Publicly Owned Pretreatment Plants: A Winning
Transcript of Publicly Owned Pretreatment Plants: A Winning
Publicly Owned Pretreatment Plants (POPPs): A Mutually Beneficial Arrangement for Towns, Firms, and Community Members
By Jillian Boylan, AJ Hernandez, Jillian Marshall, and Michael Martina
TOWN
Wastewater Issues in
Easthampton, MA 1. Direct discharge of
industrial wastewater into the Manhan River
2-3. Industrial facilities discharge effluent into
local sewer system 4. Residential area
wastewater mixes with industrial wastewater
Table 10.1 Typical division of investment cost items as proportion of total investment. Adapted from Handbook Biological Wastewater Treatment (Chapter 10), by Adrianus van Haandel and Jeroen van der Lubbe (Eds.), 2007, Netherlands: Quist Publishing. Available on http://www.wastewaterhandbook.com. United States Environmental Project Agency, Office of Water. (2014) Final 2012 and Preliminary 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plans (EPA 821-B-12-001). Retrieved from website: http://water.epa.gov/schitech/wastetech/guide/304m/upload/fs-final2012-prim2014.pdf Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, (2013) Industrial Waste Report (Industrial Waste Report #29) Retrieved from websitehttp://www.mwra.state.ma.us/annual/tracindustrialwastereport/iwr-2013.pdf.
City- Data, (2015). Easthampton Massachusetts. Retrieved from website: http://www.city-data.com/city/Easthampton-Massachusetts.html Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, (2015). Clean Water State Revolving Fund Fact Sheet. Retrieved from website: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/grants/clean-water-state-revolving-loan-fund-fact-sheet.html Fobi, L. “Publicly Owned Pretreatment Plants: A Means of Promoting Industry while Eliminating the Discharge of Toxic Amounts of Pollutants into the Nation’s Waterways.” Provided by Professor Zygmunt Plater, January 2015.
FIRM
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TOWN
The town of Easthampton is at risk
for habitat loss and impaired drinking
water if the publicly owned wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) is
overwhelmed with more effluent than it is permitted to handle.
FIRMS Firms (1,2,3) suffer
from the cost of purchasing and
maintaining pretreatment
equipment. Firms that apply for their own
NPDES permit must incur an even greater cost to meet stringent
standards.
This innovative solution is to encourage businesses that generate toxic waste to discharge into a centralized, well-designed treatment system rather than directly into a water source or the public sewer. This municipal facility could be extremely advantageous for businesses, towns, and habitats. By absorbing the costs for pretreatment and standardizing the pretreatment process in an industrial park, a POPPs system (as depicted to the left) could significantly reduce costs for businesses. This reduction in overhead costs will encourage businesses to expand into towns in need of economic stimulus where the POPP systems can be implemented. Meanwhile, effluent from these companies will be treated with state-of-the-art technology, ensuring the thorough protection of our waterways. By yielding job growth for impoverished communities, higher profit margins for businesses, and more stringent protection of at-risk habitats, this cutting-edge solution is economically feasible, logistically attainable, and morally admirable.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Citizens suffer from a stagnant economy
and water impairment as some firms in the
town are direct polluters and others discharge effluent
into the sewer system that flows through residential areas.
Problems with Industrial Wastewater
Goal: Develop a hypothetical case study for building a POPP in a small town in Massachusetts
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Each Stakeholder
Costs 1. Building the POPP
facility 2. Updating
associated infrastructure
3. Staffing and maintaining the POPP
4. Regulating water quality
Benefits 1. Increased tax
revenue from new businesses
2. Efficient land use 3. Opportunities for
improving water quality
1.25%
85%
2% 15%
Investment Costs
Site PreparationConstructionStart-upAdditional Costs
Opportunities to Improve Water Quality
• Limitations on levels of certain
pollutants • Prevent interference of
operation of treatment plant • Block pollutants that could pass
through other filter types • Improve opportunities for reuse
of wastewater or sludge • Prevent introduction of pollutants which could cause
health or safety issues
Conclusion
Costs 1. Relocating or
building a factory near the POPP
2. Hooking up to the POPP
Benefits 1. Less costs of
analyzing water samples
2. Less legal liability 3. Less permit
applications and standards to adhere to
4. Large labor supply
Costs 1. Possible increased
taxes to fund construction of the facility (although ideally this would be covered by a grant and/or loan)
Benefits 1. Employment
opportunities 2. More
transparency about water quality
3. Industrial development supports local development
Project Solicitation & Project Evaluation Form
Annual Priority List
Intended Use Plan Project List
Loan Application
Project Approval Certificate
Project Regulatory Agreement
Loan Agreement Executed
Both Applicant MassDEP
Steps to Complete the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Loan Application Process
Party Responsible for Each Step in the Process
Penalties Assessed for Wastewater Noncompliance
by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
Total Penalties
Assessed in FY13:
$226,440
1) Inquire which chemicals each firm
interested in moving to the area needs filtered 2) Work with local construction companies to
design a plan that meets these needs 3) Include the final cost estimate provided by
the construction company in grant/loan applications
020406080
100120140160180200
Objectives Selected Methods
1) Choose a small town in MA that could benefit from a POPPs system
-Examine U.S. Government census data to compare demographic statistics -Observe trends in unemployment rates for various towns using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
2) Define what the capabilities of the POPP would need to be, in
order to attract high tech industries.
-Compile a list of common regulated industrial pollutants from the Environmental Protection Agency’s water standards and the MWRA’s standards
3) Research the potential costs and benefits of the project for the
different stakeholders: the town, the citizens, and the firm.
-Analyze case studies that deal with the construction of wastewater facilities. -Study how industrial development affects the local area - Utilize the EPA’s website and the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority’s website to learn about current and future regulations
4) Provide recommendations on how communities can advocate for
the construction of a POPP
-Show the state grant/loan application process and research other organizations that may be wiling to fund the projects
5) Compile the findings into a hypothetical grant/loan application
-Draft grant/loan application and review with group, Professor Plater, other project experts
Recommendations to Towns:
We’d like to acknowledge and thank Professor Zygmunt Plater, Harry Dodson and Professor Gabrielle David for their continued guidance, support and encouragement throughout our research and through the completion of this project.