TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER The Bridge Between Research and Use U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The Impact of Research, Development and Demonstration The feature article of this issue deals with the use of new technology in municipal wastewater treatment. The article indicates a dramatic increase in the use of new technology within the past two years. A great deal of the increase is due directly or indirectly to the EPA Technology Transfer effort. Most of the technology involved in the Technology Transfer Program has evolved from the research, development and demonstra- tion programs of the EPA Office of Research and Monitoring headed by Dr. Stanley M. Greenfield. The support and direction by Dr. Greenfield have been the key factors in the success of the Technology Transfer effort and have insured that the end products of the EPA research and demonstration programs are trans- mitted to potential users in a timely and effective manner. Several months ago the Technology Transfer Program was redirected by Dr. Greenfield, from a municipal wastewater treatment orientation to a more compre- hensive approach to environmental pollution control including air, water, and solid wastes. The results of this re-orientation are now starting to become apparent, particularly in the industrial activities such as the recent seminars. First Technical Capsule Report Published The first in a continuing series of Technical Capsule Reports has been completed and is now available. Purpose of these documents is to provide the technical manager of a manufacturing plant with the essential information resulting from EPA Industrial Demonstra- tion Projects. The Capsule Reports are so structured that the key technical and economic information is briefly, yet accurately, presented and can be readily understood in one reading. "Recycling Zinc in Viscose Rayon Plants by Two- State Precipitation" is the title of the first Technical Capsule Report. Results of an EPA Demonstration Grant with the American Enka Company are presented and discussed. In this grant, a process for precipitating a dense sludge of high zinc assay was proven. The zinc in the sludge was recovered and recycled to the rayon manufacturing plant with no ill effects on the rayon Dr. Stanley M. Greenfield, Assistant Administrator for Research and Monitoring, speaking at a Technology Transfer Design Seminar. ------- John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Region VIII, addressing the general session at Denver municipal design seminar. yarn. Not only can this process have immediate applica- tion in other viscose rayon manufacturing plants, but it could be applied to any waste stream containing soluble zinc in a form which can be precipitated by lime or caustic addition. A copy of this Technical Capsule Report can be obtained by filling out the form in the back of this publication and forwarding it to your local Technology Transfer Committee Chairman. Municipal Design Seminars The Technology Transfer design seminar program spon- sored four seminars since October 1972, bringing the total number of municipal design seminars conducted since the program was initiated to 19. The most recent seminars presented were in Denver, Colorado, October 31, November 1-2; Anaheim, California, November 13-14; Chicago, Illinois, November 28-30; and Boston, Mass., December 5-6. The Denver Seminar included sessions on physical- chemical treatment, upgrading existing wastewater treat- ment facilities, and phosphorus removal. Mr. John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Region VIII, gave the opening welcome to the consulting engineers and regula- tory personnel in attendance. The Anaheim Seminar covered the technical consider- ations for sludge handling and disposal. This was the initial Technology Transfer seminar in this area and was well-received. A highlight of the seminar was the presentations on the Sludge Handling and Disposal research program of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts by Mr. Walter E. Garrison, Assistant Chief Engineer and Assistant General Manager, and Dr. Ray- mond F. Rodgrique, Project Engineer. John R. Harrison of Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc. presenting a portion of the technical session in Anaheim. Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator, Region V, at Chicago design seminar. wmmAL TR ------- John M. Smith during Upgrading session in Chicago seminar. Technical sessions on upgrading existing wastewater treatment facilities, nitrogen control, and phosphorus removal were included in the Chicago Seminar. The general session covered aspects of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Mr. Albert C. Printz, Director, Office of Permit Programs, EPA, Washington, D.C., made this presentation to the 120-plus consulting engineers and regulatory personnel in attendance from the Great Lakes area. Mr. Charles Swanson, Office of Air and Water Programs, EPA, Washington, D.C., discussed Technical Bulletins and Design Guidelines in light of the new legislation. Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator, Region V, spoke on "New Thrusts in Great Lakes Water Pollution Control." The Boston Seminar also covered sludge handling and disposal. Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Deputy Regional Admin- istrator, Region I, welcomed the attendees to the seminar. Feature presentations at the above design seminars were given by Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, Calif.; Black, Crow & £idsness, Inc., Wilmington, Del., Hazen and Sawyer Engineers, New York, N.Y.; Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Boston, Mass.; CH2M/Hill, Reston, Va.; and Shimek, Roming, Jacobs & Finklea, Dallas, Texas. Assistance from the EPA National Environmental Research Center in Cincinnati, Ohio was provided by Jesse Cohen, Ed Barth, Joseph Farrell, John Smith, James Smith, and Irwin Kugelman. WWEMA Conference and Exposition Technology Transfer has been invited to participate on the program and provide an exhibit for the Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association (WWEMA) "Conference and Exposition on Industrial Water and Pollution" to be held in Chicago, Illinois, March 14-16, 1973. Both the presentation and exhibit will highlight the status and future activities of Tech- nology Transfer's industrial program. The exhibit will also be the focal point for the distribution of Technical Capsule Reports and technical handouts from the industrial seminar series. The WWEMA Conference is entirely industrially oriented and will feature an extensive technical program which includes case histories, roundtable discussions, and presentations on new treatment equipment as well as the equipment exposition. For additional informa- tion, contact Robert C. Hughes, WWEMA, 744 Broad Street, Newark, N.J. 07102. Southern Textile Exposition The 27th Southern Textile Exposition (held in Green- ville, S.C., October 16-20, 1972) was attended by 30,000 executives, engineers, scientists, and buyers connected with the textile industry throughout the Asa B. Foster, Jr., EPA Region IV. world. EPA participation in this exposition—the largest in the textile industry—included the Technology Trans- fer exhibit previously used at the WPCF annual confer- ence in Atlanta. Asa B. Foster, Jr., Categorical Programs Chief, Region IV, coordinated the entire EPA effort at the Southern Textile Exposition. Infiltration-Inflow Seminars Technology Transfer is in the final planning stages of developing a seminar series covering the subject of excessive infiltration/inflow in sewer systems. The semi- nar series is in answer to a direct request from the Office of Water Programs to impact the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Act states that the Administrator shall not approve any grants after July 1, 1973, for treatment works unless the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the Administrator that each sewer system discharging into such treatment works is not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow. Seminars will be held in each region and will clarify the regulations and guidelines as related to excessive infiltration/inflow and go into survey and analysis procedures and infiltration control techniques. ------- Use of New Technology in Municipal Wastewater Treatment Until recently, the accepted methods of municipal wastewater treatment were primary or secondary treat- ment basically consisting of sedimentation and/or bio- logical treatment. Biological processes usually consisted of trickling filtration and activated sludge or the various modifications of the activated sludge process, such as contact stabilization, extended aeration, and step aera- tion. Oxidation ponds or lagoons also were and are widely used, particularly in the midwestern areas of the United States. A summary of municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the United States in 1968, taken from the Federal Water Quality Administration's Munici- pal Inventory, is shown in the accompanying table. It should be noted that only ten "tertiary" or advanced wastewater treatment facilities were included in the inventory just four years ago. During the past two years, however, the adoption of new or advanced municipal wastewater treatment tech- nology has accelerated at a dramatic rate. It is difficult to precisely determine the causes for the rapidly spreading acceptance of new technology. While a major amount of new treatment designs may be attributed directly or indirectly to the efforts of the Technology Transfer Program, it is undoubtedly true that other factors have also played a role. These include more stringent water quality standards and requirements, increased social awareness of environmental problems, institutional changes in State and municipal regulatory agencies and the efforts of professional engineering organizations. Some of the major advanced wastewater treatment processes and techniques now rapidly finding their way into municipal treatment plant designs are presented and briefly discussed below. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems 1968 November 1972 Treatment System Number of Plants Estimated Population Served Number of Plants Estimated Population Served Primary Treatment Intermediate Treatment Secondary Treatment Trickling Filters Activated Sludge Oxidation Ponds Tertiary Treatment 2,384 75 3,786 2,110 3,457 10 36,947,000 5,858,000 28,419,000 41,264,000 6,123,000 325,000 2,725 64 3,471 2,991 4,488 445 46,972,000 5,864,000 28,512,000 47,100,000 7,334,000 2,800,000 Total 11,822 118,936,000 14,184 138,582,000 Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge Oxygen ProCBSS Flow Sheet Raw Or Sattlad Waata Watar ~ Historically, the oxygen required in the activated sludge treatment process has been provided by the introduction of atmospheric air into the treatment system. Oxygen gas, however, possesses certain characteristics which can make its use, in lieu of atmospheric air, advantageous. One of these is the high partial pressure of pure oxygen—approximately 4.7 times that of oxygen in air. This allows for the maintenance of a greater reservoir of dissolved oxygen in that portion of the treatment syste)n needing it. The basic concept of using pure oxygen rather than air in the activated sludge process originated more than twenty years ago. It has been just recently, however, that oxygen aeration has become economically feasible due to technological advances in oxygen production and gas contacting equipment. In 1968, an EPA funded research project at Batavia, New York, conducted by the Linde Division of Union Carbide Corporation, success- fully demonstrated the use of pure oxygen in a full-scale application. Since that time additional research pilot and full-scale operation have confirmed that the successful use of pure oxygen represents a major advance in wastewater treatment technology. A summary of some of the advantages of high purity oxygen treatment systems includes: 1. Highly mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations 2. Low detention periods 3. Low quantities of excess biological sludge ------- 4. Improved sludge settling characteristics 5. Reduced power requirements 6. High dissolved oxygen levels in all stages 7. Low waste gas volume Oxygen aeration is equally applicable to the up- grading of existing overloaded secondary treatment facilities as it is to new plant design and construction. Several applications include: 1. Upgrading of existing overloaded activated sludge plants by conversion from air aeration to oxygen aeration. 2. Upgrading of existing trickling filter plants by adding oxygen aeration as a second stage biological step in the treatment system. 3. New plant construction, both with and without primary sedimentation. The use of high purity oxygen has spread, and continues to spread, very rapidly throughout the coun- try. Additional companies are entering the field with proprietary equipment and variations of the basic oxygen process. Currently, there are approximately 40 treatment plants with a total design capacity of approxi- mately 1,500 mgd under design, construction or operation. A partial listing of wastewater treatment facilities that are now under design, construction, or operation utilizing oxygen aeration follows: Location Design Flow (MGD) Detroit, Michigan 300 Middlesex County, N. J. 120 East Bay MUD, Calif. 120 Louisville, Ky. 105 Miami, Fla. 55 Hollywood, Fla. 36 Danville, Va. 24 Euclid, Ohio 22 Newtown Creek, N.Y.C. 20 Decatur, III. 18 Fayetteville, N. C. 16 Salem, Oregon 16 New Rochelle, N. Y. 14 Fairfax County, Va. 12 Jacksonville, Fla. 10 Speedway, Ind. 10 Morganton, N. C. 8 Deer Park, Texas 6 Baltimore, Md. 5 Phosphorus Removal The technology for phosphorus removal from waste- water is now well established and spreading rapidly in those areas of the country faced with eutrophication problems. The number of municipalities that are either currently removing phosphorus, or planning removal in the near future, is now so lengthy and growing so rapidly that it is impractical to attempt to list them. There are, however, approximately 150 treatment facilities that are in these categories at the present time with the vast majority located in the Great Lakes area. Chemicals For Phosphorus Removal Ferric Chloride Ferric Sulfate Ferrous Chloride Ferrous Sulfate Alum Sodium Aluminate Steel Mill Pickling Liquor Lime FeCI:) Fe2(S04)3 FeCI2 FeS04 AI2(SOJ3 NaAI02 FeCL + FeSO, Ca(OH)2 Effective phosphorus removal is accomplished pri- marily by chemical precipitation. Phosphorus forms insoluble precipitates with a number of chemicals; however lime, salts of iron and salts of aluminum are the chemicals that are currently economically feasible for use. The precipitation of phosphorus must be followed by liquid solids separation. Fortunately, this can be accomplished relatively simply and economically in existing conventional biological treatment plants. A major side benefit to chemical precipitation and removal of phosphorus is the coagulation and removal of additional organic solids with a resultant increase in the BOD and suspended solids removal efficiency of the treatment plant. Total phosphorus in the effluent can now typically be reduced to 1 mg/1 or less. One of the prime factors in the rapid acceptance of phosphorus removal by chemical precipitation is the relatively low initial capital cost and the ease of equipment installa- tion. Basic equipment required consists primarily of chemical storage tanks, polymer storage tanks (where needed) and chemical pump and feed lines. Chemical precipitation for phosphorus removal is now becoming so widely accepted and used that it will soon be considered as part of the "conventional" state-of-the-art and no longer considered as a type of advanced wastewater treatment. Nitrogen Removal Nitrogen is being identified as the controlling nutrient in eutrophication in some areas of the country. The removal of nitrogen is therefore becoming an increas- ingly important area of wastewater treatment tech- nology. There are currently four principal methods of nitrogen removal: Biological Oenitrification: A three-stage biological sys- tem has been developed under the EPA research program ------- Modifications of The Donitrification Process I. Open Tank Donitrification (Activated Sludge Type Culture) II. Column Denitrification (Fine Media) III. Column Denitrification (Coarse Media) to remove nitrogen. The first stage is a high rate, short aeration time (about 2 hours), biological reactor for organic carbon oxidation, and hydrolysis of organic nitrogen to ammonia. The second stage provides about 3 hours of detention and achieves essentially complete nitrification. The third stage is for denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas. An organic source must be added to the third stage to force the denitrification reaction to take place. Methanol has thus far been found to be the most effective source since it is relatively inexpensive, reacts rapidly, and provides only a minimum of energy for growth of new organisms. The theoretical require- ment is 1.9 mg methanol per mg of nitrate-N. In practice, a dose of about 3 mg methanol to 1 mg nitrate-N is required to compensate for synthesis and the demand exerted by dissolved oxygen remaining in the wastewater after the nitrification stage. Biological nitrifi- cation/denitrification is now being designed for large capacity treatment plants at the Blue Plains treatment plant in Washington, D.C. (309 mgd) and the Salt Creek Treatment Plant in Chicago (30 mgd). Breakpoint Chlorination: When chlorine is added to a wastewater containing ammonia nitrogen, the ammonia reacts with the hypochlorous acid formed to produce chloramines. The addition of chlorine, up to the breakpoint, results in conversion to and subsequent release of nitrogen gas. The chlorine breakpoint occurs as a ration of approximately eight to ten parts of chlorine to one part of ammonia-N. Data from EPA research projects indicates that ammonia-N concen- tration in the effluent can be reduced to 0.1 mg/1 if adequate mixing, dosing, and pH control is maintained. Two potential adverse effects of breakpoint chlorination are high chlorine residuals and mineralization in the form of chlorides. The high chlorine residuals may be overcome by installation of carbon contactors prior to discharge to the receiving waters. The receiving stream, however, must be capable of accepting the additional mineralization without adverse effects on proposed water usage. Ammonia Stripping: Ammonia nitrogen may be re- moved from wastewater by raising the pH above 11, generally with lime used for phosphorus removal, and stripping out the ammonia with air. The classic applica- tion of ammonia stripping is the now well known experience at Lake Tahoe, California. The Tahoe strip- ping tower is 50 feet high, with forced ventilation, and packed with treated hemlock slats with 1-1/2 inch vertical and 2 inch horizontal spacing. Initial perform- Ammonia stripping tower at Lake Tahoe, California. ance in the tower was good, removing about 90 percent of the ammonia in warm weather; however, long term operational problems have become evident. Freezing occurs during cold weather which reduces the utility of the process in those areas having prolonged periods of sub-freezing weather during the winter season. Calcium carbonate scaling has also proven to be a maintenance problem at the Tahoe plant. Selective Ion Exchange: The relatively recent discovery that a naturally occurring zeolite, clinoptilolite, had ion exchange properties favoring the exchange of am- monium over most other cations, makes ion exchange appear to have significant promise as being economically feasible for ammonium removal from wastewater. EPA research projects indicate that ion-exchange columns may be operated for approximately 24 to 30 hours before regeneration of the resin is required. Regenera- tion may be accomplished by a solution of lime and SUSPENDED SOLIDS PHOSPHORUS ------- sodium chloride. Current research also indicates that ammonia-N removal to levels of less than 0.5 mg/1 are technically feasible. Resin volume requirements are in the range of 0.1 to 1.0 lbs. of ammonia-N per cubic foot of resin. The Occoquan Sewage Authority treatment plant in Fairfax County, Virginia, with an initial plant design capacity of 22.5 mgd (with expansion to 45 mgd planned within the next decade) is currently being designed with the use of clinoptilolite for nitrogen removal. Physical-Chemical Treatment with Granular Activated Carbon Physical-chemical treatment of wastewater has now become a major viable alternative to conventional biological treatment processes. There are presently more than 20 municipalities in the United States that are planning the use of physical-chemical treatment. A partial listing of some of these plants follows: Design Flow Location (MGD) Niagara Falls, N. V. 60 Cleveland, Ohio 50 Garland, Texas 30 Occoquan, Fairfax County, Va. 22.5 Alexandria, Va. 21 Upper Montgomery County, Md. 20 Fitchburg, Mass. 15 Orange County, Calif. 15 Rocky River, Ohio 10 Cortland, N. Y. 10 South Lake Tahoe, Calif. 7.5 Owosso, Mich. 6 Port Jefferson, N. Y. 5 Piscataway, Md. 5 Leetsdale, Penna. 5 Colorado Springs, Colo. 2.0 Leroy, N. Y. 1.5 There is some confusion as to what treatment processes the term physical-chemical (P-C) treatment includes. Physical-chemical treatment processes include chemical clarification, filtration, and activated carbon adsorption. P-C treatment may follow biological treat- ment processes, such as used at Lake Tahoe, or may be "independent" physical-chemical treatment which util- izes the P-C components only, without biological treat- ment. Chemical clarification of raw sewage will consist- ently provide ^&"to '75 percent removal of organic material. Chemicals such as alum, lime or iron salts used for chemical clarification will also provide high degrees of phosphorus removal. Chemical clarification may be accomplished in a series of steps including mixing, flocculation and sedimentation. These steps may be combined in proprietary single units commonly desig- nated as sol ids-contact clarifiers. Carbon adsorption, which is the major new process involved in physical-chemical treatment of wastewater, provides removal of colloidal and dissolved organics FlOW DUkMAM Of A PHYSICAL CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM which cannot be removed by clarification or filtration. The adsorption process consists of passing the treated wastewater through carbon contactors, or beds of granular activated carbon. Carbon contactors may be of either the upflow or downflow types. Downflow col- umns provide a degree of filtration in addition to adsorption and have been operated at flow rates ranging from 2 to 8 gpm/ft2. Periodic backwashing of downflow columns is required as the pressure loss increases due to suspended solids accumulating in the carbon bed. Car- bon beds, or contactors, may be operated in the upflow mode as packed beds at low hydraulic loadings (less than 2 gpm/sq ft), as partially expanded beds at higher hydraulic loadings (4-7 gpm/sq ft), or packed against the top of the contactor at much higher hydraulic loading rates. Typical commercial granular carbon sizes used are 8 x 30 and 12 x 40 mesh. As organics from the wastewater are adsorbed by the granular activated carbon, the carbon eventually requires regeneration in order to be reused. It is this regeneration and reuse of granular carbon that makes it economically feasible for wastewater treatment. Exhausted granular carbon is hydraulically transported in a water slurry, dewatered, and regenerated thermally by heating to 1500°F — 1700°F in a multiple-hearth furnace where the adsorbed impurities are volatilized and released in gaseous form. Carbon losses usually vary from 5 to 10 percent per regeneration cycle. Filtration may be required prior to activated carbon adsorption in order to reduce the clogging rate of the carbon pores. The use of filtration, usually of the mixed-media type, also enables the use of packed upflow carbon beds as well as the packed downflow types, and will normally result in a more efficient removal of solids than carbon alone, with a resultant higher quality of effluent. When upflow expanded bed carbon contactors are used, filtration units may be used downstream of the carbon columns to remove the floe which is flushed from the carbon. Polymers may be fed to the filter influent to be used as coagulant aids. Some of the advantages of physical-chemical treat- ment are: 1. Less area requirement 1/2 to 1/4 2. Lower sensitivity to diurnal variation 3. Not affected by toxic substances 4. Potential for significant heavy metal removal 5. Superior removal of 'P' compounds 6. Greater flexibility in design and operation 7. Superior organic removal ------- .Typical costs for a 10 mgd P-C treatment plant are shown in the following table: Costs for Physical-Chemical Treatment (10 MGD) Total Cost Step (Cents per 1000 gals.) Preliminary Treatment 0.8 Lime Coagulation 8t Recalcination 10.1 Filtration 3.6 Activated Carbon Adsorption 12.9 Disinfection 0.9 Total Plant Cost 28.3 Note: Total cost includes capital costs, operating and mainte- nance costs, & amortization. Up to the present time, the use of physical-chemical treatment for municipalities has been considered eco- nomically feasible for plant sizes greater than 3-5 mgd due to the cost of carbon regenerating systems. How- ever, a major commercial carbon supplier has recently introduced the concept of centralized regional regenera- tion plants which will eliminate a major capital cost for smaller facilities and could result in even more wide- spread use of physical-chemical treatment. Suspended Solids Removal New technology is also rapidly being adopted for upgrading the removal of suspended solids from con- ventional wastewater treatment systems. Gravity sedi- mentation is no longer providing adequate liquid-solids separation for many municipalities. Major advances in suspended solids removal include chemical clarification, deep-bed filtration, and microscreening. Chemical Clarification. Chemical clarification for sus- pended solids removal has been discussed in some detail above, under the section on phosphorus removal. As noted previously, chemical clarification is now becoming standard practice in many parts of the country. Chem- ical clarification is the most feasible method for colloid removal. Chemical coagulation and clarification may be accomplished in either primary, secondary, or tertiary clarification units. The use of chemicals can often provide a municipality with the incremental BOD and suspended solids removal efficiency, necessary to meet water quality requirements, without major new addi- tions to the treatment facility. Deep-Bed Filtration. Filtration of secondary effluent provides a positive, reliable method of suspended solids removal. Deep-bed filters using two or more types of media provide a substantial increase in filter depth over single media type units. "Mixed" or tri-media filters, such as those used at Lake Tahoe, generally consist of layers of anthracite coal, sand, and garnet. The lower specific gravity (1.6) coal is on top and higher specific gravity (4) garnet is on the bottom to prevent excessive mixing of the media materials during backwashing. Filter depths are 24 to 30 inches with effective size gradations of about 1.0 mm at the top to about 0.15 mm at the bottom. Filters are operated at flow rates ranging from 5-10 gpm/sq ft. Mixed media deep-bed filters provide an excellent method of effluent quality assurance by removal of virtually all of the suspended solids and by high degrees of removal of turbidity and phosphorus. Microscreening installation in Chicago, Illinois. Microscreening. Microscreens are surface filtration de- vices that are finding increasing use for polishing effluent from secondary biological treatment plants. The micro- screen units consist of rotating drums with specially woven corrosion-resistant fabric mounted on the periph- ery. Influent enters the drum along the axis and flows radially outward through the fabric. The filtration or screening efficiency depends primarily on the fabric size and the character of the solids being removed. Micro- screen units are available with variable drum speeds and backwash pressures to accommodate variations in flow and solids loading. Microscreens are washed continu- ously requiring approximately 5 percent of the filter throughput for this operation. Data from current instal- lations indicate removal of 50 to 80 percent of the biological solids in secondary effluent using screen sizes from 23 to 35 microns. The treatment processes and systems described above represent major advances in wastewater treatment technology and are, in most cases, being used, or ready for use in full-scale applications. Many other treatment processes are being developed under the EPA research and demonstration program including: the use of pow- dered carbon in physical-chemical treatment; the use of ozonation for oxidation of organics and disinfection; and the use of ion exchange and reverse osmosis for removal of dissolved inorganics. As the development of these and other new wastewater treatment processes progresses, we may expect to find the near-future inventory of municipal treatment processes expanding even more rapidly and more diversely than it has within the past three years. Typical Performance of Chemical Clarification ORGANIC REMOVAL 60-80% SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL 90-98% PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL 80-95% ------- Technology Transfer Co-Sponsors National Conference on Complete Water Reuse in Industry Technology Transfer has joined with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE) in sponsoring a National Conference on Complete Water Reuse in Industry, to be held in Washington, D.C., April 24-26, 1973. The conference will be organized into 21 sessions with approximately 70 papers to be presented covering most of the major industrial sources of pollution. Participation will be provided for industry, government and civic organizations, and environmentalists. AlChE Annual Meeting The 56th Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE), held in New York City, November 26-30, 1972, included participation by Tech- nology Transfer. The Technology Transfer presentation centered on the then newly-initiated industrial program, which impacts air, water, and solid waste control and treatment technology. Analytical Quality Control Handbook Receives Second Printing A second printing of the Technology Transfer Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories has recently been completed. The initial printing of 14,000 copies was exhausted in less than three months and an additional 10,000 copies was ordered in late October of last year. These additional copies are now available for distribution. Pollution Control '73 Technology Transfer participated in the conference entitled "Pollution Control '73" sponsored by Chemical Engineering Magazine and held in New York City, December 12-14, 1972. The conference highlighted new legislative requirements, regulatory standards, technolog- ical alternatives available to control or treat effluents, and transfer of technology. Industrial Waste Seminars A major portion of Technology Transfer's industrial program is the industrial waste seminar series. These seminars are being used to disseminate technical in- formation to specific industries concerning the control and treatment of air, water, and solid wastes. A typical seminar agenda includes such topics as legislative and regulatory requirements, effluent sampling techniques, in-plant modifications to reduce pollution, technology available for pretreatment prior to discharge of wastes to municipal systems, treatment and control technology for discharges to waterways, by-product recovery, air pollu- tion control, and solid waste disposal. Edward Willoughby, Giffels Associates, Inc., discussing treat- ment of poultry processing wastes at Atlanta seminar. The seminars that have been held to date include "Upgrading Poultry Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution" (Atlanta, Ga., September 1972), and "Up- grading Metal Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution" (New York, N.Y., December 1972). The favorable response to both seminars has resulted in the repeating of each; the former in Little Rock, Arkansas, January 16-18, and the latter in Philadelphia, Pa., January 30-31. Two new seminars are now being presented. A seminar on "Upgrading Meat Packing Facilities to Reduce Pollution" will be held in Kansas City, Mo., in March and a seminar on "Upgrading Dairy Facilities to Reduce Pollution" will be held in EPA Region I the same month. Technology Transfer to Participate in APWA Workshops Members of the Technology Transfer staff will partici- pate in the American Public Works Association (APWA) workshop series on sewerage and urban drainage sys- tems. This series, aimed at Public Works Directors, starts in February and will be conducted in such cities as San Francisco, Oklahoma City, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Chicago, New Orleans, and Los Angeles. The Technology Transfer staff members will serve as instructors for portions of these sessions and will also provide instruc- tional materials. A key focus of the two-day sessions will be on upgrading existing wastewater treatment facilities. These workshops are being conducted under the direction of Mr. Richard Sullivan of APWA. Additional information may be obtained from the APWA Education .Foundation, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illi- nois 60637. Design Manuals Receive Third Printing Once again several Regional Offices have depleted their supply of the four Technology Transfer Process Design Manuals. As a result, a rush reprinting to satisfy the backlog of requests until the revised versions of the manuals become available later this year has just been completed. The number of copies of each manual in circulation after this printing now totals nearly 20,000. Second Videotape Available A videotape covering the topic of Upgrading Activated Sludge Treatment Plants is now available for loan from Technology Transfer on an availability basis. The tape is approximately 40 minutes in length and is composed of three segments: pre-plant considerations; in-plant proc- ess modifications; and effluent polishing. Requests for loan of this tape—the second produced by Technology ------- Transfer to date—may be made by completing the last page of this newsletter and forwarding it to your regional Technology Transfer committee chairman. About This Publication Recently there have been several inquiries as to whether this publication receives distribution monthly, quarterly, etc. Apparently some individuals feel they may have been inadvertently missed in a mailing. An attempt is made to publish this information document approxi- mately once a quarter, but a rigid time frame is not established. We feel it is more important that the material presented be accurate, timely, and useful than it is to publish this document exactly every three months. This is why a period of more than three months may elapse between issues, and has several times in the past. As a matter of further information, Technology Transfer has distributed more than 600,000 copies of its various publications in the last year and a half. Included in this total are over 400,000 copies of process and project brochures; approximately 100,000 copies of technical manuals and handbooks; and nearly 100,000 copies of this publication, which now has a mailing list of about 20,000. Where To Get Further Information In order to get details on items appearing in this publication, or any other aspects of the Technology Transfer Program, contact your appropriate EPA Regional Technology Transfer Committee Chairman from the list below: REGION I CHAIRMAN Lester Sutton Rocco Ricci IV Kenneth Suter Asa B. Foster, Jr. V Clifford Risley VI Richard Hill VII Lewis Young ADDRESS Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Rm. 2304 Boston, Massachusetts 02203 617-223-7210 (Maine, N.H., Vt., Mass., R.I., Conn.) Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10017 212-264-8958 (N.Y., N.J., P.R., V.I.) Environmental Protection Agency 6th & Walnut Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 215-597-9875 (Pa., W. Va., Md„ Del., D.C., Va.) Environmental Protection Agency Suite 300 1421 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404-526-3454 (N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn., Ga., Ala., Miss., Fla.) Environmental Protection Agency 1 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 312-353-5756 (Mich., Wis., Minn., III., Ind., Ohio) Environmental Protection Agency 1600 Patterson Street Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75201 214-749-1461 (Texas, Okla., Ark., La., N. Mex.) Environmental Protection Agency 1735 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64108 816-374-2725 (Kansas, Nebr., Iowa, Mo.) ------- REGION VIII CHAIRMAN Russell Fitch IX X Frank Covington John Osborn ADDRESS Environmental Protection Agency 1860 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 303-837-3849 (Colo., Mont., Wyo., Utah, N.D., S.D.) Environmental Protection Agency 100 California Street San Francisco, Calif. 94111 415-556-0218 (Calif., Nev., Ariz., Hawaii) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 206-442-1296 (Wash., Ore., Idaho, Alaska) Request For Technology Transfer Material Please send me the following publications at no charge. (Check appropriate boxes) PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS BROCHURES ~ Phosphorus Removal n Physical-Chemical Treatment ~ Carbon Adsorption ~ Phosphorus Removal ~ Suspended Solids Removal ~ Upgrading Existing Wastewater ~ Upgrading Existing Wastewater ~ Treatment Plants Treatment Plants Seattle, Washington METRO ~ Wastewater Purification at Lake Tahoe ~ Indian Creek Reservoir ~ Carbon Adsorption HANDBOOK TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORT ~ Analytical Quality Control in Water ~ Recycling Zinc in Viscose Rayon and Wastewater Laboratories Plants Please contact me regarding the loan of the following audio/visual material. (Check appropriate boxes) MOTION PICTURES (16mm sound) VIDEOTAPES ~ Richardson, Texas, Project-Title ~ Carbon Adsorption (40 min.) Somebody around here must be ~ Upgrading Activated Sludge Treatment doing something good." (15 min.) P|ants (40 mjn ) ~ Phosphorus Removal (5 min.) Is your name on our mailing list to receive this Newsletter? ~ ~ Do you want to be added to this mailing list? ~ ~ Yes No Name Street City . State Zip Note: Tear this sheet out and forward to the appropriate Regional Technology Transfer Committee Chairman. ------- |