Evaluating the Role of Point Source Discharges Informs Statewide Nutrient Control Policy in Utah

Abstract

An evaluation of costs, rate, and environmental impacts of upgrading publically owned treatment works (POTWs) in the State of Utah to four levels of nutrient control allowed a variety of nutrient control policies to be assessed. Upgrade costs and rate impacts indicated that costs would be within a defined range for many POTWs, especially with design capacities greater than 40,000 m3/day (∼10 mgd). However, costs were significantly higher for some POTWs with lower design capacities, and nutrient upgrades to the most stringent levels would not be affordable for these communities, representing about 15 percent of the service population. The resulting equity issues can be addressed through hardship grants program and/or regulations based on a trading scheme. Analysis demonstrated that trading offers advantages, including cost efficiency and flexibility to accommodate further nutrient reductions and population growth, and greater ability to interface with urban and rural nonpoint nutrient control. Currently, the State of Utah is establishing technology‐based nutrient limits that can be affordably implemented at all POTWs in phases. Additionally, a multi‐faceted approach is being evaluated that will consider prioritized watershed‐scale strategies, point and nonpoint sources of pollution, ecological and socioeconomic implications, and stakeholder participation in nutrient reduction programs.

State and green crimes related to water pollution and ecological disorganization: water pollution from publicly owned treatment works (POTW) facilities across US states

“…Instead, studies have examined individual POTW's environmental effects, POTWs in a single state (Earnhart, 2004;Maruya et al, 2012Maruya et al, , 2014Daigger et al, 2014), the effect of POTW emissions on specific species (Vidal-Dorsch et al, 2013a, b), and the processing of specific pollutants at POTWs (for example, Flippin et al, 2014;Balasubramani and Rifai, 2015). In the present study, we examine national or aggregated US POTW emissions to address the general impact of POTWs on US waterways and how those emissions by state facilities contribute to ecological disorganization/green crimes against ecosystems and constitute green-state crimes.…”

Assessing cost‐effective nutrient removal solutions in the urban water system

“…Many states have recently or are in the process of adopting regulations to reduce nutrient loading into watersheds (USEPA, ). Nutrient pollution originates from a variety of activities including point sources, urban nonpoint sources, rural nonpoint sources, and atmospheric deposition (Daigger, Datta, Stensel, Whitlock, & Mackey, ). In an urban water system, nutrient pollution is primarily from wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) and stormwater runoff.…”

“…Traditionally, reduction of nutrient from the urban water system is primarily achieved by implementing process improvements at WWTFs. However, improving nutrient removal at WWTFs may have substantial capital and operational cost implications (Daigger et al., ). Therefore, it may be necessary or more cost effective to consider implementing a combination of water management practices, wastewater technologies, and stormwater control measures (SCMs) throughout an urban water system.…”

Assessment of wastewater treatment facility compliance with decreasing ammonia discharge limits using a regression tree model

“…Colorado (CDPHE, 2012) and Utah (Daigger et al, 2014). Concern about the ability of plants to comply with lowered permit limits using current infrastructure and the cost of implementation of nutrient removal technology has led some states to consider exemptions and allow a transition period before new limits take effect.…”