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 Conservation – conserves natural waters for potable supplies Reliable supply – reclaimed water is nearly always available, not affected by droughts Pollution abatement – alternative to discharge to environmentally sensitive waters Economically attractive supply – may be less costly than treatment needed for discharge or alternative sources of supply Regulatory or statutory mandates – regulatory or statutory requirement to use or consider reclaimed water for certain water demands under certain conditions In Minnesota, a key driver for industrial reuse of treated wastewater will be the lack of an adequate local water supply of appropriate quality or quantity. If sufficient supply is available, but of a poorer quality than reclaimed water, the treatment costs might favor reuse. Similarly, if an appropriate quality water is available, but at a significant distance and requires conveyance and annual pumping costs, then reuse may be more costeffective. While Minnesotans are embracing conservation measures and water supply plans emphasize reliability in supply, conservation and reliability most likely will be added benefits, not the main driver to spur industrial water reuse. Municipalities in Minnesota, particularly in developing areas, may seek to foster relationships with reuse customers because of increased pressures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the state’s waterways. Minnesota’s industries, particularly if located or planned for location in proximity to a WWTP, could be sought as partners in the continued conservation and protection of Minnesota’s water resources. 2.2 Regulatory Requirements Current Water Reuse Practice in Minnesota Minnesota is one of several states that have not developed state water reuse criteria. Currently, Minnesota uses California’s Water Recycling Criteria [State of California, 2000a], as summarized in Table 2.1, to evaluate water reuse projects on a case-by-case basis. In Minnesota, water reuse requirements are included in NPDES permits administered by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A change in the location of a wastewater treatment facility’s discharge (as would be required for a reuse application) or any modifications to a facility to provide treatment and conveyance for a reuse application requires an NPDES permit modification. There are several rural Minnesota facilities that discharge their effluent for agricultural irrigation purposes, typically because there is not a receiving stream with available load capacity. Small systems are also being installed for golf course irrigation. The largest water reuse application in Minnesota will be implemented in 2006 as the City of Mankato provides treated wastewater effluent to the Mankato Energy Center. Over 6 mgd of water will be provided for cooling and process water needs. Section 2.5 provides additional information on the Mankato industrial reuse project and other reuse applications in Minnesota. 2-2 Craddock Consulting Engineers In Association with CDM & James Crook TM1-Sec2_0707.doc
Section 2 Implementation Considerations Craddock Consulting Engineers 2-3 In Association with CDM & James Crook TM1-Sec2_0707.doc Table 2.1. 2000 California Water Recycling Criteria Type of Use Irrigation of fodder, fiber, and seed crops, orchards b and vineyards b , processed food crops c , nonfood-bearing trees, ornamental nursery stock d , and sod farms d ; flushing sanitary sewers Irrigation of pasture for milking animals, landscape areas e , ornamental nursery stock and sod farms where public access is not restricted; landscape impoundments; industrial or commercial cooling water where no mist is created; nonstructural fire fighting; industrial boiler feed; soil compaction; dust control; cleaning roads, sidewalks, and outdoor areas Irrigation of food crops b ; restricted recreational impoundments; fish hatcheries Irrigation of food crops f and open access landscape areas g ; toilet and urinal flushing; industrial process water; decorative fountains; commercial laundries and car washes; snow-making; structural fire fighting; industrial or commercial cooling where mist is created Nonrestricted recreational impoundments Total Coliform Limits a Treatment Required None required Oxidation ≤23/100 ml a ≤240/100 ml in more than one sample in any 30-day ≤2.2/100 ml a ≤23/100 ml in more than one sample in any 30-day period ≤2.2/100 ml a ≤23/100 ml in more than one sample in any 30-day period 240/100 ml (maximum) ≤2.2/100 ml a ≤23/100 ml in more than one sample in any 30-day period 240/100 ml (maximum) Groundwater recharge by spreading Case-by-case evaluation Oxidation Disinfection Oxidation Disinfection Oxidation Coagulation h Filtration i Disinfection Oxidation Coagulation Clarification j Filtration i Disinfection Case-by-case evaluation a Based on running 7-day median; daily sampling is required. b No contact between reclaimed water and edible portion of crop. c Food crops that undergo commercial pathogen-destroying prior to human consumption. d No irrigation for at least 14 days prior to harvesting, sale, or allowing public access. e Cemeteries, freeway landscaping, restricted access golf courses, and other controlled access areas. f Contact between reclaimed water and edible portion of crop; includes edible root crops. g Parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, residential landscaping, unrestricted access golf courses, and other uncontrolled access irrigation areas. h Not required if the turbidity of influent to the filters is continuously measured, does not exceed 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes and never exceeds 10 NTU, and there is capability to automatically activate chemical addition or divert wastewater if the filter influent turbidity exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes. i The turbidity after filtration through filter media cannot exceed an average of 2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) within any 24-hour period, 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period, and 10 NTU at any time. The turbidity after filtration through a membrane process cannot exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within any 24-hour period and 0.5 NTU at any time. j Not required if reclaimed water is monitored for enteric viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. Source: Adapted from State of California [2000a].
- 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
- 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: Craddock Consulting Engineers 2-1 I
- 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 112 and 113: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 114 and 115: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 116 and 117: Section 2 Implementation Considerat
- Page 118 and 119: Craddock Consulting Engineers 3-1 I
- Page 120 and 121: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 122 and 123: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 124 and 125: Figure 3.6. Industrial Reuse Custom
- Page 126 and 127: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 128 and 129: Figure 3.7b. Ground Water Availabil
- Page 130 and 131: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 132 and 133: ") Figure 3.8c. Cedar River Watersh
- Page 134 and 135: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
- Page 136 and 137: Section 3 Inventory of Major WWTPs
Section 2<br />
Implementation Considerations<br />
Conservation – conserves natural waters <strong>for</strong> potable supplies<br />
Reliable supply – reclaimed water is nearly always available, not affected by<br />
droughts<br />
Pollution abatement – alternative to discharge to environmentally sensitive waters<br />
Economically attractive supply – may be less costly than treatment needed <strong>for</strong><br />
discharge or alternative sources of supply<br />
Regulatory or statutory mandates – regulatory or statutory requirement to use or<br />
consider reclaimed water <strong>for</strong> certain water demands under certain conditions<br />
In Minnesota, a key driver <strong>for</strong> industrial reuse of treated wastewater will be the lack of<br />
an adequate local water supply of appropriate quality or quantity. If sufficient supply is<br />
available, but of a poorer quality than reclaimed water, the treatment costs might favor<br />
reuse. Similarly, if an appropriate quality water is available, but at a significant distance<br />
and requires conveyance and annual pumping costs, then reuse may be more costeffective.<br />
While Minnesotans are embracing conservation measures and water supply<br />
plans emphasize reliability in supply, conservation and reliability most likely will be<br />
added benefits, not the main driver to spur industrial water reuse. <strong>Municipal</strong>ities in<br />
Minnesota, particularly in developing areas, may seek to foster relationships with reuse<br />
customers because of increased pressures to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the<br />
state’s waterways. Minnesota’s industries, particularly if located or planned <strong>for</strong> location<br />
in proximity to a WWTP, could be sought as partners in the continued conservation and<br />
protection of Minnesota’s water resources.<br />
2.2 Regulatory Requirements<br />
Current <strong>Water</strong> Reuse Practice in Minnesota<br />
Minnesota is one of several states that have not developed state water reuse criteria.<br />
Currently, Minnesota uses Cali<strong>for</strong>nia’s <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Recycling</strong> Criteria [State of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia,<br />
2000a], as summarized in Table 2.1, to evaluate water reuse projects on a case-by-case<br />
basis.<br />
In Minnesota, water reuse requirements are included in NPDES permits administered<br />
by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. A change in the location of a wastewater<br />
treatment facility’s discharge (as would be required <strong>for</strong> a reuse application) or any<br />
modifications to a facility to provide treatment and conveyance <strong>for</strong> a reuse application<br />
requires an NPDES permit modification.<br />
There are several rural Minnesota facilities that discharge their effluent <strong>for</strong> agricultural<br />
irrigation purposes, typically because there is not a receiving stream with available load<br />
capacity. Small systems are also being installed <strong>for</strong> golf course irrigation. The largest<br />
water reuse application in Minnesota will be implemented in 2006 as the City of<br />
Mankato provides treated wastewater effluent to the Mankato Energy Center. Over 6<br />
mgd of water will be provided <strong>for</strong> cooling and process water needs. Section 2.5<br />
provides additional in<strong>for</strong>mation on the Mankato industrial reuse project and other<br />
reuse applications in Minnesota.<br />
2-2 Craddock Consulting Engineers<br />
In Association with CDM & James Crook<br />
TM1-Sec2_0707.doc