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
Problems with Industrial Wastewater
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Each Stakeholder
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
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.
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.
TOWN
1.
2.
3.
4.
Costs
Building the POPP
facility
Updating
associated
infrastructure
Staffing and
maintaining the
POPP
Regulating water
quality
Benefits
1. Increased tax
revenue from
new businesses
2. Efficient land use
3. Opportunities for
improving water
quality
Opportunities to
Improve Water Quality
1.25
%
15%
•
85%
•
•
Goal: Develop a hypothetical case study for
building a POPP in a small town in Massachusetts
Objectives
Site Preparation
Construction
Start-up
Additional Costs
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
Selected Methods
5) Compile the findings into a
hypothetical grant/loan application
-Draft grant/loan application and review
with group, Professor Plater, other
project experts
Costs
1. Possible increased
taxes to fund
construction of the
facility (although
ideally this would
be covered by a
grant and/or loan)
Penalties Assessed for Wastewater Noncompliance
by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Benefits
1. Employment
opportunities
2. More
transparency
about water
quality
3. Industrial
development
supports local
development
Steps to Complete the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Loan Application Process
Project Solicitation &
Project Evaluation Form
Total
Penalties
Assessed in
FY13:
Annual Priority List
Intended Use Plan Project List
$226,440
Loan Application
Project Approval Certificate
Project Regulatory Agreement
Loan Agreement Executed
Both
Applicant
MassDEP
Party Responsible for Each Step in the Process
Conclusion
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.
-Analyze case studies that deal with the
construction of wastewater facilities.
3) Research the potential costs and -Study how industrial development
benefits of the project for the
affects the local area
different stakeholders: the town, the - Utilize the EPA’s website and the
Massachusetts Water Resource
citizens, and the firm.
Authority’s website to learn about
current and future regulations
-Show the state grant/loan application
process and research other
organizations that may be wiling to fund
the projects
2.
3.
Benefits
Less costs of
analyzing water
samples
Less legal liability
Less permit
applications and
standards to
adhere to
Large labor supply
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
-Compile a list of common regulated
industrial pollutants from the
Environmental Protection Agency’s
water standards and the MWRA’s
standards
4) Provide recommendations on
how communities can advocate for
the construction of a POPP
1.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
Recommendations to Towns:
-Examine U.S. Government census
data to compare demographic statistics
1) Choose a small town in MA that
-Observe trends in unemployment rates
could benefit from a POPPs system 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.
Costs
1. Relocating or
building a factory
near the POPP
2. Hooking up to the
POPP
4.
Investment Costs
2%
FIRM
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
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.
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-staterevolving-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.