My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. ERMUSR 01-11-2011
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Utilities Commission
>
Packets
>
2003-2013
>
2011
>
01-11-2011
>
4.1. ERMUSR 01-11-2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2011 11:42:11 AM
Creation date
1/10/2011 11:42:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
ERMUSR
date
1/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) <br />4.3.1 Description <br />Injection of water into an aquifer through one or more wells and recovery by pumping of that water <br />at some later date. As originally envisioned by Elk River Municipal Utilities, treated water Mt. <br />Simon-Hinckley water would be injected in one well during the winter in order to make use of the <br />excess treatment plant capacity. During summer peak use, this treated water could then be recovered, <br />thereby obviating the need for increased treatment plant capacity and storage of treated water. <br />ASR may also be implemented by injecting treated surface water or water from the surficial aquifer <br />into the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer, although these methods aze more unlikely from a permitting <br />standpoint. <br />4.3.2 Technical Feasibility and Reliability <br />ASR that utilizes treated Mt. Simon-Hinckley Aquifer water is technically feasible. Issues of <br />dissimilar water quality need to be addressed to minimize fouling of the wells. This is a method <br />employed in other parts of the county but not in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Health has <br />indicated that they would considering permitting an ASR system. U.S. EPA Region V regulates <br />injection well systems and requires extensive study before permitting. <br />Injection of water from surface water is much more technically challenging. First, this water would <br />likely need to be treated to drinking-water standard using asurface-water treatment plant. Second, <br />the issues of dissimilaz water are compounded in cases of dissimilar water sources. Injection of water <br />from the surficial aquifer would require variances from the Minnesota Department of Health. <br />4.3.3 Cost <br />The cost of constructing and implementing ASR is likely prohibitive. 1Vlonitoring costs may be <br />significant and will likely require the installation of a monitoring well network. However, the <br />permitting costs and studies required to obtain permits may be very costly because ASR is not <br />routinely implemented in the upper Midwest. <br />4.3.4 Challenges and Other Considerations <br />ASR is not a routine technology and implementation will require significant evaluation and <br />monitoring. If ASR is implemented by other communities, the cost of permitting may come down as <br />regulatory agencies gain familiarity with the approach. Risk from unforeseen technical failures are <br />higher than with pumping well systems. <br />P:\Mple\23 MN\71\2371105 Water Supply Alternative Smdy\P[aalDeliverables\AI[ernativesJteport_final.doc 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.