The Future of Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment: Evolution Not Revolution

Abstract

Harleman and Murcott challenge the professionals in the wastewater industry to adopt a specific technology, chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT). They opine that its lack of broader acceptance is due to lack of publications covering the practice, absence of basic research, concerns over sludge production, risk adverse design consultants, the profit motive of design consultants who are aligned with more expensive solutions, and the lack of competitiveness in technology applications in the USA. There is value in reviewing any technology, innovative or well proven, and encouraging its unfettered consideration. However in this case, Harleman and Murcott move well beyond an objective technical assessment of CEPT technology. Their claim of the neglect of this technology by international water quality experts caused a member of the Editorial Board of Water 21 to invite us to submit this discussion. We accepted this responsibility and believe Harleman and Murcott should be held accountable for their blanket attack on the professional integrity of a broad class of environmental engineering professionals. The senior discusser has been involved in process development of particle separation