Examining the Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse
Project: 11-02 (Phase 1)
Year Released: 2012
Type: White Paper
Funding Partners: Bureau of Reclamation, H2O Engineering, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
Total Investment: $1,735,903.35 (Cash: $550,671.37, In-Kind: $1,185,231.98)
Principal Investigator: R. Rhodes Trussell, Trussell Technologies, Inc.
Potable reuse is becoming increasingly important as a water supply alternative throughout the United States and the world due to a combination of increased demand and uncertain supply. At the present time, all operating potable reuse projects in the U.S. utilize an environmental buffer between the advanced water treatment train and the ultimate consumer. These environmental buffers, which are typically underground aquifers or surface water storage reservoirs, provide additional contaminant mitigation and agency response time.
In the past, such projects have been characterized as indirect potable reuse (IPR) to contrast them with direct potable reuse (DPR) projects that eliminate the environmental buffer and provide water directly to the user. The recent National Research Council (NRC) Committee stated that it cannot be demonstrated that such “natural” barriers provide public health protection that is not also available by other engineered processes. The Committee went on to conclude that the potable reuse of highly treated recycled water without an environmental buffer is worthy of consideration with the proviso that adequate protection is engineered into the system.
In essence, the Committee recommended that the industry dispense with the terms “direct” and “indirect” and just refer to projects as either potable reuse or nonpotable reuse, commenting that the distinction between indirect and direct potable reuse is not scientifically meaningful to the quality of the final product.
Goals and Objectives
This project identifies the benefits and tradeoffs of various treatment process trains for potable reuse. The project:
- Considers and examine criteria needed to evaluate the adequacy of treatment for direct and indirect potable reuse,
- Develops a model that can allow for comparisons of alternate treatment trains for potable reuse, and
- Tests at least one advanced treatment train for direct potable reuse at a scale large enough to give information on real operating conditions.
The research approach was to gather key reuse and public health experts to hold a comprehensive workshop to discuss current and future regulations related to IPR and DPR and create a state of the science report with a set of criteria that are protective of public health to evaluate treatment technologies for DPR.
Findings and Conclusions
An early step in the project was to convene an Independent Advisory Panel to lead a two-day workshop to develop a set of criteria that are protective of public health to evaluate treatment technologies for DPR. This report presents the recommendations of the panel.
Equivalency of Advanced Treatment Trains for Potable Reuse (11-02, Phase 3)