Urban Wastewater Reuse Technologies and Cost Analysis

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOMATIC ENGINEERING
MSc DISSERTATION SUBMISSION
STUDENT NAME:
CHRYSOULA SFYNIA
PROGRAMME: MSC ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
SUPERVISOR: DR. LUIZA CINTRA CAMPOS
DISSERTATION TITLE:
URBAN WASTEWATER REUSE - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES & COST
I confirm that I have read and understood the guidelines on plagiarism, that I understand the meaning of plagiarism and that I may be penalised for submitting work that has been plagiarised.
I declare that all material presented in the accompanying work is entirely my own work except where explicitly and individually indicated and that all sources used in its preparation and all quotations are clearly cited.
Should this statement prove to be untrue, I recognise the right of the Board of Examiners to recommend what action should be taken in line with UCLs regulations.
Signature:
Date: 06/09/2013
Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Arup and University College Londons (UCL), Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering Department, have launched a joint project for the design configuration of urban water reuse networks. This master thesis is part of the venture Water Reuse Networks Project and of the ongoing research in the field with regards to wastewater treatment options for reuse and their costs. The present study Urban Wastewater Reuse treatment technologies and costs involves a detailed review of the current trends and reuse applications with emphasis on possible efficient scenarios. The project is concerned how increasing pressures on the water environment necessitate the implementation of sustainable water management practices and regimes. It is argued that this can be achieved through the design, the application and the optimal operation of water reuse infrastructure and management of both supply and demand. Wastewater reuse can be a tool of rational management of water resources. The reasoning of the appropriate reuse of treated municipal or industrial wastewater has intrinsic benefits associated with saving water resources and producing
environmental and economic benefits. However, the reuse of wastewater requires a comprehensive and rational planning, taking into account possible risks and limitations. This study summarizes the current trends concerning urban wastewater reuse focusing in the case of greywater reclamation. In addition, it outlines the objectives and scope of the collaborative project. Overall, the report consists of 7 Chapters, a glossary, an appendix and the appropriate referencing.
The study reviews the following main issues (Chapter 4-6): Legislation of urban wastewater reuse Available technologies for greywater treatment for reuse Costs for these treatment schemes
Chapter 7 introduces the reader to the planning of water reuse networks. This Chapter analyses four different possible greywater treatment scenarios that can be implemented and have proved to be effective. These scenarios have been formed after extensive research in literature, case studies and communication with wastewater treatment specialists. Finally, another significant component of this project is the discussion parts at the end of each of the core chapters that illustrate briefly the main findings and comment on the outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Luiza Cintra Campos for giving me the opportunity to carry out this project as my master thesis together with her invaluable guidance and support throughout the whole period. Her great experience and professionalism inspired me to progress in my research and further explore my capabilities. Secondly, I am also thankful to Eleni Georgiou for her contribution and feedback review for this thesis. Special thanks to ARUP and the WReN group for all the confidence, advice and flexibility I was given, which ensured the smooth completion of the first part of the collaborative project. I would also like to thank the wastewater treatment companies that kindly provided technical and financial information of their technologies. Last but not least, I would like to thank the family we created in London for all the unconditional and endless support and help during my studies.
To the inspiration in my life, My father, Constantinos Sfynias,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 3 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 9 1.1 1.2 2. 3. Water Scarcity & Urbanization................................................................... 10 Water Use around the World ..................................................................... 12
AIMS & OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 16 BACKGROUND RESEARCH.................................................................................. 17 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Water Reclamation & Reuse A Sustainable Solution .............................. 18 Challenges of Water & Wastewater Reuse................................................ 19 Advantages of Water Reuse ..................................................................... 21 Types of Water Reuse Applications .......................................................... 22 Case Studies............................................................................................. 24
4.
WASTEWATER REUSE FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 28 4.1 4.2 4.3 Regulations by International Organizations ............................................... 29 Regulations by the State of California ....................................................... 38 Regulations by Other Countries ................................................................ 40
5.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR REUSE .............................................................. 44 5.1 5.2 5.3 Wastewater for Reuse Greywater .......................................................... 46 Greywater Treatment Stages .................................................................... 50 Discussion................................................................................................. 71
6.
WATER REUSE & COSTS .................................................................................... 72 6.1 6.2 6.3 Capital Costs............................................................................................. 73 Operation & Maintenance Costs................................................................ 82 Discussion................................................................................................. 86
7.
SETTING UP WATER REUSE NETWORKS ............................................................. 87 7.1 7.2 Treatment Scenarios ................................................................................. 91 Discussion............................................................................................... 100
8.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 102
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: The Percent of Population with access to improved Water Sources (%) ............. 10 Figure 1.2: The Percent of Population with access to improved Sanitation (%) ..................... 11 Figure 1.3: Map of Worlds Water Stress in 1995 and in 2020 ................................................ 11 Figure 1.5: Water Use by Sector in European Countries ........................................................ 13 Figure 1.6: Agricultural water withdrawal as a percent of total withdrawal (%) ....................... 14 Figure 1.7: Industrial water withdrawal as a percent of total withdrawal (%) .......................... 14 Figure 1.8: Municipal water withdrawal as a percent of total withdrawal (%) .......................... 15 Figure 3.1: Water Reuse Applications .................................................................................... 22 Figure 3.2: Water Reuse Projects in Europe (Size & Application) ......................................... 27 Figure 4.1: Californias Warning Sign for Recycled Water ...................................................... 39 Figure 5.1: Treatment Technologies for Any Type of Reuse ................................................. 45 Figure 5.2: Sources of Household Wastewater ...................................................................... 46 Figure 5.3: Greywater Categories ........................................................................................... 47 Figure 5.4: Typical Flow Diagram of Basic System Coarse Filtration ................................. 53 Figure 5.5: Typical Flow Diagram of Basic System Sedimentation..................................... 54 Figure 5.6: Typical Flow Diagram of Physical System Sand Filter ...................................... 55 Figure 5.7: Typical Flow Diagram of Physical System Membranes .................................... 57 Figure 5.8: Typical Flow Diagram of Chemical System Coagulation .................................. 58 Figure 5.9: Typical Flow Diagram of Chemical System Photobioreactor ............................ 60 Figure 5.10: Typical Flow Diagram of Biological System SBR ............................................ 62 Figure 5.11: Typical Flow Diagram of Biological System MBR ........................................... 64 Figure 5.12: Typical Flow Diagram of Biological System RBC ........................................... 66 Figure 5.13: Typical Flow Diagram of Extensive Systems Constructed Wetlands ............... 70 Figure 6.1: Typical Water & Drainage Pipelines ..................................................................... 80 Figure 6.2: Typical Pumping Station....................................................................................... 81 Figure 6.3: Breakdown of Running costs of a Wastewater Treatment Plant ......................... 82 Figure 7.1: Water Network Configuration ............................................................................... 89 Figure 7.2: Summary of Treatment Scenarios for Greywater Reclamation ............................ 90 Figure 7.3: Flow Diagram of Scenario 1- Constructed Wetland ............................................. 92 Figure 7.4: Flow Diagram of Scenario 2- RBC ....................................................................... 94 Figure 7.5: Flow Diagram of Scenario 3- SBR ........................................................................ 96 Figure 7.6: Flow Diagram of Scenario 4- MBR ........................................................................ 98 Figure 7.7: Diagram of Scenarios Costs per Equivalent Population ..................................... 101
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Categories of Reclamation and Reused Water ...................................................... 23 Table 3.2: Worldwide Wastewater Reuse Projects in chronological order from 1912-1989 ... 24 Table 4.1: Directive Limits for Monitoring Parameters in Agriculture and Aquaculture ........... 31 Table 4.2: Health-based Targets & Helminth Reduction Targets from WHO.......................... 32 Table 4.3: Health Based Targets for Water Reuse by WHO ................................................... 33 Table 4.4: Suggested Guidelines for Urban & Agricultural Reuse .......................................... 35 Table 4.6: Suggested Guidelines for Indirect Potable Reuse ................................................. 37 Table 4.7: Californias Title 22 Pathogen Limits ...................................................................... 39 Table 4.8: Water Reuse Practices & Criteria in European Countries...................................... 41 Table 4.9: Existing Water Reuse Criteria in European Countries ........................................... 41 Table 4.10: Existing Water Reuse Criteria in the UK .............................................................. 42 Table 4.11: Reuse Criteria in Japan ........................................................................................ 43 Table 5.1: Average Greywater Yield & Demand ..................................................................... 48 Table 5.2: Summary of Greywater Characteristics .................................................................. 49 Table 5.3: Removal of various components using Membranes .............................................. 56 Table 6.1: Cost of Basic Systems............................................................................................ 74 Table 6.2: Cost of Physical Systems ....................................................................................... 75 Table 6.3: Cost of Chemical Systems ..................................................................................... 76 Table 6.4: Cost of Biological Systems ..................................................................................... 77 Table 6.5: Cost of Extensive Systems ..................................................................................... 78 Table 6.6: Unit Cost of Water Distribution &Transmission Pipelines ...................................... 80 Table 6.7: Unit Cost of Water Transmission Pumping Station ................................................ 81 Table 6.8: Cost of Microbiological Monitoring Analysis ........................................................... 84 Table 6.9: Cost of Physicochemical Monitoring Analysis ........................................................ 85 Table 7.1: Summarized table for Scenario 1 ........................................................................... 93 Table 7.2: Summarized table for Scenario 2 ........................................................................... 95 Table 7.3: Summarized table for Scenario 3 ........................................................................... 97 Table 7.4: Summarized table for Scenario 4 ........................................................................... 99
GLOSSARY
CFU DIY EU FAO FC GAC HRT MF NF OECD RO TC TDS TSS UF UN UNDESA UV WCED WHO Colony Forming Unit Do It Yourself European Union Food and Agriculture Organisation Faecal Coliforms Granular Activated Carbon Hydraulic Retention Time Microfiltration Nanofiltration Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Reverse Osmosis Total Coliforms Total Dissolved Solids Total Suspended Solids Ultrafiltration United Nations United Nations/Department of Economic and Social Affairs Ultraviolet World Commission on Environment and Development World Health Organisation
1. INTRODUCTION
Water has a significant importance in the creation, preservation and the development of life in our planet and human civilization. On July 2010, through Resolution 64/292, the United Nations recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights (UNDESA, 2010). Large quantities of fresh water are needed daily in many parts of the world for domestic, agricultural, industrial use (Eltawil, 2009). Regarding the current situation, almost a quarter of the worlds population suffers from inadequate fresh water supply (Fiorenza, 2003). Because of the impending global population growth (especially in developing countries), the situation is expected to become even worse in the next two decades (Eltawil, 2009). The current water crisis is not subjected only to scarcity, but also to difficulties in accessibility and unequal distribution. According to the latest statistical information from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP), released in 2013, 36% per cent of the of the worlds population, approximately 2.5 million people lack access to proper sanitation amenities and 768 million people still consume unsafe drinking water. This dire situation results in thousands of
deaths and leads to impoverishment and diminished opportunities for thousands more (WHO, 2013). Furthermore, the pollution and uncontrolled exploitation of groundwater aquifers and surface waters for anthropogenic activities have led to a reduction of both quantity and quality of the available natural water resources (WHO, 2013).
1.1 WATER SCARCITY & URBANIZATION

The planet could be called the blue planet, since the two thirds of its surface are covered by water. According to several studies (Gleick, 2006), the total water volume reaches 1.3 billion cubic kilometres. From this amount, 97% is salt water (sea), 2% is trapped in glaciers and icebergs and the majority of the remaining 1% is bound into great depths. So, less than 1% of fresh water is available for human consumption. Despite the technological development, the stocks of renewable fresh water will be only 0.3% of global water (Eltawil, 2009). Increasingly in recent years, the problem of water shortage is becoming an actuality. The views can be characterised as ranging from extremely scaremongering to extremely optimistic and reassuring. The maps below (Figures 1.1, 1.2) were published in 2013 by the United Nations and highlight the accessibility of the population to improved water sources and sanitation, respectively.
FIGURE 1.1: THE PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH ACCESS TO IMPROVED WATER SOURCES (%) (FAO, 2012)
10
FIGURE 1.2: THE PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH ACCESS TO IMPROVED SANITATION (%) (FAO, 2012)
According to estimates, in 2025, when the Earth's population will be approaching or it will have exceeded 10 billion people, one in three inhabitants of the planet, - 3.5 billion people- will live in water scarcity conditions or will be directly threatened by it. This trend is being illustrated in Figure 1.3, which shows the freshwater scarcity of 1995 and that of 2025.
FIGURE 1.3: MAP OF WORLDS WATER STRESS IN 1995 AND IN 2025 (WMO, 1996)
11
In addition, water is projected to become a cause of conflicts in neighbouring countries, since about 40% of Earth's inhabitants live in more than 200 transnational river basins, from which they share water resources (Eltawil, 2009). According to all the above statistics and owing to the foreseen growth of the worlds population (especially in the developing countries), the problem is expected to become more and more critical over the next two decades (Eltawil, 2009), bringing water shortage to the top of the international agenda.
1.2 WATER USE AROUND THE WORLD

Large quantities of fresh water are needed every day in many parts of the world for domestic, agricultural, industrial use (Eltawil, 2009). However, the distribution of water in these three activities depends on the extent and type of development in every country. At the same time it is influenced by both the climatic conditions and the type of crops cultivated, which determine the irrigation requirements of the country.
FIGURE 1.4: TYPICAL BREAKDOWN OF FRESHWATER USE (FAO, 2012)
12
Worldwide, it is estimated that 70% of fresh water is consumed for irrigation needs (FAO, 2012), but in countries like India, Mexico, Iran and Greece the figure is even higher (FAO, 2013). In Japan, agriculture does not contribute significantly to the economy of the country but the amount of water needed for agricultural use is vast as all of its crops are based on irrigation. The different allocation of water use which characterizes the U.S., Poland, UK and Germanys irrigation policies not only indicates greater water consumption by the industry, but also that the agriculture is depended on the rainfalls.
FIGURE 1.5: WATER USE BY SECTOR IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (Aquarec, 2006)
In industrially developed countries, such as England and Germany, the largest percentage of disposable water is being distributed into the industry (Figure 1.5). Conversely, in countries where the developed agriculture is based on irrigated crops, more water goes to agriculture. A visual impression is provided in the following maps (Figure 1.6, 1.7) where it is shown the amount of water withdrawn by the agricultural and the industrial sector, respectively.
13
FIGURE 1.6: AGRICULTURAL WATER WITHDRAWAL AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL WITHDRAWAL (%) (FAO, 2012)
FIGURE 1.7: INDUSTRIAL WATER WITHDRAWAL AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL WITHDRAWAL (%) (FAO, 2012)
Generally, the consumption of water for domestic use is proportional to the living standards of a country. Higher living standards and higher income per person implies higher consumption of water (larger homes, better conditions of cleanliness and hygiene, lifestyle change, etc.). However, this is not the rule, as in modern countries
14
where the state and the communities have realised the importance of saving water resources, serious efforts have been made to reduce the use of household level. This also follows from the calculations of FAO, which states that the U.S. consumes far more water for domestic uses (210 m3/person per year), whereas the United Kingdom is an exception and consumes 35 m3/person per year (FAO, 2013). A map of the municipal water withdrawal globally is displayed below in Figure 1.8.
FIGURE 1.8: MUNICIPAL WATER WITHDRAWAL AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL WITHDRAWAL (%) (FAO, 2012)
According to Shiklomanov (1999), the three main sectors mentioned that consume water will become more demanding in the near future. Specifically, the percentage of irrigated surfaces is projected to increase by one third in 2010 and by 50% by 2025, while water for industrial and domestic use is growing at twice the rate of the population growth. The water consumption is observed that since 1900 has sevenfold in total, as the water demand doubles every 20 years (Shiklomanov, 1999). Under these circumstances, an increased trend towards the reclamation and reuse of wastewater is observed around the world as a means to reduce current or future water scarcity. 15
2. AIMS & OBJECTIVES

Arup and University College London (UCL) have entered into a collaborative project to investigate and develop a methodology for the design configuration of wastewater reuse networks of sub-municipal scale. This project aims to provide an optimum configuration of these networks, taking into consideration the input and output water quality, the treatment schemes and their costs. Urban Wastewater Reuse treatment technologies and costs is a review of the water reuse framework and the current urban wastewater treatment options combined with the costs involved that can be used as a guide for water reuse network designing. This study has three overarching aims: Assess the urban wastewater treatment technologies Evaluate the economic factor of wastewater technologies Develop efficient possible wastewater treatment scenarios
The objectives have been accomplished with the following: Collection and recording of the existing water reuse framework Understanding of the wastewaters nature (quality and quantity) Determination of water reuse applications and final recipients Evaluation of existing wastewater treatment systems Calculation of the wastewater treatment costs (literature and companies)
16
3. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
The continuous population growth, pollution and the continuing deterioration of both surface and groundwater aquifers, the unequal distribution of water resources and periodic droughts have necessitated the exploration and development of new water sources (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). In industrialized countries the problems associated with ensuring water supply and disposal of urban and industrial waste have been intensified. In contrast, in developing countries and especially in arid or semi-arid regions, there is a need for affordable technology in order to increase the exploitable quantities of water, along with the protection of the environment and the natural resources.
It is estimated that the use of "marginal" water could decisively contribute to the sustainable use of water resources through the implementation of integrated water resources management plans, where the recycled water will be considered an essential component for increasing the availability and control of pollution (Angelakis et al., 2002).
In the path for water sustainability, a key concern of the international community is finding alternative water sources. In this direction, the practice of reclaiming and reusing municipal waters wins more territory and is the objective of several academic projects. Thus, the necessity for establishing criteria for wastewater recycling and reuse has been widely recognised in many countries of the world. Development of criteria to minimize the microbial health risks associated with wastewater recycling and reuse should take into account other water related exposures such as through the food-chain, drinking water and contact with water in recreational areas.
17
3.1 WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION

The new environmental practice around the world is based on the five Rs which represent the basic principles of environmental protection; Reclamation, Recycle, Reuse, Renewable and Reduce (Paranichianakis et al, 2009). Under this prism, a few hundred thousand cubic meters of liquid waste generated worldwide could be reclaimed, reused, thus creating a form of recycling, which will result in the reduction of the amount of fresh water used in various fields, creating a renewable source of water.
In this context, reclaimed and reusable water promotes an alternative reliable water source. Reusing treated wastewater basically compresses the hydrological cycle from an uncontrolled global scale to a controlled local scale (Durham et al., 2005).
Water reclamation and reuse: Definitions (Durham et al., 2005) Reclaimed water: Wastewater that has been treated to meet specific water quality standars with the intention to be used for a series of purposes. Water Reuse: The use of appropriately treated wastewater. Non-potable reuse (NPR): The use of reclaimed water for purposes other than drinking water (e.g. irrigation). Direct potable reuse (DPR): The use of reclaimed water directly into drinking water after advanced treatment. Greywater: Used water discharged from homes, business, industry, and agricultural facilities.
18
3.2 CHALLENGES OF WATER & WASTEWATER REUSE

The effective planning and operation of water reuse projects as well as the safe use of treated wastewater implies the understanding of the challenges of this practice. Some of these issues are briefly addressed below (USEPA, 2004; Bixio, 2006). Establishment of criteria
An important issue is the need for the establishment of a legislative framework that enhances water and wastewater reuse. This framework should take into consideration all risks that may arise (health and environment), including microbiological and physicochemical quality parameters and proposing strategies for motivation and public acceptance. Public health protection
The reclaimed and treated water should not pose any risk to public health. So in this direction, regulations set limits on the amount of pathogenic microorganisms. Also special emphasis should be given to the frequent monitoring of the water quality reused. Finally, some guidelines suggest protective measures to be in place for the safety of the public that may be exposed directly or indirectly with the treated water (see Chapter 4). Environmental cost
The reuse of wastewater should be done with respect to the natural environment. The protection of ecosystems, the flora and fauna, the avoidance of further degradation of the natural resources are main targets. The calculation of the environmental footprint and the potential impact would be very useful at a preliminary level.
19
Economic factors
The economic factor is one of the most important challenges in the issues of water and wastewater reuse. Financing such projects is possibly the main obstacle for the wider use of treated water. However, researchers are working on new technologies that may reduce the capital, the operation and the maintenance costs. Public acceptance & opinion
The authorities responsible for the distribution of reclaimed water (local communities, councils, organizations) should not only make sure of the safety of the provided water but also need to build trust and credibility with the public. This can be achieved with water reuse campaigns, educational programs or further motives. Aesthetics
In some cases and also for aesthetic reasons, reusable water should be colourless and odourless (e.g. for irrigation in gardens or parks, recreation areas). Also, attention should be given in harmonising the treatment process, chosen for the wastewater treatment, with the landscape and the environment.
20
3.3 ADVANTAGES OF WATER REUSE

The reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater is shown to have significant advantages (Durham, 2005): i. ii. The development of a new water resource The protection of water resources, particularly in coastal areas with saltwater intrusion in aquifers iii. The policy development of water resources, with emphasis on preserving resources and the environment iv. v. vi. The protection of public health and the environment The reduction of the water cost The reliability of water supply, specifically in rural areas
21
3.4 TYPES OF WATER REUSE APPLICATIONS

Throughout the centuries, water and wastewater reuse has developed from a simple disposal method of polluted water to an advanced process of reclamation providing agricultural, industrial, urban and even domestic reuse. The most common form of reuse is for non-potable purposes such as agricultural and urban water supply, for industrial uses (e.g. cooling), for fire fighting and others (Bixio et al., 2006). These require adequate treatment of the effluent in order to correspond to quality obligations upon the intended use. A schematic description of the applications is shown in Figure 3.1 (Asano, 1989).
FIGURE 3.1: WATER REUSE APPLICATIONS (Asano, 1989)
Water reuse can be direct or indirect. In recent years it has attracted more and more interest in the indirect reuse field even for indirect potable use (Leverenz et al., 2011). In the first case, water is reclaimed from wastewater transported from the treatment units for irrigation of agricultural land and recreational areas without the mediation of natural water sources or other aquatic formations. In the second case, indirect water reuse happens after the reclaimed water is mixed with surface or underground water resources that can be used as drinking water sources (Leverenz et al., 2011).
22
The improvements in technology for wastewater and drinking water treatment have ensured that a range of new and emerging challenges from both microbial and chemical contaminants are met. Hence, the indirect recycling developed in many parts of the world for many years is demonstrated to be safe (UKWIR 2004). Table 3.1 summarizes the fields for reclaimed water use and the applications that treated water can have in these fields.
TABLE 3.1: CATEGORIES OF RECLAMATION AND REUSED WATER (USEPA, 2004) Categories Agricultural use Irrigation of food crops Characteristics
Other type of irrigation livestock, plant nurseries, lawn Irrigation in areas open to the public: parks, schools, fountains, fire protection, cooling, toilet cleaning
Urban & Recreational use
Irrigation in areas with limited access: golf courts, cemeteries, motorways Restricted use fishing, boating
Industrial use Environmental use Domestic use
cooling, boiler feed, process water maintain / increase watercourses flow, strengthening natural wetlands, aquaculture, enrichment of underground aquifers garden irrigation, car washing, toilet flushing, cooling Direct
Drinking use Indirect mixing with surface or underground drinking water sources
23
3.5 CASE STUDIES

The reuse of wastewater, particularly for irrigation, has been practiced for centuries and seems to have originated from the ancient Greek civilizations (Angelakis et al., 2005). In Europe, the use of sullage was a common practice in Germany since the 16th century (De Turk et al., 1978) and in England since the 18th century (Wolman, 1977). In USA the reuse of water was reported to have started in 1870 (Rafter, 1899). In addition, increased interest in the use of recycled water for agricultural purposes began to occur in developed countries during the decade 1980-1990 mainly due to the capabilities and advantages that it presents. Table 3.2 shows some big scale reclamation and reuse of wastewater projects in chronological order of development.
TABLE 3.2: WORLDWIDE WASTEWATER REUSE PROJECTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER FROM 19121989 (Angelakis et al., 1995) Year Location Capacity [m /d] 1912 Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, USA 1929 City of Pomona, California, USA 1942 City of Baltimore, Maryland, USA 1962 Soukra, Tunisia 1968 City of Windhoek,Namibia 21,000 Cooling in metal and steel industry (Bethlehem Steel Company) 1960 City of Colorado springs, Colorado,USA 1961 Irvine Ranch Water District, California,USA 60,000 Irrigation of golf courts, parks, cemeteries & sidewalks Irrigation Industrial use WC cleaning in high buildings Irrigation of citrus fruits Reduction of aquifer salinisation Drinking water after mixing Landscape irrigation Recreational ponds (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991) 1926 Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA Landscape irrigation WC cleaning Water cooling & heating Landscape and garden irrigation
3
Water Reuse Type
24
1969
City of Wagga Wagga, Australia
10,000
Irrigation of public spaces WC cleaning Paper industry reuse
1970
Sappi Pulp and Paper group, Enstra,South Africa
1975
Valley o river Salt, Arizona, USA
10,000
Enrichment of aquifers with effluents of secondary treatment
1976
Orange County Water District,California, USA
200,000
Enrichment of aquifers with direct injection (Nellor et al., 1985)
1977
Dan Region Project, Tel-Aviv, Israel
500,000
Enrichment of aquifers with filtration ponds
1977
City of St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
150,000
Irrigation of golf courts, parks, school yards & public spaces
1984
Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Japan
Large scale WC cleaning
1985 1987
City of El Paso, Texas, USA Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Monterey Wastewater, California, USA
38,000 5,500
Enrichment of aquifers Irrigation of agriculture spaces
1989
Shoal haven Heads, Australia
120,000
Irrigation of gardens WC cleaning Irrigation of golf courts
1989
Consorci de la Costa Brava, Girona,Spain
The reclamation and reuse of wastewater seems to be a rapidly growing practice mainly in arid and semi-arid regions. Similar projects of increased number and extent are being programmed and implemented each year in several countries, particularly in the U.S., Australia, Israel, Japan, the countries of the Maghreb and South Africa (Paranichianakis et al., 2009).
25
Because of its wealthy water resources and the existing differences between the member countries, the EU has not particularly dealt so far with reclamation and reuse water. However, the recent drought in Spain, Greece and other countries has posed serious questions for the crucial issue of water recycling. The most experienced country in reclamation and reuse of municipal wastewater is the U.S.A. In the 70s, 216 million cubic meters of treated wastewater were annually used (Asano & Tchompanoglous, 1991), while today this quantity has reached 555715 million cubic meters, which are distributed in more than 4,800 applications. Israel has a similar experience (Fine et al., 2006), where it is estimated that 20% of the needs are covered today with the use of reused wastewater. Moreover, Spain uses recycled water for four types of uses: watering golf courses, irrigation of crops, enhance aquifer of coastal areas to prevent the inflow of seawater and flow increase of rivers in order to protect riverside ecosystems (Castro, 2010). In Italy today treated wastewater is used to irrigate about 4000 hectares, whereas in Southern Italy the irrigation areas that use untreated wastewater is undefined (Barbagallo, 2001). Belgium is another example of water recycle for industrial purposes, as 38% (expected 60% in near future) of the wastewater is used in industrial operations. In the UK, treatment and recycling of waste water is limited. The recycled water is used mainly to maintain river levels and protect their ecosystems. It is also used to irrigate golf courses, parks and wash cars. Figure 3.2 shows the geographic distribution of recorded water reuse projects in conjunction with their capacity and reuse in applications. It is observed that the majority of these projects are large scale (> 5106 m3/s) with applications in agriculture.
26
FIGURE 3.2: WATER REUSE PROJECTS IN EUROPE (SIZE & APPLICATION) (Bixio, 2006)
27
4. WASTEWATER REUSE FRAMEWORK

A specific quality of water is required for every beneficial use of treated wastewater effluent in order to minimize the potential public health risks and environmental impacts. This ultimately determines the required treatment processes and technologies to be implemented and the costs involved. Therefore, each type of reuse requires special legislative criteria. In recent years, the reclamation and reuse of wastewater effluents is a matter of priority and one of the main activities of the water and wastewater managing bodies at international, European and national level. Many countries in the developed world and international organizations have established criteria for reclamation and reuse of wastewaters effluents, including the U.S. (State of California), Israel, Australia, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Environmental Protection Agency of the USA (US EPA). However, it is worth noting the absence of legislation in European Union on the required quality for reuse of treated wastewater. A general reference to the issue is in the Directive 91/271 (EU, 1991) of the EU (Article 12 paragraph 1), while many European countries have set their own criteria for the reuse of wastewater effluent. The purpose of this chapter was to describe the established criteria for the reuse of wastewater from countries and organizations within and outside the European Union. Particular emphasis was given to cases in which the standards have been the basis of several other criteria worldwide, such as the criteria by the World Health Organisation, the State of California, the US EPA and Australia. Also, there are comments on the prevailing trends and innovations in this field.
28
4.1 REGULATIONS BY INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

At international level, Directives and/or regulations for reclamation and reuse of wastewater effluents is based on two main "philosophies"; that of WHO, FAO and World Bank and that of the State of California. These are currently used as standards to establish criteria for the reuse of treated wastewater, even though they incorporate basic differences and to some extent they are contradictory. The revised guidelines by WHO (WHO, 2006) provide a new method of risk assessment for public health and the environment by setting quality levels similar to that used for drinking water. In addition, the revised guidance of the Environment Agency of the United States (US EPA, 2004) and California (State of California, 2004) give particular emphasis to uses such as irrigation, the underground aquifers enrichment and indirect potable uses. WHO
In 1973, World Health Organization proposed the first criteria and treatment methods for various water reuse applications. The criteria established for the crop irrigation, have been characterised as particularly severe (100 FC/100 ml for unrestricted irrigation) and were based on the philosophy of zero risk (WHO, 1973). In 1989 the organization reviewed the directive and issued a new set of criteria, mainly of microbiological quality that emphasized on the type of irrigated crops. Irrigation is separated into two categories with the following limits (WHO, 1989): Unrestricted (crop irrigation, garden and recreational areas watering) 200 FC/100 ml
29
Restricted (irrigation of crops not eaten raw). 1 helminth egg per litter In addition, the WHO directive takes in account, for the first time, the methods of wastewater treatment, the irrigation system and the exposed human groups. So, it recommends additional specific precautions such as using special clothing, high levels of hygiene, careful cooking, special washing facilities, control of human exposure, promoting of sanitation (WHO, 1989). In 2006, the Organization issued the third edition of the directives for safe wastewater reuse that replaced the previous two editions (Table 4.1). The main purpose of the new Directive is to protect the health of people that may come directly or indirectly in contact with the treated water. In this direction, WHO developed further information on issues relating with: Diseases of the population that contacts with the reclaimed wastewater Risk Analysis Risk managing strategies (quantification of safety measures) Chemical compounds in wastewater, whose acceptable limits are summarized in Appendix F. Strategies for the implementation of the Directives The current water quality parameter limits are described in Table 4.1 together with the proposed application.
30
TABLE 4.1: DIRECTIVE LIMITS FOR MONITORING PARAMETERS FOR WASTEWATER REUSE IN AGRICULTURE AND AQUACULTURE (WHO, 2006). Activity / Exposure Agriculture Unrestricted irrigation Root crops Leaf crops Drip irrigation, high-growing crops Restricted irrigation Labour-intensive, high-contact agriculture Highly mechanized agriculture Septic tank Aquaculture Produce consumers Pond Wastewater Excreta Workers, Local communities Pond Wastewater Excreta 10 10 10
3 4 5
Water Quality Parameters E.coli per 100 ml Helminth eggs per litre
10 10 10
3 4 5
10 10 10
4 5 6
10 10 10
4 5 6
Not detected Not detected Not detected
No viable eggs No viable eggs No viable eggs
For the establishment of the appropriate legislation to protect public health, experts have defined specific levels of protection according to the type of exposure (health based targets). These levels are based on the fact that any disease that results from the use of reclaimed wastewater should not cause a "loss" greater than 10-6 DALYs (Disability - Adjusted Life Years) per person per year, as shown in Table 4.2 (WHO, 2006).
31
TABLE 4.2: HEALTH-BASED TARGETS & HELMINTH REDUCTION TARGETS FROM WHO Irrigation type Unrestricted Restricted Target for viral, bacterial & protozoan pathogens 10 DALY per person per year 10 DALY per person per year 10 DALY per person per year Localized (e.g. drip irrigation)
-6 -6 -6
Microbial reduction target for helminth eggs 1 per litre 1 per litre Low-growing crops 1 per litre High-growing crops No recommendation
32
Finally, WHO proposes a series of measures to protect consumers, workers, their families and local communities, as presented in Table 4.3.
TABLE 4.3: HEALTH BASED TARGETS FOR WATER REUSE BY WHO (WHO, 2006) Exposed group Health-based targets Quality parameters E.coli/100 ml Viable trematode/l - Wastewater treatment Consumers, workers & local communities Excreta-related diseases 10 DALY per person per year
-6
Hazard
Health protection measures
10 (consumers) 3 10 (contact)
-Excreta treatment Not detected -Health & hygiene promotion -Chemotherapy & immunization -Produce restrictions -Waste application timing
Excreta-related diseases
10 DALY per person per year Absence of trematode infections
-6
Consumers
Foodborne trematodes
10
-Depuration Not detected -Food handling -Produce washing/disinfection -Cooking foods -Access control
Chemicals
Tolerable daily intakes [CAC]
Excreta-related diseases
10 DALY per person per year Absence of skin disease Absence of schistosomiasis 10 (contact)
3
-6
-Use of protective equipment -Disease vector control No viable schistosome eggs -Intermediate host control -Access to clean drinking water & sanitation -Redusing vector contact
Skin irritants Workers & local communities
Schistosomiasis
Vector-borne diseases
Absence of vector-borne disease
33
US Environmental Protection Agency
The US EPA issued its first directive on the reuse of municipal wastewater in 1980. The Directive was revised in 1992 and recently in 2004 in order to include more information and the advanced technologies (US EPA, 2004). US EPA revised Guidelines for Water Reuse published in 2004 contains updated information on water use and water reuse practices in the United States (USEPA, 2004). The revised guidelines propose treatment processes, safety distances, monitoring frequencies and define the limits of water quality parameters for each intended use of the output (Tables 4.4-4.6). Faecal coliforms (FC) are adopted as indicators to assess the microbiological quality of the treated wastewater and concentration limits for BOD and turbidity are also set. Furthermore a minimum level of disinfection for all purposes is recommended to avoid effects from accidental contact. Generally, for the majority of the applications the expected turbidity, TSS and pH are 2 NTU, 30 and 6-9, respectively, whereas BOD values vary due to the sensitivity
of each recipient (Tables 4.4, 4.5). As shown in Table 4.6 emphasis is given on the categories related to indirect potable reuse taking into account the findings of recent research studies which suggest groundwater recharge and surface water augmentation with treated wastewater. As expected, these standards are very strict with no detected coliforms, low turbidity ( 2 NTU) and mean pH values (6.5-8.5).
34
TABLE 4.4: SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR URBAN & AGRICULTURAL REUSE (USEPA, 2012)
Reuse Category & Description Urban Reuse

Treatment
Reclaimed Water Quality
Reclaimed Water Monitoring
Setback Distances
Unrestricted
Secondary (5) Filtration (6) Disinfection
(4)
pH=6.0-9.0 (7) 10mg/l BOD (8) 2 NTU (9,10) No detectable faecal coliform/100ml (11) 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.0-9.0 (7) 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS (9,13,14) 200 faecal coliform/100ml (11) 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min)
pH weekly BOD weekly Turbidity continuous Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous pH weekly BOD weekly TSS daily Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous
50 ft (15 m) to potable water supply wells; increase to 100 ft (30 m) when located in (18) porous media 300 ft (90 m) to potable water supply wells 100 ft (30 m) to areas accessible to the public (if spray irrigation)
Restricted
Secondary (6) Disinfection
(4)
Agricultural Reuse
pH=6.0-9.0 (7) 10mg/l BOD (8) 2 NTU (9,10) No detectable faecal coliform/100ml (11) 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.0-9.0 (7) 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS (9,13,14) 200 faecal coliform/100ml (11) 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH weekly BOD weekly Turbidity continuous Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous pH weekly BOD weekly TSS daily Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous 50 ft (15 m) to potable water supply wells; increase to 100 ft (30 m) when located in (18) porous media 300 ft (90 m) to potable water supply wells 100 ft (30 m) to areas accessible to the public (if spray irrigation)
Food Crops
Secondary (5) Filtration (6) Disinfection
(4)
Processed Food Crops Non-Food Crops
Secondary (6) Disinfection
(4)
35

TABLE 4.5: SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL & INDUSTRIAL REUSE (USEPA, 2012) Reuse Category & Description Impoundments
Secondary Filtration Disinfection
Treatment

pH weekly BOD weekly Turbidity continuous Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous pH weekly TSS daily Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous
Setback Distances
Unrestricted
Restricted
Secondary Disinfection
pH=6.0-9.0 10mg/l BOD 2 NTU No detectable faecal coliform/100ml 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS 200 faecal coliform/100ml 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) Variable, but not to exceed: 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS 200 faecal coliform/100ml 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.0-9.0 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS 200 faecal coliform/100ml 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) Variable, depends on recirculation ratio: pH=6.0-9.0 30mg/l BOD 30mg/l TSS 200 faecal coliform/100ml 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min)
500 ft (150 m) to potable water supply wells (min) if bottom not sealed.
500 ft (150 m) to potable water supply wells (min) if bottom not sealed.
Environmental Reuse
Variable Secondary and disinfection(min) BOD weekly SS daily Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous
Environmental Reuse
Industrial Reuse
Secondary
Once-through Cooling

pH weekly BOD weekly TSS daily Faecal coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous
300 ft (90 m) to areas accessible to the public.
Recirculation cooling towers
Secondary Disinfection (chemical coagulation and filtration may be needed)
300 ft (90 m) to areas accessible to the public. May be reduced if high level of disinfection is provided.
Groundwater Recharge Nonpotable Reuse Site specific and use

dependent Primary (min.) for spreading Secondary (min) for injection
Site specific and use dependent
Depends on treatment and use
Site specific
36
TABLE 4.6: SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (USEPA, 2012) Reuse Category & Description Indirect Potable Reuse
Treatment
Setback Distances
Groundwater Recharge by Spreading into Potable Aquifers
Secondary Filtration Disinfection Soil aquifer treatment
Includes, but not limited to, the following: No detectable total coliform/100ml pH=6.5-8.5 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.5-8.5 2 NTU 2 mg/l TOC of wastewater origin Meet drinking water standards after percolation through vandose zone
Includes, but not limited to, the following: pH daily Total coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous Drinking water standards quarterly Other depends on constituent TOC weekly Turbidity continuous Monitoring is not required for viruses and parasites: their removal rates are prescribed by treatment requirements Includes, but not limited to, the following: pH daily Total coliform daily Cl2 residual continuous Drinking water standards quarterly Other depends on constituent TOC weekly Turbidity continuous Monitoring is not required for viruses and parasites: their removal rates are prescribed by treatment requirements
Distance to nearest potable water extraction well that provides a minimum of 2 months retention time to the underground.
Groundwater Recharge by Injection into Potable Aquifers
Secondary Filtration Disinfection Advanced wastewater treatment
Includes, but not limited to, the following: No detectable total coliform/100ml pH=6.5-8.5 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.5-8.5 2 NTU 2 mg/l TOC(7) of wastewater origin Meet drinking water standards Includes, but not limited to, the following: No detectable total coliform/100ml pH=6.5-8.5 1mg/l Cl2 residual (min) pH=6.5-8.5 2 NTU 2 mg/l TOC(7) of wastewater origin Meet drinking water standards
Distance to nearest potable water extraction well that provides a minimum of 2 months retention time to the underground.
Augmentation of Surface Water Supply Reservoirs
Secondary Filtration Disinfection Advanced wastewater treatment
Site specific based on providing 2 months retention time between introduction of reclaimed water into a raw water supply reservoir and the intake to potable water treatment plant.
37
4.2 REGULATIONS BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today, the applicable criteria in the state of California include four categories of recycled water quality (Table 4.7) (State of California, 2003). The criteria for reuse apart from the determination of limits of pathogens, the turbidity and the processes requirements include standards for the reliability of the treatment. These standards indicate backup power and security systems, multiple or redundant process units, storage or disposal of treated wastewater in emergency situations, advanced monitoring mechanisms and automation functions. Furthermore the proposed additions to the reuse criteria include the following distance security requirements (State of California, 2003): i. Irrigation is prohibited with wastewater discharges which have not been disinfected within 50 m of any drinking water wells, ii. The accepted distance for secondary treatment effluents which have not been disinfected is 30 m, iii. The accepted distance or tertiary treatment effluents (secondary, filtration and disinfection) the distance should be 15 m and finally; iv. The storage of treated wastewater that has been under tertiary treatment is prohibited in less than 30 m from residences or places, where the risk of accidental exposure is high. (State of California, 2003)
38
TABLE 4.7: CALIFORNIAS TITLE 22 PATHOGEN LIMITS (State of California, 2003)
Water Quality Disinfected Tertiary recycled water Disinfected Secondary 2.2 recycled water Disinfected Secondary 23 recycled water Direct beneficial Use (no disinfection)
Total Coliform [MPN] < 2.2 per 100 ml 2.2 -23 per 100 ml < 23 per 100 ml -
Other space control measures include the reduction of runoffs while using recycled water, the protection of recreational places of human contact, the placement of warning signs like: "Recycled waterNon potable" and others.
The state of California has also established criteria of the enrichment of underground aquifers (directly and indirectly) with treated wastewater since 1974, which were recently revised. More details on the allowable uses for recycled water according to the State of California can be found in Appendix G.
FIGURE 4.1: CALIFORNIAS WARNING SIGN FOR RECYCLED WATER (State of California, 2003)
39
4.3 REGULATIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES

4.3.1 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
One of the major factors that have limited the reuse of wastewater in Europe and especially in the Mediterranean region is the absence of a unified, international or even regional, legislative framework. Noteworthy is the absence of legislation on the reuse of treated wastewater in the EU as the only reference which is quite generic was made in Directive 91/271/EC where in Article 12, 1 states that " treated wastewater should be reused whenever appropriate (EU, 1991). Specifically for the European Countries, one other important aspect for the lack of unified framework is the variations in the availability of water resources and their uses in the northern, central and southern parts. However, the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation is already a widely applied practice, especially in Mediterranean countries. Most of these countries, promote the establishment of criteria, but often not in the form of specific, national law, but with the form of guidelines. Table 4.8 summarises the water reuse trends and the criteria in several European countries, whereas Table 4.9 indicates the specific criteria in the countries where there is an existing framework.
40
TABLE 4.8: WATER REUSE PRACTICES & CRITERIA IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (Angelakis et al., 2002) Unlimited Urban Country Albania Belgium Croatia Cyprus France Greece Italy Malta Monaco Spain UK
1: 1
Restricted Agricultural use No Recycling Established Criteria Criteria pending No Criteria
Agricultural & Industrial use
use
Only in certain regions (Andaluca, Balearic & Catalonia)
TABLE 4.9: EXISTING WATER REUSE CRITERIA IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (Bixio et al., 2006) Country Type of Criteria Aquafin proposal to the Government (2003) Provisional Standards Art. 24 dcret 94/469 3 1994 Circulaire DGS/SD1.D./91/n51 Decree of Environmental Ministry 185/2003 Guidelines Law 29/1985, BOE n.189, 08/08/85 Royal Decree 2473/1985 Guidelines Notes
Belgium Cyprus
Based on Australian EPA Guidelines TC < 50/100 ml in 80% of the cases on a monthly basis and < 100/100 ml always Based on WHO standards Based on WHO standards and Title 22, respectively Based on Californias Title 22
France Italy Regional authorities: Sicily, Emilia Romagna & Puglia Spain Regional authorities: Andaluca, Balearic & Catalonia
Based on WHO standards
41
In the UK, British Standards has published BS8525-1: 2010 for greywater systems. These recently published standards provide tables with the water quality requirements for reuse purposes and include guidelines for the designing, the implementation and the maintenance of greywater treatment systems. Table 4.10 describes these water quality requirements.
TABLE 4.10: EXISTING WATER REUSE CRITERIA IN THE UK (BSi, 2010) Parameter Escherichia coli /100 ml Intestinal enterococci/ 100 ml Legionella pneumophila / 100 ml Total coliform / 100 ml Spray application Not detected Not detected 10 10 Non-spray application 250 100 N/A 1000
Turbidity [NTU] pH Residual chlorine [mg/l] Residual bromine [mg/l]
<10 5-9.5 <2 0
<10 5-9.5 <2 <5
4.3.2 OTHER COUNTRIES

In addition to all the above mentioned legislation which exists in Europe at local level, other countries have established strict water reuse criteria in order to enhance water reclamation techniques in them. Australia
Since 1984, the Environmental Policy Agency of the State New South Wales (NSW) has established a council to develop guidelines and promote the reclamation and reuse of treated wastewater. Recent studies estimate that in the area of Sidney approximately 1.3 Mm3/d are being treated of which 0.031 Mm3/d are being reused (NSW, 2008).
42
The initial Australian EPA guidelines provided criteria for three categories of reuse of secondary treated water after disinfection for agricultural and industrial use, with the following quality criteria: i. ii. iii. Category A: < 300 cfu/100 mL FC, after 30 days storage Category B: <750 cfu/100 mL FC , after 20 days storage Category C: <2.000 cfu/100 mL FC, after 10 days storage
A couple of years later, the same organization established criteria for urban and unlimited use of wastewater effluents, with the following qualitative characteristics: FC <1/100 mL, TC <10/100 mL, viruses <5/50 L, parasites <1/50 L (NSW, 2008). Japan
In Japan, unlike other countries in arid or semi-arid areas, the main categories in wastewater reuse are based on the enhancement of the environment, toilet cleaning, industrial use and snow production (Nagasawa, 2009). The quality requirements seem to be strict (Table 4.11) as they are the same for all reuse purposes (Jefferson et al., 1999).
TABLE 4.11: REUSE CRITERIA IN JAPAN (Jefferson et al., 1999)
Total coliforms/ 100 ml < 10
Faecal coliforms/ 100 ml < 10
BOD5 [mg/l] 10
Turbidity [NTU] 5
pH 6-9
43
5. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR REUSE

The urban wastewater belongs to the broader category of wastewaters. Wastewater is characterised by types of water which has undergone a change of physical, chemical and biological properties due to human activities (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). It is therefore impossible to be used for the same purposes because it may cause adverse health or environmental problems. Wastewaters can be defined according to their origin, in the following categories (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991); Domestic wastewater (from residential areas that mainly comes from household activities and functions of the human organism, Commercial wastewater (from commercial activities, such as restaurants and hotels), Industrial wastewater (from premises used for any industrial or commercial activity), Surface water runoff (Rainwater along with the road materials). This project focuses in the case of reclamation and reuse of greywater, which is part of domestic wastewater. Greywater has considerable advantages in that it is a large resource of low organic content (Pidou, 2007). The growing importance given to the protection and conservation of water resources has led to the development and implementation of wastewater treatment techniques, from which the uncontrolled disposal is one of the main causes of water resources degradation. The particular conditions of each region (temperature, climate), the nature of wastewater (high or low load, with or without toxic substances) and the problems encountered in the implementation of various methods led to the development of various wastewater treatment systems.
44
The purpose of wastewater treatment is to return the water in nature with acceptable quality characteristics that are compatible with the desired uses, in order to protect public health and natural ecosystems, preserve the environment and avoid depletion of water resources, which despite their apparent abundance, are not inexhaustible in front of the growing human population and multiple needs (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). The following figure (5.1) demonstrates that wastewater reclamation technologies have progressed to such an extent, that the produced treated water can be of higher quality than that of drinking water .
FIGURE 5.1: TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR ANY TYPE OF REUSE (USEPA, 2012)
45
5.1 WASTEWATER FOR REUSE GREYWATER

Understanding the wastewater nature is a key parameter in the sizing, configuration and operation of environmental engineering systems for the collection, treatment and disposal of used water. Greywater is a reflection of the household activities and its characteristics are strongly dependent on living standards, social and cultural habits, number of household members and the use of household chemicals (FBR, 2013). One of the most interesting and understandable approaches of greywater nature was made by Prof. Cedo Maksimovic (2012), which illustrated that greywater consists of bath, shower, washing machine and dishwasher discharges (Figure 5.2), whereas, blackwater consists of wastewater from toilets and kitchen sinks.
FIGURE 5.2: SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER (Maksimovic, 2012)
46
In addition, greywater is divided in two categories according to its load, as high load greywater needs a different type of treatment than low load greywater. Figure 5.3, describes the two types of greywater loading.
FIGURE 5.3: GREYWATER CATEGORIES (FBR, 2013)
Specifically, greywater corresponds to up to 70% of the total domestic consumed water (44% in the UK) but contains only 30% of the organic fraction and 9-20% of the nutrients (Pidou et al., 2007). However, greywater has several other characteristics, considering the quantity and quality, which are described further in the following section (5.1.1).
47
5.1.1 GREYWATER CHARACTERISTICS

The quantity of greywater discharged from households in the UK is calculated by the British Standards (2010) with the use of Water Efficiency Calculator developed by the Communities and Local Government (CLG). This tool determines easily the average greywater yield and the demand for the sizing of treatment plants. Below, Table 5.1 provides some typical greywater quantities linked with certain occupancies that may describe from single households to small towns.
TABLE 5.1: AVERAGE GREYWATER YIELD & DEMAND (BSi, 2010) Occupancy Yield [litres] WC 1person 2 people 4 people 8 people 10 people 15 people 20 people 30 people 50 people 100 people 150 people 200 people 500 people 1000 people 10000 people 50 100 200 400 500 750 1,000 1,500 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 25,000 50,000 500,000 25 50 100 200 250 375 500 750 1,250 2,500 3,750 50,000 12,500 25,000 250,000 Demand Laundry 15 30 60 120 150 225 300 450 750 1,500 2,250 3,000 7,500 15,000 150,000 Other uses 10 20 40 80 100 150 200 300 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 5,000 10,000 100,000
1
1: For instance, garden watering or car washing
48
As far as greywater quality is concerned, the main polluting parameters are: Suspended Solids (TSS) - Organic load (COD, BOD5) - Nitrogen and Phosphorus compounds - Dissolved solids (DS) and the microbes (coliforms, bacteria, viruses, protozoa). Table 5.2, summarizes the physicochemical characteristics of greywater, as found in literature (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991).
TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF GREYWATER CHARACTERISTICS (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991) Parameters Units Value
pH Conductivity Turbidity TSS Raw COD Filtered DO BOD5 NT PT Anionic Surfactant E.Coli Fecal Enterococci
C/cm NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mgN/L mgP/L mg/L LSS CFU/100 mL CFU/100 mL
6.4 - 8.1 82 - 1845 0 - 240 48 - 435 100 795 82 472 0 176.9 50 539 3.8 17 0.1- 2 9 86 0 2.5110 0 2.5110
7 5
49
5.2 GREYWATER TREATMENT STAGES

The main stages of greywater treatment are (Darakas, 2010):
Pre-treatment in which materials, such as cloths, gravels, sand particles, small pieces of wood or plastic, oil, grease, etc. are being removed because they usually cause damage to the mechanical equipment and problems in the maintenance/operation of the system.
Primary treatment in which part of the suspended solids and organic substances are being removed.
Secondary treatment in which the biodegradable organic substances, the suspended solids and the nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are being removed with the use of biological and chemical processes. Noted that disinfection is also included in the standard definition of conventional secondary treatment.
Tertiary treatment in which the remaining suspended solids from the secondary treatment are being removed, typically using filtration means.
Advanced treatment for the removal of suspended and dissolved substances of the waste those remain after the usual biological treatment when this is required in various applications of water reuse.
50
Research on greywater treatment and reuse has been observed in literature since 1970 (Hall et al., 1974; Hypes et al., 1975; Arika et al., 1977). The primary technologies investigated were physical based treatment schemes, such as coarse filtration and membranes, usually followed by disinfection. These technologies were implemented and tested years later, initially in single houses (Brewer et al., 2000). Between 1990-2000 more advanced biological treatment options were studied for greywater treatment, such as rotating biological contactors (Nolde, 1999), biological aerated filters (Surendran and Wheatley, 1998) and aerated bio-reactors (Shin et al., 1998; Brewer et al., 2000). Later researches have suggested the use of more complex technologies like membrane bioreactors (MBRs) (Friedler, 2005; Liu et al., 2005) and in lieu of these expensive options, natural treatment systems such as constructed wetlands (Shrestha et al., 2001; Dallas et al., 2004; Gross et al., 2007). As far as chemical based greywater treatment options are concerned, only three are mentioned in literature; conventional coagulation (Sostar-Turk, 2005), electrocoagulation (Lin et al., 2005) and photocatalysis (Parsons et al., 2000). The choice of the appropriate treatment highly depends on the reuse application and the influent flow rate. Overall greywater treatment systems can be categorised according to their treatment type as follows (Pidou, 2007): Basic systems (coarse filtration, sedimentation and disinfection) Physical systems (sand filter, adsorption and membranes) Biological systems (biological aerated filter, rotating biological contractor and membrane bioreactor) Chemical systems (conventional coagulation, electro-coagulation and advanced oxidation methods) Extensive systems (ponds and reed beds)
51
In the extensive systems physical, chemical and biological processes take place. The main distinction is that treatment in extensive systems flows naturally, thus in slow velocities, whereas in conventional systems treatment is being done rapidly, because of the imposed artificial conditions.
52
5.2.1 BASIC SYSTEMS

Basic greywater treatment systems provide elementary level of treatment for not demanding water reuse applications. Usually basic systems are preferred in small scale projects, such as a house or a limited number of houses. They are generally two-phase systems based on coarse filtration or sedimentation, coupled with disinfection (Figure 5.4, 5.5). According to literature these systems are not as efficient as the average removal of pollutant indicators (Darakas, 2010). TSS: 40-50% COD: 70% Coarse Filtration BOD5: 25-30% Turbidity: 50%
The purpose of coarse filtration is the removal of the sizeable materials or particles that greywater may contain (sand, pieces of wood, plastic, branches, rags, etc.), in order to eliminate the suspended solids. However, it provides only a restricted treatment in terms of organics and solids (Pidou, 2007). Nevertheless, it is a simple filtration system which can be easily installed in households by anyone with even limited DIY skills.
FIGURE 5.4: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF BASIC SYSTEM COARSE FILTRATION (Pidou, 2007)
53
Sedimentation
The aim of sedimentation is to separate the substances that float and the ones that precipitate from greywater (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). It is a physical separation process of the suspended particles based on gravity, of which the specific weight is greater than that of water (d>100 m and C>50 mg/L). The widespread implementation of sedimentation systems is due to the simplicity of the method, despite the complications often occurred in sedimentation tanks, and the low energy consumption.
FIGURE 5.5: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF BASIC SYSTEM SEDIMENTATION (Pidou, 2007)
54
5.2.2 PHYSICAL SYSTEMS

Physical schemes for greywater treatment can be classified in two groups; sand filters and membranes. Sand filters can be applied alone or together with adsorption techniques, with or without disinfection (Hypes et al., 1975; Pidou, 2007). Sand Filters
Sand filters are used for the removal of suspended particles, turbidity and bacteria from greywater. The basic principle of filtration through a bed of sand (and in some cases a combination of sand and anthracite) is already adopted by nature (Darakas, 2010). Sand filters usually offer high speeds of filtering and can have an increased lifetime when properly maintained through frequent backwashing. Thus, their implementation has low operation and maintenance costs (Pidou, 2007). However, when used alone sand filters offer coarse filtration, which means weak treatment levels, so they are often combined with disinfection (Hypes et al., 1975). Hypes et al. (1975) reported good removal of total coliforms but inadequate removal of suspended solis and turbidity. The addition of an adsorption technique, like activated carbon, interestingly may not provide considerable improvement to the results (Pidou et al., 2007). A typical flow diagram of a sand filter system is illustrated in Figure 5.6 below.
FIGURE 5.6: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF PHYSICAL SYSTEM SAND FILTER (Pidou, 2007)
55
Membranes
The application of membranes in advanced water and wastewater treatment is a new and promising technology in that it is increasingly attracting interest from environmental researchers. The main disadvantage of this technology is the high cost and energy consumption. Despite this, literature shows surprisingly positive results (Tsonis, 2004), concerning the efficiency of the method (Table 5.3):
TABLE 5.3: REMOVAL OF VARIOUS COMPONENTS USING MEMBRANES (Tsonis, 2004) Parameters MF UF NF RO
Biodegradable Organic Compounds TDS TSS Heavy Metals Hardness Nitric ions Synthetic Organic Compounds Priority Organic Compounds Bacteria Protozoa, Helminth eggs Viruses
Membranes are usually made of cellulose acetate (rayon) or proprietary polymers such as polyamides (Judd and Jefferson, 2003). Each membrane presents best performance values in a certain range of temperature, pH and qualitative characteristics of the liquid, which requires experimental data for the selection. In Figure 5.7, a flow diagram of a typical membrane physical treatment is illustrated, where MF, UF, NF or RO membranes can be implemented.
56
FIGURE 5.7: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF PHYSICAL SYSTEM MEMBRANES (Pidou, 2007)
The main advantages of using membrane technologies for greywater treatment are the excellent removal capacity of dissolved and suspended solids and the good removal of organic compounds. On the other hand, limitations in membrane implementation include the high operation and maintenance costs, which are mainly due to the large energy consumption needed to achieve the required overpressure, the demands for regular replacement or cleaning of the membranes and the disposal of the produced concentrate (Sostar-Turk, 2005; Pidou, 2007).
57
5.2.3 CHEMICAL SYSTEMS

As far as chemical based treatment options are concerned, only three are mentioned in literature for greywater reuse. Coagulation - Electro coagulation
Chemical coagulation in wastewater treatment is the process in which flocculants of the suspended matter are created in colloidal dimensions. This process is necessary in order to allow the precipitation of these substances which precipitate with a very slow pace because of their small size (10-3 m 1 m). Therefore the flocculants generated during the process, which are larger and denser, facilitate and accelerate sedimentation alongside easing filtration (Gregory, 2013). Sostar- Turk (2005), proposes coagulation coupled with a sand filter and activated carbon for the treatment of high load greywater, with impressive results in the removal of suspended solids (100%) and satisfying removal of COD and BOD, 93% and 95% respectively. These results can be found in more detail in the summarised tables in Appendix C.
FIGURE 5.8: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF CHEMICAL SYSTEM COAGULATION (Darakas, 2010)
58
The electrochemical flocculation or electro coagulation is an advanced and efficient electrochemical technology for removal of organic and inorganic contaminants from wastewaters (Lin et al., 2005). This method differs from the conventional chemical coagulation in the fact that the coagulants (Al(OH)3, Fe(OH)3 and Mg(OH)2) are not added into the wastewater but are being generated in situ due to electro dialysis of the anodes of Al, Fe or Mg (Tsonis, 2004). This method has been tested for low load greywater in Taiwan by Lin at al. (2005), showing good levels of treatment. Photocatalysis
Photocatalysis (PCD) is an advanced oxidation method which is becoming increasingly important in wastewater treatment especially in cases when greywater contains small quantities of refractory organic substances (Mills et al., 1997). This method is based in the ability of the UV light to extract constantly electrons from TiO2 and create pairs of holes (h+) and electrons (e) that with the combination of water create hydroxyl radicals (OH-). Hydroxyl radicals are one of the most powerful oxidants, which react and degrade all harmful organic compounds in greywater (Tsonis, 2004). This technique can be applied in special photobioreactors installed in greywater treatment plants. A detailed flow diagram is illustrated in Figure 4.8. Parsons (2004) tested the efficiency of a bench scale system that used photobiorector (TiO2/UV) that showed interesting findings which can be found in Appendix C.
59
FIGURE 5.9: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF CHEMICAL SYSTEM PHOTOBIOREACTOR (Parsons, 2004)
60
5.2.4 BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

There are a variety of biological based treatment schemes for greywater as these seem to achieve a very good treatment level with an exceptionally good removal of organic compounds (Pidou et al., 2007). Each biological system meets differently the performance and cost requirements, as according to the desirable scale simple biological systems or more advanced ones can be chosen. Systems such as membrane bioreactors (MBRs), sequencing batch reactors (SBRs), fixed film reactors, rotating biological contractors, anaerobic filters and biological aerated filters (BAFs) have already been reported in literature for greywater treatment. These systems are usually coupled with other treatment options (disinfection,
sedimentation, and screening) in order to meet the quality demands (Pidou, 2007). Pidou et al. (2007) in their publication, state that biological systems are the type of treatment most commonly seen in big scale treatment projects. In fact, these schemes have been reported to treat greywater generated in multi-storey buildings (Nolde, 1999) and student accommodation (Brewer, 2000). This Section demonstrates the three most applied systems, as these seem to be very promising and differ significantly among them.
61
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
This system, which can also be applied to large settlements, is particularly attractive in the case of small settlements, because of its simplicity and its ability to respond very well to flow and pollutant load frequent fluctuations (MEECC, 2012). The system is characterised by the high level of organic load removal, which can exceed 95% (Shin et al., 1998). One of the main features of the system is the combination, in a common reservoir, of activated sludge bioreactor functions and these of secondary sedimentation. An SBR has three basic alternating operating phases (2, 3, and 4) as demonstrated in Figure 5.10. The main difference with a conventional activated sludge system lies in the fact that in the SBR reactor the distinction of biochemical reactions and sedimentation is not spatial but temporal (Darakas, 2010).
FIGURE 5.10: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM SBR (MEECC, 2012)
62
The main advantages of this system are (Shin et al., 1998; Darakas, 2010): Good removal of organic load expressed as BOD5. Satisfactory removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. Small area requirement. Relative simplicity of the system. Absence of sedimentation tanks, pipes for handling wastewater and pump stations. Minimum staff requirement, because operation phase is easily automated. Sludge bulking problems are almost nonexistent, and in any case can be easily controlled. The main disadvantages of an SBR are: High construction and operation costs (generally lower than conventional activated sludge and extended aeration systems). High energy consumption. Advanced electrical equipment and automation systems. Construction of equalization tank.
63
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)
Membrane Bioreactors is a relatively recent development in the field of wastewater treatment. This method is essentially a combination of the classical and widespread method of activated sludge with filtration (MF or UF), thus eliminating the use of sedimentation tank as a means of final effluent clarifier and sludge condenser (MEECC, 2012). Specifically, the novelty of the method lies in the use of special new technology membrane films which are submerged in the stream and through which the influent is moving (Darakas, 2010). The flow diagram of the bioreactor is presented below in Figure 5.11. The high concentration of biomass in the bioreactor, results in the accomplishment of full decomposition of the organic matter (small amount of excess sludge) and nitrification within 3 hours. The method can be an autonomous process, after a simple pretreatment, as literature provides very promising results about the efficiency of the system.
FIGURE 5.11: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM MBR (MEECC, 2012)
64
MRB presents the following advantages (MEECC, 2012): High outflow quality (removal of organic load expressed as BOD5 > 95%). Presents no problems of sludge sedimentation Reduced volume system requirements Works perfectly even as a decentralized wastewater treatment system with great flexibility depending on the population served Needs limited but skilled personnel It can fit perfectly with the natural environment Causes minimal disturbance
Among the major drawbacks of MBR are (MEECC, 2012): High fixed costs of membranes High operating costs (due to the need of regular membrane replacement) Limited application (relatively modern technology) Require delicate screening upstream of the membranes to avoid fouling problems Requires an equalization tank
65
Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs)
Rotating biological contactor is a system that combines many of the advantages of traditional activated sludge systems (small area requirement) and these of biological filters (simplicity of operation, low operational costs). The rotation of the biological discs provides effective ventilation and sufficient contact with the effluent and biomass so as to achieve high organic load removal and in some cases nitrification (Darakas, 2010).
FIGURE 5.12: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM RBC (MEECC, 2012)
An RBC has the following advantages: High removal of organic load Small area requirement Simplicity of operation Low operating cost Easy biomass and effluent separation Stability of both hydraulic and organic load fluctuations System flexibility Denitrification potential using appropriate devices
66
The main disadvantages of RBCs are: May encounter operational problems, mainly in the support and rotating mechanism of the filters Require to be combined with sedimentation tanks Odour problems
Appendix D includes a detailed table with the performance data of the biological based systems found in literature.
67
5.2.5 EXTENSIVE SYSTEMS

Extensive or natural systems for greywater treatment make use of different physical, chemical and biological processes that occur in nature. All of these processes in natural systems take place in an "ecosystemic" reactor (Tsonis, 2004). One of the main characteristics of these systems is the low velocities of biochemical processes (which in any case are lower than that of the mechanical systems). As seen in literature, the most common practice for greywater treatment in extensive systems is constructed wetlands, such as reed beds and ponds (Shrestha et al., 2001; Dallas et al., 2004; Gross et al., 2007). Extensive systems are commonly used in low flow rates. Reed beds
These systems are usually soils flooded with an amount of shallow water (<0.6 m), in which specific flora is being cultivated for treatment reasons. There is a variety of plants that may be used for this process in reed beds such as Phragmites australis (Shrestha et al., 2001), Coix lacryma-jobi (Dallas et al., 2004) and many other hydrophilic species. The vegetation is the substrate for the bacteria growth that assists in filtering and adsorbing the components of waste, transports the oxygen in the water mass and reduces the growth of algae by controlling the amount of solar radiation (Darakas, 2010). Both artificial and natural wetlands are used for greywater treatment. Reed beds are a simple and effective solution for small treatment units, to serve even until 2,000 inhabitants, when the required output has low organic load (BOD5 <5mg / l) and solids (TSS <10mg /l).
68
The advantages of reed beds are summarised below (Tsonis, 2004): Low construction, operation and maintenance costs Resistance in hydraulic and pollution load fluctuations Easy to customise it with the surrounding ecosystem and aesthetics of the area Enhances green technology
Some disadvantages include: Low nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Odour and insect problems. Large areas requirement Strong dependence on climatic factors Inability to treat greywater with high organic load.
Ponds
The most common natural scheme for greywater treatment systems are the systems of artificial ponds (Gross et al., 2007). It is usually earthen basins used for the treatment of municipal sewage and rarely for industrial wastewater. Ponds are classified depending on the frequency of evacuation they undergo. Despite this
classification, they are divided in categories according to their depth and biological processes (Tsonis, 2004). So, ponds may be aerobic, anaerobic or aerated.
The advantages of artificial ponds are (Tsonis, 2004): The low manufacturing and operation costs. The possibility to adjust the effluent flow rate. The stability in the fluctuations of the organic load, due to dilution.
69
The disadvantages of ponds are: Requirement for large areas. Possible odours (especially where anaerobic decomposition takes place). The high concentration of suspended solids in the effluent (due to high concentrations of algae) (Gross et al., 2007). Strong dependence on climatic factors.
A typical flow diagram of constructed wetlands is shown in Figure 5.13 and a detailed table with the literature findings on the performance of these systems in included in Appendix E.
FIGURE 5.13: TYPICAL FLOW DIAGRAM OF EXTENSIVE SYSTEMSCONSTRUCTED WETLANDS (Pidou, 2007)
70
5.3 DISCUSSION
The literature review indicates that sand filters and simple technologies have been shown to attain a limited treatment of the greywater, whereas membranes have been reported to provide great elimination of the solids but could not deal with the organic fraction efficiently. On the other hand, extensive and biological schemes can accomplish a reliable general treatment of greywater with a significant removal of the organics. However, the most proficient by and large performances were reported within the schemes that combined different approaches to guarantee efficient treatment of all the fractions. Finally, all the above technologies cannot be completely evaluated without an investigation of their economic feasibility, which can be found in the next chapter.
71
6. WATER REUSE & COSTS

In a period when energy and financial resources are limited, an engineer or
otherwise the decision maker should, in the context of sustainable development, select technical solutions that meet the environmental and social constraints, have lower energy requirements and minimum cost. As part of the effort to achieve the environmental and social goals, the engineer can choose between a variety of technological schemes, as analysed in Chapter 5. The range, however of this choice is restricted, by several factors, of which the most important is cost. The aim of this Chapter was to provide a comparative evaluation of the total costs (construction, operation and maintenance) of some of the most important greywater treatment systems, suitable for a range of units (from domestic to municipal) and costs of wastewater treatment plant that may implement these technologies. The findings of this Chapter followed a long term literature research and communication with wastewater treatment companies and specialists. This Chapter can be useful for the preliminary assessment of these systems, but also constitute the basis for estimates and other options.
72
6.1 CAPITAL COSTS

The most important elements of the capital costs for a wastewater treatment plant for reuse can be broadly categorised as follows (NRC, 2012): Plant type, size and location Tanks and other structures of concrete or steel Equipment installed Buildings and insulation Transmission and pumping Electromechanical equipment and control systems
The first five elements generally correspond to 85% of the total capital expenditures (Andreadakis et al., 1992). However, the structure costs together with the building and insulation costs are not included in this study as the study focuses on the treatment costs.
73
6.1.1 COST OF TREATMENT SCHEMES

The construction and operating costs depend on the treatment system and therefore the analysis of the methodology varies according to the main characteristics of the systems. However, there is not sufficient data for all the systems individually, as usually they are implemented in combination for better performances.
Basic systems
Basic systems are marketed and promoted as being simple to use with low operational costs (Pidou et al. 2007). Usually these systems are coupled with disinfection in order to provide a satisfactory treatment level. For this reason there is no economical data for individual basic systems. However, there are three case studies that provide costs (Table 6.1) for complete treatment systems that include coarse filtration or sedimentation (Brewer et al. 2000; Hills et al., 2001; March et al., 2004).
TABLE 6.1: COST OF BASIC SYSTEMS
Location
1
Structure
System
Filtration + Disinfection Coarse filtration + Disinfection Screening +
HRT/ Flow rate

N/A
3
Capital Costs 1195 1625
O&M Costs 50/year 49/year
UK
House
UK
Houses
28 m /day
Spain
Hotel
Sedimentation + Disinfection
38 hours
11,500
0.50/m3
1: Brewer et al. 2000, 2: Hills et al., 2001, 3: March et al., 2004
From literature, only the system located in Spain was observed to be cost effective as it had savings of 0.75/m3 and a payback period of 14 years (Pidou, 2007).
74
Physical systems promising
Physical systems, as analysed in Chapter 4, seem to incorporate
technologies in the case of greywater reclamation, as they provide an excellent treatment level. The economical data concerning these systems was provided from wastewater treatment companies in the UK and from one case study, summarised in Table 6.2.
TABLE 6.2: COST OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Location
UK
1 2
Structure
Houses Houses
System
Sand filter Activated carbon filter Membrane plant
HRT/ Flow rate

N/A 200 m /day
3 3
Capital Costs 45350 /m3 0.11 /m3 0.63 /m3
O&M Costs 5% of capital 0.4 /m3 0.72 /m3
Slovenia
Slovenia
Houses
UF/RO
200 m /day
1: Xylem UK Ltd, 2013 , 2: Sostar-Turk et al., 2005
When comparing the costs of the above schemes, the filters coupled with activated carbon seem to be cost effective and with high pollutants removal rates, at the same time (Sostar-Turk, 2005). However, membrane plants are a more sustainable option, because only 25% of effluent water ends in the environment and about 75% is recycled ((Sostar-Turk, 2005). This means that larger amounts of water are recycled annually, thus more money is being saved. Nevertheless, site specific scenarios should be studied because even though the percentage of the recycled water may be high the membranes cost is still 50% higher than that of GAC.
75
Chemical systems
As far as the chemical systems are concerned, there are some costs data in literature (Table 6.3) from already tested wastewater treatment plants, yet evidence of photobioreactor costs is not available.
TABLE 6.3: COST OF CHEMICAL SYSTEMS
Location
Slovenia
1
System
Coagulation + Sand filter + GAC Electro-coagulation + Disinfection
HRT/ Flow rate

40 min
3
Capital Costs 0.07/ m3 0.04/ m3
O&M Costs 0.27/ m3 0.10/ m3
Taiwan
28 m /day
1: Sostar-Turk et al., 2005, 2: Lin et al., 2005
76
Biological systems
The biological schemes that can be implemented for greywater reclamation are usually coupled with other treatment schemes and an although expensive option can also be effective (Pidou et al., 2007). A summary of the cost data for biological systems can be found in Table 6.4.
TABLE 6.4: COST OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
Location
Structure
System
Screening +
HRT/ Flow rate

N/A
Capital Costs
O&M Costs
UK
Student hall
Aerated bio filter+ GAC Biological reactor+
1720
128 /year
UK
Student hall
Sand filter+ GAQ+ disinfection
0.65 m /day
30,000
611/year
Australia
House
Biofilm + UV disinfection Modular biological system Membrane bioreactor

(coated fibre membrane)
N/A
3
2514-3325 4300 80/m2
N/A 17-20/year
Germany
Houses
0.6m day
UK
Houses
125 m /day
(membrane area needed 1.92 m /m )

2 3
> 20/m3
UK
Houses
Membrane bioreactor
(Al flocs on substrate)
35/m2
4,000 m /day
3

2 3
17-21/m3
UK
Houses
Membrane bioreactor
(polypropylene membrane)
30-40/m2
3,750 m /day
3

2 3
12/m3 160-260/year
USA
House
SBR
N/A
5500 -7700
1: Surendran et al., 1998, 2: Brewer et al., 2000, 3: Pidou et al., 2007, 4: Nolde, 2005, 5: Visvanathan et al., 2000, 6: Obropta, 2005
77
Extensive systems
Apart from being considered as sustainable technologies, extensive or natural systems are also regarded as low cost options for greywater recycle. In fact,
literature has provided some interesting data concerning the costs of constructed wetlands, compiled in Table 6.5. In addition, further cost data are shown in the following table, for modular reed beds, gathered from a wastewater treatment company that specializes in natural treatment systems.
TABLE 6.5: COST OF EXTENSIVE SYSTEMS
Location
1
Structure
System
2 Reed beds + Pond Sedimentation + Reed bed 3 Ponds + Sand filter Vertical flow reed beds Horizontal flow reed bed
HRT/ Flow rate

>10 days 0.76 m /day 0.5 m /day
3 3
Capital Costs 531 230 240 /person 1300 950
O&M Costs 12/year Negligible N/A N/A N/A
Costa Rica
2
3 Houses
Nepal
House
3
Sweden
Student hall
1 year 0.10.3 m /day 0.10.3 m /day

3 3
Ireland
Ireland
1: Dallas et al., 2004, 2: Shrestha et al., 2001, 3: Gunther, 2000, 4: Herr Ltd., 2013
The only economic constraint of constructed wetlands is the cost of the substrate media which may be 50% of the total construction costs, thus raising significantly the budget for small scale treatment plants (USEPA, 1999).
78
6.1.2 TRANSMISSION & PUMPING

The construction of wastewater treatment facilities depends not only on the treatment processes of the unit, but also on the supporting water network and pipes, which should also be completed in order to create a functional plant. In addition, costs can also differ significantly for varied landscapes, when the wastewater treatment plant is situated at lower elevations and the recipients are in the higher elevations, thus requiring pumping stations (Figure 6.2) (NRC, 2012). These expenditures have been found to account for 35% to 50% of the total construction costs (Metcalf and Eddy, 1995) and are demonstrated in Tables 6.6 and 6.7, in relation to pipes diameter and the capacity of water transmission, respectively. Usually water pipelines (Figure 6.1) are ductile cast iron due to their resistance to corrosion and centrifugal pumps are being used for water transmission (COSTwater, 2013).
79
TABLE 6.6: UNIT COST OF WATER DISTRIBUTION &TRANSMISSION PIPELINES (COSTwater, 2013)
Diameter of water pipes mm

150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 600 750 900 1050 >1050 and <1500 >1500 and <2100 >2100 and <2250 >2250 and < 2400 >2400 and <3000 >3000
Frost areas / m
143.2 140.6 152.8 165.0 210.0 254.3 284.5 314.0 319.8 373.7 539.4 745.6 800.2 1103.3 1116.1 1251.0 1326.7 1819.3
Non frost areas / m

91.2 96.3 111.1 125.9 159.3 193.3 227.3 260.7 298.0 373.7 539.4 745.6 800.2 1103.3 1116.1 1251.0 1326.7 1819.3
FIGURE 6.1: TYPICAL WATER & DRAINAGE PIPELINES (NRC, 2012)
80
TABLE 6.7: UNIT COST OF WATER TRANSMISSION PUMPING STATION (COSTwater, 2013)
Water transmission capacity Unit Cost m3/d

3785 7570 18925 37850 75700 189250 378500
/ m3/d
77.1 60.4 43.7 34.0 26.3 19.3 14.8
FIGURE 6.2: TYPICAL PUMPING STATION (COSTwater, 2013)
81
6.2 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS

The analysis of operational and maintenance costs include the factors listed below which are also displayed in Figure 6.3, as percentages of their contribution to the expenses. Employee salaries Energy requirement for operation. Chemicals and other requirements Water application and sludge disposal Replacement program. Material required for repairs.
The personnel needed of each treatment plant depend on its size and complexity. The replacement costs apply to those design elements that have shorter lifetime than the planned period and should therefore be replaced sooner (e.g. membranes). Replacement cost is the same as the original cost of the items (Metcalf and Eddy, 1995).
10% 18% 9% Water discharge fee Electric fee Chemical fee Sludge transport and disposal 18% 26% Administration cost Maintenance & Replacement cost 6% Staff cost
13%
FIGURE 6.3: BREAKDOWN OF RUNNING COSTS OF A W ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (adapted from COSTwater, 2013)
82
6.2.1 COST OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

Energy is needed in many stages of the reclaimed water production cycle, including: wastewater treatment, transmission to the water reclamation plant, advanced treatment, and possible distribution to the recipient (NRC, 2012). However, the energy cost may differ among areas and depend on the size and the type of the wastewater treatment plant. For instance natural systems require low energy resources, whereas an SBR consumes big amounts of electricity.
Generally, the energy requirements of reclaimed water treatment may vary from 0.4 to 1.53 kWh/m3 (or 1.4 to 5.5 MJ/m3) (NRC, 2012).
83
6.2.2 COST OF QUALITY CONTROLS

As already mentioned, the reuse of treated wastewater should not pose any risks to public health and the environment. For this reason apart from the treatment processes quality monitoring should also be taken into account within the maintenance costs. During monitoring two types of parameters are being analysed; microbiological (Table 6.8) and physicochemical (Table 6.9). The following tables provide the costs of these analyses individually. In the case of physicochemical parameters, monitoring frequency is also provided, as some parameters need to be monitored in a regular basis (daily/weekly) whereas others do not need frequent analysis. Microbiological Parameters
TABLE 6.8: COST OF MICROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING ANALYSIS (adapted from Salgot et al., 2006)
Parameter
Cost per analysis

170 5 5 - 17 17 - 50 17 - 50 50 - 170 5 - 17 50 - 170
Legionella E.coli and similar Enterococci (Salmonela) Nematode eggs Taenia Giardia and Cryptosporidium Bacteriophage Enterovirus
84
Chemical & Physicochemical Parameters
TABLE 6.9: COST OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL MONITORING ANALYSIS (adapted from Salgot et al., 2006)
Parameter
Indicators
Costs per analysis
Monitoring frequency1
Physicochemical Organic matter Nutrients Minerals Residual chlorine
pH, EC, Turbidity, TSS COD, BOD, DO, AOX Total N, NH4+-N, Total-P NO3-, SO42+, CN-, F-, ClCl2 (if chlorination) Disinfection products As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, B, Al, Ba, Be, Co, Cu, Fe, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Sn, Th, V, Zn Surfactants Mineral oil Pesticides EDTA
5 5 - 17 5 - 17 5 - 17 5 - 17 170 17 - 50 17 - 50 17 - 50 17 - 50 50 - 170 50 - 170 50 - 170 17 - 50 50 - 170 50 - 170 17 - 50 170

(monthly once a year), (once per 1-
(Heavy) metals
Organic micropollutants
Chloride solvents Aldehyde Aromatic organic solvents PAHs Phenols Pharmaceuticals
1: Frequency: 5 years)
(permanently-weekly),
85
6.3 DISCUSSION
The cost information provided in this Chapter is an initial level of details and can be useful for basic financial evaluations, as it does not include building construction and water disposal system costs. However, demonstrates cost trends concerning the capital, the operational and the maintenance costs. Primarily, energy requirements of the plant seem to determine the operating expenses. As far as the treatment schemes are concerned, they show many economical variations. In brief, it is observed that natural processes (e.g. reed beds) that do not require mechanical equipment and large amounts of energy are generally the most economical option. Whereas advanced treatment schemes (e.g. MRB) have high capital and operational costs. Gratziou (2005) used mathematical modelling in order to rank the cost of some schemes according to the equivalent population as shown in Table 6.10.
TABLE 6.10: RANKING OF TREATMENT SCHEMES ACCORDING TO THEIR COST (Gratziou, 2005)
Equivalent Population [E.P]

100-5000 Constructed Wetlands SBR RBC MBR 5000-8000 Constructed Wetlands SBR MBR RBC 8000 Constructed Wetlands MBR RBC SBR
In any case the overall and the running costs of greywater treatment plants depend on of the type and capacity of the unit thus is difficult to evaluate their costeffectiveness.
86
7. SETTING UP WATER REUSE NETWORKS

Setting up water reuse networks is the following step of the previous analysis, which is essential in order to provide a complete study for urban water reclamation. The ultimate selection of the appropriate series of greywater treatment technologies will be governed by the Treatment Scenarios. The Treatment Scenarios need to be designed to take into account a wide range of selection criteria as it is imperative that these consider technological, environmental as well as financial key factors within the scope of the project and within a reasonable timeframe. Primary input elements to consider when selecting the appropriate sequence of technologies are (Siraj, 2012): Wastewater origin and quantity
The composition and origin of wastewater (domestic, commercial, industrial) should be determined. In the case of greywater, it can be characterised as low or high load greywater. In addition, the quantity (flow) of the produced greywater will determine the area footprint of the treatment facility and the selection of treatment processes that need to be employed. Desired quality performance
This is determined by the final recipients of the reclaimed water, which may have quality requirements for specific reuse applications, always in accordance to the legislation. Legislation
The regulatory determinants and discharge standards for the quality of treated effluents in accordance with the regional and national standards and guidelines that must be met for the end use of the reclaimed wastewater.
87
Economic factors
Economic affordability of the various treatment processes used in wastewater reclamation should be taken into consideration, with the analysis of the capital, operational and maintenance costs. Environmental conditions
These may include the land availability, geography and climate. Location
The availability of local skills for design, construction as well as operation and maintenance may dictate the technical acceptability of the various treatment options. Unlike in developed and industrialised countries, capital is scarcely found in poor and developing countries and therefore, available treatment options tend to be less automated and energy intensive. Furthermore, setting up water reuse networks requires not only the understanding of the network connections, but also the correlation between the suggested treatment schemes in the processing stages. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 were designed in order to ease this understanding and are the basis of Treatment Scenarios (Section 7.1).
88
These diagrams illustrate the user configuration of the network with water transfer between the supplier and the recipients. In details, Figure 7.1a, is the central supply core, in which a group of suppliers deliver their outputs after treatment to other users. On the other hand, Figure 7.1b represents a network of individual users, in which the supplier is also the user after recirculation. Finally, the third diagram, Figure 7.1c, illustrates the demand relationship of one to many and many to one.
FIGURE 7.1: WATER NETWORK CONFIGURATION (adapted from Arup, 2012)
Figure 7.2 shows the summarised figures of all the suggested greywater treatment schemes (Chapter 5) organised in the relevant treatment stages in order to support the design of the networks treatment scenarios.
89
FIGURE 7.2: SUMMARY OF TREATMENT SCENARIOS FOR GREYWATER RECLAMATION (adapted from Tilley et al., 2008)
90
7.1
TREATMENT SCENARIOS
This section aims to investigate four (4) potential scenarios for greywater treatment, which have been selected after extensive research in order to meet both the legislative and the economic standards. In the first part, four flow diagrams, one for each scenario describe the stages of the treatment processes selected. The second part presents the relevant summarizing tables for the quality performance and cost effectiveness of these scenarios. The flow diagrams include solid lines that illustrate the core treatment stages and dashed lines that describe the optional steps. The corresponding tables on the other hand incorporate three main subjects; systems performance, legislative criteria and costs.
Scenario 1 - Constructed wetland system, combines a natural treatment system with primary sedimentation (basic system), leading the effluent into UV disinfection before storage or distribution. Scenario 2 Rotating Biological Contactors system employs two sedimentation processes before and after the RBC, with a final disinfection stage. Scenario 3 Sequencing Batch Reactor system includes a pre-treatment stage with a sieve filter and then introduces the effluent in the SBR system and the UV disinfection tank. Scenario 4 Membrane Bioreactor system, unlike all the above systems is a one stage treatment that may need only disinfection.
91
7.1.1 SCENARIO 1 CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
FIGURE 7.3: FLOW DIAGRAM OF SCENARIO 1- CONSTRUCTED WETLAND
92
TABLE 7.1: SUMMARIZED TABLE FOR SCENARIO 1
Scenario 1 Constructed Wetland

Quality Parameters BOD5 TSS COD Turbidity Faecal Coliform Escherichia coli Legislative criteria < 10 mg/l < 30 mg/l N/A < 10 NTU < 250 CFU /100ml < 250 CFU /100ml
1
System Performance < 17 mg/l < 13 mg/l < 50 mg/l < 10 NTU < 102 CFU /100 ml < 102 CFU/100 ml
Design Capacity 0.10.3 m /day 0.5 m /day 0.75 m /day

3 3 3
System Costs
950 - 1200 800 1000
1: (BSi, 2010; USEPA, 2012) , 2: (EPA, 2000), 3: (Herr Ltd, 2013)
93
7.1.2 SCENARIO 2 RBC SYSTEM
FIGURE 7.4: FLOW DIAGRAM OF SCENARIO 2- RBC
94
Scenario 2 RBC
Quality Parameters BOD5 TSS COD Turbidity Faecal Coliforms Legislative criteria < 10 mg/l < 30 mg/l N/A < 10 NTU < 250 CFU /100ml
1
Systems Performance < 8 mg/l < 13 mg/l < 40 mg/l < 2 NTU > 1 CFU /100 ml
Design Capacity Hydraulic load 0.01 m /day /m

3 2
Systems Costs
1,625,000
1: (BSi, 2010; USEPA, 2012) , 2: (Pidou, 2007) 3: (Ovivo, 2013)
95
7.1.3 SCENARIO 3 SBR SYSTEM
FIGURE 7.5: FLOW DIAGRAM OF SCENARIO 3- SBR
96
Scenario 3 SBR
Parameters Legislative criteria
1
Systems Performance
Design Capacity [m /day]

3
Systems Costs [] 61,100 89,050 220,350 263,250 263,250 366,600 474,500 760,500
BOD5 TSS Turbidity Total Nitrogen Phosphorus
< 10 mg/l < 30 mg/l < 10 NTU N/A N/A
10 mg/l 10 mg/l N/A 5 - 8 mg/l 1 - 2 mg/l
45.4 56.8 3785.4 5299.6 5526.7 7570.8 16088.0 18927
1: (BSi, 2010; USEPA, 2012) , 2: (Pidou, 2007) 3: (EPA, 1999; COSTwater, 2013)
97
7.1.4 SCENARIO 4 MBR SYSTEM
FIGURE 7.6: FLOW DIAGRAM OF SCENARIO 4- MBR
98
Scenario 4 MBR
Quality Parameters Legislative criteria
1
Systems Performance
Systems Costs Typical Design Flux []
BOD5 TSS COD Turbidity Faecal Coliform Total Nitrogen NH3 Phosphorus
< 10 mg/l < 30 mg/l N/A < 10 NTU < 250 CFU /100ml N/A N/A N/A
< 2.0 mg/l < 2.0 mg/l < 45 mg/l < 1 NTU < 2.2 CFU/100 ml < 10.0 mg/l < 1.0 mg/l < 1.0 mg/l
25 LMH (l/m /hour) 36 360 3600 36000 40,131 114,660 401,310 1,146,600 5,000,000-6,032,000 36,800,000-40,300,000
1: (BSi, 2010; USEPA, 2012) , 2: (Pidou, 2007; Nalco, 2013) 3: (COSTwater, 2013)
99
7.2
DISCUSSION
The above Treatment Scenarios constitute four possible greywater treatment systems which were selected after extensive literature research and personal communication with wastewater treatment companies. However, Figure 7.2 can be used to form other possible scenarios, as part of supplementary future studies in the field. From the findings analysis, it is shown that all the selected systems comply with the standards, concerning the quality parameters. This means that they accomplish very good removal levels of the organic load and solids found in greywater. It is worth noting that for the performance evaluation, the strictest legislative limits were chosen, in order to show the performance for demanding applications (BSi, 2010; USEPA, 2012). From the analysis of the systems costs, it is observed that these vary according to the capacity and scale of the treatment system, with the most expensive choice this of Membrane bioreactor, following the Rotating biological contactor, the Sequencing batch reactor and the Constructed wetland. Furthermore, Gratziou (2005) has developed a mathematical model that calculated the cost of treatment systems according to the equivalent population. Figure 7.7 illustrates the results for our scenarios and it is shown that increased systems capacities correspond to lower costs per m3 of wastewater per capita. This means that large scale reuse projects may be more cost effective than these of domestic scale.
100
9000.0
8000.0
7000.0
System Costs [/capita]
6000.0
Constructed wetland
5000.0
RBC
4000.0
3000.0
SBR
2000.0
MBR
1000.0
0.0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Equivalent Population [E.P]

FIGURE 7.7: DIAGRAM OF SCENARIOS COSTS PER EQUIVALENT POPULATION
101
8. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Within the framework of sustainable development, one of the key concerns of the international community is the discovery of alternative water sources. In this direction, the practice of reclamation and reuse of wastewater should be recognised as common practice and an essential protection method for the environment and economies. Significant amounts of water can be saved while favouring all segments of the human centric water cycle. Crop irrigation, urban spaces irrigation, industrial cooling, reuse for environmental purposes, even indirect potable uses are some of the application categories of treated wastewater that have already gained worldwide acceptance. The rational management of water resources requires a serious and responsible planning at many levels. Several parameters should be taken into consideration, from which the most important is the protection of public health and ecosystems. This can be accomplished not only with the establishment of quality standards and the protection measures, but also with the responsible monitoring programs of the reused waters. As far as the technical and financial issues of the project are concerned, greywater reclamation is a feasible and sustainable practice that incorporates a variety of treatment schemes and costs. Greywater treatment plants size and costs may vary, offering reuse options from single households to municipal range projects. However, the production of clear conclusions, and in particular a precise hierarchy of the greywater treatment options reviewed, in the form of a selection guide is an attractive idea but poses serious risks of failure. This is not only because it was impossible to analyse all the existing and developing systems in the present study but also for the
102
reason that the advantages, disadvantages and limitations of each option had different weighting and degree of importance in each individual reuse project. For these reasons it was considered appropriate that this work should focus on the registration of the legislation, the treatment options and their costs, aiming that a review of the reuse trends will provide ideas for further advances. This study covered the fields and objectives set in the beginning of the project, regarding greywater treatment systems and costs. However, there are still many fields that could be investigated in urban water reuse networks. Some suggestions of further research are as follows: Conduct the same technical and economical research for commercial or industrial wastewater for urban reuse applications. Investigate the case of reusing reclaimed waters for indirect or even direct potable use. Research the technical and economical feasibility of other Treatment Scenarios.
Finally, the problem of adequacy, quality and management of water resources needs to be perceived from local as well as international perspectives. It is a complex issue with various social and economical dimensions and conflicting views. The issue of water intersects the relationship between society, nature and ecological balance, the relationship of production and economy, the relationship of society with political and social values, thus water is and should be considered as a collective good.
The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.
Mahatma Gandhi 103
REFERENCES
Andreadakis A. and Chalkia A., 1992. Cost Calculation of a WWTP via statistic analysis in Greece. Hydromechanics Union, Proceedings of the 5th National Conference, Larissa. Angelakis A. and Tchobanoglous, G., 1995. Wastewater: Natural Treatment Systems and Reclamation, Treatment and Disposal of Effluents. University of Crete Publications, Heraklion. Angelakis A. N., Koutsoyiannis, D., and Tchobanoglous., G., 2005. Water Resources Technologies in the Ancient Greece. Water Resources, 39 (1): pp.210-220. Angelakis A.N., Bontoux L. and Lazarova, V. 2002. Wastewater recycling and reuse in EU countries: with emphasis on criteria used. 3rd International Forum, Integrated Water Management The Key to Sustainable Water Resources (EYDAP Eds.), Athens, Greece. Aquarec, 2002. Reclamation and reuse of municipal wastewater in Europe current status and future perspectives, EVK1-CT-2002-00130, [online] Available at:
http://www.iwrm-net.eu/sites/default/files/Aquarec_Policy%20Brief_final_A4.pdf [Accessed 05/06/2013]. Arika M., Kobayashi H., and Kihara H., 1977. Pilot plant test of an activated sludge ultra filtration combined process for domestic wastewater reclamation. Desalination, 23, pp.77-86. Asano T., 1989. Wastewater reclamation and reuse. Volume 10, CRC Press, ISBN 156676-620-6. Asano, T. and Tchobanoglous, G. 1991. The Role of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse in the USA. Water Science and Technology, Volume 23, Kyoto, pp.20492059. Barbagallo, S., Cirelli, G. L and Indelicato, S., 2001. Wastewater reuse in Italy. Water Science and Technology, 43(10):43-50. Brewer, D., Brown, R. and Stanfield, G., 2000. Rainwater and greywater in buildings: project report and case studies, Report 13285/1, BSRI A Ltd., Bracknell, UK.
104
BSi, 2010. British Standard 8525-1:2010 Greywater systems Part 1: Code of practice. BSI Standards Publication [online] Available at:
http://www.combinedharvesters.co.uk/pdf/Brochures/BS8525-2010 GreywaterSystems.pdf> [Accessed 20/08/2013]. Castro, C. D., 2010. National Water Reuse Plan of Spain. Directorate General for Water, Ministry of Environmental, Rural and Marine Affairs of Spain, [online] Available at: <http://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files [Accessed 20/06/2013]. COSTwater, 2013. Costs of Water Projects, [online] Available at:
http://www.costwater.com/ [Accessed 05/07/2013]. Dallas, S., Scheffe, B. and Ho, G., 2004. Reed beds for greywater treatment Case study in Santa Elena-Montverde, Costa Rica, Central America. Ecological Engineering, 23, pp.55-61. Darakas, E., 2010. Wastewater Treatment Technologies. University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering, Thessaloniki. De Turk, L. R. et al., 1978. Adaptability of sewage sludge as a fertilizer. Sewage Works Journal 7, p.597. Durham, B., Angelakis, A., Wintgens, T., Thoeye, C. and Sala, L., 2005. Water recycling and reuse. A water scarcity best practice solution. Arid Cluster, Cyprus. EC, 1991. Council Directive of 21 May 1991 Concerning Urban Wastewater Treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities, L135/40. Eltawil, M. A., Zhengming, Z. and Yuan, L. Q., 2009. A review of renewable energy technologies integrated with desalination systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), pp.2245-2262. EPA, 2000. Constructed Wetlands. Environmental Protection Agency, Available at: <http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/restore/cwetlands.cfm> [Accessed 01/08/2013]. FAO, 2012. UN-Water Key Water Indicator Portal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), [online] Available at: <http://www.unwater.org/statistics KWIP.html> [Accessed 01/07/2013]. FAO, 2013. AQUASTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), [online] Available at: <http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data> [Accessed 01/07/2013]. 105
FBR, 2013. Greywater Recycling and Reuse. Association for Rainwater Harvesting and Water Utilisation, [online] Available at:
<http://www.fbr.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Englische_Seite/Greywater_Recycling _Introduction.pdf> [Accessed 15/07/2013]. Fine, P., Halperin, R. and Hadas, E., 2006. Economic considerations for wastewater upgrading alternatives: An Israeli test case. Journal of Environmental Management 78, pp.163-169. Fiorenza G., Sharma, V. K. and Braccio, G., 2003. Techno-economic evaluation of a solar powered water desalination plant. Energy Conversion and Management, 44, pp.22172240. Friedler, E., 2005. Performance of pilot scale greywater reuse RBC/MBR based systems. IN: Proceedings of the Watersave, one day event on water demand management, 14th June, London, UK. Gleick, P. H., 2006. W ater in Crisis: A Guide to the World's Fresh Water Resources. Oxford University Press, New York. Gratziou, M., Ikonomou, S., 2005. Cost Evaluation of Urban Sewage Processing Units. 5th International Conference on Environmental Technology HELECO, Greece. Gregory, J., 2013. Coagulation and Flocculation. Handouts of Water and Wastewater Treatment, CEGE3020/G028, Week 2, University College London. Gross, A., Shmueli, O., Ronen, Z. and Raveh, E., 2007. Recycled vertical flow constructed wetland (RVFCW)a novel method of recycling greywater for irrigation in small communities and households. Chemosphere 66, No.5, pp.916-923. Gunther, F., 2000. Wastewater treatment by greywater separation: outline for a biologically based greywater purification plant in Sweden. Ecological Engineering, 15, No.1-2, pp.139-146. Hall, J. B., Batten, C. E. and Wilkins, J. R., 1974. Domestic wash water reclamation for reuse as commode water supply using a filtration reverse osmosis technique. NASA, USA. Hypes, W., Batten, C. E. and Wilkins J. R., 1975. Processing of combined domestic bath and laundry waste waters for reuse as commode flushing water. NASA, Langley research center, Hampton, USA. 106
Jefferson, B., Laine, A., Parsons, S., Stephenson, T. and Judd S., 1999. Technologies for domestic wastewater recycling. Urban Water 1, pp.285-292. Judd, S. and Jefferson, B., 2003. Membranes for Industrial Wastewater Recovery and Re-use. Elsevier Ltd, ISBN 1856173895. Leverenz, H., Tchobanoglous, G. and Asano, T., 2011. Direct potable reuse: A future imperative. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 01.1, IWA Publishing, pp.2-10. Lin, C. J., Lo, S. L., Kuo, C. Y. and Wu, C. H., 2005. Pilot-scale electro coagulation with bipolar aluminium electrodes for on-site domestic greywater reuse. Journal of environmental engineering, March, pp.491-495. Liu, R., Huang, H., Chen, L., Wen, X. and Qian, Y., 2005. Operational performance of a submerged membrane bioreactor for reclamation of bath wastewater . Process Biochemistry, 40 (1), pp.125-130. Maksimovic C., 2012. Challenges in Integrated Urban Water Modelling and Management Case of RainGin and BLUE GREEN DREAM project. INTEL Annual Conference, Dublin. Marecos Do Monte, M. H. 2007. Guidelines for good practice of water reuse for irrigation: Portuguese Standard. NP 4434. In: Wastewater Reuse: Risk Assessment, Decision-Making and Environmental Security (ed. M. K. Zaidi), pp.253265. Springer, Amsterdam. MEECC, 2012. Guidance Report for wastewater treatment in small settlements. Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change, Department of Waters, Greece. Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 1995. Water Pollution Abatement Technology: Capabilities and Costs. Public Owned Treatment Works, Springfield, VA. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, USA. Mills, A., Davies, R. H. and Worsley, D., 1997. Water purification by semiconductor photocatalysis. Chemical Society Reviews, 22, pp.417-425. Nagasawa, S., 2009. Technology and Management of Water Re-use and Water Savings in Japan. Water Reuse Promotion Center.
107
Nellor, M. H., Beired, R. B. and Smyth, J. R. 1985. Health Effects of Indirect Potable Water Reuse. Journal of AWWA, Volume 77, no.7. Nolde, E., 1999. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water, 1 (4), pp.275-284. NRC, 2012. Water Reuse: Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Committee on the Assessment of Water Reuse as an Approach to Meeting Future Water Supply Needs; National Research Council, ISBN 978-0-309-22459-8. NRMMC-EPHC, (2006). Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council and the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. NSW, 2008. Guidelines for Greywater Reuse in sewered, single household residential premises, Australia, [online] Available at:
<http://www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/filess> [Accessed 15/07/2013]. Obropta, C., 2005. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: Alternative Technologies. Fact Sheet, Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, (NJAES,) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Paranichianakis N., Kotselidou O., Vardakou E. and Aggelakis A., 2009. Municipal waste recycling in Greece, Central Union of Greek Municipalities - Union of Water and Sewer Enterprises. Available only in Greek. Parsons, S. A., 2004. Advanced oxidation processes for water and wastewater treatment. Gray Publishing, Tunbridge Wells, UK. Parsons, S. A., Bedel, C. and Jefferson, B., 2000. Chemical vs. Biological Treatment of Domestic Greywater. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Gothenburg Symposium on Chemical Treatment, 2 - 4th October, Istanbul, Turkey. Rafter, G. W., 1899. Sewage irrigation, part III. US Geological Survey Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 22. Shiklomanov, I. A., 1999. World Water Resources and their use beginning of the 21st century. Prepared in the Framework of IHP UNESCO, State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg. [online] Available at:
<http://webworld.unesco.org/water/ihp/db/shiklomanov/> 108
Shin, H., Lee, S., Seo, I., Kim, G., Lim, K. and Song J., 1998. Pilot-scale SBR and MF operation for the removal of organic and nitrogen compounds from greywater. Water Science and Technology, 39, No. 1, pp.128-137. Shrestha, R. R., Haberl, R., Laber, J., Manandhar, R. and Mader, J., 2001. Application of constructe d wetlands for wastewater treatment in Nepal. Water Science and Technology, 44 (11-12), pp.381-386. Siraj, T., 2012. Water Reuse Networks Project Project Analysis. ARUP Global Research Challenge, London. Sostar-Turk, S., Petrinic, I. and Simonic, M., 2005. Laundry wastewater treatment using coagulation and membrane filtration. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 44 (2), pp.185-196. State of California, 2001. California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water The Purple Book, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California, Available at: <http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/waterrecycling/
purplebookupdate6-01.PDF> State of California, 2003. Title 22. Water Recycling Criteria for the State of California. Sacramento, California, USA. Surendran, S. and Wheatley, A. D., 1998. Greywater reclamation for non-potable reuse. Journal of Chartered Institution of Water and Environment Management, 12, pp.406-413. Tilley, E., Lthi, C., Morel, A., Zurbrgg, C. and Schertenlieb, R., 2008. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. EAWAG aquatic research, [online] Available at: <http://www.watersanitationhygiene.org/References> [Accessed
05/08/2013]. Tsonis, S., 2004. Wastewater Treatment. Papasotiriou Editions, ISBN 960-7530-51-9, Athens. UNDESA, 2010. The human right to water and sanitation. Resolution A/RES/64/292, United Nations General Assembly, [online] Available at:
<http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml> 05/06/2013].
[Accessed
109
US EPA, 1999. Wastewater technology fact sheetSequencing Batch Reactors. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 832-F-99-073. US EPA, 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA 625/R-04/108, Washington DC, USA. US EPA, 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618, Washington DC, USA. Visvanathan, C., Ben Aim, R. and Parameshwaran, K., 2000. Membrane Separation Bioreactors for Wastewater Treatment. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 30(1):148. WHO, 1973. Reuse of effluents: Methods of wastewater treatment and health safeguards. Report of a WHO Meeting of Experts. Geneva, World Health Organization (Technical Report Series No. 517). WHO, 1989. Health guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. Repost Series No. 776, World Health Organization Geneva. WHO, 2006. WHO Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. 3rd Edition, Volume 3, Wastewater Use in Agriculture, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. WHO, 2013. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation Report. [online] Available at: <http://www.wssinfo.org/> [Accessed 05/06/2013]. Wolman, A., 1977. Public health aspects of land utilization of waste-water effluents and sludge. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 49, p.2211.
110
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: Data of Basic Systems APPENDIX B: Data of Physical Systems APPENDIX C: Data of Chemical Systems APPENDIX D: Data of Biological Systems APPENDIX E: Data of Extensive Systems APPENDIX F: WHO Regulation - Maximum permissible concentration for chemical compounds APPENDIX G: California Title 22 - Allowable uses for Recycled water
111
APPENDIX A: Data of implemented Basic Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
112
APPENDIX B: Data of implemented Physical Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
113
APPENDIX C: Data of implemented Chemical Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
114
APPENDIX D1: Data of implemented Biological Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
115
APPENDIX D2: Data of implemented Biological Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
116
APPENDIX E: Data of implemented Extensive Systems (Pidou et al. 2007)
117
APPENDIX F: WHO Regulation - Maximum permissible concentration for toxic chemical compounds (WHO, 2006)
118
APPENDIX G: California Title 22 - Allowable uses for Recycled water
(State of California, 2003)
119

Urban Wastewater Reuse Technologies and Cost Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Wastewater Reuse Technologies and Cost Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOMATIC ENGINEERING

MSc DISSERTATION SUBMISSION

PROGRAMME: MSC ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

SUPERVISOR: DR. LUIZA CINTRA CAMPOS

URBAN WASTEWATER REUSE - TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES & COST

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

To the inspiration in my life, My father, Constantinos Sfynias,

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 102

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 104 APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 111

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

1.1 WATER SCARCITY & URBANIZATION

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

1.2 WATER USE AROUND THE WORLD

FIGURE 1.4: TYPICAL BREAKDOWN OF FRESHWATER USE (FAO, 2012)

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

FIGURE 1.5: WATER USE BY SECTOR IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (Aquarec, 2006)

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

2. AIMS & OBJECTIVES

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

3.1 WATER RECLAMATION & REUSE A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

3.2 CHALLENGES OF WATER & WASTEWATER REUSE

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

3.3 ADVANTAGES OF WATER REUSE

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

3.4 TYPES OF WATER REUSE APPLICATIONS

FIGURE 3.1: WATER REUSE APPLICATIONS (Asano, 1989)

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

Urban & Recreational use

Industrial use Environmental use Domestic use

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

3.5 CASE STUDIES

Water Reuse Type

Urban Wastewater Reuse - treatment technologies and costs

City of Wagga Wagga, Australia

Irrigation of public spaces WC cleaning Paper industry reuse

Sappi Pulp and Paper group, Enstra,South Africa

Valley o river Salt, Arizona, USA

Enrichment of aquifers with effluents of secondary treatment

Orange County Water District,California, USA

Enrichment of aquifers with direct injection (Nellor et al., 1985)

Dan Region Project, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Enrichment of aquifers with filtration ponds

City of St. Petersburg, Florida, USA

Irrigation of golf courts, parks, school yards & public spaces

Tokyo Metropolitan Government, Japan

Large scale WC cleaning

Enrichment of aquifers Irrigation of agriculture spaces

Shoal haven Heads, Australia