|
| |  Posted 2/6/2006 11:30:02 AM | |
| Junior Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/6/2006 7:26:31 PM
Posts: 13, Visits: 15 |
| There's been a lot of news coverage about states and counties trying to get out of the treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act - now that EPA is enforcing. Appears to be two main areas where the municipalities are fighting compliance - storm water and WWTP discharge (from lagoons).
This follows along greater identification of ED's being released to the rivers/streams by USGS, USDA, and EPA - let alone various University studies. Now AMA and others getting into act about residuals and the health affects - following WHO, UNEP and other international advisory agency reports.
So heres' the question - what, if any, internal reviews or discussions are taking place inside municipal WWT agenices to address the issue - or is it being totally ignored?
Dave/Aquatic Technologies
Aquatic Technologies |
| |
| | | Posted 2/6/2006 12:40:49 PM | |
| 
Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/3/2008 2:12:28 PM
Posts: 372, Visits: 506 |
| | Dave: For most municipalities, it is a reactive response. This is mostly due to budgeting. Most wastewater treatment plants will not budget for something unless it is mandated (that is, unless it is in the permit or is in the process of being added to a permit). or it means that there will be an economic benefit. As of yet, I have not seen any studies being done on solids for endocrine disruptors. Mind you, activated sludge tends to "absorb" a large portion of endocrine disruptors. This is one of the reasons that plants having large concentration of activated sluge per given volume (MBR, IFAS...) will tend to remove a larger concentration of endocrine disruptors than say plain old conventional aeration. We've been given a list by DHS as to which compounds must be tested for as it applies to reclaimed water and groundwater recharge.
E. coli happens! Database Central 
|
| |
| | | Posted 2/6/2006 6:23:25 PM | |
| Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 4/6/2006 7:26:31 PM
Posts: 13, Visits: 15 |
| Victor -
Thanks for reply. I understand the municipalities take a stance of "act when mandated" and some municipalities are looking at this now - figuring it's coming - but by what I can find, it's like one or two here and there - just trying to figure out how wide spread the review might be. As for reclaim water - that's one of the areas they/the other municipalities, are looking at - especially if the WWTP discharges to a river with any endangered fish or high-sport fishing industry exists (like the Columbia or Snake).
Dave
Aquatic Technologies |
| |
| | | Posted 2/10/2006 5:23:06 PM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 6/26/2008 4:01:08 PM
Posts: 156, Visits: 1,477 |
| | From a practical perspective, it is too early to do much more than talk. There are a wide variety of compounds being studied, with differing degrees of removal in STPs, and no clear sense of what sort of water quality limit might be imposed. You can imagine the public reaction if a municipality spends a ton of money on a process (even if only for research), and is then told by EPA that the treatment technology was not acceptable, and had to be replaced; or if a new standard gets adopted that can't be met with the proposal. Although options can be discussed and studied (a good thing), no one wants to invest too much money until there is at least some idea of where the Feds will go with this. |
| |
| | | Posted 7/11/2007 9:37:03 AM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/5/2008 12:57:51 PM
Posts: 250, Visits: 3,174 |
| | Storm water compliance is a real bear. Out in California, there was a local authority that required all businesses in certain categories to file storm water management plans, including sampling data from two "storm events." One of these had to be the first of the rainy season, and the sampling had to be done within four hours of the rain starting. This was for my client, and believe you me, it was no fun at all watching the darn weather forecast all the time, preparing to leap into action at any time. Where I live now, there's huge contamination in storm runoff, owing to a large population of Canada Geese in the area. The water is directed to groundwater recharge basins, and it must be leading to huge nitrate/on contamination of the groundwater. http://www.dedalusenviro.com
|
| |
| | | Posted 7/20/2007 11:56:37 AM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/5/2008 6:02:39 PM
Posts: 124, Visits: 621 |
| | I would hope that most plants going through an upgrade cycle are looking toward treating Compounds of Emerging Concern (CEC's). Ammonia, chlorine, and temperature are driving our current upgrade and were not even on the radar when this plant was built, 1973. If it was still just BOD and TSS this plant could last another 20 years. New regulations can make a plant obsolete over night. Our current plan is to use an MLE process with tankage that will accept membranes, if they are needed. The older sludge age that membranes allow will help reduce CEC's and the water from the membranes should be clean enough to make the next step of treatment easier. We also have the option to expand the MLE tankage if the regulations don't change. I am concerned about biosolids. If the CEC's are removed from the water what's going to show up in the biosolids. Are we moving the problem to another location? |
| |
| | | Posted 7/20/2007 12:27:28 PM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/28/2008 1:09:52 PM
Posts: 296, Visits: 4,009 |
| Storm water compliance is a real bear. Out in California, there was a local authority that required all businesses in certain categories to file storm water management plans, including sampling data from two "storm events." One of these had to be the first of the rainy season, and the sampling had to be done within four hours of the rain starting.
Just to clarify, the stormwater program has been around since about 1991, if I remember correctly. I've been involved in it since that time, both for "industrial" sources, and in a few "construction" projects. Non-point pollution sources were originally supposed to be included in EPA programs since the 1970's, but were not actually implemented until the Clean Water Act of 1990, where the congress essentially told the EPA "to get with it." In defense of the EPA, they clearly had their hands full just getting the original NPDES program (point sources) implemented. As you old timers will recall, it just didn't happen over night.
Now that the "non-point" program is in force, it has taken quite a few years before the "municipal" storm water programs were implemented by all of the local and regional agencies. The industrial program has always required sampling and analyses from the "first flush" storm event of the season, and from one additional storm event. In California, the state developed a "General Industrial Permit," which allowed the many thousands of industrial facilities to "piggy-back" into it, rather than have each facility need to be issued an individual NPDES permit (nobody would want that).
The only analyses required for most facilities are pH, TSS, specific conductivity, and either oil and grease or total organic carbon. The program requires each industrial facility to develop and implement both a SWPPP (storm water pollution prevention plan) and monitoring program. Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable. However, some or the regional water boards in California have, at some times, sent out "guideline values" hat might be considered as indicative of OK or not OK. I have several clients for which I've prepared SWPPPs and monitoring programs, and have prepared the required annual reports for them since the start of the program.
In the first several years annual reports were submitted, and probably never reviewed by the regional board staff in that each region (including Los Angeles) only had two or three people to implement the entire stormwater program, including the industrial, construction and municipal program. However, California has greatly increased funding, and regional boards now have a small army of staff that are checking things closely (some regions more than others). They are also making site inspection, and issuing notices of violation where appropriate. This is all predictable. I knew in the beginning that compliance was not going to happen immediately. There are still thousands of facilities that are supposed to be in the program, but may not even know of its existence. The various cities and regional government agencies are just now starting to figure out what they are supposed to be doing; and, some are doing it well while others fumble along clueless. In many cases a city just selects one of their public works engineers for the task, while the person may have no practical knowledge of waste water, chemistry, etc. I can say from personal experience that it is sometimes very frustrating dealing with cities in the construction program. But, companies are selling a lot sand bags and plastic portable fencing, along with cheesy catch basin filter units.
Jeff Naumann
(310) 540-0045
FAX (310) 540-0337
http://www.jeffnaumannassociates.com/ |
| |
| | | Posted 7/20/2007 1:17:01 PM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/5/2008 12:57:51 PM
Posts: 250, Visits: 3,174 |
| | "Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable." They still haven't? The experience I described was 6 - 7 years ago. I recall it wasn't easy finding someone in the Regional Water Quality Board who would explicitly tell me this. My customer ran an anodizing plant, and they wanted those parameters you mentioned, plus metals. Their zinc was a little high, which was odd because they did not use zinc. We wound up attributing it to wash down of zinc corrosion products from galvanized equipment. The fellow I had dealings with in the agency mentioned it in our conversations, but, again, there was no limit cited. And, years later, they're still pondering it...heh, heh.
|
| |
| | | Posted 7/20/2007 1:27:21 PM | |
| Supreme Being
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/28/2008 1:09:52 PM
Posts: 296, Visits: 4,009 |
| "Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable."
They still haven't? The experience I described was 6 - 7 years ago. I recall it wasn't easy finding someone in the Regional Water Quality Board who would explicitly tell me this.
My customer ran an anodizing plant, and they wanted those parameters you mentioned, plus metals. Their zinc was a little high, which was odd because they did not use zinc. We wound up attributing it to wash down of zinc corrosion products from galvanized equipment.
The fellow I had dealings with in the agency mentioned it in our conversations, but, again, there was no limit cited. And, years later, they're still pondering it...heh, heh.
As in the case of the plating plant, some specific facilities have additional parameters to monitor. The "threshold values" mentioned for the basic parameters are: pH range 6.5-8.5, TSS < 100 mg/l, SC < 200 umho/cm, O&G < 15 mg/l, TOC < 110 mg/l, and COD < 120 mg/l. Some regional boards have published slightly different values as "benchmarks." I believe those values came from the federal EPA at some point. I've seen at least one regional board that sent out the "bench mark values" as part of the annual report package for some reporting years, but then did not pass out the values in subsequent years.
In California, the state water board was supposed to revise the 1997 version of the general permit, but thus far has not issued a revision. Revisions are "supposed" to be done every five years, as are required for NPDES permits. But, sometimes it schedule slips.
Jeff Naumann
(310) 540-0045
FAX (310) 540-0337
http://www.jeffnaumannassociates.com/ |
| |
| | | Posted 2/1/2008 8:55:48 AM | |
| Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 8/22/2008 8:33:59 AM
Posts: 20, Visits: 18 |
| | From an Australian point of view, research is presently focussing on the concentrations of personal care products, pharmaceuticals and metabolites and EDCs in WWTP discharges. Popular phamaceuticals are in the ug/L range from WWTPs. EDCs are in the ng/L range. There is generally a one or so log reduction through an activated sludge plant. The removal seems to be a current topic of research. MBRs and long sludge age plants may be better at this task. And then what about the residues in sludges. We did a GC scan on some digested sludges and found Triclosan in detectable quantities. Metals in sludge stockpiles are also extremely soluble. Reverse osmosis removes most of the larger molecules, however not NDMA. The fate of the brine concentrate also needs consideration. Advanced Oxidation is being considered for Planned Indirect Potable Reuse schemes in Queensland. This work has been a topic of research by people such as Karl Linden (Univ Boulder CO). But this only reduces the pollutant by another 1 or 2 log. The technology is coming along. Is the scientific community clear on what levels are safe? What about the unplanned potable reuse that goes on in every inland town, which takes another cities effluent for potable water. This is true of the USA and Europe etc. In Europe they often practice Ozone and GAC filters at WTPs, to reduce the concentrations of these compounds. I saw a documentary on declining sperm counts of mid-western men due to herbicides and pesticides in farming getting into drinking water. Then if you want to take the argument further what about the animal life which shares our water. One of the first observations of EDCs was the reproductive organs of fish in an English river downstream of a WWTP that treated and biodegraded textile washwaters (Nonylphenol). I recently saw an an article on the impact of Atrazine runoff residues on frogs in the USA. It all comes down to cost. What would be easier would be to stop using these compounds. Dichlorvos has been banned from domestic pest strips in Australia and now our clothes have moth holes in them. We have to learn to live with nature.
Regards
Grant H, Australia |
| |
|
|