1 / 34

July 23, 2007 Annapolis, MD

WERF Briefing to the Wastewater Treatment Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program : Trading, Nutrients and Other Pertinent Work. July 23, 2007 Annapolis, MD. What Does WERF Do?.

aquarius
Download Presentation

July 23, 2007 Annapolis, MD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WERF Briefing to the Wastewater Treatment Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program:Trading, Nutrients and Other Pertinent Work July 23, 2007 Annapolis, MD

  2. What Does WERF Do? • Provides peer-reviewed research that advances science and technology to find solutions for wastewater and water quality issues • Delivers results that subscribers can use • Fosters partnerships and collaborations between subscribers, water sector orgs, policy makers, regulators, NGOs

  3. Who Supports WERF Research? • WERF’s 310+ Subscribers: • Public Utilities (WW and SW agencies) • Environmental & Engineering Firms • Industry • Equipment Manufacturers • State Regulators • Partnerships and Collaborations • Federal Funding

  4. Program Directed Research • WERF’s Vision of Success: • Attract industry LEADERS • Engage subscribers • Focus on highest priority challenges • Guarantee continuity of research • Deliver practical research findings • Timely results • More transparent = more involvement

  5. Program Areas and Priority Challenges • Wastewater Treatment and Reuse • Nutrients • Solids Treatment, Residuals and Reuse • Risk from Pathogens in Biosolids • Infrastructure Management/Security • Strategic Asset Management

  6. Program Areas and Priority Challenges (Con’t) • Conveyance Systems • Optimization of Wastewater and Solids Operations • Stormwater/Decentralized Systems • Stormwater BMP Systems Performance • Watersheds and Water Quality • Trace Organics • Pathogens

  7. WERF Water Quality Credit Trading Research • Five demonstration projects complete • Findings include projected cost savings in meeting TMDL implementation, and have resulted in adoption of official programs • Research informing newer programs, including those in the Chesapeake Bay

  8. WERF Water Quality Credit Trading Research • Water Quality Trading: A Guide for the Wastewater Community, Cy Jones, et. al. 2005. • Joint effort by WERF and WEF • Well received by the trading community • Water Quality Credit Trading: PowerPoint Workbook for a Detailed Assessment of Opportunities and Options. 2007. • “Nutrient Farming” studies in the Midwest

  9. Trading Demonstration Projects: Laying the Foundation(97-IRM-5a-e) • Cherry Creek Reservoir in Colorado • Long Island Sound in Connecticut • Michigan’s Kalamazoo River • Fox-Wolf River in Wisconsin • Market Feasibility for Trading in Maryland

  10. Highlight: Connecticut’s Long Island Sound Program • WERF study served as the basis for the adopted state trading program and watershed permit in Connecticut • Program has informed other trading programs nationwide • Watershed Permitting Program • Nitrogen Permitting Bubble: approximately 80 plants state-wide involved. • Weighted credit approach (not all nitrogen removed is the same; ratios applied relative to the anoxic zone in Sound) • Goal is to help meet TMDL in the Sound, reduce hypoxic zone improve water quality in more cost-effective fashion.

  11. Highlight: Trading Feasibility Study For Maryland • Study conducted prior to the “flush tax” and LOT requirements, so is not directly applicable at this time. • However… • Study Examined several scenarios, demonstrated important points about feasibility of trading in the Bay region. • Although based on different assumptions from this study, current efforts are underway in the state to adopt a trading program.

  12. Water Quality Trading: A Guide for the Wastewater Community • To help Wastewater Community understand issues and processes involved in Water Quality Trading • Inspired by, but not limited to, the 5 WERF demonstration studies. • Highlights: • Conceptual models of trading • Excellent overview of water quality and wastewater treatment plants and how trading fits in • Economic Framework • Getting to the Trade • Science and Data needs • Societal Requirements and Public Acceptance • Useful resources and examples

  13. Water Quality Credit Trading: PowerPoint Workbook for a Detailed Assessment of Opportunities and Options (02WSM1) • CD-ROM • Designed to complement EPA Handbook • For use by individuals or groups exploring trading as a potential solution • Provides a more interactive option for groups to explore the feasibility of trading in their watershed.

  14. Objectives of Trading Workbook • Generate practical tools to support implementation of watershed-based trading efforts for use by both point and nonpoint source dischargers • Build upon the many lessons learned • Involved several partner trading initiatives in the development of the tools.

  15. 5 Sessions focus on screening, decision making and stakeholder readiness 11 Sessions focus on various aspects of developing a trading program Workbook Approach 1. Opportunities & Constraints 2. What to Trade, Where 3. Who Trades, Why 4. Trading Ratios 5. Credit Generation & Use 6. Market Elements, Part One Introduction & User Guide (Word) 7. Market Elements, Part Two A. Are We Ready for Trading B. Decision Process 8. Market Models and Framework 9. Tracking C. Stakeholder Identification 10. Oversight D. Stakeholder Readiness 11. Evaluation E. Information Management

  16. Nutrient Farming • 2 Collaborations with the MWRD of Greater Chicago and the Wetlands Initiative • Explores the use of nutrient farming as an alternative method of lowering nutrient loads in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. • Collaboration #1: Comparison of marginal economic costs of in-plant improvements and nutrient farming (the reclamation of large-scale wetland from tiled floodplains, likely in a levee district). • Collaboration #2: Development of GIS-based modeling tools to help predict effectiveness of nonpoint management practices in the Upper Mississippi.

  17. Nutrient Farming and Traditional Removal: An Economic Comparison (03-WSM-6CO) • Donald Hey, Ph.D. and Jill Kostel, the Wetlands Initiative • Arthur Hurter, Northwestern University • Robert Kadlec, Wetland Management Services • Staff at Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

  18. Nutrient Farming: Findings and Products of Marginal Cost Study • Demonstrates that treatment wetlands can provide potential savings in capital and operating costs • Offers cost equations for nutrient removal to compare wetlands and traditional treatment processes • Provides a nutrient removal model for treatment wetlands

  19. Other Research of Interest • WERF’s Nutrients “Challenge”: Efficient, Cost-Effective Nutrient Removal from Wastewater • 01-WSM-3, Bioassessment: A Tool for Managing Urban Aquatic Life Uses • 03-WSM-3, Protocols for Studying Wet Weather Impacts and Urbanization Patterns • 04-WEM-4, Evaluating Waterbody Assessment and Listing Processes: Integration of Monitoring and Evaluative Techniques

  20. WERF Nutrient Removal Challenge Goals • Develop and share credible scientific information about nutrients & their bioavailability to help regulators make informed decisions • Better understand existing mechanisms of nutrient removal and best available technologies so treatment plants can become more efficient and effective, enabling them to cost-effectively meet permit limits • Focus on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) • Wastewater treatment related issues Initial Funding: $450,000 (1st year) Anticipated Duration: 5 years Anticipated Investment: ~$2 million over 5 years Need to Leverage with Additional Funding, Collaboration, etc.

  21. Nutrient Removal ChallengeNUTR1R06 • HDR + M&E/AECOM + CH2M-Hill + Univ. of Washington + other universities + Collaborators • >30 Utilities and Research Organizations nationwide and abroad • Others to be added as needed • Selected teams already identified about $2 to 4 million in additional funds through utilities & other research

  22. Key Nutrient Challenge Tasks (2007 – 2011) Promote collaborative efforts and engage stakeholders Increase technology understanding, explore limits of technology (LOT), and reduce costs Provide sound information to support regulators and other stakeholders Leverage WERF research dollars to maximize program contributions and impacts

  23. Current Nutrient Challenge Activities 1 Stakeholdermeeting and research prioritization 2 Nutrient Removal Compendium 3 Identify and Recruit Affiliates and Technical Specialists 4 Establish web exchange portal 5 Develop outreach / communications materials 6 Initiate Short Term Research Projects 7 Evaluate priorities for WERF research funds for years 2 & 3

  24. Current Challenge Focus • Determine opportunities nationwide that can help best leverage WERF funds for top-ranked research needs in: • RDON (refractory dissolved organic nitrogen) • Phosphorus speciation, particle characterization • Alternate Carbon sources • Develop Web-Exchange Portal, communicate and share knowledge • Nutrient Removal Compendium • Continue to identify additional partners, funding

  25. The Web Exchange/Portal is the Central Location for Nutrient Removal Organizations Customers Core Team Collaboration Engage The Public Invited Community Invited Agencies Stakeholders

  26. Protocols for Studying Wet Weather Impacts and Urbanization Patterns • Develop protocols and diagnostic measures for identifying the linkages between • urban land use policies and practices, • stormwater runoff characteristics (hydrodynamics), • geomorphic parameters, and • effects on aquatic habitat and biota. • Identification of linkages to help evaluate the effectiveness of urban stormwater runoff management and development practices, and • Permit effective multi-scale functional stream restoration and rehabilitation activities.

  27. Bioassessment: A Tool for Managing Urban Aquatic Life Uses • Michael Barbour and team, Tetra Tech • Examines how biocriteria and biological assessment can be used to evaluate water quality on a watershed scale and to evaluate aquatic life use designations. • Evaluates the degree to which urban systems can be assessed using predictive relationships between relative gradients of urbanization and biological conditions.

  28. Defining biological potential

  29. Evaluating Waterbody Assessment and Listing Processes:Integration of Monitoring and Evaluative Techniques (04-WEM-4) • Lindsay Griffith and team, Brown and Caldwell • Documents the “state-of-the-science” regarding the waterbody assessment process employed by the states. • Provides guidance on integration of monitoring data with analysis methods so that states can better understand waterbody ecological condition. • Provides guidance on how to evaluate data using scientifically defensible methodologies that can characterize water quality with greater confidence. • Provides guidance regarding how to more reliably determine which waterbodies should be designated as impaired.

  30. 04-WEM-4:Findings and Recommendations • States continue to struggle with uncertainty (how well does assessment reflect reality) • Recommendations to refine assessment process and help characterize water quality with greater consistency and confidence. Recommendations include: • Publish Minimum Data Requirements • Integrate Monitoring with Assessments • Develop standardized data extrapolation techniques • Develop numeric wq criteria • Use statistical evaluation techniques • Include public in methodology development

  31. State Subscribers • Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality • Connecticut Department of Environmental Quality • Kansas Department of Health & Environment • Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection • ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission) • NEIWPC (New England Interstate Water Pollution Control)

  32. Chesapeake Bay Watershed

  33. WERF invites all state regulatory agencies to partner with us to find solutions & breakthroughs for your highest priority challenges ASIWPCA – discover opportunities for collaboration Work with teams of world class experts Leverage your funding investment Join WERF and help make a difference together! How You Can Participate

  34. Thank You! • Glenn Reinhardt, greinhardt@werf.org • Claudio Ternieden, cternieden@werf.org • Jane Knecht, jknecht@werf.org • Margaret Stewart, mstewart@werf.org 703-684-2470

More Related