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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
“Fit for Purpose” Treatment Technologies to Meet Water Quality
“Fit for Purpose” process selection applies the correct level of treatment for the intended purpose
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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)
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
Suggested Color Code Changes to Ch. 217.329
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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)
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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)
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
• 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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
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]
Updating Texas Reclaimed Water Regulations
http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100FS7K.pdf