TD746
.155
(1986)
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Municipal
Pollution Control (WH-595)
Washington DC 20460
September
1986
vvEPA
OOOR86101
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Projects
1986 Progress Report
-------
-------
SEPTEMBER 1986
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
1986 PROGRESS REPORT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D. C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agencjr
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
PREFACE
The Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) issues this annual summary to provide
interested parties with an overview of progress in the implementation of Innovative and
Alternative (I/A) technologies under provisions of the Clean Water Act. The report is based
upon information from grant awards through March for the year of issue as provided by state
agencies and EPA regional offices. State, EPA region, and EPA headquarters staffs have
worked diligently to make the listings as accurate and helpful as possible. Any errors,
omissions, or suggestions to improve the usefulness of the report should be reported to
James Wheeler, EPA-OMPC, who is listed in Table 7.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES iv
PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 2
Overland Flow 3
Sequencing Batch Reactors 4
Intrachannel Clarification 5
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons 6
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds 7
Ultraviolet Disinfection 8
Counter-Current Aeration Systems 9
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES 11
Cedar Rocks, West Virginia, Vacuum Collection System 12
Cannon Beach, Oregon, Wetlands/Marsh System 14
Clayton County, Georgia, Spray Irrigation and Wastewater Recycling System 16
Kenbridge, Virginia, Overland Flow System 18
East Richland County, South Carolina, Sludge Composting System 20
Charlotte, Michigan, Methane Recovery System 22
FIELD TESTS 24
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Innovative Technologies
Funded Less than Five Times 25
2 Summary of Innovative Technologies
Funded More than Five Times 33
3 Summary of Alternative
Technology Projects Funded 35
4 List of Innovative/Alternative
Technology Publications 37
5 Innovative/Alternative Field Test Projects 40
6 100% Modification/Replacement Grants 42
7 Innovative/Alternative Technology Contacts 44
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Innovative Technologies Funded 2
2 Schematic Diagram of Overland Flow Process 3
3 Typical Sequencing Batch Reactor Sequence
(One Cycle) 4
4 United Industries BOAT CLARIFIERS 5
5 Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoon Schematic 6
6 Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Bed 7
7 Ultraviolet Disinfection, Submerged Lamp
Configuration 8
8 Counter-Current Aeration System 9
9 Alternative Technologies Funded 10
10 Vacuum Sewer System Schematic Diagram 12
11 Cannon Beach, Oregeon, Wetlands/Marsh Treatment System 14
12 Clayton County, Georgia, Wastewater Recycling
System Flow Schematic 16
13 Kenbridge, Virginia, Overland Flow System 18
14 In-Vessel Sludge Composting Schematic 20
15 Methane Gas Recovery Schematic 22
IV
-------
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Since 1977, the Clean Water Act has provided special incentives for municipalities receiving
federal construction grant funds to use Innovative and Alternative (I/A) technologies for
wastewater treatment. I/A technologies are wastewater treatment processes or
components that either reuse and recycle wastewater and sludge, reduce costs and energy
compared to conventional treatment methods, or provide simple and economical treatment
for small communities. Incentives for choosing an I/A technology include a 20 percent
increase in the federal grant share, the requirement for states to use a certain portion of
construction grant funds for I/A technology projects, and the availability of 100 percent grants
to modify or replace funded projects which fail (M/R grants). The I/A program also includes
field testing projects to evaluate emerging technologies before committing funds to full scale
facilities.
The I/A technology program has awarded over 3,500 grants at more than 1,600 municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, with about 400 of these facilities now being operational.
Estimated savings in life cycle costs of the I/A funded facilities is over two-billion dollars.
Information on I/A technologies is available from a variety of sources. The National Small
Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV, maintains
bibliographies of information on I/A technologies; and publishes periodic bulletins featuring
case studies and information on current I/A activities. Included in the bibliographies are lists
of manufacturers; I/A contacts, applicable regulations, and manuals for each state; and
literature articles. The Clearinghouse also has a data base available listing more than 2,000
I/A facilities. The Clearinghouse may be reached, toll free, at 1-800-624-8301. Other
sources of information are listed in Tables 4 and 7 of this report.
This report contains valuable information on I/A technology projects. Tables 1 and 2 provide
information on funded innovative technologies. Table 3 provides information on alternative
technology projects. A list of technology fold-outs and other sources of information on I/A
technologies is presented in Table 4. The location and status of field test projects are listed in
Table 5, and the location and status of 100 percent modification or replacement (M/R)
requests are in Table 6. Table 7 gives the I/A technology coordinators for each state and EPA
region.
-------
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
An innovative technology project is a new wastewater treatment process or component
which has not been fully proven; but, based upon results from research and demonstration
projects, appears promising. An innovative technology project provides a benefit, such as
reduced costs or environmental benefits, along with an acceptable element of risk.
Designation of a project, or portion of a project, as innovative should encourage the design
and construction of more efficient municipal wastewater treatment facilities by advocating
departure from the standard design practices. The breakdown of the areas of innovative
technology funding is shown in Figure 1. Several specific innovative technologies are
discussed in the following innovative technology project descriptions. Only a small
representation of the total number of innovative projects are discussed herein. Finally, some
technologies, such as overland flow, can be classified as either innovative or alternative,
depending on the nature of the project and the judgements of the state and EPA regional
offices.
AERATION
OTHER /28.8%
SLUDGE TECHNOLOGIES
K CLARIFIERS
DISINFECTION
FILTRATION
LAGOONS
OXIDATION DITCHES
NUTRIENT REMOVAL
LAND APPLICATION
OF EFFLUENT
NOTE Percentages Based on Number of Awards
FIGURE 1. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.
-------
Technology: Overland Flow (OLF)
Benefits: OLF can produce advanced treatment quality effluent by treating screened,
primary, or secondary wastewater. Operation and maintenance costs are
low, and land and storage volume requirements are less than those for slow
rate land treatment.
Application: OLF can be used in areas with low permeability soils where land area is
somewhat limited and is not prohibitively expensive.
Status: Numerous OLF systems are in operation, including systems in Cleveland,
MS; Davis, CA; Kenbridge, VA; and Raiford, FL. Effluent biochemical oxygen
demand and suspend solids concentrations of less than 10 mg/L can be
achieved. Significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus can also be
achieved.
Process in the OLF process, wastewater is applied at the top of uniformly graded
Description: terraces. Renovation of the wastewater occurs as itf lows in athin film over the
vegetated soil surface. Typically, 40 to 80 percent of the applied wastewater
runs off and is collected in ditches at the bottom of the slope. A schematic
diagram of the OLF process is presented in Figure 2.
Wastewater
Application
By Surface,
Spray, or
Sprinkler
Methods
Water
Tolerant
Grasses-i
Drainage
Channel
Terrace
Back Slope
Limited
Percolation
Terrace
Front Slope
FIGURE 2. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF OVERLAND FLOW PROCESS.
-------
Technology: Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs)
Benefits: SBR systems require less land area and operator attention than conventional
activated sludge treatment systems. Biological treatment and clarification are
conducted in one basin, thereby eliminating secondary clarifiers and the
associated piping and mechanical systems.
Application: SBRs are well suited for small communities which require wastewater
treatment systems that are economical to build, simple to operate and
maintain, and reliable in meeting secondary effluent quality limitations, or
better.
Status: Full-scale SBR systems are operational in Culver, IN and Poolesville, MD.
The Poolsville system received a national award for design excellence.
Recent data suggest that SBRs can produce excellent biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids removal with minimal energy input. SBRs can
also be operated in a mode which will remove substantial nitrogen and
phosphorus.
Process in the SBR process, all of the treatment steps occur in one tank as depicted in
Description: Figure 3. The tank is first filled with raw primary wastewater and then aerated
to convert the organics into microbial mass, thereby treating the wastewater.
After treatment, the aerators are turned off, allowing the solids to settle.
During this idle period, clarifier effluent is withdrawn and solids are wasted.
The SBR process is then ready to begin again.
~\
FILL
Add
Substrate
r- REACT -,
r- SETTLE _.
DRAW
Effluent
IDLE
Reaction
Time
Clarify
Remove
Effluent
Waste
Sludge
FIGURE 3. TYPICAL SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR SEQUENCE (ONE CYCLE).
-------
Technology: Intrachannel Clarification (ICC)
Benefits: Advantages include reduced construction and operating costs, reduced land
area requirements, and greater ease of operation compared to conventional
oxidation ditch systems.
Application: ICC is applicable for use by communities of all sizes seeking to reduce the
costs associated with a conventional oxidation ditch process.
Status: Approximately 80 ICC systems are currently in design, construction, or
operation in the United States; and seven manufacturers currently market
ICC systems. Twelve operational systems are in existence including Morgan
City, LA; Sedalia, MO; Owensboro, KY; and Thompson, NY. The current
performance data for these systems shows that effluent biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids concentrations of 20 mg/L can be achieved
where adequate mixing is provided.
Process The ICC concept combines a secondary clarifier with an oxidation ditch. The
Description: unique feature of ICC is that wastewater enters the clarifier, effluent is
withdrawn from the clarifier, and sludge is returned to the ditch without
pumping. Figure 4 shows one type of intrachannel clarifier within an oxidation
ditch.
^- Scum y4
/ Baffles /
\^
ix^Scum Return \
\
^^-Scum
Troughs ^~
/
Flow
,
Gravity Line for
Sludge Removal
PLAN
Effluent
Scum Ports
Weir
';:: lntluentS£yxgSfr::::; . amage nunpei!.
8|:;:;;^^
::::-::.:>f'Kii::-:::->0:;::::;;:::;i:::x-:'*';-W'Sludge Return.':.'.-.':''':::.'? Sludge Ports :'.'.'.:':'':V'y':-'-:''::'
Water
Level
-:::::i-:?7
:;:;:;:^
f<::A
ELEVATION
FIGURE 4. TYPICAL BOAT CLARIFIER*.
*The BOAT CLARIFER is the registered trademark of United Industries, Inc.
-------
Technology: Hydrograph Controlled Release (HCR) Lagoons
Benefits: An HCR lagoon system can be used to make the maximum use of a stream's
assimilative capacity, thereby allowing the use of low-cost, easy-to-operate
lagoon systems where higher levels of treatment might otherwise be
required.
Application: The HCR concept is applicable to systems where the receiving stream's
assimilative capacity does not permit continuous discharge from a
conventional lagoon system. In such cases, the HCR lagoon is used in
combination with the conventional lagoon system.
Status: Over eighteen HCR systems are currently in design, construction, or
operation, primarily in the Southeastern United States. There have been no
major operational problems related to the HCR components. Examples of
operational systems are Linden, AL; Heidelberg and Canton, MS; and West
Monroe, LA.
Process There are three principal components of an HCR lagoon: a storage lagoon
Description: which receives effluent from the conventional lagoon system, a stream flow
monitoring system, and an effluent discharge structure. The effluent
discharge structure releases the treated wastewater from the storage lagoon
in proportion to the stream flow as measured by the monitoring system. The
size of the storage lagoon is determined by the stream flow characteristics. A
schematic diagram is presented in Figure 5.
CONTROL
SYSTEM
WASTEWATEIR
MENT STORAGE
LL CE_LL
i____JL-
f ^
1
1
1
1
, \
1 zz 1 -i i
1 DISCHARGE »
^/ STRUCTURE FLOW
FLOW
METER
RECEIVING WATER
LAGOON SYSTEM
DATA TRANSMISSION
FIGURE 5. HYDROGRAPH CONTROLLED RELEASE LAGOON SCHEMATIC.
-------
Technology: Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds (VASDB)
Benefits: VASDBs may reduce the area required for drying beds by as much as 90
percent compared with conventional drying beds. Cycle times for dewatering
are also less, thereby reducing the effects of weather on sludge drying.
Application: VASDB systems can dewater most municipal sludges unless they are highly
viscous or contain high concentrations of grease or fine solids.
Status: Treatment systems utilizing VASDBs include Portage, IN; Sunrise City, FL;
Lumberton, NC; and Grand Junction, CO. Data from operational systems
indicate that solids concentrations of 8 to 23 percent can be produced with
cycle times ranging from 8 to 48 hours.
Process in a VASDB system, the sludge is first chemically conditioned and then
Description: distributed onto porous media plates. After an initial gravity drying phase, a
vacuum is created beneath the beds, thereby drawing off additional water.
After the sludge begins to crack, the sludge is allowed to air dry before being
removed. A cross-section of a typical VASDB is shown in Figure 6.
Vacuum
Pump
Polymer
System
Rigid Porous
Media Plates
_ _r Filtrate
,-t-^Pump
Sludge
Inlet
Line
Concrete Basin--'
and Sump
Intermediate
Support Drainage Layer
(Gravel)
To Treatment Plant
FIGURE 6. VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE DEWATERING BED CROSS SECTION.
-------
Technology: Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection
Benefits: UV disinfection leaves no chlorine or chemical residual to affect the water
quality of the receiving stream. UV disinfection systems are also relatively
simple to operate and maintain. Periodic cleaning of the UV light tubes is the
primary maintenance requirement.
Application: UV disinfection systems are applicable for systems where dechlorination
would otherwise be required. The flexibility of the UV disinfection process
also allows quick responses to changes in disinfection demand, making the
process a viable alternative for large systems.
Status: There are currently approximately 53 treatment facilities using UV
disinfection in the U.S. and Canada, including systems in Albert Lea, MN;
Evanston, WY; Thurmont, MD; and Hesston, KS.
Process The UV disinfection process uses the energy from ultraviolet light to prevent
Description: reproduction of microorganisms. The effectiveness of this process depends
upon the dose, exposure time, and the absence of solids or other materials in
the wastewater. The UV lamps can be either submerged in or suspended
above the wastewater. A UV system where the lamps are submerged is
depicted in Figure 7.
Control Box
Influent
UV Lamp Inside
Quartz Sleeve
Effluent
FIGURE 7. ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION, SUBMERGED LAMP CONFIGURATION.
8
-------
Technology: Counter-Current Aeration (CCA) Systems
Benefits: CCA may reduce the land area and energy requirements for extended
aeration systems. Oxygen transfer efficiency may also be higher with CCA
systems than with other aeration systems.
Application: CCA systems can be cost-competitive for plant sizes over 0.15 MGD.
Status: CCA systems are currently in design, construction, or operation at over 20
locations in the United States. Over 500 systems are operational worldwide.
Operational systems in the United States include Grand Island, NY; Loudon,
TN; Rome and Clayton County, GA; and Tuskegee, AL. Operational data from
these and other operating facilities demonstrate the energy savings in
operating these systems.
Process in CCA, the aeration system moves with respect to the solids, unlike
Description: conventional systems where the aeration system is stationary. In one of the
six configurations of a CCA system, shown in Figure 8, the aeration system
rotates around a circular tank about once per minute. The rotation creates a
longer bubble flow path which may result in a greater oxygen transfer.
Rotating Bridge
Influent
Return
Sludge Pumps
Air Supply
Effluent
FIGURE 8. COUNTER-CURRENT AERATION SYSTEM.
-------
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
An alternative technology is a fully proven method of wastewater or sludge treatment that 1)
provides for the reclaiming and/or reuse of water, 2) productively recycles wastewater
constituents, 3) eliminates the discharge of pollutants, or 4) recovers energy.
Specific alternative technologies include on-site treatment or alternative wastewater
conveyance methods for small communities, land treatment of wastewater or sludge, direct
re-use of non-potable water, aquifer recharge, composting, co-disposal of sludge and
refuse, and methane recovery and use. Alternative technologies generally save money
compared with conventional treatment because of lower operation and maintenance costs
or cost recovery through productive use of wastes. The breakdown of alternative
technologies funded is shown in Figures. Six case studies of specific alternative technology
projects are described in the following sections.
OTHER
SLUDGE TREATMENT
ENERGY RECOVERY
FROM SLUDGE
LAND TREATMENT
ONSITE TREATMENT
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
FIGURE 9. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.
11
-------
CEDAR ROCKS, WEST VIRGINIA, VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
A gravity collection system was proposed for Cedar Rocks, West Virginia, in the original
wastewater facilities plan for the area. The gravity system was designed and bids were
received. The low bid for the gravity system, approximately $2.1 million, was considered
exorbitant. The planning was reevaluated, and a vacuum sewer system was proposed. Final
construction cost for the vacuum system was approximately $1.2 million. The project was 85
percent funded by an EPA construction grant, and 15 percent funded from a HUD grant plus
local funds.
A vacuum collection system consists of a special vacuum valve which allows a mixture of air
and wastewater to enter the vacuum system from each residence. The vacuum valve opens
automatically when wastewater accumulates in the storage reservoir below the valve, and
remains open for a preset interval to allow the wastewater and air to enter the vacuum
system. The air/wastewater mixture is drawn towards the collection station by pressure
differentials between the vacuum valves and a vacuum pump station which maintains the
vacuum throughout the system. Figure 10 shows a schematic diagram of a vacuum sewer
system.
The Cedar Rocks vacuum sewage collection system began serving 250 users in December
1984. Although some problems were encountered during the construction phase, they were
readily solved; and the system has been operating satisfactorily since start-up.
The system consists of three main trunks which are controlled separately from the vacuum
station to allow isolation of problems or installation of a new service without disruption of the
other branches. Two hundred vacuum valves were installed in the Cedar Rocks system, with
one valve serving two homes in some cases. The collection station operates an average of
4-1 /2 hours per day. A vacuum is applied to the collection system by a vacuum pump through
a fiberglas collection tank. An 800 gallon vacuum reserve is also used for moisture
collection. A collection tank receives the wastewater from the three mains. Sewage collected
from the Cedar Rocks area is then discharged to the Wheeling, West Virginia, wastewater
collection system.
12
-------
CC
i
Q
O
LJJ
I
O
CO
S
LU
CO
cc
LJJ
LJJ
CO
I
LJJ
CC
z>
CD
13
-------
CANNON BEACH, OREGON, WETLANDS/MARSH SYSTEM
The Cannon Beach, Oregon, stabilization pond treatment system could not meet the
stringent summer effluent discharge requirements of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
suspended solids (SS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Higher flows in the
summer, resulting from a tripling of the summer population, caused the noncompliance. To
solve the problem, the city selected an artificial marsh and aquaculture system to expand the
existing wastewater treatment system. However, because the selected site was a wooded
wetland, the plan was altered to employ a natural wetlands/marsh in the treatment system.
The primary objective of the project was to meet the discharge requirements. Secondary
objectives were to minimize disturbance to existing wetland habitat and allow continuing
usage of the site by wildlife.
The three lagoons and chlorination facilities were modified to include the addition of an
aeration basin and a new chlorine contact chamber. A portion of the adjoining forested
wetlands is used to polish the secondary effluent before discharge.
The wetlands/marsh system was designed to serve approximately 7,000 people. The
system operates from June 1 to October 31, with all of the treatment plant effluent going into
the marsh. The wetland/marsh system is not used during the other months because
increased flows during the winter rainy season provide sufficient dilution in Ecola Creek. The
marsh system covers 16 acres and consists of two 8-acre cells used in series. The average
depth is two feet. Winter flooding structures allow periodic flushing of the marsh. The site
plan is shown in Figure 11.
Operating data available for 1985 proved that effluent discharge limits can consistently be
met. Average BOD in the influent to the marsh was 12.5 mg/L, while the average BOD in the
effluent from the marsh was 4.1 mg/L. This represents an average BOD removal efficiency of
approximately 70 percent. The average suspended solids concentration in the infuent to the
marsh was 41 mg/L, while the average in the effluent from the marsh was 9 mg/L. This
represents a suspended solids removal of approximately 80 percent.
14
-------
LJJ
0
CO
LU
LJJ
CC
CO
CL
CO
Q
|
LJJ
LJJ
CD
Z
o
z
s
LU
DC
Z)
15
-------
CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA,
SPRAY IRRIGATION AND WASTEWATER RECYCLING SYSTEM
Clayton County, Georgia, is a metro Atlanta county. The topography and geology of the
county create unique water supply and wastewater treatment problems. Two ridges divide
the county into three drainage basins. Because of this, all streams within the borders of the
county are headwaters and are too small to serve as a water supply. Consequently, Clayton
County's water supply is located in an adjacent county. In addition, each stream has a limited
capacity to assimilate wastewater.
In 1974, the county began a planning process that evolved into a unique system for recycling
the county's wastewater into its water supply system. Figure 12 presents the flow diagram for
the system. The major component of the system is a 19.5 million gallons per day (MGD)
spray irrigation system. The irrigation system is located in the headwaters of Pates Creek,
which is the backbone of the county's water supply system. Effluent from the Flint River and
the R. L. Jackson activated sludge treatment facilities are pumped to a 12-day storage pond
at the spray irrigation site. Three 15,000 gallons per minute pumps then distribute the
wastewater through 18,300 sprinklers onto the 2,400-acre site. The irrigation site, which is
planted in pine trees, is divided into seven cells. Each cell is irrigated one day per week for 12
hours at a hydraulic loading rate of 2.5 in./wk. The site is located approximately 7.5 miles
upstream of the Clayton County water reservoir. The wastewater applied to the site
percolates into the ground water and reappears as streamflow in Pates Creek. At design
flows, the wastewater will represent approximately 84 percent of the water flowing into the
water supply reservoir during low flow conditions, and approximately 33 percent during
normal flow conditions.
The second segment of the recycling system is the discharge of 4.0 MGD of advanced
treated effluent into Big Cotton Indian Creek. Clayton County operates an auxiliary water
intake on Big Cotton Indian Creek that pumps water back into the reservoir. At design flows
during low flow conditions, wastewater could represent approximately 62 percent of the flow
in Big Cotton Indian Creek at the auxiliary intake.
An extensive monitoring program has provided substantial data on the system. With the
exception of chlorides, no change from background levels of all constituents monitored has
been detected during five years of operation of the system. Chlorides in the groundwater at
the site have increased from 6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 15 mg/L, which is far below the
threshold limit of 250 mg/L for drinking water.
16
-------
g
k:
LU
o
CO
LU
CO
o
Zi
o
cc
cc
LU
I
LU
I
o
QC
O
LU
O
O
o
1
o
c\i
LU
DC
D
17
-------
KENBRIDGE, VIRGINIA, OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEM
Kenbridge, Virginia, upgraded its existing trickling filter wastewater treatment system in an
economic and effective manner. The effluent from the existing treatment facility was
discharged into Seay Creek, which is a tributary to the water supply reservoir for several
communities. The trickling filter system was not capable of meeting the discharge limitations
of 28 milligrams per liter (mg/L) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and 30 mg/L
suspended solids (SS) at the design flow of 0.3 million gallons per day (MOD).
A site evaluation of nearby property revealed that an available 100-acre tract was well suited
for land treatment by overland flow. This form of land treatment can be used in areas with low
permeability soils where land area is somewhat limited but not prohibitively expensive. The
site was located adjacent to the existing treatment plant in a rural area with little potential for
future development. The shallow subsoils at this site had a permeability of less than 1.3 in./hr.
An economic analysis of the overland flow concept compared to an aerated lagoon system
showed that the overland flow system would be more cost-effective. The total construction
cost for the facility was approximately $1.1 million, with 85 percent of that amount funded by
an EPA construction grant.
The existing wastewater treatment facilities were incorporated into the design as
preapplication treatment. A15-million gallon pond was added for storage during inclement
weather. Effluent from the preapplication treatment system flows to the storage pond and is
then pumped to the overland flow terraces.
The final design required 22 acres of overland flow terraces, with an application rate of 3.5
inches per week. Fourteen independently controlled overland flow terraces were designed.
The wastewater is applied to the terraces by an 8-inch diameter slotted pipe. Figure 13
shows the layout of the overland flow system. The cover crop is a mixture of water tolerant
grasses. From January 1986, to June 1986, the system produced an average effluent BOD
of approximately 8.5 mg/L and an average SS of approximately 6.1 mg/L. Grass is cut and
removed from the terraces, thereby removing solids and nutrients from the system
discharge.
18
-------
Ll_
#"
CO i
*t-
CO
r ,ot
^
#
*
, 1 "IX i L
§
o
u_
?o5
£
0) i-
> V
LU
0
Q
cc
LU
s
CD
CC
LU
CD
Q
CC
CD
Z
LU
*
co
LU
CC
^
CD
^SS&s
19
-------
EAST HIGHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,
SLUDGE COMPOSTING SYSTEM
Initial planning studies to select a sludge treatment alternative for the East Richland County
Public Service District wastewater treatment facilities recommended sand drying beds
followed by landfilling. However, county officials wanted to evaluate a system that would
provide resource recovery and revenue generation. A subsequent cost-effectiveness
analysis determined an in-vessel composting system similarto the one shown in Figure 14 to
be the lowest cost alternative.
Sludge composting is the decomposition of organic constituents to a stable humus-like
material. In-vessel composting encases this age-old process in confined vessels. The result
is a marketable compost product without the odor and storage problems sometimes
associated with other composting systems.
As shown in Figure 14, waste sludge is discharged to a storage bin. The sludge, a carbon
source such as wood chips, and recycle compost are mixed together and fed to the
bio-reactor. The mixture is held in the bio-reactor for approximately 14 days to allow complete
decomposition of the sludge and to destroy disease causing organisms. The compost is
then fed to a cure reactor to obtain further solids stabilization and conversion of organic
materials to humus. Air is fed into the reactors to maintain an aerobic process.
East Richland County's variation of the process shown in Figure 14 is to cure the sludge in
piles on the ground instead of in a closed vessel. The system has been operational since
March 1986. Five tons per day of sludge is produced by the extended aeration wastewater
treatment process. The sludge is dewatered to approximately 17 percent solids by belt filter
presses before entering the compost system. The compost system produces approximately
14 tons of compost per day. The county currently has a renewable one-year contract to sell
the compost for $12.50 per ton.
20
-------
o
^^
02
LUQ
LU
OQcO
<0
LJJ^
CEO
<0
LU ^r LU
LU
o<
oc
>c
^b
LU
gSi
Z LU
oo
CD LTC
CO
LU
i
o
CO
(D
8
Q_
2
O
o
LU
O
Q
CO
_l
LU
CO
CO
LJJ
LU
DC
21
-------
CHARLOTTE, MICHIGAN, METHANE RECOVERY SYSTEM
Charlotte, Michigan, city officials selected anaerobic digestion followed by land application
to farmland for treatment of the sludge produced by the city's wastewater treatment plant.
Methane gas is a natural by-product of the anaerobic sludge digestion process. In order to
properly operate the sludge digestion system, raw sludge must be heated which takes
energy. City officials decided that use of the methane as an energy source to heat the sludge
would increase the efficiency of the treatment system and save operating costs. A recovery
system was designed to use the methane for heating of the raw sludge and for fueling an
engine to generate electricity.
Figure 15 shows a typical methane gas recovery system. In this example, methane gas
generated by the anaerobic sludge digestion process is captured and pumped to a gas
storage tank. The gas is then used to fuel engines which generate electricity, and to fuel
boilers which heat water and produce steam. The electricity is used to operate other plant
equipment. The hot water and steam are used to heat raw sludge entering the digester, and
to heat work areas in the treatment plant. Boilers and engines are dual-fuel equipment since
a supplemental fuel is necessary. Methane has a net heating value of 970 Btu/cu.ft. at
standard temperature and pressure. Digester gas has a net heating value of approximately
600 Btu/cu.ft. since it is only 65 percent methane.
Construction of the Charlotte, Michigan, wastewater treatment plant was completed in
September 1980. The plant is designed for an average daily flow of 1.2 million gallons per
day. A total of approximately 2,500 dry tons per day of sludge is digested. This results in an
average methane production of approximately 12,000 cu.ft. per day. A total of approximately
8,700 cu.ft. per day of methane is used, resulting in an average equivalent cost savings
(natural gas) of approximately $18,000 per year.
22
-------
g
1
LU
I
o
V)
DC
LU
8
a
cr
o
LU
LU
LO
LU
or
D
O
-------
FIELD TESTS
A special category for field testing innovative technology projects was created by the 1981
Clean Water Act Amendments. Field testing provides a mechanism to verify the basis of
design for promising advances in treatment technology prior to committing funds for full
scale facilities. The intent is to reduce the risk of failure before funding construction of many
similar projects. Field testing grants offer an excellent opportunity to evaluate emerging,
higher risk technologies which have the greatest potential to advance municipal wastewater
treatment practices in this country. Table 5 lists the field test projects funded to date, including
a brief indication of the results achieved where available.
24
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
AERATION/MIXING
STATE
DESIGN
FLOW(MGD)
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
AERATED MIXING CHAMBER AND BLOWERS
TULSA OK
AERO-MOD SYSTEM
EDGAR SPRINGS
LINDSEY
NORWOOD
SALUDA
MO
OH
MO
NC
FINE BUBBLE DOME DIFFUSER
BROCKTON MA
MERIDAN
CT
INTERMITTENT CYCLE EXTENDED AERATION
CORNERSVILLE TN
TULLAHOMA TN
UNION CITY
TN
20.60
0.04
0.10
0.30
0.70
18.00
11.70
0.11
3.00
4.03
SUBMERGED MIXING OF EQUALIZATION TANKS
NORTH MANKATO MN 10.00
SUBMERGED PROPELLER MIXER
MARQUETTE COUNTY Ml
STORM LAKE IA
SUBMERGED TURBINE DRAFT TUBE
ANDALUSIA AL
CRANSTON Rl
CLARIFIERS
AERATED CLARIFIER
CHOCTAW OK
ASPIRATING PROPELLER PUMP
WELCH WV
CANTILEVERED CLARIFIER BAFFLING
TRI-CITY OR
2.64
3.34
2.84
23.00
0.50
0.40
13.50
CH2M HILL
HEAGLER AND MARSHALL
POGGEMEYER DESIGN
SCOTT CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
APPALACHIAN ENGINEERS
FAY SPOFFORD AND THORNDIKE
C.E. MAGUIRE INC.
JOHN COLEMAN HAYES
BARGE WAGGONER SUMNER
CANNON INC.
J.R. WAUFORD CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
BOLTON AND MENCK INC.
FOTH VAN DYKE ASSOC.
KUEHL AND PAYER LTD.
CARTER DARNELL GRUBBS
ENGINEERS
UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORP.
REA ENGINEERING
L. ROBERT KIMBALL ASSOC.
CH2M HILL
COMBINED SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION/CHLORINATION
FLAGSTAFF AZ 6.00 BROWN AND CALDWELL
FIXED-MEDIA CLARIFIER
WAYNESBURG
OH
0.40
HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.
APPROVAL
BASIS
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.BEN.
COST
ENERGY
COST
COST
INC.
ENERGY
COST
COSTS
ENERGY
COST
TOXICS
MGMT.
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.
COST
COST&
ENERGY
25
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
FLOCCULATING CLARIFIERS
CENTRAL VALLEY
DENMARK
FORTVILLE
INTEGRAL CLARIFIERS
SUFFERN
PLATE SETTLERS
SANFORD
DISINFECTION
OZONATION
MOORHEAD
PRE-OZONATION
CLEVELAND
STATE
UT
Wl
IN
NY
ME
MN
OH
DESIGN
FLOW(MGD)
50.00
0.50
0.70
1.50
3.60
6.00
50.00
DESIGN CONSULT
FIRM
COON KING KNOWLTON/
BROWN AND CALDWELL
ROBERT E. LEE ASSOC.
REID QUEBE ALLISON
WILCOX ASSOC.
RIDDICK AND ASSOC. INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
WATERMATION
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC.
DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
DEEP WELL INJECTION
ST. PETERSBURG
FL
20.00 CH2M HILL
SUBSURFACE FILTER/SURFACE DISCHARGE
NEWPORT VT
WATER SUPPLY/AQUIFER RECHARGE
EL PASO TX
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
BLOWER HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM
TRI-CITY OR
DIGESTORS HEATED BY GEOTHERMAL HEAT
ELKO NV
0.04
10.00
13.50
2.50
PHILLIP AND EMBERLEY
PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER
INC.
CH2M HILL
KENNEDY JENKS CHILTON
EARTH SHELTERING AND PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN
KASSON MN 0.35
LAKE CRYSTAL MN 0.59
MCGHEE AND BETTS
BOLTON AND MENK INC.
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
TULSA
OK
ENERGY RECOVERY/HEAT PUMPS
NEW YORK CITY NY
LOS ANGELES CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
11.00 BLACK AND VEATCH
100.00 MALCOLM PIRNIE
MICHAEL BAKER
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
RALPH PARSONS
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/
BABCOCK WILCOX
APPROVAL
BASIS
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST&
ENV.BEN.
ENV.BEN.
REG.DISCR.
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
ENERGY
26
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
INCINERATION WITH HEAT RECOVERY
MACON-BIBB COUNTY GA
SLUDGE HEAT EXCHANGERS
ROCHESTER MN
SOLAR POWER SYSTEM
WAYNESBURG
OH
SUPPLEMENTAL SOLAR HEATING
FLAGSTAFF AZ
USE WASTE STEAM FROM POWER PLANTS
WAUKESHA Wl
LOS ANGELES CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED BIO-FILTER
MEMPHIS TN
BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTER
ONEONTA AL
ST. GEORGE SC
WALLACE NC
BIO-FILTER TOWERS
CASPER WY
EUREKA SPRINGS AR
CONTINUOUS CLEANING SAND FILTERS
EVELETH MN
JOHNSTOWN
OH
FLOATING DREDGE SAND FILTER
GREEN RIVER WY
PRIMARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION
CORRY PA
DEKALB IL
WHEATON IL
RECIRCULATING SAND FILTERS
CONTRA COSTA CA
28.00 JORDAN JONES GOULDING INC.
12.50 HOLLAND KASTLER SCHMITZ
0.40 HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.
6.00 BROWN AND CALDWELL
11.60 ALVORD BURDICK HOWSON
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
RALPH PARSONS
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/
BABCOCK WILCOX
80.00 BLACK AND VEATCH
2.20 CARR AND ASSOC.
0.25 BETZ CONVERSE MURDOCH INC.
0.18 HENRY VON OESEN ASSOC.
12.80 ARIX
0.69 MCCLELLAND CONSULTANTS
0.70 ROBERT WALLACE AND ASSOC.
0.75 EVANS MECHWART HAMILTON
AND TILTON
1.50 GULP WESNER GULP
4.00 LAKE ENGINEERS
7.25 BELING ENGINEERS
10.00 BAXTER AND WOODMAN
0.03 HARRIS ASSOC.
MUN./IND.
TREATMENT
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST
COST
COST
ENV.BEN.
COST
COST
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COST
ENERGY
27
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
MIRANDA
SADIEVILLE
SUBMERGED ROCK FILTER
SPRING CREEK
UPFLOW SAND FILTER
EMINENCE
LAGOONS
AQUACULTURE
AUSTIN
CRAIG-NEW CASTLE
CA
KY
PA
MO
TX
VA
0.05
0.03
0.11
O.O1
26.00
0.18
SAN BENITO
TX
2.17
BAFFLE SYSTEM IN LAGOON WITH DUCKWEED COVER
PARAGOULD AR 2.20
COMPLETE MIX LAGOON
DOUGLAS
WY
1.50
CONTROLLED DISCHARGE STABILIZATION POND
JACKMAN ME 0.10
DEEP CELL LAGOON
DODGE CITY
ST. PAUL
KS
KS
DUCKWEED COVER IN LAGOON
WILTON AR
EARTHEN POND SYSTEM
QUINCY CA
FACULTATIVE LAGOON
HOLBROOK AZ
4.15
0.11
0.09
0.72
1.30
FACULTATIVE LAGOON WITH ROCK REED FILTER SYSTEM
BENTON LA 0.31
WINZLER KELLY CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
PROCTOR DAVIS RAY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SCHNEIDER CONSULTING
MISSOURI ENGINEERING CORP.
PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER
INC.
ANDERSON AND ASSOC.
NEPTUNE WILKINSON ASSOC.
BLACK AND VEATCH
BLACK AND VEATCH
WOODARD AND CURRAN INC.
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES
SHETLAR GRIFFITH SHETLAR
MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
JOHN CARROL ENGINEERING
JOHN COROLLO ENGINEERS
TERRY D. DENMON AND ASSOC.
HYDROGRAPH CONTROLLED DISCHARGE LAGOON IN LIEU OF CHLORINATION
CANTON ME 0.04 WOODARD AND CURRAN INC.
PERMAFROST CONSTRUCTION
BRISTOL BAY AK
0.15
TRYCK NYMAN AND HAYES
ENERGY
COST
ENV.BEN.
ENV.BEN.
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
REG.DISCR.
&ENV
RELIABILITY
COST
COST
REG.DISCR.
ENV.BEN.
TOXICS
MGMT. &
ENV.BEN.
COST&
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST,
ENERGY &
TOXICS
MGMT.
REG.DISCR.
& ENV.BEN.
COST
28
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
NITRIFICATION
FIXED GROWTH BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION
REDWOOD FALLS MN 0.60 KBM INC. COST
NITRIFICATION ENHANCED BY AERATED POLISHING POND
BOYDTON VA 0.15 R. STUART ROYER AND ASSOC. COST
PURE OXYGEN/SINGLE STAGE NITRIFICATION
INDIANAPOLIS IN 125.00 REID QUEBE ALLISON WILCOX REG.DISCR.
ASSOC.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS FOR NITRIFICATION
MILFORD MA 1.12 HALEY AND WARD ENGINEERING COST
OAK VIEW CA 3.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING COST
ENGINEERS
SPECIALIZED BACTERIA
HORNELL NY 3.25 LABELLA ASSOC. COST
UPFLOW PACKED BED NITRIFICATION
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CO 3.20 M AND I ENGINEERS COST
NUTRIENT REMOVAL
ALLIED PROCESS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 0.50 THOMAS DEAN AND HOSKINS ENERGY
INC.
BARDENPHO
FORT MYERS FL 6.00 POST BUCKLEY SHUH ASSOC. ENERGY
PAYSON AZ 2.40 MOORE KNICKERBOCKER ASSOC. COST
BIOMEDIA FILTER TREATMENT PROCESS FOR TKN REDUCTION
OAKLAND MD 0.90 FRANKLIN ASSOC. INC. COST
BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION FOR AMMONIA REMOVAL
LONGMONT CO 11.55 MCCALL ELLINGSON MORRILL COST
INC.
CHEMICAL ADDITION TO LAGOON
ALBANY MN O.30 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOC. COST
ALBERTVILLE MN 0.05 MEYER-ROHLING INC. COST
SLUDGE DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT TREATMENT FOR AMMONIA NITROGEN REDUCTION
MOKENA IL 1.10 DONAHUE AND ASSOC. COST
USE OF WASTE PICKLE LIQUOR/PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
BALTIMORE MD 180.00 WHITMAN REQUARTH AND ASSOC. COST
OXIDATION DITCHES
ANOXIC OXIDATION DITCH
CHATHAM VA 0.45 OLVER INC. COST
29
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
BENTHAL STABILIZATION OXIDATION DITCH
WELLSBORO PA 0.01
CARROUSEL OXIDATION DITCH
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS PA 0.60
OVER-UNDER OXIDATION DITCH
FRIES VA 0.22
TATMAN AND LEE ASSOC.
TRACY ENGINEERS INC.
DEWBERRY AND DAVIS
OXIDATION DITCH WITH CENTRALLY LOCATED CLARIFIERS
KING GEORGE COUNTY VA
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
0.05
AIR DRIVEN ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
OAK VIEW CA 3.00
GILBERT CLIFFORD ASSOC.
JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER/ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
ASBURY PARK NJ
SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY
BELT FILTER PRESS
CAPE MAY COUNTY NJ
LOUISVILLE KY
BELT FILTER PRESS WITH LIME FEED
EWING-LAWRENCE NJ
CARVER-GREENFIELD
LOS ANGELES CA
RALPH PARSONS ENERGY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
BABCOCK WILCOX ENERGY
MERCER COUNTY NJ
4.40 CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.
6.30 PANDULLO QUIRK ASSOC.
105.00 CAMP DRESSER MCKEE
16.00 BUCK SIEFERT JOST INC.
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/
20 00 CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.
FACULTATIVE SLUDGE BASIN
FLAGSTAFF AZ
FREEZE/THAW SLUDGE DRYING/DEWATERING
FAIRBANKS AK
LATERAL FLOW SLUDGE THICKENERS
HUTCHINSON KS
BONNER SPRINGS KS
6.00 BROWN AND CALDWELL
8.00 ROEN DESIGN ASSOC.
12.00 WILSON AND CO.
1.40 A.C. KIRKWOOD ASSOC.
TRAVELLING GUNS FOR LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
GRAND STRAND SC 6.00 CH2M HILL
VACUUM/BELT SERIES
OKLAHOMA CITY
OK
40.00 BENHAM BLAIR AFFILIATES
COST
COST
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
COST&
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST
ENERGY
COST
ENERGY
30
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
VACUUM DE-ODORIZATION OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
SACRAMENTO COUNTY CA 340.00
WEDGE SLUDGE FILTER BEDS
CULLMAN AL
INCINERATION
CO-INCINERATION
SITKA
GLEN COVE
AK
NY
STARVED AIR COMBUSTION OF SLUDGE
ST. LOUIS MO
GREENSBORO NC
THERMAL PROCESS WITH PRODUCTION
PHILADELPHIA PA
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE KY
4.75
1.80
8.00
125.00
20.00
SACRAMENTO AREA CONSULTANTS
J.E. OTOOLE ENGINEERS
TRYCK NYMAN HAYES
WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOC.
SVERDRUP AND PARCEL ASSOC
HAZEN SAWYER
MYRTLE BEACH
SC
OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE
210.00 FRANKLIN RESEARCH INST.
0.16 PROCTOR DAVIS RAY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
12 50 PLANNING RESEARCH GROUP
ENCLOSED MECHANICAL SLUDGE COMPOSTING
AKRON OH 73.00
DOTHAN
AL
MODIFIED WINDROW COMPOSTING
TAMPA FL
SLUDGE DIGESTION
AEROBIC DIGESTION
CHINOOK MT
WEISER ID
12.00
60.00
0.50
2.30
BURGESS AND NIPLE LTD
WAINWRIGHT ENGINEERING
GREELEY AND HANSON
ROBERT PECCIA ASSOC
CH2M HILL
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
FERGUS FALLS
KASSON
MN 3.81 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK
MN 0 35 MCGHEE AND BETTS
EGG-SHAPED ANAEROBIC DIGESTOR WITH GAS UTILIZATION
JUNEAU AK 4.00 ARCTIC ENGINEERS
MISCELLANEOUS
CAPTOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT
MOUNDSVILLE WV
2.35
CERRONE AND VAUGHN
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR
COST
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
ENERGY
REG.DISCR
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.
RELIABILITY
COST
COST
COST
ENV.BEN.
ENV.BEN.
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
31
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENER
WEISER ID
2.30
EDUCTOR-INDUCED VACUUM CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DC 309.00
ENCLOSED IMPELLOR SCREW PUMP
REPUBLIC MO 0.93
SPRINGFIELD MO 6.40
WESTBOROUGH MA 7.68
HUTCHINSON KS 12.00
CH2M HILL
METCALF AND EDDY
HOOD RICH
BURNS MCDONNELL
SEA CONSULTANTS
WILSON AND CO.
FLUIDIZED BED TREATMENT OF DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT
LANSING Ml 27.00 MCNANEE PORTER
SEELEY ASSOC.
LAND APPLICATION THROUGH PEAT FILTER CELLS
BEAVER BAY MN 0.05
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON/REGENERATION
KALAMAZOO Ml 53.30
BEDFORD HEIGHTS OH 3.00
NORTH OLMSTED OH 9.00
SAUGET IL 27.00
PRIMARY TREATMENT FACILITY
EAST MILLINOCKET ME
PURE OXYGEN FLUIDIZED BED REACTOR
HAYWARD CA
NASSAU COUNTY NY
SANILOGICAL SYSTEM
BERRYSBURG
PA
SHALLOW-BED PLASTIC MEDIA BIOFILTER
DELMONT PA
SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM
KAPEHU
HI
0.49
13.10
10.00
0.04
1.74
0.02
MATEFFY ENGINEERING
JONES AND HENRY
URS DALTON
URS DALTON
RUSSELL AND AXON ASSOC.
CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE
KENNEDY JENKS ENGINEERS
CONSOER TOWNSEND ASSOC.
GLACE ASSOC.
DUNCAN LAGNESE ASSOC.
PHILIP YOSHIMURA INC.
SLOW RATE-DUAL WATER SYSTEM FOR URBAN IRRIGATION
ST. PETERSBURG FL 20.00 CH2M HILL
TEACUP GRIT REMOVAL
JUNEAU AK
TUBULAR SCREW PUMPS
GARDINER ME
UNIQUE CIRCULAR PUMP STATION
HOUSTON TX
4.00 ARCTIC ENGINEERING
1.60 SEA CONSULTANTS
531.00 LOCKWOOD ANDREWS NEWMAN
INC.
ENV.BEN.
COST
ENERGY
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COST
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COST&
REG.DISCR.
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
32
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED MORE THAN FIVE TIMES
EPA
RKGIOH STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Weat Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
Soath Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
0
V
a
*
u o
< in
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
7
£
i
i
i
i
i
5
1
3
1
1
1
7
S2
V
"4-1
1
1
2
5
8
1
2
2
2
1
A
1
6
1
1
38
! g
V
01
V
a x.
2
5
8
1
3
19
.e
o
a
J> c
2 O
H ~<
££
o o
2
2
1
2
1
8
0
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
12
j
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
7
1
21
d
o
£< «
£ U
0 SO
Id -n
v a
& *H
J3
^ O
n
2
1
1
2
6
i
«*
u
u
H
O
1
1
2
1
2
1
8
o
00
H
C
0)
0)
tj
a
o
3
u
tn
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
33
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED MORE THAN FIVE TIMES (cont.)
EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington DC
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
fill Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Trust Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
V
IP «
3 -0
H V
w eo
§60
a
3 -H
O >N
« b
> a
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
10
u
V
*_*
a
b
tH
2
1
1
1
7
4
2
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
38
u
a
a
00 O
0
B
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
17
M
O
b
a
I-H a>
b u
H C
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
a
4J
b
H
O
a
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
8
1
3
24
rf
V)
1
1
5
7
00
E
u
0.
Ȥ
a)
12
12
u
U
«
CO
d
a o
3 U
o- a
«l W
CO (Xi
1
2
3
2
5
3
1
1
2
20
a
b
a
0
OH
1
3
1
5
w
_£
u
a
a
o
g
H
O
1
1
2
6
3
1
2
1
4
1
1
23
34
-------
EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New tork
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
Hew Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
rill Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Truat Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
Z Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
ONSITE TREATMENT
; s
\ £
41
r 00
ft
5
4
1
3
4
2
1
1
5
2
6
3
1
2
40
i
i
2
4
1
8
2
1
4
1
24
1
pa
3
ex
i
1
«
2
2
in
a
u
o
1
1
1
1
4
41
H
V)
1
6
1
4
2
12
2
1
13
2
1
1
2
4
52
a
o
a.
h
5 "?
O *H
i h
g .
H *J
II
2
7
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
6
3
4
4
2
1
1
43
I
tfl
1
a
' fl
7
18
7
2
11
4
2
3
3
2
59
w
a
S
«J
V
H
1
Other
1
1
1
5
2
1
11
LAND TREATMENT
n
.-I
4-1
1
I
4J
g
11
23
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
17
8
H
Bn
o
a
M
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
6
1
2
42
]
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
8
3
3
2
3
1
12
4
2
58
a
8
to
1
1
1
3
5
1
2
20
21
2
2
21
11
9
3
13
14
1
3
1
1
29
4
8
9
6
2
11
6
6
2
11
15
3
6
3
257
41
f «
M
i O
Vt
1
1
2
11
4
1
2
1
10
5
3
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
8
3
77
1
u
H
H
§
V
4J
O
2
2
3
1
1
9
1
1
1
4
7
4
36
Q
LJJ
Q
§
Q_
o
I
LLJ
<
fe
CC
CO
CO
LLJ
QQ
35
-------
EPA
REGION STATE
I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wiaconaln
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Truat Ter.
Hawaii
Nevada
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
FOTAL
COLLECTI08
SYSTEMS
B
S
1
3
4
5
3
6
1
2
2
1
4
5
1
1
7
3
1
1
1
2
6
3
1
2
4
2
72
o.
1
1
1
2
3
16
2
14
17
2
10
2
3
2
2
6
2
2
2
5
3
9
1
3
13
1
2
1
7
1
1
136
n
b*
1
W
K
u
^
1
0
!
s
a"
vt
1
1
1
16
1
2
10
4
3
3
1
4
1
1
8
18
7
1
6
2
3
2
1
1
1
10
14
2
2
1
3
2
1
13*
ea
4J
W
5
s
u
*
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
12
ENERGY
RECOVERY
FROM SLDDGE
14
V 1
o c
o
I
« s
4J 3
I*
« §
o i*
4
3
3
16
1
5
5
2
3
5
4
2
7
1
15
3
4
8
6
2
1
1
1
7
5
7
1
4
1
4
3
2
2
3
5
3
2
4
2
157
i
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
14
SLDDGE TREATMENT
o
w
d
*H
U -O
df-4
VI CA
O 3
D P
"8
1
11
1
2
2
4
6
10
3
4
11
3
5
3
5
40
12
9
24
30
15
3
7
5
4
19
26
26
4
1
1
1
2
1
6
3
1
311
i
^J
frH
0
o
3
0.
a.
s
b
5
I
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
3
20
S
«
u
6
3
I
12
3
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
63
5
o.
0
kl
o
3
1
4
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
a
2
3
9
13
2
3
2
2
1
2
71
OTHER
I)
ff
8j
M
i!
5
S
i
2
1
2
4)
3
5
M
£
«
0
1
2
1
2
2
18
*J
i
3
*4
i
o
rf
4 *D
u a
o o
H a.
5
3
3
22
21
24
3
15
8
3
1
2
1
4
2
2
108
a
LU
a
cc
0.
\
I
i
I
cc
1X1
fe
CO
LJJ
m
36
-------
TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
Ordering
Title Code
Current I/A Technology Foldouts
Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems: Practical Approaches 1,2,3
Aquaculture: An Alternative Wastewater Treatment Approach 1,2,3
The Biological Aerated Filter: A Promising Biological Process 1,2,3
Composting: A Viable Method of Resource Recovery 1,2,3
Counter-Current Aeration: A Promising Process Modification 1,2,3
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons: A Promising Modification 1,2,3
Innovative and Alternative (I/A) Technology
Wastewater Treatment to Improve Water Quality and Reduce Cost 1,2,3
Intrachannel Clarification: A Project Assessment 1,2,3
Land Application of Sludge: A Viable Alternative 1,2,3
Land Treatment Silviculture: A Practical Approach 1,2,3
Methane Recovery: An Energy Resource 1,2,3
Overland Flow An Update: New Information Improves Reliability 1,2,3
Rapid Infiltration: A Viable Land Treatment Alternative 1,2,3
Rapid Infiltration: Plan, Design and Construct for Success 1,2,3
Sequencing Batch Reactors: A Project Assessment 1,2,3
Total Containment Ponds: Plan, Design, and Construct for Success 1,2,3
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds: An Alternative Approach 1,2,3
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on Pathogen Removal 1,2,3
Water Reuse Via Dual Distribution Systems 1,2,3
Wetlands Treatment: A Practical Approach 1,2,3
Upcoming I/A Technology Foldouts*
Biological Phosphorous Removal 1,2,3
Large Soil Absorption Systems: 1,2,3
Design Suggestions for Success
Operation of Conventional WWTF in Cold Weather 1,2,3
Disinfection with Ultraviolet Light 1,2,3
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying (Update) 1,2,3
Side-Streams in Advance Waste Treatment Plants:
Problems and Remedies 1,2,3
'Available in 1986
37
-------
TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont.)
Ordering
Research Project Summaries Code
Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters
from Multiple-Home Developments 4
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research
and Demonstration Project:
Volume IV Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study 4
Status of Porous Biomass Support Systems
for Wastewater Treatment:
An Innovative/Alternative Technology Assessment 4
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: An Alternative for
Unsewered Communities 4
Survival of Parasite Eggs in Stored Sludge 4
Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge
Land Treatment System 4
Other I/A Publications
Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Small
Communities and Rural Areas (foldout) 1
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project too Costly?:
Options for Small Communities 1
Management of On-Site and Small Community Wastewater
Systems, 600/8-82-009, July 1982 4
Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities, 600/8-80-030, August 1980 4
Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems, 625/1 -80-012, October 1980 4
A Reference Handbook on Small Scale Wastewater Technology,
November 1985 5
Guidance Manual for Sewerless Sanitary Devices and
Recycling Methods, HUD-PD&R-738, July 1983 5
Alternative Small Scale Treatment Systems
MIS Report, Vol. 17, Number 4, April 1985 6
38
-------
TABLE 4. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont.)
Ordering Codes
The documents listed in this table can be ordered from the following addresses, as
designated by document.
1. EPA-OMPC-MFD (WH-595)
401 M Street
Washington, DC 20460
2. Regional EPA off ices
3. State environmental agencies
4. EPA-Centerfor Environmental Research Information
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH
5. HUD User
P.O. Box 280
Germantown, MD 20874
6. International City Management Association
1120 G Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20005
39
-------
TABLE 5. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
PARAGOULD, AR
PHOENIX, AZ
HAYWARD, CA
CITY OF
GUSTINE, CA
MONTEREY, CA
MORROW BAY, CA
SAN DIEGO, CA
IDAHO CITY, ID
WAUCONDA, IL
JACKMAN, ME
BOSTON, MA
RISING SUN, MD
ROSSWELL, NM
TECHNOLOGY
*A/O PROCESS
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT
REMOVAL
BAFFLE SYSTEM/
SERPENTINE FLOW
DIGESTER GAS
SCRUBBING
*OXYTRON
PURE-OXYGEN FLUID
BED REACTOR
AQUACULTURE/MARSH
POLYCULTURE
ADVANCED SECONDARY
FRUIT CROP IRRIGATION
TRICKLING FILTER
SOLIDS CONTACT
AQUACULTURE/PULSED
AND FIXED BED
ANAEROBIC HYBRID
ROCK/REED FILTERS
RAPID INFILTRATION/
WETLANDS
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL/
STABILIZATION POND
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
*PHOTOZONE
ACTIVATED OZONE
DISINFECTION
*BROWN BEAR
SLUDGE DRYING
STATUS
COMPLETED
ONGOING
ONGOING
COMPLETED
COMMENTS
DEMONSTRATED GOOD
BIOLOGICAL AND
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL
DURING WINTER MONTHS
DEMONSTRATED ENERGY
SAVINGS APPROXIMATELY
23-35% COMPARED TO
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
ONGOING
COMPLETED
ONGOING
DEMONSTRATED NOT COST
EFFECTIVE COMPARED TO
UV DISINFECTION
40
-------
TABLE 5. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS (cont.)
CHEMUNG COUNTY, NY
HORNELL, NY
TOLEDO, OH
GRAND STRAND, SC
CRAIG-NEW CASTLE, VA
MOUNDSVILLE, WV
CLEAR LAKE, Wl
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
SEEDED BACTERIAL
NITRIFICATION
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR
ADVANCED WASTE
TREATMENT/WETLANDS
AQUACULTURE/FIN FISH
*CAPTOR
POROUS BIOMASS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
*ZIMPRO
FILTRATION PRIMARY
EFFLUENT USING PULSED
BED FILTER
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
ONGOING
PLANNED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
DEMONSTRATED BETTER
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
TRICKLING FILTERS AND
CHEAPER METHOD FOR
NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED CHEAPER
METHOD FOR NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED MORE THAN
20% SOLIDS AND BOD
REMOVAL
PILOT STUDY REPORT
UNDER REVIEW BY STATE
AGENCY AND EPA
DEMONSTRATED 56% SOLIDS
AND 28% BOD REMOVAL
'MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMENT
OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
41
-------
TABLE 6. 100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS
FACILITY
ATMORE, AL
OPELIKA, AL
FLAGSTAFF, AZ
FALLEN LEAF
LAKE, CA
MANILA, CA
NEVADA CITY, CA
CITY OF
REEDLEY, CA
VENTURA, CA
NYLAND ACRES
NORTH COAST, CA
STERLING, CO
FAIRFIELD, IA
HANOVER, IL
WAYNESVILLE, IL
AUBURN, IN
PORTAGE, IN
SABATTUS, ME
TECHNOLOGY
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
TUBE SETTLERS
DISINFECTION
VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
AIR EJECTION SYSTEM
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
SONIC LEVEL DETECTORS
VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
INNOVATIVE POND
UNDERDRAINS
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS AND PUMPS
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
PUMP COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS AND PUMPS
MICROSCREENS-PONDS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
SAND FILTER
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
SWIRL CONCENTRATORS
VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
UV DISINFECTION
STATUS
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 9/83
AWARDED 8/83
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 4/86
UNDER REVIEW
42
-------
TABLE 6. 100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS (cont.)
SOUTH PORTLAND, ME
RISING SUN, MD
FALL RIVER, MA
MOREHEAD, MN
NORTHFIELD, MN
ROCHESTER, MN
SCOTTS BLUFF, NE
STAFFORD, NJ
SANTE FE, NM
LAWRENCE, NY
CHURCHS FERRY, ND
CLIFFORD, ND
BEDFORD HEIGHTS, OH
CRANSTON, Rl
BLACK DIAMOND, WA
ELBE, WA
CRAB ORCHARD-
MACARTHUR, WV
CAMBELLSPORT, Wl
MAYWARD, Wl
WITTENBERG, Wl
COMPOSTING
ACTIVIATED OZONE
DISINFECTION
SELF SUSTAINING
INCINERATION
OZONE DISINFECTION
UV DISINFECTION
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHOROUS
REMOVAL
MICROSCREENS
VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM
CONTROLLERS
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
POWDERED ACTIVATED
CARBON
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
WETLANDS
COMMUNITY MOUND SYSTEM
DRAFT TUBE AERATORS
RAPID INFILTRATION
RAPID INFILTRATION
SEEPAGE CELLS
UNDER REVIEW
AWARD
PENDING
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 9/85
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
AWARDED 9/85
UNDER REVIEW
UNDER REVIEW
43
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS
US EPA-REGION I
Charles Conway
US EPA Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3582
(FTS) 835-3582
Connecticut
William Hogan
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-2373
Maine
Dennis Purington
Department of Environmental
Protection
Hospital Street
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)289-3901
Massachusetts
Robert Cady
Division of Water Pollution Control
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5713
Rhode Island
Edward Szymanski
Rhode Island Division of Water Supply
and Pollution Control
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rl 02908
(401)277-3961
Vermont
Edward Leonard
Environmental Engineering Division
Vermont Agency of Evironmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3345
New Hampshire
Paul Currier
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2508
US EPA-REGION II
Bruce Kiselica
US EPA Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-5670
(FTS) 264-5670
New Jersey
Bob Simicsak
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)292-2723
New York
John Marschilok
Technical Assistance Section
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-3810
44
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Puerto Rico
Jose Bentacourt, Chief
Local Assistance Grants Section
I/A Coordinator
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-5140, ext. 355
Virgin Islands
Phyllis Brin, Director
Natural Resources Management Office
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and
Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-3320
US EPA-REGION III
David Byro
US EPA Water Management Division
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6534
(FTS) 597-6534
Delaware
Roy R. Parikh
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, DE19901
(302) 736-5081
District of Columbia
Leonard R. Benson
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
Water and Sewer Utility Commission
Office of Engineering Services
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 767-7603
Maryland
Hitesh Nigam
Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental Protection
201W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)659-3082
(FTS) 659-3082
Walter Gills
Virginia State Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
(804)257-6308
West Virginia
Elbert Morton
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)348-0633
Pennsylvania
Brij Garg
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA17120
(717)787-3481
US EPA-REGION IV
Bob Freeman
US EPA Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
45
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Alabama
David Hutchinson
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7700
Florida
BhupendraVora
Bureau of Wastewater Management
and Grants
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-8163
Georgia
David Freedam
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)656-4769
Kentucky
Vince Borres
Construction Grants Branch
Division of Water
Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
18 Reilly Road
Ft. Boone Plaza
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410 ext. 509
Mississippi
Jon Huey
Municipal Facilities Branch
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
(601)961-5113
North Carolina
Allen Wahab
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-6900
South Carolina
Sam Grant
201 Planning Environmental Quality Control
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211
(803)758-5067
Tennessee
Zakariya Mohyuddin
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Terra Building, 3rd Floor
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37203
(615)741-0638
US EPA-REGION V
Charles Pycha
US EPA Water Managemet Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0259
(FTS) 886-0259
Illinois
James Leinicke
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217)782-2027
46
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Indiana
Robert Penno
Special Projects Section
Water Management Division
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
(317) 232-8636
Michigan
Brian Myers
Community Assistance Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517) 373-6626
Minnesota
David Kortan
Technical Review Section
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 296-7387
Ohio
Sanat K. Barua
Division of Construction Grants
Ohio Evironmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 466-8974
Wisconsin
John Melby
Municipal Wastewater Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madision, Wl 53707
(608) 267-7666
US EPA-REGION VI
Ancil Jones
US EPA Water Management Division
InterfirstTwo Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 767-8958
(FTS) 729-8958
Arkansas
Martin Roy
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 Natural Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501)562-8910
Louisiana
Ashok Patel
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
1170 Airline Highway
Baton Rouge, LA 70807
(504) 922-0530
New Mexico
Robert W.Kane
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Water Quality Section
P.O. Box 968
Harold Runnels Bldg.
Santa Fe, NM 87501
(505) 827-2810
Oklahoma
Dr. H.J. Thung
Oklahoma Department of Health
3400 North Eastern Avenue
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7346
47
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Texas
Milton Rose
Texas Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-8513
US EPA-REGION VII
Rao Surampalli
US EPA Water Management Division
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Iowa
Wayne Farrand
Construction Grants Branch
Program Operations Division
Iowa Department of Water, Air and
Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA 50319
(515)281-8992
Kansas
Rodney Geisler
Municipal Programs Section
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field
Topeka,KS 66620
(913) 862-9360
Missouri
Douglas Garrett
Water Pollution Control Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Post Off ice Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314)751-3241
Nebraska
Lisa Corl
Construction Grants Branch
Water Quality Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-4268
US EPA-REGION VIII
Stan Smith
US EPA Water Management Division
1 Denver Place
999-18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
(303)293-1547
(FTS) 564-1547
Colorado
Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303) 320-8333
Montana
Scott Anderson
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-2406
North Dakota
Wayne Kern
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
North Dakota Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, ND 58505
(701)224-2354
48
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Utah
Kiran L. Bhayani
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0555
(801)533-6146
Wyoming
Mike Hackett
Water Quality Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7083
South Dakota
Ted Streckfuss
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3351
US EPA-REGION IX
Susan Johnson
US EPA Water Management Division
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8266
(FTS) 454-8266
Arizona
Roy Frey
Arizona Department of Health Services
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 257-2226
California
Don Owen
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916)322-3004
Hawaii
Hiram Young
Construction Grants Program
Hawaii State Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-4127
Nevada
James Williams
Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
201S. Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 885-5870
US EPA-REGION X
Tom Johnson
US EPA Water Management Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-2887
(FTS) 399-2887
Alaska
Richard Marcum
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water Programs
Pouch "0"
Juneau,AK 99811
(907) 465-2610
49
-------
TABLE 7. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont.)
Idaho
Robert Braun
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environment
State House
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-4269
Bob Evans
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, OR 97207
(503)229-5257
Washington
Chris Haynes
Department of Ecology
Office of Water Programs
Olympia,WA 98504
(206) 459-6101
Washington EPA-OMPC
National I/A Coordinator
Richard E. Thomas
James Wheeler
USEPA(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7368
(FTS) 382-7368
Washington EPA-OMPC
I/A Technology Data Base Manager
Charles Vanderlyn
USEPA(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-7277
(FTS) 382-7277
Washington EPA - OMPC
Small Flows Technology Contact
John Flowers
USEPA(WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)382-7288
(FTS) 382-7288
Cincinnati EPA-WERL
Research I/A Contact
Jim Kreissl
US EPA WERL
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7611
(FTS) 684-7611
National Small Flows
Clearinghouse Manager
Steve Dix
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 293-4191
(800) 624-8301
15PL-16)
8 GOVERNMENT PBIJJTIMO OFFICE 1986 - 621-735 - 1302/60527
50
------- |