Table Of ContentINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON
WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH
President
Dr. G. .T. Stander
Vice-Présidents
Professor B. B. Berger and Mr. B. E. Kuntze
Secretary-Treasurer Mr. P. E. Odendaal
Executive Editor Dr. S. H. Jenkins
PROGRESS IN WATER TECHNOLOGY
VOLUME 5
DESIGN—OPERATION INTERACTIONS
AT LARGE TREATMENT PLANTS
(Vienna Workshop Papers)
Edited by
S. H. JENKINS
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD NEW YORK · TORONTO SYDNEY
PARIS FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford. OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon of Canada Ltd., 75 The East Mall, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., 19a Boundary
Street, Rushcutters Bay, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, 6242 Kronberg-Taunus,
OF GERMANY Pferdstrasse 1, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright © 1972 Pergamon Press Ltd.
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic,
magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission
in writing from the publishers
First published in Water Research Volume 6 Numbers 4-5, and supplied to
subscribers of that journal as part of their subscription.
Reprinted 1978
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 73-1162
Printed in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd., Guildford, Surrey
ISBN 0 08 018293 3 flexicover
DESIGN-OPERATION INTERACTIONS AT LARGE
TREATMENT PLANTS
THE PROCEEDINGS OF A WORKSHOP ON 20-24 SEPTEMBER, 1971,
ORGANIZED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON WATER
POLLUTION RESEARCH BY A COMMITTEE UNDER THE CHAIRMAN-
SHIP OF PROFESSOR W. v. d. EMDE AND HELD AT THE TECHNISCHE
HOCHSCHULE, VIENNA, BY KIND PERMISSION OF THE RECTOR
o. Prof. Dr. phil. ERICH BUKOVICS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Chairman
Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. v. d. Emde, Vienna, Austria
Vice-Chairman
Prof. Dr. J. Andrews, Clemson, S.C., U.S.A.
Members
Prof. W. W. Eckenfelder, Nashville, Tenn., U.S.A.
Dipl.-Ing. H. Graefen, Chief, Wastewater Treatment Works,
Emschergenossenschaft, F.R.G.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. R. Kayser, Braunschweig, F.R.G.
Mr. H. B. Tench, B.Sc, F.R.I.C, General Manager,
Sewage Disposal Department, Sheffield, G.B.
ORGANIZING SECRETARIAT
Dipl.-Ing. H. Fleckseder
Mrs. E. Woller
TRANSLATOR AT ALL SESSIONS
Dr. R. Kayser
Water Research Pergamon Press 1972. Vol. 6, pp. 315-318. Printed in Great Britain
WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS PLANNING,
ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY-
SOME NEW DIRECTIONS
RALPH C. PALANGE
Division of Municipal Waste Water Programs, Office of Water Programs; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, U.S.A.
1. INTRODUCTION
THERE is a lack of effective communication between research and other workers which
has resulted in an inability to effectively utilize the new technologies. This paper will
deal with how we can utilize the results of research in order to more effectively control
our water environment.
2. THE U.S. TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
The first permanent U.S. Water Pollution Control Act (PL 84-660) was enacted
in 1956. This legislation, along with a series of amendments, established and later
significantly increased appropriations for construction of waste treatment works
from $50 million in Fiscal Year 1957 to $800 million in Fiscal Year 1970 to $1.0
billion in Fiscal Year 1971.
The Federal Act authorizes grants to municipalities to assist in construction or
improvement of sewage treatment works, including necessary interceptor and outfall
sewers, but not collection sewers. The range of Federal participation in a given project
varies between 30 and 55 per cent of the cost of construction, depending upon a number
of factors. As of May 31, 1971, the program had funded 11,886 projects having a total
construction cost of $10.2 billion, of which about $2.6 billion has been provided by
the Federal Government.
3. ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS
A major problem is that of determining needs and related costs for waste treatment
facilities. To obtain these we have established a system which is designed to provide
reliable and creditable data on currently predictable needs.
In order to fulfill our needs we have structured a program comprising many elements
—realistic criteria, practical plans, enforcement, and research. The President has
proposed to the Congress (S.1013) a program designed to answer several key
questions, including: (a) what is the cost of waste treatment facilities needed by
municipalities through Fiscal Year 1974 to meet water quality standards? (b) how
can the Federal grant monies be most expeditiously and effectively distributed
to the States and municipalities ? and (c) how can we prevent the recurrence of a
backlog of needed construction ?
Our best estimate of the total cost of construction of municipal treatment works to
be committed by the end of Fiscal Year 1974, to meet water quality standards, is $12
billion (cost of clean water).
315
316 RALPH C. PALANGE
4. PLANNING
Basic to the accomplishment of our goals is effective planning. Effective water
quality management planning must be a continuous process of systematic and
coordinated development of an efficient and effective course of action. Planning should
be accomplished for each of two distinct but related types of geographic areas: (1)
urban concentrations and groups of small towns in which the great bulk of domestic,
industrial and storm water wastes are generated and require treatment or other
controls; and (2) total river basin hydrologie systems into which all liquid wastes are
discharged or ultimately flow. Water quality management planning results in a course
of action for establishing governmental and private policies and directions relating
to prevention or control of water pollution. To achieve an effective program, such a
course must be implemented through laws, ordinances and regulations. That course
must be implementable, flexible and geared to action, not to looking attractive on a
library shelf. Effective planning must consider all problems and waste sources—muni-
cipal, industrial, agricultural, storm runoff and combined sewers, oil and hazardous
materials, mining and wells, and all other identifiable sources. In addition, planning
must consider the relationships between water quality problems and other environ-
mental problems. On July 2, 1970, the U.S. Government (U.S. FEDERAL REGISTER,
1970) published regulations which require that any municipal treatmentfacility receiving
Federal grant-in-aid support must be included both in a basin-wide and in a metro-
politan or regional plan for water quality management. States and local governments
are assigned the basic responsibility for this required planning effort.
5. COST EFFECTIVENESS
Over the last decade, the United States has almost doubled its waste treatment
capitalization and will double it again in the next 5 years. Towards realizing the
maximum return for this investment it is imperative that funds be utilized in a cost-
effective manner. This implies that those facilities which result in the greatest overall
improvement in water quality and/or environmental improvement will be constructed
before those which provide less environmental enhancement. Costs are considered to
be overall, life-cycle costs including operation, maintenance and amortization as well
as initial capital investment. The goal is to minimize total public costs without regard
to the incremental cost to any level of government. The selected approach or plan
must also minimize environmental damage. The U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (1971) is utilizing cost effectiveness methodology, by critically reviewing
overall plans before specifications for individual treatment facilities are prepared.
The States and municipalities have been prompted on several occasions to consolidate
two or more systems in a basin into one large, improved treatment facility. In some
cases, however, consideration of cost effectiveness has dictated separation rather than
consolidation of systems. We have encouraged neighboring communities to treat their
wastes jointly and to design treatment systems that minimize pumpage over hydro-
graphic boundaries, and to design systems to jointly handle adjacent municipal and
industrial loads.
6. NEW TECHNOLOGY
Over $2.6 billion in grants have been awarded by the Federal Government since
1956 for construction of waste treatment facilities and billions more will be spent
Wastewater Treatment Works Planning, Economics and Technology 317
before our goals of clean water are met. With this huge expenditure of public funds
every effort must be made to assure that the best available technology is utilized.
Research, both public and private, which has been undertaken in the past few years
has produced new techniques which are now ready for widespread application. In the
past, adoption of new technology by design engineers has occurred slowly. For us, it is
urgent that new technology be adopted now in order to have an impact on design of
new facilities. At this point, we cannot afford to invest in facilities which might soon
become obsolete or cannot be readily modified to meet more stringent effluent quality
criteria in the future.
In recognition of this goal, in September 1970, we published "Federal Guidelines
for Design, Operation and Maintenance of Waste Treatment Facilities" and a month
later, in October 1970, initiated a Technology Transfer Program. The guidelines reflect
the necessity for deriving the greatest benefit from pollution control expenditures
through ensuring that new treatment systems are designed and operated in the most
cost-effective manner. Technical Bulletins are also being issued which amplify specific
areas in the Guidelines, evaluate new advances in technology, and provide guidance
for incorporation into new facilities.
The goal of the Technology Transfer Program is to bridge the gap between develop-
ment and demonstration of new treatment methodology and its actual acceptance
and full-scale use. The program includes dissemination of information through
design seminars, technical publications, public information programs and displays,
and process design manuals for new treatment processes.
Manuals are being developed on phosphorus removal, suspended solids removal,
activated carbon adsorption, and upgrading capacity and efficiency of existing plants.
Others are scheduled.
Upgrading of treatment facilities will be required at some point beyond 1976 to
meet new water quality standards dictated by increased population, per capita waste
contribution, and industrial growth. Use of best available technology at this time will
facilitate upgrading in the future. Water re-use will eventually be necessary by industry
for non-potable purposes.
We would be pleased to provide or exchange information on our Technology
Transfer Program. Information may be obtained by writing to Technology Transfer,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, U.S.A.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In January 1970, the Congress of the United States enacted the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (PL 91-190) which requires that all Federal agencies proposing
action which may have a significant impact on the environment shall consult with
other agencies having jurisdiction. The purpose is to build into the Federal decision-
making process appropriate and careful consideration of the environmental aspects
of proposed actions. The agency proposing such actions generally prepares a state-
ment covering the environmental impact, and this is distributed to public and
private agencies, citizens groups and others for review and comment.
The statements are not justifications for proposed funding or actions; rather they
are detailed presentations of the environmental impact of Federal or Federally
supported public works. They cover, as a minimum: (a) the probable impact of the
project on the environment; (b) any probable adverse environmental effects which
318 RALPH C. PALANGE
cannot be avoided; (c) alternatives considered, with evaluation for each proposal; (d)
relationship between short-term uses of the environment and enhancement of long-
term productivity; (e) any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources;
and (f) public objections to the project, if any, and their resolution.
8. SUMMARY
We believe there are great and difficult tasks ahead of us, to understand and control
the disturbing by-products of our economic system which though extraordinarily
productive has sometimes misused basic resources. Today, we have the will and believe
we are developing the governmental mechanisms in the field of planning, economics,
and technology which will enable us to meet the challenges of our urban America,
and have clean water in the 1970's.
The international community of science and the international community of nations
must cooperate to solve mutual problems of conservation and management of our
environmental resources. Much excellent work is now being done in the water field by
international organizations. But the magnitude of the problem is so large there is wide
opportunity for useful activity by all of us. We look forward to continuing interchange
of ideas and mutual assistance in achieving our common aim of clean water.
REFERENCES
PUBLIC LAW 84-660, approved July 9, 1956, as amended. (Basic Act amended by Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments approved 1961, 1965, 1966 and 1970.)
PUBLIC LAW 91-190, approved January 1, 1970 (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969).
U.S. SENATE BILL 1013 (92nd Congress, 1st session) (1970).
U.S. FEDERAL REGISTER (1970) 18 C.F.R. 601.32-.36, July 2.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION (1970) Federal
Guidelines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities. (The
Federal Water Quality Administration is now the Water Programs Office in the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.)
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. WATER PROGRAMS OFFICE (1971) Cost of Clean Water.
Vol. I. Municipal Investment Needs, 21 pp; Vol. II. Cost Effectiveness and Clean Water, 128 pp.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. WATER PROGRAMS OFFICE. DIVISION OF FACILITIES
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION (1971) New Waste Treatment Technology Is Available Now.
Charles L. Swanson. 11 pp. plus tables and charts (to be published).
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WATER PROGRAMS OFFICE (1971). Guidelines to Water
Quality Management Planning.
U.S. FEDERAL REGISTER. COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (1971) Statements on Proposed
Federal Actions Affecting the Environment. Guidelines. Vol. 36. No. 19, Part II, January 28. pp.
1398-1402.
Water Research Pergamon Press 1972. Vol. 6, pp. 319-322. Printed in Great Britain
DESIGN-OPERATION INTERACTIONS FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
J. F. ANDREWS
Environmental Systems Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C., U.S.A.
INTRODUCTION
MANY of the wastewater treatment plants in the United States operate at overall
efficiencies well below those for which they have been designed. Most treatment
plants are in a primitive state with respect to process operation when compared with
industrial processes and gross failures, such as the bulking of activated sludge and
"sour" anaerobic digesters, are all too frequent. Many other operational problems
have been reported; for example, MICHEL et al. (1969) in a study of 1500 performance
audits, lists 499 reported instances of plant bypassing from such causes as stormwater
and infiltration, shutdowns for routine maintenance, and mechanical failure. There
are significant variations in treatment plant efficiency, not only from one plant to
another, but also from day to day and hour to hour in the same plant. Daily variations
from 60 to 95 per cent efficiency in BOD removal are not uncommon and THOMANN
(1970), by a statistical analysis of the variation in effluent quality from eight treatment
plants, has shown that these variations can have a significant effect on the water
quality of the receiving streams.
The United States government has recognized the need for more adequate con-
sideration of the interactions between design and operation for waste water treatment
plants. In September of 1970, the COMPTROLLER GENERAL of the United States sub-
mitted a report to the Congress on the need for improved operation and maintenance
of municipal waste treatment plants. This report established that operation and main-
tenance problems are widespread and have resulted in inefficient plant operations. It
was the belief of the Comptroller General's office that these problems are primarily due
to a lack of qualified operating personnel, inadequate controls over industrial wastes,
and inadequate plant design or lack of adequate equipment. In September 1970, the
UNITED STATES FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION (now a part of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency) issued guidelines for the design, operation, and maintenance
of wastewater treatment facilities. These guidelines place strong emphasis on the need
for adequate consideration of operation and maintenance during plant design and
adequate inspections by State agencies for the evaluation and improvement of
plant performance. In May 1971, public hearings {Clean Water Report, 1971) on
wastewater treatment and technology were conducted by a United States Senate panel
on environmental science and technology. The need for increased attention to opera-
tions and maintenance will also be discussed by RADEMACHER (1971) at this workshop.
SPECIFIC DESIGN-OPERATION INTERACTIONS
Some of the specific factors which should be considered in obtaining a proper
balance between design and operation are listed below.
319
320 J. F. ANDREWS
(i) Operating personnel
The need for operation must be minimized through design when it is anticipated
that plants will be operated by unskilled personnel or when labor problems, such as
strikes, may be expected. One way in which this is frequently done for smaller plants is
by using oversized units to damp out the effects of fluctuating inputs. However,
oversizing, and therefore capital costs, should be reduced for those plants where
qualified operating personnel will be provided. In larger plants where labor problems
may be anticipated, more provision should be made for automation so that plant
management personnel may operate the plants for limited periods of time.
(ii) Process stability
It is well recognized that some processes used for wastewater treatment are more
stable than others and therefore require less attention to operation. Although this is
of considerable importance, quantitative comparisons of the stability of different
processes are not available. For example, most environmental engineers will accept
the statement that the trickling filter is more stable than the activated sludge process
but would be hard pressed to express this in a quantitative fashion. University research
on dynamic models of processes could be of value in comparing the different processes
with respect to stability. Improved stability can be obtained by improving operational
techniques thus decreasing the need for oversizing of units.
(iii) Availability of space
Sizes of units can usually be decreased by increasing the operational effort involved.
Decreases in sizes of plants through improved operation would be of importance for
our larger cities where space is at a premium. The interaction of wastewater transport
cost with plant size must also be considered. Smaller and well operated plants can
frequently be located nearer to the major wastewater sources thus decreasing transport
costs.
fiv) Reliability
It is well recognized that bypassing of raw wastewater and gross process failures
frequently occur. The effects on the receiving waters of failure to obtain the desired
degree of treatment either intermittently or continuously must therefore be considered.
A higher degree of reliability will be required for a plant discharging into a stream with
no excess assimilative capacity than for one discharging into a stream with considerable
excess assimilative capacity. Additional reliability can be obtained through either
design or improved operation.
(v) Financial
The balance between design and operation is influenced by the feasibility of investing
in capital costs or operation and maintenance costs. Industry usually favors invest-
ments in operation and maintenance over capital costs because of the U.S. tax
structure. Municipalities have normally favored investments in capital costs over
operation and maintenance since bond issues have been easier to obtain than increases
in operating revenue. It is the author's belief that an increase in the ratio of operating
and maintenance costs to capital costs would result in better overall wastewater
treatment for municipalities. The operation of treatment plants by public or private
