TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER
The Bridge Between Research and Use
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA BOOTH ONI THE MOVE
The EPA Technology Transfer Display Booth
is on the road again. Leaving Washington the end
of May, it made quite an impression at the
American Chemical Society Regional meeting at
the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, from June 6
through the 8th. From here it is scheduled for
the Ohio State Fair in Columbus, Ohio, where it
will be displayed as part of the Ohio Department
of Natural Resources. The fair, one of the
country's largest, is held during the latter part of
August. Below is a black and white photo of the
attractive moving color lighted booth. This
display available upon request, subject to prior
booking.
MORE BOOTHS ON THE WAY
The Technology Transfer Program of the EPA
is having a series of three new large displays
constructed, illustrating modern technology as
applied to new or existing wastewater treatment
plants. Among the subjects to be covered are:
Physical-Chemical treatment; Phosphorus
Removal; and Upgrading Existing Plants. Pre-
miere will be at WPCF Annual Conference in
October at San Francisco.
DESIGN SEMINARS HIGHLY REGARDED
Critiques of this series indicate all attending
found the sessions very helpful. Technology
Transfer design seminars for wastewater treat-
ment facilities were conducted, during.the
second quarter of the year in Cleveland, Ohio,
and Boston, Mass.
These were the second and third seminars
respectively, in a series that will be presented by
the Environmental Protection Agency Tech-
nology Transfer Program during the coming
three years. The seminars were oriented towards
State, municipal, and consulting engineers
involved in design of wastewater treatment
facilities. Each of the seminars included a
half-day general session covering the EPA con-
struction grants program and the Federal Guide-
lines for Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The attendees
were then divided into three groups with each
group attending three half-day sessions, each
covering a separate technology subject area.
The Cleveland seminar (April 22-23) included
sessions on phosphorus removal, activated
carbon adsorption, and nitrogen removal. The
basic presentations at each session were given by
-------
prominent qualified consulting engineers: phos-
phorus removal by Mr. James Laughlin of
Shimek, Roming, Jacobs & Finklea; activated
carbon adsorption by Dr. Joseph Skelly of
Swindell-Dressier; and nitrogen removal by Dr.
Claire Sawyer of Metcalf & Eddy. Each session
also included a presentation by a representative
of the EPA Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory in Cincinnati, and an analysis of a
specific project incorporating the subject tech-
nology. The projects analyzed were Grand
Rapids, Michigan, for phosphorus removal,
Rocky River, Ohio, for activated carbon, and
the District of Columbia for nitrogen removal.
The Boston seminar (May 26-27) used the
same general format as described for Cleveland.
The three technology subject areas were phos-
phorus removal, upgrading existing treatment
plants, and combined sewer overflows. Basic
Metropolitan District Commission, Storm Detention
and Chlorination.
presentations were by representatives from Roy
F. Weston and Metcalf & Eddy with additional
information once again presented by representa-
tives from EPA. The combined sewer overflow
regulation and infiltration control by Mr.
Richard Sullivan of the American Public Works
Association, and a field trip to the combined
sewer overflow detention and chlorination
station near the Boston University Bridge an
EPA demonstration grant project. The BU
Bridge project, with a capacity of 233 mgd, was
an impressive example of new technology being
applied on a practical full-scale basis. Future
seminars will also include visits to operating
projects whenever possible.
A fourth seminar will be conducted June 8-9
in Charlottesville, Virginia. Details of the
Charlottesville sessions plus others held during
the coming three months will be included in the
next newsletter. (A sample program follows on
page 3.)
Dr. Clair N. Sawyer of Metcalf & Eddy
at the Statler Building, Boston, Massachusetts.
Combined Sewers Workshop.
4
-------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1971
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Technology Transfer Program
DESIGN SEMINAR
for
8:00 - 9:00 AM
REGISTRATION
9:00 AM
WELCOME
Lester M. Klashman, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
9:05 AM
EPA's TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM
Herbert R. Pahren, Deputy Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
9:20 AM
THE FEDERAL-STATE EFFORT.
NEW TECHNIQUES TO MEET WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Thomas C. McMahon, Director
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control
Waste Water
Treatment Facilities
MAY 26-27, 1971
PARKER HOUSE
60 SCHOOL STREET
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
9:40 AM
COFFEE BREAK
10:00 AM
EPA's CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
Federal Design Guidelines; Regulations and
Policies
Lester A. Sutton, Director
Facilities Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
11:30 AM
ASSIGNMENT OF GROUPS FOR WORKSHOP
SESSIONS
Groups A, B and C
11:45 AM
LUNCH
1:00 - 5:00 PM
WORKSHOPS
6:00 PM
RECEPTION (Ladies Welcome)
7:00 PM
DINNER
(Ladies Welcome)
SPEAKER: Joseph B. Hanlon, Vice Pres-
ident
Camp, Dresser & McKee
Consulting Engineers
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1971
8:30 AM - 12:15 PM 12:15 PM - 1:15 PM
WORKSHOPS LUNCH
1:15 PM - 5:00 PM
WORKSHOPS
-------
WORKSHOPS SCHEDULE
UPGRADING OF EXISTING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 1971 PM
WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1971 (AM) (PM)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
ROOM 164-166
HAWTHORNE ROOM
GROUP A Thursday AM
GROUP A Wednesday PM
GROUP B Thursday PM
GROUP B Thursday AM
GROUP C Wednesday PM
GROUP C Thursday PM
1:00 PM - (8:30 AM) - (1:15 PM)
CURRENT STATUS ON CONTROL AND TREAT-
MENT OF STORM AND COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS.
Edmund J. Struzeski, Chief
1:00 PM - (8:30 AM) - (1:15 PM)
INTRODUCTION
John M. Smith
Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
Storm and Combined Sewer Overflows Section
Edison Water Quality Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey
1:20 PM - (8:50 AM) - (1:35 PM)
1:25 PM - (8:55 AM) - (1:40 PM)
STATE OF THE ART
OVERFLOW REGULATORS - INFILTRATION
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
CONTROL.
West Chester, Pennsylvania
Richard H. Sullivan, Assistant Executive
Director
3:10 PM - (10:40 AM) - (3:25 PM)
American Public Works Association
COFFEE BREAK
Chicago, Illinois
2:25 PM - (9:55 AM) - (2:40 PM)
3:25 PM - (10:55 AM) - (3:40 PM)
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
UPGRADING OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW DETENTION
Alfred W. West
AND CHLORINATION STATION.
Field Investigations Division
K. Peter Devenis, Vice President
Environmental Protection Agency
Charles A. Maguire & Associates Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Boston, Massachusetts
2:45 PM - 5:00 PM
(10:15 AM - 12:15 PM) - (3:00 PM - 5:00 PM)
4:15 PM - (11:45 AM) - (4:30 PM)
DISCUSSION
FIELD TRIP TO MDC STATION
Francis T. Bergin, Chief Engineer
Boston, Massachusetts
-------
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
ROOM 160-162
GROUP A Thursday PM
GROUP B Wednesday PM
GROUP C Thursday PM
1:00 PM - (8:30 AM) - (1:15 PM)
STATE OF THE ART
Clair N. Sawyer, Vice-President and
Director of Research
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
2:00 PM - (9:30 AM) - (2:15 PM)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON PHOSPHORUS
REMOVAL
Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
2:45 PM - (10:15 AM) - (3:00 PM)
COFFEE BREAK
3:00 PM - (10:30 AM) - (3:15 PM)
THE MARLBOROUGH WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
David A. Duncan, Vice President
Frank C. Sampson, Project Engineer
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
4:15 PM - (11:45 AM) - (4:30 PM)
DISCUSSION
PHYSICAL
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
As water quality standards become more
stringent, cities and communities across the
country are being faced with the problem of
upgrading existing wastewater treatment facili-
ties, and some are having to decide whether to
build additional facilities or completely new
facilities. To arrive at a responsible decision,
based on practical technology and the eco-
nomics involved, decision makers, planners and
engineers must look at all available new tech-
nology and possibilities of alternate solutions to
the problem.
It has become apparent that conventional
biological treatment systems do not provide the
best solution to all wastewater problems, espe-
cially when more stringent water quality stan-
dards continue to be applied. One of the new
technologies is the independent PHYSICAL-
CHEMICAL TREATMENT PROCESS. This
process is an alternate to conventional biological
treatment that is particularity attractive when
high levels of treatment, including phosphorus
and other nutrient removal is required and
land area is limited. The physical-chemical
process does not utilize bacteria, but rather
chemicals are used to facilitate removal of most
of the nutrients and solids. In this process,
following clarification in the physical-chemical
treatment sequence, granular carbon and multi-
media filtration are used to remove colloidal and
dissolved materials through adsorption and fil-
tration. A typical flow diagram of an indepen-
dent physical-chemical (IPC) treatment system is
shown. However, unit process making up this
IPC can be utilized in existing plants.
Components of the P-C treatment system
includes:
Pre-Treatment—Preliminary screening and set-
tling of floating debris, sand, grit, and other
large particles.
Clarification—This unit process is known as
coagulation-sedimentation. In this process alum,
lime or ferric salts and in some cases poly-
-------
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM; PHYSICAL CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Figure 1
¦ Coagulants
Raw Sewage
Screenings
Grit
Sludge
Recovery
System
Ash
Backwash waste
Sludge Thickening
Incineration
Carbon
Adsorption
Clarifier
Flash Mix
Multi-media
Filter
Disinfection
Effluent
Pre Treatment
Carbon
Regeneration
electrolytes are added to the sewage as it comes
from the pre-treatment unit. The sewage passes
through a flash mix system into a flocculation
zone where the chemicals cause the smaller
particles to floe together into masses that settle
easily. The clarifier may be of either horizontal
flow or up flow design.
Filtration—This unit process consists of passing
the treated sewage through beds of sand, or
multimedia such as sand and anthracite coal for
complete removal of the suspended solids.
This unit process can be ahead of, or behind the
adsorption unit according to design and treat-
ment objectives.
Adsorption—This unit process removes the col-
loidal organic and some of the dissolved organic
solids which cannot be removed by the clarifica-
tion and filtration stages. The adsorption process
consists of passing the treated wastewater
through a bed of activated carbon granules.
When the partially treated wastewater comes
into contact with the carbon, the organics attach
themselves to the surface of the carbon granules
and thus are removed from the stream. After a
period of time, the carbon becomes laden with
organics and must be regenerated to again
become active and remove the organics. Regen-
eration consists of burning off the adsorbed
sewage organic carbon under controlled condi-
tions without seriously altering the basic acti-
vated carbon granules.
Disinfection—This unit process is utilized to
destroy pathogenic organisms and normally
employs chlorine with a contact chamber to
provide detention time for adequate removal.
The treatment performance of various sewage
treatment systems is shown in Table 1. It can be
seen that the physical-chemical methods removal
are better than conventional methods of treat-
ment, for removal of both organics and phos-
phorus.
TABLE 1
Treatment Performance
Sewage Treatment Systems
Removal Efficiency
Process Train Organics
Biological 85-95
Biological-Chemical 85-95
Physical-Chemical 95-99
Phosphorus
25-40
35-90
85-99
COSTS
Physical-chemical treatment undoubtedly
costs more than conventional treatment but the
systems cannot be compared directly, as one
provides a level of treatment that the other
cannot match. The chart in Figure 2 below
shows the approximate national average costs,
including plant amortization and operation and
maintenance for typical physical-chemical treat-
ment plants. The graph in Figure 2 is a general
guide and is subject to considerable variation
due to geographic locations, labor rates, and site
conditions.
-------
FIGURE 2
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
75
100
0
50
25
PLANT SIZE (Ml LLiON GALLONS PER DAY)
The approximate capital and Operation and
Maintenance costs for a 50 million gallon per
day physical-chemical treatment plant are shown
in Table 2.
The 50 mgd physical-chemical treatment
plant example presented in Table 2 is based on a
lime process, but utilization of other coagulants,
such as ferric salts, alum and other aluminum
salts should also be considered. In some cases,
the other coagulants may be preferred over lime.
The foregoing has assumed new construction,
or an existing plant that may easily be converted
to independent physical-chemical treatment.
The use of any or all of the unit processes in
conjunction with existing biological secondary
treatment plants (tertiary treatment) certainly
should be considered as an alternate when plant
upgrading becomes necessary and a biological
treatment plant exists.
P-C is Ready Now!
Technology for design, construction and
operation of physical-chemical treatment plants
that will provide high quality effluents is con-
sidered to be well developed and ready for
widespread application. The following table is a
partial list of full-scale and pilot plants now
being planned, designed, constructed, or in
operation.
Location IPC Size (MGD)
Niagara Falls, New York 60
Garland, Texas 30
Fitchburg, Mass. 15
Rocky River, Ohio 10
Cleveland, Ohio 50
Cortland, New York 10
Owasso, Michigan 6
Painesville, Ohio 5
Tertiary
South Lake Tahoe, Calif. 7.5
Piscataway, Maryland 25
Colorado Springs, Colorado 2
Santee, Calif. 2
Hobbs, New Mexico 5
Hatfield Township, Penn. 5
Large Scale
Pilot Facilities
Blue Plains, Wash. D. C.
Salt Lake City, Utah, EIMCO
Rocky River, Ohio
NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y.: The design for a new
61.9 MGD physical-chemical treatment plant for
this municipality is progressing on schedule.
According to the Consulting Engineers on the
TABLE 2
Physical-Chemical 50
MGD System Estimated Costs**
Capital
Amortization
Operation &
Process
Millions of $
-------
project. Camp, Dresser & McKee of Boston, this
type of treatment was selected by Niagara Falls
because of the large concentrations of industrial
wastes found in the city's wastewater streams to
the treatment plant. The wastes were of such
nature and toxicity that it would have been
impossible to treat in the conventional biological
system.
ROCKY RIVER, OHIO: The current status of
the Rocky River Wastewater Plant, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, is that plans and specifications
have been revised and are now ready for a public
hearing. The city is presently negotiating with
the State of Ohio for additional funds. The
project is ready to go out for bids.
The new plant will demonstrate physical-
chemical treatment at a scale 10 MGD. Conven-
tional biological activated sludge treatment will
not be used. Polymer flocculants will be used for
chemical clarification; phosphate removal will be
effected by use of various coagulants and coagu-
lant aids. The primary clarified effluent will be
passed through columns of activated carbon for
filtration of suspended solids and adsorption of
organic pollutants.
GARLAND, TEXAS: Typical of many other
cities throughout the country today, Garland is
faced with the necessity of expanding it's
wastewater treatment facilities. It is necessary to
expand the plant to a hydraulic capacity of 30
million gallons per day and to provide treatment
capabilities for reducing both the BOD and
suspended solids to a concentration of less than
10 mg/l.
To meet these objectives the physical-chemical
treatment process has been selected. The City of
Garland was influenced further toward adoption
of this type of treatment because the plant
would only require about 30% of the land
required by conventional treatment plants and
would provide superior treatment as well. As a
result of the superior effluent available from the
new plant the community anticipates that the
effluent will be utilized by industry.
TUALATIN, OREGON: The City of Tualatin is
situated on a small tributary of the Willamette
River and water quality requirements are under-
standably high. To meet these requirements, the
city of Tualatin decided to provide tertiary
treatment in a rather unconventional manner. An
aerated lagoon provides biological secondary
treatment and it is followed by a tertiary system
that incorporates flocculation, settling basin,
filtration and chlorination. The tertiary system
is operated during the critical six months of low
stream flow, and secondary treatment is pro-
vided for the remainder of the year. Alum is be-
ing used as a coagulant.
PAINESVILLE, OHIO: The community has
industrial waste contributions including
effluents from oil additive and chemical pro-
ducers that result in a combined waste that is
difficult to treat biologically. The new 5 mgd
plant will utilize chemical coagulation and
clarification, coarse sand filtration, granular car-
bon adsorption and regeneration, and chlorina-
tion. The city is presently negotiating for
additional funds and is ready to go out for bids.
-------
WHERE TO GET FURTHER INFORMATION
In order to get details on items appearing in
this publication, or any other aspects of the
Technology Transfer Program, contact your
appropriate EPA Regional Technology Transfer
Committee Chairman from the list below:
Region Chairman States Covered
and Addresses
Lester Sutton
(Maine, N. Hampshire, Vermont,
Mass., R.I., Conn.)
Environmental Protection Agency
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Mass. 02203
617-223-7210
Rocco Ricci
(N.Y., N.J.)
Environmental Protection Agency
22 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10017
201-548-3441
III
Warren L. Carter
(Pa., W. Va., Md., Va., Delaware)
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 12900
Philadelphia, Pa. 19108
703-296-1275
IV
Asa G. Foster
(N.C., S.C., Ky., Tenn., Ga., Ala.,
Miss., Fla.)
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 300
1421 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
404-526-5784
V
Clarence Laskowski
(Mich., Wis., Minn., III., Ind.,
Ohio)
Environmental Protection Agency
33 East Congress Pkwy.
Chicago, III. 60605
312-353-1056
VI
George Putnicki
(Texas, Okla., Ark., La., N. Mex.)
Environmental Protection Agency
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-749-1821
-------
Region Chairman
VII John R. Burgeson
VIII Chris Timm
IX John Merrell
X John F. Osborn
States Covered
and Addresses
(Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Mo.)
Environmental Protection Agency
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
816-374-5593
(Mont., Wyo., N. Dak., S. Dak.,
Colo., Utah)
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Office Bldg.
19th and Stout Streets
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-233-2336
(Calif., Nev., Ariz.)
Environmental Protection Agency
760 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102
415-556-5876
(Wash., Ore., Idaho, Alaska)
Environmental Protection Agency
Pittock Block
921 S.W. Washington Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
503-226-3914
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1971 O - 438-054
------- |