U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MARCH 1, 1574 SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS FEATURED AT WPCFCONFERENCE Technology Transfer featured the design semi- nar program, both municipal and industrial, at the 1973 Water Pollution Control Federation Con- ference held September 30-October 5 in Cleve- land, Ohio. This year's exhibit highlighted semi- nar publications developed throughout the past year for use within the design seminar program. The first five in the municipal area were distrib- uted at the exhibit and over 3,000 sets were re- ceived by the Conference attendees. Thousands of requests have been received, since the Con- ference, for these publications. The set consists of the following publications: • "Nitrification & Denitrification Facilities Wastewater Treatment" by Metcalf & Eddy, Engi- neers, (Dr. Clair Sawyer, primary author). This publication includes sections on the factors af- fecting nitrification kinetics, design criteria of ni- trification systems, and denitrification by sus- pended growth systems. • "Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants—Case Histories" by Hazen and Sawyer. This publication includes sections on upgrading through biological process modifications, solids retention time, and case histories on Greensboro, North Carolina; Livermore, California; New York, N.Y. and upgrading an existing trickling filter plant by the addition of activated sludge ahead of the filters. • "Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment Plant Design" by CH2M/Hill. This publication in- Mr. Francis Mayo, Regional Administrator, E.P.A., Region V, Cleveland Conference. Bob Madancy of Technology Trans- and Mr. Ralph Purdy, State of Michigan Water Resources fer Staff and Ken Suter, Technology Transfer Chairman, Commission, at Technology Transfer Exhibit area at WPCF Region III, are in background. ------- eludes sections on preliminary data collection, selection of coagulants, carbon adsorption, proc- ess design, and physical-chemical treatment of small waste flows. Also included are design proj- ect descriptions on Niagara Falls, N.Y. and Fitch- burg, Massachusetts by Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc. • "Upgrading Lagoons" by Brown and Cald- well, Consulting Engineers. This publication in- cludes sections on lagoons in waste treatment, techniques for upgrading lagoons and examples of upgrading ponds at Sunnyvale, California; Los Banos, California; and Stockton, California. • "Oxygen Activated Sludge Wastewater Treat- ment Systems—Design Criteria and Operating Experience" by Union Carbide Corporation and Metcalf and Eddy, Engineers. This publication includes sections on Unox-system description, operating data and experience, process design, process safety, economic considerations, and specifications for final settling tanks and oxygen- ation tanks. "THE WATER PLAN"—NEW TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MOTION PICTURE Technology Transfer now has available for loan a third motion picture depicting the successful implementation of new technology. Entitled "The Water Plan," this 28-minute 16mm film was pro- duced for Technology Transfer by Production House, Inc., of San Francisco, California. The film presents the development and current implementation of the water quality management plan for the Alameda Creek Watershed in sub- urban San Francisco. This particular plan in- volves: a) upgrading two wastewater treatment facilities to "advanced waste treatment," includ- ing nutrient removal, producing an effluent suit- able for reuse; b) conveyance of the reclaimed wastewater to a reservoir to be constructed; c) development of associated recreational facilities at the reservoir; and d) potential recycling of re- claimed wastewater. The cooperative efforts of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the City of Livermore, the City of Pleasanton, and the Valley Community Services District played a major role in develop- ment of the plan. Production House (selected by competitive bid- ding to produce this film) is a company with broad experience in producing motion pictures. Its more than 100 clients include Ford Motor Company, Proctor & Gamble, NASA, and Japan Airlines; and its past productions cover such topics as drug abuse, urban renewal, communi- cations satellites, auto safety, and the electric power industry. Requests for loan of this, and other Tech- nology Transfer films, can be made by forwarding the form in the back of this fact sheet. TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORT ON LIMESTONE WET-SCRUBBING NOW AVAILABLE A technical capsule report covering the prog- ress at the EPA alkali scrubbing prototype dem- onstration facility at the TVA Shawnee Power Station is now available. This capsule report is one of a series that will be prepared as further test data on the scrubbing facility is developed The test facility consists of three parallel scrub- bing systems: a venturi followed by a spray tower; a turbulent contact absorber; and a marble-bed absorber. Each system is capable of treating approximately 10MW equivalent (30,000 acfm) of flue gas containing 2300 to 3300 ppm of S02. The capsule report covers the progress on the short-term factorial tests and reliability verifica- tion tests for the program of air/water testing, sodium carbonate testing, and limestone testing. Long term (4 to 10 months) limestone testing and lime testing results will be covered in future capsule reports. Testing to date, has yielded SO? removal effi- ciencies of 40 to 80% for the venturi and spray tower with liquid-to-gas ratios of 80 gal./mcf, 80 to 96% for the turbulent contact absorber, and 40 to 80% for the marble-bed scrubber depend- ing on the test conditions. Thus far the opera- bility and reliability of the scrubber systems have been good. For your copy of this capsule report, use the order blank at the back of this fact sheet. ------- AICHE/EPA SPONSOR NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers are co-sponsoring the 1974 Na- tional Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills. The three day meeting will be held in the St. Francis Hotel, in San Francisco August 25-28, 1974. The conference will be devoted to technical discussions on the following subjects: Control Technology Spill Prevention Detection and Identification Response Plans Legal and Financial Problems Environmental Impact For conference information write: Mr. Joel Henry AICHE 345 E. 47th Street New York, N.Y. 10017 TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORT ON DRY CAUSTIC PEELING OF PEACHES NOW AVAILABLE A technical capsule report covering an EPA Demonstration Project with the DelMonte Cor- poration for the dry caustic peeling of peaches is now available. Peeling is the largest single source of waste from fruit processing. In conventional caustic peeling, the peel is pre-softened by contact with dilute sodium hydroxide and removed from the peach by high pressure water sprays. Dry caustic peeling uses mechanical contact to remove the softened peel, with only a small final water rinse. Dry caustic peeling was commercially proven for potato processing, but softer fruit such as peaches required additional development. The project demonstrated the reduction of water usage from 850 gallons per ton of peaches to 90 gallons per ton. The peel was recovered as a pumpable slurry. Total organic and suspended solids loading in the final wastewater was re- duced by 60 percent. Peach quality was equal to that of conventionally peeled peaches. For your copy of this capsule report which in- cludes cost and performance data, use the order- ing blank at the back of this fact sheet. Managers and engineers at the In-Plant Pollution Control Session of the Technology Transfer Seminar for the Textile Industry in Atlanta. MM** aw cajstic pfijst i SECTION TRADON ------- POLLUTION CONTROL SEMINAR FOR THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY Technology Transfer held its first industrial seminar for the Textile Industry entitled "Upgrad- ing Textile Operations to Reduce Pollution" in Atlanta, Georgia on September 25 and 26, 1973. The seminar, attended by 160 industry repre- sentatives, featured welcome addresses by John C. White, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator and Joseph S. Ameen of the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. The first general session of the seminar cov- ered EPA regulatory policy, the effects of textile mill discharges on the aquatic environment and the basics of pollution control. Three technical sessions were given covering in-plant control of pollution, pretreatment of textile wastes, and waste treatment systems. The session on in-plant control was prepared by the Institute of Textile Technology with the assist- ance of technical experts from industry. Dr. Joseph Maselli of the Hall-Atwater Laboratory made the presentation on pre-treatment of textile mill wastes. The session on treatment systems was prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. with the participation of Dr. Clair Sawyer, Dr. Ronald Sharpin, and Mr. Donald Hager. The final session included financial strategies for pollution control investments presented by Charles Marshall of J. A. Commins & Associates, the EPA Demonstration Grant Program for the Textile Industry presented by Thomas Sargent of the EPA Laboratory at Athens, Georgia, and a key-note address on effective government-indus- try relationships by Wallace Storey of the Ameri- can Textile Manufacturers Institute. MUNICIPAL DESIGN SEMINARS Since the October 1973 WPCF Conference, 8 municipal design seminars have been conducted throughout the United States. The total number of municipal seminars conducted since the Tech- nology Transfer Program was initiated is now 40. The most recent seminars were presented in Arlington, Virginia, October 11-12 and 18; Chicago, Illinois, October 16; Seattle, Washington, October 30-November 1; Salt Lake City, Utah, November 13-15; San Francisco, California, December 3-5; Atlanta, Georgia, December 11-12, 1973; and Kan- sas City, Missouri, January 15-17, 1974. The two Arlington Seminars covered different areas; the first was a two-day session on sludge handling and disposal, and the second was a one-day session on infiltration/inflow studies. Mr. Eugene T. Jensen, Executive Secretary of the Virginia State Water Control Board gave the open- Portion of audience at Technology Transfer Infiltration/Inflow seminar held in Arlington, Virginia. ------- ing remarks and welcomed the consulting engi- neers and regulatory personnel in attendance at both seminars. The Chicago Seminar covered infiltration/in- flow studies. Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus, Deputy Re- gional Administrator, EPA, Region V, gave the welcome to the 425 consulting engineers, mu- nicipal and state engineers, and regulatory per- sonnel in attendance. The Seattle Seminar included technical ses- sions on upgrading lagoons, suspended solids removal, and oxygen aeration. Mr. L. Edwin Coates, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA, Re- gion X, gave the welcome. A highlight of the sus- pended solids session was Dr. E. Robert Bau- mann's presentation on wastewater filtration. The Salt Lake City Seminar included technical sessions on upgrading lagoons, upgrading trick- ling filter plants and physical-chemical treatment. Mr. Calvin Sudweeks, Chief WQS, Bureau of En- vironmental Health, State of Utah, gave the wel- come and presented the State of Utah's approach to meeting new standards and wastewater treat- ment objectives. The upgrading trickling filter plants session was designed to meet BOD5 ef- fluent requirements of 6 mg/l or less and in- cluded a presentation on wastewater filtration by Dr. John Cleasby. The San Francisco Seminar covered the tech- nical areas of upgrading lagoons, physical-chemi- cal treatment, and oxygen aeration. Mr. Frank Covington, Technology Transfer Chairman, EPA, Region IX, welcomed the 150 consulting engi- neers and regulatory personnel in attendance. A highlight of the session was the field trip to the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Facility, a 440 acre wastewater lagoon. The Atlanta Seminar was a two-day session on sludge handling and disposal. Mr. Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IV, gave the opening remarks and welcomed the 135 attendees. Interest was high in this subject and general good opening discussions during the question/ answer sessions. The Kansas City Seminar included technical sessions on upgrading lagoons, sludge handling and disposal, and nitrogen control. Jerome H. Svore, Regional Administrator, EPA Region VII, gave the welcome. A highlight of the seminar was the nitrogen control session which included presentations by Dr. Clair Sawyer and Mr. Gordon Culp. Feature presentations at the above seminars were given by: Brown and Caldwell, San Fran- cisco; American Consulting Services, Minneap- olis; Black, Crow and Eidsness, Wilmington, Del.; Culp, Wesner, Culp—Clean Water Consultants, El Dorado Hills, Calif.; Metcalf & Eddy, New York; Dr. Denny Parker of Brown & Caldwell Consulting Engineers addresses Seattle Technology Transfer design seminar on upgrading lagoons. ------- arid Shimek, Roming, Jacobs & Finklea, Dallas. Assistance from EPA was provided by Jon C. Dyer, Technology Transfer, Washington; Haig Farmer and Charles Swanson, Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington; and James Smith, James Kreissl, John M. Smith, Jesse Cohen, Richard Brenner, Edwin Barth, EPA, National Environ- mental Research Center, Cincinnati. TT MAILING BEING AUTOMATED The volume of requests for Technology Trans- fer publications has now become so great that the maintenance of our mailing list has been computerized with our actual mailing service being performed by contract. The transition to the automated system has resulted in several delays and errors as you might well expect. We wish to apologize for any delays or inconven- iences that you may have experienced. There are two things you can do to assist us in filling your requests: • If you are receiving multiple copies of this fact sheet (newsletter) or any other publication, please let us know. • If you have requested publications that you have not received, please make your request again on the order form at the rear of this pub- lication and make a note on the form that this is the second request. You will notice that each publication is now assigned a stock number to assist our mailing service in increasing the speed and accuracy in filling requests. Stay with us! We hope to straight- en out our mailing problems in the near future. DESIGN MANUAL REVISIONS As we noted in our previous issue, revi- sions to our process design manuals are now being completed. The revision to the carbon adsorption manual has been finished and mailed. If you have not received your copy, there are two possibilities: • You have not mailed in one of the re- vision request cards contained in the pocket of the manual binders. If you haven't, mail your card in as soon as possible. If your card is lost, just drop us a note requesting the revisions. The other three revisions will become available in the near future. • You have mailed in your card or request and it has been misplaced in the conversion to the automated mailing system (see article above). If this is the case and you have not received your revised carbon manual, please send in your request again. SULFIDE MANUAL DELAYED Technical problems and the current paper shortage have delayed the printing of the new Technology Transfer Process Design Manual for Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems. It now appears that the manual will not be avail- able for distribution until approximately June of this year. We will retain your request for this manual and mail it to you as soon as possible. DESIGN OF NITRIFICATION SYSTEMS* NITRIFICATION TANKS Layout: Because the rate of oxidation of ammonia is essentially linear (zero-order reaction), short cir- cuiting must be prevented. The tank configura- tion should insure that flow through the tank follows the plug-flow mixing model as closely as possible. Such configuration can be accom- plished by dividing the tank into a series of com- partments with ports between them. Figure 1 shows three compartments as a minimum num- ber. Tanks can be designed for either diffused-air or mechanical-aeration systems. Since the oxidation rate of the process varies widely with temperature, special provisions may be necessary to incorporate the necessary flexi- bility in the oxygen supply system, as discussed hereinafter. pH Control: Nitrification tanks should be sized to permit complete nitrification under the most adverse combination of ammonia load and temperature expected, and at a pH as near optimum as fea- sible. The range of 7.6-7.8 is recommended in order to allow carbon dioxide to escape to the atmosphere. Figure 1. Model Nitrification System The nitrification process destroys alkalinity and the pH may fall to levels that will inhibit nitrifica- tion unless excess alkalinity is present in the wastewater or lime is added to maintain favorable pH levels. Theoretically, 7.2 pounds of total al- kalinity are destroyed per pound of ammonia * Extracted from "Nitrification and Denitrification Facili- ties—Wastewater Treatment" prepared for the EPA Tech- nology Transfer Seminar Publication series. Fill in the form at the rear of this fact sheet for a copy of the com- plete publication. ------- nitrogen oxidized to nitrate. One-half of this destruction is due to loss of alkalinity caused by ammonia and the remainder is due to destruc- tion of natural alkalinity. Whether lime additions will be required de- pends upon the alkalinity of the wastewater and the desired pH of operation. For operation under the most adverse temperature conditions and at operating pH, sufficient lime must be added ini- tially to raise the pH into the desired range, and then 5.4 pounds of hydrated lime per pound of ammonia nitrogen will be required to maintain the pH. An actual titration test should be con- ducted to obtain design criteria. In Boston sew- age, about 250 pounds of hydrated lime are needed per million gallons to raise the pH initial- ly to optimum pH range, and an additional 700 pounds are needed to hold it there during the course of oxidation of the ammonia. The total hydrated lime requirements are estimated to be about 115 mg/l. Additional amounts of lime may be required if chemicals, such as alum, have been added previously for phosphorus removal. Marked reductions in lime requirements will result in any system that can be designed to operate at pH levels of 7.8 or less, because car- bon dioxide resulting from destruction of alka- linity and organic matter will be washed out of the liquid phase by air contact. The pH of such systems will vary somewhat with the rate of aera- tion (ventilation). The type and sensitivity of the pH control sys- tem will depend on the character of the waste- water and the variations in the ammonia load fed to the system. Although some studies showed the optimum pH for the nitrification reaction to be in the range of 8.4 to 8.6, others have reported lower optimum levels. Downing and Knowles 1 have reported that pH levels above 7.2 do not increase the rate of nitri- fication. They presented an equation Activity = 1 - 0.83(7.2 - pH) for calculation of activity at pH levels below 7.2. Using this equation the activities in Table 1 can be determined. Haug and McCarty2 have reported upon nitri- fication in submerged filters and observed pH phenomena. They found that the nitrifying orga- nisms were able to acclimate to low pH levels of 7.0 or more. They made no studies, however, on nitrifying populations in the fixed growths, so it was not proven whether the increased activity was due to acclimation or an increased popula- tion of organisms, resulting in the availability of excess ammonia. The information provided by Downing and Knowles and Haug and McCarty offers some hope that the addition of lime for initial pH elevation may not be necessary. The need for lime then revolves around having sufficient alkalinity pres- ent to allow complete nitrification at satisfactory kinetic rates at the lowest temperatures and highest mass loadings of ammonia expected. In any event, sufficient alkalinity should be present to leave a residual of from 30 to 50 mg/l after nitrification is completed. As a general rule, where phosphorus removal is accomplished in the first stage of a two- or three-stage system by use of alum or ferric salts, it will be necessary to provide lime-feeding facilities, and the optimum pH of operation becomes more or less an aca- demic matter. In situations where feeding of lime is not essential, good engineering normally will indicate that additional tankage be provided to overcome the limitations of reduced activity, as opposed to providing lime-feeding facilities to keep the tankage at a minimum. Table 1. Activities at pH 7.2 and below PH Activity 7.2 1.00 7.0 .83 6.8 .67 6.6 .50 6.4 .34 6.2 .17 MLSS and MLVSS Concentrations: Designs based on MLSS concentration alone should be avoided, because MLSS will not truly reflect the biological mass in the system. The ratio of MLVSS to MLSS may vary depending on the nonvolatile suspended solids (including re- sidual chemical precipitates) in the feed. The fraction of the MLVSS attributable to nitrifying organisms is as yet unknown; however, for nitri- fication systems receiving normal secondary ef- fluents, MLVSS concentrations of 1,500-2,000 mg/l appear to be safe for design. Tank Capacity: The choice of the design-peak load depends on the circumstances of the specific project, and need not necessarily be the absolute maximum expected load. For many projects, the use of a peak-load factor of 1.5 represents a reasonable peak at low-temperature conditions. Figure 2 shows the permissible volumetric load- ing of the nitrification tanks at a pH of 8.4 and at various temperatures and MLVSS concentra- tions, based on nitrification kinetics studies at Marlborough, Mass. Corrections must be applied to the permissible loadings when the pH is different from 8.4. In plants with well-buffered wastewater, it may be more economical to provide the additional tank- age to permit operation at a lower pH, rather than to add an alkaline material. The following is a sample calculation for computing the tank size: ------- BASED U OBSERVE PON NITRIF D AT MAR ICATION R -BORO, MA r~ ATES SS. / pH 8.4 / '/ ro> y /> / £>/ •$/ Jy ^ / \Vi f/- <£> / [ / \ //, 5 10 15 20 2! TEMPERATURE, ° C Figure 2. Permissible Nitrification—Tank Loadings Given: Design flow = 10 mgd Average concentration to nitrification tanks = 15 mg/l Minimum temperature = 10° C Operating pH = 7.8 MLVSS concentration = 1,500 mg/l Computed: 1. NH3 load a. Average = 10 x 8.34 x 15 = 1,250 lb/day b. Maximum = 1,250 x 1.5= 1,870 lb/day 2. Tank volume at 10° C, MLVSS = 1,500 mg/l a. From figure 11-3, volumetric loading = 8.2 lb per 1,000 ft3 b. Tank volume = 1870/8.2 x 103 = 228,000 ft3 3. Tank volume adjusted to pH 7.8 (see figure 111-4) = 228,000/0.88 = 260,000 ft3 4. Check detention period = (260,000 x 24 x 7.48) (10 x 106) = 4.65 hr Oxygen Requirements: Stoichiometrically, each pound of ammonia ni- trogen that is nitrified requires 4.6 pounds of oxy- gen. (The amount of ammonia nitrified is usually slightly more than the amount of nitrate meas- ured because some denitrification occurs.) Usu- ally, it is assumed that all of the ammonia fed will be nitrified. An additional oxygen allowance must be made for carbonaceous BOD that es- capes from the secondary treatment process. Nitrification appears to be uninhibited at DO concentrations of 1 mg/l or more. Design based on maintaining 3 mg/l of DO in the mixed liquor under average loading conditions includes a rea- sonable factor of safety. Under peak loading the DO concentration may be permitted to fall some- what, but not below 1 mg/l. There follows a sample calculation for oxygen requirements: Given: Design Flow = 10 mgd Average NH3-N concentration = 15 mg/l Average BOD = 30 mg/l Computed: 1. NH3 load a. Average = 1,250 lb/day b. Maximum = 1,870 lb/day 2. BOD load = 2,500 lb/day 3. Oxygen requirement a. NH3 oxidation = 1,870 x 4.6 = 8,650 lb/day b. BOD requirement = 2,500 x 1.5 = 3,750 lb/day c. Total requirement = 12,400 lb/day To design the aeration system, the total oxy- gen requirement must be corrected to actual op- erating conditions by the use of well-known equa- tions incorporating such factors as: • Critical wastewater temperature • Minimum DO concentration • Coefficient of wastewater oxygen-uptake rate • Coefficient of wastewater DO saturation • Altitude of plant The rate of nitrification will vary significantly with temperature and pH, and compensation for this variation must be made in the design of the plant. During the summer, the following methods can be used to match the oxygen demand rate to the oxygen supply rate: • Reduce MLSS concentration • Reduce pH by reducing chemical supply • Reduce tankage in service while increasing oxygen supply to the tanks remaining in service Miscellaneous: Although the nitrification process will handle the normal variations in ammonia load found in raw wastewater, experience at the Washington, D.C., pilot plant indicates that nitrification in the carbonaceous removal units must be carefully controlled to insure stable operation. Experience at South Lake Tahoe, Calif., indicates that the addition of 2-8 mg/l of chlorine to the effluent of the carbonaceous aeration tank effectively will prevent nitrification. In addition, excessive amounts of carbonaceous BOD and suspended solids that escape from the carbonaceous treat- ------- ment process, such as those associated with "bulking" sludge caused by filamentous growths, must not be so great that sludge wasting from the nitrification process causes a washout of the nitrifying organisms. Carbonaceous-BOD concen- trations higher than 50 mg/l in the nitrification influent may interfere with winter operation. Foam spray systems have not been found nec- essary where the MLSS concentration was greater than 2,000 mg/l. The following substances have been shown to have an inhibiting effect on the nitrification proc- ess in concentrations greater than those indi- cated: • Halogen-substituted phenolic compounds, 0 mg/l • Thiourea and thiurea derivates, 0 mg/l • Halogenated solvents, 0 mg/l • Heavy metals, 10-20 mg/l • Cyanides and all compounds from which hy- drocyanic acid is liberated on acidification, 20 mg/l • Phenol and cresol, 20 mg/l References 1 Downing and Knowles, Proceedings of the Third Interna- tional Conference on Water Pollution Research, vol. 2, p. 117, Munich, 1966. 2 Haug and McCarty, J. Water Pollut. Cont. Fed., 44, 2089, 1972. 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 EPA Regional Technology Trans- fer Committee Chairman from the list below: REGION CHAIRMAN ADDRESS REGION CHAIRMAN ADDRESS I Lester Sutton Environmental Protection Agency John F. Kennedy Federal Building Room 2304 Boston, Massachusetts 02203 617 223-2226 (Maine, N.H., Vt., Mass., R.I., Conn.) II Robert Olson Environmental Protection Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10017 212 264-1867 (N.Y., N.J., P.R., V.I.) III Kenneth Suter Environmental Protection Agency 6th & Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 215 597-9268 (Pa., W.Va., Md., Del., D.C., Va.) IV Asa B. Foster, Jr. Environmental Protection Agency Suite 300 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404 526-3454 (N.C., S.C., Ky„ Tenn., Ga„ Ala., Miss., Fla.) V Clifford Risley Environmental Protection Agency 1 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 312 353-5756 (Mich., Wis., Minn., III., Ind., Ohio) VI Jocelyn G. Kempe Environmental Protection Agency 1600 Patterson Street, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75201 214 749-1238 (Texas, Okla., Ark., La., N.Mex.) VII John Coakley VIII Russell Fitch Environmental Protection Agency 1735 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64108 816 374-5971 (Kansas, Nebr., Iowa, Mo.) Environmental Protection Agency 1860 Lincoln Street Denver, Colorado 80203 303 837-3849—837-3691 (Colo., Mont., Wyo., Utah, N.D., S.D.) IX Frank Covington Environmental Protection Agency 100 California Street San Francisco, Calif. 94111 415 556-0218 (Calif., Ariz., Nev., Hawaii) X John Osborn Environmental Protection Agency 1200 6th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 206 442-1296 (Wash., Ore., Idaho, Alaska) ------- REQUESTS FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MATERIAL Please send me the following publications at no charge. (Check appropriate boxes) PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS ~ Phosphorus Removal 1001 ~ Carbon Adsorption 1002 ~ Suspended Solids Removal 1003 ~ Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants 1004 ~ Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems 1005 TECHNICAL CAPSULE REPORTS ~ Recycling Zinc in Viscose Rayon Plants 2001 ~ Color Removal from Kraft Pulping Effluent by Lime Addition 2002 ~ Pollution Abatement in a Copper Wire Mill 2003 ~ First Interim Report on EPA Alkali SOi Scrubbing Test Facility 2004 ~ Dry Caustic Peeling of Peaches 2005 INDUSTRIAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS ~ Upgrading Poultry Processing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (3 Vols.) 3001 ~ Upgrading Metal Finishing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (2 Vols.) 3002 ~ Upgrading Meat Packing Facilities to Reduce Pollution (3 Vols.) 3003 MUNICIPAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS ~ Upgrading Lagoons 4001 ~ Physical-Chemical Treatment 4002 ~ Oxygen Aeration Sludge 4003 ~ Nitrification/Denitrification 4004 ~ Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities—Case Histories 4005 BROCHURES ~ Physical-Chemical Treatment 5001 ~ Phosphorus Removal 5002 ~ Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants 5003 ~ Carbon Adsorption 5004 ~ Oxygen Aeration 5005 ~ Nitrogen Control 5006 ~ Seattle, Washington METRO 5007 ~ Wastewater Purification at Lake Tahoe 5008 ~ Indian Creek Reservoir 5009 ~ Richardson, Texas 5010 HANDBOOKS ~ Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories 6001 ~ Monitoring Industrial Wastewater 6002 For the following audio-visual material, please contact MOTION PICTURES (16mm sound) ~ Richardson, Texas, Project—Title "Somebody around here must be doing something good." (15 min.) ~ Phosphorus Removal (5 min.) ~ Water Quality Management, Alameda Creek, Calif.—Title "The Water Plan" (28Vz min.) Regional Technology Transfer Chairman. (See listing) VIDEOTAPES ~ Carbon Adsorption (40 min.) ~ Upgrading Activated Sludge Treatment Plants (40 min.) your If you are not currently on our mailing list, do you want to be added? Yes n No ~ Name Employer Title Street Phone City State Zip Note: Tear this sheet out and forward to Technology Transfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460 ------- |