Planning for Water Reuse in Northeastern Illinois (and other places where most people think there is an abundant wat

1. Planning for Water Reuse in Northeastern Illinois (and other places where most people think there is an abundant water supply) Illinois Waste Management and Research Center March 12, 2008 Paul Anderson, CAEE Department, IIT

2. Acknowledgments • Partners • Illinois Institute of Technology • Illinois Waste Management and Research Center • Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning • Sponsors • US EPA Science to Achieve Results Program • Illinois Waste Management and Research Center • Who does all the work • Sachin Pradhan • Yi Meng • Shihui Luo • Feng Huang

3. Overview • Parts of NE Illinois are running out of water • Water reuse is part of the solution • Industries have hydrologic footprints • Issues that affect reuse planning • An integrated reuse system

4. NE Illinois: Growing demand for water Dziegielewski et al. (2005)

5. We don’t use water very efficiently Domestic water use (USEPA, 2006)

6. Unknown resources Falling water table Minimum flow requirements Limited by Supreme Court decree NE Illinois: Limited water sources Northeastern Illinois regional non-cooling water source allocation (NIPC, 2001)

7. The Illinois Diversion Lake Michigan 54% 2 WPPs N.B. Chicago River Users Reuse Combined Sewer System 30% 16% 7 WWTPs Lockport Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal-Sag Channel Mississippi River

8. Water reuse priorities • Industrial • Process/cooling • Commercial/Domestic • Car wash • Toilet flush • Firefighting • Irrigation • Groundwater recharge • Potable water Low High Quality Priority High Low

9. Industrial hydrologic footprints • Measure of industry interaction with water • Conventional direct water use • Evaporative loss associated with electricity use • Stormwater runoff from industry property • Supply chain direct water use • Supply chain evaporative loss with electricity

10. Estimating hydrologic footprints in Chicago • Consider 50 largest volume water dischargers • Supply chain data from eiolca.net • Data normalized to economic activity (gal/$)

11. High water & electricity use Mid-water & electricity use Low water & electricity use Water & electricity use for 31 industry sectors

12. Supply chain water & electricity use Supply chain dominated by less than 60 unique SIC codes

13. Who makes up the supply chain? • Blast furnaces and steel mills • Industrial inorganic and organic chemicals • Paper and paperboard mills • Petroleum refining • Pulp mills • Nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers • Primary aluminum • Plastics materials and resins

14. Hydrologic footprints for four SIC codes

15. Hydrologic footprint summary • Indirect use (stormwater, electricity) is small • Direct use (industry or supply chain) dominates • Supply chains are often important • Supply chains dominated by a few industries • 10% have relatively big footprints (gal/$) • What issues affect water reuse?

16. Water reuse: Barriers & Incentives Policy Economics Risk Regulations Technology Water Source WastewaterTreatment Users

17. Water reuse regulations • Federal • There are no water reuse regulations • Guidelines for Water Reuse (USEPA, 2004) • States (2004 data) • 25 states have regulations • 16 states have guidelines • 9 states without regulations or guidelines • Illinois regulations address land application

18. Water reuse risks • Ecosystem risks • Chemical contaminants of concern • Nutrients • Human health risks • Pathogenic organisms Bacteria, viruses, protozoa • Chemical contaminants of concern • Pharmaceuticals • Pesticides, herbicides • Disinfection by-products

19. “…there have not been any confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed water in the U.S.” USEPA (2004) • Are there unconfirmed cases? • What about non-infectious disease? • How long does it take to see effects? • What about incidental reuse? • What about ecosystem risks?

20. Is wastewater reuse economical? • Objective: • Minimize cost • Constraints: • Demand • Mass balance • Capacity • Water withdrawal • Water quality

21. Pipeline costs dominate

22. Costs have a spatial relationship Volume demand increases with distance III II I

23. Costs depend on flow & distance Volume demand

24. Costs depend on flow & distance

25. Costs depend on flow & distance

26. Costs depend on flow & distance 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 study • 28 Significant Industrial Users • Metal finishing: 16 • Electroplating: 4 • Others: 8 • Total water discharge: 1.09 MGD • Assume 50% treated effluent use • Supply effluent 12 months/year • 6 months/year additional chlorination

29. Kirie case study parameters • Interests rate: 6% 5%~10% • Utility service life: 40 years 25~40 years • Amortization period: 40 years 25~40 years • Pipeline installation unit cost: 75 US$/feet 75 ~ 200 US$/feet

30. Kirie case study Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

31. Kirie case study Zone 1

32. Kirie case study Zones 1 & 2

33. Kirie case study Zones 1, 2 & 3

34. Elk Grove Village water Chicago municipal water Cost depends on volume & distance (i = 6%, t = 40 years, Pipeline US$75/feet)

35. Chicago reuse study summary • Pipeline installation costs dominate • Spatial relationships affect supply cost • Reuse can be cost effective • Chicago is an unusual case study • Municipal water is very cheap • Reuse offers no economic incentive to MWRDGC • Chicago’s successful water conservation efforts

36. What about the western suburbs? • Recent drought • Municipal water costs are higher • Groundwater supplies uncertain • Surface water up to 35% treated effluent

37. New issues in the suburbs • Industrial clusters are limited • Distribution over longer distances • Consider non-industrial users • Park district, golf course, forest preserve • Limited seasonal demand • Potential increased exposure

38. Integrated water reuse planning for the suburbs • Inventory available land considering: • IEPA land application regulations • Distance • Relationship to potential co-users • Model fate and transport • Soil, groundwater, surface water • Process design and operation

39. Are there other reuse incentives? • Greatest cost: Distribution system • Is there another benefit? • Once you install a secondary distribution system, is there another use?

40. Geothermal heat pumps • “…the most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available.” (USEPA, 1993) • Benefits (USDOE, 1998): • Less energy consumption • Lower operating costs • Reduced carbon emissions

41. Average monthly temperatures (2002)

42. Effluent as a heat source/sink • Growing interest in water-source heat pumps • Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation •  20 geothermal demonstration systems • Space conditioning and hot water supply • Payback < 10 years • Benefits of working with effluent • Higher temperature implies higher efficiency • Avoid drilling to install ground loops

43. Ground loop represents about 60% of initial costs Domestic geothermal heat pump USDOE (1998)

44. Dual-purpose distribution system • Integrated infrastructure • Non-potable water supply • Ground loop for heat pump system • Issues • Economics • Regulations • Technology • Risk • Policy

45. Summary thoughts… • Water reuse can help meet demand • Hydrologic footprints measure efficiency • Incentives & barriers for reuse • Soft: Technology, policy, regulations • Hard: Public perceptions, economics • Water reuse can be economical • Integrated planning for multiple uses • Consider water & energy