Vol. 1 No. 1
March 1971
TECHNOLOG
TRANSFER
The Bridge Between Research and Use
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE
THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NEWSLETTER
This is the first issue of the Technology Transfer Newsletter.
The early issues of the Newsletter are now planned for internal
EPA circulation to familiarize appropriate personnel with the
Technology Transfer Program. Later issues will be widely circu-
lated outside of the EPA organization. The plan at this time is
to feature one aspect of advanced technology per issue to have
maximum impact. Additional features, such as summarized fact
sheets, and brief highlights of current water pollution control
technology will be added. Input and suggestions from all Regions
are encouraged.
-------
WHAT IS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER?
In the past, there has been a gap between the development and technical
demonstration of our agency's research, development and demonstration
results, and their actual acceptance and implementation. The goal of
Technology Transfer is to bridge this gap. The initial effort will be
to transfer advances in technology demonstrated by successful research
demonstration projects into the current generation df waste treatment
facilities. Our first goal will be to have the maximum impact upon
the President's multi-billion dollar program for construction of
treatment facilities, including combined sewage, in order to meet pre-
sent1 Water Quality Standards by 1976.
Detailed plans are being formulated for the technology transfer program.
Following is a summary of some of our tentative plans:
1. A series of technical seminar/workshops will be conducted
which will be orientated toward municipal, State, and private consulting
engineers emphasizing the practical application of new technology, i.e.,
design criteria and parameters, capital and operating costs, results of
research demonstrations, experience, and problems. One seminar is
tentatively planned for each region in 1971.
2. A series of administrative seminar/workshops will be held which
will be oriented toward administrative decision-makers in the water
pollution control field (e.g., directors of public works, heads of
municipal and State water pollution control agencies, city council
members, etc.). These workshops will be aimed at convincing responsible
administrators that new technology is available for full scale
application and can be effectively and efficiently used to meet water
quality standards. Both the technical and administrative seminar/workshops
will be slanted toward the specific technology needs of each region.
3. Design manuals on suspended solids removal, activated carbon .
adsorption, phosphorus removal, and upgrading of secondary treatment
will be completed in 1971 and Incorporated into seminar/workshops.
4. Technical bulletins will be issued to supplement the Federal
Design Guidelines published in October 1970. Successful Research and
Development demonstration grant projects, located throughout the
country, will be exploited to show actual implementation of advanced
technology and transfer the experience gained at these projects.
5. A campaign will be initiated to reach conservation groups and
the general public.
-------
The Technology Transfer Program planning and implementation will be
basically administered by a Headquarters Working Committee, and
Regional Working Canmittees, comprised of representatives from R&D,
Facilities Construction and Operations, Manpower Training, and
Public Affairs. The Regional Working Committees will insure that
the program will meet their specific regional needs. In addition, an
advisory board has been appointed to review the program and assist in
the overall direction.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACTION GROUPS
The technology transfer action groups have been selected and members are
available for obtaining information on the program. The canmittees are
as follows:
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ADVISORY BOARD
Robert E. Crowe - (Exec. Sec.), HQ WQO
John M. Rademacher, Interim Regional Coordinator, Region VII
Francis Mayo, Interim Regional Coordinator, Region V
Paul DeFalco, Interim Regional Coordinator, Region IX
Frank Middleton, Dir., Advanced Waste Treatment Research Lab.
Thomas J. Charlton, HQ WQO
Ralph Palange, HQ WQO, Facilities Const. & Oprs.
HEADQUARTERS WORKING COMMITTEE
Robert Madancy - (Chairman), Research and Development
Denis Lussier - Facilities Const. & Opers.
Kenneth Hay - Manpower Training
Arthur Daitch - Public Affairs
Patrick Tobin - Research and Development
REGIONAL WORKING COMMITTEES
Middle Atlantic
Warren L. Carter - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Ray Thacker - Research and Development
Charles F. Kauffman - Manpower Training
James D. Bowyer - Public Affairs
Great Lakes
Clarence Laskowski - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Clifford Risley - Research and Development
Chester Shura - Manpower Training
Frank Corrado - Public Affairs
Pacific Northwest
John E. Osborn - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
John Barich - Research and Development
Herbert Simison, Public Affairs
Lyman Neilson - Manpower Training
-------
Ohio Basin
Gilbert Gigliotti - (Chairman), Public Affairs
Robert L. Feder - Research and Development
William H. Hormberg - Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Harold Jeter - Manpower Training
Keith 0. Schwab - Tech. Programs
Missouri Basin
John R. Burgeson - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Otmar 0. Olson - Research and Development
John L. Coakley - Manpower Training
Randall S. Jessee - Public Affairs
Southeast
Asa G. Foster - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Edmond Lomasney - Research and Development
Robert Roth - Manpower Training
Charles Pou - Public Affairs
South Central
George Putnicki - (Chairman), Research and Development
Dick Smith - Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Arthur Gurley - Manpower Training
Eddie Lee - Public Affairs
Pacific Southwest
Richard O'Connell - (Chairman)
Vern W. Tenney
Irving M. Terrich
Louis W. Jefferson
Northeast
Lester Sutton - (Chairman), Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Edgar L. Bernard., Manpower Training
Hend Gorchev - Research and Development
Guy St. Andre - Facilities Const. & Oprs.
Kenneth Crotty, Public Affairs
-------
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Phosphorus is considered by many investigators to be the key nutrient
in breaking the eutrophication cycle, however, conventional secondary
plants are not efficient in phosphorus removal. Phosphorus enters a
plant in the highest oxidized form. But, no common biological systems
reduce phosphorus; therefore, it cannot be liberated in a gaseous form
as nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur are.
If we are to reliably remove phosphorus from wastewaters on a sustained
basis, we must choose chemical or chemical-biological methods. Strict
chemical methods precipitate phosphorus either in the primary settler
or in a tertiary clarifier. The chemical-biological method employs
direct chemical dosing to the aerator of an activated sludge plant.
The chenically-bound precipitated phosphorus is removed with the sludge
and is not resolubilized during sludge disposal unless the pH is
substantially lowered. Effluent phosphorus concentrations of 1-2 mg/1
as P can be regularly achieved if the precipitation is accomplished in
the primary or secondary portions of the plant. Tertiary lime clari-
fication followed by filtration can lower the concentration to less
than 0.5 mg/1.
Phosphorus can be removed by chemical treatment of raw sewage, mineral
addition to the aerator in the activated sludge process, and tertiary
clarification. Careful study of each design problem is required to
determine treatment location arid choice of chemicals. Iron coagulants,
aluminum coagulants, and lime are commonly utilized. Iron coagulants
are ferrous chloride, commercial or waste pickle liquor, and ferric
chloride. Aluminum is added in the form of alum or sodium aluminate.
Lime treatment involves use of single-stage or two-stage systems.
Factors affecting choice of chemicals are influent phosphorus level,
effluent discharge standard, wastewater characteristics such as
alkalinity, plant size, chemical costs including transportation, sludge
handling facilities, ultimate sludge disposal alternatives, and other
processes utilized.
Phosphorus can be removed from raw sewage by the addition of iron,
lime, and polymers. Iron salts such as ferrous chloride are used at
dosages from 1 to 2.5 mg of iron per mg of soluble phosphate.
Chemical costs are about 1.5
-------
R&D studies on phosphorus removal in the primary are listed below:
Flow
mgd
Chemical
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Benton Harbor, Mich.
Mentor, Ohio
Lake Odessa, Mich.
Grayling, Mich.
Texas City, Texas
110 Pickle Liquor
^5 Iron
10 Iron
1 Iron
1 Iron
1 Iron
k Pickle Liquor
By mineral addition to the aerator, phosphorus concentration in
activated sludge process influent can be reduced from 10 to 2 mg/1
or less by adding 1 to 2 parts of aluminum for each part of phosphorus.
Chemical costs are about 3
-------
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
PARTIAL LIST OF FULL-SCALE PLANTS
Flow
Treatment in Primary
mgd
Chemical
Status
Detroit, Michigan
600
Iron
Design
Rochester, New York
100
Lime
Const.
Bay City, Michigan
12
Iron
Const.
Rocky River, Ohio
10
Iron
Bids Taken
Cleveland, Ohio
10
Iron
Design
Owosso, Michigan
6
Lime
Design
Painesville, Ohio
5
Iron
Design
Hatfield Township, Pa.
5
Lime
Design
Holland, Michigan
4
Lime
Const.
Wyoming, Michigan
14 ¦
Iron
Design
Mineral Addition to Aerator
Chicago, Illinois
30
Iron
Design
Seattle, Washington
20
Iron
& Alum
Design
Pomona, California*
2
Alum
& Sod.
Al.
Completed
Xenia, Ohio*
1
Alum
Completed
Manassas, Virginia*
1
Alum
& Sod.
Al.
Completed
Texas City, Texas*
1
Iron
& Alum
Completed
Treatment of Secondary Effluent
South Lake Tahoe, Calif. 7-5
Piscataway, Maryland 5
Colorado Springs, Colo. 2
Santee, California 2
El Lago, Texas 0.5
Lubbock, Texas 2
Hobbs, New Mexico 5
Hatfield Township, Pa. 5
Piscataway, Maryland 25
Lime
Lime
Lime
Iron & Alum
On-Stream
Const.
Const.
On-Stream
* Short term R&D studies
-------
For additional Information on the Technology Transfer Program or for
additional details on the feature subject write:
Technology Transfer
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
Washington, D. C. 202*12
------- |