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
1
Acknowledgments

Partners




Sponsors



Illinois Institute of Technology
Illinois Waste Management and Research Center
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
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
2
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
3
NE Illinois: Growing demand for water
Projected water use (mgd)
2,000
1,800
1,600
Baseline
Scenario
1,400
1,200
2000
NIPC
Conservation
Scenario
2005
Dziegielewski et al. (2005)
2010
2015
Year
2020
2025
2030
4
We don’t use water very efficiently
Toilet
(28%)
Kitchen
(3%)
Shower &
bath
(22%)
Domestic water use (USEPA, 2006)
Laundry &
cleaning
(14%)
Outdoor
(33%)
5
NE Illinois: Limited water sources
Minimum flow
requirements
Aquifers
11%
Unknown resources
Falling water table
Inland
Surface
Water
3%
Limited by
Supreme Court decree
Lake
Michigan
86%
Northeastern Illinois regional non-cooling water source allocation (NIPC, 2001)
6
The Illinois Diversion
Lake Michigan
54%
2 WPPs
N.B. Chicago River
Users
16%
30%
Combined
Sewer System
7 WWTPs
Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, Cal-Sag Channel
Lockport
Mississippi River
7
Water reuse priorities

Industrial






Low
High
Quality
Priority
High
Low
Commercial/Domestic


Process/cooling
Car wash
Toilet flush
Firefighting
Irrigation
Groundwater recharge
Potable water
8
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

9
Estimating hydrologic
footprints in Chicago



Consider 50 largest volume water dischargers
Supply chain data from eiolca.net
Data normalized to economic activity (gal/$)
10
Direct electricty use (MkWh)
High water & electricity use
1000
800
1
Mid-water &
electricity use
0.8
600
0.6
400
0.4
200
0
0.01
Low water &
electricity use
0.1
1
10
Direct water use (109 gallons)
0.2
Water evaporated with electricity
use (109 gallons)
1200
Water & electricity use for 31
industry sectors
1.2
0
100
11
Supply chain water & electricity use
3000
Electricity (MkWh)
2500
2.5
Supply chain dominated by
less than 60 unique SIC codes
2000
2
1500
1.5
1000
1
500
0.5
0
Water evaporated with electricity
9
(10 gallons)
3
0
0
5
10
15
Direct water use (109 gallons)
20
12
Who makes up the supply chain?








Blast furnaces and steel mills
Industrial inorganic and organic chemicals
Paper and paperboard mills
Petroleum refining
Pulp mills
Nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilizers
Primary aluminum
Plastics materials and resins
13
Hydrologic footprints for
four SIC codes
Chocolate & Cocoa Products
SIC code
2066
Dog & Cat Food
2047
Meat Packing
2011
Wet Corn Milling
2046
0
20
Industry direct
Supply chain direct
40
Industry electricity
On-site stormwater
60
80
100
Supply chain electricity
14
Hydrologic footprint summary

Indirect use (stormwater, electricity) is small
Direct use (industry or supply chain) dominates
Supply chains are often important
Supply chains dominated by a few industries
10% have relatively big footprints (gal/$)

What issues affect water reuse?




15
Water reuse: Barriers & Incentives
Policy
Economics
Risk
Regulations
Technology
Water
Source
Wastewater
Treatment
Users
16
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
17
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

18
“…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?
19
Is wastewater reuse economical?

Objective:


Minimize cost
Constraints:
Demand
 Mass balance
 Capacity
 Water withdrawal
 Water quality

20
Pipeline costs dominate
Pumping CC
1%
Pumping
O&M
5%
Disinfection
O&M
3%
Revenue loss
<1%
Pipeline CC
91%
21
Costs have a spatial relationship
Volume demand increases with distance
III
II
I
22
Costs depend on flow & distance
Supply cost
10
5
0
0.1
0.5
Q
Volume demand
0.9
23
Costs depend on flow & distance
Supply cost
10
5
0
0.1
0.5
0.9
Q
24
Costs depend on flow & distance
Supply cost
10
5
0
0.1
0.5
0.9
Q
25
Costs depend on flow & distance
10
Supply cost
Increasing the distance
increases the cost
5
Increasing the flow
decreases the cost
0
0.1
The minimum cost
0.5
0.9
Q
26
A case study
for industry near
the Kirie WRP
27
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
28
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
29
Kirie case study
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
30
Kirie case study
Zone 1
31
Kirie case study
Zones 1 & 2
32
Kirie case study
Zones 1, 2 & 3
33
Cost depends on volume & distance
(i = 6%, t = 40 years, Pipeline US$75/feet)
Supply cost (2006US$/1,000 gallons)
12
10
L = 5.6 miles
8
L = 8.2 miles
L = 13.4 miles
Elk Grove Village water
6
4
Chicago municipal water
2
0
0.1
0.6
Flow rate (MGD)
34
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

35
What about the western suburbs?




Recent drought
Municipal water costs are higher
Groundwater supplies uncertain
Surface water up to 35% treated effluent
36
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

37
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

38
Are there other reuse incentives?


Greatest cost: Distribution system
Is there another benefit?

Once you install a secondary distribution system, is
there another use?
39
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

40
Average monthly temperatures (2002)
30
25
15
10
5
O'Hare Field
Stickney Treatment Plant Effluent
0
De
c0
2
2
v0
No
ct
-0
2
O
Se
p02
Au
g02
2
l-0
Ju
Ju
n-
02
2
M
ay
-0
Ap
r-0
2
2
M
ar
-0
2
-0
Fe
b
n-
02
-5
Ja
Temperature (C)
20
41
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

42
Domestic geothermal heat pump
Ground loop represents
about 60% of initial costs
USDOE (1998)
43
Dual-purpose distribution system

Integrated infrastructure
Non-potable water supply
 Ground loop for heat pump system


Issues
Economics
 Regulations
 Technology
 Risk
 Policy

44
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

45