Greenville, North Carolina; Claiborne County
Tennessee) using CCA are currently in the M/R grant process.'
Inadequate wastewater treatment at these facilities has
resulted from insufficient aeration. The CCA failure has been
attributed to inadequate oxygen transfer capabilities.
Draft Tube Aerators
Draft tube aerators draw wastewater down through a long
vertical tube where it is mixed with air. These aerators
reportedly provide greater oxygen transfer efficiency than
conventional aerators.
Seven facilities using the innovative draft tube technology
are currently in the M/R grant process: Atmore, Alabama;
Opelika, Alabama; Fairfield, Iowa; Santa Fe, New Mexico;
Cranston, Rhode Island; El Paso, Texas; and Crab
Orchard-MacArthur, West Virginia. Failures at these
facilities have primarily been attributed to inadequate oxygen
transfer and subsequently increased operating costs.
Dual Digestion
The dual digestion system (DDS) is a sludge stabilization
process utilizing both aerobic (pure oxygen) and anaerobic
digestion. The major advantages of using DDS over the many
conventional sludge stabilization processes are the increased
generation of biogas and the potentially higher degree of
pathogen destruction.
One facility (Henderson, North Carolina) using the innovative
dual digestion process is currently in the M/R grant process.
Failure at this facility has been attributed to inadequate
control of oxygen and sludge feed rates.
Grinder Pumps/Pressure Sewers
The grinder pump/pressure sewer system is similar to the
Septic Tank Effluent Pump System in that wastes from
individual dwellings or clusters of homes are pumped to a
pressure or gravity main and subsequently to a treatment
facility. With the grinder pump system, the pumping unit is
equipped with cutters which shred the solids in the waste
stream to a size which can pass through a small diameter
pressure line. The grinder pump/pressure sewer system is
especially suitable in areas where topography limits the
usefulness of gravity sewers (e.g., steeply sloping areas or
areas of little topographic relief),
37
-------
Only one alternative grinder pump/pressure sewer system
(Williamstown, Massachusetts) is currently in the M/R process
This system was under-designed for current wastewater flows
and has had numerous electrical and mechanical failures and
odor control problems.
Intrachannel Clarifiers
The intrachannel clarifier originated as a modification of the
oxidation ditch process in which aeration and clarification
are conducted in the same basin.
Three facilities (Bonner Springs, Kansas; Little Blue Valley
and Gallatin, Missouri) using the innovative intrachannel
clarifier technology are currently in the M/R process. These
facilities do not consistently meet effluent standards due to
inadequate aeration in the intrachannel clarifier.
In-Vessel Composting
In-vessel composting is a sludge composting process which is
conducted in a fully enclosed structure or vessel.
Two innovative in-vessel composting facilities (Plattsburgh,
New York; Akron, Ohio) are currently in the M/R process. Both
of these facilities are experiencing odor control problems;
the Akron facility has also reported failures relating to
sludge conveyance.
Jet Aeration Oxidation Ditches
The oxidation ditch is a simplified version of the
conventional activated sludge process. With jet aerators,
wastewater and air are drawn through the aerator and
discharged at a high velocity. This provides the aeration and
fluid velocity necessary for operation of an oxidation ditch.
One facility (Pilot Mountain, North Carolina) using the
innovative jet aeration oxidation ditch technology is
currently in the M/R grant process. Failure at this facility
is associated with inadequate oxygen transfer; the cause of
the failure has not been determined.
Microscreens For Ponds
Microscreen technology is used to remove suspended solids from
wastewater. In this technology, wastewater is filtered
through fine mesh filter fabric to facilitate ,suspended solids
removal.
Two facilities (Sterling, Colorado; Scott's Bluff, Nebraska)
v;hich are using the innovative microscreen technology are
38
-------
currently in the M/R grant process. Failure at these
facilities has resulted from both structural failure of the
filter mechanisms and failure of the fabric to meet its
expected life span. The cause of the failures has not been
determined.
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) with Wet Air rarhrm
Regeneration ~~
Powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) involves the
addition of powdered activated carbon to the aeration unit of
a wastewater treatment facility. The carbon improves
treatment of high strength wastewaters and facilitates toxics
removal. The wet air carbon regeneration system is intended
to allow on-site regeneration of used carbon.
Five facilities using the innovative PACT process with wet air
carbon regeneration are currently in the M/R grant process-
Burlington, North Carolina; Bedford Heights and North
Olmstead, Ohio; Sauget, Illinois; and Kalamazoo, Michigan
Failures at these facilities have been attributed to problems
with the carbon regeneration systems of the PACT units.
Pressure Sewers
Pressure sewers transport wastewater to a treatment or
collection facility by pumping. These systems are suitable
for use in areas where topography limits the usefulness of
gravity sewers (e.g., steeply sloping areas or areas of little
topographic relief). -utt-ie
Only one alternative pressure sewer system (Norwood
Louisiana) is currently in the M/R process. The pumps for
this system have had a high rate of failure.
Pressure Leach Fic>iriQ
Pressure leach fields are soil absorption systems designed to
dispose of partially treated wastewater.
Only one pressure leach field facility (San Lorenzo
California) is in the M/R process. The failure is attributed
to clogging and corroding of the distribution system.
Rapid Infiltration
Rapid infiltration is a type of land treatment of wastewater
in a rapid infiltration system, wastewater collection basins'
are excavated in sandy soils and are periodically flooded with
partially treated wastewater. Additional wastewater treatment
is provided by percolation of the wastewater through the son?
39
-------
Six facilities using the alternative rapid infiltration
technology are currently in the M/R grant process-
Campbellsport, Wisconsin; Reedley, California; Hayward
Wisconsin; Bozeman, Montana; Henderson, Nevada- and
Wittenburg, Wisconsin. Failure at five of these facilities is
associated wich inadequate basin drainage and has been
attributed to restrictive soils in the area of the basins
The reason for the failure at the Henderson, Nevada, facility
has not been determined. ^j-n-y
Sand Filters
With sand filtration, primary wastewater is applied to a bed
of granular (sand) filter material. During its passage
through the filter, the wastewater is further treated by
biological and physical processes. The sand filter acts to
provide secondary wastewater treatment.
Two facilities (Hanover and Hoyleton, Illinois) using the
innovative sand filtration technology to upgrade an existing
single cell lagoon are currently in the M/R grant process
The cause of failure at these facilities, however, has not
been determined, but failure is thought to relate to the type
and amount of algae in the lagoon effluent.
Self-sustaining Incineration
Self-sustaining incineration involves the incineration of
wastewater treatment sludge. It relies upon the fuel value of
the sludge to eliminate or minimize the need for auxiliary
fuel following incinerator start-up. Self-sustaining
incineration incorporates technology developed for
non-self-sustaining sludge incineration; however, heat
recovery and airflow controls of a self-sustaining unit
provide greater potential for recovery and reuse of heat.
One facility (Fall River, Massachusetts,) using the innovative
self-sustaining incineration technology is currently in the M/R
grant process. Failure at this facility primarily involves the
dewatering device, which does not provide a sludge moisture
content sufficient to allow for self-sustaining incineration.
Seotaae Treatment and Disposal
Septage is generated in systems where septic tanks are used;
it includes the solids which settle out of waste water and are
collected in the septic tank. Methods for septage treatment
and disposal include land treatment and disposal, co-treatment
at existing wastewater treatment facilities, and independent
facilities for treatment and disposal. Independent treatment
includes stabilization lagoons, composting, conventional
biological treatment, aerobic digestion, lime stabilization,
40
-------
and chlorine oxidation.
One facility (Wayland, Massachusetts) which uses the
independent septage treatment is currently in the M/R process.
Reasons for failure at this facility have not been determined.
Septic TanJc Effluent Pump Systems
The septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system is a wastewater
collection system in which the discharge from a septic tank
(septic tank effluent) is pumped through a small diameter
plastic (PVC) sewer to a treatment facility.
Three STEP systems (Manila, Ventura North Coast; Ventura
Nyeland Acres, California) are currently in the M/R grant
process. Failure of these systems has been associated with
controller and pump failures, failure of effluent level
detectors, or failure of wastewater distribution systems.
Starved Air Incineration
Starved air incineration is a sludge incineration technology
in which air inflow to the sludge furnace is reduced, allowing
a subsequent reduction in fuel requirements. Conventional
sludge incineration is accomplished by adding 50 to 150
percent more air than is stoichiometrically necessary to
achieve sludge burning; starved air incineration uses 20 to 60
percent less air than is stoichiometrically necessary.
One facility (Greensboro, North Carolina) using the innovative
starved air incineration process is currently in the M/R grant
process. Failure at this facility is associated with the
inability of the incinerator to meet air emission
requirements.
Swirl Concentrators
Swirl concentrators are used for grit removal during
conventional wastewater treatment. Swirl concentrators allow
treatment of large volumes of wastewater in a smaller space
than that needed by conventional grit removal systems.
Only one facility (Auburn, Indiana) using swirl concentrators
has requested an M/R grant. However, the State does not
consider this a failed I/A technology since failure at this
facility was attributed to malfunction of the pumps used to
convey wastewater to the concentrators. These pumps were not
designated as innovative.
41
-------
TotajL Containment Lagoons
Total containment lagoons are often referred to as complete
retention or evaporative ponds. These lagoons are wastewater
dlsoo^f /?°ldlng P°ndS WhiCh rSlY Up°n evaporation for ter
disposal of wastewater.
One facility (White River, South Dakota) which uses the
alternative total containment technology is currently in the
M/R process. Failure of this facility has been attributed to
lower than expected wastewater seepage and evaporation rates
Ultraviolet Disinfection
The use of ultraviolet (UV) radiation for the disinfection of
wastewater is reportedly an effective and economical
alternative to chlorination andozonation. uv disinfection
°f the radiation commonly by°a
fhorM/aCilitieS USlng ™ disinfection systems are currently in
the M/R grant process: Presque Isle and Sabattus , Maine and
Northfield and North Koochiching, Minnesota. At these
fc reatment . of wastewater with UV radiation has not
Vacuum Assist-.eri Sludge Drvina Berts
fo^nda^f6^51^96 drYing bedS (VASDB>> a technology used
for sludge dewatering, reportedly reduces the area required
for sludge drying beds by as much as 90 percent, compared to
conventional drying beds. In a VASDB system, the sludgJis
ni^L A^allY conditioned ™* then distributed onto porous
plates. After an initial drying phase, a vacuum is created
under the beds, thereby drawing off additional water?
Two facilities (Portage, Indiana; Nevada City, California)
using the innovative VASDB technology are currently in the M/R
grant process. Failures at these facilities have resulted
from the inability of operators to develop sufficiently dried
sludge cakes from the drying beds. ariea
Vacuum Collection Systems
In contrast to pressure sewer systems which transport the
wastes by pumping, vacuum collection systems rely upon a
vacuum created in a small diameter collection main to
transport wastewater to a centralized treatment system or
£ ac 1 1 i ty .
42
-------
Two vacuum collection systems (Stafford, New Jersey; Fallen
Leaf Lake, California) are currently in the M/R grant process.
These failures have been attributed to inadequate operation of
valves and improper selection of sewage pumps for the vacuum
stations, respectively.
Wetlands
Wetlands treatment of wastewater involves the discharge of
partially treated effluent into either constructed wetlands
or, under certain circumstances, natural wetlands The
suspended solids, BOD, and nitrogen concentrations of
wastewater are reportedly reduced during effluent passage
through the wetlands. Depending upon site conditions •
Phosphorus removal may also occur during ..wetlands treatment.
Two wetlands treatment systems (Black Diamond, Washington-
Incline Village, Nevada) are currently in the M/R process'
Failure at the Black Diamond facility, a natural wetland 'has
resulted in inadequate polishing of aerated lagoon effluent
Reasons for the failure at Black Diamond have not been
determined. Failure of the constructed wetland at Incline
Village resulted from improper dike design; this problem has
since been corrected. An additional facility in Paragould
Arkansas, which uses a duckweed laaonn fnr- i-T-oa«-™««*- HC -,10-.
is ajso
in
43
-------
SECTION V
I/A FUNDS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE STATES
BACKGROUND
Between 1978 and 1981, the EPA construction grant share was 75
percent for conventional technologies with a 10 percent
incentive award for I/A technologies. During this time, a
percentage of the State construction grant allotment had to be
set aside for use for I/A technologies. These percentages
varied from two percent in 1979-1980 to three percent in 1981.
To use these set asides the States had to commit a large
percentage (17 to 26%) of their total allotment to I/A
technologies. For example, if State X's annual allotment for
all wastewater treatment construction grants is $20 million
the three percent I/A reserve would be $600,000. If State X
uses the $600,000 for the 10 percent bonus on one or more I/A
projects, then the total cost of the project must be $6
million. The 75 percent construction grant share of the
project would total $4.5 million. This $4.5 million
represents 23 percent of the total state allotment ($20
million) for treatment plant construction. With the three
percent I/A set-aside, a total of 26 percent of state X's
construction grant funds must therefore be used for I/A
technologies.
The 1981 CWA Amendments reduced the EPA construction grant
share for conventional technologies to 55 percent (federal
share is 55 percent of the cost of construction funded by
grant), but States could use the I/A reserve to fund a 20
percent incentive for I/A grants. In addition, under the 1981
Amendments, the I/A set-aside was increased to a minimum of
four percent; however, States were also given the option to
set aside a maximum of 7.5 percent of construction grant funds
for use for I/A technologies. One-half of one percent of the
State allotment must be used to fund innovative technologies.
Since 1981, use of the I/A set-aside has also been contingent
on the State's spending only 15 percent (as opposed to 17-26
percent prior to 1981) of its total allotment on I/A projects).
Rural States (see Table 2 - rural State defined as having 25
percent or more rural population as determined by the Bureau
of the Census) are required to set aside an additional four
percent of their construction grant allotment for alternatives
to conventional sewage treatment works for small communities.
States which are not rural may elect to reserve funds for
alternative systems for small communities, but. they are not
required to do so. The funds in this reserve finance the
basic federal grant share (55%) for projects which use
alternative systems for small communities. The 20 percent
44
-------
incentive funding comes from the I/A set-aside.
States have two years to use their I/A and small community
reserve funds. States lose reserve funds if they fail to
obligate them during this 2-year period. Unobligated funds
which remain in the mandatory reserves at the end of the
2-year allotment period are reallocated for use for
conventional wastewater treatment processes to States which
have obligated all their funds. Regarding optional reserves,
these funds may be released to the State if their release is'
requested before the reallotment date. Otherwise, unobligated
funds in optional reserves at the end of the allotment period
are also reallocated.
TECHNICAL APPROACH
The objective of this task was to identify States which did
not obligate the full amount of I/A and small community
set-aside funds. States were originally identified by
examining information available in the Federal Register. This
information listed individual States with funds subject to
reallotment for the years 1979 through 1985. This information
was used to compile a comprehensive list of States which did
not expend their I/A funds during the period of record. Each
State or Territory not obligating funds was subsequently
contacted to verify information on unobligated funds.
The reason(s) for a State's inability to fully obligate I/A
funds and suggestions for improving the I/A funding procedure
were solicited from State representatives and tabulated.
RESULTS
Table 8 summarizes the I/A technology and small community
set-aside funding for each State and American Territory for
fiscal years 1979 through 1985. A total of 26 States, 5
territories, and the District of Columbia failed to obligate
I/A funds during 1979 to 1985. Approximately 8.5 percent or
$54.1 million of the total I/A set-aside funds for fiscal
years 1979 to 1985 ($626 million) was unobligated.
Unobligated innovative funds were approximately $10.2 million
or 1.6% of the total set-aside for 1979-1985. Unobligated
alternative funds were $43.9 million or seven percent of the
total I/A set-aside for 1979 to 1985. The percentage of
yearly unobligated funds (Table 9) range from 7 to 13 percent
of the total I/A set-aside. Note that larger percentages of
innovative funds were unobligated during the early years of
the program, while the percentage of unobligated alternative
funds increased from 1979 to 1985.
45
-------
Approximately $10.6 million or 2.7 percent of the small
community set-aside funds ($384.5 million) was unobligated
during 1979 to 1985. The States of Delaware, Kansas, Oregon,
South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia and the Territories
of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands failed to obligate small
community set-aside funds during the period of record. The
percentage of unobligated small community set aside funds
increased from 14 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 1985 (Table
9).
A summary of the most commonly reported reasons for failure to
obligate I/A funds is provided in Table 10. The most frequent
comment was that innovative projects were not being proposed.
Several similar or related reasons reinforce the apparent
opinion that innovative technologies are sometimes not
regarded as practical or feasible from the perspective of both
the design engineers and the State I/A coordinators. The
validity of reasoning behind this opinion is beyond the scope
of this report. However, some of the reasons reported were
conservatism, lack of knowledge about the technology, and fear
of the technology's failing and the subsequent negative effect
this may have on the engineer's reputation.
The most common responses related to both I and A technologies
given by the States include the following:
o I/A is not a State priority: I/A is not promoted because
proposed projects falling in this category are not high
priority projects needing funding. Typically, proposers
of I/A projects are small communities which do not
commonly get high priority ratings.
o Staff not familiar with I/A technology: This was
mentioned as problematic in the early years (1979-80) of
the program; however, in several States, consulting
engineers are reportedly unfamiliar with the I/A
technologies or simply do not consider them
cost-effective and therefore do not promote their use in
the communities they service. There is also a perception
that I/A projects have high failure rates with the
failure rate closely associated with the size of the
project (e.g., large projects are more likely to fail
than small projects).
o State program focus is on conventional technology: Many
States are geared toward designing and building
conventional wastewater treatment plants, have set their
46
-------
project priorities, and are reluctant to defer
accomplishing their conventional goals in order to
accomplish the goals of the I/A Program.
o Alternative technologies are easier to design and have
fewer technical problems: Several States have had more
success with alternative technologies and are reluctant
to experiment with innovative processes. In addition
particular environmental settings (e.g., large open '
spaces adjacent to urban centers) promote simplified
alternative technologies such as land application or
lagoon containment over more complicated innovative
systems.
o Innovative technologies are too risky: The inherent risk
associated with new technologies is a prime factor in
decisions not to support applications for innovative
systems. State officials must anticipate how their staff
or local consulting engineers will deal with problems
that may arise with such systems. In some cases where an
innovative technology has failed, States have had
problems processing requests for 100 percent modification
or replacement grants, further eroding their confidence
in innovative technologies and the I/A program.
o I/A technologies not appropriate for all States: For
some States I/A coordinators believe that stipulations
associated with the use of I/A funds place
disproportionate emphasis on funding technologies that
may not be appropriate for a particular state with its
particular set of problems and priorities.
o Innovative projects are not a priority: Innovative
projects with their inherent risk of failure are given a
lower priority than proven conventional technologies in
many municipalities.
o Consulting engineers not promoting I/A: Many States
cited the lack of receipt of proposals to fund I/A
systems because of unfamiliarity with such systems; lack
of desire of consulting engineers to promote such
projects; or special "other" priorities that preclude use
of I/A. For example, the water rights in the State of
Colorado prevent land treatment of wastewater; in other
instances conventional technologies dominate public
thinking when developing treatment systems.
o M/R funding is not a priority: Many state funding
priority systems consider M/R projects too low priority
to receive funding; therefore, M/R grants for failing
technologies are not always available. This eliminates
an incentive for using I/A technologies and reduces the
47
-------
potential for I/A technology use. In addition,
regulatory and reporting requirements of I/A projects
exceed those of conventional projects resulting in
increased regulatory costs relative to conventional
technology.
48
-------
TABLE 8
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
Alabama
FUNDS$
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
2,127,564
0
0
0
2,127,564
0
1980
1,262.599
0
0
0
1,262,599
0
1981
1 ,291, lib
0
0
0
1,291,156
0
1982
I ,213,260
0
0
0
1... 13,260
0
1983
1.094.20U
0
0
0
1,094,200
0
1984
1 ,094,200
0
0
0
1 ,094,200
0
1985
1 ,094,200
0
0
0
1 ,09-t_0i)
0
TOTAL
9,1 77,179
0
0
0
'J.I 77,179
0
A lank a
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobihgated Small Comm
355,740
97,7-15
19,549
78,196
828,360
0
213.444
164,058
41,014
123,044
328,1 17
0
323,978
377,023
75,405
301.618
502.697
0
400,560
0
0
0
41)11.500
()
41 1 ,642
0
0
0
4 1 1 ,()42
0
41 1.642
0
0
0
•1 1 1 .1,42
0
4()b.5(A)
()
()
()
•Mil. .')!,()
I)
2,529.566
638,826
1 ',5,968
^.02.858
5 2')5.578
0
Arizona
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
642,560
0
0
0
0
0
520,188
0
0
0
0
0
584,911
0
0
0
0
0
733,440
0
0
n
0
0
660, 9bO
0
0
0
0
0
660,960
0
0
0
0
0
660,960
0
0
0
0
0
4,4b3,979
0
0
0
0
0
Arkansas
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
622,348
0
0
0
1.244.696
0
457,443
0
0
0
1.007.612
0
566,510
0
0
0
755,357
0
7U'j.b1 2
0
0
0
70'J.H12
0
b40,12d
0
0
0
640.120
0
640. 1 20
0
0
0
b4(). 1 20
0
Ml). 20
0
0
0
MO. 1 2()
()
4,2 /U.473
0
0
0
5 hi/. 837
0
California
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Fumlb
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
6,586.486
0 "
0
0
0
0
5.331.902
6"
0
0
0
0
8.618.379
"o
0
0
0
0
/,5 12 000
0 ~~
0
0
0
0
8.003.81JH
0 "
0
0
0
0
H./48.20O
_
0
0
0
0
h.'J'JH. fltil)
0
0
o
0
n
51 . /'J9.425
0
0
0
0
0
Mute Onto provided in this toblc lur.t-d upon uifoi motion pmvidt.l !.•, ,tot.
OIK!
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
Colorado
FUNDS$
I/A Set -Aside _
Unobiliuuteci Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
761.016
~lf ~
0
0
0
0
1980
559.367
27,890
27,896
0
0
0
1981
692.755
" 1 15~498
1 15.459
39
0
0
1982
HI)7,9H()
l'./,9S'.)
0
1!,/,959
0
0
1983
/a?. 76o
24 1 ,600
0
241,600
0
0
1984
782. 7bO
249,899
0
249,899
0
0
1985
/H:'./I.O
2-Tl,4H'J
32.33b
21 /.TJ3
0
0
TOTAL
!'.229.398_
1.042,341
175.691
866,650
0
0
Connecticut
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
930,048
225,704
54,138
171,566
1,860.096
0
558,029
0
0
0
1,116,058
0
847,000
0
0
0
1,129,344
0
1 .046,084
419,681
86.584
333,097
1.062,912
0
1,198,760
1,055,796
149.845
905,951
1.076,198
0
1 .076.198
0
0
0
1,076.198
0
1.196.760
656.065
119,052
537,013
1.062,912
0
6,854,879
2,357,246
409,619
1,947.627
8.383,718
0
D elm v are
I/A Set-Aside
i inobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
335.664
103,945
103.945
0
757,160
757.160
201,398
0
0
0
402,907
0
305,694
62.837
62.837
0
407.592
30,602
3K5.61b
0
0
0
3b 5, bib
2? 5 959
388,41 1
160,071
158,000
2',071
388,41 1
100,665
388.41 1
164,620
5,440
159.180
476,640
476.640
536.J1-H)
476. 64O
f.'I.SBO
•1 1 /.Of.O
4/6.640
476.640
2.559.414
968,1 1 3
389.802
fi /8,31 1
3.292~,966
2,067.666
Florida
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
3,178,092
0
0
0
0
0
1,625.719
0
h o
0
0
0
2.893.023
0
0
0
0
0
3,624,648
0
0
0
0
0
3,303.080
0
0
0
0
0
6,193.261
0
0
0
0
0
6,193,261
0
0
0
0
0
27,01 1,084
0
0
0
0
0
C-eor(j ivL
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1,608,500
0
0
0
3.217,024
0
1.155,990
0
0
0
2,31 1,980
0
1,464,222
0
0
0
1.952.297
0
1,834,552
0
0
0
1,854,552
0
1.654,480
0
0
0
1.654.480
0
1.654.480
0
0
0
1.654.480
0
1.654.480
0
0
0
1 .654,480
D
1 1,026.704
0
0
0
14.2 79,293
0
Note: Data provided in this table based upon information provided by Ctate and Regional I/A i-oordirmturs
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
STATE
Havuaii
FISCAL YEAR
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
656,726
640,305
164,182
476,123
0
0
1980
531,634
83,985
83.985
0
0
0
1981
597.822
99,637
99.637
0
0
0
1982
748.992
93.624
93.624
0
0
0
1983
757.920
755,705
92.897
662,808
0
0
1984
757.920
663,286
69.842
593,444
0
0
1985
757,920
757,920
94,740
663 180
0
0
TOTAL
4.808.934
3,094,462
698.907
2,395.555
0
0
Idaho
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set— Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
415.968
0
0
0
84.936
0
249.581
0
0
0
499,162
0
378.828
11,278
1 1,278
0
505,104
0
4/b.392
0
0
0
475.392
0
481.334
0
0
0
481.334
0
481.334
0
0
0
481.334
0
475.392
0
0
0
475.392
0
2.957.829
11,278
11.278
0
3.002.654
0
Illinois
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
4,300,034
0
0
0
0
0
2.617,927
0
0
0
0
0
4.1 10,120
0
0
0
0
0
4,907,368
58,370
0
58, 370
0
0
4,425,720
0
0
0
0
0
4,425,720
0
0
0
0
0
4,425,720
0
0
0
0
0
29.212.609
58.370
0
58,370
0
0
Indiana,
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
2.292,740
0
0
0
4,585,480
0
1,856.026
0
0
0
2,345.651
0
2.087,080
0
0
0
2.782,773
0
2,614,968
0
0
0
2.614,968
0
2.358,360
1,359,078
60,294
1,298,784
2,358.360
0
2.358,360
1 16,875
1 16,875
0
2,358.360
0
2,358,360
0
0
0
2.358.360
0
15.925.894
1,475.953
177.169
1,298.784
19,403,952
0
Iowa
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1,072,976
0
0
0
2,145,952
0
868,600
24,145
24.145
0
1.460,613
0
976.720
584,561
155.833
428.728
1.302,292
0
1.223,800
0
0
0
1,223,800
0
1,324.400
646,280
54.279
592.001
1.324,400
0
1,324,400
898,913
41.783
857.130
1.324,400
0
1,324.400
140,678
140,678
0
1,324,400
0
8.1 15,296
2,294,577
416,718
1.877.859
10.105.857
0
Note Data provided in this table based upon information provided by Stab,- and Reijimuil I/A
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY HINDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
STATE
Kansas
FISCAL YEAR
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1979
729.206
129.001
129,001
0
1.458,412
0
1980
591,31 1
0
0
0
1,180.620
0
1981
663,787
0
0
0
885,049
0
1982
831,670
0
0
0
831,670
0
1983
883,296
0
0
0
883,296
0
1984
883.280
552,476
25,040
527,436
883,280
404 770
1985
883,296
518,609
55.727
462.882
882,296
35 654
TOTAL
5,464,846
1.200,086
209,768
990.318
7,004,623
440,424
Kentucky
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1.22 7.9 12
0
0
0
2.455.824
0
736.747
0
0
0
1.473.494
0
1,1 18. 21)
0
0
0
1.491.036
0
1 ..Mb. 4 DO
0
0
0
1,245.400
0
1,245,400
531,595
0
531,593
1,245.400
0
1,245,400
464,640
0
464,640
1.245.400
0
1 ,2-r.j 4OO
774,470
0
//•I, 4 79
1.245.400
0
8.064,536
1,770.712
0
1 ,770,712
10.401,954
0
Louisiana
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1,046.000
26,163
0
26,163
2,092,000
0
534.972
487,943
86,714
401,229
1,069.943
0
951.985
736,911
0
736.91 1
1,269.314
0
1,192.760
1,041 907
100,603
941 304
1,192.760
0
1.075,680
808,257
132.577
675,680
1,075.680
0
1.075.680
538.287
538.287
0
1.075.680
0
1.075,680
0
0
0
1.0/5,680
0
6,952.757
3.639,468
858,181
2,781,287
8.851,057
0
A/a in e
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
629,580
0
0
0
125.916
0
377,748
0
0
0
755.496
0
573,368
0
0
0
764.490
0
/I'J.520
O
0
0
719.520
0
728.514
0
0
0
728.514
0
728.514
6~ ~ "
0
0
728,514
0
7I'J '.,JO
()
0
0
719,520
0
•1.4/6.764
0
0
0
~4.~541.97~0
0
Maryland
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set— Aside
Unobiliqated Small Comm.
2.333.268
147,365
147.365
0
0
0
1.399,961
292,755
292.755
0
0
0
2.124,941
0
0
0
0
0
2,666.592
263.685
263.685
0
0
0
2,699,924
0
0
0
0
0
2,699.924
525,626
49,510
476,1 16
0
0
2,666,592
0
0
0
0
0
16.591,202
1,229,431
753.315
476,116
0
0
\ki(a provided in this table based upon informalum provided I,/
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
Massachusetts
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
2.481.528
0
0
0
0
0
1980
1.488,917
0
0
0
0
0
1981
2.259.963
0
0
0
0
0
1982
2,8 56.032
0
0
0
0
0
1983
2.871.48.'
0
0
0
0
0
1984
2.871.482
0
0
0
0
0
1985
2.836.032
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
17.645.436
0
0
0
0
0
Michigan
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
3,421.630
0
0
0
6,843,260
0
2.081,822
0
0
0
2,487,565
0
3.1 14.701
0
0
0
4,152.935
0
3,902,480
1.006.399
0
1 ,006,399
3,902,480
0
4,207.640
3,099,107
0
3, 099. If)/
4,207.640
0
4.207.640
1.679.709
0
1,679.7U'j
4,207,640
0
4.207.640
1,998,375
0
l,'J'J8,i, '!,
4, 207. MO
I)
25,143.553
7,783.890
0
7,/tt"5.890
50.009.160
"o
Minnesota
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set— Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1.548.292
0
0
0
3.096,584
0
1.101.316
0
0
0
2,506.756
0
1.409,411
0
0
0
1.879,215
0
1,765.436
166,142
149,787
16.355
1,765.856
0
1,798.560
0
0
0
1,798.560
0
1.964,702
0
0
0
t. 798, 560
0
3,147.480
0
0
0
l,/y8,5(>0
0
12,735.197
166,142
149,787
i6,355
14,644.091
0
Mississippi
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
811,440
0
0
0
162.288
0
486,864
0
0
0
973.728
0
738,990
0
0
0
985,320
0
93/.360
0
0
0
'.I 5/, 5t,o
i)
881,640
0
0
0
Httl ,640
0
881,640
0
0
0
KHI.Md
()
881,641)
0
0
0
HH 1 .Mo
1 1
5.609.574
0
0
0
'•.I.'* 5. (.16
0
Missouri
I/A Set- Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
2.067,342
0
0
0
4.134,684
0
1.057,527
0
0
0
2.115,053
0
1,881.898
0
0
0
2.509,197
0
2, 5 5 /, 826
0
0
0
2.357.828
0
2,712.680
0
0
0
2,712.680
0
2.712.bbO
0
0
0
2,712.680
0
L'./12.bHi>
)
0
U
J.7I2.1.HO
0
15,482.635
0
0
0
19,254.802
0
Note Data provided in this table based upon information provided l.y Matt; und Reijmruil I/A
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
STATE
Af 01 1 land
FISCAL YEAR
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
414,180
0
0
0
828.360
0
1980
299.069
0
0
0
670.580
0
1981
377.024
0
0
0
502.697
0
1982
472.404
0
0
0
472.404
0
1983
476.640
0
0
0
476.640
0
1984
476.640
O
0
0
476.640
0
1985
893.700
0
0
0
476.640
0
TOTAL
3.409.657
0
0
0
3.903.961
0
Nebraska
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligoted Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
428.274
0
0
0
760,307
0
369.155
0
0
0
738.308
0
520,560
0
0
0
694,080
0
520.120
0
0
0
520.120
0
500,520
0
0
0
500.520
0
500.520
0
0
0
500.520
0
500.520
0
0
0
500.520
0
3.339,669
0
0
0
4.214.375
0
Nevada
j/A Set -Aside
Unobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set— Aside
Unobiligoted Small Comm
414.180
93.750
93,750
0
0
0
335.290
0
0
0
0
0
377.023
0
0
0
0
0
4/2.404
0
0
0
0
0
476.640
0
0
0
0
0
476.640
0
0
0
0
0
893.700
0
0
0
0
0
3,445.877
9-5.750
93.750
0
0
0
New Hampshire
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
698.040
218.326
218.177
149
1.396.080
0
418,824
0
0
0
837.648
0
635,715
0
0
0
847.620
0
797.760
398.937
104,043
294,894
797,760
0
807,732
387,312
122,230
265.082
807,732
0
807.732
118,561
1 18,561
0
807.732
0
797,760
795,844
122.230
673.614
797,760
0
4.963.563
1,918,980
685.241
1,233.739
6.292.332
0
New Jersey
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Small Comm
3,000,060
0
0
0
0
0
1.800.036
0
0
0
0
0
2.732.198
0
0
0
0
0
3.428. b40
0
0
0
0
0
J,471,49b
0
0
0
0
0
3.471.4yH
0
0
0
0
0
3,4<.'tt.fc>4()
0
0
0
0
0
21.332.5/0
0
6
0
0
0
Note: Data pro* ided in this table based upon information provided by Stole and Regional I/A coordinators
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
New Mexico
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
414.180
0
0
0
828.360
0
1980
248.509
0
0
0
612,000
0
1981
377.023
0
0
0
502.697
0
1982
472,400
0
0
0
472,400
0
1983
476.640
0
0
0
476,400
0
1984
483.122
0
0
0
476.640
0
1985
893,700
0
0
0
476.640
0
TOTAL
3,365.574
0
0
0
3,845.137
0
Neva York
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
8.921,556
0
0
0
0
0
5,352,934
0
0
0
0
0
8,124.989
0
0
0
0
0
10.196.060
0
0
0
0
0
10,323.510
0
0
0
0
0
10.323.510
0
0
0
0
0
10.iy6.OfaO
0
0
0
0
0
63,438,619
0
0
0
0
0
North, Carolina
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiiigated Small Comm
1,663.872
0
0
0
3.327,744
0
1.516,000
0
0
0
1.516,000
0
1.912.000
0
0
0
1.912.000
0
1.588,000
0
0
0
1,588,000
0
1.766.040
0
0
0
1,766.040
0
1.766,040
0
0
0
1,766,040
0
1,766.040
0
0
0
1.766,040
0
11.977.992
0
0
0
13,641,864
0
North Dakota
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
414.180
197,121
103.545
93,576
828,360
0
248,509
221.209
62,127
159,082
497.018
0
377.024
255.478
62,837
192,641
502.697
0
472,404
20.568
0
20,568
472,404
0
476.640
59,580
59.580
0
476,640
0
476,640
278,164
59,580
218,584
476,640
0
676.580
375,610
45,032
330,578
476.640
0
3,141,977
1,407,730
392,701
1,015,029
3.730.399
0
Ohio
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
4,150.772
583.247
0
583,247
0
0
2.739,688
2.276,230
221.464
2,054.766
0
0
4,875.360
0
0
0
0
0
6,108,368
0
0
0
l>, 108. HiH«
0
5,508.840
0
0
0
5.508.768-
0
5.508,840
0
0
0
b.508.H40.
0
5,508,840
0
0
n
'•.SUM, «•!<)•
0
34,400,708
2,859,477
221,464
2.638.013
0
0
* Voluntary Set—Aside
Nr.te Data provided in this table based upon information provide^.
L.tcite and Regional I/A coordinate
-------
IABLL O
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
STATE
Oklahoma
FISCAL YEAR
FUNDS$
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Unobiligated Small Comm.
1979
768.638
0
0
0
1.537.276
0
1980
548.746
0
0
0
1,142,146
0
1981
709.696
0
0
0
932,928
0
1982
876.604
0
0
0
876.604
0
1983
790.560
0
0
0
790.560
0
1984
790.560
0
0
0
790.560
0
1985
1,339 777
0
0
0
790.560
0
TOTAL
5.824.581
0
0
0
6.860.634
0
Ore (/on
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1.089.816
268,609
268.609
0
2.179,632
5,561
653.890
0
0
0
1,307,779
0
992.51 1
0
0
0
1,323,348
0
1.245.504
0
0
0
1.245.504
0
1.261.0/3
0
0
0
1.261,073
0
1.261.07,5
0
0
0
1.261,073
0
1 ,245.504
0
0
0
1,245,504
0
7.749.371
268.609
268.609
0
9,823.913
5.561
Pennsylvania
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set— Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
3,612.982
1,695,782
495.825
1,199,957
7,225,964
0
2.924.794
0
0
0
5.849.588
0
3,288.902
2,148,832
529,030
1,619.802
4.385.203
0
4,120.724
0
0
0
4,120,724
0
3,876,240
0
0
0
3.876.240
0
3,876.240
0
0
0
3.876,240
0
7,267,950
0
0
0
3.876,240
0
28,967.832
3,844.614
1.024,855
2,819,759
33,210.199
0
Rhode Island
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
441.168
0
0
0
0
0
264.700
0
0
0
0
0
401,778
0
0
0
0
0
504.192
0
0
0
0
0
510,494
0
0
0
0
0
510,494
0
0
0
0
0
504.19^
305.888
0
305.888
U
0
3,137.018
305,888
0
305,888
0
0
South Carolina
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm.
974.650
0
0
0
1.949.300
0
789.002
0
0
0
966.493
0
887.224
0
0
0
1.182.966
0
1.111.612
0
0
0
1.111.612
0
1.002,440
0
0
0
1.002,440
0
966.601
0
0
0
1.002.440
0
1.002.440
0
0
0
1,002.440
0
6,733.969
0
0
0
8,217.691
0
Note1
Data provided in this table based upon information provid'-d by SUit>; and Regional I/A
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION
FUNDS IN
205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
South Dakota
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1979
41 4, 180
91.687
91,687
0
828,360
47.849
1980
2bi,4b/ |
1 12,800
0
112,800
0
0
1981
X7~7 n94
0
0
0
502,697
0
1982
AT) 4f\4
0
0
0
472.404
0
1983
476 640
0
0
0
476.640
0
1984
476 640
0
0
0
476,640
0
1985
476 640
0
0
0
476.640
0
TOTAL
2,945,415
204,487
91.687
1 12,800
3.233.381
47.849
Tennessee
Utah
Vei~mont
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set Aside
Unobiliqated Small Comm.
4.810.500
0
0
0
0 C.CC p.(\f~\
0
. 923,569
0
0
0
2 092 570
0
0
0
0
1 952 560
0
9 74 1 ft 1 "\
0
0
0
1.462,300
0
? figs ?7S
0
0
0
1,421,480
0
2 665 275
0
0
0
1,421,480
0
2 665 275
0
0
0
1.421.480
0
23.132,757
0
0
0
12,337,470
0
.
rppfr n ^
I/A Set— Aside
Unobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
3.614,472
0
0
0
0
o
2.205.986
0
0
0
0
0
3,290.244
0
0
0
0
0
4.122.352
0
0
0
0
0
3,717,720
0
0
0
0
o"
3,717,720
0
0
0
0
0
3.717.720
0
0
0
0
0 "
24.386.214
0
0
0
0
0
I/A Set-Aside
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set— Aside
Unobiliqated Small Comm
414,180
0
0
0
0
0
289.469
0
0
0
0
0
377,024
0
0
0
0
0
472,404
0
0
0
0
0
515,600
0
0
0
0
0
515.600
0
0
0
0
0
515,600
0
0
" 0
0
[)
3,099,877
0
0
0
0
0
I/A Set— Aside
Unobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiliqated Small Comm
32,298
0
0
0
64,596
0
193.788
0
0
0
JO/ ,->' O
0
294.143
0
0
0
TQO i on
0
369,120
55,836
55,836
0
"569 1 ?0
358.549
373,734
59,580
59.580
0
373 734
0
373.734
0
0
0
373.734
0
369.120
0
0
0
369.120
0
2,005.937
1 15,416
1 15.416
0
2.330,070
358.549
Note:
Data provided in this table based upon information provided by State and Regnal I/A c
-------
TABLE
UNOBLIGATED I/A
STATE RESERVES UN
(CONTINUED)
TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
ER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
CAL YEAR
STATE
Virginia
RJNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm
1979
1.646,568
0
0
0
3.293.136
0
1
98
1.97
80
7,941
0
0 .
0
5,882
0
1981
1.499.553
0
0
0
1.999.404
0
1982
1,881.792
0
0
0
1,881,792
0
1983
1,905.314
0
0
0
1,905,314
0
1984
1,905.314
0
0
0
1,905.314
0
1985
1.881.792
0
0
0
1.881.792
0
TOTAL
1 1.708.274
0
0
0
14,842,634
0
Washington
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set— Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1.485.792
0
0
0
2.971.581
0
891.475
0
0
0
1,782.950
0
1.353,132
329.791
173,618
156.173
1,804,176
0
1.698.048
1,250,429
208.888
1,041,541
1.698.048
0
1.719.274
1,413,909
128.770
1,285,139
1.719,274
0
1,719.274
0
• o
0
1,719,274
0
1,698.048
882,644
0
882,6-44
1,698.048
0
10,565.043
3,876,773
511.276
3,365,497
13,393,351
0
Washington, D.C.
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm.
414.180
414,180
103.545
310,635
0
0
248.509
248.509
62,127
186,382
0
0
348.107
348,107
33,921
314,186
0
0
472.404
472,404
59,050
413,354
0
0
^_ 310,360
0
0
0
0
0
310,360
0
0
0
0
0
306.528
59.580
59.580
0
0
0
2.410.448
1,542,780
318.223
1,224,557
0
0
West Virginia
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1.503,852
337.303
263,375
73,928
3,007,704
676,664
902.311
0
0
0
1,804.622
0
1.369,580
1.079.609
224.999
854,610
1,826.106
0
1.718.688
21 1,428
21 1.428
0
1,718,688
0
1.740,172
39.380
39.380
0
1.740.172
0
1,740.172
0
0
0
1,740.172
0
1,716,688
0
0
0
1.718.688
0
10,693,463
1,667,720
739,182
928,538
13,556,152
676,664
Wisconsin
I/A Set -Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Small Comm
1.615.554
0
0
0
3,231.108
0
526,484
0
0
0
2,431.842
0
1,470,633
0
0
0
1.960.843
0
1.842.596
0
0
0
1.842,596
0
2,645,480
0
0
0
2,645.480
0
2.645.480
0
0
0
2.645.480
0
2,645,480
0
0
0
2,645,480
0
13,391.707
0
0
0
1 7.402,829
0
Note. Data provided in this table based upon information provided by State and Regional I/A cnurrs
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SECTION 205 (i), CWA
FISCAL YEAR
STATE
Wyoming
FUNDS$
I/A Set -Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
1979
414.180
0
0
0
828.360
0
1980
248.509
0
0
0
670.580
0
1981
377.024
0
0
0
502.697
0
1982
472.404
0
0
0
4/2.404
0
1983
476.640
0
0
0
476.640
0
1984
476.640
0
0
0
476.640
0
1985
893.700
0
0
0
476.640
0
TOTAL
3,359.097
0
0
0
3.903.961
0
Guam
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
61.630
15,408
15,408
0
0
0
49.890
31.525
12.473
19,052
0
0
56,108
56,108
9,351
46,757
0
0
70.320
70.320
8.790
61,530
0
0
63,520
7,940
7,940
0
0
0
63,520
52,211
7,940
44,271
0
0
63.520
7,940
7,940
0
0
0
428,508
241,452
69.842
171.610
0
0
Puerto Rico
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiliqated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
985.656
758,534
246.414
512,120
0
0
591.394
497,216
147.849
349,367
0
0
897.651
884,818
149.609
735,209
0
0
1.126.464
1.108.548
140.808
967,740
0
0
1.276.320
1.276.320
159.540
1,1 16,780
0
0
1,276.320
1.276.320
159.540
1,1 16.780
0
0
1.276.320
1 .276.320
159.540
1,1 16,780
0
0
7,430,125
7,078,076
1,163.300
5,914,776
0
0
Virgin Islands
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
31,752
20,598
7,938
12,660
663,504
0
19,051
0
0
0
38.102
0
28,917
28,505
4,751
23,754
38.556
38,007
36,288
35,732
4.467
31,265
36,288
35,732
50,960
50,960
6.370
44,590
50,960
50,960
50.960
50,960
6,370
44,590
50,960
50,960
50,960
50 960
6.370
44,^90
50,960
50,960
268,888
237,715
36,178
201,537
929,330
226.619
Amer. Som.
I/A Set-Aside
Unobligated Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobligated Small Comm.
51,028
51,028
12.757
38,271
0
0
41.308
26,102
10.327
15,775
0
0
46.459
46.459
7.743
38.716
0
0
58.102
58,102
7,269
50,833
0
0
87,840
87.840
10,980
76,860
0
0
87,840
87,840
10,980
76.860
0
0
87,840
10,980
10,980
0
0
0
460.417
368,351
71.036
297.315
0
0
Note. Data provided in this table based upon information provided by State and Regional I/A
-------
TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS IN
STATE RESERVES UNDER SL'CTION 205 (i), CWA
STATE
Trust Terr. PC
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligoted Funds
Innovative
Alternative
Small Comm Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm
FISCAL YEAR
1979
115,334
115,334
28.834
86,500
0
0
1980
93.344
14,746
14.746
0
0
0
1981
104,974
17,496
17.496
0
0
0
1982
131.536
79,536
16,442
63,094
0
0
1983
125.280
103,200
15.660
87,540
0
0
1984
125,280
15,660
15,660
0
0
0
1985
125 280
15.660
15.660
0
0
TOTAL
821.028
361.632
124,498
237,134
0
Note Data provided in this table based upon information provided by State and Regional I/A coordinate
-------
TABLE 9
YEARLY TOTAL UNOBLIGATED I/A TECHNOLOGY FUNDS
FUNDS$
I/A Set-Aside
Unobiligated Funds (1)
Innovative (2)
Alternative (3)
Small Comm. Set-Aside
Unobiligated Small Comm. (4)
1979
87.200,364
6,231,135(7%)
2.564 473(41%)
3,666,671(59%)
77.506.880
1,487,634(1.9%)
1980
57.839.677
4,509,1 19(7 7%)
1 055 684(237)
3,453,435(77%)
49.801,825
685.923(1 4%)
FISCAL YEAR
1981
82,716,169
7,182,948(87%)
1 71P *)Q"7fTiV7\
5,463.851(77%)
49.527.501
1,248.366(7 5%)
1982
96,801.481
6,969,607(7 2%)
,009,0b4(2 1 %)
5,460,543(79%)
51.733,750
1.728,788(3 3%)
1983
96,466,497
12,143,508(12 6%)
1,257,922(10%)
10,885,586(90%)
51.991,622
1,427.945(2 7%)
1984
100.115,187
7,734,047(7 7%)
1,225,408(16%)
6,508,639(84%)
52,080.147
2,208,690(4 2%)
1985
105,139,363
9,319,401(88%)
894.865(10%)
8,424,536(90%)
51,949.472
1.839,574(3 5%)
(1) Percent represents total amount of I/A set-aside unobligated
(2) Percent represents amount of unobligated funds winch were designated for use for mnovahv,; tc-U,nolog,L-s
(3) Percent represents amount of unobligated funds where were designated for use for alternate technologies
(4) Percent represents total amount of Small Community Set-Aside funds unobligated.
Note: Data provided in this table based upon information provided
by Staff and RITJHKU
-------
TABLE 10
REASONS REPORTED FOR FAILURE TO OBLIGATE I/A RESERVE FUNDS BY EPA REGION AND STATE
1
3
4
«>
7
8
9
REASON
I/A not given State priority
Staff not familiar with I/A in early years
(e.g., 79. '80)
Program focus on conventional
technology
Alt. tech. is easier to design,
fewer technical problems
I - too risky; technology not proven;
problematic; not cost effective
I/A Program not appropriate for all
States
I - not wanted if displaces higher
priority project
Consulting Engineers not promoting I/A
Lack of program incentives ($)
(M/R Grants)
Number of Reasons Given by State
Alaska
X
X
X
3
Arkansas
X
1
Colorado
X
Y
X
3
a
o
Connect!
X
X
2
Delaware
X
1
«
•
X
X
X
3
o
£
•
•o
X
1
Indiana
X
X
X
3
0
x
1
Kansas
X
X
X
3
Louisiana
X
X
X
3
Maryland
X
X
2
Michigan
X
X
2
Missouri
X
1
o>
w
£
«
Q.
fc
M
I
X
1
a
Q
^
Q
£
*••
O
z
x
x
x
3
Oregon
X
1
ft
c
a
Pennsylv
X
X
2
0
o
ft
o
h.
3
a.
X
X
2
•o
c
•
j»
•
•o
0
DC
X
X
2
X
X
2
Vermont
X
X
2
M
°O
]n
_c
o>
^
X
X
X
3
c
o
Washlngt
X
X
2
O
0
Washlngtc
X
X
X
3
••*
M
X
x
X
3
TOTALS
8
4
7
7
g
o
14
5
-------
SECTION VI:
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE I/A TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) clearly established the intent of Congress to
promote the construction of wastewater treatment facilities
which recycle wastewater pollutants, reclaim wastewater,
provide for the confined and contained disposal of pollutants
not recycled and provide for the ultimate disposal of sludge in
an environmentally sound manner. The law also makes clear the
intent of Congress to promote development and application of
cost effective alternative wastewater systems for rural areas.
PL 92-500 directed EPA to require applicants for construction
grants to consider and utilize, to the extent practicable,
technology which provides for reclaiming or recycling of water
or which otherwise eliminates the discharge of pollutants.
However, the law did not provide for any type of financial
incentive to promote alternative type technology.
Despite the requirement that alternative types of technology be
considered, the early years of the construction grants program
were marked by an emphasis on large regional treatment
facilities employing conventional technology. An EPA survey of
completed facility plans in the mid 1970's found that, even in
small communities, the most common recommended alternative was a
conventional collection system and treatment plant. The study
found that, in many cases, little serious consideration was
given to alternative technology.
Congress, recognizing the need for bold action to promote the
development and application of alternatives to conventional
wastewater treatment, included provisions in the 1977 Clean
Water Act establishing the Innovative and Alternative
Technology Program. These provisions, together with their
implementing regulations, required that all communities
receiving federal construction grants must consider I/A
technology, in their facility plans and, as a definite
incentive to select I/A technology these provisions provide for
I/A technology incentive grants and for those projects not
performing to design expectations, the possibility of up to 100
percent modification/replacement grants.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the I/A program is to encourage the
planning, design, and construction of co-st-effective municipal
treatment works that maximize the recycle and reclamation of
63
-------
water, nutrients, and energy while minimizing adverse
environmental and public health impacts. In addition to
offering financial incentives to promote development and use of
I/A technology the program has also pushed technology
development and application through a vigorous research and
development effort and a wide range of technology transfer
activities.
How effective has the I/A program been in meeting its overall
objective? This question will be addressed by reviewing:
l) the program's effectiveness at promoting alternative
technology; 2) the program's effectiveness at promoting
innovative technology; and 3) the effectiveness of the
program's technology transfer efforts.
EFFECTIVENESS AT PROMOTING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
The I/A program has been a tremendous success at promoting the
use of alternative technology. During the period from 1979
through 1987, EPA invested approximately $3.3 billion in about
2100 alternative technology projects. During the same period
EPA invested, in total, nearly $23 billion in about 6750
municipal wastewater treatment projects. Thus, 14 percent of
the total dollars invested by EPA in all types of municipal
wastewater systems from 1979 through 1987 have been for
alternative projects. Alternative projects have represented
just over 30 percent of the total number of projects funded
during this period.
Alternative technology has been a particular boon to small
communities. Of the 2100 alternative projects funded through
1987, nearly half were sized for communities of less than 3,000
people; nearly two-thirds were sized for communities of less
than 10,000.
However, the success of the I/A program in promoting the use of
alternative technology can only partially be measured by
statistics, such as numbers of projects funded and total dollar
investment. An additional, and potentially more significant
impact of the I/A program, involves what it has done to advance
the level of professional and public acceptance' of alternative
technologies.
The I/A program has been extremely successful in moving
technologies, such as, land treatment of wastewater, land
spreading of sludge, alternative collection systems, sludge
composting, and on-site systems from relative obscurity to
widespread acceptance and application. As a result of the
program, engineers and local officials are now much more likely
to consider and implement alternative technologies than they
would have been prior to the program, even for projects built
without federal funds.
64
-------
One measure of the extent to which the I/A program has advanced
professional and public acceptance of alternative technology is
the extent to which individual alternative technologies are now
being used compared to the extent of their use prior to the I/A
program.
Land treatment of wastewater provides a graphic example. In
its 1968 inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities in the United
States, the Federal Water Quality Administration reported that
approximately 500 land treatment projects were in operation.
In 1980, EPA, in its Needs Survey Report to Congress, reported
that approximately 760 land treatment projects were in
operation or under construction. Thus from 1968 to 1980, about
260 new land treatment projects were initiated, or about 19 per
year on average. However, EPA's 1986 Needs Survey Report to
Congress shows about 1100 land treatment systems in operation,
or under construction. Thus in six years some 340 new land
treatment projects were initiated, or about 57/year on average.
Most of these were I/A projects. Clearly land treatment of
wastewater enjoys the level of professional and public
acceptance it does today largely as a result of the I/A
program.
Similar stories can be told for other alternative technologies.
The number of aludge composting projects increased from about 15
in 1980 to nearly 200 today. The number of land spreading of
sludge projects increased from 1700 in 1980 to 2700 in 1986.
While not all of these projects were funded under the I/A
program, the program's active R&D and technology transfer
efforts greatly facilitated many of those that the program could
not fund.
Alternative collection systems are perhaps one of the most
dramatic examples of the I/A program's success. Prior to the
program, pressure sewers, small diameter gravity sewers, and
vacuum sewers were nearly unknown in the United States.
However, by the end of 1987, a total of about 400 such systems
were in some stage of development, nearly all of which were
funded under the I/A program.
Perhaps one of the best indications of the degree to which the
profession has accepted and embraced alternative technologies
can be seen in the technical publications of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, one of the wastewater treatment
industry's major professional associations. For nearly fifty
years the Federation has originated and produced manuals of
technical practice related to wastewater technology. In the
Federation's 1977 manual on wastewater treatment plant design
(500 pages) approximately 10 pages were devoted to land
treatment of wastewater. Today the Federation is developing a
new 300 page manual solely on natural treatment systems, which
65
-------
will be largely devoted to land treatment systems and other
natural types of treatment systems which have been promoted by
the I/A program.
Similarly, a 1969 Federation Manual on sewer system design and
construction contained virtually no mention of alternative
sewer systems. However, in 1986 the Federation published an
entire manual devoted solely to these systems.
The I/A program has also helped to generate substantial
independent interest in many alternative technologies on the
part of other federal agencies and foreign governments. For
example, the Tennessee Valley Authority has undertaken an
active program to demonstrate the simplicity and cost
effectiveness of constructed wetlands systems for wastewater
treatment in small, rural communities. Recently EPA cooperated
with TVA in sponsoring a conference on constructed wetlands
technology which attracted over 600 professionals from all over
the nation and several foreign countries.
Foreign governments and professionals have also expressed great
interest in alternative technologies. Japan is greatly
interested in alternative conveyance systems. Many developing
nations are interested in land treatment technology.
EFFECTIVENESS AT PROMOTING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
The I/A program has also been successful at promoting the
development and use of innovative technology. During the
period from 1979 through 1987 EPA invested approximately $1.1
billion in about 600 innovative projects involving, all
together, some 120 different technologies. Nearly 5 percent of
the total dollars invested by EPA from 1979 through 1987 in all
types of municipal wastewater systems have been for innovative
projects. Innovative projects have represented nearly 9 percent
of the total number of projects funded during this period.
Not surprisingly, innovative technologies tend to be more
popular among communities larger than those favoring
alternative systems. About half of all innovative projects are
sized for communities of more than 10,000 people; with only 20
percent of innovative projects being sized for communities of
under 3,000 people.
However, as with alternative technology, the success of the I/A
program in promoting innovative technology can only be
partially measured by program statistics. The true long-term
impact of the innovative part of the program relates to the
technologies like ultraviolet disinfection and sequencing batch
reactors which it has moved from research and development toward
relatively widespread, full-scale application.
Ultraviolet disinfection, at the beginning of the I/A program,
66
-------
was generally considered a promising experimental technology.
Over the course of the program, nearly 50 ultraviolet
disinfection projects were funded. Over the years the I/A
program documented the successes and problems experienced with
its ultraviolet disinfection projects so that succeeding
projects could benefit from that experience.
Today ultraviolet disinfection is a state-of-the-art municipal
wastewater disinfection technology and is routinely considered
as an alternative to chlorination, especially where there is
concern regarding the toxic effects of residual chlorine. The
status of ultraviolet disinfection as a demonstrated technology
and viable alternative to chlorination was documented by the
Water Pollution Control Federation's Disinfection Committee in a
paper published in the October, 1987 issue of the Federation's
journal.
Sequencing batch reactors are another example of the I/A
program's success. The basic concept of the sequencing batch
reactor had been around for most of this century. However, the
process had never gained popularity because it was difficult to
control. However, under the I/A program, the ability of modern
electronic and mechanical hardware to greatly simplify process
control was demonstrated. About 20 sequencing batch reactor
projects have been funded under the I/A Program. The sequencing
batch reactor is now generally considered a viable wastewater
treatment option for small to mid-size communities.
I/A PROGRAM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
From the outset technology transfer has been an integral aspect
of the I/A Program. Good communications have been largely
responsible for the progress to date in acceptance and use of
I/A technologies.
The cornerstone of the I/A program's successful technology
transfer efforts has been a network of EPA Regional and State
I/A coordinators. These individuals are responsible for
promoting the program and serving as information resources in
their States and Regions. In turn these State and Regional
coordinators are served by a National I/A coordinator at EPA
Headquarters and a staff of I/A technology experts at EPA's
Water Engineering Research Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio.
This network of individuals effectively collect and disseminate
information about I/A technologies.
The I/A program has produced a legacy of outstanding technical
literature which could serve a continuing role in promoting I/A
technology long after the grants program ends. Of particular
note are several dozen major I/A technology research reports and
Process Design Manuals as well as nearly 50 brochures and
booklets describing various I/A technologies. Through the
67
-------
diligent efforts of the I/A coordinators network, thousands of
copies of these documents have been distributed to engineers
community officials, and interested citizens. ymeers,
The National Small Flows Clearinghouse has also played a role
J/a H technology transfer. The clearinghouse maintains the
I/A database which contains key information about grant funded
I/A projects. They also maintain bibliographies of information
on some I/A technologies. mrormation
EPA has also conducted or participated in numerous national and
regional meetings and seminars related to I/A technology
These meetings have greatly facilitated the exchange of
information and have been a key vehicle for promoting I/A
SUMMARY
The I/A program has been tremendously successful at promoting
the development and application of more cost effective
environmentally sound, wastewater treatment technology'
especially in small communities. Through financial incentives
an active research and development effort and an aggressive
technology transfer program the I/A program has significantly
advanced the professional and public acceptance of I/A
technologies. The program has also generated substantial
independent interest in I/A technologies on the part of other
federal agencies and foreign governments. Additionally the
Sowl?™ T^l haS resP°nded vigorously to the program with the
development of new companies and venture investments for
research and development of I/A technologies.
Thus, the I/A program, in addition to directly helping nearly
3000 communities effectively solve their wastewater treatment
problems, leaves a legacy of technical understanding which win
continue to benefit many additional communities, in the nation
and around the world, for years to come. "<*tion
68
-------
ISSUES
During the preparation of this report three major issues which
relate to the phase out of the I/A program were identified
This subsection of the report presents a detailed discussion of
these issues.
Issue Number One
The Clean Water Act of 1977, in establishing the I/A program
authorized EPA to provide both increased grant percentages for
I/A projects and grants for up to 100% of the cost of modifying
™*reFiaCing failed Projects (M/R grants). Although the law and
*™,« Ugh ltS re
-------
to States win be sufficient to meet short term needs ThP
Issue Number Two
The I/A program has been very successful in fostering
wast^tT r3 PrUdent rlSk taklng in the development of new
wastewater treatment technologies. The proaram h^ r,™^ ^
framework within which promising new technCIogtes couIS move *
from research and development to full scale utilization The
"cW^^
for I/A technology were established under the 1?7 anS "si"3
amendments to the Clean Water Act that rapid technotSgica?
innovation occurred. EPA and the States are concerned aSout the
thP r/a lnnovatlon m wastewater treatment technology a?ter
the I/A program ends. yy cuter
Under Title VI of the Clean Water Act States will receive
grants to capitalize State Revolving Funds (SRF's) The SRF
dp™1"*? d?6S n0t provide for 9rants to support testing and
demonstration of promising new innovative wastewater treatment
systems. EPA does not presently have the resources to induct
technology demonstrations outside the framework of the
construction grants program which will soon end. States are
concerned that they will have insufficient resources on their
own to fund such testing and demonstration projects and that
as a result, innovation in municipal wastewater technology will
blY' 6SpeCially in the area °f small communit
echnogy Y' 6SpeCally in the area °f small commnity
Issue Number Three
nfhT/o tecnno10^ transfer has been an integral aspect
of the I/A Program. Good communications have been vital to the
progress to date in acceptance and use of I/A technologies.
The cornerstone of the I/A programs 's successful technology
transfer efforts has been a network of EPA Regional and State
I/A coordinators. These individuals are responsible for
promoting the program and serving as information resources in
their states and Regions. in turn these State and Regional
coordinators are served by a National I/A coordinator at EPA
Headquarters and a staff of I/A technology experts at EPA's
Water Engineering Research Laboratory in Cincinnati Ohio
This network of individuals was able to effectively 'collect and
disseminate information about I/A technologies.
70
-------
States are concerned about how, as the construction grants
program winds down, they will be able to effectively benefit
from the experiences of other States.
RECOKTIEKDATION
The following recommendation is offered for addressing Issue
Number Three. No recommendations are being offered for Issues
Number One and Two.
Recommendation for Issue Number Three
EPA plans to continue promoting technology development by
providing a reliable, unbiased source of technical information
and expertise for States and communities through the
cooperative efforts of the Office of Water, the Office of
Research and Development's new Center for Environmental
Research and the Cincinnati laboratory, the Agencywide
Technology Transfer Staff, and the Regions. This coordinated
effort will maximize the benefits of existing technology
activities and would allow EPA to serve as an authority to
which States and communities could turn with requests for
technical information and assistance.
EPA is already conducting or may undertake the following
activities to encourage the continued development of I/A
technologies:
1) Work closely with external organizations such as the
Water Pollution control Federation, the American Society
of Civil Engineers, the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies, and others, to leverage Federal
resources and avoid duplication of effort.
2) Conduct technology transfer and training seminars for
those who need information about municipal wastewater
technology.
3) Conduct, publish, and distribute evaluations of the
performance of I/A wastewater technologies.
4) Prepare, publish, and distribute informational reports
and newsletters about municipal wastewater technology.
5) Provide peer matching among States. For example, EPA
could match States with a need for certain expertise with
States, external organizations, or EPA personnel having
such expertise.
6) Provide information or referral in response to specific
inquiries or to assist in solving specific problems.
71
-------
7) Conduct an awards program to recognize innovation in
wastewater treatment technology on the part of States,
communities, and consulting engineers.
These activities are paiL of an Agencywide effort to more
effectively identify the technology needs of municipalities and
the role that EPA, in both the short and long-range, should
assume in meeting these needs.
72
-------
APPENDIX A
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
CATEGORIES
73
-------
APPENDIX A
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY CATEGORIES
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Aeration/Mixing
Aeration and Mixing are essential components of wastewater
treatment technologies to provide oxygen for aerobic microbial
biodegradation of wastes. Innovative aeration/mixing processes
include:
Aerated mixing chamber and blower
Aeromod system
Aspirating propeller pump
Counter current aeration
Draft tube aeration
EDI aeration systems
Fine bubble diffusers
Intermittent cycle extended aeration
Submerged mixing of equalization tanks
Submerged propeller mixer
Clarifiers
Clarifiers are tanks or basins used to settle out suspended
solids from wastewater. Various types of Clarifiers are
presented below:
Aerated clarifier
Cantilevered clarifier
Combined secondary sedimentation/chlorination
Flocculating clarifier
Fixed media clarifier
Integral clarifier
Intrachannel clarifier
Plate settlers
Disinfection
The following technologies utilize various physical or chemical
processes to destroy bacteria and other pathogens from
wastewater prior to discharge.
Combined secondary sedimentation/chlorination
Flow-paced sulfur dioxide and chlorine additives
Ozonation
74
-------
Pre-ozonation
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection
Energy Conservation and Recovery
A wide rar>ge of technologies is used to conserve energy or to
allow for energy (heat) recovery and reuse. These energy
saving technologies are listed below:
Blower heat recovery system
Digesters heated by geothermal heat
Earth sheltering and passive solar design
Energy recovery from sludge treatment
Energy recovery/heat pumps
Incinerator with heat recovery
Sludge heat exchangers
Sludge used to generate electricity
Solar power systems
Waste heat used to power steam generators
Filtration
The following innovative technologies utilize various filtering
mechanisms to remove suspended solids and other solids from
wastewater.
Automatic low head filter
Continuous cleaning sand filters
Floating dredge sand filters
Innovative sand filter
Microscreens
Primary effluent filtration
Sand filter
Upflow sand filter
Fixed-Film Biological Reactors
Secondary treatment of wastewater is achieved by fixed-film
biological contactors which feature a microbial biomass
attached either to rotating discs or fixed media that
aerobically break down organic matter in the wastewater flowing
over the disc surface. Types of biological reactors are
presented below:
Activated biofilter
Air driven rotating biological contactor
Biological aerated filter
Underflow clarifier/rotating biological contactor
Lagoons
Various types of lagoons and ponds provide clarification and
75
-------
some anaerobic digestion for the treatment and disposal of
septage. Often lagoon effluent is filtered or passed through a
treatment system prior to discharge. The innovative lagoon
technologies include:
Aquaculture
Baffle system in lagoon, with duckweed cover
Complete mix lagoons
Controlled discharge stabilization ponds
Deep cell lagoon
Duck weed cover in lagoon
Earthen pond system
Facultative lagoon
Facultative lagoon with reed filter system
Hydrograph controlled release lagoons
Permafrost construction
Single cell lagoon with sand filters
Land Treatment
Land treatment refers to wastewater treatment systems which
rely on soil or natural vegetation for wastewater treatment.
In these systems, screened, primary or secondary wastewater is
either applied to the soil surface or discharged through a
subsurface drainage network. The wastewater receives further
treatment while flowing over the vegetated soil surface or
while percolating through the soil. Land treatment systems
include spray irrigation, and subsurface filter/surface
discharge systems.
Oxidation Ditches
The following innovative technologies are variations of the
activated sludge process in which a continuous loop reactor is
used to provide a bioreactor where mixed liquor is recirculated
continuously through a closed aeration channel.
Anoxic oxidation ditch
Benthal stabilization oxidation ditch
Carrousel oxidation ditch
Oxidation ditch with centrally located clarifiers
Nitrification
Nitrification is the process in which toxic ammonia is oxidized
by bacterial populations to less toxic nitrate. The various
nitrification processes are listed below:
Fixed growth biological nitrification
Nitrification enhanced by aerated polishing pond
Pure oxygen/single stage nitrification
Rotating biological contactors for nitrification
76
-------
Specialized bacteria
Upflow packed bed nitrification
Nutrient Removal
The following technologies utilize biological or chemical
processes to either remove or transform nutrients to less
harmful compounds prior to discharge.
Allied process for phosphorus
Anoxic/Oxic Systems
Bardenpho process
Biomedia filter treatment for TKN reduction
Breakpoint chlorination for ammonia removal
Chemical addition to lagoon
Phostrip process
Sludge digester supernatant for treatment for ammonia Nitrogen
reduction
Waste pickle liquor use for phosphorus removal
Miscellaneous Wastewater Treatment Systems
Very specific innovative technologies, ranging from aeration
devices to grit removal processes are utilized in various
systems to aid in the treatment of wastewater. These various
technologies are listed below:
Captor biological treatment plant
Combined sewer overflow - swirl concentrators
Constructed wetlands for lagoon effluent
Dissolved air flotation thickener
Eductor-induced vacuum chemical feed system
Enclosed impellor screw pump
Fluidized bed treatment of digester supernatant
Sewage application to peat filter cells
Marsh/pond/meadow
Powdered activated carbon/regeneration
Pressure leach fields
Primary treatment facility
Pure oxygen fluidized bed reactor
Sanilogical system
Sequencing batch reactor receiving septic tank effluent
Shallow-bed plastic media biofilter
Slow rate-dual water system for urban irrigation
Soil treatment systems
Centrifugal gyro-type grit separator
Tubular screw pumps
Unique circular pump station
77
-------
SLUDGE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Composting
These sludge composting technologies utilize aerobic
microrganisms to decompose complex organic components of sewage
sludge into simpler compounds which can be used as a soil
amendment or conditioner.
Aerated static pile composting
In-vessel composting
Aerated windrow composting
Digestion
Sludge digestion utilizes either aerobic and/or anaerobic
digestion to decompose sludge to a stabilized state. The
various technologies are as follows:
Aerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion
Dual anaerobic/aerobic digestion
Egg-shaped anaerobic digestor with gas utilization
Drying Beds/Land Application
Small to medium sized wastewater treatment plant often dewater
wastewater treatment sludges (for volume reduction) by applying
them to sand drying beds. In these beds, sludge is uniformly
applied to a depth of 12 to 18 inches; free water in the sludge
is then removed either through gravity or through application
of a vacuum. Dewatered sludges are often disposed of by direct
application to agricultural or forested lands or land filling.
Incineration
Incineration provides a reduction in the volume of dewatered
sewage sludge by drying and combustion. This results in a
relatively inert ash which is disposed of by landfilling. The
various types of incinerators are listed below:
Co-incineration
Starved air combustion of sludge
Thermal process with production of construction aggregate
78
-------
Miscellaneous Sludge Treatment Terhnoir^ og
A wide range of technologies is used to dewater dry
stabilize, and thicken sludge to reduce volumes 'and reduce
™>ese techno^ are
Belt filter press
Belt filter press with lime feed
Carver - Greenfield Sludge Drying
Facultative sludge basins
Freeze/thaw sludge drying/dewatering
Lateral flow sludge thickeners
Sludge cake conveyance system
Sludge drying bed mixing system
Vacuum assisted sludge dewatering beds
Vacuum de-odorization of digested sludge
Wedgewire sludge filter beds
79
-------
APPENDIX A
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
TREATMENT
Aerobic
Aerobic units are used for pretreatment in single or
multi-family soil absorption systems to provide partial
trsar.inpnt of wastewater prior to discharge to Partlal
Evaporation/Evapotranspiratinn R^riQ
In evaporation beds partially treated wastewater is discharoed
eb^
^^^
Mound Systems
This technology is an adaptation of the conventional
of
Sand Filters
Septic
family)
Septic tank/soil absorption systems are used both for
80
-------
LAND TREATMENT
Acruaculture/Wet lands
This process utilizes either natural or constructed ponds or
wetlands to biologically achieve secondary or tertiary
wastewater treatment.
Overland Flow
In overland flow, wastewater is applied to gently sloping grass
fields. Wastewater is biologically treated as it flows down
slope. It is subsequently collected and discharged.
Rapid Infiltration
Rapid infiltration is a technology for land treatment of
wastewater in which wastewater is applied to sandy soils
Wastewater is naturally treated as it passes rapidly through
soil materials.
Slow Rate Land Treatment:
Slow rate land treatment processes involve the passage of
partially treated wastewater over the soil surface, relying
upon infiltration of wastewater in the soils to provide
wastewater treatment.
Preapplication Treatment and Storage
In this technology, partially treated wastewater is either
pretreated (e.g., primary clarification) or stored (for
settling) prior to land application.
Other Land Treatments
Methods such as spray irrigation and subsurface discharge of
wastewater are also used for land treatment of wastewater.
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Pressure Sewers/Effluent Pumps
Pressure sewer systems pump effluent from a septic tank or
collection basin through a pressure main to a treatment
facility or large collection system.
81
-------
Pressure Severs/Grinder Pumps
Grinder pumps are used to grind and pump household wastewater
through a pressure main to a treatment facility or a large
collection system.
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
Small diameter gravity sewers convey wastewater through small
diameter (3-6 inches) gravity mains. Smaller diameter gravity
sewers are used in areas of low wastewater flow.
Vacuum Severs
In contrast to pressure sewer systems which transport the
wastes by pumping, vacuum sewers rely upon vacuum created in
small diameter collection mains to transport wastewater to a
treatment facility or larger collection system.
ENERGY RECOVERY/SLUDGE
90% Methane Recovery/Anaerobic Digestion
This alternative technology utilizes anaerobic microorganisms
to reduce raw sludge solids volume while recovering methane
gas, a by-product of the conversion process, for reuse.
Self-Sustaining Incineration
Self-sustaining incineration is the incineration of sludge
which relies upon the fuel value of the sludge to eliminate the
need for auxiliary fuel following incineration start-up.
SLUDGE
Composting
This technology involves the aerobic microbial decomposition of
the complex organic components of sewage sludge producing a
stabilized organic residue which can be used as a soil
amendment or conditioner.
Land Spreading of POTW Sludge
This technology involves the land application of sludges from
wastewater treatment facilities.
82
-------
Fre-application Treatment
Pre-application treatment typically involves the addition of
chemicals (e.g., lime, ferric chloride, polymer) to facilitate
sludge dewatering. Dewatered sludges can then be land applied
or otherwise disposed of.
Other Sludge Treatment or Disposal
Sludges may be pellitized, or similarly treated to provide a
degree of stabilization prior to disposal.
MISCELLANEOUS ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Aquifer Recharge
In this technology, treated wastewater is discharged to the
soil surface, or through a subsurface drainage system for
recharge of ground water systems and potential reuse down
gradient. With aquifer recharge wastewater is further treated
as it travels through the aquifer.
Direct Reuse
In this technology, disinfected wastewater is reused for
non-potable purposes (e.g., irrigation).
Septage Treatment and Disposal
Septage management options include land disposal, co-treatment
and independent treatment. Land disposal options are
trench/lagoon/landfill burial, and subsurface incorporation;
co-treatment options include addition of wastes to the liquid
and/or sludge streams of a POTW; independent treatment includes
disposal in a stabilization lagoon, composting, biological
treatment, aerobic and/or anaerobic digestion, lime
stabilization and chlorine oxidation.
Total Containment Ponds
Total containment ponds, often referred to as complete
retention or evaporation ponds, are wastewater
treatment/holding ponds which rely upon evaporation and some
seepage for disposal of wastewater, with no formal discharge.
83
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY DATA SHEETS ON M/R FACILITIES
84
-------
APPENDIX B.1
I/A TECHNOLOGIES THAT FAILED
AND WERE AWARDED A 100 PERCENT M/R GRANT
85
-------
APPENDIX B.1
FALLEN LEAF LAKE, CALIFORNIA
Subject: Failure of an Alternative Combined Vacuum/Air
Ejection Collection System.
Summary of Problem;
o The problem involved magnetic controllers, pneumatic
valves, and solenoid controls resulting in repairs and
replacements causing operation and maintenance costs to be
over the predicted costs.
o The failure was discovered within the 2-year limit.
Summary of Solution-
o The grantee attempted to correct the failure through
repairs, substitution of parts and recourse to equipment
warranty. ^
Current Status;
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
modification of the system.
o The 100 percent M/R grant was awarded.
86
-------
APPENDIX B. 1
MANILA, CALIFORNIA
controis i
Summary of Problem?
o
o
o
These controls were one of three types used in the first
low pressure sewer project funded in the State.
The project had specific features to allow direct
comparison of three types of control devices when the
project went into operation in July 1979.
Of 253 septic tank effluent pump installations 73 were
equipped with sonic devices and 180 were equipped" with
float or bubbler type devices.
Emergency service calls on the sonic devices were 2 5
times more frequent than those for the float or bubbler
problems were identified and assessed in
The sonic device problems were related to printed circuit
boards not readily correctable by District maintenance
o
personnel.
o
The high frequency of emergency service calls and the high
cost of correction was judged to be a problem requiring
corrective action which fell within the 2-year limit for
award of a 100 percent M/R Grant.
Summary of Solution:
o New equipment has been installed to correct controller
problems.
Current Status:
o costs for replacement of M/R grant eligible detectors were
determined to be approximately $34,900
o The 100 percent M/R grant was approved by EPA Region IX
not to exceed $34,900.
o The equipment manufacturer was to buy back usable
equipment with a value of $4,453 to be subtracted from the
amount $34,900.
87
-------
o Equipment supplier was to provide a field engineer at no
cost to supervise installation of new equipment.
88
-------
APPENDIX B.I
PORTAGE, INDIANA
Subject: Failure of Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds.
Summary of Problem:
o During winter, the sludge froze.
o Adequate separation of the sludge could not be achieved
The sludge was being mixed too much on the bed.
o The distribution of polymer in the sludge was inadequate
Dewatering was difficult and took longer due to the properties'
of the sludge chemical mixture.
Summary of Solution:
o Field tests have been performed with different chemicals
and sludge proportions to give the best flocculation
results.
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
modification of the failed system.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded for the
modification of the polymer distribution system and for
the deployment of heaters to stop freezing in the winter
months.
89
-------
APPENDIX B.1
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN
Subject: Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) System-
Carbon Regeneration Unit
Summary of Problem;
o Problems with the carbon regeneration system have resulted
in a build-up of ash and subsequently increased mixed
liquor suspended solids. in addition build up of ash in
the secondary aeration tanks has resulted in overflow of
the final clarifiers and sand filters and therefore
effluent degradation.
Current Status:
o A grant amendment has been awarded to install secondary
sludge thickening and dewatering equipment. The system
manufacturer is funding the installation of a carbon ash
separation unit.
90
-------
APPENDIX B.I
INCLINE VILLAGE, NEVADA
Subject: Constructed Wetlands
Summary of Problem:
o A wetland was constructed next to a natural wetland to
provide for wastewater treatment. The constructed wetland
was separated from the natural wetland by a dike.
o Soil conditions in the area of the constructed wetland
were not as expected. The dike separating the natural and
constructed wetland developed a leak and allowed
wastewater to flow into the natural wetland.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant was awarded to repair the dike.
91
-------
APPENDIX B.I
SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO
Subject: Failure of Innovative Draft Tube Aerators.
Summary of Problem:
o The original design required two draft tubes, but to
achieve sufficient oxygen transfer, operation of three
tubes was necessary, causing increased energy costs.
o With all of the available draft tube aerators running, the
facility is still unable to meet its nitrogen discharge
requirements.
o Mechanical problems with the gear boxes and replacement of
the impeller sand vortex control veins has increased
operation and maintenance costs.
Summary of Solution:
o Manufacturer modifications to improve energy efficiencies
have caused excessive down time, resulting in increased
operation and maintenance costs.
o The Region has declared the Draft Tube Aerators at
Santa Fe a failed technology.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded.
92
-------
em.
APPENDIX B.1
LAWRENCE, NEW YORK
Subject: Failure of an Alternative Community Mound Syst
Summary of Problems:
o The mound system was a tiered mound with four beds on the
lower tier and four on the upper tier. The effluent would
flow out the sides and top of the mound system.
o The problem was due to lack of knowledge and proper
guidance when the system was designed.
Summary of Solution:
o The failure occurred only a few months after the start-up.
The system was declared a failure by the State.
o
Current Status:
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant and was
awarded one after the review.
93
-------
APPENDIX B.I
CLIFFORD, NORTH DAKOTA
Subject: Fai] lire of an Alternative Community Hound System.
Summary of Problem:
o Effluent was flowing out the sides and the top of the
mound.
o The problem is attributed to the lack of knowledge when
these mound systems were designed and built. Sufficient
soils investigations to determine soil percolation
information were not performed prior to construction.
o The mound system was designed and built according to the
old EPA guidelines; in fact, an additional fifty percent
was added to the design specifications for a more
conservative project, yet it still failed.
Summary of Solution:
o The mound system was declared a failure by the State.
o Proposed solutions are to eliminate the mound and
construct a two-celled storage system prior to land
application by irrigation.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded for the
replacement of the mound system.
94
-------
APPENDIX B.I
CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND
Subject: Failure of Innovative Draft Tube Aerators
Summary of
o
° __
the
transfer than originally designed.
o
witnin the
Summary of Solin-inn-
Current Status:
o The technology was declared a failure by the Region.
O A
f°r the ^placement of
ement °f thS impellers is being conducted at this
95
-------
APPENDIX B.I
EL PASO, TEXAS
Subject: Failure of Innovative Draft Tube Aerators.
Summary of Problem:
o The original design required an Alpha factor of l.o to
achieve sufficient oxygen transfer for a 12 MGD facility
This design did not provide for adequate oxygen transfer'
resulting in operation of the facility at one-half
capacity. A Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) of
the facility revealed that the design Alpha Factor should
have been 0.5.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded.
96
-------
B.I
ELBE, WASHINGTON
Subject: Failure of an Alternative Community Mound System.
Summary of Problem;
o The effluent, upon start-up, would flow out the sides of
two of the three mound systems.
o The design criteria originally followed were state-of-the-
system! f311ed ^ "^ ^ SCaled up f°r
the' -°emOUnd ^^ ™* di™ed -11 within
Summary of Solution:
o The regional office declared the technology failed.
Current Status:
o The 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded for the
Facility Planning phase.
97
-------
APPENDIX B.I
CAMPBELLSPORT, WISCONSIN
Sub1ect: ^allure of an Alternative Rapid Infiltration System.
Summary of Problem;
o The Rapid Infiltration technology failed due to
restrictive soils not allowing the water to percolate at
design rates.
o initial soil borings showed the site to be acceptable for
the land application process; however, soil borings
conducted following start-up revealed a clay layer which
was causing the percolation failure.
Summary of Solution:
The State declared the technology at Campbellsport a
f 3 1 1tl»-^> r
O
f ailure.
Current status;
A 100 percent M/R grant has been awarded for the
replacement of the system.
98
-------
APPENDIX B.2
I/A TECHNOLOGIES THAT FAILED
FOR WHICH A REQUEST FOR A
100 PERCENT M/R GRANT IS IN REVIEW
99
-------
APPENDIX B.2
PARAGOULD, ARKANSAS
Subject: Innovative Duck Weed System
Summary of Problem:
o Duck weed was added to a lagoon system to reduce suspended
solids created by algae. However, duck weed growth can
not be readily maintained. Suspended solids removal and
therefore effluent permit limitations have not
consistently been met.
Current Status:
o A comprehensive performance evaluation has been conducted
and the system has been declared a failure. The grantee
has applied for a 100 percent M/R grant; the grant is
currently under review.
100
-------
APPENDIX B.2
NEVADA CITY, CALIFORNIA
Subject; Failure of the Innovative Vacuum Assisted Sludge
Drying Beds. y
Summary of Problem:
o The drying beds were designed and constructed to be open
to the air. ^
o During rain or snow, the sludge cakes crack and cannot be
lifted off the drying beds.
o Electrical and mechanical failures of the drying beds were
also caused by the freezing conditions, resulting in
increased O&M costs.
o The polymer feed pump was undersized, so modifications
were made to the pump to adequately provide enough polymer
for sludge thickening.
Summary of Solution:
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
construction of a cover for the drying beds.
Current Status:
o The request for the 100 percent M/R grant is in review.
101
-------
APPENDIX B.2
SAN LORENZO, CALIFORNIA
Subject: Pressure Leach Field for Effluent Disposal
Summary of Problem;
o The leach field is designed to provide final treatment of
effluent from a package extended aeration plant. The
distribution system has clogged and corroded resulting in
system failure.
Current Status:
o The grantee has applied for an M/R grant. The application
is under review by the State and Region.
102
-------
APPENDIX B.2
VENTURA, NORTH COAST, CALIFORNIA
Subject: Failure of controllers and pumps of an Alternative
Septic Tank Effluent Pump and Collection System.
Summary of Problem:
o The septic tank effluent pumping system collects
wastewater from four seaside neighborhoods and conveys it
to Ventura's Eastside (regional) system.
o This facility has pump and controller problems.
o The pumps were not the right size for the collection
system, causing increased operation and maintenance costs
for the repair of these pumps.
Summary of Solution:
o The facility was declared a failure by the State.
o
The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
modifications needed to the pump controls and pumps.
Current Status:
o The request for the 100 percent M/R grant is in the
process of review by the State.
103
-------
APPENDIX B.2
VENTURA, NYELAND ACRES, CALIFORNIA
Subject: Failure of the controllers and pumps of an
Alternative Septic Tank Effluent Pump Collection System
Summary of Problem:
o The septic tank effluent pumping system conveys flow to an
RBC treatment plant within the community.
o The effluent pumps wore out sooner than the predicted life
expectancy.
o The controllers and other equipment had mechanical
problems due to corrosion from environmental conditions.
o These problems increased operation and maintenance costs.
o The plant influent was found to have extremely high
sulfide concentrations, which necessitated a complex
series of processes to strip the influent.
Summary of Solution;
o The controllers and pumps of the Septic Tank Effluent
Pump Collection System have been declared a failure.
o Repairs have been made to the pumps and controllers.
Current Status:
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
replacement of the pumps and controllers; the request is
in review by the State.
104
-------
APPENDIX B.2
ELKTON, MARYLAND
Subject: Aerated Window Composting
Summary of Problem:
o Process generates odors which are resulting in citizen
complaints.
Current Status:
o
o
The State has declared this a failed project. The grantee
has applied for a 100 percent M/R grant to provide
adequate odor control. Steps being considered include the
construction of lime addition facilities, enclosure of the
composting pad and sludge holding tanks, and installation
of ventilation and off gas odor controls for the enclosed
sludge holding tanks.
The grant request is currently under State/Regional
review.
105
-------
APPENDIX B.2
RISING SUN, MARYLAND
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Activated Ozone
Disinfection System.
Summary of Problem:
o The ozone disinfection system was not performing up to the
design specifications.
o The system had problems with the ozone generation units
thus increasing the operation and maintenance costs to the
point where operation of the system was no longer
cost-effective.
Summary of Solution;
o The effluent receiving stream for Rising Sun is classified
a trout stream. Chlorinated discharges are prohibited in
Maryland trout streams. The city is therefore considering
a proposal to reclassify the effluent receiving stream so
that it is no longer classified as a trout stream. The
facility would then be able to disinfect the discharge
using chlorination in lieu of ozonation.
Current Status:
o The 100 percent M/R grant is currently under review.
106
-------
APPENDIX B.2
FALL RIVER, MASSACHUSETTS
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Self-sustaining
Incinerator's Dewatering Device.
Summary of Problem:
o The Lasta Plate and Frame device for the sludge dewatering
system was funded as an innovative technology but failed
to meet design performance specifications.
o The Lasta Plate and Frame press was designed to be fully
automated but has actually required operators to run it
resulting in increased operation and maintenance costs '
Excessive down time due to repairs and modifications also
added to these costs.
Summary of Solution!
o The manufacturer has been working with the grantee on
repairs and other designs to alleviate the problem but has
had no success.
Current Status:
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant which is in
review.
107
-------
APPENDIX B.2
NORTH KOOCH1CH1NG, MINNESOTA
Subject: Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection
Summary of Problem:
o The ultraviolet disinfection (UV) unit of the North
Koochiching wastewater treatment facility does not
effectively kill bacteria at design flows. Coliform
discharge standards are therefore being exceeded.
Current Status:
o
The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for
installation of additional UV units or replacement of the
UV disinfection system with chlorination. The grant
request is currently under review by the State.
108
-------
APPENDIX B.2
NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Ultraviolet (UV)
Disinfection system.
Summary of Problem:
o The UV Disinfection tubes are not effectively killing the
bacteria at the design flow; therefore, coliform standards
are being exceeded.
o The inefficiency of the UV tubes may be due to the amount
of solids in the secondary wastewater.
o A further problem is the unforeseen build-up of calcium
carbonate on the containment glass for the UV tubes,
thereby decreasing the effectiveness of the disinfection
system.
o With the rapid rate of calcium carbonate build-up, the UV
disinfection tubes cannot be kept clean, which increases
operation and maintenance costs.
o The UV Disinfection system also has electrical problems.
Summary of Solution;
o The grantee performed continued repairs to and cleaning of
the units.
o The State declared the technology a failure.
Current Status:
o Grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant, but the project
is too low on the State's priority list to be funded.
109
-------
APPENDIX B.2
GALLATIN, MISSOURI
Subject: Intrachannel Clarifiers
Summary of Problem:
o A combination of innovative features at the Gallatin
facility (e.g. , short detention time) has created
operational difficulties. The plant does not consistently
meet discharge permit limits.
Current Status:
o
The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant and is
currently preparing a corrective action report for State
review.
110
-------
APPENDIX B.2
BOZEMAN, MONTANA
Subject^ Rapid Infiltration
Summary of Problem:
o The rapid infiltration system has been unable to provide
adequate control of fecal coliform during warmer months.
The reason for the failure is not completely known;
however, EPA guidance documents appear overly optimistic
regarding the capability of rapid infiltration systems for
removing coliform and other organisms.
Current Status:
o The State declared the project a failure. The grantee has
requested a 100 percent M/R grant for modification of the
wastewater treatment system; the request is currently
under review. Several alternatives are being considered
for modification/replacement including the use of
chlorination/dechlorination following the rapid
infiltration process.
Ill
-------
APPENDIX B.2
SCOTTS BLUFF, NEBRASKA
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Microscreens.
Summary of Problem:
o Structural failure of the microscreens caused performance
to be less than design specifications.
o The facility's effluent is not meeting the BOD and
suspended solids standards.
o The facility is also having problems with the diffused
aerator system, as it is not working up to its designed
performance level.
o The failure of the microscreens was discovered within the
2-year limit.
Summary of Solution:
o The manufacturer of the microscreens has attempted to
alleviate the problem by repairs and modifications but has
had no success.
Current status:
o The M/R grant request is undergoing the formal review
process.
112
-------
APPENDIX B.2
PLATTSBURGH, NEW YORK
Subject: In-Vessel Composting
Summary of Problem:
o The in-vessel composting process generates significant
ammonia odor. However, the odor control system at the
facility is not designed to remove ammonia, only hydrogen
sulfide.
Current Status:
o The State has declared the odor control system a failure,
the grantee has applied for 100 percent M/R grant to
upgrade the odor control system. This request is under
State/Regional review.
113
-------
APPENDIX B.2
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
Subiect: Failure of the Innovative Powdered Activated Carbon
Treatment System.
Summary of Problem:
o The Powdered Activated Carbon system is not adequately
mixing the mixed liquor suspended solids with the
activated carbon.
o The ash removal system does not adequately remove the ash;
therefore, some of the ash is returning to the basin. The
ash settles out at the bottom because of poor mixing.
o At times the facility is not meeting its effluent
standards for BOD, ammonia, and suspended solids.
o The overall problem is due to unforeseen factors including
the characteristics of the sludge, carbon and ash mixture
and the dimensions of the basin.
o The facility's problems were noticed and documented
within the 2-year limit.
Summary of Solution:
o The manufacturer of the treatment system worked with the
grantee in an attempt to improve the efficiency of the
process.
Current Status:
o The facility's Innovative technology has been declared
failed.
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant which is
in the review process.
114
-------
APPENDIX B. 2
GREKNSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Starved Air Incineration
Process.
Summary of Problem:
o The problem with the starved air incinerator is that the
facility is not meeting the air quality standards for
airborne particulates, specifically silica.
o The scrubbers that are being used are not meant to remove
particles, like silica, that are less than one micron in
size.
o Silica was not tested before the scrubbers were in place;
therefore, it was previously not a problem.
Summary of Solution;
o The city recommended the replacement of the scrubbers with
new ones that will alleviate the silica problem.
Current Status:
o The technology as used at Greensboro has been declared
failed.
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested which is in the
review process.
115
-------
APPENDIX B.2
GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Counter Current Aeration
Process.
Summary of Problem:
o The Schreiber Counter Current Aeration process was
declared as an innovative technology for its claimed
energy savings and oxygen transfer efficiency.
o The facility is not meeting its effluent limits for
nitrogen and suspended solids due primarily to inadequate
oxygen transfer.
o The problem is that the system was tested using clean
water and a correction factor that did not compensate for
dirty effluent was applied.
Summary of Solution:
o The technology as used at Greenville has been declared
failed.
o The grantee is performing a study to determine a
cost-effective solution.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested and is in the
review process.
116
-------
APPENDIX B.2
HENDERSON, NORTH CAROLINA
Subject: Dual Digestion
Summary of Problem:
o Low level explosion hazard detection equipment at dual
digestion facility is not operating within design
specifications. in addition, inadequate control of oxygen
and sludge feed rates have resulted in extreme variation
in system temperatures.
Current Status;
o The State has declared this a failed project. The grantee
has applied for 100 percent M/R grant to improve or
replace failing equipment; the State/Region are currently
reviewing the 100 percent M/R request.
117
-------
APPENDIX B.2
PILOT MOUNTAIN, NORTH CAROLINA
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Jet Aeration Oxidation
Ditch and the Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds.
Summary of Problems:
o The Jet Aeration Oxidation Ditch and the Vacuum Assisted
Sludge Drying Beds were funded as innovative technologies
for their more effective oxygen transfer and more
efficient drying process then standard technologies,
respectively.
o The Jet Aeration process does not provide the oxygen
transfer that is needed.
o The vacuum sludge drying beds are not producing the dried
sludge cakes in the amount of time predicted, causing more
time for dewatering the sludge.
Summary of Solution:
o The city is conducting an oxygen transfer study to
determine the efficiency of the jet aeration oxidation
ditch. The city is also evaluating the vacuum assisted
sludge drying bed process.
Current Status:
o The technologies as used in Pilot Mountain have been
declared failed.
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested and is in the
review process.
118
-------
APPENDIX B.2
ANTLER, NORTH DAKOTA
Subject: Community Mound System
Summary of Problem:
o
Effluent has been flowing out of the sides and top of the
mound. This problem is attributed to inadequate
separation of the mounds and insufficient evaluation of
soi] and ground water conditions for mounds of this size.
This problem originated from a lack of knowledge of
necessary system design and construction specifications
during the system planning stages.
Current Status:
o
The mound system was declared a failure by the State. The
grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant; the grant
request is currently under review. The proposed solution
is to replace the mound system with a land treatment
system.
119
-------
APPENDIX B.2
CHURCHS FERRY, NORTH DAKOTA
Subject: Failure of an Alternative Community Mound System.
Summary of Problem:
o Effluent has been flowing out the sides and the top of the
mound.
o Sufficient soils investigations to determine soil
percolation characteristics were not performed prior to
construction.
o The mound system was improperly designed and built
according to the EPA guidelines for individual septic
systems. An additional 50 percent capacity was added to
the design specifications for a more conservative project,
yet it still failed.
Summary of Solution:
o The mound system was declared a failure by the State.
o Proposed solutions are to eliminate the mound and either
construct a two-celled total containment pond system or a
two-celled storage system prior to land application by
irrigation.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested and is in the
review process.
120
-------
APPENDIX B.2
AKRON, OHIO
Subject: In-Vessel Composting
Summary of Problem:
o Inadequate ventilation of the composting vessel results in
excessive humidity within the vessel. The excessive
moisture reduces the efficiency of the composting process.
In addition, inadequate odor control has resulted in
complaints from nearby residents. Operation and
maintenance costs at the facility have also increased due
to failure of the sludge conveyance system.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested for the
installation of additional air handling and odor control
devices and the replacement of sludge conveyors. The
grant request is currently under review.
121
-------
APPENDIX B.2
BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OHIO
Subject:. Failure of the Innovative Powdered Activated Carbon
System.
Summary of Prohipm-
o The Powdered Activated Carbon System is causing increased
mixed liquor suspended solids and increased ash generation
leading to ash build-up.
o The ash is predominantly iron oxide, which has caused
corrosion of the carbon regenerating heat exchangers.
o The facility cannot adequately meet effluent standards
for metals.
o The overall problem is due to unforeseen factors, such as
the characteristics of the sludge and the ash build-up.
Summary of Solution;
o The manufacturer was working on their own solution for the
failure. This solution was determined to be too costly.
o The grantee conducted a pilot study to determine the
effectiveness of a proposed modification. The modified
process included minor piping changes and utilized a
process media filter unit to condition the sludge so that
ash regeneration will be minimal.
o The facility is replacing the worn out heat exchangers.
Current Status:
o The wet air regeneration system of the powdered activated
carbon process has been declared a failed technology.
The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant which is
in review, and the State feels that the award is imminent.
o
122
-------
APPENDIX B.2
IJVKE COUNTY (GREATER MENTOR), OHIO
SuJbjecjLjL Composting
Summary of Problem:
o Optimum composting efficiency at this facility requires a
larger amount of bulking agent than called for by desiqn
specifications. Greater volumes of bulking agent increase
the effective volume of the material to be composted A^
larger area for composting than that currently available
is required.
Current Status:
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for
expansion of the composting area. The grant request is
under review by the State.
123
-------
APPENDIX D.2
NORTH OLMSTFAD, OHIO
Subject:. Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) System-
Carbon Regeneration System.
Summary of Problem:
o Increased mixed liquor suspended solids are resulting from
the build up of ash in the system from the carbon
regeneration unit. Effluent degradation results from
accumulation of ash in the secondary aeration tank to a
level that overloads the final clarifiers and tertiary
microscreens.
Current Status;
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant; the
grant request is under review by the State. A pilot study
to evaluate modification options has been conducted
independently of the manufacturer's studies.
124
-------
APPENDIX B.2
MINA LAKE, SOUTH DAKOTA
Subject^ Evapotranspirat ion/soil Absorption Mound System.
Summary of
o
Two of three existing evapotranspiration/soil absorot-ion
Current^Status :
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant- the
grant request is curently under review by both the Reaion
and the State. The proposed solution involves the
to replace the
125
-------
APPENDIX B.2
WHITE RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA
Subject: Total Containment Lagoon System
Summary of Problem:
o Evaporation and seepage rates of the wastewater discharged
to the lagoon are considerably less than predicted. The
design capacity of the lagoon is therefore not sufficient
to allow wastewater treatment without effluent discharge.
Current Status:
o The State has declared the project a failure. The grantee
has requested a 100 percent M/R grant; the grant request
is currently under review by both the State and Region.
The proposed solution involves the construction of an
artificial wetland to provide treatment for lagoon
discharges.
126
-------
APPENDIX B.2
CLA1BORNE COUNTY, TENNESSEE
Subject: Counter Current Aeration
Summary of Problem:
o Oxygen transfer is much lower than the design
specification resulting in much grater than anticipated
volume of sludge production.
Current Status:
o The State has declared this a failed project. The grantee
has applied for a 100 percent M/R grant to fund additional
sludge handling facilities and/or additional aeration.
This grant request is under State/Region review.
127
-------
APPENDIX B.2
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Sobiect:, Activated Biofilter Towers
Summary of
o The biof liters do not provide adequate treatment for the
design-specified wastewater volume. Towers are therefore
overloaded and are not providing adequate secondary
wastewater treatment.
Current Status:
o The State has declared this a failed project. The grantee
has applied for a 100 percent M/R grant to construct
additional towers; the grant request is under State/Region
review.
128
-------
APPENDIX B.2
WITTENBERG, WISCONSIN
Subject: Failure of the Seepage Cells.
Summary of Problem:
o The seepage cells were designed to allow for vertical
passage of effluent; soils in the area, however, are
relatively impermeable and do not allow for adequate
passage of effluent.
Summary of Solution:
o The State declared the seepage cells at this facility a
failure.
Current Status:
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
replacement of the seepage cells.
o The grantee is currently evaluating alternative solutions
to the project.
129
-------
APPENDIX B.3
I/A TECHNOLOGIES THAT FAILED
FOR WHICH NO REQUEST FOR A
100 PERCENT M/R GRANT HAS BEEN MADE
130
-------
APPENDIX B.3
ATMORE, ALABAMA
Subject: Failure of Innovative Draft Tube Aerators.
Summary of Probjgm:
o The draft tube aerators were funded as an innovative
technology because of claimed energy-efficient design.
o The problem was insufficient oxygen transfer by the draft
energy^os?"' CaUSing a need for more P°wer and increased
° hi" IS^l £?lg^*-t?.™-°™ °f two P-allel basins,
1, causing
o The oxygen transfer deficiency and subsequent operational
and reported to the
Summary of Solution-
o
The manufacturer of the equipment has worked with the
grantee in attempts to correct the problem.
Current Status;
Hn iS inuninent'' "0 official request has been
made for a 100 percent M/R grant.
131
-------
APPENDIX B.3
OPELIKA, ALABAMA
Subject: Failure of Innovative Draft Tube Aerators.
Summary of Problem:
o The draft tube aerators were funded as an innovative
technology because of their more energy-efficient design.
o The draft tube aerators are not providing sufficient
oxygen transfer, causing increased power and energy costs
o The problem of insufficient oxygen transfer was noticed
and reported to the State well within the two-year limit.
Summary of Solution:
o The facility was designed conservatively; the city is
therefore able to provide adequate wastewater treatment
using the current system.
o The manufacturer attempted to fix the oxygen transfer
problem but was not successful.
Current Status:
o A 100 percent M/R grant has not yet been requested.
132
-------
APPENDIX B.3
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA
Subject: Combined Chlorination/ciarification
Summary of Prohjjginr
o The system has been unable to provide adequate mixing for
optimum wastewater treatment. The addition of chlorine to
the clarifier has also reduced biomass efficiency.
Current Status:
o
The State has declared the technology at this location a
failure. The grantee has not, however, requested a 100
percent M/R grant.
133
-------
APPENDLX B.3
CITY OF REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA
Subject: Failure of Innovative Pond Underdrains.
Summary of Problem:
o The City of Reedley constructed an oxidation ditch
treatment system followed by rapid infiltration
(percolation) basins.
o The basins include underdrains to enhance hydraulic
disposal during periods of high flow.
o During the wet season when the water table is high, the
infiltration basins do not drain and the effluent cannot
be adequately treated.
Summary of Solution:
o The grantee has requested a 100 percent M/R grant for the
failure of the system.
Current Status:
o The state is reviewing the request to determine if the
system is an actual failed technology.
134
-------
APPENDIX B.3
S'J'ERL I NG , COLORADO
Subject: Design, performance and structural problems with
microscreens.
Summary of Problem:
o The microscreens do not adequately remove the suspended
solids, causing the effluent to exceed standards.
o Structural failure of the filter mechanism resulted in an
increase in operation and maintenance costs.
o The one micron filter fabric life expectancy is shorter
than the warranted design, causing an increase in the
operation and maintenance costs.
o The facility has not been certified complete; therefore
the possible failure is well within the 2-year limit.
Summary of Solution;
o The manufacturer has been working witli the facility to
correct the problems by repairs and substitutes.
o The one micron filter fabric has been replaced with a six
micron filter mesh that is designed to have a longer life
expectancy.
Current Statins;
o Microscreens for filtering lagoon effluent have been
declared a failure.
o
A 100 percent M/R grant is not necessary because the state
relaxed effluent suspended solids limits, thereby
eliminating the need for microscreens.
135
-------
APPENDIX B.3
HANOVER, ILLINOIS
Subject: Alternative One-Cell Lagoon with an Intermittent Sand
Filter.
Summary of Problem:
o The one-cell lagoon with an intermittent sand filter was
declared an innovative technology due to its
cost-effectiveness.
o Effluent failed to meet suspended solids standards. Core
samples from sand filters contained large amounts of
algae; reasons for algae accumulation are not known.
o There are a few systems elsewhere; similar failures have
been reported.
Summary of Solution:
o The process does not work consistently; the grantee has
experimented with different loading rates and sand grain
sizes with no success.
Current Status;
o The grantee gave up trying to prove the technology failed
so a request for a 100 percent M/R grant is unlikely.
o If replacement is decided, the funds will come entirely
from the State.
136
-------
APPENDIX B.3
HOYLETON, ILLINOIS
Subject: Sand Filters
Summary of ProbijQm:
o The Hoyleton facility uses a sand filter for suspended
solids control for effluent from a one-cell lagoon.
o Effluent from the sand filter does not consistently meet
suspended solids standards. An accumulation of algae in
the sand filter is believed to have reduced sand
filtration efficiency.
Current Status:
o The State has declared the project a failure. The grantee
has not requested a 100 percent M/R grant.
137
-------
APPENDIX B.3
SAUGET, ILLINOJS
jJunmaj^^JL j'jrablem :
o
o
o
o
o
Increased mixed liquor suspended solids is resultina from
the bund up of ash from the carbon regeneration un?t
Excessive scaling and increased acid washing of carbon
regeneration units have increased operation and
maintenance costs.
Carbon use is in excess of design specifications.
Current Status:
o The grantee is studying options for
modification/replacement of the PACT carbon regeneration
system. The grantee has not requested a 100 percen ™
138
-------
APPKNDJX B.3
WAYNKSV1LLE, ILLINOIS
Subject: Apparent failure of Community Mound System to provide
adequate wastewater treatment.
Summary of Problem;
o The mound system leaks effluent out the sides, resulting
in a possible failure.
o The system was not designed to provide adequate treatment
to the wastewater.
o The contractor constructing the mound system did not
follow the design and specifications.
o The leakage problem was discovered soon after start-up.
Summary of Solution:
o The State provided funds to have the mound system fixed.
Current Status:
o The grantee has not applied for a M/R grant.
139
-------
APPENDIX B.3
AUBURN, INDIANA
Subject: Failure of the pumps prior to the Innovative Swirl
Concentrators.
Summary of Problem:
o Pumping station pumps (prior to the swirl concentrators)
were not protected with a grit screen to prevent larger
solids from entering the pumps. Pump failure resulted.
o Numerous breakdowns in the pumps caused an increase in
operational and maintenance costs.
o The grantee requested the state to declare the technology
failed, but the State does not recognize the pumps as an
innovative technology or as a part of the swirl
concentrators which are recognized as innovative.
Summary of Solution:
o The grantee is planning on modifying the plant by placing
a floating baffle in the basins to trap the floating
matter and a channel at the bottom to alleviate the solids
problem.
o The State feels that the technology would have worked at
the design capacity if the grid screens were installed in
front of the pumps.
Current Status:
o The grantee requested that the State declare the
technology failed but the State has not recognized the
system as a failure.
140
-------
APPENDIX B.3
FA1RFIELD, IOWA
Subject: A potential failure of the Innovative Draft Tube
Aerators.
Summary of Problem:
o The draft tube aerators were not meeting the design
performance specifications due to inadequate mixing and
low oxygen transfer efficiencies.
o The inadequate mixing was discovered well within the
2-year limit.
Summary of Solution:
o Since the draft tube aerators were not meeting
specifications, the engineer negotiated with the
manufacturer to install two additional blowers, at the
manufacturer's expense, to provide the designed oxygen
transfer rate.
o The facility has the capacity to provide adequate
wastewater treatment for the present time, even though the
draft tubes are not performing up to specifications.
Current Status:
o After negotiating a settlement described above no 100
percent M/R grant was requested.
141
-------
APPENDIX B.3
NORWOOD, LOUISIANA
Subject: Small Diameter Pressure Sewer System
Summary of Problem;
o Numerous pumps in the small diameter pressure sewer system
have failed. The grantee is experiencing economic
hardship in replacing pumps to keep the system in
operation.
Current Status:
o This system has been declared a failure by the State and
Region. A 100 percent M/R grant request is anticipated
after a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of the
facility is completed.
142
-------
APPENDIX B.3
PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE
Subjecjt: UV Disinfection
Summary of Problem:
o UV disinfection process has not performed to design
specifications.
o Electrical problems and lamp failures have resulted in
inadequate fecal coliform control.
Current Status:
o Grantee lias not applied for a 100 percent M/R grant.
143
-------
APPENDIX B.3
SABATTUS, MAINE
Subject: Failure of the Innovative Ultraviolet (UV)
Disinfection system.
Summary of Problem;
o A sand filter followed by a UV Disinfection unit was
funded as an innovative technology because of its designed
higher loading capacity.
o The sand filter is working at its design capacity, but the
UV Disinfection units do not provide adequate
disinfection, resulting in coliform standards being
exceeded.
o The failure was not recent; the system has never worked
since the start-update.
Summary of Solution:
o The UV units were replaced with other units but with no
success.
Current Status:
o The facility's Operation and Maintenance Department is in
the process of evaluating the whole system to decide
whether to repair the current system or replace the system
with a Chlorination-Dechlorination process.
144
-------
APPENDIX B.3
WAYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS
Subject: Independent Septage Treatment Facility
Summary of Problem:
o Preliminary treatment units for septage have not performed
to expectations causing operational problems in downstream
processes.
Current Status:
o Grantee has not applied for a 100 percent MR grant.
145
-------
APPENDIX B.3
W1LLIAMSTONN, MASSACHUSETTS
Subject: Grinder Pump/Pressure Sewer System
Sujminary__gLf JProblejn:
o Sewer system capacity has been prematurely exceeded due to
more rapid growth than anticipated in the area.
o There have been numerous pump and electrical failures, and
odor problems.
Current Status:
o Grantee has not applied for a 100 percent M/R grant.
146
-------
APPENDIX B.3
GREENFT EI.O , MI NNESOTA
iject: Community Mound System
Summary of Problem:
o The mound system is unable to provide wastewater treatment
for designed volume. Wastewater is leaking out of the
mound.
Current Status:
o Grantee has not applied for 100 percent M/R grant.
147
-------
APPENDIX B.3
MOOREHEAD, MINNESOTA
Subject: Possible Failure of the Innovative Ozone Disinfection
Unit.
Summary of Problem:
o The ozone generating units were not producing sufficient
ozone to kill the bacteria, resulting in an inability to
meet coliform standards.
o The life expectancy of the ozone generating units was far
shorter than the designed value.
o The generating units burned out, increasing operation and
maintenance costs.
o The failure was discovered within six months after the
start-up date.
Summary of Solution:
o Repairs made on the ozone generating units have been
unsuccessful.
o The State declared the units a failed technology.
Current Status:
o One possible solution under investigation is replacing the
ozone units with a chlorination and dechlorination
process.
o The grantee has not submitted an application for the 100
percent M/R grant, but submission is imminent.
148
-------
APPENDIX B.3
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
Subject: A Potential failure of the innovative Biological
Phosphorus Removal Process.
Summary of Problem:
o The Phostrip process is designed to remove phosphorus from
the secondary wastewater.
o The process is not performing up to its design
specifications, resulting in the release of phosphorus
over the effluent limit of lmg/l.
o The reason for the system failure has not yet been
determined.
Summary of Solution;
o The grantee is studying the problem to find out why the
Phostrip process is failing.
Current Status:
o The grantee must provide the State with a reason why the
process is failing before a failure determination is made.
149
-------
APPENDIX B.3
LITTLE BLUE VALLEY, MISSOURI
Subject: Intrachannel Clarifiers
Summary __Q_f_ _Pr_Qbl em:
o
o
o
Mixers at the Little Blue Valley facility have not been
able to maintain sufficient fluid velocity in channel!
Sludge lias accumulated in the clarifiers.
r™._ ,,^ ,1WL ^CJ1 CIJJJ.K cu maintain consistent comr>] i ;=m<-<=>
with its discharge permit. compliance
Current S
o
The grantee has not yet applied for an M/R grant.
150
-------
APPENDIX B.3
HENDERSON, NEVADA
Subject: Rapid Infiltration
Summary of Problem!
o Rapid infiltration basins provide only about 25 percent of
the design disposal capacity due to slow percolation of
the wastewater resulting from the presence of restrictive
soil layers in the area.
Current Status:
o Grantee has not formally requested a 100 percent M/R
c} r" cir\t.
151
-------
APPENDIX B.3
LEVELI.AND, TEXAS
Subject: Aeration/Oxidation Ditches
Summary of Problem:
o The wastewater contains a high concentration of sulfur
which reduces aeration efficiency. This results in back
pressure in the pumps creating excessive operation and
maintenance costs.
Current Status:
o Both the State and Region have declared the project a
failure. An M/R grant request will not be processed until
completion of a comprehensive performance evaluation of
the facility.
152
-------
APPENDIX B.3
BLACK DIAMOND, WASHINGTON
Subject: Possible Failure of Alternative Wetlands
Summary of Problem;
o The facility uses a natural wetland to remove nitrogen and
phosphorus from the effluent of a two-cell lagoon system.
o The wetland adequately removed the nitrogen from the
wastewater discharge, but did not adequately remove
phosphorus to meet effluent standards.
o Insufficent nutrient removal by the wetlands reportedly
resulted in discharges which caused numerous algal blooms
in a downstream lake.
Summary of Solution:
o The facility was declared failed due to phosphorus levels
not meeting the effluent standards.
Current Status;
o A 100 percent M/R grant will be requested after a
cost-effective solution has been found.
153
-------
APPKND1X B.3
HAYWARD, WISCONSIN
Subject: Possible Failure of Alternative Rapid Infiltration
System.
Summary of Problem:
o The seepage rate of the water is not as rapid as
predicted, resulting in slower treatment process.
o
The facility has three cells, but one of the cells is not
working to design specifications due to restrictive soils,
Summary of Solution:
o The State is studying the problem to determine if the
system should be considered a failure.
Current Status:
o The facility has not been officially declared failed;
therefore, an M/R grant can not be requested until further
data is collected.
154
-------
APPENDIX B.4
I/A TECHNOLOGIES THAT FAILED
FOR WHICH THE GRANTEE IS SUING THE
DESIGN ENGINEER AND/OR MANUFACTURER
155
-------
APPENDIX B.4
BONNER SPRINGS, KANSAS
Subject: Intrachannel Clarifiers
Summary of Problem:
o The clarifier aeration system did not meet design
specifications for oxygen transfer.
Current Status:
o
The grantee is seeking a settlement from the contractor or
manufacturer to perform modifications or repairs to
provide adequate oxygen transfer.
156
-------
APPENDIX B.4
SOUTH PORTLAND, MAINE
Subject,: Failure of an Innovative Compost i nq *-°chnology.
Summary of Problem:
o The engineering firm designed a four-walled composting
building with inadequate ventilation. This resulted in
moisture build-up, causing a lower efficiency of the
composting process.
o The process is too mechanical and not flexible enough to
be modified to alleviate the problem.
Summary of Solution:
o The grantee has slightly unfastened the roof to create
more ventilation.
o The amount of sludge being composted has been reduced to
below design levels. Excess sludge is being landfilled or
land spread.
Current Status:
o The grantee requested a 100 percent M/R grant but the
request was turned down due to engineering design errors,
o The grantee is now suing the engineering firm and the
building contractor to recover costs associated with
increased operational costs resulting from inadequate
composting.
157
-------
APPENDIX B.4
STAFFORD, NEW JERSEY
Subject: Failure of the controllers in an Alternative Vacuum
Collection System.
Summary of Problem:
o The control valves which were leaking air caused the
vacuum pumps to run constantly. This led to breakdowns in
the pumps.
o The failure of the valves was discovered almost
immediately after start-up.
Summary of Solution;
o The manufacturer redesigned the valve, but the valves
still leaked.
Current Status:
o The grantee is replacing the Envirovac valves with Airvac
valves and is also replacing the troublesome vacuum pumps.
o
The grantee is suing the valve manufacturer to recover
costs associated with valve replacement.
Depending on the outcome of the litigation, a 100 percent
M/R grant may be requested.
158
-------
APPENDIX B.4
CRAB ORCHARD MACARTHUR, WEST VIRGINIA
Subject: Kail life ot t ho Innovative Pratt Tube Aerators.
Summary _g 1 Prob 1 em:
o The draft tube aerators failed to provide adequate oxygen
transfer, resultinq in excessive enerqy costs.
o The facility was not meeting effluent standards for
suspended solids and ammonia.
o Mechanical failure with the impellers and the speed
control box caused increased operation and maintenance
costs.
Summary of Solution:
o The manufacturer replaced parts of the speed control box
and the impellers.
Current Status:
o The technology has been declared a failure.
o A 100 percent M/R grant has been requested by the grantee,
but the review process is on hold. The grantee is now
suing the engineering firm for design errors.
o A decision on the M/R grant request will be made following
the litigation.
159
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |