*>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/M-90/015
September 1990
ECHNOLOGY
RANSFER
from
Office of Research and Development
Office of Technology Transfer & Regulatory Support
513-569-7610
ORD Opens Electronic Bulletin
Board System
EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) has created the ORD Electronic Bulletin
Board System (BBS) to foster communication
and technology transfer among EPA staff, state
and local officials and staff, researchers, and
the private sector.
The ORD BBS presently features 5 areas of
special interest ("Conferences"):
• Expert Systems - a forum providing
support, distribution, updates, and
discussion of ORD's expert systems.
• Biotechnology - a forum for discussion of
biotechnical approaches to pollution
control.
• Water - a forum for exchanging information
on EPA's Office of Water's regulatory
agenda and ORD's water research
activities.
• Regional Operations - primarily intended
tor EPA Regional Highlights, but open to
anyone to further the exchange of
technical support among ORD and the
Regions.
• Methods Standardization!QA News - a
forum for the exchange of information from
EPA Program Offices, Regions, State
Agencies, and the private sector on
monitoring methods and Quality Assurance
techniques.
The BBS can be used to leave and read
messages, upload and download files, and
serves as means of announcing recent ORD
activities.
A special feature of the ORD BBS is a text-
searchable database of every ORD publication
produced since 1976 - over 16,000 citations.
Each citation contains publication title, authors,
sponsoring organization, abstract, ordering
information, and much more. Type "Open 1" at
the main board to access this database.
The ORD BBS is open to all and operates
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no
subscription charge.
To access the ORD BBS you will need a
computer, modem, phone line, and a
communications program. Call 513-569-7610
and you will be granted immediate access - no
password is needed.
Voice support is available from the BBS
SYSOP, Jose Perez, at 513-569-7272.
An ORD BBS User's Manual is also
available - use the order form in the back of
this publication.
First Technology Transfer Expert
System Available: POTW Expert
Helps Facilities Meet Compliance
Standards
A majority of POTWs operating in the United
States are not performing as desired. To assist
plant owners, regulators, and evaluators in
rapidly determining the cause of poor
performance, ORD's Center for Environmental
Research Information (CERI), developed the
POTW Expert System. Based on the
Comprehensive Performance
Evaluation/Composite Correction Program
(CPE/CCP) methodology,
POTW Expert is a PC-based tool that
evaluates the capability of a wastewater
treatment plant to improve performance without
requiring major modifications. In substantially
less time than it takes plant evaluators to use
the conventional CPE process, POTW Expert
can analyze operating, design, administrative,
and flow characteristic data, as well as identify
and prioritize performance-limiting factors.
POTW Expert can assess secondary
treatment facilities that use suspended growth,
fixed film, and stabilization pond treatment
processes, and analyzes a broad spectrum of
unit process configurations. The system is
designed to analyze plants up to an average
daily flow of 20 mgd.
-------
What is an expert system?
An expert system is a computer
program which has the knowledge of
expert consultants embedded in its code.
The system mimics the human expert in a
number of ways. . If erroneous data is
entered into an expert system, the system
will alert the user concerning the
erroneous data.
Using POTW Expert
To use POTW Expert, plant evaluators
input specific information on plant
characteristics and loadings for the
"aeration system" (i.e., aeration basin,
RBC, tricking filter, or ABF), secondary
clarifier, and sludge handling system by
answering a series of on-screen queries,
POTW Expert then assesses the data and,
in many instances, compares the plant-
specific data to expected values for a
plant of similar characteristics.
For example, POTW Expert will
calculate the percent removal of BOD5 in
the primary clarifier and determine
whether it is within expected ranges for a
primary clarifier with a similar surface
overflow rate. POTW Expert then notifies
the user of any discrepancies between the
reported and projected values.
By observing symptoms and using
"rules of thumb," POTW Expert then
identifies 5 to 15 (of a possible 70)
performance-limiting factors related to the
design, operation, maintenance, and/or
administration of the plant. The system
also prioritizes these factors based on the
severity of their adverse effects and
generates three reports:
• The Major Unit Process Report that
indicates the performance potential of
existing physical facilities
• The Observation Report that identifies
actual and projected performance and
notes any anomalies with the
expected values.
• The Performance-Limiting Factor
Report that explains and prioritizes
the factors that limit the plant's
performance.
Minimum requirements to run POTW
Expert are: AT-compatible PC, 640K RAM
and 2MB extended memory, 1.2MB floppy
drive, hard drive with at least 4MB free,
DOS 3.30 or higher, and a printer.
POTW Expert will be available at the
WPCF Conference in Washington, D C. in
October. It can also be ordered by using
the form in the back of this document.
Users of POTW Expert must be familiar
with the material contained in Handbook:
Retrofitting POTWs (EPA/6-89/020). If you
do not have this publication, it also can be
ordered using the same form.
New Technology Transfer
Publications
[use form in back to order]
New Series Focuses On Waste
Minimization
&EFA
Guides to Pollution
Prevention
The Pesticide
Formulating Industry
The wastes generated at pesticide
formulating facilities can be categorizec
equipment cleaning wastes, spills and
area washdowns, off-specification
products, containers, air emissions, and
miscellaneous wastewater streams.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified. They are consistent
with general waste minimization
approaches and include maximizing
production runs; storing and reusing
cleaning wastes; using wiper blades and
squeegees; using low volume, high-
efficiency cleaning techniques; and using
plastic or foam "pigs" to clean lines.
To reduce wastes from spills or area
washdowns, pesticide formulators should
install dedicated vacuum systems and
employ dry cleaning methods; use
recycled water for initial cleanup; and
strictly supervise operations.
Waste represented by off-specification
products can be reduced by strict quality
control and automation as well as by
reformulation of off-spec batches. Waste
represented by empty containers that
have become contaminated can be
reduced by: returning containers to
suppliers; using drums with liners instead
of plastic drums or bags; and segregat-—
solid waste.
The Pesticide Formulating Industry
(625/71901004)
This document reviews the pesticide
formulating operations and the processes
that generate wastes, identifies techniques
that would allow these companies to
reduce their wastes, and provides a set of
self-audit checklists to assist pesticide
formulators in setting up a waste reduction
program. This publication emphasizes
reducing hazardous wastes but also
discusses options for reducing
nonhazardous wastes.
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
• An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
• A profile of pesticide formulating
facilities, including processes used
and wastes generated.
•Waste minimization options for
pesticide formulators.
•Work sheets that can be used to
conduct a waste minimization
assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at
pesticide formulating facilities and sources
of information on waste minimization.
Guides to Pollution
Prevention
The Paint Manufacturing
Industry
The Paint Manufacturing Industry
(625/7190/005)
This document reviews the operations
of paint manufacturers, identifies
techniques that would allow these
companies to reduce their wastes, and
provides a set of self-audit checklists t
-------
st paint manufacturers in setting up a
te reduction program. This publication
~..,phasizes reducing hazardous wastes
but also discusses options for reducing
nonhazardous waste.
The wastes generated at paint
manufacturing facilities include equipment
cleaning wastes, spills and area
washdowns, off-specification paints, bags
and packages, air emissions, filter
cartridges, obsolete products, and
customer returns.
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
•An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
•A profile of paint manufacturing
facilities including processes used
and wastes generated.
•Waste minimization options for paint
manufacturers.
•Work sheets for conducting a waste
minimization assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at paint
manufacturing facilities and sources of
information on waste minimization.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified. They are consistent
with general waste minimization
roaches and include using wiper
ies, using high pressure spray heads
limiting wash/rinse time, using teflon
imed tanks, using plastic or foam "pigs" to
clean lines, storing and rinsing cleaning
wastes, recycling sludge, and maximizing
production runs.
Waste represented by off-specification
paint can be reduced by increased
automation as well as by reformulation of
off-specification batches.
Waste represented by empty bags and
packages that are contaminated can be
reduced by using water soluble bags,
using rinseable/recyclable drums with
plastic liners, and segregating the
hazardous materials from the
nonhazardous materials.
Air emissions can be reduced by
controlling bulk storage air emissions;
using pigments in paste form and
installing a dedicated baghouse system
for pigment loading areas.
To reduce wastes from spills,
automation should be increased and dry
cleanup methods should be maximized
whenever possible. Waste represented by
spent filter cartridges can be reduced by
improving pigment dispersion and using
bag and metal mesh filters. Obsolete
products and customer returns can be
bienried into new batches of paint.
The Fabricated Metal Industry
(625171901006)
The document reviews the operations
of fabricated metal manufacturers,
identifies techniques that allow these
companies to reduce wastes, and provides
a set of self-audit checklists to assist
fabricated metal manufacturers in setting
up a waste reduction program. This report
emphasizes reducing hazardous wastes
but also discusses options for reducing
nonhazardous wastes. Manufacturers of
fabricated metals include large and small
captive facilities, small job shops doing
contract work, and specialty shops doing
low volume and high precision work. The
waste generating processes involve
machining operations, surface treating and
plating operations, metal cleaning and
stripping, and paint application.
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
•An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
•A profile of fabricated metal industry
and processes used in it.
•Waste minimization options for the
fabricated metal industry.
•Work sheets for conducting a waste
minimization assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization practices of metal
fabricators and sources of technical and
regulatory information.
Reduction of heavy metal-bearing
streams from surface treatment and
plating wastes can be accomplished by
increasing the solution life and material
substitution. Plating solution life can be
extended by using purer metal for anodes
and by efficient rinsing of the workpiece
between different plating baths. Examples
of material substitution include
replacement of cyanide plating solutions
with cyanide-free solution; replacement of
cadmium-based plating solutions; and
replacement of hexavalent chromium with
trivalent chromium.
Two important methods for reducing
solvent waste are to minimize vapor loss
and to maintain solvent quality. Measures
that are considered helpful in maintaining
quality and minimizing vapor loss include
installing tank lids; increasing freeboard
space; installing freeboard chillers;
avoiding cross-contamination; removing
sludge; using appropriate makeup
solutions; standardizing solvent; and
consolidating operations.
Alkaline and acid solutions can be
minimized by source reduction methods
including frequent removal of sludge and
use of dry cleaning and stripping methods.
Source reduction methods that can be
used to minimize paint wastes during
metal fabrication are use of paint
application equipment with low overspray
characteristics, and operator training.
Material substitution such as use of water-
based and radiation-curable coatings is
also effective in reducing paint wastes.
Guides to Pollution
Prevention
The Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing Industry
The Printed Circuit Board
Manufacturing Industry (625/7-
901007)
This document reviews the operations
of printed circuit board manufacturers,
identifies techniques that allow these
companies to reduce their wastes, and
provides a set of self-audit checklists to
assist printed circuit board manufacturers
in setting up a waste reduction program.
This report emphasizes reducing
hazardous wastes but also discusses
options for reducing nonhazardous wastes.
Manufacturers of printed circuit boards
include large facilities whose sole product
is boards, large and small capture
facilities, small job shops doing contract
work, and specialty shops doing low
volume and high precision work. The
waste generating processes involve
cleaning and surface preparation, pattern
printing and masking, electroplating and
electroless plating, etching, and
wastewater treatment.
-------
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
• An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
• A profile of the printed circuit board
manufacturing industry.
•Waste minimization options for
printed circuit board manufacturers.
•Work sheets that can be used to
conduct a waste minimization
assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at printed
circuit board manufacturing facilities and
sources of information on waste
minimization.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified. They are consistent
with general waste minimization
approaches and include substituting other
products and materials, increasing the
efficiency of the processes, recycling and
reusing waste products, reducing the
hazardous nature of processes, and
eliminating processes.
The Commercial Printing Industry
(62517-901008)
The document reviews the operations
of commercial printing facilities, identifies
techniques that would allow these
companies to reduce their wastes, and
provides a set of self-audit checklists to
assist commercial printers in setting up a
waste reduction program. This publication
emphasizes reducing hazardous wastes
but also discusses options for reducing
nonhazardous wastes. The wastes
generated at commercial printing facilities
include waste paper, spent photo
processing chemicals, plate processing
wastes, fountain solutions, volatile organic
compounds, and cleaning solvents.
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
•An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
• A profile of commercial printing
facilities including processes used
and waste generated.
•Waste minimization options for
commercial printing facilities;
•Work sheets for conducting a waste
minimization assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at
commercial printing facilities and sources
of information on waste minimization.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified. They are consistent
with general waste minimization
approaches and include recycling, using
squeegees, using computerized
"electronic pre-press system," and using
alternative cleaning solutions. Paper is the
major waste stream generated from
printing facilities and can be segregated
and recycled according to grade.
Options for reducing photo processing
chemicals include using computerized
"electronic pre-press systems" for
typesetting and copy preparation; material
substitution; extending the life of fixing
baths; using squeegees to wipe excess
liquid from film and paper; countercurrent
washing; recovery of metals; and recycling
of spent chemicals.
Plate processing wastes can be
reduced by reducing solution loss;
replacing metal etching/plating operations;
and using nonhazardous developers and
finishers.
Fountain solutions contain isopropyl
(IPA) that may cause emission problems
when it evaporates. Alternative fountain
solutions are available that contain little or
no volatile organic contaminants (VOCs).
Alternative cleaning solvents that are less
toxic and less flammable are also
available. Reducing the need to clean ink
fountains also reduces solvent wastes.
Use of alternative solutions will also
reduce the volatile air emissions.
6EPA Guides to Pollution
Prevention
Selected Hospital Waste
Streams
Selected Hospital Waste Streams
(625/7-90/009)
This document reviews the practices of
general hospitals, identifies techniques
that allow hospitals to reduce their wastes,
and provides a set of self-audit checklists
to assist hospital administrators and
environmental compliance personnel in
setting up a waste reduction program.1
report emphasizes reducing hazardous
wastes but also discusses options for
reducing nonhazardous wastes. The
wastes generated at general medical and
surgical hospitals that are reviewed in this
guide are categorized as chemotherapy
and antineoplastic agents; solvents;
formaldehyde; photographic chemicals;
radionuclides; mercury; anesthetic gases;
and toxic, corrosive, and miscellaneous
chemicals.
The document consists of the following
sections and an appendix.
•An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment procedures.
•A hospital waste profile.
• Waste minimization options in
hospitals.
• Work sheets for conducting a waste
minimization assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at
hospital facilities and information on waste
minimization.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified and are consistent
with general waste minimization
approaches.
Waste represented by chemotherap
and antineoplastics can be reduced by
segregating chemotherapy waste from
other wastes; minimizing cleaning
frequency and volume of gauze material
used for the compounding hood;
purchasing drug containers in sizes that
reduce generation of residues; disposing
(disposable) uncontaminated garments in
nonhazardous refuse; returning outdated
drugs to manufacturers; and centralizing
the location of chemotherapy
compounding and administration areas.
Waste reduction techniques for solvent
waste include substitution of aqueous-
based solvents; substitution of non-
halogenated solvents; use of simple
alcohols and ketones; use of sensitive
analytical equipment, use of sonic or
steam cleaning; use of pre-mixed
containerized kits for tests involving
solvent fixation; use of calibrated
dispensers for routine tests; use of solvent
distillation for recovery; and separation of
different solvent wastes. Options for
minimizing formaldehyde waste include
determining minimum effective cleaning
frequency for dialysis machine and RO
units; capturing waste formaldehyde; and
minimizing strength of formaldehyde in
some applications.
Waste reduction in hospital radiolog"
departments includes use of silver
recovery systems; evaluate toxicity of
-------
3to finishing wastes; and return of off-
icification developer to manufacturer.
Radionuclide wastes can be reduced
by using alternative isotopes and
substituting iridium-192 or cesium-137 for
radium-226.
Options for minimizing mercury wastes
include substituting electronic sensing
devices for mercury-containing devices;
recycling uncontaminated mercury wastes;
providing mercury spill cleanup kits; and
completely draining all mercury residuals
from mercury-containing devices for
recycling.
Waste represented by toxics,
corrosives and miscellaneous chemicals
can be reduced by substituting less toxic
or corrosive compounds; returning boiler
chemical drums for reuse; using
mechanical handling aids for 30- and 50-
gal drums to reduce spill potential;
replacing peroxide with 30% hydrogen
peroxide to reduce color in tissue and
blood tests; reviewing laboratory
experiments to identify techniques for
decreasing chemical usage; using
automated handling systems for laundry
chemicals; using solvent recycling service
for parts cleaning sinks; using sonic or
steam cleaning; using biodegradable
>aning aids; and mixing waste acids with
iste bases to neutralize wastes.
Research and Educational
Institutions (625/7-90/0010)
This document provides research and
°"1' national institutions with guidelines and
options to minimize both hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes, identifies
techniques that would allow these
institutions to reduce their wastes, and
provides a set of self-audit checklists to
assist institutional staff members in setting
up a waste reduction program.
This guide is primarily intended to be
used by research and development
laboratories and graduate and
undergraduate educational institutions that
conduct research or teaching activities
which use hazardous materials. The
wastes generated at these institutions can
be categorized as inorganic acids and
bases, organic solvents, dry metal
powders, reaction products from
experiments, photography waste, vehicle
maintenance waste, waste paint, and other
wastes.
It consists of the following four sections
and an appendix.
• An introduction and overview of waste
minimization assessment process.
•A research and educational institution
profile
• Waste minimization options.
•Work sheets for conducting a waste
minimization assessment.
The appendix contains case studies of
waste minimization opportunities at
research and educational institutions and
sources of information on waste
minimization.
A number of waste minimization
options are identified. They are consistent
with general waste minimization
approaches and include monitoring
chemical flows, facilitating internal
recycling programs, identifying common
usage, requiring users of chemicals with
limited shelf life to use up old stock before
ordering or using new stock, identifying
high volume chemical users, encouraging
staggered deliveries and only buying
quantities that will be used, and
encouraging chemical suppliers to
become responsible partners in a waste
minimization program.
Practices that can reduce laboratory
waste generation include scaling down the
volumes of chemicals used, increasing the
use of instrumentation, reducing or
eliminating the use of highly toxic
chemicals, treating or destroying
hazardous waste products as a last step in
experiments, keeping individual waste
streams segregated, and clearly marking
all containers containing chemicals and
wastes.
Opportunities to minimize waste
generated in other institutional activities
include replacing oil-based paints with
water-based paint; using nonchemical pest
control methods; collecting waste oil and
solvents for recycling; recycling photo
processing wastes; and providing training
in hazardous waste management practices
to staff members, students, and
maintenance personnel.
Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic
Digestion of Municipal Wastewater
Sludge (EPA/625/10-90/007)
This document describes a promising
technology - autothermal thermophilic
aerobic digestion (ATAD) - for meeting the
current and proposed federal pathogen
control requirements for land application
of municipal wastewater sludge. An ATAD
system is a two-stage aerobic process that
operates under thermophilic temperature
conditions without supplemental heat. It
relies on the heat released during
digestion to attain and sustain the desired
operating temperatures.
The ATAD process has many benefits:
a high disinfection capability; low space
requirements; and a high sludge treatment
rate. It is a relatively simple technology
that is easy to operate and economical,
particularly for small facilities.
ATAD provides a proven, cost-effective
way to achieve aerobic digestion and to
produce sludge that can be land applied.
Information is provided on the history,
design, operation and maintenance
requirements and performance of ATAD
Systems.
Limited information is also provided on
another thermophilic aerobic digestion
system currently operating in Europe - the
prestage system. This system is typically
retrofitted into existing facilities already
equipped with anaerobic digesters.
Information in the document was
obtained in a 1989-1990 ORD-RREL/CERI
study to collect and analyze design and
operating data from ATAD Systems in
West Germany. Additionally, information
was obtained on the limited number of
systems in other countries.
The information presented in this
document will be of interest to owners and
operators of treatment plants and their
consulting engineers who may be
interested in considering ATAD treatment
to achieve the regulatory requirements for
land application of municipal sludge, as
well as to regional, state, and local
government officials responsible for
implementing and enforcing the land
application regulations.
ABft Guides to Pollution
Prevention
Research and Educational
Institutions
-------
Future Technology Transfer
Meetings
National Conference: Watershed
Planning and Management for the
Control of Nonpoint Source
Pollution
This three-day conference will present
a wide range of tools and approaches for
successfully implementing nonpoint
source pollution control projects that focus
upon the protection of water quality on a
watershed scale. The conference is
designed to assist federal, state, and local
government water quality professionals in
developing and administering watershed
management plans.
Conference attendees will gain a better
understanding of watershed management
as a means to protect water quality. The
conference will effectively combine
presentation and workshop formats for the
exchange of information and ideas among
professional involved in the day-to-day
implementation of watershed projects.
Topics to be addressed, many
presented as case studies, include: water
quality problem identification; developing
goals and objectives for watershed
projects; designing effective institutional
frameworks; establishing a watershed
plan; selection of nonpoint source controls,
such as best management practices; and
monitoring and evaluating watershed
project implementation.
The conference will be held at the
following location:
New Orleans, LA January 29-31, 1991
For registration information, contact
Denise Gaffney at 617-641-5317. For
conference content, contact Dan Murray at
513-569-7522 (FTS 684-7522).
Workshops: Air Emissions from
Waste Management Facilities
The Center for Environmental Research
Information and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards are sponsoring
workshops for persons interested in
organic air emissions from hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDF's). The first phase
regulations are for organic emissions as a
class from TSDF process vents and
equipment leaks. Regulations affecting
these facilities were promulgated in June
1990 under Section 3004 of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. Sources of emissions,
control technology, and regulations
affecting these emissions will be
discussed at this series of workshops.
In addition, benzene regulations
promulgated in March 1990 under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act and control
technology applicable to benzene
emissions from waste facilities will be
presented. Attendees should be able to
grasp the concepts first hand by
participating in break-out sessions to
consider case studies for some of the
problems confronting owners/operators,
consulting engineers, regulatory agency
staff, and others who must deal with
TSDF's or other waste management
facilities.
These two-day workshops are
scheduled as follows:
Chicago, IL
Atlanta, GA
Dallas, TX
Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
Kansas City, MO
Philadelphia, PA
Denver, CO
October 23, 1990
November 13, 1990
December 11, 1990
January 15, 1991
January 22,1991
February 12, 1991
February 26, 1991
March 26, 1991
For registration information call PEER
Consultants, P.C., at (513) 252-1222. For
information on content, contact Justice
Manning, 513-569-7349 (FTS 684-7349).
AWWA National Meeting and
Convention
The EPA Offices of Research and
Development (ORD) and Drinking Water
(ODW) cooperated in an exhibit at the
June 17-21, 1990 American Water Works
Association National Meeting in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Approximately 10,000 state and
utility personnel along with consultants, ,
manufacturers and academicians attended
this meeting. As part of the exhibit, ORD
and ODW displayed and made available to
participants many publications pertinent to
the Agency's Drinking Water Program. At
this year's meeting almost 7,000 ORD
publications were requested by visitors to
the booth.
In addition, ORD's Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office displayed
and demonstrated their IRIS online
database for accessing health risk and
EPA guidance information.
The Superfund Innovative
TechnologyEvaluation (SITE)
Program
The Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation (SITE) Program resulted from
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) which
added an "Alternative or Innovative
Treatment Technology Research and
Demonstration Program" to Title III of
CERCLA. Over the past five years the
SITE Program has been working to
provide documentation on innovative
technologies that can be used for the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Two
portions of the Program conduct projects
for development and demonstration of
innovative alternative technologies for use
in the field. The Emerging Technology
Program provides a framework for
encouraging and testing pilot-scale
technologies that have been proven at the
bench-scale but are not ready for field
demonstration, while the Demonstration
Program conducts evaluations of
technologies to document the engineering
aspects, performance, and costs
associated with their use.
The Emerging Technology Program
currently conducting 29 projects dealini
with various facets of physical/chemica.
thermal, and biological waste treatment. It
is expected that 7 of these efforts will be
completed during 1990. The
Demonstration Program encompasses 44
projects, with 16 demonstrations being
completed: 4 in the solidification/
stabilization area, 4 thermal technologies,
1 biological treatment scheme, and 7
physical/chemical treatment systems.
Eight Applications Analysis Reports are
available from ORD Publications, 26 W.
MLK, Cincinnati, OH 45268:
1. Shirco Infrared Incineration System,
EPA 540/A5-89/010.
2. HAZCON Solidification Process, EPA
540/A5-89/001.
3. Terra Vac In Situ Vacuum Extraction
System, EPA 540/A5-89/003.
4. American Combustion Pyretron
Destruction System, EPA 540/A5-
89/008.
5. International Waste Technologies In-
Situ Stabilization, EPA/540/A5-89/004.
6. Soliditech, Inc., Solidification/
Stabilization Process, EPA/540/A5-
89/005.
7. CF Systems Organics Extraction
System, EPA/540/A5-90/002.
8. Ultrox International Ultraviolet/Oxida
Technology, EPA/540/A5-89/012.
-------
Safe Drinking Water for the Little Guy: Options and Alternatives
James A. Goodrich, Environmental Scientist
Benjamin W. Lykins, Jr., Chief, Systems & Field Evaluation Branch
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Environmental Engineer
Robert M. Clark, Director, Drinking Water Research Division
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio
INTRODUCTION
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and its Amendments
sets regulations applicable to all community water systems
that have 15 or more service connections and/or serve at least
25 people. At first glance, this may appear most inclusive, but
in reality there are numerous private homeowners, non-
community, and transient populations potentially at risk to
contaminated drinking water. In addition, the tens of
thousands of very small community systems (approximately
500 population served) currently regulated have little chance
of complying with the ever increasing number of regulated
contaminants or instituting Best Available Technology (BAT).
Their problems are well documented as is their lack of
resources to correct those problems. Therefore, the purpose
of this paper is to provide a practical overview to the "little
guy" attempting to provide safe drinking water. This overview
will present the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of
several treatment technologies focusing on those aspects of
cost, reliability, and ease of operation for those technologies
that make them more amenable to "package plant" and Point-
of-Use/Point-of-Entry (POU/POE) operation rather than
traditional full-scale central treatment plants.
There were approximately 189,600 water systems in the
ted States classified as public water systems in 1988,
iut 31 percent are community water systems which serve
narily residential areas and 91 percent of the population.(')
Of the 58,099 community water systems that served about
219 million people, 50,825 were classified as "small" or "very
small." These systems served populations of less than 3,300
with a total population served of about 25 million.
Small systems (<3,300 people served) are the most
frequent violators of federal regulations and accounted for
almost 89 percent of the 43,000 violations posted in 1988.
Microbiological violations accounted for the vast majority of
the cases with failure to monitor and report (M/R) exceeding
violations of the SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
The small and very small system violations account for
approximately 6 million consumers at risk. In most cases, the
violations are short term (less than two months). In addition
there are about 19 million individuals on private wells at
unknown (if any) risk.
Financing is a problem faced by most small systems.
Small systems have small production, small revenues, small
budgets, but big problems.*2) Small systems are not able to
take advantage of economies-of-scale because of the limited
number of connections. Certain types of services must be
provided such as maintaining a chlorinator, no matter how few
the connections.!3) Because of limited revenues, very often
only part-time operators can be hired with little funds available
for training and certification. Small rural communities normally
do not have a large pool of trained engineers and scientists to
deal with complex equipment or deal with constantly changing
'""'ment needs. Treatment technologies with high chemical
lergy cost can drain small budgets over time as well,
dual management is another problem that not only small
es must cope with, but all utilities,
i addition to the numerous problems already mentioned,
v, .a cost of meeting the 1986 SDWA amendments may be out
of reach for most small systems. Table 2 describes the
contaminants to be regulated and the estimated total annual
cost nationwide for compliance. Compounding the small
systems' current problems with this new set of regulations,
requires some new thinking and flexibility in helping small
systems and individuals provide safe drinking water. In some
cases, the basic technologies used in larger systems can be
applied to small systems. However, for the reasons stated
above, treating 50,000 gpd is not simply a matter of designing
a treatment scheme at one percent of the size of 5 mgd plant.
Options and alternatives for small systems and individuals are
necessary and are discussed in the next section.
SMALL SYSTEM CENTRAL TREATMENT OPTIONS
The most significant requirements for small systems are
low construction and operating costs, simple operation,
adaptability to parttime operations, low maintenance, and no
serious residual disposal problems.!2) Two recent EPA
reports<4.5) describe in detail various drinking water treatment
technologies for design and upgrade of small systems for
compliance with the SDWA. The following highlights several
technologies from those reports in terms of the above
characteristics. The technologies include: filtration systems,
disinfection, organics control and inorganic treatment
technologies.
FILTRATION
Filtration through a combination of physical and chemical
processes can remove a variety of substances, including
particulate matter that causes turbidity, microorganisms, color,
disinfection by-product precursors, and some inorganic
contaminants. Filtration options include:
•Conventional filtration
• Direct filtration
•Slow sand filtration
• Package plant filtration
• Diatomaceous earth filtration
• Reverse osmosis membranes
DISINFECTION
The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requires
systems to inactivate 99.9 percent of Giardia cysts and 99.99
percent of enteric viruses. Currently, the only disinfection by-
products regulated are the trihalomethanes (THMs), but new
regulations are pending. Typical disinfectants are chlorine,
chlorine dioxide, chloramines, and ozone. Only chlorine and
chloramines are considered for use to suppress biological
regeneration in distribution systems.
ORGANIC CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
The SDWA amendments established the requirement for
several MCLs and for the designation of BAT to treat those
contaminants. Packed tower aeration and granular activated
carbon have been specified BAT for most of the organic
contaminants to date. Other treatment technologies to
consider for organic contaminant removal include:
• Powdered activated carbon
• Diffused aeration
•Advanced oxidation processes
• Reverse osmosis membranes
-------
Table 1. Small System Treatment Technology Overview(4,5)
Technology
Advantages
Disadvantages
Filtration
Slow Sand
Operational simplicity and reliability
Low cost
Ability to achieve >99.9% Giardia cyst removal
Not suitable for water with high turbidity
Diatomaceous Earth
Compact size
Simplicity of operation
Excellent cyst and turbidity removal
Most suitable for raw water with low bacterial coun
and low turbidity (< 10 NTU)
Requires coagulant and filter aids for effective virus
removal
Potential difficulty in maintaining complete and unif<
thickness of diatomaceous earth on filter septum
Reverse Osmosis Membranes
Extremely compact
Automated
Little information available to establish design criter
or operating parameters
Most suitable for raw water with < 10 NTU; usually
must be preceded by high levels of pretreatment
Easily clogged with colloids and algae
Short filter runs
Concerns about membrane failures
High percent of water lost in backflushing
Disinfectant
Chlorine
Very effective; tias a proven history of protection
against waterborne diseases. Widely used. Variety of
possible applications. Inexpensive. Appropriate as both
primary and secondary disinfectant.
Potential for harmful halogenated by-products unde
certain conditions.
Ozone
Very effective. No THMs formed.
Relatively high cost. More complex operations
because it must be generated onsite. Requires a
secondary disinfectant. Other by-products.
Ultraviolet radiation
Very effective for viruses and bacteria. Readily
available. No known harmful residuals. Simple
operation and maintenance for high-quality waters.
Inappropriate for surface water. Requires a second,
disinfectant.
Oraanic Contaminant Removal
Granular Activated Carbon
Effective for a broad range of organics
Spent carbon disposal
Packed Tower Aeration
Effective for volatile compounds
Potential for air emissions issues
Diffusal Aeration
Effective for volatile compounds/radionuclides
Clogging, air emissions, variable removal efficiency
Advanced Oxidation
Very effective
By-products
Reverse Osmosis
Broad spectrum removed
Variable removal efficiencies, wastewater disposal
Inoraanic Contaminant Removal
Reverse Osmosis
Highly effective
Expensive waste removal
Ion exchange
Highly effective
Expensive waste removal
Activated Alumina
Highly effective
Expensive waste removal
GAC
Highly effective
Expensive waste removal
Costs and applications vary considerably depending on the
contaminant to be removed and the residuals produced.
INORGANIC CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
Most treatment processes are effective for a specific set of
inorganic contaminants including radionuclides. In most cases,
the contaminants do not occur simultaneously, thus
simplifying treatment technology selection. Inorganic
contaminant removal technologies include:
•Conventional filtration
•Lime softening
•Ion exchange (cation and anion)
• Reverse osmosis membranes
•Activated alumina
Table 1 summarizes the technologies above particularly
suited for use by small systems. Table 2 illustrates the
variation in operating conditions for these treatment
technologies. Table 3 provides cost estimates for some
probable scenarios faced by small systems in the near
future.16*
ALTERNATIVES TO FULL-SCALE CENTRAL TREATMEN
PACKAGE PLANTS
Package plants are treatment units that are assembled i
factory, skid mounted, and transported to the site. The
treatment processes utilized in "package plants" are
essentially variations of coagulation and filtration treatment
trains that treat anywhere from a few thousand gpd to 6 mj
These,units are still "central" in that a distribution system i
necessary for water to reach the consumers. The differenc
between these and custom-design plants is that the packaj
plants/arrive on-site virtually ready to operate and built to
minirryfee the day-to-day attention required to operate the
equipment. Several hundred filtration package plants have
been installed nationwide mostly to remove turbidity and
bacteria from water with low to moderate levels of turbidity
-------
}le 2. Operational Conditions for
Treatment Technologies^)
Level of
Operation Skill
Technology Required
Level of
Maintenance
Required
Energy
Requirements
GAC
Medium
Low
Low
Packed column
aeration
Low
Low
Varies
Slow sand filtration
Low
Low
Low
Diatomaceous
earth
Low
Medium
Medium
Reverse osmosis
Low
Medium
High
Chlorine
Low
Low
Low
Ozone
High
Medium
Varies
UV
Low
Low
Low
Table 3. Costs of Some
Technologies^)
Water Treatment
Population Served by
Public Water System
Type of Treatment
Cost per Family
per Year, $
501 - 1,000
50,001 - 75,000
>1,000,000
Conventional coagulation,
filtration and disinfection to
control microbial
contaminants
125
50
25
501 - 1,000
50,001 - 75,000
>1,000,000
Corrosion control
(stabilization with lime) to
control lead and other
corrosion products
60
15
<10
501 - 1,000
50,001 - 75,000
>1,000,000
Packed tower aeration to
control organic chemicals
55
28
20
501 - 1,000
50,001 - 75,000
>1,000,000
Granular activated carbon
to control synthetic
organic chemicals
190
130
40
Highly variable influent water quality requires more operator
attention and tends to negate the package plant advantages of
low post and automation.
Other treatment technologies such as GAC, aeration,
reverse osmosis (RO), ion exchange (IEX), etc., are also
amenable to this "package plant" type of operation. These
units are basically several POE units in parallel or scaled-up
versions of POE treatment units that range from 10 gpm to
several hundred gpm operation for industries, apartment
buildings, restaurants, trailer parks, etc. Data on the cost and
performance of these units is sketchy. In order to address this
lack of information, over 400 manufacturers, suppliers and
regulators of POU and POE treatment technology have been
contacted. The data base utilizes dBase III + to address the
following: 1) what types of POU/POE units are being used, 2)
determine what contaminants are being removed by these
devices, 3) collect data showing the effectiveness of the
devices (especially field data), and 4) cost data. The different
types of treatment technology available in the 10 gpm and
ive range are shown in Figure 1. Table 4 provides a cost
akdown for each available technology. Similarly to the
ation package plants, these pre-assembled units are
igned for minimal operator attention and low cost.
Table 4. Package Plant Database Technology
Cost Breakdown
Technology
Minimum Cost
Maximum Cost
Average Cost
AER
2995.00
2995.00
2995.00
DESCALER
500.00
1200.00
800.00
FIL
40.45
1359.80
564.15
GAC
2500.00
7222.25
4861.12
RO
795.40
6125.00
3320.80
SOF
2400.00
2400.00
2400.00
UV
799.00
21950.00
7521.13
COMBINATION*
559.00
28080.00
6447.45
Any of the above technologies in series (e.g., FILVGAC/RO, etc.)
Table 5. POE Database Technology Cost
Breakdown
Technology
Minimum Cost
Maximum Cost
Average Cost
AER
1650.00
1650.00
1650.00
CL2
235.85
246.95
241.40
FIL
48.75
852.20
359.22
GAC
539.00
1329.85
939.71
IEX
415.00
1250.00
956.67
NEU
335.00
395.00
368.33
RO
79.00
6340.00
2996.02
SOF
425.00
1200.00
731.67
UV
317.00
637.00
486.00
COMBINATION"
379.00
1650.00
750.00
Any of the above technologies in series (e.g., FIL/GAC/RO, etc.)
POINT-OF-ENTRY TREATMENT UNITS
Whole-house POE treatment units are truly an alternative to
centralized treatment technology for individuals and small
systems. The technologies mentioned previously with the
exception of slow sand and diatomaceous earth filtration have
been widely adapted to treating water for the entire house
(POE) or single faucet (POU). Their off-the-shelf availability
make POU/POE an attractive alternative for individual
homeowners. Figure 2 displays the number and type of POE
units in the data base previously described. Table 5 provides
a range of cost for POE from the data base as well. Very
small systems may find POE devices less costly to buy and
easier to install and maintain than a custom-design or
package plant, especially when considering technology to
meet the new MCLs. For example, the Poison Spider Water
Company outside Casper, Wyoming serves 23 homes and
maintains about 15 miles of pipe delivering water from the
Platte River. Seasonal periods of very high turbidity (>2,200
NTU) prompted EPA Region VIII to require the installation of
treatment technology. The homeowners had the option of
building a 2.7 million dollar alum filtration plant or installing a
reverse osmosis unit in each home for the one-time
installation charge of 45 dollars and a monthly maintenance
fee of 16 dollars. The obvious choice were the RO units. The
units have been operating successfully for five years under a
maintenance agreement handled by a local vendor performing
quarterly monitoring and filter changes as needed.
-------
Figure 1. Breakdown of Model Types for Package Plants
Number of Units |
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Aeration
Descaler
Distillation
Filter
GAC
Neu.
Ozone
R.O.
Softener
U.V.
Combination
Figure 2. Breakdown of Model Types for POE Units
Number of Units
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Aeration
Cl2
Filter
GAC
Ion Exchange
Neu.
R.O.
Softener
U.V.
Combination
Federal Position on POU/POE
EPA views the use of POU and POE differently.*7) EPA is
willing to accept POE treatment as an available technology for
complying with drinking water regulations but not POU
devices. In the November 1985 Federal Register, the USEPA
proposed that POU and POE treatment not be considered
Best Technology Generally Available but be considered
acceptable technology to meet Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs), provided certain conditions were met.<8> This proposal
was made because of difficulties associated with monitoring
compliance and effective treatment performance comparal
to centralized treatment. In the 1987 Final Rule, POU and
POE treatment devices are not designated as BAT becaus
1) of the difficulty in monitoring the reliability of treatment
performance and controlling their performance in a manne
comparable to central treatment, 2) these devices are
generally not affordable by large metropolitan water systei
and 3) not all of the water is treated in the case of POU
devices which can lead to VOC exposure through indoor a
transport by showers or dermal contact.(8)
-------
30U treatment is not considered as an acceptable means
complying with the MCLs. These treatment devices are
eptable only for interim measures such as a condition for
aining a variance or exemption to avoid reasonable risks to
health before full compliance can be achieved. Because the
Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to establish necessary
conditions for use of treatment that will assure protection of
public health, systems that use POE treatment for compliance
must adhere to the following conditions: 1) the public water
system must be responsible for operating and maintaining the
treatment device, 2) the public water system must develop a
plan and obtain State approval for a monitoring plan before it
installs the POE devices, 3) the State must require adequate
certification of performance, field testing, and, review of each
type of device, 4) the design and applications of POE devices
must consider the tendency for increases in bacterial
concentrations in water treated with activated carbon and
some other technologies, and 5) every building connected to
a public water system must have a POE device installed,
maintained, and adequately monitored.*9)
State Positions
States have dealt with the problem in different ways:
• New York has established a legal entity called water
quality treatment districts which establish guidelines for
POU/POE as a formal regulated taxing entity. The state is
also considering a registration program.
•California and Iowa have regulations requiring product
testing and certification of treatment devices.
•Wisconsin requires review and approval of product
testing.
In addition, some states are looking at advertising
ilations.
ocal governments - through local regulation - can restrict,
license, and control, the sales, use, operation, etc., of
POU/POE devices. However, they are generally reluctant to
do so because of implementation costs. Public and private
water purveyors may also enact similar requirements. The
Water Quality Association, which represents the dealers and
manufacturers of POU/POE equipment, has instituted its own
set of advertising guidelines and maintains a council that
oversees the guidelines.
COST COMPARISONS
Table 6 describes cost estimates for central and POE
treatment alternatives. Assumptions include 275
gallons/day/house with over 95 percent contaminant removal.
The costs are for those central water supply systems with a
distribution system already in place. In each case, once more
than 50 POE are utilized, the cost becomes more favorable
towards central treatment. Having to install and maintain a
distribution system will shift the least cost alternative towards
POE use for a larger number of households. Established water
supply systems will already have a distribution system, thus
POE is not likely to be a viable alternative except for the
smallest utility or one incapable of financially building or
maintaining a new central treatment plant.
The scenario of 25, 50 or 100 homes or more requiring
treatment of their well water is one that state and local
governments will have to face increasingly over time to
combat the contamination of individual wells from leaking
underground storage tanks, municipal landfills, and agricultural
^omicals. Trailer parks and new subdivisions are other
:ies that may have to consider treatment to meet new
,s. It is these situations where decisions will have to be
le whether it is feasible to connect these homeowners to
central treatment, install central treatment and a distribution
Table 6. POE vs. Central System Cost
Central
Average
Initial
System Cost,
POE Cost,
Households
Contaminant Cone., iig/L
-------
expensive scenario. However, the subdivision costs are within
10 percent of the POE cost. Distribution system costs account
for about 70 percent of the total costs for the subdivision and
only 50 percent of the trailer park's cost. Should ductile iron
pipe be used instead of PVC, distribution costs would double,
thus making POE cost-effective for even more homes.
The scenario incorporating four 10 gpm units proved to be
very costly. The 25 percent reduction in pipe was not enough
to offset the extra treatment device costs.
ION EXCHANGE ANALYSIS
In order to remove nitrate below the 10 mg/L standard, ion
exchange can be used. Nitrate contamination of drinking water
supplies has been increasing over the years mainly because
of normal applications of agricultural fertilizers leaching into
groundwater contaminating not only rural wells, but wells on
the fringe of some very large cities. Ion exchange central
treatment cost include: daily regeneration, 25 cubic feet of
resin, 4.7 minute empty bed contact time, with 10 percent
financing for 20 years. Ion exchange POE assumptions
include: 2,000 dollars purchase price, auto-regeneration, 15
dollars/ month service contract, with 8 percent financing for 10
years. Table 8 displays the cost comparing ion exchange
central treatment versus POE. The four unit scenario is not
included since the costs were so prohibitive in the GAC
example.!'1)
Table 8. Ion Exchange Cost Scenarios for
Nitrate Removal
Residential
Area
1 Ion Exchange Unit
(40 gpm)
150 Ion Exchange
POE Units
T railer Park
$312/house/yr
$480
$3.24/1,000 gal
4.98
Subdivision
$5747house/yr
$480
$5.96/1,000 gal
4.98
Once again, the trailer park is least expensive for the
central treatment. However, because of the lower POE cost for
ion exchange versus GAC, the difference is not as large. The
subdivision scenario shows central treatment to be
approximately 20 percent more expensive than installing 150
POE units to remove nitrate.
SUMMARY
Given the analyses presented, decision-makers will have to
consider the intangible but potentially very expensive costs
such as (1) pipe installation, repair, rehabilitation, or
replacement, (2) long-term central treatment operation and
maintenance versus POE maintenance and monitoring when
evaluating treatment options and alternatives for small
systems and private homeowners. In either case, some type
of water quality district, water company, or maintenance
contract would have to be created to satisfy the federal
regulations. The POE water treatment industry is growing
rapidly. No longer is lack of availability or knowledge
regarding POE technology a drawback to its utilization. As
shown in many cases, POE technology can be a cost effective
solution for small systems and individual homeowners,
eliminating many of the problems small systems face when
attempting to finance and operate central treatment facilities.
The assurance of long-term maintenance and monitoring o
POE technology remains as the main problem to be dealt
with. Currently, several states are enacting legislation
requiring certification of treatment units, water quality
certification for home loans, and tougher truth-in-advertisini
requirements for water treatment devices. There are also
several states making it easier to get funds for treatment
technology installation and upgrade and the creation of wal
quality districts to address the problems of small systems i
rural homeowners.
Documentation of the increasing contamination of the
nation's groundwater supplies grows almost daily. Small
systems and private homeowners have been and will contii
to be the most vulnerable and the least capable of meeting
current and future drinking water regulations. The "little gu'
does have long-term cost competitive options and alternati'
available in terms of package plants and POE drinking wat(
treatment technology to reduce the risk to drinking
contaminated water. Central treatment can no longer be
thought of as the only solution or POE thought of as
temporary or for aesthetics only.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinki
Water, The National Public Water System Program, R
1988 Compliance Report, March, 1990.
2. Logsdon, Gary S., Sorg, Thomas J., and Clark, Robert
Cost and Capability of Technologies For Small Systen
Proceedings 4th Annual ASDWA Conference, Tucson,
Arizona, February 20-23, 1989.
3. Clark, Robert M., Small Water Systems: Role of
Technology, Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. EE1, February, 1980, pp
19-35.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinki
Water, Technologies For Upgrading Existing or
Designing New Drinking Water Treatment Facilities,
Center for Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/4-89/023, March, 1990.
5. Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Drinking
Water Treatment For Small Water Treatment Facilities,
Center for Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA/625/5-90/025, April, 1990.
6. Loveland, David G. and Reichheld, Beth, Safety on Ta/:
Citizens Drinking Water Handbook, Washington, DC:
League of Women Voters Education Fund, 1987.
7. Panel Discussion: Home Water Treatment: Is It Feasibi
Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol.
78, No. 10, October, 1987, pp. 20-31.
8. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Volatile
Synthetic Organic Chemicals, Federal Register, Vol. 51
No. 219, 1985, pp. 46880-46932.
9. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Synthetk
Organic Chemicals; Monitoring For Unregulated
Contaminants, Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130, 198^
pp. 25690-25717.
10. HDR, Standardized Cost For Water Distribution Systen
Draft, Drinking Water Research Division, Cincinnati, Ol-
May, 1990.
11. Gumerman, Robert C; Culp, Russell L., and Hansen,
Sigurd P., Estimating Water Treatment Costs, EPA-60C
79-162 a,b,c,d, Drinking Water Research Division,
Cincinnati, Ohio, August, 1979.
-------
r
REQUEST FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MATERIAL
PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS
Phosphorus Removal (Sept. 1987) 625/1-87/001 ~
Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (Oct. 1980) 625/1-80/012 ~
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (Oct. 1981) 625/1-81/013 ~
Supplement for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (Oct. 1984) 625/1-81/013a ~
Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges (Sept. 1987) 625/1-87/014 ~
Land Application of Municipal Sludge (Oct. 1983) 625/1-83/016 ~
Electrostatic Precipitator Operation and Maintenance (Sept. 1985) 625/1-85/017 ~
Odor and Corrosion Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems and Treatment Plants (Oct. 1985) 625/1-85/018 ~
Fabric Filter Operation and Maintenance (June 1986) 625/1-86/020 ~
Municipal Wastewater Disinfection (Oct. 1986) 625/1-86/021 ~
Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment (Oct. 1988) 625/1-88/022 ~
Fine Pore Aeration Systems (Oct. 1989) 625/1-89/0?:) ~
TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORTS
Particulate Control by Fabric Filtration on Coal-Fired Industrial Boilers 625/2-79/021 ~
Bahco Flue Gas Desulfurization and Particulate Removal System 625/2-79/022 ~
First Progress Report: Physical Coal Cleaning Demonstration at Homer City, PA 625/2-79/023 ~
Acoustic Monitoring to Determine the Integrity of Hazardous Waste Dams 625/2-79/024 ~
Disposal of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastes: Shawnee Field Evaluation 625/2-80/028 ~
Adipic Acid-Enhanced Lime/Limestone Test Results at the EPA Alkali Scrubbing Test Facility 625/2-82/029 ~
Benefits of Microprocessor Control of Curing Ovens for Solvent Based Coatings 625/2-84/031 ~
SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Permitting Hazardous Waste Incinerators 625/4-87/017 ~
eting Hazardous Waste Requirements for Metal Finishers 625/4-87/018 ~
nsport and Fate of Contaminants in the Subsurface 625/4-89/019 ~
rective Actions - Technologies and Applications 625/4-89/020 ~
Solvent Waste Reduction Alternatives 625/4-89/021 ~
Requirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction and Closure 625/4-89/022 ~
Technologies for Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drinking Water Treatment Facilities 625/4-89/023 ~
Risk Assessment, Management and Communication of Drinking Water Contamination 625/4-89/024 ~
BROCHURES
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Reducing Water Pollution Control Costs - Electroplating 625/5-85/016 ~
Nitrogen Oxide Control for Stationary Combustion Sources 625/5-86/020 ~
Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives: Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communities 625/5-90/025 ~
HANDBOOKS
Septage Treatment and Disposal (Oct. 1984) 625/6-84/009 ~
Permit Writers Guide to Test Burn Data: Hazardous Waste Incineration (Sept. 1986) 625/6-86/012 ~
Ground Water (March 1987) 625/6-87/016 ~
Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Area (Sept. 1987) 625/6-87/017 ~
Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities (Dec. 1988) 625/6-88/018 ~
Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and Reporting Trial Burn Results (Jan. 1989) 625/6-89/019 ~
Retrofitting POTWs (July 1989) 625/6-89/020 ~
Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance (June 1989) 625/6-89/021 ~
Stabilization/Solidification of CERCLA and RCRA Wastes (July 1989) 625/6-89/022 ~
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Procedures for Hazardous Waste Incineration (Jan. 1990) 625/6-89/023 ~
Operation and Maintenance of Hospital Waste Incinerators (January 1990) 625/6-89/024 ~
Assessing the Geochemical Fate of Deep-Well Injected Hazardous Waste (June 1990)
Reference Guide 625/6-89/025a ~
Summaries of Recent Research 625/6-89/025b ~
IMDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL MANUAL
iste Minimization Opportunity Assessment (July 1988) 625/7-88/003 ~
-------
SUMMARY REPORTS
Sulfur Oxides Control Technology Series: FGD Dual Alkali Process 625/8-80/004
Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry Series: Ion Exchange 625/8-81/007
Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry Series: In-Plant Changes 625/8-82/008
Sulfur Oxides Control Technology Series: FGD Spray Dryer Process 625/8-82/009
Fine Pore (Fine Bubble) Aeration Systems 625/8-85/010
Technology Assessment of Sequencing Batch Reactors 625/8-86/011
Causes and Control of Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming 625/8-87/012
Biomonitoring to Achieve Control of Toxic Effluents 625/8-87/013
Biomonitoring for Control of Toxic Effluent Discharges to the Marine Environment 625/8-89/015
In-Vessel Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludge 625/8-89/016
EXECUTIVE BRIEFINGS
Injection Well Mechanical Integrity 625/9-89/007
Experiences in Incineration Applicable to Superfund Site Remediation 625/9-88/008
Volumetric Tank Testing: An Overview 625/9-89/009
Guides to Pollution Prevention
• The Pesticide Formulating Industry 625/7-90/004
• The Paint Manufacturing Industry 625/7-90/005
• The Fabricated metal Industry 625/7-90/006
• The Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry 625/7-90/007
• The Commercial Printing Industry 625/7-90/006
• Selected Hospital Waste Streams 625/7-90/00S
• Research and Educational Institutions 625/7-90/01C
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY PUBLICATIONS
The Electroplating Industry 625/10-85/001
Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Sludge 625/10-84/002
Fugitive VOC Emissions in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry 625/10-84/004
Control of Pathogens in Municipal Wastewater Sludge 625/10-89/Q0C
• Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion of Municipal Wastewater Sludge 625/10-90/00'/
EXPERT SYSTEM
• POTW Expert 625/11-90/001
OTHER
• ORD BBS User's Manual 600/M-90/01J
If you are not on the mailing list for the Technology Transfer Newsletter, do you want to be added?
Yes ~ No
Name
Company
Street
City/State/Zip Code
Please check the information from the
State/Local Emerg. Mgt. Agency B1 Q
State/Local Public Hlth. Agency B4 ~
Regional Government B7 ~
USEPA B10D
Nonprofit Research B13Q
Public Interest/Citizen's Group 816 ~
Consulting Firm/Consultant .. B19 ~
Medical profession B22 ~
American Indian/Tribal Nation B25 ~
Other B29 ~
list below that best characterizes
State/Local Environmental Agency
State/Local Air Pollution Agency . .
State Government
Other federal Government
Professional organization
Industry
Environmental Planner
Private Citizen
Union/Labor Group
your interests/affiliation:
B2 O Local Government 83
B5 ~ Local Fire Dept B6
B8 ~ Media/Press B9
B11 ~ Site Demo Contract .... B12
B14 ~ Trade Association B15
B17 ~ College/University B18
B20 Q Legal Profession B21
B23 ~ Student B24
B27 ~ Library B28
• Listed for first time.
Forward to: CERI, Technology Transfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 19963, Cincinnati, OH 45219-096;
-------
The T&E Facility: Diverse Opportunities for Environmental Studies
The ORD Test & Evaluation (T&E) Facility provides the
SEPA's Cincinnati-based laboratories the capability to
jdy the treatment of municipal and industrial pollutants. It
50 permits EPA to work with private and public clients in
s development of practical and innovative solutions to
ivironmental problems of today and tomorrow.
Opened in the spring of 1979 by the USEPA's Andrew
. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center in
ncinnati, the T&E is designed to accommodate a
langeable variety of bench- and pilot-scale studies. Such
ixibility makes the facility functionally viable far into the
ture.
The facility is located on the grounds of Cincinnati's Mill
eek Sewage Treatment Plant on land provided by the
y at no cost to EPA for 20 years. Under an agreement
th the city and the Hamilton County Commissioners, the
kE draws wastewater and sludges from the Mill Creek
ant for research purposes.
As a result of the T&E being permitted by the State of
lio and the USEPA as a RCRA Treatment, Storage, and
sposal Facility (TSDF), the facility is in a unique position
conduct research studies on a variety of hazardous
istes. With current state and federal permits and with
irmits which are anticipated to be granted, the T&E
icility is in an excellent position to conduct research
/olving the generation, storage, and treatment of
izardous wastes.
This capability supports the various research programs
ORD's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory and also
ables the T&E to generate research data which support
3 missions of EPA regional and headquarters programs,
though the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
anages the facility and is its primary user, the T&E's
pabilities are available to public and private sector
ents who may wish to fund studies or to participate in
9as of research in which the T&E is uniquely qualified
d permitted to work.
»e T&E Research Opportunity
While the research activities of the USEPA have
iditionally been undertaken independently of others in
3 environmental protection community, previous
litations on cooperative research efforts have been
adified for the benefit of both private and other public
search interests, in general. As a result, the diverse
search capabilities of the T&E Facility are now available
state and local governments, business and industry,
hools and colleges through cooperative research and
velopment agreements with EPA. The authority
lanates from the Federal Technology Transfer Act of
86 (Public Law 99- 502). In addition, an arrangement
ferred to as a "Third Party Contract" may be made with
3 contract operator of the T&E whereby other public, as
>11 as private sector, groups may conduct technology
asibility and other studies which are within the research
ncern of the USEPA.
With either approach, the most pressing problems of
tomorrow can be addressed today.
The T&E Operation and Features
A combination of USEPA and contract employees
operates the facility, with a working core of experienced
USEPA engineers and technicians; and contract engineers,
operators, and technicians. Contracted full-time engineers,
as well as a sub-contracted researchers and engineers are
used as principal investigators for the T&E studies.
Designed and built in 1978-79 at a cost of $2.6 million,
the T&E has approximately 24,000 square feet in a 30 feet
tall "high bay" experimental area. An additional 9,000
square feet are occupied by office space, chemical
storage, and laboratories. Several large doors facilitate the
movement of trucks and large equipment, including trailer-
mounted pilot plants, in and out of the building, thus
allowing the installation and removal of experimental
equipment and units.
Other physical features include:
• wastewater flows to each of 16 experimental areas in
the high bay;
• two five-ton bridge cranes for ease of moving
equipment in and out;
• a machine shop for building or repairing experimental
apparatus;
• a greenhouse for agricultural studies of pollutant
application to soils;
• hazardous waste tank storage (10,000 gal) and drum
storage (20-55 gal drums) areas, and a hazardous waste
surrogate mixing area;
• automatic hazardous waste tank spill alarm and facility
shut-down system;
• readily available high and low pressure air, pure oxygen,
and electric power ducts (480V, 240V, 120V) at each of
the 16 experimental bays.
In addition to municipal wastewater and hazardous
waste treatment research, the facility provides an excellent
location for basic and anticipatory research in the control of
air pollution, toxic substances, industrial-municipal
pollution, and landfill waste flow management. Because of
T&E's flexible services, it easily adapts to the testing of
innovative treatment concepts, estimating the limits of
process capabilities and determining scale-up factors for
full-scale design, and assessing the fate of conventional
and hazardous substances in an industrial or municipal
wastewater treatment setting.
If you are interested in utilizing the ORD T&E Facility,
address your inquiries to;
Francis L. Evans III
Chief, T&E Facility
USEPA
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513-684-2621)
-------
Technology Transfer Meetings
Meeting
Title
Date(s)
Location
Contact
Phone No
Conference
Watershed Planning and Management for
the Conlrol ol Nonpoinl Source Pollution
January 29-31, 1991
New Orleans, LA
Denlse Gaffnoy
(registration)
Dan Murray
(content)
617-641-5317
513-569-7522
FTS 684-7522
Workshop
Air Emissions from Waste management
Facilities
October 23, 1990
November 13,1990
December 11,1990
January 15, 1991
January 22, 1991
February 12, 1991
February 26, 1991
March 26, 1991
Chicago, IL
Atlanta, GA
Dallas, TX
Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
Kansas City, MO
Philadelphia, PA
Denver, CO
Peer Consultants
(registration)
Justice Manning
(content)
513-252-1222
513-569-7349
FTS 664-7349
*11.S. Government Printing Office: I 9W-/48-1 59/20444
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty loir Private Use $300
United States Center for Environmental Research
Environmental Protection Information
Agency Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA/600/M-90Q15
------- |