United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Municipal
Pollution Control (WH-595)
Municipal Facilities Division
Washington DC 20460
September 1938
Office of Water
Municipal Wastewater
Conveyance and Treatment
Technological Progress and
Emerging Issues 1988
SOURCES AND FATE OF
TOXICS/TOXICITY
AT POTW'S
EFFLUENT
\\
COMMERCIAL
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
^L"* iOfT«« Of CUb ' COMTIOL
F«f t WATtK SUNPACe WETLAND
vtof*Tco
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PROBLEMS
^rfH
-------
SEPTEMBER 1988
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
Technological Progress and Emerging Issues 1988
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER
OFFICE OF
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
PREFACE
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Municipal Pollution
Control (OMPC) has prepared this report to provide interested parties with an overview
of technological progress and emerging issues in the collection and treatment of
municipal wastewater. The report summarizes a wide range of information in three (3)
major topical areas: toxics, collection and treatment technology, and operation and
maintenance. Each section provides a synopsis of recent findings or developments.
Where possible, references to more detailed sources of information are included for
those wishing to explore any of these topics further. Included as appendices to this
report are summary tables similar in form to those published in the past as part of EPA's
annual "Innovative and Alternative Technology Progress Report" to which this
document is a successor.
OMPC welcomes your comments and suggestions on this document. Please direct
them to Mr. Peter E. Shanaghan, OMPC WH-595, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20460. . .'
MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES
NOT CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMENT OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals contributed to the preparation and review of this report. The
document was prepared by Engineering-Science, Inc. (ES) for EPA's Office of
Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC).
- Authors:
Kathleen A. Scheutzow, ES
Janet E. Bishop, ES
Peter E. Shanaghan, USEPA, OMPC
- Contributing Authors:
James F. Kreissl, USEPA, RREL
Randy Revetta, USEPA, OMPC •
Irene Horner, USEPA, OMPC
Brian Thompson, USEPA, OMPC .
Jonathan Braswell ES
John Walker, USEPA, OMPC
Robert K. Bastian, USEPA, OMPC
- Graphics
Maureen Glick, ES
- Reviewers:
Charles Vanderlyn, USEPA, OMPC
J- nes Wheeler, USEPA, OMPC
Robert Penno, Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Hitesh Nigam, Maryland Department of Environment
Charles Pycha, USEPA, Region V
Ancil Jones, USEPA, Region VI
Duane Wilding, USEPA, OMPC
Lam Lim, USEPA, OMPC
Robert Blanco, USEPA, OMPC
Connie Bosma, USEPA, OMPC
Ed Drabowski, USEPA, OWRS
Rick Brandes, USEPA, OMPC
Atal Erlap, USEPA, OMPC
John P. Lehman, USEPA, OMPC
- EPA Project Manager
Peter E. Shanaghan, USEPA, OMPC
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES iv
INTRODUCTION v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
CHALLENGE OF TOXICS FOR POTW's
The Issue is Water Quality 1
Sources of Toxics 4
Toxics Removal Capabilities of POTW's 4
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY
Conveyance Systems 7 .
Treatment Technology 16
Preliminary Treatment 16
Secondary Treatment 18
Greater Than Secondary Treatment 26
Disinfection 33
Sludge Treatment 34
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Clean Water Act 104 Program 39
Comprehensive Perfor-'ince Evaluation (CPE) 39
Operator Training as a Performance Limiting Factor 40
Administrative Policies as a Performance Limiting Factor 40
APPENDIX A-Technology Transfer Initiatives by
Region V, Region VI, and the National
Small Flows Clearinghouse
APPENDIX B-List of Regional and State Contacts for
Innovative/Alternative Technology,
Sludge Technology and Operation
and Maintenance/Operator Training
APPENDIX C-Summary of Innovative/Alternative Projects by
State
APPENDIX D-List of Innovative/Alternative Technology Publications
APPENDIX E-Innovative/Alternative Field Test Projects
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1 Secondary Treatment Regulation 19
2 Comparison of Land Treatment Methods 28
LIST OF FIGURES
NO. TITLE PAGE
1 Sources of Toxics/Toxicity in Surface Waters 2
2 Sources and Fate of Toxics/Toxicity at POTW's 5
3 Collection System Problems 7
4 No Dig vs. Open Trench Sewer Rehabilitation 10
5 No-Dig Lateral Sewer Rehabilitation 12
6 Pressure Sewers, GP 13
7 Pressure Sewers, STEP 13
8 Small Diameter Gravity Sewers 14
9 Vacuum Sewers 15
10 Preliminary Treatment Utilization 16
11 Secondary Treatment Process^ 18
12 Sequencing Batch Reactors 21
13 Trickling Filter Conventional vs. Recent Advances 22
14 TF/SC Process . 23
15 " Constructed Wetlands 27
16 A/O Process 30
17 Modified Bardenpho Process 31
18 Phostrip Process 32
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
The 1980's have been marked by significant technological progress in the
municipal wastewater pollution control field. The Innovative and Alternative (I/A)
technology program has played a major role in facilitating much of this progress.
Since 1983, EPA has issued annual "Innovative and Alternative Technology
Progress Reports" to document the technical accomplishments of the I/A program. This
year, in response to the challenges we face implementing the 1987 Water Quality Act
(WQAX EPA is refocusing the annual technology progress report. A Report to Congress
on the Effectiveness of the Innovative and Alternative Wastewater Treatment
Technology Program is also being prepared.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 affects the municipal wastewater pollution
control field in a number of significant ways. These include changes in methods of .
financing municipal sewerage works construction, identification and control of toxic
pollutants and establishing regulatory programs for sewage sludge.
"Municipal Wastewater Collection and Treatment - Technological Progress and
Emerging Issues 1988" is intended to provide an overview of technical progress not only
under the I/A program, but in the broader municipal technology field as well. Thus, in
addition to discussing progress in I/A technologies such as land treatment, sequencing
batch reactors, and alternative collection systems, the report also discusses progress in
conventional technologies such as activated sludge, trickling filters, and collection system
rehabilitation. This report also discusses emerging issues in th; :nunicipal wastewater
field such as toxics control, sulfide corrosion of sewers, and new sludge regulations.
EPA's technology transfer efforts are evolving to meet the new challenges we face.
This document is but one example of that evolutionary process. Across the Agency, a
number of initiatives are underway which will help provide the technical community with
the information needed to meet our nation's clean water goals. Examples of these
initiatives include Region V's Special Evaluation Projects, Region VI's Feedback-to-
Design Program and the National Small Flows Clearinghouse. A summary of these
initiatives is provided in Appendix A.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of technological progress and emerging issues in
the conveyance and treatment of municipal wastewater. It is a successor to EPA's
annual "Innovative and Alternative Technology Progress Reports". The three major
topics covered in this report are: toxics, conveyance and treatment technology, and
operation and maintenance..
TOXICS
Despite the great advances made in recent years to control toxic discharges
through implementation of pretreatment programs, many POTW's may still be
contributing to toxic pollutant related water quality problems. Section 304(1) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by the 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA) requires
States to, among other things, prepare a list of waters not expected to achieve applicable
water quality standards for toxics due to point source discharges. NPDES permit
limitations are to be imposed on these point sources to ensure that water quality
standards will be met. Thus, many POTW's may soon be facing either chemical specific
permit limits for toxics or whole effluent toxicity limits. In addition, POTW's may face a
variety of responsibilities under a number of other environmental statutes including the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act.
Toxic pollutants and toxicity in POTW effluents may be contributed by a range of
sources including industrial, commercial, and residential users as well as the PO i
-------
groundwater contamination, but noted that information necessary to assess the impact of
sewer exfiltration was lacking. The sewer exfiltration study has been undertaken to fill
this information need.:
Sewer Rehabilitation - Sewers that have been damaged by corrosion, cracking, or joint
disruption are subject to infiltration and exfiltration. Various no-dig rehabilitation
technioues have been developed to facilitate sewer repair in high traffic flow urban
areas. Techniques for sliplining existing sewers with resin impregnated felt tubing or
plastic pipe have been developed and marketed by several companies. Localized sealing
systems using resin injection equipment and various types of packers with television
inspection systems are available. Building sewers have been found to be major source of
the infiltration into sewer systems. Methods to internally inspect and seal building
sewers without costly excavation and the need to access private property are being
developed.
Alternative Conveyance Systems - Under the innovative/alternative technology program,
substantial experience has been gained over the last ten years with alternative
conveyance systems. Alternative conveyance systems are designed to overcome the
economic disadvantages of conventional gravity sewers in less developed areas. The
three principal categories of alternative conveyance systems are pressure, vacuum, and
small diameter gravity sewers. EPA is working with other Federal Agencies to evaluate
the experiences gained from operation of these systems.
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
There are many processes available to effectively treat municipal wastewater.
These can be grouped into preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary or advanced
treatment. Preliminary treatment consists of unit operations such as screening and grit
removal to improve downstream operations and processes and to protect mechanical
equipment. A 1987 EPA report "Preliminary Treatment Facilities Design and
Operational Considerations highlights recent advances in these unit processes.
Secondary Treatment - Secondary treatment is defined in terms of effluent quality by the
Secondary Treatment Regulation at 40 CFR Part 133. Widely used technologies to
achieve secondary treatment include lagoons, activated sludge, and trickling filters. A
number of recent advances have occurred in these technologies. The EPA Summary
Report 'The Causes and Control of Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming" provides
information on possible solutions to these common.activated sludge problems.
Sequencing Batch Reactors may be an activated sludge option that makes sense for
some small communities. The EPA Summary Report "Sequencing Batch Reactors"
details design and operational considerations for this technology. The Trickling
Filters/Solids Contact Process is a promising technology for upgrading existing trickling
filter plants.
Greater than Secondary Treatment - Several processes are available to achieve
treatment levels equal to or more stringent than.secondary. The most widely used or
most promising of these technologies are land treatment, constructed wetlands, and
biological phosphorus removal. Land treatment involves the controlled application of
wastewater onto the land surface to achieve treatment through natural physical/
chemical and biological processes during contact with the vegetation and soil. The I/A
program has significantly advanced the understanding and use of land treatment systems
by funding 249 slow rate systems, 71 rapid infiltration systems, and 49 overland flow
systems. Constructed wetlands are man-made systems which employ aquatic vegetation
to assist in the treatment of wastewater. Various demonstration projects in Europe and
vii
-------
North America indicate that these systems have considerable potential for small
community wastewater treatment application. Biological Phosphorus Removal
processes are variations of the activated sludge process which employ an anaerobic stage
(Phosphorus release) followed by an aerobic stage (Phosphorus uptake in excess of
normal). Several of these systems are patented. The major continuous flow systems are
the A/O Process, Modified Bardenphb Process, Phostrip Process, and Modified
Activated Sludge.
Disinfection - Chlorination is by far the most common method of wastewater disinfection
in the U.S. However, dechlorination is being more frequently required due to concerns
about the toxic effects of chlorine residuals. Through the I/A program, considerable
experience has been gained with disinfection by Ultraviolet Irradiation. In light of these
factors, EPA is undertaking a review of its 1976 Municipal Wastewater Disinfection
Policy.
SLUDGE TREATMENT
Changing Sludge Regulations - EPA is well along the way toward proposing the first
round of comprehensive technical regulations covering incineration, ocean disposal,
landfill, land application and distribution and marketing practices. The agency has also
reproposed its State Sludge Management Program Regulations in conjunction with
proposed changes to the NPDES permit regulations.
EPA has, for many years, actively encouraged the beneficial utilization of sewage
sludge and has recently established an awards program to recognize efforts promoting
sludge beneficial use.
Recent Advances in Sludge Processing Technologies -Dewatering is a physical unit
operation used to reduce the moisture content of sludge. Recent advances in sludge
dewatering include: mechanical-assisted air drying, vacuum-assisted drying beds and
planting reeds into drying beds. Composting is a sludge management option that
employs biological decomposition to convert sludge into a stable humus. EPA is
studying the major types of in-vessel sludge composting systems and will produce a guide
for design, evaluation and procurement of in-vessel systems with attention to odor
control. Incineration is a sludge management option which reduces the quantity of solid
material by combustion of organic solids. EPA recently conducted a study on emissions
from incinerators as they are normally operated.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Since 1982, EPA has implemented an on-site municipal wastewater treatment
plant operator training and compliance assistance program for small communities.
Under Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act, States provide "over-the-shoulder"
assistance to small plants up to 5 mgd size. This training also addresses financial
management problems and issue resolution with local officials.
A comprehensive performance evaluation (CPE) seeks to determine if major
facility upgrades are required or if a Composite Correction Program will produce the
required effluent quality. A CPE consists of an evaluation of major unit processes,
identification and prioritization of performance limiting factors, and assessment of the
ability of a composite correction program to improve performance. In national surveys,
operator application of concepts and testing to process control and administrative
policies were found to be significant performance limiting factors. EPA is currently
preparing a report on its analysis of performance limiting factors.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
CHALLENGE OF TOXICS FOR POTW'S
THE ISSUE IS WATER QUALITY
Meeting our Nation's water quality goals will require new or expanded toxic
discharge control initiatives by many publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). As
shown in Figure 1, toxic pollutants originate from a number of sources including direct
industrial discharges, stormwater discharges, and urban and agricultural runoff
(non-point sources). In addition, despite the great advances made in recent years to
control toxic discharges through implementation of pretreatment programs, many
POTWs may still be contributing to toxic pollutant related water quality problems.
Congressional concern that some waters would not meet water quality standards due to
toxic pollutants even after implementation of technology based controls, ie., BAT,
pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards, is reflected in the
amendments to the Clean Water Act made by the 1987 Water Quality Act.
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the 1987 Water Quality Act
requires States to identify and list waters impaired by point and non-point source
discharges of toxic or non-toxic pollutants, as well as the amounts of such pollutants
discharged by each source.
Within the context of the Clean Water Act, there are several key terms applying to
surface water toxics control. These terms are defined as follows:
"Priority pollutant" - Any of the 126 pollutants listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR
Part 122. The 126 priority pollutants are derived from the 65 classes of compounds
listed at 40 CFR 401.15.
'Toxic pollutant" - Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(l) of the
CWA. EPA has listed 65 classes of compounds under Section 307(a)(l) of the CWA,
and these categories or compounds are located at 40 CFR 401.15.
"Toxics" - Refers to any pollutant or combination of pollutants which causes
toxicity to aquatic life or terrestrial life or causes adverse human health affects.
"Whole effluent toxicity" - The aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured
directly with a toxicity test. A toxicity test measures the degree of response of an
exposed test organism to a specific chemical or effluent.
IDENTIFYING IMPAIRED WATERS - SECTION 304(1) LISTS
"Long List" - A comprehensive list of waters which are not expected to meet water
quality standards for their established designated uses after application of technology
based limits due to point or non-point source discharges of toxic or non-toxic pollutants.
-------
SOURCES OF TOXICS/TOXICITY
IN SURFACE WATERS
STOR
WATER
DISCHARGES
:~',-rN
• • « « »— ^44 <_< » . _ . <«. <•.;(
. 4 .... ^~ i/< * .. ._.• _. .y
-*• — >.._.« .. • « i / •
«l^« » • • . * «• • A. . . 10
XJUk «k» >-«- ••—( * <
^—..
1 '
™
NON
POINT
SOURCES
POTW
POINT
SOURCE
INDUSTRIAL
POINT
SOURCES
FIGURE 1
2
-------
"Short List" - List of waters not expected to achieve applicable water quality
standards which may be narrative, i.e., "no toxic substances in toxic amounts or
numerical, i.e., numeric criteria within water quality standards for Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants, after application of technology based limits and pretreatment standards due
entirely or substantially to point source discharges of Section 3Q7(a) toxics.
"Mini List" - List of waters which are not expected to achieve numeric water quality
standards for Section 307(a) toxics after application of technology based limitations due
to point or non-point source discharges.
IMPACT ON PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTWS)
For each stream segment or waterbody on the Short List, the State must identify
the specific point sources, including POTW's, discharging any Section 307(a) toxic
pollutant and the amount discharged.
The State must then prepare an Individual Control Strategy (ICS) for each
waterbody or segment on the short List. The ICS generally consists of an NPDES
permit for each point source along with documentation of the total maximum daily load.
and the wasteload allocation for individual discharges. Dischargers must comply with all
NPDES permit limitations by June 1992.
POTW PERMIT LIMITS FOR TOXICS
PQTW permits may contain two types of limits for toxics:
Chemical-Specific Limits - Numerical limits derived from water quality criteria or State
water quality standards. They are expressed as concentrations of the pollutant (mg/L) or
loadings (Ibs/day).
Whole-Effluent Toxicity Limits - Whole-effluent toxicity is the aggregate toxic effect of
an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test. In a toxicity test, an effluent sample is -
collected and diluted, usually with receiving water, in test chambers. Test organisms are
placed in these test chambers for specified periods of time. At various points during the
testing period, the number of organisms affected in each chamber is counted (the
endpoint can be mortality, reduced growth, etc.) and the lowest effluent concentration
that causes that endpoint is calculated. The endpoint is usually stated as an LC50 (the
effluent concentration at which 50 percent of the test organisms are killed) or a No
Observed Effect Level or NOEL (the highest effluent concentration at which no
unacceptable effect will occur even at continuous exposure).
In a permit, the LC50 or NOEL may be expressed in terms of Toxic Units (TU) as
defined by:
TU= 100
LC50 or NOEL
where LC50 or NOEL is expressed as percent effluent in dilution water.
Toxic Units are properly expressed as acute (TUa) or chronic (TUc) depending
upon the type of toxicity measured. Acute toxicity involves a stimulus severe enough to
rapidly induce a response, typically 96 hours or less. Chronic toxicity involves a stimulus
that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often 1/10 of the life span or
more. .
-------
In addition to permit limits established under the authority of the Clean Water
Act, POTW's may face regulation under a number of other enviornmental statutes
designed to control toxic and hazardous materials. These statutes include the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA); and the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is preparing a booklet entitled
"Overview of Toxic Pollutant Issues for POTW's. This booklet will be available in late
1988 and will assist POTWs in understanding their responsibility under these newer
environmental statutes.
SOURCES OF TOXICS
The toxic pollutants and toxicity present in municipal wastewater are contributed
by a range of sources. As shown in Figure 2, although major industrial users controlled
under the pretreatment program can be a significant source of toxic pollutants and
toxicity, toxicjpollutants and toxicity are also contributed by commercial users and
households. For smaller POTWs and POTWs with few industrial users, commercial and
household sources can be the predominant source of toxic pollutants and toxicity.
Additionally, in-plant sources such as in-plant recycle streams and excessive chlorination
can contribute significantly to effluent toxicity.
TOXICS REMOVAL CAPABILITIES OF POTWS
The fate of toxic pollutants and toxicity in municipal wastewater will depend on the
nature and characteristics of the individual constituents. Research is ongoing to define
the fate of specific pollutants. Although many organic toxic pollutants are degraded
during biological treatment, some may partition to the air or the sludge. As toxic metals
are not biodegradable, the removal that does occur results from their partition to the
sludge. Thus, while the treatment provided by POTWs can reduce specific toxic
constituents and can reduce the overall toxicity of the wastewater, partitioning of toxic
pollutants may cause pollution problems in other media, ie., air or sludge.
Process performance data from research studies and from studies at POTWs
demonstrates that conventional POTW treatment processes are capable of removing
significant fractions of toxic pollutants from the wastewater. Under optimum conditions,
over 95 percent removal of volatile and semi-volatile organics can be achieved. Trace
metal removals vary, depending on the metal, between 20 and 90 percent.
Actual removal performance in POTWs for toxic organics is more variable and
treatment efficiencies are generally lower than predicted under optimum conditions.
This lower removal performance is the result or the fluctuating concentrations of toxic
pollutants generally present in municipal wastewaters and poorer acclimation of the
biological treatment process to specific toxic pollutants.
Substantial removal of toxicity can also be achieved by POTWs. Where
non-refractory readily biodegradable toxics are responsible for the measured toxicity,
complete removal of toxicity can be achieved by a POTW; however, where refractory
toxics are present on an intermittent or continuous basis, the pass-through of residual
toxicity will occur. Moreover, this residual toxicity generally cannot be attributed to
identifiable toxic pollutants.
-------
SOURCES AND FATE OF
TOXICS/TOXICITY
AT POTW'S
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIAL
AIR
EMISSIONS
EFFLUENT
COMMERCIAL
FIGURE 2
-------
ENHANCING POTW TOXICS AND TOXICITY REMOVAL
Where toxics or toxicity are present in a POTW's effluent, additional source
control can be implemented or additional removal of toxics and toxicity can be achieved
through optimization of treatment facility process performance.
Industrial and commercial source control of toxicity can be implemented through
local pretreatment limitations based on the authority of the Clean Water Act and the
General Pretreatment regulations. Toxics and toxicity control can be justified to insure
water quality protection, sludge quality protection, eliminate treatment process
operational problems, worker health and safety and to limit air emissions.
Based on the conditions present at a specific POTW, several technical approaches
to industrial and commercial source control can be used. These approaches are outlined
as follows:
o Allowable Headworks Loading Method -- numeric limits are based on the
maximum loadings of pollutants that will allow compliance with receiving water
quality criteria or. sludge quality criteria or protection against treatment
interferences.
o Collection System Method - numeric limits are based on worker health and
safety criteria.
o Industrial User Management Method - based on an in-depth review of IU
practices the municipality can set narrative limits for chemical management
practices (e.g., chemical substitution, spill prevention).
o Technology-Based Limits -- numeric limits are based on levels that can be
feasibly and economically achieved by comparable industries.
When additional industrial source control does not sufficiently reduce effluent
toxicity, a POTW will have to improve the toxicity removal capabilities of its own
treatment processes. This may involve operation and maintenance changes to optimize
toxicity removal through existing processes. Toxics and toxicity removal is related to the
removal performance of conventional parameters thus, through stabilization of plant
performance, a parallel reduction in effluent toxics and toxicity can be achieved. If this is
insufficient, then new additional treatment processes, e.g., filtration, may need to be
considered.
EPA is currently preparing a Handbook for Managing Toxic Pollutants in POTWs
which is expected to be available late 1988.
-------
SECTION 2
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
Current issues in conveyance system technology include:
o Sulfide Corrosion
o Rainfall Induced Infiltration
o Sewer Exfiltration
o Sewer Rehabilitation
o Alternative Conveyance Systems
Figure 3 depicts infiltration, exfiltration, and sulfide corrosion.
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PROBLEMS
DIMINISHED WALL
THICKNESS W/SULFIDE
CORROSION"
GRADE
SULFIDE
CORROSION
/CONCRETE
V SEWERS J
EXFILTRATION
GROUNDWATER —
FIGURE 3
-------
SULFIDE CORROSION
Accelerated, severe corrosion of the sewers and parts of the wastewater treatment
plant in the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC) convinced
Congress that sulfide corrosion needed additional study. The corrosion rate in CSDLAC
is ten times that seen in the early 1970's and four times the rate predicted based on the
observed sulfide levels. At the same time corrosion increased in CSDLAC sewers, the
concentration of metals and cyanides in the wastewater decreased.
EPA analyzed limited information on 34 cities with corrosion potential to identify
factors associated with "corrosion. Corrosion seemed more prevalant after turbulent flow
that can entrain hydrogen sulfide gas into the headspace of the pipes; after force mains,
in manholes and in flow transition structures: after long detention times: and in cities
with warmer sewage temperatures. In addition all four cities that transmit wastewater
treatment sludge in the conveyance system had corrosion.
Other factors did not ensure corrosion incidence in the 34 cities even though they
may favor anaerobic conditions: separate vs. combined sewers, which have less dilution
of sewage and surcharging, systems serving large populations, long transmission
distances, slow flow, and regionalized treatment systems . Actually, three systems with
many treatment plants (9,16, or 30) also have corrosion in the conveyance system.
EPA visited six sewer systems with known corrosion problems besides the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. These six systems experienced corrosion at
turbulent points where force mains discharge to gravity sewers, at lift stations, in laterals
near interceptors, at changes in grade or direction, pump station discharges, and drop
connections; after excessive sewage detention time caused by hydraulically oversized
sewers, flat slopes, or slow flow; and in warm temperature sewage. All six cities had one
to four sites with rapid corrosion rates, estimated to corrode at least an inch of concrete
in 33 years. However, no cities appear to have corrosion rates as high as the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
Remaining tasks to complete the Report to Congress include completing the
preparation of proceedings from a sulfide corrosion workshop attended by corrosion
experts, further study of sulfide corrosion and contributing factors, analysis of existing
data on the extent of corrosion in other cities, and a summary of control measures for
existing and new sewers.
RAINFALL INDUCED INFILTRATION
Rainfall Induced Infiltration (RII) may be defined as storm water which enters the
sanitary sewer system indirectly through openings and defects in sewer pipes and
manholes located above the permanent groundwater table. RII produces a flow
response in the sewer system which is directly influenced by the intensity and duration of
rainfall and is often characterized by a rapid response in wastewater flow to rainfall. RII
is also a significant contributor to peak wet weather flows. The East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) in Oakland, California for example, has experienced
short-term peaking factors of up to 22:1. RII is similar to groundwater infiltration
(GWI) in terms of the types of defects through which extraneous flow enters the sewer
system, but its response to rainfall is similar to that of direct storm water inflow (SW1).
-------
Section 523 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 directs EPA to study problems
associated with RII, and specifically methods of regulating RII into the sewer systems of
EBMUD. An integral part of the study will focus on a national assessment of the
problems associated with RII, correction methods/approaches, and key factors
impacting the occurrence and magnitude of RII. The assessment will rely on a four city
survey as well as a detailed analysis of nine cities to ascertain how RII has been
documented for each system.
Key factors that affect RII relate to both the physical characteristics of the sewer
system and the natural characteristics of the service area. Key factors in the physical
characteristics of the sewer system that affect RII include:
o Sewer construction (pipe/joint material, bedding/backfill)
o Sewer condition (number and types of defects; this is highly dependent on
age, maintenance, extent of root instrusion, etc.')
o Sewer profile with respect to impermeable soil layers.
o Sewer depth below the ground surface and with respect to the groundwater
table.
o Sewer density (amount of pipe per unit area).
Key factors in the natural characteristics of the service area that affect RII include:
o Soil characteristics (porosity, moisture content)
o Geologic characteristics (depth to bedrock)
o Ground water (Perched water table occurrence and duration)
o Topography.
Other activities of the study include an evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of
controlling RII through analysis of "model" conveyance systems and control strategies.
The objective of this analysis will be to determine the cost-effective level of RII control
(transport and treatment cost savings greater than RII correction cost). Also included
will be an assessment of RII flows on wastewater treatment plant performance.
SEWER EXFILTRATION STUDY
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act called for a Domestic Sewage Study which has been completed and
submitted to Congress. The Domestic Sewage Study addressed: the type, size and
number of hazardous waste generators discharging to municipal conveyance systems; the
types and Quantities of hazardous wastes discharged to sewers; and the significant
generators wastes and constituents not regulated in a manner sufficient to protect
human health and the environment. This study identified both the possibility of
groundwater contamination from sewer exfiltration and the unavailability of information
needed to make proper impact assessment and recommended additional research, data
conveyance and analysis.
As a result of these recommendations, the Sewer Exfiltration Study was initiated to
determine if groundwater contamination from exfiltrating sewers is a problem. Earlier
work included use of an existing mathematical model relating exfiltration to infiltration
based on laboratory studies. This model was found invalid during field studies for
verification and calibration.
-------
Most recently field work including groundwater sampling has been conducted at
three sites where:
1. Sewers carry a significant portion of industrial effluents.
2. Exfiltration is occurring.
3. Pollutants may be migrating to ground water.
The sampling program included the 126 priority pollutants, total phenolics, chlorides,
viruses, bacteria and other pollutants. Samples taken included:
o Sewage.
o Soil adjacent to the sewer.
o Upgradient ground water.
o Downgradient ground water.
Additional work may be conducted depending on the results of the sampling work
and the availability of funding.
SEWER REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES
Sewers that have been damaged by corrosion, cracking or joint disruption or
failure are subject to infiltration, exfiltration and rainfall induced infiltration. As shown
in Figure 4, open excavation for repairs in high traffic flow urban areas poses
considerable economic and logistic problems. To avoid the need to reroute traffic,
NO DIG VS OPEN TRENCH
SEWER REHABILITATION
/>xX/>SN
«•
FIGURE 4
10
-------
demolish and replace roadways, etc., various no-dig rehabilitation techniques have been
developed. Repair technologies include:
o sliplining
o sprays
o seals
Sliplining processes either reduce the existing pipe diameter slightly or stretch or
expand the existing diameter. The Insituform process, patented and licensed by
Insituform of North America, Inc., Tennessee, uses a thin (1/8") resin impregnated felt
tubing. The tube is inserted into the line via an existing access point and cold water
pressure forces the tubing through the pipe. The material is inverted and pressed
against the pipeline by the water. The resin is cured to a smooth hard surface by heating
the water. A more chemically resistant resin is available, if needed. Advantages include
independence of process from pipe material being repaired, efficiency and use of
existing access points. Disadvantages include sensitivity to objects penetrating into the
G'pe and difficulty in recapping pipe connections. This process has been available in the
.S. since 1977.
Expansion of pipe diameter has been successfully used in Europe and the United
States using the Pipeline Insertion Method (PIM) developed in Great Britain and
licensed in North America to the PIM Corporation of New Jersey. The pipe bursting
process consists of passing a tool (called a burster) through an existing buried pipeline
between two excavations. It is pneumatically or hydraulically driven and is guided by a
steel winch cable strung through the existing pipeline and connected to a constant
tension winch located at the reception pit. The burster follows the line and grade of the
existing pipeline. The tapered front section of the burster fits inside of the existing
pipeline, bursting the pipe into small pieces and compressing the fragments into the
surrounding soil, creating an annular space through which a polyethylene pipe of the
same size or larger is simultaneously installed. Upsizing capabilities are currently limited
to two additional pipe sizes from the existing pipe size. The tail section of the burster
acts as a shield for the replacement pipe that is pushed in from the launch pit, using a
hydraulic jacking unit. The hydraulic or compressed air lines that power the burster are
strung through the replacement pipe. Manufacturer's literature claims that the pipe
bursting process is capable of replacing pipelines up to twenty inches in diameter. (This
technique was used to replace six-inch clay pipe sewers with eight-inch polyethylene
sewers in Contra Costa, California in 1987.)
Two methods for relining standard plastic pipe have been developed. Subterra's
Rbjldown System uses a physical "rolldown" of a slightly larger polyethylene liner by 10
percent to allow insertion into the pipe to be repaired. The liner is pressurized in place
to expand and form a snug fit. North West Gas of the U.K. developed a comparable
sewer lining system which uses polyethylene pipe swaged through a die after heating
which after sliplining reverts to its original diameter in three weeks or within 24 hours if
pressurization is used.
Localized sealing systems using resin injection equipment and various types of
packers with television inspection systems are available. The television camera is moved
through the sewer which is remotely inspected by the operator monitoring the .
closed-circuit television screen. Detected leaks are filled with various types of grout
depending on the service. Several different types of packers which force the grout into
the pipe defects are commercially available. The packer is pulled behind the camera so
the line can be inspected and sealed as needed. These are particularly useful for pipe
joints.
11
-------
Manholes may often be a significant source of infiltration. The use of the
Perma-Form® Manhole System, portable/removable forms with special inserts to allow
active lines to remain in use while a new concrete manhole is poured in place provides
manhole rehabilitation without open excavation and major traffic disruption.
Manufacturer's literature cites cost-savings, convenience, and versatility as major
advantages. The system is patented and licensed by AP/M of Iowa.
Several types of epoxy liners and resins are available to trowel or spray on large
diameter pipe with worker access. Some can be applied under water and cure to form
an effective seal.
Building sewers have been found to be a major source of the infiltration into sewer
systems. Methods to internally inspect and seal building sewers without costly excavation
and the need to access private property are being developed. The Cues LSS® and LIS®
are commercially available techniques from Cues Inc., of Florida. The Cues Lateral
Inspection System LIS® permits inspection of lateral sewers from the main sewer. A
launcher assembly allows a small camera to be launched up to thirty feet inside the
lateral sewer to check for leaks. The Cues Lateral Sealing System LSS® is a refined
version of the joint sealing packers used to internally grout mainline sewer joints. As
shown in Figure 5, an inflatable inversion tube extends into the lateral under air
pressure. The unit is designed to air test both the joint and the three to eight foot section
of lateral filled with the inversion tube. If leaks are discovered, grout is injected from the
mainline packer to flow into the lateral in the annular space around the inversion tube
and seal leaks. The Insituform process previously discussed has also been used to repair
laterals.
NO DIG LATERAL SEWER REHABILITATION
FIGURE 5
12
-------
ALTERNATIVE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
Alternative sewers are wastewater conveyance systems which are designed to
overcome the economic disadvantages of conventional gravity sewers in less developed
areas. The high cost of conventional sewers often prohibit centralized conveyance of
wastewater in small communities where on-site treatment and disposal systems are not
viable. The lower costs of alternative sewer systems are due to the use of smaller
diameter pipes, shallower burial depths and use of preliminary treatment and/or motive
force devices. The three primary categories of alternative conveyance systems are
pressure, vacuum and small diameter sewers. Under EPA's Innovative/Alternative
technology program, substantial experience has been gained over the last ten years with
alternative conveyance systems.
(A) NO SEPTIC TANK
PRESSURE SEWER PLASTIC PIPE
TO TREATMENT S DISPOSAL
GRINDER PUMP
STORAGE TANK
(6) CLUSTERS
TO TREATMENT
Pressure sewers consist of two types:
Grinder Pumps (GP) as shown in
Figures 6 and the Septic Tank
Effluent Pump (STEP). The grinder
pump unit grinds sewage and pumps
it through small-diameter plastic pipe
to central or alternative treatment
and disposal. The unit does not use
the septic tank. This unit can be used
for one or several homes.
(A) ONE DWELLING
PRESSURE SEWERS.GP
(GRINDER PUMP)
FIGURE 6
The STEP unit as shown in Figure 7,
can be adapted for one dwelling or a
cluster of dwellings. Liquid from the
septic tank is pumped through small
diameter plastic pipe to further
off-site treatment and disposal. The
accumulated solids must be
periodically pumped from the septic
tank.
SEPTIC STORAGE
TANK TANK
PUMP
(B) CLUSTER
I-/2"OR
LARGER
PLASTIC
PIPE
SEPTIC
TANK PUMP
l-'/Z" OR
LARGER
PLASTIC
PIPE
TO TREATMENT
a DISPOSAL
SEPTIC
TANK
PRESSURE SEWERS. STEP
(SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP)
FIGURE 7
13
-------
Pressure Sewer Design Tips
a. Mercury level control switches are the most reliable,
b. Pumps should be fully submerged to minimize dangers from explosion,
c. Approximately 5 percent spare pressurization units should be
maintained for emergency response,
d. On-lot installations should incorporate redundant valving to ensure
unit isolation from the system,
e. All on-lot activity should be preceded by appropriate public relations
contacts, and site condition should be recorded before and after
construction, and
f. Pipe sizes chosen and their fittings should be readily available from
local commercial sources.
SEPTIC
TANK
SMALL DIAMETER
— SOIL.ABSORPTION GRAVITY SEWER
FIELD OR OTHER
TREATMENT &
DISPOSAL
SMALL- DIAMETER GRAVITY SEWERJ
(COLLECTION SYSTEM)
FIGURE 8
The small-diameter gravity sewers
shown in Figure 8 use 4" to 6" pipe
to transport liquid from the septic
tanks to further off-site treatment
and disposal.For proper operation,
the septic tanks require periodic
pumping to remove accumulated
solids.
Small Diameter Gravity
Sewer Design Tips
a. Use of pipe sizes of less than 100-mm
(4-in.) should only be coii^dered in
reaches where significant positive
gradient exists.
b. Typically, about 80 percent of
existing septic tanks need to be
replaced.
c. All SDG sewers should be designed
to be flushed, even though the need
has not yet arisen.
14
-------
SEWAGE FROM DWELLING
COLLECTION
TANK
CENTRAL
VACUUM
PUMP
CENTRAL
COLLECTOR
PIPE
VACUUM SEWERS
(COLLECTION SYSTEM)
FIGURE 9
TO TREATMENT
a DISPOSAL
The vacuum sewer shown in Figure 9
depends on a vacuum pump to extract
the sewage from one or more dwellings
into a conveyance tank. A sewage
pump then forces the collected sewage
from the tank to the off-site treatment
and disposal facilities.
Vacuum Sewer Design Tips
a. Vacuum station designs should
maximize the ability to test each
incoming line to the conveyance
tank to identify problem locations.
b. Vacuum stations should be
automated to permit 24-hour/day
monitoring of key parameters to
minimize any delays between
occurrence and repair initiation.
c. Up to eight dwelling units have been
successfully served by one vacuum
valve where high population
densities exist.
d. Service line connections to vacuum
mains should enter the latter from
above.
15
-------
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
There are many processes available to effectively treat municipal wastewater.
These can be broadly grouped into preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary or
advanced treatment. Preliminary treatment is often used to protect downstream
equipment in most plants, but may be the only treatment provided to stormwater flows.
Classification of treatment processes as primary, secondary and tertiary is based on the
achievable level of treatment, ie., BOD and/or suspended solids removal or location in
the process stream, ie., order. Thus, clarification maybe part of primary, secondary or
tertiary treatment. Likewise, a land treatment process may be a tertiary step if it follows
conventional secondary treatment or be designed to provide better than secondary
removals while being the sole treatment process. Figure 10 in the section, Preliminary
Treatment, shows the relative use of some preliminary treatment processes in the U.S.
according to EPA's 1986 Needs Survey. Figure 11 in the section, Secondary Treatment,
shows the relative usage in the U.S. of some major processes providing secondary or
better than secondary treatment.
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
Preliminary treatment consists of unit operations such as screening, comminution
and grit removal to improve downstream operations and processes and to protect
mechanical equipment. In September 1987, the EPA issued a report, "Preliminary
Treatment Facilities Design and Operational Considerations", EPA 430/09-87-007.
Findings of this report are summarized below.
CO
CO
uj
o
o
cr
a.
UJ
cr
H
UJ
X
2
CO
3
CO
H-
Z
cr
UJ
CD
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT UTILIZATION
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
BAR COMMINUTION GRIT
SCREEN REMOVAL
TYPE OF TREATMENT PROCESS
FIGURE 10
16
-------
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR SMALL
PLANTS:
o Staffing - small staff and non-specialized personnel require a treatment
system that is mechanically simple, reliable and needs only part-time attention.
o Type of Sewer System - the type of conveyance system (combined or separate)
influences the amount of grit, screenings and grease present in the wastewater
and the maximum flow and variation of the flow. Alternative conveyance
systems may not require preliminary treatment at the treatment plant.
o Climate - the possibility of screenings freezing which makes them difficult to
handle and may damage equipment must be considered.
o Type of Downstream Treatment - affects the amount of preliminary treatment
necessary. Plants with primary treatment are less sensitive to preliminary
treatment shortcomings.
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LARGE
PLANTS:
o Type of Conveyance System - Combined sewers will bring in larger quantities
of grit and screenings and will have greater ratios of peak to average flow than
separate systems.
o Industrial Influences on Waste Stream Characteristics - The type of industry
can affect the size and quantity of grit and screenings.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS:
o Inadequate grit removal will result in excessive wear of mechanical equipment
employed downstream and in sludge processing.
o Inadequate screening will result in increased maintenance labor for
downstream and sludge handling mechanical components.
o Fine screens may often be preferable to any system of grinding and return of
solids to the flow.
17
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Secondary and more advanced treatment processes include those unit processes
which reduce the organic content by biological, chemical and/or physical means. Table 1
summarizes the Secondary Treatment Regulations found in 40 CFR Part 133. The
remaining topics discuss the recent developments in secondary treatment, treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment, and greater than secondary treatment methods.
SECONDARY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PROCESSES
en
LU
o:
CL
UJ
x
o
It-
CD
1 +}\J\J
7000
6500
6000
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
— •
-'
MV
-
-
—
~
-
*•*»
- .
—
—
\,
•
•\
1
LAGOONS ACTIVATED TRICKLING LAND
SLUDGE FILTERS TREATMENT
FIGURE 11
18
-------
TABLE 1
PART 133 - SECONDARY TREATMENT REGULATION
133.102 -Secondary
Treatment
133.103-Special
Considerations
133.104-Sampling and
Test Procedures
133.105 -Treatment Equivalent to
Secondary Treatment
The minimum levels of effluent quality in
terms of BOD5> SS and pH are shown
below (CBODc may be substituted for
. BOD5)
a.BOD5/CBOD5
30-day average <30 mg/L / <25 mg/L
7-day average <45 mg/L / <40 mg/L
30-day avcrage~>85% / >85%
% removal
b.SS
30-day average < 30 mg/L
7 day average 85%
% removal
c. pH: 6-9 unless the POTW demonstrates
that:
1. Inorganic chemicals are not added
to waste stream as part of
treatment process.
2. Contributions from industrial
sources do not cause the pH to be
less than 6 or greater than 9.
stringent. More
a. Combined Sewers:
Attainable percentage
removal levels during
wet weather decided
on a case-by-case basis.
b. Industrial Wastes:
Certain POTWs
receiving industrial
flows whose categori-
cal standards arc less
stringent may be able
to adjust the values
for BOD5 and SS upwards.
c. Waste Stabilization Ponds:
When waste stabilization ponds are
the principal treatment process and data
indicate SS levels cannot be achieved,
Stales may establish adjusted SS
limitations to reflect
.local conditions.
d. Less concentrated influent
wastewater from separate
sewers: A lower removal
requirement may apply.
e. Less concentrated influent
from combined sewers during
dry weather: A lower
percentage removal ,,
requirement may apply.
a. Procedures should be in
accordance with 40 CFR
Part 136.
b. COD or TOC may be sub-
stituted for BOD* when
a long-term BOD: COD or
BOD: TOC correlation
has been demonstrated.
Facilities may be eligible for adjusted
effluent quality values shown below if
they meet the guidelines in 133.101(g):»
a. BOD5/b. SS
30 day-average <45 mg/L /45 mg/L
7 day-average <65 mg/L / <6Smg/L
30 day-average~>65% / >65%
% removal. ~ ~
c. pH: 6 - 9
d. Alternative State Requirements: BOD* and SS
levels may be adjusted for trickling filters
and waste stabilization pond facilities.
limitations: CBODr may be substituted
The levels must not be less
e. CBODc mi
for BODj.
stringent than 30 day average, <40 mg/L, 7 day
average, <60 mg/L, 30 day average percent
removal, <65 percent.
f. Permit adjustments: Permit adjustments to
this part may not be less
stringent limitations can be required based
on effluent values achievable through proper
O&M of treatment works.
* 1) The BODS and SS effluent concentrations consistently achieved through proper O&M exceed the minimum level of the effluent quality set forth in 133.102(a)and
133.102(b).
2) A trickling filter or waste stabilization pond is used as the principal process.
3) The i real men I works provide significant biological treatment of municipal wastewater.
•• Proposed rule, Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 180, p. 35210-35214, September 17,1987.
-------
ACTIVATED SLUDGE - RECENT PROGRESS ON OLD PROBLEMS
Control of Bulking and Foaming - Bulking and foaming are two common problems that
can arise at an activated sludge facility. The EPA Summary Report "The Causes and
Control of Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming" EPA/625/8-87-012 provides
information on possible solutions to these problems.
Bulking sludge is very light, occupies an increased volume and does not settle.
Filamentous bacteria interfere with compaction and settling. Different filamentous
bacteria thrive under various conditions. Depending on the bacteria involved, different
control stratagies are indicated.
Foaming can occur during start-up when solids concentrations and sludge age are
low. This usually white foam disappears as the process stabilizes. A persistent white
foam may indicate a low sludge age or the presence of non-biodegradable substances in
the wastewater. A heavy brown foam on the aeration tanks and clarifiers may be due to
a high sludge age or filamentous organisms.
To control sludge bulking:
1. Identify filamentous bacteria. Microscopic examination of activated sludge
using a visual reference such as Sewage Organisms: A Color Atlas from Lewis
Publishers may be helpful in identifying the bacteria present.
2. Determine probable cause based on bacteria present and plant operating
conditions. Different species of bateria will thrive under different conditions,
ie., low dissolved oxygen, low F/M ratio, nutrient deficiency, etc..
3. Determine if operational changes can correct the problem.
4. Are major design or long-term operational changes required?
o Process manipulation during design change implementation.
o Chemically enhanced settling.
o Selective filamentous bactericides.
To control foaming, it is necessary to understand how the foam develops, Nocardia
sp have been found in large numbers in the heavy brown foams. Nocardia sludge floes
may be hydrophobic and therefore cling to air bubbles resulting in foam. High sludge
age, low F/M ratios, high suspended solids levels and warm oil and grease in the
wastewater have been associated with high Nocardia levels.
Very stable foams can be broken by high volume sprays. A strong pretreatment
program and enforcement can keep oils and greases from industry and commercial
establishments out of the POTW. Several process changes can be used including:
o Reduce sludge age (cannot be used if nitrification being performed}.
o Increase F/M ratio (cannot be used if nitrification being performed).
o Add anaerobic digester sludge (cannot be used if nitrification being
performed).
o Physical removal, chlorination and ferric chloride addition.
o Avoid recycling the removed foam.
20
-------
Sequencing Batch Readers CSBRs") - Sequencing Batch Reactors perform activated
sludge treatment in a fill-and-draw operation. Aeration, sedimentation and decanting
are carried out sequentially in a common basin as shown in Figure 12. The tank is filled
with influent wastewater and aerated to remove the soluble BOD. The aerators are then
turned off allowing the sludge to settle. The effluent is drawn off and solids are wasted.
The process then begins again with refilling the tank.
INFLUENT TYPICAL SBR OPERATION
FILL
REACT
SETTLE
DRAW
REMOVE EFFLUENT
IDLE
WASTE SLUDGE
FIGURE 12
Sequencing Batch Reactors offer an option for small communities needing a high
level of treatment. The advantages of SBRs for small communities are economy,
flexibility, simplicity and reliability. Full-scale SBR Systems are operating in Culver, IN
and Poolesville, MD and several other U.S. locations. Compared to conventional
continuous flow systems, an SBR offers several operating advantages:
1. The tank can tolerate greater peak flows and BOD shock loads by acting as an
equalization basin.
2. Process cycle can be adjusted to accomplish a wide variety of treatment goals.
3. Level can be varied to keep treatment cycle length constant at low flows.
4. No return activated sludge pumping.
5. No external clarifier is needed. Solid liquid separation occurs under near
ideal conditions with no short circuiting.
6. Filamentous growth is easier to control.
7. No chemical addition needed for phosphorus removal.
8. The process can be operated to provide both nitrification and denitrification.
Operation problems have generally involved minimizing discharge of floating and
settled sludge in the decant step. Increased timing and level control sophistication is
required for larger systems. Details can be found in the EPA Summary Report
"Sequencing Batch Reactors", EPA/625-8-86/011.
21
-------
TRICKLING FILTERS
Trickling filters consist of a contact media that supports a biological film. The
wastewater is distributed for uniform percolation downward while air currents move
upward through the bed and supply oxygen to the microorganisms. The trickling filter
effluent and sloughed solids are then collected and clarified for further processing or
discharge. Figure 13 shows the conventional construction of a trickling filter contrasted
with recent advances on the basic technology.
TRICKLING FILTER
CONVENTIONAL VS. RECENT ADVANCES
OPEN VS.
DOME COVER
WITH ODOR
CONTROL
N ' I
' • • « ..i •!.> -ii /i» 'n' '
ROTARY VS. FIXED
DISTRIBUTOR
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
CONVENTIONAL
ROCK MEDIA
VS.
REDWOOD LATH
FIXED PLASTIC.OR
RANDOM PLASTIC
NATURAL
VENTILATION
VS: FORCED
VENTILATION-
FIGURE 13
22
-------
New Regulations - Old Plants - Trickling filters used to be one of the most popular
processes in the country because of their economic operation, consistent performance
and ability to withstand shock loads and wide variations in sewage concentration and
composition. In 1975, there were almost twice as many trickling filter (TF) plants as
activated sludge plants. The EPA 1986 Needs Survey information in Figure 11 shows a
reversal of this usage. Many of these plants are older and do not consistently meet
current secondary effluent standards, although they still achieve significant biological
treatment. Under the final secondary treatment regulations, TF plants are defined as
treatment equivalent to secondary and States can recommend alternative effluent
requirements reflecting the performance of TF plants within the State, ie., alternative
State requirements as shown in Table 1 on page 19.
Improving Trickling Filter Performance - The Trickling Filter/Solids Contact (TF/SC)
process shown in Figure 14 is one of the most promising technologies for upgrading
existing trickling filter plants. Benefits are:
o relatively low capital cost
o high quality effluent
o ability to withstand high organic loading
Trickling Filter/Solids Contact - This is a multiple step process using a trickling filter, an
aerobic solids contact period and/or flocculation and secondary clarification. Upgrading
an existing plant requires the addition of aerobic solids contact equipment and possibly
flocculation capability.
TRICKLING FILTER/SOLIDS CONTACT PROCESS
INFLUENT ~lL — [L^^^?|
TRICKLING FILTER
AERATED
CONTACT
, NOTE |
FLOCCU
WASTE I CO I RETURN
SLUDGE ' ' SLUDGE
LATOR
IFIERJ1
TREATED
EFFLUENT
NOTE (\) SOME VARIATIONS USE RETURN SLUDGE AERATION INSTEAD OF
AERATED SOLIDS CONTACT OR WITH AERATED SOLIDS CONTACT.
FIGURE 14
23
-------
Soluble BOD is reduced in the trickling filter. Initial flocculation and additional
soluble BOD removal occurs in the aerobic solids contact step. Flocculation may occur
in the solids contact tank and/or in a flocculator/clarifier resulting in better secondary
clarification.
The TF/SC process is characterized by:
o primary soluble BOD removal in the trickling filter
o return sludge mixed with trickling filter effluent
o particulate BOD and suspended solids reduction via flocculation
o aerated solids contact time less than one hour
o aerated solids contact solids retention time less than two days
Case Studies - Field investigations were conducted by the U.S. EPA in 1984 at Oconto
Falls, WI; Tolleson, AZ; Medford, OR; Chilton, WI and at Morro Bay, CA in 1986.
Plant operating records from other TF/SC plants were used to supplement the field
investigations. Approximately fifteen TF/SC systems have been constructed under the
I/A program.
LAGOONS
Lagoons are widely used for municipal wastewater treatment in small
communities. Nearly 7,500 lagoons are in operation nationwide. Discharge may be
eliminated as in total containment ponds, periodic as with hydrograph controlled release
lagoons or continuous to another downstream treatment process or receiving stream.
Driven by groundwater quality concerns, numerous States require liners for all
lagoons while others evaluate the need for liners on a case-by-case basis. In the design
or evaluation of a lagoon, the following aspects must be considered:
o Siting - soils, hydrogeology, geology
- proximity of receiving streams
- proximity of population
- proximity to water supply sources
o Design - sizing
- number of cells in series
- liner system
o Construction - subgrade preparation
- liner installation
o Operation and Maintenance - routine inspection and O&M tasks
- groundwater monitoring
Liner Systems - Liners are generally of two types, compacted soil or synthetic.
Lagoon liner selection is based on:
o wastewater characteristics
o local hydrogeology
• o ground water use and proximity of wells
o predicted lagoon life and closure requirements
o applicable regulations regarding seepage rates, liner materials, permeability
24
-------
Types of lagoon liner material:
o earthen (clay)
o admixed (soil cement, asphalt, bentonite)
o synthetic (PVC, polyethylene, hypalon, etc.)
Selection of the material depends on its compatibility with the waste, ability to withstand
local temperature and sunlight conditions, anticipated permeability, life expectancy,
installation and repair factors and cost. The U.S. EPA has prepared a design manual for
"Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds", EPA 625/1-83-015.
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS (RBC'S) 100 PERCENT
MODIFIATION/REPLACEMENT (M/R) GRANTS
Of approximately 550 municipal RBC installations in the U.S., a considerable
number have experienced significant equipment malfunctions. Some of these failures
resulted from a lack of full-scale operational and design information. Although normally
considered a conventional treament facility, comprehensive information from the EPA
has only been available since 1984. EPA published a brochure in May 1984 called
"Rotating Biological Contactors Checklist for a Trouble-free Facility" and a detailed
publication in September 1984, called "Summary of Design Information on Rotating
Biological Contactors", EPA 430/9-84-008.
Section 202(d) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 authorizes the funding of
modification or replacement of biodisc equipment in POTW's if:
1. The equipment failure to meet design specifications was not due to
negligence, and
2. The failure significantly increased capital and/or operation and maintenance
costs.
An M/R grant can cover 100 percent of the planning design and construction costs.
Preaward costs are not eligible for funding. The M/R project must meet all
requirements of EPA's construction grant program and other applicable regulations.
The 100 percent M/R grants are only available to plants in which the EPA has an
interest in the RBC's through prior grant assistance. Regular Construction Grant
Assistance at 55 percent share for conventional techologies or 75 percent share for I/A
technologies may be available for M/R of non-grant funded RBC's if applicable
construction grant program requirements are met. It should be noted that construction
grants cannot be awarded lawfully under the Title VI State Revolving Fund (SRF)
program.
To receive an RBC M/R grant, an applicant must-prove that:
1. The RBC facility failed to meet its design performance specifications.
2. The failure was not due to the negligence of any party.
3. The capital, operation and maintenance costs to maintain compliance are
significantly higher than originally planned.
4. For projects using plans and specifications prepared after September 1984,
the design considered the EPA information published in May and September
1984 or justify the nonconsideration of this information.
5. The M/R project meets all requirements of EPA's construction grant and
other applicable regulations.
25
-------
6. The M/R project is within the fundable range of the State's annual priority
list.
7. The State certifies the project for funding from its regular allotments and
funds appropriated after 4 February 1987.
Greater detail on M/R Grants for RBCs was published in the Federal Register,
Wednesday, 4 May 1988 (Vol. 53, No. 86, pp 15820-15822). Additional information may
be found in a memorandum from the Director of the EPA Municipal Facilities Division
to Regional Water Management Division Directors dated July 31,1987 with attached
questions and answers.
GREATER THAN SECONDARY TREATMENT
Several processes can be used to provide secondary or better than secondary
effluent quality. The following discussion is limited to three groups of processes which
are widely used or which show great promise; land treatment, constructed wetlands, and
biological nutrient removal.
LAND TREATMENT
Land treatment involves the controlled application of wastewater onto the land
surface to achieve treatment through natural physical, chemical and biological processes
during contact with the vegetation and soil.
EPA's Innovative/Alternative Technology program has significantly advanced the
understanding and use of land treatment systems.
The three major land treatment processes and the number funded under the I/A
program are:
o slow rate - 294
o. rapid infiltration - 71
o overland flow - 49
The design parameters for these processes are discussed in detail in the
Technology Transfer Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Wastewater, 1981
(EPA 625/1-81-013). Since then, supplements have been published to incorporate new
information on design, construction and operation. Table 2 on page 28 highlights the
important features of these processes and includes the new information.
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS
Constructed wetlands are man-made systems which employ aquatic vegetation to
assist in the treatment of wastewater, primarily from small communities. They are
normally divided into two types as shown in Figure 15. The first type is characterized by
a free-water surface with dense aquatic vegetation growing from the bottom and
emerging from the shallow water. This type is called a free-water surface wetland
(FWSW), and it primarily utilizes the considerable plant surface area as a growth
medium for oxidizing bacteria and development of plug flow hydraulics. These generally
long-narrow systems are presently being used to treat acid mine drainage as well as
municipal wastewaters.
26
-------
The second and newer type of constructed wetland is the vegetated submerged
bed (VSB) which employs submerged, horizontal flow through a porous medium in
which emergent aquatic plants are grown. The VSB systems purify wastewaters by
horizontal filtration mechanisms, enhanced by the substantial root (rhizomes)
development, and bacterial growth on these surfaces.
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
INDIVIDUAL CELL CROSS SECTION
GROUNDSURFACE
WATER SURFACE
SAMPLING VALVE
DISTRIBUTION
MANIFOLD
SUBSTRATE SURFACE
CONTROL
VALVE
BOTTOM OF CELL-
CONTROL
VALVE
COLLECTION
' MANIFOLD
FREE WATER SURFACE WETLAND
£
SIDE VIEW(NOT TO SCALE)
SEPTIC TANK-i 12" RAILROAD BALLAST-,
4"FREEBOARD (LEVEE)
^CRUSHED ROCK
HOSE TO LEACH
FIELD OR DITCH
NATIVE SOIL —
I=l=
VEGETATED SUBMERGED BED
FIGURE 15
27
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF LAND TREATMENT METHODS
Parameter
Slow Rate
Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
NJ
00
Process Objectives
Distribution System
Path of Applied
Wastewater
Vegetation
Minimum Preapplication
Treatment Recommended
Typical Weekly
Hydraulic Loading
rate, CM
Annual Loading
Rate, M
Field Area Required, ha
Slope
Soil Permeability
Climate restrictions
Depth to groundwaler
Wastewater Treatment
Irrigation to utilize nutrients.
Irrigation to conserve potable water.
Preservation of grcenbelts and open
space.
Surface systems, sprinkler
Evapotranspiration
and percolation
Required
Primary sedimentation
1.3-10
0.5-6
23 - 280
Less than 20% on cultivated land;
less than 40% on non-cultivated
land.
Moderately slow to moderately rapid.
Storage often needed for cold
weather and precipitation.
0.6 - 1m (minimum)
Wastewater Treatment
Surface systems
Mostly percolation
Optional
Primary sedimentation
10-240
6-125
3-23
Not critical
Rapid (sands, sandy
loams)
None
1m during flood cycle;
1.5 -3m during
drying cycle.
Wastewater Treatment
Surface systems, sprays,
sprinklers
Surface runoff, evapo-
transpiration & some
percolation.
Required
Screening, comminution
6-40
3-20
6.5 - 44
2 - 8 percent
Slow (clays silts)
Storage usually needed
for cold weather.
Not critical.
-------
Treatment performance of these constructed wetlands has not been well
characterized, but more than 20 systems have been funded under the U.S. EPA I/A
Program. Various demonstration projects in Europe and North America indicate that
these systems, particularly the VSB type, have considerable potential for small
community wastewater treatment application. Removal of biodetgradable organic
matter and, when lightly loaded, nitrogen can generally be accomplished to a significant
degree. Actual plant uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus is relatively insignificant.
Nitrogen removal, therefore, is accomplished by bacterial action. Significant phosphorus
removal can be temporarily accomplished in VSB systems with the use of limestone
media, but the duration of this effect has not been established.
Construction requirements for both types of constructed wetlands include the use
of bottom flow barriers (liners). Emergent vegetation must be planted and nurtured and
has heretoforeprimarily consisted of cattails, bulrushes and reeds either alone or in
combination. Other plant species have been tested and several non-planned species
tend to grow in concert with the planted varieties in their natural habitat. Critical design
features include inlet and outlet structures, length-to-width ratios, and slopes.
Due to the infancy of the development of this technology, exact design details are
not yet available. Studies by the U.S. EPA, Tennessee Valley Authority, Water
Research Centre (U.K.), Water Quality Institute (DK) and Environment Canada, along
with a variety of other interested organizations are underway at this time to develop
reliable design and management guidance.
Beyond design considerations for constructing wetlands, a legal question exists
regarding whether or .not constructed wetlands are waters of the United States. By law,
only secondary quality effluent may be discharged to waters of the U.S.,. therefore,
natural wetlands may only be used for effluent polishing.
Constructed wetlands designed for wastewater treatment are generally excluded as
"waters of the U.S.", while wetlands constructed for other purposes, specifically to
provide values and functions of natural wetlands, are not. Multiple use wetlands may or
may not be waters of the U.S., subject to secondary effluent standards. These wetlands
must be evaluated on an individual case basis. The EPA prepared a "Report on the Use
of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal", EPA 430/09-88-005
which addressed these issues.
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
The purpose of biological nutrient removal processes is to reduce the amount of
nutrients such as ammonia, organic nitrogen and phosphorus that are discharged to the
environment.
Biological Nitrogen Removal - Involves the conversion of ammonia and organic nitrogen
to nitrate and/or nitrogen gas. Where total nitrogen levels below 5 ppm are required,
the system should be thoroughly piloted with the specific waste stream. Consistent
achieval of low levels of total, nitrogen may require multiple processes in series.
o Nitrification
o Denitrification
o Oxidation ditch (simultaneous nitrification/denitrification)
29
-------
Biological Phosphorus Removal - Biological Phosphorus Removal (BPR) processes are
variations of the activated sludge process which employ an anaerobic stage (phosphorus
release) followed by an aerobic stage (phosphorus uptake in excess of normal). A
number of processes have been developed recently for phosphorus (P) removal. Several
of these systems are patented. The major continuous flow systems employed in the U.S.
are described below:
o A/O Process (patented) - A conventional activated sludge process preceded
by an anaerobic stage, to which return sludge is introduced. Successful
application requires a high BODc/P ratio in the incoming wastewater to
obtain low levels of effluent P. The A/O process is shown in Figure 16.
A/O PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
INFLUENT OR
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
(0)
II
I I
- I I
I I
ANAEROBIC
OXIC
SLUDGE RECYCLE
FIGURE 16
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(PHOSPHORUS-MICH)
30
-------
Modified Bardenpho Process (patented) - This system employs an ana.erobic
stage followed by two sequential anoxic-aerobic stages with internal recycle of
mixed liquor from the first aerobic stage to the first anoxic stage in addition to
the necessary sludge recycle to the anaerobic stage. This system, as shown in
Figure 17, also requires a high incoming BOD^/P ratio for successful
operation.
BARDENPHO PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
INTERNAL RECYCLE
(40)
INFLUENT
•
ANAEROBIC
ANOXIC
(OCNITRI-
r\ CATION)
AERATION
(NITRIFICATION)
ANOXIC
RE-
ACRATION
1 \ EFFLUENT
SLUDGE RECYCLE . '
WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(PHOSPHORUS-RICH)
FIGURE 17
31
-------
Phostrip Process (patented) - A mixed biological/chemical P removal system
wherein the waste activated sludge is diverted to an anaerobic stripper for P
release from the microorganisms, the latter being recycled to the aeration
tank. The supernatant from the stripper is treated with lime to precipitate the
released P. Influent BOD5/P ratios are less critical to this system. The
Phostrip Process is shown in Figure 18.
PHOSTRIP PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
DIRECT SLUDGE RECYCLE
(0.2 TO 0.3 0)
PHOSPHORUS
ENRICHED
SLUDGE
( O2 TO OJ<3)
EFFLUENT
WASTE
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
STRIPPER
UNDERFLOW
(O.I TO 0J O )
ANAEROBIC
PHOSPHORUS
STRIPPER
(SRTi 6 TO 12 HRS)
ELUTRIATION
(A) STRIPPER UNDERFLOW RECYCLE
(B)PRIMARY EFFLUENT
(C)REACTOR- CLARIFIER SUPERNATANT
FIGURE 18
32
-------
o Modified Activated Sludge - Several existing activated sludge treatment plants
have been modified to perform biological phosphorus removal by providing
sludge recycle to an anoxic/ anaerobic stage prior to aerobic treatment where
influent wastewaters have high BOD^/P ratios.
Several other biological processes have been developed, but not applied widely in
the U.S. These include: 1) the sequencing batch reactor (SBR), which can be
grogrammed for successful P removal by employing an unaerated fill stage with high
ODc/P wastewaters; 2) modified phased-isolation ditches; and 3) the University of
CapeTown (UCT) process. Total effluent phosphorus levels belows 1 ppm have been
achieved enough to be considered available. Where low levels are required, a complete
pilot program should be undertaken to verify that the influent stream and process are
able to consistently meet the requirement.
EPA is currently preparing a Handbook on Retrofitting POTW's for Nutrient
Removal in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin which is expected to be available in the
near future.
DISINFECTION
Disinfection involves the destruction of disease-causing organisms in wastewater to
minimize public health risks.
Chlorination is by far the most common method of wastewater disinfection in the
U.S. However, because of recent concerns over the toxicity associated with chlorine
residuals, dechlorination is being required more frequently and alternate technologies
are getting more attention. Alternate disinfection by Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation and
ozonation have been used successfully at some POTWs. Considerable experience has
been gained with UV disinfection through the I/A piogram.
UV IRRADIATION
Advantages:
o Absence of residuals in wastewater effluent and therefore does not impact
receiving waters.
o Less rigorous control required since an overdose would not affect the
receiving waters.
o Process is relatively simple and flexible.
Disadvantages:
o Difficult to monitor performance due to lack of residuals.
o Fouling of the quartz sleeves or Teflon\ tubes must be controlled by
regular cleaning, thus increasing maintenance costs.
o High suspended solids concentrations, color and turbidity can interfere
with or absorb the UV radiation and reduce performance.
33
-------
Design Considerations:
o Low pressure mercury arc lamps are currently the most efficient source of
UV radiation.
o Temperature effects should be minimized by slipping "O-ring" spacers
over the lamps to prevent direct contact with the cooler quartz sleeve.
o Fittings holding the quartz sleeve should be tight and leakproof to prevent
fouling on the inside of the sleeve.
o The control panel should be remote from the UV reactor.
o The ballasts must be properly mated with the lamps and thermally
protected to shut down if they overheat.
o The electrical wiring should be properly sized and be resistant to UV
radiation effects.
o Large debris should be prevented from entering the UV system.
o Because of past experience, a simple mechanical cam timer is
recommended over an automatic shut-off system to reduce UV output
during selected time periods.
o The system should be modularly designed to allow isolation of any unit
from the plant flow.
The existing EPA Municipal Wastewater Disinfection Policy dates back to July
1976. Since that time, much has been learned about residual chlorine toxicity to
aquatic-life. Also, much experience has been gained with alternative disinfection
technologies under the I/A program. In light of this new and increased knowledge, EPA
is reviewing its 1976 Disinfection Policy. The review will include an evaluation of the
public health, water quality, and technology aspects of municipal wastewater disinfection
as well as a summarization of EPA Regional and State Policies implemented since 1976.
SLUDGE TREATMENT
CHANGING SLUDGE REGULATIONS
The new sewage sludge provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended by
the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to undertake a number of activities, some
of which were already underway when the Amendments were passed. These include:
o Identification and regulation of toxic pollutants of concern present in sewage
sludge; establishing numerical limits and specifying acceptable management
practices (or other alternative standards where necessary) for sewage sludge
containing such pollutants.
o Requiring compliance with the hew management practices and numerical
limits no later than one year after their publication (or 2 years if construction is
required).
o Prior to promulgation of new regulations, impose conditions in NPDES
permits issued to POTWs or take other measures as deemed appropriate to
protect public health and the environment.
o Include requirements implementing the new regulations in NPDES permits
issued to POTWs or any other treatment works treating domestic sewage
unless such requirements have been included in a permit issued under
appropriate provisions of CWA, RCRA, MPRSA, CAA or under State permit
programs approved by the Administrator.
o Issue procedures for approval of State programs within a fixed time frame.
o Issue permits to impose the requirements to treatment works not otherwise
• subject to NPDES permits.
34
-------
In addition, the new CWA Amendments contain provisions that:
o Make it unlawful for any person to dispose of sludge from a POTW or any
other treatment works treating domestic sewage for any use except in
accordance with the new regulations.
o Authorizes inspection, monitoring, and entry by EPA and designated states.
o An affected citizen may bring suit for violation of sludge requirements.
o Authorizes criminal sanctions for violations of sludge requirements.
o Authorizes $5 million starting in FY87 to fund scientific studies,
demonstrations, and public education/information programs designed to
promote safe and beneficial management or use of sewage sludge; authorizes
grants to States, public or non-profit agencies, institutions, organizations and
individuals and cooperative efforts in carrying out these activities.
EPA is well along the way toward proposing the first round of comprehensive
technical regulations (40 CFR Part 503) covering incineration, ocean disposal, landfill,
land application, distribution and marketing practices. EPA has proposed a schedule
which may be subject to court modification for issuing these regulations in conjunction
with a lawsuit filed against the Agency. The proposed schedule calls for the new
regulations to be proposed for public comment by April 1989 and, following completion
of a new survey to create a reliable national sludge quality database, to issue the
regulations in final form by October 1991.
Proposed State Sludge Management Program Regulations (40 CFR Part 501)
were issued for public comment on 4 February 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 4458). However, the
new CWA Amendments require the use of permits to impose the new technical
regulations. On 9 March 1988 the Agency reproposed the Part 501 regulations in
conjunction with proposed changes to the Part 122,123 and 124 NPDES permit
regulations (in 53 Fed. Reg. 7642) that will allow EPA or delegated states to use NP^ES
or other permits where designed to control sewage sludge use and disposal practices.
EPA anticipates publishing these regulations in final form by April 1989. In order to
follow through with the new Section 405 requirement to impose controls on sewage
sludge use and disposal practices in NPDES permits issued to POTWs until the new
technical regulations become effective, EPA has developed and issued a "Strategy for
Interim Implementation of Sludge Requirements in Permits Issued to POTWs" for
public comment on 31 May 1988 (in 53 Fed. Reg. 19817). The Agency has also issued
for use and comment draft "Guidance for Writing Case-by-Case Permit Requirements
for Municipal Sewage Sludge" and a draft "POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis
Guidance Document" (both dated June 1988).
Where possible, current EPA policy (49 Fed. Reg. 24358) encourages the use of
sludge management practices involving beneficial use in preference to strict disposal
options such as conventional landfilling and ocean disposal practices. For years, EPA
has actively encouraged and assisted in the development and implementation of various
practices and processes leading to the beneficial utilization of sewage sludges. In
addition to supporting a number of long term research and demonstration projects, the
Agency has also assisted in the development of detailed design guidance for various
beneficial use practices and technologies. Finally, EPA has established a new awards
program in cooperation with WPCF, to recognize outstanding operating projects,
research studies, and technology development efforts which promote beneficial uses of
municipal sludge.
35
-------
RECENT ADVANCES IN SLUDGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES
Dewatering is a physical unit operation used to reduce the moisture content of
sludge in order to decrease the volume, facilitate handling and/or prepare for further
treatment (composting, land application, incineration). Recent developments in sludge
dewatering include:
o Mechanical-Assisted Air Drying of very wet sludge (5-6 percent solids) is being
accomplished by use of turning machines (to 60 percent solids in 6 to 8 weeks
instead of 6-8 months).
o Vacuum-Assisted Drying Beds - simple system yielding 10-15 percent solids
from 5-6 percent solids in 24 hours. Achieving dryer sludges requires
stockpiling, mechanical agitation, and/or sand bed drying.
o Planting reeds into drying beds allows continuous use of the beds for 5 to 10
years without requiring sludge removal.
o Allowing fresh layers of sludge each to be frozen in cold northern climate; will
yield 35-50 percent solids when thawed.
o A combination gravity thickener plus belt filter press is more efficient than a
belt filter press alone at dewatering and will on the average yield several
percentage points dryer sludge.
o A new, possibly more efficient centrifuge is being tested by the Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
COMPOSTING
Composting is a sludge management option that employs biological decomposition
to convert sludge into a stable humus that can be applied to the land as a soil conditioner
and low grade fertilizer.
Type of composting systems:
o Windrow
o Static Pile
o In-Vessel
In-Vessel Composting - Recent developments:
o A study of pathogens in compost products reported in the May/June 1988
issue of Biocvcle (Vol. 29, No.5, p. 244).
- Showed products free of most pathogens, but some exhibited regrowth
potential for Salmonella.
Indicated need for completeness of composting to forestall Salmonella
regrowth.
36
-------
o Study underway of major types of in-vessel sludge composting systems will
result in a guide for design, evaluation and procurement of in-vessel system
and especially for odor control. An EPA Guide will be published soon.
Odor Control:
o First step is to inventory all sources, types and amounts of odor.
o Then, determine the meteorological conditions, the terrain, and
the location of odor receptors.
o Then, select appropriate air conveyance, scrubbing and/or
dilution technologies as related to the meteorology as it changes
during the day, the terrain, potential odor receptors and the
source, type and amount of odor.
Air/Moisture Management:
o Examine the process air path with regard to length, corrosion
resistance of air handling system, energy requirement, moisture
removal provisions and avoidance of rewetting the composting
sludges.
o Determine extent of avoidance of interior building fog and other
noxious aerialenvironmental conditions in which compost
system operators must work.
o Select dewatering equipment which will provide a sludge with an
appropriate moisture content for composting.
Stabilization:
o Additional attention should be given to the production of a
stable product.
o A respiration test can be useful to indicate completeness of
composting/product stability.
o Total fecal coliform levels may be useful as an indication of
stability and the extent of potential for Salmonella regrowth.
INCINERATION AND HEAT DRYING
Incineration is a sludge management option which reduces the quantity of solid
material by combustion of organic solids. Heat drying is a unit operation which reduces
the moisture from the wet sludge so that it can be incinerated or processed into fertilizer.
Recent Developments:
o Recent study conducted on emissions from incinerators as they are
normally operated. "Emissions of Metals and Organics from four
Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators - Preliminary Data" by Harry
Bostian, Eugene Grumpier, Michael Palazzolo, Keith Barnett, Robert
37
-------
Dikes. Published in "Proceedings of the Conference on Municipal Sewage
Treatment Sludge Plant Management" by Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1988.
o Multiple Hearth systems were emitting significant levels of volatile
heavy metals (e.g., Cd and Pb).
o Also volatile organic compounds like chloroform and benzene were
being created by the combustion process and emitted at significant
levels.
o A fluidized bed system had less emissions than the multiple hearth
system.
o Additional control measures will likely be needed to meet more
comprehensive new sludge incinerator/heat dryer regulations now
being developed.
o Another EPA study is underway to look at actual energy and costs of
sludge incineration.
SLUDGE STABILIZATION
Sludge stabilization processes are designed to reduce pathogens, eliminate odors
and reduce the potential for putrefaction. These processes include:
o Biological reduction of volatile organics.
o Chemical reduction of volatile organics.
o Addition of heat for disinfection or sterilization.
o Addition of chemicals for disinfection or sterilization.
Recent Developments:
o Operation of Anaerobic Sludge Digesters can be simply modified to
improve'effective pathogen reduction -- Draw off previously digested
sludge each time before refilling with undigested sludge.
o Sludge stabilization with Kiln Dust (a lime material) is a newly approved
technology that will further reduce pathogens (PFRP). Several
municipalities are now installing facilities for this type of treatment.
38
-------
SECTION 3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CLEAN WATER ACT 104 PROGRAM
Since 1982, the U.S. EPA has implemented an on-site municipal wastewater
treatment plant operator training and compliance assistance program for small
communities. Under Section 104(g)(l) of the Clean Water Act, State training entities
receive Federal funds to provide "over-the- shoulder" assistance to small plants up to 5
mgd size. Experienced state personnel work onsite with operators and officials to solve
compliance problems.
Following comprehensive onsite diagnostic evaluations, site specific training is
conducted to augment on going State Certification training programs. This bridges the
gap between theoretical classroom type training and the application of specific problem
solutions to specific plant problems and local situations. This training also addresses
financial management problems and issue resolution with local officials. Onsite trainers
will be given special financial management training at a series of regional seminars
during the last quarter of 1988. Two manuals, one for short term solutions and the other
for a more in-depth methodology will be available following regional workshop
evaluations. These manuals should be in print by midyear 1989. A periodic newsletter
entitled "Onsite Oversite" is circulated three or four times a year, to over 400 people
involved in the outreach training effort. This publication is used to keep trainers
informed of success stories from other trainers; EPA headquarters and regional policy
decisions; national, regional and state workshops and other events that would be of
interest to participants in this expanding onsite training effort.
The program has also helped states improve their inhouse compliance/technical
assistance program coordination.
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (CPE)
In many instances, especially for larger facilities, State or Federal compliance
inspectors may require a non-compliant facility to undergo a comprehensive
performance evaluation. A comprehensive performance evaluation seeks to determine
if major facility upgrades are required or if a Composite Correction Program (CCP) will
produce the required effluent quality.
A CPE consists of the following five steps:
o Major unit process evaluation.
o Performance limiting factor identification.
o Performance limiting factor prioritization.
•o Ability to improve performance with a CCP assessment.
o CPE results report.
39
-------
CPE's have also been used to evaluate I/A projects seeking 100 percent
modification/replacement grants. CPE's have been performed at facilities utilizing
technologies which have included: intrachannel clarifiers, composting, draft tube
aerators, powdered activated carbon with wet air regeneration, ultraviolet disinfection,
and alternative sewers.
COMPOSITE CORRECTION PROGRAM (CCP)
If the major unit processes are evaluated to be adequate to meet the required
effluent standards, a composite correction program can be implemented. A composite
correction program identifies operating changes that can result in improved
performance. Details may be found in the EPA Handbook "Improving POTW
Performance Using the Composite Correction Program Approach" EPA-625/6-84-008
and addendum. If the major unit processes are determined to be marginal, a CCP may
be attempted before committing to upgrading the facility. If the CPE determines the
processes are inadequate, an upgrade will be needed to meet the effluent quality. The
CPE report will typically contain the following sections:
o Introduction
o Facility Background
o Major unit process evaluation
o Performance limiting factors
o Projected impact of a CCP
o CCP costs
OPERATOR TRAINING AS A
PERFORMANCE LIMITING FACTOR
In a national operation and-maintenance survey, operator application of concepts
and testing to ^iocess control was found to be a major factor limiting performance at 86
percent of the plants surveyed. Operators may have had formal training on the major
unit processes, but did not have the training to optimize the process operation or may
not have access to all necessary process monitoring equipment. Site specific training to
optimize plant performance may be required as part of a composite correction program
or 104 program.
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AS
PERFORMANCE LIMITING FACTOR
In an evaluation of treatment facilities employing innovative and alternative
technologies, administrative policies were identified as a major factor at over half the
plants in limiting performance. Operator application of concepts was the major factor at
all the plants in this I/A survey.
This suggests that administrators must support operator training as it relates to
plant problems as much as they devote efforts to develop and control budgets, reduce
bond indebtedness, etc. Administrators need to be aware of the plant operation and
maintenance problems as faced by the operators to insure optimum plant performance
to meet effluent requirements and to provide for infrastructures protection. Other
performance limiting problems that are the result of inferior administrative policies
include inadequate operating budget, user charge systems, staffing problems and
inadequate preventive maintenance programs. EPA is currently preparing a report
entitled "Analysis of Performance Limiting Factors" which is expected to be available in
late 1988.
40
-------
APPENDIX A
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER INITIATIVES BY REGION V,
REGION VI AND THE NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS
CLEARINGHOUSE
REGION V
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
MUNICIPAL FACILITIES BRANCH
Special Evaluation Projects
The Municipal Facilities Branch in Region V conducts Special Evaluation Projects
(SEP's) to:
o Provide a "snapshot" of the status of a technology in Region V.
o Assess the performance of a technology in some detail based upon a year or
more of operating data.
o Assess program issues.
SEP's have been conducted since 1983 and are typically initiated and completed within
one year by Regional staff with assistance from State agencies.
Special Evaluation Proje<~' topics have included:
- Ultraviolet Disinfection
- Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds .
- Alternative Conveyance Systems - Capital Costs
- Alternative Conveyance Systems - Operation and Maintenance
- Swirl Concentrators for Combined Sewer Overflow Control
- Project Performance Certification
- Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment - Wet Air Regeneration
- Trickling Filter Nitrification
- High Density Polyethylene Lagon Liners
- Variable Grade Sewers
- Low Pressure Sludge Oxidation Unit Process
For more information, contact:
Charles Pycha, I/A Coordinator
Water Management Division - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0259
41
-------
REGION VI
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS BRANCH
Feedback-to-Design
The Region VI Construction Grants Branch is establishing a significant
Feedback-to-Design program as part of their technology transfer activities. Using a
personal computer, the Region has created a .database with which to track the
performance of a number of technologies.
Data collected include:
o Original design criteria
o Facility construction cost (actual)
o Monthly Operation and Maintenance Cost
o Influent and Effluent Characterization
Actual costs and performance of the projects will be compared with the original
design estimates.
Technologies included in this effort are:
- Rock Filters (lagoon suspended solids control)
- Sequencing Batch Reactors
- Constructed Wetlands (Gravel Marsh)
- Rotating Biological Contactors
- Accelerated Sludge Drying (Mechanical Turning)
- Intrachannel Clarification
- Vacuum Assisted Sludge Drying Beds
- Trickling Filter/Solids Contact
-A/O
-BARDENPHO
-UNOX
- CAPTOR
One or more project of each technology type is included in the database.
Quarterly reports will be prepared for each technology type to document
performance over time.
For additional information, contact:
Ancil Jones, I/A Coordinator
Region VI -1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-7130
42
-------
SMALL FLOWS CLEARINGHOUSE
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY
1-800-624-8301
The National Small Rows Clearinghouse was established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA)
to gather and distribute information about small community wastewater systems.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 provides substantially increased funding for the
Clearinghouse. With this increased funding, the Clearinghouse is undertaking a number
of activities in support of EPA's small community outreach initiative. The three major
objectives of the Clearinghouse are:
o To provide information and assistance so that small communities can make
sound wastewater management decisions.
o To enhance the capabilities of EPA Regions and States for outreach to small
communities.
o To'equip the technical community with the technology information they need
to responsively serve small communities.
Recent Clearinghouse activities in support of these objectives include:
o Publication of a new newsletter for small community officials "Managing Small
Flows".
o Award of incentive grants to local outreach programs to encourage improved
delivery of information and services to local officials.
o Publication of an improved newsletter for the technical community. "Small
Flows" has been expanded and upgraded to provide more information on small
community technologies.
Further information on these and other Clearinghouse activities may be obtained
by calling the Clearinghouse, toll-free at 1-800-624-8301.
43
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND STATE CONTACTS FOR
I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY, AND OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OPERATOR TRAINING
NATIONAL PROGRAM CONTACTS
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
NATIONAL I/A
COORDINATOR .
Peter E. Shanaghan
(202) 382-5813
(FTS) 382-5813
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
SLUDGE COORDINATOR
John Walker
(202) 382-7283
(FTS) 382-7283
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
SMALL FLOWS
TECHNOLOGY CONTACT
John Rowers
(202) 382-7288
(FTS) 382-7288
NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS
CLEARINGHOUSE
MANAGER
Steve Dix
(304) 293-4191
(800) 624-8301
CINCINNATI EPA-RREL
RESEARCH I/A CONTACT
Jim Krcissl
(513)569-7611
(FTS) 684-7645
CINCINNATI EPA/RREL
RESEARCH SLUDGE CONTACT
Joseph B. Farrcll
(513)569-7645
(FTS) 684-7611
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
I/A TECHNOLOGY
DATA BASE MANAGER
Charles Vanderlyn
(202) 382-7277
(FTS) 382-7277
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
O&M OPERATOR TRAINING
Duane A. Wilding
(202) 382-5998
(FTS) 382-5998
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued)
.Ti.
1/1
USEPA - REGION I
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
USEPA - REGION 11
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
I/A CONTACT
Charles Conway
(617) 565-3582
(FTS) 835-3582
William Hogan
' (203)566-2373
Dennis Purington
(207) 289-3901
Robert Cady
(617)292-5713
Paul Currier
(603)271-2001
Warren Town
(401)277-3961
JeffFehrs
(802) 244-8744
Bruce Kiselica
(212)264-5692
(FTS) 264-5692
Boh Simicsak
. • (609)633-1170
Randy Orr
(518)457.-3810
Jose Bentacourt
(809)725-5140, Ext. 355
SLUDGE CONTACT
Bill Butler
(617) 565-3564
(FTS) 835-3564
Warren Herzig
(203) 566-5760
Kathy Jensen
(207)289-2811
Rick Dunn
(617) 292-5590
Richard Flanders
(603)271-3398
Chris Campbell
(401) 277-2234
George Desch
(802) 244-8744
Aristotle Harris
. (212) 264-4707
(FTS) 264-4707
Helen Pettit Chase
(609) 633-3662
Rick Hammand
(518)457-2051
Baltazar Luna
(809) 725-5077
O&M CONTACT
Charles Conway
(617) 565-3582
(FTS) 835-3582
Roy Fredricksen
(203) 393-2705
John Moulton
(207) 289-3355
Marc Perry
,(617)292-5698
George Neill
(603) 27 1-3503 (Concord)
(603) 934-6463 (Franklin)
Ed Szymanski
(401)277-2234
William C. Brierly
(802) 244-8744
Bruce Kissaelica (NJ)
Ed Khadaran(NY)
(212) 264-5692
(212) 264-5254
JoeSimpkins
(609) 984-4429
Arthur Warner
(518)457-5968
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued^
VIRGIN ISLANDS
USEPA- REGION III
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
USEPA -REGION IV
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
I/A CONTACT
Phyllis Brin
(809) 774-3320
David Byro
(215)597-6534
(FTS) 597-6534
Roy R. Parikh
(302) 736-5081
Leonard R. Benson
(202) 767-7603
Hitcsh Nigam
(301)333-3082
Brij Garg
(717)787-3481
Walter Gills
(804) 257-6308
Elbert Morton
(304) 348-0633
Bob Freeman
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
David Hutchinson
(205)271-7761
Bhupendra Vora
SLUDGE CONTACT
Peter Ludzia
(215)597-9226
(FTS) 597-9226
William Razor
(302) 736-4781
Leonard R. Benson
(202) 767-7370
Doug Proctor
(301) 225-5664
William Pounds
(717)787-7381
Cal M. Sawyer
(804)786-1755
Timothy Laraway
(304) 348-3506
Vince Miller
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
Cliff Evans
(205)271-7761
J.N. Ramaswamy
O&M CONTACT
Jim Kern
(215) 597-3423
James R. Collier
(202) 767-7370
Jake Bair
(301) 934-2251 ext. 402
David J. English
(717) 787-8184
Jack Vanderland
(804) 257-6436
Richard Weigand
(304) 348-3075
(304) 372-3400
Arthur Gurley
(404) 257-3937
Truman Green
(205) 277-3630
Dr. James O. Bryant, Jr.
(904)488-8163
(904)488-8163
(904) 392-9570
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued')
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
USEPA- REGION V
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
I/A CONTACT
Kun Hopkins
(404) 656-4769
Vincc Borrcs
(502)564-3410
Sitaram Makcna
(601)961-5171
Allen Wahab
(919) 733-6900
Sam Grant
(803) 734-5279
Clurc \Vinfrce
(615)741-0638
Charles Pycha
(312) 886-0259
(FTS) 886-0259
James Leinicke
Terry Seal
(217) 782-2027
Robert Penno
(317)232-8636
Brian Myers
(517)373-6626
James K. Lungstrom
(612) 296-7295
SLUDGE CONTACT
Mike Creason
(404) 656-4887
Art Curtis
(502)564-3410
Johnny Biggert
(601)961-5060
Allen Wahab
(919)733-6900
Mike Caughman
(803) 734-5067
Robert G. Threadjill, Jr.
(615) 741-0638
Almo Manzardo
(312)886-2105
(FTS) 886-2105
Al Keller
(217) 782-1696
Dan Strahl
(317)232-8736
Dale Brockway
(517)373-8750
Steven Stark
(612)296-7169
O&M CONTACT
Gaynell Hill
(404)834-1468
Bill Eddins
(502)564-3410
John A. Campbell
(919) 733-4038
Dr. William Engel
(803)778-1961
Jack Hughes
(615) 890-7008
Eugene Chaiken
(312) 353-2124
William H. Busch
(217) 782-1696
Leonard Ashack
(317) 633-0756
Howard Selover
(517)243-4752
Bill Sexauer
(612) 296-7218
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued^
00
OHIO
WISCONSIN
USEPA- REGION VI
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
USEPA -REGION VII
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
I/A CONTACT
Sanat K. Darua
(•614)644-2798
John Mclby
(608) 267-7666
Ancil Jones
(214)655-7130
(FTS) 255-7 130
Martin Roy
(501)562-8910
Victor Sanchez
(504) 295-8900
Robert W. Kane
(505) 827-2807
Dr. H.J. Thung,
(405) 271-7346
Milton Rose
(512)463-8513
Rao Surampalli
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Wayne Farrand
(515)281-8877
Rodney Geisler
(913)296-5527
Douglas Garrctt
(314)751-5723
SLUDGE CONTACT
Stuart M. Blydenburgh
(614)644-2001
John Melby
(608) 267-7666
Ancil Jones
(214)655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
Mike Hood
(501)562-8910
Ken Fledderman
(504) 295-8900
David Gal legos
(505) 827-2806
Dr. H.J. Thung,
(405)271-7346
Milton Rose
(512)463-8513
Rao Surampalli
(913)236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Darrell McAllister
(515)281-8869
Rodney Geisler
(913) 296-5527
Robert Reed
(314)751-6721
O&M CONTACT
Tom Kroehn
(608) 267-7656
Tom Reich
(214)255-7130
James Bailey
(501) 574-4550
Dirk Kavanaugh
(318) 265-5590
Cynthia Hiers-Robinson
Hayward Martin
(505) 646-2730
Dr. William Roach
(405) 733-7364
Clark Benson
(408) 845-6247
Pat Frey
(913) 757-2813
Doug Feil
(319) 398-5678
Karl Mueldener
(913) 862-9360)
Lorenc Boyt
(417)451-3583
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued)
NEBRASKA
USEPA- REGION VIII
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
USEPA -REGION IX
ARIZONA
I/A CONTACT
Mahmood Arbab
(402)471-4252
Stanley Smith
(303) 293-1547
(FTS) 564- 1547
Dcrald Lang
(303)331-4564
Scott Anderson
(406) 444-2406
Wayne Kern
(701)224-4598
Dave Tcmpleton
(605) 773-4067
Kiran L. Bhayani
(801)538-6146
Mike Hackett
(307)777-6351
Susan Johnson
(415)974-8266
(FTS) 454-8266
Ron Frcy
(602)257-2231
SLUDGE CONTACT
Rick Bay
(402)471-2186
Stanley Smith
(303) 293-1547
(FTS) 564-1547
Phil Hegcman
(303) 331-4564
Scott Anderson
(406) 444-2406
Jeff Hauge
(701) 224-2354
Leon Schochenmaier
(605) 773-4059
Dan Filip
(801)538-6146
J. Alan Edwards
(307)777-6351
Patty Connaughton
(415)974-8587
(FTS) 454-8587
Barry Abbott
(602) 257-2238
O&M CONTACT
Rick Bay
(402) 471-2186
Leon Malloy
(303) 564-1552
Tom Feeley
(303) 980-9165
Martha Ann Dow
(406) 265-7821 ext. 3285
Ralph Reidinger
(701) 244-2354
Bill Alsenbrey
(605) 773-3296
Charles Tolson
(801) 226-5000
Bill Mixer
(307) 268-2368
Tony Resnik
(415) 454-8340
(COMM) 974-8340
John McClain
(602) 886-3331
-------
APPENDIX B
(continued)
tn
o
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
USEPA- REGION X
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON'
WASHINGTON
I/A CONTACT
David Meza
(916)739-4317
Hiram Young
(808)548-4127
James Williams
(702) 885-5870
Tom Johnson
(206) 442-2887
(FTS) 399-2887
Richard Marcum
(907) 465-2610
Allan Stanford
(208) 334-5855
Ken Vigil/Gary Sage
(503) 229-5622
Joe Williams
(206) 459-6086
SLUDGE CONTACT
Archie Mathews
(916)322-4567
Dennis Tulang
(808) 548-6769
Wendall McCurry
(702) 885-4670
Dick Hetherington
(206)442-1941
(FTS) 399-1941
Stan Hungerford
(907) 465-2610
Susan Martin
(208) 334-5855
Richard J. Nichols
(503) 229-5324
Jim Knudson
(206) 459-6597
O&M CONTACT
Donald Protcr
(619) 744-4150
Robert Rhein
(808) 548-6455
Julian Biclawski
(702) 885-4670
Tom Johnson
(206) 399-2887
Judy Urquart
(907) 465-2673
Bill Fagen
(907) 465-2610
Veronica Fitz
(208)385-1115
Thomas Gonzalez
(503)928-2361
Dave Jansen
(206) 459-6081
Myron Saikewicz
(206) 459-6088
-------
SUMMARY OF
APPENDIX C
INNOVATIVE
TABLE C-l
TECHNOLOGIES
suit
ALABAMA
ALASKA
MI20N*
ARKANSAS
CAIIFORIU
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
GUAM
HAWAII
IDAHO
HINDIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KtNlUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
N. MARIANA ISLANDS
NEBRASKA
NEVADA.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JEHSCIf
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORIH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOIA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RMOOt ISLAND
SOUIH CARaiNA
SOUTH DAKOIA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TRUST TERRITORIES
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGIN ISLANDS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON. D.C.
WEST WRCMA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
TOTAL
wiSKWAltll IREilulH!
AEOTIOH/
UIHINC
tt
2
•I
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
t
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
6
0
3
1
1
1
2
1
J
tl
1
2
J
2
1
83
CLADiriflJ
4
I
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
7
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
.
2
4
2
t
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
tl
OiSinrcciiON
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
)
1
3
4
2
1
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
2
1
1
4
JO
ENtlGY
COXSIIVATUH
•MO HCCOVCIt
t
3
2
1
1
I
7
1
1
1
J
1
1
\ .
\
t
t '
}
31
1
2
}
t
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
t
2
'
t
1
3
1
1
33
3
t
I
2
1
3
1
12
10
2
2
3
3
»
a
•
i
t
2
2
t
»
85
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
3
1
1
29
t
1
I
}
1
1
1
9
i
2
1
1
1
1
i
4
1
1
i
\
J
1
2
2
4
T
1
1 .
34
3
1
t
t
1
1
4
t
t
1
5
2
1
2
2
1
3
t
6
1
41
SLUDGE IIUIUCNI
0'IING SCOS/
t
1
t
4
1
1
t
2
1
t
1
1
•1
1
2
1
1
2
1
27
1
1
1
1
1
J
COMPOSTING
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
8
DIGESTION
2
t
1 '
3
2
2
1
1
4
2
2
1
1 '
21
MISC. (1)
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
t
3
1
2
3
}
3
t
1
4
2
2
8
1
4
2
11
2
1
J
1
1
2
a
i
2
t
4
1
1
2
99
TOTAL
31
«
e
13
19
7
3
3
12
3
0
1
9
29
19
12
11
17
13
19
12
ID
e
2<
12
16
8
0
4
J
1
o
3
28
16
1
30
18
7
19
0
3
O
6
23
IB
0
2
3
0
23
3
4
11
12
9
393
rourn NOT er *;rp*.RAUO
*VWLASLE OAT*
-------
SUMMARY
APPENDIX C
OF ALTERNATIVE
TABLE c-2
TECHNOLOGIES
STAII
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CAllfORN*
COLORADO
COmitCIICUI
DELAWARE
TLOR'OA
GEORGIA
GUAM
HAWAJI
OA>lO
ILHOlS
HCHANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KfNIUCKY
LOUISIANA
UAtC
UAR1LAIJO
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
UlSSlSSCPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
N. MARIANA ISLANDS
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORIH CAROLINA
NORIH DAKOIA
OHO
OKLAHOUA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERIO DICO
RHODC ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
IENNESSEE
IEXAS
IRUS1 TERRITORIES
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGIN ISLANDS
VIRGINIA
WASHING10N
WASHUKION. DC.
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSN
WYOMWC
TOTAL
ox-silt tuEiTuENT
SEPIIC UNK/SOIL
ABSORPTION
(sixcic fAunr)
1
5
1
3
i
2
a
i
2
)
2
2
1
34
HOUND!
1
1
2
2
I
1
3
4
\
1
2
25
CVAPOTRANSPlltAllON
110!
2
2
AEDOBIC
UNM3
.
1
1
J
!lhO
liLIII!
1
2
1}
1
2
5
2
1
. 2
i
4
12
.
3
I
2
52
SIPHC lAHK/SOIL
ABSORPTION
(UUITI'lf f»M'l«5)
2
7
2
2
2
2
5
&
5
3
1
3
2
6
I
2
50
SIPlACC
IHCAtuCxT
AND DISPOSAL
1
}
»
9
19
7
II
4
]
I
3
63
OTI'IS
ox-sur
tftt*lu(NT
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
7
LAND IICAIUCNT
AOLUCULIUHt/
WCIL1HOS
UARSM
i
}
1
J
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
5
1
27
OAKLAND
HOW
2
1
2
1
I
6
2
1
tl
2
3
1
2
I
3
49
tAPID
INfiLIRAllON
1
14
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
5
1
I
1
g
i
i
a
3
71
UOW lilt
MRICA1IOH
2
13
4
ID
3
20
20
3 •
9
3
]
It
}
1
1
5
1
1}
14
3
I)
)
<
«
31
C
1
31
6
3
9
1
1
II
3
1
1
}
2
294
PtAPPIICAIION
mCATUCMI OH
sroiucr
1
1
2
24
1
10
3
g
2
4
II
5
1
5
10
»
2
3
4
10
2
4
5
w
OTHtfl UNO
IRCAlUlNT
1
1
1
3
1
*
2
i
1
1
1
2
9
*u 2*
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
TABLE C-2 (Confd)
JtATf
ALABAMA
ALASKA
tRIZOMA
ARKANSAS
CALirOHNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
flORIDA
GEORGIA
CUAU
HAWAII
OAHO
• 1.10S
mOLAKA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAIT4E
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MlSSISSFPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
N. MARIANA ISLANDS
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW KAUPSH«£
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TEWCSSEC
TEXAS
TRUST TERRITORIES
UIAH
VERMONT
VIRGIN ISLANDS
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON. O.C.
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WVOMUG
TOTAL
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
PRESSURE SEWERS/
rrriuEHT PUMP
T
6
2
2
s
2
2
2
1
T
2
1
I
1
6
3
1
3
2
5
e
T
3
3
3
2
6
1
68
PRESSURE SEWERS/
CtlNDri PUMP
2
10
t
2
I ,
4
1
4
1
21
2
a
i
IB
t
2
16
2
I
1
15
I
a
4
J
2
I
10
1
152
SMALL O'AMETIR
GRAVITY SEWERS
3
1
2
4
1
1
2
ia
0
i
3
1
1
t
t
7
t
15
1
16
1
14
2
4
1 1
2
]
10
1
T
1
1
2
1
3
J
151
VACUUM
SCWERS
.
1
2
2
2
2
2
ID
21
CNE'Gt IECOvE
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
PUBLICATIONS
ORDER
TITLE - SOURCE
CURRENT I/A TECHNOLOGY FOLDOUTS
Alternative Wastewater Collections Systems: Practical Approaches 1,2,3,4
Aqiiaculture: An Alternative Wastewater Treatment Approach 1,2,3,4
The Biological Aerated Filter: A Promising Biological Process 1,2,3,4
Biological Phosphorous Removal: Problems and Remedies 1,2,3,4
Composting: A Viable Method of Resource Recovery 1,2,3,4
Counter-Current Aeration: A Promising Process Modification 1,2,3,4
Disinfection with Ultraviolet Light 1,2,3,4
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons: A Promising Modification 1,2,3,4
Innovative and Alternative (I/A) Technology: Wastewater
Treatment to Improve Water Quality and Reduce Cost 1,2,3,4
Innovations in Sludge Drying Beds: A Practical Technology 1,2,3,4
Intermittent Sand Filtration 1,2,3,4
Intra.channel Clarification: A Project Assessment - 1,2,3,4
In-Vessel Composting . 1,2,3,4
Land Application of Sludge: A Viable Alternative 1,2,3,4
Land Treatment Silviculture: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
Less Costly Wastewater Treatment for Your Town 1,2,3,4
Large Soil Absorption Systems: Design Suggestions for Success 1,2,3,4
Methane Recovery: An Energy Resource 1,2,3,4
54
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
ORDER
TITLE SOURCE
CURRENT I/A TECHNOLOGY FOLDOUTS (cont.)
Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates 1,2,3,4
Operation of Conventional WWTP in Cold Weather 1,2,3,4
Overland Flow An Update: New Information Improves Reliability 1,2,3,4
Rapid Infiltration: Plan, Design and Construct for Success 1,2,3,4
Rotating Biological Contactors 1,2,3,4
Sequencing Batch Reactors: A Project Assessment 1,2,3,4
Side-Streams in Advance Waste Treatment Plants: Problems and
Remedies 1,2,3,4
Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Communities
and Rural Areas 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds: An Alternative Approach 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Drying (Update) 1,2,3,4
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on Pathogen Removal 1,2,3,4
Water Reuse Via Dual Distribution Systems 1,2,3,4
Wetlands Treatment: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities • 1,2,3,4
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS
Alternative On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems
on Severly Limited Sites; EPA/600/2-86/116; PB87-140992/AS 1,5,6
Alternative Sewer Studies; EPA/600/2-85/133; PB86-131224/AS 1,5,6
Alternative Sewer Systems in the United States;
EPA/600/D-84/095; PB84-177815/AS 1,5,6
55
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
ORDER
TITLE SOURCE
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS (cont.)
Determination of Toxic Chemicals in Effluent from Household
Septic Tanks; EPA/600/2-85/050; PB85-196798 1,5,6
Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters from Multiple
Home Developments EPA/600/2-86/023; PB86 164084/AS 1,5
Handbook Septage Treatment and Disposal; EPA/625/6-84-009 . 1,5,6
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: An Alternative Wastewater
Collection Method for Unsewered Communities 1,5
EPA/600/2-86/0270; PB 86 173622/AS
Status of Porous Biomass Support Systems for Wastewater
Treatment: An Innovative/Alternative Technology 1,5
Assessment EPA/600/2-86/019; PB 86 156965/AS
Handbook Estimating Sludge Management Costs;
EPA/625/6-85/010; PB86-124542/AS 1,5,6
Municipal Sludge Composting Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/139; PB87-103560/AS 1,5,6
Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge Land
Treatment Systems EPA/600/2-86/010; PB 86 150208/AS - 1,5
Process Design Manual Land Application of Municipal Sludge;
EPA/625/1-83-016 1,5,6
Design Manual Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds;
EPA/625/1-83-015 1,5,6
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration
Project: Volume IV Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study 1,5
EPA/600/2-86/027D; PB 86 173622/AS
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater; EPA/625/1-81-013 and Supplement; EPA/625/l-81-013a 1,5,6
56
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
ORDER
TITLE SOURCE
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS (cont.)
Technology Assessment of Aquaculture Systems for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/145; PB84-246347/AS 1,5,6
Technology Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/154; PB85-106896/AS 1,5,6
Evaluation of Color Infrared Aerial Surveys of Wastewater
Soil Absorption Systems; EPA/600/2-85/039; PB85-189074/AS 1,5,6
Land Application of Municipal Sludge; EPA/625/1-83/016 1,5,6
Characterization of Soil Disposal System Leachates;
'HPA/600/2-84/101; PB84-196229/AS 1,5,6
Emerging Technology Assessment of Phostrip, A/O and Bardenpho
Process for Biological Phosphorus Removal;
EPA/600/2-85/008; PB85-165744/AS 1,5,6
Implementation of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Municipal
Treatment; EPA/600/D-84/022; PB84-130400/AS 1,5,6
Technology Assessment of Sequencing Batch Reactors;
EPA/600/2-85/007; PB85-167245/AS 1,5,6
Technology Evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors;
EPA/600/J-85/166 - 1,5,6
Summary Report: Fine Pore (Fine Bubble)'Aeration Systems;
EPA/625/8-85/010 1,5,6
Evaluation of Anaerobic, Expanded-Bed Contactors for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment; EPA/600/D-86/120; PB86-210648/AS 1,5,6
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion in the Federal
Republic of Germany; EPA/600/D-85/194; PB85-245322/AS 1,5,6
Biological Phosphorus Removal - Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/198; PB87-152559 'l,5,6
57
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
TITLE
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS (cont.)
Full-Scale Studies of the Trickling Filter/Solids Contact
Process; EPA/600/J-86/271; PB87-168134/AS
Trickling Filter/Solids Contact Process: Full-Scale Studies;
EPA/600/2-86/046; PB86-183100/AS
Forecasting On-Site Soil Absorption System Failure Rates;
EPA/600/2-86/060; PB86-216744/AS
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual;
EPA/430/9-78/009; (MCD-53)
Technology Evaluation of the Dual Digestion System;
EPA/600/J-86/150; PB87-116802/AS
ORDER
SOURCE
Costs of Air Pollution Abatement Systems for Sewage
Incinerators: EPA/600/2-86/102; PB87-117743/AS
Wastewater Treatment Plant Instrumentation Handbook;
EPA/600/8-85/026; PB86-108636/AS
OTHER I/A PUBLICATIONS
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly? Options for
Small Communities
Management of On-Site and Small Community Wastewater Systems;
EPA/600/8-82-009
Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities; EPA/600/8-80-030
Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Systems; EPA/625/1-80-012
It's Your Choice - A Wastewater Treatment Handbook for the
Local Official
Looking at User Charges - A State Survey and Report
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,3,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,2,3
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,3,5
1,2
1,2,3
58
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
ORDER
TITLE SOURCE
OTHER I/A PUBLICATIONS (cont.)
Touching All the Bases: A Financial Handbook for Your
Wastewater Treatment Project 1,2
ORDERING CODES
I/A TECHNOLOGY VIDEO TAPES
Small Diameter Effluent Sewers (11 minutes) 1,2
Sand Filters (9 minutes) 1,2
Upgrading Small Community Wastewater Treatment (20 minutes) 1,2
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities (15 minutes) 1,2 .
59
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
The Documents listed in this table can be ordered from the following addresses, as
designated by document.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES CENTER
(IRC)
The Ohio State University
1200 Chambers Road - Room 310
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 292-6717
2. NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS CLEARINGHOUSE
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown, WV 26506
org
1-800-
624-8301
3. EPA-OMPC-MFD (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
4. EPA Regional Offices
For Telephone Numbers, see Appendix B
5. EPA-Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7562
6. NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
NOTE: Depending upon ordering source, there may be a charge for some documents.
60
-------
APPENDIX E
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
STATUS
COMMENTS
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
PARAGOULD, AR
PHOENIX, AZ
HAYWARD, CA
CITY OF
GUSTINE, CA
MONTEREY, CA
SAN DIEGO, CA
•A/O PROCESS
BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT
BAFFLE SYSTEM/
SERPENTINE FLOW
WITH DUCKWEED
DIGESTER GAS
SCRUBBING
•OXYTRON
PURE-OXYGEN FLUID
BED REACTOR
AQUACULTURE/MARSH
POLYCULTURE
ADVANCED SECONDARY
CROP IRRIGATION
AQUACULTURE/PULSED
AND FIXED BED
ANAEROBIC HYBRID
ROCK-REED FILTERS
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
ONGOING
DEMONSTRATED GOOD BIOLOGICAL
AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
DURING WINTER MONTHS
COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION APPROVED
FIELD TEST REPORT UNDER
REVIEW BY STATE AGENCY AND EPA
DEMONSTRATED ENERGY SAVINGS
APPROXIMATELY 23-35% COMPARED
TO CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
DEMONSTRATED BOD AND SUSPENDED
SOLIDS REMOVAL COULD BE
ACHIEVED
ALSO REFINED THE
DESIGN CRITERIA
DEMONSTRATED ADVANCED SECONDARY
TREATMENT ADEQUATE FOR FOOD
CROP PRODUCTION
-------
NJ
APPENDIX E
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
STATUS
COMMENTS
IDAHO CITY, ID
DECATUR, IL
WAUCONDA, IL
DENHAM SPRINGS, LA
HOMER, LA
OPELOUSAS, LA
JACKMAN, ME
YARMOUTH, MA
RAPID INFILTRATION/
WETLANDS
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR
FORCSO
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
ROCK-REED FILTER
SYSTEM
INTRA-CHANNEL
BOATCLARIFIER
CAPTOR PROCESS
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL/
STABILIZATION POND
SEPTAGE TREATMENT
COMPLETED ONLY PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETED
FULL SCALE FIELD TEST
DEMONSTRATED TOTAL BOD
REMOVALS OF 13-44%
COMPLETED REPORT IN PREPARATION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
PLANNED
ONGOING
COMPLETED
DEMONSTRATED SEPTAGE
COULD BE TREATED COST
EFFECTIVELY WHILE
ACHIEVING NUTRIENT
REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
-------
APPENDIX E
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
STATUS
COMMENTS
DEER ISLAND, MA
RISING SUN, MD
LITTLE BLUE
VALLEY, .MO
DEVILS LAKE, ND
ROSWELL, NM
CHEMUNG COUNTY, NY
HORNELL, NY
TOLEDO, OH
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
•PHOTOZONE
ACTIVATED OZONE
DISINFECTION
BURNS/MACDONALD
' INTRA-CHANNEL
CLARIFIER
LEMNA (DUCKWEED)
PROCESS FOR REDUCING
SUSPENDED SOLIDS/
PHOSPHORUS
•BROWN BEAR
SLUDGE DRYING
TRICKLING FILTER/
SOLIDS CONTACT
SEEDED BACTERIAL
NITRIFICATION
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR
ONGOING
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
ONGOING
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
DEMONSTRATED NOT COST
EFFECTIVE COMPARED TO
UV DISINFECTION
DEMONSTRATED INTRA-CHANNEL
CLARIFIER SYSTEM WORKS-FULL
SCALE PLANT BUILT
DEMONSTRATED GOOD
POTENTIAL FOR SS AND
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY OF
SINGLE STAGE FILTER FOR
BOD REDUCTION/NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED CHEAPER
METHOD FOR NITRIFICATION
DEMONSTRATED LESS THAN
20% SOLIDS AND BOD REMOVAL
-------
APPENDIX E
INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
TECHNOLOGY
STATUS
COMMENTS
GRAND STRAND, SC
ADVANCED WASTE
TREATMENT/WETLANDS
CRAIG-NEW CASTLE, VA UV DISINFECTION
MOUNDSVILLE, WV
CLEAR WATER, WI
•CAPTOR
POROUS BIOMASS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE IN
CON VENTIONAL SLUDGE
•ZIMPRO
FILTRATION PRIMARY
EFFLUENT USING
PULSED BED FILTER
ONGOING
ONGOING
COMPLETED
COMPLETED
DEMONSTRATED CONSISTENT
SECONDARY SLUDGE CONCENTRATION
OF 3.6% WITHOUT SLUDGE
THICKENING
DEMONSTRATED 56% SOLIDS
AND 28% BOD REMOVAL
•MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EPA
ENDORSEMENT OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
------- |