UPDATING TEXAS RECLAIMED WATER REGULATIONS BY...

UPDATING TEXAS RECLAIMED WATER REGULATIONS BYADOPTING 2012 EPA GUIDELINES BEST PRACTICES

Water Reuse in Texas 2013

July 12, 2013Austin, Texas

Don Vandertulip, PE, BCEE ‐ PrincipalWater Reuse TRG Leader

Historical View of Texas Water Reuse Rules

• Chapter 310 adoption 1990; Chapter 210 in 1997

• Industrial reuse – Subchapter E (Ch 210) ‐ 2002

• Graywater provisions as Chapter 285 ‐ 2003

• Subchapter P (Ch 321) for satellite plants – 2008

• Bacterial effluent limitations (E. Coli, Fecal Coliform, Enterococci) ‐ (Sec 210.33) – 2009

• New Title 2 Subtitle D, Sec 26.071 allows multiple reclamation plant feed to distribution system

• Ch 344 Landscape Irrigation ‐ 2009Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations

New Themes in 2012 Guidelines

• Integrated Water Resource Management with water reuse as a total water management tool

• “Fit for Purpose” concept and treatment technologies• IPR practices and DPR considerations• Increased state adoption of regulations and guidelines• Reuse management tools and examples

– Groundwater augmentation/managed aquifer recharge– Surface water storage and water supply augmentation– Wetlands polishing and stream augmentation– Coverage of onsite and graywater systems

Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations

Integrated Water Management

• Approach to water resources management – Conservation– Utilization of

diverse sources

• Reuse– Potable use offsets

– Source augmentation

– Effluent disposal option


“Fit for Purpose” Treatment Technologies to Meet Water Quality

“Fit for Purpose” process selection applies the correct level of treatment for the intended purpose


Regulations for IPR

• CA, FL, HI, and WA have regulations/guidelines specific to groundwater recharge of nonpotable aquifers

• CA, FL, HI, and WA have regulations/guidelines specific to IPR ‐ intentional introduction of reclaimed water into the raw water supply for the purposes of increasing the volume of water available for potable use

• For recharge of potable aquifers, most require:– Pretreatment program– Public hearings– Groundwater monitoring

• TX and VA review on case by case basis


California IPR Groundwater Recharge Regulations (Draft Nov 2011)

• FAT‐Full Advanced Treatment – applies to portion treated to meet Total Organic Carbon (TOC) limitations

• TOC concentration is based on: TOCmax=0.5 mg/L ÷ RWC• RWC = Recycled Municipal Wastewater Contribution • When using RO membranes, TOC <0.25 mg/l at bench test• Salt (NaCl) rejection > 99.5%• Recycled water to be used for groundwater recharge must

meet drinking water standards• Total nitrogen < 10 mg/l• 12‐log enteric virus reduction, a 10‐log Giardia cyst

reduction, and a 10‐log Cryptosporidium oocyst reduction using at least 3 treatment barriers


Alternatives to FAT (in California)

• Best history with Ozone/BAC (El Paso‐10 mgd, Denver pilot‐70gpm, Lake Arrowhead pilot‐5.3 gpm, Queensland, Australia‐2.6 mgd, Windhoek, Namibia‐23.1 mgd, Gwinnett Co, GA‐40 mgd, Reno, NV pilot‐10.6 gpm)

• NF or EDR (electrodialysis reversal)


WWTP DAF MediaFiltration Ozone BAC/GAC UF Buffer

Blend WTP

WWTP MF RO IX UV-A BufferBlend WTP

WWTP MF RO UV-A Buffer WTP

WWTP MF GAC Ozone BufferBlend WTP

California Model IPR

Surface Water (nutrients)

RO UV-A BufferBlend WTPMBR

Namibia Model (No RO)

Gwinnett County IPR

Cloudcraft Model (MBR)Figure 6-1Potable reuse treatment scenarios (Chalmers et al., 2011)

Emerging Contaminants‐CA Science Advisory Panel

• California proposed groundwater regulations most stringent• CA adopted new Recycled Water Policy‐Feb 2009• Policy required “Blue Ribbon” advisory panel to recommend

CEC monitoring requirements• 2010 Panel report on groundwater recharge focused on

human health protection (excluded irrigation)• Panel recommended CEC monitoring for groundwater

recharge only for eight CEC’s:– 17b‐estradiol ‐ gemfibrozil – Triclosan ‐ DEET– Caffeine ‐ iopromide– NDMA ‐ sucralose


Indirect/Direct Potable Reuse Example –CRMWD Raw Water Production Facility Project

• Colorado River Municipal Water District(CRMWD) Raw Water Production Facility Project

• Capacity: 2 mgd• WRF Process: MF/RO/UV‐A• WTP Process: Floc/Sed/Filter/Dis• Discharge: WTP supply pipeline• 10%‐30% blend with lake water • Cost: $9.5 Million • Status: Operational Spring 2013

Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations10

IPR(Initial Plan)

DPR

TCEQ Considering New IPR/DPR Regulations

Two separate and redundant sets of treatment barriers in series to achieve:• Minimum 8.0‐log total virus removal with minimum 4.0‐

log from each barrier (CA requires 12 log removal)• Minimum 6.0‐log total Giardia removal with minimum

3.0‐log from each barrier (CA requires 10 log removal)• Minimum 5.5‐log total Cryptosporidium removal (CA‐10)• Increased chemical and microbiological analysis• Increased disinfection byproduct testing• Increased pilot plant testing and membrane selection


EPA Reclaimed Water Best Practices For Texas

• Terminology and definitions• Reduction in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)• Mandatory use/connection to reclaimed water systems• Pipe separation distance and appurtenances• Additional nonpotable uses for reclaimed water

(recreational, environmental‐wetlands, stream augmentation, industrial‐boilers, oil and gas production, food and beverage industry)

• Groundwater/surface water augmentation• Quality of reclaimed water


2004 Identified Terminology and Definitions

• TAWWA/WEAT Subcommittee recommendations– Beneficial Use– Discharge (current industrial basis)– Producer/Provider– Effluent (treated wastewater vs. sewage)– Irrigation (spray vs. surface applications)– Trace chlorine residual– Clarify ambiguous general provisions

• Point of delivery, record keeping • Sampling and analysis points


Current Terminology and Definitions

• Adopt new terms/definitions‐reduce confusion

– De facto reuse

– Nonpotable reuse

– Reclaimed water (recycled, repurified, pure)

– Water reclamation

– Water reuse

– Wastewater

– Potable reuse, direct and indirect potable reuse


Suggested Color Code Changes to Ch. 217.329


ProductCurrent Color

Proposed Color

Explanation

Potable water light blue light blueMeets TCEQ Chapter 290, override 2012 UPC color of green for onsite potable

Chlorine yellow yellow2009 UPC conflict eliminated by 2012 UPC change to purple for alternate water

Sewage grey greenGreen is consistent with APWA and utility ROW color code designation

Compressed air light greendark blue, white text

Use ANSI pipe label color code, avoid wastewater identification for air pipe

Heated waterblue, 6" red

bandsblue, 6" red

bandsAdd text to clarify heated water (may not be potable water)

Reclaimed water purplepurple, black

textUse 2012 UPC specific text for municipally provided reclaimed water

Clarified effluent dark green dark green Prior to disinfection, still wastewater

Alternate water (NEW)

not identifiedpurple, yellow

text

Use 2012 UPC specific text for alternate waters to include graywater, rainwater, stormwater, and “other” nonpotable water

Mandatory Use/Connection

• Trend to require connection to reclaimed water system if within defined distance to property

• Encourages “fit for purpose” use of water

• Maximizes reclaimed water distribution use

• Better financing terms with guaranteed use

• Mandatory use common in CA and FL

• Practiced in NC, WA, and MD


Pipe Separation Distance and Appurtenances

• Current 210.25(c) and (d) reference 9 foot to potable, 3 foot to sewer horizontal separation

• Other options reference Chapter 290 drinking water rules for separation options

• Reclaimed separation from alternate waters not defined

• Standard separation distance in Florida is 3 foot horizontal reclaimed to potable and 1 foot vertical (6‐inch allowed)


Reclaimed Water System Appurtenances

• Need specific design criteria for:– valve/meter box covers, valve riser covers, air/vacuum release valves, backflow prevention assemblies, hose bibs and sprinkler heads

• Color coding/text language and tagging convention• Coordinate color code conflicts within TCEQ chapters and references to WEF MOP’s

• Eliminate exemption for pipe color code in WWTP• Storage tank design criteria• Updated signage examples


Additional Nonpotable Uses for Reclaimed Water

• Authorized uses listed at Chapter 210.32• Industrial recycling limited to specific end uses ‐210.53, not included in rule at 210.51

• Consider specific language to add:– Recreational impoundments– Natural system restoration, wetlands, wildlife habitat– Chemical refinery and electronics industries– Paint mixing and air spray booths– Geothermal energy production– Food and beverage industry‐ILSIRF


Groundwater/Surface Water Augmentation

• Water supply practices to include:– Seawater barriers– Indirect potable reuse– Surface water augmentation

• Direct potable reuse• River/stream flow augmentation

– May be authorized now if river is a natural water body

– Release upstream of permitted pointimprove base flow and water quality


Case Study – “Engineered Systems Solution”Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County, CaliforniaMike Markus, Mehul Patel, Bill Dunivin (Orange County Water District)

• 1990s: Orange County Water District (OCWD) and Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) joined efforts

• Provide reliable water supply by developing Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) (on‐line January 2008)

• The Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) facility • MF, RO, and AOP (UV / hydrogen peroxide)• Water for 600,000 residents• Saves energy to power 21,000 homes• 2/3 X less energy than importing water• 3 X less energy than ocean desalination


Case Study ‐ Groundwater RechargeMontebello Forebay Groundwater Recharge Project Monica Gasca, Earle Hartling (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts)

• Oldest planned GWR project using recycled water in California• Supplies 40% of Los Angeles County water supply and to date,

1.6 million ac‐ft recharged to Central Groundwater Basin• Success of Whittier Narrows WRP led to more WRP’s• Three infiltration areas

– Rio Hondo Coastal Spreading Grounds– San Gabriel Coastal Spreading Grounds– San Gabriel River

• Collaborative research on SAT• No documented adverse health effects

have been related to recycled water


Texas Groundwater AugmentationEl Paso Water Utilities Hueco Bolson

• Pilot plant studies in 1978‐79• Initial plant operation in 1985• Plant capacity increase to 12 mgd in 2012• Augmentation and conservation have stopped aquifer decline• Companion processes: screening, degritting,

primary clarification, flow equalization, two‐stage powder activated carbon, high lime,two‐stage re‐carbonation, sand filtration,ozonation, granular activated carbon filtrationand chlorination before entering storage anddistribution


Case Study – Wetlands PolishingNorth Texas Municipal Water District Constructed WetlandsEllen McDonald, PhD, P.E. and Alan Plummer, Jr., P.E., BCEE (APAI), James M. Parks, P.E. (NTMWD)


• 1840 acre wetlands• 91 mgd capacity• 7-10 day retention• Augments Lavon Lake

w/ 93 mgd firm capacity

Case Study – Surface Water AugmentationPotable Water Reuse in the Occoquan WatershedRobert W. Angelotti (UOSA) and Thomas J. Grizzard (Virginia Tech)

• Urbanization in 1960’s, poor quality effluent, and urban/ agricultural runoff threatened use for public water supply

• 1971 VDEQ adopted the Occoquan Policy mandating creation of the Upper Occoquan Service Authority (UOSA)– Separate watershed management program (OWMP) and WQ

monitoring laboratory (OWML) – OWMP and OWML provide over‐

sight, independent accountability and recommendations to UOSA, Fairfax Water and state regulatory agencies

• Demonstrated 34 years of success


Quality of Reclaimed Water

• Chapter 4, EPA Guidelines compares quality in 10 states – Table 4.7 Unrestricted reuse

• Texas only state not specifying treatment process• Texas has lowest stated BOD value (5 mg/l)• Texas has higher NTU value than other 8 states• Texas has higher bacteriological limits at 20 col/100 ml

– FL‐non‐detect 75% samples, 25 col/100 ml max– AZ‐non‐detect in 4 of 7 samples, 23 col/100 ml max– CA, HI, NV, NJ, WA use 2.2 col/100 ml, 23 col/100 ml max– NC limit of 14 col/100 ml, 25 col/100 ml max– VA 11 E. coli/14 fecal/100 ml; 35 and 49 col/100 ml action level


Improving Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations

From 2012 EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Table 4‐7 Urban reuse – unrestricted

ArizonaClass A

CaliforniaDisinfected Tertiary Florida

North CarolinaType 1

TexasType I

VirginiaLevel 1

WashingtonClass A

Treatm

ent (System

Design)

Requ

iremen

ts

Unit processes

Secondary treatment, filtration, disinfection

Oxidized, coagulated, filtered, disinfected

Secondary treatment, filtration, high‐level

disinfection

Filtration (or equivalent) NS

Secondary treatment,

filtration, high‐level disinfection

Oxidized, coagulated, filtered,

disinfectedUV dose, if UVIs disinfection used

NS NWRI UV Guidelines NWRI UV Guidelines enforced, variance allowed NS NS NS NWRI UV

Guidelines

Chlorine disinfection requirements, if used NS

CrT > 450 mg∙min/L; 90 minutes modal

contact time at peak dry weather flow

TRC > 1 mg/L; 15 minutes contact time

at peak hr flow1NS NS

TRC CAT < 1 mg/L; 30 minutes contact time at avg flow or 20 minutes at peak

flow

Chlorine residual > 1 mg/L; 30 minutes contact time (CrT >

30 may be required

Mon

itored Re

claimed

Water Qua

lity Re

quire

men

ts

BOD5(or CBOD5)

NS NS

CBOD5:‐20 mg/L (ann avg)‐30 mg/L (mon avg)‐45 mg/L (wk avg)‐60 mg/L (max)

‐10 mg/L (mon avg)

‐15 mg/L (daily max)

5 mg/L

10 mg/L(mon avg)or CBOD5:

8 mg/L (mon avg)

30 mg/L

TSS NS NS 5 mg/l (max)‐5 mg/l

(mon avg) ‐10 mg/l max)

NS NS30 mg/L; this limit is superseded by

turbidity

Turbidity ‐2 NTU (24‐hr avg)‐5 NTU (max)

‐2 NTU (avg);‐10 NTU (max) for media filters

‐0.2 NTU (avg);‐0.5 NTU (max) for membrane filters

Case‐by‐case(generally 2 to 2.5 NTU)

Florida requires continuous on‐line monitoring of NTU

as indicator for TSS

10 NTU (max) 3 NTU ‐2 NTU (daily avg),CAT > 5 NTU

‐2 NTU (avg)‐5 NTU (max)

Bacterial indicators

Fecal coliform:‐none detectable in last 4 of 7 samples

‐23/100mL (max)

Total coliform:‐2.2/100mL (7‐day med)‐23/100mL (not more

than one sample exceeds this value in 30 d)‐240/100mL (max)

Fecal coliform:‐75% of samples below

detection‐25/100mL (max)

Fecal coliform or E. coli:

‐14/100mL (mon mean)

‐25/100mL (max)

Fecal coliform orE. coli:

‐20/100mL (30‐d geom)

‐75/100mL (max)

Enterococci:‐4/100mL (30‐d

geom)‐9/100mL (max)

Fecal coliform:‐14/100mL(mon geom),

CAT > 49/100mLE. coli:

‐11/100mL (mon geom),

CAT > 35/100mLEnterococci:‐11/100mL (mon geom),

CAT > 24/100mL

Total coliform‐2.2/100mL (7‐d

med)‐23/100mL (max)

Pathogens NS NS

Giardia /Cryptosporidium sampling once each 2‐yr

for Q ≥1 mgd; once each 5‐yr for Q ≤ 1 mgd

NS NS NS NS

Questions and Discussion

Don Vandertulip, PE, BCEECDM Smith1777 NE Loop 410, Suite 500San Antonio, Texas [email protected]


http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100FS7K.pdf

Date post:	19-Nov-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	9 times
Download:	0 times

UPDATING TEXAS RECLAIMED WATER REGULATIONS BY...

Documents