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: Recycled Wastewater Demand & Supply Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use Table 2.6. Industries in the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Within 4 Miles of a WWTP Industry Name by Category Agricultural Processing ID No. for Map Source* 2004 Water Use, mgd Distance to WWTP, miles Closest WWTP ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CO 18 G 0.206 1.0 Red Wing ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS 31 G 0.696 2.7 Rochester HORMEL FOODS CORP 41 G 0.272 1.0 Faribault IFP INC 5 G 0.012 1.0 Faribault INTERNATIONAL MALTING CO LLC 28 G 0.964 3.3 Winona LAKESIDE FOODS INC 42 G 0.075 3.0 Plainview - Elgin MARIGOLD FOODS INC 44 G 0.319 2.0 Met Council-Empire PLAINVIEW MILK PROD COOP 47 G 0.191 3.0 Plainview - Elgin PROTEIN INGREDIENT TECHNOLOGIES INC 48 G 0.052 2.0 Faribault SENECA FOODS CORP 49 G 0.049 4.0 Rochester Industrial Process Cooling – Once Through CYTEC ENGINEERED MATERIALS 21 G 0.077 3.3 Winona FARIBAULT WOOLEN MILL COMPANY 38 S 0.006 1.0 Faribault KERRY BIOFUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS INC Metal Processing 25 G 0.298 2.5 Rochester BADGER FOUNTRY CO 34 G 0.425 1.0 Winona PEERLESS CHAIN COMPANY Non-Metallic Processing 22 G 0.266 1.0 Winona 8 TH AND JEFFERSON LLC 8 G 0.001 1.0 Winona GENOVA INC 27 G 0.139 1.0 Faribault RTP COMPANY 24 G 0.436 2.5 Winona S B FOOT TANNING CO 20 G 0.307 2.6 Red Wing USG INTERIORS INC Power Generation – Miscellaneous 26 G 0.035 2.3 Red Wing FRANKLIN HEATING STATION Sand and Gravel Washing 4 G 0.503 4.0 Rochester BARNESS CONSTRUCTION & EXCAVATION 6 S 0.000 2.3 Northfield CEMSTONE PRODUCTS Steam Power Cooling – Once Through 36 G 0.011 3.8 Met Council-Empire NSP CO DBA XCEL ENERGY 2 S 44.763 1.0 Red Ring ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES Steam Power Cooling – Wet Tower 3 S 26.622 3.0 Rochester ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES * G=Ground Water; S=Surface Water Source: MDNR, 2004 3 G 0.405 3.0 Rochester Flint Hills Resources is the largest non-power related industrial water user in this watershed. Approximately 6.5 mgd was pumped from its well field in 2004 for its total facility use. They are in the process of system modifications to reuse their process wastewater rather than add an additional well. Municipal WWTP effluent use at Flint Hills Resources was evaluated during the facility planning stages of the Met Council’s Empire WWTP expansion; the outfall for this plant will be moved to discharge into the Upper Mississippi River watershed and will be within 2 miles of Flint Hills Resources. While the use Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 23
Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Demand & Supply Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use of recycled wastewater from Empire by Flint Hills Resources was not pursued because of water quality issues, notably high chlorides in the Empire WWTP effluent, it is possible that potential future Flint Hills Resources expansions could consider this source. Also, the industrial areas along the outfall could benefit from this potential 24 mgd source of recycled wastewater. Factors Influencing Potential for Industrial Use of Recycled Wastewater – Lower Mississippi River Watershed The majority of the Lower Mississippi River watershed has a good water supply from bedrock that most communities rely on as their primary water source. Most of the watershed is in Ground Water Area 3 of the state, with eastern regions in Area 2 and the northern reaches in Area 1 (refer to Figure 2.8). All three areas have a reliable and productive bedrock aquifer. Area 3 has extensive near-surface karst areas that result in its aquifers being vulnerable to contamination. There is wide-spread nitrate contamination in near-surface aquifers as well as occurrences of pesticides and other contaminants. The susceptibility to contamination index places this watershed in the medium to highest range (refer to Figure 2.9). Area 2 on the western edge of the watershed has a more productive buried sand aquifer, but still limited surficial sand aquifers. The northern watershed, in Area 1, has a reliable supply for all three general aquifer levels. Portions of the Lower Mississippi River watershed will be affected by the TMDL for Lake Pepin. The planning process for this TMDL has established preliminary targets of phosphorus and solids loading reductions of one-half into Lake Pepin. While nonpoint sources are significant contributions to this load, it is likely that loading reductions for most point sources will be considered. 2.3 Twin Cities Metro Area Inventory The industrial inventory for the Twin Cities metro area indicates a diversity of industries and a prevalence of potential recycled wastewater customers along the river corridors. The industry inventory in the Twin Cities metro area was based on the same MDNR database as for the state and watershed analysis plus those industries discharging to the Met Council’s sewer system for treatment at one of eight WWTPs. Figure 2.13 presents the industries with water permits (MDNR appropriation permits) and Figure 2.14 locates a larger set of industries in the Twin Cities metro area, based on Met Council’s Industrial Dischargers permit program (Met Council, 2005). The Met Council database provides for a more detailed categorization of the industries, as shown in the legend of Figure 2.14. These industry categories are documented with subcategories in Appendix II-1 (Appendix E). Figure 2.14 also identifies if the industry obtains its water from a municipal (potable) source or another source, which typically would be through a MDNR appropriations permit. The other source could be ground water (well), surface water or a combination of both. The municipal designation was rolled up to include any industry that uses a municipal supply. The Met Council (specifically, the Environmental Services division or MCES) Industrial Dischargers Permit database includes any discharger to the Met Council’s sewer system. It does not include all industries in the area, because some have their own treatment systems and discharge permits. Some dischargers use little water, such as landfill leachate systems, and mainly collect and treat water for discharge. These industries were excluded from the evaluation. The industries in the Twin Cities metro area discharging to the sewer system, as shown in Figure 2.15, had a combined water demand of 65 mgd in 2005. The largest water users were food industries, at 15 mgd, followed by the metal products industries at 10 mgd. Water used in the electronic products and paper/packaging industries and for power/steam/air conditioning and health care facilities, all had category totals over 5 mgd. 24 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
- Page 2 and 3: Acknowledgements This study was con
- Page 4 and 5: Contents Recycling Treated Municipa
- Page 6 and 7: Contents Recycling Treated Municipa
- Page 8 and 9: Executive Summary Vision Executive
- Page 10 and 11: Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Project
- Page 12 and 13: Table 1.2. Water Use in Minnesota,
- Page 14 and 15: Section 1: Introduction Recycling T
- Page 16 and 17: 1.5 Summary Section 1: Introduction
- Page 18 and 19: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 20 and 21: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 23 and 24: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 26 and 27: Figure 2.9. Ground Water Contaminat
- Page 28: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 35 and 36: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 38 and 39: Table 2.8. Ethanol Plant Capacity a
- Page 40 and 41: Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Dema
- Page 42 and 43: 2.7 References Section 2: Recycled
- Page 44 and 45: Section 3: Recycled Wastewater Syst
- Page 46 and 47: Water Quality Overview The total co
- Page 48 and 49: Industrial Water Quality Concerns S
- Page 50 and 51: Emerging Contaminants of Concern Se
- Page 52 and 53: Section 3: Recycled Wastewater Syst
- Page 54 and 55: Section 3: Recycled Wastewater Syst
- Page 56 and 57: 3.4 Storage and Transmission Overvi
- Page 58 and 59: Section 3: Recycled Wastewater Syst
- 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
Section 2: Recycled <strong>Wastewater</strong> Demand & Supply<br />
<strong>Recycling</strong> <strong>Treated</strong> <strong>Municipal</strong> <strong>Wastewater</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Industrial</strong> <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Use</strong><br />
Table 2.6. Industries in the Lower Mississippi River <strong>Water</strong>shed Within 4 Miles of a WWTP<br />
Industry Name by Category<br />
Agricultural Processing<br />
ID No.<br />
<strong>for</strong> Map Source*<br />
2004<br />
<strong>Water</strong><br />
<strong>Use</strong>, mgd<br />
Distance<br />
to WWTP,<br />
miles Closest WWTP<br />
ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CO 18 G 0.206 1.0 Red Wing<br />
ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS 31 G 0.696 2.7 Rochester<br />
HORMEL FOODS CORP 41 G 0.272 1.0 Faribault<br />
IFP INC 5 G 0.012 1.0 Faribault<br />
INTERNATIONAL MALTING CO<br />
LLC<br />
28<br />
G 0.964 3.3 Winona<br />
LAKESIDE FOODS INC 42 G 0.075 3.0 Plainview - Elgin<br />
MARIGOLD FOODS INC 44 G 0.319 2.0 Met Council-Empire<br />
PLAINVIEW MILK PROD COOP 47 G 0.191 3.0 Plainview - Elgin<br />
PROTEIN INGREDIENT<br />
TECHNOLOGIES INC<br />
48<br />
G 0.052 2.0 Faribault<br />
SENECA FOODS CORP 49 G 0.049 4.0 Rochester<br />
<strong>Industrial</strong> Process Cooling – Once Through<br />
CYTEC ENGINEERED MATERIALS 21 G 0.077 3.3 Winona<br />
FARIBAULT WOOLEN MILL<br />
COMPANY<br />
38<br />
S 0.006 1.0 Faribault<br />
KERRY BIOFUNCTIONAL<br />
INGREDIENTS INC<br />
Metal Processing<br />
25<br />
G 0.298 2.5 Rochester<br />
BADGER FOUNTRY CO 34 G 0.425 1.0 Winona<br />
PEERLESS CHAIN COMPANY<br />
Non-Metallic Processing<br />
22 G 0.266 1.0 Winona<br />
8 TH AND JEFFERSON LLC 8 G 0.001 1.0 Winona<br />
GENOVA INC 27 G 0.139 1.0 Faribault<br />
RTP COMPANY 24 G 0.436 2.5 Winona<br />
S B FOOT TANNING CO 20 G 0.307 2.6 Red Wing<br />
USG INTERIORS INC<br />
Power Generation – Miscellaneous<br />
26 G 0.035 2.3 Red Wing<br />
FRANKLIN HEATING STATION<br />
Sand and Gravel Washing<br />
4 G 0.503 4.0 Rochester<br />
BARNESS CONSTRUCTION &<br />
EXCAVATION<br />
6<br />
S 0.000 2.3 Northfield<br />
CEMSTONE PRODUCTS<br />
Steam Power Cooling – Once Through<br />
36 G 0.011 3.8 Met Council-Empire<br />
NSP CO DBA XCEL ENERGY 2 S 44.763 1.0 Red Ring<br />
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES<br />
Steam Power Cooling – Wet Tower<br />
3 S 26.622 3.0 Rochester<br />
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES<br />
* G=Ground <strong>Water</strong>; S=Surface <strong>Water</strong><br />
Source: MDNR, 2004<br />
3 G 0.405 3.0 Rochester<br />
Flint Hills Resources is the largest non-power related industrial water user in this watershed.<br />
Approximately 6.5 mgd was pumped from its well field in 2004 <strong>for</strong> its total facility use. They are in the<br />
process of system modifications to reuse their process wastewater rather than add an additional well.<br />
<strong>Municipal</strong> WWTP effluent use at Flint Hills Resources was evaluated during the facility planning stages<br />
of the Met Council’s Empire WWTP expansion; the outfall <strong>for</strong> this plant will be moved to discharge into<br />
the Upper Mississippi River watershed and will be within 2 miles of Flint Hills Resources. While the use<br />
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 23
Change language