Report No. 9075-044-001
Contract No. 68-01-2942
Task Order No. 014
February 19, 1976
URVEY OF THE USE OF INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY IN MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall, RD-682
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: Mr. James Basilico
BOOZ • ALLEN & HAMILTONinc
Management Consultants
4733 BETHE3DA AVENUE
BETHESDA, MARYLAND SOOI4
ese-zsoo
AREA CODE 301
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
INTRODUCTION
1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1
1. A Survey of 13 States Indicates That.
Conservatism Dominates the Technology
Selection Process in Municipal Waste-
water Treatment 1-1
2. Critical Needs Are Becoming Evident
in Municipal Wastewater Treatment
That Are Not Being Addressed Within
the Present Framework of the Con-
struction Grant Program 1-2
3. Significant Barriers Exist to the
Timely Introduction of New Waste-
water Treatment Technologies 1-3
4. Tracking of Projects Utilizing New
Technology and the Dissemination of
Information to Potential Users Are
Necessary Prerequisites to Any Attempt
to Streamline the Development Process 1-5
5. Alternatives Must Be Considered to
Encourage the Development of Poten-
tially Cost-Effective New Technologies
for Use in Municipal Treatment Systems 1-6
II. EMERGING PROBLEMS IN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT II-l
1. Ultimate Disposal of Sludge II-l
2. Wastewater Renovation II-3
3. Alternative Methods of Disinfection II-3
4. Small Community Treatment Needs II-3
5. Resource Recovery I1-4
6. Energy Usage II-4
-ii-
-------
Page
Number
III. BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY III-l
1. Equipment Manufacturers III-l
2. Consulting Engineering Firms III-8
3. Municipalities 111-10
4. State Regulatory Agencies III-ll
5. EPA Construction Grant Program 111-12
IV. DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION IV-1
V. ALTERNATIVES TO ENCOURAGE THE INTRO-
DUCTION OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT V-l
1. Increased Level of Funding for the
EPA Demonstration Grant Program V-l
2. Establishment of a Federally Funded,
State-Run Technology Development
Program V-2
3. Privately Financed Demonstrations
of New Technology V-2
4. Modification of Existing Legislation
to Fund the Demonstration Grant Pro-
gram From Construction Grant Funds V-3
5. Expansion of the Existing Construc-
tion Grant Program V-3
-iii-
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of a study performed
for the Office of Research and Development of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The purpose of the study is to
determine whether or not innovative technologies are being
used in municipal wastewater treatment projects funded under
the Construction Grant Program and to identify the reasons
why such technologies are or are not being employed.
During the seven-week study, interviews were conducted
with EPA regional personnel, state regulatory personnel,
municipal representatives, consulting engineers, and equip-
ment manufacturers. The survey concentrated on 13 states
within EPA Regions IV, V, and IX. The states surveyed were:
Region IV:
Alabama
Mississippi
Georgia
Florida
Kentucky
Tennessee
North Carolina
South Carolina
Region V:
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Ohio
Region IX:
California.
Additional contacts were made with EPA personnel in Regions
III, VIII, and X.
Regions IV, V, and IX were selected for the survey
largely because of their diversity in climate, geography,
and population distribution. This selection provided a
broad cross-section of municipal treatment and disposal
-------
practices and problems for inclusion in the study. Partici-
pants in the study were selected for their general familiar-
ity with wastewater treatment practices and needs in their
area.
Participants were asked to identify any wastewater
treatment projects that had considered certain innovative
processes and to indicate whether the process had been
selected/rejected and why/why not. An innovative technology
was defined to be one not in common use about the country.
Sixteen treatment technologies were selected as a basis for
discussion, although each respondent was encouraged to add
to the list as appropriate. The 16 technologies selected
for discussion were:
Regional septage treatment. A regional septic
tank pumpout, treatment, and disposal system was
the basis of discussion.
Landspreading of sludge. Application of sludge
to land in either solid or liquid form as fertil-
izer was discussed. Treatment of sludge by over-
land flow was also included.
Attached growth media for biological nitrification.
Technologies considered here included rotating
biological discs (RBDs), rotating biological con-
tactors (RBCs), redwood media tower, stacked plas-
tic media tower, and dumped plastic media tower.
Advanced sludge dewatering techniques. Of inter-
est here was the use of slow-speed centrifuges and
filter presses.
Steam gasification of sewage sludge. The described
system uses pyrolytic activity to convert organic
materials into fuel gas and inorganic materials
into ash. The fuel gas is then burned to produce
electricity.
Composting. Subjects were questioned as to their
familiarity with this process and their percep-
tions of its suitability for widespread use.
Ozone disinfection. Perceptions regarding the
use of ozone as an alternative to chlorine for
disinfection of wastewater were examined.
-------
Alternatives for upgrading lagoons to meet secon-
dary standards. Sand, rock and mixed media fil-
ters were the principal methods discussed.
Treatment alternatives for reuse of wastewater.
Wastewater uses were examined ranging from deep
well injection to prevent salt water intrusion to
primary contact. Feasibility of wastewater reno-
vation to meet drinking water standards was also
discussed. State-of-the-art of treatment tech-
nologies necessary to allow the various uses was
also addressed.
Sludge pyrolysis. Chemical conversion of organic
material by pyrolysis in multiple hearth furnaces
was the principal method discussed.
Open-tank oxygenation. Oxygenation of wastewater
in closed tanks was considered to be already de-
veloped; subjects were questioned to determine
their familiarity with the open tank oxygenation
systems presently under development.
Single-stage nitrification-denitrification. The
process discussed employs alternating periods of
aerobic and anaerobic operating conditions in a
single activated sludge reactor to produce nitro-
gen removal without methanol addition.
Physical/chemical treatment. The principal method
discussed was the addition of lime for coagulation
followed by activated carbon filtration.
Deep oxidation ditch. A biological treatment sys-
tem was described that uses mechanical aerators
for producing secondary treatment with the poten-
tial for moderate removal of total nitrogen.
Fluidized oxygen reactor for biological secondary
treatment. The system under discussion was to
achieve carbonaceous oxidation-nitrification using
fluidized oxygen bed, fixed-film technology in
biological reactors.
Nitrogen recovery from wastewater and reuse as
fertilizer. A system using pure oxygen biological
treatment followed by two-stage lime clarification,
filtration, ammonia removal and recovery, chlori-
nation, and dechlorination formed the basis of
discussion.
-------
The technologies listed above were selected because
they showed a potential for being cost-effective, were not
in common use across the country, and in a number of cases
had not been demonstrated full-scale yet.
In order to provide the framework for the interview,
each respondent was questioned as to his familiarity with
EPA's Technology Transfer Program. Each participant was
asked if he regularly used any of Technology Transfer's
Process Design Manual's on the following topics:
Phosphorus removal
Carbon adsorption
Suspended solids removal
Upgrading existing water treatment plants
Sulfide control in sanitary sewage systems
Sludge treatment and disposal
Nitrogen control.
In general, the Technology Transfer Program enjoyed a
high degree of recognition among those contacted. The Pro-
cess Design Manuals put out by the group were known vir-
tually to all contacted and seemed to be widely employed.
In addition, the Technology Transfer seminars were consis-
tently described as useful in identifying new developments
in municipal wastewater treatment.
-------
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
-------
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. A SURVEY OF 13 STATES INDICATES THAT CONSERVATISM DOMI-
NATES THE TECHNOLOGY SELECTION PROCESS IN MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Interviews with equipment manufacturers, consulting en-
gineers, municipal representatives, and state and Federal
regulatory personnel have established that there exists con-
siderable resistance to the introduction of potentially cost-
effective, innovative technologies in municipal wastewater
treatment. Reluctance to adopt innovative processes stems
largely from doubts about process reliability and uncertainty
over costs of construction, operation, and maintenance. In
the majority of states surveyed, the lack of familiarity
with new processes is responsible for the relatively small
number of construction grant applications proposing innova-
tive technologies.
The ability of individual states to encourage adoption
of more progressive approaches in wastewater treatment seems
directly related to the financial commitment made by the
state in its water management programs. States with strong
water resource management programs, such as California,
Illinois, and Michigan, are more aggressive in implementing
innovative solutions to water quality problems. States
lacking the necessary financial commitment are content to
employ more conservative solutions for the present and wait
for others to develop the newer technologies.
In California, for example, the State Water Resource
Control Board has implemented a progressive construction
grant program funded under guidelines as restrictive as EPA's
and staffed with sufficient personnel to provide in-depth
technical review of each project. The state commonly imple-
ments new technology as a pilot project recommended for Step 1
funding under the Construction Grant Program. Illinois and
Michigan may also be considered fairly progressive in this
respect due to active state involvement in water programs.
In the other states surveyed, conservatism generally
dominates the technology selection and review process to
such extent that only the most developed technologies are
recommended for Federal funding. However, some large muni-
cipalities, such as the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
1-1
-------
Greater Chicago and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis-
trict, are able to implement new technologies quickly and
efficiently, largely as a result of their funding autonomy.
A state-by-state breakdown of survey results is presented
in the appendix.
2. CRITICAL NEEDS ARE BECOMING EVIDENT IN MUNICIPAL WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT THAT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED WITHIN THE
PRESENT FRAMEWORK OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
Although an energetic program is underway to implement
the provisions of PL 92-500 in a timely fashion, certain
needs in wastewater treatment are likely to become more criti-
cal in the near future and will require the application of
technologies not currently in common use. Among the areas
needing greater development are:
Ultimate disposal of sludge. As treatment stan-
dards become more restrictive, sludge handling
and disposal problems multiply. Proven alterna-
tives are too limited to satisfy current needs,
much less future demands. Dewatering techniques,
composting, pyrolysis, landspreading, and steam
gasification of sludge are considered candidates
for more intensive study and development.
Wastewater reuse. Many water-short areas of the
country are facing the prospect of wastewater re-
use on a large scale within the next 10-15 years.
Other areas of the country which enjoy a super-
abundance of water are concerned with indirect
reuse because of the increased potential for con-
tact between effluent flows and potable supplies.
Public resistance to the concept of reuse is strong
and represents an obstacle to the demonstration of
new technologies.
Treatment needs of small communities. Until re-
cently, state and Federal funding priorities were
slanted toward the needs of the major metropolitan
centers in an effort to get the greatest benefit
from each dollar. This operated to the detriment
of small communities, especially those on water
quality-limited streams. Although priorities
have been adjusted somewhat, more needs to be done
to demonstrate economical means of meeting tightened
standards. Delay could intensify both groundwater
and surface water pollution problems.
1-2
-------
Energy consumption. The recent escalation of energy
costs pointed up the need for development of tech-
nologies less extravagant in energy usage. Such
processes would find ready applications to con-
ventional, as well as advanced treatment needs.
3. SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS EXIST TO THE TIMELY INTRODUCTION
OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Factors inhibiting the implementation of new technology
are common to all elements of the development process, com-
prising equipment manufacturers, consulting engineers, muni-
cipalities, and state and Federal regulatory bodies.
(1) Equipment Manufacturers
Equipment manufacturers are limited financially in
their ability to develop a new process to the point
where it is ready for widespread application to munici-
pal systems. The primary reasons for this are:
The size of the market for municipal waste-
water equipment is a small although growing
portion of total costs of treatment plants.
The structure of the industry has not been
conducive to product innovation.
Economic conditions beyond the control of the
industry have resulted in limited prospects
for introducing new technology.
Generally low industry-wide rates of return
on investment have seriously limited the
capability of the industry to develop inno-
vative products.
There are significant barriers to the demon-
stration of innovative products by the in-
dustry.
The "Nonrestrictive Specification" clause of
PL 92-500 is not well understood. Uncertainty
over the interpretation of the clause has ad-
versely affected the introduction of new tech-
nology.
1-3
-------
(2) The Consulting Engineer
The consulting engineer is often reluctant to recom-
mend the use of innovative technology because:
His first priority is to provide the munici-
pality with the most reliable system avail-
able to do the job.
Adequate data for evaluation of innovative
technologies is frequently lacking.
The constraints on the consulting engineer's
time from the many municipalities seeking EPA
Construction Grants militates against the
thorough evaluation of innovative technologies.
The true cost-effectiveness of a new tech-
nology can usually be evaluated only after
very detailed study.
Required operator skill levels are often
higher than those available to the municipal
client.
(3) Municipalities
Municipalities tend to be fairly conservative with
regard to selection of treatment technologies. Two
major considerations tending to limit the adoption of
new technology by municipalities are:
Uncertainties in O&M costs of innovative tech-
nologies, and
The need to upgrade operator skill levels and
operating staff levels.
(4) State Regulatory Agencies
State regulatory agencies are constrained in their
adoption of new technologies by the need to commit allo-
cated Federal funds in a timely fashion lest they re-
vert to the government. Thus, the amount of time a
state can allot for implementing a new process is closely
circumscribed by the need for decisive funding action.
1-4
-------
Complicating the approval process further, are the
•Prtl 1 A\T*fi r\rr -Far^t-rtve •
^ — - ^ — — -
following factors:
State offices charged with the review of
facilities plans and specs have varying de-
grees of familiarity with innovative tech-
nology and tend to be conservative in their
selection.
Most states do not have research budgets or
funds for demonstration programs.
State regulatory agencies sometimes over-
zealously interpret suggested EPA guidelines
as mandated regulations.
(5) EPA's Construction Grant Program
EPA's Construction Grant Program has as a top prior-
ity, getting treatment systems "into the ground" in
time to meet the deadlines set by PL 92-500. As a re-
sult, those technologies furthest along in development
are picked up most readily, while those processes lagging
for lack of adequate demonstration are adopted slowly,
if at all. Although the official EPA guidelines will
allow implementation of technologies that are less than
fully proven, the ruling of itself is unlikely to have
a significant effect upon the development of new tech-
nologies.
4. TRACKING OF PROJECTS UTILIZING NEW TECHNOLOGY AND THE
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION TO POTENTIAL USERS ARE
NECESSARY PREREQUISITES TO ANY ATTEMPT TO STREAMLINE
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Design and operating data from plants employing new
technology will need to be collected and analyzed before a
strategy for speeding the development of selected technolo-
gies can be chosen. Dissemination of relevant data will
also be an integral part of any such program.
It is recommended that an information system be esta-
blished and maintained to track proposed and on-going pro-
jects using new technology and to disseminate information
on the design and operation of such facilities to potential
users.
1-5
-------
5. ALTERNATIVES MUST BE CONSIDERED TO ENCOURAGE THE DE-
VELOPMENT OF POTENTIALLY COST-EFFECTIVE NEW TECHNOLO-
GIES FOR USE IN MUNICIPAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Alternatives for speeding the development of new tech-
nologies include:
Funding the existing Demonstration Grant Program
at a higher level with financial incentives to en-
courage new technology demonstration
Providing Federal demonstration money to the states
to encourage full-scale demonstrations oriented
toward state needs
Privately financed demonstrations of new tech-
nology — performed by EPA and paid for by in-
dustry
Changing existing legislation to allow some per-
centage of construction grant funds to be spent
for new technology development under the Demon-
stration Grant Program
Reordering of priorities of existing Construction
Grant Program to encourage development of new tech-
nologies.
These and other alternatives will need more detailed
study before an appropriate course of action can be selected.
1-6
-------
II. EMERGING PROBLEMS IN MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
-------
II. EMERGING PROBLEMS IN MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
The results of the survey of 13 states, presented in the
Appendix, bring out the fact that there are certain emerging
treatment needs that are common to a large number of the
states surveyed. The consistency with which these problem
areas were singled out, points up the need for planning be-
yond the immediate requirements of PL 92-500. The urgency
of the Construction Grant Program's efforts to get proven
technology "into the ground" in time to meet the legislated
deadlines leaves little time for formulating approaches to
emerging problems. Although the "now" orientation of the
program is appropriate to its goal of meeting the 1977 dead-
line, the approach, nevertheless, lends little guidance to
communities attempting to plan beyond immediate needs.
An example of the Construction Grant Program's inability
to address emerging needs in a cost-effective fashion is pro-
vided by the problems encountered in Decatur, Illinois. Dis-
charge from a Decatur treatment plant often constitutes the
only flow in the Sangamon River. Since the flow passes
through Allerton Park, a biological preserve, strict controls
are maintained over the quality of the plant effluent. Never-
theless, in order to meet the standards imposed for the Sangamon,
the plant's discharge will have to either eliminated or di-
luted. Because zero discharge systems are considered unproved tech-
nology, the Construction Grant Program cannot fund their addi-
tion to the plant. However, zero discharge technology would
be a strong candidate for a demonstration grant, were one
available. Now, in order to achieve the necessary dilution
of effluent, a dam upstream of the treatment plant has been
proposed as the only means for meeting water quality standards
along that portion of the Sangamon. The dam will cost many
times the price of a grant to demonstrate zero discharge tech-
nology and will have a much more severe effect upon the en-
vironment. A demonstration grant would be a cost-effective
method of getting beyond the impasse caused by the lack of
flexibility in the Construction Grant Program.
Innovative technologies will be needed to address many
of the most commonly cited problem areas simply because
II-l
-------
conventional processes can't. Examples of emerging needs
that will require the demonstration of cost-effective, in-
novative technology in the near future include:
Ultimate disposal of sludge
Wastewater renovation
Alternate methods of disinfection
Small community treatment needs
,.Resource recovery
Energy usage.
New technology needs for these emerging problem areas
are discussed in the following sections.
1. ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE
The dilemma faced in this area is that while ocean dis-
posal of sludge is to be phased out, land disposal options
are not yet fully proven. In particular:
Landspreading of sludge needs more full-scale work
on control of heavy metals and viruses, as well as
techniques for application to the soil.
Landfill disposal of sludge is of limited use in
high watertable areas, such as those common over
the Southeastern U.S.
Incineration of sludge creates air pollution prob-
lems unless emissions are controlled by expensive
stack gas treatment systems.
Composting faces serious public acceptance problems,
as well as some technical difficulties.
Pyrolysis is a process whose uses and advantages
are poorly understood; it will need more demon-
stration before finding widespread acceptance.
Steam gasification of sludge to generate electri-
city is virtually unknown, although it promises
energy self-sufficiency in sludge disposal; the
process will need full-scale demonstration prior
to general use.
In sum, the range of proven alternatives in sludge dis-
posal is simply too narrow to address even current problems
adequately, much less future needs.
II-2
-------
2. WASTEWATER RENOVATION
Many water-short areas of the country, including parts
of Florida and California, are facing the prospect of waste-
water reuse on a large scale within the next 10-15 years.
Other areas of the country which enjoy a superabundance of
water are concerned over indirect reuse because of the in-
creased potential for contact between effluent discharges
and potable supplies. Public resistance to the concept of
wastewater reuse is strong and represents an obstacle to the
implementation of recycling programs.
Much work needs to be done in the areas of chlorination-
dechlorination, ozonation for disinfection, and nitrification-
denitrification. Too few technological alternatives have been
developed sufficiently to allow the necessary comparison test-
ing of different approaches to renovation.
3. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISINFECTION
Potentially adverse effects of chlorine compounds in
treated effluent are becoming more of a concern. The high
cost of dechlorination is resulting in increased emphasis
on alternative disinfection methods. Ozone is the most
developed replacement in sight, but its use is questioned
in some areas, most notably in California, on technical
grounds. More work is needed to determine if problems with
turbidity and coliform survival can be resolved. Other
technologies, such as UV-light and radiation, are far from
full-scale application.
4. SMALL COMMUNITY TREATMENT NEEDS
In an effort to obtain the greatest benefit from each
dollar spent, both state and Federal funding priorities for
wastewater treatment have been directed toward the needs of
the major metropolitan centers, priorities have recently
been revised somewhat to allow the funding of projects in
the smaller towns but much more needs to be done before
their needs will be met adequately.
The major problem is that conventional treatment systems
are so expensive that many small towns cannot even raise
their local share of the cost (25 percent). Secondly, most
small communities can't afford to hire the type of qualified
plant operator that most complex treatment systems require.
II-3
-------
Thus, there is a real need for the development of simple and
inexpensive treatment alternatives for small communities,
especially if they lie along water quality-limited streams.
5. RESOURCE RECOVERY
Resource recovery techniques have the potential to turn
costly waste disposal operations into sources of income for
the large municipalities. Although some unit processes are
available, i.e., the "Puretec" wet oxidation process for
metals recovery, what is lacking is a systems approach to
the generation of profit from waste. Waste processing for
resource recovery will require not only new technology, but
also a multidisciplinary approach to waste handling.
6. ENERGY USAGE
The recent, sharp increases in the price of energy have
accentuated the need for development of treatment technologies
that avoid energy-intensive steps. Given the sensitivity of
municipalities to operating and maintenance costs, technologies
which can demonstrate savings in energy usage are likely to
find applications in conventional, as well as advanced waste
treatment systems.
II-4
-------
III. BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
-------
III. BARRIERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
This chapter examines obstacles to the development and
adoption of innovative technologies in municipal wastewater
treatment. The various elements of the selection process
under which new technologies are implemented are discussed
and the economic factors affecting each segment's view of
new technology are described.
The selection process consists primarily of the following
elements:
Equipment manufacturers
Consulting engineering firms
Municipalities
State regulatory agencies
EPA Construction Grant Program.
The role and the limitations of each of these groups in im-
plementing new technology is discussed in the following
sections.
1. EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS
The pollution control equipment industry historically
has been buffeted by a variety of factors important among
which were:
Excessive competition among manufacturers
Divergent regulatory positions of government
agencies
A smaller market than was originally expected
Unfavorable contracts with equipment buyers
Low rates of return on investment.
The stormy climate within the industry led to some shaking
out of marginal firms and the development of fairly strong
marketing and technological expertise among the more success-
ful firms. The transition years of the industry, from the
III-l
-------
late 1960's to the present, however, took their toll in terms
of research and development reinvestment by manufacturers.
There just weren't sufficient earnings, if any, to channel
into R&D except among a few relatively profitable firms.
Other firms either were forced to make private debt place-
ments to fund R&D or simply to forego R&D completely. The
high cost of private borrowing made prospects for new R&D
even worse.
At present, prospects for reinvestment by manufacturers
in R&D have improved somewhat, but serious barriers to the
research, development, and marketing of innovative technologies
by manufacturers still exist and are likely to continue in the
future. Existing barriers to the adoption of innovative,
potentially cost-effective technologies are discussed below
in terms of the size of the municipal equipment market, the
structure and performance of the industry, consequences of
poor rates of return, and several key marketing problems.
(1) The Size of the Market for Municipal Wastewater
Equipment is a Small but Growing Portion of the
Cost of Treatment Plants
Most published information on the pollution control
industry cites tremendous amounts of Federal funds being
allocated to municipal waste treatment and tends to imply
a grossly exaggerated market for municipal wastewater
control equipment. A careful analysis reveals that only
about 13 to 28 percent of the total cost of a treatment
plant goes toward process and process control equipment.*
The reason is simple: treatment plant construction is
labor intensive. For example, a typical 15 MGD secondary
treatment plant might have the following allocation of
costs:
Cost Allocation, 15 MGD Plant
HVAC 13%
Total labor 39
Wastewater equipment and sludge
incineration 16
Site preparation, piping, concrete
and structures, miscellaneous 32
100%
Source of information: "The Environmental Control Industry,"
Council on Environmental Quality, December 1975, Kenneth Leung
and Jeffrey A. Klein.
III-2
-------
The size of the market for municipal wastewater equip-
ment has been estimated and is shown below:
Expenditures for Municipal Wastewater Equipment
and Treatment Plants, 1960-1970
and Projections to 19lTO
Treatment
Equipment Costs Plant Costs Percent of
Year (Millions of Dollars) (Millions of Dollars) Total
1960 34.0 261.7 12.9%
1961 32.9 251.2 13.1%
1962 40.0 303.0 13.2%
1963 50.0 375.9 13.3%
1964 66.4 494.5 13.4%
1965 53.4 430.0 12.4%
1966 61.9 476.8 13.0%
1967 52.9 391.9 13.5%
1968 78.3 570.0 13.7%
1969 70.0 496.5 14.1%
1970 89.6 586.0 15.3%
1971* 115.0 735.0 15.6%
1972* 140.0 864.0 16.2%
1975* 233.0 1,164.0 20.0%
1980* 502.0 1,860.0 27.0%
* Estimated in 1971 dollars.
SOURCE: K.L. Kollar and W.G. Youngwirth, "The Market for Water and
Wastewater Equipment," Construction Review, October/
November 1971.
These estimates were obtained from surveys performed
by the Department of Commerce in 1965, 1968, and 1970.
Values shown for the years 1971 through 1980 are based
on trend line projections in 1971 dollars. As is seen
from the table outlays for wastewater equipment as a
percentage of treatment plant cost are expected to in-
crease by 67 percent over the 8 years from 1972 to 1980,
Part of the increase can be attributed to the growing
importance of advanced treatment systems which consume
a higher percentage of total new plant cost and to the
need for improved sludge handling and disposal equip-
ment. In the transition years of the industry, 1968-
III-3
-------
1974, manufacturers and investors typically overestimated
the size of this market segment because of uncertainty
about the rate of Federal expenditures. As a consequence,
the industry attained an undeserved "glamour," and many
firms were attracted to the marketplace.
(2) The Structure of the Industry Has Not Been Conducive
to Product Innovation
In the transition years, manufacturers gradually
shifted attention from existing product lines to new
and diversified products which were tailored more to
meeting emerging treatment needs. Thus, it has been
only recently that manufacturers have aggressively
started to define their markets and to market effec-
tively. The following structural elements of the in-
dustry have constrained profitability, return on in-
vestments, and technology innovation:
High number of firms in the industry. The
industry developed from a base comprised of
numerous participants mostly small in size
but including several divisions of large
firms. About 600 firms currently market
municipal wastewater treatment products.
Many firms are not well financed and have
very limited or no R&D capabilities.
Excessive competition. The sheer numbers of
participants in the market combined with
hectic efforts to carve out niches in the
market in the face of overestimated market
size has led to stress on price as the com-
petitive marketing edge rather than value.
Manufacturers have been preoccupied with
cutting costs on existing product lines in
lieu of identifying new markets and develop-
ing innovative products for them.
Expensive marketing requirements for inno-
vative products. Innovative products re-
quire a much greater commitment to marketing,
because the buyer is a "process" rather than
a person. In contrast to the industrial pol-
lution control equipment buyer who is a profits-
oriented production manager, the buyer of
municipal equipment is actually several people
III-4
-------
in both private industry and government agen-
cies engaged in the EPA construction grant
process. The "buyer" includes the consulting
engineer, the municipality, the state regula-
tory body, and EPA. To some extent, the
public at large is part of the "buyer," be-
cause the manufacturer's innovative product
must be acceptable to the public, particularly
in environmental protection areas.
Because a particular manufacturer has pros-
pects for only a small market share, he must
market to as many buyers as possible. That
means going to a great number of people just
to introduce the new technology. The corres-
ponding costs are high and cannot be met by
firms that are not well financed. Thus, the
more profitable firms and firms able to assume
more risk are the only ones who can really
afford to develop innovative products. The
number of firms in this position is small
relative to the total number in the industry.
Unfavorable sales contract structure. The
sales contract between the equipment manu-
facturer and the municipality is regulated
by the EPA, who funds the bulk of the proj-
ect cost. In the past, two restrictions
have contributed significantly to the poor
profitability of equipment sales:
Payment on installation with no progress
payments allowed
Fixed price contracts
Both of these regulatory restrictions are in
the process of being amended by the EPA. Some
form of progress payments and inflation cov-
erage would greatly improve the industry's
profitability prospects and ease the serious
cash flow problems.
III-5
-------
(3) Economic Conditions Beyond the Control of the
Industry Have Resulted in Limited Prospects for
Introducing New Technology
The availability of capital has been a restrictive
factor during an important part of the industry's growth,
the early 1970's. The increased cost of capital has
hindered the introduction of new technologies by in-
creasing certain operating expenses such as marketing
and by making the cost of R&D higher to firms with
limited reinvestment opportunities. Most firms in
the industry were adversely affected.
The period 1973 to 1975 was a tremendously diffi-
cult period for.the industry, because cost escalations,
materials shortages, and some labor problems eroded al-
ready slim profit margins. Poor profits, coupled with
the high cost of capital, set R&D back severely. Manu-
facturers were forced to concentrate on keeping a lid
on prices of existing products, instead of developing
new ones. The industry also had some difficulty in
retaining enough environmental engineers to satisfy
its total needs, and individual manufacturers were
plagued somewhat by job switching among key people.
Together, these factors undermined profitability, and
increased project lead times substantially, further
discouraging development of new technologies.
(4) Generally Low Industry-wide Rates of Return on
Investment Have Seriously Limited the Capability
of the Industry To Develop Innovative Products
Poor performance of firms in the industry, in terms
of low rates of return, has led management to take three
courses of action which restrict the research, develop-
ment, and marketing of innovative municipal waste treat-
ment equipment:
Restrict commitments to additional manufac-
turing capacity.This action precludes much
of the potential for the commercialization
of any innovative projects by limiting oppor-
tunities for unit cost reduction and product
exposure.
Restrict availability of internal financing
for innovative product marketing. When bor-
rowed funds are necessary to market new
III-6
-------
products, the prospects for profitability of
these products are further reduced.
Limit funding of R&D. This action defers in-
novation to years of better company performance
and forces the firm to allocate resources
among existing products and priority research
projects.
(5) There Are Significant Barriers to the Demonstration
of Innovative Products by the Industry
It was noted earlier that the buyer of municipal
wastewater equipment is really a number of people en-
gaged in the process of designing a treatment plant
and obtaining EPA approval. The manufacturer must
convince everyone in the process that his innovative
equipment will not only do the job but will also pro-
duce cost savings. To do this, the manufacturer must
supply adequate proof of his claims. More often than
not, the only convincing proof is full-scale operating
data on a process or piece of equipment. The manu-
facturer's key to getting this data is arranging with
municipalities for incorporation of the innovative
equipment into a proposed plant on a pilot basis. This
usually requires that the equipment have only a minor
effect on the reliability of the whole plant and that
it be specified as only part of the new plant's treat-
ment process. An optional approach is to arrange with
the municipality to add innovative equipment in paral-
lel to existing equipment at a municipal plant. This
option is financed usually by the manufacturer either
entirely or with some support from state or EPA funds.
Thus, the means for full-scale demonstration of in-
novative technologies are limited and expensive for
the manufacturer. When costs become too high because
of poor profitability of the firm or the high cost of
capital, demonstration becomes a difficult or impossible
burden for the firm to bear. It can either shift re-
sources to more proven technologies or try to market
innovative equipment using the operating results of
pilot-scale tests. As will be discussed later, such
results are much .less convincing to the municipal
equipment buyers.
Complicating the manufacturer's demonstration
problems is the reluctance of most municipalities to
engage in arrangements with manufacturers for full-
III-7
-------
scale demonstrations. It is usually very difficult for
a manufacturer to find the right combination of factors
to enable a meaningful one-time demonstration of his
equipment. On the other hand, it becomes prohibitively
costly for one firm to conduct such demonstrations in
more than one area of the country at one time. The
manufacturer can rarely, if ever, finance his own full-
scale demonstration plant. Likewise, a manufacturer
can almost surely not finance a comparison demonstra-
tion on a full-scale basis in which his equipment is
tested against a competitor's or against a different
process.
(6) The "Nonrestrictive Specification" Clause of
PL 92-500 is Not Well Understood. Uncertainty
Over Interpretation of the Clause Has Adversely
!££
tb
Affected the Introduction of New Technology.
The "Nonrestrictive Specification" clause, known
to many manufacturers and consulting engineers as the
"brand name or equal" clause, requires that specifica-
tions for equipment for EPA grant-eligible treatment
plants be structured so that no manufacturers are arbi-
trarily excluded. Where manufacturers or brand names
are used in the specification, at least three names,
all included as equals, must be given. The regulation
can be expected to cause manufacturers to stress price
instead of value in their products since the lowest
cost product which satisfies the specs must be chosen.
Such very real values as reliability of the manufacturer
in providing satisfactory units on time, his ability to
honor warranties, his reputation for and ability to pro-
vide service on equipment, and his reputation for re-
liable equipment in general are usually not appraised
in determining equality between products and can be
written into specifications only with difficulty.
Another concern of the manufacturer is that the
"Nonrestrictive Specification" clause will cost him
at least some of the business of his most established
customers since they can no longer routinely specify
his proven products.
2. CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRMS
Consulting engineers are virtually at the center of
the design/approval process for EPA grant-eligible treatment
III-8
-------
plants. They evaluate innovative technologies against more
conventional ones before arriving at design recommendations,
but at the same time, they are sensitive to the preferences
of their clients — the municipalities — and to the accept-
ability of innovative designs to the state and EPA reviewers.
In addition, equipment manufacturers recognize the key posi-
tion of consulting engineers and inundate them with claims
of varying credibility on innovative equipment and processes.
This overview of the role of the consulting engineer in
the design/approval process is expanded below with attention
to constraints on his recommendation of innovative technology
in POTW design.
(1) The Consulting Engineer Tends To Be Conservative
Because His First Priority is To Provide the
Municipality With a Workable, Reliable System
Municipalities generally prefer the reliability
provided by proven technology to the risk associated
with innovative technologies, even if some cost savings
are possible with innovation. The consulting engineer
seeks to minimize the risk to the municipality by rec-
ommending technologies for which full-scale operating
data are available from plants in a region similar to
his client's. When other requirements become over-
riding, the consulting engineer will evaluate inno-
vative alternative technologies very thoroughly.
(2) Adequate Data for Evaluation of Innovative
Technologies is Frequently Lacking
Consulting engineers are plagued with data of
varying reliability from manufacturers and process
innovators. Claims of potential cost savings are
made based on experiments ranging from bench-scale
tests to full-scale demonstrations. Respondents in
the study consistently reported the need for more
data on existing innovative pilot and full-scale
plants. The major data deficiencies cited included
reliability indicators and O&M costs.
III-9
-------
(3) The Constraints on the Consulting Engineer'.s Time
From the Many Municipalities Seeking EPA Construction
Grants Militates Against the Thorough Evaluation of
Innovative Technologies
The push by municipalities to obtain early EPA com-
mitment to the funding of a proposed treatment plant
design has placed severe time constraints on the con-
sulting engineer's ability to evaluate innovative de-
signs. In the face of pressing deadlines, consulting
engineers are often unable to provide the in-depth
evaluation required for new process designs. Without
the proper engineering analysis, an innovative tech-
nology stands little chance of being selected over
more conventional technologies.
(4) Innovative Technologies Are Often Excluded From
Serious Consideration by Superficiality of
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Cost effectiveness analyses in plans submitted
under the EPA Construction Grant Program vary from token
computations to computerized analyses of a wide range
of alternatives. Innovative technologies tend to fare
worse when the evaluation is.cursory. It is all too
easy to write off many innovations as having inadequate
data to determine reliability, costs, or any other
parameter.
(5) Low Skill Levels of Available Treatment Plant
Operators Have Seriously Limited the Recommendations
of Many Innovative Technologies
Almost every respondent in the study pointed to low
operator skills as a major constraint in design. Clearly,
if operation and maintenance quality is likely to be
questionable, there is little point in recommending the
technology in the design. The problem applies to all
sizes of plants, from upgraded lagoons to plants of
large metropolitan areas.
3. MUNICIPALITIES
As mentioned earlier, municipalities tend to be fairly
conservative with regard to selection of treatment technologies.
111-10
-------
Two factors tending to limit the application of new tech-
nology are identified here:
Uncertainties in O&M costs
Operator skill requirements.
(1) Uncertainties in O&M Costs of Innovative Technologies
Limit Their Applicability
Municipalities are very concerned with O&M costs
of new plants or plant expansions. Generally, O&M cost
data for innovative technologies is lacking and the de-
signer cannot present well documented estimates to the
municipality in his evaluation. The municipality is,
generally, willing to pay a small premium for risk min-
imization by sticking to technologies of proven O&M
costs.
(2) Often a Municipality Will Specify That New Plants
or Additions Require Minimal Need for Upgrading of
Operator Skill Level and Operating Staff Levels
Such specifications to the designer can seriously
limit the range of innovative technologies available.
Clearly, where uniformity in operation is a design ob-
jective, innovative technologies become less competitive
with conventional ones.
4. STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES
All states do have one common response to the EPA Con-
struction Grant Program: move projects in order to use up
all of the state's allocation. This reponse generally does
not really promote careful evaluation of innovative alterna-
tives against conventional technologies. The general simi-
larity between states ends here. There are differences in
their handling of innovative technology as discussed below.
(1) State Offices Charged With the Review of Facilities
Plans and Specs Have Varying Degrees of Familiarity
With Innovative Technology and Tend To Be
Conservative
State offices appear to reach much more favorably
toward innovative plans based on full-scale operating
III-ll
-------
data than to plans based on anything else. Increased
manpower would probably enable the states to be more
involved in innovation.
(2) Most States Do Not Have Research Budgets or Funds
for Demonstration Programs
Those that do clearly have a greater impact on the
introduction of innovative technology. Such states in-
clude California and Illinois.
(3) Part of the States' Conservatism Might Be Related
to Their Interpretation of EPA Regulations
The regulations covering the construction grant
approval process appear to allow for more discretion
by the states in approving processes than has historic-
ally been exercised. The regulations do allow for state
and EPA approval of innovative processes for which suc-
cessful demonstration on less than full-scale has been
shown. Thus, it appears that the states' tendency to
rely on full-scale operating data for approving plans
is based on their choice than EPA regulations.
5. EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
Much of the facilities plan approval process has been
turned over to the states, but EPA regional offices still
have formal review authority for many states. The involve-
ment of the regional office in innovative technology intro-
duction is more pronounced for states having formal review
authority. Constraints to the introduction of innovative
technology are discussed below.
(1) Pressure by EPA to Obligate Construction Grant
Funds Quickly Has Somewhat Hindered the Evaluation
of Innovative Technologies Against Conventional
Ones in Facilities Plans
As can be inferred from the earlier findings of
this study, the pressure by and on the EPA to obligate
funds constitutes a major constraint on the introduction
of innovative technology.
111-12
-------
(2) The Limited Availability of Data on Innovative
Technologies and the Overextension of Manpower
Resources in the Regional Offices Restricts the
Involvement of EPA in Introducing Innovative
Technologies
The general lack of adequate data and the inadequate
mechanisms for disseminating existing data on innovative
technologies constrains EPA involvement as much as it
does that of the designers and state regulatory agencies.
In addition, Construction Grant Program personnel are so
inundated with grant applications that they have little
time and even less incentive to encourage the consider-
ation of innovative alternatives in proposed projects.
111-13
-------
IV. DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION
-------
IV. DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION
Attempts to streamline the technology development pro-
cess should be preceded by improvements in the transmission
of data from existing projects utilizing innovative tech-
nologies. A fact universally deplored was that the Federal
Construction Grant Program does not provide funding to gather
the data needed for designers to improve upon subsequent
systems. Current efforts to generate this type of feedback
depend largely on the determination of the state regulatory
body to get the information out to others within the state.
The transmittal of such information from state to state is
much less direct. Unfortunately, EPA's Construction Grant
Program is unlikely to be able to take on any additional re-
sponsibility for developing an information system. In each
regional office visited, the construction grant personnel
were hard pressed just to "get the money out" for new pro-
jects.
An information service to provide design and operating
data from plants using innovative technology is vitally
needed. In California and throughout Region IV, the lack
of such a capability was causing delays in supplying needed
funds. For example, the State of California was placed in
the awkward position of having to commit funds to projects
without having the type of information normally preferred
or face the possibility of losing uncommitted funds. The
ready availability of information on new technologies from
projects across the Nation would greatly enhance the ability
of each state to develop needed technologies in a timely
fashion. Therefore, it is recommended that an information
system be established and maintained to track proposed and
on-going projects using innovative technologies and to dis-
seminate design and operating data from plants employing
such processes.
IV-1
-------
V. ALTERNATIVES TO ENCOURAGE THE INTRODUCTION
OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
-------
V. ALTERNATIVES TO ENCOURAGE THE INTRODUCTION
OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Numerous problem areas in wastewater treatment have
been discussed in previous chapters that could benefit sub-
stantially from the timely introduction of certain cost-
effective technologies. Furthermore, since many communities
across the country are unlikely to be in compliance with the
directives of PL 92-500 until several years beyond the 1977
deadline, the results of a technology demonstration program
could be applied to currently identified needs as well as
future concerns.
The identification and recommendation of alternatives
for the development of new technologies are properly the
subject of a more detailed study. However, certain options
can be presented for tentative consideration; they include:
Funding the existing Demonstration Grant Program
at a higher level
Establishment of a federally funded technology de-
velopment program run by the states
Privately financed demonstrations of new technology
Modification of existing legislation to allow the
expenditure of construction grant money by the
Demonstration Grant Program
Reordering of Construction Grant Program priorities
to encourage the demonstration of new technologies.
These alternatives are discussed briefly in the following
sections.
1. INCREASED LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR THE EPA DEMONSTRATION
GRANT PROGRAM
Increased funding for the EPA Demonstration Grant Pro-
gram represents a logical and direct method for establish-
ing national priorities for new technology development and
for performing meaningful, full-scale demonstrations of new
V-l
-------
technology. The concept of the demonstration grant enjoys
wide recognition already so that a minimal effort would be
needed in implementing it. In addition, enough is known
about the operation of the previous Demonstration Grant Pro-
gram to improve its performance significantly.
In order to encourage municipalities to participate in
new technology demonstrations, it is likely that some finan-
cial incentive will be needed, for example, raising the ceil-
ing on the Federal share of project costs from 75 percent to
90 percent.
2. ESTABLISHMENT OF A FEDERALLY FUNDED, STATE-RUN TECH-
NOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Under this proposal, Federal funds would be provided
to the states outside of the Construction Grant Program to
encourage development of new processes oriented toward a
state's needs. This suggestion has a certain logic to it
since the technical review function for proposed projects
resides largely with the states. Thus, Federal funds for
technology development could be injected at the level where
the competence of a proposed design would be evaluated.
Also, this type of approach would allow the states to ad-
dress their priority needs directly. Development programs
of regional interest could be handled on a cooperative basis
by the interested states. The question of the degree of
Federal control over demonstration funds and the possibility
of unnecessary duplication of effort by the states will need
to be addressed here.
3. PRIVATELY FINANCED DEMONSTRATIONS OF NEW TECHNOLOGY
Demonstration projects would be funded by private in-
dustry but conducted by EPA under this option. The success
of this attempt to lend objectivity to the demonstration of
a manufacturer's equipment or process will depend heavily
on EPA's technical credibility and the willingness of the
manufacturer to disseminate negative results, should they
be obtained.
V-2
-------
4. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LEGISLATION TO FUND THE DEMON-
STRATION GRANT PROGRAM FROM CONSTRUCTION GRANT FUNDS
This alternative calls for a certain small percentage
of construction grant funds, probably less than one percent,
to be given to the Demonstration Grant Program to finance
new technology demonstrations. Existing legislation regu-
lating the expenditure of construction grant funds would
have to be amended to allow use of the funds for this pur-
pose. It may be necessary to take measures to ensure that
the states do not perceive this reallocation of construction
grant funds as a net loss of Federal money promised to them.
5. EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
This alternative involves reordering the priorities of
the Construction Grant Program to encourage the demonstra-
tion of new technologies. The function of the construction
grant group would have to be modified from what is essen-
tially the review of funding proposals to include the promo-
tion of new, cost-effective processes. In addition, this
reorientation would need to be carried out in a way that
would not hinder the flow of construction funds. Some in-
centive for selecting a new technology would probably be
necessary.
The alternatives identified above as well as others
yet to be suggested will require more thorough analysis be-
fore an efficient technology development program can be pro-
posed. Certainly a high priority should be assigned to any
assessment of programmatic options in this area.
V-3
-------
APPENDIX
SURVEY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
IN 13 STATES
This chapter presents the results of a series of inter-
views held in EPA Regions IV, V, and IX with equipment manu-
facturers, consulting engineers, municipal representatives,
and state and Federal regulatory personnel. The interviews
concentrated on the following topics:
Experience with past demonstration grant programs
State and Federal approval process for implement-
ing technology
Identification of projects using innovative tech-
nology
Reasons why technology was/was not proposed
Reasons for acceptance/rejection of technol-
ogy
Emerging problem areas in wastewater treatment.
The discussion is presented by individual state, and iden-
tifies important features of the state approval process,
innovative technologies recently introduced or under con-
sideration, and the major treatment needs perceived within
each state. Contacts were queried as to the use of the
following technologies within their area:
Regional septage treatment: A regional septic
tank pumpout, treatment and disposal system
Landspreading of sludge: Application of sludge
to land in either solid or liquid form as fertil-
izer. Treatment of sludge by overland flow was
also included
Attached growth media for biological nitrifica-
tion: Technologies considered here included
rotating biological discs (RBDs), rotating bio-
logical contactors (RBCs), redwood media tower,
stacked plastic media tower and dumped plastic
media tower
-------
APPENDIX(2)
Advanced sludge dewatering techniques: Of inter-
est here was the use of slow-speed centrifuges and
filter presses
Steam gasification of sewage sludge: A system
using pyrolytic activity to convert organic mate-
rials into fuel gas and inorganic materials into
ash. The fuel gas is then burned to produce elec-
tricity
Composting: Subjects were questioned as to their
familiarity with this process and their perception
of its suitability for widespread use
Ozone disinfection: Perceptions regarding the use
of ozone as an alternative to chlorine for disin-
fection of wastewater
Alternatives for upgrading lagoons to meet second-
ary standards: Sand, rock and mixed media filters
were the principal methods discussed
Treatment alternatives for reuse of wastewater:
Wastewater uses were examined ranging from deep
well injection to prevent salt water intrusion to
primary contact. Feasibility of wastewater reno-
vation to meet drinking water standards was also
discussed. State of the art of treatment technol-
ogies necessary to allow the various uses was also
addressed
Sludge pyrolysis: Chemical conversion of organic
material by pyrolysis in multiple hearth furnaces
was the principal method discussed
Open tank oxygenation: Oxygenation of wastewater
in closed tanks was considered to be already devel-
oped; subjects were questioned to determine their
familiarity with the open tank oxygenation systems
presently under development
Single-stage nitrification-denitrification: A
process employing alternating periods of aerobic
and anaerobic operating conditions in a single
activated sludge reactor to produce nitrogen
removal without methanol addition.
Physical/chemical treatment: The principal method
discussed was the addition of lime for coagulation
followed by activated carbon filtration
-------
APPENDIX(3)
Deep oxidation ditch: A biological treatment
system using mechanical aerators for producing
secondary treatment with the potential for
moderate removal of total nitrogen
Fluidized oxygen reactor for biological secondary
treatment: System for carbonaceous oxidatipn-
nitrification using fluidized oxygen bed, fixed-
film technology in biological reactor
Nitrogen recovery from wastewater and reuse as
fertilizer: System using pure oxygen biological
treatment followed by two-stage lime clarifica-
tion, filtration, ammonia renupval and recovery,
chlorination, and dechlorination.
Innovative technologies and emerging needs identified
in the survey are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
1. CALIFORNIA
California has a variety of physical and demographic
characteristics that influence its approach to wastewater
management. The northern half of the state is typified by
a cool, wet climate providing a superabundance of water.
The terrain ranges from the lowest point, Death Valley, to
the highest point in the contiguous United States, Mt.
Whitney, in less than one hundred miles.
In contrast, the southland with its hot, dry desert
climate is largely a water-poor area with rainfall aver-
aging somewhat less than ten inches per year. As a conse-
quence, the water needs of its large metropolitan centers
must be met by importing water from relatively distant
water-rich areas. The change in relief over southern Cali-
fornia in going from the sea to the mountains is not as
great as in the north, and the soil quality is definitely
poorer over broad areas.
Certain important similarities that exist between the
northern and southern portions of the state tend to blur
the sharp distinctions made above. For example, the popu-
lation of both sections is concentrated in a fairly nar-
row band along the seacoast and the nearby inland valleys.
Accordingly, the two major metropolitan areas, San Fran-
cisco-Oakland in the north and Los Angeles-San Diego in
the south and their surrounding broad belt of communities,
are the focus of the main thrust of municipal water pollu-
tion control efforts within the state.
The following sections discuss new technology imple-
mentation in municipal wastewater treatment. Specific as-
pects discussed include the approval process for implement-
ing technology, a survey of new technologies being adopted,
and emergent water treatment needs within the state.
-------
APPENDIX (3a)
Table 1
Status of the Use of Innovative Technology in 13 States
g
I
g
£
H
SS
Regional
Septage
Landspreading
of Sludge
Attached
Growth Media
Advanced Sludge
Dewatering Techniques
Steam Gasification
of Sludge
Composting
Ozone
Disinfection
Lagoon Upgrading
Techniques
Wastewater
Reuse
Pyrolysis
Pure 02 in
Open Tanks
Single-stage
Nit.-Denit.
Physical/Chemical
Treatment
Deep
Oxidation Ditch
Fluidized
02 Reactor
Nitrogen Recovery
for Fertilizer
a.
cu
3
£
£
cu
<
*
B
U)
Cu
£
£
d
4
H
H
°
3
cu
9
*
in
cu
£
cu
Cu
H
H
(O
n
£
2
B
B
B
£
rt
g
8
£
£
£
^
h
g
cu
§
cu
g
B
B
B
,,
1
.
3
1
B
H
g
CU
i
cu
g
Q
g
Z
£
05
CU
B
*
§
cu
1
Q
g
"
i
cu
£
cu
B
,.
*
.
B
S
cu
01
H
3
H
a
a.
cu
i
Oi
.
cu
z
H
jjj
g
w
bj
K
CU
a:
cu
P
(U
.
£
.
H
n
s
§
cu
£
«
cu
B
01
o
H
B
BS a u en K u H
CU J Cu b CU g Z
-------
APPENDIX (3b)
Table 2
Problem Areas in Wastewater Treatment
Identified in Survey of States
B
K
8
5
IU
O
Resource Recovery
Techniques
Smaller Land
Requirements
Detection of
Carcinogens
Regionalization
Instream
Aeration
Process Control
OSM Cost
Reduction
Alternative Disin-
fection Methods
Lagoon Upgrading
Alternatives
Nutrient Removal
Techniques
Improved C-E
Analysis
Operator Skill
Levels
CSO Control
Technology
Urban Runoff
Controls
Intermittent Dis-
charge Alternatives
Inflow/infiltration
calculations
Small Community
Needs
Energy
Conservation
Wastewater Reuse
Technology
Ultimate Disposal
of Sludge
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CALIFORNIA
•
•
•
•
,
•
MISSISSIPPI
•
•
•
•
a.
H
•
•
•
S
U.
•
•
•
•
|
•
•
•
•
|
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
•
•
ILLINOIS
•
•
•
•
•
1 WISCONSIN
•
•
•
•
•
MICHIGAN
•
•
•
•
•
2
S
-------
APPENDIX(4)
(1) Approval Process
Control over the construction of new wastewater
treatment projects within California lies with the
State's Water Resource Control Board. Through the
Clean Water Grant Program of the Control Board, the
State of California funds the construction of new pro-
jects to a level of 12.5 percent of the total cost
of the treatment facilities. This is the largest
share borne by any of the states surveyed for EPA
grant-eligible projects. Eligibility criteria for
the Clean Water Grant are at least as restrictive as
those for an EPA Construction Grant. With a techni-
cal review staff several times larger than EPA's, the
Control Board is able to perform a detailed analysis
of each proposed project.
Although the board is receptive to proposals in-
volving new technology, its top priority within the
municipal grant program is to ensure the reliable
treatment of wastes, not to implement innovative tech-
nology. A widely stated position is that a process
has to be ready to "go into the ground" to be funded
by the grant program. The burden of proof as to the
efficacy of a new technology is, thus, upon the appli-
cant and his consultant.
In proposing a new technology, the consulting
engineer must be able to present sufficient data,
preferably from a full-scale operating plant, to
convince the board that the process will meet rele-
vant standards. Proposed innovative technologies
are closely scrutinized by the board and approved
projects are then recommended to EPA for funding
under a Step 1 grant as a pilot plant. In this way,
certain new technologies can be introduced to muni-
cipal treatment systems under the Construction Grant
Program. The risks associated with the new technol-
ogies are reduced by the detailed review provided by
the state's technical staff and by limiting the plant's
size in most cases to pilot scale. However, except in
instances of pressing need, new technologies picked
up this way are those farthest along in development,
(i. e., those technologies that have had the benefit
of previous demonstration). For example, an early
project of the Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency using
demonstration grant funds, developed information on
physical/chemical treatment that is now being used in
a number of large treatment plants throughout Califor-
nia (see following section).
-------
APPENDIX(5)
One problem that has developed with this approach
is that under the crush of applications for funding as
Step 1 pilot projects that is occurring in California, lit-
tle can be done to incorporate the experience gained in
one such project in time to affect the design of the
next one. This has led to an undesirable duplication
of effort in some instances. Compounding this diffi-
culty is the lack of money under Step 1 to allow the
collection and dissemination of data from pilot plant
operation.
(2) Innovative Technologies
The aggressive attitude of the State of California
Water Resource Control Board has led to the implementa-
tion of a variety of innovative technologies, many of
which promise enhanced cost-effectiveness over conven-
tional processes and some of which represent the sole
solution to a particular treatment problem. Within
California the following innovative technologies have
been identified:
Regional septage. Process is most useful in
mountainous or very hilly areas. Mostly
small projects are being funded under Con-
struction Grant Program:
Orange County Sanitation District
Las Virgines Water Treatment Plant,
City of Los Angeles
City of Santa Cruz
Humboldt Bay
Landspreading. Concept is generally accepted
for use in landscaping but not for applica-
tion to crop lands. Use is limited in south-
ern California by soil alkalinity problems.
L. A. County - Orange County Sludge
Study performed under a Step 1 grant
East Bay Municipal Utility District
studying use of sludge from 136 Mgd
plant on agricultural land. Being
done under 201 planning.
-------
APPENDIX(6)
Attached growth media for biological nitrifi-
cation. A few full-scale systems are in use
based on results of pilot plant studies.
Rotating biological discs (RBDs) being
used at South Bayside System Authority
Nitrification towers in use at Sunnyvale
plant near San Francisco
RBD's being considered in Palo Alto AWT
plant.
Sludge dewatering techniques. Slow-speed
centrifuges are being adopted but filter
presses are not being proposed anywhere.
BEST system and Carver-Greenfield process
are considered to be of unproven reliability.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
is presently using 30 small centrifuges
in modular approach-scale up in numbers
rather than size
East Bay Municipal Utility District has
plans to use centrifuges as well as
vacuum dewatering units.
Composting. Proven technology; adoption de-
pends largely on economics of transportation.
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
is composting one hundred tons per day
of sludge from Joint Water Pollution
Control Plant to avoid ocean disposal.
Ozone for disinfection. Ozone is not cur-
rently approved for use in the state as a
primary disinfectant because of the lack of
demonstrated ability to remove coliform bac-
teria and because of turbidity problems.
However, as concern increases over potential-
ly adverse health effects associated with
chlorination, the need for a demonstrated
alternative method of disinfectation will
become more pressing. Two projects using
ozone were identified:
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
pilot plant
-------
APPENDIX(7)
Chino Municipal Utility District in San
Bernardino County is using ozone more as
a conditioning agent for filtration than
as a disinfectant. Conventional disin-
fectation is achieved at this plant using
chlorine.
Lagoon upgrading "techniques. Too few alter-
natives are currently available, especially
for use in small communities.
Sunnyvale plant near San Francisco will
use microscreening to remove algae.
Wastewater reuse. This is becoming more of
a priority in both the water-rich northern
part of California (related to contact re-
creation) and the water-poor southern portion.
Among the plants currently using or planning
to use advanced waste treatment to meet reuse
needs are:
Sepulveda plant, City of Los Angeles,
now using Harding mixed-media filters
Orange County Water System No. 21
Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency with
ammonium sulfate recovery
Chino Municipal Utility District
- City of San Francisco, using sulfur
dioxide to dechlorinate effluent
Santa Clara Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, injection of
filtered effluent from a 1 Mgd plant
to counter salt water intrusion in
Palo Alto area
Los Angeles County Sanitation District:
Reclaimed water being used for irriga-
tion of crops and golf courses and in
freeway landscaping. Spreading of sec-
ondarily treated effluent for ground-
water recharge is being done at Whittier
Narrows plant and San Jose Creek plant
(230 Mgd). An artificial lake near
-------
APPENDIX(8)
Lancaster is filled solely with re-
claimed water. Fishing is allowed
but not swimming.
Pyrolysis. Two projects have been funded
under Step 1 grants, both experimental in
nature:
Contra Costa County treatment plant
will pyrolyze sludge and solid waste
to generate electricity on pilot scale
Orange County in conjunction with the
Jet Propulsion Labs of NASA will pyro-
lyze sludge, producing activated carbon
for use in effluent filtration.
Physical/chemical treatment. Technology is
developed and understood but may not be able
to guarantee meeting secondary standards eco-
nomically. New plants have used information
gained from Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
demonstration project.
Vallejo plant, 10 Mgd
Ontario treatment plant, 10-15 Mgd
Chino Municipal Utility District, 10 Mgd
Napa plant, 5 Mgd
Fairchild Plant, 20 Mgd; effluent is
discharged to marshy wildlife area
along California Flyway
Central Contra Costa County Sanitation
District, 230 Mgd
Orange County Sanitation District, pilot
plant doesn't meet secondary treatment
standards
City of San Francisco, study shows that
the number of stages needed to reach
secondary treatment level are too costly
to implement.
-------
APPENDIX(9)
Deep oxidation ditch. Technology considered
proven but use has been limited to small com-
munities thus far. Potential for savings not
widely known.
(3) Problem Areas
California is energetically addressing its most
pressing wastewater treatment needs through the use of
Federal and state construction grants. In fact, because
of the active role assumed by the State Water Resource
Control Board, California has been able to develop new
technologies as pilot projects under Step 1 Construc-
tion Grants. Nevertheless, some current problems in
wastewater treatment are likely to become increasing-
ly more critical over the next ten years unless more
attention is accorded them now. The major areas of
concern are:
Ultimate disposal of sludge. Existing range
of proven alternatives is too limited to ad-
dress near-term problems. Both pilot- and
full-scale studies are needed. Pyrolysis
and landspreading are top priorities.
Reuse of wastewater. This is a major issue
in Los Angeles where effluent discharge from
treatment plants is often the only flow in the
concrete-lined Los Angeles River. Although
the channel is fenced off to prevent contact,
children often play in it. The State Health
Department is requiring advanced treatment to
produce a well oxidized, coagulated and fil-
tered effluent which must meet bacterial stan-
dards as well. Work is being done on different
processes under a Step 1 grant but full-scale
demonstration is needed to show the compara-
tive advantages of various processes. It was
widely felt that the necessary technology was
not likely to be implemented under the Con-
struction Grant Program.
Treatment needs of small communities. Not
adequately addressed under existing state
and Federal funding priorities. Technologies
available for meeting relevant standards in
an affordable fashion are not yet developed.
-------
APPENDIX (10)
Energy consumption. In the face of sharp in-
creases in energy costs, less energy-intensive
processes need to be demonstrated.
2. ALABAMA
In this state, there are great differences between the
municipal treatment problems of small towns and those of the
larger cities. Many of the smaller towns are located on
ridges of the headwaters of streams and treatment require-
ments are difficult to meet. Larger towns, on the other
hand, can usually meet water quality standards through
secondary treatment. The activated sludge process is com-
mon for such towns. Wet weather flows generally present
a problem in the state.
The following discussion describes the extent to which
innovative design is used in Alabama, and points to emerging
design problems.
(1) The Approval Process
The Alabama Water Improvement Commission is the
state agency which receives facilities plans from de-
signers for state-level review. The commission does
not have full official responsibility for the review
of plans and specifications but appears to give close
scrutiny to proposed plans. The approach of both the
state and EPA Region IV to project review is generally
conservative. For example, the state recently favored
a design for a new Birmingham plant which was similar
to that of two existing plants in Birmingham. The
state's objective was to promote uniformity in opera-
tion and maintenance of the three plants. Many towns
in the state haven't started new facility planning
yet, and the state is pushing for acceleration of
their efforts.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Several of the technologies on which this study
focuses have been implemented in Alabama. The reported
plants are:
Landspreading of sludge. At several locations,
landspreading of dried sludge is done for
-------
APPENDIX(11)
agricultural use as well as for use on
municipal golf courses.
Reuse of wastewater. Indirect reuse currently
occurs at Birmingham because the input to the
city's potable water works contains an appre-
ciable amount of treatment plant effluent.
Nitrification. At Birmingham, an activated
sludge plant uses nitrification and third
stage aeration.
Pure oxygen systems. At Mobile, a 29 Mgd pure
oxygen closed tank system is in the construc-
tion award stage.
Deep oxidation ditch. This technology is
used at several locations in the state.
The state is engaged in a research and development pro-
gram which is examining the feasibility of upgrading
lagoons with slow- and rapid-sand filters and rock fil-
ters. The state also maintains a laboratory for sam-
pling, testing, and performing treatability studies
for existing plants throughout the state. Responding
to the need for innovation in collector system design,
several manufacturers have been promoting vacuum sys-
tems, pressure systems, and lightweight collector pipe.
(3) Problem Areas
Treatment needs of small communities. Most
of Alabama's emerging problems focus on the
small town. There are hundreds of lagoon
systems in the state with a concentration in
the southern part of the state. So much
add-on material and equipment is needed to
upgrade lagoons in many cases, that the costs
exceed those for a new package-type plant.
Soils in many areas require the use of vinyl
or concrete liners, and add-on sand filters
tend to be expensive. State sponsored re-
search aims at developing a system for small
towns which is relatively inexpensive to own
and operate.
Inflow/infiltration problems plague many
municipal systems. The repair of existing
-------
APPENDIX(12)
collection systems is expensive for smaller
towns, but it is cheaper than constructing
new systems.
Alternatives for intermittent discharge to
streams from municipal plants appears to war-
rant further study in the state.
3. MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi is very conservative in its approach to
wastewater treatment, preferring to see a new process
adopted elsewhere before it is tried in the state. There
are nearly three hundred lagoon treatment facilities in
the state, about 75 percent of which serve towns of less
than 9,000 people. Emphasis is being placed on lagoon up-
grading, overland flow, and land application of treated
effluent.
The discussion below describes the treatment of inno-
vative technology in the facilities plan approval process,
gives examples of innovative technologies in use and exam-
ples of emerging wastewater treatment problems.
(1) The Approval Process
The state and EPA facilities plan reviewers con-
sider the introduction of more types of innovative
technology to be greatly needed. However, several
important constraints prevail:
The need for full-scale operating data on
innovative plants
Operator skill limitations
Cost limits.
The state and EPA regional office are watching pilots,
demonstrations, and new innovative projects in other
states to gain data for guiding approval decisions in
Mississippi. It appears that adequate data on innova-
tive technologies with applicability in the state is
lacking. As a consequence, needed innovations may
have to be approved without the benefit of full-scale
demonstration.
-------
APPENDIX (13)
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Overland flow. Mississippi State University
is researching overland flow at Faulkner,
Mississippi. High-rate overland flow was
proposed for the Town of Water Valley, but
inadequate demonstration of the technology
is preventing approval of the plan.
Spray Irrigation. The facilities plan for
Oakland incorporates this technique, and it
is now under review.
Lagoon upgrading. The Construction Grant
Program has provided $100,000 for full-scale
upgrading of a lagoon system by installation
of sonic microstrainers.
(3) Problem Areas
Two major needs were identified:
Improvement of availability and quality of
data on innovative plants
Development of lagoon upgrading alternatives
which require minimal operating skill.
4. GEORGIA
This state generally has high stream capacity at most
sites used for treated municipal wastewater discharge. Suit-
able land is available for sludge disposal by landfilling
except near some of the larger cities. The terrain of the
state varies from mountainous in the north to fairly flat
in the southern areas near the ocean, and causes few serious
impediments to the use of septic systems. Ocean discharges
are prohibited.
The following discussion describes the general con-
straints to the introduction of innovative technology in
the facilities plan approval process. It also provides
examples of proposed and constructed innovative plants
and examples of emerging wastewater treatment needs in the
state.
-------
APPENDIX(14)
(1) The Approval Process
The approval of facilities plans eligible for EPA
grants is influenced greatly by the conservatism of all
parties in the process: designers, municipalities, and
state and EPA plan reviewers. Each party tends to be
very cost conscious and usually insists on full-scale
operating data from innovative technologies before they
are recommended for use. While relatively few innova-
tive processes have been proposed and built in the
state, the attitude of state reviewers toward potential-
ly cost-effective innovations is generally positive.
One of the more serious constraints to the incorporation
of innovative technology in design is the lack of famil-
iarity of designers with the more innovative technologies,
The low availability of data on such technologies con-
tributes to this lack of familiarity. Another important
constraint is operator skill levels. Designs must re-
flect the necessity to keep skill requirements low.
(2) Examples of Innovative Design
Advanced dewatering techniques. Some plants
use filter presses or slow-speed centrifuges.*
Advanced techniques would be used more if
operator skill requirements were not increased
as a-result.
Steam gasification of sewage sludge and solid
waste. This technology was proposed for a
site in De Kalb County. Certain institutional
questions could not be adequately addressed,
and the project was dropped.
Lagoon upgrading. At Adel, existing lagoons
will be upgraded by dividing the lagoons into
cells, adding mechanical floating aerators,
and adding sand filters as a final stage.
Mixed media filters have also been used in
upgrading.
Filter presses are used at a plant in De Camp County,
at the South River plant in Atlanta, and at a plant
in Savannah.
-------
APPENDIX(15)
Land application of treated effluent. Plants
at Brazelton and Unicoy State Park are using
this technique, but it is generally not well
received.
Single-stage nitrification-denitrification.
Several designs have been made using this
technology, but no plants have been built
yet.
Pure oxygen systems. This technology was
demonstrated at Brunswick, Georgia.
Physical/chemical treatment. In the Atlanta
area, physical/chemical treatment is used to
treat combined sewer overflows in an auto-
mated system. At a plant in De Kalb County,
lime will be used as a coagulant and buffer.
(3) Problem Areas
The following needs were identified as growing in
importance:
Small community treatment needs. Upgrading
alternatives for lagoons which keep operator
skill levels to a minimum are needed.
Urban runoff control and combined sewer
overflow technology. Some alternative
methods of controlling runoff and combined
sewer overflow have been tested, but much
more work needs to be done.
AWT for wastewater reuse. Reuse may become
a real need in the Atlanta area within ten
years. In other areas of the state, reuse
is not generally regarded to be economically
justifiable for the next 25 years.
5. FLORIDA
Physical parameters important in wastewater treatment
and handling, such as rainfall, stream flow, and soil type,
vary widely across the state making it difficult to charac-
terize Florida simply. However, one factor which overrides
these other variables in determining the state's approach
-------
APPENDIX(16)
to wastewater treatment is the extreme degree of politici-
zation of the planning process. For example, Dade County
is divided into so many small 401 districts that the imple-
mentation of regional approaches is effectively precluded.
(1) Approval Process
The State Department of Environmental Regulation
in general, exercises a conservative approach to the
use of new technologies. Usually state regulators
need to see a new process operating somewhere on a
waste flow comparable in size to that of the proposed
project.
The Department of Environmental Regulation also
prohibits the use of lagoons.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Regional septage treatment. A plant is in
operation in Brevard County.
Landspreading of sludge. As an interim
measure until an incinerator can be con-
structed, the City of Jacksonville is
spreading its sludge over strip-mined land
in an attempt at reclamation. Landspread-
ing is not always a feasible alternative
due to the high water table in many parts
of the state and the possibility of leach-
ing out heavy metals.
Sludge dewatering techniques. Centrifuges
for dewatering sludge were not seriously
considered by the City of Jacksonville for
its combined Sewer District Number 2 and
Buckman Street Plant because of a lack of
information on their performance and re-
liability.
Wastewater reuse.
Spray irrigation is being used by the
City of Tallahassee and at Bel Air and
Lynn Haven although public resistance
is being encountered.
-------
APPENDIX(17)
Injection of secondarily treated and
disinfected effluent is being used to
control salt water intrusion in West
Palm Beach. Secondarily treated and
disinfected effluent is injected in the
Orlando area to protect local rivers
and lakes and to recharge groundwater
aquifers of the area.
In Tampa a large AWT project has been
completed using a three-stage sludge
process.
(3) Problem Areas
Among the emerging wastewater treatment problems
of Florida are:
Ultimate disposal of sludge. Too few proven
alternatives are available. Work is needed
on making land disposal sites impervious to
groundwater leaching of heavy metals.
Operator skill levels. Skill levels are
high in Dade County, for example, but are
much lower in smaller communities. Either
more skilled operators must be supplied or
technologies must be greatly simplified.
AWT for wastewater reuse. The need for ad-
vanced treatment is likely to become signi-
ficant in such water short areas as Gaines-
ville.
6. KENTUCKY
In this state, most of the larger cities are on the
Ohio River,1 and secondary treatment is sufficient for meet-
ing water quality criteria. Many smaller communities, how-
ever, are located on small streams where tertiary treatment
is required to meet water quality standards. Such towns
are hard pressed to find treatment systems which they can
afford. The following discussion illustrates the extent to
which innovative technologies are used to meet both big-
and small-town treatment requirements. It also indicates
emerging treatment problems.
-------
APPENDIX(18)
(1) The Approval Process
The review of EPA grant-eligible POTW projects
concentrated on the points of view of the EPA Region
IV office and the consulting engineer. Both designer
and Federal reviewers appear to be generally conserva-
tive in their approaches to design technology.
Consulting engineering firms practicing in Ken-
tucky tended to exercise limited consideration of al-
ternative technologies and their cost-effectiveness.
The joint state — EPA Region IV approval process has
resulted in the rejection of certain innovative pro-
posed projects. Examples of such rejected projects
were chemical conditioning of sewage using mine ef-
fluent and sludge, low flow stream augmentation, and
discharge of waste activated sludge into a biological-
ly inactive receiving stream.
The approval of certain innovative technologies,
such as attached growth biological systems, for Step
2 Grants can be accelerated because design data is
thought to be adequate and easily accessible.
In sum, conventional technologies predominate
because of the conservative approaches to both design
and approval.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Of the sixteen technologies considered in this
study, two were reported to be in use: attached
growth biological systems and deep oxidation ditches.
The reported plants are:
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication. Rotating bio-disc-type plants
have been proposed for towns in Scott County
and for Bowling Green. At Clark County a
bio-disc system with a hydrosieve was pro-
posed.
Deep oxidation ditch. This technology has
been proposed in Louisville and Campbellsville,
(3) Problem Areas
The following important problems were stressed by
the consulting engineers interviewed:
-------
APPENDIX(19)
Improved Inflow/Infiltration calculation
procedures.
Improved cost-effectiveness analysis tech-
niques, such as computerized programs for
use by both designers and EPA reviewers.
Low-cost, low-energy treatment systems in
smaller communities. Existing lagoon up-
grading techniques are not thought capable
of meeting relevant standards, and their use
is discouraged by the regional office.
Clearly, more work is needed in this area.
Better understanding of the public health
risks of chlorination and ozonation.
Improved data base for innovative technol-
ogies.
7. TENNESSEE
Certain hydrologic and geologic characteristics are
creating unique wastewater treatment needs in Tennessee.
The large number of dams and impoundments on the TVA sys-
tem have maintained the water table at such a high level
that the state is largely water quality-limited. The pos-
sibility of effluent contact with drinking water supplies
has led to a requirement to meet health standards through
use of tertiary treatment of .wastewater. The height of
the water table can also lead to contamination of ground-
water by leachate from sludge lagoons and landfills.
In many areas of the state, bedrock is only three to
five feet below the surface. This effectively precludes
the use of septic systems over a broad area.
Tennessee has four major population centers; Memphis,
Nashville, Chatanooga and Knoxville, with the rest of the
population generally scattered in rural communities of less
than 20,000 people.
(1) Approval Process
Technical review of plans and specifications has
been delegated to the state by EPA. Both agencies tend
to be conservative in their funding of projects and
-------
APPENDIX(20)
seem to have adopted a "wait and see" attitude toward
new technology.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Sludge dewatering techniques. Combination
of filter presses and centrifuges is being
considered for Chattanooga (decision pend-
ing) .
Sludge combustion. Memphis is considering
mixing sludge with solid wastes and burning
the slurry solution in a TVA power plant.
Ozone. Earlier demonstration project at
Murfreesborough used ozone as primary dis-
infectant with chlorine backup. Demonstra-
tion has not led to wide application be-
cause of economics. Project may get a
second look if dechlorination becomes an
issue.
Lagoon upgrading. Rock filtration to meet
secondary standards is being used at two
towns, Halls and Gates.
Use of pure oxygen. Pure oxygen in both
open and closed tanks is being considered
in Murfreesborough.
(3) Problem Areas
Ultimate sludge disposal. Landfill and
landspreading are not feasible in many areas
of the state because of the high water table.
Lagoons may escape this problem if imper-
meable liners are used to prevent leaching.
Pyrolysis has not yet been proposed largely
because of economics. Too few alternatives
have been demonstrated at present.
Advanced treatment for wastewater reuse.
Problem of inadvertent contact between ef-
fluent discharges and drinking water sup-
plies needs to be addressed. Possible al-
ternatives need to be proved out to deter-
mine cost-effective solution.
-------
APPENDIX (21)
Operator skill levels. Even in the large
cities the skill level of treatment plant
operators is not sufficient for conventional
system operation much less for advanced sys-
tems.
Infiltration/inflow. Information is needed
on techniques for controlling infiltration.
Problem is causing an overtaxing of exist-
ing facilities.
8. NORTH CAROLINA
This state is in some ways more sophisticated than
some of the other Southeastern States in that proposed
treatment plant designs reflect increasing innovation, and
skilled plant operators can be found when needed. The
state has many textile plants which discharge to municipal
systems, and extended aeration has been a popular way of
handling the mix of textile and municipal wastes. The
following discussion provides examples of the role of the
state and EPA Region IV in the approval process for con-
struction grants, identifies innovative technologies pro-
posed and built, and points up emerging problems in POTW
design in North Carolina.
(1) The Approval Process
Generally, the state, through its Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, has adequate resources
to review innovative proposed designs and has exer-
rCised control over the designs. For example, the
state concluded that there was insufficient data to
evaluate properly a proposed full-scale rotating
bio-disc plant for the City of Charlotte. Conse-
quently, the proposal was withdrawn, and plans for a
pilot rotating-disc plant were drawn up and submitted.
Likewise, the EPA regional office has taken firm
positions on the design of new plants. For the proposed
pure oxygen system for Concord, it recommended signi-
ficant changes in process train design as a condition
for gr.ant approval.
-------
APPENDIX(22)
(2) Examples of Innovative Technology
Types of innovative plants used in North Carolina
are described below along with the rationale for their
use where possible.
Landspreading of sludge. A trial study is
in progress at the University of North
Carolina, Raleigh.
Sludge drying with nutrient addition for
fertilizer use. This technique has been
proposed for Winston-Salem.
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication. A proposed full-scale installation
was rejected by the state, but a pilot plant
has now been proposed.
Pure oxygen systems. For Concord, a 24 Mgd
plant has been proposed which incorporates
lime treatment in the primary stage. The
pure oxygen technology was proposed in order
to meet nitrification and color removal re-
quirements resulting from the high concen-
tration of industrial wastes. Ozonation is
also proposed for the plant because of its
compatibility with the pure oxygen system.
Another pure oxygen system 16 Mgd, has also
been proposed for Fayetteville to replace
existing trickling filters.
Physical/chemical treatment. In Newton,
North Carolina, a plant was proposed to
meet color removal requirements. It incor-
porates lime treatment and nitrification.
Advanced filtration. An airlock type fil-
tration system was used in the 6 Mgd Albe-
marle extended aeration plant in order to
meet stream limitations. The Fayetteville
16 Mgd pure oxygen system also uses this
type of filter. The filter achieves some
reaeration and has the advantage of reduc-
ing operation and maintenance costs.
-------
APPENDIX(23)
(3) Problem Areas
Treatment needs of small communities. Like
many states, North Carolina needs treatment
systems for small towns which can meet fairly
strict effluent requirements while remaining
simple enough to require only low-skill opera-
tors. A town with a population of 2,000 and
a TKN requirements of 3 mg/1 is a typical
case.
Nutrient removal. The state is also start-
ing to face the problem of phosphorous removal,
No limits have been set yet, but enforcement
problems are already anticipated. The preva-
lence of textile plants in the state makes
color removal technology a high priority.
Sludge handling and disposal. Area of grow-
ing concern.
9. SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina, with its generally rural character,
is very concerned with meeting standards on water quality-
limited streams and rivers. Recently imposed requirements
for nutrient removal from all discharges into lakes are
expected to place heavy demands on the treatment facilities
of small and large communities alike. The state has already
completed a study to determine which water bodies are most
susceptible to eutrophication from high nutrient levels.
The state's revised emphasis on nutrient removal is expected
to be reflected in the yet-to-be-completed facility plans
for Charleston and Columbia, the state's most populous
metropolitan areas. The impact of the nutrient removal
requirement is likely to affect the smaller rural areas
as well. For example, while some of the smaller cities,
such as Florence, Georgetown and Spartanburg, use trick-
ling filters or activated sludge systems, most of the state
still employs lagoons.
The discussion which follows highlights some of the
more important aspects of the approval process for EPA
construction grants and provides examples of plants using
innovative technology, and of emerging treatment problems.
-------
APPENDIX(24)
(1) The Approval Process
The state, through its Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC), has the responsibility
for certifying plans and specifications for EPA con-
struction grant-eligible projects. DHEC has adequate
resources for evaluating innovative project proposals,
and, in some cases, it approves pilot plant testing
for proposed projects prior to full-scale use. For
example, a pilot plant at Sumpter, built in 1973,
evaluated nitrification in an activated sludge pro-
cess. The state is involved in several studies of
innovative technologies. One is a joint project with
Clemson University to explore lagoon upgrading alter-
natives . Another involves the study of overland flow
treatment alternatives under an EPA grant. The re-
sults of these studies will be important in evaluating
future facilities plans. For a developing lagoon up-
grading technology, DHEC is starting to explore the
availability of EPA funds for evaluation. The tech-
nology involves planting a unique grass in a shallow
lagoon and managing the crop so that there is no dis-
charge. The crop would be routinely harvested. Uses
for the crop are currently being evaluated by at least
one private firm.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
Where possible, the rationale behind the selection
of the reported innovative plants is given.
Land treatment with effluent. At a community
in Hilton Head in the Sea Pines Public Ser-
vice District, spray irrigation of effluent
on golf courses is in practice. This tech-
nology is proposed in the facilities plan
for the Grand Strand area.
Landspreading of sludge. Dried sludge use
at golf courses is proposed in the facilities
plan for the Grand Strand area. The facili-
ties plan is currently the subject of an en-
vironmental impact statement. Dried sludge
has been used on golf courses and municipal
gardens at various locations with positive
results in the state.
-------
APPENDIX(25)
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication. Several plants using this tech-
nology have been built.
Pure oxygen systems. A closed tank 4 Mgd
system for Greenville is funded at the EPA
Step 2 level. Open-tank oxygenation is not
being used.
Singe-stage nitrification. A pilot plant
built at Sumpter in 1973 evaluated this
technique in an activated sludge process.
Applicability is currently under review in
light of nutrient removal requirements.
Steam conditioning of sludge. In Aiken
County, some industrial and municipal waste
streams now discharging to Horse Creek, will
consolidate into a regional 20 Mgd system
and discharge to the Savannah River. The
technique of steam conditioning is aimed
partially at reduction of high coliform
counts. Also considered in reclamation
of spent sand and gravel pits with sludge.
Physical/chemical treatment. At Sumpter,
a 6 Mgd plant, which receives heavy industrial
loads, will receive chemical addition at the
final clarifier to reduce suspended solids
in the effluent.
Deep oxidation ditch. This technology has
been considered in several plans and pro-
posed in at least one. Application to needs
of rural communities is unknown.
(3) Problem Areas
Problems perceived in the near-term include those
outlined below:
General. The causes of lake eutrophication
will need to be better understood as the
state's nutrient removal requirements are
implemented. In many cases, low cost inno-
vations for nutrient removal could ease the
financial burden of the affected communities.
-------
APPENDIX(26)
Lagoon upgrading alternatives. Becoming in-
creasingly important, and might emerge as the
state's highest priority.
Energy consumption. Less energy-intensive
systems essential.
Alternate disinfection methods. Likely to
emerge as a high priority item because of
the need to protect the state's valuable
shellfish resources and recreational fish-
ing.
10. ILLINOIS
In this state there are about 2,600 municipal sewage
treatment facilities. Although small town lagoons predomi-
nate, the state contains some of the largest plants in the
U.S. Among the larger cities, Chicago has the most exten-
sive waste treatment system, which is managed by the Metro-
politan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, MSDGC. Treat-
ment plants in the district have been meeting secondary
standards for about 25 years, so that most of its new pro-
jects are aimed at expansion of capacity and upgrading of
treatment levels.
The State of Illinois Construction Grant Program funds
75 percent of the cost of plants not eligible for Federal
funds. This program has been used to fund such projects as
in-stream aeration of canals carrying large wastewater
loads.
The following discussion addresses the role of MSDGC,
the state, and EPA Region IV in the construction grant ap-
proval process. It also gives examples of innovative POTW
projects in Illinois and of emerging problems in waste
treatment. Discussions of the Chicago area are separated
from those of the remainder of the state.
(1) The Approval Process
In the Chicago metropolitan area, MSDGC exercises
firm control over the treatment technologies and plant
design implemented. Overall, technology and design
selection is heavily influenced by project cost, be-
cause the projects tend to be very large. MSDGC takes
a hard look at alternatives available and implements
-------
APPENDIX(27)
low risk, proven technology. Those innovations which
might be significantly delayed in subsequent review
by EPA Region V are not as favorably received by
MSDGC as those which will clear the approval process
expeditiously. MSDGC favors processes that lend them-
selves to retrofitting to its existing plants; tech-
nologies which might result in piecemeal approaches
to areawide problems are quickly weeded out in the
approval process. MSDGC also rigorously evaluates
the cost-effectiveness of alternative technologies.
For example, excessive pumping of sewage or process
flows is closely examined for nonessential hardware.
Projects which would result in relatively high O&M
costs also are not favored. Since many of the more
innovative technologies tend toward relatively high
O&M costs compared to capital costs, they tend to
be screened more closely than conventional methods.
Lack of reasonably predictable O&M costs can seriously
limit a process's chances of adoption. In sum, an
innovative technology proposed to MSDGC must have wide
applicability to the area, have relatively high po-
tential for cost savings over conventional systems
and have a record of proven large-scale performance.
In other areas of the state, municipalities and
their consulting engineers are hard pressed to meet
EPA's deadline of September 30, 1977, for secondary
treatment. Facilities plans of many towns submitted
to EPA are very similar to those of other towns. Al-
though there are some indications of change, this
practice of assembly line design has impeded the
adoption of innovative processes. Projects approved
by the state usually receive EPA approval.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
The examples for the area served by the MSDGC are
listed first, followed by examples of innovative POTW
projects for the remainder of the state. Where pos-
sible, the rationale for the selection of the technol-
ogy or design concept is discussed.
Projects in the MSDGC Service Area:
Underground Conveyance of Combined Sewer
Overflow. The Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
(TARP) will use tunnels to convey overflow
from a system of collectors to surface
-------
APPENDIX(28)
storage reservoirs for treatment by exist-
ing and new plants.
Landspreading of sludge. At a 10,000 acre
site in Fulton County in Southern Illinois,
land, including strip mined areas, is re-
claimed using sludge in the fill material.
Lagoons are used for storing sludge during
winter months. At a plant on Chicago's
North Side, sludge is also spread on 140
acres of crop land. Heavy metal ion uptake
by various crops has been monitored.
Dewatering of sludge. Using its own funds,
alternative methods were evaluated by MSDGC
including filter presses and high- and low-
speed centrifuges. Results are currently
under evaluation.
Ozonation. At a former pilot plant at
Hanover Park, MSDGC tested ozone as a
disinfectant. While the economics of
ozonation vs. chlorination proved unfavor-
able, the process will be more competitive
if the need for dechlorination becomes
pronounced.
Single-stage nitrification. Favorable pilot
plant studies led to the adoption of this
technology by MSDGC.
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication. At the Village of Fox Lake, a
6 Mgd-bio-disc plant is under construction.
Wastewater distillation for potable reuse.
A feasibility study of this technique is
underway at Bensonville.
In-stream aeration. MSDGC maintains that
potentially significant cost savings can
be effected by this technique to prevent
downstream "DO" sag. State funds are being
used to test it in certain canals.
Pure oxygen systems. At Addison, Illinois,
a 2 Mgd plant will operate in parallel with
a 1 Mgd plant. Both plants will use the
pure oxygen aeration system in closed tanks.
EPA Step 2 approval has been secured.
-------
APPENDIX(29)
Other Projects in Illinois
Landspreading of sludge. At Galesburg,
Illinois, one hundred acres will receive
sludge treatment under an EPA Step 2 pro-
ject.
Lagoon upgrading. At various locations,
this technique will utilize combinations
of slow sand filters, rock filters, re-
aeration, and mechanical clarifiers to
remove algae. Illinois specifies year-
round discharge for lagoons.
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication"!Four or five plants using this
technology are operating or under construc-
tion. Manufacturers of related equipment
have marketed extensively in the state, and
proposals using the technique are submitted
to the state almost daily.
Advanced treatment for meeting drinking
water standards. This technology has been
considered in numerous facilities plans
because of phosphorous standards, but no
proposals have emerged because of public
resistance..
Pure oxygen systems. A 29 Mgd closed tank
plant at Decatur, Illinois, has been built.
Its experimental permit designation requires
monitoring, and valuable data has been ac-
quired. Open tank systems are regarded as
experimental.
Deep oxidation ditch. This technology has
been proposed for several locations, where
it competed favorably with lagoon upgrading.
Potential problems are perceived from the
lack of operating data and a reported poten-
tial for icing up in severe weather.
Regional septage treatment. In the vicinity
of Wheaton, DuPage County, 35,000 gallons of
septic tank sludge will be treated by a wet
air oxidation process.
-------
APPENDIX (30)
(3) Problem Areas
For the larger metropolitan areas, especially
Chicago, five major areas of concern have been iden-
tified.
Sludge handling and disposal is becoming
more difficult to manage on a large scale.
For example, a suit has been filed to chal-
lenge the reclamation project in Fulton
County. An environmental impact statement
is being prepared as a result. Because of
the large scale of sludge disposal, any
savings in energy from innovations would
be a boon to existing and projected opera-
tions.
O&M costs. The high cost and intensity of
labor in operation of complex POTW's pre-
sents a challenge to innovation in the form
of labor reduction.
Process control. Improved plant monitoring,
control, and operation in general have the
potential for both saving money and elimina-
ting the need for some new treatment capa-
city.
In-stream aeration of sewage and other "be-
fore-the-plant" technologies also have the
potential for addressing one of the biggest
emerging problems — scarcity of money re-
sources — by reducing costs.
Lagoon upgrading. In the remainder of the
state, lagoon upgrading techniques appear
to have the most widespread potential for
providing smaller communities with low cost
treatment facilities.
11. WISCONSIN
In this state, small communities are hard pressed to
get treatment systems which they can afford. At the same
time, they do not desire to assume the risk of trying new
systems. Bigger cities typically use activated sludge pro-
cesses, but they are being forced to consider innovative
-------
APPENDIX(31)
technologies because of combined sewer overflow problems,
permit requirements, and the scarcity of land needed for
expansion of treatment capacity. The larger cities appear
to have much room for improvement of operation and mainte-
nance on older plants. The discussion which follows des-
cribes the role of innovative technology in the approval
process for construction grants, gives examples of inno-
vative treatment plants, and points out emerging waste
treatment problems.
(1) The Approval Process
The merits of innovative projects submitted to
the state and EPA Region V for review are considered
on a case by case basis. Adequate operating data on
full-scale systems greatly increases the chance of a
project's approval. Implementation is recommended
when real cost savings are likely to result. The
rate at which innovative technologies are being pro-
posed in facility plans is increasing.
In addition to its role as a reviewer of facili-
ty plans and specifications for EPA construction grant
projects, the state has its own grants program. This
program is being revamped in order to channel state
funds to projects more in accordance with its priori-
ties.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
For the technologies discussed below, the ration-
ale behind the selection of a technology is provided
where possible.
Landspreading of sludge. A high percen-
tage, perhaps 80 - 90 percent of all
communities in the state, use this method
for disposal of sludge. Sludge contain-
ment is required in the winter months.
Madison is considering landspreading in
detail for a proposed 60 Mgd plant. Mil-
waukee has a milorganite production facility.
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication"^This technology is readily ac-
cepted for towns of 10 - 30,000 population.
-------
APPENDIX(32)
A number of plants are built, in construc-
tion, or in design, and more are proposed.
An EPA demonstration plant for the tech-
nology was built in 1970 at Pewaukee. The
state encourages the technology and finds
that for adequate nitrification a two-stage
sludge system appears necessary.
Deep oxidation ditch. Several facilities
have been built and more are proposed. A
plant built at Beloit in 1968 and one built
at Jaynesville in 1970 have produced favor-
able results.
Lagoon upgrading. Many existing lagoons
have been upgraded with aeration. Numerous
proposals for lagoon upgrading are being
made, and the state encourages the practice.
Pure oxygen systems. At Fondulac, a plant
using closed-tank technology is under con-
struction. At Kaukauna, a similar plant is
in the design phase. For one of these plants,
ozonation was considered but costs were too
high. Open-tank oxygenation is not being
proposed.
Physical/chemical treatment. A few install-
ations have used this technology, usually
smaller plants of large municipal treatment
systems aiming at specific problems such as
industrial waste loads.
Land application of treated effluent. About
80 to 85 communities are using this technol-
ogy, and some large cities are considering
it.
(3) Problem Areas
Ultimate disposal of sludge. Sludge hand-
ling and disposal is becoming more expensive
as energy costs go up. Plants built in the
1970's are already looking at alternative
methods.
Treatment needs of small communities. Most
small communities will start facilities
-------
12. MICHIGAN
APPENDIX(33)
planning during 1976. Timely data on low
cost innovations, including lagoon upgrading
technologies is needed. EPA is funding some
collection and treatment systems in econom-
ically depressed areas, and this practice
should help meet the great heed for low cost
systems for small communities.
Population and industrial growth are poten-
tial problems, because growth will make it
more difficult to preserve any water quality
gains which have been made. Overcoming the
current resistance to regionalization of
treatment in some areas might prove to be
a boon to both cost effectiveness and inno-
vation in design.
The scarcity of land for plant expansion
and big city sludge disposal and the demand
for alternative use of lands used by older
treatment works are problems of increasing
importance.
Recovery of resources from raw wastewater
and from treatment processes can be expected
to grow in importance as can attention to
technologies for reuse of treated waste-
water.
The wastewater treatment needs of the smaller communi-
ties in the state are receiving more attention than in the
past because of the recent budget allocation in EPA construc-
tion grant funds to small communities. About 90 percent of
the state's stream-miles are effluent-limited, but small com-
munities on the remaining ten percent of stream-miles which
are water quality-limited, tend to have difficulties in meet-
ing treatment requirements. Towns of less than 500 people
generally use lagoons for sewage treatment, and there are
hundreds of such lagoons. Towns of more than 500 people
generally employ some variation of the activated sludge
process. The largest cities, including Lansing and Detroit,
have large-scale treatment systems with chronic problems
such as combined sewer overflows and increasing operating
and maintenance costs.
-------
APPENDIX(34)
The following sections discuss the approval process
for proposed plants which are eligible for EPA construction
grants, examples of innovative plants which are proposed
or built, and problems in waste treatment which are gaining
in importance.
(1) The Approval Process
In Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources
has the responsibility of reviewing proposed plans for
EPA grant-eligible plants. It will shortly be granted
full formal responsibility by the EPA for the review
of plans and specifications for such plants. The
department is relatively young and is generally con-
sidered to be aggressive and forward looking, and
capable of evaluating and recommending new municipal
wastewater treatment technologies. Full-scale opera-
ting data is preferred by the Department as the basis
for proposed innovative plants. Communities are aided
in meeting their share of EPA-funded plant costs by a
five percent contribution by the state. As more inno-
vative plants are proposed and built, the state faces
the problem of getting adequate data and results of
operation out to those who demand it, particularly
consulting engineers.
EPA Region V expects proven technologies to be
proposed, and generally there is little interchange
between the state and EPA on developments in innova-
tive technology. Region V has experienced on several
occasions, suits by manufacturers of wastewater treat-
ment equipment who claim inadequate evaluation of their
products in facilities plans approved by EPA. A short-
term goal of Region V is to promote the use of value
engineering in the engineering of facilities plans.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technology
In the following discussion of innovative treat-
ment plants, the rationale for the selection of the
chosen technology will be given when possible:
Landspreading. This technique was proposed
at three locations: Lake Linden, Manistique,
and Clinton. It has been used in a major
project at Muskegan, but most sludge is in-
cinerated or landfilled. Preventing the
-------
APPENDIX(35)
more widespread use of this technique are
the problems of heavy metals and virus
control.
Attached growth media for biological nitrifi-
cation. Bio-disc-type units have been pro-
posed at Cheboygan, Jonia, and Clinton. Un-
der construction is a 2 Mgd plant at Cadillac.
Advanced dewatering techniques. At Holland,
Michigan, centrifuges will be used at a 3
Mgd plant. At Selene, a 1 Mgd plant will
use filter presses. Plants at Big Rapids
and Luce County will also use advanced
techniques.
Ozonation. A pilot plant at Wyoming, Michi-
gan, was built under an EPA R&D grant. Full
scale plants have been proposed for Grand
Rapids and Grosse lie. In general, solids
problems tend to inhibit the use of ozonation
in the state.
Lagoon upgrading. There are hundreds of
lagoons in the state, and attempts to up-
grade many of them have been made. Secondary
treatment can usually be achieved with the
usual exception of not satisfying solids
removal requirements. A typical problem
in upgrading is that the addition of such
equipment as sand filters or mixed media
filters tends to raise operator skill re-
quirements significantly. Some lagoons
are aerated and used for treatment prior
to land application. Discharges from
lagoons are limited to three months of
the year, during spring and fall. Upgrad-
ing was proposed recently at Elk Rapids.
Pure oxygen systems. Based on a scale-up
from a pilot plant, a 450 Mgd closed-tank
system is being designed for Detroit.
Single-stage nitrification-denitrification.
A plant approved for Owosso is the only
example of the technology in the state.
Physical/chemical treatment. A plant at
Owosso has been approved using this
-------
APPENDIX(36)
technology. Physical/chemical treatment
has been considered in several instances
but its high cost and high resource com-
mitment erode its competitiveness.
(3) Problem Areas
The following problems were identified as grow-
ing in importance in the state:
Small community treatment needs. Many cur-
rent porposals for upgrading lagoons in-
volve additions which are too expensive for
many samll towns. They tend to require
substantially higher operator skills as well.
Compounding the problem is that many towns
seek the services of some of the smaller
consulting engineering firms who have only
limited experience with upgrading techniques.
Moreover, lagoon upgrading has only recently
gained attention, and relatively few upgrad-
ing techniques are known.
Control of combined sewer overflows. In
some of the larger cities, such as Lansing,
combined sewer overflows negate the bene-
fits achieved most of the year with tertiary
treatment. Some solutions have been tested
and some costs determined, but more alter-
natives need exploring.
Energy consumption. Some existing disposal
methods such as incineration of sludge con-
sume large amounts of increasingly costly
natural gas. Many treatments processes, as
well are energy intensive, such as those
which use pumping, and will warrant increased
attention to the potential for energy re-
duction.
Ultimate disposal of sludge. Among the
areas of waste treatment design, sludge
disposal is perhaps the most conservative.
Existing alternatives need to be proven out
for full-scale application.
-------
APPENDIX(37)
13. OHIO
While the treatment problems of large metropolitan
areas in Ohio are significant, the need to meet sewage
treatment requirements is especially pressing for the
smaller cities and towns. This is because most streams
are water quality-limited as are most discharges to Lake
Erie.
The following discussion describes in a general way
the state's role in approving innovative technologies for
EPA construction grants, gives examples of innovative plants
which have been proposed or built, and points to emerging
problems in municipal waste treatment.
(1) The Approval Process
The Ohio EPA has the responsibility for review-
ing proposed facilities plans for treatment plants
eligible for Federal EPA construction grants. In
dealing with proposed projects of an innovative nature,
the state agency prefers designs based on full-scale
operating data for proven technologies. The agency
tends to work closely with the designers of innova-
tive plants, but maintains a conservative posture.
Each innovative technology is reviewed on a case by
case basis as projects using that particular tech-
nology are submitted. In contrast to other states,
treatment plant construction is financed through
loans made by the Ohio Water Development Administra-
tion, rather than through construction grants.
(2) Examples of Innovative Technologies
For the following innovative treatment plants,
the rationale behind the selection of the technology
is given where possible:
Regional septage treatment. A plant de-
signed to handle septic tank waste sludge,
as well as normal domestic sewage has been
proposed for a community in Geauga County.
Landspreading of sludge. At a 1,000 acre
site in Montgomery County, landspreading
of sludge is being practiced. The technique
-------
APPENDIX (38)
has been proposed at Lucas County and at
Lima. Landspreading is not feasible in
many areas of the state because of scar-
city of suitable land and the potential for
contamination of soil with heavy metals and
nitrate leaching.
Attached growth media for biological nitri-
fication. Bio-disc type units have been
proposed for the Fish Creek project in Sum-
mit County and for a 1 Mgd plant in Ashley,
Ohio. In Batter County, a plant has EPA
Step 2 approval. Among designers and state
reviewers, the technology is generally con-
sidered to be well developed and suitable
for installation by small- to medium-sized
communities.
Lagoon upgrading technologies. A recently
proposed project was the addition of aera-
ting equipment to a lagoon in Tuscarawas
County. Other techniques for upgrading which
have been considered are the addition of sand
filters, mixed-media filters, and microstain-
ers. A few consulting engineering firms are
investigating the feasibility of automating
the operation of upgraded lagoons to reduce
the skill level required for operation.
Physical/chemical treatment. This technique
was recently proposed for a plant at Paynes-
ville, Ohio. At Cleveland's 50 Mgd Westerly
plant, chemical addition in the primary
stage is used for coagulation, and carbon
adsorption is used in later stages. These
techniques were chosen to meet the strict
water quality criteria for discharge to
Lake Erie. Cleveland's Rocky River plant,
10 - 15 Mgd, uses similar physical/chemical
processes.
(3) Emerging Needs in Wastewater Treatment
Five major problem areas which are growing in
importance were identified:
Combined sewer overflow. This problem
plagues many cities along the Great Lakes.
-------
APPENDIX(39)
Many of the alternative solutions considered
require large commitments of land and money.
A greater number of alternatives need to be
identified.
AWT for wastewater reuse. No real need for
reuse of wastewater exists in the state at
the present time. For the foreseeable fu-
ture, only indirect reuse for potable sup-
plies will be implemented.
Detection of carcinogens. As the interest
of the public and regulators grows as to
the presence of potentially carcinogenic
agents in potable water, the discharges of
treated wastewaters containing such agents
will need to be monitored as accurately as
possible. Work will be needed as well to
establish the limits to the monitoring of
carcinogens in waste streams, prior to the
adoption of regulations on the discharges.
Alternative methods for disinfection. The
problems of high chlorine residuals and dif-
ficulties in removing coliforms have spurred
the need to consider dechlorination. The
costs of adapting plants for dechlorination
and operating costs are increasing and pro-
vide stimulus to the consideration of alter-
natives such as ozonation.
Ultimate disposal of sludge. The most common
methods of sludge disposal in the state, in-
cineration and landfilling, are yielding to
consideration of alternative methods as the
costs of fuel and air quality controls in-
crease and as suitable landfill sites became
more scarce. At present, landspreading meets
with public resistance even where suitable
land is available. Composting has severe
limitations in the state because of the ap-
parent lack of market for the compost pro-
duct and because of the state's climate.
Steam gasification of sludge and sludge com-
bined with solid waste is gaining in general
acceptance as a workable technology, but no
proposals for its implementation are being
submitted. Pyrolysis is generally regarded
as requiring more research and development.
------- |