United States Environmental Research
Environmental Protection Information Center
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268
Environmental Protection Information Center QO^hl "7QOO 1
July 1979
X-/EPA QECHNOLOGY
DRANSFER
The Bridge Between
Research and Use
Summary of
National Operational and Maintenance
Cause and Effect Survey
Francis L. Evans III
Urban Systems Management Section
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, USEPA
Cincinnati, Ohio
Significant potential exists for improving the performance of biological treatment
systems simply and inexpensively by upgrading operation and maintenance
programs, improving attention to management and administrative requirements, and
by making low-cost correction of design deficiencies.
These are the results of the first large-scale effort in this country to identify and
quantify specific cause and effect relationships in problems of performance,
operation, and maintenance of biological wastewater treatment plants A three and
one-half year study was conducted nationwide to collect and analyze data from a
statistically significant number of operating plants The purpose of the study was to
identify deficiencies which caused poor plant performance, to weigh and rank, in
order of seventy of impact, the causative factors of poor performance at each facility,
and to demonstrate on a limited basis the improvement in plant perf or ma nee that can
be achieved without major capital improvement when all limiting factors are
corrected.
Selection Criteria
Plants were selected for study based on sequential screening and selection
procedures. EPA regional offices and state regulatory agencies assisted in initial
selection of plants by compiling a list of potential study sites. Plants not meeting one
or more of the folio wing general screening criteria were eliminated from the selection
process:
1. The plant must incorporate some variation of suspended growth, fixed film, or
aerated lagoon biological treatment
2. The plant should not be severely hydraulically or organically overloaded, nor
have obvious identifiable structural or component deficiencies.
3. The plants should range in size up to 10 mgd and all major units should be
operating
4. No enforcement action should be underway or pending against the munici-
pality or authority involved
A total of 287 site visits were made to collect more detailed data than the original
screening information in order to select those plants at which comprehensive
evaluations would be conducted. These initial site visits required one-half to one full
day at each facility to evaluate such things as process flow sheets, influent and
effluent wastewater characteristics; condition of equipment, and discharge permit
criteria. Also, the plant superintendent and operating personnel were questioned
regarding problems they saw as interfering with plant operations
-------
One hundred and eighty-four facilities were eliminated for
various reasons at this stage of the study; thus, 103
facilities remained as best suited for comprehensive
evaluation. The purpose of the comprehensive evaluation
was to examine, in detail, the system and unit process
performance and to evaluate existing operation, mainten-
ance, and administrative practices. Each plant evaluation
involved a team of professional engineers and plant opera-
ting personnel and required three to five days of on-site
field work. In all, 70 potential problem areas were
addressed at each facility.
In order to quantify and report the deficiencies and
problems at plant sites, both individually and collectively, a
plant evaluation summary was developed, consisting of a
weighing scale and a ranking table. The scale was devised
to rank the 70 different factors that could limit plant
performance. For each factor identified at a facility, the
extent to which it adversely impacted plant performance
was quantified according to the weighing scale points as
defined in Table 1. The factors affecting plant performance
were then ranked in decreasing order of seventy.
TABLE 1. WEIGHING SCALE
ADVERSE IMPACT
USED TO QUANTIFY
Weighing Effect of Specific Factor on
Scale Plant Performance
0 No significant effect on plant performance
1 Minor effect on plant performance
2 Minimum indirect effect on plant performance
on continuous basis or major direct effect
on plant performance on a periodic basis
3 Major direct effect on plant performance
Major Causes of Poor Plant
Performance
Based on the results of the comprehensive surveys, the 10
highest ranking causes of poor plant performance result
from inadequate plant operation and plant design
deficiencies. The highest-ranking factor (#1) was
inadequate operator application of concepts and testing to
process control. This, coupled with the fourth-ranked
factor, inadequate understanding of wastewater
treatment, indicates that for various reasons operators
were not applying the proper concepts of operation to
process control. These reasons are attributable to
inadequate or incorrect sampling and testing procedures
for process control (Factor #2), improper technical
guidance (Factor #5), ineffective O&M manual instruction
(Factor #9), and significant design deficiencies (Factors
#3, 6, 7, 8, and 10), all of which prevent an operator from
controlling and "tuning" his treatment system to varying
influent hydraulic and pollutant loading characteristics.
The 10 major causes of poor plant performance are
described as follows:
1. Operator Application of Concepts and Testing to
Process Control—This factor was ranked as the
most severe deficiency and leading cause of poor
performance at 23 facilities and was a high-ranked
factor at a total of 89 out of the 103 plants evaluated.
It occurs when a trained operator in a satisfactorily
designed plant permits less than optimum
performance. This factor was ranked when incorrect
control adjustment or incorrect control test interpre-
tation occurred, or when the use of existing inade-
quate design features continued when seemingly
obvious operations alternatives or minor plant modi-
fications could have been implemented to improve
performance. The lack of testing and control were not
necessarily the result of inadequate training or
comprehension in these areas, but simply the lack of
or inability to apply learned techniques.
2. Process Control Testing Procedures—Inadequate
process control testing involves the absence or
wrong type of sampling or testing for process
monitoring and operational control. This deficiency
leads to making inappropriate decisions. Standard
unit process tests such as mixed liquor suspended
solids, mixed liquor dissolved oxygen, mixed liquor
settleable solids, and return sludge suspended solids
for activated sludge processes were seldom or never
conducted. Also, important operating parameters
such as sludge volume index, F:M ratio and mean cell
retention time in suspended growth systems or
recirculation rates in trickling filter plants were
usually not determined This factor adversely
impacted performance at 67 of the 103 plants
evaluated.
3. Infiltration/Inflow—The results of this widespread
problem are manifested by severe fluctuations in
flow rates, periods of severe hydraulic overloading,
and dilution of the influent wastewater so that both
suspended and fixed biological systems are loaded to
less than optimal values. The extreme result is the
"washout" of suspended growth systems as a result
of the loss of solids from the final clarification stage
during high flow periods. This factor was ranked first
at 56 of the 103 plants evaluated.
4. Inadequate Understanding of Wastewater
Treatment—This factor is distinguished from Factor
#1 in that it is defined as a deficiency in the level of
-------
knowledge that individual staffs at various
facilities exhibit concerning wastewater treatment
fundamentals. On occasion, an operator's primary
concern is simply to keep the equipment functional
rather than to learn how the equipment relates to the
processes and their control. This factor adversely
affected performance at 50 plants and was the
leading cause of poor performance at nine facilities.
5. Technical Guidance—Improper technical guidance
includes misinformation from authoritative sources
including design engineers, state and federal regula-
tory agency personnel, equipment suppliers,
operator training staff and other plant operators. At
any one plant, improper technical guidance was
observed to come from more than one source. This
factor was ranked as the most severe deficiency at
seven plants, and was an adverse factor at 47
facilities.
6. Sludge Wasting Capability—This factor was ranked
as the leading cause of poor performance at nine
facilities and was a factor at 43 plants studied. This
factor includes inadequate sludge handling facilities
and the inability to measure and control the volume of
waste sludge. Either one or both of these conditions
was noted as having a major impact on performance
at several plants.
7. Process Controllability—The lack of controllability
was evident in the inability to adequately measure
and control flow streams such as return sludge flow
and trickling filter recirculation rates. While
measurement and control of return activated sludge
flow were the most frequent reasons for rating this
factor, process controllability was not a major cause
of poor performance. It prevented an operator from
"tuning" his treatment system to the varying
demands which were placed on it by hydraulic and
organic loading fluctuations. This factor occurred at
55 plants and was the leading factor at three
facilities
8. Process Flexibility—Lack of flexibility refers to the
unavailability of valves, piping and other appurten-
ances required to operate in various modes or to
include or exclude existing processes as necessary to
optimize performance. Poor flexibility precludes the
ability to operate an activated sludge plant in the
contact stabilization, step loading or conventional
modes and the ability to bypass polishing ponds or
other downstream processes to discharge high qual-
ity secondary clarifier effluent. Either the lack of, or
inadequate, process flexibility was noted as the lead-
ing cause of poor performance at three plants and
was a factor at 37 facilities.
9. Ineffective O&M Manual Instruction—This situa-
tion, existing at 40 plants, was judged serious
although the adverse effect was moderate. The poor
quality of most plants' O&M manuals undoubtedly
has contributed to operators' general lack of under-
standing of the importance of process control and the
inability to practice it, but a competent staff could use
other available information sources.
10. Aerator Design—Deficiencies in aerator design were
the major cause of poor performance at six facilities
and were less significant factors at an additional 21
plants. Deficiencies were noted in the type, size,
shape, capacity, and location of the unit and were of
such a nature as to hinder adequate treatment of the
waste flow and loading and stable operation.
In addition to the top 10 causes of poor plant performance
as described above, the 70 potential problem areas were
weighed and ranked for all plants studied. Table 2 lists the
factors in decreasing order of severity of impact on
performance. For each factor the area of design, operation,
maintenance, or administration is identified. Also shown
is the number of times that a factor was ranked Number 1 ;
i.e., the number of times the factor was the leading cause
of poor performance, and also the number of plants at
which the factor had a "minor" or more serious adverse
impact on plant performance In some cases, plant evalua-
tions did not include every factor being evaluated for
potential adverse impact. These factors are marked in the
table by an asterisk. However, all factors were noted as
having an adverse impact either when the factor was
present and a deficiency or an adverse effect was observed
or when the factor was not present and an adverse effect
resulted from its absence. As noted on the table, opera-
tional problems and design deficiencies comprise the top
16 leading causes of poor plant performance.
TABLE 2. COLLECTIVE RANKING OF FACTORS LIMITING PLANT PERFORMANCE
Factor Area
2
3
4
Operation
Operation
Design
Operation
Limiting Factor
No of Times
Description
Operator Application of Concepts & Testing
to Process Control
Process Control Testing
infiltration/Inflow
Sewage Treatment Understanding
Factor was
ranked #1
24
0
9
9
Factor was
noted
89
67
56
50
-------
TABLE 2. cont'd
Limiting Factor
Factor Area Description
5 Operation Technical Guidance
6 Design Sludge Wasting & Return Capability
7 Design Secondary Process Controllability
8 Design Secondary Process Flexibility
9 Operation O&M Manual Inadequacy!*)
10 Design Aerator
11 Design Sludge Treatment!*)
12 Design Industrial Loading
13 Operation Staff Training
14 Design Secondary Clarifier
15 Operation Performance Monitoring
16 Design Ultimate Sludge Disposal
17 Administration Plant Administration, Familiarity with Needs
18 Design Disinfection!*)
19 Administration Plant Staff - Number
20 Design Plant Hydraulic Loading
21 Administration Plant Staff - Plant Coverage
22 Maintenance Spare Parts Inventory
23 Design Laboratory Space & Equipment
24 Design Return Process Stream
25 Operation Equipment Malfunction
26 Maintenance Lack of Preventive Maintenance Program
27 Design Alternative Power Source
28 Design Organic Loading
29 Maintenance General Housekeeping
30 Maintenance Maintenance Scheduling & Recording
31 Administration Administration Policies
32 Administration Plant Staff Productivity
33 Administration Insufficient Funding
34 Maintenance Manpower
35 Design Preliminary Unit Design!*)
36 Administration Staff Motivation
37 Administration Working Conditions
38 Design Alarm Systems
39 Maintenance Critical Parts Procurement
40 Design Flow Proportioning to Units
41 Operation Staff Aptitude
42 Design Inoperability Due to Weather
43 Administration Staff Supervision
44 Design Primary Units)*)
45 Maintenance Equipment Age
46 Operation O&M Manual - Use by Operators!*)
47 Administration Salary
48 Design Lack of Standby Units for Key Equipment
49 Design Lack of Unit By-Pass
50 Maintenance Technical Guidance - Emergencies
51 Maintenance Availability of Preventive Maintenance Ref.
52 Design Flow Backup
53 Operation Staff - Level of Education
54 Design Toxic Loading
55 Design Submerged Weirs
56 Design Plant Location
57 Operation Staff Level of Certification
58 Operation Staff - Insufficient Time on Job
59 Maintenance Staff Expertise - Emergencies
60 Design Seasonal Variation Loading
61 Administration Unnecessary Expenditures
62 Design Process Automation for Control
63 Administration Personnel Turnover
No of Times
Factor was
ranked #1
7
9
3
3
0
6
3
4
0
3
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
7
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Factor was
noted
47
43
55
37
40
27
36
27
31
26
31
30
21
20
22
18
26
23
30
18
17
20
24
13
17
19
15
17
16
14
20
19
18
19
14
12
13
12
13
9
14
12
12
9
12
10
10
7
9
8
6
6
8
7
9
7
7
6
4
-------
TABLE 2. cont'd
Limiting Factor
Factor Area Description
64 Operation Shift Staff Adequacy
65 Design Unit Accessibility
66 Design Process Accessibility for Sampling
67 Design Process Automation for Monitoring
68 Design Equipment Accessibility for Maintenance
69 Administration Bond Indebtedness
70 Design AWT Units(*)
No. of Times
Factor was
ranked #1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Factor was
noted
3
3
4
2
2
0
0
*Not included in every plant evaluated
Program for Improving Plant
Performance
In a critical evaluation of the data, it is important to note
that at each treatment facility, a combination of factors
limiting performance was always observed and that a
single cause of poor performance at any one facility was
never observed. Because there is an interrelationship
between performance limiting factors and corrective
programs, and because most existing correction programs
focus on single problems only, a new approach which
addresses all problems at a single facility is proposed as a
more effective approach in improving existing plant
performance This approach is called a Composite
Correction Program (CCP). The purpose of the CCP is to
eliminate all the performance limiting factors at a plant
through the implementation of the correction
recommendations that are made in the comprehensive
evaluation report. The CCP was successfully
demonstrated at several facilities on a limited scale. When
the program was implemented at the Havre, Montana
Wastewater Treatment Plant, a significant improvement in
plant effluent quality resulted and permit standards could
be met consistently. At the Havre plant, the effluent quality
for six months prior to implementation of the CCP averaged
31 mg/l for BODeand 30 mg/l for TSS. Both BOD sand TSS
concentrations averaged less than 10 mg/l for an eight-
month period following initiation of the CCP and develop-
ment of desired activated sludge characteristics. The
plant's BODs loading increased by 27%, yet BODs dis-
charged to the receiving stream decreased by 68%.
At other facilities where the CCP technical assistance
approach was used, improved performance resulted from
changes in plant operations or minor changes in plant de-
sign features The improvement in effluent quality that
was achieved is shown in Table 3
TABLE 3. COLLECTIVE RANKING OF FACTORS LIMITING PLANT PERFORMANCE
Facility
Havre, MT
Marshfield, MO
St Charles, MO
Mississippi R
Plant
Akron, IA
Belton, MO
Flow
MGD
1 36
048
3 12
013
084
Effluent Quality
BOD&(mg/l)
Before CCP
31
75
9
After CCP
10
8
5
Effluent Quality
TSS (mg I) Major Impact
Before CCP
30
150
2
After CCP
8 Improved Performance
5 Improved Performance
2 Increased Process Stability
72
23
21
10
The significance and impact of a CCP approach to
optimizing plant performance are indicated by improved
effluent quality at the Havre facility and by the potential
improvements which could be realized if such a program
were implemented at all the facilities at which compre-
hensive evaluations were performed. Of the 103 facilities
evaluated only 37 plants (36%) were meeting their
respective NPDES standards consistently or most of the
143
34
8 Improved Performance
15 Improved Performance
and Decreased Costs of
Sludge Handling
time. However, if as a result of the evaluations, the recom-
mendations were implemented, an additional 51
treatment plants could consistently meet NPDES
standards, and 88 plants (86%) would achieve optimal
levels of performance beyond which further improvement
in effluentquality would not be possible without upgrading
the existing facilities.
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
The following conclusions and specific recommendations
are made as a result of this study:
1. Since operator training programs and manuals are
ineffective aids and have minimal impact on insuring
proper plant operation, all federal and state training
programs and literature should be redeveloped to re-
late theoretical consideration to practical operational
situations and present solutions to specific on-site
problems as they arise. Manuals must reflect the
input of the plant operations staff and should be easy
to follow so they will be used on a day-to-day basis.
2. At the facilities planning and design stages, plant
design, operability, and flexibility should be subject to
a specific design and O&M review as a grant-funding
requirement. Such a review would serve to:
a. Emphasize the need for adequate sludge handling
in small plants and design, operation and manage-
ment of existing facilities at large plants.
b. Insure proper design of secondary clarifiers to
eliminate short circuiting and insure uniform
velocity gradients in the sludge blanket.
c. Implement more rational design requirements for
fixed-film biological reactors.
d. Allow and encourage separate treatment of an-
aerobic digester supernatant or require increased
wastewater treatment process unit sizes to ade-
quately receive and treat this recycle flow.
e. Encourage plant flexibility which would allow by-
passing of ponds following mechanical plants and
flexibility to operate activated sludge plants in
various modes.
f. Emphasize good controllability of return activated
sludge flows.
3. In order to assure that process control is practiced at
treatment facilities, the following action should be
taken.
a. Improve training for private and governmental
persons disseminating operations technical assis-
tance. Training must include guided in-plant pro-
cess control experience at various wastewater
treatment facilities to develop capabilities for
proper application of wastewater treatment con-
cepts to process control. Plant design engineers
should be trained in plant operations and process
control
b. Provide more comprehensive and understandable
process control information to operators by design
engineers and technical assistance sources. Such
information should be included in the plant opera-
tion and maintenance manual, which in turn
should reference other manuals provided through
state and federal government for augmentation
and clarification of theory as necessary.
c. Hold persons who disseminate operations techni-
cal guidance accountable for their recommenda-
tions. As a minimum, follow-up phone calls or
plant visits should be used to determine if recom-
mendations given were correct and still apply.
4. Studies to determine the sources of plant perform-
ance problems should be comprehensive in order
that subtle as well as obvious factors which limit
performance are identified. The performance poten-
tial of an existing plant should be verified by con-
ducting a comprehensive evaluation to identify all
factors limiting performance. Plant administrators
should be informed of the CCPapproachto improving
plant performance as an alternative to construction
of major plant modifications.
5. Federal and state regulatory efforts should be
directed toward enforcement and accountability,
specifically to:
a Expand enforcement of IMPDES permitstoencour-
age optimum performance from existing facilities.
b. Require that CCP's be implemented prior to or in
conjunction with construction of new or modified
facilities to insure that existing facilities' capabil-
ities are examined and optimized before unneeded
construction is begun.
6. Budgeting for operation and maintenance of
wastewater treatment facilities must become more
organized and needs-sensitive. Higher priority for
wastewater treatment in the municipal budget must
be established.
Publications and Presentations
Resulting from National O&M Cause
and Effect Survey
— "Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance Factors
Limiting Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
Performance," Pres. Rocky Mountain Water Pollution
Control Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
October 25, 1977.
-------
Hegg, B.A., Rakness, K.L, and Schultz, J.R.; "Evalua-
tion of Operation and Maintenance Factors Limiting
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Performance,"
JWPCF, 50:3, 419-426, March 1978.
"Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance Factors
Limiting Municipal Wastewater Plant Performance-
Phase II," Pres. 51st Conference WPCF, Anaheim,
California, October 1978.
"Operational Factors Affecting Performance of Bio-
logical Treatment Plants," Pres. 51st Annual
Conference WPCF, Anaheim, California, October 1978.
"Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance Factors
Limiting Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Per-
formance," EPA-600/2-79-034, June 1979.
"Evaluation of Operation and Maintenance Factors
Limiting Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant Per-
formance," EPA-600/2-79-078, July 1979.
"A Demonstrated Approach for Improving Performance
and Reliability of Biological Wastewater Treatment
Plants," EPA-600/2-79-035, June 1979.
"Evaluation of Design, Operation, Maintenance and
Administrative Factors Limiting Treatment Plant Per-
formance—Phase II," Draft Final Report, May 1979.
"Evaluation of Operation Maintenance Factors Limit-
ing Biological Treatment Plant Performance—
Phase II," Draft Final Report, June 1979.
New Seminar Series: Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment
The Environmental Research Information Center and the
Water Research Division of the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory are jointly sponsoring a series of
Technology Transfer seminars designed to aid in the
implementation of EPA's new Innovative and Alternative
Technology (I/A) Program.
This program was established by Congress as a
modification of the EPA Construction Grants Program to
allow communities to obtain more than 75% federal grant
money for construction of wastewatertreatmentfacilities.
Provisions of the program include:
— 85% grants for the construction of innovative or
alternative municipal treatment plants instead of
the normal 75% grants.
— The above grant increase (75% to 85%) will be paid
out of a special fund set aside from each state's
allocation each year that can only be used for I/A
technology. This set-aside fund is 2% for the first
two years (FY 79 and 80) and 3% for the last year
(FY81).
— Each year 1/2%of the special set-aside fund must be
used for innovative technology.
— If a new I/A technology fails to meet design goals
during the first two years of operation, another
grant may be awarded for 100% of the costs of
replacing the failed system. This means the
local government and the taxpayers will not have
to pay for new technologies that do not work.
Nine, two-day seminars have been scheduled during the
period August through December 1979 to acquaint engi-
neers and facilities planning personnel with the technical
information necessary to fulfill the program requirements.
Attendance is limited to 200 participants at each seminar.
Seminar sites and dates are listed on page 14 of this
Newsletter. If you are interested in attending one of these
seminars contact
Liz Holzer
JACA Corporation
550 Pinetown Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
(215) 643-5466
Land Treatment Seminars
The Environmental Research Information Center, in
cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, pre-
sented five Technology Transfer seminars in June on the
"Design of Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Ef-
fluents "
These seminars were held in Des Plames, Illinois; Atlanta,
Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts, Phoenix, Arizona; and
Boise, Idaho. Subjects discussed included land treatment
systems, slow rate, high rate, and overland flow; health
aspects; management and monitoring options; develop-
ment of public relations programs, design examples for
each treatment-mode, and selected case histories. EPA's
revised policy and guidance for evaluation of land treat-
ment alternatives (PRM 79-3) in the Construction Grants
program was also covered
-------
8
Continuous Source Monitoring
Handbook Featured at 1979 APCA
Meeting
The newest Technology Transfer handbook, "Continuous
Air Pollution Source Monitoring Systems," was distri-
buted for the first time at the 72nd Annual Air Pollution
Control Association Meeting and Exhibition, held June 26-
28 at the Cincinnati Convention Center.
EPA was represented at the meeting by the Environmental
Research Information Center and the Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratories (Cincinnati, Ohio and
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) who combined
efforts this year to provide information to attendees about
EPA programs and to discuss the handbook. Approximate-
ly 2000 copies of the new publication were distributed.
The Source Monitoring handbook provides the detailed
information necessary to develop a continuous emissions
monitoring program at a stationary source facility. It also
covers continuous monitoring requirements established
by the federal government, general guidelines to aid in
meeting these requirements, details for selecting monitor-
ing instrumentation, and methods for using monitoring
data and systems to improve and optimize source process
operations The manual can be obtained by returning the
order form at the back of this Newsletter (#6005).
Continuous Air
Pollution Source
Monitoring
Systems
Symposium Announcement:
River Basin Water Planning and
Management
The Environmental Research Information Center is help-
ing to coordinate a joint USA/USSR symposium on "River
Basin Water Quality Planning and Management," which
will be held in the Sheraton-Commander Hotel,Cambridge,
Massachusetts, October 22-24. The U S. participation in
the symposium is sponsored by the U S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, and Region 1,
as part of an on-going effort by both countries to promote
the exchange of scientific information and, in this case, to
better understand the water planning and management
activities of each The USSR will be represented by the
research scientists of the All-Union Scientific Research
Institute for Water Protection (VNIIVO), an equivalent
agency to EPA with broad responsibilities for the planning,
research and design of water pollution control systems
and strategies
The main focus of the symposium will be to comparatively
study the water protection planning methods and ap-
proaches of both countries, stressing the technological,
regulatory and institutional constraints The U.S. special-
ists will prepare a river basin water protection plan for a
segment of the Severski-Donet River in the Ukraine
Republic, applying U.S. laws, regulations and technologies.
The Soviet specialists will prepare a similar water plan for
a segment of the Connecticut River in Massachusetts,
based on Soviet constraints and planning approaches.
Each group of representatives will present seven papers
which will include discussions on present and future
water quality goals, regulations; agencies involved in
water pollution control planning and management; deci-
sion-making processes, including considerations of treat-
ment technologies; water quality modeling; and cost/
benefit optimization.
Also of interest to symposim participants will be discus-
sions by the Soviets of some of their treatment technol-
ogies and pollution abatement/management methods
which are not generally applied in the United States.
Attendance at this symposium is open to anyone who is
interested. For further information, contact.
Ms. Sharon Moore
Water Quality Branch
U S Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-5130
-------
ERIC Initiates New Publication:
Summary Report
A Technology Transfer summary report series of publica-
tions has been initiated by the Environmental Research
Information Center for the purpose of aggregating infor-
mation regarding particular environmental pollution
problems. Subareas of a subject or "problem" will be ad-
dressed in individual reports, presenting a comprehensive,
yet concise compilation of information on a particular
topic
Two report series have now been initiated with the recent
publication of summary reports: "Sulfur Oxides Control
Technology: Flue Gas Desulfurization, The Wellman-Lord
Process" and "Control Technology for the Metal-Finishing
Industry: Evaporators."
The Wellman-Lord Process report and future reports in
this Sulfur Oxide Series, such as lime/limestone and
magnesium oxide FGD processes, are funded by the
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park and explain methods for controlling sulfur
dioxide emissions. The Wellman-Lord report describes
design and environmental considerations, present status,
raw material and utility requirements, costs, and installa-
tion space required for the process. This report can be
ordered by checking the appropriate box (#8001) on the
order form on the back of this Newsletter.
The Evaporators report and future reports in the Metal-
Finishing Series, such as reverse osmosis and ion
exchange, are funded by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory in Cincinnati. This initial report
describes the technical and economic advantages, opera-
ting costs, and cost-savings benefits for evaporators used
in electroplating processes. To order the Evaporators
report, check the appropriate box (#8002) on the back of
this Newsletter.
&EPA Summary Report
Sulfur Oxides Control
Technology Series:
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Wellman-Lord
Process
Control Technology
for the
Metal Finishing Industry
Evaporators
-------
10
Additional Small Flows Seminars to
be Conducted
Five Technology Transfer seminars on "Wastewater
Treatment Facilities for Small Communities" will be con-
ducted this year. These seminars will be held in Phoenix,
Arizona, July 17-19, 1979; Portland, Oregon, July 31-
August 2, 1979; Omaha, Nebraska, August 14-16, 1979;
Indianapolis, Indiana, August 28-30, 1979; and New
Orleans, Louisiana, September 18-20, 1979. Although
seminars on this subject have previously been conducted,
this year's seminars will feature two new four-hour
sessions: "Management of On-Site Systems" and
"Methodology for Alternatives Analysis." These sessions
will be particularly helpful for those preparing facility plans
and/or developing an on-site management program.
Individuals wishing to attend the Phoenix, Portland,
Omaha, or New Orleans seminars should write to:
USEPA
c/o Enviro Control, Inc.
P.O. Box 828
Rockville, MD 20851
Those wishing to attend the Indianapolis seminar should
write to:
USEPA
Attn: Marti Velasco, Water Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Workshop on the Use of Nonpoint
Source Pollution Assessment Models
The Environmental Research Information Center, in
cooperation with the Environmental Research Laboratory
in Athens, Georgia, presented a second workshop on the
use of models for the assessment of soluble and sus-
pended pollutants from agricultural and rural lands held
May 1-3, 1979 in Chicago, Illinois.
The Agricultural Runoff Management (ARM) and the Non-
point Source (NPS) models for determmg pollutant loads m
surface water runoff were discussed. The NPS model is
designed for continuous simulation of pollutants in sur-
face water runoff from five different land use categories.
The ARM model is designed to simulate the continuous
runoff of pesticides, sediments and nutrients from rowcrop
agricultural lands.
The workshop presented the structure and orgamzaton of
the models, input description and preparation require-
ments such as the algorithm and parameter processes for
hydrology, sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and land use
categories. In addition, parameter estimation and calibra-
tion of the models were discussed.
EPA Research Reports, EPA-600/3-78-080 and EPA-
600/3-77-065, describing the use of these models, are
available on a limited basis through:
Technical Information Operations Staff
USEPA
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technical information and assistance on use of these
models is available through.
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
Second Workshop on Water Quality
Screening Methodology
The Environmental Research Information Center and the
Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia, are
sponsoring a three-day workshop on water quality assess-
ment techniques for estimating pollutant levels from point
and nonpoint sources and for evaluating their effect on
water quality in streams and reservoirs. The workshop, to
be held in Chicago, Illinois, November 7-9, 1979 is in-
tended for engineers and planners who are involved in
evaluating surface water quality in Section 208 nondesig-
nated areas.
The workshop will present techniques that are included in
the manual, "Water Quality Assessment: A Screening
Method for Nondesignated 208 Areas" (EPA-600/9-77-
023), which was developed under contract by the Office of
Research and Development's Athens laboratory. This
screening method involves several simplified techniques
and, in most cases, can be accomplished with the assis-
tance of a desk-top calculator. The methodology is intend-
ed to be used with little external or collected input; instead,
tables, figures, and appendices of the manual provide
much of the working data.
If you are interested in attending this workshop, contact
Orville Macomber, Environmental Research Information
Center, (513) 684-7394.
The manual is available on a limited basis from:
Technical Information Operations Staff
USEPA
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
New Environmental Pollution Control
Alternatives Publication for
Electroplating Industry
The Environmental Research Information Center has
published a new Technology Transfer Environmental
Pollution Control Alternatives brochure entitled, "Eco-
nomics of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives for the
Electroplating Industry."
This brochure, funded by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (Metals and Inorganic Chemicals
Branch) in Cincinnati, Ohio, addresses the economics of
various techniques for meeting water pollution control
requirements as a guide for minimizing costs. Operating
and investment costs of conventional wastewater treat-
ment systems are compared with alternative treatment
technologies, manufacturing process changes and pollu-
tion control device modifications that may offer cost
savings.
The Alternatives series of publications is directed to the
reader with technical and managerial responsibilities in
local, state or federal government and private industry who
is involved in finding solutionstoenvironmental problems.
To order, check the appropriate box (#5016) on the order
form at the back of this Newsletter.
S-EFW Environmental Pollution
Control Alternatives:
Economics of
Wastewater Treatment
Alternatives for the
Electroplating Industry
Seminar Series Ends—Air Pollution
Equipment
The Technology Transfer seminar series on "Oper-
ation and Maintenance of Air Pollution Equipment for
Paniculate Control" was completed in June. The
three seminars held in Atlanta, Georgia; Arlington,
Virgina; and San Francisco, California drew a com-
bined total of over 500 participants, comprised
primarily of persons who are either responsible for
equipment performance or who operate the hard-
ware.
This series was presented by the Environmental
Research Information Center and was co-sponsored
by Pollution Engineering, a major international
environmental magazine.
The seminars provided discussions on guidelines and
practical solutions to equipment problems by repre-
sentatives of control systems manufacturers and
engineers from various industries where these
systems are used.
Four speakers from O&M Seminar in San Francisco: (upper left,
clockwise) Heinz Engelbrecht, Richard McRanie, Robert Bump.
Robert Wright.
-------
72
New Seminar Publication: Benefit
Analysis for Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
A new publication has been developed from the Technol-
ogy Transfer seminar series "Combined Sewer Overflow
Assessment and Control Procedures," which was pre-
sented in 1978. This publication is intended for the use of
elected officials of municipalities, their technical staff
members and consultants, and state and federal govern-
ment employees who have review and approval authority
for combined sewer overflow (CSO). The information in
this publication will be of help to any municipality in pro-
viding guidance to avoid numerous and costly pitfalls and
to take full advantage of opportunities for assistance in
planning and implementing a combined sewer overflow
control program.
This publication includes sections on legislation and regu-
lations relating to CSO projects, objectives for planning,
methods for relating pollutant sources to beneficial uses,
engineering alternatives and costs for controlling CSO's,
and case studies that present methods used for assess-
ment.
This publication can be obtained by checking the appro-
priate box (#4013) on the order form at the back of this
Newsletter
Seminar Publication
Benefit Analysis for
Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Symposium on Wastewater
Aerosols and Disease
The Health Effects Research Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio is sponsoring a symposium on the transmission of
disease agents by aerosols from wastewater treatment
facilities. This symposium will be held September 18-21 at
Stouffer's Cincinnati Towers Hotel in Cincinnati. Scien-
tists, engineers, physicians and federal, state and local
health officials will review information on aerosol contam-
inants and their effects on exposed populations. The
symposium will conclude with a panel discussion assess-
ing the problems and alternative solutions, as identified,
and define continuing research needs in the context of
regulatory and enforcement needs
For information concerning the workshop, contact Doug
Williams, Environmental Research Information Center,
(513) 684-7394.
To register to attend the workshop, contact-
Virginia Hathaway
JACA Corporation
550 Pinetown Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
(215) 643-5466
Proceedings of National Conference
on Lake Restoration
The "Proceedings of the National Conference on Lake
Restoration," held August 22-24, 1978 in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, have been published and can be ordered. The
conference was jointly sponsored by the Minnesota Pollu-
tion Control Agency and EPA's Office of Water Planning
and Standards along with the Environmental Research
Information Center. Over 450 people representing 39
states and a wide range of disciplines were in attendance.
The Proceedings include 34 conference presentations on
topics such as federal, state and local programs assessing
lake restoration problems, alternative solutions, in-lake
treatment methods, and state-of-the-art research.
To obtain a copy of the Proceedings or information regard-
ing EPA's lake restoration program contact'
Robert Johnson (WH-585)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
13
New Capsule Report: Control of
Acidic Air Pollutants by
Coated Baghouse
Emissions from the aluminum, glass, phosphate, fertilizer,
and sulfuric acid industries and from waste incineration
have exhaust gas characteristics unique to their sources
However, they also share several common problems,
including combined particulate, corrosive acid vapor, and
acid mist emissions. This Technology Transfer Capsule
Report presents an approach to alleviate these problems
through the use of dry scrubbing to neutralize and capture
the acids, followed by removal of particulates and captured
acids in a baghouse filter. To receive a copy, check the
appropriate box (#2020) on the order form at the back of
this Newsletter.
Control of
Acidic Air Pollutants by
Coated Baghouses
Hydrocarbon Seminar Series is
Successful
Over 700 participants attended three Technology Transfer
seminars on "Volatile Organic Compound Control in the
Surface Coating Industries " This series was sponsored by
the Environmental Research Information Center, the Air
Pollution Control Association, the Association of Finishing
Processors, and the National Paint and Coatings Associa-
tion, in an effort to acquaint participants with new regula-
tions requiring the reduction of volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions The seminar presentations included
explanation of these regulations and descriptions of low-
solvent coating technology with respect to the VOC
emission limits, add-on air pollution control equipment
capabilities and engineering changes, and plant survey
and enforcement information
-------
14
Environmental Research Information Center
1979 Seminar Schedule
Technology Transfer Scheduled Events
In order to keep you more aware of future Technology Transfer activities
(particularly seminars), the following schedule is included. Should you
desire more details on any of the activities listed, contact the appropriate
Technology Transfer Regional Chairman listed in this newsletter.
Subject
Innovative and Alternative
Technology (I/A)
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
Small Flows
Small Flows
Small Flows
Water Quality Screening
Workshop
Date
August 6-7, 1979
August 9-10, 1979
August 27-28, 1979
September 10-11, 1979
September 20-21, 1979
September 27-28, 1979
October 22-23, 1979
December 3-4, 1979
December 6-7, 1979
August 14-16, 1979
August 28-30, 1979
September 18-20, 1979
November 7-9, 1979
Region/Location
4 Atlanta
1
10
5
2
7
3
8
9
7
5
6
5
Boston
Seattle
Chicago
New York
Kansas City
Philadelphia
Denver
Los Angeles
Omaha
Indianapolis
New Orleans
Chicago
-------
REQUEST FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MATERIAL
The publications listed on this form are the only ones available through the Office of Technology Transfer.
(Check appropriate boxes)
PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS
Phosphorus Removal (April 1976) ............ .
Carbon Adsorption (Oct 1 973) .............. .
Suspended Solids Removal (Jan 1975) ........
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants (Oct 1974)..
Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems (Oct 1974)
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (Oct 1974)
Nitrogen Control (Oct 1975) . . ..
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (Oct 1977) ,
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities
(Oct 1977) .....
Municipal Sludge Landfills (Oct 1978)
TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORTS
Recycling Zinc in Viscose Rayon Plants by Two Stage Precipitation
Color Removal from Kraft Pulping Effluent by Lime Addition
Pollution Abatement in a Copper Wire Mill
First Progress Report Limestone Wet-Scrubbing Test Results at the
EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility
Pollution Abatement in a Brewing Facility
Flue Gas Desulfunzation and Sulfunc Acid Production via
Magnesia Scrubbing
Second Progress Report Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing Test
Results at the EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility
Magnesium Carbonate Process for Water Treatment
Third Progress Report Lime/Limestone Wet-Scrubbing Test Results at
the EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility .. .
First Progress Report Wellman-Lord SO2 Recovery Process — Flue
Gas Desulfunzation Plant . .
Swirl Device for Regulating and Treating Combined
Sewer Overflows
Fabric Filter Paniculate Control on Coal-Fired Utility Boilers
Nucla, CO and Sunbury, PA
First Progress Report Static Pile Composting of Wastewater Sludge.
Efficient Treatment of Small Municipal Flows at Dawson, MM
Double Alkali Flue Gas Desulfunzation System Applied at the
General Motors Parma, OH Facility
Recovery of Spent Sulfunc Acid from Steel Pickling Operations
Fourth Progress Report Forced-Oxidation Test Results at the
EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility
• Control of Acidic Air Pollutants by Coated Baghouses
INDUSTRIAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Upgrading Poultry Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (3 Vols )
Upgrading Metal Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (2 Vols )
Upgrading Meat Packing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (3 Vols )
Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution (2 Vols )
Choosing the Optimum Financial Strategies for Pollution Control
Systems
Erosion and Sediment Conirol —- Surface Mining in the
Eastern U S (2 Vots )
Pollution Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry (3 Vols )
Choosing Optimum Management Strategies .
1001 D
1 002 D
1003 D
1004 D
1005 D
1006 D
1007 D
1009 D
1010 D
2001 CD
2002 D
2003 D
2004 D
2006 CD
2007 D
2008 D
2009 CD
2010 D
2011 D
201 2 D
2013 D
2014 Q
2015 CD
2016 D
201 7 D
2018 D
2020 CD
3001 D
3002 D
3003 D
3004 D
3005 D
3006 D
3007 D
3008 D
Controlling Pollution from the Manufacturing and Coating of
Metal Products (3 Vols ) .. 3009 D
MUNICIPAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Upgrading Lagoons . 4001 LJ
Physical Chemical Wastewater Treatment Plant Design . 4002 D
Status of Oxygen'Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment 4003 CD
Nitrification and Denitnfication Facilities 4004 CD
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants — Case Histories 4005 CD
Flow Equalization 4006 D
Wastewater Filtration . 4007 CD
Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal . 4008 CD
Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration . 4009 CD
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents (3 Vols ) 4010 CD
Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems (3 Vols ) 401 1 LJ
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (2 Vols ) . 401 2 D
• Benefit Analysis for Combined Sewer Overflow Control 401 3 CD
BROCHURES
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives Municipal Wastewater 5012 L_)
Forest Harvesting and Water Quality > , 5013 LJ
Irrigated Agriculture and Water Quality Management 5014 LJ
Forest Chemicals and Water Quality 5015 d
• Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives Economics of Wastewater
Alternatives for the Electroplating Industry 5016 CU
HANDBOOKS
.Monitoring Industrial Wastewater (1973) . 6002 CD
Industrial Guide for Air Pollution Control (June 1978) 6004 CD
• Continuous Air Pollution Source Monitoring Systems (June 1979) 6005 D
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION CONTROL MANUALS
Pulp and Paper Industry Part 1 Air (Oct 1976) 7001 CD
Textile Processing Industry (Oct 1978)) . 7002 CD
SUMMARY REPORTS
• Sulfur Oxides Control Technology Series FGD Wellman-Lord Process 8001 CD
• Control Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry Series Evaporators 8002 CD
EXECUTIVE BRIEFINGS
Environmental Considerations of Energy — Conserving Industrial
Process Changes . 9001 CD
Environmental Sampling of Paraho Oil Shale Retort Process 9002 CD
ATTENTION PUBLICATION USERS
Due to the increasing costs of printing and mailing, it has become necessary to institute positive management controls over distribution of Technology Transfei
publications Although these publications will be distributed on a no cost basis, any request for more than five documents total or for more than one copy of a
single document must be accompanied by written |ustification, preferably on organization letterhead In the event your order cannot be filled as requested you
will be contacted and so advised
If you are not currently on the mailing list for the Technology Transfer Newsletter, do you want to be added' Yes CD No D
Employer
Street
City, State, Zip Code
*lt is not necessary to fill in this block if your name and address on reverse are correct
• Publication listed for the first time
Note Foreward to ERIC, Technology Transfer, U S Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Where to Get Further Information
In order to get details on items appearing in this publication, or any other aspects of the
Technology Transfer Program, contact the EPA Regional Technology Transfer Committee
Chairman in your region
REGION CHAIRMAN
ADDRESS
REGION CHAIRMAN
ADDRESS
Lester Sutton Environmental Protection Agency
John F Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2313
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617 223-2226
(Maine, N H , Vt . Mass , R I , Conn ;
Robert Olson Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
212 264-1867
(NY.NJ.PR.VI)
Mildred Smith Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
First National Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
214 767 2697
(Texas, Okla , Ark , La , N Mex )
Charles M Hajmian Environmental Protection Agency
324 East 11th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
816 374-2921
(Kansas, Nebr , Iowa, Mo )
Albert Montague Environmental Protection Agency
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215 597-9856
(Pa , WVa , Md , Del , D C , Va )
Asa B Foster, Jr Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N E
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404 881-4450
(N C , S C , Ky , Tenn , Ga , Ala , Miss ,
Fla )
Clifford Risley Environmental Protection Agency
230 S Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312 353-4625
(Mich , Wis , Minn , III , Ind , Ohio)
10
Elmer Chenault Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
303 837-2277
(Colo , Mont, Wyo , Utah, N D , S D )
Fred Hoffman Environmental Protection Agency
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
415 556-6925
(Calif, Ariz , Nev , Hawaii)
John Osborn Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206 442 1296
(Wash , Ore , Idaho, Alaska)
USEPA- OR&D
Environmental Research Information Center
26 W St Clair Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
513 684-7394-7398 (Inc )
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979-657-060/5326
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research Information
Center
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Offiruil Business,
Penalty for Private Use S300
------- |