From World Water Week: Thoughts on the SJWP

By Bjorn von Euler, Director of Philanthropy, ITT Corporation

A number of innovations were highlighted at the Stockholm World Water Week event, some of them the result of corporate prizes. But I’ll talk about the prize closest to my heart - the Stockholm Junior Water Prize (full disclosure: the global sponsor is ITT).

Eighteen-year-old Ceren Burçak Dag, of Nisantasi, Turkey, won the prize for one of the coolest projects I’ve seen (of course, I say that every year): Dag’s research may show us a way to harness rainwater to produce electricity. Seeing Dag on stage, along with the 50 other young nominees from 29 countries, was both moving and inspiring.

Some of the other projects were as follows: Eileen Jang, of North Carolina and the U.S. winner, figured out how mercury builds in our water, which promises to help us better understand how it enters the human body. Mzwakhe Sifundo Xulu and Njabubulo Sihle Mbata, of South Africa, developed an inexpensive Auto Mechanical Tap that captures water from community faucets that would normally be wasted due to spillage. This promises to be a valuable tool for rural, arid communities, including their native South Africa.

One of the memories I will take away from this year’s Junior Prize is standing in front of one young nominee’s project and telling him it was very good. “Do you mean brilliant?” he said. I could only smile in response, so let me answer him now - yes, I meant brilliant.

Moments like these with aspiring young researchers remind me of why it’s so important to encourage innovation and creativity in water science. Brilliance is what we need to address today’s water quality challenges, and we saw it in Stockholm last week.

Thoughts on Katrina and Heroes

By Adam Zabinski, 2008-2009 Immediate Past President of the Water Environment Federation (WEF)

The upcoming August 29 anniversary of Hurricane Katrina seems to always gets people thinking and talking (or in my case, blogging). Among the many things it’s come to symbolize, like failure of government emergency response, Katrina will always be a tragic reminder to me of the vulnerability of our water resources and the critical nature of the work we do as water quality professionals. I’m sure I’m not alone in remembering news accounts of individuals who did their best to keep their facilities operating under the most extreme circumstances, sometimes staying on the job while surrounded by flood waters in New Orleans. I was in awe of those heroic efforts and proud to be involved in water quality protection, and I salute everyone who worked to maintain the availability and safety of water during that difficult time. (In fact, please feel to share names and stories of “Katrina Water Heroes” by responding to this blog; I’m sure everyone would enjoy hearing about them.)

While we have fortunately not faced an environmental calamity on Katrina’s scale since then, there is still a huge, essential, and ongoing challenge to preserve and protect our water resources. It’s a job that demands real commitment and a genuine desire to protect public health and the environment through clean water. It is also a job that is done every day by members of the Water Environment Federation. We protect our families, our neighbors, and people we will never meet from the dreaded water borne diseases that are the scourge of most of our planet. Katrina symbolizes our achievement because even in those opportune conditions, we had no outbreaks.

I’d invite you to take a moment to read through some of the personal statements from our own WEF Water Heroes, water quality professionals who are working hard to keep our water clean and safe—all day every day. While (thankfully) there are no major wet weather events occurring on a regular basis, professionals in facilities across our country and around the world are ready. And they’re operating water and wastewater facilities to protect and deliver clean water, 24/7, every day. I’d call that heroic, too.

New TMDL Rulings Give Them Something to Talk About

By Brooks Smith, Hunton & Williams LLP

The raging national dialogue on TMDLs moves into high gear next week in Minneapolis during TMDL 2009: Combining Science and Management to Restore Impaired Waters in Minneapolis. If you’re not a water quality junkie, stop here. If you are, you’ll be thrilled to hear that the comprehensive program includes scientists talking about new research like model development and advancements in water quality monitoring and evolving tools to implement effective TMDLs. Perhaps even better, representatives from source, nonpoint source, regulator, permittee, and environmental interests, and maybe even your next-door neighbor, will be there, and we expect lots of talk about the latest court rulings and what they mean for the nation’s watersheds.

Two new and controversial TMDL rulings, if widely applied, have the potential to turn the world of watershed management upside down. The first is from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the so-called Pinto Creek case, which deals with what to do with permits for new dischargers after a TMDL is in place. According to the Ninth Circuit, such permits may not be issued, even if they require offsets of equivalent or greater reductions in loading beyond existing conditions, unless and until all other regulated dischargers (and maybe even unregulated ones!) are subject to enforceable schedules of compliance to achieve their own allocations.

Anyone want to opine on what this will do to the pace of new permitting across the country? Egads!

The second is from a Vermont environmental court and deals with older TMDLs that have already been on the books for a few years. According to the court, these TMDLs may not control subsequent permit proceedings and may actually need to be re-evaluated as part of each proceeding to ensure that the original assumptions remain accurate. Let’s see, we have something like 60,000 TMDLs left to do around the country. And now we cannot even rely on the ones already in place! Read: budget, administrative and regulatory nightmare. There has got to be a better way to figure this out, so please go ahead and post some ideas! Meanwhile I hope to see you in Minneapolis.

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.

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!

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.