Part 16
Mr. HATTON. No.
Mr. POWELL. You know the system to which I refer; they had it in England in one place, and then started it in Canada, and it was not a success?
Mr. HATTON. That is, they passed from aerating beds----
Mr. POWELL. No; they passed first into an inclosed chamber, where the bacteria destroyed it.
Mr. HATTON. I should imagine, from what you say, that must be the process by which both the aerobic and the anaerobic bacteria are the destroyers.
Mr. POWELL. Exactly.
Mr. HATTON. We do not want any anaerobic bacteria in our process, because it produces septic action, which is inimical to our process, because it absorbs the oxygen and interferes with the efficiency of the process.
Mr. POWELL. Can you take the sludge from the Imhoff tank and use it, or treat it the same as you are treating the sludge there in Milwaukee now?
Mr. HATTON. We can; but the trouble is that the sludge from the Imhoff tank, as we have found it in Milwaukee, only contains about from 1 to 1½ per cent of ammoniacal nitrogen at most, and that does not pay for its recovery. I want to say another thing about this which is of interest. There is no odor about the operation of the plant at all. You can stand over one of the tanks as it is being aerated and have no odor come to you, or no odor throughout the entire plant, unless you let the sludge stay undried.
Mr. TAWNEY. To what do you attribute the lower percentage in the sludge taken from the Imhoff tanks?
Mr. HATTON. The fermentation process removes the ammonias from the sludge. Well, practically all the reduction of the sludge in the Imhoff tank proposition is the fermentation process, and of course that removes a large portion of fertilizer values in the sludge.
Mr. MAGRATH. Are there any weak features in this process that you look forward to correcting?
Mr. HATTON. There are some problems which we are investigating, with a view of getting a more economical use of the air, and thus a lower cost of operation, and that problem concerns the diffusion of the air in the tanks. We are trying out three methods of diffusion. We are not prepared to say yet which is the most economical. I am giving you the figures based upon that which we have used, and our whole efforts now are being directed to reducing the amount of air used. That is the principal point which we are investigating at the present time.
Mr. TAWNEY. How does the operating cost of your system compare with the operating cost of the Imhoff tanks?
Mr. POWELL. The operating cost of the Imhoff tank is considerably less than the operating cost of our tanks. They have no air to pay for, and very little plant attendance to pay for.
Mr. MAGRATH. As I understand you, the cost to the municipality under your system is less than the cost under the other system?
Mr. HATTON. The cost of the Imhoff tank, you mean?
Mr. MAGRATH. Yes.
Mr. HATTON. That is true of installations of any magnitude.
Mr. TAWNEY. Installation, but not operation?
Mr. HATTON. On both--that is, taking into consideration the value of the sludge recovered.
Mr. MAGRATH. Your system costs the municipality less than the other system?
Mr. HATTON. Providing they sell the sludge. I want to make it plain to you gentlemen that I am not giving you this information as it may pertain to Detroit or Buffalo or any other city, but as it concerns Milwaukee, because I am not in a position to speak of it here, not knowing your situation.
Mr. TAWNEY. You state that you recently had your plant examined by a number of the leading consulting sanitary engineers of the country, and that while they all agreed that your system was successful, so far as purification of sewage was concerned, they expressed doubt as to the disposing of the sludge. On what do they base their skepticism or doubt with reference to the sludge disposal?
Mr. HATTON. Past experience.
Mr. TAWNEY. Your past experience?
Mr. HATTON. No; past experience of the sanitary engineers who have expressed that doubt. As I started to say, or I think I did say at the beginning of my remarks, that disposition of the sludge was the greatest problem, both in Europe and America, and this was so easy, apparently, to dispose of, that they were from Missouri and had to be shown.
Mr. TAWNEY. After seeing the way in which you disposed of sludge in Milwaukee plant, did that satisfy them or remove their doubts as to the efficiency of your method?
Mr. HATTON. They have not seen it yet.
Mr. TAWNEY. I thought you said they personally visited it.
Mr. HATTON. They have personally visited it. We put it in operation, but our press broke down. We have only put this portion of it in operation in the last two weeks, and it is only now we have begun to dry it; we did not have a dryer before.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Do you use the rotary dryer?
Mr. HATTON. The rotary direct dryer.
Mr. MAGRATH. I interrupted you when you were about to say that in 90 days you would demonstrate something, and you stopped.
Mr. HATTON. I told these engineers that in 90 days I would demonstrate the possibilities of disposing of the sludge, but I have already demonstrated it before the end of the 90 days. I think I said that at Syracuse some time ago in an address I delivered.
Mr. MAGRATH. In an address made, I think, in 1915 you expressed some doubt as to the efficacy of your method in winter months?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; I did; and in order to try out this system in Milwaukee during the winter months was the purpose of building this 1,600,000-gallon plant which we are now operating; that was the primary object of building that plant, which cost us $65,000, and we got it in operation the first week in January and we have operated it since continuously with temperatures as low as 20° below zero, with a clear effluent during the cold winter months coming out of the plant as that effluent which you see there in that bottle. We had no freezing and no trouble with ice. We had, of course, much lower nitrates in our effluent than we had in the summer months; in fact, we had very little nitrates, but we kept up the stability about 104 to 110 hours’ average; some of them went up higher. We go on the basis of 5 days’ stability test instead of 10 days. The American Public Health Association suggest that five days is all we need.
You ask me about the relative cost of the Imhoff tank installation and operating as compared with the activated sludge. Our investigations in Milwaukee show that the cost of the Imhoff tank, without sterilization, is $6.20 per million gallons--that includes all overhead charges--as against $7.81 for the activated sludge. The cost of the Imhoff tank----
Mr. TAWNEY. Is that an estimated or actual cost?
Mr. HATTON. That is the cost from the operation of our plant.
Mr. TAWNEY. Actual operation?
Mr. HATTON. Actual operation.
Mr. TAWNEY. Is it not an estimated cost?
Mr. HATTON. No. The cost of the Imhoff tank with sterilization, reducing the bacteria 85 per cent, was $9.51 per million gallons, as against $7.81 for the activated sludge. Mark you, the bacterial removal in the activated sludge was 95.5 per cent for that cost, whereas the bacterial removal in the Imhoff with chlorination was 85 per cent; and we attempted--and the report is in here--to sterilize our Imhoff tank effluent to that point comparable with the activated sludge, and found that the cost of the process was about $14.50 per million gallons.
Prof. PHELPS. How much chlorine does that represent?
Mr. HATTON. Eight and five-tenths parts, which costs $5 per million gallons, based on 7 cents per pound; that is 3 cents per pound less than we were paying for it; and we believed--in fact, we were assured--that if we bought it by carload lots we could get it for 7 cents per pound at that time.
Mr. POWELL. Now, circumstanced or conditioned as Milwaukee is, how does the cost of disposing of your sewage, as at present carried on, compare with what it would be if you dumped it in its raw state into the lake, that is taking the raw sewage when it comes from the end of the sewage pipe? Is Milwaukee the gainer or the loser by disposing of the sewage as you suggest?
Mr. HATTON. Well, undoubtedly the gainer.
Mr. POWELL. That is, by treating the sewage as you treat it, and disposing of the product, the fertilizer, Milwaukee is the gainer, as against dumping it in its raw condition into the lake?
Mr. HATTON. Decidedly.
Mr. POWELL. That is something consequential.
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. TAWNEY. Financially, it is disposing of the sewage at a profit, as I understand?
Mr. HATTON. Oh, no; I do not want you to think that. We do not get enough profit out of our sludge to pay for the treatment of the sewage.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is the inference I drew from your answer.
Mr. MIGNAULT. What you say is that it pays to dispose of the sludge after the treatment process?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; there is a profit in it, but not sufficient to pay for the whole cost.
Mr. MIGNAULT. When the sludge has been treated you calculate the cost of drying it and disposing of it, and you make a profit out of it?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. Take a million gallons of sewage at the point of delivery here in Detroit, and assume Detroit to be circumstanced or conditioned just the same as Milwaukee is from a sewage standpoint, what would it cost to bring that sewage up to the point at which you take it for the purpose of manufacturing into fertilizer?
Mr. HATTON. It costs $7.81 per million gallons, and we get therefrom practically $3. I am taking the lowest estimate now, making a cost of $4.81 for the treatment of sewage. I think that answers the question.
Mr. TAWNEY. For 1,000,000 gallons?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; per million gallons.
Mr. POWELL. Where does the $3 come in?
Mr. HATTON. It is the profit from the sludge.
Mr. TAWNEY. Deducting the cost of treating it?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. The actual cost is $4.81.
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. POWELL. Following up the question Mr. Magrath asked you, to anticipate any necessary outlays you made for improvements, without regard to this, taking the machinery as it is to-day, is there anything that you think would come in to disturb these features and upset them in the present conditions?
Mr. HATTON. As to the process?
Mr. POWELL. Yes.
Mr. HATTON. Nothing that has been discovered so far.
Mr. POWELL. You do not anticipate anything?
Mr. HATTON. Nothing at all; if I did, sir, I would hardly be warranted in recommending to my board the expenditure of two and a half millions for this process. That is the best way to answer that. We have adopted this process, and are going ahead to build it as soon as we get our land, which has to be condemned partially.
Mr. MAGRATH. Before you leave the subject, many municipalities, as you know, dump crude sewage into flowing water, and consequently they have not arranged their collecting sewers at any particular point. In the application of this system of yours is it necessary that there should be a collection of the sewage at some particular point, or could it be applied quickly to those existing municipalities?
Mr. HATTON. That is one of the features about the process. While it is always desirable to get one point to dispose of your sewage, where the cost is considerable for intercepting sewers to get at that one point it is better to divide up those numbers of points, providing you can do so without nuisance and at less cost than the intercepting sewers, and with this process it can be built and operated in the heart of the city without any nuisance arising. I think that answers the question, does it not?
Mr. MIGNAULT. Is there any difference in that respect between your treatment and the Imhoff tank treatment?
Mr. HATTON. I think not. There is no odor that is objectionable about an Imhoff tank.
Mr. MIGNAULT. I mean as to the necessity of intercepting sewers?
Mr. HATTON. I think not.
Mr. MIGNAULT. In either case, the question of intercepting sewers is a question to be considered, according to the layout of the ground?
Mr. HATTON. No; not altogether that; according to the layout of the ground and according to the process which you propose. If, for instance, you should go beyond the Imhoff tank process and put in sprinkling filters or nitrifying beds, then you would have to get outside of the city, in order to prevent the nuisance arising from those beds.
Mr. MIGNAULT. Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. Is there any advantage in your system as to the multiplying of the treatment works, in order to avoid the construction of intercepting sewers?
Mr. HATTON. Between the two works?
Mr. MIGNAULT. Yes.
Mr. HATTON. No; I think not.
Mr. POWELL. Your process is not affected by atmospheric conditions at all?
Mr. HATTON. No; except that----
Mr. POWELL. Except extreme cold?
Mr. HATTON. Yes. We have to use more air in the cold weather than we do in the warm weather, in order to get the same quality of effluent, approximately this winter 12 per cent more air.
Mr. POWELL. It means practically 12 per cent additional cost?
Mr. HATTON. Of the air alone; but this cost I have quoted is the actual cost of summer and winter conditions.
Mr. FENKELL. May I ask a question? To what extent would it be necessary to allow untreated water to escape because of rainstorm?
Mr. HATTON. We are anticipating at the present time, or will anticipate in this plant, 150 gallons of rain water per capita; that is all the rain water that will be carried to the plant, and that rain water will be treated the same as the dry-weather flow. The balance of the rain water will go into the river.
Mr. POWELL. That is per diem?
Mr. HATTON. Per capita; 150 gallons per capita per day.
Mr. DOW. May I ask the witness whether I am correct in my summing up of the advantage of his method over the Imhoff tank method, in that it tends to reduce the net cost by producing a readily marketable fertilizer; that is the essential advantage. Am I correct in so understanding?
Mr. HATTON. Not altogether, sir. As far as your statement goes, it is correct, but to get a removal of 95 per cent of bacteria from the raw sewage, it costs considerably more to do it by the Imhoff tank and sterilization than it does by this process. I just quoted the figures.
Mr. DOW. Then initially, the advantage is that, with equal operating costs a higher removal of bacteria is possible by this process?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. DOW. And in addition thereto, there is a certain commercial advantage, in that the product is readily marketable?
Mr. HATTON. Yes.
Mr. DOW. Much more readily marketed than the Imhoff product?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; that is true.
Mr. DOW. As regards the latter phase of the situation, am I correct also in my supposition that the present prices for fertilizers are abnormal, having regard to the prices prior to the war, say 1914?
Mr. HATTON. No; the price of two and a half per unit is the price that existed prior to the war; the price of ammoniacal nitrogen to-day is considerably higher than that.
Mr. DOW. The figures given are based upon what might be considered normal markets, and not upon the present very abnormal prices?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; for instance, phosphoric acid is worth to-day 10 times as much as the quotations I have used in making my valuations.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any questions, Prof. Phelps?
Prof. PHELPS. No.
Mr. DALLYN. Just one point that Mr. Mignault brought out. Comparing the results of your process with the Imhoff tank, Mr. Mignault rather concluded that the Imhoff tank could be used in the same location as your plant. Is it not true that the effluents from the two types of treatment compare as the two samples on the table, activated sludge effluent being clear, and that from the Imhoff tank turbid and discolored, similar to raw sewage?
Mr. HATTON. That is true. I answered that with the idea of nuisance to the adjacent neighbor.
Mr. DALLYN. What is your actual saving, as you actually contemplate placing interceptors, collecting the sewage, in the adoption of your method?
Mr. HATTON. We are saving about $2,000,000 in carrying out the subaqueous tunnel a mile and a half out to sea, as the original board of engineers suggested.
Mr. POWELL. I understood you to give that as the esthetic feature?
Mr. HATTON. Yes; not only esthetic feature, but the purification feature; in other words, the local engineer has indicated that he would not permit, with his sanction, any sewage disposal plant which would deposit that much suspended matter in the harbor.
Mr. MIGNAULT. The question I put to you was to ascertain, in case they decided to establish other treatment plants in order to avoid constructing sewers, whether your system had any advantage over the Imhoff-tank system?
Mr. HATTON. As I answered your question before, I was looking upon it with a view to nuisance to the neighborhood. As to nuisance which might arise from the discoloration of the water, I should say the Imhoff tank would be far more deleterious in that respect than our process; but as to nuisances arising in the waters due to decomposition, assuming that the sterilization of the Imhoff tank liquor is complete, then the two plants would be practically equal, as to nuisances arising outside of the discoloration of the water.
Prof. PHELPS. In regard to the matter which Mr. Mignault has brought out, I think it should be stated that, as far as the city of Detroit is concerned, and also as far as Buffalo is concerned, the question of interceptors, or of local plant, was not determined by the character of the treatment, but was determined solely by the physical conditions--that is, it was impossible for us to locate the local plants and thus save the interceptors, by reason of the levels of the sewers and the inaccessibility of available land. We did consider local treatment, and if it had been feasible it would have represented considerable saving. The determination is not conditioned by the character of the treatment.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you anything further to say?
Mr. HATTON. No.
Mr. TAWNEY. On behalf of the commission, I desire to extend to you our sincere thanks for your appearing before us, coming from Milwaukee for that purpose, and giving us the very interesting and clear statement you have concerning the operation of your plant in Milwaukee and the process of it.
Mr. POWELL. We can all assent to that.
Mr. GARDNER. Without any question.
Mr. MIGNAULT. You refer to the published report of the city of Milwaukee. Is that available?
Mr. HATTON. I would be glad to give it to the commission. I am sorry to say it is the last one.
Mr. TAWNEY. That is the only one you have?
Mr. HATTON. Except our own office copy.
Mr. MIGNAULT. And the process is described?
Mr. HATTON. Quite well; and the results.
Mr. MAGRATH. I suppose it is impossible to get copies of this any place?
Mr. HATTON. Well, there are some of them in public laboratories throughout the country and among engineers; but we had a pretty lively demand for them and we only had 500 copies issued, and they are all gone. That is a copy I picked up on my desk yesterday.
Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement here regarding lake currents which would elucidate what Mr. Hatton was not quite familiar with.
Mr. Goddard, assistant engineer at Grand Rapids of the United States engineer office, read a paper before the Engineers’ Club, of Grand Rapids in April, 1916, which included his own experience, as well as a compilation of the results of the studies of others and covering a number of years. His conclusions were that the currents in the Lakes are produced primarily by the winds and secondarily by variation in barometric pressure.
Wind currents follow the direction of the wind.
Pressure currents flow from high to low pressure areas.
The flow through the Straits of Mackinac in either way, according as the above conditions prevail.
STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE A. LEISEN, GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WATERWORKS OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Leisen, you are the president of the Great Lakes Pure Water Association, are you not?
Mr. LEISEN. No, sir.
Mr. TAWNEY. Are you connected with that association?
Mr. LEISEN. I have a letter from the secretary asking me to represent the association at this meeting.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you examined this report of the consulting engineer of the commission?
Mr. LEISEN. I regret to say that I did not see that report until yesterday at noon, and I think you can realize that I have not. While I had endeavored to read over a part of it I have not been able to digest it.
Mr. TAWNEY. What are the functions of your organization?
Mr. LEISEN. The functions are largely the questions from the sanitary point of view of preserving the purity of the waters of the Great Lakes.
Mr. TAWNEY. It is a voluntary organization?
Mr. LEISEN. It is a voluntary organization without any official standing. It is simply an auxiliary to the health departments in an unofficial way, I should say.
Mr. TAWNEY. Where are the headquarters located?
Mr. LEISEN. Practically they have no headquarters.
Mr. POWELL. Who are the officers?
Mr. LEISEN. Mr. Paul Hansom, of the Illinois State Board of Health, is the secretary; and Dr. Charles J. Hastings is president.
Mr. POWELL. Has your organization followed the work of the International Joint Commission in this investigation?
Mr. LEISEN. My familiarity with the organization is almost nil. As I say, I had a conversation with Mr. Hansom in New York relative to the matter a few weeks ago, and he asked me if I was still a member of the association. As a matter of fact, that did not come to a definite point until I got his letter asking me to represent them here. Officially, I am not in a position to say very much about the association or what they have done. It is a newly organized body.
Mr. POWELL. When was it organized?
Mr. LEISEN. Some time during the past years.
Mr. POWELL. What are its purposes?
Mr. LEISEN. I think the preservation of the purity of the waters of the Great Lakes.
Mr. TAWNEY. And also the connecting rivers, I suppose?
Mr. LEISEN. Well, yes.
Mr. TAWNEY. Have you any statement which you desire to make to the commission in respect to the pollution of these waters?
Mr. LEISEN. As you understand, I am the general superintendent for the board of water commissioners here in Detroit, and as such have charge of the water supply. So, naturally, my interest from that point of view would be toward----
Mr. TAWNEY. You appeared before the commission two years ago, when we were here, did you not?
Mr. LEISEN. Yes, sir.