832R86110
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Municipal
Pollution Control (WH-595)
Washington DC 20460
September
1986
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Projects

1986 Progress Report

-------
SEPTEMBER 1986
        INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
                   1986 PROGRESS REPORT
            U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
                      WASHINGTON, D. C.

-------
                                 PREFACE
The Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) issues this annual summary to provide
interested parties with an overview of progress in the implementation of Innovative and
Alternative (I/A) technologies under provisions of the Clean Water Act. The report is based
upon information from grant awards through March for the year of issue as provided by state
agencies and EPA regional offices. State, EPA region, and EPA headquarters staffs have
worked diligently to make the listings as accurate and helpful as possible. Any errors,
omissions, or suggestions to improve the usefulness of the report should be reported to
James Wheeler, EPA-OMPC, who is listed in Table 7.

Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
PREFACE                                                                i

LIST OF TABLES                                                         iii

LIST OF FIGURES                                                        iv

PROGRAM OVERVIEW                                                   1

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS                        2
Overland Flow                                                           3
Sequencing Batch Reactors                                                 4
Intrachannel Clarification                                                   5
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons                                      6
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds                                     7
Ultraviolet Disinfection                                                     8
Counter-Current Aeration Systems                                           9

ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES                               11
Cedar Rocks, West Virginia, Vacuum Collection System                          12
Cannon Beach, Oregon, Wetlands/Marsh System                               14
Clayton County, Georgia, Spray Irrigation and Wastewater Recycling System         16
Kenbridge, Virginia, Overland Flow System                                    18
East Richland County, South Carolina, Sludge Composting System                 20
Charlotte, Michigan, Methane Recovery System                                22

FIELD TESTS                                                          24

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES
Table                                Title                                 Page
  1   Innovative Technologies
       Funded Less than Five Times                                           25
  2  Summary of Innovative Technologies
       Funded More than Five Times                                           33
  3  Summary of Alternative
       Technology Projects Funded                                            35
  4  List of Innovative/Alternative
       Technology Publications                                                37
  5  Innovative/Alternative Field Test Projects                                    40
  6  100% Modification/Replacement Grants                                    42
  7  Innovative/Alternative Technology Contacts                                  44

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                               Title                               Page
   1  Innovative Technologies Funded                                          2
   2  Schematic Diagram of Overland Flow Process                              3
   3  Typical Sequencing Batch Reactor Sequence
       (One Cycle)                                                         4
   4  United Industries BOAT CLARIFIERS                                      5
   5  Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoon Schematic                          6
   6  Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Bed                                  7
   7  Ultraviolet Disinfection, Submerged Lamp
       Configuration                                                       8
   8  Counter-Current Aeration System                                         9
   9  Alternative Technologies Funded                                        10
  10  Vacuum Sewer System Schematic Diagram                               12
  11  Cannon Beach, Oregeon, Wetlands/Marsh Treatment System                14
  12  Clayton County, Georgia, Wastewater Recycling
       System Flow Schematic                                              16
  13  Kenbridge, Virginia, Overland Flow System                                18
  14  In-Vessel Sludge Composting Schematic                                 20
  15  Methane Gas Recovery Schematic                                      22
                                    IV

-------
                             PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Since 1977, the Clean Water Act has provided special incentives for municipalities receiving
federal construction grant funds to use Innovative and Alternative (I/A) technologies for
wastewater treatment. I/A technologies are wastewater treatment processes or
components that either reuse and recycle wastewater and sludge, reduce costs and energy
compared to conventional treatment methods, or provide simple and economical treatment
for small communities. Incentives for choosing an I/A technology include a 20 percent
increase in the federal grant share, the requirement for states to use a certain portion of
construction grant funds for I/A technology projects, and the availability of 100 percent grants
to modify or replace funded projects which fail (M/R grants). The I/A program also includes
field testing projects to evaluate emerging technologies before committing funds to full scale
facilities.

The I/A technology program has awarded over 3,500 grants at more than  1,600 municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, with about 400 of these facilities now being operational.
Estimated savings in life cycle costs of the I/A funded facilities is over two-billion dollars.

Information on I/A technologies is available from a variety of sources. The National Small
Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia University in  Morgantown, WV, maintains
bibliographies of information on I/A technologies; and publishes periodic bulletins featuring
case studies and information on current I/A activities. Included in the bibliographies are lists
of manufacturers; I/A contacts, applicable regulations, and manuals for  each state; and
literature articles. The Clearinghouse also has a data base available listing more than 2,000
I/A facilities. The Clearinghouse may be reached, toll free,  at 1-800-624-8301. Other
sources of information are listed in Tables 4 and 7 of this report.

This report contains valuable information on I/A technology projects. Tables 1 and 2 provide
information on funded innovative technologies. Table 3 provides information on alternative
technology projects. A list of technology fold-outs and other sources  of information on I/A
technologies is presented in Table 4. The location and status of field test projects are listed in
Table 5, and the location and status of 100 percent modification or replacement (M/R)
requests are in Table 6. Table 7 gives the I/A technology coordinators for each state and EPA
region.

-------
             INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
An innovative technology project is a new wastewater treatment process or component
which has not been fully proven; but, based upon results from research and demonstration
projects, appears promising. An innovative technology project provides a benefit, such as
reduced costs or environmental benefits, along with an acceptable element of risk.
Designation of a project, or portion of a project, as innovative should encourage the design
and construction of more efficient municipal wastewater treatment facilities by advocating
departure from the standard design practices. The breakdown of the areas of innovative
technology funding is shown in Figure 1. Several specific innovative technologies are
discussed in the following innovative technology project descriptions. Only a small
representation of the total number of innovative projects are discussed herein. Finally, some
technologies, such as overland flow, can  be classified as either innovative or alternative,
depending on the nature of the project and the judgements of the state and  EPA regional
offices.
                                             AERATION
                OTHER / 28.8%
   SLUDGE TECHNOLOGIES
               OXIDATION DITCHES
                         NUTRIENT REMOVAL
                                                  04%\\ CLARIFIERS
                                                           DISINFECTION
                                                          FILTRATION
                                                       LAGOONS
                                               LAND APPLICATION
                                               OF EFFLUENT
                                               NOTE Percentages Based on Number of Awards
               FIGURE 1. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.

-------
Technology:  Overland Flow (OLF)

Benefits:     OLF can produce advanced treatment quality effluent by treating screened,
             primary, or secondary wastewater. Operation and maintenance costs are
             low, and land and storage volume requirements are less than those for slow
             rate land treatment.

Application:   OLF can be used in areas with low permeability soils where land area is
             somewhat limited and is not prohibitively expensive.

Status:       Numerous OLF systems are in operation, including systems in Cleveland,
             MS; Davis, CA; Kenbridge, VA; and Raiford, FL. Effluent biochemical oxygen
             demand and suspend solids concentrations of less than 10 mg/L can be
             achieved. Significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus can also be
             achieved.

Process      in the OLF process, wastewater is applied at the top of uniformly graded
Description:  terraces. Renovation of the wastewater occurs as it flows in a thin film over the
             vegetated soil surface. Typically, 40 to 80 percent of the applied wastewater
             runs off and is collected in ditches at the bottom of the slope. A schematic
             diagram of the OLF process is presented in Figure 2.
 Wastewater
 Application
 By Surface,
 Spray, or
 Sprinkler
 Methods
                                           Water
                                           Tolerant
                                                          Drainage
                                                          Channel
                                                                    Terrace
                                                                    Back Slope
                     Limited
                     Percolation
Overland Flow       ^
Terrace
                                                              Terrace
                                                              Front Slope
       FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF OVERLAND FLOW PROCESS.

-------
Technology:   Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs)

Benefits:     SBR systems require less land area and operator attention than conventional
             activated sludge treatment systems. Biological treatment and clarification are
             conducted in one basin, thereby eliminating secondary clarifiers and the
             associated piping and mechanical systems.

Application:   SBRs are well suited for small communities which require wastewater
             treatment systems that are economical to build, simple to operate and
             maintain, and reliable in meeting secondary effluent quality limitations, or
             better.

Status:       Full-scale SBR systems are operational in Culver, IN and Poolesville, MD.
             The Poolsville system  received a national  award for design excellence.
             Recent data suggest that SBRs can produce excellent biochemical oxygen
             demand and suspended solids removal with minimal energy input. SBRs can
             also be operated in a mode which will remove substantial nitrogen and
             phosphorus.

Process      in the SBR process, all of the treatment steps occur in one tank as depicted in
Description:   Figure 3. The tank is first filled with raw primary wastewater and then aerated
             to convert the organics into microbial mass, thereby treating the wastewater.
             After treatment,  the aerators are turned off, allowing the solids to settle.
             During this idle period, clarifier effluent is withdrawn and solids are wasted.
             The SBR process is then ready to begin again.
            _,   r-   REACT   -.
            r-   SETTLE  _,
                                                .-   DRAW
                                                   Effluent	
                                                                     IDLE
      Add
    Substrate
Reaction
 Time
Clarify
Remove
Effluent
Waste
Sludge
  FIGURE 3. TYPICAL SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR SEQUENCE (ONE CYCLE).

-------
 Technology:   Intrachannel Clarification (ICC)

 Benefits:      Advantages include reduced construction and operating costs, reduced land
              area requirements, and greater ease of operation compared to conventional
              oxidation ditch systems.
 Application:   ICC is applicable for use by communities of all sizes seeking to reduce the
              costs associated with a conventional oxidation ditch process.

 Status:       Approximately 80 ICC systems are currently in design, construction, or
              operation in the United States;  and seven manufacturers currently market
              ICC systems. Twelve operational systems are in existence including Morgan
              City, LA; Sedalia, MO; Owensboro,  KY; and Thompson, NY. The current
              performance data for these systems shows that effluent biochemical oxygen
              demand and suspended solids  concentrations of 20 mg/L can be achieved
              where adequate mixing is provided.

 Process      The ICC concept combines a secondary clarifier with an oxidation ditch. The
 Description:   unique feature of ICC is that wastewater enters the clarifier, effluent is
              withdrawn from the clarifier, and sludge is returned to the ditch without
              pumping. Figure 4 shows one type of intrachannel clarifier within an oxidation
              ditch.
                  ^^^
/-
^-N^oC
Scum -jz^
Bames /
um Return \
\
^ 	 Scum
Troughs ^— -
/


J

                                                                    Flow
        Gravity Line for
        Sludge Removal
       •:x;x<-i!ft;;-i^:::;:;x:x:^:^x:x'i*^x^Siudge Returnx-x x:X:':':;x^ Sludge Ports

                                ELEVATION
                      FIGURE 4. TYPICAL BOAT CLARIFIER*.
*The BOAT CLARIFER is the registered trademark of United Industries, Inc.

-------
Technology:  Hydrograph Controlled Release (HCR) Lagoons
Benefits:     An HCR lagoon system can be used to make the maximum use of a stream's
            assimilative capacity, thereby allowing the use of low-cost, easy-to-operate
            lagoon systems where higher levels of treatment might otherwise be
            required.

Application:  The HCR concept is applicable to systems where the receiving stream's
            assimilative capacity does not permit continuous discharge from a
            conventional lagoon system. In such cases, the HCR lagoon is used in
            combination with the conventional lagoon system.

Status:      Over eighteen HCR systems are currently in design, construction, or
            operation, primarily in the Southeastern United States. There have been no
            major operational problems related to the HCR components. Examples of
            operational systems are Linden, AL; Heidelberg and Canton, MS; and West
            Monroe, LA.


Process     There are three principal components of an HCR lagoon: a storage lagoon
Description:  which receives effluent from the conventional lagoon system, a stream flow
            monitoring system, and an effluent discharge structure. The effluent
            discharge structure releases the treated wastewaterfrom the storage lagoon
            in proportion to the stream flow as measured by the monitoring system. The
            size of the storage lagoon is determined by the stream flow characteristics. A
            schematic diagram is presented in Figure 5.
                 TREATMENT  STORAGE
                   CELL     CELL
          WASTEWATER
                                                         FLOW
                                                         METER

	 X 	
— * 	 1
                                     DISCHARGE
                                     STRUCTURE
               LAGOON SYSTEM
                         J
FLOW
METER
                                                        	RECEIVING WATER
                                	DATA TRANSMISSION
    FIGURE 5. HYDROGRAPH CONTROLLED RELEASE LAGOON SCHEMATIC.

-------
Technology:   Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds (VASDB)

Benefits:      VASDBs may reduce the area required for drying beds by as much as 90
             percent compared with conventional drying beds. Cycle times for dewatering
             are also less, thereby reducing the effects of weather on sludge drying.

Application:   VASDB systems can dewater most municipal sludges unless they are highly
             viscous or contain high concentrations of grease or fine solids.

Status:       Treatment systems utilizing VASDBs include Portage, IN; Sunrise City, FL;
             Lumberton,  NC; and Grand Junction, CO. Data from operational systems
             indicate that solids concentrations of 8 to 23 percent can be produced with
             cycle times ranging from 8 to 48 hours.

Process      in a VASDB system, the sludge is first chemically conditioned and then
Description:   distributed onto porous media plates. After an initial gravity drying phase, a
             vacuum is created beneath the beds, thereby drawing off additional water.
             After the sludge begins to crack, the sludge is allowed to air dry before being
             removed. A cross-section of a typical VASDB is shown in Figure 6.
                  Vacuum
                  Pump
                          Polymer
                          System
r Rigid Porous
/ Media Plates
                                               - Intermediate
                                                Support Drainage Layer
                                                (Gravel)
                                     • To Treatment Plant
  FIGURE 6. VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE DEWATERING BED CROSS SECTION.

-------
Technology:  Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection

Benefits:    UV disinfection leaves no chlorine or chemical residual to affect the water
            quality of the receiving stream. UV disinfection systems are also relatively
            simple to operate and maintain. Periodic cleaning of the UV light tubes is the
            primary maintenance requirement.

Application:  UV disinfection systems are applicable for systems where dechlorination
            would otherwise be required. The flexibility of the UV disinfection process
            also allows quick responses to changes in disinfection demand, making the
            process a viable alternative for large systems.

Status:      There are currently approximately 53 treatment facilities using UV
            disinfection in the U.S. and Canada, including systems in Albert Lea, MN;
            Evanston, WY; Thurmont, MD; and Hesston, KS.
Process
Description:
The UV disinfection process uses the energy from ultraviolet light to prevent
reproduction of microorganisms. The effectiveness of this process depends
upon the dose, exposure time, and the absence of solids or other materials in
the wastewater. The UV lamps can be either submerged in or suspended
above the wastewater. A UV system where the lamps  are submerged is
depicted in Figure 7.
                                                      Control Box
           Influent
                                                       UV Lamp Inside
                                                       Quartz Sleeve
                                                            Effluent
 FIGURE 7. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION, SUBMERGED LAMP CONFIGURATION.
                                      8

-------
Technology:  Counter-Current Aeration (CCA) Systems

Benefits:     CCA may reduce the land area and energy requirements for extended
            aeration systems. Oxygen transfer efficiency may also be higher with CCA
            systems than with other aeration systems.

Application:  CCA systems can be cost-competitive for plant sizes over 0.15 MGD.

Status:      CCA systems are currently in design, construction, or operation at over 20
            locations in the United States. Over 500 systems are operational worldwide.
            Operational systems in the United States include Grand Island, NY; Loudon,
            TN; Rome and Clayton County, GA; and Tuskegee, AL. Operational data from
            these and other operating facilities demonstrate the energy savings in
            operating these systems.

Process     in CCA,  the aeration system moves with respect to the solids, unlike
Description:  conventional systems where the aeration system is stationary. In one of the
            six configurations of a CCA system, shown in Figure 8, the aeration system
            rotates around a circular tank about once per minute. The rotation creates a
            longer bubble flow path which may result in a greater oxygen transfer.
                                                 ^\5j». Rotating Bridge
            Influent
        Return
        Sludge Pumps
                Air Supply
                                                       Effluent
             FIGURE 8. COUNTER-CURRENT AERATION SYSTEM.

-------
                 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
An alternative technology is a fully proven method of wastewater or sludge treatment that 1)
provides for the reclaiming and/or reuse of water, 2) productively recycles wastewater
constituents, 3) eliminates the discharge of pollutants, or 4) recovers energy.

Specific alternative technologies include on-site treatment or alternative wastewater
conveyance methods for small communities, land treatment of wastewater or sludge, direct
re-use of non-potable water, aquifer recharge, composting, co-disposal of sludge and
refuse, and methane recovery and use. Alternative technologies generally save money
compared with conventional treatment because of lower operation and maintenance costs
or cost recovery through productive use  of wastes. The breakdown of alternative
technologies funded is shown in Figure 9. Six case studies of specific alternative technology
projects are described in the following sections.
                              OTHER
      SLUDGE TREATMENT
             ENERGY RECOVERY
             FROM SLUDGE
                                                     LAND TREATMENT
                                                      ONSITE TREATMENT
                                          COLLECTION SYSTEMS
              FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.
                                    11

-------
       CEDAR ROCKS, WEST VIRGINIA, VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
A gravity collection system was proposed for Cedar Rocks, West Virginia, in the original
wastewater facilities plan for the area. The gravity system was designed and bids were
received. The low bid for the gravity system, approximately $2.1 million, was considered
exorbitant. The planning was reevaluated, and a vacuum sewer system was proposed. Final
construction cost for the vacuum system was approximately $1.2 million. The project was 85
percent funded by an EPA construction grant, and 15 percent funded from a HUD grant plus
local funds.

A vacuum collection system consists of a special vacuum valve which allows a mixture of air
and wastewater to enter the vacuum system from each residence. The vacuum valve opens
automatically when wastewater accumulates in the storage reservoir below the valve, and
remains open for a preset interval to allow the wastewater and air to enter the vacuum
system. The air/wastewater mixture is drawn towards the collection station by pressure
differentials between the vacuum valves and a vacuum pump station which maintains the
vacuum throughout the system. Figure 10 shows a schematic diagram of a vacuum sewer
system.

The Cedar Rocks vacuum sewage collection system began serving 250 users in December
1984. Although some problems were encountered during the construction phase, they were
readily solved; and the system  has been operating satisfactorily since start-up.

The system consists of three main trunks which are controlled separately from the vacuum
station to allow isolation of problems or installation of a new service without disruption of the
other branches. Two hundred vacuum valves were installed in the Cedar Rocks system, with
one valve serving two homes in some cases. The collection station operates an average of
4-1/2 hours per day. A vacuum is applied to the collection system by a vacuum pump through
a fiberglas  collection tank. An 800 gallon vacuum reserve is also used for moisture
collection. A collection tank receives the wastewater from the three mains. Sewage collected
from the Cedar Rocks area is then discharged to the  Wheeling, West Virginia, wastewater
collection system.
                                     12

-------
                                      cc

                                      1
                                      Q
                                      O
                                      UJ

                                      O
                                      c/)


                                      LJJ
                                      C/)

                                      DC
                                      LLI


                                      LJJ
                                      an
                                      ID

                                      i
                                     LU
                                     CC
                                     z>
                                     o
13

-------
           CANNON BEACH, OREGON, WETLANDS/MARSH SYSTEM
The Cannon Beach, Oregon, stabilization pond treatment system could not meet the
stringent summer effluent discharge requirements of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
suspended solids (SS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Higher flows in the
summer, resulting from a tripling of the summer population, caused the noncompliance. To
solve the problem, the city selected an artificial marsh and aquaculture system to expand the
existing wastewater treatment system. However, because the selected site was a wooded
wetland, the plan was altered to employ a natural wetlands/marsh in the treatment system.
The primary objective of the project was to meet the discharge requirements. Secondary
objectives were to minimize disturbance to existing wetland habitat and allow continuing
usage of the site by wildlife.

The three lagoons and chlorination facilities were modified to include the addition of an
aeration basin and a new chlorine contact chamber. A portion of the adjoining forested
wetlands is used to polish the secondary effluent before discharge.

The wetlands/marsh system was designed to serve approximately 7,000 people. The
system operates from June 1 to October 31, with all of the treatment plant effluent going into
the marsh. The wetland/marsh system is not used during the other months because
increased flows during the winter rainy season provide sufficient dilution in Ecola Creek. The
marsh system covers 16 acres and consists of two 8-acre cells used in series. The average
depth is two feet. Winter flooding structures allow periodic flushing of the marsh. The site
plan is shown in Figure 11.

Operating data available for 1985 proved that effluent discharge limits can consistently be
met. Average BOD in the influent to the marsh was 12.5 mg/L, while the average BOD in the
effluent from the marsh was 4.1 mg/L. This represents an average BOD removal efficiency of
approximately 70 percent. The average suspended solids concentration in the inf uent to the
marsh was 41 mg/L, while the average in the  effluent from the marsh was 9  mg/L. This
represents a suspended solids removal of approximately 80 percent.
                                     14

-------
                                                            LJJ

                                                            0
                                                            CO
                                                            I-
                                                            z
                                                            LU
                                                            LU
                                                            DC
                                                            CO
                                                            DC
                                                            CO
                                                            Q
                                                            -z.
                                                            <

                                                            LJJ
                                                            LJJ
                                                            CD

                                                            o
                                                            s
                                                            LLJ
                                                            DC
                                                            Z3
                                                            O
15

-------
                         CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,
          SPRAY IRRIGATION AND WASTEWATER RECYCLING SYSTEM
Clayton County, Georgia, is a metro Atlanta county. The topography and geology of the
county create unique water supply and wastewater treatment problems. Two ridges divide
the county into three drainage basins. Because of this, all streams within the borders of the
county are headwaters and are too small to serve as a water supply. Consequently, Clayton
County's water supply is located in an adjacent county. In addition, each stream has a limited
capacity to assimilate wastewater.

In 1974, the county began a planning process that evolved into a unique system for recycling
the county's wastewater into its water supply system. Figure 12 presents the flow diagram for
the system. The major component of the system is a 19.5 million gallons per day (MGD)
spray irrigation system. The irrigation system is located in the headwaters of Pates Creek,
which is the backbone of the county's water supply system. Effluent from the Flint River and
the R. L. Jackson activated sludge treatment facilities are pumped to a 12-day storage pond
at the spray irrigation site.  Three 15,000 gallons per minute pumps then distribute the
wastewater through 18,300 sprinklers onto the 2,400-acre site. The irrigation site, which is
planted in pine trees, is divided into seven cells. Each cell is irrigated one day per week for 12
hours at a hydraulic loading rate of 2.5 in./wk. The site is located approximately 7.5 miles
upstream of the Clayton County water  reservoir. The wastewater applied to the site
percolates into the ground water and reappears as streamflow in Pates Creek. At design
flows, the wastewater will represent approximately 84 percent of the water flowing into the
water supply reservoir during low flow conditions, and approximately 33 percent during
normal flow conditions.

The second  segment of the recycling system is the discharge of 4.0 MGD of advanced
treated effluent into Big Cotton Indian Creek. Clayton County operates an auxiliary water
intake on Big Cotton Indian Creek that pumps water back into the reservoir. At design flows
during low flow conditions, wastewater could represent approximately 62 percent of the flow
in Big Cotton Indian Creek at the auxiliary intake.

An extensive monitoring program has provided substantial data on the system. With the
exception of chlorides, no change from background levels of all constituents monitored has
been detected during five years of operation of the system. Chlorides in the groundwater at
the site have increased from 6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 15 mg/L, which is far below the
threshold limit of 250 mg/L for drinking water.
                                      16

-------
                                           o
                                           LU
                                           I
                                           O
                                           cn
                                           LU

                                           0
                                           CO
                                           o

                                           D
                                           o
                                           LU
                                           CC

                                           CC
                                           LU
                                           LU
                                           CD
                                           CC
                                           O
                                           LU
                                           o
                                           o


                                           I
                                           o
                                           OJ
                                           LU
                                           CC
                                           D
                                           &
                                           U_
17

-------
               KENBRIDGE, VIRGINIA, OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
Kenbridge, Virginia, upgraded its existing trickling filter wastewater treatment system in an
economic and effective manner. The effluent from the existing treatment facility was
discharged into Seay Creek, which is a tributary to the water supply reservoir for several
communities. The trickling filter system was not capable of meeting the discharge limitations
of 28 milligrams per liter (mg/L) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 30 mg/L
suspended solids (SS) at the design flow of 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD).

A site evaluation of nearby property revealed that an available 100-acre tract was well suited
for land treatment by overland flow. This form of land treatment can be used in areas with low
permeability soils where land area is somewhat limited but not prohibitively expensive. The
site was located adjacent to the existing treatment plant in a rural area with little potential for
future development. The shallow subsoils at this site had a permeability of less than 1.3 in./hr.

An economic analysis of the overland flow concept compared to an aerated lagoon system
showed that the overland flow system would be more cost-effective. The total construction
cost for the facility was approximately $1.1  million, with 85 percent of that amount funded by
an EPA construction grant.

The  existing wastewater treatment facilities were incorporated into the design as
preapplication treatment. A15-million gallon pond was added for storage during inclement
weather. Effluent from the preapplication treatment system flows to the storage pond and is
then  pumped to the overland flow terraces.

The final design required 22 acres of overland flow terraces, with an application rate of 3.5
inches per week. Fourteen independently controlled overland flow terraces were designed.
The wastewater is applied to the terraces by an 8-inch diameter slotted pipe. Figure 13
shows the layout of the overland flow system. The cover crop is a mixture of water tolerant
grasses. From January 1986, to June 1986, the system produced an average effluent BOD
of approximately 8.5 mg/L and an average SS of approximately 6.1 mg/L. Grass is cut and
removed from the terraces, thereby removing solids and nutrients from the system
discharge.
                                      18

-------


'


LL
#^
CO
*t- I
CO

-------
                 EAST RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,
                       SLUDGE COMPOSTING SYSTEM
Initial planning studies to select a sludge treatment alternative for the East Richland County
Public Service District wastewater treatment facilities recommended sand drying beds
followed by landfilling. However, county officials wanted to evaluate a system that would
provide resource recovery and revenue generation. A subsequent cost-effectiveness
analysis determined an in-vessel composting system similar to the one shown in Figure 14 to
be the lowest cost alternative.

Sludge composting is the decomposition of organic constituents to a stable humus-like
material. In-vessel composting encases this age-old process in confined vessels. The result
is a marketable compost product without the odor and storage problems sometimes
associated with other composting systems.

As shown in Figure 14, waste sludge is discharged to a storage bin. The sludge, a carbon
source such as wood chips, and recycle compost are mixed together and fed to the
bio-reactor. The mixture is held in the bio-reactor for approximately 14 days to allow complete
decomposition of the sludge and to destroy disease causing organisms. The compost is
then fed to a cure reactor to obtain further solids stabilization and conversion of organic
materials to humus. Air is fed into the reactors to maintain an aerobic process.

East Richland County's variation of the process shown in Figure 14 is to cure the sludge in
piles on the ground instead of in a closed vessel. The system has been operational since
March 1986. Five tons per day of sludge is produced by the extended aeration wastewater
treatment process. The sludge is dewatered to approximately 17 percent solids by belt filter
presses before entering the compost system. The compost system produces approximately
14 tons of compost per day. The county currently has a renewable one-year contract to sell
the compost for $12.50 per ton.
                                      20

-------
co
                                              o
                                                       LU
                                                       =J|-
                                                       CQ CO
                                                       ^o
                                                       ocO
                                                       <0
                                                                   o
LU
o
Q
           LU ?- LU
               DC
             CO
              CO
             UjW

           ^^<
           coQ^
           ^O


    DC
    <
                              >-°-

                              yo
                         ZLU
                         oy
                         
-------
            CHARLOTTE, MICHIGAN, METHANE RECOVERY SYSTEM
Charlotte, Michigan, city officials selected anaerobic digestion followed by land application
to farmland for treatment of the sludge produced by the city's wastewater treatment plant.
Methane gas is a natural by-product of the anaerobic sludge digestion process. In order to
properly operate the sludge digestion system, raw sludge must be heated which takes
energy. City officials decided that use of the methane as an energy source to heat the sludge
would increase the efficiency of the treatment system and save operating costs. A recovery
system was designed to use the methane for heating of the raw sludge and for fueling an
engine to generate electricity.

Figure 15 shows a typical methane gas recovery system. In this example, methane gas
generated by the anaerobic sludge digestion process is captured and pumped to a gas
storage tank. The gas is then used to fuel engines which generate electricity, and to fuel
boilers which heat water and produce steam. The electricity is used to operate other plant
equipment. The hot water and steam are used to heat raw sludge entering the digester, and
to heat work areas in the treatment plant. Boilers and engines are dual-fuel equipment since
a supplemental fuel is necessary. Methane has a net heating value of 970 Btu/cu.ft. at
standard temperature and pressure. Digester gas has a net heating value of approximately
600 Btu/cu.ft. since it is only 65 percent methane.

Construction of the Charlotte, Michigan, wastewater treatment plant was completed in
September 1980. The plant is designed for an average daily flow of 1.2 million gallons per
day. A total of approximately 2,500 dry tons per day of sludge is digested. This results in an
average methane production of approximately 12,000 cu.ft. per day. A total of approximately
8,700 cu.ft. per day of methane is used,  resulting in an average  equivalent cost savings
(natural gas) of approximately $18,000 per year.
                                      22

-------
  o
  cr
  t—
  (J

                                                         LU
                                                         I
                                                         o
                                                         CO
                                                         LJJ

                                                         8
                                                         O
                                                         LU
                                                         DC
                                                         O

                                                         LU
                                                         Z
                                                         <
                                                         I

                                                         LU
                                                         LU
                                                         CC
                                                         ^>
                                                         CD
23

-------
                                  FIELD TESTS
A special category for field testing innovative technology projects was created by the 1981
Clean Water Act Amendments. Field testing provides a mechanism to verify the basis of
design for promising advances in treatment technology prior to committing funds for full
scale facilities. The intent is to reduce the risk of failure before funding construction of many
similar projects. Field testing grants offer an excellent opportunity to evaluate emerging,
higher risk technologies which have the greatest potential to advance municipal wastewater
treatment practices in this country. Table 5 lists the field test projects funded to date, including
a brief indication of the results achieved where available.
                                        24

-------
               TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE

AERATION/MIXING
STATE
 DESIGN
FLOW(MGD)
          DESIGN CONSULTING
                FIRM
AERATED MIXING CHAMBER AND BLOWERS
  TULSA                OK
AERO-MOD SYSTEM
  EDGAR SPRINGS
  LINDSEY
  NORWOOD

  SALUDA
MO
OH
MO

NC
FINE BUBBLE DOME DIFFUSER
  BROCKTON             MA
  MERIDAN
CT
INTERMITTENT CYCLE EXTENDED AERATION
  CORNERSVILLE          TN
  TULLAHOMA            TN
  UNION CITY
TN
            20.60
    0.04
    0.10
    0.30

    0.70

    18.00

    11.70


    0.11
    3.00

    4.03
SUBMERGED MIXING OF EQUALIZATION TANKS
  NORTH MANKATO        MN         10.00
SUBMERGED PROPELLER MIXER
  MARQUETTE COUNTY     Ml
  STORM LAKE            IA

SUBMERGED TURBINE DRAFT TUBE
  ANDALUSIA             AL

  CRANSTON             Rl
CLARIFIERS
AERATED CLARIFIER
  CHOCTAW              OK
ASPIRATING PROPELLER PUMP
  WELCH                WV

CANTILEVERED CLARIFIER BAFFLING
  TRI-CITY               OR
             2.64
             3.34
             2.84

            23.00



             0.50

             0.40

            13.50
            CH2M HILL
HEAGLER AND MARSHALL
POGGEMEYER DESIGN
SCOTT CONSULTING
  ENGINEERS
APPALACHIAN ENGINEERS

FAY SPOFFORD AND THORNDIKE

C.E. MAGUIRE INC.


JOHN COLEMAN HAYES
BARGE WAGGONER SUMNER
  CANNON INC.
J.R. WAUFORD CONSULTING
  ENGINEERS

BOLTON AND MENCK INC.
            FOTH VAN DYKE ASSOC.
            KUEHL AND PAYER LTD.
            CARTER DARNELL GRUBBS
             ENGINEERS
            UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORP.
            REA ENGINEERING

            L. ROBERT KIMBALL ASSOC.

            CH2M HILL
COMBINED SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION/CHLORINATION
  FLAGSTAFF             AZ           6.00     BROWN AND CALDWELL
FIXED-MEDIA CLARIFIER
 WAYNESBURG
OH
    0.40
HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.
 APPROVAL
   BASIS
ENV.
RELIABILITY


ENV.BEN.
COST
ENERGY

COST

COST
INC.
ENERGY

COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST
TOXICS
MGMT.


ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY


REG.DISCR.

ENERGY
REG.DISCR.

COST

COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.


COST


COST&
ENERGY
                                           25

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
FLOCCULATING CLARIFIERS
CENTRAL VALLEY
DENMARK
FORTVILLE
INTEGRAL CLARIFIERS
SUFFERN
PLATE SETTLERS
SANFORD
DISINFECTION
OZONATION
MOORHEAD
PRE-OZONATION
CLEVELAND
STATE
UT
Wl
IN
NY
ME

MN
OH
DESIGN
FLOW(MGD)
50.00
0.50
0.70
1.50
3.60

6.00
50.00
DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT

DEEP WELL INJECTION
  ST. PETERSBURG
FL
SUBSURFACE FILTER/SURFACE DISCHARGE
  NEWPORT              VT
WATER SUPPLY/AQUIFER RECHARGE
  EL PASO               TX

ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY

BLOWER HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM
  TRI-CITY               OR
             0.04
            10.00
            13.50
DIGESTORS HEATED BY GEOTHERMAL HEAT
  ELKO                 NV           2.50

EARTH SHELTERING AND PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN
  KASSON               MN           0.35
  LAKE CRYSTAL          MN           0.59
                                                     DESIGN CONSULTING
                                                           FIRM

                                            COON KING KNOWLTON/
                                             BROWN AND CALDWELL
                                            ROBERT E. LEE ASSOC.
                                            REID QUEBE ALLISON
                                             WILCOX ASSOC.

                                            RIDDICK AND ASSOC. INC.


                                            ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
                                   50.00     ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC.
20.00    CH2M HILL
        PHILLIP AND EMBERLEY


        PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER
          INC.
        CH2M HILL
                    KENNEDY JENKS CHILTON

                    MCGHEE AND BETTS
                    BOLTON AND MENK INC.
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
  TULSA                 OK           11.00     BLACK AND VEATCH
ENERGY RECOVERY/HEAT PUMPS
  NEW YORK CITY         NY
  LOS ANGELES           CA

  LOS ANGELES COUNTY    CA
            100.00    MALCOLM PIRNIE
                      MICHAEL BAKER
            470.00    JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
                      RALPH PARSONS
            550.00    FOSTER WHEELER/
                      BABCOCK WILCOX
                                                        APPROVAL
                                                          BASIS

                                                        ENERGY

                                                        REG.DISCR.
                                                        COST
ENERGY


REG.DISCR.



REG.DISCR.

COST



COST&
ENV.BEN.


ENV.BEN.


REG.DISCR.
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.
RELIABILITY

ENERGY

ENERGY
ENERGY


ENERGY


REG.DISCR.

ENERGY

ENERGY
                                           26

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
INCINERATION WITH HEAT RECOVERY
  MACON-BIBB COUNTY     GA


SLUDGE HEAT EXCHANGERS
  ROCHESTER            MN
SOLAR POWER SYSTEM
  WAYNESBURG
OH
SUPPLEMENTAL SOLAR HEATING
  FLAGSTAFF             AZ

USE WASTE STEAM FROM POWER PLANTS
  WAUKESHA             Wl
  LOS ANGELES           CA

  LOS ANGELES COUNTY    CA
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED BIO-FILTER
  MEMPHIS              TN
BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTER
  ONEONTA              AL
  ST. GEORGE            SC
  WALLACE              NC
BIO-FILTER TOWERS
  CASPER
  EUREKA SPRINGS
WY
AR
CONTINUOUS CLEANING SAND FILTERS
  EVELETH               MN
  JOHNSTOWN
OH
FLOATING DREDGE SAND FILTER
  GREEN RIVER           WY
PRIMARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION
  CORRY                PA
  DEKALB               IL
  WHEATON              IL

RECIRCULATING SAND FILTERS
  CONTRA COSTA          CA
 28.00    JORDAN JONES GOULDING INC.



 12.50    HOLLAND KASTLER SCHMITZ


  0.40    HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.



  6.00    BROWN AND CALDWELL


 11.60    ALVORD BURDICK HOWSON
470.00    JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
           RALPH PARSONS
550.00    FOSTER WHEELER/
           BABCOCK WILCOX



 80.00    BLACK AND VEATCH

  2.20    CARR AND ASSOC.
  0.25    BETZ CONVERSE MURDOCH INC.
  0.18    HENRY VON OESEN ASSOC.


 12.80    ARIX
  0.69    MCCLELLAND CONSULTANTS

  0.70    ROBERT WALLACE AND ASSOC.


  0.75    EVANS MECHWART HAMILTON
           AND TILTON

  1.50    GULP WESNER GULP

  4.00    LAKE ENGINEERS
  7.25    BELING ENGINEERS
 10.00    BAXTER AND WOODMAN

  0.03    HARRIS ASSOC.
MUN./IND.
TREATMENT


ENERGY


COST&
ENERGY


ENERGY


ENERGY
ENERGY

ENERGY
COST


COST
COST
ENV.BEN.


COST
COST

COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.
COST
                                                        REG.DISCR.

                                                        COST
                                                        COST
                                                        COST

                                                        ENERGY
                                           27

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
MIRANDA
SADIEVILLE
SUBMERGED ROCK FILTER
SPRING CREEK
UPFLOW SAND FILTER
EMINENCE
CA
KY
PA
MO
0.05
0.03
0.11
O.O1
LAGOONS

AQUACULTURE
  AUSTIN                TX

  CRAIG-NEW CASTLE      VA

  SAN BENITO            TX
            26.00
             0.18
             2.17
BAFFLE SYSTEM IN LAGOON WITH DUCKWEED COVER
  PARAGOULD            AR           2.20
COMPLETE MIX LAGOON
  DOUGLAS
WY
1.50
CONTROLLED DISCHARGE STABILIZATION POND
  JACKMAN              ME           0.10
DEEP CELL LAGOON
  DODGE CITY
  ST. PAUL
KS
KS
DUCKWEED COVER IN LAGOON
  WILTON                AR
EARTHEN POND SYSTEM
  QUINCY                CA


FACULTATIVE LAGOON
  HOLBROOK             AZ
4.15
0.11


0.09
             0.72
             1.30
FACULTATIVE LAGOON WITH ROCK REED FILTER SYSTEM
  BENTON               LA            0.31
WINZLER KELLY CONSULTING
  ENGINEERS
PROCTOR DAVIS RAY
  CONSULTING ENGINEERS


SCHNEIDER CONSULTING


MISSOURI ENGINEERING CORP.



PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER
  INC.
ANDERSON AND ASSOC.

NEPTUNE WILKINSON ASSOC.


BLACK AND VEATCH




BLACK AND VEATCH


WOODARD AND CURRAN INC.


ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES
SHETLAR GRIFFITH SHETLAR


MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
  ENGINEERS


JOHN CARROL ENGINEERING



JOHN COROLLO ENGINEERS

TERRY D. DENMON AND ASSOC.
HYDROGRAPH CONTROLLED DISCHARGE LAGOON IN LIEU OF CHLORINATION
  CANTON               ME           0.04     WOODARD AND CURRAN INC.
PERMAFROST CONSTRUCTION
  BRISTOL BAY            AK
             0.15
       TRYCK NYMAN AND HAYES
                                                                              ENERGY

                                                                              COST



                                                                              ENV.BEN.


                                                                              ENV.BEN.
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST


REG.DISCR.
&ENV.
RELIABILITY


COST


COST


REG.DISCR.
ENV.BEN.


TOXICS
MGMT. &
ENV.BEN.


COSTS
ENERGY


ENERGY


COST,
ENERGY &
TOXICS
MGMT.


REG.DISCR.
& ENV.BEN.


COST
                                           28

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
NITRIFICATION

FIXED GROWTH BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION
  REDWOOD FALLS         MN           0.60    KBM INC.                             COST
NITRIFICATION ENHANCED BY AERATED POLISHING POND
  BOYDTON               VA            0.15    R. STUART ROYER AND ASSOC.            COST
PURE OXYGEN/SINGLE STAGE NITRIFICATION
  INDIANAPOLIS           IN          125.00    REID QUEBE ALLISON WILCOX             REG.DISCR.
                                              ASSOC.

ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS FOR NITRIFICATION
  MILFORD                MA           1.12    HALEY AND WARD ENGINEERING           COST
  OAK VIEW               CA           3.00    JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING         COST
                                              ENGINEERS
SPECIALIZED BACTERIA
  HORNELL               NY           3.25    LABELLA ASSOC.                       COST
UPFLOW PACKED BED NITRIFICATION
  UPPER EAGLE VALLEY     CO           3.20    M AND I ENGINEERS                    COST
NUTRIENT REMOVAL

ALLIED PROCESS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
  FLATHEAD COUNTY       MT           0.50    THOMAS DEAN AND HOSKINS             ENERGY
                                              INC.
BARDENPHO
  FORT MYERS            FL            6.00    POST BUCKLEY SHUH ASSOC.             ENERGY
  PAYSON                 AZ            2.40    MOORE KNICKERBOCKER ASSOC.          COST
BIOMEDIA FILTER TREATMENT PROCESS FOR TKN REDUCTION
  OAKLAND               MD           0.90    FRANKLIN ASSOC. INC.                   COST
BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION FOR AMMONIA REMOVAL
  LONGMONT              CO          11.55    MCCALL ELLINGSON MORRILL             COST
                                              INC.
CHEMICAL ADDITION TO LAGOON
  ALBANY                 MN           O.30    RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOC.           COST
  ALBERTVILLE            MN           0.05    MEYER-ROHLING INC.                   COST
SLUDGE DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT TREATMENT FOR AMMONIA NITROGEN REDUCTION
  MOKENA                IL            1.10    DONAHUE AND ASSOC.                  COST
USE OF WASTE PICKLE LIQUOR/PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
  BALTIMORE              MD         180.00    WHITMAN REQUARTH AND ASSOC.          COST
OXIDATION DITCHES

ANOXIC OXIDATION DITCH
  CHATHAM               VA            0.45    OLVER INC.                            COST
                                           29

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cant.)
BENTHAL STABILIZATION OXIDATION DITCH
  WELLSBORO             PA            0.01
CARROUSEL OXIDATION DITCH
  MT. HOLLY SPRINGS       PA            0.60
OVER-UNDER OXIDATION DITCH
  FRIES                  VA            0.22
                     TATMAN AND LEE ASSOC.
                     TRACY ENGINEERS INC.
                     DEWBERRY AND DAVIS
OXIDATION DITCH WITH CENTRALLY LOCATED CLARIFIERS
  KING GEORGE COUNTY   VA

ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
             0.05
AIR DRIVEN ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
  OAK VIEW              CA           3.00
         GILBERT CLIFFORD ASSOC
                     JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING
                      ENGINEERS
UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER/ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
  ASBURY PARK
SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY

BELT FILTER PRESS
  CAPE MAY COUNTY
  LOUISVILLE
NJ
NJ
KY
BELT FILTER PRESS WITH LIME FEED
  EWING-LAWRENCE        NJ


CARVER-GREENFIELD
  LOS ANGELES            CA
  RALPH PARSONS         ENERGY
  LOS ANGELES COUNTY     CA
  BABCOCK WILCOX        ENERGY
  MERCER COUNTY        NJ

FACULTATIVE SLUDGE BASIN
  FLAGSTAFF              AZ

FREEZE/THAW SLUDGE DRYING/DEWATERING
  FAIRBANKS              AK
LATERAL FLOW SLUDGE THICKENERS
  HUTCHINSON            KS
  BONNER SPRINGS        KS
  4.40    CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.
  6.30    PANDULLO QUIRK ASSOC.
105.00    CAMP DRESSER MCKEE

 16.00    BUCK SIEFERT JOST INC.
            470.00     JAMES MONTGOMERY AND

            550.00     FOSTER WHEELER/

            20.00     CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.


             6.00     BROWN AND CALDWELL
             8.00     ROEN DESIGN ASSOC

            12.00     WILSON AND CO.
             1.40     A.C. KIRKWOOD ASSOC.
TRAVELLING GUNS FOR LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
  GRAND STRAND         SC           6.00
                     CH2M HILL
VACUUM/BELT SERIES
  OKLAHOMA CITY
OK
 40.00    BENHAM BLAIR AFFILIATES
COST

COST

ENERGY


ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY

COST
REG.DISCR.
COST

COST&
ENERGY


COST&

COST&

COST&
ENERGY

COST&
ENERGY

COST

COST
ENERGY


COST


ENERGY
                                           30

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
VACUUM DE-ODORIZATION OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
  SACRAMENTO COUNTY    CA          340 00
WEDGE SLUDGE FILTER BEDS
  CULLMAN              AL
INCINERATION
CO-INCINERATION
  SITKA
  GLEN COVE
AK
NY
STARVED AIR COMBUSTION OF SLUDGE
  ST. LOUIS              MO
  GREENSBORO          NC
THERMAL PROCESS WITH PRODUCTION
  PHILADELPHIA          PA
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING
  LEXINGTON-FAYETTE     KY
             4.75
  1.80
  8.00

125.00
 2000
                     SACRAMENTO AREA CONSULTANTS
         J.E OTOOLE ENGINEERS
TRYCK NYMAN HAYES
WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOC.

SVERDRUP AND PARCEL ASSOC.
HAZEN SAWYER
  MYRTLE BEACH
SC
        OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE
            210.00     FRANKLIN RESEARCH INST.
  0.16    PROCTOR DAVIS RAY
          CONSULTING ENGINEERS
 12.50    PLANNING RESEARCH GROUP
ENCLOSED MECHANICAL SLUDGE COMPOSTING
  AKRON                OH          73.00
  DOTHAN
AL
MODIFIED WINDROW COMPOSTING
  TAMPA                 FL

SLUDGE DIGESTION

AEROBIC DIGESTION
  CHINOOK              MT
  WEISER               ID

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
  FERGUS FALLS          MN
  KASSON               MN
 12.00
            60.00
             0.50
             2.30


             3.81
             0.35
BURGESS AND NIPLE LTD.

WAINWRIGHT ENGINEERING
         GREELEY AND HANSON
         ROBERT PECCIA ASSOC
         CH2M HILL


         BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK
         MCGHEE AND BETTS
EGG-SHAPED ANAEROBIC DIGESTOR WITH GAS UTILIZATION
  JUNEAU               AK           4.00     ARCTIC ENGINEERS
MISCELLANEOUS
CAPTOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT
  MOUNDSVILLE           WV
             2.35
         CERRONE AND VAUGHN
                                   COST&
                                   ENERGY

                                   REG.DISCR.
COST
REG.DISCR.

ENERGY
ENERGY

REG.DISCR.
ENV
RELIABILITY
ENV
RELIABILITY

ENV.
RELIABILITY
COST

COST
                                   COST
                                   ENV.BEN.


                                   ENV.BEN.
                                   ENERGY


                                   COSTS,
                                   ENERGY
                                   COST
                                           31

-------
            TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENER
  WEISER               ID
             2.30    CH2M HILL
EDUCTOR-INDUCED VACUUM CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM
  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA   DC          309.00
                    METCALF AND EDDY
ENCLOSED IMPELLOR SCREW PUMP
  REPUBLIC              MO
  SPRINGFIELD           MO
  WESTBOROUGH         MA
  HUTCHINSON           KS
             0.93    HOOD RICH
             6.40    BURNS MCDONNELL
             7.68    SEA CONSULTANTS
            12.00    WILSON AND CO.
FLUIDIZED BED TREATMENT OF DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT
  LANSING               Ml          27.00     MCNANEE PORTER
                                             SEELEY ASSOC.
LAND APPLICATION THROUGH PEAT FILTER CELLS
  BEAVER BAY            MN           0.05
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON/REGENERATION
  KALAMAZOO            Ml          53.30
  BEDFORD HEIGHTS       OH           3.00
  NORTH OLMSTED        OH           9.00
  SAUGET                IL           27.00
PRIMARY TREATMENT FACILITY
  EAST MILLINOCKET       ME


PURE OXYGEN FLUIDIZED BED REACTOR
  HAYWARD              CA
  NASSAU COUNTY        NY
SANILOGICAL SYSTEM
  BERRYSBURG
PA
SHALLOW-BED PLASTIC MEDIA BIOFILTER
  DELMONT              PA
SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM
  KAPEHU
HI
             0.49
13.10
10.00

 0.04
 1 74

 0.02
        MATEFFY ENGINEERING

        JONES AND HENRY
        URS DALTON
        URS DALTON
        RUSSELL AND AXON ASSOC.

        CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE
KENNEDY JENKS ENGINEERS
CONSOER TOWNSEND ASSOC.

GLACE ASSOC.
DUNCAN LAGNESE ASSOC.

PHILIP YOSHIMURA INC.
SLOW RATE-DUAL WATER SYSTEM FOR URBAN IRRIGATION
  ST. PETERSBURG        FL           20.00     CH2M HILL
TEACUP GRIT REMOVAL
  JUNEAU               AK


TUBULAR SCREW PUMPS
  GARDINER             ME
UNIQUE CIRCULAR PUMP STATION
  HOUSTON              TX
             4.00    ARCTIC ENGINEERING
             1.60    SEA CONSULTANTS


           531.00    LOCKWOOD ANDREWS NEWMAN
                      INC.
                                           ENV.BEN.

                                           COST


                                           ENERGY
                                           ENERGY
                                           REG.DISCR.
                                           COST


                                           COST
COST

COST
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST


COST&
REG.DISCR.

COST
REG.DISCR.

COST&
ENERGY

COST

COST&
ENERGY

COST

COST&
ENERGY


REG.DISCR.

COST
                                           32

-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED MORE THAN FIVE TIMES









EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennaylvanla
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina

V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
K*nslt
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Dtab
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nerada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

TOTAL

V
^
•H
 h*
•H •
«J f-t
u o
< in

I
1

1
1








1



1



1
































7









X














1





1

















1
1











1



5


M

a












1










3



1



























1

1


7
£



















l

l

2

5


8
1

2




2
2

1
4




1
6




1








I



38



• CO
a
o
3
*a
0)
n
41
•-t
03 06

2














5



8

1
3
































19





a
J3
3
E-«
•4-1
IS







2






2
1
2















1






















8














2


2


1


1
1






3


1


























1



12
























1

5
1
1
1

3
1
7











1




















21


d
o
•H tt
f, V
O ec
l* ^
w a
a
33
-H O
a vj
£3







2




1


1





2

































6


a
0)
kt
n
•»
K
O
u
M
O
c
•<












1
1
2


1












2





















1


8

i
























1




1


1
1
1
1
2
















1









9
                               33

-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED MORE THAN FIVE TIMES (cont.)








EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington DC
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indisna
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
JIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

TOTAL


V

a
•0
•H «t
cn pa
ISf
3 •*
0 ^
« M
t> Q














1






2


1


1
1





2





1





1








10




u
V
rH
o
«


M p£












1
2







3
2










5

3



1


1







2




20





a.
v4
M
a
o
£,
0L.


1




3









































1





5

1
u

o
a
o
u

M
O






1



1


2
6

3





1





2

1
4

1

















1



23
                                   34

-------












EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Loulslsna
Sew Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
nil Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
I Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

:OTAL
ONSITE TREATMENT
d
0
0.
Q
a
*H
|S
i Tl
fl 4
«
39
CL -H



5





4


1

3
4
2
1



1




5

2
6
3

1



2




















40









»
a
g
£








i




2
4










1


8

2







1



4




1








24











Ed





















































2


2






(fl
U

£
o
o
.3














1














1


1



1



















4







M
W
rj

•g
CA

1
6
1
4

2

12




2
1










13


2







1

1













2
4


52
0
o
vl
a
0
V

II
,tf h.
" JH
U -H

CO ^

2
7

3

1

2


2


2





2





1
6
3


















4
4


2
1

1

43







4
8.

O
, 1

7

18
7
2

11
4




2

3













3

















2








59



a
\
V
H
w
a
d
6
Jj
o







1
1




1


5































2



1



11
LAND TREATMENT




OB
»•*
|
l>
a
4J
•3
is
< 3














2












1



1




2
1





1


3
1


1

1
2
1

17






»
"H
•o
s
D
4)
c5




2



2




2

2


1
2
2
1


1
3

1




2

1
1


6



1




2








42











1

1

2




3


1

1
1
1


2
2



1

1

3
1

8






3



3

2

3
1
12


4

2



58








V
3
i
rH
to


1
1


1






3
5
1

2
20
21
2
2
21
11
9
3

13
14
1

3
1
1
29
4

8
9
6
2
11
6
6
2

11
15

3
6

3



257








j M
' . O
i 4J
£ o







i






i
2












11

4
1
2
1
10
5
3
8


1


1
1

1
2


2
1
8
8
3

77

























2
2










3
1


1
9
1




1




1










4
7
4

36
                                                            Q
                                                            LU
                                                            Q
                                                           O
                                                           LJJ
                                                           3
                                                           oc
                                                           Q.

                                                           i
                                                           o
                                                           LJJ
                                                           OC
                                                           LU
                                                           U_
                                                           O
                                                           CO

                                                           CO
                                                           LJJ

                                                           m
35

-------
EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
»III Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

TOTAL
COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
|
a
4)
3
U-l
•4-1
I
V
en
3
a
a
41
h
a*
1
3
4
5
3
6
1
2
2
1
4
5
1
1
7
3
1
1
1
2
6
3

1
2
4
2

72
Pressure Sewers/Grinder Pump
1
1
2
3
16
2
14
17
2
10
2
3
2
2
6
2
2
2
5
3
9
1
3
13
1
2
1
7
1
1

136
Wi
U
*
Small Dlameti
1
1
1
16
1
2
10
4
3
3
1
4
1
1
8
18
7
1
6
2
3
2
1
1
1
10
14
2
2
1
3
2
1

134

Vacuum Severe

2
2
2
1
2
2





1

12
ENERGY
RECOVERY
FROM SLUDGE
lecovery
c Digestion
90Z Methane 1
from Anaerobl
4
3
3
16
1
5
5
2
3
5
4
2
7
1
15
3
4
8
6
2
1
1
1
7
5
7
1
4
1
4
3
2
2
3
5
3
2
4
2

157
*


1
2
1
1
1
2
1


2

2
1

14
SLUDGE TREATMENT
o
oo
TJ 01
« to
V t)
E/1 C/J
a P
4 O
J PU
1
11
1
2
2
4
6
10
3
4
11
3
5
3
5
40
12
9
24
30
15
3
7
5
4
19
26
26
4
1
1
1
2
1
6
3
1

311



5
1
1
1
2
4
1

1
1
3

20
00
a
Composti
6
3
1
12
3
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1

63

i
a
0 0


3
1
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
8
2
3
9
13
2
3
2
2
1
2

71
OTHER
Aquifer Recharge

1
2





1



2
Direct Reuae



1

2

1
2
2


18
d


5
3
3
22
21
24
3
15
8
3
1
2
1
4
2
2

108
36

-------
 TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
                                                                      Ordering
                                 Title                                   Code
Current I/A Technology Foldouts
Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems: Practical Approaches               1,2,3
Aquaculture: An Alternative Wastewater Treatment Approach                    1,2,3
The Biological Aerated Filter: A Promising Biological Process                    1,2,3
Composting: A Viable Method of Resource Recovery                          1,2,3
Counter-Current Aeration: A Promising Process Modification                    1,2,3
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons: A Promising Modification              1,2,3
Innovative and Alternative (I/A) Technology
Wastewater Treatment to Improve Water Quality and Reduce Cost               1,2,3
Intrachannel Clarification: A Project Assessment                              1,2,3
Land Application of Sludge: A Viable Alternative                               1,2,3
Land Treatment Silviculture: A Practical Approach                             1,2,3
Methane Recovery: An Energy Resource                                    1,2,3
Overland Flow An Update: New Information Improves Reliability                 1,2,3
Rapid Infiltration: A Viable Land Treatment Alternative                          1,2,3
Rapid Infiltration: Plan, Design and Construct for Success                       1,2,3
Sequencing Batch Reactors: A Project Assessment                           1,2,3
Total Containment Ponds: Plan, Design, and Construct for Success              1,2,3
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds: An Alternative Approach             1,2,3
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on Pathogen Removal               1,2,3
Water Reuse Via Dual Distribution Systems                                  1,2,3
Wetlands Treatment: A Practical Approach                                    1,2,3

Upcoming I/A Technology Foldouts*
Biological Phosphorous Removal                                           1,2,3
Large Soil Absorption Systems:                                             1,2,3
  Design Suggestions for Success
Operation of Conventional WWTF in Cold Weather                            1,2,3
Disinfection with Ultraviolet Light                                            1,2,3
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying (Update)                                    1,2,3
Side-Streams in Advance Waste Treatment Plants:
  Problems and Remedies                                                1,2,3
'Available in 1986
                                   37

-------
 TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont.)
                                                                   Ordering
Research Project Summaries                                            Code

Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters
  from Multiple-Home Developments                                       4
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research
  and Demonstration Project:
  Volume IV Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study                             4
Status of Porous Biomass Support Systems
  for Wastewater Treatment:
  An Innovative/Alternative Technology Assessment                           4
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: An Alternative for
  Unsewered Communities                                               4
Survival of Parasite Eggs in Stored Sludge                                   4
Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge
  Land Treatment System                                                4

Other I/A Publications

Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Small
  Communities and Rural Areas (foldout)                                    1
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project too Costly?:
  Options for Small Communities                                           1
Management of On-Site and Small Community Wastewater
  Systems, 600/8-82-009, July 1982                                        4
Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
  Communities, 600/8-80-030, August 1980                                 4
Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
  Disposal Systems, 625/1 -80-012, October 1980                             4
A Reference Handbook on Small Scale Wastewater Technology,
  November 1985                                                       5
Guidance Manual for Sewerless Sanitary Devices and
  Recycling Methods, HUD-PD&R-738, July 1983                             5
Alternative Small Scale Treatment Systems
  MIS Report, Vol. 17, Number 4, April 1985                                  6
                                   38

-------
 TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont.)
Ordering Codes

The documents listed in this table can be ordered from the following addresses, as
  designated by document.

1. EPA-OMPC-MFD (WH-595)
  401 M Street
  Washington, DC 20460
2. Regional EPA offices

3. State environmental agencies
4. EPA-Center for Environmental Research Information
  26 W. St. Clair Street
  Cincinnati, OH
5. HUD User
  P.O. Box280
  Germantown, MD 20874

6. International City Management Association
  1120 G Street, NW.
  Washington, DC 20005
                                  39

-------
               TABLE 5. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY

FAYETTEVILLE, AR



PARAGOULD, AR

PHOENIX, AZ


HAYWARD, CA
CITY OF
GUSTINE, CA
MONTEREY, CA

MORROW BAY, CA

SAN DIEGO, CA



IDAHO CITY, ID

WAUCONDA, IL

JACKMAN, ME

BOSTON, MA

RISING SUN, MD



ROSSWELL, NM
TECHNOLOGY
*A/O PROCESS
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT
REMOVAL
BAFFLE SYSTEM/
SERPENTINE FLOW
DIGESTER GAS
SCRUBBING
*OXYTRON
PURE-OXYGEN FLUID
BED REACTOR
AQUACULTURE/MARSH
POLYCULTURE
ADVANCED SECONDARY
FRUIT CROP IRRIGATION
TRICKLING FILTER
SOLIDS CONTACT
AQUACULTURE/PULSED
AND FIXED BED
ANAEROBIC HYBRID
ROCK/REED FILTERS
RAPID INFILTRATION/
WETLANDS
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL/
STABILIZATION POND
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
*PHOTOZONE
ACTIVATED OZONE
DISINFECTION

*BROWN BEAR
SLUDGE DRYING
STATUS

COMPLETED



ONGOING

ONGOING


COMPLETED
ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING



ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

ONGOING

COMPLETED



ONGOING
COMMENTS

DEMONSTRATED GOOD
BIOLOGICAL AND
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL
DURING WINTER MONTHS
DEMONSTRATED ENERGY
SAVINGS APPROXIMATELY
23-35% COMPARED TO
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
DEMONSTRATED NOT COST
EFFECTIVE COMPARED TO
UV DISINFECTION
                                     40

-------
            TABLE 5. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS (cont.)
CHEMUNG COUNTY NY
HORNELL, NY

TOLEDO, OH


GRAND STRAND, SC

CRAIG-NEW CASTLE, VA

MOUNDSVILLE, WV



CLEAR LAKE, Wl
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
SEEDED BACTERIAL
NITRIFICATION
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR
ADVANCED WASTE
TREATMENT/WETLANDS
AQUACULTURE/FIN FISH
*CAPTOR
POROUS BIOMASS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE

*ZIMPRO
FILTRATION PRIMARY
EFFLUENT USING PULSED
BED FILTER
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
ONGOING
PLANNED
COMPLETED
                                           COMPLETED
DEMONSTRATED BETTER
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
TRICKLING FILTERS AND
CHEAPER METHOD FOR
NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED CHEAPER
METHOD FOR NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED MORE THAN
20% SOLIDS AND BOD
REMOVAL
PILOT STUDY REPORT
UNDER REVIEW BY STATE
AGENCY AND EPA


DEMONSTRATED 56% SOLIDS
AND 28% BOD REMOVAL
'MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMENT
OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
                                     41

-------
           TABLE 6. 100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS
FACILITY
ATMORE, AL
OPELIKA, AL
FLAGSTAFF, AZ
FALLEN LEAF
LAKE, CA
MANILA, CA
NEVADA CITY, CA
CITY OF
REEDLEY, CA
VENTURA, CA
NYLAND ACRES
NORTH COAST, CA

STERLING, CO
FAIRFIELD, IA
HANOVER, IL
WAYNESVILLE, IL
AUBURN, IN
PORTAGE, IN

SABATTUS, ME
TECHNOLOGY
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
TUBE SETTLERS
DISINFECTION
VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
AIR EJECTION SYSTEM
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
SONIC LEVEL DETECTORS
VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
INNOVATIVE POND
UNDERDRAINS

SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS AND PUMPS
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS AND PUMPS
MICROSCREENS-PONDS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
SAND FILTER
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
SWIRL CONCENTRATORS
VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
UV DISINFECTION
STATUS
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW

AWARDED 9/83

AWARDED 8/83

UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 4/86

UNDER REVIEW
                                 42

-------
      TABLE 6. 100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS (cont.)
SOUTH PORTLAND, ME
RISING SUN, MD

FALL RIVER, MA

MOREHEAD, MN
NORTHFIELD, MN
ROCHESTER, MN

SCOTTS BLUFF, NE
STAFFORD, NJ

SANTE FE, NM
LAWRENCE, NY
CHURCHS FERRY ND
CLIFFORD, ND
BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OH

CRANSTON, Rl
BLACK DIAMOND, WA
ELBE, WA
CRAB ORCHARD-
MACARTHUR,  WV
CAMBELLSPORT, Wl
MAYWARD, Wl
WITTENBERG, Wl
COMPOSTING
ACTIVIATED OZONE
DISINFECTION
SELF SUSTAINING
INCINERATION
OZONE DISINFECTION
UV DISINFECTION
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHOROUS
REMOVAL
MICROSCREENS
VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
WETLANDS
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS

RAPID INFILTRATION
RAPID INFILTRATION
SEEPAGE CELLS
UNDER REVIEW
AWARD
PENDING
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 9/85
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW

UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW

AWARDED 9/85
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
                                43

-------
           TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS
US EPA-REGION I

Charles Conway
US EPA Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-3582
(FTS) 835-3582

Connecticut

William Hogan
Connecticut Department of
  Environmental Protection
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-2373

Maine

Dennis Purington
Department of Environmental
  Protection
Hospital Street
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)289-3901

Massachusetts

Robert Cady
Division of Water Pollution Control
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
  Quality Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5713

Rhode Island

Edward Szymanski
Rhode Island Division of Water Supply
  and Pollution Control
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rl 02908
(401)277-3961
Vermont

Edward Leonard
Environmental Engineering Division
Vermont Agency of Evironmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3345

New Hampshire

Paul Currier
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
  Control Commission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2508

US EPA-REGION II
Bruce Kiselica
US EPA Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5670
(FTS) 264-5670

New Jersey

Bob Simicsak
New Jersey Department of
  Environmental Protection
P.O. BoxCN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-2723

New York

John Marschilpk
Technical Assistance Section
New York State Department of
  Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-3810
                                        44

-------
        TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Puerto Rico

Jose Bentacourt, Chief
Local Assistance Grants Section
I/A Coordinator
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-5140, ext. 355

Virgin Islands

Phyllis Brin, Director
Natural Resources Management Office
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and
  Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-3320

US EPA-REGION III
David Byro
US EPA Water Management Division
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6534
(FTS) 597-6534

Delaware

Roy R. Parikh
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
  and Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, DE19901
(302)736-5081

District of Columbia

Leonard R. Benson
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
Water and Sewer Utility Commission
Office of Engineering Services
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 767-7603
Maryland

Hitesh Nigam
Department of Health and
  Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental Protection
201W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 659-3082
(FTS) 659-3082
Walter Gills
Virginia State Water Control Board
P.O. Box11143
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 257-6308

West Virginia

Elbert Morton
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304) 348-0633

Pennsylvania

Brij Garg
Pennsylvania Department of
  Environmental Resources
Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants
P.O. Box2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 787-3481

US EPA-REGION IV

Bob Freeman
US EPA Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
                                         45

-------
        TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Alabama

David Hutchinson
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)271-7700

Florida

BhupendraVora
Bureau of Wastewater Management
  and Grants
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-8163

Georgia

David Freedam
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-4769

Kentucky

Vince Borres
Construction Grants Branch
Division of Water
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and
  Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Road
Ft. Boone Plaza
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410 ext. 509

Mississippi

Jon Huey
Municipal Facilities Branch
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
(601)961-5113
North Carolina

Allen Wahab
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
  Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-6900

South Carolina

Sam Grant
201 Planning Environmental Quality Control
South Carolina Department of Health and
  Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211
(803) 758-5067

Tennessee

Zakariya Mohyuddin
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Terra Building, 3rd Floor
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37203
(615) 741-0638

US EPA-REGION V

Charles Pycha
US EPA Water Managemet Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0259
(FTS) 886-0259

Illinois

James Leinicke
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-2027
                                         46

-------
         TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Indiana

Robert Penno
Special Projects Section
Water Management Division
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
(317) 232-8636

Michigan

Brian Myers
Community Assistance Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517) 373-6626

Minnesota

David Kortan
Technical Review Section
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612)296-7387

Ohio

Sanat K. Barua
Division of Construction Grants
Ohio Evironmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 466-8974

Wisconsin

John Melby
Municipal Wastewater Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madision, Wl 53707
(608) 267-7666
US EPA-REGION VI

Ancil Jones
US EPA Water Management Division
Interfirst Two Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 767-8958
(FTS) 729-8958

Arkansas

Martin Roy
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 Natural Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 562-8910

Louisiana

Ashok Patel
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
1170 Airline Highway
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
(504) 922-0530

New Mexico

Robert W.Kane
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 968
Harold Runnels Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 827-2810

Oklahoma

Dr. H. J. Thung
Oklahoma Department of Health
3400 North Eastern Avenue
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7346
                                         47

-------
        TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Texas

Milton Rose
Texas Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512)463-8513

US EPA-REGION VII

Rao Surampalli
US EPA Water Management Division
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813

Iowa

Wayne Farrand
Construction Grants Branch
Program Operations Division
Iowa Department of Water, Air and
  Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8992

Kansas

Rodney Geisler
Municipal Programs Section
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field
Topeka,KS 66620
(913) 862-9360

Missouri

Douglas Garrett
Water Pollution Control Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Post Off ice Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314)751-3241
Nebraska

Lisa Corl
Construction Grants Branch
Water Quality Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-4268

US EPA-REGION VIII

Stan Smith
US EPA Water Management Division
1 Denver Place
999-18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
(303)293-1547
(FTS) 564-1547

Colorado

Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320-8333

Montana

Scott Anderson
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environmental
  Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406)444-2406

North Dakota

Wayne Kern
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
North Dakota Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, ND 58505
(701)224-2354
                                         48

-------
         TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Utah

Kiran L. Bhayani
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box45500
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0555
(801)533-6146

Wyoming

Mike Hackett
Water Quality Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7083

South Dakota

Ted Streckfuss
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
  Resources
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3351

US EPA-REGION IX

Susan Johnson
US EPA Water Management Division
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)974-8266
(FTS) 454-8266

Arizona

Roy Frey
Arizona Department of Health Services
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 257-2226
California

Don Owen
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916)322-3004

Hawaii

Hiram Young
Construction Grants Program
Hawaii State Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-4127

Nevada

James Williams
Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-5870

US EPA-REGION X

Tom Johnson
US EPA Water Management Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)442-2887
(FTS) 399-2887

Alaska

Richard Marcum
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water Programs
Pouch "0"
Juneau,AK 99811
(907) 465-2610
                                         49

-------
        TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Idaho

Robert Braun
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environment
State House
Boise, ID 83720
(208)334-4269
Bob Evans
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207
(503)229-5257

Washington

Chris Haynes
Department of Ecology
Office of Water Programs
Olympia,WA 98504
(206)459-6101

Washington EPA-OMPC
National I/A Coordinator

Richard E. Thomas
James Wheeler
USEPA(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-7368
(FTS) 382-7368
Washington EPA-OMPC
I/A Technology Data Base Manager

Charles Vanderlyn
USEPA(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7277
(FTS) 382-7277

Washington EPA-OMPC
Small Flows Technology Contact

John Flowers
US EPA (WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7288
(FTS) 382-7288

Cincinnati EPA-WERL
Research I/A Contact

Jim Kreissl
US EPA WERL
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7611
(FTS) 684-7611

National Small Flows
Clearinghouse Manager

Steve Dix
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 293-4191
(800) 624-8301
&US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  1986 - 621-735 - 1302/60527
                                        50

-------