By Tyler Richards, Deputy Director of Operations, Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources
Not long ago, when utility managers heard ‘stormwater management,’ they probably thought about drainage and flooding , I know I did. But managing stormwater today involves so much more, especially given its impacts on water quality and local streams. Trends related to climate change, urban sprawl, and fertilizer/pesticide use all affect stormwater management, which will play an increasing complex role in preserving and enhancing the water environment, WEF is focusing resources to meet this growing challenge.
Wastewater managers are now expanding their jurisdictions to manage stormwater. Total maximum daily loads are better defining storm water impacts in watersheds. And stormwater concerns may even impact utility permit compliance. There are huge opportunities to help water and wastewater utility managers more effectively address storm water issues, including emerging EPA initiatives on revising storm water regulations.
Past President Rebecca West and President Paul Freedman asked me to chair a new Stormwater Task Force to focus WEF resources and activities related to stormwater. I’m enthusiastic about our challenge to look at stormwater from all aspects and come up with a comprehensive plan for stormwater programming at WEF. Numerous related efforts like technical sessions, papers, workshops, and the Federation’s upcoming comments to EPA continue to attract interest and support here at WEF. We are reviewing and prioritizing all of them with an eye toward increased effectiveness while solidifying and expanding the stormwater knowledge base for water quality professionals.
EPA is considering regulatory changes that would significantly expand the reach of the stormwater permit program, and no doubt this will impact municipal managers. Those changes may also help to level the playing field to provide more equitable regulation of point and nonpoint sources of impairment. Our members need to be involved in the regulatory process, and WEF member expertise in asset and utility management will also be essential in developing and delivering programs that stormwater managers will need. We’d appreciate your feedback, so please take a moment to post a comment on stormwater needs from your perspective.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Biosolids Recycling Works for Us
By Chris Peot, P.E.
Biosolids Manager
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA) Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Washington, DC, recycles 1,200 tons per day of biosolids to agriculture, restoration projects, and composting production in Virginia and Maryland. Rather than sending biosolids to a landfill, recycling the nutrient-rich material to land in need of nutrients aids the environment. We, along with our colleagues in this profession, work hard every day to examine issues, conduct research, and improve techniques to ensure we are producing the highest-quality, safest product within our power.
The use of biosolids in urban settings can be misunderstood by some. Recently, there have been some negative comments about the First Family garden on the lawn of the White House, which has received some biosolids compost within the past 20 years. For the record, the tests showed approximately 90 parts per million (ppm) lead in the garden soil.
Lead occurs naturally in soils up to 50 ppm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set actions levels for urban soils set at 1200 ppm for regular use and 400 ppm for children’s play areas. Lead levels of 90 ppm in the garden pose no known health risk, and are considered extremely low for an urban setting, where levels from atmospheric deposition can exceed 10,000 ppm. DC WASA biosolids contains lead levels that are considered naturally occurring and well below EPA limits for reuse, at approximately 30 ppm lead. Biosolids compost can, as researched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and others (“Heavy Metals in the Environment” by Brown and others, Journal Environmental Quality, 2003, and “Biosolids Compost Amendment for Reducing Soil Lead Hazards” by Farfel and others, Science of the Total Environment, 2005) help reduce the availability of lead in urban soils, making them safer for our children.
This concept was misrepresented in an AP story last year, prompting AP to write a more balanced follow-up article, stating that the original story was “inaccurate and misleading."
Also see a more in-depth look at the inaccuracies.
Land application of biosolids helps protect the Chesapeake Bay by managing the nutrients generated in an urban setting in an environmentally sustainable manner. It is Mother Nature at work (slightly modified by mankind)—-an essential and important part of the nutrient cycle. DC WASA’s land application program employs the latest technology and research, but we continue to seek out cutting-edge solutions through research and education. For example, we are considering investing in technology to improve the product, produce energy, and reduce biosolids output. This technology would increase our options for reuse of the residual and also produce 10 megawatts of renewable energy.
DC WASA will continue to support returning nutrients and carbon to the soil from which it came, unless scientific evidence indicates we ought to move in a different direction.
Biosolids Manager
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA) Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Washington, DC, recycles 1,200 tons per day of biosolids to agriculture, restoration projects, and composting production in Virginia and Maryland. Rather than sending biosolids to a landfill, recycling the nutrient-rich material to land in need of nutrients aids the environment. We, along with our colleagues in this profession, work hard every day to examine issues, conduct research, and improve techniques to ensure we are producing the highest-quality, safest product within our power. The use of biosolids in urban settings can be misunderstood by some. Recently, there have been some negative comments about the First Family garden on the lawn of the White House, which has received some biosolids compost within the past 20 years. For the record, the tests showed approximately 90 parts per million (ppm) lead in the garden soil.
Lead occurs naturally in soils up to 50 ppm. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set actions levels for urban soils set at 1200 ppm for regular use and 400 ppm for children’s play areas. Lead levels of 90 ppm in the garden pose no known health risk, and are considered extremely low for an urban setting, where levels from atmospheric deposition can exceed 10,000 ppm. DC WASA biosolids contains lead levels that are considered naturally occurring and well below EPA limits for reuse, at approximately 30 ppm lead. Biosolids compost can, as researched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and others (“Heavy Metals in the Environment” by Brown and others, Journal Environmental Quality, 2003, and “Biosolids Compost Amendment for Reducing Soil Lead Hazards” by Farfel and others, Science of the Total Environment, 2005) help reduce the availability of lead in urban soils, making them safer for our children. This concept was misrepresented in an AP story last year, prompting AP to write a more balanced follow-up article, stating that the original story was “inaccurate and misleading."
Also see a more in-depth look at the inaccuracies.
Land application of biosolids helps protect the Chesapeake Bay by managing the nutrients generated in an urban setting in an environmentally sustainable manner. It is Mother Nature at work (slightly modified by mankind)—-an essential and important part of the nutrient cycle. DC WASA’s land application program employs the latest technology and research, but we continue to seek out cutting-edge solutions through research and education. For example, we are considering investing in technology to improve the product, produce energy, and reduce biosolids output. This technology would increase our options for reuse of the residual and also produce 10 megawatts of renewable energy.
DC WASA will continue to support returning nutrients and carbon to the soil from which it came, unless scientific evidence indicates we ought to move in a different direction.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Color Purple: Protecting Against Cross-Connections from Wastewater
By Don Vandertulip, P.E.
Principal, CDM
Many individuals who follow industry developments are aware of revisions to the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) (see my 12.08 blog for background) that now require use of purple pipe on private property plumbing to convey any non-potable water.
The International Plumbing Code (IPC) distributed by the International Code Council (ICC) has similar requirements. WEF’s primary objection to use of purple pipe for onsite non-potable water is the risk to the public through exposure to untreated water. A secondary concern is loss of public confidence in the highly treated reclaimed water distributed in purple pipe by municipal utilities. (Read about recommendations and a letter to IAPMO.)
Simply put, cross connections between a potable water system and any non-potable water supply places the public at risk. The potential for cross-connections with multiple onsite coded non-potable pipe systems proposed by IAPMO could result in a more serious cross connection with the potable water system. I caution all professionals not to think of the onsite alternate piped water as non-potable water but to treat it as wastewater, which includes graywater as it’s generally defined -- all wastewater generated onsite except toilet waste. In many jurisdictions, graywater excludes kitchen sink and dishwasher washwater due to the high organic content of food waste. The key word is "wastewater". In most cases, graywater is not treated though there may have been a lint filter originally provided.
In addition to the potential cross connection of one or more onsite wastewater sources with the potable water system, there is potential for contamination of the highly treated municipal reclaimed water system. Contamination of a municipal reclaimed water system by one of the onsite wastewater systems could result in exposure of individuals with incidental contact to reclaimed water of impaired quality. This exposure could result in illness, even if the reclaimed water were not ingested. Degradation of the reclaimed water quality could also negatively impact other municipal reclaimed water users and violate the user agreement between the utility and customer. I suggest that the untreated wastewater proposed for recirculation and use onsite without treatment does not yet rise to the caliber of "non-potable" until it has received enough treatment to transition from its wastewater designation. In short, distributing wastewater onsite in a purple plumbing pipe will eventually cause significant damage to our collective reclaimed water programs and jeopardize public health.
Principal, CDM
Many individuals who follow industry developments are aware of revisions to the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) (see my 12.08 blog for background) that now require use of purple pipe on private property plumbing to convey any non-potable water.
The International Plumbing Code (IPC) distributed by the International Code Council (ICC) has similar requirements. WEF’s primary objection to use of purple pipe for onsite non-potable water is the risk to the public through exposure to untreated water. A secondary concern is loss of public confidence in the highly treated reclaimed water distributed in purple pipe by municipal utilities. (Read about recommendations and a letter to IAPMO.)Simply put, cross connections between a potable water system and any non-potable water supply places the public at risk. The potential for cross-connections with multiple onsite coded non-potable pipe systems proposed by IAPMO could result in a more serious cross connection with the potable water system. I caution all professionals not to think of the onsite alternate piped water as non-potable water but to treat it as wastewater, which includes graywater as it’s generally defined -- all wastewater generated onsite except toilet waste. In many jurisdictions, graywater excludes kitchen sink and dishwasher washwater due to the high organic content of food waste. The key word is "wastewater". In most cases, graywater is not treated though there may have been a lint filter originally provided.
In addition to the potential cross connection of one or more onsite wastewater sources with the potable water system, there is potential for contamination of the highly treated municipal reclaimed water system. Contamination of a municipal reclaimed water system by one of the onsite wastewater systems could result in exposure of individuals with incidental contact to reclaimed water of impaired quality. This exposure could result in illness, even if the reclaimed water were not ingested. Degradation of the reclaimed water quality could also negatively impact other municipal reclaimed water users and violate the user agreement between the utility and customer. I suggest that the untreated wastewater proposed for recirculation and use onsite without treatment does not yet rise to the caliber of "non-potable" until it has received enough treatment to transition from its wastewater designation. In short, distributing wastewater onsite in a purple plumbing pipe will eventually cause significant damage to our collective reclaimed water programs and jeopardize public health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
