&EFA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/6QO/R-92/Q98
July 1992
Andrew W. Breidenbach
Environmental Research
Center Small Systems
Resource Directory
-------
-------
EPA600/R-92/098
July 1992
ANDREW W. BREIDENBACH
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
SMALL SYSTEMS RESOURCE DIRECTORY
OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Acknowledgments
Thanks are given to Andrew Avel, Director, EPA's Office of the Senior Official for
Research and Development (OSORD) and Steve Lutkenhoff (formerly of OSORD) for
their support from the beginning; to Irene Rauch (OSORD), for her secretarial help;
and to Jenny Helmick of Eastern Research Group, Inc., the contractor. In addition,
reviews of the directory by the following people are appreciated: John Trax, National
Rural Water Association; Sanjay Saxena, National Drinking Water Clearinghouse;
George Maughan, National Environmental Training Center; Dale Pauley, Lincoln,
West Virginia, Public Service District; and Eric Reiser, Batavia, Ohio, Water
Treatment Plant.
HI
-------
-------
Contents
Introduction i
WhatisORD? i
Whatis AWBERC? i
AWBERC Activities to Assist Small Systems. 3
How to Use this Directory .4
How to Order Publications in this Directory 4
AWBERC Projects
Drinking Water
Simplified Sampling Instructions for Small Water Systems 7
Use of the Composite Correction Program Approach to Achieve Compliance with the
Surf ace Water Treatment Rule . 8
Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities 9
Package Plants for Drinking Water Treatment: In-H6use Test and Evaluation 10
Package Plants for Drinking Water Treatment: Field-Scale Research 11
Feasibility Study of Alternative Filtration Technology for a Small Community Water Supply 12
Evaluation of Erosion Feed Chlorinators 13
Evaluation of Dry Pellet Feeder Chlorinators 14
Limestone Bed Contactors for Corrosion Control 15
Evaluation of a Radium Selective Complexer System to Remove Radium from Ion Exchange Waste . . . 16
Evaluation of the Manganese Dioxide Precipitation Process for
Radium Removal from Drinking Water 17
Manganese Dioxide-Coated Filters for Removing Radium from Drinking Water . . 18
A Study of Possible Economical Ways of Removing Radium from Drinking Water 19
Radon Removal Using Point-of-Entry Water Treatment Techniques .20
Low-Cost/Low-Technology Aeration Techniques for Removing Radon from Drinking Water 21
Radon Removal by Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon Systems:
Design, Performance, and Cost 22
Radon Removal Techniques for Small Community Public Water Supplies 23
Uranium Removal from Drinking Water Using a Small Full-Scale System 24
Removal of Uranium from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange and Chemical Clarification 25
Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New Mexico 26
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New Mexico 27
Field Experience with Point-of-Use Treatment Systems for Arsenic Removal 28
Nitrate Removal from Drinking Water in Glendale, Arizona 29
Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies Using Ion Exchange 30
Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Entry Granular Activated Carbon Filters and
Their Relationship to Human Health 31
Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Use Granular Activated Carbon Filters and
Their Relationship to Human Health 32
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water 33
Wellhead Protection Workshops and Technology Transfer Documents 34
Risk Assessment, Management, and Communication of Drinking Water Contamination 35
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Implementation of Sequencing Batch Reactor Technologies in the United States 39
Pilot-Scale Research on Constructed Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment ........... 40
Constructed Wetlands for Individual Homes (Onsite Systems) 41
Inventory of Constructed Wetlands in the United States , 42
Monitoring Operating Constructed Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment 43
Alternatives to Traditional Onsite Wastewater Treatment: A Demonstration Project 44
Small Community Wastewater Management Manual .45
Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment . . .46
Process Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater 47
Manual for Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems 48
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion . . . , 49
Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge 50
Control of Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater Sludge 51
Process Design Manual: Land Application of Municipal Sludge 52
Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal .53
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Waste Minimization Assessments for Small Businesses 57
Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities 58
Manual for Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria 59
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction, and Closure 60
Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers 61
Integrated Solid Waste Management Planning for Small Communities 62
Innovative Clean Technologies Project 63
Evaluation of Antifreeze Recycling Technologies in a
New Jersey Maintenance and Repair Facility 64
Meeting Hazardous Waste Requirements for Metal Finishers 65
Handbook: Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Medical Waste Incinerators . . . 66
Multldlsclplinary
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 69
Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Workshops for Small Communities 70
Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples 71
Workshops, Seminars, and Conferences Available through EPA 75
vi
-------
Introduction
WhatlsORD?
WhatlsAWBERC?
Research Offices
This directory describes more than 50 projects conducted or sponsored over the past 5
years by the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center (AWBERC) of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Research and
Development (ORD). These projects provide information and assistance to small
systems in the areas of drinking water, wastewater, and solid and hazardous waste
management. The purpose of the directory is to acquaint small system resource
providers, managers, operators, and state and local officials with the capabilities of
AWBERC in solving small system problems. Further, the Research Center is willing to
help wherever possible.
ORD provides high quality, timely scientific and technical information in the service
of EPA's goals. The Agency's research program is conducted through 12
environmental laboratories across the country, employing some 1,900 people, with an
annual budget of about $490 million. The research focuses on areas identified by
EPA's planning process as needing additional emphasis to provide the information
required for Agency decisionmaking.
AWBERC, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, is one of EPA's largest research and
development (R&D) facilities. Dedicated in 1975 and opened in 1976, it consolidated
several environmental research laboratories that had established an international
reputation for water research. With state-of-the-art facilities and a highly experienced
staff, AWBERC has continued this tradition of excellence in water research and has
become a leader in new areas of concern, such as solid and hazardous waste
management, that have emerged in recent years. In addition, AWBERC supports many
EPA programs by evaluating the risks posed by environmental pollutants, developing
methods to analyze environmental media for pollutants, developing methods to treat
and control pollution, and directing education and outreach programs to increase
awareness about ways to lessen pollution. AWBERC's laboratories and offices
collaborate with EPA program and regional offices, state and local governments,
federal agencies, universities, industry, and international organizations to identify
environmental problems and develop solutions.
AWBERC currently encompasses seven technical laboratories and offices that manage
a diversity of research programs, and two administrative offices that provide essential
administrative support.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) develops technologies to prevent,
reduce, treat, and control pollution—particularly pollution from hazardous and solid
waste—and to treat drinking water and wastewater.
The Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) develops methods and
quality assurance materials for monitoring pollutants in the environment.
Technical Support
Offices
The Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office (ECAO) prepares human health-based
risk assessments and methodologies for risk assessment
The Technical Support Division (TSD) provides support to EPA in developing
drinking water regulations and to communities in complying with the regulations.
-------
Technical Support
Offices (continued)
The Environmental Response Team (ERT) provides training and technical assistance for
response to hazardous materials emergencies.
The Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) communicates the results
of EPA's R&D efforts to people who can use and apply tne information.
The Office of the Senior Official for Research and Development (OSORD) fosters
communication and exchange between AWBERC scientists and national and
international representatives from government, academia, industry, and the public. In
addition, it provides support services for AWBERC's R&D facilities.
Administrative Offices
The Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM) provides the human
resources and administrative support essential for AWBERC's R&D activities.
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for affirmative action and outreach to
increase the contribution of minorities and women to AWBERC's environmental
research.
AWBERC
Laboratories
and
Offices
Office of
Research &
Development
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency
Response
Office of
Ground
Water and
Drinking
Water
Office of
Modeling,
Monitoring
Systems and
Quality
Assurance
Office of
Environmental
Engineering
and
Technology
Demonstratio
Center for
Environmental
Research
Information
Environmental
Criteria and
Assessment
Office
Environmental
Monitoring
. Systems
Laboratory
Risk Reduction
Engineering
Laboratory
OH ice of
SennrOfficial
for Research
and
Development
Off ice of
Administration
and Resources
Management
Relationship of the Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio, to some EPA Program and Administrative Offices.
-------
AWBERC Activities
to Assist
Small Systems
EPA recognizes the difficulties faced by small systems in complying with
environmental regulations. Small systems typically lack the financial and technical
resources they need to meet their environmental responsibilities. AWBERC is playing
an important role in helping small communities address these problems.
In the area of drinking water treatment, for example, AWBERC's RREL has been
evaluating simple, cost-effective treatment technologies applicable to small systems.
TSD has been working to facilitate implementation of appropriate technologies, such
as developing an easy-to-understand monitoring guide for small system operators, and
to find ways to increase the financial capabilities of small systems. TSD and CERI
have developed and made available a comprehensive approach to solving the
performance problems of small water treatment facilities through careful analysis and
correction of factors limiting performance.
In the area of wastewater treatment, RREL is helping to develop control technologies
that are cost effective for small systems. CERI is developing publications, workshops,
and other tools to communicate information about wastewater treatment technologies
and sludge disposal methods.
In the area of solid and hazardous waste, AWBERC is conducting pioneering work to
help small industries reduce or recycle the waste they generate. AWBERC also is
providing information to help ensure the safe disposal of waste.
AWBERC recently formed a Small Systems Workgroup to help its scientists and
engineers focus their work in defining small systems problems and solutions. Members
of the Workgroup include:
Walter Feige, RREL/OSORD (Workgroup Coordinator)
Donald Brown, RREL
Robert Clark, RREL
Charlotte Cottrill, ECAO
Kim Fox, RREL
Emma Lou George, RREL
James Goodrich, RREL
James Kreissl, CERI
Robert Landreth, RREL
James Lichtenberg, EMSL
James E. Smith Jr., CERI
Thomas Sorg, RREL
Barbara Wysock, TSD
Feedback about this Resource Directory will help the Workgroup plan a series of
seminars addressing the needs of small systems.
-------
How to Use
This Directory
This directory is divided into four sections: Drinking Water, Municipal Wastewater,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, and Multidisciplinary (projects that apply to
more than one area). The reader can consult the table of contents to locate projects of
interest. In each project description, the reader will find a summary of work conducted
or sponsored by AWBERC, a list of publications generated by the project, and an
AWBERC contact for further information about the project. For studies that were
recently begun and for which written reports are not yet available, the reader can
simply write or call the contact listed.
How to Order
Publications Listed
in the Directory
Most of the publications listed in the directory can be obtained through either EPA or
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
To order a publication (free of charge) with an EPA document number, write:
ORD Publications
P.O. Box 19962
Cincinnati, OH 45219-0962
To order a publication (payment required) with an NTIS order number,
call (703) 487-4650 or write:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
-------
Drinking Water
-------
-------
Drinking Water
Simplified Sampling Instructions for Small
Water Systems
Introduction
EPA is developing a set of simplified sampling instructions for operators of small
water systems (those serving fewer than 3,300 persons). These instructions will help
small systems meet the requirements of the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA).
Project Description
To assist small systems in complying with the new drinking water regulations, EPA
has developed the Pocket Sampling Guide for Operators of Small Water Systems. In
the first version of the guide, four regulations are addressed: the Volatile Organic
Chemical (VOC) Rule (Phase I), the Total Coliform Rule, the Surface Water
Treatment Rule, and the Lead and Copper Rule. The second version will address
monitoring requirements and sampling instructions for chemicals covered under Phase
n (including VOCs, synthetic organic chemicals [SOCs], and inorganics) and
radionuclides. The guide contains a brief overview of the monitoring provisions of the
regulations, descriptions and photographs of sampling procedures, helpful tables and
figures, sections on general sampling considerations and the new standardized
monitoring framework, and a glossary. The guide is designed so that it can be updated
easily as existing regulations are revised or new regulations are promulgated.
For ease of use in the field, the guide is pocket-sized and bound at the top. Coded tabs
are used for fast look-up. Sampling instructions and photographs are reproduced on
removable, foldout pages, printed on durable, waterproof paper, for use as a quick
reference during actual sampling.
Publications
Pocket Sampling Guide for Operators of Small Water Systems. 1992.
EPA/814-B-92-001 (in press).
AWBERC Contact
James B. Walasek, Environmental Engineer
Technical Support Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7919
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Use of the Composite Correction Program
Approach to Achieve Compliance with the
Surface Water Treatment Rule
EPA has developed the Composite Correction Program (CCP), a comprehensive
procedure to systematically evaluate the design, operation, maintenance, and
administration of a treatment plant. The CCP approach identifies and corrects the
unique combination of factors preventing a plant's compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). EPA also has developed a handbook for conducting CCP
evaluations.
Project Description
When the SWTR takes effect in June 1993, many public water systems that use surface
supplies and filter may find themselves out of compliance. To help systems achieve
compliance, EPA has developed the CCP approach. The first step in this approach is
the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE), which systematically identifies the
unique combination of factors preventing compliance. The second step is
Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA), in which the performance-limiting
factors identified in the CPE are corrected over a 6-month period.
EPA demonstrated the CCP approach at 36 plants. State regulatory personnel
participated in the plant evaluations to identify whether and how they could use this
approach to address their SWTR compliance problems. Implementing the approach
through the state programs should ensure that small systems are directed to the
activities that provide compliance with the SWTR at the lowest cost. EPA will
continue to work closely with states to give them the capability to use the CCP
approach to correct SWTR compliance problems. Approximately one CPE will be
completed each month. These activities will focus on small systems.
This project has shown that most small systems evaluated do not need major
construction to comply with the SWTR. Improved process control is the major element
to achieve compliance, but improved administrative support may also be required.
The results of this project have been summarized in a CCP handbook for drinking
water. The handbook presents the procedures and information necessary to complete
CCP evaluations.
Publications
Handbook: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite
Correction Program. 1990. EPA/625/6-91/027.
Summary Report: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance with the
Composite Correction Program. 1990. EPA 625/8-90/017. March.
AWBERC Contact
Jon H. Bender, Environmental Engineer
Technical Support Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7227
-------
Drinking Water
Drinking Water Treatment for Small
Communities
Introduction
EPA has developed a publication describing drinking water treatment requirements
and the treatment technologies suitable for small systems (those serving 25 to 1,000
people or having a flow of 2,500 to 100,000 gallons per day). The document is
designed for small system owners, operators, managers, and local decisionmakers,
such as town officials. It is not a comprehensive manual for water treatment; rather, it
provides an overview of the problems small systems might face, treatment options
available to solve specific problems, and resources for additional information.
Project Description
Small drinking water systems face a difficult challenge: to provide a safe, sufficient
supply of water at a reasonable cost. Growing awareness of biological and chemical
contaminants that can affect the safety of drinking water has led to the need for more
frequent monitoring and reporting and, in some cases, additional or upgraded treatment
by water suppliers.
To help address the information needs related to drinking water treatment in small
communities, EPA has issued a publication covering the following topics: why
drinking water treatment is necessary; federal regulations and how they affect small
systems; how to select drinking water treatment technologies; special management
issues for small systems; and descriptions of technologies that can help small systems
meet regulatory requirements. The document discusses established and emerging
technologies for filtration, disinfection, removal of organic and inorganic
contaminants, and corrosion control. Appendices to the document cover resources for
additional information, collection of bacteriological samples, a checklist of factors
affecting water treatment system performance, selecting a consultant, chlorine residual
monitoring, and calculation of contact time (CT) values.
Publications
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Drinking Water Treatment for Small
Communities. 1990. EPA/625/5-90/025. April.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
-------
Drinking Water
introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
Package Plants for Drinking Water Treatment:
In-House Test and Evaluation
EPA is conducting research at its In-House Test and Evaluation Facility to evaluate the
use of factory-built, skid-mounted package plants and point-of-entry devices for
drinking water treatment. Researchers will study the effectiveness of package plants in
disinfection and removal of precursor material, evaluate state-of-the-art remote
operations, and develop "hybrid" package plants to meet small system needs.
A unique full-scale pipe loop system will examine distribution system effects of
alternative disinfectants.
Factory-built, skid-mounted package plants could effectively help small systems meet
drinking water treatment requirements. They may offer low construction and operating
costs, simple operation and maintenance, adaptability to part-time operations, and no
serious residual problems. Few systematic evaluations have been performed on
package plants, however. No studies have looked at the ability of these units to meet
the Surface Water Treatment Rule or the pending disinfection/disinfection by-products
rule.
For this reason, EPA is undertaking research to obtain data on the cost, performance,
and long-term reliability of package plants for small systems. EPA will operate five
different package plants at its Test and Evaluation Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. This
will entail acquiring the package plants, installing a transmission pipe to obtain surface
water, and drilling a well to obtain ground water. The evaluations will focus on
disinfection and removal of precursor material. To evaluate the impact of alternative
disinfectants on biofilm and bacterial regrowth, pipe loops will be sampled for biofilm
attachment, growth, and detachment. Nutrient levels and disinfectant residuals also
will be sampled.
Another aspect of the research will include telemetering of significant operating
parameters that could be monitored at EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
and integrated into a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. An
expert system will be used to automatically change (or guide an operator to change)
each package plant's operation (for example, when a plant is challenged by an influent
spike of turbidity). This research could aid in the development of an electronic "circuit
rider" to gain some of the benefits of regionalization. Finally, EPA will create and
demonstrate new package plant designs and configurations for small systems. These
"hybrid" package plants will be designed to respond to new regulatory needs, results of
the package plant evaluations, and results of the pipe loop studies.
Goodrich, J.A.; Adams, J.Q.; Lykins, B.W.; and Clark, R.M. 1992. Safe Drinking
Water from Small Systems: Treatment Options. Journal AWWA. 84(5):49-55.
Lykins, B.W; Clark, R.M.; and Goodrich, J.A. 1992. Point-of-Use I Point-of-Entry
for Drinking Water Treatment. Lewis Publishers / CRC Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
James A. Goodrich, Environmental Scientist
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7605
to
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Package Plants for Drinking Water Treatment:
Field-Scale Research
In conjunction with in-house package plant research (see "Package Plants for Drinking
Water Treatment: In-House Test and Evaluation," page 10), EPA is conducting
research to determine package plant capabilities in the field. This research will focus
on microbiological contamination; other types of contamination and operational
problems will be examined as well. The projects will last 2 to 3 years, and the
equipment will remain in the community following the study's completion. The goal is
to provide safe drinking water to the communities and transfer the knowledge gained
to small communities nationwide.
Project Description
This field-scale research will involve the placement of a package plant (or
whole-house point-of-entry units) in communities experiencing drinking water
compliance problems. To evaluate package plants providing innovative treatment plus
disinfection, researchers will perform weekly sampling of microbiological
contaminants. These data will help researchers determine package plants' capability to
perform throughout seasonal weather changes and changes in raw water quality. Other
analyses will include total trihalomethane (TTHM) formation and drinking water
mutagenicity. These analyses also will be performed throughout the distribution
system. In addition, the reliability and operation and maintenance costs of the package
plants will be evaluated. Researchers may attempt automatic operation and/or remote
control of the package plants.
To help ensure community acceptance and involvement, the researchers will survey
each community's perceptions, wants, and needs regarding drinking water before
starting treatment. Following installation of the equipment, they will continually assess
community attitudes about problems that may arise, such as taste, odor, or cost
increases.
Proposed field sites for this research include sites in West Virginia that receive water
from aquifers under the influence of surface water, Chemehuevi Indian lands in
California, where water is obtained from a surface water source with intense
recreational use in the summer; and a hunting camp in Lakeville, Maine, which obtains
water from a lake heavily impacted by clear-cutting logging practices.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
James A. Goodrich, Environmental Scientist
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7605
11
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Feasibility Study of Alternative Filtration
Technology for a Small Community Water
Supply
EPA funded a cooperative demonstration project to enable the Village of Cayuga, New
York, to install and demonstrate a prefabricated water filtration system. The project
was undertaken because the existing facilities, built in the 1930s, were unable to meet
turbidity limits. The feasibility study analyzed installation and start-up, costs, and
water quality data developed over a 12-month period.
Project Description
The Village of Cayuga obtains its drinking water from a surface water source (Cayuga
Lake). The treatment plant, which used aeration, sedimentation, and filtration, was
occasionally unable to meet the standard for turbidity (1 nephelometric turbidity unit)
set by EPA. In 1981, the Village received a grant to install, operate, and monitor a
prefabricated 150 gallon per minute water filtration system. The system consisted of
two cyclone separators in parallel followed by three parallel treatment trains, each
employing a contact clarifier, a mixed media filter, and a granular activated carbon
filter. Careful records were kept of the first year's operation to document water quality,
operating labor needs, and operating costs.
The data showed that, with respect to turbidity removal, the performance of the
treatment plant exceeded the goals set forth in the study. The study showed that the
filtration equipment is well-suited to small systems. In this case, the equipment was
installed in an existing structure without extensive structural retrofitting. The results
also suggested that pilot studies should be conducted before filtration plants are
designed and built, especially when direct filtration is proposed.
The capital cost for this system was $268,000; chemicals, 5 cents per 1,000 gallons;
and power, 10 cents per 1,000 gallons, at a rate of 6.2 cents per kilowatt-hour. The
system required about 2.7 hours per day for inspection, adjustments to inflow and feed
rates, sample analysis, and maintenance.
Publications
Project Summary: Feasibility Study of Alternative Technology for Small Community
Water Supply. 1985. EPA-600/S2-84-191. March.
Feasibility Study of Alternative Technology for Small Community Water Supply (the
complete report), 1985. NTTS PB85-143 287.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7820
12
-------
Drinking Water
Evaluation of Erosion Feed Chlorinators
introduction
EPA sponsored a study to evaluate the reliability of erosion feed Chlorinators in
delivering a constant chlorine dose for drinking water disinfection. These Chlorinators
have several advantages over gas Chlorinators and liquid Chlorinators: operator
exposure to caustic chlorine dust is reduced, tablets are easier to handle and store than
gas or powder, safety equipment is not required, and less technical knowledge is
needed to operate the chlorinator. Prior to this study, the capabilities of erosion feed
Chlorinators had not been determined.
Project Description
Erosion feed Chlorinators use pressed chlorine tablets that are eroded (or dissolved) as
water passes over their surface. A canister stores a supply of tablets and positions them
in a moving stream of water; a contact chamber provides an interface between the
tablets and water. Adjustments to the chlorine dose rate are made by changing the
tablet surface area immersed in the water stream.
Testing of these Chlorinators was conducted in two phases: continuous flow and
intermittent flow. The Chlorinators were shown to provide unstable dose rates when
operated in a continuous flow mode. Intermittent flow operation provided a more
stable dose rate. The greatest degree of dose stability resulted from a flow of 40
gallons per minute (150 liters per minute) with operating periods of 10 minutes on and
10 minutes off for the units tested. The researchers concluded that the use of erosion
feed Chlorinators should be limited to intermittent flow operation. The greatest adverse
impact on chlorinator performance was found to be moisture in the tablet canister.
Publications
Project Summary: Evaluation of Erosion Feed Chlorinators. 1985.
EPA/600/S2-85/126. December.
Evaluation of Erosion Feed Chlorinators (the complete report). NTTS PB 86-118
882/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
13
-------
Drinking Water
Evaluation of Dry Pellet Feeder Chlorinators
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a dry pellet feeder chlorinator
in disinfecting small domestic water systems. Researchers evaluated the equipment's
ability to dependably deliver the desired dose of chlorine, as well as its operating
capabilities in a desert environment.
Project Description
In a cooperative effort between EPA, the Indian Health Service, and the Papago Indian
Reservation, dry pellet chlorinators were installed at four wells near Tucson, Arizona.
The chlorinators were designed to dispense chlorine pellets into the well during well
pump operation. The equipment consisted of a modular designed thermoplastic device,
with a storage bin and motor-driven rotating pellet plate that delivered dry chlorine
pellets from the storage bin to a drop tube. The pellets fell from the drop tube into the
well casing. Pellet feed rates were adjusted by changing the rotating speed of the pellet
plate and by opening slots in the pellet plate.
The researchers found that the chlorinator produced acceptable average chlorine
dosage in water systems of varied configurations. The chlorinator proved reliable and
easy to operate, but required regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance.
Despite 2 years' exposure to the desert environment, the only weathering problems
observed were deterioration of the plastic drop tubes and corrosion of the metal parts.
The chlorinators were found to be most appropriate for wells designed and operated to
provide a sanitary water supply without requiring frequent adjustments in the chlorine
feed rate. Water from one well, subject to transient contamination, was not easy to treat
using a chlorinator that could not automatically change dose in response to changes in
chlorine demand. The configuration of the water system was also important. The
chlorinator was most effective when used in well water systems that pump directly to
large storage tanks, which in turn act to equalize variations in chlorine dosages.
Publications
Project Summary: Field Evaluation of the Land-O-Matic Dry Pellet Chlorination
System. 1988. EPA/600/S2-87/085. January.
Field Evaluation of the Land-O-Matic Dry Pellet Chlorination System (the complete
report). 1988. NTIS PB88-113 667/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
14
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Limestone Bed Contactors for Corrosion
Control
EPA sponsored a study to investigate the use of limestone contactors to mitigate
corrosion in systems that use dilute acidic water. In a limestone contactor, water is
transported through a packed bed of crushed limestone. As the limestone dissolves, the
water's pH, calcium ion concentration, and alkalinity increase, resulting in less
corrosion of piping surfaces. These devices are potentially applicable for small systems
because of their low cost, minimal maintenance, and few potential hazards resulting
from improper construction, installation, or maintenance.
Project Description
In many areas of the United States, homeowners and small water supply systems use
water that is potentially corrosive to metallic materials (copper, lead, and zinc) in the
distribution system. Corrosion can be caused by the use of dilute acidic waters that
generally have low pH, alkalinity, and concentrations of dissolved solids. Corrosion
can result in potential health problems from ingestion of corrosion by-products,
degradation of the aesthetic quality of the water, and increased costs due to piping
system deterioration.
This study evaluated the use of limestone contactors to control corrosion in small
systems using dilute acidic water. Researchers derived and tested a mathematical
model for limestone contactor design, using laboratory packed-column reactors;
examined the relationship between contactor-treated water quality and metal release
from pipes; and monitored the field performance of full-scale contactors. The field
studies indicated that limestone contactors can effectively reduce the tendency of water
to take up corrosion by-products from surfaces in piping systems.
Publications
Project Summary: Limestone Bed Contactors for Control of Corrosion at Small Water
Utilities. 1987. EPA/600/S2-86/099. February.
Limestone Bed Contactors for Control of Corrosion at Small Water Utilities (the
complete report). 1987. NTIS PB87-112 058/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
15
-------
Drinking Wafer
Introduction
Evaluation of a Radium Selective Complexer
System to Remove Radium from Ion
Exchange Waste
EPA sponsored a study to evaluate the long-term performance of a Radium Selective
Complexer (RSC) system to remove radium from ion exchange (IX) waste. This
information will be used in the design and operation of systems to concentrate radium
from a brine waste stream for disposal.
Project Description
This study monitored and evaluated a radium-removal system at a small water
treatment facility in Redhill Forest, Colorado: The raw water comes from deep wells
and contains naturally occurring radium and iron. The treatment system consists of
aeration to remove radon gas and carbon dioxide, chemical clarification to remove iron
and manganese, and an IX process to remove radium and hardness. A separate system
removes only radium from the regeneration water of the IX process. The radium is
permanently complexed on an RSC resin. The RSC resin containing radium is replaced
with virgin resin, and the resin waste is transported to a final disposal site.
To evaluate the efficiency and capacity of the RSC system, researchers analyzed
influent and effluent samples collected over a 2-year period The system was found to
be very efficient in the removal of radium from the IX wastewater, removing an
average of 99 percent of the radium in the inflow to the RSC system. The resin did not
affect the levels of iron, sodium, hardness, or total solids.
A followup study on the RSC system is currently under way; results will be available
in 1992.
Publications
Project Summary: Radium Removal for a Small Community Water Supply System.
1988. EPA/600/S2-88/039. September.
Radium Removal for a Small Community Water Supply System (the complete report).
NTIS PB88-235 551/AS.
Mangelson, K.A. and Lauch, R.P. 1990. Removing and Disposing of Radium from
Well Water. Journal AWWA. 82(6): 72-76
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7370
16
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Evaluation of the Manganese Dioxide
Precipitation Process for Radium Removal
from Drinking Water
The manganese dioxide (MnCte) precipitation process is a promising new technology
for removing radium from drinking water. EPA is conducting a study from September
1991 to March 1993, to obtain full-scale performance data on this process.
Project Description
During the past 5 years, EPA's Drinking Water Research Division has funded several
cooperative agreements to investigate methods to remove radium from drinking water.
One of the most promising new methods is the use of freshly precipitated MnO2 for
the sorption of radium and its subsequent removal by filtration. Laboratory studies
have shown that this method has good potential for use by small communities. No
information exists, however, on full-scale demonstration of this process. For this
reason, water utilities are reluctant to use this method.
EPA is sponsoring a study on the MnO2 precipitation process for radium removal in
the City of Mount Pleasant, Iowa. This small utility will collect data for the study and a
researcher at the University of Iowa will provide technical guidance. The information
obtained will be used to assist other utilities in the design and operation of new
systems.
A technical report on the MnO2 precipitation process is expected to be available in
mid-1993. The report will include a description of the system and equipment, a '
description of the operation and performance of the process, an assessment of
effectiveness for radium removal, information on residuals produced and disposal
methods used, and an estimate of operational costs.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
,26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
17
-------
Drinking Water
Manganese Dioxide-Coated Filters for
Removing Radium from Drinking Water
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study to examine the use of magnesium dioxide- (MnO2-)coated
filters for removing radium from drinking water. The study involved extensive testing
in the laboratory, in a pilot plant, and in full-scale application at several small public
water systems in North Carolina.
Project Description
At the time of this study, adsorption onto MnOa-coated filters had been tested
sparingly, but had never been used to remove radium from drinking water. Researchers
designed, built, and operated a system to produce acrylic fibers coated with MnO2.
Bleed-stream tests of the filters showed that for a high hardness water (pH=7.4), total
radium removal was 14,200 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g) MnO2 before the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 pCi/L was exceeded. For a low hardness water
(pH=4.5) total radium removal was 5,000 pCi/g MnOz before the MCL was exceeded.
The filters also can remove low concentrations of cadmium, calcium, cobalt, cesium,
iron, and manganese. Radium was highly preferred over calcium and magnesium;
hardness passed through the filter relatively unchanged.
To conduct in-line field tests, the researchers used three standard water filtration
housings situated in series, each containing 21 filter elements coated with MnO2.
Removal efficiencies of total radium were less than those exhibited with the
bleed-stream field tests. The rapid decrease in capacity of the in-line MnO2 filters to
adsorb radium was attributed to a high loading of clay and silt on the filter elements.
Publications
Project Summary: Manganese Dioxide-Coated Filters for Removing Radium from
Drinking Water. 1989. EPA/600/S2-88/057. January.
Manganese Dioxide-Coated Filters for Removing Radium from Drinking Water (the
complete report). NTIS PB89-110 126/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7370
18
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
A Study of Possible Economical Ways of
Removing Radium from Drinking Water
EPA sponsored a study to examine the incidental removal of radium from drinking
water by iron removal plants using aeration and sand filtration. The study also
evaluated the possibility of exploiting existing iron removal facilities as an inexpensive
means of removing radium.
Project Description
More than 175 cities in the Midwest deliver drinking water containing radium in
concentrations that exceed federal standards. To evaluate the removal of radium by
typical iron removal plants, researchers carried out batch tests, pilot plant laboratory
tests, and field evaluations. The batch studies tested synthetic ground waters and
ground waters obtained from several sources in Iowa. The researchers observed the
effect of water chemistry on sorption of radium to combinations of iron and
manganese oxides and to filter sand. The pilot plant test evaluated radium removal
from a simulated aeration-sand filtration iron removal system under various operating
conditions. The field evaluation studied the use of a regenerable sand filter to sorb
naturally occurring radium.
The researchers found that sorption of radium to iron and manganese oxides and filter
sands appears to be controlled primarily by the presence of calcium and magnesium.
Excessive pH values would be required to obtain significant sorption to iron oxides at
concentrations typical of natural waters. The researchers found that sorption to
manganese oxides could possibly be exploited to remove radium if iron did not
interfere. Filter sand was found to be able to sorb significant concentrations of radium
at typical hardness concentrations if the sand is periodically rinsed with a dilute acid.
Publications
Project Summary: A Study of Possible Economical Ways of Removing Radium from
Drinking Water. 1988. EPA/600/S2-88/009. April.
A Study of Possible Economical Ways of Removing Radium from Drinking Water (the
complete report). NTIS PB88-158 464/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
19
-------
Drinking Water
Radon Removal Using Point-of-Entry Water
Treatment Techniques
Introduction
EPA sponsored a 1-year study of radon removal from drinking water using three types
of point-df-entry (POE) treatment systems: granular activated carbon (GAC)
adsorption, diffused bubble aeration, and bubble plate aeration. Each treatment
alternative was evaluated with respect to radon removal efficiency, potential problems
(such as waste disposal, radiation exposure, equipment malfunctions, and intermedia
pollution), and costs.
Project Description
Private ground-water supplies may require PQE treatment to meet drinking water
standards for radon. Through an EPA Cooperative Agreement, researchers evaluated
POE systems using GAC adsorption (with and without ion exchange pretreatment),
diffused bubble aeration, and bubble plate aeration. Because the systems were operated
in a parallel flow configuration, each receiving the same influent from an abandoned
small community ground-water supply, the researchers were able to make direct
comparisons among the individual systems.
GAC adsorption was found to be the easiest to operate and maintain and the least
expensive of the systems. The GAC systems, however, could not consistently reduce
effluent radon concentrations to the 200 to 2,000 picoCuries per liter range (unless less
than 80 percent removal was required). In addition, the resin, brine, and backwater
from these systems may require special Handling and disposal.
Both the diffused bubble and bubble plate aeration systems were very efficient in
removing radon. These systems, however, are susceptible to problems associated with
iron oxidation and may be more prone to operational problems than are GAC systems.
Off-gas from these units must be discharged above the roofing of the dwellings.
Water from all three types of POE systems may require disinfection, and frequent
monitoring for radon concentration is essential.
Publications
Project Summary: Radon Removal Using Point-of-Entry Water Treatment
Techniques. 1990. EPA/600/S2-90/047. December.
Radon Removal Using Point-of-Entry Water Treatment Techniques (the complete
report). NTIS PB91-102 020/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
20
-------
Drinking Water
Low-Cost/Low-Technology Aeration
Techniques for Removing Radon from
Drinking Water
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study to investigate the effectiveness of low-technology/low-cost
aeration techniques in removing radon from drinking water. The techniques consisted
of flow-through storage and minimal aeration in various configurations. The
University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services conducted this research through an EPA Cooperative Agreement.
Project Description
The researchers monitored radon reduction in a distribution system, radon release from
an open air storage tank with no mixing, and radon reduction in a flow-through
reservoir system. The evaluation of radon loss in a distribution system was conducted
at a 33-home trailer park in New Hampshire. Samples were taken from kitchen taps in
five homes located at various distances from the pump house. The greatest reduction
(18.8 percent) occurred at the sampling point farthest from the pump house. Overall,
the reductions observed were very low (0 to 10 percent).
To evaluate open-air storage, the researchers monitored radon reduction from a still
pool of water. Radon removal was high (80 to 90 percent) with 5 to 6 days of storage
(vs. a theoretical reduction by radon decay alone of 67 percent over 6 days). The
researchers concluded that a small community that could store the water at
atmospheric pressure for several days could effectively use this technique.
For the flow-through reservoir test, the researchers constructed a system consisting of
a water storage tank with variable ports of influent entry above and below the water
level. Minimal bubble aeration was added to several of the entry types using a plastic
tube punctured with holes. The researchers observed good removals of radon in all test
combinations except for the bottom entry tests, which provided the minimum water
disturbance. In all cases where the water was allowed to fall to the reservoir surface or
where minimal bubble aeration was added, high removal rates were observed.
The researchers concluded that simple low-technology/low-cost aeration treatment
techniques can be applied easily in small communities to significantly lower radon
concentrations in drinking water. Removal percentages of 60 to 87 percent can be
achieved with only 9 hours of retention time and simple aeration. Better than 95
percent removal was observed with aeration applied during 30 hours of storage.
Publications
Environmental Research Brief: Low-CostlLow-Technology Aeration Techniques for
Removing Radon from Drinking Water. 1987. EPA/600/M-87/031. September.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
21
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Radon Removal by Point-of-Entry Granular
Activated Carbon Systems: Design,
Performance, and Cost
EPA sponsored a project to prepare a report on an 8-year study evaluating the
effectiveness of commercial point-of-entry (POE) and small water supply granular
activated carbon (GAC) units in removing radon from drinking water. The units were
installed in households, schools, and small housing developments. The study found
GAC to be an effective technique for radon removal.
Project Description
Researchers evaluated the design, installation, operation, monitoring, performance, and
costs of 121 POE GAC units. The units were located in Maine, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, and nine other states. The water for all sites came from ground-water supplies
with varying quality characteristics.
The POE GAC units were single vessels containing 1 to 3 cubic feet of GAC. Most
units were installed downstream of an existing pressure tank and were operated under
the existing water pressure in the building. In general, the only maintenance required
was twice-yearly replacement or washing of the sediment filter.
The monitoring program consisted of an initial sampling and analysis 3 weeks after
installation and a performance check once every 6 months for a 2-year period. Eleven
units were selected for more detailed analysis, in addition to these samplings. Most of
the samples were collected by the homeowners and mailed to the Radon Research
Laboratory at the University of Maine, where they were analyzed by liquid scintillation.
Results indicated that 113 of the 121 units achieved greater than 90 percent randon
reduction. Seven of the units experienced premature failure, which the researchers
attributed to regional water quality problems. For the 11 units monitored for 2 to 6
years, there were no clear indications of loss of efficiency over time. Although the
long-term data are limited to a few units, the researchers concluded that a typical POE
GAC unit may last a decade providing radon removals of greater than 90 percent.
Publications
Project Summary: Radon Removal by POE GAC Systems: Design, Performance, and
Cost. 1991. EPA/600/S2-90/049. January.
Radon Removal by POE GAC Systems: Design, Performance, and Cost (the complete
report). NTIS PB91-125 633/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
22
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Radon Removal Techniques for Small
Community Public Water Supplies
EPA sponsored a study to evaluate the performance of full-scale granular activated
carbon (GAC) adsorption, diffused bubble aeration, and packed tower aeration
techniques for removing radon from small community water supplies. In addition,
researchers evaluated various low-technology alternatives and modifications of the
liquid scintillation counting technique used for analysis of radon in water.
Project Description
Hie researchers installed GAC systems at two mobile home parks in New Hampshire
supplied with well water. Radon and several general water quality parameters were
monitored at each site. Trie researchers also took core samples of the GAC to determine if
iron, manganese, microorganisms, and/or radionuclides were accumulating in the units.
They assessed the effects on GAC performance of variations in water flowrate and raw
water quality, high water flowrate, and backwashing. Results indicated that the effects of
raw water quality on radon adsorption by GAC are poorly understood, and predictions
about radon removal are difficult to make.
For the diffused bubble aeration study, a series of three aeration tanks was installed in
a small community public water supply. Aeration was provided by a blower that forced
outdoor air into diffusers located below the water surface. The radon stripped from the
water was vented outside the building. The results showed radon removal efficiencies
from 90 percent to more than 99.6 percent.
The packed tower aeration system was installed at a mobile home park. It consisted of a
stainless steel tower randomly packed with plastic media. Raw water was pumped to the
top of the tower and distributed into the tower using a nozzle. Despite widely varying
operating conditions, the radon removal efficiency remained close to 93 percent For both
types of aeration systems, stack emissions monitoring indicated that the off-gasses would
need to be significantly diluted to be similar to levels found in the ambient air.
One conclusion of this study was that, when designing a treatment system to remove
radon from a small community water supply, good data on fiowrates and influent
radon activity are essential. A full report of this study discusses each technique
evaluated with respect to radon removal efficiencies, potential problems (such as waste
disposal, radiation exposure, and intermedia pollution), and economics in small
community applications.
Publications
Project Summary: Radon Removal Techniques for Small Community Public Water
Supplies. 1990. EPA/600/S2-90/036. November.
Radon Removal Techniques for Small Community Public Water Supplies (the full
report). NTIS PB90-257 809/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
23
-------
Drinking Water
Uranium Removal from Drinking Water Using
a Small Full-Scale System
Introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
EPA conducted a 9-month study on a small, full-scale ion-exchange (IX) system. The
objective of this study was to determine the operating characteristics, removal and
regeneration efficiencies, and costs of the facility. The project also investigated the
disposal of the uranium-laden brine.
Of approximately 60,000 community water systems in the United-States, probably 100
to 200 must treat their water to reduce uranium levels to concentrations that meet
federal regulations. The treatment system evaluated in this study was located at an
elementary school in Colorado. It consisted of two prefilters, a commercial water
softener system, a brine tank to batch regenerant, and holding tanks to store and
transfer spent regenerant. The researchers conducted IX regeneration tests, observed
regenerant wastewater disposal, and profiled gamma radiation. They also calculated
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
The study results showed that anion exchange can consistently remove radium at a
reasonable cost for small systems. The system was efficient in removing more than
99 percent of the uranium present in the raw water. The gamma radiation profile tests
showed that the potential dose to ion-exchange treatment operators would be minor.
Disposal of uranium-laden IX regenerant wastewater is the most complex task
involved in uranium removal from water. In this case, the regeneration wastewater was
disposed of by hauling it to a secondary domestic wastewater treatment facility and
introducing it to an equalization basin at the headworks of the facility. Limited data
indicated that uranium was present in the wastewater treatment plant effluent and
might concentrate in the sludge generated by the plant.
The capital cost for the system, including equipment, labor, and engineering, was
$8,900 in 1986, not including the well, well pump, pump controls, or the treatment
facility building. The O&M cost for removing the uranium from the water and
disposing of the regenerant wastewater was approximately $6.70 per 1,000 gallons of
water treated. Because of the costs associated with regenerant disposal and the
sophisticated analyses required, O&M costs for similar uranium removal systems will
be significantly higher than costs for conventional treatment.
Project Summary: Uranium Removal from Drinking Water Using a Small Full-Scale
System. 1989. EPA/600/S2-89/012. August.
Uranium Removal from Drinking Water Using a Small Full-Scale System (the
complete report). NTIS PB89-169/AS.
Jelenik, R.T. and Sorg, TJ. 1988. Operating a Small Full-Scale Ion Exchange System
for Uranium Removal. Journal AWWA. 80 (7): 79-83
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
24
-------
Drinking Water
Removal of Uranium from Drinking Water by
Ion Exchange and Chemical Clarification
Introduction
EPA sponsored a 3-month project to demonstrate pilot-scale ion-exchange (IX) and
chemical clarification equipment for removing uranium from drinking water. The
researchers also developed cost data, analyzed uranium waste disposal options, and
analyzed conventional water treatment plants with feed water containing uranium.
Project Description
Uranium-contaminated drinking water is a common problem, particularly in the
western United States. For this study, researchers tested four commercial-type IX
columns and prefiltering and regeneration solution systems for their abili ty to remove
uranium from a ground- water well in New Mexico. The uranium concentration of the
water varied from 190 micrograms per liter (lig/L) to 400 |J,g/L.
Four ion exchange columns housing three different types of resins were tested.
Pretreatment consisted of paniculate filtering, and regeneration was by chloride ion.
The chemical clarification unit consisted of a rapid-mix vessel and a continuous
precoat rotary vacuum filter covered with diatomaceous earth. The system achieved
greater than 99 percent removal of uranium when operating at 30 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) of ferric chloride and a pH of 10. The precoat filter achieved complete
solid-liquid separation.
* /
In addition to conducting the pilot study, the researchers reviewed and analyzed the
records of currently operating water treatment systems with feed supplies containing
uranium. They found that conventional water treatment facilities can greatly reduce the
uranium content of natural waters.
The full report of this project contains cost analysis data for capital equipment and a
discussion of disposal methods for uranium-containing water treatment waste. The
disposal methods considered included dilution and release, reuse and resale, and burial.
Publications
Project Summary: Removal of Uranium from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange and
Chemical Clarification. 1987. EPA/600/S2-87/076. December.
Removal of Uranium from Drinking Water by Ion Exchange and Chemical
Clarification (the complete report). NTIS PB88-102 900/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Song, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
25
-------
DdnMng Water
Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in
San Ysidro, New Mexico
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study of point-of-use (POU) reverse osmosis (RO) units. The
objective was to determine whether these units could be used in place of central
treatment to remove arsenic, and fluoride from drinking water. POU RO treatment units
were installed in private homes in the small community of San Ysidro, New Mexico.
They were evaluated for removal efficiency, cost, and management effectiveness.
Project description
San Ysidro, New Mexico, is a rural community of 200 people. It has a long history of
water supply problems, including arsenic and fluoride contamination. As a result of
earlier research to solve the contamination problem (see "Arsenic Removal from
Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New Mexico," page 27), POU treatment with RO units
was selected for further evaluation. A contractor was selected to install and maintain
approximately 80 under-the-sink RO units in private homes. Data collected over an
18-month period showed that the units lowered the levels of arsenic, fluoride, total
dissolved solids, chloride, iron, and manganese to well below the federal standards.
The cost to the customer of POU treatment in San Ysidro was less than half of the
estimated cost of central treatment. Special ordinances were necessary to address
customer responsibilities, water utility responsibilities, and liability issues, and to
require that the device be installed in homes obtaining water from the utility.
Publications
Project Summary: Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New '""
Mexico. 1990. EPA/600/S2-89/050. March. /
fe* '"
Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New Mexico (the complete
report), NTIS PB90-108 838/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
-------
Drinking Water
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water in San
Ysidro, New Mexico
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study on the removal of naturally occurring arsenic from ground
water that also contained fluoride and a high level of total dissolved solids. The study
objective was to establish a cost-effective means of removing arsenic and fluoride
from drinking water. Researchers studied several different treatment processes: reverse
osmosis (RO), electrodialysis, ion exchange, and activated alumina (AA) adsorption.
Project Description
The water supply for the small community of San Ysidro, New Mexico, exceeds
federal drinking water standards for both arsenic and fluoride. Over a period of 9
months, field research was conducted at the University of Houston/EPA Mobile
Drinking Water Treatment Research Facility. The results of the study indicated that
San Ysidro can use AA adsorption, RO, or possibly electrodialysis to remove arsenic.
The first two methods can be applied using either central treatment or point-of-use
(POU) treatment. Preoxidation using chlorine to convert As(III) to As(V) will aid
arsenic removal but is not essential. Mesh size and pH were found to significantly
influence the effectiveness of AA. Ion exchange did not perform well enough to be
Considered seriously for treatment
Because of the community size (70 dwellings), poor water quality, and the difficulty of
central treatment, a POU RO treatment system study was recommended as a result of
this research (see "Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New
Mexico," page 26).
Publications
Project Summary: Arsenic (HI) and Arsenic(V) Removal from Drinking Water in San
Ysidro, New Mexico. 1991. EPA/600/S2-91/011. June.
Arsenic(HI) and Arsenic(V) Removal from Drinking Water in San Ysidro, New Mexico
(the complete report). NTIS No. PB91-181 925/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
27
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Field Experience with Point-of-Use Treatment
Systems for Arsenic Removal
At the request of EPA Region 10, a field project was carried out to evaluate
point-of-use (POU) treatment systems for removing arsenic from drinking water. The
systems studied employed activated alumina (AA), ion exchange (IX), and reverse
osmosis (RO). The research project was designed to provide information for state and
county agencies to assist homeowners or small communities with water supplies
exceeding the federal standard for arsenic.
Project Description
The field project involved installing POU treatment devices in four homes in Alaska
and Oregon. These homes had private wells supplying water containing naturally
occurring arsenic in concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
The pilot systems consisted of an AA tank, an anion exchange tank, and an RO system.
Both single tap and whole house (point-of-entry) systems were used.
The study showed that all three of the treatment techniques tested can lower arsenic
concentrations in water. Low-pressure RO systems were found to be effective when
the arsenic concentration did not exceed 0.1 mg/L. High-pressure RO systems were
very effective, but they required the use of a booster pump. Because RO removes other
contaminants besides arsenic, these systems produce high-quality water. Potential
disadvantages of RO include the small amount of finished water and the high volume
of reject water produced. The IX units, when properly pretreated, were able to treat
water containing as much as 1.16 mg arsenic/L. AA also worked well with proper
pretreatment. Periodic monitoring after installation is essential to confirm the
continued effectiveness of these techniques.
Publications
Fox, K.R. 1989. Field Experience with Point-of-Use Treatment Systems for Arsenic
Removal. Journal AWWA. 81(2): 94-101.
AWBERC Contact
Kim R. Fox, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7820
28
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Nitrate Removal from Drinking Water in
Glendale, Arizona
EPA sponsored a 15-month pilot-scale study comparing the technical feasibility and
economics of reverse osmosis (RO), electrodialysis (ED), and ion exchange (IX) for
removing nitrates from well water. The study took place in Glendale, Arizona, where
10 of 31 drinking water wells had been shut down because of excess nitrates.
Project Description
The experiments in this study were carried out using the University of Houston/EPA
Mobile Inorganics Pilot Plant. All three processes reduced the nitrate concentration of
the drinking water to well below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10
milligrams per liter (mg/L). Anion exchange with chloride-form, strong-base resin was
studied in the greatest detail because of the simplicity and low cost of this method.
About 410 bed volumes (BV) of Glendale water (containing 18 to 25 mg/L of nitrate)
•could be treated for complete nitrate removal before nitrate breakthrough. IX
regeneration brine disposal remains an unsolved problem with this method.
Based on these studies, the estimated capital plus operating costs for producing 1,000
gallons of product water containing 7 mg/L of nitrates in a 1 million gallon per day
(mgd) plant are 30 cents for IX, 85 cents for ED, and 1 dollar for RO.
Publications
Project Summary: Nitrate Removal from Drinking Water in Glendale, Arizona. 1987.
EPA/600/S2-86/107. March.
Nitrate Removal from Drinking Water in Glendale, Arizona (the complete report).
NTIS PB87-129 284/AS.
AWBERC Contact
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
29
-------
Drinking Water
introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water
Supplies Using Ion Exchange
EPA sponsored research to evaluate nitrate removal using the ion exchange process at
a 1 million gallon per day (mgd) plant in McFarland, California. The study produced
detailed information about the design, operation, performance, and cost of this
treatment system.
The McFarland nitrate removal plant treats water pumped from a well supplying water for
domestic use. The plant treats close to 700 gallons of ground water per minute (gpm). It
uses a three-vessel ion exchange process with conventional, commercially available
anion-exchange resin that requires regeneration with a sodium chloride brine.
For this study, researchers kept daily records of flows, water quality, electrical
consumption, salt usage, and personnel time to determine operating costs,
performance, and reliability. The data showed that the facility reduced nitrate levels to
well below the maximum contaminant level. The researchers also found that if the well
was continuously pumped, the need for nitrate treatment decreased. Maximum
automation was used successfully with the minimal staffing of a small water system.
Total water recovery was high at over 96 percent. Based on the design capacity of 1
mgd, capital costs were 9.9 cents per 1,000 gallons, and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs were 8.5 cents per 1,000 gallons. The disposal of wastewater and waste
salts from the plant are important concerns.
EPA has summarized the results of this study in two reports. The first report provides
the performance and cost data obtained during the initial adjustment of the plant and
the first 6 months of operation. The second report analyzes O&M costs and plant
performance in the following 2 years.
Project Summary: Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies: Volume I.
Design and Initial Performance of a Nitrate Removal Plant. 1987.
EPA/600/S2-86/115. April.
Project Summary: Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies: Volume II.
Final Report. 1987. EPA/600/S2-87/034. August.
The complete reports:
Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies: Volume I. Design and Initial
Performance of a Nitrate Removal Plant. NIS PB87-145 470/AS.
Nitrate Removal from Contaminated Water Supplies: Volume II. Final Report. NTIS
PB87-194577/AS.
Lauch, R.P. and Outer, G.A. 1986. Ion Exchange for the Removal of Nitrate from
Drinking Water. Journal AWWA. 78(5):83-88
Thomas J. Sorg, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7370
30
-------
Drinking Water
Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Entry Granular
Activated Carbon Filters and Their
Relationship to Human Health
Introduction
EPA sponsored a study to examine the potential health effects of exposure to bacteria
discharged from whole-house granular activated carbon (GAG) filters. This study
emphasized the respiratory exposure route (i.e., exposure to bacteria in
shower-generated aerosols). An earlier study ("Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Use
Granular Activated Carbon Filters and Their Relationship to Human Health," page 32)
focused on respiratory and skin exposure.
Project Description
GAC filters, commonly used for home drinking water treatment, can provide a
favorable environment for the attachment and growth of microorganisms. Research has
suggested that the bacteria associated with GAC filters do not cause disease. Little is
known, however, about the health effects of many bacteria that can colonize these
filters and enter drinking water in high concentrations.
EPA sponsored an epidemiological study to investigate these concerns. The study
measured bacterial levels in discharge waters from GAC filters installed in 80
households where the water line entered the home. The control group consisted of 87
households with no water filters. All homes used water from the same filtration plant.
Researchers took monthly hot and cold water samples from each household and
analyzed them for bacterial and chemical content and bacterial levels. They also
conducted a water use survey to quantify the various exposure routes to drinking water
(i.e., through ingestion, skin contact, and breathing in steam during bathing).
Researchers monitored respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin-related infections
experienced by the household residents. Health information was provided by test
subjects, who filled out health diaries, and the physicians of patients who experienced
health problems during the test period.
Study results indicate that whole-house GAC filters are colonized by heterotrophic
bacteria (bacteria that require organic compounds as carbon and energy sources) from
the water distribution system. Once colonized, the filters discharge significantly higher
amounts of bacteria than were found in drinking water in the control households. The
households using the filters, however, did not experience more upper or lower
respiratory, gastrointestinal, or dermal symptoms compared to the control households.
None of the infections reported to physicians were attributed to bacteria that had
colonized the filters.
Publications
Calderon, R. Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Entry, Granular Activated Carbon Filters
and Their Relationship to Human Health (Draft). Department of Epidemiology and
Public Health, Yale School of Medicine.
AWBERC Contact
Alfred P. Dufour, Microbiologist
Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7218
31
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Use Granular
Activated Carbon Filters and Their
Relationship to Human Health
EPA sponsored research to evaluate the health effects related to bacteria discharged
from household point-of-use (POU) granular activated carbon (GAC) filters. This
study examined effects from ingestion of and skin contact with water from GAC
filters. A second study ("Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Entry Granular Activated
Carbon Filters and Their Relationship to Human Health," page 31) emphasized the
respiratory exposure route (i.e., exposure to bacteria via shower-generated aerosols).
GAC is an excellent adsorbent for common tastes and odors, some turbidity, chlorine,
and many organic contaminants. It also provides a favorable environment for the
attachment and growth of microorganisms. Research to date suggests that the bacteria
associated with GAC filters do not cause disease in healthy people. Little is known,
however, about the many bacteria that colonize GAC or the possible health effects of
high concentrations of these bacteria in drinking water. This is of particular concern
because infants, the elderly, and other people who are susceptible to infections may
reside in homes in which GAC filters are used.
To investigate these concerns, EPA sponsored an epidemiological study of the health
effects of exposure to the high concentrations of bacteria found in GAC filter effluent.
The study population consisted of families in off-base Navy housing in Groton,
Connecticut. The test groups used two types of POU GAC filters (bypass and faucet).
Filters with blank cartridges were used in the homes of the control groups. Water
samples, bacterial counts, and health data were collected and processed over a
17-month period. The health data consisted of information recorded in health diaries,
survey responses, and information provided by the physicians of patients who
experienced gastrointestinal or skin problems.
The study results indicated that both types of POU GAC filters are colonized by
heterotrophic bacteria (bacteria that require organic compounds as carbon and energy
sources) from the water supply system. The filters discharge significantly higher
amounts of bacteria than are found in unfiltered tap water. The groups using the GAC
filters, however, showed no increase in gastrointestinal or skin-related symptoms
compared to the control group. None of the illnesses reported to physicians were
related to bacteria that had colonized the filters. The researchers concluded that
ingestion of GAC-filtered water was not a risk factor for disease in the populations
examined in this study.
Calderon, R. and E. Mood. Bacteria Colonizing Point-of-Use, Granular Activated
Carbon Filters and Their Relationship to Human Health (Draft). Department of
Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine.
Alfred P. Dufour, Microbiologist
Environmental Monitoring and Surveillance Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7218
32
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Methods for the Determination of Organic
Compounds in Drinking Water
EPA has prepared two documents that present 22 laboratory analytical methods for
identifying and measuring more than 250 organic compounds in drinking water and
drinking water sources. The methods analyze volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
certain disinfection byproducts, and a variety of synthetic organic compounds and
pesticides. The documents are designed for public and private laboratories that wish to
determine organic compounds in drinking water for regulatory or other purposes.
Project Description
EPA develops analytical methods to determine the quality of ambient waters and
measure chemical and physical parameters affecting water quality. The methods
described in these documents utilize capillary gas chromatography or
high-performance liquid chromatography. Some methods require modest equipment
and others require sophisticated instrumentation.
For each method, the documents include the following information: a summary,
definitions, and scope and application of the method; interferences; safety; apparatus
and equipment; reagents and consumable materials; sample collection, preservation,
and storage; calibration; quality control; procedures; calculations; precision and
accuracy; and references. Most of the methods include either a method detection limit
(MDL) or an estimated detection limit (EDL) for each analyte as an indicator of the
capability of the method.
The names of the authors of each method are provided to assist users in obtaining
direct telephone support when required.
All of the methods described in these documents were developed for measuring
relatively clean water matrices. The authors, therefore, recommend caution when
applying these methods to more complex matrices such as wastewater, hazardous
waste effluents, or biological fluids.
Publications
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water. 1988.
EPA/600/4-88/039. December.
Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water:
Supplement I. 1990. EPA/600/4-90/020. My.
AWBERC Contact
William L. Budde, Chemist
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7309
33
-------
Drinking Water
Wellhead Protection Workshops and
Technology Transfer Documents
Introduction
EPA is helping regional and state officials prevent ground-water pollution through
wellhead protection programs. EPA, in conjunction with the National Rural Water
Association (NRWA) and individuals from the Rural Water Association Affiliates,
will develop a series of workshops and two technology transfer documents on
wellhead protection.
Project Description
Ground-water protection and conservation provide some of the best available
opportunities for pollution prevention. For this reason, EPA has initiated a three-part
project focusing on wellhead protection. In the first part of this project, NRWA will
assist EPA in assembling information about 156 wellhead protection programs under
way in 14 states, as well as any additional programs initiated in FY 93. The second
part of the project will consist of regional and state workshops and meetings to assist
small communities in developing wellhead protection programs. The third part will
consist of developing technology transfer materials focusing on wellhead protectioa
Publications
Publications to be developed through this project include workshop handout materials,
a technology transfer seminar publication, and a technology transfer handbook.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
34
-------
Drinking Water
Introduction
Risk Assessment, Management, and
Communication of Drinking Water
Contamination
EPA has issued a seminar publication on identifying, assessing, and managing the
occurrence of potentially toxic chemicals in drinking water. The document presents a
broad range of information from the fields of toxicology, chemistry, and engineering.
It is designed to assist the reader in assessing and managing drinking water
contamination problems in his or her region, state, or locality.
Project Description
This publication is based on a series of EPA workshops entitled "Assessment and
Management of Drinking Water Contamination." These workshops were developed to
provide information to local and state officials, consultants, utility employees, and
others involved in the management of drinking water contamination incidents.
The seminar publication covers the essential steps in solving a drinking water
contamination problem: review of available standards and advisories, review of
toxicology, assessment of risk, review of risk reduction options, and risk
communication. Technical information is presented on EPA programs, toxicology,
chemistry, treatment principles, and media coverage and risk communication during an
emergency. Appendices to the document include federal drinking water standards;
health advisories for aldicarb, atrazine, trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride; and
exercises for a case study on risk assessment, management, and reduction for vinyl
chloride contamination of drinking water.
Publications
Seminar Publication: Risk Assessment, Management and Communication of Drinking
Water Contamination. 1990. EPA/625/4-89/024. June.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
35
-------
-------
Municipal Wastewater
-------
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
Implementation of Sequencing Batch Reactor
Technologies in the United States
EPA has conducted an evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs). These are
variable-volume wastewater treatment units in which the aeration, settling, and
decanting phases of the treatment process take place in a single reactor. The different
phases are controlled by a programmable logic controller. SBRs may be appropriate
for some small communities, because construction costs are lower than those for
conventional wastewater treatment plants. In addition, SBRs offer great flexibility,
because the programmable control of each phase of the treatment process can be easily
changed to meet site-specific or changing requirements.
The first modern SBR in the United States began operation in 1980. A 1984 EPA
evaluation of this technology found only four SBR plants in this country. Of these, one
had just started operation, and another was experiencing decanter problems.
During 1989-1990, EPA sponsored a followup evaluation of SBR technology. More
than 100 SBR facilities were in operation in the United States in 1989, with an
additional 50 facilities under design. The distribution of these facilities (in terms of
average dry weather flow) was 32 percent less than 0.1 mgd, 69 percent less than 0.5
mgd, 81 percent less than 1.0 mgd, and 19 percent greater than 1.0 mgd. ,
The five major vendors were contacted to obtain installation lists. More than 40
operating SBR facilities were contacted by telephone to obtain preliminary operation,
maintenance, and performance information. Site visits were made to 23 facilities to
review plant operation first hand and to collect additional performance and cost data.
Site visit reports and completed data analyses were subsequently sent to each facility to
verify the accuracy of all information gathered.
Fifteen facilities had sufficient operating data to permit a detailed analysis of plant
performance. Average effluent total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen
demand (BOD) for these facilities ranged from 3 to 25 mg/L and 3 to 21 mg/L,
respectively.
A final report will summarize the results of the evaluation. The report will include
information on plant operating conditions and performance, differences in hydraulic
and operational strategies, different design options, and effluent probability
distributions.
Deeny, K. et al. 1991. Implementation of Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology in the
United States. Presented at the 1991 Water Pollution Control Federation Annual
Conference. (Available from AWBERC contact below.)
A final report is expected to be available in Summer 1992.
James A. Heidman, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7632
39
-------
Municipal Waste wafer
Introduction
Pilot-Scale Research on Constructed
Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Constructed wetlands are a promising new technology for wastewater treatment. EPA
is sponsoring a controlled pilot-scale research study on subsurface flow constructed
wetlands through a cooperative agreement with the Tennessee Technological
University in Cookeville, Tennessee.
Project Description
More than 600 wetlands have been constructed worldwide for treating wastes from
municipalities, industry, agriculture, and mining operations. Constructed wetlands are
generally divided into free water surface (FWS) and subsurface flow (SF) systems. SF
systems are also known as "root zone method," "rock-reed filters," "reed bed
treatment," "vegetated submerged beds," and "microbial rock plant filters."
SF systems have significant potential for small community wastewater treatment. They
have relatively low capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, small area
requirements, and apparently simple O&M requirements. In addition, they can meet
secondary effluent standards when preceded by at least primary or lagoon treatment.
They may offer small communities a valuable alternative technology whose only
competitor may be intermittent sand filtration. SF may have an advantage over sand
filtration in nutrient, metals, and toxics removals. SF wetlands may meet the needs of
many small communities where land-based alternatives are infeasible due to
inadequate soils or hydrogeologic conditions. They may be used both for upgrading
noncomplying facilities and for new systems.
In spite of the large number of constructed wetlands and their apparent potential, many
questions remain concerning their design and performance. EPA is sponsoring a
pilot-scale research study to better define the biological oxygen demand (BOD) and
nitrogen removal kinetics in an SF-constructed wetland. The study also will evaluate
operational procedures that might enhance nitrogen removal in these systems. The
project will be carried out using fourteen 4 ft by 16 ft SF wetland cells with multiple
sampling locations and a controlled wastewater source.
This project is just beginning. Construction of the pilot cells began in Fall 1991, and
planting is scheduled for Spring 1992. Early results from the study are expected in Fall
1993. The project is scheduled to run for 3 years.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
Donald S. Brown, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
40
-------
Municipal Waste wafer
Introduction
Constructed Wetlands for Individual Homes
(Onsite Systems)
EPA is sponsoring research to obtain information on the performance of constructed
wetlands ("rock-reed filters") for individual homes. The goal of this project is to
provide state departments of health with enough information to make decisions about
the reliability and applicability of onsite systems in their states.
Project Description
Constructed wetlands for individual homes typically resemble long, narrow rectangular
flower beds (about 70' by 3' by 11/2') planted with aquatic plants (bulrush, cattails,
reeds). The filter is usually filled with 11/2" to 1" rock for the first 20' of length, and
1/2" to 1" rock for the rest of the length. The filter is usually lined. A perforated inlet
pipe is buried about mid-depth and extends about 20' into the bed. A perforated outlet
pipe also is buried about mid-depth and extends across the width of the bed at the
outlet end.
The State of Louisiana has installed more than 40 rock-reed filters since 1987. In the
past 2 years, the State of Kentucky has installed approximately 300 systems, and the
State of Arkansas has installed more than 60 systems. The States of Colorado,
Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have also installed a few of these
systems. However, due to the lack of performance data from their rock-reed filters, the
States of Arkansas and Louisiana have imposed moratoriums on further installations
until more data are collected.
In spite of the great interest in these systems, very little reliable data exist documenting
their performance. The State of Louisiana has performed limited effluent testing of
these systems in a random manner. These data show that effluent biological oxygen
demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal coliform levels are low enough
to meet surface discharge requirements. The Louisiana Department of Health is
conducting the first well-planned study to measure performance, but this evaluation
will be only 6 months long.
To meet the need for performance data on onsite rock-reed filters, EPA is sponsoring a
project to collect detailed, reliable information of a known quality. This will be
accomplished by monitoring several operating filters in Louisiana and Arkansas.
Researchers will monitor influent and effluent flow, BOD, TSS, ammonia, nitrate, and
fecal coliforms over a 2-year period. If possible, a failed system will be examined to
determine the cause of failure. A quality assurance program will be followed to ensure
the quality of the data.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
Donald S. Brown, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
41
-------
Municipal Wsstsmter
Introduction
Inventory of Constructed Wetlands in the
United States
Constructed wetlands are a promising technology for wastewater treatment. Subsurface
flow (SF) constructed wetlands systems have significant potential for small community
wastewater treatment (see "Pilot-Scale Research on Constructed Wetlands for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment," page 40). To gain a better understanding of the
performance of these systems, EPA conducted an inventory of all SF constructed
wetlands systems in the United States.
Project Description
EPA's inventory of SF constructed wetlands systems consisted of two stages. In the
first stage, researchers gathered information via mail and telephone. The only systems
excluded from this stage were those serving individual homes or mine drainage sites.
Few demands were placed on the individuals contacted. For example, people were
asked whether they had cost and performance data rather than asked to provide their
cost and performance data. The first stage was completed in Fall 1990. More than 60
operating systems were located out of 150 systems identified (including those in the
planning, design, and construction phases).
The second stage of the inventory consisted of site visits to operating SF wetlands.
Because of limited funds, only 20 of the more than 30 operating SF wetlands were
visited. Each site visit resulted in an informal in-house EPA report. The reports include
available information on design, performance, cost, and operation; a critique of the
system; and slides or photographs of the system. This is a data collection effort; no
new data are being produced. Information from both stages of the inventory will be
incorporated into a larger constructed wetlands data base being produced by EPA's
Corvallis, Oregon, laboratory.
Publications
Inventory of Constructed Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment in the U.S.
1991. EPA-600/D-91/087. (NTIS PB91-191 247.) May.
Reed, Sherwood and Donald Brown. 1991. Constructed Wetland Design—The Second
Generation. Presented at the 1991 Water Pollution Control Federation Annual
Conference (to be published in Water Environment Research).
Reed, Sherwood. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. 1991. Biocycle.
January, pp. 44-49.
AWBERC Contact
Donald S. Brown, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
42
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Introduction
Monitoring Operating Constructed Wetlands
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Constructed wetlands are a promising technology for wastewater treatment. Subsurface
flow (SF) constructed wetlands systems have significant potential for small community
wastewater treatment (see "Pilot-Scale Research on Constructed Wetlands for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment," page 40). EPA is conducting a study to gather
reliable data and information from a number of operating constructed wetlands.
Project Description
A major obstacle to the widespread application of constructed wetlands is the lack of
acceptable system design and operating criteria. In addition, performance data are
limited, because most facilities collect only the data needed to fulfill their NPDES
permit requirements. Some of the performance data also are suspect because the
analyses have been performed by laboratories that lack a quality assurance program.
To address these concerns, EPA is monitoring operating constructed wetlands to obtain
reliable performance data. The monitoring consists of measuring flows and collecting
samples at influent and effluent points over a 4-month period using established quality
assurance guidelines. '
Analysis of this information should yield a better understanding of system design,
operation, and performance. For each system monitored, the goals are to confirm the
design hydraulic residence time (HRT) and calculated hydraulic profiles; quantify the
actual HRT via a tracer study; estimate the actual porosity of the constructed wetland
by examining selected samples of the wetland bed; determine removal efficiencies for
biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended
solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and fecal
coliforms; and determine the degree of nitrification achieved by measuring ammonia
and nitrate. For the combined data from all the monitored systems, the goals are to
quantify the relationship of HRT to the removals of monitored parameters and quantify
the relationship of HRT to the conversion of ammonia to nitrate.
Monitoring at the first two facilities, Carville and Mandeville, Louisiana, was
completed in October 1991. Greenleaves (a subdivision of Mandeville) and Hammond,
Louisiana, are being monitored in Spring 1992. Two or three additional locations will
be monitored each year for 2 to 3 years, depending on funding.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
Donald S. Brown, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
43
-------
Municipal Wastswater
introduction
Alternatives to Traditional Onsite Wastewater
Treatment: A Demonstration Project
EPA is conducting a project to demonstrate approaches to onsite wastewater treatment
that include nitrogen removal capabilities. Nitrogen is of great concern in coastal areas
where nitrogen enrichment can lead to eutrophication and accompanying problems in
coastal water bodies. This project is a cooperative effort involving EPA Region 1 's
Near Coastal Waters Program, the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Project, and
EPA/Cincinnati.
Project Description
Traditional onsite septic systems are used extensively throughout the United States.
With appropriate design, installation, and maintenance, septic tanks can efficiently
remove most biological and chemical contaminants. These systems do little, however,
to remove nitrogen.
For this reason, EPA has undertaken a full-scale demonstration project for alternative
approaches to traditional septic systems. The project focuses on conversion or
retrofitting of existing septic systems, for two reasons: 1) septic systems can be a
significant source of nitrate in ground water, and 2) homeowners who must comply
with a nitrogen management strategy will need proven, technically sound systems that
meet the objectives of the strategy.
The project consistsaof three tasks: 1) a literature review and technology selection;
2) site selection, system design, and installation; and 3) operation and monitoring for a
1-year period, followed by analysis and reporting. The project is scheduled to be
completed by Spring 1993.
Preliminary research indicates that a form of recirculating sand filter system is likely to
be selected because of the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these systems.
Publications
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
Donald S. Brown, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
44
-------
Municipal Wasfewater
Small Community Wastewater Management
Manual
Introduction
EPA is preparing a manual for small communities on all aspects of planning, design,
and management of wastewater facilities. The facilities addressed in the manual range
from individual home onsite systems to cluster systems of several homes to complete
centralized collection, treatment, and disposal facilities.
Project Description
Small communities have unique needs regarding wastewater management regimes,
technology options, and planning. They generally lack skilled management and
funding, while having ample available land For this reason, low-cost, low-
maintenance "natural" treatment systems are attractive options for these communities.
EPA's Small Community Wastewater Management Manual will feature such systems,
including stabilization ponds, constructed wetlands, slow sand filters, and soil-based
treatment systems. (Soil-based systems include subsurface soil absorption and surface
application approaches such as slow-rate infiltration, rapid infiltration, and overland
flow.) In addition, some "mechanical" systems are included for special situations in
which other types of systems are inappropriate.
The manual discusses the advantages of low-cost alternative wastewater collection
systems as a way to avoid the expense of conventional sewer systems. It also describes
residuals disposal alternatives (including technologies, management requirements, and
implementation options) most appropriate to small communities.
This manual will be a companion to EPA's Manual: Alternative Wastewater
Collection Systems (see page 48), Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal (see
page 53), and a future field guide for onsite systems.
Publications
This manual is scheduled to be completed by October 1992.
AWBERC Contact
Randy P. Revetta, Physical Scientist
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7358
or
James F. Kreissl, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7630
-------
Municipal Wastawater
Introduction
Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and
Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment
EPA has developed a design manual for aquatic wastewater treatment systems. For
small communities in particular, these systems can be an attractive alternative to
conventional processes that require higher labor and energy costs.
Project Description
EPA's Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems describes
three classifications of aquatic wastewater treatment systems: natural wetlands,
constructed wetlands, and aquatic plant systems. Constructed wetlands include free
water surface (FW) systems and subsurface flow (SF) systems. Potential advantages of
these systems include simple operation and maintenance, process stability under
varying environmental conditions, low construction and operating costs, and, in the
case of free water surface systems, the possibility of creating wildlife habitat.
Disadvantages can include mosquitoes and difficulty in establishing desired aquatic
plant species. For constructed wetlands, the manual presents detailed information
about site selection, performance expectations, process variables, preapplication
treatment, vegetation, and physical design factors.
Aquatic plant systems are shallow ponds with floating or submerged aquatic plants
(usually water hyacinth or duckweed). These systems can be designed and operated to
accomplish a variety of wastewater treatment tasks. They can have a number of
disadvantages, however. These include susceptibility to cold weather and biological
controls for hyacinths in the natural environment, mosquitoes, and limits to treatment
capacity and dependability in meeting low effluent values for nutrients. For aquatic
plant systems, the manual discusses vegetation, process design criteria, physical
features, performance expectations, and sample design problems.
The manual presents case studies of constructed wetlands and aquatic plant systems
that are representative of current knowledge and practice. The manual also presents
environmental and public health considerations (nitrogen, phosphorous, pathogens,
metals, and trace organics). An appendix lists facilities with operating or abandoned
constructed wetlands and aquatic plant systems, so that the manual user can visit
nearby projects.
Publications
Design Manual: ConstructedWetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment, 1988. EPA/625/1-88/022. January.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355,
46
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Introduction
Process Design Manual: Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater
EPA, in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture, developed a process design manual for
land treatment of municipal wastewater. This manual provides criteria and supporting
information for planning and process design of land treatment systems. The document
updates an earlier process design manual published in 1977.
Project Description
Controlled application of wastewater onto the land surface can achieve treatment
through natural physical, chemical, and biological processes. EPA's process design
manual addresses three major land treatment processes: slow rate, rapid infiltration,
and overland flow. The manual discusses recommended procedures for planning and
designing each process, along with information about treatment performance.
Equations and procedures are included to allow calculations of energy requirements.
Potential health and environmental effects also are addressed. In addition, the manual
presents special considerations for small systems (up to 1,000 m /d).
In addition to the process design manual, EPA has issued a supplement on rapid
infiltration and overland flow. The supplement provides guidance to prevent problems
encountered in some rapid infiltration systems, particularly with respect to capability to
infiltrate and then percolate water at design rates. In addition, the supplement presents
updated information on nitrogen removal, organics removal, and the need for
disinfection in these systems. The supplement also provides updated information on
overland flow, based on field investigations and data from research/demonstration
projects.
Publications
Process Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. 1981. EPA
625/1-81-013. October.
Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow. 1984. EPA 625/1-8 l-013a.
October.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
47
-------
MvnMpal Wastewatar
Introduction
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
Manual for Alternative Wastewater Collection
Systems
EPA has produced a manual on alternative wastewater collection systems, including
pressure, vacuum, and gravity systems. EPA also is planning a seminar series based on
this manual for FY1992-1993.
For many small communities, conventional gravity sewers constitute most of the cost of
wastewater treatment systems. Alternative collection systems using small-diameter,
lightweight piping buried at shallow depths can be economical for communities with low
population densities. Pressure sewers include grinder pump (GP) systems, which macerate
sewage solids before pumping, and septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems, which
use septic tanks to remove grit, grease, and settieable solids before pumping. These
systems have been widely applied in North America and in some European and Asian
countries. Small diameter gravity (SDG) sewers use septic tanks to remove settieable and
floatable materials prior to entry into the sewer. These systems also are becoming popular
because of their relatively low, capital costs and operating requirements. Vacuum sewers
draw wastewater and air through collection pipes to the central collection point. Interest in
vacuum sewers is growing because they can serve denser developments in rural areas and
provide wastewater in a fresher conditioa
EPA's Manual: Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems contains the complete
body of experience with these systems. The document outlines the history of
nonconventional sewer systems, the situations in which they are more advantageous
than conventional systems, their design and performance histories, operation and
maintenance requirements, and cost examples. The manual documents the components
of each system, including materials of construction, sizing, key features, and impact on
performance. The material illustrates how different design approaches, construction
materials, and construction/procurement procedures can affect operation and
maintenance requirements and system performance. In addition, the manual provides
examples of site conditions that have been effectively serviced by alternative systems.
Common myths about these systems also are addressed.
Manual: Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems. 1991. EPA/625/1-91/024.
October.
James F. Kreissl, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7611
or
Denis J. Lussier, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7354
43
-------
Municipal Waslewater
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion
Introduction
Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) is a promising technology for
controlling pathogens in municipal wastewater sludge. Between 1989 and 1990, EPA
conducted a study to collect and analyze design and operating data from ATAD
systems in Europe and Canada. Detailed information is available concerning the
history, design, operation and maintenance, performance, and cost of ATAD systems.
Project Description
ATAD systems are two-stage aerobic processes that operate under thermophilic
temperature conditions (40° to 80° C), usually without supplemental heat. Typical
ATAD systems operate at 55° and reach 60° to 65° in the second stage. They rely on
the heat released during digestion to reach and maintain the desired operating
temperatures.
The benefits of the ATAD process include a high disinfection capability, low space
and tankage requirements, and a high sludge treatment rate. These systems are
relatively simple and easy to operate (automatic monitoring or control equipment and
full-time staff are not required) and are economical, particularly for small facilities.
ATAD systems have been successfully implemented throughout Europe and in Canada.
In 1989 and 1990, EPA conducted a study of ATAD systems in the Federal Republic
of Germany (FRG), where more than 35 full-scale facilities are operating. Information
was obtained from the following sources: a review of German and U.S. literature,
telephone contact with FRG facilities, site visits to selected facilities, meetings with
systems manufacturers, and discussions with researchers at Darmstadt University. Data
were also obtained from three Canadian facilities operating in 1990. The study
indicates that the ATAD process can be operated to meet the most stringent U.S.
regulatory requirements for pathogen control and land application of municipal sludge.
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory and Center for Environmental
Research Information developed a publication based on this study. Topics include
process concepts and development, engineering and design criteria, performance data,
costs, case study, and ability to meet U.S. regulatory standards.
Publications
Environmental Regulations and Technology: Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic
Digestion of Municipal Wastewater Sludge. 1990. EPA/625/10-90/007. September.
Denny, K. et al. 1991. Automated Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion. Water
Environment and Technology. 3(10):65.
AWBERC Contact
James A. Heidman, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7632
49
-------
Municipal Waste wafer
Introduction
Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater
Sludge
EPA has issued guidance on the five major sludge use/disposal options—land
application, distribution and marketing of sludge products, landfilling, incineration,
and ocean disposal—and factors affecting their selection and implementation. The
document is intended for state and local officials, managers and operators of
wastewater treatment systems, planners, resource managers, and concerned citizen
groups.
Project Description
Sludge management can be the most complex and costly part of wastewater
management. EPA has developed a document to provide guidance on the final step in
the sludge management process—the ultimate use and disposal of municipal
wastewater sludge. The document provides a framework for evaluating sludge
use/disposal alternatives. It describes the federal regulations pertinent to sludge
management and the accepted and proven use/disposal technologies. For each
technology, the document discusses process, performance, and key parameters. Case
studies are presented for most of the use/disposal options.
The document also provides guidance for determining which options are suitable for a
particular community, depending on factors such as community size, hydrogeology of
the region, sludge quality, public acceptance, and transportation requirements. Future
trends in sludge management also are discussed and sources of further information
provided.
Publications
Environmental Regulations and Technology: Use and Disposal of Municipal
Wastewater Sludge. 1989. EPA 625/10-84-003. March.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
50
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Introduction
Control of Pathogens in Municipal
Wastewater Sludge
EPA has issued a document describing federal requirements for reducing pathogens in
wastewater sludge and providing guidance in determining whether specific sludge
treatment systems provide adequate pathogen control for land application. The
document is intended for owners and operators of municipal wastewater treatment
works; individuals involved in applying sludge to land; regional, state, and local
officials; and others interested in understanding the federal pathogen and vector control
requirements placed on land application practices.
Project Description
Wastewater sludge has beneficial plant nutrients and soil conditioning properties. EPA
encourages the beneficial use of sludge, including land application, wherever
environmentally feasible. Wastewater sludge, however, may contain bacteria, viruses,
protozoa, parasites, and other microorganisms that can cause disease. This document
explains why pathogen control is necessary and discusses pertinent federal regulations,
including specified treatment technologies that provide acceptable levels of pathogen
reduction. It also provides information about these technologies (including aerobic and
anaerobic digestion, lime stabilization, air drying, composting, heat drying, and
thermophilic aerobic digestion).
Sludge from treatment technologies not specified in the regulations can be applied to
land if the alternative treatment provides a level of pathogen control equivalent to that
provided by the listed technologies. The document explains how EPA evaluates
equivalency, what information is needed for an equivalency evaluation, and what
processes have been determined to be equivalent.
This document is currently being updated in light of new standards for the disposal of
sewage sludge.
Publications
Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens in Municipal
Wastewater Sludge for Land Application under 40 CFR Part 257. 1989.
EPA/625/10-89/006. September.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
51
-------
Municipal Waslawater
Introduction
Process Design Manual: Land Application of
Municipal Sludge
EPA sponsored the preparation of a manual representing the state-of-the art for process
design of municipal sludge land application systems. The manual is the third in a series
of publications updating EPA's Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and
Disposal (EPA 625/1-74-006).
Project Description
Many communities are considering the use of land application techniques for sludge
because of increasing numbers of wastewater treatment facilities, constraints on many
sludge disposal options, and increasing costs. This manual provides information about
four options for land application of sludge: agricultural utilization, forest utilization,
reclamation of disturbed and marginal lands, and dedicated high-rate surface disposal.
These practices are discussed in detail, with design concepts and criteria presented
where available. Manual topics include an overview of land application options; public
participation; elements needed for technical assessment and preliminary project
planning; detailed site evaluation and selection procedures; process design for land
application options; and general facility design, cost, and operation and maintenance
guidance. The manual also includes case studies of sludge utilization in agriculture and
for reclamation of disturbed mining lands.
Publications
Process Design Manual: Land Application of Municipal Sludge. 1983.
EPA-625/1-83-016. October.
AWBERC Contact
James E. Smith, Jr., Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
52
-------
Municipal Wastewater
Introduction
Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal
EPA has developed a handbook presenting information about receiving, treatment, and
disposal of septage. The manual covers design, performance, operation and
maintenance, cost, and energy considerations. A full range of alternatives is presented
along with technical advice to aid in evaluating each alternative.
Project Description
Proper treatment and disposal of septage (liquid and solid material pumped from a
septic tank or cesspool) is becoming an increasingly difficult problem in communities
where onsite sewage disposal systems are common. To address this problem, EPA has
issued a handbook for planners, design engineers, state and federal reviewers, and local
government officials. The manual presents information to facilitate the design of
septage receiving stations, pretreatment processes, new sewage treatment plants with
provisions for receiving septage, and independent septage treatment and disposal
alternatives. The methods covered include land treatment and disposal, co-treatment at
existing wastewater treatment facilities, and independent facilities for treatment and
disposal (such as lagoons, composting, biological treatment, aerobic and anaerobic
digestion, lime stabilization, and chlorine oxidation). A series of fact sheets provides
summaries of selected treatment methods along with generalized capital and operation
and maintenance costs.
Publications
Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal. 1984. EPA-625/6-84-009. October.
AWBERC Contact
James F. Kreissl, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
53
-------
-------
Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
-------
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Waste Minimization Assessments for Small
Businesses
Introduction
EPA is conducting a pilot project to assist small- and medium-sized manufacturers who
want to reduce or eliminate hazardous waste generation but lack the necessary expertise.
The waste minimization assessments are performed at no out-of-pocket cost to the client
To qualify for the assessment, a business must fall within Standard Industrial
Classification Codes 20 to 39, have gross annual sales not exceeding $50 million, employ
no more than 500 persons, and lack in-house expertise in waste minimization.
Project Description
The amount of hazardous waste generated by industrial plants has become an
increasingly costly problem for manufacturers and an additional stress on the
environment. One solution to the problem of hazardous waste is waste
minimization—reducing or eliminating the waste at its source. Through waste
minimization, businesses can reduce costs; meet state and national waste minimization
goals; reduce potential environmental liabilities; and protect public health, worker
health and safety, and the environment. Many small businesses, however, lack the
expertise needed to develop and implement successful waste minimization programs.
Under an agreement with EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, University
City Science Center in Philadelphia, PA, has established three Waste Minimization
Assessment Centers (WMACs) at selected universities. The WMACs assemble
assessment teams consisting of individuals who have considerable direct experience
with process operations in manufacturing plants, as well as the knowledge and skills
needed to minimize hazardous waste generation.
The teams use procedures adapted from EPA's Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). The assessment team locates the
sources of hazardous waste in a plant and identifies the current disposal or treatment
methods and their associated costs. It then identifies and analyzes a variety of ways to
reduce or eliminate the waste. The team recommends specific measures to minimize waste
and develops the necessary technological and economic information. A confidential report
detailing the findings and recommendations is prepared for the client.
Publications
Waste Minimization for:
Manufacturer of Printed Plastic Bags (EPA/600/M-90/017)
Metal Parts Coating Plant (EPA/600/M-91/015)
Outdoor Illuminated Signs (BPA/600/M-91/016)
Manufacturer of Rebuilt Railway Cars and Components (EPA/600/M-91/017)
Manufacturer of Aluminum Braised Oil Coolers (EPA/600/M-91/018)
Manufacturer ofHVAC Equipment (EPA/600/M-91/019)
Bumper Refinishing Plant (EPA/600/M-91/020)
Multilayered Printed Circuit Board Manufacturer (EPA/600/M-91/021)
Manufacturer of Printed Circuit Boards (EPA/600/M-91/022)
Paint Manufacturing Plant (EPA/600/M-91/023)
Manufacturer of Compressed Air Equipment Components (EPA/600/M-91/024)
Manufacturer of Aluminum Cans (EPA/600/M-91/025)
Manufacturer of Refurbished Railcar Bearing Assemblies (EPA/600/M-91/044)
Manufacturer of Prototype Printed Circuit Boards (EPA/600/M-91/045)
Manufacturer of Speed Reduction Equipment (EPA/600/M-91/046)
Manufacturer of Printed Labels (EPA/600/M-91/047)
AWBERC Contact
Emma Lou George, Environmental Scientist
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7578
57
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Introduction
Guide to Technical Resources for the Design
of Land Disposal Facilities
EPA has issued numerous technical documents on hazardous waste land disposal
facilities to assist preparers and reviewers of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) permit applications in processing applications in a timely way and achieving
consistency in permitting decisions. These documents include RCRA Technical
Guidance Documents, Permit Guidance Manuals, and Technical Resource Documents.
EPA has written a guide to these EPA documents to help permit applicants and
reviewers find answers to questions about permit applications.
Project Description
The Guide to Technical Resources describes information sources useful for
demonstrating that the design, construction, and operation of a land disposal unit meets
RCRA performance standards and minimum technology requirements for hazardous
waste landfills and surface impoundments. The topics addressed include foundations,
dike integrity and slope stability, liner systems, cover systems, and run-on and run-off
controls. The Guide itself provides little primary information. Instead, it directs the
reader to other documents where specific technical subjects are addressed.
The first part of each chapter provides a brief summary of the existing regulations and
describes the major technical parameters commonly used to evaluate permit
applications. In subsequent sections of each chapter, the reader is referred to technical
documents that can help in selecting the appropriate methodology to evaluate permits
and determine acceptable ranges for the technical parameters. References to
nontechnical documents are also included when appropriate. In addition to describing
resources for the RCRA permit process, the guide also may be useful in designing and
operating other types of land disposal units, such as waste piles, land treatment units,
and land disposal facilities for nonhazardous wastes.
Publications
Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities. 1988.
EPA/625/6-88/018. December.
AWBERC Contact
Robert E. Landreth, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill
Cincinnati, OH 45224
(513)569-7871
58
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Manual for Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Criteria
Introduction
EPA has developed a draft technical manual on the revised municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF) criteria. The manual is not a regulatory document and does not
provide mandatory technical guidance. Rather, it provides assistance to landfill
owners/operators and their consultants for demonstrating compliance with the revised
standards.
Project Description
On October 9,1991, EPA promulgated revised MSWLF criteria (Chapter 40, Part 258
of the Code of Federal Regulations). These are minimum national criteria for all solid
waste landfills that are not subject to federal hazardous waste regulations and that
either receive municipal solid waste, accept nonhazardous combustor ash, or
co-dispose sewage sludge with municipal solid waste.
EPA has developed a draft manual to help landfill owners and operators comply with
the revised landfill criteria. The manual will also be useful for state regulatory
personnel involved in reviewing permit applications for landfills. It presents technical
information to be used in designing, operating, and closing landfills, but does not
present a mandatory approach for demonstrating compliance with the design criteria.
The manual follows the general order of the criteria, covering their general
applicability, location restrictions, operating requirements, design standards,
ground-water monitoring and corrective action, and closure and post-closure care.
Each section includes the regulatory language, a general explanation of the regulations
and who must comply, key technical issues in ensuring compliance, and resources for
further information.
Publications
Draft Technical Manual for Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria—40 CFR Part
258.1992. April.
AWBERC Contact
Robert Landreth, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill
Cincinnati, OH 45224
(513)569-7871
59
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill
Design, Construction, and Closure
introduction
EPA has prepared a seminar publication explaining the Agency's minimum technology
guidance and proposed regulations for hazardous waste landfill design. The document
also offers practical and detailed information about the construction of hazardous
waste facilities that comply with these requirements.
Project Description
EPA's minimum technological requirements for hazardous waste landfill design were
set forth by Congress in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
HSWA covered requirements for landfill liner and leachate collection and removal
systems, as well as leak detection systems for landfills, surface impoundments, and
waste piles. In response to HSWA and other Congressional mandates, EPA issued
proposed regulations and guidance on the design of these systems, and on construction
quality assurance, final coyer, and response action plans for responding to landfill
leaks.
In 1988, EPA held a series of 10 technology transfer seminars on requirements for
hazardous waste landfill design, construction, and closure. The information presented
was compiled in a seminar publication. The topics addressed include an overview of
minimum technology guidance and regulations for hazardous waste landfills; clay liner
design; flexible membrane liners; elements of liquid management at waste containment
sites; securing a completed landfill; construction of hazardous waste facilities;
construction quality assurance and control; construction of flexible membrane liners;
and liner compatibility with wastes. Long-term considerations, final covers, problem
areas and unknowns, and response action plans for responding to landfill leaks also are
addressed.
Publications
Seminar Publication: Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design,
Construction, and Closure. 1989. EPA/625/4-89/022. August.
AWBERC Contact
Robert E. Landreth, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill
Cincinnati, OH 45224
(513) 569-7871
60
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA
Final Covers
Introduction
EPA has produced a publication on the design, construction, and evaluation
requirements for cover systems for RCRA/CERCLA hazardous and nonhazardous
waste landfills. The document is based on papers presented at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technology Transfer Seminars on Design and Construction of
RCRA and CERCLA Final Covers. It is not a design manual, but it does include
detailed, practical information about RCRA/CERCLA final covers.
Project Description
Cover systems are an essential part of all land disposal facilities for controlling
moisture and limiting the formation of leachate and its migration to ground water. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) include requirements for cover
systems, and many states have their own more stringent requirements.
To disseminate information regarding these cover systems, EPA held seminars in 1990
in each of the 10 EPA Regions. Presentations were given by representatives of EPA,
the U.S. Army/Corps of Engineers, academia, and the private sector. A seminar
publication was produced following the seminars. Topics include an overview of cover
systems for waste management facilities, soils used in typical cover systems,
geosynthetic design for landfill covers, durability and aging of geomembranes,
alternate cover designs, construction quality assurance for soils and geomembranes,
gas management systems, and postclosure monitoring. The publication also discusses
the Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model for design and
evaluation of liquids management systems. Case studies of RCRA/CERCLA closures
are presented.
Publications
Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. 1991. EPA/625/4-91/025.
May.
AWBERC Contact
Robert E. Landreth, Environmental Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
5995 Center Hill
Cincinnati, OH 45224
(513)569-7871
61
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Integrated Solid Waste Management Planning
for Small Communities
Introduction
Project Description
Publications
EPA is developing a series of seminars designed to help rural counties and small
communities produce integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management plans. The
seminars will present information developed by EPA about waste management
technologies and planning techniques appropriate for small communities.
In response to the growing shortage of land for land disposal operations, EPA has
established a 25 percent reduction goal for waste going to landfills. Several states have
implemented regulations for diverting waste from land disposal, and counties generally are
responsible for producing a plan to meet these regulations. Many counties, however,
cannot afford engineering services and must develop a plan based on existing information.
EPA's Decision-Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management (EPA/530/SW-89-072)
provides the technological basis for developing plans. In addition to this guidance,
decision-makers need the most up-to-date information on management technologies, as
well as more detailed information about integrating different processes. To meet these
needs, EPA is developing detailed technical, environmental, public health, and social
information on waste management technologies, including recycling/reuse, material
recovery facilities (MRFs), and composting.
EPA, in conjunction with states and the National Association of Counties (NACO) will
present a series of seminars based on the Decision-Maker's Guide and other
information being developed by EPA. The seminars will focus on the special needs of
rural counties and small communities, emphasizing appropriate technologies, planning
approaches, and planning techniques. They will employ national experts, case studies,
and health risk information specifically designed for small communities. Topics will
include MSW characterization, source reduction, recycling, composting, thermal
processes for energy recovery, and management options. In addition, the seminars will
include a demonstration of a new user-friendly EPA-sponsored software package that
integrates rural options into an MSW plan development.
EPA's Handbook for Material Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid Waste
(EPA/625/6-91/031) will be featured at the seminars. Handouts will include a handy
matrix on recyclable products, their uses, typical market value, markets, and health and
safety concerns. Several other EPA publications also will be distributed.
No publications to date.
AWBERC Contact
James F. Kreissl, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7611
or
Randy P. Ravetta, Physical Scientist
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7358
62
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Introduction
Innovative Clean Technologies Project
EPA is providing selected small businesses with awards of up to $25,000 to
demonstrate innovative pollution prevention techniques and technologies, and up to
$50,000 to conduct research in reducing pollution at the source in selected operations.
The results of both efforts will be evaluated, published, and transferred to the relevant
industries through a variety of methods.
Project Description
The Innovative dean Technologies Project has two primary objectives: to support
small businesses in implementing and demonstrating promising pollution prevention
techniques and technologies, and to provide a vehicle for small businesses to conduct
research on promising pollution prevention ideas.
Demonstrations of pollution prevention technologies have been conducted in the
following areas: printed circuit boards, aerosol substitution, solvent substitution,
pesticides, plastics, wood preserving, coaxial cable, metal finishing, and printing.
Beginning in 1993, EPA's annual solicitation will include an additional request for
proposals that represent promising, technically credible ideas for cooperative research
among the proposer, EPA, and a university. These research proposals will be required
to meet a more stringent set of technical criteria than those for currently funded
projects. Four proposals will be funded at $50,000 each. In 1995, eight research
projects will be selected.
To develop forums for technology transfer, 18 trade associations have agreed to
participate in the program and provide assistance to small businesses in the areas of
technology and information transfer. Demonstration and research results will be
presented at annual industry conferences and workshops and published in appropriate
trade newsletters.
Publications
Between 1992 and 1996, 77 Technology Demonstration Reports and 12 Research
Briefs will be produced.
AWBERC Contact
Kenneth R. Stone. Environmental Protection Specialist
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7474
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Evaluation of Antifreeze Recycling
Technologies in a New Jersey Maintenance
and Repair Facility
Introduction
EPA is evaluating antifreeze recycling technologies that have the potential to reduce
engine coolant waste. This evaluation is being conducted at a New Jersey vehicle
maintenance and repair facility.
Project Description
Used antifreeze can be highly contaminated and is considered dangerous to the
environment Disposal of used antifreeze has become a costly and serious problem for
automotive repair facilities and fleet operators nationwide. For this reason, EPA is
conducting a study of filtration-type and distillation-type technologies for recycling
antifreeze.
Site testing and sampling were conducted for both types of technologies. Analytical
laboratories performed corrosion potential tests and chemical characterization. The
recycled samples also underwent the aluminum corrosion test methods, since many
new engines are made of aluminum rather than cast iron. In addition, the recycled
samples were analyzed for the presence of degradation products in the form of salts of
organic acids (such as glycolates) by ion chromatograph. This information is critical
because organic salts formed during the neutralization of acids could contribute to
corrosion.
Publications
Randall, P.M. 1990. Prototype Evaluation Initiatives in a New Jersey Maintenance
and Repair Facility. Presented at the International Conference on Pollution
Prevention: Clean Technologies and Clean Products, Washington, DC, June 12.
(Available from AWBERC contact below.)
Automotive and Heavy-Duty Engine Coolant Recycling by Filtration (the full report).
1992. EPA 600/2-91/066. NTIS PB92-126 804. (Project summary will be available
mid-1992.)
A second report, Automotive and Heavy-Duty Engine Coolant Recycling by
Distillation, will be available mid-1992.
AWBERC Contact
Paul M. Randall, Chemical Engineer
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7673
64
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Introduction
Meeting Hazardous Waste Requirements for
Metal Finishers
EPA has produced a publication summarizing federal regulations affecting hazardous
wastes discharged by metal finishers. This document is based on a series of three EPA
technology transfer seminars held in 1986.
Project Description
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response has an ongoing outreach
program to disseminate information to the community regulated by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA). The metal finishing industry was selected under this program
as the focus of a series of seminars to help plant managers and engineers achieve
compliance in a cost-effective manner. Three such seminars were held in 1986, with
the support of the American Electroplaters and Finishers Society, National Association
of Metals Finishers, and the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association.
A technology transfer document was prepared based on the information presented in
these seminars. The regulatory information was updated to include regulatory
developments occurring through Spring 1987. Topics covered by the document include
the impact of RCRA on small and large generators, the "delisting" of specific facility
waste from hazardous waste regulation, land disposal bans on hazardous wastes, the
use of used oil and hazardous wastes as fuel, criteria for the use of underground
storage tanks for hazardous wastes, and the relevance of the Clean Water Act to the
hazardous wastes discharged by metal finishers. The document also discusses the
selection of a hazardous waste transporter and management facility, the costs and
benefits of source reduction in metal finishing, materials use and recovery, the
treatment and management of organic liquids, and the characterization and treatment
of hazardous wastes.
Publications
Seminar Publication: Meeting Hazardous Waste Requirements for Metal Finishers.
EPA/625/4-87/018.
AWBERC Contact
H. Douglas Williams, Physical Scientist
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7361
65
-------
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Handbook: Operation and Maintenance of
Hospital Medical Waste Incinerators
introduction
EPA has issued a handbook summarizing technical information on the proper
operation and maintenance of hospital waste incinerators and associated air pollution
control systems. The document is intended for use by federal, state, and local agency
personnel; hospital waste management personnel; and hospital incinerator operators.
Project Description
Incineration can be an attractive option for the disposal of infectious waste for
hospitals faced with high disposal costs, refusal of their waste by treatment and
disposal facilities, and tighter regulation. Hospital waste incinerators, however, can
emit a number of pollutants, such as paniculate matter, acid gases, toxic metals, toxic
organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and pathogens.
Proper incinerator operation will reduce the emissions of most of these pollutants. Air
pollution control devices are available to further control these emissions.
EPA has produced a handbook to identify operation and maintenance (O&M)
procedures that will minimize air emissions from hospital waste incinerators and
associated air pollution control equipment. The document presents information on
hospital waste incineration systems, add-on air pollution control systems, key
operating parameters and good operating practices, maintenance, control and
monitoring instrumentation, common operating problems and solutions,
recordkeeping, and safety guidelines. The document provides a general overview of
proper O&M procedures; it is not intended to substitute for manufacturers' O&M
recommendations.
Publications
Handbook: Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Medical Waste Incinerators.
1990. EPA/625/6-89/024. January.
AWBERC Contact
Justice Manning, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7349
66
-------
Multidisciplinary
-------
-------
Multidlsciplinary
Introduction
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a data base containing summaries of
health risk and regulatory information on more than 500 chemicals. IRIS contains EPA
consensus risk assessment information used in health risk assessment and risk
management activities. The information in IRIS can be accessed without extensive
training in toxicology, although some knowledge of health sciences is useful.
Project Description
Publications
AWBERC Contact
The heart of the IRIS system is its collection of computer files covering individual
chemicals. Each chemical file in IRIS contains the following technical information:
oral reference doses and inhalation reference concentrations, qualitative and
quantitative carcinogenicity assessments, and summaries of drinking water health
advisories and EPA regulatory actions. The reference dose/concentration and
carcinogenicity risk assessment information on IRIS is developed by two workgroups
of EPA scientists, and represents EPA consensus. The summarized entries provide
references to supporting scientific studies and telephone numbers of EPA scientific
contacts.
The primary users of IRIS include EPA staff and state environmental health agencies.
The data base is available publicly on the National Library of Medicine's (NLM's)
Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). Registered NLM online service users can
access IRIS through the COMPUSERVE, TYMNET, TELENET, or INFONET
telecommunications networks or by direct dial. IRIS is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, except for a brief daily maintenance period. Online and offline printing of
entire or specified portions of records is available.
To aid users in accessing and understanding the data in IRIS chemical files, extensive
documentation is available. This includes an alphabetical list of the chemical files and
list of chemicals by Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number; background documents
describing the rationales and methods used to arrive at the results shown in the
chemical files; a user's guide with step-by-step procedures; and glossaries defining
acronyms, abbreviations, and risk assessment terms.
Documentation for IRIS is available from the Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office.
Jacqueline Patterson, Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7574
or
Patricia Daunt, Project Coordinator
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7596
69
-------
MulMsclpltnaty
Introduction
Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment
Workshops for Small Communities
Increasing drinking water and wastewater treatment requirements are especially
burdensome to small communities. In most cases, small communities lack the
financial resources and technical expertise to address these, and many other,
environmental control responsibilities. EPA, in conjunction with several other
organizations, has developed workshops to help small communities in the areas of
drinking water and wastewater treatment.
Project Description
EPA has developed and conducted two pilot workshops to help small communities
meet their responsibilities for drinking water and wastewater treatment. The Agency
worked with several organizations that provide technical assistance to small
communities, including the National Rural Water Association (NRWA), the Rural
Assistance Program (RCAP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative
Extension Service (CES), and the Coalition of Environmental Training Centers
(CETC).
The 2-day workshop program addresses drinking water and wastewater treatment
technologies and effective small community environmental management. It is
designed to bring together small community administrators and treatment systems
operators to improve communication between decision-makers and system personnel
within a community. In addition, the workshop attempts to initiate communication
between communities to share ideas on addressing common problems. The workshop
focuses on effective team building within a community and identifying external
technical and financial assistance.
Pilot workshops were held in Lafayette, Louisiana, and Eugene, Oregon. These
workshops demonstrated that the core workshop material could be supplemented with
local and regional information and effectively presented by local and regional
representatives of the small community resource organizations.
EPA has developed the workshop materials and will provide them to the resource
organizations for local workshops around the country. In addition, EPA is developing
a workshop publication that will provide information on small community treatment
technologies and environmental management.
Publications
The workshop publication will be available in early 1992.
AWBERC Contact
Daniel J. Murray, Environmental Engineer
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7522
70
-------
Multldlsclplinary
Methods for the Determination of Metals in
Environmental Samples
Introduction
This document presents 13 laboratory analytical methods for 35 metals that may be
present in drinking water, marine water, industrial and municipal wastewater, ground
water, and landfill leachate. The document also includes methods to analyze biological
tissues, sediments, and soils. The document is designed for public and private
laboratories to determine metals in environmental media for regulatory or other
purposes.
Project Description
The methods described in this manual involve a wide range of analytical
instrumentation, including inductively coupled plasma (ICP)/atomic emission
spectroscopy (AES), ICP/mass spectroscopy (MS), atomic absorption (AA)
spectroscopy, ionchromatography (1C), and high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC). For each method, the document provides the following information: a
summary, definitions, and scope and application of the method; interferences; safety;
apparatus and equipment; reagents and consumable materials; sample collection,
preservation, and storage; calibration and standardization; quality control; procedures;
calculations; and precision and accuracy. References are also included.
The names of the authors of each method are provided to assist users in obtaining
direct telephone support when required
Publications
Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. 1991.
EPA/600/4-91/010. June.
AWBERC Contact
William L. Budde, Chemist
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7309
71
-------
-------
Workshops, Seminars, and
Conferences Available through EPA
-------
-------
Workshops, Seminars, and Conferences
Workshops, Seminars, and Conferences
Available through EPA
EPA's Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support (OTTRS) can work
with AWBERC to develop a workshop, seminar, or conference that addresses your
small system needs. EPA can provide technical assistance and resources for meetings
tailored for your organization. Examples of workshops given by EPA include:
Drinking Water
Assessment and Management of Drinking Water Contamination (including modules
on toxicology, risk assessment, standards and health advisories, treatment
technologies, and biofilm control)
Emerging Technologies for Drinking Water Treatment (including modules on
filtration; organics and radon removal; corrosion control, including lead and copper;
•and disinfection/disinfection by-product control)
Wastewater
Improving POTW Performance with the Composite Correction Program
Sludge Composting
Field Evaluations of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology
Sewer System Rehabilitation
Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention in Cottage Industries
Solvent Waste Reduction Alternatives
Medical/Insritutional Waste Incineration
Design/Operation/Closure of Municipal Landfills
AWBERC Contact
If you would like to set up a workshop, seminar, or conference, please contact:
James E. Smith, Jr.
Center for Environmental Research Information
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7355
£U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 - 648-003/6001S
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
m
o
CO
00
§§S
o a> 2.
o c
-• co
•US'
3- CD
CO
CD
o o m c
| | §. g:
-o
CO
u
U1
O
------- |