United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-595)
September 1989
Proceedings of the U.S. EPA
Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Technology Forum 1989
WM
-------
PROCEEDINGS OF
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY FORUM
1989
June 6-8, 1989
Ann Arbor, Michigan
September 22, 1989
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc., Arlington,
Massachusetts, under EPA Contract 68-C8-0023. Carol Wendel was the Project
Manager. Technical direction was provided by Eric B. Cohen and Randy Revetta
of the EPA Office of Municipal Pollution Control. Additional support in
compiling the appendices was provided by Charles Vanderlyn. The text was
based on attendance at the forum and transcriptions of the presentations. It
was reviewed by all the forum speakers. Their time and contributions are
gratefully acknowledged.
NOTICE
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by EPA.
-ii-
-------
PREFACE
The 1989 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Forum, sponsored by
EPA's Office of Municipal Pollution Control (OMPC), provided the opportunity
for wastewater treatment professionals from the Federal and State governments
as well as Canada to discuss foremost wastewater treatment technology
development and transfer issues. Presentations were made on toxics
management, sludge management, process controls, natural systems,
modification/replacement grants, new regulations, and small community issues.
To further the national and international dialogue on municipal
wastewater treatment, begun as a part of the Agency's Wastewater Treatment
Technology Development Initiative, several presentations focused on defining
the major municipal wastewater treatment issues that require significant
research, development, and technology transfer support efforts to ensure that
high quality wastewater treatment is available in the United States and Canada
in the coming decades. Ways to address these areas of need were also
discussed.
The participation of Environment Canada in this year's forum provided a
unique opportunity to identify issues of mutual benefit and concern for both
nations. Representatives from Canada's Wastewater Treatment Technology Centre
reported on new innovations in sludge management and process controls,
including a process control audit, instrumentation testing, step feed
controls, and the conversion of sludge to oil, to name a few topics. These
presentations clearly indicated that Environment Canada is a valuable resource
for state-of-the-art information on municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment.
Responding to the changing regulatory environment and Federal approach
to municipal wastewater treatment and management presents a challenge to all
-111-
-------
•C
individuals involved in wastewater technology development and transfer.
proposes to meet those challenges by conducting the following activities:
• Continuing to respond to inquires
• Monitoring new technologies
• Identifying existing problem technologies
• Sponsoring support seminars, conferences, and workshops
• Providing guidance in setting research agendas
OMPC will implement these objectives by enhancing and supporting the flow of
information and assistance through the existing Innovative/Alternative (I/A)
coordinator's network, a process that will lead to significant improvements in
the field.
-iv-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
Keynote Address 1
OMPC Technology Transfer Activity Update 4
Technology Development Initiative ... 7
(Harper's Ferry Update)
Future Role of Technology Transfer 9
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology Transfer Activities in EPA Region 5 13
Feedback to Design in EPA Region 6 16
Environment Canada's Technology Transfer Program 18
Group Discussion Future of Technology Transfer 21
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/RESEARCH AGENDA
EPA Office of Research and Development 23
(ORD) Research Activities
Canada's Wastewater Treatment Technology Centre . . 27
Research and Development Program
Technology Development Initiative - Group 30
Leader Reports
TOXICS
OMPC Toxics Activity 33
Water Quality Based Toxics Control 35
Air Toxics and POTWs 40
SMALL COMMUNITIES
EPA Small Community Outreach and Education . . 45
(SCORE) Strategy
Small Flows Activities ... . .... . 48
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Issues . . . 50
SLUDGE
New Sludge Regulations .... 53
Conversion of Sludge to Oil . . . 57
Accelerated Dewatering with Mechanical Aeration .... 60
Control of Polymer Addition for Sludge .... 62
-v-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
PROCESS CONTROL
Automated Process Control of Wastewater
Treatment Plants
Step Feed Control for Activated Sludge Plants
Instrumentation Testing - The User's Perspective • •
EPA/Environment Canada Clarifier Technology Research .
Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Audit .....
NATURAL SYSTEMS
The State of Missouri's Experience with Overland Flow 83
Constructed Wetlands in EPA Region 6 85
MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT
100 Percent Modification/Replacement Forum 87
EPA Regions 1 and 10 and the State of California
DISINFECTION AND SECONDARY TREATMENT REGULATIONS
EPA's Municipal Wastewater Disinfection Policy . . 91
Secondary Treatment Regulations ..... 94
APPENDIX A AGENDA AND LIST OF SPEAKERS
APPENDIX B TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE PRELIMINARY
CONCEPT PAPER
APPENDIX C LIST OF NATIONAL CONTACTS FOR I/A TECHNOLOGY,
SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY, AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
TRAINING
APPENDIX D LIST OF ADDRESSES FOR REGIONAL AND STATE
I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE, AND O&M COORDINATORS
APPENDIX E LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY
PUBLICATIONS
APPENDIX F EPA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT OUTREACH
COORDINATORS
APPENDIX G CURRENT STATUS OF POTENTIAL M/R CANDIDATES
BY STATE
-vi-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Surface Water Toxics Control Program Activities
Conducted Under Existing Clean Water Act
Authorities
Table 2 Clean Water Act Section 304(1) Impaired Waters
and Sources
Table 3 Tillsonburg On-Line Instrumentation ...
Page
. 36
. 38
. 66
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Schematic of a Typical Wastewater Treatment
Plant with Step Feed Capabilities
Figure 2 100% Modification/Replacement Grant Process
Flow Chart
Page
70
. 88
-vii-
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Paul Baltay, Division Director
Office of Municipal Pollution Control, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
EPA's Office of Municipal Pollution Control's (OMPC's) main theme
presently is change and challenge. In the past, sewage treatment plants were
basically required to provide secondary treatment to control suspended solids
and biological oxygen demand (BOD). For the most part, the Federal grant
program initially subsidized 75 percent, then 55 percent of the costs of
constructing facilities to handle nutrients and ammonia. Today EPA is asking
much more of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
One of the main concerns of the new Administrator is the prevention of
pollution; end-of-pipe controls simply may not be able to provide the level of
environmental purity the country demands and needs. Therefore, typical
wastewater treatment may no longer provide adequate cleanup of a waste stream.
Other main concerns are:
The generation, quality, low-cost disposal, and alternative
disposal of hazardous waste into public sewers and POTWs.
Cross-media impacts related to volatile organic air toxics that
are released from either conveyance or treatment systems, impacts
on ground water from treatment lagoons, and exfiltration impacts
from the conveyance and sewer systems.
The tradeoffs between public health concerns regarding
chlorination, chlorine toxicity, and other impacts on water
habitats and water life.
Water demand management and how to sustain the use of either
surface waters or ground waters for growing populations over the
long term. Is the process of pumping huge quantities of water,
treating it as drinking water, putting it back in the sewer, and
treating it before discharge an appropriate way to manage water
resources?
-1-
-------
• Small communities meeting their permit conditions and public
health and environmental concerns, at a time when many of the
support systems (Construction Grants Program) have disappeared.
Many of these concerns are reflected in new EPA regulations. The 1987
Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) address the need for numeric toxic
limitations, which will be translated into permits that apply to POTWs. In
addition, new regulations have been proposed to control the use and disposal
of sludge, and regulations are being issued for permitting stormwater
discharge. The Clean Water Act amendments also mandated the phaseout of the
Federal Construction Grants Program. Because the initial grants were made in
the early 1970s and typical designs have a lifespan of 20 years, the earliest
treatment plants in the program are nearing completion of the 20-year cycle.
Due to a new emphasis on toxics management and air pollution, Federal
priorities have shifted and there is a decline in Federal investment in
research and development for conventional wastewater treatment technology..
This is evidenced by the end of the Constructions Grants Innovative/
Alternative (I/A) program, which depended on a set-aside or a special
percentage incentive within the Construction Grants Program. Also, the work
that the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) performed over
the last 20 to 25 years, which provided much of the impetus for the existing
technologies, has been declining.
Another regulatory shift is in the drinking water regulations, which
will increase the number of parameters of concern from 22 to 83 within 5
years. Tougher solid waste regulations will also impact small communities and
municipalities, which are being asked at the same time to meet the broader
expectations.
To address this changing atmosphere, EPA sees a new partnership with the
States. The States have matured to the point where they can effectively take
the lead in administering environmental programs and the Federal role can be
one of support and information transfer.
-2-
-------
To respond to this changing climate and regulatory approach, OMPC has
created a centralized technology transfer office and formulated a Technology
Development Initiative. This program is aimed at starting a national dialogue
to define an appropriate research agenda for wastewater treatment and the
appropriate roles for the Federal government, private industry, academia, and
the consulting community to play in developing the research and innovation
that will be needed in the next 10 to 20 years in this field.
In addition to the traditional discussion about the latest technologies,
two new activities will take place at this conference. The first is reporting
the many ideas that resulted from EPA's Technology Development Initiative
Conference, which took place in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia on May 16 and
17, 1989. This conference was attended by experts in the field of wastewater
treatment and included representatives from Canada and England. OMPC would
like to initiate a similar dialogue at this conference to help define
wastewater treatment research priorities for the next decade or longer and the
possible roles various participants in the community can play.
The second new aspect of this conference will be a discussion on the
future of the technology transfer effort: how to deal with the disappearance
of the I/A program, the new demands and expectations placed on POTWs, and
OMPC's proposition that because this group is already the heart of the
national technology transfer network, it is the natural successor to the I/A
network.
(Refer to Appendix A for a Forum agenda and complete list of speakers.)
-3-
-------
OMPC TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITY UPDATE
Lee Pasarew, Chief
Performance Assurance Branch, OMPC, Municipal Facilities Division
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
OMPC is in a transition period both within its own program and within
the Agency. The Office is nonetheless currently involved in several
interesting and promising new activities. Some of these activities are
described below.
I/A Report to Congress. This report studies the effectiveness of the I/A
program in meeting the goals and promoting innovation in wastewater treatment.
The issues raised by the Office of Management and Budget about the report
concern the long-term availability of grant funds for the 100 percent
Modification/Replacement (M/R) program and how or whether to support testing
and demonstration of promising new innovative systems after the I/A program
ends. The final report will be ready for the Administrator's signature by
June 1989.
Sulfide Corrosion Report to Congress. This report studies the corrosive
effects of sulfides in collection systems and POTWs, the impact of
pretreatment programs on corrosion rates, and options to control sulfide
corrosion.
WTCF Municipal Survey. This activity involved the joint sponsorship by the
Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF) and EPA of a survey to identify
major problems experienced by POTWs. Six thousand questionnaires were
distributed to operating treatment plants, asking operators what aspects of
their unit processes or system components are problematic and in what areas
they need information and/or help.
About 1,000 surveys, representing the full range of treatment sizes and
ages, were completed and returned. Preliminary results indicate that there is
-------
not one or two overriding problems, but many. Respondents indicated problems
in Infiltration/Inflow (I/I). 41 percent; hydraulic under- or overloading, 28
percent; equipment age, 19 percent; odor, 18 percent; and filamentous growth,
17 percent. Another finding was that over 50 percent of the facilities are
more than 20 years old. The final report was completed in June 1989 for
internal review.
Marine Combined Sever Overflow (MCSO) Grant Program. Since fiscal year (FY)
1983, a total of $83.1 million has been awarded in Marine CSO grants to deal
with problems of water impairment from CSOs with the goal of attaining
increased swimming and shellfishing benefits. The combined FY87-88 project
review cycle resulted in eight projects being awarded a total of $23.1
million. A grant set-aside of $9.4 million is available for FY89. Total MSCO
grant funding, between $13 and $15 million, is expected for the FY89-90
period, based on the FY90 Agency budget. A combined FY89/90 project review
cycle is planned so that there will be one consolidated list for grants.
Final funding decisions are due to be announced by December 1989 and
construction grants are due to be awarded through the Regions by April 1990.
Sewage Sludge Management. Both technical sludge regulations and State program
regulations are being issued under Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. The
initial round of Part 503 comprehensive sewage sludge technical regulations
were proposed on February 6, 1989. Incineration, land application
(agricultural and nonagricultural land), distribution and marketing, sludge-
only landfills (monofills), and surface disposal sites are covered in the
regulations. During the 180-day public comment period, a formal expert peer
review, two technical workshops, and four public hearings are being held
across the country by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS). A
new National Sludge Survey is also being conducted to generate data on current
sludge quality and likely impacts of the proposed regulations on current
sludge use/disposal practices. Refer to p. 53 for more information on the
regulations.
-5-
-------
Air Toxics. POTWs have raised concerns about their potential new role as a
source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in urban areas. OMP
now evaluating the potential impact of toxic air pollutant emissions from
POTWs and identifying and offering alternative strategies to help them cope
with any identified impacts.
Water Conservation and Reuse. EPA's Office of Water (OW) is encouraging
municipalities to investigate the potential for applying water conservation
measures prior to requesting funds to invest in new water impoundments that
would create critical impacts. If water use decreases, there will be less
burden on POTWs for growth. OW's wastewater reuse idea views treatment plants
as facilities that manufacture two very usable renewable resources - water and
sludge.
To address water conservation issues, OMPC will update materials
developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s on urban water conservation, and
work with others to develop guidance to help communities address water
conservation alternatives. OMPC will also host a forum to help identify EPA's
future role in wastewater reuse.
Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Program (MWPPP"). The MWPPP is being
developed to provide as much support as possible, short of capital financing,
to keep facilities in compliance, and prevent their slow deterioration due to
lack of money, information, or support. The program, planned to get underway
in 1990, will work with and through the States to help set up early-warning,
self-audit systems for facilities that are now in compliance but are reaching
the end of their useful lives or show other signs that they are threatened
with failing compliance.
-6-
-------
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE (HARPER'S FERRY UPDATE)
Lee Pasarew, Chief
Performance Assurance Branch, Municipal Facilities Division, OMPC
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
As a result of EPA's large Construction Grants Program, the Agency
accomplished many technology research and transfer activities for which it
maintained a highly talented and skilled staff. Because the grants program is
being phased out, Headquarters is now evaluating whether it still needs to
maintain this level of expertise. Other issues raised during this transition
period include how the Agency will determine a new appropriate level of
Federal funding and how it will provide other means of support for technology
research and transfer.
To help EPA design a program that will best use its resources to address
these issues and the major needs of the municipal wastewater community, OMPC
initiated a national dialogue about the role of EPA and the Federal government
in developing municipal technology. To begin this dialogue, in May 1989. OMPC
sponsored a meeting in Harper's Ferry, Virginia, attended by experts in the
field. The discussions focused on defining municipal wastewater treatment
issues that need research, development, and technology transfer support, and
ways to address these needs.
Appendix B is "The Technology Development Initiative Preliminary Concept
Paper," which contains a list of issues the group identified as those POTWs
will most likely face within the next 10 years. The major areas identified by
the group were as follows:
• Construction of new and enhanced conventional treatment facilities
that deal with facility enlargements, population growth, etc.
• Protection of infrastructure, aging facilities, excessive I/I,
sulfide corrosion, and sewer exfiltration
• Toxics management, air toxics, and toxics in permits
-7-
-------
• Sludge use and management
• Stormwater and CSO controls
• Small community needs
In the fall of 1989, at the end of the Technology Development
Initiative, OMPC will issue a position piece on the Agency's new role
-8-
-------
FUTURE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Randy Revetta, Environmental Protection Specialist
Performance Assurance Branch, OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
With the shift in responsibility for wastewater treatment from EPA to
the States (as presented in the Water Quality Act of 1987) and the decrease in
Federal financing of wastewater treatment facilities, the States,
municipalities, and engineering communities will begin to look to EPA for
updated information on treatment technologies. Also, as a result of OMPC's
Technology Development Initiative (Refer to p. 7 and Appendix B), OMPC is
proposing a National Technology Support Program.
In the program, EPA (OMPC, the Office of Research and Development [ORD],
and CERI) will provide relevant information to the States, who have the
primary responsibility for ensuring that the municipalities achieve and
maintain compliance with the Water Quality Act and other Agency initiatives,
such as the MWPPP (see p. 6), small community outreach (SCORE), and the Indian
Set-Aside program. The National Technology Support Program will also help the
States with financial management and provide information directly to
municipalities and the engineering community.
The program includes three key elements: distribution of technical
information; management, support, and enhancement of existing networks; and
the provision of limited direct assistance in targeted areas of national
interest.
The production and distribution of technical information will continue
as it has over the years, by either EPA or EPA contractors. The Agency will
also support the distribution of publications and information produced by
other organizations.
The existing wastewater treatment technology networks involve
interactions among the WPCF, universities, training centers, POTW owners and
-9-
-------
operators, the States, EPA, and the I/A Coordinators. It is through these
interactions, whether they operate formally or informally, dependently or
independently, that the productive flow of information takes place. Various
experiences and programs are discussed and research needs are identified,
which eventually lead to improvements in this field.
To enhance, strengthen, and support the networks, particularly the
Regional and State I/A Network, OMPC is proposing that the I/A Coordinators
Network act as the new Technology Transfer Network. In addition to this
measure, OMPC will coordinate activities with existing networks.
One of the functions of the Technology Transfer Network will be to
respond to inquiries, either through phone consultations, followup
publications, or peer matching with someone who has had a similar experience
or problem. OMPC will also continue to monitor new technologies, identify
problems with emerging technologies, sponsor technology transfer seminars, and
provide guidance in setting research agendas. Another function will be to
promote regular group consultations among technology transfer coordinators
from the Regions and States. These individuals will inform OMPC of existing
problems and those they feel require Federal attention.
To coordinate with other existing networks, OMPC proposes to conduct
joint conferences, support cooperative research efforts, provide technical
speakers or publications for joint use, and offer some type of limited
financial support.
For providing limited direct assistance under the new Network, OMPC
proposes the following structure. Municipalities and consultants would
contact the States first for technical information. If the States need
assistance in responding to the issue, they would contact their Region,
Headquarters, or ORD. At the EPA level, the more simplified problems would be
handled by phone consultation or printed information followup. If the problem
is one of national significance, it would be studied more thoroughly, such as
-10-
-------
through detailed evaluations or site visits. The criteria that will be used
to determine a priority issue are as follows:
• The problem is one of a set of priority issues (such as sludge or
toxics) established by OMPC, based on recommendations from the
representatives of the Technology Transfer Network.
• The problem is of national scope and is likely to affect many
POTWs, yet the existing commercial, academic, and professional
networks are not addressing the problem.
• The problem has major water quality or environmental dimensions
which compel the Agency to play an active role.
• The problem is related to a POTWs' technical ability to comply
with Federal regulations.
The Regional role is anticipated to be one of support for the States.
These groups should work together with the communities to answer questions
about technologies, provide training, and use limited contract resources to
solve problems. The next step in implementing this network is to receive
comments from the Regions and States on the program and document.
Appendices C and D provide information on contacting the National,
Regional, and State I/A technology; sludge technology; and operations and
maintenance operator training coordinators.
-11-
-------
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
-------
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTIVITIES IN EPA REGION 5
Chuck Pycha, I/A Technology Coordinator
Al Krause, Small Communities Coordinator
U.S. EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL
Region 5 is involved in several technology transfer activities, the
highlights of which are discussed below.
Special Evaluation Projects. Region 5's Special Evaluation Projects are
short-duration technical or administrative studies that investigate either a
specific technology or one aspect of a particular program. One project
studied operation and maintainence (O&M) considerations of "alternative
sewers," including septic tanks, gravity systems, grinder pumps, and septic
tank effluent pump systems. The Special Evaluation Project investigated about
40 community systems, mostly built with Construction Grant funds, to determine
the problems they encountered during system installation and the first few
years of operation; O&M plans; approaches to regular, scheduled maintenance;
and any specific areas they highlighted.
One conclusion of the study is that these systems need more preventative
"checkups" and regularly scheduled maintenance. One of Region 5's
recommendations is a yearly flushing and inspection of the system.
Drinking Water/Wastevater Workshop. Region 5 has been conducting a workshop
bringing together the drinking water and wastewater communities. The
workshops have included discussions of community monitoring requirements and
costs, enforcement, compliance, the regional perspective and participation,
radium and radon, lead from lead solder or lead pipes, sanitary surveys, and
present activities in some of the smaller drinking water systems. Other
issues discussed were the Clean Water Act, planning decentralized treatment,
onsite systems, available training programs from the State and Region,
technical assistance, and permits.
-13-
-------
Wetlands Slide Show. In a joint effort with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Region 5 produced a
15-minute slide presentation on natural wetlands. The show can be tailored to
different audiences, including operators, community planners, the Department
of Public Works, cranberry bog owners, and the like.
Additional Resources. The Region also has other presentations aimed at
introducing small communities to basic wastewater treatment issues, including
the assessment of needs and evaluation of alternatives. The Regional Forum on
Water Information deals with some of the computer systems that can track and
monitor water resources. Several other courses are available that can form
the core of municipal level pollution prevention training programs of
different kinds.
One computer-aided design program for onsite wastewater treatment
systems generates a preliminary technology selection among conventional septic
tanks and drainfields, pressure-dosed septic tanks and drainfields, gravity-
fed mounds, pressure-fed mounds, holding tanks, and offsite systems. It also
has potential for adding many other treatment types. The package generates a
layout of the drainfield and a calculation of the amount of backfill and
gravel that will be needed.
Purdue University produced an excellent high-resolution color graphics
tutorial on the principles of onsite wastewater treatment. The package
includes over 75 high-resolution color graphic screens. Another available
resource is a 50-hour video cassette course designed to teach people who have
no previous background in small community wastewater and drinking water
operation about the principles and basic processes of operation and management
of these systems.
A complete week-long training course in wastewater treatment plant
operations funded by EPA is also available. The course assists engineers in
carrying out least-cost redesigns of existing plants that are approaching
capacity in terms of hydraulic and organic loading. It is available through
-14-
-------
the Instructional Resources Center at Ohio State University and comes with a
240-page student manual, a 360-page instructor manual, 445 slides, and 93
transparencies. A similar week-long course is available on operation and
maintenance troubleshooting.
A complete small community operations and maintenance software package
assists small communities in cataloguing the different treatment processes
both centralized and decentralized, sewered and onsite - and describing the
individual operation and maintenance steps. The program generates approximate
unit costs in hours of labor, energy and chemicals, an O&M budget, and total
cost estimates, and prints out the operation and maintenance processes that
need to be tracked.
The State of California and several consulting firms have developed
software packages that help individual small communities compare the cost and
effectiveness of proposed upgrades to the costs of achieving the same results
through water conservation or flow reduction, retrofitting plumbing fixtures,
and similar measures.
The "Flow Reduction Methods, Analysis Procedures and Examples" manual,
produced by EPA, is an excellent manual to help small- or medium-sized
communities set up, plan, and run a municipal water conservation program.
The Instructional Resources Center at Ohio State University serves as a
storage area for useful training programs, audio-visual packages, valuable
pamphlets, and other materials produced primarily by EPA over the past 15
years, which are mostly out of print. These resources may be helpful in
meeting immediate needs. The mailing address is: The Instructional Resources
Center, Ohio State University. 1200 Chambers Road, Room 310, Columbus, OH
43212-1792; phone (614) 292-6717.
Contact Chuck Pycha or Al Krause in Region 5 for more information on how
to obtain these materials. Also refer to Appendix E for a more thorough list
of relevant publications.
-15-
-------
FEEDBACK TO DESIGN IN EPA REGION 6
Ancil Jones, Regional Staff Engineer
U.S. EPA, Dallas, TX
Region 6's Feedback to Design Program collects, evaluates, and
disseminates information about technology performance. The program, largely
encouraged by Headquarters, was initiated to document unsuccessful M/R
projects.
The technologies investigated include the innovative and alternative
projects, the beneficial recycle and reuse projects, and emerging
technologies. Emerging technologies not funded through the I/A program,
projects that have low operating energy or construction costs, test
facilities, and M/R facilities are also evaluated.
Feedback to Design Process. On failed M/R projects, the feedback to design
process begins with field evaluations conducted by an independent engineer to
determine the cause of the plant failure. The evaluations are verified during
an onsite inspection conducted by the Region and the State I/A and sludge
coordinators. In the process, the evaluation team interviews the owner and
operators of the facility and the consulting engineer and reviews the records.
The team then compares the design objectives and manufacturer claims to actual
performance, and the actual costs to estimated costs.
In addition to the site visits, information about the facility is
obtained from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
marketing reports, permits, the consulting engineers' report, the facility
owner's information contained in the project files, the Region's project
files, the certification report, the Operations and Management Evaluation
(OME), the Construction/Management Evaluation (CME), the onsite technology
evaluations conducted by the Region, and the facility's environmental
assessments.
-16-
-------
All information is collected on standardized forms and entered into a
data base that is continually updated. To make sure that the Feedback to
Design data files and reports are accurate and reliable, all information
entered in the data base must be based on historical performance; information
based on assumption will not be considered.
Information Dissemination. In addition to presenting the grantee with the
results of the evaluation, the information is disseminated at seminars and
symposiums attended by the sludge and I/A coordinators, the coordinators
meeting, other workshops, and the quarterly meetings with the American
Consulting Engineering Council (ACEC), and is provided to professional and
private organizations. The information is also written up in quarterly
reports and other Regional publications.
To date, Region 6 has produced about 30 Feedback to Design publications.
Topics include rotating biological contactors (RBCs), interchannel clarifiers,
sequencing batch reactors (SBR), the Air Products (A/0) process, upflow
through rock filters, the Bardenpho process, constructed wetlands, the captor
process, draft tube aerators with barrier ditches, UV systems, wedge wire
beds, overland flow, and gas projects with digesters.
Results. One major outcome of the Feedback to Design program is that design
criteria are either confirmed or denied. If confirmed, then design standards
can be written. Criteria that are not confirmed are presented as such in the
relevant reports and meetings. One major finding of the program is that often
there is a wide gap between influent characteristics and performance
characteristics. The program has also shown to support the O&M Regional
awards committee, because extensive documentation about a facility is
available and can be used to readily determine if a facility is meeting all of
its regulations.
-17-
-------
ENVIRONMENT CANADA'S TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM
Steve Hart, Manager
Technology Transfer Commercialization and Marketing
Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec
The cornerstone of Canada's technology transfer strategy is the
Brundtland Commission Report, "Our Common Future," which states as its
central theme that environmentally sustainable economic development is
possible. To accomplish this, the Canadian Council of Resource and
Environment Ministers established a task force that recommended that the
Federal government and each Province and Territory individually determine how
the environment/economy integration should proceed in their jurisdictions.
As a result, over the last 2 years, a number of Federal policy
statements were made and activities initiated that have had a significant
impact on the development and transfer of environmental technology. For
example, the Federal government has stated that after the economy,
environmental issues are a priority, and it formally recognizes that the
environmental industry holds considerable potential for growth. A Federal
cabinet committee, chaired by the Minister of the Environment, was established
to coordinate Federal government environmental activities. The Minister was
also appointed to the powerful policy and priorities committee of the cabinet.
The government also established an environmental industry sector program
in the Federal Department of Industry. Science, and Technology and promulgated
the powerful new Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It also funded the
St. Lawrence Action Plan to clean up the St. Lawrence River System with about
$110 million over a 5-year period. The Great Lakes Water Quality Program was
also augmented with $125 million, with a special emphasis on technology
development to resolve environmental problems.
Two key international environmental meetings have taken place in Canada
in the last 2 years; namely, one in Montreal in September 1987, which led to
-18-
-------
the Montreal Ozone Protocol, and the Climate Change Conference held in Toronto
in 1988.
Several specific activities represent the significant efforts being made
as a result of the new initiatives. Two of Environment Canada's major
technology centers, the Wastewater Technology Centre (WTC), and the River Road
Environmental Technology Centre, in Ottawa, make up a major part of
Environment Canada's Technology Development and Technical Services Branch.
The River Road Centre is concerned primarily with developing technology to
monitor and control air pollution and spills of oil and hazardous materials.
The WTC develops innovative cost-effective processes and technology for
treating municipal sewage, industrial wastewaters, and contaminated ground
water, and disposing of the associated sludges (see p. 27). Both centers have
a specific objective to share technology and expertise as widely as possible.
Consequently, joint projects with private firms and close collaboration with
other environmental agencies, including the U.S. EPA, are extremely important.
To date, over 1,600,000 publications have been sent out by Environment
Canada on technology transfer and training. Other work includes developing a
series of training tools for upgrading operator skills in areas where
stringent environmental standards must be met. The operator training package
has been marketed by the WPCF for a number of years.
Environment Canada operates several technology incentive programs,
including the Development and Demonstration of Resource and Energy
Conservation Technology (DRECT), which encourages the development of
technology to promote waste reduction and resource recycling. Since its
inception, the DRECT program has contributed about $5 million to 46 projects,
which in turn have generated about $24 million from other sources.
Another program is the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP),
which pairs research and development projects in the private sector with
technology and expertise available from government laboratories, provincial
research organizations, universities, and foreign sources. Working in
-19-
-------
cooperation with the National Research Council, this branch helps Canadian
firms put environmental technology to work both by cooperating with
appropriate laboratories and underwriting some of the costs. Another exciting
technology development project is the conversion of sludge to oil. (Refer to
p. 57 for more information about this program.)
Canadian Patents and Developments Ltd. (CPDL) is the central technology
transfer agency of the Federal government. Its main objective is to make the
results from publicly funded research and development projects available to
the public. The corporation also administers technology developed by
universities, provincial research institutes, and other nonprofit groups and
assists licensees in obtaining funds from government and other sources.
Another technology transfer department is Industry, Science, and Technology
Canada (ISTC), which links the environment industry in Canada to advanced
materials, biotechnology, and informatics.
A major Federal government/private sector technology transfer project
being organized by Environment Canada is Globe 90: Global Opportunities for
Business and the Environment. This conference and trade fair will be held
from March 19-23, 1990 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and will focus on the
application of commercial and industrial tools and techniques for achieving
sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the business
opportunities offered by such development.
Another major initiative of the Federal government in which Environment
Canada has a major role, is the establishment of centers of excellence for
research and development at several Canadian universities. The program has
allocated $250 million over the next 5 years to develop these centers.
-20-
-------
GROUP DISCUSSION
FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The main issues brought up in the discussion about the future of
technology transfer in municipal wastewater treatment related to Federal and
State priorities, training, funding, financial management, and feedback.
Priorities. After 20 years of support, EPA may not be particularly interested
in helping States with problems related to conventional technologies;
consulting engineers, States, and Regions should be able to troubleshoot these
problems on their own. Headquarters now may be more interested in addressing
problems related to emerging technologies and new challenges.
The Federal government still must protect the investment it made since
1972 through the Construction Grant Program. Smaller communities most likely
will not change until the program changes in the next 2 to 3 years.
Based on the changing roles in wastewater treatment management, the
States may want to determine new State priorities for funding. Possible
questions for State considerations include: Is it a State priority to solve
technical problems and maintain compliance? Will wastewater treatment be a
political issue in the State? Must agencies involved in wastewater management
inform their governor or Congress directly about their needs? Is a State-
level reorganization called for? State and local agencies may be in better
positions to influence government representatives.
Training. Another consideration is whether the States have the required level
of staff and skills to accomplish their new responsibilities. Do they need
high-quality operators to manage the plant or require operators to get
additional training? There will not be as many technical problems if
operators are properly trained, although this does not resolve design
problems. Ultimately. States will have to comply with regulations, even
though they are not generally experienced in providing technical assistance.
-21-
-------
One way for smaller communities to deal with the lack of operator
ability is to pool their resources by bringing together a dozen clients and
have one skilled operator work for them.
Funding. For the last 3 or 4 years, the State of Maryland, which has a large
stake in the Chesapeake Bay, has implemented its own grants program, and in
1988, the program funded about $20 to $25 million for wastewater projects.
The program is divided into several grant areas, including chlorination,
nitrogen removal, phosphorous removal, and special public water quality
processes. The State of Maryland feels that because the water is theirs they
should be responsible for solving the water problems.
Another State conducted a statewide funding study that contains
projections of the State's estimated costs for carrying out environmental
programs for all the Clean Water Act activities. The study has been widely
distributed to individuals, including the Congressional staff. This type of
report may help to procure increases in Congressional appropriations.
Financial Management. If EPA headquarters, Regions, and States work for local
communities through technology transfer outreach, facilities will be sound.
If facilities face less risk of enforcement, there is a better chance they can
pay back their loans. If they can pay back the loans, the facilities will
have a more financially sound State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, which in
turn means they will have lower interest rates.
Feedback. OMPC encourages the States to make OMPC aware of anything it can do
to help bring these issues to the proper authorities. OMPC can inform State
legislators, the Department of Health, and other groups about these issues.
EPA would also like information on any potentially valuable technology
transfer activities, such as useful seminars, materials, studies, booklets,
pamphlets, brochures, etc.
-22-
-------
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/
RESEARCH AGENDA
-------
EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (ORD) RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
James F. Kreissl, Chief
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Section
and Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
The primary activities of ORD's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
(RREL) that will take place over the next few years related to the I/A
Research Program are technology evaluation, technical assistance, and
information transfer and dissemination, primarily through seminars. Some of
these activities as well as updates to ongoing activities are described below.
Powdered Activated Carbon. The powdered activated carbon addition to
activated sludge (PACT system), although costly, has been shown to increase
the capability of a facility to remove toxics. The operating installations
which incorporate wet air regeneration (WAR) of the carbon have experienced
many operational performance problems, however, including excess ash, effluent
quality excursions of various types, and high O&M costs. Also, the basic
operational control test recommended by the company for considering or
piloting the system has not yielded accurate results. The report on the PACT
system will be available through NTIS by the end of September 1989.
Intrachannel Clarifier. RREL is in the final stages of evaluating two types
of intrachannel clarifiers, the BMTS system and the Boat Clarifier. These
systems replace an external clarifier with a unit that sits in the channel of
an oxidation ditch system. Initially, these systems were believed to have
lower construction and operating costs and lower operator skill requirements,
but the initial claims have not matched the RREL evaluation. If the unit is
large enough, secondary standards can be met, but it seems the best one can
expect from these systems is that they will perform equal to conventional
technology. RREL's report on intrachannel clarifiers will be available
through NTIS by the end of December 1989.
-23-
-------
Draft Tube Aerators. In the total barrier oxidation ditches with draft tube
aerators that were evaluated, the amount of oxygen actually transferred was
less than that normally obtained for conventional course bubble or surface
aerators. RREL's conclusion is that the draft tube aerator is not an
efficient device for transferring oxygen.
Constructed Wetlands. In the most promising type of constructed wetland
(submerged vegetated beds), the wastewater flow enters the wetland, travels
below the surface through cattails, bulrush, reeds, or other suitable
vegetation, and into an outlet with some variable level capability. These
systems appear to hold promise for small communities, particularly for
upgrading existing lagoon systems. RREL is initiating monitoring studies in
the southern United States in conjunction with EPA Region 6 (see p. 85) in
1989 and will expand these efforts in 1990 to develop engineering design
criteria for municipal applications.
Alternative Sewers. RREL's aim in evaluating alternative sewers is to use the
experience gained over the last 10 years to develop new design criteria, cost
information, and operation and maintenance requirements. This project, which
will evaluate small diameter gravity, pressure, and vacuum sewers, has wide
national and international interest.
In-Vessel Composting. The objective of this project was to study full-scale
in-vessel composting systems, prepare site visit reports, and write a
guidance-type document intended to inform potential owners and system
designers about important considerations before investing in or designing an
in-vessel composting system. This technology was difficult to evaluate
because a generic design could not be generated. The document, to be
available through CERI at the October 1989 WPCF meeting, will focus on
materials handling and odors as the major problems be solved through proper
design.
Lov-EnergY Incineration RREL's project on low-energy incineration had four
phases: identifying and screening facilities; visiting those facilities;
-24-
-------
conducting in-depth performance evaluations; and preparing a report on the
findings. The key findings were the need for good management and operational
programs, proper full-term training of operators, and a provision of
equalization storage. The report will include information to help system
designers anticipate and avoid problems and will be available through NTIS by
January 1990.
Ultraviolet Disinfection. In the early 1980s, UV systems experienced many
problems because each plant was a prototype, there was no consensus on design
criteria, and the consulting engineers were not involved in designing the
systems. Presently, most of the 300 UV plants are under I million gallons per
day (MGD), although some larger systems are being designed and implemented.
Most (52.5 percent) are of open channel types. In its present UV study, RREL
will reduce the present design model to a software package so that engineers
can generate a system design based on established criteria and actual
wastewater characteristics.
Upgrading. Without a Federal grants program, facilities will try to maximize
operations and minimize the amount of expansion dollars they have to spend.
Existing upgrading methods include adding sand filters or chemicals (tertiary
treatment), most of which are fairly expensive and some of which create
additional sludge. Initial ways to increase the capacity of the aeration
basin with minimal funding involve developing high biomass systems where fixed
surfaces would be added into existing aeration basins to lower the food-to-
mass ratio, lowering the solids loading rate on secondary clarifiers,
generating a better settling sludge, and saving space at the site.
Sludge from POTWs. RREL is preparing a Design Information Report (DIR) on
sludge production. This document contains basic guidance on how to estimate
the amount of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable sludge that could be
generated by a system. Although manufacturers provide estimates of how much
sludge to expect, these estimates can only (at best) deal with excess sludge
are from organic oxidation. Nondegradable organic solids and inorganic solids
must be accounted for in total sludge volume estimates, and often, these
-25-
-------
categories are the majority of the total. Also, designers must account for a
tremendous amount of variability inherent in normal operations. This document
will attempt be assist designers and reviewers to adequately account for the
total volume of sludge to be handled during a facility's design lifetime.
Other FY90 RREL planned projects involve joint investigation of Canada's
Wastewater Treatment Centre's (WTC) Banff Autothermophyllic Aerobic Digester
(ATAD) system, joint technology evaluation of sequencing batch reactors, and
participation with OMPC in evaluating the WPCF questionnaire (refer to p. A),
sulfide corrosion, and I/I issues.
-26-
-------
CANADA'S WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Bruce Jank, Director
Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
The Wastewater Technology Centre (WTC) is part of a Federal agency,
Environment Canada. The mandate of the Centre is to develop and demonstrate
cost-effective, environmentally acceptable technologies for municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment. The Centre's role is to initiate and
implement an environmental control program and to provide comprehensive
scientific and technical information. Specific WTC activities are directed at
providing technology transfer and controlling complex wastes, residues,
leachates, and toxics by developing, assessing, and/or demonstrating
analytical techniques, new technologies, and cost-effective technologies.
Two main areas of development are the computer applications for
wastewater treatment process control, and innovative processes and
instrumentation for wastewater treatment and sludge management.
Automated Process Control. Automated process control factors include
technology development, the operations audit, and the impact of these programs
on toxics control. In addition to improving effluent quality, process control
goals include saving energy, delaying the needs for further capital
expenditure, acquiring data, and conducting sensor surveillance.
The WWTP Process Audit is a detailed examination of the hydraulics,
oxygen transfer capability, biological process conditions, energy use, and
materials handling train through the use of on-line process instrumentation
and automated data acquisition equipment. The audits are directly aimed at
upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants and not expanding existing
facilities or building new plants.
-27-
-------
Toxic Chemicals Control. In addition to biological degradation, chemical
conversion takes place within the wastewater treatment system and the sludge
absorbs some of the compounds, which either degrade or concentrate within the
sludge. With compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
particularly in the activated sludge process, the wasted sludge can have high
concentrations of PAHs and thus can be extremely toxic.
Another major issue is the volatilization of organic compounds in
sludge. The WTC is investigating, first on a pilot scale and then on a pilot
scale in parallel with full-scale facilities, the extent of VOC emissions from
the activated sludge process.
Innovative Processes and Instrumentation. Four issues related to innovative
processes and instrumentation are anaerobic processes for industrial source
control, oil from sludge, sludge dewatering equipment, and instrumentation
testing.
The high rate anaerobic processes are used for pretreatment of readily
biodegradable, high-strength, high-temperature wastes at the source. The WTC
implemented an extensive program to identify which waste streams could be
pretreated in four different reactor configurations. One project emphasized
the importance of verifying the technology's performance during each phase of
a project. Another WTC observation is that hypothetical design information
can help municipalities realize the economic importance of insisting that the
industry go through the pretreatment operation.
Land application is still the preferred least-cost option for sludge
disposal, as long as the environmental quality of the sludge is acceptable.
There are cases, however, where disposal sites are so distant from the
facility that transporting the sludge would be very costly. One of the
alternative technologies recommended in these cases is a process that converts
sludge to oil. Refer to p. 57 for more details on this process. Innovative
sludge dewatering devices that can increase efficiency are sludge conditioning
controllers and rotary shoe ring presses.
-28-
-------
Although the software and hardware of the computer control systems are
extremely reliable, sensors can become badly coated with biological slime and
thus rendered inefficient. To overcome this type of problem, the Water and
Wastewater Instrument Testing Association of North America (ITA) was formed,
in large part, by U.S. EPA and Environment Canada. It is a nonprofit
association for improving the information on and the reliability of available
instrumentation. Refer to p. 73 for more information about ITA.
To summarize, the priorities of the WTC Research, Development, and
Demonstration Program are to investigate:
• Areas where there is a clearcut need for new technology or a
better understanding of existing technology
• Full-scale demonstration of technologies
• Overall economics of full-scale implementation of the new
technology
• Identification of the willingness of potential municipal or
industrial partners to participate financially in full-scale
demonstrations
• Optimization of the design and operation of existing full-scale
treatment facilities
• Education and continual upgrading of the knowledge and skills of
the staff and contractors
-29-
-------
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
GROUP LEADER REPORTS
To further the national dialogue of the Technology Development
Initiative (Refer to p. 7), the participants of the Technology Transfer Forum
were divided into groups which were asked to (1) identify and prioritize what
they felt were the foremost wastewater treatment challenges that the
wastewater treatment community will most likely face in the next 10 to 20
years; (2) define the types of activities associated with meeting these
challenges, such as research and development, demonstration, training,
technology transfer, technical assistance, public education, etc., and (3)
determine the organizations, such as the Federal, State, or local governments,
educational institutions, professional organizations, commercial interests,
joint efforts and partnerships, and environmental groups that best-suited to
handle the activities required to meet these challenges.
Summary of Issues Identified. The foremost issue identified by the groups was
sludge management, specifically, the beneficial use of sludge, odor problems,
incinerator ash disposal, public acceptance of land applications, and the need
for health-related data.
POTW toxics control was another major issue discussed, including source
control/education, pretreatment, the need for treatability studies to develop
design criteria, limitations of the RCRA designations of hazardous wastes, and
the need to monitor the fate of toxics.
The third most important issue discussed was the upgrading of existing
plants by (1) increasing water conservation measures and thus increasing
hydraulic capacities and delaying expansion; (2) modifying existing
technologies, such as clarifiers and aeration systems for increasing removal
rates and meeting increased discharge limits; and (3) optimizing toxics
removal (with new technologies).
-30-
-------
How small communities obtain and manage funding and optimize low-cost,
easily implemented O&M technologies were also identified as key issues. In
addition, the need for demonstrating new technologies to meet impending
regulations for CSOs and stormwater drainage and other infrastructure issues
was discussed. The groups also felt that training and education of everyone
involved, including the general public (to gain public acceptance) and the
plant operators (to decrease turnovers) was another key issue.
Other important issues discussed (but not prioritized) are maintaining
compliance, source reduction/recycling, pretreatment, water conservation/low
flow devices, water quality standards/nutrient removal, septage disposal,
effects of new products, energy efficiency, disinfection, and
infiltration/inflow.
Activities and Responsibilities. The groups identified the major sectors of
the wastewater treatment community as having the following general
responsibilities:
• EPA - setting the agenda, providing funding, conducting
educational programs, jointly sponsoring demonstration projects,
serving as a clearinghouse for information.
• State agencies - conducting operations research, technology
transfer, and technological evaluations; optimizing existing
facilities; and conducting training/public education programs.
• Local agencies - complying with local regulations and conducting
public education programs.
• Academia - conducting basic research and development efforts from
the conceptual phase through pilot testing.
The groups also suggested that trade groups should be involved in
certain circumstances. For example, the plumbing industry should be involved
in water conservation, through the development and promotion of low flow
devices.
-31-
-------
TOXICS
-------
OMPC TOXICS ACTIVITY
Randy Revetta, Environmental Protection Specialist
OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, B.C.
OMPC is currently undertaking several toxics-related activities, including
preparing the Report to Congress, a handbook on toxics management, and a
booklet on regulations affecting POTWs, and planning a workshop on air toxics
and some future initiatives.
The Statutory Authority for the Report to Congress, "Study of Pretreatment
of Toxic Pollutants," is the Water Quality Act, Section 519. The study
evaluates and updates information on environmental impacts associated with
POTW toxics discharge, with consideration of surface water, ground water, air,
and sludge impacts. Existing data and critical gaps in the data are also
documented. OMPC also evaluates and updates information on the removal of
toxics through secondary treatment, for which it defines removal processes
associated with secondary treatment and characterizes the extent of toxic
removals by process and by pollutant.
Another part of the study deals with assessing POTW capability to revise
pretreatment standards. In essence, this section is a status report on EPA
actions with regard to the removal credit program and an assessment of the
POTW capability to grant removal credits and impose more stringent
requirements through local limits. The study also addresses the development
of alternative regulatory strategies that enhance toxics control in terms of
interference, pass through, and sludge contamination and includes
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the pretreatment program.
The "POTW Toxics Management Handbook" and the booklet on regulations
affecting POTWs are still in draft form. The Toxics Handbook for POTW
operators and design engineers will discuss toxic pollutants in commonly used
unit operations, explore operational methods for enhancing toxics removal, and
identify uncommon treatment technologies that can be used to remove toxics.
-33-
-------
The booklet, "EPA Regulations Affecting POTW Management," is an overview
designed to familiarize POTW operators and owners with the Federal laws and
requirements that may apply to each stage of operations.
OMPC is also planning a workshop on toxic air pollutants, scheduled to
take place on July 10 to 11, 1989. The workshop will address the potential
impacts of the impending Clean Air Act amendments on POTWs and identify
alternative strategies. The proceedings from the workshop will be published.
As a part of the Technology Transfer Initiative (refer to p. 7) to become
more involved in toxics management, OMPC is investigating potential future
studies. For this purpose, OMPC is creating a board of nationally recognized
experts to make recommendations on the areas that require more in-depth study,
such as toxic sources, measurement, and fate, and new processes to maximize
toxics removal in the activated sludge process.
-34-
-------
WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
Edwin F. Drabkowski, Environmental Protection Specialist
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
OWRS, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
The EPA Surface Water Toxics Control Program is a collection of existing
authorities established by the Clean Water Act and administered through the
EPA Offices of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and Water Enforcement
and Permits (OWEP). A list of the applicable sections of the Act is shown in
Table 1. Included are CWA sections designed to control all sources of
pollution, such as Section 301 for point sources; Section 316, thermal
discharges; Section 319, nonpoint sources; Section 405, sludge disposal;
Section 402, NPDES permits; and Section 403, ocean dumping. The program also
addresses the control of pollutants through effluent limits, water quality
standards, and pretreatment standards. Section 303(d) includes the toxic and
nontoxic control limits for all bodies of water and Section 305(b) concerns
the reporting of ongoing ambient monitoring and assessment activities.
Background. Since the early 1980s, EPA has focused on the need to control
toxics and has described its surface water toxics control program in several
documents. In 1984, a national policy for water quality-based permit
limitations for toxic pollutants set the foundation for controlling toxics.
This policy led to the development of a technical support document for
assessing toxicity and deriving water quality effluent-based limits. In 1987,
the Clean Water Act was amended to include key approaches for identifying
toxic problems and sources, and in 1989. the Administrator signed a final
regulation that clarifies EPA's Water Quality Toxics Control Program.
Updates. The two most important components of the Surface Water Toxics
Control Program are the development and implementation of water quality-based
controls. The mechanism linking these two components is provided by Section
304(e) which was added to the CWA by the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments.
-35-
-------
TABLE 1
SURFACE WATER TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED UNDER EXISTING CLEAN WATER ACT AUTHORITIES
Control of all sources (under Sections 301, 316, 319, 402, 403, and 405
of the CWA)
Control of all types of pollutants (under Sections 301(b), 303, and 307
of the CWA)
Control of all water bodies (under Section 303[d] of the CWA)
Program development activities (including assessments of State toxics
control programs)
-36-
-------
Section 304(1) is a one-time program that requires the States to identify
and list all waters threatened or impaired by toxics and other pollutants.
The section also requires the States to identify point sources of toxic
pollutants discharges, which are based on the EPA list of 126 priority
pollutants, and the amounts of toxics discharged by point sources; prepare
individual control strategies (ICS) for point source discharges; and reduce
the discharge of toxic pollutants from these sources. Once finalized, the
controls established in the ICS are to be reached by 1992.
The 304(1) requirements were based on a very ambitious time schedule and
required the States to review existing and readily available data, which also
included many investigations and evaluations from February 1987 to February
1989. At the end of this period, the States were required to submit final
lists of waters and ICSs to the Regions. Within 120 days thereafter, the
Regions had to review and either approve or disapprove these lists and the
ICSs.
Nationwide, the status of States' submissions indicated that about 17,576
bodies of water are threatened or impaired by a particular toxic or nontoxic
pollutant source. The investigation of impacts related to priority toxic
pollutants (defined under CWA Section 307[a]) attributed entirely or
substantially to point source discharges showed that 602 waters were
identified as impaired by 856 sources, including discharges from industrial
and municipal facilities, storm waters, CSOs, mines, and Superfund sites. The
States conducted this work with the assistance of the EPA Regional offices.
(See Table 2.)
In the tabulation of the ICSs, 210 final permits were approved, 387 are in
draft form, and 259 are being developed. Most of the permits (581) are for
industrial facilities, 203 are for municipal facilities, and 72 represent an
"other" category (stormwater discharges, CSOs, mine drainage, and some CERCLA
sites).
-37-
-------
TABLE 2
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 304(1) IMPAIRED WATERS AND SOURCES
Waterbodies Impaired from All Sources 17,576
Waterbodies Impaired Due to Point Source
Discharges of Priority Toxic Pollutants 602
Facilities Causing Toxic Discharge 856
Source of Toxic Discharges
Industrial 581
Municipal 203
Combined Sewer 39
Storm Water 16
Other 17
Note: Data are as of July 1989.
-38-
-------
Future Activities. The next step for EPA will be to evaluate and assess the
waters with ICSs in place to determine whether or not the controls and
objectives are being reached. This activity is scheduled for completion by
June 1992.
Another pending task is to upgrade the remaining 17,000 waters that were
identified as having problems; a new regulation is being considered that will
require the reporting of the water quality status of waters needing controls
every 2 years in the State's Section 305(b) Report. The authority for
mandating this activity exists in Section 303(d), which asks that States
prioritize their impacted waters in situations where water quality standards
are not being achieved. (As the statute presently reads, the States are asked
to conduct this activity from time to time.)
-39-
-------
AIR TOXICS AND POTWS
Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services
Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Fountain Valley. CA
Every wastewater unit process contributes to air emissions. The two main
areas of concern are air toxics and their potential contribution to human
cancer and emissions that are ozone precursors. This presentation outlines
the sources of air toxics within POTWs, possible control technologies, and
some of the problems that need to be dealt with over the next few years.
Sources. Primary clarifier weirs, clarifier surfaces, trickling filters,
secondary aeration and various release points as water is conveyed from one
unit process to the next, and the flaring of digester gas or its use in
engines can all contribute to toxic emissions in WWTPs. The anaerobic
digestion of sludge and sludge incinerations are other potential point
emissions. About one half to two thirds of the emissions from the treatment
plant evolve from preliminary and primary treatment and about one third to one
half evolve from secondary aeration process treatment.
Compounds. The volatile compounds of concern used in industrial settings
include methylene chloride, formaldehyde, and chloroform. Methylene chloride
is also used in a domestic setting (i.e., in paint strippers). In POTWs,
chlorination of drinking water, which is a major source of chloroform;
aerosols; and heavy metal particulates are concerns.
Potential Control Strategies. Control strategies include upstream source
control; containment (covering unit processes); airstream management and
treatment; the reuse of process streams (pulling air off primary clarifiers to
aerate the secondary treatment plant); and the use of new wastewater treatment
processes. Research and field demonstration work is needed to test these
strategies to determine their effectiveness.
-40-
-------
Today, source control consists of working closely with industry to monitor
how their facilities are operating and to provide them with information on how
to meet regulations. WWTPs have successfully decreased the amount of heavy
metals entering their sewerage systems through aggressive enforcement and,
more importantly, through cooperation by industry. This track record can
serve as a model for future source control efforts for volatile compounds.
Industrial materials substitution, waste minimization, industrial
pretreatment, and the way consumer household products are formulated are all
potential source control strategies for the future. Chloroform could be
decreased by changing the ways water supplies are disinfected.
Airstream management involves containing the airstream, conveying it to a
central point within the plant for treatment, and then disposing of the
materials removed from the airstream. One problem related to POTW airstreams
is that high volumes of air need to be extracted (contained) from the primary
clarifiers, secondary treatment, and sludge processing buildings. But while
there may be a high volume of air, the low concentrations of toxics
encountered are not easily controlled by any existing technology. Treatment
efficiency and cost effectiveness are difficult to achieve under these
conditions. Also, most POTW airstreams are 100 percent saturated. If the
processes use activated carbon, the carbon beds are quickly wetted and begin
to lose adsorption capacity. Condensation technology can cause freezing. A
third problem with airstream management is that POTW airstreams are cool and
therefore have limited or negative buoyancy which makes stack discharge
strategies ineffective.
Retrofitting existing systems with toxics control technology while
maintaining the efficiency of the existing unit processes and operator access
to the equipment can be difficult. The hydrogen sulfide and moisture in the
airstream can corrode concrete and affect electromechanical systems.
Potential control technologies include adsorption (transforming the toxics to
a solid phase through the adsorption of the gas by activated carbon);
condensation (cooling the gas until it reaches dewpoint to convert the
materials into a liquid); oxidation (converting the gas to a gas or liquid
-41-
-------
through a thermal or chemical process); and absorption (passing the gas
through a wet scrubber, pulling it out, and converting it to a blowdown
liquid). Each technology involves major considerations and many of the
processes merely transfer the pollutants from one media to another, creating
other environmental or public health concerns if not properly managed.
Treatment Technology Costs. For a 50 MGD plant, the conveyance and
containment facilities for adsorption treatment would cost about $2 to $5
million. Carbon scrubbers would cost about $4 million; and the annual O&M
cost would be about $3 million with about 50 percent efficiency. For thermal
oxidation, containment would cost between $2 and $5 million, treatment
facilities, about $6 million; and O&M, about $7 million per year.
Although removal efficiencies for wet scrubbing absorption do not look
promising, the costs are significantly lower than for other technologies.
Containment would cost between $2 and $5 million, the wet scrubbers would cost
about $4 million, and O&M costs would probably be about $0.5 million per year.
Recommendations. Pilot studies are needed, as well as the coordination of
Regional, State, and Federal efforts, to relate and integrate the cross-media
impacts and eliminate cross-media and cross-program conflicts. All parties
involved must minimize the overall environmental and health effects impacts
and recognize that there will be some tradeoffs.
Before developing any additional public policy, the procedures for
determining how human health risk data are developed need to be investigated,
including how the laboratory experiments used to project cancer risk really
drive the decision-making process. Other needs include inventories of toxic
emissions from urban areas; feedback data from POTWs; and advocation by EPA,
State officials, and WWTPs of the cross-media approach to Congress. POTWs can
also promote advisory boards to link them to government agencies. The
agencies should allow some flexibility in whatever regulations are promulgated
in terms of time and site specificity.
-42-
-------
Available Reports. One toxics report is the "Impact of Toxic Air Quality
Regulations on California Publicly Owned Treatment Works," also called the
"California Report," produced in 1988 by the State Water Resources Control
Board, the California Air Resources Board, EPA Region 9, and several POTWs. A
second report was produced by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
in April 1989. It contains their 30-year Master Plan, which coordinates air,
land, and water quality objectives.
Contact Blake Anderson at (714) 962-2411 for further information.
-43-
-------
SMALL COMMUNITIES
-------
EPA SMALL COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION (SCORE) STRATEGY
Rich Kuhlman, Acting Chief
OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
EPA's Small Community Outreach and Education (SCORE) is an information
and technical assistance program designed to make the States and local
officials who are responsible for building and operating WWTPs aware that
appropriate technology, sound financial management, and citizen awareness and
support are available to help them build and operate cost-effective and self-
sufficient wastewater facilities that achieve compliance. It also aims to
protect EPA's large investment in wastewater facilities and make communities
aware of the value of wastewater treatment, its links to clean water, and the
attitudinal changes that are needed to remove impediments to good wastewater
treatment. It also informs these groups that the Federal government will not
continue to provide funding as it has in the past.
SCORE communicates with small communities from the time that they start
planning facilities; through design, selection, and construction; to operation
and maintenance, and utility management phases. Specific issues SCORE
addresses are attracting, handling, and retaining personnel, and setting up
appropriate and successful billing operations.
Audience. The primary audience of the program is the small community local
officials and wastewater managers in towns (generally 10,000 people or less)
who need to build new wastewater facilities or upgrade and improve compliance
at existing facilities. The secondary audience includes the agencies and
organizations whose cooperation SCORE needs to enlist because they have the
resources and expertise to reach the key audience and to institutionalize
outreach at the State and local levels. State offices involved in
development, commerce, and auditing, and the Office of the Secretary of State,
are in the best position to offer financial assistance or management, and
bookkeeping support services.
-45-
-------
In addition to EPA, other Federal agencies who can help the SCORE
program include Farmer's Home, Indian Health Service, and the EPA-funded
National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC) at West Virginia University. Other
public agencies and professional groups can become involved, as well as trade
associations, and educational institutions, such as the National Government
Association, the WPCF, the National Underground Contractors Association, and a
broad spectrum of national organizations that have small communities as their
constituents or clients.
Activities. The first type of outreach activity involves a joint effort
between the States and EPA Regional offices. The Regional offices do not
have the staff or the resources to reach the tens of thousands of small
communities across the country, but SCORE outreach coordinators in all 10
Regions (see Appendix F) work with State outreach coordinators to distribute
information, provide support to the local communities, and target the small
communities that, need the most assistance.
At the Federal agency level, SCORE utilizes existing outreach resources
and communication networks. At the National Association level, SCORE
coordinates the presentation of information to public interest and
professional groups that serve State and sub-State governmental units,
municipalities, wastewater planning and design professionals, and various
sectors of the general public (e.g., youth groups or environmental groups).
SCORE and Technology Transfer. Because so many small communities cannot
afford to pay for a full-time operator, the communities must build facilities
they can operate almost on their own. The SCORE program needs the technology
transfer groups to continue to support current efforts, even if the I/A
program changes. Those involved in technology transfer can help small
communities by letting them know which technologies show lower risks, so that
the communities will construct those facilities without the guarantee of 100
percent replacement. Also, if a technology developed through the I/A program
no longer shows risks, it should be called conventional technology, so small
communities will be more likely to use it.
-46-
-------
Small communities need treatment optimization, because they will not be
able to afford continual upgrading to expand wastewater treatment facilities.
In addition to a process audit (Refer to p. 79), small communities also need a
utilities management audit from the time the water leaves the home to when the
bills are collected. In terms of new technologies, small communities need new
treatment and collection systems. Some unsewered communities have often spent
up to two thirds of the cost of the new system on collection, so the industry
needs to create collection systems that are low cost and reliable for small
communities.
The wastewater treatment community must also find a way to continue the
goals of the I/A Program, such as through incentive grants or demonstration
grants, so that it can help communities test new facilities. One way to
provide incentives for manufacturers to invest in small communities can be
based on EPA's Hazardous Waste Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program, which works with industries to bring technologies on site for
testing at a small-scale pilot level. EPA pays for part of the cost of
operating those trial facilities.
Another example is that Region 6 is procuring funds from the Regional
office and EPA Headquarters to work with the State of Oklahoma to determine
the usefulness of adding rock reed filters as polishing to lagoon effluents.
If this technique proves beneficial to some small communities, EPA will
monitor these facilities and transfer the technology to other communities.
To continue the progress made in the past in small community wastewater
treatment, the Regions, States, EPA Headquarters, national associations, and
other Federal agencies need to work with existing outreach programs and
networks to coordinate the use of limited available resources.
-47-
-------
SMALL FLOWS ACTIVITIES
James F. Kreissl, Chief
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Section
and Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
One of the more promising small flows technologies is the constructed
wetland. The National Small Flows Clearinghouse has initiated an effort to
assemble information in this area and provide funding to conduct monitoring
studies in southwestern Kentucky. They also have a computer hotline bulletin
board (at 1-800-293-9969), which can be used in all States except West
Virginia. The bulletin board can promote the exchange of ideas, post
particular problems, and help obtain advice or comments from people working in
the field all over the country.
The constructed wetland has been shown capable of achieving high quality
effluent: better than 10 to 15 parts BOD and very low suspended solids. It
is a system with low maintenance requirements and costs with many potential
applications in a small community situation. Constructed wetlands can even be
used by individual homes. Some problems experienced by the more promising
subsurface flow constructed wetlands include improperly designed inlet
structures, flooding of the cells, leakage, and inadequately sized gravel,
which results in less efficient free water surface systems.
The recirculating sand filter is another highly promising small flow
technology. The standard design of this technology involves pretreatment by a
septic tank followed by collection in a recirculation tank. The wastewater
and recycled filtrate are then applied to a rather coarse sand media (contact
bed). The effluent, which is of high quality, is then split between the final
discharge stream and the recycle stream, which returns to the recirculating
tank where it mixes with the septic tank effluent. The effluent quality to be
expected from a recirculating sand filter is roughly a 10/10 (BOD/suspended
solids) effluent with good nitrification most of the year (with an average 40
-48-
-------
percent loss of nitrogen). Normal annual maintenance required for this kind
of filter involves weed pulling, scraping with a rake, and checking the
recirculation pumps.
One sand filter application is in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where the
ground-water quality is very protected because the area is overpopulated
during the summer months. One problem with the system is that, by its nature,
a lot of oxygen should be available. If the filter becomes overloaded or too
fine-grained, however, the oxygen diffusion in the system is restricted so
that nitrification does not occur. The University of Arkansas and University
of Maryland are conducting studies on how to improve the nitrogen removal in
recirculating sand filters to better than 40 percent. The University of West
Virginia is studying the effectiveness of a less-expensive media, bottom ash.
Another small flows technology is the RUCK system which employs
segregated plumbing to permit separate treatment of black water (toilet
wastes) and gray water, followed by combined treatment and disposal. The
University of Rhode Island conducted a study of this system and verbal reports
are that the system is not performing well. The system should result in about
50 percent nitrogen removal, but the results have fluctuated a great deal,
i.e., from about 30 to 70 percent.
Another technology is effluent sewers. This technology is in the
process of being modeled to aid the design of various gravity and pressure
systems. The models will produce sewer profiles, generate cost curves for the
various designs, and show how a change in variables will affect the profile
and costs. These modeling efforts have been included in training courses
offered by the clearinghouse and West Virginia University staff at several
locations in the United States.
-49-
-------
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) ISSUES
John Flowers, Environmental Engineer
OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
The major focus of EPA's O&M program, administered on the State level,
is to work with the operators and town officials of small facilities (less
than 5 MGD) that are out of compliance. Since 1981, the program has assisted
over 2,800 communities, 57 percent of which have been brought back into
compliance and slightly less than 20 percent of which have significantly
improved performance. Less than 20 percent are still in training, so only
about 5 percent did not succeed in the program. Many of the unsuccessful
facilities are ones that did not follow EPA's recommendations.
Some of the major issues the program deals with are problems due to
people's perceptions of the O&M program and technology transfer, design and
operational problems caused by poor design or design oversights, research
needs, and new or expanded roles for existing areas.
Image Concerns. One major challenge for the O&M program is the "out of sight,
out of mind syndrome." Water and sewer services are often taken for granted
or undervalued by customers and local officials. Many people never think
about what is involved in getting the water to their home and then cleaning it
before it reaches its final destination in the ground or surface water.
Because of this, towns often find it difficult to raise money to pay for
operations and new facilities. Public education is required and local
officials must be educated in planning, design, technology selection,
operations, and the management of wastewater treatment facilities.
The second image concern is the "Ed Norton syndrome." (Ed Norton was a
sewer worker, portrayed by Jackie Gleason on the "Honeymooners" television
show.) The general public often associates the typical sewer worker with Ed
Norton, who did not hold much esteem. In a small community situation, where
-50-
-------
the quality of operator is often less than required by the facility type, it
is often difficult to retain staff.
The O&M program is trying to solve this problem through an awards
program at the State and national level. To go beyond the technical
community, the awards program could be publicized with organizations that
represent small communities, such as the National Associations of Towns and
Townships and the National Association of Counties, and in publications
directed toward local officials and the general public.
Design and Operational Problems. According to the O&M data base, even under
the best of conditions, lack of operator understanding of the treatment
process and failure to apply process controls make it difficult to operate a
treatment plant to meet permit limits. In addition, design problems (at the
headworks, bar screens, sludge handling, and laboratory facilities) limit the
performance of that facility to a significant degree.
The WPCF survey (refer to p. 4) has found that major problems in small
communities are I/I, undersizing and oversizing, and odors. The age of 50
percent of those facilities is 20 years or older. Therefore, not only will
many facilities be due for expansion or upgrading in the near future, but the
plants must deal with equipment breakdowns. The O&M data base indicates that
this problem is a main reason for noncompliance.
Research Needs. Research is needed in design modification; more sophisticated
computerized operations; and improvement of alternative sewer technology,
disinfection, and sand filters. Because many communities are faced with
meeting greater than secondary treatment limits, low-cost, easy-to-operate
facilities that will meet those limits are needed, as are the standardization
of designs and optimization of performance in colder climates for constructed
wetlands, and the development of new technologies that could be suitably
adapted to small community situations.
-51-
-------
O&M is producing an introductory pamphlet on toxics to help wastewater
treatment plants implement household hazardous waste collection site programs
at the treatment plant. Some of the better operating mid-sized and larger
treatment plants can provide this service to the community and to the plant as
well, eliminating toxics that enter the sewer system from homes. This program
can be an opportunity for the public to visit the treatment plant, learn what
happens there, and see that they are run by skilled and dedicated employees.
Future Directions. The future directions for the O&M program involve State
training centers, and onsite planning and management assistance. There are
about 35 centers nationwide that implement the operations and management
evaluation onsite assistance program. Many centers also provide training in
drinking water management, toxics management, and a broad range of
environmental services. The centers are generally located in a community
college or other educational institution and have the potential to be
centralized information sources for small communities to obtain advice on
total environmental management.
The onsite assistance program involves talking to local officials about
financial management, helping them revise their user charge system and bill
collection program, and providing other financial management services. Onsite
assistance also helps communities plan new facilities, select technology, and
review designs. The program also works with Indian Health Service to provide
operator training for Indian tribes.
One planning consideration is that the wastewater outreach program can
piggyback with the drinking water programs at the National and State level, so
that the public is provided with a broad view of water and wastewater
management issues.
-52-
-------
SLUDGE
-------
NEW SLUDGE REGULATIONS
Robert Bastian, Environmental Scientist
OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
The new sewage sludge regulations being developed in response to Section
405 of the Clean Water Act address program, technical, and interim strategy
issues.
Program Regulations. The program regulations (40 CFR Part 122, 123, 124, and
501), finalized on May 2, 1989, respond to requirements of the Clean Water Act
Amendments that state that all facilities need Federal permits to use or
dispose of sewage sludge. Some key issues associated with the program
regulations are permits, partial delegation, the definition of reportable
violation, the degree of enforcement, monitoring requirements, and reporting
methods.
In terms of permitting, States have the option of using a delegated
NPDES permit or any other kind of permit that is approved as part of a Part
501 Sludge Management Program. Also, since all sludge use/disposal facilities
must now obtain and comply with Federally enforceable permits (including
nondischarging facilities) and because septage is considered to be sewage
sludge under the new regulations, many more facilities must obtain permits.
Partial delegation involves letting the States handle some sludge use
and disposal practices, but not others (e.g., land application and landfill,
but not incineration or other disposal practices) or letting States handle
only some portion of the sludge regulatory activities (e.g., issuing permits,
but not undertaking compliance inspection and enforcement activities). The
formal NPDES rules that will allow partial delegation have not yet been
issued, thus partial delegation of State permitting of sludge disposal is not
fully dealt with in the final program regulations.
-53-
-------
The new technical regulations (Part 503) will include quantitative
limits for pathogens in sludge prior to land application. The number of
samples that fail these limits will constitute a reportable violation or
necessitate reprocessing; the degree of EPA and State enforcement, and the
level of available resources still need to be clarified.
Another issue related to monitoring requirements and reporting methods
is that there are no standard methods for sludge analysis, although the Agency
has published some specific methodologies recommended for performing sludge
analyses. This lack of standard methods could lead to legal battles over
determining the exact contents of an accused violator's sludge. Another
potentially controversial monitoring issue is the requirement for every POTW,
regardless of its size, to scan priority pollutants at least once per year.
Technical Regulations. The technical regulations (40 CFR Part 503) proposed
in The Federal Register on February 6, 1989, deal with sludge applications to
agricultural and nonagricultural land, distribution and marketing of "sludge-
containing" products, incineration, sludge monofills (landfilling of sludge by
itself), and surface disposal practices (such as storage piles or lagoons
where sludge may be stored for longer than 1 year).
The proposed regulations are mainly based on sludge quality limits that
were developed using risk assessment-based numerical calculations that used
either specific exposure pathway models or the results of a national aggregate
risk assessment. Sludge quality data from the "40 Cities Survey," which were
collected in the late 1970s, were used in developing the proposal. For more
up-to-date information, the Agency is now conducting a new National Sludge
Survey, where samples of sludge are being collected from about 200 POTWs
across the country, while questionnaires seeking additional data are being
sent to about 400 POTWs. In addition to determining sludge quality, the
survey will provide information about current sludge use and disposal
practices and likely impacts of the proposed regulations on these practices.
-54-
-------
A major issue related to the proposed technical regulations is that some
of the numeric limits are quite restrictive and according to many authorities
would halt current sludge use and disposal operations. In other cases, the
numeric limits proposed were so high, concern was raised over whether they
were justifiable. Another issue that has been raised is the technical
defensibility of the numeric limits, which relates to the reasonableness of
the approach, as well as some of the data, used to calculate the limits. The
numeric limits are needed to help control sludge use and disposal practices as
well as to help local agencies estimate removal credits (i.e., how much
flexibility the POTW can give to an industrial user when the POTW can actually
handle the pollutant discharged from that user vs having it removed by the
industry prior to discharge to the sewer).
The cost of monitoring and recordkeeping requirements associated with
permits (i.e., analyzing the 28 pollutants in the proposed Part 503 technical
regulations and potentially the full set of 126 priority pollutants) has
generated much concern, especially for small communities.
Compliance. As proposed in the technical regulations, facilities have a year
to come into compliance after the new regulations become final unless new
facilities need to be constructed, in which case, the time limit will extend
to 2 years.
Interim Strategy. In May 1988, the Office of Water Permits issued an interim
strategy for sludge regulation to be in effect until the final Part 503
regulations are issued. The major requirements of the interim strategy are
(1) all NPDES permits issued to POTWs after February 1987 are to address basic
sludge management conditions, (2) priority or Class I POTWs will be permitted
on a case-by-case basis, and (3) the permit holder has to notify the permit
issuer if the POTW makes any major changes in its quality or use/sludge
disposal practices. The interim strategy for delegation allows the States to
regulate sewage sludge.
-55-
-------
The monitoring requirements of the interim strategy are designed to
ensure that facilities develop good baseline data so that they know what is in
their sludge when the final Part 503 regulations are issued. Records must be
maintained for 5 years, as opposed to the 3-year requirement for compliance
with NPDES permits regarding effluent discharges.
In September 1988, EPA issued a draft document, "Guidance for Writing
Case-by-Case Permit Requirements for Municipal Sewage Sludge." The document
summarizes existing Federal and State requirements and guidelines and offers
basic recommendations for the permit writers. A new brochure, "EPA's Policy
Promoting the Beneficial Use of Sewage Sludge and the New Proposed Technical
Sludge Regulations," has also been issued. This brochure reinforces the
Agency's beneficial use policy, clarifies the purpose of the new proposed Part
503 regulations, and describes how current Federal and State requirements will
be used to govern sludge use and disposal practices during the interim period
or until the final Part 503 technical regulations are issued, which is
currently scheduled for October 1991.
Future Issues. One future issue is that of dioxins in sludge, which were not
among the 28 pollutants addressed in the proposed Part 503 regulations, but
will most likely be considered in the second round of regulations. A number
of States are now prohibiting the landfilling of sewage sludge, while
encouraging more pretreatment and recycling of sewage sludge in order to save
their limited existing landfill space for other "more appropriate" wastes.
Public acceptance is still a major sludge disposal issue and some
interesting debates are occurring across the country concerning long-term
impacts of sludge use and disposal practices and the use of multiple sludge
use and disposal alternatives for individual POTWs. There is also increasing
interest in new, sometimes rather exotic, sludge processes, such as the
conversion of sludge to oil, as well as the vertical tube reactor, solvent
extraction, and the use of kiln dust to stabilize or improve the quality of
sewage sludge.
-56-
-------
CONVERSION OF SLUDGE TO OIL
Bruce Jank, Director
Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Since 1982, Environment Canada's Wastewater Technology Centre (WTC) has
been investigating the conversion of sludge to oil because the options for
sludge disposal are decreasing, particularly in large industrialized
metropolitan areas. The initial project, now complete, had three phases:
preliminary batch testing, continuous flow testing in a bench-scale reactor,
and pilot plant testing.
Process Description. The sludge-to-oil conversion process basically converts
biomass to crude oil with preliminary oil yields at 25 to 30 percent. Before
the conversion process, municipal sludge is mechanically dewatered to about 40
percent solids either using a membrane press or, potentially, the ring press.
The sludge is then thermally dried to 95 percent solids, fed into the
conversion reactor/condenser to recover the oil from the process, and then fed
into the oil/water separator. The char is extracted off the reactor, the gas
off the condenser, and the pyrolitic water off the separation device. These
products are burned in the char combustor.
The conversion process operates at 350° to 450°C in the absence of
oxygen and at atmospheric pressure. The residence time in the system is 4 to
30 minutes, typically with a 15-minute solids retention time in the reactors,
which is a relatively short conversion time. Catalyzed vapor phase reactions
convert the organics (lipids and proteins) within the sludge to predominately
straight chain hydrocarbons (alkanes and alkenes) similar to natural crude
oil. The aliphatic compound is the precursor of crude oil.
Pilot Testing. In the pilot-scale system, 27 samples of raw and digested
sludges were tested. The oil yields were 22 to 46 percent for raw sludge and
13 to 29 percent for digested sludge. The calorific value of the char
produced was 40 to 66 percent for the raw sludge and 41 to 73 percent for the
-57-
-------
digested sludge. Three to 15 percent and 7 to 16 percent reaction water was
created by the raw and digested sludges, respectively. The reaction water
contained about 80 to 90 percent volatile fatty acid.
About 35 percent of the energy from the process is produced from burning
the char, the noncondensable gas, and the reaction water. This is sufficient
energy to thermally dry the sludge and provide other required support. The
oil that is left over is a by-product from the process. Another result of the
pilot test was that the process could operate with a temperature differential
of 50°C without significantly impacting the quality of oil or the yield.
The materials handling capability of the unit and the heat capacity
proved to be sufficient in the pilot test. The heat capacity has also been
confirmed as sufficient. The design capacity of 1 ton/day on the unit was
achieved. The oil/water separation unit required upgrading, after which
separation was achieved. The bench-scale predictions have also been
confirmed against the larger pilot-scale unit.
Costs. The major technological competitor to sludge conversion is
incineration, so the capital and operating costs of four sludge incineration
trains were evaluated, from the conditioning process through ash disposal.
The study determined that for the four units, the total sludge costs varied
from $350 to $1,040 per ton of dry solids (ds) processed (1988 Canadian
dollars), representing 35 to 50 percent of the total operating costs.
Environment Canada's full-scale costs have been based on estimates from
a facility in Melbourne, Australia, that is a 45-ton/day facility with a
complete sludge train from conditioning through to ash disposal. Total
capital costs for the facility were $12.5 million. Annual capital and
operating costs were $1.25 million and $2.36 million, respectively. The total
unit costs are $240/ton ds. The net total cost is $138/ton ds and the net
operating cost is $55/ton ds. The revenue from the oil is estimated to be
$102/ton ds, based on 70 percent use of diesel fuel at the pumps with a net
-58-
-------
cost of $138/ton ds. Even at zero value for oil, costs are quite competitive
with incineration; $240/ton compared to the lowest of $350/ton.
Oil Uses. The Australians have been running a stationary diesel engine using
50 percent of the oil directly from the conversion unit and there has been
very little loss in efficiency or loss in power on the unit.
Impact of Technology. One impact of this technology is that it can reduce
sludge treatment costs. It also has the flexibility of recovering energy
usage. The oil is a storable and readily transportable product, if, in fact,
it needs to be moved to an alternative site. In terms of the wastewater
treatment plant design, the process can be optimized without minimizing sludge
production. The other major impact is that the industry is suitable for
privatization.
The major potential pollutant emitted from an engine burning sludge oil.
is nitrogen. A device can be put onto a full-scale facility as an upgrade
component to reduce the nitrogen content.
Current Status and Future Program. The pilot plant has now been in operation
for approximately 2 years; a large enough volume of oil is being collected to
conduct engine testing. WTC is now evaluating alternative markets for the oil
and appropriate demonstration sites for a raw sludge conversion facility.
Contact Bruce Jank at the WTC for more information on this technology
and for a list of publications (867 Lakeshore Rd., P. 0. Box 5050, Burlington,
Ont., L7R 4A6, Canada).
-59-
-------
ACCELERATED DEWTATERING WITH MECHANICAL AERATION
Ancil Jones, Regional Staff Engineer
U.S. EPA, Dallas, TX
Region 6 operated a test facility in Roswell, New Mexico, to demonstrate
and evaluate the process of accelerated dewatering with mechanical aeration,
particularly using the "brown bear" (a tractor with an auger device on the
front end) for drying by turning sludge in windrows.
The local conditions were generally hot and windy with a high rate of
evaporation. A conventional sand bed was designed with an underdrain for
comparison to the hardbottom sludge beds with 5 inches of asphalt. To compare
similar systems nationwide, EPA chose to use silica sand, which is available
across the country. A weather station was set up to measure air temperature,
bed temperature, wind velocity and direction, evaporation, humidity, solar
energy, and precipitation.
The existing facility uses a trickling filter with anaerobic digesters.
There are one primary digester and two secondary digesters. The sludge coming
from the digesters is about 4 to 6 percent solids. After the solids separate
from the liquid, the sludge is placed on the hardbottom beds for a decanting
period of about 4 to 7 days; after a settling period, the sludge is drawn off.
In the process flow, wastewater enters the headworks, then primary
clarifiers followed by primary trickling filters, intermediate clarifiers,
secondary trickling filters, and final clarifiers. The sludge is then pulled
out of the intermediate and singular clarifiers and returned to the plant
influent. The primary sludge is then put in the digesters. From the
digesters, sludge is placed on a drying bed and allowed to decant.
A brown bear is then run through the sludge about two to three times per
week. This mixing with a tractor is continued until the sludge is dewatered
to about 50 percent solids, which takes from three to nine weeks.
-60-
-------
One observation was that quite a bit of volatile solids were released
from the drying bed due to the use of a brown bear. Also, the moisture
content and the temperature affected the speed at which the bacteria was
deactivated. Results of the bacteriological tests indicated that the
organisms can be deactivated. Salmonella was completely below the detectable
limits. Fecal coliform limits were just below the limits contained in the new
503 regulations (Refer to p. 53) and the existing 257 regulation for Processes
for Further Reduction of Pathogens (PFRP). The temperature of the bed was not
close to the normal 53° C, but parasites were eliminated nonetheless.
The drying rates were very similar between the silica sand and the
hardbottom bed. Cost savings were achieved in terms of drying out the sludge,
compared to the use of conventional hardbottom beds.
Capital costs were $700,000 for the hardbottom beds and $1,245,000 for
the porous beds, a savings of about 56 percent. The annual labor cost was 603
person-years for the hardbottom beds and 3,541 person-years for the porous
beds, an 82.9 percent savings. The annual operating cost was $9,991 for the
hardbottom beds and $44,715 for the porous beds, which represented about a 71
percent savings.
The sludge handling facilities represented 3.9 percent of the entire
capital costs for the hardbottom beds and 8.7 percent for the conventional
beds. The unit capital cost was $11.41/ton for the hardbottom beds and
$495/ton for the porous beds. Based upon 1,150 ton/year, the operating cost
was $9.15/ton for the hardbottom beds and $42.59/ton for the porous beds.
-61-
-------
CONTROL OF POLYMER ADDITION FOR SLUDGE
Bruce Jank, Director
Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Dewatering is an integral and essential component of most large sludge
management systems and chemical conditioning is usually required. A recent
study showed that a significant portion of the sludge handling costs related
to the cost of the chemicals. Unfortunately, attempts to optimize polymer
addition in the past have been hampered because of the lack of control
mechanisms. The Wastewater Technology Centre therefore conducted a
demonstration project on the control of polymer addition for sludge
conditioning.
In a normal plant operation, the operator sets the chemical application
rate on a regular basis, based on the results of a series of standard tests.
The demonstration project developed a procedure to optimize the dosage of
polymer added to the sludge dewatering device and thus optimize the process.
The principle the WTC discovered to optimize the process involved
measuring the viscosity of the sludge and plotting the shear stress of the
sludge against the shear rate. If the time of increase in shear rate could be
predicted, then that component could be related to the dewaterability of the
sludge. WTC then related the addition of chemicals to the sludge to the
actual dewaterability of the sludge on a belt press and tied those two
components together to develop a control algorithm that could be used in a
control sequence.
The development of the sludge conditioning controller evolved through a
number of stages, resulting in a viscometer/computer assembly which could be
used as the basis for the development of a commercial controller prototype.
The WTC entered into an agreement with Zenon Environmental Consultants
in Burlington, a local equipment manufacturer/process consultant, to develop
-62-
-------
the commercial prototype and a marketing plan and to verify the performance of
the prototype. The prototype verification study involved three phases:
manual control without any instrumentation to establish a reference point,
manual control based on instrumentation, and automated control with the sludge
conditioning controller. The median value under manual operation without
instrumentation was compared to automatic control.
The instrumentation required for the study included the prototype sludge
conditioning controller; measuring devices for the sludge flow rate, polymer
flow rate, feed sludge solids concentration, and feed effluent solids
concentration; and a Hewlett-Packard data logging system. The assumptions
made for the prototype assessment phase were that the sludge feed rate was 7
to 9 L/s; the feed solids concentration was 3 to 6 percent; the process
compared manual to automatic periods of the sludge conditioning controller
operation; and polymer savings would be at least 15 percent.
Results indicated that when the solids concentration did not vary with
the sludge conditioning controller on-line, the polymer savings was 3.4
percent. When there was 2.5 percent variability of the solids concentration,
the polymer savings were 15.9 percent. In another run with considerably more
variability (which is more typical), the polymer savings were 28.7 percent.
Solids recovery showed no differences based on the data; however, solids
recovery was visually better with the automatic system. Cake solids remained
low at 17 to 19 percent.
The study concluded the following:
• The controller operated without plugging or fouling over an
extended period of time.
• The relationship between the polymer flow rate and time using the
sludge conditioning controller was distinctly different from the
historical manual control.
• Average polymer savings at the trial plant were estimated at 24
percent. (The municipality agreed that if the savings were at
-63-
-------
least 15 percent, they would buy the unit, which they did and have
since purchased a second unit.)
Similar savings can theoretically be achieved by a skilled
operator with full instrumentation, but there are other
disadvantages with manual control.
Solids recovery appeared to improve when the controller was in
operation.
The technology has been licensed to Zenon Environmental
Consultants in Burlington, Ontario, and is being marketed by them
at the present time.
Based on initial marketing results, the potential market
penetration is considerably larger than our original estimates for
the unit.
A device to control one unit costs approximately $20,000. To control
four belt presses, the unit is about $40,000. By December 1988, 18 months
after prototype verification, Zenon had sold 23 units.
-64-
-------
PROCESS CONTROL
-------
AUTOMATED PROCESS CONTROL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Gordon Speirs, Process Development Engineer
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
On-line instrumentation coupled to computers can provide wastewater
treatment plant operators with timely monitoring information upon which to
base control actions. In many cases, however, operators are reluctant to
allow the computer to control process operations, preferring to manually
manipulate valves, pumps, and blowers.
The WTC thus investigated the application of sensor-based, automated
control strategies to improve the operation of the activated sludge process.
Results from pilot-scale studies showed that on-line instrumentation and
control hardware can perform advanced operational and reporting functions and
reliably maintain a consistently high effluent quality. The results also
suggested that energy savings of about 30 percent could be achieved by an
automated aeration system compared to a manually operated one.
While the benefits of the automated control strategies are evident, the
true associated costs have not been well defined. As a result, automated
control strategies have not been widely implemented, even where the expected
energy savings and operational benefits readily warrant it. Little effort has
been made to establish the actual maintenance costs needed for a complete
cost/benefit analysis.
These problems emphasized the need for a full-scale demonstration.
Therefore, in 1982, the WTC initiated a project to demonstrate the use of
direct digital control strategies at a WWTP. The Tillsonburg, Ontario, WWTP
selected for the study is a 9,000 m}/day conventional activated sludge plant
that was refit and segregated into parallel process trains for comparison of
manual and automated control. Each train consisted of a primary settling
tank, two aeration tanks, a final settling tank, and a chlorine contact tank.
On-line instrumentation, as listed in Table 3, coupled to a process control
-65-
-------
TABLES
TILLSONBURG ON-UNE INSTRUMENTATION
VARIABLE
LOCATION
INSTRUMENT
Dissolved Oxygen
Flow Rate
Level
Turbidity
Suspended Solids
Air Flow Rate
Power (watts, vars)
Temperature
Pressure
Humidity
A. C. Current
Aeration basins
Uaste sludge
Effluent flow
Recycle flow
Pump station wet well
Effluent
MLSS, RAS, primary effluent
Each aeration basin
Blowers
Air lines, MLSS, ambient
Air lines, atmospheric
Ambient
Motors (pumps, blowers)
Polarographic probe
Magnetic flow meter
Capacitance probe
Ultrasonic detector
Bubbler (pressure)
Direct reading
turbidimeter
Optical probe
Vortex or orifice meter
Transducer
RTD element
Transducer
R.H. meter
Contact relay
-66-
-------
computer was installed to monitor the performance of both trains. One of the
trains was controlled automatically by the computer.
An essential part of using the control system was to calibrate and/or
verify the instruments in the field and attain final control in each loop.
Several of the instruments (new and old) were found to operate outside the
written specifications provided by the manufacturer. This emphasizes the
importance of establishing the accuracy and calibration of instruments once
they are installed and interfaced to a computer or controller, even though the
instrument has been fully "bench" or "wet" tested. The specific methodologies
used for verification are outlined in a paper entitled "Field Verification of
On-Line Instrumentation at a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant," published
in Water Science and Technology. Vol. 19, 1986.
As part of this study, computer methods were developed to indicate
instrument conformance and reduce the "spot checking" of instruments with
reference determinations. For example, a predicted value for mixed liquor
suspended solids (MLSS) concentration, estimated from a mass balance around
the aeration basins using on-line measurements of influent flow rate, recycle
flow, and solids (RAS) concentration, was continuously compared to the
measured MLSS concentration. Similar techniques were applied to the air
delivery system to confirm power measurements, airflow rates, temperatures,
and discharge pressures. Means for checking other sensors on-line are under
investigation.
Automated control strategies for aeration, recycle, and sludge wasting (to
maintain sludge age) were successfully initiated. Results to date confirm
that the measured energy savings range from approximately 15 to 35 percent for
automated versus manual (fixed blower speed) aeration control depending on the
level of manual control. The two treatment trains produce comparable effluent
quality. While significant aeration energy savings were demonstrated through
the incorporation of automated control, a number of questions still need to be
addressed: What dissolved oxygen (DO) level is required for proper operation
-67-
-------
of the plant? Should the DO set points be constant or variable? How should
they be varied?
In addition to investigating the potential energy savings, the study
evaluated the on-line instrumentation and the control system maintenance
requirements. It was concluded that while all instruments require ongoing
maintenance, it is not excessive, and generally less than that typically
perceived.
Additional background documentation is available from Gordon Speirs,
Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment Canada, 867 Lakeshore Boulevard,
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6.
-68-
-------
STEP FEED CONTROL FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
David Chapman, Process Development Engineer
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Municipal wastewater treatment facilities are frequently subject to rapid
and sustained increases in flow rate caused by the entry of storm water into
the sewer system. Because conventional activated sludge plants have limited
hydraulic dampening capacity, high flow rates transfer additional solids from
the aeration basin to the secondary settler and increase the possibility of
solids washout. Providing activated sludge plants with step feed capabilities
can assist operators in preventing solids washout caused by peak flows.
A typical schematic for a plant with step feed capabilities is shown in
Figure 1. The aeration basin is divided into four passes and the inlet
channel equipped with gates or valves which allow influent wastewater to be
added to one or more of the passes.
By manipulating the point of influent wastewater addition, an operator can
control the solids distribution within the aeration basin and reduce solids
loading to the final settler. By way of illustration, assume that a plant has
a three-pass aeration basin and that the MLSS concentration is maintained at
approximately 2,500 mg/L. Adding the influent flow to the second pass reduces
the MLSS concentration in the final (third) pass from 2,500 to 1,875 mg/L and
the recycle sludge concentration from 5,000 to 3,750 mg/L. The concentration
in the first pass increases from 2,500 to 3,750 mg/L. If all the influent
wastewater is added to the final pass, the concentration in this pass
decreases to 1,500 mg/L and the recycle sludge concentration to 3,000 mg/L.
The most severe step feed action (adding all of the influent wastewater to
the last of the three passes) changes a conventional activated sludge process
to a contact stabilization process. The last pass provides a short aeration
period during which substrate is rapidly transferred from the wastewater to
the mixed liquor. Upstream of the point of addition, the first two passes
-69-
-------
vj
O
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
©
©
0
RECYCLE WASTE
CLARIFIED
EFFLUENT
SEPARATOR
0 GATE VALVE
Figure 1. Schematic of a Typical Wastewater Treatment Plant
with Step Feed Capabilities.
-------
become a sludge reaeration zone in which substrate stored by the sludge is
metabolized. Because most of the sludge is stored separately and cannot be
washed out of the process during storm flows, contact stabilization plants are
less susceptible to hydraulic washout from storm flows than are conventional
plug-flow plants. In addition, depending on the nature of the influent,
contact stabilization plants are also better able to handle organic shock
loads.
Instead of adding all of the influent wastewater to a single pass,
influent can be simultaneously added to two or more passes during step feed
operation. When the influent wastewater is divided equally between all
passes, the plant is operated in the step aeration mode. In comparison to the
conventional plug-flow plant, step aeration plants have more uniform oxygen
requirements along the length of the basin and are less affected by hydraulic
surges and organic shock loads.
In addition to the point or points of influent addition, other parameters -
which determine solids distribution in the aeration basin during step feeding
include the sludge recycle rate, the wastewater influent flow rate, and the
number of passes in the basin. Increasing the recycle rate under step
feeding, decreases the solids concentration in the last pass, the solids
loading to the final settler, and hence the effectiveness of step feeding.
Therefore, operators using step feed operation during storm flows should not
increase recycle rate, an approach commonly adopted during operation of
conventional plants. As the influent flow rate increases, the MLSS
concentration in the last pass decreases further. Finally, as the number of
passes in the aeration compartment increases, so does the effectiveness of
step feeding in reducing final settler solids loading.
A number of factors should be considered in providing a conventional
activated sludge plant with step feed capabilities. Hydraulic limitations on
feed channels to the aeration basin should be checked under different
wastewater flows and operational modes. Because step feeding decreases the
solids concentration in the underflow from the final clarifiers, the capacity
-71-
-------
of the sludge wastage pumps should be checked to determine if there are any
volumetric restrictions on sludge wastage. For basins without individual
passes, baffles will be required. Options include curtain walls, concrete
load-bearing walls or wooden baffles constructed of redwood marine plywood.
Step feed operation may require adjustment of air distribution or, possibly,
the installation of additional aeration equipment. This can be determined by
monitoring dissolved oxygen concentrations and effluent quality during step
feed operation.
Because step feed increases the operational flexibility of a plant, it
should be included in the design of all new activated sludge plants.
Secondly, for existing plants which experience temporary or seasonal hydraulic
overloading, converting the plant to step feed operation should be considered.
Conversion is likely to be less expensive than upgrading a plant with
additional aeration basins or final clarifiers. Finally, plant operators
should be trained in the use of step feed to minimize the effects of hydraulic
overload.
For additional references on step feed operation, contact Dave Chapman,
Wastewater Technology Centre. P. 0. Box 5050, Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6,
Canada.
-72-
-------
INSTRUMENTATION TESTING - THE USER'S PERSPECTIVE
Bruce Jank, Director
Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
From the user's perspective, the selection of acceptable primary sensors
represents one of the major problems in implementing automated control of
water and wastewater treatment plants. One of the solutions to this problem
was the development of the Water and Wastewater Instrumentation Testing
Association of North America (ITA), a nonprofit organization established to
provide standardized procedures for testing and evaluating sensors. This
presentation discusses the need for such testing, objectives of the ITA,
testing procedures, benefits of control testing, testing program limitations,
the information clearinghouse, and an ITA testing update.
An instrumentation testing organization is justified because not all
available instrumentation satisfies user requirements. During the design
process when primary sensors are evaluated, designers routinely obtain
literature describing the various manufacturers' equipment and assess the
suitability of the available sensors for the particular application.
Specifications provided with the instrumentation have not been standardized,
however, making it very difficult to compare various manufacturers' products
and select the most suitable one.
Most large water and wastewater utilities expend considerable time and
effort conducting in-house, in situ tests. These tests seldom follow an
adequately developed testing procedure, and frequently the results are
not properly documented and are generally only used to select the equipment
for the test site. When compared on the unit cost basis, these screening
tests are extremely expensive and often lead to either the selection of
inappropriate instrumentation or the misapplication of the equipment.
The objective of the ITA is to insure that acceptable instrumentation is
available to meet the rigid requirements of automated control systems, which
-73-
-------
are essential for improving reliability, performance and, operational
economics of water and wastewater treatment facilities. For the complete
range of instrumentation required for control and monitoring, ITA-approved
testing will be conducted to provide information on operational conformance to
conditions and standards typical of the water and wastewater industry, on-line
instrumentation selection, and equipment requirements.
These objectives can be achieved by implementing the following procedures:
Develop rigorous testing protocols so that essential instrumentation
for automated process control can be evaluated and compared.
Conduct bench-scale tests to evaluate the electrical and mechanical
components of the instrument and wet tests aimed at evaluating the
instruments' performance under control conditions; conduct a field test
to determine instrument performance under typical field conditions to
evaluate long-term performance and costs.
Provide a general qualitative assessment of instrument design in terms
of safety, principles of operation, support requirements, and operation
and maintenance characteristics.
Maintain a rigorous quality assurance and quality control program in
conjunction with the bench and field testing.
Distribute testing results in a standardized format which includes the
manufacturers' literature and the manufacturers' comments on the test
results.
After the instruments to be tested are selected by ITA members, ITA
provides the organizational structure to develop and approve the protocols and
coordinate the independent testing of other equipment not selected. Testing
is conducted by qualified independent laboratories and the standard testing
protocols must be approved by the equipment user and the equipment
manufacturer. Representatives from both the users' and the manufacturers'
groups review the reports prior to publication and the manufacturers are given
the opportunity to provide written comments that will be included as an
addendum to the assessment report.
-74-
-------
In addition to plant owners and operators having access to information for
assessing and comparing instruments and life-cycle costs, manufacturers
participating in the testing will be able to identify deficiencies in their
equipment and take appropriate measures to either upgrade existing equipment
or develop new equipment to stay in the market.
Another major benefit is that ITA members have access to high quality,
scientifically based data on instrument selection. ITA has developed an
information clearinghouse network of resources on instrumentation. The
clearinghouse functions as a central data base of information on
instrumentation costs, specifications, maintenance, performance, and
instrumentation supply and repair. It also provides research services for
specific inquiries.
To date, seven dissolved oxygen analyzers, four chlorine residual
analyzers, collection system flow metering, and influent and effluent flow
meters have been tested by ITA. Testing protocols have been developed for the
suspended solids analyzers.
Testing results and the clearinghouse are only available to ITA members;
at present, there are about 35 members. Membership information can be
obtained by contacting Bruce Jank, Wastewater Technology Centre, 867 Lakeshore
Rd. , P. 0. Box 5050, Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6, Canada.
-75-
-------
EPA/ENVIRONMENT CANADA CLARIFIER TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
David Chapman, Process Development Engineer
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Secondary clarifiers in activated sludge plants serve to remove suspended
solids to produce a clear effluent and to concentrate solids in the underflow
to maintain an active biomass in the aeration basin. Secondary clarifier
performance is critical for complying with regulatory limits; solids not
captured by the clarifier comprise a major portion of the biochemical oxygen
demand and phosphorous from noncomplying facilities. The inability to control
or predict suspended solids removal in secondary clarifiers limits the
optimization of activated sludge performance.
In 1986, EPA sponsored a literature review on secondary clarifiers and a
symposium on research needs. The symposium participants concluded that there
was a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the relative importance of
the many complex and interacting variables that potentially control clarifier
performance. Critical areas of clarifier design in dispute included optimum
tank shape, design loadings, tank depth, and the importance of inlets,
outlets, and in-tank baffles. Because of the absence of a strong scientific
foundation, a set of key questions was formulated to assist researchers in
future work. In addition, a substantial and coordinated effort was
recommended to document the performance of different types of full-scale
clarifiers.
In October 1986, the symposium participants formed the Clarifier Research
Technical Committee (CRTC). The principal objective of the committee is the
development of a strategy for planning, monitoring, and coordinating full-
scale clarifier research to ensure that fundamental research needs are
addressed and that research is conducted in a rigorous and consistent manner.
The committee will also ensure that significant research results are adopted
by the engineering profession. The Wastewater Technology Centre has entered
-76-
-------
into an agreement with EPA to defray the costs of travel, meeting facilities,
and publicity for the committee.
In addition to those attending the EPA symposium on research needs,
members from the major organizations and agencies with an interest in
improving clarifier design and operation were added to the committee. As
currently constituted, the committee includes representatives from
universities; consulting engineering firms; Federal and State agencies;
equipment manufacturers; municipalities; and members from Germany, Japan, and
the United Kingdom. All 15 individuals serving on the committee are actively
involved in clarifier design, operation, or research.
The CRTC is presently coordinating the approach to clarifier research at
full-scale plants by:
• Developing recommendations concerning the terminology and notation for
secondary clarifiers.
• Developing and testing a protocol so that rating curves can be
generated for full-scale clarifiers and reliable plant-to-plant
comparisons can be made.
• Compiling, summarizing, and comparing existing design standards used in
North America, Europe, and Japan.
• Developing and prioritizing an inventory of facilities with side-by-
side clarifiers of different configurations.
• Providing technical advice to agencies conducting full-scale research
to ensure that data are collected in a rigorous and thorough manner.
To facilitate the administration of project activities and the transfer of
results to the engineering profession, the CRTC has become established as a
Task Committee under the American Society of Civil Engineers. In addition,
the CRTC hopes to obtain the cooperation of a wide spectrum of organizations
in conducting full-scale research. By adopting a rigorous and coordinated
approach to research, the committee will endeavour to advance the state-of-
the-art of clarifier design and operation.
-77-
-------
General correspondence concerning the CRTC should be addressed to Dr. T.
Keinath, Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0919. Readers who have information about facilities with
parallel clarifiers with different configurations are requested to contact Dr.
R. Tekippe (818/796-9141), J.M. Montgomery, Inc., P.O. Box 7009, Pasadena, CA
91119-7009.
-78-
-------
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS AUDIT
Gordon Speirs, Process Development Engineer
Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Typically, aeration systems in wastewater treatment plants are manually
controlled by operators to meet the oxygen demand during periods of expected
peak loading. This approach ensures adequate treatment at all times, but also
normally results in excessive aeration during periods of reduced loading.
Plants with typical diurnal loading patterns could reduce energy costs by up
to 50 percent by eliminating excess aeration, but few have attempted to use
automated aeration control to continuously match air delivery with the process
oxygen demand. This is largely due to operator reluctance to rely on and
maintain on-line sensors, and also to uncertainty about the actual savings
achievable through automation.
As part of its mandate to investigate cost-efficient solutions to
wastewater management problems, the Wastewater Technology Centre (WTC)
initiated a project to demonstrate at full scale that on-line instrumentation
and computers can be integrated to perform automated process control. The
project's objectives were to show energy savings by comparing automated to
manual control of the aeration system, to demonstrate improved operation, and
to determine the actual maintenance requirements of the on-line
instrumentation and control hardware.
In 1983, the Tillsonburg, Ontario, water pollution control plant (WPCP)
was selected for the demonstration. A microprocessor-based operational audit
first assessed the potential for aeration energy savings through the use of
automated control. On-line sensors measuring DO concentration and hydraulic
flow rate were connected to the microprocessor and used to obtain operating
data and assess aerator performance.
This information was analyzed, and simulations were made that predicted
potential aeration energy savings of 30 to 40 percent. Based on that
-79-
-------
preliminary assessment, the plant was selected for full-scale demonstration
and was refitted to provide two independent parallel treatment trains. Both
trains were fully monitored with on-line instrumentation, with one train
controlled automatically and the other manually.
Side-by-side runs of automated versus manual aeration control under a
number of operating conditions confirmed significant savings in aeration
energy; thus cost savings could be obtained by controlling DO concentrations.
These savings ranged from 15 to 35 percent depending on the level of manual
control. Demonstrations also showed that by taking full advantage of the
computing power and of the operator checks to identify the need for instrument
service, plants could minimize the maintenance required by on-line
instrumentation.
In addition to reducing operating costs, automated control may create
capital cost savings by optimizing the treatment capacity of existing
facilities and deferring plant expansions. At Tillsonburg, the automated
aeration train has been shown to be capable of handling the entire plant
throughput, effectively doubling the facility's previous aeration capacity.
Automated control also improves WPCP reliability, since 24-hour monitoring and
control is possible and plant operating staff can now concentrate on
interpreting data and assessing control strategies. These benefits can be
achieved at many existing WPCPs, particularly large facilities or in cases
where energy costs are high.
Recently, in cooperation with WTC, Canviro Consultants refined and further
demonstrated that the audit can identify process bottlenecks and establish
aeration capacity and the potential benefits associated with automated process
control. Sensors are now used to continuously monitor air and liquid flow
rates, suspended solids concentrations in mixed liquor, recycle and effluent
streams, and DO concentrations. These data are difficult to obtain by
traditional process measurement approaches, and when combined with off-line
analyses, power measurements and oxygen transfer determinations can provide
critical information related to plant capacity limitations and optimization.
-80-
-------
Subsequent operational audits at a number of full-scale facilities have
shown that the capacity of existing plants can be increased by including
sensor-based monitoring and automated controls. For example, the Kitchener,
Ontario, WPCP used the audit and determined that a plant expansion that had
been planned to ensure compliance with increasingly stringent pollution
control legislation could be postponed. It was estimated that an expenditure
of approximately $500,000 to modify and upgrade existing hardware and install
an automated control system could defer the estimated $20 million plant
expansion to beyond the year 2011.
For more information on sensor-based automated process control or process
audits, contact Gordon Speirs, Wastewater Technology Centre, Environment
Canada, 867 Lakeshore Boulevard, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6.
-81-
-------
NATURAL SYSTEMS
-------
THE STATE OF MISSOURI'S EXPERIENCE WITH OVERLAND FLOW
Don Barnett, Environmental Engineer
Water Pollution Control Program, Jefferson City. MO
In the 1970s, EPA, the States, and private sources conducted extensive
research on treating domestic wastewater by overland flow. Data showed that
these systems should offer small- to moderate-sized communities wastewater
treatment that was energy efficient and operationally simple. Bringing new
facilities from 75 percent construction to a point where they consistently
meet permit limits was not addressed in the research, however, and in this
respect, Region 4 has had some difficulties.
In 1986, the State of Missouri initiated a study to acquire information
from the first overland flow facilities built in the State to assist the
facilities that were coming online. About 15 facilities were being designed
or built, or were in operation when the study began. Four systems were
initially studied, three that treat municipal wastes and one that treats
industrial waste from a poultry processing operation.
Shortly after data collection started, several factors affected facility
compliance, including natural flooding and drought, operator error and lack of
information, contractor failure, and a rapid increase in organic loading.
Other problems encountered include channelization due to low grass cover and
inconsistent sprinkler systems.
The study generated several basic conclusions for easing startup
operations and operation at peak performance, as follows:
• A close tolerance in the final grading across the plots should be
specified in the construction requirements. Variation in grade
across the slopes should be less than 0.05 percent from top to
bottom of deviation.
• The most common grasses proven to be acceptable are reed canary
and tall fescue, which should be seeded in autumn if possible to
provide a dense grass growth for spring application of wastewater.
-83-
-------
When channelization or rill erosion occurs, most repairs should be
done with hand tools so as to minimize disturbance of the plot
area. Plots must be thoroughly dried to prevent rutting from
grass mowing and removal operations.
• Hydraulic loading should be consistent on a daily and seasonal
basis to equalize the food supply for biological growth. All
plots used routinely should have wastewater applied 5 to 7 days
per week and the amount of wastewater applied should not vary more
than 10 to 15 percent from day to day.
• Low hourly application rates and long application days are
preferable over high hourly application rates and short
application days.
• Initial hydraulic rates should be substantially below design
hydraulic rates until an adequate biomass is developed.
• Algae growth in the lagoons must be controlled to minimize total
suspended solids (TSS) discharge from the overland flow fields.
For additional information, refer to Overland Flow Construction. Startup, and
Operating Complications, by Don Barnett, P.E., Missouri Department of Natural .
Resources, 1989.
-84-
-------
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS IN EPA REGION 6
Ancil Jones, Regional Staff Engineer
U.S. EPA, Dallas, TX
Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment are natural, energy-free,
regenerative systems that co-exist with the environment and cost relatively
little to use. Once a system is set up, basically all it requires to maintain
is proper management.
The constructed wetlands in Region 6 are subsurface flow systems that
use semi-aquatic plants and small rocks in the upper 6 inches. Larger rocks
are placed in the lower 18 inches. Many of the systems are fifth generation
designs. In current designs, the rocks are uniformly graded at 3 to 4 inches,
with at least a 40 to 50 percent void ratio. Most of the system are designed
for wastewater containing 30/90 BOD/suspended solids from lagoons. The
systems use a variety of inexpensive plants, including bulrushes, softrush,
cattail, torpedo grass, water iris, canna lilies, reeds, and arrowhead.
The advantages of constructed wetlands are that construction is
relatively simple and fast, they have low technical and training requirements,
and they are more flexible than conventional systems and less susceptible to
shock. They also produce their own biomass, provide natural disinfection,
and, because these systems add oxygen to the atmosphere and take up pollutants
from the air, they help reduce the greenhouse effect. Constructed wetlands
are also less land intensive than surface flow systems.
Problems with constructed wetlands are that the distribution systems are
prone to clogging, long-term data are not yet available, and the algae is
often difficult to control. Also, costs will increase significantly if the
rocks are not readily or locally available.
-85-
-------
One important design consideration is that constructed wetlands are site
specific; the designer must know the specific objectives of the system and
design the system to meet those objectives.
EPA has funded three constructed wetlands systems, but many were
constructed without any EPA funds. Cost-effectiveness analyses have thus far
been favorable. Construction costs, which run from $0.90 to $1.56 per gallon,
do not include land costs. O&M costs also have been attractive, varying from
$0.07 to $1.21 per 1,000 gallons.
Long and shallow plant/rock filters (2 feet in depth) with an hydraulic
detention time of 24 to 48 hours have produced BOD5 and TSS concentrations of
less than 10 mg/L. Performance data from small communities have demonstrated
the importance of maintaining dissolved oxygen levels in the filter of 1.5
mg/L or greater. Ammonia levels produced have been less than 1 mg/L. The
length-to-width ratios vary from 5:1 to 15:1.
-86-
-------
MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT
-------
100 PERCENT MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT FORUM
EPA REGIONS 1 AND 10 AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Charles Conway, Region 1 I/A Technology Coordinator, Boston, MA
Tom Johnson, Region 10 I/A Technology Coordinator, Seattle, WA
Dave Meza, California Water Resources Control Board,
I/A Technology Coordinator, Sacramento, CA
Charles Convav
The process to evaluate M/R grant requests is shown in Figure 2. Due to
an arduous evaluation/determination process, EPA strongly encourages owners to
correct problems of I/A projects without getting involved in the M/R grant
request process. That only less than 50 of the 2,700 I/A projects have thus
far requested M/R grants is more likely an indicator of the difficulty of the
process than the success of the I/A program.
Because in the 100 Percent M/R program EPA awards grants for 100 percent
of the costs of replacing or correcting a failed I/A technology system, the
area of negligence must be addressed. In this program, negligence is
discussed as follows:
The M/R grant must be made in conformance with 40 CFR Part
35.2032, which states in part: "The failure is not attributable to
the negligence on the part of any person."
For innovative technologies, in Appendix C-l of Title 40 CFR, the
basis by which EPA judges negligence on the part of the engineer
is, "Where innovative processes or techniques are recommended by
the engineer and are used, the engineer shall be liable only for
gross neelJEence to the extent of such use."
In the absence of written policy guidance, the Director of Municipal
Facilities Division stated at the 1987 Annual Coordinator's Meeting that
negligence should be determined on the basis of best professional technical
judgment by the responsible Regional and/or State personnel. M/R grants come
from the States' Construction Grants allotment and the responsible State
-87-
-------
I
oo
00
SOLVE AND
CERIILY
PROJECT
CONDUCT
INDEPENDENT
CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
APPROVE/
CONS1RUCV
OPERA1E
EXPERIENCE
I/A UNIT
PROBIEMS
ANALYZE
DOCUMENT/
REPORT
FAILURE
EVALUATE
ALTERNATIVES/
SELECT
SOLUTION
CONCUR THAT
FAILURE
QUALIFIES
FOR 100% M/R
GATHER
ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTATION
REQUEST
MORE
INFORMATION
REVIEW
FOR BASIS
AND
NEGLIGENCE
APPEAL
UtCISION
ACCEPT
DECISION
OWNER
DELEGATED STATE
EPA REGION
EPA HEADQUARTERS
EPA-ORD-WATER ENGINEERING
RESEARCH LABORATORY
NOT ELIGIBLE
Figure 2. 100% Modification/Replacement Grant Process Flow Chart.
-------
agency should take the lead in evaluating the negligence issue with backup and
support from Regional personnel.
Tom Johnson
Presently, M/R funding is segmented into planning, design, and
construction. EPA must approve each segment before it issues the next
segment of the funds to the grantee. Grants amounts can be adjusted for each
phase without an act of Congress.
Because the I/A and M/R programs are being phased out, the funding
process near the close of the program will also change. As the time frame for
granting funds narrows, EPA can approach funding in the following way. (The
process assumes that the State has money available in its general fund for
these grants.)
Potentially, when EPA receives a grant request, it will quickly make a
conditional determination of failure pending further review. EPA will meet
with the State, the grantee, and the design engineer, who would collectively
estimate planning, design, and construction costs. A grant would then be
issued with several conditions:
The grantee would not be authorized to spend any grant money
without prior approval.
The grant is essentially based on further review of alleged funds,
to give EPA time to further review the plant and make an
engineering judgment of failure or not. This evaluation would
also determine the cause of failure and if it is fundable.
There will be no grant increases and the grantee must agree in
writing to finance any and all costs over the agreed to amount to
complete the project if necessary.
whenever it appears that there are cost overruns, the grantee must
not spend any more money until it shows EPA it has the ability to
finance the additional amount.
-89-
-------
Another possibility for funding M/R grants for the next several years is
to use reissued, deobligated funds as they become available.
Dave Meza
The Clean Water Act provides for 100 percent M/R for planning,
designing, and constructing I/A projects as a guarantee to communities who are
considering I/A projects. The States have limited resources and time,
however, to verify that the projects for which grant applications are
submitted have thoroughly investigated workable solutions.
To deal with this problem, California has recently evaluated several
projects by following the Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)
guidelines, a process that involves interviewing the facility and evaluating
its process control, solids balance, flow balance, etc. Although the State is
not in a position to do extensive process audits (refer to p. 79), the major
management practice and policy issues are uncovered by this approach.
As a result of the CPE process, California has found it important to
encourage upper management to make firm decisions and to provide staff support
and have EPA involved during the planning and design phases and when major
issues arise that involve EPA monies. Another major issue that arose during
the CPE process was the need to define "negligence" as it relates to I/A
projects. California also encourages EPA Regions and Headquarters to help
States verify M/R requests with consultants and other water quality
specialists.
(Refer to Appendix G for the status of M/R candidates, organized by
State.)
-90-
-------
DISINFECTION AND
SECONDARY TREATMENT REGULATIONS
-------
ERA'S MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISINFECTION POUCY
Robert Bastian, Environmental Scientist
OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Water and wastewater disinfection are widely practiced in the United
States and are largely responsible for the near-elimination of waterborne
disease. Chlorine, which is toxic to aquatic life, is used extensively for
this process. The problem faced in making decisions regarding municipal
wastewater disinfection is how to balance the protection of public health with
that of aquatic life (i.e., to meet both the fishable and swimmable goals of
the Clean Water Act).
Before 1972, the States were responsible for wastewater treatment, and
water quality requirements varied widely. The secondary treatment regulations
established by EPA in response to the 1972 FWPCA Amendments included a fecal
coliform requirement, which, in effect, created a national disinfection
requirement. As a result, excessive chlorination was inadvertently
encouraged.
The 1976 revision of the secondary treatment regulations recognized the
ecological risks of chlorination and eliminated the fecal coliform
requirement. Disinfection became a case-by-case, water quality-based
determination and primarily a State responsibility. A 1987 report entitled,
"Municipal Wastewater Disinfection Practices and Risks to Aquatic Wildlife
from Residual Chlorine," prepared by OPPE, examined chlorination practices at
6,300 POTWs discharging to freshwater streams. The report concluded that
about two thirds of these discharges were likely to contribute to exceedances
of EPA's acute aquatic life criteria for chlorine and helped resurrect the
issue of municipal wastewater chlorination impacts to aquatic life resulting
from some States not adopting numeric water quality standards for chlorine.
As a result, in 1988, an EPA task force was formed to review the existing
disinfection policy and recommend modifications, if necessary
-91-
-------
Technology-based and policy-oriented options for reducing chlorine
toxicity are both available. The technological options include the use of
more efficient chlorination, dechlorination, and alternative disinfectants
(e.g., ozone and UV). Policy options include use of seasonal and less
stringent disinfection requirements where full body contact is unlikely or not
possible or where downstream drinking water supplies will not be compromised.
The current draft of the proposed EPA policy is similar to the existing
regulation. (There is still lack of information on (1) the risks associated
with the impacts of residual chlorination by-products on aquatic life versus
the reduction of disinfection of municipal effluents and its potential impacts
on downstream water users and (2) the presence of institutional barriers that
prevent major changes from occurring to meet water quality standards and
permit requirements). The major points of the policy are as follows:
• Increased emphasis on the protection of aquatic life
• A reinforcement of State responsibility for determining
appropriate water quality standards and disinfection requirements,
evaluating alternatives, and ensuring aquatic life protection by
implementing chlorine water quality standards or other measures
• Promotion of reduced chlorine discharges by improving chlorination
efficacy, using chlorination/dechlorination or alternative
disinfectants, and allowing seasonal or reduced levels of
disinfection or eliminating disinfection where appropriate
In an in-house review of the proposed policy by the Task Force, Regional
and Headquarters Office staff raised basic questions about the need for
disinfection, based on comparing relative public health and aquatic life risks
and the types of guidance needed to assist States in undertaking site-specific
evaluations. As a result, a national scoping study is being conducted to
identify available and needed information, undertake an initial assessment of
risks involved, and determine if expanded study is needed.
A draft disinfection policy is scheduled to be issued to the Regions and
States by September 1989. The results of the initial scoping study is
expected by October 1989. The policy may need to be revised based on Regional
-92-
-------
and State comments and the initial scoping study, but is expected to be issued
in early 1990 with an information booklet. If additional risk assessment
study is required and findings indicate major changes are necessary, the
statement will be amended. Guidance to assist States in undertaking site-
specific evaluations will be developed when additional information or expanded
risk assessment efforts are needed.
-93-
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT REGULATIONS
Lam Lim, Chief
Technical Standards Section, OMPC, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
The Secondary Treatment Regulation has recently been revised to allow
adjustment of the 85 percent removal requirement, if it is shown that: (1)
the POTW in question has consistently met the concentration requirements
(30/30 mg/L BOD5 and TSS) ; (2) in order to meet the 85 percent requirement,
the subject POTW has adopted AT processes; and (3) the diluted influent is not
caused by excessive I/I.
One main issue regarding this regulation is that it may be
misinterpreted to allow intentional dilution of influent, and, as a result,
less efficient treatment processes may be used to meet the relaxed standards.
Strict enforcement of the three eligibility requirements could resolve this
issue.
Another issue is that if a cost-effectiveness analysis is used to
demonstrate nonexcessive I/I (in the third condition), the treatment cost must
be based on a minimum of 85 percent reduction in BOD5 and TSS. For example, a
POTW with a very dilute influent of 60 mg/L BOD5 and TSS, which is found to be
caused by factors other than excessive I/I, would realize only a 50 percent
reduction when achieving 30 mg/L BODS and TSS, and would be required to employ
AT processes to achieve 85 percent removal (which would require meeting 9 mg/L
BOD5 and TSS).
This POTW may be eligible for adjustment of the 85 percent reduction
requirement and may use any treatment process, including parallel primary and
secondary, if all three conditions are met and the 85 percent reduction is
used in the cost-effectiveness analysis for demonstrating nonexcessive I/I.
-94-
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
AGENDA AND LIST OF SPEAKERS
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1989 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY FORUM
June 6-8, 1989
The Berkshire Hilton
Ann Arbor, MI
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 6, 1989
8:00 a.m. Registration
8:30 a.m. Opening Remarks
Randy Revetta, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
Region 5 Welcome
Roger Coppock, U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL
Keynote Address
Paul Baltay, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
OMPC Tech Transfer Activity Update
Lee Pasarew, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
9:30 a.m. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT/RESEARCH AGENDA
Canada's Wastewater Technology Centre R&D Program
Bruce Jank, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
EPA-ORD Research Activities
Jim Kreissl, U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Lab,
Cincinnati, OH
Harper's Ferry
Lee Pasarew
Technology Development Research Breakout - Group
Discussions
Group Leader Reports/General Discussion
12:00 p.m. LUNCH
1:15 p.m. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Technology Transfer Activities in Region 5
Chuck Pycha, U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL
Feedback to Design in Region 6
Ancil Jones, U.S. EPA, Dallas, TX
Future Role of Technology Transfer
Randy Revetta
Future of Tech Transfer Breakout - Group Discussions
Group Leader Reports/General Discussion
A-l
-------
Wednesday. June 7, 1989
7:30 a.m. Registration
8:00 a.m. TOXICS
OMPC Toxics Activities
Randy Revetta
Water Quality Based Toxics Control
Ed Drabkowski, U.S. EPA OWRS, Washington, D.C.
Air Toxics and POTWs
Blake Anderson, County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County, Fountain Valley, CA
9:45 a.m. SMALL COMMUNITIES
EPA Small Community Outreach and Education Strategy
Rich Kuhlman, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
Small Flows Activities
Jim Kreissl
O&M Issues
John Flowers, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
General Discussion of Small Communities/Toxics
Open Forum
12:00 p.m. WORKING LUNCHEON
Al Krause, U.S. EPA, Chicago, IL
1:00 p.m. SLUDGE
New Sludge Technologies
Robert Bastian, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
Conversion of Sludge to Oil
Bruce Jank
Implementation of Interim Sludge Management Programs
Rao Surampalli, U.S. EPA, Kansas City, KS
Accelerated Dewatering with Mechanical Aeration
Ancil Jones
Control of Polymer Addition for Sludge
Bruce Jank
A-2
-------
3:15 p.m. PROCESS CONTROL
Automated Process Control of Wastewater Treatment Plants
Gordon Spelrs, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Step Feed Control for Activated Sludge Plants
Dave Chapman, Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario
Instrumentation Testing - The User's Perspective
Bruce Jank
Anaerobic Sludge Digester Mixing
Dave Chapman
EPA/Environment Canada Clarifier Technical Research
Committee
Dave Chapman
Thursday, June 8, 1989
7:30 a.m. Registration
8:00 a.m. Wastewater Treatment Plant Process Audit
Gordon Speirs
Environment Canada's Technology Transfer Program
Steve Hart, Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec
NATURAL SYSTEMS
State Erperience with Overland Flow
Don Barnett, Water Pollution Control Program, Jefferson
City, MO
Constructed Wetlands in Region 6
Ancil Jones
1002 M/R Forum - Region 1, 10, State of California
Charles Conway, Region 1, Boston, MA; Tom Johnson, Region
10, Seattle, WA; Dave Meza, CA Water Resources Control
Board, Sacramento, CA
Open Forum
EPA's Municipal Disinfection Policy
Robert Bastian
Secondary Treatment Regulations
Lam Lim, U.S. EPA OMPC, Washington, D.C.
12:00 p.m. Closing Remarks
A-3
0043q
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Forum
The Berkshire Hilton
Ann Arbor, Michigan
June 6-8, 1989
SPEAKER LIST
Blake Anderson
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
714-962-2411, x350
Paul Baltay (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7261
Don Barnett
Water Pollution Control Program
Division of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314-751-5723
Robert Bastian (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7378
David Chapman
Wastewater Technology Center
Environment Canada
P.O. Box 5050
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario
CANADA LFR-4A6
416-336-4621
Charles Conway
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3582
Roger Coppock
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Technical Support Section of
the Municipal Facilities Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-0263
Ed Drabkowski (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OWRS
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
John Flowers (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7288
Steve Hart
Environment Canada
12th Floor
Place Vincent Massey
351 St. Joseph Blvd.
Hull, Quebec
CANADA K1A-OH3
819-953-1190
A-4
-------
Bruce Jank
Wastewater Technology Center
Environment Canada
P.O. Box 5050
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario
CANADA LFR-4A6
416-336-4599
Tom Johnson (WD-133)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98110
206-442-2887
Ancil Jones
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Management Division
Allied Bank Tower at
Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
214-655-7130
Al Rrause
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Management Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-0259
Jim Kreissl
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Lab
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7611
Rich Kuhlman (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7285
0037q
Lam Lim (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7371
Dave Meza
California Water Resources
Control Board
P.O. Box 944212
Sacramento, CA 94244-2120
916-739-4315
Lee Pasarew (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7356
Chuck Pycha
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Management Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-0259
Randy Revetta (WH-595)
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
OMPC
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
202-382-7370
Gordon Speirs
Wastewater Technology Center
Environment Canada
P.O. Box 5050
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, Ontario
CANADA LFR-4A6
416-336-4546
Rao Surampalli
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Management Division
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-236-2813
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PAPER
-------
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PAPER
PURPOSE: Defining Wastewater Research and Development
Needs and Appropriate R&D Efforts
The purpose of the Technology Development Initiative is to develop a national
consensus on a cooperative national research and development program dedicated
to municipal water pollution control technology. Such a consensus should include
agreement on the respective roles that Federal, State, and local governments;
educational institutions; professional organizations; commercial interests; and
others need to play.
This blueprint must recognize the future technical challenges facing municipalities
as they attempt to comply with increasingly stringent environmental regulatory
requirements established by a variety of environmental laws affecting all media. It
must also recognize that the roles various groups will play in carrying out the
needed research and development may be very different from what they have been
in the past.
CURRENT SITUATION: Challenges Facing States and Municipalities
While significant improvements have been achieved in municipal wastewater
treatment, much remains to be done. The substantial remaining needs for
treatment facilities reflected in the 1988 Needs Survey and changes in financing
their construction point to a greater-than-ever need for cost-effective technological
and management solutions.
Municipalities will face many new challenges over the next ten years in the area of
wastewater collection and treatment. Among them are:
• Complying with more stringent permit conditions that require higher
levels of removal of suspended solids, BOD, and nutrients;
• Complying with permit conditions that limit the amount of toxics in
wastewater discharges;
• Complying with new regulations governing the use and disposal of
sewage sludge; and
• Complying with new requirements governing stormwater discharges and
combined sewer overflows.
Attachment A lists examples of specific technological issues that need to be
addressed.
B-l
-------
In addition to research, other support services such as technology evaluation,
development and demonstration; training; technology transfer and technical
assistance; and public education and information will be needed. Attachment B
illustrates the range of activities to be considered.
THE TASK AHEAD: Promote Wastewater Technology
Development Through a Coordinated Joint Effort
A national effort should start with agreement on the priorities of technological
needs. "Needs" should be construed broadly-not only as enhancement to current
treatment processes but also as entirely new ways of managing our water and
wastewater. The priority needs should be screened to see if some of them can be
satisfied from existing research either in the United States or abroad.
The scope of unmet needs and their priority must be assessed to define an agenda
for the future national research program. The challenge will be to define a
coordinated national research and development program that combines the best
efforts of government, educational institutions, professional organizations,
commercial interests and others. The potential contribution of each group needs to
be considered, taking into account the comparative advantages of various roles for
each. Attachment C lists some of the agencies and organizations that may be able to
assume some portion of the total effort required.
EPA is seeking input and direction from any and all groups and individuals
interested in helping plan and implement this effort. This planning workshop is
intended to seek direct input from representatives of some of these groups. A
public-hearing-type forum then will be established to gain input from a wider
audience, with the results of the planning workshop serving as a starting point.
B-2
-------
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHALLENGES
1989-1999
CONSTRUCTING NEW/ENHANCED TREATMENT FACILITIES
Limits (caps) on discharge of additional pollutants (e.g., estuaries and near-coastal
waters)
Permits require higher levels of treatment
Limited space for expansion
Pretreatment issues
INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Maintaining aging facilities
Excessive I/I
Accelerated sulfide corrosion
Sewer exfiltration
Accelerated deterioration due to poor design/construction/O &: M
Treatment technologies not performing as expected
Preventive measures to avoid problems
TOXICS CONTROL
Meeting discharge requirements
POTWs as hazardous waste/superfund treatment facilities
Toxic air emissions
Sampling and lab procedures for measuring compliance
Methods for identifying toxic discharges to POTWs
Waste minimization and pollution prevention programs
SLUDGE USE AND DISPOSAL
Complying with new regulations
Marketing sludge products
Public acceptance of reuse and disposal methods
Treatment practices to minimize sludge volume
Improving sludge quality through pretreatment
B-3
-------
ATTACHMENT A (continued)
STORMWATER AND CSO CONTROLS
Treatment technologies to meet permit requirements
Management practices to limit/control discharges
SMALL COMMUNITY NEEDS
Low capital cost facilities
Low O &c. M cost facilities
Better design and management of on-site disposal systems
Easy-to-operate treatment facilities
OTHER
Effective user charge and financial management systems
More effective O & M
Understanding collection, treatment, and disposal options
Training
Gaining and maintaining public support
Overcoming opposition to locations of treatment/disposal facilities
Building partnerships with private sector
Fate/effect of pollutants, especially toxics
Water demand management, conservation, etc.
B-A
-------
ATTACHMENT B
ACTIVITIES NEEDED TO SUPPORT STATE AND
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT EFFORTS
RESEARCH
Assessing state and municipal wastewater research needs
Conducting basic research leading to the development of new or improved
treatment technologies
Conducting basic research of natural and mechanical treatment processes leading to
a better understanding of how specific pollutants are removed
Coordinating or stimulating research of others (may or may not include providing
funding)
Conducting applied research directed to determining the cause of widespread
problems experienced by municipalities and developing remedial and preventive
measures
Research on fate and transport of pollutants
Development of appropriate laboratory test methods
TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
Evaluation of treatment technologies developed by others, including those being
developed or already in use in other countries
Evaluating new and established technologies in operation to update cost and
performance data
Moving new technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace
Initial idea to bench scale
Bench scale to field test or pilot project
Pilot project through first several full-scale projects
Helping overcome resistance to new technologies
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
B-5
-------
Facilitating or promoting demonstration projects
Publicizing successful applications of new technologies
Identify and evaluate widespread problems with treatment technologies; develop
remedial and preventive measures
Development of more effective ways to manage water, e.g., least-cost utility
planning, demand management, water conservation and reuse
TRAINING
Developing training courses and materials
Providing training
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER/TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Developing design manuals or guidelines
Developing and updating information on construction costs and operation and
maintenance costs
Developing and updating operating performance data
Marketing/distributing design manuals/guidelines and operating performance data
Conducting conferences, symposia, workshops for practicing professionals
Establishing and managing a "peer-matching" program to provide technical
assistance to States, municipalities, et. al.
Providing technical assistance on specific projects or technologies at the request of
States/municipalities (intended to supplement, not replace design consultant)
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
Providing public information materials on topics such as:
Understanding wastewater treatment and its role in clean water
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
B-6
-------
Understanding the variety of treatment/disposal options available
Understanding the true cost of wastewater treatment
Gaining support for wastewater treatment facilities so public will support
bond issues, rate increases, etc.
Overcoming public opposition to location of pollution control facilities
Water conservation practices, equipment and devices
Understanding the concept of water reuse (overcome negative
perceptions)
B-7
-------
ATTACHMENT C
ORGANIZATIONS HAVING A ROLE IN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER,
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
GOVERNMENT
Environmental Protection Agency
Other Federal Agencies
-Corps of Engineers
-Department of Agriculture
-Department of Interior
State and Interstate Agencies
Municipalities and Sanitary Authorities (e.g., AMSA)
EDUCATION/ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Association of Environmental Engineering Professors
Colleges and Universities
National Science Foundation
State Environmental Training Centers
Information Clearinghouses
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
WPCF, APWA, AAEE, others
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS
Equipment Suppliers
Pipe Manufacturers
Design Engineers
Construction Contractors
JOINT EFFORTS AND PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships of government and universities
Partnerships of universities and commercial interests
Others
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF NATIONAL CONTACTS FOR I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY,
AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OPERATOR TRAINING
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF NATIONAL CONTACTS FOR I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE TECHNOLOGY,
AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OPERATOR TRAINING
National I/A Coordinator
Sludge Research Contact
Eric B. Cohen
USEPA OMPC (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7292
(FTS) 382-7292
Joe Farrell
USEPA-RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 684-7645
(FTS) 684-7645
Sludge Coordinator
John Walker
USEPA OMPC (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7283
(FTS) 382-7283
Wastewater Management Coordinator
Randy Revetta
USEPA OMPC (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5685
(FTS) 382-5685
National Small Flows Clearinghouse
Manager
Steve Dix
P.O. Box 6064
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown, WV 26506
(304) 293-4191
(800) 624-8301
I/A Technology Data Base Manager
Charles Vanderlyn
USEPA OMPC (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7277
(FTS) 382-7277
I/A Technology Contact
Kim Kreissl
USEPA-RREL
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7611
(FTS) 684-7611
O&M Operator Training
John Flowers
USEPA OMPC (WH-595
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7288
(FTS) 382-7288
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF ADDRESSES FOR REGIONAL AND STATE
I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE, AND O&M COORDINATORS
-------
APPENDIX D
LIST OF ADDRESSES FOR REGIONAL AND STATE
I/A TECHNOLOGY, SLUDGE, AND O&M COORDINATORS
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION I
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
State House (STOP 17)
Augusta, ME 04333
Massachusetts
Charles Conway
(617) 565-3516
(FTS) 835-3516
William Hogan
(203) 566-2373
Dennis Purlngton
(207) 289-3901
Charles Conway
(617) 565-3516
(FTS) 835-3516
Warren Herzlg
(203) 566-3282
Brian Kavanah
(207) 582-8740
Charles Conway
(617) 565-3516
(FTS) 835-3516
Roy Fredricksen
(203) 393-2705
John Moulton
(207) 289-3355
Division of Water Pollution Control
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Robert Cady
(617) 292-5713
Rick Dunn
(617) 556-1130
Kim Simpson
(508) 727-8882
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
7
K)
REGION I (Continued)
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95, Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908
Vermont
John Bush
(603) 271-3308
Carl Woodedry
(603) 271-2925
Warren Town
(401) 227-3961
Chris Campbell
(401) 227-2234
George Neill
(603) 271-3325
Ed Szymanskl
(401) 277-3961
Environmental Engineering Division
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05676
Marilyn Davles
(802) 244-8744
George Desch
(802) 244-8744
Richard Phillips
(802) 244-8744
REGION II
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
John Mello
(212) 264-5670
(FTS) 264-5670
Aristotle Harris
(212) 264-4707
(FTS) 264-4707
John Mello (NJ)
(212) 264-5670
(FTS) 264-5670
Andrea Coats (NY)
(212) 264-5254
(FTS) 264-5254
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION II (Continued)
New Jersey
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
New York
Technical Assistance Section
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Puerto Rico
Robert Kotch
(609) 292-6894
Helen Pettit Chase
(609) 633-3662
Chris Hoffman
(609) 984-4429
Randy Orr
(518) 457-3810
Rick Hammand
(518) 457-2051
Arthur Warner
(518) 457-5968
Local Assistance Grants Section
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
Virgin Islands
Natural Resources Management Office
P.O. Box 4340
Charlotte Araalie, St. Thomas
Virgin Islands 00801
Baltazar Luna
(809) 725-5077
Ava Hernandez
(809) 725-5140
Phyllis Brin
(809) 774-3320
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION III
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
BUI Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Delaware
Clyde Turner
(215) 597-8223
(FTS) 597-8223
Kenneth Pantuck
(215) 597-9478
(FTS) 597-9478
Jim Kern
(215) 597-3423
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, DE 19901
District of Columbia
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
Water and Sewer Utility Administration
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20032
Maryland
Department of Environment
Water Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Roy R. Parlkh
(302) 736-5081
Leonard R. Benson
(202) 767-7603
William Razor
(302) 736-4781
Leonard R. Benson
(202) 767-7603
James R. Collier
(202) 767-7370
Mendl Majedl
(301) 631-3724
Doug Proctor
(301) 631-3375
Jake Bair
(301) 934-2251
ex. 402
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION III (Continued)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources
Division of Municipal Facilities and Grants
P.O. Box 2063
Harrlsburg, PA 17120
Virginia
Virginia State Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
West Virginia
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrler Street
Charleston, WV 25311
Parlmal Parlkh
(717) 787-3481
Walter Gills
(804) 367-8860
Elbert Morton
(304) 348-0633
William Pounds
(717) 787-7381
Ken O'Korn
(717) 787-8184
Cal M. Sawyer
(804) 786-1755
Clifton Browning
(304) 348-2108
Jack Vanderland
(804) 257-6436
Richard Weigand
(304) 348-3075
(304) 372-3400
REGION IV
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
345 Countland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Bob Freeman
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
Vlnce Miller
(404) 347-3633
(FTS) 257-3633
Tracy Caldwell
(404) 347-3937
(FTS) 257-3937
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION IV (Continued)
Alabama
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Florida
David Hutchlnson
(205) 271-7761
Cliff Evans
(205) 271-7761
Truman Green
(205) 277-3630
Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Georgia
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Floyd Towers East, Suite 1058
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Kentucky
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Bhupendra Vora
(904) 488-8163
Randy Durham
(404) 656-4708
Vlnce Borres
(502) 564-3410
J.N. Ramaswaray
(904) 488-8163
Mike Creason
(404) 656-4887
Art Curtis
(502) 564-3410
Barbara Mitchell
(904) 392-9570
Gaynell Hill
(404) 656-7400
Robert Oerther
(502) 564-3410
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION IV (Continued)
Mississippi
Municipal Facilities Branch
Mississippi Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
South Carolina
201 Planning Environmental Quality Control
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29211
Tennessee
Sltarajn Makena
(601) 961-5171
Johnny Blggert
(601) 961-5060
Glen Odom
(601) 961-5159
Allen Wahab
(919) 733-6900
Allen Wahab
(919) 733-6900
Bobby Deweese
(919) 733-7015
Sara Grant
(803) 734-5279
Mike Caughraan
(803) 734-5067
Earl Hunter
(803) 734-5300
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Terra Building, 3rd Floor
150 Ninth Avenue
North Nashville, TN 37203
Sam Gaddlpatl
(615) 741-0638
Steve Sanvord
(615) 741-0638
James Coe
(615) 898-8090
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
I
REGION V
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Illinois
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Indiana
Charles Pycha
(312) 886-0259
(FTS) 886-0259
James Leinicke
Terry Zeal
(217) 782-2027
Almo Manzardo
(312) 886-2105
(FTS) 886-2105
Al Keller
(217) 782-1696
Eugene Chaikeri
(312) 353-2124
(FTS) 353-2124
William H. Busch
(217) 782-1696
Special Projects Section
Water Management Division
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
Michigan
Community Assistance Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
Robert Penno
(317) 232-8636
Brian Myers
(517) 373-6626
Dan Strahl
(317) 232-8736
Leonard Ashack
(317) 633-0756
Dale Brockway
(517) 373-8750
Howard Selover
(517) 243-4752
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION V (Continued)
Minnesota
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Section
Community Assistance Unit #3
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55101
Ohio
Dave Kortan
(612) 296-7230
Steven Stark
(612) 296-7169
Bill Sexauer
(612) 296-7218
Division of Construction Grants
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 Water Mark Drive
Columbus, OH 43266
Wisconsin
Ken Rlcker
(614) 644-2832
Stuart M. Blydenburgh
(614) 644-2001
Robert Phelps
(614) 644-2034
Municipal Wastewater Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Bob Stelndorf
(608) 266-0449
John Melby
(608) 267-7666
Tom Kroehn
(608) 267-7656
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
M
O
REGION VI
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
Allied Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
Arkansas
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219
Louisiana
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
11720 Airline Highway
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
New Mexico
Ancll Jones
(214) 655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
Martin Roy
(501) 562-8910
Wlnn Webb
(504) 295-8900
Ancll Jones
(214) 655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
Mike Hood
(501) 562-8910
Ken Fledderman
(504) 295-8900
Tom Reich
(214) 655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
James Bailey
(501) 574-4550
Dirk Kavanaugh
(318) 265-5590
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Water Quality Section
Harold Runnels Building
1190 St. Francis Drive
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Kate Trauth
(505) 827-2815
Kate Trauth
(505) 827-2815
Cynthia Hiers-
Robinson
Hayward Martin
(505) 646-2730
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION VI (Continued)
Oklahoma
Engineering Division
Oklahoma State Department of Health
3400 North Eastern Avenue
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Tiger Fang
(405) 271-7348
Texas
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231
Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711-3231
Milton Rose
(512) 463-8513
Denny Hodges
(405) 271-7362
Dr. William Roach
(405) 733-7364
Milton Rose
(512) 463-8513
Clark Benson
(409) 845-6247
REGION VII
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Iowa
Rao Surampalli
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Rao Surampalli
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Katherine Tischer
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
Program Operations Division
Iowa Department of Water, Air, and
Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
Wayne Farrand
(515) 281-8877
Darrell McAllister
(515) 281-8869
Doug Feil
(319) 398-5678
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION I/A CONTACT SLUDGE CONTACT O&M CONTACT
REGION VII (Continued)
Kansas
Municipal Programs Section Rodney Gelsler Rodney Gelsler Jerry Grant
Division of Environment (913) 296-5527 (913) 296-5527 (913) 296-5561
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field
Topeka, KS 66620
Missouri
Water Pollution Control Program Douglas Garrett Robert Reed Lorene Boyt
Division of Environmental Quality (314) 751-5723 (314) 751-6721 (417) 451-3583
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Nebraska
Construction Grants Branch Mahmood Arbab Rick Bay Rick R
Water Quality Section (402) 471-4252 (402) 471-2186 (402) 471 ?18fi
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control t/i-^j-oo
P.O. Box 94877
Statehouse Station
Lincoln, NE 68509
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION VIII
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
Denver Place 999 - 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Colorado
Jim Brooks
(303) 293-1549
(FTS) 564-1549
Jim Brooks
(303) 293-1549
(FTS) 564-1549
Leon Malloy
(303) 293-1552
(FTS) 564-1552
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Montana
Water Quality Bureau
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
North Dakota
Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control
North Dakota Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismark, ND 58501
Derald Lang
(303) 331-4564
Scott Anderson
(406) 444-2406
Jeff Hauge
(701) 224-4827
Phil Hegeman
(303) 331-4564
Scott Anderson
(406) 444-2406
Jeff Hauge
(701) 224-4827
Tom Feeley
(303) 980-9165
Martha Ann Dow
(406) 265 7821
ext. 3285
Ralph Reidinger
(701) 244-2354
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION VIII (Continued)
South Dakota
South Dakota Department of Water and
Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Utah
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
Wyoming
Water Quality Division
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Dave Templeton
(605) 773-5616
Kiran L. Bhayani
(801) 538-6146
Mike Hackett
(307) 777-7781
Dave Templeton
(605) 773-5616
Kiran L. Bhayani
(801) 538-6146
Mike Hackett
(307) 777-7781
Bill Alsenbrey
(605) 773-3296
Charles Tolson
(801) 226-5000
Bill Mixer
(307) 268-2368
REGION IX
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Susan Johnson
(415) 974-8288
(FTS) 454-8288
Lauren Fondahl
(415) 974-8283
(FTS) 454-8283
Tony Resnik
(415) 974-8289
(FTS) 454-8289
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION IX (Continued)
Arizona
Arizona Department of Health Services
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004
California
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Clean Water Grants
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
Hawaii
Ron Frey
(602) 257-2231
David Meza
(916) 739-4317
Barry Abbott
(602) 257-2238
Archie Mathews
(916) 322-4567
John McClain
(602) 722-7872
Donald Proctor
(916) 744-4150
Construction Grants Program
Hawaii State Department of Health
633 Hale Kauwila Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Nevada
Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection
201 S. Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
Harold Yee
(808) 548-4127
James Williams
(702) 885-5870
Dennis Tulang
(808) 548-4127
Wendall McCurry
(702) 885-4670
Marshal Lura
(808) 548-4127
Julian Bielawski
(702) 885-4670
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION X
U.S. EPA Water Management Division
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Alaska
Tom Johnson/Brian Yim Dick Hetherington
(206) 442-2887 (206) 442-1941
(FTS) 399-2887 (FTS) 399-1941
Tom Johnson
(206) 442-2887
(FTS) 399-2887
Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Water Programs Pouch
Juneau, AK 99811
Idaho
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environment
State House
Boise, ID 83720
Oregon
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Richard Marcum
(907) 465-2610
Allan Stanford
(208) 334-5855
Stan Hungerford
(907) 465-2610
Susan Martin
(208) 334-5855
Ken Vigil/Gary Sage
(503) 229-5622
Richard J. Nichols
(503) 229-5324
Judy Urquart
(907) 465-2673
Linda Taylor
(907) 465-2610
Veronica Fitz
(208) 888-1740
Thomas Gonzalez
(503) 928-2361
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
U.S. EPA REGION
I/A CONTACT
SLUDGE CONTACT
O&M CONTACT
REGION X (Continued)
Washington
Department of Ecology
Office of Water Programs
Olympia, WA 98504
Joe Williams
(206) 459-6086
Jim Knudson
(206) 459-6597
Carl Jones
(206) 438-7044
Ed O'Brien
(206) 438-7037
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
Current I/A Technology Foldouts
Alternative Wastewater Collections Systems: Practical Approaches 1,2,3,4
Aquaculture: An Alternative Wastewater Treatment Approach 1,2,3,4
The Biological Aerated Filter: A Promising Biological Process 1,2,3,4
Biological Phosphorous Removal: Problems and Remedies 1,2,3,4
Composting: A Viable Method of Resource Recovery 1,2,3,4
Counter-Current Aeration: A Promising Process Modification 1,2,3,4
Disinfection with Ultraviolet Light 1,2,3,4
Hydrograph Controlled Release Lagoons: A Promising Modification 1,2,3,4
Innovative and Alternative (I/A) Technology: Wastewater
Treatment to Improve Water Quality and Reduce Cost 1,2,3,4
Innovations in Sludge Drying Beds: A Practical Technology 1,2,3,4
Intermittent Sand Filtration 1 >2>3'4
Intrachannel Clarification: A Project Assessment 1,2,3,4
In-Vessel Composting 1,2,3,4
Land Application of Sludge: A Viable Alternative 1,2,3,4
Land Treatment Silviculture: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
Large Soil Absorption Systems: Design Suggestions for Success 1,2,3,4
E-l
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
Current I/A Technology Foldouts (Continued)
Less Costly Wastewater Treatment for Your Town 1,2,3,4
Methane Recovery: An Energy Resource 1,2,3,4
Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates 1,2,3,4
Operation of Conventional WWTP in Cold Weather 1,2,3,4
Overland Flow An Update: New Information Improves Reliability 1,2,3,4
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities 1,2,3,4
Rapid Infiltration: Plan, Design, and Construct for Success 1,2,3,4
Rotating Biological Contactors 1,2,3,4
Sequencing Batch Reactors: A Project Assessment 1,2,3,4
Side-Streams in Advance Waste Treatment Plants: Problems and
Remedies 1,2,3,4
Small Wastewater Systems: Alternative Systems for Communities
and Rural Areas 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Dewatering Beds: An Alternative Approach 1,2,3,4
Vacuum-Assisted Sludge Drying (Update) 1,2,3,4
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on Pathogen Removal 1,2,3,4
Water Reuse Via Dual Distribution Systems 1,2,3,4
Wetlands Treatment: A Practical Approach 1,2,3,4
E-2
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
I/A Research Reports
Alternative On-S'rte Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems on
Severely Limited Sites; EPA/600/2-86/116; PB87-140992/AS 1,5,6
Alternative Sewer Studies; EPA/600/2-85/133; PB86-131224/AS 1,5,6
Alternative Sewer Systems in the United States; EPA/600/D-84/095;
PB84-177815/AS 1,5,6
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion in the Federal Republic
of Germany; EPA/600/D-85/194; PB85-245322/AS 1,5,6
Biological Phosphorus Removal - Technology Evaluation;
EPA/600/J-86/198; PB87-152559 1,5,6
Characterization of Soil Disposal System Leachates; EPA/600/2-84/
101; PB84-196229/AS 1,5,6
Costs of Air Pollution Abatement Systems for Sewage Sludge
Incinerators; EPA/600/2-86/102; PB87-117743/AS 1,5,6
Design Manual Municipal Wastewater Stabilization Ponds;
EPA/625/1 -83-015 1,5,6
Determination of Toxic Chemicals in Effluent from Household Septic
Tanks; EPA/600/2-85/050; PB85-196798 1,5,6
Emerging Technology Assessment of Phostrip, A/O and Bardenpho
Process for Biological Phosphorus Removal; EPA/600/2-85/008;
PB85-165744/AS 1-5-6
Evaluation of Anaerobic, Expanded-Bed Contactors for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment; EPA/600/D-86/120; PB86-210648/AS 1,5,6
Evaluation of Color Infrared Aerial Surveys of Wastewater Soil
Absorption Systems; EPA/600/2-85/039; PB85-189074/AS 1,5,6
E-3
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
I/A Research Reports (Continued)
Forecasting On-Site Soil Absorption System Failure Rates;
EPA/600/2-86/060; PB86-216744/AS
Full-Scale Studies of the Trickling Filter/Solids Contact
Process; EPA/600/J-86/271; PB87-168134/AS
Handbook Estimating Sludge Management Costs; EPA/625/6-85/010;
PB86-124542/AS
Handbook Septage Treatment and Disposal; EPA/625/6-84-009
Implemention of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Municipal Treatment;
EPA/600/D-84/022; PB84-130400/AS
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual;
EPA/430/9-78/009; (MCD-53)
Land Application of Municipal Sludge; EPA/625/1-83/016
Large Soil Absorption Systems for Wastewaters from Multiple
Home Developments; EPA/600/2-86/023; PB86-164084/AS
Municipal Sludge Composting Technology Evaluation; EPA/600/J-86/139;
PB87-103560/AS
Process Design Manual for Land Application of Municipal Sludge;
EPA/625/1-83-016
Process Design Manual for Land Application of Municipal Wastewater;
EPA/625/1-83-013 and Supplement; EPA/625/1-81-013a
Small Diameter Gravity Sewers: An Alternative Wastewater
Collection Method for Unsewered Communities; EPA/600/2-86/0270;
PB86-173622/AS
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,3,6
1,5,6
1,5
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5
E-4
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
I/A Research Reports (Continued)
Status of Porous Biomass Support Systems for Wastewater Treatment:
An Innovative/Alternative Technology Assessment; EPA/600/2-86/019;
PB86-156965/AS
Summary Report: Fine Pore (Fine Bubble) Aeration Systems;
EPA/625/8-85/010
Technology Assessment of Aquaculture Systems for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/145; PB84-246347/AS
Technology Assessment of Sequencing Batch Reactors; EPA/600/2-85/007;
PB85-167245/AS
Technology Assessment for Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment; EPA/600/2-84/154; PB85-106896/AS
Technology Evaluation of Sequencing Batch Reactors; EPA/600/J-85/166
Technology Evaluation of the Dual Digestion System; EPA/600/J-86/150;
PB87-1168027 AS
The Lubbock Land Treatment System Research and Demonstration
Project: Volume IV, Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study;
EPA/600/2-86/027D; PB86-173622/AS
Toxic and Priority Organics in Municipal Sludge Land Treatment
Systems; EPA/600/2-86/010; PB86-150208/AS
Trickling Filter/Solids Contact Process: Full-Scale Studies;
EPA/600/2-86/046; PB86-183100/AS
Wastewater Treatment Plant Instrumentation Handbook; EPA/600/
8-85/026; PB86-108636/AS
1,5
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5,6
1,5
1,5
1,5,6
1,5,6
E-5
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
Other I/A Publications
A Water and Wastewater Manager's Guide for Staying Financially
Healthy; EPA/430-09-89-004
Building Support for Increasing User Fees; EPA/430/09-89-006
Design Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems;
EPA/625/1-80-012
Is Your Proposed Wastewater Project Too Costly? Options for Small
Communities
It's Your Choice - A Wastewater Treatment Handbook for the
Local Official
Looking at User Charges - A State Survey and Report
Management of On-Site and Small Community Wastewater Systems;
EPA/600/8-82-009
Planning Wastewater Management Facilities for Small Communities;
EPA/600/8-80-030
Touching All the Bases: A Financial Handbook for Your Wastewater
Treatment Project
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,3,5
1,2,3
1,2
1,2,3
1,2,3,5
1,2,3,5
1,2
I/A Technology Videotapes
Sand Filters (9 minutes)
Small Diameter Effluent Sewers (11 minutes)
1,2
1,2
E-6
-------
APPENDIX E (Continued)
TITLE
DOCUMENT
ORDER
SOURCE
I/A Technology Videotapes (Continued)
Planning Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities (15 minutes)
Upgrading Small Community Wastewater Treatment (20 minutes)
1,2
1,2
Document Order Sources:
(1) Environmental Quality Instructional
Resources Center (IRC)
The Ohio State University
1200 Chambers Road - Room 310
Columbus, OH 43212
314-292-6717
(2) National Small Flows Clearinghouse
258 Stewart Street
Morgantown, WV 26506
1-800-624-8301
(3) EPA-OMPC-MFD (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(4) EPA Regional Offices
For telephone numbers, see
Appendix D
(5) EPA Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
513-569-7562
(6) National Technical Information
Service (NTIS)
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
703-487-4650
Note: Depending upon ordering source, there may be a charge for some
documents.
E-7
-------
APPENDIX F
EPA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT OUTREACH COORDINATORS
-------
APPENDIX F
EPA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
OUTREACH COORDINATORS
I. Bill Butler
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region I
JFK Federal Building, Room 2113
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3564
(FTS) 835-3564
II. Andrea Coats (for New York)
(212) 264-2929
(FTS) 264-8349
III. Bob Runowski 3WM23
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-6526
(FTS) 597-6526
V. Al Krause
Water Division
U.S. EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-0216
(FTS) 886-0216
VII. Kelly Beard
Water Mangement Division
EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2813
(FTS) 757-2813
IX. Craig Cooper
Water Management Division
EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8307
(FTS) 454-8307
II. Ponce Tidwell (for New Jersey)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-5670
(FTS) 264-5670
II. Margaret Halley (for Caribbean)
(212) 264-8968
(FTS) 264-5255
IV. Roger De Shane
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4491
(FTS) 257-4491
VI. Tom Reich
Water Management Division
EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, #1200
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-7130
(FTS) 255-7130
VIII. Mohammad Razzazian
Water Management Division
EPA, Region VIII
999 18th Street, #500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1551
(FTS) 564-1551
X. Bryan Yim
Water Division
EPA, Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-8575
(FTS) 399-8575
F-l
-------
APPENDIX G
CURRENT STATUS OF POTENTIAL M/R CANDIDATES BY STATE
-------
APPENDIX O
CURRENT STATUS pF M/R CANDIDATES BY STATE
STATE
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
COMMUNITY
Opelika
Paragould
Gustine
Manila
ttevada City
Reedley
San toreopo
TECHNOLOGY
Draft tube aerators
Aquaculture
ke V&e\tu» •&0'&U*Cfci0ft $y«fc£at djj ejetftttotl 1
Aquaculture
Community leach field
VacuuiB-asatsted sludge &tyi?ig: Veda
Rapid infiltration
Fj^jaautB l*ach £J,et£ foif ^tfluent
SUB-
POTEN- JECT
M/R GRANT TIAL OF
GRANT IN M/R LITIGA-
AWARDED REVIEW PROJECT TION
X
X
X
»yst«m
X
X
x
Colorado
Idaho
4i*pO*Al
Six-Mile Village Odor control
Settle toacai *f£iU«tt.t $m$ «011<&cti
-------
APPENDIX G (Continued)
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
COMMUNITY
Hanover
ftnifrt**
Portage
Botm«r Sprites
Dodge City
**es
-------
APPENDIX <3 (Continued)
o
STATE
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY
Moorehead Active ozone disinfection
North Koochiching UV disinfection
1 Sv " -\ ; 4 biologie*! coataetotr*
Rochester Biological phosphorus removal
JJxoei^icnf Sp£i,t»£S ~ 0w£ttnTwl 3ttpw
Gallatin Intrachannel clarifiers
Bozeman Rapid infiltration
Henderson Microscreens
Stafford Vacuum collection system controllers
Sattttt ?* .• Ucaft tub« a,dirat
-------
APPENDIX G (Continued)
o
STATE
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
COMMUNITY
Burlington
Greenville
Henderson
Pilot Mountain
Antla*
Buchanan
Churctt« Fwnry
Clifford
AfcrOtt
Bedford Heights
Clyde
Ironton
Lake County
North Olmstead
Cove Orchard
Dexter
M/R GRANT
GRANT IN
TECHNOLOGY AWARDED REVIEW
Powdered activated carbon treatment
(PACT) X
Counter current aeration X
Dual digftSfclort X
Jet aeration oxidation ditches X
Community mound dy&tems X
Community mound systems X
Community »<»ut«J ssy$t*l*>S&ing X
Powdered activated carbon treatment
(PACT) X
UV disinfection
Composting &
Powdered activated carbon treatment
(PACT) x
Cowwuntity Ifcsch fi^ld x
Recirculating sand filter x
SUB-
POTEN- JECT
TIAL OF
M/R LITIGA-
PROJECT TION
X
X
X
Rhode Island
Cranston
Draft tube aerators
X
-------
APPENDIX G (Continued)
STATE
COMMUNITY
TECHNOLOGY
M/R GRANT
GRANT IN
AWARDED REVIEW
POTEN-
TIAL
M/R
PROJECT
SUB-
JECT
OF
LITIGA-
TION
o
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
White Rivers
Memphis
Bl
Level land
Elbe
&i«*xt*
3t
------- |