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.

Water Infrastructure: Yes We Can!Historic Moment, Historic Opportunity

By Robert Matthews
Senior Vice President of CDM and Chair of the Water Environment Federation's Government Affairs Committee

A new Congress has arrived in D.C., and the nation’s first African American president has taken the Oath of Office. Barack Obama, who faces challenges unprecedented in modern American history, promises significant change in the way the U.S. operates at home and abroad. The whole world will be watching, including WEF members.

One of the new President’s top priorities is a one trillion—(no typo, that’s Trillion)--dollar stimulus package to jumpstart our ailing economy, including, potentially, a record-breaking level of funding for water infrastructure funding—seven to 20 billion dollars. That means more dollars in 2009 than was ever available through the water construction grants of the 1970s! Congress is currently debating the details—-including what type of projects to fund, use of grants and/or loans, starting “shovel-ready” projects in 120 days or moving to a two-year program, and WEF member concerns are certainly on their radar screen.

Since WEFTEC, we have written a letter to the Congressional leadership supporting the inclusion of water infrastructure funding in any stimulus package; recommended that 20 billion dollars be set aside for water as part of the WIN coalition (view letter); asked WEF members to encourage their congressional representatives to support clean water and provided sample letters for their use, and worked with the National Resources Defense Council and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies to collect examples of green infrastructure projects could be funded. WEF also provided EPA with recommendations for streamlining State Revolving Fund (SRF) requirements to expedite the spending of new funding.

As of this writing, this stimulus package is expected to be finalized by mid-February, so that means there is still time for action! Those of us in the water business know that we can never do enough to make sure our elected officials provide needed support. WEF members should write their Congressional representatives in support of water infrastructure funding as part of the stimulus. You can also find out what your own state is planning, and sign up for the Government Affairs Committee (GAC)’s free February 2 webcast, Stimulus Funding for Wastewater Infrastructure: How Much May be Available and What Can it Mean for My Community? I will be hosting the webcast and expect that the timely and stimulating discussion by our panel of experts will provide you key information that you will need to know to obtain funding. Meanwhile you may also want to visit www.WaterIsLife.net, where you can find many useful tools that help communicate the importance of water infrastructure investment to the public.

In short, the moment is now and the opportunity is here. Let’s work together and rebuild the nation’s clean water infrastructure. To quote the new President, yes we can!