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!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
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:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Monday, June 22, 2009
SJWP: Taking It to the Next Level in Alaska
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!
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 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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Water Regs Frozen in Time, Need Reinvention
By Rebecca West, 2008-2009 President of the Water Environment Federation
New EPA administrators bring new opportunities to address environmental challenges, like improving our regulatory approach to the nation’s water resources. It was a big theme at the WEF/NACWA Clean Water Policy Forum earlier this month, where utility executives discussed our nation’s out-of-date water regulations. We talk about limited Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts that do not connect water needs and resources at the state and local levels and folks generally agree that watershed management is the best approach to managing water. Water—supply and quality—is interconnected and should clearly be regulated that way, and it’s not under our current system.
Don’t get me wrong, both Acts were based on the best science and thinking at the time they were created and are very, very good. They’ve made tremendous progress, but they’ve run the course of a useful life, and we also know so much more today. Nonpoint source pollution, impacts from urbanization, you name it, there’s a whole new dimension in water management not reflected (no pun intended) in our current water regulations. Not to mention how climate change impacts water quality and supply through impact over time.
And unlike anything we have now, any revised legislation should emphasize a conservation ethic to address growing water scarcity and the importance of water reuse. People are undervaluing and over consuming water, and unfortunately we have not mustered the political will to begin asking them to use less!
Bottom line: let’s start with a blank sheet of paper and reinvent regulation from a watershed perspective, including every aspect of water resource management. Why not start by combining the SDWA and the CWA to create a single Water Act, and down the road from a global sustainability standpoint, the International Water Act? Just some thoughts from the recent Clean Water Policy Forum, what do you think?
New EPA administrators bring new opportunities to address environmental challenges, like improving our regulatory approach to the nation’s water resources. It was a big theme at the WEF/NACWA Clean Water Policy Forum earlier this month, where utility executives discussed our nation’s out-of-date water regulations. We talk about limited Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts that do not connect water needs and resources at the state and local levels and folks generally agree that watershed management is the best approach to managing water. Water—supply and quality—is interconnected and should clearly be regulated that way, and it’s not under our current system.
Don’t get me wrong, both Acts were based on the best science and thinking at the time they were created and are very, very good. They’ve made tremendous progress, but they’ve run the course of a useful life, and we also know so much more today. Nonpoint source pollution, impacts from urbanization, you name it, there’s a whole new dimension in water management not reflected (no pun intended) in our current water regulations. Not to mention how climate change impacts water quality and supply through impact over time.
And unlike anything we have now, any revised legislation should emphasize a conservation ethic to address growing water scarcity and the importance of water reuse. People are undervaluing and over consuming water, and unfortunately we have not mustered the political will to begin asking them to use less!
Bottom line: let’s start with a blank sheet of paper and reinvent regulation from a watershed perspective, including every aspect of water resource management. Why not start by combining the SDWA and the CWA to create a single Water Act, and down the road from a global sustainability standpoint, the International Water Act? Just some thoughts from the recent Clean Water Policy Forum, what do you think?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sharing the Sustainability Buzz
By Peter T. Brady, B.E., Residuals and Biosolids Committee Chair
At the residual and biosolids meeting in Portland last week, sustainability through effective residuals management could be described as a shared vision…or the major buzz. Topics like benefits of land application where appropriate and increased plant efficiency were discussed everywhere. And presentations on green energy and energy renewal were especially popular among older and younger attendees alike. That’s actually why I’m blogging.
In addition to creating leading-edge optimization solutions and tools for today’s residuals managers, our field must continue to attract and cultivate a new generation of young professionals (YPs). The Residuals and Biosolids Committee (RBC) is addressing sustainability from both perspectives because to make sustainability work, we need a sustainable workplace.
Green energy savers like the incinerator Cleveland upgraded to generate electricity or the report on carbon emissions presented last week are great for at least two reasons…they contribute to our profession’s knowledge base and they attract the
YPs who want to fix the environment. While we build on a solid range of best practices and operations to sustain the environment through smart residuals management, we must communicate the very real opportunities to protect public health and the environment. And we should do that through venues where YPs seek information (like blogs)-- and encourage their involvement. The time to reach out has never been better.
As we saw in Portland, big things are happening in residuals management, a field bursting with innovative and practical ways to improve our environment. WEF and the RBC continue to work toward developing the best possible technical information and resources, making them available in formats that work for experienced residuals professionals as well as YPs who may be exploring the field for the first time. (Visit the Residuals and Biosolids Conference Proceedings page to see materials from recent RBC meetings.) And the RBC has challenged each of its subcommittees to increase their number of active YPs, through social media, old-fashioned networking or whatever else works, and we’ll review our progress at WEFTEC. We need YP involvement, and so does a sustainable planet.
At the residual and biosolids meeting in Portland last week, sustainability through effective residuals management could be described as a shared vision…or the major buzz. Topics like benefits of land application where appropriate and increased plant efficiency were discussed everywhere. And presentations on green energy and energy renewal were especially popular among older and younger attendees alike. That’s actually why I’m blogging. In addition to creating leading-edge optimization solutions and tools for today’s residuals managers, our field must continue to attract and cultivate a new generation of young professionals (YPs). The Residuals and Biosolids Committee (RBC) is addressing sustainability from both perspectives because to make sustainability work, we need a sustainable workplace.
Green energy savers like the incinerator Cleveland upgraded to generate electricity or the report on carbon emissions presented last week are great for at least two reasons…they contribute to our profession’s knowledge base and they attract the
YPs who want to fix the environment. While we build on a solid range of best practices and operations to sustain the environment through smart residuals management, we must communicate the very real opportunities to protect public health and the environment. And we should do that through venues where YPs seek information (like blogs)-- and encourage their involvement. The time to reach out has never been better.As we saw in Portland, big things are happening in residuals management, a field bursting with innovative and practical ways to improve our environment. WEF and the RBC continue to work toward developing the best possible technical information and resources, making them available in formats that work for experienced residuals professionals as well as YPs who may be exploring the field for the first time. (Visit the Residuals and Biosolids Conference Proceedings page to see materials from recent RBC meetings.) And the RBC has challenged each of its subcommittees to increase their number of active YPs, through social media, old-fashioned networking or whatever else works, and we’ll review our progress at WEFTEC. We need YP involvement, and so does a sustainable planet.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Value for Members Remains Top WEF Priority
By Bill Bertera, WEF Executive Director
WEF is in the best financial shape of its long history...still, we expect our operations--and our members--to be significantly affected by the recession. Like utilities and companies across the country, and indeed, around the world, we will be doing business differently to meet tough economic challenges. For the record, one thing won’t change, and that’s our focus on delivering top quality training and education for water quality professionals.
WEF will continue to provide the best possible value for stretched member dollars even as we adjust current spending. It’s the Federation’s job to help you protect public health and the environment, and we are adapting our programs to meet your needs and resources.
We understand that travel is more difficult for many of our members, so we are putting new emphasis on distance learning technologies like free webcasts. Budgets for education and training are strained...we are adding more free content to our websites in response. Resources for innovation are strapped...we are emphasizing cutting-edge material and technologies in our educational offerings,
including WEFTEC, our specialty conferences and our seminars. And of course, we continue to focus on providing our members with the latest information on new funding for wastewater projects, a big topic at next week’s 2009 National Clean Water Policy Forum sponsored by WEF and NACWA.
This is a hard time for both the public and private sector, and WEF is here to make it a little less so. Already there are signs that the recession may be softening, but we have a long way to go yet. Together we will get there.
Please take a moment to let us know what you think and what else WEF could do to be of more help still.
WEF is in the best financial shape of its long history...still, we expect our operations--and our members--to be significantly affected by the recession. Like utilities and companies across the country, and indeed, around the world, we will be doing business differently to meet tough economic challenges. For the record, one thing won’t change, and that’s our focus on delivering top quality training and education for water quality professionals.
WEF will continue to provide the best possible value for stretched member dollars even as we adjust current spending. It’s the Federation’s job to help you protect public health and the environment, and we are adapting our programs to meet your needs and resources.
We understand that travel is more difficult for many of our members, so we are putting new emphasis on distance learning technologies like free webcasts. Budgets for education and training are strained...we are adding more free content to our websites in response. Resources for innovation are strapped...we are emphasizing cutting-edge material and technologies in our educational offerings,
including WEFTEC, our specialty conferences and our seminars. And of course, we continue to focus on providing our members with the latest information on new funding for wastewater projects, a big topic at next week’s 2009 National Clean Water Policy Forum sponsored by WEF and NACWA.This is a hard time for both the public and private sector, and WEF is here to make it a little less so. Already there are signs that the recession may be softening, but we have a long way to go yet. Together we will get there.
Please take a moment to let us know what you think and what else WEF could do to be of more help still.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
