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.