Wes Eckenfelder: Wastewater Pioneer

W i n t e r 2 0 0 0 , V o l u m e 2 9 , N u m b e r 1

Wes Eckenfelder: Wastewater Pioneer

24Against the Clock, Due Diligence Digs Deep

for Possible Quarry Purchase

7Quarternotes

C O N T E N T S W I N T E R 2 0 0 0

12Academic Institutions Learn Hard Lessons Through EPA Enforcement

With two months to close escrow, RMCNevada sought an accurate analysis of a sites mineable resourcealong with Phase I ESAsand a review of operating permitsto assess whether it should finalize theacquisition deal.

Choosing the best wayto comply with GASB;a unique collaborativeprocess helps converta Wyoming refinery to recreational andcommercial use; the kaolin industryovercomes internalcompetition to shapeMACT standards.

Traditionally less regu-lated by environmentalagencies, colleges anduniversities can avoidfines, demonstrate lead-ership, improve publicrelations, and reduceoperating costs throughcompliance efforts.

Industry/Municipality Cooperation for KentuckyWastewater Treatment

An acute wastewater treatment problem isresolved when a food processing facility installs a pretreatment system in just four months and a city is persuaded to take a second look at its treatment plant capacity.

Marketing Terry PeckhamCommunicationsManager

Editor Lisa Bernstein

Writers Lisa Bernstein Mark Weber

Assistant Andrea Atkins

Design Marc Rappaport

Printing Bacchus Press

To speak with a Brown andCaldwell representative, call us at (800) 727-2224 or visit our web site atwww.brownandcaldwell.com.

Brown and Caldwell provides environmental engineering and consulting services to public agencies, the federal government, and industry.

Quarterly is published byBrown and Caldwell, P.O. Box 8045,Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1220; tel. (925) 937-9010. Subscriptions are free. Brown and Caldwell 2000. Please contact the editorat (925) 210-2452 or lbernstein@brwncald.com for permission to reprint.

Brown and Caldwell is an equal opportunity employer supporting work force diversity.

Wes Eckenfelder, one of the threepeople recently named 20th-CenturyPollution Control Pioneers byEnvironmental Protection magazine.

PH O T O B Y JE F F AL E X A N D E R

QUARTERLY

his issue honors Dr. W. Wesley Eckenfelder, one of the three people named 20th-Century Pollution ControlPioneers by Environmental Protection magazine this pastDecember. Along with recognizing Wes, that magazine honored J. J. Thomson and Arthur J. Dempster, early developers of the mass spectrometer, and Rachel Carson,author of Silent Spring, the book credited with beginningthe modern American environmental movement.

Wes is a trailblazer in the wastewater industry. He has personally trained thousands of graduate-level studentsand practicing professionals in the science and art of indus-trial wastewater treatment, and his textbooks are standardsworldwide. He started his first environmental consultingbusiness in 1949; has consulted with more than 150 industrial companies; developed several biological treatment systems specifically for industrial applications; authored oredited 27 books; is the recipient of 26 national and interna-tional honors; and co-founded the International Associationfor Water Pollution Research and Control (IAWPRC) in 1962.

Today, as a senior technical director for Brown andCaldwell, Wes continues to educate, innovate, and developpractical solutions. In the nearly two years since Brown and Caldwell acquired Eckenfelder Inc., weve found thatthe firms 30-year track record in serving top industrialcompanies perfectly complements Brown and Caldwellsenvironmental practice. A shared value has propelled ourongoing combination: a pioneering spirit.

When Wes and I sat down to talk for Quarterly in lateDecember, he started by telling me of a new idea for improv-ing biological-nutrient removal in a low-dissolved-oxygenenvironment. He described field measurements planned at a local plant to test the process modification, a low-costtreatment solution to comply with pending state regulations.That this was first on his agenda says it all: Rather than discussing his 50-year career and the recent honor fromEnvironmental Protection, this internationally acclaimedpioneer was more interested in doing just thatpioneering.

You can reach Wes at weckenfelder@brwncald.com.

CRAIG GOEHRING, P.E., CEO

Craig Goehring: In the mid-1950s, who were your peers in teaching and advancing environmental or sanitary engineering? Wes Eckenfelder: Back then, probably Ross McKinney, a major researcher with the University of Kansas. Therewerent many people in the 50s who were doing processdesign for industrial wastewater. On the international scene,there was Wuhrman in Switzerland, Downing in England,and Von der Emde in Germany. I organized the first inter-national conference at Manhattan College in 1955 and gotthe worlds primary movers to come and give a paper ortwo. We published the proceedings in 1956.

CG: Did the conference have a particular focus?WE: We had roughly 100 people, with all of the major leaders from England, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan. It was principally focused on biological factors. We held a second conference in 57 and another in 60. There wasno international association in those days. It was the firsttime equations and formulations were discussed, and it was probably the thing that propelled me to publishBiological Waste Treatment in 1960. That was the firstbook on biological waste treatment and the first time allthese equations appeared.

CG: Any thoughts on your early impact on the industry?WE: I designed one of the first activated sludge plants for thepulp and paper industry in 1953. Prior to that, it was primarytreatment and then into the river. We ran pilot studies forabout eight months because there was no information aroundat that time. The plant was designed by Gibbs and Hill; I didthe process design. The plant went on line in 1955 or 1956.Interestingly, not only is it still operating, but its treatingtriple the load for which it was originally designed.

CG: You started with pilot tests to get reaction rates.Were you using process equations?WE: They were really crude at that point. Then around1955 or 56, we were the first to come up with an aeratedlagoon design. In fact, Donald OConnor from ManhattanCollege and I published a paper that included equationswhich were the forerunner of the kind of mathematics thatwere using now.

CG: So you were looking for repeatability, ways toexpand the process. Was there a chemical engineeringfirst-rate reaction equation that you were building from?WE: I got to know a biochem professor at Columbia who wasin the process of developing equations for the fermentationindustry. I figured, this is the same kind of thing we do in

PioneerWesley Eckenfelder:PERSISTENTT

CO N T I N U E D O N PA G E 13

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

1

foodprocess-

ing plant,the City of

Murray, Ky.,and Brown and

Caldwell recently provedagain that industry andmunicipalities can meetwastewater treatment targetsmore quickly and inexpen-sively when they collaboratein their search for solutions.

The solution in this case hinged on conducting a comprehensive assessmentof the municipal treatmentplant capacity, and thedesign and installation of apretreatment system at thefood processing facility thatreduced its biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) load on the City by morethan 50 percent.

Cooperative problem-solving between industryand municipalities about discharge compliance makessense, comments JeffPintenich, the project principalin charge. The municipalityhas a large investment infacilities and is consideredthe expert in treatment.Industry is the expert onproducing its products.

When both look at pretreat-ment and capacity optionstogether, they can maximizeexisting capital investmentsand minimize new ones.That saves money for privateindustry and the city.

A problem with City effluent sends up a red flagSatisfactory wastewater treat-ment at the publicly owned,Murray, Ky., facility wasdefined largely according toRecommended Standardsfor Wastewater Facilities,known as the Ten StateStandards, which had beenembraced by the KentuckyDivision of Water. In 1994,the City facility was rated totreat an annual average BODload of 10,328 pounds perday (lb/day), at a wastewaterflow of 4 million gallons per day (mgd). Actually, theplant treated an annual average BOD load of 12,300lb/day. The food processorsshare of that load wasapproximately 5,000 lb/day(roughly 40 percent), at anaverage flow of 0.2 mgd.

Because the City treat-ment plants operating loadwas more than 90 percent of its rated capacity, the

Division of Water hadthreatened the City with amoratorium on new sewerconnections.The City hadresponded by assigning its consultant to evaluatepossible plant upgrades that would meet the Division of Waters pub-lished design values.

Then an acute non-compliance event occurredin the Citys onlyand effluent-dominatedcreek,prompting the Division ofWater and other agencies to get involved.

The most likely cause of the event was a sludgeblanket carryover from thetreatment plants secondaryclarifier, which in turn was caused by two factors.One was inadequate sludgewastage due to the Citysinability to land-apply thesludge over a prolonged wet-weather period (the Citywasnt prepared to dispose of the sludge in a landfill). The second factor was thepoor sludge settleability thatplagued the City plant.

Neverthelessbecauseit generated 40 percent ofthe City treatment plantsannual average BOD loadthe food processor wasimplicated as the instigator

of the plant upset. The Cityordered the food processorto install a pretreatment system that would reduce its BOD load by 70 percent.Estimated cost: $3.5 million.

Quickly installingindustry pretreatmentThe food processing plantcalled on Brown and Caldwellto design and build the pretreatment system andnegotiate the pretreatmentpermit with the City andstate, explains ProjectManager Houston Flippin.We were able to negotiate a 45 percent reduction in BOD load within sixmonthsand a delay of the 70 percent reductionrequirement until we couldcomprehensively evaluatethe actual treatment capacityof the Citys facility.

Meanwhile, Brown andCaldwell evaluated designalternatives for the pretreat-ment system and performedbench-scale testing. An aer-ated equalization tank wasselected for design, whichbegan in October 1998.Only four months later, thepretreatment system startedup. It consisted of on-line

An acute wastewater treatment problem is resolved when a food processing facility installs a pretreatment system in just four months and a city is persuadedto take a second look at its treatment plant capacity.

Win-WinIndustry/Municipality Cooperation Leads toSolution for Kentucky Wastewater Treatment

CO N T I N U E D O N PA G E 4

A

WINTER 2000

2

The former aerobic digestersof the Murray, Ky., municipal wastewater treatment plant. As part of minor modificationsrecommended by Brown andCaldwell, these digesters wereconverted to sludge thickenersto promote more effective useof a newer aerobic digester.This and other modificationsstemmed from Brown andCaldwells six-week programto re-evaluate the City plants capacity, which was therebyincreased by 25 percent(PHOTOS BY JASON MULLEN).

Two workers inside the new 570,000-gallon aeratedequalization tank at a foodprocessing plant in Murray,Ky. The tank is part of awastewater pretreatment systemdesigned and builtby Brown and Caldwell in just four monthsthatreduced the food processorsbiochemical oxygen demandload by more than 50 percent.

3

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

waste-load monitoring through turbidity analysis, a lift station, a force main, and a 570,000-gallon aerated equalization tank with jet aeration, defoamer addition,nutrient addition, and process-control systems. The interimpretreatment limits were met immediately. Later, they wereexceeded, with more than 50 percent of the BOD loadreduced by the new system. Installed cost: $1.8 million.

Already-improved City capacity further unmasked by evaluationThe food processing plants new pretreatment systemallowed the Citys facility to achieve good sludge settleability,since pretreatment mitigated dissolved oxygen and nutrientdeficiencies at the City plant. Previously, this could beachieved only with chlorination of return activated sludge,because the City plant was already operating all of its aera-tion equipment and had no facilities for nutrient addition.

With some of the Citys technical problems alreadyresolved, Brown and Caldwell embarked on the capacity re-evaluation, putting together a team of engineers: Scott Hallof Charlotte, N.C.; Steve Batiste, Pintenich, Flippin, andothers of Nashville, Tenn.; Henryk Melcer and PatriciaTam of Seattle; John Bratby of Denver; Dave Kinnear ofSalt Lake City; and Marc Pritchard of Pleasant Hill, Calif.They performed a six-week program involving full-scalestress testing of clarifiers and the belt press, dirty-water oxygen transfer testing, determination of nitrification rates,determination of influent total suspended solids degradability,full-scale plant monitoring, and a review of existing data.

Using the Division of Water design values, the Citysconsultant had proposed a $2.5 million upgrade to treat anannual average BOD load of 15,000 lb/day. But Brown andCaldwells results showed that the City facility could beupgraded to treat the same waste load simply by addingaeration equipment and making other minor modifications,at an installed cost of $500,000.

The Cityand its consultantagreed with Brownand Caldwells findings. The food processing plant and theCity co-petitioned the state to rerate the publicly ownedtreatment plant for the greater waste load with aerationupgrades and minor modifications alone, and to allow thefood processor higher pretreatment limits on BOD. Thatway, both the food processor and the City could depend onthe available capacity for a 25 percent increase in waste load.

The upgrade and its terms are expected to beapproved shortly by the Division of Water. Everyone was awinner, says Flippin. The food processing plant saved $1.7million by not having to provide additional treatment. And theCity saved $2 million by implementing a site-specific solution.

Contact Mike Roeder or Houston Flippin in Nashville, at (615) 255-2288, or Paul Klopping in Corvallis, Ore., at (541) 754-7677, for more information on this project,design-build pretreatment systems for industry, and capacity rerating for municipal treatment plants.

Win-Win, CO N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 2With two months to close

escrow, RMC Nevada sought anaccurate analysis of a sites

mineable resourcealong withPhase I ESAs and a review ofoperating permitsto assess

whether it should finalize the acquisition deal.

hillip Bonnell, president of RMC Nevada, hadroughly 60 days until the close of escrow on twoquarry sites his company had agreed to purchase.The seller claimed that one of the sitesan 858-acre property east of Renocontainedapproximately 1 billion tons of mineable material.

The sites value would vary by millions of dol-lars according to the veracity of the sellers claim.Bonnell needed an accurate analysis of itsresources, and he needed it quickly. In addition,he had to get a thorough assessment of existingoperations and mining permits to evaluate whetherRMC could continue mining at the site, which hadbeen operating since 1988. Finally, so RMC wouldqualify for the innocent landowner defense underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response andLiability Act (CERCLA), Phase I environmentalsite assessments (ESAs) of the two parcels wereneeded before the sale could proceed.

On July 16, 1999, we first got a call fromPhil, recalls Kevin Hebert, Brown and Caldwellsclient service manager for RMC Nevada. He realized we had our work cut out for us to complete all the due-diligence activities beforeclose of escrow. But I assured him that by thetime we propose our scope of work to a client,weve already scheduled most of the subcontrac-tors. When we receive authorization to proceed,our team is off and running.

The team quickly mobilizesOn July 27, Hebert flew from the Phoenix office to Reno, where the sellers gave him and Bonnell a preliminary tour of the site. By August 13, RMChad authorized the proposed work plan, whichincluded aerial mapping, quarry and pit mapping,completion of an exploration program, permitreview, data compilation and modeling, and a draftreport documenting all results and conclusions, to be submitted within six weeks, one full weekbefore the close of escrow.

This schedule gave RMC enough time to ironout with the sellers any issues that Brown andCaldwell uncovered, or, if necessary, to renegoti-ate the sale price.

P

CO N T I N U E D O N PA G E 6

WINTER 2000

4

Against the Clock, Due Diligence Digs Deep for Possible Quarry Purchase

To calculate the volume of a quarry sites mineable resource over time for its possible purchase, Brown and Caldwell used topographic images (bottom) to help develop three-dimensional topographic models (top) and conceptual pit designs(middle). The pit designs incorporate five different constraining surfaces, property boundaries, geologic data, assumptionsregarding pit slopes, and other site information. The design illustrated here depicts a 2 horizontal:1 vertical pit slope.

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

5

Meanwhile, nearby forest fires wereproducing smoke and haze that threat-ened to indefinitely delay aerial survey-ing, which was needed to gain essentialtopographic data.

As the fires kept burning, Hebertand Project Manager Rob Matter assem-bled the team: from the Phoenix office,Jim Robison, senior mining engi-neer, Janice Petticrew, environmen-tal scientist, and Bill Simmons, sen-ior design engineer; from the Boise,Idaho, office, Geologist RobMullener; and from the CarsonCity, Nev., office, Geologists BradHart and John Bennett. Each teammember would contribute expert-isegained from environmentalassessments, mining projects, andgeologic mappingthat wouldyield a whole view greater than thesum of its parts.

3D resource modeling new to industryWhile three-dimensional modelinghas been employed for years in themining industry to evaluate baseand precious metals, the construc-tion materials industry only recent-ly began to reap the fruits of thistechnology. Brown and Caldwellemploys the modeling programsSurpac 2000 and SurvCADD todevelop conceptual pit designs thatincorporate topographic data andgeologic models.

Using this software, we can rendersurface details, add a pit outline, andoverlay it with an aerial photograph,explains Geologist Rob Mullener, a former Surpac technical specialist whorecently joined Brown and Caldwell.And we can generate a moving imageas if we were flying over the property.This allows visualization of the propertylayout before, during, and after mining.

From field data to modeling to accurate predictionMatter, Hebert, Hart, and Petticrewarrived on site August 25 to beginPhase I-related inspections and todevelop an understanding of the sitesgeology and the operations physical

layout and constraintsspecifically, itsmineable resource, the Washington Hill rhyolite. The rhyolite is crushed,processed, and used to produce concrete and asphalt.

Field mapping, exploratorydrilling, and detailed site examinationproceeded through September. A sub-

meter-accuracy global positioning system (GPS) instrument was used to locate the drill holes and to identifygeologic structures that could hindercomplete extraction of the rhyolite. And finally, on August 30, the smokesubsided enough for North AmericanMapping to complete its subcontractedaerial photogrammetric survey.

During the next three weeks, fromoffices in three states, the team amassedand interpreted multiple data sets toprovide an in-depth picture of the proposed acquisitions resources. First,they prepared a geologic model. Thisincorporated information from manysources: the U.S. Geological Survey,aerial topographic survey, legal docu-ments, exploration boreholes, and GPS

survey. The geologic model allowedBrown and Caldwell to estimate theshape, vertical and horizontal extent,and variability of rhyolite on the 858-acre site.

Next, the team developed miningscenarios, harnessing Surpac 2000 andSurvCADD to prepare conceptual pit

designs for the identifiedextraction scenarios. Thepit designs accounted for a number of variables: five different constrainingsurfaces, a 200-foot offsetinside the property line,the rhyolite contact withan underlying andesiterock body, the encroach-ing highwall pit slopes, the assumed structure ofthe andesite, the existingtopography, wash loss, and material quality, thelatter partly determined bylaboratory analysis of drillcuttings. A discrepancy in information about theproperty boundary alsowas accounted for.

Then, as Petticrewwas completing the Phase IESAs and Hebert wasreviewing the site operat-ing permits, the rest of the team employed thevolumetric modeling

programs to merge the geologic modelwith the conceptual pit designs todetermine the total tonnage ofextractable rhyolite at the site.

At the finish lineIf a buyer doesnt quantify a sitesresources before purchase, he or she istaking on a huge risk, explains BrianAnderson, who spearheads Brown andCaldwells construction materials practice. Many acquisitions are basedon an economic model thats linked to the facilitys mine life, and thus ultimately tied to the total resourcequantity. But the buyer may not knowif this model is accurate. An analysislike the one we did for RMC finds out. We provide a credible third-party

Against the Clock, CO N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 4

With three-dimensional model-ing software, we can

render surfacedetails, add a pit

outline, and overlayit with an aerial

photograph.

WINTER 2000

6

QUARTERNOTESbargaining chip.

The bargaining chip was deliveredto RMC on September 24, not twomonths from the preliminary siteinspection, in the form of the promiseddraft report.

It showed that the recoverableresources of the 858-acre parcel weremuch more limited than the the sellerhad asserted. Instead of 1 billion tons of mineable rhyolite, approximately136 million tons of product was recov-erable using a 2 horizontal:1 vertical pitslope, and approximately 117 milliontons of product was recoverable using a 3 horizontal:1 vertical pit slope,according to the due-diligence teamsestimate. Assuming the current produc-tion rate of 1 million tons per year, theteam determined the sites mine life tobe approximately 100 years.

ESAs for both sites uncovered no significant environmental problemspresent that would prevent the dealfrom closing. Also, the permit reviewshowed that conditions for continuedoperation of the site were acceptable to RMC.

Although Brown and Caldwellsestimated volume of recoverable rhyo-lite was far lower than the sellersclaim, RMC had previously drawn itsown line in the sand: 100 million tonsof rhyolite to be extracted with reason-able confidence. Brown and Caldwellsanalysis reassured Bonnell that theminimum could be mined. And theteams other findings added the finalpieces to the puzzle of what the twoparcels really offered.

RMC Nevada is very pleased thatBrown and Caldwell met our timeline,says Bonnell. The teams efforts helped us support our position and our purchase price. The transaction closed successfully.

Contact Brian Anderson in the Boise,Idaho, office at (208) 336-1340 formore information on construction materials services.

The Lone Star State has finalized new rules for risk assessment of contaminatedsites and cleanup using natural attenuation. And a new guidebook is availablefrom Brown and Caldwell to help industry users understand and apply the wide-ranging regulations.

In development since 1996, the Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Rulesreflect the states reputation for doing things in a big way. They are the most comprehensive rules for risk-based corrective action promulgated by a state so far, says Austin Cooley, P.E., Houston-based environmental programmanager for Brown and Caldwell. And in the past, many states have followed Texaslead in this area.

Brown and Caldwell helped develop the new program, participating in all meet-ings of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissions TRRP working groupand providing extensive written comments on the rules. The company also trainedCommission staff in risk assessment and natural attenuation evaluation methods.

Brown and Caldwells 30-page Texas Risk Reduction Program Guidebooksummarizes the regulations in a comprehensible way, addresses their framework,and discusses their most important elements. A section on Frequently AskedQuestions is included. For a copy, send $5 to Kelly Ansley, Brown andCaldwell, 1415 Louisiana, Suite 2500, Houston, Texas 77002, or call (713) 646-1134.

Guidebook Navigates Texas New Rules on Environmental Risk Assessment

Salo Elected to WEF Board of DirectorsJohn Salo, senior vice president in Brown andCaldwells Atlanta office, was elected to the WaterEnvironment Federation (WEF) Board of Directors at theAnnual Conference in New Orleans in October 1999. One oftwo directors from Georgia, he will serve a three-year term.

In 1998, Salo received WEFs Arthur Sidney BedellAward, the most prestigious award that can be given tohonor an individual member, in acknowledgement ofextraordinary personal service. CO N T I N U E D O N PA G E 9

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

7

ocusing on the Department ofEnergys (DOEs) environmentalpractices and technologies, anew publication from theNational Research Councilexamines current issues in subsurface remediation.Groundwater and Soil Cleanup:Improving Management ofPersistent Contaminants is co-authored by Robert D.Norris, Ph.D., Brown andCaldwells Nashville-basedtechnical director of in-situremediation.

The Council formed a com-mittee in 1997 to review how theDOE develops technologies tocharacterize, remediate, andcontain contaminants on itssites, evaluate the technologies,and critique the DOEs manage-ment of their technology devel-opment program. The resultingbook details the departmentsgroundwater and soil problemsand the changing regulatoryenvironment. It then examinesDOE responses to dense, non-aqueous-phase liquids(DNAPLs), metals, and radionu-clides and recommends technical approaches.

Norris efforts on anotherNational Research Council com-

mittee helped lead to the influential book In SituBioremediationWhen Does ItWork? That volume introducedthe term intrinsic remediationand served as the basis for theU.S. EPAs monitored naturalattenuation protocols.

Also co-authored by Norrisis Accelerated BioremediationUsing Slow Release Compounds,recently published by BattellePress. The book presentsselected papers from a confer-ence series on bioremediationtechnologies sponsored byBattellea Columbus, Ohio-based non-profit technologyorganizationfrom 1993 to 1999. Norris and co-editorSteve Koenigsberg,Ph.D., highlight the key issuesinvolved in the use of slow-release oxygen and hydrogencompounds to clean up variouscontaminants.

Contact the NationalAcademy Press at www.nap.eduor (888) 624-8373 to orderGroundwater and Soil Cleanup.To obtain AcceleratedBioremediation Using SlowRelease Compounds, contactNorris at (615) 255-2288 or bnorris@brwncald.com.

Norris Co-Authors Two Books on Subsurface Cleanup

and Bioremediation

F

Choosing the BestWay to Comply with

(Gasp!) GASB 34Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 (GASB) isnta problem waiting somewhere in the distant future. Its here. Roughly84,000 agencies will need to comply with the new rules for financialreportingmany of them in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2001, andthe rest over the following two years, depending on their revenues.

Forward-thinking agencies are starting now to prepare for GASB34. But choosing the best way to comply may not be easy: Compliancestrategies will have effects reverberating well beyond the CFOs office.

Two approaches to accounting for fixed assetsThe new rules require public agencies to identify all their fixed assets,establish each assets value, and determine its service life. Agenciesthen must calculate and report the depreciation of these assetsorreport activities and expenditures to maintain assetsas part of thecost of doing business.

Many agencies will find this difficult because of incomplete fixedasset records, poor knowledge of historical costs, or unknown assetservice lives.

Once depreciation is reported as a utility cost, current rates maynot appear to be in line with the cost of providing service. For instance,if payments on debt principal, rather than depreciation, have been thebasis for current rates, the sudden substitution of depreciation willskew the apparent gain or loss from operations, perhaps dramatically.

Offering an alternative to reporting depreciation, GASB sets out a"modified approach"which it encourages infrastructure agencies toadoptrequiring that agencies periodically assess the condition oftheir fixed assets and report activities and expenditures to maintainthe assets. This rigorous approach to GASB 34 compliance is notstrictly required, but bond rating agencies will probably favor it for tworeasons: It avoids the distorting effects of reporting depreciation basedon historical costs; and it demonstrates good stewardship of assets ina way that simply reporting depreciation does not.

Many infrastructure agencies will choose to adopt programs toperiodically assess and report asset conditions in accord with GASB34s modified approach. These agencies will need to develop scales torate asset condition, methodologies to document asset condition, anda GASB 34-compliant asset management system. Of course, they also

WINTER 2000

8

will have to inventory their assets and conduct the periodic conditionassessments. None of this will be easy, although the effort may wellprove valuable in the long run.

Different agencies will have different objectivesDealing effectively with GASB 34 requires establishing compliancegoals and objectives, which may include the following:

n Formulate an initiative to fully comply with GASB 34 in a way thatmaximizes financial health and promotes good bond ratings

n Create, or change, the agencys asset management system to meet the new financial reporting needs

n Integrate this asset management system with other asset-based systems such as geographic information systems (GIS), mainte-nance management, work order systems, and replacement planning

n Set policies to maintain infrastructure assets to a standard of excellence

n Minimize rate disruption

Different utilities and public agencies will adopt differentapproaches to meeting the new GASB standards. To help an agencydevelop an optimal compliance strategy, Brown and Caldwell typicallytakes some or all of the following steps:

n Review fixed asset and historical cost records, and recommend how these records can be completed and brought up to date according to GASB 34 guidelines

n Interview staff throughout the organization to document existing and needed asset-based applications (GIS, maintenance management, master planning, replacement planning, etc.)

n Interview the agencys auditors to determine their standards for a GASB 34-compliant fixed asset system, and which compliance approaches are preferred versus those likely to generate unfavorablefootnotes to the financial statementsor even a qualified audit opinion

n Help chart an overall compliance strategy that meets identified needs and compliance objectives while considering other existing or planned systems that may depend on a comprehensive fixed-asset database

After a strategy has been formulated, Brown and Caldwell mayhelp implement it, working with agencies as program or project man-agers in several key areas:

n Developing asset condition scales and asset inventory and condition assessment methodologies

n Conducting asset inventories, valuations, and condition assessments

n Developing procedures to keep the asset database up-to-date

n Developing or helping to implement related asset-based systems

n Integrating GASB 34 compliance efforts with other asset-based management systems and regulatory compliance programs, such as those specified in the Clean Water Act and proposed under the EPAsdraft sewer overflow prevention program

n Integrating fragmented asset databases so that all agency users can be served from a consistent and up-to-date database

If agencies can get ahead of GASB 34s looming requirements,they may discover compliance choices that benefit them in the longrun. For more information, contact me at (949) 260-6152, orkharlow@brwncald.com.KEN HARLOW

sing a federal court-ordered collaborativeprocess never before appliedto a RCRA refinery site closure, BP Amoco, theWyoming Department ofEnvironmental Quality, a JointPowers Board formed by theCity of Casper and NatronaCounty, and Brown andCaldwell together are work-ing towards beneficial reuseof a former refinery and itsassociated properties.

Their aim to rapidlyreturn the unique Casper,Wyo., site to recreational,

Salo, CO N T I N U E D F R O M PA G E 7Salo served as Chair of the Georgia WEF Section in 1997-98 andChair of the Sections Legislative Committee, which he organized,from 1992-94. He has been an officer of the Georgia Section since1994. WEF, an international, not-for-profit educational and technicalorganization of more than 40,000 members, focuses on activities thatpreserve and enhance the global water environment.

Unique Collaborative Process to Convert Former Refinery Site

CO N T I N U E D O N NE X T PA G E

U

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

9

wildlife, and commercial use contrasts withconventional RCRA closures, which typical-ly take 15 to 20 years. The former Amocorefinery project is on track to achieve afinal remedial decision in three years.

The Joint Powers Board (JPB), whichincludes both elected officials and appoint-ed citizens, needed an unbiased ally to rep-resent its interests in the technically com-plex process and to help maintain the pro-jects aggressive schedule. Drawing ontheir knowledge and experience in environ-mental remediation, Brown and Caldwell isgiving the JPB an objective voice in theprocess, explains Dave Engels, theboards executive director. Theyre helpingus make sure that whatever is proposed pro-tects human health and the environment.

The refinery operated for nearly a century before being closed approximatelyeight years ago. With almost 10,000 feet offrontage on the North Platte River and prox-imity to downtown Casper, the desirable siteof the now-demolished refinery offers a number of possible uses. Thedraft reuse plan for the site, proposed by the JPB and a citizen commit-tee, envisions a golf course, office park, and large areas of open spacereserved for recreation and wildlife. An offsite property, Soda Lake,also offers valuable new uses: Where refinery wastewater was dis-posed of, now migratory waterfowl, antelope, and other wildlife haveestablished themselves in a habitat of unusual diversity for a semi-aridregion. Characterization activities and corrective-measure studies forthe lake are scheduled for later this year.

One of the Casper projects toughest challenges is resolution of com-plex technical issues in a collaborative process that requires agreement viaconsensus by all the parties.Weve been able to achieve breakthroughsby emphasizing the range of knowledge that everyone in this process hasto contribute, comments Steve Haverl, Brown and Caldwells principal

in charge of the project and senior vice president ofenvironmental services, and by focusing on prob-lem-solving using scientific methods.

In early 1999, for example, the involved par-ties began considering the issue of non-aqueousphase liquids (NAPLs) underlying the former refinery and the length of a sheet-pile wall that would help contain it. Initially, it had beenagreed that the wall would be constructed alonga particular stretch of the North Platte River. Then considerable contention arose, with some arguingthat the wall should extend the whole length ofthe river or even surround the entire property.

Recognizing the stalemate, Brown andCaldwell recommended convening an expertpanel composed of members invited by each participant in the process. The JPB was represented by Brown and Caldwells

Robert Mutch, of Mahwah, N.J., and Ron Burt, of Nashville,Tenn. The panel produced a report describing the migration ofNAPLsoiland dissolved-phase groundwater contaminants at thesite, says Mutch. With that technical basis, the panel recommendedthat the sheet-pile wall span the length of the North Platte River on therefinery side, but not encircle the property. Breaking through thestalemate, the expert panel also established a precedent on how toresolve any future collaborative stalls.

The high-profile project involves media coverage of all key meetings. Linda Henry, Ron Zurlinden, and Cindy Paulsonround out the companys team, providing assessments of ecologic andhuman health risks and making public educational presentations inaddition to offering expertise on site characterization, remediation, and water quality.

Unique Collaborative ProcessCO N T I N U E D F R O M PR E C E D I N G PA G E

A sheet-pile barrier wall is being constructed along the NorthPlatte River to help contain releases from a former refinery site in Casper, Wyo. The site is being restored to supportrecreational and commercial uses. Brown and Caldwell is part of a court-ordered collaborative process to address sitecharacterization and remediation.

McGraw-Hill recently published the third edition of "Industrial Water Pollution Control" by W. Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr., D.Sc., P.E., senior technical director for Brown and Caldwell (see the interview this issue). The 1989 and 1967 editions also were authored by Eckenfelder.

The new edition features case histories, problems from the field, and increased emphasis on theapplication of theories and state-of-the-art technology. The contents reflect changes demanded over thepast few years by higher water-quality standards.

For an examination copy, email mark_johnson@mcgraw-hill.com with your mailing address, request,and the books ISBN (0-07-039364-8), or call the publisher at (800) 338-3987.

Wes Eckenfelders Industrial Water Pollution Control

WINTER 2000

10

The kaolin industry is helping to shape new federal standardsfor maximum achievable controltechnology (MACT) to limit air pol-lution. The clay products MACT,which includes kaolin, is due to bepromulgated by May 15, 2002.

The economic impact of this regulation on the kaolinmanufacturing industry could be enormous, as much as eight or nine figures, saysCraig Smith, Ph.D., aBrown and Caldwell air regula-tions expert based in Atlanta.We hope to reduce that impactby supporting the developmentof regulations that fit this indus-try, not the other way around.

Smith leads the strategicresponse of the China ClayProducers Association (CCPA),which consists of five compa-nies that produce 60 percent ofthe worlds kaolin. A type of clayused in high-grade paper, paints,additives, and pharmaceuticals,kaolin deposits in North Americaare concentrated in Georgia. Theclay processing industry alsoincludes alumina, bentonite,fullers earth, and ball clay.

Brown and Caldwell is thequarterback, running the plays toget the CCPA through a myriadof regulatory issues, explainsSmith. "A big part of our work isfacilitating meetings by a groupwhich is bound by a commongoal, but made up of ardentcompetitors. This group contin-ues to develop honesty andopenness among themselveswhich is critical to achievingconsensus on strategic issues.

An outgrowth of the 1990amendments to the Clean AirAct, and administered by theU.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), MACT regula-tions will eventually cover morethan 174 industrial categories.To date, 43 standards have been

promulgated for 78 categories ofemission sources. Over the nextthree years, 66 standards cover-ing 96 source categories are tobe issued. If federal MACT standards arent issued on time,states can put forth equivalentair emissions regulations.

MACT standards haveraised considerable concernamong private industry because

so far, their limits have requiredcapital-intensive emissions con-trols. Emissions may be reducedthrough elimination, processmodifications and substitutions,new operating procedures,and/or "end-of-the-pipe" controls.Costs for the latter have run intothe millions of dollars.

Smith is drawing on hiswork with other industries thathave responded to MACT stan-dards development, includinggasoline storage and organicliquid distribution companies. Inparticular, he has analyzed theefforts of others to influenceMACT regulations development,including the portland cement,phosphate fertilizer, and limeindustries. This has involved

examining the EPAs approachto various air pollutants as wellas indicators, emissions levels,required monitoring, final compliance requirements, and industry costs.

Smith cites the outcomethat befell the portland cementindustry as one the kaolin industry wants to avoid: Twomanufacturer associations are

suing the EPA, disputing its pre-scribed monitoring technologyand its ability to regulate certainpollutants, while the Sierra Clubis suing the EPA as well, allegingthat it has not gone far enoughin reducing hazardous air pollu-tants. Meanwhile, the EPA estimates that the portlandcement MACT standard will lead to industry compliancecosts of $240 million per year.

For the kaolin industry,Brown and Caldwell formulateda decision analysis process thatwouldnt predetermine thecourse of action. A more typicalapproach would be linear (collecting information and thenresponding to the EPA) ratherthan global (looking at the

problem as a whole, weighing the risks and rewards of differenttechnical issues, and then developing strategic paths). Thecompanys team includes special-ists in mining, testing, permittingand compliance, health and riskassessment, decision and strategicanalysis, modeling, economicanalysis, and process engineering.

Kaolin Industry Aims to ShapeMACT Regulations

In an unusual recognition oftimely and high-quality work, the Department of Energy gave a Corporate Award toJames Clarke, Ph.D., ofBrown and Caldwell, and his fellow team members from fourother firms, for their independenttechnical review of proposedsonic drilling in Pit 9 at the IdahoNational Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory.

The Department had receivedconflicting advice about whethersonic drilling into the pits buriedwastewhich contains potassiumand sodium nitrates and petrole-um hydrocarbon oils could resultin explosion or fire. The 1-acre pitalso contains barrels, boots, rags,and debris contaminated withplutonium and other hazardouschemicals generated duringnuclear weapons production atthe Rocky Flats site in Coloradoand dumped in the late 1960s. TheDepartment planned to sample it viasonic drilling as part of a cleanupproject that had been plagued bytechnical and legal delays.

The independent panel con-cluded in November 1999 thatthe potential for explosion or firefrom sonic drilling is "beyondextremely unlikely" if the panelsrecommendations are followed.Recently, 20 subsurface probeswere installed using sonic drillingthroughout the full depth of Pit 9,without incident.

DOE Commends Clarke for Pit 9 Drilling Safety Review

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

11

Sounding a clarion bell heardacross the United States, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) announced last fall that ithad fined the University of Hawaii morethan $115,000 for its shortcomings in envi-ronmental compliance.

No longer, the EPA seemed to be say-ing, would the nations colleges or univer-sities sidestep its enforcement hammer.Since then the buzz among trade associa-

tions serving thousands of top cam-pus administrators has been

about a crackdown. Thethreat is perceived as an

amorphous one,and concern

is high.

Significantwork already being

done for some of thenations leading universities

in advance of this latest wave ofenforcement illustrates how academic

institutions can take action to allay theirconcerns.

By successfully implementing an envi-ronmental program, these institutions willnot only improve compliance and reducethe chances of an unpleasant six-figurefinethey will also demonstrate their lead-ership, turning compliance measures intoan example of environmental stewardship,with accompanying public relationsrewards. Just as important, they can signifi-cantly reduce operating costs, allowingthem to redirect savings to improve aca-demic programs.

Leaders of academic institu-tions should start with a frankand honest assessment. Do youhandle environmental issues only after theregulators and notices of violation showup? Does your staff have the depth ofexperience to properly support and negoti-ate your case with a regulatory agency?

In one recent case, a consultants abili-ty to develop a plan for handling haz-ardous materials within an allowed 30-day

period prevented the site from beingincluded on the state Superfund list. Byclearly understanding the regulatory envi-ronment, encouraging the university torespond quickly and appropriately, and,above all, keeping the universitys bestinterests in mind, the consultant helped itturn a negative into a positive.

Do you have an automated,systematic program for notifica-tion about compliance deadlinesand requirements? One majorSoutheastern university began its envi-ronmental stewardship with a top-to-bot-tom review of environmental health andsafety (EHS) practices. The university,already a leader in handling environmen-tal issues up front, requested a compre-hensive third-party review of its EHS pro-gram, focusing on management systems,hazardous waste management, asbestos,radiation, biosafety, tank management,solid waste management, air/wastewatertreatment and permitting, steam plantoperations, and vehicle maintenanceoperations. The final report summarizedregulatory compliance and managementissues and gave more than 200 recom-mendations on improving operations.

Heres another example of how to turn a potential public relations disaster into environ-mental solutioneering. A universi-ty discovered an undetermined number ofburied drums of the pesticide DDT. Facingliability under state Superfund laws, theuniversity turned to its consultant forinformation about its regulatory responsi-bilities. The response they planned andenacted included not only traditional engi-neering services to confirm the extent ofcontamination, but also community out-reach efforts and ongoing communicationwith the mediayielding good press andpublic respect.

An effective environmental manage-ment program these days can mean a lotmore than proactive compliance. Forexample, with increasing threats of bioter-rorism, one university has put together anemergency operations plan for its entirecampus of more than 300 buildings. Itdeveloped a core response plan with specif-

ic facility information, and a training pro-gram covering fire safety, chemical storage,and utilities identification. To expediteinformation-gathering and enhanceresponse capabilities for the local emer-gency response teams, the university com-piled all of this information into one docu-ment, accessible via a web-based browser(with password). The user-friendly elec-tronic format allows the document to becontinuously upgraded.

As part of their environmentalefforts, some universities arereaping financial rewards throughimproved management of energysystems. As with their environmentalcompliance efforts, universities often beginwith an audit to analyze system perform-ance, costs, and efficiency. Next, a reportmight identify potential cost-savings items,such as increased centralization, each withan estimated payback period. A consultingfirm with a full palette of HVAC, mechani-cal, and electrical engineering skills canwork with a client to identify methods toimplement system improvements in aphased approach to accommodate budget-ing cycles. These improvements often leadto immediate and significant reductions inoperating costs.

As todays business sense, bottom-linementality penetrates university administra-tions, it is crucial to avoid surprisesbe ita massive capital expense after an energysystem shutdown, or a major fine for fail-ure to properly manage environmentalcompliance. Be honest, assess your envi-ronmental needs, staff capabilities, andpotential liabilities, and then develop aplan. Ask experts to share what they havealready learned. As times continue tochange, you will find yourself ready for the tests ahead.JIM CLAFFEY, PH.D.

For more informationon environmentalmanagement strate-gies tailored toinstitutions of higherlearning, contactClaffey in Atlanta at (770) 673-3663.

IIssues and IdeasLearningHard Lessons Through EPA Enforcement

Academic Institutions

Traditionally less regulated by environmental agencies, colleges and universities can avoid fines, demonstrate leadership,improve public relations, and reduce operating costs through compliance efforts.

WINTER 2000

12

activated sludge, so I literally picked up all of his material andreworked it for activated sludge.

CG: What constituted a pilot study in the 50s?WE: At the West Vaco Mill in Covington, Va., we had steeltanks. The aeration tank was roughly 7 feet wide and 14 feetdeep, and we had a clarifier. We simply compared the deten-tion timesludge age wasnt really used at that time. We useda mixed liquor of 2,500 milligrams per liter or somewherethereabouts. Four hours, six hours detention time. Not highlysophisticated, but it worked.

CG: What was the objective of secondary treatment then?WE: 85 percent removal of BOD. At that point, industry wasconsidered the same as municipal.

CG: And with primary treatment, you werent getting that.WE: Right. Something around 20 percent.

CG: What were the early arguments against secondarytreatment?WE: Cost. They claimed either that it was going to put themout of business or that there really wasnt a problem out there.Unless there was a fish kill, industry wasnt being squeezed.

CG: Thinking through the advancements in technologyover the span of your career, what hasnt changed and what has?WE: Interesting youd ask that. A few weeks ago I was lookingthrough my 1960 book and thought to myself, Things surehavent changed much since I wrote that! Of course, thingsare still being fine-tuned, but basic concepts . . .Well, the bugshavent changed in thousands of years. Theyre still doing thesame things. Today, Id say that membranesbiomembranesin particularis certainly new technology that will become amilestone.

CG: What about the move toward statistical modeling to anticipate problems?WE: Certainly in the municipal area, were already there. Notso in industrial. If you take domestic sewage with no industrialinput, it has a reasonably predictable cycle over 24 hours thatcan be programmed. But for industry, with changes in produc-tion, batch processing, you have no predictable model. Its adifferent game. But well eventually come up with something.

CG: As predictable as the municipal waste stream looks,the operations philosophy is still very reactive.WE: Its a mindset. People are convinced that there is so muchvariability that their charter is just to react to what they getevery day.

CG: So what we see with Eric Wahlbergs work on thiswhole concept is that operators need a higher level ofconfidence in statistical process control.WE: Education, attitudes, understandingthats whatsimportant. Science is already there.

Most coveted honor: The Imhoff-Koch Medal from the

International Water Association. I received it in Kyoto in 1990, and I was especially honoredbecause an international panelmade the selection.

First job out of college: Paint inspector for the City ofNew York, 1946. Prompted me to go to graduate school.

Motivation for becoming a professor: I needed a job that paid,

but I was also determined to overcome my speech impedimentmy way.

Biggest personal achievement: Becoming an educator, as well as knowing that my books arepublished in many languages and in use all over the world.

Biggest technology bust: Physical-chemical treatment of municipal wastewater.

An anecdote: I was keynote speaker at the Purdue Industrial WasteConference in 1965. Unfortunately,I got caught up in the festivitiesthe night before and ended up losing my car. I opened myremarks the next morning by asking if anyone had seen it.

Most harrowing experience:Attending the 1968 IAWPRCConference in Prague the daySoviet tanks rolled into the city.They cancelled the conferencethat year, but managed to put it back on in Prague the following year.

EckenfelderCONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

BROWN AND CALDWELL QUARTERLY

13

The Short Course on Pulp and Paper Activated Sludge

The Short Course on Pulp andPaper Activated Sludge is presented by Paul Klopping, senior vice president for Industrial Water Quality at Brown and Caldwell. Klopping helped develop TAPPIs Activated Sludge Plant Operations Short Course and was awarded finest facultystatus by TAPPI each year from 1994 through 1999.

The new Short Course on Pulp and Paper Activated Sludge targets sludge settlingproblems, both filamentous and non-filamentous. Structured for experienced operators and managers of activated sludge plants, this fast-paced, hands-on workshop covers tools and techniques to efficiently troubleshoot and correct secondary clarifier problems.

n Differentiate between performance problems caused by operational controldecisions and those caused by design problems

n Learn a powerful new technique for measuring sludge settling characteristics

n Understand statistical process control and the use of selectors and biological modeling to improve operations reliability

Course components:Overview of Biological Treatment Activated Sludge Process Control TestsControlling Recycle Sludge Flow Nutrients and Nitrification/DenitrificationControlling Waste Sludge FlowControlling Aeration Sludge Settling ProblemsTroubleshooting Case Histories

Cost: $595

Upcoming workshops:

July 11-12, 2000St. Paul, Minnesota

September 27-28, 2000Nashville, Tennessee

Register Today:(800) 727-2224

www.brownandcaldwell.com/sludgeworkshop

PRESORTBULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

PERMIT NO. 11882SAN FRANCISCO, CA

P.O. BOX 8045WALNUT CREEKCALIFORNIA 94596-1220

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

Table of ContentsWes Eckenfelder: Persistent PioneerIndustry/Municipality Cooperation Leads to Win-Win Solution for Kentucky Wastewater TreatmentAgainst the Clock, Due Diligence Digs Deep for Possible Quarry PurchaseQuarternotesGuidebook Navigates Texas' New Rules on Environmental AssessmentSalo Elected to WEF Board of Directors Norris Co-Authors Two Books on Subsurface Cleanup and BioremediationChoosing the Best Way to Comply with GASB 34Unique Collaborative Process to Convert Former Refinery SiteKaolin Industry Aims to Shape MACT RegulationsDOE Commends Clarke for Pit 9 Drilling Safety Review

Academic Institutions Learning Hard Lessons Through EPA Enforcement