T
ECHNOLOGY
T
The Bridge Between Research and Use

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1377
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
RELOCATES TO
PERMANENT OFFICES
EPA Technology Transfer Program has relo-
cated to new office space in the Environmental
Research Center Bldg., Cincinnati, Ohio. This
move does not involve a change in the mailing
address for Technology Transfer, but telephone
numbers for Technology Transfer's staff have
changed as follows:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Environmental Re-
search Center, 26 W. St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
•	Director, Technology Transfer	—	Robert E. Crowe	513-684-7391
•	Municipal Technology Transfer	—	James E. Smith	513-684-7394
•	Industrial Technology Transfer (Water)	—	Guy R. Nelson	513-684-7395
•	Industrial Technology Transfer (Air)	—	Norm Kulujian	513-684-7396
•	Land Use Planning	)
•	Non Point Source	|	—	Orville Macomber 	513-684-7397
•	Analytical Quality Control
WPCF CONFERENCE
The new Technology Transfer document
"Environmental Pollution Control Alternatives:
Municipal Wastewater" was featured at Tech-
nology Transfer's exhibit area at the 1976
Shown at the WPCF Conference are: (I to r) Lester.
Edelman, Counsel, Water Resources Subcommittee, House
Public Works Committee; Bob Crowe, Director Technology
Transfer; John Quarles, Deputy Administrator, U.S. EPA
Water Pollution Control Federation Conference
held October 3-8, 1976 in Minneapolis, Minne-
sota. This year's WPCF meeting had a total
registration of over 8,600 and approximately
5,000 copies of the new Municipal Wastewater
Alternatives publication were distributed at no
charge. A copy of this publication (#5012) can
be ordered by using the request sheet at the
back of this newsletter. A highlight at the
Technology Transfer exhibit was the visit of
EPA Deputy Administrator, Mr. John Quarles,
following his participation in one of the tech-
nical sessions.
NCA/BCR CONFERENCE
The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory's Resource Extraction and Handling
Division (REHD) and Technology Transfer parti-
cipated in the NCA/BCR Coal Conference, held
October 19-21, 1976 at the Kentucky Exposi-
tion Center in Louisville. This conference ad-
dressed the emerging era of coal dominance as
an energy resource, including the responsibility
of upgrading coal extraction and usage both
environmentally and economically. At the con-
ference Exhibit Hall, REHD and Technology
Transfer jointly provided the newest industrial

-------
R. B. Scott received the
S. A. Bra ley Award at the
NCA/BCR Conference.
seminar publication "Erosion and Sediment
Control/Surface Mining in The Eastern U.S."
The 3,000 conference attendees watched as R.B.
(Bob) Scott received the S. A. Braley Award for
his outstanding research work in acid mine
drainage. Bob is head of the EPA's acid mine
drainage field station in Crown, West Virginia.
The Braley award speaks highly for Bob Scott's
achievements, because only five others have
been recipients of the award since its inception
in 1966.
Carl E. Bagge (I), President of the National Coal As-
sociation, and Otes Bennett, Jr., President of The North
American Coal Corporation, stopped by the EPA Exhibit at
the NCA/BCR Conference in Louisville.
THIRD NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON
INDIVIDUAL ONSITE WASTEWATER
SYSTEMS
The Third National Conference on Individual
Onsite Wastewater Systems, co-sponsored by
Technology Transfer and the National Sanita-
tion Foundation, was held November 16-18,
1976 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mr. Jerome H.
Svore, EPA Region VII Administrator, chaired
the opening session, which included a keynote
address by the chief of staff to the Honorable
Jennings Randolph, Chairman of the Senate
Public Works Committee. Topics covered in the
technical sessions included Treatment Systems
Required for Surface Discharge of Onsite Waste-
water; Septage Disposal in Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities; Management Guidelines for Con-
ventional and Alternative Onsite Systems; and
Onsite Wastewater Facilities for Small Commun-
ities and Subdivisions. Conference proceedings
will be available shortly; contact Dr. N.
McClelland, National Sanitation Foundation,
NSF Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 for
information on obtaining the proceedings.
PLANNING ALTERNATIVES FOR
MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
A conference on "Planning Alternatives for
Municipal Water Systems," co-sponsored by
Holcomb Research Institute of Butler University
and Technology Transfer was held in French
Lick, Indiana on October 10-14. Approximately
100 individuals from a wide spectrum of back-
grounds participated in the conference. Among
these were representatives from the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, officials from several
major cities, and administrators and planners
from water utilities both large and small. Topics
discussed included Planning for Regional Urban
Water Quality; Technical Feasibility of
Achieving Water Quality Standards; Potable
Water Reuse Planning — U. S. Experience; and
Environmental Considerations in Water Quality.
Key speakers at the conference were Martin
Lang, New York City Parks Department; Steve
Hanke, Environmental Engineering, Johns
Hopkins University; Leroy Reuter, Lt. Col.
MCS, U. S. Army Biomedical Research and
Development Laboratory; Francis T. Mayo,
Director, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U. S. EPA; and Daniel Okun,
Environmental Engineering, University of North
Carolina.
TRACE METAL
REMOVAL BY
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
Introduction
Metals are a natural part of the earth's crust;
they can be found in measurable quantities in
practically every living and inanimate substance
in the world. Metals constitute about 5 percent
of the earth's rocks and are sufficiently soluble
to have been distributed, over the millennia, into
every part of the environment. Because of this

-------
ubiquitous distribution, all living things have
acquired (by evolution) a tolerance for metals
body burden. Indeed, all living things require
certain metals for their well-being. Unfortun-
ately, the borderline between a natural tolerance
level for a metal in a species and a hazardous
level may not be very wide. A typical biological
response curve would show an increasingly
beneficial effect with increasing concentrations
up to a certain optimum level. Beyond this level,
there is a tolerance region beyond which bene-
fits decrease, injurious effects begin, and, finally,
a lethal dose is reached. Certain metals (mercury
and cadmium for example) serve no useful
physiological function and become toxic to the
organism at low concentrations.
Man's activities have upset the natural dis-
tribution of metals in the environment, and this
fact alone is the basis of concern. The increase in
the use of metals of all kinds has averaged about
50 percent during the 20 years from 1948 to
1968. The burning of fuel for energy disperses
enormous quantities of metals into the environ-
ment.
The goal of wastewater treatment, therefore,
is not to reduce trace metals to zero but rather
to reduce concentrations to ambient levels and
to dispose of the concentrates (sludges) such
that redispersion does not recur. The objectives
of this discussion are to show that metals are, in
fact, present in wastewater, that current biolo-
gical treatment processes are only partially
effective in removing most metals, and, finally,
that processes are available to obtain even
greater removals. Discussion will be limited to
six or seven of the more important metals.
Trace Metals in Wastewater
There have been several surveys of metals
concentration in influent wastewater. The re-
sults of a recent survey of some 100 plants in
Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey are
shown in Table 1. The median values show that
concentrations of the 7 metals are low, ranging
Table 1
MULTIPLANT INFLUENT METALS SURVEY
(CONNECTICUT - NEW YORK - NEW JERSEY)1

Median
Exceeded by highest 5%
Metal
mg/1
mg/1
Cadmium
<0.02
0.04
Chromium
<0.05
0.45
Copper
0.10
0.85
Mercury
0.0013
0.0088
Nickel
<0.10
0.50
Lead
<0.20
0.20
Zinc
0.18
1.14
1 Based on 100-400 analyses for each metal.
from 0.0013 mg/1 for mercury to < 0.20 mg/1
for lead. Five percent of the samples had metal
concentrations some 2-9 times higher in concen-
tration.
The concentrations of metals that one can
find in any survey can range over several orders
of magnitude as illustrated in Table 2, largely
due to industrial discharges. Cadmium concen-
trations ranged from < 0.008 mg/1 to as much
as 0.142 mg/1 and zinc from as little as 0.03
mg/1 to as much as 8.31 mg/1. Comparison with
recommended drinking water standards shows
that in most cases the concentration of metals in
influent wastewater is less than drinking water
requirements, although clearly the higher con-
centrations exceed the drinking water standards.
The comparison is made only to provide a point
of reference. Comparison is also made with
quality criteria for aquatic life to indicate the
very much lower concentrations required for
some of the metals. The plant effluent concen-
tration to protect aquatic life will, of course,
depend on the dilution available at the point of
discharge.
Table 2
RANGE OF CONCENTRATION OF METALS IN WASTEWATER1
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Cone range
mg/1
<0.008-0.142
<0.020-0.700
<0.020-3.36
<0.0002-0.044
<0.0020-880
<0.050-1.27
<0.030-8.31
Recommended
drinking
water stds
mg/1
0.01
0.05
1.0
0.002
No std.
0.05
5.0
Quality criteria
for aquatic life
mg/1
0.0004
0.30
0.1 x 96 hr LCgQ
0.00005
0.10
0.01 x 96 hr LC50
0.01 x 96 hr LC5Q
1 Results of a recent survey of plants in Michigan.

-------
Metal Removal by Biological Treatment
Biological treatment reduces metal concen-
trations by widely varying and largely unpre-
dictable amounts. The range of percentage
removal obtainable by biological treatment is
shown in Table 3. Bearing in mind that if the
metals concentrations coming into a waste treat-
ment plant are already low, then the variable
and sometimes low percent removals obtained
may be acceptable, particularly when adequate
dilution is available at the point of discharge.
These percent removals, however, would not be
adequate to handle those wastewaters that con-
tain the higher influent concentrations.
Table 3
REMOVAL OF METALS BY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
Removal
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
percent
20-45
40-80
0-70
20-75
15-40
50-90
35-80
Metals cannot be destroyed. When a treat-
ment plant removes metals from the liquid flow,
they are concentrated in the much smaller flow
of sludge. This is illustrated in Table 4. In the
sludge, the metals concentration can, indeed,
become quite large, ranging from 6.6 mg
mercury/kg dry sludge to 2780 mg zinc/kg dry
sludge. Obviously, care must be taken on how
the sludge is disposed. The much higher concen-
trations require that precautions be taken that
the metals not be redispersed into the environ-
Table 4
METALS IN DIGESTED SLUDGE-
33 PLANTS'
Metal
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Median Value
mg/kgb
31
1100
1230
6.6
410
830
2780
ment via the atmosphere during incineration,
through leaching into the groundwater from
landfills, or through uptake by plants after
sludge spreading on land.
Metal Removal by Physical-Chemical Processes
Improved removal of metals over that shown
by biological treatment can be obtained by
physical-chemical systems. These systems were
used to investigate the removal of 22 metals in a
study by the Wastewater Research Division of
EPA at Cincinnati, Ohio. In this study, indivi-
dual metals and combinations of metals were
added to the raw wastewater, and removals
obtained in the various unit processes were
determined. The 0.25 1/sec (4 gpm) pilot plant
system consisted of chemical clarification by a
variety of chemicals including lime at varying
pH's, alum and iron salts, dual media filtration,
and activated carbon. Two carbon contactors
were used: one (designated "old carbon") had
been in operation for about a year and was in
need of regeneration; the other was designated
as "new carbon." All waste flows such as
chemical sludges and filter backwashes were
measured and sampled in order to obtain a
materials balance, which served to locate other-
wise undetected sources of error.
Typical results for removal of cadmium are
shown in Figure 1. Clarification was obtained by
ferric sulfate at pH 6 and by lime at pH ~ 10 and
at —11.5. Coagulation and filtration resulted in
> 94 percent removal of cadmium in all three
clarification systems. Activated carbon adsorp-
tion removed an additional increment resulting
ironH
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
, Old
L Carbon
LOW J
LIME
HIGH
lime'
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
, 8arbon
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
, Old
L Carbon
'Plant sizes ranging from 0.1 mgd to 150 mgd.
bDry Sludge Basis
o~~i5~~40 60~75~~i5 so '' 100
£ REMOVAL (percent)
FIGURE 1. Removal of cadmium".

-------
in a cumulative removal of about 99 percent ot
the cadmium. Both the exhausted (old carbon)
and fresh (new carbon) contactors were equally
effective in removing an increment of cadmium.
The behavior of the various metals in the
treatment system varied with each metal. For
example, hexavalent chromium is shown in
Figure 2. Poor removals were obtained during
chemical precipitation largely because of the
substantial solubility of the chromium VI com-
pounds. Activated carbon, however, was very
effective and resulted in overall removals in
excess of 95 percent. The removal of chromium
VI may be the result of adsorption but more
likely is due to reduction of the soluble hexa-
valent chromium to the highly insoluble triva-
lent chromium which is precipitated in the
contactor.
IRON -
LOW
LIME
HIGH.
LIME "
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
Old
_Carbon
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
Old
. Carbon
Settled
Filtered
New
Carbon
Old
.Carbon
0 2?T
—r-
40
—i	r~
60 70
80~
—1111111 i
90
100
£ REMOVAL (percent)
FIGURE 2. Removal of chromium^'.
Mercury, about which there has been con-
siderable concern, is well removed by physical-
chemical treatment. An initial concentration of
50-60 pig/1 was reduced to < 1 jug/1 providing an
overall removal of > 98 percent.
This research, as well as the work done by
others, has demonstrated that a physical-
chemical system is a most effective series of
processes for removal of metals. A summary of
removals obtained on 22 metals by differing
chemical pretreatments is shown in Tables 5, 6,
and 7. Coagulation with one or another of the
coagulants followed by activated carbon ob-
tained removals exceeding 95 percent for most
of the metals, including the toxic metals beryl-
lium, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. Some
deficiencies in removal were exhibited for sev-
eral metals. Thus, molybdenum is poorly re-
moved by lime but better removal is obtained
with ferric salts. Similarly, nickel and manganese
are poorly removed by iron salts or alum but
readily removed by lime. The right choice of
clarification chemical or combinations of chemi-
cals will remove, to a high degree, all of the
listed metals. It is not unusual, for example, to
use small dosages of ferric salts to improve
clarification when using lime.
Plants discharging to water quality limited
streams face some difficulties in meeting the
stringent requirements for aquatic life shown in
Table 2, particularly when minimum dilution
water is available in the stream and especially
when influent metals concentrations are high.
For example, even the high percent removal of
99.6 obtained for cadmium in Table 5 would
not be adequate to meet aquatic requirements of
0.0004 mg cadmium/1 unless a dilution of 1-50
were available in the stream. Alternative
methods (such as source control) would be
required in those instances where high influent
concentrations of metals are experienced and
where low residuals are imposed by stream
standards. This is true for other metals (Tables 5
and 6) where high percent removals result in
substantial residuals when the influent concen-
tration is as high as 5 mg/1. Generally, however,
influent concentrations are low and most
aquatic life requirements can be obtained.
Table 5
REMOVAL OF METALS BY
LIME PRECIPITATION-ACTIVATED CARBON

Initial

Residual
Metal
concentration
Removal
metal

mg/1
percent
M9/1
Silver
0.5
98.
10
Beryllium
0.1
99.5
1
Bismuth
0.6
96.
24
Cobalt
0.5
95.
25
Mercury
0.5
91.
45
Molybdenum
0.5
«
—
Antimony
0.6
52.
288
Selenium
0.5
95.
25
Selenium
0.06
67.
20
Tin
0.5
92.
40
Titanium
0.5
95.3
24
Thallium
0.5
72.
140
Vanadium
0.5
91.
45
Manganese
5.0
98.2
90
Nickel
5.0
99.5
25
Zinc
5.0
76.
1200
Copper
5.0
90.
500
Cadmium
5.0
99.6
20
Barium
5.0
81.
950
Lead
5.0
99.4
30
Chromium
5.0
98.2
90
Arsenic
5.0
84.
800
Mercury
0.5
92.
40
¦ 8% removal bated on (fudge analysis.

-------
Table 6
REMOVAL OF METALS BY
FERRIC CHLORIDE-ACTIVATED CARBON

Initial

Residual
Metal
concentration
Removal
metal

mg/1
percent
M9/1
Silver
0.5
99.1
5
Beryllium
0.1
98.9
1
Bismuth
0.5
96.2
9
Cobalt
0.5
30.
350
Mercury
0.05
99.
1
Molybdenum
0.6
80.
120
Antimony
0.5
72.
140
Selenium
0.1
80.
20
Selenium
0.05
75.
13
Tin
0.5
98.5
8
Titanium
0.5
90.
50
Thallium
0.6
45.
330
Vanadium
0.5
97.8
11
Manganese
5.0
17.
4150
Nickel
5.0
37.
3150
Zinc
5.0
94.
300
Copper
5.0
96.
200
Cadmium
5.0
98.6
70
Barium
5.0
95.6
220
Lead
5.0
99.1
45
Chromium
5.0
99.3
35
Arsenic
5.0
97.1
145
Mercury
0.5
98.
10
Table 7
REMOVAL OF METALS BY
ALUM-ACTIVATED CARBON

Initial

Residual
Metal
concentration
Removal
metal

mg/1
percent
A»g/1
Silver
0.6
99.2
5
Beryllium
0.1
98.9
1
Bismuth
0.6
96.9
19
Cobalt
0.8
56.
352
Mercury
0.06
98.3
1
Molybdenum
0.6
10.
540
Antimony
0.6
71.
174
Selenium
0.5
56.
220
Tin
0.6
94.
36
Titanium
0.6
95.8
25
Thallium
0.6
39.
366
Vanadium
0.5
95.4
23
Manganese
0.7
33.
469
Nickel
0.9
37.
567
Zinc
2.5
28.
1800
Copper
0.7
98.3
12
Cadmium
0.7
55.5
312
Barium
0.5
92.
40
Lead
0.6
96.6
20
Chromium (Cr^+)
0.7
99.3
5
Chromium (Cr6+)
0.7
97.4
18
Activated carbon in the physical-chemical
system performs an important function in the
overall removal of metals in the system. As
Figures 1 and 2 show, activated carbon can, in
some instances, provide the additional removal
required to yield low residuals in the effluent.
The reasons for removal are not known but are
probably due to a combination of mechanisms
including adsorption, reaction with organics at
the carbon surface, filtration of previously
precipitated metals, and precipitation with,
sulfide. Whatever the reasons, the metals are
associated with the carbon and are not removed
during backwashing. During the organic loading
cycle, carbon can assimilate substantial con-
centrations of metals which become part of the
ash content of the carbon after regeneration.
Removal of Metals by AWT System
There has been interest in using wastewater as
a source of potable water — after treatment,
naturally, to remove as much as technically
possible of all pollutants. The treatment system
that appears capable of achieving this degree of
treatment is a combination of biological and
physical-chemical processes. As a category of
pollutants, toxic metals have been of some
concern.
Table 8 shows some results of a several years'
study at Dallas, Texas. Typically, the incoming
concentrations for the metals listed are low,
consistent with the ranges of metals in waste-
water shown in Table 1. The activated sludge
process reduces these concentrations by 21-69
percent (Table 8). Activated sludge is followed
by lime precipitation (at pH 11.5) and by
filtration and activated carbon which extract a
further increment of metals. The cumulative
removals range from 39-96 percent, finally
producing the residuals shown in the last
column. What appears to be an inconsistency in
Table 8
REMOVAL OF METALS-DALLAS
TERTIARY PLANT

Plant
Removal (percent)


Influent
Activated
Sludge +
Effluent
Metal
mg/1
sludge
Tertiary1
mg/1
Cadmium
0.013
39
39
0.008
Chromium
0.215
57
96
0.009
Copper
0.092
33
56
0.041
Mercury
0.00051
69
86
0.00007
Nickel
0.073
21
74
0.019
Lead
0.095
56
53
0.045
Zinc
0.320
65
91
0.029
1Lime (pH 11.5), filtration, activated carbon

-------
the percent removals obtained in the tertiary
and those obtained in a physical-chemical
system treating raw sewage is actually due to the
much lower concentrations of metals entering
the tertiary system. In the latter, the numerical
value of the residual becomes sensitive to the
degree of suspended solids removal and to
solubility product relationships. Additional
removal, if necessary, would require modifi-
cations to the process. In terms of metals, this
processed wastewater fully qualifies as drinking
water: cadmium is 8 juq/1, requirement is 10;
chromium is 9 jug/1, requirement is 50; mercury
is 0.07 ug/1, requirement is 2.
Discussion
Despite the substantial amount of work done
on removal of metals in wastewater treatment,
this brief review reveals that much has yet to be
learned about how to control the dispersion of
metals into the environment. The overwhelming
majority of treatment plants in this country
consist of some form of biological treatment —
activated sludge, trickling filters, and lagoons. As
was shown, removal of metals by these processes
is variable and unpredictable. To make these
processes more effective for metals removal,
more information must be obtained on the
effects of process variables such as the ratio of
oxygen to BOD, sludge age, mean cell residence
time, etc. Little is known, for example, of the
effect on metals of adding a coagulant to
activated sludge for phosphorus control. The
problem of disposal of sludge, which contains
orders of magnitude with higher concentrations
of metals than effluents, remains an area for
more research.
It is not certain that the low concentrations
of metals produced by physical-chemical treat-
ment are adequate to protect the aquatic envi-
ronment. While drinking water standards for
metals can be achieved, it is known that concen-
trations lower by as much as an order of
magnitude may be required for aquatic life
where biomagnification and adsorption on
sediments present special problems.
Only a continuing program of research can
provide the information needed for the solution
to these problems.
The feature article on trace water removal was prepared by
Jesse M. Cohen, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. SPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
REMOTE SENSING WORKSHOP PLANNED
Technology Transfer and the EPA Environ-
mental Monitoring and Support Laboratory have
scheduled a Remote Sensing Workshop for the
spring of 1977. The purpose of the workshop is
to bring experts in this field together to prepare
a new Technology Transfer publication. This
document will inform and educate regulatory
agency personnel about remote sensing tech-
niques that are used to detect and identify
pollutants for surveillance and enforcement.
Approximately 25 specialists will be invited to
participate in this 3-day workshop.
SPECIALTY FOOD SEMINAR
A Technology Transfer Specialty Food Waste
Management Seminar was held January 9-12,
1977 at Atlanta's Peachtree Plaza Hotel. The
seminar was tailored by a combined
EPA/industry committee to specifically address
the control of pollution in four food manu-
facturing areas: dressings and sauces; preserves;
processed apples; and vinegars. The agenda
covered effluent guidelines, wastewater treat-
ment (primary, secondary, tertiary), pre-
treatment, financial/management strategies, and
case histories.
Over 150 industrial representatives attended
the seminar and participated in dialogues on
subjects such as sampling techniques, plant
housekeeping, cost recovery methods, and
pollution control management alternatives.
NEW INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER PUBLICATION AVAILABLE-
THIRD PROGRESS REPORT ON TVA
SHAWNEE LIME/LIMESTONE FGD
DEMONSTRATION FACILITY
This is the third in a series of capsule reports
describing a program conducted by the EPA to
test prototype lime and limestone wet-scrubbing
systems for removing sulfur dioxide (SO?) and
particulate matter (fly ash) from coal-fired
boiler flue gases. The program, sponsored by the
Utilities and Industrial Power Division of the
EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, is being conducted in a test facility
which is integrated into the flue gas ductwork of
a coal-fired boiler at the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Shawnee Power Station,
Paducah, Kentucky. Bechtel Corporation of San
Francisco is the major contractor and test
director, and TVA is the constructor and facility
operator. This report describes initial results of
an advanced program of lime and limestone tests
(with and without the addition of magnesium
oxide), conducted from January 1975 to April
1976. Two earlier capsule reports described the
results from the inception of testing in May
1972 until January 1975.
This third capsule report describes limestone
utilization tests conducted on two scrubber
systems. These tests were designed to sub-
stantiate a TVA economic study which showed

-------
that the economics of limestone scrubbing could
be improved by increasing limestone utilization
(moles SO2 absorbed/mole Ca added). Increased
limestone utilization not only reduces limestone
feed requirements but also reduces waste sludge
production. Tests were conducted to correlate
alkali utilization with scrubber inlet liquor pH,
effluent hold tank residence time, and hold tank
configuration.
Removal of the entrained mist from the
scrubbed flue gas without fouling the mist
eliminator system is one of the key factors in
successful scrubber operation. Early in the
testing program, more difficulty was exper-
ienced in keeping the mist eliminator clean on
the Turbulent Contact Absorber (TCA) in
limestone service than on the spray tower in
lime service. This difficulty was initially at-
tributed to differences in scrubber design, which
might have caused a finer mist in the TCA. Later
it was found that the mist eliminator was much
easier to keep clean at a high alkali utilization
(above about 85 percent) than at lower utili-
zation. Lime systems operate at an inherently
high utilization; limestone systems can operate
over a range of utilization.
A 7-week variable load (cycling gas rate) test
series with lime was conducted on the
venturi/spray tower system from August to
October 1975. These tests were designed to
evaluate the ability of the scrubber system to
handle the variable gas rate and composition
resulting from a daily boiler load cycle.
From February to April 1976, lime and
limestone factorial tests were performed at the
test facility. Approximately 250 runs were made
to determine the effects of several scrubber
variables on percent SO2 removal by the venturi
(only), the spray tower (operated with minimum
flow to the venturi section), and the TCA
scrubber.
This third capsule report can be ordered by
filling out the form on the last sheet of this
newsletter (#2010).
EPA WATER PLANNING DIVISION AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO SPONSOR
THREE REGIONAL 208 CONFERENCES
Technology Transfer and the Water Planning
Division of the Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials will co-sponsor a series of three re-
gional conferences on Section 208 Management
and Implementation. The conferences will dis-
seminate the latest information and technology
pertinent to Section 208 of the Water Pollution
Control Act and Amendments of 1972 (PL
92-500). Slated to focus on solutions to prob-
lems identified in three distinct geographical
areas of the country, conferences will be held in
Reston, Virginia on March 15-17, 1977; Denver,
Colorado on April 19-21, 1977; and St. Louis,
Missouri on May 23-25, 1977.
Section 208 of PL 92-500 requires that state
and area water quality management agencies
develop and implement plans to control and
abate water pollution from all sources, point and
non-point, within a designated 208-study region
or area. Point sources of pollution include
municipal and industrial liquid and solid wastes.
Non-point sources include agriculture, silvi-
culture, mining, construction, salt water intru-
sion, and residue disposal. Section 208 further
provides that alternative methods for attaining
pollution control solutions must be considered.
The 208 Conferences are designed to present,
in a period of 3 days, up-to-the-minute institu-
tional, regulatory, technical and economic in-
formation to those currently involved in the
studies and those who will be involved in future
208 programs. The Institutional/Regulatory
Workshops will discuss EPA guidance and reg-
ulatory policy; federal/state/local relationships;
and plan implementation and management, in
addition to other areas. Technical Workshops are
designed to give program guidance and im-
plementation in the various point and non-point
areas along with technical assessment and con-
trol techniques (including alternatives). Hand-
books and manuals on these techniques will also
be distributed. Areas covered will be urban
runoff; agriculture; silviculture; construction;
mining; estimating industrial pollution loads;
liquid waste sludge; and solid waste disposal.
It is expected that a person attending the

-------
conference will learn EPA policy and guidance
in the 208 program. He will learn state-of-the-art
techniques in assessment and control of point
and non-point sources of pollution. Experts
from EPA, the academic world, state and local
government, and industry will present useful,
practical information, stressing best management
practices and costs. Four to six concurrent
sessions are planned to minimize the amount of
time required for presentation of the informa-
tion. Most technical sessions will be presented at
two different times, allowing for participation in
a greater number of sessions.
While maintaining a similar format, the final
agenda presented at each conference will be
modified to focus on solutions to problems that
have been identified as important within each
geographical region. Therefore, it will be nec-
essary to attend only the nearest regional con-
ference.
MANUAL RE "METHODS FOR CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS OF WATER AND WASTES"
BEING UPDATED
The EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory is updating the manual
entitled "Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes" and it should be ready for
distribution by Technology Transfer in De-
cember 1977. Copies now being distributed are
reprints of the 1974 manual and the former
errata sheet is now reflected in the body of the
text. Copies can be obtained by using the order
form at the back of this newsletter.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MUNICIPAL
DESIGN SEMINARS ON SMALL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Rezek of Rezek, Henry, Meisenheimer and
Gende, Libertyvilie, Illinois; Jim Kreissel, U. S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio; Gordon Culp, Clean
Water Consultants, El Dorado Hills, California;
E. Joe Middlebrooks, Middlebrooks and As-
sociates, Logan, Utah; and Jerrold J. Troyan,
Brown and Caldwell, Eugene, Oregon.
Below are listed six scheduled locations and
dates for the seminars. It is anticipated that the
seminar will eventually be held in all 10 regions.
If interested in attending one of these seminars,
contact your regional TT Chairman for ad-
ditional information. His name, address, and
phone number appear in the back of this
newsletter.
Date
March 8-10, 1977
March 29-31, 1977
April 26-28, 1977
May 4-6, 1977
May 17-19, 1977
June 7-9, 1977
Location of Seminar
Portland, Ore.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Kansas City, Mo.
Boston, Mass.
San Francisco, Calif.
Denver, Colo.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SEMINAR ON
GUIDANCE FOR IDENTIFYING AND
ASSESSING POLLUTION FROM MINING
AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
The third Technology Transfer Seminar on
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500)
was held in Atlanta, Georgia on November 4-5,
1976. Approximately 100 public officials,
individuals from planning agencies, conservation
groups, mining and construction industries, and
state and federal governments attended the
seminar.
A new Technology Transfer seminar series has
been developed to cover the design of small
wastewater treatment community systems of
less than 1 MGD and individual home or on-site
wastewater treatment devices. The program will
feature three, 4-hour concurrent sessions dealing
with on-site systems, residuals management and
alternative collection systems, and community
treatment systems. The seminar will be initiated
with a 4-hour general session featuring presen-
tations by the regional administrator, regional
and national Technology Transfer personnel,
and by experts from the Office of Water
Program Operations, and state agencies. The
final 4-hour general session will present the
methodology for making an alternative analysis
of potential treatment systems for a community.
Speakers for the technical sessions will in-
clude Professors William Boyle and R. J. Otis,
University of Wisconsin; Ivan Cooper and Joseph
Jack E. Ravan, Region
IV Administrator, address-
ing audience at Technology
Transfer's 208 Seminar in
Atlanta, Ga.
Purpose of the seminar was to present an
approach to 208 planning for non-point sources
of pollution and to discuss the specific needs in
construction and mining activities. In the con-

-------
struction area, presentations were given on
assessing the problem and determining the
solutions; Federal Highway Program regulations
including monitoring and implementation; costs
and incentives; and the State of North Carolina's
program to regulate pollution from construction
activities-organization, resources, costs, im-
plementation, monitoring and results.
In the mining area, presentations included
identification/assessment alternatives and a
recommended approach to planning and im-
plementation of controls; improving the effec-
tiveness of state mining regulatory control pro-
grams in Kentucky; a case history on phosphate
mining controls in Florida; and non-point source
problems as seen by a miner.
The second day consisted of a workshop in
which dialogue with seminar participants was
held to discuss what was being done by federal,
state, and local agencies and industries in con-
trolling, monitoring, and regulating non-point
sources of pollution from construction and
mining activities.
Key presentations were made by James W.
Crooks and Gene McNeill, U.S. EPA, Region IV,
Atlanta; 0. M. Stump, FHWA, Region IV,
Atlanta; Harlan Britt, DNR, State of North
Carolina; William S. Forester, DNR, State of
Kentucky; Tim Stewart, DER, State of Florida;
C. Christopher of Hagy, Sutherland, Asbill and
Brennan, Atlanta; and David Green, Robert
Thronson and Dan Deely, U. S. EPA, Water
Planning Division, Washington, D.C.
For details about future seminars on this
subject, contact the appropriate Technology
Transfer Chairman listed in the back of this
newsletter.
METAL FABRICATING SEMINAR
Over 120 industrial representatives attended a
2-day Technology Transfer seminar, "Upgrading
Metal Machining, Fabricating and Coating
Operations to Reduce Pollution." The seminar,
held November 30-December 1 in Philadelphia,
Pa., attracted industrial decision-makers who
are responsible for selecting, purchasing, de-
signing, or operating pollution control equip-
ment. The seminar's technical sessions em-
phasized proven and available practical solutions
for the control of air and water pollutants; the
reduction of wasteloads; and the treatment,
disposal, or recovery of waste products and heat.
The seminar will also be held in Boston,
Massachusetts, February 23-24, 1977. In
addition, because of its popularity, plans are
being made to conduct it in Dallas and Chicago
in the spring. For details on these future
seminars, contact the appropriate Technology
Transfer Chairman listed in the back of this
newsletter.
"FOREST HARVESTING AND WATER
QUALITY" -SECOND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER BROCHURE ON FOREST
PRACTICES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
A new Technology Transfer publication,
"Forest Harvesting and Water Quality," pre-
pared by EPA's Region X, highlights forest
harvest activities which can cause environmental
damage and suggests some management practices
aimed at preventing or minimizing adverse
impacts on surface waters. The forest and its
harvestable timber is a valuable resource. In the
Pacific Northwest alone, there are some 64.8
million acres classified as commercial forest.
Proper management of this resource carries
responsibilities for protection of the forest
environment. Improper harvest practices can be
destructive not only to the immediate harvest
area but to countless miles of streams. This
publication can be obtained by checking off the
appropriate box (#5013) on the order form in
the back of this newsletter.
WORKSHOP-OZONE/CHLORINE DIOXIDE
A workshop on "Ozone/Chlorine Dioxide
Oxidation Products of Organic Materials," co-
sponsored by the International Ozone Institute
and Technology Transfer was held November
16-19 in Cincinnati. Over 300 scientists, en-
gineers, regulatory personnel, and academics
from around the world attended the workshop.
During the 3-day workshop, over 25 papers
dealing with the chemistry and toxicology of
various organic materials were given. Topics of
some of the papers were as follows: Ozone as a
Disinfectant of Water; Reactions of Ozone in
Aqueous Systems; Methods for Evaluating the
Mutagenic Activity of Ozonated Chemicals;
Wolfgang Kuhn of the Universitat Karlsruhe, Federal
Republic of Germany, addressing the audience at the IOI
Workshop.

-------
Identification of End Products Resulting from
Ozonation of Compounds Commonly Found in
Water; and Use of Chlorine Dioxide in Water and
Wastewater T reatment.
Key speakers during the workshop included
Victor Kimm, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Supply, U.S. EPA; Phillip Harteman,
Ph.D., INSERM, Nancy, France; Wolfgang
Kuhn, Universitat Karlsruhe, Federal Republic
of Germany; and James M. Symons, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA.
Proceedings from this workshop can be
obtained from the International Ozone Institute,
Skytop Complex, Merrill Lane, Syracuse, New
York 13210.
Jack Mills of Dow Chemical Co. arid Walter J. Blogoslawski,
National Marine Fisheries Service, during one of the Tech-
nical Sessions at the 101 Workshop.

-------
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
Transfer Committee Chairman from the list below:
REGION CHAIRMAN
I Lester Sutton
III
IV
Robert Olson
Albert Montague
Asa B. Foster, Jr.
ADDRESS	REGION
Environmental Protection Agency	VI
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2313
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
617 223-2226
(Maine, N.H., Vt., Mass., R.I., Conn.)
Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
212 264-1867
(N.Y., N.J., P.R., V.I.)
Environmental Protection Agency	VII
6th 8i Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215 597-9856
(Pa., W. Va„ Md„ Del,, D.C., Va.)
CHAIRMAN
Mildred Smith
VII John Coakley
Environmental Protection Agency	IX
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404 881-3454
(N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn,, Ga., Ala.,
Miss., Fla.)
Elmer Chenault
William Bishop
ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
214- 749-3971
(Texas, Okie., Ark., La., N. Max.)
Envlronmentel 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
303 837-4343
(Colo., Mont., Wyo„ Uteh, N.D.
S.D.)
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94111
415 556-6925
(Calif,, Ariz., Nev„ Hawaii)
Clifford Rlsley Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312 353-2200
(Mich., Wis., Minn., III., Ind., Ohio)
John Osborn	Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
206 442-1296
(Wash,, Ore., Idaho, Alaska)
For the following audio-visual material, please contact your Regional Transfer Chairman, (See above)
MOTION PICTURES (16mm sound)
•	Richardson, Texas Project-Title: "Somebody around here	• The Seattle METRO Story. (28 mln.)
must be doing something good." (15 mln.) • "Breakthrough at Clear Lake" (28 mln.)
•	Phosphorus Removal (5 mln.)
•	Water Quality Management, Alameda Creek, Calif.—Title:
"The Water Plan." (28'/j mln.)

-------
Technology Transfer Scheduled Events
In order to keep you more aware of future Technology Transfer activities
(particularly seminars), the following schedule is included. Should you desire
more details on any of the activities listed, contact the appropriate Technology
Transfer Regional Chairman listed in the previous section of this newsletter.
SUBJECT
DATE

REGION/CITY
Scheduled Industrial Seminars



Specialty Foods
January 9-12, 1977
IV
Atlanta, Ga.
Metal Fabricating
February 23-24, 1977
1
Boston, Mass.
Metal Fabricating
March 23,24, 1977
V
Chicago, III.
Tentative Industrial Seminars



Metal Fabricating
April 1977
VI
Dallas, Tex.
Metal Fabricating
April 1977
IX
Los Angeles, Calif.
Wood Products
Summer 1977
VIII
Denver, Colo.
Wood Products
Summer 1977
VI
Texarkana, Tex.
Wood Products
Summer 1977
IX
Redding, Calif.
Scheduled Municipal Seminars



Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
March 8-10, 1977
X
Seattle, Wash.
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
March 29-31, 1977
III
Philadelphia, Pa.
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
April 26-28, 1977
VII
Kansas City, Mo.
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
May 4-6, 1977
1
Boston, Mass.
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
May 17-19, 1977
IX
San Francisco, Calif.
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
June 7-9, 1977
VIII
Denver, Colo.
Scheduled "208 Planning" Seminars



208 Management and Implementation
March 15-17, 1977
III
Reston, Va.
Tentative "208 Planning" Seminars



208 Management and Implementation
April 19-21, 1977
VIII
Denver, Colo.
208 Management and Implementation
May 23-25, 1977
VII
St. Louis, Mo.
-S^T U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976-757-056/5A3A Region No. 5-11

-------
REQUEST FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MATERIAL
The publications listed on this form are the only ones available through the Office of Technology Transfer.
Please send me the following publications at no charge. (Check appropriate boxes)
PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS
Phosphorus Removal (April 1976)	1001	~
Carbon Adsorption (Oct, 1973)	1002	~
Suspended Solids Removal (Jan. 1975)	1003	Q
Upgrading E xistlng Wastewater Treatment
Plants (Oct. 1974)	1004	Q
Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems
(Oct. 1974)	1005	~
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (Oct. 1974)	1006	~
Nitrogen Control (Oct. 1975)	1007	~
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 Alkail S02
Scrubbing Test Facility	2004	Q]
Dry Caustic Peeling of Peaches	2005	Q
Pollution Abatement in a Brewing Facility	2006	~
S02 Scrubbing and Sulfuric Acid
Production Via Magnesia Scrubbing	2007	~
Second I nterim Report on EPA
Alkali ScrubbingTest Facility	2008	Q
Magnesium Carbonate Process for
Water Treatment	2009	~
MUNICIPAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Upgrading Lagoons	4001	~
Physical-Chemical Treatment	4002	~
Nitrification/Denitrification	4004	[U
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Facilities—Case Histories	4005	O
Flow Equalization	4006	~
Wastewater Filtration	4007	CH
Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal	4008	D
Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge
Incineration	4009	D
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents (3 Vols.)	4010	D
BROCHURES
Logging Roads and Water Quality	.5011 O
Municipal Wastewater Alternatives 	5012 Q
Forest Harvesting and
Water Quality	.5013 D
HANDBOOKS
Analytical Quality Control in Water
and Wastewater Laboratories (1972)	6001 [U
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater (1973)	6002 ~
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (1974) 	6003 O
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 CH
Upgrading Textile Operations
to Reduce Pollution (2 Vols.)	3004 ~
Choosing the Optimum F inancial
Strategies for Pollution Control Investments .. .3005 ~
Erosion and Sediment Control from
Surface Mining (2 Vols.)	3006 ~
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION CONTROL MANUALS
Pulp and Paper Industry - Part I/Air	7001 ~
If you are not currently on the mailing list for the Technology Transfer Newsletter, do you want to be added? Yes D No D
•Name
Employer
Street	
City 				 State 	
* It is not necessary to fill in this block if your name and address on reverse are correct.
Note: Forward to Technology Transfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268,
Zip

-------