o_19f3m1n7k170b14e9u0oqipgu4a.pdf

Recommendations

Info

thus, application rates are often far greater than irrigation demands and limits are set for the maximum hydraulic loading. On the other hand, when the reclaimed water is managed as a valuable resource, the objective is to apply the water according to irrigation needs rather than maximum hydraulic loading, and application limits are rarely specified. Many states do not have any specific requirements regarding reclaimed water irrigation application rates, as these are generally based on site conditions; however, most states emphasizing beneficial reuse recommend a maximum hydraulic loading rate of no more than 2 inches per week (5.1 cm per week). Delaware’s regulations require that the maximum design wastewater loading be limited to 2.5 inches per week (6.4 cm per week). Florida recommends a maximum annual average of 2 inches per week (5.1 cm per week). Those states emphasizing land treatment or disposal may recommend a hydraulic loading rate of up to 4 inches per week (10.2 cm per week). In addition to hydraulic loading rates, some states also have limits on nitrogen loading. For example, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee all require that the effluent from the reuse system have a nitrate-nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/l or less, while Missouri and Nebraska both require that the nitrogen loading not exceed the nitrogen uptake of the crop. 4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater monitoring programs associated with reclaimed water irrigation generally focus on water quality in the surficial aquifer and are required by Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. In general, these groundwater monitoring programs require that 1 well be placed hydraulically upgradient of the reuse site to assess background and incoming groundwater conditions within the aquifer in question. In addition 2 wells must be placed hydraulically downgradient of the reuse site to monitor compliance. Florida normally requires a minimum of 3 monitoring wells at each reuse site. For reuse projects involving multiple sites, Florida may allow monitoring at selected example sites. Some states also require that a well be placed within each reuse site. South Carolina’s guidelines suggest that a minimum of 9 wells be placed in golf courses (18 holes) that irrigate with reclaimed water. Sampling parameters and frequency of sampling are generally considered on a case-by-case basis. 4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation Many states have established setback distances or buffer zones between reuse irrigation sites and various facilities such as potable water supply wells, property lines, residential areas, and roadways. Setback distances vary depending on the quality of reclaimed water and the method of application. For example, Nevada requires a 400- to 800-foot (120- to 240-meter) buffer, depending on disinfection level, for a spray irrigation system, but when surface irrigation is used as the application method, no buffer is required. For restricted and unrestricted urban reuse and irrigation of food crops, Florida requires a 75 foot (23-meter) setback to potable water supply wells; but for agricultural reuse on non-food crops, Florida requires a 500-foot (150-meter) setback to potable water supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to property lines. Florida will allow reduced setback distances for agricultural reuse on non-food crops if additional disinfection and reliability are provided or if alternative application techniques are used. Colorado recommends a 500-foot (150-meter) setback distance to domestic supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to any irrigation well regardless of the quality of the reclaimed water. Due to the high degree of treatment required, Oregon and Nevada do not require setback distances when reclaimed water is used for unrestricted urban reuse or irrigation of food crops. However, setback distances are required for irrigation of non-food crops and restricted urban reuse. In Nevada, the quality requirements for reclaimed water are based not only on the type of reuse, but also on the setback distance. For example, for restricted urban reuse and a 100-foot (30-meter) buffer zone, Nevada requires that the reclaimed water have a mean fecal coliform count of no more than 23/100 ml and not exceed a maximum daily number of 240/100 ml. However, with no buffer zone, the reclaimed water must have a mean fecal coliform count of no more than 2.2/100 ml and not exceed a maximum daily number of 23/100 ml. 4.2 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse Table 4-13 presents suggested wastewater treatment processes, reclaimed water quality, monitoring, and setback distances for various types of water reuse. Suggested guidelines are presented for the following categories: • Urban Reuse • Restricted Access Area Irrigation 165
• Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops -Food crops not commercially processed -Commercially processed food crops and surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards • Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops -Pasture for milking animals and fodder, fiber, and seed crops • Recreational Impoundments • Landscape Impoundments • Construction Uses • Industrial Reuse • Environmental Reuse • Groundwater Recharge -Spreading or injection into aquifers not used for public water supply • Indirect Potable Reuse -Spreading into potable aquifers -Injection into potable aquifers -Augmentation of surface supplies These guidelines apply to domestic wastewater from municipal or other wastewater treatment facilities having a limited input of industrial waste. The suggested guidelines are predicated principally on water reclamation and reuse information from the U.S. and are intended to apply to reclamation and reuse facilities in the U.S. Local social, economic, regulatory, technological, and other conditions may limit the applicability of these guidelines in some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated that the direct application of these suggested guidelines will not be used by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as strict criteria for funding. The suggested treatment processes, reclaimed water quality, monitoring frequency, and setback distances are based on: • Water reuse experience in the U.S. and elsewhere • Research and pilot plant or demonstration study data • Technical material from the literature • Various states’ reuse regulations, policies, or guidelines (see Appendix A) • Attainability • Sound engineering practice These guidelines are not intended to be used as definitive water reclamation and reuse criteria. They are intended to provide reasonable guidance for water reuse opportunities, particularly in states that have not developed their own criteria or guidelines. Adverse health consequences associated with the reuse of raw or improperly treated wastewater are well documented. As a consequence, water reuse regulations and guidelines are principally directed at public health protection and generally are based on the control of pathogenic microorganisms for nonpotable reuse applications and control of both health significant microorganisms and chemical contaminants for indirect potable reuse applications. These guidelines address health protection via suggested wastewater treatment unit processes, reclaimed water quality limits, and other controls (setback distances, etc.). Both treatment processes and water quality limits are recommended for the following reasons: • Water quality criteria that include the use of surrogate parameters may not adequately characterize reclaimed water quality. • A combination of treatment and quality requirements known to produce reclaimed water of acceptable quality obviate the need to monitor the finished water for certain constituents, e.g., some health-significant chemical constituents or pathogenic microorganisms. • Expensive, time-consuming, and, in some cases, questionable monitoring for pathogenic organisms, such as viruses, is eliminated without compromising health protection. • Treatment reliability is enhanced. It would be impractical to monitor reclaimed water for all of the chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms of concern, and surrogate parameters are universally accepted. In the U.S., total and fecal coliforms are the most commonly used indicator organisms in reclaimed water as a measure of disinfection efficiency. While coliforms are adequate indicator organisms for many bacterial pathogens, they are, by themselves, poor indicators of parasites and viruses. The total coliform analysis includes enumeration of organisms of both fecal and nonfecal origin, while the fecal coliform analysis is spe 166
Page 2 and 3:
EPA/625/R-04/108 September 2004 Gui
Page 4:
Foreword In an effort to help meet
Page 7 and 8:
Chapter Page 2.3.3.2 Site Use Contr
Page 9 and 10:
Chapter Page 3.6.3.3 Land Applicati
Page 11 and 12:
Chapter Page 6.4 Incremental Versus
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter Page 8.5.20.1Drarga, Morocc
Page 15 and 16:
Table Page 3-6 Typical Pathogen Sur
Page 17 and 18:
Table Page 8-10 Major Reuse Project
Page 19 and 20:
Figure Page 2-19 Available Reclaime
Page 22 and 23:
Acknowledgements The Guidelines for
Page 24 and 25:
William Everest Orange County Water
Page 26 and 27:
*Dr. Christopher Scott, P.E. Intern
Page 28 and 29:
Robert Whitley Whitley, Burchett an
Page 30 and 31:
CHAPTER 1 Introduction The world’
Page 32 and 33:
water treatment and disposal. Under
Page 34:
1.7 References Department of the In
Page 37 and 38:
Florida, has been in operation sinc
Page 39 and 40:
• Prevention of improper operatio
Page 41 and 42:
industrial uses must also be added
Page 43 and 44:
following indirect impacts associat
Page 45 and 46:
2. Identification of metal alloys i
Page 47 and 48:
Table 2-3. North Richmond Water Rec
Page 49 and 50:
2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal Processe
Page 51 and 52:
tration and excess application is r
Page 53 and 54:
or very low calcium content in the
Page 55 and 56:
e attributable to different types o
Page 57 and 58:
environmental enhancements (wetland
Page 59 and 60:
The Yelm, Washington, project in Co
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 2-6. Three Engineered Method
Page 63 and 64:
the development of anaerobic condit
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 2-7. Schematic of Soil-Aquif
Page 67 and 68:
zone injection wells as compared to
Page 69 and 70:
metabolism. One would expect simila
Page 71 and 72:
A guiding principle in the developm
Page 73 and 74:
source control and protection progr
Page 75 and 76:
not dissimilar from those that coul
Page 77 and 78:
Table 2-12. San Diego Potable Reuse
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2-9. Water Resources at RCID
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 2-11. Estimated Potable Wate
Page 83 and 84:
The obvious question that must be a
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 2-15. North Phoenix Reclaime
Page 87 and 88:
effective through a test program fu
Page 89 and 90:
It is important to note that, in al
Page 91 and 92:
achieve compliance with a streamflo
Page 93 and 94:
gallons of stored water (143,850 m
Page 95 and 96:
feet per year (130 mgd or 492,100 m
Page 97 and 98:
euse site, and (2) produce a reliab
Page 99 and 100:
As outlined in the Water Conservati
Page 101 and 102:
Calabrese, E.J., C.E. Gilbert, and
Page 103 and 104:
Johns, F.L., R. J. Neal, and R. P.
Page 105 and 106:
Southwest Florida Water Management
Page 107 and 108:
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations Th
Page 109 and 110:
should be known including the prese
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 3-3. Fresh Water Source, Use
Page 113 and 114:
which consists primarily of landsca
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 3-7. Potable and Reclaimed W
Page 117 and 118:
quirements for water reuse applicat
Page 119 and 120:
of tourists, and seasons of high fl
Page 121 and 122:
must either directly or indirectly
Page 123 and 124:
uct is commonly referenced as the
Page 125 and 126:
isms that may be found in raw and s
Page 127 and 128:
Table 3-7 Pathogens in Untreated an
Page 129 and 130:
Table 3-10 Some Suggested Alternati
Page 131 and 132:
3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents The c
Page 133 and 134:
The health effects resulting from o
Page 135 and 136:
consistent results, indicating that
Page 137 and 138:
The chlorine dosage required to dis
Page 139 and 140:
trite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen
Page 141 and 142:
Table 3-13a. Microfiltration Remova
Page 143 and 144: • All water pollution control fac
Page 145 and 146: discharge the wastewater to approve
Page 147 and 148: lection of how control valves respo
Page 149 and 150: tuations, which can affect system r
Page 151 and 152: salts from the root zone or to inte
Page 153 and 154: Figure 3-14. Example of a Multiple
Page 155 and 156: der some circumstances, using a rec
Page 157 and 158: Though inspection and review regula
Page 159 and 160: Figure 3-18. TDS Increase Due to Ev
Page 161 and 162: hanced, wetlands application may be
Page 163 and 164: der this provision, reclaimed water
Page 165 and 166: Figure 3-21. Irrigation Lateral Sep
Page 167 and 168: Ahel M., W. Giger W., and M. Koch.
Page 169 and 170: Federal Water Quality Administratio
Page 171 and 172: Klingel, K., C. Hohenadl, A. Canu,
Page 173 and 174: ter Treatment Plant Effluent. Unive
Page 175 and 176: 124503. Environmental Monitoring an
Page 177 and 178: 148
Page 179 and 180: Figure 4-1. California Water Reuse
Page 181 and 182: Table 4-1. Summary of State Reuse R
Page 183 and 184: average) except when reclaimed wate
Page 185 and 186: water quality requirements vary fro
Page 187 and 188: Table 4-7. Unrestricted Recreationa
Page 189 and 190: Table 4-10. Industrial Reuse (1) Ar
Page 191 and 192: and Washington) have regulations or
Page 193: is delivered to the reuse system on
Page 197 and 198: Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines fo
Page 199 and 200: Footnotes 1. These guidelines are b
Page 201 and 202: genic microorganisms during the dis
Page 203 and 204: 174
Page 205 and 206: 5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System T
Page 207 and 208: 5.2 Section 5.2 “Water Supply and
Page 209 and 210: egulations that establish criteria
Page 211 and 212: sons ranging from health effects to
Page 213 and 214: nonpotable systems, or the installa
Page 215 and 216: thorization of entities with whom t
Page 217 and 218: if reclaimed water is available whi
Page 219 and 220: cost of its operation • MRWPCA wi
Page 221 and 222: Pinellas County Utilities - STANDAR
Page 223 and 224: Owner’s Full Name and Service Add
Page 225 and 226: eclaimed water of sufficient qualit
Page 227 and 228: fourth element addresses the coordi
Page 229 and 230: 6.2 • Economic - delay in or avoi
Page 231 and 232: tion of ordinances or regulations t
Page 233 and 234: One example of such a capital contr
Page 235 and 236: allowed the City to postpone expans
Page 237 and 238: General and administrative costs sh
Page 239 and 240: Table 6-2. User Fees for Existing U
Page 241 and 242: urse its water and wastewater reven
Page 243 and 244: Table 6-4. Estimated Capital and Ma
Page 245 and 246:
new service; (2) the fees charged c
Page 247 and 248:
Table 6-9. Percent Costs Recovered
Page 249 and 250:
Washington State Department of Ecol
Page 251 and 252:
A public participation program can
Page 253 and 254:
Table 7-1. Positive and Negative Re
Page 255 and 256:
Figure 7-3. Survey Results for Diff
Page 257 and 258:
sults, monitor the effectiveness of
Page 259 and 260:
grams, the user is concerned with t
Page 261 and 262:
Table 7-3. Trade Reactions and Expe
Page 263 and 264:
to remind homeowners about dry seas
Page 265 and 266:
developed to enhance and improve th
Page 267 and 268:
• Protect public health and the e
Page 269 and 270:
the survey respondents claimed to k
Page 271 and 272:
Table 8-1. Sources of Water in Seve
Page 273 and 274:
of water scarcity, meaning that in
Page 275 and 276:
wastewater treatment to produce usa
Page 277 and 278:
Water Supply and Sanitation Coverag
Page 279 and 280:
Table 8-3. Summary of Water Quality
Page 281 and 282:
The government of Tasmania, Austral
Page 283 and 284:
Table 8-5. Life-Cycle Cost of Typic
Page 285 and 286:
ment, at which stage, around 9,000
Page 287 and 288:
There was another attempt to reuse
Page 289 and 290:
tor for water reuse at a national l
Page 291 and 292:
8.5.9 France France’s water resou
Page 293 and 294:
treatment. Enteric diseases, anemia
Page 295 and 296:
The 2 largest reuse projects are th
Page 297 and 298:
Table 8-11. Uses of Reclaimed Water
Page 299 and 300:
Table 8-13. Reclaimed Water Standar
Page 301 and 302:
Another key element of the Drarga p
Page 303 and 304:
high reliability of wastewater, the
Page 305 and 306:
d (30 mgd) of reclaimed water for n
Page 307 and 308:
authorities. These authorities are
Page 309 and 310:
Over 40 irrigation projects have be
Page 311 and 312:
terms and general conditions of rec
Page 313 and 314:
8.5.35 Zimbabwe In Zimbabwe, water
Page 315 and 316:
Scott, C. A., J. A. Zarazua, G. Lev
Page 317 and 318:
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse 3
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse S
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse - Foo
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse - Non
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
390 Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreat
Page 421 and 422:
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreationa
Page 423 and 424:
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreationa
Page 425 and 426:
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
Page 433 and 434:
Table A-7. Environmental - Wetlands
Page 435 and 436:
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse 406 Sta
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge 418
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge Sta
Page 459 and 460:
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Appendix B. State Website Internet
Page 471 and 472:
Appendix B. State Website Internet
Page 473 and 474:
Acronyms AID U.S. Agency for Intern
Page 475 and 476:
446
Page 477 and 478:
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reus
Page 479 and 480:
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reus
show all

o_19f3m1n7k170b14e9u0oqipgu4a.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?