Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use
Section 2 Implementation Considerations Craddock Consulting Engineers In Association with CDM & James Crook 2-25 TM1-Sec2_0707.doc the treatment costs for broad industry categories based upon the treatment technologies typically associated with the water quality requirements for that industry. This review focuses on industries more prevalent in Minnesota and only defines the treatment costs, specifically the equipment capital costs. O&M costs are highly variable with source water quality characteristics and industry finished water requirements. O&M costs will be reviewed in Task 2 of the project. Similarly, costs associated with pumping and conveyance facilities are not included in this preliminary review of treatment costs. The water supply treatment costs for several industry categories are negligible. Power generation facilities using once-through cooling processes require large volumes of water, but of lower quality. In most instances in Minnesota, river water is used with little to no treatment. Sand and gravel washing operations also have low water quality requirements and require no additional treatment from the source supply. Cooling water used for power generation or other industry process needs that uses a recirculating process has more restrictive water quality requirements. Some smaller facilities may use a municipal water supply and no other treatment if the water quality meets the constituent thresholds. Industries using larger volumes of water, will likely use a ground water supply if it is available. If it is not available, a surface water source would be used. Higher levels of treatment are required for a surface water source that is higher in solids, organics, and contains pathogens. Some ground water supplies high in total dissolved solids (TDS) and other constituents may also require additional treatment. If a standard chemical addition, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection process is used, the capital cost would be approximately $1.5 per gpd of treatment capacity for a facility treating 1 mgd or less based on cost curves escalated to June 2006 costs [James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, 1985]. Microfiltration or ultrafiltration may be a more appropriate technology to provide cooling water for recirculating systems or for boiler feed water, which typically requires a higher quality water, or for other industry processes. The capital costs for micro and ultrafiltration decrease with the volume of water processed: costs on a per mgd basis are much higher for membrane plants less than 1 mgd, decrease rapidly from 1 to 10 mgd and then the cost per mgd is relatively flat after 10 mgd [AWWARF, 2005]. While these costs are based on larger, municipal system supplies, the lower volume costs are applicable. The total membrane system cost for a 1 mgd system is estimated to be $2.1 million for a 0.5 mgd system ($4.20/gpd) and $2.4 million for a 1 mgd system ($2.40/gpd) based on cost curves published in 2005 and escalated to June 2006 costs [AWWARF, 2005]. A majority of industries use municipal water for their industrial processing water supply. The costs of water supplies in the metro area range from $0.75 to $3.50 per 1,000 gallons of water, based on an analysis of municipal system pricing structures in 2002 [Metropolitan Council, 2004]. Ground water supplies typically have a lower
- Page 60 and 61: Cost by Standard Industry Categorie
- Page 62 and 63: Costs and Planning Considerations S
- Page 64 and 65: Section 4: Implementation Considera
- Page 66 and 67: Economic Incentives and Risk Assess
- Page 68 and 69: Section 5: Summary and Potential Ne
- Page 70 and 71: Long-Term Vision Section 5: Summary
- Page 72: Exhibit A: California Water Recycli
- Page 75 and 76: Metropolitan Council Recycling Trea
- Page 77 and 78: Contents Section 1 - Introduction C
- Page 79 and 80: Craddock Consulting Engineers In As
- Page 81 and 82: Section 1 Introduction Craddock Con
- Page 83 and 84: Section 1 Introduction Craddock Con
- Page 85 and 86: Section 1 Introduction Craddock Con
- Page 87 and 88: Craddock Consulting Engineers 2-1 I
- Page 89 and 90: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 91 and 92: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 93 and 94: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 95 and 96: Table 2.4. Examples of State Water
- Page 97 and 98: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 99 and 100: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 101 and 102: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 103 and 104: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 105 and 106: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 107 and 108: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 109: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 113 and 114: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 115 and 116: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 117 and 118: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 119 and 120: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 121 and 122: Water Use (mgd) Section 3 Inventory
- Page 123 and 124: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 125 and 126: # Red Tamarac # # Sand Hill Marsh B
- Page 127 and 128: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 129 and 130: Figure 3.7c. Ground Water Contamina
- Page 131 and 132: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 133 and 134: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 135 and 136: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 137 and 138: Figure 3.9b. Des Moines River Water
- Page 139 and 140: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 141 and 142: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 143 and 144: WATER USE (MGD) Section 3 Inventory
- Page 145 and 146: Minnesota Figure 3.11c. Minnesota R
- Page 147 and 148: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 149 and 150: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 151 and 152: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 153 and 154: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 155 and 156: Figure 3.13b. Missouri River Waters
- Page 157 and 158: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 159 and 160: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
Section 2<br />
Implementation Considerations<br />
Craddock Consulting Engineers<br />
In Association with CDM & James Crook 2-25<br />
TM1-Sec2_0707.doc<br />
the treatment costs <strong>for</strong> broad industry categories based upon the treatment<br />
technologies typically associated with the water quality requirements <strong>for</strong> that<br />
industry. This review focuses on industries more prevalent in Minnesota and only<br />
defines the treatment costs, specifically the equipment capital costs. O&M costs are<br />
highly variable with source water quality characteristics and industry finished water<br />
requirements. O&M costs will be reviewed in Task 2 of the project. Similarly, costs<br />
associated with pumping and conveyance facilities are not included in this<br />
preliminary review of treatment costs.<br />
The water supply treatment costs <strong>for</strong> several industry categories are negligible. Power<br />
generation facilities using once-through cooling processes require large volumes of<br />
water, but of lower quality. In most instances in Minnesota, river water is used with<br />
little to no treatment. Sand and gravel washing operations also have low water<br />
quality requirements and require no additional treatment from the source supply.<br />
Cooling water used <strong>for</strong> power generation or other industry process needs that uses a<br />
recirculating process has more restrictive water quality requirements. Some smaller<br />
facilities may use a municipal water supply and no other treatment if the water<br />
quality meets the constituent thresholds. Industries using larger volumes of water,<br />
will likely use a ground water supply if it is available. If it is not available, a surface<br />
water source would be used. Higher levels of treatment are required <strong>for</strong> a surface<br />
water source that is higher in solids, organics, and contains pathogens. Some ground<br />
water supplies high in total dissolved solids (TDS) and other constituents may also<br />
require additional treatment. If a standard chemical addition, coagulation,<br />
flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection process is used, the capital cost<br />
would be approximately $1.5 per gpd of treatment capacity <strong>for</strong> a facility treating 1<br />
mgd or less based on cost curves escalated to June 2006 costs [James M. Montgomery,<br />
Consulting Engineers, 1985].<br />
Microfiltration or ultrafiltration may be a more appropriate technology to provide<br />
cooling water <strong>for</strong> recirculating systems or <strong>for</strong> boiler feed water, which typically<br />
requires a higher quality water, or <strong>for</strong> other industry processes. The capital costs <strong>for</strong><br />
micro and ultrafiltration decrease with the volume of water processed: costs on a per<br />
mgd basis are much higher <strong>for</strong> membrane plants less than 1 mgd, decrease rapidly<br />
from 1 to 10 mgd and then the cost per mgd is relatively flat after 10 mgd [AWWARF,<br />
2005]. While these costs are based on larger, municipal system supplies, the lower<br />
volume costs are applicable. The total membrane system cost <strong>for</strong> a 1 mgd system is<br />
estimated to be $2.1 million <strong>for</strong> a 0.5 mgd system ($4.20/gpd) and $2.4 million <strong>for</strong> a 1<br />
mgd system ($2.40/gpd) based on cost curves published in 2005 and escalated to June<br />
2006 costs [AWWARF, 2005].<br />
A majority of industries use municipal water <strong>for</strong> their industrial processing water<br />
supply. The costs of water supplies in the metro area range from $0.75 to $3.50 per<br />
1,000 gallons of water, based on an analysis of municipal system pricing structures in<br />
2002 [Metropolitan Council, 2004]. Ground water supplies typically have a lower