Management and Supervision

No matter how well a sewage disposal plant is designed or constructed it will not do its work in a satisfactory manner and produce desired results unless it is efficiently managed. Every plant should be in charge of a man who has knowledge of sewage disposal principles, is thoroughly familiar with his plant and who can act intelligently in an emergency. The New Jersey State Sewerage Commission in one of its reports notes the tendency of local authorities to permit the deterioration of disposal plants usually through inattention. “It cannot be too strongly urged on those charged with these, as of other public works, that a competent man in charge is a primary necessity and that the plant should be kept continuously in the highest state of efficiency.” The same condition is complained of by the California State Board of Health and other state organizations. In one of its bulletins the California State Board says that “some of the plants are operating very indifferently well and some very badly. The general situation shows plainly the need of expert advice to municipalities with respect to general methods and necessary efficiencies from some central authority.”

D. C. Faber, Industrial Engineer of the Iowa State College, goes so far as to claim that practically all nuisances in connection with plants can be traced directly to failure to give them attention. He says that even where plants have been found too small increased care in many cases could be made to offset lack of capacity.

In several states, such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kansas, Ohio and Massachusetts, the State Boards of Health have supervision over the designing of new plants and the operation of those established. The good results obtained as a result of this supervision are evidence that similar powers should be granted to all state boards of health.

With a plant designed to meet local conditions, properly constructed and efficiently managed, a city should have no difficulty in disposing of its sewage economically, in a sanitary manner and without creating a nuisance.

Table II (a)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES
Name of CityGeneral DataSewerage SystemSewage Pumping
PopulationGeneral Description PlantAnnual Cost of Operation[[29]]Gallons Treated AnnuallyAverage Number Gallons Treated DailyPer cent. of City’s Total TreatedKind of Sewerage SystemPreliminary TreatmentWhat Percentage of Sewage is Pumped to PlantGallons Pumped AnnuallyDaily Capacity of PumpsKind and Number of PumpsAnnual Cost of Pumping StationNumber of Feet Sewage is raised
TotalPer Million Gals. Raised a Foot
Albany, N. Y.110,000Coarse screens, Imhoff tanks and pumping station. Mostly combinedCoarse screens and grit chamber.Large part.Three 10 [M.G.]D. each and three 15 [M.G.]D. eachThree var. speed 24 in. and three const. 24 in. electric power.
Atlanta, Ga.200,000Coarse screens, grit chambers, Imhoff tanks, sprinkling filters.$1.93 per [M.G.]X. 16,000,00090%.Combined.Grate bars 1½ in. apart, and three grit chambers.Some.50,000,000 Centrifugal electric power.
Akron, Ohio150,000Screens, grit chambers, Imhoff tanks, sludge beds, sprinkling filters. Separate and combined.Screens and grit chambers.
Alliance, Ohio22,000Cameron tanks. Contact and intermittent sand filters. Imhoff tanks and slag contact beds now under construction.2,200 per [M.G.] 3,000,000100%.Separate.Grit chambers.None.
Auburn, N. Y.37,000Two plants. Grit chambers, settling tanks, dosing tanks, contact beds.8,500 675,00022%.Separate with some surface water.Two grit chambers.None.
Brockton, Mass.63,000Revolving screens, sand beds and sprinkling filters.12,000768,000,0002,106,000100%.Separate.Revolving screen.All. 6,000,000Two Knowles triple expansion condensing steam power.$30,000.97540.
Bloomington, Ill.12,000Septic tank, center settling basin, 3 contact beds arranged around center basin, nozzle spray upon filter beds surrounding contact beds. 275,000,000750,000100%.Separate.Settling basin with weirs.None.
Bristol, Conn.15,000Sand filter beds.5,000 1,500,00090%.Separate.None.None.
Columbus, Ohio.220,000Grit chamber, screens, pumps, Imhoff tanks, sprinkling filters, final settling basins. 5,163,000,00021,300,000All for 242 days.Separate and combined.One in. and one-half in. vertical bar screens mechanically operated. Grit chamber.All once and 10% twice.5,163,000,00050,000,000One 12 in. Worthington, one 20 in. Morris, two 18 in. and one 12 in. De Lavel. Electric power.$23,656.1621.6
Canton, Ohio.70,000Imhoff tanks, contact beds, crushed slag and gravel filter with automatic syphon, sludge drying beds, sand and pea gravel filling. Half of bed covered with greenhouse construction. Final effluent into creek.20,000700,000,0001,900,00095%.Separate.Coarse screens and grit chambers.None.
Danbury, Conn.23,000Irrigation and filtration.7,500 300,000 Mostly separate.Coarse screens and grit chambers.None.
Dallas, Texas120,000Screens, grit chambers, Imhoff tanks and sludge beds. 10,000,000All.Separate.Coarse screens and grit chambers.All. 22,500,000Two centrifugal steam power. 42.
Fond du Lac, Wis.20,000Sewage collected in receiving well and pumped into Imhoff tanks.3,200 Separate with cistern overflow connected with sanitary.Screens and grit chambers.All.1,000,000 a day.60,000,000Four centrifugal electric power.
Fresno, Cal.40,000Partial purification by settling and septic process, and disposal of effluent by irrigation of alfalfa.1,0001,825,000,0005,000,000All.Separate.Chamber for trapping crude oil.None.
Gloversville, N. Y.21,000Primary and secondary settling tanks, screen chambers and dosing tanks, sprinkling filters, sludge drying beds and sand filters.22,0001,022,000,0002,800,00090%.Separate.Coarse screens.None.
Houston, Texas140,000Activated sludge method, reinforced concrete aeration tanks, [M.G.] settling tanks and re-aeration tanks. Continuous flow, power houses and blowers.9.25 per [M.G.]6,570,000,00018,000,000All.Separate.Coarse screens and grit chambers for two-thirds of sewage.105.2% some twice.8,611,000,00030,000,000One air ejector six single centrifugal pumps. Electric power.$23,500 est..136.25.
Independence, Kas.12,000Cameron tanks and filter beds. Separate. None.
Lackawanna, N.Y.17,500788,400,000 95%. Separate.Grit chamber.95%.788,000,000720,000 power.Centrifugal steam9,000 18.
Milwaukee, Wis.450,000Trial plant operated since 1916. Now designing activated sludge plant to treat all sewage. 130,000,000 Separate with first wash from street.Coarse screens and grit chamber.33%.42,000,00060,000,000Three centrifugal, 20 million each. Electric power. 22.
Mt. Vernon, N.Y.38,000Settling tanks, single story septic type, constructed in five units. Sprinkling overhead Phelps nozzle, dosing tanks with automatic syphon.17,675750,000,0002,000,00075%.Separate with much wet weather infiltration.Coarse bar screens.15%.110,000,0005,000,000Two vertical centrifugal electric power. 26 ft. including friction.
New Britain, Conn.55,000Sand filtration.12,000 4,000,000All.Separate.None.None.
Oswego, N.Y.24,000 None.
Pasadena, Cal.42,000Imhoff and septic tanks, sludge bed and sewage farm. 730,000,0002,000,00095%.Separate with first wash from street.None.None.
Providence, R. I.249,616Settling tanks; disinfection.54,9549,078,620,00024,872,000 Combined. Yes.
Philadelphia, Pa.1,800,000Pennypack Creek sewage treated 450,000,0001,250,000One-third of 1%.Combined first wash from street.Coarse screens and grit chamber.Yes.450,000,0004,000,000One eight in. and one ten in. Worthington, vertical. By gas. 41.
Reading, Pa.110,000 21,5002,000,000,0006,000,00060%.Separate.Two grit chambers.All. One 6 and the other 8 millions.Two centrifugal electric power.$14,500 39.
Rochester, N. Y.248,465Detritus tanks, fine screens Imhoff tanks. Plan made for effluent to run power plant. Sludge drying beds. 55,000,000 dry weather flow, 173,000,000 wet weather flow.All.Combined.Six detritus tanks and fine screens.
Schenectady, N.Y.87,000Imhoff tanks and sprinkling filters.23,000 72,000,00070%.Separate and combined. 40%.40,000,00015,000,000Five direct connected motor vertical centrifugal.$10,000 23.
Sumter, S. C.12,000Sewage only partly treated. A settling chamber only. No filtering bed.8,000 Separate.Two grit chambers 20 x 30 ft.None.
Tallahassee, Fla.6,000Single contact system, 3 beds, coke and sand, filtration with automatic apparatus.2,500 100,000 Grit chamber.No.
Woonsocket, R. I.43,000Screening basin and filters. 1,500,000 Separate.Coarse screens between screening basins and pump well.100%. 2,200 per min.Centrifugal. By steam. 20⅓
Worcester, Mass.170,000Chemical precipitation, sand filters.60,000 exclusive of depreciation and interest.6,094,000,000 All dry weather flow and first part of storm water.Separate and combined.Grit chambers2%. Four centrifugal. Electric power.5,509.35
Table II (c)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)
Name of CityIndustrial WastesSludge DisposalFinal Treatment
Establishments Which Empty Wastes Into City’s Sewerage SystemWhat Kinds Are Treated Before They are Emptied Into Sewerage SystemMethods of Treatment Where Wastes are Purified SeparatelyHow is Sludge Disposed ofAny Revenue from Disposal PlantIs Effluent DisinfectedIs there a Secondary Settling TankPer cent. of Suspended Matter RemovedPer cent. of Bacteria RemovedWhat Degree of Purity RequiredIs Plant Operating SatisfactorilyIf Not, Why?Distance of Plant from Center of CityAny Odor at Plant
Albany, N. Y. No. Two miles.
Atlanta, Ga.Steel mills, tin can works, gas works, coal and gas plants.From gas works.Plain sedimentation.Filling and fertilizer.None.No.No. Yes. 4–7 miles.Not sufficient to cause inconvenience.
Akron, Ohio Burned. Yes.
Alliance, Ohio Dried on beds and hauled to farmers.None.No.No. No.No technical supervision. Large quantities of roof water during storms.1 mile.Yes.
Auburn, N. Y.None. No.No. Yes. 5 miles.
Brockton, Mass.Shoe factory and tannery. Fertilizer and fill.None.No.From sprinkl’r.61.2.95.As high as possible.Not entirely.Sand beds in operation 22 years and have reached capacity.3 miles.During damp weather
Bloomington, Ill.No. No. Yes. 1½ miles.Not over 1,000 ft. under worst conditions.
Bristol, Conn. Plowed into land Yes. 2 miles.Not much.
Columbus, OhioTanneries, breweries, starch works, wool cleaners, packing plants.None. Dried on beds and spread on city farm.None.No.Yes.25.80–90.Varies with stream and weather conditions.Some parts satisfactory others not.Insufficient capacity.5 miles.Yes.
Canton, OhioVarious factories, including iron and steel; chief waste is rags.None. Fertilizer. None.No.98. 85.Yes. 8 miles.Very little.
Danbury, Conn.Hat factories.None. Fertilizer.$400.No.No. Yes. 2½ miles.None from beds; sometimes when flow exceeds maximum it is turned into swamp, and during hot weather there is odor.
Dallas, Tex.Packing houses, laundries, dye works. No. 3½ miles.
Fond du Lac, Wis.Laundries, cleaning establishments.None. Filling. No. Yes. 1 mile.No.
Fresno, Cal.Fruit canneries and packing houses.None. 30.No standard.Yes. 7 miles.Yes.
Gloversville, N. Y.Leather and canneries; 26% of total is trade waste.All.Settling tanks.Fertilizer and fill$300.No.Yes. Yes. 2 miles.Some.
Houston, Tex.Pressed and dried No.Yes.95–98.95–99.85–90. 2.5 miles.None expected.
Independence, Kas.
Lackawanna, N. Y.None. No.No. 90.Yes. 1 mile.No.
Milwaukee, Wis.Breweries, tanneries, soap works, laundries, hair works and packing houses.None. Pressed, dried and sold for fertilizer. No. 95.95.95. Centre of city.No.
Mt. Vernon, N. Y. Fill.None.No.No.70.80.Non-putrescible.Yes. 1 mile.A few days noticeable ¼ mile.
New Britain, Conn.Pickling liquor. Fill.None.No. No.Voids almost completely clogged by pickling liquor.3 miles.
Oswego, N. Y. ¼ mile.
[[31]]Pasadena, Cal.Laundries. Fertilizer.None.No. Imhoff satisfactory septic “as well as can be expected of any septic tank.”5 miles.
Providence, R. I.Woolen mills, bleacheries, dye houses, jewelry factories. Pressed and carried away on scows. Yes. Total bacterial 64%; B Coli 96.9.
Philadelphia, Pa.No. Fertilizer.None.Liquid Chlorine.Yes.60.100 acid formers.Absence of acid forming bacteria.Yes. 12 miles.
Reading, Pa.Soap and dye works, tanneries, paper mills, breweries, laundries, hat factories, electroplating works. Fertilizer.None.No.Yes.71.1 exclusive of solids removed by grits.86.State standard.Yes. 3 miles.Some at times of cleaning.
Rochester, N. Y. Plans made for such.
Schenectady, N. Y.Laundries, locomotive and electrical top of tanks. Oil skimmed offFill. No.No.40.70. Fairly so. 2½ miles.At first, but not now.
Sumter, S. C.None. None.No. Great Portion No objection as it empties into swampy stream. 1½ miles.Slight as it empties at mouth of outfall.
Tallahassee, Fla.Chera Cola Works, and garages.None.All run into grit chamber before entering main. No.Yes. Yes. 1 mile.Only when cleaning grit chamber.
Woonsocket, R. I. No.No.100.97. Yes. 1 mile.No, except slight smell like dish water.
Worcester, Mass.Carpet mills, tanneries and dye works.None. Fill and fertilizer.None.No.No.87.No standard.Effluent from sand filter excellent; chemical precipitation poor. 3 miles.Very little.

[29]. Includes depreciation and interest on investment.

[M.G.]. Million gallons.

[31]. City has a sewage farm of about 518 acres, and the effluent from the septic tank is used to irrigate about 450 acres of the farm. The cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Alhambra have purchased a new sewage farm where they plan jointly to purify their sewage.

[32]. “Same force of men can handle one acre as one-half acre, or twice as great a flow.”

[33]. Does not include interest and depreciation.

[34]. In winter draw as little as possible; in summer draw as much as possible; the aim being to leave the tanks as free as possible from good sludge when cold weather comes.

[35]. Operation of Imhoff tanks costs nothing as city allows a man to use two acres of land to compensate him for caring for tank. The septic tank is attended to only once a year, and probably does not cost more than $30 annually.

ASHES AND RUBBISH
COST AND METHODS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES—EQUIPMENT—REGULATIONS—BY-PRODUCTS

So many cities either collect ashes and rubbish together or the two are collected by the same department or under the same contract that any attempt to give the experience of American municipalities with the collection of each of these wastes would be of little value. The collection of both kinds of waste will, therefore, be discussed with the idea of presenting such information as will give any city, large or small, a basis for determining the feasibility of ash and rubbish collection by municipal employees or by contract, giving the various methods used in the larger American communities, so that the one best adapted to local conditions may be adopted, and the price a city should pay for the service.

Any city contemplating the collection of its refuse or wishing to determine the efficiency and economy of the service it is giving or receiving must consider: