Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use
TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Components and Costs Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use reclaimed water and some also treat an incoming water supply to meet Tertiary 1-3 water quality levels. A comparison of reclaimed water system costs to an industry’s existing water supply cost must include any onsite treatment costs currently incurred by the industry. The cost analysis indicates that for a 1 mgd supply transmitted 5 miles, the costs for lower levels of treatment can compete with potable water supplies. Most industries with a water demand of 1 mgd or less are more likely to use a potable source, depending on their water quality requirements. For these industries, reclaimed water could provide an alternative to a potable source. As the demand increases to 2 mgd, the total system cost for a base water quality is under $1.00/1000 gallon – similar to potable supplies provided by utilities using ground water supplies with minimal treatment. While industries with their own water supply system typically have water supply costs less than a $1.00/1000 gallons, these costs reflect areas with high quality, abundant sources close to the industry. For areas with water supply limitations, where ground water sources are a considerable distance or only a surface water source is available (which could also be a significant distance from the industry and require more treatment costs) reclaimed water could be a more economical water supply. Another consideration in comparing reclaimed supplies to potable water supply systems is the infrastructure capacity of the potable water system and the impact on capital expenditures. Increased domestic demand can be met without expansions if a portion of the industrial sector uses reclaimed water and the total demand for the potable water system is kept constant. The economic viability of water reuse in Minnesota will depend on the specific match of WWTP effluent quality to a customer’s water quality requirements and the availability of traditional water supplies in the area. The most significant reclaimed water quality issue for Minnesota appears to be hardness and high salts. While data across the state is lacking, given the general water supply characteristics, it is expected that many WWTPs will have effluent water quality that is not suitable for a significant portion of industrial water uses without treatment for dissolved solids. The evaluation of site-specific applications with more refined cost estimating will narrow the range of costs for supplying reclaimed water to select industries in Minnesota. 6.0 References CDM, 2006. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, City of Aurora, Sand Creek Basin Wastewater Master Plan – PAR 1005. Technical Memorandum No. 8. CDM, 2004. Durham County Reuse Wastewater Facilities Project Preliminary Engineering Report. CDM, 2003. Wastewater Reclamation District, City of Aurora Wastewater Utility Plan. 42 Craddock Consulting Engineers In Association with CDM & James Crook TM3-Component&Costs_0707
Cost of Service, $/1000 gallons 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 $8.88 - Base $15.81 - Tertiary 1 $11.77 - Tertiary 2 $13.73 - Tertiary 3 $16.64 - Tertiary 4 Base Tertiary 1 - Conventional Tertiary 2 - Membrane Filtration Tertiary 3 - Membrane Softening Tertiary 4 - With GAC $2/1000 gallons Typical Potable Water Supply Cost 0.1 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 10 15 30 Reclaimed Flow/Demand, mgd Figure 15. Cost of a 5-Mile Transmission Water Reuse System to Meet Different Water Quality Requirements
- Page 368 and 369: Section 5 - Costs Table of Contents
- Page 370 and 371: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 372 and 373: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 374 and 375: WWTP 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 1 Treatmen
- Page 376 and 377: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 378 and 379: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 380 and 381: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 382: o Synthetic medium o Two-stage Surf
- Page 385 and 386: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 387 and 388: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 389 and 390: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 391 and 392: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 393 and 394: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 395 and 396: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 397 and 398: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 399 and 400: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 401 and 402: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 403 and 404: Table 13 WATER REUSE SYSTEM COST OF
- Page 405 and 406: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 407 and 408: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 409 and 410: Cost of Service, $/1000 gallon 1.00
- Page 411 and 412: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 413 and 414: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 415 and 416: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 417: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 421 and 422: TM3: Recycled Wastewater System Com
- Page 423 and 424: Appendix A Water Reuse Regulatory E
- Page 425 and 426: Table A-1. 2000 California Water Re
- Page 427 and 428: California Department of Health Ser
- Page 429 and 430: Other Media Type Filters Fuzzy Filt
- Page 431 and 432: Appendix B TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Rec
- Page 433 and 434: Appendix B Reclaimed Water Transmis
- Page 435 and 436: Exhibit 1 Transmission Main Cost To
- Page 437 and 438: Pipe Installation Data (DR 18 PVC P
- Page 439 and 440: Equipment Costs (with O&P) Item Des
- Page 441 and 442: Water Reuse Pipe Line Construction
- Page 443 and 444: Construction Unit Costs Item (2006
- Page 445 and 446: Crew Costs (with O&P) St. Paul Pres
- Page 447 and 448: Capital PROJECT Cost Curves for Rec
- Page 449 and 450: Diam (in) Annual Average Day Flow A
- Page 451 and 452: Diam (in) Annual Average Day Flow A
- Page 453 and 454: Pipe Capital Project Cost, $ Millio
- Page 455 and 456: Pipe Capital Project Cost, $/1000 g
- Page 457 and 458: Capital PROJECT Cost Curves for Rec
- Page 459 and 460: Capital PROJECT Cost Curves for Rec
- Page 461 and 462: Annual Pipe Average Annual Velocity
- Page 463 and 464: Pipe Capital Project Cost, $ Millio
- Page 465 and 466: Exhibit 3 Water Reuse System O&M Co
- Page 467 and 468: Diam (in) Annual Average Day Flow (
TM3: Recycled <strong>Wastewater</strong> System Components and Costs<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 />
reclaimed water and some also treat an incoming water supply to meet Tertiary 1-3<br />
water quality levels. A comparison of reclaimed water system costs to an industry’s<br />
existing water supply cost must include any onsite treatment costs currently incurred<br />
by the industry.<br />
The cost analysis indicates that <strong>for</strong> a 1 mgd supply transmitted 5 miles, the costs <strong>for</strong><br />
lower levels of treatment can compete with potable water supplies. Most industries<br />
with a water demand of 1 mgd or less are more likely to use a potable source,<br />
depending on their water quality requirements. For these industries, reclaimed water<br />
could provide an alternative to a potable source.<br />
As the demand increases to 2 mgd, the total system cost <strong>for</strong> a base water quality is<br />
under $1.00/1000 gallon – similar to potable supplies provided by utilities using<br />
ground water supplies with minimal treatment. While industries with their own<br />
water supply system typically have water supply costs less than a $1.00/1000 gallons,<br />
these costs reflect areas with high quality, abundant sources close to the industry. For<br />
areas with water supply limitations, where ground water sources are a considerable<br />
distance or only a surface water source is available (which could also be a significant<br />
distance from the industry and require more treatment costs) reclaimed water could<br />
be a more economical water supply.<br />
Another consideration in comparing reclaimed supplies to potable water supply<br />
systems is the infrastructure capacity of the potable water system and the impact on<br />
capital expenditures. Increased domestic demand can be met without expansions if a<br />
portion of the industrial sector uses reclaimed water and the total demand <strong>for</strong> the<br />
potable water system is kept constant.<br />
The economic viability of water reuse in Minnesota will depend on the specific match<br />
of WWTP effluent quality to a customer’s water quality requirements and the<br />
availability of traditional water supplies in the area. The most significant reclaimed<br />
water quality issue <strong>for</strong> Minnesota appears to be hardness and high salts. While data<br />
across the state is lacking, given the general water supply characteristics, it is expected<br />
that many WWTPs will have effluent water quality that is not suitable <strong>for</strong> a significant<br />
portion of industrial water uses without treatment <strong>for</strong> dissolved solids. The<br />
evaluation of site-specific applications with more refined cost estimating will narrow<br />
the range of costs <strong>for</strong> supplying reclaimed water to select industries in Minnesota.<br />
6.0 References<br />
CDM, 2006. Metro <strong>Wastewater</strong> Reclamation District, City of Aurora, Sand Creek Basin<br />
<strong>Wastewater</strong> Master Plan – PAR 1005. Technical Memorandum No. 8.<br />
CDM, 2004. Durham County Reuse <strong>Wastewater</strong> Facilities Project Preliminary<br />
Engineering Report.<br />
CDM, 2003. <strong>Wastewater</strong> Reclamation District, City of Aurora <strong>Wastewater</strong> Utility Plan.<br />
42 Craddock Consulting Engineers<br />
In Association with CDM & James Crook<br />
TM3-Component&Costs_0707