The Water Environment Federation Announces 2019-2020 Board of Trustees

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is pleased to announce its 2019-2020 Board of Trustees as confirmed by WEF’s House of Delegates during WEFTEC® 2019 in Chicago, Ill., La., and led by 2019-2020 President Jackie Jarrell.

At a ceremony on Sept. 24, the WEF “gavel of leadership” was passed to President Jackie Jarrell, operations chief at Charlotte (N.C.) Water. In her role at Charlotte Water, Jarrell is responsible for the overall management of the operation and maintenance of five wastewater treatment facilities consisting of a total capacity of 123 million gallons per day. Jarrell also has oversight of regulatory functions, process control, industrial pretreatment and continuous improvement programs within the operations areas.

During her year-long term as WEF president, Jarrell will continue to help fulfill the Federation’s strategic direction and critical objectives – to connect water professionals, enrich the expertise of water professionals, increase the awareness of the impact and value of water, and provide a platform for water sector innovation.

“The water workforce is expanding, and we have a responsibility to continue to develop it.,” Jarrell said during her acceptance speech. “Workforce development is a critical global issue and we as water professionals have a duty to address it. Just as we're thinking differently about how we do our work, we have to think differently about how we collaborate to achieve our goals.”

In addition to Jarrell, the 2019-2020 Board of Trustees includes: Past-President Tom Kunetz (Chicago, Ill.), President-Elect Lynn Broaddus (Minneapolis, Minn.), Vice President Jamie Eichenberger (Denver, Colo.), Treasurer Keith Hobson (Ames, Iowa), and Secretary and WEF Executive Director Walt Marlowe (Alexandria, Va.). Trustees are Rajendra Bhattarai, (Austin, Texas) Howard Carter, (Saco, Maine), Aimee Killeen (Baton Rouge, La.), Mark Poling (Hillsboro, Ore.), John Trofatter (Land O’Lakes, Fla.), and Ifetayo Venner (Tampa, Fla.).

Learn more about WEF’s leadership and strategic direction.

Recognized as the world’s largest annual water quality event, WEFTEC provides the latest technologies and services for water environment preservation, restoration, and sustainability. WEF’s 91st annual technical exhibition and conference, WEFTEC 2019 was held at McCormick Place in Chicago, Ill., Sept. 21-25. WEFTEC 2020 is scheduled for Oct. 3-7, 2020 sat the New Orleans Morial Convention Center in New Orleans, La. 

To learn more, visit www.weftec.org.

We have completed a successful Into the FOG: Part 1 - Programs and Prohibitions webcast on May 30 where we discussed creating a FOG program and ordinance.

The next webcast (Into the FOG Part 2) is on October 24, 2019 from 1 PM - 3 PM and the desired focus is on implementing/managing FOG programs after creation and changes made to established FOG programs based upon lessons learned. This webcast can also include technical components such as control device sizing and siting, or collection system and pump station grease control maintenance and operation techniques. Into the FOG Part 3 is scheduled for December 13, 2019 from 1 PM - 3 PM. This webcast's desired focus is on public education, enforcement and innovative program features. Of special interest to either upcoming webcast is experience with FOG control and enforcement for multi-family units and other rentals, and proper FOG control from establishments in historic districts where device space is limited or restricted.

Each webcast is 2 hours. We are seeking three volunteer speakers and a moderator for each. Speakers are generally allotted 25-30 minutes each. The moderator introduces the webcast, the speakers and relays audience questions at the end. Speakers and moderators must sign a speaker release form, use the WEF slide template for their presentations and participate in a practice call with WEF staff prior to the webcast.

Interested parties please contact webcast chair, Marie Strandwitz at marie.strandwitz@hillsboroughnc.gov, or vice-chair, Nick Anderson at nicholas.anderson@stantec.com, or your favorite webcast subcommittee member with your presentation idea or to pass along another possible speaker.

Part 2 speakers are needed immediately!!! Thank you!

The Stockholm Junior Water Prize (SJWP) is the world's most prestigious youth award for a water-related science project. The prize taps into the unlimited potential of today's high school students as they seek to address current and future water challenges.

Congratulations to NC winner, Aneesha Manocha of NCSSM! Manocha's project was A Novel Approach to Modeling Heterogeneous Particle Aggregation and Adsorption to Predict the Fate of Nanoparticles in the Environment.

Click HERE for more information on SJWP.

This study provides additional information for the design and operation of anaerobic digestion processes to achieve volume reduction, pathogen destruction, and energy recovery from waste active sludge.” Selected WER articles such as this one are available free to the public on a monthly basis through an open access program. In addition, authors can pay a fee to make their accepted articles open access.

Click here to download “Estimation of the Unbiodegradable Fraction of Thickened Waste Activated Sludge” by Mohammad M. I. Chowdhury; George Nakhla; and J Zhu. Published by the Water Environment Federation since 1928, WER is a popular professional journal that features peer-reviewed research papers and research notes, as well as state-of-the-art and critical reviews on original, fundamental, and applied research in all scientific and technical areas related to water quality, pollution control, and management. WER is available in both print and online formats and receives approximately 400 new research submissions each year.

About WEF

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization of 35,000 individual members and 75 affiliated Member Associations representing water quality professionals around the world. Since 1928, WEF and its members have protected public health and the environment. As a global water sector leader, our mission is to connect water professionals; enrich the expertise of water professionals; increase the awareness of the impact and value of water; and provide a platform for water sector innovation. To learn more, visit www.wef.org

Authors: Haak, Laura; Sundaram, Vijay; Pagilla, Krishna

ABSTRACT:  

A triple bottom line (TBL) approach was used to examine the trade-offs between potential reclaimed water management strategies in a closed basin. The goals of the water management strategy included minimizing water source shortages, ensuring safe and resilient future water supplies, and protecting inland ecosystems through adequate surface flows. The TBL approach consisted of quantitative and qualitative impact assessments of social, environmental, and economic criteria. This research examined how potable reuse of reclaimed water addresses water needs in a closed basin such as maintaining water quality, managing reclaimed water disposal, meeting growing water demand, balancing groundwater extraction rates with inflows, preserving inland ecosystems, and ensuring a locally controlled safe drinking water source. The TBL assessment first evaluated water stress based on water demand and supply under status quo conditions. The results were compared with the potable reuse scenario, which provides more environmental and social benefits than the status quo scenario.

Download Full Article 

Water Environment Research (WER) is published monthly, including an annual Literature Review. A subscription to WER includes access to the latest content back to 1992, as well as access to fast track articles. An individual subscription is valid for 12 months from month of purchase. 

Water Environment Research (WER) publishes peer-reviewed research papers, research notes, state-of-the-art and critical reviews on original, fundamental and applied research in all scientific and technical areas related to water quality, pollution control, and management. An annual Literature Review provides a review of published books and articles on water quality topics from the previous year.

Published as: Sewage Works Journal, 1928 - 1949; Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 1950 - 1959; Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 1959 - Oct 1989; Research Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Nov 1989 - 1991; Water Environment Research, 1992 - present.

1. Beckley Sanitary Board (W. Va.)
2. Benton Harbor St. Joseph Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant (Mich.)
3. Carroll County Water Resources Coordination Council (Md.)
4. City of Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (Mich.)
5. City of Grandville Clean Water Plant (Mich.)
6. City of Tallahassee (Fla.)
7. City of Wooster (Ohio)
8. Delta Diablo (Calif.)
9. Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority (N.J.)
10. Fort Wayne City Utilities (Ind.)
11. Great Lakes Water Authority (Mich.)
12. Houston Water (Texas)
13. Kenosha Water Utility (Wisc.)
14. Lafayette Renew (Ind.)
15. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (Boston)
16. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Denver)
17. Napa Sanitation District (Calif.)
18. Queensland Urban Utilities (Australia)
19. Region of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada)
20. Renewable Water Resources (Greenville, S.C.)
21. Spokane County Environmental Services (Wash.)
22. Toho Water Authority (Kissimmee, Fla.)
23. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (Laurel, Md.)
24. Water Environment Services (Oregon City, Ore.)
25. Western Monmouth Utilities Authority (Manalapan, N.J.)
26. Western Virginia Water Authority (Roanoke, Va.)

1. Charlotte Water (N.C.)
2. Clean Water Services (Hillsboro, Ore.)
3. Columbus Water Works (Ga.)
4. St. Cloud Public Utilities (Minn.)

1. City of Fayetteville (Ark.)
2. DC Water (District of Columbia)

Understanding the effects of nutrient removal on dewatering

Patrick Dube

As states push nutrient discharge limits lower for water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs), utilities must implement different technologies to make sure they comply. While many different nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) removal technologies can help meet these limits, WRRFs must carefully select them to avoid unintended consequences on dewatering processes and costs.

Nitrogen removal

When it comes to N removal from waste streams, two methods are typically used, physicochemical (ion exchange, air stripping, etc.) and biological. Although both methods can remove nutrient, biological nutrient removal often makes more fiscal sense.

By using the natural nitrogen cycle of the bacteria in a WRRF, nitrogen is removed via nitrification–denitrification. Ammonia is transformed to nitrite (NO₂^-) and then nitrate (NO₃^-) during nitrification before a different set of bacteria transforms nitrate into nitrogen gas (N₂) during denitrification. The gas escapes into the atmosphere.

The entire process is driven by bacteria under either anaerobic or aerobic conditions. Oftentimes, these processes occur in separate tanks as nitrification is an aerobic process while denitrification is an aerobic process, but it can all be completed in one tank if anaerobic zones exist. Aside from aeration, nitrification–denitrification requires ample carbon for the bacteria to use as building blocks. Optimization of the process, important to achieve high removal, requires balancing temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and solids retention time. As shown in Figure 1 (p. xx), balancing carbon also is important. The carbon used for nutrient removal lessens the amount available for anaerobic digestion to generate biogas, and therefore, energy.

Phosphorus removal

Phosphorus removal presents a different challenge. Unlike N, P cannot be removed as a gas; instead, it must be removed as a solid. Many methods can remove P such as chemical, biological, combined chemical and biological and nano processes. Membrane filtration, including reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and electrodialysis reversal all fall under the nano process category. Chemical methods rely on such chemicals as alum or ferric chloride to bind to phosphorus and precipitate it out as a solid, which can be collected. The quality and type of phosphorus precipitate is dictated by optimizing wastewater pH, chemical addition, mixing, and other factors.

Biological P removal uses anaerobic conditions followed by aerobic conditions to promote P uptake by phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs). Anaerobic conditions promote the consumption of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) by the PAOs, which forces them to release phosphorus. Once the PAOs switch to aerobic conditions, they uptake the released phosphorus as they replenish stores and multiply, resulting in more P removed than was released. The phosphorus-rich PAOs are then removed as settled solids, resulting in a low phosphorus liquid wastewater effluent.

Effects on dewatering

It turns out that N and P removal also effect solids dewatering quite a lot. Figure 2 (p. xx) shows that nutrient removal can hinder dewatering. This means using more polymer to get the same dewatering results; and increased costs for one of the most cost-intensive parts of treatment. A decrease in solids dewaterability by as much as 6% total solids leads to 2 to 3 times the polymer needed. Decreased dewaterability also means more cost to haul away the solids to landfills or composting or more fuel needed to incinerate the solids.

Nutrient removal in and of itself isn’t the cause of poor dewatering performance as some methods such as nitrification–denitrification have no negligible effect. Studies and real-world performance show that specific types of phosphorus removal can directly affect dewatering. For example, chemical P removal can help with dewatering, while biological P removal hinders it.

When biological phosphorus removal is combined with anaerobic digestion and low-metal ions (iron and aluminum), dewatering efficiency decreases. This causes higher polymer demand and, therefore, increased costs. (See Figure 3, p. xx.)

Other studies have investigated the effect of biological phosphorus removal on dewatering and identified extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) as the culprit. EPS are released by anaerobic microbial communities. Dewatering decreased as the EPS content increased after anaerobic digestion, showing a correlation between the two and leading researchers to conclude that removing EPS may increase dewaterability.

Anaerobic digestion followed by aerobic treatment, using zero valent ions and other technologies has minimal effects on dewaterability.

The research is not completely settled, and it is up to WRRFs to investigate the wide range of nutrient removal technologies available and see which can help meet their goals while maintaining high dewaterability.

Balancing the scales

N and P removal are necessary for WRRFs to meet discharge limits and keep our environment safe and healthy. However, tradeoffs exist, such as the effects these technologies can have on dewatering. Each of these financial and operational implications must be considered. Each WRRF is a unique system and nutrient removal technologies must be chosen based on a such factors as influent flow and loading, economic considerations, and permit limits.

Patrick Dube is a technical program manager in the Water Science & Engineering Center at the Water Environment Federation (Alexandria, Va.). He manages the Residuals and Biosolids Committee and the Air Quality & Odor Control Committee. He can be contacted at PDube@wef.org

Figure 1. Both energy generation and nutrient removal require carbon

Figure 2. Interrelationships between N and P removal and other WRRF operations

Figure 3. Biological phosphorus removal increases dewatering polymer demands

Morgan Brown

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is an avid supporter of innovation in the water sector. In fact, one of WEF’s critical objectives is to “establish the conditions that promote accelerated development and implementation of innovative technologies and approaches.”

As part of this initiative, WEF and The Water Research Foundation (WRF) jointly created the Leaders Innovation Forum for Technology (LIFT) program more than 5 years ago to help facilitate the adoption of water technologies and move innovation into practice.

For the newest addition to LIFT, WEF is coordinating a nationwide network of Water Technology Innovation Clusters, which were originally developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The clusters program will be run as a LIFT focus group led by Bryan Stubbs, executive director of the Cleveland Water Alliance, and Aayushi Jain, market transformation associate for the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator.

What are water clusters?

Water Technology Innovation Clusters are regional groupings of businesses, government, research institutions, and other organizations focused on innovative technologies to provide clean and reliable water. WEF will facilitate cluster communications, advise cluster organizations, enable collaboration among clusters, and identify water programs that support cluster activities.

Clusters have a key role to play in addressing the nation’s pressing water issues.

·         Spur innovation. Clusters create a situation where companies and organizations can easily share ideas and solutions.

·         Accelerate the development of new technologies. Connections within clusters lead to partnerships between businesses and researchers, facilitating the transfer of new technologies to the market.

·         Streamline the adoption of new technologies. Clusters provide companies with easier access to test beds and partners for pilot studies and encourage communication among companies and regulators.

Building on past efforts

While the program is a new addition to LIFT, the clusters have been involved in WEF’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC). For the last several years, the Water Technology Innovation Clusters, under the auspices of EPA, had a formal meeting at WEFTEC and have been showcased in several sessions within the WEFTEC Innovation Pavilion.

In 2017, cluster leaders from the New England Water Innovation Network (NEWIN), Current, The Water Council, and the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator participated in a lively panel discussion titled “How can I benefit from a water innovation cluster?” Panelists talked about how clusters support pilot projects, foster collaboration among utilities and universities, and link entrepreneurs with advisors and customers.

Also at WEFTEC 2017, an Innovation Pavilion session, titled “The Water Council’s BREW (Business – Research – Entrepreneurship – in Wisconsin) Accelerator,” held a business-pitching session modeled after the successful show “Shark Tank.” BREW participant companies pitched for 3 to 5 minutes, after which a panel grilled them about their business model, technology, intellectual property, marketing strategy, and more. Nothing was off limits in these lightning fast pitches.

In a third session, the Cleveland Water Alliance discussed the Erie Hack, which is Lake Erie’s first water innovation competition. The Cleveland Water Alliance partnered with DigitalC, a civic tech collaboration organization to hold this competition. The Erie Hack brought together more than 100 partner organizations and 200 participants — coders, developers, engineers, data experts, and water professionals — from nearly every major city around the lake to work on its greatest challenges, especially harmful algal blooms.

As a follow-up to the Erie Hack, the Cleveland Water Alliance branched out into another water innovation competition, the Internet of H2O Challenge. This competition seeks to leverage next-generation networking and sensor technology to monitoring and managing nutrients in Lake Erie and beyond. The goal was to generate robust and resilient nutrient monitoring pilots with the potential to scale across the Great Lakes. The alliance partnered with DigitalC as well as US Ignite, which spurs the creation of next-generation applications and smart cities, and the National Science Foundation. Other participants include the Great Lakes Observing System, IBM, City of Sandusky, Bowling Green State University, Heidelberg University, AT&T, U.S. EPA, Great Lakes Commission, NOAA, Limnotech, and others to focus the Erie Hack’s energy on developing a resilient monitoring system for nutrients.

Moving innovation forward

Water Technology Innovation Clusters are uniquely making a difference at a local and regional level. Even though each cluster is a separate entity located in various regions, this overall program brings together the cluster leaders so that they can work on a larger national scale.

For example, the cluster leaders previously have worked together to produce such reports as Overcoming Barriers to Water Innovation in the U.S. and Building a Successful Technology Cluster. These resources are beneficial not only to existing clusters, but also to those seeking to create a cluster in their region.

WEF is excited to take on this program set up by EPA and to continue to build valuable innovative programs for our members through LIFT and the WEFTEC Innovation Pavilion. For more information on the Water Technology Innovation Clusters program visit www.wef.org/techclusters.

Morgan Brown is Water Innovation Cluster manager at the Water Environment Federation (Alexandria, Va.). She can be reached at mbrown@wef.org.

Not all innovations come from a research lab. Sometimes, you need to tackle a persistent problem using just what’s at hand and a big shot of ingenuity.   We are proud to partner with the Water Environment Federation to recognize our awesome operators and their ingenious fixes.  If you or someone you know has developed an ingenious fix to problem at your facility, enter the @weforg Operator Ingenuity Contest

   We want to recognize you!

U.S. states, EPA coordinating on best approaches to nutrients permitting

ACWA, WEF join with U.S. EPA to host seven workshops

Mark Patrick McGuire and Katie Foreman

In early December 2017, representatives from 24 state clean water programs involved in managing nutrient pollution as well as headquarters and regional staff from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met for 3 days to learn, discuss, and confer on a broad range of nutrients permitting issues. Presentation topics included nutrient removal technologies, nutrients reduction strategies, variances, water quality trading, watershed-based and adaptive management approaches, integrated planning, and more. Participants also had the opportunity to work in small groups on three specific issues:

·         nutrient removal technology implementation at water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs),

·         overcoming impediments to permitting for nutrients, and

·         integrating total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) with permits.

The workshop, held in Boise, Idaho, was the first in a series of seven meetings to be held between 2017 and 2021 by the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA; Washington, D.C.), with support from the Water Environment Federation (WEF; Alexandria, Va.), as part of a cooperative agreement with EPA. The workshops are intended to assist with achieving several objectives and environmental outcomes by bringing together state, tribal, territorial, federal, and other stakeholders. The goals are to identify challenges and barriers to nutrient permitting program implementation, highlight opportunities for program improvement and enhancement, showcase innovations and achievements, and identify and attempt to solve the most intractable issues.

States employ various approaches to nutrient permitting

A major takeaway from the Boise workshop was that states manage nutrient pollution through permitting in myriad ways. For example, Montana, Iowa, and North Carolina approach nutrients permitting via numeric nutrient criteria, performance-based actions, and water quality trading, respectively.

Montana. Montana adopted numeric nutrient criteria in 2014 to combat nutrient pollution. The development process for the criteria included three components:

·         identifying geographic zones for specific criteria,

·         understanding the cause-effect relationships between nutrients and beneficial uses, and

·         characterizing water quality for reference sites.

Because nutrient concentrations vary naturally, Montana tested different geospatial frames and reference sites for nutrient concentration variation. To develop permit limits based on the criteria, Montana used EPA’s 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Ongoing work in Montana will lead to other large-river nutrient standards and additional site-specific wadable stream standards.

Iowa. Iowa employs a nutrient reduction strategy to combat nutrient pollution. In Iowa, numeric nutrient criteria development presents significant challenges. Therefore, in lieu of adopting numeric nutrient criteria, Iowa hopes to achieve nutrient load reductions through performance-based actions. Working closely with the regulated community to adopt performance-based discharge limits, Iowa establishes limits based on the effect of the pollutant in the water and the feasibility and reasonableness of treating the pollutant. Iowa focuses on major and minor municipal WRRFs and industries that treat more than 3.8 million L/d (1 mgd). Under this approach, there has been considerable progress in nutrient pollution reductions at point sources throughout the state.

North Carolina. North Carolina uses water quality trading to combat nutrient pollution. North Carolina implements nutrient trading programs in specific watersheds where impairments have been identified. In these watersheds, point sources have a collective nutrient allocation (“bubble”) permit. Pursuant to this joint compliance approach, allocation is sold or leased among these facilities through an independently-operated compliance association. So long as the collective cap is met, individual nutrient limits are not enforced.

States and EPA offer solutions to complex issues

At the Boise workshop, participants focused on the three issues mentioned above (technology implementation, permitting impediments, and TMDL integration).

Technology implementation. Participants named some of the significant barriers to technology integration as affordability, resource constraints, operator expertise, and political will.  They also identified some solutions, including targeted technical training and greater public education on the need for such technologies at WRRFs.

Permitting impediments. Regarding impediments to permitting, participants identified affordability, lack of data, and resource constraints as challenges. One solution identified to mitigate these problems included changing the 5-year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit cycle to 10 years. Other solutions included increasing flexibilities for states, implementing stronger regulations for nonpoint sources, integrated planning to identify issues and priorities for regulators and the regulated community, increased support and technical training, and public education.

TMDL integration. In the final session on integrating nutrients TMDLs with permits, participant attendees acknowledged that communication gaps are a major barrier to adequate integration. They identified the existence of communication gaps between regulators and stakeholders and with permitting and TMDL staff. Many participants described better communication among the various interested parties as an important goal for resolving this challenge.

Future meetings

ACWA and WEF plan to tackle these three issues and more in greater detail at the next six nutrients permitting workshops. These workshops provide states and EPA, as coregulators, the opportunity to identify and seek solutions for the diverse problems associated with nutrient pollution. In 2018, workshops are planned for summer and autumn; visit www.acwa-us.org for more details on these events.

 Mark Patrick McGuire is an environmental program manager at the   Association of Clean Water Administrators (Washington, D.C.).

 Katie Foreman is an environmental program associate at the Association of   Clean Water Administrators (Washington, D.C.).

About WEF

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The open access article in the January 2018 issue of Water Environment Research (WER) assesses the impact of solids retention time on key indicators of wastewater quality, including particle size distribution.

“In their paper on solids retention time (SRT) and particle size distribution, Li and Stenstrom used laboratory-scale modified Ludzach-Ettinger and integrated fixed film activated sludge systems to make key performance comparisons,”

WER Editor-in-Chief Tim Ellis said. “They also studied five full-scale systems to observe the effect that SRT has on particle size distribution and sludge settleability. The study demonstrated that increased SRT led to larger mean particle size distributions

and improved sludge settleability.”

Selected WER articles such as this one are available free to the public on a monthly basis through an open access program. In addition, authors can pay a fee to make their accepted articles open access.

Click here to download “Impacts of SRT on Particle Size Distribution and Reactor Performance in Activated Sludge Processes” by Zhongtian Li and Michael Stenstrom.

Published by the Water Environment Federation since 1928,

WER is a popular professional journal that features peer-reviewed research papers and research notes, as well as state-of-the-art and critical reviews on original, fundamental, and applied research in all scientific and technical areas related to water

quality, pollution control, and management. WER is available in both print and online formats and receives approximately 400 new research submissions each year.

About WEF

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization of 34,000 individual members and 75 affiliated Member Associations representing water quality professionals around the world. Since 1928,

WEF and its members have protected public health and the environment. As a global water sector leader, our mission is to connect water professionals; enrich the expertise of water professionals; increase the awareness of the impact and value of water; and

provide a platform for water sector innovation. To learn more, visit

www.wef.org.

WEF and NACWA File Amicus Brief in Support of District of Columbia’s Wipes Law

Brianne Nakamura and Steve Spicer

On Nov. 14, 2017 the Water Environment Federation and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies filed an amicus brief in support of a District of Columbia law to regulate disposable wipes.

This law, the Nonwoven Disposable Products Act of 2016, aims to protect the sewer systems from backups by defining the term flushable for any disposable wipes sold within Washington, D.C., and requires manufacturers of non-compliant products to “clearly and conspicuously label” them as products that “should not be flushed.”

The Law

This law is the first successful attempt by any jurisdiction to enact legislation to define flushable officially for labeling, the brief states. The law provides that a “nonwoven disposable product” that is offered “for sale in the District” can be labeled as “flushable” only if it: “(A) Disperses in a short period of time after flushing in the low-force conditions of a sewer system; (B) Is not buoyant; and (C) Does not contain plastic or any other material that does not readily degrade in a range of natural environments.”

The D.C. Council passed the law unanimously in December 2016. As introduced, the bill prohibited the advertisement, packaging, or labeling of any nonwoven disposable product as flushable, sewer safe, or septic safe unless the claim is substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The bill authorizes the District Department of Energy and Environment to impose civil fines and penalties to sanction non-compliance with its provisions. The law requires the labeling rule to take effect Jan. 1, 2018, a deadline that the district is unlikely to meet.

The Call to Action

Since Washington, D.C. is a federal city, Congress has granted the city home rule authority to make and implement its own laws. But, the U.S. Congress also has retained jurisdiction over policies and budget matters; on occasion Congress has revoked district laws. In July 2017, some members of Congress suggested that they would take full advantage of this policy, by introducing a rider to the DC Appropriations Bill that would prevent the district from moving forward with the wipes legislation.

In response, WEF sent a letter of support to D.C.’s non-voting member of Congress Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton and members of both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to protect the district’s new law. Additionally, WEF issued a “Call to Action” to the WEF membership urging them to contact their senators and representatives to oppose the rider. The WEF Water Advocates program had a resounding response with 232 letters sent in just one week.

The Lawsuit

The Kimberly-Clark Corp. has sued the district to stop enforcement of the law. The plaintiff’s case states that requiring manufacturers to adhere to the definition set forth in the new law “restrains commercial speech and compels speech by private actors,” which would violate the First Amendment. The manufacturer’s claim further says that the law violates the Commerce Clause because it invalidly seeks to regulate the conduct of manufacturers in other states by imposing civil sanctions on conduct that is entirely lawful in other states.

The Amicus Brief

In the brief supporting the district’s right to enforce the law, WEF and NACWA state that they “have a strong interest in the Court rejecting the current challenges to the authority of state and local governments to decide which products may safely enter their own sewer and wastewater systems and to create mechanisms to enforce those standards.”

The 32-page brief describes the burden that wipes place on sewer systems in Washington, D.C., and nationwide. “The increased popularity of wipes marketed as ‘flushable’ has been accompanied by a rise in costly burdens associated with handling flushed wipes — burdens borne directly by municipalities, utilities, and ratepayers,” the amicus brief states.

The brief explains the effects of wipes that do not readily degrade. They can combine with fats, oils, greases, and other debris to cause major clogs in sewer and wastewater systems. They can accumulate in pump impellers; this leads to reduced efficiency, increased electrical power used by pumps, and, potentially, complete malfunction. To restore service, workers must perform the costly, time consuming, and hazardous task of physically unclogging the pumps.

The full brief can be read on the WEF website at http://bit.ly/DC-wipes-amicus.

WEF continues to support the District of Columbia law, as well as convey the burden that flushable wipes and other products can cause our infrastructure. We encourage our members to continue to share their stories and hardships with their communities and representatives, along with the messages to “Only Flush the 3Ps” and “Toilets are not Trashcans.”

Brianne Nakamura, PE, ENVSP, is the manager of Collection Systems and Sustainability in the Water Science & Engineering Center at WEF. She is the staff liaison for both the Collection System Committee and the Flushables Task Force. She can be contacted at bnakamura@wef.org.

Steve Spicer is the director of Content Creation and managing editor of Water Environment & Technology magazine at the Water Environment Federation (Alexandria, Va.). He can be reached at sspicer@wef.org.

Eight WEF young professionals explore global issues

by Fidan Karimova

This year, an inaugural event, called UNLEASH (www.unleash.org), brought together more than 1000 talents from around the world to tackle the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. The Water Environment Federation (WEF; Alexandria, Va.) sponsored eight young water professionals to attend the in Denmark to represent the North American water sector.

After several days of a facilitated innovation process, conceiving solutions, and testing them with leading experts and companies, one the WEF-sponsored professionals, Fidan Karimova, was selected to receive the Most Visionary award. Ashton Kutcher presented this award in front of thousands of attendees, which included the Princess of Denmark.

The Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) originated in 2016 to continue the work of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals MDGs that originated in 2000 with 189 countries signing on to seek their achievement by 2015. Between the two lists, the number of goals increased from eight to seventeen, adding areas that were not previously covered. The SDGs is the largest global partnership agreement and development plan for the planet ever made, according to the UNLEASH website. SDG 6 seek to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.”

WEF’s role and contributions

Although North American countries are not automatically associated with vulnerable water sources, the Flint, Mich., water crisis in the U.S. and radioactive particles in northwestern Ontario in Canada prove that no region is immune to water issues. The Water Environment Foundation (WEF) was established exactly for this reason — to protect public health and the environment through increasing the awareness of the affect and value of water. WEF supports young professionals in the water industry and encourages them to take on more proactive roles in the industry.

Once in Denmark, the eight WEF-sponsored participants mixed with the other 1000 participants and were placed in groups with people from throughout the world. For example, Karimova’s team consisted of four men from Mexico, Denmark, Canada, Brazil. They named their team OTWOH, which is a play on words — H2O reversed into O2H/OTWOH. It stands for Ocean Plastics to Heat.

This team, led by Karimova, proposed an alternate source of energy at water resource recovery facilities. The proposal calls for harvesting pollutant plastics from the ocean and using them as a fuel source via the process of gasification. The idea originated generated with Karimova’s organization, Global Water Girls (www.globalwatergirls.com), and the UNLEASH UNLEASH group developed it further.

The group is continuing to work on the project after the UNLEASH event and hopes the solution will eventually help disrupt the waste and energy industries.

Why seek the SGDs?

Water and sanitation are key to thriving communities in promoting the growth of future healthy generations and access to a cleaner environment. This goal gains even more importance when taking into consideration that 1.8 billion people globally use a source of drinking water that is fecally contaminated and 2.4 billion people lack access to basic sanitation services, such as toilets or latrines, according to the UN. However, since 1990, 2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water sources; so progress has been made and needs to continue.

To quote Leonardo Da Vinci, “water is the driver of nature.” Once we learn to better take care of our water systems, we will be able to meet many of the other SDG goals. The UNLEASH event helped highlight, once again, that SDG6 is at the core of all the other issues. If addressed, it could help simultaneously meet many other SDGs.

Fidan Karimova is water technology collaboration manager at the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (Alexandria, Va.).

The open access article in the December 2017 issue of Water Environment Research (WER) examines developments in biological phosphorus recovery and considers the potential for further advancement.

“In their review paper, Yang et al. discuss the current paradigm with respect to enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) in light of phosphorus recovery strategies,” WER Editor-in-Chief Tim Ellis said. “Their review includes an overview of the phylogenic analysis of phosphate accumulating organisms and the key proteins involved in mixed-culture and mono-culture EBPR. The authors also propose a strategy to include P-recovery from algae and the associated opportunities and research needs.”

Selected WER articles such as this one are available free to the public on a monthly basis through an open access program. In addition, authors can pay a fee to make their accepted articles open access.

Click here to download “Biological Phosphorus Recovery: Review of Current Progress and Future Needs” by Yu Yang, Xu Shi, Wendy Ballent, and Brooke K. Mayer.

Published by the Water Environment Federation since 1928, WER is a popular professional journal that features peer-reviewed research papers and research notes, as well as state-of-the-art and critical reviews on original, fundamental, and applied research in all scientific and technical areas related to water quality, pollution control, and management. WER is available in both print and online formats and receives approximately 400 new research submissions each year.

About WEF

The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization of 34,000 individual members and 75 affiliated Member Associations representing water quality professionals around the world. Since 1928,
WEF and its members have protected public health and the environment. As a global water sector leader, our mission is to connect water professionals; enrich the expertise of water professionals; increase the awareness of the impact and value of water; and
provide a platform for water sector innovation. To learn more, visit
www.wef.org.

By Beth Conway and Amy Kathman

Earth’s land, oceans, and troposphere have been warming for many years. Projections for the U.S. from the 2014 National Climate Assessment include not only an increase in temperatures, but also other climate changes, such as an increased intensity of droughts in the Southwest and of heat waves and precipitation events throughout the U.S. Precipitation events also are projected to become more frequent.

Climate change risks are not limited to the U.S. Among the many risks projected globally by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are “drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges” for urban communities and “water availability and supply” for rural communities, according to IPCC’s Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. The full report can be obtained at www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr.

Water is likely to be further affected by climate change as precipitation patterns change, sea levels rise, and water quality degrades. In the U.S., the drinking water and wastewater infrastructure already requires significant investment to maintain current levels of service over the coming decades. The effects of climate change may significantly stress critical infrastructure further.

However, climate adaptation strategies can help mitigate climate change effects. Many municipalities already are assessing and implementing measures to build resilience to climate change. Their work provides examples of what adaptation measures can achieve.

Declining water resources due to drought

In the Southwest, Albuquerque, N.M.; Bernalillo County, N.M.; and the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Authority (ABCWUA) have demonstrated that relatively low-cost measures can be effective in adapting to drought conditions. Albuquerque and Bernalillo County began a conservation program in 1995to deal with drought issues. In 1997, they developed a Water Resources Management Strategy that they update every 10 years.

The programs and ordinances undertaken at ABCWUA focused on residential areas and public buildings. They encouraged water-conserving landscaping and water-efficient appliances in new development. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report, Smart Growth Fixes for Climate Adaptation and Resilience: Changing Land Use and Building Codes and Policies to Prepare for Climate Change (EPA 231-R-17-001), ABCWUA gives rebates on the purchase of high-efficiency toilets, encourages xeriscaping (a type of landscape design for areas susceptible to drought), and touts compact development as examples of the measures instituted. As a result, residential customers achieved great reductions in water usage

In 2014, ABCWUA programs shifted more of the focus to non-residential customers. The water authority adopted four programs, according to their document, 2024 Water Conservation Plan Goal and Program Update. ABCWUA updated building codes, modified the xeriscape program in several ways to include a larger rebate to some non-residential customers, created a cooling tower rebate program, and offered assistance to new low-income customers with water auditing and water-conserving fixture installation.

Minimizing potential flood effects

Parts of Kansas City, Mo., are at risk of flooding from rivers and streams. As of early 2017, more than two thousand structures sit in Kansas City’s 100-year floodplain.

Enter, the Wet Weather Solutions Program, which provides for street and sewer infrastructure upgrades, as well as an increase in green infrastructure use. Two of this program’s goals are to reduce flooding and increase in water quality. The shorter-term projects of the program’s overflow control plan will be completed between 2010 and 2020. Major changes will be finished by 2035. For example, the Middle Blue River Basin pilot project, which improved streetscapes through the inclusion of green infrastructure solutions was completed in 2012.

By its end, the overflow control program seeks to reduce the estimated sewer overflow by approximately 15 billion L (4 billion gal) per year, thereby reducing cleanup, damage, and grey infrastructure costs, according to Kansas City Water Services.

Looking internationally, in Tokyo, Japan, heavy rains often lead to flooding, and increased urbanization has decreased the amount of permeable ground. In 2015, Tokyo completed an upgrade to the Tokyo Amesh, its rainfall information system. As described in the article, “Reconstructed Tokyo Amesh system crucial to flood prevention” in the Spring 2017 issue of WorldWater: Stormwater Management, rainfall radars were improved by upgrading to X-band multiparameter radars. These radar systems offer improved collection of rainfall data due to wave polarization. Information gathered from both radar and rain gauges is used by centrally located operators in determining pumping requirements for individual pumping stations. The Tokyo Bureau of Sewerage plans to continue improving radar capabilities and to increase the capacity of sewer facilities to handle up to 60 mm of rain per hour.

Sea level rise

A report by The Union of Concerned Scientists, When Rising Seas Hit Home Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities, estimates approximately 85 coastal communities in the U.S. are at risk from chronic inundation, and the number of at-risk communities is expected to roughly double by 2035. Miami, New Orleans, and San Francisco are among municipalities implementing adaptation plans for sea level rise (SLR).

The City of Miami has monitored the risks of flood and saltwater intrusion for years. SLR affects flooding and saltwater intrusion risks. Among many projects underway to aid in adapting to climate change is the construction of a chlorine facility at the Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant. This facility will be elevated 4.9 m (16 ft) above ground-level to accommodate SLR and storm surges, according to the April 2017 BBC article, “Miami’s fight against rising seas.” The City of Miami Beach is installing pumps, improving drainage systems, and raising roads as part of their approach to address rising sea levels.

San Francisco, under immediate and long- term threat from SLR, has developed the Sea Level Rise Action Plan, which will have an SLR adaptation plan by 2018. Combined sewer discharge (CSD) outfall structures with low-elevation weirs present immediate threats from SLR to the wastewater treatment process. In 2014, a device to prevent the inflow of seawater into the sewer system was installed in a CSD outfall structure. Data gathered from this installation will provide information useful for the installation of future devices.

New Orleans faces risks from SLR from loss of coastal land. As noted in the report, Resilient New Orleans: Strategic actions to shape our future city,” Greater New Orleans has invested $14.5 billion in such infrastructure as pump stations, levees, and floodwalls. The City of New Orleans also will leverage financial resources available through several sources to support the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. Adaptation approaches may, in many cases, require additional resources.

Resources available to utilities

Localities can access many resources to help develop climate change adaptation strategies. WEF offers the book, Emergency Planning, Response, and Recovery as well as the upcoming manual, Sustainability and Energy Management for Water Resource Recovery Facilities.

EPA’s Creating Resilient Water Utilities (CRWU) initiative also can be a resource. Through CRWU utilities can access tools, training, and assistance. The Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT) provides climate change threat identification, consequence assessment, and adaptation evaluation options for water and wastewater utilities. The table below shows threats listed in CREAT for use in preparing assessments in the tool. These resources can be found at www.epa.gov/crwu.

CRWU also offers a basic guide to the effect of climate change on water and wastewater utilities. This guide is titled Adaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities.

For European cities, the European Union’s Climate-Adapt program can be found at http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu. It provides information on several areas, including projected climate change, adaptation case studies, options, and planning tools. It also enables users to share data.

For resources spanning both U.S. and international interests, resources from 100 Resilient Cities can be found at www.100resilientcities.org.Formed and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, 100 Resilient Cities provides “resources necessary to develop a roadmap to resilience.”

Action today pays off in the long run

The work needed to adapt to climate change and handle extreme weather events can be expensive; however, the do-nothing option can be even costlier.

For example, New York City has an estimated $1.1 billion of vital infrastructure at risk. To mitigate the risk, New York is investing in protective measures for facilities and structures and is developing the city’s green infrastructure. Construction investments between $315 million and $426 million in the city can save potentially more than $2 billion in cumulative emergency response costs by 2065 according to Workshop W13: Vulnerability & Risk Response to Climate Change from WEFTEC^® 2015.

Two principal goals for water and wastewater utilities regarding climate change effects are

·      to assess risk and uncertainty due to climate change and

·      to develop and take actions to improve resilience and sustainability in utility facilities and overall utility management.

Federal, state, and local funding is needed to adapt infrastructure and water supplies to climate change. As part of an ongoing effort to encourage funding for critical water infrastructure, WEF’s government affairs team developed talking points on climate change related infrastructure investment. Access these talking points at http://bit.ly/climate-talking-points.

Beth Conway is an engineer in the Water Science & Engineering Center and Amy Kathman is a Government Affairs specialist at the Water Environment Federation (Alexandria, Va.).

Threats listed by the Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool

www.wef.org.