NVIRONMENTAL

ESEARCH UNFORMATION HeNTER
ECHNOLOGY
The Bridge Between Research and Use
W.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUNE 1977
NATIONAL CONFERENCES ON 208
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Technology Transfer and the Water Plan-
ning Division of the Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C., co-
sponsored three National Conferences on
Section 208 Planning and Implementation
at Reston, Virginia, March 15-17, at Denver,
Colorado, April 19-21 and at St. Louis, Mis-
souri, May 24-26 of this year.
The objective of the conferences was to
bring together in one meeting the various
aspects of the 208 Areawide Water Quality
Management Planning as required by Sec-
tion 208 of PL 92-500. They were structured
to show the interrelationship of the technical
assessment and control procedures for pol-
lutants with the institutional process that is
so necessary to achieve implementation of
the 208 plan.
The conference at the Sheraton Inn,
Reston, Virginia (a suburb of Washington,
John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Region 8, Denver,
CO, at Denver 208 conference.
D.C.), was 3 days in length with an attend-
ance of over 700—the largest audience ever
to attend a Technology Transfer seminar. A
breakdown of the registration showed repre-
sentatives from the following groups:
172
157
107
84
69
47
31
29
18
3
Consulting firms
State and local 208 agencies
State governments
Federal agencies
Local governments
Universities (students and staff)
Citizens organizations
Private industry
Trade organizations
Elected officials
Walter S. Groszyk, Deputy Director, Water Planning Division,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, at Reston 208conference.
A total of 65 speakers made presentations
over the 3-day period, from: state and local
208 agencies; state water pollution control,
agriculture, mining, and highway agencies;
county conservation districts; state elected
officials; congressional committees; conser-
vation groups; consulting firms; universities;
and federal agencies.
The first day of each conference was a
general session that discussed regulatory
management and institutional considera-
tions relating to 208 planning and case
studies by 208 agencies. The second day

-------
Connie Brown, Principal Planner, Knoxville-Knox Co., Metro
Planning Comm., Knoxville, TN, at Reston 208 conference.
consisted of four concurrent sessions (re-
peated on the third day) that presented tech-
nical assessment and control procedures for
non-point-source pollutants found in urban
stormwater; agriculture, silviculture, mining,
and construction activities; solid waste and
liquid waste sludge disposal; and septic tank
discharges.
SUSS
Walter Peechatka, Director, Bureau of Soil Conservation
State of Pennsylvania, at Reston 208 conference.
CURRENTSTATUS OF RESEARCH IN AUTOMATION
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES
During the last 15 years industry has
demonstrated that automation of chemical
processes is cost-effective and improves
product quality. Automation of wastewater
treatment and collection systems also
promises improved performance at lower
costs. Furthermore, with proper use of exist-
ing resources, automation can also save
energy. For some unit operations requiring
relatively short response times, such as auto-
mated dissolved oxygen (DO) control inacti-
vated sludge systems, cost and energy sav-
ings and performance improvements have
already been demonstrated. Many waste-
water treatment processes have such long
response times that manual control is very
effective. But, even here, automation may be
beneficial because it does provide continuous
control and, therefore, assures the reliability
of the system.
The current status of automated control of
wastewater treatment is described in this re-
port, along with the research that has been
sponsored by the U.S. EPA. The report also
includes a discussion on direct digital con-
trol, and closes by discussing the research
needs and problem areas.
Status of Automatic Control Applications
EPA supported a survey to evaluate the use
of automatic control equipment at 50 waste-
water treatment systems. Only those treat-
ment facilities that were believed to have
some degree of automation were selected for
the survey.
The present use of specific types of sensors
was evaluated by considering the distribution
of all types of sensors in all 50 plants, as
shown in Figure 1. Every plant surveyed had
a device for monitoring flow. Indeed, 30 per-
cent of all the instruments in all the plants
were used for flow measurement (Figure 1).
Automatic analyzers were the next highest
category, probably because of the wide
variety of parameters measured, including
turbidity, conductivity, pH, DO, chlorine
residual, and organics. The section labeled
miscellaneous analyzers in Figure 1 includes
devices for measurement of rotational speed,
weight, position, and so forth.
The instrument performance observed
during the survey was summarized accord-
ing to the criteria of unsatisfactory (aban-
doned equipment), fair (performance con-

-------
FIGURE 1. Observed distribution of process instruments in
wastewater treatment plants.
sidered marginal or excessive maintenance
is required), and satisfactory (see Figure 2).
Except for such devices as the bubbler-type
level detectors, Venturis, and temperature
gauges, most instruments had a performance
record 31 percent less than satisfactory. The
survey also found that the reported reliability
of the instruments is not uniform, and instru-
ments manufactured by the same manufac-
turer and of identical model were abandoned
at some locations but were satisfactory at
other locations. One probable cause for this
anomaly is that the quality and quantity of
maintenance varied at different plant sites.
Control of the hydraulics and chemical dos-
age using analog methods were the principal
control techniques observed being used by
the survey teams.
The performance of the automatic control
system was to a large degree determined by
the performance of the measuring devices.
Simple equipment such as bubbler-type level
detectors performed well and were integrated
successfully into automatic control systems.
Except in the case of computers, as the con-
trol scheme or the sensor required became
more complicated, the number of poor expe-
riences increased. (See Figure 3.) One im-
portant finding of the survey was that
approximately 31 percent of the instruments
or automatic control loops were abandoned.
The most widespread process and, thus,
the one receiving the most attention is acti-
vated sludge. Air supply is best controlled by
using DO as the controlling parameter. If
properly applied, DO control will show a cost
and energy saving, and in many cases will
improve the performance of the plant. Food-
to-microorganism (F/M) control in general
still requires further research. The details of
EPA research on DO and F/M control are dis-
cussed later in this report. In general, instan-
taneous F/M control has no apparent advan-
tage over DO control, with the possible
exception of its application in step-feed sys-
tems, such as were demonstrated by the EPA
at Hillsboro, Oregon. A related control
strategy is the control of the sludae retention
time (SRT), which appears to offer no diffi-
culties and is easy to implement.
Another approach to the control of the
aerator is a system that has been demon-
strated by Brouzes, in France. The system
wastes activated sludge on the basis of the air
demand. Although the system has not been
tested in the United States, it is being used
in France.
Very few process control strategies are
being used in sludae conditioning and de-
watering because of a lack of understanding
of the basic nature of the processes used.
This area will be a major target for EPA re-
search and development in the near future.
Most of the controls used are to protect and
control the machinery. For both the incinera-
tor and the anaerobic digester, temperature
controls are well-established technology.
Because of the similarity of the physical-
chemical processes to those currently used
in some parts of the chemical industry, auto-
matic control systems are relatively easy to
implement. Because of the short response
times, breakpoint chlorination requires tight
control. Systems for complete on-line con-
trol without some flow or load equalization
have not yet been developed.
Automatic control technology for both
chlorine disinfection and stormwater treat-
ment and detention centers is well estab-
lished, and control systems are usually avail-
able from the equipment manufacturer.
EPA Research
Effectiveness of Automation for Biological
Treatment. The primary question that EPA
research has sought to answer is how effec-
tive is automation? The technique usually
suggested for such an evaluation is the com-
parison of plant performance under auto-
matic control with that under manual opera-
tion. However, the standards for manual
operation vary according to the idiosyncrasy
of each plant and of each operator. It is
necessary, therefore, that the manual opera-
tion be well defined and rigidly enforced.
Two long-term studies that partially meet
these requirements were carried out at
Renton, Washington, and Palo Alto, California.
The Renton plant was operated for about a
year (March 1970 to April 1971) under man-
ual control while an automatic DO control
system was being installed in a new aerator.
The following year, the plant was operated

-------
Number
of cases
Measuring devices
Percent of cases
Nuclear radiation density
Other analytical analyzers
Legend
Unsatisfactory
FIGURE 2. Performance
Marginal
Satisfactory
summary of measuring devices in wastewater treatment facilities.
successfully with automatic DO control.
Data were collected for comparative purposes
during the months of October, November,
and December for the years 1970 and 1971.
The operators and plant management had an
excellent attitude toward automation. Also,
the manual control policy, which consisted
of manual DO measurements and air flow
adjustments twice per shift, was well defined
and expertly carried out.
It is unlikely that the sewage would be
identical for both time periods. In fact, the
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loading
to the plant was 50 percent higher during the
period of automated operation. In spite of
this increase, the performance of the plant
improved. The effluent BOD decreased from
a geometric mean of 11.1 ppm, obtained
during manual operation, to a mean of 3.9
ppm for automatic operation. Figure 4 shows
the effluent BOD data plotted on logarithmic
probability paper to obtain a frequency dis-
tribution of measurements. The slope of the
lines reflects the degree of reliability. For
example, in Figure 4, the reduced slope of
the automatic control line indicates that
automation resulted in less variation of
effluent BOD.
Further analysis indicated that the sludge
characteristics may also have been affected
by automatic DO control. The frequency dis-
tribution of the sludge volume index (SVI) is

-------
Liquid flow rate control	20
Chemical addition	15
Liquid level control	33
Percent of class
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sludge pumping	26
Dissolved oxygen
PH
Turbidity
Automatic scum removal
Control strategy
Number
of cases
Residual chlorine
Air flow rate
Supervisory computers
3

Direct digital control
2

Automatic data acquisition
10 I


Legend
Unsatisfactory
Marginal
Satisfactory
FIGURE 3. Summary of automatic control performances in wastewater treatment facilities.
shown in Figure 5. The arithmetic mean for
the SVI with manual control was 332. This
mean was reduced to 86 with automatic con-
trol. The difference in the slopes of the two
lines is more marked than for the effluent
BOD comparison, indicating a greater ad-
vantage for automatic control in maintaining
an acceptable SVI.
During the semiautomatic operation at
Palo Alto, the computer calculated the DO set-
points using data obtained from DO probes,
and then the operators made the appropriate
99.99
100
60
40
O)
I 20
o
>
^10
E
Q" 5
O D
CO
99 90 80	2010 1 0.01
i i i i i—i—i—i—i i ' i ¦ i—i—i—i ii i 11
Manual control
Automatic control
i i i t i-i—i—i	' i i i i i i ii 	
1
0.01 1 10 20	80 90 99 99.99
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS EQUAL TO OR
LESS THAN STATED CLASS MEAN
99.99 99
1,000
600
400
200-
f- 100
™ 60
90 80	20 10 1 0.01
I I I i i i—i—i—I I I i i—i—II u I I l l
40
20
Manual Control
Automatic Control
i	I	I I I I I I	L__J	I	I I I I I
10*-
0.01 1 10 20	80 90 99 99.99
PERCENT OF OBSERVATIONS EQUAL TO
OR LESS THAN STATED CLASS MEAN
FIGURE 4. Comparison of automatic vs. manual operation
using BOD in the effluent.
FIGURE 5. Comparison of automatic vs. manual using SVI.

-------
corrections. Manual operation consists of
manual measurements and adjustments
twice per shift. When the semiautomatic
operation was compared to manual opera-
tion (Figure 6), an improvement in effluent
suspended solids was noted. In addition, a
13-percent performance improvement as
measured by effluent total organic carbon
(TOC) and an 11-percent reduction in air use
was observed. The latter calculates to a sav-
ing of $5,380 per year for a 25-mgd plant,
based on 1974 dollars.
The other control strategies that were eval-
uated at Palo Alto concentrated on F/M.
Several techniques, such as TOC, chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and oxygen uptake,
were considered for measuring the food.
However, suitable automatic TOC and COD
analyzers were not available for on-line con-
trol during the Palo Alto experiments. There-
fore, only two F/M control strategies could
be evaluated. These were feedback respirom-
etry FR control using an on-line respirometer,
and DO return activated sludge (RAS) con-
trol. In both cases the DO was controlled as
described earlier, and, because the results
were similar, only the DO/RAS control loop
will be described.
For DO/RAS control, the aeration tank is
used as a respirometer. The rate of air de-
mand is assumed to be proportional to the
BOD input, and the return sludge is adjusted
to maintain the desired F/M ratio. It was found
at Palo Alto that DO/RAS and FR control are
technically feasible control strategies; how-
ever, when comparing the results to those
obtained when only DO control was used, the
plant showed no performance improvement
in terms of effluent quality or cost savings.
These results do not mean that F/M control
is not desirable. A recent study at Hillsboro,
Oregon, indicated that when a plant is sub-
jected to severe shock loads F/M control will
Q
LU
Q
JOOr
80 -
£ e60-
tfl 2
w 2 40 -
h- £
5$
3z20f
u. uj 1
£ o
uj Z
>810
<<"
qO
Z -1
oo
a w
Manual I
Automatic DO control

maintain effluent standards. Another factor
that has not been evaluated is the effect of
F/M control in maintaining, over a long
period, desirable bacterial types in the acti-
vated sludge systems.
Tests at 12 activated sludge treatment
plants (including Renton and Palo Alto)
showed that in 9 cases automatic DO control
provided substantial savings in aeration
energy usage over manual DO control. Only
nine cases were considered to have had the
necessary criteria for a comparison of auto-
matic to manual operation, and of these nine
cases substantial improvements in BOD
removal efficiency were observed at only two
plants. In the case of sludge sedimentation,
four plants were observed to have significant
improvements, with the remainder showing
little improvement. These data are summar-
ized in Table 1.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED DO
CONTROL PERFORMANCE
CO
0.2
1 10 20	80 90
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY, %

Percent
Number

improve-
of
Parameter
ment
plants
Air supplied per unit quantity of
21.9
9
BOD removed


Air supplied per unit volume of
11.6
9
influent


BOD removed per blower
32.1
5
kilowatt-hour


BOD removal efficiency
13.8
2
Improvement in sludge volume
108.6
4
index


The results do indicate that DO control is a
99 99.8
FIGURE 6. Palo Alto companion! of automatic v*. manual
for tacondary affluant »u*pand»d tolidt.
valuable control loop that should be explored
further. The ease and simplicity of installing
and maintaining a DO loop is more than com-
pensated for by the cost saving and perform-
ance improvements.
Automation of Physical-Chemical Treat-
ment. Compared to biological treatment, the
technology for physical-chemical treatment
is better understood. But because of the lack
of full-scale, fully automated, physical-
chemical treatment plants, the EPA research
was conducted at the Blue Plains pilot plant.
The processes at the pilot plant consisted of
lime precipitation with intermediate recar-
bonation, dual media filtration, breakpoint
chlorination, and granular carbon adsorption.
Every process nad some degree of auto-
mation, but only the four alternative control
strategies for lime-feed control and filtration
and the control strategies for breakpoint
chlorination will be described.

-------
The four alternative strategies studied for
lime-feed control were conductivity ratio,
flow proportional, pH plus flow proportional,
and alkalinity plus flow proportional.
The conductivity-ratio control scheme
involves measuring conductivity in the pri-
mary reaction zone and in the influent waste-
water. The ratio of these measurements
generates a control signal for the lime-feed
valve. For flow-proportional control, the
influent flow rate is measured, and this signal
is transmitted directly to the control valve.
For pH plus flow-proportional control, the pH
is measured in the primary reaction zone,
and this signal is used to adjust the signal
generated from the flow-proportional loop.
For alkalinity plus flow-proportional control,
a sample is pumped from the clarified zone of
the clarifier through a porous rock filter to an
automatic titrator. The resulting alkalinity
signal is transmitted to the multiplying trans-
mitter in a flow-proportioning control system
for final adjustment of lime addition.
The results of a 7-day test run are shown in
Table 2.
Table 2
PERCENTAGE DEVIATION FROM
TARGET DURING 7-DAY TEST RUN
Ranges of
deviation
from target
alkalinity, %
+16 to-20
+15 to-15
+10 to -10*
+10 to-15**
+7.5 to -7.5
Control scheme
Conductivity-ratio
Flow-proportional
pH plus flow-proportional
Proportional
Alkalinity plus flow-proportional
"First 2 days.
**Entire 7-day test period.
Conductivity-ratio control was found to be
the least accurate, but it would be a good
backup control system because it is depend-
able and the equipment requires little main-
tenance. The flow-proportional control
system was very sensitive to any change in
lime-slurry concentration and depended
heavily on the accuracy of the flow measure-
ment device. After 7 days of operation, the pH
electrodes were coated with a calcium car-
bonate scale approximately 1/16 inch thick.
This coating was removed in 2 percent hydro-
chloric acid and the electrode regained its
initial response characteristics. By schedul-
ing electrode cleaning every 2 days, pH con-
trol will work satisfactorily. Placement of the
pH probe in a separate rapid-mix tank re-
duces the maintenance requirements associ-
ated with placement in the primary reaction
zone of a single-unit clarification system.
Although alkalinity plus flow-proportional
control produced the closest alkalinity con-
trol of all the systems studied, the equipment
malfunctioned repeatedly because of filter
clogging. The inability to filter high solids
concentrations efficiently required reloca-
tion of the sample point from the reaction
zone to the clarified zone. This change re-
sulted in a 2-hour lag in the response time,
which caused large swings in process ef-
fluent quality when the lime-slurry concen-
tration changed. Until the solids handling
problem for alkalinity plus flow-proportional
control is solved, the recommended control
system is pH plus flow-proportional, with
conductivity-ratio control as a backup.
Operation of the dual-media gravity filters
was controlled with four alternative back-
wash initiation and control schemes. Alarm
schemes used to initiate backwash had time-
delay circuits to prevent accidental or
momentary events from triggering the back-
wash cycle prematurely. The four models
used were headloss, high level (influent
level), programed time interval, and manual.
The headloss sensor initiates the backwash
cycle when the available head decreases to a
preset minimum value. When the level tends
to change, the high level indicator opens an
effluent control valve so that a constant level
is maintained. When the control valve is 100
percent open, backwash is initiated. The pro-
gramed time interval controller will initiate
backwash at the expiration of a preselected
number of operating hours. The operator
may override any of the above controls at any
time with the manual mode.
The effluent from clarification was distrib-
uted equally to the operating filters by a
mechanical splitter box. As a filter was isolated
for backwash, the flow to that filter was re-
distributed to the remaining operating filters.
If the headloss alarm was used and if the filter
backwash occurred at peak flow rates, the re-
distribution caused the already stressed
operating filters to be overstressed. The final
result was a chain reaction resulting in the
need to backwash all available filters in a
relatively short time, which increased the
requirements for backwash-water pumps
and storage capacity.
The programed time interval controller
was used to schedule filter backwashing at
different hours during periods of low flow.
This approach reduced backwash-water
pumping and storage requirements, and it
eliminated overstressing of the system. The
headloss indicator was then used as a backup

-------
alarm to prevent flooding when system up-
sets caused increased solids loading and
shorter filter runs than the programed time
interval. The high level alarm was connected
to an audiovisual alarm and was used to indi-
cate equipment failure. This system has pro-
vided peak operating efficiency at the lowest
possible operating cost.
Breakpoint Chlorination
The control scheme developed to control
breakpoint chlorination employs a feed-
forward signal proportional to the mass of
influent ammonia and a feedback signal
based on the free residual chlorine concen-
tration error. The feedforward signal is de-
rived from the concentration of ammonia in
the influent, the influent flow rate, and a pre-
selected weight ratio of chlorine to ammonia.
If digital control of the system were practiced,
this feedforward signal would be adjusted by
the amount of chlorine used for pH control
during prechlorination. The control loop for
alkali addition (NaOH) is derived from a feed-
forward signal based on the chlorine dose
used and a feedback signal based on the pH
error. The on-stream analysis of ammonia by
a colorimetric analyzer, both before and after
breakpoint chlorination, has been accurate
and dependable. Free residual chlorine is
also measured continuously by a colori-
metric analyzer. Preliminary operating expe-
rience has been favorable.
Digital Control
Only a few plants have used digital loops in
this country as indicated in the EPA survey;
most use analog control. Except at the EPA
pilot plant and at Palo Alto, where digital
process control systems were studied, the
digital control applications have been re-
stricted chiefly to hydraulic regulation of
collection systems or of the flows at the treat-
ment plant, and to DO control in the activated
sludge process. The San Jose plant is a typi-
cal example of this direct digital operation
Many plants are constructing or planning
installation of digital process control sys-
tems, as for example, the planned physical-
chemical plant at Garland, Texas, the Metro
Plant in St. Paul, Minnesota, and the recently
completed plant at Contra Costa, California.
But at present the integrated digital process
control approach has not been adequately
developed. For large plants, control with a
digital computer is the most economic
technique.
Another approach to the use of the com-
puter is demonstrated by Los Angeles
County Sanitation District. Here, five waste-
water treatment plants are sem(automatically
controlled by a centrally located computer.
The operators of each of these plants key in
their data to the central computer using a
terminal. The computer analyzes and stores
the data and also calculates operational set-
points for the plants. This information is then
teletyped to the operator who manually ad-
justs the plant.
Research Needs and Problem Areas
To initiate a coordinated attack on instru-
mentation and automation problems in this
field, a workshop entitled "Research Needs
for Automation of Wastewater Treatment
Systems" was held in Clemson, South
Carolina, in September 1974. This workshop,
sponsored by EPA in cooperation with
Clemson University, provided an opportunity
for workers in this area to discuss their re-
search problems and needs.
The workshop found that the general prob-
lem areas were the lack of adequate field
experience, quantitative understanding of
wastewater systems, and required sensors.
In other words, the problems are a lack of
sensors and of fundamental knowledge
about the treatment processes. These prob-
lems were stated in almost every session. To
resolve these problems, the needed research
should include demonstrations of automated
process control,development of mathemati-
cal models and algorithms, and evaluation of
sensors. The workshop also indicated a need
for an information clearinghouse, including
the international exchange of data; and pro-
jected a new philosophy of wastewater reno-
vation as opposed to processing wastewater
to minimum quality requirements. The cost-
effective application of instrumentation and
automation to wastewater management sys-
tems will be a key to implementing this
philosophy.
This feature article on automation of wastewater treatment
was prepared by Joseph F. Rooster, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
DESIGN SEMINARS FOR SMALL
WATERWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Five Technology Transfer design seminars
for small waterwaste treatment systems have
been presented since March. These seminars
were held in Seattle, Washington, March 7-9,
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 30-31;
in Kansas City, Missouri, April 26-28, in Con-
cord, New Hampshire, May 4-5; and in San
Francisco, California, May 24-26.
Key presentations at these seminars were
given By Gordon Culp and H.H. Benjes,
Clean Water Consultants; Richard Otis,
William Boyle, Jerry Tyler, and James

-------
Converse, University of Wisconsin; Joseph
Rezek and Ivan Cooper, Rezek, Henry,
Meisenheimer and Gende; Joseph Middle-
brooks and James Reynolds, Utah State Uni-
versity; Jerry Troyan, Brown & Caldwell;
William Bowne, Douglas County, Oregon;
and James Kreissl, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Future seminars in this series will beheld in
Denver, Atlanta, Dallas, New York, and
Chicago.
COAL MINING POLLUTION CONTROL
Over 140 mining representatives attended
a 1-day seminar, "The Practical Aspects of
Coal Mining Pollution Control," held in
Hazard, Kentucky, on March 8, 1977. The
seminar was sponsored by EPA, Hazard
Community College, and the National Coal
Association. The seminar provided mining
operators the opportunity to meet with EPA
officials from Region IV and the Cincinnati
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory.
The seminar was designed for the partici-
pants and attendees to exchange and share
information on current practices for defining
and controlling coal mining pollution. The
topics presented included information on
EPA regulations and procedures, 208 plan-
ning, sediment and erosion control, and
sampling procedures. The seminar format
will be repeated in Zanesville, Ohio on July
19 and 20 (see Technology Transfer Sched-
uled Events).
George Hartow, U.S. EPA Region IV, answers questions from
the audience at the Hazard, KY, Mining Pollution Control
Seminar.
Participants on the morning panel discussion at the Hazard, KY, seminar are (left to right) Asa Foster, John Martin, George Harlow,
John Marlar (all of U.S. EPA) and Charles Peters of Kentucky's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.

-------
METAL FABRICATING SEMINARS
AND SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Over 600 industrial representatives at-
tended four 2-day Technology Transfer
seminars, "Upgrading Metal Machining, Fab-
ricating, and Coating Operations to Reduce
Pollution." The seminars, held in Boston,
Chicago, Anaheim, and Dallas, attracted
industrial decision makers who are responsi-
ble for selecting, purchasing, designing, or
operating pollution control equipment. The
seminars' technical sessions emphasized
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 seminars were sponsored by EPA,
EPA, the Society of Manufacturing Engi-
neers (SME), and the Association of Finish-
ing Processes of SME.
The information presented in thetechnical
sessions is available in three volumes of the
seminar publication, "Controlling Pollution
from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal
Products." These volumes may be obtained
by checking the appropriate box (#3004) on
the order form in the back of this newsletter.
Attendees hear discussions on air and water pollution control
technology at the Metal Fabricating Seminar in Bofton, Feb-
ruary 22-23, 1977.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SEMINARS
ON POTABLE WATER TREATMENT
Technology Transfer's first regional semi-
nars on "Designing and Upgrading Drinking
Water Treatment Systems" were held on the
dates and in the locations shown below in
Regions VI, X, and III, respectively.
New Orleans, Louisiana	April 20-21, 1977
Portland, Oregon	May 25-26, 1977
Reston, Virginia	June 1-2, 1977
(Washington, D.C.)
Attendance at the seminars, in general,
exceeded 250 individuals, including repre-
Dr. Gary Logsdon, U.S. EPA, MERL, addressing the New
Orleans Water Treatment Seminar.
sentatives of consulting firms, utilities, equip-
ment manufacturers, and state and federal
regulatory personnel. Each attendee re-
ceived copies of pertinent legislation, the
"Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meet-
ing the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regu-
lations," and handouts on the "Application of
Treatment Technology."
This water treatment seminar is new, is 2
days in length, and covers the following
R. Rhodes Trussed, of J. M. Montgomery Consulting Engi-
neers, spoke about the application of treatment technology at
the Technology Transfer Water Treatment Seminar in New
Orleans.

-------
areas: The Safe Drinking Water Act, chemical
treatment, ion exchange and reverse osmo-
sis, filtration, organics in drinking water, tri-
halomethanes and general organics control,
and the application of treatment technology.
Key presentations were made by Dr. Joseph
A. Cotruuo and Thomas Hushower, of U.S.
EPA, Washington, D.C.; Dr. J. Edward Singley
of Water and Air Research, Inc., Gainesville,
Florida; Dr. Rhodes Trussel of J. M. Mont-
gomery Engineers, Pasadena, California;
Joseph L. Rizzo and Ken Janecek of Calgon
Corporation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
and Drs. Gary S. Logsdon and Thomas Love
of Municipal Environmental Research Labo-
ratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Future seminars on water treatment are
planned, and detailed information on these
can be obtained from the appropriate Tech-
nology Transfer regional chairman listed in
the back of this newsletter or by calling the
Environmental Research Information Center
at (513) 684-7394.
EIGHTH NATIONAL FOOD
WASTE SYMPOSIUM
The eighth EPA National Symposium on
Food Processing Wastes was held in Seattle,
Washington, March 30-April 1,1977. The 250
attendees received information on Tech-
nology Transfer activities, EPA guidelines,
and pollution control demonstrations con-
ducted during the past year. This annual
symposium series is cosponsored by several
food processing associations, including the
Food Processors Institute, the National Can-
ners Association, and the Northwest Food
Processors Association.
Jim Boydston (standing) opens up the eighth National Food
Waste symposium in Seattle, March 30-April 1, 1977. Seated left
to right on the speaker's stand are Jeff Denit and Guy Nelson of
U.S. EPA.
HANDBOOK "ANALYTICAL QUALITY
CONTROL IN WATER AND WASTEWATER
LABORATORIES'' BEING UPDATED
The EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory is updating the Tech-
nology Transfer handbook entitled "Analyti-
cal Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories." Five new chapters are being
added to the 1972 edition, and copies should
be ready for distribution in early 1978.
MANAGEMENT SEMINAR PUBLICATION
A new seminar publication, "Choosing
Optimum Management Strategies," is avail-
able. The publication delineates the options
to be considered in making and carrying out
a capital expenditure decision on an invest-
ment in pollution control equipment. Some
of the options discussed cover topics such as
interpreting laws and regulations, dealing
with consultants and attorneys, and interact-
ing with regulatory agencies. Also, the im-
portant aspects of buying and installing the
needed equipment are presented. These as-
pects include management timing, Turnkey
vs. Company Integration, design develop-
ment procurement package formation, bid
evaluation, and acceptance testing.
This publication is designed to comple-
ment an already well accepted publication,
"Choosing Optimum Financial Strategies."
Both publications are directed to personnel
who have some supervisory, management, or
financial responsibilities for interest in plant
pollution control measures. These publica-
tions can be obtained by checking the appro-
priate boxes (#3005 for Financial and #3008
for Management) on the order form in the
back of this newsletter.
FOREST PRODUCTS SEMINAR
A seminar will be held in Dallas, Texas, on
September 28 and 29, 1977, to provide a com-
prehensive review of environmental topics in
the primary wood products industry. Heavy
emphasis will be placed on silviculture and
forest management techniques as well as
case histories of specific processes and
operations. The papers will be directed to-
ward engineers and environmental managers
in the forest products industry, state and
local agencies, and consulting firms.
The Forest Products Research Society and
tion (FGD) facility. The FGD demonstration
jointly developing the seminar. Future semi-
nars may be held in EPA Regions I and X. If
interested in attending the seminar, contact
the ERIC staff in Cincinnati for more
information.

-------
#£S!£R*
C0*1 MINING
abandoned
COAL MiNtS
Areas at
Research

-------

-------
"UPGRADING EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS" SEMINAR
HANDOUT REVISED
The Technology Transfer seminar publi-
cation entitled "Upgrading Existing Waste-
water Treatment Plants," originally published
in August 1973, has been revised and is avail-
able upon request. This revision includes five
new case histories on wastewater treatment
plant upgrading: Stockton, Sacramento,
Palo Alto, and San Jose-Santa Clara, in Cali-
fornia, and Renton, Washington. Two of the
four case histories included in the original
version have been deleted.
This publication was revised by Warren
Uhte and Richard Stenquist of Brown and
Caldwell. The original version was prepared
by David Walrath of Hazen and Sawyer.
This revised publication can be obtained
by checking the appropriate box (#4005) on
the order form in the back of this newsletter.
INDUSTRIAL INITIATIVES CONFERENCE
A unique conference series, "Industry
Takes the Initiative," was started with a kick-
off conference in Chicago, Illinois, January
17-18, 1977. High ranking congressional,
corporate, and federal/state officials partici-
pated in it. The first day provided the 380
decision makers and policy planners attend-
ing with information regarding process
changes to reduce pollution and save money.
The second day addressed specific technical
achievements that companies have made in
Gladwin Hill (standing). New York Times National Environ-
mental Correspondent, beginning the first panel discussion at the
Chicago Industrial Initiatives Conference. Panelists seated left to
right are Joe Ling (3M Corporation), representative James Florio
(D-NJ), and Paul Brands (U.S. EPA).
this area. In addition to EPA, the cosponsors
of the conference were the Department of
Commerce, the state chambers of commerce,
and manufacturing associations in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
and Ohio. Also included were the following
corporations: Commonwealth Edison, Eli
Lilly, Hydroscience, Republic Steel Corpora-
tion, Dow Chemical, 3M Corporation, and St.
Regis Paper Company. Conference high-
lights were presentations by Russel Train
and Elliot Richardson. As part of the continu-
ing series, future conferences are planned in
Boston and Dallas (see Technology Transfer
Scheduled Events).
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER HOLDS
MUNICIPAL DESIGN SEMINARS ON
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Three Technology Transfer design semi-
nars on sludge treatment and disposal have
been held thus far in 1977.
The first in this seminar series was held in
Newark, New Jersey, April 13-14, and was at-
tended by approximately 250 professionals.
The next sludge seminar was held in Salt
Lake City, Utah, May 2-3, and attracted 200
interested participants from the region.
The third seminar was held in Atlanta,
Georgia, May 11-12, with attendance in
excess of 250 interested participants con-
cerned with pollution control and abatement.
Bruce Waddle (U.S. EPA, OSWMP) addresses the audience at
the Newark Sludge seminar.

-------
The fourth sludge seminar will be held
September 13-14, 1977, in Boston, Massa-
chusetts. This schedule is a change from the
dates given in previous announcements.
Each seminar featured sessions on "Inno-
vative Sludge Processing Technology," deal-
ing with lime stabilization and dewatering
processes that produce high-solids sludge
cakes; "Conversion and Product Recovery
Systems," which discussed composting, utili-
zation of gas from anaerobic digestion, and
coincineration or copyrolysis of sludge and
solid wastes; and "Land Application of Sludge
for Agricultural Use," dealing with this sub-
ject quite extensively in two 3-4-hour discus-
sion sessions.
The list of speakers at each of the seminars
includes: Richard Noland and Jim Edwards,
Burgess and Niple Engineers; Jack Harrison,
Consultant; Dave Sussman, U.S. EPA, Office
of Solid Waste Management Programs
(OSWMP); Mack Wesner, Culp/Wesner/Culp;
Ron Sieger, Brown and Caldwell; Bob
Landreth, U.S. EPA, Municipal Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory (MERL); Bruce
Weddle, U.S. EPA, OSWMP;Ken Dotson and
Dr. Jim Ryan, U.S. EPA, MERL; Dr. Lee
Sommers, Consulting Agronomist; and Dr.
Ron Lofy, SCS Engineers.
Information concerning this seminar series
can be obtained by contacting your Tech-
nology Transfer regional chairman listed in
the back of this newsletter, or by contacting
Dr. James E. Smith, Jr., of ERIC-Technology
Transfer at (513) 684-7394 in Cincinnati, OH.
Dr. Lee Sommers, Consulting Agronomist, discussing Land
Application, Rates and Techniques at the Newark seminar.
PREPARATION OF FUELS AND
FEEDSTOCKS WORKSHOP
U.S. EPA's Technology Transfer and
Municipal Environmental Research Labora-
tory (MERL) sponsored a Workshop on the
Preparation of Fuels and Feedstocks for
Wastes-as-Fuel, February 8-10, 1977, in New
Orleans, Louisiana. The workshop, projected
to be the first of a series, had about 50 partici-
pants, representing expertise in resource
recovery from the Office of Research and
Development and the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW), U.S. EPA; the Bureau of Mines; the
Energy Research and Development Adminis-
tration; the military; the Ministry of Environ-
ment, Ontario; municipal engineers; research
organizations; architect/engineers; and pri-
vate firms engaged in resource recovery.
The workshop had an open format, allow-
ing for free interchange of ideas among
workshop members. There were five ses-
sions, each with a moderator. John Burckle,
MERL, convened the Workshop.
A RECOVERY!
A ttsrt* Managwww* Company
The final morning of the Workshop was devoted to a visit to
Recovery I, a resource recovery facility being developed by
NCRR, the City of New Orleans, and Waste Management, Inc.
Session 1 dealt with system process de-
sign, with Dr. Albert J. Klee, MERL, as
moderator. A strong theme of the session
was the lack of information available to sys-
tem designers, and the need for more re-
search. Workshop members expressed a
desire for more communication between
manufacturers and users of systems. Mate-
rials handling, scale-up, and fuel specifica-
tions were discussed.
The topic of Session 2 was selection of
equipment. Four areas were discussed:
materials handling, size reduction, separa-
tion, and process control. Stephan Lingle,
OSW, moderated.
Dr. Harvey Alter, National Center for Re-
source Recovery (NCRR), conducted Ses-
sion 3 on technical obstacles. Again the need
for more information was stressed. An
interesting feature of the session came when
members voted on their preferences for high

-------
priority and low priority research needs. The
results will be published in the Proceedings.
Session 4, moderated by John Burckle,
dealt with approaches to research, develop-
ment, and demonstration programs. Scale-
up and sampling were primary concerns.
Several speakers then summarized their pilot
plant operations, including Dr. Alter; Roger
DeCesare, Bureau of Mines; Dr. George
Trezak, University of California; Steve Hurley,
U.S. Navy; and G. C. Chisamore, Ontario.
David Berg, Office of Energy, Minerals,
and Industry (OEMI), summarized the Work-
shop in Session 5. He noted the lack of data
impeding near-term implementation and
long-term development.
EPA HOLDS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON LESS COSTLY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR
SMALL COMMUNITIES
A national conference aimed at dissemi-
nating information on less costly wastewater
treatment systems for small communities
was held on April 12-14, 1977, in Reston,
Virginia. This EPA conference was cospon-
sored by Technology Transfer, the Office of
Water Program Operations, and the Munici-
pal Environment Research Laboratory.
Sound and economical alternatives to con-
ventional centralized wastewater collection
and treatment systems for small communi-
ties were the focus of this 21/2-day conference.
State-of-the-art case histories were pre-
sented for the provision, operation, and
maintenance of adequate and economical
wastewater treatment facilities for small
communities.
Discussions included present government
policy on wastewater facilities, and descrip-
tions of major types of conveyance and treat-
ment systems and their comparative costs.
The Honorable Jennings Randolph.
Examples were provided of successful and
cost-effective installations that meet environ-
mental requirements. Alternative organiza-
tions for maintaining and operating small
facilities were also discussed.
The Honorable Jennings Randolph, Chair-
man, Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, was the conference's keynote
speaker. Douglas M. Costle, newly appointed
EPA Administrator, welcomed the assembled
municipal officials, state health and water
pollution officials, consulting engineers, edu-
cators in sanitary and environmental engi-
neering, and representatives from environ-
mental and public interest groups. Other
speakers included Marilyn Klein, Council on
Environmental Quality, and John Rhett, EPA
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Program Operations.
Proceedings from this conference will be
published in the near future. Announcement
of proceedings availability will be made in
this newsletter.
IK
filii WW
nil
Lawrence Waldorf addresses the audience at the National
Small Flows Conference in Reston, Virginia.
WELLMAN-LORD FLUE GAS
DESULFURIZATION CAPSULE
REPORT AVAILABLE
This capsule report describes initial results
from a joint program being conducted by
Northern Indiana Public Service Company
(NIPSCO) and EPA to demonstrate the sulfur
dioxide removal capabilities of the Wellman-
Lord/Allied Chemical flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (F6D) facility. The FGD demonstration
plant is retrofitted to the Unit No. 11 coal-
fired boiler at NIPSCO's Dean H. Mitchell
Station in Gary, Indiana. The FGD plant con-
sists of the Davy Powergas Inc. proprietary
design Wellman-Lord SO2 Recovery Process,

-------
Davy's Purge Treatment Unit, together with
Allied Chemical Corporation's S02 reduc-
tion process.
This capsule report summarizes the opera-
tional progress on the Wellman-Lord S02
Recovery portion of the FGD facility. After the
Acceptance Test has been performed, an-
other capsule report will summarize the final
results of the program.
The Wellman-Lord process is a regenera-
tion process where a sodium sulfite solution
absorbs and chemically reacts with the sulfur
dioxide to form sodium sulfite, sodium bisul-
fite, and sodium sulfate. Sulfur dioxide is
separated from the solution and reacted with
natural gas to form elemental sulfur. The
spent solution is treated and returned to the
feed system.
The report has been jointly prepared by the
Environmental Research Information Center
and the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (IERL). For further information
on the Wellman-Lord and other FGD pro-
grams, contact the IERL facility in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, (919) 549-8411.
"UPGRADING LAGOONS" SEMINAR
HANDOUT REVISED
The Technology Transfer seminar publica-
tion entitled "Upgrading Lagoons," originally
published in August 1973, has been revised
and is available upon request. This revision
includes two new case histories on upgrad-
ing lagoons: the Antelope Valley Tertiary
Treatment Plant in Lancaster, California, and
the Richfield Springs, New York, Treatment
Plant. One of the three case histories included
in the original version has been deleted and
the other two have been updated.
This publication was revised by Brown and
Caldwell Consulting Engineers, Walnut
Creek, California. Brown and Caldwell also
prepared the original version.
This revised publication can be obtained
by checking the appropriate box (#4001) on
the order form in the back of this newsletter.
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROCESSING
SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
A new seminar publication, "Pollution
Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Proc-
essing Industry," is available in three volumes.
The publications cover the technical infor-
mation presented at the five fruit and vege-
table processing seminars held across the
country in 1976. The topics covered include
basics of pollution control, case histories, in-
plant process changes, and wastewater
treatment. The Food Processors Institute,
National Canners Association, and CH2M-
Hill assisted in its preparation. The seminar
publication can be obtained by checking the
appropriate box (#3007) on the order form in
the back of this newsletter.
NEW TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PUBLICATION SERIES:
EXECUTIVE BRIEFING
The first publication in a new Technology
Transfer series designed for high level indus-
trial decision makers is now available for dis-
tribution. The purpose of this new series
(executive briefings) is to highlight important
environmental research activities, including
broad environmental assessments, pollution
control technology demonstrations, and other
important environmental considerations.
The first executive briefing, "Industrial
Energy Conservation Measures," outlines
the environmental impacts of current and
proposed practices by industry to conserve
energy. This publication can be obtained by
checking the appropriate box (#9001) on the
order form in the back of this newsletter.
Industrial Energy Conservation
Executive Briefing
executive briefing
environmental considerations of energy-conserving industrial process changes

-------
mj
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
June 1977
Dear Reader:
First of all I would like to congratulate each of you for your
continued interest in environmental pollution control and at the same
time thank you for your constant support and interest in the Environmental
Research Information Center's (ERIC) Technology Transfer Program.
Since the early days of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Technology Transfer has made every attempt to bridge the information gap
between you, the technology user, and research development, by dissemi-
nating the most up-to-date information on pollution control technologies
through pulication distribution and conducting seminars and workshops.
Most recently Technology Transfer has combined efforts and resources
with the Technical Information Staff to form the Environmental Research
Information Center. This organization of personnel and information will
enhance the transfer of technology and information from every facet of
environmental research and development.
Looking over this issue of the Technology Transfer Fact Sheet and
even the last one you may have noticed some changes and additions.
Perhaps the most pertinent being the addition of a complete listing of
Technology Transfer's Scheduled Events for the near future. It is our
hope that this will help you plan ahead and enable you to participate in
Technology Transfer's seminar series whenever possible.
Lately the requests for Technology Transfer publications has been
overwhelming. Many of the publications being requested are currently
out of stock and are in the process of being reprinted. All publications
listed on the order form in the back of this newsletter are currently in
print and can be ordered by marking the appropriate boxes. Your orders
will be filled and forwarded to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely yours,

-------
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
Robert Olson
III
IV
Albert Montague
Asa B. Foster, Jr,
ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
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
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
215 597-9856
(Pa., W. Va„ Md„ Dei., D.C., Va.)
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404 881-3454
(N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn., Ga., Ala.,
Mitt., Fla.)
REGION CHAIRMAN
VI
VII
Mildred Smith
John Coakley
VIII Elmer Chenault
IX
William Bishop
ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
First International Building
Dallas, Texas 75270
214- 749-3971
(Texas, Okla., Ark., La., N. Mex.)
Environmental Protection Agency
1735 Baltimore Avenue
KansasCity, Missouri 64108
816 374-5971
(Kansas, Nebr., Iowa, Mo.)
Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
303 837-4343
(Colo., Mont., Wyo„ Utah, N.D.
S.D.)
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94111
415 556-6925
(Calif., Ariz., Nev., Hawaii)
Clifford Risley Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Miinoia 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
must be doing something good." (15 min.)
•	Phosphorus Removal (5 min.)
•	Water Quality Management, Alameda Creek, Calif .—Title:
"The Water Plan," (28V4 min.)
The Seattle METRO Story. (28 min.)
"Breakthrough at Clear Lake" (28 min.)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION CENTER
LAND USE MANAGEMENT
208 Land Use Planning
Non-point Sources
MONITORING, MEASUREMENT AND
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Monitoring
Analytical Methods
Quality Control
Remote Sensing
HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MUNICIPAL
Wastewater
Potable Water Supply
INDUSTRIAL
Wastewater
Air
Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Energy Aspects
Research Reports Production
Special Research Reports
Technology Transfer Production
Newsletter Production
Report Distribution and Coordination
Conference and Symposia Coordination
Requests Coordination
Mailing Lists Coordination
Graphic Arts and Visual Aid Support

-------
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 Municipal Seminars



Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
July 12-14, 1977
VIII
Denver, CO
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
July 27-29, 1977
IV
Atlanta, GA
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
August 1977
V
Chicago, IL
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
August 1977
VI
Dallas, TX
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems
September 1977
II
Syracuse, NY
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
September 12-14, 1977
I
Boston, MA
Tentative Municipal Seminars



Water T reatment
October 26-27
I
Boston, MA
Scheduled Industrial Seminars



Coal Mining
July 19, 20, 1977
V
Zanesville, OH
Wood Products
September 28, 29, 1977
VI
Dallas, TX
Industrial Initiatives
September 7, 8,1977
VI
Dallas, TX
Tentative Industrial Seminars



Coal Mining
Summer 1977
V
Indianapolis, IN
Remote Sensing
Summer 1977
IX
Las Vegas, NV
Metal Fabricating
Fall 1977
V
Chicago, IL
Pretreatment
Fall 1977
IV
Atlanta, GA

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION CENTER
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PUBLICATIONS
N/CKObG
Nisnw

-------
REQUEST FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MATERIAL
Please send me the following publications at no charge. (Check appropriate boxes)
The publications listed on this form are the only ones available through the Office of Technology Transfer.
PROCESS DESIGN MANUALS
Phosphorus Removal (April 1976)	1001 0
Carbon Adsorption (Oct. 1973) 	1002 Q
Suspended Solids Removal (Jan. 1975)	1003 ~
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants
(Oct. 1974)	1004 ~
Sulfide Control in Sanitary Sewerage Systems (Oct.
1974)	1005 ~
Sludge Treatment and Disposal (Oct. 1974)	1006 ~
Nitrogen Control (Oct. 1975)	1007 Q
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 S02
Scrubbing Test Facility 	2004 Q
Dry Caustic Peeling of Peaches	2005 Q
Pollution Abatement in a Brewing Facility 	2006 D
S02 Scrubbing and Sulfuric Acid Production Via
Magnesia Scrubbing	2007 CD
Second Interim Report on EPA Alkali Scrubbing
Test Facility 	2008 Q
Magnesium Carbonate Process for Water
Treatment	2009 D
•Third Interim Report on EPA Alkali Scrubbing
Test Facility 	2010 Q
•First Progress Report Wellman-Lord Flue Gas
Desulfurization	2011 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 C]
Upgrading Textile Operations to Reduce
Pollution (2 Vols.) 	3004 ~
Choosing the Optimum Financial Strategies for
Pollution Control Investments	3005 ~
Erosion and Sediment Control from Surface
Mining (2 Vols.)	3006 Q
•Pollution Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable
Industry (3 Vols.)	3007 LJ
•Choosing Optimum Management Strategies	3008 ~
•Controlling Pollution From the Manufacturing and
Coating of Metal Products (2 Vols.) 	3009 ~
i
MUNICIPAL SEMINAR PUBLICATIONS
Upgrading Lagoons	4001	~
Physical-Chemical Treatment	4002	U
Nitrification/Denitrification	4004	~
Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Facilities-Case Histories 	4005	LJ
Flow Equalization 	4006	CH
Wastewater Filtration 	4007	~
Physical-Chemical Nitrogen Removal	4008	~
Air Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration	4009	Q
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents
(3 Vols.) . . . !	4010	~
BROCHURES
Logging Roads and Water Quality 	5011 EH
Municipal Wastewater Alternatives	5012 ~
Forest Harvesting and Water Quality 	5013 ~
HANDBOOKS
Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories (1972) 	6001 ~
Monitoring Industrial Wastewater (1973) 	6002 Q
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes (1974) 	6003 ~
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION CONTROL MANUALS
Pulp and Paper Industry — Part 1/Air	7001 ~
EXECUTIVE BRIEFINGS
•Industrial Energy Conservation Measures 	9001 ~
If you are not currently on the mailing list for the Technology Transfer Newsletter, do you want to be added? Yes ~ No ~
•Name	„		
Employer								 —
Street		
City	State	Zip			
*lt is not necessary to fill in this block if your name and address on reverse are correct.
•Publication listed for the first time.
Note: Forward to Technology Transfer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
tV U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1977-757-056/5620 Reqion No. 5-1 I

-------