United States	August
Environmental Protection	1984
Agency
vvEPA Innovative
and
Alternative
(l/A)
Technology
Wastewater
Treatment to
Improve Water
Quality and
Reduce Costs

-------
Innovative and Alternative (l/A)
Introduction
The monetary burden of meeting required wastewater
discharge standards to protect the environment is
increasing for many communities throughout the
country. As the annual costs of labor, energy,
chemicals and sludge disposal grow, city administrators
are seeking better alternatives to achieve the national
goal of clean water. Many are learning that appropriate
innovative or alternative (l/A) systems will improve
water quality at less cost.
This folder describes l/A systems for wastewater
treatment and explains how a community can qualify
for increased EPA construction grant benefits.
What are Innovative and Alternative (l/A)
Technologies?
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) defined and
authorized special construction grant provisions for
wastewater treatment called the INNOVATIVE AND
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. These
provisions establish increases in grant funding for
applicants who are willing to choose a nonconventional
system.
ALTERNATIVE systems are fully proven systems that
reclaim or reuse wastewater, productively recycle
wastewater components, recover energy, or eliminate
the discharge of pollutants.
Specific technologies have been identified as
alternative treatment systems. They include land
treatment (rapid infiltration, slow rate irrigation and
overland flow), aquifer recharge, aquaculture, direct
reuse (nonpotable), horticulture, revegetation of
disturbed land, total containment ponds, preapplication
treatment and storage of treated effluent (prior to land
treatment), land application of sludge, sludge
composting, sludge drying (prior to land application),
methane recovery and use, and self-sustaining
incineration. In addition, for small community systems,
on-site treatment (individual or cluster), septage
treatment and alternative collection and conveyance
systems utilizing vacuum sewers, pressure sewers
and/or small diameter gravity sewers are considered
alternative technologies.
INNOVATIVE treatment systems use technologies that
are developed but not yet fully proven. They are based
upon documented research and demonstration projects

-------
Technology - Wastewater Treatm
that show promise of benefits that outweigh potential
risks. The term "innovative" does not apply to
specific treatment processes. Rather, the designation
"innovative" is made on a case-by-case basis by the
appropriate State and EPA construction grant officials.
To be funded by the l/A technology program, an
innovative process or system must be significantly
different from proven conventional or alternative
technologies. Conventional or alternative systems, or
components of such systems, must contain an element
of risk before they can qualify as innovative and
become eligible for an EPA construction grant bonus.
In addition to the element of risk, an innovative system
must advance the state-of-the-art in any of the following
areas:
•	Cost Reduction
•	Recycling, Reclamation, or Reuse of Water
•	Energy and Resource Conservation
•	Improved Joint Industrial/Municipal Treatment
•	Elimination or Confined Disposal of Pollutant
Discharge
By definition, all l/A systems MUST offer the potential
to accomplish one of the following:
•	Reduce costs or energy demand
•	Recycle water or other wastewater resources
•	Eliminate pollutant discharge
Examples of l/A Benefits
The following examples illustrate the results of creative
wastewater treatment planning by municipal officials
and engineers with the support of local citizens. The
communities described are good examples of where
this approach was used to solve a problem. These
examples represent only a few of the l/A technologies
available to U.S. communities. They are presented to
stimulate creative thinking, rather than to promote any
particular process.
1. Low Operation and Maintenance Costs
During the early days of the EPA construction grants
program, many small communities replaced failing
septic systems by building a centralized wastewater
collection system and a conventional treatment plant.

-------
ent to Improve Water Quality &
Recent experience is proving that a far less costly and
more environmentally sound alternative is to upgrade
or rehabilitate faulty septic systems. Other communities
are finding that the combination of a small central
treatment plant serving the mid-town, plus upgraded
septic systems serving the outlying neighborhoods, is a
more cost-effective solution to their wastewater
management problems. In either case, a community
septic system management program insures adequate
maintenance and continued good performance of
upgraded septic systems (Woodstock, NY).
2.	Reliability
Wastewater irrigation is one of the oldest and most
reliable alternative treatment technologies. The
systems, called land treatment, protect water quality by
combining pre-treatment and storage of wastewater
with agricultural irrigation.
The largest U.S. slow rate irrigation land treatment
system, built in Muskegon, Michigan in the mid-1970s,
is turning 35 million gallons per day (mgd) of industrial
and municipal wastewater into high quality irrigation
water. Annual revenues from the sale of irrigated corn
crops continue to offset operation and maintenance
costs so dramatically that users in the Michigan
community paid only 30 cents per thousand gallons of
sewage treated in 1982 (Muskegon, Ml; Clayton
County, GA; Lubbock, TX).
Two other land treatment alternatives are rapid
infiltration, which is suitable for communities with
porous sandy soils and deep water tables (Lake
George, NY; Corvallis, MT); and overland flow, which is
suitable for impervious clay soils in locations with
higher water tables (Davis, CA; Lamar, AR).
All three types of land treatment, if well designed and
operated, may provide the equivalent of advanced
wastewater treatment with less capital cost. In addition,
revenues from the sale of reclaimed water or crops
may offset much of the system's operating and
maintenance costs.
3.	Simplicity
Aquaculture and wetlands systems, like land treatment,
utilize micro-organisms and plants to consume
wastewater pollutants. They are often simpler to
operate and maintain than high technology
conventional systems. In an aquatic plant system, the

-------
Reduce Costs
major operation and maintenance costs are usually
directed to harvest and disposal of the plants
themselves. Income produced from the recovery and
sale of energy or compost from this harvest helps to
offset treatment costs (San Benito, TX; Houghton Lake,
Ml; San Diego, CA).
4. Energy Savings and Income Production
A reduction of up to 50 percent of the energy required
for conventional activated sludge aeration may be
realized by using a system that offers more efficient
oxygen transfer. Both counter-current aeration and fine
bubble aeration are processes that have had extensive
use in Europe. Data from similar systems operating in
the U.S. confirm such savings (Los Angeles County,
CA).
Anaerobic digestion of sludge or harvested plants will
produce methane gas. This by-product can be used to
fuel operations at the treatment plant, or can be used
in vehicles and generators that have been adapted to
burn methane (Charlotte, Ml).
Composting sludge and/or plants produces a high
quality soil conditioner that is extensively utilized at
nurseries and farms. Income from the sale of compost
can significantly reduce operating costs (Montgomery
County, MD; Durham, NH).
Many land treatment systems sell treated wastewater
for irrigation or for industrial cooling and processing. In
water-short regions effluent purchased from land
treatment systems for irrigation water can make the
difference between a bountiful or a scorched harvest
(Paynesville, MN; San Angelo, TX).
EPA Construction Grants l/A Program
Provisions for financial incentives through bonus
funding of l/A systems was added to the EPA
construction grants program by an Act of Congress (PL
95-217) in December 1977. The Federal government
funded a three-year effort, beginning October 1978, to
encourage resource conservation and recovery in
wastewater treatment plants. During the initial
three-year period, the l/A approach to wastewater
treatment demonstrated promising environmental
benefits. The Clean Water Act was, therefore,
amended in 1981 to strengthen and continue the l/A
incentive funding through September 1985. From
October 1978 through April 1984, EPA granted over

-------
2,900 awards to design and construct over 1,400
facilities with innovative or alternative components. The
value of these bonuses totaled over $323 million, with
projected savings of over one billion dollars.
How to Take Advantage of l/A Funding Benefits
Any community listed on the fundable portion of the
State's construction grants priority list is eligible to apply
for Federal funds to finance the construction of
wastewater treatment facilities. Should it be determined
that an l/A system meets the environmental and
cost-effective criteria, bonus Federal funding is
available that will reduce the local share of the
construction costs. (For details see the current EPA
Grants for Construction of Treatment Works
Regulations, 40 CFR, Part 35).
Cost Advantage for l/A Technologies
Selection of the system or technology for award of
construction grant funds is based on environmental
considerations and a facility plan cost-effectiveness
analysis. Exceptions to the cost effectiveness analysis
rule are made in the case of l/A technologies. Present
worth costs for l/A technologies may exceed, by as
much as 15 percent, the present worth cost of the most
cost-effective conventional system described in the
facility plan and still be fully eligible to receive the grant
award.
Special Funds for l/A Projects
l/A grants are funded from a portion of each State's
total annual allotment of Federal construction grant
funds. Each Governor must set aside a statutory
minimum, but not more than a statutory maximum, of
the total annual State construction grant allotment as a
reserve to provide the bonus for l/A projects. The range
for fiscal years 1982 through 1985 is 4 to IVz percent
(of which Vz percent must be for innovative projects
only). Congress establishes these values each time it
passes authorizing legislation.
States with at least 25 percent rural population must
reserve 4 percent of their annual construction grant
allotment to fund the base share of EPA support for
sewage treatment systems in small communities (less
than 3,500 population), or sparsely populated areas of
larger communities. The Governors of other States may
elect to do the same. Funds from this reserve provide
the base grant to which the l/A bonus funds are added
when l/A technologies are selected for a small
community.

-------
Field Testing
Special pre-construction grant awards and separate
field testing grant provisions in the 1981 Clean Water
Act Amendments enable a community to obtain an l/A
grant to pre-test a high risk l/A system. These awards
are designated as field tests and enable verification of
design parameters for one or more full scale systems.
The field test reduces the element of risk for applicants
considering an l/A technology.
Modification/Replacement Grants
If within two years after initial operation, all or part of
your l/A system fails to meet performance standards,
and the failure is due to the innovative or alternative
elements of the system, you are eligible to request
modification or replacement (M/R) grant assistance. To
justify award of an M/R grant, you must document that
the system failed to meet performance standards, that
significant additional capital expenditures and/or
significant operation and maintenance costs are
required to correct the problem, and that the failure is
not due to negligence.
l/A Program Assistance
The EPA Office of Water Program Operations (OWPO)
in Washington, D.C. coordinates the National l/A
program. This office develops policy and provides
guidance and technical information on the the status of
various l/A technologies and projects. The EPA Office
of Research and Development (ORD) conducts
research and provides technology information through
the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
(MERL) in Cincinnati, Ohio and the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma.
For additional information about the l/A program,
please contact your State construction grants program
office or the l/A Coordinator at your EPA Regional
office.

-------
For additional information contact:
EP A-O W PO(WH-547)
EPA-MERL (489)
401 M Street, SW
26 West St. Clair Street
Washington, DC 20460
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(202)382-7370/7369
(513)684-7611
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 6
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
1201 Elm Street
Boston, MA 02203
Dallas, TX 75270
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 7
26 Federal Plaza
324 East 11th Street
New York, NY 10278
Kansas City, MO 64106
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 8
6th & Walnut Streets
1860 Lincoln Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Denver. CO 80295
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 9
345 Courtland Street, NE
215 Fremont Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
San Francisco, CA 94105
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 10
230 South Deartiom Street
1200 6th Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604
Seattle, WA 98101
EPA-MERL (489)

26 West St. Clair Street

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(513)684-7614

EPA Small Wastewater Flows Clearinghouse
W§pt Virginia University
Morgetown, WV 26506
(800) 624-8301 In West Virgma call (800) 294-4191
Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement.
Prepared by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.

-------