CASE STUDIES

            DANIEL J.  HINRICHS

              NANCY E. HEIM

            JUSTINE A. FAISST

             BRUCE E.  BURRIS


              JANUARY,  1981
               PREPARED FOR



          WASHINGTON,  D.C.  20460

                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject	Pages

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                                              ii
CONVERSION TABLE                                                              iv
INTRODUCTION                                                                    1
KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN                                                             3
BURLEY, IDAHO                                                                   9
LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK                                                          13
HILLSBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE                                                   16
REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA                                                           19
MANILA, CALIFORNIA                                                            22
CLEVELAND, MISSISSIPPI                                                        25
JONESVILLE/JERUSALEM, MARYLAND                                                27
AUSTIN, TEXAS                                                                 31
MIRANDA, CALIFORNIA                                                           35
BAY PARK, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW  YORK                                            38
CONCLUSIONS                                                                   42


     This report was  prepared under the direction of Mr.  Lam Lim,  U.S.   Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency  by Daniel  J.  Hinrichs,  Nancy  E.  Heim,  Justine  A.
Faisst, and Bruce E.  Burris of Gulp/Wesner/Culp.

     Recognition  also is  due to  the  following  individuals  for  their  time and
assistance in providing  information gathered in the  case studies:

          Orlin Loen                    City  of  Kalamazoo,  Michigan
          Felix Sampayo                 Jones &  Henry Engineers,  Ltd.
          Dail Hollopeter               Jones &  Henry Engineers,  Ltd.
          Brian Myers                  State of Michigan
          James Bredin                  State of Michigan

          Robert Martin                 City  of  Burley,  Idaho
          Bruce Johnson                 C^M  Hill,  Inc.
          L. Sheldon  Barker             CH2M  Hill,  Inc.
          Basil Tupyi                  State of Idaho

          Ted Pieczonka                 City  of  Lackawanna, New York
          Siegfried Barbasch            Nussbaumer  & Clarke, Inc.
          Joseph Tuttie                 State of New York

          Robert J. Johnson             City  of  Hillsborough, New Hampshire
          Ed Rushbrook                  Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc.
          James Gill                    State of New Hampshire
          Robert Cruess                 State of New Hampshire

          Lary Rihls                    City  of  Reedley, California
          Cordell E.  Johnson            John  Carollo Engineers
          Evelyn Tipton                 State of California

          Virgil McNuth                 Manila Community Services District
          Dave Tolloson                 Winzler  & Kelly, Consulting Engineers
          Gil Wheeler                  State of California

          Lavell Hendrix               City  of  Cleveland, Mississippi
          Berry Henson                  Clark Dietz Engineers, Inc.
          Mark Smith                    State of Mississippi
          Steve Belanger               State of Mississippi

          Eric Larson                  Montgomery County, Maryland
          Ken Hosto                     Kamber Engineering,  Inc.
          Jean Walbrecker              Kamber Engineering,  Inc.
          John Milnor                  State of Maryland

          Sam Warrington               City of  Austin,  Texas
          Chester Green                 Parkhill,  Smith & Cooper, Inc.
          Milton  Rose                  State of Texas

Bert Stevens                 Miranda Community  Services  District
Marilyn Miller               Winzler & Kelly, Consulting Engineers

Steven Fangmann              Nassau County, New York
Raymond Avendt               Consoer Townsend & Associates,  Ltd.

                      CONVERSION TABLE
1  1/sec (liter/second)         = 0.023 mgd (million gallon/day)
1  kg (kilogram)                = 2.21 Ib (pound)
1  joule                       = 0.009 Btu (British thermal unit)
1  ha (hectare)                 = 2.47 acre
1  m (meter)                    = 3.28 ft (feet)
1  km (kilometer)               = 0.621 mi (mile)
1  cm/ha (centimeter/hectare)   = 0.16 in./acre (inch/acre)


     This  report  provides  case  studies of  eleven projects  which have  received
additional grant funds through the I/A  Program.


     The Clean Water Act of 1977 was passed  by Congress  to  amend the  1972 Federal
Water Pollution  Control Act. The  original  act  provided financial assistance  to
communities for the design  and construction  of new and  improved wastewater treat-
ment facilities. One  congressional  concern was that there  has  been little effort
to  recycle nutrients  or treated  wastewater/ or to eliminate the  discharge  of
pollutants. There has also  been concern about  the lack  of new technology develop-
ment. Provisions within the 1977 Act are intended to  encourage the advancement of
technology and resource recovery by increasing grants for innovative  and alterna-
tive projects. Innovative projects  consist of processes or systems which are new
technology and include  those in which  nutrients or water  is  recycled,  energy is
recovered, or special sewer systems for small  communities are provided.   Alterna-
tive projects involve land  treatment of wastewater or sludge.

     The  EPA  has been  delegated  the responsibility  of implementing  the new law
and  has  initiated  the  I/A Technology  Program.  This program has been  in effect
since  October 1,  1978.  Because  of  the importance and potential impact  of the
three-year program,  it  was determined  that  the  program be closely monitored and
evaluated each year.


     The purpose of  this  report is to  present information  gathered during inves-
tigation of eleven  case studies. The case  study  reports describe the  project, the
I/A components of the project, benefits and  impacts of  the  I/A technology, and in
some cases the procedure followed for obtaining  grant funding.

     There were  several  factors  considered  in  selecting  the  projects  for  case
studies.  Only approved  projects were considered since  these same projects could
be  reviewed  again  in  subsequent years. A variety of  projects were  selected  to
give a cross  section of various types of systems being  classified as  either inno-
vative or  alternative.  Projects  from various parts of  the  country were chosen to
illustrate the differences  in program  administration  among the  regions.  Some  of
the projects  are in delegated states while others are in non-delegated states.

     The  information  for the case  studies  was  obtained through  interviews  with
the  various  individuals involved in each  project and by reviewing project docu-
ments. The case  studies  are  primarily  for  Step 2 grants,   therefore actual  site
visits were  not  necessary  for this  initial  review. As  projects progress through
Step 3 and become operational, actual site visits will  become more important.

     The case study reports cover the following projects:

Innovative Technology

     •    Kalamazoo,  Michigan   -   Powdered   Activated  Carbon  with  Zimpro

     •    Hurley, Idaho - Microstrainers to  Remove  Algae  from Stabilization Pond

     •    Lackawanna, New York - Aerobic-Anaerobic Dual Digestion System

     •    Hillsborough, New  Hampshire  - Application of Rotating Biological Con-
          tractors  and  Solar   Heated  Anaerobic   Digestion   with  Methane  Gas

Alternative Technology

     •    Reedley, California - Overloaded Rapid Infiltration Modification

     •    Manila, California - Pressure Sewers and Community Leachfield

     •    Cleveland, Mississippi - Land Treatment using Overland Flow

Innovative/Alternative Technology

     •    Jonesville/Jerusalem, Maryland - Pressure Sewers and Land Treatment

     •    Austin,  Texas -  Sludge Digestion using Earthworms to  Make  Compost,
          Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery, and Water Hyacinth Ponds with
          Greenhouse Covers to Treat Sludge Pond Effluent

     •    Miranda,  California  -  Small Diameter Gravity Sewers and Recirculating
          Sand Filters

     •    Bay Park,  Nassau County,  New York -  Fluidized  Bed  Secondary Treatment
          System,   Anaerobic  Digestion  with   Gas  Recovery,   and  Composting

                               KALAMAZOO, MICHIGAN

     The existing  treatment plant  for  the City  of  Kalamazoo does not  have  ade-
quate capacity to handle the projected  loads.  Substantial  upgrading of the facil-
ities is  required.  Approximately  5.4  mgd of  wastewater are expected  to  require
treatment  by  the year  2000.  The waste  will  consist of  approximately  15  mgd  of
paper mill flows and 39 mgd of domestic,  commercial,  and other  industrial  wastes.
The  total  design loading  to  the plant will average 60 tons of  suspended solids
and 80 tons of  BOD  per day. The proposed plan  is to centralize wastewater treat-
ment  facilities at the  site of  the present City  of Kalamazoo  treatment plant,
which will eventually  receive flows  from a  number of other  nearby  cities  and


     Under the  recommended plan, the existing activated  sludge wastewater treat-
ment plant will  be  upgraded to provide the degree  of treatment required to main-
tain  water quality  in the Kalamazoo  River when effluent  is  discharged  to  the
river. Conventional degritting,  comminution,  and primary  sedimentation precedes
the  secondary  treatment process. The  existing facilities will  be  used to coagu-
late and settle paper  mill wastes, while new primary facilities will be provided
to treat  the  discharge from the  municipal sewer system.  These primary effluents
then will be mixed prior to discharge  to  the single-stage biophysical system.

     In the  single-stage biophysical system,  the primary effluents  will  enter a
scrubbing channel where virgin powdered activated carbon,  regenerated carbon,  and
return sludge will  be  introduced. The mixture will  then enter  conventional aera-
tion  tanks.  After  aeration,  a  polyelectrolyte will  be added  and  the  mixture
allowed to  settle  in  the  secondary clarifiers,  the overflow  from which  will  be
filtered, disinfected,  and discharged.

     Secondary  clarifier underflow is  returned to the scrubbing channel or wasted
to  gravity  thickeners. The  underflow  from  the thickeners  will  be  pumped  to
intermediate pressure, wet-air  oxidation units  where  organics  will  be oxidized
and the spent powdered  carbon  regenerated.

     The  sludges resulting  from primary  treatment will  continue  to  be  treated
using the  existing  gravity thickening, heat conditioning,  vacuum filtration,  and
incineration equipment.

Innovative Technology

     Specific unit  processes  which qualified as  innovative  parts of  the powdered
activated carbon/activated sludge  treatment system  include:

      •    Powdered activated carbon storage and application
      •    Pumping within  the powdered  activated carbon/activated sludge system
      •    Spent carbon gravity thickeners
      •    Spent carbon regeneration  (wet-air  oxidation unit)

      •    Gravity separation of carbon from blowdown of  regeneration units
      •    Odor control system utilizing the powdered activated  carbon

Impacts of the Project

     The  following  beneficial impacts  were among  those noted  for  the  proposed
proj ect:

•    Environmental

           Water  quality  in  the  receiving stream  will  be  improved  through  the
           reduction  in  pollutional discharges  to  the  Kalamazoo River.  The  pro-
           cess will  substantially reduce  the discharge  of  complex  organics  such
           as pesticides and herbicides.

           The  diversity  of  the  fish population  in the river  will  be  enhanced
           greatly by providing  an aquatic environment that would  support intol-
           erant,  warm water  species.  The removal  of  trace organic  compounds
           could have an additional beneficial  effect.

      -    Treatment  is  such that minimum chlorine dosage for  disinfection  will
           be  necessary,  thereby  reducing the  adverse  impacts on  fish  in  the

      -    Through improvements  to the water  pollution control practices  in  the
           area,  the  surface water  quality would  be  enhanced.  The  presence  of
           foam downstream  from the  plant outfall would be minimized or  elimi-
           nated entirely, and dissolved oxygen  in  the  river would  be improved.

           Activated  carbon  will remove the  high  molecular weight  organics  pro-
           duced by the two  chemical  companies and the pharmaceutical company in
           the area.

      -    There  will be a  reduction or  elimination of odors  presently arising
           from the  aeration facilities.  Since  the powdered carbon  in  the aera-
           tion tanks would  adsorb odors,  the  gases resulting  from  sludge proces-
           sing would be deodorized.

           Less sludge  would be burned than  at the present time,  and facilities
           to enhance treatment of the flue gases would be added.

           The  project would reduce  aerosol  production at the plant since  the
           aeration tanks would be partially  covered.
           Manufacturing  and business opportunities  in the area may  increase as
           outside  industries and businesses  continue to develop  and  expand and
           require  community locations that can provide adequate waste collection
           and  treatment.

           Several  local  industries are considering  reuse  of  the treatment plant
           effluent due to  its  expected  high quality.

      -    The  success  of  the proposed technology could encourage  other  communi-
           ties with similar  waste problems  to use this  same  technology.

•    Economics

           More  money  in  grants  (extra  10 percent)  available  to the City  and
           reduced  cost to the community  (although  this was not originally con-
           sidered when the design was  first conceived).

           The  State  will  benefit in  future years  if the entire innovative set-
           aside is used now  since reallocation of future grant  funds  depends on
           the current use of  set-aside money.

           The project  cost is estimated to  be about §65,000,000  while  the annual
           operation  and maintenance  cost  is  about  $4,567,100.  The  equivalent
           annual cost  of  this proposed alternative  is about $9,334,714,  and is
           the most economical alternative  evaluated  in the  facilities  plan.

      The  most significant  long-term, adverse  effects noted  in  the  facilities
plan were  the possibility of unsightly conditions at the  plant in the  event of
carbon  spills during unloading  or storage  of the  powdered activated  carbon  and
substantial  increases  in energy  requirements  that  would result  from  implementa-
tion of the project.


     Because  the facilities plan for Kalamazoo was completed in  June  1977, prior
to the initiation of the I/A  Program,  the  application  process for I/A  funding for
the  City  required  additional efforts  by  the  design  engineers  and  the  City.
Specific  steps  taken  in  applying   for   the  extra   10  percent   included  the

      •    A  letter  was written  for the City  to the  State Department  of Natural
           Resources  (DNR) providing  the  information  required  in  Appendix E of
           the I/A regulations to qualify  the project  as innovative.

      •    The  city applied  for  a Step 3  grant  to  construct the  powdered acti-
           vated  carbon regeneration   facilities  and  secondary sludge  handling
           facilities   and  to  purchase   laboratory   and  maintenance   equipment
           (Contract 39).

      •    A  meeting  was  held with the DNR to  provide information on  specific
           facilities which were  being considered innovative.

      •    The  State evaluated   the  proposed  processes and recommended  to  EPA
           those processes which  the State  considered  innovative.

      •    EPA began to question the alternatives comparison used  to qualify  the
           project  as  I/A, and  required  a  special  comparison  to  a conventional
           alternative  not previously  addressed by the design engineers.

      •    State approval of Contract 39 was forwarded to EPA.

      •    Additional questions were  asked  by  EPA which required a detailed cost
           breakdown of each I/A component.

      •    Verbal approval of Contract 39 by EPA was received.

     The procedures to obtain I/A funding for the City required considerably more
time and money than normally required for conventional grants. Because the  facil-
ities plan  was prepared before  the I/A regulations,  much additional supporting
material was required above and beyond that contained  in the  facilities plan.  The
application process was  further  complicated by reviews needed for AWT facilities
approval, and because the contract was sole source  (Zimpro).

Project Alternatives

     The following seven alternatives for water pollution control were considered
in the facility plan:

      •    No Action - was not considered to be viable since  it would not restore
           the  physical,  chemical,  or  biological integrity  of  the  Kalamazoo

      •    Low Flow Augmentation -  was  eliminated from consideration due to high
           financial  and  environmental  costs.  This  alternative  would require
           large amounts of  land,  alter  ecological balance in storage areas,  and
           require relocation of a  large number of  families.

      •    Plant  Effluent  Storage  -  was  considered  and  discarded due  to high
           financial and environmental costs as well as low social  acceptability.

      •    Stream Aeration - was not  considered to  be  feasible due  to technologi-
           cal   considerations,   adverse   environment   impact,   and   poor

      •    Treatment  and  Discharge  -  from  a  regional  wastewater   treatment
           facility  received detailed consideration  since it  would produce  the
           necessary plant  effluent without having significant negative environ-
           mental  impact.  Several  treatment schemes were investigated under this
           alternative including:

           -    Single-stage  carbonaceous  and nitrogenous  BOD  removal  using  a
                biophysical process (recommended plan).

                Two-stage  carbonaceous  and nitrogenous BOD  removal  using  acti-
                vated sludge with  high  purity oxygen in the  first  stage and bio-
                physical process in the second stage.

      •    Land Application  -  was eliminated  in  the  final screening process  due
           to  its  high  financial and environmental costs. This alternative would
           also require  the relocation of many families.

      •    Treatment and  Reuse - facilities  could be  added in the future  since
           the  potential   for  reuse  would not  alter  significantly  the  present
           design requirements.

Selection Procedure

     The rationale  in  selecting an innovative process  for the City of  Kalamazoo
was somewhat unique; the  planning effort began in 1973,  several  years  before the
I/A program was  initiated.  Extensive  pilot tests showed  that  conventional treat-
ment  schemes  were inadequate  due to  the  nature  of the  industrial wastes  to  be
treated. The  proposed  innovative process was  selected  (independent  of  the  I/A
program) because  it was the only system tested which consistently  produced reli-
able  results  that were not susceptible  to  upsets,  and the most  cost-effective
alternative evaluated.  In short, the selected process  was the "Best  Technology"
to treat the waste.

     Because the  facilities plan for  Kalamazoo was prepared prior  to  the initia-
tion  of  the  I/A program,   the  original  planning  effort did  not consider any con-
ventional  treatment processes  in great  detail.  However, in  applying  later  for
grants through  the  I/A program, the designers were required to evaluate and com-
pare  the  innovative process with the best conventional  process. Consequently,  a
conventional two-stage  AWT plant was  used for  the  comparison.

Qualification of  the I/A  Project

     The following summarizes  the criteria used to qualify the plant  for an inno-
vative technology grant:

     •     Life  Cycle  Cost - The life  cycle  cost for  the conventional  two-stage
           AWT  plant  is  $141,396,319.  The selected innovative biophysical  plant
           has  a  life  cycle cost of $118,609,173. This  represents  a  cost savings
           of $22,787,000 or 16.1 percent which  qualifies the project  under  the
           15 percent life  cycle cost reduction criteria.

      •    Net Primary  Energy  Requirements - The operation and maintenance of the
           biophysical  system  will result in  an average daily use of  6.5  x 10^
           Btu.  The net primary energy requirements  of the selected process  are
           78 percent  of  those for  the  next most  cost-effective  project  which
           would  require  8.4 x  109 Btu. The selected  process qualifies  as innova-
           tive on the  basis of  net primary energy requirements.

      •    Operational  Reliability  -  Many treatment  processes were pilot and/or
           bench  tested  in  facilities  planning.  The only process  that produced
           reliable results,  was not susceptible  to  upsets of interference,  and
           adequately treated  the wastewater was the  biophysical  system. A compu-
           ter  will be installed to  optimize  treatment performance and to  mini-
           mize  the  level  of  operator attention  and  skill  required.   Thus,  the
           selected process meets all  the criteria  used to designate  innovative
           processes and  techniques.

•    Management of Toxic Materials  -  The activated carbon used  in  the  bio-
     physical process effectively removes a long list of toxic,  potentially
     toxic, and  other materials thus providing  better  management  of toxic
     materials than  any of  the other treatment processes investigated  in
     facilities planning.  The selected  process  qualifies  as innovative  by
     providing excellent management of toxic materials that would otherwise
     result in environmental hazards.

•    Increased Environmental  Benefits -  The treatment works will produce a
     high quality effluent that can be reused by industries. Reuse  of plant
     effluent by  industry would result  in  substantial water conservation.
     Local  industries have been made aware that  large  quantities of  high
     quality  effluent will  be available upon completion  of  the  project.
     Several high volume users are  located near the treatment plant.

     The selected project  uses less  land than  any other alternatives  con-
     sidered  in   facilities  planning.  Thus,  the   land  is  used   more

     The selected project  will improve air quality over present conditions
     by  controlling  odors.  The  particulates discharged  to the atmosphere
     will  be  reduced from those  produced by the  other alternatives  since
     only the primary sludge will be  incinerated.

     Improved  groundwater  conditions will  result  if  industries reuse  the
     plant  effluent.  Some of  the potential  industrial users could discon-
     tinue  pumping   groundwater,   thus  increasing  the  volume   of   this

     The selected process will result in substantial  reduction  in  construc-
     tion  costs  over the other projects evaluated in facilities  planning.
     The estimated  total cost of the selected project is $65,000,000.  The
     cost  of  the  two-stage   system is  $76,847,600.  The  cost  of   the  land
     application project is $99,269,700.

•    Improved Methods of Joint Treatment/Management - The facilities  will
     be  designed to  treat  approximately 54  mgd.   The  project  provides  an
     excellent method of joint treatment/management by  concentrating at one
     location  the  treatment  of   diverse,  difficult  to  treat  industrial
     wastes.  Using  municipal  and pharmaceutical wastewaters  to  provide
     nutrients for the  treatment of paper mill  wastes  is  an improved method
     of  joint treatment/management.

                                  BURLEY, IDAHO

     The  City  of  Hurley,   located  in  southern  Idaho  along the  Snake  River,
operates an aerated  lagoon  and stabilization pond treatment  facility.  The origi-
nal stabilization pond  facilities were constructed in  1962 and  consist of a 6-ac
primary cell  and  a  7.2-ac secondary cell. In 1979, construction  was completed on
an additional aerated  lagoon to precede the ponds, and effluent  chlorination. In
the spring of 1980, construction  will  begin  on an  algae removal  process that will
allow  the  plant  to  meet secondary  treatment requirements.  The design  flow for
Burley  is  2.3 mgd.  The average  flow  treated in  1977  was  about 1.6 mgd and the
flow is projected to reach 2 mgd  by  1990.


     The proposed project is  designed to remove  algae from the effluent of the
aerated  lagoon/stabilization pond  facility  by  using microstrainers.  During the
summer  and early  fall months,  excess algae  in  the effluent have in  the  past
caused  difficulty in meeting  the 30  mg/L   concentrations  for BOD  and suspended
solids required by the  NPDES permit.

Innovative Technology

     The  proposed  facilities  include  the   innovative  use  of microstrainers  to
remove  algae  from  the  stabilization pond  effluent.  In  the  past,  the pore  size
available in  the  strainer material used in microstrainers was too large to remove
algae  from  wastewater. However,  there is now some  evidence that a  new  strainer
material with a  one-micron  pore size  can   effectively remove algae from waste-
water. As a result  of  successful pilot tests, this type  of microstrainer will be
incorporated  in the Burley facilities.

     The  pilot tests   using  microstrainers  showed  suspended  solids  removal  by
passing  wastewater  through  a  strainer cloth  which  retained solids larger  than
one-micron. A  continuous,  pressurized  backwash  spray of  effluent cleaned  the
strainer  cloth.  In the  full-scale microstraining  facility,  the  concentrated
solids in the backwash  water will be recycled to the  primary cell of the  stabili-
zation pond system.

Impacts of the Project

     If  the  microstrainer   system  works  as planned,  the  following  beneficial
impacts may result:

     •    The City should be able to meet the BOD  and suspended  solids  concentra-
          tions in the  NPDES permit.

     •    Cold  water   fisheries  in  the  Snake  River  would improve  due  to  a
          decreased dissolved oxygen demand.

     •    The effluent discharged to the river would have less green color.

     •    Operation and maintenance cost to  the  City (and resulting user charges
          to residents) would  be lower than if  the  non-innovative chemical pre-
          cipitation alternative were used.

     •    The City  could  benefit from good  advertising.  Numerous calls and let-
          ters  have  been  received  at   the   City,   even  before  start  of


     The original wastewater facility plan for Burley was completed in June  1976.
The plan recommended  that  lagoon improvements  be designed and constructed in  two
separate phases.  The  Phase I improvements/  involving  design and construction of
an aerated pond to precede two exising stabilization ponds and a  chlorine contact
chamber,  have  been  completed  and  are  currently  in  operation.  The  Phase  II
improvements  involve  the  design and  construction of  an algae  removal process
capable  of meeting  secondary  treatment  standards.  The original  facility plan
addressed  several methods  of  algae  removal  including  chemical  treatment with
clarification or  dissolved  air  flotation,  mixed  media filtration, intermittent
sand filtration, submerged rock  filters, microstraining,  and phase isolation.  The
Phase  I  and Phase  II improvements were  separated to  allow additional time  for
evaluation of a new technique of lagoon operation  called  phase isolation.

     An addendum to the facility plan dated  May  1977 evaluated three alternatives
for  algae  removal: phase  isolation,  intermittent sand filtration,  and chemical
treatment  with  dissolved  air  flotation and mixed media  filtration.  The recom-
mended alternative in the addendum was the chemical  treatment alternative primar-
ily because of  reliability considerations.  However,  the Water and Sewer Superin-
tendent for the City  of Burley was opposed  to the recommended chemical  treatment
alternative  due  to  the  high operating  costs.   At  this  time,   the  project  was
delayed while alternatives to  chemical treatment were considered.

     Following  the  development of improved  microstrainer technology in the form
of a one-micron pore  size screen,  an economic comparison with the previous  cost-
effective  alternative was warranted.  However, the State of Idaho and EPA wanted
verification  that the  microstrainer  project  could work.  In the  fall of  1978,
microscreen  field tests  were conducted  at the Burley  lagoons.  An  aquaculture
system  utilizing  several  species  of fish  in  the stabilization  pond to consume
algae  was  evaluated in combination with microscreens.  Wastewater  Facilities Plan
Addendum No.  2, dated  January 1979,  summarized the  results of the field tests.
Also reported were the results  of  other  microstraining projects  and  an economic
comparison  of microstraining-aquaculture  treatment  vs.  chemical treatment with
filtration. Addendum No. 2  recommended  using  a combined microstraining-aquacul-
ture algae removal  system  and  applying for I/A funding.

Project Alternatives

     Alternatives considered during various stages of project planning include:

          Chemical treatment with clarification or dissolved air  flotation
          Mixed media filtration
          Intermittent sand filtration
          Submerged rock filters
          Phase isolation

     The  final  comparison of  alternatives  made in  Addendum  No.  2 compared  only
the following alternatives:

     •    Chemical treatment  with dissolved  air  flotation and mixed  media
     •    Microscreening in combination with  aquaculture.

Selection Procedure

     An  economic  comparison  of  the  microstrainer-aquaculture  treatment  system
with the previous cost-effective alternative, chemical  treatment  with  filtration,
was made  in  Addendum No.  2.  The microstrainer-aquaculture treatment was  found to
be 28 percent  less  costly on  a present-worth basis than chemical  treatment  with
filtration. An added benefit was a 25 percent savings in primary  energy.  Based on
the cost  and energy  savings,  it was  recommended  in Addendum No.  2 that  the  City
of Burley apply for an  innovative technology grant  from EPA and  Idaho Department
of  Health and  Welfare  for the design and  construction of  a  full-scale  micro-
strainer-aquaculture treatment  system. These  facilities would be  included as  part
of the City's Phase II treatment improvements.

     With proper  operation, both  the City and  the State  felt  there was  little
risk associated with  the  microstrainer alternative; the  consultant and  the  City
also said these processes would have been  selected even without the  I/A program
or its funding.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     The  microstrainer  portion of the  microstrainer-aquaculture alternative was
considered innovative by  both the State  and  EPA  following submittal  of  Addendum
No. 2 which  presented results  of the  field tests.  The microstrainer  project was
less costly, required less  energy,  and was considered  innovative because similar
applications of the  equipment were rare. Overall,  the  performance of  the  micro-
strainer  was encouraging.  However,  it was  impossible  to conclude  with certainty
whether large concentrations of single-cell algae could be removed from  the  pond
effluent  by  microstraining.  The EPA  Region X  coordinator for  the  I/A program
concurred in this opinion following discussion with  EPA Headquarter*s  personnel.

     The  aquaculture system  was rejected  by  the  State  and EPA  as being  both
unproven  and unnecessary.  The  regulatory  agencies recommended  that the  micro-
strainer be  used  alone  for at least two or three seasons  and that growth control
processes  (including aquaculture) be  reconsidered  after  evaluation  of  operating
data for that period.

                              LACKAWANNA, NEW YORK

     The  City  of Lackawanna,  on the  southwestern border  of Buffalo, New  York,
operates  a wastewater  treatment plant consisting of primary  clarification,  anae-
robic digestion,  and sand  drying  beds.  The nominal capacity is .53 mgd  and the
effluent  is  discharged to Class D  Smokes  Creek which feeds  into Lake  Erie.   The
City is  under  long-standing orders to upgrade  the  plant to  secondary treatment
and include phosphorus removal.


     The  sewage  treatment plant for the City of Lackawanna  is designed as a pure
oxygen activated sludge plant.  The  project  consists of  upgrading a  primary facil-
ity  to  secondary  treatment on an  existing  limited site.  The sludge digestion
facilities already  exist  and  need  only  upgrading for  high-rate  digestion.  The
existing  digesters  will  be  converted to a dual-digestion system  which  combines
both aerobic  and anaerobic  sewage  digestion processes.  The process  is  designed
for one-day detention in  the aerobic digester followed  by 8  days detention in the
anaerobic digester.

Innovative Technology

     The  sludge  digestion system being designed for the  City is considered inno-
vative/alternative  technology  (not  yet designated; EPA calls it alternative, the
designer  calls it  innovative)« The  proposed  sludge treatment is  a  proprietary
process and  is described as a  Dual Digestion Aerobic-Anaerobic  Sludge Digestion
Process  (DOS).  The  system basically  consists of a small  digester  being  fed with
pure oxygen  and being  operated at a temperature  sufficiently high  to  generate
enough  heat  to  achieve  thermophilic  conditions in the  anaerobic  digester.  The
anaerobic  digester  is mixed,  but  not heated.  Due to  the  heat generated  in the
aerobic  digester,  the operating temperature  will  be maintained  at approximately

     The project also includes  digester gas recovery to be used for a combination
of  in-plant  heat  and direct-drive power  generation.  This  system was  selected
because it provides the following advantages:

     •    In-plant  heat  generation  is  the  most  energy  efficient  utilization
          because it avoids multiple conversions of energy;

     •    Direct-drive  is more efficient  than conversion  to electrical  power/-

     •    Under  the given  conditions, heat  generation and  direct-drive  require
          the  least auxiliary,  mechanical,  and  electrical equipment.

     •    The  combined  system  will  allow for 90 percent  gas  utilization which is
          necessary to qualify  for  I/A funding.

Impacts of the Project

     Impacts associated with the proposed technology of the project include:

     •    Marginal  cost-effectiveness,  achieved primarily  because  the digesters
          were already existing at the plant, and an inexpensive source of oxygen
          was available.

     •    Energy generation by the DOS process in the form of digester gas

     •    DOS  process  requires more  labor  to  control  aerobic   digestion and
          digester gas power generation (two unit processes).

     •    No chemicals  are  required and the process  is more stable than conven-
          tional digestion.

     •    Higher capital cost (specific to this project site only), but lower O&M
          costs. This  is  due  to the absence  of  boilers and heat exchangers, and
          elimination of heating costs for the anaerobic digester.

     •    Increased reliability.


     The  original  facilities planning  effort for  upgrading the plant  began  in
1975 when  construction of an activated sludge  facility with alum  addition, fil-
tration,  and  an increase  in anaerobic digestion  capacity was proposed. In  1977,
final plans for upgrading the facility were initiated,  and  the use  of pure oxygen
aeration  was  determined   to  be  cost-effective.  In  July  1978,   Union  Carbide
approached  the designer with  its proprietary  DOS  process  as  an  alternative  to
conventional anaerobic  digestion. As  a  result of the I/A program incentives, the
consultant  investigated the feasibility of utilizing  the process  and qualifying
for I/A funding.

Project Alternatives

     Alternatives considered during various stages of project planning included:

     •    Conventional  activated sludge  with filtration  and  phosphorus removal
          followed by anaerobic digestion.

     •    Pure  oxygen aeration  followed  by filtration,  phosphorus removal, and
          anaerobic digestion.

     •    Dual  (aerobic-anaerobic)  digestion  vs.  conventional   anaerobic

Selection Procedure

     The  financial  incentives  of the  I/A program  and  professional challenge  to
the consulting engineer played  an important role  in the selection of the proposed


technology. The energy  production  and overall increased reliability due  to  fewer
operational problems with the DOS process also were  important.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     The  regulations  specifically  list  anaerobic digestion  with 90 percent  gas
utilization  as alternative technology.  This  particular  application,  however,
starts from a process which has only been demonstrated in  a  pilot plant.  Conse-
quently, because it has not been proven on a  large scale, the consultant  believes
it should qualify as innovative technology. The project also  qualifies  as innova-
tive under the criteria of  "increased reliability".

                           HILLSBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
     The Town  of  Hillsborough, located about  35  miles southwest of  Concord,  New
Hampshire, has no treatment facility and currently  discharges  raw wastewater into
the Contoocook River. The existing town population  of  2,050 produces  a wastewater
flow of 322,000 gpd.


     The  proposed project  consists  of  constructing  a  new wastewater  treatment
facility  with rotating  biological contactors  (RBCs)  and  sludge  treatment  with
anaerobic  digestion. The  project includes  solar  heating  of  the  digesters  and
buildings, digester  gas  use to generate electricity,  and heat  recovery from the
gas engines.  The  average design flow rate is  .46 mgd, with a  projected peak flow
rate of 2 mgd.

Innovative Technology

     The  innovative  technology components  include  the primary  clarifiers,  RBCs,
anaerobic digesters, power  generation and heat  recovery,  and  solar  heating.

     The  methane gas  available  from  anaerobic  digestion  will power  electrical
generation equipment on  a regular and emergency basis.  Solar  heating will provide
75 percent  of the anaerobic  digester heat  requirement  and of  the  overall  space
heating  requirement. Heat  recovery  from the  internal  combustion  engine  used to
generate  electricity  will provide  a  portion  of   the  remaining  space  heating
requirement.  Heat will  also be available from  heat pumps in  the secondary diges-
ter and the wastewater effluent.

     Primary  clarifiers  were  selected over  screens  to  improve  solids removal from
the raw wastewater,  thereby maximizing the primary solids  delivered  to the anae-
robic digesters.

Impacts of the Project

     If  the  proposed plant works as  planned, the following  beneficial  impacts
will result:

     •    The  last remaining  discharge of raw  wastewater to  the Contoocook River
          will be eliminated,  making the river safe for  swimming.

     •    There will be  renewed potential  for  growth in  the town.

     •    There   will  be  new  job opportunities   for operators and maintenance
          personnel  at the  new water pollution control plant.

     •    The  treatment  plant will conserve energy.



     Planning for the water pollution control facilities  in  Hillsborough began in
1965.  The  result of  the planning  effort was  the preparation  of a  Preliminary
Report  (on  Sewerage and Sewage  Disposal System  in  1967), which  proposed  sewers
and the construction of a wastewater treatment  facility.  Although  plans and spec-
ifications were prepared in 1970, the system was  not  constructed due  to a lack of
federal funds at that time.

     Significant  changes in  requirements for  water pollution  control  projects
were made by the  passage of the Federal Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-500). As  a  result,  a municipal wastewater  facilities  plan for the
Town of  Hillsborough  was prepared  in 1975-76  to update the project.  The facili-
ties plan  recommended a secondary  treatment  facility incorporating  the  extended
aeration process.

     At the town meeting in Hillsborough  in 1977,  it  was  voted that the Town form
a  Sewer Study  Committee  to  evaluate  the  annual  operational  cost and  energy
requirements of the proposed  facilities prior to committing the project to final
design. The Committee's  purpose  was to  encourage the consideration of methods of
reducing energy  requirements  and  operational  costs of  the proposed  facilities
through design modifications and techniques.

     As a  result  of the Committee's initial  investigations, it was  decided that
the  first  step of  the design  phase (Step 2)  of the  project  should  include  an
evaluation of modifications of the  treatment  facility.  This evaluation  would be
aimed  at  reducing  energy  requirements,  identifying  alternative  energy  sources,
and  incorporating energy saving design  techniques.  The evaluation is summarized
in "The  Report  On Energy Conservation  and  Alternative Energy Sources For  Waste-
water Treatment Facilities,"  dated November 1978.  In this report, it was  recom-
mended  that  the  proposed  project  be   designated as "innovative" under the  I/A

Project Alternatives

     The following  three alternatives were  evaluated in the November 1978  report
on energy conservation:

     •    Extended  aeration  wastewater  treatment and sludge treatment by aerobic

     •    Primary screens, RBCs, and aerobic digestion

     •    Primary clarifiers, RBCs,  and anaerobic digestion

     The major differences between  the  wastewater treatment  alternatives are that
RBC  units  and primary  screens or  clarifiers  replace the aeration  tanks  in  the
extended aeration process.  For  the  sludge treatment  scheme, solar heated anaero-
bic  digesters  would replace the  aerobic digesters.  Solar heat to provide space
heating  and  hot water requirements and the use  of  a  heat  pump  on  the  effluent
were included with all three alternatives.


Selection Procedure

     The selection of the proposed project was based primarily  on  energy savings.
The energy cost was  determined to be 69 percent less  than  that for  the  RBC plant
with aerobic digestion  and  78 percent less than the extended aeration plant.  The
total present  worth  cost of  the  selected alternative was  14 percent  higher than
that of  the  RBC plant  with  aerobic  digestion.  Besides energy savings/  the pro-
posed RBC plant with anaerobic digestion  had  the lowest total operation  and main-
tenance  cost.  The RBC  process was  considered to  have better process  stability
than extended  aeration. The  proposed project,  including solar heated  anaerobic
digestion with methane  gas recovery, was noted  in the project report as leading
to the advancement of technology.

Qualification  of the I/A Project

     The  RBC  plant  with anaerobic  digestion was  considered  innovative  by  the
State primarily because of the large energy  savings over  the  other two alterna-
tives.  The  EPA made a detailed technical  review of the  proposed project  and
anticipated energy savings, and agreed that the project was innovative.

                               REEDLEY, CALIFORNIA

     Reedley,  California  is  a  city with  a population  of  about  10,000  people
located by the Kings River in the southern portion of  the  San Joaquin Valley.  The
City  is one  of  many  in  this  highly  productive  agricultural  area  and  relies
heavily on  local  food  packing and  distribution industries.  The  projected  growth
of  Reedley  is substantial, with a 35 percent  increase expected in  the next  10
years  and  a 65 percent  increase in  the  next 20 years.  The existing  wastewater
treatment facilities for the  City  include  an Imhoff tank  followed by  a low-rate
trickling filter  that dates back to  1924, and a  high-rate  trickling  filter  facil-
ity built  in 1970. These  facilities are minimally  adequate to  meet the  current
treatment requirements and will  not  satisfy  future requirements.


     The proposed project is  to expand the  existing  high-rate  trickling  filter
facility  with  the addition  of  an  oxidation   ditch  and  secondary clarifiers.
Effluent  disposal will  be to percolation-evaporation ponds.  A  portion of  this
effluent will be  recovered through an underdrain  system, chlorinated, and  dis-
charged  to  the  Kings  River.  The  chlorinated  underdrain  effluent  will be  made
available for reuse as irrigation water as  the  demand  warrants.

     The construction of the  new facilities has been  planned in  two  stages,  with
an  ultimate  capacity of  3.68  mgd to serve  a year  2000 population equivalent  to
16,500. The  oldest facilities at the plant (Imhoff tank  and slow-rate trickling
filter) are  to  be abandoned,  and  the capacity of the  high-rate  trickling  filter
will be reduced from 0.69 mgd  to 0.46 mgd on a  maximum month basis.

Alternative Technology

     The portion  of the  proposed project that qualifies as alternative  technology
is  the  disposal system.  Although the existing  treatment plant includes percola-
tion  ponds  and  irrigation fields  for  effluent disposal,  there  is  insufficient
land  area  near the plant  to  continue these  methods of effluent disposal  in  the
future. A  silt  layer 3  to 4  feet below the ground  surface prohibits deep  infil-
tration  into the  groundwater,  therefore  an underdrain  system  will  be used  to
collect percolate. Recovered effluent will  be  chlorinated  and subsequently  dis-
charged to the Kings River or  used  as an irrigation  supply.

     It is  anticipated  that discharge to  the River will  only  be required  during
the winter  months. During the summer,  the  evapotranspiration potential is  very
high as are the local irrigation demands.

Impacts of the Project

     The  beneficial impacts  of  the proposed  project  identified in   the  Draft
Environmental Impact Report are  summarized  below:

     •    Elimination of present seasonal wastewater facility overloads.

     •    Permit compliance with proposed new discharge requirements.

     •    Protection  of  Kings  River  waters  and  local  groundwaters  against

     •    Allowance  for  continued community growth  without the excessive  sprawl
          and  agricultural  land  usage that would be  engendered  by  residential
          on-site sewage disposal land requirements.

     •    Allowance  for  most  economical and timely  plant expansion with maximum
          utilization of now-available State and federal  funding.

     The following adverse impacts also were noted for the proposed project:

     •    The  recommended  disposal  alternative creates  a possible psychological
          impediment to recreational usage of the Kings River.

     •    Residential  sewer  service charges  in the community  will be  increased
          from $2.00 to $5.60 per month.


     The facility plan  for  Reedley  was initiated in November 1977, prior to  pas-
sage  of  the Clean  Water Act  of  1977. The  initial alternative  proposed  by  the
City's consultant was to purchase additional land adjacent  to the  existing  treat-
ment  facilities  so  the  disposal  area could be expanded.  This alternative was  the
least costly,  but was  considered both environmentally and  socially unacceptable.
The  consultant  reassessed  the project  alternatives in  light of the  potential
benefits offered by  the I/A program  and amended the  project reports accordingly.

Project Alternatives

     The initial alternative  analysis  involved two disposal methods plus several
treatment methods appropriate  to  meet quality requirements for disposal. Methods
of waste disposal that were evaluated  included:

     •    Purchasing  additional  land  and  continuing  the  present  practices  of
          percolation-evaporation and  flood irrigation

     •    Utilizing  the  existing disposal area and  discharging excess wastewater
          into the Kings River.

     Since  different methods of disposal  require  different levels of treatment,
several  alternative treatment methods  were  reviewed.  For  land  disposal  only,
high-rate  trickling filters  and  oxidation ditch  treatment were  considered.  For
the  combination  of  land and river  disposal,  only extended aeration by an  oxida-
tion  ditch was  considered.  However,  that  portion of the  flow to be discharged
would  receive  additional  treatment via percolation through at  least 6 feet of
soil. In either  disposal case, the  newer of  the trickling filter  treatment  facil-
ities would be kept  in  operation, while the  older  facilities  would be  abandoned.

Selection Procedure

     A  cost-effectiveness  analysis was made  on the alternatives  considered most
feasible from  an engineering viewpoint.  The  analysis included economics  as well
as  environmental and social  impacts.  Additional factors  such as  utilization  of
scarce  resources/  flexibility  and reliabilty, ability  to implement,  and public
acceptability  also were  considered.  The evaluation factors were  given  a relative
weight  and  the  alternatives  given a  ranking. The  alternative with the  highest
weighted rating  was selected  as the apparent  best alternative project.

     The apparent best alternative project  involved  oxidation ditch treatment and
disposal to  land with  an underdrain collection system to  allow river disposal  of
excess  flows.  The  next highest ranked  alternative  involved  essentially  the same
method  of  treatment, but  with the purchase  of additional  land for disposal  of
plant effluent.

     A  further step  in  the alternative analysis was taken  in light of  the poten-
tial for additional grant  funds under the I/A program. The apparent best alterna-
tive project was compared to alternatives  having  other methods  of disposal. One
of  these  methods  involved removing  the silt layer and  utilizing  the  existing
disposal site  for percolation ponds.  The other method used  conventional advanced
wastewater treatment  (AWT) with discharge  of all  wastewater  to  the  Kings River.
Several amendments to the  project  report  detailed these  alternatives.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     According to  a  report prepared by  the consulting engineer  in October 1979,
the proposed project qualifies  for innovative funding under  the  cost savings and
increased environmental  benefits  criteria.  The  analysis  of costs  over  and above
secondary treatment show that the  present worth  of  the underdrain system alterna-
tive is 42  percent less than removing the silt layer,  and 67 percent  less than
AWT and river  disposal.  Since  the basic  treatment costs are  not  included in the
analysis,  it  is  impossible  to compare  the  entire  system  costs  with  the  other
alternatives as  required by the I/A guidelines.

     With regard to the increased  environmental  benefits  criteria,  a high quality
water will be  available to local  farmers for use  in crop irrigation.  It  is also
possible that  there  may be  a future industrial demand  for this water.  The soil
treated  effluent will be  available at  a depth of  approximately 6.5 ft  whereas
groundwater used for irrigation must  be pumped from depths  ranging from 25 to  50

     An  energy analysis of  the three  alternatives was not  available  nor  was  a
chemical use analysis. From  the draft  project report, the apparent best alterna-
tive project  required  about  twice the  electrical  energy  as  the  least  energy
alternative  over the  first   10 years  of operation  and almost  two  and  one-half
times the energy during the  second 10 years  of operation. This  alternative also
has a chlorine demand  which  the initial  alternatives did not  have.  However, the
other initial  alternatives were environmentally and socially  unacceptable since
they required  the conversion of  prime  agricultural  land  to effluent  disposal


                               MANILA, CALIFORNIA

     Manila  Community Services  District  (CSD)  is  a community  with about  1,200
residents located on  the  Pacific Ocean,  a few miles  from  Eureka,  California. The
area is built  on  sand dunes and because of its  proximity  to the Ocean has a high
groundwater  table.  In 1967, a community water supply system  was  completed, how-
ever, waste  disposal was provided by individual  septic tanks. The  septic  tanks
were frequently subject to  failure; even in drought  years  the failure rate was 33
percent as  reported by the county health  officials. Although the groundwater is
no longer a  major source of  drinking water,  nearby Humboldt  Bay  is  an important
resource for the shellfish  industry.  The quality of  the  Bay was  being jeopardized
by contaminated runoff and  groundwater outcroppings  draining into  it.


     The project  implemented  for Manila  CSD is  a  pressure  sewer system  and  a
leachfield  disposal  system. As  well  as  being  funded by the  I/A  technology pro-
gram, this  project was designated a demonstration  project by  the Department of
Research and Development  of the  State Department of  Water  Resources.  As such, 100
percent of  the grant eligible capital costs  and the O&M costs  for the first two
years have been paid  through  various grant funds. This  has been a very important
factor  in  the implementation  of the project  since  the  area  is  impoverished and
would not have been able  to finance even the  local share costs.

     Construction of  the  project involved  installing water-tight septic tanks for
each residence or cluster of  residences. Waste flows from  the residences to these
septic  tanks where  the solids are separated  out and allowed to digest. Effluent
from the tanks  is pumped  to a central point  in  the  system through small diameter
pipelines. A commmunity  leachfield located in the sand dunes  is  used to dispose
of the  effluent.  Initially,  this was to be  an interim measure since  a regional
treatment facility  was  being  planned and would  have  sufficient  capacity to treat
the septic tank effluent  from  Manila. However,  the plans for regionalization have
been suspended and the leachfield is  to be a  permanent  facility.

Alternative  Technology

     Both the  collection  system  and  the  disposal  method are  considered alterna-
tive  technology.  The terrain is not suited to  gravity  collection  without the
installation of  very deep  (12 ft) sewers and numerous  lift  stations.   Effluent
disposal to  the  land was originally  intended as an  interim measure  and was less
costly than  providing treatment  (aerated lagoon) and an  ocean outfall. The system
is functioning well and is  acceptable as a long-term disposal method.

Impacts of the Project

     Recognized benefits  of the  proposed project include:

     •    Most cost-effective  alternative

     •    Minimal visual  impact from facilities (the only aboveground  facilities
          are  the  electrical  boxes  and  pump  housing  and  the  central  pump

     •    Decreased potential for contaminating ground  and surface waters

     •    Stabilization of sand dunes over  leachfield.

     Potential adverse impacts of the project include:

     •    Requires maintenance of numerous  types of pump  units

     •    Septic  tanks are  on  private property,  but must  be  serviced by  the


     The facility planning  for Manila  was  completed  prior to the  passage  of  the
Clean Water Act of 1977. The project as implemented is  little different than that
originally  recommended with  the  exception  of  the change  in the  status of  the
leachfield, which is now to be a permanent  rather than  an  interim facility.

Project Alternatives

     Originally,  five  collection alternatives  and seven  treatment and  disposal
alternatives were proposed by  the  consultant.  After the initial  screening,  three
collection and four treatment  and  disposal alternatives were subjected to  criti-
cal, detailed analysis.

     The collection  alternatives included  a gravity system  for  raw sewage  with
five  intermediate  lift stations,  a septic  tank  effluent pumping  (STEP)  system
with  small  diameter  pressure  sewers,  and a grinder  pump (GP)  collection  system
for raw wastewater.

     The treatment and disposal alternatives included  a package  treatment  plant
with  effluent used  for irrigation; an  aerated  lagoon system, again with irriga-
tion; flow  equalization with  an  interceptor to the  proposed regional  facility/-
and an interim lagoon with irrigation of effluent. The  leachfield disposal  system
was investigated  after most  of the  facility planning effort had been  completed.
It proved to be the most viable, cost-effective interim project.

Selection Procedure

     The selection of the apparent best alternative project was based on a  matrix
analysis. The  evaluation criteria  included monetary,  environmental,   and  social
impacts  as  well  as  considerations  such  as resource  utilization, flexibility,
reliability, etc. These factors  were given weights according to  their  importance
on a local level.

     The analysis  of  alternatives was  not influenced  by  the potential  of  grant
funding  beyond  the standard  87-1/2  percent normally available  for projects  in

Qualification of the I/A Project

     Originally, this  project was  selected as a  demonstration project,  thereby
qualifying for  100 percent  funding  of grant eligible capital costs  and  O&M costs
for the first two  years  of  operation. The State later requested that  the  grantee
apply  for  I/A  funding.  As  an I/A  project, any redesign  and construction  costs
would be 100 percent grant eligible should  the system fail.

     The  project  qualifies  as  an  alternative  project by definition  since  it
involves an  alternative  collection system  for a  small  community and  it provides
for land treatment and disposal of effluent.

                             CLEVELAND, MISSISSIPPI

     The  initial facility  planning efforts  for  the  City  of Cleveland  began  in
1974 and concluded  in  1977 with  the approval  of a 3.0  mgd extended aeration acti-
vated sludge treatment  facility.  Because  of  local sentiment against the implemen-
tation  of  a  mechanical  treatment system,  the  project  was delayed  to  allow
reassessment of facility  alternatives.  In light  of  the provisions  of  the Clean
Water Act of 1977,  reevaluation  led to  the recommendation of overland flow as the
preferred method of wastewater treatment  for  the  community.


     The project proposed  for Cleveland consists  of  a  storage lagoon system adja-
cent to an  overland flow treatment site.  Approximately  500 acres (167 ac/mgd)  is
planned  for the  spray field, with additional land needed for  buffer  areas and
service  access. The  runoff will be collected  and discharged  to  local  surface
waters. It  is  anticipated that  a cover crop will be  grown  on the  site,  and then
harvested and  sold  to  help defray the cost of system O&M.

Alternative Technology

     The proposed land  treatment  system is considered  alternative technology. The
overland flow  system  will  use about one-half the  electrical power and 80 percent
of the labor required by a conventional extended  aeration system.

     As  alternative  technology,  the  entire  treatment  system  qualifies  for  85
percent grant  funding.  The grant will cover  all  Step  2  work and Step 3 construc-
tion, including  land costs.

Impacts of the Project

     The impacts of the project  are  decidedly beneficial,  particulary  since the
local surface  water quality will be improved and poorly functioning septic tanks
will be eliminated. The current building  restrictions  in the area will be lifted,
allowing development  to resume.  Dedicating the plant  site  to  long-term use for a
land treatment project  is  consistent with the agricultural  character of the area.
The user costs are lower with the overland flow alternative than  with the mechan-
ical treatment  plant  since the local share  of the capital  cost  is  lower  and the
O&M costs are reduced.


     The facility planning for this project began in 1974.  After  the first alter-
native analysis  was complete and the extended aeration project  was approved for
implementation,  the City  requested  that the  consultant  reassess  the  possible
treatment  alternatives. In  light  of the 1977 legislation approving  additional
funding for innovative  and alternative  projects,  land treatment  was considered a
possible alternative to the previously  selected extended aeration system.


Project Alternatives

     Two project  alternatives  were compared in  the  1978 addendum to the  facili-
ties plan  for Cleveland.  Previous efforts  had included  detailed  analyses of  a
variety of  treatment  systems,  therefore only  one  mechanical method was used  for
comparison. Land  treatment using overland flow  also  was considered and found to
be most suitable for the local conditions.

Selection Procedure

     The alternative analysis involved a comprehensive cost-effectiveness  evalua-
tion of the two alternatives. Other considerations such  as  environmental impacts,
reliability, operability,  energy utilization,  labor requirements, implementation,
feasibility, and public acceptability were also  evaluated.

     The City  showed  a strong  preference for  land treatment. Their  feelings were
reinforced  by  the potential savings in  power, labor, and  operating costs  of  the
land  treatment system.  As  a  result,  overland  flow was  selected as  the most
overall cost-effective treatment method. Detailed studies  then were initiated to
select the  exact  site  for  the proposed facilities.

Qualification  of the I/A Project

     This  project is considered alternative technology  according to the  defini-
tion outlined  in  the Clean Water Act of  1977.  The  project  meets  the  cost criteria
by being  within  115 percent of  the  cost of the most cost-effective conventional
project.  All  of the  facilities  proposed for  Cleveland  are considered  necessary
for the overland  flow  treatment  system,  therefore, the entire project  is eligible
for 85 percent federal  grant funding.

                         JONESVILLE/JERUSALEM, MARYLAND

     This project is designed to relieve major waste  disposal  deficiencies in the
communities  of  Jonesville and Jerusalem,  Maryland.  The proposed  sewerage system
represents  a commitment  on  the  part  of Montgomery County  and the  Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission  (WSSC) to provide relief to  long  ignored rural areas
with substantial  health and environmental problems.  The  approach was  to  provide
assistance at a reasonable  cost through the use of technologies  that do not con-
tribute to unwanted growth.


     The proposed facilities  include  the use of  storage grinder pumps and a pres-
surized sewer collection  system.  Wastewater treatment will be provided  using an
innovative batch  process activated  sludge system  followed by land  application.
Land application  will be through  a  flood  irrigation technique  in which  treated
effluent will be  applied to  confined,  bermed  cells  at rates  comparable  to spray
irrigation  with  the  maximum  weekly hydraulic  loading  not to  exceed 2  in/ac.
Buffer areas and  monitoring wells also will  be included. The  average  flow to be
treated will be less than 23,000 gpd. The  irrigation  treatment/disposal area will
total about  3 ac with additional reserve area.

Innovative and Alternative Technology

     The entire treatment works qualifies for innovative  and  alternative funding
including storage  grinder pumps,  pressure sewers, batch process  activated sludge
system and land application system.

Impacts of the Project

     There are several  social,  economic and environmental  impacts associated with
the proposed technology for the project:
          The  County will  be able to  provide sewer  service  to two  small  rural
          communities  which  probably  could  not  be  done  economically any  other

          Both  communities are low-income,  and consist predominantly of minori-
          ties,  descendants of a  group of  related  families who originally pur-
          chased  their land  in  the  1870's.  Neither  community has been  able to
          retain  its  young  people  because  poor  soil conditions preclude  the
          approval  of  septic  systems  which  are  needed to  rehabilitate  existing
          housing or to  construct new housing. The proposed treatment facilities
          will  provide a sewer service  which will allow these  household members
          to  return to  their communities.  Because  of the  lack  of  alternative
          septic  systems,  there  have been  no new homes built  in the  communities
          in the past  seven years.

          With  younger members  of  the  existing  households being  permitted  to
          return to their  community;  the entire community should benefit  from  an
          economic standpoint (younger work force, new home  construction,  etc.)*

          The proposed facilities  provide an affordable solution to  a  wastewater
          problem which was previously unsolved.

          Because of  the extra  10  percent funding  through  the I/A  program, the
          local share  of project costs was reduced by 70 percent.

•    Environmental

          There will  be no effluent  discharge  because  the treated effluent  will
          be applied to the land.

          The facilities will solve a significant health problem in  the  two  com-
          munities by  eliminating  failing septic tanks, pit privies, and  contam-
          inated wells.

          The  facilities will be  constructed  and operated  by specially  trained
          personnel from WSSC,  thereby  minimizing  plant failures resulting  from
          poorly trained operators.

     In  a more general  sense,  many  rural communities  similar to Jonesville and
Jerusalem  have been  identified as having significant  environmental  and  health
problems. These communities, well  beyond the  reach of traditional public  sewerage
systems,  stand  to gain  much  if the  Jonesville/Jerusalem project is successful.
The  engineering concepts of the project are noted  for their  simplicity  in  con-
struction and  operations,  and the  system  may serve as a model for future small,
rural community sewerage systems.

     If  the system fails,  the communities would remain  the  same size  and  continue
to experience problems associated  with aging households and young  family members
leaving  the community.  Also, WSSC  would  have  to continue  working  with the commun-
ity  and  eventually solve the wastewater  treatment and disposal  problem.


     The Jonesville/Jerusalem project had already qualified  for 75 percent Step 2
grant  funding  before  the  facilities plan was  complete.  As the  engineers became
involved  with  the  design, they noted  the  possibility  of  obtaining  additional
funding  under  the I/A program.  Consequently,  a grant amendment  for  the  extra  10
percent  was  made after  the 75  percent  grant had  been  awarded.  It took  approxi-
mately  one  year  to  retrofit the  HUD documents for the project  to  fit  the EPA
criteria, since there  was  considerable time  needed  for  decision-making by EPA and
FHA.  A  considerable   amount  of time also  was spent  on site  selection  and  on
answering questions about  pressure sewers.

Project Alternatives

     The proposed  treatment  techniques for the Jonesville/Jerusalem project  were
evaluated  as  early as  1975,  well before  the  I/A Program was conceived.  Several
alternative on-site  systems  had been considered and evaluated,  including  thermal
and chemical  toilets  and evapotranspiration systems. These systems were rejected
primarily due to their unreliability and inability  to solve grey-water  problems.

     At the time a batch process activated sludge  treatment  system was selected,
effluent  criteria   for  pretreatment  were  30  mg/L BOD5  and 30  mg/L  suspended
solids. It  was felt  that  a  lagoon system  would  not meet these criteria  consis-
tently. Also, because  of the  small anticipated  daily  flows  there would be  a
freezing problem in winter, and  algae would be a problem  during  warm weather.  The
batch  activated  sludge  system  was  compact,  out-of-sight,  simple,  and provided
better control over treatment operations.

     Extended  aeration plus  tertiary treatment  and nutrient removal for  surface
discharge also was evaluated, but proved to be uneconomical.

   A  conventional   gravity collection  system  with pumping  to  nearby  treatment
facilities was considered  in  place of the  proposed  pressure  sewer  system. Use of
gravity sewers,  however,  was  neither feasible  nor cost-effective  based   on  the

     •    Long frontage  between  dwellings,
     •    Topography  does  not  lend itself  to economic dccommodation of all users
          without  extensive pumping, and
     •    Gravity   sewer  placement   would  cause   greater   disruption   during

Selection Procedure

     The  innovative  and alternative technologies  for  Jonesville/Jerusalem  were
selected  prior to  the  initiation  of  the  I/A  program.   The  choice of  available
treatment  systems  for  the  two communities  was  very   limited due  to  several

     •    The  communities are  composed  of predominantly low-income families  who
          could  not afford  a  sophisticated, expensive  solution to their waste-
          water problem.

     •    Both communities are  small,  rural,  and  located  too far from  suitable
          existing treatment facilities to cost-effectively build  a pipeline to a
          major treatment  plant.

     •    Several  on-site  systems including chemical and  thermal toilets had been
          tried previously by the County and were  found to be inadequate.

     As a  result,  the proposed technologies appeared to  show the  greatest poten-
tial for handling  the  problem in a  simple  and  cost-effective  manner.  In addition,
the Jonesville/Jerusalem project  was  being designed as  a demonstration  project
for other rural communities in  the  County  with similar wastewater  problems.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     The batch activated sludge  system  to be used at Jonesville/Jerusalem quali-
fies as innovative under the criteria of  increased environmental benefit and most
cost-effective alternative.  Both the  land treatment and  pressure sewer systems
qualify for funding as alternative technologies for small  rural communities.

                                  AUSTIN, TEXAS

     The City of Austin currently is served by three wastewater  treatment plants:
the Walnut Creek Plant, the Govalle Plant, and the  Williamson  Creek Plant.  Pres-
ent plans  call  for three plants to continue  to  serve  the City with a  new 18  mgd
activated  sludge plant  nearing completion at  the Walnut  Creek  site  and  a  new
activated sludge plant proposed on Williamson Creek.

     Several  alternative means of  treating wastewater  from  the  City of Austin
were considered  and  evaluated including the construction of a regional treatment
plant to  handle  all  wastewater from the City and abandonment of  the  three exis-
ting facilities. However, several studies concluded that  it  would  be more econom-
ical to  continue  to  operate three  separate  facilities  and upgrade  the  Govalle
Plant than  it would  be to  abandon  the plant and convey  the wastewater  to  a  new
regional plant.

     Original portions of  the Govalle  Plant were constructed  about 40  years ago.
The existing  facilities  provide approximately 90 percent removal  of  BOD and  SS,
and the  plant effluent generally meets  regulatory  agency criteria. The  effluent
is chlorinated and discharged to the Colorado River.

     There are no primary clarifiers at  the current Govalle  Plant. Excess activa-
ted sludge is partially aerobically digested  in  two converted  secondary anaerobic
digesters. The partially digested sludge is then pumped  from the Govalle Plant to
the Hornsby  Bend sludge  lagoons  where  it is mixed with river water  and treated
further  in the  lagoons.  Most solids in  the sludge  settle out  and  are  retained in
the lagoons,  while liquid from  the lagoons  evaporates  or  is  treated in a separate
lagoon system containing water  hyacinths.


     The  proposed project  involves  upgrading  the existing  Govalle  Wastewater
Treatment Plant  in order to  improve process control, improve process reliability,
replace  worn-out equipment, and aesthetically improve the plant  site.  Since  the
project  involves  upgrading  existing  facilities,  the treatment   processes  were
essentially  fixed and the  evaluation  of  project  feasibility did not  involve a
comparison of alternate treatment processes.

     The proposed  project  includes  the conversion of  two  existing, but currently
unused primary anaerobic digesters to  aerobic digesters  and  the  installation of a
supernatant return line  from the digesters to  the head  of  the  plant.  Conversion
of  the  two existing anaerobic digesters  to  aerobic  digesters  will  enable more
complete  sludge stabilization  to be  attained.  Construction  of  the  supernatant
return  line  will  allow  the  sludge  to  be  settled following  digestion  and will
reduce the volume of sludge  to  be pumped to Hornsby Bend.

     The  City of Austin intends to provide additional aerobic  digester capacity
at the Hornsby  Bend  site so that sludge from both  the Govalle Plant and the Wal-
nut Creek Plant  (that is currently under construction) can be  digested at Hornsby
Bend. The  City also  is evaluating  the feasibility of utilizing land  disposal of

the aerobically digested sludge at the Hornsby Bend  site; pilot  studies involving
blending of  wet  sludge into the  ground  are proposed. It will be  some  time,  how-
ever, before an actual land disposal system  is implemented.

     Along with  other modifications,  the project also  involves  improvements  to
the  existing water  hyacinth  ponds  at  Hornsby  Bend. Because  of prolific  algae
growth in the sludge ponds, water from the  ponds  exceeds  the  permits to discharge
to  the  Colorado  River. As  a  result, a  separate  5-ac pond containing  water  hya-
cinths  is  used  to  remove algae and  other  suspended  particles and  dissolved
impurities from  the  sludge ponds.  For  nine months of  the  year, the  hyacinths
produce an effluent  meeting the  permit  parameter,  but during the winter months,
problems arise  when  the  hyacinths  freeze.  Consequently, a  greenhouse  cover  to
promote year-round growth  of  the hyacinths  is  planned as part of  the  proposed
project improvements.

Innovative and Alternative Technology

     Three separate  portions  of  the treatment works  will  utilize  innovative  or
alternative  treatment  techniques.

     After digestion,  waste sludge  will  be recycled by returning it to the land.
Windrow composting and injection into the  soil  are two recycling  methods under
consideration at this time. Digestion of waste activated sludge by earthworms to
make compost is planned as  a pilot study and would be considered innovative tech-
nology  since the  methods  are  not  fully proven. It is understood that  EPA  is
determining  the  earthworm  capability  at the City of Lufkin. This  study will  be
observed and copied  in Austin, if it is  found applicable  and  practicable.

     The construction  of anaerobic digesters to  treat waste  sludge and the use of
400  hp  engine generators  for  conversion of  digester gas to electricity is  also
planned.  This energy recovery and  utilization  as  a fuel  source  is  considered
alternative  technology.

     A  greenhouse  cover to provide  year round  growth of the water  hyacinths  is
planned as innovative technology. Algae   from the sludge  ponds  causes the suspen-
ded  solids to exceed the discharge permit parameters,  but the City has found that
water hyacinths will  remove the impurities  and particulate matter to levels below
20 mg/L, well within permit limits.  Problems arise  when  the  hyacinths freeze, so
a cover is planned.  Hyacinth  growth is  greatest  at  20°C  or  higher and supplemen-
tal  heat  from digesting or composting excess hyacinths may  be  possible.  Excess
hyacinths readily  decompose into  compost which also  may  be  used.

Impacts of the Project

     Impacts associated with  the use  of water hyacinths at  the Austin treatment
facilities include:

     •    Energy savings

     •    Possible value  from  composting harvested hyacinths


     •    Capability  of meeting  discharge  requirements year-round  rather  than
          only 9 out of 12 months each year

     •    Cost-effectiveness  (almost no cost)

     •    Reliability and ease of O&M

     •    Potential  for  widespread application of  the process in numerous  small

     •    Waste product  (sludge)  is treated  in  an aesthetically pleasing  atmos-
          phere since the ponds  are covered by a dense  growth  of  lush  green hya-
          cinth plants which  also produce beautiful white flowers.

     The benefits of  using  anaerobic  digesters include  gas recovery  and  utiliza-
tion,  cost-effectiveness,  and more reliability since the  recovered  gas can  be
used as an emergency power source.

     Benefits of the  proposed earthworm  sludge digestion pilot study include the
production of real  operating  data and possible future design  criteria  for  a pre-
viously unproven  technology.  Also, it  may be possible  to  harvest the worms and
sell them as a fishbait or use them as a protein•source  in  animal  food.


     The  facilities planning effort was  not seriously affected by  the use  of
innovative and alternative  technology in  this project.  The first  facilities plan
was  prepared in 1977 and  has been changed or updated  on  several occasions.  In
August  1979,  the  City applied for  Step 2  grant funding at 85 percent  to include
their  I/A  technology.  There was  little extra effort  in facilities planning;  the
City merely applied for 85 percent  rather than the  normal 75 percent  grant.  There
have been  no delays  as  a  result of  the  I/A components of this project; on the
contrary,  the use  of  I/A  technology may  even  expedite  project  approval  and

Project Alternatives

     Since  the project involves  upgrading  existing facilities,  the  treatment
processes were essentially  fixed  and  the  evaluation did not involve  a  comparison
of  alternate treatment processes.  Instead, the evaluation process included  the
possibility of abandoning the plant rather  than upgrading it.

Selection Procedure

     The City had  already  been involved with the  use of anaerobic digestion and
had  several  years  of experience with hyacinths.  The  elements of  risk  associated
with these  technologies did  not  affect  the  selection procedure;  the  City  would
have selected these processes even  without  the I/A program  or  its  funding.

     The digestion  of waste  activated  sludge by  earthworms  to make compost  was
selected as  a pilot study  at the recommendation of the  State.  The City would not
have selected this process without  the I/A  program.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     The proposed  earthworm digestion process  would  be given innovative project
priority since  it is  not  a fully proven  treatment method.  This  portion of  the
project may qualify through discretionary approval  by the  Regional Administrator.

     Anaerobic digestion with energy recovery qualifies as alternative  technology
by definition.

     The water  hyacinth project  qualifies  as innovative  technology  since it  is
not  fully  proven  on a large scale.  No detailed cost-effective analysis was  per-
formed in comparing this innovative technology  to conventional treatment.

                               MIRANDA, CALIFORNIA

     Miranda Community Services District  (CSD) is a  community  of  300 people loca-
ted on a terrace  approximately 100 ft above the South  Fork  Eel River  in Humboldt
County/  California.  The  District  contains a  regional  high school  complex  in
addition  to  the  residences.  As  a  result of  the  school/  the  day  population
increases by  about 500.  The community has limited commercial  use,  but is a popu-
lar tourist area, particularly during the  summer months.

     The health  hazards  associated with  failing  septic tank/leachfield systems
have been documented by the County  Health  Department, even during the  dry winters
recently experienced in  California.  The  system at the high school  has  failed
completely  and is threatening to contaminate local  surface  water  supplies.  There
is  only  one section of  the CSD  that has not experienced  septic tank  failures,
apparently  due to a difference in  soil and groundwater  characteristics.


     The proposed project for Miranda CSD  is the construction  of  a small diameter
gravity collection system and waste  treatment using a recirculating  sand  filter
system with ultimate waste  disposal in percolation ponds. Waste  collected  by the
sewer  system  originates from  individual  septic  tanks  which partially  treat  the
wastewater  prior  to  collection.  Originally, a community  leachfield was  proposed,
however, soils at the selected site  were  inadequate  and another site suitable for
this disposal method could  not be  located.

     An  extensive survey will  be made  to determine the number  of the existing
septic tanks  that can  be upgraded  and made watertight and  the number of systems
that will  need to  be  replaced.  All of  the  septic  tanks  will  require periodic
pumping and appropriate disposal  of  the  septage.

     The recirculating  sand filter  consists of  3  ft of sand  overlaying 10  ft of
gravel with an  underdrain. Routine maintenance includes  weekly  raking of  the
surface to  minimize  plugging  and to promote reaeration,  and periodic  replacement
of  the top layer  of sand.  The  waste  is recirculated  an average of  five  times
before disposal.

Innovative  and Alternative Technology

     The recirculating  sand filter  has  been  classified as  innovative technology
and the  collection  system  as  alternative technology.  The  project will be given
funding priority; however,  no I/A money  will  be given until  the  design (Step 2)
has been completed. If sufficient  funds  are available,  the extra  10 percent grant
funds  for  Step 2 and  the  total grant  funds  for construction  (Step  3) will be

Impacts of The Project

     Impacts of the proposed project include:

     •    Elimination of health hazards associated with failing  septic  tanks
     •    Major effort in community participation
     •    Elimination  of surface  discharge  which  enhances  tourism  in  the  Eel
          River area
     •    System is economical, has minimal land requirements, and produces mini-
          mal odors.


     The  draft facility  plan  for Miranda  CSD was  completed  in  October  1978.
Therefore,  the  possibility  of I/A grant  funds  was  not considered in  the  evalua-
tion of  alternatives.  The facility plan  was  finalized in July  1979,  after  soils
investigations  showed  that  the originally proposed  leachfield was not an  accep-
table disposal  method.  The  plan amendment addressed the possibility of receiving
an extra 10 percent grant funding.

Project Alternatives

     The study  area was divided into three subareas according to  the  terrain and
soil conditions in  each area.  Subareas A and B were subject  to  septic tank  fail-
ures while  Subarea C  contained a number  of  individual systems which  functioned

     The alternatives  for Subareas A and  B included:

     •    Conventional  gravity collection  system,  aerated  facultative  lagoons,
          and percolation pond  disposal

     •    Small  diameter gravity  collection  system  (for  septic tank  effluent),
          aerated facultative  lagoons, and percolation pond disposal

     •    Small  diameter gravity  collection  system  for septic  tank effluent and
          community leachfield.

     Reassessment of alternatives  later resulted  in  the recirculating  sand filter
system being considered in  addition  to the first  two  alternatives.

     The alternatives  for Subarea  C  included:

     •    Public management program  for individual  on-site systems (routine main-
          tenance to insure long-term  operation)

     •    Replacement  of  failing  septic tank/leachfield systems  and establishment
          of maintenance  program

     •    No project.

Selection Procedure

     The selection  procedure was based  on  a weighted cost-effectiveness  matrix.
Considerations included  monetary costs,  environmental and social  impacts,  flexi-
bility and reliability,  public  acceptability and other minor factors.  The  alter-
natives for Subareas  A and B and for Subarea C were  evaluated  independently.   In
the  second analysis   of  alternatives  for   Subareas  A  and  B,  monetary  factors
favored the recirculating sand filter system  to  a high degree and  there  were  no
overwhelming environmental  or social considerations precluding implementation  of
this alternative. As  a result,  the recirculating sand filter system was  selected
for these subareas.

Qualification of the I/A Project

     The proposed  collection system for Miranda  has been  given an  alternative
project priority and  the treatment system has been given an innovative priority.
The septic tanks  and gravity sewers  are considered part of an individual  treat-
ment  system  for  a small  community and  have  been assigned  a priority  2.  The
recirculating sand  filters are  considered  innovative based on cost  savings and
reduced environmental  and social impacts.

     The collection  system also has been designated  a  demonstration project  by
the State. Operation and maintenance  costs for the  first two years are to  be paid
by the State in return for monitoring and critical analysis of the  system opera-
tion. Annual reports  will  document the effectiveness of design,  equipment  opera-
tion, and costs.

                                    BAY PARK
                             NASSAU COUNTY, NEW  YORK

     The 60  mgd Bay Park Sewage  Treatment  Plant in Nassau County, New  York  cur-
rently  uses  conventional activated  sludge for  secondary treatment.  Because  the
plant is overloaded,  the  Nassau County Department of Public  Works  had  contracted
with a  consulting  engineer  to  prepare a facilities plan  for  upgrading  and expan-
ding existing facilities.  The  plan  includes  a  10 mgd  addition to the  existing
plant capacity.


     The proposed  project  for  Nassau County includes  upgrading the  existing  60
mgd activated sludge facilities and  using  an  innovative fluidized bed  treatment
system  as  the secondary treatment process for the 10 mgd expansion of  the plant.
Anaerobic  digesters  with  methane  gas recovery and composting  facilities  also  are
planned. The  Nassau  County  project includes other phases but  this  case  study was
developed  for the  fluidized bed furnace system.

Innovative Technology

     Nassau County has  supported  research in fluidized  bed  technology  since 1972.
Although research  was being conducted in  several areas  including carbonaceous  BOD
removal,   nitrification,  and   denitrification,   the  main   thrust  had   been   in

     The basic  concept  of the process consists of passing wastewater  up through a
bed of  sand  at a velocity sufficient to impart  motion  to or "fluidize"  the sand.
Just  as with  a trickling  filter,  a stable population  of biological  organisms
eventually coats each grain of  sand.  The  key to  the  success of the  process is the
enormous surface area provided  by the sand  for microbial  growth. The  result is an
extemely high-rate system  which  combines the best  features of  activated sludge
and  trickling  filtration  into  one  process.  Like  trickling  filtration,  the
biological mass is fixed in the  system,  giving the process  greater  stability in
handling shock and  toxic loadings,  but unlike  trickling filtration, there  is a
minimal  sloughing  of the growth.  Therefore,  elimination of  secondary  clarifiers
is possible.  As with suspended  growth processes, extremely  high concentrations of
biomass  can  be maintained  within the system, but in the  fluidized bed process,
the concentration  of MLVSS  has  been  measured at  between 8,000 and 40,000 mg/L, an
order of magnitude higher than  suspended  growth.  Because of the high rate nature
of the  fluidized bed process,  pure  oxygen  is used in the  aerobic  system for  BOD
removal  and  nitrification,  with  the efficiency  of  oxygen  utilization  over  90

Impacts of the  Project

     Impacts  of the  proposed innovative technology include  the following:

     •     Cost  Savings  - Proposed fluidized  bed system was  the most  cost-effec-
           tive  alternative  evaluated.

     •    Innovative Technology - Including the guarantees  of  a  new system if the
          proposed facilities do not operate to specification.

     •    Overall  County Experience  - The proposed technology  is considered  a
          viable process in  which  the County  has supported research  for  a number
          of  years.  If  the  system  is  successful,  it could  replace activated
          sludge in future designs.

     •    Reduced  Research  Time  and  Money  at  Cedar  Creek  -  Originally,  the
          County's Cedar Creek  treatment  facility was being planned  to include  a
          1 mgd  pilot  study  using  a carbonaceous  fluidized  bed. As a result of
          the Bay Park innovative monies, a cost  reduction  in  facilities  planning
          for  Cedar  Creek was  allowed, with  a  corresponding  savings in  County

     •    Less land area required for  same treatment  capacity.

     •    Better operational  control with activated sludge.

     •    Net energy savings.

     •    Extremely high concentrations of biomass can be maintained within the
          system (between 8,000 and 40,000 mg/L MLVSS).

     •    If  the process  is a  success,  the  Cedar  Creek  Plant expansion  could
          incorporate fluidized bed treatment rather  than AWT  facilities.

     •    If the technology  is  a  success,  there  is a chance  that areas presently
          closed to  fishing  in parts  of New  York could be opened  as  a result of
          the Bay Park Facilities.


     The original  facilities plan  for  the  Bay  Park project was  published in May
1976.  At the earliest,  it was  estimated that design could  begin in April 1979 if
the activated  sludge approach were taken.  In December  1978, the  New York Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation  (NYSDEC) approved the activated sludge process
described in the  facilities  plan.  Around the same  time, the  County had  developed
a proposal  for converting  a  10  ft  diameter sand  filter at  Bay Park to a  carbona-
ceous BOD  reactor. In January  1979,  review of the Step  2 grant  application for
the activated  sludge facilities was stopped because  the County  was re-evaluating
treatment alternatives  including the  fluidized bed. With  the provisions of the
I/A program,  the County began  to  seriously pursue the idea of  incorporating the
fluidized  bed  system into  the 10  mgd expansion of Bay Park if  the  facilities
qualified for  I/A  funding.  In February 1979,  EPA informed  the County of  the nec-
essary documentation to  be furnished  to the  EPA and NYSDEC regarding the selec-
tion  of the   secondary  treatment  process for  the  10 mgd  expansion.  A  cost-
effective analysis and basic design data report  on  the fluidized bed system were
prepared and submitted in March 1979.

Project Alternatives

     The proposed fluidized bed treatment was evaluated along with  several  varia-
tions of  air and pure  oxygen activated sludge.  The cost-effective analysis  and
energy conservation  analysis  for the fluidized  bed  were  compared  with  upgrading
and expanding the plant using conventional  activated sludge for  secondary  treat-
ment. The secondary  treatment facilities using the innovative fluidized  bed  sys-
tem include:

     •    Contact Vessel
     •    U-Tube
     •    Fluidized  Bed Treatment Equipment
     •    Oxygen Generator
     •    Pump Building
     •    Final Clarifier Tanks
     •    (Waste Activated Sludge) WAS Pumps

     Secondary facilities using conventional activated sludge include:

     •    Aeration Tanks
     •    Blowers and Building
     •    Final Clarifiers
     •    PAS Pumps  and Building
     •    Sludge Pumps

Selection Procedure

     The  selection  of  the proposed fluidized bed treatment  system  was  based pri-
marily on cost and  energy savings. The proposed  system was  considered  more  advan-
tageous in  terms of  space requirements since the site is  land-locked and space is

     The  availability  of I/A funding also played  a major role  in the  selection
fluidized  bed technology.  The  County  has been financing  research in  the  area
since  1972   and  realized the  financial  benefits  of stepping up pilot  work  and
proposing the  innovative technique for  use in the  10 mgd expansion of Bay  Park.
If  innovative monies had not been granted for Bay  Park,  Nassau  County would have
continued with  their original activated  sludge  proposal  as the  secondary  treat-
ment process for the plant.

Qualification of the I/A  Project

     Originally,  the cost-effective  analysis  and  the  energy savings  comparison
were  performed  based  on upgrading  and  expanding  the  treatment facilities.  The
documentation  confirmed  the  fluidized  bed  system  as  qualifying  for  innovative
monies  under the  cost-effectiveness  and energy  conservation  criteria. In  June
1979, the I/A manual was  available so the Bay  Park plan  was then evaluated accor-
ding  to  the guidelines in  the  manual.  This evaluation resulted in a substantial
number of questions regarding the qualification  of  the project, and required the
County and  its consultant to  revise  its  comparison of alternatives. Specifically,
the cost-effective  analysis  was to  include not only upgrading  and expansion of
the facilities, but also  ocean discharge. When the  cost of  a  2.5  mile ocean

outfall  ($56  million)  was included, the proposed  project did not result in a  15
percent  life  cycle cost  savings  and/  therefore,  did  not qualify for  innovative
funding.  The  project  also  did  not  qualify  under  the  energy  savings  option
(fluidized  bed treatment with  ocean  outfall  represented  only an  8.6 percent
energy savings rather than the required 20 percent)•

     The project  was  finally granted innovative status by discretionary  approval
of  the  regional  administrator,  even  though  the  qualifying criteria  were not
strictly met.


     Conclusions  determined while  developing these  case studies  are summarized

     •    The  perceived degree of  risk has not been  that great with any of the
          projects  investigated.  More risky  projects  involved fairly  reliable
          backup processes  or  would not lead to disastrous  social  or environmen-
          tal  effect should  they  fail.

     •    The  engineers viewed  any  risks  as  being greater  than  the owners or
          State personnel did.

     •    Most  owners  had  complete  faith  in  their consultants.  Most engineers
          felt  strong  obligations to their clients  to maximize  grant funding for
          their projects, even if they involved risk.

     •    In many  cases,  the owner initiated the  I/A  funding procurement, either
          directly or  indirectly.

     •    In all cases, the  initial  facility planning efforts were begun prior to
          the  passage of the  Clean Water  Act  of  1977,   therefore  some degree of
          "backtracking" was necessary to  get I/A  funding approved.

     •    Delays  encountered in  getting project  approval varied. In many cases
          there  was  some  question  as  to  whether  a project  was innovative or

     •    In  general,  the  consulting engineer  needs  more  incentive to  actively
          use  innovative technology  since  his reputation is at stake  if a project

     •    The  100  percent replacement provision was viewed  with mixed reactions.
          Some participants had  ultimate  faith  in  the warrantee,  while others
          looked on  it with  skepticism.

     •    Most owners  and   their  consultants would be  willing  to  implement an
          innovative   or  alternative  project  again,  particularly  if  it meant
          reduced  O&M costs  or  a more reliable or  less complex treatment  system.
                                        ***•         <, U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE  1981  341-082/249