By Erin Mosley, Chair of WEF's Stockholm Junior Water Prize Committee
This week, nearly 50 students and many of their teachers are travelling to Anchorage, Alaska, for the U.S. Stockholm Junior Water Prize (SJWP) Competition hosted by the Alaska Water Wastewater Management Association (AWWMA) and WEF. As the only major high school science competition focusing on the water environment, the SJWP offers its participants an opportunity to meet role models and peers who understand their projects and their passion for water quality issues. It’s also a different kind of competition...one that emphasizes collaboration, networking, and fun over “lone wolf” research.
The competition reaches a broad range of students through its multiple levels of competition. After projects are submitted online for the state level competition, many students are interviewed by water industry professionals from the WEF Member Associations (MAs). In this way, each MA plays a crucial role in connecting with these students and encouraging their interest.
The state winners arrive at the U.S. on-site competition to meet the judges and attend the award ceremony, but they leave with a network of friends and future colleagues developed through the social and educational events. Likewise, their teachers participate in an outreach program that encourages water-related curriculum and research over the long term. And the competition doesn’t stop there – we provide opportunities to publish, keep in touch, and more.
The SJWP program addresses so many areas of interest to WEF members that it is hard to list them all in one blog: workforce sustainability, career outreach, fueling future research, networking among up-and-coming water professionals, and strengthening ties between WEF and its MAs are only the first things that come to mind.
So as I travel to Anchorage to be a “coach” to a group of state winners for the fourth year running, my thanks go out to Stephanie Costello and others at WEF, the SJWP committee (which is always looking for new members), AWWMA and the volunteers in Alaska, our sponsors, each MA that has helped with state competitions and student/teacher airfares, and any other volunteer or friend who has touched this competition in the last decade.
Please contact us if you have ideas and would like to get involved. And make sure to check out the SJWP page soon for news on the U.S. winner and finalists. Cheers!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Nutrient Removal: Everywhere, All the Time?
By Jeanette Brown, 2008-2009 Vice-President of the Water Environment Federation
As water quality experts know, many treatment plants throughout the United States are required to remove nitrogen, phosphorus or both. And if you manage or work at a utility like mine, in a region where nutrient removal is required, you know there are significant related costs, both capital and operating, as well as increased process monitoring requirements. As stewards of the environment, we take great pride not only meeting permit requirements but also in trying to achieve much greater removal of pollutants. Now we must all address a fundamental question as to whether or not every water body would benefit from nutrient removal. It’s complicated, because while we strive for the cleanest water possible, we understand this objective must be balanced against most effective use of environmental resources and diverse considerations that impact water quality at the regional and local levels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has petitioned EPA to issue generally applicable nitrogen and phosphorus removal requirements for wastewater treatment plants. They contend that total phosphorous limits of 1.0 mg/L and total nitrogen limits of 8.0 mg/L are consistently attainable on an annual average basis using current secondary treatment technology. They also contend that many treatment plants are currently doing this with either a slight increase in cost or in some cases reduction of costs.
Many of us who currently operating nutrient removal plants have some concerns about this proposal because we understand how cold temperatures, wet weather and changing influent characteristics can impact nutrient removal efficiencies. In order to evaluate this petition, which will certainly be a hot topic at the upcoming Nutrient 2009 meeting, members of WEF and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) developed a questionnaire which has now been completed by many plants throughout the country. The results give us an understanding of the processes used at plants, whether or not they are doing nutrient removal, effluent quality, and costs. The goal is to provide EPA with expert advice as they continue to address nutrient criteria and issues.
Additionally WEF has convened a nutrient issues workgroup. This workgroup is assessing base line performance of conventional secondary treatment plants that evaluate how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed by the process. They are also evaluating state-of-the-art processes for nutrient removal, including cost and performance.
It is vitally important that we continue to thoroughly address this question of universal benefits of nutrient removal before any final decision is made to mandate generally applicable nutrient removal requirements. As stewards of clean water, we all have a stake in the answer, and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
P.S. You may want to check out the Nutrient Removal Knowledge Center on WEF's website for more information.
As water quality experts know, many treatment plants throughout the United States are required to remove nitrogen, phosphorus or both. And if you manage or work at a utility like mine, in a region where nutrient removal is required, you know there are significant related costs, both capital and operating, as well as increased process monitoring requirements. As stewards of the environment, we take great pride not only meeting permit requirements but also in trying to achieve much greater removal of pollutants. Now we must all address a fundamental question as to whether or not every water body would benefit from nutrient removal. It’s complicated, because while we strive for the cleanest water possible, we understand this objective must be balanced against most effective use of environmental resources and diverse considerations that impact water quality at the regional and local levels.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has petitioned EPA to issue generally applicable nitrogen and phosphorus removal requirements for wastewater treatment plants. They contend that total phosphorous limits of 1.0 mg/L and total nitrogen limits of 8.0 mg/L are consistently attainable on an annual average basis using current secondary treatment technology. They also contend that many treatment plants are currently doing this with either a slight increase in cost or in some cases reduction of costs.
Many of us who currently operating nutrient removal plants have some concerns about this proposal because we understand how cold temperatures, wet weather and changing influent characteristics can impact nutrient removal efficiencies. In order to evaluate this petition, which will certainly be a hot topic at the upcoming Nutrient 2009 meeting, members of WEF and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) developed a questionnaire which has now been completed by many plants throughout the country. The results give us an understanding of the processes used at plants, whether or not they are doing nutrient removal, effluent quality, and costs. The goal is to provide EPA with expert advice as they continue to address nutrient criteria and issues.
Additionally WEF has convened a nutrient issues workgroup. This workgroup is assessing base line performance of conventional secondary treatment plants that evaluate how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be removed by the process. They are also evaluating state-of-the-art processes for nutrient removal, including cost and performance.
It is vitally important that we continue to thoroughly address this question of universal benefits of nutrient removal before any final decision is made to mandate generally applicable nutrient removal requirements. As stewards of clean water, we all have a stake in the answer, and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
P.S. You may want to check out the Nutrient Removal Knowledge Center on WEF's website for more information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
