&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Municipal
Pollution Control (WH-595)
Washington DC 20460
September 1987
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Projects
1987 Progress Report
-------
SEPTEMBER 1987
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
1987 PROGRESS REPORT
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------
PREFACE
The Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC) issues this annual summary to provide
interested parties with an overview of progress in the implementation of innovative and
alternative (I/A) technologies under provisions of the Clean Water Act. This report is based
upon information from grant awards through April for the year of issue as provided by state
agencies and EPA regional offices.
State, EPA region, and EPA headquarters' staffs have worked diligently to make the listings
as accurate and helpful as possible. Any errors, omissions, or suggestions to improve the
usefulness of the report should be reported to Marie Perez, EPA-OMPC, who is listed in
Table 6.
Information on I/A technologies is available from a variety of sources. The National Small
Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia University in Morgantown, WV, maintains
bibliographies of information on I/A technologies; and publishes periodic bulletins featuring
case studies and information on current I/A activities. Included in the bibliographies are lists
of manufacturers, I/A contacts and applicable regulations for each state, and literature
articles. The Clearinghouse also has a data base available listing more than 2,000 I/A
facilities. The Clearinghouse may be reached, toll free, at 1 -800-624-8301. Other sources of
information are listed in Table 7 of this report.
This report contains valuable information on I/A technology projects. Tables 1 and 2 provide
information on funded innovative technologies. Table 3 provides information on alternative
technology projects. The location and status of field test projects are listed in Table 4, and the
location and status of 100 percent modification or replacement (M/R) requests are in Table 5.
Table 6 gives the I/A technology coordinators for each state and EPA region. A list of
technology fold-outs and other sources of information on I/A technologies is presented in
Table?.
The 1986 Progress Report included several innovative technology project descriptions and
alternative technology case studies that may be of interest to the reader. The innovative
technology project descriptions in the 1986 report include the following:
Overland Flow
Sequencing Batch Reactors
Intrachannel Clarification
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons
Vacuum Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Counter-Current Aeration Systems
-------
The alternative technology case studies in the 1986 report include the following:
Vacuum Collection System; Cedar Rocks, West Virginia
Wetlands/Marsh System; Cannon Beach, Oregon
Spray Irrigation and Wastewater Recycling System;
Clayton County, Georgia
Overland Flow System; Kenbridge, Virginia
Sludge Composting System; East Richland County,
South Carolina
Methane Recovery System; Charlotte, Michigan
Copies of the 1986 report can be obtained by contacting Marie Perez, EPA-OMPC.
MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE ENDORSEMENT OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
LIST OF TABLES jv
LIST OF FIGURES v
PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1
1987 ANNUAL I/A COORDINATORS MEETING 2
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS 4
Bardenpho* Process 6
Biological Aerated Filters'; Oneonta, AL 8
Teacup Grit Removal System; Calera, AL 10
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS 12
Pressure Sewer Technology 14
Grinder Pump Wastewater Collection System; Greene County, VA 16
Small Diameter Effluent Sewers; Mt. Andrew, AL 18
Communal Treatment System; Mayo Peninsula, MD 20
Constructed Wetlands Systems Technology 22
FIELD TESTS 25
Pulsed Bed Filtration; Clear Lake, Wl 26
Anaerobic/Oxic Biological Nutrient Removal; in Fayetteville, AR 28
GLOSSARY 63
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Innovative Technologies
Funded Less than Five Times 30
2 Summary of Innovative Technologies
Funded Five or More Times 40
3 Summary of Alternative Technology
Projects 42
4 Innovative/Alternative Field Test
Projects 44
5 100% Modification/Replacement Grants 46
6 Innovative/Alternative Technology 48
Contacts
7 List of Innovative/Alternative 58
Technology Publications
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Innovative Technologies Funded 5
2 Bardenpho* Process Flow Diagram 7
3 Biological Aerated Filters"; Oneonta, AL 9
4 Teacup Grit Removal/Solids Classifier 11
5 Alternative Technologies Funded 13
6 Pressure Sewer Technology 15
7 Grinder Pump Flow Schematic;
Greene County, VA 17
8 Small Diameter Effluent Sewers;
Mt. Andrew, AL 19
9 Communal System Flow Diagram;
Mayo Peninsula, MD 21
10 Constructed Wetlands 23
11 Pulsed Bed Filtration;
Clear Lake, Wl 27
12 Anaerobic/Oxic Biological Nutrient Removal;
Fayetteville.AR 29
-------
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
An innovative/alternative technology program was first established by the Clean Water Act
(CWA) of 1977, in the form of a three-year test program. The 1977 Act included provisions for
a financial incentive, a mandatory reserve fund for innovative/alternative (I/A) technology
projects, and the authority to federally fund correction of failures. The intent was to improve
wastewater treatment technology and efficiency, to lower life cycle costs, and to reduce
energy consumption.
The 1981 CWA Amendments continued and strengthened the program by extending the
1977 CWA provisions through 1985, increasing the financial incentive, and adding funding
for field test projects. In addition, the mandatory reserve fund percentage was increased
from 2 percent to 4 percent, with each state having an option to increase the set-aside up to a
maximum of 7.5 percent. Not less than 0.5 percent is to be used for innovative technology
funding.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 extended the program and the incentives. Incentives for
choosing an I/A technology include a 20 percent increase in the federal grant share, the
requirement for states to use a certain portion of construction grant funds for I/A technology
projects, and the availability of 100 percent grants to modify or replace funded projects which
fail (M/R grants). The I/A program also includes field testing projects to evaluate emerging
technologies before committing funds to full scale facilities.
The I/A technology program has awarded over 4,340 grants at more than 1,980 municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. Substantial savings have been realized based upon claimed
energy savings and cost savings for construction and operation.
-------
1987 ANNUAL I/A
Bob Blanco
Washington, D.C.
REGISTRATION
ii
MEETING
Chris Haynes
Olympia, WA.
The annual I/A coordinators meeting was
held May 27-29 in Houston, Texas. All
regions and 25 states were represented this
year with a total attendance of 46.
Jon C. Vanden Bosch, Director of Public
Works for Houston, welcomed us to the city
and provided an informative discussion of
their wastewater treatment program.
SHARING INFORMATION
-------
COORDINATORS MEETING
Bob Freeman
Atlanta, GA
Jim Kreissl
Cincinnati, OH
Bob Blanco, Director for the Municipal
Facilities Division, gave the keynote address
and resolved many problem issues that
concern the I/A program.
Speakers for the remainder of the two-day
program included participants from several
states and regional offices. Everyone's
contribution made this year's meeting a
success.
The tour was of Houston's 69th Street
Wastewater Treatment Facility. The sludge
handling facilities and the influent pumping
station received innovative technology
funding.
INFORMAL
ON TOUR
PUMP STATION MODEL
-------
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS
An innovative technology is defined as a wastewater treatment process or technique which
has not been fully proven for the proposed application and which offers a significant
advancement over the state of the art. In order to qualify as innovative, a technology must
meet two conditions. First, the technology or its application must include an inherent risk
which is outweighed by a corresponding benefit, thereby making the risk acceptable. If a
technology or its application is fully proven, there would be no "risk" involved and it could not
qualify as innovative. However, if a specific application of a proven technology is not proven,
the specific application may qualify as innovative.
The second condition is that the technology must meet at least one of 6 established criteria
that represent significant advancement over the state of the art. The criteria are: (1) cost
reduction (in the range of 15 percent of life cycle costs), (2) net primary energy reduction (in
the range of 20 percent), (3) improved management of a toxic substance, (4) improved
operational reliability, (5) improved environmental benefits, and (6) improved joint
industrial/municipal treatment.
Several specific innovative technologies and projects are discussed in the following
sections. Only a small representation of the total number of innovative projects are
discussed in this report. The breakdown of the areas of innovative technology funding is
shown in Rgurel.
-------
AERATION
OTHER
SLUDGE
TECHNOLOGIES
OXIDATION DITCHES
CLARIFIERS
DISINFECTION
ENERGY
CONSERVATION
AND RECOVERY
NUTRIENT REMOVAL
FILTRATION
LAND
APPLICATION
OF EFFLUENT
LAGOONS
FIGURE 1. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.
-------
BARDENPHO* PROCESS
Description: The Bardenpho* process was originally developed as a four stage system for
BOD and nitrogen removal from wastewater where partial removal of
phosphorus also occurs. In order to maximize phosphorus removal, an
anaerobic stage is added to the front of the four-stage process. Nitrogen and
phosphorus removal are achieved by carefully controlling the concentration
of oxygen in each of the five stages. Nitrogen removal is by biological
denitrification, while phosphorus removal is by microbial uptake into the
waste activated sludge.
Application: The Bardenpho* process is applicable to wastewater systems that have a
phosphorus and/or a nitrogen discharge limit. The basic four-stage system
can be used when the discharge is nitrogen, but not phosphorus, limited. By
adding the fifth stage, the system can be used where the discharge is
phosphorus limited.
Benefits: Chemicals do not have to be added to remove the nitrogen and phosphorus.
Capital costs and maintenance costs are reduced since chemical handling
facilities are not required. Operating costs may be reduced because
chemicals are not used. The waste activated sludge is relatively stable,
reducing the need for additional digestion equipment; and thereby potentially
lowering capital, operating, and maintenance costs of sludge handling.
Operation of the process is claimed to be similar to conventional activated
sludge system operation. The long solids retention time provides process
stability.
Status: There are nine wastewater treatment facilities in the U.S. using the
Bardenpho* process. Worldwide, there are another forty systems in
operation. At present, there are six facilities under construction and another
eight being designed. The operating systems consistently report good
removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. However, alum must be added to
enhance phosphorus removal in cases where effluent standards require
consistent phosphorus levels at or below 1.0 mg/L
-------
INFLUENT
RETURN
SLUDGE
FROM
CLARIFIER
A
N.,
**.
- ^
DO
NO.
fT*.
O
= 0
= 0
1
"
*
L
5
EFFLUENT
TO CLARIFIER
Jn
MENTATION FIRST NITRIFICATION SECOND REAERATION
STAGE
ANOXIC
STAGE
STAGE ANOXIC
STAGE
STAGE
FIGURE 2. BARDENPHO* PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM.
-------
BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTERS'
ONEONTA, AL
Description: Priortothe addition of the Biological Aerated Filters8 (BAP), the Oneonta, AL,
treatment system was a single lagoon. The BAP units were added to achieve
effluent limits that are BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, and suspended solids
limited. The treatment system is a 2.2 mgd system consisting of two pond
cells, an aerated channel, eight BAF' units, and chlorination prior to
discharge. It serves a population of approximately 4,500. The BAF* units are
high rate, attached growth, aerobic treatment units which use a patented
catalyst bed to remove soluble and suspended organic material.
Benefits: Capital costs are saved because secondary clarifiers and effluent filters are
not required, expensive aeration basins are not required, and labor for
installation is reduced. BAF* units require less land than conventional
systems, providing another potential savings. O&M cost savings are claimed
because energy requirements are potentially less than for conventional
systems; there are no chemical requirements; and personnel requirements
are reduced by automating process cycling. BAF* units can reduce BOD to
below 10 mg/L and effluent ammonia to 1 mg/L, when properly designed
according to influent BOD loading. Effluent suspended solids are generally
less than 10 mg/L. BAP systems are simple to operate.
Status: The system has been achieving effluent concentrations which are better than
the required limits since start-up. Studies are being conducted to optimize
performance and reduce power costs. Systems have been successfully
operated in France since 1978. In the United States, there are four BAF'
systems in operation, one under construction, and one in design.
Applications: The BAP process could be used in many systems where improved BOD and
suspended solids removal is required, especially where low effluent limits are
required. BAP units may also be applicable where nitrification is required. If
land is limited, BAF' units can be especially attractive.
8
-------
ONEONTA!
FIGURE 3. BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTERS;
ONEONTA, AL.
-------
TEACUP GRIT REMOVAL SYSTEM
CALERA, AL
Description: The wastewater treatment system at Calera, AL consists of twin Teacup
solids classifiers with stacked static screens, counter-current aeration,
clarification, and chlorination. The system has a design flow of 750,000 gpd.
The effluent is BOD, ammonia-nitrogen, and suspended solids limited. The
Teacup solids classifier removes grit by a combination of centrifugal and
gravity forces. Row enters tangentially near the top, creating a free vortex,
and resultant centrifugal forces. Grit particles settle toward the bottom, where
the free vortex boundary layer sweeps them to a central well. Acceleration
within the boundary layer separates the particles by density. The denser grit
particles are separated and removed, while the less dense organics tend to
remain with the wastewater.
Benefits: If grit is not effectively removed from wastewater before it enters a treatment
system, it adds sludge volume, additional sludge solids, and abrasives which
cause excessive wear on mechanical equipment. All of these increase
operation and maintenance costs. Removal of grit decreases costs and
maintenance time. The Teacup solids classifier removes 95 percent of the grit
under peak flow conditions. The grit removed is less than 15 percent
organics, which reduces odor and disposal problems. The Teacup solids
classifier is all hydraulic, which saves energy and reduces maintenance. The
Teacup has no moving parts, which reduces maintenance costs. The aerated
discharge maintains dissolved oxygen levels.
Status: The Teacup solids classifier at Calera is performing as designed. The system
is removing greater than 95 percent of the grit in the influent. There are no
odor problems in the grit removal.
Applications: The Teacup solids classifier is applicable to a variety of wastewaters,
including municipal treatment systems, food processing wastewater
reclamation, and industrial cooling waste reclamation. The system can be
used in any system where grit accumulation and/or damage is a problem.
10
-------
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
, ^DISCHARGE
p\CYLINDER
GRIT
FIGURE 4. TEACUP GRIT REMOVAL7SOLIDS CLASSIFIER.
11
-------
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND PROJECTS
An alternative technology is a fully proven method of wastewater or sludge treatment that
1) provides for the reclaiming and/or reuse of water, 2) productively recycles wastewater
constituents, 3) eliminates the discharge of pollutants, or 4) recovers energy. The alternative
technology portion of the program emphasizes land treatment of wastewaters and sludges,
sludge handling and disposal techniques that reuse or reclaim pollutants, on-site methods of
disposal, and alternative conveyance systems that are especially applicable to small
communities. Because a greater portion of available funding goes to large communities, the
alternative technology portion of the program has been particularly beneficial for small
communities. Set-asides of available grant funds help focus a portion of these funds on small
community projects.
Composition of sludge and land treatment of wastewater and sludge are perhaps the best
known alternative technologies. Some other technologies, although proven, are less known
because of infrequent use. Effluent treatment alternative technologies include aquifer
recharge, aquaculture, revegetation of disturbed lands, horticulture, direct reuse
(non-potable), and total containment ponds. Energy recovery alternative technologies
include self sustaining incineration and anaerobic digestion with greater than 90 percent
methane recovery and use. For small community systems, alternative technologies include
individual or cluster on-site treatment, septage treatment, small diameter collection and
conveyance systems such as pressure sewers, and some centralized treatment systems.
Several specific alternative technologies and projects are discussed in the following
sections. Only a small representation of the total number of alternative projects/technologies
are discussed in this report. The breakdown of alternative technology funding is shown in
Rgure 5.
12
-------
OTHER
SLUDGE
TREATMENT
ENERGY RECOVERY
FROM SLUDGE
COLLECTION SYSTEMS
LAND TREATMENT
ONSITE TREATMENT
FIGURE 5. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED.
13
-------
PRESSURE SEWER TECHNOLOGY
Description: There are two basic variations of on-site pressure sewer systems: septic tank
effluent pump (STEP) units and grinder pump (GP) units. STEP systems
consist of a septic tank, a wet well with an effluent pump, and accessories
such as valves and level control system. GP systems have a pumping
chamber storage tankand agrinder pump with accessories similarto a STEP
system. Both system variations pump wastewater into small diameter, sealed
sewer lines. The STEP systems produce a wastewater with lower organic
loading than conventional sewers due to pretreatment in the septic tank;
whereas, GP systems produce a wastewater with higher than normal organic
loading due to little or no dilution from I/I.
Applications: Pressure sewers allow small or widely dispersed communities to add
collection/generation areas as sporadic growth occurs. This type of system is
well suited to systems where the treatment plant is uphill of the collection
system, but can also be used effectively in areas of slight or widely varying
topography. Pressure sewers are very advantageous in areas with shallow
bedrock or high ground water tables.
Benefits: Initial costs are lower due to easier installation using smaller diameter pipe;
shallower, narrower trenches; and non-critical variable grade which can be
adjusted for specific site conditions. System expansion can be accomplished
on a one house at a time basis without the need to install large collector lines
based on future expansion projections. The sealed pipe system reduces I/I
which may result in smaller treatment system sizing, thereby saving capital
costs. Systems can be designed to avoid environmentally sensitive areas
without adding significantly to costs.
Status: Pressure sewer systems are applicable in numerous communities
throughout the U.S. where conditions are not conducive to gravity systems,
and/or the growth of the area warrants this type of system. Capital costs must
be low enough to offset slightly higher operating costs. Construction with
corrosion resistant valves, water level sensors, and switches should increase
long-term reliability and ultimately decrease O&M costs.
14
-------
Dwelling
2"-12" Plastic
Pressure Main
1"-2" Plastic
Service Piping
Effluent Pump
Pressure Sewer System
Using Septic Tank (STEP)
Check
Valve
Pumping
Chamber
Dwelling
Existing Gravity
Sewage Piping
2"-12" Plastic
Pressure Main
Pumping
Chamber
Grinder
Pump
Pump
Level
Control
Emergency
Overflow
(optional)
Pressure Sewer System
Using Grinder Pump (GP)
FIGURE 6. PRESSURE SEWER TECHNOLOGY.
15
-------
GRINDER PUMP WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
GREENE COUNTY VA
Description: The Greene Mountain Lake Subdivision is located in a rough terrain area
downhill from an existing wastewater collection system. To connect the two
systems, a small low pressure system with individual grinder pumps at each
residence was designed. Each residential station has a sixty-gallon storage
tank which is pumped at a predetermined tank capacity by a two-horsepower
packaged grinder pump. The collection system includes 1.5-inch to 4.0-inch
low pressure mains connected to a central pump station which discharges to
the existing gravity collection system. The system is designed to serve
approximately 120 residences.
Benefits: The grinder pump/low pressure wastewater collection system reduces the
number of major pump stations required by a gravity collection system. The
collection lines can also be located in existing road rights-of-way at shallow
depths avoiding stream channels. Small shallow lines following the mostly
uphill topography provide a cost savings to the project. The closed nature of
the system also reduces inflow and infiltration, providing an additional cost
savings to the system operation.
Status: The Greene County wastewater collection and treatment facilities is currently
in the construction bid phase. Construction should start by September 1987
with an expected completion date of September 1988.
Applications: Any area of wastewater generation that is topographically isolated from
collection/ treatment facilities can benefit from this technology; provided the
cost of pumping required to overcome the topography is cost-effective.
Additional applications might include state parks, recreational/second home
developments, or business parks. Low gradient areas (e.g., beach
communities) might also benefit by using this system.
16
-------
G
RINDE
STORAGE
LOW PRESSURE LINE
GRINDER PUMP
n_
JUNCTION BOX
EXISTING
GRAVITY
COLLECTION
STORAGE
LOW PRESSURE LINE
STORAGE
FIGURE 7. GRINDER PUMP FLOW SCHEMATIC;
GREENE CO., VA.
-------
SMALL DIAMETER EFFLUENT SEWERS
MT. ANDREW, ALABAMA
Description: The Mt. Andrew, AL small diameter effluent sewer (SDES) system was
installed in 1975 and serves a subdivision community of 31 houses. The
system consists of modified septic tanks, small-diameter transport lines, and
a lagoon for final treatment. The system uses 2-inch and 3-inch PVC gravity
lines anda3-inch pressure/gravity line. Eight of the houses are situated below
the 3-inch pressure/gravity line grade, and the effluent from these houses is
pumped to the collection line. Collection lines were installed along the existing
grades, independent of the elevation and without manholes or cleanouts.
The collection line grades go uphill at several points.
Benefits: The benefits to Mt. Andrew are: 1) lower installation costs due to the use of
small diameter pipe and pipe installation following existing contours, which
eliminated costly deep cuts and lift stations; 2) a reduced number of
manholes, cleanouts, and associated infiltration/inflow; and 3) negligible
maintenance costs due to smaller pipe sizes and an essentially closed
system.
Status: The small diameter effluent sewer system at Mt. Andrew has been operating
satisfactorily since 1975. The transport lines have proven to be very reliable
with only minimal maintenance requirements. The modified septic tanks
have functioned as designed, although rapid solids buildup in the primary
section of the tanks occurred due to their initial undersizing which caused
more frequent pumping than anticipated.
Applications: Small diameter effluent sewers are best suited to reasonably small user
groups which will not be experiencing large amounts of growth.
18
-------
6 -i
CO
ELEVATION
IN
METERS
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
LAGOON
50
'ARIABLE GRADE
i
100
150
LENGTH IN METERS
200
250
300
FIGURE 8. SMALL DIAMETER EFFLUENT SEWERS;
MT. ANDREW, AL
-------
COMMUNAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
MAYO PENINSULA, MD
Description: The decentralized wastewater treatment project developed for the
8-square-mile Mayo Peninsula, MD includes three treatment approaches.
One approach is on-site septic systems in areas with suitable soils. The
second approach is cluster soil absorption systems where septic tank effluent
is collected from several homes and conveyed to an area with soils suitable
for a communal infiltration field. The final approach is a 0.9 mgd communal
treatment system for the majority of the peninsula. The communal system
starts with collection and discharge of septic tank effluent into seven acres of
recirculating sand filters. Following this sequentially are a 7-acre constructed
bulrush/cattail wetland, with intermediate ultraviolet disinfection, an 8-acre
constructed peat wetland with final ultraviolet disinfection, and final discharge
into a constructed, offshore, submerged wetland.
Benefits: Following a history of failed septic tank systems with the accompanying
flooding and adversely affected well water quality, local residents
encouraged development of a system which would treat the residential
wastes, but would not contribute to rapid development of the area. The
decentralized system will achieve the community goals while reducing initial
costs by $12 million when compared to conventional systems.
Status: Only the cluster absorption system is currently under construction. It is
scheduled to be completed by August 1987. Initial construction of the
communal treatment system is scheduled for fall, 1987. Existing septic tanks
are being evaluated and necessary rehabilitation should begin during the
spring of 1988.
Applications: Decentralized systems are feasible for rural areas with widespread clusters
of population. Systems similar to the Mayo Peninsula project enhance the
current lifestyle, while not contributing to unplanned growth. Areas striving to
maintain a simplified infrastructure could benefit from a decentralized waste
treatment plan.
20
-------
SEPTIC TANK
RECIRCULATING
SAND FILTER
ULTRAVIOLET
DISINFECTION
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
CONSTRUCTED
WETLAND
1
ro
OFFSHORE
WETLAND
PEAT
WETLAND
ULTRAVIOLET
DISINFECTION
FIGURE 9. COMMUNAL SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM;
MAYO PENINSULA, MD.
-------
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
Description: A constructed wetlands (CW) system is essentially a lateral, subsurface flow
trickling filter. Primary or secondary treated wastewater flows into a long,
shallow trough filled with a stone base and topped with a layer of pea gravel
supporting rooted aquatic plants. The biological treatment of the wastewater
is restricted to the aerobic root zone below the pea gravel surface. Open
surface and root/rhizone-produced aeration provide the necessary oxygen.
Degradation of organic material by bacteria in the root zone produces
substances (e.g., metabolites) which are assimilated by plants. In turn,
microorganisms utilize plant metabolites and dead plant material as a food
source.
Application: CW systems have a wide range of applications for small to medium size
residential, commercial, and industrial waste streams. Following primary
treatment to prevent gravel clogging, the CW system can serve as a
secondary or tertiary level of treatment. The most promising application may
be the replacement of septic tank drain fields. CW systems are also being
used to treat river water contaminated with organic pollutants, acid mine
drainage, and agricultural runoff.
Benefits: The CW concept has the potential to lower capital and O&M costs compared
to conventional mechanical treatment alternatives. The process is flexible
and can be designed to meet specific treatment needs, including the removal
of toxics and nutrients. Reeds used in CW systems have a wide range of
tolerance for temperature, salinity, and toxicity, which greatly expands its
applicability. Compared to a floating marsh treatment system, the CW system
requires less land area. The CW system has a nice appearance and the
biomass produced may also have an economic value.
Status: The National Space Technology Laboratories Station in Mississippi is
operating three CW systems. Several systems are currently being designed
or constructed in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The Public Health
Service is designing a system at their hospital facility in Corvallis, MS.
22
-------
CO
TO LEACH
FIELD OR
DITCH
24 MIL PLASTIC LINER
h- 2.66'
BACK END VIEW (NOT TO SCALE)
SIDE VIEW (NOT TO SCALE)
SEPTIC TANK -j 12" RAILROAD BALLAST
4" FREEBOARD (LEVEE)
4" CRUSHED ROCK -.
FIELD HOSE ~A / /
%n
7
FIGURE 10. CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS.
-------
FIELD TESTS
A special category for field testing innovative technology projects was created by the 1981
Clean Water Act Amendments. Field testing provides a mechanism to verify the basis of
design for promising advances in treatment technology prior to committing funds for full
scale facilities. The intent is to reduce the risk of failure before funding construction of many
similar projects. Field testing grants offer an excellent opportunity to evaluate emerging,
higher risk technologies which have the greatest potential to advance municipal wastewater
treatment practices in this country. Table 4 lists the field test projects funded to date, including
a brief indication of the results achieved where available.
25
-------
PULSED BED FILTRATION
CLEAR LAKE, Wl
Description: The primary purpose of this field test was to evaluate the ability of PBF to
reduce organic loading to secondary biological treatment systems and,
thereby, increase the operational performance. The filter selected was the
Hydro Clear Pulsed Bed Filter developed and marketed by Zimpro, Inc. It
uses a shallow bed of fine sand with an air diffuser just above the bed's
surface to keep solids in suspension. Periodically, an air pulse is generated
through the backwash/underdrain system that re-suspends trapped solids
and/or distributes them throughout the bed. After a set number of pulses, the
filter is backwashed through the underdrain system. A semi-automatic
grease cleaning system restores the sand to its original greaseless condition.
The PBF was tested in the primary effluent filtration mode utilizing primary
clarrfier and/or roughing filter effluent.
Rndings: Throughout the two month field test, the PBF reduced suspended solids by
an average of approximately 52 percent, with a corresponding average
reduction of approximately 24 percent in total BOD at the trickling filter
effluent. The best results were achieved during the third of five test periods
when the discharge to the PBF was changed from the combined
primary/roughing filter effluent to roughing filter effluent only. The additional
biological activity in the roughing filter produced a higher proportion of larger
particle sizes which were more amenable to filtration.
Benefits: The benefits of primary effluent filtration include the removal of large
quantities of solids, increased capacity of existing secondary biological
treatment facilities, and reduction of biological treatment sludge.
Applications: In addition to primary effluent filtration, PBF has proven effective in the
filtration of raw water supplies, process waters, wastewater roughing
streams, cooling tower water, and boiler feed water.
26
-------
SPLASH PLATE
BACKWASH SENSOR
LOW PRESSURE AIR
TO DIFFUSER
PULSE MIX SENSOR
AIR MIX SENSOR
10" SAND BED
BACKWASH/PULSE
WATER INLET
FILTRATE
DISCHARGE
INTO
CLEARWELL
FILTER
CLEARWELL
INFLUENT
FILTER COLUMN
BACKWASH TROUGH
WEIR
EFFLUENT
SAMPLE
BOX
:ii
FIGURE 11. ZIMPRO" PULSE BED FILTRATION;
CLEAR LAKE, Wl.
UNDERDRAIN
BACKWASH WATER
DISCHARGE
FILTERED EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
-------
ANAEROBIC/OXIC BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
Description: A pilot-scale test study was operated at Fayetteville, AR to determine if the
A/O process could achieve desired operational performance under design
conditions. The pilot test was a one gpm pilot plant sized to allow the same
retention time as the full-scale plant, thereby simulating the full-scale
process. In the A/O process, microorganisms solubilize phosphorus in the
absence of oxygen in the anaerobic cells. In the oxic cells, soluble
phosphorus uptake occurs; organic matter is converted to cell matter, carbon
dioxide, and water; and ammonia is oxidized to nitrite and nitrate.
Findings: The pilot plant generally achieved excellent BOD, suspended solids,
ammonia, and phosphorus removal. Effluent concentrations of BOD,
ammonia, and suspended solids were consistently at or below permit limits.
Alum had to be added to the oxic basin effluent during low flows to reach the
1 mg/L phosphorus effluent limit. Without alum addition, effluent phosphorus
ranged from 0.5 to 3.1 mg/L. The field test demonstrated that the full-scale
facility will be capable of meeting effluent limits.
Benefits: The A/O process can save capital costs because oversized clarifiers are not
required for phosphorus removal, separate nitrification and denitrification
basins are not required for ammonia removal, and chemical storage/handling
facilities are not required. Since the only chemicals required are relatively
small amounts of alum, operating and maintenance costs are reduced.
Stringent effluent limits for BOD, suspended solids, ammonia, and
phosphorus reduction can be met with relatively simple operating controls.
The A/O process substantially reduces sludge volumes when compared to
conventional systems.
Applications: The A/O process is applicable to wastewater systems that have a
phosphorus and/or nitrogen discharge limit.
28
-------
THE A/O SYSTEM FOR BOD AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
WITH NITRIFICATION AND DENITRIFICATION
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
n n
n n n
CLARIFIER
INTERNAL RECYCLE
SLUDGE RETURN
ANOXIC AEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
EFFLUENT
PHOSPHORUS RICH
WASTE SLUDGE
THE A/O SYSTEM FOR BOD AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
WITHOUT NITRIFICATION
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE RETURN
I AEROBIC
ANAEROBIC
EFFLUENT
CLARIFIER
PHOSPHORUS RICH
WASTE SLUDGE
FIGURE 12. ANAEROBIC/OXIC BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL;
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
29
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES
DESIGN
STATE FLOW (MGD)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
AERATION/MIXING
AERATED MIXING CHAMBER AND BLOWERS
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
TULSA
AERO-MOD SYSTEM
EDGAR SPRINGS
LINDSEY
NORWOOD
OK
MO
OH
MO
20.60
0.04
0.10
0.30
CH2M HILL
TULSA, OK
HEAGLER A
ROLLA, MO
POGGEMEY
D/"\\A/I I Kir* f*
DUWLIINu U
SCOTT cor
SALUDA
NC
ASPIRATING PROPELLER PUMP
WELCH WV
EDI AERATION SYSTEM
ENGINEERS
SPRINGFIELD, MO
0.70 APPALACHIAN ENGINEERS
CHARLESTON, WV
0.40 L. ROBERT KIMBALL ASSOC.
HUNTINGTON, WV
SUBMERGED TURBINE DRAFT TUBE
ANDALUSIA AL
CRANSTON Rl
CLARIFIERS
AERATED CLARIFIER
CHOCTAW OK
2.84 CARTER DARNELL GRUBBS
ENGINEERS
ANDALUSIA. AL
23.00 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING CORP.
WARWICK, Rl
0.50 REA ENGINEERING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
APPROVAL
BASIS
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.BEN.
COST
ENERGY
COST
COST
GUILFORD-SANGERVILLE
ME
1.01
WRIGHT-PIERCE
TOPSHAM, ME
COST&
ENERGY
INTERMITTENT CYCLE EXTENDED AERATION
CLEVELAND
CORNERSVILLE
TULLAHOMA
UNION CITY
TN
TN
TN
TN
9.0
0.11
3.00
4.03
RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
BRENTWOOD, TN
JOHN COLEMAN HAYES
NASHVILLE, TN
BARGE WAGGONER SUMNER
CANNON INC.
NASHVILLE, TN
J.R. WAUFORD CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
NASHVILLE, TN
COST
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST
SUBMERGED MIXING OF EQUALIZATION TANKS
EAST WALKER
NORTH MANKATO
AL
MN
0.25
10.00
ALMON AND ASSOCIATES
TUSCALOOSA, AL
ZENK ENGINEERS INC.
ALBERT LEA, MN
COST&
ENERGY
TOXICS
MGMT.
SUBMERGED PROPELLER MIXER
MARQUETTE COUNTY
STORM LAKE
TROUP
Ml
IA
TX
2.64
3.34
0.31
FOTH AND VAN DYKE ASSOC.
GREEN BAY, Wl
KUEHL AND PAYER LTD.
STORM LAKE, IA
THE BRANNON CORP.
TYLER, TX
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
30
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
DESIGN
STATE FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
APPROVAL
BASIS
CANTILEVERED CLARIFIER BAFFLING
TRI-CITY OR
13.50 CH2M HILL
PORTLAND, OR
COMBINED SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION/CHLORINATION
FLAGSTAFF AZ
FIXED-MEDIA CLARIFIER
WAYNESBURG OH
PLATE SETTLERS
SANFORD ME
6.00
0.40
3.60
BROWN AND CALDWELL
TUSCON, AZ
HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.
NORTH CANTON, OH
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
CONCORD, NH
DISINFECTION
COMBINED SECONDARY SEDIMENTATION/CHLORINATION
FLAGSTAFF AZ 6.0 BROWN AND CALDWELL
TUCSON, AZ
FLOW-PACED SULFUR DIOXIDE AND CHLORINE ADDITIONS
SOUTHHAMPTON COUNTY VA
OZONATION
MOORHEAD MN
PRE-OZONATION
CLEVELAND OH
DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
DEEP WELL INJECTION
ST. PETERSBURG FL
SUBSURFACE FILTER/SURFACE DISCHARGE
NEWPORT VT
WATER SUPPLY/AQUIFER RECHARGE
EL PASO TX
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
BLOWER HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM
TRI-CITY OR
DIGESTORS HEATED BY GEOTHERMAL HEAT
ELKO NV
EARTH SHELTERING AND PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN
KASSON MN 0.35
0.3 HENRY P. SADLER AND ASSOC. INC.
RICHMOND, VA
6.00 WATERMATION
ST. PAUL, MN
50.00 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC.
CLEVELAND, OH
20.00 CH2M HILL
CHARLESTON, SC
0.04 PHILLIP AND EMBERLEY
SHELBURNE, VT
10.00 PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER INC.
EL PASO,TX
13.50 CH2M HILL
PORTLAND, OR
LAKE CRYSTAL
MN
2.50 KENNEDY JENKS CHILTON
TWIN FALLS, ID
MCGHEEANDBETTS
ROCHESTER, MN
0.59 BOLTON AND MENK INC.
MANKATO, MN
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.
COST
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST&
ENV.BEN.
COST&
ENV.BEN.
REG.DISCR.
COST,
ENERGY &
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
31
-------
TABLE 11NNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
DESIGN
STATE FLOW (MGD)
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
ENERGY RECOVERY FROM SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
TULSA
OK
ENERGY RECOVERY/HEAT PUMPS
NEW YORK CITY NY
LOS ANGELES CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
INCINERATION WITH HEAT RECOVERY
MACON-BIBB COUNTY GA
SLUDGE HEAT EXCHANGERS
ROCHESTER MN
SLUDGE USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY
INDEPENDENCE MO
SOLAR POWER SYSTEM
WAYNESBURG OH
11.00 BLACK AND VEATCH
TULSA. OK
100.00 MALCOLM PIRNIE/
MICHAEL BAKER
ALBANY, NY
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
RALPH PARSONS
PASADENA, CA
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/BABCOCK WILCOX
LIVINGSTON, NJ
28.00 JORDAN JONES GOULDING INC.
ATLANTA, GA
12.50 HOLLAND KASTLER SCHMITZ
ROCHESTER. MN
40.00 E.T. ARCHER AND CO.
KANSAS CITY, MO
0.40 HAMMONTREE AND ASSOC. LTD.
NORTH CANTON, OH
WASTE HEAT USED TO POWER STEAM GENERATORS
Wl
WAUKESHA
LOS ANGELES CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED BIO-FILTER
MEMPHIS TN
AUTOMATIC LOW HEAD FILTER SYSTEM
LEESBURG VA
BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTER
ONEONTA
ST. GEORGE
WALLACE
AL
SC
NC
2.20
0.25
0.18
CONTINUOUS CLEANING SAND FILTERS
EVELETH MN
11.60 ALVORD BURDICK HOWSON
CHICAGO, IL
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
RALPH PARSONS
PASADENA, CA
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/BABCOCK WILCOX
LIVINGSTON, NJ
80.00 BLACK AND VEATCH
KANSAS CITY, MO
2.5 BETZ CONVERSE MURDOCK INC.
VIENNA, VA
CARR AND ASSOC.
BIRMINGHAM, AL
B.P. BARBER AND ASSOCIATES
COLUMBIA. SC
HENRY VON OESEN ASSOC.
WILMINGTON, NC
0.70 ROBERT WALLACE AND ASSOC.
HIBBING, MN
APPROVAL
BASIS
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
ENERGY
MUN./IND.
TREATMENT
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST
ENV.BEN.
COST.
ENERGY &
ENV.BEN.
32
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
JOHNSTOWN
DESIGN
STATE FLOW (MGD)
OH
FLOATING DREDGE SAND FILTER
GREEN RIVER WY
INNOVATIVE SAND FILTER
SABATTUS
ME
PRIMARY EFFLUENT FILTRATION
SADIEVILLE KY
UPFLOW SAND FILTER
EMINENCE MO
LAGOONS
AQUACULTURE
AUSTIN TX
CRAIG-NEW CASTLE VA
SAN BENITO TX
0.75
1.50
0.12
CORRY
DEKALB
WHEATON
RECIRCULATING SAND
CONTRA COSTA
IXONIA
MIRANDA
PA
IL
IL
FILTER
CA
Wl
CA
4.00
7.25
10.00
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.01
26.00
0.18
2.17
BAFFLE SYSTEM IN LAGOON WITH DUCKWEED COVER
PARAGOULD AR 2.20
COMPLETE MIX LAGOON
DOUGLAS
WY
1.50
CONTROLLED DISCHARGE STABILIZATION POND
JACKMAN ME 0.10
DEEP CELL LAGOON
DODGE CITY KS
ST. PAUL KS
4.15
0.11
DESIGN CONSULTING APPROVAL
FIRM BASIS
EVANS MECHWART HAMBLETON COST
ANDTILTON
GAHANNA, OH
GULP WESNER GULP REG.DISCR.
CAMERON PARK, CA
WOODARD AND CURRAN ASSOCIATES COST &
PORTLAND, ME ENV.BEN.
LAKE ENGINEERS COST
EDINBORO, PA
BELING ENGINEERS COST
JOLIET, IL
BAXTER AND WOODMAN COST
CRYSTAL LAKE, IL
HARRIS ASSOC. ENERGY
LAFAYETTE. CA
DONAHUE AND ASSOCIATES COST
SHEBOYGAN, Wl
WINZLER'AND KELLY CONSULTING ENERGY
ENGINEERS
EUREKA, CA
PROCTOR DAVIS RAY COST
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE, AL
MISSOURI ENGINEERING CORP. ENV.BEN.
ROLLA, MO
PARKHILL SMITH COOPER INC. COST &
LUBBOCK, TX ENERGY
ANDERSON AND ASSOC. COST &
BLACKSBURG, VA ENERGY
NEPTUNE WILKINSON ASSOC. COST
AUSTIN, TX
BLACK AND VEATCH REG.DISCR.
DALLAS, TX & ENV.
RELIABILITY
BLACK AND VEATCH COST
DENVER, CO
WOODARD AND CURRAN INC. COST
PORTLAND. ME
ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES REG.DISCR
NORMAN, OK
SHETLAR GRIFFITH SHETLAR ENV.BEN.
IOLA, KS
33
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
DESIGN
STATE FLOW (MGD)
DUCKWEED COVER IN LAGOON
WILTON AR
EARTHEN POND SYSTEM
QUINCY CA
FACULTATIVE LAGOON
HOLBROOK AZ
0.09
0.72
1.30
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERING
WALNUT CREEK, CA
JOHN COROLLO ENGINEERS
PHOENIX, AZ
FACULTATIVE LAGOON WITH ROCK REED FILTER SYSTEM
BENTON LA 0.31 TERRY D. DENMON AND ASSOC.
MONROE, LA
HYDROGRAPH CONTROLLED DISCHARGE LAGOON IN LIEU OF CHLORINATION
CANTON ME 0.04 WOODARD AND CURRAN INC.
PORTLAND. ME
PERMAFROST CONSTRUCTION
BRISTOL BAY AK 0.15
NITRIFICATION
FIXED GROWTH BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION
REDWOOD FALLS MN 0.60
TRYCK NYMAN AND HAYES
ANCHORAGE, AK
KBM INC.
GRAND FORKS, ND
APPROVAL
BASIS
TOXICS
MGMT. &
ENV.BEN.
COST&
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST,
ENERGY &
TOXICS
MGMT.
REG.DISCR.
& ENV.BEN.
COST
COST
NITRIFICATION ENHANCED BY AERATED POLISHING POND
BOYDTON VA 0.15 R. STUART ROYER AND ASSOC.
RICHMOND, VA
PURE OXYGEN/SINGLE STAGE NITRIFICATION
INDIANAPOLIS IN 125.00
REID QUEBE ALLISON WILCOX
ASSOC.
INDIANAPOLIS. IN
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS FOR NITRIFICATION
BRIDGEWATER MA
MILFORD MA
OAK VIEW CA
SPECIALIZED BACTERIA
HORNELL NY
UPFLOW PACKED BED NITRIFICATION
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY CO
1.1 DUFRESNE-HENRY
WESTFORD, MA
1.12 HALEY AND WARD ENGINEERING
WALTHAM, MA
3.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
PASADENA. CA
3.25 LABELLA ASSOC.
ROCHESTER, NY
3.20 M AND I ENGINEERS
FORT COLLINS, CO
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST
COST
COST
34
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
DESIGN
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE STATE FLOW (MGD)
NUTRIENT REMOVAL
ALLIED PROCESS FOR PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
BIGFORK MT 0.50
BARDENPHO
FORT MYERS
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
ALLIED ENGINEERS INC INC.
SAN RAMON, CA
FL 6.00 POST BUCKLEY SHUH AND JERNIGAN
MIAMI, FLA
PAYSON AZ 2.40 MOORE KNICKERBOCKER ASSOC.
PHOENIX, AZ
BIOMEDIA FILTER TREATMENT PROCESS FOR TKN REDUCTION
OAKLAND MD 0.90 FRANKLIN ASSOC. INC.
MOUNTAIN LAKE PARK, MD
BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION FOR AMMONIA REMOVAL
LONGMONT CO 11.55 MCCALL ELLINGSON MORRILL INC.
DENVER, CO
0.30 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOC.
HOPKINS, MN
ALBERTVILLE MN 0.05 MEYER-ROHLING INC.
BUFFALO, MN
SLUDGE DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT TREATMENT FOR AMMONIA NITROGEN REDUCTION
MOKENA IL 1.10 DONAHUE AND ASSOC.
SHEYBOYGAN, Wl
USE OF WASTE PICKLE LIQUOR/PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
CHEMICAL ADDITION TO LAGOON
ALBANY MN
BALTIMORE MD
OXIDATION DITCHES
ANOXIC OXIDATION DITCH
CHATHAM VA
BENTHAL STABILIZATION OXIDATION DITCH
WELLSBORO PA
CARROUSEL OXIDATION DITCH
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS PA
180.00 WHITMAN REQUARDT AND ASSOC.
BALTIMORE, MD
0.45 OLVER INC.
BLACKSBURG, VA
0.01 TATMAN AND LEE ASSOC.
WILMINGTON, DE
0.60 TRACY ENGINEERS INC.
CAMP HILL, PA
MCALESTER OK 1.3 POE AND ASSOCIATES
MCALESTER, OK
OXIDATION DITCH WITH CENTRALLY LOCATED CLARIFIERS
KING GEORGE COUNTY
VA
0.05 GILBERT CLIFFORD ASSOC.
FREDERICKSBURG, VA
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
AIR DRIVEN ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
OAK VIEW CA 3.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
PASADENA, CA
UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER/ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
ASBURYPARK NJ 4.40 CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.
FORT LEE, NJ
APPROVAL
BASIS
ENERGY
&ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENERGY
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
35
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY
BELT FILTER PRESS
CAPE MAY COUNTY
LOUISVILLE
NEWBERG
NJ
KY
OR
6.30
105.00
4.0
BELT FILTER PRESS WITH LIME FEED
EWING-LAWRENCE NJ
CARVER-GREENFIELD
LOS ANGELES CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CA
MERCER COUNTY NJ
FACULTATIVE SLUDGE BASIN
FLAGSTAFF AZ
FREEZE/THAW SLUDGE DRYING/DEWATERING
DESIGN DESIGN CONSULTING
STATE FLOW (MGD) FIRM
PANDULLO QUIRK ASSOC.
LYNDHURST. NJ
CAMP DRESSER MCKEE
DALLAS. TX
KRAMER, CHIN AND MAYO, INC.
PORTLAND, OR
16.00 BUCK SIEFERT JOST INC.
ENGLEWOOD CLIFF, NJ
470.00 JAMES MONTGOMERY AND
RALPH PARSONS
PASADENA, CA
550.00 FOSTER WHEELER/BABCOCK Wl LCOX
LIVINGSTON, NJ
20.00 CLINTON BOGERT ASSOC.
FORT LEE, NJ
6.00 BROWN AND CALDWELL
TUCSON, AZ
FAIRBANKS
LATERAL FLOW SLUDGE THICKENERS
HUTCHINSON KS
BONNER SPRINGS
AK 8.00 ROEN DESIGN ASSOC.
FAIRBANKS, AK
12.00 WILSON AND CO.
SALINA, KS
KS 1.40 A.C. KIRKWOOD ASSOC.
KANSAS CITY. KS
SLUDGE CAKE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
OMAHA NE
70.0 HENNINGSON, DURHAM AND
RICHARDSON
OMAHA, NE
TRAVELLING GUNS FOR LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
GRAND STRAND SC
VACUUM/BELT SERIES
OKLAHOMA CITY OK
6.00 CH2M HILL
CHARLESTON,SC
40.00 BENHAM BLAIR AFFILIATES
OKLAHOMA CITY. OK
VACUUM DE-ODORIZATION OF DIGESTED SLUDGE
SACRAMENTO CA 115.0
WEDGEWIRE SLUDGE FILTER BEDS
CULLMAN AL
SACRAMENTO AREA CONSULTANTS
SACRAMENTO. CA
NEWBRAUNFELS
4.75 J.E. OTOOLE ENGINEERS
BIRMINGHAM. AL
TX 3.1 HUNTER ASSOCIATES INC.
AUSTIN. TX
APPROVAL
BASIS
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COSTS,
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST
ENERGY
ENV.BEN.&
ENV.
RELIABILITY
COST
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
36
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE STATE
INCINERATION
CO-INCINERATION
SITKA AK
GLEN COVE NY
DESIGN DESIGN CONSULTING
FLOW (MGD) FIRM
1.80 TRYCK NYMAN HAYES
ANCHORAGE, AK
8.00 WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOC.
WOODBURY, NY
STARVED AIR COMBUSTION OF SLUDGE
ST. LOUIS MO
GREENSBORO
NC
125.00 SVERDRUP AND PARCEL ASSOC.
ST. LOUIS, MO
20.00 HAZEN SAWYER
NEW YORK, NY
THERMAL PROCESS WITH PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATE
PHILADELPHIA PA
SLUDGE COMPOSTING
AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE KY
MYRTLE BEACH
SC
210.00
0.16
12.50
ENCLOSED MECHANICAL SLUDGE COMPOSTING
AKRON
DOTHAN
IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING
CLINTON COUNTY
EAST RICHLAND
NEWBERG
OH
AL
NY
SC
OR
73.0C
12.0C
16.0
7.0
4.0
MODIFIED WINDROW COMPOSTING
TAMPA
FL
60.00
SLUDGE DIGESTION
AEROBIC DIGESTION
CHINOOK
WEISER
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION
FERGUS FALLS
KASSON
SACRAMENTO
MT
ID
MN
MN
CA
0.50
2.30
3.81
0.35
115.0
FRANKLIN RESEARCH INST.
PHILADELPHIA. PA
PROCTOR DAVIS RAY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
HUNTSVILLE, AL
PLANNING RESEARCH GROUP
MYRTLE BEACH, SC
BURGESS AND NIPLE LTD.
COLUMBUS, OH
WAINWRIGHT ENGINEERING
DOTHAN, AL
METCALF AND EDDY
NEW YORK, NY
POST BUCKLEY SCHUH AND JERNIGAN
COLUMBIA, SC
KRAMER, CHIN AND MAYO, INC.
PORTLAND, OR
GREELEY AND HANSEN
TAMPA, FL
ROBERT PECCIA ASSOC.
HELENA, MT
CH2M HILL
BOISE, ID
BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK
ST. PAUL, MN
MCGHEE AND BETTS
ROCHESTER, MN
SACRAMENTO AREA CONSULTANTS
SACRAMENTO, CA
APPROVAL
BASIS
COST
REG.DISCR.
ENERGY
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.
RELIABILITY
ENV.
RELIABILITY
COST
COST
ENERGY
COST
COST
COST
ENV.BEN.
ENV.BEN.
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
37
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE
STATE
DUAL ANAEROBIC/AEROBIC DIGESTION
CHARLESTON WV
HAGERSTOWN
HENDERSON
MD
NC
DESIGN
FLOW (MGD)
14.0
8.0
4.14
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
DUNN ENGINEERS INC.
CHARLESTON, WV
BUCHART-HORN
BALTIMORE, MD
L.E. WOOTEN AND CO.
RALEIGH, NC
EGG-SHAPED ANAEROBIC DIGESTOR WITH GAS UTILIZATION
JUNEAU AK 4.00
MISCELLANEOUS
CAPTOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT
MOUNDSVILLE WV 2.35
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
WORCESTER MA 120.0
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR LAGOON EFFLUENT
COLLINS MS 0.30
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION THICKENER
WEISER ID
2.30
EDUCTOR-INDUCED VACUUM CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEM
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DC
309.00
ENCLOSED IMPELLOR SCREW PUMP
REPUBLIC
SPRINGFIELD
WESTBOROUGH
HUTCHINSON
MO
MO
MA
KS
0.93
6.40
7.68
12.00
ARCTIC ENGINEERS
ANCHORAGE. AK
CERRONE AND VAUGHN
WHEELING, WV
FAY, SPOFFORD AND THORNDIKE
BOSTON, MA
ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES
JACKSON, MS
CH2M HILL
DENVER, CO
METCALF AND EDDY
BOSTON, MA
HOOD RICH
SPRINGFIELD, MO
BURNS MCDONNELL
KANSAS CITY, KS
SEA CONSULTANTS
BOSTON, MA
WILSON AND CO.
SALINA, KS
FLUIDIZED BED TREATMENT OF DIGESTOR SUPERNATANT
LANSING
Ml
27.00 MCNAMEE PORTER SEELEY ASSOC.
ANN ARBOR. Ml
LAND APPLICATION THROUGH PEAT FILTER CELLS
BEAVER BAY MN 0.05
MATEFFY ENGINEERING
NEW BRIGHTON, MN
MARSH/POND/MEADOW
UPPER AUGUSTA TOWNSHIP PA
0.01 JOHN R. BAKOWICZ, PE
SUNBURY, PA
APPROVAL
BASIS
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST
ENV.BEN.
ENV.BEN.
COST
ENERGY
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COST
ENERGY
38
-------
TABLE 1 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUNDED LESS THAN 5 TIMES (cont.)
Ml
OH
OH
IL
53.30
3.00
9.00
27.00
DESIGN
TECHNOLOGY/GRANTEE STATE FLOW (MGD)
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON/REGENERATION
KALAMAZOO
BEDFORD HEIGHTS
NORTH OLMSTED
SAUGET
PRIMARY TREATMENT FACILITY
EAST MILLINOCKET ME 0.49
PURE OXYGEN FLUIDIZED BED REACTOR
HAYWARD CA 13.10
NASSAU COUNTY NY 10.00
SANILOGICAL SYSTEM
BERRYSBURG PA 0.04
DESIGN CONSULTING
FIRM
JONES AND HENRY
TOLEDO, OH
URS DALTON-DALTON
CLEVELAND, OH
URS DALTON-DALTON
CLEVELAND, OH
RUSSELL AND AXON ASSOC.
ST. LOUIS, MO
CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE
BOSTON, MA
KENNEDYJENKS ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
CONSOER TOWNSEND ASSOC.
CHICAGO, IL
GLACE ASSOCIATES
HARRISBURG, PA
SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR RECEIVING SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT
ELMHURST
PA
SHALLOW-BED PLASTIC MEDIA BIOFILTER
DELMONT PA
SOIL TREATMENT SYSTEM
KAPEHU
HI
0.11
1.74
0.02
PENN-EAST ENGINEERING, INC
SCRANTON,PA
DUNCAN LAGNESE ASSOC.
PITTSBURGH, PA
PHILIP YOSHIMURA INC.
HILO, HI
SLOW RATE-DUAL WATER SYSTEM FOR URBAN IRRIGATION
ST. PETERSBURG
FL
SPIRAGRIT GYRO-TYPE GRIT SEPARATOR
SOUTHHAMPTON COUNTY VA
TEACUP GRIT REMOVAL
JUNEAU AK
CALERA AL
TOTAL RESOURCES RECOVERY PROJECT
SAN DIEGO CA
TUBULAR SCREW PUMPS
GARDINER
ME
UNIQUE CIRCULAR PUMP STATION
HOUSTON TX
20.00 CH2M HILL
CHARLESTON, SC
0.3 HENRY P. SADLER AND ASSOC. INC.
RICHMOND, VA
4.00 ARCTIC ENGINEERING
ANCHORAGE, AK
0.75 CARR AND ASSOC.
BIRMINGHAM, AL
1.0 BLACK AND VEATCH
SAN DIEGO, CA
1.60 SEA CONSULTANTS
BOSTON, MA
531.00 LOCKWOOD ANDREWS NEWMAN INC.
HOUSTON, TX
APPROVAL
BASIS
COST
REG.DISCR.
COST
COST
COST&
REG.DISCR.
REG.DISCR.
REG.DISCR.
COST&
ENERGY
ENERGY
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
COST&
ENERGY
REG.DISCR.
REG.DISCR.
COST
39
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED FIVE OR MORE TIMES
Note: Detailed informa-
tion for these projects
can be obtained from
EPA's I/A Database.
Contact the State If A
Coordinator lor access
to the data.
EPA
REGION STATE
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Guam
Trust Territories
Hawaii
Nevada
N. Marianas Islands
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
Anoxic/oxic systems (A/0)
1
1
1
1
1
5
Counter-current aeration
1
5
1
1
5
1
7
21
Draft tube aeration
1
1
6
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
21
Fine bubble diffusers
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
10
Flocculating clarifiers
1
1
2
1
S
Hydrograph controlled
release lagoons
1
5
1
8
1
2
1
19
Integral clarifiers
2
1
2
5
Intrachannel clarifiers
1
1
1
2
3
1
6
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
40
Land treatment
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
-
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
17
Microscreens
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Oxidation ditches
1
5
1
4
1
5
2
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
36
40
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FUNDED FIVE OR MORE TIMES (cont'd)
Nofe: Detailed informa-
tion for these projects
can be obtained from
EPA's I/A Database.
Contact the State I/A
Coordinator for access
to the data.
EPA
REGION STATE
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Guam
Trust Territories
Hawaii
Nevada
N. Marianas Islands
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
Phostrip
1
2
1
1
5
Sequencing batch
reactors (SBR)
1
2
2
1
4
3
1
1
1
16
Single cell lagoons with
sand filter
10
10
Small diameter gravity
sewers
2
1
1
5
1
10
Solar heating
1
1
1
1
__,
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
12
Swirl concentrators
1
1
1
1
3
1
8
Trickling filter/solids
contact
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
10
Ultraviolet disinfection
2
3
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
4
1
42
Vacuum assisted sludge
drying beds
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
V
Ł.
5
1
7
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
4
3
4
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
51
41
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
Note: Detailed informa-
tion tor these protects
can be obtained from
EPA's I/A Database.
Contact the State II A
Coordinator for access
to the data.
EPA
REGION STATE
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Guam
Trust Territories
Hawaii
Nevada
N. Marianas Islands
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
ONSITE TREATMENT
Septic Tank/Soil Absorp-
tion (Single Family)
3
1
3
3
1
1
2
5
2
8
2
1
2
34
Mounds
2
2
1
1
2
8
2
1
4
1
1
25
Evapotranspiration Beds
2
2
Ť
'E
3
o
5
0
o>
<
1
1
1
3
e
Ł
iŁ
TJ
c
CO
CO
1
5
1
4
2
12
2
1
13
2
1
1
2
3
50
Septic Tank/Soil Absorp-
tion (Multiple Families)
2
5
L_JL_
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
7
6
2
1
2
51
Septage Treatment
and Disposal
7
19
7
2
11
4
2
3
3
3
61
Other Onsite Treatment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
LAND TREATMENT
Aquaculture/Wetlands
Marsh
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
20
Overland Flow
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
11
2
3
1
6
1
9
1
2
49
Rapid Infiltration
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
8
1
1
2
3
7
3
1
14
2
5
3
1
69
S
01
oc
o
CO
1
1
1
4
5
1
2
20
20
2
2
21
9
6
3
f3
14
1
3
2
6
30
11
2
16
12
5
2
8
6
1
2
2
12
20
2
6
5
6
3
288
Preapplication Treatment
or Storage
1
3
2
4
11
^ 5
2
2
5
16
10
3
9
1
3
1
1
24
5
1
8
9
4
130
Other Land Treatment
2
1
3
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
22
42
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS (cont'd)
Hole: Detailed informa-
tion for these protects
can be obtained from
Contact the State I/A
Coordinator for access
to the data.
EPA
REGION STATE
1 Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
III Delaware
Washington, D.C.
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
IX Arizona
California
Guam
Trust Territories
Hawaii
Nevada
N. Marianas Islands
X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
COLLECTION
SYSTEMS
Pressure Sewers/
Effluent Pump
1
3
1
6
3
6
1
2
2
1
5
5
2
1
8
2
1
1
2
2
6
3
8
1
2
5
2
82
Pressure Sewers/
Grinder Pump
1
1
3
2
16
2
19
15
2
10
2
3
3
2
6
2
4
2
5
3
9
4
3
14
1
2
1
1
138
Small Diameter Gravity
Sewers
1
1
16
1
2
11
2
5
3
1
4
1
1
2
10
18
13
1
6
2
3
2
1
1
1
13
14
4
1
1
1
3
4
1
151
Vacuum Sewers
2
2
2
8
2
1
1
18
ENERGY
RECOVERY/
SLUDGE
90% Methane Recovery
/Anaerobic Digestion
4
2
16
2
3
5
2
3
3
3
2
6
1
6
3
1
5
6
1
1
1
6
6
5
1
3
1
2
4
1
1
3
5
3
1
2
5
2
127
Self-Sustaining
Incineration
1
2
1
1
2
'
1
1
2
1
1
13
SLUDGE TREATMENT
Land Spreading of
POTW Sludge
1
12
1
2
2
3
5
9
2
5
12
3
4
5
5
47
19
10
24
34
15
2
1
5
18
24
20
25
5
2
9
11
1
2
1
2
1
6
4
1
360
Preapplication Treat-
ment
3
1
1
1
7
1
3
2
8
2
3
1
2
3
1
39
Composting
1
6
4
1
1
5
2
2
1
5
3
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
53
Other Sludge Treat-
ment or Disposal
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
8
2
1
1
2
1
2
37
OTHER
Aquifer Recharge
1
1
2
u
a
3
0)
-------
TABLE 4. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS
FACILITY
Fayetteville, AR
Paragould, AR
Phoenix, AZ
Hayward, CA
TECHNOLOGY
STATUS
COMMENTS
City of
Gustine, CA
Monterey, CA
San Diego, CA
Idaho City, ID
Wauconda, IL
Denham Springs,
LA
Homer, LA
Jackman, ME
Yarmouth, MA
Deer Island, MA
Rising Sun, MD
*A/O Process
Biological Nutrient
Removal
Baffle System/
serpentine flow
with duckweed
Digester gas
scrubbing
*Oxytron pure-oxygen
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Demonstrated good
Biological and
Phosphorous removal
during winter months
Field test report under
review by state agency
and EPA
Demonstrated energy
fluid bed reactor
Aquaculture/marsh
polyculture
Advanced secondary
crop irrigation
Aquacutture/pulsed
and fixed bed
anaerobic hybrid
rock-reed filters
Rapid infiltration/
wetlands
Trickling filter/
solids contact
Rock-reed filter
system
Infra-channel
boatdarifier
Phosphorous removal/
stabilization pond
Septage treatment
Sludge Composting
*Photozone
activated ozone
disinfection
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Planned
Planned
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
savings approximately
23-35% compared to
conventional activated
sludge
Demonstrated BOD and
suspended solids removal
could be achieved; and
refined the design
criteria
Demonstrated advanced
secondary treatment
adequate for food crop
production
Field test report under
review by state agency
and EPA
Demonstrated not cost
effective compared to
UV disinfection
44
-------
TABLE 4. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE FIELD TEST PROJECTS (cont'd)
FACILITY
Kimberling City,
MO
Roswell, NM
Chemung County,
NY
Homell, NY
Toledo, OH
Grand Strand, SC
Craig-New Castle,
VA
Proctor, VT
Moundsville, WV
Clear Lake, Wl
TECHNOLOGY
Flow reduction
for on-site systems
*Brown bear sludge
drying
Trickling filter/
solids contact
Seeded bacterial
nitrification
Swirl concentrator
Advanced waste
treatment/wetlands
Aquaculture/finfish
UV disinfection
*Captor porous
biomass activated
sludge in series
with conventional
activated sludge
*Zimpro filtration
primary effluent
using pulsed bed
filter
STATUS
Planned
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
Completed
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed
Completed
COMMENTS
Demonstrated capability
of single stage filter
for BOD reduction/
nitrification
Demonstrated cheaper
methods for nitrification
Demonstrated less than
20% solids and BOD
removal
Demonstrated consistent
secondary sludge
concentration of 3.6%
without sludge thickening
Demonstrated 56% solids
and 28% BOD removal
'MENTION OF TRADE NAMES OR COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
ENDORSEMENT OR RECOMMENDATION FOR USE.
45
-------
TABLE 5.100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS
FACILITY
Atmore, AL
Opelika, AL
Paragould, AR
Fallen Leaf Lake, CA
Gilnoy-Morgan Hill, CA
Manila, CA
Nevada City, CA
CityofReedley.CA
\fentura, CA
Nyeland Acres
\fentura,CA
North Coast
Sterling, CO
Fairfield, IA
Hanover, IL
Waynesville, IL
Auburn, IN
Portage, IN
Sabattus, ME
South Portland, ME
Rising Sun, MD
Fall River, MA
Morehead, MN
TECHNOLOGY
Draft Tube Aerators
Draft Tube Aerators
Baffle System/Serpentine Flow
with Duckweed
Vacuum Collection System/
Air Ejection System
Percolation Ponds/Diffused
Aeration
Septic Tank Effluent Pump
Collection System/Sonic Level
Detectors
vacuum Assisted Sludge
Drying Beds
Innovative Pond Underdrains
Septic Tank Effluent Pump
Collection System Controllers
and Pumps
Septic Tank Effluent Pump
Collection System Controllers
and Pumps
Microscreens-Ponds
Draft Tube Aerators
Sand Rlter
Community Mound System
Swirl Concentrators
Vacuum Assisted Sludge
Drying Beds
UV Disinfection
Composting
Activated Ozone Disinfection
Self Sustaining Incineration
Ozone Disinfection
STATUS
Award Pending
Award Pending
Under Review
Awarded 9/83
Denied 2/85
Awarded 8/83
Award Pending
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Awarded 4/86
Under Review
Under Review
Award Pending
Under Review
Under Review
46
-------
TABLE 5.100% MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT GRANTS (cont'd)
FACILITY
Northfield, MN
Rochester, MN
Gallatine, MO
Scotts Bluff, NE
Stafford, NJ
SanteFe.NM
Lawrence, NY
Burlington, NC
Greensboro, NC
Greenville, NC
Pilot Mountain, NC
Churchs Ferry, ND
Clifford, ND
Bedford Heights, OH
Cranston, Rl
Black Diamond, WA
Elbe.WA
CrabOrchard-
MacArthur.WV
Cambellsport, Wl
Hayward,WI
Wittenberg, Wl
TECHNOLOGY
UV Disinfection
Biological Phosphorous
Removal
Intrachannel Clarifier
Microscreens
Vacuum Collection System
Controllers
Draft Tube Aerators
Community Mound System
Powdered Activated Carbon
Starved Air Incineration
Schreiber Counter Current
Aeration
Jet Aeration Oxidation Ditch
Community Mound System
Community Mound System
Powdered Activated Carbon
Draft Tube Aerators
Wetlands
Community Mound System
Draft Tube Aerators
Rapid Infiltration
Rapid Infiltration
Seepage Cells
STATUS
Funded Out of
Original Step 3
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
In Litigation
Under Review
Awarded 9/85
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Award Pending
Under Review
Awarded 9/86
Award Pending
Award Pending
In Litigation
Awarded 9/85
Under Review
Under Review
47
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS
CONNECTICUT
William Hogan
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203)566-2373
MASSACHUSETTS
Robert Cady
Division of Water Pollution
Control
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality
Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5713
RHODE ISLAND
Edward Szymanski
Rhode Island Division of
Water Resources
83 Park Street
Providence, Rl 02903-1037
(401)277-3961
US EPA-REGION 1
Charles Conway
US EPA Water Management Div.
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-3582
(FTS) 835-3582
MAINE
Dennis Purington
Department of Environmental
Protection
State House (STOP 17)
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)289-3901
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Paul Currier
New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2508
VERMONT
Edward Leonard
Environmental Engineering Div.
Vermont Agency of Environmental
Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury.VT 05676
(802)244-8744
48
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA- REGION II
Bruce Kiselica
US EPA Water Management Div.
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-5692
(FTS) 264-5692
NEW JERSEY
BobSimicsak
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
P.O.BoxCN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609)633-1170
PUERTO RICO
Jose Bentacourt, Chief
Local Assistance Grants
Section
Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-5140, ext 355
NEW YORK
John Marshilok
Technical Assistance Section
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
(518)457-3810
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Phyllis Brin, Director
Natural Resources Management
Office
Virgin Islands Department of
Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
Virgin Islands 00801
(809) 774-3320
49
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REGION III
David Byro
US EPA Water Management Div.
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6534
(FTS) 597-6534
DELAWARE
RoyR.Parikh
Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Division of Environmental
Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, DE19901
(302)736-5081
MARYLAND
Hitesh Nigam
Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental
Protection: CPA (Satellite
Location)
201W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)333-3082
(FTS) 333-3082
VIRGINIA
Walter Gills
Virginia State Water Control
Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
(804)257-6308
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Leonard R. Benson
District of Columbia
Department of Public Works
Water and Sewer Utility
Commission
Office of Engineering
Services
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
(202)767-7603
PENNSYLVANIA
Brij Garg
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Division of Municipal
Facilities and Grants
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717)787-3481
WEST VIRGINIA
Elbert Morton
West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)348-0633
50
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVBALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA REGION IV
Bob Freeman
US EPA Water Management Div.
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
ALABAMA
David Hutchinson
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205)271-7700
GEORGIA
David Freedman
Environmental Protection Div.
Georgia Department of
Natural Resources
Floyd Towers East, Ste. 1058
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)656-4769
MISSISSIPPI
Sitaram Makena
Municipal Facilities Branch
Mississippi Department of
Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
(601)961-5171
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sam Grant
201 Planning Environmental
Quality Control
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211
(803)758-5067
FLORIDA
BhupendraVora
Bureau of Wastewater
Management and Grants
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-8163
KENTUCKY
Tod Williams
Kentucky Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water
18ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
NORTH CAROLINA
Allen Wahab
Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-6900
TENNESSEE
Zakariya Mohyuddin
Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment
Terra Building, 3rd Floor
150 Ninth Avenue
North Nashville, TN 37203
(615)741-0638
51
-------
TABLES. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REGION V
Charles Pycha
US EPA Water Management Div.
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-0259
(FTS) 886-0259
ILLINOIS
James Leinicke/Terry Zeal
Division of Water Pollution
Control
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
(217)782-2027
MICHIGAN
Brian Myers
Community Assistance Div.
Michigan Department of
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517)373-6626
OHIO
SanatK. Barua
Division of Construction
Grants
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43216
(614)466-8974
INDIANA
Robert Penno
Special Projects Section
Water Management Div.
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
(317)232-8636
MINNESOTA
David Kortan
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Section
Community Assistance Unit #3
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612)296-7230
WISCONSIN
John Melby
Municipal Wastewater Section
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
(608)267-7666
52
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REG ION VI
Ancil Jones
US EPA Water Management Div.
Allied Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
ARKANSAS
Martin Roy
Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and
Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219
(501)562-8910
NEW MEXICO
Robert W. Kane
New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Agency
Water Quality Section
Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe.NM 87501
(505)827-2810
TEXAS
Milton Rose
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3231
(512)463-8513
LOUISIANA
Ashpk Patel
Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality
11720 Airline Highway
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
(504)922-0530
OKLAHOMA
Dr. H.J. Thung, Director
Engineering Division
Oklahoma State Department of Health
3400 North Eastern Avenue
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405)271-7346
53
-------
TABLES. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REGION VII
RaoSurampalli
US EPA Water Management Div.
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
IOWA
Wayne Farrand
Construction Grants Branch
Program Operations Div.
Iowa Department of Water,
Air and Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA50319
(515)281-8992
MISSOURI
Douglas Garrett
Water Pollution Control
Program
Division of Environmental
Quality
Missouri Department of
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314)751-7326
KANSAS
Rodney Geisler
Municipal Programs Section
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health
and Environment
Forbes Reid
Topeka,KS 66620
(913)862-9360
NEBRASKA
MahmoodArbab
Construction Grants Branch
Water Quality Section
Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94877
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-4252
54
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REGION VIII
Stan Smith
US EPA Water Management Div.
Denver Place
999-18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)293-1547
(FTS) 564-1547
COLORADO
Derald Lang
Water Quality Control Div.
Colorado Department of Health
421OE. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
(303)331-4582
NORTH DAKOTA
Wayne Kern
Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control
North Dakota Department of
Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark,ND 58501
(701)224-4598
UTAH
Kiran L. Bhayani
Utah Bureau of Water
Pollution Control
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
(801)538-6146
MONTANA
Scott Anderson
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health
and Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
(406)444-2406
SOUTH DAKOTA
Ted Streckfuss
South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources
Joe Fbss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605)773-4067
WYOMING
G. Alan Edwards
Water Quality Division
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307)777-6351
55
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
US EPA-REGION IX
Susan Johnson
US EPA Water Management Div.
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)974-8266
(FTS) 454-8266
ARIZONA
RonFrey
Arizona Department of Health
Services
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602)257-2231
HAWAII
Hiram Young
Construction Grants Program
Hawaii State Department of
Health
633 Hale Kauwila Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808)548-4127
CALIFORNIA
Don Owen
State Water Resources Control
Board
Division of Clean Water Grants
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916)322-3004
NEVADA
James Williams
Nevada Department of
Environmental Protection
201S. Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
(702)885-5870
US EPA-REGION X
Tom Johnson
US EPA Water Management Div.
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)442-2887
(FTS) 399-2887
ALASKA
Richard Marcum
Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Water Programs
Pouch"O"
Juneau.AK 99811
(907)465-2610
OREGON
Ken Vigil/Gary Sage
Orgeon Department of
Environmental Quality
811SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503)229-5622
IDAHO
Robert Braun
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Division of Environment
State House
Boise, ID 83720
(208)334-4269
WASHINGTON
Chris Haynes
Department of Ecology
Office of Water Programs
Olympia,WA 98504
(206)459-6101
56
-------
TABLE 6. INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY CONTACTS (cont'd)
OTHER CONTACTS
CINCINNATI EPA-WERL NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS
RESEARCH I/A CONTACT CLEARINGHOUSE MANAGER
Jim Kreissl Steve Dix
US EPA WERL 258 Stewart Street
26 West St. Clair Street Morgantown, WV 26506
Cincinnati, OH 45268 (304) 293-4191
(513) 569-7611 (800) 624-8301
(FTS) 684-7611
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC NATIONAL I/A COORDINATOR
I/A TECHNOLOGY DATA BASE MGR. Mane Perez
Charles Vandertyn US EPA (WH-595)
US EPA (WH-595 401 M Street S.W.
401 M Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460
Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 382-7286
(202)382-7277 (FTS) 382-7286
(FTS) 382-7277
WASHINGTON EPA-OMPC
SMALL FLOWS TECHNOLOGY CONTACT
John Flowers
US EPA (WH-595)
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)382-7288
(FTS) 382-7288
57
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
Title Ordering
Code
CURRENT I/A TECHNOLOGY FOLDOUTS
Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems:
Practical Approaches 1,2,3,4
Aquaculture: An Alternative Wastewater
Treatment Approach 1,2,3,4
The Biological Aerated Filter: A Promising
Biological Process 1,2,3,4
Biological Phosphorous Removal 1,2,3,4
Composting: A Viable Method of Resource Recovery 1,2,3,4
Counter-Current Aeration: A Promising Process Modification 1,2,3,4
Disinfection with Ultraviolet Light 1,2,3,4
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons: A Promising
Modification 1,2,3,4
Innovative and Alternative (I/A) Technology: Wastewater
Treatment to Improve Water Quality and Reduce Cost 1,2,3,4
Intermittent Sand nitration 1,2,3,4
Intrachannel Clarification: A Project Assessment 1,2,3,4
Land Application of Sludge: A Viable Alternative 1,2,3,4
Land Treatment Silviculture: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
Less Costly Wastewater Treatment For Your Town 1,2,3,4
Large Soil Absorption Systems: Design Suggestions
for Success 1,2,3,4
Methane Recovery: An Energy Resource 1,2,3,4
Operation of Conventional WWTP in Cold Weather 1,2,3,4
Overland Flow An Update: New Information
Improves Reliability 1,2,3,4
Rapid Infiltration: A Viable Land Treatment Alternative 1,2,3,4
Rapid Infiltration: Plan, Design, and Construct for Success 1,2,3,4
Rotating Biological Contactors 1,2,3,4
Sequencing Batch Reactors: A Project Assessment 1,2,3,4
Side-Streams in Advance Waste Treament Plants: Problems
and Remedies 1,2,3,4
Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for
Communities and Rural Areas 1,2,3,4
Total Containment Ponds: Plan, Design, and Construct
for Success 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds:
An Alternative Approach 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Drying (Update) 1,2,3,4
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on
Pathogen Removal 1,2,3,4
Water Reuse Via Dual Distribution Systems 1,2,3,4
Wetlands Treatment: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
58
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont'd)
Title Ordering
Code
AVAILABLE IN LATE 1987
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons 1,2,3,4
Cold Weather Operation of Natural Systems 1,2,3,4
In-Vessel Composting 1,2,3,4
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion 1,2,3,4
Counter-Current Aeration 1,2,3,4
Sludge Dewatering for Small Communities 1,2,3,4
Self-Sustaining Incineration 1,2,3,4
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment 1,2,3,4
Upgrading Small Community Wastewater Treatment 1,2,3,4
Small Diameter Effluent Sewers 1,2,3,4
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities 1,2,3,4
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS
Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters from Multiple
Home Developments 1,5
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration
Project: Volume IV Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study 1,5
Status of Porous Biomass Support Systems for
Wastewater Treatment 1,5
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: An Alternative Wastewater
Collection Method for Unsewered Communities 1,5
Survival of Parasite Eggs in Stored Sludge 1,5
Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge Land
Treatment Systems 1,5
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater; EPA/625/1 -81 -013 and
Supplement; EPA/625/1 -81 -013a 1,5
Process Design Manual Land Application of Municipal Sludge;
EPA/625/1-83-016 1,5
Design Manual Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds;
EPA/625/1-83-015 1,5
Handbook Septage Treatment and Disposal; EPA 625/6-84-009 1,5
Emerging Technology Assessment of Phostrip, A/O and
Bardenpho Process for Biological Phosphorus Removal;
EPA/600/2-85/008; PB85-165744/AS 1,5,8
Implementation of Sequencing Batch Reactors for
Municipal Treatment; EPA/600/D-84/022; PB84-130400/AS 1,5,8
59
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont'd)
Title Ordering
Code
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS (cont'd)
Technology Assessment of Aquaculture Systems for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/145; PB84-246347/AS 1,5,8
Technology Assessment for Sequencing Batch Reactors;
EPA/600/2-85/007; PB85-167245/AS 1,5,8
Technology Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/154; PB85-106896/AS 1,5,8
Summary Report: Fine Pore (Fine Bubble) Aeration Systems;
EPA/625/8-85/010 1,5
Evaluation of Color Infrared Aerial Surveys of Wastewater
Soil Absorption Systems; EPA/600/2-85/039; PB85-189074/AS 1,5,8
Alternative On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems on Severly Limited Sites;
EPA/600/2-86/116; PB87-140992/AS 1,5,8
Evaluation of Anaerobic, Expanded-Bed Contactors for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment;
EPA/600/D-86/120; PB86-210648/AS 1,5,8
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion in the Federal
Republic of Germany; EPA/600/D-85/194; PB85-245322/AS 1,5,8
Biological Phosphorus Removal-Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/198; PB87-152559 1,5,8
Full-Scale Studies of the Trickling Filter/Solids
Contact Process; EPA/600/J-86/271; PB87-168134/AS 1,5,8
Technology Evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors;
EPA/600/J-85/166 1,5
Trickling Filter/Solids Contact Process: Full-Scale Studies;
EPA/600/2-86/046; PB86-183100/AS 1,5,8
Alternative Sewer Studies;
EPA/600/2-85/133; PB86-131224/AS 1,5,8
Alternative Sewer Systems in the United States;
EPA/600/D-84/095; PB84-177815/AS 1,5,8
Biological Phosphorus Removal: A Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/198; PB87-152559/AS 1,5,8
Forecasting On-Site Soil Absorption System Failure Rates;
EPA/600/2-86/060; PB86-216744/AS 1,5,8
Handbook Estimating Sludge Management Costs;
EPA/625/6-85/010; PB86-124542/AS 1,5,8
Municipal Sludge Composting Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/139; PB87-103560/AS 1,5,8
60
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF INNOVATIVE ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont'd)
Title Ordering
Code
I/A RESEARCH REPORTS (cont'd)
Land Application of Municipal Sludge; EPA/625/1 -83/016 1,5
Characterization of Soil Disposal System Leachates;
EPA/600/2-84/101; PB84-196229/AS 1,5,8
Technology Evaluation of the Dual Digestion System;
EPA/600/J-86/150; PB87-116802/AS 1,5,8
Costs of Air Pollution Abatement Systems for Sewage Sludge
Incinerators; EPA/600/2-86/102; PB87-117743/AS 1,5,8
Determination of Toxic Chemicals in Effluent from
Household Septic Tanks; EPA/600/2-85/050; PB85-196798 1,5,8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Instrumentation Handbook;
EPA/600/8-85/026; PB86-108636/AS 1,5,8
OTHER I/A PUBLICATIONS
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly?: Options
for Small Communities 1,2,3
Management of On-Site and Small Community Wastewater
Systems; EPA/600/8-82-009 1,2,3,5
Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small
Communities; EPA/600/8-80-030 1,2,3,5
Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems; EPA/625/1 -80-012 1,3,5
A Reference Handbook on Small-Scale Wastewater Technology 6
Guidance Manual for Sewerless Sanitary Devices and
Recycling Methods; HUD-PD&R-738 6
Alternative Small Scale Treatment Systems;
MIS Report VOL 17, Number 4 7
It's Your Choice - A Wastewater Treatment Handbook
for the Local Official 1,2,3
I/A TECHNOLOGY VIDEO TAPES
Small Diameter Effluent Sewers (11 minutes) 2,3
Sand Filters (9 minutes) 2,3
Upgrading Small Community Wastewater Treatment (20 minutes) 2,3
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities
(15 minutes) 2,3
61
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS (cont'd.)
ORDERING CODES
The Documents listed in this table can be ordered from the following addresses, as designated by
document.
1. Environmental Quality Instructional Resources Center (IRC)
The Ohio State University
1200 Chambers Road Room 310
Columbus, Ohio 43212
2. National Small Flows Clearinghouse
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown.WV 26506
3. ERVOMPC-MFD(WH-595)
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
4. ERA Regional Offices
For mailing address see Table 6
5. EPA-Center for Environmental Research Information
26 W. St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, OH 45268
6. HUD User
P.O. Box 280
Germantown, MD 20874
7. International City Management Association
1120 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
8. National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
62
-------
GLOSSARY
Term Meaning
A/O anaerobic/oxic
BAP Biological Aerated Filters'
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CW System constructed wetlands system
CWA Clean Water Act of 1977
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GP grinder pump
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
I/A innovative/alternative
I/I infiltration/inflow
mgd million gallons per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
M/R Grants 100 percent Modification/Replacement Grants
O&M operation and maintenance
OMPC Office of Municipal Pollution Control
PBF pulsed bed filter
PVC polyvinyl chloride
SDES small diameter effluent sewers
STEP septic tank effluent pump
63
------- |