electrolysis treatment plants. The process consists in passing the
sewage between a system of electrodes. The change is brought about by
chemical reaction from newly formed chemical reagents produced by the
decomposition of inorganic compounds already in solution. It is still
regarded as an unestablished process.
Boston has within the last year been testing a new process of sewage
purification invented and patented by a Boston chemist. By the addition
of an acid, an attempt is made to precipitate the bulk of suspended
matter and to form a sludge which can be dried and degreased thereby
producing a salable and greaseless fertilizer as well as recovering
valuable grease. Experiments by E. S. Dorr gave results so full of
promise that arrangements were made for a study of the process under the
supervision of the Sanitary Research Laboratory of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Robert Spurr Weston gives the results of this
study in a recent issue of the _American Journal of Public Health_. His
conclusions are that “with facts at hand the process would be very
satisfactory for Boston from a sanitary standpoint, and is more
promising economically than any other known method.” He includes in his
comparison the activated sludge process. An experiment by Boston on a
larger scale has been recommended.
Trade Wastes
Industrial trade wastes, such as those coming from canneries, breweries,
woolen mills, laundries, dye and cleaning works, paper mills, iron
foundries, gas works and packing establishments and others cause
nuisances around disposal plants, and the problem of their proper
disposal is more difficult of satisfactory solution than the treatment
of domestic sewage. Some wastes can be treated with domestic sewage at
the disposal works without any difficulty, others require special
treatment before being allowed to enter the sewers and often it is
desirable to keep certain wastes out of the main sewers and dispose of
them independently. Each particular problem must be considered by itself
with due regard both to conditions at the factory, the expense burden on
the producer of the waste and to the body of water into which the
effluent is to be discharged. There are instances where cities have
reimbursed certain manufacturers for treating their wastes separately,
and others where the manufacturers have reimbursed the city for the
additional treatment required.
Sludge Disposal and Value
Authorities are generally agreed that the sludge problem is the center
of the entire sewage problem, because it causes more trouble and is the
most expensive part of the treatment. The method of handling it is just
as important as the treatment of the sewage.
Wet sludge can be pumped out on land or into shallow places or it can be
sent to sea in ships and allowed to sink. If pumped on land it must be
spread out in very thin layers. If discharged into trenches it is
ploughed into the ground after it has dried. In either case a large area
of land is necessary and odors cannot be eliminated. Only cities located
on or near the seashore can send their sludge to sea, and then the cost
of disposal is rather high.
Sludge can be dried by pressing, in centrifugal drying machines, by
mixing with some dry matter or by discharging upon drying beds. The cost
of pressing is high, depending upon the amount of lime added, the kind
of sludge pressed, and the size of the works. George S. Webster states
that the average cost in large cities is ten cents per ton of wet
sludge. It is especially applicable to chemical precipitation works as
it must first be treated with lime or coal powder. When dried in
machines the liquid contains much organic matter and is objectionable.
The simplest method is to discharge the sludge upon drying beds of
porous material and underdrained. The time for drying depends upon
sewage treatment. Imhoff tank sludge will dry in less than a week,
septic tank sludge in two weeks or more, and sludge from plain
sedimentation will require about two months in summer and almost five
months in winter. Cleveland, in order to overcome weather conditions at
its experimental plant, built a covered sludge bed, modeled after
standard greenhouse construction. The report from the Testing Station is
that during summer the period of drying is approximately the same as or
possibly a little longer than with open beds. Eliminating the three
winter months, the station report says, it is possible to operate beds
of this type so that one square foot of surface will dry 0.8 cubic feet
of sludge per year. Francis E. Daniels suggests that sludge can be
handled faster by drying a small portion at one time and removing it
from the bed before the next portion is drained off.
Dry sludge can be used for fertilizer or for filling low lands or it can
be incinerated. Its fertilizing value is disputed except when produced
by the activated sludge method. The filling in method is economical.
Authorities advise the consideration of incineration by cities which
burn their garbage.
Dr. Imhoff’s recommendations are the use of sludge for agricultural
purposes and for filling in low land. “In both cases,” he says, “the
sludge must first be dried and this is best effected upon a drying bed
after the sludge has been decomposed in an inoffensive, odorless manner,
in a separate tank through which sewage does not flow.”
Many unsuccessful efforts have been made to extract the valuable
ingredients from sewage, but to date the experience has been that they
have been more costly to recover than they are worth. Dr. McLean Wilson,
Sanitary Inspector of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board,
believes that the valuable ingredients of sewage will ultimately be
recovered and used since many capable experimenters are at work on the
problem. H. W. Clark, Chemist of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, is of the opinion that sludge has some value and that “it seems
inevitable that as the processes of drying, pressing and fat separation
are improved and as nitrogen advances in price sewage sludge will become
of greater agricultural value than at present.” Experiments have been
made at the Philadelphia Sewage Testing Station by burning dry sludge
and wet sludge mixed with fine coal. The results were unsuccessful.
Experiments have also been made at the Cleveland station where it was
found that the sewage sludge contained about one-half as much nitrogen
and one-third as much phosphates as does the garbage tankage.
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 City │ GENERAL DATA
├──────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────
│Population│ General │ Annual Cost │ Gallons
│ │ Description │ of │ Treated
│ │ Plant │Operation[29]│ Annually
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ 110,000│Coarse screens, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and pumping │ │
│ │ station. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 200,000│Coarse screens, │ $1.93 per│
│ │ grit chambers,│ [M.G.]X.│
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Akron, Ohio │ 150,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge beds, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Alliance, │ 22,000│Cameron tanks. │ 2,200 per│
Ohio │ │ Contact and │ [M.G.]│
│ │ intermittent │ │
│ │ sand filters. │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and slag │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ now under │ │
│ │ construction. │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 37,000│Two plants. Grit│ 8,500│
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, dosing │ │
│ │ tanks, contact│ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Brockton, │ 63,000│Revolving │ 12,000│ 768,000,000
Mass. │ │ screens, sand │ │
│ │ beds and │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Bloomington, │ 12,000│Septic tank, │ │ 275,000,000
Ill. │ │ center │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basin, 3 │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ arranged │ │
│ │ around center │ │
│ │ basin, nozzle │ │
│ │ spray upon │ │
│ │ filter beds │ │
│ │ surrounding │ │
│ │ contact beds. │ │
Bristol, │ 15,000│Sand filter │ 5,000│
Conn. │ │ beds. │ │
Columbus, │ 220,000│Grit chamber, │ │5,163,000,000
Ohio. │ │ screens, │ │
│ │ pumps, Imhoff │ │
│ │ tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, final│ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basins. │ │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 70,000│Imhoff tanks, │ 20,000│ 700,000,000
│ │ 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. │ │
Danbury, │ 23,000│Irrigation and │ 7,500│
Conn. │ │ filtration. │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ 120,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and sludge │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Fond du Lac, │ 20,000│Sewage collected│ 3,200│
Wis. │ │ in receiving │ │
│ │ well and │ │
│ │ pumped into │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ 40,000│Partial │ 1,000│1,825,000,000
│ │ purification │ │
│ │ by settling │ │
│ │ and septic │ │
│ │ process, and │ │
│ │ disposal of │ │
│ │ effluent by │ │
│ │ irrigation of │ │
│ │ alfalfa. │ │
Gloversville,│ 21,000│Primary and │ 22,000│1,022,000,000
N. Y. │ │ secondary │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, screen │ │
│ │ chambers and │ │
│ │ dosing tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, │ │
│ │ sludge drying │ │
│ │ beds and sand │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Houston, │ 140,000│Activated sludge│ 9.25 per│6,570,000,000
Texas │ │ method, │ [M.G.]│
│ │ reinforced │ │
│ │ concrete │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks, [M.G.] │ │
│ │ settling tanks│ │
│ │ and re- │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks. │ │
│ │ Continuous │ │
│ │ flow, power │ │
│ │ houses and │ │
│ │ blowers. │ │
Independence,│ 12,000│Cameron tanks │ │
Kas. │ │ and filter │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Lackawanna, │ 17,500│788,400,000 │ │
N.Y. │ │ 95%. │ │
Milwaukee, │ 450,000│Trial plant │ │
Wis. │ │ operated since│ │
│ │ 1916. Now │ │
│ │ designing │ │
│ │ activated │ │
│ │ sludge plant │ │
│ │ to treat all │ │
│ │ sewage. │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 38,000│Settling tanks, │ 17,675│ 750,000,000
N.Y. │ │ single story │ │
│ │ septic type, │ │
│ │ constructed in│ │
│ │ five units. │ │
│ │ Sprinkling │ │
│ │ overhead │ │
│ │ Phelps nozzle,│ │
│ │ dosing tanks │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ syphon. │ │
New Britain, │ 55,000│Sand filtration.│ 12,000│
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ 24,000│ │ │
Pasadena, │ 42,000│Imhoff and │ │ 730,000,000
Cal. │ │ septic tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge bed and│ │
│ │ sewage farm. │ │
Providence, │ 249,616│Settling tanks; │ 54,954│9,078,620,000
R. I. │ │ disinfection. │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,800,000│Pennypack Creek │ │ 450,000,000
Pa. │ │ sewage treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 110,000│ │ 21,500│2,000,000,000
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 248,465│Detritus tanks, │ │
Y. │ │ fine screens │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ Plan made for │ │
│ │ effluent to │ │
│ │ run power │ │
│ │ plant. Sludge │ │
│ │ drying beds. │ │
Schenectady, │ 87,000│Imhoff tanks and│ 23,000│
N.Y. │ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ 12,000│Sewage only │ 8,000│
│ │ partly │ │
│ │ treated. A │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ chamber only. │ │
│ │ No filtering │ │
│ │ bed. │ │
Tallahassee, │ 6,000│Single contact │ 2,500│
Fla. │ │ system, 3 │ │
│ │ beds, coke and│ │
│ │ sand, │ │
│ │ filtration │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ apparatus. │ │
Woonsocket, │ 43,000│Screening basin │ │
R. I. │ │ and filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │ 170,000│Chemical │ 60,000│6,094,000,000
Mass. │ │ precipitation,│ exclusive of│
│ │ sand filters. │ depreciation│
│ │ │and interest.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────┬──────────────────────────────
Name of City │ GENERAL DATA │ SEWERAGE SYSTEM
├───────────┬───────┼───────────────┬──────────────
│ Average │ Per │ Kind of │ Preliminary
│ Number │ cent. │Sewerage System│ Treatment
│ Gallons │ of │ │
│ Treated │City’s │ │
│ Daily │ Total │ │
│ │Treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │Mostly combined│Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 16,000,000│ 90%.│Combined. │Grate bars 1½
│ │ │ │ in. apart,
│ │ │ │ and three
│ │ │ │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Akron, Ohio │ │ │Separate and │Screens and
│ │ │ combined. │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │ 3,000,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Grit chambers.
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 675,000│ 22%.│Separate with │Two grit
│ │ │ some surface │ chambers.
│ │ │ water. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │ 2,106,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Revolving
Mass. │ │ │ │ screen.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ 750,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Settling basin
Ill. │ │ │ │ with weirs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │ 1,500,000│ 90%.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │ 21,300,000│All for│Separate and │One in. and
Ohio. │ │ 242│ combined. │ one-half in.
│ │ days.│ │ vertical bar
│ │ │ │ screens
│ │ │ │ mechanically
│ │ │ │ operated.
│ │ │ │ Grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 1,900,000│ 95%.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │ 300,000│ │Mostly │Coarse screens
Conn. │ │ │ separate. │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Dallas, Texas│ 10,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │Separate with │Screens and
Wis. │ │ │ cistern │ grit
│ │ │ overflow │ chambers.
│ │ │ connected │
│ │ │ with │
│ │ │ sanitary. │
Fresno, Cal. │ 5,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Chamber for
│ │ │ │ trapping
│ │ │ │ crude oil.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│ 2,800,000│ 90%.│Separate. │Coarse
N. Y. │ │ │ │ screens.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │ 18,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
Texas │ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers for
│ │ │ │ two-thirds
│ │ │ │ of sewage.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │Separate. │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │Separate. │Grit chamber.
N.Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │130,000,000│ │Separate with │Coarse screens
Wis. │ │ │ first wash │ and grit
│ │ │ from street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 2,000,000│ 75%.│Separate with │Coarse bar
N.Y. │ │ │ much wet │ screens.
│ │ │ weather │
│ │ │ infiltration.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │ 4,000,000│ All.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │ │
Pasadena, │ 2,000,000│ 95%.│Separate with │None.
Cal. │ │ │ first wash │
│ │ │ from street. │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │ 24,872,000│ │Combined. │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,250,000│ One-│Combined first │Coarse screens
Pa. │ │ third│ wash from │ and grit
│ │ of 1%.│ street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 6,000,000│ 60%.│Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 55,000,000│ All.│Combined. │Six detritus
Y. │dry weather│ │ │ tanks and
│ flow,│ │ │ fine
│173,000,000│ │ │ screens.
│wet weather│ │ │
│ flow.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │ 72,000,000│ 70%.│Separate and │
N.Y. │ │ │ combined. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers 20
│ │ │ │ x 30 ft.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │ 100,000│ │ │Grit chamber.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │ 1,500,000│ │Separate. │Coarse screens
R. I. │ │ │ │ between
│ │ │ │ screening
│ │ │ │ basins and
│ │ │ │ pump well.
Worcester, │ │All dry│Separate and │Grit chambers
Mass. │ │weather│ combined. │
│ │ flow│ │
│ │ and│ │
│ │ first│ │
│ │part of│ │
│ │ storm│ │
│ │ water.│ │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────┴───────────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├──────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────
│ What │ Gallons │ Daily │ Kind and
│Percentage│ Pumped │Capacity of│ Number of
│of Sewage │ Annually │ Pumps │ Pumps
│is Pumped │ │ │
│ to Plant │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│Large │ Three 10│Three var. │
│ part. │[M.G.]D. each│ speed 24 │
│ │ and three 15│ in. and │
│ │[M.G.]D. each│ three │
│ │ │ const. 24│
│ │ │ in. │
│ │ │ electric │
│ │ │ power. │
Atlanta, Ga. │Some. │ 50,000,000│ │Centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │None. │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │All. │ │6,000,000 │Two Knowles
Mass. │ │ │ │ triple
│ │ │ │ expansion
│ │ │ │ condensing
│ │ │ │ steam power.
Bloomington, │None. │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │All once │5,163,000,000│50,000,000 │One 12 in.
Ohio. │ and 10% │ │ │ Worthington,
│ twice. │ │ │ one 20 in.
│ │ │ │ Morris, two
│ │ │ │ 18 in. and
│ │ │ │ one 12 in.
│ │ │ │ De Lavel.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
Canton, Ohio.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│All. │ │22,500,000 │Two
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ steam power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │All. │ 1,000,000 a│60,000,000 │Four
Wis. │ │ day.│ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│None. │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │105.2% │8,611,000,000│30,000,000 │One air
Texas │ some │ │ │ ejector six
│ twice. │ │ │ single
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ pumps.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│None. │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │95%. │ 788,000,000│720,000 │Centrifugal
N.Y. │ │ │ power. │ steam
Milwaukee, │33%. │ 42,000,000│60,000,000 │Three
Wis. │ │ │ │ centrifugal,
│ │ │ │ 20 million
│ │ │ │ each.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │15%. │ 110,000,000│5,000,000 │Two vertical
N.Y. │ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │None. │ │ │
Pasadena, │None. │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │Yes. │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Yes. │ 450,000,000│4,000,000 │One eight in.
Pa. │ │ │ │ and one ten
│ │ │ │ in.
│ │ │ │ Worthington,
│ │ │ │ vertical. By
│ │ │ │ gas.
Reading, Pa. │All. │ │One 6 and │Two
│ │ │ the other│ centrifugal
│ │ │ 8 │ electric
│ │ │ millions.│ power.
Rochester, N.│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │40%. │ 40,000,000│15,000,000 │Five direct
N.Y. │ │ │ │ connected
│ │ │ │ motor
│ │ │ │ vertical
│ │ │ │ centrifugal.
Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │No. │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │100%. │ │2,200 per │Centrifugal.
R. I. │ │ │ min. │ By steam.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │2%. │ │ │Four
Mass. │ │ │ │ centrifugal.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────
─────────────┬──────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├────────────────┬─────────
│ Annual Cost of │Number of
│Pumping Station │ Feet
│ │Sewage is
│ │ raised
│ │
│ │
├────────┬───────┤
│ Total │ Per │
│ │Million│
│ │ Gals. │
│ │Raised │
│ │a Foot │
─────────────┼────────┼───────┼─────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Brockton, │ $30,000│ .975│ 40.
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │ $23,656│ .16│ 21.6
Ohio. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Danbury, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ │ │ 42.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Gloversville,│ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Houston, │ $23,500│ .136│ .25.
Texas │ est.│ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
│ │ │
Lackawanna, │ 9,000│ │ 18.
N.Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ 22.
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │ │ 26 ft.
N.Y. │ │ │including
│ │ │friction.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New Britain, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │
Pasadena, │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │ │ 41.
Pa. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ $14,500│ │ 39.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Schenectady, │ $10,000│ │ 23.
N.Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │ │ 20⅓
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Worcester, │5,509.35│ │
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴────────┴───────┴─────────
Table II (c)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)