On Microconstituents: Jury’s Out, Action’s in Baltimore

By Joseph Cleary, P.E., BCEE
Principal, HydroQual, Inc.

When it comes to defining, managing, and decreasing the impact of microconstituents on human health and the environment, the jury is most definitely out. And beyond the need to learn so much more about microconstituents--the term we use to describe the natural and manmade substances ranging from drugs to personal care products that end up in water and must be assessed for potential impact on human health and the environment—-there’s a host of related issues to address. That’s exactly what’s happening in Baltimore next week at the Microconstituents and Industrial Water Quality 2009 Conference, where WEF and other leading public health organizations and stakeholders from around the world will take a hard look at the pressing and provocative subject of microconstituents. (This in addition to a comprehensive program on industrial wastewater.) As chair of the microconstituents portion of the meeting, I am very excited about the program the committee has put together.

Risk communication will definitely be in the spotlight at this meeting. Discussion of risks can be difficult in any field, but when you have engineers and other technical types in the communications mix, results can mystify or overwhelm the person on the street. For example, as more studies are done and analytical methods are developed and refined, we can expect more reports and findings that microconstituents are ubiquitous in the environment. To some non-technical ears that could sound scary!

As technical professionals, we know there is so very much to be learned about all the microconstituent variables like concentration, location, and frequency, which could comprise (or not) any risk to human health or the environment--not to mention developing sound scientific solutions based on what we learn. (See June 2009 New York Times article on what we can learn.) While there is no evidence to suggest risk to human health, we’ll continue to research, monitor, and evaluate microconstituents, and any potential challenges and remedies must be communicated accurately and effectively. (See WEF's Drug-Free Drains brochure.) That’s an essential part of our jobs as water quality professionals and one of many cutting-edge topics you can learn more about next week.

I think of microconstituents as an exciting new frontier when it comes to water--and Baltimore is the next outpost. Latest research, current best practices, and, yes, ways to communicate with the public--it’ll all be there. Come join us and be part of the action!

Nutrient Removal: Sustainable Solutions

By Charles Bott, Conference Chair, WEF Nutrient Removal 2009 Conference

Last week WEF convened their second Nutrient Removal Conference: Sustainable Treatment Solutions. As chair, I had the challenging task of following up on a very successful 2007 event, but I had the assistance of great conference steering and planning committees as well as WEF staff to help with the program development.

While this year’s conference in Washington, D.C. was again located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which has some of the most stringent nitrogen and phosphorus discharge limits in the world, it is clear that more widespread removal of nutrients from point sources is gaining momentum. Eutrophication and the growth of hypoxic zones such as in the Gulf of Mexico will be driving more broad-based nutrient removal.

From the beginning of the conference planning process, it was clear that the focus of nutrient removal from wastewater treatment plants had transformed drastically in less than two short years. In 2007, the focus was on removing nutrients to extremely low levels using new technologies and approaches. Looking back, there was surprisingly little discussion about carbon footprints, net environmental benefits, or water quality benefits achieved.

However, the direction of our sector has shifted and the makeup of our program reflected that change. Discussions about environmental and societal costs in addition to the usual financial costs framed our nutrient removal debates in the context of a triple bottom line approach. In a resource-constrained world, energy efficiency and resource recovery both play a role in a more sustainable approach to nutrient removal from wastewater.

In the Opening General Session, I asked the audience to focus on three efforts:

1. Reduce the cost and environmental footprint associated with removing nutrients. This will come from a focus on energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, lower chemical usage, resource recovery, and reliability of operations. Clearly, a continued focus on new and more cost-effective nutrient removal technologies is an important part of this challenge, but it must be balanced with environmental and societal cost concerns.


2. Move forward on the “new paradigm” of wastewater treatment and integrate these concepts into current planning and upgrades. This means thinking about wastewater as a resource for water reuse and reclamation and incorporating approaches such as decentralization and even source separation.


3. Engage the broader water quality community and the public. We will continue to make significant investments in our infrastructure. The understanding of the high quality effluent we produce can only increase the political will to further our nutrient removal efforts associated with more diffuse sources like urban stormwater, air deposition, and agriculture.

So what will be the focus of Nutrient Removal 2011? What issues or trends will shape our thoughts on the program and information needs for WEF’s members and beyond? Check back to the conference website and WEF’s Nutrient Removal Knowledge Center and let us know what you think.