Marzo 2014 - The MBA For Sustanaible Reclamation

Volume 5 / Issue 1
Spring 2014
TM
Decentralized Reuse
Constructed wetlands meet
challenge in San Francisco
Desalination Permitting
Assessing effects on water
quality and public health
WateReuse Research
Engineered DPR delivers
reliable quality
Potable Reuse
Multi-barrier approach for
sustainable reclamation
Direct Potable Reuse
Historic progress, complex challenges
F
o
r

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
e
e

t
h
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

L
i
s
t

o
n

p
a
g
e

3
4
After careful analysis we
ve concluded:
Free fibers release dirt better.
Sludging can rob your filtration system of surface area, flow and efficiency.
Introducing the MegaPure
Hollow Fiber Cartridge the new standard in high solids

water and wastewater treatment.
2014 Koch Membrane Systems, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. MegaPure
is a trademark of Koch Membrane Systems, Inc., a Koch Chemical Technology Group, LLC company.
Avoid Pretreatment
Less Downtime
Less Chemicals
Simple Operation
Save Money
To learn more, contact a Koch
Membrane Systems specialist
at 1 (888) 677-KOCH or visit
www.kochmembrane.com
HOW IT WORKS:
Traditional Designs
Potting at Both Ends
Tightly packed dual-header
designs restrict fiber
movement creating dead
zones where solids can
accumulate. This fiber
sludging reduces membrane
surface area, system output
and energy efficiency.
MegaPure Design
Single Potting
The innovative single-potting
design allows the membrane
fibers to move freely within the
cartridge. This open configuration
permits aeration to penetrate the
fiber bundle and release filtered
solids during air scouring.
VS
F
o
r

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
e
e

t
h
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

L
i
s
t

o
n

p
a
g
e

3
4
Aqua UltraFiltration
Membrane System
Seven Bore Design. No Fiber Breaks. No Air Scouring.
A reliable combination under the most extreme conditions.
www.aquauf.com | +1-815-654-2501
SOME THINGS SHOULD
NEVER BREAK.
WHY SHOULD YOUR MEMBRANES BE ANY DIFFERENT?
For further information please see the Advertiser Contact List on page 34
Published by
WEF Publishing UK Ltd
46 Lexington, 40 City Road
London EC1Y 2AN, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 207 251 8778 / Fax: +44 207 336 0377
www.wefworldwater.com
WEF Head Office
601 Wythe Street, Alexandria
VA 22314-1994, USA
www.wef.org
In association with
WateReuse Association
WateReuse Research Foundation
1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 410
Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
www.watereuse.org
www.watereuse.org/foundation
Executive Director Wade Miller
WateReuse Association
Group Publisher Jack Benson
jbenson@wefpublishinguk.com
Editor-in-Chief Pamela Wolfe
pwolfe@wefpublishinguk.com
Technical Editor R. Rhodes Trussell, Ph.D
Publisher Nic Christy
nchristy@wefpublishinguk.com
Editorial Assistant Ellee Prince
Subscription Enquiries
Portland Services
Tel: +44 1206 796351
sales@portland-services.com
Global Advertising Representatives
Asia and Europe excluding Italy
Stephen (Sid) James
International Sales Manager
Tel: +44 207 993 4605 / Cell: +44 7956 640454
sjames@wef.org
Italy
Fabio Potesta
Mediapoint & Communications SRL
Corte Lambruschini, Corso Buenos Aires, 8
5 piano - interno 7/6, 16129 Genova, Italy
Tel: +39 010 5704948 / Fax: +39 010 5530088
info@mediapointsrl.it
Israel
Zvi Segal Direct Media Marketing Services
24 Hayovel Street, Raanana 43401
(PO Box 306, Raanana 43103) Israel
Tel: +972 9 748 1806 / Fax: +972 9 741 3284
segdir@inter.net.il
North Eastern U.S. and Canada
Dave Mathews and Vickie Bobo
2352 Pendley Road, Cumming, GA 30041, USA
Toll Free: +1 866 756 7811
Tel: +1 678 947 9950 / Fax: +1 678 947 9244
dmathews@wef.org
vbobo@wef.org
Western U.S. and Canada
Tom Brun and Janice Jenkins
Arnold Palmer Regional Airport
148 Aviation Lane, Suite 307, Latrobe, PA 15650
Tel: +1 724 539 2404 / Fax: +1 724 539 2406
tbrun@wef.org
Janice Jenkins direct +1724 929 3550
jjenkins@wef.org
South East US and Latin America
Cari McBride
601 Wythe St., Alexandria, VA 22314, USA
Office phone: +1 703 535 5266
Mobile: +1 703 626 7449 / Fax: +1 703 229 6499
cmcbride@wef.org
Other information
Subscription rates
1 Year: UK and Rest of the World 86
WEF Publishing UK Limited 2014
No part of this publication may be reproduced by
any means without prior written permission from
the publishers. Every effort is made to ensure the
accuracy of material published in World Water: Water
Reuse & Desalination. However, WEF Publishing UK
Ltd will not be liable for any inaccuracies. The views
expressed by contributors are not necessarily those
of the Editor or publishers.
The title WORLD WATER: WATER REUSE &
DESALINATION is registered at Stationers Hall.
The magazine is printed on environmentally friendly
paper. Both text paper and cover stock are elementary
chlorine free and sourced from paper suppliers with
a well planned environmental policy.
The magazine includes editorial photographs
provided and paid for by suppliers.
World Water Water Reuse and Desalination is
published quarterly by WEF Publishing and
distributed in the USA by Mail Right International,
1637 Stelton Road B4, Piscataway, NJ 08854.
Periodicals Postage Paid at Piscataway.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Water
Reuse, WEF Publishing C/o 1637 Stelton Road, B-4,
Piscataway NJ 08854
ISSN 2044-8058
Design and Repro www.j-graphicdesign.co.uk
Printed by Buxton Press Ltd, Buxton, Derbyshire UK
Features
10 Potable Reuse
Direct potable reuse: Then and now; Multi-barrier
approach results in sustainable reclamation; West
Texas utility favors potable reuse for secure
water supply
23 Decentralized Water Reuse
Constructed wetlands system meets urban
challenge
26 Challenges in Desalination Permitting:
Four-Part Series
Part Two: Desalinated water quality and
public health
29 Desalination
Microchannel desalination treats high-salinity flow
30 WateReuse Research Foundation
Report
Engineered DPR delivers reliable water quality
18
23 10
Cover image Sewage treatment plant. Photo by gyn9038, Thinkstock.
Regulars
6 International News Desk
8 WaterReuse Update
32 Technology News
33 Events
Editorial Advisory
Board
Dr. Rhodes Trussell
President
Trussell Technologies, Inc.
Dr. Joseph Jacangelo
Vice President and National Technical
Director MWH
Dr. Mark W. LeChevallier
Director, Innovation &
Environmental Stewardship
American Water
Dr. Phil Rolchigo
Vice President, Water Technology
Pentair, Inc.
Dr. Shane Snyder
Professor
University of Arizona
Dr. Robert Raucher
Executive Vice President
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Rafael Mujeriego, Ph.D.
Professor of Environmental
Engineering (Retired), Universidad
Politcnica de Catalua
Chair, Spanish Association for
Sustainable Water Reuse
Contents
Spring 2014
World Water: Water Reuse & Desalination / Spring 2014 5
USGS to track water use in
thermoelectric plants
For the first time since 1995, the
US Geological Survey (USGS)
will reinstate reporting the
amount of water consumed in
the production of thermoelectric
power. Tracking thermoelectric
power plants consumptive
water use could allow water
resource managers to evaluate
the influence on the overall
watershed water budget. Using
heat and water budgets to
estimate individual thermo-
electric plants water consumption
double-checks other estimation
approaches, and may also be the
most accurate method available.
Thermoelectric water with-
drawal refers to the water removed
from groundwater or surface
water for use in a thermoelectric
power plant, mainly for cooling
purposes. Much of the water
that is currently withdrawn for
cooling is reintroduced into the
environment and immediately
available for reuse.
The consumptive use occurs
when some of the water is evapor-
ated during the cooling process
or incorporated into byproducts
as a result of the production of
electricity from heat. Once the
water is consumed, it can no
longer be reintroduced into the
environment. About half of the
water withdrawals in the United
States are for thermoelectric
cooling water, however, most
of the water is returned to the
environment after use.
Thermoelectric withdrawal
occurs in both freshwater and
saline water sources, says Eric J.
Evenson with the USGS National
Water Census. It is the most
significant use of saline water
in the country.
This presents a method for
collecting location and cooling-
equipment data. An upcoming
study will be released providing
the consumption numbers derived
from heat/water budget models.
The studys evaporation estimating
methods will play a key role in the
National Water Census a USGS
research program on national
water availability and use, which
develops new water accounting
tools and assesses water availa-
bility at the regional and national
scales. More importantly, says
Tennessee Water Science Center
Hydrologist Timothy Diehl, the
report will present an updated
method for estimating evaporation
from surface water downstream
from once-through cooling systems,
and make the tool available in a
spreadsheet.
The US Geological Survey
classifies water withdrawals for
thermoelectric cooling by the two
types of cooling systems used at
the plants: recirculating systems
and once-through systems.
Veolia to build desal
plants in Iraq, Kuwait
In January 2014 Veolia
Environnement won two major
contracts in Az Zour, Kuwait
and Basra, Iraq to construct
desalination plants, together
worth an estimated US$553
million for the French company.
Veolia, through its subsidiary
Sidem, will build a $438-million
seawater desalination plant with
a daily production capacity of
486,400 cubic meters of water
at the Az Zour North complex,
located 100 kilometers of the
Kuwaiti capital. The plant will
use multi-effect distillation
technology and provide 20
percent of the nations installed
desalination capacity.
Won in partnership with
Hyundai Heavy Industries,
the engineering, purchasing,
and construction contract
also includes construction of a
1,500-MW power station and
an agreement by the Kuwaiti
government to buy all electricity
generated and water produced
for 40 years. The project is
scheduled for completion in
late 2016.
In Iraq the Ministry for
Municipalities and Public Works
awarded Veolia a $115-million
contract to construct a 200,000
cubic-meters-per-day desalin-
ation plant in Basra. Under this
new contract won in partner-
ship with Japanese conglomerate
Hitachi and Egyptian engineer-
ing firm ArabCo Veolia plans
to build and operate the plant
with an ultrafiltration unit and
reverse osmosis membranes
to reduce the salt content in
the drinking water for the city
population of 2.3-million people.
Additionally, in a country with a
chronic shortage of elec-tricity,
this desalination plant will be
completely autonomous with
its own electricity generators to
guarantee continuous service.
Plant construction is set for
2014 and should be completed
within 30 months. The contract
will create 300 construction
jobs and 50 jobs for the facilitys
operation for five years.
Sustainability drives
innovation, says IDA
President
Dr. Abdullah Al-Alshaikh,
president of the International
Desalination Association
(IDA) and deputy governor for
Planning and Development
of Saline Water Conversion
Corporation, called the trans-
ition to sustainability one of the
Biwater SWRO project in
Tortola funded by Barclays
The UK environmental engineer-
ing consultancy Biwater received
project financing of US$43
million from Barclays to fund the
construction of a seawater reverse
osmosis (SWRO) desalination
plant, water storage, and waste-
water facilities on Tortola, the
largest and most populated island
of the British Virgin Islands.
Biwater says the works will ensure
an adequate and reliable supply
of drinking water throughout the
year. The SWRO system will be a
two-pass system running at
45 percent recovery.
It will incorporate four first-
pass trains and two second-pass
trains, and is designed to run at
100 percent capacity with only
three first-pass trains and one
second-pass train running while
a train in each pass is undergoing
cleaning or maintenance.
However, normal procedure
is to operate at 100 percent
capacity using all trains which
is the optimal and most efficient
mode. Biwater is using energy
recovery, including the pressure
exchanges, high-pressure
pumps, and booster pumps
for the trains. Pre-treat-ment
consists of a two-stage media
filtration followed by five-micron
cartridge filtration to protect
the system from foulants.
Biwater AEWT is the plant
supplier with equipment sourced
from the US state of California.
Fluidra media pressure filters
and Toray membranes will be
used in the plant.
International News Desk
6 World Water: Water Reuse & Desalination / Spring 2014
most important paradigm shifts
of the modern era, in his keynote
address at the International Water
Summit in Abu Dhabi on January
22, 2014.
Today, we stand on the
precipice of great and monu-
mental change in industrial
history, and sustainability is
driving that change, he said.
Sustainability is the determiner
of our future. It is pointing us in
a direction. Sustainability is the
driver of innovation, innovation
that will reshape our business
model, redefine our practices, and
transform our industry.
In 2014 for the second year
the IDA supported the International
Water Summit as a knowledge
partner for the event. Focused on
desalination and water reuse, the
IDA organized several sessions
at the event, promoting global
collaboration on water sustain-
ability. The IDA is a non-profit
association that serves more than
2,400 members in 60 countries.
Oasys Water partner for
produced-water market
Oasys Water signed an agreement
with National Oilwell Varco, LP,
making the oil and gas equipment
and services company the
exclusive licensee of the Oasys
Membrane Brine Concentrator
technology in global upstream
oil and gas for produced water
treatment. Oasys Water is based
in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Together, the two companies
will combine National Oilwell
Varcos operational and service
capabilities with Oasys tech-
nology to deliver water-reuse
solutions into the growing global
produced-water market. The initial
4000 system a movable unit
that can treat and desalinate up
to 630 cubic meters per day of
produced water per day to provide
fresh water for reuse will be
implemented in early summer
2014.
In addition, Oasys plans to
expand into additional industrial
markets including power and
refining. In October 2013, Oasys
announced a relationship with
Chinese EPC Beijing Woteer Water
Technology Co., Ltd, to provide
technology as an alternative to
conventional evaporative tech-
nologies in the rapidly growing
Chinese industrial water-treat-
ment market.
Sembcorp expands
Fujairah capacity
Sembcorp Industries of Singapore
signed a 20-year water purchase
agreement with the Abu Dhabi
Water and Electricity Company.
This agreement was made
through Emirates Sembcorp
Water and Power Company a
joint venture between Sembcorp
Gulf Holding Company and
Union Power Holding Company
(a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Water
and Electricity Authority).
Emirates Sembcorp Water
and Power owns and operates
the United Arab Emirates
Fujairah 1 Independent Water
and Power Plant (IWPP) one
of the worlds largest operating
hybrid desalination plants.
Its estimated US$200-million
expansion, with Sembcorps
equity investment of $80 million,
is scheduled for completion in
2015. The expansion will increase
the Fujairah 1 IWPPs seawater
desalination capacity by 136
million liters per day (mld) using
reverse osmosis (RO).
Under the water purchase
agreement, the expanded
136-mld water output will be
sold to Abu Dhabi Water and
Electric. This is in addition to
the existing 22-year power and
water purchase agreement for
the current water and electricity
output from the Fujairah 1 IWPP
to Abu Dhabi Water and Electric.
An additional contract to
design, build, and provide seven
years operation and maintenance
services was awarded to Acciona
Agua and Acciona Infraestruc-
turas of Spain.
ESC Executive Managing
Director William Chang
explained: One of the most
innovative aspects of this
expansion project is its ability to
recover seawater discharge from
the existing multi-stage flash
facility for reuse as part of the
seawater feed. The expansion
will also include the installation
of a new dissolved air flotation
system, which improves the
quality of the seawater feed.
WateReuse Update
Nearly 200 people attended the
2013 Industrial Water Reuse
Conference on December 9-10
in Long Beach, California, USA.
The conference featured an
impressive lineup of speakers
and two days of concurrent
sessions highlighting project
successes and opportunities
for increased industrial water
reuse. The conference focused
on emerging technology and
the evolving economic, social,
and environmental importance
of water reuse as a sustainable
practice in industrial applications
and production.
The conference opened with
a panel discussion on The Role
of Water Reuse in Corporate
Sustainability. Dan Bena,
PepsiCos senior director of
sustainability, explained how
his companys commitment to
methods and tools that are
scientifically proven, socially
responsible and economically
sound resulted in a steward-
ship initiative that in 2012 was
named winner of the Stockholm
Industry Water Award.
TOTO USA President William
Strang joined Bena in the opening
session. According to Strang, TOTO
raised the bar and their bottom-
line by making sustainability a
priority. Strang also described
the companys environmental
Totology philosophy of making
water efficient products in a
resource-efficient manner, which
won the US Environmental
Protection Agencys (EPA) Water
Efficiency Leader Award.
The luncheon speaker on the
first day of the conference was
Congressman Alan Lowenthal,
who represents Californias
47th District and is a member
of the House Natural Resources
Committee and the House
Manufacturing Caucus.
Congressman Lowenthal provided
an update on recent congressional
developments and discussed
what the federal government is
doing to encourage sustainable
water use. He also emphasized
the importance of water to the
US economy.
The second day of the conference
began with an opportunity to
tour the Carson Regional Water
Recycling Treatment Facility,
owned by the West Basin Munici-
pal Water District, where recycled
water is treated strictly for industrial
use. Water treated at the Carson
Facility is delivered to a nearby
refinery owned and operated by the
Tesoro Corporation (formerly BP).
The refinery has the capacity
to produce more than 250,000
barrels per day.
The day two plenary session
featured two pioneering research-
ers from opposite sides of the globe
sharing their perspectives on
how 21st-century managers will
use organic models, such as bio-
mimicry and urban metabolism,
to meet the challenge of climate
change in an age of limits. The
session was titled, A New
Paradigm for Industrial Water
Management and featured Dr.
Jay Garland of the US EPA and Dr.
Steven Kenway of the University
of Queensland in Australia.
The conference ended with
a session titled, Lowering the
Impact of New Energy Sources:
Hydraulic Fracturing. Moderated
by Jon Freedman of GE Water,
panelists presented various aspects
of hydraulic fracturing including
the current state of technology for
water treatment and water reuse,
the state and federal regulatory
environments in which these
projects take place, and what
it means to lower the impact of
unconventional oil and natural
gas extraction.
Industrial Reuse
Conference highlights
corporate sustainability
Dan Bena of
Pepsico and
William Strang of
TOTO USA discuss
the role of water
reuse in corporate
sustainability
during the opening
session of the 2013
Industrial Water
Reuse Conference.
WateReuse Update
The WateReuse Association, the
Association of California Water
Agencies, the National Association
of Clean Water Agencies, the
California Association of Sanit-
ation Agencies, and the Western
Recycled Water Coalition
conducted a national survey of
recycled-water projects in October
2013. The goal of the survey was
to collect data on the financial
investment in new recycled-water
projects across the United States.
Ninety-two water/wastewater
agencies in 14 states responded
that they are developing new
recycled-water projects. These
projects will provide about
900,000 acre-feet per year of
water, which is about 3.04-million
cubic meters per day (803-million
gallons per day). About 62 percent
of that volume is being developed
in California, while Texas and
Florida account for about 30
percent.
The survey also asked project
sponsors about estimated project
costs and funding mechanisms.
Some states have programs
established to help develop
recycled-water projects; the federal
government has very limited
partnership opportunities at
present. The highlights on project
funding include the following:
Total estimated cost for all US
recycled-water projects currently
in development is US$6.4 billion
Project sponsors have spent $633
million to date
$2.8 billion in financial support
is needed to complete the projects
Project sponsors have received
$448 million in funding or
funding commitments from
federal and state agencies.
The information from this survey
will help everyone understand how
many recycled-water projects are
in development and the current
level of investment, said Wate-
Reuse Executive Director Wade
Miller. Information from this
survey will help us strategize on
how to secure state and federal
partnerships, and can be used to
make the case, both at the state
level and to Congress and the
administration, that recycled
water is important and significant
additional resources should be
dedicated to its development.
The funding sources reported
in the survey include $380 million
in State Revolving Fund loans,
$34 million from the federal
Title XVI Water Reclamation and
Reuse Program, $28 million from
other state grants, $3.7 million
from other federal WaterSmart
grants, and $2.7 million from
miscellaneous federal programs.
The survey also found that water
agencies would like to finance
about 50 percent of total project
costs through federal and state
subsidies. Thirty agencies (or
about 33 percent of respondents)
indicated that their projects are
unlikely or definitely not
moving forward without financial
assistance.
Survey: Agencies
to invest billions in
recycled water
Ninety-two respondents in 14 states reported new recycled-water projects
in development.
WateReuse California
to host conference in
Newport Beach
Registration is open for the 2014
WateReuse California Annual
Conference, which will be held
March 16-18 at the Newport
Beach Marriott in Newport
Beach, California. The WateReuse
California Annual Conference is
the premier statewide conference
devoted to sustaining supplies
through water recycling and
desalination.
The highlights of this years
conference include:
Two Pre-Conference Workshops:
Membrane Treatment for
Reuse and Ozonation, AOP,
Disinfection
An opening session featuring
Benjamin Edwards who leads
the corporate outreach and
sustainability campaign for
Hurley
A Town Hall Plenary Session
featuring a panel of Californias
water-recycling leaders discuss-
ing policy and legislative
challenges and successes.
These events will be held in
addition to 45 technical presen-
tations, a regulatory round-table,
and a panel discussion on water
in the media.
18th Annual Water Reuse
and Desalination Research
Conference
Registration opened on February
20 for the 18th Annual Water
Reuse and Desalination Research
Conference to be held May 19-20,
2014, at the Westin Las Vegas
in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Wate-
Reuse Research Foundations
Annual Conference brings
together leading researchers
to present key findings and
practical solutions. This
conference provides a forum for
water reuse and desalination
water professionals to network
with researchers and discuss
current and future research
needs, trends, and solutions
to water scarcity issues. For
more information, visit www.
watereuse.org/foundation.
New research reports
released
The WateReuse Research
Foundation recently released
four new reports:
Feasibility Study on Model
Development to Estimate and
Minimize Greenhouse Gas
Concentrations and Carbon
Footprint of Water Reuse
and Desalination Facilities.
This study provides a list of
currently available tools or
models to assess the carbon
footprint for water reuse and
desalination facilities, along
with recommendations.
Impingement Mortality and
Entrainment (IM&E) Reduction
Guidance Document for Existing
Seawater Intakes. This report
provides guidance on the intake
technologies and modifications
that have potential for mitiga-
ting IM&E of marine organisms
at existing seawater intake
structures.
Pilot-Scale Oxidative Tech-
nologies for Reducing Fouling
Potential in Water Reuse and
Drinking Water Membranes.
This multiyear study evaluated
using oxidative technologies
as a pretreatment for reverse
osmosis membrane feed water
to address issues associated
with organic fouling.
Predictive Models to Aid in
Design of Membrane Systems
for Organic Micropollutant
Removal. This project developed
models that can be used to
predict the rejection of a wide
variety of organic compounds
by nanofiltration and reverse
osmosis membranes.
New experts join research
advisory committee
Foundations Research Advisory
Committee recently welcomed
two new experts. The Board of
Directors appoints the committee
to develop the solicited research
agenda for the foundation.
Phillip Rolchigo, vice president
of water technology at Pentair,
Inc. and Andrew Salveson, vice
president of Carollo Engineers
were appointed to the committee
effective January 1.
New membership director
joins WateReuse
Erin DiMenna joined the staff
as director of membership for
the WateReuse Association
and WateReuse Research
Foundation in November 2013.
Prior to joining WateReuse,
DiMenna served as the director
of membership and component
relations for the Association for
Women in Science where she
dramatically increased retention
and broke past a decade-long
slump in membership. In 2012,
DiMenna earned a certificate
in Association Management
from the American Society of
Association Executives. Erin
encourages members to connect
with her online www.linkedin.
com/in/edimenna/.
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Washington
To learn more, scan
QR code on your
smartphone or visit
www.carollo.com
1.800.523.5826 | carollo.com
Renewable water supply development. Groundwater replenishment. Surface
water augmentation. At Carollo, we view all water as constantly in cycle, and
wastewater as a valuable resourcetreatable and reusable for many purposes.
For nearly 80 years, weve been helping municipalities manage and extend
their water supplies, ensuring that what goes around, always comes around.
In an era of increasing water scarcity, climate variability and diverse demands,
Carollo is Working Wonders With Water
...with you.
AND WHAT GOES AROUND,
COMES AROUND.
I T ALL
STARTS HERE.
Potable Water Reuse
P
otable wastewater reuse at a public
level has existed since the dawn of
civilization when human settlements
were established and human waste and surface
runoff were discharged into rivers. Indirect
potable water reuse (IPR) has been either
inadvertent or deliberate where untreated
and then treated waste discharges occurred
upstream and the more or less diluted
wastewater is transported downstream and
received in drinking water intakes, where it is
usually treated to acceptable drinking water
standards.
DPR dispenses with the intermediate
environmental phase and the waste stream is
treated to drinking water quality and piped to
consumers. Direct potable reuse was initiated
on a large scale in 1968 in Windhoek, Namibia.
After a long hiatus where the technology, safety,
and feasibility were being evaluated, numerous
projects are now in progress. The technology
has developed to the point where today
regardless of source quality, it can provide
water that is as pure as the best natural water,
and certainly higher quality than conventional
public drinking water produced from most
surface waters.
Advances in direct potable reuse technology (DPR) ensure that it
can provide the highest quality of drinking water regardless of
source quality. Joseph A. Cotruvo provides a historical perspective
of potable water reuse from the late 1960s to the present and offers
his expert views on DPR issues that need to be resolved.
Direct potable reuse
Then and now
Potable Water Reuse
Several levels of technology and practice
illustrate the progression of reuse from
wastewater to final product drinking water.
Unplanned or deliberate IPR: Untreated or
treated upstream surface water discharge
downstream to a municipal drinking water
plant.
Planned IPR: Groundwater recharge through
soil aquifer treatment(SAT) or injection of
highly treated water.
Planned IPR: Advance-treated wastewater
with surface discharge to a water body or
groundwater recharge.
IPR/DPR: Advance-treated wastewater
discharged to the entry of a drinking water
treatment plant, or post treatment blending,
or storage in a surface or groundwater prior to
distribution.
Pipe-to-pipe DPR: Treated wastewater to
drinking water distribution without an
environmental buffer.
In the USA an historic milestone occurred
in 1980 when the US Environment Protection
Agencys (EPA) Office of Drinking Water (ODW)
organized a conference entitled Protocol
development: Criteria and standards for
potable reuse and possible alternatives. About
100 experienced scientists and engineers
participated in the six subgroups that addressed
the questions. The conference examined the
state-of-the-science in potable water reuse and
assessed water quality, best available treatment
technology, reliability, analytical chemistry,
microbiology, toxicology, and human health
issues. The attendees were asked to recommend
basic principles that would assist decision-
making, and specific studies that would
address the remaining questions. Since then,
the DPR environment and knowledge base has
improved significantly.
Pre-1980s source water
The general quality of many surface water
sources in the United States before the
1980s was poor. Historically, discharges to
surface waters were largely uncontrolled so
microbial and chemical contaminants reached
undesirable levels in many major and lesser
rivers.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 and
amendments of 1977 were a few years old and
were in the process of being implemented.
Universal secondary treatment requirements
for municipal wastewater discharges to surface
waters were being implemented, but not yet
fully. A list of priority industrial pollutants
had been identified in 1977 as the result of
a negotiated settlement of a lawsuit brought
by an environmental group against EPA.
Pretreatment regulations were beginning to
be implemented, so discharges to municipal
sewers from industrial facilities were often
significant. Effluent limitation guidelines were
being produced for industrial source categories
and were beginning to be implemented. They
are technology-based US standards for waste-
water discharges to surface waters and
municipal treatment plants. Since the mid-
1970s, effluent limitation guidelines have been
published for at least 58 industrial categories.
These treatment requirements prohibit
discharges of billions of pounds of pollutants
annually into US surface waters.
In the municipal drinking water sector, the
Safe Drinking Water Act of December 1974 was
being implemented. The first interim primary
regulations of 1975 were derived from existing
public health service standards, so they
reflected early but not current information.
The first modern drinking water regulations
were for trihalomethanes (THMs) that had
been identified along with other disinfection
byproducts of chlorination. Later, regulations
were developed for volatile industrial chemicals
(VOCs) and other contaminants. The chemistry
of chlorine demand had not been investigated
or understood. THMs that were regulated in
1978 created a shock in the drinking water
community because they linked beneficial
disinfection processes with concurrent
production of potentially harmful chemicals
in drinking water. Regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for control of underground
injection practices were also new. Regulations
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (1972 et seq) that controlled
registration of pesticides were newly forming
so many undesirable persistent pesticides
were still being widely applied, and some were
migrating to surface waters.
State of water science and technology
In 1980, the applications of gas chromatograpy
and mass spectrometry to drinking water were
still novel and few water laboratories had those
instruments. Gas chromatography was being
applied for analyses of THMs and volatile
synthetic organic chemicals (VOCs) such as
trichloroethylene, but there were minimal data
on higher molecular-weight, synthetic, organic
chemicals in water. In water microbiology, the
historically common measurements were on
total coliforms and E. coli or fecal coliforms
and heterotrophic plate counts (HPC), but very
little information was available on viruses and
giardia, and cryptosporidium in drinking water
sources was just beginning to be studied.
The conventional drinking water treatment
technologies were coagulation, sedimentation,
sand filtration, and chlorination and they
were routinely applied to impaired surface
waters. A few plants used powdered activated
carbon (PAC), or sand replacement granular
activated carbon (GAC) for taste and odor. In
Europe, some plants were using ozone, chlorine
dioxide, and granular activated carbon, but
very few United States plants used these
methods. Membranes were in their early days
of consideration, but mostly for desalination.
Groundwater recharge and soil aquifer
treatment were being used in some locations.
The Water Factory 21 in Orange County,
California was developing advanced treatment
systems for groundwater recharge primarily
as a seawater intrusion barrier.
1980 Potable Reuse Conference
recommendations
Operating in the 1980 technical information
context, the EPA Office of Drinking Waters
conference developed a series of recommen-
dations aimed at providing a substantial basis
for considering the safety and practicality of
potable reuse as a means for producing high-
quality drinking water where needed. Major
recommendations included:
Standards should be developed to define the
acceptable quality of potable water regardless
of source.
There was need to develop detailed
characterizations of source waters and
finished waters.
The toxicology of water with trace
concentrations of chemical mixtures should
be evaluated. Concentrate animal feeding
studies were suggested.
More stringent microbiological requirements
were desirable.
Use of an environmental
buffer, such as a surface
reservoir or groundwater
placement, is an inviting
concept but of
questionable value.
Potable Water Reuse
Reasonable cost treatment technologies with
greater efficacy and reliability needed to be
developed, and treatment trains needed more
redundancy. Multiple barriers are essential.
There should be greater usage of groundwater
recharge.
More non-potable reuse options should be
developed and applied.
Public perception and public education and
social acceptability of reused water were
important considerations to be addressed in
any proposed reuse project.
Progress since 1980
Most of those recommendations have come
to fruition and the environment for direct
potable reuse has reached the point where it is
a fully available and safe option for producing
drinking water where it is needed. The water
industry has arrived in the 21st century having
made gigantic scientific, technological, and
management progress.
The quality of wastewaters and source
waters has improved significantly. Minimum
secondary treatment and often tertiary
treatment technology is virtually universally
applied in the United States. Industrial
chemical discharges have been controlled to a
great degree by regulation and effluent control
guidelines by industrial sector, and also due to
reduced heavy industry activity. Pretreatment
requirements are in place for chemical
discharges to municipal sewage systems. The
Priority Pollutants list is to some degree an
anachronism due to the effluent controls that
have been implemented. The science of water
analysis has developed exponentially to the
point where chemical analyses at the parts per
billion and parts per trillion levels are almost
routine.
With regard to drinking water standards and
guidelines, there are now about 100 Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and surrogate
standards and comprehensive filtration and
disinfection requirements. In addition there are
more than 200 non-regulatory EPA Drinking
Water Health Advisories, and 363 pesticide
human health benchmarks for drinking water
that provide interpretative toxicology-based
chronic exposure levels in the event that a
chemical is detected in drinking water.
The recommended whole animal testing
of water concentrates did not pan out. That
was partly because chemical transformations
and losses can occur during the production of
concentrates, but also because adverse effects
were usually not detected. In vitro testing of
concentrates did sometimes detect activity, but
specific causes and human health significance
were not generally determinable.
Treatment technologies including micro-
filtration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and
reverse osmosis membranes are becoming
widely used in municipal and other appli-
cations. Advanced oxidation technologies using
ozone or hydrogen peroxide, and ultraviolet
light are being used in several water recycling
applications.
On-line real-time monitoring and data
management systems are in common use in
drinking water plants to provide for much
greater control of water quality and operations.
Hazard Assessment and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) management approaches are highly
desirable.
One consequence of the advances in
analytical chemistry detection levels is that
trace levels of pharmaceuticals and natural
and consumer products are now detectable in
wastewaters and some drinking waters. Even
though their concentrations are minute, and
almost always well below levels that could
cause a plausible risk of adverse effects from
consumption, their presence in trace quantities
raises questions and some uncertainties among
consumers and some regulators.
My conclusions
The quality of wastewater sources in the United
States has improved to a significant degree
since the 1980 reuse conference because of
regulatory and technological advances.
It could be said that the 1980 conference
participants were prescient and forward
thinking because since then scientific and
health assessments in addition to technological
advances have resolved most of their issues
and recommendations. Technological progress
has established that water sources being
highly impaired does not preclude their use as
drinking water sources, and these are valuable
resources that should be productively used.
My template of principles for moving forward
includes:
An aggressive pretreatment program
should be part of any DPR project to prevent
introduction of refractory and difficult-to-treat
or toxic chemicals into domestic wastewater
sources.
Numerous technological options and
treatment combinations are capable of
producing high quality DPR product.
Multiple barriers and redundancy are
essential so that the treatment efficacy is
assured in the event of an unplanned quality
excursion.
The principal health concerns in DPR and
IPR are acute microbial risks, and these have
been resolved by the availability of proven
appropriate disinfection and membrane
technologies and multiple barriers.
Treatment (e.g. secondary or tertiary)
standards and/or microbial specifications
should be developed so that the necessary
performance parameters for the advanced
treatment system can be rationally
determined with appropriate margins of
safety. This narrows the concentration range
of contaminants that challenge the advanced
treatment, as well as reducing the physical
stress on that technology.
Inorganic chemicals and radionuclides are
readily controlled. The issues associated
with trace organic chemical detections are
probably more philosophical than actual
public health concerns, because when they
are detected the concentrations are so low that
they are several orders of magnitude beyond
the capability of toxicological science to
demonstrate biological effects in test animals
and humans. If any, these would be in the
category of potential chronic risks and not the
type that generally would require emergency
actions by the water authority or health
officials in the event of a temporary deviation
from the performance specifications. For
example, the few pharmaceuticals detected
after some treatment trains are usually
at concentrations millions of times below
therapeutic dosages. However, they will
continue to be issues because chemical
detection limits will continue to decline so
detections at levels of even less potential
significance are bound to increase. Thus
de minimis risk quality goals should be
established rather than using detection limits.
Monitoring capabilities and process
management are much improved and on-line
real-time monitoring for numerous process
performance indicators is now available
and in widespread use. Numerous treatment
configurations are available and more are
in development. Some seem to be overkill
because the quality of the water capable
of being produced by many of them is well
beyond current widely used conventional
drinking water technologies that are applied
to natural and unplanned reuse systems.
Consistent and reliable process performance
operations are essential. Some level of piloting
and a rigorous system shakedown period
The principal health concerns in
DPR and IPR are acute microbial risks,
and these have been resolved by the
availability of proven appropriate
disinfection and membrane
technologies and multiple barriers.
Groundwater replenishment system in Orange County, California, USA
Potable Water Reuse
are always desirable, especially for training
operating personnel. Continuous reliability is
expected and an alternate diversion and water
option should be available for some extreme
acute short-term deviations that might
possibly occur, but are extremely unlikely
because of the multiple barrier design.
These would not be different than might be
encountered in a conventional drinking water
supply.
A small, manmade storage buffer would be
useful for water distribution management as
well as to provide an opportunity for some
analytical validation, if desired. Use of an
environmental buffer, such as a surface
reservoir or groundwater placement, is an
inviting concept but of questionable value.
An intervening environmental passage does
have the psychological effect of separating
wastewater identity from drinking water in
the minds of the public and some regulators.
However, placing highly treated water into an
uncovered, unlined and probably not fully
protected reservoir is likely to be counter-
productive, because it re-contaminates the
already very high quality water with microbial
and other contaminants. The ostensible use
of the reservoir for die-off of hypothetical
recalcitrant microbial contaminants is not
supportable, because that treatment system
should have been designed and operated
with sufficient multiple barriers to reliably
prevent their transport and survival. Ground-
water passage is appropriate for water storage
and transport, but not meaningful for
contaminant reduction, because it could add
contaminants to the already highly treated
water from the geology, as has been known
to occur.
Consumer and ratepayer acceptance and
support for the initiation of the potable reuse
project are essential. Of course, the quality
and safety of the water must be assured,
but the key factor is a consensus that the
additional water is essential in the community
for its functioning and perhaps to ensure
protection from droughts. Whether or not
all consumers actually drink the water is a
matter of personal preference; the same issue
exists in many conventional drinking water
supplies due to consumers being bombarded
with negative water quality news, which
is often exaggerated or misguided. On the
other hand consumers may retain a yuck
factor concern because of the impaired
source, or simply decline because of taste
preferences, because they have drinking
water options that include bottled water or
point-of-use treatment devices. So, universal
drinking water consumption should not be
the principal element of the public education
program, or required for success. However,
it is essential that the water supplier has
developed a high level of trust and confidence
within the community. This is maintained by
meeting all standards and guidelines, candid
communications, and rapid implementation
of corrective actions when needed.
Unified drinking water regulations rather
than separate reuse-specific regulations are
required to provide a consistent basis for
progress in applications of IPR and DPR. A
few key parameters relevant to DPR should
be added to the current standards rather
than developing separate IPR/DPR quality
standards.
Several US states are working toward
regulations or guidelines for DPR, but the
federal EPA is not. For that reason, the
WateReuse Association, in collaboration with
the National Water Research Institute and
several other water provider organizations,
has initiated a process to develop consensus
science-based guidelines to provide a uniform
set of credible principles and recommendations
that would be accessible to all potential
DPR/IPR project developers and regulators,
and obviate the need for them to revert to
reexamining all of the complex issues involved.
Authors Note
Dr. Joseph Cotruvo is president of Joseph Cotruvo
& Associates, a water, environmental, and
public health consulting firm. He serves on the
WHO committees that develop the Guidelines
for Drinking Water Quality. Previously, he
was the first director of the Drinking Water
Standards Division of US EPAs Office of
Drinking Water, developing the Drinking
Water Health Advisory System and numerous
National Drinking Water Quality Standards
and Guidelines. He was also director of the
EPAs OPPT Risk Assessment Division, and
was vice president for Environmental Health
Sciences at NSF International. He was chairman
of the Water Quality Committee of the Board
of Directors of the District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority. He is active in water
reuse development activities including serving
on scientific oversight committees for several
municipal water reuse projects, and as chairman
of the National Regulatory Committee of the
WateReuse Association. For a complete listing
of supporting documents, contact the author by
email at: joseph.cotruvo@verizon.net.
DPR/IPR projects in Namibia, USA, and space
Windhoek, Namibia
The original, large-scale pipe-to-pipe DPR
project is still operating in Windhoek. Its
original treatment train included ferric
chloride, coagulation, dissolved air
floatation, rapid sand filtration, granular
activated carbon, chlorine, and sodium
hydroxide before blending with the natural
water. That water is now used for irrigation
only. In 1997, the process was changed
to include powdered activated carbon,
pre-ozonation, ferric chloride and polymer,
coagulation, dissolved air floatation,
potassium permanganate, rapid sand
filtration, ozone, biological activated carbon,
granular carbon, ultrafiltration, chlorine,
and sodium hydroxide. The blend is now
about 30 percent recycled water.
Orange County and others in California
The Orange County system has progressed
from the Water Factory 21 configurations
to groundwater replenishment and a
seawater intrusion barrier. The process
begins with secondary effluent that has
either been produced by activated sludge or
trickling filter, chloramine, microfiltration,
cartridge filter, three-stage reverse osmosis,
advanced oxidation with hydrogen peroxide/
ultraviolet light, carbon dioxide stripping,
and lime stabilization. The advanced
oxidation process was included primarily
because of the detection of 1,4-dioxane and
dimethylnitrosamine. Dioxane is a solvent
that was found in the source water and it
is not very biodegradable and it is not well
removed by RO. Some dimethylnitrosamine
was found in source water, but most is
probably produced by chloramine reactions
with wastewater organic precursors such
as dimethylamine in the water treatment
process. The dioxane is removed by the
hydroxyl radical oxidation process, and the
dimethylnitrosamine is primarily removed
by UV photolysis. Part of the product
water is transported to percolation basins
for groundwater recharge and ultimate
withdrawal without further treatment, and
part is injected along the coast as a seawater
intrusion barrier. The original 265 million
liters per day (mld) or 70 million gallons per
day (mgd) facility is now being expanded to
379 mld or 100 mgd.
Los Angeles has a history of successful
soil aquifer treatment going back to the
1962 Montebello Forebay Groundwater
Recharge Project among several functioning
groundwater recharge spreading and
injection projects in Southern California.
San Diego and Los Angeles are engaged in
developing additional large-scale IPR/DPR
water reuse projects.
Space stations
The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration has used recycled water in
the space stations for consumption for many
years. The source water is urinary distillate
and air condensate recovery. The process
includes multifiltration, vapor compression
distillation, catalytic reactor, ion exchange,
and iodine disinfection.
Cloudcroft, New Mexico and Big
Springs, Texas.
Several projects are in development in the
southwestern United States because of
drought-driven water shortages. Generally,
these projects use membrane bioreactors or
conventional secondary effluents, MF, and
RO membranes, advanced oxidation, and
blending with natural water to be treated
in a drinking water facility. These might be
considered hybrid IPR/DPR facilities.
Domestic commercial potable
recycle projects
There was a system for household recycling
developed by the Pure Cycle Company in 1976
that was discontinued. It involved recycling
household wastewater that was treated
by grinding, a biodisk/cloth filter, MF, ion
exchange, ultraviolet light, and storage. At
least one other system is now being developed
by another company and undergoing late-
stage testing.
Potable Reuse
T
he multi-barrier approach
(MBA), for contaminant
removal in water reclama-
tion schemes, is widely accepted
and has demonstrated its benefits
and merits. Considerable improve-
ments in economically efficient
water reuse can be accomplished
by implementing the newest
innovations in field-proven
membrane technologies such
as membrane bioreactors (MBR)
and reverse osmosis (RO), with
innovative advanced oxidation
processes (AOP).
Integrating MBR, RO, and
AOP technologies within a multi-
barrier approach to potable
reclamation schemes, provides
a robust treatment train with
numerous advantages over other
conventional treatments that treat
water from secondary effluents.
MBRs provide enhanced removal
capabilities for organic matter,
nutrients, and also emerging
contaminants (EC). MBRs also
deliver high-quality feed to a more
restrictive RO barrier. The RO step
ensures ultimate pathogen removal
and almost complete organics
removal. For those difficult to
remove and trace organics, or
priority substances that may be a
concern in potable reuse schemes,
highly oxidative processes are
necessary for ultimate contamin-
ant mineralization.
The demand for water continues
to steadily grow. However, water
reuse regulations are increasing
as public awareness of ECs is
heightening, and the number
of indirect and direct potable
reuse projects are increasing
around the world. The inherent
simplicity of the proposed MBA
is likely to support the wide-scale
implementation of the best water
reuse technologies.
First barrier MBR
Over the past decade, significant
energy savings have been achieved
in MBR technology making it
more accessible to all kinds of
wastewater reuse projects. This
was largely achieved through
MBR equipment innovations,
as well as overall system design
improvements and operational
strategies. For example, MBR
manufacturers have made their
contribution to energy proficiency
by introducing new scouring
aeration systems or increasing
packing density which more
than halved their specific aeration
demand (or SADm, expressed
in m
3
/m
2
/h) for membrane self-
scouring, currently the largest
energy consumer of the process.
A deeper understanding of
the process limitations and
capabilities, while also enhancing
its adaptability to site conditions,
resulted in a significant portion
of the observed energy reduction.
Some strategies that may be
applied in already operational
plants such as proportional
aeration or intermittent MBR train
operation during dry weather
flow can reduce the energy bill
by more than 30 percent, and are
now commonly seen in medium
and large water-reclamation
plants. Engineering firms such
as Spains Abengoa opt for low
energy solutions, such as gravity
and syphon-assisted permeate
extraction systems (~5% savings),
hybrid systems using natural
head and pumps depending on
flow conditions, as well as low-
energy mixing and recirculation
equipment (~5-10% savings) in
combination with optimized MBR
tank reactor hydraulics.
Among the most common
MBR types, hollow fiber and flat
sheet systems typically have the
lower specific energy demand.
While some published data on
large-scale municipal MBR plants
report specific energy demand
values over 0.8 kWh/m
3
, these
values are often largely affected
by low utilization rates (less
than 70%) of treatment facilities.
Considerable energy savings
could be expected if equipment
operated at the highest efficiency.
With the application of the latest
innovations in MBR technology,
specific energy demand values
below 0.45 kWh/m
3
can be
accomplished in hollow fiber and
flat sheet MBR systems, while
multitube-sidestream MBRs are
steadily lowering their energy
demand through improved
internal recirculation regimes
and membrane materials. Table
1 shows data from operating
MBR plants where many of these
improvements have been put
into practice.
Second barrier: RO
RO in potable reclamation schemes
is accepted as an unavoidable
treatment step for ultimate
pathogen and dissolved organics
removal. However, RO filtration
applied to wastewater reclamation
is still subject to intensive energy
consumption. Current RO tech-
nology innovations applied to
membrane materials and
overall system optimization
are largely aimed at reducing
pressure drop or fouling
propensity. The use of thicker
intermembrane spacers, increased
hydrophilicity, and reduced
membrane surface roughness
and charge neutralization, are
commonly observed in new
thin-film composite membrane
products. More recently, a
proprietary method for integrating
functional nanoparticles with
thin nano-scale polymer films
has also led to the creation of
new thin film nanocomposite
(TFN) RO membranes which
incorporate super-hydrophilic
and anti-microbial nanoparticles
with reduced fouling propensity.
Although its limited application
in low-salinity waters, over 40%
higher permeability than current
installed base of conventional
RO membranes is claimed with
TFN technology in seawater
desalination.
Other approaches aimed to
reduce the operational costs of low-
salinity RO considered innovative
hybrid solutions, which integrate
both energy recovery devices
(ERD) and low-fouling membranes.
Given the lower hydraulic pressure
available and the elevated invest-
ment in the equipment, ERD usage
in low-pressure RO systems is
traditionally disregarded. Yet,
the benefits of integrating ERDs
within a hybrid system that uses
low-fouling membranes at low-
salinity RO plants should not be
neglected. With this configuration,
a more than 2.5-year on-site
experimentation with well water
(1,600 ppm total dissolved solids,
or TDS) was conducted. The pay-
back period of the ERD was
estimated below 2.5 years.
Recently, in RO operation,
semi-batch (or continuous batch)
process operation in a closed-loop
system layout produced another
development. This proprietary
process configuration increased
Membrane-based treatment and advanced oxidation, used in a multi-barrier approach
(MBA) for water reclamation, offer advantages in water quality, process stability, and
continuous, reliable monitoring. Roman Gasull, Ricardo Bernal, and Celestino Montero
of Abengoa discuss technology advances and trends in multi-barrier reuse schemes.
Multi-barrier approach results
in sustainable reclamation
The inherent
simplicity of the
proposed multi-
barrier approach
is likely to support
the wide-scale
implementation of
the best water
reuse technologies.
Potable Reuse
product recovery, while saving
energy and capital investment
all using standard RO ancillary
equipment and membranes, and
without the need for an ERD.
When the desired recovery
percentage is reached within this
system, brine is throttled out when
displaced by a fresh load of feed-
water in a single-plug flow sweep.
The exchange of brine and feed-
water is executed without stopping
the high-pressure pump or the
production of permeate. Abengoa
incorporated many of these inno-
vations to brackish and low-
salinity reuse applications.
Third barrier: AOP
The suitability of AOP is largely
unquestioned as a final polishing
step for ultimate EC and trace
contaminants mineralization in
potable reclamation. Furthermore,
increased awareness about ECs in
the whole water cycle will likely
lead to more stringent environ-
mental legislation further
strengthening the suitability of
the technology for dangerous
contaminant removal at trace
levels.
AOP is based upon the formation
of highly oxidizing non-selective
hydroxyl (OH) radicals, which is
intended to mineralize the target
compound(s). Since one of the
technologys major limitations
takes place in the presence of
turbidity and scavenging species
such as chlorides, carbonates, and
effluent organic matter (EfOM),
AOP applications will benefit from
the lower organic content and
turbidity from an MBR permeate,
as well as from the extremely
high liquid transmittance and
almost absence of salts after the
RO step. Alternative approaches
in AOP design such as AOP
implementation between the
stages of an MBR-RO-AOP multi-
barrier treatment scheme can
also be employed either as a
pre-oxidative step or to increase
the biodegradability of the
target compounds through the
production of more amenable
intermediates.
AOP systems and oxidants
In large potable reuse schemes,
one primary AOP choice is to
couple ultraviolet (UV) and
hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) where
UV radiation serves both as a
catalyst for OH radical formation
and for direct photolysis of
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).
However, a number of AOP
alternatives can provide equal or
superior degradation capabilities
at reduced costs particularly
where NDMA may not be a
concern, or its precursors can
be reduced.
For example, some ozone-based
(O3) AOPs (O3/UV,O2/H202, O3/
TiO2) may provide higher removal
efficiencies (thanks to the high-
oxidation power of ozone against
the target compound), and may
contribute to a higher net
production of OH radicals when
compared to UV/H2O2. The use
of peroxone (O3/H2O2) has very
attractive costs compared to other
processes, and it is often promoted
because of ease of operation in
large-scale applications. For
example, when compared to other
more conventional multi-barrier
schemes, significant treatment
cost deviations may not exist for
membrane-based MBA.
Another well-known process
for environmental remediation
is photocatalytic AOP treatment
using nanocrystalline titanium
dioxide (NTO). In this instance,
NTO acts as mediator for light
absorption and photocatalytic
action. NTO is a viable alternative
to other AOP treatments, because
it is biologically inert, photostable,
apt for a wide pH range, cheap to
produce, and chemical-free.
Observed trends in NTO-based
AOP treatments either maximize
available surface area for UV
exposure or ensure NTO slurry
particle separation from the
aqueous solution. Because of
this, significant research focuses
on immobilization of NTO on
different substrates such as
nanostructures like nanowires
and nanorods, or mesoporous
clays. NTO slurry retention can
also be achieved by incorporating
a membrane separation step inside
the reactor, and there is at least
one commercially available NTO/
AOP system with this configuration.
This product removed 29 of 32
pharmaceuticals, endocrine-
disrupting compounds, and
estrogens with 70 percent
removal efficiency (the remaining
3 achieved 50 percent removal).
Finally, NTO doping with various
metals was also tested in trials in
order to reduce the valence-band
gap, so the cheaper visible light
can be used as a photocatalyzer.
Some studies suggest that
the combination of NTO-based
technologies with other treat-
ments, such as ultrasound, may
also add the advantage of being
able to treat larger volumes
of wastewater with increased
Implementing the newest product
developments in MBR, RO, and AOP
technologies can offer signicant
energy savings, as well as technical
superiority for new and existing
IPR/DPR schemes.
MBR type SED
(kWh/m
3
)
Plant size
(DWF)
Feature improvements
Hollow fiber 0.40
~
0.37(a)
23 MLD New leap aeration system
(a), improved reactor hydraulics,
reduced blower pressure,
proportional aeration
Flat sheet 0.48 5 MLD Proportional aeration, airlift RAS
pumping, efficient anoxic mixing,
syphon/gravity flow permeation
Multitube 0.35
~
0.57-0.60
(w/bio air)
2MLD New membrane materials & fiber
diameter. Higher specific flux, low
pressure RAS pump
Figure 1. Energy consumption of different RO systems for low TDS water
Table 1. Average specific energy demand for various operating MBR plants.
Treatment type TiO2 Ultra
sound
Fenton
Individual DOC removal % 5% 6% 22%
Combined DOC removal % 93%
Table 3. Removal performance for DOC with different AOP combinations.
100
80
40
20
60
0
Feed P (bar) Energy (kWh/m
3
)
Conventional RO New LF w/ERD New LF
Table 2. Energy consumption comparison of low salinity RO systems (adapted
from Stover 2013).
Interstage
Booster
Closed circuit
Permeate flow (m
3
/h/kgal/h) 105 / 27.7
Recovery (%) 80
Feed pressure (bar/psi) 12.9 / 187 10.4 / 151
HP power demand (kW) 59.7 48.4
Circulation/booster pump (kW) 2.5 2.7
Avg. consumption (kWh/m
3
/kWh/kgal) 0.55 / 2.08 0.41 / 1.54
% improvement - 25%
THE FAIRMONT DALLAS DALLAS, TX SEPTEMBER 7-10, 2014
WATEREUSE SYMPOSIUM
29TH ANNUAL
THE WORLDS PREMIER CONFERENCE DEVOTED TO SUSTAINING
SUPPLIES THROUGH WATER REUSE & DESALINATION
WWW.WATEREUSE.ORG/SYMPOSIUM29
MARK YOUR CALENDAR NOW!
Potable Reuse
contaminant removal capacity.
Beneficial synergies can be
obtained by combined treatment
for bisphenol A coupling titanium
dioxide (TiO2) to other processes.
Alternative AOP location within
the multi-barrier scheme
While the primary use of AOP
in large-scale plants is as a final
oxidation step, employing AOP as
a pre-oxidation strategy offers high
potential for reducing operational
costs in membrane-based multi-
barrier approach schemes. For
example, when compared to
conventional tertiary effluent
filtration, typical lower EfOM from
an MBR should lead to lower RO
fouling propensity. If EfOM leaving
the MBR would be further oxidized
by an AOP, the reduction in relative
costs would be achieved through
diminished operating pressure and
CIP frequency events all of which
would also diminish membrane
replacement requirements and
associated investment.
This was demonstrated in a
study (Stanford et al.) that looked
into fouling inhibition resulting
from applying ozone to MBR
permeate prior to the RO in one
treatment train, while UV/H2O2
was applied to tertiary ultra-
filtration (UF) permeate prior to
the RO in another train. In the
UF-UV/H2O2-RO option, it was
observed that due to iron-based
deposition from upstream
coagulant addition, long-term
operation led to UV lamps fouling.
On the other hand, in the MBR-
O3-RO train, it was repeatedly
observed that a lower flux rate loss
at the RO was achieved (5 to10%)
when compared to non-ozonated
MBR effluent.
One side consideration that
supports this inter-stage location of
AOP is the application of AOP prior
to the RO step. When compared
to a system without intermediate
oxidation, a reduction in numerous
trace contaminants is expected
in both the reject and permeate
stream.
An increasing number of
research papers look into alter-
native locations for AOP implemen-
tation, including the application
to internal recirculation streams
in MBRs or as a preoxidative step
in recalcitrant waters. Often, these
configurations provide results
similar to those obtained by the
two separate treatments placed
in the series (i.e. AOP applied to
the permeate), with the added
advantage that it ensures the
removal of formed oxidation by-
products at the biological treat-
ment step.
Conclusions
The benefits and merits of
membrane-based treatments
coupled to advanced oxidation
processes for water reclamation,
particularly for EC removal, have
been validated in existing indirect
potable reuse and direct potable
reuse (IPR/DPR) schemes.
Advanced potable reclamation in
MBA treatment follows through
a sequence of MBR-RO-AOP
processes and offers numerous
advantages over more conven-
tional multi-barrier schemes
applied after secondary treatment.
For typical influent wastewater-
quality variability, membrane-
based potable reclamation
consistently delivers high quality
water, enhanced process stability,
and ease for reliable continuous
quality monitoring. Membranes
also offer a solid technological
option for future upgrades
because more stringent regulatory
requirements are expected in
coming years.
Implementing the newest
product developments in MBR,
RO, and AOP technologies can
offer significant energy savings,
as well as technical superiority
for new and existing IPR/DPR
schemes. Membrane technology
is under continuous development,
offering higher pollutant rejection
ability at increasingly competitive
costs. With modern MBR and RO
systems, operational costs may
half those from a decade ago,
while further improvements will
come with practical experiences.
Constant innovations in AOP
technology with alternative
oxidants, catalysts, and system
configurations suggest that
effective final micro-pollutant
removal is possible at lower
economic and environmental
costs.
If all the economic aspects
of potable-reuse systems are
included in life-cycle cost
analyses (including operations
and management, land costs, and
civil works), then overall MBA
treatment compactness may also
become a key consideration in
future reuse planning schemes.
Where land availability and cost
is a concern, MBA project viability
will benefit from the reduced
footprint and environmental
effects of this simplified treatment
scheme. In developing sustainable
IPR/DPR schemes for both small-
and large-flow applications, these
considerations strongly suggest
that the proposed membrane-
based MBA scheme is particularly
attractive.
Authors Note
Process Engineer Roman Gasull, BD
Director/Market Manager of Water
Reuse Ricardo Bernal, and Process
Engineer Celestino Montero work
at AW Process & Systems (AWP&S)
Water Reuse, part of Abengoa
Water, located in Seville, Spain.
For more information, contact
by email: Roman.gasull@water.
abengoa.com.
Reference
1. GE, Kubota, Pentair (2013)
2. Franks, R., Bartels,C. Frenkel,V., Birch,
D. 2013 Evaluating the economics of a
unique hybrid RO design after three years of
treating brackish ground water. http://www.
membranes.com/docs/papers
3. Stover, R. 2013 Evaluation of Closed Circuit
Reverse Osmosis for Water Reuse . http://www.
desalitech.com
4. Roccaro, P., Sgroi,M., Vagliasindi, F. 2013
Removal of Xenobiotic Compounds from
Wastewater for Environment Protection:
Treatment Processes and Costs Chem Eng
Transactions vol. 32.
5. Chong, M., Jin, B., Chow, C., Saint, C. 2010
Recent developments in photocatalytic water
treatment technology: a review. Water Research
44, 2997-3027.
6. Torres-Palma, R.A.; Nieto, J.I.; Combet, E.;
Petrier, C.; Pulgarin, C. 2010 An innovative
ultrasound, Fe2+ and TiO2 photoassisted
process for bisphenol Amineralization. Water
Res., 44, 22452252.
7. Stanford, B., Pisarenko,A., Snyder, S. 2012 A
cost-benefit analysis of the energy requirements
for UV/peroxide and Ozone pre-oxidation for
organic fouling control in RO membranes. 16th
Annual Water Reuse & Desalination Research
Conference, 2012.
Constant innovations in AOP
technology with alternative oxidants,
catalysts, and system congurations
suggest that effective nal micro-
pollutant removal is possible at lower
economic and environmental costs.
Figure 3. Operational cost comparison between various locations for AOP.
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.4
0
MF-RO MF-RO-UV/AOP MF-O3-RO
1 MGD 10 MGD 50 MGD
$
M
/
M
G
D
Figure 2. Treatment cost for conventional and advanced treatment trains for 10
6

population equivalent.
0.58
0.56
0.52
0.54
0.5
UV/H2O2 O3/H2O2
Secondary + Tertiary + AOP Primary + MBR + AOP
Potable Reuse
E
xtreme drought conditions
are driving utility leaders
and communities to rely on
potable reuse as one alternative-
resource solution to increase
drinking water supply.
In 2011, more than 90 percent
of Texas was considered to be in
extreme drought. In West Texas,
drought conditions of the last
several years have led to record-
breaking low water levels in local
reservoirs. Water levels observed
at the E.V. Spence Reservoir
dropped to less than five percent
in November 2013, according to
the Texas Water Development
Board. In April 2013, the Colorado
River Municipal Water District
began using effluent treated
to advanced levels of purity to
increase the volume of raw water
flowing into its water treatment
facilities in Big Spring, Texas,
USA. The district supplies water to
three communities in West Texas:
Odessa, Big Spring, and Snyder.
Globally, many regions are
experiencing periods of prolonged
drought that have diminished
fresh water supplies. Increasing
populations have also increased
demands on available resources
exacerbating problems associated
with water scarcity. Consequently,
water management agencies have
developed various strategies,
including water restrictions and
conservancy measures, to stabilize
and sustain water resources for
their customers.
Another drinking water
sustainability strategy is the use
of treated effluent from water
resource recovery facilities. For
decades, wastewater effluent
treated at varying levels has
been used for agricultural and
industrial applications worldwide.
More recently in water-stressed
regions, increasing demands on
drinking water supplies resulted
in the development of new
applications for treated effluent.
In Australia, Phase 1 and 2 of the
2006 Australian Guidelines for
Water Recycling provide regulatory
guidance for the use of treated
effluent to augment drinking
water supplies. Specifically, this
guidance applies to drinking
water treatment facilities receiving
treated effluent by direct supply, or
through discharge into reservoirs
or aquifers. In North America,
guidelines were also generated in
water-scarce regions. This includes
California, where the Department
of Public Health uses portions of
its Title 22 Code of Regulations to
regulate indirect potable reuse of
treated wastewater and will soon
incorporate guidance measures for
potable reuse.
Guidelines, like those in
California, create the regulatory
framework for drinking water
providers deciding to pursue
water reuse as an approach to
drinking water sustainability.
Some guidance includes steps for
carrying out necessary feasibility
studies, obtaining public opinion,
as well as monitoring and
reporting study results and water
quality information. Generally,
wastewater that is intended for
West Texas utility favors potable
reuse for secure water supply
In the United States, a West Texas water utility opts for potable reuse to sustain drinking
water supply throughout the year. Trojan Technologies Robert Haas, Adam Festger, and
Scott Bindner explain why this strategy was favored over non-potable reuse.
For decades,
wastewater
efuent treated
at varying levels
has been used
for agricultural
and industrial
applications
worldwide.
The TrojanUVPhox Model 72AL75 is part of the treatment
process at the Big Spring, Texas facility. The photo shows
another installation of the system at the City of San Diegos
Water Purification Demonstration Project with a capacity of
3.8-million m
3
.
Schematic of the district water supply treatment system that includes the new Raw Water Production
Facility in Big Spring, Texas. Provided by Colorado River Municipal Water District.
Big Spring
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
CRMWD
Raw Water
Production
Plant
Big Spring
Water
Treatment
Plant
To Midland
and Odessa
Red Draw
Reservoir
Beals Creak
Big Spring
J.B. Thomas
Reservoir
E.V. Spence
Reservoir
Potable Reuse
non-potable or potable reuse
must be treated to a level of purity
beyond traditional secondary
treatment. Therefore, secondary
wastewater must often undergo
superior treatment using
combinations of advanced tech-
nologies that not only disinfect
but also remove other chemical
contaminants potentially present
in wastewater. Examples of
advanced technologies include
advanced filtration methods (ultra-
filtration and reverse osmosis),
and oxidation using ultraviolet
(UV) light in combination with
hydrogen peroxide, a process
called UV oxidation.
Study weighs reuse options
The Colorado River Municipal
Water District has long recognized
that meeting future water needs
and ensuring reliable supply in
times of drought required addi-
tional sources of drinking water.
In response to earlier droughts, as
well as state-mandated legislation
to develop a long-term regional
plan for drinking water supply,
the district undertook a feasibility
study in 2004 to evaluate possible
approaches to conserving or
augmenting declining drinking
water supplies.
The 2004 study investigated
several options for water supple-
mentation and usage that included
surface, groundwater, and treated
wastewater sources.
Specifically, the study evaluated
three options.
Option 1: Obtaining raw surface or
groundwater from unused water
catchments, treated at existing
drinking water treatment plants.
The results of the feasibility
study indicated that the closest
groundwater aquifer had limited
recharge capability and was
determined unfit to provide long-
term drinking water supply for
the district. Other available
aquifers and additional surface
water reservoirs were also
considered, but were too distant
and frequently located at lower
elevations than the majority of
end-users. This deemed them
economically unfavorable, since
drawing raw water from these
sources would have resulted in
high transportation and pumping
costs. Drought conditions also
threatened the viability of long-
term water supply from these
alternate catchments.
Option 2: Non-potable reuse of
wastewater, treated at existing
wastewater treatment plants for
non-potable purposes including
irrigation. Using treated effluent for F
o
r

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
e
e

t
h
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

L
i
s
t

o
n

p
a
g
e

3
4
An in-depth
guide to
reverse
osmosis
desalination
3 easy ways to order
Online: www.wef.org/ShopWEF Email: pubs@wef.org Call: 1.800.666.0206
Publications are available to members and customers outside the U.S., its territories,
Canada, and Mexico by ordering through www.portlandpress.com.
Desalination Engineering Planning and Design
Hard cover. 688 pages | Order No. W13001
Member Price $120.00 | List Price $150.00
3 easy ways to order
Online: www.wef.org/ShopWEF
Email: pubs@wef.org | Call: 1.800.666.0206
Publications are available to members and customers outside
the U.S., its territories, Canada, and Mexico by ordering through
www.portlandpress.com.
Soft cover. 388 pages | Order No. W130002
Member Price: $108.00 | List Price: $135.00
Wastewater Treatment
Process Modeling, MOP 31,
2nd Edition
The most complete, up-to-date
guide to process modeling
methods and protocols
Potable Reuse
non-potable purposes, including
crop irrigation or recreation, would
effectively offset the demand
on the limited drinking water
supply. This also eliminated the
need to pursue new raw water
sources (option one) with the
inherent transportation and
pumping costs. However, one
of the drawbacks identified was
that the districts municipalities
have low population densities
and potential users are spread
out over a large area. As a result,
non-potable reuse of treated
wastewater would have required
an extensive distribution system,
independent of the drinking water
distribution system. The costs
associated with installing and
operating this second distribution
system proved to be substantial.
In addition, providing treated
wastewater for non-potable
reuse required upgrading local
wastewater treatment plants with
more advanced levels of treatment.
This included the need for reverse
osmosis (RO) at some plants in
order to remove high levels of
dissolved solids. RO, a capital-
expensive and energy-intensive
technology, is also required for the
advanced treatment of wastewater
for potable reuse. Proceeding with
RO upgrades for non-potable
reuse purposes was considered
impractical.
The study also determined
that the non-potable demand for
treated wastewater was limited to
certain times of the year almost
exclusively during the summer
months, when crop irrigation
and recreational use of treated
wastewater would be required
and that year-round demand
was much smaller. Due to this
seasonal skew in demand, the
offset from reservoirs supplying
drinking water would be minimal
and overall would not provide a
sufficient drinking water supply
to the district. It was also forecast
that arid soil conditions brought
on by drought had the potential
to decrease future agricultural
demand for treated effluent. The
study concluded that the necessary
costs to upgrade local wastewater
treatment plants and establish an
exclusive distribution system for
non-potable wastewater was not
financially justifiable.
Option 3: Potable reuse of highly-
treated wastewater to be blended
with raw surface water present
in existing reservoirs, which feed
drinking water treatment plants.
The feasibility study further
determined that using treated
effluent for potable reuse, in
contrast to non-potable purposes,
was not seasonally influenced.
Demand for drinking water varied
negligibly throughout the year,
therefore the consistent offset of
demand from the raw water supply
provided by option three was
determined as the best approach
to maintain sustainable drinking
water supply. In addition, option
three avoided the need for a new
distribution system with its in-
herent costs.
Based on these conclusions, in
2012 the district constructed an
advanced raw water production
facility (RWPF) designed to treat
secondary wastewater to advanced
levels of purity. In April 2013, the
district began adding treated water
from the facility to the raw-water
pipeline that supplied the districts
water treatment facilities.
This decision carried with it the
obligation to ensure public safety
and confidence in the treatment
process. In the absence of potable
reuse guidelines in Texas, the vital
issue of advanced wastewater
treatment was addressed by using
a proven multi-barrier treatment
approach identical to previously
established methods in other, more
regulated regions. Specifically,
the RWPF design was based on the
treatment methodology described
in Californias Title 22 regulations
and adopted at the Groundwater
Replenishment System (GWRS) in
Orange County, California, and
numerous other facilities around
the world including the Western
Corridor Water Recycling Scheme
in Brisbane, Australia. These
facilities, as well as the RWPF,
use three treatment processes:
microfiltration (MF), RO, and UV-
oxidation.
MF provides partial disinfection
of microorganisms as well as
partial removal of larger organic
material to prevent rapid fouling
of downstream RO membranes.
RO continues to remove organic
material and is capable of
removing molecules as low as
100 atomic mass units, including
salts and dissolved solids, which
are present in wastewater
effluent. The incorporation of
UV oxidation provides high-level
disinfection and a final barrier
to various pharmaceuticals,
hormones, and emerging
contaminants of concern. Further,
UV oxidation is considered
vital for the removal of various
chemical contaminants capable
of passing through the upstream
Results of the feasibility study favored potable
reuse over non-potable reuse alternatives because
of the economic benets afforded by a year-round
supply of advanced treated water supplied by
secondary treatment.
600
500
100
300
200
400
0
1973 1978 1988 1998 2008 1983 1993 2003 2013
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d

a
c
r
e
-
f
e
e
t
Conservation Pool
Continued on page 33
100
60
80
20
40
0
UV-Oxidation
Other Energy Use
Microfiltration
Reverse Osmosis
E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e

(
%

o
f

T
o
t
a
l
)
Top: Proportional energy demand
associated with various advanced
treatment steps used in producing
advanced treated wastewater for
potable reuse at the Orange County
Groundwater Replenishment System.
Right: Reservoir storage in Texas
7%
WHY ATTEND
Foundations Annual Conference?

Prepare yourself for the future. Learn about the
newest technologies that will help you develop safe,
sustainable, and reliable sources of water.

Network with industry leaders. This conference provides
a unique opportunity to interact, network, and discuss current
and future research needs and trends.

Find innovative solutions. Research is the lifeblood of innovation.
Be among the rst to hear about the latest results of ongoing research
and discover solutions to your water scarcity issues.
Mark Your Calendar Today!
18TH ANNUAL
WATER REUSE &
DESALINATION
RESEARCH CONFERENCE
MAY 1920, 2014
Las Vegas, NV

Westin Las Vegas
www.watereuse.org/foundation
F
o
r

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
e
e

t
h
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

L
i
s
t

o
n

p
a
g
e

3
4
Decentralized Water Reuse
T
he Living Machine, installed
at the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commissions
(SFPUC) new headquarters, treats
all of the buildings wastewater
and then distributes the treated
water for toilet flushing. Operating
since September 2012, the
ecological wastewater treatment
and reuse system has reduced the
buildings water use by 60 percent
and consistently meets all water-
quality requirements.
In 2009, the SFPUC began
designing a new headquarters
in San Franciscos Civic Center
district. During planning stages,
installing a water-reuse system
within the building became
a primary goal in order to
demonstrate its commitment
to sustainable and innovative
practices in wastewater treatment
and reuse.
The selection of a low-energy,
high-profile water reuse system
was critical in the SFPUCs mission
to create a headquarters that
was the physical manifestation
of its core values. To meet these
goals, staff explored ecological
sanitation treatment systems
specifically constructed wetlands.
The challenge was determining
if a wetland treatment system,
serving 950 employees and
several hundred visitors per day,
could be located in a dense urban
area while also meeting the San
Francisco Department of Public
Healths (SFDPH) water-quality
requirements.
The SFPUC selected the Living
Machine technology because of
its ability to blend function and
aesthetics the system treats the
buildings wastewater to SFDPH
reuse standards, while providing
aesthetically pleasing wetlands
in the lobby and the sidewalks
surrounding the building. It treats
18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons)
of wastewater per day, and then
distributes the treated water
throughout the building for toilet
flushing. For toilet-flushing water,
the system provides approximately
10.8 cubic meters (2,850 gallons)
per workday.
The process begins and ends
in the buildings restrooms. After
flushing, blackwater from the
toilets is combined with greywater,
and is then directed to a tank
located beneath the sidewalk
for filtration where the solids are
removed from the wastewater.
The water is then pumped to
constructed wetlands for further
treatment. The first set of wetlands,
called tidal-flow or reciprocating
wetlands, is located in the side-
walk in front of the building.
The wetland cells contain light-
weight shale aggregate (gravel),
microorganisms, and plants.
The cells are designed to mimic
the natural ebb and flow water-
treatment processes of coastal
wetlands natures most
productive ecosystems. Through
automated cycling of the water
levels, the microorganisms are
alternatively fed with nutrients
in the wastewater when full,
and then aerated by exposure
to atmospheric oxygen when
drained. These alternating
conditions produce diverse
and productive colonies of
microorganisms that consume
the nutrients and clean the water.
From the tidal-flow wetlands,
the water is sent to vertical-flow
wetland polishing cells to remove
the remaining organic matter.
Constructed wetlands system
meets urban challenge
After almost two years of continuous and reliable operation, the Living Machine
demonstrates
the viability of decentralized reuse in urban areas. John Scarpulla and Eric Lohan report on two
on-site treatment projects, which meet aesthetic and treatment values and also conserve water.
The Living Machine at San Francisco Public Utilities Commission headquarters treats wastewater in constructed
wetlands in the buildings lobby and the right-of-way surrounding the building. Photo by: John Scarpulla
SFPUC ofcials
anticipate that
more on-site, non-
potable water
reuse projects will
be implemented
as a result of the
Living Machine
demonstration
project and the
San Francisco
Non-Potable
Program.
F
o
r

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
e
e

t
h
e

A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
e
r

C
o
n
t
a
c
t

L
i
s
t

o
n

p
a
g
e

3
4
The vertical flow cells are located
in the right-of-way and inside
the building lobby. After leaving
the vertical-flow wetlands, the
water receives final filtration
and disinfection through screen
and cartridge filters followed
by ultraviolet disinfection and
chlorination and is sent to the
buildings toilets for reuse. The
incorporation of high-rate tidal
and vertical flow treatment
wetlands creates a significantly
smaller treatment footprint relative
to more passive wetland designs.
These designs provide significant
filtration, as well as biological
nutrient removal, minimizing the
need for filtration and disinfection.
Non-potable program
One of the most important benefits
of installing the Living Machine
at SFPUC headquarters is its
assistance in the development of
the San Francisco Non-Potable
Program, which was concurrently
developed in 2012. According
to the February 2013 issue of
Journal of American Water Works
Association, the Non-Potable
Program (codified in September
2012 through a city ordinance)
created a regulatory framework
and streamlined permitting
process for the installation and
operation of non-potable water
systems in buildings in San
Francisco. The program also
includes a US$250,000 grant for
projects installing on-site systems
that meet certain performance
standards.
The Living Machine became
the test case for the program
providing the SFPUC, SFDPH,
and San Francisco Department of
Building Inspection (SFDBI) with a
project for the agencies to test and
demonstrate the ideal methods
for installing, permitting, and
regulating on-site systems. The
collaboration has been a success in
terms of system operation, public
education, and encouraging the
installation of on-site systems.
The SFPUCs Living Machine
has been operating for more than
a year, and SFPUC staff conducted
water-quality monitoring and
sampling to ensure that the
treated water meets all SFDPH
water-quality requirements. The
staff samples the water for a variety
of constituents, and the systems
effluent has never failed to meet
water-quality requirements.
The Living Machine is located
one block from City Hall, in an area
where thousands of pedestrians
pass every day. The projects
high visibility, and the vibrant
Measure SFDPH
Requirement
Average to date Maximum to
date1
BOD5 (effluent) < 30 mg/L BDL
2
5.0 mg/L
TSS (effluent) < 30 mg/L 7.3 mg/L
3
12.5 mg/L
pH 6.0 9.0 7.4 8.13
Turbidity < 10 NTU .46 NTU 2.90 NTU
Chlorine Residual 0.5 4.0 mg/L 1.3 mg/L 3.9 mg/L
Total Coliform Single Day Sample:
< 240 MPN/ 100 mL
7- day median:
< 2.2 MPN / 100 mL
30- day average:
< 23 MPN / 100 mL
1.1 MPN / 100 mL 7 MPN / 100 mL
1. The maximum single sample value to date.
2. BDL = Below Detection Limit. The lowest BOD value SFPUC labs can detect is 5 mg/L 100% of drawn
samples have had a value of <5 mg/L.
3. The lowest Suspended Solids value SFPUC labs can detect is 7 mg/L 95% of drawn samples have had a
value of <7 mg/L.
Table 2: The Marine Corps Recruit Depot Living Machine Water Quality
Performance to Date1
1. All water quality data collected by NAVFAC ESC and Woodbank Environmental Science and Technology
2. Below Detection Limits
Parameter Influent Effluent
BOD5 263 +/- 64 mg/L 3.7 +/- 2.3 mg/L
COD 455 +/- 15 mg/L 22.5 +/- 1.5 mg/L
TSS 96 +/- 22 mg/L BDL2
TKN 172 +/- 22 mg/L 4.29 +/- 2.4 mg/L
Turbidity 105.5 +/-14.5 NTU 0.91 +/- 0.59 NTU
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
2.5 +/- 2.5 (MPN/100 mL)
Table 1: SFPUC Living Machine Water Quality Requirements and Performance
to Date
G E N E S Y S
I N T E R N A T I O N A L
Harnessing the power of microbubbles
Genesys -
Developing
Technology to
Improve your
Operation
Our revolutionary approach to
RO membrane cleaning was
successfully launched at the
IDA conference in Tianjin, for
more information please contact
marmstrong@genesysro.com
Genesys International | Tel: +44 (0)1606 837 605 | www.genesysro.com
plantings of the wetlands, led to
significant public interest. SFPUC
staff gave more than 100 tours
of the system many of them for
design teams wishing to integrate
a non-potable water reuse system
in their own projects. During these
tours, SFPUC staff also learned
that due to the economies of scale
and lower unit costs for such
systems, there was a high level of
interest in the design community
to install multi-building, non-
potable water treatment and reuse.
The SFPUC worked with SFDBI and
SFDPH to draft amendments to
the Non-potable Water Ordinance
in order to expand the program
to include district-scale projects.
In October 2013, the ordinance
amendments were adopted and
the SFPUC expanded the grant
assistance program to $500,000
for district-scale projects that offset
11.4-million liters of potable water
annually.
SFPUC officials anticipate that
more on-site, non-potable water
reuse projects will be implemented
as a result of the Living Machine
demonstration project and the San
Francisco Non-Potable Program.
While water reuse is often
considered at the municipal scale
or at the building scale, district-
scale systems offer significant
benefits in comparison to city-wide
or individual building systems.
Individual buildings may not
generate enough wastewater,
nor consume enough reclaimed
water, to economically offset
capital and lifecycle costs of
decentralized water reuse.
Municipal-scale projects often
require a long time to plan and
implement and can require
extensive reclaimed distribution
systems. Decentralized district-
scale (0.1 to 1 millions of gallons
per day) projects can be very
economical in many areas and
can be implemented relatively
quickly allowing communities or
campuses to significantly address
water usage within a couple of
years.
Retrofitting facilities
While integrating water-reuse
systems at the time of construction
is ideal, retrofitting existing
facilities can be equally effective.
The Marine Corps Recruit Depot
provides basic training for over
17,000 recruits per year, and is
recognized as one of the leading
Department of Defense facilities for
the implementation of sustainable
technology. This historic base,
located in San Diego, is concerned
with rising water and sewer costs
as well as the environmental
effect of water use in water-scarce
regions. In 2010, the Marine
Recruit Depot, along with the
Naval Facilities Engineering
Services Center, received a grant
from the Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP). ESTCP is a Department of
Defense program to evaluate and
demonstrate new environmental
technologies for use in Department
of Defense facilities. The grant
funded the installation of a Living
Machine tidal-flow wetland
treatment and reuse system, with
two years of system monitoring.
Retrofitting a water-reuse
system often requires sewer
mining, which extracts wastewater
from an existing sewer. At the
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, a
doghouse manhole was installed
over an existing depot sewer
and connected to a new influent
pump station. With this setup,
wastewater is pumped to a below-
grade primary treatment and
equalization tank. Primary tank
effluent is pumped to a two-stage
tidal-flow wetland treatment
system for biological treatment.
Each stage is composed of two
wetland cells, which alternately
drain and fill. Both stages use
a lightweight expanded shale
aggregate, but the media size
varies between stages. A diversity
of microorganisms contains a
fixed biofilm that adheres to both
the exterior surface and within
the pore space of the lightweight
expanded shale aggregate media.
The biofilm is exposed to the
atmosphere several times daily by
the fill and drain cycling. Recurrent
exposure to aerobic and anoxic
environments helps to eliminate
odors and enhance nitrification,
denitrification, and removal of
BOD, TSS, and an array of organic
and man-made compounds.
To ensure treatment standards
are met, a two-stage filtration
followed by UV disinfection
and chlorination are used after
biological treatment. Online
turbidity and chlorine residual
monitoring instruments are
employed, and an integrated
control system will alert operators
in case of system malfunction.
The treatment system will be
permitted for subsurface irrigation
of adjacent lawns and landscape
areas after the conclusion of the
demonstration period.
Treatment performance to date
was evaluated. Due to minimum-
length showers and water-efficient
fixtures, influent wastewater
concentrations were significantly
higher than typical domestic
wastewater for some parameters.
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen increased
up to four times the typical
municipal concentrations.
One of the significant challenges
of retrofitting existing facilities is in
locating the treatment equipment
in fully developed sites. In many
urban areas, aesthetic concerns
may be the most difficult challenge
to water reuse. Because of this,
treatment technologies need to
be effectively invisible below
grade and carefully concealed, or
beautiful and a site amenity to be
acceptable for many projects. Both
these aesthetic strategies were
Marine Corps Recruit Depot Living Machine Process Schematic. Credit: Living Machine L3C
used at the Marine recruit depot.
The tidal-flow wetland cells were
integrated into the landscaping
that surrounded a site monument.
The monument, adjacent to the
parade grounds, is focal point
of the graduation ceremony.
In this location there is zero
tolerance for smells or nuisance
conditions. Wetland plant species
were selected with Marine Corps
colors of scarlet and gold. Other
treatment equipment, such as the
influent pump station primary
treatment tank and disinfection
vault, were located below grade
and unobtrusively integrated into
adjacent landscaped areas.
Conclusion
Both projects SFPUCs new
headquarters Living Machine
and the Marine Corp Recruit
Depots retrofitted sewer-mining
installation highlight the
viability of decentralized reuse in
urban areas. They demonstrate
how on-site systems, based on
constructed wetlands concepts,
can be employed to meet aesthetic
and treatment objectives all
while conserving drinking water.
Authors Note
John Scarpulla is a water resources
planner for the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission. He
was the project manager of the
Living Machine installation at the
SFPUC headquarters and works
on the non-potable program by
providing technical assistance
to projects in San Francisco that
are installing on-site non-potable
water reuse systems. Eric Lohan
is the general manager of Living
Machine Systems L3C, based in
Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
For more information, contact by
email: jscarpulla@sfwater.org,
elohan@livingmachines.com.
Retrotting a
water-reuse system
often requires
sewer mining,
which extracts
wastewater from
an existing sewer.
Challenges in Desalination Permitting
T
he WateReuse Research Foundation (WRF)
project entitled Desal Dialog: A Regulatory
Workshop on Critical Issues of Desalination
Permitting (WRF-10-03) has identified key
challenges facing permitting of large desalination
projects in the United States. One of these challenges
is the assessment of the effect of desalinated water
on public health. Desalination is a water treatment
technology that typically removes over 90 percent
of most minerals in the water. One of the main
challenges associated with the use of desalinated
water for drinking water applications is that often its
mineral content is significantly different from that of
conventional fresh water resources and some of the
differences may affect human health. For example,
calcium, magnesium, and potassium, which are
essential for human health, are normally in very low
levels in desalinated water, while other minerals
such as boron, bromide, sodium, and chloride may
sometimes exceed levels beneficial for human
wellbeing.
Lack of federal and state regulations addressing
desalination-specific water quality parameters,
such as these listed above, is a key challenge for
desalination project permitting because of the limited
understanding and available regulatory guidance.
Another key challenge is the lack of regulatory
guidance specifically related to the integration
of desalinated water with other sources in the
distribution system. Specific guidance for desalinated
water produced by seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)
and brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) is needed
because the two types of saline water used for fresh
water production have specific challenges and issues.
SWRO
Concentrations of chlorides (20 to 250 mg/L) and
sodium (10 to 180 mg/L) in desalinated water
are typically within a range required by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (for
chlorides) and at levels that meet customer taste
expectations. Desalinated water typically has lower
concentrations of potassium (<1.0 mg/L), calcium
(0.3 to 0.5 mg/L), and magnesium (0.4 to 4.0 mg/L)
compared to water produced from conventional
sources (>2.0 mg/L, 4 to 30 mg/L, and 10 to 40 mg/L,
respectively).
Supplementation of these minerals during post-
treatment can improve taste, and in the case of
calcium, will be necessary to reduce corrosivity of the
product water. This level of calcium supplementation
will have to meet minimum guidelines established
to support human health, but should also be
limited to avoid the scaling associated with hard
water. While still under debate, there are mounting
recommendations to establish a minimum limit
for magnesium in public water supply based on its
observed benefits to human health and agriculture.
Boron levels in desalinated water (0.30 to 0.75 mg/L)
are similar to those contained in conventionally
treated surface water, and usually are expected
to remain within guidelines issued by the World
Health Organization (WHO) (<2.4 mg/L).
Bromide concentrations in SWRO water can
interfere with disinfection procedures needed
to achieve water quality targets. Additionally,
finished water can exhibit unpleasant taste and
odor changes when desalinated water with bromide
concentrations in excess of 0.4 mg/L is blended
with other sources that contain phenols. At this
same concentration, bromine can accelerate the
decay of chlorine residuals in the finished water
by converting chloramines to the more unstable
bromamines. Desalinated water with elevated
levels of bromine can cause the same effect when
it is blended with water from other chloraminated
sources. To address the issue, operators can
super-chlorinate desalinated water (which would
also increase organo-bromines) or install a partial
second pass RO unit (which will increase costs).
BWRO
Wide variability in brackish source waters requires
site-specific analysis of the ability of product
water to meet drinking water standards for various
constituents. Few groundwaters are as heavily
dominated by sodium chloride as seawater. Thus,
the product water from inland BWRO facilities
typically has relatively lower levels of sodium and
chloride and relatively higher levels of other ions
(typically calcium and/or magnesium cations and
sulfate and/or bicarbonate anions). However, as
with seawater, the most frequent need is to address
the low alkalinity of product water, which affects
product water corrosivity, customer taste, and ability
to scale conveyance pipelines.
Disinfection byproducts
Disinfection byproducts (DBP) include a range of
compounds, such as trihalomethanes, bromine,
iodine, bromates, and haloacetic acids formed
through the interaction of chlorine (and to a lesser
degree, chloramines) with organic matter in the
source water or distribution system. Source water
organic levels are typically high in inland surface
water, variable in seawater, and low in groundwater.
The wide range of DBP compounds has been
implicated in, or suspected to contribute to, a
Federal desalinated water quality guidelines should be developed to address
public health issues, according to Nikolay Voutchkov of Water Globe Consulting
and Michael Irlbeck of Abengoa Water in the second of a four-part series on
challenges in desalination permitting.
Another key
challenge is the
lack of regulatory
guidance
specically related
to the integration
of desalinated
water with other
sources in the
distribution
system.
Desalinated water quality
and public health
Challenges in Desalination Permitting
number of adverse public health effects. The type of
disinfectant(s) employed will affect DBP formation
and chlorine residual stability.
Organic content of desalinated water is usually
an order-of-magnitude lower than that of most fresh
surface water sources, and thus has a significantly
lower organics-related DBP formation potential
than traditional fresh water supplies. While RO
membranes reject most organics in the source water,
the process is not as effective at removing DBPs,
which may have formed when chlorine is used in the
pretreatment systems. Brackish water plants are less
successful at removing DBPs; and because the RO
permeate is more often blended with source water,
blended BWRO product water may require enhanced
post treatment to reduce DBPs.
Disinfection processes can also affect finished
water pH and the resultant effect on the calcium
carbonate precipitation potential (CCPP). Chlorine
gas addition decreases pH and alkalinity as a result
of the formation of hypochlorous acid, whereas
sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite
increase the pH and alkalinity of the product water.
Blending
Blending desalinated water with existing surface
water supplies will usually have a positive influence
on water quality. However, as previously mentioned,
blending streams with elevated levels of minerals
and organics can negatively affect finished water.
Blending of desalinated water with other sources
of water in the distribution system also has a number
of challenges that may affect human health and the
integrity of the water supply system. Some of the
potential challenges and solutions are listed below:
Different constituent levels in desalinated water
will affect blended water concentrations of these
minerals.
High temperature may accelerate nitrification and
corrosion in the distribution system; reducing
organics may inhibit the growth of nitrifying
organisms and negate this effect.
Because of lower calcium and magnesium ion
concentrations in the desalinated water, blending
with higher hardness surface water can meet target
water quality requirements for these ions.
Maintaining chlorine residuals and preventing
corrosion when blended water is introduced into
larger conveyance systems is difficult, especially in
warm climates. Super-chlorination, re-injection of
chlorine within the system, and using more slowly-
decaying chloramines in the disinfection process
can be used to maintain chlorine residuals. Loss
of calcium and/or alkalinity throughout a larger
distribution system can be addressed by re-injecting
calcium-containing compounds or corrosion
inhibitors within the system or using non-metallic
pipe in the distribution system.
Disturbance of the steady-state condition of water in
an existing system by introducing desalted water of
a notably different character.
Potential regulatory solutions
Federal EPA guidelines for water reuse and related
materials have proven to be effective in helping states
develop standards and requirements for water reuse
projects and expanding their acceptance and use. A
similar model may well prove helpful in expanding
the acceptance and employment of desalination
practices.
Based on the input from US regulators at a work-
shop completed as part of the Watereuse Research
Foundations DesalDialog Project, the development
of desalination guidelines of format and content
similar to the US EPA Water Reuse Guidleines was
found to be of critical importance in addressing public
health-related challenges associated with the use of
desalinated water. The workshop participants have
agreed that the desalination guidelines would be
beneficial to contain guidance levels for desalination-
specific water quality parameters such as sodium,
chloride, boron, calcium, and magnesium depending
on the crop, climate, and soil if the desalinated
water will be used for irrigation, and human health
protection targets for the same parameters if the water
will be produced for potable use.
Summary and conclusions
The development of federal desalinated water
quality guidelines to address public health concerns
associated with the use of desalinated water and
blending of this water with conventional water sources
is of critical importance to simplify and facilitated
desalination project permitting. It would be helpful
to the water industry if the desalination guidelines
include target water quality parameters, best available
technologies, and proven practices specific to the
category of end user of desalinated water.
Authors Note
Nikolay Voutchkov is the president of Water Globe
Consulting, an independent consultancy that provides
advisory services to the desalination and water reuse
industry. Michael Irlbeck is the director of business
development for NRS Consulting Engineers, Inc., part
of Abengoa, a Spanish company that specializes in the
production and management of water. NRS Consulting
is based in Harlingen, Texas, USA.
Blending
desalinated water
with existing
surface water
supplies will
usually have a
positive inuence
on water quality.
Cartridge
Filters
H2SO4
Antiscalant
Permeate
Bypass of Brackish Source Water
Intake
Pump
Feed Brackish
Water
TDS = 500 to
2,500 mg/L
Cartridge
Filters
Concentrate to
Final Disposal
Concentrate
TDS = 2,000 to
10,000 mg/L
Brackish RO System
P
e
r
m
e
a
t
e
-Global
Professional
E-Global Professional membership is available to
any individual, living outside of the US, US Territories
and Canada. This membership package includes
all Professional membership benefits that are
available in electronic and online format, as well as
the ability to download WEF Classic publications
at no-charge. E-Global members are full-voting
members, but do not receive any discounted
WEFTEC or conference member registration rates.
For as little as $20 US, connect to a network of
professionals with a vision of a world where all
people, regardless of their circumstances, have
the right to clean water and basic sanitation. A
WEF E-Global Professional Membership provides
you with access to like-minded individuals and a
breadth of information and tools that will help you
make that right a reality.
WEF Connects
You Professionally
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
Global
Membership
Your Access to Water Knowledge
To join or for more information, please contact
Portland Customer Services.
phone: +44 (0)20 7685 2444
fax: +44 (0)20 7685 2468
e-mail: sales@portland-services.com
Dues | $ 20 | 13 | 14
Desalination
M
icrochannel desalination
may prove to be a
catalyst for innovation
in new high-salinity applications,
according to Vecenergy, which has
a pilot-scale demonstration project
underway. Its cost efficiency in
treating highly saline water will
open up more opportunities for
desalination such as treating
water produced from natural gas
fracking, seawater for irrigation,
and concentrated brine to increase
water recovery while increasing
the efficacy of currently available
technologies.
Invented in 2006, microchannel
desalination is patented in the
United States, Mexico, Israel,
Japan, and Australia, and has
patent-pending status in multiple
countries, including Canada,
European Union member states,
and United Arab Emirates.
Microchannel desalination is
a unique ion removal process,
originally modeled on the length
scales found within the human
body. Every cell in the human body
is located 100 microns or less,
about the width of a human hair,
from a capillary carrying oxygen-
rich blood. The diffusion driving
force in human bodies degrades
very quickly over distances of
more than about 100 microns,
and every cell in the body needs a
constant oxygen supply to function
properly.
Microchannel desalination
combines this constraint of
very small distances with the
well-known phenomena of
charged particles moved by
electromagnetic fields. By using
a length scale where diffusion
is a driving force, applied
electromagnetic fields can be
used to move the ions within a
microchannel which results in
areas of over-concentration and
areas of ion depletion. Its flow-
through deionizing design takes
advantage of these areas of ionic
migration.
Each microchannel has one
input stream and three output
streams. As the ionic solution
flows into the microchannel, it
is immediately exposed to an
electric field with high voltage
density. This causes the ions to
begin migrating in an attempt to
shield the bulk of the fluid from
this highly charged field. The
input stream continues to flow
in a laminar fashion due to a low
pressure pumping force, which
continues to move the water
down the channel. Due to the
length of the channel, as the ions
finish their migration to try and
reach equilibrium with the strong
external field, they are separated
into three output streams. The two
outer streams have much higher
concentrations of ions, while the
center stream has a depleted ionic
concentration.
Microchannel desalination is
similar to capacitive deionization,
where ions are concentrated
along the microscopic walls of
a treatment system. However,
capacitive deionization requires
specialized meta-materials
with high surface area that can
withstand current cycling, usually
carbon aerogels. As these ionic
sponges are packed with ions,
salt content in outflowing water
diminishes. Eventually, the
system cannot hold any more
ions and the electric current must
be reversed to allow ions to be
flushed from the aerogel so the
process can repeat. This results
in a cycling of the power, as well
as an output that cycles between
clean water and brine water. In
contrast, microchannel does not
require flushing cycles. Therefore,
operation is continuous with two
outputs one with a higher salt
concentration and one with a
reduced salt concentration.
At opposing ends of the spec-
trum are voltage and the current
requirements between these two
technologies. Capacitive deioniz-
ation uses a low voltage (less than
five volts) because the current
is applied directly to the treated
water. If the voltage rises too high,
electrolysis (the breakdown of
water into hydrogen and oxygen)
begins to occur.
works because the electrode never
comes in direct contact with water.
The voltage in microchannel
desalination is also much higher,
up to 6,500 volts, which results
in high electric field densities
and strong diffusion driving
forces. While this voltage is high,
the current is kept low in the
microampere range. This results in
a total applied power of just a few
watts. Microchannel desalination
uses a myriad of charged plates,
so the wiring for these are set up in
parallel which allows for lower
power usage in powering tens of
thousands of channels.
may appear incapable at treating
large amounts of water due to the
very small channels, but this size
makes it flexible. Each channel
conveys a small amount of water,
from which a small amount of
salt is removed, continuously,
while voltage is applied. As more
water needs to be desalinated,
more channels can be added in
parallel. If a higher removal rate
is needed, more sets of channel
in series can be added recycling
the water from previous steps into
more channels, which results
in a higher overall removal rate.
The process can meet any type of
water demand by coupling this
Microchannel desalination opens up new applications for desalination through
advantages of cost efficiency and low energy consumption in treating highly saline water.
Inventor Brendan Johnson of Vecenergy explains how the patented technology works.
treats high-salinity ow
Continued on page 32
Microchannel Desal Energy Consumption Range
Salinity (ppm) (000)
E
n
e
r
g
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
k
W
h
/
m
3
)
10
8
9
4
1
2
3
6
7
5
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Theoretical Minimum Microchannel Desal
To Concentrated Output
Cross Section
of Flow Area
150 m To Next System in Series
To Concentrated Output
CHARGED PLATE
CHARGED PLATE 6500 V @ 150 A
Channel cutaway diagram
W
a
t
e
R
e
u
s
e

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
ment prior to treatment for meeting
potable standards. The end product is
drinking water derived from municipal
wastewater, after extensive treatment
and water-quality monitoring. Advanced
treated reclaimed water can be introduced
into the potable water supply system by
blending the purified water with source
water prior to treatment. Or, it can be
blended directly with the treated potable
water supply at the point of distribution.
The limited number of DPR facilities
could be evidence of the publics adverse
perception of the toilet-to-tap concept,
and reluctance to accept DPR technology.
However, water scarcity is driving
additional communities in the US states
of Texas and New Mexico to design and
obtain permits for DPR implementation.
Study approach
To make this comparison, case studies
were developed to evaluate the effects
of upstream wastewater effluent on
surface water bodies used as downstream
drinking water sources. Three utilities
serving different population sizes,
representing different geographic regions,
and located in different land use settings
were selected. The three utilities, all
river discharge systems, were Greater
Cincinnati Water Works, Ohio; Frederick
County, Maryland; and Philadelphia Water
Department, Pennsylvania. Available
water-quality data and other information
were collected from wastewater utilities,
drinking water utilities, other regional
water organizations, and publicly
available data sets (for example: United
States Geological Survey stream gauges) to
characterize their de facto reuse settings.
No sampling program was specifically
designed for this evaluation or conducted
as part of this study.
A quantitative assessment was
conducted to estimate the effects of
effluent discharges on the water quality
of the receiving water bodies. Analytical
models of the three utility systems were
developed to represent steady-state flow
conditions, point source discharges of the
wastewater treatment plants, transport
mechanisms of advection and dispersion,
and major removal or generation reactions
for the selected compounds. The water
quality parameters considered in the
model were the following: dissolved
oxygen and carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand representing general
aquatic systems health; indicator bacteria
(E. coli) signifying potential health
hazard; and trace organic compounds
(carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole,
acetaminophen, and atenolol)
representing occurrence of trace organic
contaminants in natural surface waters.
The analytical model was used to predict
concentrations of the selected parameters
in the water resource recovery effluents
at downstream drinking water treatment
plant intake locations. Modeling results
of the de facto reuse scenarios were
compared with available water-quality
data that resulted from more fully
engineered approaches, such as DPR.
Modeling results
The quantitative assessment of the
study suggests river systems such as in
Cincinnati and Frederick County, where
the individual discharge volumes are
notably less than the total flow conditions
in the surface water most likely need
dilution as a significant attenuation
process for constituents in the treated
effluents. Results indicate, if the effluent
flow is small relative to river discharge, the
effect of an individual facility discharge
point in a river de facto reuse setting is
likely to be small as well. A modeling
assessment was also conducted with a
lake discharge system. Results similarly
indicated the importance of background
concentrations. In addition to treatment
plant discharge points, surface water
systems are subject to runoff, and careful
WateReuse Research Foundation Report
D
e facto reuse occurs when waste-
water treatment plant effluent is
discharged to surface water or
groundwater, which is subsequently
used as source water for drinking water
treatment. Utilities that rely on surface
water resources frequently are located
downstream from wastewater treatment
plant discharges into rivers or lakes.
Historically, the 1972 US Clean Water Act
(which regulates discharges of impaired
water to the environment), and the 1974
US Safe Drinking Water Act (which
regulates the quality of potable water),
have been relied upon in tandem to protect
public health.
Conversely, direct potable reuse (DPR)
is an intentional, engineered approach
to provide advanced treatment of the
wastewater treatment plant effluent
(reclaimed water) so that it can be used as
a source of supply for potable purposes.
The quality of water produced by
engineered DPR systems provide greater
reliability and consistently better quality
than de facto reuse, according to the
findings of a WateReuse Research
Foundation-funded project (WateReuse-
11-05). Factors, such as climate and source
water quality, were found to affect the
quality of de facto reuse. In comparing the
two drinking water approaches, the study
evaluates the quality of surface water as a
source for drinking water, and the quality
of highly treated effluent sourced directly
from water resource recovery facilities.
Trace organic contaminants, such as
endocrine-disrupting compounds,
pharmaceutically active compounds,
and personal care products, are typically
not targets of conventional wastewater
or drinking water treatment processes.
Yet, a large body of scientific literature
demonstrates that these contaminants
frequently occur at very low levels in
treated effluent and finished water
supplies. Although not conclusively
determined to be a public health concern,
published studies provide evidence of
occurrence of trace organic contaminants
in downstream drinking water resources.
There are only two DPR operations in
the world today Windhoek, Namibia,
and Big Spring, Texas and both of
them employ advanced effluent treat-
A WateReuse Research Foundation study compares engineered direct potable reuse with
de facto potable reuse, in terms of reliable water quality in the United States. Investigators
Glen Boyd, Guy Carpenter, Nupur Hiremath, Deniz Demirkanli, and Mary Ellen
Tuccillo explain the study results.
Engineered DPR delivers
reliable water quality
Engineered DPR
systems can provide
greater reliability and
better water quality
than de facto reuse
systems.
World Water: Water Reuse & Desalination /Spring 2014 31
W
a
t
e
R
e
u
s
e

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
p
o
r
t
analysis is needed to estimate the relative
contributions of various point and non-
point sources of pollutants.
Overall, the predicted water-quality
values, resulting from the analytical
models, were consistent with available
water-quality data describing the system
characteristics and de facto reuse settings.
In particular, predicted source waters
dissolved oxygen concentrations
displayed positive agreement with
monitoring profiles. However, finer
temporal and spatial fluctuations in water
quality likely affected by non-point
sources of contamination were not
captured in this study that used only
available water-quality data. Coordinated
sampling is therefore needed, which is
temporally and spatially planned, to better
understand the relative contributions of
various contaminant sources in de facto
reuse settings.
Comparison of water quality
The project compared the case study
findings of de facto reuse to the water-
quality performance levels demonstrated
for engineered advanced water treatment
systems, which are designed for direct
potable reuse. Since 1969, the DPR
operation in Windhoek, Namibia, has
been implementing potable reuse without
an environmental buffer (NRC, 2012).
The citys reuse facility provides up to 35
percent of the potable water supply during
normal periods, and up to 90 percent
during drought periods. Four distinct
treatment process configurations have
been in operation since 1968. The current
treatment plant has included ozonation,
biological and granular activated carbon,
ultrafiltration, blending, and other
treatment processes since 2002.
In April 2013 in the United States, the
Colorado River Municipal Water District
in West Texas began blending reclaimed
water with surface water supplies prior to
potable water treatment. The raw water
production facility treats tertiary effluent
from the Big Spring wastewater treatment
plant in Texas with microfiltration,
reverse osmosis, and an advanced
oxidation process consisting of hydrogen
peroxide and ultraviolet light (Schroeder
et al., 2012; Leverenz et al., 2011). At the
time of the writing of this study, no water-
quality data was available to be shared
with the project researchers.
Another potable reuse facility in the
Village of Cloudcroft, New Mexico, is
expected to begin operation in 2014.
Cloudcrofts wastewater is currently
treated by membrane bioreactor followed
by disinfection using chloramination.
Once integrated for potable reuse, the
filtered and disinfected effluent will be
released from storage to flow by gravity
to reverse osmosis units, and the reverse
osmosis permeate will be subject to
advanced oxidation (of hydrogen peroxide
and ultraviolet light) and then blended
with water from local springs (NRC, 2012).
As no published data was available at
the time of the study for operational DPR
systems, representative water-quality data
derived from analogous membrane and
advanced oxidation treatment processes
were used to characterize DPR finished
water quality.
Since January 2008, Californias Orange
County Water District Groundwater
Replenishment System has been
producing up to 70-million gallons per
day of high-quality advanced treated
recycled water for augmen-tation of the
regional aquifer. The Orange County Water
District treats secondary effluent from
the Orange County Sanitation District
with microfiltration and reverse osmosis,
followed by advanced oxidation (of
hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light)
and calcium hydroxide addition, prior to
blending in the distribution system for
injection into the regional aquifer.
The main difference between the
engineered DPR systems and the de
facto reuse systems is that the finished
water quality of the advanced treated
reclaimed water is more intensively and
consistently monitored and consistently
characterized by low turbidity, low trace
organic contaminant concentrations,
and low total dissolved solids. The
influent water quality for the de facto
reuse systems varies greatly based upon
climate, weather, and upstream point and
nonpoint discharges.
Conclusions
Variability in source waters was a key
factor in comparing the benefits of DPR to
de facto reuse systems. Climate variability
and upstream point and nonpoint source
discharges were found to affect de
facto reuse source water variability. As
monitoring of trace organic contaminants
is not generally regulated, little data is
available regarding their occurrence and
removal from drinking water sources.
Where data is available, sampling
may have been collected sporadically,
voluntarily, and with minor regard for
quality control. As such, the effectiveness
of drinking water treatment for trace
organic contaminant removal prior to
distribution is not well documented.
Similarly, for the engineered DPR
systems that were considered (Big Spring,
Texas, and Cloudcroft, New Mexico),
no water-quality data for trace organic
contaminant occurrence and removal is
available. For both of these DPR cases, it
is assumed that the treatment technology
as demonstrated by other projects like
Orange County Water Districts Ground
Water Replenishment System project,
coupled with the dilution that occurs
because of blending renders trace
organic contaminant concentrations very
low and of little concern. Engineered
DPR systems employing a combination
of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and
advanced oxidation process appear to
provide robust removal of pathogens and
trace organic contaminants regardless
of influent water quality.
Findings from this research demon-
strate that, as a source for drinking water
treatment, engineered DPR systems
can provide greater reliability and
consistently better water quality than
de facto reuse systems. The difference
was attributed to varying water quality
of natural source waters affected by
changing environmental, climatic, and
anthropogenic conditions.
For case studies included in this report,
dilution appears to have the largest effect
on the reduction of trace organic contam-
inants and pathogens in de facto reuse
settings. Therefore significant reductions
in source water availability (as a result of
population increase, upstream diversions,
or drought) could result in much lower
influent water quality to drinking water
treatment plants. This also could be a
notable factor in water-stressed regions.
In contrast, the engineered DPR systems
are independent of climatic conditions
and source water quality (except when
a wastewater treatment plant receives a
discharge that upsets the plant process),
and are then capable of providing more
reliable, high-quality water.
For more information, contact Glen Boyd,
senior associate of The Cadmus Group by
email at glen.boyd@cadmusgroup.com
WateReuse Research Foundation Report
Reference
Leverenz, H. L.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Asano, T. Direct
Potable Reuse: A Future Imperative. J. Water Reuse Desal.
2011, 1(1): 210.
National Research Council (NRC). Water Reuse: Potential
for Expanding the Nations Water Supply through Reuse
of Municipal Wastewater. National Academies Press:
Washington, DC, 2012.
Schroeder, E.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Leverenz, H. L.; Asano,
T. Direct Potable Reuse: Benefits for Public Water Supplies,
Agriculture, the Environment, and Energy Conservation.
National Water Research Institute: Fountain Valley,
CA, 2012.
Table 1. Data indicate that the treatment combination of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation reliably removes
the parameters of interest to below analytical method detection levels regardless of the variability of the recycled water quality.
Secondary Effluent and Finished Product Water Quality Data from Orange County
Parameter OCSD Secondary Effluent OCWD Finished Product Water
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Not Available 4.43 16.5 mg/L (average 6.95 mg/L)
Fecal coliform (MPN) 1,600 2,600,000 ND (<2 MPN)
Carbamazepine (ng/L) 190 263 (average 237) ND (<1 ng/L)
Sulfamethoxazole (ng/L) 1,300 2,130 (average 1,921) ND (<1 ng/L)
Acetaminophen (ng/L) <5 110 (average 64) ND (<5 or <10 ng/L)
Atenolol (ng/L) 555 1,200 (2 samples) ND (<5 ng/L)
Triclosan (ng/L) 280 520 (average 415) ND (<1 ng/L)
Technology News
T
he new FlexiFloat is a
unique, segmented,
and space-saving float
that replaces the conventional
float on Aqua-Aerobic Aqua-Jet
surface aerators and AquaDDM
mixers, according to Aqua-
Aerobic Systems, Inc. of Loves
Park, Illinois, USA. The company
says this patent-pending product
folds into a compact, cylindrical
arrangement for easy shipping,
storage, and installation. Once
lowered into place, the float self-
deploys as it meets the surface
water in the tank or basin.
The FlexiFloat, when attached
to the Aqua-Jet aerator, model
SS-PW, is used in potable water
applications for trihalomethane
(THM) removal where typical
installations have limited
access for aeration equipment.
THM represents a group of
volatile organic compounds
formed by the interaction of
organic precursors in raw source
water and free chlorine added for
disinfection.
The Aqua-Jet aerator has been
approved by UL to meet ANSI/
NSF Standard 61 requirements for
use in potable water applications.
The approval includes 1, 2, 3, 5,
7.5, 10, and 15 horsepower units
designated as model SS-PW and
can be used for THM stripping
applications or circulation in
potable water treatment systems
and reservoirs with a minimum
volume of 100,000 gallons.
Aqua-Aerobics claims the Aqua-
Jet aerator model SS-PW offers
a lower cost aeration solution
for THM stripping applications
from the perspective of capital,
installation and operating cost
when compared to diffused
aeration or other spray aeration
products.
FlexiFloat
self-deploying segmented
oat for aeration
Continued from page 29
scalability with the ability to pack
tens of thousands of channels into
a small area.
Pretreatment of microchannel
desalination requires only simple
filtration to remove particulates
larger than five microns.
Unlike other membrane desalin-
ation processes, microchannel
desalinations salinity removal rate
through each channel increases as
salinity levels of the influent rises.
As the salt level increases, more
ions are available to shield the high
voltage field resulting in more
ions temporarily crowding against
the walls of each microchannel.
Admittedly, microchannel desalin-
ation loses its effectiveness as
the salt level drops to the level of
brackish water. However, other
technologies can treat this range
effectively.
Energy consumption for micro-
channel desalination is much
lower than other technologies,
especially when treating higher
salt concentrations. For seawater
treatment, the process consumes
1.5 to 3 kilowatt-hour, per cubic
meter increasing with higher
salinity levels.
The cost and technical advan-
tages in treating desalination brine
and extremely ionic solutions are
likely to create a new niche in water
purification. Highly concentrated
water from natural gas fracturing
wells could be pre-treated with
microchannel desalination and
finished with reverse osmosis,
once the concentration is lowered
to a point where osmotic pressure
is not untouchably high. In a
coupled system, microchannel
desalination could treat concen-
trated brine produced by reverse
osmosis to a lower salinity level,
then feed the reduced salt water
back into the reverse osmosis
system, thereby increasing total
water recovery.
Authors Note
The inventor of microchannel
desalination, Brendan Johnson is
head of research and development
at Vecenergy, a subsidiary of the
Vecellio Group, in West Palm Beach,
Florida. For more information,
contact the author by email at:
brendan.johnson@vecenergy.com.
Microchannel
desalination works
because the
electrode never
comes in direct
contact with water.
Events
March
10-12 London, England, UK
World Water-Tech Investment
Summit
www.worldwater.rethinkevents.
com
26-28 Vancouver, Canada
GLOBE 2014, International
Forum on Business and the
Environment
www.GLOBESeries.com
30 April 2 Denver, Colorado,
USA
Conference on Sustainable
Water Management, organized
by American Water Works
Association
www.awwa.org
April
6-8 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
ARWADEX Conference 2014,
11th Water Desalination
Conference in the Arab Countries
www.exicon-intl.com/
Arwdex2014
29- 1 May Brisbane, Australia
OZWATER14, Australias
International Water Conference &
Exhibition, hosted by Australian
Water Association
www.ozwater.org
May
5-9 Munich, Germany
IFAT 2014 Trade Fair for Water,
Sewage, Waste, and Raw Materials
Management
www.ifat.de
5-9 Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
USA
2014 Water Microbiology
Conference: Microbial
Contaminants from Watersheds to
Human Exposure
www.watermicroconference.web.
unc.edu
11-14 Limassol, Cyprus
EDS Conference on Desalination
for the Environment: Clean
Water and Energy, organized by
European Desalination Society
www.desline.com
19-20 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
18th Annual Water Reuse &
Desalination Research Conference
www.watereuse.org
21-23 Mexico City, Mexico
IWA Water, Energy and Climate
Conference 2014: Solutions for
Future Water Security
www.wecmexico2014.org
June
1-5 Singapore
6th Singapore International Water
Week, including TechXchange
Programme (June 1)
www.siww.com.sg
www.techxchange.rethink
events.com
3-6 Moscow, Russia
ECWATECH 2014 International
Water Forum: Water, Ecology and
Technology
www.ecwatech.com
5-7 Delft, The Netherlands
Water Integrity Forum: Extend the
Base, Increase the Pace, organized
by Water Integrity Network (WIN),
the UNESCO-IHE Institute for
Water and Education and the
Water Governance Centre
www.waterintegrityforum.org
28 to July 2 Istanbul, Turkey
5th World Congress of
Environmental and Resource
Economists
www.wcere2014.org
30- July 2 Reno, Nevada, USA
2014 AWRA Conference
Integrated Water Resources
Management: From Theory to
Application
www.awra.org
July
8-10 Sydney, Australia
Peri-Urban14, International
Conference on Peri-Urban
Landscapes: Water, Food,
and Environmental Security,
organized by Australian Water
Association
www.awa.asn.au
September
21-26 Lisbon, Portugal
IWA World Water Congress
& Exhibition, organized by
International Water Association
www.iwa2014lisbon.org
October
5-10 Pacific Grove, California,
USA
Ninth International Symposium
on Subsurface Microbiology,
organized by the International
Society for Subsurface
Microbiology, National Water
Research Institute
www.2014issm.com
20-22 Muscat, Oman
WSTA 11th Gulf Water
Conference Water in the GCC
Towards Efficient Management
www.wstagcc.org
Events 2014
Exceptional drought
Severe drought
Extreme drought
Continued from page 21
MF and RO treatment steps.
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)
is a well-documented example of
such a contaminant. NDMA and
other nitrosamine compounds, as
well as pharmaceuticals and other
wastewater-derived contaminants,
are destroyed by the UV-oxidation
treatment step. Economically,
UV oxidation adds less than 10
percent additional capital cost
when compared to MF and RO, and
contributes less than 10 percent
of the total operational energy
required which was proven at
similar advanced wastewater
treatment installations such as
Orange Countys GWRS.
Conclusion
The district decided in favor of
potable reuse over new raw water
sources or non-potable alternatives
because of the economic benefits
of a year-round supply of advanced
treated wastewater. Potable reuse
provides a secure and sustainable
source of water necessary to ensure
the long-term supply of drinking
water in regions with water
shortages.
Authors Note
Robert Haas, P.Eng. is the sales
manager for Environmental
Contaminant Treatment with
TrojanUV, located at the head office
in London, Ontario, Canada. This
article is based on the case study
entitled UV-oxidation Raw
Water Production Facility (RWPF)
Big Spring, Texas. Visit the website
www.trojanuv.com to access the
original article or request more
information.
In the summer of 2011, more than 90 percent of the US state of Texas was
considered to be in extreme drought.
Potable reuse
provides a secure
and sustainable
source of water.
Advertisers Contact List
Delivering the latest news and keeping you
up-to-date with events, as and when they
happen, in the international water sector.
Every issue brings you
News about the issues, trends

and international developments
in the water industry
Information on business
contracts, mergers, acquisitions,
funding and company news
Special reports with in-depth

case studies, new technologies
and innovations.
Dont miss out order your copy now!
One years subscription to UK and Rest of the World 82.00
Portland Customer Services, Portland Press Ltd, Commerce Way, Colchester CO2 8HP UK
T: +44 (0)1206 796351 F: +44 (0)1206 799331 E: sales@portland-services.com
Please deliver to (block capitals)
Name (Mr, Mrs, Miss, etc)
Job title
Organisation
Address
Post /zipcode Country
Tel. No. (inc. code)
Fax No. (inc. code)
E-mail
The information and details you provide will be held on our database and used to contact
you about your application and other relevant WEF products, services and exhibitions.
Company Page No. Telephone Fax E-mail Website
Aqua Aerobic Systems 4 +1 8156394582 +1 8156542508 ckunz@aqua-aerobic.com www.aqua-aerobic.com
Blue-White Industries IFC +1 7148938529 +1 7148949492 sales@blue-white.com www.blue-white.com
Carollo Engineering 9 +1 9259772133 +1 9249300208 lbrowning@carollo.com www.carollo.com
Genesys International 24 +44 1372741881 +44 1606837558 schesters@genesysro.com www.genesysro.com
Jatropha By Vecenergy 32 +1 9546189951 brendan.johnson@vecenergy.com www.vecenergy.com
Koch Membrane Systems 3 +1 9786947309 david.grebowski@kochmembrane.com www.kochmembrane.com
NanoH2o Inc BC +1 4242184037 +1 4242184001 rhoner@nanoh2o.com www.nanoh2o.com
Schreiber LLC 19 +1 2056557456 nancy@schreiberwater.com www.schreiberwater.com
WEF 20,28 +1 7036842458 +1 7036842492 lsukkariyyah@wef.org www.wef.org
World Water-Tech IBC +44 1273669914 www.worldwater.rethinkevents.com
WR Association 16,22 +1 7035480880 +1 7035485085 zdorsey@watereuse.org www.watereuse.org
Payment details (Please tick one box)
I enclose a cheque made payable to WEF Publishing UK Ltd
or please invoice my company for Order No.
I wish to pay by credit card no.

VISA/BARCLAYCARD

MASTERCARD

AMEX
Expiry date
Cardholders name
Signature Date
Tick here if you do not wish to receive direct marketing from other
reputable companies
Volume 5 / Issue 1
Spring 2014
TM
DecentralizedReuse
Constructedwetlands meet
challenge in San Francisco
DesalinationPermitting
Assessing effects on water
quality and public health
WateReuse Research
EngineeredDPRdelivers
reliable quality
Potable Reuse
Multi-barrier approach for
sustainable reclamation
Direct Potable Reuse
Historic progress, complex challenges
WORLD WATERTECH
I NVESTMENT SUMMI T 2014
... accelerating the adoption of new technologies
in municipal and industrial markets
10 -12 March, 2014
Grange Tower Bridge, London
Sponsors Key Partner
Book online: www.worldwater.rethinkevents.com
Contact us: +44 1273 669914
O
F
F
IC
IA
L

S
U
M
M
IT

R
E
C
E
P
T
IO
N

H
O
S
T
E
D

B
Y

D
A
N

R
O
G
E
R
S
O
N

M
P
40 International Speakers Include:
Sudhir Murthy
DC Water
Khungeka Njobe
Technology
Innovation Agency, SA
Julio Schreier
EBRD
Helge Daebel
Emerald Technology
Ventures
Amir Peleg
TaKaDu
Emyr Costa
Odebrecht
Ambiental

Marzo 2014 - The MBA For Sustanaible Reclamation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Marzo 2014 - The MBA For Sustanaible Reclamation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Volume 5 / Issue 1

Hollow Fiber Cartridge the new standard in high solids

News about the issues, trends

Special reports with in-depth

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen