1

Planning for Water Reuse Planning for Water Reuse in Northeastern Illinois in Northeastern Illinois (and other places where (and other places where

most most people think there is people think there is

an abundant water supply)an abundant water supply)

Illinois Waste Management and Research Illinois Waste Management and Research CenterCenter

March 12, 2008March 12, 2008

Paul Anderson, CAEE Department, IITPaul Anderson, CAEE Department, IIT

2

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments PartnersPartners

Illinois Institute of TechnologyIllinois Institute of Technology Illinois Waste Management and Research CenterIllinois Waste Management and Research Center Chicago Metropolitan Agency for PlanningChicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

SponsorsSponsors US EPA Science to Achieve Results ProgramUS EPA Science to Achieve Results Program Illinois Waste Management and Research CenterIllinois Waste Management and Research Center

Who does all the workWho does all the work Sachin PradhanSachin Pradhan Yi MengYi Meng Shihui LuoShihui Luo Feng HuangFeng Huang

3

OverviewOverview

Parts of NE Illinois are running out Parts of NE Illinois are running out of waterof water

Water reuse is part of the solutionWater reuse is part of the solution Industries have hydrologic footprintsIndustries have hydrologic footprints Issues that affect reuse planningIssues that affect reuse planning An integrated reuse systemAn integrated reuse system

4

NE Illinois: Growing demand NE Illinois: Growing demand for water for water

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Pro

ject

ed w

ater

use

(m

gd)

Baseline Scenario

Conservation Scenario

NIPC

Dziegielewski et al. (2005)

5

We don’t use water very We don’t use water very efficientlyefficiently

Domestic water use (USEPA, 2006)

Shower & bath

(22%)

Outdoor(33%)

Laundry & cleaning(14%)

Kitchen(3%)Toilet

(28%)

6

Lake Michigan

86%

Aquifers11%

Inland Surface Water

3%

NE Illinois: Limited water NE Illinois: Limited water sourcessources

Northeastern Illinois regional non-cooling water source allocation (NIPC, 2001)

Unknown resources

Falling water table

Limited by Supreme Court

decree

Minimum flow requirements

7

The Illinois DiversionThe Illinois Diversion

Mississippi RiverMississippi River

Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal-Sag ChannelChicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal-Sag Channel

Lake MichiganLake Michigan2 WPPs2 WPPs

7 WWTPs7 WWTPs

UsersUsers

CombinedSewer System

CombinedSewer System

N.B. Chicago RiverN.B. Chicago River

54%54%

16%16% 30%30%

LockportLockport

ReuseReuse

8

Water reuse prioritiesWater reuse priorities

IndustrialIndustrial Process/coolingProcess/cooling

Commercial/DomesticCommercial/Domestic Car washCar wash Toilet flushToilet flush FirefightingFirefighting

IrrigationIrrigation Groundwater rechargeGroundwater recharge Potable waterPotable water

PriorityPriority

HighHigh

LowLowHighHigh

LowLow

QualityQuality

9

Industrial hydrologic Industrial hydrologic footprintsfootprints

Measure of industry interaction with Measure of industry interaction with waterwater Conventional direct water useConventional direct water use Evaporative loss associated with Evaporative loss associated with

electricity useelectricity use Stormwater runoff from industry propertyStormwater runoff from industry property Supply chain direct water useSupply chain direct water use Supply chain evaporative loss with Supply chain evaporative loss with

electricityelectricity

10

Estimating hydrologic Estimating hydrologic footprints in Chicagofootprints in Chicago

Consider 50 largest volume water Consider 50 largest volume water dischargersdischargers

Supply chain data from eiolca.netSupply chain data from eiolca.net Data normalized to economic activity Data normalized to economic activity

(gal/$)(gal/$)

11

Water & electricity use for Water & electricity use for 31 industry sectors31 industry sectors

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Direct water use (109 gallons)

Dir

ect

elec

tric

ty u

se (

MkW

h)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Wat

er e

vap

ora

ted

wit

h e

lect

rici

ty

use

(10

9 g

allo

ns)

High water & electricity use

Mid-water & electricity use

Low water & electricity use

12

Supply chain water & Supply chain water & electricity useelectricity use

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 5 10 15 20

Direct water use (109 gallons)

Ele

ctric

ity (

MkW

h)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Wat

er e

vapo

rate

d w

ith e

lect

ricity

(109 g

allo

ns)

Supply chain dominated by less than 60 unique SIC codes

13

Who makes up the Who makes up the supply chain?supply chain?

Blast furnaces and steel millsBlast furnaces and steel mills Industrial inorganic and organic Industrial inorganic and organic

chemicalschemicals Paper and paperboard millsPaper and paperboard mills Petroleum refiningPetroleum refining Pulp millsPulp mills Nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizersNitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers Primary aluminumPrimary aluminum Plastics materials and resinsPlastics materials and resins

14

Hydrologic footprints for Hydrologic footprints for four SIC codesfour SIC codes

0 20 40 60 80 100

2046

2011

2047

2066

SIC

co

de

Industry direct Industry electricity Supply chain electricitySupply chain direct On-site stormwater

Chocolate & Cocoa Products

Dog & Cat Food

Meat Packing

Wet Corn Milling

15

Hydrologic footprint Hydrologic footprint summarysummary

Indirect use (stormwater, electricity) is Indirect use (stormwater, electricity) is smallsmall

Direct use (industry or supply chain) Direct use (industry or supply chain) dominatesdominates

Supply chains are often importantSupply chains are often important Supply chains dominated by a few Supply chains dominated by a few

industriesindustries 10% have relatively big footprints (gal/$)10% have relatively big footprints (gal/$)

What issues affect water reuse?What issues affect water reuse?

16

Water reuse: Barriers & Water reuse: Barriers & IncentivesIncentives

Water Source

Users

WastewaterTreatment

TechnologyRegulations

PolicyRisk Economics

17

Water reuse regulationsWater reuse regulations

FederalFederal There are no water reuse regulationsThere are no water reuse regulations Guidelines for Water ReuseGuidelines for Water Reuse (USEPA, 2004) (USEPA, 2004)

States (2004 data)States (2004 data) 25 states have regulations25 states have regulations 16 states have guidelines16 states have guidelines 9 states without regulations or guidelines9 states without regulations or guidelines

Illinois regulations address land Illinois regulations address land applicationapplication

18

Water reuse risksWater reuse risks

Ecosystem risksEcosystem risks Chemical contaminants of concernChemical contaminants of concern NutrientsNutrients

Human health risksHuman health risks Pathogenic organismsPathogenic organisms

Bacteria, viruses, protozoaBacteria, viruses, protozoa

Chemical contaminants of concernChemical contaminants of concern PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticals Pesticides, herbicidesPesticides, herbicides Disinfection by-productsDisinfection by-products

19

“…“…there have not been any confirmed there have not been any confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from cases of infectious disease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed the use of properly treated reclaimed water in the U.S.” water in the U.S.”

USEPA (2004)USEPA (2004)

Are there unconfirmed cases?Are there unconfirmed cases? What about non-infectious disease?What about non-infectious disease? How long does it take to see effects? How long does it take to see effects? What about incidental reuse?What about incidental reuse? What about ecosystem risks? What about ecosystem risks?

20

Is wastewater reuse Is wastewater reuse economical?economical?

Objective:Objective: Minimize cost Minimize cost

Constraints:Constraints: DemandDemand Mass balanceMass balance CapacityCapacity Water withdrawalWater withdrawal Water qualityWater quality

21

Pipeline costs dominatePipeline costs dominate

Revenue loss<1%

Pipeline CC91%

Pumping O&M5%

Disinfection O&M3%

Pumping CC1%

22

Costs have a spatial Costs have a spatial relationshiprelationship

II

I

III

Volume demand increases with distanceVolume demand increases with distance

23

Costs depend on flow & Costs depend on flow & distancedistance

0

5

10

0.1 0.5 0.9

Q

Sup

ply

cost

Volume demand

24

Costs depend on flow & Costs depend on flow & distancedistance

0

5

10

0.1 0.5 0.9

Q

Sup

ply

cost

25

Costs depend on flow & Costs depend on flow & distancedistance

0

5

10

0.1 0.5 0.9

Q

Sup

ply

cost

26

Costs depend on flow & Costs depend on flow & distancedistance

0

5

10

0.1 0.5 0.9

Q

Sup

ply

cost

Increasing the distanceincreases the cost

Increasing the flowdecreases the cost

The minimum cost

27

A case study for industry near

the Kirie WRP

28

Kirie case studyKirie case study

28 Significant Industrial Users28 Significant Industrial Users Metal finishing: 16Metal finishing: 16 Electroplating: 4Electroplating: 4 Others: 8Others: 8

Total water discharge: 1.09 MGDTotal water discharge: 1.09 MGD Assume 50% treated effluent useAssume 50% treated effluent use Supply effluent 12 months/yearSupply effluent 12 months/year

6 months/year additional chlorination6 months/year additional chlorination

29

Kirie case study parametersKirie case study parameters

Interests rate: 6% Interests rate: 6% 5%~10%5%~10%

Utility service life: 40 years Utility service life: 40 years 25~40 years25~40 years

Amortization period: 40 years Amortization period: 40 years 25~40 years25~40 years

Pipeline installation unit cost: 75 Pipeline installation unit cost: 75 US$/feetUS$/feet75 ~ 200 US$/feet75 ~ 200 US$/feet

30

Kirie case study

Zone 1Zone 1

Zone 2Zone 2

Zone 3Zone 3

31

Kirie case studyZone 1

32

Kirie case studyZones 1 & 2

33

Kirie case studyZones 1, 2 & 3

34

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0.1 0.6

Flow rate (MGD)

Supply

cost

(2006U

S$/1

,000 g

allo

ns)

L = 5.6 miles

L = 8.2 miles

L = 13.4 miles

Cost depends on volume & distance(i = 6%, years, Pipeline US$75/feet)

Elk Grove Village waterElk Grove Village water

Chicago municipal waterChicago municipal water

35

Chicago reuse study Chicago reuse study summarysummary

Pipeline installation costs dominate Pipeline installation costs dominate Spatial relationships affect supply costSpatial relationships affect supply cost Reuse can be cost effectiveReuse can be cost effective Chicago is an unusual case studyChicago is an unusual case study

Municipal water is very cheapMunicipal water is very cheap Reuse offers no economic incentive to Reuse offers no economic incentive to

MWRDGCMWRDGC Chicago’s successful water conservation Chicago’s successful water conservation

effortsefforts

36

What about the western What about the western suburbs?suburbs?

Recent droughtRecent drought Municipal water costs are higherMunicipal water costs are higher Groundwater supplies uncertainGroundwater supplies uncertain Surface water up to 35% treated Surface water up to 35% treated

effluenteffluent

37

New issues in the suburbsNew issues in the suburbs

Industrial clusters are limitedIndustrial clusters are limited Distribution over longer Distribution over longer

distancesdistances Consider non-industrial usersConsider non-industrial users

Park district, golf course, forest Park district, golf course, forest preservepreserve

Limited seasonal demandLimited seasonal demand Potential increased exposurePotential increased exposure

38

Integrated water reuse Integrated water reuse planning planning

for the suburbsfor the suburbs Inventory available land Inventory available land considering:considering: IEPA land application regulationsIEPA land application regulations DistanceDistance Relationship to potential co-usersRelationship to potential co-users

Model fate and transportModel fate and transport Soil, groundwater, surface waterSoil, groundwater, surface water Process design and operationProcess design and operation

39

Are there other reuse Are there other reuse incentives?incentives?

Greatest cost: Distribution systemGreatest cost: Distribution system Is there another benefit? Is there another benefit?

Once you install a secondary Once you install a secondary distribution system, is there another distribution system, is there another use?use?

40

Geothermal heat pumpsGeothermal heat pumps

“…“…the most energy efficient, the most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems effective space conditioning systems available.” (USEPA, 1993)available.” (USEPA, 1993)

Benefits (USDOE, 1998):Benefits (USDOE, 1998): Less energy consumptionLess energy consumption Lower operating costsLower operating costs Reduced carbon emissions Reduced carbon emissions

41

Average monthly Average monthly temperatures (2002)temperatures (2002)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Ja

n-02

Feb-

02

Mar

-02

Apr-0

2

May

-02

Jun-

02

Jul-0

2

Aug-0

2

Sep-0

2

Oct

-02

Nov-0

2

Dec-0

2

Tem

pera

ture

(C

)

O'Hare Field

Stickney Treatment Plant Effluent

42

Effluent as a heat Effluent as a heat source/sinksource/sink

Growing interest in water-source heat Growing interest in water-source heat pumps pumps Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation

20 geothermal demonstration systems20 geothermal demonstration systems Space conditioning and hot water supplySpace conditioning and hot water supply Payback < 10 yearsPayback < 10 years

Benefits of working with effluentBenefits of working with effluent Higher temperature implies higher efficiencyHigher temperature implies higher efficiency Avoid drilling to install ground loopsAvoid drilling to install ground loops

43

Domestic geothermal Domestic geothermal heat pumpheat pump

USDOE (1998) USDOE (1998)

Ground loop represents

about 60% of initial costs

44

Dual-purpose Dual-purpose distribution systemdistribution system

Integrated infrastructureIntegrated infrastructure Non-potable water supplyNon-potable water supply Ground loop for heat pump systemGround loop for heat pump system

IssuesIssues EconomicsEconomics RegulationsRegulations TechnologyTechnology RiskRisk PolicyPolicy

45

Summary thoughts…Summary thoughts…

Water reuse can help meet demandWater reuse can help meet demand Hydrologic footprints measure Hydrologic footprints measure

efficiencyefficiency Incentives & barriers for reuseIncentives & barriers for reuse

Soft: Technology, policy, regulationsSoft: Technology, policy, regulations Hard: Public perceptions, economicsHard: Public perceptions, economics

Water reuse can be economicalWater reuse can be economical Integrated planning for multiple usesIntegrated planning for multiple uses Consider water & energyConsider water & energy