Nutrient Management: Regulatory Approaches to Protect Water Quality: Volume 1 – Review of Existing Practices

Abstract

2010 NUTR1R06iii The Water Environment Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organization, funds and manages water quality research for its subscribers through a diverse public-private partnership between municipal utilities, corporations, academia, industry, and the federal government. WERF subscribers include municipal and regional water and wastewater utilities, industrial corporations, environmental engineering firms, and others that share a commitment to cost-effective water quality solutions. WERF is dedicated to advancing science and technology addressing water quality issues as they impact water resources, the atmosphere, the lands, and quality of life. This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). Neither WERF, members of WERF, the organization(s) named below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.HDR Engineering, Inc.The research on which this report is based was developed, in part, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Cooperative Agreement No. CR-83155901-2 with the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF). However, the views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the EPA and EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. This report is a publication of WERF, not EPA. Funds awarded under the Cooperative Agreement cited above were not used for editorial services, reproduction, printing, or distribution. This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by WERF. Mention of trade names or commercial products or services does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning WERF's or EPA's positions regarding product effectiveness or applicability. Nutrient Management: Regulatory Approaches to Protect Water Quality Volume 1 -Review of Existing Practices iiiThe project team would like to acknowledge and thank the wastewater utilities involved in nutrient total maximum daily loads and NPDES permitting whose experiences were used as references in preparation of this report, including the Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Abstract:Utilities work with regulators to treat wastewater to levels that protect human health and ecosystems. Water quality criteria and permits are based on scientifically defensible and shared understanding of sources of pollutants in a watershed, as well as treatment capabilities and costs to control these in the aquatic environment. The national discussion of nutrient impacts on water quality continues to evolve -issues in high...

Life-Cycle Assessment of Advanced Nutrient Removal Technologies for Wastewater Treatment

“…8,9 The present study complements and extends previous work by conducting treatment process modeling and LCA for an array of secondary and state-of-the-art tertiary process configurations that meet proposed limits for effluent nutrient levels in the United States. 6 These effluent levels range from 8 to 1 mg of N per L for N and 1 to 0.01 mg of P per L for P, more stringent than those considered in previous LCA work and thus requiring more advanced treatment approaches. In addition to biological nutrient removal, external carbon addition is required for further N removal, and energy and chemical-intensive tertiary processes are used for higher P removal.…”

“…2−4 To comply with increasingly stringent regulation on nutrient discharges (N and P), WWTPs are facing the requirements to increase the level of treatment by adopting advanced tertiary treatment processes to further remove nutrients beyond conventional secondary processes with nutrient removal. 5,6 Tertiary processes require the additional usage of energy, chemicals, and other material resources to meet effluent targets. Advanced wastewater treatment processes improve the water quality of the receiving water body but can also lead to deleterious environmental and health impacts elsewhere in the technological life cycle that need to be evaluated.…”

“…Nutrient removal processes for municipal wastewater have been designed and classified on the basis of their ability to meet three levels based on the targeted effluent concentrations for total N and P (Table 1), which are representative of those prescribed by NPDES permits. 6 Level 1 treatment is achievable with conventional nutrient removal technologies, such as biological nitrogen removal along with chemical phosphorus removal or biological nutrient removal without any external carbon addition. For the achievement of Level 2 effluent limits, a supplemental carbon source is generally required to enhance denitrification and achieve the target effluent nitrogen concentration.…”

“…6,30−32 Level 3 is known as the best achievable performance level and targets extremely low effluent nutrient levels to comply with ongoing or anticipated regulations. A WERF-sponsored survey and independent studies on advanced phosphorus removal technologies 6,31,33 have indicated that, to attain these extremely low level of nutrient levels, multiple tertiary processes for chemical P removal are necessary, and the addition of more external carbon for postdenitrification is required. 3,26,28 WWTPs performance at this level of treatment are also dependent on local weather conditions, process implementation, and wastewater characteristics as well as skilled operation and maintenance.…”

WERF Nutrient Challenge – Nutrient Regulations, Treatment Performance, and Sustainability Collide

“…Additionally, GHG emissions associated with each chemical used in treatment is incorporated in the calculations. Clark et al (2010) summarized the nutrient criteria set by several states (Table 3). While the approach by states varies significantly, the outcome remains similar: the in-stream nutrient criteria are very low.…”