Working for Clean Water
An Information Program for Advisory Groups
   Innovative
and Alternative
 Technologies
      Instructor Guide

-------

-------
This progrce e p ’opored by
The Pennsylvania State Univer8ity
Institute of State & Regional Affairs
1tiddletovn, PA 17057
Dr. Charles A. Cole
Project Director
Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk, Jr.
Project Co—Director
Prof. Lorna Chr. Sto1tzfu
Editor
This unit woe prepared by
Charles A. Cole
Advisory Teom for the Project
David Elk.tnton, State of West
Virginia
Steve Frishman. private citizen
Michele Prone, private citizen
John Hammond, private citizefl
Joan Jurancich, State of California
Richard Heatherington, EPA
RegIon 10
Rosemary Henderson, EPA Region 6
George Roessel, EPA Region 3
George Neise, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, EPA Region 2
Paul Pinault, EPA Region 1
Earlene Wilson, EPA Region 7
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA Headquarters
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
EPA Projeot Officer
Barry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations
Acb,lodoejnentn
Typists
Tess Startoni, Ann Kirsch, Jan Russ
Student Assistants
Fran Costanzi, Ratuiy’l)eBatt.
Mike Moulds, Terry Switzer
Illustrator
Charles Speers
Graphics support was provided by
the Office of Public M,sreness,
Environmental Protection Agency.
This Information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative
Agreement No. CT900980 01. The
information program has been
reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation
for use.

-------
Innovative and Alternative Technologies
There is a great need for innovative and alternative methods of
wastewater treatment. The estimated wastewater costs for 1990 are
$7 billion. Many people have questioned the ability of our
economy to support such large costs. Savings have been estimated
of $1 billion if innovative processes are used to treat the
wastewaters instead of conventional secondary and advanced waste
treatment techniques. Uponcompletion of this session the
participant should be able to:
• understand the need for less expensive alternatives to meet
our water quality goals
• recognize the various forms of alternative technologies
• know the qualifying criteria for innovative technology
• understand the methodology by which innovative technologies
may be selected
• know the economic advantages of both increased federal grants
and reduced user charges to the corrununity due to alternative
and innovative technologies.
Rcquired Materials
o Set of slides plus tape for the audiovisual presentation,
“Innovative and Alternative Technology for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment”
O Slide projector, cassette tape player, and screen
o Set of flip charts plus easel and/or transparencies and overhead
projector for guided discussion
o Copy of the handbook, “Innovative and Alternative Technologies”
for each participant
Continued on next page
1

-------
DCopy of material in Appendix B for each participant. Each
participant should have a copy of the Innovative and Alternative
Technology Decision—Making Methodology, Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Procedures, and Quaker Lake Wastewater
Treatment Hypothetical Options.
Important Notes
1. Before the presentation of this material the instructor should
review at least one of the case studies from those at the end of
the citizen handbook or develop one using a local situation.
Develop various treatment options that appear feasible for that
site.
2. The instructor should become familiar with the following units
on wastewater treatment processes:
• Municipal Wastewater Processes: Overview
• Municipal Wastewater Processes: Details
• Small Systems.
They provide useful background information about the range of
treatment options.
2

-------
Suggested Activities
TOTAL TIME 50—70 minutes
Introductory Comments (5 minutes)
1. Ask the participants if they know how much wastewater
treatment is expected to cost in 1990. It will cost 7 billion
dollars! Tell them that 1 billion dollars could be saved if
innovative methods of treatment were used.
2. Innovative and Alternative Technologies are frequently less
expensive than the conventional alternatives. In addition,
operations costs are usually less expensive. Both lead to
lower costs for the local government.
1. Ask the participants to look for the following key points
in the slide/tape program:
a. What economic incentive is there to use innovative
technology?
b. What are several categories of alternative technology?
c. What criteria must be met for innovative technology for
both conventional and alternative methods of treatment?
d. List specific examples of innovative treatment. Watch
for possible options that may be useful in the local
situation.
2. Show the slide/tape program, “Innovative and Alternative
Technology for Municipal Wastewater Treatment.” This slide
tape discusses the Clean Water Act sections that encourage
innovation. It covers the increased funding incentives used
to obtain more innovation and then reviews alternative
technology, innovative criteria, and examples.
A/V script is in
the Appendix.
Introductory Comments
5
minutes
A/V Presentation
15
minutes
Guided Discussion
15—25
minutes
Decision—Making Exercise
15—25
minutes
Closing Remarks
5
minutes
NOTE: Copies of the
charts referred to
in the Guided
Discussion are in
the Appendix.
A/V Presentation (15 minutes)
3

-------
Guided Discussion (15-25 minutes)
1. Systems using innovative and alternative technology qualify
for increased federal funding of the eligible costs.
Eligible costs include those for analysis, design, and
construction of cost—effective alternatives for collection and
treatment. They do not include excessive collection system
costs or house connections.
Interesting point. Mention that the 10% increase in federal funding is really a
40% reduction in the amount of money the local conuiiunity must
pay.
2. Alternative technologies emphasize recycle and reuse. Give
specific examples of alternative technologies.
3. what criteria apply to innovative technology?
— Improved operational reliability
— Better management of toxic materials
— Increased environmental benef its
— Improved joint treatment potential
— 15% life—cycle cost reduction
— 20% net primary energy reduction
Ask the participants what each criterion means to them. Note
how resources and money might be saved by each criterion.
4. Discuss in general the trade—offs between increasing risk
and increasing potential for state—of—the—art advancement
(benefit) in designing municipal treatment facilities. Mention
that EPA has shown a willingness to accept a degree of risk in
order to achieve advances in innovative alternatives and cost
reduction.
Use chart 10. 5. To be considered innovative, conventional technologies must
meet either the energy or cost reduction criterion. Discuss
what is meant by conventional technology and give examples.
Use chart 2.
Encourage
cuesion.
is not to
lecture!
dis -
This
he a
Use chart 2 for list
of alternative tech-
nologies categories.
Use charts 3-6 for
specific examples.
Use chart 7 with
charts 8 and 9 as
overlays.
4

-------
6. This discussion focuses upon the choice of alternative and
innovative systems designed mainly for treating wastewaters.
Such investments can achieve more than the mere treatment of
wastes, however. Resources can be recovered; examples include
nutrients and energy. Facilities can be used for many
purposes such as meeting rooms, recreation, and open spaces.
Discuss them.
Decision-Making Exercise (15-20 minutes)
Use chart 11
1. Hand out copies of “Quaker Lake Wastewater Treatment —
Hypothetical Options.”
2. Go through the decision—making methodology to decide
whether or not the various options are innovative and get 85%
funding.
Use option F, the most, unique, as an example to familarize the
participants with the assessment procedure used to determine
if an alternative technology or conventional treatment method
will get funded as innovative. Using a series of transparent
overlays, go through the procedure step—wise. At each decision
point overlay another transparency to show the use of the
decision—making chart. (A flip chart with the decision path
highlighted could also be used.) The purpose is to familarize
the participant with the decisions that the agency must make,
as well as thealternatives available.
3. Ask the participants to try one of the options.
4. The answers!
Using Figure 1 in the handbook,
A copy is included
in the Appendix.
Use the Assessment
Procedures and
Decision-Making
Methodologies
(figures and 2) in
the citizen handbook.
Use chart 12 and
overlay trans par-
encies of charts
13 to 16.
Decision Points
Option Alternative
Technology?
Innovative
Technology
(85% Funding)
A B
Fully Meets
Proven? Innovative
Criteria?
C
Cost
Effective?
A
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
B
Not
equivalent effluent
C
No
Use Figure
2,
Conventional
Technology
D
No
Use Figure
2,
Conventional
Technology
E
Yes
Yes
———
Yes
Yes
F
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
5

-------
Closing Remarks (5 minutes)
1. Review the main points concerning innovative and alternative
technologies.
a. What is a conventional method of treating or transporting
wastewater?
Tree tment:
5iological - trickling filters, activated sludge
C hei ical - lime or alum addition
Physical - sand filtration, carbon adsorption
Transportation: gravity sewers
b. Why shouldn t we use the same thing used the last time for
treating wastewater?
faybe what they used the last time is fine, on the other
iand maybe something else is better. The situation should
be analyzed and the various alternatives checked out.
Pacility uses other than wastewater trea nent should also
be e.rrlored.
c. Can money and energy be saved with innovative technology?
Yes, two criteria de f’ining innovation include cost and
energy saving. An additional 10% share of facilities
funding is available from the federal government if
those processes qualify as innovative.
d. What are innovative technologies’?
Those alternative technologies chat satisfy any one of the
six criteria are considered innovative. Conventional
methods must satisfy the energy or cost saving criterion
to qualify as innovative.
e. Can alternative technologies improve our management of
toxic materials?
The alternative technologies in general are better a L
to cope with toxic materials. This is especia . ote-
worthy since many industrial materials are carci cn c.
2. Summarize any dicussion pertaining to the local situdtlon.
6

-------
Selected Resources
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual . MCD—53,
Publication Number EPA—430/9—78—009. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1978. 318 pp.
This is an excellent reference manual for innovative
and alternative technology assessment and cost—
effectiveness analysis. The general classification
and screening approach is covered as well as a
detailed description of the criteria on wh .ch
innovative and alternative technologies were
developed. There are 117 separate fact sheets which
describe municipal wastewater processes including cost
and energy data. Fact sheets of onsite disposal
alternatives are also included. It is available from
the General Services Administration, Centralized
Mailing Services, Building 41, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225. Indicate the MCD number and the
title of the publication when ordering.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works, Innovative and Alternative Technology Guidelines,
Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 35.” Federal Register , vol. 43, no. 188,
subpart E, appendix E, 27 September 1978, pp. 44098—44099.
These guidelines provide the criteria for identifying
and evaluating innovative and alternative wastewater
treatment processes and techniques. Your local
reference librarian will be able to tell you how to
obtain copies of the Federal Register .

-------
Appendix
A. Copies of charts for use by the instructor in the Guided
Discussion. Pages may be used to make transparencies or the
contents may be copied onto flip charts.
1. Bar Graph
2. Alternative Technologies
3. Effluent Treatment
4. Sludge Treatment
5. Energy Recovery
6. Individual and Onsite Systems
7. Innovative Technology Criteria
8. Overlay for Chart 7
9. Overlay for Chart 7
10. Conventional Technologies
11. Multiple Uses
12. Decision—Making Chart
13. Overlay to use with Chart 12
14. Overlay to use with Charts 12 and 13
15. Overlay to use with Charts 12 to 14
16. Overlay to use with Charts 12 to 15
B. Handouts for use by the instructor in the Guided Discussion.
1. Quaker Lake Wastewater Treatment — Hypothetical Options
C. Copy of the script for the slide/tape program, “Innovative
and Alternative Technology for Municipal Wastewater Treatment.”
8

-------
Feder Share 75°/a
Local
Share
25%
Convention& lechnology
Feder Share 85°/s
Local
h re
15%
Innovative and Alternative
Technologies

-------
0
ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
•Effluent treatment
•Sludge treatment
•Energy recovery
•Individual and onsite systems

-------
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
•Land treatment
•Aquifer recharge
•Aquaculture/silviculture/horticulture
•Direct reuse (non-potable water)
•Revegetation of disturbed land
•Containment ponds
•Treatment and storage prior to land application
•Preapplication treatment

-------
SLUDGE TREATMENT
•Land application
•Composting prior to land application
•Drying prior to land application

-------
ENERGY RECOVERY
•Co-disposal of sludge and refuse
•Anaerobic digestion with methane recovery
•Self-sustaining incineration
I-

-------
INDIVIDUAL AND
ONSITE SYSTEMS
•Onsite treatment
• Cluster treatment
•Septage treatment
•Alternative collection systems for small communities

-------
INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA
•Improved operational reliability
•Better management of toxic materials
•Increased environmental benefits
•Improved joint treatment potential
.15% life-cycle cost reduction
.20% net primary energy reduction
I - .

-------
o .
for
not - fully-proven
Alternative Technologies

-------
for
not - fully-proven.
Conventional Tre itnient
Methods

-------
CONVENTIONAL
TECHNOLOGIES
•Primary clarifer
•Trickling filter
•Activated sludge
•Alum, lime, or iron addition

-------
MULTIPLE USES
•Community gardens
•Picnic area
•Baseball field
•Skating rink
•Tennis courts
•Bicycling, hiking, and snowmobiling trails
•Fishing and hunting
•Meeting rooms
•EnvirQnmental education

-------
Alternative
Technology
kFuIIy-Proven? A 0
B.Satisfies B
w
Innovative Criteria? >
C.Cosl-EffectiVe? ‘.-“ o c o
Funding? yes no yes no no
85%
20

-------
Option F
21

-------
1,
22

-------
23

-------
24

-------
QUAKER LAKE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
HYPOTHETICAL OPTIONS
The following hypothetical options have been developed for use with the Quaker
Lake case study. They are designed to provide practice in using the innovative and
alternative decision—making methodology chart.
When considering various options for treatment of wastewater, they should
provide equivalent effluent quality and/or solve the water quality problem that
exists. The problem at Quaker Lake included:
eutrophication due to septic tank effluent containing
phosphates
nuisance surfacing of septic effluent
potential health problems due to inadequately treated
effluent.
There are several possible solutions to the poor water quality at Quaker Lake.
The following options will be evaluated as to whether or not they are considered
innovative technology and can qualify for 85% funding.
Option A: Onsite disposal with septic tanks and seepage beds
Onsite disposal, as it existed, was not able to control the lake eutrophica-
tion, health, and nuisance problems. However, onsite disposal combined with water
conservation and a ban on detergents containing phosphates will be able to alleviate
the problem. Drastic water conservation measures will reduce the problem of failing
seepage beds. Exclusion of detergents containing phosphate would eliminate
eutrophication caused by the phosphate. However, implementing the water conserva-
tion program and phosphate—detergent ban will be difficult problems for the
community.
Septic systems still needing replacement after water conservation as well as
routine maintenance and septage treatment will be handled as a community funded and
controlled project. The system will have very small energy requirements and cost
only twenty—five percent of the most cost—effective conventional treatment option.
Option B: Onsite disposal with septic tanks and cluster seepage beds
Septic tanks with a properly located common leach field will correct surfacing
and wastewater organic problems. The wastewater can be moved to sites more amenable
for seepage beds (better soil profile and greater distance to the lake and ground-
water) using grinder pumps for each household. The total system will however be
owned and maintained by the community. The system’s life—cycle cost will be only
35 percent of the most cost—effective conventional system and energy consumption
is small. However, eutrophication caused by phosphates from detergents will still
be a problem since effluent is not removed from the watershed.
Possible multiple uses include community gardens and picnic area. 25

-------
Option C: Gravity sewers, extended aeration activated sludge, chemical
precipitation of phosphate, and discharge into lake watershed
This is a conventional system of wastewater treatment that is fully proven and
will meet the effluent requirements for discharge into the lake. The life—cycle cost
of the system is one of the highest for conventional options and no energy will be
saved over other options. In fact It is the most energy—intensive option. Also sludgi
disposal on land must frequently be used as well. Sewer rights—of—way can be used for
bicycling, hiking, and snowmobiling; possibly, fishing in the lake.
Option D: Gravity sewers, extended aeration activated sludge, and
effluent discharge by pumping out of the watershed
This option is Identical to Option C except phosphate removal by chemical
precipitation is unnecessary since the effluent is removed from the watershed.
Pumping costs are traded for reduced chemical costs and reduced sludge production.
It is the most cost—effective conventional option. It is a fully—proven system.
Sewer rights—of—way can be used for bicycling, hiking, and snowmobiling; possibly,
fishing.
Option E: Small diameter pressure sewers, aerated lagoon, filtration,
and surface discharge outside the watershed
Pressure sewers fed by grinder pumps at each household discharge Into an
aerated lagoon. The overflow from the lagoon is outside the watershed of the
lake, therefore, requiring no phosphate removal. The system’s life—cycle cost
is less than conventional Option D and requires minimal operational attention.
Sludge disposal is only necessary at several year intervals. This was the system
actually chosen.
Option F: Small diameter pressure sewers, holding pond, and spray
irrigation
A pressure sewer fed by grinder pumps at each household discharges into a
remote holding pond prior to periodic spray irrigation. Due to the poor soil
character and steep grades there is a large distance between the holding pond and
the large irrigation site. The life—cycle cost of the system is 110 percent of
the most cost—effective conventional system, Option D. Energy consumption is
only 50 percent of the most cost—effective conventional system.
Of all the options land treatment holds the most potential for multiple uses.
Community gardens, farms, and playing fields are common. Bicycling, hiking, hunting,
and snownobiling can be achieved on spray—irrigated lands. The system also can be
used in environmental education.
26

-------
A/V SCRIPT:
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Slide Description Narrative
1. Words: Title slide Music
2. Picture: Clean water Water is among the most essential and
highly treasured of all our resources.
It is treasured for its great beauty
as well as for a host of uses.
3. Picture: Polluted water Unfortunately, many of the uses tend to
pollute water, and often result in scenes
like this.
4. Words: Public Law 92—500 But man—made problems may have man—made
solutions. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments, or Public Law
92—500, were passed by Congress in 1972
to begin the organized clean—up of our
nation’s waters.
5. Picture: Point source One of the most important provisions of
the Act deals with the problem of municipal
sewage treatment plant effluents. The
Construction Grants Program was developed
to help eliminate this problem. It
provides Federal funding for up to 75
percent of the total cost of designing
and constructing municipal wastewater
treatment facilities to help attain the
water quality goals set by the Act.
6. Picture: People swimming These goals include making the nation’s
waters “fishable and swimmable” again
by 1983, and eliminating all discharge
of pollutants to water bodies by 1985.
7. Picture: Sewage plant To date, billions of dollars have been
spent by the Federal Government to help
local communities construct or update
wastewater treatment plants; however,
much work remains to be done.
8. Picture: National capitol Congress amended the Water Pollution
Control Act again in 1977 to re—define
the task remaining and to encourage
continuing efforts to attain the 1972
goals.

-------
9. Words: Clean Water Act of 1977 And while this mid—course correction,
commonly called the Clean Water Act of
1977, does not represent a complete
reorientation from the 1972 Act, it does
contain significant changes of emphasis
in certain programs.
10. Drawing: Fork in the Road One change is in the Construction Grants
Program. Alternative technologies for
wastewater treatment may be more economical
than conventional methods,
11. Picture: Conventional treatment yet, there is a tendency to cling to
plant conventional systems without adequate
consideration being given to the available
alternatives. The design of new plants
often comply with the letter of the law
but not really with its intent.
12. Cartoon: Effluent $$$ down the For example, discharges of wastewater
creek effluents sometimes contain valuable
nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus,
causing pollution problems down stream.
13. Picture: Sludge accumulation And ever increasing accumulations of
sewage sludge create new disposal
problems that require special attention
and management.
14. Picture: Conventional system But probably worst of all is when small
contunities end up with expensive waste—
water treatment systems when simpler
and more economical solutions are available.
15. Words: Innovative and alternative Recognizing that a stimulus was needed
technologies to overcome such problems, Congress
restructured the Construction Grants
Program in 1977 to encourage the use
of innovative and alternative technologies
in wastewater treatment.
16. Drawing: Money bags The law provides an increase in the
Federal share from 75 percent for con-
ventional systems to 85 percent of the
cost for designing and constructing
innovative and alternative treatment
facilities.
17. Drawing: Tune—up To further reduce the risk to municipaliites
in building innovative and alternative
facilities, Congress has instructed the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
provide up to 100 percent of the cost
to modify or replace such a system that
28 fails within two years when operated
properly.

-------
18. Drawing: Silver dollar set aside The Law also provides that certain
percentages of n ney be set aside in
each state to be used only for funding
innovative and alternative projects.
A grant application may therefore
receive priority funding if the tech-
nology to be used can be classed as
innovative or alternative.
19. Picture: Scenes of agriculture, In general, innovative and alternative
industrial reuse technologies make use of systems which
reclaim and reuse water, recycle
wastewater constituents or otherwise
eliminate their discharge, or recover
energy from the wastes.
20. Words: Innovative technologies Innovative technologies for wastewater
treatment are unique in that they show
promise for success and cost—effectiveness,
but have not been fully proven under the
circumstances of their intended use.
21. Map: EPA regions In the final analysis, the EPA Regional
Administrator will determine which
proposals are innovative, but here are
some guidelines to help in the preliminary
stages of the planning process.
22. Drawing: Cash Register (15%) For conventional treatment systems to be
innovative , the projected life—cycle
cost of the treatment works must be at
least 15% less than the most cost—
effective system that does not use the
innovative technology, or
23. Drawing: Conventional system with the net primary energy required for the
20% superimposed operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works must be at least 20% less
than the net energy required to operate
the most cost—effective conventional
system.
24. Words: Life—Cycle Cost Reduced For alternative technology 10 be
by 15%, or Energy innovative , it must meet one of the
Requirement Reduced by criteria above or fulfill any one of
20% four additional criteria.
25. Drawing: Simple mechanism vs. One, improve operational reliability and
Rube Goldbert device tbus decrease the susceptibility of the
system to upsets or interference,
29

-------
26. Picture: Beautiful lake scene
27. Drawing: Municipality with
suburban industry
28. Picture: Dead fish
29. Words: Public Benefits
Benefits Through Advanced
Technology
30. Drawing: Box labeled alternative
technology
two, improve environmental benefits such
as water conservation and reuse, more
effective use of land and improved
groundwater quality,
three, improve the joint industrial
municipal treatment potential where both
discharge into the municipal system, or
four, improve the mangement of toxic
materials that occur in the wastewater.
And in addition, a system may be
declared to be innovative by the EPA
Regional Administrator because it
provides significant public benefits
through the advancement of technology
in a specific region.
We have reviewed what makes a treatment
system “innovative” now let us examine
in some detail what is meant by
“alternative” or “non—conventional”
technologies, and look at some exanipLes.
31. Words:
Alternative Technologies
will do at least one:
• Reuse water
• Reclaim valuable
constituents
Eliminate the discharge
of pollutants
• Recover energy
Alternative wastewater treatment
technologies have been proven in actual
practice and they will: reuse water,
reclaim wastewater constituents, eliminate
discharges of pollutants, or recover
energy from the wastes.
32. Picture:
Farmland, forests, etc.,
(multiple)
Examples of alternative treatment
technologies for municipal wastewater
include the use of the effluent in
agriculture, silvaculture, and
horticulture.
33. Picture: Lagoon
EPA guidelines list nineteen different
alternative technologies dealing with
effluent treatment, sludge management,
energy recovery and on—site systems.
Included in these are total containment
ponds and ponds for pretreatment and
storage prior to other uses.
30

-------
34. Picture: Water hyacinths An aquaculture practice that shows
considerable promise particularly in
warm climates is growing w ater hyacinths
in basins of wastewater effluent. The
plants remove nutrients from the water
and may be harvested for a variety of
uses.
35. Picture: Composite of sludge Other examples include application of
application, irrigation sludge to the land, irrigation of
and horticulture agricultural crops and horticultural
uses.
36. Picture: Sludge drying bed Alternative technologies for applying
sludge to the land include such
supplemental processes as composting
and drying.
37. Picture: Bulldozer on disturbed Another activity considered to be an
land alternative treatment process is the
reclamation of disturbed lands by
using municipal effluents and sludges
in the revegetation process.
38. Picture: Grassed slope The large quantities of plant nutrients
in the effluent tend to reduce
fertilizer costs and greatly speed up
revegetation efforts, thereby reducing
erosion and bringing the disturbed
land back to normal conditions more
quickly.
39. Picture: Illinois report Another area of alternative technology
deals with the application of sewage
sludge to the land. Although formal
systems of sludge application are not
widely employed in the United States,
a 1975 report of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency indicated
that over 90 percent of Illinois
communities were applying sludge to
agricultural land in some manner.
40. Drawing: Multi—hearth Several alternative technologies focus
incinerator on the recovery and use of energy from
municipal sludges. Energy recovery
alternatives include the co—disposal of
sludge and refuse, as shown in this
diagram of a multi—hearth incinerator.
31

-------
41. Drawing: Set of scales Self—sustained incineration of sludges
can also qualify as alternative technology
if the amount of energy recovered and
used is greater than the energy required
to dewater the sludge in preparation for
incineration.
42. Picture: Small community One broad ar a of alternative technologies
is designated only for communities having
a population of 3,500 or less, or for
highly dispersed sections of larger
communities that existed prior to the
legislation in 1972.
43. Drawing: Clustered housing units These “on—site” systems may be publically
or privately owned and include wastewater
treatment alternatives for Individual
home units, clustered units and small
centralized commercial developments that
are not connected to centralized waste—
water collection systems.
44. Drawing: Pressure or vacuum sewers In conjunction with these alternatives,
small—diameter pressure or vacuum sewers
are often desirable over conventional
gravity sewers and are considered
alternative technology for funding
purposes when shown to be cost—effective
In small communities.
45. Drawing: Septic tank and absorption A septic tank and soil absorption system
bed is economical and environmentally sound
under favorable soil and groundwater
conditions and may be fundable as
alternative technology in small
communities.
46. Drawing: Mound system For areas in which conditions are not
suited to traditional soil absorption,
a mound system may provide satisfactory
treatment of the wastewater by increasing
the effective depth of soil and the total
surface area for water absorption.
47. Drawing: Aerobic treatment Aerobic treatment of wastewater is an
facility alternative to the septic tank for
on—site disposal of wastewater and where
properly operated and maintained may
yield a higher quality effluent than
the septic tank.
32

-------
48. Picture: Spray irrigation
49. Drawing: Vegetation, soil
surface and soil profile
50. Words: LAND APPLICATION NAY
PROVIDE
• Irrigation water supply
• Valuable plant nutrients
• Recharge of groundwater
51. Picture: Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment
Manual
52. Picture: Small community
53. drawing: Three red apples labeled,
conventional, innovative
and alternative. Must
study and compare before
choosing.
54. Drawing: John Q. Citizen holding
75% bag reaching for
10% bag from Uncle Sam
Not let us examine in some detail one
good example of an alternative technology
for municipal wastewater treatment ——
that of applying wastewater to the land .
Land treatment has been extensively
tested in the United States and in
many other countries of the world, but
has not yet been developed to its full
potential.
Land treatment of wastewater entails the
use of vegetation, the soil surface,
and the soil profile to bring about
renovation of the wastewater.
In addition to wastewater treatment,
land treatment may also provide a
guaranteed supply of irrigation water,
valuable plant nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, and a recharge
of groundwater supplies.
When examining the various alternatives
and determining which ones might qualify
for Federal cost—share funding EPA’s
Publication Number MCD 53 — Innovative
and Alternative Technology Assessment
Manual — will be very helpful.
This is especially true for smaller
communities where economies of scale
are not available with conventional
treatment systems but alternative
systems are well—suited for managing
small wastewater flows.
The Law provides that every applicant
for a construction grant must have fully
studied and compared innovative and
alternative wastewater treatment techno-
logies with conventional methods before
selecting a system to be installed.
Remember that innovative and alternative
projects qualify for 85 percent federal
funding for design and construction.
The Law also provides that projects or
portions of projects already underway
may qualify for the additional 10
percent in federal funding if they
qualify as innovative and alternative.
33

-------
55. Words: Increased priority for The various states are authorized to
funding increase the priority for funding of
Innovative system project applications where innovative
Alternative system and alternative technologies are designed
into the system.
56. Picture: Split—technical The Law also provides for grants of up
evaluation/education to 100 percent of the costs for technicaL
evaluation and for dissemination of
information pertaining to the treatment
works in innovative and alternative
systems.
57. Words: Innovative or Alternative In sunmrnry, innovative and alternative
Technologies should do at wastewater treatment technologies should
least one reduce cost, save energy, increase
reliability, manage toxic materials better,
provide environmental benefits, improve
management of joint municipal—industrial
systems or clearly serve the public
interest.
58. Drawing: Plans on drawing board To encourage the use of innovative and
alternative wastewater treatment
technologies where practical, the Clean
Water Act of 1977 requires that innovative
and alternative technologies be studied
and evaluated for each proposed project
before an engineering or construction
grant is made.
59. Drawing: Bar graph contrasting Innovative and alternative systems
conventional with frequently have lower overall costs than
innovative/alternative conventional systems, and since they
funding qualify for an incease in Federal funding
from 75% to 85%, this can result in a
significant reduction in local costs.
60. Drawing: Second version of Finally, if an innovative or alternative
tune—up system fails within two years, the
Federal Government can fund the total
amount necessary to modify or replace
the system.
61. Picture: Municipal building Clearly, every municipality involved in
planning wastewater treatment facilities
is challenged to be innovative and to
consider all possible alternatives be€ore
deciding the best technology for a
particular situation.
34

-------
62. Picture: Advisory group Citizen advisory groups should encourage
the use of innovative and alternative
technologies. This may be done by
asking the grantee and his consultants
to consider the options just reviewed.
63. Picture: Advisory group The citizen advisory group can support
member these options with their knowledge of
the local situation, for example,
suggesting where land might be available
for land disposal of effluent.
64. Map: States, regional offices For further details, contact the
and national offices appropriate State agency, EPA Regional
Office, or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.
We are all working together to improve
and maintain the natural environment of
the United States for present and future
generations.
65. Credit slide Music
66. Credit slide Adapted by Penn State
Produced for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the Environmental
Extension Project, Oklahoma State University, Stiliwater, OK 74074
35

-------
Working for Clean Water is a program designed to help advisory groups improve
decision making in water quality planning. It aims at helping people focus on
essential issues and questions, by providing trained instructors and materials
suitable for persons with non—technical backgrounds. These materials include a
citizen handbook on important principles and considerations about topics in water
quality planning, an audiovisual presentation , and instructor guide for elaborating
points, providing additional information, and engaging in problem—solving exercises.
This program consist8 of 18 informational unite on various aspects of water
quality planning:
Role of Advisory Groups Innovative and Alternative
Technologies
Public Participation
Industrial Pretreatment
• Ronpoint Source Pollution: Agriculture,
Forestry, and Mining Land Treatment
• Urban Stormvater Runoff • Graundwater Contamination
• Gtoundvater Contamination Kul tiple use
• Facility Planning in the Construction - Environmental Adsessnent
Grants Program
Cost—Effectiveness Analysis
• Municipal Wastewater Processes:
Overview • Wastevater Facilities
Operation and Maintenance
• Municipal Was tewater Processes:
Details Financial Management
• Small Systems
The units are not designed to make technical experts Out of citizens and local officials.
Each unit contains essential facte, key questions, advice on how to deal with the
issues, and clearly—written technical backgrounds. In short, each unit provides the
information that citizen advisors need to better fulfill their role.
This program is available through public participation coordinators at the regional
oIfice of the United States Znviromaenral Protection Agency.

-------